Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 6, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:11:34

Ep. 103: Russia/Ukraine, Canada, Popcorn Acquittal, SCOTUS & Snooop Dogg & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	End on this story that has been circulating.
	No doubt you saw it about the origins of COVID.
	We've all been trying to understand how this started and whether or not this did come from a lab in Wuhan.
	Let me ask you what the Daily Mail is reporting.
	It says more evidence COVID was tinkered with in a lab.
	Now scientists find the virus contains a tiny chunk of DNA that matches sequence patented by Moderna.
	Three years before the pandemic began.
	Your reaction, Stefan?
	What can you tell us?
	So, my scientists are looking into those data to see how accurate they are or not.
	As I've said before, the hypothesis of an escape from a lab by an accident is possible.
	You know, human makes mistakes.
	So, is it possible that the Wuhan lab in China was working on viruses enhancement or gene modification?
	And then there was an accident where somebody was infected in the lab and they infected their families in France.
	It is possible on the claim you just mentioned, the scientists are analyzing to know if it's real or not.
	Yep.
	Nothing to see there, folks.
	Just look at the next conflict, which we're going to spend 24-7 on in the news cycle, and ignore what they just said.
	They're looking into it.
	They're looking into it.
	Good evening, everyone.
	Winston, what do you say?
	It's that time of year where the dog is filthy.
	There's no point even bathing him.
	Look at this.
	One day, I'm going to bathe him.
	Look at that.
	Look at how everything.
	Now my shirt's wet and dirty.
	I'm going to spice up the temporary backdrop sooner than later.
	I need to get my fossils up on the backdrop.
	How is the audio, people?
	Yeah, Maria is the truth bomb.
	That's just, you know, two minor things.
	One, we've already been discussing, you know, the origins, which...
	No notification.
	Yeah, some interesting stuff with...
	Some interesting stuff with YouTube, but whatever.
	Just, you know, that minor detail.
	The origins, which...
	If anybody has not read The Real Anthony Fauci or listened to it, because I don't read books anymore, I just listen, need louder volume.
	Listen to the book.
	I'll just get it closer to my mouth.
	And sometimes labs make oopsies.
	Oopsies!
	Yeah, that's a little oopsie.
	Sometimes, you know, the man-made viruses that we're tinkering with, they get released because of mistakes.
	And, oh yes, that nasty little question about possible...
	Patenting of a DNA structure from 2019 that might be found in the...
	We're looking into it.
	We'll get back to you, Maria.
	I promise.
	Okay, so people, let me just go get...
	I want to get...
	Oh, am I...
	I'll stop sharing screen.
	There we go.
	I don't like seeing that.
	It's distracting me.
	How is everyone doing tonight?
	I was going to start off with a rant, but I mean, I won't start off with a rant this week.
	I'm going to start off with a discussion.
	Because, look, once upon a time, I learned, they said, never discuss religion or politics at parties.
	And I learned that the hard way over a long period of time.
	My life has been something of a full circle in that I'm now right back to where I was when I was about 20, where I learned these lessons.
	Don't discuss politics or religion at parties.
	Because in as much as I thought when I was a kid, You can have these discussions.
	We're adults.
	We are, you know, we are fully vaccinated is the actual term in French.
	You know, fully vaccinated adults.
	We can have discussions about sensitive topics.
	It never ended that way.
	It never ended well, I should say.
	And I remember once when I was studying philosophy, I was at a house party, and I thought we could have a discussion about shmushmortion.
	I'm such an idiot.
	I mean, I thought I could have this discussion and I could have it with a group of women.
	Needless to say, it ended in tears.
	I didn't feel good about myself.
	I didn't feel good about anything that happened.
	It wasn't like nobody called each other names.
	It was just a discussion.
	And it ended up that the women had had their personal experiences, which effectively precluded any form of discussion, least of which...
	Or not the least of which is any discussion with someone who's not a woman.
	And I learned a lesson.
	That was really the last time I ever tried to discuss politics or religion at parties.
	Is there a donation feature like rumble rants on locals?
	Yes, there is.
	There's tips, coins.
	I don't exactly know how it works.
	I just know that you can tip with coins.
	You, like, pre-purchase them.
	And I don't think there's any cut for locals.
	There has to be some cut, but I'm not exactly sure how much.
	So, by the way, before I even continue with this discussion...
	Standard intro, Rumble Rants.
	Sorry, Super Chats.
	Thank you very much for the support.
	I genuinely appreciate it.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
	And if that's going to miff you that you don't want to support YouTube, we are simultaneously live streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a Super Chat function called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%.
	So better to support a company that supports free speech.
	Better for the creator.
	If you are going to be miffed, if I do not bring up your super chat like such, do not give the super chat.
	I don't like people feeling rooked, chilled, grifted, rifted, whatever it is.
	So if you're going to be upset if I don't bring it up, do not give it.
	I don't like people feeling bad.
	I don't like people feeling used.
	I don't like people feeling bad, and that's going to bring us back to my intro.
	Lon Baker, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
	Very nice avatar.
	Welcome to the club, sir.
	Or I presume based on your avatar, but Dr. John Campbell just covered a paper that showed that, mm-hmm, can't read the rest of that, which brings us into part two of the disclaimer.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election undermining fortification, yada, yada, yada advice.
	And that's going to bring us back into, I don't, I never like making people feel bad.
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	V, I fear that Robert is catastrophically wrong about Russia-Ukraine in a way that will blow back on both of you.
	I beg you, please at least watch Jordan Peterson's interview with Frederick Kagan.
	If you don't hear me on this, fine.
	I listened to Frederick Kagan.
	Is Frederick Kagan the one who referred to Putin as a thug, as a low-grade KGB agent?
	I listened to that.
	I am not defending Putin, and there's no but to that.
	The caveat is that all politicians are fundamentally corrupt, and basically most of them are evil, but to varying degrees.
	So when you have the corrupt, unethical, two-times-ethic-violating, pathological liar, divisive tyrant who sicks the police on his own Canadian citizens, telling me that someone else is Satan incarnate...
	I may believe what I believe regardless, but when you have one liar saying that another politician is another corrupt liar, at some point you have to ask some questions as to what's going on.
	The second thing is, trying to understand the conflict is not the same thing as trying to apologize or be an apologist for any of the players.
	This is getting back to the, you know, not like making people feel bad.
	I never discuss a smush promotion.
	I just don't do it anymore.
	I don't do it because it comes down to a question of belief at the end of the day.
	You're not going to change someone's belief.
	We can play out the arguments back and forth.
	I could have the argument with myself.
	Why it has to be allowed.
	Why it can't be allowed.
	Why there have to be limits on it.
	And regardless of which nuanced position you take, you're going to piss somebody off.
	The other discussion that I just don't get into, because I have seen where it goes each and every time, is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
	I know what I believe in that conflict.
	I know where I attribute on a balance of the scales, where I attribute more blame to less blame.
	Do I think that the Israeli government is perfect?
	Far from it.
	Do I think they're partially responsible for what's going on there?
	Yes.
	Do I believe that they've committed atrocities over the last 50 years?
	Yes.
	Do I believe that the Palestinian Authority is responsible?
	Yes.
	Do I believe that innocent Palestinians and innocent Israelis are caught in the crossfires of two fundamentally corrupt governments?
	One may be more corrupt than the other, and I believe it is, but they're both corrupt to varying degrees, both contributing to exacerbating a problem.
	Yes.
	Try to take that nuanced position, and if you don't condemn Israel as being an apartheid state, you're a Zionist, apologist, shill, whatever.
	If you dare to criticize the Palestinian Authority for perhaps dispensing of funds on things that are not value-added to building a society, then you're called another name.
	And regardless of what position you take...
	On one extreme or the other or anywhere in between, you're going to piss somebody off.
	I know the arguments.
	I can play the arguments out in my head every single time, any day of the week.
	It just doesn't go anywhere.
	I did not appreciate that the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and I'm calling it a conflict, regardless of whether or not I do believe that Putin is the aggressor at this stage of the conflict, I did not appreciate that the Russia-Ukraine conflict effectively is abiding by the same dynamics as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
	In people's passions, in people's ability to have discussions about it, in people's willingness to hear the other side and to appreciate that it is more complex than Palestinians, you know, engage in terror and don't deserve any form of statehood or Israel is an apartheid state and does not deserve to exist.
	I didn't appreciate that the Russia-Ukraine conflict I now appreciate that.
	I was not looking in this exploration to be right.
	I was just looking to get it right.
	I just wanted to understand the origins of the conflict, to understand the nuance, because I still think there is nuance to this.
	Putin could very well be the most diabolical He's a maniacal dictator of all time.
	I mean, we know what he does to political opponents.
	We know what he does, and he jails people indefinitely for, I would say, non-crimes.
	Yeah, I know Putin does that.
	I know Putin is just as dictatorial, if not worse, than a great many other politicians.
	In that framework, do I think Zelensky is totally innocent, wet behind the ears, babe in the woods?
	Do I think Justin Trudeau?
	Who's telling me to hate Putin is a trustworthy source himself.
	We're dealing with varying degrees of corruption, but corruption that exists at all levels of government, within all governments.
	I did not expect, I did not understand that the nature of this conflict is very much analogous to the essence or the zeitgeist of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
	And in even just trying to understand it without saying, Zelensky, good, Putin, Schmittler, if you don't say that...
	Then you've misunderstood.
	You don't understand anything.
	You're being an apologist.
	I understand both sides to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and they have both done bad things.
	I have my underlying personal belief, which I believe is more justified, or at the very least, historically justified.
	I now think I understand the nuance of the Russia-Ukrainian conflict, but we're going to get into it regardless.
	And above and beyond the passions of the individuals who are caught there.
	I had family that came from the Ukraine.
	I had family that also came from Russia.
	My grandmother's side left Russia in 1896 during the pogroms.
	My grandfather's side left Ukraine.
	I think it was Poland at the time, became Ukraine.
	Austria, I forget exactly where it changed hands, but it changed hands multiple times.
	But I don't have the personal connection, the current personal connection to either side of that dispute where I am invested to that point like...
	People who have family living in the West Bank or who have family living in Jerusalem who go into bomb shelters every time there's a conflict.
	I don't have that emotional passion attachment to this dispute.
	And for those who do, other people, you know, from a 30,000-foot overview trying to analyze it, trying to understand it, unless you take the black and white one side or the other, you're an apologist for the one side or the other.
	So let's see here.
	My master's thesis was about deontological and utilitarianism.
	Was it something along the lines of behaving ontologically brings about the best income outcome for the most people?
	That is exactly what my thesis was called deontological consequentialism, which there is nothing worth maximizing on this earth except for the objective good.
	So there's no such thing as good lying.
	There's no such thing as good, you know, consequentialism.
	Kill one kid.
	So that you save 10 others.
	Well, no, you're not maximizing the good in the world by committing an evil act.
	And that was the essence of the thesis.
	I have to see how I actually wasted 40 pages describing that.
	But deontological consequentialism was the title.
	I'm going to publish that on Locals.
	I don't give very much exclusive stuff to the supporters on Locals.
	I'll give it to the supporters, and then we'll make it public for everybody.
	When you give, expect nothing in return, then no love is lost.
	Well, first of all, I love your dog and it's...
	A dog and a frog?
	No, no, no.
	That's a dog and a lizard.
	Sorry.
	So that's it.
	I mean, look, we're going to talk about Ukraine tonight.
	And I hate the fact that unless you take a hard position one way or the other, you're a pro-Putin bot or you're a pro-Ukraine bot.
	I mean, it's like...
	And the bots are out in full force on both sides.
	And the propaganda is out.
	In full force on both sides.
	And the double reverse super negative propaganda, which is fake propaganda to make anyone who retweets it look stupid, is out full force on both sides.
	For your rants, instead of starting with the famous, you know what really grinds my gears, you should say, you know what really grows my fro screenshot.
	And by the way, the fro is a little lame tonight because I put some new hair product, which is actually a very old hair product, in my hair.
	And I put too much of it in.
	I missed something.
	Matt B. who says, you are right about all conflicts are complicated and can be very brutal.
	But Russia has done this before.
	If you want to know how the modern Russian army fights and how brutal they are, look up the First and Second Chechen war.
	I have no doubt about that.
	But what army has not fought brutally?
	The French and the Algerian?
	In the Algerian war?
	The Canadian government fought dirty.
	Everybody fights dirty.
	War is hell.
	And atrocities are committed during war on both sides.
	They are.
	And atrocities are committed on the side that might be in the moral right, and they're nonetheless committed.
	I know everybody feels about World War II, but to say that the Allied forces did not commit atrocities in the context of World War II, I mean, that would be very convenient, but grossly oversimplified as well.
	Let me see if I can bring up that super chat.
	By the way, in the Chechenes, I won't get into...
	The Kagan interview was worthless.
	He said a lot while offering no proof.
	He related to Victoria Nuland.
	Look her up.
	Kagan pushed the Western narrative.
	Look, it explained a bit of the history.
	And do I have any doubt that Vladimir Putin and Russia are looking to regain their superpower on the global scale?
	I have no doubt they are.
	Now...
	People looking for great power are going to do sometimes very terrible things.
	But do I have any doubt of the narrative that Putin wants to reestablish Russia as a world superpower?
	No doubt.
	Do I have any doubt that NATO and the West wants to prevent that from happening at all costs?
	They don't want to share the power?
	No doubt.
	Okay, let me see here.
	I want to get...
	Okay, I see this.
	I'm losing in the chat.
	I can't do it.
	Barnes is there in the background.
	This is nothing like Palestine.
	The Duran has been consistently wrong about this war.
	I would stop taking what they say as gospel.
	John Andrews, I take nothing at gospel.
	I listen to the Duran, and I don't take that anymore for gospel.
	Then I take Wikipedia for gospel.
	People have their respective knowledge.
	They have their respective life experiences.
	And you've got to digest all of that information.
	Truth at the end of the day.
	Not your own truth as in that's my truth and this is what I choose to believe.
	Your best assessment.
	History is written by the victors.
	Everybody has their bias.
	So long as they don't say things which are overtly false that discredits them as sources, they are entitled to their interpretation of events.
	And it's going to be up to me to decide whether or not I find their interpretation to be convincing or not.
	Or historically justified or not.
	You are right about all conflicts are complicated and can be very brutal.
	Okay, here we go.
	Thank you.
	Got it.
	And then there was one more right here.
	Black Rock Beacon.
	Frederick Kagan's brother is Robert Kagan and Victoria Newland's brother-in-law.
	He has an interest in not criticizing US-NATO policy in regard.
	Okay, people.
	Well, with that said, I've been going for a long time.
	Sorry, Robert.
	I'm going to bring you in right after this.
	Okay.
	And also, you can't make light of these conflicts.
	There's no room for even incidental humor, lighthearted discourse.
	Like, you can't joke about Shishmorshan.
	You can't joke about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with anybody who is remotely attached.
	And you can't make light of this.
	With that said, peeps, Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	So I'm told that you are a pro-Putin propagandist, so I'm going to give you a bit of a hard time on some of the questions tonight that we're going to have to discuss.
	Well, that'd be a long line of it, because when I was against the first Iraqi war based on the incubator baby lie as a 17-year-old kid, I was accused of being a Saddam Hussein apologist, and accused again of being a Saddam Hussein apologist in 2003 when I opposed that Iraqi war and suggested there probably weren't weapons of mass destruction there.
	I was accused of being a bin Laden and a Taliban sympathizer when I opposed the intervention in war in Afghanistan that lasted two decades.
	That's always the allegation is Peter Hitchens' details, and Peter Hitchens has been a very harsh, I think often incorrectly actually, but Putin critic.
	But as he wrote in the Daily Mail, he's not going to be jumping on the Ukrainian war bandwagon anytime soon because he understands the real political history of what's taking place there.
	But that's always the case.
	Anytime you question war, just like if you questioned all the COVID lockdown logic, you down deep really wanted to kill grandma.
	Anytime I see that, I discard the comment because I find it a discrediting...
	Argument, self-discrediting argument.
	Because if you have to resort to emotional and rhetorical appeals of that nature, and you can't cite either facts or law or argument, as the case may be, that you're conceding you've lost.
	And that's what I see when those people make those kind of comments.
	Robert, just one question on the second Iraq war.
	This is the one where I now appreciate I had zero understanding.
	They said there were weapons of mass destruction.
	I believe them.
	When they couldn't find them, the argument then shifted to, in the early days of that war, they started launching Scud missiles at Israel, and Scud missiles were weapons that they were not supposed to have under whatever sanction, whatever treaty they had.
	And so the argument then shifted to, and I used this argument at the time, they shot Scud missiles.
	They weren't supposed to have Scud missiles.
	Those are a form of weapon of mass destruction.
	Sorry.
	What's the response to that if there is one?
	Because that was my argument at the time.
	They launched Scud missiles at Israel.
	They weren't supposed to have them.
	Those are effectively weapons of mass destruction, so the claim was not itself false.
	I think it's a two-fold problem with it.
	The weapons of mass destruction that we were citing was not those.
	So there's that problem because we were looking at weapons of mass destruction that could present an imminent risk to the United States.
	Because you have a preemptive war, which is what, you know, that's in the more, it's a little bit still in the gray space in international law.
	I support it.
	America generally has.
	That's what Putin's justification is, as we discussed last week.
	Then you have preventative war, which is far less politically, legally protected and recognized.
	And we were arguing this was a preemptive war, not a preventative war, because they had weapons of mass destruction that they were imminently going to use against the United States of America.
	And I had factual problems with that claim.
	I just didn't think that claim was likely to be true.
	And it turned out it wasn't true.
	And so then, you know, scud-whipped missiles at Israel is not a direct threat against the United States of America.
	So the, well, I have supported Israel in the dispute between Israel and Palestine.
	That does not mean I believe that defending Israel is part of our self-defense.
	And so the, and from a legal perspective, I didn't think that.
	And the second problem was my bigger problem with the war.
	I didn't think it would achieve the purported objective we were setting out for.
	The amazing inability and incapacity of our leaders to ask, what next?
	What then?
	Is extraordinary.
	And when we were seeing it with Lindsey Graham calling for the assassination of Putin on Twitter, which magically doesn't get him even suspended for a minute while I get suspended for a day because I simply asked the question, maybe World War III isn't worth our continued intervention in the Ukrainian event.
	So it gives a sense of where things are.
	But there's the political issue and the legal issue, which I see is different.
	But legally, our justification, the Scud missile on Israel, wouldn't fit the legal justification Colin Powell gave to the United Nations to try to justify military intervention.
	And it definitely isn't preemptive war at that point.
	It's not even really preventative war.
	It's a war on behalf of another nation.
	And that's not really our business, in my view.
	Mike is muted again.
	Preventative wars or proxy wars, sorry.
	But the argument with the Scud missiles was they were capable of carrying chemical weapons or whatever.
	Therefore, that was the argument at the time.
	Look, they showed evidence that they had forbidden or unlawful or weapons that they were not supposed to have.
	They just didn't have the other stuff, which would have rendered those Scud missiles not bona fide weapons of mass destruction, but more massive destruction weapons.
	And if they were being fired at the United States, different ballgame, but they weren't.
	Well, attacking an ally is attacking an interest of the United States.
	An interest, yes, but not sufficient in my view to justify war.
	Allies and treaties is how you get world wars.
	I'm not a fan of them, frankly.
	Well, we're seeing this escalate in ways that, I mean, when you say like...
	Are they asking what after?
	What comes after?
	We're going to get there, and we're also going to get to your Twitter, Ben, because I'll pull up, or I'll read the tweet.
	I won't pull it up.
	Okay, Robert, just so you know, Robert, I mean, you know.
	I get emails, I get messages, people saying, bad things about you, and that I don't care about.
	I want the actual, legit bases of the criticisms.
	So the other day you put out a tweet, and it said, well, it was the one that got you...
	Banned.
	He says, what does Putin want?
	No NATO, no nukes, no Nazis.
	And then, you know, so we have to attack.
	Is that so evil that we should go into World War III?
	Is that so bad that we should start World War III?
	And you got, apparently it was Karen Borshenko?
	Is it another Twitter?
	She said she did not do it.
	Twitter claimed she did.
	Yeah, so apparently Borshenko got a notification that Twitter thanked her for having flagged Robert's tweet.
	So apparently there's a mistake there because she swears that she didn't do it.
	It's possible a finger, I mean, it's not really possible because you have to go through several steps to do it.
	So unless she's like drunk tweeting and totally forgot, I'll take her at her word that she's not publicly lying about not having done what Twitter thanked her for having done.
	Twitter thanked her for having flagged the tweet.
	So there's an issue there, very suspicious.
	But any, even the dumbest of AI bots should have read that tweet and known that there was nothing that violated the terms of service.
	What did it say?
	Hateful?
	Promotes violence or hateful conduct?
	Yes, I was promoting violent conduct by opposing war.
	I didn't know that.
	And the only way that that could possibly make sense...
	Remember, everybody, war is peace.
	Well, there's that.
	That's one way it can make sense.
	Or the other way is you got some bot that only reads start World War, you know, WW3.
	And it reads it as a command and not as a...
	Isn't it funny how all these great Russian bots that shaped elections...
	Aren't anywhere present right now, and it's all the anti-Russian bots that are apparently present?
	Makes you wonder about some of those claims that had been previously made.
	Well, I'm seeing bots on both sides, but one thing's for certain.
	I'm seeing, I think they're bots because they are newly created accounts that are one month at, you know, some of them are fresh out of March.
	Zero followers, zero following, and they're opinionated on this conflict.
	So you got locked out of Twitter.
	I tweeted your tweet that got you blocked with a little editing so I couldn't be accused of just doing the same thing you did and your backup on Twitter.
	Yeah, and James Lindsay and some other people highlighted the issue, and that's probably what accelerated Twitter's timetable to reinstate me.
	But not terribly surprising.
	At some point, I'm sure they'll ban me.
	They're just seeing what they can get away with at different points.
	But in this context, they've been particularly kind of insane in terms of what we've seen happen over the last week in the attempts to...
	Punish the Russian people for the decisions of the Russian politicians, which is its own legal issue.
	Last week we did just at Bellum, what's the justification to enter a war or military conflict?
	And this week we'll get into just in Bello.
	Which is the laws of war itself, which have varied over time.
	And not only is it applied to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, but also what the West has done, because many people consider acts of economic war, and many people in the West have called it that.
	Whether or not that is justified, whether Lindsey Graham calling a United States senator, calling for the public assassination of another individual, various U.S. and European political authorities calling for a coup in Russia.
	What is the legality of those actions?
	And what about the individuals involved?
	We're seeing people's property be seized.
	We're seeing people being shut out.
	We're seeing travel rights restricted.
	Does that have an either international or domestic legal?
	Some people have been concerned if you're just born someplace, do you now lose your rights at the drop of a hat because the big banks and the big western powers say so?
	Well, they did it in Canada.
	Why wouldn't they do it when there's a real war going on?
	But Justin Trudeau expressed deep concern about creeping authoritarianism around the world.
	It's confession through projection that is...
	So bad because he lacks the insight to even think that people listening to that are going to make the association that he's actually talking about himself.
	If anybody hasn't seen it, he's talking about the creeping effect of authoritarianism in democratic regimes.
	It's over the top.
	But no, Robert, on the substance of the tweet, you said, what does Putin want?
	No NATO, no nukes, no Yahtzees.
	I read an interesting analogy of, you know, someone's trying to explain to their wife what's going on in the Ukraine and the wife said, you know, who cares if NATO moves into Ukraine and then the husband goes downstairs, gets a knife and puts it on his bed stand and goes to sleep and the wife says, what do you need that knife for?
	He says, no, no, I'm just going to sleep with it on my side of the bed.
	You go ahead and sleep.
	It's none of your business.
	I mean, I can appreciate the analogy.
	I don't think people are going to disagree with that particular motivation.
	They're just going to say, too bad, so sad, you don't control what happens outside of your borders.
	No nukes.
	The argument is going to be, or the retort is going to be, Robert, other neighboring states to Russia who are NATO members or at the very least Western countries, unless I'm mistaken, already have nukes.
	So what's the difference if another neighboring country has nukes on the soil?
	So that would be the first question, actually, before I get to the second.
	Yeah, I don't think that's the case.
	I don't think any neighboring country has nuclear weapons.
	I don't believe the Baltics do, the small Baltics that border them.
	And geographically, the Baltics don't pose the same military conventional war threat that the geographic border of Ukraine would if it was part of NATO.
	And as the Russian position is that they have a right to defend their security and that the West made an explicit and expressed promise not to expand NATO westward, which, of course, we've been violating for about 20 years.
	And so that's their, that NATO has, what purpose does NATO have?
	I mean, its purpose was anti-Soviet.
	When the Soviet Union doesn't exist, why does NATO still exist?
	This was Donald Trump's famous question in the 2016 campaign.
	And the answer still, I have yet to hear a satisfying answer, other than to suppress and to be ultimately potentially an aggressor against Russia.
	And NATO, of course, has waged war in the European continent since 1990, even though the German Chancellor forgot this in his meeting with Putin several weeks ago, in Yugoslavia.
	And so the brutal bombing of Serbia, which can provide kind of an illustration.
	Like the earlier chatter talking about the Chechnya conflict in Russia, the way Russia's gone into Ukraine by almost everyone's admission, other than some of the mainstream media, by those that follow it, has been, including people like Colonel Douglas McGregor, who is a prominent Trump appointee, who's been the only sort of sane voice on Fox News with Tucker Carlson.
	Is that they've gone in incredibly soft, and there's no doubt about that.
	So there hasn't been a mass bombardment campaign like NATO did with Serbia.
	There hasn't been a shock in our campaign like the United States has typically waged war in the post-Cold War effort, in both Iraqi wars as an example, or the mass bombing that took place in either Syria or Libya.
	And so that hasn't happened.
	There's been an extraordinarily low number of civilian deaths because of the way the Russians have gone in.
	Extraordinarily not brutal in terms of modern and contemporary warfare.
	And in fact, they appear going to greater efforts than most nations have to comply with the Geneva Convention.
	The current international standards of laws of war, Jusinbello, are actually part of almost every country's domestic law now because they've signed the various Geneva Conventions.
	The first one...
	It was in 1864, and while that was predicated upon a Frenchman's observations of a brutal war that he witnessed in Italy during one of Italy's wars of independence.
	The actual predicate was partially the Lieber Code developed in America by Abraham Lincoln.
	He wanted some rules of war to govern how this war was going to go.
	And while there's always been customs and practices that you could call international legal standards for war, that was one of the first real efforts to standardize it.
	You know, the Mongols had their own provisions of war.
	If they came and knocked on your door and you killed their envoys, they came back and killed everybody.
	That was their law of war.
	If you didn't take a knee, they'd probably kill most people.
	So, you know, they had laws just a little bit different.
	The Kievan Rus, the first part of the original Russian Empire, if you will, discovered that when the Prince of Kiev...
	Killed the envoys of the Mongols and discarded their request, and then Kiev was no more for a little while when the Mongols came back and said hello.
	But that was the first Geneva Convention in 1864.
	There's been multiple Geneva Conventions since then.
	The ones after World War II really sort of deepened and established it, and the principles are really pretty basic if you understand them.
	There's a lot of iterations of it, but the core principle is you must treat Combatants and noncombatants differently.
	And even soldiers can become noncombatants if they're wounded on the field and unable to fight, if they're imprisoned, if they're detained.
	And of course, all civilians are considered noncombatants.
	And noncombatants, you cannot target.
	Noncombatants, you have to treat in a certain manner.
	And then in terms of the means and method of war in dealing with civilians, you cannot use weapons that have indiscriminate You cannot use weapons in an indiscriminate way, and you cannot use weapons that have an inherent indiscriminate capacity of death to civilians.
	Those are the guiding principles and purposes of law.
	And by the way, the Geneva Convention is considered enforceable by every nation in the world.
	So literally any nation in the world can prosecute someone else if they're able to get their custody or control over them.
	There's the International Criminal Court, but the United States doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court, nor do I think they should.
	They've proven themselves unreliable and politically prejudiced and not a place that we should subject our soldiers to.
	But then every country, of course, has its own domestic laws that can be internally enforced, either through the military code they may have, as we have, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or, and by the way, this is a very important thing.
	We'll have Lynn Westover, the other half, with Allison Morrow.
	And not only does he have extensive military experience, he has extensive experience in combat zones, but he's also been an instructor on a wide range of these subjects and topics in different areas.
	So he'll be a really good informed person to get sort of a military perspective, a soldier's perspective, an instructor's perspective, someone who's been in combat zones.
	And we are trying to set up an interview with Gonzalo Liro.
	Maybe Lyra, who's on the ground in Ukraine.
	He's been in Kiev.
	He's currently, I believe, he's in hiding now because he just made some observations of what he thought was happening in the war in Ukraine and at a Russian media station and some other people.
	We included his comments and broadcast it, and he became the target of apparently an assassination or hit list of people connected to the Zelensky regime.
	People came to his house looking apparently to kill him or do other horrible things to him, and luckily for him and his family, neither one of them was there, and he's now in hiding.
	So that'll be the other side.
	The people that have violated the rules of war so far, the laws of war so far, and I know people say there's no rules in love and war, and to some degree that's true just by...
	It's nature.
	But there are, in fact, rules.
	Ask any divorce court.
	There are rules even in love.
	And there are rules in war, of course.
	The people who have violated them so far from what I have seen has been the Ukrainian, particularly some of the Ukrainian militia groups.
	Part of the Ass Off Battalion, which not only has a heavy neo-Nazi influence, you can just look at its brand.
	Its brand uses neo-Nazi imagery.
	But they recruited similarly-minded people from all around the world over the past five years.
	So you've got would-be...
	Real, actual neo-Nazis.
	And some of their engagement has created, has violated the rules of war, if the information is correct.
	Okay, two things.
	Even before we get into the Nazi problem, which was part three of your tweet, people are going to say Russia is indiscriminately bombing cities with shelling.
	They have no idea what they're hitting.
	By accounts of media and as much as the fog of war can allow these accounts to come out, shelling civilians, shelling apartment buildings, etc.
	So therefore, by international war laws, Russia is violating international law.
	So I haven't seen the evidence for that.
	And so while there's been discussion of it in the Western press and headlines in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal for that, the evidence to back it up just mostly hasn't been there.
	Most of the fake news that has come out about this conflict has come from the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian political authorities, often without evidentiary foundation.
	So if the...
	If Russians wanted to go in and bomb the cities, they would have, and probably the war would be close to over already.
	There's not much evidence that that has occurred.
	The Russians have said they have targeted military targets, and for the most part, that's what the evidence appears.
	It appears to be far less indiscriminate than our bombings of Iraq, Syria, Libya, or Serbia, as far as I can tell.
	Now, my view is that it's very difficult.
	Smart bombs and all that stuff, that it's very difficult to avoid civilian casualties in any military conflict, and thus I'm skeptical of war as a political means of achieving outcomes.
	However, from what we've seen so far, there's not a lot of evidence of it.
	The classic example was, this week, the president of Ukraine went out and said that the Russians were attacking a nuclear facility and that nuclear radiation may be leaked, and it was on fire.
	Turned out to be completely false, patently false.
	And it was an attempt to induce Americans in the West to get involved in the war.
	This is the degree there.
	What appears to happen is Ukrainian soldiers retreated to a nuclear facility.
	And it appears that particularly some of these militia groups are using civilian shields, are placing weapons inside civilian facilities.
	So they're trying to put maximum pressure on the Russians to not target places because they're connected to civilians, even though they're being used for military purposes.
	So, so far, I haven't seen much evidence of Russian violation.
	And it's been the Russians taking the lead on asking for humanitarian corridors to be set up to allow civilians to escape these areas of conflict.
	And it's been the Ukrainians that were resisting it.
	Indeed, one of the Ukrainians that was part of the negotiation team came back home and was summarily executed.
	And it's still not been explained how that happened.
	And it's clear the Ukrainians did it, but that gives an idea of what's happening on that side.
	And Gonzalo Liro can detail in terms of they're releasing prisoners, they've been giving arms to criminal gangs to go along with the neo-Nazi problem, and that's going to create a lot of civilian problems.
	And the fact that they haven't meaningfully come to the table, Colonel McGregor's point is that the West behavior is extending the war unnecessarily without being able to change the outcome of the war, despite...
	Secretary of State Blinken misleading the Ukrainians into believing they can win like he recently did and suggesting that they're going to have Polish jet Jets, military jets transferred to Ukraine, which would bring Poland and NATO into the war, which would be a disaster.
	And despite some request to impose a no-fly zone, which would guarantee the whole world, that would be then World War III.
	Most of those efforts have not come about.
	And McGregor's point was that a reasonable leader would have resolved this already.
	And our conduct in the West is extending the war and is guaranteeing more deaths.
	I want to bring this one up because we've got to explore this for a second.
	The correct response to being called a puppet is, I'm a puppet of American interests or Canadian for Viva.
	The propaganda going on is completely insane.
	The danger here is very underappreciated.
	And, Robert, I'm going to share this.
	It was an article that Eric Hunley shared about seven fake news stories coming out.
	Robert, you can see this, correct?
	Yeah.
	These are coming from the mouth of Zelensky, who...
	One of the stories was Snake Island.
	Oh, the ghost of Kiev.
	I've discovered, by the way, there's a website where you can find deleted tweets of politicians.
	And I won't put anyone on blast, but the people...
	For those that don't know, there's been a famous meme effort by the 4chaners to stick Sam Hyde in the middle of a wide range of events around the world.
	And they spread, and politicians were retweeting this, a picture of the ghost of Kiev.
	And of course, it was Sam Hyde.
	As Tucker Carlson pointed out, I mean, this is laughably absurd, were some of the lies that were being regurgitated.
	But the New York Times said it's okay if they do it on behalf of war.
	If it's a right war, then it's okay to have some of these fake news stories.
	You gotta keep up the morale, even if it's propaganda.
	And the amount of people actually parroting that point is...
	It's all on Twitter, so you don't know how much of this is actually real.
	The Ghost of Kiev, which apparently was footage from a video game, didn't exist.
	The story of a lone fighter jet downing Russians, retweeted by prominent American politicians.
	Don't care to name them.
	Russian planes flying over Kiev.
	Zelensky visiting the troops.
	I mean, these are old images that people are recirculating because they're being repurposed and rebranded.
	This is the Luhansk Power Station explosion.
	Eric Hundley tweeted this out on Twitter, so you can go find it there.
	Oh, yeah, here you go.
	The Russian warship.
	Snake Island, 13 Ukrainian soldiers told Russia to go after themselves.
	The number of politicians, they repeated it.
	The young Turks repeated it.
	He was about to cry at the end of the story.
	It's ironic.
	Some of these left people that started off being anti-war are now the biggest war propagandists and war promoters.
	But I mean, in the fog of war, which is a term that von Clausewitz originated, he referred to it as the fog of uncertainty in war.
	He meant it a little bit differently than it became colloquially understood to be.
	But the idea is that there's a lot of facts we won't know, and that will be difficult to ever know.
	So we can just look at the best evidence that's been gathered so far.
	And if the Russians wanted to shock and awe, the Russians would have shocked and awe.
	Instead, they didn't send in most of their troops.
	They haven't done mass bombing campaigns.
	They haven't even targeted most of Western Ukraine.
	They've encircled cities but haven't gone in.
	And what's fascinating is the Western general's spin on this has been, oh, they must be getting mass resistance.
	And it was the Russians' choice not to do the mass bombing.
	There was no mass resistance to stop that.
	It was the Russians' choice to send in 50,000 troops instead of 200,000 from the get-go.
	They have close to a million troops, another million plus in reserves.
	That was their choice.
	That wasn't because of any resistance they were facing.
	And in fact, anybody that looked at the map that saw the earlier criticism of the Duran, the Duran has been much more accurate on this than anybody in the Western media by a long mile.
	And they've just been showing the maps.
	And in fact, it's...
	Given the tactics they're choosing, again, no less authority, Colonel Douglas McGregor, high-ranking Trump official, has called it too gentle.
	And that's because of the American mindset, you're not achieving your military objective as quickly as you could by not going in hard and heavy, by not doing shock and awe.
	However, the Russians have a different approach.
	They continue to do diplomacy.
	They escalate a little bit, try to get diplomacy, escalate a little bit, do some diplomacy.
	That's what they're doing.
	And so their goal, like we, American military strategy since the end of the Cold War just hasn't been that way.
	It's been, okay, once we've set a military objective, let's get the military objective.
	And then when that's done, we'll shift back to politics and diplomacy.
	Russia clearly has a version of Von Clausewitz, which had a very strong influence on their...
	Military and political training and their diplomats, which is that war is just another extension of politics, just another arm of politics, just another means of politics.
	And so they did aspects of this in Syria, as they detailed in the Duran, where their goal is just to escalate a little bit, escalate a little bit.
	They created the same escape valves for people.
	They said, look, if you don't want to be in part of the conflict, you can just go home and try to get as many civilians out of the war zone and then go in.
	Generally, some of the people that follow military aspects can't even understand this because we haven't utilized it much.
	When NATO went into the Balkans, went into the Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s, it was just bomb the hell out of them for 90 days.
	I think it ended up being 79 days.
	When we went into Iraq, we didn't continue to do negotiations as we were going in.
	It was crush.
	Now, it still took us three weeks to get to Baghdad, despite a massive bombing campaign.
	So you would expect the Russian effort to take two to three months, given the size and scale, given the urban war zones that could exist, and so on and so forth.
	What they've been trying to do is escalate just enough to try to get Ukraine back to the table.
	And when it doesn't happen, then they escalate a little more, and so on and so forth.
	And as Putin has made clear, their terms and conditions are going to get more and more onerous diplomatically the more they have to continue to engage in the conflict.
	We haven't really seen real urban warfare, and hopefully we won't.
	Again, the rules of war are you have to take efforts to avoid civilian casualties and civilian targets.
	You cannot target civilians deliberately and directly.
	I'll be frank, the U.S. really hasn't abided by the Geneva Convention in any war we've fought since the end of the Cold War.
	So there's that caveat to this.
	By the way, you're on mute.
	How many civilians died in Iraq?
	I should say, how many civilians were killed in Iraq?
	Hundreds of thousands.
	Hundreds of thousands.
	And thousands died in Serbia in the bombing.
	Thousands of civilians.
	Most of the people who died in the Serbian conflict were civilians.
	Bishop Cruz, I said we're going to get to the Nazi, whether or not it's an excuse or a reason.
	But just because there's propaganda building up Ukraine doesn't mean you need to spout the Russian propaganda to counter.
	Still no excuse to invade.
	Well, that's the argument.
	I mean, legally, their view is they had to because this anti-Russian project, this is Putin's definition.
	You can argue with whether he's factually right.
	You can argue about whether you think it's his real motivation.
	But he considered it a weapon of mass destruction to have an anti-Russia project with this massive border along Russia that had NATO nuclear weapons and Nazis involved.
	That was his view.
	It does appear now that...
	Two other facts have come out, or two other potential facts have come out.
	One is, this fact, first one doesn't appear to be a dispute.
	Almost 60,000 Ukrainian troops had amassed around the Donbass.
	And people should ask themselves, what were they doing there unless they were about to completely eviscerate Minsk Accords and launch an attack?
	And the Russians just decided to get there before the punch.
	The second one has been, according to the Russians, they are producing evidence that the U.S. Along with Ukraine, had bioweapons labs that were undisclosed to the world, developing biological weapons in parts of Ukraine.
	Those would be, according to our own definition and the one Mr. Colin Powell, those would be weapons of mass destruction by themselves.
	And the Russians are claiming that those were intended to be used in the future against the Russians.
	But now, let's play devil's advocate, or just advocate.
	Undisclosed to the world, meaning...
	I'm saying something exists with no evidence that it exists.
	They produced internal Ukraine.
	Now, the question will be whether this evidence is authentic or not, but they have produced evidence from the places and facilities they've seized that show directions and instructions involving U.S. and Ukrainian authorities to destroy everything that was in those labs as soon as the invasion began.
	So that's the evidence they've produced so far.
	We haven't seen the scope of the evidence, but there have been rumors of this from the very get-go.
	Your independent journalist types have been saying this is true from the beginning.
	And they were dismissed as QAnon conspiracy theorists.
	Maybe it turns out they won't.
	And anybody that knows the history of biosafety, lab research, biosafety, I don't know why they call it that, but knows that...
	Put it this way, this would not be that big of a shock, unfortunately.
	And it's interesting in the context of Wuhan, the pandemic, the video you were showing earlier.
	I know the limits of my own knowledge.
	My question would be, let's just assume, let's just take for granted the argument is true.
	It's a Wuhan-type lab.
	Does blowing it up with a missile actually resolve the problem, or does that just exacerbate the spread?
	I mean, I don't know how these things work, but that would be my reflexive question.
	My understanding is they've...
	We don't know.
	All we know is that the information they produce that these labs exist and these labs no longer have this facility or capability based on the Russian intervention.
	So beyond that, don't know any details.
	And again, it will be with the fog of war, so we'll have to guess and infer and so on and so forth and the rest.
	There's a problem.
	Putin being restrained is bad because it shows his intent is to conquer, not negotiate.
	If his intent was to conquer, he'd already have Ukraine.
	That's the problem.
	It would have been...
	Again, someone's going to say it's a Putin apologist.
	If Putin wanted to invade Ukraine, he would have invaded Ukraine instead of having a relatively localized regional conflict, called an invasion, but of the Donbass region.
	In the eastern side.
	I mean, they're basically cutting off the ability for the Ukrainian army to support any intervention in Donetsk.
	And he clearly wants some degree of either regime change or treaty admissions by the Ukrainian government.
	But the I think, in fact, a lot of our military and political analysts, to the degree they really bought into this caricature of Putin as the great conqueror and the great invader and so on and so forth.
	Have not understood the Russian military operation is partially based on that.
	In other words, if your goal was to conquer Ukraine, one, you would be shutting off the Polish border.
	It's allowing weapons to pour across the border into Ukraine.
	They haven't hardly touched Western Ukraine.
	Why is that if they're going to conquer Ukraine?
	They're going to use Ukraine to invade Poland and Latvia and Estonia.
	Why hasn't they already done some of those things?
	They can't explain it.
	So instead, they come up with it must be a massive, incredible Ukrainian resistance that totally shocked them, even though that doesn't explain why not that many troops went in in the first place, nor does it explain the failure, the choice not to do mass bombing.
	I mean, they've surrounded him navally and they've dominated the air.
	So why haven't they done this if this is who he is and what he is?
	They can't explain it with the facts, so they just make up their own theories.
	Now, Robert, I'm bringing this up not to endorse the...
	Trope.
	Just to highlight, there's an argument here where you say Putin's three objectives, no nukes, no NATO, no Nazis.
	And when you reference Ukraine building up however many troops, 60,000 troops in the Donbass region, their argument is going to be they're there to counter the Russian separatists.
	It's sort of like, you know, coming down on the Quebec separatists.
	So you go to the area where the separatists exist.
	Use Ukraine military to suppress insurrectionist, sovereigntist, pro-Russian militia in the Donbass region.
	That'll be the argument.
	The question to you is, now, when you say that the Nazi problem in Ukraine is a real problem, people's reflexive responses, Zelensky's Jewish, what real problems has any Nazi interest caused in Ukraine vis-a-vis Russia?
	And the ADL came out and said, For whatever it's worth, people, the ADL came out, the Anti-Defamation League.
	It's not worth very much.
	I don't hold them in high esteem.
	But they raised the argument, yeah, there's Yahtzees in Ukraine, like there's Yahtzees in America, like there's Yahtzees in Russia.
	Except, oddly enough, when you see one Yahtzee flag at a protest in Ottawa, everyone's a Yahtzee.
	But when there's actual battalions in Ukraine, it's not an issue.
	But what real issue?
	Were any Yahtzee-like battalions actually causing in Ukraine, and more specifically for Russia, to justify that as the third branch of your tripartite question?
	So there's two different aspects.
	As to the Donbass, the problem is the Ukraine signed the Minsk Accords in 2015, and that required they not have certain troops there, they not have certain weapons there, and they not do mass shelling.
	They did all three.
	And in fact, they violated the ceasefire according to the Organization for Society and Cooperation in Europe.
	Which was on location.
	They violated the ceasefire more than 2,000 times in just the weekend prior with shelling.
	And you can just go through the Donbass region and they bombed schools, they bombed churches, they bombed houses, they bombed buildings.
	Many stories coming out of there of random shootings of people, of husbands and wives trying to escape, of kids dying, etc.
	I mean, all the horrors that are being attributed to the Russian...
	The Russian invasion or the Russian attack has been taking place in Donbass for eight years at a broader scale.
	But the biggest problem is the Minsk Accords and their agreement related there, too, to respect the independence of that, all of which, again, stems from the Maidan coup of 2014.
	These groups were only concerned after they overthrew the democratically elected government with the backing of George Soros' NGOs and the United States money.
	Lindsey Graham and John McCain were on the ground, and you can find video of them not only meeting with some of these neo-Nazi-alliant groups, but saying that they planned on launching an attack on Russia.
	And to use it against Russia.
	So that's where it's relevant.
	They've explicitly said they are going to discriminate and try to basically ethnically cleanse as much of the Donbass region of Russians as possible.
	And that's the ongoing threat.
	In Putin's perspective, the only long-term objective of a nuclear-armed NATO with Nazi elements in its regime in Ukraine is to come after Russia.
	I disagree that Ukraine would ever actually invade Russia or NATO would actually invade Russia, but that was his conclusion.
	And again, if we were at a trial and it was totally neutral people, I wouldn't like my chances.
	I would say Putin would have the better argument, evidence-wise.
	Someone just said, you know, people saying that there's no justification for the invasion.
	Go check out history.
	I think it was the Six-Day War in Israel when Israel preemptively started a war.
	Blew up the Egyptian airstrips, Air Force.
	They basically launched a war and invaded, I don't know how many, four of the neighboring countries.
	In the absence of any actual invasion from those neighboring countries, I mean, now, my understanding is that there was much more immediate urgency, clear urgency for the Six-Day War than one could argue exists now for any preemptive invasion by Russia.
	But how do you retort to that?
	Like, okay, well...
	What was the urgent need to invade Ukraine, even if it's on the eastern provinces?
	What was the urgent need if this situation had been the way it had been for six, eight years?
	Yeah, I mean, that's where I am skeptical.
	I don't see the imminent risk for preemptive war, but I don't know what...
	Russia knows.
	And like I said, from an evidentiary perspective, they would have all of these aggressive, accelerating statements.
	That Zelensky went to the Munich Security Council, said he wanted both NATO membership and nuclear weapons in the weekend before.
	60,000 Ukrainian troops were amassing along the Donbass to violate the Minsk Accords in all likelihood, based on their mass shelling and troop presence and presence of certain weapons there.
	And then they believe they have evidence of biological weapons being developed in Ukraine with U.S. support.
	They have the statements of U.S. senators saying their goal is to go after Russia.
	Adam Schiff, head of the Intelligence Committee for the House, famously said during the Ukrainegate impeachment that the goal is to use Ukraine to fight Russia there rather than we fight them.
	So they could amount a long litany of evidence.
	Major think tanks, the Rand Institute and others, that was developing arguments for how to use Ukraine to basically take out Russia or regime change in Russia.
	So that's why I say if it was a purely neutral jury, my position that there was no imminent risk would have weaker evidentiary support.
	Guys, I'm only bringing up the Israel-Palestinian analogy because a lot of those wars, the theory could apply mutatis mutatis.
	My question to you, Robert, is my personal opinion, even the idea of a preemptive invasion is, from my understanding and what I've been able to surmise from the evidence, premature itself.
	But the better question is...
	Why now?
	And not why not two years ago?
	And why not in two years from now?
	Well, Trump was president.
	Trump had made clear he was skeptical of NATO, opposed Ukraine joining NATO, thought NATO was useless and the U.S. should probably opt out of it.
	When he tried to cut that deal early on, he was blocked by the Russiagate bogus scandal.
	And then when he tried to discipline or limit the amount of arms going to Ukraine and try to get Ukraine to actually clean up their government, He was impeached.
	So it's not a coincidence that the two greatest investigations and efforts to derail the Trump presidency relate to Ukraine and the kind of people involved.
	People should ask why they're on the side of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney, on the side of Clark Schwab and the EU.
	They're going to talk about Putin apologists.
	Any of those people, you're on George Soros' side.
	You're on Hillary Clinton's side.
	You're on the side of the Clinton Foundation.
	You're on the side of the neocons in Mitt Romney.
	Like Jordan Peterson.
	God bless Jordan.
	But just like he couldn't get the pandemic right out of the gate, remember, shut up and take the vaccine, he also can't get, like, he puts one of the biggest warmongering neocons on to explain Ukraine.
	This is a guy that's neck deep in it.
	Victoria Nuland is on tape meeting with neo-Nazis to help the coup in 2014, now back involved in the administration.
	It was the Ukraine gatekey personnel who went and tried to impeach the president of the United States, Donald Trump.
	And Kagan was gung-ho on both Iraq wars.
	And my view is I'm not going to take anybody seriously as an expert who thinks the Iraq war in 2003 was great, justified, and good policy.
	But that's who's being cited.
	So I think it reflects and represents that sort of broader ambiance and environment of who's there.
	To the credit of people like Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, a range of other people, congressional candidates, But the reason why Putin did not, Russia did not go in before, I believe, you know, it's always speculative at this point, but the is that Trump was skeptical of NATO and was trying to limit.
	What Ukraine was doing.
	And every time he tried, he was either subject to a mass criminal investigation or an impeachment.
	So he wasn't able to achieve his objectives, but Russia didn't have any doubts.
	It wasn't because Trump was super strong.
	It was because Trump was smart.
	And he's actually said this recently.
	He said, our leaders are dumb.
	Putin is smart.
	Our leaders are dumb.
	He's not going to get into details about this, but that's in fact what I believe was the reason.
	As long as Trump was president...
	Russia did not believe Ukraine would ever be an imminent risk to them and believed they had a chance at achieving a peaceful resolution and disposition.
	Once, as the Russian ambassador told the United Nations, which might be a bridge to our next conversation, they believe, Putin and the Russians believe, that the election was stolen from Trump in 2020 and said so at the United Nations.
	They saw that as an acceleration of the anti-Russia project that was going to present imminent risk to their safety and security in future.
	And the question is whether they were right, but if you're looking at it from their perspective, these people are so nuts, they're willing to launch a false criminal investigation, launch a false impeachment, and remove him when he got elected.
	In their view, would you trust the Biden administration not to be an imminent risk or threat when they've made so much money off of the Ukraine grift?
	I trust, well, not just them.
	Others have made money off the billions in aid.
	Yeah, number one donor to the Clinton Foundation, Ukrainians.
	Now, I just want to say, no justifying an invasion.
	I guess then D-Day...
	I mean, there's a problem.
	Okay, then do you say that all of our invasions were wrong?
	Are we wrong legally, morally?
	Someone will say, that's a whataboutism.
	I'll say, in retrospect now...
	It's called standards.
	It's what the rule of law is.
	We have to have one rule.
	We can't have one rule for us and another rule for somebody else.
	One rule.
	That's what the rule of law is all about.
	Well, I'm just going to say one thing.
	If all invasions are bad, D-Day was bad.
	The battle that turned World War II was bad because you were invading a foreign country.
	Robert, let me read some chats before we...
	So, I think we've gotten through this.
	We'll go to some other subject matter, but I want to read some of the rumble ones.
	Yeah, if people want my full theory...
	Our alternative take on what the explanation of the war is and what the endgame might be, you can see it at the hush-hush that's pinned at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, I'm going to read some Rumble rants because there's been a bunch that I should get to.
	Rumble people were also streaming on Rumble and there were like 5,000 people.
	I think there were thousands of people watching there.
	This is from Jim...
	Oh, son of a bee sting.
	Jimbro.
	2-1-1, $5 rumble rant says people need to watch the documentary Ukraine on Fire.
	It's the best overview of the political history from World War II to the 2014 coup backslash revolution.
	Then we've got Old Man 1972, a $50 rumble rant.
	For folks out there, by the way, real quickly, just Ukraine on Fire is freely available for free on YouTube.
	I'm doing it.
	Tonight might be too late, but I'm doing it because...
	I'm doing it.
	Old Man 1972, a $50 rumble rant says, any comments on Michael Spitzer Rubenstein?
	Rubenstein.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what that is.
	I don't know either.
	And then we got Alyosha, a $50 rumble rant says, question for Robert.
	Are you aware of the work of Harold Berman?
	The name rings a bell, but I don't immediately recognize the work.
	And we got S. Sally 68. I always look...
	I always look at who is supporting who.
	The fact that the whole swamp and Hollywood is supporting the Ukraine, and I'll say Ukraine because it's a country, not the Ukraine anymore, means it is not what we think.
	Look, the amount of propaganda coming out of both sides.
	Especially like Edward Norton.
	I mean, you caught Edward Norton saying that we shouldn't be critical of China, and it's wrong to do that, while he's calling for the U.S. authorities to launch a massive criminal investigation of anybody that is...
	Pro-Russia to target them for prosecution and punishment at various levels.
	Ed Norton, never meet your heroes, people.
	He says...
	Putin, evil, terrible.
	Pull out everything.
	Punish everyone.
	We need to find every American that's secretly pro-Russian.
	We could explain their activities as being pro-Russian.
	He called for a new McCarthyism with more power than even McCarthyism used against the American people.
	Here's the thing.
	When we did the stream or the sidebar with Cernovich...
	Or it might have been the first time I actually interviewed him.
	And I was following Cernovich on Twitter.
	And I was like, how does this guy always get the tweets to hold these hypocrites to account for the hypocrisy?
	He has a network.
	I'm sure he has very smart followers who send him the stuff as well.
	But I've learned there's just a tactic.
	When you know that they're taking a position, you just need to know certain words and just go Google those words.
	What has Ed Norton said about China?
	So I just go do Google for five minutes.
	And then I find out that Ed Norton, when he was making his film, in which he was...
	Gallivanting across China, he said, literally, who are we to have the arrogance to step foot into a foreign country and tell them what to do?
	He said this about China.
	When he's making a movie in China, selling his movies in China, he says, I'm clear on human rights, but who am I to lecture China on what to do about the environment?
	Well, my goodness, what time changes and what not having a financial stake in the outcome changes in one's liberty.
	To become ultra-critical.
	So I'm glad I found that, but I'm realizing now, finding people's hypocrisy is just understanding what would be the nature of the hypocrisy, and 10 minutes of Google for people who can't stop talking will reveal hypocrisy.
	And by the way, open invitation.
	If I've ever been overtly hypocritical, hold me to account.
	Pull up an old tweet of me saying something diametrically opposed to what I'm saying today.
	I don't think it exists.
	And notably...
	Almost all the influencers who are big against the lockdowns from the get-go have almost all universally said, beware of the hysteria and the hype about this war.
	And many of them understand that this war will be used as a pretext, because it's a power grab, to control and limit more of our freedoms here.
	And they're going to use the example and precedent they're setting towards the Russians.
	Against you next.
	And many of these people are cheering it on blindly without even understanding any of the history of the conflict or what's taking place.
	Well, I say then they're now implementing exactly what they just beta tested on Canada.
	And I'm saying beta, not in the alpha beta male sense, beta as in actual beta testing.
	They tested on Canadians, froze bank accounts, and they saw very little outcry, very little outrage from people who didn't like the people whose accounts were getting frozen.
	And now they're doing it to a nation as a whole.
	And Robert, I asked the question on Twitter.
	It was very shortly before going to this stream.
	I don't know that they're not asking the questions like, what happens if?
	They want to sanction 140 million people.
	They are doing it.
	Shutting them out of Western society.
	I mean, as if that's a bad thing at this point.
	It might be good to go into isolation from Western garbage anyhow.
	But they're shutting out a country.
	Cutting off banking.
	Cutting off internet supplies, visa, all this stuff.
	140 million people just by virtue of the fact that their leader has done something that these other people think is wrong.
	Rightly wrong, wrongly wrong, whatever.
	I'll even give you, rightly wrong.
	They didn't do it to China.
	Don't ask why.
	But let's just assume that after abusing and terrorizing a population of 140 million, Putin is ousted.
	Whatever happens.
	Putin is ousted.
	Does the next regime have a more or less sympathetic view towards the people that just terrorized 140 million innocent civilians?
	Because I will call them innocent civilians, excluding the military.
	Historically, Robert, how has this type of conduct played out and in which circumstances?
	Well, we know it by recent history.
	So it was one of the arguments I always had.
	It was like, okay, you replace Saddam Hussein, what comes next?
	If you understood Iraq, you knew what came next.
	If you take out Muammar Gaddafi, what comes next?
	If you try to take out Assad in Syria, what comes next?
	If you try to restructure Afghanistan, who likely replaces them?
	And we know it's all been worse disasters every single time.
	This is why the World War II script is not a relevant script.
	The World War I script is a relevant script.
	And the more recent, you know, the Korean conflict birthed the North Koreans in part at what they have today.
	They're still relying on the Korean conflict for justification of their power in North Korea.
	So how has all that worked out for us?
	So, I mean, that's the problem with Lindsey Graham saying, you know, go whack the president of another country.
	Who replaces him?
	I mean, this is just my...
	I mean, I can tell you the number two political party behind Putin's party in Russia is the Communist Party.
	And the people who would likely come to power are more militant ultra-nationalists who really believe in empire, like they accused Putin of.
	And then would rightly be able to say, look how evil they are.
	They just terrorized 140 million of you for just being the citizenry of the despot.
	Support us, and we'll really show them what it's like.
	A lot of these sanctions, I think, do violate international law and even domestic American law.
	We're going to go as long as we go on this.
	How is that the case?
	Some people are going to say, look, you don't have to do business with another country.
	And I agree with that.
	By the way, Robert, let me just open a small parenthesis.
	Everybody out there who supports what the international community or the Western international community is doing to Russia, if you're Jewish and you consider yourself a Zionist, maybe think about how this can be.
	Russia's a big freaking country with major economic allies.
	Let's just say they want to do the same thing to Israel the next time there's a flare-up in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
	They can very easily...
	That's a small country that...
	But they won't do it to Israel because it's an ally.
	Allies can overnight turn into enemies.
	So anybody who thinks this is good, just think what happens if they want to do it to who you consider to be your ally today.
	On the one hand...
	I forget where I was going with the second part of that.
	Legally, there are rules.
	I mean, the various international conventions and treaties to which we are a party, and most countries in the world are a party, definitely most parts of Europe are a party, require respect of rights of reputation, rights of travel, rights of property, rights of due process.
	None of these are being respected in the way these sanctions are being issued.
	Now, you can't have legal remedy depending on the jurisdiction, depending on the rule that's being violated.
	So like in the United States, for example, they found that as long as you can get into court, so that means you need to be a person here or a property here, it can be a First Amendment violation, some of these sanctions.
	It can be a Fourth Amendment violation because none of these are being done through a court system by a warrant process.
	It can be considered a Fifth Amendment due process violation.
	It can be all three.
	And there are courts that have found it in other sanctions analysis.
	The other thing I've never liked about sanctions law is it's based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of congressional authorization.
	They're meant to be emergency provisions.
	They're not being applied as emergency provisions.
	So the dangers of what happened with sanctions of law, of course, is now bled over into the public health context, which we saw with COVID, and continue to see.
	But that's the other problem.
	They're trying to find all the places where they have emergency power and use a war and the...
	Propaganda surrounding that war to get people in a hysterical mindset to where anyone who disagrees with them must be evil.
	Anyone who disagrees with them must be an apologist for evil, even though they don't know really much fact at all about the actual conflict to get people to accept these emergency exceptions and emergency powers.
	They gut constitutional liberties and rights for people.
	I mean, RT, America had a shutdown because of all the censorship and removal.
	The RT is being blocked in all of Europe.
	And you have a range of other people being censored in the same sense.
	A lot of Russians, there's calls for denying Russian citizens all rights if they happen to live or have property in another place, just because they're a citizen of Russia.
	No other reason.
	Calls for them to be expelled, from schools and colleges, for denial of all travel rights, for denial of all property rights, for denial of all speech rights.
	If you don't think they're doing this for the purpose of establishing the precedent against you, then you haven't been paying attention for the last two years.
	And by the way, I want to say one thing.
	I believe everyone can vote with their dollar, and I actually did not support those proposed laws that would prohibit The BDS, what is it?
	Boycott, divest, and what's the other thing?
	Yeah, BDS.
	Boycott, yeah, BDS.
	Against Israel.
	People can do what they want.
	I don't think legislators should be legislating that you cannot vote.
	Agreed, agreed.
	But the key is that the power should be with the person, not the state.
	And when you give the state that power, it's going to be misused and abused.
	And a whole bunch of people are out there cheering it right now.
	Josh Hawley looked like an idiot on the phone with that nitwit Zelensky.
	It was amazing.
	I just pointed out to people that his approval rating made Joe Biden look great.
	I mean, it was around 23%, 22%.
	Be like, that can't be true.
	It must be a risky poll.
	Said, no, no, it was polls from anti-Russian Kiev pollsters.
	Well, it must be made up because my version of reality is fake and I must continue to believe in it.
	And so that's what we're seeing.
	But there is, I believe these sanctions.
	Violate various international laws.
	Violate various domestic laws.
	The question is whether any court...
	The biggest problem with sanctions has been getting a court to give remedy because some other cases we'll get to.
	The Supreme Court made clear this week that they will bend over backwards for the national security state.
	And all they got to do is say state secrets and magically all your rights go bye-bye.
	And they're trying to do the same thing in this context.
	And let's get into it.
	I think we've done enough here.
	By the way...
	Not only has this stream been demonetized, I just wanted to make sure.
	I don't think Super Chat has been turned off because we just got this one.
	But this video has not only been demonetized, it's been age-restricted, which is the first time in my YouTube career that a live stream or video has been age-restricted.
	I'm going to see if that gets turned over on appeal.
	Let me just refresh there.
	The video is age-restricted.
	Very interesting.
	Apparently...
	No, that's not the right screen.
	Hold on one second.
	Sorry, let me bring this back up.
	But so long as Super Chats are still there, interesting.
	But if people in the chat can confirm, are Super Chats still there?
	Why do I not see StreamYard?
	Okay, bringing this back up.
	Let me know, people, if the Super Chats are still there, but I don't care about that.
	They're watching.
	So that's Russia.
	That's Ukraine.
	Anyone can call you whatever name you want.
	If you do not consider yourself...
	In the slightest, smarter or more informed after having watched this, write it off for whatever side propaganda you want.
	But you can hear someone's perspective, someone's information.
	You can go do a little more digging and see that if you think Barnes is a liar and can be proven false, go ahead and do it.
	Otherwise, whatever.
	You can't super chat.
	I see two super chats.
	Yeah, but that's old.
	Super chats are down.
	Okay.
	Well, that's too bad.
	That's interesting.
	That speaks volumes.
	Given all the controversial topics we've covered, the one YouTube is most obsessed with censoring is any independent perspective that challenges the institutional narrative on this conflict.
	And that should tell people all they really need to know.
	If they're in the right, why are they so terrified to have any independent voice be heard at all?
	And that's why we set up.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com is because this day is coming.
	Overnight, they shut down ordinary Russians' access to a wide range of big tech.
	Big media has been colluding with this.
	Hollywood has been colluding with this really for years.
	Watch any film, who's the bad guy?
	Almost always a Russian.
	So this has been a constant, continuous campaign, and you have to wonder why.
	Is it really because they so deeply care about the Ukrainian people that they've let them be more impoverished than they ever have?
	I mean, is that their motivation or something else at foot?
	Well, forget that even.
	I would like anyone to pull out one controversial statement or fact that we've discussed tonight.
	Yeah, it says Super Chat.
	Some Rumble rants are still up so people can go over to Rumble and watch.
	If you want a Super Chat, go to Rumble and do it.
	Do that?
	I don't even care.
	This is not about the ability to.
	It's phenomenally fascinating.
	Speaking of which...
	It's a form of censorship.
	On Rumble Chats, on Rumble Rants, Facts Matters says $100 Rumble Rant.
	Hey, YouTube, kiss my ASS.
	Kneeboops says, tell everyone to never use YouTube.
	Always Rumble.
	Talix.
	Best meme master on earth says, any long-term effects on other countries trusting the West to do biz with all of these companies targeting Russian citizens for virtue points?
	That's a good point.
	From a realpolitik perspective, that's my biggest problem with all this.
	It puts Russia aligned with China.
	It creates a parallel structure that empowers China.
	And there might be some benefits to that parallel structure.
	But the fact that China is the principal beneficiary, I think, is not politically wise or sage.
	And there are a bunch of people who have pointed that out.
	The other aspect is you're an idiot now to invest in America or the West.
	Because you now know the moment you become persona non grata, even if you're just...
	In a country, you're just a citizen of the country.
	You have nothing to do with the decision.
	They can strip you of all your rights overnight.
	If you're a central bank, you're an idiot to put your money in the Federal Reserve or any Western bank because they'll steal it whenever they want.
	I mean, these are people that are so accustomed to power, they don't understand the second order consequences of their exercise of this power.
	Even if you think something should be done in this conflict, ask yourself, what's going to be the, what next when you do it?
	Because we haven't been paying attention to that for 30 years.
	And that's why we have disasters in the Middle East, disasters in Afghanistan, and now disasters in Europe.
	Robert, I'm tweeting live.
	I'm just going to ask them.
	YouTube, what gives?
	Let me see.
	It says, question team YouTube, why did you age restrict tonight's stream?
	And be monetizing.
	I don't even understand it.
	Like, oh, sorry, there's 15,000 people watching.
	I'm sure it's in YouTube's best interest to do that.
	It makes total sense.
	Okay, I don't care.
	I don't want anyone thinking this is about monetary stuff.
	No, but it's a method of censorship because a lot of independent voices won't cover something that they believe that they can't, you know, for a lot of independent YouTubers.
	This is their main means of economic support.
	And so the goal of demonetizing is a form of censorship.
	Also demonetizing makes sure it doesn't come up in the algorithm it feeds.
	So this is designed to suppress any independent information.
	And if you believe you're gung-ho, you know Putin's, the definition of evil, he's the next Hitler, he's the next Stalin, and this is a righteous war, and Zelensky is one of the great heroes of all time, ask yourself, why do they not want you to hear independent opinions?
	I can't even keep up with the Rumble rants now, Robert.
	The only thing I wish is that they were integrated with StreamYard, but I think that's coming.
	To Rumble's credit, you know, Rumble kept our T up.
	They're like, well, we're not censoring based on political content.
	It ain't happening.
	It says, kiss it YouTube from ARC Crime Attorney.
	We got Britt Cormier.
	Welcome back, Britt.
	It says, speech dollar equals speech.
	SCOTUS says so.
	YouTube is killing my free speech.
	Because there's too many to keep up with.
	That's the basis of it.
	That's why billionaires can spend whatever amount they want, which I agree with that First Amendment principle.
	But, you know, I mean, it's extraordinary where it's being applied and where it's not.
	But speaking of people committing crimes, the Wisconsin Special Counsel had a very interesting election report this week.
	Please, Robert, go on.
	I've done most of my homework, but there's a few decisions you send me.
	I tune out after a page, and I know I'm not going to get to it.
	Explain what's going on in this decision.
	So the Wisconsin State Legislature appointed a special counsel to investigate what happened in Wisconsin in 2020.
	They chose one of the most well-respected legal minds in Wisconsin, a former Supreme Court justice.
	Now, you wouldn't know that from the institutional media that's been busy smearing him this week, but that's his background.
	He did a full investigation, and he confirmed some things that Richard Barris and I, a people's pundit, I'll be on the show tomorrow, Monday, to talk about this and some other things.
	I'm sure that'll get demonetized before it starts.
	It's already demonetized, Robert.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're going in there right now.
	Richard Barris, another person who has military experience, military background, and has been highly critical of what's been taking place in terms of the hysteria to support this war.
	And he comes from the Realpolitik Realism School.
	That is where Nixon, Reagan, and Trump heavily borrowed from.
	And that means you look at the world as it is, not as you would like it to be.
	And look at the second order consequences before you go in and make any first decision.
	And they follow it to varying degrees of consistency.
	But, you know, I come from the same school.
	Mearsheimer, who made a great presentation about Ukraine back at the University of Chicago, who now they're trying to block.
	The schools are demanding that because he has a politically realistic view of the Ukraine conflict in the political realpolitik perspective, that he must be kicked out and must be denied future positions there.
	It tells you the mindset of these people.
	But the Wisconsin Supreme Court report, very detailed, and what it showed is the things that Richard and I were talking about.
	Quite impressively.
	They've only looked at about 100 or so nursing homes in Wisconsin.
	They haven't got to all of them.
	But just the 30 that they looked at in Milwaukee, which doesn't cover all in Milwaukee, had the most impressive turnout.
	I mean, it wasn't as good as some Tennessee places back in the day.
	Back in the day...
	We could get over 100% turnout, which was always impressive.
	When you get more people to vote, like some Detroit precincts found out in 2016 when they shut down that recount, brought by Jill Stein, but really for Hillary Clinton, and they had to shut it down because Detroit precincts had more votes than voters.
	That's never good, folks.
	Turned out in Wisconsin, they had 100% nursing home turnout.
	100%.
	Even people who had guardians.
	Apparently, they voted.
	Without their guardian present, people who had been designated incapacitated managed to vote.
	So they got everything but the dead to vote.
	And how did this happen?
	Well, he detailed it, and he called it one of the biggest election bribery schemes in American history.
	He calls it the Zuckerberg Five, that Mark Zuckerberg orchestrated a scheme to effectively, according to this report...
	Bribe the election officials of Wisconsin to change how the vote was done in violation of the rules that govern the Wisconsin election to secure this outcome.
	With the entire objective, Wisconsin law is clear.
	It says an election official cannot take money to influence who votes, to influence how many people vote, to influence how they vote.
	And that's exactly what they did.
	$5.8 million, according to the report, funneled in from the Zuckerberg Five, so that these election officials would ignore the rules and make sure that they got this 100% nursing home turnout.
	And if you think all those people were just honestly, and by every mean, like how they got the ballot, who checked the ballot, who...
	Help them fill out the ballot.
	Who helped them send back the ballot.
	How the ballot was sent back.
	All of it was in violation of Wisconsin rules.
	So it wasn't just they took money to influence the vote, which by itself is election bribery in Wisconsin.
	It was they also violated the rules and the way in which these votes were calculated, cast, and counted, which is what I've been talking about.
	Hillsdale actually put up the speech now on YouTube because they think they can get it up there now about the...
	Three core constitutional violations of the election, which was who voted, how they voted, and how it was canvassed and counted.
	And he details everything that I was talking about all the way a year ago.
	He did the evidentiary investigation to prove it.
	He also details all the obstruction from the governor's office, from the Zuckerberg group, from the election officials at trying to prevent him from getting this information and getting it out to the world.
	Am I on mute?
	Hold on.
	No, no, I just heard you.
	Okay, good.
	No, I was just saying there was a chat that said my channel's fine, people.
	It says channel not affected.
	Visibility, 18 and over only.
	And I left my shirt on.
	I thought at the very least, Robert, if I was going to have an 18 and over stream, at least I would get naked.
	I guess that's not going to happen tonight.
	I'll appeal that afterwards.
	So what's the outcome?
	What's going to be the actual practical impact of the decision?
	So he goes through how they could actually decertify the results, though that would be mostly symbolic.
	It would have no legally or constitutionally consequential effect, but it would have a prophylactic effect.
	And the election law reforms the legislature needs to pass in order to prevent this from happening again.
	And so it's to reinforce these rules, and there really needs to be enforcement action.
	This Democratic governor of Wisconsin won't do it, but he may be gone.
	After 2022.
	And so there should be criminal prosecution of these election officials and of the conspiracy that involved Mark Zuckerberg.
	To me, Zuckerberg and his group, and his affiliated group, committed criminal law violations according to this report.
	And it appears to be pretty basic criminal law violations.
	Some of those only apply to the elected officials themselves rather than Zuckerberg, but some of them do.
	And clearly he was part of a conspiracy to do it.
	So it looks like Zuckerberg was a major criminal in what he did in Wisconsin.
	And I'm sure Wisconsin wasn't the only one.
	Well, I guess on the subject of Zuckerberg and meta criminal behavior, Roberts, they settled this class action lawsuit that dated back a decade about unlawful, or I guess it has to be unlawful, not illegal, because it was a civil action data collection, a $90 million settlement, which is...
	Not even a drop in the bucket.
	It's not even a thorn in the side.
	But apparently it's one of the biggest class action settlements in American history.
	Is it actually?
	Because $90 million doesn't sound like that much.
	I mean, not to a certain degree.
	But this is only one piece of all the class actions they face.
	So what's happening is, if you can get past a motion to dismiss for all their privacy invasions, for all their...
	Consumer lies and deceptions, then you have a good chance of getting a settlement out of them because they're guilty as heck.
	And this is just one little piece of that.
	And there's a bunch of other suits pending and a bunch of other class action cases pending in all the other ways that they've been violating rights, whether it was monetizing little kids' information to tracking you illicitly without your notice or knowledge against what they told you to other forms of invasion of privacy, biometric measurements they weren't supposed to be taking and using and face photos and the rest.
	They've been involved in...
	These are basically criminal organizations at this point.
	They've been in mass criminal organizations committing mass criminal laws.
	And some of the law is starting to catch up to them a little bit.
	But so, I mean, I read through the decision.
	Well, no, I didn't.
	The decision itself was just to.
	It gave notice.
	It gave notice of the settlement.
	But the lawsuit itself basically was to the effect that if you clicked on the like button or the thumbs up button, Facebook would start tracking your information even when you logged out.
	For someone who's a total tech noob, I don't even understand how that works.
	How does that work?
	How do they track info?
	And what useful information are they tracking once you've logged out?
	Well, I'll use the old joke that if you've liked five things on Facebook, Facebook knows you as well as a friend.
	If you've liked 10 things on Facebook, Facebook knows you as well as a family member.
	If you've liked 25 things more on Facebook, Facebook knows you better than your wife.
	Now, add to that that they're tracking every website you visit.
	They're tracking other information.
	They tried to integrate their messenger service with text so that they actually had all of your text.
	And they found ways to basically illicitly and secretly monetize every single thing about you without you knowing it and directly against what they told you was taking place.
	And they've done this in a wide range of contexts, including children, including using biometric information and so forth.
	And this is just one little sliver of the legal risk that they face, but it's additional proof that these were just mass criminal organizations.
	That's what they really were.
	And they helped steal the 2020 elections, since we're demonetized, why not say that?
	They helped fortify it.
	There's another F word.
	My mama says not to use that I would use.
	In order to help facilitate their ongoing illicit activity.
	And they're happy to be part of the deep state apparatus in shutting off access to almost 150 million Russian people.
	Which, as you know, that might not be all bad to no longer have access to TikTok and Twitter.
	But speaking of somebody else who got caught, Twitter had a Ninth Circuit ruling involving Attorney General Paxson from Texas, who was doing an investigation of whether they were systematically violating their consumer laws by lying to people about what their terms of service really are.
	Ah, Please elaborate, Robert, because that was not one that I've done my homework on.
	So they basically Twitter tried to stop a subpoena from being issued by the Texas attorney general as to whether or not Twitter was violating the consumer fraud laws of Texas, which is under his jurisdiction, by lying to people about how they're actually implementing and administering their terms of service and whether or not they are lying to people about what their terms of service actually is.
	They withdrew the case to federal court.
	Then they got it transferred all the way over to California.
	Then it went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And the Ninth Circuit said...
	They said, it's not ripe yet.
	You haven't proven a bunch of things, and you can argue these things as defenses in a Texas court and appropriate proceeding to a subpoena.
	But they made some other statements.
	They said, but by the way, you have no First Amendment right to lie to people, because that was Twitter's other argument.
	If you've been lying to people about your terms of service, that your terms of service are not what your terms of service really are, that there's this gap between administration and enforcement and what it says on paper, then you're absolutely subject to the consumer fraud laws and can be sued or people can criminally investigate you based on it because it would be a crime under various state laws.
	So those statements coming from the Ninth Circuit, no less, I'm sure shook up Twitter a little bit, but it was a very good ruling.
	Again, thanks to the Texas Attorney General faces a runoff election in Texas for bringing that case.
	But it's established a precedent that now Alex Berenson is going to be using in his case against Twitter to say, see, the Ninth Circuit says misapplication of terms and services, not First Amendment protected, as Twitter is also claiming as a defense in his case.
	I don't think that us being lawyers, Robert...
	Well, I think it really thanks to the audience.
	It's like, I'm sure I would still be banned from Twitter, or off of Twitter, but for tons of people making a big stink about it on Twitter.
	And when they get exposed, they walk it back, not all the time, but at least a fair amount of time.
	It's a reminder of the power of the court of public opinion, which is critical.
	And just to attenuate what people might think that power is, people are like, oh, you don't want to piss off two intelligent lawyers with good connections.
	They de-platformed President Trump, the President of the United States of America.
	I don't think they care.
	They couldn't give a sweet bugger all about us.
	But maybe, I'll like to think, they know that we can wreak a lot more havoc because we might have a lot less to lose in terms of wreaking havoc.
	Superchats are definitely back up.
	My point was...
	Nevsky understood one of the great, my favorite, principles of Sun Tzu, which surprises people.
	The art of war.
	When the enemy is stronger, retreat.
	Retreat.
	You know, the Vikings say only wage war when the odds are with you.
	And what Nevsky's great genius was, was taking a knee when the Mongols came knocking at the door.
	And that's why the Russians and the Rus still exist.
	Because he'd seen what happened to the Kievan portion of the Rus empire and thought, I don't think that's a good idea.
	But it gives you an idea of the Russian mindset that he's still a hero, that you have Nevsky prospect, because they recognize sometimes it's another action.
	It's the same thing about the laws of war.
	If you go into a lot of documentaries about Putin...
	And whether you think it's hagiography or mythology or real biography, it's important because it reflects how Putin projects himself and his values to the Russian people, which will be a restraint in turn on what Russia does in this war.
	Which is, he gives a story of his grandfather in World War I, and he was involved in trench warfare.
	And an Austrian was pulled up about to shoot him.
	He got down, then he got up and he shot the Austrian first.
	And he heard the Austrian in great pain.
	So he went across from his trench.
	And went and bandaged up the Austrian before going back to his trench.
	The point is the fact that he would tell that story repeatedly as part of his hagiography tells you the kind of values that the Russian people believe the Russian government will enact in terms of other parts of the war.
	But some of these stories are important because it gives you a sense of whether you call it mythical narrative or biographical narrative or historical narrative, it shapes how people are going to perceive things moving forward and can act as a restraint on otherwise risky conduct.
	Robert, I know we moved on from the subject, but it's a legit question.
	If China invades Taiwan, could every U.S. company systematically cancel China like Russia, or just simply look the other way?
	Well, number one, it was amazing.
	Some of these people on Twitter and whatnot were saying, oh, China's a shithole country, and it's like...
	Whoa, I'm not a fan of China's politics, and I think they're a geopolitical risk to the United States and the civil liberties and other values that I adhere to, because I think they want to influence American policy.
	But I'm not dumb enough to recognize that the China economy of 1998, the Chinese economy of 2020, number one manufacturing country in the world, China.
	Number two economy in the world, China.
	You know, that's why we ain't turning off the spigot, China.
	It's because of how much production is there.
	How much we are tied in to the supply chain.
	People forgot during the pandemic how many supply chains broke down because the key ingredients, key good is made in China.
	You're going to use your computers that are made in China, your smartphones, to cut off China because of it.
	Now, the question is whether or not they're going to play that gambit and actually escalate.
	People should not underestimate the idiocy of the people ruling us.
	I haven't done it yet.
	I'm going to wait to see how it develops.
	And then maybe hop on.
	This is not Rona.
	I just inhaled...
	Okay, Robert.
	Going back to the intro about things I've learned over time.
	There's three subjects on which my opinion has been changed and attenuated over time.
	One of which is shmishmorshan.
	The other of which is sanctions.
	Because now I genuinely appreciate sanctions do nothing to the person you're trying to punish.
	They just try to...
	They just penalize innocent citizens.
	And the defense is one of two.
	People say we should be concerned about women and children that are dying in the war, in the conflict.
	It's like, well, I understand that, and I agree.
	But is our reaction to starve people, which is the official public...
	The official pitch is to starve and destroy the Russian economy, which means starving ordinary Russian people.
	How is that any better?
	Well, because, Robert, the argument is going to be you've got to get them to turn against their leader.
	And so, in my mind, targeting innocent civilians for political purposes has historically been the actual definition of shmarrism.
	But now they want to do it because they think they're morally justified to penalize a population as a whole because of the guilt of their leader.
	And that's also how you get into more serious things like schmanicide, which we won't get into.
	So I've changed my mind on sanctions.
	And it started not because of this.
	It actually started when people were saying, hey, Dave, do you support sanctions against Canada for what they're doing to citizens?
	How's that going to penalize Trudeau?
	He's got five houses.
	He can fly to Europe whenever he wants.
	He breaks the rules whenever he wants.
	How's that going to punish him?
	It's just going to punish me.
	Or not even, you know, I don't do anything.
	It'll punish people who actually want to live a life.
	I've changed my opinion.
	On the ultimate penalty, the death penalty.
	I've changed my opinion on it, not because I do not believe that people who are in fact guilty of the most heinous crimes should just be simply dispatched of.
	I've now lived long enough, Robert, you have not blackpilled me, but I've lived long enough to know that I know how the system works now, and I don't trust it to dole out justice 100% of the time, which is what you would need in order to believe in that system.
	And then the second argument is I always thought it was cheaper to impose the death penalty, but knowing that it's not, I would like to look at countries that I don't want to be like and say, what do they do?
	And if they do that, then maybe we don't do that.
	So I've changed my mind on this.
	As an adult, I might have also gotten tired and more sensitive.
	The Boston bomber, probably the quintessential example of an individual who might deserve it.
	The horror of that incident, Does not change my opinion.
	I still don't believe in it anymore for the reasons I elaborated.
	Even though I'm firmly confident in this particular case, it's warranted, justified, and appropriate.
	I've seen how the system works.
	And if you can't assure it to everybody, you can't assure it to anybody.
	You can't impose it on anybody.
	So he had his initial conviction for the death penalty overturned by the appeals court on the basis that...
	The trial judge excluded from jury consideration on deliberation of the penalty certain evidence.
	One element, I'm going to forget the other one.
	One would have attenuated his responsibility to show that his brother was the mastermind, exerted pressure on him.
	And I think the other element, correct me if I'm wrong, was a crime the brother had committed to show that he was truly the ringleader and influencer of the plot.
	So that...
	Life behind bars, but not the death penalty.
	The judge said, no, you're not getting that evidence in.
	Jury sentenced the way he's sentenced.
	Court of Appeals said, should have been admitted, re-sentencing.
	Supreme Court, and I think I was surprised by the split on this, but I'm not sure, said no overturning it and reinstating the original penalty.
	What is your takeaway from the process?
	Not just the Supreme Court decision, but from...
	The trial judge's decision to the appeals court to the Supreme Court decision.
	Yeah, and the other part of it was jury selection.
	The Court of Appeals thought there should be a prophylactic rule that every district court should follow pursuant to its supervisory authority in the way in which certain questions he should have asked that the defense attorneys requested.
	Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has done a lousy job protecting the right to a fair and impartial jury, and they continued that in this case.
	Though they detailed...
	This case had extensive individualized jury selection and had a lot of really good, robust jury selection.
	But in my view, it could have gone and should have gone further.
	I don't think the court of appeals necessarily had supervisory power in the way they did.
	I understand the Supreme Court's logic on that side of the equation.
	But the Supreme Court's done a lousy job of securing fair and impartial juries in the United States for quite some time.
	And this was a continuation of that.
	And I think in part because of how horrific.
	The crime was, I think there was a tendency of the Supreme Court to, you know, move the law in a way that secured his death penalty rather than, you know, enforcing the law itself, regardless of who the defendant is and what the crime is alleged to be.
	The similar one, the evidentiary standard, for those who don't know, death penalty stages usually bifurcate in the United States.
	First, you decide whether you're guilty, and then you have a death penalty jury after that.
	Or they decide the penalty.
	The prosecutions notoriously use this to get rid of jurors who will be sympathetic to the defense or skeptical of the government because they will be disproportionately disfavorable to the death penalty.
	So they're able to get any juror that's pro-death penalty or any juror that's anti-death penalty is disproportionately likely to be willing to second-guess the government in the prosecution of their case.
	And so this has always been a problem with the nature of the death penalty cases.
	I mean, obviously, I mean, I think from the evidence I've seen, I haven't researched it in much detail.
	You know, I understand why people felt good about him receiving the death penalty.
	I think the Supreme Court's decision was wrong on the law.
	I don't think that they were right.
	I think void the air jury selection could have been better.
	Why not make it better?
	Make a fair and impartial jury trial real, not just illusory.
	As it is in most federal courts in America.
	And I think some of those evidentiary issues, I didn't see any reason why they shouldn't have been introduced.
	The death penalty stage is supposed to be broad to give you a whole, that stage of the case.
	It may not be relevant to trial.
	It should be relevant to the death penalty sanction to get the whole context.
	And you should give a robust defense presentation on that because his life is on the line.
	And so I didn't agree with the Supreme Court on that either.
	But it's where they went.
	And I think the horrific nature of the crime.
	I led the court in the direction it did more than constitutional principle, in my view.
	What was the split on that decision?
	Do you remember?
	I'm now remembering off the top of my head.
	Okay.
	And then, by the way, someone said, read some Rumble Rants.
	Let me just go back to Rumble Rants.
	You got TJR Shredder says, Cam from YouTube.
	Don't know what that means.
	Third generation Canuck.
	I know what that means.
	Global air travel.
	Going back to Soviet days when Russia bans overflights between Europe and Asia.
	Add another day plus to travel plans.
	People, unless you're an elitist with a private jet, swift reaction.
	Okay?
	And we got Facts Matter, YouTube Kiss My Tushy.
	You got another one, Kiss My Tushy.
	A lot of Kiss My Tushys on Rumble Rants.
	YouTube Kiss My Tushy.
	Okay, I mean...
	Now, the other Supreme Court decisions were of an equal...
	Now, those also had unique splits.
	But it turns out state secrets just protects the government from anything they've done wrong, including torture, the abuse of any and every imaginable right.
	As long as the government can say, state secret, state secret, magically people's rights and remedies disappear.
	So, Robert, that one decision, I didn't understand the split in the SCOTUS.
	Because it sounds like the dissenting agreed in part with the majority, but just not to the extent.
	But this is a dude, I mean, a Middle Eastern Muslim individual by the name, who's been still detained in Guantanamo.
	That's what I didn't understand.
	Which, by the way, that's because he's not a prisoner of war, you see.
	The way they escape the Geneva Convention is they say, no, he's a...
	Terrorist, not a prisoner of war so we don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention.
	That's why America lecturing Russia is just ridiculous.
	I mean, it's just we're not in a position as a government to lecture anybody related to anything related to war.
	Period.
	Let me get my lips still.
	I see my lips are chapped.
	This is not a whataboutism.
	I'm reading the SCOTUS decision and I'm like...
	Did they just say he's still being detained from 2001 in Guantanamo?
	And people, you want to talk about...
	It's not a whataboutism.
	It's about standards, hypocrisy, lying, deceit, and government abuse.
	If we're against torture, we have to be against torture.
	If we're against illegal imprisonment, we have to be against illegal imprisonment.
	If we're for the Geneva Convention, we have to be for the Geneva Convention.
	We can't just say, it applies to everybody else, but not us.
	And this individual had been...
	He had been smorchered.
	He had been subdued, not subdued, I'm sorry, rather subjected to...
	Multiple renditions, multiple secret detention centers around the world.
	And this had even come out in public opinion.
	It was known where he had been illegally detained.
	And they're not allowing the suit to go for the Supreme Court because they said, even though it's in the court of information is publicly available, you still can't use it if the government says, state secret.
	So this individual was, he was...
	Mistreated.
	Apparently, 80 waterboarding sessions.
	Probably a very bad guy, by the way.
	I'm not justifying the guy, but that doesn't justify our treatment.
	Well, but first of all, I'd like to see him convicted so that I can know that he's guilty in law and not just suspected.
	But when they say subjected to 80 waterboarding sessions, he's still there.
	He's still in prison.
	They said something called, I never heard of it, rectal hydration, Robert.
	Do you know what that is?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I'm not going to detail it.
	I still don't know what it is, but this is the torture that the individual...
	Sorry.
	This is the enhanced interrogation tactics.
	That's their euphemism.
	Like quarantine hotels, people.
	It's a hotel.
	But the government's putting you there.
	When we bomb people and kill a bunch of kids, it's collateral damage.
	You know, anybody else does it, it's a war crime.
	We do it, collateral damage.
	Like we didn't have to understand.
	I mean, Biden just bombed an innocent family that he got completely wrong.
	Did nothing about it.
	That was only the first bad state secret decision.
	The second bad state secret decision...
	Hold on, we didn't get there yet.
	So this individual was in Guantanamo and then apparently had been subjected to the enhanced interrogation tactics in Poland.
	Now, I don't even know, was he suing for damages or just for information, access to information about...
	Both.
	And then they said, we're...
	Shutting down your lawsuit, because in order to continue, it would require disclosing state secrets, such as the locations of our secret bases in Poland, which we're using to enhance, interrogate Middle Easterners that were seized and put into Guantanamo.
	But then, how did they get from Guantanamo to Poland, Robert?
	I don't even understand it.
	They should watch or read the book, Most Wanted Man, by John le Carre.
	The degree of illegal renditions we were doing, which, by the way, some of those renditions were only outed because of a bunch of airplane nerds in America and around the world.
	They're these nerds that love to track flights, and they track the numbers in the flights, and they track where they go, and they do it just to track it, like birdwatchers.
	And it turned out they accidentally stumbled across rendition flights, including CIA rendition flights that were not supposed to be happening in the United States of America.
	You know, it's named like World Imports.
	It's always some name like that.
	But they were partially the part of the people that unearthed a lot of this.
	But yeah, it's extraordinary.
	I mean, it used to be there's three exceptions.
	I'm not a big State Secrets fan.
	I agree with Julian Assange.
	The only reason why we know about...
	So many horrible things we did over the last 10 years.
	The only reason why we know the State Department knew the actions we were taking in Ukraine would lead to a Russian assault on Ukraine is because of a State Department cable from 2008 that predicted it for the CIA in detail.
	We only know about that because of Julian Assange.
	We only know about a lot of the abuses and torture that took place because of Julian Assange.
	And Julian Assange's point, kind of like the movie...
	Sneakers about the power and the problem of secrets, you know, no more secrets, is that the nature of secrets is what allows the state to do the most horrendous things they do.
	Unfortunately, our courts go to great lengths to protect it, but it had been if it was open source public information, if it was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, if it was subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the civil remedies under it, then the state secrets defense wouldn't hold up.
	Supreme Court got it all three this week and said, nope, state secrets trump FISA, state secrets trump FOIA, state secrets trump even open record, open source information.
	But, Rob, I mean, I've got to ask, it's the dumb question from the dumb Canuck in the basement.
	All crimes committed by the state are by definition, logistically, logically, are going to be state secrets.
	Where do you go from there?
	These secrets ain't in the Constitution.
	And if somebody wants to put it in there, they can put it in there.
	Until they put it in there, it has no business being there, in my view.
	And it should be extremely limited if it's going to be applied at all.
	And we just have it to swallow up, to hide all their lies, to hide all their deception, to hide all their horrific treatment.
	Here, involving cases of torture, in cases of illegal rendition, cases of kidnapping, in cases of basic human rights violations, and in the other.
	Another case, illegal searches, illegal seizures, illegal targeting, being illegally blacklisted.
	They're covering up the worst American government crimes by this corrupt Supreme Court that cares more about protecting the Pentagon than protecting the Constitution.
	But Robert, were the two dissenters in this alleged...
	Yeah, or Gorsuch and Sotomayor.
	Yeah, but this is the funny thing.
	It's not a question of...
	Is it a question of partisan?
	We're like, okay, I'll look at Sotomayor.
	No, Mr. Gorsuch is a pure libertarian type on civil liberties.
	He's much closer to that.
	They still approve state secrets more than I would.
	And Sotomayor comes from the left.
	It's kind of like what we're seeing in the war debate.
	It's the anti-war left and the anti-war libertarians that are getting the best intel and information out there because they've been studying it as long as possible and are the most resistant, the most immune.
	Natural immunity, you might say, which, by the way, more studies prove this week is better than the vaccine, but the natural immunity that was revealed to the deep state propaganda and the media hysteria.
	And so it wasn't a terrible shock knowing that those were the two.
	There are places where the justices on the left are better than the average justice on the right.
	State secrets is one of those.
	Military context issues is one of those.
	And credit to Gorsuch, who was like, this is...
	We're pretending something is not true that we all know is true.
	This is ridiculous to be doing it this way.
	This is taking state secrets beyond where it needs to be.
	And I agree with him.
	But he was not in the majority.
	It's empowering the shadow of government.
	This book by Tom Englehart with Glenn Greenwald and others.
	Small, little, thin book.
	Highly recommend it.
	It's legally immunizing it from meaningful judicial and jury review and inspection.
	This has been up for a long time.
	Sorry, I'll look it up.
	Thank you very much.
	What was the second one?
	The second one, I forgot now where they were.
	It was whether FISA and FOIA provided exceptions to the state secrets, and they said, nope.
	And here again, they went out of their way to do it.
	Congress didn't include that.
	So they're borrowing things that Congress didn't impose.
	Why?
	Because they want to protect the national security state at all costs.
	And that's the problem.
	That's what leads to these kind of problematic...
	I mean, Julian Assange's whole point, and the reason why the national security state hates him, deep state, call it whatever you want, is because his whole point is these people can only commit their crimes through secrecy.
	Get rid of secrecy, you get rid of the criminals in government.
	And that's why, and what the Supreme Court did, sadly, this week, was empower those criminals to keep their crimes secret.
	You meant government, Robert.
	It empowered the government.
	By the way, Pudge came down the stairs, and there's a lot of stairs.
	Pudge managed to get herself down like 14 stairs.
	It was two streams ago.
	I think it was with...
	Jacob Wells from Give, Send, Go on Friday night.
	Speaking of keeping secrets, criminal secrets in particular, the first batch of documents came out from the Freedom of Information Act brought by the Informed Consent Action Network with Attorney Aaron Seary, S-I-R-I.
	Over 10,000 are publicly available for review, and people were shocked just at this initial tranche of documents disclosed.
	There's tens and tens of thousands more to come.
	Which reveal in detail what my whistleblower suit, Brooke Jackson, in part hinted at and detailed part of, which is that the number of side effects was far.
	It just goes on page after page after page.
	Robert, the meme or the talking point for anyone who heard of this news, because it's interesting.
	There's a lot of other things that are taking up the media's time.
	That there were nine pages, or I think it was nine pages.
	Was it of documented side effects or of potential side effects?
	It's just like this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one.
	So the nine pages were documented side effects by people who participated, not potential side effects, although that might be a stupid question.
	Okay.
	And by the way, I've recently started, not recently, two days ago was jogging on a treadmill in front of a TV with commercials.
	It was the Weather Network and I was watching Weird Earth or Weird Planet.
	But Robert, every commercial break had a pharmaceutical company advertising a medication.
	One was for MS, one was for cancer, one was for something else.
	But now I'm stupid for not even putting this together beforehand.
	When they list the potential side effects in any generic ad, is that because those are actual side effects that people in the study group have experienced?
	Usually, definitely.
	Definitely.
	Because they want to keep that list as short as possible.
	So it's documented that people have had these side effects.
	And even then, they try to claim that the side effect is not.
	They go out of their way to find an excuse why they don't have to list it.
	Say, well, that the particular drug didn't cause it is usually where they go.
	And so this list was a shocking list of detail.
	And it sure wasn't disclosed when Pfizer was promoting it to the stock market in their SEC report.
	I dream memes.
	I like your avatar.
	I'm going to have to look up what rectal hydration is because I was in the decision.
	I could not get over how many pharmaceutical ads I was watching.
	And they're beyond 30-second ads.
	They're like one minute or 90-second ads.
	The other thing that came out is that Fox and Newsmax were taking money to promote the vaccines from government-related entities in ways beyond just the regular advertising.
	It might explain some of their political coverage.
	Hold on a second.
	Viva, lose...
	Oh, I understand.
	I agree with death penalty in principle.
	The question is the worry about that an innocent person will be killed in the process.
	Now, we've seen the way the system works, and you know that the system can't be trusted, so I don't trust them anymore to dole out the ultimate of penalties.
	I mean, I'm from Tennessee.
	I'm all for death penalties.
	In principle.
	Does that mean I trust the government's going to kill the right people?
	Uh-uh.
	And then here's the biggest thing.
	You don't ask the victim what the punishment should be.
	And there's no doubt that the victims might be amenable to punishing people who they suspect of being responsible.
	So you don't ask the victim to dole out the punishment.
	But in the ideal universe, you know, like certain cases, absolutely.
	But you can't do it that way.
	So that's the only reason.
	And by the way, I would never ask the victim of anything to adjudicate on the punishment for their aggressor.
	I wouldn't do it because that's not how the system can work properly.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to bring that one up.
	Robert, when I see those ads, I mean, I got to harp on the pharma ads for a second.
	I see money laundering because you basically have...
	Big Pharma buying up big airtime because they were not 30-second ads.
	They were like 60, 90 seconds on Weather Network, Fox News.
	I don't get news back, so I can't speak to that.
	They buy up the airtime.
	They say, here's your money, and then we're going to take another portion.
	First of all, why are pharmaceutical companies allowed to advertise in the first place?
	Doctors prescribe.
	Why are they advertising to the end user?
	Well, I mean, that's always been controversial at different levels.
	I mean, they have, obviously, commercial free speech rights.
	So there's that aspect against what the FDA limits in terms of what they can and can't say, though they have not done that in the vaccine context of note.
	But you can show its efficacy by the opioid settlement this week.
	You know, they're going to write a couple of, you know, six, seven billion dollar check that only partially covers the damage those opioids caused over the past several decades.
	Sorry, I didn't want to leave that up.
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	I just lost.
	I lost this.
	The Rittenhouse case changed my opinion of the death penalty.
	That might be the paradigm example.
	Lord knows.
	But for documentary evidence, live streamers and independent journalists, and the most highly, not politicized rather, but scrutinized trial of all time, any day of the week, that would have been, well, hey, that's it.
	He did it.
	Interesting jury verdicts.
	The police officer and the Breonna...
	I remember we got a lot of criticism when we just pushed back on the Breonna Taylor narrative that came out and said it wasn't quite where it was.
	A key police officer...
	Now, I haven't followed the case in detail.
	Law of self-defense, Andrew Branca, does.
	He often...
	When he livestreams with Nick Ricada, they often...
	He has a very New York sense of humor.
	And, you know, Nick has to cover his face when he's laughing at the latest politically incorrect joke from Andrew Bronco.
	But he does a great breakdown of both the popcorn case, self-defense case that led to acquittals, and the Breonna Taylor case.
	The police officer also acquitted in Louisville.
	Notice the media had almost no coverage of it because those cases don't support their narrative as to what took place there or, in the other case, support what the outcome they wanted to have happen.
	But both interesting acquittals in those cases.
	And I don't know enough detail about them, but they do suggest the media narrative that came out about both cases was not what the jury saw.
	Well, so the only one I'm more familiar with, I'm not familiar with the Breonna Taylor outcome, except to say that that's a nuanced...
	That was very much weaponized like other nuanced situations are weaponized into black and white.
	The popcorn shooter didn't follow it at the time.
	And when I heard the details, I'm like, how did it even get to this point in the first place?
	It's so funny.
	There's the expression, an armed society is a polite society.
	And when you assault someone, you actually punch them in the face or you strike them in the face.
	When was it you said you...
	You've relinquished your right to live, and it's just a question of whether or not you actually live past that.
	But when you punch someone in the face in a state where you know concealed carry is always an option, and even if it's not, if you punch someone in the face, you're basically taking your chances.
	The popcorn shooter, knowing the details, that the individual was loud on the phone, caused the guy who was carrying a concealed weapon to go get the manager.
	Manager comes in.
	Guy, you know, he puts his phone away.
	He says, look, if I knew you were going to put your phone away, I would have never gone to get the manager.
	Kerfuffle ensues, but there's actual physical assault on the elderly gentleman who's 65 or over, which entitles him to certain defenses.
	When you punch someone in the face, you are taking your chances with your own destiny.
	For right or for wrong, especially in a place where people are allowed to carry concealed firearms.
	And the individual was a former police officer or something along those lines, which would explain...
	The efficiency with which he dealt with the risk to his physical integrity.
	So knowing all of that, the acquittal seems more obvious or at the very least as predictable as Rittenhouse.
	But I don't know how the media spun it at the time because I don't know demographics.
	I don't know the ethnicities.
	I know nothing of the details of the individuals, which might play a factor.
	So the guy assaults someone in a movie theater, punches him in the face or strikes him with his phone.
	Video footage of it.
	And then it gets shot.
	Don't punch people in the face.
	Period.
	Same thing with going back to the other one that we did.
	What was it?
	The guy on the bike who got cut off by the...
	But Breonna Taylor, I don't know enough.
	So maybe we'll get it later.
	Robert, we've gone over our time frame.
	Have we gotten to everything that we were supposed to get to tonight?
	What side drama that we had?
	The only other big one is the Cawthorn.
	Case.
	As predicted last week, he won this week in court.
	So the court said that the 14th Amendment included a provision to disqualify for future federal office anybody who, while they held a state or federal office, basically swore an oath and joined the Confederacy.
	And it wasn't very long afterwards that they passed multiple...
	Now, the constitutional amendment itself said Congress could remove that bar.
	And Congress did for one group of people not long after the amendment's passed.
	And part of it was they passed a broad amnesty across the board,
	and the court determined that that amnesty provision meant That there is no power existing within the 14th Amendment to use someone's so-called insurrection to bar them from federal office, period.
	That that ended it all the way back in the early, late part of the 19th century, 1880s.
	That has an important ruling for all of Mark Elias' attempts.
	The Democratic lawyer has been bragging about how he's going to use that provision to keep a bunch of Republicans off the ballot or deny them being seated in Congress in the next Congress.
	That court said that provision is just DOA off the charts, which is the right way.
	I think the correct interpretation and what we forecast last week.
	So Cawthorn will be on the ballot without any problems in North Carolina.
	Viva, you two are lawyers since you already went over the two hours we have paid for a third.
	Well, no, I once knew a lawyer who had...
	Per minute billing.
	Per minute.
	I read that on the website.
	I was reading per minute because I didn't even understand how that works in law.
	Robert, was there a Snoop Dogg case that we had to talk about?
	Yeah, well, there's a couple.
	Snoop Dogg is being sued for assault.
	He's moving to dismiss on the grounds that the allegations are so incredulous they shouldn't even get to the discovery stage.
	And Snoop Dogg is suing Uber Eats over a range of issues.
	But we can probably pick that up in a week that we have a little less activity.
	Yeah, well, and I'll say this for everyone watching right now and for YouTube.
	Thank you for rectifying the problem in real time.
	This video may still get demonetized.
	That I could understand, but I would still disagree with it.
	But age-restricted and shutting off the super chat, thank you for remedying that.
	The reason I'm saying this is so that it's on the record in real time that YouTube addressed the problem and that no one from W5 Global News can say Viva Frye is so controversial.
	That a live stream was actually age-restricted and Super Chat shut off.
	Thank you for remedying that, YouTube.
	No joke.
	And which brings me to one other issue.
	The W5 thing?
	I don't think I'm going to sue for defamation.
	And I'll tell you why.
	I can see what a judge in the Canadian court system would say because I've heard it before.
	We don't like justiciables.
	We don't like citizens using the court system to prove points.
	I know that I'm right.
	I know the W5 corrected even by stealth edit, deceptive stealth edit, correcting their initial false statements.
	You get in front of a judge and the judge says, what are your damages?
	Are we here to prove a point and we don't like it if there are no real damages and you're just here for questions of principle?
	Robert, is it the same thing in the US?
	Like the judges just say, we don't like questions of principle.
	Keep your principle out of the court.
	It's for the law and for real damages or are they a little more litigious?
	Well, it's really just more political.
	That's what tends to happen.
	There's a couple of other cases that we'll get in maybe more detail down the road to explain, but a landlord has been sued for not renting to criminals, and a group of liberals tried to sue on the grounds that gentrification equals racial discrimination to prevent a project.
	That was shut down.
	But the courts have come to the rescue in some cases of climate change and shutting down oil leases and have demanded that grizzly bears and wolves, gray wolves, be out and about in a couple of APA cases.
	But we'll get to those in more detail when more time avails.
	All right.
	Now, Wednesday night, Robert, we have...
	Lynn Westover.
	Lynn Westover, who is Allison Morrow's husband.
	Military vet.
	Is he still in the military?
	No, no.
	He does a lot of training of police officers and other people.
	He's done very high-end, you know, threat recognition of, you know, does almost kind of like body language kind of stuff.
	But spent, I think, about a dozen years, if I recall correctly, in the military.
	Trains, you know, special forces, special units, everybody.
	You know, after that time period.
	Was twice, I think, in Afghanistan.
	Twice, in fact, in Iraq.
	So has real military conflict experience.
	And can give a soldier's perspective, in part, on what's taking place in Ukraine, more so than the sort of legal and political side, understanding what that terrain looks like and all the problems and all the things that can go sideways and so on and so forth.
	Viva Frye, do you remember what BDE stands for?
	No, because I thought it said BDS, and now I'm going to have to go look up what BDE means.
	If we've gone over it before, I'm sure I'm in trouble.
	Okay, good.
	Go to the Simcast.
	I don't know what that is.
	Okay, with that said, everybody, thank you very much.
	We'll keep up the pressure on YouTube.
	Even in an era of politicized corruption, it's still possible to keep entities honest, hopefully.
	With that said, though, Rumble is the place for actual uncensored free speech, and we might have a Rumble exclusive sooner than later.
	Wednesday's going to be good.
	Tomorrow, just to give you a heads up for the week.
	Tomorrow, I'm going to probably have a lawyer who's going to be sitting in on the hearing, the reading of the judgment for Tamara Lich, whose bail hearing...
	Oh my God, we didn't get to the Canadian stuff.
	Tomorrow.
	Tamara Lich is still in jail on mischief charges.
	The judge is reading the decision at 2 o 'clock tomorrow.
	I'm going to try to get a live stream with someone who's going to be in, watching the live stream because they have it limited to 500.
	That's tomorrow.
	Tuesday, Robert, do we have any of the journalists in Ukraine?
	I mean, that's Gonzalo Lira.
	We're going to try to set it up on whatever his schedule works.
	So we'll see if he's able to.
	People called the YouTube page for him as Coach Red Pill.
	And again, he's on the ground in Harkov.
	I may be mispronouncing it, mispronunciating it, as I like to say.
	But he's on the ground in Kiev and really has a unique perspective.
	You don't have to agree with all of his arguments and theories, but he's actually on the ground and has been in Ukraine for quite some time.
	So you get a different, distinct perspective there.
	And then I'll be with Richard Barris tomorrow.
	At 2. Yeah, at 2, yeah.
	2 Eastern time, thereabouts, on the People's Pundit.
	Breaking down a bunch of data in polling and not only the Wisconsin report, but also we'll go in through a lot of the Russian history, polling history, economic, social history, some aspects of the Ukraine to give some context.
	And, you know, people can use that information however they want, but the goal is to get data and information to them for those purposes.
	And then Wednesday will be Lynn Westover.
	And I'll be at the live chat later at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I can't use that.
	I'm not going to be able to use that soundbite because I pulled up a chat that I didn't want to.
	Yes, we do.
	Okay.
	I'll try to pop in as well, Robert.
	If we get Coach Red Pill and it's 9 o 'clock Eastern, is 6 o 'clock your time too early?
	I may or may not be on.
	I may let you do that one.
	If it's just me or Robert joins in late, don't judge us.
	I need to speak with a journalist on the ground in the Ukraine.
	Because I cannot and will not be there.
	Robert, this was phenomenal.
	Great drama.
	Great progression.
	Great resolution.
	It's a three-part play.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Stay tuned for another big week.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Thank you for agreeing and disagreeing with us.
	Clip away.
	Live chat in vivabarneslaw.locals.com Have a good night, people.

▲