Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:25:13

Ep. 105: Smollett, Project Veritas, Ukraine, Vax Mandates, Jan 6 & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm such an idiot.
	I blew the intro.
	Now, I hear myself echo, and I'm going to hear myself echo in like 30 seconds, and I don't know where it's coming from.
	Yeah, there you go.
	It's here twice.
	Okay.
	I don't know if you heard that, but that was me echoing in my own brain.
	Good evening, everyone.
	No Winston this time.
	Apparently, people are eating dinner, and he's more interested in food than coming downstairs.
	What's the protocol on wearing other people's merch?
	During your own live streams, Eric Hunley Unstructured, who also has laid-back news, America's Untold Stories, which I think we should be getting the band back together for another ménage à quatre, if we can do it.
	Otherwise, ménage à trois.
	But hold on, let me finish what I was trying to do with that.
	I'm such a moron.
	Yeah, and now I close the street.
	Anyhow, that was James Topp, by the way.
	We don't always have to start...
	With a rant of anger.
	But I can tell you that we're going to get there with where this is going.
	James Topp is a military veteran.
	Apparently served in Afghanistan.
	I had to do my due diligence just to make sure that this was legit.
	I'm a cynical, skeptical human being sometimes.
	And so when I see something that looks too inspirational to be true, I have to make sure that it's not...
	Too inspirational to be true?
	I have to make sure that it's true.
	So I have spoken with people who vouch for, vet, and confirm what James Topp is doing.
	And apparently, not apparently, he's a military veteran who is marching because we have, you know, we've virtually outlawed protests in the free and democratic great white north.
	He's marching cross-country to Ottawa, which I believe it's a 4,000-some-odd kilometer journey.
	That he started on February 20th, the day or the week of the militarized breakup of the most peaceful protest Canada has ever seen.
	And he's marching to Ottawa.
	I'm going to pull up an article in a second.
	Request.
	Look at the camera head on and get your whole fro on the screen for a sec and look intense.
	I'll be nice, I promise.
	Hold on.
	I know.
	Talix is the meme master, so I know exactly where this is going.
	Hold on.
	I feel like Bill Murray out of Lost in Translation.
	More intensity.
	Like this?
	More intensity.
	Good movie if you haven't seen it.
	So James Topp is marching across Canada.
	And as I'm hearing this story, I'm saying, oh, very much in line.
	It sounds like Terry Fox.
	I don't know.
	I didn't want to say it out loud because I don't know that James Topp has any illness that's motivated this cross-country march.
	I think it's just the march for freedom.
	But I was not the only person who had that same thought, and apparently James Topp began his march at the Terry Fox Memorial.
	He's going to pull up an article from True North.
	Let me make sure that we're all centered here.
	Good, we are.
	I'm going to go back now to read this article.
	Yeah, so True North.
	Canadian veteran James Topp completes his first 500 kilometers of protest march to Ottawa.
	And if you read this story, this is James Topp right here.
	Canadian Armed Forces veteran James Topp completed the first 10th of his march from Vancouver to Ottawa on Thursday, reaching the town of Grand Forks, British Columbia.
	I think I've been there.
	As he looks ahead to crossing the Columbia and Rocky Mountains into Alberta.
	The support being offered to me is overwhelming and I'm thankful to everyone who reached out.
	Topp told True North, many have opened their homes to me or offered donations.
	People have pulled me over to wish me well and even marched with me for a while.
	It's the most amazing thing to be a part of.
	It's reminiscent of Terry Fox.
	It's reminiscent a little bit of Forrest Gump, but only, you know, actual reality.
	He wanted to support us through.
	Where did it say that he started?
	Here we go.
	Top began, right here, people, his 4,395-kilometer trek on February 20, departing from the Terry Fox Monument at Vancouver's BC Place in...
	In solidarity with the truckers and working Canadians to bring an end to overbearing government mandates.
	The march began the same week of the crackdown under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's implementation of the Emergencies Act, an event that Topp told True North had only strengthened his resolve.
	And it goes on, and I'll share the links in the pinned comment.
	I'd like to actually find...
	I want to find the video, actually.
	James Topp.
	So I can share that first.
	In fact, I might just share that only.
	A vlogger, by the way.
	Are you an influencer?
	Do you know an influencer?
	Do you know somebody in the YouTube community that makes his own content?
	Are you a vlogger?
	Or do you know somebody who's a vlogger?
	I'm a vlogger.
	I'm looking to contact the following people.
	Austin Hill, Viva Frey, Jordan Peterson, Laura Lynn, Luke Radowski, James Corbett at the Corbett Report, Patrick Henningsen at 21Wire.
	I want them to contact me so I can tell them what I'm doing and then they can tell the world.
	Join me and my friends on the road here at CanadaMarches.ca Did I just...
	CanadaMarches.ca And did I just have the idea of all ideas?
	We're going to do a live stream with James as he walks.
	And we'll...
	And you know, James, if you're watching, someone you know reached out to me.
	They're going to give you my contact info, and then you can reach out and contact me, and we're going to do this.
	We're going to make it happen this week.
	Although you have a little more time on your journey, so I think we have time to coordinate.
	But no time like the present.
	Let's do it tomorrow or Tuesday, if we can.
	But any time this week, we'll find time.
	All right, so that's the actual good news, is that this type of movement, which will gain, hopefully it'll gain the steam that these things generate in movies, like Forrest Gump, like people lining up.
	Running with true inspiration.
	James, from what I'm told, he's got an amazing history.
	Fantastic record of service.
	We'll delve into all of that.
	Livestream as he marches.
	That'll be fantastic.
	Barnes, will you represent a Georgia voter who wants to sue Stacey Abrams for campaign finance violations?
	Her appearance on Star Trek Discovery was a political gift.
	Attempt to influence our elections.
	Screenshot that and I'll send it to Barnes.
	So on the intro note, people, Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of every dollar of...
	Well, they take 30% of every Super Chat.
	So 30 cents on every dollar goes to YouTube for everyone who is generous enough to support me, Robert, this platform on YouTube.
	If one does not like the 30% going to YouTube, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has an equivalent to YouTube Super Chats called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so better for the creator, better for the platform, if you like supporting a platform that actually respects free speech.
	I will not be able to get to all the Super Chats, or I reserve the right not to.
	If you're going to be miffed, if I do not bring up your Super Chat as such, please do not give the Super Chat.
	I don't like anyone feeling like they paid money and it just disappeared into the air.
	I do my best, but...
	Can't do it.
	And if you're going to feel like you have been grifted, rooked, shilled, whatever, don't do it.
	I don't like people feeling that way.
	If you want to support the channel, just share away.
	That being said, you can also support us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That is Robert and my venture, and it's a great community.
	If any of you think Barnes is a Putin puppet, I challenge you.
	To a follicular combat with Viva's fro or drinking contest with Ricada's liver.
	You know who you don't want to have the drinking contest with?
	Joe Nierman.
	Good logic.
	Apparently got mildly plastered while dressed in blue as Aladdin.
	He was like a Smurf.
	He's like Aladdin met with Papa Smurf and produced Joe.
	Yeah, he was mildly intoxicated on Thursday's stream with Ricada.
	As the guy said when he got a watch for his birthday, there's no present like the time.
	Well done, sir.
	That is a good one.
	And if you want to stick it to Trudeau, join the CCFR.
	Give me one second.
	Just going to go ahead and see what the CC...
	I want to try to get it.
	The Canadian Centre for...
	Freedom Reserve.
	Let's see what it is.
	The Canadian Coalition...
	Okay, for firearm rights.
	Oh, apparently there's big issues.
	Apparently there's been more firearms added to the Order and Council banning firearms, and there's still ambiguity as to whether or not the 12-gauge duck-hunting shotgun has been illegalized in virtue of...
	People who apparently know nothing about firearms issuing order and councils to prohibit, restrict, further restrict firearms, the sole function of which is for hunting.
	All right, so that's the intro.
	By the way, share the link around and just let everyone know that we're live.
	We're going to talk about Ukraine, Russia today, because on the menu we've got...
	It was a big week.
	We've got some very, very interesting stuff.
	We may have some controversial stuff.
	It seems that whenever you talk about the...
	Russian invasion of Ukraine, people's collective knowledge of history and current events, apparently doesn't go any further back than 2022.
	We've got...
	What wave of feminism do I represent?
	I don't know.
	I didn't know that it was being measured in waves, to be quite honest.
	I am of the wave of feminism where I see people as people.
	And I guess that's humanism.
	Could you ask your viewers to direct their attention to North 42, 40, North 49, 42. Dude, I don't know what's there.
	What's there?
	Is that Ottawa?
	Okay, so on the menu for tonight, Bambuga, thank you very much.
	Cats are communists because they like Mao.
	I have found a new cup for the week and I love it.
	All right, on the menu, Ukraine.
	We're going to have Jussie Smollett.
	We're going to talk about the situation with Barnes.
	I went over it with Nate when he made a guest appearance Friday.
	I've still got questions, and we're going to see what Barnes has to think about this.
	There's some updates on vaccine mandates.
	What else?
	James O 'Keefe has two pieces in the news, and I believe there might be more coming this week.
	There was a not-so-good turn of events in his defamation lawsuit or Project Veritas' defamation lawsuit against CNN.
	There was a favorable turn of events in his ongoing fight against the FBI for having busted down his door at 6 in the morning, stole his cell phone.
	I didn't mean steal, people.
	Acquired, seized his cell phone.
	There's going to be some fun talk on that.
	But the defamation case.
	That was just his defamation case against CNN that was just tossed.
	You're going to love the absolute circular reasoning is one way of putting it.
	Judicial manure is the other way I had of putting it.
	Project Veritas, Ukraine, Zelensky took a page out of Trudeau's invoking the Emergencies Act, except for Zelensky actually has a bona fide emergency to which he must respond.
	Banning opposition parties, arresting bloggers and journalists.
	So it's interesting.
	In the fight against the tyrant Putin, who people believe, and probably rightfully so, is an authoritarian dictator because he locks up journalists and goes after political opposition.
	In fighting the monster, one, if they were not already some version of the monster, is certainly becoming a version of the monster.
	We've got some other stuff.
	So while Barnes trickles in, we've got some good stuff coming this week.
	The sidebar this Wednesday, one way or another, is going to be great.
	And James Topp, if we do a two-hour walkie-talkie livestream with James as he walks, marches through the Rocky Mountains, couldn't imagine anything more beautiful than that.
	Now, with that said, let me just go to Rumble, make sure everything is copacetic over there.
	And...
	We are live on Rumble.
	Good.
	Looks good.
	2,199 people watching and I forgot to notify someone at Rumble that we're live so that they can then notify everyone else.
	Just give me one second.
	Sorry, people.
	Sorry for the late notice, comma.
	We are live on Rumble currently.
	Smiley face.
	Okay.
	Cool.
	Let me just hear.
	So, yeah, I just got here.
	What's happening in the Rockies?
	James Topp marching from Vancouver to Ottawa.
	A protest march.
	And there's going to be news on that.
	So we're going to have that this week.
	Do I just go back to my...
	There was something else in my Twitter feed that I wanted to bring up.
	We're going to talk about Russell Brand also because...
	Oh, you know what?
	Hold on.
	Let's just share this real quick.
	This is the canadamarches.ca...
	Digital gift cards volunteer.
	Donation scams are everywhere.
	Please be vigilant.
	And this is going to be the march.
	872 hours, 4,293 kilometers.
	This map is just a screen grab from Google Maps.
	It does not reflect the actual route.
	You know you live in a litigious society when you have to give the qualifier.
	He might meander a little up, a little down.
	We'll see.
	Why is James Topp marching?
	Do I click on that?
	We rise to serve Canadians with honesty, respect, and compassion for the purpose of reuniting our people.
	We do this with the intention of ensuring our government upholds the law that supports Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	And I think, unfortunately, one thing we have now thoroughly understood, it's not worth the digital paper it's not printed on.
	I'm on the wrong window here.
	This is going to work into the rant, by the way.
	So I covered Maxine Bernier, who is suing...
	The federal government for the travel restrictions.
	Brian Peckford, the last living signatory to the 1982 Charter of Rights that our government promises to uphold and respect while they systematically violate it.
	He is also suing the federal government.
	Maxime Bernier filed an affidavit in support of the motion.
	By the way, I had exclusively published the unofficial translation to Rumble.
	Not to Rumble, to Locals.
	I pulled it because apparently it was blacked out when I got it.
	Like, I didn't do anything to it.
	That's how the document was sent to me.
	But apparently someone could see through the blackout.
	And it wasn't anything confidential.
	It was just, you know, addresses, which I presume people don't necessarily want public.
	So I pulled it from Locals.
	All that to say, if you were fortunate enough to have gotten the affidavit, I might pull it up at some point tonight so we can go over it.
	Bernier is suing the federal government for these mandates.
	James Top now is marching cross-country to get to Ottawa.
	I mean, it's got 872 hours.
	I'm not so good on math, but that's like, if you're walking 12 hours a day, that's like 80 days, if I'm doing some real bad math real quick.
	By the time he gets there, sure as sugar, these mandates are going to be over.
	The problem is the government...
	Thank you very much.
	I feel like that guy out of Megamind.
	We love you, Metro City!
	Not Metro City.
	His name was...
	It was Megamind?
	And the other guy, Brad Pitt, his voice.
	Anyway, thank you very much.
	By the time he gets there, the mandates are going to be over.
	There's no question about it.
	The lingering impact will still be there.
	But meantime, as the provinces pull back their vaccine passport system, tangential rant.
	Quebec implemented the vaccine passport system.
	It barely lasted a year.
	If that, and I don't even think it was that, they design the app.
	They design a QR code.
	They spend advertising dollars from our taxpayer dollars to tell people to download the app.
	They have the most horrifically disgusting ads that you could hear on the radio.
	Actually, they weren't so much for the vaccine passport, they were just for getting vaccinated.
	You know, this young kid who wants to go to the rock concert, he gets the tickets, he gets the shirt, then he shows up at the concert, and they shut him out because he's not vaccinated.
	And he spent the whole week regretting having not gotten vaccinated.
	The government spent money on all of this crap to rescind the vaccine passport.
	It wasn't even a year.
	How much did that cost?
	How much did the government, did the Francois Legault government, Piss away on that unconstitutional garbage while they were simultaneously literally telling hospitals to cut $150 million from their budgets.
	Just let that sink in.
	The level of idiocy that we're being governed by.
	Trust the science.
	My sweaty tuchus.
	Trust the science.
	But nonetheless, the provinces have pulled back the vaccine passport businesses.
	I went to a restaurant Friday night.
	I didn't even wear a mask in there.
	I went to a breakfast joint this morning and I didn't wear a mask in and the guy told me to go back and put on a mask and I found that extremely frustrating because I know the individual.
	I've known him probably my entire life because I've gone to that restaurant probably my entire life and I realized he's just nervous about getting busted by the cops.
	But they pulled it all back except the federal government is not yet rescinding the vaccine passport mandate as if anyone mandated them to do this crap in the first place.
	They're not rescinding it.
	But they will nonetheless.
	And then Maxine Bernier, Brian Peckford's constitutional challenges are going to become moot.
	We're going to have what we saw happen in 2020 in the United States.
	Latches, too early, moot.
	Policy's not there anymore, so your lawsuit will have to be withdrawn.
	We're going to see that.
	But in the meantime, the federal government is stubbornly clinging to its unconstitutional garbage because they have to because they spent the last year demonizing Unvaccinated Canadians.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	They're putting at risk their children and they're putting at risk our children.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	Those people who hold unacceptable views.
	I was thinking about it actually in the middle of the night also, that a government that pits citizens against citizens is officially the enemy of the people.
	But they're going to hold on to that nonsensical mandate.
	For as long as they can, then they're going to pull it, and then they're going to hope that we all get distracted by this war in Ukraine, that we're going to forget that we have our own tyrants at home who are committing their own unconstitutional violations to their own citizens at home, who are making their own political prisoners at home, but because somebody else is doing it worse somewhere else in the world, we're supposed to give our tyrants a pass.
	I thought lawyers were supposed to be organized.
	Forgot to notify people, never started on time, scattered brain hair.
	I'm wondering if you really were a lawyer.
	I was told that I was too nice to be a lawyer.
	Many, many times.
	Oh, you're a lawyer?
	You seem too nice to be a lawyer.
	You seem too honest to be a lawyer.
	Can't disagree with that.
	Thoughts on the 50 or so intelligence officials that deemed the Hunter Biden laptop being Russian disinformation according to his father, Brandon.
	Liars.
	They're liars.
	And I'm saying it.
	I am presuming intention here.
	I am presuming that they were not mistaken, that they knew.
	Their intelligence, they knew.
	There are ways of verifying metadata.
	They knew.
	I'm presuming intention.
	And it's a lose-lose either way because if they didn't know and they're just wrong, well, they are idiots and they have no position being in intelligence in the United States, period.
	My thoughts?
	They're criminals.
	Hyperbolically speaking, in my own humble opinion, hashtag not defamation.
	They're IMHO criminals.
	They are deceitful liars.
	They were, through their deceitful lies, involved in interference with elections because we've seen stats on how people would have voted had they known about the Hunter Biden laptop or had they known that it was in fact true.
	So I hope that's clear enough.
	And my goodness, that's a beautiful, beautiful avatar.
	I see a 1984 super chat.
	I want to make sure I didn't miss it.
	There we go.
	Ray K, I've been told I look like the Chia.
	It's not about the mandates, but about the digital ID and digital money.
	Yeah, we see them pushing that.
	You wonder if it's all part of some sinister plan.
	That would involve a lot of presupposition.
	But when you see the videos coming out of the WEF and Klaus Schwab, I mean, look.
	For right or for wrong, we all have our predisposed reactions, stereotypes when it comes to what sound like evil dictators speaking with a very thick German accent.
	We must not craft the great narrative because this follows the great reset.
	And you have to see it.
	You would not believe that it was real if you didn't know that it was real.
	Let me make sure that Barnes is here.
	You would not believe it were real.
	If you didn't see it with your own eyes, and then I'm still watching it.
	I'm still watching it, and I still don't believe what I'm seeing.
	Oh, he's there.
	Barnes just popped in.
	Okay, so let's do this here.
	We're going to talk about the Hunter Biden with Barnes, because Barnes knows more than me.
	I've come to grips with that.
	Have you seen the Hunter Biden hard drive?
	Okay, okay, I'm not really...
	Look, Barnes and I had discussed it.
	There's only one reason why a computer tech guy reflexively calls the FBI because of the contents on the computer.
	It's not because there's an email that says 10% for the big guy.
	Okay, let's bring up two more chats and then we bring on some bombs!
	Do you still need the two shots to go to a restaurant?
	Not in Quebec.
	But by this point, 91% of Canadians have gotten it.
	And I tweeted my sentiment on that after having seen the CEO of Pfizer.
	What did he say that thoroughly...
	Liars.
	They're liars.
	And very bad.
	And then you see the stats coming off the government website itself.
	You see the stats.
	And I was neurotic to begin with, okay?
	Look, I had chest pains to begin with.
	I'm well out of the range of any problem, I hope.
	Because the trucks are gone doesn't mean the fight is over.
	It's just begun loom at rhetoric in YYC.
	I don't know what that means.
	No more waiting for others to do it for you.
	Loom at rhetoric.
	I don't know what that means.
	I hope it's not a big problem.
	And I see Cameron Vassie, hold on, based on the avatar, give me one.
	Robert, one more.
	If you don't want to be accused of being Putin's puppet, then stop parroting Putin's lies.
	Okay.
	Or what you're basically saying is don't have an opinion of your own that diverges from the mainstream media in the US because if you dare disagree, then you by definition are parroting Putin's lies.
	There we go.
	I'm going to get arrested if I go to Russia now because I called him Poopin.
	So respectfully, humbly disagree.
	If you think something's a lie, if you think something's wrong, Explain why.
	That is not an explanation.
	So Russell Wilson was traded to the Broncos because the new world order is manipulating everything.
	Am I right or am I right?
	Dude, I have no idea what you just said.
	I don't understand a word you just said.
	All right.
	Think about how ticked they were when Trump first won.
	Guaranteed they want to start implementing all this crap in 2016.
	Well, I don't have an opinion on that, but I know who might.
	Mr. Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	This is how I create, through depth perception, the illusion that I am a monster compared to you.
	Robert is a full foot taller than me.
	But if I stand closer to the camera, I am.
	I am the bigger person.
	Robert, what's new?
	First of all, before we get there, book behind you?
	Unlit cigar in your mouth.
	What are they?
	Sure.
	Creation of American Republic by Gordon Wood.
	Some people on our Locals board will like the reference to Republic in particular, so that was partially an ode to them.
	I do, in fact, read every single post.
	Somebody challenged that by putting up a post saying, I don't read the post, and I liked and responded to it.
	In fact, I read...
	The only thing I'm guaranteed to read each day compared to DMs and emails from various members of the public is at the board.
	If you want to actually reach me, that's the way.
	Because I do read all of the comments and post and any replies to anything I post as well.
	So it's been an interesting week.
	There are some people that have a...
	The more the institutional narrative, the Western narrative on the Ukrainian conflict that was predicting that China was going to rebuff Russia and join the effort of sanctions when they talked with Biden on Friday.
	Not exactly what happened.
	Instead, President Xi used an old Chinese proverb that said, he who ties the bell around the tiger must be the one to untie it.
	And then NATO decided to be critical of China, China's position on this as well, and China responded by reminding them that they bombed their embassy in Belgrade in 1999.
	So a lot of the predictions by the West have not come to fruition.
	The amount of misinformation out there is hitting, I mean, even for wartime, is really hitting new highs because of the way social media can help inflate the misinformation that is working.
	I was reading a conservative lawyer who was explaining that because she speaks Russian, she knows better than everyone else.
	And then she went and repeated every mythology that exists.
	From the State Department, the George Soros establishment types that is out there.
	Well, apparently she hasn't spent much time actually using those Russian language skills to study any of the Russian history or listen to actually Russian speakers and whatnot to at least understand what their position is rather than the mythical one.
	Zelensky has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, just like Barack Obama, who right soon thereafter led us into multiple military conflicts, wars, more violence around the world.
	So it fits in that tradition.
	And not long after he was, and David Frum was promoting him, it's amazing how Ukraine is becoming even more liberal and tolerant during a war.
	The next day, he banned all the opposition parties, other than the neo-Nazi parties.
	Those were not banned.
	Those are still allowed.
	But he banned everybody else, banned the media.
	There's only going to be one centralized media platform now.
	And started arresting random bloggers and journalists, who if you voice any independent opinion whatsoever, you now can end up in a Ukrainian jail.
	And Robert, so you put me onto Coach Red Pill, as did a lot of people in the chat.
	I mean, I don't know if I want to ask you this, but is he in Ukraine, and is he among the dissident bloggers or journalists who might be in trouble?
	Well, he'd been previously targeted.
	He's now in a secreted location inside, my understanding is, I think, Kharkov, spelled K-H-A-R-K-O-V, if I mispronunciated it.
	Same as my English.
	That says mispronunciation.
	No doubt.
	He went into that location.
	He didn't really voice even heavy criticism.
	He appeared on the Duran and just made some points that the propaganda about what was happening in the war just didn't appear to be accurate.
	There wasn't this massive Russian desertion and failure, nor was there this massive Ukrainian success that somewhere in between and that the Ukrainian had not been reliable in terms of the information they were provided.
	Of course, we got to witness that in live time.
	The ghost of Kiev, the Snake Island Rebellion, one mythology after the next, after the next.
	And after that...
	He found out people had come to his home that were associated with some of the more roguish elements of the Zelensky regime looking for him.
	Luckily, his wife and his kids and he were not there.
	But given the stories he has heard, in fact, many of these people actually brag on their TikTok accounts and Telegram accounts of the various torture the Ukrainian regime type, militia types engage in, particularly connected to the Asov Battalion.
	That's heavily dominant in the East, though they come overwhelmingly from the Far West, which has a history of Nazi collusion and things like that.
	I'll do a separate hush-hush on the unique history of that region of Ukraine at vivabarneslaw.locals.com this week.
	And I think that inspired him to be more outspoken once he found himself in a place where he could be protected.
	Or is his location undisclosed?
	He's been very aggressive and assertive at detailing all the things he understands.
	Gonzalo Lira, he has a personal channel, plus the Coach Red Pill channel on YouTube, and he just gives his opinion.
	You can take it however you want to, but he's an American in Ukraine that's lived there for a while, who's seen all sides of it.
	And he's seen the worst of this Zelensky regime in particular.
	The people promoting him are going to regret it in time.
	It's only a matter of time.
	Because to be promoted as a democratic hero in the next day, ban press, ban journalists, ban parties.
	That tells you who he is.
	Trudeau, I mean, except on a degree of scales, I mean, Ukraine reminds me of the Spanish Civil War, both sides loathsome in the extreme.
	You know, Trudeau, except by degree, did the same thing in Canada.
	You know, just go after your political adversaries, lock up political prisoners, you know, the people who speak out, find a way to do it under the law, invoke the Emergencies Act, bring in the militarized police force, and just shut it all down.
	Now, they happen to be in an actual bona fide state of emergency in Ukraine.
	There's no question about that.
	But what do you get to do under those measures?
	I mean...
	We'll get into what he's doing in a second.
	And I appreciate people don't like Coach Red Pill.
	Nobody likes people who seemingly make a living doing work to bring what they perceive to be the truth to the people.
	It's like people just think they're entitled to people risking their lives for free, providing information for free, providing content for free, and if they dare make money while doing it, they're somehow corrupt or whatever, they're grifters.
	I can see people thinking that.
	I've listened to Coach Redpill.
	He's certainly opinionated.
	But you take the information in, you compare it to the other information you're getting elsewhere, and you come to your own conclusions.
	One story, Robert, we talked about, it was two weeks ago now, it was Renaud, the journalist, former New York Times, who was killed in Irpin.
	And at the time, the New York Times had reported that the headline said, you know, killed by Russian forces, but the actual video article...
	The journalist in the video, 9-minute, 10-minute video, said it's not clear who did it.
	When we discussed it, we were discussing the fact that it was in an area controlled by Ukrainian forces.
	Since then, I've just been trying to find an update that's a meaningful update, but every single article says killed by Russian forces as confirmed by Ukrainian forces.
	Do you have any additional information?
	Have you heard any news on that particular event that might bring some conclusion as to who pulled the trigger?
	Yeah, Jordan Schachtel, who previously writes a Substack column called The Dossier, he's previously been on our sidebars.
	He's been following this.
	He's followed national security for many years, worked in D.C. for a period of time.
	No one would accuse him of being a Putin ally.
	He has said it's most likely the Ukraine.
	And this has happened throughout.
	I mean, they claim that the Russians had bombed a theater in Maropol, and the better evidence is that it was an action by the Ukrainian sort of crazies that are there.
	The hardcore Azov Battalion, the most hardcore neo-Nazi-aligned individuals were the people that the Ukrainians sent to that part of dissident separatist Ukraine.
	And there's been a range of military affairs channels that does a YouTube analysis.
	Very neutral, has no political bone in the fight whatsoever, has been documenting on almost daily basis the various false flags and false media reports about what's happening, whether it's false claims of the Russians mining humanitarian corridors to blow them up or try to deliberately attack civilians.
	There was a British journalist who was in one of the towns that Russia had come through as they went on their march.
	And it was a town that has local political leadership that's hostile to Russia, so they didn't want any humanitarian assistance.
	They said, fine, they moved on.
	He just documents it walking all the way through the street.
	In fact, what Scott Ritter said, Scott Ritter is one of the foremost war...
	Uh, studiers because going all the way back to the Iraqi war, he was the guy warning that there weren't weapons of mass destruction there.
	Uh, that's what put him sort of on the international stage.
	He has said probably when it's all said and done, we'll find out that Russia abided more by the laws of war, uh, than most other nations have in recent wars, including the Americans for sure.
	And that the Ukrainians will have been some of the most atrocious violators.
	Uh, and I, I suspect that's going to be true when it's all said and done to the degree we ever get to the truth.
	That's a big if.
	Now, KORORS, I don't think this is a trollish comment, says they have bombed civilians, Barnes.
	Now, Robert, so nobody takes you out of context or says things that you don't say.
	There's no question.
	We can agree on the fact that innocent civilians have been killed by Russian action in Ukraine.
	We can agree on that?
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, there's no...
	What I would do is I would compare it by the norm.
	So about the Russians have taken more casualties because they've chosen not to engage in the kind of bombing strategies that the West has done in almost every war since and including World War II, which was deliberate mass bombing of civilian locations, which conveniently there's been a lot of amnesia in the West about.
	And that's the problem with saying they're targeting civilians.
	If they were targeting civilians, they would just bomb.
	They don't lack the missiles.
	They don't lack the bombs.
	They showed off that the hypersonic missile that some military officials in the West, more on the intelligence side, not the military really, had said didn't exist, they actually used and showed off this week in hitting various munition depots and places where foreign mercenaries and Ukrainian army were stationed.
	But if they wanted to mass bomb civilians...
	They would mass bomb civilians.
	That hasn't happened.
	Indeed, there's been very little air bombing, very little bombing of any civilian-related location compared to a typical war.
	But you're definitely always going to have civilian casualties, but the civilian casualty ratio so far is substantially less than what it was when the civilian casualties in Iraq when we went in.
	So, it's inevitable.
	One reason why I'm an innate critic of war is that innocent civilians are guaranteed to die.
	But there isn't really evidence of deliberate targeting of civilians, and the best evidence against that is if they wanted to do so, they would do so, and they would gain a substantial military advantage by doing so.
	They've gone out of their way not to do so.
	That's the problem those people can't explain.
	So they have to come up with contradictory narratives.
	And one way you can discover a contradictory narrative is if they tell you someone is an incompetent buffoon and an evil genius at the same time, they're probably lying to you because the two don't go together.
	Fair point.
	Now, I want to bring this one up.
	Barnes, you talk about the Yahtzees in the Ukraine.
	Why don't you talk about the Yahtzees in Putin's orbit?
	Wagner Group has Yahtzee ties, Russian imperialist movement, etc.
	So they're referencing the mercenary organization that's kind of like some of the mercenary organizations we have here in the United States and that are common throughout the world and those aspects.
	But the problem with that attempt at that announcement is that it ignores the deeper history of Ukrainian conflict, particularly from the Russian mindset.
	And I'll get into that in the hush-hush about the unique history of the far west of Ukraine.
	And that informs a lot of it.
	Your ordinary Ukrainian is not pro-Nazi at all.
	It's a very small component that's grown extraordinarily influential, thanks, frankly, to some three-letter agencies here in the United States over the past decade.
	See, the thing, and Robert, you'll tell me if they're not analogous, but when every flare-up occurs between Israel and Palestine, Gaza Strip, or the West Bank...
	Israel comes in, you know, they go in on the ground.
	They don't indiscriminately bomb.
	There's always the same accusations that they're targeting civilians.
	They blew up a school.
	They blew up a hospital.
	Then there's always the counter-argument or the counter-position that they say that people are, you know, military is hiding among these markets.
	Hamas is hiding among these schools so that it happens.
	And this is the fog of war.
	Now, I call it a prejudgment or my own preconceived notions.
	I would tend to think that Israel fights a more moral war than Russia would just because of geopolitics.
	Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not.
	But anybody to say, yeah, nobody's denying that innocent Ukrainians are being killed in this incursion, this invasion by Russia.
	The question is, is Russia guilty?
	That being true, is Russia guilty of what they are now referring to as war crimes, which is deliberate targeting of civilians or indiscriminate bombing, which you necessarily know will invariably cause civilian casualties?
	And that's the question, which will we ever get an answer to?
	We'll never get the full evidence, but so far, I agree with Scott Ritter that there's been great lengths.
	I mean, Colonel McGregor, he did an interview on the Gray Zone, of course, that was really insightful with Aaron Maté and Max Blumenthal.
	They come from the anti-war left.
	But as he explained, and he explained on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, Russia's going in soft.
	And there may be other geopolitical reasons.
	In other words, you could claim, you could fairly argue that in this particular conflict, Russia has a unique motivation that's even stronger than the Israeli motivation geopolitically to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, even at the expense of military success or the quickness of that success and even at the expense of Russian military lives.
	And there's been a lot more evidence.
	I mean, Ukraine has already used cluster bombs on a civilian location in Donetsk just this week.
	And, you know, they killed over 13,000 kids, women, and men in the Donbass over the past eight years.
	People are going to say, Barnes, you're spouting off Putin talking points.
	As far as I understand it, these are not...
	These are not disputable figures.
	I thought it was 14,000 since 2014, which the argument goes, and I'll spout off the Zelensky talking points, that Ukraine are fighting Russian loyalist, separatist, violent mercenaries who are trying to violently bring about independence in the Donbass-Donatsk region, which 90-plus percent...
	Who didn't vote to join Russia, but voted to become independent states and who are, by and large, Russian loyalists.
	So, they're going to say they're all violent separatist loyalists who are wreaking havoc and were entitled to bomb them.
	And as much as people are going to believe that what you're saying is the truth, what is the best information on those 13,000-14,000 people who have been killed in the last eight years?
	So the two regions, this all happened after the Maidan coup of 2014, where the elected president of Ukraine had to flee because of an insurrection in Kiev.
	An insurrection that is well documented in the film Ukraine on Fire, which is freely available on Rumble.
	And that's where you get the best sort of full history of what took place there.
	There's also French documentary films, other documentary films about the Donbass in particular.
	And the two things that have, what happened is after the Maidan coup, there was a, you know, what you would expect, a lot of people who opposed that coup, who had supported that president, rebelled.
	And they rebelled in different ways.
	Different areas declared independence.
	Different areas had mass protests.
	The reaction of the Ukrainian regime was to unleash the neo-Nazi militias on those regions.
	And they notoriously burned civilians alive in Odessa that were protesters, went into Kharkov in a brutal manner, and in other regions throughout Ukraine in a brutal manner.
	And the reason why they used the neo-Nazi militias is they would be the most vicious.
	And so even if they didn't politically align with those groups, they became a useful tool.
	And the two regions of Donetsk and the Donbass region, they decided to declare their independence.
	And they had a referendum, overwhelmingly voted for that.
	Not a surprise.
	Those regions were 90 plus percent for the candidate that just got deposed.
	And then the Ukrainian army decided, no, we don't accept that, and decided to wage war on them.
	And then they responded.
	Now, after the Ukrainian army waged war on them, Russia provided armed support and other support to them.
	But the army itself didn't go in, and those are all natives.
	There's an American reporter kind of stumbled in there who's now lived there for eight years, Patrick, who continues to report from the region.
	He was an art photographer.
	Just traveling Europe, photographing, trying to do art photography.
	Saw some protests in Greece and thought that would be interesting.
	This was back during the whole Greece-IMF-EU kind of debacle over their debt.
	Went down and realized that the Western press was not reporting accurately what was happening.
	He thought this might be a journalistic opportunity.
	Photojournalistic in particular, but otherwise.
	Then after that died down, he thought, well, that was interesting.
	And he saw the...
	The Crimea dispute happened.
	And what he'd heard from the West was, you know, Crimea's been annexed by Putin, who's come in and invaded the country and declared it part of his own.
	So he was like, I want to see if that's what's happening and what do people think.
	And then he gets there and he realizes all the Western media reports were completely false.
	And this is a guy that came into this with no politics whatsoever.
	I mean, you can listen to the guy, you can tell he's not, you know, overtly political by nature.
	So he's not like a lefty reporter or an anti-war reporter or pro-Putin, you know, whatever.
	They just went in there independently and found out that, of course, Crimeans overwhelmingly He didn't want to be part of this coup government in Ukraine and wanted to return to Russia where much of their population had been born into Russia.
	And so then the Donbass happened.
	And so he went up to the Donbass to report what was happening there and has been there for eight years.
	And you can go to his videos.
	He just reports what's happening the best he can.
	Just an ordinary, everyday guy, independent journalist.
	And he's detailed the horrors that have taken place.
	And that he attributes most of the horrors to the Ukrainian army, particularly the controversial part is what the Ukraine chose to do was unleash their neo-Nazi units.
	They incorporated them into the National Guard, incorporated them into the military units there.
	So they put the worst possible people to be in charge of disciplining the separatist regions.
	And you can almost guarantee they'll commit.
	Again, these people actually are still, to this day, taping.
	The horrors, the torture they're doing to people because they broadcast it and like it on their TikToks and Telegrams and elsewhere.
	And people have put it together, what's taking place.
	There was a video of a UFC fighter who apparently had been kidnapped and was being tortured.
	I don't know what the other word is, but it was very short clips.
	I can't contextualize anything.
	I don't know what to make of it.
	But Robert, so people say, how can there be Nazis in Ukraine?
	Zelensky's Jewish.
	I mean, as if that's an argument to say, like, I mean, that's not an argument, anyhow.
	That's just identity politics, but in reverse.
	But the flip side argument, people can call it a Putin talking point, but you can also analogize it to, I don't know, I guess the KKK's use for the Democratic Party, other way, other, you know, America funding Bin Laden to fight the Russians before he became the enemy.
	The argument would be that They have a use because they're like the dirty cop on the team that will do the things that the good cops won't do.
	And Zelensky was using them to do that to suppress the independence movement in the eastern region of the Donbass and Donetsk as of 2014.
	Is that the argument?
	Yeah, and I would say it's the Kiev regime because Zelensky is purely an actor to talk in front of cameras.
	Now, of course, this week there were people who were suspicious because...
	Yes.
	I mean, it started off with, there'd been rumors that he wasn't in Kiev anymore, wasn't in Ukraine anymore for a couple of weeks.
	But then he met with some EU people and they supposedly came in and were guaranteed safe travel, safe transit.
	But there are issues that they photographed, somebody put out photographs of the train station and somebody noted, that doesn't appear to be any train station in Ukraine.
	It appears to be a train station in Europe and Poland in particular.
	That was the first.
	It was a little odd that EU people were going to travel to Kiev through Russian-controlled territory in the middle of a war, particularly if you believe, as these EU people claim, that Russia's evil, they're killing random people, they just want to be torturous, they're the next Hitler.
	Everybody's the next Hitler, of course.
	Because you can't use any other war script.
	You're stuck with the World War II script.
	The Great Freedom Tunes YouTube video that mocked this very, very effectively.
	All the different wars that have been sold as fighting the new Hitler.
	Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia.
	I think it might get them, you know, it's more like World War I and every other dumb war.
	But that was the first concern.
	But then the second was, he appeared, he's trying to look like he's walking through the streets of Ukraine in front of a big building in Kiev.
	And people looking at it were like, That looks like a green screen.
	And the first time I heard about it was from the Duran, from Alex.
	He said, this kind of looks like a green screen.
	And then I was getting bombarded with people that are your true autist types who figured these little kind of details out.
	And they're like, this is clearly a green screen.
	So then the concerns rose as to, is he really there?
	What's happening?
	But I agree with Colonel McGregor's analysis.
	Again, he was a top Trump ally and advisor.
	And he was the kind of person Trump should have promoted even more.
	He actually tried to, but...
	Deep state apparatus blocked it at various levels.
	He said that Zelensky's just a puppet.
	The guy was an actor his whole life until he became president.
	And this is not like a Ronald Reagan who's active in politics and is an elected governor and is involved in national politics for more than a decade before he becomes president.
	This is a guy who was literally, it's like if you woke up tomorrow and Alec Baldwin was the president of the United States.
	That's what Zelensky is like.
	So I think he just reads off a script in between.
	Some other habits he has.
	I watched Coach Red Pill.
	I'm only citing Coach Red Pill.
	This is funny, by the way.
	The same people saying, how could there be Yahtzees in Ukraine if Zelensky's Jewish?
	Or the same people who claim Trump was a Yahtzee, even though his daughter-in-law and grandchildren were Jewish.
	Very funny.
	Ghost Crusaders.
	Her son-in-law.
	Son-in-law.
	Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.
	No, it's his daughter married.
	Jared Kushner.
	Kushner.
	Robert, so I've heard these same rumors that, and this will bring us maybe into the Hunter Biden story, unless we have more on the Ukraine.
	It'll marry.
	There's two other parts to that that are totally collateral that are interesting about what's happening right now, legally.
	one theory is that it's funny that, you know, there was a hacked laptop that was passed off as being Russian disinformation by the 50 top intelligence spies or whomever in the United States.
	Turns Robert, do you want to finish that sentence from there?
	Sure.
	I mean, it's not a coincidence that the people that led Spygate, Russiagate, and Ukrainegate are all deeply, deeply connected to the effort to provoke and instigate and promote a war in Ukraine.
	They saw, correctly, Trump is the biggest hurdle to that occurring.
	And remove Trump, and you remove that from occurring.
	And had they not done any of those things, likely this war never happens.
	Because Trump had a very different direction.
	We saw NATO as mostly a useless entity that should be dialed down rather than dialed up.
	Said so publicly in the campaign of 2016.
	Said, really, we should get rid of NATO, or at least get out of it.
	And said we should make an ally of Russia, not an adversary.
	It makes no sense in the modern age, given our real geopolitical adversary is China.
	Economically, politically, culturally, and otherwise.
	But of course, that ship has now sailed with what's happening.
	It's not a coincidence there are deep ties and deep connections.
	In fact, you go deeper, you look at the oligarchs that were backing Zelensky that funded the whole...
	It was a brilliant kind of thing.
	You're an oligarch, you start a TV station, you start a TV network, you create a script for a young actor to pretend he's president for five years, then you set him up to be president.
	When people said that Ben Kingsley's character in that one movie or Wag the Dog, that was just unrealistic.
	This suggests that they actually understated the absurdity of aspects of the world we live in.
	Robert, I'm going to interrupt you.
	Everyone dial in Scott Adams right now.
	Loser think.
	I'm going to break this one down.
	Redcoat leader, I hate to pick on you, but you brought it on yourself.
	This is dry and disappointing stuff from Barnes.
	Dry, disappointing, judgmental ad hominem bordering on attempting to shame.
	Literally ticking off every single Putin talking point.
	That itself is a talking point.
	Specific response would be better than this.
	Literally ticking off.
	And it's also just saying, I don't even have to address it.
	It's all garbage.
	So, straw man.
	A healthy distrust of the mainstream Western narrative shouldn't mean shilling for the Kremlin.
	Robert, may I ask you a personal question?
	Do you receive funds from the Kremlin?
	No.
	It's extraordinary.
	For all those people, you're shills for George Soros.
	You're shills for Hillary Clinton.
	You're shills for the State Department.
	You're shills for Klaus Schwab.
	You're shills for the World Economic Foundation.
	I think there's a stronger argument.
	You can call me a shill for Putin.
	Which side would you rather be on?
	Putin or George Soros?
	Or Klaus Schwab?
	Or Hillary Clinton?
	Or Joe Biden?
	You're on the wrong side.
	Almost everybody whose side you don't want to be on in this conflict is on the side of promoting this war in Ukraine.
	There is a stronger argument to say that those making those type of comments are shilling for mainstream media and all of the wonderful people you've just described than there is for you to say, I have a healthy distrust, and I'm going to apply that distrust with logical reasoned thought.
	So anyways, I have to bring up, thank you for the super chat.
	If you have a specific point that you'd like to address, put a smaller super chat next time, or even just a comment.
	And we'll get to it.
	But that was nothing but loser think, ad hominem, straw man, personal attack with nothing of substance.
	Yeah, it's a sign of the situation.
	Yeah, I have seen those videos.
	Now, there's a mixture of that.
	It's hard to get full context, of course, for what's happening.
	But there's even worse videos out there.
	And some of that is there was apparently a rash of crime that took place in Kiev, especially after they gave guns to everybody.
	And so there may be some aspects of that, or these may be aspects of just, I mean, what was unleashed with the Maidan coup in 2014 almost guaranteed this day would come.
	They unleashed the most hardcore, dangerous elements.
	And, you know, you would think our intelligence apparatus in the West would have learned, but, you know, I mean, we promoted the Muslim Brotherhood, for crying out loud.
	I mean, during the whole...
	You know, Arab Spring, we were unleashing the Muslim Brotherhood on the Arab world.
	We were pretending that wasn't the case until they literally took over in Egypt and brutally, I mean, during one of the protests, brutally assaulted a CBS reporter.
	But you're going to get this.
	If you disagree with the institutional narrative, you must side with the enemy.
	That's sort of the proposition, or side with whoever's identified now as the enemy.
	But that's usually a sign of bad logic, not a sign of good argument.
	No, it's straight to shame and ad hominem.
	Nothing is substance.
	One point.
	Someone had said that your defense of the Wagner, or your defense, your explanation on the Wagner group was not a non-answer because they're funded by the government, therefore Putin is funding Yahtzees in Wagner.
	I mean, we use mercenary groups all the time, too.
	A lot of people do.
	So you can argue about that mercenary group, whether we should have mercenary groups, so on and so forth.
	But we don't necessarily take responsibility for some of the actions of our own, unfortunately.
	And I think there's risks in using it.
	The argument, Trump actually considered replacing all the U.S. troops in Afghanistan with just mercenaries because the argument is you have...
	Distant responsibility and things of that nature.
	But that argument is a whole other argument.
	The utility of mercenaries, the historic use of them, the ways it can backfire, the ways it can be beneficial.
	But speaking of mercenaries and arms, one of the interesting things that's happening is there's now reports coming out, which should be no surprise to anybody, that a lot of the arms that we're shipping over to Ukraine are actually that the arms dealers, illegal arms dealers of the world, are lining up for a shopping auction.
	Because, I mean, if you're a major defense manufacturer, you can't sell directly to a bunch of regimes and corrupt, you know, cartels, for example, can't sell to them directly, can't do these kind of things.
	So how do you get your weapons into their hands?
	Various insurgents, you know, maybe the Ethiopian civil war that's ongoing, the Yemen war that's ongoing, you know, how do you get your weapons there?
	Well, you get the government to do it for you by using a corrupt middleman.
	So the government buys your weapons, the government sends it to a country rife with corruption, who just lines up some of these weapon systems they can't even use.
	That's usually the giveaway, by the way, that this is an inside deal for arms dealers, sending weapons that are unlikely to actually be used in the conflict, in that particular conflict, or for that particular country, and that has happened in this case.
	And now apparently arms dealers are lining up, and basically taxpayers are helping fund arms dealers for illegal arms users around the globe.
	Is kind of what's going on.
	But that's because of the extension to which Ukraine has always been a grift.
	The International Criminal Court, not the International Criminal Court, but the International Court of the United Nations, International Court of Justice, issued a rule order condemning Russia.
	But the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction unless both parties consent.
	Russia didn't consent.
	So it was kind of another.
	You know, useless kind of ruling legally.
	But speaking of grifts, you know, those are the main legal aspects of what's happening in Ukraine and Russia.
	Hold on.
	Before you get there, remember, bookmark it, Robert.
	I've got to bring up another one.
	I'm going to channel Scott Adams again.
	Robert, I understand your skepticism about what's coming out of Ukraine, but why do you believe everything the Russians say?
	Does anyone of the 17 plus thousand people watching here now...
	Had gotten the impression that Robert believes everything the Russians say.
	This is like, okay, I understand the skepticism.
	Now let me go and mischaracterize your entire position by saying something you did.
	Okay.
	Sorry, we don't even need to address it.
	I also thought the incubator story was false and not the real reason we went into the war.
	Didn't mean I sided with, you know, I was for Saddam Hussein.
	Robert, you're a Saddam Hussein apologist.
	I know it's terrible.
	You should be ashamed.
	I've experienced this my whole life, the time I was a kid.
	So I'm not, these arguments are not new to me.
	So the, but it's a sign of what is striking.
	I remember talking with Bernard Shaw of CNN a few years after the first debacle of the Iraqi war and the recognition that CNN made a bunch of the incubator story being most prominent, but there are other complete lies and fabrications they preach to get us into that war.
	And Shaw recognized.
	He said, the media really failed and we're going to really work hard to make sure that doesn't happen again.
	I don't know if there's ever a war where the media has been skeptical, at least initially.
	At certain points, because of the draft, I believe, the Vietnam War, as Russell Brand recently noted, the Vietnam War became something that some members of the media questioned and critiqued.
	But for the most part, we have been, and this is true of all medias, so you get the different perspectives of what's on the media in Russia, what's on the media in China, what's on the media in India, what's on the media in Brazil.
	Apparently, he can't use Telegram now because a judge in Brazil who's anti-Bolsonaro has shut down Telegram from being used.
	It's just a coincidence, by the way, that Bolsonaro heavily uses Telegram to get his message out.
	We're going to get there in a bit.
	This is one of the examples, but this is pretty commonplace.
	People should apply their independent understanding of history and analysis and evidence and facts.
	Use common sense.
	The Duran did a good breakdown, or Alexander, I won't try to pronounce his last name because I'll butcher it.
	That's how you know both of them are originally Greeks.
	They're both named Alexander.
	That's a little giveaway.
	Broke down how to spot a false flag.
	And I'll do a breakdown of that for a future hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But look at things like means.
	Look at things like motivation.
	Even Trump kind of got taken in on the chemical weapons, the second magical chemical weapons attack in Syria.
	Later proven to be false by all Aaron Maté and others that did great research on it.
	But it's tough during a time of war to get honest information.
	And it shows you how corrupt our institutional media is and how thoughtless so many thought leaders are in the American West.
	You should be hearing a robust debate.
	You should be hearing all the different sides, all the different angles.
	You're only hearing one.
	And it's extraordinary.
	And people believe things that...
	Some of the things...
	I mean, there's still people who believe the ghost of Kiev is still shooting down planes.
	They think Sam Hyde is flying those planes and taking down those rescues.
	I mean, it's sad, but it's a long reflection of a long history.
	Well, actually, this will be the good...
	I mean, there's so many things where this segues into a various bunch of directions, but separate segue.
	In Ukraine now, Zelensky, I would say...
	Exploiting or employing the Emergencies Act declaration is now locking up journalists or arresting vloggers and unifying the media because apparently in times of war the message has to be consistent, which to me basically sounds like nationalizing the media to promote state-run propaganda.
	I don't care what country it's in.
	I don't care what the context is.
	That's what's going on.
	And you have people on social media saying, well, of course it's normal.
	They're in a time of war.
	You don't want people losing faith.
	You don't want people getting scared by reality.
	You don't want people knowing the truth because if they knew the truth, maybe they would shift their loyalties or maybe they would second-guess their loyalties.
	Well, maybe they wouldn't be volunteering for service and then meeting a Russian missile the next day like some of these kids running off to war.
	A lot of these lies are dangerous lies.
	As a lot of people from the RealPolitik school, people who don't have a bone in the fight politically between Russia and the West, who say that these things are going to be counterproductive, that they're going to lead to more unnecessary deaths, what's taking place.
	And Zelensky doesn't help this by, you know, he goes and does his very, I mean, shocking.
	It's like a parody on a parody.
	He does a speech that if you look at the video presentation, it's almost...
	Verbatim, the visual background of the movie George Orwell's 1984, where you have your two minutes of hate.
	And it's just like, when I first saw it, I was like, that can't be right.
	Somebody must be playing around.
	And I dig it.
	I was like, oh my, that's exactly right.
	So you got that kind of insanity going on.
	And people who seem to think 1984 is a good script.
	It's what happens when you have lazy screenwriters.
	It's what Critical Drinker talks about.
	He goes, why is film so down?
	It's not just woke politics.
	It's bad screenwriting.
	These people look...
	Just crimp from other books and movies and say, well, let's do this!
	But it didn't help him that he compares himself to Martin Luther King, compares Ukraine to 9-11, and then told the Israelis today that it's just like the Holocaust.
	So this is not helping, but it gives a sense of where the world is at and how media works, and they expect to fool you like they've fooled you so many times before.
	But what was interesting, a Canadian poll, they polled people who were Triple-vaxxed versus the people who had chosen not to get vaccinated.
	And you can see that the people who chose not to get vaccinated are an independent-minded group, period.
	And particularly, they didn't get triple-vaxxed.
	And that group said, we should not be involved.
	And this was of Canadians.
	Should not be involved.
	The triple-vaxxed are like, more, war, more, war.
	So it tells you who's an NPC and who's for real.
	I'm...
	You all know my status.
	I'm proud to say I'm not triple-vaxxed.
	I never will be.
	I've learned.
	I have regrets.
	I've had a few, to quote Sinatra.
	How much does all this trigger any paranoia?
	All this more evidence coming out about side effects and things like that?
	I'm glad I made certain decisions in the negative.
	I'll risk...
	When they say, Robert, what did they say?
	They said, oh, that doctor who put out a video on Twitter.
	I've skydived.
	I've fed a cheetah.
	I went hiking a volcano at night.
	I'm going to wear a mask.
	It's like, you idiot.
	Yeah, okay, so you have bad judgment.
	You've done dumb things, and you don't know how to rationalize danger, and you think this is a good argument.
	You've done drugs.
	Sarah Silverman said, come on, you know you've done drugs at a party.
	You've taken whatever drugs, and you didn't know where they came from.
	You can get the facts.
	That's the wrong argument.
	Look, I'm alive.
	Poo-poo.
	Touch glass.
	I won't do it again.
	But the problem is now, it's made me skeptical on other stuff which I assumed was settled science because the damage that the medical and scientific community has done to themselves, it might be irreparable in my lifetime.
	I will always be a skeptic now.
	But Robert, hold on one second.
	There's one thing I wanted to say here.
	The chat may be too far gone.
	It was another good one.
	It was another good one.
	Hold on.
	Cernovich's Hoax is definitely worth a watch.
	Definitely worth watching.
	Yeah, I was at the premiere of that in Hollywood.
	This was definitely not the chat that I wanted.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	By the way, Rob.
	Nobody's ever referred to you as Rob on this channel, but that's indication number one.
	Scott Adams.
	Rob.
	Demeaning.
	Or an attempt to.
	Power play.
	Don't know why you're carrying Kremlin's water.
	It's all...
	If that's your response, that means you don't have an informed, intelligent analysis, which you should ask yourself why.
	Everybody at some point in their lives has been the victim of propaganda.
	We've just gone through it in massive doses in the last five years.
	You know, the propaganda over Russiagate in the first place, the propaganda against Trump in general, which is often way over the top, but especially, you know, we've had three in three years.
	Propaganda over COVID and everything related to it.
	And look who ended up right and who ended up wrong.
	Did the institutional narrative end up right?
	Did a lot of these people that were quiet early on turned up right?
	Or did the people who were critics from day one turn out right?
	Then we have the election fortification, in which the institutional narrative, the greatest and safest election in history.
	Who told you the truth and who didn't about that?
	And can you trust the same people about a war in Ukraine when...
	Peter Stroke, the same key people that sponsored Russiagate, Spygate, and UkraineGate are deeply involved and embedded.
	And that does transition into the New York Times having to admit that all those spies, the same people telling you you have to go into war, the same people you're relying upon for information and intel about what's happening and what the causes of this war are and where it's going.
	Are the same people who signed that letter that told you Hunter Biden's laptop was just Russian disinformation?
	So anybody who believed in Hunter Biden's laptop was just speaking and shilling for the Kremlin.
	You were a Russian apologist.
	You were a Trump talking points.
	And let's just...
	Oh my goodness.
	Where do we even start with that?
	It was at one point in time, everyone will recall this because I've done a bunch of videos on it.
	I don't do the car vlogs anymore, but when I did...
	I might get back to them.
	We'll see.
	The Lancet, which was the medical journal, the most reputable medical journal in America, maybe even in the world.
	At one point in early pandemic, they had an open letter signed by hundreds of doctors standing in solidarity with their Chinese doctor brethren, speaking out against these damaging, hurtful, racist rumors.
	Conspiracy theories that COVID might have originated in a lab, might have had some human, you know, what do they call it?
	Gain of function, manipulate.
	They were speaking out against this.
	It's misinformation, conspiracy theory that stigmatizes Chinese doctors, makes everyone's job harder to do.
	What a difference a year makes.
	About a year later, The Lancet itself ran an article that said the...
	Unnatural origins of COVID is a perfectly reasonable, perfectly plausible explanation for how it came to be.
	This is The Lancet.
	True to form, mutatis mutandis.
	Open letters signed by the authorities at the time saying, conspiracy theory, you say this, you're doing harm to the entire community, and you're stigmatizing people.
	You had, at the time, it was the guy, not Zuckerberg, but Twitter dude.
	Dorsey.
	Dorsey.
	Saying, blocking this story, blocking the links, blocking the New York Post's Twitter feed, because they were allegedly publishing misinformation.
	I don't remember what the justification was at the time.
	There was a one-week standoff between the New York Post and Twitter, where Twitter said, you're not getting your channel, you're not getting your feedback, your handle back, until you delete that tweet.
	And they said, we're not deleting that tweet.
	Because this story was not the product of hacked goods.
	It's not misinformation.
	It's true.
	And go on.
	Facebook, Twitter, social media, in tandem, blocked all coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop, which...
	Just coincidentally, everybody, is connected to Ukrainian corruption.
	Just coincidentally.
	And just coincidentally, during the election, prior to the election, I've missed a ton of superstars.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	They...
	It's blocked.
	It's banned.
	People's handles are shut down.
	The New York Times, the same New York Times that came out and said Brian Sicknick, that officer in D.C. who dreamt of being a police officer until he was beaten to death by a crowd of angry Trump supporters when he died of natural causes.
	There was no fire extinguisher.
	There was no nothing.
	That same New York Times comes out and says, this is Russian misinformation.
	Donna Brazile.
	I think Donna Brazile said something.
	I don't want to put words in her mouth.
	Intelligence Committee dudes.
	I mean, I only know the Brenner guy and maybe Comey.
	50 intelligence agency leaders say this is Russian misinformation.
	And how far beyond that?
	About a year?
	No, it's like two years now.
	It's all true.
	It's confirmed.
	It's verified.
	It is legitimized.
	Everything everyone told you, if it wasn't a lie, it was objectively false.
	You know, a distinction without a difference, because this is coming from the people who made the decisions based on definitive information.
	Take it from there, Robert.
	I mean, who are these intelligence people still doubling down on the lie?
	Who are they and what are they saying now to protect their own intelligence and their own integrity?
	I mean, it's almost every top one.
	I mean, that's what you tell people.
	The same people you're right now saying, I believe everything they say about Russia, Ukraine, are the same people who told you that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation.
	Frankly, if you wanted a list of deep state roster, just go to the list of the people who signed that letter.
	And none of them have suffered any consequence whatsoever.
	In fact, almost all of them have got bonuses, got better jobs, better gigs, better things.
	So they understand that by lying in order to defeat Trump...
	In order to cover up for Biden corruption, they could help bring about a Russia-Ukraine war.
	That was one of their key objectives.
	And so the fact that someone can do it, as soon as you hear somebody say something is Russian disinformation, you should dig in twice, because that probably means it's true.
	That's what's happened the last five years.
	So it's extraordinary.
	It was the greatest intervention in an election in, I mean, Glenn Greenwald called it the greatest election intervention in American history.
	The biggest corruption of the press in covering up a major scandal that's ever occurred.
	Because it was a combination of social media wouldn't let you share it.
	Big media told you it was a lie.
	And the deep state came and signed a bunch of letters saying it was Russian.
	These are the experts everybody's trusting right now in the rest of the Ukraine war.
	And Biden cited them specifically in the debate.
	It's like all the intelligence people have already looked at this.
	And they've already concluded this is definitely false.
	I mean, they weren't even in a position to know.
	I mean, this is where there are methods you can use to figure out whether something is likely true or not likely true.
	You're not going to have perfection of information, but you can have a better guess as to what is true or not.
	And there was no reason for any of these people to have any idea.
	These are the same people that have paranoid, delusional views about Russia in general that are meant to propagandize their own political agenda.
	And that's where the Biden story is unique.
	And it has this intersection of election corruption, press propaganda, deep state apparatus, and the current Russia-Ukraine war.
	It exposes all of it at different levels.
	And Johnny Cash did a great version.
	His mane in black talks about God on our side.
	Robert, the question I have, and I know it's your words that I've now made my own, but when that computer dude...
	It's not because there's emails about a big guy taking 10%.
	It's because there's very bad stuff on that computer.
	Oh yeah, I'm sure that's the case.
	And that guy's life has been mostly ruined.
	You know, he's tried to get legal relief.
	The courts won't let him.
	His business apparently is getting shut down.
	He's been harassed left and right.
	And so it just tells you, you know, the guy that's being honest, the guy that does the right thing, gets punished while the criminals walk free.
	And it should raise, you know, major eyebrows.
	And people should pay more attention to it.
	But, you know, the Republicans in the House and the Senate...
	Or, you know, when they can't connect the dots between this and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, are unlikely to be able to make much of it.
	And so, you know, that was the genius of Clinton.
	He made sure all of his corruption was tied to the Bush family in different ways.
	And so that's why old Ken Starr couldn't dig deep, because he was adding that SCOTUS nomination.
	And so he had to go with Monica Lewinsky.
	He couldn't go with much, much deeper problems in Arkansas.
	By the way, Clinton and Bush.
	Are both for us getting involved in the Russia-Ukraine war, too.
	What reliable sources they are, along with Tony Blair.
	There's that beautiful selfie of Bush, Clinton, and Obama.
	But, Robert, actually, I want to ask you this, because I know what my answer is going to be for this.
	I didn't know that Alexander was disbarred.
	I mean, do you know this, Viva?
	Oh, that's from over a decade ago.
	So he used to be a lawyer.
	He was a lawyer solicitor in the UK for...
	Good period of time.
	And got into a problem with a case.
	Ultimately, I think he resigned, actually, ultimately from the bar.
	But that was...
	What's interesting about that is this.
	Somehow that story regurgitated right in the middle of all this.
	So the Duran starts to get something that's a decade-long story.
	Ran into trouble.
	Dealt with it.
	So on and so forth.
	And suddenly it gets recirculating now.
	It's like people were packing.
	The Gonzalo Lira, the Coach Red Pill guy, claiming he wasn't really in Ukraine.
	I had followed him on and off for years because I like different people that live in different places in the world to give me different perspectives as best as possible.
	And he speaks English, so that helps.
	I was like, there's no doubt he lives in Ukraine.
	But that's the kind of, the propaganda will be uber aggressive.
	Anybody who voices a dissident opinion is an evil agent against the state and the people.
	And, you know, what Zelensky is doing, one of our board members who's got his own webpage and Twitter feed, Election Wizard, who's actually helped me in the vaccine mandate lawsuits because he's a lawyer or soon-to-be lawyer.
	He put out that he believed the State Department encouraged Zelensky to do what he did recently.
	So it's part of a consistent pattern of concentrating power in our corrupt institutions, and they're going to continue to attack anybody who voices a dissident opinion.
	Robert, I have to get a long line for people who hate me.
	So, you know, just get in line.
	Robert, you might have a superhuman thick skin to you, but one angle is Alexander had a nervous breakdown.
	I don't know about that 63 Rambler, but I'll tell you one thing.
	Yeah, he went through a bunch of emotional stuff.
	There's issues.
	But again, this was many, many years ago.
	But also, I'll just say one thing.
	I now, in my own life experience...
	Can see how the organizations get weaponized against you.
	It's very interesting that the ethics complaints, and I'm not speaking for myself necessarily, but other people, although I'm speaking at large, the ethics complaints sometimes have, you know, they come from people who have never been clients.
	They come from people who might not like your content on social media.
	And I'm only paraphrasing from Rakeda, but it might apply a little bit more broadly than Rakeda, that you get ethics complaints from people who have never been clients or opposing parties or anyone involved with you, but specifically because they don't like something you said on social media.
	It used to be an automatic dismissal by bar associations.
	When they were being honorable, if it wasn't a client complaining or someone like a judge complaining, then they would dismiss it.
	Right out of the gate.
	Because it's attempting to weaponize professional bar.
	And that's why I'm opposed to licensures.
	It gives a bunch of clerical bureaucrats power over the ability of people, not only for people to practice their chosen profession, but more importantly, for ordinary people who need those advocates to have access to the justice system.
	And it's unfortunate, but I didn't know that about Clarence Thomas.
	Clarence Thomas was admitted with flu-like symptoms.
	Eric Hundley.
	Hold on.
	Hold on one second, people.
	Let me just get this chat out.
	Eric Hundley, unstructured.
	Just messaged me actually right at the start of this stream.
	No, but like anybody who lives through it and you just notice that complaints and investigations and inspections and whatever, when they coincide with certain activities and I'm like, Rekhaid has been vocal about it, but we've lived it.
	Like we've seen this.
	We're lawyers and we know how it goes.
	You can start asking questions.
	If I find out that a lawyer has been disbarred, A flag might go up, but then another flag might say, okay, let me slow that first flag down and just see maybe why.
	And typically, by the way, I don't know what Alexander's reputation was at the time.
	Typically, when someone gets disbarred, if it's justified, that lawyer has already had a reputation in the field.
	And everybody knew that lawyer, everybody knew that trustee, everybody knew that notary, stay the hell away from them, or everybody knew that criminal lawyer who gets shot up at a phone booth because they were walking a line to begin with.
	When it comes out of the blue, and you don't know if it came out of the blue, if you don't know anything, you can start asking some questions.
	But I didn't know that, and now I actually think I might have a little bit more respect for Alexander.
	As Jerry Spence put it many years ago, the gentlemen of the bar protect the gentlemen of the bar.
	And what he meant by that was the top hat crowd.
	And I've defended a range of people in front of ethics boards, and overwhelmingly, it's dissident lawyers that get targeted.
	Again, over 2,000 prosecutors, when they did a survey and a study, over 2,000 prosecutors found by courts to have committed unethical, unprofessional conduct that impaired the rights of the innocent, only two of them ever faced any disciplinary reaction.
	By contrast, if you are a...
	I mean, they've tried to put Clarence Darrow in prison three different times.
	You know, not a coincidence.
	If you are a...
	A lawyer who challenges the system, they will come after you.
	It's inevitable.
	That's why I tell lawyers that do it, don't worry about it.
	What they're going to do, they're going to do.
	And so you can't control that.
	And you just march on anyway.
	Now, Robert, we were almost perfectly segwaying into it earlier, but now we're going to have to come back to it.
	The Telegram case coming out of Brazil.
	Okay, so look, I read an article.
	I didn't read.
	What did I read?
	I read an article, not the court proceeding.
	A judge in Brazil banned Telegram overnight in the context of a court file to all...
	What's the population of Brazil?
	60 million?
	I think it's more than that.
	People in the chat, what's the population of Brazil?
	And forgive my ignorance.
	But bottom line, a judge in a court file involving...
	I may not know the context enough, but basically said, Telegram did not respond to undertakings or did not comply with court orders, and therefore, we're banning Telegram in all of Brazil.
	Robert, give us some context, and I know it's political, but I just don't understand the politics of Brazil to even start asking the right questions.
	So the three key components of context.
	Well, you could add a fourth.
	First, Bolsonaro is facing a very difficult re-election because the old lefty has got his charges dismissed for corruption.
	I have personal knowledge of some of his corruption, but I'll save that for another day.
	And he's leading in the polls substantially.
	And the election's upcoming.
	Second context is Bolsonaro's key to getting around media bias in Brazil and to organizing his populist base in Brazil is Telegram.
	It was WhatsApp.
	It's now Telegram.
	The third, this judge is an adversary of Bolsonaro.
	Now, fourth is to timing.
	Depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go.
	Bolsonaro has refused to join the West in sanctioning Russia.
	Doesn't think it's any of Brazil's business.
	Doesn't want to get involved in it.
	Has stayed at it.
	Condemned the war, like everybody's condemned the war.
	Or almost everybody.
	But refuses to sanction.
	In fact, if you look at a map, pretty much the whole world outside of Europe and Japan has refused to sanction.
	Should tell you something about, are all of these countries in Putin's pocket?
	How is this?
	That they're willing to resist the United States and the West.
	Do they have an independent understanding of what's happening that isn't from CNN and MSNBC and Fox News?
	Maybe.
	But that's the context.
	It's an absurd ruling.
	Bolsonaro's having people challenge it.
	And I don't know what the status of whether it's actually being enforced yet in Brazil, but it shows where things are going.
	It's a step up.
	You know, it's like Twitter just suspended Trump's account.
	Well, maybe we just get rid of an entire particular social media platform if it's being used by the wrong side politically.
	And they said Telegram had promised to stop, or has promised to stop misinformation, so Telegram is back.
	The misinformation, by the way, was in the COVID context.
	What do you want to bet?
	That the misinformation was actually the true information.
	Telegram was used by a lot of pop, like right now it's being used to challenge the institutional narrative on Russia, on the Russia-Ukraine war, and it was very popularly used to challenge the institutional narrative on COVID.
	And that's why they're going after it.
	Same reason they went after Parler.
	And this will be a good bridge to that next conversation.
	They went after Parler for what happened on January 6th.
	It was just a political pretext to take out a tech alternative that was offering independence from it.
	Now, credit to Rumble that has refused.
	Senator Scott, that dimwit from Florida, that pitiful rich guy bought a Senate seat from Florida, found out Rumble has offices in Florida and went after him because of that.
	Because they're allowing RT to simply be broadcast on Rumble.
	To Rumble's credit, they didn't capitulate to a U.S. senator's direct threats.
	But what does that tell you about the mindset of so many political actors?
	If they're so right, why are they so afraid of dissident information?
	It tells you something.
	The misinformation that Bolsonaro...
	What's his name again?
	Bolsonaro?
	Bolsonaro.
	So the misinformation that Bolsonaro...
	Some of the misinformation...
	Bolsonaro was a beneficiary of Telegram, but he wasn't the original official target of the suit.
	The suit was targeting other misinformation in the COVID context.
	Just to highlight what that misinformation was so it'll flag people's psyches, it apparently was that the Fauci juice itself, which was intended to bolster one's system of defense...
	Might actually, in the long run, weaken it, thus causing something else that Fauci himself spent 30 years trying to fight.
	So it's just very interesting because I had heard that.
	I had heard it as a meme.
	I had heard it as alternative theories of, I mean, at the end of the day, when you do something that weakens your immune system, what does that do at the end of the day?
	And when you have Israel and other countries saying, We're not going to require too many because at some point we're starting to see that it might actually compromise your immune system and not bolster it.
	So say what you will about it.
	What shocked me about what I read, and by the way, apparently according to the chat, the higher court reversed the judge's ban, which makes sense.
	Some people are saying that Telegram agreed to play by the rules.
	You had the other major social media platforms who were apparently present and participating in these proceedings undertaking to censor Let's say, restrict misinformation.
	So you had YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and others saying, we're going to tackle misinformation.
	Telegram either said no or was not present to even say no, but ultimately didn't, and then was banned 220 million people in Brazil, according to the chat.
	It's shocking.
	I'm reading this like, this is preposterous, but this is now how...
	It's fascism.
	It's how you get big tech playing with the government, playing with the courts, saying we're going to censor information, misinformation, which might very well be information that might not be 1,000% accurate, but might deserve looking into.
	Apparently, according to the chat, justice has been restored, but apparently Telegram might have agreed to play by the rules.
	It was probably too controversial in Brazil, what the judge did, but it shows you their willingness to weaponize it.
	And speaking of judges that want the institutional narrative reflected in the States, that means protecting big tech.
	And a woman had sued because she had been removed for Twitter, documented how there is so much coordination between the Biden administration and Twitter as to the, again, COVID, that was the basis for her removal.
	And another federal court in the Northern District of California came to, went to great lengths.
	To shoot down Justice Thomas' theory about this is improper preemption of state law and thus a violation of the First Amendment that Section 230 is.
	And, of course, denied all relief and dismissed it right out of the gate.
	Because that's what's going to happen in the Northern District of California.
	They're going to great lengths.
	To cover for big tech, as they have always done, especially in this context where they like big tech suppressing independent narrative.
	And because that's their own political preference and prejudice in that area.
	And so they said you can't sue Twitter as a state actor.
	You can't sue any state officials, even if you detail it.
	But you have to prove that there was no independent reason possible.
	Which has never been the legal standard for state action.
	But that's where these courts are going.
	Unless you can show, this was the court's actual language, unless you can show no independent motivation they could have had for their basis, then it's never state action, period.
	So they're inoculating big text collusion with big government to suppress speech and activity on social media platforms.
	Sadly, it highlights the importance of Bobby Kennedy's case against Facebook at the Ninth Circuit that may go up to the U.S. Supreme Court because it's the central case that's going to decide this issue and the legal parameters of that issue.
	Now, in that same sense, speaking of Bobby Kennedy taking on important cases, he took on a case the District of Columbia was trying to force vaccines on school children without parental consent, but not only without parental consent, without parental consent.
	Parents even knowing it by compelling doctors to doctor the medical records of the children and falsify those records so the parents wouldn't even know that their kid had been injected.
	Okay.
	Before we get there, because this is shocking and this is like next level shocking compared to what we've even seen in Canada.
	Robert, I got to do it.
	I got to do it.
	Last one of the night.
	John Andrews.
	I will not bring up another super chat after this.
	I've got to read.
	This is beautiful.
	Barnes' view on the war is going to break this community.
	By the way, that statement itself is intended to sow discord, which is itself another method of fighting the people, but not the subject.
	And it's also, I won't say it's a fear that hides a wish.
	This is to plant the seed in the hopes to bring about the conclusion.
	It's corrosive, toxic.
	To imply your listeners are NPCs for disagreement.
	He didn't imply it by the straw man.
	Because he didn't imply anyone was NPC for disagreeing.
	He implied that they might be NPCs for blindly resorting to flawed argument tactics such as ad hominem and strawmanning instead of being substantive, which is what you've just done with the second part of this, but continuing to attempt to sow discord among a community, which is ultimately the objective, I believe.
	Stop with the geopolitics and get back to law.
	Stay in your lane.
	You're a dummy and you have no business having an opinion.
	Is the second part of that.
	Please.
	John Andrews, thank you for the super chat.
	I believe I've given you enough recognition.
	I'm not ignoring this.
	This is loser think on steroids.
	Because above and beyond showing flawed reasoning, it also shows the willingness and the desire to create, to plant the seed of discord in the hope that it actually comes about our community.
	It's an old tactic.
	I mean, it's fascinating watching it live.
	I always thought it'd be interesting to live during some of these war-crazy times.
	You know, the Chinese proverb, which is an ironic proverb, maybe you live in interesting times, it means may you not, is actually the moral of the proverb, or at least under some interpretations.
	But it's fascinating to actually live through it.
	I mean, to see it in live time, I mean, I live through variations of it, but the scale and the scope and the constant nature of it.
	I mean, to go from everything involving Trump to the craziness with Russiagate, the craziness with Spygate, the craziness with Ukrainegate, the craziness with the election, the craziness with the pandemic, to now this craziness.
	But speaking of some of that craziness, a federal court finally pushed back on the January 6th over-prosecution.
	Finally, it's been over a year that some of these political prisoners have been in pre-trial detention.
	This is what got me blocked from some CBS reporter where he said, after Jussie Smollett went to jail and then Mark Lamont Hill said, it amazes me that all y 'all want to see Jussie Smollett in jail.
	And then this other guy said, yeah.
	And then meanwhile, the January 6th defendants are sipping margaritas on a beach in Florida.
	And I was like, first of all, you idiot.
	They're not.
	They've been locked up for over a year, some in solitary confinement, some denied medical treatment, some abused.
	So they haven't.
	And that's pre-trial detention, not post-conviction detention.
	So what's been going on with the January 6th?
	I mean, it's been quiet, but what's the latest updates?
	And can there, there can never be justice a year later, but what's the latest semblance of potentially the pendulum swinging back to justice?
	One of the most threatening charges was this, uh, abuse of obstruction of Congress charges.
	And I've not been a fan of obstruction charges in general because they have a natural proclivity to be misused and abused.
	And during the Trump administration, a lot of lawyers, I mean, we misused.
	The last time we...
	I mean, they're trying to bring back sedition statutes for a couple of these cases.
	The last time we did that was during World War I. We locked up a presidential candidate and a sitting member of Congress for opposing the war.
	So the opposing World War I, who turned out right about that one, by the way.
	So given that dynamic, and when I read the statute, we discussed it early on, I didn't think the obstruction statute applied to almost any of the charges.
	Because what the obstruction is about is...
	And all federal obstruction charges are supposed to be about, which is, did you do something by illicit means to fraudulently impact the government's investigative role?
	So naturally, corruptly obstructing Congress was really meant to apply to congressional hearings when Congress is engaged in their investigative role.
	Did you do something to doctor a document?
	Did you falsify a statement?
	Did you do something to corruptly impact the process so that it could not perform its lawful investigative function?
	It's not supposed to be for these special committees getting contempt referrals against Bannon, which is utter nonsense, which we'll get to in a little bit.
	But it's meant to be this other aspect, but their interpretation is, if you do anything that makes Congress's job harder, and we call it corrupt, we can now put you in prison for 10 to 15 years.
	Think about how badly that could be misused.
	Some judges, even liberal judges in the D.C. court, are starting to put that together.
	That a different Justice Department could lock up a bunch of lefty protesters because they do this more than anybody.
	And so they could all be locked up for obstructing a proceeding.
	Because people don't appreciate the...
	I mean, sure, there's a minimum sanction.
	It was minimal prison time, but up to 20 years, I thought.
	But what people are talking about the obstructing of the proceeding...
	It was certifying the electoral votes for the election where there was violence.
	I appreciate people disagree on whether or not the violence that occurred on January 6th characterized the protest or was the exception to.
	I have now lived through Ottawa.
	I've now lived through the stories of the Yahtzee flag and the Confederate flag.
	And I'm more inclined to say that maybe it was the exception, not the rule to characterize the vote or the protest.
	But that's the argument, that they were there to interrupt the certification process.
	They finished that certification process the same day, Robert.
	Am I wrong?
	Did they finish it at 8 o 'clock that night?
	Yeah, they went back in and did it.
	And the problem with calling anything like that interference with the...
	Where does that end?
	That's pretty elastic.
	You know, you do a political protest and Congress members can't get into Congress because the protest blocks access or something like that.
	Obstruction of a proceeding, right?
	I mean, where do you stop?
	That's why this was supposed to be very narrow.
	Now, the court didn't choose that narrow interpretation like I think it should have, but it did go with another narrow interpretation.
	It said at a minimum, because of the rule of lenity, because the rule is you don't interpret federal criminal laws expansively, both corresponding but independent legal rules of statutory interpretation for federal crime, said that the only way to fairly interpret this statute is that you have to try to be destroying some document in some manner, that you have to be trying to conceal it, fabricate it, doctor it, destroy it, something else.
	And as he points out, And this is the case for almost all of the indictments alleging this.
	He says there's not even an allegation in the indictment that any of these people destroyed any document as part of an official proceeding.
	By all accounts, it was trespass and then arguably violent trespass, even if you want to go with the worst possible interpretation.
	Save and accept for Rhodes, who is accused of conspiracy to commit sedition, which was unrelated to the bulk of the arrested individuals on Jan 6th.
	They went into Pelosi's office.
	They stole the mantle.
	Someone sat in her chair and put his feet on her table.
	Nobody was shredding documents.
	Nobody was destroying anything.
	They had allegedly zip ties, which were reported at the time for anyone who lived through it and remembered.
	They were going to handcuff members of Pelosi, handcuff and kidnap.
	But by all accounts, it was actually just to hold doors open.
	They can zip tie them.
	Nobody did anything to actually obstruct anything above and beyond protest, which, going back to Kavanaugh, people jumping in the elevator, people screaming in the grandstands.
	So, yeah, how do you reconcile the two?
	Do you just rely on the good faith of corrupt politicians to only prosecute one side of the aisle?
	Yeah, so I think the logic of his interpretation, plus the additional argument that I'm talking about, is going to ultimately be persuasive.
	To the U.S. Supreme Court, maybe not the D.C. Circuit, because who knows whether they'll ever uphold the law, but to the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately, such that I think all of the obstruction charges against almost all of the January 6th defendants ultimately will be found to be legally meritless.
	And it's the number one threat to most of them.
	So credit to the lawyers who brought that.
	I'm not sure if that one was public defenders or private counsel, but credit to them for bringing the argument.
	And credit to the court for recognizing at least some limits on that statute, because that was a dangerous criminal.
	If you could define doing anything to impact Congress as an obstruction of a proceeding, then any form of protest, all kinds of things, could be labeled criminal.
	So it was critical for everybody, not just January 6th people, that this statute be limited.
	But how are they still in jail?
	I mean, this is the part that I don't understand.
	I mean, I understand it.
	He's still in jail on other charges by this same judge.
	And to me, it's a violation of the bail provisions.
	It's the juicy small a.
	Some people ask me why I pronounce it that way.
	It's because of...
	That's Dave Chappelle's ingenious.
	And it's stuck.
	As soon as he said it, I was like, this guy's perfect in terms of comic genius.
	But basically, you compare that.
	Now, I agree.
	With the bail decision the Illinois Court of Appeals made because I'm a strong bail advocate across the board.
	I believe that Epstein should have been given bail.
	Elaine Maxwell should have been given bail.
	So, you know, defendants I deeply dislike or believe committed horrendous crimes.
	I'm still for them getting bail because I believe in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	And I don't change it based on what they're accused of.
	And now we'll get to Jussie Smollett in a second.
	And by the way, to that chat, I'm screenshotting the Rumble rants and I'm going to get to them before this is over.
	But I'm a noob, Robert.
	A judge says no bail.
	Do you not get periodic bail review?
	Like, you've been in there for a month, maybe after you get back in front of a judge?
	You keep bringing motions for release, and then you run it up to the appellate food chain.
	And back in the old days, the U.S. Supreme Court used to, individual justices riding circuit, used to give really good rulings and pay attention to bail.
	They haven't.
	Ever since the Bail Reform Act of 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a totally bogus Salerno decision, 5-4 decision, the defense wasn't even meaningfully represented in the case for a range of reasons, affirmed it.
	And what they affirmed it is, because historically, bail is solely that for the only is, will you show up in court?
	Because at this point, you've just been accused.
	You haven't been convicted.
	And if accusation suffices to convict, well, what will happen of the innocent, as Cicero said?
	I mean, this is an ancient principle.
	The Magna Carta goes all the way back.
	So the presumption of innocence in its important role.
	And the presumption of innocence under the Fifth Amendment and the right to bail under the Eighth Amendment historically had been interpreted to mean only is it likely that you will flee.
	And that you will successfully flee such that they will not be able to hold a trial for you or secure any punishment for you.
	The Bail Reform Act of 1984 changed that and said instead, if you're a danger to the community, then you can be detained.
	Now, it was intended to be limited to drug cartels, mobsters, violent criminals.
	It has, of course, been broadly expanded.
	To include now political protesters in this context.
	And what they've done, this is the way this judge held him solely on that because they couldn't show with hardly any of these January 6th defendants any meaningful risk that they would successfully flee given that they hadn't fled and had come back voluntarily or reported voluntarily and the rest.
	Fled from what?
	I mean, even if fleeing from trespass charges or the recitative, like they're going to commit and re-offend, these were not violent.
	They didn't end in mass destruction charges in the first place of the allegations.
	But Robert, how quickly, how often, what's the time frame that you have to live through before you can raise another motion for reassessment of bail?
	There's no limit on filing it.
	You can file it every other day if you wanted to.
	It's just a matter of the court can sit on it.
	And there's only so much you can do.
	And so usually the court, and often lawyers don't challenge it as often as they can.
	A lot of the January 6th defendants have.
	But typically, if they lose at the front end, they don't come back at it, come back at it, come back at it, come back at it.
	And there's a due process argument that the longer the person is detained, the higher the evidentiary burden is.
	Because here's what the evidentiary burden is supposed to be.
	By clear and convincing evidence, they show that you pose an imminent risk to the community that can only be addressed by detention pending trial.
	Now, I mean, again, this is minority reports.
	This is why I'm opposed to it.
	I think it violates the Eighth Amendment.
	I agree with the dissenting justices in the Salerno case.
	But, you know, again, that ship has sailed for the time being.
	I preserve that in all my bail arguments.
	I actually had a federal magistrate once, a federal.
	Federal magistrate, because they are the ones who preside over bail proceedings, typically.
	You can appeal it to the district court, but often the magistrate's the first key actor.
	When I brought up the Constitution, I said, what does the Constitution have to do with bail?
	Federal judge.
	Constitution has to do with bail.
	Somebody skipped the 8th Amendment.
	I mean, Barrett at least only skipped one part of the First Amendment.
	She didn't skip a whole amendment in memory in front of the Senate.
	So that's where we're at.
	And it's because bail has not been meaningfully enforced.
	And more and more people, particularly people on the left, have been aware of this.
	And they have pushed, I think, for risky bail reform measurements.
	And I think risky from a political standpoint.
	I agree with many of their legal arguments.
	But from a political standpoint, because...
	If you release truly violent criminals, it's going to look bad.
	And here's the practical problem.
	Every judge looks at a case, and the political risk is all on the side.
	You can either screw over this one individual and detain him pending trial, and then you have one person who's unhappy with you, but maybe they'll get convicted.
	Usually they do, so who cares?
	Whereas if they go out and there's even a 1% chance...
	That's not the legal standard.
	It's supposed to be more likely than not that they do something that causes severe harm.
	But even under this watered-down Bail Reform Act of 1984, but that's not their political analysis.
	Their political analysis is if there's a 1% chance this person goes out and does something, that's going to make me as a judge look bad.
	That's where the left had an argument on bail reform.
	The left's argument was judges can't be trusted.
	To give a fair bail analysis, so we just have to say automatic bail, no cash bail required, no bail required, period, because judges are just historically unreliable on determining, because the politics says detain him.
	The politics says the risk is all if he goes out and does some harm.
	It means you don't care about the Constitution, you don't care about this individual, but that's the political reality.
	Robert, someone had asked, I know the answer already, but answer it again.
	If you're denied bail, end up incarcerated, and you get found not guilty, are you entitled to sue for government damages?
	Nope.
	Nope.
	You get nothing back.
	Nothing.
	And that would be another practical issue of reform, is to institute that.
	I mean, that's where I agree with the law of self-defense, Andrew Branca, about doing this in other contexts, in self-defense contexts.
	If prosecutors could be held personally liable for bringing charges that did not secure a conviction, or at least didn't even get through a preliminary hearing process, then that would probably change how often they bring it.
	And it's for, it's why I'm, you know, against qualified immunity in general.
	It's just politically selective when they apply it.
	As we saw this week in a federal court that denied any immunity at all and basically is said that she's liable is the Kentucky court clerk who had refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious objection to gay marriage.
	And so it raised an interesting question.
	what happens when a state actor has a first amendment objection to enforcing the law in a particular manner.
	The court ignored all that and said, none of that matters.
	All that matters is gay marriage is protected.
	She didn't issue the license.
	She's liable.
	And the only thing a jury Now, I agree with no immunity.
	That's because I'm for no immunity, period.
	It shows how it's politically weaponized to favor or disfavor people based on their politics.
	Okay, hold on.
	Well, that might not be more deep than that particular segment, but before we get there, Robert, but Jussie Smollett, on the substance of his interim release, so he was found guilty.
	We had the whole sentencing.
	We don't need to go over that.
	Judge sentenced him to 150 days.
	His team says we have a robust appeal.
	He went to jail for about a week, went on a hunger strike after saying he's not suicidal.
	Apparently, they had to feed him ice chips to keep him hydrated.
	They say they have a robust appeal, and as far as I understand, unless I'm not understanding it properly, the extent of his robust appeal, in my view, hinges on the double jeopardy argument, unless there's another one that I'm not paying attention to.
	Is there another argument for his appeal, and it's the double jeopardy?
	Was he ever in jeopardy in the criminal sense or was he ever absolved of his threat through the agreement that he said he came through?
	And what do you think the chances are of him succeeding on the merits of that appeal on the basis of double jeopardy on whichever of the two type of double jeopardy he might benefit from?
	So I support bail because I believe you have a right of appeal and that that right of appeal should be fully vindicated before you're punished.
	Because what if you're punished and it turns out the appeals court says you never should have been convicted.
	So I believe an 8th amendment for everybody.
	Regardless of whether I think you're guilty or not.
	Regardless of whether I think you're a horrible human being or not.
	So on that aspect.
	And now the second aspect is, I do think it was political selectivity in how they did it.
	You know, there's much better arguments for the January 6th defendants to have bail than there was for Juicy Smollett.
	Because he's already convicted, unlike them.
	And so here you have a convicted, and that changes the analysis.
	I still think he has a right to appeal.
	That means that for most defendants, they should have a right to bail.
	But it's different after you've been convicted versus just accused by the state through a grand jury or criminal complaint.
	And so, and the decision broke down politically.
	Two liberals broke one way, conservative broke the other.
	So it's predictable these days.
	But as to their appellate analysis, it's supposed to be, now they did a two-fold approach, one of which was used actually in the Snipes case.
	Where Snipes was granted bail pending appeal by the Federal District Court, which is if your sentence is of such a duration, is a short duration, such that you will have served the whole sentence before an appeals court can resolve the question, then you should be granted bail pending appeal.
	I agree with that argument.
	That part of the argument I agree with the judges on.
	And I agree with the outcome for Eighth Amendment reasons, but they didn't focus on that.
	The part of their argument that I thought was less persuasive...
	Was implying that there's a strong merits appeal.
	Now, my own view is that I'm not in favor of that being part of the bail analysis, but it typically is, which is how strong is your appellate argument?
	The problem is you're having to preview something within 24 hours, 48 hours.
	They make these decisions very quickly.
	And so I think that's problematic to try to force that on a court that early.
	But putting aside the fact that I don't think it should be part of the bail standard, their analysis I don't think is correct.
	In that they seem to believe it's a robust argument.
	From what the trial court laid out, it did not sound at all like a robust argument.
	So I haven't seen the actual legal briefs, so maybe they'll be better than what I saw in the trial court.
	But from what I saw in the trial court, he did not have a very robust argument for double jeopardy preventing the prosecution.
	Because there are two aspects of the double jeopardy.
	One is he was charged.
	They dropped the charges under a deferred prosecution agreement, which Jussie Smollett, through his attorneys at the time, said it was not a mutual agreement.
	It was unilateral.
	They just said, we have no case, so we drop it.
	So Jeopardy had never been attached.
	The flip side is that there was something of Jeopardy attached and that he did agree to forfeit a $10,000 bond.
	He did agree to two days community service, so they can't come back and punish him again for that for which they've already transacted.
	The only problem being that they argued, on the one hand, we never transacted, and now they're arguing we transacted.
	But the two aspects of the double jeopardy, criminal sense, when would jeopardy have attached had they not entered into the deferred prosecution agreement in the first place?
	Well, I mean, the deferred prosecution agreements are dangerous, and that's why I'm not a big fan of them, and people should be very careful with them.
	And like people thought, that's what happened to the Amy Cooper case.
	That's not what happened.
	All charges dismissed with prejudice.
	End of story.
	Deferred prosecution cases as to how that impacts double jeopardy gets much trickier.
	It appeared to me that he failed to do certain things to preserve his double jeopardy argument.
	But again, maybe the briefing will show something different than what I heard in the trial court.
	But it seemed to me that they didn't take certain key steps they needed to to prevent and preclude a subsequent prosecution.
	Okay, fantastic.
	So we'll get there.
	We'll get there, people.
	We'll see what happens.
	Some people in the chat saying he'll never serve time.
	I'm predicting he will serve time.
	His appeal is going to fail.
	Probably, but maybe they think that the momentary justice of the sentence announcement will work and it will be a year, two years away from now where people have partially forgot about it, that routine.
	But his lawyer, one of his lawyers, prior lawyers, maybe it's the current one, is being sued for defamation.
	By the Nigerian brothers.
	Who's Garagos now?
	Garagos is now representing someone else.
	This one is not Garagos.
	It's a different one.
	This suit.
	I forget whose name it was on the suit.
	But it's one of the lawyers who went on CBS and lied about to defend Juicy.
	Was it Tina Glangian?
	Could have been, but I'm blanking on the name.
	It might have been the same firm anyhow.
	But yes, so what's happening with the Osundaro brothers' defamation lawsuit against the lawyers?
	So the court went out of the way to dismiss a bunch of it.
	I thought exceedingly so.
	But the court allowed the core part of the case to go forward.
	And the core part of the case is saying that they used whiteface.
	Saying that because it was the problem with, how do you explain it's these brothers who did it?
	And juicy story that, you know, two white guys saying MAGA country.
	Robert, well, anyone who doesn't know the details, the Osundara brothers are very Nigerian.
	So the idea that they could be white perpetrators would only make sense if you then try to cover up that lie to say, yes, they're Nigerian and very dark skin, but they painted their faces white, which itself is a statement of fact, for which they were suing for defamation, saying, first of all, we did this.
	It was such a harebrained scheme.
	We didn't paint our faces white.
	And you're lying to make us look even stupider than we look now.
	So if anyone doesn't understand why that's a nuance, that's why.
	So, sorry, Robert, carry on.
	Yeah, that sums it up.
	And so that case marches forward.
	And it's interesting.
	One of the issues is legal privilege.
	And legal privilege, as lawyers are discovering, is...
	What you say in court has definite privilege.
	What you say outside of court often does not.
	And there's arguments about whether it should or shouldn't.
	But one thing that was interesting is that there was another case set up this week where a court was determining whether or not certain governmental actors could be sued for various things they had done.
	And the governmental actors asserted legal privilege.
	And there's a petitioning privilege that's protected under California law and some other states that says, if I as a citizen petition the government, I cannot be sued for anything I do in the act of petitioning.
	However, the courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit in this case, has reversed that and said that anything the government does in response to someone petitioning is also somehow immune.
	The First Amendment right to petition is not the right of the government to lie to you when you petition them.
	But that is how the Ninth Circuit has now interpreted it, and they shut down part of a civil rights suit on the grounds that a bunch of lies...
	Well, part of it relates to the suit by the same church against Santa Clara County to finally get some real remedy.
	For all the COVID rules that the state and the county imposed.
	And the same court that had to be reversed repeatedly by the Supreme Court still found a way to let the county out for a bunch of stuff.
	Luckily, not all of it, knowing it would get overturned, probably.
	But let them out for efforts to intimidate the bank and other parties related to the church.
	Let the state out altogether because they said this has no chance of repeating.
	Yeah, right.
	This is no chance of repeating.
	But, you know, it's another mootness, standing, you know, latches, right?
	You know, these doctrines, the Pontius Pilate pretext doctrines of lazy and cowardice courts to escape justice and help people escape justice.
	But one of their rulings was that this legal privilege extended.
	The good news is...
	They said the case on violation of the rights to assembly, the rights of expression of religion, because churches were targeted in particular by the county officials in particular, means that goes forward for a damages claim in front of a jury.
	So good on that church for continuing to fight these rules and to establish good law and good remedy.
	Now, Robert, I'm just going to point this out.
	We're over 15,000 right now on YouTube.
	We're over 5,000 right now on Rumble.
	I will invite the chat, if you haven't already thumbs up and subscribed and yadda yadda, whatever, that's one thing.
	Put a comment in the chat so we can see the chat go absolutely crazy, like 1, 2, A, B, whatever, while I read the Rumble rants on Rumble, because we've had a few of them.
	And then we're going to get to Project Veritas, and I think that's, we're already over two hours, but we'll wind up soon.
	We've got Allie Cat Jack, a $50 Rumble rant, says, if you are picking sides in this war, you are unfortunately biased.
	There is no, quote, good guy here.
	You are supporting Putin on one side or the Nazis on the other.
	Do some history.
	Thank you, Ali Shack.
	We got Planak77 says, Robert, your opinion on New York State bail reform law.
	We talked about that a while back.
	I know we talked about that because...
	That was my learning curve on New York bail law.
	We got Hamartix says, very interesting.
	Rumble viewers don't seem to like calling Barnes Russian disinformation.
	Please give them some love.
	It's an interesting thing.
	There are fewer, I won't call them trolls, but there's a different demographic ideologically between Rumble and YouTube.
	And Rumble's rules create...
	Help limit the number of trolls.
	This is true.
	Some people don't like it because in order to comment, you have to register with an email address, which some people don't like.
	Interesting.
	Well, definitely trolls don't like it.
	Kat O 'Neill says 84% increase on excess death.
	18 to 44 population.
	Not related with my Sharona Cyrus last quarter 2021.
	A certain doctor wrote about it.
	Anything about that?
	No comment.
	No doubt.
	You can just look up that data, and we'll be putting more of it up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which is censor-free.
	But yes, the insurance reports that were coming out of Wall Street appear to be increasingly confirmed by a wide range of sources.
	And the question is, what caused that rise?
	And if you look at it chronologically...
	There's a particular possibility.
	Robert, the argument is going to be it's post-COVID stuff.
	It's everyone who contracted it that had issues.
	Sam Snort says, the only thing I am sure of these days is that Barnes was undoubtedly a beautiful baby.
	And I'm sure his mom will agree.
	And that's it.
	And then I missed a $100 super chair, which I can't find.
	Martin.
	M-A-R-T-O-N says, is Biden being pressured through the New York Times into doing something, maybe re-Ukraine, that he's currently not willing to do?
	I don't think Biden even knows what he wants to do anymore.
	Or did the New York Times suddenly discover some veracity in an 18-month-old story that they shun back then?
	Robert, you'll tell me if I'm cynical.
	My theory is that it's an undeniable truth.
	You've got to recognize it at some point.
	This is the best time.
	In between elections, in the midst of a crisis in a foreign country where many people are not paying attention to this, and you still got your talking head liars at the intelligence agencies for those who still want to continue to be deceived, saying, don't worry, it was all a lie, it's Russian disinformation, and you're entitled to believe it.
	Robert, do you disagree with that assessment?
	The alternative possibility is that...
	That this is being used as potential leverage to make sure Biden conforms to the agenda of certain groups and institutions.
	And the other evidence for that is there is more evidence leaking out or stories or rumors leaking out of a federal grand jury in Delaware that's continuing to investigate Hunter Biden for allegations of both corruption and tax evasion.
	That hasn't been independently confirmed, but it would be a particular...
	You could imagine a scenario where it's being used as leverage to make sure old Joe sticks to the script.
	That's one interpretation.
	I'm going to read this.
	So if I pay to disagree, I'm a troll originally.
	No!
	If you disagree, tell me why you disagree instead of wasting your chat on this.
	Oh no, you're always free to troll as long as you pay the toll.
	No problem.
	I don't even like that.
	If you disagree, explain why that was a substance-less You had the opportunity.
	I brought it up.
	What factually do you disagree with?
	All right.
	What did I just do?
	Hold on.
	Okay, am I still there?
	I thought I brought myself up.
	Robert, we're doing Project Veritas and we've got a few more to go.
	Speaking of a court getting defamation wrong, I'll give you the backdrop.
	I haven't done one in the car in a while because I would have spent five hours on one story, which would have been the Project Veritas judgment.
	And it would have been the one story that I did in a day, and it's not an efficient use of time anymore.
	Project Veritas, for all of those who don't know, they have a very good batting record when it comes to suing, defending, and defending themselves.
	They are suing the New York Times for defamation, for the allegations of having run a coordinated disinformation hit piece as relates to alleged ballot harvesting from...
	Ilhan Omar's campaign.
	We won't get into that for now.
	They sued CNN because at one point when they were banned from Twitter from their ever so clear uniformly applied rules, Twitter said that they broke the terms of service.
	They violated terms of service as relates to publishing private information and or misinformation because you lump it all together in one opaque coverall rule, you never know what's going on.
	The story itself, from what I understand, was when they approached a Facebook executive in front of his house.
	They didn't bleep out the number of his address.
	They were banned from Twitter.
	CNN runs a piece saying they were banned from Twitter for providing misinformation.
	Okay.
	Protein Veritas sues for defamation saying...
	We weren't banned under the pretext of disinformation.
	We were banned under the pretext of having allegedly not censored private information, therefore disclosed private information.
	And they said, therefore, your factual statements, which you said to your viewers that Project Veritas provides, communicates, publishes misinformation, factually incorrect, and impugns our reputation.
	CNN, true to form, makes a motion to dismiss, saying...
	They raised a bunch of arguments.
	There's no actual malice because they're a public figure.
	The statements were substantively true, sufficiently so that they should fail on the motion.
	But the argument that they raised, which the judge clung to, was that it was sufficiently true because while we were factually incorrect in saying...
	That they were banned for providing misinformation.
	They were banned for providing private information, which, as far as a journalist goes, has the same negative impact on the damage to the reputation.
	And the judge, applying law that I never knew existed until I read this judgment, said, almost verbatim, substitute the false for the true, and the damage to the reputation is the same.
	As if to say, okay, fine.
	They did not provide misinformation, but they violated the terms of service as relates to private information.
	So substitute the false, that they published misinformation, with the true, that they provided private information, the damage to their reputation would be the same.
	Therefore, it's immunity from defamation because the truth would have been as damaging as the lie.
	Robert, we'll get into the fact that I think that's fundamentally wrong as it relates to the two allegations, but in law, is that actually the law?
	You accuse someone of being a rapist and not a murderer, when in reality they're only a murderer but not a rapist, and therefore substitute the lie for the truth, it would be just as bad calling someone a murderer versus a rapist, and you can't sue for defamation?
	That's not my understanding.
	I think the court confused an issue about limitation on damages, an argument against damages to the jury, with an argument about whether you can substantively sue in the first place.
	The court admitted CNN lied about Project Veritas and then said, but if they told the truth, I don't think you would have suffered any greater damage than them lying about you.
	And aside from the fact that claim itself, of course, is inaccurate in my opinion.
	More consequently...
	That isn't my understanding of the law.
	Now, the court was a federal court sitting in Georgia applying New York law, which the reason for that was the court interpreted that the domicile of the plaintiff controls, which the courts have been inconsistent on that.
	It's interesting, though, CNN raised the choice of law defense because, to my knowledge, they never did raise that defense in Kentucky in the Nicholas Sandman cases because I thought that was a risk for the Sandman cases, particularly because they were brought in federal court.
	That the D.C. law would apply rather than Kentucky's substantive law, and there were some provisions in D.C. law that are less sympathetic to the plaintiff in a defamation suit.
	But here, CNN did argue that, most likely because Georgia law wasn't sympathetic to them at all.
	But generally, defamation law is standardized.
	So I see this as a misinterpretation of New York law that is really about limitations on potential damages arguments to the jury.
	Because the argument to the jury is if we told the truth, they would have suffered the same injury.
	Okay, that's a damages argument.
	That's not a substantive did they lie about me argument.
	That's not substantial truth.
	Interpreting that as substantial truth makes no sense.
	It's a court misapplying the concepts at a conceptual level.
	Not a huge surprise.
	This was an Obama appointee.
	So I think that was...
	Now, the other problem was this.
	Factually saying you would suffer the exact same injury by a journalistic organization like Project Veritas...
	Being falsely accused of misleading people versus whether or not they disclose private information is also a frankly nonsensical argument by the court.
	There's nobody that would say, okay, you're a journalist.
	Are you going to suffer the exact same reputational injury if you're accused of lying to the world such that you had to be banned from social media versus you disclose private information about somebody?
	It's ludicrous to compare those two.
	I'm going to read it just so nobody thinks I'm just making crap up.
	Robert, you see the screen, right?
	While Project Veritas asserts that CNN's statements implying that Project Veritas was banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation maligns its, quote, journalistic integrity.
	That's from their filing.
	The pleaded truth of being accused of violating a policy aimed at protecting individuals from coming to physical harm as a result of their Information being shared, end quote.
	Similarly maligns a journalist's professional reputation.
	In essence, this is what I was saying.
	Substitute the true for the false and the damage to the plaintiff's reputation would be no less.
	And they cite this decision, which I have no idea what it is.
	And note that decision says.
	It talks about damages.
	It's not saying you can't bring a libel claim on that basis.
	It says the damages would be no less.
	Right.
	It's a mitigation argument on damages.
	That's not a substantive basis to dismiss and calling it substantially true.
	I mean, this federal court actually said that a substantially false statement was substantially true.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	Yeah, this just says, however, without more, the court is unable to uphold Prodivertas'policy argument that this...
	As the Supreme Court has recognized that there can be times when alleged false speech is insulated from liability.
	And I was saying this, I'm going to close this and hopefully I don't shut myself out.
	Did I do it?
	I'm still here.
	To say that, and I don't remember where I said this, it might have been privately.
	To accuse a journalist of providing misinformation is much different to the integrity, to the reputation of that journalist than to accuse them of releasing private information.
	Saying that they committed a crime of hacking is different than saying they committed the journalistic crime of lying or providing misinformation.
	One might make them an a-hole.
	The other might make them a liar.
	And when you're a journalist, you can still be a good journalist and a big a-hole, but you can't be a good journalist if you're a big liar but not an a-hole.
	And so, to me, it's like, okay, that's a great determination.
	That's for the jury.
	How do you use that on a motion to dismiss, to say, I concur, I agree.
	When they said you were booted from Twitter for misinformation, it was factually incorrect.
	But had they told the truth that you were booted for communicating private information, the damage to your reputation would have been the same.
	Dismissed on a motion to dismiss, not on damages at a hearing after the marriage.
	It made no sense to me.
	We'll see if they appeal.
	Do you think they should appeal?
	I mean, what are the chances?
	I'm sure they'll appeal.
	It'll just be who they get a draw on on the 11th Circuit.
	But like I said, this does not sound like good law to me.
	This is a confusion of a damage mitigation claim with what's substantially true claim.
	I mean, all you have to keep saying is a federal court said something that was substantially false was substantially true.
	And he's like, okay, that can't make sense as a matter of fact or law.
	Keep giving to hell, boys.
	Now, it's not us.
	It's Project Veritas.
	Protein Veritas is giving them hell.
	And their victory of the week, above and beyond this...
	I'm reading this decision.
	I was like, all right, great.
	If you accuse me as a lawyer of being...
	What's the word?
	When you steal funds from trust.
	Well, that's false.
	But if you accuse me of being...
	I don't know.
	Like a...
	I don't even want to say it.
	There are types of accusations when given your profession, the effect is entirely different, but that's for a hearing on the merits and not for a summary motion to dismiss.
	Where they did score a small victory in that seizure of James O 'Keefe and other journalists' cell phone records, cell phones, sorry, not cell phone records, where they petitioned to have a special master appointed, and they succeeded.
	Which was the victory at the time.
	They had a special master come in who's an independent third party appointed by the court, not affiliated with either of the parties.
	The victory was in them getting that appointed, and I covered that at the time.
	Their sub-victory was that, I didn't know this, whoever the prosecution is says, okay, well, we've got a special master appointed.
	Project Veritas should have to pay their fees to ensure that we don't have access to information we're not entitled to.
	And it would have been like $45,000.
	A reasonable fee for anyone who's not the government playing with other people's tax dollars.
	The court said basically, no, you're going to pay for the special master's professional fees and not James O 'Keefe and the defendants.
	I mean, what is it?
	It's an obvious decision, but it's a moral, it's a Pyrrhic victory because it's just the taxpayers who pay for this?
	Oh, I mean, it's a big victory because it could be difficult for Project Veritas to pay that kind of expenses, and that would be a real burden.
	So it's good that the government always has to bear the burden of the expense of a magistrate or a special master when they go in and, frankly, illicitly seize materials.
	So the fact the special master was assigned was important.
	The fact that the government has to write the check is important because otherwise it's the individual whose rights are being violated.
	So it was an important win for Project Veritas.
	As to this matter and for other people that are similarly situated.
	Well, and we're going to see.
	Apparently, there's going to be news.
	Project Veritas is fighting the good fight.
	They had another retracto, which, I mean, at some point, when you're up to your 400th retracto...
	It makes for good internet content, but the impact on the viewer is lessened.
	Robert, what else did we have on the menu?
	I think the New York Times had an issue of retraction because they accused someone who was being skeptical of the war of being pro-Putin, and the individual was most clearly not, and so they had to issue a retraction for it.
	That gives a sense of the mindset.
	And to the super chat that said that Biden looks like the puppet from Jeff Dunham, I've been saying that from the beginning.
	I mean, beginning a couple of years ago, he didn't used to.
	But, I mean, he now completely looks like the Jeff Dunham old man puppet, cranky old man, you know, just dimmer.
	Yeah, I was going to say, that puppet makes more sense, and that puppet actually entertained people in a meaningful sense.
	Okay, I got the $100 Martin Super Chat, which was, is he being pressured?
	$5 of this goes towards headband.
	Yeah, I'm going to do the headband sooner than later.
	It's the sides that are getting too long.
	But when I exercise now...
	When I exercise and I start sweating and I go like this, it actually gets stuck.
	It's like long hair now.
	It's not even a fro anymore.
	Robert, hold on.
	I was just going back to our list here to see.
	The other case I was going to mention briefly is the...
	It's interesting.
	Restaurants now have a way of pocketing the cash that you think is going to a tip.
	So if restaurants...
	Put a mandatory, they call it a mandatory service fee on your bill, then the restaurants don't have to treat it as a tip for all the different labor laws and other laws that apply.
	And that's according to the 11th Circuit.
	And to me, the focus they said was the word, as long as the restaurant called it, if they called it discretionary, then no, but they called it mandatory.
	I think the ordinary person thinks that they're tipping the waiter or the waitress, not that they're doing a fee to the restaurant.
	For the busboy.
	But that's basically how the restaurants have interpreted it.
	And they were able to escape a major class action about violation of Fair Labor Act and various overtime rules and payment rules because they get to say these aren't really tips at all, it turns out.
	So the bottom line is if anybody wants to be sensitive and conscientious about the waiters or waitresses, if you want to tip them, do it.
	I don't know, what, by cash or by hand?
	Basically, they're increasing your cost as a customer.
	You think you're tipping the person when really it's up to the restaurant how that gets distributed entirely, and the employee doesn't get the full amount of that and doesn't get the full legal benefit of the way the laws were originally at least intended.
	So it's credit to the restaurant industry for coming up a way to stiff their workers one more time.
	You know what?
	Another good one.
	We're well past our two hours, but I didn't know why Biden wasn't called in this movie.
	Okay.
	Robert, the NFT lawsuit that you sent me, which was...
	Look, I mean, I read it summarily.
	It's a dude who buys an NFT, a non-fungible token.
	I still don't know what that means, people.
	To me, it's just fraud.
	It sounds like fraud from the beginning.
	I'm not getting into them.
	I'm not doing it.
	And so don't ask me NFT people out there or even crypto people.
	I don't say crypto is fraud.
	I'm not getting into it.
	A non-fungible token was issued.
	It was a Pepe the Frog meme.
	And allegedly, to me, this sounds like set-aside NFTs.
	It sounds like a contractual dispute where they say we have 99 of these NFTs.
	I don't know how you control a digital token.
	I don't know how you control the issuance of.
	Maybe you can clarify that for me.
	But they say we're only issuing 99 of these, but we're going to keep the other 98 in a safe.
	We're never going to issue these NFTs.
	Pepe the meme, Pepe the frog meme, dude pays $500,000 for it.
	There's a part of me, there's a part of me, the a-hole part of me that says, anybody who has half a million bucks to blow on an NFT, even if they think it's going to be a Picasso painting, you're asking for trouble.
	Because even if you blow a half a million on a Picasso painting, I still think you're into some form of money laundering.
	That's my own issues.
	They buy one.
	And then shortly thereafter, they say, we're releasing another 45 of these NFTs of the ones that we said there was only one issued.
	We had 99 limited.
	And the value goes, the value goes from half a million that this guy paid for it to 30,000.
	To me, it sounds like a pure contractual dispute.
	But Robert, if you can elucidate NFTs for me and for the crowd, are they scams?
	Are they not scams?
	Tell me they're scams.
	They're not necessarily scams.
	I have a limited...
	My understanding is it's blockchain-based and that's how it works or in some manner like that.
	But my understanding is very, very limited.
	But it was interesting.
	I mean, this is the Pepe guy who got free representation to sue a bunch of people for political reasons.
	But now it turns out his real motivation all along may have been to...
	Whether he has real copyright to me has always been in doubt.
	Because, I mean, you look at...
	The image of Pepe, and then you look at where he may have borrowed it from, it's like, that's a copyrightable image?
	Hmm.
	But he, I think, brought a lot of these cases to establish that, purportedly to prevent the right-wingers from misusing it.
	And now it looks like, no, it was to get rich.
	And so it wasn't for political purposes.
	But it does look to me like he defrauded these people.
	I don't know why the accusations are true, but if they are true...
	He defrauded some people.
	Yeah, it's a contractual dispute.
	Look, call it an NFT.
	Call it a print.
	I have 99 prints.
	I'm going to keep 98 in my vault.
	Robert, just get frozen?
	I don't think so.
	I got 99 in my vault.
	Here's one.
	I won't sell the other 98 or put them up for auction.
	Oh, you gave me a half a million.
	Robert, I didn't know there was a left.
	This is how objective I am.
	I didn't know there was a political angle to this.
	This was an individual who thought he could buy it so that he could prevent use for political purposes, and he was left-leaning?
	No, the guy who sold it.
	The guy who sold it had a big corporate law firm representing him pro bono in some cases against people for very small issues.
	And purportedly, he wasn't trying to protect the copyright, which a lot of people had some doubts about.
	He was stopping the right-wingers from usurping Pepe.
	That was his official.
	But now it turns out maybe that wasn't the motivation.
	Maybe it was he planned on monetizing it with these NFTs.
	But NFTs have been rife for lawsuits because it's this new area as to what exactly it means, what exactly it entails.
	There's about a dozen major lawsuits concerning it.
	This was just the one that seemed the most interesting of the group to highlight the legal...
	Ramifications of a lot of these issues.
	Viva, cut and groom your appearance and hair.
	You're in the midlife age and not that good looking of that young guy.
	Do you know what?
	It doesn't matter what I look like.
	It just matters what I remember that I used to look like.
	Once upon a...
	Hey, dudes.
	One stream, I might come back and I might have bleach blonde streaks in my head.
	I'm going to go to the barber.
	Or the hair people.
	They're going to put that cap on.
	They're going to pull my hair out by streaks, bleach it, and I'm going to come back looking like an absolute midlife crisis human being.
	Have you heard of the defamation case against Lori Lightfoot?
	I haven't.
	The mayor of Chicago?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think I have.
	I think we discussed it before if it's the same one.
	Robert, what have we not gotten to?
	NFTs are marked as if they convey some kind of legal property rights.
	Nothing has established that they do.
	The technology is real, but applications are rare.
	Yeah, that's...
	But this is my own skepticism with cryptocurrencies in general.
	It's the same, similar problem.
	And that's not to say that I won't take my chances gambling.
	Or I should say, investing.
	I will just never recommend...
	I will not be a spokesperson for something I don't understand.
	Period.
	Ever.
	Robert, what have we missed for the evening?
	This has been one kick butt of a stream.
	I think that covered all the main topics.
	Yeah, we got Whitmer.
	There was nothing really new.
	We'll get to Whitmer when there's a definitive development.
	That story gets crazier and crazier what the government was up to.
	It turns out that the government appears to have been setting up fake militias with fake oaths with these militias in multiple states to help try to entrap a wide range of people.
	You have to wonder whether this relates to aspects of January 6th.
	And if you wanted sort of a...
	A version of whether they've done this before, then you can look up the hush-hush on the Oklahoma City bombing at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Yeah.
	Oh, son of a beast thing.
	I think we're absolutely done now.
	We'll get to Whitmer.
	We've got the Johnny Depp trial, which I might try to actually get to the States for to actually live stream.
	Not in the trial, but do something fun with, because it's going to be a gong show of a trial.
	I just have to see if I can actually...
	I'm landlocked, people.
	I'm landlocked.
	I either have to take both dogs, which itself would make for great content.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	Wednesday night, Robert, who do we...
	It's tentative.
	We don't know who we have yet.
	Yeah, waiting on some people to respond.
	Okay, and it's going to be good one way or the other.
	At some point this week, I'm going to have James...
	Oh, my God.
	I'm sorry.
	I forgot his last name.
	I had a way of remembering it, and I totally forgot.
	It's...
	Frickin' guy that we were...
	Yeah, James Top.
	Tops.
	Baseball cards.
	My other...
	Okay.
	James Top, if he accepts the invite, will be on at some point this week.
	I've got in the lineup in the future, Freeway Frank, for anyone who's from Canada might know who he is.
	Gonna be good.
	Robert, I brought up the chat earlier.
	People need a white pill.
	I feel better.
	I don't think I need one, but I know that there's gonna be people out there who need a white pill.
	Give it to us.
	Before we wind up this week.
	Well, March Madness was fun.
	And anybody who was following sportspicks.locals.com made money in the first two, three days of the tournament.
	So that's my white pill.
	The games were fun.
	A lot of crazy games.
	Big comebacks.
	Almost a return.
	All of that.
	So some big upsets along the way.
	So it's just the sort of joy of old school basketball.
	Without too much politics injected.
	There's a little bit, but not much.
	Nothing like the other sports.
	And you just get to watch kids play out their dreams on the hardwood.
	And make a little money on it if you have the right picks.
	And I'm going to tell you something.
	I have only made money off Barnes' picks.
	And then I piss away my profits by taking my own chances.
	Okay.
	And then Chris Winans says, Come on.
	This has been one kick-butt stream for sure.
	Viva Barnes is the most important podcast on earth.
	Right now, Godspeed, gentlemen.
	We will end it on that.
	Stay tuned for all the good stuff.
	People may not, I think people are liking it.
	I think I'm just shifting to the live stream format to cover multiple issues, and then I'll post the clips of those issues on Viva Clips, because there's too much going on.
	It's not intellectually effective to invest five hours in one live stream, not sorry, in one video about Project Veritas.
	Right now, we covered everything.
	I will post this and we'll put it on Viva Clips.
	You can find us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and we're going to have some good doctors coming up who we might actually have to reserve and do exclusively on Rumble.
	Robert, stick around.
	We will say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for everything.
	Thank you for the support.
	If I missed Super Chats, I apologize.
	You know the rules.
	Rumble, everyone, thank you for watching there.
	If you want to follow us on Locals, you know where we are.
	And other than that, we will see you within a couple of days.

▲