Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 27, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:19:15

Ep. 106: SKIP THE OSCARS Live Stream with Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Minister, I just want to talk a bit about the thresholds that your government has made the case have been met to invoke this extraordinary power in the Emergencies Act.
	As you know, the threshold would include a threat to the security of Canada, which includes things like espionage.
	Sabotage and specifically the support of a threat or the use of serious violence.
	And that's very much in line with much of your opening remarks, which I'll just quote you.
	You did say it in French, but the English version would have said it was an absolute necessity that we enacted the emergency measures needed to keep Canadians safe.
	The invocation of the Emergencies Act sent a clear message to those who decide to participate or support in these illegal protests, including impacting the safety of the public.
	You also said we will not yield our responsibilities to Canadians.
	We must inspire their confidence that their safety is protected.
	Minister, do you believe that our safety was in jeopardy with the protests in Ottawa?
	Well, certainly the size, scope and scale of the illegal blockades at a number of borders and ports of entry, as well as the illegal occupation in Ottawa, met the threshold under the Emergencies Act.
	That advice and that decision to invoke it was informed by nonpartisan professionals, including the Commissioner who's on with us today, as well as other branches of law enforcement.
	Ms. Dancho, we believe the threshold was met under the Emergencies Act.
	So you believe that there was a serious threat of violence to the national security of Canada on February 17th?
	You also said this is a serious situation.
	We must resist the temptation to dismiss these as isolated incidents.
	You went on to say the core of the movement...
	Is of anger, animosity, and violence.
	And you're referring to if protesters would like to come to Ottawa.
	You were saying to them, you may be tying yourself to dangerous criminal activity.
	You also, of course, have insinuated that several of the individuals, or you said, and I quote, several of the individuals at Coutts have strong ties to a far-right extreme organization with leaders who are in Ottawa.
	Those extremists at Coutts...
	I mean, Minister, I walked to West Block for two weeks past these protests.
	If there was such a threat to public safety, how could you have allowed members of parliament to walk by that protest every day?
	Well, I would say a couple of things in response to that, Ms. Dancho.
	First, as you know, the Sergeant-at-Arms, in coordination with the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP did offer additional protection for parliamentarians as well as staff who were working on the Hill.
	But the other thing I would say, Ms. Dancho, is respectfully...
	Your experience was not the experience of the many thousands of Ottowans who were laid to siege as a result of...
	Mr. Minister, if I may just interrupt, I apologize, but just to be clear, you were saying the extraordinary high thresholds of these incredible never-before-invoked emergency powers met the threshold that this was a national public safety security issue, and you connected it to the ongoing executes.
	You're insinuating that that was happening in Ottawa.
	That's the main argument that you've made for the purpose of invoking this act.
	And yet I walked every single day for two weeks past these protests.
	So you can imagine the anxiety that that causes to parliamentarians, to Ottawa staff.
	We can go on.
	But yet there was...
	I just don't understand how you could be saying on one hand, there's all these strong ties and this is a national emergency for public safety.
	And I walked every day by these protests.
	It just doesn't really add up at all.
	Minister, sorry, just 10 seconds, Minister.
	Thank you.
	Okay, people.
	This one has been not on the back burner.
	I talked about this a few times, and I'm running this as the intro rant.
	It's not so much a rant, because when I make a mistake, I've got to correct myself, and I've got to correct myself publicly.
	And then I've got to make sure I learn the right lesson from the mistake in and of itself.
	I'm going to let Raquel Dancho...
	I'm not going to let her.
	I'm going to play the next part of what she says.
	And this is the question.
	Is she being facetious here?
	Was she being sarcastic?
	Was she being facetious?
	In respect of what Mendocino was saying, this is, for everyone who doesn't know, in the context of Justin Trudeau's declaration or invocation of the Emergencies Act during the Ottawa protests.
	During the debate, when they were trying to say it was such a national emergency that they had to invoke the Emergencies Act to deal with this problem.
	They had their debates.
	Mendocino was the guy who tabled the order, tabled the directors, I think.
	When I first saw this, I had the reflex, the reaction that I had.
	Now the question is, is she being facetious?
	I'm going to let everyone in the chat answer by way of one, yes, she's being facetious and or sarcastic.
	Two, no she's not.
	And then I'm going to correct myself, but let's just continue with this.
	I'm going to take my screen out because there's an echo when I leave myself.
	I'd say first, it's not an insinuation.
	We got the advice from our law enforcement that we met the threshold.
	I can't believe you put us in danger in that way, to be honest.
	There were Ottowans who were subjected to intimidation, harassment, threats of rape, and those were all supported by parties.
	How could we have possibly been allowed to walk by that every day?
	Minister, I did want to...
	Okay, so here's the deal.
	When I first assessed this, I see a lot of sarcastic.
	I get a sarcastic vibe.
	I think that says I like Jell-O-Yay.
	To be honest, this is what she says.
	To be honest, how could you have let us know?
	It feels, it seems reckless, to be honest.
	Okay, here's the thing.
	She might very well have been sarcastic, facetious, and now that I know that she's a conservative who voted against the invocation of the Emergencies Act, that explanation makes a lot more sense.
	Okay, we got someone who says four here.
	No, no, I don't know what four is.
	So unanimous, or not unanimous, you know, there seems to be some split here.
	When I watched this the first time, not knowing who Raquel Dancho was, I said, it sounds facetious, but then when she says, to be honest, it seems, how could you put us in harm's way?
	This caused anxiety for people.
	I said, okay, I don't think she's being facetious anymore.
	I think she's actually saying...
	If it was so dangerous, and I didn't get that impression, if it were so dangerous according to the intelligence, how could you have let us go there?
	Therefore, not only was it dangerous unbeknownst to us, but you failed in your job as, you know, whatever, allowing parliamentarians to go there.
	I, and I remember looking into it at the time, I remember thinking that she was a liberal politician, which confirmed in my mind the fact that she wasn't being sarcastic facetious.
	I then had my, I gave my analysis, I talked about it a few times.
	And someone, I think it was either the same person or two or three different people, wrote me and said, Viva, she's a conservative parliamentarian.
	I still went and looked the second time.
	I was like, no, I don't know who I was mistaking her with.
	Then I went a third time and found, yes, she's a conservative parliamentarian who voted nay on the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	And now I have to go back and question my own intelligence.
	Was I unable to read?
	What ought to have been obvious sarcasm, you know, not incredulity, but obvious sarcasm as in, obviously it wasn't so dangerous.
	We walked it every day and we didn't see it.
	Am I missing something?
	Am I stupid for not having picked up on that?
	Was it ambiguous enough?
	Or was it in fact not sarcastic?
	She still voted nay against the invocation, but she was still suggesting that it was irresponsible of the government to allow parliamentarians to go, I don't know anymore.
	I'm only going to say that if you're going to be sarcastic like that during parliamentary debates, you've got to make it clear that you're being sarcastic and not throw in the to be honest, because once you do that, that's confusing.
	That's confusing to me, and I'm pretty good at reading.
	But it looks like many people think she was being sarcastic, which makes me an idiot.
	But I'm going to correct my mistake.
	I said that this parliamentarian was a liberal.
	She is not.
	I don't think this is going to change my assessment.
	I still think that this was...
	A circle vortex of government saying, okay, it didn't rise to the level of a national emergency to invoke the Emergencies Act, but she did refer to the blockades as illegal.
	She did have not nice things to say about the Ottawa protest.
	So I don't know.
	I'm in the middle.
	But I wanted to correct my mistake.
	Raquel Dancho is a conservative member of parliament.
	And so if I miss something...
	I'm going to reassess my thought pattern.
	Maybe I was tired, but I double-checked it twice.
	All right.
	Didn't even know the Oscars were tonight, but glad I'm watching this instead.
	Sunday Bureau Mi Viva.
	Liz W., thank you very much.
	Let me get up as many chats as I can before I do the standard intro and talk about...
	No simping for MP Dancho in the chat.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so one, one, one.
	It seems that it's about two-thirds, at least, maybe three-quarters.
	Two-thirds to three-quarters think that Raquel Dancho was being sarcastic, facetious.
	Okay, I'm just going through here.
	There's a lot of ones, but there are a fair bit of twos.
	Here you go.
	I think I pulled these up before.
	I think one.
	And if it's not clear enough, it's a problem, especially during parliamentary debates.
	But I wanted to correct my mistake.
	Because I hold myself to the highest of standards.
	There might not be a greater insult than calling a conservative politician a liberal, but at this point in time, there might not be anything distinguishing the two.
	Who is worse, Blair or Mendocino?
	I think Mendocino is atrocious, dishonest, deceitful, like it's nobody's business.
	When asked if it rose to the level, well, our police authorities told us it did.
	This is a big, headless machine.
	Everyone's passing the buck around to the other person.
	Mendocino is what is nauseating about all politicians.
	If you keep letting that magnificent man grow, you'll soon be filming your live streams, IMAX.
	Well, I took a shower before, so it's a little bit weighted down.
	Okay, so I'm still seeing...
	I feel she was being sarcastic.
	Thank you very much.
	Just waving hi.
	I feel like I missed something.
	Sarcasm or not, it's true.
	No danger was there.
	There's no question about that.
	But it's only a question of whether or not...
	Okay, so look, I feel less naive because there's a lot of people who think also it was two.
	And I said to someone, look, I was hard on this individual thinking they were a liberal.
	My assessment will not change, I don't think.
	I think this was big government saying, we need more big government.
	You went too far here.
	We should have just dealt with this illegal blockade in another way.
	Funny to hear establishment voices depicting truckers as crybabies because Ukraine actually has it bad, but they also call the protest an occupation.
	Fair point.
	Now, I see Barnes in the backdrop, so I'm not going to keep him waiting for too long.
	Let's see here.
	She is not liberal.
	She was awesome last month.
	Go watch her speeches on Instagram.
	Well, no, I see that.
	I just tell you, man.
	Okay.
	Viva, I think she is skilled at sarcasm.
	Well, Raquel Doncho, if you're watching this, first of all, I apologize for suggesting you were a liberal politician.
	And if you were being sarcastic, let me know.
	And we can talk about, you know, maybe one day you'll come on and talk about that debate.
	That wonderful debate that shredded the Constitution and shredded the most, I won't say the most sacred of Canadian laws, but that shredded the sanctity of the nuclear weapon.
	Of legislation in Canada.
	Can't stick around because I'm going to watch the Jordan Peterson event.
	I'll be watching.
	Enjoy the Jordan Peterson event.
	That should be fantastic.
	Okay, disclaimers.
	Thank you for the Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of them, which means 70% goes to Robert and I. If you don't like that split with YouTube, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a thing called Rumble Rants, like the Super Chat.
	They take 20%, so better for the creator.
	Better to support a platform you care about.
	I will not be bringing up all the Super Chats, so if that's going to myth you or you're going to feel rooked, chilled, grifted, whatever, don't give the Super Chat.
	It is intended for support, and I appreciate it, but I don't like people feeling that they didn't get their money's worth if I didn't bring it up, so don't make me feel guilty.
	What else?
	It's not a right of entry into the conversation.
	No medical advice.
	No legal advice.
	No election fortification advice.
	And with that said...
	Oh, the Oscars.
	She was being sarcastic and using the...
	Well, if she was, I feel stupid now.
	And I don't like feeling stupid.
	Okay, Barnes is in the house.
	Let me stop the split, stop the share.
	Oh, you know you can do a poll in the chat.
	I'm going to do a poll while Robert talks, and we'll get a concrete answer to this question.
	Robert, sir, how are you doing tonight?
	Good, good.
	I guess you knew that the Oscars were on.
	Is there betting on the Oscars?
	Are there markets for the wins, or is it too fixed already for them to have bets on?
	Offshore, there tends to be.
	It's not allowed in the States currently to bet on the Oscars, but it is allowed offshore.
	I have no interest this year.
	They've nominated some disgusting movies that celebrate.
	Incest, things like that.
	I mean, it's just disgusting.
	Hollywood keeps getting worse and worse.
	Someone on our Twitter feed said, Viva, stick to YouTube.
	When was the last time any right-winger made a good Hollywood movie?
	Two things.
	First of all, I have no intention of ever entering that realm of...
	I'm going to skip some words.
	What's the word?
	Depravity.
	I have no interest.
	I'm happy to stay as far away from that Hollywood depravity as humanly possible.
	But, Robert, look, I haven't even...
	Once upon a time, the Oscars used to be the biggest family ritual.
	We used to go over to my parents' place, print out the sheets.
	We used to...
	Everyone used to cheat and get into fights about it, but we used to, like, you know, see who would win.
	I haven't watched in years.
	I don't care.
	I don't want to have anything to know of Hollywood.
	But I don't even know what movies are up this year.
	So if you want to give us the highlights of some of the disgusting movies that are up for nominations, what have we missed for those who have not been paying attention to Hollywood or involved in entertainment?
	Well, I think it's a YouTube channel.
	Maybe it's called Honest Trailer or something like that.
	I linked it in one of the Barnes briefs at vivobarneslaw.locals.com where they do the best rendition of what these movies are, which is basically a lot of crap.
	And some cinematic crap, some crap for moral reasons, some crap for storytelling reasons.
	I don't know if there was a single film nominated that I thought was interesting.
	If they were going to be serious about a popular film, Spider-Man would have been nominated.
	They have 10 nominees now instead of 5. For quite some time now, they've been moving in the direction of whatever Hollywood culture likes.
	It used to be the case.
	That they only like to reward movies that were also popular with the public.
	But that stopped about a decade ago.
	And now they nominate movies that assert their values.
	So there's nothing worth watching.
	It really isn't.
	And then at least they're returning to their explicit CIA roots as Sean Penn is demanding that Zelensky be allowed to present to the whole world at the Oscars in order to promote the warmongering there.
	Interesting day that he chose to do so.
	A day that...
	After Ukrainian soldiers filmed themselves torturing Russian prisoners of war.
	We're going to get into that because there's some discussion as to...
	Well, we're going to get into the Ukraine-Russia updates.
	For those who don't know, Sean Penn said, I don't know how far it went, we should boycott the Oscars unless they give Zelensky a platform.
	And there's two things to this.
	This is just...
	I mean, it's fine.
	It's what Hollywood is, mixing politics.
	And it just makes you wonder.
	It's all very weird.
	I mean, imagine at one point, just by analogy, if there's another Intifada flare up in the Middle East, they said, Arafat's not alive anymore, but boycott the Oscars unless you give a platform to one of the two interlocutors in a foreign conflict.
	I mean, just imagine.
	But then the other part of me is saying, who the heck is watching the Oscars?
	I mean, every year it's been in decline.
	I don't know what it was last year.
	Who's watching the Oscars?
	So give this guy, give Zelensky a platform.
	Nobody's going to be watching except for those people there who don't need to see this anymore.
	Okay, I don't care about the Oscars.
	Everyone, you are here.
	You're going to grow your brain.
	Or at the very least, it's going to stay stable as opposed to rotting it, as opposed to listening to these politicized speeches of snotty, arrogant pricks who think they know better than everybody.
	It's not even worth any further discussion.
	If you want to watch anything, watch Ricky Gervais' last presentation.
	I think it was the Emmys where he just ripped him because it was his last time there.
	He spent the whole show just mocking them, making fun of them, satirizing them on those precise grounds.
	He's like, you people have less education than Greta Thunberg.
	Don't give lectures to anybody about anything, about anywhere, anyplace.
	Just come up, get your little prize.
	Then go sit down.
	Thank your agent.
	And he threw in a few Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein jokes for the kickers.
	So if you want to watch, that was the last righteous presentation at any kind of award show.
	The rest of these are just, they were always a little bit of a crock.
	Now they're just a complete crock.
	Lecturing on Second Amendment rights, lecturing on borders from people who have private security and fences and open borders in the U.S., but...
	Encouraging people to go fight for border violations from Russia to Ukraine.
	It's hypocrisy of the highest order, but it's hypocrisy.
	It requires a presumption of stupidity or willful ignorance in the people who are watching this and believing this crap.
	All right, but Robert, we'll get into the vaccine updates later.
	Starting off on Ukraine, Russia, the latest of this week, NATO was reporting.
	There's upwards of 15,000 Russian troops, Russian soldiers killed.
	Upwards of.
	I mean, it's a wild estimate.
	When I'm looking into this, I'm reading this, and I'm saying it's inconceivable to me, and this is not for any...
	I don't want people getting killed, period.
	I'm not trying to defend anybody here.
	I'm listening to the numbers.
	And the first question I have is, first of all, if this were true...
	There would be no shortage of videos of it because we've seen the videos that do make their way onto Twitter.
	If this were the case, we'd be seeing video photo evidence of it up the wazoo.
	But the first question I had is, typically in any given war, I don't know if there's any stats or knowledge about this, but what is typically the killed to injured ratio of fighting soldiers?
	Is there any standard that you can accept, like three to one injured to killed or anything like that?
	Usually it's three to one.
	The thing there, it often, though, depends on the manner of warfare that's taking place, obviously.
	So that can impact it.
	But the loose rule of thumb for ground battle is for every one soldier who dies, you have three people who are injured.
	Now, the civilian ratio...
	Usually varies, too, upon the method of warfare.
	So, unfortunately, the way the U.S. went into Iraq, that ratio ended up being 10 to 1, sometimes 100 to 1, depending on the situation in terms of civilian casualties to soldier casualties.
	What's interesting so far is that whether you take the Russian estimate of about 1,300 Russian soldiers dying, that doesn't include the Donbass militia members, Or the NATO version of 7,000 to 15,000, it's far greater than what the UN reports as civilian casualties in the war.
	Indeed, the civilian casualties that the UN itself has acknowledged from what the Ukrainian army did to the Donbass for eight years is still greater than the total civilian casualties experienced to date in the first 30 days of this conflict.
	So it's had an unusually low.
	Even Newsweek did a piece on this, saying it's a reflection of Russian military strategy.
	Unusually low civilian casualty rate for modern conflicts.
	And that's due to not bombing cities in a mass level.
	Now, the Russians estimate about the same thing that a NATO military analyst leaked to the Financial Times a couple of days ago.
	Which is that about 10% or so of Ukrainians' armed forces, which is a little more than a quarter of a million, they estimated had died for casualties.
	The Russians estimated 30,000, the bulk of those being people who either had died and fighting inside the Donbass region.
	Or because of the Russian sorties.
	The reason why you would expect there to be more Ukrainian military casualties than Russian military casualties is due to all the bombing of targeted barracks, depots, fuel stations, supply lines by the Russians.
	They're doing about 300 sorties every day.
	And Don Lemon was over covering the one in Leif.
	Again, if I mispronunciate it, it's one of many words.
	But they hit a fuel depot there.
	So you would expect the Ukrainian casualties militarily to be much higher, also because they're on the defense with weaker munitions in places like the Donbass.
	So the Russians came out and formally acknowledged...
	What some of us had said was the case from the get-go, which is that they have no current intentions of going into cities like Kiev, and that their goal was to shackle the Ukrainian army so that they could surround and encircle and take out the eastern units, particularly the Asov Battalion units and influenced units in Kharkov and Maropol and the other regions in the Donbass, and secure.
	Crimea's water supply, which had been cut off some years ago by the Ukrainians.
	That they have achieved, and they said that's going to be their focus, is cleaning up and protecting and liberating, as they put it, the Donbass.
	And still isn't to go into Kiev, but they leave open the option of changing that if events so demand.
	The West is trying to...
	One of the oldest games in the book is you pretend your enemy wants something they don't want so that when they don't get it, you celebrate victory.
	You say, see?
	Well, I was just thinking of the guy.
	I presume it was a troll on Twitter saying stick to YouTube.
	It's like, first of all, yeah, if you mean YouTube like the interwebs, I have no interest in doing other stuff.
	So if that happens, they're like, oh, look, the loser didn't try to go on Fox News.
	Now he's still on YouTube and I told him so.
	It is a very good tactic.
	We're going to get into the Marco Rubio tactic afterwards, Robert.
	Sorry, yeah, carry on.
	Yeah, so the core of the update, I mean, it looks like that unit that bears about 60,000 or so soldiers, and that's now been confirmed by a range of sources, not just Russian sources, that the Ukrainians had, in fact, amassed the bulk of the best parts of their army right on the border of Donbass.
	And the Russians claim to have found documentation that shows that they may have always had it, that they were planning on launching an assault in early March.
	From a legal perspective, if you were mounting evidence for a self-defense case for Russia, this obviously supports it.
	The mere presence of that amount and that quality of armed forces right on the border of Donbass doesn't make a lot of sense unless they planned on going in.
	And that may have been, like, people have asked about the risk of a false flag event.
	That may have been why the U.S. and the West was preaching the Russians are going to go in, is not because of this delusional view that Russia wants to recreate the Soviet Union, but is rather because they knew they were going to go in themselves, the Ukrainians were going to go into the Donbass in March, and they wanted, when the Russians responded, that they could recategorize it as, oh, see, they're always going to invade, and the Russians just decided they weren't going to allow the Donbass to get purged and went in before that.
	Whether they'll escalate is yet to be determined, though it wasn't helped by the various statements our incompetent commander-in-chief made over the weekend, where he talked to U.S. soldiers in between stealing their pizza.
	He talked about going into...
	That they're going to be in Ukraine soon.
	And then told everybody that their whole goal was regime change in Russia.
	That in front of the NATO said, and the White House tried to walk it back, you know, within seconds of his blurbing it out.
	But, you know, that just, it was an honest reflection that there is intention to try to get our soldiers there.
	There is an intention to remove another regime change war, to remove Vladimir Putin from Russia.
	And which is unlikely to work, and if it did, would likely backfire with much, much more dangerous leadership from a geopolitical perspective.
	But that's, you know, that's quite, but the, so far, Marpol's almost all controlled, and so much of the Donbass is now in the control of the local groups who are now talking about, after what they've witnessed and seen, wanting to join Russia and not be independent.
	We may see that move next, politically.
	But, I mean, the shocking news, It came out over the weekend, was Ukrainian soldiers filming them taking Russian prisoners of war, and then while they were laying down, you know, handcuffed, if you will, or,
	you know, their arms tied behind their back, shooting them and kneecapping them, and shooting them in the leg in places that would cause extreme pain, mocking them, laughing at them, and then beating them, and filming all of it, and then broadcasting those filming of it.
	These are actual war crimes.
	So you have war crimes from indiscriminate targeting that doesn't distinguish non-combatants from combatants, war crimes that stem from deliberate direct targeting of non-combatants.
	But the main category that the Geneva Convention was focused on after World War II was making sure prisoners of war were well treated, and that requires that they be provided adequate medical care, adequate nutrition, but obviously not...
	That they not be tortured, or they're not even supposed to be filmed, but to film them being tortured.
	And of course, this follows on after the Ukrainian health official who's in charge of medical care told the whole Ukrainian audience through television that he had instructed his doctors to castrate Russian prisoners of war.
	And he tried to walk that back two days later.
	Zelensky came out and said, you know, all of our Ukrainian soldiers need to remember the Geneva Convention.
	But then his own military came out and denied that.
	So, I mean, what you have is not clear if Zelensky's actually in control.
	It's not even clear if he's even in Kiev.
	He's acting like a spokesperson with a Western script, but not functionally in control.
	In 2019, when Zelensky actually made moves towards trying to resolve Donbass, he was directly threatened by the Assoff Battalion, which had been put in institutional positions of power at the demand of the West, of the Victoria Nulands of the world in 2014.
	They were brought in to help do the Maidan coup to create street theater violence.
	These were gangs at the time.
	Then they were incorporated into not only the Ukrainian National Guard and then placed in these cities.
	They were used to put down protests very violently across all of Russia.
	Then they were placed inside the Donbass especially, but also key ranking members were put in key positions of power within the Ukrainian military and put in key positions of power within a new national police force that was formed so that the interior secretary deputy that's in charge of it is in fact an ass-off.
	So you have this group that represents only a tiny percentage of the Ukrainian people, tiny percentage of the Ukrainian history, having disparate control and influence over military and policing operations, particularly in eastern Ukraine.
	So it shouldn't be a shock.
	What happens when you give political, we've talked about it often in the Klan context, the Antifa context, Islamic terrorism context, that communist violence context, you know, whether it's in Pol Pot or Stalin, when you give a political permission slip.
	to sociopaths and psychopaths to act out their fantasies This is what you're going to get.
	And it's what the West demanded Ukraine do.
	And now we're seeing, it's not a shock at all.
	They've been videotaping these kind of, they would shoot a, a Russian soldier might be killed.
	They would try to find the Russian soldier's family and call them live and show them that they're dead son.
	I mean, things like this.
	These are people who are just, it's like we put the Klan in charge of parts of the FBI and parts of the U.S. military.
	What do you think that would look like?
	That's what Ukraine is.
	And the people who were, I stand with Ukraine and clapping like seals for this regime should second guess the logic of doing so.
	This is one of the more horrific videotaped war crimes by an army unit since the Nazis.
	I mean, we've seen it with ISIS, but we haven't seen it with actual conventional armed forces like what we just witnessed this weekend.
	And, you know, you talk about it, but there was that Facebook post by the Ukrainian military, which basically said they were going to do things which were contrary to the Geneva Convention, so call them what you want.
	And then you have these, you know, the blue check marks on Twitter saying, yeah, we have a Geneva Convention, but, I mean, literally, but, and then dot, dot, dot, fill in the blank.
	And so just to bring it back a little bit, Robert, because, I mean, try to digest this number.
	If it were 15,000 Russian soldiers killed, like 7,000 to 15,000, like NATO saying, you would be looking at 20,000 to 50,000 soldiers injured, normally speaking, if you go by the standard stats, which, I mean, I had a discussion with someone who's a very smart person, and I said, if you believe this, what do you make of the fact that we just have no video evidence of this?
	We have video evidence of some things, just not anything that could substantiate this.
	Do you still believe it?
	And the answer is like, yeah, I still believe it.
	Media says so.
	It's substituting wishful thinking for news, wishful thinking for strategy, wishful thinking for the sequence of events.
	And so that's never a good idea.
	And just from a realpolitik perspective, let's say you're anti-Putin, you want Russia to fall, etc.
	There's a lot of problems with that premise in terms of whether you can ever create it.
	But getting into bed with neo-Nazis is a bad idea.
	It's not going to help you achieve it or accomplish it.
	We should have learned this.
	I mean, how many times?
	You know, Al-Qaeda, Muhadine, ISIS.
	We have gone into bed with a bunch of dangerous...
	Terrifying people, actual Nazis after the end of World War II, and it has backfired on us over and over and over, and yet we did it again.
	And if the West doesn't overtly condemn this, it's going to put us even more into the ledger of infamy.
	I mean, you had Indian...
	You know, these videos of what took place is going viral not only through Russia, but China and India and throughout the world.
	There's a reason why 85% of the world has refused to go along with sanctions on Russia.
	All of the Asian continent, all of the African continent, all the Latin American continent, all of them have refused, despite massive pressure from the U.S., which should be a red flag to people.
	Well, you know, if this war is this good, evil, easy divide...
	Why is it nobody else can seem to see it outside of NATO and its allies?
	How is that?
	They've all been tricked by Russian propaganda, even in Colombia, even in Brazil, even in Ethiopia, even in Egypt, even in every part of the Mideast, every part of the Sub-Saharan Africa, every part of Central America.
	How is that?
	Or maybe they see things that we're not willing to see and our media is not willing to show us.
	I mean, the other evidence of war crimes that's coming out is coming out from...
	When they reconquer regions in Maripole and other locations in the Donbass, not only are refugees telling horrifying stories of being used as civilian shields, being shot if they tried to leave.
	One person was on Greek TV Live.
	From Maripole, explaining why he won't leave.
	He says, if I leave, they're going to shoot me in the back.
	They've made it clear.
	And he's not talking about the Russians.
	He's talking about the Assoff Battalion.
	They found a woman, Patrick Lancaster, who's been there for eight years, an American reporter, has been documenting everything that's been happening in the Donbass.
	They found a woman in the bottom of a basement who had clearly been tortured, and then they put a Nazi swastika on her, just to signal.
	And this is an important thing for a lot of people to understand.
	For Russians...
	And to some degree, for some of these neo-Nazis in Ukraine, they see Nazism as anti-Russian, not predominantly anti-Jewish, as predominantly anti-Russian.
	The Great War is still critically important to the psychology of the Russian population, particularly over a certain age.
	And to be honest, that's what a lot of these neo-Nazis, they focus.
	The ADL put it out bluntly.
	I mean, just shockingly.
	The ADL comes out and says, we don't have a problem with these neo-Nazis because they're not targeting Jews.
	They're targeting Russians instead.
	The ADL has made a mockery of itself.
	I mean, here was an important institution defending against anti-Semitism in America that has become so politically weaponized that it has now made a mockery of anytime the ADL accuses anybody of anything, nobody's going to believe them and nobody should.
	Because they become liars and frauds.
	And so they become a total disgrace as an organization and as an institution.
	They've defamed themselves the legacy of that institution, which at times had a noble history.
	And it's sad and pitiful to witness.
	But that's what's basically happening.
	And it's been a while since, other than ISIS...
	I think it's shocked a lot of people in the world that saw it.
	I mean, Jack Posobiec was talking about this is just horrific.
	Other people were talking about that.
	People who are not on the Russian propaganda side at all are shocked when the world is revealing what this world was like, what these units were like.
	If you'd followed it in detail, you knew they had done these things for eight years.
	Well, actually, this is a good time for this chat.
	It says, when I tell my father that the Asimov Battalion...
	Yep.
	In Ukraine.
	He claims I'm full of it because he doesn't believe the accounts of attempting to kill retreating refugees.
	Do you have a history of the battalion vid I can share, if even via my local sub?
	Well, I can put some of the links.
	But at various times, the entire West has covered this.
	Amnesty International, Human Rights, all the left anti-Russian organizations have admitted and acknowledged this at some point.
	Vice, The Guardian.
	The nation did a whole big breakdown on the horrific things that were taking place.
	Ukraine on Fire probably gives you the best visual documentary because they put a lot of it together, but there's French documentary.
	English documentaries, Turkish documentaries.
	There's documentaries from people around the world because all of them were horrified.
	Patrick Lancaster on the ground had no political bone in this fight whatsoever.
	He just went there because he thought it was interesting and he's just been horrified by what he's witnessed for eight years.
	And it's no surprise, but I think even the Russian population that was concerned about this is being shocked at the daily stories these refugees are telling.
	It's one horror story after another horror story after another.
	Another horror story that's even more severe, because again, it's not the Ukrainian people are bad, not the Ukrainian army is bad.
	The West told Ukraine to arm this ass-off battalion, give them real power and influence.
	This is what happens when you give psychopaths and sociopaths power.
	I mean, look at the Klan, for example.
	Did the people backing the Klan and promoting the Klan and empowering the Klan want them to bomb a church to kill three little girls?
	Probably not.
	That was going to politically backfire.
	Did they want them to kill Northerners coming down?
	Probably not.
	That was going to politically backfire.
	But that's what happens when you give sociopaths power.
	It inevitably goes this way.
	If you dig into these people's...
	When I studied the Klan, because I was curious, was racism the reason they were doing it, or was it something else?
	Because I had suspicions about that.
	And what I found was all these people have horrible personal lives.
	They're wife beaters, wife abusers, rapists, assaults.
	And Zelensky made it worse when at the very beginning of this conflict, he armed all the gangs and criminals in Ukraine.
	And then he went actually into the prisons, found some of the most hardened, violent criminals, released them, and armed them.
	What do you think they're going to do?
	This was one of the most insane military strategies in history.
	He was unleashing violent criminality on his own people, ultimately, but that they were going to engage in this sociopathic behavior.
	That's why I said from the get-go, if there were crimes of a severe kind that take place, it's going to be by the Ukrainians in this conflict because of who they empowered.
	And I was trying to pull something up.
	I can't find the exact article, but the New York Times had covered this.
	And they wrote an article, I think it was back in 2018, and then people had uncovered it now, and I'm fairly certain, I may get the details wrong, but they were covering the Azov Battalion, you know, Yahtzees in the Ukraine, and it resurfaced, and then the New York Times went back and said, you know, specified, published in 2018, so as, you know, not to be thought that it was published now, given what the narrative is now.
	But, Robin, you keep saying, you say this, and it's, you know, if there's going to be a certain type of attack, chances are it'll be X, Y, and Z. I mean, I watched Marco Rubio on Fox News because I was on a treadmill and that was what was on the TV and it drives me nuts watching Fox News, but I am watching it.
	Listening to Marco Rubio talk where he says, if there's going to be a chemical attack, undoubtedly it's going to be Russia because that's what they do.
	They do something and then blame it on their enemy.
	Now, in fairness, this is a tactic that is as old as war itself.
	But when I'm listening to Marco Rubio talk...
	I mean, I don't know if I've gone full black pill, full conspiracy analyst.
	The more he talks, the more it sounds exactly like that is what he is planning.
	He and his cohorts are planning, setting up for, and this is how they have to lay the groundwork to accuse their adversaries of doing what they're planning on doing because that's how they do it.
	I mean, I don't even know where the question is in that, but when they come out and say, if there's a certain type of attack, guaranteed it's Russia going to blame it on Ukraine.
	I mean, it's like the Spider-Man thing.
	I mean, what do you make of it?
	What does Marco Rubio even have business talking about it for?
	And what's been his track record in these types of circumstances throughout his career?
	Well, Rubio's always been a neocon, always been a warmonger all the way back.
	That's where he and Ted Cruz, another neocon warmonger all the way back.
	So the Republican establishment is entirely a warmongering political class and has been since the end of World War II for the most part.
	I mean, there were some great populist Republicans.
	Only one person voted against the Gulf of Tonkin.
	It was a good populist congressman from eastern Kentucky.
	Who had served in World War II, said he had no interest in backing war, getting involved in war, getting us entangled in war.
	He understood what a real American history was about, which is not getting involved in foreign entanglements and military interventions.
	This war in Ukraine would not be happening but for U.S. foreign policy and U.S. meddling and intervening.
	There's no meaningful doubt about that by serious scholars or studies of the subject.
	So, but I mean, like if you look, Alex of the Duran did a good breakdown.
	If you want to understand the risk of a false flag, you look for who has the means to achieve a false flag and who has the motive.
	Well, the Russians don't have the means.
	The Russians don't control Western media.
	If a chemical weapons attack, nobody's going to believe it's the, if the Russians do it and blame it on Ukrainians, nobody's going to believe them.
	So they don't have the means to do a false flag.
	Let me stop you there, though.
	They don't have the means to do a false flag, true, but do they have the means to do a chemical attack?
	There's no evidence of that.
	As even the U.S. military experts have acknowledged on CBS this morning, recognize that, in fact, there's no evidence that they have such weapons, no evidence that they've transported those weapons into Ukraine.
	So that's where they had to flip the switch to say, well, they'll take over a Ukrainian bio lab.
	That would be probably a good transition to that topic.
	And then they'll release something there, which is kind of odd because they keep saying there are no bioweapons there, right?
	So what is it they're going to release there?
	But that became the new narrative.
	But they don't have the means.
	Most importantly, they, of course, don't have the motive at all.
	One, if they want to kill lots of Ukrainians or shock Ukrainians, they can use conventional weapons.
	They could use traditional weaponry, and that would not necessarily provoke and...
	I mean, obviously, if they use chemical weapons, legit, if it's them that they do it, they know that it's going to bring in NATO and probably change even the support of China and India.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It will cut them off in large part from China and India.
	It would, in fact, isolate them, and it would increase the risk of an actual global conflict.
	They don't have the motive to do it.
	That's why whenever you see somebody accused of something that doesn't have either the means or the motive...
	You should be skeptical right away that they could be the culpable ones.
	By contrast, Ukraine clearly has both the means and the motive to do so.
	They're the ones who would be the likely suspect if a chemical weapons attack happens.
	And then you add to that these ass-off groups that, again, not only are torturing people, but filming it and broadcasting it to the world.
	Were these on Twitter?
	Because I know there's a very dark rabbit hole on Twitter.
	Usually Telegram and TikTok are the original sources.
	They have been recirculated on Twitter.
	Once upon a time...
	I have not recirculated the underlying video because it's horrifying.
	I'm not going to...
	That rewards these sociopaths.
	But if you want actual...
	People have seen it, reviewed it, and have no doubts about what happened.
	Once upon a time in the early days of the internet, you had LiveLeak, you had Augresh, you had...
	I forget the other big names where you found the stuff.
	You see these things and they'll leave a permanent scar on your brain.
	You can never rinse yourself spiritually clean ever again after having seen it.
	And so I don't watch it.
	And I saw the two pitbulls attacking the cat.
	Even the blurred out version made me sick and I've gotten sensitive in my old age.
	People should not run out and see this.
	It is being exploitive of the...
	Crimes and the tragedy of others.
	Someone had asked as a super chat, are the battalions doing this to try to enrage a response from Russia?
	Or is this just sociopathic behavior that they can get away with because they have secret channels on the interwebs to do it and share it?
	My view is the latter.
	I understand.
	I mean, it will and it has enraged Russians.
	But I don't think this is tactical.
	I think a lot of even what's attributed to Islamic fundamental terrorism, the Sam Harris's of the world attribute it to the text of Islam.
	And I understand people can find things to support something in there.
	In my view, if you study the history of the people that do this, they're not like nice, sweet-hearted people with wonderful families who just get corrupted by an ideology who think, I want to kill children today.
	That isn't what happens.
	These people are all sociopaths who are just given a little political permission slip.
	Said, oh, you know, those fantasies, do it for God, do it for country, do it for cause.
	That's what happens.
	And if you study these people in any detail, you will find that.
	I want to bring this chat up.
	I'm not going to give it a hard time just for the sake of it, but I'm going to give it a hard time.
	Russia has done it before.
	Plenty of intel on Russia having chemical weapons.
	I think I can agree with both of those.
	They've done it before.
	That's a repetition of the first part.
	Come on, guy.
	You see, you had me until the come on, guy, because those were two substantive points.
	Then the come on, guy, my dude, my bro, the condescending part.
	Skip that.
	Russia's done it before.
	Okay, I'll give you that.
	The country that's done the worst is the United States.
	We dropped two nuclear bombs.
	We firebombed Dresden.
	If anybody was going to be on the list of the worst offenders for war crimes, it's the United States of America under its current definition.
	So, I mean, that's where I find these people just live in a delusional world.
	But, again, go back to means and motive.
	Do you really believe Russia could trick the entire Western world into believing Ukraine did it if Russia doesn't?
	Because if you do, then you're an idiot.
	So they don't have the means to false flag the Ukrainians.
	Do the Ukrainians have the means to false flag the Russians?
	Listen to that guy.
	He's an example.
	A lot of people around the world would have seal clapped for Hitler if the propaganda told them to.
	And that's how they are on the side of people currently torturing POWs.
	I stand with Ukraine.
	You're on the side of people torturing POWs right now, committing horrendous war crimes right now.
	And it tells you something about the mindset that they're broadcasting it.
	What does that tell you they think?
	They think this is popular.
	They think this is welcome.
	They think this is accepted.
	They think this is encouraged.
	Remember, their top medical professional in charge of other medical professionals went on TV and said and bragged about ordering his doctors to castrate POWs.
	I mean, this is ISIS-level behavior.
	And I remember there were a bunch of neocons telling me that, no, no, Bob, those are moderate rebels in Syria.
	It's like, no, they're not.
	They're ISIS and ISIS-affiliated groups.
	That's exactly what they were.
	So, you know, how many times?
	I mean, Rambo.
	Remember at the end of Rambo III?
	Muhadine.
	Muhadine are wonderful.
	How did that turn out for us?
	I mean, how many times do people have to be fooled before they realize they're being fooled?
	Orange or pro-Russia, Butterfly says so.
	I can't get over it.
	Because it is, even following, what was his name?
	Let me see if I can get, I can't get back to him.
	Even following the logic of that previous tweet.
	Come on, dude.
	They've done it before.
	They have the means to do it.
	Yeah.
	And you know who that's true of as well?
	America.
	And you know who has the means to do it better because they've got the media, they've got Hollywood behind them?
	America.
	And you know who knows full well if they want to get NATO involved, to come down hard on them, if they want to lose any support they ever had from any other nation, a chemical weapons attack on Ukraine would probably be the dumbest, least productive from any strategic interest Russia has thing to do, period, full stop.
	And they're going to go ahead and do it because Putin is that...
	This is not to say that...
	It's not to say that he should because he can.
	He can kill as many people as he wanted to if that were his goal with traditional...
	What's it called?
	Not standard, but conventional weapons.
	He could do that overnight and it would probably...
	As bad as it is, would not give the grounds for NATO involvement, but chemical weapons would.
	And so he's that much of a madman.
	He's going to do something that he can still do now, but through different means, which would not trigger a certain response.
	But he's going to do it just to make a point.
	Which would be totally against his interest in harm's cause.
	I mean, this was the problem when we fell for the bait, took the bait on Syria.
	You know, right as certain deals are going to get made, they're going to use chemical weapons suddenly.
	That, by the way, turned out totally debunked.
	I'm sure a lot of Americans still don't know that.
	Aaron Maté and others completely debunked it.
	There were whistleblowers who blew the whistle on it.
	The West just suppressed knowledge of it.
	But all he had to do was use common sense.
	And it wasn't about Assad is such a wonderful man that he would never use it.
	It's that he's a smart enough person not to use it when it would not work for him.
	So, I mean, when you require people be idiots and geniuses, crazy and brilliant at the same time, you're being lied to.
	Or you're repeating a lie.
	Or you're regurgitating a lie.
	But everybody should be embarrassed to stand with the Ukraine crowd when who you're standing with is neo-Nazis committing war crimes of some of the most egregious kind since World War II in live time.
	And you're telling me those people wouldn't use chemical weapons?
	Really?
	They're broadcasting their torturing of POWs in violation of international law.
	They'll do whatever they think is useful to them.
	And that's the reality.
	So yes, we do have to be worried that they will try to do a false flag or staged event to try to drag us further and deeper into this war because their economic war isn't working.
	And in particular, when it turns out that the story was true, not only is the laptop real, but Hunter Biden was neck deep in helping fund and weaponize biolabs in Ukraine.
	Let's go there, Robert.
	I mean, everyone knows the story of the Hunter Biden laptop.
	It was declared, on the one hand, the result of hacked material, which was mutually incompatible.
	And who was the enemy?
	It was always the Russians.
	The Russians changed the 2016 election.
	The Russians secretly controlled Trump.
	The Russians were the ones that were behind the Hunter Biden laptop.
	Lie, lie, lie.
	But you believe them now.
	I mean, come on, people.
	And at the same time, yeah, I know Fox News and I know CNN are lying about some things.
	I know Trudeau's lying about the protests, but I'm going to believe him on this.
	And it's not to say that he's wrong on this.
	It's just that you can't trust him, so don't.
	And if you're saying now, I believe 15,000 Russian soldiers were killed because NATO, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC are saying it, then you have to be something of an idiot.
	To believe it.
	It might be true, but you might be believing the right thing for the wrong reason.
	A range of people are saying something different behind the scenes because they know what the real numbers are.
	They were trying to say more Russians died in 30 days of conflict than died in the entire Afghanistan war.
	I could see that if Russians were getting bombed like crazy, but they're not.
	It's the other way around.
	So I think what it is is a lot of confession through projection is going on at a great, great level.
	And that's what's really taking place.
	I'm going to read this, but we're going to get back to Hunter Biden because this, I don't know, they might...
	Well, we'll relate to this.
	Yeah, you guys are correct.
	So I ask again, Barnes, what are the odds if Republicans win, Biden is impeached?
	That is the closest chance we have to save the world in the foreseeable future.
	I'm going to go ahead and say 0%, Robert.
	What do you say?
	Oh, I mean, he'll be impeached, but whether he'll be convicted is another matter.
	There's a low chance of his conviction.
	But I think the mounting pressure to impeach him, and the grounds to do so is everything related to how he's handled Ukraine.
	Because it goes to his long, corrupt ties to that country.
	He was key and integral to the coup.
	He was key and integral to who established power in the coup.
	He was key and integral to undermining efforts to clean up corruption after the coup.
	And of course, his son not only was on the board of Burisma...
	Getting those bogus payments.
	But basically, he was a front for deep state operations.
	People are starting to put it together.
	I was like, do you think it's a coincidence that there's a Hunter Biden-Ukraine gate connection, private donors from Ukraine being some of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation, Russiagate, Spygate, and Ukraine gate, and this conflict?
	Do you think there's no interrelationship?
	Why does Ukraine keep coming back again and again?
	And again, as the only thing in common between all these places, it was because it was a deep state agenda to use it for an anti-Russia war to prove globalism's ultimate success and to allow these people to continue to grift like mad.
	And the Daily Mail confirmed what other people had figured out from the laptop, from the emails on the laptop.
	Amazing that the Western media has spent so little time looking at those emails, which are public in various places.
	And two things, just to correct myself, when people say impeachment, we typically understand the conviction part, not the impeachment part, because now that we know, you get impeached by a simple majority, but not convicted.
	So that's it.
	So look, I say, now that we know what it takes to be impeached in the first step, yeah, he might get impeached.
	Convicted is what I meant.
	But Robert, okay, so hold on.
	We were just talking.
	Oh, the media not paying attention to the emails.
	Forget that, Robert.
	Intelligence has had that computer for a long time, has known...
	There's other stuff on that computer, which I think is relevant from a domestic perspective, not an international perspective.
	But intelligence has had this...
	I mean, Burisma ended up connected to this biolab finding.
	Finding the same outside groups connected to Fauci that are connected to the Wuhan Institute were connected to this activity.
	The reason why the intel group wasn't looking at it is because who do you think Hunter was really partially working for?
	The quid pro quo is, you help our deep state agenda, and we line your pocket in your family's pockets.
	That's always been the grift, and that's part of the reason why I got the tailor of Panama from John Le Carre behind me tonight, because he details just one illustration of it.
	I told people all the way back in 2017, if you want to know what Russiagate, Spygate is about, even before it became known as such, I said, read tailor of Panama.
	You know who Christopher Steele is walking in.
	And it's been very predictive, that template of how that world works.
	And it's not a coincidence.
	And that's where there's, it's extraordinary that the bio, and even connects to the pandemic issues because you have overlapping groups involved in the same kind of research.
	So this, if our Congress has guts.
	Big open question, even if it changes power, that Republicans will have any guts in the leadership, because they're mostly wusses right now, cheerleading for war like clapping monkeys.
	So we'll see what they're capable of come next January.
	But if they were smart, I mean, a lot of the grounds they cite for impeaching Biden, I do not think are legally, constitutionally impeachable grounds.
	However, going into a war, being connected to war crimes, covering up corruption that led to that war, those are impeachable crimes.
	And I believe that there's more mounting evidence that Biden is complicit in those.
	And the Hunter Biden, this part of the Hunter Biden-Ukraine scandal is even far more consequential than the earlier one.
	And so explain it for those who might not appreciate, because, I mean, I understand it somewhat, but I'm a little fuzzy.
	Hold on one second.
	I may have missed it.
	Please explain why the USA is anti-Russian.
	The ordinary American's not, but right now there's a lot of hysteria developed around it.
	You know, go back and look at the propaganda from World War I, propaganda from World War II, but especially World War I. You know, we portray Germans as looking like apes, you know, and we had a huge German population domestically in America.
	You know, the Japanese we got so terrified of, we stripped them of all their rights and liberties, and there were people on social media saying that was a good example.
	Incredible.
	You can get a hysteria in a domestic population, but the ordinary American is not instinctively anti-Russian at all.
	But the elites are.
	They're anti-strong Russia.
	Well, I'm saying like growing up, I mean, it was always the Russians and the Middle Easterns that were the enemies in Hollywood movies.
	And then it became politically incorrect to focus on the Middle East.
	Russia is still a fair target.
	But explain to people who don't really appreciate this.
	Now, the laptop, it was called the product of a hack.
	Twitter censored the story from the New York Post, locked New York Post out of his Twitter feed during an election.
	The story was supposedly suppressed that Biden got 81 million votes, no election fortification advice.
	There was the crack pipe smoking stuff, which is big enough on its own.
	Then there was the corrupt business dealings in Ukraine.
	10% for the big guy.
	After this was passed off as Russian propaganda, Russian plants, Russian misinformation, 50 intelligence agency dudes in the U.S. still doubling down on their lies from the beginning.
	The corruption in Ukraine is one thing.
	Now we're discovering, or now we've learned, or I guess, I mean, I guess why is it new coming up now if we've had this laptop for a while?
	Why are these emails only now coming to light?
	But Biden was what?
	He was facilitating, financing, organizing, orchestrating of, you know, funds from the U.S. to bioweapons research labs in Ukraine involving all the same players.
	How did that happen?
	And why did we not know of these emails from even back before?
	Well, because of the volume of materials and that so few people were looking at that volume of materials.
	I mean, that's the short answer.
	And so now they knew what to look for.
	They went and found it.
	And it's not a coincidence.
	And it's basically, you know, we were using Ukraine as a staging ground for this anti-Russia project.
	And part of that was experimenting in biological weapons.
	And it was done through someone who was...
	Trustworthy because he, it was, Rosemont Seneca was the, which also included John Kerry's son.
	So you had John Kerry's son and Hunter Biden, the Secretary of State and the son of the Vice President, helping to orchestrate funding for what's called dangerous research, dangerous biologic agent research in Ukraine by U.S. connected and, quite frankly, deep state connected companies.
	And most likely to experiment.
	To have those weapons available, one, but two, to experiment probably on local populations that are either run by a grifter group or too poor to fight back meaningfully to expose it in real detail, and presumably to have additional weaponry against the Russian people right on the Russian border.
	Purportedly, they were targeting Slavic DNA for the experimentation, something that would work only on Slavs and not others.
	This is not a surprise if you've followed biological research for a while.
	They pretend it's defensive.
	It's not.
	It's offensive.
	The very nature of gain-of-function research can't be defensive.
	Not realistically.
	But that it was Hunter Biden neck deep tells you that this wasn't about some corrupt kid trying to parlay dad into a little extra cash.
	This was a kid that was an agent and operator of the deep state doing their dirty business for which he and his father got rich.
	But the grift came second.
	The deep state agenda came first, and that's really what it's about.
	And the deep state has its own agenda in Ukraine, and it ain't our agenda.
	And this is...
	I don't pick on drug addicts, period.
	Battling drugs, battling addiction is an issue.
	And there's no but.
	This is a question of credentials of an individual, exposure of an individual.
	I mean, there's part of me that says, but they're doing this with a known crack-smoking drug addict.
	To the point where he had to have his teeth replaced because of the effects of the drugs.
	There's a part of me that says, but they're doing that with him.
	And then the other rational part of me says, they're specifically doing it with him because he's such an easy-to-be-manipulated, weaponizable individual.
	That's the person you want to have doing your bidding for you.
	And easy to discredit when the time comes.
	People in the chat are saying, Barnes, what are you talking about?
	The things that you just said, and I want to remember the one.
	Oh, the DNA, the Slavic DNA testing for chemical weapons.
	Now, I've read that.
	I don't know how much weight I give that.
	I read that and I say, that's even...
	I'll be honest, it would be one of the only purposes, right?
	Or it would be a primary purpose.
	We have plenty of bioweapons labs all around the globe.
	By some reports, over 300.
	So, why Ukraine?
	And one reason for it would be the utility of the government, and it's a convenient place to do it, but not all.
	And normally what you try to do is actually develop a biological weapon that works on your adversary and not on you.
	So this is the oldest...
	You know, methodology of biological weapons.
	The ultimate goal of a biological weapon.
	One that you're immune from and your enemy is not.
	One way to do that is to design a vaccine that goes with the weapon that's only available to your domestic population.
	But even better, from a war strategy, is one that only works from the get-go.
	Because the biggest concern with a biological weapon is how do you prevent it from backlash?
	You know, you unleash the plague.
	What happens if it hits you?
	That's always been the traditional limitation of a biological weapon.
	There's already interesting concerns about the low death rate in China of COVID-19 compared to other rest of the world.
	So I'll leave that as it is.
	People can explore it further.
	But there's already questions and aspects about that.
	And its age profile seems a little odd.
	If it was truly...
	Random.
	In terms of what took place.
	It would not be a surprise at all that you would try to target a specific group.
	In this case, they're really targeting Russians.
	They could just use that.
	It's just a claim right now.
	The Russians claim they have documentation that proves it.
	The UN has refused to investigate further.
	China and India have both requested the UN to investigate further.
	They haven't.
	Which, by the way, tells me they're worried about what they would find.
	Because if you think you would dig further and you'd be able to easily discredit it, you quickly do so.
	You easily do so.
	When you don't want to investigate, it means you don't want...
	Well, in fairness, I would even have difficulty understanding how do you disprove that you're looking at bioweapons that target specific races or ethnicities?
	Well, they can look at the documents.
	Look at the documents and talk to the witnesses and see.
	But if there's an absence of documents, if they're just not doing it, how do you even respond to the allegation?
	Look, we have...
	I wouldn't believe...
	Oh, I mean, the Russians have documents, so you either prove or disprove the authenticity of those documents and you talk to witnesses who might know.
	Now, I'm just going to bring up Karen because it's ironic.
	That Karen is lecturing me on.
	Hey, Karen.
	Karen, I'm sorry.
	You did this to yourself.
	Yes, I'm paying attention to Barnes, and I'm paying attention to the chat, and the super chat, and Rumble, and occasionally I'm going to go back and try to pull up an article that we're talking about as we do this.
	I multitask in the actual meaningful sense.
	Even when I'm not looking at Robert, I'm hearing his words and absorbing them.
	I thought maybe you were really taking all the Trudeau and all this globalism risk to heart.
	I just saw the video with you out in the shack.
	It's like, oh, you moved out to the woods.
	You got a little shack out there.
	You're getting the family together.
	You're encircling the woods.
	I didn't know it was just a maple syrup shack.
	It's on Viva Family People.
	That's where I got this other stuff and Viva Clips for the highlights.
	But we did a sugar shack today.
	But when my brother-in-law said, come see our sugar shack...
	I was like, oh, it's going to be like one of those things where you go and there's going to be hundreds of people on a sunny afternoon.
	This was a sugar shack.
	This was like a Walter White sugar shack in the middle of the woods, literally boiling up the syrup.
	It was beautiful.
	So check it out.
	But no, Robert, I'm still, for now, staying in civilization in Canada.
	It's an interesting idea.
	It'll also be a bad argument, or sorry, a retort for race as a social construct.
	I was having this discussion, like, yeah, race is a social construct until you realize that there are certain diseases that affect certain races more than others, like Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anemia.
	Yeah, race is a social construct that abides by certain biological responses.
	So I'm going to look into this idea of the biological weapons to target certain ethnicities.
	That would be black pill, Robert.
	There would be no red pill there.
	That would just be black pill stuff.
	Well, okay.
	So, Hunter Biden is back in the neck deep in shit here.
	And in the worst possible way, so is his father because they knew what was going on.
	So is intelligence.
	So is the media.
	And it might explain this very, very blitzkrieg of propaganda on media and social media.
	It might also mean why Hunter and Biden think they're protected.
	Same reason Clinton was protected.
	Ken Starr had to focus on Monica Lewinsky rather than everything related to Arkansas because Clinton bragged, as recorded in Roger Morris' biography of the Clintons in the 1990s, that he had bragged to a range of people in Arkansas that the Republicans could never hit him because he had gone into bed with the same corrupt actors that were tied to the bushes, involving drug running and a lot of other activity, and that if they dig deep enough, that was the mine they were going to hit.
	And so his prediction turned out prescient because, indeed, Ken Starr didn't get near any of that, ultimately, of any consequence.
	He focused instead on Monica Lewinsky.
	And in the same vein, if the Bidens were doing work for basically deep state operators...
	Then they're not going to be touched meaningfully.
	They can't go too far.
	They'll have to find something tangential.
	A tax evasion charge, something else.
	They won't be able to dig deep into the corruption because the corruption will come back to them.
	This is Dusko Tech LX.
	Vivo is aware of Tuskegee.
	I am.
	But Tuskegee was not about developing weapons to target a specific race.
	That was just experimenting on a specific race that was a vulnerable...
	In the same way the residential schools did experimentation on Native kids.
	The only question is, in my mind, developing weapons to go after Slavic people, but not...
	Because I don't even know what the alternative...
	What would be the Slavic and then what?
	What would be non-Slavic?
	Yeah.
	Something that would work specific on Slavs.
	That Ukrainians and Russians share enough of that Slavic origin that you could use the Ukrainians as guinea pigs to see if it would work on Russians, but not work on non-Slavs.
	So that wouldn't be a...
	It wouldn't be a terrible shock, I'll put it that way.
	It's not beyond the realm.
	Again, it's not proven at this point.
	It's an allegation of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
	They claim to have documents and have released some of these documents they say substantiated, but you can't rule it out fully either because if you know the history of this research, you know that this is always what they've been up to.
	It's a spinoff of eugenics.
	It's a spinoff of eugenics.
	That's the way to think of it.
	Well, and I guess I'm just so naive that I just think, like, there's not enough to distinguish.
	Because within Europe itself, with all the intermingling, intermarriage, like, you've got Cossack Slavs, you've got, you know, Russians, Jews.
	Within Europe, I just don't think that there's anything that could distinguish one ostensibly identical individual from another one.
	Whether it would work, there's been very little effort to show any of these things could work.
	Now, of course, most of these things have been done in secret.
	The Nazis, of course, it turned out what they were doing in terms of medical experimentation on people.
	And they were doing this kind of genetic experimentation.
	It was related to eugenics as an ideology.
	So it was an extension of it.
	But there's many people who doubt whether they could ever achieve success in it.
	No doubt about that.
	And the Russians aren't alleging that.
	They're alleging that there was research interest in the subject.
	And now I say that this would be too crazy to even be a thing, but then go read The Men Who Stared at Goats and see that the military was actually...
	The military hired people who thought they could channel vision and see what was going on in, I think it was Cuba, Robert.
	They hired telepaths.
	They hired people who were going to teletransport individuals.
	So stupider things have actually been done.
	We spent half a million dollars.
	I mean, MKUltra was just one big experimentation project.
	I mean, led to people like Ted Kaczynski, research what really put Kaczynski off the rails in his days at Harvard.
	But we did it all the time to a range of vulnerable populations to see what the reaction...
	We were obsessed with the idea...
	Of brainwashing, whether you could do so through chemical use.
	I mean, they did it on their own soldiers.
	So that wouldn't be, you know, there's a medical experimentation on human beings has unfortunately never been a limitation of people in power since the, well, beginning of time, to be truthful about it.
	And I'll tell you one thing.
	When I first learned what a vivisection was, and I mean, that's when my...
	I may have been blackpilled many, many years ago and it's only coming to the surface now.
	And I'm going to read this one.
	Hold on, Robert, I'll read this because the answer is going to be baked in the question.
	Okay, so Ukraine is awful.
	Tied to Western corruption.
	Have a territorial dispute with Russia.
	Looking to join NATO.
	But how does that justify a Russian invasion?
	And I'm not saying this to me.
	Everything that you just led up to in that question, not Hazenberry.
	Ukraine is awful, tied to Western corruption, has a territorial dispute, and is looking to join NATO.
	From Russia's perspective, that justifies an invasion.
	I mean, you may disagree with it, and you may think it's a war crime, and especially if it turns out that there are, in fact, bioweapons research facilities in Ukraine, coupled with all of that, that is, the first half of your question answers the second half.
	To some.
	No doubt about it.
	And particularly from a legal perspective.
	It's whether or not they were right to perceive their self-defense as a risk.
	And again, the American legal standard has been a pretty broad, robust interpretation of that in terms of international state relationships.
	Not only in terms of all the conflicts we've engaged in, but going back to our own history.
	Texas being one illustration of it.
	So what Putin alleged...
	Was the case in Ukraine, there's been more mounting evidence on his side of the ledger than on the other side of the ledger in terms of what's developed so far.
	In terms of bioweapons, in terms of corruption, in terms of war crimes by the Ukrainian Assov Battalion, in terms of neo-Nazis, in terms of anti-Russian bias in the West, a desire to impoverish Russia, a desire for regime change in Russia.
	He has more evidence for that now than he did before.
	So that's where the legal argument comes from.
	Now, policy argument's totally different.
	You know, that's a different argument for a different day.
	I did an extensive two-hour or so discussion with the Duran about a lot of those aspects.
	And from my view of what the war's really about, you can go to the hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, speaking of medical experimentation, our three, you know, medical U.S. Supreme Court.
	Go ahead.
	Just so nobody thinks I'm laughing at that, that's the laugh so you don't cry.
	Speaking of medical experimentation and the world in which we're living, where these things are actually real and actually...
	Okay, so with that said, don't take that smirk.
	That was not an actual smirk.
	That's the laugh so you don't cry type thing.
	Robert, give us the latest updates from the Supreme Court.
	So the Navy SEALs had won a bunch of cases at the district court and appellate level.
	And the government went begging to the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and allow them to continue to discriminate.
	I think even Scott Adams had this misunderstanding.
	There's a perception out there that the military can discriminate.
	They cannot discriminate on religious grounds.
	The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act prohibits that.
	And what all of these courts documented was that they were discriminating on religious grounds.
	So the government goes up begging the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
	And allow them to continue to discriminate against the SEALs on the grounds that this is a unique military issue that the courts shouldn't be involved in.
	And despite the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act saying just the opposite, the so-called religious conservative, Kavanaugh, went with Barrett, other religious conservative justice, and Roberts, joined the three liberals, and stopped the lower courts.
	From preventing discrimination and reauthorized the military to discriminate.
	The only one who wrote an opinion on it was Kavanaugh.
	And now it's not a binding opinion.
	It's part of what's called the shadow docket because it's arriving in the emergency state context.
	So it's not a binding decision on anybody.
	People should remember that.
	This is a temporary decision.
	But the temporary decision is to reverse the injunction.
	And not allow these Navy SEALs to be treated like any other Navy SEAL solely based on their religious beliefs concerning the vaccine because Kavanaugh basically thinks the military should be a dictatorship.
	He just skipped the religious laws governing it and the First Amendment laws governing it.
	Another reminder, all these same little neocon types that are promoting and propagating this war and the various media types, they're the ones who told you Kavanaugh was worth fighting for.
	They're the ones who told you Amy Coney Barrett would be a great, what a smart, smart justice she would be.
	The same people accused me of having some ulterior agenda for questioning Kavanaugh and Barrett and predicting neither one of them would be worthy constitutional advocates.
	And we're seeing, once again, the failure of Trump's own nominees to the Supreme Court because he let the Mitch McConnells of the world dictate who was there and because the conservative media lies all the time when it comes to justice nomination.
	Laura Ingraham and some others should be sending apologies out for vouching for these people.
	Robert, someone in the Rumble rants, this is S9 Payne said, is a neocon the same as a rhino?
	R-I-N-O, which is Republican in name only.
	I'm trying to learn about neocons.
	What is the difference between a neocon and a rhino?
	But I'm going to bring this back to this decision from SCOTUS.
	So neocons and neoliberals are described as such because they share certain beliefs of liberalism and conservatism but deviate on key areas.
	And the main area is they're both internationalist, globalist.
	That's their sort of objective.
	And their objective is they really believe in elite rule.
	They believe in elite rule that's disconnected from nation.
	They kind of don't like nationalism as a general rule.
	The patriotism is just a pretext for them to trick us into dumb wars.
	And that's the neocon, neoliberal, sometimes called Atlanticist, sometimes called interventionist, you know, different labels put on them at different times.
	But they're not always the same as Republicans in name only, but they overlap heavily.
	I mean, the Republican Party in the 1920s was a very non-interventionist party.
	America's founders were deeply anti-interventionist.
	They took World War II and the moral justification for World War II to justify every other dumb war that's ever been fought since then when none of them have been World War II.
	None of these people were Hitler.
	But people took the bait and ran with it.
	But it's a deep, disappointing decision, at least on issues of religion.
	The argument was Kavanaugh and Barrett would be good.
	And here they abandon the religious rights of some of our best trained members of the military because they don't want to take an experimental drug that the data increasingly proves is not safe and not effective.
	This is, out of Canada, 5 in 10,000 serious side effects, which is actually 1 in 2,000.
	And if I have to pull that up so YouTube understands, I'm not citing myself.
	And all the deaths.
	People keep just dropping dead suddenly.
	And we're seeing excess deaths.
	What the insurance companies reported is now being confirmed.
	Excess deaths in populations that the only thing unique about them during the time they experienced excess deaths was it took place during the peak vaccine mandate period.
	The flip side argument, Robert, is they're going to say it took place during the peak post-COVID.
	So these myocarditis, pericarditis, if they were all, you know, they got COVID and so...
	Well, they could have done autopsies.
	Why did they refuse to do autopsies?
	Why didn't they follow up and do it to find out what it was?
	Because they didn't want the world to know.
	My guess is 10, 20 years from now, we're going to find out the, just like we're going to find out the horrors of what was really going on in Ukraine with these deep state activities and these ass-off neo-Nazis and the rest.
	We're going to find out.
	Horrible things about what took place with this vaccine medical experimentation.
	And everybody associated with it's going to regret it.
	But the same people that were mute on this at the beginning in terms of vaccine mandate issues, mute on issues related to the lockdowns quite frequently, pushed these justices as conservative, Scalia-oriented justices.
	Now, to his credit...
	Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, all descended from the decision.
	So they are still standing up for constitutional rights and liberties in this context.
	But sadly, the liberals have long since abandoned them.
	And the key, though, is these three...
	You know, Roberts, no surprise there.
	That was a Bush nominee.
	But Kavanaugh, who was a Bush ally, the same with Amy Coney Barrett, Bush ally, not only abandoned issues of election fortification, but now have abandoned issues of protecting our military soldiers' religious rights.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up just to read it.
	This is not me, people.
	This is straight out of Health Infobase Canada.
	Government of Canada.
	Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada.
	Summary of this, it's updated March 25. A total of 81 million vaccine doses have been administered in Canada as of March 18. Adverse events have been reported by 42,000 people.
	That's about, I think they're making a mistake here now, that's about 5 out of every 10,000 people who have reported One or more adverse events.
	Five in 10,000 people, by the way, is one in 2,000, just so we can actually qualify that.
	And that's just the reported ones.
	And we know that they tend to be grossly under-reported.
	And with my interview with Dr. Crystal Lushkiew, L-U-C-H-K-I-W, we know that...
	There might have been some pressure not to report them, but whatever.
	Of the 42,000, 37 were considered non-serious.
	I'd like to know what that criteria is.
	And 8,819 were considered serious.
	Most adverse effects, okay, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Serious adverse are rare, but they do occur.
	They include anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, which has been reported 816 times.
	For all COVID across Canada.
	That's why you need to wait for a period of time after you receive a vaccination so you can receive treatment.
	So, I'm going to stop sharing that.
	And according to the, not according, but based on the interview that I did with Dr. Lushku, in order to get an exemption, because she has had her license suspended for issuing exemptions, the only exemption medical that you could get is if you had a bad reaction.
	Only to the vaccine's first shot.
	Not to any vaccine.
	Only to a bad reaction to the first shot of COVID.
	So you let that sink in, people.
	And I'm just reading from the government website.
	Robert, but what are they not recognizing SCOTUS?
	Are they basically saying...
	They're ignoring religious discrimination.
	That's what they're ignoring.
	It does not meet strict scrutiny.
	It can't.
	Nobody has said this until...
	And even Kavanaugh...
	There was no written opinion, so we don't have a full published opinion.
	We just have Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.
	And his excuse was, hey, it's the military.
	They can do what they want, which is not what the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act provides for.
	He didn't give a good sound argument.
	It was a political excuse by a lazy judge who's more deferential to the political establishment that tried to actually railroad him from even getting on the court.
	Think about all those people out there that went to bat fighting for Kavanaugh against the rape allegations and thought they had this great moral fight.
	You were fighting for a bunch of deep state hacks.
	And that's all Kavanaugh is, just like they want you to fight for deep state hacks again in Ukraine.
	But when the military does not recognize the religious exemptions, are they basically saying, look, we only recognize Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Judaism?
	No, they're not recognizing any religious exemption.
	They're only recognizing medical exemptions.
	We're discriminating against all religious exemptions.
	Okay, so it's fair discrimination then, Robert.
	At least they're not thinking.
	I'm like, you have to hold certain religious views.
	Okay, so none.
	Amazing.
	Outrageous and amazing.
	And so what happens now?
	It goes back.
	What happens now, actually?
	Well, the problem is this will interfere with all the other cases that were on the verge of the military getting big wins out of both Texas and Florida.
	So now those courts are going to be intimidated by what the Supreme Court did, and now I don't think the military will get short-term relief.
	They might get relief down the road, some form of relief, because ultimately they're in the right, and we'll see what happens when there needs to be blowback in the court of public opinion on these decisions.
	There needs to start being reflective thought upon all the so-called conservative legal analysts that He said these judges and justices would be great.
	You know, Sebastian Gorka is busy promoting the war and being Zelensky's little promoter.
	He also endorsed Amy Coney Barrett.
	He also, I mean, all these little wannabe neocons pretending to be independent from this who have been nothing more than harlots for the deep state.
	They need to start reevaluating them.
	You were all wrong.
	You were wrong on Barrett.
	You were wrong on Kavanaugh.
	Start issuing your mea culpas.
	Start issuing your apologies.
	And don't trick us into getting involved in another dumb war for your pals and lobbyists in D.C. Enough's enough.
	But this was an outrageous decision that did serious damage to some of the most honored veterans in our country, honored members of the military in our country, based on their religious beliefs.
	Kavanaugh never should have been put on the bench.
	If Trump had cojones, he would have pulled him when the allegations gave him a pretext to get rid of him.
	It was just Kennedy who demanded his appointment, and he shouldn't have been dumb enough.
	To put Amy Coney Barrett on the bench.
	He doesn't like the current Supreme Court nominee, but the ones who just did this were his nominees.
	Two of the three.
	And it's because he listened to the wrong people.
	Maybe he'll wake up from his long slumber soon, hopefully.
	But everybody else that validated this, vouched for this, screamed for this, needs to start giving lots of public apologies and quit promoting other stupid ideas of their pals.
	I'm going to bring this up because I knew it was going to come in the context of the discussion.
	The drum of the Foo Fighters.
	I'll pull up the article if I have to, but this is the thing about what Alex Jones in his deposition referred to as a form of psychosis where you start to immediately reflexively think something in all circumstances.
	The Foo Fighters guy, apparently from not an autopsy, but rather a toxicology report, which sampled urine within 24 hours, found 10, not psychotropic, but psychoactive drugs.
	A bunch of stuff in his urine.
	Now, okay, I mean, first of all, I do question why some countries can have certain results within 24 hours and other countries take 8 to 10 months.
	Robert, maybe you even know that.
	Why do we not get such quick toxicology reports out of the United States or Canada, but in Brazil or, you know, certain other countries, you can get a toxicology report within 24 hours?
	I don't know why that is.
	My understanding is you can't get that quickly.
	I don't know why it wouldn't be the case here.
	But yeah, there's going to be so many questions because there's been so many lies.
	And so now the athletes are dropping dead at a rate they'd never have, happening live.
	And there's just been a range of strange, mysterious deaths.
	And then when you put that over the excess death charts, and you look at what the insurance companies are reporting, and you look at what Wall Street investors are saying, we had an unusual spike in deaths.
	That has the strongest correlation in terms of the age profile with the vaccine mandate, not with COVID.
	And so we'll find out in time.
	But I mean, again, we rushed this.
	This was an experimental drug using an experimental mechanism of delivery that had never been successfully utilized before in human history that did not have long-term clinical testing.
	And now they're trying to push it on five-year-olds.
	And so we're filing this week in Texas.
	Our motion for a preliminary injunction to try to stop this from being distributed to kids.
	The problem is the courts are pretending there's no standing and all the rest.
	That nonsense.
	They're saying the government can do what they want.
	Nobody can complain about it.
	We're challenging and contesting that, forcing the courts to at least admit that publicly so we can get legislative reform or give us remedy now and at a minimum document in the court of law for the purposes of the court of public opinion how dangerous these drugs are and we shouldn't be forcing them or authorizing them for five-year-old kids.
	And Robert, it's beyond anything, because this is coming out of Canada.
	We just read it together.
	5 in 10,000 serious side effects, even if you believe the rubbish about the other ones not being serious.
	It's nowhere near 5 in 10,000 for 5 to 20 to 50-year-olds for this.
	And this is the argument.
	Compelling something which they're admitting, 5 in 10,000, 1 in 2,000, whereas the reason for which they're administering it, Does not even have anywhere near that level of risk.
	Let me just share this here for two seconds.
	This is where I get suspicious, people, and this is just a question of being reasonably critical.
	This is from people.
	Take it for what it's worth.
	Taylor Hawkins' toxicology report shows opioids, antidepressants, THC.
	The minute any journalist, any article notes THC in the blood, or the urine, sorry, to...
	Taint or color a death?
	That's when I start getting suspicious because THC might have other issues and it might cause other problems through long-term use.
	To suggest it might have a role to play in a sudden death, when you throw in the untenable, baseless, almost ridiculous charges or substances, I start to have questions about everything else.
	Opioids, there are certain painkillers which are pretty common that have opioids, so you can lump that together.
	Antidepressants, look, I don't take them.
	I have a phobia of anything that tinkers with the brain chemistry, but a lot of people do.
	So this guy, this might just be an ordinary day for anybody.
	THC opioids, which include a lot of stuff in antidepressants.
	But flip side, 50-year-old guy living the life, doing things that...
	Rockers do.
	But we are now in a realm where everything and any time a young person passes prematurely, knowing Foo Fighters were insisting on Vax passes for their concerts so people immediately draw connections.
	So it's a double-edged sword, but I just wanted to let everyone know, yeah, apparently based on the toxicology reports of the urine test, he had a lot of stuff, upwards of 10 chemicals.
	So make sure you will.
	Well, I mean, the reality is that there's a lot of, I mean, more and more medical evidence.
	So far, the more we know, the worse it looks for these experimental gene therapies.
	And why we're accelerating it into kids for whom COVID poses extremely low risk is really insane.
	And we'll do what we can with Children's Health Defense.
	Last week, they mentioned that we talked about the case but didn't get to what happened.
	So I'm filing suit with Bobby Kennedy, already have filed suit, Bobby Kennedy, against the FDA trying to force this onto five-year-olds, and we're filing the motion for preliminary injunction this week.
	Bobby Kennedy separately had filed a suit challenging the District of Columbia's attempt to circumvent parental consent, demanding doctors medically alter the child's medical records and fraudulently change the child's medical records so the parent could not know that a vaccine had been given, a particular vaccine had been given.
	And it wasn't limited to the COVID vaccine, though that was the initial inspiration for it, while they were trying to bribe and harass children into taking the vaccine.
	I mean, kids were describing all the way they're being harassed and discriminated against at school because of it.
	Other kids were being offered every inducement known to man to take it and keeping parents in the dark deliberately.
	So not only lack of parental consent and the right of religious objection.
	But also the lack of right of parental control and the right of even parental knowledge and even other doctors' medical knowledge.
	So Bobby Kennedy filed suit in D.C. and won the suit.
	The preliminary injunction was granted.
	It's not the final resolution, but it's very rare that the preliminary injunction goes different than the final one because it's harder as a plaintiff to win the preliminary injunction than it is the final suit and said this suit violated federal law and it violated the First Amendment rights of the parties involved.
	And as also protected under due process.
	Your right to control your parenting of your child is a constitutionally protected public fundamental right under the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.
	Which is protected against the state action, the 14th Amendment, the federal government, the 5th Amendment.
	So it was a big ruling, another big win.
	And credit to Bobby Kennedy for leading these fights.
	And that's a guy who understands what the deep state can do from personal family history.
	But a big win as a counter to the Supreme Court going AWOL this week in the context of Navy SEALs.
	And by the way, I brought it up earlier.
	Where is Tiffany Dover?
	I saw Gonzalo Lira saying it before all of his streams.
	I never understood it.
	I'm curious to look into it now because I remember the video of a woman brought up on stage given...
	The Fauci juice.
	I think it was in Tennessee.
	I think it was in Tennessee.
	Got up on stage, collapsed.
	They said, look how great the vaccine is.
	Boom, collapsed.
	People are like, hmm, that's a little odd.
	And then people have said that they haven't seen her since then.
	I have no idea.
	I can't vouch for that one way or the other.
	I'm curious to know also.
	Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.
	And by the way, even what Barnes and I talk about when we have our streams.
	Take it with a grain of salt.
	Look everything up on your own.
	I'll give an example.
	Independently source it.
	So let's say you're one of those idiots that buys into any propaganda the West feeds you.
	One of the examples was last week there was somebody who was insisting that the Wagner Group, which is a private mercenary group in Russia and affiliated with the Russian army often, that they had neo-Nazis in it.
	Now, I was immediately skeptical of that, one, having never heard that aspect, aware of the Wagner Group.
	But two, if you understood Russian history, you knew how extremely unlikely this was.
	This would be like saying, the head of this Jewish-Israeli private missionary group are really neo-Nazis.
	Be like, hmm.
	Not likely to be true, but because the Russians, remember, they hear the word Nazi.
	They don't think anti-Jewish.
	They think anti-Russian.
	They think they're coming to kill us like they did during World War II, to starve us like they did in Leningrad.
	Like Arnold Schwarzenegger's dad, he tried to help him do.
	Can you imagine the one guy who should not be lecturing Russians is the guy whose dad was a Nazi?
	Just, you know, word of the wise.
	Robert, how many people died during the siege of Leningrad?
	Oh, it's brutal.
	If you go there, you can go.
	They have museums still dedicated.
	They have fields.
	Just fields where all the dead bodies were buried.
	Just field after field.
	Football fields.
	One after the other after the other after the other.
	It is critical to their understanding their psychology.
	They call it the Great War.
	That's why.
	And then, of course, you had.
	You know, the Soviets, of course, hammered home that message for like 50 years afterwards.
	But they didn't need to hammer it home because of how much it had stayed in the collective memory.
	Everybody's got grandparents that can tell them stories.
	But the way, so right away I was skeptical.
	I was like, I wonder where this came from.
	So I dig in.
	And, of course, it turns out almost even the Western press and Western think tanks that will repeat the craziest and looniest lies and libels about Putin and Russia, even they would not print this.
	I was like, okay, so obviously it's not true.
	So I was like, how did it come about that someone believed something so nutty?
	Because the Wagner Group is run by people that were high-ranking Russian special forces originally.
	Like in the U.S., you retire, you cash in, go into the private sector.
	So the probabilities that they had Nazi tattoos, which is one of the allegations, there's almost no chance of that.
	In Russia, that is seen as the enemy.
	And so I dug into the history, and of course it turns out, when you dig into the history of this story, the story originated, and see, it's Wikipedia that just repeats the story, of course.
	I'm just Googling.
	I'm in the Wikipedia.
	Now I'm just looking for the first time it comes up.
	And what happens, you go and source the story.
	You chase it through.
	It started after the Ukrainian Maidan coup and the Donbass region rebelled.
	And the Wagner Group, which didn't used to be named the Wagner Group, but has had other names throughout its history, was part of the people defending in the Donbass.
	And so because of that, certain Western groups got enraged, and they ran a story in a small Latvian publication.
	It was because the Baltics hate the Russians.
	Long history, they got good cause, but it is what it is.
	So a small Latvian publication runs it, and a small German publication picks it up.
	It's so ludicrous, nobody else will pick it up.
	Nobody else will touch it with a 10-foot pole because it's obviously false.
	And yet you've got people running around thinking it's obviously true.
	Things that just think through.
	One, always, you can source any material.
	Go out and find the best information.
	Find the best intel.
	People ask me why I predicted certain things with the conflict as it was developing, different than the institutional narrative.
	I was like, part of it, I just looked at the map.
	One was knowing Russian military history, but if you looked at the map, it told you a different story.
	You don't have to guess that much to figure out what they're doing, especially if you knew what deep battle policy was.
	But that's an example.
	People believe things that are just inane to believe, and the fact they're believing them from sources they know not to be reliable and trustworthy is truly striking.
	Well, and someone says, you know, Wikipedia can't be trusted.
	We all agree Wikipedia can't be trusted, but even when Wikipedia is not confirming the most outlandish of the allegations...
	People have the motivation and frequently repeat lies about their opponents.
	Don't do it.
	It means it's such a bad lie even they're not willing to be dumb enough to put it on paper.
	And I remember, Robert, I'm thinking when someone was saying, well, the Wagner group has, you know, it's as much of a Nazi group as the Azov Battalion.
	I mean, I know when I don't know enough to take a position, but then I do know when I go look things up myself, but I still don't.
	I'm not a player in this.
	I want to understand.
	Yeah, there's a mild distinction.
	A failure to understand the history in the region and people in power.
	And it just continues to inflame the situation no matter which side you're on.
	But speaking of having to deal with fake news for multiple years that also corresponds to this, Donald John Trump has decided to file suit against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the cadre of people inside and outside of government who colluded against him.
	In the 2016 campaign and in the Russiagate and Ukrainegate scandals that follow.
	So, for anybody who doesn't know, look, I read very quickly, then I watched a bunch of mainstream media analysis of this lawsuit.
	The suing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic campaign, who else?
	James Cohen.
	Oh, about 70 people.
	Yeah, well, no, but the big players are the big players in the Russiagate hoax.
	Because that's what it was.
	Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, CNN promoted this hoax for damn near three years.
	The Durham report revealed some damning findings, but not, you know, didn't go far enough.
	That has now caused Trump to sue 70, 80 people, whomever.
	But, you know, it's a satanic cabal.
	I'm saying that hyperbolically.
	I don't think they're actually satanists that I know of.
	Everybody.
	Who's on that list is a who's who of evil.
	Suing them for damages, for slander, defamation, for maligning the 2016 Trump campaign as being tied to Russia.
	And when you want to talk about accusing your adversaries of doing what you're doing so as to create confusion, now that we know, literally, without hyperbole, without exaggeration, that the only people colluding with any Russian entities...
	Fake spies, fake reports, was the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and then the MSM.
	Perkins Co.
	and the law firm and Mark Elias and Fusion GPS and then these FBI and other corrupt agents that were complicit in it.
	Probably the biggest thing of the suit, people assumed it didn't have much chance because it's hard to win defamation suits and things of that nature.
	The key part, and it has a very novel RICO theory that will be tough and tricky.
	But the key component is the trade secrets aspect.
	So when the news broke that they had hacked into Trump Towers, that they had hacked into the White House for the purposes of pushing and promoting and propagating this story, this third-party contractor that abused their access that they, Well, maybe they didn't abuse it in a political sense, but they did in a legal sense, in the sense of people wanting them to abuse this.
	Access to certain governmental databases that allowed them to look at things they had no business doing and in the process took proprietary information.
	That is an interesting part of the case.
	So I think the trade secrets part of the case will be hard for a court to dismiss.
	Now, it got, I think, an Obama appointee out of the gate.
	And to the credit of Trump, they immediately moved to disqualify the judge on the grounds of conflicts.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But at least they're...
	Recognizing if they have a politicized judge, they have to put that on the record very quickly, and they have.
	So we'll see whether they can get a fair judge.
	But if they were to get even a semi-fair judge, the trade secrets case should move forward.
	And what other parts, you know, it will be up in the air.
	I mean, I think they have good legal grounds, but they're tough in the current political environment.
	But I think the trade secrets should go forward, unless the courts are just completely unwilling to give Trump any justice at all.
	Well, okay, the trade secrets as a cause of action, fine, but it's going to be...
	Am I wrong?
	Is it not going to be a question of immunity, sovereign immunity, or whatever?
	Oh, no, I mean, almost all these people are private actors.
	Okay, actually, I know.
	I should shut my stupid mouth.
	Hillary was not acting as a politician.
	James Comey was.
	James Comey's acting in his capacity as...
	Oh, those people.
	Yeah.
	And then only to the degree they were acting in their capacity.
	Some of the allegations are that they were not acting in their capacity as federal law enforcement for those people.
	But yeah, there's immunity issues or qualified immunity issues for some of the federal law enforcement people, but most people sued are private actors.
	Okay, fine.
	Forget the immunity.
	The RICO.
	So part of a criminal enterprise.
	I still don't know exactly how RICO is applied concretely in any given case.
	What I found the most compelling about the lawsuit, if they're going to talk about a basis for the lawsuit, when they pull up, they mention Kleinfeld, if it's not by name, it's specifically falsifying evidence to submit to a court so that they can promote the lie.
	I mean, I don't see how it ever gets dismissed on its face on those allegations alone, because what you have is effectively, typically it's tough to prove or even allege actual malice, but when you have the players falsifying evidence to promote, I mean, I don't know how much more actual malice you need than that.
	The conviction of Kleinfeld is a confirmation of actual malice.
	So, I mean, if they get by that and, you know, setting aside a corrupt politicized judge, how could they ever say there's no actual malice for the defamation, slander, libel, whatever, when they actually, there's now, it's judicial notice that...
	One of the players falsified evidence to get these warrants.
	How can they ever get an early dismissal?
	They shouldn't, but it's only because of the courts not willing to want this issue to be explored, their political allies to be exposed, and Donald Trump to be validated.
	So I think politics is the biggest risk because there's enough here factually and enough here legally to sustain at least part of the case into discovery.
	It's going to be whether or not they get a fair judge is the big open question.
	Satanic and Satanist are different things, of course.
	They could be Satanic without...
	Okay, sorry.
	I'm not that far into that rabbit hole yet.
	So Trump is suing, by the way.
	It's glorious.
	It's beautiful.
	Timing-wise, is it strategic?
	Because we're before the midterms, but this is going to take years regardless.
	So if it gets dismissed and it goes to appeal, maybe it comes back up for the 2024 election?
	Yeah, I mean, I think there's utility to it.
	Some of the pleading is a little bit shaky.
	Like, sometimes it has causes of action that are not separate causes of action.
	They're separate theories of liability for a prior cause of action.
	So, like, conspiracy is not its own theory, not its own cause of action.
	It's a mechanism by which someone can be held liable for a tort.
	So, let's say somebody committed battery.
	You could say that this person conspired with them, so what they committed was battery, and the reason why they're responsible is a...
	It's conspiracy to commit battery.
	Aiding and abetting, same thing.
	So they have aiding and abetting conspiracy and agency theories and they call them separate causes of action.
	I think that's not the best way to do so because it creates the impression that the complaint is not well thought out legally.
	And I think it is mostly.
	It just has certain limitations.
	And this is because Trump is only going with a few law firms, not all of whom...
	They have the best, longest experience in a wide range of civil litigation.
	So there are people, I think, that have the right, their hearts are in the right place, their minds are in the right place, but they don't necessarily have the experience that would be the most helpful in this area to have the best chance of success.
	But I think factually and legally they have enough grounds to get into discovery, and that would be very, very interesting.
	And I think the general political operation of fighting back...
	Makes sense.
	I think that's good and beneficial for Trump.
	And I favor that in general.
	Get your side of the story into the court of public opinion by firming it up in the court of law.
	Because then it's permanently part of the historical record, if you will.
	So I think there's utility to that by itself.
	My only issue, it's a very long decision.
	Anyone who wants to know about it is going to have to rely on summaries.
	And then, in which case, you never actually read it yourself.
	But look, it's got the damning allegations.
	Because facts are facts, people.
	Now, I started reading this, and I was like, where is this going, Barnes?
	You are either a Russian operative or a seriously representant of general moral imperatives.
	I hope for the latter, as the world needs dissenting voices to government narratives that lead us to World War III.
	Okay, and by the way, just to get back to the poll, it is Doncho, this is going back to the early part of this, and I'm going to end the poll now.
	Doncho...
	Son of a gun, I just lost the poll when I did that.
	And Dancha, was she being sarcastic?
	37% said, yes, Viva, you're a noob.
	16% said, no.
	And I forget what I said for that.
	How do I see the poll, people?
	And whatever.
	And then 47% said, can't tell.
	So I feel vindicated in my mistake, but I don't like making mistakes.
	Okay, Robert, Trump is suing.
	Speaking of corrupt government.
	I mean, let's just get to the Project Veritas for...
	I mean, we talked about it briefly, I think, but then I had James on and Jared E, the lawyer, on Thursday after the Jenna Ellis, who opened my eyes to the RNC corruption for the fundraising.
	Ridiculous.
	James O 'Keefe.
	I mean, what's your take on it?
	We know what's going on with them.
	They were raided by the FBI.
	Cell phone seized.
	They had...
	A special master appointed by a federal judge, Annalisa Torres.
	That special master was appointed to do the triage, to take care of confidential privilege information, to make sure it didn't get seen by people who shouldn't see it.
	And then Project Veritas discovers that months earlier, I mean well earlier, the FBI and the Department of Justice had gotten search warrants.
	Against Microsoft, not just search warrants for emails and the like, they had gotten secrecy orders, gag orders, enjoining Microsoft from disclosing, not just to the world, but to their own clients, being Project Veritas and the 7 to 10 journalists who were the object of the search warrants, enjoining them to disclose that they were the object of a search and seizure and effectively spying by the DOJ and FBI.
	They've just discovered this now.
	They've made a motion basically to sanction.
	As if that's not enough, for anybody who doesn't know, I hope this is not going too quickly, as if it's not enough that the Department of Justice FBI had all of the information that was the object of the special master special triage, but not under the watchful eye of the special master, they renewed two secrecy orders after the special master was appointed.
	In front of different federal judges, They renewed the secrecy order, and it was only when those secrecy orders lapsed that Outlook notified Project Veritas that they had already had their emails seized, not just for the period in question about the Ashley Biden diary, but for eight months prior.
	Robert, to anybody trying to understand why this is not egregious, overt, objective corruption, what do you have to say?
	And what do you think Annalisa Torres, the federal judge who issued the special master, is going to say to the government that basically made her look like an absolute idiot to anyone who's paying attention?
	Unfortunately, I don't know if the judge will do anything, because historically the judges have done nothing about this illicit surveillance by the U.S. government, even when caught.
	So I hope the judge does something, but the only chance the judge does anything about it is because of the degree to which the court of public opinion has been paying attention, because otherwise the judges typically just ignore government bad acts in this precise conduct, unfortunately.
	I think what Project Veritas is educating the world about is just how egregious these things are.
	You know, a lot of your old school conservatives, your Sean Hannity fan conservatives, you know, Sean Hannity's usually busy looking for a CIA pin to put on and wear it with pride when he gets up on there, because that's all he's ever been, folks.
	While tricking Trump into tick-tock, tick-tock terms right around the corner, Bill Barr's on your side, Trump.
	Yeah, take John Bolton.
	He'll be a good defense guy for you.
	Just amazing that Trump took the bait from Sean Hannity so many times.
	Putting all that aside, that world has got away with this kind of behavior for a long time, but I think Project Veritas is educating people who thought, oh, that stuff only applies to terrorists.
	It was never meant primarily for terrorists.
	It's meant for you.
	It's meant for ordinary Americans who are getting too uppity or too loud or too outspoken or exposing too many bad acts.
	So I think it's good to the court of public opinion.
	What James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas are doing about educating the world about the realities of this.
	I do increasingly, I mean, I don't think any of it should be legal, period, the way it's being done.
	But putting that aside, I increasingly believe, based on their conversation with you, that this may be that they were scared about what else Project Veritas knew.
	That this wasn't about the Ashley Biden diary itself.
	It was about what is the source of intel?
	And will they stumble into something like Hunter Biden, biolabs, deep state corruption, leading to high-ranking government officials and lobbyists, etc.?
	That's the kind of world they don't want Project Veritas stumbling into.
	Just like they don't want them stumbling into big pharma's corruption, stumbling into other areas like big media's corruption in certain areas, big tech's corruption in certain areas.
	But they might have been worried that Hunter Biden...
	Going into Hunter Biden opened the door to a lot of other Pandors.
	And MZ, I forget to, oh, I just said it's so Canadian-like.
	They did not have Ashley Biden's diary for over a year.
	The timeline was, it was 2020.
	They got an anonymous tipster through council says, we've got this abandoned diary and other goods.
	You might be interested in it.
	They give it to Project Veritas.
	This is back in 2020.
	Veritas says we can't substantiate this, and if you watch the interview with James, he explains it very clearly.
	We can't substantiate it, but even if it's true, some stuff is meant to be kept between family.
	Agree with it or disagree with it, that was the rationale.
	They then say, we don't want this diary, we're not publishing it, and they try to give it back to the attorneys for the anonymous tipsters who say, we're not taking it back.
	They then go and give it to the Miami Dade or the Miami Police Department.
	And that's it.
	That's where it ended.
	A year later, they get raided by the FBI.
	And it's a year later they get raided by the FBI, James O 'Keefe and two journalists.
	Two journalists first, then Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe, a couple weeks later.
	Early morning raid, they seize cell phones and yada yada.
	They, in the context of that raid, go to get a special master appointed.
	Judge Annalisa Torres, federal judge, grants it.
	Not only grants it, but says that the government's going to pay for it, not Project Veritas.
	And then they discover, because these secrecy orders in a file that had existed for months prior, lapse, that the Department of Justice and FBI issued secret search warrants or got issued secret search warrants against Outlook, against their clients.
	And they got the search warrants and they had secrecy orders, gag orders that were issued and then renewed.
	And renewed eight of them.
	They were renewed eight times or there were eight renewals.
	But two of those renewals were after...
	The special master was appointed.
	So it's basically saying, you know, while the federal judge says, here's your special master, they're going to protect that information, and the government's saying, oh, okay, enjoy that.
	We already have it, and we have it in other means that's not subject to the special master.
	That's the corruption behind all of this.
	So, you know, a lot of people, myself included, were thinking, The diary itself was a plant.
	It was just sort of a pretext.
	Here's this.
	Now we have an excuse to seize your stuff and see who your sources are for some of your Fauci juice stories, for some of your pharma stories, for some of your other bigger stories.
	And that's it.
	I mean, that's where it is.
	It's over-the-top outrageous.
	And I'm just waiting for Judge Annalisa Torres to say, you made a fool of me, and I want to be part of that.
	Amplification device to say, they made a fool of you, Judge Annalisa Torres.
	They took your order for a special master and they said, you're an idiot.
	You don't even know what we know.
	And your order is worthless without object, but we're not going to tell you.
	And now that you found out, what are you going to do about it?
	We'll see.
	Robert, we're 15,000 people watching on YouTube and I'm going to go to Rumble because we were at 5,000 on Rumble.
	We are over 20,000 people watching this.
	And not the crappy Oscars.
	First things first, I don't care about the thumbs up, but people in the chat want you to do it, so hit the thumbs up.
	That's Project Veritas.
	Okay.
	We'll see where it goes.
	James and Jared are going to come back on this, no question.
	Thousand percent.
	Robert, what else did we have?
	Oh!
	Totally off topic, but it's a UFC back in the news.
	Chael Sonnen.
	There's really not much to this story legally, but Robert, I still want to pick your brain on it.
	For anybody who doesn't know, Chael Sonnen is in the news now because apparently in some Vegas hotel, he was seen walking around, mumbling to himself, stumbling around, and then spontaneously attacked a couple, a dentist and his wife.
	There's nothing funny about him.
	Beat them, got the husband in a chokehold.
	You know, hit the wife.
	It took 10 people to subdue him, and then they go to kick his wife out of the hotel, and the wife apparently had issues, looked like she had been maybe struck.
	She said that she was on Ambien, didn't remember very much, and so some people are hypothesizing that Chael Sonnen, this was involuntary intoxication or Ambien-induced sleepwalking, or maybe he's just...
	Drunk off his butt and beating people up.
	Robert, had you heard the story before?
	No, I hadn't.
	Okay.
	So we don't need to get into the details of this story.
	In the States, what are the rules on involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication, and I forget what the alternative is, in terms of a defense from criminal liability?
	Depends on the circumstances.
	So there are circumstances where involuntary intoxication can be a full defense, but it depends on the facts and depends on the state.
	Because the laws are kind of uniform, but not completely enough, particularly in this context.
	And so that can vary state by state.
	And usually, and then the same with certain kinds of confinement, if he was seen as an ongoing risk, imminent risk.
	By clear and convincing evidence to others that hasn't been explained by what happened before, such that it could happen again, then that can be involuntary confinement for mental health reasons.
	But so it basically varies by jurisdiction.
	Sometimes involuntary, if those people don't know, it means you got intoxicated, but you took no voluntary action to cause it.
	So you took a pill and you didn't know the pill had a certain consequence, or you mixed them up in such a way that you didn't know it had a certain effect.
	You know, whereas voluntary intoxication is you knew you were drinking, that you had a risk of getting intoxicated.
	And so that even if your intoxicated state was not, quote unquote, voluntary, you were voluntary in getting to that state.
	And so involuntary intoxication can be a defense in certain places where it's basically seen as you not being culpable by intentional action for the sequence of behavior that you engaged in.
	And then there's...
	But not all states recognize it.
	And within the context of, so there's two types, you can have your two types of involuntary intoxication.
	You drink a substance and you don't know it's tainted, or you drink, you take a drug, but it affects you in a way that you never anticipated.
	Automatism, is that recognized in the States?
	Like even if you took a drug, but you went into an absolute state that's beyond you, you're criminally not responsible?
	Because all of it relates to, did you have the mental capacity to commit the crime?
	So if you didn't have the mental capacity to commit to crime, then it doesn't meet the intentional element of most criminal statutes.
	So it's not a very interesting story.
	It is sad in a way.
	The question is, is it drugs?
	Is it involuntary?
	Is it ambient?
	Is it head trauma that leads people to do bad things that lead them to respond bad ways?
	It's a civil lawsuit against Chael.
	And look, I don't...
	I think there's much of a venture that he's going to pay out.
	It's just a question of when.
	The details of this story is that apparently Brandon Schwab was doing a podcast.
	He's another UFC fighter and apparently came to the defense of Chael and said that allegedly someone was talking trash about Chael and his wife.
	Apparently there's no substance to that story whatsoever.
	Above and beyond the gossip and maybe people...
	Getting things wrong and talking when they shouldn't.
	Bottom line, Chael Sonnen assaulted, violently assaulted a dentist and his wife in a Vegas hotel room.
	And it's questionable as to whether or not he had assaulted his wife, whether or not he was on Ambien, whether or not, you know, all messy details.
	But the legal question kind of, you know, it came up in Canada recently with mushrooms.
	You do drugs voluntarily and you freak out in a way that you could not have anticipated.
	Should you not be held criminally and civilly liable?
	Robin, what else do we have on the menu tonight?
	There was a case out of the Sixth Circuit that was referenced by Lito, which is what happened is somebody went to the fair, Ohio State Fair, I think it was Ohio, and was wearing an F the Police t-shirt.
	Apparently that didn't sit well with some folks.
	So they came to him.
	By the time they got to him, he had taken off that t-shirt, and they decided to kick him out just because they thought he'd worn it before.
	And he cusses him.
	A bunch of cops surround him.
	He cusses him out all the way to the exit.
	And they decide to arrest him.
	Ultimately, for disorderly conduct, gets released.
	Ultimately, the charge is dismissed because the prosecutor realizes that's not disorderly conduct under Ohio law.
	You still have First Amendment rights when all you're doing is speech.
	And he filed a civil rights suit.
	The federal district court dismissed it on grounds that everybody had qualified immunity.
	I don't know how.
	I don't know what police officer doesn't know.
	You can't just arrest somebody because they are using foul language.
	But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and made clear that, yes, you have a constitutional First Amendment right to cuss out cops, and you have a disorderly conduct has to be interpreted as probable cause of criminal conduct that's within the bounds of the First Amendment.
	And I think this is the proper qualified immunity analysis, which is, did the police officers know you can't arrest someone if you've done a probable cause of a crime?
	Not the very specific fact pattern, which some courts are doing.
	Some courts are saying any cop can, as long as a cop changes one little fact, he can get away with violating someone's civil rights.
	When it's the core constitutional right he's supposed to be aware of, not how that right applies in a particular set of facts.
	That he has to apply his common sense to.
	But the Sixth Circuit restored the case.
	Which was good to see.
	And a reminder to all those folks out there that language is not supposed to be a crime.
	And Robert, a question.
	When Jenna Ellis was on and we were talking about the Supreme Court nominee, Kenji Brown.
	That's the other news of the week.
	These two issues go together.
	You know, let's just start with the Supreme Court nominee.
	When are they going to vote to confirm or to not confirm K...
	She goes by KBJ.
	Because I think they're trying to...
	It looks like a done deal at this point because Manchin came out and said he would vote for her.
	There'll probably be at least a Republican or two who does.
	And so it looks like she will get to the bench unless there's some surprises at the voting time.
	But the Republicans only, and that was clear because Republicans did a limited exposure of her.
	In other words, they exposed the issues of that she doesn't know what a woman is, and that they exposed the fact that she's woke, and exposed the fact that she's soft on pedos, but that there could have been many more lines of attack they didn't pursue.
	And they didn't push, the RNC wasn't running ads to back them up anywhere.
	So they were, everybody, the institutional Republican Party.
	We're saying just make a lot of noise for the base and then let her get through.
	So it's classic Republicans, what they do almost every time.
	Democrats are not this dumb.
	They actually fight these kind of nominees, but Republicans don't really.
	And so it's not a huge shock.
	Disappointing because I think she'll be a very mediocre justice that outside of a few Fourth Amendment issues will be pretty bad.
	But it will basically be a black Sotomayor.
	That's how I describe her.
	I think that gets you canceled these days, Robert.
	No, I don't want to tell you the one thing.
	It was not...
	Her answers, her ability to answer was very questionable.
	The question heard around the world was, you know, you can't define what a woman is.
	And she's like, not in this context, I'm not a biologist.
	And, you know, okay, fine.
	Let's just say you agree with her.
	The issue is that this is...
	This is not a job application for an administrative judge.
	This is SCOTUS.
	Anyone could have drafted a much better answer to that question.
	And you just see the rationale.
	You see the ideology infused into the questions.
	She can't define what a woman is.
	She's not a biologist, which on the one hand presupposes the answer.
	But someone else might have said, I don't know what the rules are, but they could have said, I do not want to answer that question because it might come to be that in the next months, the very question at issue in a Title IX constitutional challenge is going to be, what is a woman?
	So I don't want to advance the question.
	Not that.
	I can't do it.
	I'm not a biologist.
	But that's a long segue, Robert, into my question.
	Title IX, women's rights.
	I know that we talk about this in the context of sports, and I think I've asked it, but I don't know that I remember the answer.
	A lot of people say there's nothing in Title IX that deals with sports.
	Title IX is about...
	What is Title IX about?
	Well, I mean, it's properly interpreted and understood as applying for the protection of women in collegiate athletics.
	And that's how it's been applied.
	So, I mean...
	Everybody knows.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	What was a meme, what was a South Park joke is now going to soon be a sitting Supreme Court justice.
	Now, she won't change the balance of the court because Breyer was pretty much the same way.
	So in that sense, and Thomas got out of the hospital.
	Bill Maher made some reference that, depending on how you interpret it, it sounded like he thought conservatives didn't want black justices.
	I'd be thrilled with nine.
	Black Clarence Thomas is on the bench with nine Thomas souls on the bench.
	Give me that any day of the week.
	The black justice is the only good justice up there right now, in my opinion.
	Gorsuch occasionally is good.
	Alito occasionally is good.
	But Thomas is by far the best.
	And luckily he's out of the hospital.
	But they are trying to run an impeachment campaign now against Thomas based on the fact that his wife is a strong populist conservative.
	Something about the Democratic Party, they can't help but always want to lynch black dissidents, and they're back to trying to do it again.
	With Thomas, there was one thing.
	I don't write for the Babylon Bee, and I know they've been censored on Twitter for some offensive content.
	If I were to write for the Babylon Bee...
	Men that are dressed as women aren't women.
	No comment.
	We've talked about that.
	When distinguishing between biology is not discrimination, but actual just biological common sense.
	But I had a funny story.
	It could be a Babylon Bee headline.
	Biologists determined that Clarence Thomas is actually the first black woman SCOTUS nominee.
	It would be hilarious.
	There's a Babylon Bee.
	I'm not good at writing satire, but I know there's a Babylon Bee story in there.
	He's out of the hospital.
	Well, actually, let's just finish with KBJ, who's got to replace RBG.
	So they've got to go with the acronyms because that's what all intelligence agencies do.
	There's mediocre, and then there's going to be ideologically driven.
	And the propensity to go easy, even though the guidelines don't require it on pedophile convictions.
	I mean, is there any defense to KBJ in that...
	Is there any defense to play devil's advocate, Robert, if you have to defend her and say, look, the guidelines say this, but I don't believe it's the way to go.
	But then on the other hand, I convicted other people and sentenced them to above the guidelines.
	Is her problem inconsistency in terms of under-sentencing pedos, but then over-sentencing others?
	It's favoritism.
	It's preferential treatment.
	So if she had as a broad belief, incarceration doesn't work, and I concur with the left on that, that for the most part, outside of select groups, now I put this group in that dangerous group, but outside of select groups, incarceration doesn't really achieve the objective and costs more than it gains us, and is counter to a long history of other methods of figuring out criminal justice.
	This group ain't in that group, to be frank.
	Their recidivism rate is sky high in this group.
	And the propensity to commit actual violence themselves rather than just collude against others is also unduly high.
	So, you know, the bottom line is she has a very preferential treatment of pedos who are caught colluding in that activity through their viewing of child pornography.
	So, you know, I think...
	I don't think there is any justification, but it tells you something.
	All the Democrats are lined up and that many Republicans aren't bothered by it.
	It tells you a whole lot.
	Cruz and Hawley did their grandstanding for their religious conservative base for their presidential aspirations, but they didn't do much of anything behind the scenes to actually prevent this nomination from going forward.
	It's a lot of theater and a lot of show to do nothing.
	You know when they're serious when there's dollars being spent in key markets for it.
	There wasn't a penny spent in a key market for it.
	Please define a woman.
	By the way, happy Mother's Day.
	Well, first of all, XX.
	Let's just make it like that.
	Very simple.
	And there might be anomalies.
	Right.
	Yeah, it's called chromosomes.
	It's called God gave you some directions.
	Lushku, I posted a link to it.
	I donated to her.
	This is Crystal Lushku.
	Okay, so...
	So, Title IX.
	But then, my question is this.
	I mean, I guess it's never come up because it's been so common sense up until now.
	Title IX applies to discrimination against women.
	When did Title IX come into place?
	50 years old now?
	Yeah, all this was passed in the 1960s.
	Okay.
	They've never answered the question, what is a woman?
	Like, to whom does this title apply?
	I mean, there are certain contexts in which they've tried to expand it to gender identity, and some courts have said it does.
	The discrimination clause prevents discrimination based on gender identity, not just gender.
	But they have not before said that the gender and gender identity are indistinguishable legal terms, which is what she basically said, which was like, that's just ludicrous.
	I mean, the other thing is this.
	How could Biden nominate her?
	He promised to nominate a black woman.
	She doesn't know if she's a woman.
	She doesn't know what a woman is.
	So did Biden keep his promise?
	I mean, it was a ludicrous answer, but it showed how deeply entrenched this person was.
	And credit to Marsha Blackburn, often has been useless in the Senate from Tennessee, but she actually asked a useful question.
	Probably her staffer helped draft her for it.
	But it was a question that exposed the shocking mindset of this group.
	But the fact that someone like that is going to skate through a 50-50 split Senate.
	Tells you all you need to know about Republicans' uselessness in the Senate right now.
	How old is she?
	She looks very young.
	She's like 45?
	Oh, yeah.
	She'll be on the bench 30, 40 years.
	Oh, my goodness.
	If I can project my own feelings on a lot of people watching right now, many people did not just know that.
	Hold on, let me get that off here.
	So she's going to get through.
	You got your next judge for 40 to 50 years.
	Thomas is out of the hospital, and he'll be good to go back to the bench for a little while.
	Presumably so, yeah.
	Because I think he was one of the three dissenters on this recent Navy SEALs case, so he participated in that.
	Can we talk about...
	He was a dissenter.
	I don't know.
	I thought Nate put out a video on this, but I couldn't find it.
	I wanted to watch it before today's stream.
	Where Thomas was the sole dissenter on whether or not there would be access to emails that involved his wife.
	And I forget.
	I don't know the exact context.
	And I wanted to...
	Talk about it, but I think I might have gone too quickly.
	Okay, I'm going to have to do more work and we'll talk about it next week.
	But there was an issue about access to Trump emails that...
	Oh, I forget the name.
	That might have involved his wife as one of the recipients and he voted no to have access to...
	Or he just did not...
	He dissented from the 8 to 1. I forget.
	Okay, we'll talk about it later so I can actually read the stuff.
	Robert, what else do we have to talk about tonight?
	How about covers it for tonight?
	Let's see if there's any questions in the chat, people.
	Who do we have on for Wednesday of this week for Sidebar?
	So George Gammon.
	So George Gammon has been on before to discuss what's the impact of all the craziness that's taking place.
	So include, you know, the...
	What happens if the dollar is no longer the reserve currency or reserve asset of the world?
	What are some of the alternatives?
	Is it another country's currency or is it a basket of commodities, a basket of currencies, gold, oil, something else?
	What does that mean for Americans?
	What does it mean for the real estate market?
	What does it mean for the stock market?
	What does it mean for political power around the world?
	What does it mean for future trade relations?
	You know, if globalism dies, what does nationalism look like?
	Does it substitute economic nationalism?
	So all of those questions, because a lot of people care, you know, what could be the economic fallout?
	Like right now, Biden was pretending he could deliver a bunch of natural gas to Europe.
	No, we can't.
	We don't have the capacity.
	It's going to be much more expensive.
	We don't have the tankers.
	People think oil and gas is something you just turn on the spigot and boom.
	Tomorrow you have all the oil and gas.
	That requires intense capital development.
	And why in the world would anybody in the West want to develop natural gas or oil right now when they know within a year or two they're going to be subject to whatever random climate change rules that are coming down the pipeline?
	The climate apocalypse people have terrified the oil and gas world into getting anywhere near it.
	In terms of further future expanded investments.
	The Politico had to put out a story today.
	What did Biden mean when he said he was going to deliver all this natural gas to Europe?
	And they pointed out, oh, he means he's going to get other countries to do it.
	Because the U.S. is not in a position to deliver on that scale and size at affordable cost.
	So, you know, we'll see.
	Maybe Europe's going to have to learn to get some blankets.
	Gammon can discuss a lot of those economic ramifications he's been discussing in detail, what it means for the ordinary person, what it means for geopolitical power, all of that.
	And I think that'll be a particularly good discussion.
	Also, there's a New York judge who apparently they're trying to kick off the court because she's unvaccinated, which is insane.
	It's unbelievable.
	I'm going to get two rumble rants here.
	We got Hamartix says, why would anyone watch the Oscars?
	It's a self-congratulatory woke fest.
	That's another way to explain.
	That's a more polite term of what I'm thinking.
	If you want to see that, we can look at a school board meeting or the DNC National Convention.
	We got Planix77 says, what about Chinese Americans in this country?
	Were they disproportionately not affected by COVID?
	Fair question, Robert.
	I mean, if we know that.
	That is a good question.
	That is...
	I mean, mostly the disparity has been by age, but there has been geographic...
	Most of Southeast Asia hasn't been hit, and the question is why.
	And was it that there's something in the virus that, even if it was random, didn't impact certain populations that had experienced prior viruses of a certain kind?
	Or was it something else?
	But it's definitely worth inquiring because there's been weird disparities that don't seem normal within the range of a randomly produced virus as opposed to a man-made virus.
	And then we got...
	Well, I won't bring that one up.
	I mean, it kind of looked like Bill Gates' dream death panel.
	That's all I'm saying.
	And how the...
	How Bill Gates became the international thought leader on vaccines and foreign policy and international policy when he's a corrupt businessman who may have had his skill set in the beginning.
	It makes no sense unless it makes sense.
	And listen, read the real Anthony Fauci.
	Speaking of which, Robert, when are we going to get RFK on here?
	I just got to inquire what his schedule is.
	It is happening, people.
	That's happening.
	OJ Simpson is innocent is happening.
	I mean, it's becoming the Jablinski games.
	Like, we're coming for Jablinski games and you're never going to get it.
	We're getting the OJ is innocent.
	It's only a question of whether or not Dersh is going to come on now.
	I gave Dersh a bit of a hard time on his take on...
	It turns out we thought you couldn't change genders, but it turns out you can.
	I was like, yeah, it can if you're taking gender, confounding it with belief, but also simultaneously confounding it with sex.
	Then maybe you think you could.
	So we'll see.
	But we're going to do the OJ's Innocence, you know, one of these days.
	Maybe when there's no sidebar.
	So Wednesday night, Gammon.
	All of next week, random live streams coming during the day.
	We'll see who we get, and it's going to be interesting stuff.
	Robert, for those who need a little white pilling before we enter a new week, what do you have to offer?
	Sure.
	I mean, I think that, you know, just go back and read John Quincy Adams' 1821 speech to Congress about America does not go searching abroad for monsters to destroy.
	So if anybody tells you that you're not patriotic because you're not buying the deep state bait on going into Ukraine or backing this gibberish, you can just cite them back to that great speech because the most noble tradition of America's founders is opposed to entanglement and interventions overseas.
	You're not being macho.
	You're not being strong.
	You're not being patriotic by saying you want to stick us in another foreign war.
	You're being patriotic and truly American when you remember what our founders believed in, and that is that we do not go abroad searching for monsters to destroy, lest we become the monster ourselves.
	Beautiful.
	And everyone in the chat, I don't say don't go watch the Oscars.
	There are other people who are live right now.
	I think Matt Christensen is probably live.
	I think Tim Pool might be live.
	Do not go watch the Oscars.
	Avoid the temptation.
	It will rot your brain and it will dribble out of your nose in the middle of the night.
	Okay, people, thank you all for the super chats.
	If I missed any, I mean, I'm sorry, but thank you for everything.
	Another wicked awesome live stream, Robert.
	We will see each other Wednesday.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	This will be on podcast tomorrow on iTunes, Google, and wherever.
	Clips are going to go on Viva Clips.
	And that's it.
	Clip away and share away on Twitterverse.
	And we will see you next week.

▲