Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 3, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:24:27

Ep. 107 - Lawts ot Law! Maxwell, Oberlin, Whitmer, Facebook AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Defamation coming now.
	Freehike has had his host pulled down by YouTube, challenged by Facebook, but never touched on a platform that's becoming home to right-wing watchers called Rumpel.
	Pause please, sir.
	Pause please right now.
	Kevin?
	Uh, that's false and defamatory, and here's why.
	I have had exactly one video pulled from YouTube.
	But it was reinstated.
	It was the Alex Jones deposition where I broke down and explained Alex Jones' deposition from that lawyer.
	YouTube initially demonetized it, then pulled it from YouTube for allegedly violating their terms of service as it relates to hate speech, which I challenged.
	And then YouTube miraculously reinstated and remonetized.
	So Kevin Newman, if you're going to say that I had a video pulled from YouTube, you might want to add the small...
	Salient fact that it was reinstated and re-monetized.
	As far as Facebook goes, as far as I know, I have never had one video challenge on Facebook.
	And that might explain why on Rumble I have not had one issue with any video.
	Because even on YouTube, on my main channel, in the history of my seven years, 2,300 and something videos, I have had one video pulled.
	And it was reinstated and remonetized.
	So, Kevin Newman, you do good journalism.
	I'd like you to correct that, retract that, and I won't even ask for an apology.
	Just correct and retract, please.
	Thank you.
	Back to this.
	Peace.
	Now.
	No, it doesn't even matter.
	We're ending this.
	Free Height had a video removed from YouTube, which was later reinstated on appeal, but never touched on a platform that's become home to right-wing watchers called Rumble.
	Thank you.
	I'll figure this out eventually, people.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	You may notice I look a little less washed out this week.
	People, if my lighting is bad, you gotta tell...
	hold on hold on hold on Yeah.
	I think the lights, the floodlights, the bulldogs that I ordered off Amazon a little while back, I think they were too close.
	And I looked a little too pale.
	If the autofocus is going in and out, tell me in the chat.
	I may have to take those paintings, fan art, off the back.
	And my thing there.
	I may have to take that off the back so the camera stops competing with that which is in the background.
	Let's just...
	We're going to close the parentheses of this opening.
	For those of you who are new, and don't follow me on Twitter.
	So that's a bit of a spat that I have with W5 Kevin Newman, where they ran this broadcast.
	Where they asked me to be interviewed to talk about Rumble and being the ignorant, wet behind the ears, naive, not ignorant, naive, good-natured individual.
	I thought they wanted to talk about an up-and-coming Canadian company that is giving YouTube a run for its money.
	That's what I thought.
	About, I'd say, 10 minutes into the interview, it became clear that was not what it was about.
	It was quite clearly...
	Get over here.
	Get over here.
	It was quite clearly...
	A hit piece on Rumble, for whatever the reason.
	I don't know what W5 has against...
	Thank you.
	What they have against Rumble.
	I can imagine that Rumble might be a little bit too popular for the likes of some of the mainstream media in Canada.
	It became clear that it was something of a hit piece.
	They aired the piece, and it was a hit piece on Rumble talking about right-wing extremism as if...
	Tulsi Gabbard, Russell Brand, anybody who disagrees with the mainstream media becomes right-wing, far-right extremists.
	That's just how it works.
	So they run this piece, and in the piece, in order to try to give the illusion that the reason for which I use Rumble is to post content that would otherwise get me in trouble on YouTube, they not allude, they outright state.
	Kevin Newman outright states that I have had videos, plural, pulled from YouTube, challenged by Facebook.
	And I watched it like, no!
	Can you imagine, by the way, I have 2,600 plus videos on YouTube.
	I don't so much have one on my Viva Fry channel.
	I don't have one Terms of Service Community Guidelines strike.
	I don't have one strike.
	I don't even have a warning.
	2,600 videos.
	I've gotten a warning and I asked them to remove it because it was a bogus warning.
	And they did.
	I had one video removed which was reinstated and re-monetized.
	I have 2,600 plus videos on VivaFry on YouTube.
	I don't have so much as a community guidelines warning.
	And then Kevin Newman runs that.
	And I was like, no, no, no.
	By you saying that suggests that my content gets pulled on YouTube and that I upload it to Rumble for that reason.
	What are you doing?
	Don't do that.
	Sorry.
	Okay.
	Little dog is eating something that he shouldn't be eating.
	So I asked Kevin Newman, the night I saw it, I said, you guys made a material mistake.
	Can you please correct it?
	Can we issue a retraction and correct it the next week?
	Instead, they don't.
	Or sorry, what they do is they say, we'll look into it.
	And then the next day, they say, here's what we did.
	And what you saw was an edit, a stealth edit, to the digital version on YouTube.
	And I don't know that they made any change or issued a retraction to the aired version.
	And I presume that the demographic who watches W5 on a Saturday night don't care much for YouTube.
	All that to say, that was in the past.
	I said, you know, guys, can you retract and correct?
	I don't even need an apology.
	Instead, I get a stealth edit on a digital version, and as far as I know, no retraction on the W5 Saturday night broadcast.
	You know, I table it for a while.
	I'm mulling over my options.
	I table it.
	What happens?
	What happens recently?
	Well, this is what happens.
	And you know what?
	Before we even get into that, we're going to get into the wrap-up smear.
	As explained, As explained by one, Nancy Pelosi.
	I'm going to get into the Super Chats and then we'll talk about this.
	Let me see where the wrap-up smear is.
	I believe it was this.
	Yeah, it's right here.
	Share this.
	Okay, here we go.
	Listen to Nancy Pelosi describe a wrap-up smear.
	Now, in fairness to Nancy Pelosi, my understanding of the context is she was not saying this is what we do, Democrat politicians or our side of the aisle.
	She's saying that this is what they are doing, and I presume she means the other side of the aisle.
	But the way she explains it, me thinks she's too familiar with the process.
	Listen.
	And it's a diversionary tactic.
	It's a self-fulfilling problem.
	You demonize, and then you, we call it the wrap-up smear.
	If you want to talk politics, call it the wrap-up smear.
	You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it.
	And then you write it, and they'll say, see, it's reported in the press.
	That this, this, this, and this.
	So they have that validation that the press reported the smear.
	And then it's called the wrap-up smear.
	Now I'm going to merchandise the press's report on the smear that we made.
	And it's a tactic.
	Oh, yes.
	And it's self-evident.
	Not only self-evident, it's quite effective.
	It's so effective, incidentally, that this is what I noticed going on on my Wikipedia page.
	Not mine, but the Wikipedia entry of my name.
	I noticed, I don't know how to read these things, but now I'm sort of getting familiar, that at one point someone said, hey, Viva, your Wikipedia page says you're far right.
	I bet you didn't know that.
	You know what?
	I didn't know that.
	I didn't know that someone far right believes the things I believe.
	I mean, I had no idea that supporting certain causes, supporting certain regulations made you far right.
	I actually thought it was the reason for which a lot of people called me.
	A liberal Canuck.
	Someone says, you know, someone's trying to do something on your Wikipedia page.
	I go there, I see it, I comment, and then it gets edited out.
	I didn't know how this works, but then I go to see, look, these edits on the Wikipedia page of my me, my person.
	And this person, I don't know how the hell this works, but it says 502 bytes added.
	And it was...
	Oh, I don't think I can see it there because it's a screen grab.
	But this is what it said.
	In order to justify adding...
	Far-right extremism.
	This is what the individual who's editing my Wikipedia description says.
	It is time this page accurately reflects Freiheit's extreme far-right views.
	W5 showcased him.
	Would you look at that, Kevin Newman?
	W5, CTV, and I think it's global as well.
	Would you look at that?
	It's funny how that wrap-up smear works.
	You post the lie.
	You then fail to correct and retract.
	Although, you know, I think I would like to have documented enough their absolute admission in their stealth edit to try to, like, you know, put the jar, try to glue the broken lamp back together before mom and dad get home and then just put it back on the shelf and don't tell anybody what happened to it and hope they don't get caught.
	They do that.
	And then somebody who now feels validated to merchandise the wrap-up smear now says, look!
	W5 said he was a far-right extremist.
	W5 said he had his content pulled from YouTube.
	So I'm now entitled to go and make a defamatory edit to his Wikipedia entry.
	And yeah, that's it.
	It's fun gossip.
	But my goodness, is it dishonest and is it malicious?
	But I mean, I guess I can take some solace.
	You know, when they say you're...
	What's the expression?
	You're aiming above the...
	Above the target, if W5 thinks I'm relevant enough to come and try to besmirch my good name, and I think it is a good name, I think it's a decent name, 2,600 plus videos on YouTube.
	I don't know how many tens of thousands of tweets I've had on Twitter.
	I don't know how many thousands of posts on Facebook.
	I've never had any, any issue that was actually not...
	Overturned, overrioted by the institution itself.
	And that was only on YouTube.
	And that was only one video.
	Alex Jones.
	Okay, let's get to some super chats, get to some disclaimers, and then we're going to get to the evening.
	Barnes gave me so much work that I had to ask Marion to drive the car this afternoon so that I could read while we were driving.
	And this is not an issue of control.
	It's an issue of neuroses.
	I do not like being in a car that I am not driving.
	Viva, you must watch the video released by Live from the Shed today.
	On YouTube.
	You were in at 6 minutes 30 seconds.
	It's a tribute to the Freedom Cove.
	I cried for an hour.
	Don't make me cry now.
	I will definitely, definitely go watch it.
	Hello, fans, Vivians.
	Well, I know that there may be some Vivians out there who may not like...
	All right, sorry.
	A blessed good evening, these leftist fantasy lands whatevers.
	We common sense folks simply can't share a republic country with them.
	I'm going to ask and remind everyone, do not put...
	Fair warning.
	When I bring up a super chat, I don't always read it first.
	And if it's something offensive that you know that I do not support, out of respect for me and the channel, don't do it.
	And my presumption is that anybody who does something like that is trying to sabotage the channel.
	So I have to be a little more vigilant.
	And I will comment, criticize, and other if it's absolutely warranted.
	All right.
	Viva.
	Last night I dreamt I was a muffler.
	When I woke up this morning, I was exhausted.
	This I knew.
	This I knew where you're going.
	Although recently, Jonathan Bailey, I have been having very vivid and very meaningful dreams.
	I don't know what that means.
	Viva, you are washed out.
	The camera autofocus is not working and you are on mute.
	Do you even stream, bro?
	Britt.
	Ugh.
	So, okay, let's just get, we'll get a few more chats.
	Alex Glasgow streamer needs exposure.
	Alex Glasgow streamer needs exposure.
	Well, he got it right here.
	I don't know who it is and I hope he's...
	Hope he's good.
	Yeah, Winston was chewing on something that should not be chewed on.
	In fact, it would be like one of those things where the dog ate my homework and a judge might not actually believe you.
	White pill I asked for for live from a shed.
	White pill I asked for.
	Live from shed video with Viva.
	I'm going to go absolutely and check it out after this.
	All right, standard disclaimers, people.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Superchats.
	If you don't like that, you can go watch where we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a thing called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, so it's better for everybody if you feel better supporting Rumble, which you should.
	You can support Robert and I, if you are so inclined, Robert and me, on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If you have a gripe with Robert, for whatever the reason, and you want to support me, Patreon and Subscribestar and YouTube memberships.
	I'm not very good on Patreon and Subscribestar.
	I'm trying harder with YouTube memberships, but Locals is the place to go.
	Regardless of whether or not you hear things, which from time to time you may not like.
	Let's just see what we're doing here on Rumble.
	It says, Realist is not far right.
	From Hoghead V2.
	Thank you.
	I don't know who Realist is, but I'll look it up.
	All right.
	Tonight on the menu, by the way.
	So much, so much.
	Okay.
	We're going to do the recap of the week in as much as it might displease people about the latest in the war in Ukraine.
	The Russian invasion of Ukraine, for those who think that anybody's pussyfooting around it, the issue is not who instigated this round of violence.
	The issue is the cause, the solution, and the innocent people that are caught in the crossfire.
	Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Oh, by the way, we were demonetized before I even finished.
	Playing the intro video, if you can believe it, which shows that it's absolutely nothing to do with the content and probably to do with people flagging a video because I was demonetized before I even finished playing my Twitter video, which was two minutes long.
	So there's that.
	Glenn Maxwell, we're going to have Facebook.
	I'm going to need Robert to explain why Facebook is not in big, big freaking trouble because they look like they're in big freaking trouble or at least their exposure.
	In a class action suit, for everyone who's advertised on Facebook, going back to 2014, they're up Poo Poo Creek with a very, very small paddle.
	What else?
	Vax mandate updates.
	There were some lawsuits.
	Some border issues stuff, which I'm...
	Not that I'm not interested in it.
	It's just that I tune out when I start reading the decisions.
	Lots of other good stuff.
	It's going to be the best brain-expanding...
	Two hours of the week.
	Probably gonna go more than two hours.
	So don't, instead of rotting, oh, I think the Grammys are on tonight, which I didn't know until I saw on Twitter in incognito mode.
	Don't rot your brains with the Grammys and that cesspool of degeneracy.
	Expand your brains, even if you hear things that you don't like and you don't disagree with.
	I see Robert is in the background.
	So with that said, no, no, I'm a far-right extremist.
	Are you kidding me?
	I love you, Viva, but I'm not a liberal.
	But I certainly do espouse certain views which I know are typically qualified as liberal.
	I think I believe in gun rights, but I do believe that everyone should follow a course.
	I'm not sure that I'm so in...
	I believe in maybe a gun license, but not the government knowing everything that everyone has in their homes.
	I mean, the other standard ones.
	If being all for transgender rights...
	Save and accept for biological males who transition to female competing in biological female sports.
	If that makes me a right-wing extremist, like I said on Twitter the other day, the left keeps moving for the left.
	It doesn't make extremists out of the centrists.
	Okay, with that said, no legal advice, people.
	Well, whatever you take as legal advice, I'm just giving you the disclaimer.
	We do not give legal advice.
	We may give our opinions, but it's for educational and information purposes only.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	Check out my second channel, Viva Clips, where I'm posting highlights from the main channel.
	We got up to 31,000 subs there, and I think the system works.
	Live streams on this channel.
	I'll continue to do vlogs from time to time, but the clips go on Viva Clips.
	Then you got Viva Family, which has been very slow these days.
	Okay, what else?
	No election fortification advice.
	You know the rules, people.
	All right, I see Barnes is in the background looking dapper.
	Oh, I like the tie.
	I like the tie tonight.
	Robert, sir.
	How you doing?
	You look particularly happy tonight.
	I'm doing good.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Now you're frozen.
	I don't know if it's me or you.
	Can I hear you?
	Okay, there you go.
	Can you hear me?
	Yep.
	People tell us if the audio is not good one way or the other.
	Oh, yes.
	There's an Alex Jones legal update as well.
	Very interesting stuff.
	Very interesting stuff on the menu for tonight.
	Robert, we're going to start with updates in Russia, Ukraine.
	But so no one accuses us of bias.
	They're going to do it anyhow.
	It doesn't matter.
	I was on Twitter earlier before the stream doing my homework.
	I want to stop share screen.
	I want to bring something up from Human Rights Watch, which I think people should need to see.
	My only issue is I don't know enough about Human Rights Watch as an entity.
	And I'm not going to read a lot of the words.
	I'm just going to show you what they're reporting.
	Ukraine, apparent war crimes in Russia-controlled areas.
	You have some examples of the alleged war crimes.
	And you have, if you read the article, and I'll put it in the chat, you have testimonial evidence, testimonial, I don't want to call it anecdotes, seems a little not sufficiently serious.
	You have testimony of what people are witnessing in Russia-controlled areas in Ukraine.
	The question is this.
	I have no doubt at all that soldiers in every war, What is Human Rights Watch record?
	Are they reporting on the video evidence on both sides?
	Or are they doing what many people accuse?
	You and I are doing, which is focusing on one side, which happens to be the side that less people are speaking about.
	Yeah, so Human Rights watches a Western-oriented group.
	So if they report on something that's opposed to the West, then it's something to pay attention to.
	Otherwise, that's the side they tend to be on.
	Same with Amnesty International.
	I mean, both of them at one time had a reputation as being more independent than they've been in the last...
	10 plus years or so.
	So that's where it is.
	I mean, basically, I've told people how to look for a false flag event, which is what I'm fairly confident this is what this is in this Kiev suburb.
	So the first thing is, does it involve caricaturing in sort of a grotesque, comical, cartoonish way a country, nation, population?
	So think back to the World War I propaganda where you have a big German ape trying to grab a young woman of liberty, that kind of thing.
	The second aspect is, does it try to provoke an emotive response?
	In other words, is it a geopolitical analysis or something else, or is it intended to get you emotionally inflamed and enraged?
	And then third, does the wrong party profit?
	In other words, is it the accused who profits from it, or is it the purported victim who is going to politically profit from the event?
	And if you apply those three filters, you can really smoke out what is a likely false flag event from otherwise tragedies of war and whatnot.
	Now, so all three applied here right away.
	As soon as I saw the imagery, I was like, hmm, I'm skeptical immediately.
	Then you put in the second part into broader context.
	Before we get into the individual aspects of this story, the broader context is for all of these accusations of Russians targeting civilians, if the Russians didn't care about civilians, they would be mass bombing the cities.
	If they didn't care about civilians, they would not defer to the Ukrainian army using civilians as shields, which they're doing in Maropol and elsewhere.
	If they didn't care about civilians, they wouldn't be establishing humanitarian corridors for escape.
	And they wouldn't be establishing humanitarian aid in the areas that they occupy, all of which they have done.
	So the context doesn't really suggest that the accusations are true.
	Then you get to the specifics of the accusations themselves.
	And here there was a problem with timeline and a problem with imagery.
	So this area that Russia occupied for a relatively brief period of time, and primarily for short-term military purposes to the west of Kiev, They had full communications the whole time.
	The local residents did.
	Nobody was reporting any of this.
	Nobody was claiming any of this.
	Problem number one.
	Problem number two.
	When the Ukrainians took over the town, which happened almost a week ago, again, no reporting of any atrocities.
	No reporting of any civilian, Russian military going door to door, asking conscriptible adults to come out, tying them down, and then shooting them.
	The third problem was this had the hallmark of being staged right away.
	So we're supposed to believe that the Russians went door to door, tied people up, shot them, and then left them in the middle of the street when they left?
	I mean, you really kind of have to be a sucker to buy into this story.
	This story screamed false flag.
	Of course, because the other part of the story, which came out because members of the Assoff Battalion can't help but film their atrocities, Is that members of the Asov Battalion came into this community a few days after it was cleared, and they put up on their own social media feeds that they were going to be, that they had been authorized to kill people that were not wearing the blue armband.
	For those that don't know, people in Ukraine, they're asked to wear a blue armband to signify their support of Ukraine.
	A white armband is what they're wearing if they're supporting Russia.
	What people started noticing was that a good number of these people, that none of them appeared to have a blue armband on, and that many of them had a white armband on.
	So the crowdsourcing started to expose all the different problems with the staging of the photographs, with the fact that white armbands were there, the problems with the timeline and chronology.
	Russia has now demanded that the United Nations Security Council authorize an independent investigation, a third-party investigation, because they believe the Assad Battalion went in there and targeted people who were considered citizens supportive or sympathetic to Russia.
	And that they went and summarily executed them and then did this staged event to get the Western media to pretend that it was some Russian atrocity.
	Can I ask a student?
	I mean, it's an ignorant, naive question almost, but...
	If you know that the Azov Battalion is looking for Russia supporters and the Russians, in theory, are looking for Ukrainian supporters, why would anyone pick...
	Is the crime or is the punishment for not wearing a band the same as the punishment for wearing the wrong band?
	I mean, who's going to wear a white band knowing that the Azov Battalion is coming through?
	It's not clear they knew the Asov Battalion was coming through.
	In other words, the Russians left, and a few days later, the Asov Battalion showed up.
	But that was only being publicized by Asov Battalion members on their Telegram and other social media pages.
	So that, in fact, there's criticism within Russia that they should have done something more to protect the population or make it clear that they had fully withdrawn.
	Because the Russians, they announced they were going to withdraw, but it was kind of quick.
	It happened within 24 hours.
	That they've basically pulled back from the entire west side of the river.
	But we will know what the west really knows by whether or not they join the effort for a third-party independent UN investigation.
	In Syria, in both chemical weapons attacks, the US was the one to slow walk an independent investigation, demanded military action take place before that investigation could draw its conclusions.
	And from the very good work done by Aaron Maté, It comes from the anti-war left perspective.
	He detailed how whistleblowers within that had disclosed that, in fact, Syria was not responsible for that chemical weapons attack that led Trump to bomb an empty airfield because his daughter Ivanka was crying from reading the Instagram photos.
	So we'll see how...
	That will tell us a lot.
	If the U.S. quickly embraces the Russian request for an independent third-party U.N. investigation into that region...
	Then we'll find out what the independent investigation reveals.
	And we'll find out who's telling the truth.
	If they slow walk it, then they know it's not what the media is pretending it is.
	But Robert, I'm going to say this now.
	I mean, I don't trust the UN as far as I can throw them.
	So whichever side I'm on, I don't care to see a UN investigation with, I don't know, Syria and China on the Human Rights Council.
	So how do you respond to that?
	If I'm the US, one way or the other.
	If I'm Israel, one way or the other.
	And if I'm Russia, one way or the other.
	I don't want the corrupt UN institution as an independent third party because I don't trust them either.
	So I can understand.
	It's the only internationally recognized third party institution for these kind of investigations.
	And while they have not often lived up to their capabilities, they are still the most able to provide this kind of independent review that all parties would be satisfactory with.
	I mean, they ultimately...
	Did an independent review of what took place in Syria, and their whistleblowers reported what happened.
	Now, there were people at the top politically that tried to suppress that information, but it's still more useful than no investigation, in my view, because otherwise that would be the outcome.
	So yeah, it's a classic false flag event.
	And people wonder, I mean, the reason why they're going to keep pushing and propagating this is because false flags work.
	They've done about, what, 2025 now?
	It's almost a daily basis in Ukraine.
	But, you know, Gulf of Tonkin worked.
	Only one congressman, a populist from eastern Kentucky, voted against it.
	The incubator baby story worked.
	The weapons of mass destruction story worked.
	The remember the main worked.
	The sinking of the Lusitania worked.
	They're going to keep doing it because it works so well.
	So the idea here, Robert, is that not that these I read the Human Rights Watch article.
	I read it.
	It's not that I don't trust one side or the other.
	I don't trust anybody.
	Robert, don't take it personally.
	I trust but verify you.
	I do trust but verify you because you have not led me astray with outright falsehoods at any point.
	I may disagree with your opinion, but that would still be opinion versus Not being provided false facts.
	And if anybody says that you have provided those or me, let us know specifically and we'll respond.
	I read the article and I say, okay, fine.
	I'm reading it.
	I'm reading testimonials.
	I'm reading testimonials recounted by people on scene.
	Fine.
	Then I compare this and I go and I say, I saw those videos, Robert, of what occurred seemingly by Ukrainian forces.
	I see the video.
	I still don't even trust that video because I don't know.
	BBC has confirmed it as authentic, and they have no incentive to do so, given which side they're on in a war.
	So there we've had independent Western confirmation or corroboration.
	Now, Zelensky was asked that by Brett Beyer.
	Credit to Brett for asking the question, but Fox News then scrubbed his answer from their publication of the interview, where he was asked about the Assoff Battalion, and Zelensky said, they are who they are.
	So, I mean, that kind of sums it up.
	I mean, basically, all the incentives right now are stacked for these kind of events, for a false flag event, are stacked on the Ukrainian side.
	That the military conflict is not going contrary to their imagination.
	I mean, the people that live in the little bubbles that believe every atrocity is a Russian atrocity and don't believe any of the Ukrainian atrocities, they also were telling me that Kiev was getting mass bombed by the Russians.
	I was like, Kiev would be rubble if it was being mass bombed by the Russians.
	They believe ridiculous things and ludicrous things.
	But outside of that little bubble world pretending they're winning, Ukrainian defense minister admitted the other day that their support mechanism for the armed industry is gone.
	It's all been taken out by the Russians.
	They've lost enough land to equal the size of the United Kingdom.
	And then on the broader global political economic war that this is really just a proxy for, As the European Union and the Polish minister admitted the other day, the sanctions have failed.
	The Russian ruble is now back to where it was before the war even started.
	Putin is now more popular in Russia than he has ever been.
	His approval rating is at 83%, according to an independent pollster who's well-respected in the West.
	New York Times confirmed the same thing, that people who led the initial war protest in Russia are saying that almost all the support for it, even amongst the protester constituencies, is gone because of what is...
	It's taken place and transpired.
	So the West is getting shut out.
	85% of the world has rejected sanctions.
	Every country in Central America, every country in Africa, every country in Latin America, every country in Asia.
	And the big ones, China and India, refuse to go along.
	Chinese social media is increasingly very openly, bluntly critical.
	One Chinese government official put today that said, when the West comes to ask for favors, what they mean is a gun to the head.
	They're losing the political battle.
	Turkey's refused to join the sanctions, and it got worse for them today.
	They attempted to get regime change in Pakistan.
	That didn't work.
	They had gone to great lengths to get Orban defeated in Hungary.
	He did even better than all the polls estimated.
	If you'd been listening to Bourbon with Barnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you would have made money on that bet, which I recommended last week to take when Orban was trading at even money.
	In Serbia, the Russian sympathetic political group is going to win even bigger than expected.
	Not only that...
	Macron is in trouble in France.
	Macron was surging when he was seen as the peace guy.
	The combined economic effects that's leading to strikes in more places.
	They're calling for strikes in Greece.
	Strikes have already occurred in other parts of Europe.
	It's going to escalate and accelerate as these COVID lockdown economic policies backfire combined with these sanctions policies adding to the problem.
	And now all of a sudden, Le Pen, who's seen as anti-war, anti-EU skeptical...
	Who didn't handle a lot of things related to COVID very politically well, but now is starting to resurge because of the dominance of these issues.
	So the West is under massive pressure to create even more dramatic false flags in order to get emotional responses from the world audience in the hopes that that will lead to more economic war against Russia and more military intervention into Ukraine.
	So we can expect, unfortunately...
	More of this to come, and people should be on high alert for it.
	And now explain, notwithstanding the sanctions, the ruble is roughly back to what it was a while back.
	I don't trust polls, Robert.
	I don't even trust the trusted pollsters, but one thing is for certain.
	I will accept this fact.
	Putin's approval rating in Russia is higher than Biden's approval rating in America.
	That much I will accept as a fact.
	We can just disagree on the quantum.
	But Biden, we had Gammon on last Wednesday, George Gammon talking about, I don't know if it's hyperinflation, inflation in the US, and you've got Biden saying, yeah, the sanctions are not only going to hurt Russian civilians, they're going to hurt Americans.
	Explain the consequence or the strategy or the thought or the idiocy behind Biden imposing the sanctions, seeing the prices of oil skyrocket, and then saying we're going to release...
	I don't know how much of our reserve in the United States to try to bring the prices down, but deplete the reserve.
	I mean, can you tell us why that's not the dumbest thing on earth, if it isn't?
	Yeah, so I mean, the problem with, I mean, this was basically a fight between globalist and nationalist, and it's just...
	Russia happens to be the immediate target, but there are a lot of collateral targets.
	And if you want something like a global digital currency, for example, and you want the George Soros vision of the world, which is a small group of financial institutions and stakeholders, as Klaus Schwab likes to call them at the World Economic Forum, to run the world, then you need to take out these dissidents, these outsiders that are challenging and contesting it.
	And so the economic war on Russia was meant to collapse Russia's economy and lead to political regime change, not thinking about what the consequences of that would be.
	Biden did a big speech in Poland that was supposed to rally people to that cause and instead it backfired.
	People, even in Europe, were not interested in hearing that explicitly, expressly stated.
	The secondary problem is it's an old dispute.
	Do stock markets and GDPs and financial control and currency dominance, is that what runs the world?
	Or does fuel and food and essential minerals and resources and labor and people and military power, does that rule the world?
	And the globalist vision is that the former rules it.
	The populist vision shared by people like Orban and others, and by Putin in particular, is that the latter is what dominates.
	And the latter is winning.
	And it wasn't supposed to win.
	So consequently, they continue to escalate.
	So one of the issues is Putin demanded payment in ruble, set up an easy mechanism for that to happen with European countries.
	But the European countries wanted to balk at it.
	The problem is take Germany.
	Germany's government may collapse before the end of the year.
	As German industrialists came out over the weekend and said, this cannot happen.
	Our industry will collapse if we don't have access to oil.
	The EU's initial defense was that this was a breach of contract.
	However, what's called force majeure, any lawyer knows about that term, which by the way was used by a lot of insurance and other people to weasel out of paying any contracts related to COVID-19.
	It also applies here.
	Because of force majeure, Russians cannot use the benefit of dollars or euros.
	So their facilitation of a means of paying in rubles is still consistent with contractual terms, especially when they made it quite easy to do so by opening up an account at a Russian bank in Europe.
	So at every stage, the globalists have been outmaneuvered at the political stage and the economic stage and even to some extent in the military stage.
	And so they have to...
	That's the reason for the desperation which led Biden facing skyrocketing gas bills and other inflationary aspects that are primarily the product of our lockdown economics, printing tons and tons of cash.
	I mean, we doubled the amount of total currency within a year that we printed, leading to mass inflation, which puts the Fed in the position of raising interest rates.
	The problem is the yield curve is now inverted.
	And it's not clear that they can do so without hurting the economy and creating the 70s-style stagflation.
	So what we're seeing is economic solutions being propounded and proposed by the West from Jeremy Corbyn in Britain to various EU ministers to Biden is some version of using strategic petroleum reserves here.
	Those reserves were not meant for...
	A political dispute.
	They were meant for when we absolutely had to use them emergency-wise.
	He said he's going to release a million barrels a day.
	We don't even have the capacity to do a million barrels a day.
	And that will only impact 3-4% of the price at best.
	And worse, it's making the future situation look bad because then those reserves are unavailable.
	And a year from now, if he keeps using them the way he's using them, so the futures market for oil is looking worse rather than better.
	As people, even Goldman Sachs and others, said this would...
	Backfire as an economic strategy.
	So he plans on releasing it all the way up through the midterms, hoping that it looks like he's trying to do something, but if it doesn't translate into lower gas prices, good luck with that.
	So they also underestimated the degree to which a bunch of people in the West, including the United States, are willing to economically sacrifice for a deep state war in Ukraine.
	Americans just aren't that interested in it.
	That's where if you dug down into the polling, it wouldn't surprise you not only what's happening in Europe in the sense that the people that are seen as anti-war are surging while the pro-war people are dropping.
	If you dug down behind the fake part of the polls and you ask people things like, are you willing to suffer?
	Are you willing to risk nuclear war?
	Are you willing to risk global war?
	Are you willing to risk war itself involving our own troops?
	Are you willing to take major economic sacrifices to support this?
	People overwhelmingly said no.
	So that's the problem.
	And generally when economic issues like this stemming from war come to the political ballot box, the war party is seen as responsible and they lose.
	1920, after winning World War I, the Democrat, the war party got wiped out.
	1946, in the House, after winning World War II, the Democrats got wiped out because of economic issues, particularly inflation, related to the war effort.
	1952, Truman's going into Korean War didn't turn out to be popular, and Eisenhower and Republicans surged.
	In 1968, LBJ's Vietnam War led to the election of Richard Milhouse Nixon.
	In 1992, Poppy Bush's very popular war in Iraq and his conflict in Panama.
	Led to him getting ousted by two anti-war candidates, Bill Clinton at the time, and notably Ross Perot and Bennett, who surged on no blood for oil.
	In 2000, after they used various similar, what turned out to often be fake accusations of Serbian atrocities, and went in and bombed Serbia for killing thousands of civilians, blowing up hospitals.
	In schools for about 90 days, NATO in the United States.
	Al Gore lost in the 2000 elections.
	He was seen as the more pro-war candidate at that time.
	W, once the economic effect had been felt.
	And political effect of the war in Iraq, 2006, Democrats seized control of the House and the Senate, and it's the anti-war candidate, Barack Obama, who beats the pro-war candidate, Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.
	And then when Obama escalated a lot of international conflict between 2013 and 2016, Donald Trump seizes power, and a close review of election results would show that if the only thing you knew about a county was how many Americans had died in conflict over the past 10 years, From that county, then you could predict the degree of which it would swing from Obama to Trump.
	So you're seeing J.D. Vance surge, the anti-war candidate surge in Ohio.
	You're seeing Blake Masters, the anti-war candidate surge in Arizona.
	You're seeing Joe Kent surge, the anti-war candidate surge in his congressional district fight.
	And so you're seeing that the political effects is not what the deep state thought it would be.
	It's not a coincidence.
	That three of the primary candidates we've promoted here are the ones who ended up being on the right side of this conflict.
	I was just going to say, those three have something in common.
	We've done sidebars with them.
	Robert, I want to bring this question up from John Andrews.
	My question for Robert, what in your estimation is something Russia failed to achieve in this war?
	This could be something operational, logistics, or something moral.
	Has Russia erred at all?
	Because, Robert, you are accused by, I'm not going to call them trolls, by those who disagree as coming off as a Russian apologist.
	I think people misinterpret your, what's the word when you stand up to official stories, contrarian take on things, which happens to be, in my mind, it's proven to be more accurate than not in the time I've known you.
	But what would you fault Russia for in the context of this Russia-Ukraine war?
	Well, what I've said from the get-go is that I'm skeptical that Russia can achieve through military or martial means the political objective they seek, and I keep that.
	I'm still skeptical that they can get what they want in terms of politically from Ukraine by military means.
	I think that's just, in the modern world, how often has that worked?
	I get that that reflects a bias of mine, an anti-war bias of mine.
	That's instinctual because I recognize throughout the broad course of human history, martial and military means have often achieved the objective of the political actors.
	But I would contrast that with recent history.
	I mean, at least the U.S. efforts have all failed.
	Korea failed.
	Vietnam failed.
	Iraq both times failed.
	Afghanistan failed.
	Libya failed.
	Syria failed.
	Serbia failed.
	Sudan failed.
	Somalia failed.
	You know, there's been no effort that military, you can militarily achieve a political objective.
	In the modern era, and I'm still skeptical that the Russians can do that either.
	So we'll see.
	I mean, I'm paying a little more attention to the economic conflict between the globalists and the nationalists, because that's what I'm more interested in.
	That's what I think has the greater long-term consequence than paying it.
	I like strategy, so it has been interesting to watch deep battle tactics used.
	And people can go back and watch my video at the Hush Hush video at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But so far, I've been way ahead of the curve so far.
	I said the Russian economy would not implode.
	There wouldn't be regime change.
	Putin would end up more popular.
	The efforts of the Ukrainian military would not be as successful.
	Highlighted a bunch of the false flags that took out, that China and India wouldn't join in.
	Brazil wouldn't join in.
	So far, all these institutional people said the opposite was going to happen.
	And in just 30 days, they've been wrong on every one of those big items, and I've been right.
	So some of this is just geopolitical strategic analysis and understanding who the players are as to what's likely to occur.
	But I'm not for the Russian war in Ukraine, to be absolutely clear.
	I'm both instinctively against war, and I don't think they can achieve politically.
	I'm skeptical.
	I'm skeptical.
	I recognize that the history, that may reflect my just bias.
	A bias is an irrational belief, not necessarily based in reason.
	And I have an anti-war bias, without doubt.
	But yeah, that's where my skepticism and criticism comes in.
	They can even achieve this militarily.
	They can get the Donbass back.
	They can get water supply for Crimea.
	I don't think they're going to get the rest of what they want.
	I'm going to get back to the anti-war bias, which some people are going to interpret as being, I don't care about atrocities.
	But before that...
	Barnes, do you know nothing?
	I read an article that said the consumer-caused inflation due to all of outspending.
	Get a finance degree, my dude.
	This is what I...
	At first, I still thought this was serious.
	Inflation is caused by spending, not printing.
	Remember sarcasm, perspective, second language.
	Britt Cormier, thank you very much.
	The denial level.
	I mean, first, remember, they pretended inflation wasn't happening.
	It was just transitory.
	I believe they said it was transitory.
	Temporary.
	Just transitory.
	Now they admit it is happening so much that they're...
	And the problem is low rates.
	I mean, it just happened in Canada.
	I think you guys' mortgage rate went up to 4%.
	You know, it's 5% here in the States on the 30-year.
	I mean, this is accelerating fast.
	And what happens to the housing market?
	What happens to the stock market?
	And what happens to the dollar dominance if all three of those things fall?
	It's a little bit long term.
	It may be we may be a better, stronger country returning to our founders roots.
	You know, they never wanted an empire.
	That was the whole point.
	Don't go as to like things like atrocities.
	That was their whole point all the way back then.
	Do not go searching abroad for monsters to destroy.
	That's always the excuse for getting us into some dumb conflict in some place in the world.
	Be skeptical.
	Just be very, very skeptical.
	And they've done so many crazy faults.
	But the problem is, even though Sean Penn is over there saying billionaires should create a private army for the Ukrainians to take out the Ruskies, you have to wonder about Sean Penn.
	But that's another story for another day.
	Maybe I'll do a special hush-hush on Sean Penn and his family.
	But they really have a beaten-level movie production.
	When your president is appearing every night in front of an obvious green screen that anybody that's had five seconds of green screen experience can look at and go, mmm, those proportions are...
	I mean, to give an example of how badly they screwed it up, in one of them, his shoulder disappears.
	It just vanishes momentarily.
	It's like, that's an obvious green screen, aside from the proportionality and the lighting issues and all the rest.
	I mean, we're taking advice and listening to some guy who's appearing nightly in front of a green screen and pretending he isn't.
	No, I don't mind the fact that he's an actor.
	Donald Trump was a reality television guy.
	It's not a question of harboring these preconceived notions that an actor couldn't be a good president.
	In as much as I know of Ronald Reagan, I think he might be one of the better presidents the US has ever had.
	But he had been active for 50 years.
	He had been governor for eight years.
	He'd run for president in 76. He was much more qualified than either Zelensky in Ukraine or someone like Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin.
	That's why I tell people, what's it like having a guy like Zelensky with his hundreds of millions stashed overseas as revealed in the Panama Papers?
	I mean, it's probably not a coincidence that the number one group...
	of politicians in the Panama Papers that had money overseas were Ukrainians.
	Just like it's not a coincidence that individual Ukrainians were the biggest group of individual contributors to the Clinton Foundation.
	But, you know, we'll see whether some of this gets exposed because it looks like Joe Biden might not be doing enough of the deep state's bidding with the leaks about deer hunters.
	Many, many crimes.
	Maybe they'll finally be investigated.
	We're going to get there in one second.
	I do want to do one thing.
	We've reached...
	Over 10,000 on this stream on YouTube.
	We are at 3,700 on Rumble.
	I'm going to ask a question.
	One and twos in the house.
	When I bring up chats like this, super chat or regular chat, do people like it or do they not like it?
	Should I keep doing it randomly as I see fit or should I stop?
	One, keep doing it.
	Viva, you know what you're doing.
	Two, stop it.
	It's too distracting.
	I do not agree to be bound by the results.
	I just like to see what people think.
	One, it doesn't bother me.
	I like seeing the chat.
	I don't find it distracting.
	Two, stop doing it.
	That's a good deep stater provision.
	We do not agree to be bound by the Democratic results.
	And I should apologize.
	I know I got an email from someone saying, stop cracking your knuckles during the chat, during the stream.
	And someone else said, Viva, I think they wanted me to crack my knuckles.
	That was involuntary.
	That was automatism for knuckle cracking.
	I apologize if it bothers you.
	Okay, so that's the latest from Russia.
	I now appreciate the...
	Actually, one last question, Robert.
	On Twitter, you said there's people living in fantasy land in that, on the one hand, they're saying Russia is carpet bombing cities indiscriminately destroying all of Ukraine.
	On the other hand, Ukraine are pushing back the forces, destroying them 15,000 more now.
	You can't reconcile those two things.
	I agree with you, Robert.
	My question is this.
	Which one do you think is more likely to be occurring right now?
	Because they can both be occurring at the same time.
	Maybe one of them is not occurring or in variations, but which one is more likely to be what is actually occurring in Russia right now?
	I mean, neither really is.
	I mean, there's a good military and foreign affairs channel.
	I think he calls himself the voice of reason.
	He has no political bone in the fight.
	He has a different take than I do on aspects of Russian military strategy.
	But his view is that this would be a long, drawn-out conflict.
	Due to the nature of urban warfare in the modern age, especially...
	If the Russians are going to go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, that's going to make places like Maripol weeks and weeks longer than would otherwise be the case.
	It also appears there may be French or maybe even American or British NATO members on the ground in Maripol who are advising them that the Azov Battalion, the rumor is that they're holding them hostage as a way to prevent the Russians from coming in because they've taken foothold in a major steel factory there.
	So I think Ukraine has fought back in a way that could be reasonably expected.
	It's what I tell people in evaluating the military strategy.
	Go back in and look at what do the Russians know?
	And then say, assume a rational Russian actor.
	And then you can make the best inferences about what their strategy likely was.
	The Russians are notorious for not...
	Letting anyone know what that strategy is.
	They don't even tell their own soldiers until the last minute what they're doing.
	That echoes way back.
	But I don't think the Ukrainian army in the East has the means, the support network.
	If you look at deep battle policy, they have effectively cut off their ability to get fuel, their ability to get food, their ability to get out of that region, their ability to get support into that region.
	All of those things have been pretty achieved.
	It's heading for one of the most brutal battles in Europe since World War II because you're talking about 50,000, 60,000 Ukrainian soldiers on one side outside the Donbass and probably 100,000 or more Russian soldiers on the other side.
	And a lot of villages in between.
	And so it's unfortunate.
	I mean, I had hoped that the Ukrainians would be sensible and cut a deal.
	But it does not appear that that will happen.
	It came out, the German Prime Minister has taken a lot of political heat in Germany, so he leaked to the Wall Street Journal that he had told Zelensky to commit to no NATO and neutrality, that with a security agreement that he had got Biden and Putin to both agree they would secure the future peace of Ukraine, and Zelensky said no thanks.
	Now that's why, while Kamala Harris was in town, probably telling Zelensky something different.
	Because for all of the, you know, you look at someone like Biden, he's always been a sort of deep state guy.
	But never to the Hillary Clinton level of loving war.
	And it appears to me he's trying not to escalate too much while bumbling in to the way he is escalating.
	And then the speech in Warsaw didn't go the way the deep state types wanted.
	They thought the whole world would rally to take out Putin.
	And it backfired.
	And they had to pretend he wasn't even meant to say it when clearly it's Michael Tracy, who was there in Poland, has demonstrated.
	And Michael Tracy is another anti-war left reporter.
	But was on top of it on Russiagate, for example.
	He was expected that that would be popular and it wasn't.
	And that may be why what I'd said two years ago, and to his credit to the legend Rush Limbaugh, also said before his passing, was that at some point the deep state apparatus, he called it the media establishment, will seek to finally do hard journalism and take out Biden when Biden is no longer useful to them.
	And they may have decided that they're willing to take the hits with a more unpopular, bumbling Kamala Harris, who might be more willing to do their bidding.
	She was backed by that group of people.
	If you dig into who was supporting her early on, a lot of your big defense contractors, these kind of folks, than Biden is likely willing to do.
	And that may be why they're suddenly seriously investigating Hunter's various multiple crimes over the past decade.
	Now, I don't know.
	We don't need to talk more about Ukraine per se right now.
	I think it's going to...
	Is the word dovetail?
	I don't even know what that means.
	It's going to work its way naturally into this.
	It's all part of it, yeah.
	So let's get into the Hunter Biden computer.
	We talked about this a bit last week.
	And I just want to clarify it for those who may still be confused.
	That might include me.
	The Hunter Biden laptop was bull crap from the beginning.
	It was passed off as...
	Untrue.
	The product of a hack.
	Russian disinformation.
	You have 50 of the biggest liars on earth who work in intelligence.
	Still doubling down, tripling down on the Russian disinformation campaign.
	It's been validated.
	It's been verified.
	It's been confirmed.
	So the laptop, the 10% for the big guy, which may not have been in the emails, but rather testimonial of one of the individuals in the emails.
	It's been confirmed.
	Authentic.
	Done.
	The story about Hunter Biden facilitating or playing a role in financing bio-research in Ukraine.
	A lot of people are thinking, he wasn't involved in it, it's a bullcrap story because he doesn't know anything about biological research, yada yada.
	Explain or simplify it as to what the idea is here in terms of Hunter Biden's role in procuring or facilitating financing.
	Two biological research facilities, call them safety facilities if you want to, in Ukraine.
	Explain what that looks like.
	Well, what's detailed in the laptop are emails and communications showing that he was the middleman between Ukraine and biological research facilities in the West.
	And he was a key facilitator to make sure that happened, both in terms of financing and funding, but also in terms of legal permission from the Ukrainian government.
	And this was either the Ukrainian, at various times, it was the Ukrainian government that was, the Maidan coup government in particular was the more problematic involvement that he had, but he had involvement, it appears, before then as well.
	So it, and it was clearly he was selling access to his father.
	It's not like he's, he's no more of a biological research expert than he is an oil expert.
	But Ukraine, of course, was the number one grifter country in the world for the West.
	They can't wait to start grifting that $300 billion they stole from the Russian reserves.
	They're already promising that, probably to try to keep Ukrainians in line, because anytime somebody apparently gives sympathy towards a settlement or a peaceful resolution, they end up like those two negotiators who end up come back and get shot in the head back when they get back into Kiev, or this past week.
	Several generals, including high-ranking security members, were removed suddenly and summarily.
	Nobody's seen them, so the guess is that they've either been disappeared or executed.
	But Zelensky had to talk about it because too many people were talking about it, so he just called them traitors and removed them.
	So it gives an idea for what's happening there.
	If you want to keep all that money you got hidden in those offshore accounts, you want to keep your Miami condos, and you want to get your hands on this $250, $300 billion we've stolen from the Ruskies, you better keep playing ball.
	That's the people Hunter Biden was in bed with and doing business with.
	Now, the collateral problem for him appears to be that he did not report much of this income, allegedly, on his individual or corporate tax returns, which is no major surprise.
	Now, the strong suspicion is that a fair amount of this money was 10% or more to the big guy, and that money definitely never showed up on Uncle Joe's tax return.
	So going at taxes is a way to not only go at Hunter, but to go at Papa Joe and to, I believe, extort him into further deepening our involvement in this economic and military war against Russia.
	And his hesitance, which has still been a limited hesitance, but just the fact that he has had any hesitance has, I believe, accelerated this approach.
	Now, I do a lot of criminal tax cases.
	So, Hunter Biden's potential defenses would always be the same as Trump could have, which is a reliance defense or a good faith defense, that you were advised by an attorney or an accountant that this money was not reportable income or was not taxable as such, or not taxable to you or the entity that filed the return.
	Also, a good faith defense, which is you could have been wrong about the law, but you sincerely believe the law was on your side, and so that's why you did it.
	But the issue would be if the money clearly...
	I'm sure they've traced all the money.
	Now, the thing is, there's many people who suspect, I suspected from before, but once the bioweapons labs or biological research labs, they weren't offensive weapons, everybody.
	They were defensive weapons.
	I was getting kicked out of that.
	I debated that with a Russian or someone on RT where they were trying to convince me that Putin developing these weapons that could cause tsunamis around the world were defensive weapons.
	And I was like...
	No, no, no.
	A moat is a defensive weapon.
	Causing another country to experience a tsunami is called an offensive weapon.
	You might have it to try to defend yourself against attack, but it's an offensive weapon.
	But once you knew Bayhunter was involved with this group of activity, then there's almost no chance that he wasn't doing so on behalf of deep state actors who know where the dirt is so they can easily track it and trace it to try to leverage Papa Joe.
	The question is, if Papa Joe doesn't go along, are they really willing to escalate to actual indictment, given all the different bodies that are buried that could be exposed by Hunter?
	I'm skeptical still of that.
	Or do they just proceed with a 25th Amendment?
	Biden, I mean, no one would have any difficulty believing his cognitive impairment is sufficient to...
	It's just so politically embarrassing, and he's still got plenty of allies in the cabinet.
	Kamala Harris doesn't have enough influence on the cabinet to, I think, pull that off.
	What their ideal scenario would be is that Joe just...
	I think what they're doing is trying to extort him.
	They'll only escalate to indictment or threatened indictment to get him to resign, and then they'll agree to drop the charges or let him grant a pardon, as he's already floating, to Hunter and every...
	It's not just Hunter.
	It's his brother.
	It's his sister.
	There's a bunch of people that are neck deep on this.
	Can you imagine if the president pardons his son?
	I mean, that would be when people complain that Trump pardoned some bad people who maybe he shouldn't have pardoned.
	An Israeli spy, for example.
	But pardoning your own son?
	And does Biden end up being the president who pardons himself and tests that theory?
	Oh my goodness, that would be glorious in a legal sense.
	So yeah, we'll see how it keeps going.
	I think this is what's going on behind the scenes.
	There's a bunch of people predicting that they're really going to crack down on Hunter Biden.
	They're going to bring a massive indictment.
	They're going to expose it all.
	I will be truly shocked if I see that.
	It's the same view I had of Spygate and Russiagate.
	If John Durham actually indicts a Hillary Clinton or James Comey or Peter Stroke, I'll believe it when I see it.
	Until then, I'm not buying.
	So I think this is just, they're leaking to the press.
	To create extortionate pressure on Papa Joe.
	And I still think it's mostly more bluff than reality.
	Because politically, just getting Kamala in there to do some more of your bidding is not good for the Democrats, for sure.
	Kamala's more unpopular than Biden.
	She's worse on the internet, less respected on the international stage than Biden.
	She will accelerate worse situations and circumstances rather than improve them.
	Now, if she made Hillary Clinton her vice president, then I would say, you know...
	She should buy some life insurance.
	That's hilarious, politically speaking.
	No one condones.
	Okay, never mind.
	Britt Cormier says, the 50 intelligence experts that told Joe the laptop was a deep Russian fake were out-investigated the top-notch New York Times reporters.
	Were out-investigated the top-notch New York Times reporters.
	Those reporters have not done a real investigation in 20 years.
	What the fudge?
	Does that say about the intelligence experts?
	Robert, who are these?
	I mean, I know there's Tapper, there's Comey, there's...
	Oh, who's the other guy?
	I mean, it's basically a roster of deep state hacks.
	It's like a lot of the generals.
	People are discovering just how bad our military...
	hierarchy is.
	Not only are they obsessed with wokeism and all the rest, what Eisenhower warned about in 1961 in the military-industrial complex's incipient rise is a daily reality in Washington.
	So when they're not busy selling out to some foreign power for their lobbyist group or think tank, they're doing the bidding of the deep state, which what happens is as long as you play ball, once you're out...
	You get a media contract.
	You get a publishing contract.
	And you get defense contracts.
	And that's what you're seeing.
	More and more of these generals say some of the dumbest possible stuff.
	Like, it looks like there was a false flag event to be blamed on Ukraine that probably wasn't Ukraine.
	According to Ukrainian, it wasn't them, which was two helicopters went in and bombed a civil...
	It was not a military gas depot, a civilian gas depot in Beligrad across the border in Russia.
	And I suspect it was being used by some rogue deep state actors, maybe rogue Ukrainian actors, who were trying to escalate Russian response in the hopes that that would then bring in the West to be more involved militarily.
	I think Ukraine is not lying about that.
	But you had some of these ex-generals bragging about how wonderful this was.
	I mean, this is...
	Foolish, foolish behavior.
	But it's because they're all part of the same apparatus.
	And these 50 spy guys were.
	And that's why I said John Durham's investigation was about protecting them, excusing their conduct, not exposing their conduct.
	And that's why he's gone after all outsiders, people who are not, that they just fooled and tricked our poor FBI and our poor NSA and our poor CIA.
	Just, you know, shows what a joke he was from day one.
	Yeah, it was Brennan.
	Brennan was the name I was looking for.
	Thank you for the chat.
	Yeah, but a bunch, I mean, they're not hacks because I don't think they believe what they're saying.
	They're skilled at what they do, but what they do is not, you know, watch Taylor of Panama, great John LeCuré book made into a movie with Pierce Brosnan, or watch Our Man in Havana based on Graham Greene's book of the same name.
	Both of them witnessed were either spies themselves or were spy attendant at different times and saw how spies operate.
	And they're there to lie and manufacture stories to fit a preordained narrative that fits the institutional interest of the people who write their checks.
	That's who Christopher Steele is.
	You think Christopher Steele actually bought into any of the nonsense in his stories?
	He included stuff that was so ludicrous it was obviously false.
	And yet James Comey circulated it as if it was true and tried to extort the president in his very first meeting with him by saying, look at the dirt I have.
	Trump's like, what?
	I'm a germaphobe.
	You think I'm going to have women doing that?
	No chance.
	I mean, just basic stuff that was absurd.
	And if you knew Trump, that's not Trump's M.O. Yeah, he's different.
	He told people years ago, always assume you're being taped when you go to a hotel somewhere around the world.
	People should keep that in mind.
	Trump has a lot of hotels around the world.
	So I paid attention to that statement.
	I was like, hmm, I'm going to be careful when I visit a Trump hotel too.
	You know, I'm thinking like, when I was running for office, Robert, I was like...
	Everybody knows I always take for granted I'm being recorded.
	I always take for granted my phone might get hacked and they can see my text messages.
	And I have a germ phobia.
	And I also believe that infidelity, wrongly but understandably, entitles the spouse, who is the subject of the infidelity, to do very bad things to the disloyal spouse.
	So this is, if for no other reason it keeps you honest when you operate on this basis, I'm not susceptible of honeypotting.
	You know, the only thing I can think of, The tax stuff.
	When you see how they can weaponize tax law and say, oh, and if they don't criminalize outright behavior, they can just go back and reassess you.
	You assess your exposure, but the idea that Trump, a germaphobe who, you know, would...
	But then, that being said, Robert, the rumor is that he did do naughty things with people, porn stars, which might contradict the narrative of a germaphobe.
	Not at foreign hotels.
	I mean, Trump's legend is a ladies' man as well.
	But again, he's the only guy probably in history to purportedly bang a porn star and get paid by her.
	Apparently she owes him about half a million dollars now.
	But people need to appreciate this.
	This is the Stormy Daniels settlement where she appealed the decision.
	Not a settlement.
	She appealed the decision, is condemned to pay Trump legal fees for a failed defamation suit.
	She crowdsourced for her defense.
	So Trump haters are literally paying Trump.
	Or his lawyers.
	You're not paying Trump.
	You're just paying his lawyers.
	Well, you're returning the money he already paid.
	Okay, Robert.
	Speaking of the military, two good updates on the vaccine mandate front.
	After the U.S. Supreme Court and Kavanaugh wussed out on the Navy seal and said, you know, at least as to deployment, we're not going to enforce an injunction at this stage at the Supreme Court level.
	That was not a binding precedent.
	The big question was, would federal judges...
	Then capitulate to the military and kick all of these vaccine mandate suits.
	To their great credit, two federal judges stepped into the breach and pushed back.
	What they did is they stepped in.
	There was an Air Force case out of Ohio.
	And the judge who was actually overturned in the Navy case, what he did is he expanded the vaccine mandate injunction to everybody in the Navy.
	And he said, I understand I have to carve out this one deployment issue.
	But as to everything else, I'm granting all relief.
	The vaccine mandate by the Navy is patently illegal, violates the First Amendment, violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
	There are people saying you couldn't sue the military.
	I was one of the first people talking about Religious Freedom and Restoration Act would allow you to do it.
	And so all Navy personnel are now, they cannot enforce the vaccine mandate.
	Class-wide mandate injunction issued.
	And a bunch of Air Force airmen also received the benefit of an injunction out of Ohio that did the same thing.
	So good news on the vaccine mandate in the military context, despite what Kavanaugh did.
	Well, and so that decision, what was interesting about that decision is it had three pages as basically a preface or a precursor or a preamble highlighting the importance of religious freedom.
	In the United States.
	The only thing I didn't understand from that decision is that it granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
	And I just didn't understand what part of the request of the servicemen it didn't grant.
	Was it...
	I didn't understand what was...
	As to deployment.
	So the military can still take into consideration for the time being a person's vaccinated status for the purposes of deploying them.
	But that's all.
	Now, I understand members of the military, like, long-term, that has broad impact.
	And we'll see how it all fleshes out in the end.
	Because I see this at a short-term issue.
	Long-term, I believe that will also be remedied in terms of the military.
	Okay.
	It's interesting.
	It was great.
	And the question that I was just asking myself is, reading the decision, the court says deeply held religious beliefs should be respected.
	They should not be scrutinized or, you know, questioned.
	Whereas in Canada, you have a...
	Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau saying, we're going to make it very difficult for people to exercise religious freedoms.
	I don't even understand how the federal government in Canada understands religious objections.
	Do you have to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, whatever?
	Or can it be a fundamental belief in the United States and under this decision?
	And under the decisions cited in this decision, what do they understand?
	What do they mean by deeply held religious belief if it doesn't just mean organized religion?
	A sincerely held conscientious belief that goes to a matter of right and wrong.
	That's to the core of the person's belief structure.
	Doesn't require organized religious belief.
	An atheist can take a religious exemption and accommodation.
	Some have and won historically in the United States.
	So it was great to see them.
	I mean, what the military did was systematically deny religious accommodation requests.
	It was open religious prejudice against our own soldiers by this administration.
	And to their credit, courts are stepping in to remind people of how sacred religious rights are.
	And this goes back to what we discussed a year ago, said the place where we will find judicial relief against these mandates will be in the field of religious protections and religious rights.
	And so far, that is what's come to fruition.
	And reading the decision, they were citing or quoting from the deposition of the individual.
	And he basically said, look, I'm going to go meet my maker.
	I have to feel good about myself when I go meet them.
	Is the reason, and correct me if I'm wrong, and this is my preconceived notion, and maybe it's wrong.
	But the reason why this would be tested in the military first and foremost is because the service men and women who typically go serve come from rural America, tend to be more religious to begin with?
	Or is that an inaccurate preconceived notion?
	That's probably true.
	It's probably true.
	So, good decision there, people.
	If anybody needs the white pill, before we get into some of the black, there won't be black pills.
	A couple of great lawsuits filed.
	One pro se by a group of airline attendants in Colorado.
	Another one by a bunch of governors in the state of Florida, led by Governor DeSantis, challenging the mask mandate.
	The airline stewardesses are challenging the mask mandate on airlines, which even the airline CEOs have asked the Biden administration to stop.
	And they have a bunch of great medical information in their lawsuit, not only legal claims, but good medical information about these mask mandates.
	Now, since we're on YouTube, I actually published the suit at vivabarneslaw.locals.com so that you can look at the medical details for yourself.
	I've highlighted broad sections of it so you don't have to read the whole complaint if you don't have the time.
	And the same with the lawsuits brought by the governors.
	The claim specific to the airline industry is that the CDC didn't have the authority for this, but also is that this doesn't work.
	It's not effective.
	And what they particularly do, the airline stewardesses do a great job of, is detailing all of the negative effects of these mask mandates.
	There's this belief out there that this could only help.
	It couldn't hurt.
	They detail how that's completely false.
	Really well done in their suit.
	Again, for the details.
	The lawsuit you can find at bebabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And good stuff by the governors because their point is if the CDC didn't have eviction power, then the CDC doesn't have nationwide mask mandate power either.
	19 governors have joined the suit.
	Hopefully the suit is successful.
	It should be legally successful.
	We'll just see what the politics of the courts are.
	But it looks like the mask mandate might not only die, but die in such a way that it cannot be resuscitated again in the way it came about in the first place.
	And if anybody asks why I look distracted, I'm listening to you, Robert.
	I just want to see if I can pull up the article from the CDC, which basically showed that the positive impact of the mask mandates, let's just say it was negligible at best.
	And I wanted to pull up another, there was another article, not medical advice, people, I can't find it right now, which showed that when everyone says masks can't possibly be harmful, yeah, I guess in an ideal world, they can't.
	Except if they get moist, except if they're reused, except if they're used beyond the useful life, especially with children.
	Just throwing that out there because I looked this up for my own good.
	There could be mold.
	There could be other issues in terms of putting that over your face all day.
	So when people reflexively say they're harmless in an ideal world, when you change them every four hours and you use reusable masks and whatever, yeah, maybe then, even for adults, not necessarily for kids.
	But I'll try to pull up those articles because it's not me saying it.
	It was the CDC or, you know, studies.
	Studies.
	In New York City, they brought a challenge to the mask mandate on toddlers.
	They won at the trial court level, and the Court of Appeals in New York rushed in to stop it, to stop the trial court from enjoining this mandate.
	So it's kind of, you know, sticking masks on two-year-olds while the mayor was out partying that same night.
	And then they have carved out an exception to the vaccine mandate in New York for athletes because it turns out some key, not just for Kyrie Irving with the Nets, that wouldn't have been enough, key New York Yankees.
	Have not taken the vaccine.
	And they couldn't have the New York Yankees not being able to field a full team.
	So the mayor carried out a special exception just for the sports stars, which has led to another suit saying this is open discrimination and favoritism for what is an absurd mandate in the first place.
	We'll see how those suits ultimately turn out.
	And the hard part in New York is that you're stuck with the courts in New York and their political prejudices have been made clear.
	Now on the upside, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, They have established that, yes, there is an implied contract for people who didn't get their tuition back or their student fees back after their classes were canceled during the COVID lockdowns.
	And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split decision, two to one, said, yes, you don't have an express contract, but you do have an implied in fact contract.
	As to both of those, that if you didn't get the education that you paid for, if you didn't get the...
	Benefit of the student fees that you paid for, then you should get refunded pro rata in accordance by these universities, which of course would be a big bill that a lot of these universities are not really well equipped to currently pay, which they just assume they would get out of ever having to pay based on what took place.
	But these often were unilateral decisions by schools and colleges, often before or independent of any mandate.
	So they can't blame the mandate.
	And in many cases, they didn't have the evidentiary background to establish that their particular lockdowns were medically necessary to protect the health of the students involved.
	And so that's a potential big area of legal liability for all these schools and universities that shut down, independent of a state ordering them to shut down, and refusing to refund tuition and student fees.
	So, Dapper Dave, well, first of all, nice to see you again, Dapper.
	Viva, don't you realize the Rona knows when you are eating, so when you pull your mask down to eat, it will wait until after you finish.
	So I actually had this discussion with someone where I said, first of all, you pull it up and down, you're touching it, you're pulling it down, you're in the same room, and the person said, smart person, very smart, said, well, at least you're getting protection in that time.
	It's like, that's not...
	I was salivating.
	That's not how things work.
	I can't find the articles, people.
	If someone can post the links, there were studies that showed the positive impact of protection was like 2%.
	It was minimal.
	And then there's the study that showed that there's potential fungus that can develop in them when they're not used properly.
	And then I don't need to show you.
	I'll pull up the CBC article and post it in there of the...
	Potentially toxic graphene masks that daycare teachers and kids were being compelled to use in Quebec under Supreme Leader Francois Legault for the greater good.
	I did it again.
	I'm sorry, people.
	I have bad habits.
	Forgive me.
	Robert, when I was looking in the backstage here, I came across the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case.
	Alleged kidnapping case.
	We don't want to presuppose a conclusion.
	It's gone to jury deliberations, but I need to pull this up because I need to read a couple of the things from this lawsuit.
	We've talked about it at length.
	Some have accused us of being kidnapper apologists, alleged kidnapper apologists.
	Others have commended us, and I say more you than me, I don't want to take credit for this, of being ahead of the curve again when it comes to identifying potentially problematic arguable entrapment.
	The trial is over.
	It's at least four of the defendants heading into deliberation.
	But I've got to read this.
	I've got to read this to you.
	This is people out of Michigan Advance.
	Take it for what it's worth.
	But deliberations begin Monday in trial of accused Whitmer kidnapping plotters.
	We all know the case.
	We know that there were more FBI informants, more FBI agents than defendants.
	We know that many of them were paid.
	Healthily, handsomely.
	We know that many of them, including the informants and the FBI agents themselves, were orchestrating, coordinating, and encouraging, and training.
	Had, what do they call it?
	They had leadership roles in this plot.
	We also know that a lot of the FBI agents, or more than one, I believe, have had their own criminal wrongdoing problems, including very serious issues.
	Assault on their spouses.
	Yeah.
	This was argued in defense, and it's so, I mean, this is the world in which we live.
	Defense attorneys presented a different view, focusing on the approximately $50,000 Chappelle, this is one of the alleged perpetrators turned informant, was paid for his services and the hours of recorded conversations he had with Fox, that was one of the agents, described by the government.
	No, Fox, I believe Fox, Fox is the defendant.
	Fox was described by his own attorney, Joshua Gibson, as lacking those skills, saying Adam Fox is not the leader.
	The government wants him to be.
	He was also referred to by his co-defendants as Captain Autism.
	And I'm not making fun.
	I'm just saying, when you hear the description of the alleged defendants, who were these masterminds plotting the kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer in an election season...
	Instead, Gibbons, this is a very bold move, Cotton, we'll see how it plays out, said Fox was usually high from smoking marijuana while living in the basement of a Grand Rapids area vacuum shop.
	Gibbons, his lawyer, also said Fox, his client, sought the approval of Chappelle knowing Big Dan, who he said led his clients on.
	It's unacceptable in America, said Gibbons.
	That's not how it works.
	They don't make terrorists so we can arrest them.
	Robert?
	Yeah, so, I mean, what happened at trial was everything we talked about the very moment this story broke.
	That what you'll find is a bunch of idiot potheads on social media living in their mama's basements.
	That you'll find instigators, inspirers, organizers, and orchestrators coming from either informant ranks or from the FBI itself.
	And that there was never a serious plot, independent of all this, to kidnap anybody.
	All of that has been confirmed by the evidence at trial.
	So the only question is what the jury does.
	The judge excluded key witnesses that would have helped the defense.
	And Julie Kelly, who's written and covered this the most extensively at American Greatness, asked the question of she thought what was missing from the defense closing arguments was putting this into a broader narrative.
	Of why the FBI did this.
	Of why these agents did this.
	That this was part of a political effort to derail the Trump campaign.
	That's the reason why it was revealed in October.
	To justify and defend a big COVID lockdown governor at the same time.
	That it fits within the context of January 6th.
	That it fits within the context of...
	Other entrapment efforts that government agents have engaged in who are alleged terrorists, dating back to a lot of the post-9-11 cases that took place that Glenn Greenwald has documented in detail.
	I would say two reasons why they may not have gone down that path.
	One is the judge may have limited it.
	The judge may have not allowed them to bring in all of those subjects.
	The old great Clarence Darrow closing arguments, which would go like three days long, where he would talk about everything political in the world through history to tie into his case.
	They don't allow that hardly anymore at all by judges.
	So this judge may have clued in or they may have assumed they could not go there.
	The second possibility, they just didn't think about it, that most of your defense lawyers are looking at this from a very linear entrapment perspective of their case and don't have the background or inclination to understand the broader context in which these cases occurred and happened.
	So if you don't have that shared educational background, that shared self-understanding, Then you're obviously not going to think about it.
	I think it will all come down to jury selection, who they picked.
	There's a lot of jurors who are unsympathetic to entrapment as a defense.
	So if they got jurors that were open to entrapment as a defense, they have a fighting chance.
	Because of what they were still able to prove despite the limits put on them at trial.
	But if they have a jury that just doesn't care why you did what you did, then they may get convictions.
	I would expect some sort of split verdict.
	I would be surprised at complete convictions unless it really was a bad jury pool.
	And there's so much in Barnes comments that I have to watch these videos at least twice.
	Barnes with the logos and Viva with the pathos.
	Great.
	I like that.
	It's beautiful.
	My problem is that I'd be surprised at a complete acquittal.
	I mean, the problem is this.
	Even if you are a Captain A, you may not be guilty of the biggest stuff, but my goodness, that's still not an excuse to even go along with the stupid stuff.
	To me, this exemplifies, it personifies, it highlights the problem with the FBI.
	They go looking for useful idiots to...
	If not fabricate, at the very least exacerbate, at the very least amplify what would otherwise be nothing.
	The amount of people sitting around saying, oh, we really should get back at the government, yada, yada.
	I don't know when it rises to the level of a crime, but if it takes the FBI active involvement, informants paid $60,000 a year, criminal FBI agents to go and say, do this, do that, delete text messages between me and the paid informant telling them to go give them training.
	You know, I agree.
	There's a middle ground somewhere in there.
	I don't see a full acquittal.
	But if we see a full conviction, on all counts, I mean, Ty Garbin, the guy who pleaded guilty for his honesty and bravery, what was he sentenced to, Robert?
	I forget.
	I think six years.
	Long time.
	This guy's now the chief witness to say, I'm coming clean, more like misery loves company.
	But we'll see.
	I mean, it was...
	I didn't appreciate how fishy it all was at the time.
	And I didn't start off by thinking this was entrapment, this was government setup.
	I got there because of the facts.
	And now, that doesn't mean that they're going to be absolved of all of the crimes against them, but the biggest stuff, yeah, unfortunately, if you're an idiot who gets duped, and I say that in a nice way, if you're of a certain intellectual status that you're going to be duped nonetheless...
	You should expect some charges just by virtue of, I don't know, a certain level of participation, but what they're charging them with, what we know now, we'll see.
	I would just be surprised with a full acquittal, and I'd be surprised with a full conviction.
	How long do you think it's going to take to deliberate?
	It depends on whether it's a conscientious jury or not.
	Conscientious juries take a while, generally speaking.
	Not universal, but generally speaking.
	The quicker the jury, the less likely it's a conscientious jury, generally speaking.
	There are exceptions, but...
	No, not many.
	And I mean, might end up with, you know, a Maxwell type jury, which, you know, you look at, I understand people celebrating her conviction and celebrating the fact that her motion for a new trial was denied.
	I disagree with the judge.
	It's clear a person lied to get onto the jury.
	Let me stop you.
	Let me give the backdrop for anybody who may not be up to speed with this.
	Ghislaine Maxwell charged on sex trafficking, a bunch of perjury, other charges.
	Convicted.
	It came out that one of the jurors, juror 50, after the conviction, went and gave an interview, I think at the very least with The Independent, saying, I was a victim of that type of assault when I was a kid.
	It was my stepbrother.
	And then the internet webs got on this individual real quick because the jury questionnaire said one of the questions.
	I think it was...
	Question four to three, maybe.
	Have you ever been subjected to that type of assault?
	To which the individual answered no.
	The individual gave interviews where he said, this is for all the victims, the ones who came forward, the ones who didn't.
	They then, Maxwell said, above and beyond all the other grounds for appeal, said, we're going to go appeal on the basis that, Robert, you'll explain the Supreme Court decision, but a juror lied on a material question, influenced the deliberations, would have been struck for cause had they...
	And therefore we should be granted a new trial.
	Judge Nathan recently, as far as I understand, confirmed to the federal court of appeals said, The juror, she believed the juror's explanation.
	It was an honest, good faith oversight.
	I was filling out the jury questionnaire quickly.
	It was a noisy room.
	I just said no, no, no, and didn't really look.
	And I was forthright afterwards.
	And when I testified before the judge, the judge said, Honest mistake.
	I believe it.
	It did not rise to the level of whatever that Supreme Court decision is.
	No new trial.
	Motion dismissed.
	Sorry.
	Now, go ahead.
	I think she got it wrong, too, but no one's going to trust me.
	Yeah, I mean, I think it's twofold.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has been gutting the right to an impartial jury now for a couple of decades.
	So the case she cited doesn't explicitly say what she says it says, but lower courts have interpreted it that way.
	Now, the Supreme Court may continue to go in that direction because of the general approach that they've taken to basically making an impartial jury a joke.
	And in my view, she actually bragged.
	What she said was twofold.
	She said, one, you have to prove that the juror deliberately lied in order to get on the jury, or otherwise it's not an issue.
	Even if you could have otherwise and would have otherwise struck him for cause based on an honest answer.
	And then said, also, even if he didn't deliberately lie, I would not have struck him for cause.
	And you have to prove that rather than whether or not the defense would have used that information to have struck him for peremptory purposes.
	Now, the U.S. Supreme Court case is not as clear as she pretends it is.
	On the distinction between peremptory strike and struck for cause.
	Correct.
	And there's plenty of defense lawyers that I think quite correctly advocate that that was left open.
	And meaningfully, to have an impartial jury, you have to have a meaningful exercise of peremptory rights.
	And if you're denied the opportunity of meaningful exercise of peremptory rights based on inaccurate information from the jury themselves, then that should be grounds for a new trial.
	And again, this is not she walks.
	This is just a new trial.
	And that's why I've always found the remedy is so limited for the defendant.
	Why not give it to them?
	Why not have complete confidence in the jury trial process?
	And be like, oh, it's going to be so hard to try the case a second time.
	Is it really?
	I mean, they so rarely grant new trials.
	There's not real evidence of that.
	We should have more confidence in the jury that convicted her by making sure our constitutional requirement of an impartial jury, that's the exact words from the Constitution.
	Jury of peers is not there, but impartial jury is there.
	And her interpretation was that he didn't deliberately lie and that that was a required element.
	I disagree with both that that's a required element and that he didn't deliberately lie.
	He goes out and talks very quickly and he discloses this very quickly.
	You're telling me he wasn't paying attention?
	He didn't think the case was that big of a case?
	I don't buy that for a second.
	But judges rush to cover up for corrupt jurors if the corrupt jurors are on the government side.
	And I think that's what this judge did.
	And use the whole, I evaluated him, all that gibberish.
	We should ask, why are judges scared to taper court proceedings in federal court?
	Is it because they don't want you looking at that witness and saying, hmm, that's not a credible interpretation by that federal judge.
	They don't want you to be able to independently evaluate what they're doing.
	And that's why they keep the public out, even though there's a constitutional right to participate in it, in my opinion.
	Then, but the second aspect, and I don't think that should be a required element anyway, but the second aspect is the relevant standard should be whether or not the defense would have used its peremptory challenge.
	Now, you don't have to completely, she seems to suggest that you would have to defer to defense counsel after the fact saying that this would be a basis of a peremptory challenge.
	No, you don't.
	You can make an independent objective analysis, but there's a reason why that question was there.
	Clearly, it was a critical question to get an impartial jury.
	And we do not do our Constitution service by convicting even guilty people by unconstitutional means.
	And that's what happened here.
	Yeah.
	And now, the distinction that I was not taken, I was confounded, confused by, is that Judge Nathan said there's a distinction between peremptory strike, which is one party's...
	You know, unquestionable right to strike any juror they want subject to discriminatory means versus being struck for cause by the judge.
	So if you could, we know what peremptory strike means, but explain what a being struck for cause by the judge would mean.
	What does it take to rise to the level of getting struck for cause by a judge during jury selection?
	What it should mean is do you have any reason to suspect that this juror cannot be impartial?
	And that's not how it's applied.
	She actually bragged.
	She's like, I put crime victims on every criminal trial I have.
	I put rape victims on rape trials.
	I put burglary victims on burglary trials.
	As if that's something to brag about.
	That means this is a judge that has a habit and history of partial prejudicial jurors by her inadequate protection of constitutional rights, which has now been elevated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Coincidentally connected to this case.
	You know, if you buy that, I got some bridges to sell you.
	So that's how it's supposed to be applied under the Constitution, which is no judge is supposed to allow anyone that's even capable of being partial on the jury.
	Then there's the reality, which is they almost strike nobody unless they're pro-defendant.
	Then they strike them real fast.
	But if they're pro-government, reflexively pro-government, reflexively anti-defendant...
	Oh, there's all kinds of reasons to keep him on the jury.
	I put out a video yesterday where I found some of the clips where the judge came to the conclusion that she, the judge, would not have struck this jury member for cause they would have been sufficiently able to be unbiased.
	Allegedly, and I don't know what amount of this evidence was heard before the judge, because I think they limited the testimony to what was said in the jury deliberations, but...
	Apparently, some of the jury members were saying, why did the victims keep going back to the alleged perpetrator?
	And this guy, who now...
	I mean, this is as much a runaway juror as you're going to get in real life, talking about John Cusack, was basically explaining, and maybe rightly so, but explaining it as now an undisclosed...
	This is the jury member with an undisclosed connection to the essence of the case, proving in real time that they are not only not biased, but almost not only not biased, but so biased that they're trying to talk other jury members out of it.
	I don't know what amount of the jury deliberations was made as evidence before the judge.
	Oh, none.
	In the U.S., it's illegal to disclose anything that happened in jury deliberations as evidence.
	You're not allowed.
	So like during the Snipes trial, three jurors came out.
	Actually, more than that, came out and said that there were three bad jurors that were insisting on conviction, and it's the only reason why they convicted them on even the misdemeanor charges.
	Nine jurors were for all across the board not guilty.
	Three jurors were holdouts, and they admitted in the jury deliberation room that they had lied during the jury selection process.
	The judge refused to allow any of that evidence in.
	Because we say the jury deliberation is sacred.
	We can never allow in what happens.
	By the way, they get around that when it comes to government cases, like the Hoffa case and other cases.
	They magically get around that.
	But putting that aside, I believe in the effort to defend jury deliberations, they've created an absolute bar on any evidence coming in that relates to jury deliberations, and I think they've gone too far.
	But that's why none of that evidence came in.
	Okay, and so basically this guy...
	Explained what had happened.
	The stories came out, and I guess they limited it.
	The judge says, look, okay, fine.
	I believe his testimony.
	He was filling out the jury questionnaire in a noisy room, didn't see the question.
	I believe him.
	He was forthright.
	Why would he be so public with his experience as a survivor?
	Why would he have been so public with it afterwards if he intended to hide it versus how he answered on the questionnaire?
	Fine.
	Any appeal to that decision or no appeal to that?
	Oh, yeah.
	That'll go up on it.
	And if by the time it gets to appeal, when does Nathan get to the federal court of appeal?
	I mean, she's already there, but she presumably will not preside over this appeal.
	One would hope.
	And there'd be three other judges.
	But, like, I mean, let's just say I've seen stranger things.
	So she won't be the judge on this, but she's going to be...
	I mean, someone tell me that that's not incestuous corruption.
	I mean, you won't.
	You can't trust the judiciary to discipline itself.
	It's not like it's the academy where the question is whether Will Smith committed criminal or civil assault when he went up to defend his, I guess...
	You know, his wife's sentiments on a Chris Rock joke and, you know, made the Oscars temporarily interesting.
	Well, not interesting enough to ever watch again.
	And so everybody who says this was staged to get Oscars back in the middle.
	Now, first of all, Will Smith, it's going to stain him and it's going to stain the Oscars one way or the other.
	But Robert, people were asking.
	I don't remember where, but I think Twitter, locals.
	It was obvious criminal assault.
	It was obvious civil assault.
	No question.
	I didn't watch Dershowitz's live stream on Rumble, but he asked the question.
	It's obviously yes and yes.
	There's no question.
	I have two questions.
	Do we even need Chris Rock to file a complaint in order for responsible authorities to do it?
	It's the people versus Will Smith.
	We don't need the complaint from the victim when we have the video evidence.
	That's question one.
	Can they not press charges?
	Criminal charges against Will Smith in the absence of a complaint from Chris Rock.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	They don't need him as a testifying witness.
	I mean, unless there was some, you know, Will Smith said there was some backstory that, you know, would change the dynamic or something.
	But that's implausible at this point.
	So they don't need that to bring a criminal charge against him.
	Now, for a civil suit to be filed...
	That Chris Rock would obviously have to agree to, and he's said he's not going to pursue any legal remedy.
	Now, as a general matter, my sentiment is if the other person doesn't want to bring a criminal case, I'm not a big fan of criminalizing everything under the sun, so I wouldn't be a fan of them bringing criminal charges against him.
	But I think he underestimated the public blowback, that his movies are getting canceled, shows are getting canceled.
	And this is a guy who had a great reputation in the broader world.
	He was seen as the nice guy kind of guy.
	So this was a total shock to a large part of his audience and not enough.
	And as people dug in, even though, I mean, apparently Chris Rock knew, I don't think it's the best joke in the world to make fun of someone who clearly has publicly said how embarrassing and humiliating her medical condition about her hair loss is.
	That's obviously not a grounds to go in.
	Attack someone physically.
	But there's a part of me in Tennessee that thinks okay.
	But generally, not well advised.
	But putting that aside, I think he underestimated what would happen by that particular approach.
	And I think the Academy might have also...
	They're trying to walk things back.
	They're trying to clarify things.
	They now could take back his Oscar if they wanted.
	Remember, this is an Oscar.
	There's an academy that's had a lot of accusations of racism.
	They had a lot of prominent black actors there that day, that night.
	Samuel L. Jackson was there, Denzel Washington, others.
	And so I think that would back them off.
	Also, they have not taken back the Oscars given to either Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski.
	And they probably can't take back those because at the time they were issued, there wasn't a right to revoke.
	Now there is a right to revoke within the rules prior to Will Smith doing this.
	I don't see them going that far, especially when Chris Rock's not out there complaining.
	Now, I do think if you reversed a lot of racial dynamics, I think this would have been perceived very differently.
	Mel Gibson smacking Chris Rock would have been the end of it.
	But my one issue, Harvey Weinstein got his awards before the Poo-poo hit the public fan.
	Roman Polanski got his awards after, so I don't see how they're going to take back Roman Polanski's awards for having given them to someone who they knew what he had been accused of.
	They knew what he had done by the time they gave him those awards, so I don't know how they could take back that which they gave in full awareness of fact and law.
	Weinstein, you know, I'm not generally speaking a proponent of stripping people of their awards for out-of-ring criminal activity, boxers, players, and whatever.
	Will Smith...
	Heroes should be in the Hall of Fame.
	If Ty Cobb's in the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.
	Now I have to Google Ty Cobb because I don't even know what that reference is.
	I mean, I can imagine what it is.
	I'm going to look it up afterwards.
	But the question, Robert, people were asking, this is a workplace assault, effectively.
	Does the Guild have to get involved?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Right now, the Academy is trying to figure out what they're going to do to save face.
	Will Smith is doing his sixth version of an apology tour.
	Because he initially wasn't.
	Like, when he went up, got the award, that wasn't really a full apology.
	And he realized later that was a mistake.
	He blew his opportunity.
	Somebody should have advised him to, you know, use it as a great mea culpa chance.
	He blew it.
	And now he's been issuing every kind of, you know, I apologize.
	Like that character that's hanging out, John Cleese, when he's hanging out from A Fish Called Wanda, that I apologize.
	You forgot he's hanging out the window, but I apologize profusely.
	He's doing that version of an apology everywhere.
	You know, as incidents go, I don't know if I care that much about it, frankly.
	I mean, there's a lot worse that goes on in Hollywood, put it that way, than just one guy slapping another guy.
	And it wasn't the most impressive slap in the world, let's be honest.
	Well, I thought it was fake until I heard him saying, get my wife's name out your mother effing mouth.
	But, hold on, I had something to say.
	And Chris Rock seemed truly shocked by all that, which is fascinating.
	Oh, his eyes were rolling up.
	I think Joe Rogan are really up on arms about this because he's a comedian.
	Doesn't want people getting the wrong idea.
	They can violently assault comedians if they don't like their jokes.
	And obviously that's a perilous precedent to allow to have happen.
	So I think you'll see escalating at least economic...
	I think Will Smith has resigned entirely from the academy.
	I think you'll see escalating economic penalties.
	He's already...
	He had these current movies shelved, apparently, according to public reports.
	Netflix films shelved.
	Another film he's working on shelved.
	So he'll need some effort to get back into good graces, and he'll need a really good PR campaign to get back into place.
	But it's not like he's Alec Baldwin and shot somebody.
	Well, but this is what I said.
	The unfunny thing about this is that if this is how Hollywood tolerates expressions of aggravation...
	I said from the beginning, I still think Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger of what he thought was a dummy gun carrying blanks to get back at someone who was bossing him around a little too much on set.
	That's still my working theory.
	But if they tolerate this type of one big actor getting to literally assault a lesser actor, and I say that with respect to Chris Rock, it's par for the course.
	But Hollywood is filled with degenerates, immorals, across the board, full stop.
	No, there might be some exceptions.
	I would say that, you know, I know people who've worked for both Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith, and they have a very good reputation with their staff.
	So it's not like a Kim Kardashian situation, that this exposes something that's deeper and worse.
	That does not appear to be the case for the people that I know.
	So that this was a guy who momentarily responded to something that was very sensitive to his wife.
	And I think it was...
	Obviously, it's a disastrous consequences have set in for him on a night that should have been his shining night when he won Best Actor.
	I would feel bad, but I don't feel bad for...
	There's certain things I don't feel bad for.
	Well, their mama said, never feel bad for a millionaire.
	I don't know if I agree with that.
	I think there are still some millionaires to pity.
	But Chris Rock said he doesn't want to press charges.
	He doesn't want to make anything bigger of this.
	Scott Adams, in one of his live streams last week, attributed it to...
	You know, an ego, an absence of an ego, in a good way.
	I think, personally, I don't think it's about ego.
	I don't think Chris Rock is...
	I just think Chris Rock doesn't want to be known as that guy that makes a war out of this.
	Nobody looks good in war in litigation or in Hollywood.
	There might be some power plays at issue here.
	Chris Rock might be lower down on the totem pole to make a stink in Hollywood that would compromise everybody's reputation from Will Smith to the Oscars.
	Well, there's some crisis management people cashing their checks.
	I think a smart move, potentially for Chris Rock, would be some public reconciliation deal with Will Smith.
	Because, I mean, Will Smith desperately needs it at the moment, but that could also boost Chris Rock.
	Because Will Smith's always going to have his core fans.
	So I think that there would be a way to accomplish that.
	But we'll see.
	I mean, it'll be interesting to watch from a crisis communications perspective.
	I don't see any further legal consequences coming to Will Smith.
	And I say, you know, the issue about it being sensitive to Jada Pinkett, you know, like it's a medical condition, yada, yada.
	I'll say this.
	So is male pattern baldness.
	So is being overweight.
	So are a number of things that have always been the object.
	Robert, I wasn't looking at anyone's particular direction.
	And for those asking if my hair looks darker than it normally does, I have not colored it.
	I've backed off the lighting.
	But now, from one Hollywood drama to another, This wasn't on our menu.
	I'm just going to ask you now.
	Nothing has happened yet, but it's going to trial seemingly soon.
	Johnny Depp, Amber Heard.
	A lot of people fault me.
	They think I'm a chicken, coward, liberal, Canadian Canuck for thinking that Johnny Depp probably should not, or maybe, not probably, maybe should not be suing Amber Heard because in that battle, I don't think anyone's coming out clean.
	The trial's coming up, Robert.
	In as much as you have any thoughts on it, Do you think Johnny Depp should have sued, had no choice but to sue, is going to come out any better from the suit?
	What are your thoughts on it, if you have any?
	I would not have brought suit in the UK because you don't have a right to a trial by jury.
	You're stuck with random judges and there's too much risk there.
	And he experienced that.
	And then the consequences of that outcome is what got him being persona non grata on certain film projects, lucrative film projects that he was on.
	Now, once that case had gone the way it went, Then it made sense to go after Amber Heard because he had to re-resurrect his reputation and image in the United States.
	But I wouldn't have brought the suit initially, but I would have brought the suit if you're trying to fix past mistakes.
	But he brought that suit before the UK suit.
	But Amber Heard, I suspect, that's a jury trial in the United States.
	I suspect she will not come across well.
	Johnny Depp's people do their job with jury selection.
	He should win a clear victory in that upcoming trial.
	My concern, Robert, above and beyond the fact that she took a shit on his bed.
	It was so big that it freaked out the cleaning staff, but then they blamed it on a Chihuahua-type dog.
	My concern, Robert, is that Johnny Depp doesn't have a clean history regardless.
	In this context, he's...
	But all that's now public.
	They beat him up so badly out of the UK proceedings that there's not much negative now that can fall, whereas if he wins, it corrects the record and it gives Hollywood a reason to reintroduce him back in.
	Or they say Johnny Depp in one of the drug-induced stupors or a drug-induced fight threw something across the room.
	There may be truth to that, but large parts of what she said were, to me, patently false.
	She's clearly the nutjob.
	I mean, Depp has his issues, but she has all the patterns of an abusive personality.
	And those people project all the time.
	That's one of the most common tactics they will utilize, is they will project onto others what they themselves do.
	It's what I've said about the Ukraine thing.
	Confession through projection is an incredible predictive tool right now.
	There's allegations.
	There's internal dissension in the Russian military.
	I'm like, well, I wonder if we apply confession through projection.
	What does that mean?
	It means there's dissension in the Ukrainian military.
	It means they're going to be sacked soon.
	Voila.
	I mean, there's been one example after the next, after the next, after the next.
	She was someone who employed it a lot.
	And she has a history independent of Johnny Depp.
	Johnny Depp has no problematic abuse allegations from anyone else he's ever dated.
	And it's not like he didn't date a few people.
	And here's my people.
	I'm always dreadfully honest, even with myself.
	If I'm right, I get to say I was right.
	I think it's risky.
	I don't know what Johnny Depp could have done.
	It's true.
	He lost a $50 million contract with Pirates of the Caribbean.
	Whatever sequel they're on now.
	I just think it's going to be too easy for Amber to say, yeah, I lied, but we had rough nights because we all did things that we don't like.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	And maybe people would not want me as their attorney for that, and they might have a good reason for that.
	Okay, Robert.
	Amber Heard will see.
	I might try to make it down to, I believe it's in Virginia, to Viva on the Street Live, if I can.
	If I knew that I could not get a seat in the courtroom...
	That might deter my efforts to try to do this, but I might try to do this nonetheless.
	Setting that aside.
	BLM riots.
	The BLM has been sued, and some of its key organizers sued, in Louisiana.
	In a case that was removed to federal court, went up briefly to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the question was whether a particular Louisiana law allowed them to sue for inciting a riot.
	And the Supreme Court said, the federal court, Federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit should ask that question to the Louisiana Supreme Court first.
	Send it to the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the Louisiana Supreme Court said, yes, you can sue for inciting a riot in the way that it took place here.
	That does not yet resolve the First Amendment question as to whether or not that law, now given authoritative interpretation by the Louisiana Supreme Court, comports with First Amendment limitations.
	Under the right of speech, the right to petition, the right of assembly, how it might constrict the interpretation of that statute.
	But as of right now, BLM is sued and the Louisiana Supreme Court says they can be sued for inciting a riot in Louisiana.
	If they're able to be successful there, they say the law is consistent with the First Amendment, then there'll probably be more suits against BLM elsewhere.
	And I presume that the reason why they can't use that same argument against...
	Politicians for potentially inciting a riot would be immunity?
	Well, no.
	You could apply it against potentially politicians.
	The key is the way they've interpreted this law, does it fit within the imminent incitement provisions?
	Which means you have to, but it appears some of the statements alleged did constitute imminent incitement.
	I think the Louisiana law will be interpreted as they will limit the application of the law to only those circumstances.
	Where the method of incitement of a riot was imminent incitement.
	And imminent incitement requires that there be nearby physical action will occur.
	It has to be proximate in time.
	Unless you're Alex Jones, of course.
	And then they just make up a whole different standard.
	Robert, you're a genius with the segues.
	Because I was going to go to Facebook.
	But I think Alex Jones is the good one.
	So you sent me a lawsuit.
	It was effectively oversimplifying people.
	Alex Jones' insurance company making a motion to explain why they should not be bound to coverage to compensate, indemnify Alex Jones and a slew of other entities.
	I had no idea there were so many involved.
	In the defamation lawsuits that were initiated by the parents of the Sandy Hook victims, regardless of how you feel about all that, people, the insurance company filed a motion saying...
	We, in our contract, there's an exclusion for, what was it, damages?
	Not damages to reputation.
	It was not physical damages.
	It was an exclusion for effectively non-physical damages, which they take to interpret to include defamation, which is the essence of the object of the lawsuit against Alex Jones.
	I have two questions about this.
	One is, why did it take Alex Jones so long to ask for indemnification from his insurance company?
	Because I understand one of the claims he had asked for indemnification in 2022 were the lawsuits were filed in 2018, I think.
	Yeah, so it's two different issues.
	One is the actual insurer, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, big in Wisconsin and the Midwest, doesn't insure Alex Jones directly or Infowars.
	It insures Genesis Communications.
	Which is a radio show communication program.
	They have a right to access certain radio broadcasts across the country, and they syndicate various shows.
	They syndicated Alex Jones and Infowars for a period of time, and they're the ones who are insured by West Bend.
	And so it wouldn't be...
	For whatever reason, his current counsel...
	Sought to see whether insurance coverage would be available for him as well as Genesis, which has also been sued.
	The insurance company filed a declaratory relief action.
	So when an insurance company thinks they don't have a duty to even defend you, a duty to indemnify you, because those are two different things.
	Duty to defend means they pay your legal bills while the case is ongoing.
	Duty to indemnify means they pay any damages or negotiate any settlement.
	They filed a federal declaratory relief action to say, we have no obligation to either Genesis or Alex Jones.
	And their argument is that they had excluded any coverage for basically defamation or libel, that they were only a bodily injury.
	Personal negligence, premises negligence liability, product liability of that kind insurer.
	They deliberately chose not to include insurance related to statements that were made.
	And so it was basically a strategic choice by his counsel to see whether this insurer of somebody else could also provide proceeds to insure him, which, you know, why not do it, I suppose.
	But it led to the insurance company bringing suit to clarify that.
	Their insurance policy, in their view, doesn't cover Jones.
	And let me just see.
	I mean, it might be interesting enough because I can do it.
	Let me just go West Bend.
	Bring this up.
	Robert, you see this right now, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, so let's just...
	I just want to get the...
	I mean, it's interesting because when I'm reading it, it does kind of look like...
	Let's just get to where the provision was.
	The provision of the contract where it excluded...
	It's usually like...
	It's basically advertising.
	That's the category.
	And they clearly exempted...
	Under advertising, you can sometimes get liable coverage.
	This is often disputed by media personalities.
	So the insurer is always trying to figure out a way to get the biggest premium for the least amount of coverage.
	The person insured wants the most amount of coverage for the least amount of premium.
	And it's always the devil's in the details with the contracts.
	Jones himself was never a party to this.
	This was Genesis that was a party to this.
	Okay, interesting.
	Nobody sees that email, but I just got an email notification.
	The policies define personal and advertising injury, which is not covered as personal and advertising injury means injury including consequential bodily injury arising out of one of the...
	False arrest, detention, malicious prosecution, yada, yada, yada.
	Oral or written publications.
	Let's just highlight this so people see it.
	So it looks clear enough, but the question is this.
	I have difficulty envisioning...
	What is covered by this, given the exclusions?
	The policy is defined as personal and advertising injury, which is not covered.
	It's a common issue.
	What you have, in my view, is a lot of insurance companies often selling bogus products.
	Like in California, it's a big problem.
	You have insurance companies that sell products that are banned under California insurance law, but they mislead the person being insured.
	So their interpretation is that this was only for slip and fall at the broadcasting station kind of thing.
	The problem was that isn't really how Genesis operated entirely.
	So, I mean, I think Genesis, you know, that they had unduly limited it, that they got Genesis to sign on to an insurance contract that was not worth the premium paid.
	But the, and this is a common, people should really double, you shouldn't even sign an insurance contract, ideally, if you have any substantial exposure of any kind, without a lawyer reviewing the insurance contract, because they often, often do this.
	I've been involved in these disputes many, many times.
	And insurance companies are always trying to figure out a way to weasel out.
	Now, there's usually ways to go back at them, bad faith, consumer fraud, independent of the contractual claims.
	But it reveals a deeper problem that everybody out there is probably going to experience at some point or another.
	The insurance companies are all about getting a premium without giving you coverage.
	That's what they're really about.
	Yeah, a hellbound heathen.
	I don't know what comment you're talking about, but if I can follow the chat, I do.
	But so, Robin, I'm looking at that.
	The exclusion seems pretty clear, given the accusations.
	Yeah, they'll likely prevail on their coverage dispute.
	What's the latest on the AJ?
	Once upon a time, Robert, we had to say AJ instead of Alex Jones.
	What's the latest on...
	So he didn't appear for a deposition in Connecticut.
	He's been deposed many times already.
	And they demanded, they wanted contempt and everything else under the sun.
	And the judge said he needs to appear for a deposition in the next couple of weeks, or then there'll be consequences.
	I mean, it's ironic.
	I don't think the plaintiffs have been deposed at all yet.
	To my knowledge, he's being deposed and deposed and deposed, while he's the one being accused of noncompliance.
	He produces millions of pages of documents and emails and invasive information.
	The other side generally has not, to my knowledge.
	And he's the one that's accused of withholding information.
	I mean, the court system wants to make an example of Jones, but is doing so in such a manner as to make a joke of the justice system itself.
	It's proving to his audience that you will not get justice if you're politically disfigured.
	Yeah, and Robert, you and I will talk about something after the stream along these lines, but...
	Are they not succeeding, Robert?
	In many respects, the court systems have been very biased.
	They've made ridiculous interpretations of rules and laws.
	They've applied a standard that doesn't apply to anyone else, whether it's defamation, whether it's discovery, whether it's the anti-slap statute, whether it's the constitutional constraint on true threats.
	They have created special rules for Alex Jones that don't apply to anybody else.
	And it's a sad, pitiful embarrassment of how our judicial system really operates.
	And we're just witnessing it in live time, and he can only do what he can do to deal with it.
	He's mostly ignored it and just focused on what matters most to him.
	But I don't anticipate the jury trials that are already going to be limited to certain issues that he's not allowed to even contest.
	He's effectively quasi-gagged already.
	And if all these plaintiffs' lawyers were in the right, they wouldn't resort to tricks to try to win.
	They would want a fair, open, impartial jury with full discovery and full evidentiary presentation.
	The fact that none of them do is a sign of the fact that they have doubts about their own case.
	Even though they're getting paid ridiculous sums of money from insurance companies and the plaintiffs' lawyers in Connecticut by Remington, who they helped bankrupt, by blaming a gun.
	For what a crazy person did.
	So our judicial system is unfortunately failing in too many ways in these kind of politicized cases.
	If Will Smith thinks his slap was okay, then everyone Will Smith has ever joked about has full right to smack the crap out of him.
	So when Robert said Joe Rogan doesn't want this being the precedent, I don't think Will Smith would have actually slapped Joe Rogan, despite Joe Rogan's The man has a special set of skills.
	But transitioning to a case where there was justice in the justice system, Gibson Bakery won their verdict on appeal, their multi-million dollar verdict against Oberlin College.
	The Ohio Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the verdict, all aspects of the verdict, the big fee award, the big damages award, the big punitive damages award.
	Because as they highlighted, there are all these people that jumped into the filed amicus briefs for Oberlin who were just making up facts.
	Like, Oberlin wasn't sued because of what a third party said.
	Oberlin wasn't sued because of generic racist claims.
	They were sued because they made very specific claims about a very specific incident that they said reflected a very specific legal history.
	They said Gibson had a history of racial discrimination, a history of racial harassment, and they had assaulted a black customer.
	For racially discriminatory reasons.
	Those are all things a jury can determine.
	Those are not too abstract, too vague, like the word racist by itself out of context they, of course, have found to be too vague to sue on.
	But you can sue when you say you have a history of racist discrimination.
	Well, people get sued all the time for racist discrimination.
	That's questions jurors determine all the time.
	You have a history of racist harassment.
	That's something jurors determine all the time.
	You assaulted this person.
	That's a specific legal claim.
	That's a factual claim jurors resolve all the time.
	And so the Court of Appeals emphasized...
	All these amicus and media coverage of this was completely false.
	This was about a university making specific factual allegations that jurors determine on a daily basis, and they continued to make them long after they knew they were deliberately false, and thus they deserve the big punitive and fee awards that were issued against.
	How about, it was reduced to 28 million, I think?
	It was around 30, I think it ended up being 31 million total, something like that.
	And people bear in mind, one anecdote.
	In the 2,600 videos that I've done on YouTube, I had one that was unusable because of the audio.
	It was an entire breakdown of the Oberlin judgment.
	And for anybody who doesn't know, it was the Gibson's Bakery.
	They allegedly arrested or they stopped someone for shoplifting.
	The individual happened to be black.
	And then all hell broke loose.
	Oberlin, the college.
	Basically said, this bakery has a history of racism.
	A history of racist discrimination.
	They just said racism, they could have got away with that.
	But saying racist discrimination, that means they had engaged in a certain kind of behavior that jurors can determine.
	Racist harassment, that means a certain kind of behavior that jurors can determine.
	And it committed assault.
	For racially discriminatory, racially harassment reasons.
	Also, something jurors are called upon to determine.
	That's what removed it from constitutionally protected opinion into statements of fact subject to a libel claim.
	And yeah, reduced to $25 million per state law because apparently the jury awarded them more than the statutory maximum in the state.
	And then they had staff members of Oberlin coming and saying, don't do business with them.
	Oberlin canceled their contracts, I believe, because they did business with them.
	It was...
	It's egregious through and through, so much so that I know Oberlin alumni who said that this was enough to cause them to suspend donations to the university.
	I'll say this.
	Good for Gibson's Bakery.
	I'm going to put the dog down.
	Yeah, and by the way, he doesn't need to be cleaned.
	I mean, he needs to be cleaned, but he's blind, so he doesn't need to be trimmed.
	So I need to give that dog a bath.
	He smells like a wet carpet.
	Well, you could throw him into the cold ice water like you took a dip in.
	Oh, dear God.
	Oh, my God.
	I got that video.
	I'll show it later.
	But yeah, that dog would die in that water.
	No, for everyone saying good for the bakery, if you read the case and you read what the employee...
	It's a family.
	It's a family business.
	It had been there for 100 years.
	You know, people suffered.
	People died in the...
	Not in the context of, but rather in the framework of.
	This caused unimaginable hardships.
	And people think, like, great.
	$26 million, they're made for life.
	Whatever's left of their life.
	And, you know, money cannot compensate for a compromised reputation for damage, for wrongly impugned integrity.
	You can't do that.
	And this was one of those cases where they maligned for political, woke politics.
	A bakery that had been there and served the community was as progressive as anybody else in Oberlin, Ohio.
	And they threw them under the bus, demonized them, and destroyed the business and the individuals for woke politics for their own student base.
	They deserve everything they get, Oberlin, and more.
	Speaking of wokeism taking another defeat, Judicial Watch had brought suit against California's attempt to institute racial quotas and gender identity quotas in every corporate board in California.
	And they noted it violated California constitutional rights and protections, including a California constitutional provision that prohibits racial preferences, period, regardless of the excuse.
	They said even under the California general racial discriminatory provision, strict scrutiny needed to be met, and it wasn't met here.
	But under other California constitutional provisions, strict scrutiny isn't even justification for racial discrimination.
	You just can't do it, period.
	And this was state law mandating California businesses engaging racial discrimination, gender discrimination.
	Gender identity-based discrimination and imposing quotas in favor of those individuals being put on the board.
	And a court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch's suit this week in Los Angeles, California, no less, saying this clearly was illegal and issued an injunction preventing it from being instituted in California.
	So another credit to Judicial Watch for bringing the suit, credit to the court for enforcing the California Constitution, and another case of wokeism losing in court.
	Well, someone's saying, what about Facebook?
	By the way, let me just flash the...
	I'm not very happy with this merch because the shirt seems to be like creasing, but whatever.
	It feels good to wear it.
	Robert, what about Facebook?
	Okay, so for those who don't know, this is a funny thing.
	I'm reading the articles on it.
	I didn't read the actual authorization for class action.
	But bottom line, there is a judge, a federal judge, who authorized a class action against Facebook, which...
	I won't say...
	I don't know.
	Maybe you'll tell me that it's actually correct.
	It runs the risk of putting Facebook out of business.
	It authorizes a class action, and I presume it's of anyone who advertised on Facebook as of 2014 on the basis that Facebook knowingly lied about the reach of videos, the impact, the broad scope, or the reach of their videos, the impact for which they were charging for advertising.
	They were saying, our videos will get...
	And they were overestimating it and dishonestly misrepresenting it by 400%.
	This judge says we're certifying the class action.
	The class is, from what I understand, anybody who's advertised on Facebook since 2014.
	Tell me if I'm wrong, Robert, but I think that might include me for whatever the reason, but maybe not in this specific demographic.
	Yeah, I mean, it would include political people, potentially, too.
	I mean, there were a lot of political campaigns that relied upon that data and information that were lied to systematically and systemically by Facebook.
	I had seen this, and I was helping my little sister's business.
	She and her husband owned a restaurant here in Las Vegas called Tennis Seasonings.
	They're both great cooks.
	He makes great ribs, barbecue, a whole bunch of stuff.
	Chicken, fantastic.
	Smoked turkey.
	And my little sister's always been, she's the only one in the family that can't cook.
	Nobody else.
	Probably some other people in my family might be watching, but sorry, that's just true.
	She can really cook.
	None of the rest of us can.
	I know I can.
	I didn't realize you don't put four quarts of water into a four-quart pot until the kitchen was on fire.
	Then I understood why they put the fire extinguisher in the kitchen.
	But she can really cook.
	And so they had a great little restaurant.
	And I was using Facebook for its advertising.
	And I didn't understand why it wasn't translating the way it should have been.
	Other methods of marketing worked much better than Facebook did.
	And now I know why.
	It's because Facebook was lying.
	Facebook was falsifying the data, which makes perfect sense now because it never got anywhere near the reactions that it should have that with other advertising metrics it did reach.
	And so I think the thing is, this is a massive, massive amount of money.
	This is Facebook's primary means of making money.
	And it appears they were lying to everybody and not just lying like a little bit.
	They were saying you were going to get triple, quadruple, quintuple, the number of people you actually were going to get.
	They were counting multiple accounts as multiple people, even if they knew it was the same account or wasn't even an individual's account.
	I mean, it was just massive deception over an extensive time period.
	The primary vulnerable people who got hit by it were small businesses.
	Who relied upon it as a way to do it.
	So Facebook lied to them, helped bankrupt a good number of them, and I think that this is a suit that would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars and could be a bankrupting suit of Facebook given the scale and scope to which they lied while Zuckerberg and his allies are facing criminal investigations in Wisconsin for all their illegal actions in the election.
	But this goes right to the core of Facebook's entire economic model.
	And it turns out the whole economic model was on a fraud.
	And people have to appreciate...
	Well, first of all, I think the scope of it is anyone who advertised as of 2014.
	And people thinking, that is their revenue.
	That's the revenue for the last, let's just say, eight years.
	That's at issue.
	And it's true.
	I only use Facebook advertising...
	A half dozen times to promote videos until I realized it was useless.
	I used it when I was running for office, federal office, which I lost miserably.
	I didn't expect anything.
	You do it to reach whatever demographic still uses Facebook.
	But Facebook, as far as advertising goes, it's much cheaper than Google as far as on its face goes.
	I'm trying to think of what the comparative is.
	I can't think of another comparative.
	It's cheaper than Google in terms of AdWords.
	You get these graphs.
	Oh yeah, you reached 30,000 people.
	If it turns out to be bullshit, a lot of people are going to have a lot of small claims.
	When they said you reached 30,000, it was often as low as 300 people.
	That was the scale of the lie.
	They were charging a little bit cheaper than a lot of their competitors.
	It turns out because they were exaggerating what you were paying for.
	There's no question.
	It's only at the stage of the certification.
	The only thing I noticed, Robert, is that the judge in the file who granted the certification is the same one who approved the $650 million class action settlement in the biometrics case.
	I forget what his name is.
	It doesn't matter.
	The judge is skeptical of Facebook.
	And he said some things about Facebook and granting the class certification that suggests that he thinks Facebook clearly defrauded people systematically.
	Is there any chance that Facebook can move to have the judge recused because this is the judge who...
	Federal judge.
	Federal judge, so no chance of that.
	Okay.
	You lost because you are...
	I lost because I had no chance.
	I didn't lose.
	I had no chance.
	Okay.
	Facebook.
	Robert, what else do we have?
	Let me...
	Oh, hold on.
	While you do that, let me just do one thing so that people know what I did today.
	I'm still alive, people.
	First dunk.
	This, if you followed us on Locals, you would have already seen by now.
	Or YouTube members or Patreon.
	Check this out, people.
	Skip the boring...
	Okay, here.
	It's only 58 seconds.
	That's me.
	You get topless Viva on Locals.
	We don't always go swimming.
	Tommy John Underwood, by the way.
	Awesome stuff.
	Don't do what daddy does.
	This is Canada.
	That's actual ice out there, right?
	How cold was that water?
	Robert, my privates contracted so hard, I still have a little bit of pain.
	That is something I've never done.
	But don't make the comparisons to Putin now, because in Russia they do this as some sort of religious thing.
	Someone said, if they get me on a horse, I just need a shotgun.
	It was very cold, and then the kid wanted to go in it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay, boom.
	April.
	I have to spit the water out.
	You don't want to drink that water because that water has a lot of farm runoff onto it.
	It was very cold.
	Robert, did we miss a subject matter for tonight?
	A few brief topics.
	There was a lawsuit in Iowa, which goes to the gender issue that we discussed last week, which is there a transvestite, not transvestite, transgender individual who worked at the prison system sued because they only allowed a unisex bathroom for him, and he won his lawsuit on the grounds that...
	He should be allowed to go into the bathroom of his gender identity.
	But the court made two other things clear.
	One thing that was, there's aspects of that suit that'd be very useful for vaccine mandate lawsuits, which the Iowa Supreme Court made clear that a business cannot say, well, other people will be uncomfortable with you as their business justification.
	So your business justification can't be our customers or our vendors or other employees won't feel safe if we allow you to, in this case, use whatever restroom you want.
	But that's been a primary excuse of a lot of businesses to justify their vaccine mandate.
	This case is a reminder that's never been legally allowed.
	But the other aspect they emphasize is they said that a transgender is simply a question of gender identity.
	It's not a question of sex, not a question of gender.
	And they reiterated that history of case law and said that to the degree Bostock went a different direction, it's actually inconsistent with the broader, longer legal history.
	And now in Iowa, you can sue just on gender identity discrimination.
	That's why this individual sued, won.
	But they made clear that that's different than sex-based discrimination.
	Otherwise, it's kind of an interesting suit in the sense of, you know, these people changing genders and demanding access to bathrooms and locker rooms.
	In Canada, we had the case in British Columbia where the transgender individual arrested by police was denied, I think denied the ability to administer certain medical treatments, which are required for people who are actually physically transitioning.
	And they...
	The police force was condemned to damages, but there's always other factors at play.
	It's never just like, oh, here, we arrested a transgender individual.
	We're going to deny the medical services.
	It's always bad cases make bad law because the oversimplified, diluted-down headline is police deny transgender person the right to go and do what they need to do.
	There's much more to it.
	It doesn't justify it.
	It just makes for a bad, oversimplified headline.
	Two additional defamation suits filed by Trevor Bauer.
	The baseball player sued The Athletic and others who clearly just lied that they claimed he had assaulted an individual and caused a particular injury.
	It was clear from day one that the injury allegation was completely false.
	The assault allegation turned out false as well.
	And yet they continued to double down and repeat the lie in a wide range of publications.
	So Trevor Bauer has brought a robust defamation suit about that.
	One of the people helping people escape Afghanistan has sued CNN because CNN said that he was charging people for it and extorting money for it.
	That turned out to be patently false.
	So CNN is now facing another defamation suit for another lie told in another foreign policy context.
	And we'll see where that goes.
	Ben and Jerry's is now facing suit because Ben and Jerry's has been discriminating against people based on whether they're aligned with or allied with or associated with Israel as part of sort of the BDS movement, and they're being sued for their discrimination and contractual violations in that context and other legal rights that are implicated by it.
	Oh, the last one is a...
	All those border separation suits continue to lose.
	So all those people that sued based on families being separated at the border, they've lost, I think, the third or fourth lawsuit in a row, mostly not on substantive grounds, but on procedural grounds, that they sued in the wrong jurisdiction, they sued the wrong people, or that there aren't Bivens claims for the particular theories that they're pursuing.
	And in some cases, they haven't identified a specific statute that's been violated.
	And when they have, they've found qualified immunity.
	I'm still not a fan of qualified immunity, but I had predicted a lot of those border separation suits would not be successful, and they have almost universally failed in federal court.
	And basically, over-simplified version is that the alleged victims were suing, in their personal capacity, people who were allegedly only implementing policy, and then they could not be held personally liable for that because they weren't creating policy, they were just implementing it, and I guess...
	But are they not just going to go sue...
	They also did venue shopping.
	So they sued in the Ninth Circuit.
	They sued in First Circuit in Massachusetts.
	They were avoiding jurisdictions where there was bad law, and courts, fortunately, in this case, in this context, rejected that forum shopping that they engaged in a lot with during the Muslim ban context and got away with it.
	Courts have now pushed back against that degree of venue shopping, and so a lot of these suits were rejected on those grounds as well.
	And the CNN defamation suit, I forget the guy's name, but basically...
	Young, I believe.
	His last name is Young.
	Young was facilitating with sponsors in the US, you know, finding the fees required to get these people out of Afghanistan who needed it, visas, all the other stuff.
	And for anybody who's ever applied for a visa in non-war time, you know it costs money.
	And so they were accusing CNN.
	Whether or not from deduction or induction or suggestion, we're saying that this individual was involved in black market, illegal activity, soliciting Afghani individuals, lambasted him.
	Is it Chiron or Chiron?
	Those things that are on the bottom of the screen.
	On the bottom of it.
	Chiron, I think.
	So Chiron, basically, suggesting this guy's a criminal.
	He had spent his life serving...
	Based on the allegations of the lawsuit, spent his life serving his country, was trying to raise the funds through sponsors in the US to orchestrate this.
	And what I found poignant about the lawsuit, said, you didn't just damage my reputation when you lambasted me and accused me of doing criminal wrongdoings, black market stuff.
	I had to stop doing it.
	And as a result, Afghanis ended up dying because they couldn't get out because I couldn't do what I was doing to get them out.
	We'll see where it goes.
	But Robert.
	To end it on a moment of levity, something that people might not care about.
	I put out two videos this week, and I'm not sure that people care about it, but I think they should.
	It's still interesting.
	Tim Pool, Muse.
	Do you have any opinion on whether or not Tim Pool has a claim?
	Not a claim for success, but a tenable claim at law for copyright infringement for what Muse did in terms of what seems to be...
	A lot of inspiration from Tim Pool's Will of the People.
	Do you know enough about it to even venture an opinion?
	I don't.
	I can answer the super chat question that, yes, the EU is agreeing to share a bunch of private information with the US for surveillance purposes.
	They announced that this week after promises of privacy protection.
	But I didn't see any details about the Tim Pool matter, so I can't meaningfully comment on it.
	No, and we'll see where it goes.
	If there's a lawsuit, we'll definitely talk about it.
	For now, it's just social media, not wars.
	There's a lot of similarities.
	Bottom line, the law is a nuance on copyright infringement from titles to substance to production to idea to expression of ideas.
	Okay, well, we've gone 20 minutes over.
	We've gone 20 minutes over, but it doesn't matter.
	We can go forever.
	Robert, who do we have Wednesday for the sidebar?
	So, Richard, I think his last name is pronounced Hinnania, if I got it right.
	I may have got that wrong.
	But someone that does a lot of scholastic work on a range of public policy, including international relations, Pedro Gonzalez, the week after that, who's the same, and people who tend to have independent views on American foreign policy and other politics.
	So there'll be useful scholars and individuals to have a good chat with.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	And now on a side note, not a sidebar.
	I don't want to get ahead of myself.
	We are trying to, for a non-regular day sidebar, given his schedule, schedule the one, the only, the inimitable salty cracker sometime soon.
	So hopefully we'll get him.
	He had a good breakdown, by the way, about a lot of these fake news stories coming out of Ukraine about what was happening to people that volunteered over there and how they were being threatened with being shot in the back by Ukrainian army.
	He's been good on a lot of those.
	Bringing a lot of that intel to people, too, and has a great, fun audience.
	And I don't want to jinx it.
	Might be getting Brian Peckford, federal lawsuit against the government, in sometime next week.
	A couple of other people, I don't want to put them on blast in case it doesn't work out.
	I don't want anyone going after them for, you know, chickening out.
	They didn't chicken out.
	We got great stuff on the backburners.
	And I'm just going to be going live every day at some point.
	I don't want to overlap with the same person every day of the week.
	One day, I'll be overlapping with Scott Adams.
	Another day, I'll be overlapping with Rakeda, who we'll see.
	But good stuff coming, people, and lots of it.
	Robert, I think people need a white pill.
	What can you give by white pill?
	I'm incapable.
	I cannot give a white pill anymore.
	I feel like I'm getting sucked into the abyss.
	So pull me out of it, please, before we end the stream.
	Any week where the EU is whining and the British cabal is whining and the globalists are whining and George Soros is whining and Hillary Clinton is whining is, by definition, a good week.
	And today's elections is just one illustration in Hungary where Orban and the populists won big.
	Much bigger than anticipated is a sign that the globalists are losing in their most recent struggle to impose their own order on the rest of us.
	So I see many things that are promising along with the successful cases and other things happening in the court of public opinion.
	Fantastic.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you for everything.
	Oh, hold on.
	Rumble rants before I forget.
	Let me just make sure we're still doing this on Rumble, people.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I could have given a Viva White pill.
	Which is, you're all going to die someday anyway, so don't worry about it.
	You may as well go swimming in a frozen lake.
	It was too early for fishing.
	Not too early for swimming.
	So we got Rumble Rants.
	Ehong101 says, Ri.
	That might have had to do with Salt Lake Cracker.
	We've got We're All Rumble Positive.
	That's hemartics.
	Hemartics.
	And then I got a picture of a bicycle for some reason.
	So everyone in the chat.
	And the book behind me is about the managerial class on trial, which is about the managerial.
	If you're wondering why we have so many incompetent rubes running us and governing us in so many parts of society and civilizations, good book.
	He writes a very cool substack blog, too, that I share a lot at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Where we'll have, you know, bourbon with Barnes during the week.
	And you can make successful bets like those that took the Orban bet last week.
	But we'll have more fun there as we move along.
	Awesome.
	And apparently live from the shed, people, you might want to go check out his channel.
	They were on last week.
	Everybody, thank you for the comments.
	Thank you for the support.
	Thank you for the critique.
	I genuinely appreciate it.
	And there's no sarcasm there.
	Wednesday's going to be great.
	And just tune in daily.
	I will put out the tweets of the links when they're ready and when I know what I'm going to talk about.
	And there might be some good stuff to talk about next week.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone else on the chat, thank you for everything and we will see you next week.

▲