Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 10, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:10

Ep. 108: Russia, Jan. 6, Whitmer, Trump SCOTUS & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So in this budget, we were looking to find ways to help Canadians.
	They told us they wanted us to work for them, to get to Ottawa and deliver the help that they needed.
	It's been a tough time for Canadians, and so we did exactly that.
	We've used our power, and in this budget, we've delivered on dental care, starting with children under 12. We're proud of that.
	We know that so many Canadians don't have coverage and haven't taken care of their teeth.
	And when we spoke to a number of people, we've heard their stories and how this would be life-changing for them.
	We also know that people are struggling with the cost of living, particularly with housing.
	So another priority of ours in the agreement, we used our power to get more help to Canadians to find a home that they can afford.
	And we see that reflected in the budget with concrete steps that would not have been there, but for the fact that we forced the government to deliver and we use our power to get people this help.
	We still have critiques and criticisms.
	We're deeply concerned about the approach on the environment, particularly the carbon capture, which there's lots of concerns around whether that is effective or not.
	But the idea of giving more subsidies to fossil fuel companies that are profitable is the wrong approach.
	We should use public dollars to invest in workers and in Just transition, real jobs for workers, as well as investing in clean energy.
	And that's not there.
	We also see that with healthcare, we want to see investments in a transfer so that we defend our public healthcare system.
	So those are critiques as well.
	and we'll continue to fight for Canadians.
	Thank you.
	Let me just remove this, people.
	Oh boy, hold on.
	Am I in focus?
	Hold on.
	Okay, we're in focus.
	It's not going to be ideal tonight.
	Let the jokes begin.
	I'm not saying I'm in a bathroom because I'm not in a bathroom tonight.
	And I'm not in a bunker.
	I'm not in a bunker either.
	Let me see if I can get my screen a little brighter.
	No.
	I think this is as good as the blurry and swarthy.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Where was that?
	Pop that color.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Sorry.
	A little orange.
	That might have been...
	I'm going to blame it on lighting because I'm not that red.
	I'm not in the bathroom.
	I'm not at home.
	And the streams must go on.
	The streams shall continue.
	I'm in focus.
	It's good.
	No, sorry.
	It's not going to get better than this.
	Done is better than perfect.
	Speaking of starting off with a video to make you nauseous, I figured I would bless everybody with...
	It's the second time in one week that I'm going to be making a Giardia joke.
	Because it's the second time in a week that I've played a video on this channel of a politician.
	I guess Stetler was not a politician, but someone spewing so much verbal diarrhea that just to consume it with one's ears is going to make one ill.
	This is the Jagmeet Singh, the new Democrat Party leader who's coalesced with the most divisive, dangerous, corrosive, toxic, ethics-breaching Prime Minister in the history of Canada.
	Teamed up with him.
	And they're making things happen.
	They're spending our tax dollars.
	They are fixing problems of which they have been aware for years.
	To decades.
	Years to decades.
	It's a problem that they've caused because of their corruption and incompetence.
	But don't worry.
	In his diarrhea of a word salad, other than saying nothing in a minute and 37 seconds, and I mean nothing, he did say we've used our power twice, I think, maybe even more.
	They are using their power, all right, to rein in Control over every aspect of citizen life.
	I mean, I guess that's what the new Democrat Party is about, is controlling every aspect of citizen's life.
	But they're reigning in their power.
	Jagmeet Singh has teamed up with the Justin Trudeau to rein in full government power to spend our tax dollars investing.
	I mean, investing.
	Investing in what?
	I have no idea.
	But one thing is for certain, the government knows that it has infinite, limitless power that it can use to control all aspects of citizen life.
	It can spend our dollars willy-nilly, because as if we haven't already been spending enough taxpayer dollars to finance our universal healthcare or public healthcare system for decades.
	And the money just, you know...
	The old joke is, put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, and after 10 years, there's going to be a shortage of sand.
	I see a lot of Fs because I was actually late.
	But they're investing our tax dollars into the healthcare system.
	The healthcare system, which is already, I think it's basically 20% to 25%, depending on how you measure it, of our budget.
	That is to say that 20% to 25% of our tax dollars, Go to universal healthcare.
	And now they're going to find some more money to, you know, make the system better.
	Two and a half years into this pandemic.
	Decades into this problem.
	Jagmeet Singh.
	When you team up with the enemy, you become the enemy.
	When you team up with someone who you've called dangerous, divisive, irresponsible, corrupt, you are.
	Dangerous, divisive, irresponsible, and corrupt.
	You don't fight corruption, and you don't fight a dangerous, divisive politician by coalescing with them.
	You fight them by fighting them.
	I learned that the vasectomy was invented by an ancient Greek physician, Euclipides.
	Euclipides nuts.
	Bear lamb?
	I get that.
	I knew that was going to be a joke right into that.
	So I've just got to open it with a little...
	Word salad coming from a politician who's vowing to fight for Canadians by unifying with the PM who he has called dangerous, divisive, corrupt.
	I'm pretty sure he called him corrupt.
	I might be paraphrasing.
	But yeah, they're using their power to spend our taxpayer dollars.
	I was telling my daughter.
	Good one.
	That came before I said it, by the way.
	I to the C to the E. Ice, ice baby.
	You got that before I said it.
	Why does he keep saying power?
	I was telling my kid today about taxes.
	And I said in Canada, in Quebec, let's assume you make $100,000 a year.
	You pay 40, let's just say 40, we'll get to say 40 to 45. We'll say 45,000.
	Let's be fair.
	Let's just be fair.
	You pay $40,000 in income tax, assuming you don't have like these wild expenses that you can...
	You pay over $40,000 in income tax.
	So you make $100,000.
	You're down to 60 net if you're lucky and nobody's that lucky.
	So a little under 60, but let's just say 60. When you spend that $60,000, you go and spend that $60,000.
	Everything you buy with that 60,000, and I'm telling my kid this, you're paying 15% sales tax, GST, HST, so government sales tax, Quebec sales tax, harmonized sales tax.
	Of that 60,000, let's just say you spent all 60 of that, you would be spending 1,500 times 6, which would be 15, 3, 6, you'd be spending $9,000.
	So of your net, of your $100,000, you're now down to $51,000 net.
	I'm mixing up the math here, but you get what I'm saying is that you've basically paid $49,000 in taxes, assuming you spent your $60,000.
	You can't spend your $60,000 because with that $60,000, you've got to go pay property taxes.
	You've got to go pay utilities.
	You've got to go pay your license registration.
	You've got to go pay a number of other things that you're paying the government for.
	Figure out when you make $100,000, what's left in your pocket after you've paid.
	Big Daddy.
	And my daughter's like, you're not left with very much at the end of the day after that.
	But no, don't worry.
	They're going to find more ways to tax you.
	They're going to find more ways to spend your tax dollars.
	They're going to find more ways to pilfer and to waste your tax dollars.
	You know, they got programs.
	They got programs.
	They got people that they pay for these programs.
	All right.
	Let me get to the Super Chats.
	And then I'm going to get to, I see Barnes is in the back screen.
	I'm going to do the standard disclaimers.
	Right after I can scroll down to some superchats.
	I stink, therefore I am.
	Winston, I'm Winston Shittenhouse.
	Our Winston has been meeting dogs left, right, and center.
	I'm going to share a few of the pictures because I think I did.
	That bulldog, oh my god.
	I love Winston.
	I love bulldog's faces.
	I just had my first speeding ticket today, so I'm kind of down.
	Hopefully you two lift my spirits up before the hell.
	That is my military class tomorrow.
	I always say, look.
	If you get a speeding ticket, I'm not saying this to be tongue-in-cheek or glib, if that's the worst thing that happens from speeding, just operate on the basis that that speeding ticket prevented something worse for you.
	So that's the way I always like to look at it.
	I don't like to look at it as yet more tax dollars going to the government, but you could do that also.
	Your speeding ticket is going to pay for some government subsidy, but operate on the basis that that speeding ticket saved you from something worse.
	Blink twice if you're safe.
	I'm safe.
	I'm safe.
	Okay, I see some...
	Oh, God.
	Okay, so standard disclaimers, people.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, so you can feel better giving more to the creator and supporting a platform like Rumble, which supports free speech.
	No legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	If I do not bring up your Super Chat, and I'm not going to be able to bring them all up...
	And if that is going to make you feel like you've wasted the support you were giving to us, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling sad.
	Sad.
	Or grifted.
	You know what I mean.
	I don't like people feeling disappointed that they thought they were going to get something that they didn't get.
	And we're going to be discussing that tonight in a class action lawsuit against Burger King.
	We'll get there.
	Classic.
	Viva, they're investing in areas that will give them the biggest gains.
	Oh, my bad.
	Then their friends and families.
	Do you know how much money we put into the healthcare system that gets wasted through waste and corruption?
	Great message.
	Great message at Palm Sunday Mass this morning.
	Be more today than yesterday and be more tomorrow than today.
	Quality instead of quantity.
	I like it.
	And I like your avatar.
	Okay.
	With that said, people.
	Move your light source so not reflecting your glasses.
	No, I can't because the light source is the camera.
	Okay, I'm going to have to tilt my face down the entire night.
	Viva, slide right or left.
	That dot is reflecting your glasses.
	Okay.
	This is going to be a less than ideal circuit.
	Unless I just go like this.
	If I turn the light off, is it terrible?
	Am I in focus?
	Hold on.
	Okay, I'm in focus.
	We'll just leave it like this, people.
	Sorry, it's not going to be good lighting tonight.
	Okay, I see Robert.
	Robert is laughing in the back screen, guys.
	Let's bring him in and get the substance.
	Because it doesn't matter what it looks like.
	It matters what is being said and what is going into your ears, into your brain, forming new connections.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right, people, tell me if the audio is off.
	I thought I had a good camera, but it's this crappy camera.
	We're going to live with it tonight.
	Robert, okay, before we get started, we don't always do it.
	What's in the backdrop?
	Because I noticed it's a new book.
	Yeah, Arrogant Capital by Kevin Phillips.
	Phillips was ahead of the curve explaining what was going to, before Ray Dalio and others were talking about the transition to a new currency, new global power structure, etc.
	Kevin Phillips was warning about it all the way back to the 1970s, actually, but throughout the 80s and early 90s about what happens when you no longer manufacture things.
	Is your power sustainable?
	And he predicted a lot of what we're witnessing in live time that may be accelerated because of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the economic war being waged on Russia, but was probably in the works anyway.
	And so Phillips is one of the great political analysts, one of the great political predictors of all time, wrote The Emerging Republican Majority in 1969, but it's actually about the longer political history going all the way back.
	of America.
	Then he even wrote about the revolution time period and others.
	Brilliant, brilliant mind, good economic analyst, good foreign policy analyst, good on a wide range of topics and subjects.
	And if you followed him and read him, a lot of things that are a surprise to many people today would not be a surprise to such people.
	Now, I want to ask the chat, when we're streaming, is Robert glitching for you or is he glitching for me?
	And I'm trying to figure out if it's my internet.
	Barnes is freezing.
	Audio is fine.
	I don't know if that's my internet or Robert's.
	Okay, so Robert, we'll see.
	We'll stick it out.
	If it looks like it's a problem with my connection, I'll stream off my telephone.
	And Robert, what cigar do you have that you're not smoking because it's not good to smoke on YouTube?
	It's a special edition Bolivar cigar.
	Bolivar.
	What's going on here?
	Stop sharing.
	Hold on, guys.
	Sorry.
	I just...
	Okay.
	Stop this.
	Okay.
	Now you look...
	It's glitchy.
	Just a little glitch on Robert.
	It's external.
	They're making changes to the internet structure in my area, so it's nothing I can control.
	Okay.
	We'll live with it.
	We'll live with Orange Viva.
	I'll be the new Orange Man and a glitchy Barnes.
	Robert.
	Okay, so on the menu, I forgot to get to it.
	We're obviously covering Ukraine-Russia.
	There's been news in Pakistan, and this is like another situation where I can read as much news as I can.
	I'm never going to understand the context or the impact of this above and beyond the headlines of a vote of no confidence, which we sort of wish we might have had in Canada, but they had it in the Pakistani government and ousted the former prime minister or president.
	I don't know how that works.
	We've got Whitmer, obviously.
	We've got January 6th, obviously.
	We've got SCOTUS.
	We've got Donald Trump lawsuits, and we've got the Burger King class action lawsuit.
	I might have to bring up that lawsuit when we talk about it to show the pictures for comparison.
	But Robert, starting with Ukraine, what's the latest?
	And trigger warning for people out there, it's going to be the latest from Barnes, and I'm going to ask my questions so that I can come to my own conclusions.
	Robert, what's the latest coming out of Russia-Ukraine?
	Sure.
	And some people have asked why we, even though this is a law and politics show, why we cover international politics of this kind, even though it often has a legal implication or ramification.
	And it's because they're not getting reliable information from traditional media sources.
	It's the same reason why you covering the Canadian trucker protest was so important.
	It's because...
	Both the Canadian press and the international press were not giving it honest coverage.
	And unfortunately, that is particularly egregious, usually in wartime.
	But Americans and people in the West, and we have an international audience as well, have been a little bit surprised at how bad it's been in this conflict.
	Pretty much almost all the...
	As an example, I was in a debate today with some people that follow Scott Adams.
	And Scott's been mostly just regurgitating.
	I don't know if he realizes that's what it is, but that's what it is.
	And his audience thinks Ukraine's winning the war.
	For example, one of them said that Russia's not air-dominant.
	And it's like, well, is there a country that's asking for a no-fly zone?
	Yes, there is.
	It's named Ukraine.
	Why are they asking for a no-fly zone?
	Unless Russia's dominant in the air, why would they be wanting to take away their own great Ukrainian air power when it goes to Kiev, unless that's not the case?
	So these are people that can't recognize obvious contradictions.
	This is bad, bad logic being employed.
	But it's because people don't lie to systematically.
	So last week we predicted, you know, watch whether or not who would ask for an investigation into that Kiev suburb.
	With the United Nations, who would either go along or block it?
	Russia asked for it three different times.
	The British blocked it three different times.
	And from my knowledge, no on-the-ground investigative force is present.
	So the second thing to watch was, legal in a different kind of context, but it's where politics and law intersect, is there was a vote at the United Nations about whether to keep Russia in the Human Rights Council.
	The Human Rights Council, Trump, once actually pulled the U.S. out because he didn't like it, and maybe refused to take their seat because of their protest of it.
	So it's not exactly, it's mostly simply significant.
	But what was fascinating was the massive drop-off in support for the Western side.
	So the U.S. side got 141 votes to condemn the conflict in Ukraine initially from the United Nations, but they could only muster 93 votes to...
	Remove Russia from the Human Rights Council.
	And it was not just that there was about a third of votes, a little more than a third of the votes that died.
	It was who they were.
	So the biggest country in America that had been on the American side last time at the U.S. to go flip sides to Russia.
	The biggest country in Latin America that had been on the U.S. side, Brazil, flip to Russia.
	One of the biggest countries in the Middle East that had voted with the West.
	Switch sides to Russia.
	One of the biggest political powers in the Mideast that had been on the United Arab Emirates and the Saudi side and the UN also flip sides to Russia.
	And the biggest country in Asia also flips to the Russians.
	People ask themselves, what is it the rest of the world is seeing that they're not?
	And why is it that In fact, they failed to get an actual outright majority of countries in the United Nations.
	They only did because there were a bunch of people that abstained.
	That was the way in which they tested rather than vote no.
	Though the no votes, including India sticking their vote and China sticking their vote, despite massive pressure campaigns against the West, should have been kind of a wake-up call.
	Last Sunday's election...
	Today's elections should be a wake-up.
	Last Sunday, Hungary, who was, Orban was supposed to be in a case, was going to lose, according to experts.
	Not only he won, he won a crushing landslide.
	Serbia, the anti-EU parties voted the pro-EU parties, the smaller parties at the time, while the Serbian national, even who's been sympathetic, won by an even bigger version than expected.
	In France today, Marine Le Pen made it to the runoff.
	It was considered DOA potentially a few months ago.
	It's Macron.
	Macron is a head on our...
	Barnes and with our members' boards at BarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	A couple of weeks ago, I did betting on Le Pen when she was trading at 3%.
	She's now around 30%, so you would have made a 10-foot rate return in those betting markets, mostly only available outside of the United States, unfortunately.
	But for those that did, we have people who follow us around the world.
	Made a nice little profit, just like we did betting on Orban.
	What Le Pen is known for is her wanting to withdraw or limit the degree to which France defers to the European Union and to NATO.
	In public opinion polls released last week, the projected runoff is dead even, which is the first time that has ever happened.
	She normally was always in the high 30s, low 40s, never got up to above 45. Now she's at 48, 49, and one poll wins.
	That will shock the people in the EU, the globalist crowd.
	And there'll be a massive campaign against her.
	They'll organize every political party, every group, every media campaign, as they did last time.
	And Macron might hold on, but even if he holds on, he will be much, much weaker than ever before.
	And this is due to the economic...
	The French response is much like the Hungarian and Serbian response, which has been hostility to this war entanglement that the EU has dragged France into.
	And that's without French legionnaires possibly being caught advising the Azov Battalion, which might happen within a week or two if that folds in Maripol.
	In Pakistan, as you mentioned, whenever you hear the words independent judiciary, usually that's the establishment meaning a judiciary that's in their pocket against populists, wherever that is.
	In the United States, we recognize that the legislative branch should generally not be interfered with.
	So the Supreme Court usually goes out of its way to avoid entanglement in the legislative branch.
	I think sometimes too much, but that's how we interpret the rule of law.
	But not in Pakistan.
	In Pakistan, the West was trying to stage a regime change.
	There's a nationalist, populist leader there in Pakistan, famous cricket player, who had strong support.
	They tried to stage a coup last week.
	That momentarily failed because the president and the deputy speaker of the parliament refused to go along with it.
	And in steps the Pakistani Supreme Court.
	Which, along with the hierarchy of the Pakistani military, said, no, no, you have to hold that parliamentary vote.
	And you can't.
	And this tells you what they think of what the Pakistani leader was calling for.
	The populist leader was calling for an election in 90 days.
	Somehow the West was terrified of that prospect, meaning they know popular opinion is not on their side and is on his side about avoiding entanglement in this conflict.
	And so they decided to circumvent that by using their allies in the military and the Supreme Court of Pakistan to force another parliamentary vote, bribed enough people to get just enough votes in order to remove that regime and impose its own regime.
	Now there'll be elections there within a year, but there were massive protests in Pakistan today about that.
	So they don't have popular support.
	They just have the political class support.
	And it's amazing because every video or every news report and people, you're going to have to live with the echo.
	My apologies.
	It's all okay.
	Every outlet that I've seen reporting on this is showing people dancing in the streets, allegedly, apparently, to celebrate the vote of no confidence, which, I mean...
	And again, I don't know anything from anything on this.
	I just say I know what I know in terms of what's been done in the past so I can only apply it to the present.
	But before we get to Pakistan, Ukraine, Russia.
	I'm not sure I agree with what Scott Adams is saying.
	I think some of it is...
	It's what he believes and it's fine.
	I think it's wrong.
	Yeah, I think he's trusting the same sources he trusted on the pandemic.
	I'm not sure how well that worked out for him.
	Setting that aside, though, the question is, who's winning the war?
	And people are saying, yes, there's a conflict to say Russia is getting destroyed by Ukraine, but the Ukraine and Zelenskyy is going to the West.
	We need air support.
	So I don't believe that Ukraine's crushing Russia.
	That being said, now you do hear, I forget what his name is, the head of the Russian...
	A Russian spokesperson saying, we're incurring substantial losses of soldiers in this war.
	Nonetheless, Russia versus Ukraine, invading Ukraine, incurring substantial losses, which they admit.
	I don't know how they qualify substantial.
	Surely.
	Cue the naked gun joke.
	But the war can't be going well for Russia.
	I wouldn't put it that way.
	I think that the...
	In terms of what they put out is they put out that they've had about 1,300, 1,400 casualties, or at least deaths, and then I think like 3,000, 4,000 wounded.
	And that would be relatively consistent with where things are going.
	And basically, it's a military debate about military strategy.
	So you can see from the Military and Foreign Affairs channel, he's pretty neutral.
	He gives his analysis.
	He thinks that the debate has been, what is Russia's objectives?
	The Western interpretation of Russia's objectives was to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine.
	If you look at it from that perspective, the war is going slowly.
	If, on the other hand, most of the people that followed Russia said from day one that that would not be the objective.
	I mean, of course, Putin himself said, we're not going to occupy Ukraine.
	But their goal would be to get back the water source for the Crimea and clear out the Donbass.
	And then maybe go further east for their other objectives.
	But their other objectives were kind of vague.
	Denazification, demilitarization.
	What does that mean?
	That's really subject to a wide range of interpretation.
	Their specific geographic objectives, territorial objectives, was secure water for Crimea and secure the Donbass.
	There, they've almost cleared all of Maripol.
	They have taken over Kherson and the whole southern region, everything that borders either the Black Sea or the Sea of Asov from Crimea all the way up to the Russian border for the most part.
	And there are still battles outside of Kharkov.
	And as the Pentagon acknowledged, there's about 50,000 battalion troops coming into the Donbass region.
	And as Matt Braun said last week, it's going to be a brutal conflict.
	And what Zelensky said on 60 Minutes is that Ukraine can't win the war unless something changes.
	And so it all depends on perspective.
	If you thought they were going in to seize all of Ukraine, then they haven't been successful at all.
	If you thought they were never going into Ukraine but wanted to secure Donbass and Crimea, they're really on schedule.
	And the question is, like in Kiev, was that a faint or deliberate effort?
	My argument has always been, How would you tell?
	Because a good feint will look exactly like something that's not a feint, otherwise it's not a successful feint.
	So the measurement would be, if it was a feint, the goal would be to, according to the Russian military, to shackle the troops around Kiev and all around, and Odessa and other places, and to keep them from supporting the eastern efforts that they had.
	That has mostly worked.
	There's a reason why they keep sending in helicopters and ships and not troops to Marpol.
	It's because they've been cut off.
	And because they didn't send any support troops to the east.
	They kept them in Odessa.
	They kept them in Liev.
	They dragged them up to Kiev.
	And that's why Scott Ritter says that it was a feint and was a successful one.
	I mean, one that they took some losses.
	They'll definitely take losses.
	There was a pitch put out by the West and by people like General Milley and others that this would be a three-day war and so forth.
	Nobody could have seriously believed that.
	If you follow some of the NATO-aligned military think tanks that have talked about this conflict before it arose, they were talking about it would be a long, drawn-out conflict.
	And because you're talking about a quarter million Ukrainian troops of one type or another, almost up to, estimates vary, but up to 100,000 foreign mercenaries involved because they recruited neo-Nazis from all across the globe.
	And they're recruiting them from Brazil.
	They're recruiting from internationally.
	If you're ideologically aligned, come to Ukraine.
	We'll train you, give you a gun, and let you do bad stuff.
	And so the...
	When you have that size and scale of units, not only that, eastern Ukraine, the Soviet Union always believed eastern Ukraine would be when NATO comes through to attack them.
	So they deliberately fortified.
	Large parts of it, like, for example, in Maripol, you have catacombs throughout the city.
	You have huge underground areas at the major steel plant and other locations designed to withstand an attack, designed to survive an attack.
	And remember, the Soviets went through the brutal, brutal World War II, what they called the Great Patriotic War.
	Half of their films are about some story related to the Great Patriotic War.
	So in their context, there's really no chance that the Russians thought this would be easy.
	That requires us believing that they didn't know things that we know they didn't know.
	So as to who's succeeding militarily, here we can get some video proof.
	Aside from the air, it's obvious Russia is air-dominant.
	Ukraine wouldn't be begging for a no-fly zone, which is a trigger to World War III, as Tucker Carlson exposed one Republican congressman for not realizing.
	But the other aspects of it are things like, as other military observers have noted, you keep seeing Ukrainian soldiers in civilian vehicles, which means that the Russians are right about how many tanks and armored vehicles they've taken out.
	Whereas you usually see Russians still in tanks.
	So it's like, if Russians lost all these tanks, why do I keep seeing them in tanks?
	And Ukraine hasn't lost any.
	Why is it I keep seeing Ukrainians in civilian vehicles?
	Civilian vehicles that cannot protect them in a conflict.
	And if you follow deep battle policy, which I talked about, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The approach would always be for the Russians to first take out all the support before they go in heavy to actually have a big battle in Donbass, meaning you cut off supplies, supplies of food, supplies of fuel, supplies of ammunition, no air support, no naval support, and you make it difficult for additional troops to get there.
	And that appears to be precisely what they have done.
	So we'll find out.
	I mean, I think it's going to be a more brutal conflict than some people do, than some people on the Russian side believe.
	I mean, at least not the Russian official side, but the Russian social media, Russian support people.
	They think it will be over by early May.
	It could easily last longer because, again, you're talking about a lot of troops.
	You're talking about people that are war criminals in many cases, which means they're not going to give themselves up for surrender.
	They can't afford to.
	I think that's been part of the...
	They got caught...
	With more POWs, tying them to tanks, lighting them on fire.
	This is what Ukrainians were doing.
	The Ukrainians bombed one of the train depots, killed a bunch of civilians, tried to blame the Russians for it.
	And then, of course, the photos of the missile came out showing it was a Ukrainian missile.
	Okay, so let me stop you there because I know this is going to trigger people.
	First things first, Eric Hundley texted me.
	He said, put a towel under your computer.
	And just to show you how I'm not in the bathroom.
	I'm with my daughter, and I had to text her to get a towel.
	Let's see if this works.
	I just gave the heads up because I'm going to move my computer.
	And after this, I'm going to stop apologizing for the quality of video and audio.
	It's information, people.
	Robert, so that's...
	People are going to accuse you, or anybody else who even suggests this, of looking for red flags.
	Not red flags, false flags.
	You know, looking to say Bukha was...
	The Azov Battalion, revenge, doing things to civilians after the Russians left.
	People are going to look at this, and I heard both sides when it came out.
	It's like, okay, Russians bombed a train station after they gave a safe corridor for civilians to leave, war crimes.
	Then the information came out that apparently from the shrapnel of the, what do they call it?
	The thing that is, there's a word for it.
	Tosha or something like that.
	Yeah, well, so apparently from the shrapnel of the device, ordinance, that's what I was looking for.
	The shrapnel from the ordinance, it was some old device that the Russians apparently don't use, that apparently the Ukrainians do.
	They even got the numbers connected to inventory in Ukrainian military.
	I mean, they've done similar things in Donetsk.
	They've used these cluster bombs in Donbass repeatedly against civilians.
	But, I mean, it's basically predictable at this point.
	Jacob Dreisen is a report that I recommend.
	He's been following this issue for many, many years.
	He used to write for the American Conservative and other places.
	And he follows it in great detail.
	He gives an estimate of casualties on both sides.
	He sees it as closer to the Russian estimate on Russian casualties.
	But with a lesser estimate on Ukrainian casualties.
	He thinks there's been about 5,000 soldiers on both sides and about 10,000 casualties on both sides.
	So he's a little bit worse for Ukrainians.
	But where it's really worse for Ukrainians isn't manpower.
	It's munitions.
	Like, here's the name of munitions.
	When people tell me, no, there's no problem with munitions at all for the Ukrainians.
	Well, then why do we keep seeing TikTok videos of volunteers that came in from the West saying that they left because there's no munitions?
	Like, we're given a gun in one round, and that's it.
	Well, there's no munitions shortage?
	But you can't even arm mercenaries?
	You're going to arm a bunch of refugees then instead?
	How?
	I mean, there's plenty of evidence out there.
	But the best evidence is the fact that the West refused to embrace an immediate, on-the-ground, UN-independent forensic investigative team in any of these places and locations.
	And the best evidence is, does anyone think Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, do you think any of those countries would go against the West, given the massive pressure being brought against the West, if they thought Russia was getting whooped in the war?
	They don't.
	Or if they thought it was clear that evidence would ultimately prove Russia's committing routine regular Canadian violations.
	The reality is opinion is hardening in all of these countries against the West because when they see both sides of the evidence, they're seeing overwhelmingly the evidence points to Ukraine committing the war crimes.
	And this is not a surprise.
	Ukraine has committed war crimes for eight years straight.
	We just don't know anything about it.
	We're going to get back to that in a second.
	And I just want to bring this up because I think it's a useful question and I don't take it as a troll.
	Where do you get your info, Barnes?
	A wide range of sources.
	What I recommend to people is look at independent sources that have followed it.
	People like Jacob followed this for a long time in their specialty.
	So they review...
	Hundreds of sources of data for information.
	And why do I trust him?
	Because he gives information that's highly predictive.
	So in Jacob Dryzen, like Dryzen Report, it's not a blog.
	It used to be just an email service.
	He had such high demand that he made it into a blog.
	But he was the one who tipped me off to the fertilizer problem that I discussed with Duran.
	I followed Duran every day.
	Alex Christophus and Alexander McCorse.
	I may have mispronounced their names.
	By the way, I didn't realize...
	Alexander Mercoris, that's the Mercoris family in Greece.
	You're talking about political history that goes back centuries.
	By the way, a family that's been on book politically.
	They haven't been like the Kennedys.
	They haven't been on just one side politically.
	But very influential.
	That makes more sense as to what he said.
	He has that British humility.
	They never brag.
	I kept telling Paul Joseph Watson this years ago.
	It was like, you know, you've got a great brand.
	You've got, you know, Braga has that British sensibility.
	He did a great breakdown on the French election that people can find online.
	The publication, The Summit, that they can find.
	He's also often on InfoWars.
	Alex Jones promoted him very early on and continues to.
	So I think that...
	Those are some of the sources.
	Also, you can go out there and look at who's predicted and who isn't.
	Who's explaining things and who's not?
	And then third-party sources.
	If it was a flag and Russia really had atrocities in that suburb outside of Kiev, there's no reason not to jump on having the UN investigate and confirm it right away.
	Instead, they ran away from anything but.
	And so that tells you they're not willing to independent third-party sources.
	Who's doing the most censorship?
	I mean, Europe especially, but the U.S. is doing it.
	YouTube started taking down channels of anybody who challenged the narrative.
	Media Matters did a hit piece on me for saying it was a likely false flag.
	I mean, they're going to be, I mean, well, you can't embarrass media matters.
	They're beyond embarrassment.
	They can't sue for defamation because they're so low in reputation.
	But people should ask, why did they not ask the U.S. a third-party investigation?
	Why are all the other countries, powerful countries in the world, changing their minds towards Russia, not against Russia?
	What's happening?
	And not being given honest information in the West.
	And then look for direct contradictions like Ukraine is air-domined, but we need a no-fly zone.
	That doesn't quite work.
	Ukraine is winning in Russia's tanks and their other tanks, but Zelensky says if we don't get tanks tomorrow, we're going to lose.
	These are contradictions, and contradictions will reveal without much difficulty.
	A lot of good people on social media, independently sourced people, their own information review.
	Followed military and foreign affairs channel.
	He has no bone on the phone.
	I mean, he has a different opinion of Kiev than I do.
	He thinks it was a high risk, high reward that failed.
	I think it was.
	But, you know, he has good arguments for his side.
	Neutral.
	I mean, he's not.
	He doesn't have any political bone.
	Most of his Western, though, he follows others, too.
	But he's giving you as much information as you can from both sides and from independent groups, those that are the most predictive and the most common sense playing something.
	The Duran is fantastic on this from the very get-go.
	So.
	Robert, do you think?
	I don't want to suggest rebooting your computer because it might not do anything.
	We just might have to go through the wave of the bad audio.
	It will be hard to listen to people.
	We're going to deal with it.
	Two things.
	You mentioned a lot of Ukrainian soldiers in civilian vehicles.
	My question when I hear that is, Does that then not turn civilians into targets, but does that not make it more likely for there to be inadvertent issues, inadvertent actual striking of civilians, if now the Russian military knows that Ukrainian military are going around in civilian vehicles?
	I had also seen delivery trucks and things like that.
	I mean, does it not increase the likelihood of civilian casualties by virtue of them doing that?
	Yeah, it may be part of their intention.
	I mean, I would much rather be an armored vehicle, but assuming that that's not the whole of it, I mean, they've been photographing out of ambulances, pretending to be pressed, pretending to be Red Cross, pretending to be delivery drivers.
	They seized delivery vehicles or delivery vehicles.
	So that may be their intention to induce some of what they can use against Russia politically.
	And, you know, the opinion is not only hardening, but it's demanding more aggressive to take the gloves off effectively.
	Colonel McGregor put it, was that so far Russia has gone in soft, and they think Putin is soft, that he should start to go in hard because of what they're seeing.
	It may happen.
	It may escalate in that way.
	But it looks like Russia's focus is on troops.
	In the eastern part of Donbass.
	They're completely out of the Kiev.
	They're not marching towards Odessa.
	They're holding those lines, but it appears their whole focus is on the 60,000, 100,000 estimates, which vary, that are there in the Donbass, that were there all along and that either weren't able to or didn't leave.
	And have not received, as far as I know, much support because they tied down troops in Odessa and Kiev.
	As someone just said, turn off your video, Robert.
	It sounds like your audio just got better.
	Yeah, it's...
	Okay.
	Whatever.
	We'll have to live with it, people.
	It might not be watchable.
	It might be...
	It doesn't matter.
	You'll piece it together.
	And we'll do it live, people.
	We'll do it live.
	Robert, next question.
	They voted to remove Russia from the UN.
	On which vote was this?
	This was not out of the UN at large.
	This was on a specific vote, correct?
	Yeah, it was the Human Rights Council.
	It was entirely a symbolic vote, but it was frankly a diplomatic turn to the West because they lost about a third of their support that they had previously.
	The question is this.
	There's a part of this that's a sick joke in a way that They've let China vote on things.
	They've let Saudi Arabia vote on things, you know, human rights issues.
	And this is unique to me.
	I'll just operate on the basis for the sake of argument.
	Russia is as guilty of human rights violations now as China is and has been, as Saudi Arabia is and has been, as, you know, pick it, who are still there, who still get to vote.
	Let's all operate on that premise.
	I've got my kids coming back from school telling me that the school is doing fundraisers for Ukraine.
	I drive down the street.
	I see people putting flags in their doors as they're within their rights to do.
	You go to businesses who have now turned this into a profitable enterprise for their business model.
	Air transit, an airline, is talking on flights, from what I understand.
	Donations go to the Ukraine.
	I have never seen such a...
	Concerted, coordinated effort from government, media, companies to rally behind one specific cause.
	And part of me wants to say, okay, if I assume Russia's doing all of this, all that this confirms to me is that all these governments and media companies and private enterprises, well, they obviously don't care about other demographics.
	They only care about this because it's white Europeans.
	Part of me says that.
	Another part of me says something else is very fishy that's going on, that this has now become the rallying cry.
	There are people in Sudan that have been getting bombed, starved, killed for years, decades.
	There are parts of the world that have been in war for decades.
	Not a peep, not a sound, not a nothing from the Cokes, from the airline companies, from the governments, from the nothing.
	What is it about this?
	What makes it unique and what is the underlying goal of this concerted effort?
	I'll call it nothing other than, I won't say mass formation psychosis, but rather mass brainwashing, mass mobilization.
	What is it unique about the Russia versus Ukraine that is singularly unique from Sudan, from Rwanda, from every other atrocity, from China with the Uyghurs?
	What is it, Robert?
	Am I crazy or am I not crazy?
	Well, from the perspective of many other countries in the world, You know, they would say what's different than Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Serbia, a lot of places that the U.S. went into over the years and bombed and intervened in or drone bombed.
	They would highlight Yemen as their most particular current example.
	I mean, it's just because the West, this is what the West wants.
	I mean, it's the West trying to weaponize the United Nations for its purposes.
	And so it was an attempt to measure global opinion because this was an almost entirely symbolic vote.
	Nobody cares about being on the U.S. Like I said, Trump purposely withdrew from it, so he refused to sit on it.
	They don't take it as seriously.
	So what it was, was even on this purely symbolic vote, it was a measurement of global opinion.
	And the West is losing.
	And I mean, they engineered this vote thinking that they would get even more votes than they got the first time.
	And they got 141 votes out of 191 or so countries.
	This time they got 93. I mean, they lost almost 50 votes.
	And again, it was which 50 they lost.
	It's that they lose Mexico and Brazil and Indonesia and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
	That's not good.
	I mean, by population and resources, they got crushed.
	So they did it to make a political point, and it backfired.
	And the West hid that fact.
	They just focused on, well, we won the vote.
	We actually lost what we were trying to gain even having the vote.
	Ben Buga makes a decent point here.
	This is the same as Bosnia was in the 1990s.
	I was too young to be aware.
	Clinton wanted attention off his BJ, and that is not BJ Penn, the great mixed martial arts fighter.
	That is a certain type of job that only presidents get in the Oval Office.
	Sorry, too soon.
	Biden wants attention off his kids profiteering exploits.
	It does seem...
	I'll connect my own dots, but there are two dots there.
	The Hunter Biden computer story, which we know has 10% for the big guy, and now we know has facilitating financing to biological safety research facilities in Ukraine.
	It coincides with it.
	Do I think that people could possibly be so evil to do this, to exploit this, to manipulate public opinion, to get my three kids coming home from three different schools?
	Telling them that the teachers are holding fundraisers for Ukraine.
	It's not to minimize that.
	Operate on the basis that Russia is violating international law.
	There are people in Canada who are dying on the streets.
	There are people in Canada who don't have clean drinking water.
	And this is what my schools are.
	It's an absolute massive infiltration from the top down to the bottom.
	And from the bottom up to the top.
	I don't understand what's so unique about it, but I can put my own dots together.
	How do you call it a United Nations if you vote one of the members of the UN off of a key element?
	Yeah, it's a lot of foolishness, I think, legally and politically and economically.
	I mean, on the economic front, the dollar will continue to decline by more and more estimates in terms of its dominance around the globe.
	That might be good for America long term.
	They'll be painful in the short term.
	Inflation continues to skyrocket and will continue to impact governments across the West.
	And meanwhile, Russia lowered its interest rates because everything's stable and they're expecting things to be back to normal within six months to a year.
	So, you know, the sanctions clearly haven't worked from what they were seeing.
	In fact, they backfired.
	At a major, major level.
	But, you know, you see China escalating with the Solomon Islands, winning a security agreement with the Solomon Islands and may escalate towards Taiwan.
	You see General Milley talking about maybe waging war with China over Taiwan and other things.
	So we have a political class across the West that I don't think is loyal to America or their own countries.
	What the German leaders are doing, the French leaders are doing, the Canadian leaders are doing, the British leaders are doing.
	They're not in the interest of their country.
	They're in the interest of a globalist class that sees these countries as tools.
	Madeleine Albright was a classic example of this.
	What good are soldiers if we don't use them, she said.
	And Powell said the point of soldiers is to not use them.
	But she didn't, and he said they're not risk tokens to use.
	They're not play things.
	But Madeleine Albright believed that they were.
	And that's the mindset of the people that are governing.
	And so we're probably going to face a lot of economic pain and political pain.
	In the West because of these failed policies.
	And I don't think, you know, even let's say you're on the, you hate Russia, you're on the anti-Russian side.
	What I've told people is lying to yourself about how the war is going or lying to yourself about who's doing what isn't going to help your side in the long run.
	It's going to hurt your side in the long run.
	And because you're being exposed in the world of international public opinion, where you do need some diplomatic allies, where you do need some economic allies, and we're losing them quickly and easily.
	And, you know, Victoria Nuland was over in Cyprus.
	And Cyprus is a divided country because Turkey invaded it in 1974, occupies northern Cyprus.
	And Cyprus, of course, doesn't recognize that, nor does the U.S. officially.
	And she referred to the northern Cyprus president as a president, which just embarrassed the people in Cyprus.
	So, I mean, it's just, we do not have the most competent and capable people running things.
	And we'll continue to see further indications of that as they unveil and go on.
	Now, a legal side of this is whether or not American bondholders who own Russian sovereign bonds, the Treasury Department, OFAC, is blocking, has Russian funds in their possession in custody, the Treasury Department.
	They are refusing to allow Russia to use any of those funds to pay the American holders of Russian debts.
	So Russia says we'll pay you in rubles instead.
	But they want dollars.
	And they legally are entitled to dollars under the bond holding contract.
	And the only thing stopping them is not the Russians, but is the United States Treasury.
	So when the question is, can they sue?
	The answer is probably yes.
	In America, whenever your property interest is interfered with, then by the government, you can sue.
	Russians can't sue, but American citizens can sue.
	And some of these bondholders are definitely American citizens.
	So they may even be able to sue the banks that are not honoring the contract because they're going along with the Treasury Department.
	But they, in fact, can sue because the problem is their property interest is being interfered with without due process of law.
	There's been no trial in these cases.
	There's been no judicial finding in these cases.
	There hasn't even been a legal proceeding in these cases.
	Money is just frozen that technically belongs to the bondholder at this point.
	Once that ownership interest transferred from the Russian government to the bondholder, then the bondholder's property interest was being interfered with without due process of law, and he, under the Constitution...
	Can bring suit.
	There's been similar suits in the past brought by like publishers, NGOs, individuals all the time.
	In fact, even foreigners have sued when they had U.S. assets frozen because you can sue in that instance.
	But you have more robust legal claims if you're an American citizen.
	So we may see lawsuits coming by bondholders demanding to be paid in dollars given that the only reason why they're not is the Treasury Department.
	But who would that lawsuit be brought against?
	The Treasury Department or technically OFAC.
	I think it's Office of Foreign Affairs Control or whatever it is.
	It started when the Cold War started up, and they basically decide whose property they get to seize.
	I've always had a problem with it, period.
	Besides the fact that I don't think sanctions work politically, even if you want to hurt somebody, they almost never work.
	They worked, as Matt Gaetz recently said.
	If they worked, we wouldn't have Maduro in Venezuela.
	We wouldn't have the communists in China and North Korea.
	We wouldn't have the Islamists in Iran.
	Every place we've tried sanctions, they've failed.
	They've failed now for 60 years in the case of Cuba.
	They've failed now for 30 years in the case of North Korea.
	Failed now for a decade in the case of Iran.
	I mean, at some point, we recognize these things fail.
	There's almost no evidence.
	Systematic studies consistently show they don't work.
	But putting that aside, I've always said it's a...
	Perilous precedent when you say the state can, without any due process of law, without any trial of any kind, just go out and seize properties of people or countries.
	Because that's a bad precedent, because if you don't think they're going to use that to come for you, ask some Canadian truckers.
	Touche, Robert.
	One of my credit cards was declined today, but I think I know why.
	I'm not related to anything sinister.
	But would the argument not be, I'm thinking back to the lawsuits we discussed last week, that they're going to say this is a policy issue, therefore you have no claim against the government.
	Did this pass any sort of legislative process, or is this...
	No, no.
	I mean, there were some additional sanctions that passed legislatively, but a lot of these actions were taken without even legislative support.
	And in my view, the legislature can't go and steal people's property.
	I mean, some people think all taxation is theft, but putting that aside, they can't say we want to take George's property, take Joe's property, take Jack's property.
	I don't think the legislature has that constitutional authority.
	They have the authority within the Constitution to issue tax.
	That might be a transition to a topic that wasn't on our list, but is that some have brought up in the chat.
	At the chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which is there is a new proposal by the Biden administration.
	To impose a tax on your unrealized capital gains, which is code word for property tax, which is unconstitutional.
	By the way, it dovetails perfectly, Robert, into the intro of the taxation until you have nothing left.
	So, the unrealized gains.
	People have to appreciate what this means.
	In one sense, people understand that as you own stocks, the stock goes from $10,000 to $100,000.
	You have an unrealized capital gain of $90,000.
	The theory is, I can't see it ever going anywhere, but tax you on the $90,000 unrealized gain as though there's a deemed disposition at the end of the fiscal year.
	Okay.
	My first question is, okay, great.
	Will I get a credit or a refund on an unrealized loss?
	That would be the first question on stocks.
	But then, Robert, I guess answer what would be that question.
	I guess the government takes, but they never give it.
	But then explain how it is intended to go for property tax.
	So constitutionally in the United States, there was great fear of any direct tax on the people, which was mostly focused on a head tax, a capitation tax, because this was the way in which a lot of English taxes were done and were hated.
	And so the agreement in the Constitution was that the taxes almost all had to be taxes that were foreign, external taxes, hence tariffs were the primary funding mechanism of the U.S. government beginning in the government.
	The provisions inside the Constitution said that if there was a direct tax or an indirect tax in certain cases, it had to be uniform or apportioned as the case may be.
	And in particular, apportionment means they would have to go state by state.
	You would have different income taxes in New York than Alabama.
	So this is politically unmanageable.
	And they designed it.
	They poison-pilled it, knowing it would be politically unmanageable to ever try to do such a tax.
	So the income tax only got around that.
	By first, when the first income tax went to the Supreme Court, they said it was unconstitutional in the 1890s.
	They previously said a carriage tax was constitutional, but that was on very questionable grounds.
	But this was in the 1890s.
	They say, no, you can't do that.
	It has to be abortion.
	And so we passed the 16th Amendment.
	The 16th Amendment says income is exempt from the apportionment clause.
	The Supreme Court comes in three years later, and the chief judge happens to be the judge who dissented in that old 1890s income tax case.
	And he says, all the 16th Amendment means is my old dissenting opinion was right.
	And what that opinion was is whether or not you could tax profit severed from the source.
	So it's not a property tax if you're taxing a privilege or gain severed from the source.
	To give an idea, when they originally sold this, they said it wasn't tax a hair on a working man's head.
	They said it was only going to be like an old income at a time in common parlance that, you know, what rich people got off their estate.
	It wasn't everyday wages and labor and whatnot.
	And so from that point forward, the Congress decided to make real fuzzy what the definition of the word income is to this day, to where the word income is not defined.
	Income is what income is what income is.
	That's what income is in the law.
	And why?
	Because they've always wanted to expand it to tax property.
	If people ever wondered, why don't we have a nationwide federal property tax?
	Because it's unconstitutional.
	So they were trying to do it as a wealth tax.
	But that was very obviously a property tax.
	So every legal scholar that looked at it, for the most part...
	Recognize that that would not pass constitutional muster.
	So now they've repackaged the wealth tax as a billionaire tax on unrealized gains.
	The problem is that's not gains separate from the source.
	That's taxing property.
	That's what it is.
	It's unconstitutional.
	But they're going to try it.
	No, it's politically popular.
	Because don't worry, we're only taxing billionaires.
	The goal is to tax everybody's home.
	An IRS person once put it this way in the 1930s.
	They actually wanted to propose, under Roosevelt, taxing people for making their own food, for cleaning their own clothes, for cleaning up their own house, because they said there was a labor value to that.
	And an IRS commissioner once said, people shouldn't complain about what we tax.
	They should be happy about what we don't tax.
	So this is where they're trying to go, but it's patently unconstitutional.
	As soon as it passes, it will be challenged in the courts.
	And the question is whether the Supreme Court will do its job or not.
	So when they announced that, I didn't think to the property tax because I guess in one way my mind had already been there in Canada.
	I'm not sure if it's in all of Canada, but in Quebec, and I think it's Canada.
	You don't get taxed on the sale of your primary residence.
	So a lot of people...
	You know, they flip primary residences.
	You buy, you do some work, you sell it as a profit, and you pay no tax on them.
	The government is complete.
	Say it again?
	Sweet gig.
	Oh, no, it's a sweet gig.
	But the government is getting wise to it.
	And they're alluding to the fact that this is the reason for which, you know, property value keeps going up.
	People can't afford a house.
	And I started thinking, look, I've never done it.
	I've owned one house.
	And I'm not going to get into my own personal decisions.
	When I, you know, first of all, COVID happens.
	I see that Supreme Leader Francois Legault in Quebec puts his house up for sale and it's sold for five million, give or take.
	I said, these guys know something more than I do.
	I'm like, it's not going to be long before they start to come after people for property tax on their primary residence.
	I mean, they're going to have to find some money somewhere.
	Jagmeet Singh is going to have to find money somewhere.
	And so I never made the connection, Robert, as you did, between taxing unrealized gains.
	And property tax, in a way, because that was already a concern to me.
	What is an average person's biggest unrealized gain?
	Their home.
	It's their home.
	Exactly.
	But in the states, though, do you not pay taxes on the capital gains on your primary residence when you sell them?
	Or does it vary by state?
	Because then you've had gain severed from the source.
	And that's what makes it constitutional.
	Once you're not doing...
	People ask how they get away with estate taxes.
	They disguise it as the privilege of inheritance.
	That's how they got around that crap.
	But that's another story for another day.
	But putting that aside, this is much more clearly unconstitutional.
	It's all an effort to be able to tax property.
	They've always wanted to tax unrealized gains.
	Because as you point out, you may go up or maybe down the next year.
	And all of a sudden, are you going to get a refund on the tax you paid when the stock crashes?
	No, you don't.
	Let me just, I'm going to pull this up.
	I'm not tan.
	Well, I might be tan, but I'm not quite this tan.
	Okay, this is bad lighting.
	It's a freaking bad, one of those, I've never seen a light that looks like this.
	It's like those, the ones that look like a mushroom cloud, but upside down.
	So no, and Barnes is very healthy and not, I think Barnes is normal.
	I look like a freaking angry orange.
	Annoying orange.
	I look like, I am the annoying orange tonight.
	So yeah, how would, conceptually, they're gonna tax you on unrealized gains.
	There's not a snowball's chance in hell they're going to credit you on unrealized losses.
	And if they do, they're going to make you wait so long that you forget about it.
	What is the counterpart?
	Will they credit refund on unrealized losses or allow those to be carried forward, assuming you can make it forward after you have unrealized losses?
	That's not their plan.
	I mean, think about it for property tax.
	If you paid higher property tax last year at the local level and then your house went down, did the county give you a refund?
	In America?
	No.
	So the same thing is what they're planning on doing.
	They're disguising it as a billionaire's tax.
	It's designed to tax your home, tax you, do an unconstitutional property tax.
	Oh, phenomenal.
	Okay, I guess I don't know how we got into this from the Ukraine.
	I think we're done with Russia, Ukraine for the evening.
	The property tax is preposterous.
	My only warning in Canada is expect...
	Expect one of the next big changes to be taxing your capital gains on your primary residence.
	I don't know what effect that would have on housing prices.
	Currently, they're banning foreigners from apparently buying property in Canada.
	Yeah, they're going to make it more strict.
	I don't believe that that's the only source of the problem, and they're going to try to build more property.
	Well, they're checking up interest rates.
	Housing values are going to go down sooner or later.
	Or they're not, because if indeed the people who are buying these properties have the money, they don't give a sweet bugger all about interest rates because they're buying cash to begin with.
	Look, I don't know.
	I don't know how it works.
	All that I know is the government finds a way to give themselves a 26% salary increase while everyone else is getting...
	By the way, someone in the chat said, do they tax your stimulus check?
	In Canada, and people don't appreciate this until tax season comes.
	You get taxed on your government $2,000 a month, CERB, whatever it's called.
	You get taxed on that.
	I think they chose not to do that in the U.S., but I'm not certain of that, but I'm pretty sure.
	But they might.
	I mean, they've got so many financial problems.
	But going back to the utility of looking to sources that have been accurate in their explanations or predictions, the Whitmer jury verdict came back.
	And I think we can proudly say, like, Darren Beatty did great reporting on this.
	Julie Kelly did great reporting on this.
	But the very first people to say this was an entrapment and smack the entrapment was right here on this show.
	Robert, do not give me credit where I don't deserve it.
	You said it first.
	I started looking into it, and I said, you know, the man makes a good point.
	And by the way, I've been fishing through.
	It's a great thing.
	I have a lot of private conversations and I have public ones.
	I don't make the private ones public, period.
	I've been going back, though, October 2020.
	I'm saying I'm getting called names.
	I was like, it smells fishy.
	I'm seeing interesting stuff.
	And then, Robert, I pulled up that highlight.
	It is predictive.
	Predictive accuracy is probably the best measure of...
	Accuracy.
	I mean, it's the best measure of what to follow.
	When people become consistently bad, fine.
	When they're occasionally bad, whatever.
	And when they don't make predictions, but they just gather information, that's another thing.
	Day one, you were on this.
	You said, holy crap, this, I don't want to analogize it to Russia-Ukraine, but I'm going to.
	You said, day one.
	And I remember your thought pattern.
	You said, if this were to be a setup, if this were to be, what would you look for?
	Timing?
	Opportunity.
	Benefit versus harm.
	All of the same things to apply mutandus mutandus to every other big news story, not just Russia, Ukraine.
	It was 2020 elections.
	It was, it was, I don't know if it was, it was right about the time of the 86-45 controversy.
	It was right about the time when Gretchen Whitmer was quite literally causing the excess deaths of the elderly in long-term healthcare facilities.
	Just around that time, that lo and behold, she's the victim.
	And they found, I don't want to call them the words, it's court filings.
	One of them was called Captain Autist.
	The other one was called, you know, these individuals who, they're vulnerable individuals.
	That's how I would call it.
	You could tell from day one.
	There were people who lived in their basement with their mothers and relatives.
	I mean, these were not, these were social media people.
	These were not grand planners.
	And everything about it smacked and screamed of entrapment.
	And that's what a Michigan jury, for those that don't know, concluded.
	They mistrialed on one person, not guilty on everything else, not guilty on everybody else.
	And why?
	That could only happen if they did.
	And this was with a judge who limited the amount of evidence that could have come in that helped to help the defense.
	This was a defense that wasn't as robust as it could have been.
	Because of those judicial rulings.
	And they don't even know the whole connections.
	But it was a complete vindication of the entrapment reality that took place and a complete condemnation.
	Even BuzzFeed News ran a story on it.
	So it was saying, this is embarrassing.
	Humiliating for the government.
	This was pure entrapment.
	And one of the key people involved in entrapping those kids in Michigan was moved to D.C. and has a key integral role in the January 6th cases.
	And you have to ask, what does that say about the January 6th cases?
	Robert, you're going to get back to that in a second.
	I don't see any of the screens.
	Do you see both you and I and this accurately right now?
	Okay, so this right here, holy...
	This is Julie Kelly's article from AG, America's Greatness, which I'm sure is qualified as extreme far-right on Wikipedia.
	Jurors heard defendants make inflammatory and, on some occasions, violent comments about a Democratic governor who is up for re-election this year.
	This is a typo.
	Fox lived at the time in the dilapidated cellar of a Grand Rapids vacuum repair shop with no running water or toilet.
	Chappelle, who I...
	I want to say this.
	Yeah, Chappelle is one of the paid informants.
	Texted Fox at least 1,000 times between June...
	I'll finish the sentence.
	Chappelle texted Fox at least 1,000 times between June and early October, cultivating a close relationship...
	With the otherwise friendless and sparsely employed outcast, on at least five occasions, Chappelle offered Fox $5,000 credit card, which Fox repeatedly refused.
	Chappelle, by the way, Chappelle, let me just make sure I got it.
	Here we go.
	Chappelle.
	His work over a six-month period, Chappelle, a truck driver from the U.S. Postal Service subcontinent, was compensated at least $60,000 in cash and gifts, such as a new laptop, tires, and a smartwatch.
	Chappelle is being paid by the FBI, and in order to entrap, and I'm saying it now, in order to entrap Fox, was promising him or asking him.
	Offering him a $5,000 prepaid credit card that Fox denied.
	What did you think, by the way?
	I'm going to get angry in a second because I put this together and I was actually livid.
	Hold on.
	How do I get back to the stream?
	I was actually livid.
	I took Barnes out.
	Son of a gun.
	Hold on.
	Stop.
	Chappelle is a paid informant for the FBI getting $60,000 a year offering Fox, who he's entrapping at this point.
	A prepaid $5,000 credit card while entrapping him, while texting him a thousand times over months to create a relationship, and Fox still says no.
	What did Chappelle think Fox would do with that prepaid $5,000 credit card if he were a bona fide kidnapper and whatever?
	What do you think?
	He would have eagerly said, yes, I'm going to go buy the munitions, I'm going to go buy whatever I need, and we're going to do this.
	This guy...
	The informant working with the FBI at the direction of the FBI, getting paid $60,000 at least to do it.
	Then take some of that $60,000, here's my $5,000 investment, to Fox.
	Here's a credit card.
	Take it.
	The guy says no.
	Julie Kelly, thank you for bringing it up.
	Thank you for these details.
	Robert, tell me why I'm right to be so angry.
	Well, I mean, it was an outrageous case, and it was one of the worst cases of entrapment ever.
	They launched it by the FBI right before the November election in a key swing state with a nationwide story.
	The media propagandized the heck out of it.
	It was, once again, fake news.
	It was the FBI.
	It ultimately had more than a dozen agents and informants involved.
	Agents that, of course, ended up being implicated in other criminal behaviors involving sexual perversion.
	No shock.
	People are discovering what kind of people Disney.
	And that our FBI knew about a large part of this problem, not only at Disney, but in various schools of disproportionate numbers of perverts, sexual abusers.
	And it's the same FBI director, people, personnel, hierarchy, that covered that up and trapped these kids.
	And all you had to do was know the FBI's history and see these kids and listen to the facts of the story and know...
	There was a very high chance it was pure entrapment.
	And I got a lot of blowback at the time.
	Oh, the FBI wouldn't do that.
	These people got to wake up.
	The Dragnet TV era is over.
	The FBI was created by J. Edgar Hoover, and it looks more like him today than ever before.
	And I got some of the heat as well.
	You could say justice dresses up like J. Edgar Hoover at a drag party.
	I'll tell you this.
	Robert, it was...
	I got some heat as well.
	And you get called an extremist.
	And there's part of me that says, okay, I mentioned it on a stream, I think it was yesterday morning.
	Someone says, okay, the FBI can approach me all day long.
	I'm not going to agree to commit a crime.
	And I was like, yeah, that's why they're not going to approach you.
	Part of me says these people are vulnerable.
	These people might be actually mentally ill.
	And I say that without judgment.
	They might be schizophrenic, bipolar, whatever.
	They might be down on their luck.
	Here, give me some money.
	I'll do anything.
	People...
	People do, you know, things for money.
	They'll do other things for money if they're desperate enough.
	And my question is this.
	Okay, take for granted that they're vulnerable, that they're downtrodden, that they're whatever.
	When you see that someone's talking angry and like, you know, talking about stupid things, do you, and this is a personal question I'm asking myself, do you go and try to get them help if you're brave enough to confront them?
	Or if you're the FBI, do you go in there and try to milk them to commit a crime so that you can then bust it and say, look, we busted a crime.
	Robert, give us, you know, I know you can go for an hour on this.
	They manufactured this.
	They invented the crime.
	These weren't a bunch of guys even, you know, like weirdo, wacko losers sitting around plotting a crime and the FBI hears about it and then they go in and then they're overaggressive.
	The FBI came up with the crime for them to commit.
	That's what happened.
	And by the way, the earlier crime they were trying to get him to commit was to raid the statehouse.
	Where have we heard trying to get people to raid a Capitol?
	Where have we heard that otherwise?
	Which is a good transition potentially in the January 6th case.
	Well, you've got to do it now, Robert, because someone messaged me and said one of the FBI agents in the Whitmer case is also, I don't know, apparently involved in the January 6th.
	I don't know the facts yet.
	A key FBI supervisor of this entrapment plot in Michigan got promoted after it to D.C. where he's now a key supervisor in the January 6th cases.
	Anybody would think that's a coincidence?
	So a defendant got a judge to do a bench trial.
	So I guess the government went along, which is not a bad idea.
	The judge is a Trump appointee.
	I've been critical of him in other cases, but he's okay.
	He's not terrible.
	He's made some good rulings, some questionable rulings.
	But he's not a Democratic appointee in D.C., who have been almost universally, sadly, hostile, just for, in my view, politicized reasons, in ways they wouldn't be if the party politics was different.
	If these were the Kavanaugh people who raided the Kavanaugh Capitol, you would see a very different attitude from these same Democratic judges getting on their high horse about this.
	But the government has to go along with a waiver of a jury trial in a criminal case.
	Apparently they did.
	And what happened was an FBI agent took the stand and admitted that there were a bunch of law enforcement at the Capitol waving people in all the time.
	And so that's why the judge said, well, this guy, how is he supposed to be convicted of trespass if law enforcement at the Capitol was waving him in?
	Come on in.
	Come on in.
	And so, you know, it's not like the next case with a guy.
	He didn't wave that fellow onto the porch.
	And by the way, he ended up not indicted like we predicted.
	So the judge decided he's not guilty.
	So the big acquittal, that was good on its own terms, but even bigger...
	Was the evidence that came out, because that evidence, you can guarantee that witness, is going to be subpoenaed by everybody else facing trespass charges.
	I want to find the video from Roland Martin.
	I used it in one of my earlier videos.
	I won't be able to find it.
	I didn't know who Roland S. Martin was, but even he was...
	Apparently he's a...
	He was going after the January 6th event as though, from the angle of race, to say, if it was a BLM and they were there, the police would have never let them in.
	But Roland S. Martin, in one of his podcasts, and I clipped it for my highlights, said, the police have got a lot of questions to answer.
	How do you let them in?
	And he showed the footage, removing barricades, letting them in.
	And Robert, I said it when...
	The Q shaman Angelli pleaded guilty and hoped for the same good grace of the court that Ty Garber in Whitmer did.
	Plead guilty.
	Be merciful on me.
	Five years in freaking jail.
	And now they did the same thing to the QAnon shaman.
	But even this guy...
	Roland Martin was like, you got a lot of answers to provide.
	You opened the freaking barricades.
	He said, what's the point of barricades if they don't block the people?
	When you open them up and you let them in.
	Okay, Robert, my question is this, and it's twofold because it goes for Jan 6 and for Whitmer.
	Do the people who pleaded guilty and got their asses handed to them and are now in jail for five years, can they go back on that, seeing the way others are now being acquitted after evidence is adduced?
	Generally, that ship has sailed.
	David Stockman went through that.
	David Stockman was falsely prosecuted by Southern District of New York, and a bunch of people took plea deals, and Stockman didn't.
	Ultimately, he got all the charges dismissed, but the people that took plea deals, very difficult for them to back out of it at that point.
	It's generally hard.
	Not impossible, but generally hard.
	By the way, is the video audio feed better now?
	You look quite sharp.
	It's not better for me.
	I'm still Orange Viva bad.
	Well, I'll just make sure for the CIA guys listening in not to mention Ukraine.
	Now you just froze.
	The second you said that, Robert, you froze.
	It's all a coincidence, folks.
	Even YouTube.
	And by the way, this is Paul Barnes.
	This is Paul Barnes, just in case anybody's got any scopes out there.
	There's Paul Barnes, not Robert.
	Sean, by the way, someone said Sean got three years.
	Unless his time served counts twofold, he got years of his life for a non-violent trespass.
	But Robert, so, bottom line, can I swear?
	No kids.
	They're fucked, Robert.
	They're in jail.
	They can't take back their plea deal.
	They have to show a different fact, and this wouldn't constitute a different fact, generally speaking.
	Can you imagine Ty Garvin?
	This is going to Whitmer.
	Ty Garvin was their chief.
	You know, he pleaded guilty, agreed to cooperate, talked about how the FBI was good and, you know, all beautiful.
	He's in jail for five, I think it's five years, give or take, I don't know, it doesn't matter, years.
	These guys who pleaded innocent, went through hell, went through a trial, were acquitted.
	And the other one, I guess, one or two of them are going to go through a new trial, and I think they found new charges on the others.
	They're there, live with it.
	We said it at the time.
	They're going to regret it.
	Yeah, no doubt about it.
	Well, talk about people going through difficulty to get screwed.
	People who had challenged the federal employee vaccine mandate, one at the district court level, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a split decision, there were two Democratic appointees, so you could see it coming, didn't kick the case on grounds that the vaccine mandate was fine.
	That's what the media represented.
	Instead, they kicked the case, of course, on standing grounds.
	Nobody can sue, of course.
	I believe they will be seeking a petition for hearing en banc.
	They should win that.
	If they don't get that, they'll go up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court is going to have to take some of these cases.
	We'll see which ones they do.
	As I've always said about standing...
	It's a bogus doctrine invented by courts in the 1920s to play Pontius Pilate so they can avoid judgment.
	For all my conservative friends out there that start standing, tell me where it is in the Constitution.
	Because that's what the conservatives, I mean, the traditional conservative, if it's not in the Constitution, Barnes, we shouldn't have it.
	And then when I get into arguments about other civil invasion of privacy claims, etc.
	Like, okay, what's standing in the Constitution?
	It says, is there a case, a controversy?
	How is not a case or a controversy present?
	Clearly, both are present.
	So the standing is a made-up doctrine by lazy judges to avoid doing their job.
	And it's another sad excuse of it.
	But hopefully, by the way, there's other courts' injunctions on the federal employment vaccine mandate that are still in force.
	And I think this one will be overturned, ultimately.
	But it shows how dangerous the standing doctrine is.
	This conservative judge should start disbanding state doctrine.
	It was made up in the 1920s.
	It's not originalist jurisdiction.
	Robert, I don't know if YouTube has anything against what you just said, but you went, to quote the chat, full Max Headroom on that section.
	Live with it, people.
	I know it's not ideal.
	But, Robert, it's not that I'm less interested in that, but I happen to be just because I'm so...
	The Whitmer, I want to know the repercussions.
	Sips.
	Sips.
	Probably done.
	The FBI will do nothing.
	The Justice Department will do nothing about it.
	They'll just write it off.
	Now, the House Republicans now do something about it.
	All this time.
	Suddenly they're going to get proactive.
	A little late, but better late than...
	So we'll see.
	There are repercussions in Congress, but I'll believe that when I see it.
	I'm sure Lindsey Graham is right on.
	Robert, he's angered.
	I don't think it's YouTube, by the way.
	I actually think it's his internet connection.
	He's angered them so much now.
	He's frozen.
	Oh, no, he moved now.
	Okay.
	So you don't expect any...
	How many times have authorities been sanctioned for entrapment?
	I think the answer was twice that you can recall.
	I mean, just for a period.
	In over 2000 judicially documented...
	Only two products are disappointed.
	The odds are extremely...
	So all that's safe, people.
	It was two times there has been sanctions for entrapment.
	Don't expect it this time.
	Now, good news from the Supreme Court.
	On the two pieces, one more case in what's called this pocket, they enjoined the attempt to...
	But the bigger decision, the 6-3 decision, where the three conservatives are actually in dissent, I disagree, but I understand where they're coming from, which is that you do have a right to bring a malicious prosecution claim without being proven innocent at the trial.
	That if any prosecution is brought against you and for any reason does not result in conviction, Then you can bring a malicious prosecution claim without having to prove you would have won acquittal at trial.
	So that was, I think, a correct ruling.
	The dissent was about whether or not the Fourth Amendment authorizes a malicious prosecution claim.
	I consider it part of the entire Constitution.
	You could put it in the First Amendment.
	You could put it, I think, as a part of self-defense in the Second Amendment.
	You could put it in the Fifth Amendment for due process.
	You could put it in the Sixth Amendment.
	To certain degrees in terms of implicit in the right to counsel and right to trial by jury.
	You could put it in the Ninth Amendment.
	You could put it in the rights reserved to the people in the 10th Amendment.
	So there's a lot of different places you could put it.
	But I think it is constitutionally rooted that the state can't do most.
	And this is where I disagree with the dissent.
	And I think Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the right side with Roberts and the liberals.
	In saying you can bring a lawsuit against the federal government for malicious prosecution, federal prosecutors or state prosecutors for violating the Fourth Amendment at a minimum if you falsely prosecute someone.
	Because by definition, that's a false arrest.
	So that's why I disagree with the dissent.
	I get they're concerned about overexpanding certain constitutional protections.
	But if it doesn't apply to malicious prosecution, what does it apply to?
	There's no more egregious example.
	Like what these people went through in the Whitmer case of misuse of power against a citizen's civil rights than malicious prosecution.
	So I agree.
	So very good decision, in my view, by the Supreme Court to recognize your right to bring that without letting the prosecutor weasel out of it by not having a jury trial on the criminal case.
	I just want to bring this up, people.
	I don't give a sweet bugger all about anyone's vaccination status.
	And I'm telling you this, I'm not blocking this because...
	I only recognize...
	I only identify as vaccinated.
	The only reason I'm bringing that up, I'm blocking all of that because it's quite clearly as bot trolls as the Russian sex bots.
	Because for whatever the reason, there's been 12 or 15...
	I don't know if it's a meme.
	I'm blocking it because that's as much of a troll as the Russian sex bots.
	Except...
	At least the Russian sex bots, in theory, have something to offer at the end of the day.
	So if I see that, I'm just blocking it because I've seen 12 accounts doing that in tandem at the same time.
	That's spam.
	You're a Russian sex bot, but you're not selling sex.
	You're selling discrimination based on vaccination status.
	And I don't care.
	It's none of my business.
	So leaving that aside.
	Robert Jancics, Whitmer.
	Malicious prosecution.
	I want to get the pictures of the Burger King lawsuit up so we can talk about that.
	In the interim, what can you bring in now so that I can go get that lawsuit?
	We're seeing parallel suits because Whole Foods was sued because they said they've had these wonderful, wholesome, chocolate-covered ice cream bars.
	And it turned out...
	That just wasn't mostly chocolate on the ice cream bars.
	And so somebody sued.
	There's been a lot of these suits, Subway, other people, where people are like...
	So I think courts see it as plaintiffs' lawyers trolling for easy class actions.
	But I think a fair number of the people suing are really just ticked off that they were lied to about the product.
	But what's happening is courts are dismissing these cases.
	So they dismissed the case against Whole Foods, even though it was admitted that basically it was palm oil.
	Mostly.
	Not chocolate that was on the outside.
	They don't put that on the advertisement for wholesome, organic, the best, the purest, all that jazz that Whole Foods pitches.
	But Whole Foods is going to get to dodge responsibility because the judge said, well, you should have read the small print.
	You should have inferred from all the ingredients on the small print that the advertisement was bogus.
	So they're letting these companies off.
	But it hasn't stopped people from suing Burger King because those big burgers...
	Don't look like a scene from the movie Falling Down.
	It's not like the advertisement.
	So, Robert, look, I say I have a good, you know, a funny joke.
	There's first world problems, but people often invoke that trope to say you shouldn't complain about anything if it's not, you know, an egregious, terrible problem.
	But the reality is I don't like the trope because it separates the world into the first world and whatever they think the option is.
	The other problem is, you know, if you pay taxes, You don't expect certain problems.
	So write off people complaining about reasonable expectations as first-world problems.
	Yeah, you're undermining what people are entitled to expect based on a functioning society.
	But when I read a lawsuit like this, do we see this lawsuit right now?
	We see it.
	I'm scrolling down, people.
	This is seriously a class-action lawsuit.
	I don't know where it's gotten to.
	You'll update us.
	The class of plaintiffs are seeking certification on behalf of all people who bought Burger King burgers based on advertising that didn't match the advertising expectation.
	And my only joke with this lawsuit is this is what they said, the burger, you know, this is how they advertised it.
	And this is what it looked like.
	And I'm thinking to myself, I don't eat Burger King.
	I don't like this crap.
	I find it all disgusting.
	I don't want that much bread.
	I don't want...
	You know, whatever the heck is in that beef.
	But that doesn't look that bad.
	It doesn't look exactly the same.
	If you were expecting it to, I might say, you know, the FBI might be coming to your house sooner than later if you thought the burger you got at a massive multinational chain was going to match the picture.
	But it didn't even look that bad.
	Like, that's pretty good.
	I mean, first of all, it looks like a smiley face.
	But, Robert, what are the merit to these cases?
	You know, at large where, you know, the bag of chips, it's a big bag of chips, but they clearly sell it by gram and not by volume.
	So you think you're buying a big bag of chips, but it says 37 grams in it, so you open it up and it's 50% air.
	What is the merit to these lawsuits at large?
	Well, one of the interesting things is companies to get around the inflation problem are shrinking the amount.
	Like something used to be a 16-ounce bag.
	Now it's a 14-ounce bag.
	But it's made to look like the 16-ounce bag.
	So you don't see as much of the inflationary impact.
	Oh, look, it's the same price.
	You don't know they've shrunk the product.
	Just go to the grocery store and see how much of that is happening.
	But I think it will run the same problem as that the courts are hostile.
	To false advertising claims around food.
	Even though we have more false advertising around food than probably any product people consume.
	Because people have no idea what's going into it.
	In fact, they think it's wholesome.
	They think it's organic.
	They think it's natural.
	Whatever it is.
	Like those burgers.
	Those burgers look really fresh.
	And they look like an In-N-Out burger.
	And they look like they're outside of the bread.
	And then you get it and it looks more like one of those double cheeseburgers from McDonald's.
	And so it's not quite...
	So far, almost all of these cases, courts have dismissed.
	And there's probably a little bit of fair criticism that plaintiff's lawyers are trolling for cases they think will make them easy cash.
	And that judges will be particularly hostile for that reason.
	But in my view, the judges are going out of their way to defend the food industry in the United States, which is not an industry, in my view, worthy of the degree of defense the courts will give it to them.
	True, but where I would believe is if they say 100% pure beef and it's 20% filler, yes, there.
	Agreed.
	Materially false.
	I don't expect anything to look like a gosh darn picture when they've got...
	First of all, those pictures, for anybody who knows, they're typically not even actual product.
	It's potatoes.
	It's all manufactured.
	Maybe I just assume people know more than they do.
	I don't think I do that.
	It's kind of like suing somebody over being catfished.
	It don't look like the photo.
	Some of these burgers don't look like the photo.
	You thought you were getting a model, and you got something a little different.
	It's a funny thing you mentioned Whole Foods, Robert, and I know that you have your issue with Trader Joe's, but as I'm looking up the Burger King, I come across...
	Trader Joe's, it's an older suit, but I found it while I was looking this up, and I was like, oh, that's funny.
	Trader Joe's is being sued because apparently the mercury levels, are you familiar with this, in some of their products are like several fold above what is deemed to be safe?
	That wouldn't surprise me, because that's been an ongoing issue.
	There's a lot of chemicals, I mean, people don't realize how much they manipulate products.
	With chemical factories in New Jersey that are meant to manipulate your nose so that you think you're eating something different than what you are.
	There's a lot of...
	It happens when you commercialize and corporateize American farming.
	I'm just not...
	Of those two trends.
	Bill Gates wants us to eat synthetic beef in the future.
	And, you know, Klaus Schwab wants us to kill our cats, eat, you know, ants.
	So, you know, these are people I don't want in positions of power, but I think the courts are going to facilitate them rather than come down on these various food industry components because they're not overly pathetic for some of the reasons you articulate and some of the reasons I explain.
	And I'll bring this up because just so nobody thinks I'm I know that because I know, Robert, you've had your issues with Trader Joe's for employment issues or for, you know, RONA related issues.
	Lawsuit five.
	Let me just see if this is it.
	Insider.
	We all see this?
	Five Trader Joe's meals contained concerning levels of lead from spinach to pesto tortellini lost through the ledges.
	And bottom line, they did tests, or they alleged they did.
	It's all allegations, people.
	It's all allegations.
	The frozen pallet paneer also exceeded the FDA's recommended limit of 12, I think that's micrograms of lead.
	Per day for adults with 16.2, some minerals are good, some minerals are bad.
	Lead, it was not mercury, it was lead, my apologies.
	It's an accumulative heavy metal, not good.
	It's not iron and it's not magnesium or whatever.
	Other dishes like the riced cauliflower stir fry, whatever, totally.
	It exceeded, came in just under the FDA limit, but that's per unit.
	The FDA calculates maximum daily lead limits based on how much lead a person would need to consume every day to reach a blood lead level of, I think that's 5 micrograms per deciliter.
	Whatever.
	Bottom line, I was not making that up.
	It has nothing to do with Robert's...
	It's the nature of the commercialization and corporatization of food supply.
	I mean, this was inevitable.
	When you do that, when it's no longer your local farmer that's producing things ideally organically as much as possible, naturally as much as possible, they're going to experiment with putting all kinds of crap in your food.
	And the question is whether there'll be legal remedy.
	Theoretically, there should be under false advertising laws, and there's more and more people bringing suit based on it, but the courts have shown.
	A lot of hostility to it so far.
	So there might need to be specific legislative reform in the future to push back against the court's intransigence on this.
	But speaking of what they can say to you, a lot of people had asked about the Smith-Munt Act and Obama in 2013 signing a bill that changed that law.
	And what that law was is at the time of the Cold War, We decided to create a foreign propaganda arm that offers some information affairs, had their own version.
	Actually, they owned in secret publishing houses, put out books actually on Ukraine, for example, as a topic that pitched crazy mythologies about the region.
	We had the same thing, but there was concern about competition with domestic news sources, and there was concern about propagandizing the U.S. audience.
	So the law limited access to this, and there was frankly concern.
	We didn't want a lot of Americans knowing what lies we were telling around the world.
	That's the other thing.
	It was easier to lie back then.
	By the way, this was almost all subcontracted out.
	You had Radio Free Europe and Voice of America and all that, but most of it was a billion-dollar-a-year kind of budget, and that was just what was on the books, not to mention what was off the books.
	Operation Mockingbird and all the rest.
	We were buying up journalists everywhere.
	Don't have to buy them now.
	They'll whore for free on war these days.
	But in 2013, they changed the law to allow the U.S. government To directly spend money on propaganda to the U.S. domestic audience.
	And that is, in fact, what happened.
	There's fact checks out there that say, well, it's not exact.
	That's exactly what it is.
	I have law review articles that say that's exactly what it is.
	So it is a problem because the U.S. government should not be spending taxpayer dollars to lie to us any more than they already do.
	I mean, don't they lie to us enough?
	Why are taxpayer dollars going to this?
	The funny thing is, I was going to bring up the Wikipedia entry to explain what the...
	Jeez, Louise.
	The Mont Act.
	What's the first part?
	Now I just blanked.
	I was going to bring it up to say...
	The Smith Mont Act.
	I was like, I don't need Wikipedia.
	Barnes is the encyclopedia.
	But when it comes to the fact check...
	Wait, guys, guys, guys.
	I'm just going to bring up one.
	I'll bring up one.
	No, Obama did not.
	I haven't seen it.
	Obama did not sign a law allowing...
	They're going to ask me for a freaking cookie thing, aren't they?
	I don't want a cookie.
	Claim.
	Former President Obama...
	Robin, you see this?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	He signed a law in 2012 allowing government propaganda in the U.S. and making it, quote, quote, this is where the fact check is going to lie to you.
	Quote.
	Perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people.
	All fact checks, for the most part, are strawmans.
	They're all strawmans.
	And for those that don't know, strawman is where you take your opponent's argument and you create a caricature of it that's a strawman that's easy to knock down.
	And you don't actually address the substance of argument.
	You address a strawman version of the argument.
	And that's what this fact check does.
	Because nobody said you made it legal to lie to the people.
	They said it made it legal to spend money on propaganda to the U.S. No, no, Robert.
	They didn't say it legally legal to lie.
	They said perfectly legal to lie.
	Right, yeah, exactly.
	Perfectly legal for the media.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	They said two things.
	They said perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people.
	Obama signed legislation that changed the U.S. Information and Education Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mondag.
	The amendment made it possible for some materials created by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the nation's foreign broadcasting agency, to be disseminated in the U.S. Oh, my sweet, merciful goodness.
	They basically just admitted it right here.
	They admitted it's true.
	The amendment made it possible for the U.S. government.
	To disseminate propaganda in the U.S. That's what they just said.
	They didn't make it perfectly legal to lie, purposely lie, but they did that.
	It's unfreaking believable, the level of dishonesty.
	And that's why I remind people about the war.
	If they lie to you about that, what else are they lying to you about?
	The last place they're going to tell you the truth is about a war.
	But not just that.
	People...
	Who now say, yeah, they lied to me, the media.
	Fox News lied to me about Arizona in 2020.
	They didn't lie.
	Sorry, they were too early.
	CNN, MSNBC, I can't even think of the other craft stations, lied about the Russia collusion.
	2020, they all lied about everything COVID-related.
	They lied about the potential origins.
	They suppressed that information.
	They lied about Hunter Biden's laptop.
	Except for the New York Post.
	But now, everybody's like, I shot on Fox News about Ukraine, so it's got to be true.
	I mean, I don't like calling people idiots, but there has to be a word for someone who doesn't learn from their mistakes.
	I don't think idiot's the word.
	Gullible, naive, willfully blind.
	Idiot, I think, has a definition of someone with an IQ of less than 60. I mean, they might have changed that.
	But you have to be deliberately naive or gullible to say they lied to me about Hunter Biden, Nixon.
	Oh, God.
	By the way, Chris Phillips, he's going to come on at some point next week.
	I think it's going to be Thursday.
	The young individual who asked Stetler the question, he's coming on.
	We're going to talk.
	And it's not going to be like the one-liner, hey, Bart Simpson, do the I-didn't-do-it gig.
	He's in school now.
	I want to know what school is like at this point.
	What's university like?
	But these people have lied to you about everything and anything for the last five years at least, and you know it, and now you choose to believe everything and anything they're saying right now.
	Fly the flag, change your avatar, and then call Barnes and me, by extension.
	I'm not throwing Barnes under the bus.
	You know, call us, whatever.
	Idiots.
	Speaking of various censorship efforts that are afoot, Elon Musk purportedly bought, well, did buy, a big share of Twitter.
	And the big question is whether he's going to change Twitter.
	And it really reflects the very deeply divided debate about Elon Musk.
	Because the people that have been shorting Tesla stock for forever to their great detriment, and others have said...
	He's not who people think he is.
	And his supporters see him as a guy who's one of a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-century genius mind that is going to follow through on his promises.
	I have publicly said I'll believe it when I see it just because some of the biggest shareholders in Twitter are also some of the biggest shareholders in Tesla.
	And him grandstanding the way he has dramatically boosted the stock of Twitter to the profit of some interesting companies.
	And so given he's neck deep in China, he believes in some eclectic things that I'm not necessarily big fans of, transhumanism and things of this nature.
	Give us an example.
	Because, Robert, here's one situation where I don't disagree with you.
	I'm not there yet to even...
	I go back and forth.
	I mean, my friends that are Tesla supporters are usually the more persuasive side of the Tesla argument, at least as to Musk.
	What he's achieved with SpaceX, what he's achieved with Tesla, do testify to that.
	But I'm not fully convinced.
	I don't know if Tesla's really a $1 trillion company.
	Maybe.
	You know, we'll see.
	I think there's some assumptions in that.
	I'm hearing talk that reminds me of the late 1990s.com boom.
	It's like, okay, maybe he's not perfect.
	And then the other aspect is, I'll see it when he does real action.
	And I think pressure needs to continue to mount.
	Maybe he will make Twitter back to being a consumer-friendly, free speech-oriented zone.
	Or maybe he's just going to grandstand the boost of stock and never get anything done.
	So we'll see.
	I mean, he's made some implicit assurances, and we'll see which side of Elon Musk, which argument about Elon Musk ultimately is proven true.
	I would love to be proven wrong in him to really reform Twitter.
	I just will believe it when I see it when it comes to Musk.
	Now, speaking of Twitter, Trump's suits against Twitter and against Facebook and YouTube have now all been moved to the Northern District of California.
	They've all now been consolidated.
	With one single judge.
	And the US government for Joe Biden has intervened in the case to file amicus briefs arguing why Section 230 is constitutional.
	And that case will most likely ultimately follow whatever happens with Bobby Kennedy's suit against Facebook.
	Will likely shape, will be more impactful than that case is.
	But within the next month or so, we should see a big decision out of the Northern District of California on all of Trump's arguments concerning Section 230 and concerning Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube banning it.
	And so we'll see what the, but that will put political consequence at the front line so that a case like Bobby Kennedy's case or another case the Supreme Court may take.
	And we see what happens.
	Now, the Supreme Court will have a little bit different makeup because Breyer is stepping down.
	Some people asked whether the current nominee automatically goes up on the bench when she was confirmed by the Senate.
	No, that would make 10 justices.
	It's only when Breyer steps down that she steps in.
	And let me rephrase that in a way that people are going to understand.
	People were saying this is the beginning of a court packing because they've confirmed...
	Ketanji Brown Jackson, when Breyer hasn't stepped down, therefore they increased the number.
	And the response to that, Robert, is no, they haven't.
	That's false.
	Clearly so.
	And the reason why is what you just said.
	Yes.
	And another big case that's coming out of San Francisco is a court is allowed to go to trial by jury the public nuisance action that San Francisco brought against the big pharmaceutical companies concerning the opioid epidemic.
	And the idea is that it's a public nuisance because the court limited who could be sued because there were different people who bought different people and all of that.
	But ultimately is allowing part of the case to go forward to the jury trial on whether or not it's a public nuisance.
	The various failures to monitor and the various false advertising that big pharma companies did.
	And it's important to watch this case because if it prevails, it could be a public nuisance suit that any jurisdiction in the country could bring against Big Pharma for their opioid abuse.
	And, you know, what's interesting about this is it depends on the circumstances, but there might be other people that made a certain product recently.
	I'll wait to expand on that once and if it looks like the legal theory will prevail.
	A question going back to Twitter and Elon.
	Wasn't on the menu, but...
	Elon tweeted earlier this week, if you pay for the...
	I didn't know there was a Twitter feature where you can pay $3 a month.
	I don't know what the benefits are.
	But he said if you do it, you should get an automatic blue checkmark.
	It would make bots, bot army, you know, bot sabotage more difficult.
	And then I said, my thought was no, it would actually make it more legitimate.
	You'd get a highly financed campaign like...
	Take the Clinton campaign, for example, where they have billions of dollars Hillary had.
	They can buy the $3 a month and then any trolling would look more legitimate by virtue of the blue checkmark.
	Robert, tell me why I'm smarter than Elon Musk.
	I mean, that's what I think, too.
	I mean, I took it as...
	This sounds like a reason to get Twitter more money.
	That's what I saw when I saw that.
	Somebody would buy a fake Barnes account right away and I'd be singing Russian songs and a little rusky hat and all the rest.
	I did not find that the most persuasive argument out of the gate.
	I see a lot of grandstanding and I get the enthusiasm people have hoping that it means something.
	But for people that have followed him for a long time, do realize there are a lot of critics who claim he doesn't follow through on what he says.
	And so, again, his supporters, strong supporters, but they mostly point to what he's achieved business-wise, not him always backing up what he says.
	So we'll see.
	Now, he's had some notorious battles with the Securities and Exchange Commission that I thought he was on the right side and they were on the wrong side.
	For folks out there, the SEC is expanding their different rules that they're going to start imposing, including they're going to try to start imposing some climate change rules, apparently.
	This is why you don't give companies like SEC is there to make sure somebody doesn't lie to a stockholder.
	They should have no power beyond that.
	They should have no control over cryptocurrencies.
	There should be no grounds for suit against Ripple.
	They should not be involved in all these other areas.
	This is what happens when we let them, when we let, you know, breach.
	Take place and that slowly their powers just expand and expand.
	And now we're seeing it because they're looking at trying to impose ESG requirements on companies, trying to impose climate change requirements on companies.
	These are dangerous, perilous ideas that would hurt companies.
	And they're the same kind of ideas the governor of California just got shot down in the state of California with a judicial watch suit where he tried to stack in racially quota and behavior quota.
	Identity quota, the various corporate boards in California.
	So hopefully that gets pushed back upon and changed.
	Ketanji Brown-Jackson, has she been confirmed?
	Yeah, the three Republicans breached, but not a huge shock.
	Mitt Romney.
	Who voted against her for the Court of Appeals, voted for her for the Supreme Court.
	That was before she had a track record of letting people off for the most heinous crimes ever, with minimal penalty.
	And then Murkowski, Susan Collins.
	Susan Collins is not a big shock.
	She's not up for re-election for another five years.
	She's from Maine, a state that leans very democratic currently in its political environment.
	Murkowski, that was a little risky.
	Alaska, I mean, she's probably going down.
	And it did tell me that Mitt Romney doesn't plan on running for president because he had to have known that that was the end of it.
	He's probably not going to run for re-election in the Senate.
	He got elected to the Senate from Utah because Donald Trump supported him and opposed any primary challenge, even when the Utah convention voted against Romney.
	And, you know, Trump's up to similar activity that's triggered controversy with the support of Dr. Oz in the Pennsylvania Senate race.
	There's some that pointed out the other leading candidate is even worse, but there are a lot of critics, you know, Jack Posobiec, who's from Pennsylvania, and others who say Trump should have either got involved earlier, like Election Wizard, who does great stuff, is part of our VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com board, said that if Trump was being proactive, he should have been more intelligently proactive beforehand.
	In getting a populist candidate in once the populist candidate that was in had to drop out for family reasons.
	But we'll see how it all goes.
	Speaking of families and trials, of course, we've got a big one coming up this week.
	I guess it'll be televised.
	I'm not sure who on the LawTube, Riccator, who's...
	No, my understanding, it's Alita from Legal Bites who's going to be doing...
	Legal Bites!
	It's going to be live streaming the Johnny Depp trial versus Amber Heard.
	Interesting defamation trial.
	I'll check in and out on that trial just because I like to see trials, evidence, cross-examination, direct examination, see some aspects of the jury selection.
	We'll see how that goes.
	And then we got really about three other cases to talk about.
	Just for everyone out there, I might try to make it down to, I think it's in Virginia for the Johnny Depp.
	I wanted to live stream Viva, like Viva Convoy, but Viva on the street.
	We'll see if it happens.
	Life throws you curves.
	You have to deal with it in real time, but maybe, but no promises.
	Robert.
	We're at an hour and 53. What are the three remaining cases?
	Sure.
	So Coinbase has had its various consumers ripped off by various thieves over the years of their Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
	They had put in an arbitration clause in their agreements, and a court said that the nature of the circumstances of those cases is such that they cannot enforce their arbitration clause and can be sued in court.
	So it was a big loss for Coinbase and a big win for those of us that want more jury trials, more public trials than private secret arbitration controlled by arbitrators who are often mediocre and more than a few times, in my view, corrupt.
	There was a big extradition case from an extradition law perspective of an al-Qaeda suspect in Arizona.
	This related to a controversy that arose about how well the Obama administration vetted various Iraqi, Syrian, and Libyan refugees into the United States.
	The Iraqi government has claimed that one of the individuals that was brought back in and given U.S. citizenship, in fact, was, in fact, a member of al-Qaeda and committed murder.
	And terrorist acts against police officers in Iraq.
	Now, there's a lot of legal issues.
	The legal issues were more complicated than the political issues.
	Because the legal issues were whether or not the old treaty between the United States and Iraq from the 1930s, I believe, is still in force today.
	When we do a treaty...
	With some country governed by an entirely different political structure.
	So I believe that was done during the time the Brits had a lot of influence in Iraq when it was a royalty-governed country.
	So it's like, is that continuation with the current Iraqi government?
	So our courts have said they'll just defer to the State Department.
	They won't do any meaningful review.
	And as long as the State Department says there's an extradition treaty, and as long as the State Department says it's still enforceable, they'll pretend that they don't know that it's a treaty done with a completely different sovereign.
	So that was one issue.
	Another issue was the treaty provided for no extradition of one's citizens.
	This person was now a citizen of the United States at the time of the extradition request.
	They decided to interpret that to mean, well, it's, again, whatever the State Department says.
	The State Department says that this is just a, that they can choose to refuse but don't have to refuse, which, by the way, is contrary to the historic interpretation of those extradition agreements.
	But the court says it was, again, just deferred to whatever the State Department thinks.
	And so while I do have suspicions based on the evidence of this individual and was a critic of Obama's policies in this respect, I don't think the legal decision is consistent with good extradition law, but it's a reflection of since the mid-1980s when we allowed the USDA to go down and kidnap a Mexican doctor that they believed had been part of torture of a DEA agent and bring him back, and we authorized that.
	We also authorized the Pinkertons doing it in Latin America in the 1890s.
	We basically, it was a 5-4 split decision, and we basically greenlit.
	The complete undermining of extradition law in the United States.
	Kidnapping someone in a foreign country is different than extraditing a citizen.
	How do they get around the citizen status?
	Do they argue it was illegitimate, or do they say it's an exception?
	They said that the provision was a permissive one rather than a required one.
	So they said that the State Department could permit no U.S. citizen to be extradited, but wasn't required to do so.
	And that's a reinterpretation of those traditional extradition clauses.
	And so basically, and it's because...
	Once you say that you don't have to go through the extradition process and you can just kidnap someone, like in the Pinkerton case, like in the DEA doctor case, what does extradition law even mean anymore?
	It's just a formality.
	And so we watered it down badly.
	If the only means you could legally, a U.S. court could have jurisdiction over someone that we had an extradition treaty with was through the extradition process, then you couldn't kidnap them as a way of getting jurisdiction.
	Once you can, the law is just a formality you ignore for the most part.
	Because if you could kidnap them, who cares whether you followed the extradition laws or not?
	So that was the problem with that decision.
	And that's why it was such a split 5-4 decision.
	But as part of that continuation, this court went out of its way to credit only.
	And the other thing is, one of the other big arguments raised legally is the Iraqi court system is clearly a debacle.
	There's no question this guy will be tortured.
	There's no question he won't get due process, really.
	There's no question he won't get a jury trial, given the current condition of the Iraqi court system.
	And what did the court say?
	That's up for the Iraqi courts to figure out.
	Not only that, it wasn't clear the guy had even been indicted under Iraqi law.
	It looked like it was just authorization for investigation, not an indictment.
	And the court said, eh, we'll let the Iraqi courts figure that out.
	So we're going to drop him off in the torture zone and say, let the torturers figure it out.
	I think because of the politics behind it, but also because of the deferential approach of the federal judiciary to the executive branch in this context.
	Robert, when is your birthday?
	Tomorrow.
	In some parts of the world, it has already occurred.
	One of my favorite birthdays, I started my birthday in Hong Kong and finished it in L.A. Because you could fly back in such a way against the time zone so that you could keep it within the same day.
	But yeah, it is mañana.
	All right.
	I knew that, people.
	I knew that because it's on Wikipedia.
	It's not on Wikipedia, but it will be tomorrow.
	Robert, dare I ask?
	I mean, I think I know how old you are.
	Do you have any aversion to saying it?
	Too old.
	Too old.
	That's how old I am.
	Too old.
	We're still alive.
	By the way, Do we have any more cases?
	Because otherwise, I'm going to end it on this thought experiment.
	Go ahead.
	That covers everything.
	And by the way, I'm going to end it on this thought experiment, which might be depressing or uplifting.
	And then we're going to get Robert for the actual uplifting stuff.
	I'm driving with my daughter.
	And I said, would you rather be...
	You have two choices.
	You're an 85, let's just say 90, if you want to live to 90. You're a 90-year-old person who's lived the most fulfilling...
	Beautiful life ever, filled with love, happiness, success, reward.
	Would you rather be a 90-year-old person on your deathbed, or would you rather be a 30-year-old person with all of the uncertainty of life ahead of you?
	Which would you choose?
	And I've been thinking about it for a while.
	I honestly do not think anyone in their right mind would take the 90-year-old person who's lived their life of beauty.
	Versus the person who's at 30 and has a life of uncertainty because the uncertainty of life with all its prospects is still something more alluring than the prospect of being at the end of your life.
	That's my question to you people.
	I'll do a poll, but it might be too late for a poll.
	But Robert, white pillows for the week coming forward.
	Who do we have Wednesday?
	And then white pillows, please.
	So, Pedro Gonzalez for this Wednesday's Sidebar.
	You can follow him on Twitter.
	Populist intellectual, populist voice, willing to be skeptical and critical of a lot of institutional narratives, including but not limited to our current international conflicts.
	And so he'll be fun.
	He'll be a good guy to have on.
	Oh, there was one other commentary.
	Just briefly, I saw some various YouTubers who were gleefully attacking Alex Jones because he was issued some contempt sanctions on deposition issues.
	People should be asking themselves, why is a guy who's already been deposed three times being forced to be deposed when he is being denied, in all of these cases, any defense on the merits at trial?
	What is he being deposed for?
	This is nothing more than pure harassment by politicized judges.
	And lunatic lawyers.
	That's it.
	There should have been no sanctions issues.
	He shouldn't have even been required to be deposed.
	Indeed, on average, you only get to depose a person for a single day.
	Here he has been deposed for three days, being required to be deposed for more days, when he's not even being allowed to defend himself on the merits.
	What are they deposing him on?
	Beyond harassment.
	So just a brief note on that.
	And of course, we want to support him.
	There's a certain place, a certain store you can go to that has good products.
	But the first time I learned that that was an InfoWars mug, I thought I was going to get canceled from YouTube.
	But what's in it wrong?
	You're not drinking it.
	So tonight it's Cherry Pepsi Zero.
	That's what it is tonight.
	With vodka or with no vodka?
	I've got to give me some Russian vodka and caviar while we can still drink it.
	And this is Tennessee Moonshine right here.
	Fantastic.
	I'll try a little bit for my birthday.
	But credit to all the members of the board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's where I get a lot of intel and information on a daily basis.
	Great community.
	People post their own content, share their own content, engage in civil debate and discussion and dialogue as they are in the live chat as we speak.
	And so my white pill is, as I see these...
	Nearly 100,000 people that participate in that board in one way, shape, or form.
	It's a sign and testament that people want to break through the media narratives and the fake news stories and the institutional lies.
	They want honest information, and they want to recreate community that matters.
	So it's like Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon.
	It is true that everybody at vivabarneslaw.locals.com is above average, but it's a testament to what the future of America can be in returning to our founding roots.
	Fantastic.
	And what a way to end it.
	And by the way, we're ending it with a much smoother bit rate than what we started with.
	And people are asking questions.
	So if I say the word Ukraine, we'll see.
	Don't do it, Robert.
	We want to end with your face and my face.
	Your beautiful face and my red.
	Okay, Robert.
	I will text you tomorrow for a happy birthday.
	And everyone in the chat, you know what to do.
	If you like a bit...
	Clip it, snip it, share it, put it around.
	Wednesday, we have a sidebar.
	Thursday, we'll see who can make it, but I know we got Chris Phillips, at the very least, the individual who...
	He didn't just embarrass Stelter with the question.
	He allowed Stelter to embarrass himself with the answer.
	We're going to have him Thursday, and we'll see what I can get out tomorrow.
	I'm not at home, so we'll see what I can do, but I always do my best.
	Robert, stick around.
	We will say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for everything.
	The super chats, the comments, the trolls, you know it.
	Thank you for being there.
	See you soon.

▲