Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 17, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:02:46

Ep. 109: Musk, Depp, Jan 6, Ukraine, and MUCH MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	After discussing with cabinet and caucus, after consultation with premiers from all provinces and territories, after speaking with opposition leaders, the federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and territorial capacity to address the blockades and occupations.
	I want to be very clear.
	The scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.
	The Emergencies Act will be used to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country.
	This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs And restoring confidence in our institutions.
	These tools include strengthening their ability to impose fines or imprisonment.
	The government will designate, secure and protect places and infrastructure that are critical to our economy and people's jobs, including border crossings and airports.
	We cannot and will not allow illegal We're not
	using the Emergencies Act to call in the military.
	We're not suspending fundamental rights or overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	We are not limiting people's freedom of speech.
	We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly.
	We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally.
	We'll always defend the rights of Canadians to peaceful assembly and to freedom of expression.
	Are illegal.
	And if you're still participating, time to go home.
	Time to go home.
	It is now.
	No.
	Do you guys see this app right here?
	Hold on a second.
	Oh gosh.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Get this out here.
	Get this out here.
	I don't want to see that ad.
	Okay.
	Let me just get in focus.
	Something's not going to work here.
	Keep calm.
	Gosh darn it.
	Okay.
	I'm going to...
	I tried to diffuse the light.
	On the...
	Oh my god.
	I tried to diffuse the light on the ring.
	I'm just going to go bring it down.
	Okay, like that.
	Tried to diffuse it with my homemade diffuser.
	That's a Kleenex with a hole cut in it.
	I'm not in the studio today, people.
	I'm in my mother-in-law's studio.
	By the way, that's my mother right there in my mother-in-law's painting.
	And that's my brother-in-law right there.
	I don't know who that person is right there.
	Oh, God.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Whoever said, whoever said, where did it say?
	Thank God it's over.
	Find it.
	Find it.
	Someone just said, thank God it's over.
	I can't see where the chat was that said, thank God it's over.
	It's not over because we're coming back to that.
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's Sunday night.
	It's Easter weekend.
	It is Easter Sunday.
	Good Friday was last Friday.
	Easter Sunday today.
	I just had an Easter Sunday dinner with my mother-in-law.
	It was delicious.
	We had chicken and turkey breast.
	Little people, little people.
	Few people know this.
	It's also the 40th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	It's the 40th anniversary of the Constitution of Canada, the ratification, the, I don't want to say, it's not indoctrination, rather, it is the confirmation, the putting of paper to pen of a charter that very much followed the Constitution of the United States of America that guaranteed Canadians fundamental rights and freedoms.
	It's the 40th anniversary.
	Celebrating the signing of that document in 1982.
	Guaranteed Canadians.
	I'm going to go over the rights and freedoms in a few seconds.
	I'm not bringing Justin Trudeau back up.
	What we just watched, what we just endured, what I just subjected all of you to was two and a half minutes of Justin Trudeau taking that document, you know, softening it up.
	Before using it to wipe his backside.
	And when you hear the punchline to this, this is Justin Trudeau when he invoked the Emergencies Act, which was the, not the predecessor, the predecessor comes before.
	It was the law that took over after the War Measures Act was supplanted, was replaced by the Emergencies Act.
	That was Justin Trudeau justifying his invocation of the Emergencies Act to break up a protest of bouncy castles and hot tubs on Wellington Street in Ottawa.
	He spent two and a half, that was the abridged version, but he gave a nice speech explaining why he had to do this to protect us.
	But don't worry, he was going to respect our charter rights while invoking the Emergencies Act, while freezing our bank accounts, not mine.
	While freezing the bank accounts of Canadian citizens, without due process, he was going to ensure that he respected our charter rights.
	While outlawing protests, he was going to ensure that he respected our charter rights.
	While arresting people and detaining them indefinitely, Pat King, still in jail, he assured us he was going to respect our charter rights.
	While assuring us that he was not calling in the military.
	He just called in a highly militarized police.
	Sometimes police officers not wearing their names on their badges, just numbers.
	Unidentified police coming in with batons, pepper spray, armored vehicles, snipers on roofs, cavalry.
	While he assured us that he was not going to bring in the military, he just brought in a highly militarized police to physically assault, pepper spray, beat, arrest, unlawfully detain.
	Canadian citizens for a protest that was so egregious, so nationally emergency threatening, because it had bouncy castles and hot tubs.
	And if you think I'm joking about this, while Justin Trudeau is invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with a national emergency for which the provinces lack the measures to deal with, while he was invoking the Emergencies Act, you had the Ottawa Council.
	Saying, there's bouncy castles and hot tubs on Wellington Street.
	There are children there.
	This is the juxtaposition of reality.
	But, yeah, it's a little better.
	I'm not playing that verbal diarrhea again.
	I'm not playing that nausea-inducing buffoonery.
	Today is the 40th anniversary, by all accounts, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada.
	And so who best to celebrate?
	Who best to celebrate the anniversary?
	I'm older than our Canadian charter, but I don't remember when it never existed.
	Back then, you know, I was two years old.
	Who better to celebrate the 40th anniversary than our dear Supreme Leader Justin Trudeau?
	You won't believe it, except it happened.
	And so I'm going to show you.
	And as much as it's going to make you want to throw up in your mouth, it's going to make you want to puke, to quote Steve Martin from The Jerk.
	This is what Justin Trudeau was tweeting today.
	I don't know if he actually just heard me vomit in my mouth.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Blue checkmark.
	With a few strokes of a pen, 40 years ago today.
	No, I'm going to read it like Justin Trudeau.
	With a few strokes of the pen, 40 years ago today, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, built around our shared values of equality, justice, and freedom.
	It protects the rights and freedoms that define who we are as Canadians and brings us closer as a country.
	This is the man who is outlawing...
	12-year-old kids from flying and taking a train within the borders of Canada because they're not vaccinated.
	This is a man who purports to have the authority to forcibly quarantine children 12 years of age and under.
	If they cross the border into the States and come back and are not exempt from quarantine, forcibly quarantines.
	12-year-old children, not because they cross the border, but because they're unvaccinated.
	Unvaccinated 12-year-olds, if they cross the border and come back and are not exempt from quarantine, have to quarantine for no less than 14 days.
	Not all children.
	Not vaccinated 12-year-olds.
	Only unvaccinated 12-year-olds.
	Try to figure out the logic behind this unconstitutional...
	I'm not saying anything that's controversial or even scientifically undocumented.
	We know that even the fully vaccinated can contract, carry, and transmit the virus.
	We know it.
	This is not a lawyer talking.
	This is not a scientist talking.
	This is not a lawyer pretending to be a scientist talking.
	We know it.
	Notwithstanding the fact that even fully vaccinated people can carry, contract, and transmit Sorry, contract, carry, and transmit the virus.
	Only unvaccinated travelers, if they're not exempt, are required to quarantine for no less than 14 days.
	This is the same.
	I'm trying not to swear.
	I will not swear.
	I'm thinking it.
	When we were kids and we used to play a trick on our parents and say, hey, mom and dad, whenever I say I love you to my brother, it means...
	The most vile swear words you can imagine.
	I'm not saying it now.
	This is the guy who now is celebrating our charter because it's built on our shared values of equality.
	Unvaccinated filth, you have to quarantine.
	That's what Justin Trudeau is basically saying.
	Unvaccinated, you are not equal.
	You are dirty.
	You are people who are putting us all at risk, notwithstanding all of the science.
	If you want to go and exercise your rights under the charter of mobility.
	Of leaving Canada and entering Canada.
	You can do it.
	But when you come back, if you're not exempt, you, as a dirty, heathen, unvaccinated Canadian, you've got to quarantine for 14 days.
	Doesn't matter that you've tested negative before leaving, upon arrival, one day after arrival, eight days after.
	Doesn't matter.
	You are unvaccinated.
	You are less than equal.
	You are a second-class citizen in your own country.
	You've got to go isolate yourself for 14 days.
	12 years old and over.
	Shared values of equality, justice, and freedom.
	You liar.
	You hypocrite.
	You awful person that is shredding and desecrating the very fabric of Canadian society.
	I'm going to keep going.
	It protects the rights and freedoms that define who we are as Canadians and brings us closer as a country.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	They're putting at risk their own kids, and they're putting at risk...
	Our kids.
	Those people, those unvaccinated heathens who make a religious choice, a medical choice, or just a choice of their own conscience, are putting us all at risk.
	But this guy is the one now celebrating the sanctity and the beauty of what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was supposed to be.
	Holy crap, I haven't even been paying attention to the chat.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not done yet, either.
	I'm not done yet.
	I'm going to go back and see what I can get by way of chat.
	But in case anybody has forgotten what our Charter of Rights and Freedom says, in case anyone has forgotten, let's just go see what Justin Trudeau has violated.
	Let's go see what he is celebrating today.
	He's celebrating his own desecration.
	But let's just go see.
	And I'm sorry I'm going to miss a lot of the chats.
	I'm going to try to get back to it.
	Share screen.
	Just in case.
	I'm just going to go.
	Do I have anything here that I can...
	Bing, bing!
	Hold on.
	Let me see here.
	I'm going to get this.
	I don't know what this is, and I don't want to break it, but I'm going to get this and a brush.
	That doesn't make a noise that I wanted it to make.
	Hold on.
	No, that's no good.
	You know what?
	Forget it.
	We're going to live with this one.
	Whenever there's a charter violation, we're going to do a little bing bing.
	Here we go.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	I'm not sure if he's coming to make me stop doing this.
	We're just going to go very quickly, people.
	Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	We're going to bing every time Justin Trudeau has violated one of our core constitutional values that he swore an oath to uphold and that today, on Easter Sunday, he is celebrating.
	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to such reasonable limits, subject only...
	I'm sorry, I'm starting from the beginning.
	Brian Peckford, I'm channeling you here.
	Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God with a capital G and the rule of law.
	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
	Let's just see the freedoms, people.
	The freedoms that Justin Trudeau swore to uphold.
	Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms.
	Freedom of conscience and religion.
	Violated.
	How many pastors do we have to have locked up in Canada right now because they chose to exercise their religion?
	How many?
	That's number one.
	Freedom of thought, belief, expression, including the freedom of the press or other media of communication.
	Freedom of thought and belief.
	No.
	Donate to the wrong charity.
	You have your bank accounts frozen.
	Go to the wrong protest after Justin Trudeau says, go home, you're going to jail.
	Including the freedom of the press.
	No.
	Bill C-11, which seeks to suppress freedom of speech on the interwebs.
	Freedom of peaceful assembly.
	Violated.
	Multiple times, and we've seen it.
	Freedom of association.
	Look, I don't know how that one goes, but violated.
	Okay.
	Every citizen has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or Legislative Assembly and to be qualified for membership there.
	I don't think he violated that yet.
	Skip it.
	Mobility rights.
	Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain, and leave Canada.
	Yeah.
	You have the right to enter if the government doesn't tell you to go to a quarantine hotel for indefinite periods of time.
	Undisclosed locations where occasionally people have been assaulted.
	Occasionally.
	Where occasionally people haven't had food because the government can't do things.
	They implement policy that they can't carry out.
	Oh, okay.
	The dog is scratching, man.
	You know what?
	I think we got the...
	Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
	Freezing of bank accounts, no due process, no court order, no nothing.
	Just the government calling the bank and saying, we don't like this guy, he donated to a convoy.
	Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
	Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
	I've said it before.
	I've lost it.
	Going to a quarantine hotel is arbitrary detention.
	I don't care that they call it a hotel.
	A government-run facility.
	Don't need it.
	Don't need it.
	A government-run facility where you are detained against your will that is under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government, that is arbitrary detention.
	It was so arbitrary, actually, at one point in time.
	People didn't even have the right to contact their attorneys.
	They were whisked away.
	Her name is, I'm going to forget it right now.
	It'll come to me in a second.
	One of the, the pastor's wife, I believe, another one who was whisked away at an airport.
	Nikki, Nikki, someone in the chat, get the last part for me.
	Whisked away, and many people who were whisked away were not even allowed to consult with their attorneys beforehand.
	Arrest and detention, let's just, I mean, it doesn't matter.
	Desecrate it.
	Desecrate it.
	And the guy who desecrated it is now celebrating it.
	This is called gaslighting, people.
	This is gaslighting, by definition, par excellence.
	It's atrocious.
	The lighting on my glasses is going to be very distracting, but I will have no choice.
	I'm going to bring up some chats, then I'm going to bring in Barnes, and then I'm going to give the disclaimers.
	I'm sorry.
	It's atrocious.
	The man who has spent the last, I'll call it six years of his premiership.
	Winston knows.
	Winston knows.
	Okay.
	The man who spent the last six years violating our Charter of Rights, today he celebrates it.
	It's like...
	You know what it's like?
	It's like the serial killer who goes to the...
	What's it called?
	The vigil.
	It's like the serial killer who goes to the vigil of his victims.
	That's what...
	That's what Justin Trudeau is doing by celebrating the 40th anniversary of our Charter of Rights.
	My family, save myself, are all vaccinated and still refuses to get together.
	It's not cognitive dissonance.
	It's just absolute, irrational, indoctrinated terror.
	Winston's coming was foretold by Nostradamus.
	All right, so standard disclaimers before we get into it.
	We've got a big show tonight because there's a lot of stuff going on in the world.
	And I hope that wasn't too intense of an intro tonight.
	Standard disclaimers.
	YouTube takes 30% to Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	So better for the creator, better to support a platform that you like.
	If you want the...
	Fled to the bunker in the woods.
	No, no.
	No, I haven't.
	If you want to support Viva and Barnes in the most efficient and value-added way possible, I think.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	It's $5 a month, $50 a year or more if you want to be one of those people who gives more than, you know, what is the minimum threshold.
	Amazing stuff.
	Exclusive stuff and it's a great community.
	Okay.
	Your thoughts on Elon Musk's connections with Epstein and Maxwell?
	I don't know that there are.
	I'm going to Google that in a second.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I see.
	I see.
	Oh, my goodness.
	I see Barnes.
	And he...
	Okay.
	I don't know what's on his head.
	It's one of three things.
	It's one of three things.
	So that's it, people.
	Share the link away just in case YouTube has been slow on notifications.
	I'm bringing in the Barnes.
	And I'm thinking that this might already get us into trouble.
	We'll see.
	If it's what I think it is, it is.
	Robert, how goes the battle, sir?
	Das war Daniel Viva.
	Vladimir very happy with Viva Barnes.
	Attorney Barnes caught in Russian honey trap with beautiful Russian woman and agreed to be loyal to Russia for a lifetime supply of Cuban cigars.
	Oh, man.
	So the funny thing is, my wife actually has one of those for a second.
	In the backdrop, I thought it was either one of those gangster caps and you were going to have some sunshades, or I thought it was a wig for a second, but I guess it was of sorts.
	Robert, was that a fan gift, or did you actually get that for yourself?
	I actually got it for myself, just to have fun with it.
	The various speculation that's out there is always great.
	There's two possibilities.
	Barnes has a secret Russian oligarch list of clients, or the CIA and media might be lying to you again about war.
	You can guess which is more reasonable to infer.
	What I love is, I read some of the chats.
	People love you.
	They love your insight.
	You criticize Elon Musk and they say, I love Barnes, but he's way off base this time.
	They love you.
	You've been predictive, you know, pretty good for the last few years.
	But you say what you think you believe about Russia and all of a sudden they have to go after you like, I love Barnes and he's so smart usually, but he's way off on this.
	People might want to back up and say, you love Barnes.
	He's very smart.
	He's been very good in terms of predictions.
	Not 100%.
	But you might then want to listen to what he's saying now instead of writing it off because it rubs what you think you know the wrong way.
	I mean, I guess, Robert, on that, you know what?
	Before we get there, the managerial class in trial behind you, have we discussed this book before?
	No, it's this week's book for the book club.
	We either do a book or movie review each Friday at vivabarneslaw.locals.com at a live stream.
	And this week's book is The Managerial Class on Trial.
	And I'll be reading the book with the board because I have not read it.
	I just recently got it.
	And Robert, ask about Gonzalo Lira.
	He's now missing.
	Reminders.
	My understanding is he's talked to what it is in that particular town.
	There's escalating conflict and there's some electricity and internet outages in part of the town.
	And he has been in contact with George Galloway, who's kind of a from-the-left anti-war critic.
	And so he's fine.
	So that's the last I heard, which was just a couple hours ago.
	Okay.
	Robert, I guess, I mean, on that subject, look, I don't know.
	I can't even scroll down to the bottom of the chat to get to the...
	Sorry, guys, I missed a ton of the Super Chats.
	Oh, by the way, if I miss your Super Chat and you're going to be angry or miffed that you paid and I didn't bring your comment up, don't do it, people.
	This warning always goes.
	I don't like people feeling grifted, shilled, whatever it is.
	I do my best.
	It won't happen, though.
	It won't happen with all.
	So if that's the concern, don't do it.
	I don't want people feeling bad.
	Robert, what's the latest coming out of Russia?
	I mean, I know what I'm seeing on the news.
	I know Jake Tapper, whatever he did, I think he interviewed, not I think, he interviewed Zelensky as a result of which he got, you know, he got 2,000 new followers on Twitter and then posted a tweet in Russian to all my new Russian bot followers, something, you know, something that's also funny.
	But what's the latest coming out of Ukraine, Russia?
	Well, Jake Tapper's always been a CIA guy.
	That goes back to his Dartmouth days.
	On the legal front, a story came out of the Washington Post this past week, which said that American facial recognition big tech companies, in combination with social data...
	Social media mining companies have been working with Ukrainian military elements and others in Ukraine to photograph dead Russian soldiers, run facial recognition software to identify them, then use their social media data mining to identify who their mothers are and the contact points for their mothers, and then they call them up and show them photos of their dead Russian.
	This should have been.
	And again, this isn't from Russia media.
	This isn't a Russian source.
	This is the Washington Post, which has been very overtly in favor of Ukraine in this war.
	And what was astounding is that these folks are bragging about this.
	They think this is a good thing that they've done.
	To me, it is a war crime that they are committing.
	There's restrictions on identification of the dead, and in particular, identification of prisoners of war.
	There are certain ways that's supposed to be handled under the Geneva Convention, in part to avoid things like this.
	I found it morally atrocious behavior.
	The fact that a bunch of people were cheerleading it in the comment section of the Washington Post shows you the mindset of a lot of these folks.
	And the, yeah, there's the headline.
	I'm bringing it up because sometimes people say that Barnes is off base or exaggerating.
	This is the Washington Post.
	Ukraine is scanning faces of dead Russians, then contacting the mothers.
	Ukrainian officials say the use of facial recognition software that could help end the, I love the phrasing, the use of it, which could help end the brutal war.
	Yeah, if they're doing what they're doing to make it so demoralizing, setting aside international law.
	But some experts call it a, quote, classic psychological warfare that sets a gruesome precedent.
	Yeah, that's an understatement.
	It's horrific behavior.
	And there's two things that the big tech companies should be aware of.
	One is that for various war crimes like this in general...
	All courts around the world, for the most part, recognize your legal right to bring such a claim.
	I'll be discussing that in a little bit more detail as well as the sanctions and some other issues with the Duran on a live stream on Tuesday at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
	But as to this aspect, there's a specific American tort that can be brought.
	Sometimes it's called outrageous conduct, extreme conduct.
	Intentable inflicts of emotional distress.
	Yes.
	So it's intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is predicated upon an older tort called extreme or outrageous conduct.
	In some states, you only have about six or seven states, you also have something called a prima facie tort that acts as a substitute where the law doesn't already exist on it.
	This clearly is intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	The big tech companies are admitting overtly their complicity and culpability in it.
	And I think that those Russian mothers could file suit.
	Class action suit against these big tech companies for engaging in what is patently the definition of outrageous conduct.
	And it's horrific conduct no matter who commits it, which side it's committed on.
	But it's really, it's bad.
	I mean, it's particularly bad that this is being bragged about in the American institutional press.
	This will only intensify Russian escalation.
	In the war, it won't diminish it at all.
	And it makes the West look really bad.
	It makes American companies in America, frankly, look really bad.
	That we would celebrate something as morally atrocious as this kind of behavior.
	And I love the way the Washington Post sort of, you know, they, what's the word?
	Not couch it.
	It's like, it might help end the war.
	In as much as like, you know, committing war crimes might help end a war by, you know, violating any international standard.
	As far as I'm concerned, all war is crime.
	So the idea of war crimes is somewhat redundant, but it might help end the war.
	If you drop a nuclear bomb on a city, it might help end the war as well.
	It reminds me of something that happened once upon a time during one of the intifadas where...
	The Palestinian Authority had captured Israeli soldiers and a mob developed outside the police precinct.
	Robert, if you remember this, and I'm remembering it wrong, correct me.
	But I do remember they broke in.
	They ended up murdering the soldiers in the worst way possible, but called their spouses or called a wife of one of them while it was happening because they had their cell phone.
	I mean, it's like, I don't know how you can have standards even in war, but surely there have to be.
	We have the Geneva Convention for a reason, and we have this tort in American law for this reason, to deal with this kind of conduct.
	If you engage in outrageous conduct that hurts another intentionally, you are liable in the law.
	And these corporations that are being complicit and culpable and conspiring in this manner are very much, can be held accountable.
	And clearly they haven't even thought that through.
	I mean, it's disturbing the degree that what we're witnessing in live time.
	But that's the main legal update on the Ukrainian front.
	The big news of the week, of course, involved the effort of a person some people think might be an alien, Elon Musk, trying to buy Twitter.
	Well, we're going to get there in one second.
	I'm going to bring up OneChat.
	LightGiver says, I've been following Patrick Lancaster.
	Robert, I believe you've mentioned him a number of times.
	U.S. Navy vet who has been covering this war, you anti-Russian people should go watch all of his videos on YouTube and listen to the Ukrainian people.
	There was another comment about Lancaster as well.
	Let me just see where it is.
	He's been covering it.
	People can find him on YouTube, maybe on Rumble as well.
	He's the guy referenced as the artistic photographer who ultimately went over to cover Donbass after covering Crimea and just stayed there and has been covering it for eight years.
	So you can see his videos going all the way back.
	And if you watch him pretty...
	I mean, obviously he's on the Donbass pro-Russian side is where he's located physically.
	But you don't get a strong bias from him.
	Other networks, the military and foreign affairs network, people can follow for daily updates.
	Also, I think it's called Defense.
	Defense Something Asia is another one that's really good that does detailed daily updates.
	And then, obviously, the Duran has been doing daily updates, both Alexander McCorris and Alex.
	And then there's a blog from an independent perspective.
	The guy's been around for a while, really good analysis, which is Jacob Dreisen.
	You can look up the Jacob Dreisen Report.
	I think it's jacobdreisenreport.com.
	And those are all good independent sources separate from the institutional media for coverage because, unfortunately, the media coverage in America has been bad and the West has been bad.
	In Britain, it's been atrocious.
	I mean, the number of fake news stories they've run that have been debunked as fake within 24 hours in many cases has been extraordinary with no sense of it.
	But there'll be an accounting for this down the road.
	But, you know, in the interim, we live in the fog of war, unfortunately.
	But to see some of these moral atrocities being celebrated by Western media and Western companies, I mean, this is just a new level of depth to a certain extent.
	You know, I mean, this is the kind of things that, like, the Japanese fascists did during their war.
	You know, it's not to that level, but, you know, it's that mindset of dehumanizing.
	The other side.
	I mean, some of these mothers are crying.
	Why are you doing this to me?
	Well, it's bad if you believe you support Ukraine.
	Bad strategy.
	Just pure and simple.
	Poking a Russian bear doesn't lead the Russian bear to go to a hybrid nation.
	But this is morally horrific conduct that no matter which side you are on the conflict or whether you care at all about the conflict, you should condemn and should be condemned by everybody.
	Someone asked, what about Bukha?
	And I don't know which way they're asking the question, but what is the latest on Bukha about any investigations from the UN or other entities?
	So the UN, the West, the British in particular, blocked any independent UN-based investigative inquiry.
	Instead, Ukraine is in control of it, and the EU and the International Criminal Court is involved.
	The International Criminal Court is not recognized by the United States or Russia as having any authority or jurisdiction.
	And if anybody that's followed them, for good cause.
	Same with Israel.
	It's because they're so heavily political.
	They're a useless body.
	Well, maybe this would be a good transition.
	They're almost as political as our January 6th judges are.
	Let's go there.
	I mean, I think people have also had it with the Russia stuff.
	I mean, it's a sensitive topic.
	It's divisive, even among our community, Robert.
	Jan 6. Okay, so we've had now...
	There's a bunch of convictions that are sort of going on under the radar or guilty pleas, but we had a big conviction this week.
	I'm going to forget the person's name.
	It'll come in a second.
	An individual who...
	Was found guilty on five, six charges, obstructing congressional hearings, parading around a Capitol Hill, like stupid charges.
	The interfering with government proceedings was the big charge, the felony, and then stealing, the coat rack.
	Robert, we've talked about it before, but it's worth repeating.
	The charge of interfering with congressional hearings, I forget what it's called exactly, but...
	Explain what the essence, or in theory, what the historical raison d 'être of that provision of law was.
	What does it include, and why, according to some, does it not include protest?
	Well, I mean, the obstruction statute's already been interpreted by another federal judge to not apply to this case, period.
	Because it's being misapplied.
	It was meant, all the obstruction related, and all of these are mostly derivations of that.
	You have the basic misdemeanor criminal trespass and some of those.
	There the issue is whether or not they thought they had authority to be where they were at.
	But as to all the obstruction type charges, you have to show, the goal of those was somebody that literally, you know, using fraudulent mechanisms.
	Made it impossible for Congress to perform its duties.
	So it was submitting a fraudulent document, forging a document, perjured testimony, suborning perjured testimony, witness intimidation, these kind of things.
	Very analogous to obstructing a judicial proceeding.
	And just objecting is not obstructing.
	Parts of the legal left have been trying to make that argument for five years now that just objecting is somehow magically obstructing.
	If you don't let me do what I want to have happen, then you're obstructing me.
	That's not criminal obstruction.
	Criminal obstruction is limited to a very small category of groups and people and institutions.
	And so the criminal trespass cases are a little bit different.
	That's just about what they knew at the time they went in.
	But all these obstruction-related charges are problematic.
	Because, again, a court has said that they can't be charged with obstruction, and you have other D.C. courts convicting people based on obstruction.
	I mean, it shows the problem, and it means the higher courts are going to have to get involved.
	I think at some point the higher courts will agree with the district court that said this is not what the statute means under the rule of lenity and will determine that these criminal charges are not valid.
	Are you there, Viva?
	Oh, he's reloading.
	What happened to this one individual defendant was he got a ridiculous sentence or ridiculous language used by the judge that showed his bias against Trump in particular.
	And what I've been arguing is that you can't get an impartial jury pool in the District of Columbia.
	This is now three jury trials in a row that prove that.
	Jurors kind of joking about how it took them longer to order lunch than it did to convict somebody of a bunch of charges, including charges that they legally could not even be charged with.
	Gives you a sense of how serious these jurors take their duties, which is to say not seriously.
	And you have judges on top of that ruling that taking personal attacks against Trump.
	Which is what I've said from the get-go.
	These District of Columbia judges feel too personally attached to this case.
	They cannot be impartial.
	And they're proving it in live time and now bragging about it on the record.
	Robert, I don't know how much of what you just said everyone got.
	Did everyone hear Robert?
	I know I was disappeared for a second because I'm tethering off my phone.
	Chat, let me know.
	One, did you hear what Robert just said?
	And two, if you didn't.
	Let's see if we got that.
	Okay, you heard Robert.
	Good.
	Fantastic.
	Robert, I know the answer to the question, so it was less for me and more for everyone else.
	Okay, good.
	His name was Dustin Thompson.
	I'm not going back to my phone for the rest of the night, guys.
	I'm sorry.
	Okay, so now I understood that part.
	And if this is how it's to be interpreted, Robert, and if you said it when I was blacked out, this will go for interfering with the Kavanaugh proceedings.
	Did you mention that?
	Yeah, well, I mean, I didn't.
	But, I mean, in other words, the...
	They should have only been charged with trespass for those who really thought what they were doing was illegal and who committed some sort of violent act that was not in self-defense.
	There's a trial coming up that one person that was violent towards police is Capitol Police saying it was in self-defense because they were physically attacking me and others around me.
	So we'll see how that goes.
	But the one acquittal was by a Trump appointee judge who just followed the facts of the law.
	These other judges can't.
	It's quite clear.
	These comments are such that they can't.
	And they won't.
	That's what I want.
	I don't know if people are saying unsubscribe is a joke, but see, you're lost.
	I think that's a joke.
	When people are going to accuse you, Rob, you're going to say, okay, look, the Trump-appointed judge got it right.
	The other judges didn't.
	When you listen to the rationale or the statements attributed to the judges, this judge in this particular case, his name was Dustin Thompson, convicted, referred to Trump as a charlatan.
	Who is only interested in retaining power and is tearing the country apart.
	This is what the judge is saying.
	So I don't care if you believe it.
	I actually don't even care if the judge in his heart of hearts believes it.
	You can't call the former president a charlatan in a judgment in the context of a file where you're going to be sentencing the defendant.
	So if anybody thinks it's your bias, I'm going to say that that's their bias.
	I didn't know who the other judge was who acquitted the individual.
	I just knew that it made a load more sense than this conviction and what the judge said.
	A charlatan who's only interested in power and tearing the country apart.
	And this is the judge who's going to be sentencing this guy.
	And I don't think it looks good.
	No, it doesn't.
	I mean, we'll see if they can get a fair verdict or fair jury for the Sussman case, because there are the politics on the opposite side.
	And there, the defendant has a very friendly jury pool.
	But there, the judge denied his motion to dismiss.
	This is a Russiagate-Spygate case.
	Now, I think Durham is basically still cleaning up and protecting the CIA, protecting the FBI.
	Rather than actually going after them by trying to shift the blame to the lower group of lawyers who are associated with the Clinton campaign.
	But what is detailed in the motion to dismiss and the denial of it and the various responses and motions in limine is that what some of us said from day one is proven true by Durham's inquiry investigation.
	And in fact, what's amazing is the CIA knew it.
	CIA's own analyst internal notes said that this is made up.
	Said this appears to be user-created, generated data.
	This is not independently confirmed gathered data.
	It's just fiction.
	It's fabrication.
	Now, how did Robert Mueller not figure that out in two years of his, you know, isn't that interesting?
	Somehow Durham figures it out, but Robert Mueller never got around to that somehow, even though the CIA's, again, internal notes from 2017 said this thing is bogus.
	And yet Brennan was going out there lying to people.
	Adam Schiff was going out there lying to people.
	Clapper was going out there lying to people.
	Comey was going out there lying to people.
	Their own internal notes knew it was bogus from day one.
	And yet the only people that will likely pay any price, if anyone, would be Sussman.
	We know how the same D.C. judges let Clinesmith...
	Walked, served no time at all for deliberately perjuring and obstructing an actual investigation from a position of federal law enforcement power.
	And then the D.C. bar relicensed them right away within a year.
	I mean, it tells you how corrupt our D.C. is.
	We need to abolish the District of Columbia as a political jurisdiction, period.
	They are not capable of impartial justice.
	They will never be capable of impartial justice.
	Incorporate them into...
	Maryland or someplace.
	But incorporate them in another state.
	It was a bad idea to create a separate district.
	It was always a bad idea.
	And it's where all the political cases have to go now.
	And what we have is one side dominates it.
	I mean, they have more...
	The anti-Trump side of the aisle has more control over D.C. than Bull Connor had over Birmingham.
	And you have as good a chance of getting justice there as Martin Luther King would have in a 1960s Birmingham juror.
	And so it's an embarrassment, it's an outrage, but it's one that will keep going on until somebody fixes it.
	The Republicans in Congress say they're going to get around to the Whitmer case this week.
	We'll see.
	Why weren't they around on the Whitmer and the January 6th cases for years?
	But it's embarrassing what we're witnessing out of D.C. Hopefully, it's clear Sussman lied.
	They've got documentary proof.
	Textual proof, his own written text, his own written words, his own billing statements, his own emails.
	If he's not convicted, that will be a pure jury nullification just because they hate Trump in D.C. We'll find out.
	Well, now people are asking, shouldn't a judge showing obvious personal and political bias be grounds for mistrial?
	And the chat before that, which said, can the judge, Reggie Walton, be impeached for violation of judicial oath?
	I mean, I know the answer to that is no.
	Generally, no.
	I mean, I'm...
	Generally, as anyone that's followed knows, I'm a skeptic of using impeachment.
	However, when judges get this far out of line, even though you're not going to convict them, this issue needs to be put into highlight.
	And pursuing impeachment proceeding, a violation of judicial oath is grounds for impeachment.
	And Samuel Chase was impeached way back, ultimately not convicted, but impeached because of his political bias.
	And even though he was not removed from the court, and I agreed with him not being removed from the court, it sent a message and judges started backing off overtly politicized manipulation of the law in cases.
	So that would be a reason to do it.
	There haven't been enough of these.
	They only go after notoriously corrupt judges.
	And if you dig deeper, you find out that that's not usually the real reason either.
	But that's a story for a hush-hush at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But I think they should start looking at these because some of these judges' behavior is really outrageous.
	It's discrediting the rule of law, it's discrediting the institutions of the judiciary, and it's dishonoring the Constitution and it's disobeying the oath they took.
	I mean, this would have been a perfect segue into the seizure of Victor Vexelberg's yacht.
	Maybe we'll get there just in a second, but first things first.
	So the judge who issues these...
	Very, very, like, over-the-top statements is going to be sentencing this guy.
	One of the jurors in the trial who just convicted him immediately runs to the press under the condition of anonymity to say, we were laughing under our breath when he gave his excuse.
	Trump is not on trial, but we all agree that Trump is guilty in this narrative.
	The jury selection is a joke.
	What I've said from day one is it was impossible for these judges to be impartial.
	It's impossible to get an impartial jury pull out of the District of Columbia.
	That is being proven.
	In abundance.
	And people just need to keep hammering it in the court of public opinion.
	People like Matt Gaetz, people like who's been a victim of corrupt justice actions in the past, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, people like Paul Gosar, people like Thomas Massey, people like Madison Cawthorn, others.
	We need to start elevating some of these judges for at least proposals of impeachment proceedings to investigate whether or not they have violated their oath.
	Because there just needs to be more public attention to it.
	Because the D.C. Court of Appeals is a waste of space.
	Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and does something, we are seeing openly politicized Stalin-style show trials convicting people based on things that even other D.C. judges admit are not a crime and being sentenced to Absurd sentence results that are politically prejudicial, preferential.
	I mean, again, just between the Clinesmith case and these cases, and we'll see with the Sussman case, the disparity is absurd.
	But they are so oblivious.
	They live in such an internal bubble.
	They're like the warmongers.
	They live in a tiny bubble.
	They don't understand how the rest of the world sees what they're doing.
	I mean, there's a reason why many countries around the world That's the jury.
	That's the judge.
	What about the defense attorney?
	Like, I know now I might be looking for conspiracy where there isn't, but the defense strategy for this guy, Dustin Thompson, who was just convicted.
	His defense consisted not of the defense that we just saw work in another case, in the one where the guy was acquitted, whereas they let us in.
	I didn't know it was wrong to be there.
	I mean, stealing the coat rack, you know it's wrong, but if that's the minor charge on which he gets convicted versus the major charge of obstructing Congress, you know, another guy literally just succeeded on that defense.
	The defense in this case says, our best defense is Trump told me to do it.
	I was following presidential orders.
	I mean, I read that defense, and I think either the defendant is an idiot and went along with it or asked for it, or these defense attorneys are absolute idiots at best, and maybe, I don't want to say like sleeper moles at worst, but I had the thought.
	What do you say about the defense strategy?
	Plead as a defense, the president told me to do it.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that's a tendency of liberal public defense lawyers in the criminal defense bar.
	That rather than doing a meaningful, sensible defense, I mean, a lot of these cases, they haven't demanded real discovery.
	For example, I mean, to my knowledge, it may have happened in some other cases, but at least in some of the cases, they've failed to demand everything related to QAnon.
	And they should.
	Because, again, I think there's an entrapment angle here that was exposed in the Whitmer case that's present, and that would be politically embarrassing for the government.
	If they dug deep into the QAnon phenomenon, how much of it was government instant?
	Because again, the QAnon boards and the people from the QAnon following were saying that the government wanted you to raid the Capitol for some of these people.
	So I have no doubt some of them thought they were acting on the government's behalf through secret messages from QAnon.
	I also have no doubts that QAnon was a government operation.
	I mean, look at what happened with the Widmer case.
	I mean, it ended up even worse.
	I didn't know the FBI was back-setting up fake militias again, just like they did with Operation PAC-CON.
	People can research when that started and when Oklahoma City happened and put some things together.
	Again, you can find that at a hush-hush at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But it's disturbing.
	But here's where the court of public opinion matters.
	Trump has said if elected, he will pardon all of them.
	Anyone that gets convicted, he'll pardon.
	And so that's because the court of public opinion has got to someone like Trump.
	And given where things are going, chances that Trump is back in the White House despite all of these efforts to railroad his supporters and him is growing by the day.
	This is one of those examples, one of those situations where...
	I look back at Blackwater and how could there have been a pardon?
	How could it have been such a politicized prosecution to warrant a pardon?
	I've lived through it.
	Whether or not these January 6th defendants deserve something, okay, I think some of them deserve something.
	QAnon shaman did not deserve four years in jail for what he did.
	He didn't.
	I don't care.
	Call me whatever you want.
	Maybe 30 days, maybe 60 days, he did not deserve...
	Four years in jail.
	This guy who stole the coat rack, found guilty of a felony, maximum sentence 20 years, he's going to get five years.
	I think he's going to get five years.
	And I can understand now, he might have deserved something.
	Had the system worked the way it ought to have, he would have gotten 30 days plus probation.
	I now understand how pardons are warranted.
	And in three years, whatever, when Trump comes in and everyone's forgotten about this, I'm going to say, I lived through it.
	I remembered it.
	I paid attention.
	It is one of those cases where I now understand it.
	But Robert...
	The great governor of Alabama, Big Jim Folsom, used to pardon about half the people each year.
	He said, as bad as Alabama's criminal justice system is, there's at least a 50-50 chance they're innocent.
	He was an old-school populist.
	He drank some...
	Mountain water on TV once.
	It might not have been mountain water, which didn't go over well in Alabama.
	But he invited Adam Clayton Powell down back during the middle of the civil rights movement.
	Big Jim was the real deal.
	I'm a big fan.
	But, you know, the only thing maybe worse than having to deal with the D.C. court system and serving four years or however ridiculous sentences are is, you know, you could be married to Amber Heard.
	No, that would be getting too far ahead, Robert, before we get there.
	We got Elon Musk first, but the one thing we didn't talk about at the time in detail, by the way, we've reached over 10,000 viewers on YouTube, so put a chat in the comments and make it go crazy.
	Victor Vexelberg, the Russian oligarch who had to speak, just on the subject of outrageous judicial statements made in a judgment.
	Victor Vexelberg, a Russian oligarch with a $90 million yacht.
	Had sanctions imposed on him after the annexation of Crimea, which might not have been so much of an annexation, but rather a Crimea making a decision on its own.
	But set that aside, I've done my research.
	The judgment, which I thought was a joke when I read a...
	I thought it was a satire when I read the graphic.
	The judge in the last paragraph said, this is very much reminiscent of...
	Those soldiers, the brave soldiers on Snake Island and what they told the Russians.
	And when I read that one sentence, I thought it was satire.
	Pulled up to the decision.
	You want to talk about a judge making extra, you know, taking judicial notice of things which are not things of which you can take judicial notice.
	I mean, if anybody didn't read it, the judgment was so over the top.
	Talking about history not being kind on Russian oligarchs and neither will the court.
	But I didn't understand the essence of the law behind what would have otherwise justified the seizure of the yacht on the basis that Victor Vexelberg was allegedly using some sort of subterfuge to circumvent the sanctions that had been imposed on him by acquiring an interest in this yacht through various corporate entities in which he has vested interests.
	Are you familiar enough with this situation to enlighten me?
	Well, it relates to another case that happened this week.
	A Russian legislator and some of his staff were indicted in federal court in the United States on multiple criminal charges.
	For what?
	Trying to meet members of Congress to discuss the issues related to international conflict.
	I mean, I kept reading the press release saying this can't be what they're saying is a crime, right?
	But it is.
	And it's what some of us have been saying.
	These sanctioned statutes will be misinterpreted and misapplied to ultimately criminalize regular speech and political conduct.
	And sooner or later, they will start with people that are politically unpopular and they'll move to you.
	Just like they did with the Japanese detention camps, they were trying to set up a precedent that was perilous for the rest of us.
	And so, again, for those, obviously, those people who experienced it, who are American citizens.
	So it's disturbing.
	And what they're doing is they're taking a statute that allowed for...
	And here's my problem with all of it.
	I don't think Congress or the executive branch has the constitutional authority to go out and steal people's stuff.
	And it's that simple.
	There's constitutional limits on it.
	A right to due process, a right to trial by jury, a right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to petition the government.
	But the fact that we're now saying we're going to lock up legislators, like we're Ukraine, right?
	Ukraine is looking at locking up a blogger for 15 years in prison simply for being critical of Zelensky.
	In fact, they brought out the opposition leader.
	The lead opposition leader in Ukraine, they'd already charged him.
	He was under house arrest.
	It looks like they kidnapped him and stuck him in a dungeon somewhere.
	They brought him out to showcase him to the world.
	This would be like Donald Trump being arrested and Biden brandishing him into the world for nothing but politically basically disagreeing with Zelensky.
	That's what we're doing.
	We're now bringing those charges.
	So what's happened is these sanction statutes have been abused.
	It's easier to do when the person's not a U.S. citizen.
	When the person's a U.S. citizen, then it's a different dynamic.
	But it's still problematic.
	And look at the contrast.
	They went out of their way to find constitutional rights for applying for visas for people in countries that were experiencing high rates of terrorism that was anti-American, but somebody that's simply Russian gets less rights than someone about his property being stolen from him.
	than someone who's applying for a visa who's associated with a terrorist country.
	I mean, it shows you the overt political...
	The only thing is this is not a self-aware class of people.
	This managerial class that needs to be on trial is utterly self-unaware.
	And they don't understand what you're seeing in the January 6th cases, what you're seeing in the Whitmer cases, what you're seeing in Russiagate and Spygate, what you're seeing in these sanctions cases.
	It's humiliating and embarrassing.
	Now, it's not working in the court of public opinion, by the way.
	Even in Europe, they can't get more than half of the country to support even sanctions if it means higher prices on them.
	So this is just only popular with the managerial class and the pretend world on Twitter.
	But that might be a good transition.
	The world on Twitter might not be so pretend if Elon Musk manages to get his hands on it.
	Well, it's a good segue, Robert.
	And this is the one where I need your insights on this because I know what I think.
	And I know the questions I have.
	I guess let's start with the class action lawsuit that has been filed but not yet certified against Elon Musk.
	I did a breakdown of it.
	What day is it today?
	Sunday?
	I think I did it yesterday.
	I don't even know what week.
	Bottom line, the class action lawsuit that is seeking certification alleges that shareholders...
	Who were not duly advised as required by the SEC that Elon Musk had acquired 5% shareholdings in Twitter, who sold their shares between the time that Elon Musk acquired 5% and announced that he had acquired over 5% or 9.2%, who sold, you know, were denied value that was undeniably thrust upon the shares of Twitter when it came out that Elon Musk had acquired 9.1% of the shares.
	So on this one issue alone, the argument is going to be there are SEC filings that he was required to file within a certain delay, 10 days of having acquired 5% shareholdings in the company.
	I mean, what do you think of the lawsuit?
	Is there a reliance, a professional reliance defense for Elon Musk?
	Are there any issues, like not loopholes, are there any issues about potential delays from clearing of the...
	You know, of the clearing of the shares when the delay starts, of him not having realized it.
	What are his defenses?
	What do you think on the merits of the lawsuit before we get into the other Elon Musk stuff?
	I don't think he's got many defenses on that suit because it's a pretty strict requirement that you have to file once you own more than 5% of the stock under the circumstances Musk was in, unless there's some fact I don't know.
	He did not do so.
	Now, there's probably not a big class of people that...
	You know, both sold in that 10-day time period and can say they would have kept their purchase had they known Musk had more than 5%.
	So that's probably not a big deal financially to him.
	I mean, it'll be a hit, but not much of a hit.
	But I think ultimately I have to pay out.
	He's currently facing over 1,000 lawsuits, he and Tesla and SpaceX.
	So, you know, he's publicly said he's...
	Unafraid of lawsuits.
	The two big ones he faces right now are in Delaware.
	One is the judges, they've already held the trial.
	It's a bench trial because a lot of these breach of fiduciary duty cases in places like Delaware end up being bench trials rather than jury trials.
	It was a very extensive trial.
	Some of it has been broken down by a critic of Musk that's called the common sense skeptic.
	The other big famous critic of Musk is Thunderfoot Online.
	Musk is very good at pushing Musk, so if you want the opposite side, you can go to those two channels to get it.
	The general expectation is that he will lose at least the one suit, which relates to breach of fiduciary duty, by the way, which is what he and others may have against Twitter if they don't sell to him, which was when Tesla bought SolarCity.
	There were conflicts of interest.
	He was more involved than he claimed to be, made certain representations that they allege were false.
	And because he would have to pay that in the current value of Tesla stock rather than the value of the stock at the time, it's a unique aspect of certain damage claims, that could be worth about $13 billion.
	And that judgment is anticipated any day now.
	Then he's facing another case, which has not gone to trial.
	To my knowledge, which involves his payment structure, whether his payment structure with Tesla breached the board's fiduciary duty and originally giving it to him.
	So those are the big financial risk for him.
	There are rumors put out by Fox Business.
	I talked about them at the vivabarneslaw.locals.com about whether there's SEC or DOJ investigations out there.
	You can go to the last bourbon with Barnes where I talk about that there since it's not been publicly confirmed at all.
	By the SEC or the Justice Department.
	But in this context, Musk made an offer that was above its current stock value, that was above its average current stock value since it's gone public.
	Now, it's had at times higher valuation.
	It's been as high as $70 plus trading on the stock market.
	But what he offered was over $40 billion, and he wants to take it completely private.
	The board, as people discovered, are mostly a bunch of political hacks, never Trumpers, that kind of crowd.
	How exactly they got there tells you something about who was putting the board in power.
	It probably tells you why Jack Dorsey left.
	Dorsey, for all of his problems, I think, was more on the free speech side than people like Zuckerberg or Google or Apple are.
	He ultimately capitulated to the request of the big stockholders or whoever it was that was pushing it.
	But a lot of the board members, maybe, in fact, none of them, it's not apparent, have any stockholdings of major...
	Some of them are not even active on Twitter at all.
	It's kind of ironic to be a board member on Twitter and not even use it.
	So they have a fiduciary duty.
	If you want the economic analysis about poison pills, about tender offers, there's better go to the economics people.
	They'll give you that analysis.
	I know enough of it to talk about it in the legal context.
	But the legal obligation of the board is they have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
	That's who their duty is.
	And their duty is to maximize value generally.
	And so if they fail, they will get sued.
	They will get sued no matter what happens here.
	If they sell to Musk, they'll get sued.
	If they don't sell to Musk, they'll get sued.
	If they take a different offer, they'll get sued.
	Because different people have investments in Twitter for different reasons.
	One of the Saudi princes, who owns about 5% or so of Twitter, Musk said he rejected Musk's deal because he thinks Twitter is of higher valuation.
	The best way for them to get out of it, what's called business discretion.
	So a board doesn't breach their fiduciary duty if they act within a reasonable business discretion.
	So even if you as a court or a juror disagreed with their decision, if you saw it as a reasonable business decision based on the information known to them at the time, then they're not legally liable.
	If they did, there's different, one they can say Musk's offer undervalues Twitter.
	So to the best way we can serve the shareholders, and this is different than the stock market valuation.
	There was some confusion out there that Goldman Sachs, which has now been hired to help Twitter evaluate the company, talked about its stock being worth $30 some period of time ago.
	That's still a little bit different than what...
	Twitter's ultimate valuation can be for sale purposes in the sense that a board member can say within a year, within two years, we'll be worth X, and that's worth a lot more than this offer on the table.
	That's usually considered in the law a business discretionary judgment within the business judgment rule defense.
	So that can be one defense.
	A second defense can be that they don't think Musk has the financial means to actually purchase it.
	Because Musk has not clarified what his source of funding is.
	And the way they could filter that out is they could ask Musk to document what his funding is.
	Is he planning on selling a bunch of Tesla stock?
	Does he have banks willing to invest?
	Does he have partners that are involved?
	And that's another legal approach they could take.
	It would be okay for them to...
	It's why, like, if Joe Blow offers to buy Twitter for...
	$3 billion or whatever.
	$300 billion, say.
	They don't have to take the offer or even submit it to shareholders if they don't think it's a credible offer.
	The person doesn't have the financial means.
	And the reason why they can decline it out of the gate is if you accept Musk's offer and he doesn't have the means to pay it, you've stuck a price tag on Twitter that's created a low bar for you, potentially in negotiations for other purchasers.
	So that could be a second round of defense.
	The third is to do what they call a poison pill, and it appears the board is going to do that, which is to issue preferential stock in such a way to make it difficult for Musk to make his purchase.
	Now, again, that action will be subject to lawsuits in all likelihood.
	They could also submit it to the stockholders for a vote, yay or nay, on the offer, like the famous Gordon Gekko scene from Wall Street, where he goes in to pitch his offer.
	about greed is good and so forth, that famous, famous Michael Douglas speech, that people on both That is also another option for Twitter.
	But Musk is a serious player.
	Tesla's been at around a trillion dollar valuation, give or take some 10-20% over the last couple of months.
	His net worth is estimated at basically a quarter of a trillion.
	So, you know, he has enough Tesla stock and probably enough partners and banks to be able to actually perform on the funding promise.
	He could also make what's called a tender, which basically involves going to the other shareholders and saying, I'll offer you this value over the current stock market value, and the sale will go through if X percentage of people, and there was a majority, end up selling it to me.
	But he's expressed his ultimate goal is to take it private.
	There's different people that have different interpretations of Musk.
	There's people who have different interpretations of Musk's intentions vis-a-vis Twitter.
	I discuss some of those at a hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But I think for those of us who want free speech or at least Twitter exposed, what Musk has done has been a net plus as exposing the board for what it really is.
	How is it we have a company that's publicly traded that cares more about its censorship algorithm than it does about maximizing shareholder value?
	Because that's what the board proved this past week.
	And you put out a hush-hush for which you took a little bit of flack from a lot of the Elon lovers out there who don't like...
	And I say, even myself, Robert, I was like, this makes me feel dirty inside because I want to love Elon.
	I think I still do.
	You made some good points.
	I got close friends.
	I got a nephew that his only goal in life is to work for him.
	And of course, hush-hushes present an alternative narrative, which if presented effectively, you believe is my own opinion.
	About half the time it is, about half the time I am as unsure as anyone else.
	And about Musk, I'm still unsure.
	I don't know.
	But people get real agitated at just the alternative.
	The Muscovites and the Musketeers.
	Get really are deeply committed.
	And I understand that, you know, what Musk promises are fantasy fulfillments.
	And because he's delivered on some of those fantasy fulfillments, there's great optimism he'll deliver on all of them.
	There's some things about Musk connected to transhumanism that is why I'm skeptical of him, but I'll get to that in a second follow-up hush-hush about Elon.
	But either way, this has been a net plus for those of us who are critical of big tech.
	No matter how this...
	Whether Musk ends up buying or not buying it, it will end up in litigation either way.
	Clay Travis has already said he'll sue if they don't sell to Musk.
	So the lawsuits are coming, guaranteed.
	He did it on purpose in the greatest way possible, setting aside the 5% issue.
	And it's true now that you mention it, the only people who could sue and have any sort of a claim would be those who sold within that 10 days.
	And I guess you could see the volume, what that might amount to in terms of exposure.
	One simple question.
	Professional reliance for Elon, is that not going to be a legitimate defense?
	It's not for that sort of thing, though.
	Okay.
	And then, Prince Talal, who comes out and says, I don't approve of this deal.
	It doesn't represent the intrinsic value of Twitter.
	First of all...
	I think I might have said Prince Talal had 12%, and I think he might only own 5%, because I think Elon is now the biggest single shareholder.
	He was.
	Vanguard overtook him.
	BlackRock, there's a lot of...
	The people who are wondering what's really up are curious because you have overlapping investors in Twitter and Tesla that have interesting histories, like BlackRock.
	People can research that on their own.
	So that's why people aren't sure what's happening.
	But from a PR, public opinion perspective, for those of us who are critics, it's all been up.
	Either this was a wonderful troll of Twitter, or the reality is it really probably can't get worse.
	Even if Musk has bad intentions, how can it get worse than it's currently at with Twitter?
	What they censor a little bit more, it's already clear they're escalating censorship.
	There's a great podcast that has a great Twitter account that's been really informative and pretty fair, tries to verify and vouch everything, but from the Russian perspective.
	Called Russians with Attitude.
	They were kicked off Twitter for like 48 hours until there was a massive outrage.
	So there's been a lot of that, unfortunately.
	So I think it's exposed the system and exposed the media.
	MSNBC came out.
	You know, Joe the intern killer Scarborough.
	Alleged Robert.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, put it this way.
	Interns die while they're working for Joe in Joe's office.
	That's all I'm saying.
	For anybody who doesn't know it, I mean, Google it, but the bottom line is an intern allegedly fainted, struck her head on the corner of a desk in Scarborough's office.
	It was in 2000 or something, and died in his office.
	I feel dirty laughing at a tragedy.
	Scarborough used to pretend to be a conservative, evangelical Christian, Pensacola Republican.
	Watch him now and ask yourself, was he ever that?
	Or was he the Zelensky of Florida?
	Just a fake actor pretending to be something he's not.
	And when Trump was bringing...
	That's the first time I heard of it.
	Didn't something happen with an intern?
	And you read about it.
	It's like, okay, man, even if I believe the official story that she fainted, lost consciousness, struck her head on a corner of a table and died in his office.
	I mean, she's...
	That's fishy on its own.
	That doesn't happen to healthy 20-some-odd-year-old women.
	So that's Scarborough.
	But they actually went out and said this was shocking and horrifying.
	Musk trying to make Twitter a free speech zone because then people get to say what they think.
	And as they put it, we're here to tell you what to think.
	By the way, for all you war lovers out there that believe in Zelensky and all this nonsense.
	Those are the kind of people you're believing.
	But yeah, it's been very revealing about what the media really thinks, as Glenn Greenwald has noted, as Matt Taibbi has noted.
	These are people coming at this from a free speech left perspective, Jimmy Dore, etc.
	Aaron Maté, the gray zone.
	So it was from a...
	Just Musk doing what he did has been net plus for us.
	For those of us who are critics of how the media operates, critics of how big tech operates, critics of the lack of free speech, critics of the hypocrisy and duplicity and the censorship, all of that has been a net plus no matter what, however this story ends.
	But one part of this story is guaranteed to end in court because no matter what happens, lawsuits are coming.
	Oh, no, it's amazing.
	I mean, the way he played it, where he says, look, I now believe I have to buy the company, take it private to make, you know, I can't do it via my 9% shareholding.
	And if you don't accept my offer, I'm going to have to...
	Musk puts Trump to shame in terms of marketing.
	And the man is a master troll.
	I mean, he actually put out, he previewed that he was going to make a tender offer as his backup, as his plan B, by tweeting out he really enjoyed the song Love Me Tender.
	You know, I mean, stuff like this.
	He retweets memes all the time.
	He's a big fan of Babylon B. So that's why people can think, you know, whatever else is behind the scenes with Musk, the guy's a brilliant, brilliant, what's undisputed, even his critics acknowledge, he's one of the greatest marketers in history.
	That much I agree with.
	And, you know, for good or for bad, Robert, you know, like in your hush-hush when you talked about him coming out with that idea of bringing a submarine through these narrow caves in Thailand, and then when he gets shut down, you know...
	I mean, he managed to dodge a jury verdict after falsely calling a guy a pedophile.
	So, you know, I mean, that tells you how good he is at presentation.
	Now he had the benefit.
	That poor sap had Lin Wood as his counsel.
	So you can see why that case went the way it did the plaintiff.
	But yeah, Musk is a brilliant presenter, brilliant marketer, and he's exposed Twitter and exposed the media just by offering to buy it, which is really, really revealing.
	People, Viva versus Musk.
	Viva would win as Musk would be blinded by the glare on Viva.
	Yeah, I think the...
	I can't do this now.
	Okay, that might...
	That's a little bit.
	It's not going to get better than that.
	Okay, so lawsuits one way or the other.
	And look, for everyone out there...
	Prince Talal does not have any more authority to refuse the deal than Musk does to accept the deal.
	It has to go through the shareholders.
	If they submit it to the shareholders, that's the only way, I think, for the direction to get out of it without a lawsuit or the best defense.
	Submit it to the shareholders and see what they say.
	Yeah, we'll see about that.
	Okay, was there anything else with Elon Musk this week?
	I think that basically everything Musk related is right there.
	So stay tuned.
	SEC, Robert thinks it's pretty straightforward.
	I do wonder if there's a technical defense, like the stock I bought, but it only cleared three days later, so I had an extra three days.
	There might be a fact we don't know.
	If the facts are accurate in the complaint, he doesn't have much of a defense.
	He's got to write a check.
	And he may have been willing to do that from the get-go, that he cared more about getting to 10% before anybody knew.
	That he did an economic analysis of what that would cost him.
	That it would cost him less to pay out a settlement than it would to let everybody know before he had up to 10%.
	He was right below 10%.
	He may have made what's called an economic breach decision.
	It's a theory of law out of the University of Chicago in particular.
	Posner and others articulate it.
	I don't quote those guys much because I hate them.
	Because they're pricks.
	They're absolute pricks.
	Posner, Easterbrook, all of them.
	Some of the most contemptible human beings on the planet.
	I've got good rulings out of him frequently, but I really hate him as human beings.
	But it's a school of thought that sometimes it's economically efficient to breach.
	That it's okay to suffer the damages because you're going to personally profit more in the end.
	He may have made that economic calculus and done what he did.
	And he was probably right if you look at how the valuation went.
	In other words, if you think that valuation would have spiked at 5%, in other words, if you think he would have had to pay more to go from 5 to 9.9, then you look at that valuation versus paying off just the people that sold in that interim, he probably profited.
	He probably made a profitable deal.
	That's what they said.
	They said he pocketed, I think it was, well, he netted or saved $150 million.
	Okay, if he announces he owns 5%, it goes up so much more than if he buys another 4.1%.
	He's not going to owe.
	The number of people who sold isn't going to be $150 million.
	It's probably going to be a third of that.
	Very interesting.
	Okay, that's good.
	That's the old expression.
	Now, this depends heavily on Tesla's stock valuation, but when you're worth $260 billion, $50 million doesn't bother you much.
	It was a mentor of mine in law who said, one of the things is, why pay now if you can pay later and you're going to pay the same amount later?
	And factor in the cost of a lawsuit if you can negotiate.
	If I owe you $100 today and you sue me and we settle for $70 later and it only cost me $15 to defend, it's a net profit of $15.
	Or a net gain of $15.
	There was the other one, Johnny Depp, before we get into some of the more...
	Eclectic lawsuit.
	Robert, the $450,000 birthday party.
	Stick around, people, because it's funny, but it's not funny.
	But it's funny.
	Johnny Depp, have you been following the trial thoroughly or not so thoroughly?
	Yeah, it was interesting.
	On our locals board, the number one request was, please don't spend much time on the Johnny Depp case.
	I'm just going to have...
	I can sum it all up for you pretty simply.
	In four words, Amber Heard...
	Well, five.
	Amber Heard is batshit insane.
	Amber Heard is nuts.
	And the question, it's a defamation trial where she accused him of being an abuser.
	He says that it cost him $100 million in Hollywood contracts because the allegations were false.
	The presentation has been chaotic, both in terms of witnesses and opening statements.
	I caught bits and pieces of it.
	Nick Ricada is covering it daily.
	Emily Baker is covering it daily.
	So if you're interested in the case, and I think Legal Bytes is sometimes covering it.
	I think she's in transit flying back.
	I think she's now dedicated to covering it daily as well.
	Legal Bytes, Alita.
	So I think between Legal Bytes, Emily Baker, Nick Ricada, Nick did a very good summary on his last nightly show.
	He got to it around the 50-minute mark.
	God bless Nick.
	But it was like the first thing, you know, there's like a whole bunch of other stuff.
	But when he sums it up in like 15 minutes, you get the whole summation.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Very well done.
	And so basically the one witness was effective.
	The rest were kind of hit or miss.
	The opening statements were kind of chaotic.
	They should have in my...
	I think people will be shocked for those that follow it simply from a professional perspective.
	You know, how witnesses work.
	How does court work?
	How does this work?
	How do lawyers present themselves?
	We'll be disappointed at the mediocrity of the legal counsel in such a high-profile case where they're getting paid large amounts of money.
	Now, there's probably almost one of the only things worse than being married to Amber Heard would be to be Amber Heard's lawyer.
	In my life, luckily, I only had one client that was like Amber Heard.
	It drove me absolutely insane.
	The bottom line with the whole story is Amber Heard, like most domestic abusers, is driven by fear.
	And so her fear was fear of abandonment.
	And she was constantly imagining Johnny Depp abandoning her.
	And she reacted by verbally abusing him and then physically abusing him by every means.
	Throwing things at him, kicking him, hitting him, punching him, you name it.
	But it's rooted in a fear of abandonment.
	It's like imagine a baby for the first four years of their life was starved physically.
	Starve, say, of light or food or certain kinds of nutrients, etc.
	We would understand their physical limitations the rest of their life.
	We don't understand when babies are emotionally starved at a young age, between the time they're born and four or five years old, they're neurologically starved.
	And the net effect of it is they don't know how to mirror emotions.
	That's why they project so much.
	Imagine you're two years old and you're randomly slapped or randomly hugged, and you have no idea why.
	It doesn't correspond to your internal emotional state.
	You don't learn mirroring, and because you don't learn mirroring, you project a lot.
	And it's what confuses people about why people end up in domestic abusive relationships is the other person, the victim, sees this other side of the person.
	And so they're often as confused as anyone else is in the relationship.
	And the abuser doesn't see it for what it is.
	The abuser thinks that this person's really trying to harm them, and they have to do what they're doing to stop them from harming them, even though, in fact, they're the one inflicting the harm.
	And she's a classic personality of that.
	Didn't take long to diagnose that if you watched her or studied her, but evidence came out to that effect this week.
	The most damning evidence for her are the tapes.
	The tapes show she's not the abused person, she's the abuser.
	If I had been Johnny Depp's counsel, it's all I would have played, to be honest with you.
	Got those tapes introduced or argued for their introduction or inclusion in the opening statement.
	If they wouldn't allow them in, I would have referred to the tapes.
	And that only would have highlighted attention to them.
	And my beginning of my witness testimony would have been those tapes.
	Rather than, they're trying to do this.
	So many lawyers think you present evidence in a chronological way.
	That's not how jurors think.
	Start out with your most powerful evidence and finish with your second most powerful evidence.
	Bookmark it.
	And tell the jury the story right away.
	Because of the chaotic nature of the presentation, she has scammed her to countersue Johnny Depp for $50 million in damages.
	No, I'm sorry, $100 million.
	She doubled it, of course, because she's crazy.
	So if the case is done fairly and correctly, in my view, the facts and the law, Johnny Depp will win, and the damages will probably be around $50 million, because that's how much he's lost in the range of movie contracts.
	That is clearly directly correlated to her.
	But because of the chaotic presentation, it may be both sides take nothing.
	I think that's very much a possibility because the presentation has not been clean and neat by the lawyers for either side.
	And there is some issue about, you know, she has a technical defense that she never used his name, though everybody knew who she was talking about.
	And because the question is how vague are some of her allegations?
	I mean, she's accusing him of being an abuser.
	He clearly was not an abuser.
	But how do you find that?
	If you ever were verbally abusive, if you ever were verbally insulting or physically violent at all, ever, even in self-defense, is that somehow now mutual and thus her allegations true?
	I think anyone that listens to those tapes will conclude she's the abuser and she lied and consequence should follow.
	I just don't know if the jury will be so confused by that point that they're lost because the jury presentation has been so weak.
	But for those that didn't know, Amber Heard is batshit insane and she was the abuser, not Johnny Depp.
	She's clearly...
	There's a lot of comments that I've been hearing people make which...
	Yeah, and then, you know, couple that with a very attractive individual, and then, you know, what goes on in private.
	Look at that British judge.
	Listen to those tapes, and as people are going to see, they're going to wonder, what did that British judge do in that case?
	He was just all goo-goo eyes when he saw Amber Heard.
	And just, oh, yes, she must be.
	I was like, whoa, buddy.
	So, you know, the British judiciary will be embarrassed by the outcome of this case if it ends up being strongly in Johnny Depp's favor.
	But I think for those people that don't care about Johnny Depp, don't care about Amber Heard, don't care about the celebrity, I think there's value in watching parts of the case just to see how presentation can be more or less effective if you're a young lawyer interested in the legal system.
	And to give an example of that, because this is being publicly broadcast, Amber Heard's side was exposed.
	In two different ways.
	One, the lawyer lied about a witness, said that the witness had liked something on social media during the trial.
	In fact, it predated the trial.
	And so Amber Heard's lawyer, and by the way, my experience, abusers always hire the sleaziest lawyers, almost all the time.
	I represented a bunch of victims of domestic abuse I have throughout my whole life, but I represented a bunch at the beginning of my career where half of my work was representing victims of domestic abuse.
	And the abuser, I always knew my client's story was likely true when the abuser hired certain lawyers in town.
	It's like, bingo, that guy's guilty.
	But her lawyers appear to have lied.
	To the judge and lied to falsify evidence against a witness.
	And they got caught with one of their people helping out in the trial, helping out Amber Heard, actually going through Twitter and trying to go after anybody saying anything negative about her and doing a lot of these things in the courtroom, which the court had prohibited.
	Because it had been broadcast, everybody knew that when the lawyer said, oh, she wasn't here for opening statement, it's right there in the TV camera.
	So this is the value of broadcasting trials, is it limits the ability of corruption to go unchecked in the judicial process.
	The broadcasting of the trial is fantastic.
	I think it should be a rule, not the exception.
	I'm going to read this Rumble rant from a distance so I can not lose my two bars on my phone.
	Andris Berzins on Rumble says, please give the bars.
	Follow the case 303 Creative v.
	Elenis.
	Free speech case accepted to U.S. Supreme Court for this fall, similar to the cake cutter case.
	Haven't heard about it.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm aware of it.
	We will debrief it closer to when the oral arguments take place in the case.
	Fantastic.
	And we got...
	Cove Research says, Trudeau's son has no sense nor cojones.
	Pierre would say, WTF, are you doing with the charter?
	Just the wokest locust.
	Okay, that's very good.
	I'm going to put my phone by the window so I don't lose my cell reception.
	Okay, so enough with the Johnny Depp.
	I know people are getting a little fed up with it, but when Amber Heard is on the stand, if she takes the stand, I might livestream that just to watch it because I've made predictions.
	Well, remember, the body language panel did a great job of breaking down her deposition.
	And you can look them up, the behavior panel.
	They've been interviewing recently Dr. Phil.
	You can look them up on YouTube as well.
	They've broken down a lot of great stuff.
	And they might help me out from time to time in certain things.
	But they did a great breakdown.
	And you can watch yourself.
	You can just listen to the tapes and understand Amber's nuts.
	If you have any background in the professional aspects of...
	Domestic abuse, you recognize it very quickly, the pattern of behavior she's in.
	Now, there's going to be a lot of embarrassing stuff about Johnny Depp come out.
	So, I mean, that's the downside, too.
	But what it is, it became a no-brainer once he kept losing these contracts.
	His risk from the suit went down, and his reward from the suit went up.
	As he lost those contracts.
	If he still had those contracts, it would be dumb for him to be doing this case because of some of the stuff that he unfortunately texted and whatnot.
	Now, Robert, I want to bring up your suit.
	I'm going to bring this up in my PDF here.
	I'm going to bring this down.
	I want to bring up one chat, which is the segue.
	Oh, where did the chat go?
	Hold on.
	It was not that one.
	It was this one.
	I'm not answering the chat, by the way.
	Can you share any insight you have into Dr. Brian Artis' documentary on covering this?
	Finish reading the sentence, people.
	I've been getting tons of emails about this all week.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, and I'm not addressing this.
	But RFK did write a piece on it in, I believe it was on Children's Health Defense.
	Is it Children's Health Defense or Children's Defense Fund?
	Children's Health Defense.
	Children's Defense Fund is a different group.
	RFK put out a post on this.
	Many people who are in the know, who are smarter than me, say this is not where you should be distracting your energies, but it's a good segue.
	First of all, everyone go check it out on RFK.
	If you Google it, you'll find the blog piece on this, which I think is a reasonable explanation as to why it's not what a lot of people think it is.
	But Robert, so you just filed a motion in the Children's Health Defense.
	And I want to see if I can bring it up because I'm not going to be too scared to share it.
	I want, when you say that people need to drop bombs, metaphorically speaking, you know, fight in the court of public opinion, share screen, window.
	I'm not going to be able to do it.
	I can't bring up the damn suit, Robert.
	Yeah, I have it and I'll probably repin it.
	At the vivobarneslaw.locals.com board.
	PDF is downloadable.
	You can copy, paste, use it however you want.
	Any other lawyers can copy, pay, no copyright, use it however you want because it has a lot of medical information in there.
	But basically the suit is the Children's Health Defense is suing the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC for their authorization of emergency use authorization of the COVID vaccines.
	for mRNA vaccines for the purposes of children as young as five years old, between the ages of five and 11. And our argument is threefold.
	First of all, that they are misusing emergency power.
	Here's the CDC's defense.
	We already know from the other case where we brought them a suit based on the bait-and-switch that they pulled, where they told people that there was an FDA-approved drug.
	That was going to be available.
	But in fact, the only one available was the emergency use one, which has different legal consequences for people.
	And we'll also talk about that aspect too, because there's, Naomi Wolf was on with Steve Bannon.
	There's some other lawyers going around that I think have misunderstood the law on the ability to sue related to willful misconduct.
	But I'll get to that after we discuss this.
	So we brought suit, and the CDC and FDA's defense is, Anything they do in emergency power, they're immune from suit.
	Nobody can sue them.
	Nobody can sue them because there's no standing to sue.
	Nobody can sue them because the Administrative Procedures Act doesn't apply.
	That's how they construe the law.
	Our argument on this, well, we still think we have standing and we're pursuing that in the Sixth Circuit case and the other case.
	But in this case, our argument is not that they misuse their discretion within emergency power.
	Our argument is they had no right to assert emergency power.
	There is no emergency for five-year-olds in this country concerning COVID.
	There is no emergency that requires this particular treatment, given the lack of clinical testing, given certain medicinal changes that took place, medical changes and chemical changes into this particular drug, given other issues related, given the fact that it's not an emergency power to suddenly mislabel a drug as a vaccine that doesn't legally fit the definition of vaccine.
	For this group of people, for this particular drug, for this particular disease.
	And so we lay out...
	I won't get into the medical arguments.
	That will be available in the suit.
	You can look at yourself at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	And again, I'll pin it once again towards the top of the board later tonight.
	So we're seeking a stay.
	I got told by a lot of lawyers, you can't sue the FDA.
	You can't sue the CDC.
	So don't even try.
	I believe that legally we're right.
	If the CDC can simply say, emergency, now you can't sue us.
	Now we no longer have to do notice and comment.
	Now we no longer have to do like the Biden administration is doing in the Title 42 and other cases we'll get to later.
	Now we no longer have to abide by, we can be arbitrary, we can be capricious.
	We don't have to abide by any of the restrictions or restraints of the Administrative Procedures Act.
	We don't even have to have reasonable actions whatsoever.
	We don't even have to give reasons for what we did and why we did it and how we did it.
	We don't have to go through the legislative process at all.
	Just executive bureaucrats can just declare what drug and what label that drug has that then has all these other ramifications, which is discriminatory practices and policies against young children in schools and in the local political economic social sphere.
	Now, I wanted to bring it up so people could see it, but you can go get it on VivaBars.
	I'm just going to read two paragraphs.
	This is the conclusory paragraph from your introduction, and I like it for a number of reasons.
	It puts into practice the strategy you've been talking about for a while.
	Draft it for public consumption.
	And I'm going to do a separate video on this probably tomorrow when I get the time.
	The FDA's action.
	Poses irreparable and immediate injury to plaintiffs and places plaintiffs' minor children at imminent risk of harm.
	The FDA unlawfully and injuriously mischaracterizes any purported legal source of their power, falsely represents this body-altering experimental mRNA gene therapy to be injected into children, and impermissibly redefines the word vaccine itself.
	CHD as an institution suffers, and its essential resources are diverted to address this danger.
	The FDA claims to be above the law, the citizenry, and even this court.
	This suit follows, and due to the urgent threat posed...
	This motion made necessary hereby.
	That's one paragraph and then another one.
	These are allegations, people, but I'm just reading from a lawsuit.
	The calculated risk from COVID-19 is realistically even lower as this, quote, emergency was based on inaccurate death statistics.
	The CDC recently corrected its COVID-19 mortality data for children, which was, quote, Infiltrated in a, quote, coding logic error in which non-COVID-related deaths were counted in these statistics reduced the total pediatric deaths from COVID-19 by nearly 24%, 1,755 individuals to 1,356, all allegations to be proven.
	350 of those occurred in children aged...
	Ages 5 through 11. This is equivalent to under 200 children per year in a population of approximately 28 million children aged 5 through 11, which is under a 0.00000714 risk of death.
	Acknowledging this data, Florida became the first U.S. state to recommend against healthy children receiving this biologic publishing guidance on March 8, 2022, that, quote, healthy children aged 5 to 17 may not benefit from receiving yada, yada, yada.
	I'm co-counseling the case with Bobby Kennedy.
	Credit to Bobby Kennedy for taking the lead on this.
	And to give an example of how it works in the court of public opinion, one of the reasons why we brought this suit, but also we're threatening to bring others along with it, is the state of California has said they will now not mandate this vaccine for young school children.
	So this is why it matters.
	You bang the door, you bang the drum long enough, loud enough, and sooner or later, Enough people listen that you can make real change, even if you can't get that change from the courts itself.
	And for those up in Canada, when the change occurs in the United States, all of a sudden it becomes less popular for the tyrants here to impose these very same restrictions, or if not the restrictions, the discriminatory reprisals against people who choose to make their own decisions.
	Now, one place we do need political change...
	Go ahead.
	It's a great suit.
	I'm going to do a video on it hopefully tomorrow.
	But Robert, you draft the way you say things should be drafted, dropping legal word bombs and taking it to the court of public opinion because people read that.
	You'll have to make your evidence, but they're going to read that and it's going to read well for anybody who takes the time to read it.
	And everything throughout is cited as well.
	So again, people can cut and paste however they want for their own, whether it's court of public opinion, whether they're talking to a school board, whether they're talking to their employer, talking to somebody else, a lawyer, free to borrow from it any way you want.
	In fact, I didn't highlight it because some lawyers prefer it not to be highlighted so they don't have to unhighlight it.
	So I didn't highlight it so they can make it easier to cut and paste.
	Where there's a mistake out there...
	There's a belief that you can sue the big drug companies for this vaccine if you can prove willful misconduct.
	Naomi Wolf is talking about lawyers bringing that claim on Steve Bannon's show.
	Other lawyers are talking about it.
	And the problem is we need legislative reform in this area.
	And I think it unfortunately distracts from the need for legislative reform because the law doesn't actually allow those suits to go forward.
	Here's what people don't under fully appreciate.
	The PREP Act.
	Not only made everything immune in any way, shape, or form related to any emergency use authorized drug, but said that even in cases of willful misconduct, which is basically committing a crime, that's criminal conduct by the drug companies, if the product at issue is, quote, subject to regulation, what that means is, is it an FDA-approved product?
	If it's an FDA-approved product, not biologic licensed approval, FDA emergency use authorized product, then you still can't sue even in cases of willful misconduct unless the government agrees with you and signs on to the case.
	And this is what people are going to file a bunch of suits thinking they can win on willful misconduct grounds.
	The suits are going to get dismissed.
	Because the government won't join those cases.
	And, you know, I don't mind, as long as people are cognizant of it, okay, if you want to prove the courts are closed, go ahead.
	But I think they're naive because we need to be pressuring members of Congress, need to change the law to say at least, in my view, there should be no immunity, period.
	No sovereign immunity, no drug company immunity, none of it.
	But at a minimum, get rid of willful misconduct immunity.
	To say, if you engage in willful misconduct, you can be sued regardless of whether the Justice Department agrees with you.
	No, it's amazing.
	It's amazing.
	And then what's going to be the vested interest for the government to authorize that suit?
	I mean, you would only have that if you want to.
	They haven't joined my Ketam case, that it was brought by a whistleblower at this point.
	And Brooke Jackson, who documented everything that went wrong in these clinical trials in a key tam whistleblower case that's pending in Texas, the Justice Department didn't sign on to that case yet.
	They don't care at all.
	This Biden Justice Department will do nothing to go after big pharma companies that they're in bed with.
	Now, someone in the chat said Viva Salty is on.
	I have to go watch.
	And I said Salty is going to be on, Robert, with us this Thursday.
	Yes, this week's sidebar.
	Two special guests on Wednesday at noon.
	New York time.
	Ivory Heckler, who's the Fox News reporter turned whistleblower featured by Project Veritas, she'll be on for an hour at noon on Eastern time on Wednesday, noon New York time.
	And then on noon LA time on Thursday will be the one for an hour sidebar, so our sidebars are split, will be the one, the only, the inimitable Salty Cracker.
	Re all the way to Thursday, people.
	So, it wasn't a joke.
	And I didn't mean to put the sad face.
	I meant to put a smiley face.
	You know, whatever.
	The brackets are next to each other.
	Okay.
	Fantastic.
	Godspeed, Robert.
	We'll see where it goes.
	And if it ever...
	Is it...
	I forgot to look.
	Is it federal court?
	You're in federal court.
	Oh, yeah.
	All these are federal court.
	We'll never get to see you live.
	We won't be able to live stream a Barnes trial anytime soon, at least.
	Until...
	Unfortunately.
	But speaking of other suits about violating APA regulations, the Biden administration has decided it will scrap its Title 42 restraints on illegal immigration, even though seven different Democratic United States senators have complained to the Biden administration about this policy procedure.
	And so about a dozen or so states have now filed suit against the Biden administration to enjoin their attempts to remove Title 42 limitations on illegal immigration.
	I think I remember what Title 42 is, and it had to do with catch and deport as opposed to catch and release.
	What exactly was the Title 42?
	They want to prevent Joe Biden from eliminating it.
	What is Title 42 doing right now?
	So Title 42, like the Remain in Mexico policy, were combined by the Trump administration in 2020 to radically reduce the number of illegal immigrants to one of the lowest levels, less than half a million border encounters in recent history.
	Title 42 was done under the CDC's authority.
	So Title 42 was done on the grounds of illegal immigrants if they were coming from a country that had a pandemic.
	It could not be led into the country, had to be detained or remain in Mexico.
	And so on the grounds, this is fascinating, on the grounds that the pandemic is no longer a problem.
	This is the same Biden administration that extended the mask mandate on the grounds the pandemic is a problem.
	The same Biden administration that extended the emergency use authorization for all of these drugs, including one to inject little children.
	The same Biden administration that's using emergency authorization for a range of political powers and local state governments doing the same is saying that when it comes to illegal immigration, the pandemic's over.
	So we can scrap Title 42, even though they know it will likely lead to a tripling of Border Encounters.
	And that's with Border Encounters already set to break a record in 2022.
	It looks like we will go from less than half a million in 2020 to more than 2 million in 2022.
	And if Title 42 is dropped...
	Then what will happen is they're anticipating up to 3 million or more illegal entries.
	Those are just border encounters.
	That doesn't cover everybody who gets in illegally.
	A lot more people will get in illegally.
	And that's why even Democratic United States senators were begging the Biden administration not to do it.
	They don't care.
	They're going to drop it.
	And the only place the pandemic is finally over is when it relates to illegal immigration.
	That has led to the suit.
	The suit is on the grounds that it violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
	They didn't go through notice and comment.
	There is not a legitimate good cause or foreign policy exception present here.
	They failed to consider states, which they were supposed to do under the rules, and that it imposes an undue burden on the states due to the economic cost of illegal immigration, which is measured in terms of crime, public transit, education, and otherwise.
	To me, it sounds like it's a no-brainer.
	What are your thoughts on the likelihood of success?
	I mean, it depends.
	Where's it going to go?
	It's going to go through...
	Federal court, D.C.?
	Yeah, it has to be filed in federal court.
	I believe they're, I think they filed suit in Florida.
	No, no, I'm sorry.
	They filed suit in Louisiana.
	So they're picking their courts carefully.
	The Fifth Circuit has been the best on this.
	The Eleventh Circuit, the second best.
	So not a surprise they filed there.
	And so it will depend on what judge they get, but they have an above average chance of getting a good judge in those particular districts and circuits where they filed.
	So I think they should prevail.
	But, you know, if they get unlucky with the judge or if there's something that I've missed, then they may not.
	But I think in particular, the Biden administration would have had a stronger argument about this particular prohibition on illegal immigration if they were not at the same time demanding vaccine mandates still be enforced by arguing that issue with federal employees, federal contractors, and others in the Court of Appeals, as we currently discuss, as is currently the case, if they weren't pushing mask mandates for a couple more weeks.
	At least if they weren't pushing these other restrictions based on the pandemic, if they weren't pushing emergency use authorization to inject little children.
	It's hard.
	You know, how is it only illegal immigration doesn't have a pandemic problem for this administration?
	Someone made the joke cynically in the comment section.
	There's a net positive in terms of prospective voters.
	So there's no question on that.
	Yes, but I don't think it will help them long-term politically.
	I think they're taking some big gambles.
	But I guess it's not as big a gamble as a $450,000 birthday party.
	Okay, so first of all, you send me my homework, Robert.
	I read the item in our list.
	I was like, oh, what the heck's that?
	Read the lawsuit.
	I start reading it, and I start thinking it's another bogus lawsuit.
	What went wrong?
	The fact pattern people, I haven't read the proceedings.
	I just read a couple of articles.
	An employee, a relatively new hire, so it's not like he'd been there for 40 years or 30 years and they knew this person's personality.
	2018, I think this occurred maybe last year.
	It occurred recently, maybe three years he'd been there.
	Notified his higher-ups, don't make a surprise birthday for me.
	I don't want it.
	Which I guess they heard as, make me a surprise birthday party.
	They threw a surprise birthday party for him.
	Apparently the individual suffers from a chronic panic disorder.
	You know, it has panic attacks.
	At, you know, sudden events.
	Surprise party, whatever.
	Made him feel, you know, uncomfortable.
	Had a panic attack.
	Apparently behaved in a manner that was unsettling to his employees, his colleagues.
	Left, ran out, went to his car, spent the rest of his lunch in the car.
	I don't know when they called the cops and had his access removed.
	It seemed like it was relatively contemporaneous.
	But bottom line, not only did the upper managerial, you know, say...
	We're sorry for having done this.
	We didn't mean to make you feel uncomfortable.
	They fired the guy because his reaction apparently made the other employees feel uncomfortable.
	Removed his access.
	Shun is not the word.
	And he sued and he won for $450,000.
	If I missed anything, the employer has said they're going to appeal because their number one obligation is to preserve the safety and the security of their employees.
	Did I miss anything, Robert?
	And is this justice?
	You know, it's interesting.
	I'm going to cite it whenever somebody says, hey, I got an idea.
	Let's do a surprise birthday party for somebody.
	So just make sure it doesn't cost you nearly half a million bucks.
	Because that's what this did.
	But it's not like to transition to another sort of abbreviated case.
	Some officers spied and stole somebody's Dropbox files.
	And were sued under 42 U.S. 1983.
	And by golly, those federal courts in Wisconsin, there's just such noble courts.
	They decided they're immune because how could an officer know that stealing someone's access to their Dropbox account could possibly be a Fourth Amendment violation?
	So hopefully the case gets reversed on appeal, but you can't bank on that in the Seventh Circuit.
	And it's a reminder of the problem of expansive immunity in courts and the lack of clear standards from the U.S. Supreme Court on these issues.
	That something that to me is obvious, if you invade someone's privacy and steal their information, you have violated the Fourth Amendment if you didn't have probable cause or a warrant, period.
	It should not have to be a situation where, well, that precise method of violating the Fourth Amendment was new, so the cop couldn't know.
	That that was illegal.
	I mean, they knew exactly what they were doing.
	They just got caught.
	But sadly, the federal court immunized them for their conduct.
	I mean, they immunized them as in it's part of their duties as police officers?
	No, they didn't know it was an unconstitutional action at the time.
	Well, in fairness, it sounds like Ketanji Brown Jackson's theorizing that...
	Online imagery is somehow less serious than printed.
	You didn't go to the pharmacy to print up a negative roll.
	You just stumbled across it on the interwebs, and it shouldn't be as serious a sanction as had you gotten it in the mail.
	Oh, man.
	Okay, now, I didn't get to the other lawsuits.
	What do you have that we haven't touched on yet, Robert?
	Let's see.
	Well, the main one was redistricting.
	The U.S. gunmakers urge the U.S. gunmakers trying to get rid of the $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers.
	Robert, this one's kind of amazing because I'm not torn.
	I think the idea of going after gun manufacturers for the acts carried out with guns, if we're on...
	If we're all on the same page with that, which we're not, but let's just say we are, well, then why would you not go after the government for allowing those weapons to knowingly cross the border into Mexico?
	But Mexico is going after gun manufacturers for $10 billion for the results, the consequences of crimes committed with their weapons.
	And the judge in the file had some interesting queries which you might want to elaborate on.
	Yeah, I mean, but we discussed this suit when it was filed, and I have big problems with it.
	I think it's...
	It's an attempt to blame gun manufacturers for the problems of Mexico's drug cartels.
	And I find it just kind of absurd, particularly the Mexican government doing that, given that the Mexican government has been so heavily corrupted by those drug cartels now for many, many decades.
	You can watch shows like Narcos or others to see how the scale and scope of that involvement is.
	Including how the death of the DEA agent was likely due to cover up corruption in the Mexican government.
	And there's other people, it's not exactly secret.
	Their drug czar turns out to be on the pay ledger of one of the cartels just taking up their competition.
	This is routine, frankly, in Mexico.
	So for them to blame Smith& Wesson making a gun for their drug cartels and the way their drug cartels use guns struck me as absurd from day one.
	Also, if you're going to go after people, why not go after defense industry contractors that launder arms the way they're doing in Ukraine?
	There you have guys like Yelensky saying, none of these arms they're sending us are really useful.
	Well, why is that?
	Because they're not going for the Ukraine war.
	They're being laundered out to other places.
	But at least this judge seemed to be on track with asking at least some of the right questions, because this case, in my view, should not go forward.
	But it depends on the judge's willingness to push back against the gun control folks.
	This is highlighting what the judge said.
	This is the judge said, he asked why if Mexico could sue the gun makers, other countries could not too, such as Italy over mafia killings, Israel over attacks by Palestinian militant groups, Hamas, or even Russia over the deaths of its soldiers in Ukraine if the company's guns were used.
	Quote, if Ukrainians are using United States manufactured military weapons or Smith& Wesson revolvers for that matter to defend themselves, can the government of Russia come in and say you have caused us harm?
	Yes.
	I mean, why not if your theory is right?
	That's the problem with their theory.
	And now to his credit, he's realizing you logically extend this, it has no real limits.
	And the point of the law is to have manageable limits.
	There aren't manageable limits here.
	Now this is put into motion by the Sandy Hook suit.
	When you get to blame a gun manufacturer for some crazy person shooting people up, that's opened the door.
	And the insurance companies that have been corrupted, in fact, I think those insurance companies violated their duties to their shareholders by paying out such a ridiculous amount.
	$73 million, I mean, it's ludicrous.
	The gun didn't cause what happened.
	The lack of school safety mostly was what caused what happened, along with the crazy person.
	Which, by the way, as we predicted, the school system in Michigan, Is now being sued for that person's school shooting.
	And they detail how there was a massive cover-up effort by the school, which including trying to displace blame on the parents who might have been wrongfully criminally prosecuted up there.
	You look at that suit.
	It goes on.
	It's a huge suit.
	Hundreds and hundreds of paragraphs of allegations.
	It details all the things the school knew, all the things the school hid, all the things the school failed to do, the massive cover-up it went into.
	That's where there's culpability, just like there is with Sandy Hook.
	It's not on the gun manufacturer for either the problems of crazy people or school safety lack of procedures, nor is the gun manufacturer responsible for how that gun is used down the road, whether it's by drug cartels, whether it's in war conflicts or anything else.
	I mean, if you wanted to draw a connection...
	There's a lot bigger connection between the military-industrial complex and the way those guns get misused than there is between Smith and Wesson and Mexican drug cartels.
	But what is the law in the United States that immunized gun manufacturers from these types of lawsuits?
	So, yeah, it basically said you couldn't sue for this.
	And the problem was, the Connecticut state courts are so political, they refused to enforce it in the Sandy Hook case.
	And as soon as everybody saw that, they're like, oh, let's start suing.
	And it's like Runaway Jury.
	Great book, mediocre movie.
	Why?
	Because they shifted the books about Big Tobacco, the movies about gun control.
	Lame gun control.
	Aside from the fact that anybody who spends any time researching the evidence sees that, in fact, not only are guns not responsible, there's simply not even a correlation, least of all causation, between the presence of guns and gun violence.
	Most gun violence is used, the gun is used illegally, not as intended, and not only that, the gun is usually purchased and owned illegally.
	So unless you want to create massive black markets for gunrunners, which, by the way, is what Mexico government did, Mexico government made drug cartels richer by making gun possession illegal in many cases.
	All it did was give them more things to sell, more things to buy on the black market.
	They could make them more money.
	Obviously, it did not.
	Gun control obviously didn't work in Mexico.
	Nobody's talking about that aspect of the suit.
	But this door was open because...
	Of those politically motivated Sandy Hook suits, and that's what led to this.
	But at least the judge asking the right question, saying, you know, if this is right, the United States government could be sued into oblivion for every war we've sponsored, right, as an example.
	Every gun manufacturer, gun company, munitions maker, all of them.
	There's just no limitation.
	If you're always responsible for however something you create is used.
	Then you have no limits, particularly in the gun context.
	So hopefully he dismisses this case with prejudice like it should be.
	And I was thinking, my face is getting brighter and brighter as this goes along.
	I was thinking the argument would be, I respond to the judge, well, Your Honor, selling weapons in the ordinary course of the military-industrial complex, that's a lawful exchange of weaponry.
	This is unlawful, therefore it should be treated differently.
	And then what you're effectively, what you'd be arguing is...
	You should not be held for the lawful consequences of the use of the arm as intended, but rather the unlawful consequences of the weapon when used improperly, which is even more counterintuitive.
	Don't go after the car manufacturers when the brakes fail.
	Go after them when someone deliberately uses the car in a way that it was not intended to be used, as opposed to if they just use it properly and have an accident.
	Yeah, okay, we'll see.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	The argument was good.
	I mean, $10 billion seems nuts.
	And I couldn't understand how Mexico got around a United States law simply by virtue of the fact that I guess it's not a United States citizen, so to speak.
	Okay, interesting.
	Hold on.
	And there was one chat here, which we says, just support for your work.
	No grifting feeling for me.
	Thank you very much, Gavin Cross.
	Someone before Robert had asked, what do you think about the moon landing?
	I know, I think we touched on it, but...
	I don't know.
	I've never researched it, to be honest with you.
	So it might be a future Hush Hush episode, but I've never researched it.
	It would make for a good one.
	I'd love to hear what you think.
	I know what...
	I mean, look...
	Anyhow, it doesn't matter.
	I'll wait for your Hush Hush, and then I'll revise what I think I think I know on that.
	What else?
	The only other major case involved, well, there was a case involving a mouse, but we'll save that for next week.
	There's a case redistricting, big redistricting win for the Republican side in Wisconsin.
	They had a majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and they needed all of it.
	To get their map through.
	Some of the objections being made that the redistricting in Wisconsin was unconstitutional because it was meant to be racially discriminatory really didn't make sense.
	If you understand that Wisconsin is almost all white.
	And it's African-American and Mexican-American population is very limited to mostly parts of Milwaukee.
	I mean, it's just, it's like a 94% white state, you know, so whatever it is.
	So I was like, there's great racial discrimination in the maps.
	I was like, I'm not buying that.
	So the, nor did the court for, and I think correctly.
	So the, early on Democrats were winning a lot of redistricting battles in the latter half where Republicans have won a lot of them.
	So we'll see how that all shakes out.
	But that was the ultimate impact.
	And more state courts are making rulings than federal courts because the U.S. Supreme Court has discouraged federal courts from getting involved in this.
	And that has held up to the benefit in this particular instance of Republicans.
	Fantastic.
	All right.
	And so we have, okay, just to recap, before you leave us with the white pill, words of encouragement for another week.
	First of all, everyone out there, I don't know if you say happy Easter or have a meaningful Easter, because I'm not sure it's supposed to be like a festive occasion, but meaningful Easter to everyone.
	Happy Passover to everyone who celebrated yesterday and the day before.
	God, when Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, when they wish us a happy Passover, and then we'll get back into it.
	I raged against it yesterday.
	This week, people, Wednesday, I forgot her name already, but I know it.
	Robert, who do we have on Wednesday?
	Sidebar, noon.
	The Fox News journalist.
	Oh yeah, the Fox News reporter turned whistleblower will be noon New York time, Wednesday, and then Thursday, Salty Cracker, noon LA time.
	So 3 o 'clock Eastern time.
	Wednesday night, I'm going to be on another lawyer's channel, Nicholas Wandsbutter.
	Don't talk TV with Maxime Bernier.
	So I'll send the links out for that later on, and timing's going to work out perfectly.
	Tomorrow's a new day.
	Robert.
	Words of encouragement before we head into a new day.
	Sure.
	So, yeah, I'll be doing Bourbon with Barnes all week, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And we'll have some Elon Musk update, hush-hushes, and a hush-hush on some false flags, including the first one in Manchuria, China, that helped lead to that part of the World War II.
	But the, but I mean, the...
	The advocacy that some of us have said is that we should fight in the courts of law in order to fight in the courts of public opinion because it ultimately can make a difference.
	And this week saw that.
	The state that was the most pro-vaccine mandate state in the entire union, the state that was the most pro-forcing vaccines on school children of any state in the union, of any place in the world.
	They decided when they saw all of these suits as part of the reason they faced multiple suits in California, saw what these suits were bringing and the information that was behind it, the political capital that was behind it, the good arguments that were behind it.
	The state of California walked back from the edge and said, despite all of their other crazy laws they're trying to propose in California right now, said we will not force young school children to take.
	This particular drug, this particular vaccine.
	And that is a major achievement and it's a credit to a lot of ordinary people out there making their voices heard in the court of public opinion, which in the end, more often than not, does make a difference.
	You know, I'll end just by saying one thing so there's no rumorings out there.
	I think the moon landing occurred.
	I just can understand why.
	There have been some facts out there that could cause people to question.
	The big one for me is...
	That NASA astronaut guy who said they destroyed the technology and therefore cannot recreate it to go back to the moon.
	That enough can justify people's beliefs.
	I happen to think it occurred.
	I think it would be probably harder to fake and keep a secret than to just do.
	I may be wrong, but...
	The more sophisticated theories that I've heard have the astronauts believing they went to the moon when they really didn't.
	That's the more sophisticated theory.
	That's the next level.
	So I'm not quite there.
	I'm not even at the other one yet, but there's some facts out there that I can understand how people build on.
	So just don't put words in my mouth.
	I don't think it was faked, personally.
	Who knows, though?
	Robert, another barn burner of a live stream.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Thank you for the support.
	Stay tuned all week.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Bourbon with Barnes.
	You're not on with Barris.
	Are you going to be on with the Duran?
	Oh, and then on Tuesday, live, 1 p.m. Eastern, 10 p.m. Pacific, on the Duran, discussing can Le Pen beat Macron, everything related to Russia-Ukraine, everything related to U.S. politics and policy responses, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, what might happen.
	Joe Biden was busy shaking hands with invisible people this week.
	He continues to improve on that trail and a bunch of that.
	So you can find that Tuesday, 1 p.m. Eastern on the Duran YouTube channel.
	We'll be live discussing all of that.
	All right.
	And it was Ivory Hacker, people.
	Thank you very much for...
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, you asked for a name.
	Yes, yes.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, enjoy the rest of the night.
	Exercise, outdoor activity.
	Get some sun tomorrow.
	It's going to be a beautiful day, except in Canada.
	Minus one.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Enjoy the night.
	Peace.

▲