Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 5, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:22:06

Sidebar with Journalist Darren J. Beattie! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, what just happened there?
	I don't know.
	What did happen there?
	What just happened there?
	Hold on.
	Let me go get that.
	I'm going to go back and screen grab that.
	People, I know you're probably all Johnny Depp'd out, but this is...
	First of all, I couldn't find another video to play for the intro here.
	I was going to play something from Biden, which I'll probably end up playing at some point during the stream.
	This is an amazing thing where your initial eyewitness recounting of what you think happened is in fact totally inaccurate.
	They break for pause during the Johnny Depp trial.
	And I thought I saw Johnny Depp do like one of these flex things to Amber Heard as she left, which incited that reaction from Amber Heard based on the way she reacted.
	Look, watch.
	They're breaking for pause.
	They're about to leave the courtroom.
	Watch Amber carefully.
	Oh, look at that.
	She takes a step back.
	And this is why...
	Oh, what just happened there?
	Eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable.
	I thought...
	I saw the reaction and therefore created the...
	that which created the reaction.
	Look at Johnny Depp, by the way.
	Now watch Johnny Depp the entire time.
	He doesn't...
	She reacts before he even makes eye contact.
	They're just leaving for break.
	Oh, she reacts.
	And then he looks forward.
	This, by the way...
	Oh, whoa.
	Yeah.
	This is, on the one hand, seeing something with your own eyes...
	Is not the best way to see something.
	You can really be thoroughly convinced you saw something that is not there.
	And that, by the way...
	Can't hear me, Viva?
	You can hear me.
	And that, by the way, was...
	That was planned.
	That was staged.
	That was...
	I mean, that must have been there.
	If the opportunity arises, make that scene.
	Because it's going to fit with your narrative.
	That's my take now after having reassessed that.
	Okay.
	Am I mute?
	We can hear you.
	Good.
	Jeez, don't scare me like that.
	We're not talking any more Johnny Depp for tonight, people.
	We're not talking Amber Heard.
	We're going to talk January 6th and the important stuff.
	So everybody out there who says, you spent eight hours covering Johnny Depp trial.
	One hour of that eight hours, I was interviewing Eric Duhem, the leader of the Quebec Conservative Party, about important stuff.
	And tonight we've got Darren Beattie.
	Darren J. Beattie.
	I Google everyone's history.
	Darren has, he's been the object of some hit pieces from the media.
	CNN in particular, the most trusted name in news.
	We'll get to it.
	Darren J. Beattie is a journalist, writes with The Revolver, and has been, I say neck deep, has been the best coverage out there.
	The most thorough investigative coverage.
	Of the January 6th stuff.
	I mean, I think I've been going to the revolver multiple times for...
	It's a journal.
	It's not a weapon.
	Multiple times for, you know, the actual stories about what's going on.
	The coverage of the January 6th persecution?
	Prosecution?
	People who have been detained for over a year now for non-violent trespass crimes?
	It's going to be very interesting.
	So, standard disclaimers.
	No Johnny Depp.
	No election fortification advice.
	No medical advice.
	What's the other one?
	No legal advice, obviously.
	Superchats.
	If I get to them, thank you very much.
	If I don't get to them and you're going to be miffed, don't give them.
	I don't like people feeling miffed.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	We should be simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I'll double check in a second.
	Yeah.
	Revolvers, January 6th.
	Hold on.
	Where's the comment here?
	It's not just good.
	First of all, it's existent and it's good.
	And it's, you know, brutally clear.
	We're getting into all of it.
	I mean, I know more than I wanted to ever know about January 6th.
	Who has been persecuted, prosecuted, and who hasn't?
	Goes by the name of Ray Epps.
	We might get into this.
	We're going to get into the thick of January 6th after we do a little bit of life history of Darren J. Beatty.
	Barnes is going to be here soon.
	I don't want to keep our guest waiting much longer.
	People, without further ado.
	Darren J. Beatty.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Great.
	It's great to be here.
	Thank you.
	It's good to have you.
	I do the background check on everybody to find out what their scandals are, when they've been in the news.
	We'll get to that in a bit, but the elevator pitch for anybody who may not know who you are before we go to the beginning, who you are, how you got there, and what it's like to be in the milieu that you're working in.
	Who are you?
	Well, I've been described as a Grothendikian centrist politically.
	But I've become recently well-known as the proprietor and a driving force behind the journalistic juggernaut known as Revolver.News, which you mentioned just now.
	And so I encourage all the listeners, if you don't know about it, check out Revolver.News for really the best investigative work you'll see anywhere, plus up-to-date.
	And quite entertaining as well, aggregation content.
	So if you're looking for an alternative to Drudge, look no further.
	Revolver's got it all.
	Not to be confused with Revolver Mag, which is a rock and roll magazine.
	So this is Revolver News.
	No, it's a good magazine, and I looked it up.
	I think we're beating them in traffic, which is...
	It's bittersweet because I like some of their stuff.
	And I think they've gotten some unintentional clicks just from people looking for Revolver News and end up there.
	But I suppose there's a little bit of overlap.
	But yeah, it's a different organization.
	Now, I know we got you for about a half an hour or so.
	Could you give like a snapshot?
	Similar version of your biography in a sense of family upbringing and what you might attribute in that to your own independence of mind and thought.
	Well, yeah, just my upbringing.
	I'm a former academic.
	I studied mathematics.
	I did a PhD on the philosophy of mathematics in a sense.
	I taught at Duke.
	I was the only non-tenured full-time faculty member, I think, in the country to have publicly endorsed Trump.
	And so that was my dramatic entree into the political scene publicly and nationally.
	And then I went on to the Trump White House, where I was a speechwriter and policy aide to the president.
	And then I...
	Did a bit of political consulting and strategy for various people, and then I ended up starting Revolver News, and that's principally what I'm doing today.
	Where along that way did you meet Amanda Milius?
	She's great.
	I met her while I was working in the White House.
	I think at the time she was in the State Department, but would come by for meetings and we crossed paths.
	And now she was one of the very few real fighters in there and was not afraid to assert herself in meetings.
	Do you think Trump will make...
	One more.
	Do you think Trump will improve his personnel choices if there's a second Trump term in 2025?
	In other words, there was some hope towards the end, Office of Personnel Management people that I knew that were true believers.
	But even during the election contest fight that led to January 6th, during that whole time frame, there was a small group of us that were on the right side.
	I always said that Trump was caught between three groups.
	Particularly when it came to lawyers.
	He either ended up with corrupt insiders, crazy outsiders, and a few people who were strategically smart enough to know how the system worked, but also true believers.
	But that third category was way too small.
	Even though there was plenty of us around, Trump didn't tend to go that route in personnel choices.
	Do you think he'll...
	One, can you comment on...
	Poor personnel choices that Trump made during his first term.
	And second, what's the probability he fixes that if there is a second Trump term?
	That's a great question, and it's no secret at this point that the administration was, I would say, tragically beleaguered with poor personnel choices across the board.
	You know, partially that would be Trump's fault, but there were other kind of institutional factors working against him there.
	So it's a complicated issue to really adjudicate it.
	As for whether I think those could be corrected in a second administration, I don't think you can entirely correct for error just because he's such a large figure with so many different factions and groups with different interests and agendas trying to get at him.
	So ultimately you are going to get...
	A lot of grifters and saboteurs, but I think that a second administration, should it come, would be substantially improved on the personnel side.
	Darren, so your Twitter feed, and I ordinarily don't care about these things, it's just that in light of the smear campaign against you, it's kind of interesting.
	It says, I don't know what that means.
	Former White House official.
	Proud Jew.
	The only reason I bring this up is because the smear that I found on you, which was that you had white nationalist ties, and I tried to, like, get the origins of the story.
	Apparently it has to do with some speech he gave at a conference, and I don't know the name of the conference, but what's the guy's name?
	Spence?
	Something Spence?
	Was there?
	Big Spence.
	He's called Big Spence.
	I don't know.
	I don't know about this guy, except for his name comes up from time to time when everyone talks about white nationalists.
	Now, juxtaposing those two things...
	Ukraine has showed us that it's not because one is Jewish that they don't necessarily have ties to potential whatevers.
	But how did this smear come up?
	What was this smear about?
	And on a human level, what does it feel like being the subject of not like a small hippie smear, but something that is potentially devastating to one's core being?
	That's a very interesting question.
	I haven't given it a tremendous amount of thought.
	It's amazing to say it's almost four years ago.
	But you're right to say that an experience of being attacked by the whole coordinated hit machine, which of course wasn't really about me.
	I could flatter myself to say that I was maybe identified as somebody who could be very damaging to the system if I had...
	Work my way up the ranks a little bit in the White House and that they wanted to take me out a bit prematurely.
	But it was ultimately about Trump and getting headlines that combine Trump person and white nationalists or white supremacists in there.
	And, you know, CNN was the originator of it, but the way it works is that...
	Every news outlet imaginable picks up the same thing with its own twist, and the result is like a hydrogen bomb detonates to your Google search results, which basically renders you unemployable in any conventional sense for the future of one's natural life.
	And now that could be a curse, or it could be a blessing, depending on how you look at it and how you deal with it.
	Definitely an inflection point in my life, and it closed a lot of doors, but it opened doors too, and it's just one of those things.
	It's part of what comes with...
	Being opposed to the regime in a certain sense, and there are others who've gotten it even worse than me, so I can't really complain about it, but it's a vicious thing, and the mercenaries, the journalistic mercenaries who engage in it are truly some of the most repulsive human beings one can imagine,
	just not talented at all, really have no discernible redeeming features that I can see.
	I've come to understand journalists as a class for what they are.
	I guess I'll leave it at that.
	Yeah, I mean, they're very much part of the smear merchant machine.
	One of the things that in the sort of propagandistic aspects to elevate the power of the managerial class at the expense of the ordinary person and these days at the expense of nationalism, at the expense of working class economics, at the expense of rational foreign policy, etc., as we're witnessing currently in Ukraine in part.
	You were also one of the first people to put this into context and framework before...
	January 6th even happened in talking about the color revolution template.
	Can you explain that to people, what the color revolution template is for those unfamiliar?
	Yeah, that's a very interesting thing.
	And I think the color revolution as a concept will...
	We'll return as a really important heuristic politically to understand how things are going on.
	And the color revolution, it comes from specific revolutions in Eastern Europe that were designated with certain colors.
	And it's actually kind of funny.
	One of my earliest fans slash debunkers was none other than Harry Potter aficionado extraordinaire Nina Yankovic, who has made the news recently for being appointed to head the not...
	Orwellian et al.
	group called the Disinformation Governance Board under the Department of Homeland Security.
	Now, she took a break, and I'm very flattered by this.
	She took a break from one of her erotic Harry Potter show tunes to actually debunk our reporting on color revolutions, and she said, you know what?
	She began, she assured her audience, she understands her audience, I'll at least give her that, because she began with saying, look, I know your concern, let me assure you from the outset, color revolutions have nothing to do with race.
	Don't worry, guys.
	But no, the color revolutions refer to revolutions in Eastern Europe.
	Probably the most well-known is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, of all places.
	And the color aspect isn't so important.
	What's important is they kind of...
	Typically have certain recurring characteristics.
	And one of the characteristics is mass mobilization sort of protest efforts in the streets.
	Along the lines of the mass mobilization efforts you see reflected in sort of Black Lives Matter and Antifa and all of these other groups that you see domestically here.
	This occurs on an equally appreciable scale overseas.
	And we have NGOs that kind of are responsible for these kind of mobilization efforts.
	They often mobilize on the basis of certain grievance narratives.
	So by exacerbating pre-existing ethnic tensions, gender tensions, it's a big thing, for instance, in Belarus to, you know, get mobilized women under the banner of feminism and get them to protest every leader.
	So these ideologies serve as kind of organizing and organizing.
	and we can get into that.
	And so the color revolution really reflects this alternative to the conventional warfare of boots on the ground, Iraq war style regime change.
	It's really a regime change that leverages full spectrum dominance in the arena of propaganda and the ability to use media and NGOs and various narratives, including election narratives,
	to mobilize The interesting thing about that, though, is that...
	A lot of the color revolution professionals within our national security apparatus, it's not just that they were employing the same playbooks and techniques domestically that they used for color revolutions overseas.
	It was the same network of people.
	And this really was a very powerful explanatory tool because it really accounts for the question of Why is it all of these people who are, for instance, testifying in Trump's impeachment, all these people going after Trump and who seem to be responsible for attacking disinformation, why are they so interested in Ukraine?
	And why do they tend to have State Department profiles of, oh, they're overseeing the Belarus desk or the Ukraine desk or the Russia desk?
	What accounts for this overlap?
	And partly it's that...
	It's the same specific network of people who basically viewed the rise of populism and nationalism within the West politically, principally with Brexit in the UK and the election of Trump, But this rise of populism to them, they experienced it as a threat in the same way that they would experience an allegedly authoritarian regime in Eastern Europe that they are trained to overthrow.
	And therefore, they use the same tools on it.
	I think the more specific you get and the more...
	You get to kind of implicate a very precise network of people and individuals, and we called out some individuals by name.
	That's where you really start to cause trouble.
	And so that's what we did, and we got a tremendously hostile reaction from the regime.
	If you may, I'm not shy.
	We've already been demonetized.
	Who are the names that recur time to time again?
	And who are the names?
	Who are the people over and over again?
	I mean, there are a lot of names, but as far as our reporting goes on the color revolution, the one name that we called out in our first sort of breakout color revolution piece is George Kent.
	Who was in the State Department.
	He was overseeing the Belarus desk, and he was involved in a lot of political shenanigans as well.
	And then probably most famous among the people we've called out, he wasn't famous before, but he became famous after we reported on him, is an individual called Norm Eisen, who is actually a talented person.
	So I respect his talent and energy.
	He is a lawfare expert, among other things, and actually literally wrote a book called The Playbook on how to conduct color revolutions.
	And so he's a very interesting figure, one of those people who kind of wields tremendous influence in this sort of gray area where NGOs and lawfare organizations kind of intersect with state power.
	And speak, I mean, like, an example of one of those people is our new...
	Ministress of Truth in charge of the Disinformation Governance Board was herself actually in Ukraine for a period of time.
	These people keep overlap.
	I kept telling people there's a reason why Russiagate, Spygate, Ukrainegate all overlap with some of the key participants and complicit parties now in Ukraine.
	And the thing with Nina is she's...
	Semi-obsessed with me.
	She basically said she wrote her book complaining about, oh my god, it's so impossible to be a woman online.
	She says she wrote that basically.
	She doesn't use my name, but she...
	Very, very clearly implies that I'm behind this troll account that revealed her Harry Potter escapades, which I'm not.
	I just find it amusing that she thinks that.
	And then she writes a whole book about complaining about being a woman online, you get harassed, when actually...
	She came to the defense of somebody called Brandy Zadrozny, who's one of the worst media creatures.
	Talk about a media mercenary.
	She's a stone-cold woman who basically makes a job out of doxing Trump supporters in order to ruin their lives.
	And we did an expose on her and went on Tucker and talked about it.
	And then Nina...
	How dare you even talk about this?
	That is tantamount to harassment.
	So it's a very...
	Kind of bizarre way of thinking about the world, but it's, you know, frankly, pretty successful.
	It's sociopathic, but it works a lot of the time.
	But in Nina's case, like, I think she just, she started out, she seemed, you know, people think it's, you know, making fun of her when you talk about the Harry Potter thing.
	I find it a little bit charming.
	You know, she's...
	Being the frivolous person that she is deep inside, and I find it a bit enchanting.
	What I find sad is how she's the state and the regime has just chewed her up and spit her out into this kind of scowling mediocrity of a nurse ratchet censor.
	And I say, where is that fun-loving...
	You know, erotic Harry Potter showtune girl that I, you know, so it's a sad story.
	She's definitely not the mastermind of anything, let's put it that way.
	She's not Norm Eisen material.
	Norm Eisen, as I said, he's someone that I've studied a little bit and I do actually respect because in an age of just unbearable mediocrity, he's one of the few people that I could actually say is a extremely skilled political operator.
	So good for him, you know?
	You mentioned the color revolution.
	One of the other things that transitions into the January 6th conversation is witnessing what took place in the Whitmer case.
	Like part of a lot of these techniques that we've used and these groups have used overseas.
	Is selective criminalization and criminal case narratives that reinforce the regime institutional narrative.
	Black Lives Matter protests fit into that category.
	But another thing was this whole myth that the people that were out to cause trouble were these pandemic protesters, these lockdown protesters, these mandate protesters.
	They were dangerous.
	This attempt to reinvigorate and recreate the militia movement like the FBI did after the Cold War, early 1990s, Operation Pat Conn, etc.
	Might have had something to do with Oklahoma City, but that's another story for another day.
	To what degree was Viva and I were some of the only people from the get-go saying that the Whitmer case looked like an entrapment case all over the place?
	In fairness, Barnes planted the seed in my head, and then I started to think, yeah, it starts looking weird, and the more that came out about how many people were involved in the foiling of the plot compared to the people involved in the plot...
	Yeah, even I'm not that blind, but yeah, sorry, Robert.
	How much did that, you know, following that, see as, because not only going back to personnel, I mean, some of the key people involved in that end up as part of the January 6th investigative team for the FBI.
	How much, on January 6th, how much did unraveling what was happening in Whitmer help give you a template for explaining to people what's really happening on January 6th?
	Well, it's very...
	Powerful in terms of motivating one's intuition and providing a framework within which to process the glaring discrepancies pertaining to January 6th.
	In fact, if you got there earlier, that's great, but I've always thought we were the first to report on the Michigan case in light of January 6th as a lens through which to look at it.
	Jacobin, which is sort of a weird sort of socialist type magazine, published something confined to the Michigan case saying this looks like it could be a typical entrapment setup like we've seen in the War on Terror, but they didn't extrapolate to anything else.
	And subsequent reporting, some BuzzFeed reporters have been very good within the kind of Self-contained playpen of just looking at the Michigan case without making any inferences as to what it can mean for January 6th.
	But it's actually impossible, I think, for any objective, rational, good faith observer or analyst to not make these connections.
	First of all, we typically talk about the kidnapping plot, but it was also a plot to storm the Michigan State Capitol.
	Many of the people implicated, that is to say those who weren't feds, were associated with a militia group known as the Three Percenters, which is one of the three major militia groups imputed to the evil insurrection of January 6th.
	And at the time that we first reported on it, it was known that five Of the people implicated turned out to be feds or undercover.
	Turns out the full number was 12. 12 out of, I believe, 26 of the so-called plotters turned out to be feds or informants.
	And of the feds, let me tell you, there's...
	Talk about not sending your best.
	Talk about...
	Giving us an unwitting glimpse into the low quality of human being that is attracted to this line of work in some cases.
	Some, I assume, are good people.
	I'm not saying it about all of them, but there is a hell of a representative sample here.
	So one of the lead agents on this case was arrested in the middle of the trial because he beat the hell out of his wife on the way back from a swingers party.
	The other one...
	Another one of the lead agents was not allowed to testify.
	They basically shut him up because it was so embarrassing when it came out that he was moonlighting with some kind of cybersecurity grift gig, maybe a weird cutout thing.
	We don't know, but he was doing some weird cybersecurity moonlighting operation, which he advertised and promoted pseudonymously through this Twitter account that actually leaked confidential details of the cases the guy was involved in.
	Another guy who was a longtime informant, just totally rife with perverse financial incentives and otherwise, one of their key informants, he was basically kind of...
	I'm going to turn on them and maybe provide testimony that would be favorable to the defense.
	So what the government did to preempt that was just arrest him.
	They arrested their own informant and accused him of being a double agent.
	This was a shit show on a level that you couldn't possibly imagine.
	Oh yes, and just before I forget, a real cherry on top of this whole sordid affair is that the Head of the Detroit FBI field office, who oversaw, technically would have overseen this whole failed entrapment hoax operation, just days after...
	The so-called plotters were arrested.
	FBI Director Christopher Wray promoted him to the D.C. field office, where he went on to oversee the January 6 investigation.
	So in light of these striking parallels, I'm not saying that this is dispositive.
	I'm not making an if-then because of this stuff, therefore January 6 was a hoax.
	But to not...
	To use those striking parallels as a kind of framework within which to process one's analysis of January 6th itself is ridiculous.
	To try to simply cordon this off and pretend like it could have nothing whatsoever to say about January 6th is incredibly disingenuous, and it's really kind of an exercise in damage control that we see contextually in the otherwise very good...
	work that BuzzFeed did on this case within the confines of its playpen.
	But, and you get it, people say hoax and then you presume that when When you call it a hoax, it means it never happened or things were falsified.
	The bottom line is a lot of events of January 6th, I mean, I don't know who was on scene then from Revolver, but the stuff happened.
	The only question is whether or not it was allowed to happen or set up to happen in a way to be weaponized afterwards.
	Right.
	When I say hoax, I don't mean that...
	Like, this was a kind of hologram generated by the Illuminati.
	What I mean is that the dominant narrative about what actually happened was not only false, but maliciously so.
	And as you suggested, it's really designed to further this really dangerous agenda of weaponizing the national security.
	Apparatus of this country politically and targeting basically Trump supporters, people on the right, but not exclusively.
	Also, dissidents on the left can get in the crosshairs if they step on the wrong toes.
	Oh, no doubt.
	I mean, I think the first ever hush-hush I did at vivabarneslaw.locals.com was on January 6th, and I was talking about things to look for.
	I always recommend people read James Elroy's American tabloid trilogy as kind of a template for how American political power and deep state operations can work.
	And I remember having a conversation with Alex Jones before January 6th, where I was outlining concerns I had about...
	QAnon, that aspects of QAnon looked to me like a federal entrapment operation, not like a legitimate dissident information source.
	And through some other things that I had concerns about, aspects of Pat Kahn showing back up at message boards in the sense of somebody was trying to recreate an American militia movement that was not organic or original and was trying to channel people's anger in a particular way over what happened in November of 2020, the election fortification.
	There are some other F words that are probably more appropriate and applicable.
	But I remember talking, and he was worried about it.
	I was like, well, you don't have to worry about it.
	The Capitol on January 6th is the most secure building in the world.
	It's like they got 2,500 police dedicated just to preserving and protecting that one building.
	On January 6th, they got everybody in town, including the vice president, in the building.
	I was like, there's no way anybody's going to get within 1,000 feet of it.
	And then, of course, when all of a sudden there were unusual security breakdowns and breaches, right away, I was suspect that something was up and amiss.
	And then you had bombs that managed to not go off.
	It's kind of like all the Russians.
	Poisoning that men just never poison anybody in Europe, that kind of thing.
	But can you explain to people sort of a nutshell of what January...
	I mean, you've done multiple exposés at Revolver News, identifying specific players, identifying specific incidents, identifying specific cases, but give sort of the broad overview of what your investigative reporting ultimately showed January 6th was compared to what the media narrative claimed it to be.
	Well, let's zero in on this specific individual who's probably the most infamous in this regard, and that's Ray Epps.
	And what you have is the only person, as far as I'm aware, in the mountains of video documentation of January 6th and 5th, to explicitly and repeatedly call to go into the Capitol.
	We've got to storm the Fed peacefully, peacefully, when they start changing Fed, Fed, Fed.
	Exactly.
	No, it's remarkable footage, and it wasn't just some random drunk guy with an odd suggestion that turned out to be what happened.
	No, this was a guy, he was a veritable Where's Waldo type figure on The Six, corralling people, reminding people, go to the Capitol, that's where our problems are.
	The Capitol, the Capitol, the Capitol.
	He was...
	Wearing Trump hat and presumably a Trump supporter, he flew all the way from Arizona.
	He didn't even bother to go to the actual speech.
	He's hanging out by the initial breach site and telling people, remember, go to the Capitol.
	And then he's right there at that first and decisive breach site just before 1 p.m.
	And he whispers into Ryan Samsell's ear, And then seconds later, that first and decisive breach occurs, which basically allows for this rally to turn into a riot.
	And so the fact that Ray Epps, you know, it's just his suggestions were so radical and to kind of juxtapose the radical nature of his suggestions with his incredibly...
	cool, professional and detached demeanor is something that really is bizarre and strikes one as a professional operator.
	He really is like, if you go through the video, it's impressive how expert he is at credit He knows exactly what to do.
	He knows exactly what to say.
	He's naturally commanding and people just follow.
	Follow his lead.
	They do what he says.
	This is somebody who's not acting in a genuine way.
	This is somebody who's acting professionally on a mission on behalf of some other organization.
	That is very clear from the way that he's working and operating.
	And what's bizarre is that given this shock and awe standard of prosecution that the Department of Justice applied to, A wide range of January 6 offenders who, you know, keep in mind, you have a bunch of operators who are hanging out there well before Trump was finished speaking, taking out fences and barriers.
	Most of the people there who are technically committing a crime didn't even realize they were trespassing because ordinarily that's not restricted area.
	So you create this kind of booby trap that can later be actuated into a riot like situation by people egging the crowds on and their other key figures doing that as well.
	But it's quite amazing that this individual Epps, who appears originally on the most wanted list, and then he's taken down in some very quiet and bizarre fashion, basically immediately after Revolver starts reporting on, hey, what was the role of the feds in this?
	It's very bizarre.
	And no explanation.
	And then finally when the media narrative gets to the point where we started it and a lot of people ended up coming on board and it got to the level where there had to be some type of response.
	And what response do we get?
	We get a response through his lawyer, who incidentally is a 10-year veteran of the Phoenix FBI field office.
	And just a side story.
	So after our reporting, a bunch of citizen reporters, they went and confronted Epps at his compound.
	And Epps just sheepishly ran away.
	But then the next day, the Phoenix FBI showed up at the citizen journalist's house.
	And the citizen journalist said, hey, you must be here about Ray Epps.
	They said, who's Ray Epps?
	This is the Phoenix FBI.
	Ray Epps had a history with all kinds of militia groups.
	He was the head of the Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, which is known as one of the most famous or infamous militia groups in the country.
	He's the head of that.
	He's a known factor there.
	And the Phoenix FBI people say they don't know he is.
	And then sure enough, Ray Epps...
	Gets a lawyer who is a 10-year veteran of the FBI in Phoenix field office who releases a statement assuring us that, don't worry, Ray Epps, we promise Ray Epps is not involved with law enforcement, which frankly could technically be true because there are a lot of options that basically amount to him operating on behalf of the government that don't...
	Involve him being in the employment of a law enforcement agency.
	So there are just so many unanswered questions.
	It's such a dark thing.
	And I would love for there to be this sort of ultimate smoking gun, but this is a very dark sort of gray area type operation.
	But if anyone has any doubts, they think I'm speaking nonsense or whatever, it's not about what I'm saying.
	The video footage speaks for itself.
	Go to revolver.news and watch the two-part series.
	If you don't like reading, just go down and watch the video clips.
	They speak for themselves.
	The video stuff is through the roof, and my question, one of which was, how do you get all this information?
	If you know anything about this, I'd love you to answer this.
	I was shocked by the number of police officers, Capitol Police, who allegedly, based on news reports, There are at least four that I can think of, which strikes me higher than normal likelihood.
	Have you looked into this?
	Has this been an issue of inquiry?
	It has, but I'm reluctant to say anything about it.
	That's very dangerous territory to talk about, but I'm definitely aware.
	People Epstein themselves every day.
	The amount, by the way, apparently, hold on, apparently I'm a Fed as well.
	I'm not.
	Someone mentioned, it's not normal.
	I know suicide rates are elevated, especially in certain fields, but this is like...
	And I'm not suggesting anything.
	I would have questions.
	But now, your sources.
	How do you get your content?
	How do you get your info?
	How do you verify it?
	What do you do to...
	What's your due diligence before running with information?
	Well, you know, we're blessed to have a great team.
	And, you know, it really just amounts to that.
	A great team who know what to look for and where.
	And that can take you a long way.
	So that's really all I can say about that.
	You know, a lot of this material, all this material is open source.
	And actually, you know, a lot of the people who do good investigative work on this are, ironically, these kind of Antifa accounts who, you know, they're doing this work thinking that they're uncovering these evil fascists.
	And the narrative in their head is the reason they're not being arrested is that...
	Our government is so right-wing and fascist that they're protecting these insurrections.
	It's like the reason that the FBI isn't going after Epps is that the FBI is full of Trump-loving Nazis and they're protecting one of their own.
	That's the delusional world that they live in, but they can uncover good footage too.
	Well, Revolver does a great job of bringing light to that delusional world.
	I know we've got to let you go.
	Where can people find you, find the sources, find the materials that can keep them enlightened in this very interesting time?
	Well, go to revolver.news.
	We've got really interesting stuff coming on in the pipeline about all sorts of things.
	Keep there.
	Go to our archives.
	If you haven't read the exclusive stories on January 6th, on the color revolution, on COVID, we have a lot of, on Elon Musk, we've got a lot of really important pieces.
	So just go there and peruse.
	And if you like it, share it with friends and support us if you like.
	So principallyrevolver.news.
	I'm also on Twitter at Darren J. Beatty for my...
	For my latest insights, which are always within the boundaries of polite discourse.
	Fantastic.
	Thanks, Darren.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a good night.
	Thank you.
	You too.
	All right.
	Robert, it's early.
	I hear a kid screaming upstairs, and then I texted Mary, and I said, why is he crying?
	I said, what's he crying about?
	She said a number of things.
	But we've got time now, and now I've got questions.
	The question I had was...
	Oh, God, it had to do.
	Yes, Barnes, for people who are going to accuse us of downplaying the atrocity that was January 6th, when people say it was a setup, a hoax, a false flag, there were elements of violence during that protest.
	Correctly?
	The idea is, I've seen the way they've depicted the Ottawa protests, where there was literally no element of violence until the police showed up.
	January 6th, my position has always been...
	There were elements of violence that were either facilitated or exacerbated, and that was sort of the setup.
	Remove the gates, let people in, and then there will be some, you know, incidents, and you can then claim, you know, all sorts of stuff.
	Describe it so that nobody says Viva and Barnes are denying violence on January 6th.
	What is your assessment of what actually happened and how does it fit into hoax, false flag, whatever?
	I mean, I think a riot is a fair description of it.
	The question is, how did the riot come about?
	And it appears to have been facilitated by infiltrators and informants that had an agenda different than those who have been criminally prosecuted and punished at this point.
	So that's sort of the loose narrative architecture.
	Now, many of the people that were violent say that that was in response or reaction to violence committed against them.
	And we don't know the full factual pattern because some of the witnesses are gone.
	And in other cases, the video evidence has not been publicly released.
	So there's more evidence that now a second person who may have died that day may have died also at the hands of the Capitol Police.
	And that might explain why things spiraled in the direction that it did.
	But ultimately, in terms of damage to property...
	It was a very low-impact riot.
	It was a less impactful riot than almost every BLM riot that happened over the prior summer.
	Less impactful than some hockey riots we've had in Canada.
	Absolutely.
	Or basketball riots at basketball games or any other set of riots.
	So as riots go, this was pretty low consequence.
	Much of the behavior was not radically different.
	Then the behavior of when they took over the Wisconsin state capitol, when the left did it, when there's been various left-wing protests during the Trump administration, either outside the White House and taking over Capitol Park, threatening the White House and threatening the church that had been there for a long time, or that had taken over parts of the Capitol before.
	Never before had that been punished or prosecuted.
	Criminal obstruction of justice, as criminal trespass, as insurrection or sedition, or even referenced or suggested as such.
	Mainstream media narrative that this was an insurrection is nonsense, that it was sedition is nonsense, that it was a coup is nonsense, that it was the most violent threat and attack on American democracy in history, all gibberish, all garbage, all hogwash.
	And there's lots of evidence of infiltration and informants.
	There's lots of evidence of cover up of various complicit co-conspirators within the government or with the protection and cover of the government.
	They still have not explained who and what QAnon is.
	They've still not released all the documents and information they knew in leading up to January 6th and the QAnon message boards and other aspects where they still haven't disclosed who some of the people were that appeared to have been instigated in provoking a mindset and attitude.
	They got enough people to do enough demonstrative behavior that they could make a big deal out of that it could look good for the cameras.
	But most of the narrative was built on.
	And that's the broader context, which people like Darren Beatty at Revolver News...
	Others like him have been documented and demonstrating in detail, in almost sort of micro-level detail examples and exemplars.
	And it's similar to what, it's basically the Whitmer case just applied to Capitol Hill.
	And what they have is they have some people on video in a place they weren't legally entitled to be, and so they have them on technical violations.
	They have only a very small percentage of those people.
	Almost everyone that was criminally prosecuted was not charged with any violence.
	There are people that have been detained and imprisoned pending trial that have not been there.
	It was a light version of British hooliganism, but again, it couldn't happen but for the complicity of the Capitol Police.
	It couldn't happen but for the complicity of the D.C. mayor.
	It couldn't happen without the complicity of both Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
	It couldn't happen without the complicity of Christopher Wray in the seventh floor of the FBI.
	Is it really a coincidence that the guy in charge of the D.C. field office had just been in charge of the Whitmer case in Detroit, in Michigan?
	What blows my mind, I've been pressing my hand down on the table so much today that it's left a very big red mark.
	Ray Epps.
	I'm more suspicious of people now who don't have a social media footprint than those who do.
	It's inconceivable that the aggregate knowledge of the Internet can't really pinpoint.
	They're still asking, who's Ray Epps?
	It should be known, but for not having a social media footprint.
	Robert, do you know anything of who is Ray Epps?
	He fits within what I would call the gray space template.
	For example, the Maidan revolution in Ukraine that is the initial instigating event that led to the war in Ukraine.
	Whether people fully appreciate that or not, it's, I think, historically verifiable.
	As the U.S. admits we're engaged in a proxy war against Russia anyway on the front pages of the New York Times bragging about getting Russian generals killed.
	Imagine if, you know, the U.S. I mean, when Russia allegedly was putting out bounties in Afghanistan on U.S. soldiers, it was so outrageous that Russia had to be economic war was supposed to be waged on them immediately, according to many within the press and the political power structure.
	Here you have U.S. admitting that they're putting out effectively hits on Russian generals.
	High-ranking Russian personnel, and they're bragging about it in the New York Times.
	It gives a sense of a mindset and mentality, but part of what led to the Maidan Revolution was false flag-staged events.
	The other interesting thing about it is it involved taking over buildings in Kiev.
	But what was different is it was celebrated in the Western press.
	Taking over buildings is a legitimate political protest when it's on the right cause.
	The ordinary person had seen that the left do it repeatedly and then, of course, do it aggressively and violently throughout the summer of 2020.
	And now all of a sudden, and then suddenly the guardrails are supposed to be there and not there.
	The fences that are supposed to be there are not there.
	People are misdirected from the protest site into the Capitol Hill territory.
	A bunch of police that are supposed to be there are not there.
	Those that are there are frequently waving them in, as has now been attested to under oath in a federal criminal trial that led to the only acquittal because there was a judge actually presiding over the case rather than a D.C. jury.
	And that's the context of how it all came about.
	And it's once people understand the context of color revolutions, understand the context of the Whitmer case, and the Whitmer entrapment case, the reason why BuzzFeed and Jacobin covered it is because they saw right away the pattern in prior post-911 cases, where they would find some 17-year-old unhappy kid at a mosque.
	And convince him to do something stupid that there was no evidence he was ever going to do.
	And then they would say, see, FBI foils another terrorist plot.
	And this happened again and again and again.
	A lot of people on the right were unaware of it because it wasn't happening to people that they were politically affiliated or associated with.
	They see in the Whitmer case what's going on.
	They see again now people that had sort of an Alex Jones kind of background.
	It's not such a surprise because they remember Waco.
	They remember Ruby Ridge.
	They remember Oklahoma City and Operation PacCon.
	It's amazing, by the way, because I grew up...
	What year was Waco?
	I mean, I was alive when it happened.
	It all happened between 93 and 95. Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City, back to back to back.
	And not conscious.
	I remember what I read.
	Waco.
	Religious fanatics on a compound.
	Zealots killing children and committed suicide.
	Ruby Ridge, I never heard of that until I was older.
	Oklahoma, another crazy anti-government right-wing extremist.
	I mean, I heard these things as a kid.
	Only now can understand it in retrospect.
	Where was I going to go with that question, Robert?
	Well, once you know those things, then you know about color revolutions, and you know about the street theater component of this combined with insider corruption.
	Then you begin to be able to see January 6th from the get-go before anyone else does.
	And to his credit, Darren Beattie at Revolver was one of the first people to recognize it.
	We were probably before everybody.
	But we're not in the journalistic space.
	Now I can see it.
	I remember what you were talking about at the time and I remember how I was perceiving it.
	It's nuts.
	What I was going to say about January 6th, where now it turns out that the people who were alleged to have been beaten to death in the early stages died of medical emergencies.
	And the ones who were written off as having died from medical emergencies now might seem to have been...
	Assaulted to the point of succumbing.
	The second individual, Ashley Babbitt, we know.
	But there was that second individual who alleged to have overdosed on drugs, or I think it might have been a medical emergency.
	Turns out might have been assaulted to death by the officers.
	Whereas at the beginning, what they said was assaulted to death by protesters, died of medical emergency.
	It's just classic.
	We see it over and over again.
	Accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing and just frame it that way.
	And you have to wonder about Mike Pence's complicity in all this.
	Pence deliberately delayed communicating to...
	In other words, they did a bunch of things to maximize the provocative quality of what could happen.
	In other words, they took a traumatized group of people from witnessing what they had witnessed.
	Many of them, a lot of these being ex-veterans who had experienced trauma at the hands of their own government.
	Now seeing an election that they believe had been stolen.
	That is compounded by how the courts refuse to address it and allow a meaningful evidentiary hearing or trial on the substance of it.
	Much of which, like 2000 and Mules, shows that a full, a true discovery and true evidentiary proceedings in a true jury trial most likely reveal things that would lead most people to have doubts about the outcome of the election.
	So they suppress that.
	They railroad what options are available, let people think that maybe Pence will be a viable option on that day on January 6th.
	And instead, he waits until right before everybody's there to release something that he had come to the conclusion on months before, that he was not going to take any corrective remedy or action.
	And something, I mean, why did he wait so late to disclose that?
	In other words, everything seemed designed to provoke a response.
	And then you find informants and infiltrators psychologically manipulating the crowd and the audience, often instigating and initiating any violence that took place and criminality that took place.
	You see them being covered up and protected by the feds after the fact.
	You see unusual...
	Provocative behavior by the Capitol Police, physically violently assaulting civilians, including women, shooting women who are walking through, unarmed women being shot in cold blood.
	But on top of that, you see...
	Other violence that was taking place towards them by the Capitol Police and then an unusual lack of presence of the Capitol Police and the National Guard who was told not to be there by the D.C. mayor.
	And you've got additional complicity with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, both of whom are deeply anti-Trump, though one was Republican and one was Democrat, suppressing information and taking deliberate actions that were meant to amplify the insurrection narrative that they're talking about.
	Within minutes of the January 6th events transpiring and there being available for public disclosure and discussion.
	And what ultimately derails Trump continuing to challenge it while he's president, it leads to a second impeachment of Trump.
	It leads to Trump not pardoning Edward Snowden, not pardoning Julian Assange, not declassifying a bunch of information he planned on declassifying.
	So it was...
	What's the phrase about who profits?
	There's a Latin phrase, right?
	That phrase, who profits here...
	I'm just going to go to Google.
	I think it's Cue Bono.
	Maybe it's an Italian or French phrase.
	Cue Bono.
	Cue Bono is another one.
	Cue Bono.
	Exactly.
	Qui bono?
	The answer is the deep state.
	And then you have to wonder what was their complicity, and there's lots of evidence of their complicity, and people like Darren Beattie is documenting it on a daily basis at revolver.news.
	Now, I've got to read it because someone asked, and it's a Newfoundlander in the avatar.
	Please, Viva, read the following to Barnes.
	Is it the case that Joe Biden will preside the overturning of Roe v.
	Wade because he's dangerously close to qualifying?
	Oh, dude, I thought it was a serious question.
	Come on, man.
	I thought it was a serious legal question.
	Super sticker.
	Robert, I starred some of the Super Chats.
	I want to see this.
	This is Nathan B. Looks like you're there playing your guitar.
	Very nice.
	I was there January 6th.
	It was a setup.
	All violence was done before the marchers got there.
	When we got there, it was all neat gates set off to the side.
	Cops ushering people up to and inside the Capitol.
	Not the first person to say that.
	Bordeaux drinks Bordeaux.
	Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
	Thomas Sowell.
	And someone asked us when we're going to get him on.
	I'm going to reach out right after this.
	Okay, I don't think about OPM.
	I don't know what OPM is, Robert.
	Seemed that OPM would be the key to flushing a lot of grifters from the swamp with the essential personnel angle.
	What's the LPN?
	It's Office and Personnel and Management.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	How do you feel about Meta sponsoring the Canadian debate that just happened?
	I didn't know it.
	I'm going to go Google that now.
	What about Ray Epps?
	Got to that one.
	And yeah, you got me, Greg.
	I flagged it.
	Just to show you, I flagged this one to get to it eventually.
	Yeah, qui bono.
	That's fascinating stuff.
	And January 6th now, other than trying to figure out how and what happened, do you still have people in jail waiting for trial?
	Well, I mean, hopefully, though it's still doubtful at this point in terms of its leadership, that the Republicans in the House or Senate, if they take it back over, actually do meaningful hearings.
	That would be one step.
	A second step, as Trump has already said, he will pardon everybody if he gets elected president in 2025.
	Which at this point should happen, given the information we now know about federal agent law enforcement complicity and culpability in what took place there, the over-prosecution, the wrongful detention, imprisonment, denial of bail, the lack of full and meaningful discovery, the refusal to...
	The judicial system has failed badly.
	I mean, they should have transferred the case for venue purposes.
	They should have gone out of their way to...
	Try to find an actual impartial jury if they were still going to do it in the District of Columbia.
	They have done neither.
	The jurors have shown themselves as capable of justice as a bunch of Bull Connors towards MLK in the 1950s Birmingham.
	And the judges have been similarly situated.
	People forget.
	It was the corruption of state and federal judges from 1885, 1890 through 1965 in the South that led to the denial of civil rights.
	Because most of the time it wasn't on the books.
	There was nothing on the books that said if you were black, you could not serve on a jury.
	You could not serve on a grand jury.
	You could not run for office.
	You could not vote.
	That didn't exist.
	Some of the segregation laws existed on the books, but many of the others did not.
	It was the corruption complicity of judges covering up for that bad acts that allowed it to happen.
	The entire Southern judiciary class was mostly an embarrassment to the rule of law for the better part of half a century.
	But now the District of Columbia judges are proving they can even exceed what those judges did by engaging in a cover-up in terms of discovery, in terms of bail, in terms of impartiality of jury pool, in terms of impartiality of judges, in terms of proper venue.
	They have not proven themselves able or capable to uphold the rule of law any more than the judges presiding over the Alex Jones civil cases in Connecticut and Texas have proven themselves incapable and unable to get past their own parochial prejudices rather than implement the rule of law in an objective and neutral way.
	But the best way people can continue to counter it.
	You look at what happened in the Whitmer case.
	Enough court of public opinion led to good lawyering, led to a fair jury, led to acquittals.
	There were no convictions for anybody by the jury.
	Mistrials or acquittals across the board.
	And that's the way to do it.
	And part of that was the court of public opinion.
	So that people, if they continue to advocate there, that's an important and necessary place to be.
	I'm looking up Christy Mack.
	I don't think I'm going to bring this up right now.
	If you ever want to see photos of a woman who has been...
	Oh, I'm aware of that.
	I think War Machine was convicted in Vegas.
	Okay.
	I think in the same case.
	Speaking of qui bono, qui bono.
	I mean, let's briefly, we have some time.
	The leak of the draft SCOTUS decision.
	So my attempt to out Barnes of the Barnes and say, my goodness, it would be great if this was like a hoax.
	Draft a decision.
	So impeccably drafted, the general discerning public would confuse it with the SCOTUS draft.
	Apparently, it's a bona fide leak of a draft.
	Qui bono?
	Qui bono?
	Who benefits?
	What's your take on who likely leaked this?
	And what's going to be the impact?
	Because can the judges succumb to the political public pressure that they're going to be experiencing until when this decision was supposed to be released, which was when, by the way?
	So, I mean, the draft was circulated in February, but often these kind of decisions are not finally published until the end of the term, which is June.
	So what happens is they often do a certain vote by a certain point as to...
	There's an initial vote, and that initial vote is who gets assigned the majority opinion.
	But then what happens is that opinion gets circulated.
	People recommend revisions.
	And re-edits.
	And then they either keep their vote or they say, you know what, I'm going to actually write a concurrence.
	Or, you know, I've changed my vote.
	I'm going to write a dissent.
	And that's kind of the negotiation that takes place.
	And by May, this time in May, is when usually a final vote is effectively had.
	And that's why they believe a final vote was had.
	It's signed off to the core of this opinion.
	And so the biggest logic is whoever published it published it to influence the court.
	So there's some speculation people published it to distract from the narrative of other issues, that people published it for ancillary to get midterm motivation out.
	Neither of those really explain something as extraordinary as a leak of a draft opinion, which is pretty rare in American Supreme Court history.
	So given that...
	I think that the real likely motivation is to influence the court in the hopes that by leaking it, it will lead to five justices not signing on to the decision as drafted.
	And then is the assumption.
	Now the second assumption is maybe somebody's wavering and whoever leaked it doesn't want them to waver.
	And feels that they really have to stick with their original vote, or otherwise they'll look like the illicit leak changed their vote, and that it was a political response.
	So the first theory would put it on a liberal justice or a law clerk, or a liberal-minded court employee, government publishing.
	There's court publishing officials and security officials and IT officials, employees who also likely had access to this document.
	The second possibility is someone that's on the conservative side, that wants the opinion as drafted to be the one that's issued and took the gamble that rather than let somebody waver, put pressure on them not to waver by making it look like if they did waver, they capitulated to public pressure and illicit leaking.
	And then there is a third possibility, but for that third possibility, you have to go to the hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Now, I said I was going to bring up another tweet, just to listen to the divider-in-chief.
	What's my Twitter handle?
	What the heck's my problem, man?
	Viva Frye.
	Just the divider-in-chief.
	Someone said, if they overturned this, it's suffrage next, because that's what, you'd think that's what they were talking about.
	No, forget that.
	Here, this.
	Listen to this.
	What happens if you have a state who changes the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can't be in classrooms with other children?
	Is that legit under the way the decision is written?
	Robert, I mean, at some point the question is...
	What happens if you don't get to sniff young girls' hair anymore?
	What happens if you don't like to play in the pool with the girls and they like to touch your legs?
	Corn pop gets there.
	This guy's just a dementia candidate.
	None of that has any credibility.
	I did an audio breakdown podcast for the locals board of the draft opinion.
	The case has no impact on the right of privacy, no impact on the right of bodily autonomy, no impact on any right that could relate to marriage, family relationships, choices, etc.
	It only impacts abortion because abortion uniquely...
	It's guaranteed to take away another life.
	And the Supreme Court is saying that decision should be governed by the people and the state representatives, not by five justices at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And that's why all these extrapolations to, oh, interracial marriage is next.
	They're going to separate the gay kids and put them in a separate class, you know, Bravo school style or something.
	This is all nonsense and gibberish.
	I mean, look, even as a Canadian, I feel like I still understand enough about this constitutional stuff to know that it's not fear-mongering.
	It's divisive garbage.
	It's the misinformation that his disinformation governance board is supposed to fight against.
	Robert, just tell me why I'm not wrong on this, right?
	All that this does is it doesn't affect abortion rights.
	It simply says it's not constitutionally enshrined and it's a state law issue versus...
	Segregation, which is a constitutional issue, therefore, supra-state laws.
	Is that wrong?
	No, that's exactly right.
	And what will happen is the West Coast, the Northeast, Illinois, will have very liberal abortion laws, as they do currently.
	The rest of the country will have very conservative abortion laws.
	Now, some of them will have exceptions for non-consensual formed pregnancies, that is rape or incest.
	Some will have a self-defense exception, in other words, where the mother's life or it could cause severe bodily harm to the mother because those fit within existing legal doctrines, particularly the self-defense component.
	But many of them will definitely ban it after the first 12 weeks.
	That's what 90% of the world has.
	Our Supreme Court's interpretation liberalizes abortion laws in ways that very few other places in the world do.
	Canada might be one of those.
	I think I should really confirm this.
	We don't have abortion laws.
	It's only a question of finding a doctor to do it, and you just won't find one too far into the pregnancy.
	But Robert, what would be the Constitution?
	I hear kids screaming.
	What would be the constitutionality of one state criminalizing going to another state to do this?
	States can't because that's interstate commerce or activity.
	A state can't regulate what another state does.
	Now, there's talk that Congress could pass a Roe v.
	Wade law.
	Not really.
	They could pass a law that could ban interstate.
	They can't do something that guarantees interstate travel for its purposes, nor can they override state law.
	This is why the mandate was unconstitutional until and unless it was described as a tax.
	You can't describe an abortion as a tax.
	So, consequently, there's no way for them to federally...
	The reason why it's never passed federally is because they know it's not legal and would be struck down as illegal.
	So it would be a usurpation of jurisdiction and authority they don't have.
	This is a decision for local communities to make and determine.
	And what you'll have is the conservative parts of the country will not have legalized, liberalized abortion.
	The liberal areas of the country will.
	Anyone who really wants it will still be able to get it.
	What is it just won't be as easy for Planned Parenthood to set up shop in poor minority neighborhoods for the purposes of their eugenicist agenda.
	Well, this we can't get into.
	I mean, I don't think, but when I saw the financial market for the Act, the byproduct of the Act, and it will blow...
	Who is it, Robert, who has the Twitter feed that broke the story of the Washington clinics that had...
	Very late-term stuff going on?
	Well, there's that person in California who's facing civil and criminal charges over him just disclosing that they traded in body parts of the fetuses.
	And so, I mean, just because he uncovered it, they prosecuted him.
	Much as they went after James O 'Keefe just because he had a copy of the president's daughter's diary, which was embarrassing to the president.
	And so, whereas, you know, there was uncivil law and some others thought that there's going to be real consequences to this leaker.
	I bet the bank there won't be.
	And I get people want it to be that way.
	Like some people, particularly on the right.
	It won't happen.
	In fact, if anything, if everything does get disclosed, they'll be a hero, an icon, have a full-tenured professorship, and a career gig at MSNBC.
	Well, that's if they're on the left.
	If they're on the right, they'll be excellent.
	My only supposition, my only reason for thinking the leaker is probably more a lefty clerk than a righty clerk is that...
	If it were a righty clerk and there was the slightest indication it was, they'd be pouncing all over it on both angles, criminal activity and on the substance of the decision.
	The only way a righty clerk could have done it, given it was a liberal news publication it was leaked to, was to have disguised and masked themselves as a liberal.
	That would be like second level.
	Second level subversion, 4D chess kind of stuff.
	Double secret probation.
	This is a serious question.
	I read this one first, Greg.
	Once bitten, twice shy by the Newfoundlander.
	A serious legal question to Barnes.
	If they overturn Roe v.
	Wade, do you see other major cases being addressed in Second Amendment?
	Which ones?
	Or is that 2A?
	It won't have any impact beyond the abortion context.
	And the decision goes out of its way to emphasize that fact.
	And the whole basis to that is...
	The act, abortion, was never specifically provided for in the Constitution in order to make it constitutional, to read it in so that it escaped state laws.
	They said the right to do this procedure is a privacy provision, therefore implicitly covered by 14th Amendment.
	One question for clarification.
	Someone said it was privacy of the doctors.
	Other people said it was a privacy of the patient.
	The original Roe v.
	Wade doctrine was very much a eugenicist-influenced decision.
	That's why they kept talking about how infanticide was legal in Rome, and it was about protecting doctors initially.
	Over time, it became this feminist, iconic decision.
	But the original court decision, to give you read some of the internal notes that Blackman's notes and some other people's notes are now published, was entirely about protecting the doctor.
	Prerogative in controlling the medical relationship and who should have kids and who shouldn't.
	Not about feminist championing at all.
	That became a subsequent doctrine where feminists adopted to it to where you get Elizabeth Warren doing her best Amber Heard in front of the Supreme Court.
	Yeah, I think this question just got answered.
	How much will a leftist leaker get in a book deal?
	And how much will the cocktail napkins, scribblings?
	Well, I say, how much in a book deal will the leftist leaker get?
	And how much jail time would a rightist leader get?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now, my view is, I still think no leaker will be disclosed.
	The risk is that it's not clear that it's a crime.
	Yeah, we'll probably discuss this a little more on Sunday, but it's not clear it's a crime to leak the document.
	What can be the crime?
	But it's definitively unethical.
	So whoever it was, if they're...
	Oh, yeah.
	In violation of their confidentiality provisions, etc.
	But not necessarily a crime.
	The problem is going to be the marshal.
	The FBI is not investigating.
	Roberts did not authorize the FBI to come in.
	There was no chance he was going to do that.
	Instead, the method by which this investigation could trip someone up is the marshal's doing an investigation.
	The marshal will likely ask everyone.
	Did you leak it?
	So let's say the leaker lies, and then it's later discovered that the leaker did actually do it.
	Then the leaker could be charged for lying to someone within the context of a federal criminal investigation.
	But what happened to Clinesmith when he confessed to doing worse, frankly?
	I mean, suborning a perjured affidavit for national security purposes that invades a whole bunch of other people's privacy is...
	Frankly, worse than leaking a Supreme Court opinion.
	He did no time and he was licensed back within a year.
	Oh, atrocious.
	All right.
	Robin, what else?
	I mean, if we have a few minutes, I don't see the kids coming down to get me, but I can feel that check in the mail.
	No, I think it was a good interview.
	Beatty's great.
	Beatty's great.
	Revolver.News is good.
	And, you know, we'll be back.
	I will be on with Eric Hunley and Mark Grobert tomorrow in Freeform Friday discussing a wide range of whatever conspiracy theory seems of interest at the moment.
	So we're going to make that a monthly event.
	And then, of course, we will be back Sunday with all the law that's fit to discuss and even the trials that are not fit to discuss like Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
	And we'll end it on this because, Robert, I don't understand the hearsay rule.
	The judge is sustaining objections on hearsay, precluding Amber Heard from relaying things that she herself said.
	I don't understand it.
	That's not hearsay.
	Hearsay is the most commonly misunderstood objection by judges in America.
	And hearsay is limited to something that...
	The first policy is it's unreliable evidence.
	And what about it makes it unreliable?
	Is specific fact.
	That someone's trying to say that a particular event happened because somebody else said it happened.
	And in other words, that's really the way to understand hearsay.
	That it's the telephone game.
	It's the rumor game.
	And if what you're trying to introduce is the rumor game, somebody else's statement, number one.
	And number two...
	To prove that what they said happened actually happened.
	Not to prove their mindset, your mindset, present sense, not to prove anything else.
	Because the exception of hearsay does not only include all the listed ones.
	It also has, if there's any reason to believe it's trustworthy, you introduce the evidence.
	You overrule the objection.
	So what she's saying, what she herself said is not hearsay.
	What hearsay is she's saying...
	Johnny Depp said he hit me for the purposes of proving that Johnny Depp actually hit her.
	If she was only saying that for context or her present sense impressions or state of mind or motive or modus operandi, all of that's admissible.
	But the judge, like most judges, still doesn't understand.
	They think hearsay is any statement by any person outside of court.
	That's not what a hearsay is.
	Fritz Bussmann, I know what the definition of hearsay is.
	It's A told B. It's an out-of-court statement by someone other than the witness, by the way.
	This is the exception that I've debated with Nate.
	I'm Mr. A. I say B told C, X, Y, and Z. Fine.
	That's hearsay because B told C. I wasn't there.
	I wasn't the one who said it or heard it.
	If you're trying to assert it for the truth of the matter.
	For the truth of the statement, yes.
	Now, another type of hearsay, which is...
	B told me.
	Someone told me a statement.
	And then objection to hearsay, trying to make evidence of the truthfulness of the statement.
	Fine.
	The truth of the statement, that still would not be hearsay.
	This is a common confusion courts make in the States.
	They think, well, you're trying to assert that so-and-so actually said that.
	I'm like, that's still not hearsay.
	Hearsay is, the car was green.
	How am I going to prove the car was green?
	Well, George told John the car was green.
	That you can't do.
	But let's say I want to prove George is colorblind.
	George said the car was green, and there's a photo of it, and the car is blue.
	That's not for the truth of the matter asserted.
	That's not hearsay.
	And then the exception would be like, as far as I understood, I'm not saying what they told me was true.
	I'm just telling you what they told me.
	In this case, the judge is precluding Amber Heard from saying what she said to somebody else as hearsay.
	Okay.
	I feel so vindicated.
	And I think they should have known, both sides, legal side, both the lawyers have been mediocre.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Joe Biden did propose a constitutional amendment to do exactly what this decision calls for, which is to return the decision to the power to the states.
	No surprise.
	Joe's been on all sides of all issues at all times as needed.
	The only side Joe is consistently on is the side that his ledger's on.
	That's the only side you can predict.
	10% for the big guy.
	10% indeed.
	But they probably should have extensively briefed this with the judge in a trial brief in advance because you know this is a common area of misapprehension and you know there's going to be a lot of testimony to this effect.
	And then sometimes you can get a judge.
	They think truth of the matter asserted means truth of the statement asserted.
	Those two things are totally different.
	And they think out-of-court statement applies even if it's the effiant.
	Which is false.
	Those are the two big things they get wrong all the time.
	It's like when Amber's trying to say what someone told her, not trying to prove the truth of it, but they told me that.
	I heard it with my ears, therefore it shouldn't be hearsay.
	All that is usually party opponent and mission references at one level or another.
	The only thing you can't introduce is self-serving hearsay if you're not testifying.
	You're trying to get in favorable testimony of what your client said without your client testifying for, again, the truth of the matter asserted.
	And again, it's truth of the matter asserted, not truth of the statement asserted.
	Truth of the matter asserted.
	Was the car, in fact, green?
	Not whether George actually said the car was green.
	All right, Robert.
	So you're live tomorrow with Hundley, 5.30.
	I'll probably go live at some point during the day.
	There's no trial tomorrow.
	Nothing for more than a week.
	The Johnny Depp trial addicts will have a week of withdrawal.
	I just did this.
	See, here and here.
	I lean on a glass table all day.
	Take some photos of it.
	That's what Marion has been up to ever since I've been doing these long things.
	This trial is a madhouse.
	More people watching this than Rittenhouse.
	It's fascinating in a rubbernecking sense.
	Okay, you're live tomorrow at 5.30.
	I'll probably be live at...
	Oh, no, I am live tomorrow.
	I got Roman Baber coming on and maybe a kid, Tyson Hockley, who's been live streaming.
	I might get him on at some point.
	So there'll be stuff to watch tomorrow and it won't be Amber Heard Johnny Depp.
	As long as Marion lets you, given what's happening with those arms.
	Yeah, I tell you, it's just, you can see where it is.
	I'm just like leaning on this glass, this sharp glass table.
	I don't like this studio, but one day we'll have a good studio.
	So be patient, people.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for everything.
	I'll see you tomorrow live at some point.
	Stay tuned.

▲