Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 8, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:07:45

Ep. 112: SCOTUS Leak; 2000 Mules; Depp v. Heard; Book Bans & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is a bass.
	Oh my gosh.
	What?
	Is it a walleye?
	It's a walleye!
	Are you recording?
	Yeah.
	I've never caught a walleye before in my life.
	I don't think we're allowed keeping them.
	In fact, I'm fairly certain we're not allowed keeping them because it's a spawn.
	I've never caught a walleye before!
	Oh my god, it's a big one too?
	Oh my good gosh.
	You cannot rip a walleye.
	Oh my gosh!
	I've never caught a walleye before!
	Ethan, I've never caught a walleye before!
	This is a beautiful fish!
	Daddy, I keep accidentally putting my finger on the screen.
	It's okay, it's okay.
	But that actually is a walleye.
	That's a walleye.
	Oh my gosh!
	I've never caught a walleye before!
	It's skin, it's very rough.
	It's not soft.
	Are you kidding this?
	You're kidding this?
	Okay, we're going to put it back.
	Oh my gosh, that's beautiful.
	Go make babies.
	Wait, come here, Greg.
	Oh, it's soft.
	Did you get that?
	What?
	I've never...
	People, it's Mother's Day.
	It's a time to celebrate.
	We're not starting.
	We're not starting with another Justin Trudeau enraging soundbite that makes you want to puke in your mouth while listening to it.
	Hold on a second.
	We have to start with something good.
	People, let me just make sure before I go.
	Before I go, hold on.
	I have to say this because this brings me joy.
	John Kramer, thank you.
	Viva, you bring me joy.
	John Kramer, seeing that brings me joy.
	And I'm not just saying that to say that.
	I genuinely mean that.
	But before I go into the joyous moment of that occasion, how is my audio?
	And how is my audio?
	My lips are chapped.
	It's a problem.
	I'm so ridiculously addicted to lip cell.
	I hide it around the house so that I always have some, but I spent a day and a half without it.
	My lips get chapped immediately.
	Okay, how's the audio?
	Let's just see.
	Before I get into this, good.
	WikiLeaks in the house.
	What was I going to say?
	That was the first walleye that I...
	I have this vague memory of having caught a walleye once upon a time on a road trip with Marion where we rented a dinghy somewhere in Ontario.
	It could have been a dream for all I remember because I don't remember it except for this faint memory.
	That is the first conscious memory I have of having caught a walleye.
	And I think I would have remembered it from the past because walleye...
	I always thought they'd be slimy like a pike.
	It was like sandpapery, like sandpaper.
	I've never caught a walleye before, and I've been fishing in Lake Champlain, that part of Lake Champlain on the Canadian side, as long as I've known my wife, which is now 1999 to 2022.
	23 years, I've been fishing those waters.
	I've caught pike, beaverfish, bass, sunfish, perch, bluegill.
	I caught a catfish.
	I've never caught a walleye, and that was a beautiful, beautiful walleye.
	Now, I happen to think I might have been allowed to keep that walleye because I think the season, the spawning season just ended, but I'm just as happy releasing a fish if it's not mortally wounded as opposed to keeping it to eat just because I could, but it didn't fight all that much, which is why I thought it was a bass until I saw it and was like, I did it.
	I caught a walleye.
	It's Mother's Day, people.
	Happy Mother's Day to everyone.
	Anyone following me on Twitter, I made a funny joke.
	And I'm going to show you what I...
	This is here.
	It's not all what you think it is.
	It's like half...
	Not cranberry juice, but cranberry concentrate.
	This was part of my Mother's Day gift to my wife.
	My wife.
	I put a funny...
	What I think is a funny video on Twitter.
	Twitter, I need your help.
	I can't get a gift.
	It's like, oh, my wife is on Twitter.
	Anyways, I found something for her.
	It was a bottle of Montreal-based elderflower liqueur with which we had been making brevages and a pie, a cheesecake, and a flower.
	So I did it.
	And I made dinner.
	I was going to post that as a follow-up to the follow-up, but I didn't want to look like I was trying too hard to show that I didn't bungle Mother's Day, even though some people think I, you know.
	We're doing a live stream on Mother's Day, but I did not bungle Mother's Day.
	So, okay, we've opened with a beautiful moment.
	This was, by the way, last night after I did, what I wanted to do was a live stream on the canoe.
	I had my vision for how it was going to turn out.
	It didn't turn out the way it was supposed to.
	When I finished that live stream yesterday, I ran down to the lake and on the third cast caught that fish, done for the night, came back, barbecue, wonderful dinner.
	It's Mother's Day.
	We're not going to start with Justin Trudeau.
	And now we're done.
	Not starting with Justin Trudeau.
	We're actually not going to go to Justin Trudeau right now.
	We're going to go to Theresa Tam, Canada's Chief Medical Officer.
	But before we do that, before we do that, standard disclaimers.
	No legal advice.
	No medical advice.
	And especially because we're going to be discussing 2,000 Mules, which I watched today exclusively on Rumble.
	Although I don't think it's exclusively on Rumble, but it's on Rumble.
	I actually subscribed.
	I think Dinesh D'Souza is the only person I'm currently subscribing to on Locals.
	I watched 2,000 Meals today.
	We're going to talk about that.
	Methodology?
	Strawmanning and steelmanning and attacking the methodology, but not talking about the results of that methodology.
	But I watched it on Rumble.
	I followed Dinesh on Locals.
	And by the way...
	If anyone were following Robert and me on Locals at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you would have already seen that moment where I caught a darn walleye and a big, beautiful, juicy walleye that I put back in the water and it will go make babies on Mother's Day.
	Okay, but before we do any of that, no legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice, super chats such as this one.
	Thank you for the support.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	Better for the creator, better for the platform, and you can feel better supporting a platform that supports free speech issues like 2,000 Meals.
	But if you want to support Robert Barnes and I, $5 a month, $50 a year for exclusive stuff on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Non-supporters get a ton of stuff because most of my posts on Locals are not...
	Supporter exclusive.
	So you can find us there.
	I'm going to try to get to all the Super Chats if I don't, and you're going to be miffed if I don't bring it up like this.
	Don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't like people feeling miffed, rooked, shilled, whatever.
	The excitement in your voices over that fish was a great father-son mother.
	I love how my kid says, thank you very much, Richard.
	I love how he says, yeah, it was a walleye.
	Kid's never seen a walleye before.
	He doesn't know what a walleye is.
	Am I out of focus?
	Kid doesn't know what a walleye is.
	We've never seen one.
	They're beautiful fish.
	You can't lip a walleye.
	I knew that from the books, but not from real life.
	Have you looked into the bill passed by Premier Andrews supposedly banning growing food?
	I think they have to register.
	I haven't seen it, Trent.
	Haven't even heard of it.
	But, you know, hey, once upon a time, Gretchen Whitmer banned stores from selling seeds.
	I don't know if it's part and parcel of any sinister plan, but...
	Yeah.
	Viva Frye is no more.
	Long live Viva Fro.
	I'm not cutting the hair, people.
	I'm just not because I love it.
	And we got make a video of a Winston makeover on your Viva Family channel before after the groomers.
	Also, happy Mother's Day to Marion.
	That woman is a saint.
	She is.
	And that's not a bad idea about the dog because he's got burrs in his fur and it's serious.
	Okay.
	I said we're not starting with Justin Trudeau.
	Because I don't want to ruin anyone's Mother's Day.
	But we're far enough into the stream right now.
	By the way, share the link around in case people didn't get it.
	We're far enough into the stream.
	We can ruin the stream.
	Hold on.
	Make a video of that.
	Let me just get this out of here so I can...
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	We're not going to start with something that's going to make you want to puke.
	But we're going to get there.
	Right now.
	Listen to this.
	Teresa Tam, people.
	For anybody who doesn't know, this is Canada's chief...
	Medical health officer person thingy thing.
	This is Canada's chief medical officer who dictates policy and important stuff like that.
	This is the same doctor who at one point in her reign suggested that people contemplate wearing masks when engaging in sexual activity.
	This is the person who recommended people wear masks when engaging in sexual activity.
	Okay, but she's a doctor and I'm a lawyer, so I'm not gonna, you know, I'm gonna stay in my lane and just trust this doctor when she says to prevent the spread of coronavirus, when engaging in sexual activity, consider wearing a mask.
	But now I'm gonna listen to her on this and listen to this, people.
	Listen to this.
	I'm gonna mute myself so we don't hear echo.
	I've learned my lesson.
	I think we are still trying to understand long COVID more, including the prevalence of long COVID post-infection.
	And there's various estimates.
	I think that at the WHO estimates, the earlier estimates put it at 10 to 20%.
	But we know that more recent estimates have put it at maybe as high as 50%.
	For those who have been infected with COVID-19.
	You didn't mishear.
	Our doctor, Theresa Tam, is putting the estimates that people who might suffer from long COVID at 50% of people who have suffered been infected with COVID.
	That is all I say.
	I'm just repeating the words.
	I'm not even commenting on it.
	In summary, though...
	Even now, we probably anticipate that the impact of long COVID is going to be quite substantial.
	And there's a huge range of symptoms that people are trying to understand.
	There's over 100 of them.
	There may be different underlying pathophysiology or pathogenesis for some of these symptoms that still has to be further understood.
	But I think while the data is...
	This is relatively scant.
	There's emerging data to show that vaccines are able to provide a level of protection against long COVID.
	Some studies put it at 50% effectiveness.
	That still has to be further studied.
	But I do think that the vaccine plus approach is still the way to go.
	People.
	People, this doctor, the evidence is scant.
	The stats are scant.
	The information is scant.
	So let me just go out on a wild conclusion and make not just a wild prediction about 50% of people who get infected with COVID suffering from long COVID.
	But also let me go, the evidence is scant.
	Let me make projections based on the efficiency and the efficaciousness of certain Fauci juices in terms of preventing that.
	Which we don't even have enough information to know even exists in what percentage now, but she'll say 50%.
	One out of every two people suffers from long COVID.
	And what are the symptoms of long COVID, by the way?
	Just hypothetically, does anybody know what long COVID is and what the symptoms are?
	Let me just go to...
	I'm not a doctor.
	I'm going to stay in my lane, people.
	I'm not even going to express an opinion.
	I'm just going to read from where we're at now.
	Hopkins Medicine.
	They're good.
	They have...
	Johns Hopkins is...
	I think they're good.
	I've heard the name once or twice before.
	Long COVID.
	What is a post-COVID syndrome?
	What causes post-COVID syndrome?
	What causes symptoms in long haulers?
	What are the long-term effects of coronavirus?
	Let's read what Johns Hopkins says.
	These are the long COVID things.
	The things Dr. Theresa Tam is saying might affect...
	50% of people who have been infected with COVID.
	Breathing issues?
	It can cause scarring on the lungs.
	Fine.
	Breathing issues in severe cases?
	Okay.
	Heart problems.
	SARS-CoV-2 infection can leave some people with heart problems, including inflammation of the heart muscle.
	In fact, one study showed that 60% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had signs of ongoing heart inflammation.
	Heart inflammation, which could lead to common symptoms of shortness of breath, palpitations, rapid heartbeats.
	Heart inflammation.
	Kidney damage.
	The sense of smell.
	Who gives a sweet bugger all about the sense of smell?
	Neurological problems.
	You know what else can cause neurological problems?
	Being locked in your house for two years.
	That can cause neurological problems.
	Nervous system problems.
	Mental health.
	We knew about that.
	Diabetes.
	There's obviously a few that I find more interesting than others, but long story short, I mean, one does not have to hypothesize too hard to see, to potentially fear what might be happening right now in real time.
	Look at what they're going to say is long COVID.
	Look at the amount of people they're going to say are going to be affected by long COVID.
	And you can put two and two together, and in this book, it ain't four people.
	Okay.
	With that said, let me go flag a few more Super Chats before I bring Barnes in because I see him in the background.
	Tonight on the menu.
	It's a lot.
	There's so much.
	Ukraine.
	Hunter Biden stuff.
	January 6th stuff.
	I know some people don't want to hear about it, but it seems like millions of others do.
	Some Johnny Depp stuff.
	Good law stuff.
	Netflix class action lawsuit.
	Twitter lawsuit.
	There's so much stuff.
	Let me see.
	Demonetized?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	You're probably right.
	They've all been...
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Demonetized.
	Let's just go request review as we always do because it's not demonetized because of content.
	Although maybe I said 2,000 meals.
	Maybe that's the new verboten word on the Twitterverse.
	All right.
	I see Barnes is in the background.
	Let's bring him in.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Everyone in the chat, tell me if the audio is level.
	Robert, just do a mic test one, two.
	Sure.
	One, two, three.
	Okay.
	Sounds good on my end.
	Robert, before we even think of getting started, what is in your hand and what is all over your shoulder?
	So that's a book called American Scripture about the Declaration of Independence and how it was really rooted in the collective conscious mind of the American people.
	It wasn't just Thomas Jefferson, just a select group of people who wrote it.
	That writing represented...
	The cumulative consciousness of the American people, thus the language American scripture, heavily created in part, crafted in part, by Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which we discussed last week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All right, and twirling in your mouth right now, Robert?
	Oh, it's an Olivia Milano's Maduro cigar.
	Now, people don't understand why you don't smoke them during the streams, and YouTube has some funky rules that we try to respect.
	You do smoke them afterwards, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I don't know how people...
	You really can't talk a lot and smoke a cigar at the same time.
	That's not quite how that typically works either.
	Robert, we're going to have fun with 2,000 Mules tonight because we're not discussing conclusions.
	I messaged Robert.
	I said, look, we don't want to discuss conclusions because we don't want to...
	You know, run afoul of YouTube.
	We want to discuss methodology, potential explanations, potential rebuttals.
	If it's a debate, we're going to get there.
	Before we even get there, I mean, look, we're going to start with Ukraine, the latest.
	What's the latest going on, Robert?
	Not much.
	I will be on with the Duran, Tuesday, 1 o 'clock Eastern, live.
	On the Duran's YouTube channel to discuss everything related to Ukraine and Ukraine and the U.S. But not much on the legal front has changed since last week.
	And we only have about 21 other topics to cover.
	So we got the Supreme Court leaker.
	We got whether Roe was overturned.
	We got the Boston flag First Amendment decision.
	We got libraries banning books.
	We got Tiger King videos not being copyrighted.
	We got Johnny Depp.
	We got Trump, Georgia grand juries.
	We got Marjorie Taylor Greene winning her election challenge.
	And that's just for starters.
	Well, let's start with Marjorie Taylor Greene winning her lawsuit or winning her challenges.
	So what was the latest court development in that?
	So the way that worked was, the way it works in Georgia is you can file an election contest prior to an election about someone being on the ballot.
	Any citizen can do so.
	That citizen filed such an election challenge.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene then sued in federal court on the grounds that such a challenge should not be allowed to occur because it violates various constitutional provisions, including her own.
	First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, but also the Constitution delegates exclusively to Congress the qualification of its members.
	And the court, she got a liberal judge and the liberal judge dodged it.
	So what happened and didn't intervene?
	That returned it to initially an administrative law judge who conducts a hearing, if he so chooses, and then issues an advisory opinion that then goes to the elected Secretary of State.
	Who either affirms or rejects that advisory opinion in determining ultimate ballot status.
	The administrative law judge conducted a full trial.
	I thought it was kind of a little crazy, but Marjorie Taylor Greene took the stand, and that's where the media tried to make it, and some of the advocates in that proceeding tried to make it, that even saying 1776 was somehow a criminal insurrectionary act.
	For those that don't remember, the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War.
	To basically prevent people who left elected office, who had taken an oath to the United States, and left it to join and support the Confederacy, to prevent them from having future federal office.
	But it delegated to Congress the enforcement of that provision.
	Congress ultimately chose to amnesty everybody about seven years later, passed another amnesty 20 years after that.
	That basically made it clear that they were not going to enforce that provision.
	It was momentarily resurrected during World War I to try to keep him out of Congress because he was a socialist from Milwaukee who was against the war.
	Milwaukee also had a very big German-American population, and Germany was the focus of the other side of that war.
	So there are multiple reasons.
	Of course, World War I was built on a lie, but you can go to the hush-hushes.
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com about that false flag.
	But it was misapplied in my view, and it has been dead pretty much since then.
	And Mark Elias and the Democratic lawyers, the same people as we'll bridge into later discussing 2000, and Mules were heavily involved in changing the legal rules for the election last time, but not in a legal manner.
	It came up with the idea of let's use the 14th Amendment to kick all the populists we don't like out of Congress, to keep them from even being chosen by the voters to represent them in Congress.
	So they've tried this first with Madison Cawthorn.
	A federal court said that was a nonsensical interpretation of the 14th Amendment's application, especially given the amnesty statutes that were subsequently passed, and said that they cannot prohibit Madison Cawthorn from being on the ballot.
	Then it went to challenging Paul Gosar in Arizona, another strong populist advocate about election reform in particular, as was Madison Cawthorn.
	And he, too, the court said, no, you cannot keep him off the ballot based on this kind of lunatic interpretation of the 14th.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene The Secretary of State's almost guaranteed to agree with that,
	even though the Secretary of State is Ratberger, who should lose his re-election bid, who was not helpful as the 2000 and Mules movie helps document and demonstrate indirectly.
	By what he failed to do in both the presidential election and the Senate runoff.
	But he's not going to go against the administrative law judge's ruling, a federal judge's ruling in an analogous case, and a state court judge's ruling in another analogous case.
	So Marjorie Taylor Greene will be on the ballot.
	Madison Cawthorn will be on the ballot.
	Paul Gosar will be on the ballot.
	And hopefully this will start to put the nails in the coffin of this dangerous, derelict theory of Mark Elias's and prevent it from being used against President Trump or anyone else in the future.
	Because there was that administrative thing, which some people didn't understand, is that the administrative contestation where the judge was hearing it and seemed favorable to Marjorie Taylor Greene, his decision was never final regardless.
	He issues his ruling or his finding, submits it to Raffensperger, who then has the final say, but she had also filed the same motion to dismiss on the merits, which I still don't fully understand, but invoking the constitutional exception, which had been granted to Cawthorne.
	But not to Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	So ultimately the judge in the court of law said, you benefit from the same exemption?
	I mean, effectively.
	But he did a long analysis that said, however it's calculated, they have not met their burden to show that she engaged in criminal insurrection anyway.
	So that it didn't matter whether you measured whether she was exempt because of the First Amendment, exempt because only Congress determines its qualifications, exempt because of the amnesty law provision, exempt because Congress has never passed any enforcement mechanisms of this rule, as other judges have commented upon.
	Even if you ignore all four of those, when you get to the fifth matter, did she engage in criminal insurrection?
	Of course not.
	It's utterly ludicrous.
	It was preposterous.
	And what evidence was deduced in the real courts versus the administrative courts?
	No evidence was really introduced into the federal court because it was done in a motion to dismiss stage, which assumed all facts as true.
	No evidentiary hearing was conducted or discovery allowed.
	Instead, the only discovery and evidentiary hearing was conducted by the administrative law judge, basically a bureaucrat.
	I don't know why they call them judge, but, you know, that's an old grievance of mine.
	It's like calling ex-judges that are arbitrators judge.
	It's like you're not a judge.
	You're an arbitrator.
	Quit calling yourself a judge.
	It's because you once were.
	It doesn't mean you are now.
	But in civil discourse, you can recognize someone as judge.
	I get who used to be a judge.
	But putting them an arbitrator or an administrative law judge, calling them as a judge, creates this misapprehension that they have the power of the judicial branch and they do not.
	And that's my problem with it.
	So it's an attempt by the bureaucratic clerical class to recreate all power within the administrative state of the executive branch without political controls.
	That's what it really is.
	But either way, the ALJ, to his credit, made the sensible decision that under any analysis, they did not meet their burden of proof at all or anywhere close to it that Marjorie Taylor Greene engaged in any kind of illicit insurrection.
	It's not like...
	There were a bunch of people outside of a Supreme Court justice's house demanding he change his opinion on a coming case.
	You're on mute.
	I'm an idiot.
	I added an extra word for my own self there.
	We're going to get there in a few minutes.
	And by the way, just everybody knows my nose is red now, okay?
	I got the sun.
	I was in the sun.
	I went for a jog with my wife this morning, seven and a half kilometers.
	We went into the cold water again.
	Just don't associate it with this, which is not even drunk yet.
	But Robert, what's Mark Elias' theory?
	I mean, I think we understand what the theory is.
	Anybody who participates in what you colloquially, because this is nothing more than a colloquial sort of insurrection.
	You accuse them of it, remove them from the ballot.
	The obvious long-term goal was to get Trump not to be able to go on the ballot again if he ever decides to run.
	It was effectively to shift power from the people, from the electorate, to the judicial branch.
	That's all it really was.
	And it was the judicial branch has more, will do the Democrats bidding much more often than the elected electorates of these communities would.
	The electorates, the people in these communities, are populist conservatives.
	They're not going to go along with Mark Elias.
	So he wanted to strip power from them and give it to the judiciary to keep off the ballot anyone they didn't like.
	I mean, we call this election...
	And if I may, Robert, I mean, if I recall correctly, this might be a strategy that they might even use in countries like Russia or other countries that are arguably not free and democratic.
	I don't recall if they...
	Go for this exactly, but imprison adversaries so they can't run anymore.
	But Robert, part of that leads me to believe that that's why they're going after Trump so hard on the contempt on the tax issues to try to get some criminal charge to stick.
	Is anything that they're doing to Trump currently in terms of not just the civil suits, but the criminal suits, is any of that a potential impediment to Trump being able to run again?
	No, because the Constitution controls what the qualifications for the presidency are.
	And once they established the precedence that you couldn't challenge whether McCain was qualified constitutionally because of where he was born or whether Barack Obama was constitutionally qualified because of where he was born, courts said that decision isn't for us to make.
	They can't turn around and suddenly say, well, if it's for Trump, we'll carve out an exception.
	So the content proceedings are a crock in New York.
	They continue the New York Court of Appeals.
	New York courts are...
	New York courts are about as reliable for protecting Trump's civil rights as Mississippi's courts were in 1940 for protecting Black Mississippian civil rights.
	It's that useless.
	And they're proving how politicized and partisan they are.
	In Georgia, in Fulton County, a very liberal Democratic county, they have an open grand jury trying to conjure up some nonsensical criminal charge.
	None of these things will derail Trump from being on the ballot in 2024.
	They are just efforts to smear him and to try to deter him, as he has publicly stated, from running in 2024.
	Because as movies like 2000 and Mules come out, people figure out who actually won 2020 if we had had a constitutionally qualified election.
	Robert, we will not address conclusions.
	Dinesh D'Souza is categorical in his conclusions.
	And that's fine.
	You can go watch it.
	I believe you either have to subscribe to Dinesh on Locals to get Access to the documentary or buy it.
	Is it available for free on Rumble?
	I don't think it is.
	No, it's still for sale.
	The best deal is you get a whole year subscription to Dinesh D'Souza's community on Locals and then you get the movie for free.
	I would recommend that the 25 minute mark to the 40-45 minute mark is the core of the evidentiary theory of the movie.
	It's not to be critical for the sake of being critical.
	The movie is very simple.
	It can actually be summed up in three points.
	That, effectively, they used...
	Dinesh D'Souza bought data on people's cell phones.
	Well, the company True the Vote did.
	Okay.
	Sorry, that was not to blame or anything.
	Their methodology was to purchase...
	Basically tracking data on cell phones within a certain geographic area, all legally, it's gathered by cell phones, to then identify, they set parameters.
	They got a ton of data from cell phone geolocation movements.
	They filtered it down to say, we are only interested in cell phone data tracking, which shows that an individual, I don't want to make a mistake on the numbers, but went to 50 ballot drop-offs.
	sections, ballot drop-off locations in a day, and also went to five polling I think it was 10 drop boxes and 501c3 organizations that were involved in supporting election turnout.
	So the methodology, this is the crux of the movie.
	It's an hour and a half documentary.
	I would say it's half.
	The other half is the surveillance data.
	Oh, well, I lumped that together.
	I would have said the other half was who's financing these not-for-profits that are involved in, you know, motivating people to vote.
	But so bottom line, he acquires a ton of data, geolocations within a certain geographic vicinity based on cell phone data.
	Filters it down to say whatever, it was either 10 or whatever, people visiting drop boxes and also visiting these entities which are involved in promoting voting and found that There were people, hence the 2,000 meals, these people who seem to have been visiting lots of ballot box drop-off stations and lots of organization locations as well within certain parameters that would not be an accident.
	It's like nobody's going to that many ballot box drop-offs for no good reason or for no other reason.
	And then found that there were these, in various states, 2,000 mules, basically because he's liking it to drug trafficking, who would go and drop off ballots in ballot boxes.
	Then they acquired video surveillance of various ballot drop-offs.
	That had been legally required.
	So the whole pitch with these drop boxes was, don't worry, there'll be live 24-7 video surveillance available of everyone who goes and drops off a ballot.
	Now, in some places, they weren't maintaining the surveillance system as they were supposed to.
	In some places, they didn't keep copies of it.
	But in all instances, the Republican National Committee was asleep at the wheel, misdirecting resources, and did not have people watching this on a daily basis.
	Because if they had...
	They would have seen, again, this is open source data.
	Some people were saying, well, this is private information.
	It's like, no, this is not private information.
	This was publicly recorded cameras that were required that if you used a Dropbox, you knew you would be publicly recorded and video surveilled when you put any ballot in, in order to check as to be a measurement, a safety protection against illicit methods of ballot trafficking.
	Interesting.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	So they have these drop-off ballot boxes so that everybody can go and make it easier to vote, COVID and yada yada.
	They were supposed to have surveillance footage 24-7.
	Which ones, which states?
	Because this is a bipartisan critique on the voting system used in 2020.
	Not drawing any conclusions, just bipartisan.
	Which states apparently did not have the 24-7 surveillance that they were required to have?
	Well, it varied by Dropbox by county.
	So it wasn't so much that it was statewide.
	What you would find is in some places they had it maintained, some places they didn't.
	And they used the Open Records Act in Georgia.
	There's variations of the Freedom of Information Act laws, sunshine laws, as they're sometimes called, open records laws in some places.
	And they used those to get the surveillance data.
	And from the surveillance data, they were able to align this with the cell phone data they had.
	To see, okay, who's showing up that might match this unusual cell phone data where they're visiting multiple locations where these drop boxes are located and multiple locations where voter registration and voter turnout organizations were located.
	And what they found was a lot of anomalous things.
	They found people dropping off more than one ballot.
	They saw people putting more than one ballot in.
	They saw these people appearing multiple times at that and other drop boxes putting multiple ballots in.
	They saw these same people sometimes doing it at like 3 or 4 in the morning.
	They saw some of these people acting furtively when they approached the box, like looking around, that kind of thing.
	And then they also saw them at various points wearing surgical gloves to put the ballots, and as soon as they put the ballots in, put them all in, sometimes they carry bags with them and the rest, then they would turn around, take the surgical gloves off, and throw them in the trash can.
	What does that do is it prevents fingerprints on who put those ballots in.
	Let's go one by one.
	What does furtively mean?
	For those who may not know.
	So, furtively, kind of a combination of secretive and suspicious.
	You do something in almost a hesitating manner that suggests you're concerned about being monitored or being seen or being watched or being observed.
	And they documented that the scale of this was they just focused on the states that were very close.
	Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona.
	Michigan ended up being not as close.
	So really, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, those are the quartet of key states.
	And they found inferential evidence based on their data that more ballots would be in question than the margin of victory in each of those states.
	And just using the surveillance data and the geolocation data.
	By the way, this was recommended to the Republican National Committee in November.
	And it was the Republican National Committee that quashed it.
	They not only failed to monitor any of these things before the election.
	Afterwards, we came, people like Patrick Witt, running for insurance commissioner in Georgia, volunteering his time, other people volunteering their time, lawyers volunteering our time, said, look, we need to build the resources to have Matt Brainerd, Richard Barris, looking at it from the data side.
	To have forensic investigators on the ground to do massive Open Records Act requests or simply compel as part of the election contest process the production of these surveillance files, the signature match files that will also occur.
	And the Republican National Committee said they were going to do it, raised over $100 million, saying they were going to investigate and spend this to deal with the election.
	And then they misdirected that fund, as far as I know, and as was confirmed by Jenna as well.
	Well, here's one question, and this is to steel man the potential defense to Dinesh D'Souza's documentary.
	There could be reasons for which an individual is dropping off more than one ballot in a ballot box, correct?
	It depends on the state.
	In most states, that's illegal, period.
	You could only bring your own ballot in, period.
	And in fact, in many of these states where it happened, in Wisconsin and other places, in Georgia, in Arizona, Ballot harvesting was illegal in many of these locations, number one.
	And what ballot harvesting is is where a third party can collect and deliver your ballot.
	In fact, the drop boxes themselves were often in violation of law.
	This is what's being litigated in Wisconsin.
	Drop boxes were not authorized under Wisconsin law.
	What happened was Zuckerberg came in.
	Gave hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to local election officials as what the former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice legislature-appointed special counsel determined was flat-out bribery, went in and bribed these election officials to bring in all these drop boxes and as well to mass mail out a whole bunch of ballots targeting...
	Low-propensity Democratic voting constituencies and counties to have a partisan edge, which is where the 501c3 violation is, and do it en masse.
	And so what happened is that a person coming and delivering the ballots, in many of these places, they couldn't deliver more than their own.
	And two, to the degree that there was any laws allowing third-party pickup and delivery, that third-party pick...
	Only California and a few states have real liberalized rules on this.
	Most of it had to be like a family member, had to be a friend, things like...
	Power of attorney, I presume.
	Power of attorney, the equivalent thereof, something like that.
	That clearly is not what's happening here.
	And that would explain two or three ballots.
	It wouldn't explain all of these.
	And also, it wouldn't explain why they're using Dropboxes so much.
	In other words, Dropboxes was an institutionalized mechanism to allow illicit what I call constitutionally unqualified ballots to be counted.
	Because my analysis was always threefold, and if people saw Dinesh D'Souza's presentation at the end of the premiere of the film, it basically sounded exactly like my speech right before the election on this show and with Richard Bares, which was what was happening was the election effectively...
	The election officials were telling the entire world, really in almost every state this happened at some level, saying, by the way, the safe is open, the front door is unlocked, the security guards are gone, and we're going on vacation for two weeks.
	Do what you want.
	And so that's why you got outsourced activity of people who often, in other words, you have third-party organizations, and that's why it varied by location.
	And when I saw the map of Georgia, it made no sense.
	You saw places that usually vote together vote differently.
	And you dig into it, the places voted differently had unusual turnout.
	And unusual turnout directly overlapped with Biden voters.
	And then when you looked at where that unusual turnout, we broke it down.
	It was in precincts with apartment buildings, with a lot of disparate apartment buildings, nursing homes, and mail drops.
	And one of the mechanisms by which...
	Just hypothetically speaking, that such voter fortification can occur, election fortification can occur, is if you have third-party middlemen picking up and delivering these ballots and having no U.S. Postal Service involved, having no election official directly involved.
	The drop boxes were an invitation to constitutionally questionable ballots being counted in the election.
	That's what some of us said from day one.
	The only mechanism to test this was a meaningful signature match against the outside of the ballot.
	That was my proposed legal remedy for President Trump.
	And no state to this day has ever conducted a meaningful signature match on this ballot.
	So this goes to Dennis Prager's criticism in the film of D'Souza's position.
	And Dennis Prager, warmonger.
	Some other things.
	So just put that out there.
	I get he's good on a lot of cultural issues.
	He's not on a lot of other issues.
	He has good taste in cigars, but that's the scope of it.
	But he was saying, hey, you can't prove this ballot was an illegal ballot.
	Well, first of all, if it wasn't cast in a constitutionally qualified manner, it's an illegal ballot.
	Period.
	End of story.
	Doesn't matter whether the person intended or wanted their ballot to count.
	If you don't cast your ballot in a constitutionally qualified manner, it's an illegal ballot.
	One mistake that was made.
	Was focusing on the word fraud.
	You don't have to prove fraud in an election contest.
	You just have to prove a ballot was counted in an unqualified manner legally.
	I call it constitutionally qualified because in the presidential election contest, the only rules that matter are the ones established by the legislature of each state.
	The executive branch can't unilaterally change it constitutionally, but that's what happened in 2020.
	And it facilitated and enabled...
	The 2000 and Mules to exist.
	But like the fact checkers are saying, well, you're still, there's a lot of inferences and they're second guessing D'Souza's film.
	I want those fact checkers to explain to me why my people are delivering multiple ballots at multiple locations at weird times, wearing surgical gloves, putting the ballots in and taking the surgical gloves off and throwing them in the trash can.
	Well, look, let me give, let me just...
	We'll talk about that one.
	Election fornication.
	I like that.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I'm going to steal that.
	Election fornication.
	They were doing a lot of election fornication in 2020.
	I tell you what, I actually thought that said fortification.
	I thought I was Googling the article from Time Magazine, which, by the way, funny enough, now seems to be behind a paywall.
	When it wasn't when I initially did the story on it, when I covered this a little while back, just to talk about it.
	So I'm not, go F yourself, Time.
	I'm not doing that.
	But Robert, okay, so hold on.
	One thing at a time.
	The ballot harvesting.
	This was at issue in the Project Veritas lawsuit against the New York Times, where they said that there was a New York law that suspended...
	Minnesota.
	Minnesota?
	Okay, sorry.
	Minnesota, where they said it suspended the application of the law so that ballot harvesting was legal, which turned out to be false.
	And I think you need to flesh that out.
	The suspension of the law that would have outlawed ballot harvesting had not been implemented.
	So ballot harvesting in Minnesota, Ilhan Omar's district, was illegal.
	Meaning, third parties who are not power of attorney or, I don't know, mandated to carry someone, a third party's ballot, would not be allowed to have any other person's ballot for the purposes of transporting and depositing in a dropbox.
	Precisely.
	I grew up in Democratic politics.
	I used to work in Democratic politics as a campaign consultant as a kid.
	And one of the things you do is in a Democratic election, you went to certain precinct chairmen or people in that community who had influence, and you paid them cash, and they said they could deliver a certain number of votes for you.
	Nobody knew how.
	Nobody knew why.
	The hard part was, with that method of political machine, was you couldn't guarantee the person would vote.
	The right way, right?
	Because they go in, they cast their ballot in person and in secret, and they personally put the ballot in.
	The utility to a mule-driven system is you can be there when they fill out that ballot, or maybe you fill out the ballot yourself, just hypothetically speaking.
	You're just recommending to them.
	This is who you want.
	You take vulnerable people in nursing homes.
	They had a few examples.
	You see some of the ones they broadcast in the movie from Wisconsin.
	I mean, those people can't move or talk.
	And they've been voting for decades.
	You voted in 2020.
	Look, you can write it off as either fabricated, liars, or one-offs.
	But in the movie, they had at least five.
	People were clearly unable to vote.
	They were clearly unable to do anything.
	That's why they were in a nursing home, probably under a curatorship of sorts.
	I mean, they were put into places because they were unable to care for themselves.
	And many of them were just mentally incompetent.
	Not only that, The nursing home turnout varied.
	You had nursing home turnout in one, just down the street, you'd have one nursing home would turn out at 90%.
	Down the street, one turned out at 60%.
	And it's like, and they're the same qualifications to get into both.
	I did this work in Georgia.
	And it was like, okay, don't think so.
	So we just have great credit to Dinesh D'Souza because he took a big risk even talking about this topic.
	Fox News doesn't want to go into detail about it.
	The institutional Republicans don't want to discuss it.
	One little great tidbit he put in is that on the January 6th cases, that they had to have had a bunch of the cell phone data of those people before January 6th in order to identify them so quickly because of how they used the data, that they couldn't identify them within 24 hours unless they actually had their data three days, four days before.
	Which tells you something about what was going on.
	That was his little January 6th tidbit.
	He just dropped in.
	But credit to Dinesh D'Souza for even covering this topic because a lot of people in the institutional right did not want it to be discussed.
	And the Republican National Committee sure doesn't want a highlight and a spotlight on how not only did they blow it all the way up to the election, but that they grifted their own donor base out of $100 million plus cash rather than do the work that Dinesh D'Souza and these groups did.
	Okay, look, there were two things that I had to get to.
	The rubber gloves.
	One argument is going to be the woman's wearing, in the movie, the woman wears rubber gloves, the latex things.
	Surgical gloves, I call it.
	Surgical gloves, stuffs a bunch of stuff, drops off, it seems like multiple ballots.
	I don't remember if this was at three in the morning or late at night, and then takes her gloves off and throws them out.
	There's a garbage right next to it.
	Some people are saying...
	It's mid-COVID hysteria.
	She's wearing gloves because she's, you know, nervous.
	But why'd she take them off?
	Well, first think this.
	If she's nervous about the germs on the ballots, that would imply that she's delivering not her own ballot and more than one ballot that's not her own, which in and of itself would be problematic.
	Second thing, if she's that COVID crazy, she's going to keep those gloves on afterwards.
	So one way or the other, I don't think that argument makes sense.
	Okay, she was wearing gloves because it's COVID and she's nervous.
	Okay, then you keep them on.
	And if she's nervous because she's handling a ballot not her own, that in and of itself is already a problem, I think, Robert.
	And then that would assume it wasn't at like 3 in the morning, which was kind of nuts.
	So the rubber gloves, it might be more for color, but the substance of this is that you have people attending multiple ballot boxes in the same day and then also coincidentally or not attending 501c3 entities that are involved in encouraging, you know, fortifying the elections as per the Time article magazine, which is now no longer accessible to the public.
	I mean, put it this way.
	Cocaine traffickers have been convicted on a lot less.
	But is there, Robert, is there any...
	So, if you're going to attack this movie, you're going to go on one of two things.
	Either the methodology is flawed and the...
	The numbers are wrong.
	Or there's a perfectly plausible explanation because the methodology is fine.
	The fact-checkers so far have mostly tried to ignore...
	Dennis Prager's response in the film is, what makes this ballot illegal?
	In one part of the film, it probably could have been...
	If they had some other lawyers involved, it could have helped, I think.
	Because the context is, if a ballot doesn't strictly comply with the law in terms of who voted...
	And how they voted and how the vote was processed.
	The ballot was processed.
	It's an illegal ballot, period.
	You don't have to prove fraud.
	You don't have to prove anybody intended to defraud anybody.
	It's an illegal ballot, period.
	End of story.
	And so the question is, are these illegal ballots?
	The mere fact that in many of these jurisdictions you have somebody delivering somebody else's ballot makes it an illegal ballot, period.
	Just that fact by itself.
	But the second aspect is definitely inferential.
	But it goes back to that story I told.
	The advantage of drop boxes in mass mail-in voting is, one, ballots were everywhere.
	So chain of custody on ballots was gone.
	So traditional chain of custody on ballots, they're strictly numbered.
	These days they have digital identification.
	They are strictly controlled where they go all the way through the process.
	This was recently discussed by Oliver Stone in his new JFK documentary about the problems of the chain of custody of the magic bullet.
	Under the single bullet theory of Arlen Specter, who got himself a senatorial gig out of that racket.
	But that's another story for another day.
	The chain of custody of the ballot is impaired when you mass send them out by mail.
	We've never done that before.
	Never in American history had this ever happened.
	That we just flooded the system with ballots.
	And what happens is that's the first step.
	The second step is you need somebody to deliver those ballots.
	And the, uh, now you probably, I should say that's a third step is the delivery.
	The second step is you need somebody to, to fill out those ballots.
	And the question is how many of those, I mean, I'm here in Las Vegas and guess what I got last week?
	Two ballots in the mail.
	One for me, one for somebody that hasn't lived here in 10 years.
	So if I was unethical, could fill out that ballot, send it right in.
	But let's say I didn't want it to track back to me.
	I have a bunch of ballots sent to, say, a homeless shelter, an apartment complex, a nursing home complex.
	And I got somebody on the inside willing to organize them and give them to me to fill out, give it to the mule to deliver.
	And then there's multiple levels removed of liability and culpability.
	And that's what the system describes.
	And that's why it matters.
	And that's why there isn't a good counter.
	They have to pretend it doesn't matter when legally it absolutely did.
	And some of the video surveillance was egregiously incriminating.
	Unless Dinesh D'Souza is lying to all of us, or he got a dude.
	And this is just a tiny slice of what was seen.
	I mean, there's also the whistleblower interview, who the National Republican Senatorial Committee finally woke up to this after the election for the Georgia runoff, but still did nothing about the information he was reporting.
	He was like, people are showing up.
	And vehicles from Texas, from South Carolina, not Georgia license plates.
	Crossing state lines, people.
	That in and of itself.
	Exactly.
	And dropping off multiple ballots.
	And it was consistently a problem.
	I think the remedy that people should come out of this is we should not have drop boxes, period.
	And we should not have mass mail-in voting, period.
	Because either one of these create this opportunity.
	It's a stupid question, maybe.
	Why drop boxes and not mail-in ballots?
	Who makes it to a drop box but not to a post office?
	Yes.
	What it does is it interferes with the chain of custody, so it makes it easier.
	Because if the U.S. Postal Service comes by and you say, here's 50 ballots for you, a little bit more of a problem.
	You drop it off at a U.S. The chain of custody is better tracked within the governmental record system.
	So that's why they like drop boxes, because it short-circuits the election officials, short-circuits the U.S. Postal Service.
	And it's an invitation to fraud.
	So even if you don't think any fraud occurred, it will happen in the future.
	It's a guarantee.
	As long as we have mass mail-in voting and drop boxes, fraud, we have a huge security flaw in our election integrity.
	You caught yourself right in time.
	But Robert, steel man it.
	Who could make it to a Dropbox that could not make it to a post office?
	There's nobody.
	Not only that, the post person comes to your door.
	You can deliver it to them right at the door if you want.
	I mean, most postal people come deliver right to your own mailbox right there so that you can deliver it right there.
	So there's no need for it at all.
	It's much easier to personally mail in a ballot than to give it to someone to drop it off at a Dropbox.
	What it did is, and the other way this worked is, or the way it could work for partisan purposes, is knowing that one party is much more likely to utilize this in this way for illicit purposes than the other.
	But any party can use this, and that's why it's so dangerous.
	And that's why Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker both agreed in 2005 in the Election Reform Commission that mail-in balloting and absentee balloting presents the greatest risk.
	And we had the least secure election just by procedures than we've ever had in American history in 2020.
	And what this 2000 Mules documents is we have lots of reasons to doubt the integrity of the outcome of that election.
	And by the way, one great thing about this documentary was it had a moment like crossing state lines for Rittenhouse about the most secure election in the history of America.
	They made a montage, which was very reminiscent of...
	The montage that they made about crossing state lines.
	The montage they're going to make about X, Y, and Z. I don't want to get too political.
	Okay.
	No, it wasn't wine, people.
	It was cosmopolitan of sorts.
	Okay, so I'm not...
	Yeah, so that's a good...
	I recommend the film.
	Good film.
	But speaking of lawless actions...
	There's probably no greater one than what happened at the Supreme Court last week.
	Okay, hold on.
	Before we get there, Robert, let me just do these super chats.
	There's one question I want to address.
	Viva Frye, do you think this is happening in Canada?
	Numerous ball.
	Short answer, no.
	In Canada, you've got to show two pieces.
	They're firing workers for not taking the shot, right?
	No, they fired workers for donating to the convoy anonymously.
	Oh, that's right.
	That's what they did.
	They fired them for just donating.
	Honestly, on their personal account, Robert, not even on the business account.
	After the media goes to the person, finds out who the person is, emails them on their personal and business account, and emails their employer.
	We'll get there, but hold on.
	But no, I don't think it's happening in Canada because you've got to show two pieces of ID.
	You've got to show current address with a proof of where you live.
	And it's all on paper and pencil.
	I don't think it's happening in Canada.
	I took flack last election for saying it, but I don't think it's happening in Canada.
	So that sounds like a white supremacist system you got up there.
	Totally.
	In Canada, the minorities can find government IDs, but in the U.S., soft bigotry of low expectations.
	But is any of it legal?
	Depends on who you ask.
	Not a conspiracy theorist, but I am quite wary of the narrative of the day.
	Is the change of subjects to...
	We're going to get there.
	Okay, we'll get there like right now.
	I just want to get to these before we move on.
	81 million votes, not 81 million voters.
	According to the United States Census, by the way.
	First thing people should do against the election effort is check their voting record.
	Election fornication.
	I like that.
	Election fornication.
	Check your records.
	My record in Virginia has me voting full ballot when I didn't vote.
	Interesting.
	Contact Dinesh.
	Can't wait until Zuckerbergs are released again?
	The Zuckerbucks.
	Oh, the Zuckerbucks.
	I'm sorry.
	I read past the actual joke.
	Gloves started the day after fingerprints.
	That was what I wanted to get to.
	We're going to be checked.
	So apparently the documentary, it drew some connection to a previous indictment based on fingerprints.
	Robert, my understanding, you don't get fingerprints off paper.
	So the fingerprints would have to be on like metal or glassy substances, right?
	It's like...
	You know, I know that there was a published story that the FBI suggested after the election that they could track who put the ballot in the Dropbox by measuring fingerprints.
	I don't know whether that was accurate or not accurate, but what is the timing is interesting in that they saw a bunch of people on the video cameras of the Dropboxes suddenly wearing surgical gloves after that public report.
	It's a connection being drawn, but like I say, As to, oh, she was just wearing it for COVID.
	No.
	If you're wearing it for COVID because you're delivering your own ballot, if you're that nervous, you keep your gloves on.
	If you're delivering other people's ballots and so you're protecting yourself from them, that's the problem already.
	Confirmation.
	So it's a lose-lose as far as I'm concerned.
	One person, one paper ballot, one day.
	Exactly.
	One citizen, one vote.
	One ballot, one vote.
	End of story.
	Question Barnes, this beautiful damn Newfie dog.
	This is a Newfoundlander, by the way, for anyone who doesn't know.
	Do you think it's possible for elite to switch Biden for piggy?
	Sorry, I read this before.
	I would have said for someone else.
	In final year, which leads to disastrous outcome and reduces chances for people of color woman nominee in future election by association.
	There's always a risk, but we'll see.
	We'll see.
	I mean, I think this film will do very, very well, will remind the establishment Republicans, including people like Dennis Prager, who basically failed to do his job.
	He failed to do his job early on in the lockdown, failed to do his job during the Ukrainian conflict at assessing it accurately, failed to do his job early on during Trump's surge, and failed to do his job on this.
	And to his credit, he was willing to acknowledge that what D'Souza produced raised major issues.
	But more of the establishment conservatives need to recognize we had serious security flaws in our election system, and it's up to the often Republican state legislators and governors to fix it, and fix it permanently.
	And at the front of that has got to be no more drop boxes, no more mass mail-in balloting, period.
	Now I'm going to bring this up to Mike Bruno.
	I know you're citing the law, and I don't know which law exactly.
	Multiple people qualified under this section may designate the same person, and a single person may serve as the authorized representative for multiple qualified electors.
	Pennsylvania GOP 2019.
	Yeah, and there's some states where aspects of it were legal, but again, only the ballot, that was very limited.
	In almost all states, you didn't have California rules, where pretty much anybody can pick up the ballot.
	The mass ballot harvesting was pretty much illegal.
	Pretty much everywhere in these contested states.
	And not at the scale that was taking place here.
	So, Robert, 2,000 Mules, people.
	Go watch it on Rumble, Locals.
	Dinesh D'Souza.
	I know it's 2,000mules.locals.com.
	I don't know what Dinesh's own page is.
	It's in his name, I believe.
	Dinesh D'Souza.locals.com.
	I went for the yearly subscription to get the movie for...
	For free.
	And I watched it at one and a half.
	I watched it at one just to hear what the voices sounded like normally.
	Then I went one and a half because I was...
	The kids are not interested in this, but they will be one day.
	Robert, let me bang something.
	The leak, Robert.
	Okay, the leak.
	We've all talked about the leak in some way or another.
	Is it a crime?
	I watched Megyn Kelly with Glenn Greenwald.
	I think I'm more in line with Megyn Kelly than Glenn Greenwald in that if there's ever been obstruction of a judicial process or a legal process, this is it.
	Protesting in the Capitol Hill is not obstructing with proceedings.
	Leaking a decision early so that the mob can gather on the front lawns of the judges to try to get them to change their minds, that's obstruction.
	In your mind, Robert.
	Is the leak itself a crime potentially, and what would the crime be?
	The law that people are trying to cite in regards to the leak itself, it would be a real stretch, which is the idea, there's a federal law that is pretty broad that bans any kind of theft or embezzlement of any kind of government property.
	Theoretically, maybe leaking a draft court opinion.
	Would fit under that definition of that law, but I think it's a real stretch.
	Practically speaking, they're never going to do that anyway.
	There was talk of the FBI coming in.
	No way was Chief Justice Roberts going to allow the FBI to look around his emails or look around his phone records or anybody else's, but his especially.
	Because if you want to know the King Leaker at the Supreme Court, his last name sounds like my first name.
	So that aspect is...
	Not the likely legal process.
	Here's the likelihood.
	Generally in government, it's the cover-up that gets people caught, not the original crime.
	Often the original crime is even tough to prosecute like this one is.
	The most famous Supreme Court leaker was from the late 19-teens, early 1920s, as I discussed on Freeform Friday on America's Untold Stories with Eric Hunley and Mark Grobert.
	It was a guy who was using it to trade in stocks in advance, and he got fabulously rich.
	They never managed to convict him.
	The way they're going to go about this is the United States Marshal's Office that's assigned for the security of the Supreme Court is the one assigned under Chief Justice Roberts to do the investigation of the leak.
	Here's what's going to happen.
	They're going to talk to everybody that had access to that.
	Every justice.
	Every law clerk for every justice, everybody in the printing office at the Supreme Court that had access to it, anybody in IT who had access to it, information technology, email service.
	And they will have to answer whether they did anything related to the leak.
	If it turns out they're lying, that's when they can get criminally prosecuted for false statement to a law enforcement officer, obstruction of an investigation, etc.
	That will be the criminal path if there ever is one.
	I will bet they will not go full.
	When James O 'Keefe merely had access to Joe Biden's daughter's diary, he got raided in 6 a.m. with a SWAT team.
	When Rudy Giuliani simply had access to Hunter Biden's laptop, and if people don't know what a degenerate he is, look at what his password was.
	Rudy Giuliani got raided by the feds and the FBI.
	Don't expect any raid anytime soon.
	Of the folks at Politico who received this leaked document.
	Because they were doing Biden administration's bidding.
	I believe it was Cat Turd on Twitter.
	Future CEO of Twitter.
	It says, the FBI works for the Democrat Party.
	The DOJ works for the Democrat Party.
	The media works for the Democrat Party.
	And we're going to see it in real time.
	It's a very amazing point.
	I was thinking of just raiding...
	I was thinking of investigating the potential leakers.
	I had never thought of going after Politico.
	They went after Project Veritas in a way that is undemocratic, pure and simple, period, full stop.
	Politico is going to get the pass, which is why it should answer the question as to whether or not this was a lefty clerk leak or a righty clerk leak.
	Or even something in between.
	I do have a, for people who want my theory of the, or theories of the leak, including some unsuspecting sources, I have a hush-hush up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where you can get my take on who might be the culprit.
	But, you know, I was on with Uncivil Law on Nick Ricada's channel.
	Who somehow manages to broadcast for 18 hours in a day.
	I have no idea how.
	He must be partying with some Amber Heard nose candy or something.
	I don't know.
	But Uncivil Law was hopeful and optimistic that there would be consequences to this leaker.
	I suspect, unfortunately, because of the politics, there won't be.
	But bottom line, when we talked about obstructing Congress, this would not be obstructing SCOTUS.
	There's various forms of obstructing a criminal.
	But just the leak by itself, I don't think so.
	But there's no need to go there if you're wanting to do a criminal case.
	You just ask everybody and you get the leaker to commit perjury and make a false statement and obstruct justice.
	And so you have them on the cover-up.
	You don't need them on the underlying thing.
	But if you're going to meaningfully do that, you need to at some point go at Politico.
	And they're just not going to.
	And so Will Chamberlain had a good analysis as to one possible suspect for which that nitwit Mark Zaid and others somehow called what he was doing defamation.
	Doing open source public revealing information of a public official.
	And that's what a law clerk is.
	They work for the government.
	They get a government paycheck.
	It's not defamation.
	Defamation is a false factual statement that you know or with reckless disregard about a public official is false.
	That's not what Will Chamberlain did.
	But I don't think you'll see any consequences, unfortunately, for the leaker.
	They could by setting him up in this way.
	Instead, you look at who the leaker might have been, and you can look at the consequences.
	Now, here's what is a crime.
	Trying to intimidate a federal judge by holding threatening...
	A protest outside of his personal house.
	Well, Robert, let me push back.
	They're not threatening protests.
	They're just protests.
	A protest on the front lawn of Escotas might itself be threatening.
	Going to his personal home raises major problems.
	The other problem is the kind of statements they're making.
	So they don't have a petition to protest the home.
	So there's that issue.
	But the second issue is some of these are making public statements that there are efforts to intimidate the court.
	I mean, a lot of these people are saying that in different ways, but that's the effect.
	When it comes to a justice or a federal judge, you're more limited in what you can do.
	So you can hold protest outside the court itself as an institution and whatnot, going to a judge's home with a case pending that they're reviewing.
	And trying to intimidate them to a certain outcome may violate federal criminal law.
	Because we have special protections for federal judges.
	I'm allowed to advocate to a judge.
	I'm not allowed to go outside his home where his kids and his wife are present and say, you better vote this way.
	I'm not.
	That's unethical as a lawyer.
	But to my understanding, that's always been a federal crime.
	Not that it changes anything.
	Do they actually live at their houses?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	These justices, to be honest with you, why they still live in D.C. is beyond me.
	I mean, it's a wake-up sign to everybody.
	I mean, like, the conservative political establishment is shocked.
	I don't know why they're shocked.
	But, you know, these rules of civility and all that nonsense, this is who they were.
	This is who BLM was.
	This is who Antifa is.
	This is weaponizing street theater with the undercurrent being maybe there'll be violence.
	This is what happened to Tucker Carlson.
	And they came and...
	We're trying to bash in the door at his house.
	That's who these people are.
	They believe this works.
	They believe intimidation will work.
	And you have the President of the United States saying, basically, go ahead, everybody.
	No, the bottom line is, it does work.
	It does work.
	I mean, they're there.
	And even in Tucker Carlson, they were just banging the door because they wanted to talk.
	It's like, we're on your front lawn.
	We want to talk.
	I just don't understand how their addresses are public.
	I appreciate their public figures.
	And then why they actually live there.
	I don't think their addresses were public.
	What it is is, because they live in D.C., a bunch of liberals know where they live.
	And you had Washington Post basically celebrating this.
	The way the news media covered this, they basically celebrated it.
	I mean, so it's Maxine Waters get up in their face when they go to a restaurant, when they do whatever.
	People know in the neighborhood who lives there.
	And they're the ones who have ratted out, because it's so political in D.C., they've ratted out the addresses of all these judges.
	And now they're outside their front door trying to intimidate them to have a certain political response.
	And when it comes, unlike other elected officials, going to the personal residence of a federal judge about a pending case has usually been illegal for a good reason.
	What do you think?
	I mean, Robert, what do you think the chances are?
	They're there now.
	There's pictures.
	If they want to pull a Canada crushing a protest, get the cops in, take pictures, sick of January 6th level investigation.
	You can find each and every one of them, probably in real time, just arrest them on the spot.
	Well, the U.S. Marshals have the legal authority to go do a mass arrest, but let's see if they do.
	Let's see if the U.S. Marshals are as contaminated as the rest of the Justice Department under this president, under Biden.
	And my sense is they'll do nothing.
	But now I don't want to get...
	Now, I don't think they'll get the outcome they want.
	I think all of this action will lead to the Supreme Court doubling down on Alito's draft.
	And what we predicted all the way back at the time this case was argued is what this decision is.
	And it means the end of Roe v.
	Wade in America.
	At a constitutional level, punting it back to the states, you want your act, go to...
	Go to California if you live in Texas.
	Go to California.
	I don't know what it would be like.
	Go to Pennsylvania if you live in Wyoming.
	I don't know.
	I don't think it will be.
	Right now, it's not.
	There's a bunch of states that have laws on the books that the moment Roe v.
	Wade is overturned, go come into action.
	What you will likely find is the East Coast all the way down to D.C. and the West Coast, the whole West Coast, plus Illinois in the middle.
	The whole rest of the country.
	We'll have real restrictions on abortion, and many of them will likely ban it outside of the health of the mother, which is a self-defense kind of legal basis, or rape or incest, which is based on coercion, is the theory.
	Yeah, but here's my problem, and you can pick on me if you don't like it, but the heartbeat law, the six-week law, which does not provide an exclusion for rape or incest after six weeks, one argument is obviously going to be...
	You know when it happened, so take the proper precautions.
	The other argument is going to be, if it's incest, you can't exactly disclose it when it happens.
	There's a number of other pressure issues.
	What do you respond to that?
	Like, okay, after six weeks, even if it's into later parts where you finally come out and you finally talk about it or you go to the police, if the states don't provide those exceptions, I mean, how do you justify that in the law?
	Well, I see, legally, there's always been four positions available.
	One is that abortion should be legal no matter what.
	At any term, for any reason.
	Conception.
	That starts at conception.
	Sperm meets egg, illegal.
	No, no.
	I mean, I was going from left to right.
	So, legal at any point, for any reason.
	Like California, where they're trying to extend it 28 days after birth.
	They're trying to legalize infanticide under the guise of birth.
	Sorry, Robert?
	Explain that immediately so that I don't think I just misheard you.
	They're trying to legalize infanticide.
	That as long as you commit the...
	Even if the baby is born, within 28 days of birth, it still counts as an abortion, not killing a human being.
	Would that be in the rare circumstances where someone tries to abort at, let's say, five months and it doesn't pass?
	They're not limiting it in that manner.
	They're not limiting in that manner.
	And in fact, the left's position is that abortion should be legal all the way through, and that that includes partial birth abortions up to some period afterwards.
	It's legalized infanticide.
	They don't call it that, but that's what it is.
	There's a reason Roe v.
	Wade talked about Rome's infanticide.
	Roe v.
	Wade was a eugenicist decision.
	Elizabeth Warren is out there on Twitter talking about, what about the abortions we need for the poor people and the minority?
	People of color.
	It's just shocking in that.
	Hey, Elizabeth Warren wants to end people of color's pregnancies.
	She's the number one advocate.
	How that's not racist is just beyond me, but setting that aside.
	And poor people.
	Screw poor people, too.
	But that's one category.
	The second category...
	Is basically the Roe v.
	Wade category.
	And the Roe v.
	Wade was you can't limit abortion except under kind of exceptional circumstances.
	It's this time frame.
	It's this period.
	It's not an undue burden under the constitutional standard of Casey, which modified Roe v.
	Wade.
	Then you have the third one, which is where Alito's decision sets down, which says this is the question.
	The big question with the issue of abortion is when does the state's interest in the unborn life limit?
	The ability of the woman to terminate the abortion.
	And they're saying there's two interpretations.
	One is that we, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, should make that determination.
	Another argument is no, the people, through their elected representatives at the state level, should make that decision.
	All Alito's decision does is say, we're going to give it to the states and the people to decide when the interest in the unborn life allows limitation on the taking of that life.
	The fourth standard, the core pro-life argument, is that a human life has protection under the 14th Amendment and states have no business allowing abortion ever.
	That is not the position any of the justices of the Supreme Court took if Alito's opinion is issued.
	But a lot of people in the media are pretending that's what the decision is.
	The decision instead just says, back to you, the people at the state level.
	And that's where abortion will still be legal.
	In the East Coast, West Coast, and in Illinois, it just will be illegal in all the states that don't agree with it.
	The degree of illegality will vary.
	For some, it will be illegal all the way through.
	For some, it will be illegal with exceptions.
	For some, it will be illegal at certain timeframes.
	The global consensus on abortion is that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, according to the legal determination of most nations, majority of nations.
	I believe that will be the majority law in the United States.
	And once people realize that, there's this theory that this decision will help a bunch of Democrats in 2022.
	It will not.
	Because once people realize that the actual Roe v.
	Wade decision, reversal, is not what the media has represented it as, which is a complete ban on abortion forever for everybody, but is instead giving you, the people, the power to make that choice at the state level.
	That is, in fact, an overwhelmingly two-thirds majority position in America is the decision of the Alito opinion.
	And I believe the Alito opinion, just like I did at the time of the oral argument, will be the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, despite these extortionate threats from the left.
	I'm just going to get...
	I want to just pull it off.
	Sorry.
	I only brought this up to try to get rid of the other chat, but I don't even want to answer that.
	There's videos out there that are horrendous and horrific and that will answer that question and I don't want to answer it.
	But Robert, I was discussing this with my wife because we're now, you know, she sees my content on the YouTubes and the question was, you know, we were discussing it.
	Bottom line, I think 90% of people agree on 90% of the parameters.
	You're going to have your always and forever, even Norfolk afterbirth, which I think it is what it is, which it is what it is.
	In California...
	It's baby killers.
	In California, you kick...
	Someone assaults a pregnant woman and the baby dies.
	It's murder.
	The fact that the woman decides to do it, in my mind, legally cannot make it otherwise.
	Then you got the other end of the spectrum where conception, sperm meets egg, it's life.
	And I've got to tell you...
	You will never convince either of those two ends of the spectrum.
	I think one might be more grounded in morality than the other, I think.
	One is more grounded in morality than the other, even if I don't agree necessarily with the extremity of one.
	90% are going to agree, yeah, up until six weeks, first trimester, barring some extreme circumstances which should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis between...
	90% agree.
	How has this become the litmus test?
	How has this become the wedge issue?
	And what does this leak have to do to exacerbate that wedge issue?
	Well, I mean, I think if the Supreme Court doesn't stick with the Alito opinion, it will reward the leaker and then more leaking and terror type activities, which is what these personal threats at homes is intended to induce, will reoccur on a broader and bigger scale.
	So that's where I think they'll...
	The leak is a perilous breach of judicial tradition in the United States and endangers the integrity of the judiciary if it deviates from Alito's opinion.
	If it sticks with Alito's opinion, it proves the leaker...
	Their actions backfired and didn't produce the outcome that they want.
	But we did have some other good Supreme Court decisions out there.
	But I think issuing this decision around Mother's Day would be an appropriate Happy Mother's Day gift from the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Empower the people at the state level to make this determination and restore common sense morality to the abortion laws in America, which they have been divorced from for the better part of half a century.
	And the executive summary, you do not believe the leak in and of itself was clearly anything illegal.
	It could be conceptually construed as such.
	It was a breach of...
	I don't think that there's an easy criminal law to punish it.
	But there's easier criminal mechanisms to punish it because they're going to have to answer what happened.
	And the leaker will lie in that process almost inescapably and inevitably.
	But the most informed public...
	One is Will Chamberlain's Twitter thread on who it might be.
	And otherwise, you can go to the hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com to see my take on who the potential suspects might be in this unique game of Supreme Court Clue.
	It's madness.
	I'm going to do some super chats and then we're going to get back.
	To this in a second here.
	Your words about Prager are not accurate.
	He was not wrong about lockdowns.
	He adapted to Trump with an open, honest mind.
	And I question your accusation.
	Robert, I call you out.
	Dennis Prager has been defending this election for the better part of a year.
	Justify that.
	Dennis Prager loves to warmonger on Ukraine.
	Justify that.
	And go back and actually read all of Prager's.
	I was following Prager in live time.
	Find in March or April or May or even June or July or August of 2016 where he's championing Trump.
	Good luck with that.
	Look, I mean, I think Dennis Prager is a very smart person.
	I think he has a lot of good cultural conservative politics.
	But he is an unreliable source on pretty much everything else.
	Well, and in fairness, in the movie.
	Prager came back on his own initial, you know, it was edited that way.
	Obviously it was done that way, but he came back.
	He attenuated his initial skepticism.
	His initial position, people that don't know, was telling Republicans they should not be talking about this issue, by the way, of election, of the 2020 election.
	Okay, we got, I didn't immediately think you were drunk, Viva.
	I figured you'd been doing staggering amounts.
	Well, that's a good transition to the Johnny Depp Amber Heard case.
	All right, Robert.
	We won't spend too much time on as people...
	The polling survey, the locals board, the public opinion poll at vivabarneslaw.locals.com was that about 60% or so, about 10 to 1, people think Amber Heard lied compared to Johnny Depp abused.
	95% did not sign on to the idea that Johnny Depp abused.
	But there were 40%.
	That said they would like to stay as far away from this issue as humanly possible.
	But it's blowing up LawTube.
	It's blowing up the legal world.
	And we will be doing a live broadcast of the Amber Heard cross-examination that happens not this week, but next week.
	And maybe we'll do it in a unique way where we'll broadcast it, pause it, comment on it, then do it that way.
	Because I don't see anybody else doing that, though I probably just gave them the idea.
	So everybody can run with it.
	Because it is interesting from learning the legal system, understanding examination, direct examination, cross-examination, and the rest.
	But what do you think?
	Was she doing a little coke hidden in the handkerchief?
	Robert, I can't think of another.
	It was something.
	It was not an organic blowing of the nose.
	It was weird.
	And there's no other way to explain it.
	It was bizarre.
	And it was quite clearly a specific Kleenex.
	It's like...
	What was the movie where, was it Gladiator?
	Holy crap.
	First movie reference of the night.
	Where he puts some sniffing salts on his gloves and then he gets up with the guy's face and pushes and the guy gets all befuddled.
	Something was going on.
	It was not normal.
	It was not organic.
	It was not natural.
	Whether or not it was cocaine or something to make her tear and look sympathetic, I don't know.
	I just know when something doesn't look right.
	But what I love is that our base is not interested in it.
	But a lot of people are very interested in it.
	And nonetheless, I think there's still something to be learned from it.
	As we observed when we live-streamed it on Thursday, we're going to do it again.
	You can't ignore it at this point.
	This cross-examination is going to be...
	It will blow up LawTube, in a good sense.
	It's going to be a disaster.
	But we'll see.
	I thought a very big mistake by the Amber Heard's team to...
	Finish her direct examination.
	I think it's mostly finished.
	And then when there's a big break.
	So Depp's team is going to get to have seen her live direct.
	And it's videotaped direct, which you normally don't get.
	So you can have a bunch of other people look at her direct.
	And consequently, they'll have it in about 10 days to prepare.
	So this will be a test of the lawyer's skill.
	I believe it's a younger female attorney who's doing the cross-examination that we haven't seen doing a cross-examination yet.
	So we'll see how good...
	I mean, the whole world's watching.
	So we'll see what good cross-examination looks like.
	I'm curious.
	I think it will be decent.
	I don't think it will.
	The expectations are so high.
	Generally, when someone like Hurt, people think it's easy to take him apart.
	Generally, it's not.
	It requires careful psychological maneuvering.
	And we'll see if they can be effective at cross-examination.
	She's clearly vulnerable to cross-examination because she made a lot of claims that appear to be rebutted and contradicted by the actual evidence.
	Physical evidence, third-party witness evidence.
	But also by her own testimony in the UK case.
	I was on with Nate Brody last night and dude does his homework.
	Within a day and a half, compared and contrasted her testimony on Thursday to her sworn testimony in the UK.
	And it's utterly fitting a circle peg into a circle.
	If Depp's team is sharp, they will crowdsource this.
	Look at all the information out there from all these other sources.
	There's some nerds that located the fact that one of her photos, behind it is a calendar.
	And the calendar appears to show a whole different time than the time she said.
	The problem is when you're, you know, it's the famous phrase, what webs we weave when first we set out to deceive.
	I may have misquoted it, but that's good.
	It is when you tell one lie, it leads to another.
	That's the easier version from a 1980s.
	It's hard to keep your lies consistent.
	It's hard to tell a lie that holds up to third-party evidence.
	And so I think the aggregate aspect of this.
	There's a lot of places to explore with her.
	If I was cross-examining her, I would also want to get the emotion out of her to the jury.
	Like, there's two theories of cross-examination.
	One is substance, what looks good on transcript.
	I've always been more inclined to believe that the emotive aspect often matters more than the linear aspect, than what I call the transcript aspect.
	So, you know, like in the Snipes case, cross-examined a witness who was going to be very good, who was going to be very difficult to get caught in any kind of trap.
	And we were, you know, we were ambushed with when he testified and everything else, so it made it very hard.
	But the guy was a complete ass of a human being.
	And so my objective was, I'm not going to get him to admit the substantive things that I want, but I can get him to show the jury that they're going to hate him by the time he's off the stand.
	And that was the case.
	They utterly despised him.
	I mean, they were physically reacting negatively to his testimony by the end of the cross.
	I think Amber Heard is someone that's very anger-driven, has great difficulty controlling her rage and anger, and a good cross-examination would show that to the jury.
	That would be your Johnny Cochran closing argument OJ case, home run of a lawyering, if she's able to get Amber Heard.
	To act like the crazy, angry, loon I believe she is live in front of that jury.
	And she's going to have a meltdown like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.
	Of course I did him!
	He said years to prepare.
	I think it requires a very skilled lawyer to pull that out of Amber Heard.
	But I think this lawyer might be able to do it.
	This lawyer has many benefits going for her.
	And I said, crowdsource the information.
	And to everyone in the chat, and there's only a few now, it's a distraction.
	Dude, there's enough time in the day.
	We're going to talk about it because it's darn interesting.
	And I dare say, it's going to be darn legally entertaining when it happens.
	Because I know what I think.
	It's not a question of not believing women.
	I do not believe this woman.
	I believe what she testified to on Thursday is outrageous.
	And when you make outrageous accusations, you better have outrageous evidence above and beyond three sleeping pics, a bruise on your arm, questionable bruises on your face that don't coincide with your appearance on late-night TV, and landscape photos.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	But we're going to do it, Robert, and I like your idea.
	So stay tuned.
	A week and a half.
	And they've got a week and a half to prepare.
	Speaking of illicit actions, I agree with you with the first mantra.
	The first time I heard this chant was from the one and only Alexander Emmerich Jones.
	That we need jail for Bill Gates.
	Can you believe what the guy's saying?
	Bill Gates right now is admitting.
	Again, it's like Samantha Power saying out loud, never let a crisis go to waste.
	A crisis that we've caused by sanctioning Russia.
	Let's punish Russia, punish oligarchs, seize their assets, and expect Russia to supply to the world.
	Hey, dude, we're beating you.
	Whether or not you deserve it is another issue.
	You should continue supplying us the energy we need to continue beating you.
	Samantha Power says it's going to be fertilizer shortages, food shortages.
	By and large, it's only going to affect third world.
	I say third world.
	That was their world.
	Developing nations.
	Bill Gates comes out and says, well, when my foundation was meeting with his experts, we didn't know that it's basically like...
	I don't even know if I can repeat Bill Gates' own words.
	He says, it's basically like a seasonal other issue, a little different, but we know it affects elderly.
	Robert, how...
	I mean, we've both read RFK's The Real Anthony Fauci.
	We know a little bit about Bill Gates.
	How did this guy...
	He's not a doctor.
	He's not an epidemiologist.
	He's not a virologist.
	He's not a postdoc, master's.
	He didn't even graduate university, and I don't say that to undermine his capabilities.
	How did he become...
	An authority for foreign global national policy on issues of vaccinate, on highly medical issues.
	How did it happen?
	Two reasons.
	One was that he shared certain globalist visions with David Rockefeller and George Soros and Mike Bloomberg and a range of others.
	They met in 2009.
	Their meeting got leaked.
	And the media pretended they were superheroes.
	And he shared their overpopulation obsession.
	The Great Reset Agenda.
	Is an old agenda just re-branded now and then?
	It's effectively the New World Order 2.0.
	Absolutely.
	And the goal is to...
	The theory is that there's going to be limited resources in the future.
	So us, the privileged, need to be able to hoard it for ourselves.
	And that means we need to thin out the herd.
	And thus his obsession with overpopulation.
	One of the few political issues he's ever talked about was Roe v.
	Wade, because he's a big believer in abortion, just like every other eugenicist is.
	Just research some of the statements Ginsburg made about Roe v.
	Wade and see what the origin of that really was.
	For those people that may still be on the fence on the issue, understand their origins should lead you to doubt who it was and why it is they want it.
	So that's part one.
	And part two, he bought his way in.
	The Gates Foundation leveraged massive amounts of money.
	It's the number one private donor and almost equal to the United States in total donations to the World Health Organization.
	It was, as Politico reported in 2017, buying off public health authorities all around the globe.
	It was they're one of the biggest donors to the Imperial College and the University of Washington, which what Bill Gates disclosed in this interview, he considered his modelers, not independent university state government modelers that created these fake models that exaggerated the risk in order to induce a lunatic response.
	But what we're also seeing in this context is that the vaccine he championed More Pfizer documents came out under FOIA that revealed major evidentiary questions.
	My case representing Brooke Jackson, the primary whistleblower against the vaccines.
	Big suit against Big Pharma.
	A key team action brought on behalf of all Americans, pending still in Texas.
	We're going to find out whether they're trying to stop Pfizer's trying to stop any discovery from occurring in the case.
	That will be litigated this month in a federal court in Beaumont, Texas.
	Uh, I'm bringing on a legal team that's going to be a dream team of lawyers that do these kind of cases from all across the nation who have agreed to participate because we're up against four or five big corporate law firms.
	And that's just on the front of things.
	Who knows how many people are helping out on the other side of things.
	Continued progress in certain aspects of getting honest information that rebuts the official institutional narrative, as both came out from Bill Gates and came out from these Pfizer-Foia document releases and in more surveys and studies.
	But we're just beginning to get there because in order for this to never happen again, when Bill Gates says, don't worry, the next virus will be much more lethal.
	How is he able to predict that, boys and girls?
	It's not just that, but they've seen what they can get away with now.
	And by the way, I have two views on this.
	On the one hand, they've seen what they can get away with.
	They've seen how efficiently they can whip up a society into an absolute state of irrational frenzy.
	I see people on the street outdoors wearing M95 masks.
	I mean, it doesn't make sense.
	And I don't judge them, but I do feel bad for them.
	They've seen that.
	And the flip side...
	Damn it, I just forgot what the flip side was.
	They've seen what they can get away with.
	Oh, Robert.
	And then how much worse?
	Son of a gun.
	That's going to drive me crazy.
	When I get my second thought, I'm going to get to it.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	He's covering his ass for what he knows is coming.
	They know the truth will come out to the extent that the collective has a memory, which it does, but it's very short.
	For those who still remember what they said in the beginning.
	Right now, he's coming out two and a half years into it, admitting, well, you know, my experts early on were, you know, where they were saying it's no different than the seasonal flu.
	It's a little different.
	We know it affects elderly people, but we didn't react enough in time.
	They're like, they're setting out their plausible design.
	Well, we said it.
	We said it.
	And you're not going to remember that they said it after destroying everything and not when they actually knew it as they were destroying it.
	What, what, what?
	I mean, look, I'm going to dream.
	It's not going to happen.
	What potential crimes?
	Are we talking like RICO-level fraud, or what could happen?
	Oh, I mean, the key team action we brought for Brooke Jackson, the whistleblower action against Pfizer and the rest, which is representing all the entire American people, is about a $2 billion-plus fraud committed by Pfizer on the Defense Department.
	And it's just one part of the equation.
	So this was a massive, in my view, criminal action by big pharma in collusion with aspects of government, in collusion with corrupt actors within the government, in collusion with corrupt actors in the media, in collusion with corrupt actors in big tech.
	And it's probably not a coincidence that Bill Gates is so nervous about, and George Soros is so nervous, about Elon Musk buying Twitter, so much so, to bridge into the Very good, Robert.
	Stockholders brought suit.
	For the Orlando police, there's no way the Orlando police signed off on this, but what is the people who control the pension funds of many of these organizations are a bunch of wokester lefties who are undermining the interest, the economic interest, of the pension funds they're representing.
	Just like Netflix got sued this week in a class action because Netflix has been producing more and more crap, showing pregnant men and all this other stuff.
	I think that'll go away in the Robey way debate temporarily.
	But Netflix got sued because they misled people about their subscriber growth because they keep producing crap content that's woke that people don't want.
	Or going along with woke politics like, well, we're just going to cut off about a million Russian subscribers.
	That's not going to benefit your stock value.
	That's why they got sued.
	But they're trying to, their latest desperate measure to stop Elon Musk from buying Twitter.
	And Elon Musk has engaged in some Twitter wars with Bill Gates.
	He had a great little meme that he tweeted out about Bill Gates.
	I won't repeat it.
	You can look it up yourself.
	He also retweeted out to people, other than saying he thought maybe Cat Turd would make a good CEO of Twitter.
	He also tweeted out about George Soros and other related groups.
	And that has them all nervous because of the big tech control where Twitter was censoring people for saying the exact same thing Bill Gates just admitted on the record.
	On video.
	And so their latest desperate measurement is a class action lawsuit brought in Delaware.
	By these shareholders, but they're really lefty wokesters who control shareholder capital against the economic interest of those shareholders.
	People should look at suing some of those people for breach of fiduciary duty and obligation.
	Sometimes ERISA law can apply in some of these circumstances as well.
	Because they're saying that there's special rules in place and Elon Musk shouldn't be allowed to buy Twitter until 2025.
	So that's the latest scheme and scam to stop independent ownership of...
	Social media from going in the hands of someone who believes at least a little bit in free speech.
	Well, you know, before I even forget, Robert, I'm going to seize on my memory while I still have it.
	Jack Posobiec, I think, tweeted out and said, Elon didn't just buy a company.
	He bought a trove of evidence.
	And I hadn't thought about it that way.
	I hope it was Posobiec.
	I think it was.
	Damn right.
	I mean, damn right.
	You buy the company.
	You buy their records.
	You buy what they've been doing forever.
	And it's yours.
	And you can do with it what you think afterwards.
	So think about that.
	But, um, scratch that off my notes.
	But Robert, so this pension fund, and it's funny you say it.
	I used to have a barreau, like a lost society in Quebec pension.
	I don't, you know, they own stocks, but it's controlled by the bar society with whatever political ideologies they have.
	So this police pension, which is administered by whomever, sues Elon Musk, Twitter.
	Who are they suing, actually?
	They're suing Twitter and Elon Musk.
	They're suing Twitter to prevent the sale of the stock to Elon Musk.
	And the premise of the lawsuit is that Elon Musk was an interested investor.
	He was not, I guess, an arm's length in the legal sense.
	He was interested because of the amount of shares that he owned and therefore cannot buy it until three years from the date he became an interested shareholder unless it gets 66.67% of the vote of the common shareholders.
	Robert.
	What would be the interest, the financial interest of this pension fund to prevent what would obviously, I guess, as a matter of fact, be a lucrative, financially sensible decision of the company to sell?
	There isn't.
	And that's why people, anybody that's suing, people should look at whether or not that pension fund is actually acting in the best interest of their pension holders.
	And because they're not.
	This is the woke weaponization.
	Of any institutional source of power.
	It's how people get confused.
	How is their ESG governance being promoted by big Wall Street institutions?
	It's because the people that control the decisions within these institutions are not serving the economic self-interest.
	It's the reason why Disney's in such trouble, because they continue to disserve the economic interest of their shareholders by promoting wokesterism that was the dominant belief structure of its...
	The same is true of a lot of these pensions.
	These pensions are disserving the interest of its people, and Netflix and Disney are starting to see the economic consequence to that.
	But it's time for people to monitor what their own pension funds are doing.
	The police in Orlando should be filing a class action against their pension directors based on this patent violation of their fiduciary duties and obligations because this lawsuit disserves their economic interest.
	Because you've got to imagine what they basically want to do is prevent – Prevent Twitter from being sold to Bill Gates.
	Whether or not there's a technicality...
	I'd be all for preventing it to Bill Gates.
	Sorry.
	No.
	Elon Musk.
	They want to prevent Twitter from selling for a price per share that was, whatever, 30% or 40% over what it was not long ago.
	And they want to prevent that from happening for three years or unless, I guess, it goes through the technicality of getting the required votes.
	It doesn't make sense.
	We want to prevent the sale.
	At above market from what we own now.
	And that's somehow in our shareholders' best interest.
	They're going to have to argue the same argument that the directors would.
	It's like, the future value of Twitter is more.
	The perspective value is more than Elon's, you know, offer.
	Good luck, but my goodness, is it just, it seemed like a technicality to frustrate.
	What do you think the chances of success are of this lawsuit?
	I don't think the chances are high.
	Generally, Delaware courts, where this action is held, are usually pretty good.
	The chancery courts at...
	Making sure business logic dominates the decision-making.
	In other aspects of Delaware courts, circuit courts, other courts, they've been more political on defamation and other claims.
	But in the chancery courts, because so many business entities are formed there, they are hyper-focused on the business realism of any decision.
	And again, Musk has had a good success record, particularly of late, in those Delaware courts.
	I'll tell you what, I...
	Pulled it up randomly.
	It's to stop the sale until the election.
	Hey, interesting dot to be connected.
	Perso Studio, that's a middle finger, but I like it.
	I like it.
	It's an interesting observation.
	Well, speaking of different forms of censorship, there were multiple book-related cases, book banning cases brought to light recently.
	One is Bobby Kennedy, along with others, suing Senator Elizabeth Warren for her efforts to try to ban various books that he was the co-author or publisher on concerning the pandemic.
	And that that likely violates the First Amendment under the Bantam Books Doctrine, which what happened there is you had government officials try to intimidate publishers.
	But they didn't actually control the publishers, but they tried to intimidate publishers from publishing certain books.
	The U.S. Supreme Court said that violates First Amendment.
	And here you have Elizabeth Warren was trying to, along with Adam Schiff, Was trying to intimidate Amazon into not publishing books that raised questions about pandemic public health policy, including those co-authored by Robert Kennedy, whose great book, The Real Anthony Fauci, I recommend everybody out there.
	All funds go to help fund the litigation against these bad actors.
	But that's a good First Amendment suit.
	Another kind of different end of the spectrum.
	Is that some libraries are banning books because of public pressure in terms of access for children especially, books that appear to promote various questionable activities to younger audiences.
	That has led to a lawsuit by the left who say that that is illicit censorship.
	For those that don't know, if a library bans a book as opposed to doesn't purchase one.
	Then that is considered by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a First Amendment violation.
	So they're going to have to affirm the basis by which this book was banned, and some of them appear they may have reached too far.
	In the name of trying to limit certain access to children of certain questionable books, they have banned more books than was necessary to achieve that end.
	It's another example of a live South Park episode come to life.
	Because, you know, South Park did a whole capture-in-the-ride thing where they come up with their own book, try to get it banned, and it's a whole episode.
	Astoundingly, we're seeing it in real-time light on both sides of the political spectrum.
	I think it's time that I get my kids into South Park.
	I never got into it, but I think I should have gotten into it when I got out of The Simpsons because it seems like they carried the torch for what The Simpsons initially brought to the world.
	I'm totally unfamiliar with those losses, but how many of them are there?
	Ultimately, what's the basis that public institutions can't ban or cannot ban once they've already decided to create?
	A library's action to ban a book from public access is considered a First Amendment violation unless they can justify it under certain standards.
	Libraries sometimes forget that they're under those constitutional constraints.
	That will be the issue in that case.
	The same in the First Amendment context in Elizabeth Warren.
	It's a Bivens claim, and generally Bivens actions are considered First Amendment.
	Bivens is the 42 USC 1983 version of civil rights where you can sue local and state governments under federal law.
	When you're suing a federal officer, You can sue them under what's called Bivens, which is an analogous provision where the federal government officer is violating constitutional rights.
	But Bivens doesn't extend to the same number of rights that a federal civil rights statute does.
	But the First Amendment is one of them where it does extend.
	So we'll see.
	But it's a good action to try to deter these politicians who are trying to use and leverage their public position to effectively censor.
	Conversations and communications and book publishing.
	And it's another great case that Bobby Kennedy's on the front lines of that he has brought against Senator Warren.
	And just so everyone in the chat's clear, I did not mean this for my eight-year-old and five-year-old, but for my 12-year-old, who I think...
	We just finished Breaking Bad, people.
	Glorious the second time's around.
	We watched Pulp Fiction.
	The 12-year-old's old enough.
	She's mature and she's smart.
	Not for the five-year-old.
	The kid's going to walk around.
	I know what he's going to say.
	So, yeah.
	I'm not that irresponsible of a parent.
	But Robert, so, interesting.
	And as far as, you know, lawsuits for misrepresentations of companies goes, Netflix, and on the subject of, you know, crap, Netflix is being sued a class action.
	Seems like a standard, you know, shareholder misrepresentation, concealing the fact that they're losing subscribers and not gaining them as per their projections.
	Bottom line, I don't know who the plaintiffs are.
	I don't know that it matters, but they're suing Netflix for Misrepresenting financials, projections, which caused the stock to tank, what, like 50% over two or three months?
	The amount they're being sued for is almost the whole value of the company currently.
	So, I mean, that's why this suit has major impact.
	And the backstory that's not told in the suit is this is about Netflix embracing woke politics.
	So Netflix voluntarily, on its own accord, cut off almost a million Russian subscribers.
	They cut off a huge part of their potential monetary subscriber growth.
	They did it purely for political reasons.
	It served no purpose whatsoever, except to embrace cancel culture for an entire country.
	And again, that was not in the economic best interest of Netflix stockholders.
	Then on top of that, they keep pushing.
	I mean, there's still some good content.
	Shows like Ozark, which are great.
	Shows like Stargate SG-1, recommended by the great board at WeboBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Also great on Netflix.
	But they put out crap.
	I mean, they follow up cuties with a bunch of other crap.
	I mean, pregnant men.
	I mean, just one thing after the next.
	So it's stuff that woke.
	Woke gibberish.
	And it's undesirable.
	And what they've been doing is they've been lying.
	The big myth that the wokesters have convinced Disney and Marvel and everyone else of was that wokester TV shows and wokester movies and wokester comics would be popular.
	They're not.
	They're intensely unpopular.
	And so Netflix has had to lie about that by saying, hey, our subscriber growth is going great, when in fact it's been shrinking, shrinking, and shrinking because of the woke content.
	But my problem is this.
	They make bad business decisions, no question.
	And Chad, by the way, Pulp Fiction, Breaking Bad, I put it in a different category than fundamentally immoral stuff like Cuties, which is directed at and intended to glamorize.
	Pulp Fiction and Breaking Bad, nobody watches that.
	Thinking that certain behavior is cool.
	You actually come out of that saying, holy crap, never.
	And you learn the right lessons, I think.
	Cuties, I didn't watch it, not going to, period.
	But Robert, where I get a little skeptical, you know, we say the bon dollar, like good exaggeration.
	When they allege Netflix knowingly misrepresented the stats, I read the lawsuit.
	I didn't think I saw any allegations to substantiate, you know, civil misrepresentations of their stats, knowing what they knew.
	I mean, what were the allegations or what is the information that Netflix had that failed to disclose?
	It's basically that Netflix kept saying our subscriber growth was going great.
	And then all of a sudden they come out and announce, actually, we lost subscribers.
	And the inference of the lawsuit or the direct allegation of the lawsuit is that they knew that long, that when they said subscriber growth was going great, they had to have had information that said it wasn't.
	In order for it to get to the place where they could actually lose subscribers rather than adding subscribers.
	And so that's the premise of the suit.
	And my guess is that that premise is probably accurate because in order to promote the stock value and pretend that their politicization of their company and the weaponization of their content for politicized purposes and their wokester embrace was actually popular.
	They needed to keep misleading people about subscribe, but they've known this for a while.
	I mean, when they tried to remake He-Man, and it turned out they made it into She-Man, and in a not-so-good way.
	That that was going to be unpopular, but they pretended it wasn't.
	And so they've lied about the fact...
	Nobody likes wokester culture.
	Nobody likes it.
	I mean, Star Wars...
	What Kathleen Kennedy did to Star Wars was cost Disney billions and billions and billions of dollars.
	Not only in box office terms, but in future marketing monetization of that brand.
	And they've done it to Doctor Who.
	They've done it to...
	Parts of Star Trek.
	They've done...
	I mean, Star Trek Picard is awful.
	All these big Hollywood companies have tried to pretend that shoving the wokester crack down everybody's throats was popular when it's never been popular.
	And now they're suffering the legal economic consequences of the lies they had to spread to pretend it was popular.
	I wanted to succeed because...
	I wanted to succeed because, I mean, I hate it.
	I think what they did with Russia...
	Cutting off a market.
	For political purposes, that's good if you're a politician.
	It's not good if it's a business, unless you think, by cutting off Russia, we're going to increase, I don't know, I'll say wokester subscriber base in America, which you're not.
	So it's irresponsible business decisions.
	I want to believe that they misrepresented.
	I know who predicted all this.
	Say it again?
	You know who predicted all this?
	You.
	Donald J. Trump, back in 2015, or maybe before that, he was like, you guys don't know what's going on.
	They're going to make this thing without this, and they're even going to make Ghostbusters with just women.
	What's happening?
	Trump called it ahead.
	Go woke, go broke.
	Everything woke turns to shit.
	We're starting to see the economic consequences follow through to these bad political decisions of these big corporations.
	We'll see how they react and respond.
	Now, Trump's suit against Twitter was dismissed in the Northern District of California, unsurprisingly, unfortunately.
	But we'll see if the Ninth Circuit or others re-examine it.
	But the state attorney generals got together this past week and brought a mass lawsuit against Big Tech on the grounds that they are representing their constituency and community because there have been routine and repeated First Amendment violations.
	And their argument is they didn't sue the social media companies.
	They sued Joe Biden.
	Because they said Biden is coordinating an effort to manipulate big tech to censor and suppress stories that embarrass the Biden administration's politics or people.
	And that's a violation of the First Amendment.
	And thus, the state attorney generals have brought a very unique claim collectively to try to get at this big tech censorship problem.
	Well, let's back it up for two seconds.
	Trump's claim dismissed against Twitter on 230 Immunity?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And it was on a motion to dismiss.
	We never got to any sort of discovery evidentiary hearing.
	Nope.
	Okay.
	Any chance of appeal?
	I'm sure he will appeal.
	The State Attorney General's claim is a good creative claim that might break the dam on aspects of this.
	Alex Berenson had a very unique claim that's going to at least get some discovery that may help break the dam on aspects of this.
	But otherwise, the case that will decide this is another case being led by Robert Kennedy.
	So just as he's the lead on challenging the FDA, I have two cases, one before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, another one before the Western District of Texas, right now arguing about the issues of the FDA's authorization of the vaccine, either for members of military in the Sixth Circuit case or for young children in the Western District of Texas case in Waco's division.
	He's also, of course, the lead on suing Elizabeth Warren for the attempt politicians leveraging their power to ban books and encourage and incentivize.
	But his case pending before the Ninth Circuit, which will go to oral argument this month, I believe, is the lead case to decide when does state collusion make big tech a state actor?
	Because there was as much of it in his case as any.
	His case will determine the future of Berenson's case, the future of Trump's case, the future of everyone else's case, even the state attorney general's cases.
	That case will probably be the precedent setter as well.
	And, I mean, it's right on point of this Super Chat.
	Where's the line between state actor and private company?
	The Louisiana-Missouri suit makes an interesting argument.
	The oral arguments, Robert, in RFK suit?
	Now it's the Disinformation Governance Board.
	We don't have to pretend about whether it exists or not.
	It's got its own board name.
	Well, first question.
	The oral hearings in RFK suit, will they be broadcast?
	Will it be online like some of the previous hearings?
	The oral version usually is made available by the Ninth Circuit either the day of or day after or both.
	So I'll be putting that up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com as soon as it's available.
	And if it's in real time, we would not be allowed to rebroadcast it, right?
	That might be problematic?
	Probably not.
	Maybe, because it's like Flint.
	But Flynn, was it not in Flynn where Judge Emmett...
	But I think the D.C. Circuit when we were allowed to rebroadcast.
	If we could rebroadcast it, I would gladly stream that in live commentary.
	I might be in the courtroom that day.
	I won't be making the argument, but I may be in the courtroom that day.
	Well, good.
	Leave your phone on back.
	I'm joking, Robert.
	I'm joking.
	I want to bring up a few super chats because one of them was I definitely wanted to answer.
	Barnes, have you discussed the SDNY injunction on all ISPs having to block illicit download sites?
	We attempted to issue an injunction to reach certain websites, a couple of small sites, abilities to be shared through ISPs.
	These efforts have almost never worked.
	Technologically.
	So they can try whatever they want, but it won't work.
	It's mostly a waste of judicial effort.
	I want to not abandon count.
	Is America's march into communism unstoppable?
	This fit with will America become a dictatorship like Canada?
	I've got to tell you something.
	Looking at what's going on in the world, if the world goes this way, America is the last fighting chance against what is...
	People are not just like...
	They're not being pushed by a bayonet.
	They're running for it, like lemmings off a cliff.
	It's a good time to...
	Maybe someone, the great Talex, maybe, can make a meme of, like, escape from New York, but put your face on it.
	Do escape from Canada, because it's a good time to escape from that fine country.
	Robert?
	All right.
	Read this out loud.
	I cannot read that out loud.
	Bad man.
	Pew pew.
	This is how people...
	I don't ban people or block people.
	Don't abuse my quick reading.
	That's how fast my brain thinks.
	Okay.
	Not reading that.
	I know exactly.
	That's bad.
	That's bad.
	If I die under mysterious circumstances, it's been nice to know you.
	Elon Musk one minute ago.
	All right.
	Robert, we're doing good.
	What else do we have on the menu tonight?
	So yeah, now we'll do some rapid fire ones.
	So first...
	U.S. Supreme Court did issue a good decision this week, or this last week, which struck down, this was the Boston flag case that we discussed, where Boston allowed everybody, basically, to raise a flag in a certain public square to hold certain rallies.
	But then a Christian group wanted to raise one, and they're like, oh no, that's somehow now our speech.
	And the Supreme Court has addressed this in multiple contexts.
	They've addressed it in the trademark copyright context, in the license plate context, and other analogous contexts.
	And they've made clear that A license plate of a state, that can be state speech such that they can limit what speech is put on there.
	By contrast, a trademark or copyright, there were some very interesting named trademarks and copyrights, which had a Hunter Biden laptop password kind of language.
	They said that's not a state speech, and so you can't limit it under the First Amendment.
	Clearly, this flag was at a place, given that they used it.
	The city used it for third parties to put up whatever flag they wanted at their rallies was not state speech.
	And so their efforts to prevent and prohibit this one organization, a Christian organization, from doing so violated the First Amendment.
	Unanimous decision, very good, well-done decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that reaffirms First Amendment principles.
	They did the same in an Austin...
	Kind of Austin City Limits kind of case, which was about what signs could be banned and under what circumstances they could be banned.
	They again reinforced that difference between state speech and private speech, where control could take place legitimately and where it went too far under First Amendment standards.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Oh, no, no.
	I'll get to the Canadian one afterwards, but it doesn't matter.
	Oh, yeah.
	That was a good Canadian case.
	Tiger King, the guy who did a lot of the videotapes for Tiger King, the videos, he was under what's called a work for hire.
	He disputed that.
	He was like, hey, I want to cash in.
	Tiger King's getting rich.
	Everybody else is getting rich off Tiger King.
	I'm the one who actually did all the crazy filming of all this nut job.
	Under contract.
	Right, but that was the problem for him.
	It was under contract.
	And for those that don't know...
	Even if you create something, if it's called a work for hire, someone hired you to create that very thing, then they own the copyright, you don't.
	This is a very common dispute because sometimes somebody's working for somebody and they create something different than what they were hired to, but the employer wants to own that too.
	And then also sometimes they create something that turns out very profitable.
	For their employer, but they think, I want to cash in on that, not have the employer cash in on that.
	And they ultimately determined that most of his videos work for hire.
	One was not, but they said that the use of it by Netflix and the documentary company was fair use of the video, which is the biggest accommodation out there.
	I mean, it's what all the LawTube is having to deal with in rebroadcasting various trials, which is people are...
	Improperly asserting copyright over that, which I don't think they can have legally, in my opinion.
	But it's almost always fair use because you are transforming.
	You're not making money because of the video.
	You're making money because of your commentary on the video.
	Your fair use of this other person's art.
	And that's what they also found in the Tiger King case.
	And I'll very summarily, we had one good case.
	It's pending.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Public disclosure of a private fact.
	Talked about it yesterday.
	This is an employee of the Ford government who was a senior, very well-respected member of his government, donated anonymously to the convoy when it was legal, before any emergencies act had been invoked.
	Her identity was disclosed in the leak, not via a work email, which is a legal distinction that might have some legal consequences.
	Her personal email, the media, funded by the government, Contacts her via her personal email after identifying her and identifying the fact that she works with the government.
	Contacts her through her government email address and notifies her government employer asking her to confirm.
	They call her.
	They text her.
	They contact her employer.
	She gets called in for a meeting and says, yeah, I donated anonymously.
	Initials.
	Through my personal email, $100.
	Promptly fired.
	The government that subsidizes the media calls the media organization that contacted them and let them know to tell her that she no longer works for them.
	She's suing for $450,000 for employment-related issues and $1.5 million for damages for public disclosure of a private fact.
	You know, not a public figure.
	This is not newsworthy, but for the fact they made it newsworthy.
	She's suing.
	May she take all of them to the cleaners except for the fact that they're all going to pay any damages they are ordered to pay.
	I mean, there's about another dozen cases that we'll discuss probably later about cell tower searches, Fourth Amendment statutes of limitations, habeas petitions, Sage Steele suing ESPN, cock-a-doodle offending certain French sensory heritage boards, arbitration not being allowed if the employer had a unilateral right to revoke, how you can arrest a ship.
	Which is its own thing.
	And then a bunch of immigration lawsuits, including immigrants suing Texas to stop Texas from trying to enforce Texas law as to their illegal activities in the state.
	But we'll discuss all those next Sunday or some future Sunday.
	But the other component this week was, and I'll be doing an audio podcast breakdown at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	About the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court that tried to stop Florida from imposing election reforms, limiting how registration works, limiting how drop boxes work in particular.
	A federal district court had not only stopped those laws from going into force, but said the Florida legislature could not do any law without that Florida judge's approval for the next 10 years.
	The 11th Circuit unanimously, with a good Judge Lagoa on the panel, said that's nonsense.
	Reversed the district court opinion.
	Reinstated the Florida election law.
	And that was a big decision and a good bookmarking for tonight's topics.
	Awesome.
	Now, by the way, if you're inclined, 4.7 thousand likes and 14 thousand watching.
	Hit that thumbs up thingy thing.
	Drop a comment just to make the chat go haywire.
	Robert, who do we have for sidebar this week?
	So we got our first, well, one of our first lefties.
	So a left anti-establishment, anti-war reporter, Michael Tracy, will be this Wednesday.
	And so we have Matt Stroller, who's antitrust from the left.
	Of course, Robert Kennedy, who's a unique figure on the Democratic side of the aisle, have also committed at some point.
	But this will be one of the first sort of people from the opposite side of the political spectrum, but share certain topical interests.
	To be on Sidebar, so it will be a lot of fun.
	Michael Tracy's been to Poland, seen certain things involving Ukraine, has covered aspects of Russiagate and Spygate all the way through, but comes from a left perspective, but has done a lot of great investigative journalism work as well.
	It'll be a fun dialogue and discussion to have.
	Amazing.
	If you're watching, Tracy, I'm going to ask you what makes you a lefty in your own mind when the left...
	No longer wants to.
	I'm going to ask you.
	Homework in advance.
	Are you going to be on with anybody this week that we should know about?
	On Tuesday at 1 p.m. Eastern New York time, I will be on live with the Duran to discuss everything related to Ukraine nationally and internationally.
	Fantastic.
	And I'll be doing random, no schedule streams during the day at some point this week.
	Tyson Hockley is going to come on.
	The 14-year-old kid out of British Columbia who's doing some live streaming amazing stuff on his own.
	He's going to come on.
	There was a, call it a hit piece research paper coming out of the Simon Fraser Institute that has me named in their appendix.
	For some reason that I don't think is appropriate, I might address it at some point this week.
	Just, you know, to give you the heads up as to where things are going in Canada and how they go about, you know, with the wrap-up smear, government-funded research so they can Label, brand, besmirch, denigrate, and then use that for other purposes.
	I'm going to talk about that study at some point this week.
	It's going to be good.
	Robert, people need optimism.
	They don't want to be blackpilled.
	What can you do to bring us out of this week into the next one with optimism?
	Well, I mean, 2,000 mules.
	It shows that if you continue to use the court of public opinion, continue to use things like the Freedom of Information Act and Open Records Act and all the rest to discover and develop the information about what happened in a prior election or anything else of great public interest, that you can get that information, you can uncover the truth, you can expose the truth, and you can disclose it to the world.
	And that's important to do.
	And that was a film that did that well.
	It showed that well, determined that well.
	And that's helpful and useful for legislative reform and legal changes moving forward.
	So credit to Dinesh D'Souza for taking the lead on that effort, for doing what the Republican National Committee should have done, but at least somebody did it, and it shows the power of sticking with your beliefs, using independent investigative mechanisms and methodologies to uncover and discover the truth and report it to the world, because that's the only way that change ultimately happens, and 2,000 Mules is in the right step in that right direction.
	And that'll do it, people.
	Happy Mother's Day, everybody.
	There's still...
	Let me see here.
	Still a few hours left.
	I'm going to go upstairs and have dinner with my wife and whichever kid is still awake, which is probably going to be all three.
	And we'll see all of you next week.
	Wednesday, Sidebar.
	Tuesday, Barnes on the Durand with Alex and Alex.
	I'll be streaming during the day.
	And people, go.
	Enjoy what is left and have a good night.

▲