Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 15, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:24

Ep. 113: WHO Treaty; Israel-Palestine; Dominion; Mules AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's the second cast off the rattleworm.
	It's a rattleworm.
	I don't know what a rattleworm is.
	I've never used a rattleworm for, but I can't see that.
	Because someone just got it for you.
	Yep, someone just got it for you.
	Okay, check this out.
	This is a nice...
	Can I zoom in?
	Don't zoom in.
	You don't need to zoom in.
	I am.
	Oh, look at that.
	I got the worm back out.
	Here's the rattleworm.
	And this is the pike that we just...
	Don't zoom in.
	Back it out.
	We don't need to zoom in.
	We get optical zoom afterwards.
	It's off.
	Wow.
	Hold on, check it out.
	Oh, where is it?
	Where is it?
	It's right here.
	Oh my god.
	Oh, the rattle worm came out of its mouth.
	Rattle worm.
	Dude, you're not even looking at what you're recording.
	Rattle worm.
	Rattle.
	That's our first fish.
	Okay, put it away.
	Now we add to the stream.
	What's a rattle worm?
	What's a rattle worm?
	Asks the missus.
	Hold on, where's the camera?
	This is the camera right here.
	So you don't stare down there.
	No, I'll read the chat as you go.
	Everybody, good evening.
	It is the Mrs.'s birthday tonight.
	And I wanted just video evidence you're here voluntarily.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Sorry.
	I've been talking into the mic.
	It's the Mrs.'s birthday tonight.
	We're having a party.
	Hold on.
	We're having these cosmopolitan thingies.
	I said I would come if I got a drink.
	I asked her to come just so she could confirm to the world, not under duress.
	He hesitated.
	That she was not angry with me for doing a live stream on her birthday.
	Confirm to the world.
	I confirm.
	How old are you, Marion?
	41. 41, people.
	1981.
	Where are the 80s babies?
	Where are all the 80s ladies at?
	So it's Marion's birthday.
	We had the party yesterday in the townships.
	That's where we caught that fish.
	We're all partied out.
	Partied out.
	So it was so hot and humid last night and not in the baby-making sense that I slept so badly and sweat so much when I was sleeping.
	It feels like jet lag.
	It feels like jet lag.
	So if I look like I'm low on energy...
	I think it looks like you've got a ponytail.
	That was the other thing.
	The Overton window, people.
	The Overton window has moved.
	Remember when Marion said, if you have a man bun, Dave...
	No, no, no man bun.
	So this is not a man bun.
	I call it a samurai ponytail.
	And she's still married to me.
	There we go.
	And then she said, Dave, you're starting to look like Justin Baldoni.
	With the man bun.
	He wears a man bun.
	For anybody who doesn't know who Justin Baldoni is, it's Marion's crush in the medical community.
	He's an actor!
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	But he was on the Curious Neuron podcast talking about his book, Man Enough.
	So anyways, that was it.
	I just wanted everyone to know that she's not angry, but by the...
	Hold on, hold on.
	Hold on.
	She thought I'd forget to get her a proper gift.
	This is the card.
	It's a gas station card.
	I can't show what's written inside, but it's partly in French.
	It says amuse-toi.
	Of course it is, because we were in the French part of Quebec.
	It says amuse-toi.
	Oh, you might have seen the...
	Hold on a second.
	There we go.
	Yeah, it says obligatory penis because I always put penises.
	Is this the back of the card?
	Okay, that's the card.
	This was part one of the gift.
	It's a gas station fedora.
	Part two of the gift.
	I got it at Zara's.
	What?
	It's very nice.
	Very nice.
	I told her.
	Well, I went to a record store with my kid and the record store was closed.
	Okay.
	Happy birthday.
	See you in two hours.
	That's it.
	I'll wear the fedora.
	All right, people.
	Let's get this show on.
	Cheers.
	She's not angry.
	She's happy.
	And we're going to have a late dinner after the stream.
	The fedora.
	That being said, the fedora might be...
	You're blocking the studio lighting.
	Okay, we'll take the fedora off.
	I feel like Uncle Buck, when he goes into the house party and they steal his hat and he's like running through the house, like, someone took my hat!
	Yep.
	This is a bad look for me.
	Okay, see you soon.
	People, we're going to have a good show tonight, but it is my wife's 41st birthday.
	Today is the day.
	We had the party yesterday and it was a glorious party.
	DSLR Dave was out there.
	We had some...
	Our best friends, family friends, my mother-in-law.
	Well, my mother-in-law is her mother.
	Obviously, she would be there.
	So it was great.
	That's where I caught that pike.
	Off the shoreline.
	Off Hart Tackle's rattle worm.
	Rattle worm.
	I've never...
	I don't catch pike off worms in Lake Champlain.
	But I used it.
	I'm going to put together a video.
	And I caught a pike.
	I caught a pike off the rattle worm.
	And I caught a pike off that...
	Okay, holy crap.
	I've fallen behind on the super chats.
	Let me just do the super chats, then the disclaimers, and then we're gonna talk about the show.
	I started on something good tonight, people, so that, you know, people can be happy and not have to listen to Justin Trudeau's voice.
	Oh, man.
	Okay.
	80 here.
	There we go.
	We got some 80s.
	80 babies in the house.
	83. I'm 79. I'm still disco baby.
	Okay.
	This has been an all-over-the-place beginning.
	Superchats.
	I'm not going to get to all of them.
	If I don't get to your superchat and you're going to feel disappointed, included in disappointed is grifted, shilled, rooked, or miffed.
	Do not give the superchat.
	I do my best.
	I won't get to all of them.
	And I don't want anyone feeling bad.
	I met Poilievre yesterday.
	He is without a doubt, in my mind, a truly kind and genuine person.
	I sincerely hope you have him on for an interview.
	I would have him on any day of the week.
	It would be up to him.
	I'll reach out to him again.
	I don't have any direct line of response or line of connection to Poiliev.
	Let's get some superstars.
	On August 31, 2020, the Human Rights Act was changed.
	Prohibition of discrimination.
	No person shall, in respect of an irrational fear of contracting an illness or disease, was removed from the act.
	Interesting, Chet.
	Interesting.
	Okay, we got, she is not over 25. I tell you what, I looked at my wife, Mary, and I said, I know that she, you know, like the imprint, like the duckling that gets imprinted with their mother's image.
	She will always be the 17-year-old girl she was when I met her, but she doesn't look 41. She might look like, you know, like a good 30, like a sexy 30, but she does not look 41. I don't feel 43, but...
	I'm going to be 43 next Monday.
	There you go.
	Heart Tackle.
	Happy birthday, Mrs. Thank you very much.
	The Tackle works, people.
	Heart Tackle works, and it's made in the USA.
	It wasn't just the packaging.
	I looked on the product itself.
	Made in America.
	I was wearing the long-sleeve fishing shirt today because I ran out of clean clothing.
	American flag.
	It was beautiful.
	Thank you very much, Heart.
	Okay.
	As House would say, everyone lies.
	Oh, am I going to get in trouble for bringing up the Gads?
	Oh, jeez.
	The Gadsdy?
	No, step on Snick.
	Okay, let's see what we've got here.
	Note, YouTube is suppressing your live streams.
	They no longer notify me.
	And if I click live streams, you do not show up.
	There's been some chicanery afoot with YouTube.
	It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter.
	We'll do our best and we'll make the best that we can of this system until it becomes cool to not suppress or not censor.
	So anyways, that's it.
	It's Marion's birthday today.
	It's my birthday next week.
	A very blessed happy birthday to the missus.
	You're a good man.
	Viva, thank you very much.
	She's a good woman.
	You didn't read what I said in that card.
	I'm the luckiest man on earth because she puts up with me and we are, you know, we are the luckiest family on earth.
	We're tied up there because everyone else out there, there's a lot of people who are equally as fortunate.
	There's a lot of people who are just...
	I found the life partner with whom we will go crazy together.
	In real time, at the same level, so that one of us doesn't go crazy faster than the other and drive the other one crazy by going crazy faster than the other.
	You know how it works.
	But the Overton window has moved.
	She puts up with the samurai ponytail, and it's beautiful.
	Okay, so standard disclaimers.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	I saw a funny comment which said, I only come for the medical advice, legal advice, and election fortification advice.
	None of that.
	None of that here whatsoever.
	But long live the cack.
	That's Coalition Avenir de Québec.
	And that's Joseph R. Biden.
	And I think that's a parody account.
	Oh, yeah, sorry.
	The Gadsden flag.
	I keep wanting to say it.
	The Gadsden flag.
	Yeah.
	Apparently, according to some people, that flag represents intolerance and whatnot.
	Your wife is beautiful inside and out.
	Maggie Smith, 1,000%.
	So on the menu for tonight, people, it's tough to try to stay optimistic and stay happy.
	And we're going to cover some of the reasons why it's getting tougher and tougher to do that.
	But we've got Ukraine, Israel.
	We've got the WHO because people are asking about it.
	What's going on with the WHO in this treaty now that seems to usurp national independence of the signatory states?
	There's some Johnny Depp stuff.
	We might...
	I think we're going to talk about some of the 2000 Mule stuff again as well, you know, just for some clarification.
	Control the coin and the courts.
	Leave the rest to the rabble.
	Frank Herbert, a Padishah Emperor Shaddam, Carino IV.
	It's interesting.
	Can't really disagree with that.
	Freedom.
	So that's it.
	There's a ton of stuff on the menu, but...
	We're going to get things started.
	I didn't want to start off with an annoying voice.
	I don't want to talk about Jagmeet Singh's outrageous hypocrisy.
	I put out something of a needly tweet.
	I was like, hey, can I still call Jagmeet Singh a raging hypocrite without the Petersburg police getting on my case?
	Because, you know, the Petersburg police have now announced that they're going to investigate and investigate with all their resources.
	The people who were involved in that unacceptable incident of the bird and the FU to Jagmeet.
	I don't want to talk about that.
	Probably talk about it tomorrow at some point.
	At some point tomorrow while we are live streaming the Johnny Depp, Amber Heard continued examination, her testimony in chief, and then hopefully the cross-examination.
	It's going to be awesome.
	Tune into it.
	But I want to highlight something else that's going on in Canada.
	There is an election coming up.
	Oh, that freedom is still up there, isn't it?
	Sorry about that.
	Hold on.
	You and your stunning missus are the ages of my kids.
	Great to see happily married couples enjoying adulting.
	Well, I think we're doing a decent job at it, but being a parent is guesswork, and being adults is guesswork.
	Happy birthday to your wife.
	What's the deal with so many seemingly decent members of the House voting for $40 billion to Ukraine?
	Military Industrial Complex owns them.
	Yep.
	I'm going to bring up the one tweet that I want to highlight because you don't get to create...
	I'm going to make a mistake on the Frankenstein because there's always an issue like Frankenstein was not the monster but the doctor.
	I'm just going to say this.
	You don't get to make a monster.
	And then complain when that monster lashes out in the future.
	There is a doctor.
	I believe she's a doctor.
	Dr. Lisa Yanaton, who is now, seems to be Montreal-based.
	Yeah, Med-Université de Montréal.
	So she's a Montreal-based doctor.
	I'm not presuming that she's a fake doctor.
	She's a doctor.
	She's now upset about Bill 96 in Quebec, which is what the CAC, the Coalition Avenir de Québec, wants to pass, language laws.
	This doctor is now up in arms about these language laws.
	She writes, did you know that if Bill 96 passes, and it looks like it will, by law, I won't be allowed to speak to English-speaking patients in English anymore, or Italian.
	Or Italian-speaking patients in Italian, for that matter.
	By law, oh my god!
	You won't be able to speak in another language by law to your patients?
	That's terrible!
	That's almost as bad as being locked in your house after 8 o 'clock.
	Do you know that by law, I couldn't leave my house after 8 o 'clock once I was walking a dog, Dr. Yenotoni?
	Did you know that?
	Did it bother you when that happened?
	Oh, Dr. Lisa Yenotoni, did you know that by law, you had to show your vaccine passport to get into a store in Quebec by law?
	Oh, no, no.
	But now, oh, wait a minute.
	You did know about that.
	You did know about that because I went to look at some of your tweets.
	And here's a tweet that I found from Dr. Lisa Yannatoni.
	Vaccine passports aren't a punishment for the unvaccinated.
	They're about slowing transmission and increasing vaccination rates.
	Oh, and increasing vaccination rates, of course.
	Nothing like a little coercion to make you submit to a medical intervention with your own body.
	But more than that, vaccine passes are about keeping the unvaccinated healthy and out of our hospitals so that we don't paralyze ICUs again.
	Oh, totally on board with...
	Coercing people to submit to medical procedures on their own body.
	Because there she thinks it's justified.
	But my goodness, tell her that she can't speak in a language to a patient because someone else thinks that's their priority?
	Up in arms.
	Up in arms.
	And I said to Dr. Lisa, sorry Lisa Yannatoni, you are a vocal supporter of vaccine passports.
	It's clear you do not care about charter rights.
	Rather, you only care about the right...
	You only care...
	Oh, damn.
	Typo!
	You only care about the rights that you care about.
	That's not how rights work.
	You reap what you sow.
	You created this monster.
	I can't talk to the patients in English or Italian.
	Oh my goodness, that's horrible.
	Imagine being fired because you didn't submit to a medical treatment.
	You supported that.
	You supported vaccine passports.
	You supported curfews, lockdowns.
	Oh, you supported all that.
	You told me what I could do with my own being and that of my children after 8 o 'clock.
	That's shocking.
	Sorry, that's not shocking.
	That's acceptable.
	But tell someone they can't speak English to their patients in a French province who has made the decision now that French is sufficiently important, that they're willing to sacrifice that right.
	Now you're up in arms.
	Too late.
	Enjoy it.
	Tell me how it feels later on when you have no rights because you empowered a monster and now you're complaining that the monster, oh, they finally come for you.
	At first they came for the socialists, but I didn't care because I wasn't a socialist.
	You know the poem.
	They're coming for you now, Lisa.
	And oh, now the rights that you care about matter.
	Okay, Barnes is in the house.
	I see him grinning, maybe a little.
	Okay, let's do this.
	Bring on the Barnes.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Though, I was a little bit shocked to see Marion lie about her age.
	I mean, she clearly looks no older than 31, so I don't know why she would mislead everybody about that.
	What kind of woman lies about her age?
	I mean, that was the...
	What kind of woman lies to make herself older?
	That's the punchline from Liar Liar.
	Robin, you're exquisitely pixelated.
	But, I mean, the audio's good, but...
	Okay, it's clearing up now.
	Yeah, no, it's crazy.
	Look, she's a very...
	She looks great.
	Exercise and, you know, being married to someone who keeps you on your toes, I guess.
	Robert, before we even get going, saving Bravo behind you, and what do you have in your hands?
	That's a book from one of our board members at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, where everybody is above average.
	As Garrison Keillor would say, from Lake Wobegon.
	But actually, it's about his father.
	So there's a bunch of books and movies made about this particular individual, and that's one of them, Saving Bravo, sent it to me through the mail.
	So I'll tell you, it's a fascinating story.
	But yeah, from one of our board members.
	Oh, and this cigar, I'm not sure which one it is, to be honest with you.
	And I should have mentioned that everyone who's on the Locals community would have seen that beautiful fish with heart tackle yesterday.
	Robert, so we've got some big stuff on the menu tonight.
	I think the number one of which...
	I mean, the number one of which is what the hell is going on with the who?
	And I mean, I tried to look into it.
	I mean, I think I understand what's going on, that they're going to establish a global pandemic response to signatory nations.
	And it would seem that a lot of nations have become signatories to this.
	Do you want to elaborate on the details of what's going on?
	Yes.
	So what's still misunderstood is there's a belief out there that the Biden administration is lobbying the World Health Organization to adapt a range of rules governing its members that would empower the World Health Organization to centralize responses to a pandemic.
	Now, those rule changes are not legally binding on the United States until a treaty is proposed to the United States Senate.
	We joined the World Health Organization, which is kind of an organization designated by the United Nations, by a joint resolution in Congress, not by treaty.
	So there's no legally binding.
	This is why Trump was just going to unilaterally withdraw from it and was on pace to do so before the election fornication.
	So the rules that they're talking about passing are not, you'll see misleading references in the press, that there'll be talk of it being binding, there'll be talk of it being a treaty.
	It's not.
	The World Health Organization was not formed by a treaty in terms of the United States participation in it.
	The United States, the only thing we said in Congress was, we'll give one year's notice and pay our dues when we leave.
	But there's no treaty, only treaties are supreme law of the land.
	No treaty has passed giving the World Health Organization any legal power in the United States.
	So even if these rule changes pass that the Biden administration is trying to push through, they do not become legally binding on the United States until and unless a treaty.
	Now they're talking about...
	Taking these rules and conforming them into a treaty and proposing that treaty, but that is still several years by their own timetable away from happening.
	And in fact, multiple countries have said they're not interested in delegating power of that type to the World Health Organization.
	So there's a desire for it to occur, but there's been a lot of overreaction in some parts of the political universe because they think it's politically binding.
	It is not.
	It is not.
	Any statement you see that says it's politically binding is either someone that's in good faith that's misunderstood it or somebody that's in bad faith that's trying to misportray it, whichever the case may be.
	It's not legally binding until a treaty passes.
	That requires two-thirds consent of the Senate.
	It has to go to the Office of Legal Counsel.
	It has to go through the State Department.
	It has to reach multiple levels of review before it's even proposed to the United States Senate.
	Then the United States Senate has to debate on it, and more than two-thirds have to approve it for it to become binding law.
	We're not near that.
	Well, you're not near that, except there are people out there who want to get some people to repeat misinformation, either to make them look stupid or to create a panic that, you know, might serve their interests.
	But, Robert, some people are going to say it doesn't matter if it's in a treaty or not.
	If these if if nations indicate a willingness to abide by them, treaty or no treaty, the national governments of any given country are going to enact similar policy to reflect what, you know, is a de facto treaty, even though it has not been passed.
	So it's like the climate accords that we ignored and just walked away from.
	So it's not something that's legally binding.
	It's something that can be taken as an advisory basis in the United States.
	And the same with most countries, though other countries vary as to the enforceability of joining such an agreement.
	I can tell you that there's all kinds of things they've joined that they have not...
	I mean, right now, the Geneva Convention is something that most countries have joined, and both Russia and Ukraine are not abiding by it, because what's the disciplinary mechanism?
	There isn't one.
	So that's the other factor, is that a law isn't a law if it's not enforced.
	And so even these kind of treaties don't tend to...
	This goes back to the old UN treaty.
	There was a lot of talk in the 50s at the time that that meant the United Nations could govern the United States.
	No, it didn't.
	That wasn't the scope of the treaty, and it had no inherent enforcement power.
	So that's even more true with the World Health Organization.
	So people have been emailing me saying, it looks like World Health Organization is going to get to run U.S. policy.
	No, they're not.
	Nothing about these rule changes gives them any legally binding power in the United States.
	The problem is, though, I look at Canada and say, the treaties, it needs to be passed, and if it's not passed, whatever.
	But the problem is, if the...
	Prime Minister in our country or the provinces are going to behave in such a manner.
	Anyhow, they're going to implement similar rules.
	Nothing prohibits Biden from doing whatever Biden's going to do other than the laws and constitution on the book.
	But there are people who thought that this World Health Organization rule change would supersede U.S. law.
	It does not.
	It doesn't stop politicians from doing what politicians can currently legally do, but it does not empower them to circumvent or override existing domestic law in the United States.
	Now, I'm going to give...
	Hallelujah.
	This is now spamming.
	This is the exact same comment and the one you had before, so please stop spamming.
	Spammers and Russian sex bots are the only ones that get actually blocked on this channel.
	Okay, so that's good.
	So people can not panic in that it's not now...
	International law that's applicable to all, I don't know, all nations.
	Rather, indication of where things might go, but the bottom line, in any given country, any given state or province, the government might nonetheless implement these rules regardless, even if it's part of a treaty or not.
	We'll see.
	Kind of like the Iran deal.
	Obama used the Iran deal to do what he did, but it wasn't legally binding, and that's why Trump could reverse it when he got it.
	So now it doesn't stop Biden from redoing a similar deal, but they're still limited by the Constitution and the domestic laws of the United States as to what they have power in because you can't sign away, you can't change the Constitution by just the executive branch declaring something.
	You need a treaty to pass two-thirds of the Senate for that to happen.
	Okay, interesting.
	So no panic, but it might be the same practical reality.
	People should be aware of it and should be resisting it.
	And what the Biden administration is pushing is a bad idea.
	And the treaties would be a disaster of an idea.
	But be aware of that because some people are overreacting and then that will lead people to not be alert when the treaty is actually being proposed.
	It is part of my concern with overreactions to this.
	People say China runs the WHO.
	We can get into it.
	China has influence on the World Health Organization, no question about that.
	They didn't do the meaningful inquiry and cover it up at the beginning.
	China is one of the biggest participants in the World Health Organization.
	They don't really run it, though.
	I mean, the United States with Biden probably has more influence than China does right now.
	So it varies as to who has power in the World Health Organization.
	I would call it a globalist institution that more often than not serves globalist purposes rather than any individual nation's purposes.
	All right, now River Table.
	I don't know.
	I didn't think River Table was sparring, but River Table is chatting about protests going on in Australia, so check it out.
	But thank you, River Table.
	I think there's elections upcoming in Australia.
	And we'll see.
	Apparently, Australia, which was like, you know, the epicenter of loss of freedoms, is now more free than Canada, which still seems to be going in the wrong direction.
	But hold on.
	You said something about the who?
	Oh, for goodness sake, Robert.
	Okay, I'm going to forget about it.
	Okay, so be aware of it, but it has not become international law and we are not yet subject to the who.
	Oh, you mentioned globalist agendas.
	Robert, this might bring us into the Ukraine news of the week.
	I just had a thought the other day where people who are changing avatars, people who are heavily into the conflict in the Ukraine and heavily into...
	Getting $40 billion of military aid to Ukraine.
	Are running on the idea that Putin is the one with global domination.
	Aspirations of global domination.
	When it might seem that now that we're seeing what's going on in that part of the world.
	That it might be the other way around.
	And there might be other interests that have the actual global domination interests.
	What's the latest news coming out of Ukraine?
	Before we get into the war crimes trial of a Russian soldier.
	With Finland, with Sweden, and with Ukraine's bid for NATO membership.
	So I believe Finland's already proposed a request to be invited into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to join it.
	It appears Turkey will object to that.
	So we'll see how, and it appears some other countries may object to that.
	So we'll see what ultimately happens with it.
	The assumption is that if Finland is allowed in, then Sweden will join soon thereafter.
	Both Finland and Sweden have historically...
	Taking neutral positions to not be in the middle of the Cold War or any other conflict between Russia and the rest of Europe.
	This would be a shift in that position.
	I don't think it will lead to any security risk for either country.
	One way or the other is talk of Russia attacking them.
	I don't see that happening.
	There hasn't been a war between Russia and Finland since the Winter War 1939-1941.
	I think it was the White Ghost, one of the world's most famous snipers, was a Finnish sniper in that war.
	That war didn't go as well as Stalin wanted it to, in part because he'd whacked all his generals.
	And it was an invitation for Hitler to invade a little sooner than maybe he would have otherwise, seeing the weakness that the Russian army showed in the Winter War with Finland.
	But I got Finnish ancestry, according to the DNA people, so go Finns.
	You did a DNA test?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	My little sister and my brother love the DNA ancestry stuff, my little sister especially.
	So she had me take, you know, the 23andMe and another one and all the rest.
	Related to various, you know, like the Normans that invaded, that brought civilization to the Angles and Saxons in London, in the UK, related to them, related to some Welsh, and then, you know, get some Greek and French mixed in there.
	But I don't think...
	Finland's making the best practical political decision.
	Their neutrality had served them pretty well over the years, given their geographic proximity to Russia.
	So joining NATO doesn't make a ton of sense.
	They clearly don't think it would be uber-popular in their electorates because both Finland and Sweden are talking about doing this without a referendum or an election on the issue.
	So I think the populations there have preferred their neutrality historically.
	But it's kind of a...
	NATO wants it to happen.
	It's not clear everybody in NATO wants it to happen.
	And so because of what consequences might flow to other regions and other countries because of it.
	Why would Turkey object to Finland joining NATO?
	Turkey doesn't want to expand the scope of conflict.
	Now, Erdogan has his own interest.
	He plays both sides a lot.
	There's a lot of talk that Erdogan would like to recreate the old Ottoman Empire at times.
	Turkey right now, I mean, Turkey's...
	Illegally occupying Cyprus, part of Cyprus as we speak.
	Turkey is illegally, well, legally dubious involvement in parts of Syria and Iraq because they don't want there to be a greater Kurdistan.
	So there's issues with how Turkey behaves and Turkey doesn't want to expand NATO conflict towards Russia.
	Turkey has tried to...
	While being a member of NATO, try to maintain as much neutrality as they can in this current Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
	They staged initial peace talks there in Istanbul, where there looked like there was some progress being made, and then Boris Johnson made a trip to Kiev to make clear that no progress should be made.
	The West opposes any peace deal in Ukraine, and so it looks like no peace deal will happen in Ukraine.
	Both countries, in my view, Russia and Ukraine, are currently violating the Geneva Convention at how they're trying to privately, not privately, but through their state governments, criminally punish prisoners of war for things the Geneva Convention clearly prohibits, in my opinion.
	Russia has taken the position that anybody that's a mercenary or anything else is not protected by the Geneva Convention.
	That's not what the Geneva Convention says.
	It says if you're under, it doesn't matter where you're from.
	Doesn't matter anything else.
	If you're under the supervision and governance of the army of a nation, then you're protected under the Geneva Convention.
	And Ukraine is bragging about putting a Russian soldier on trial for murder by even the Ukrainian definition of the evidence is that he was following orders and who he shot, and that he was following orders that appeared to be, to him, lawful orders.
	And the whole point of the Geneva Convention was those issues should be resolved by a very specific way of prisoners of war.
	They should not be resolved in an individual state's criminal sovereign system.
	But we're seeing the Geneva Convention completely gutted by both sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
	You know what?
	Before we even get into this particular story, in a nutshell, the history and the essence of the Geneva Convention, Robert, it might be a very big question, but I mean...
	We use the term, we know what it encompasses, we know what it governs, but what was the birth of the Geneva Convention, the provisions, and the scope of its application?
	It has been a quartet of amendments, but after World War II, the goal was to prohibit a couple of things.
	One was to prohibit the direct and deliberate targeting of civilians in war, and the second one was especially governing the way in which prisoners of war were treated.
	The Japanese and the Germans, quite frankly, were particularly notorious at how horrible they treated prisoners of war.
	There's fair criticism of the Soviets as well.
	Some, but less criticism of the Americans and the Brits, at least as the POWs.
	Now, targeting civilians was, frankly, a little bit more on the American and British side because of how much we firebombed Dresden and firebombed Tokyo and, of course, used nuclear weapons targeting civilians for the purposes of ending World War II.
	Though, again, you can read Thomas Sowell and others.
	They'll make a good argument that there was sound military reasoning behind those decisions.
	But the goal is to prohibit that in future wars.
	No more maltreatment of prisoners of war.
	And particularly part of it was, if what they did was part of war, they're not going to be subject to a government's private criminal justice system.
	They have to be treated pursuant to the Geneva Convention.
	And if they've committed war crimes, that will be treated within the context of some aggrieved body.
	Like the Nuremberg body.
	To the degree that Russia was going to do that, that would be less problematic.
	But they've made public statements that they're going to criminally prosecute these people pursuant to Russian law, not pursuant to Nuremberg law, at least as to mercenaries.
	And now, I mean, what I was startled by was...
	It doesn't surprise me that Ukraine has taken a Russian soldier and is going to prosecute him under Ukrainian law, given they haven't shown any concern with the Geneva Convention, in my opinion.
	But what was a bit shocking was that the entire West celebrated it.
	And not a single legal person said, hold on a second.
	What he's describing, it makes him a prisoner of war and he should be protected by the Geneva Convention.
	This is a flagrant...
	Grievous violation of the Geneva Convention, as flagrant and as grievous as what the Russians are doing, is now what Ukraine is doing.
	So this Russian soldier should be a prisoner of war.
	He should not be criminally prosecuted, pursuant to Ukrainian law, given the existing state of facts.
	And actually, just for anybody who doesn't know the story, a Russian soldier was arrested or, I guess, taken into custody, however it happened.
	Taken prisoner, yeah.
	Taken prisoner and alleged, say it's alleged, but even if you operate on the basis that the allegations are true, shot a civilian dead through the window of his car as the Russians were retreating from a specific town.
	I don't remember which town, but it's not really relevant.
	Apparently was given orders to open fire for reasons of potentially concealing where the Russians were going to be located or situated to make it harder to locate.
	By all accounts, a civilian, not a combatant, and killed by this individual who was following orders.
	Arrested.
	I mean, the war is still going on.
	And now being charged with war crimes, but...
	Charged with war crimes.
	He's not being charged with war crimes.
	I think he's just being charged with regular homicide.
	That's the problem.
	What's supposed to happen is you put him in a separate system.
	If you think it's a war crime that's later subject to international criminal court that Ukraine is a signatory to or part of, they have the International Criminal Court there present.
	That's the process that he should be a part of to see whether or not it was a war crime as something that was not authorized.
	Because by definition, there's...
	I mean, we will target a facility, the U.S., where we know a civilian will die.
	As long as it has a legitimate military objective, it's generally considered legal within the context of the Geneva Convention.
	In other words, not a war crime and something for which, as a prisoner of war, has to be treated accordingly.
	By what they're describing, he was ordered for military means and purposes to kill this individual.
	That is typically, that should keep him within, especially if there's any dispute about it, under the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war.
	And if he did commit a war crime, prosecuted accordingly, but not prosecuted like he's an individual criminal who committed homicide.
	My understanding is that's how they're prosecuting him.
	So it's setting a very perilous precedent to have this occur if you care about the Geneva Convention.
	Okay, now that makes actually a lot more sense because my question was, if they're charging him with war crimes, why are they...
	within the Ukrainian legal system.
	Now it makes a lot more sense.
	They've just taken this guy and let's even operate on the basis he committed a war crime.
	They're not trying him in any international criminal court, but rather just under the Ukraine legal system in the context of an ongoing war with all of whatever prejudices that's going to engender for the judicial process itself.
	And, you know, they're doing what the Russians are doing, the mercenaries.
	So both of them are guilty.
	And unfortunately, there's been criticism of the Russians for doing this.
	There was unfortunately no criticism that I saw of Ukraine for doing this.
	Instead, it was being celebrated.
	I was like, we're seeing the evaporation and evisceration of the Geneva Convention in live time.
	No, we've seen blue check marks and legal types saying, you know, invade a foreign country.
	This is what you expect if you get caught.
	I mean, we've seen it, and we've seen people celebrating.
	That's why we passed the Geneva Convention.
	That's why the law is to not have this reoccur, and yet that's what we're witnessing, unfortunately.
	Okay, interesting.
	Anything else on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
	No, the only other big international news of...
	Any kind of legal import was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict flaring up again in the news.
	Yeah, so for anybody who doesn't know, I forget her name, and it's not out of any form of disrespect.
	I just don't remember her name, but a journalist, 51-year-old journalist, shot dead, apparently.
	Each side blames the other.
	The Israeli side says it could have been a Palestinian government, but it also could have been us, tragically.
	51 years old, shot dead, and...
	This happens every 10 years, and it's the never-ending cycle of violence.
	They were trying to have a funeral, apparently carrying the casket down the street.
	It ended up with a violent confrontation with Israeli police.
	I can't stand these discussions anymore.
	It's the same thing every single time.
	Just space it out over 10 years.
	One side says the other side did it.
	The other side says they did it.
	Might have been us.
	I think back to...
	One of the most famous misreported stories, New York Times, I forget the name of the kid, 12-year-old kid caught in the crossfire, died, started years of violence 20 years ago.
	Robert, what is your take on what's going on right now in the Middle East?
	Well, what's extraordinary is the same people who are skeptical of Ukrainian Asov Battalion-style false flags completely suspend that when it relates to Israel and Palestine.
	And the Palestinians.
	So ever since they lost the Six-Day War, and they've been kicked out of pretty much every country in the Middle East, the Palestinians have relied upon international public support, both monetarily and militarily and politically, for their sustenance, frankly, their survival.
	So consequently, it's been in their interest to do false flags.
	They have the motive.
	What people should do is find objective metrics for measuring a false flag that are pretty predictive over time.
	One of those is, does it ask you to have an emotional response to the event rather than an intellectual or analytical response to the event?
	Secondly, are the motives off?
	Is the only motive that the alleged perpetrator is just an irrationally evil person?
	Third, does it ask you to collectivize judgment?
	In other words, does it say, don't blame one individual for doing this.
	Blame a whole community, a whole group, a whole citizenship, a whole society, a whole nation for it.
	Fourth, do they refuse things like an independent or joint inquiry into something else?
	Or do they instead ask you to rush to judgment about the matter?
	Those are just some of the false flags that are out there, or signs of a false flag.
	To be frank, in dealing with this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is far more often, most of the time, more often than not, when something goes viral, it has been a false flag, especially, frankly, on the Palestinian side.
	Because that's the fifth factor, is look at who has the motive to do this.
	Does it make sense that the official narrative, so all the anti-war left crowd, that's also anti-American and anti-Israeli, jump on every false flag the Palestinians pitch.
	Without fail.
	Glenn Greenwald does this.
	I've seen him do it repeatedly.
	It's part of how I made a deep dive into this years ago.
	I was following Greenwald.
	He said something like, that's shocking.
	But I was worried because it had these signs to it.
	Dug in and it turned out Greenwald was repeating completely fake news.
	And what I try to argue, and I got into a social media debate with a couple of these folks, Richard Medhurst, or Medhurst, I'm not sure his name is pronounced, Caitlin Johnston.
	Others, because they repeat this without fail, and they get caught over and over again, but they ignore it.
	So, like, right away, it's like, where's the context?
	Like, that's another sign of a false flag.
	Is it stripped of historical context, just contemporary context, geopolitical context?
	All of this was.
	It's just, the narrative is, Israel is so evil, they're running an apartheid system, they just like to go around and shoot Palestinians for kicks and giggles, even though it will completely undermine them in the court of public opinion around the world, and it's not in their interest to do.
	It's like, hmm, chances are that story's not true.
	And of course you dig in and that's precisely what happened here.
	Here they don't know why this person who's kind of an activist and a journalist, not like an independent journalist, an activist who also did journalism, which is fine, but that's an important context, dies during conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis, conflict that started because of some Palestinian abuses, which also was ignored from the context.
	They don't know.
	How she died or why she died or who killed her.
	So what does Israel propose?
	One of the ways I say measure a false flag, I said this about Russia-Ukraine, was see who proposes an independent or joint inquiry.
	Because that will tell you that's somebody who's confident that they didn't do this, at least deliberately, or that they may not have done it at all.
	Well, it's Israel who proposed that, not the Palestinians.
	And then the second thing is look at who's eager to do a joint inquiry or an independent inquiry and who ain't.
	So sinking the main, for example, I mean, the first sign that the sinking of the main, and I apply these same standards, whether it's Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the United States, China, it doesn't matter who it is, the utility of objective standards, it allows you to take your subjective bias and limit its impact.
	Because the people are so anti one side or the other, that it lets them bias and prejudice their opinions on whether a false flag occurred or who is culpable or responsible.
	So here, Israel proposes a joint inquiry into the death of this press person.
	Not only did the Palestinian Authority not request it, they refuse it.
	They won't be part of any joint inquiry.
	And the excuses I get sound just like the excuses why the UN didn't do a joint inquiry into what happened outside of that suburb of Kiev as to who was responsible, Russia, Ukraine, or something else.
	The British wanted nothing to do with it.
	No UN joint inquiry ever occurring.
	That was a glaring indicator.
	Russia thought they were innocent.
	And even the Brits think, eh, maybe the Russians are innocent.
	So they don't want to do a joint inquiry.
	So that was part one.
	Part two is what happened with the funeral.
	What you get is you get a clip.
	And I don't like these clips in any context.
	You get a little partial video clip that shows Palestinians carrying a casket and Israeli police attacking them.
	And so the story is, wow, Israel hates Palestinians so much, they went and found a Palestinian funeral and beat up on the people carrying the casket.
	And I was like, hmm.
	That's probably not true because it fits all of those factors I talked about of a false flag.
	The other giveaway was, why was that the only part that was being broadcast?
	Someone didn't video record how that casket came out?
	Someone didn't video record anything else that was happening around it?
	I don't think so.
	Instead, you get a classic.
	The Palestinians do this all the time, especially.
	The Palestinian activists and political actors.
	They will take a clip.
	They will set up an event.
	To make Israel look bad and then broadcast it around the world and they have enough gullible anti-Israel leftists and others who will just regurgitate, vomit it up, back up for the rest of the world to believe.
	And it's one of the reasons why a lot of people that are on the anti-war right Don't believe people like Caitlin Johnston.
	Don't believe people that are on the anti-war left because they repeat lies repeatedly and the Palestinians love to spread it.
	Just like Glenn Greenwald ain't honeymooning in Gaza Strip anytime soon.
	He ain't vacationing there anytime soon because he knows who Hamas and what Hamas is.
	But we're supposed to pretend otherwise because they're anti-Israel and anti-American.
	So with this sort of left crowd, anti-war left crowd.
	So instead, what comes out?
	What comes out is the day before, Israel was concerned about this funeral being used to start a riot.
	So they told him we want strict protocols about how this works.
	The family has a hearse there.
	They said the coffin's going to come in, it's going to go to the hearse, it's going to go to the proceeding, then be buried.
	Instead, when the casket comes out, a bunch of people who are around rioting, throwing things at the Israeli police, attacking them, all the rest.
	Go and grab the casket away from the hearse and start carrying it away instead.
	That's when the Israeli police intervene to try to get the casket back in the hearse.
	And during that time period, they're being attacked.
	And what the Palestinian political actors do is they just clip one little bit and tell everybody that's the whole message.
	And all these gullible suckers and saps spread fake news and a false flag around the world to make Israel look bad.
	You can be anti-Israel all you want.
	Just quit spreading false flags and fake news because no one's going to believe a single thing you say about anything, anyplace, anywhere when you don't have objective standards and you repeatedly repeat the lies of the Palestinian political actors like the Palestinian Authority, like Hamas.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Pierre Labrecq says, hate is a tool of the elite that we tend to perpetuate unwittingly.
	There is a reason.
	Hate shares on Twitter.
	Are the most popular.
	More popular than love shares.
	Smile.
	You know, next I think in the list is funny stuff.
	You know, like cute kittens and funny videos.
	But hate gets the immediate response and the most shares.
	And I'm going to post the link to this afterwards.
	I'm going to bring it up now.
	Everyone should listen to The Grey Lady Winks.
	And it was The Killing of Muhammad al-Dura.
	This was the story that's a chapter in the book about...
	I remember this.
	This was in...
	21 years ago.
	And by the way, they still repeat it.
	All these same people on the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli side.
	And again, you can be on that side, but when you repeat lies all the time, I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say.
	Because they were repeating this one.
	They're saying, this is just like, and it's like, okay.
	So it happens over and over and over and over again.
	There's a reason, frankly, why the Palestinians got kicked out of Jordan, kicked out of Egypt, kicked out of Syria, kicked out of Lebanon, didn't even get to stay in Algiers, ultimately.
	It's because of underlying political issues with their political leadership.
	Robert, I'm going to say something that might get me in trouble, but...
	Following that rationale, I think there's a lot of people in the chat who might say, there's a reason why Jews, and I'm Jewish, just so everybody understands, have been, you know, systematically kicked out of countries time and time again.
	Except you didn't go to a country where you were welcomed and invited in initially, and you were politically allied with.
	That's the difference.
	That'd be like going to Israel and getting Jewish and getting kicked out over and over again.
	You know, these were...
	Countries that were supporting the Palestinian cause that didn't want their, that their political leadership is so bad in Palestine, of the Palestinian movement, that led them to kick them out.
	And it's because they have bad political leadership.
	And they still do.
	Palestinian authorities, notoriously corrupt.
	Arafat was notoriously corrupt.
	And Hamas are a bunch of nutjobs.
	And the left won't deal with this, honestly, because they're so blinded in being anti-Israel and anti-America.
	And it was interesting.
	When I engaged these people, I was like, why do you guys keep falling for events that at least at a minimum are much more different in context than you guys portrayed them?
	And the immediate response was to accuse me of being a Zionist, which I found is funny.
	And the other one was...
	Someone who said, well, I'm from Syria, and Syria was occupied.
	I was like, okay, you're telling me that your bias is motivating you to regurgitate fake news and false flags.
	It doesn't help your cause even, if it's an anti-war cause or a pro-Palestinian cause, to advance fake news and false flags.
	It undermines it.
	I love it, Ron.
	You get accused of being a Zionist, and I'm going to get accused of being an anti-Semite.
	That's the topsy-turvy world in which we live.
	But everybody needs to...
	Read the Gray Lady Winks.
	I'll put a link up afterwards.
	But I want to share this.
	The Muhammad Al-Nur story is shocking.
	I'm going to just read one paragraph from the Wikipedia.
	It's Wikipedia.
	Take it for what it's worth.
	Because it was a fraction of a second of a clip.
	50 seconds of a clip that showed this image right here, which is horrifying and traumatizing.
	So much so that I still remember seeing the video.
	21 years ago.
	Be careful whenever you see this on any side of any conflict because it's designed to be stripped of context.
	It's designed to trigger an emotional response.
	It's designed to trigger a rush to judgment.
	It's designed to trigger collective judgment.
	Some people are asking on our locals board what I mean by collectivize.
	What I mean is like what we're seeing in Russia right now and what we saw here with Israel is that let's say somebody A bad actor did, or what happened in the police, defund the police movement.
	You take one bad actor and you say that's the whole community.
	So what happens with George Floyd, that represents all cops.
	What happened here represents all of Israeli society.
	What's happening in the Russia-Ukraine conflict represents all Russian people.
	And that's a dangerous step that leads to things like the Holocaust.
	You had the Polish Prime Minister this week.
	Saying that the whole Russian world is bad.
	The whole Russian people are bad.
	This is dangerous, dangerous, dangerous place to go.
	And it always screams, false flag, false flag, false flag.
	Learn to use these, even when it's your own side that's accused of, that may be doing it, accused of doing it.
	Use this objective metric.
	And I have found it to be highly predictive.
	Look for these things, be skeptical of them, and immediately don't let them provoke the emotional, irrational response they want you to have.
	And with the Muhammad al-Nur story, bottom line, the initial story that ran by France 2, and reiterated and repeated ad nauseum by New York Times, turned out not to be right.
	Bottom line, it turned out indeterminate but highly unlikely that Israel was actually responsible for the death of this kid in any event.
	Certainly the context was very different in terms of why this occurred in the context of what was going on at the time.
	Grey Lady Winks, everyone has to listen to it.
	This chapter in particular, shocking.
	So we're dealing with another similar situation where, look, I heard the story of the journalist and I say, I'd go with the most likely.
	There's a journalist reporting in...
	An area where there's an active conflict, bullets ricochet off things.
	It could very easily be Israel.
	The question would be, is it Israel engaging in targeted extraditional killings of activist journalists, even if she is an activist, versus if it is Israel, you know, a stray bullet, ricochets, whatever.
	Is it deliberate?
	Is it accidental if Israel did it?
	Whatever it is, Palestinian Authority clearly doesn't have confidence that an inquiry would confirm Israelis' guilt.
	Because they immediately refused and rejected any joint inquiry.
	And the response I got was the kind of stuff that I heard from the UN.
	Well, you can't have Israel anywhere near involved, and somehow it's a joint inquiry with the Palestinian Authority co-equally involved.
	And they couldn't come up with good explanations.
	Even Katelyn Johnston said she didn't have any explanation as to why that was.
	And it's a sign because people are not applying this discipline to their own side that they're on, that there's subjective advocacy.
	Blinds them from reporting objectively.
	And the problem with that is that it...
	Why would I trust anything you say about any place in the world if you'll repeat lies about this?
	It hurts the anti-war cause.
	It hurts the causes they're claiming to be in favor of now.
	I mean, it's why...
	People on the Israeli side are so accustomed to these stories proving to be false flags and staged events that they now ignore it, and they'll ignore it maybe when it's not a false flag, maybe when it's not a staged event because of how many wolf-crying events take place in this conflict.
	Well, speaking of false flags, Robert, and I was listening, when were you on with the Duran where the question was, you know, the only way to draw...
	The US into direct conflict with Russia would be to have an event on American soil or involving American interests.
	And you couldn't foresee or you had trouble envisioning what would be, if you're going to set up that false flag to justify that so you can get involved in an international conflict, what it would be.
	And I was in the chat and I was suggesting, like, if I'm writing the book, I have not read John Le Carré.
	I haven't even listened to him on audio.
	But if I'm thinking about it, I can easily think of cyber attacks.
	On nuclear facilities on the U.S. soil and then blame it on the Russians or, you know, if that's what you want to do.
	I think, you know, I put it to a poll on the board at vivobarneslaw.locals.com, which was number one.
	Thought was that some staged event at a NATO facility that had American troops.
	But number two was that.
	Some infrastructure attack in the U.S. that's blamed on Russia as grounds to get further militarily involved in that conflict.
	They spent $40 billion they're going to send over there if the Senate passes it.
	To his credit, Senator Rand Paul said, well, maybe before we pass this, could we have somebody make sure the money goes where it's supposed to?
	Because what the Washington Post reported this week is what...
	We talked about what I talked about with the Duran months ago, which was everything.
	And what we talked about last Wednesday with Michael Tracy, who it comes from sort of the left anti-war perspective.
	But he, for example, does very diligent journalism.
	He tries to confirm actual facts before he runs a story.
	And if the facts rebut his assumptions, he'll report that even if it rebuts his assumptions.
	And that's why I like his reporting and value his reporting, even though his politics are quite different from my own.
	He went over to Poland.
	And saw what was happening.
	And it was like everything that was happening was clearly designed to enable arms trafficking and money laundering.
	And what does the Washington Post report this week that CNN reported last week?
	We have no idea where the money or the arms are going.
	That we're losing track of it and that people are concerned that it all ends up in the hands of arms traffickers in places around the globe.
	So now you get the media catching up a little late.
	So what we were reporting months ago, but it's likely continuing to occur.
	So it's, you know, the world continues to be an interesting place.
	On the red pill side or the white pill side, both the courts in India and in Italy found that various vaccine mandates violated the civil liberties and civil rights of the populations in their respective countries.
	So that was a good sign.
	Even though, I guess, Canada went kind of the other way.
	Yeah, you know what?
	Hold on.
	I have to bring that up because it's so shocking.
	Robert, you sent me my homework.
	Looks like things, you know, the courts in the U.S., they may be biased, they may be broken to some extent, but at the end of the day, they still seem to work a little better than Canada.
	I have to be respectful to the courts even when I think the decisions are egregiously over-the-top, unconstitutional, unscientific, and...
	My goodness.
	But McMaster University, it's a great university in Canada.
	We used to play squash against McMasters all the time.
	They had a good squash team.
	Four students were denied religious exemptions for vaccine requirements for the university.
	Because the university, following the science, following the mandates, was imposing vaccine mandates on its students.
	Four students who are devout Christians, even by the judgment itself, said, no, you may not like their explanation.
	They believe it's the mark of the beast.
	I appreciate what that means metaphorically, but I don't take it literally.
	They think it's a violation of their God-given rights.
	It's a violation of their religious rights that God created the body and made it to function properly, such that you don't need this, and if they don't want it, they don't get it.
	The university said, no, we believe that you're...
	Alleged religious exemptions are actually just political excuses to get out of the requirement.
	And the court said, we concur.
	We believe the university did what it needed to do to be reasonably accommodating.
	The process itself was fair.
	And that we believe, essentially, that these students were invoking their religious beliefs as a pretext for their political convictions.
	To which I'm reading this and I'm saying...
	There's a very fine line, if any, between religion and politics in the first place.
	Yeah, it's a political statement because it's a religious one.
	And you don't want someone's politics trumping your religion.
	Obviously, it's going to be both religious and both political.
	And they said, no, no mas.
	Even though, by the way, at the time the decision was rendered, McMaster's had withdrawn the vaccine passport, the vaccine requirement for students.
	It's upside down in Canada, and it's not getting better.
	But give us a little white pill.
	It seems to be getting better in the United States and India, of all places.
	Yes, so yeah, both Italy and India had courts that struck it down in some capacity.
	The additional suits have been filed on behalf of the Air Force in the United States because it turns out the records show that the chaplains were recognizing these as legitimate religious objections of members of the Air Force.
	The commanders and others were unilaterally...
	We're systematically denying all religious objections completely.
	And it turned out it was because the Biden administration had ordered them to, to deny all religious objections, period.
	This is now detailed in a civil suit that has been brought or added.
	It's a motion to intervene to add additional plaintiffs with these additional facts.
	So that shows the degree to which the Biden administration has deliberately flagrantly violated the rights, the religious rights, the rights of conscience of their own members of the military.
	I think that kind of activity is an impeachable activity because it's the abuse of presidential power that doesn't have immediate legal that cannot be cured by an election because these people's rights are being violated as we speak.
	We'll see.
	So far, most of the military has won aspects of their suits that these violates the laws.
	Kavanaugh was the one who stepped in and didn't allow it to extend to certain aspects of military service, but ultimately it looks like all the veterans will ultimately win their, the military members will win their suits.
	Now, in another case, one of the first suits has been brought for the denial of a kidney transplant to a minor child based on them not getting vaccinated.
	It turns out that the...
	The federal system that monitors and manages this does not require a vaccine as a condition of a transplant, but local hospitals are doing so.
	These hospitals are violating, these hospitals are public accommodations under federal law.
	They've been determined so in the employment context, no reason why they would not also be in the context of patients.
	So they are being sued, and usually state law has an analog provision.
	So a federal civil rights suit has been brought against that hospital on the denial of the kidney transplant that's at a time-exigent basis.
	Hopefully more suits will follow, and hopefully courts do something about this.
	We'll see.
	We'll find out whether American courts will step up and protect these people's lives who are put needlessly at risk by the politics of these various hospitals and staffs.
	Another update is that the FOIA Freedom of Information Act Information continues to come out about Pfizer in particular concerning the...
	What's the latest?
	People are repeating a certain 12% figure.
	So, I mean, some of that you can argue.
	It's an interpretation of the data.
	Alex Berenson didn't agree with that interpretation as an example.
	And he's someone who's mandate skeptical, though he's also gleefully pro-war.
	You know, anti-ivermectin, a lot of other things.
	So, you know, outside of the vaccine context, he disagrees with most of his audience, actually.
	But what is definitely there is a lot of information that raises serious questions about how the FDA determined that this was either safe or effective, because it appears they did not do a meaningful review of a deep dive of the data, which appeared to refute a lot of public statements that were made.
	That corresponds to the whistleblower case that I have.
	That's what she detailed.
	Against Pfizer, all the way back when the suit was filed, all the way back in 2020, she blew the whistle on this.
	And what the data is showing is the problems she identified in the clinical settings where she was located, clinical testing settings where she was located, appear to be pervasive and prevalent around the world where they were doing this testing.
	There's anomalies showing up all over the place.
	There's data that raises serious questions all over the place as to safety and efficacy.
	And that's combined with the most recent data coming out of the UK and other places about issues with the safety and efficacy of this vaccine as to Omicron.
	And then this week, I'll have a hearing on behalf of the Children's Health Defense against the FDA.
	We're challenging their emergency use authorization of the vaccine for children between the ages of 5 and 11. The court has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday in Texas in Waco.
	As to whether or not the motion to dismiss filed by the FDA will be granted.
	The FDA's position is that as long as they use the magic words emergency, that they are immune from the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act.
	They are immune from notice and comment requirements.
	They are immune from citizen petition requirements.
	They are immune from judicial review.
	And they are immune from civil suit.
	That as long as they say what they're doing, even if it's the redefinition of the word vaccine, even if it's the marketing and labeling of a drug, things that would appear to be outside of emergency use authorization by its express terms, they claim that makes them, nobody can sue them.
	Nobody has standing to sue.
	The courts can't review.
	We're challenging that.
	Now, we're trying to establish new precedent, but also this emergency use power authority is being used in an unprecedented way.
	Their other argument is a circular argument.
	It's, we don't mandate it.
	We just create, we just authorize it.
	And somebody else mandates it.
	Of course, what do the mandators say?
	Well, we're not the ones determining it's safe and effective and good for you.
	The FDA is.
	So they play this game where you can't sue either side.
	They've designed it deliberately, in my view, to do so.
	So we'll see whether courts will step up to the plate, exercise judicial review or not.
	Most people think it'll be very difficult for a court to hold the FDA accountable in this context.
	We'll find out.
	Whatever happens in the ruling, either side will probably appeal.
	So it'll probably be a while before we get full final resolution.
	But that's where that is.
	And then the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals appeal about the military concerning that authorization of the vaccine is also still pending.
	So all of that, that's the bulk of the updates in the vaccine mandate content.
	I'm going to bring this up because I found at least the section of the decision or the section of the article.
	Meanwhile, in Canada, this is about the exemption that was rejected for the four devout Christian students.
	The exemptions were rejected by the university and the students were unenrolled from their courses until they were vaccinated or the end of the mandate.
	In court, McMaster University's council argued the students were using political objections dressed up as religious argument.
	The university rejected their request because it concluded that the real basis for their objection lies in their personal beliefs.
	What else is religion?
	And that the pandemic is not really a grave public health situation.
	And that the available vaccines have not been proven effective.
	This is the university's position?
	Oh, sorry.
	No, that's what the judge wrote.
	The university rejected their request because it concluded that the real basis for their objection lies in their personal belief that the pandemic is not really a grave public health situation and that the available vaccines have not been proven effective and may have unanticipated adverse consequences, the judge wrote.
	I mean, can you imagine this?
	This is the judge saying it's a person.
	Religion is a personal belief.
	That's the whole issue about it.
	And that they might think?
	That it has adverse consequences, which even Pfizer recognizes, and that they might say...
	But it's a pretext.
	It's a pretext.
	Your deeply held, devout religious Christian beliefs, we think it's a political pretext.
	We're telling you how to celebrate religion, how to be religious in Canada.
	It's nuts.
	I mean, it's only a matter of time before they say, isn't the freedom of religion really a political position?
	Yep.
	And they're going to say also, by the way...
	We don't like your religious beliefs.
	We think it puts your children at risk.
	And now that we've just taken away parental supremacy, we're going to take away your kids because we know what's best for your kids.
	Well, I mean, that's already happening.
	It got litigated in Texas.
	It's being litigated in Wisconsin.
	The issue is the trans debate.
	And so some of the sciences kind of look like trans science, but that's another story for another day.
	But in terms of the vaccines, but the, you know, say one thing, turns out crying games, surprise, surprise.
	But the nature of this...
	I was wondering where you were going with that, Robert.
	Sorry.
	Thank you.
	In terms of safety and efficacy of these vaccines.
	But in terms of the, and you could say the same of the election fortification, it looks a lot more like election fornication.
	And we'll get to the 2000 mules debate in a little bit.
	It was hot this past week.
	But in Texas, the issue was the attorney general and the governor had issued an order saying that they considered it child abuse to have children involved in these various transmedical procedures.
	There was a suit brought saying that the governor and the attorney general did not have that authority.
	That was still left up to a separate authority by legislative delegation.
	Went up to the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court loosely agreed because they saw it all as premature and they identified that the governor and the attorney general cannot order the child welfare authority one way or the other to investigate this.
	But the Texas Supreme Court, the opinion was a little bit misread.
	It was a procedural decision.
	It was not a substantive decision.
	And it went out of its way to note there's multiple concurrences.
	And the Texas Supreme Court went out of their way to make clear that the authority to investigate by welfare authorities is not the authority to actually do anything.
	That is left up to an intermediary court before it can authorize it because the constitutional right, as you note, of parental supremacy is much at issue.
	That relates to the Wisconsin suit that got filed.
	Because there are schools promoting child transition against parental consent and authority.
	And this is much like there's a proposal in California to be able to inject vaccines into school children without parental consent and authority.
	When D.C. tried that, Bobby Kennedy successfully brought suit to stop that from happening, stop that from going forward.
	By the way, Bobby Kennedy's case against Facebook will be heard this week on Big Tech Censorship on Tuesday morning.
	In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena.
	Will it be live?
	Like we can tune in to hear this?
	I think you will be able to tune in to the Ninth Circuit site and hear it.
	It varies.
	Sometimes they don't upload that until later.
	But sometimes you can hear it live.
	But he successfully sued D.C. because the court found that was a violation of the rights of parental authority over medical decisions.
	That has led to a Wisconsin suit challenging the schools, saying the schools are trying to replace the parent in making key medical decisions for their children.
	And there's another Wisconsin case that concerns whether or not kids can be punished, school students, for not using the preferred gender name of the individual student.
	In other words, now if you're a kid and you refer to someone who is a biologically born boy, but who goes by a girl's name as a boy, You can get punished in the school system.
	So that too is going to lead to legal ramifications and potential lawsuits as well.
	People have to appreciate this.
	E. Clark just asked, can they cancel an adoption?
	In Quebec now, in law, they can basically take a kid out of their biological family if they determine that it's in the child's best interest to do so.
	Trumping parental supremacy.
	And people out there, I've been saying this for a while.
	This is a line in the sand that has been crossed in Quebec.
	It's a line in the sand that they've crossed now, and they're basically saying, if the kid complains, and the government gets its closet, and the administrative state, and their tribunals, their specialty tribunals come in and say, we don't care what the parents want.
	We think this is in the best interest of the kid, and we're trumping parental supremacy.
	It could be gender transitioning.
	It could be vaccination.
	It could be...
	Whatever else is out there.
	It could be, you know, parents won't consent to a marriage.
	It could be a number of things.
	The state now has the final say over kids above and beyond the parents.
	And that's the goal.
	That's the objective.
	That's the risk of these child welfare authorities.
	That's the risk of how school systems govern.
	And we have a president who's encouraged that.
	Says, you know, when the kid goes to school, he's no longer your kid.
	That's not the law.
	That's never been the law.
	And yet, increasingly, they're trying to make it.
	The law.
	And so we will see a lot of litigation surrounding this, a lot of civil rights suits, and it will be a pending issue in a range of legislative reforms and remedies that others will be propounding and proposing.
	What made Jordan Peterson a worldwide name many years ago has almost all come to fruition.
	And I remember at the time, they're all like, oh, he's exaggerating.
	This will never happen.
	They won't have anything like this.
	You won't have forced medical procedures on children at the orders of the state against parental consent or without their knowledge.
	That would never happen.
	Just like they mocked the critics early on and said, oh, these crazy conspiracy theorists that listen to Alex Jones think there's going to be vaccine mandates someday.
	Where in the world do they get that?
	Just go back and read the Washington Post headlines, March of 2020.
	And where are we today?
	So it's frightening and concerning.
	But parental rights are due process rights.
	You could source them in multiple locations.
	You could put them in the First Amendment.
	I believe the Second Amendment is about self-defense, and that can include much broader things than just your personal physical well-being at the moment.
	Fourth Amendment, in terms of that's in part where privacy is protected by the way in which the Fourth Amendment limits what the state can do.
	If they can't search and seize material without probable cause of a crime, what gives them the right to invade any other aspect of privacy when they don't have that?
	Fifth Amendment is the due process of law.
	Sixth Amendment involves right to jury trial and certain fundamental issues.
	Eighth Amendment is a right against excessive bail, which one could argue has certain implicit liberties that it protects.
	And the Ninth and Tenth Amendment are, you know, rights are reserved to the states and the individual that have always been protected.
	So it has always been usually the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is the one most cited as the substantive right of parents governing their children.
	That to me, I would probably source it in some other combination of constitutional provisions, but it is unilaterally, uniformly recognized by courts all across the country that you have a constitutional right of parental governance of a minor child.
	I don't want to presume any intentions of Mike Bruno, but I suspect that for those who say parental rights are not specifically enshrined in the Constitution...
	What you just gave as an answer, Robert, will not satisfy them.
	They'll say, it's not in the Constitution, therefore the government decides what's best for your kid.
	My issue with the parental supremacy is that no parent who should have a parental supremacy decision as what's best for their kid, that's different than what's best for their kid.
	It's not like the parent is going to say, I want to abuse my kid, and I have the authority to do that because I'm the parent.
	There should be parental supremacy.
	Is the same thing as the best interest of the kid?
	Because any reasonable, responsible parent would have those two visions aligned.
	But when the government comes in and says, now, hey, look, we've determined it to be, you sent me the decision, Robert, we've talked about it on the channel.
	The British Columbia Court said misgendering a parent, misgendering their kid for whatever the reason.
	It might be the parent trying to reason with the kid or impart their own...
	Parental supervision, a parent misgendering the kid is tantamount to family violence, which would then allow the courts to intervene in the same way that they would for actual family violence.
	So you'll never convince those who want to believe this, that there's no such thing as parental rights.
	But when the government comes in, anybody who thinks that the government has the best interest of the child in mind more often than the parent is delusional.
	It's the same reason why there's parental responsibilities.
	If you don't think parents have rights, then you don't believe child support laws can be enforced.
	And the question with the government, in America at least, always is don't ask me where the right is.
	Ask me where we gave the state the power to do it.
	Because if we didn't give the state the power to do it, then we reserve that right to us.
	That's how the standard is.
	It's not what did the government give me.
	It's what did I allow the government to have.
	And they ask the wrong question when they reverse it in that order.
	But speaking of Rights and interesting things happening in the political arena.
	The 2000 Mules movie triggered a wide range of responses, including from a range of conservatives like Ben Shapiro, who continue, I think, to misunderstand election law in America.
	And election law does not require for a vote to be the three parameters that I put out all the way back at the beginning.
	For it to be a constitutionally qualified election means that it must be done according to the rules set solely by the legislature of the state in the presidential context, unlike the Senate and other contexts.
	In the presidential context, explicitly, solely, exclusively, the state legislature as the U.S. Constitution dictates.
	They determine the rules by which the president is elected.
	So for it to be a constitutionally qualified election, it means only the people the state legislature authorized to vote can vote.
	It means the method by which they cast a ballot must be by a constitutionally qualified manner, which is the rules set by the state legislature.
	And the way the vote is counted and canvassed must be consistent to the rules of the state legislature to be constitutionally qualified.
	So only constitutionally qualified voters cast a ballot, they cast a ballot in a constitutionally qualified manner, and it's counted and canvassed in a constitutionally qualified manner.
	It does not matter.
	Whether or not what someone's intent was, anywhere in that process.
	If someone was ballot trafficking completely innocently, doesn't matter.
	Ballot doesn't count.
	If somebody thought they were qualified to vote and turns out they weren't, doesn't matter.
	Ballot doesn't count.
	If the ballot was canvassed or counted in a manner that was contrary to the rules, like outside of chain of custody, outside of observation, outside of proper documentation.
	Ballot doesn't count.
	Doesn't matter whether they intended to do anything wrong ever.
	You don't have to prove fraud.
	You don't have to prove it would have been a legal vote if they would have done it differently.
	Or their intent.
	All you have to prove is that that ballot was not cast, counted, canvassed, or was by a person who was constitutionally qualified.
	That's what Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 and Mules raises a serious question about the election in key swing states because people were...
	Placing ballots, he calls them mules, putting ballots in drop boxes when they appear to not be someone authorized to do so under the rules set by the state legislature.
	And thus, those ballots are invalid if they were not cast.
	In other words, the chain of custody was broken in an impermissible manner.
	So a third-party person harvested a ballot.
	He wasn't legally qualified to harvest.
	In that instance, that ballot doesn't count, period.
	Now, people get confused on the remedy.
	The remedy isn't that you assume every one of those ballots is a Biden ballot and thereby assume Trump is the winner.
	Under the presidential system, you have three potential remedies.
	You could have a re-vote That's the normal remedy in non-presidential elections, a re-vote of that election in that state or that jurisdiction.
	The second thing, my belief was that the remedy was always to Congress.
	And there's two ways Congress could resolve it.
	Congress could disqualify the electors.
	I believe the vice president had that power because the vice president had exercised in the past, not necessarily that he should.
	But that he constitutionally had that power, as John Adams and others, they qualified votes, but they exercised power over qualification in so doing, both in 1796 and 1800.
	Then, and you can find those videos at vivabarneslaw.locals.com at the time, contemporaneous to the incident and the issue.
	Or you could, what the 25th Amendment does, it says, if we have a dispute in this context, and what the other parts of the Constitution also provide for.
	Is that you vote by state delegation in the House of Representatives.
	And what I had told the president, President Trump, was that that is the remedy that people should be focused on.
	I don't think courts have a role in this process, other than to make sure that happens.
	Because what we said is, you know what?
	The state should decide the presidency in the case of a contested election.
	Determine it's a contested election because there's more votes in doubt than the margin of victory.
	That's the legal standard.
	That's it.
	More votes in doubt.
	You don't have to prove illegal intent.
	You don't have to prove that voter was an illegal voter.
	All you have to do is that some aspect that was either counted, canvassed, cast, or by someone that was not constitutionally qualified in order to put that ballot aside, and if you aggregate them more than the margin of victory, goes to the House of Representatives and they vote by state delegation.
	Now you can guess.
	Why Democrats never talked about that proposal.
	One, they didn't want meaningful investigation and inquiry about the questionable processes and procedures by which the election fornication took place in 2020.
	And second, if that had gone to state delegation, if you counted up who was a majority within those state delegations, Donald Trump would have been considered the elected winner of 2020 by the House of Representatives, given the political profile of those delegations.
	That's why it never reached that stage.
	Now, part of the reason it also didn't, It's because people got derailed by the Dominion story, which Dinesh D'Souza wisely said that was not a productive path to pursue.
	And as some people have mistakenly believed, there's this meme going around that the Dominion suits against various people have been dismissed.
	No, they have not.
	Just the opposite.
	More suits this week by Dominion.
	The motions to dismiss were denied.
	All of them, as far as I'm aware, or almost all of them, are going forward against everybody into the discovery stage as to what's happening.
	Because the Dominion path was a bit of a patsy path, as it turns out, in my view.
	We'll get back to the Dominion in maybe like two minutes.
	But Robert, the question was this.
	People in attacking 2,000 mules, or the methodology or whatever, they were saying, how do you know that these people were not bringing family member ballots?
	Forget the fact that it was at 3.45 in the morning.
	Forget the fact that, you know, at least in one video, we seem to see an argument between somebody putting the ballots in and somebody who's viewing this.
	How do you know that they don't just have extended family and are doing it for the neighborhood elderly who can't make it to the ballot box or the ballot drop-off?
	Well, I mean, the other thing is, why couldn't the elderly people deliver it to the post office or deliver it to the postman when they come to their door?
	Some of the reasons for suspicion are, why are they using Dropboxes at all?
	There were a lot of questions when they first introduced Dropboxes.
	They're like, hold on a second.
	What does it really do?
	It interrupts the chain of custody from the person who cast the ballot to there by using all of these Dropboxes.
	There's no recording of whether the person who filled out the ballot is the person who delivered it.
	Whereas that can be the case with the postal office, it was guaranteed not to be the case with the drop boxes.
	So that's problem one.
	Problem two is in many of these states, this was the Project Veritas issue with Minnesota, you couldn't do this many number of ballots.
	So some of these people clearly have more than, like sometimes there's two, sometimes there's three.
	And in some of these jurisdictions, you couldn't do it, period.
	There was no third-party delivery allowed legally.
	There were some places there were witness requirements that clearly couldn't have been met.
	So those are the reasons why.
	And I would say 2,000 mules raises reasonable evidentiary inferences that justify further inquiry and investigation.
	The most effective way, we have one measurement that's better than any other.
	For whether or not a ballot is a valid vote.
	And again, you don't have to prove intent to say it's an invalid vote or an illegal vote.
	Matt Brainerd, the head of America, Richard Barris, the people's pundit, have also repeated and reiterated this point because they're involved in these kind of matters on a regular basis.
	And that's a signature match.
	If there had been a meaningful signature, the only meaningful signature match check that was court ordered that ever occurred during the entire election was in Arizona, and the Democrats' own expert found more ballots didn't match in just the sample they looked at than if you projected it out was 10 times the size of the margin of victory in Arizona.
	So what I told the president the very first call was you will know whether they believe the election is on the up and up.
	By whether or not they allow and authorize a signature match check, because that's the easiest way to figure out what this ballot is.
	That still wouldn't make, if they harvested, that still might make an invalid vote.
	But at a minimum, you would know whether the ballot itself was suspect by whether or not the signature match, the confidential voter file that typical people didn't have access to.
	But one reason you would use this mule process...
	Is to launder ballots whose signatures wouldn't match because you're interrupting the chain of custody, and that's how you get it into the system.
	You get it from mass mailing coming to you in the first place, ballots all over the place.
	Then you get it laundered back into the system through the mules, and the key is no signature match check happening, and no signature match check happened in any of these swing states.
	I'm going to bring this chat up, and I'm going to get to a bunch of others that I've starred and we're going to come back to before the show's over.
	Martin says, and this is just a disagreement of fact.
	I'm not trying to put Martin on blast.
	They haven't shown even a single person being near more than one box.
	With 4 million minutes of video, the cell data with no control is worth noting, but a lot of people are hearing what they want to hear, so I guess we're all happy.
	This is where I have a disagreement on fact here.
	And Robert, am I wrong or are we just agreeing with each other?
	The threshold for filtering the data was...
	Individuals who were near 10 boxes in one day and one of those 501c3 get-out-and-vote entities.
	He means that they don't have video, much video, surveillance video of the drop boxes of those people in multiple locations.
	I don't know how much they're able to...
	There's a misunderstanding of cell phone data.
	Now, the two things have been fascinating.
	All these fact checks, suddenly...
	The media says, ah, this geotrafficking, a geolocation of cell phone data is totally hopeless.
	You know, it often is wrong by miles.
	And it's like, what?
	I've seen people convicted.
	On geolocation data.
	That data is, and go back to look at what they said about January 6th people.
	They've been locating them all day.
	They arrested people, got arrest warrants based on that geolocation data.
	So this pretend geolocation data is not like it's the 1980s.
	It's not the 1980s.
	This geolocation data is extremely precise.
	Within a few feet is how precise it was.
	Now, what I don't know is whether the geolocation, whether they got identifying information.
	Typically, when you buy up these geolocation data, you can correspond it.
	You can correspond the same phone number to other geolocation data like the Antifa riots and BLM riots, etc.
	But you often are not given identifying information because that has a whole different legal connotation.
	So they aggregate this data at the NSA.
	This is what's called unmasking.
	They'll see a number, and they're tracking the number and certain information they pull.
	But before they know who that person is, they have to get an unmasking request to line up the number with the person.
	I'm not sure the data that they got, the True the Vote got, actually identified every name with those numbers.
	They're able to say, look, we have an anomaly.
	We have a group of people, about 2,000 or so in these key swing states, that have unusual activity around drop boxes and places that were involved in Get Up the Vote.
	That was very unusual.
	And thus, we can raise the information.
	That's what they have.
	I don't know if they have the evidentiary means to go past that.
	But that's where, again, for everybody out there, if you really believe in the election, why was every election official and every Democratic Party advocate?
	Especially Mark Elias and some others, terrified of a signature match check.
	That's the one question they've never been able to answer me from the very beginning.
	And now I understand the individual saying they got all this data, they said it, but they only showed like three or four video clips in the documentary.
	By the way, if that's the argument, I'll just push back with a little obvious retort.
	One of the elements of the documentary was that a lot of these Dropbox stations didn't have the required 24-7 surveillance that they were supposed to have.
	And so if the argument is, well, that's all the footage they came up with, so it must be bunk, I would maybe retort by saying, if you take that for granted, then you also have to accept that a lot of these Dropboxes did not have 24-7 surveillance, which is itself a big, big problem, and you can draw some negative inferences from.
	But now I understand the point.
	Okay, fine.
	So they had the geolocation data.
	It's not unmasked.
	And all they had was, you know, five video clips of suspicious behavior.
	Okay, we are all seeing what we want to see.
	I just think that it raises a number of sufficiently serious questions.
	Oh, here we go.
	The cell data is worthless if you don't produce a controlled data set from a non-election period that does not show similar movement, basic scientific methods.
	Love you guys, but both...
	But Barnes is drinking the Kool-Aid on this one?
	Okay.
	My understanding is they did do that.
	In other words, what they did is that their metrics was, let's look at the election after the election, before the election.
	They looked at all three time periods, and they said, what would be unusual?
	Unusual, let's see if there is anything unusual that comes from the data.
	And unusual would be traveling in this pattern around all these Dropboxes, being at these Dropboxes, and being at these locations that were NGOs.
	And they put high metrics on it.
	In other words, five visits to an NGO, at least 10 visits to Dropbox, at least multiple times.
	And if you look at the map of some of these, this is where they probably could have done a little more graphic use.
	The map, but just some of the maps they showed.
	You have very unusual travel patterns.
	And my understanding is they did compare it to the rest and said it was an unusual travel pattern compared to the norm.
	I agree from an evidentiary perspective, there's a bunch of levels you would go here.
	To be frank, it would be extremely expensive.
	I mean, just looking at some video surveillance footage, you're talking about 24-7 video surveillance footage over multiple weeks in multiple locations, over 300 just in Georgia.
	So, I mean, if they had active, I mean, this is what I tried to tell you about January 6th.
	I was like, I'm willing to help strategically and tactically, but I cannot ethically take on a client who nowhere, it would take all of my time and I would have to add 10 lawyers to do a competent job for a single January 6th event.
	Because the massive amount of discovery.
	That's what you have times 10 in the election context.
	That's why I always told people.
	Look, cut through all of it.
	Just ask for a signature match check.
	Just give me a sample size.
	Just give me a reasonable sample size and we'll rock and roll.
	Georgia Ratburger promised to do that and at the last minute pulled out.
	He only pulled out after Sidney Powell did her little Dominion speech and he was like, bingo, we're out of trouble now.
	We can have everything focused on Dominion and now the real glaring crime.
	Every great crime needs a great patsy.
	And that's, I think, what happened.
	It may be this Friday.
	I won't be available in June, so I may do the Freeform Friday with Eric Hundley and Mark Robert because Mark Robert has highlighted a general's role that's very interesting in the John Kennett JFK assassination that I was even unaware of.
	I didn't realize certain times.
	But what did Lee Harvey Oswald keep saying?
	I'm a patsy.
	What I said from day one.
	Dominions of Patsy, Dominions of Patsy, Dominions of Patsy.
	It's meant to distract everybody, so the real crime would go uncaught.
	But I think what took place, what D'Souza has done is a very good evidentiary job.
	It can't be perfect.
	It can't be complete.
	There's limitations of resources to do either, but it raises this anomaly should not happen.
	This anomaly should not occur.
	You should not have this many people on videotape unloading a bunch of ballots in states where, for the most part, ballot harvesting was illegal.
	You should not have cell phone data that shows very unusual travel patterns of a large number of people.
	And it's grounds for further inquiry and investigation, but we'll see whether anybody has the guts and courage to do so.
	And I'll say one thing.
	I didn't ban hallelujah.
	So if anyone's saying that, you're mistaken or you are deliberately misinforming.
	I haven't seen a spam from the individual, but I did not ban hallelujah.
	This one, a cell phone location at a maximum is off by 350 feet based off of triangulation that your phone can do.
	You are all carrying a location beacon with you.
	And I want to tell you this.
	My dad got one of those, like, whatever the tag is that you get on a keychain, and you can locate your keys if you forget them.
	And the way it does it is by automatically pinging that to any Apple device will pick up the ping of that thing.
	Without any identifying features, I guess, if we believe that.
	So any phone that is connected to the Apple Cloud will pick up that beacon of that keychain within, I think he said it was 800 feet, which was to allow you to get within 800 feet and then use your own phone to locate it, so that if you lose your keychain, your wallet, whatever, if it's in an area that is trafficked by other people with Apple devices, you will find it.
	We are all carrying location beacons with us.
	Take for granted.
	And take for granted, it's always listening to everything you say.
	When you message your friends, it's reading it.
	Just take that for granted.
	But Robert, so now, that's fascinating.
	I appreciate the back and forth of the argument on the, you know, whatever the evidence means.
	I think it's, you may not, it may not be 1,000% accurate, but it's suspicious enough to warrant inquiry that we will never see.
	Someone had asked, what's being done to prevent this again in 2022, 2024?
	Do you have a good answer that's going to make people feel good?
	Well, what is happening is legislative reforms to limit the number of drop boxes, lawsuits being brought to challenge and limit Zuckerberg's ability to fund all these drop boxes, limit the amount of mail-in balloting and the grounds by which it can occur, limit ballot harvesting legally as to the degree to which it can occur, and maybe most importantly, meaningfully impose signature match checks at every key part of the process.
	If just the signature match process had been done, it would have flagged this.
	It's very hard to fake a lot of people's signatures when you don't know what they signed on their voter card.
	Now, that may have been what some of the hacks that were going on.
	Those hacks were never explained.
	Hacks into voter registration files in Arizona, Georgia, other places in the weeks before the election.
	Never got a full explanation of what that was about.
	But it's not that easy.
	That requires a different level of labor.
	When you get a bunch of ballots, say, at an apartment building, and you just fill them out for everybody, and you're given to somebody to drop off at the Dropbox, that's a pretty easy fraud to commit.
	Or get out the vote operation, as they say in the Democratic side.
	I mean, how did Biden put it?
	We have the best voter fraud organization ever put together.
	Now they've got the best disinformation governance board out there.
	But before we get there, Robert, Dominion.
	The word on the street is that people are suing Dominion.
	Dominion's suing a bunch of people.
	Which way was this going in terms of the lawsuit being dropped?
	Dominion is still getting...
	All Dominion suits are still pending.
	Smartmatic had some suits that were dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds so they could sue elsewhere.
	But Dominion, for some reason, it's like there's this meme going around that Kyle Rittenhouse has sued a bunch of people.
	He hasn't.
	He may at some point, but he hasn't.
	And the other...
	So I often get inquiries.
	Oh, look at this.
	And I'm like, no, that's a fake meme, fake news meme.
	The same is true on the Dominion side.
	Dominion suits were not dismissed.
	The motions to dismiss were denied.
	More of them were denied this week.
	I think on questionable grounds, but c 'est la vie.
	So everybody, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, everybody that's been sued is still in the process of fighting those suits.
	But they will go to discovery and probably trial in all of those cases.
	Colorado, the Colorado suit, motions to dismiss were denied this week.
	Even some places I thought they should have been denied, but c 'est la vie.
	So all the Dominion suits are marching onward, whatever you think about them.
	Anyone out there who got their hopes up that they were dismissed against Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani.
	No, they're going to...
	Is it Patrick Burns?
	Is that his last name?
	Of course those are going to proceed.
	The only question was whether or not Dominion would succeed on their motions to dismiss these lawsuits against them.
	I have no update on those.
	I don't know what they're going to discover in Discovery.
	I think Giuliani and Sidney Powell have been pretty vocal.
	I don't think there's going to be any smoking gun of them knowing what they're saying is idiotic.
	If you had to hypothesize or pontificate, Robert, what would be the most damning things that they might discover in, let's just say, in discovery with Giuliani or Sidney Powell?
	Well, I mean, the most problematic aspects were very specific factual statements made that will likely not have supporting ground.
	I mean, some of us were telling them at the time.
	They were mixing up Dominion and Smartmatic.
	They were mixing it up in other capacities.
	They were getting basic things.
	There were no secret German servers.
	There weren't secret paper ballots in China that they were funneling.
	Those were not useful, productive.
	There weren't secret numbering that Trump had ordered on every ballot so they could track and trade.
	None of that.
	And then they made very specific statements about ownership.
	They made very specific statements about prior involvement in other elections.
	Unfortunately, what will probably happen is they won't have the evidentiary substantiation for why they said what they said.
	So they're probably all going to ultimately face often hostile jury pools in New York or D.C., which will be problematic.
	Now, we'll see how fair D.C. juries can be.
	So far, they've been utterly a joke in the Roger Stone case.
	They're an utter joke in the January 6th cases.
	But now the shoe's on the other foot.
	Because Sussman is going to trial in the Durham case.
	There's some people that are still optimistic, this is a Spygate case, that that will result in further prosecutions.
	They should pay attention to the statute of limitations because they're all expiring.
	A lot of them are expiring, put it that way.
	I am still not optimistic that that will go beyond the Sussman case itself.
	But like, for example, the Sussman wants...
	The prosecutor to not be referred to as the government, but to be referred to as a special prosecutor.
	Why?
	Because you have a bunch of pro-government jurors that will be on the Sussman side because it's anti-Trump, is their hope.
	It's Sussman, to me, is dead to rights.
	Now, the judge this week let Hillary Clinton off the hook in certain discovery items, certain emails, some other items that was news, and that led to people pointing out that the judge's wife is related to the counsel, I think was the counsel.
	For Lisa Page, who was involved in a lot of this government corruption and collusion.
	But welcome to D.C., where it's a small world and all the wrong people have the connections.
	Well, let's back it up one step because there's the curse of knowledge, Robert.
	What's going on with Sussman for people watching who might not know?
	Who is Sussman?
	What's he accused of?
	And what is going on?
	So he's a Perkins co-lawyer.
	And the entire Spygate operation involving Trump to push the false Russiagate narrative involving Trump was laundered through an investigation, was laundered through a law firm.
	And I said so at the time.
	It was disguised as legal fees when really it was opposition research and a defamation campaign against Trump.
	And that led to the bogus Mueller inquiry, which is kind of nuts that that was even involved.
	But the net effect of all of that was that that's how Russiagate got going, and one of the key middlemen throughout this were lawyers at Perkins Co.
	who were billing things as legal services that clearly were not legal services.
	They liked to launder lots of things, and Hillary Clinton might have known something about that from her days at the Rose Law Firm.
	But that's a story for a hush-hush that's forthcoming this week.
	One's already up on the death of Ron Brown and another one forthcoming on the death of Vince Foster.
	So Sussman was one of the key lawyers at Perkins Co.
	who used his relationships and ties to high-ranking members of the FBI to help launder this information and bogus information and disguise it as being, oh, I...
	Come across some shocking news, and I'm here as a whistleblower to tell you, shocking news, Trump has done a secret deal with Russia, he's secret pals with Putin, and they're conspiring to steal the election.
	And what he lied about was, he lied about the fact that he was working for the Clinton campaign.
	Now, Durham has tried to pretend that the entire FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ apparatus were deceived by the evil Clinton campaign and just didn't know that this was the Clinton campaign behind it all.
	The reality is, if you dig in, they all knew.
	They were co-conspirators, co-complicit.
	But Durham is doing what he does well.
	It's what he did in the CIA renditions case and interrogation case.
	It's what he did to a large degree to people's unawareness in the Whitey Bulger case.
	It's who he cleared and protected, a certain man by the name of Robert Mueller, who managed not to suffer any adverse consequences for his time when he was there in Boston and Whitey Bulger was there at the same time.
	And so that, and Whitey Bulger got his own Epstein treatment when he was in, as soon as they finally found him.
	He was right next to me, living near me in Santa Monica, which is amazing, but that's another story for another day.
	So Sussman is the, Durham's thesis is the Clinton campaign used key conduits to deceive our law enforcement apparatus into a bogus inquiry based on false information, and he lied about the fact that he was working for the Clinton campaign.
	So it's a false statement.
	I think Durham thought Sussman would plead because he's clearly guilty.
	He's got him dead to rights in terms of written and verbal and other communication.
	Sussman has refused to because he knows the whole story and figures Durham's not really willing to go to the whole story.
	And so a bunch of stuff has come out during these...
	Evidentiary disputes and attorney-client alleged file disputes, discovery and subpoena disputes on the eve of trial that tell this bigger, broader story that I don't think Durham planned on telling but for Sussman refusing to cut a Clinesmith-style deal where he would just get probation and be relicensed within a year.
	Sussman is...
	Forcing the case to go to trial, that may force Durham's hand in exposing the scale and scope of Spygate and how much it implicates the Clinton campaign.
	But some things happened this week where the judge appeared to help limit exposure to Hillary Clinton individually, and that led to people pointing out why is a judge presiding over this case that may have relations through his wife to some of the parties that could be implicated by the scandal.
	And for those in the chat who don't get the joke, sus is what the children refer to as suspicious and man being man.
	So the guy's name is literally Suspicious Man.
	My daughter picked up that.
	Still not as bad as Attorney Rottenborn.
	Rottenborn is pretty bad.
	But my kid's like, the guy's name is Sussman?
	I went to school with a Sussman.
	It's a normal name for me, but first time you hear it when you're used to sus.
	So when does he go to trial, Robert?
	Very soon.
	Very soon.
	So the trial's coming up.
	I think it starts within two weeks.
	I may be wrong, but I know it's coming up because all these rulings have been made in anticipation of it.
	Okay.
	And this is in federal court, so we will not be soon?
	Yeah, in the District of Columbia, so there'll be no videotape, no broadcast.
	Bullcrap.
	All right.
	That's actually quite funny.
	But for the fact that Sussman didn't plead and get a one-year probation, whatever it is, he's going to go to trial.
	And the question is, is Durham finally going to do his job?
	And how much else might get exposed?
	Can a D.C. jury in a Trump-related case impose a fair verdict that follows the evidence rather than their politics?
	And will Durham do anything else with it?
	There's people who hope there'll be a superseding indictment or an indictment over conspiracy or a bunch of other people.
	I will believe it when I see it when it comes to Durham.
	My skepticism so far has been, unfortunately, on the correct side so far.
	Yeah, so the chat's saying it starts tomorrow.
	Well, look, I'm sorry.
	Tomorrow, Robert...
	It's mid-May, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's late May now, dude.
	When I saw the hearing scheduled for May 17th in the FDA case, I was like, oh, that's a week or so away.
	And I was like, hold on a second.
	No, that's Tuesday.
	Well, tomorrow we're going to be, you know, I think we're going to be live streaming.
	Well, there's another case.
	Yeah, we will be doing a breakdown of the cross-examination live of Amber Heard.
	It's going to be.
	And the way we'll do it is we'll stop at key points, comment on it.
	So if you want to see it uninterrupted, you can in the sense that we won't be interrupting it while she's testifying, but we will pause during her testimony to give our live analysis of the quality of the cross-examination.
	A lot of people, I see it as you can completely care less about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
	The utility to it is let's see a live cross-examination.
	The body language panel had a field day with Amber Heard, just her direct examination.
	They've done a breakdown.
	You can watch the behavior panel.
	They were not too kind.
	In fact, they said some of the same things that we were saying live during her direct examination about unusual body language.
	If you want to get a mini class and cross-examination, you will get it from us tomorrow.
	Live with Amber Heard, though Viva might be a little live before I do because it depends on when they start.
	There's a wake-up time.
	But it should be fun.
	It's going to be fun.
	It's going to be fascinating.
	And when they get into Cross, it's going to be devastating.
	And everybody else in LawTube says, hey, nobody wants to cannibalize anybody else.
	Yes, I want to cannibalize everybody else.
	Oh, no.
	I want to cannibalize law and crime.
	You got 500,000 people watching law.
	And NBC and these other lame stream media.
	You know what law and crime is doing?
	They're rebroadcasting replays of the trial, and they've got 10,000 people watching it.
	I mean, that's nuts.
	That is not value-added.
	So I'm going to go into the chat of Law& Crime.
	If I have to put in a $50 Super Chat and let people know what's going on on YouTube, Viva Fry, we'll do it, Robert.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Okay, so side note.
	I didn't know what's going on with this trial on TikTok.
	And my kid, one of my...
	She's not even the oldest one.
	The middle kid is sending me Amber Heard TikToks where she's talking about her dog stepping on a bee.
	And then she goes, my dog, we were walking, my dog stepped on a bee.
	And the stuff, the humorous stuff that is being generated on TikTok, it's...
	The internet's good for aggregate knowledge and...
	Remorseless humor.
	So tomorrow we're going to be live doing that.
	And during lunch break we'll talk about other meaningful stuff.
	Okay.
	Sussman's going to trial tomorrow.
	So...
	But there will be reporters allowed in from what I'm seeing in the chat, I think.
	Yes, yes, they always do.
	There's a right of public access.
	And they may broadcast it to other, if there's a media overflow interest, they'll broadcast it to other rooms within the courthouse, just not to anyone else.
	So there'll probably be some people live tweeting about it.
	I think Julie Kelly might be there.
	I don't know if she's going to be there on this.
	She's been one of the best followers on January 6th cases.
	Darren Beatty, I don't know if he's going to be there.
	We interviewed him a couple of weeks back.
	This week we'll have one of the original...
	Larry Sanger, it might be either next week or Thursday.
	There might be some scheduling issue for Wednesday, but co-founder...
	A week from Wednesday we'll have the one and the only, the inimitable Tom Woods.
	And then I'll be off for a couple of weeks to take a break.
	Since I had a trial canceled for me.
	So that will be kind of interesting and fun as well.
	Now, by the way, I just noticed we surpassed 10,000 live viewers a while back.
	12,630.
	If you're inclined, hit the thumbs up button and drop a comment now just to make the chat go absolutely wild.
	Let me get a few super chats, Robert, actually, because I've been flagging a bunch.
	Flagging is in starring to come back to.
	Are there any steps being taken to...
	We've got this to repeat the election issue.
	What was your answer, Robert?
	Yes.
	Okay, good.
	Can we have a link to the...
	Can we have link to a video of the broader context of that Palestinian funeral, please?
	I was trying to look for it today because I just saw the story on Twitter.
	I'll find it.
	I'll try to post it.
	But stay tuned, Rolf.
	I think even the Washington Post actually did a breakdown that was different than the original media narrative.
	It's terrible because you know there's more content.
	It might not change anything.
	There's no good way to spin that PR to see Israeli forces batoning people at a funeral.
	The question is going to be, are they running around with a casket?
	Using it as a shield.
	And that they hijacked it as part of the project.
	Just the things that ask you to believe an entire group of people are irrationally evil are generally not going to be accurate.
	Even evil people don't act irrationally.
	So that's one of the signs of a false flag.
	I put up a signs of false flag on our VivoBarnesLaw.locals.com board this past week.
	That a lot of people value.
	And I just think it's a very useful tool to how to process it.
	Just be aware of anything that asks you to respond, to rush to judgment emotionally based on a clip.
	That's almost always not going to be a good decision you make.
	It'll be a Nicholas Sandman.
	The clip might be authentic.
	It just might be...
	That's how I knew that was fake from day one.
	As soon as I put up, I was like, they're in D.C.?
	And a bunch of MAGA guys went to D.C. to harass liberals?
	I don't think so.
	And I knew it was connected to the pro-life thing, and then I have a sense of what kind of kids go there, and then I have a sense of the kind of people that troll them, and I was like, I bet that's fake right away.
	Only the suckers on some of the right-wing media took the bait initially, but I was not one of them.
	I'll get to this question here.
	It was, Robert, would it be legal for POTUS to issue an executive order directing the IRS to disregard wages and salaries as income for purposes of taxation?
	Or would it require an act of Congress?
	Probably an act of Congress.
	I mean, in my view, a courageous court could just say that until you clearly define income, nothing's taxed, which is our Anglo-Saxon American legal tradition, common law legal tradition, constitutional legal tradition.
	Yes, that's right.
	Not in the Constitution, reserved to the states and reserved to the people, which means it's not reserved to the government.
	We got cell phone location is not off by miles when the signal is good.
	It is usually pretty good in cities.
	Anyone that has ever used Google Maps for direction...
	Oh, dude.
	Google Maps is...
	It's used in criminal cases all the time.
	I mean, so that's when I started...
	It's like the media is reaching when this is their argument against 2,000 mules.
	And again, credit to...
	To Dinesh D'Souza for doing the film, because there will be a lot of pressure within the conservative world for him, in the institutional conservative world, for him not to cover this topic.
	Okay, I got all the starred super chats that I wanted to.
	Robert, what were some of the other interesting suits that we had to discuss?
	Great Ninth Circuit ruling.
	This is similar to a case we've discussed before, which is about this, with states trying to ban.
	Remember, this was the Fourth Circuit case where they said, yes, you cannot ban the Constitution.
	Second Amendment right extends to 18-year-olds' right to buy means of self-defense guns.
	And then it got thrown out on procedural grounds of the person turned too old and they decided to do, in my view, a bogus standing excuse to weasel out of it.
	Well, the Ninth Circuit has ruled on California's ban on people under 21 from buying certain guns and has said, yes, it violates the Second Amendment and is patently unconstitutional.
	So that was a very good ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	There's more lawyers that are challenging judges in vaccine mandate cases.
	By looking at whether the judge will list and disclose stock holdings in Pfizer or Moderna.
	And that is going to be under, and there's emotions to disqualify in certain cases.
	So we'll see how judges handle that.
	But that might be something for people to pay attention to, whether or not such a conflict might exist in such a case.
	The judge might not even flag it themselves initially.
	They may think, you know, you're suing, say, a university or city government.
	I don't have a conflict there.
	But if it implicates the value of the underlying stock from the vaccine manufacturer or distributor, that may lead to them having a conflict of interest in the case and being grounds for recusal.
	That's something everyone should look into in their cases.
	And that's part of that entire process.
	So that was another one of the cases from this week.
	All right, awesome.
	There was one rumble rant that I meant to get to.
	Let me just refresh and see if there's any more.
	There was one motion to disqualify a judge, Robert, that you sent me, which is interesting, but give me one second.
	It is Hamartix.
	So what's going on with Pfizer's site 1231?
	Amazing data, way too amazing, linked to the primary author of the released paper to My The Corruption.
	Yeah, all of the things highlighted by the whistleblower in my Ketan case against Pfizer have been showing up in these FOIA disclosures.
	The same anomalies, the same questionable evidence, the same...
	Dubious information, the same risk issues being present.
	So we're seeing that what she described as being a pattern for Pfizer was not isolated, as some people try to claim, to just those locations in Texas where she was at.
	We're seeing more evidence of it elsewhere.
	And yeah, definitely recommend Robert for his...
	I can't pronounce...
	I'm going to screw up pronouncing his last name.
	Well, it's Govea, but now I forget his last name before he changed it.
	I think he changed it to his mom's last name.
	It was Gruller watching the Rogers.
	Gruller was easier than Gouveia.
	But yeah, he's doing a great job breaking down everything related on the Sussman case.
	So if you want a continuous follow-up on that, his channel would be the best channel to go to.
	And yeah, someone said, who's Ian Runkle?
	Runkle of the Bailey, another Canadian lawyer who specializes in firearms rights.
	The OJ trial is over.
	Robert Barnes and I have been talking about having the OJ special because Robert thinks OJ was either innocent or at the very least guilty.
	Not guilty beyond a reasonable of a doubt.
	Not guilty legally speaking.
	We're going to do it.
	We are going to do it one day.
	There might just be a good event where we do it.
	Maybe we can even do it in person, Robert.
	We'll see.
	Okay, by the way, just so everybody knows, I did not block Hallelujah because she's here right now.
	I can't, you know, I'm sorry, I'm done.
	I've given you enough, you tricked me.
	Sorry, we're done.
	Godfather or Goodfellas?
	I say Godfather.
	Robert?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Godfather, definitely.
	Yeah, there's a Godfather-style trial that's going to be happening soon in LA involving major systemic corruption.
	That just reveals how L.A. is continuously part of that corruption that is another case worthy of following to understand the way big city corruption happens.
	What's interesting is how much the media has not really covered that story because, of course, it implicates various Democratic officeholders in particular, unsurprisingly.
	I'm going to put up River Table.
	I could not pin their comment.
	I'll go get that in a second.
	When Robert answers this question so I can distract myself.
	I'll just say one thing.
	I picked Godfather over Goodfellas.
	Goodfellas gave me nightmares.
	And I just re-watched it recently.
	It's truly a horrific movie.
	There's nothing good or entertaining about the violence.
	It's just awful violence of the worst kind that leaves you feeling dirty and sad afterwards.
	Godfather was just...
	It was beautiful.
	But Goodfellas is a classic movie.
	No doubt about that at all.
	Let me see here.
	Can we...
	Can you give a white pill to a poor Canadian?
	I know there is hope in the U.S., but what about Canada?
	I'm having trouble.
	I'm having trouble these days.
	I cannot even lie.
	Maybe you can escape somehow.
	You can always vote with your dollar.
	Captain Mike Hamilton on our board did a meme of Viva escaping from Canada based on the...
	I think it was either Escape from New York or Escape from L.A. used that, which was a good meme to be made.
	Goodfellas is a great movie.
	It gave me nightmares.
	Even as an adult.
	One of my earliest horrific nightmares was Joe Pesci cutting someone in half with a chainsaw.
	I saw it after watching that movie.
	That was a traumatic nightmare that I had.
	A little white pill.
	Eric Juhem, Conservative Party leader out of Quebec, is pushing back a little bit.
	I like him.
	I had him on a week or two ago.
	He's pushing back.
	People are starting to get wise.
	The white pill?
	Masks are no longer mandatory in Quebec.
	Overnight, just like that, Friday night, boom.
	Cinderella changed back into peasant clothing.
	We can now go into stores without a mask.
	And it's not dangerous now.
	It's amazing how science changes.
	So there's some white pills.
	Canada, it needs to change quickly.
	Yep.
	There was some controversy over Senate candidate Kathy Barnett.
	Much of that controversy, I think, has been misdirected.
	She produced evidence that substantiated her military service, as well as her professorial service.
	It's because she's a non-professional politician that she's being targeted, and she's surging in the polls in Pennsylvania, and so that has a lot of institutional actors a little bit nervous.
	Just sort of like brief clip news.
	Lilium Jet was one of these, you know, promisers of magic electric energy for jets and airlines.
	They've been sued because it turned out they faked, apparently, according to the class action shareholder suit, faked a lot of the data.
	So it turned out, you know, not a big surprise.
	There were some people at the time that were saying, this sounds like a little bit too good to be true.
	It was kind of like the Hyperloop stories and things like that.
	And so that has led to suits.
	And Elon Musk's Twitter sale may be on hold because it may turn out that there's a lot more bots on Twitter than Twitter has admitted and acknowledged.
	And the reason why that's consequential is it may mean that all of the big social media giants that have made their money on advertising, Facebook already faces a big class action for lying about how many people they reach.
	The question is, were all of them engaged in mass fraud on the business community?
	By saying that they were reaching a whole bunch of people when they knew that a large percentage or some substantial percentage of those people that would have changed the pricing for the advertising were, in fact, fake bot accounts.
	And that is now holding up the Musk purchase of Twitter as well.
	And now, I mean, I talked about this, I think it was Friday night, right before Bourbon with Barnes, actually.
	And so I said, you know, if Elon Musk buys the...
	If he buys the shares of the company, he's buying a potential class action lawsuit if it's in fact true.
	I feel stupid for not even suggesting it at the time, but there would be a way nonetheless for Elon to structure this purchase where he wouldn't necessarily buy the exposure to a lawsuit.
	He wouldn't be liable, but Twitter still could be.
	Twitter would be if he buys the shares in the company.
	He's buying all of the assets and liabilities, one of which Would be a potential massive class action lawsuit.
	If he buys the assets...
	But he would...
	I mean, he would still be protected by the corporate shell.
	He wouldn't personally be liable for the liabilities of Twitter.
	The assets of Twitter would be liable for the...
	Yeah, but he just bought those assets for $44 billion.
	I'm just thinking of a way where he can structure the deal, where he can buy...
	What's valuable of Twitter.
	Pretty hard.
	Here's 44 billion to the company.
	Usually they describe that as illegal structuring.
	I'm not saying I haven't heard of that happening before, but illegally it's tough to do.
	If it's in fact true that Twitter has been misreporting for upwards of a decade.
	Downplaying and knowingly so because you don't not know these things or you tinker with definitions to get the number to your threshold.
	If they've been doing it for 10 years, there's a massive class action lawsuit that Elon might have just exposed or if he buys the company that he buys into.
	Expose all the big tech with it because according to someone who published a report on our Locals board, AJ Cook at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	This actually, people who investigate further will find this is systemic throughout the big tech industry.
	That they have been engaged in basically massive advertising fraud for decades and knew it.
	That they knew that, and that's the reason why they've been trying to keep a lid on it.
	That in fact, a lot of the accounts that supposedly are being reached are not real people at all.
	And they knew it all along.
	Okay, fantastic.
	There was one decision.
	It was interesting that you sent me, which was a motion to disqualify a judge.
	Now I forget the context of the lawsuit.
	That was the Pfizer stock one.
	Okay.
	To disqualify a judge, Robert, first of all, it's the judge who decides whether or not they disqualify themselves.
	In the federal system, in the state system, a lot of states have better rules.
	Federal system, there isn't.
	The judge themselves gets to decide whether they have a conflict of interest or will be perceived as such.
	And what I've always said is the very judge you would want is the kind of judge who will recuse himself, the conscientious judge that takes all that seriously.
	The judge you don't want is the judge who will never recuse himself because he's so conflicted he can be corrupted.
	Now, on good news, a white pill out of the Fifth Circuit, the laws that require big tech to do certain things that have been passed by the state of Texas had been enjoined at the district court level for violating Section 230 and other aspects.
	The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that.
	It didn't give any detail in the opinion that I saw.
	I just saw it said that injunction is...
	It's taken away pending Fifth Circuit review, but it means that law is immediately enforceable against big tech in Texas.
	So that was a promising sign from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the big tech context.
	And then, of course, Bobby Kennedy's oral argument Tuesday before the Ninth Circuit.
	We'll see whether the Ninth Circuit's serious about this collusion that's taking place between big media and big tech as revealed in things like the Disinformation Governance Board.
	I know I'm beginning to think Ingsoc is not a parody account and seems to be actual serious.
	Ingsoc, don't do this again.
	Otherwise, you'll be blocked for spam.
	That will be it.
	I thought you were a parody account.
	It looks like I'm an idiot.
	My sarcasm detector, Robert, has been really, really bad these days.
	So could Elon have been recruited to buy Twitter, then drop the bot info, bow out to destroy Twitter?
	He'll lose.
	He'll lose.
	He would be an agreed show.
	He has to pay a billion bucks if he backs out of the deal.
	But whether or not he has to, it appears that Twitter was trying to claim he violated the NDA as part of the...
	Due diligence to do the purchase because he even talked about the bot issue.
	So it's clearly something that they're sensitive to.
	It's not clear that he did violate the NDA in that context.
	And whether he would have to pay the billion dollars if it turns out they've been lying to the world all this time about that.
	He could be one of the lead class action plaintiffs on that.
	That's exactly...
	He just...
	If he bought...
	What did he have now?
	He's got $4 billion worth of stock.
	If he loses...
	Whatever he loses based on that purchase when he bought it not knowing that they were lying about...
	Bot accounts?
	He becomes the chief plaintiff.
	My goodness, that might be 5D level chess.
	Buy it.
	Try to buy the company.
	Expose it.
	Lose your investment on the stock and then sue them.
	Okay.
	Or maybe get it for a quarter of the price.
	Oh boy, that's going to be amazing.
	What do we got here?
	Corporations pay tech companies for consumer data to shape strategy so a popular woke strategy leads companies to bankruptcy.
	Big tech is lying about the data to influence companies and politicians.
	I think we agree with that.
	Robert, what else do we have?
	We've done good.
	Yeah, I think that covers it.
	We'll cover some other cases.
	There's a bunch of immigration suits pending.
	People that are illegally present are suing the state of Texas on the grounds that the state of Texas can't enforce federal law and a bunch of other alleged violations for trying to prevent illegal immigration.
	A bunch of states are suing the Biden administration over multiple aspects of the immigration laws.
	Those cases are still moving through the courts.
	As developments occur, we'll report on them.
	And then there's a range of little interesting cases, but those can be, you know, like how laws work, whether you can arrest and when you can arrest a ship and things like that that we'll discuss in future episodes.
	Okay, so we're going to go live tomorrow, Robert.
	I'll go live early.
	I mean, I'm going to go live at 9.30 or 10 o 'clock, depending on when it starts.
	We're going to go the whole day.
	If you have to run solo while I go pick up a kid, we might have to do that again.
	It's going to be amazing.
	And people, it's not a distraction.
	This is going to be...
	This is going to be the new thing.
	It'll be a class in cross-examination.
	If I was teaching a class in cross-examination, I would use an actual case to do so.
	So people get a free class in cross-examination using the HERD trial.
	So you don't have to have any interest in it, but that she's an interesting person from a cross-examination perspective because a lot of people believe she should be exposed live on the stand.
	I believe it's much harder than people think it is.
	And so it'll be interesting to watch and witness and partake in.
	And people will get a very good public education.
	If you just have a prurient interest in Amber Heard, you can watch for that reason too.
	But if you want a crash class, master class in cross-examination, that's what we will provide you tomorrow.
	All right.
	And we will be doing it.
	And if you want the quieter, real-time analysis, Legal Bytes, Emily D. Baker, Nate Brody, Joe Nierman from Good Logic, Uncivil Law, Kurt, you got so many now.
	You have a bunch of other people that will provide less quality analysis.
	Just kidding to all those people.
	Just kidding.
	I always liked it when Trump said, you know, everybody says, hey, whatever you do, make sure you vote, even if you're not going to vote for me.
	And Trump was like, no, no, no, no.
	If you're not going to vote for me, stay home, stay home, go on vacation.
	I always enjoyed that kind of honesty.
	All right, let's do that.
	We've done good.
	I think we've got everything.
	Robert?
	I'll see you tomorrow.
	I'm going to create that link tonight, people.
	Right now, I'm going to go upstairs, go for a nice romantic evening walk with my wife, 41 years young today.
	Wish you a happy birthday, and I'll be over at the live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in a few minutes.
	Everybody, see you tomorrow.
	Thank you for everything.
	Thank you for the super chats, the support.
	You know what to do.
	Clip, snip, share, and see you all tomorrow.

▲