Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 29, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:38:50

Ep. 115: Jan. 6; Sussman; Depp; Florida Big Tech & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I thought you can bury hate.
	You can wipe it out.
	And I thought you can bury hate.
	You can wipe it out.
	But I learned a lesson.
	You can't eliminate hate.
	It only hides when it's defeated.
	But when the prominent leaders are leaders-- Breathe oxygen under the rocks it's hiding in.
	It takes on a new life.
	It comes roaring back out.
	Ways I must tell you I never thought would happen.
	Because I got in politics sitting where you're sitting because of civil rights in Delaware.
	And then nearly four years later, a mob of insurrectionists.
	Stormed the Capitol.
	Very suicidal democracy.
	Imagine what you'd be thinking today if you had heard this morning before you got here that a group of 1,000 people broke down the doors of the Parliament of Great Britain, killed two police officers, smashed, and ransacked the office of members of the British Parliament or any other.
	What would you think?
	What would you think?
	What would you think?
	If I can figure out how to share myself to the stream, things will go a little smoother.
	I want to bring that back in a second.
	People, good evening.
	It's going to be a very nice romantic live stream.
	Just me, however many thousands of people are watching in the nice warming glow of two Publix lanterns.
	This is the best I could find today to make up for this awful yellow light.
	But the problem is they need to be really close to my face.
	Yes, I'm back in a bathroom, not the bathroom.
	So I'm going to put these lights here and we're going to make do with this as best we can.
	I'll be back in the current temporary basement studio tomorrow.
	But I could not deal with another evening streaming with Robert and seeing a face.
	My face is not that red, people.
	Although, whatever.
	So I'm going to put these here.
	Put them back here so I don't knock them over.
	And we're going to do the stream tonight.
	How is the audio?
	Ultimately, audio is more important.
	Publix.
	Publix lanterns.
	Six dollars each, not including batteries.
	Is my face tired?
	I am tired.
	I did not...
	I think I got up at about four in the morning, not because I wanted to, but because I couldn't sleep.
	And I am tired.
	So if I look tired, it's because I am tired.
	There's echo.
	Can't do anything about the echo because I'm in a bathroom.
	I'm not in a bathroom.
	It's like a big...
	It's a vestibule.
	OK.
	I'm going to just I want to play this again because I think we need to set aside the substance which we're going to get into.
	By the way, it was either this or Justin Trudeau talking about how he's got a plan to solve the housing crisis in Canada.
	I opted for Joe Biden because I think people have had enough starting streams with starting streams with.
	Oh, God.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Let me bring this back.
	Just listen to this.
	We're going to get to the lie.
	I don't know if it's a lie.
	We're going to get to the misinformation.
	We're going to get to the, if this were Donald Trump, there would be 50 fact checkers right now, pants on fire, no two officers were not killed by rioters at January 6th.
	If this were Trump.
	But it's not Trump.
	It's Joe Biden.
	And not only do you not have 50 fact-checkers running fact-check in Reuters, AP, Snopes, PolitiFact, not only do you not have that, try to go find this audio bit from his commencement speech at University of Delaware.
	Try to find it, and I'm sure that you'll find it's shockingly difficult to find because all of the media highlight clips on the one with the peacock, NBC, on...
	CBS, all of the highlights.
	You got a number of five-minute highlights.
	Jump-cut edits don't have this.
	But let's just play this again for one second.
	We'll get to the substance.
	The delivery.
	It goes from...
	to shouting at you.
	Maybe I'm not the best person to criticize someone for shouting at them.
	I have been accused of shouting it, you know, in my camera at the car.
	But this is not normal gesticulation or expression of thought.
	Thank you.
	I thought you can bury hate.
	You can wipe it out.
	But I learned a lesson.
	You can't eliminate hate.
	It only hides when it's defeated.
	Getting angry for no apparent reason.
	What?
	When the prominent leaders are leading, breathe oxygen under the rocks it's hiding in.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Do we know what a mixed metaphor is?
	Or just an incomprehensible metaphor?
	When the leaders, I didn't mean leaders, I just meant one leader, Donald Trump, breathe oxygen under the rocks where it's hiding?
	I think he meant breathe oxygen onto the ambers of fire.
	Or breathe life under the rocks.
	It's all over the place.
	It's all over the place.
	And the random shift from smooth to aggressive shouting is not...
	Some people would say it's indicative of something.
	Carrying on.
	It takes on a new life.
	It comes roaring back out.
	Ways I must tell you, I never thought would happen.
	Because I got in politics sitting where you're sitting because of civil rights in Delaware.
	Here's the fake news party.
	Four years later, a mob of insurrectionists stormed the Capitol.
	Very civil democracy.
	I didn't actually understand what you'd be thinking today before you got here.
	That a group of a thousand people broke down the doors of the parliament.
	Great Britain.
	Killed two police officers.
	Stop there.
	So it's a little confusing.
	At first audio, you might think he's talking about a British revolution where that actually happened.
	He's saying imagine if this were a group of insurrectionists storming a British parliament and killing two officers to suggest that that's what happened on January 6th.
	And this is like misinformation of the highest order.
	We know that the New York Times ran a story.
	I covered it at length.
	As it progressed, Brian Sicknick was one of the police officers who in the early days was described by the New York Times as having D.C. police.
	He dreamed of becoming a D.C. police officer.
	And was killed by an angry mob of Trump protesters.
	The New York Times reported that he was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher, and that story was published by the New York Times and others when they knew, even from day one, that that was unlikely and probably never happened.
	They then never really outright corrected the story, but then they pivoted onto the fact that it became known, although it was known by many at the time, that Sicknick died of a stroke, which At some point, they tried to tie to having been sprayed with chemical spray or pepper spray at the protest, and it wasn't.
	Coroner said natural causes, coincidental timing, died of a stroke.
	There were a number of police officers who took their own lives in the short term following the January 6th, which I find very, very peculiar.
	No police officers were killed by any rioters on that day.
	In fact, the only two people who were killed, because there were a number of people who died, but it was Later determined it was medical emergencies.
	The only one person who was definitively killed, Ashley Babbitt, shot point-blank in the neck by that officer, the DC officer.
	There has been another story.
	I think her name was Rosie.
	There was another protester who allegedly died from a medical emergency, and now it's becoming known or suggested that she might have actually been roughed up by some police officers, trampled, and actually died at the hands of police officers.
	So, in fact, the exact truth is the exact opposite.
	And you have the president at a commencement speech for University of Delaware spouting off, if they're not lies, that would imply intent.
	He might think this is real.
	It's egregious misinformation of the highest order that should get called out by the mainstream media, by the political facts, but it won't.
	It will only get edited out of the highlights, and it takes, I think I saw this on The Daily Wire.
	Saw it there.
	And then let's just go to the...
	Let's just go to the bizarre modulation of his voice.
	I mean, his modulation of his voice is like Austin Powers.
	I mean, maybe he hasn't been cryogenically frozen.
	Maybe he's just whatever.
	Just listen to this.
	If I can do it.
	Smashed and ransacked the office of members of the British Parliament or any other.
	What would you think?
	What would you think?
	It needs more emotion, more passion.
	It's like that scene from Lost in Translation.
	What did he say?
	The guy just spent like two minutes yelling at me.
	What did he say?
	More emotion.
	It's misinformation of the highest order.
	It will not get called out.
	It will get buried and hidden.
	So hopefully we've just shone two beautiful little camping lights.
	I don't even want to promote these pieces of garbage.
	Made in China garbage.
	Can't even get anything decent.
	I wanted a nice lamp that I was going to put a diffuser on.
	And yeah, can't complain.
	It's all I could find today.
	Okay.
	With that said, and I'm going to bring up a few super chats to get the standard disclaimers.
	How can leaders, MSM, etc.
	be allowed to lie?
	Real question.
	It's not a lie if you believe it.
	I mean, real answer.
	There's no accountability because it's like third reference tonight.
	Homer Simpson.
	If he's the police, who's going to police the police?
	The Coast Guard?
	The MSM is supposed to be the police of the government.
	But they're not policing the government right now.
	They are working hand-in-hand with the government.
	They are teammates and not adversaries.
	They are protectors and not...
	Damn it, what's the word?
	I just had it.
	They're protectors and not keeping them in check.
	The people who are there to...
	Can you clarify what Biden said and his point, honk, that apparently insurrectionists stormed the Capitol and killed two police officers?
	Lie, lie.
	Have you seen the video of Trudeau saying he will go through violating charter rights because it's the majority doing it?
	Have you seen the video of Trudeau saying he will go through Violating charter rights because it's the majority doing it.
	I haven't seen it.
	I don't think I want to see it.
	Funny how people critique their leaders but still support them with taxes and don't change their situation.
	Well, IT, I would not invite you to do it.
	See what happens if you don't pay taxes.
	In Canada, we're literally paying taxes to the government to oppress us.
	We're literally paying taxes to the government.
	People are paying taxes to the Canadian government to...
	For the government to implement policy that discriminates against those taxpayers.
	And right now I'm specifically speaking of unvaccinated travelers not being allowed to get on planes or trains in Canada.
	Unvaccinated Canadians are paying the government to implement policy that discriminates against them.
	Yeah, well, when I first heard Biden, I thought he was speaking to a UK university because of the illustration.
	It's nuts.
	It also makes no sense.
	Okay, now, standard disclaimers, people.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice, and I think we're going to be talking about lawsuits tonight that are going to touch on those three subjects.
	There is no of that advice being given here.
	Certainly no legal advice, and for people emailing me with questions, I don't give legal advice.
	No election fortification advice, but there are lawsuits talking about things.
	No, what was the other one?
	Medical advice?
	Oh, and we're going to get into some vaccine lawsuits.
	Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so it's better for the creator, better to support a platform you like.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	You know the shtick.
	I have recently also on YouTube been gifted with this thing called Super Thanks.
	So anybody watching this stream, after it's live, you can do a Rumble Rant and it's called a Super Thanks if you are so inclined.
	Oh, I'm logged out of my stupid Rumble account on my phone, so I can't see.
	Are we live on Rumble, people?
	And that's it.
	I'm not gonna get to all of the Super Chats, and if it is going to miff you, if I do not bring up your Super Chat as such, please don't give the Super Chat.
	I don't want people feeling that they wasted money on me and I didn't get to their Super Chat.
	It's not a promise.
	I'll do my best, but I will miss some.
	And if you're gonna be angry or say you didn't pull up my Super Chat, don't give it.
	I prefer people to be happy than unhappy.
	Will Mary Poppins sing a song about Biden's lives?
	We're going to talk about this tonight because there's some interesting lawsuits that might have been influenced or might have been predicated on disbanding the disinformation governance board.
	It's...
	Don't do it.
	IT.
	That's an Australian $10.
	I do not tell anybody to break the law, even out of protest, if they think that they are morally or legally justified in the protest.
	What you decide to do with your own body and your own home if you decide to stop paying taxes, yeah, it's risky business.
	Misinfo.
	Mistaken versus disinfo.
	Purposeful.
	And you know what?
	It doesn't make much of a difference at the end of the day.
	The intent is only relevant to the individual.
	The effect is relevant to the rest of the world.
	They could be lying knowingly or they could just be wrong.
	The effect for the rest of the world is hearing this misinformation and being misled.
	The effect from the individual is whether or not they're a liar or just stupid or wrong.
	Not stupid.
	Wrong.
	People with dementia make no sense and have angry outbursts.
	Janet, my grandmother was diagnosed with early-onset dementia when she was like 80, and then she lived another 25 years.
	She never had angry outbursts, but you can tell.
	I mean, anybody who's lived with it can tell what's going on with Joe.
	Given that a police officer...
	Given that a recent police officer, PCQ, was killed recently guarding Parliament.
	It's not only a weird comparison, but it's also very poor taste.
	Where was that?
	Oh, that's in Britain.
	Okay.
	I mean, I don't think we knew about that here.
	So tonight on the menu, when Barnes gets here...
	Let me let me cover.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold on a second.
	I got to do this.
	Oh, James Topp.
	I see a lot of love in the chat for James Topp.
	I am in fact live on Rumble.
	Viva Fry not official highlights.
	Thank you.
	So this channel has posted some very short fair use highlights of my stuff on YouTube.
	I just said make sure that people know that you're not the official Viva clips or highlights channel.
	I'm highlighting the light switch.
	This is the only concrete evidence that I'm in a bathroom-like setting.
	Tonight, we're going to talk about Depp versus Amber, but not for very long.
	Barnes and I did a two-hour live stream Friday night.
	We're going to talk about January 6th.
	We're going to talk about Sussman.
	We're going to talk about some vaccine mandates, Netflix lawsuits, the Florida Court of Appeal.
	Maintaining the suspension of the law that DeSantis enacted in 2021.
	We've got good legal stuff on the horizon.
	But until we get into that, we've covered the Joe Biden disinfo.
	Let me just bring up...
	You know what?
	I said I wouldn't do it, but Barnes isn't here.
	So let's just go for a little more audible torture, people.
	Let's just go for a little more audible torture.
	Audible intellectual torture.
	Listen to this, people.
	God.
	And now I got Diet Coke.
	It's disgusting.
	This is the only thing I could find in the fridge.
	And I don't know how many...
	Does Coke go bad after like five years?
	We've got a real and serious plan to make housing more affordable.
	We're helping people save, we're cracking down on speculation, and we're increasing housing supply.
	We've got a real and serious plan to make housing more affordable.
	We're helping people save, we're cracking down on speculation, and we're increasing housing supply.
	That's 11 seconds.
	That is 11 seconds of the most idiotic...
	I mean, it is worthy of the Billy Madison meme.
	What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
	At no point in your rambling, incoherent response of an answer did you come even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
	I award you no points, Justin Trudeau, and may God have mercy on your soul.
	So, It's almost as though he's forgotten that he's been in power for seven years.
	The housing issue in Canada has existed for a long time.
	This guy has been in power for seven freaking years.
	They've done nothing to address this problem and arguably only thinks to exacerbate it by devaluing the dollar, crushing individual lives and livelihoods, and making it impossible to even afford a house even if you could get the money that has now been devalued.
	And by the way, whose house is he in?
	Did he go to, like, what he thinks a standard Canadian's kitchen looks like and say, hey, can I use you?
	I've been two and a half years, I've been abusing you.
	Can I now use you to pretend to be promoting solutions when I've been in office for seven years, screwing you from day one?
	Screwing you, but doing real good for himself.
	Whose kitchen are you using for the set of your political drivel?
	One of the millions of Canadians whose lives you've destroyed.
	Okay, Barnes, I think everyone in the chat now is saying, Barnes, you were two minutes too late because nobody wanted to hear Justin Trudeau.
	Oh, okay.
	Let's bring him in.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	I went out and I got some lighting.
	Oh, I can bring it closer now.
	And I got these little things at Publix, but they're not doing a good job, but they're doing a decent job.
	So, Robert, before we get started, I always forget, what are you smoking and what do we have behind you that...
	What does that say behind you?
	The Ear of Louisiana.
	The Ear?
	It's about Earl Long.
	The great Earl Long, great governor of Louisiana.
	Written by a great writer, A.J. Liebling, back when we had kind of real journalists.
	And so it's good on both counts.
	And this is a gift cigar.
	I'm not sure where it's from or what it is.
	But this will be our last show for a couple of weeks because I'll be on vacation for the next two weeks.
	So this will be...
	And then we'll have a Rumble exclusive sidebar this Wednesday with Dinesh D'Souza.
	But then I'll at least be out of operations for a couple of weeks.
	Okay, now, Robert, you won't be miffed if I do a Sunday night stream regardless.
	Yeah, do whatever you want.
	I'm not bringing on another guest.
	That would be cheating on you, but I might just go live anyhow.
	Do as you wish.
	Dinesh D'Souza, Wednesday.
	So we're going to do that exclusively on Rumbles so we can actually talk about 2,000 Mules and talk about it all.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Robert, there's a lot of stuff on the menu.
	Do we start with the one to get it out of the way so that everyone says, yada, yada, yada, Johnny Depp, and we move on to the important stuff?
	Well, yeah.
	Maybe it'll give people a little bit of an index of cases we're going to...
	Try to cover tonight.
	There's, you know, the effect of cameras in a courtroom and social media trials is the aspect we'll look at for the Johnny Depp case, as well as whether anonymous juries are constitutional or not, which is an issue in the Johnny Depp case.
	And that's sort of the broader legal impact of the case beyond the celebrity interest that...
	At least a lot of our base's audience is not as much interested in.
	We won't be doing that aspect of the case.
	There's plenty of great places you can go for that.
	Emily Baker, Nick Ricada, Legal Bites, Good Logic, etc.
	But the other cases, we'll be covering all the Supreme Court cases.
	There's arbitration cases, campaign finance cases, First Amendment cases, habeas cases, immigration cases, all of which the Supreme Court has decided over the last 10 days or so.
	We also have the...
	It was a big, big tech case.
	Florida's big tech law went up to the 11th Circuit.
	And a very, very interesting Netflix case.
	I mean, it's interesting in a gross way, but it's what Netflix does and the likes.
	We got cases about shipwrecks and ships being seized.
	We got cases about the Sussman trial, which was well covered by Robert Gouvier.
	But that's sitting with the jury as well.
	January 6th cases, which came back with a jury verdict, unfortunately.
	And then a range of other cases, vaccine mandate cases, a big election dropbox lawsuits that have been filed.
	So we got a wide range of the landscape, but probably the case everybody's talking about.
	We'll focus on the more legal, consequential aspects of, which is the Johnny Depp case.
	Yeah, well, let's do it.
	The big discussion of the week is the jury anonymity being safeguarded, being ordered and preserved.
	And I know that within the LawTube DMs, there's discussion about it.
	So they're not disclosing the identity of the jurors.
	It's for a year in this case, Robert?
	Yeah.
	And it's deeply, I mean, until the mid-1970s.
	No jury in America was anonymous.
	No jury.
	Not a civil case, not a criminal case, ever.
	So for 200 years, we maintained the public identification of jurors, which continues a jury tradition that goes back centuries, many centuries, back before the Magna Carta, part of what the Magna Carta was protecting.
	So you're talking about over a thousand years of of American or Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, which said that juries are supposed to be public jury.
	You're supposed to know who the jurors are.
	Why?
	Because these are decision makers.
	Imagine if we said, hey, next year, the Senate is all going to be anonymous.
	It's an amazing thing, actually, because in Quebec...
	We're having currently a totally secret trial.
	We don't know who the defendant is.
	We don't know anything that's going on.
	Total publication, Ben.
	I mean, it's what they do.
	I should back that up.
	I'd like to say it's what they do in North Korea.
	But even in North Korea, Otto Warmbier's trial was still published.
	We saw it.
	It was a kangaroo court, one-hour trial, sentenced him for 13 years.
	Even there, though, I think we knew what was going on.
	But here's the question.
	People are going to say, because there are two...
	Very important things to keep in the balance here.
	One is transparency of the process.
	If in Roger Stone we had known who the jury members were, the public would have found out that they were tainted, possibly.
	Same thing with Chauvin.
	Activist jury members on the jury.
	The flip side is you want to vet them, but also you don't want them to be subject to harassment to change their decision, also a la Chauvin.
	Those are two very important things.
	How do you balance them?
	Well, we've always taken the choice of public trials.
	So the idea that, well, maybe they'll come to a fairer verdict if they're secret strikes me as deeply disturbing because we should never trust secret justice, period.
	I don't believe secrecy ever improves the possibility of impartiality.
	Ever.
	I doubt and distrust the premise.
	I agree with Julian Assange about that.
	Secrets is where, like the movie No More Secrets, Sneakers.
	That's what the acronym turns out to be.
	But that sort of determination is something that is abhorrent to our constitutional traditions.
	And there's two issues in the federal context, you know, depths at a state level.
	But in the federal context, it's the right of the freedom of the press.
	Which is enforceable against the state's First Amendment right of freedom of the press to investigate and inquire.
	Then, in my view, it's part of the Sixth Amendment right and the Seventh Amendment right, depending on the kind of case it is, to a trial by jury.
	Public jury.
	Publicly known jury.
	Again, that's the long history for more than going on many centuries.
	Undisturbed until the mid-1970s when the administrative and professional class wanted to allow secret justice to start to happen.
	Sometimes secret even from the parties.
	That I find totally horrendous.
	But it's equally horrendous to me for it to happen in the context of any trial in America.
	And then you have the state constitutional rights that apply, right to public access.
	And there's a federal common law constitution, common law right of federal access.
	I consider it constitutional because I think it's under the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, rights reserved to the people.
	So in my view, you have a right of public access to trials that can only be overcome in exceptional, extraordinary cases.
	You need a compelling government interest, and you need the most narrowly tailored means to achieve and attain that compelling public interest.
	And in my view, secrecy will never fit that, ever.
	So I opposed it in the Roger Stone case.
	I opposed it in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
	I oppose it now.
	There should be no secret jurors.
	If someone says, hey, I can't be a secret juror, I mean, I can't be a public juror, then they are not constitutionally qualified to be impartial and should be removed from the jury pool.
	And that's to prevent juror intimidation and sequestration.
	It's an alternative.
	Exactly.
	All these jurors could be put in private places, places that no one knows where they are.
	And, I mean, not only that, juror intimidation is already illegal.
	So I always find fascinating, like the gun control debate.
	We're going to create a new law to make sure someone doesn't violate existing law?
	How does that work?
	And my take on the intimidation argument is the people doing the intimidation, the threats, they're going to find out regardless.
	I mean, they are probably on the side where they're going to get fed that info, and then all they're going to be able to do is intimidate in private where the public won't even know about the jury intimidation.
	It's like...
	You're not gonna protect them from the bad actors who are gonna find out who they are and go and harass and threaten.
	And so you might as well just have it done publicly so that we can know if the public thinks the jury has been tainted.
	The problem with secret justice is you'll have biased people on that jury that would have been outed or could have been outed if they were publicly known.
	That, to me, is a much greater risk than the risk is that someone will break a law anyway by trying to contact and communicate with a juror that somehow they only found out about because the jurors' names were public.
	Now, that transitions into a question about what is the effect of cameras in the courtroom.
	I'm a fan, of course, of cameras in the courtroom because I believe, again, in the same public right for the public to participate effectively as observers, meaningful observers in a trial.
	Like elections, I think that means meaningful observation, not trying to peek through a blind and look through some binoculars to figure out what somebody's doing like it happened in Pennsylvania in 2020.
	The same is true here.
	And so I favor cameras.
	I think cameras should be in the federal courtroom as every courtroom.
	I think that should be part of the judicial process, that courts be required to video record everything that goes on in courts, so that it's available to litigants, but it's also available to public observance with very limited circumstances.
	There are times where proceedings should be sealed, and that's a secret proceeding.
	But only in very limited circumstances should that be allowed.
	Not for ordinary trials.
	But the question becomes, what happens when the observed and the observer are interacting in ways potentially with the jury, potentially for public consumption?
	The concerns that were raised this week was whether or not certain people were...
	Knowing that the theory was, I'm not making any accusations.
	Personally, I know DUI lawyers are some of the most ethical lawyers in the world.
	When I think of marketing lawyers' ethics, I think of Better Call Saul as a prime example of good ethics.
	DUI lawyers put those guys to shame.
	Not to say anything bad about DUI lawyers, just a little caveat there.
	But hypothetically, if somebody was in the courtroom, knew they're being taped by the cameras as part of the gallery, as part of the observer, Usually the gallery isn't always recorded like this, but if that's going to happen, how does that impact the trial?
	If the trial is really for public consumption, like this trial kind of is, it's kind of not for the jury in the jury box.
	It's for the jury in the world.
	How does public participation in the observer role when you have cameras in the courtroom taping the gallery's reaction?
	How does that interface or interact?
	You're going to have a lot of judges second guess.
	Where cameras are put in the courtroom based on what's happened in this trial.
	I think they'd be wrong to do so, but I don't disfavor them.
	I think everything should be recorded because maybe somebody in the gallery did have an impact on the jury, and I want that on videotape, not hidden.
	But a lot of courts' reactions to this trial is going to be no more video access to the gallery.
	And by the way, I pulled up one comment.
	I'm not getting into any of the LawTube drama.
	The story, for those who don't know, DUI guy got called out by someone on Twitter for being accused of being a depth fan for reacting to the TMZ guy's quip to Elaine.
	And I'm going to just outright defend DUI guy.
	Everyone in that courtroom reacted the same way.
	To single out anybody and impute bad intentions is dishonest because you have no reason to believe that.
	I think what got him also into trouble was...
	Looking at laptops of lawyers.
	Somehow he accidentally looked at Hurd's lawyer's laptop while it was...
	That's patently unprofessional.
	Highly unethical.
	Very illicit.
	DUI guy did.
	And talked about it.
	So he got himself on attention.
	He kept accidentally getting in the middle of controversy.
	Like I said, I have a lot of experience with DUI lawyers.
	There's not a single one I would ever trust.
	That doesn't mean I wouldn't hire him.
	Some of them are Better Call Saul skilled, but they make Better Call Saul look like a beacon of ethics.
	I did not know about the peaking on the laptops and reporting on it.
	And apparently there's a sequence of issues.
	Apparently court staff had expressed concern about a wide range of conduct.
	So he got, I think he was on Hurd's radar, Hurd's PR team's radar for illicit reasons.
	Because as you know, he had a reaction that a lot of people did when the lawyer asked a dumb question and got smacked back with the answer of the TNZ witness.
	But he was also in controversy for a bunch of other things he kept doing.
	Now, I don't care about the dispute as a general rule, except to the degree...
	Courts are paying attention and courts might start limiting camera access because they will not like...
	Some courts will look at what the UI guy did and think he did it deliberately or think other people will want to do it deliberately, even if he didn't, so that people will be mugging for the cameras.
	Already the excuse in federal courts is the lawyers and the witnesses will mug for the cameras if they know they're cameras.
	Well, now what happens if the courts say, golly gee, the gallery will be mugging for the cameras?
	It's going to be used as a new excuse to limit the amount of video cameras in the courtroom.
	Illicitly, in my view, but it's coming.
	And I'll just say one thing.
	My argument would be, however, the gallery responds that way, and if it affects the jury, the presence of cameras or not changes nothing, because they would have done it regardless.
	In fact, it just gives you better evidence that it could have occurred.
	I mean, Hurd's team would have had no knowledge he did that, but for the camera capturing it.
	And that others did it.
	And so if they want to make an argument, they can make an argument.
	Apparently they did.
	And they also complained about people saying things.
	People being verbal.
	How much that happened or didn't happen.
	I didn't see any verbal actions by the gallery.
	But, by the way, that happens in all high-profile trials.
	Galleries react all the time.
	Judges know that.
	They try to limit it.
	They try to restrict it.
	But particularly laughter.
	Laughter either hits or does.
	It happens just naturally.
	Everybody either laughs or they don't.
	And so I'm not critical of DUI guys for his public reaction to it.
	I do think that getting into controversy after controversy is a bit of a skeptic.
	Again, I come in with a pre-existing bias because my DUI lawyers make accident lawyers advertising look respectable.
	Now, and in fairness to me, I didn't know about the second thing.
	And Robert, it's an interesting thing.
	In my practice, once upon a time, I saw something on my opposing counsel computer, on my opposing counsel's computer.
	And I saw it.
	I was like, I saw something, and I had to go ask my dad.
	I was like, can I use this?
	Because, you know, but for the fact that I saw, it's like, you know, in poker, I saw his cards.
	I was like, can I use that?
	You have to get that information lawfully.
	You can't spy.
	Even if it's inadvertent attorney-client privilege information, it's just...
	When I found that out, it was members of our board who brought it to my attention.
	I was like, okay, now I see where the controversy is.
	And it's a little bit different.
	And Eric Hundley did a live stream Saturday breaking down some alternative interpretations of the LawTube controversy.
	I recommend people to it at unstructured.locals.com.
	And I think he was definitely on to something as to maybe kind of like the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard case itself.
	Who exactly the culprit is and who exactly the victim is might not have been as clear as it originally appeared.
	And we'll move on to it from now because people don't like it.
	I understand, by the way.
	But yeah, the courts and camera part, unfortunately, this case and social media coverage and commentary on jurors and live time, it's going to scare a lot of judges.
	I disagree with that.
	But that's what's going to happen, unfortunately.
	We're going to see more, not only more anonymous juries, we're probably going to see more restrictions on who can be in the gallery.
	You'll probably see more examples of the Ghislaine Maxwell example.
	Hopefully, at least they still broadcast the substance of the trial.
	But they may not allow people in the gallery at all, so that people can't, which I disagree with.
	They're going to try to gut public participation rights, and they're going to use these controversies as their pretext to do it.
	And yes, indeed, everybody, this is a Duran American flag mug.
	And I thought you were using the InfoWars mug tonight.
	I didn't notice it.
	Oh, I got an InfoWars one, too.
	Of course, you can get merch now from the Viva shop.
	And it's been up for one week, and it looks like people like it.
	It's centralized, more than just shirts, and in as much as possible...
	That's a Viva Barnes University trucker hat.
	Oh, well, what about this, Barnes?
	Hold on.
	There you go.
	Got a range of...
	Got the Viva Fro.
	And then some more...
	I'm sure people asked about some of the popular phrases.
	There'll be merchandise coming on that as well soon enough.
	Left, right, and center.
	I'm just...
	We're not letting it out in a...
	What's the word?
	In a rush.
	It's going to go out in a trickled, controlled release.
	We don't want to get it all out at the same time.
	Supersticker Lizenne.
	Before I forget, Lizzie Von Zammett.
	Thank you very much.
	Robert, one question, last one on Johnny Depp.
	Someone said that they didn't want to put the jury in sequestration because it would have cost too much.
	That didn't make any sense to me given the trial.
	Is it the fact that it's six weeks and you can't sequester a jury for six weeks?
	The government's got that budget for that.
	They could easily.
	The real reason they don't like to sequester is jurors hate it.
	Because jurors don't like to go to some cheap hotel room and can't talk to their family and be back with everybody.
	Judges pretend it's money is the reason they won't do it.
	It's because jurors hate it.
	Jurors don't want to be sequestered for a second.
	Now, the question is, in the modern age of phones and laptops, how practical is sequestration?
	I can't say the word by it right now.
	How successful is doing that to the jury?
	In the old days, you could know what was on their TV in the hotel.
	You could limit what was available to be watched, for example.
	You could limit newspaper access.
	Now you can limit talk radio access in the cars.
	Now with the internet age, can you really limit anything?
	Probably not.
	So I don't know how much sequestering them really matters.
	I'm not as big a fan of that.
	I mean, my view is there's already criminal laws on the books that deter somebody from trying to intimidate or obstruct or contaminate a jury trial.
	If that's not going to deter them, do you think juror anonymity is going to deter them?
	I don't think so.
	Now, if people want our breakdown of the closing arguments, we did that on Friday.
	So we did a breakdown of parts of both closing arguments.
	I noticed some flack in the comment section because we spent too much time on Rottenborn and not enough time on...
	On Camille, well, some people wanted us to talk about what was really bad in Elaine's.
	I'm not going to do a detailed review of someone who just did a terrible close that was up at sidebar eight times.
	That's not really productive.
	Do someone who did a decent, but not maybe not expect a decent close, but where there was room for improvement.
	Put it that way.
	And both Rottenborn and Camille Vasquez prevented those.
	So if you want to see our argument, our interpretation of that quality of argument, probability of jury outcomes.
	I believe Depp will win and he'll receive funds, despite the fact that the jury is a liberal, democratic, male, youthful jury pool that would not normally be his best demographic jury pool.
	And as someone in the Super Chat mentioned, yeah, the majority of the jurors, or seven of them, they have to decide unanimously.
	A majority were wearing masks.
	You know, even at this stage.
	This is Fairfax County.
	Very liberal Democratic County.
	Is it possible that they were wearing the masks to cover their face for anonymity or not to be identified and not for COVID?
	I mean, their names are already not identified.
	I mean, they can't be photographed by anybody inside the courtroom.
	They can be photographed when they leave.
	So that's possible.
	But my guess is no.
	Because, you know, four of them were masked.
	Three of them were not.
	My guess is they're masked because they're mask wearers.
	I mean, this is Fairfax County, folks.
	This is basically D.C. extended, which transitions into our other case.
	We'll see if Johnny Depp can get justice out of a D.C.-oriented jury pool, because just as we will see if the Sussman trial results in what should be easy, clear convictions, yet it's been sitting with the jury and did not result on that on Friday after I went to the jury this week.
	Yeah, so there has not been a verdict in Sussman.
	The verdict that we were talking about was in Jan 6. Sussman...
	Well, let's just go...
	Hold on a second.
	There you go.
	So it seems to be more volume on this side.
	Now, by the way, it's gotten so long, it's grown up, and now it's started to fall to the side.
	So I'm like a palm tree.
	Sussman, Robert.
	That's true.
	It is like a palm tree.
	Someone's just put a Viva head with a palm tree on top of your head.
	It's coming.
	Johnny Depp over, people.
	Let's move on to the important stuff.
	Sussman.
	There was nothing revolutionary about that trial, save and accept for Robbie Mook's admission that Hillary Clinton personally okayed disclosing that...
	Fake Alpha Bank story.
	There was an article in Fox News.
	I don't want to even bring it up because it uses the F word that's verboten on YouTube, and it's not the F word.
	It's the other one.
	It's the five-letter F word.
	It starts with...
	Friend and it ends with odd.
	Hillary Clinton personally okayed this.
	And it wasn't just like, you know, according to Robbie Mook, who was the campaign manager in 2016, she personally okayed this meeting.
	Personally okayed communicating this fake report to the FBI for a lawyer who billed the Clinton campaign for the preparation, research, you know, making that document.
	Even for the meeting with the FBI to disclose it to them.
	Even the Uber fare and the little computer thing.
	What do you call that drive?
	USB drive.
	Yeah, the thumb drive.
	So, you know, Robbie Mook confirms it.
	Sussman pleads the fifth.
	Mark Elias tries to throw a mistrial by suggesting that Mook, not Mook, sorry, Sussman was going to plead the fifth, violating his rights under the fifth.
	So, you know, for those who have been paying attention, Absolutely nothing new out of this trial.
	The question is, for the jury members themselves, probably living in an ideological and political silo, hearing this, what are they going to do?
	I mean, the closing arguments of Sussman's team were that this is all smoke and mirrors.
	There's no big deal here.
	He didn't lie.
	And, you know, they're making a big deal out of nothing.
	And, you know, I've got to tell you, I can channel a partisan jury member saying it's no big deal.
	He just met with him and gave him something.
	It's no big deal.
	You know, acquit.
	What's your take?
	So the best breakdown of the trial was by Robert Gouvet.
	You can just look at his closing arguments one, which was very good.
	And by the way, some people were hyper...
	We're critical of the fact that we were critical of some of the lawyers in the Depp trial.
	If you want to see what I mean by the ability to dramatize, just watch Robert Gouvet taking a bland transcript and giving it life.
	And he does a great job of it.
	That's what you can do with tone or tenor and language.
	You don't have to talk like this to be a good lawyer.
	But he did a great breakdown of it.
	What we predicted is what came true, that it confirmed something I talked about five years, six years ago, all the way back to the beginning of all this, which is that they had an illicit claim.
	They laundered it through law firms and disguised it on the campaign finance reports as legal services.
	But they also laundered it through law firms by having multiple components go to the FBI, one of whom was a cooperating human source.
	In other words, he was a rat part of the FBI informant team.
	Another one was a lawyer who had high ranking ties at the seventh floor of the FBI.
	And they both independently source this information into They're trying to launder it at a second level.
	They're trying to launder it through the FBI so that the FBI will open an investigation so that they then can tell the press there's a criminal investigation, which is the excuse the press needs to run with the story.
	They need a federal criminal investigation to exist or they're not going to cover it.
	This was all about pushing out the October surprise of Trump-Russia connections based on information that the FBI's technical analyst acknowledged was completely bogus within an hour of looking at the intel and information.
	For all of this to work, everybody at the FBI that was assigning people to investigate the case needed to keep secret who the source was, which they did.
	But they internally, in order to not get in trouble themselves, needed to hide.
	Who the source was in their own internal notes.
	They needed in there.
	Sussman was happy to go along with that by saying, yeah, yeah, I'm not representing a client, knowing that's what they needed in order to be able to run with the story and assign the story.
	So Sussman's defense is, hey, this was all wink, wink, nod, nod.
	The feds knew what I was really there for.
	This was to cover them.
	But they can't fully say that because that would implicate the FBI in criminality, nor can the prosecution fully acknowledge that because that would implicate the FBI.
	And Durham's trying to cover for the FBI, not expose the FBI.
	But Sussman is dead to rights.
	You know, a dozen witnesses said they needed to know who the source was.
	And a bunch of witnesses confirmed, as was already evidenced in writing by Sussman, that Sussman lied about having a client, when in fact he did have a client because if he said otherwise, then he committed mail fraud on the Clinton campaign, which is a worse crime.
	So there's no question that Sussman is guilty.
	There's also, in my view, no question that Durham's not going to use this to go anywhere.
	The only question left is, can a D.C. jury be impartial in a case where convicting someone vindicates Trump at some level?
	And that's the only question in doubt.
	And given that they rushed to another conviction this week in a January 6th case, the sixth one, where they just come back and go, yep, yep, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.
	They're showing no sign of reflection.
	I mean, all white juries in To Kill a Mockingbird as a novel or in Martin Luther, in a civil rights case in the 50s and 60s, took more time to lynch people than do the D.C. juries do to lynch January 6th defendants.
	So can they give us justice in Sussman?
	Open question.
	Someone, I brought up the chat, and it was not a super chat for anyone who says I only bring up super chats.
	It said, who would have believed that Sussman was not there for and on behalf of a client?
	This was my initial question to Robert a couple of weeks ago.
	I said, everyone in the FBI knew who Sussman was.
	He's a, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Technology.
	What's the word?
	IT lawyer.
	IT lawyer.
	He's an IT lawyer.
	He was...
	Representing the campaign and Hillary Clinton, known for years.
	He was known to the FBI because when the DNC hacks occurred, he was the lawyer.
	So for him to get up in front of the FBI and say, I'm not here on behalf of a client.
	I'm here as a concerned citizen.
	I'm still so stupid and naive and wet behind the ears.
	I'm like, oh, why would the FBI not know that that's a lie?
	And then Robert astutely points out.
	They all knew it was a lie.
	They just needed him to say it because if he says, I'm here for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary Clinton is tied to the October surprise, not just in terms of her lawyer disclosing it, but her campaign financing it.
	And it's a whole bunch of issues and their ability to get a bunch of everyday-level FBI agents to investigate disappears.
	So it was all a scam.
	It was a combined scam, but nobody can admit the real truth because the real truth implicates the seventh floor at the FBI.
	Durham doesn't want to implicate them.
	He wants to say the poor seventh floor just got tricked by this sneaky, sneaky lawyer.
	And Sussman has to say, well, they all knew, but he can't go so far as to say, yeah, I lied because they wanted me to lie.
	So that's why it wasn't a material lie.
	He can't go that far without implicating his pals.
	People need to appreciate this.
	They needed him to lie, because if he didn't lie, they wouldn't be able to run with it.
	But Robert, now, play full steal.
	And he knew that, by the way.
	He knew exactly what the score was.
	That's why he lied.
	But here's the full steal, man, because this is a question I had.
	I think I know the answer, but they needed him to lie.
	He knew they needed him to lie.
	They knew he knew they knew he needed them to lie.
	He lied.
	Their defense, FBI is going to say, we didn't do anything with this report.
	We looked into it and said it's so crappy.
	We are not even moving on it.
	What's the response to that?
	I mean, how did it get from the FBI's desk to Yahoo?
	All materiality requires is that it be capable of deceiving them.
	That was the jury instruction given to the jury that's always been the law.
	It does not matter if it actually deceived them.
	It does not matter if they should have known in such a way that it wouldn't deceive them.
	If you make a statement to the government that is capable of deceiving them, that's all that's required, capable.
	Regardless of their individual subjective circumstances, then the bottom line is disclosing whether you have a client and who that is is always capable of influencing a criminal investigation by the FBI.
	So by definition, that's why when I saw the facts of the case and saw the evidence, it was like, he's dead to rights.
	There's zero question he committed the crime.
	There's only a question whether the jury will convict.
	What's the response, though, to the argument that the FBI ultimately did nothing with the dossier?
	Doesn't matter.
	Patently irrelevant.
	For the corruption.
	If the FBI is so corrupt, they would have run with it.
	The FBI did run with it, but the problem was the evidence was so bad that their technical analyst came back and said, this looks like a mental health patient came up with this nonsense.
	That's the only reason the story died.
	And by the way, Comey reopened it up three months later.
	He recreated that story.
	And that story lingered for two years.
	The FBI never publicly cleared Trump of this, even though their technical analyst said it was bogus.
	All the way back in October of 2016.
	They reopened it again in January of 2017, reopened it again in March and April of 2017, then Mueller reopened it again in the summer of 2017.
	They didn't clear him until two years later with the Mueller report, which even there did not go into the detail that was disclosed in this report.
	And so it shows, I mean, you know, Andrew Weissman, think about all the lies that guy's been telling on social media and media.
	The number two guy, one of the most corrupt prosecutors in America, involved in the bogus prosecution of Arthur Anderson and others.
	He didn't disclose this.
	All of them knew it.
	All of the people involved at the governmental level hid the fact that this was so bad that they couldn't fully pursue it because technical analysis...
	You know, defanged it right away.
	But am I not wrong?
	Or did Clines...
	No, what did Clinesmith use in the...
	No, he falsified another aspect.
	But did the FBI not rely on the Yahoo News article that published this report?
	Well, that was the other level of laundering.
	So, first level is you disguise your opposition research as legal services for campaign finance reporting purposes.
	Then you take your lawyer and technical people who report independently and separately, but really they're taking the same source of information and having...
	Two or three independent sources take it to the government and take it to the media.
	They get the government to say they're investigating, which allows the media to confirm the story.
	They're the same people who've leaked it to the media.
	Then the government uses the fact that the media ran the story as a basis to go to the court and get a FISA warrant.
	So it's all circular, multiple levels of laundering the same bad intel over and over again to illegally spy on people.
	All right, now I think I know the answer as you're going to put it forward, Robert.
	Why did Durham wait so long to bring this case?
	Because Bill Barr clearly didn't want any major prosecutions to help Trump to be brought before the election.
	That's my conclusion.
	Because there's no reason why these indictments weren't brought right away.
	Compare how quickly Mueller acted to how slow Durham acted.
	Durham couldn't even issue a report before the election.
	Barr and Hannity kept lying to Trump for six months.
	Report's about to come.
	Remember Hannity?
	Tick-tock, tick-tock.
	Man, that guy's a big fraud.
	Sean Hannity, big fraud.
	War-mongering, war-whoring, fraud.
	CIA spook-sponsored fraud.
	That's who Sean Hannity is.
	You're still listening to him.
	You're the sucker and you're the sap.
	Because he suckered Trump.
	Suckered Trump all six months.
	That's it.
	I mean, the other explanation was that some people think that Durham...
	Didn't actually want to get to the core of the problem, but rather just a superficial solution.
	That was always part of it, too.
	He was always about clearing the FBI, clearing the CIA, clearing the NSA, clearing the Justice Department, about saying they were just tricked and fooled at anything bad that happened here.
	That was always the pitch.
	It was just a mid-tier, mid-level activist.
	When I told people from day one, as soon as Clinesmith got a sweetheart deal, that meant nobody big was going to get hit.
	Because he was somebody who could rat out.
	Peter Stroke, rat out James Comey, rat out Jim Baker, all the key participants in Lisa Page.
	When he gave him a sweetheart deal such that he did no time and was relicensed as a lawyer within a year, there was no practical reality in which Durham was going to go after anyone else.
	People are going to probably have to learn that the hard way over the next six months, but I'll be shocked.
	I'll be happily shocked, but still be shocked if it goes anywhere.
	Yeah, exactly as a Maxwell case.
	Get a nice, clean conviction on one person.
	Put it away.
	You don't have to look into the others.
	Clinesmith, by the way, the lawyer for the FBI who falsified evidence before submitting it to a FISA court, saying Carter Page was not a known asset to the CIA when he was, so that it made his dealings with the Russian entities look even more suspicious.
	He was at a year of probation, no time in jail because his wife just had a kid, talking about people having kids at convenient times.
	And I didn't know, Robert, that he was reinstated to the bar.
	Yeah, D.C. rushed right in there.
	So we'll see.
	I mean, so they're deliberating.
	Dead to rights.
	Let me just get this chat off here.
	Sorry.
	As soon as Sussman is cleared or convicted with a slap on the wrist.
	You know, the courts will see it as an embarrassment if Sussman isn't convicted.
	They think all the January 6th defendants are guilty anyway, so they don't care about all those lynching juries.
	But if they see Sussman walk, it will be an embarrassment.
	Because everybody in town knows he's as guilty as guilty can be.
	They caught him as red-handed as red-handed can be.
	If he walks, it's because no jury will convict someone if they're on the right side of politics in D.C. Remember the people, the Antifa types, who did all kinds of criminal actions in Trump's inauguration?
	All of them walked.
	All of them walked.
	The people who committed real violence.
	I mean, there was real violence that day on the Trump inauguration against Trump, unlike a lot of what was falsely accused of January 6th people.
	But all of them walked.
	All the grand juries and juries refused to either indict or refuse to convict.
	So D.C. is a joke.
	It's a complete joke of a jury poll.
	It's increasingly kind of a joke as a judicial poll.
	And we'll see if...
	You know, the J.D. Vance's, Blake Masters, Eric Greitens, Joe Kent's of the world need to start looking at do we need D.C. as a separate jurisdiction or is it time to get rid of it as a separate jurisdiction?
	I'm just going to bring this up because I love it.
	Robert, you're officially controlled opposition.
	How often do you get that you're also a member of Mossad?
	Well, when I challenged QAnon and what was going to happen, challenged the Dominion theory, challenged Lin Wood, that's when I tend to get a lot of that stuff.
	Fortunately or unfortunately, I've been right about those things more often than not.
	Speaking of materiality, guess who has the fraud is just fine because the government's in on it?
	Defense.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Darn it, Robert.
	I know I know it.
	I know I know it.
	It was...
	I need a hint.
	It's one of my cases.
	Oh, my goodness.
	The FDA, Robert.
	Let's go...
	Sorry, it was Pfizer.
	It was Pfizer.
	Pfizer.
	Sorry.
	No, we were in court this week scheduling as...
	Hold on one sec.
	Disclaimer.
	This is not legal advice.
	This is not medical advice.
	This is breaking down...
	Current pending lawsuits of national, international, and historical import.
	Robert, please go ahead and break it down.
	So I represent Brooke Jackson, who is a whistleblower who exposed that the Pfizer clinical trials were riddled not only with error, but with fraudulent and false certifications to the U.S. government.
	Allegedly.
	Allegedly.
	Yes.
	Well, she's got a lot of evidence of it.
	But what's fascinating is Pfizer has moved to dismiss the case.
	And they're grounds to dismiss as they repeated in the scheduling conference we had this week.
	Is that it doesn't matter if they submitted fraudulent certifications to the government.
	It doesn't matter if they submitted false statements under penalty of perjury to the government.
	It doesn't matter if they lied about the safety and efficacy of these drugs mislabeled, in my opinion, as vaccines.
	Because the government was in on it with them.
	The government knows what's going on and the government still would have given them the check anyway.
	So is it really fraud if the government's their co-conspirator?
	That is, in essence, Pfizer's defense so far to the case.
	So it'll be an interesting case.
	The judge said that we would be entitled to discovery about any issue related to the motion to dismiss.
	And so that covers some territory.
	That's an interesting thing.
	In Quebec, last time I checked, if you make a motion, anytime you file a new affidavit in support of a motion, you get to examine on the affidavit.
	So if they file the motion to dismiss, basically saying, look, we're innocent.
	But even if we're guilty, they authorized us to do it.
	Do you not get to examine them on those new allegations which were not part of the original proceeding and are new to the file?
	That's what the judge said.
	The judge said we're entitled to discovery on those issues, which they were going ballistic about.
	They kept saying, oh, well, we've just moved to dismiss.
	A motion to dismiss is on the four corners of the pleadings.
	Not their motion to dismiss.
	Their motion to dismiss includes a bunch of extra extrinsic information, documentation, and testimony, which we're absolutely entitled to contest and dispute and to get discovery concerning.
	And the court recognized the same.
	Very straightforward, old-school judge.
	So he was talking about when he first saw some federal rules, he thought that they were communists back in the day, 30, 35 years ago.
	But he goes, they really work well.
	And it involves disclosure and discovery in a timely, material way.
	So they'll be able to limit some discovery, but not as much as I think they wanted to.
	And it was a fascinating defense.
	Fascinating defense to say, yeah, maybe we lied.
	But even if we did, it doesn't matter because some high-ranking government people were in on the lie.
	I don't think that's going to be a defense the court's ultimately going to buy, but it entitles us to discovery in the interim, so it's going to be Brooke Jackson's case marches onward, probably the biggest whistleblower false claims act maybe in the history of the United States.
	And I don't want to overblow this, Robert, but people have to appreciate how important discovery is, even on a motion to dismiss.
	Now, in the practice, people, if you make a motion to dismiss and you say, this should be dismissed, Even assuming the allegations of the original claim are true, that's far different than saying it should be dismissed because of this, this, and this.
	Because if you file new exhibits, make new allegations which are not within the four corners of the lawsuit, you expose yourself to examination on those elements, on the affidavit of the new facts which were not part of the court file.
	It may be limited to the motion to dismiss.
	That's going to be fun.
	So this really is actually a big deal, Robert.
	Oh, huge, huge, huge.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, the goal of Pfizer, they had however many lawyers there.
	I mean, it was one lawyer after the other, after the other, after the other.
	Just lots and lots of corporate lawyers.
	And that was just the ones in present in court.
	And there were a bunch more on the phone and all that jazz.
	And I'm sure a bunch more listening in.
	It's just that kind of case.
	But it's huge.
	I mean, their goal was for this case to go away right away and for them not to have to disclose a single piece of information, a single piece of documentation, and just for them to be able to walk out without any consequence, because too often that has happened with big drug companies in America.
	This concerns Pfizer stealing $2 billion, that's the allegation, $2 billion from the people of the United States, which they're trying to confuse.
	They're saying, oh...
	If the government chooses to intervene, that's what governs the case.
	It's like, no, no, this claim is brought by Brooke Jackson on behalf of all the people.
	Sometimes the government does a good job of advocating for the people.
	Sometimes it doesn't.
	Either way, that's whose interest is at stake.
	Did Pfizer make false statements that got them a $2 billion check that they were not entitled to if they had made truthful statements?
	I love it.
	You say stealing tongue-in-cheek, and I'll just say it's one or the other.
	It's a theft or it's a gift, both of which are equally corrupt under the circumstances.
	I mean, it's something that people should not have had to write a check for.
	They were entitled to honest representations by Pfizer, and the allegations of the suit and the evidence presented by Brooke Jackson dispute that.
	Robert, I want to pull up this chat.
	I don't want to talk about it for too long because I don't want to get actually upset.
	Myself.
	But I have questions.
	Also, there was a suit brought this week, another suit.
	The fourth suit brought in the Oxford school shooting case, which we talked about as well.
	So you have Oxford, you have Evaldi, you have Buffalo.
	You kind of have Sandy Hook, though.
	Sandy Hook right now is being litigated just, you know, how much can we beat up on Alex Jones?
	He's being litigated in absentia from the actual defense group.
	One thing after the other.
	So what's interesting is people are seeing maybe why some of those Sandy Hook suits against Alex Jones were brought.
	They didn't want people to dig deeper about school safety standards.
	What would have happened?
	Would Evaldi have ever happened if the public would have known the truth about what happened at Sandy Hook?
	If they would have known that the politicians did not use basic school safety mechanisms that could have saved lives?
	Instead of Barack Obama using dead kids to champion taking away people's Second Amendment rights, or the media demonizing Alex Jones for things often he didn't even say or do that they blamed him for, if they would have instead done their job instead of politicians in Connecticut...
	Fail to do basic school safety standards.
	Maybe there would have been more attention paid to school safety standards, and maybe Uvalde doesn't happen.
	Because increasing evidence is there were fundamental failures by the school system in the Oxford, Michigan case, and fundamental failures by apparently both the school system and the local police force in responding to this school shooting that likely cost the lives of many young children that would not have otherwise.
	And that's what the Oxford lawsuit alleges.
	It goes through all the detail.
	More and more, we talked about it at the time.
	They're trying to blame the parents.
	Why?
	Because they want a distraction from what the school failed to do.
	It turns out the kid had even wrote help me in notes to the teachers and other people at the school before the incident because he was losing his mind.
	And yet the school did nothing about it.
	You know, this is basic training for them to do so.
	So that's why there's more and more suits focusing on it's the school system often at fault.
	It's the local politicians often at fault.
	Alex Jones, not parents.
	And while always at fault is the individual culprit, the individual culprit is often found to be a mentally ill individual who often in various ways either signaled their problems or screamed out for help, one or both, who the system failed to.
	And why does the FBI, ex-FBI agents and other FBI agents, retired FBI agents, why are they showing up on Discord conversations like QAnon with some of these mass shooters?
	Something unusual is going to happen.
	And so we'll see ultimately what the evidence avails itself.
	But both are increasing evidence that we need better school safety systems and more responsible media coverage.
	And if we'd had either or both, then more people would be alive today.
	And like, I hate, there's certain things I just hate discussing, I hate thinking about.
	There can be nothing more torturous than what now seems to be the situation with Uvalde.
	It's horror compounded by torture of psychological.
	It makes me physically sick.
	And I don't want to know that.
	What's not justifiable is a bunch of new gun control laws.
	The gun is not the cause here.
	And people need to understand this because I have not tweeted much about it.
	I don't want to.
	Early on, Posobiec.
	People who are less shy on social media tweeting about how the police stood down, stood down for 45 minutes to 90 minutes while this individual who, apparently known at the time, had killed his grandmother, a cousin.
	And apparently known for years to have been saying they were going to do this.
	Was messaging someone on Facebook.
	Got involved in a shootout after the two initial...
	Was on a discord with undercover FBI agents.
	And then left alone.
	They stood down for 45 minutes.
	I don't want to get angry.
	45 minutes.
	They prevented parents from getting in.
	They arrested people who were trying to go in and rescue people.
	I heard that they were tasing parents that were insisting on getting in, knowing what was going on.
	It's 45 minutes.
	That's not five minutes.
	How do you not blame the police?
	Blame the FBI?
	Blame the schools that don't have adequate investigatory?
	They're not using their investigatory techniques to stop events.
	Again, the FBI informant being on this Discord thing would suggest something else is at foot.
	People should study history of MKUltra and other things that went on.
	We cannot rule that out given, unfortunately, the government's history and given what keeps popping up.
	How is it people on the FBI's watch list somehow are not watched and are committing these events, one after the other, after the other, after the other, after the other?
	Robert, they might actually be being watched while going to the...
	Was this Pamela Geller?
	Maybe even helped.
	I mean, how exactly did this kid get some of the weapons he got, given just their cost, the financial barrier, what he was driving, other things?
	There are anomalies that have been completely unexplained here that raise serious questions about what happened, but at a minimum should highlight school safety, mental health treatment, public safety response, FBI role.
	Those are the things we should be investigating and researching and improving.
	What we should not be doing Is sacrificing civil liberties and civil rights.
	And what we should not be doing is figuring out ways to take away the lawful means of self-defense.
	Because this same week, a person tried to do a mass shooting in, I believe, West Virginia.
	And it was an armed person that stopped that from happening and a bunch of people dying.
	So again, all the evidence shows, even liberals who have studied this on gun control have ultimately conceded.
	Several of them in high-profile books and cases, publications.
	A writer for FiveThirtyEight did this.
	A Washington Post writer, an NPR person confirmed it.
	That if you dig in, guns save lives a lot more than they lose lives and cost lives.
	As a matter of just the practicality of it, the lawful exercise of guns is the best defense against lawless action.
	What is not, so that gun control should not be on the agenda.
	But of course, the Republicans being as weak-kneed as they are, trying to figure out an excuse to strip people of more civil liberties and civil rights, pass some bogus domestic terror legislation that looks like Patriot Act 2.0.
	They're trying to pass a new gun, you know, red flags?
	Red flags are a red flag.
	They're a red flag for civil rights, a red flag for self-defense, a red flag for constitutional liberty in America.
	Bad idea, period.
	There are other ways to deal with this, which is just adequate FBI investigation instead of FBI instigation, adequate police public policy response, adequate school safety mechanisms, and just those three things, and a little bit better public medical mental health rather than let's just drug them up to forever.
	And you do those four things and you're going to save lives.
	You're not going to save lives by taking away people's ability to defend themselves and others with the means and mechanism the second.
	The thing I can never get over is the idea 45 minutes.
	I'm not being glib.
	Just appreciate it.
	Two television shows back-to-back while you know what's going on.
	And that's on the low end.
	Some are saying 90 minutes.
	90 minutes?
	It's horrific.
	It's trauma, it's abuse, and then it's psychological torture.
	Okay, I had another thought that I was going to get at, Robert, and I think I lost it.
	It was about...
	No, hold on.
	Hold on.
	Kids used to take guns to school all the time in America.
	I mean, ordinary people.
	And we didn't have this problem.
	Maybe there's a correlation.
	I mean, do these mass shooters...
	We know what these mass shooters do.
	They go to the schools because they get media coverage.
	Well, there's been plenty of studies on this.
	It's media coverage that gives them the motivation and incentive to target schools in particular.
	It's not something, that's the only thing that's distinct to America is saturated American media coverage if it's a school shooter.
	But there's a second reason.
	They go to the schools because they're unprotected.
	They're insecure.
	They know almost nobody there's going to have a gun.
	That's why they do it.
	Now, you don't see them trying to shoot up cowboy bars.
	You don't try to see them shoot up rodeos.
	There are certain places they don't go because they know they'll be shot the moment they try.
	So, you know, that's where the focus should be.
	But, of course, the media's focus is going to be, you know, the big problem is that people have a lawful right to defend themselves, and we just got to take that away and monopolize it in the hands of the state.
	Well, here there are plenty of cops on scene.
	How well did that work out?
	Well, that's, we're going to get, you know, as more information comes out, we'll know more.
	The thought that you brought back, and that was one of the things I wanted to make as a point, When the conspiracy theories, like if you don't want people to have conspiracy theories, maybe you don't, you know, see a tragedy like this and then have the White House say, we're not investigating.
	George Floyd gets killed, allegedly by a police officer.
	Investigation, prosecution, and everything.
	21 people, 19 kids, after 45 to 90 minutes of the police standing down.
	No investigation.
	We trust the police.
	And now, getting back to Sandy Hook, I don't believe a lot of the conspiracy theories out there.
	Period.
	Period.
	So I don't want to get into any trouble.
	I don't want people thinking.
	You don't need a creative conspiracy theory.
	They didn't have the means to lock the doors.
	The teachers couldn't lock the doors.
	I know people firsthand.
	I have American friends and family.
	I had never understood the theory about why they destroyed the school.
	It was not that it didn't happen.
	It's that it did happen, and you need to destroy the weaknesses in how it happened.
	Not let the politicians be blamed for what happened.
	And look what happened to everybody else.
	We would have had much greater school safety if the world would have known the truth about Sandy Hook.
	We didn't because they were too busy trying to blame the gun and blame Alex Jones.
	And because they needed to blame the gun and blame Alex Jones, they didn't blame the school safety people who failed to do their job and little kids died because of it.
	And now more little kids died because of it.
	So, I mean, it's time for the politicians to get the highlight and the spotlight they deserve and quit pointing it back at us who defend ourselves with guns.
	They need to defend them.
	They need to figure out how to improve themselves for constantly failing basic safety mechanisms in America.
	Because that's where the culpability responds.
	It's not who they're trying to spotlight.
	They need to flip that spotlight right back on themselves because they're the ones culpable for the failure of basic school safety in America.
	This was one of the references I was talking about earlier, which is not just that the FBI knew and did nothing.
	In some cases, the FBI was right there watching it while it happened.
	Just research MKUltra and other things, what they were trying to build.
	You can't rule that out completely.
	I initially ruled it out, and then when I started seeing unusual patterns, I said, well, it might be a future hush-hush episode, I suppose.
	But it's frustrating because we know what the problem is, and there's a constant failure of the politicians and the media to address it because they would rather politically capitalize on this to strip us of our rights and liberties and empower themselves at our expense more.
	That's the reality of what we have.
	I actually just remembered the second part of what I wanted to say earlier.
	It's terrible often gun-free areas create anything but.
	I was on Dave Rubin, Rubin Report on Friday, talking about this.
	It's like, I just said, hypothetically, you know, the political one side of the aisle gets their wish list.
	Ban it all as of today going forward.
	There are 380-plus million firearms in the United States, if you exclude illegal firearms, I suspect.
	70-some-odd million rifles.
	If the guns are the problem, banning the sale going forward will do nothing to quell the existing problem.
	You have security at banks.
	In Canada, and I think in proper, well-secured schools in the States, Robert, you have locked doors in every classroom.
	A freaking magnet door to get into the school.
	You have these things.
	When these things fail, all at once, and then you have the cops show up, knowing what started, however long earlier.
	Apparently, some people say a 12-minute shootout in the parking lot before the murderer got into the school.
	And then you have 45 to 90-minute stand-down.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	You might think the guns are the problem, and you might have a point on certain respects.
	But quite clearly something else is a foul here.
	And again, when people used to take guns to school throughout all of American history until the 90s, there were very few mass school shootings in America.
	So I think that at some level, the presence of guns is mostly a self-defense mechanism and limits violence, not increases it.
	Now, sorry, that was an accidental pulling myself out.
	I was just trying to mute.
	Robert, the second point that I forgot to mention, not to put you on the spot, Robert, what percentage of firearms deaths are suicide?
	A majority.
	Once upon a time, do you not recall it being...
	I recall this from my own looking into it.
	At least in the United States.
	I don't know if that's true around the world.
	It was roughly a quarter to a third the last time I checked, which was pre-2020.
	Now, by the way...
	From the stats that I discussed with Ruben, and we both independently found, 54%.
	I remember it being 30%, and it was shocking then.
	54% as at 2021-2022.
	That's shocking.
	Notably, nobody blames the gun for suicide, right?
	But it shows you because that's a mental health issue.
	But they'll take those stats and call it death by gun and try to mislead people.
	Because all they care about is stripping people.
	They don't want to solve the problem.
	I mean, quite frankly, I think some people in the media and the left celebrate when these events occur because it serves their purposes and interests.
	And they've been obsessed about discouraging anybody asking real questions about these events.
	The real questions are why it wasn't their basic school safety, why isn't their mental health practices better, and why is the FBI magically following all these people and never arresting them or catching them when they commit the crime?
	I mean, these are basic questions that should be answered because they keep occurring over and over and over again.
	But it relates to other kinds of things going on.
	In terms of, there were some big election lawsuits brought this week.
	In Wisconsin, they brought five different suits challenging the drop boxes based on prior wins, which is that prior Wisconsin courts have determined that drop boxes are illegal in Wisconsin.
	In order for your ballot to constitutionally count...
	It has to be either hand-delivered by you or hand-delivered by you to the United States Mail Service, which has certain methods of sort of chain of custody that a Dropbox does not have.
	And so the Dropboxes have been under those standards by Wisconsin courts prior to terminations illegal, but there's a bunch of counties that are still doing it.
	And so they brought about a half dozen or so suits.
	I think it's the Thomas More Society who's initiated it, helped bring it about, challenging the illegal drop boxes, trying to stop them from being utilized in 2022.
	It's interesting because I talked a lot about signature matches and, you know, and we talked about the 2000 Mules, which we'll talk about more with Dinesh D'Souza on Wednesday on Rumble about.
	But what's interesting is look at Michigan.
	A bunch of Republican candidates are being kept off the ballot based on what?
	Signatures.
	Based on signature issues.
	And nobody on the Democratic side, or in the media, or in the government, or in the court system in Michigan, is saying, hey, what really matters is do people want this candidate on the ballot?
	They're not asking that question.
	They ask that question when it's about the 2020 election.
	They say, well, was this an actual vote of a voter intended to vote a certain way?
	They don't, regardless of whether they complied with the rules for their vote counting.
	Not in Michigan.
	Nope, nope, nope.
	Even if it was deliberate efforts, deliberate sabotage by Democratic petition circulators who infiltrated Republican campaigns and deliberately got duplicate signatures signed of the same candidate, getting both signatures struck, even though one of them is clearly legitimate, so that the person would not make the ballot and help Whitmer, who just coincidentally, when's the last time we've heard of entrapment, FBI illicit behavior, the same Michigan governor, same questionable corrupt.
	Election activities taking place there.
	So we're seeing good lawsuits in Wisconsin, problematic issues in Michigan, as it looks like Whitmer's going to, like Barack Obama's first state Senate bid, going to keep off her main competitors using the technicality of signature matches that magically didn't count in the 2020 election.
	Robert, now that you bring it up, the defendants who were acquitted, and then the, sorry, let me take this one down.
	The defendants who were acquitted in Whitmer Kidnapping plot.
	And the government said we're going to try to retry them.
	Are they still in jail?
	I'd be honest with you, I don't know.
	I don't know what's happened to them.
	And typically, or does it ever happen that someone who's acquitted but the government says we promise we're going to retry them?
	Are they continued to be detained until the government makes it?
	I mean, there's an argument that they should be released under the Eighth Amendment, but a lot of judges don't.
	Okay, I have to check that because I think I remember.
	Is it Julie Kelly or is it...
	Who was covering both Jan 6 and...
	Julie Kelly.
	Okay, I think I remember her.
	And Darren Beatty of The Revolver.
	Yeah, no, this definitely wasn't Darren Beatty.
	I think it was Julie.
	Mentioning how they were still locked up.
	At the very least, the defendants that were not acquitted were still locked up.
	Okay, and did we talk about Jan 6?
	We did talk about Jan 6 earlier.
	Just the juries are a joke.
	Just a complete joke.
	But explain again why you would recommend against the defendants or the accused opting for a judge bench trial as opposed to a jury trial.
	Two reasons.
	Because you waive a bunch of rights.
	So when you do a bench trial, you waive issues about venue, you waive issues about jury selection, you waive all those.
	So I would never waive those.
	That's the problem.
	And then the second problem is many of the judges are just as bad.
	It's not like you're getting a dramatic improvement.
	And the government also has to go along with it.
	So the government's unlikely to go along with it unless they think the judge is in their pocket or they think that you have a robust constitutional appeal on the issues of venue and jury selection.
	So that's the risk there.
	Okay.
	What does this segue into, Robert?
	Well, speaking of social media commentary that could sort of integrate through all of these cases we just talked about, There was a New Jersey case, McVeigh versus Atlanticare.
	It was an unpublished decision, classic in New Jersey.
	What happened is an employee of a company made comments on her personal Facebook page that simply said that she thought BLM was racist, was encouraging segregation, and would lead to more deaths of people who are black.
	Her employer was horrified at her lack of wokeness and so quickly fired her, summarily.
	She brought suit on the grounds of what's called wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
	Now, this is an area a bunch of courts in the 50s and 60s created because they wanted to carve out exception when they wanted to punish an employer.
	In most of the United States, the common law doctrine is at-will employment.
	It means you as an employer can hire or fire for pretty much any reason you want.
	The only limitations are various federal civil rights laws or state civil rights laws generally.
	Some states have broader protection.
	Some states don't, or cities or counties, depending on the case, say you can't discriminate for political beliefs or you can't discriminate because of protected activity or you can't discriminate because you blew the whistle on something, things like that.
	So some cities, counties, and states have those additional protections.
	New Jersey is not one of them.
	Now, when they carved out this wrongful discharge for public policy, I always kind of found it to be bogus.
	It was courts that wanted to say, well, we don't like this kind of firing, so we'll call that an exception to the at-will doctrine.
	But if you look at the common sense application of public policy, how would it not apply to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	How would it not apply to free speech?
	How is that not an established public policy?
	So all the courts, the courts don't like it because the courts are happy when people get fired for having the wrong political beliefs.
	So then they say, oh, free speech is not a public policy of the government.
	Really?
	Of the state?
	Really?
	I mean, they have to say ludicrous, preposterous things.
	But they had managed to say it because courts are, nobody's better at lying in our legal and political system than judges themselves.
	Little FYI.
	And that's the sort of nature of animal.
	And so she gets fired.
	She brings suit.
	They say, oh, there is no public policy prohibiting you from being fired for speech reasons.
	That by itself didn't concern a lot of observers because that's generally what almost every court has held.
	You have to get special legislation to include speech as a protection.
	And there's arguments on both sides, by the way.
	There's arguments for people who say, look, I should be able to fire somebody for any reason I want.
	Any interference will undermine the economy of doing so, and I'll second-guess hiring people and so on and so forth.
	So I get that there's definitely arguments on both sides.
	I've always been for a four-cause limitation on firing, and that can include economic necessity.
	But otherwise, you have the problem of power.
	But that's basically a longer, broader debate for another day.
	But what concerned people was what the New Jersey Court of Appeals went on to say.
	They went on to say, oh, it wouldn't matter if the First Amendment did apply, because one, you have no interest in your own personal opinion.
	That was a little bit shocking statement.
	And then second...
	Said these were racist, horrific comments.
	What?
	No, they weren't.
	I mean, that was taking a side politically.
	And so those comments led to some controversy within both the legal and political space because it showed how biased the court systems are in these kind of cases.
	Does anybody doubt that if this had been someone fired for being woke, that the court would have suddenly maybe come up with a different interpretation of the law?
	So that's the concern.
	But why are political views, I mean, I know they might be protected under the UNRU Act in California, but why are political views not a protected grounds for dismissal in as much as religion or race?
	Just because it's not listed.
	So that, in other words, the federal civil rights laws only limit employment if you're a certain scale of employee.
	You can actually discriminate if you're...
	Not that big of an employer, by the way.
	But if you're a certain size employer, depending on which jurisdiction, some states have broader rules.
	But generally, we've had a very strong bias in favor of at-will employment, the belief being that that maximizes economic efficiency over time.
	And so we're going to let employers hire and fire, even for economically irrational or counterproductive reasons.
	That's always been my counterargument, by the way.
	I was like, well, why should we allow people to fire for reasons that don't make economic sense?
	And we've only limited that to race, gender, religion.
	Some states have expanded that to sexual orientation.
	Some have expanded it to political beliefs, political activity.
	It depends.
	Sometimes it's political beliefs.
	Sometimes it's just political activity.
	Sometimes it's just public activity, so on and so forth.
	The irony here is if this employee...
	Had not listed their employer's name on their Facebook page, she probably never would have faced consequence.
	Because it's quite clear what happened is somebody doxxed her to her employer based on seeing her viewpoints being presented.
	It shows the dynamic of what we face, but it's a good transition in what the 11th Circuit did in gutting Florida's limitations on big tech censorship power.
	Okay, you've all heard about this, people.
	It was kind of a big story.
	Robert, remind me that you're going to have to explain how we got different versions of judgments from Texas Court of Appeal versus Florida.
	Bottom line, about, what is it, a year ago now, DeSantis implemented this law in Florida, which...
	Prevented social media platforms from deplatforming candidates.
	Candidates and politicians, not just during election cycles, but prevented the platforms from deplatforming politicians or candidates.
	Imposed fines.
	And for discriminating in certain ways and discriminating without explanation in certain ways.
	Yeah, that was the subsidiary part where they succeeded on it.
	Or at least they have to show their homework if they decide to do it because the court said you can't do it.
	I mean, look, the first question I had at the time, and I still don't think, I don't think I would support the law as I understood it being drafted.
	And this is, I'm not going to demonize DeSantis.
	I just, I don't think you can compel a platform not to de-platform somebody if they have good reason.
	What were the caveats in this law that would have allowed Facebook, Twitter, whatever, to de-platform a politician or a candidate for good reason?
	What protected them or enabled them to do that?
	Because it's not because you're a politician that you should not be immune from deplatforming.
	It's basically three different arguments.
	One was the argument that they had a monopoly on the public square in their space.
	So they cited Pruneyard and other cases to say the state can restrict speech of a big tech actor, of a private actor, when they are basically acting as otherwise the de facto public square censor.
	Because of their monopoly power.
	Now, they didn't quite articulate it as well as I think they could have, but that was the fundamental premise of their argument.
	The 11th Circuit rejected that entirely.
	The second thing their argument of the state was they are a common carrier, or we can at least treat them as a common carrier, because they hold themselves out to the public for the purposes of communications and platforms, like cable companies, like phone companies.
	That, too, the 11th Circuit completely rejected.
	And then because they argued that these platforms...
	I mean, the 11th Circuit case read like it was written by a big tech corporate lawyer.
	That is the reality.
	It embraced every single big tech argument and discarded every single challenge in question to big tech.
	And it did not do so, in my view, in a philosophically sincere way.
	It was very dismissive of the arguments brought.
	I mean, the fact that people who have read the case...
	Don't really know what DeSantis in Florida was arguing.
	Tells you the court was disingenuous in its handling of those arguments.
	Intellectually dishonest.
	And it was in just saying big tech rules.
	Big tech can do whatever they want whenever they want.
	The only limitations they put on them were not speech-specific limitations.
	They said these limitations you can put on because they have nothing to do with speech.
	Anything to do with speech, big tech rules.
	And the limitations were?
	They have to allow you to have access to your content for 60 days after the banning.
	My question is, well, it's twofold.
	Why would DeSantis target political candidates and not just the population at large?
	Because there's additional rules about...
	Access in the communications world under the various FCC rules.
	Even private media companies are put under restrictions about equal access for candidates.
	They have to give, for example, the lowest advertising cost in your television state.
	That's why television stations have a mixed view of political advertisers.
	They have to give them their best, most affordable rate, as an example.
	There's other things they have to do.
	So he was piggybacking off of that because the concern was that big tech could manipulate the outcome of elections by allowing certain candidates to trend and certain other candidates to not even exist on the platform.
	So what you have is illicit donations is what's really happening.
	You have in the hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars that big tech is doing just by who they favor in the algorithmic data, just by who they allow to even be on the platform and not.
	The 11th Circuit didn't even talk about this issue.
	Just ignored it entirely.
	Acted like it had no bearing.
	Again, the federal judges have become stenographers for big tech.
	They might as well just sign up for their big tech check now.
	Because that's their behavior.
	This 11th Circuit decision, in my opinion, there's a lot of First Amendment arguments to be made for it.
	It wasn't the decision that this was.
	This decision was such a one-sided decision.
	It was not thoughtful.
	It was not thorough.
	It was intellectually dishonest.
	It was arrogant.
	It was contemptuous.
	But it shows you where federal judges are when it comes to big tech.
	They are in big tech's pocket.
	Big tech barks and they come run it.
	And that's the reality of the federal judiciary right now, sadly.
	It's only going to change at the legislative level.
	It's not even likely to change at the Supreme Court level.
	They were completely dismissive of Justice Thomas' arguments.
	Just dismissive.
	Like, who would make this dumb argument?
	Who would make this dumb argument?
	People have to appreciate what you just said there, Robert.
	It's not the first time we've discussed it.
	But, like, how much was it worth to the Biden campaign?
	To have Twitter suppress the story about Hunter Biden's laptop.
	How much was that worth?
	It had tangible cost.
	So it's not just them acting as under the protection of Section 230.
	We're just deciding what we block, who we ban, and we're immune.
	They made what was a material campaign contribution, and they don't have to disclose it.
	They don't have to quantify it.
	They don't even have to answer to it.
	So I don't know how the court got around that other than ignoring it.
	It totally ignored it.
	But that's a good transition into a good Supreme Court ruling on speech in campaigns, which was the Ted Cruz case.
	So there's been efforts by the Federal Elections Commission and by others to treat campaign...
	And here's the reality of campaign finance laws and why I oppose almost all of them, other than disclosure laws.
	Campaign finance laws are...
	What they do is they create an incentive...
	For the corrupt actor to have an advantage, because the more rules and regulations that happen, it's the smaller actor, the more innocent actor who gets punished and penalized, not the bigger and more corrupt one, number one.
	Number two, it does control speech.
	How much you give to someone is a form of speech.
	And to limit that...
	It limits how much speech the candidate can give and how much the audience can hear.
	But in addition to that, it favors a regulatory bureaucracy that can superimpose itself over the election process.
	And last but not least, it creates a donor primary.
	The reason why liberals love this, neoliberals love it, and a lot of neoconservatives love it, the elites of both parties, is because it makes sure that you as a candidate cannot get through Unless a group of people who give $2,900 a pop agree with you.
	And who's going to give $2,900 a pop to a candidate?
	It's going to be the donor class.
	It allows the donor class to have a gatekeeping role in elections.
	And the only way to break through that is if you could find a dissident member of somebody who's wealthy, either yourself or someone else, to be a Trump or to be backed by someone like a Trump who could write a $10 million check for you.
	And again, Fully publicly disclosed, but I'm in favor because that system that allows just one donor to equal the power of a thousand donors breaks the power of the donor class to control who gets in and who gets out.
	And with full transparency, the public can make their decision as to what the consequence of that is.
	But one of the ways they've limited it is they've prohibited candidates from paying themselves back if they loan money to their campaign after they win.
	They cap it.
	And Cruz challenged this.
	They came up with every standing excuse that they possibly could.
	The government does.
	Oh, he can't sue us for this reason.
	He can't sue us for that reason.
	He can't sue us for another reason.
	The U.S. Supreme Court said no, none of those apply.
	Clearly this law is restricting this ability to do this activity, and it's having a broad public impact.
	And the only grounds for campaign finance law is to prohibit quid pro quo corruption, for which, in my view, transparency is sufficient.
	They've allowed certain third-party donor limits to exist.
	I'm not in favor of that, but okay, fair enough.
	Which, again, favors the class as a group.
	It makes you have to get approved by 50 donors rather than one donor.
	And who do you think that favors long-term?
	It's not the ordinary person.
	It's not populist causes, that's for sure.
	But putting that aside, You weren't even allowed to pay yourself back for donations you made.
	Supreme Court said that's patently unconstitutional.
	It has nothing to do with corruption whatsoever.
	It doesn't limit corruption at all.
	It simply prohibits speech in violation of the First Amendment.
	And you can't use prophylactic upon prophylactic upon prophylactic excuse.
	You can't use speculative examples that you don't have any evidentiary proof of.
	And ruled in favor of Ted Cruz against the FEC and struck down a bad law that was trying to prohibit.
	Frankly, prohibit people from challenging the establishment and challenging incumbents from winning.
	Okay, I mean, that's interesting, but is the practical effect of that not that, I mean, on the one hand, it's still going to empower the rich who can self-finance to some extent?
	I mean, that's always the case.
	But, I mean, basically the choice is, do you want a group of people who are upper middle class and wealthy to decide the race, or do you want it to be available to, or not?
	I mean, in the end.
	Because that's really the options.
	The option's never been whether money matters.
	Money's always going to matter.
	It's going to be, do you have to get approval of 51% of the country club or 1% of the country club?
	If it's the right 1%.
	Give me the right 1% over the 51% every day of the week.
	That's very interesting.
	Okay.
	That's fascinating.
	Was there another, there was another court of appeal, or there was another Supreme Court decision that I think we should touch on.
	I mean, there are several.
	So there was another Supreme Court case about, and here I agree with Gorsuch.
	There are several cases where I agreed with the liberals and not the conservatives.
	So there was an immigration case.
	What happens is the guy's been living here for like 30 years.
	At one point he applied for a driver's license, failed to properly disclose his citizenship, but it was unclear whether the lower immigration bodies got it right.
	He then applied for proper citizenship.
	It was not only denied, but they were going to deport him, even though he had a family.
	He's been here for, you know, again, 30 years at this stage.
	Not someone, no criminal history, nothing like that.
	None of the problematic red flags that Trump had targeted for deportation.
	Didn't fit any of that.
	They were going to deport him, and it appeared that they had relied upon a false factual assumption about whether he had actually applied for a government benefit.

▲