Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 12, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:34

Ep. 116: Another Week of Law, Chicanery, and Fake News - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A nice picture.
	Look at this.
	Okay.
	You ready for the rollercoaster story?
	Yes.
	That's a yes.
	Little Ethan was at the rollercoaster.
	He sat down in his seat and it went and then the rollercoaster started moving and it started going up and it got to the top and it stopped.
	And then it started going down real fast.
	And it took a turn.
	And it took another turn.
	And then it got to the bottom.
	And then it started going back up.
	And then it stopped.
	And then it started going down fast again.
	And then it hit the bottom.
	And then it started going back up again.
	But the ride was over.
	And the ride was over.
	I said I'd have to start with something that would make us...
	Not us.
	I'll be honest.
	I'm being selfish.
	Something that would make me happy.
	I stumbled across this video today when I was looking for an old video.
	I was looking for an old video where I was in...
	Saguaro National Park.
	And the video was called Personification of the Saguaro.
	For anyone who has never seen a Saguaro cactus, those magnificent, glorious, hundreds of years old, massive cacti, they only exist in, well, they don't only exist, but there's a Saguaro National Park, which is a park of these cacti that exists on a thin strip in Arizona.
	Long story short, I was looking for that video for some post on Twitter, stumbled across this.
	This video made me happy to look at.
	There's an age as of which a baby's breath no longer smells fresh and beautiful and sweet and pure.
	When a baby is born, its breath smells like pure angel sweat.
	And that is true for a while, but...
	As the progression goes and the metaphor goes, you know, the older kids get, the more foul their breath becomes until they become decrepit, foul-mouthed, corrupt, dishonest, lying politicians, whomever.
	You know, they become adults.
	And adult breath smells.
	And it's the, you know, the life that sours one's breath from pristine, pure baby breath.
	To that that comes out of adults' mouths.
	Okay.
	Why was I feeling this way?
	For those of you who follow me on Twitter, or for those of you who follow us on Locals, you would have already seen this.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com But why?
	Why was I angry over the course of this weekend?
	Well, I don't publicize my fights, even though it might make for good internet drama.
	I don't.
	Typically, publicize them.
	Also, because I live by my own advice that when you're fighting with someone, maybe you don't necessarily take it out on social media.
	Because that doesn't always work out when you take your legal issues or your fights to social media.
	Hold on a second.
	Somebody's driving me crazy here.
	Okay.
	But some of you might have known that a while back...
	I believe I was defamed by CTV W5.
	By Kevin Newman and whomever the producer of W5 is.
	Back in January, they asked me to do an interview on an episode that they were going to be putting together featuring Rumble.
	I thought it was going to be a nice, honest piece about Rumble, a Canadian company that's giving competition to YouTube.
	It's actually like an amazing success story.
	And I invite these people into my house, into my home, into my living room, to meet my family, to meet my wife, to meet my kids.
	And I sit down with Kevin Newman.
	And it was about 20 minutes into the interview that I realized Kevin Newman is not there with pure, pristine angel baby breath.
	He is there with foul, adult, deceitful breath.
	And at one point, I'm going to put together an entire vlog for tomorrow, and it's going to be glorious because it's going to go into some of the text messages that I had with the producer about the whole incident.
	But bottom line, they come into my house.
	We sit down for 40...
	We actually sat down for a couple of hours.
	They had to set up, talk, giggle, laugh, talk about our lives.
	You know, like making friends, not realizing that he was there to use me as a tool to defame Rumble.
	And about 20 minutes into the interview, He references one comment on one video on Rumble that he thought the comment was offensive, objectionable, inciting, whatever.
	Cherry-picking one comment.
	I have no idea what the comment is.
	I have no idea how many thumbs up the comment got.
	I have no idea if anybody even noticed the comment.
	He asks me, do you not feel responsible for these comments?
	And I was like, you think I'm supposed to survey the internet and be responsible for one comment of the Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of comments on my videos across social media platforms.
	I'm supposed to be responsible for that?
	Any more than you are for years?
	So bottom line, they air this piece, and it's a Rumble hit piece.
	Calls Rumble a right-wing darling, whatever, yadda yadda, a place for misinformation.
	At one point in the broadcast, they say, Kevin Newman says, Freiheit, who's had his videos pulled by YouTube, challenged by Facebook.
	But never by Rumble.
	And I made a joke at the time.
	I was like, you guys, it's a mistake.
	I've had one video pulled by YouTube.
	One.
	On my main channel.
	In the history of my 2,700 plus videos.
	One.
	It was demonetized.
	Then pulled.
	Allegedly violated YouTube's terms of services.
	This was my breakdown of Alex Jones' deposition.
	It was subsequently not just reinstated on the platform, but remonetized.
	I have never had.
	I'll tell you.
	It's kind of surprising to me.
	I've never had one post of mine challenged on Facebook.
	Never had one post taken down on Facebook ever that I know of.
	And I don't think I've, I've never gotten a notification from Facebook.
	So I tweeted out and I say, hey guys, funny, funny.
	I've had one video pulled, not multiple videos, and none challenged by Facebook.
	Can you go ahead and correct that, please?
	I'm not looking for a fight, just correct it.
	Because, you know, it could lead to consequences.
	What do they do?
	They make a stealth edit to the digital version and just edit it out.
	Just like Fryhead, who had a video pulled from YouTube, but never from Rumble.
	And I said, guys, that's not good enough.
	No one who saw the original television broadcast is going to have seen this.
	And they don't do anything.
	So I get a lawyer.
	I don't know if he wants me to shout him out.
	Kareem Renaud.
	He's a good lawyer.
	Kareem Renaud.
	A-R-I-M-R-E-N-N-O.
	And I ask him to draft a letter of demand, which he does.
	It's easy enough for him to draft a letter of demand because I've documented all of this from beginning to end.
	You came into my house.
	We shot this video.
	You made a substantially false statement.
	Just correct and retract.
	I asked you to.
	You did nothing.
	Oh, and by the way, not only did you do nothing, but what you did was an admission of guilt because you just went and stealthily edited the digital version and never made a public statement.
	I send a letter of demand.
	Stick around for the vlog.
	You're going to read the relevant passages.
	And then three weeks after the letter of demand is sent to them, I get an email saying, we're going to update and correct the story.
	And I'm not an asshole.
	So I didn't go to social media doing a victory lap.
	I said, first of all, if they're going to do the right thing, I don't want to rub their faces in it.
	If they're going to actually come out and apologize, I don't want to be like the guy.
	Even in victory, I don't care.
	So I made the announcement last week.
	Watch the last night's episode of W5.
	Apparently, they're going to correct and retract.
	And I was optimistic.
	All they had to do was the right thing.
	What do they do?
	Not the right thing.
	Not the right thing.
	Listen to this.
	This is at the...
	First of all, what they did, they updated their initial Rumble hit piece and threw in a little January 6 twist to it.
	So they basically rebroadcast, refreshed, with some new edits, with some new information, the original hit piece on Rumble, this time with a January 6 angle to it.
	At the end of all, they say the same things about me during the interview, make me look like I'm somehow responsible for idiot comments on...
	Any one of my videos on any one of the platforms.
	And by the way, Kevin Newman, if you think the comments are bad on Rumble, why don't you take a gander as to what's on YouTube?
	At the end of this piece, this is what Kevin Newman, the man of the people, the honest journalist on W5, this is what he says.
	Hold on.
	Why do I not hear that through my headpiece?
	We reported that YouTube had removed What is going on?
	Why am I not seeing this?
	Come on, man.
	Okay, there you go.
	Forget it.
	Hold on.
	I'm just going to put it on mute.
	Mute.
	When our story first aired, we reported that YouTube had removed a post from David Freihead and Facebook had challenged some of his posts while Rumble had done neither.
	Mr. Freihead informed us that YouTube had reinstated his COVID post on appeal and Facebook challenges are automatically generated for most COVID content.
	So we immediately clarified those references in online versions of the story and the one that you just watched.
	Copyright Australian Broadcasting Corporation you you Thank you.
	Who wants to count the lies in that one statement?
	Who wants to count the lies in that one correction?
	First of all, it wasn't a COVID post.
	It had nothing to do with COVID.
	It was posted in 2018.
	It was a breakdown of a deposition, which if you specify that, Kevin Newman, maybe people are going to appreciate how idiotic it was that that video was ever removed in the first place.
	It wasn't a COVID post.
	Second thing, I never for the life of me in my life would have or could have informed.
	Kevin Newman, that the Facebook...
	What did they say?
	That Facebook automatically...
	Oh, hold on.
	That Facebook automatically...
	Hold on.
	They hit his COVID post on appeal and Facebook challenges are automatically generated for most COVID content.
	I never told them that Facebook warnings are automatically generated on most COVID content.
	I never told that to him because I don't even know if that's true.
	I never even heard of that in my life.
	What I told them is that I have never had any post challenged on Facebook.
	And by the way, last one, they immediately corrected it.
	Content.
	So we immediately clarified those references in online versions of the story.
	No, you didn't.
	No, you didn't.
	And in fact, what you just did right there is make another lie because you have this hell-bent narrative of trying to make this a piece to hit rumble with.
	So you have to pretend that that video That was pulled from YouTube but subsequently reinstated was a COVID post that Rumble never touched when it predated COVID by nearly two years.
	So I am seriously...
	I'm a hair away from actually thinking about suing.
	Crowdfunding the lawsuit and doing it.
	So stay tuned.
	I genuinely don't...
	I'm going to put together a nice, concise car vlog, the VLAWG.
	And it's going to have some of the correspondence.
	And it's going to be fun and it's going to be exciting and it's going to lead people into day two of the January 6th hearings tomorrow.
	Liars.
	Just liars.
	And they are incapable of doing the right thing.
	They're incapable of being honest people.
	It's shameful, shameless, disgusting.
	Will you be covering the legal merits of the case of the 31 individuals arrested in Idaho for, quote, conspiracy to riot?
	Let me look into it and see what that's about.
	I'm not even sure that I know about that.
	Here's to crowdfunding it.
	Well, by the way, if I crowdfund it, I'm going to create a specific give-send-go and not a GoFundMe, a give-send-go where it's going to be explicit.
	I'm going to set a cap.
	I'm going to get an estimate for the trial, and I'm going to cap the amount.
	At the estimate.
	And that is only going to be for the trial of the trial only.
	And if there's excess, I'll donate it to wherever.
	Big brother, big sister of Greater Montreal is my charity of choice.
	But it'll be clear.
	And I'm not going to confound supporting me versus supporting this crowdfunded lawsuit if I do it.
	Seriously not looking for a lawsuit.
	I'm just looking for people to be damn honest and admit when you made a mistake.
	I tweeted out Michael Tracy where I thought he had maybe...
	Overly simplified some of Donald Trump's speech, and no, lo and behold, it was literally verbatim from the speech.
	Okay, Tracy, I was wrong.
	It wasn't the substance of my comment.
	My comment was more that Trump, probably a good thing he didn't go down to the Capitol on January 6th, but just admit it.
	How hard is that?
	You want to reinstill faith in your flailing, failing, garbage media.
	How about you just be honest and admit you made a mistake?
	Instead of compounding it, because the statement you made there, Kevin Newman, is even more defamatory, because the post that was pulled wasn't COVID.
	Trying to paint me as a COVID disinformation individual, and you make up a lie that the post that was removed from Facebook, even temporarily, had anything to do with COVID?
	Shameful!
	Ugh!
	Sue them for nothing else in my entertainment.
	All right, with that said, people, so we start with the sweet, angelic innocence and purity of baby's breath, leading into Kevin Newman.
	Let me see this here.
	What I was going to say, yes, standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election, fornification advice, no legal advice.
	YouTube has been doing me dirty on the Viva Clips channel, just demonetizing my clip uploads, which makes no sense.
	They get remonetized, but this week was frustrating because the Justin Bieber article summary...
	100,000 views in 24 hours, but demonetized.
	But it doesn't matter.
	It's also a question of principle.
	I'm not working for YouTube, and it's very, very frustrating, but whatever.
	Okay, so YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats, by the way, people.
	So if you don't want to support YouTube, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has a thing called Rumble Rants, where Rumble takes 20% and not 30%, so it's better for the creator.
	Better for the platform, to support a free speech platform.
	And there's that.
	The best way to support us?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Right there.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	Hamartix, $20 rumble rant, says the MSM embodies the principle of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
	Welcome to what happens to everyone who they disagree with.
	You are in the same territory as Jordan Peterson.
	I invited him into my house.
	He met my wife and kids.
	He knows that he's not, to the extent he's going to do any damage to me, he's not doing damage to a bad person.
	He's doing damage, or he's attempting to, which is even worse.
	I consider myself to be a good person.
	Period.
	I have my flaws and I have my foibles, but I consider myself to be a truly good person.
	This individual knows that he's coming into my home to try to do harm to a good person.
	May he live forever.
	To quote 300.
	Thought you said fornification advice.
	Oh, I did.
	I can give you fornification advice, but it'll be over quickly.
	Okay, I'm done.
	They only worship money and power.
	Will lie, cheat, and steal for it.
	Well, speaking of which, let's bring on the Barnes because I think we're going to have some discussion about the fight for power.
	Hold on.
	Robert Sura.
	How are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Robert, so I didn't want to bother you on vacation.
	I'm happy.
	Are you back home now?
	Yes, yeah.
	It was about a 10-day vacation, so interrupted briefly by a federal judge, but other than that, it was good.
	Dare I ask what you did, or was it just seeing the sights and getting the history of Louisiana?
	I love New Orleans.
	I picked up this book by T. Harry Williams on Huey Long, which was revolutionary for me when I was a college student in D.C. freshman year after Yale.
	That was the book that introduced me to really understanding American populism.
	They had a T. Harry Williams signed edition at the Crescent City Bookstore there in the great French Quarter in New Orleans.
	I love New Orleans.
	I almost went to law school there.
	I almost set up my law office originally.
	Partially there.
	And so, yeah, just having some fun in New Orleans.
	Might take a little bit of additional vacation at some point later in the summer.
	You know, that part of it in Europe if the rules keep changing in the favorable direction.
	Yeah, they look like they're coming down in Europe, but just not yet Canada, Robert.
	I said, Justin Trudeau has found the way of turning Canada into a North Korea without becoming an overt dictator.
	Just make it so difficult.
	People vow never to come here again and make it so difficult for people to leave that they can never see the freedom of the rest of the world.
	Robert, we'll start off on one thing that's been irritating me all week and at the risk of immediately demonetizing this video.
	The January 6th hearing apparently is...
	Hold on.
	Stop that.
	Is apparently verboten on YouTube.
	Did you watch any of it Thursday night?
	I did not.
	Okay, probably for the better.
	I'll ask you these questions.
	You'll tell me if you know the answers offhand.
	The argument that the committee itself is invalid.
	Now, we've discussed it, I think, multiple times in the past in that I think you had the broader opinion that the committee itself, which has been formed, tasked itself to investigate this, arguably does not have a legitimate legislative purpose.
	Can you refresh that argument and explain whether or not...
	Legislatively, in terms of an objective, or formation-wise, whether or not it's met the criteria, what about the argument that this is not a valid committee to begin with?
	It's because in order for Congress to act, it must act consistent with certain of its own internal rules, and it has not done so in this context.
	So it needs to respect the right of the legislative minority within certain provisions in terms of who gets appointed to a committee, how the committee gets formed.
	Someone can't just say, hey, we're members of Congress, so now we have subpoena power.
	That by itself doesn't work.
	It needs to go through certain procedures internally in order to match that.
	And those procedures are meant to respect certain minority rights and other privileges.
	And that hasn't happened.
	And so this is the Speaker's personal committee.
	That's what it is.
	It's not a properly formed committee consistent with the Congress's own rules.
	Now, the problem has been none of the D.C. courts have done anything about it.
	They've been they've refused to enforce these rules as to Congress.
	Congress never should have had subpoena power in the first place, frankly.
	But, you know, if you're going to give them power, make sure it stays within the limits of the rules.
	One of the arguments for why this should be tolerated is because...
	When the Republicans did it with Katrina, with Benghazi, they had the same sort of technical violations of the formation of the committee in that Democrats didn't participate.
	They formed it without Democrat representation, participation.
	Pelosi objected at the time, then said it was a sham, but now it's their sham, so they're going to welcome it.
	But what do you say about that argument?
	I was not politically aware enough to even know what was going on then.
	Did they do the same types of violations that the Democrat or the bipartisan committee is doing now?
	Not to my knowledge, no.
	I mean, the difference here was Pelosi deliberately ignored McCarthy's request for people on the committee.
	But not only that, they didn't comply with certain ranking member right requirements.
	I mean, to my knowledge, this committee is completely unusual in being a hand-picked speaker committee over the objections of the minority party.
	And then a range of other ways in which it's been formulated that are inconsistent with the rules.
	So to my knowledge, some of these things have never happened before in the way they formed this particular committee.
	And one of the major critiques of the GOP or the Republican side, I guess, is that Pelosi basically had to approve.
	The Republican candidates didn't approve of two of the recommendations.
	I mean, I just guess I know it's politics.
	How is it a bipartisan committee when the only two Republicans on it?
	We're hand-selected by Nancy Pelosi herself.
	Right.
	It's not.
	It's purely the Speaker's personal committee.
	And the question is, there's no question it violates the rules of Congress.
	The question is whether there's going to be anybody to enforce it.
	And the problem is, what happens when the only people enforcing these rules are the ones violating them?
	Apparently the sex bots are in the chat already.
	I'll look for them, people.
	I may have invited them this time.
	That's a joke.
	Robert, what do you say about the idea that people are suggesting that this entire hearing...
	It's a spectacle at the very least.
	It might be a sham at getting to the side of the very worst.
	People are of the opinion that this is not a PSYOP, but rather this is just to get people warmed up to the idea, sensitized to, or whipped up into accepting criminal charges against Trump to frustrate a 2024 run.
	Is that what you think this is going to culminate in?
	No.
	I mean, I think they wanted this to do that all the way back, but they needed the January 6th to go a different direction than it did.
	They needed a lot more criminality.
	They needed a lot more violence.
	And they didn't get that.
	And they needed Trump to say and do certain things that he never did.
	So that's their problem.
	I mean, they can lay out their fictional roadmap, like the Russiagate roadmap.
	For criminal prosecution, the Justice Department would be insane to bring it, and it would be the last call of the Justice Department's ability to claim any degree of partiality.
	So, I mean, we would be full banana republic by that point if they try to bring nonsensical charges against Trump.
	Robert, they say you're too loud.
	I didn't even know that people were saying that.
	Okay, hold on.
	Tell me if that's better.
	People, let me see my volume.
	Well, that's embarrassing.
	We've been going for so long without me knowing this.
	And I've been reading the chat.
	Hold on.
	Settings, audio.
	Oh, well, mine's at 60 and Robert's is at...
	Okay, this should be better, people.
	Sorry about that.
	Okay, are you going to watch it tomorrow?
	I'm going to go live and stream it again regardless.
	But are you watching this or are you just not watching it?
	No, I think it's a joke.
	So I'm not paying any attention to it.
	It's not just a joke, Robert.
	It's fantastically ridiculous.
	What's his name?
	Benny Thompson.
	If you didn't see this, you might have seen the highlight.
	It recognizes himself for questioning.
	He says, pursuant to rule 503C, whatever of the rules that we drafted for ourselves, I recognize myself to ask some questions.
	He then goes on for a minute plus testifying about...
	The police officer hitting her head, the violent protest, yada, yada.
	And then in the last 15 seconds asks, why are you here today?
	They've submitted.
	It's not just edited.
	It's not like even edited in the sense of the Alex Jones deposition where the lawyer spliced together different clips.
	They've overlaid audio to video.
	They've superimposed tweets in the context of videos.
	They've spliced together events that didn't happen at the same time.
	They've manufactured the evidence for this hearing, which they wrongly dub as bipartisan, for this primetime show trial, which is McCarthy-esque or Kim Jong-un-esque at best.
	I'm going to stream it anyhow.
	I think someone has to do it and offer the bits of information that I think I can offer, but also I'm a glutton for punishment.
	But Robert, on the issue of Jan 6, and possibly one of the only...
	Two meaningful crimes committed that day.
	I shouldn't say a crime because they have decided not to prosecute the Capitol Police officer who shot Ashley Babbitt point blank in the neck.
	Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request, correct?
	For all information relating to the decision not to prosecute or not to go after, I think his name is Bird?
	Yes, and the government hid the documents as long as they could until they were forced by Judicial Watch's lawsuit to disclose it.
	And there was a lot of interesting things.
	Evidence has gone missing in the case, including evidence about what the potential defendant, what the U.S. Capitol Police officer, what he signed and some other evidence that he gathered that day that just vanished.
	The video cameras weren't working in that area.
	So apparently there's missing video cameras footage from the incident.
	Other officers refuted what he said.
	Other officers said he didn't issue any warning at all.
	They didn't hear any warning at all.
	They just suddenly, there was a shot.
	So, you know, proving that he lied in the context of an FBI, of a federal investigation.
	And the Biden Justice Department, being the ongoing joke that they are, declined prosecution.
	And the declination memorandum they got a hold of and their internal grounds, how they kept editing it for political purposes.
	You know, we'll get into this later, but I keep hearing from either judges or prosecutors or other people about how impartial our justice system is.
	Well, then why was the Justice Department going through and changing the word crowd to mob throughout the entire report?
	I mean, it was a politically motivated decision and a politically motivated report that is against the facts and against the law.
	And the only real crime committed on January 6th is still not being prosecuted, nor meaningfully investigated by the so-called January 6th committee.
	And for anybody who doesn't actually know, the police officer who was standing behind the glass, I mean, point blank is not the word.
	I didn't appreciate how close it was.
	One shot, unarmed Ashley Babbitt.
	And the thing is this, from day one I said, you know...
	This was a stupid thing to do.
	You're rushing through broken glass windows in Congress on Capitol Hill.
	You're doing stupid things.
	You can't but be surprised when stupid things happen.
	And I don't like to play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
	I find it's disrespectful oftentimes to the deceased.
	I think it's more like Fight Club when they drag Robert Paulson's body in and Ed Norton's like, you guys are running around blowing buildings up.
	What did you think was going to happen?
	You're jumping through broken glass.
	At the Capitol building, when you know politicians are on the other side or ought to know, you don't deserve what happened, but you can't be surprised when it does happen.
	That being said, it shouldn't have happened.
	And you have this guy who did what he did, point blank, no visible weapons.
	The argument, she had a backpack, we didn't know what she was going to do, yada, yada, yada.
	Whether or not there were other ways of diffusing this, hindsight's 20-20.
	As far as he goes himself, this is the same officer who at one point in time left his firearm.
	Forgot it in a bathroom in the Capitol building.
	He had not the cleanest of records.
	And he did this, whatever, you know, we've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
	They didn't even go ahead with pressing charges to let him be exonerated by a D.C. jury.
	I don't know, Robert.
	I mean, I guess the question is this.
	Banana Republic, one thing, show trials, another.
	People losing faith.
	What might come from this FOIA request?
	I mean, what might be the silver lining of this FOIA request from Judicial Watch?
	Well, you know, I think people like Andrew Branca and others thought that he had a self-defense, the officer.
	This refutes the evidentiary assumptions that I believe Andrew and others were relying upon for making that argument.
	Because there was, according to other officers, there was no warning at all that this was just cold-blooded killing.
	And that raises serious questions as to whether or not...
	It should have been prosecuted.
	But independent of that, whether or not you prosecuted him for the murder, there's the question of whether he should have been prosecuted for lying to investigators in the middle of a federal investigation for which other officers have attested that's what he did.
	Other U.S. Capitol Police officers.
	So, I mean, this was...
	They were never going to prosecute him.
	They weren't going to take it seriously.
	The only real murder that took place that day was by the U.S. Capitol Police.
	Now, what is interesting is they have a new excrement.
	For why they admit in these documents that the Capitol Police was way less than it was supposed to be that day.
	COVID.
	Less than half.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	I didn't mean to cut you off.
	Go ahead.
	I'm going to just pull up the screen grab.
	I screenshotted this.
	Couldn't believe it.
	Yeah.
	Because, well, their excuse now is COVID.
	That's why there was a sudden, unexplained, unpredicted lapse in security that day.
	It was COVID-19.
	You know, I guess it's too bad they didn't have COVID during the JFK assassination.
	They would have used that for half a dozen excuses as to what happened.
	But by the way, it's the ever-shifting goalpost of there were enough police.
	Nobody asked for more police and there were enough police.
	Okay, people asked for police.
	There weren't enough, but it wasn't because we decided not to.
	Okay, there weren't enough and here's why.
	COVID.
	This is from the Judicial Watch's PR release.
	Press release?
	Yeah, press release.
	Did we share this on Locals yet?
	Okay, we'll share this on Locals after the stream.
	The memo, this is from their findings from...
	What they requested.
	The memo notes that security staffing on January 6th was less than half the usual amount due to COVID-19.
	Lieutenant Byrd, this is a quote, did agree to participate with this counsel, Mark Shamel, in a voluntary debrief and walkthrough of the scene on January 29, 2021.
	Due to COVID-19 and other issues, the normal staffing for a joint session was less than half of what Lieutenant Byrd usually has assigned to the House chamber.
	Once he arrived that morning, he was informed that USCP, United States Capitol Police Operations, had made the decision that the uniformed officers needed to pick up riot gear.
	This was, you know, we're talking, I wonder if they're going to ask this question during tomorrow's hearing.
	They knew, at the very least, protests were planned.
	They had applied for permits.
	They knew massive amounts of people were going to come down to the Capitol.
	They had a female officer with two other people in bike racks on one location, half the staff because of COVID for another, for what's supposed to be the most well-protected building on earth, after insisting that they had enough staff since the very beginning.
	Don't expect any of these questions to come up during tomorrow's hearing.
	What else, Robert, that was of interest in the disclosures?
	Those are the main items.
	I mean, those of us who are critical of the failure to prosecute and the failure to really meaningfully investigate the information that Judicial Watch unearthed provided further confirmation of those skepticisms and suspicions of what the Justice Department was up to.
	And so the January 6th, I mean, the problem for the January 6th committee is they wanted this to be the permanent discrediting.
	Of populist republicanism in America, populist conservatism in America, Trumpism in America.
	And not only of Trump individually, but of his entire constituency.
	That they're dangerous insurrectionists who can't wait to overthrow the government.
	That didn't happen.
	Nobody on January 6th did half the things that the Democratic allied Antifa and BLM did in the summer leading up to it.
	And so, consequently, they keep pretending.
	They're like, well, if we keep living in a fantasy land where our version of January 6th took place and we just keep talking about it over and over, maybe MSNBC's coverage will suddenly convince people that something that didn't happen, happened.
	It's kind of like the gaslighting after the Johnny Depp verdict, where the media's reaction isn't, oh, maybe we got it wrong.
	It's, let's pretend we got it right and everybody else is doing the gaslighting, including the jury.
	Liberal Fairfax jury is now gaslighting.
	That's the same thing on January 6th.
	It's people who have lost control of the narrative, keep pretending the narrative is something it isn't, and the good work by Judicial Watch shows who the real criminals were on January 6th.
	Yeah, and I say, Robert, we don't have to be as careful, but we don't want to pull a coach, whatever it is, from the Washington commanders who...
	Called it a dust-up and criticized the fact that it wasn't as bad as what we had seen before and got fined $100,000, which we might talk about that in a second.
	Which is insane.
	I mean, the NFL momentarily stepped back from that political bridge and now they're back dancing with it again.
	We'll get there on the subject.
	The family is going to sue for wrongful death.
	They just have to go through certain administrative protocols before they can file the suit.
	And what was it?
	Because we did talk about it.
	If I recall, it was more than six months.
	I don't think they can sue until October, if I recall right.
	Okay.
	Good.
	Not good, but good enough.
	Because we had talked about that.
	It was a delay that they have to wait.
	The information provided in the FOIA supports why they brought the suit.
	Now, Robert, I don't know if you have anything to add on this or even pontificate.
	It's odd that 5CP did things to themselves in the wake of.
	What did they know?
	What do we know?
	I don't know if the suicide rate among police is higher than average.
	Do you know anything about that?
	I don't want to say it sounds suspicious.
	It sounds very weird.
	Definitely very unusual, and I haven't seen good explanations for why that was.
	I'm sure that the media works at it.
	It'll either be the trauma of experience January 6th or COVID.
	Let's see here.
	Laps of police.
	There were literally thousands outside doing nothing.
	All lies.
	Yeah, sorry.
	I pulled that one up.
	Then there was this chat from Britt Cormier.
	Barnes, I used to think that only the POTUS could lie under oath.
	Thanks, Clinton.
	However, the past year of watching Grosskreutz, Smollett's, Clinesmith, Sussman, Heard lying under oath is now for everyone, not just POTUS.
	Well, and we saw it again this week.
	The same D.C. bar that let Clinesmith walk.
	You know, that, you know, he just did his year suspension and back in, is now going after Rudy Giuliani for something that had nothing to do with the District of Columbia.
	For no case that was pending in the District of Columbia.
	For his filings in a Pennsylvania federal court proceeding challenging the election results, they're saying he should be suspended or disbarred.
	I mean, it shows what a joke the D.C. bar is.
	The Texas bar is doing the same thing to more people as well.
	Not just Sidney Powell, they're expanding it.
	They're now, get this, the Texas State Bar is trying to go after the Texas Attorney General for filing that suit before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I mean, this is insanity times 10. This is what happened.
	This is why we should have never allowed lawyers to require to be licensed in the first place.
	The people who controlled the licensing were always going to abuse it.
	To protect the power of the privileged few and not for the people.
	It was never going to be used to protect the ordinary person.
	Never has been, frankly.
	Licensing was a horrendous idea and we're seeing the consequences of it as it's being overtly, openly, politically weaponized to go after the former mayor of the city of New York and go after the sitting attorney general in the state of Texas.
	The sitting attorney general is Ken Paxton.
	Just one overwhelmingly.
	Finally wiped out the Bush family so that no Bush family has elected office for the first time in forever.
	That by itself was worthy of celebration in New Orleans, which I celebrated quite a bit.
	But Robert, I'm trying to not get the blackpilled and I'm trying not to entertain even the questions.
	What do you do?
	I don't want to pull the Tim Pool.
	And I'm not saying this to criticize Tim Pool.
	You know, the boogaloo.
	I don't want to go there.
	Robert.
	How do people...
	What's the way back from this?
	Because this is going to levels where...
	Forget two years ago talking about COVID.
	When we're talking now about Kleinsmith walks, Sussman is acquitted, and then they go after Giuliani, and then they go after...
	It's others, the political other.
	How does it get back on the rails without going further off the rails?
	What's the roadmap, Robert?
	Well, it's people continuing to fight back in the court of public opinion and the court of law, and that's the only way that can happen.
	I mean, the reality is Democrats think this is going to save them.
	It's not.
	Now, what Republican senators are doing this week might actually help the Democrats, because 10 Republican senators, in order to avoid a filibuster, have joined in on new gun control provisions.
	We have another mass shooting.
	And in America, and instead of looking at why the media celebrates these mass shootings, why there's inadequate security repeatedly at these proceedings, why that investigators or government officials end up involved at some level where they knew and didn't warn, or they could have taken action or in some cases look like they're being instigators at some level, you know, provocateurs at some level.
	None of that is being investigated for the same reason they had to demonize Alex Jones over Sandy Hook.
	They needed the whole focus to be on the gun, the gun, the gun, the gun.
	And a bunch of wussy Republican senators have taken the bait.
	And right now, 10 Republican senators have joined in with 50 Democrats to vote for a bunch of gun control restrictions, the most problematic of which is the empowering red flag laws across America.
	So if you could, I don't know if we know the details entirely.
	I just know that the red flag law or the red flag...
	Warning system is going to be the biggest, not red flag, but it's going to be the biggest speed bump or the biggest issue for many.
	Do you know what the terms of this agreement are?
	You know, 30,000 foot overview?
	The good news is it doesn't itself institute red flag laws.
	There's constitutional doubts whether Congress could do so at a federal level.
	The bad news is that they are incentivizing through major funding proposals, getting states to do so and are all excited about it.
	Just temporarily, just temporarily.
	I mean, imagine.
	Someone like an Amber Heard could have got all of Johnny Depp's guns taken away from him if he had any.
	Do we want to empower a bunch of Amber Heards across America to take away people's guns?
	There's no evidence at all, given the complete lack of security breakdown and safety protocols and response protocols and other aspects.
	That any red flag law would have stopped any of these mass school shootings, period.
	There just isn't.
	And in fact, the evidence is the contrary.
	There's plenty of laws on the books, and these people violate them, of course.
	So the idea that this would work, this is just a pretext.
	Red flag laws are the greatest threat to the Second Amendment because under any guise, without a jury trial, a judge can take away.
	You're right.
	And they're trying to expand again the definition of domestic abuse so that they can take away guns from those people based on, in some cases, nothing more than an allegation as well.
	Changing federal law, creating new federal laws that limit, that regulate the sale, purchase, and trade of guns, which is just an effort for the ATF.
	To have more power over your everyday life in the gun context.
	They're all bad proposals.
	There's not a single proposal in there that's worth the paper it's printed on.
	All of them undermine Second Amendment rights.
	Some flagrantly violate Second Amendment rights.
	And the only way you can get Democrats to win is to have a bunch of Republicans stay home because they realize how useless so many Republicans are.
	Mitch McConnell is encouraging this.
	Publicly said he came out encouraging it.
	This is the weak link.
	As Huey Long said years ago, he gave a great description about a fellow selling steak oil down in Louisiana.
	Said he had one product that could cure half of your ills and another product that cured the other half of your ills.
	And somebody said, well, what's it made of?
	And he said, well, it's made from bark off the tree.
	And somebody asked the salesman, well, what's the difference between the two?
	He said, oh, it's really big.
	One you get by skinning the bark off the tree from the bottom up, and the other one you get by skinning the bark off the tree from the top down.
	And Huey Long said, when I got to Washington, the only difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party is one wants to skin you from the ankle up, and the other wants to skin you from the ear down.
	And some of these Republican senators are proving that this week.
	So these are not as dangerous as some of Biden's proposals, but these are still very dangerous, perilous paths.
	And now maybe we understand why they needed to blame Falsely blame Alex Jones for the school shooting of Sandy Hook and why they never did.
	Adequately investigate and publicize what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	Why they never investigated fully what's happening at Uvalde.
	Uvalde in Texas, they're already using pre-lawsuit procedures whereby you can depose somebody before a lawsuit is filed to blame the gun manufacturer.
	It's Sandy Hook Part 2. And it's because of all the lies about Sandy Hook in part that we're here.
	Because the gun isn't the reason there's a problem.
	And lawful...
	Gun owners who lawfully own guns protect and keep people safe, like the person who stopped this shooter from shooting more people, like people have stopped shootings all across the country repeatedly, like people have stopped all kinds of crime repeatedly.
	They make the country safer, not more dangerous.
	Politicians trying to take away gun rights is what makes the country more dangerous.
	Answer me this, because when I think the red flag laws, When I think that the way that that gets used is people phone in and then the police arrive on scene.
	And in a way, it sounds and smells like it's going to be the exact same problem that occurs with effectively swatting.
	Like if someone calls in and says, this person's a risk, show up with your ATF and whomever.
	Does that not turn into a de facto sort of swatting of who they know or suspect has arms and whether or not that itself is going to lead to serious problems?
	I mean, if they do it to Tim Pool, they're going to be there for a while because he's got more than a few protective weapons.
	So they might be there for a week or two.
	But yes, that's exactly the problem.
	And what it does is it gives the state the power to take away your Second Amendment rights in the guise of an emergency, right?
	Basically, an individual emergency.
	How has that worked over the last three years, giving the government emergency powers?
	You know, why in the world would we want to do that in a Second Amendment context?
	It's inherently and necessarily dangerous.
	In my view, these red flag laws are patently unconstitutional.
	And the fact that they're opening the door to them and creating the motivation and incentive monetarily to them shows you who a lot of these people really are.
	Not a surprise.
	Tom Tillis from North Carolina is fake.
	Now, why is he doing it?
	He's not running for re-election.
	But Corbyn from Texas?
	You know, Corbyn and his staff follow me on social media.
	They should know better than to be on board with this nonsense.
	But, you know, it's worrying about what the Austin statesmen and what the local media crowd and the national media crowd thinks, rather than worried about constitutional rights and liberties.
	And it's an embarrassment.
	Remember, this is the same group of kind of Republicans that tried to do a deal to bring in massive amounts of illegal immigration.
	I mean, the Biden administration had to be sued by Stephen Miller's America First legal group because they wanted to release, and they had released over 100,000 apparently, the illegal immigrants who had been arrested for things like sex trafficking.
	And they were releasing them rather than deporting them in direct violation of federal law, saying, well, this was about priorities.
	It was the same dreamer excuse.
	Prioritization, executive agency discretion.
	Luckily, a federal court said, no, you can't flagrantly violate federal law in the name of discretion and prioritization.
	There is no discretion behind the people who've committed serious crimes must be deported, not released, as the Biden administration has been doing repeatedly through the last year.
	Worse than anything that happened during the Obama administration.
	The worst level of letting out dangerous, illegal, Immigrants that were present here, people who were committed, again, convicted of serious, dangerous crimes.
	Unless it was terrorism, they were letting him go.
	Until the federal judge stopped him with the court this week.
	Someone in the chat had asked, before I forget, Robert, what's the cigar and what's the book this week?
	Oh yeah, so the book is T. Harry Williams, biography of Huey Long.
	And the cigar is La Roma de Cuba.
	It's not a Cuban cigar, but it's made in a Cuban style.
	Now, before we get into the next subject, which is the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers, 11,000 people watching on YouTube.
	Let me see how many are on Rumble, and then I'm going to read through several Rumble rants.
	On Rumble, we are at...
	Where's the number?
	Nearly 3,000 on Rumble.
	But there's Rumble rants.
	I'm going to do them quickly.
	TreblickBC says, Don't forget about Ryan Kelly, GOP candidate for governor in the state of Michigan, being arrested by the FBI for a misdemeanor charge.
	Four misdemeanor charges.
	Think about it now.
	It's Whitmer, who the FBI did the bogus entrapment, bogus charges of, to help restore her reputation at the time and damage Trump.
	Then it's Michigan, where they used bogus signature match mechanisms, ones that they...
	Said couldn't be used to check who actually voted in the election legally in 2020 to get a whole bunch of her competitors off the ballot.
	And now, you know, one of the last competitors left that's getting to run against her is now suddenly prosecuted for trespass issues on January 6th in the same week.
	That they're not arresting people for stalking Supreme Court justice houses, sharing the schedule of their family members of the Supreme Court justices, and when a person was arrested for being outside Justice Kavanaugh's house with the intention to kill him related to the Roe decision.
	It shows how politically weaponized this whole process is.
	And for whatever reason, Whitmer gets special treatment in particular because these are some ridiculous federal criminal charges and other abuses of the legal system meant to clear the path so that there'll be no competitor left, I guess, by fall at this point.
	Nope.
	It wasn't one charge, Robert.
	It was four misdemeanor charges 500 plus days later for allegedly being in a restricted zone knowingly.
	Don't want to entertain the certain comments in the chat.
	I see the comments and I see people are despaired.
	I say do not despair.
	Shame them and one day the public opinion will change.
	Another rumble rant.
	Grunt167 says, this just made it 99% that I won't every vote for a republi- republi- turd again.
	Okay, so I don't know.
	Thank you for the rumble rant.
	491.
	Less than 50% of CP is more reason to activate National Guard that Trump offered.
	Oh, okay.
	Capitol Police.
	I thought the CP was something else.
	First rant ever.
	Crispy Leg.
	Thank you.
	Sale Loto says, thank you both.
	Royal Plague says, got you.
	No more super chats from Johnny or 007.
	Don't talk to reporters.
	Welcome back, Barnes.
	First rant.
	Robert, ow.
	You got to explain this to me.
	We're going to go back to Sandy Hook because I never understood it back in the time.
	They sued.
	In Sandy Hook, it was Smith& Wesson that parents had sued, or was it another man?
	I'm blanking on the name of the gun company.
	I want to say Remington.
	Remington.
	What happened was the insurance companies wrote one of the biggest checks ever.
	They wrote maximum coverage policies, probably because the insurance companies involved are politically aligned with gun control rather than the interest of those insurance companies' reserves.
	Because, I mean, it was really, first of all, it was a case that over time at the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped in before, but you're not really supposed to be able to sue.
	There is federal law in the books that prevents these kind of suits from happening in the first place.
	So we'll see if they finally put a stop to it, if federal courts do their job.
	The state courts in Connecticut are not capable of doing their job.
	It won't happen.
	They've proven that in any Sandy Hook-related case throughout.
	Though I was lectured this week about how judges only call balls and strikes and they never do anything political, the reality is a little different for those that aren't living in fantasy land.
	So the dynamic of it is problematic in terms of the direction that it's going in a lot of these cases.
	Now, yeah, good news is that they extended the rights of 18-year-olds to purchase guns.
	Guess what the Senate gun control proposal does?
	Wants to go back and restrict those all over again, pass new federal laws that prohibit people from under 21 from purchasing a wide range of guns.
	They don't want anybody to have a Rittenhouse ability to defend themselves.
	That would be semi-automatic, but did I understand properly under U.S. law, handguns, an 18 to 21 year old can't have a handgun or can they?
	Oh, as far as I know, I mean, I don't know of any federal law that prohibits that.
	Okay.
	But so, Robert, I understood that there's a federal law that gave immunity to gun manufacturers.
	That's what Biden was talking about.
	The only industry where the manufacturers have immunity.
	Really?
	I mean, yes.
	I mean, I have all these suits against Pfizer.
	Why?
	And is it because we're having to sue them in these other ways, in part because Pfizer is completely immune?
	I mean, the biggest immunity by far.
	The federal immunity is limited and is basically just common sense application of the law.
	That, you know, the idea that you can sue something because it can be used for bad consequences, I mean, that you could get rid of cars, you could get rid of tons of things.
	So for those reasons, all we did was codify what common sense law was to prevent liberal state courts from creating their own legal standards to go after industries they don't like.
	That's why it's there.
	But what happens when the liberal state courts just ignore the law, like Connecticut did?
	U.S. Supreme Court didn't step in, and you get the consequences you get.
	Now, I don't think they're going to get the same response from the Texas Supreme Court.
	Now, the local state courts often are very liberal, as Austin has proven, in completely denying Alex Jones anything vaguely resembling the rule of law in America.
	But ultimately, the Texas Supreme Court would be involved, presumably, in that gun case and would enforce the law as written.
	But, you know, in another context, other courts have.
	It's only in Sandy Hook.
	But you can see what it did.
	It opened the door to, let's blame the guns.
	Let's blame the gun manufacturer.
	Let's blame the gun owner for our crime so that we can gut the Second Amendment, which has been their goal for a long time.
	The Second Amendment is at the core.
	Of protecting every other constitutional right and liberty.
	Not just self-defense, but it's the means of self-enforcement against the government's misconduct as well.
	And they've never liked it for that reason.
	They want to gut it.
	The one thing that unites every tyrant is they all love gun control.
	Doesn't matter whether they're Hitler, Stalin, Mao, any of them, they all love gun control.
	And so in gun control, there's no good, reliable study that suggests it can work, even if you thought it was okay to infringe on the Second Amendment in the first place.
	It doesn't work.
	It backfires.
	It leads to more harm, more death, just to give the state more power.
	And that's what it's all about.
	So they're going to sue, or the intent is to sue.
	At least some of the parents, they have filed suit or filed a letter of demand?
	What is in Texas is there's pre-suit discovery mechanisms.
	Okay, this is crazy.
	You've got to explain this.
	I'm reading this and it's like, holy crab apples.
	They haven't filed suit yet formally, but there's pre-law suit.
	Depositions, requests for communications.
	This is not litigation hold.
	This is not, here's a letter, do not delete, do not destroy.
	This is, we get to conduct depositions before we even file.
	And they really, it's meant for very limited sets of circumstances where the only basis you would have, and sometimes done in federal litigation too, where the only basis you would have to sue would be If you could get certain discovery prior to suit.
	And so it doesn't require you to sue to get that information first if you have plausible grounds by which that information could be the basis of a suit.
	But this is where it can be misused.
	Because in my view, these are cases that couldn't be brought legally, that should be dismissed on their merits right out of the gate.
	And so they shouldn't be entitled to that kind of discovery when they have a clear legal hurdle.
	In other words, their discovery, Won't cure their legal hurdle.
	That's the difference.
	This discovery mechanism is meant for when development of certain facts would in fact give you a right to bring a claim.
	The gun manufacturer is immune here.
	So there's no, there's under clear federal law.
	So there really isn't.
	Now they can object and raise those issues.
	But it'll depend.
	I mean, if it's one of the liberal Texas state courts that you have a lot in the big urban areas.
	You may not get it.
	Now, I think it's brought in the county where Uvalde is.
	So I don't know the politics of that particular area.
	So I think they may not get a rural liberal court because they shouldn't allow that kind of discovery to go forward when the discovery cannot cure the legal defect in the potential lawsuit.
	And Britt Cormier, we can have many analogies.
	When is someone going to sue the manufacturer of the SUV?
	I believe it was a Ford that Daryl Brooks was driving when he killed five and injured 40. I am only using the logic for suing gun manufacturers for someone using their guns.
	How about a taser?
	I mean, how about someone using a taser to commit a crime?
	How about someone using rat poison to poison their spouse?
	Or alcohol, sugar manufacturers.
	I mean, you can go on and on.
	There's a bunch of things that we know create a risk of death.
	Even if used lawfully.
	That we allow because that's not our legal standard.
	Our legal standard is only those people who are held responsible who are themselves deliberately creating that risk.
	Gun manufacturers are not creating that risk.
	I mean, Uvalde plaintiffs are clear.
	They think all AR-15s should be banned.
	That no manufacturer should be allowed to make them or they should be sued into oblivion if they do.
	I mean, that's the most popular self-defense weapon in the country or one of.
	And so, you know, that's what this is about.
	This is about a gun grab.
	It's always been about a gun grab.
	Sandy Hook plaintiffs in a lot of those cases were really about limiting gun rights and limiting speech.
	Concerning gun rights.
	It was never about protecting kids.
	They were serious about protecting kids.
	They would be reinvestigating.
	How is it the U.S. Senate took the bait on this?
	I mean, the Republicans in the Senate should be demanding investigations into school safety protocols.
	Nope.
	Nope.
	They're taking the bait, like Mitch McConnell always does, because he doesn't serve the interest of the ordinary person.
	He never did.
	Cocaine Mitch and everybody who was proud of him and all that crap.
	Now they're getting reminded of who he really is and who he always really was.
	And the Republican Party does not have a future as a majority party, as long as it's governed by the Mitch McConnells of the world.
	And honestly, people like J.D. Vance and Blake Masters and Eric Greitens and some others need to start being a little more outspoken on some of these topics.
	That their election will make a difference.
	That they just won't be same old, same old when they get up there.
	But yeah, it's disturbing that the Senate has...
	Now they only need one Republican to drop off to get to support the filibuster.
	And this deal is done and finished.
	But we'll see.
	You know, I mean, even Trump took the bait for a period of time after the Vegas shooting and agreed to certain, but it was bump stocks and the rest.
	It was much more limited what he did.
	But the tendency to take the bait every time to blame the gun has got to end.
	Republicans and conservatives and constitutionalists and libertarians and civil rights folks need to recognize that they always, I mean, when I was in tour in New Orleans, one of the things they did is they always made sure that the free black population didn't have a right to bear arms.
	Why was that?
	Was that because they were worried about excessive gun violence?
	Or was that because they were worried that those people would make the Constitution read in the words that was written in?
	Quote Huey Long as well.
	Okay, well, I mean, that's...
	I don't know if I have any more questions on that.
	They're going to sue the gun manufacturer in Texas.
	They're going to get pre-lawsuit depositions.
	Setting aside legislation that specifically prohibits...
	Suing gun manufacturers, as if you ever needed that, to sue a company for the proper functioning of their product, which is used for criminality purposes.
	We'll see where it goes.
	I mean, to be continued, certainly, as far as the lawsuit goes.
	What was something that...
	Oh, there was a segue there, Robert.
	I lost it.
	I'm going to use this as a distraction.
	John Wick...
	Okay, never mind, Talix.
	The mean masses in the house.
	I mean, are we going to ban hammers?
	Are we going to ban knives?
	Are we going to ban...
	It's ludicrous to blame the instrument for the actions of the person.
	And not only that, here, these people may not have died if there had been adequate school safety in place and response mechanisms in place.
	And instead of investigations there, we're getting obsession over taking away lawful owners.
	Brandon, no amendment is absolute.
	I love bringing it back to the January 6th committee hearings.
	Benny Thompson, Liz Cheney, they get up there to defend the Constitution.
	This was an attack on the Republic, an attack on the Constitution.
	And then, oh, by the way, no constitutional right is absolute.
	Robert, did you see, I don't know if you saw Officer Tatum's breakdown of a parent who allegedly Ran into the school at the incident and whatever.
	I disagreed with Tatum's breakdown.
	I'm going to share that link later on.
	But are they going to investigate this?
	Biden has said now in a time where he believes the police force is systemically racist, needs to be investigated, prosecuted for all sorts of other stuff.
	Going to defer to this?
	Do you know if they're tearing down the school and they're going to go exactly along the lines of Sandy Hook on this?
	Or do you know what the future holds?
	I mean, they've mostly achieved political success so far.
	I mean, there were a lot of questions raised about what happened.
	A lot of controversy about what happened in terms of the school safety response.
	The school safety in the first place and the school safety response.
	FBI people showing up on message board conversations with this and the Buffalo shooter.
	Very unusual behaviors that trigger all kinds of concerns.
	My concern was that whether some MKUltra-type operation might be going on out there.
	But all of that not being investigated, and instead everything's the guns.
	And mostly because Republicans have been bad about it.
	So we'll see about how the governor, Governor Abbott and Paxson...
	I mean, it's bad that Corbyn's taking the bait on this, being that he's the senator from Texas.
	We'll see.
	Cruz is the other one.
	But it's bad that Corbyn took the bait on this.
	But maybe it will come down to the Attorney General or the Governor of Texas taking meaningful, correct action to figure out what really happened.
	And that we don't get another Sandy Hook where the truth is buried for years.
	I'm late.
	Sorry if you already covered this.
	Robert, what do you make of Trump's endorsement of Kevin McCarthy?
	Dumb decision on Trump's part, but it's part of a pattern.
	So a lot of these establishment people, he just tends to continue to endorse.
	And even though McCarthy said he's now on tape saying a bunch of ridiculous things about January 6th and about Trump, but it's the same mistake Trump made when he endorsed Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House.
	And he could have replaced him with Mark Meadows as soon as he got in.
	And that led to his...
	I mean, I still ask people, what's the legislative legacy of Donald Trump as president?
	Is there one?
	I mean, it's mostly just what he didn't pass.
	You know, good.
	But honestly, legislation was not his strong point.
	You know, it just wasn't.
	And it could have been.
	Now, maybe in the next term it will be, but not if the Kevin McCarthys and Mitch McConnells are running the world.
	So, you know, hopefully Trump starts to wake up on some of these things.
	Sporadically, he does.
	His son, Donald Trump Jr., is very alert.
	But seniors sometimes, not so much.
	So, you know, it varies.
	It depends on who he's listening to and what he's paying attention to.
	And things of that nature.
	All right.
	Robert, quick one.
	The coach or whoever it was, it was the defensive line coach, someone from the Washington Commanders.
	I had forgotten the Washington Commanders had to change their name because their last one was too politically incorrect despite being there for 100 years.
	Find $100,000 for qualifying.
	Saying Jan 6 was a dust-up compared to the Summer of Love.
	NFL going full political again.
	I don't know if you know this, but who has the authority to arbitrarily come in and say, we're fining this guy $100,000 and we're going to donate it to the Capitol Police?
	How does any of this work?
	Is this totally internal policy that they've all agreed to?
	No, I mean, there are restrictions because that's what the John Gruden suit is all about, and John Gruden survived a motion to dismiss, so that suit's going to march forward in Vegas.
	Now, the Cristiano Ronaldo case didn't.
	Cristiano Ronaldo was accused of sexual assault, and a federal judge this week dismissed the charges because, according to the federal court, the plaintiff had done some inappropriate or improper things to obtain evidence in violation of secrecy and other provisions and privilege laws and rules in order to...
	But for the same reason Gruden's marching forward, they're limited by contract mostly.
	So they have a lot of flexibility, particularly more as to coaches and NFL administrators and players, really, because there's even stricter union laws and rules in place.
	But basically, it's whatever the contract allows.
	So that's where the...
	That aspect is about.
	Don't surprise me.
	I get that they're in D.C., but do they really think?
	It's like changing their names from Redskins to Commanders.
	It's a lame name anyway, Commanders.
	Do they think their real fan base is the D.C. political crowd?
	I'm just not buying that.
	You go to almost any NFL game.
	The NBA?
	Particularly the people that pay for tickets.
	Very liberal audience.
	It really is.
	It leans liberal 60-65% of the time.
	So that's why the NBA, even though they also took a big ratings hit, they didn't take as much of an attendance hit because of that.
	Now, even their ratings still had a big conservative portion.
	It just wasn't a majority conservative.
	But the NFL took massive hits when they went this route before.
	They should learn their lesson, but it's not...
	Bless you.
	Yeah, bless me.
	Especially at a time when they have Deshaun Watson facing like 24 lawsuits for very inappropriate sexual conduct.
	Is Deshaun Watson the massage guy?
	Yeah.
	Why do I know these things?
	I don't want this knowledge in my head, Robert.
	First of all, the Washington Commanders, they changed their name from the Redskins.
	To play, you know, for whatever.
	My real issue with it, Robert, is what the guy said, I'm not being an apologist, it's not that it wasn't even that bad.
	I think it's entirely defensible.
	I think he's wrong, because I don't think the January 6th was a dust-up.
	I think it was something else that ends with an up.
	It wasn't a dust-up, because two people got killed at the hands of police, Ashley Babbitt and Roseanne Boylan.
	Roseanne Boylan's still up for dispute, but I don't think it is anymore.
	Two people got killed by the police that day, and it was vile.
	I don't think it was a dust-up.
	I think he was wrong.
	But how have we entered a realm of the world where this guy gets on Twitter and then says something?
	It's pretty innocuous for what people have said on Twitter.
	And then they go and they, you know, they, like, you know.
	Torture him like they did Winston.
	Make him come on and say, 2 plus 2 is 5. I love Big Brother.
	He apologizes for having hurt people.
	And now they're going to fine him $100,000 and direct that to the Capitol Police.
	It shows the level of insanity.
	And a version of it, to bridge into another topic, is the...
	An example of all of this is the attempt of this massive gaslighting, whether it's Congress on January 6th, whether it's the NFL on not being able to talk honestly about January 6th, whether it's any of these other aspects of just mass gaslighting, is RT, Russia Today, has been banned throughout Europe by the European Union.
	So they filed suit saying, hey, the European Union says it's committed to the freedom of press.
	This is a clear violation of the freedom of press of the EU's charter and other related agreements.
	The EU says, yes, the freedom of the press is important, but not to propagandize something we don't like.
	Well, that by definition means we're for the freedom of the press, except just not the freedom of the press.
	And yet they're saying this with a straight face in front of the EU high court.
	And the only real question is, will the EU high court embarrass Europe even further, show what a complete joke they are, how they don't value freedom of speech, they don't value freedom of press.
	They've proven this in a range of contexts already.
	But this is just one of the more egregious in the sense of completely banning an entire network.
	Over 100 local journalists, in the case of France, because they don't want them to be able to voice distant opinions.
	And the other aspect is, if the war is going the way they claimed it was going, why be so scared of RT presenting an alternative take?
	Unless, of course, they've been lying like they just admitted this week, the Independent, the Guardian, and the New York Times.
	Oh, you know, it turns out that Ukraine's not actually winning the war.
	They're kind of getting whooped and crushed.
	They're getting beat up like the dog who failed to pay the bet to Stewie.
	He's like, where's my money?
	Where's my money?
	So everybody appreciates what you're saying right now, Robert, because it might be the curse of too much knowledge.
	The Western media has been, you know, ghost of Kiev, all of these stories of how the Ukraine or Ukraine is destroying Russia, militarily, you know, sending pictures to their deceased Russian soldiers' parents, crushing them.
	And they don't want to deal with Russian propaganda saying, we're winning the war.
	Whereas if they were, in fact, winning the war, Ukraine, that's to say, you would want Russian propaganda that you could then make fun of and say, look, these idiots, these liars are promoting...
	Clear propaganda.
	They're losing the war miserably.
	Therefore, laugh and realize how ridiculous their propaganda is.
	So you'd want it, in theory, if the narrative were true.
	What Robert's saying here is maybe the narrative is not that true and you don't want people seeing Russian news and saying, whoa, this is not going the way the West is saying it is.
	But Robert, it's not just...
	Or you don't want Putin doing...
	You don't want people to see what Putin's actual explanation is for why he's doing what he's doing.
	That he's not some crazy madman who wants to recreate the Soviet Union and invade Poland next and so on and so forth.
	But that he's being critical of woke culture, being critical of global elite economic structures and political structures, how the elites are robbing...
	I mean, one of Putin's recent speeches, he sounded like Huey Long.
	So they don't want that information out there, because then people would be like, hold on a second, what's this war really about?
	Why are we really involved?
	And even if you hate Russia, hate Putin, believe everything bad about him, it doesn't help you to not get honest information about how the conflict's actually going.
	That we're sending weapons into a black hole that we don't even know where they're going, as military people now admitted to the Washington Post.
	They admitted to the New York Times this week.
	Most of the Ukrainian information is really unreliable.
	We have no idea what's really going on.
	And then the Guardian is saying that it's a 20-to-1, 40-to-1 advantage in certain forms of artillery that the Russians have over the Ukrainians.
	And there'll be some big Ukrainian counterattack by these open-source intelligence experts that are turning out to be as good as the public health Twitter experts were during the lockdowns and COVID.
	And that's why they banned it.
	But it's extraordinary that who's fighting for the freedom of press in Europe?
	It's RT.
	I mean, it's extraordinary that that's where we're at.
	But the fact that they could say with a straight face, yes, freedom of press is essential, but somehow it doesn't apply to the actual freedom of press before the European High Court tells you where we're at.
	Oh, Robert, Robert, hold on.
	We're going to get one better.
	It's not just the European Union.
	This is an actual tweet from Supreme Leader.
	Justin Trudeau.
	This is like, it's so lacking insight, you'd think you have to be stupid to say something like this, but it's beyond stupidity.
	Trudeau's not stupid.
	He just takes for granted that everybody who follows him is.
	Putin, oh sorry, this is Justin Trudeau's tweet.
	Putin's decision to expel Canadian media from Moscow is an attempt to silence them from reporting the facts, and it is unacceptable.
	Journalists must be able to work safely.
	Free from censorship, intimidation, and interference.
	That is something Canada will always stand up for.
	Robert, I don't know if you knew this.
	We literally banned RT from our airwaves.
	This is the headline.
	But CRTC, the Canadian Radio Telecommunications Committee, bans Russian state-run broadcaster RT from Canadian Airwaves.
	Did I post a link to the article?
	I didn't on this one, but this is the...
	The irony is on Russia television, you had people staging anti-war protests, and that individual didn't get any...
	In fact, got rewarded with a job in Germany.
	But the irony of the clown world that Alex Christopher...
	I'll get his name wrong.
	I can never spell his name.
	One of the two Alex's.
	One of the two Alex's of the Duran pointed out was, of course, that woman who appeared on Russian TV was a Russian TV, hijacked a Russian TV broadcast for an anti-war message broadcast to Russia.
	Not only did nothing really bad happen to her in Russia, as was predicted at the time, she gets promoted to a job in Germany.
	But then pro-Ukrainian folks demand her firing.
	Just because she's Russian ancestry.
	I was scrolling down while you were talking.
	I knew that I had responded.
	And I said, you literally banned RT from Canadian Airways, you gaslighting hypocrite.
	It got 725 retweets on his original post.
	Look how far down it is in incognito mode.
	I don't know what that means.
	But I know what I think it means.
	It got half as many.
	Oh no, sorry, that's retweets.
	So it got about a quarter as many retweets as the original post itself and you got a fish down to go and find it.
	It's not gaslighting.
	He's just assuming and he's operating on the basis his followers are ignorant buffoons.
	Shocking.
	Shocking.
	Everybody's speaking of gun control.
	They were buying up all the handguns last I knew in Canada, right?
	It's amazing.
	He's pulling an Obama in Canada.
	I've never heard of gun sales going crazy in Canada.
	And leave it up to him to raise the debate as to why exactly we do not have the right to use a gun for self-defense in Canada.
	Imagine he said it.
	He said it.
	I don't even want to show it.
	Let me see.
	Are we still monetized here?
	Let me just see here.
	Refresh.
	We are.
	He said it the other day.
	You can't do it in Canada.
	You can't do that for self-defense.
	Why not?
	And thank you for raising the debate right now, Justin, because when you say it, it makes everyone say, my goodness, that's stupid.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You have the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person, but you don't have the right to guarantee it or protect yourself with a certain product.
	Okay.
	Makes sense.
	Well, speaking of overreach, the FDA was sued this week by a group of doctors.
	For their mislabeling or for their mispromotions on ivermectin.
	A lot of people still don't understand what the FDA really legally was supposed to be.
	The FDA is supposed to be a labeling agency, a labeling accuracy agency for interstate commerce.
	That's its constitutional, statutory, original role.
	It has abused that to usurp the power of being doctor-in-chief to the entire country and to some degree the entire globe.
	And that is not what they're supposed to do.
	In fact, there's specific statutory language and arguably constitutional restrictions as well because the relationship between a doctor and a patient within a state is not interstate commerce.
	It just isn't.
	That's the constitutional constraint on the FDA.
	The second is that the statutorily specifically says nothing in the law governing the FDA and the CDC and the HHS, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, allows them to regulate the relationship between a doctor and a patient, period, or to regulate medicine, period.
	Despite that, the FDA has been sending out memos, sending out threatening letters to medical boards.
	And to state medical boards and actually putting out tweets where they jumped on the CNN fake news after Joe Rogan took ivermectin of calling it a horse dewormer.
	And the CDC was all proud.
	They loved it.
	It was one of their most favorite tweeted tweets ever for most of their bot followers, which was that, you know, you're not an animal.
	You shouldn't take ivermectin.
	Something to that effect.
	So the doctors are finally trying to find a way to fight back, because the problem is the FDA is using its power in ways it's never done before, and it's never been legally authorized to do.
	The problem has been court's unwillingness to step in.
	The courts, usually utilizing standing, find some pretext to avoid stopping the FDA from abusing its power.
	We know the executive branch is happy to see them abuse this power into the Biden administration.
	We know the legislative branch is useless.
	They're too busy writing dumb gun control laws.
	And so all that's left is the federal judicial branch to limit the excess and abuse of power and usurpation of power by these federal regulatory agencies in this context.
	But credit to the doctors for bringing suit because their point is it's never been the FDA's business.
	And this is why what's called Off-label marketing has never been...
	They can't restrict.
	So what they can restrict is what you put on a label.
	What they can't restrict is for an approved drug to be used for any other purpose a doctor sees fit.
	Not their role.
	Constitutionally not their role.
	Statutorily not their role.
	And not to be graphic, but it's sort of like using Preparation H to reduce wrinkles on your eyes.
	I mean, it's not sold for that, but you could use it for that.
	And then I guess, can they...
	Penalize you for doing that.
	Not that they've ever done it.
	I mean, legally, once a drug is allowed to be out there, that for any purpose, a doctor can prescribe it for any purpose the doctor sees fit, regardless of whether it's one of the purposes listed in the label.
	And the FDA has always been wanting to misuse and abuse their power of labeling, of interstate labeling.
	I mean, really, they are just a labeling agency to become the medical...
	Chief Captain of all medicine in America.
	That's why some of us never liked the FDA's existence in the first place.
	Period.
	Don't need them.
	Let the states regulate this.
	Somebody's breaking the rules.
	Let juries deal with it.
	You give a federal agency an inch, they will take 10 miles.
	But it's a good suit brought by these doctors.
	The big hurdle for them to overcome will be the federal judges using the Pontius Pilate pretext of standing.
	To avoid getting involved because of their tendency to defer to the power.
	The only time the federal courts tend to get involved with the FDA is if a big drug company asks them to do it.
	Then they're eager to hop up and come to the rescue.
	But other than that, they tend to do nothing.
	I'm reading a lot of the chat, which I can't bring up.
	Well, I can bring it up.
	I just can't.
	Is that why Viva's eyes are brown?
	Are they referring to the new...
	SADS syndrome that's spreading.
	Oh, no, Robert.
	So, first of all, someone said, are you going to cover Justin Bieber's situation?
	But they didn't use a flattering or sympathetic term, and I'm not going to repeat it.
	I guess Bill Gates must really hate Justin Bieber.
	No, but I saw it.
	Like, somehow this, well, something.
	He took something.
	A little injection of something.
	His wife took it.
	Wife suddenly has serious medical problems.
	Now he suddenly has medical problems.
	They're calling it SADS.
	Oh, it's just sudden.
	It's this sudden acute syndrome.
	Boom, it just pops up.
	They're going to say, because Bieber, I believe Bieber was one of the celebrities who recently had COVID.
	And this is where read the real Anthony Fauci and eliminating the control group.
	Setting all of that aside, astronomical bad luck.
	For Justin Bieber and his wife.
	She suffers a brain clot.
	Healthy young woman.
	Survives.
	She's fine.
	Justin Bieber now has Ramsey-Hunt syndrome, which is a side effect or potential nefarious consequence of shingles if it gets in the ear.
	Shingles itself is a potential...
	Setting all that aside, I read the article, and that clip on Viva Clips...
	Whether or not it gets re-monetized, it was just manually demonetized.
	100,000 views.
	There's certain things that YouTube does not want people talking about right now.
	Justin Bieber, January 6th.
	What was the other one?
	Oh, there was another one.
	Justin Trudeau on the self-defense issues.
	Just algorithmic.
	They plug in the words, these are the videos that we're going to flag today.
	But on the thing, you know, sudden adult death syndrome.
	Nothing.
	Hey, someone said, oh, well, they're just adding adult to the instance.
	They didn't really come up with something called SADS as a doctrine to explain what everybody kind of knows this looks like.
	Well, and by the way, G-Man starts off with a joke.
	Or starts off with what looks like a serious comment, but turns into a joke.
	SADS has been around for a long time, but used to be called the Clinton Foundation.
	No.
	The reality is SADS has been around for a long time, since the 90s.
	What is not true is that we've been getting warnings every year to go get your heart checked if you're under 40. I'm neurotic, man.
	I've never seen that until now.
	So while the syndrome has been around, probably because you create an acronym for something that happens.
	If something's happened once, it's happened many times.
	It hasn't necessarily been happening with such a degree of frequency that they've had to now issue press releases, articles warning people under 40 to go get their hearts checked.
	But setting all that aside, SADS.
	Speaking of SADS, my vacation got interrupted in the Brooke Jackson whistleblower case against Pfizer that details...
	All the different ways Pfizer failed to comply with their legal obligations vis-a-vis the Department of Defense to assess both the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine that they were developing.
	And she witnessed a wide range of noncompliant conduct by the clinical trials that she was part of and that had been her kind of life, passion, and career to be part of that part of the profession.
	And, you know, she blew the whistle on him and brought suit.
	I represent her on behalf of the people of the United States, plus for her for the retaliatory discharge.
	Pfizer started whining and complaining about...
	Her social media page and my own social media.
	They're spending a lot of time studying and watching me and studying and watching Brooke Jackson.
	Maybe they should have spent a little more time monitoring adverse events correctly.
	Maybe we wouldn't be having this problem right now.
	Robert, am I going to find myself in a federal filing with a screenshot of one of our live streams saying Robert Barnes and that far-right guy Viva said this?
	Crazy.
	Who knows?
	They don't like to include the video clips because the video clips provide context they didn't want the court to see.
	So instead, they filed tweets, often kind of out of context.
	But the point I made was the point that a bunch of observers made of their motion to dismiss.
	But they were enraged at my argument, which was, I said, basically, you sum up Pfizer's argument.
	It's yeah, OK, maybe we submitted a bunch of fraudulent, false, perjurious documents and statements as we detail in the complaint.
	But it doesn't matter because the government would have given us the money anyway.
	That in fact, but of course, that is exactly their argument.
	When you're saying, yes, assume all of the plaintiffs facts are true and all the allegations are true, but those facts somehow are not material to the.
	That's what Pfizer's arguing.
	But they don't like the world to know that Pfizer's overtly arguing in federal court that they can lie to the United States government and lie to the United States taxpayers and get checks for over $2 billion for a product that does not work as they promised, is not as safe as they said it was, is not effective in the way that it is, and ain't even a vaccine because the government's in on it effectively is their argument.
	They were enraged that I could make that argument publicly.
	And then they were enraged that Brooke Jackson just put out a couple of tweets, and one of them was her interpretation, her opinion about the judge, was that the judge didn't appear to be cognizant of the power gap between the parties, and it didn't appear that was going to affect his decisions, which really was appraising the judge, saying she was hopeful he would rule on the facts and the law and not be influenced by Big Pharma, which has had a disproportionate success rate in federal court.
	That the facts and the law, in my opinion, don't explain.
	Well, the court ordered a 48-hour status conference, middle of my vacation, God bless him, in which he wanted to lecture me about him not liking that tweet, that he thought that tweet by Brooke Jackson meant that somehow he was biased in favor of her.
	I was not bashful.
	I told the judge I thought that was a completely wrong interpretation.
	But it reminded him...
	Which apparently he'd forgotten and a lot of judges forget.
	First Amendment, the United States Constitution, in a case like this, I'm not going to shut up.
	I don't encourage anyone else to shut up.
	And federal courts and state courts alike need to start.
	They believe the duty of a lawyer is to make them as judges look good.
	It ain't.
	That ain't our duty now, not tomorrow, not ever.
	And not only that, having lawyers shut their mouths about court proceedings does not help the appearance of the integrity of the judiciary.
	It makes it look worse.
	I've been arguing this.
	I have friends on the federal bench.
	I have family on the state bench.
	Most of them actually do understand this.
	But a lot of them don't.
	You're much better off with a robust debate and discussion about what you're doing as a judge in the public opinion.
	You are not better off if people think lawyers are going to keep their mouths shut.
	And this comes from, as a young lawyer, I was a part of a case where a state court judge fell asleep.
	During a bench trial, and it led to an abused kid being forced to go with the abuser back home that day.
	And I wanted to say something about it.
	I was told by the lawyer, very good conscientious lawyer, you say a word about this publicly, every judge in town is going to hate you.
	And you better learn to practice somewhere else.
	From that day forward, I decided I was never going to be a locally rooted lawyer.
	I was going to use the Swiss mercenary model and go wherever I could because I was not going to keep my mouth shut if I didn't like what was happening.
	And it doesn't help.
	These judges think it helps them.
	Lawyers all, you know, acting like we're all part of a secret club with the court.
	No, it doesn't.
	It's better if we're saying whether we like him, dislike him, think he's good, think he's bad.
	Let there be a robust debate in the court.
	That will lead people to have more confidence in the integrity of the judiciary that they're just, as this court said, the court's committed to only deciding this on the law and the facts.
	That's all anybody wants.
	That's all anybody expects.
	That's all anybody hopes for.
	But, you know, he quoted Justice Roberts saying all judges do is call balls and strikes.
	Nobody believes that right now about our judges in America because we've seen too many examples where they're not.
	If the powerful are on one side and the powerless are on the not, then as a ref, they're wearing a uniform.
	And if the other side's uniform, it ain't the referee uniform.
	So encouraging people to shut their mouths about the judicial process is not a good idea.
	So the judge ended up allowing a stay of discovery for like six months.
	Fine.
	I think that was a mistaken decision, but that's his privilege and prerogative, obviously.
	But I think judges would be better suited with robust discussion and debate.
	Not creating an impression that lawyers should never say anything about a judge, that anyone could lead them to doubt that judge in any way, shape, or form.
	Because it's actually lawyers looking like they're compromised, which is leading people to have deeper skepticism of judges than actually should be the case.
	Robert, just based on the chat, well said.
	And when you say that people think judges are just calling things balls or strikes...
	I think a lot of people right now feel that the judges are calling balls as strikes and strikes as balls, just depending on who's throwing the ball.
	But what you're saying is amazing and it's fantastic, but it'll almost sound easier said than done to a great many people out there.
	I don't know what happened.
	Just so everybody knows.
	I have no idea what happened to you during the vacation, but now I'm putting a little bit together.
	I had no idea.
	I mean, I think most lawyers would go quiet, go mute, and tell their clients to shut up.
	And if you know Brooke Jackson, that's kind of a foolish thing anyway.
	Brooke was willing to risk her whole career and future to out this.
	I mean, this could be economically ruinous for her.
	She did it.
	Get this.
	They're claiming that Brooke Jackson is really just a secret anti-vaxxer, an anti-government anti-vaxxer.
	Hold on a second.
	Someone who spent most of their life wanting to see drugs and vaccines be successful and good is now an anti-vaxxer.
	And I'm apparently just an anti-government anti-vaxxer.
	There's a difference between being anti-corrupt bureaucrat, being anti-drug company, and being anti-government or anti-vaxxer.
	Those two things are different.
	And I understand Pfizer doesn't understand the difference.
	Pfizer is one of the most criminally fine corporations in the history of America.
	If anybody has a criminal resume, it's Pfizer.
	But I tell you, Pfizer's rising up.
	They're not yet to Tyson level, but they're getting up there in terms of a company that deserves to have the spotlight brightly put on it.
	And they actually made the ludicrous argument that Brooke Jackson or my motives were the most relevant factor to a Keytam False Claims Act claim.
	They have absolutely nothing to do with it.
	And the judge seemed to temporarily buy in.
	I was like, I mean, that's ridiculous.
	That's a preposterous claim.
	That's not a credible claim.
	There's no law that suggests that.
	That's nuts.
	But the idea that they're going to use these proceedings to try to shut up people.
	They've been obsessed with silencing Brooke Jackson from day one, shutting her up for day one.
	Or shutting me up or anyone else up in this context.
	You can do all the smears you want.
	You can lie to the judge as often as you want.
	It's not going to change at all the approach that we take.
	The right side is clear on this.
	Frankly, the facts in the law are clear on this.
	I hope that's where the court goes.
	If it doesn't, then that's what the appeals are for.
	But what I'm not going to do is tell clients to shut up or myself shut up about what's going on.
	There needs to be more transparency, not less.
	And our judicial and governmental system.
	Robin, they'll call you an anti-vaccine.
	They'll call her an anti-V.
	They've called me.
	And I've just heard everybody out there understand.
	And you even took it.
	You took it.
	You're an anti-vaccine.
	Everyone out there should understand.
	I have never once asked you about your personal position on this.
	Personal, physical.
	I've never asked you, Robin.
	I identify.
	Depending on the circumstances, I identify.
	Now, I don't even identify anymore.
	I was never going to take it unless they strapped me down or offered me at least 10 mil.
	But I want people to understand 10 million.
	Robert, I don't even think at this point I would take a booster for 10 million, but I've never asked you this.
	People ask me and think I know.
	I've never asked you.
	I don't care.
	I'll just do what the drug company guy did in Europe and get a little Celine shot.
	You see that?
	Now facing criminal.
	How many of those Biden shots were Celine shots?
	When Brandon Strzok, who was on last week when you were on vacay, told me that when he got arrested, they tested him for TB.
	Injected him with something that made a little bowl under his skin.
	I was like, that's my nightmare.
	But I just want everyone, everyone out there to understand.
	I've never asked you, Robert.
	I didn't even know.
	I don't know.
	And I don't care.
	Much in the same way, when certain people were invited into my home and said, they texted me and said, by the way, we're all double vaccinated.
	I don't care.
	I wouldn't have asked you.
	And I don't care.
	Don't take it personally.
	I've never asked Robert.
	It's none of my business, even though Robert is among my best friends now.
	But they're going to call you that, Robert.
	They call me that.
	And I went and I did both.
	And I did both.
	You all know why.
	You may agree or disagree with the reasons.
	And none of your...
	I don't care what you think anyhow.
	In that sense.
	I'll go tattoo myself if I want to.
	It's nobody else's business.
	I'm not sure that I would ever do it again.
	So they're going to say, well, now you've become this.
	Because now, a year later, I've seen everything.
	And I'm like, my goodness.
	Okay, I did it because I'm not...
	Maybe I'm an idiot.
	Doesn't matter.
	But they'll call me an anti-V.
	For sure, they're going to call you all sorts of names under the sun.
	I'm just shocked you haven't taken more flack for being Alex Jones' attorney.
	But, Robert, I say this in...
	That's how the media likes to cover it.
	Well, it depends on which media outlet it is.
	It used to be I could know the media outlet's political bias by who they focused on me representing.
	If I was representing, if they only said...
	Ralph Nader, Wesley Snipes, Jill Stein, Green Party, any of those people that I knew they were from the right and wanted to discredit me because of the left people I've represented.
	Whereas the left is mostly where I get the hit pieces from, Huffington Post, Daily Beast, that crowd.
	They're always eager to do it.
	But none of that's going to be, once you get to a certain place, that shouldn't be effective, shouldn't be impactful.
	And can't be if you're going to be an effective advocate for the cause.
	So, I mean, it was a little bit unsettling.
	Not a surprise that courts still have this mindset.
	But a little unsettling that in the case of this consequence, a judge is worried about tweets to begin with.
	Just because Pfizer sticking it under his nose shouldn't have been reason to get there.
	And so, I was not bashful in my...
	You know, disagreements with the court, and the court was not bashful in its disagreements with me.
	But I think the judge is committed to following the facts of the law, so if that happens, then I have great confidence that we will win, survive a motion to dismiss, and get to discovery next year.
	He established a trial date for 2024.
	Oh, okay, so establish a trial date, because I wasn't sure if when you reported on the, was it the motion to dismiss?
	I wasn't sure if it was...
	You were trying to make the best of a bad situation.
	This is proceeding.
	This is going to proceed sooner than later.
	The judge could grant the motion to dismiss.
	I don't think there's any law and facts that support that.
	Period.
	The mere fact that Pfizer is talking about me and Brooke Jackson tells you they don't have a factual and legal argument to dismiss.
	They don't.
	It's purely from power.
	Their argument is solely...
	Brooke Jackson is representing the people, but she's not a U.S. government, U.S. attorney.
	So ignore what she says.
	We don't like her.
	Let's attack her.
	Let's attack her lawyer.
	You as a judge, now you're part of an anti-vax case if you dare challenge Pfizer and what Pfizer did here.
	It smears and power.
	They don't have a leak because otherwise they'd be talking about the facts and the law.
	If you have the facts on the side, you hammer the facts.
	If you have the law on the side, you hammer the law.
	If you have both, you hammer both.
	If you have neither, you hammer the table.
	And Pfizer's doing a lot of hammering on the table.
	They do not have a good defense at all on facts or law.
	What they're hoping for is their argument from power, their argument from smears, their argument from politics will persuade the federal judiciary to capitulate to Big Pharma like they often have sadly done in our past.
	Would you support Jimmy Dore for President 2024?
	Anybody's probably better than Joe Biden.
	Ask Robert about the DUI being dropped with Pelosi.
	It's California.
	I mean, of course, you knew it was going to be dropped, right?
	You know, I don't know enough of the details to know if maybe it should have been dropped, so I can't speak to the details.
	It's just when you saw Pelosi, California Bay Area, you knew probably there would be no criminal prosecution.
	And that's, again, and that's not because you have confidence in somebody calling balls and strikes well at the prosecutor's office.
	It's because you know the politics.
	And, you know, it's going to look like Naked Gun.
	You remember Naked Gun?
	He's out there as a referee and he starts doing the moonwalk and everything's a strike because the fans love it.
	I mean, that's what we're witnessing from our legal system too frequently, too easily.
	Now, there's been plenty of judges that have pushed back, like the judge that pushed back against Biden's immigration policy this week.
	Like the judges pushed back on the FOIA request for Judicial Watch that outed some of these scandalous failures to prosecute in the January 6th cases of the Capitol Police.
	So there have been plenty of judges that have pushed back, and prosecutors too.
	But, I mean, on the upside, I think this may have happened right before I went on vacation.
	You know, the very problematic woke Soros DA in San Francisco, no less.
	Got recalled.
	So, you know, there is some pushback.
	And we had a family of parents bring suits against the school team because parents continue to fight back.
	They fight back at the school board.
	They fight back with school board elections.
	And now they're fighting back with suits in more cases, whether it's critical race theory or in this context.
	The teacher was trying to teach transgenderism to first graders.
	I mean, so, yeah, well.
	Hold on, before we get there.
	No, you don't.
	Let's just get there right now, Robert.
	What's the basis of the lawsuit, like the legal foundation?
	Well, because the teacher's violating school rules, district rules, county rules, state rules, and federal law.
	So that's the combination, because it's not an appropriate teaching material.
	And there's often issues that there's usually local, county, state, federal rules that are implicated by what a teacher teaches in a public school, particularly as it impacts gender, as it impacts race.
	You're not allowed to teach discrimination.
	You're not allowed to teach certain subject matters to people of a certain age group, for the most part.
	And this is just, you know, the...
	But it's apparently the first grade teacher involved has decided her own child is a transgender child and is going to, you know, again, the idea that children at six years old are supposed to be deciding their gender is just nuts.
	There's no other way to put it.
	The Fox News just ran a piece that Ben Shapiro was exquisitely critical of, and I listened to about two minutes of it, where it said...
	I lost it, not lost, I just stopped listening at, before Haley, or was it Riley or Haley?
	Riley or Haley, not to be mean, was old enough to speak.
	She was telling, I don't know which way it was going.
	They were telling their parents, they knew they were a boy, so I guess it would be, he was telling his parents.
	Before he could even speak, it's not...
	At this point, it's projected issues from the parents onto the kids, whether it's transgenderism or veganism, vegetarianism, whether it's anything.
	Children have, by and large, baseline normal development.
	And I say normal.
	Children grow up to be a number of things.
	But when parents are projecting their own issues onto their kids, whether it's dietary, religious, or whatever, it's obvious.
	It's as obvious as when they say the kid couldn't even speak English, but somehow told the parents that they had gender preferences.
	I mean, it's not politically intended to state the obvious, although maybe it is.
	So, I mean, what's the outcome of the suit?
	Is it injunctive relief?
	Is it monetary damages?
	Like, what's the remedy sought?
	They're seeking declaratory injunctive relief.
	They just want to stop the teacher from doing it.
	They don't want other teachers to do it either.
	And you're seeing it now in Texas, the litigation's going the other way.
	The other way, because the state was trying to say that it's child abuse to try to do these transgender treatments.
	And the Texas courts are right now intervening and not allowing the Texas state authorities to enforce those laws.
	Now, in some of those things, I think it's a closer call because I'm very much a strong parental rights person.
	Even if I don't agree with what a parent is teaching the kid, I have a strong preference that the parent controls that outside of very limited circumstances.
	Which would be maybe permanent physical alterations to the body.
	Let the parents make the wrong choices with their kids, so long as it doesn't involve, let's just say, people look at transition therapy as though it's therapeutic.
	Let's just say the kids said, I want tattoos all over my body.
	You'd never get past the front door of any courthouse with a claim like that.
	So it's just what's politically, socially acceptable as far as controversial issues go.
	The line has always been when it gets to the point of like hormone therapy, because then it's physical impact that's lifelong on the child.
	And this gets into like the Christian scientist debate, for example.
	There's certain Christian scientists that don't believe in certain kinds of medical treatment for young children.
	I'm not talking about all just...
	And the question is, is that a parental right or not?
	Where does that line draw?
	I generally just almost always fall on the parental line because you give the state that power, it's going to be misused and abused a lot more often than a parent's going to, is my general takeaway.
	But I do recognize it does get problematic or tricky when it gets into lifelong and physical impact on a child.
	Then it's, okay, where is that line?
	You know, in Texas, the courts are favoring the parent at the moment.
	Though they've been all over the place on this.
	They're going to call it the don't say gay lawsuit at some point in time.
	And then you get some doctors saying it's totally reversible even if you get the hormone therapy.
	Set aside the bone density alterations.
	Delaying puberty.
	You delay it enough.
	It doesn't happen.
	There's going to be a lot of medical malpractice suits, I think, coming down the road for when these kids become adults and are unhappy.
	Because it's already starting to happen.
	Where they say, we were misled.
	I should not have been put through this therapy.
	Some of the effects are different than what I understood or could consent to.
	And in many cases, I mean, I think the doctors that recommend this therapy are committing medical malpractice, in my opinion.
	Because they're not properly, at a minimum, they're not giving meaningful informed consent.
	Because some of the things they're saying are not backed up by good evidence at this point.
	I'm going to go ahead and say yes against their parents and against the doctors.
	And setting aside legislative immunity, that might be the next step.
	We're going to immunize parents and doctors who do this.
	I say yes, and obviously so.
	And I say that's going to have to happen before it sensitizes parents to caving to the whims.
	I'm not saying children in a demeaning sense.
	I'm just saying children are idiots, by and large.
	All decisions aside, children are idiots.
	They don't know what they're doing.
	At one point in time, my kid will say, I want to eat candy all day long.
	They don't know what they're doing.
	They need responsible adults and responsible doctors.
	I say, yes, it'll happen.
	When it starts happening, then parents are going to say, maybe it's not going to be so cool for me to start posting social media posts about me catering to the whims of a four-year-old kid who can barely speak English, let alone determine the course of their future gender identity.
	Yeah, and if you want to see what kind of liability they could be in, just look at Geico that right now is on the hook for a little more than $5 million because a woman got an STD from a man who failed to disclose that, his status, because it was inside the car that was insured by Geico.
	This makes no sense to me.
	People have messaged this to me, and I read some articles.
	I didn't read the proceedings or the judgment.
	It makes no sense.
	It will never make sense.
	The bottom line, an individual engaged in sexual intercourse with a partner in a car that was insured by GEICO got an STD.
	There was some issue about the lawsuit arbitration, going to courts, whether or not...
	I don't know the nuances.
	Robert, if you can elucidate how this happened.
	Because ultimately, GEICO was ordered to pay $5.1 million because it occurred in a vehicle that they were insuring, and this was determined to be an insurable loss.
	At least for the time being.
	So what you have is...
	It's very complicated because there's still set a federal court jury trial.
	On whether Geico will be ultimately liable in the fall.
	But leading up to it, what happened is she made a claim against him and said, you failed to disclose it here and sued.
	They agreed to arbitration.
	She got a $5.2 million judgment owed by him.
	His claim was Geico refused to defend, refused to do anything.
	And so the claim then became Geico could be on the hook.
	Because whether Geico's insurance was applicable and that they had waived their opportunity to participate by refusing and dishonoring their duty to defend.
	So that's why Missouri Court of Appeals said, hey, you kind of blew it, Geico.
	You had a chance.
	You decided not to.
	Now, so right now, Geico owes the check because they failed to defend, failed to timely intervene, and that was the amount agreed to, and right now it's insured.
	But whether or not it's ultimately covered will be determined, apparently, by this federal trial that's not until fall.
	The headline was so newsworthy, that's why it went viral.
	It's actually not a final resolution, and probably Geico will...
	This probably is not...
	The question is this.
	Did they have the duty to defend?
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah.
	One is they may have screwed up by not defending, because that can be different than whether there's coverage.
	The duty to defend is pretty broad.
	Now...
	And they may be on the hook just because of their screw-up there.
	But let's assume if they were to get past that as to the issue of coverage, the question is, was this an intended use of the automobile?
	It is the backseat, right?
	I just go logically.
	If someone chokes to death in the car, will the insurers of the car be responsible?
	Well, if a gunmaker is responsible for anything that ever happens with a gun, Maybe the car insurer is responsible for any use of the car, even the inside use of the car.
	Before we get to Supreme Court, because there's some conflicts of interest issues that I think are newsworthy.
	Hey Barnes, if the 21 plus gun law goes in, could 18 year olds sue to overturn selective service mandate at 18 since they could not legally possess the guns the army would give them?
	So I've heard this argument.
	Some people say, look, if you're going to say 18 year olds can't own...
	AR-15s, but they can use them in the military.
	The flip side argument is, okay, they can use them in the military, but only under closed circumstances, supervision, whatever.
	That's the steel man, because yes, it's true.
	If you're in the military, you can use them, but only under supervision, strict rules and whatever.
	You can't go home and go shoot a deer in the backyard if you want to.
	I think it's all unconstitutional.
	I mean, it'd be tough.
	I mean, I think the draft is unconstitutional, period.
	So now the militia statute is different.
	That you can call up at 17. I think that's a little bit of a different dynamic.
	So, you know, we'll see how it works.
	By the way, you know, one, I think there could be ground, but I think there's constitutional Second Amendment violation if that part of the law passes.
	I think that, and then there's some good cases that...
	We have suggested that over the last six months.
	But going to the car, they arrest people for operating a vehicle for sitting in their car in their own parking lot, right?
	They call that operation of a vehicle DUI, even though the vehicle's not going anywhere.
	Is that a lot different than the backseat?
	Look, I knew it's a technicality in that GEICO decision, but we'll see where it goes.
	The headline went viral.
	No pun intended.
	That's terrible.
	Robert, someone on Rumble Rants, Sam Snort says, there is no doubt that Barnes was a beautiful baby.
	Have I ever seen a picture of you as a baby?
	I put a little photo up of when I was five years old.
	Something from the school.
	Everybody's smiling and I'm looking skeptical of whoever the camera person is.
	I remember that one.
	That's as young as I got, I think.
	How much did you weigh when you were born?
	I have no idea.
	I always had a big head, though, so maybe it was always, you know, however that translated.
	You know what they say about babies with big heads?
	I'm going to let everyone in the chat figure that out.
	Hamardix says, by the way, some good old papers on long rona.
	What predicts long rona best in history is anxiety.
	So what is long rona, really?
	It's associated with cardiac problems.
	Well, okay.
	Hamardix.
	Don't get me anxious about things with anxiety.
	I suffer from anxiety.
	There is no doubt that Burns is a beautiful baby.
	You got that.
	Hatwit says, seems to me that someone frustrated by the gun restrictions may resort to, dude, I can't read this.
	Evil will find a way.
	Yes, we can agree on that.
	Or just rent a minivan, like many people have done in the past.
	Insurance companies are under the ESG thumb.
	That's Hatwit.
	Hamartic says, I believe it is like...
	Stages of grief.
	Some of us are still working through it.
	I think I know what that was in context for.
	Facts Matter says YouTube hates free speech.
	Come over to Rumble, peeps.
	Hatwit, who does Whitmer have dirt on?
	I wonder.
	And then we've got Treblick, BC.
	Don't forget about Ryan Kelly.
	Okay, we got that.
	Robert.
	I didn't realize that.
	Is that where the H comes from?
	Is that all Stewie?
	No, it all came from Whitmer.
	It all came from Whitmer with the Cool Whip.
	So yes, it was in the Whitmer with Cool Whip, and now it's just everything.
	Even if there's no H, we could say with, and it's with.
	There's no H in it.
	I'm damn well adding one.
	Robert.
	Let's get to some SCOTUS corruption.
	You sent the article.
	Yes, the wonderful ethics exceptions to outside income that was disclosed to how much they've been making this week in that outside income.
	Not insignificant outside income.
	I did not know.
	I mean, I think I did know.
	SCOTUS outside additional income is capped at $30,000 outside of their salaries for SCOTUS, which is what?
	In the States, is it $270,000, give or take?
	Something like that.
	I mean, they're already making nice cash.
	Of course, their spouses aren't limited what they can do, but they have to disclose how much they're making.
	But there's a huge exception.
	And the huge exception is book deals.
	Book deals are not capped by that limit.
	Someone can Google what the salary is of a SCOTUS judge.
	In Canada, I think it's $270,000 last time I checked, Canadian.
	I thought it was around a quarter million, something around there, for U.S. Supreme Court justice.
	That's the salary.
	Their ancillary or additional salary is capped at $29,000 and change for teaching gigs, and there's no cap for book royalties.
	And let me just get the article so no one accuses me of screwing this up.
	Because they've all done it, and they're all guilty.
	So this is not a question of defending Clarence Thomas.
	He's done it.
	And in particular, my concern is if the book royalties were based solely on regular traditional book deals, based on actual book sales, things like that, less of an issue.
	The problem is that they're not.
	It's basically, for some reason, book deals are just completely outside of...
	I mean, they claim they're writing these books for other purposes.
	It doesn't look that way when they're getting huge checks.
	And they're getting huge checks without proof of sales.
	Like, Thomas writes a book, lots of people are going to buy it.
	Barrett?
	Eh, maybe not.
	But then that's the issue of Thomas writes a book.
	The only way Kavanaugh's selling a book is it's, hey, that time I got drunk in high school.
	Well, let's get to Amy Coney Barrett's, the numbers.
	Because it's not even on sales, it's on advances for sales which have not yet occurred.
	Fourth eternal truth, it can be laundered through a book deal.
	All right, so just to get some numbers.
	The disclosure reports released by Fixed the Court on Thursday showed Amy Coney Barrett.
	I think they're on this now because it's Amy Coney Barrett who's at the top of the list.
	$425,000 in book royalties.
	Royalties.
	From the Javelin Group.
	Not much is known about the Barrett's forthcoming book.
	Forthcoming book, you don't have royalties on, you have advances on.
	You have royalties on sales that occur, not a book that's coming.
	If I had to guess, I don't know if Fixed the Court is a politically neutral committee.
	I'd guess it's more left than right because they're going after Amy Coney Barrett, $425,000 book royalties for a book that seems not to be published yet or on sale.
	Neil Gorsuch reported earnings of $250,000 from HarperCollins for a book advance, not royalties.
	Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
	$150,000 for a children's book.
	That one I think at least sold because I think I know what that book is.
	For one of these book deals, which option on TV, the Obama appointee reported an additional $5,000.
	All right.
	Then you get into the teaching gigs.
	Clarence Thomas got $29,000 and changed just a hair under the max.
	And Barrett also got some speaking gigs.
	Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, $26,000, $25,000 respectively.
	Robert.
	Try to white pill that for me and tell me that's not just money laundering through book deals.
	I mean, my view is that they should much more strictly...
	Well, one, I don't think the book should be an exception.
	I've never understood that distinction, part one.
	Supposedly, they're writing these books for purposes not about making money anyway.
	Second, there should be much more, at a minimum, much more disclosure.
	I mean, it just carves out a huge opportunity between that and their investments.
	To bribe a judge.
	The reason why we have these rules is so we know whether there's any risk of that occurring.
	We feel a lot more comfortable, a lot more confident.
	Another aspect are law clerks.
	There's not a lot of information out there about law clerks.
	It used to be the case that you would work as a lawyer.
	Your second year in law school, you would go to...
	We go to work for a corporate law firm that summer and you get a job offer.
	Now, let's say you become a judicial clerk.
	They would hold that job offer open until you came back from the clerkship and usually give you a raise.
	What if that judicial, that law firm you're going to go work for represents clients with interest right in front of the court, right?
	You as a lawyer don't even know that, let's say, you're a law clerk at a court on, say, Pfizer case.
	And you are going to go to a corporate law firm where you have an outstanding offer that represents Pfizer.
	Wouldn't that be a problem?
	Wouldn't that be a conflict?
	Shouldn't that clerk have nothing to do with that case?
	It's not apparent they have any meaningful rules in place for conflicts of interest of law clerks who have extraordinary power and influence over a lot of federal judges.
	And so these are blind spots.
	And our transparency concerning federal judges, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And there's no easiest one.
	It's been obvious for a while that at least for some people, not saying this of the Supreme Court justices, but for some people that, well, it provides a great opportunity for money laundering is what book deals look like.
	I mean, Jill Biden gets a huge book deal.
	Hunter Biden gets a huge book deal.
	Who was ever going to be buying those books?
	Why isn't that just disguised bribery, money laundering, right out in the front?
	It depends if the Hunter Biden is a picture book and what's in it, because I could see a lot of purchasers for that book, and they might all be sniffers, so to speak.
	No, but it's beyond the obvious.
	Okay, we're going to cap your outside revenue, but you can get $30,000 for teaching.
	That's not that they're so rich.
	It's not to be crass.
	Insignificant enough that if someone's going to go teach for the inconvenience for a SCOTUS to go to a gig and speak, $30,000, it's not earth-shattering.
	If there's no limit on book deals, it's nothing more than future laundering, future bribery, in the same way that once Obama's out of the presidency, all of a sudden he's worth $600,000 an hour depending on who he's speaking for.
	That's where it's a big issue.
	Especially when it's not on actual sales, even assuming the sales that might occur are bona fide sales.
	It's advances, royalties.
	It's people investing in a sitting SCOTUS to say, you know what we did for you then, and you know what you have to do for us later when you're no longer bound by the shackles of the SCOTUS.
	To me, it's black and white.
	Especially if we contrast the lack of full disclosure and transparency with federal law clerks and even Supreme Court justices with what the IRS is trying to do to cryptocurrencies.
	So the IRS is requiring massive disclosure, 1099 type disclosure of every single crypto transaction.
	If those crypto transactions could lead to an amount over equal to $10,000 in cash.
	And the problem is...
	They're suggesting that that could be over a year time frame, so that even a $100 transaction might now be lawfully required to be reported.
	And the second problem is the nature of Bitcoin is unique in that there is a public, in cryptocurrency, I don't know if every cryptocurrency has this, but I know Bitcoin does, a public ledger with the number.
	What you'd be telling the government is what that number, who that number is assigned to, involved.
	They can then go look up that number to find out all their past transactions and all their ongoing transactions.
	They can know everything about who have you been donating to?
	Like, apparently someone made a very large donation to Alex Jones in Bitcoin because they want to help him fight back against this political, legal onslaught.
	And a little brief side point there.
	There was some media misrepresentation this week.
	What we talked about from the beginning was that if the Sandy Hook plaintiffs were smart or sincere, They would not continue to sue entities that had no money in them, solely for the purpose of harassing them.
	And let's specify also, it frustrates their abilities to proceed in a timely manner.
	Suing a bankrupt company delays it pending the bankruptcy.
	So if they want to proceed quickly against the solvent entities, they would drop the bankrupt defendants.
	And they've known all along those entities didn't have assets from a very early stage.
	And so Jones was forced to file bankruptcy of those entities because they were continuing to try to sue them and include them in the suits.
	They finally folded.
	The plaintiffs finally folded in Connecticut and Texas, dismissed all the InfoWars entities from the Sandy Hook suits so that only the other, only Alex Jones and free speech systems...
	Are now named defendants.
	They still may have Owen Schroer named.
	I'm not sure.
	But all the Infowars names are finally gone.
	They did what they should have done from the get-go.
	But here's how some of the media represented.
	Bankruptcy court dismisses Infowars claims to try to get bankruptcy.
	The media just can't ever tell the truth about Alex Jones.
	All they do, if they say, if you hear the words Alex Jones from the mainstream media, the next 10 words are going to be lies.
	It's almost a guarantee.
	He's probably the most libeled man in America.
	But that's what happened.
	They did what we said somebody smart in their position should do, which is dismiss the suit, and they finally did.
	Yeah, drop the claim so you can proceed against solvent entities with a direct link to everything, unless you want to invoke the delays to enhance your prejudice.
	Yeah.
	But a great lawsuit filed in Kentucky this week challenging the IRS rules, pointing out that what this actually does is enable the biggest mass surveillance program through the tax system, or the biggest expansion of mass surveillance in the history of the U.S. government.
	And talking about it, it'll go to expressive activities, speech activities, associational activities.
	So it violates the First Amendment.
	It violates the Fourth Amendment because it's an unreasonable search.
	And usually the government gets away with this with their third-party rule.
	The third party, the idea is if I put my information out there for a third-party middleman to have, I no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information.
	And consequently, the government can seize it.
	I've never agreed with that third-party principle, but that's the excuse judges have used to allow these surveillance provisions historically to get around the Fourth Amendment.
	But there is no middleman in crypto.
	And so consequently, those third-party provisions don't apply.
	Not only that, typically when you do a transaction in Bitcoin or crypto, you are not giving your personal information.
	You're just giving your account number.
	The other person might know, might not know.
	They're not required to know.
	This requires they do.
	Not only is this a mass surveillance program by the government to be able to spy into everything you've ever done with Bitcoin in your whole history or crypto in your whole history, it's also forcing everybody to spy on their neighbors.
	It's like a Cuban-style surveillance program.
	If you ever send or receive crypto, you have to start taking notes on everybody, storing it, and then giving it to the government whenever the government asks for it.
	And this is the Cuban surveillance system.
	It's part of why they have so low crime.
	There's a rat in every neighborhood.
	There's a rat in every apartment building.
	There's a rat on every black corner.
	And they're trying to do the same thing, disguising it as crypto regulation.
	By the way, this passed as the investment, as the infrastructure bill.
	They stuck this in the infrastructure bill.
	That's why you can never trust anything Congress tries to pass.
	They passed a radical tax surveillance provision meant to hurt crypto, meant to spy on Americans.
	Because right now, especially because of the pandemic, why is the government obsessed with this?
	About 60 million Americans now own or have used Bitcoin or crypto in the last year.
	The majority of hedge funds now expect that in two years...
	A majority of businesses, major businesses, will have Bitcoin and crypto as an option for actual everyday transactions.
	And of course, what has Bitcoin been used?
	By the way, guess who they cited in the suit as a classic example of abuse?
	They had China in there, they had Nigeria, these range of governments that had suppressed it.
	But their number one example was a certain Canadian prime minister.
	Who targeted the use of crypto by the trucker protesters as an example why it's too dangerous to let the government have this.
	So they brought a First Amendment suit, Fourth Amendment suit.
	They're challenging it on Fifth Amendment grounds because the rules are vague.
	And Congress, those senators, they don't have a clue how Bitcoin works.
	The laws don't really apply in an equal way.
	They don't really make sense.
	They have elasticity and applicability issues.
	So great suit brought in federal court in Kentucky.
	And hopefully it will.
	And if people wonder why Kentucky, Kentucky has become a big mining center for Bitcoin in America.
	I'd like to.
	I consider myself to be relatively smart.
	I still don't understand how Bitcoin works.
	Period.
	No.
	And by the way, I was doing this and I'm going to actually put the suit up.
	On our Locals board because it does a really great job of simplifying explanation for all of this for people.
	So it goes into what's the difference between a key and an account number and uses some analogies that really simplify and makes it as accessible as Bitcoin can be.
	I was just noticing when I did this, my arms look a lot bigger than they actually are.
	They're not that big, people.
	That's actually just total distortion.
	Robert, I'm going to blast through some super chats before we wind this up.
	First of all, I believe we've made an announcement on the locals' board as to the schedule for next week.
	Yeah, so, I mean, there'll be a bourbon with Barnes tomorrow at early around 7. I got some family in town, so I got a dinner tomorrow night.
	But around 7, then on Tuesday, I think we'll do a bourbon, I think around 9 Eastern time.
	There won't be any sidebar Wednesday because we have a little travel.
	Because on Thursday, we'll be live on Tim Pool, Timcast IRL, with the CEO of Rumble.
	Sir Christopher and Viva and myself discussing some very interesting information about Rumble, very interesting information that can be applicable to social media broadly in terms of creating practicable, enforceable rules that promote the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression and the freedom of these communities within...
	Means that don't necessarily invite or encourage or reward stalkers or trolls or any of the rest.
	So we've spent a lot of time developing these rules, making them as practical, accessible, and easy to understand with a whole due process process around it.
	But we'll be discussing that all in detail on Tim Pool on Thursday, live, 8 p.m. Eastern Time.
	It's going to be fantastic, people.
	It will be my third time leaving the country.
	Fingers crossed.
	I'm driving because flying out of Canada risks taking longer than driving across the United States of America.
	Blasting through some super chats.
	Barnes, I used to think the only POTUS could...
	Oh, we got that one.
	Okay, sorry.
	Britt, we got that.
	Based on my videos and photos, I estimate one-third at 1-6.
	Only a couple hundred violent.
	Only down to talk about my 1-6 reporting.
	AJ Cook.
	Reminder, real violence started only after MPDC.
	MPDC, Robert, you know what the acronym is?
	Started throwing stun grenades.
	Very sus.
	Why did they take command?
	No question.
	The CAP police flashbang the crap out of the crowd who were at the bottom of the steps and were relatively peaceful.
	By the way, I can only equate this to my experience in Ottawa.
	When they threw the concussive grenades out for no good reason, and I'm like, I'm out of here, people.
	That's my cue to exit.
	I said, why would they do that if not to trigger people into triggering something else?
	Trigger in the literal sense, not the bullcrap proverbial sense.
	Barnes, the only thing that can make me feel better now is a burger from the Port of Cal.
	No, and six drinks at Ryan's.
	That's New Orleans.
	New Orleans, okay, sorry.
	I'm an idiot.
	So what do you do when you have lost faith in the executive and judicial portions of the government's lies, lies, lies, and no consequences under oath?
	Serious question, Robert.
	Oh yeah, but I mean, you keep fighting back, that's what.
	You keep fighting back in the court of public opinion, keep educating and informing people, keep resisting by every means legal and achievable, and that's the only way you're going to get change.
	So yeah, my favorite quotes, greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he did not exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing you you cannot resist.
	As long as you resist that, that's the only way real change ever happens.
	And Mike Bruno says, Viva, you got a shout-out on the last American Vagabond today.
	That might put me on another list.
	So I'm not sure that's a good thing, Mike, but thank you for letting me know.
	That's a joke, by the way.
	I've seen enough of his stuff to know that edgy and good.
	And if you don't like it, don't watch it.
	Not you, Mike, just the world.
	Onishipai says, the left's goal is to ghastly conservatives into violence while they control the military.
	Memes are the current way forward.
	Yes, our great meme-meister, Talix.
	We have another good one, Captain Mike Hamilton.
	A bunch of others that have been great, that the memes just continue to flow in.
	And just as the salt must flow in honor of Salty Cracker, the memes must flow to continue the V for Vendetta-style subversive revolution.
	And I think that'll be the next Box Office with Barnes movie of the week review will be actually V for Vendetta.
	You know what?
	That's a good one.
	Robert, we're going to call it here.
	Stay tuned, people.
	Thursday live on Timcast.
	Tomorrow, I will be live streaming.
	Even if you don't want to watch it, come tune in and quell my own personal, what's the word?
	Torture.
	I'm going to have to listen to this, and I'll try to be funny and make you all forget about the misery.
	10 o 'clock tomorrow.
	I'll probably start around 9.30 after kid duty.
	And that's it.
	Robert, good to see you again.
	It's been a long, lonely week without you.
	I'm glad to have you back.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, clip, snip, share around on social media, and stay tuned.
	Good stuff happening.
	See you soon.

▲