Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 18, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:20:42

Saturday Night Live with the Law! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	Everyone, people were asking for Winnie.
	Winnie is here.
	What do you have to say, Winston?
	We shall look into his eyes for five seconds.
	Okay, he's done.
	People, I couldn't figure out what video to start off this stream with.
	I was going to start off with a highlight from Thursday's January 6th committee hearings.
	I'm going to get to that one anyhow.
	I wanted to start off with this one.
	Not to take it from the angle that everyone else is taking it from.
	That would be too easy, cheap, tawdry.
	Tawdry might not be the right word.
	It would be too juvenile, too easy, too low-hanging fruit.
	That and also, I could not in good conscience make fun of anyone for falling like this with those stupid basket toe clips.
	I think people understand right now what happened.
	Joe Biden did just fall over on a bike.
	Well, I'm going to show you some forensic analysis here because I used to work at a bike shop, by the way, people.
	He's using...
	First of all, what kind of bike is this?
	It looks like a decent bike.
	It's got V-brake, cantilevers.
	It's hybrid-ish.
	I don't know if it's titanium frame or a steel frame.
	Thin tubing.
	He's using those stupid clipless...
	Not clipless, sorry.
	Clips.
	The pedals, the toe clips, the baskets, as we call them.
	And as he puts his foot down on the left, okay, look at him try to get his foot out.
	Oh, no, it's not coming out.
	It's not coming out, Joe.
	And now you're going down for the count, sir.
	Oh, does it not do it?
	Hold on.
	Down for the count.
	Look at the stupid basket.
	His foot gets stuck in it.
	Because he's trying to pull it out to the side, but you have to pull your foot back with those stupid baskets on bikes.
	And down he goes.
	Down goes Frazier.
	Let me remove this from the chat.
	So I am not going to make fun of him for this.
	It happened to my dad.
	It actually happened to my dad the first time he went out on clipless pedals, which for those who don't know, those little things where you have a special shoe that has a clip on it.
	That clicks into the thing and you have to get your foot out by locking it in and then twisting to the side by your heel.
	I used to work at a bike shop, Martin Swiss Cycles in Montreal, from which I just recently purchased my new mountain bike.
	And it's a good bike.
	But I used to work there.
	Best job I ever had.
	And you would have elderly people come in and they say, I don't like those clipless pedals that the kids are using because they look hard to get in and out of.
	Just put baskets on for me.
	And I would say baskets are dangerous for two reasons.
	One, it's not intuitive when you stop your bike to pull your foot backwards to get out of the basket.
	And so people think they get their foot in the basket and then they try to go to the side and get stuck and they fall over.
	The other thing is people eventually get sort of deterred from using the baskets.
	So they let the basket weigh the pedal down.
	They use the flat side of the pedal, thinking they're safe.
	And then lo and behold, one day they're biking and the basket, which is dangling on the bottom side of the pedal, snags on something, jerks them off their bike, down for the count.
	The only problem is with Joe Biden at this point, there are too many things to begin to defend anymore.
	Falling off a bike is one thing.
	Especially given the fact that his foot got stuck in the basket.
	He arguably shouldn't even be on a bike at his age.
	It's not a presidential thing or anything.
	My dad's going to be 80. Running around on a bike is not the best thing in the world.
	It's not the, you know, walk briskly.
	But I'm overthinking this.
	I'm not.
	Anyhow, what I would have picked on a little bit more than this, I can't seem to find the clip.
	It was...
	Oh, let's just see if...
	We'll find it.
	Here we go.
	It was this.
	This is where there's a bigger problem.
	Houston, we have a problem.
	Let me find the video.
	I want to find the video.
	Video.
	This is where I have a bit of a bigger problem.
	In terms of something, the issue not being what he said even.
	But the overall tenor of what he said.
	Why can't I find the video?
	Are they going to make it impossible for us to find the video?
	Here we go.
	Leave it up to Fox News.
	We're going to find the clip, people.
	We're going to find it.
	And before we get there, just standard disclaimers, people.
	No legal advice.
	No election fornication advice.
	No medical advice.
	And by the way, my sympathies to your family of your...
	That's...
	What's going on here?
	I hear...
	I hear an ad.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Close this.
	Here.
	This is the bigger problem, people.
	And by the way, my sympathies to your family of your...
	Your CFO, who have dropped dead very unexpectedly.
	It's uncouth.
	It's not the nicest way of saying passed away suddenly.
	This is the problem.
	Your CFO.
	The family of your...
	Yeah.
	That's the truly horrifying part of that statement.
	He says drop dead.
	It's not...
	I wouldn't judge a normal person for using that expression.
	They might want to rethink their terminology in the future.
	That he doesn't even know who he's talking about anymore.
	Mid-sentence.
	He couldn't even say the name of the person.
	I mean, it's undeniable at this point.
	And the strategizing is to, you know, the political vultures circling the proverbial corpse.
	They're out there.
	They're out there and they're all plotting.
	Long live the king, but who's going to be the next king?
	Okay, people, sorry about the Saturday evening special.
	I forgot that I have my daughter's very important festivities tomorrow night, and so we can't do it tomorrow night.
	So we bumped it to a Saturday and on short notice.
	So, Miss Koozie, tweet out the links if you haven't already done it.
	Standard disclaimers about the Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of every Super Chat that you see here.
	So if you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They have a thing called Rumble Rants.
	Rumble Rant.
	Rumble takes 20%.
	So better for the creator, better to support a platform that respects freedom of speech.
	If I don't get your super chat and you're going to be miffed or upset or feel grifted, rooked, shilled, and whatever, don't give it.
	I don't like people feeling bad or exploited.
	Period.
	I'm going to read a few super chats that I've missed before we get into the menu of the day.
	Obviously, a Russian conspiracy to alter the wind direction and Brandon's inner ear anatomy, according to Putin's evil whim.
	Putin put baskets on Joe's bike.
	I didn't know these all had a theme.
	Fact checked.
	True.
	Hashtag just a joke, but a good one.
	You're overthinking this.
	Keep going.
	And a blessed happy...
	Oh, it's Father's Day tomorrow.
	Thank you very much in advance.
	Happy Father's Day.
	To Ewan Barnes, society is really coming to a breaking point, and it's not necessarily politics, but morals and values.
	And we're going to talk about it tonight.
	We're going to talk about it.
	Okay, so we've got a lot on the menu.
	We've got Julian Assange extradition.
	It's going to be a little bit of news, but we're going to go over some of the older stuff.
	We've got Stephen Colbert's team getting arrested on the Capitol Hill.
	What, if anything, is different about reporters?
	Being on a premise that they had no right to be on after having been asked to leave and other individuals.
	We're going to talk about that.
	A bunch of Supreme Court decisions have recently come down.
	Project Veritas released the leaked video of Elon Musk being effectively interviewed by the prospective company that he's going to buy, which I think is a very interesting dynamic.
	I watched a lot of the video.
	I want to pull up one highlight, but it's very interesting.
	I think it does embody entitlement that the employees of a company are interviewing the prospective buyer of their company as though they might get to say, we don't really like you, so we don't want you to buy us and think that that's how it works.
	Very interesting stuff.
	And then we're going to talk...
	Rumble Rules, our recent trip to Timcastland yesterday.
	Why do I have this one back up?
	I don't want to bring that one back up.
	So we have a good show tonight.
	It's going to be fun.
	It's going to be entertaining.
	I was going to do one yesterday, but I drove 10 straight hours, about 1,000 kilometers, left at 6 in the morning after having gone to bed at 2 in the morning because...
	The team insisted on taking me to Waffle, or going to Waffle House, and I couldn't say no.
	And when I said I had never eaten at a Waffle House, they said, you have to go.
	And we went to the Waffle House at 11.30 at night after the TimCast episode.
	Just back from the Freedom Rally, come to Toronto Viva, Saturdays at 12 p.m. downtown.
	And who knows?
	Maybe even attending those things are going to be grounds to having bank accounts frozen.
	Johnny Morski says it was my video that is now at 14.5 million views of Biden falling off his bike that went viral.
	My question I had asked was, why did the video cut so quickly at the end?
	I mean, not to be mean or exploitive, but if I see someone fall over, that's exactly when you continue recording, and not for mockery purposes, for documentation purposes.
	This is from Seeing Sites.
	The video of Biden falling is symbolic of his presidency.
	Biden reached the finish line in the election, but then promptly fell over once in office.
	Well, there have been a number of very humorous memes about Biden's economy.
	A lot of Russia jokes.
	The meme of the guy sticking the stick in his own front wheel of his bicycle and then falling over and blaming someone else literally is now reality.
	Almost literally.
	So, yeah.
	There's that.
	I'm not bringing up some of these.
	For documentation purposes.
	Yes.
	Viva, did the Waffle House give you...
	You know what?
	I'll tell you one thing.
	Nobody wants to know this.
	No, it didn't.
	In fact, eating that type of bad food doesn't give me that.
	It blocks me up.
	And I had that at 1130 at night.
	I had grits.
	Not grits, but home fries and bacon, egg, cheese.
	Then I woke up five hours later, started driving at six o 'clock, didn't stop for food until about 9.30, and got gas station sandwiches.
	And oh man, oh man.
	Does that not make for regularity?
	Johnny Morosky says, the Secret Service started pushing people back and technically my friend Kate was filming it.
	She gave me full permission to post it online.
	I hope you sold that to Newsflare or Storyful or a licensing agency so that people have to pay.
	To use that in their broadcast.
	I hope you did.
	Oh, I don't have my measuring cup.
	I hope you sold that because that video, whoever captured that deserves to make money off that video.
	Okay, until Barnes gets it.
	Let me pull up one other thing here.
	Hold on, just one more super chat.
	All your Trumpists and insurrectionists must turn in your assault bicycles immediately.
	Okay.
	Let me bring up the other thing that I was going to start with.
	Was it this one?
	Oh, yes.
	Oh, yes, people.
	Yeah, we didn't want to start off with the auditory diarrhea, but now we're going to.
	Listen to this.
	I didn't get to live stream the hearing Thursday, which was not yesterday, but the day before yesterday, because I was in...
	Virginia, Maryland, or West Virginia?
	I don't exactly know what state I was in.
	It was in one of the three.
	I was in Brunswick, so I think that's in Maryland.
	No.
	Yeah, I think it's in Brunswick.
	People, where's Brunswick?
	West Virginia?
	I think it's in West Virginia.
	Couldn't live stream this, and my goodness, am I happy I didn't.
	I was watching Robert Govea cover this.
	I now understand why people say, Viva, stop it.
	We can't even stomach it.
	We love you, Viva, but we can't stomach this.
	I now know what they're saying because I'm watching that.
	And I love Robert Gouveia.
	Everyone should check him out.
	Watching the Watchers at locals.locals.com.
	Robert Gouveia on YouTube.
	Gouveia.
	G-O-U-V-E-I-A, I believe.
	Listen.
	This is the January 6th committee hearing where the...
	Committee, the bipartisan committee of nine committee members, seven Democrats, two Republicans who were handpicked and approved by Nancy Pelosi herself, bipartisan, where they have given themselves their own powers, where they recognize themselves for questioning.
	Listen to the quality of the questioning.
	Mr. Jake, we heard earlier that you and the vice president and the team started January 6th with a prayer.
	You faced a lot of danger that day.
	And this is a personal question.
	How did your faith guide you on January 6th?
	Can we...
	Oh, you're hearing echo.
	Damn it, I'm such an idiot.
	I'm such an idiot.
	Oh, my back.
	Here we go.
	If I even...
	Let's do this.
	One day.
	One day, people, I'll remember about the echo.
	Boom.
	Big ears.
	Echo.
	Mr. Jacob, we heard earlier that you and the vice president and the team started January 6th with a prayer.
	You faced a lot of danger that day.
	And this is a personal question.
	But how did your faith guide you on January 6th?
	Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Jacob, we heard earlier that you and the vice president and the team started January 6th with a prayer.
	You faced a lot of danger that day.
	Thank you.
	And this is a personal question.
	But how did your faith guide you on January 6th?
	My faith really sustained me through it.
	I, down in the secure location, pulled out my Bible, read through it.
	I, down in the secure location, read through it.
	I, down in the secure location, read through it.
	Pulled out my Bible, read through it, and just took great comfort.
	Daniel 6 was where I went, and in Daniel 6, Daniel has become the second in command of Babylon, a pagan nation, but he completely faithfully serves.
	He refuses an order from the king that he cannot follow.
	And he does his duty inconsistent with his oath to God.
	And I felt that that's what had played out that day.
	It spoke to you?
	Yes.
	Did I take myself out?
	Are we still live?
	We're still live, correct?
	Okay, Barnes is nodding his head.
	I don't know what just happened there.
	But I'm going to tell you one thing.
	I don't believe that story as far as I can throw them.
	And that's not to say I don't believe religious people.
	I believe religious people.
	I think I can identify someone who's a sincerely religious person.
	That statement, that testimony, reeks of dishonesty.
	It reeks of implausibility.
	And I've got to say, people who insincerely invoke religion and exploit religion to lend credence or credibility, that's a sin and not a religious sin.
	It's a moral, intellectual, spiritual sin.
	I just pulled out my Bible and I just read a verse about the pagans and the man who's second in command.
	Oh, nothing about that was scripted.
	It spoke to you.
	You were in great danger that day.
	This is the committee.
	This is the committee that's trying to, you know, pursue the truth.
	All right.
	On the January 6th.
	Let me just do one more here.
	Hey, pro streamer, learn to use the equipment.
	Now you are muted.
	One day.
	One day, people.
	And I saw one more chat, which I'm going to bring up.
	There it is.
	Right here.
	This one right here.
	Went to Waffle House this very morning.
	Thanks for posting that happy pic of all of you at the Waffle House over on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.
	Locals.com.
	And with that said, the other half of the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Robert, how are you doing, sir?
	Good, good.
	Okay, now can I take...
	I'm going to take my headphones off, people.
	I can take them off and...
	Oh, if there's echo, let me know and I'll put them back on.
	Robert, we had a good time.
	Let me do this here.
	Okay, you're back home.
	Before we forget, book behind you, cigar in your hand.
	Sure, yeah.
	So it's still a T. Harry Williams biography of Huey Long.
	A big book, but a very educational book about what his version of populism had to face and confront in his rise to power in Louisiana.
	And the cigar is a Hoya de Monterey special edition cigar.
	Okay, and I forgot to put on slow mode.
	Fair warning, people, we are going into slower mode right now.
	Now.
	And Robert, I started listening to, I mean, I started driving down.
	I'm at, where am I at in his life?
	I'm about halfway through his life, midway through his life, where he's talking about his partnership.
	I won't even get into it.
	I started listening to it.
	It's very good.
	I listened also to Born to Run, which I was able to finish because it was not a 22-hour book.
	Robert, on the subject of January 6th, you've heard the news of the day?
	What's the news of the day?
	I'm going to pull up the article.
	We'll see if this format works a little bit.
	There's no video here.
	So it's going to be only the article.
	From The Independent, Stephen Colbert's late show production team arrested in Capitol Hill office building.
	So they've arrested the team.
	A senior house...
	I'll just get the basic facts.
	A senior house source provided the network with a list of nine people who were stopped by police officers.
	This list includes several producers from the show.
	Robert Smeagol, the voice behind...
	Triumph the insult dog.
	I just want to pull up one relevant part, or the most relevant part.
	I don't know why I'm seeing that ad for that knife.
	I literally was gifted this knife by a friend.
	Literally gifted that knife with the husk.
	Oh, here we go.
	This is the interesting part, Robert, and we're going to discuss in what ways, if any, this can be distinguished from Jan 6 or the alleged crimes thereof or the charges and what occurred here.
	Responding officers observed seven individuals unescorted and without congressional ID in a sixth floor hallway, the agency said in a statement.
	The building was closed to visitors and these individuals were determined to be part of a group that had been directed by the United States Capitol Police to leave the building earlier in the day.
	Robert, why would they not face similar charges?
	Being in a restricted area without authorization, trespass, those are some of the charges that the January 6th defendants faced?
	Yes, yes, that's what almost all of them face.
	I mean, they're trying to tag on an obstruction charge that several courts have said is not legitimate, but there are people being convicted of it because other courts have not...
	Interpreted the law in the same way.
	To me, the obstruction charges are without legal merit if the obstruction statute is interpreted correctly.
	But otherwise, most of the defendants face the same thing that Colbert's production crew faces.
	You can pretty much guarantee they will get very different treatment than the January 6th people did.
	And now I was having a debate and people raised what I think are, you know, legitimate arguments, but easily distinguishable arguments where they say there was no congressional hearing there.
	So there's no potential of obstructing Congress as a charge.
	Yeah, but there was no obstructing charge to begin with, according to several courts.
	So I just I disagree with that obstructing charges theory.
	OK, and that is to say that many of the January 6th were not charged with obstructing Congress, but rather parading, picketing, trespass and being in a restricted area.
	Yeah, same thing pretty much.
	The primary charge of most of the defendants has been...
	Being unlawfully present in a federal building.
	And similar, on a similar vein, this, Robert, I don't know what you're going to have to tell us about this.
	I mean, I don't understand it.
	I can't understand how it's conceivably happening without legal outrage.
	Forget about political, social outrage.
	DC, this is Ryan Kelly, who was arrested, was it Monday of last week?
	Or Monday of this week?
	On four misdemeanor charges or misdemeanor charges resulting from his participation in the January 6th event of 2021.
	He's been arrested, but now in the interim, D.C. Judge bars Ryan Kelly from possessing firearms, will allow in-state travel.
	The Republican gubernatorial candidate Ryan Kelly will not be allowed to possess a firearm or travel out of state in some circumstances while he faces federal misdemeanor charges related to the January 6, 2021 inciting the erection.
	Robert, make it make sense.
	How do they prevent him from possessing firearms when the misdemeanor for which he's charged had nothing to do with firearms?
	Misuse of bail.
	Misuse of bail.
	So they frequently misuse bail conditions.
	Bail conditions are meant to secure your appearance at trial.
	There's an aspect of bail provisions that, if you present clear and convincing evidence of an imminent danger that are inapplicable here, I think that statute's unconstitutional.
	Unfortunately, only four of nine Supreme Court justices agreed back in the mid-'80s in the Salerno case.
	But constitutionally, bail has been about...
	Making sure the person is, secures the person's appearance for trial and potential punishment.
	It is not at all beyond that.
	And they constantly impose unconstitutional conditions as a condition of bail.
	And so the, I mean, in some cases they try to restrict access to witnesses and things like that.
	There's theories of obstruction of justice that...
	We can permit that, but it really is a misapplication of bail.
	But the other provisions is requiring drug testing, requiring alcohol testing, putting on travel restrictions that are unrelated to securing your appearance, and obviously being able to possess a weapon for your self-defense has nothing to do with bail.
	It just doesn't.
	But it's the...
	Courts' constant, continuous misapplication of bail provisions, and it's an infection and virus in the legal system that started in the mid-'80s with that Salerno decision and the reforms of the Bail Reform Act of 1984.
	And courts just see it as an opportunity to seize power, and it's what they do.
	They use it to grab power that they don't constitutionally have, but the courts themselves get to decide whether they have that power, and consequently, they misuse it and abuse it with regularity.
	But it's not as though it's in the law that it's a procedural, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Reflex.
	It's just the law that if you get arrested for anything, that they then prevent you from possessing firearms?
	They couldn't do that.
	That would be unconstitutional.
	So the preconditions are that in order to secure your appearance at trial, they can impose a bunch of conditions that are not related to it.
	And occasionally it gets challenged.
	Occasionally a court will find that it's unconstitutional.
	But courts love this power.
	So that's why they will continue to misuse and abuse it.
	All this is done under preconditions of bail.
	Merely being arrested for something can't revoke your gun rights.
	Second Amendment rights.
	That can't happen.
	I'm thinking about it if you're accused of a violent crime involving or a crime involving a firearm.
	Even then, it doesn't matter.
	All it is is probable cause of a crime.
	It's not a finding of a crime.
	An arrest can't strip you of your constitutional rights.
	It just can't.
	The limited effect they can do is for purposes of bail to secure your appearance at trial.
	Even then, it can't be unreasonable under the Eighth Amendment.
	It has to be related to securing your appearance at trial.
	This has nothing to do with securing his parents a draw.
	And from what I read, I think it's either in that article or another article.
	I mean, he's running for office currently.
	So we'll get to the travel restrictions in a second.
	But apparently, you know, it's not the highest budget campaign.
	He doesn't have security and is now, as a politician currently running for office, being denied the right to carry a firearm or possess one for his own protection while he runs for office.
	It cannot make sense, but Robert, is there an appeal possible to this?
	You can ask the D.C. Court of Appeals to do something about it, but generally they haven't.
	So that's the problem, is that courts have quit respecting the limits on bail, and they see it as a tool of power until the courts themselves correct it.
	Or Congress imposes further clear statutory limitations on them, they'll continue to abuse it.
	And the same goes for the travel restrictions?
	I don't even understand how that could be...
	Because again, there needs to be a nexus.
	How does traveling within the United States pose an imminent risk?
	I mean, it has to be more likely than not.
	This is the evidentiary finding they're supposed to make.
	By evidence admitted and adduced at a hearing, it is more likely than not that allowing him to travel between the states will mean he will not appear at trial.
	That's a ludicrous finding.
	I'm sure the court didn't even go through the rubric of making that finding.
	They treat bail as pro forma proceedings where they just check off all the power they want to abuse that day.
	And because the courts themselves...
	I've had federal magistrates, when I've raised constitutional objections, say, what does the Constitution have to do with it?
	I mean, that's how bad it is.
	The federal courts have grown very accustomed to abusing bail, and it's partially because the Supreme Court has winked at it.
	You know, the Rehnquist Court was particularly bad.
	So the Rehnquist Court that affirmed aspects of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 that were patently unconstitutional.
	It's where a lot of the so-called conservative justices have been on the wrong side.
	They don't take an originalist view when it comes to criminal prosecutorial power quite frequently.
	And this has been one of those examples.
	Before we get into the substance of this, I'll bring this one up because I think a lot of people have the same sentiment, Robert, but I might disagree on this fizzling out by the red wave midterm.
	There is a lot of energy in movement to push back against all this BS, but I worry that it'll fizzle out with a, quote, red wave midterm, then go back to status quo.
	Is there a white pill I'm missing?
	Robert, what do you say?
	Well, I mean, hopefully if the Republicans take back over the House and the Senate, they reform some things and change some laws.
	But, you know, that's a wait-and-see approach.
	All right, I guess.
	And now before we get into some—I don't know if we'll have any white pill stuff tonight.
	The latest on Julian Assange, the—what's her name?
	Priti Patel?
	Priti Patel?
	Oh, I got to show this.
	This is just kind of funny.
	Priti Patel.
	Her name is Priti Patel.
	She kind of looks like Tulsi Gabbard, is the British Home Secretary.
	She's the woman who has now authorized the extradition of Julian Assange.
	And I just thought it's funny.
	Her name is pretty because she looks like Tulsi Gabbard, kind of pretty.
	So they've authorized the extradition of Julian Assange on the UK.
	And Robert, what does Julian Assange have by way of process now to appeal that?
	And does he want to?
	Why does he not want to come to the US?
	Well, because he believes that he won't get a fair trial and that he committed no crime in the first place.
	It's a violation of his protected freedoms, universally recognized freedoms in certain instances, for him to even be prosecuted in the first place.
	So that's his primary objection.
	There's limited grounds to appeal this decision.
	I don't think it will just delay it, but I don't see it changing the outcome at this point.
	It's pretty much a guarantee that he will face prosecution in the United States.
	And he'll face prosecution.
	They will not let him out pending his trial, so he'll be in jail here for however long and then hope to possibly try to get a fair trial.
	What jurisdiction would he be tried in?
	It's in Virginia.
	It'll be a national security trial, so there'll be all these things hidden.
	The case, of course, is federal court, so it won't be televised.
	There's a long history of the federal courts in Virginia.
	In national security cases, not affording much of what most people in the world would see as a fair trial process.
	Now, they have publicly promised the UK courts, the US government has, that he will serve any punishment in Australia.
	We'll see.
	They have a history of violating those promises because they're not legally binding.
	That's the problem.
	The British High Court pretended that it was as if they treated it as if it was binding, but in fact, it's not.
	So what the US government actually does, We'll see.
	But that's the path he's on.
	He has some robust defenses, but the question is how much the judge allows it to happen at trial.
	And you're going to get a pretty bad jury pool as well.
	So those will be the hurdles that he faces.
	Okay.
	Interesting.
	I'm pulling this one up because I don't know that I understand this one.
	Viva, you are not partial and are feeding into Trumpism.
	The Republicans want this to fail.
	I'm not sure what the this is, but these are people with intimate knowledge stopping clickbait.
	You will ruin my marriage.
	So I think we're still on good terms, but I don't know what I'm being clickbait about or not being partial about or feeding into Trumpism about.
	If anyone in the chat knows, I'll continue reading the chat to see if I can figure out what that's about.
	And things will always seem to progress only to experience setbacks and overwrites.
	This is because we are in awareness research mode.
	We need to move to solution mode and resolve the root cause issues if we don't want to lose it all.
	Okay, Robert, what do you want to start with tonight?
	Or what do you want to move on to?
	Yeah, so we did our local topics poll, and the favorite topic, close to no favorite at all, but slightly ahead, was all the Supreme Court cases that have come out and that are about to come out.
	Okay, well, I can walk through some of those.
	Let's start with one that I found particularly interesting.
	Which was the Bivens claim against an individual who was alleged to be smuggling people through and over the Canadian-American border.
	This individual was allegedly accused of unlawfully smuggling people over the Canadian to the U.S. border, I think.
	He owned a place that sort of straddled the border and was allegedly smuggling people over the border.
	His license plate was smuggler, SMU.
	G-L-R, or E-E-R, which I thought was quite bodacious.
	So allegedly he called in, he phoned in someone who he claimed had crossed the border illegally.
	Some agents came to his place, roughed him up, searched his car for the individual who they said had crossed the border illegally, and determined that the person had.
	This individual then...
	Filed a complaint or complained about the individual who roughed him up.
	And the individual who works for the federal government allegedly then sicked the IRS on him, did some other reprisals to him.
	And the individual filed a claim for damages.
	And Robert, I mean, take it from there.
	Did I miss any relevant facts?
	And why is the claim important?
	So yeah, basically you have a guy who was really acting as a government informant all the time.
	You know, the ratting out people that were staying at his smugglers in if he thought they were up to illegal activity.
	And when they didn't catch one person in that process, the agent took it out on him.
	This is what you get for being a rat for the government.
	And then when he reported that through the administrative process that does the limited process available.
	About this federal law enforcement official engaging in clear illicit conduct.
	Then that law enforcement agent unleashed the entire power of the federal government against him.
	He got bogus investigations against him, bogus audits, other illicit retaliatory mechanisms.
	So he got no relief from the administrative process, which doesn't really even legally afford much relief.
	But they took no disciplinary action against this agent, apparently.
	And so he filed what's called a Bivens case, which is, you know, what happens when it's the federal government that violates your rights?
	When it's the state government, you can sue under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, enforced pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	But that isn't available as to the federal government.
	You'll sometimes see people make a mistake of saying, well, I'm going to bring a 1983 claim against a federal official.
	You can't.
	That's only available against a state or local official, not against a federal official.
	So the question has always been, what's the enforcement mechanism?
	Now, historically, the Constitution's remedy was that anybody who violates, commits a tort against you, you get to sue, regardless of whether they're in the government or not.
	And then the government official could raise as a defense that they did so with government authority, lawful government authority, and then there would be usually a jury determination as to whether that's what happened.
	However, the Supreme Court over time gutted that right and rewrote the Constitution to take the old doctrine of sovereign immunity, which applies to the theory that the king can do no wrong because he's an agent of God.
	You know, so it's a theory that has no application to American constitutional law, but the courts did it because the courts wanted to protect their fellow federal governmental employees.
	And so now it's assumed you cannot sue unless you're given a specific right to sue by Congress.
	The exception has been what's called Bivens after the case of Bivens versus six unarmed federal agents, which said, like in this case, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights, they violated his First Amendment rights, etc.
	And so he filed suit pursuant to what's called a Bivens claim.
	You have less remedies, you have no attorney's fee-shifting provisions, there are hard cases to win.
	Basically, the federal government has kept federal employees mostly immune for their bad acts.
	You mostly cannot sue for damages against them because of the Supreme Court rewriting the Constitution to apply provisions that were, in my view, directly overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and, again, are not rooted in originalist history.
	A lot of your originalist conservatives rewrite the Constitution when it comes to protecting their pals and the police and the prosecutorial agencies and national security law enforcement apparatus.
	This went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided that he has no Bivens rights.
	Can't sue even under Bivens.
	Doesn't matter how many violations took place.
	They almost overturned Bivens entirely.
	This is a place where I disagree with Gorsuch.
	Gorsuch is applying the test in the wrong way.
	Gorsuch is focused on, well, we shouldn't allow any causes of action unless Congress authorizes it.
	That ignores the fundamental question.
	This was a right reserved to the people from the get-go, and the court has no right to say that that person is immune from suit unless maybe, maybe Congress limited it.
	But partially this is conservative courts not liking liberal courts authorizing new creative causes of action that haven't been allowed or authorized by the legislature for politicized purposes.
	But they've misguided the debate because they have failed to do a true originalist assessment.
	But the net effect was they almost overturned Bivens and they did everything but.
	They made it much harder now.
	For anybody to sue if a federal law enforcement or any federal employee violates their constitutional rights.
	Unless Congress has explicitly given you that right, the courts are increasingly going to say you have no such rights.
	And they're not saying that you don't have any such rights on the basis that the individual was acting within their mandates.
	It's not that they were doing their job, therefore you have no rights.
	They were acting beyond the scope of their job, but you just can't sue them anyhow?
	Yeah, that's correct.
	And that is because you have to be suing them on a legal basis that has already been recognized by the courts?
	By Congress.
	Unless Congress has said you can sue them, you can't sue them, is the real.
	I mean, they've left a little exception.
	They left Biven slightly alive, just a little bit.
	Mostly what they did is gut Bivens, and I think they came close to overturning Bivens.
	Part of it is judicial restraint, and I understand where that comes from, but the proper judicial restraint was to not impose this bogus sovereign immunity doctrine in the first place.
	That would have been real judicial restraint, not just, hey, unless Congress authorizes it, everybody's off the hook on the federal employee side of the aisle.
	But that's the net effect.
	It means Bivens, outside of very rare limited circumstances, you won't be able to sue a federal employee for violating your constitutional rights unless Congress has said you can.
	And it's an absurd question.
	In what context has Congress said you can?
	Oh, it varies.
	There's the Federal Tort Claims Act and a bunch of specific statutes that govern specific circumstances.
	And this applies to things even which are done beyond any scope of employment.
	That's the nature of a Bivens claim, is that he was not lawfully authorized.
	The way this used to be resolved at the founding of our country was he had to raise that as a defense, and a jury would determine it.
	Not, it's presumed, it doesn't matter now.
	Now it doesn't matter if everything he did was patently illegal, totally unauthorized, complete violation of your rights, can't sue for damage.
	I'm going to bring this one up because I think it looks to be on a relevant point.
	Viva, need to know if Becquera decisions by SCOTUS really limits the power of some of our three-letter agencies like EPA, ATF, and such which basically say, we think it is wrong, so we are going to call it illegal by expanding definition of words.
	So this was the case that could have involved Chevron deference.
	The Supreme Court didn't address the Chevron deference aspect.
	So Chevron basically established...
	And its progeny have established a Supreme Court, basically have said that executive agencies can interpret, administer, apply the law almost however they see fit, thus its deference to the administrative state.
	This case challenged whether such deference should exist.
	The court never even addressed Chevron.
	What it did is it ignored the agency's interpretation of the law.
	And said that, you know, an independent assessment of that showed that their interpretation was invalid.
	So it's been interpreted in some circles as being a precedent for ignoring the deference to executive agencies.
	But it doesn't explicitly or expressly do that.
	So it can't have that effect.
	It doesn't necessarily have that effect.
	Did someone just say that?
	What microphone am I using?
	It sounds like a laptop mic.
	Audio.
	That's because it is a laptop.
	Gosh, darn it.
	Is that better, people?
	That should be a little better.
	Okay, fascinating.
	All right, what's the net?
	Well, I guess before we get there, two decisions that everyone's waiting hotly on.
	Second Amendment decisions and smush-smortion decisions.
	I don't remember if we talked about this on a stream or at TimCast, but...
	Your belief, Robert, your thoughts are that these two decisions are coming down next week, either Shoes Down Thursday, because they have to come down before the end of this session, which ends on Thursday.
	Correct.
	So the last date for opinions to be published by the Supreme Court for this term is next Thursday.
	So the decisions, they schedule them in advance when they're going to release or publish opinions.
	And they have just two dates left, next Tuesday, next Thursday.
	And so the decisions will come down.
	I know there's some speculation that somehow it won't happen.
	Less than 1% chance of that, in my view.
	So the New York Second Amendment decision will be issued.
	That's about the New York's law limiting your right to conceal and carry and whether that permit process is constitutional under the Second Amendment.
	I believe when we discussed it before, my prediction was that they were going to invalidate that New York law.
	And it would open the door to broadly expanding Second Amendment rights.
	More important is how they get there.
	It is likely they're going to restructure how Second Amendment tests are done in ways that dramatically improve the power of the Second Amendment to strike down laws across the country that restrict access to and use of guns and the most effective means of self-defense that exists to a large degree.
	So I think that's going to be a very good Second Amendment decision for those of us on the Second Amendment side of the aisle.
	And then I believe Roe v.
	Wade will be overturned next week as well.
	That decision.
	And it will probably look a lot like Alito's decision that was leaked.
	The draft decision that was leaked.
	That's my prediction on both of those.
	That the massive amount of targeted protesting will not have worked.
	And that the assassination plot against Justice Kavanaugh will not have worked.
	They can't afford that to look like it worked.
	So it needs to look like Alito's decision.
	So I think that to maintain independence and integrity, at least the perception thereof, in the Supreme Court.
	So I think we'll have two huge decisions, one on Roe, one on the Second Amendment coming this week.
	And the Second Amendment case coming out of New York, that relates to permits for concealed carry, correct?
	Yes, that's correct.
	And so if I understand this correctly...
	Constitution is a federal applies to all states thing.
	And the issue here is whether or not a state can make it, call it exceedingly difficult or just outright impossible to obtain a concealed carry permit.
	And so the idea being if New York's concealed carry laws get struck, presumably that would apply equally to all states that have similar...
	That's part one.
	Part two is how they get there.
	There's been these intermediary tests they've been applying under the Second Amendment to different levels of scrutiny, different ways of structuring it, different assumptions about how the historical approach plays in.
	And I think they're going to restructure it to be more consistent with Heller.
	And to not have these lower levels of scrutiny applied to gun laws.
	That effectively, there'll be a very high level of scrutiny applied to any law that restricts guns.
	So how they get to the decision is as important as the decision itself.
	Okay, and that is to say whether or not they apply...
	What were the levels?
	Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or no scrutiny?
	Right, exactly.
	Rational basis is what they call the problem.
	Rational basis.
	It's telling me that it's how does historical approach play into that.
	And so Heller had some loose language that, in my view, has been misapplied by the lower courts.
	I think they'll correct that and put it more on a footing of focusing on the historical approach in a way that's much more manageable and much higher scrutiny will be applied to gun laws.
	Okay, I can see that.
	And so the idea might be that within one week, you're going to have...
	Overturning of Roe v.
	Wade, which I don't even think was on the horizon when we first started doing streams together, and lifting of any exorbitant criteria to get a concealed carry.
	And some people are saying, well, there might not be quite that many protests then, or at least certainly not as violent as previous protests, if those two decisions come down at the same time.
	Or your thoughts on what happens if the decision that comes down on Roe v.
	Wade...
	Is different in terms of majority or materially different in terms of what was leaked?
	What do you think could possibly happen and what are the chances of that happening?
	I think it's very low because any decision that now deviates from the Alito draft will look like it was in response to the leaking of it.
	And will look like it's in response to public protests and assassination threats and things of that nature.
	So it will encourage and incentivize more leaks.
	It will encourage and incentivize more illicit protests.
	Because these, again, there is federal law that prohibits you from protesting at judges' homes for very good reason and very good cause.
	Like when I say a judge's opinion should be debated heartily.
	In a court of public opinion, in a judge's actions, be heartily debating the court of public opinion, that does not mean direct outreach to a judge in any form whatsoever.
	That, frankly, should never happen.
	You shouldn't write emails to judges.
	You shouldn't write letters to judges.
	You shouldn't try to engage them on the street.
	You shouldn't go out and protest outside their home.
	That's illicit efforts that can come across as intimidation and ex-party communication.
	What you should do is robustly debate it in the court of public opinion.
	Because that's important to maintain our robust democracy and I think ultimately helps rather than hurts both the integrity and the perceived integrity of the judiciary and their independence.
	Any decision that deviates substantially from Alito's draft will have devastating effects on the Supreme Court's integrity and the perception of that integrity and its independence and will incentivize further harassment.
	Doxing, personal threats, assassination efforts, etc.
	So it would be devastating to the Supreme Court.
	Even though Roberts wants the decision to be a different decision, Roberts also cherishes the perception that the Supreme Court is both independent and impartial.
	And the integrity of its decisions being intellectually driven rather than driven by political protest or harassment or the rest.
	So it's in Roberts' own interest.
	That the Alito draft ultimately be the decision that's issued or pretty darn close to it.
	Anything else will embarrass the judiciary in ways it may never recover from.
	So they almost have to issue the Alito draft decision as the majority decision or it will be deeply, deeply embarrassing and maybe, you know, it may be a permanent stain on the Supreme Court in ways that it would take decades to recover from.
	And Roberts is the leaker, I think, is more of a joke than anything else.
	But we have not yet found out who the leaker was, right?
	Correct.
	And I don't anticipate that they will.
	Well, we'll see.
	We'll see.
	But we'll see if there's any punishment for them and the rest.
	I mean, the best way to counteract that leaker is to issue the Alito decision.
	That's the best way to...
	Presuming the leaker wanted to undermine that decision.
	The best way to counter that is to show that that will never intimidate a court.
	Otherwise, again, the independence and integrity and impartiality of the court will be forever embarrassed in ways that would be very difficult to ever recover from.
	I missed this one from the beginning.
	This is Britt Cormier says, I give exactly zero craps about his faith.
	He can have as much faith as he wants.
	That does not bother me.
	However, asking about it to make sure it goes into the record is just a political stunt and BS, and that has to do with...
	The lawyer for Mike Pence talking about having read the Bible during that day in which he was in so much danger.
	Fagan's Law.
	Running for prosecutor in Indiana as GOP.
	Have me on.
	Robert, do you know who this individual is?
	I do not.
	I will go Google this and then I will reach out to you if this is...
	It would be interesting.
	Political candidates of all political persuasions are always welcome here.
	God knocked Biden off his bike.
	God told me so.
	There is a lot of...
	Okay, that we got to.
	And, Robert, this is sort of off-topic but might lead into some more decisions.
	Barnes, my job is implementing a vaccine and testing mandate.
	I was given a religious exemption and it has been rescinded.
	How do I even start with this?
	So, I mean, there's a range of...
	Your employer cannot...
	In my view, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, I believe also the Americans with Disabilities Act is applicable in certain circumstances here.
	Or the First Amendment, if they're a state actor, cannot discriminate, cannot deny you a religious accommodation without very good cause.
	And it's basically, you know, something to the effect of that you really couldn't perform the work by being unvaccinated.
	And they would have to show the evidentiary foundation for that.
	I haven't seen that.
	So you have a right to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in your local area.
	The state equivalent thereof sometimes also affords such rights.
	And you have rights under state and federal law.
	And there's about a half dozen other Supreme Court cases to discuss, but we did survive a motion to dismiss against Tyson Foods this week.
	Tyson Foods had moved to dismiss.
	We had brought claims because everybody was put on unpaid leave based on their religious exemption request was recognized, but then they were put on unpaid leave as the employment action.
	So we brought suit originally on Tennessee constitutional grounds in the state of Tennessee.
	They removed the case to federal court.
	We objected, and the federal court initially determined that Tyson was acting as a federal officer for purposes of the vaccine mandate, and thus federal removal was okay.
	We disagreed with that decision, but that's another issue down the road.
	Then they moved to dismiss, and we amended our complaint to say, well, if they're a federal officer, then they're obligated to follow federal law.
	Including the Nuremberg Code, including the informed consent requirements of the Emergency Use Authorization Statute, including the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	And our view is simple.
	Either they are not a federal officer for immunity purposes, we would argue remand purposes as well, in which case then it would not be liable, or if they are, then they are liable.
	The court kind of split the baby, said that for remand purposes, they could be considered a federal officer without being considered a federal officer for liability purposes.
	I disagree with how the court split the baby, but that is how it is.
	But the federal court did not find that they're immune because it would almost be impossible to find they're a federal officer for immunity purposes for certain claims, but not a federal officer for constitutional and other statutory claims.
	Then the court dismissed those claims, but not on immunity grounds.
	On the grounds, they're not a federal act.
	Then we had a range of state law claims and other federal claims.
	We argued that you could seek injunctive relief without waiting for the EEOC to issue what's called a right-to-sue letter.
	Now, all of them have filed EEOC complaints as well, but at the time we filed suit, that had not happened.
	But we were saying we have a right to injunctive relief anyway.
	The court denied that, saying that injunctive relief is not an exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement.
	I disagree with that, but that's a split between the circuits right now.
	Then on the issue, Butt said we could renew those claims for damages once the EEOC issues their right to sue letter.
	So that's just an amendment to have happen.
	Then we had brought an assault claim, and his grounds on both injunctive relief in general and the assault claim were the same.
	Which was, it's, yes, they're mandating the vaccine, but you still have a choice not to take it.
	Now, is that really a choice?
	Is it a choice when it's your job or you stick this something in you?
	I mean, when you're given the Harvey Weinstein choice, you know, let me stick it in you or you lose your job.
	Is that really a choice?
	So the, I mean, they kind of found opposite, didn't they?
	And there's some of those criminal cases in New York, right?
	Depending in L.A. And the Fifth Circuit really said otherwise, when it said that's not really a choice, that's a violation of your liberties and rights.
	The court was of the mindset that damages suffices.
	I disagree with the court's conclusion on that, but on those grounds, the court said it's not really an assault because they're not forcing you to do it, right?
	Well, okay.
	So that's a debate for a legal issue to be developed on appeal down the road.
	Then the court reached the various state law claims and determined whether or not there's a right to bring suit on certain state law claims.
	And the court determined on the constitutional issues that the Tennessee state court should be the first court to decide that, not the federal courts.
	And so remanded that part back to Dyer County Chancery Court.
	Which is where we brought the case and the original claim.
	And so while it took us a circuitous route to get there, we're finally back to the pretty soon when the formal remand is issued to Dyer County Chancery Court to determine whether or not their constitutional rights were violated under Tennessee law and whether injunctive relief can issue related there too.
	And the court recognized that our arguments on that were the better side of the argument in terms of the right to bring such a claim.
	And then on certain Tennessee state law claims, Tyson was arguing effectively that those state law claims were unconstitutional.
	But under Tennessee state law, they have to give notice to the attorney general they're going to make that claim, the attorney general of the state of Tennessee.
	The reason for that is federal courts want the attorney general and state courts want the attorney general of the state to have an opportunity to intervene and argue in defense of the constitutionality of the statutes.
	Tyson Foods had not done that.
	So the court ordered them to do so and said that if they don't do so within 28 days, then those claims were not dismissed and stay in until the state attorney general is notified and makes a decision about intervening in the case.
	So we managed to survive the, I mean, it was a voluminous motion to dismiss, raised about 50 different legal issues related to a dozen different legal claims relating to about a half dozen or more plaintiffs.
	But we were able to survive it despite the massive effort they put into it, despite them switching to a federal court to address it in the first place.
	So the Tyson's Foods cases march onward, and that relates to that person's question.
	And I don't think people necessarily appreciate this, but the unpaid leave, if such a concept ever existed, it's particularly noxious.
	I think it's the same in the States, because you're not fired.
	Without cause, because then you'd have access to EI.
	You're not fired with cause, because then you might have additional rights for wrongful termination.
	So they basically say, you're not working.
	We're not paying you.
	You're not fired.
	You can't claim benefits.
	You can't avail yourself to certain rights that you might have otherwise had for wrongful dismissal.
	So you sit in purgatory until the mandates end.
	Or until you comply.
	Is that an accurate assessment of the toxic nature of the unpaid leave to the extent anything of such a concept ever existed?
	I mean, it's what Tyson is trying to do.
	So that's being contested in unemployment proceedings.
	That's being contested in other proceedings as to whether or not they can do that.
	There's good arguments that they can't, but it is what they're trying to do.
	They're trying to pretend they haven't fired anybody when they are stripping you of all your benefits of employment.
	A de facto termination.
	Same problem in Canada.
	It's preposterous.
	It's disguised termination.
	It's like double super disguised termination.
	Deb Step on a rumble rant says, oh, this is an older question.
	Will a pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court decision affect influence the red flag law discussion in Congress?
	Yes.
	And it's important to understand what's happening in Congress is they're just trying to encourage state governments to pass them.
	They're not passing a red flag law themselves.
	They're trying to encourage state governments to pass them.
	So the ultimate constitutional challenge would be as to those state laws.
	But how the language is written, how they structure the scrutiny level.
	How they structure the scrutiny application, all of that will impact every Second Amendment-related issue in the country.
	And it's anticipated that it will be a good one.
	So hopefully it will.
	Same with the road.
	Now, some of the other Supreme Court decisions that came down, there were a couple of arbitration decisions.
	There was a Hague Convention decision, a double jeopardy decision.
	The double jeopardy decision was ridiculous.
	Okay, so the double jeopardy decision.
	As far as I understood it, Robert, it's a native individual who, Perpetrated a certain type of assault on a native reserve, if I'm not mistaken, was arrested, and did he plead or was he convicted?
	He pled on a charge, which I didn't understand the two types of charges or the two authorities of the charges against him.
	Was one of them a native law and the other was federal law, or were they both federal law of different statutes?
	They're both enforced.
	They pretend one is a Native American law.
	Reality is they both are.
	What you have is you have somebody prosecuted, cuts a plea deal, prosecuted by the federal government, by a court system appointed by the federal government, by a legal system created by the federal government, that then turned around and prosecuted him again by the federal government, and their excuse as to why it wasn't double jeopardy.
	Was one law they were pretending was tribal law, and the other was federal law.
	And there's several problems with it.
	As Gorsuch notes in his dissent, and he's dissented previously on this, and I agree with Gorsuch's dissent, is that this dual sovereignty myth is a misapplication of the double jeopardy clause of the Sixth Amendment.
	It's a double jeopardy clause.
	I mean, maybe it should have said you can't put somebody twice in jeopardy for the same act.
	They use the word offense because it was meant for the criminal context specifically.
	But that word offense has been reinterpreted by the courts to mean it has to be the same sovereign prosecuting you.
	Well, here, it was the same sovereign.
	So how do they get around it?
	They say, well, in one case, the sovereign was doing it in the name of tribal law, and in the other case, they were doing it in the name of federal law, even though in this case, the tribal law at issue...
	It was created by the feds.
	It was created by the federal but subjected to tribal adjudication.
	So they would recognize...
	Yeah, but even the tribal adjudication process is a federal appointee.
	Okay.
	So the whole...
	I mean, it makes a complete crock.
	But now they're saying that they can double prosecute you, not only if it's the state and federal government, which, one, the word offense doesn't mean double sovereign.
	It doesn't have sovereignty in there.
	It wasn't ever intended to.
	So I disagree with that premise out of the gate.
	The second problem, as Gorsuch has noted, There really is no dual sovereignty between the state and federal governments.
	Now, you could argue there is between a legitimate tribal prosecution and the federal government.
	But this was not a tribe-created law, tribe-enforced law, tribe-adjudicated law that had nothing to do with the federal government.
	This was a federally created version of that.
	This is what makes this particular case an egregious mockery of the dual sovereignty exception to double jeopardy.
	But as applied to the states, it's never made sense.
	It's called the United States of America.
	The people of the states, through their states, created the federal government.
	There is no dual sovereign.
	There's no separate sovereign between the state and federal governments.
	That's complete myth.
	It's not like Europe and America.
	It's ludicrous.
	So the idea that that should have ever been allowed is nonsense.
	It offends most people's common sense understanding of the term.
	Like, how can somebody be prosecuted for the same thing by the state of Louisiana and the federal government?
	Because in this particular case, it was the same act.
	I guess they just chose different charges for the second time.
	And the thing is, he negotiates a plea deal on the basis that ends the case.
	And then they get to turn around and prosecute him again.
	And by the way, they get to use his plea deal as evidence against him.
	I mean, in the subsequent prosecution.
	Yeah, that's preposterous.
	Because it was not as though it was a purely, and I say tribal charge, tribal law, tribal jury.
	It was...
	It was federal law, which, from what I understood, allowed for adjudication by a tribal jury, and pleaded, and then recharged for the...
	They charged for a different aspect of the same act, however, which...
	I mean, if you apply this, the U.S. government could prosecute you under some international law standard, and if they don't like the outcome, then turn around and prosecute you again under federal law.
	I mean, they've so whittled down the double jeopardy clause that they're creating so many exceptions to it that it's effectively gutted in the United States to a large degree.
	Not entirely, but to a large degree.
	And Gorsuch is right.
	This application, this dual sovereign exception was always nonsense.
	And this just shows an egregious example of what happens when you let a bad doctrine undermine a core constitutional right.
	The power of the state will continue to be misused and abused to allow them to continue to do more and worse.
	All right, Robert, we have a black-pilled supporter here, and I'll answer this one because I think I can answer it for you, Robert.
	You'll tell me if I'm on point.
	Barnes, you said a Sussman acquittal would make a mockery of a jury trial.
	And it still happened.
	How is that different from SCOTUS caving on Roe, hypothetically?
	Well, it did do severe damage.
	I mean, there's nobody in D.C. that doesn't know that D.C. juries now are a complete joke.
	And the federal judges know it, and they may not do anything about it, but it's a severe blow to D.C. juries, that suspect acquittal.
	And it makes all of their convictions of the January 6th people look worse.
	How they treat the Colbert people will further expose it.
	And they're just undermined.
	You can only take so many hits to your integrity.
	Now, that's different than the Supreme Court.
	And it's a Supreme Court twofold.
	One, the Supreme Court justices are going to make this own decision.
	The Sussman jury didn't care.
	Whether the, about the public perception of their journey.
	No, they would almost be happy with the public saying, you guys are totally crooked, because at least their allies, 94% of them in Washington, they're neighbors.
	They'll be happy with them.
	They'll invite them for barbecues.
	Completely.
	The Supreme Court, on the other hand, the people who are concerned about the political image of the court are the ones making the decision.
	So that's the difference.
	So the same public impact of the Sussman jury trial verdict has happened.
	The difference is the decision makers in the Sussman case did not care about that impression.
	The Supreme Court does.
	That's why there's a different analysis in terms of how the decision is made.
	Yeah, no, no, and that's it.
	That was what I suspected your answer was going to be.
	One is the jury.
	They're in the gang.
	The gang's going to say, well done.
	It's like an Alabama jury in the 1950s, you know, doing a crazy verdict against the New York Times because they don't like their support of civil rights.
	The jury doesn't care.
	But that embarrassing jury verdict led to the New York Times decision.
	They rewrote libel law in America, right?
	So there are consequences that flow.
	There's consequences that will flow and continue to flow from the Sussman verdict.
	But the difference is the decision makers.
	Are aware and don't want those consequences in the case of Roe.
	The big distinction is to the question who the decision makers are.
	The jury, they're going to get pats on the back when they go home.
	The Supreme Court justices represent something higher.
	But they might.
	I don't think they will.
	There was someone in the chat who said get into it.
	They all know how damaging it would be.
	In particular, put Roberts in a jam.
	Roberts really now needs them to stick with the Alito decision.
	Because his first priority is the appearance of independence and impartiality and integrity in the court.
	He cares about that more than he cares about substantive decisions, quite frankly.
	So, consequently, he can't afford them to reverse Alito's draft decision.
	That's why there were some, by the way, that had alternative hypotheses for the leaker.
	I'm going to say this to Sergeant Frank Rock.
	I'm heading towards another boogaloo.
	I disagree with you, Sergeant Frank.
	I know Tim Pool talks about it, is concerned about it, might even say it's going to happen.
	By the way, it might be there, but if the next civil war is fought in a different manner than the last civil war, we might already be into it.
	Yeah, families are getting broken up.
	People are fighting.
	Neighbors aren't talking.
	Neighbors are ratting on other neighbors.
	Maybe that's what the next civil war looks like, not people running around the streets with whatever.
	I don't think we're going to get there.
	I think the pendulum is swinging back in the States faster than Canada, but I think it's swimming, swinging, swinging back.
	But we'll see.
	I just don't think we're not going to see the level.
	We're not going to see violence of that type, although we might just be into another variation, another form of civil war, which might be, you know, firing employees, parallel economies, parallel lives, parallel ideologies, and the fight.
	For the public square of public discourse, a la Elon Musk and Twitter.
	So, all right, Robert, what are the Supreme Court decisions of noteworthy notes?
	So there's a hate convention that the U.S. is a signatory to and has passed federal law enforcing, which governs child custody disputes between nations.
	And so they made it, there's always been a provision.
	That says a federal court doesn't have to, basically what the Hague Convention provides for is that if a court or someone has a lawful right of a jurisdictional child custody dispute in another foreign country, that they defer to that foreign country in a wide range of instances.
	There's always been an exception if there's a risk of abuse if the child is sent there.
	So a child was able to escape a parent's custody to another parent's custody here in the United States.
	The challenge was brought that the child had to be returned to the foreign jurisdiction without certain evidence of abuse.
	And the question was how high a standard that had to be.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision, which is you don't have to go through this long, detailed process.
	If a federal court or any court has a reasonable basis to believe the child is at risk of abuse if sent to that other country, then the hate convention does not limit the court's power to keep the child here.
	So that was a good decision, unanimous decision, because the law was kind of clear, but the lower courts had been confused and conflicted on it.
	And that was always a critical exception to ever signing on to the Hague Convention in the first place.
	The Hague Convention was not forcing young American children from one parent to a foreign parent where that foreign parent is an abuser in particular.
	So that was a good, important, valuable ruling by the Supreme Court that came down.
	There were two arbitration decisions.
	One was whether a foreign arbitration is an adjudication.
	For purposes of doing discovery in the United States.
	So if you have a case anywhere in the world, there's actual U.S. law that allows you to do discovery in support of that case in the United States, even though the case is not in the United States.
	However, it needs to be in front of a foreign court system.
	The people were trying to use foreign arbitration proceedings to do domestic U.S. discovery.
	So hold on, let me stop you there, because I think we touched on this a while back.
	I think it was the Nazi art case, but I might be mistaken.
	But the underlying principle is that if you have proceedings, and I guess we'll get to the arbitration in a second, but if you have proceedings pending in a foreign country, U.S. law would allow you to conduct discovery in America based on the existence of those pending foreign proceedings.
	That's the principle?
	Yes, and there are certain standards you have to meet.
	A lot of people, what they do is if they have a foreign proceeding.
	Most courts around the world do not allow anywhere close to the kind of discovery American courts allow.
	In fact, a lot of foreign courts consider it invasive and a misuse of the legal process to allow the scale and scope of discovery that takes place in U.S. courts.
	So sometimes they'll try to abuse U.S. courts for that purpose, and the law doesn't allow it to be abused for that purpose.
	But here the key question was, what constitutes a foreign proceeding for those laws?
	And does a private arbitration constitute it?
	Because then you could just keep expanding it, expanding it, expanding it.
	Supreme Court, I think, correctly determined, no, it has to be a foreign court proceeding.
	Or it's equal in a foreign arbitration that's private, does not meet that standard at all.
	So that will discourage also certain foreign arbitrations from misusing U.S. discovery laws as part of their process.
	So that was a good Supreme Court ruling.
	I would have actually predicted the opposite outcome if the arbitration proceedings are authorized by foreign law.
	If the foreign law says...
	Doesn't matter.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Doesn't matter.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	I would have predicted that wrongly on the basis that if foreign law says you must go through arbitration if you have an arbitration clause, and you do, then you would be entitled to discovery as though you had gone through the courts because the arbitration is mandated by the law and not...
	I'd say an exception to the law or secondary to the law.
	It's really about comedy between courts globally.
	That's what it's about.
	And that's why arbitration didn't fit.
	Okay.
	I'm starring a lot of Super Chats, which we're going to come to afterwards.
	Some of them are great questions, which we have to get to.
	Okay.
	So, people out there, if you file arbitration in a foreign country, don't expect to exploit American law to conduct discovery in America on the basis that you have a pending proceeding, which you do not.
	What's the next one?
	They gutted the...
	There's a California private attorney general's provision that allows you to bring certain kinds of class actions outside of arbitrations in California law to enforce labor law particularly.
	The U.S. Supreme Court applied the Federal Arbitration Act to basically gut it.
	And I agree with Thomas, the Federal Arbitration Act, who dissented again.
	On the same grounds he has before.
	The Federal Arbitration Act has no applicability, in my view, to state proceedings, period.
	So it's a misapplication of it.
	And now we're seeing the dangerous ramifications of that.
	They're using the Federal Arbitration Act to gut the ability to get relief and remedy against either the state or corrupt corporations, even when your state legislature has authorized it.
	That's way past.
	The Federal Arbitration Act was just to...
	Allow arbitration to be a more effective means of resolving disputes in federal court or under federal law.
	That's not what these claims are.
	But Supreme Court applied it to basically limit the power of bringing certain private attorney general actions in California or really anywhere now if it offends the Federal Arbitration Act.
	So you have an employee that has signed an arbitration agreement because all employers love it because it allows them to circumvent the...
	The entire jury trial in the court process.
	I think that's, I've never been, I don't think any of that should have been legally enforceable from the get-go, but putting that aside, now if you have a class action claim, even if that class action claim is exempted from arbitration under state law, now they say the Federal Arbitration Act forces you to basically waive that as well.
	So it's a misapplication in my view of federal arbitration, but that's how the court came down.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Hold on.
	I have to get to it.
	Robert, I think we've addressed it before, but let's just do it again.
	Viva, a question for Robert, please.
	Overturning Roe v.
	Wade, returning Schmorschen law to the state is a good idea?
	It's the way it should have always been.
	This is a state issue, not a federal issue.
	Now, if you believe human life within the meaning of the 14th Amendment begins...
	At conception, then it's a constitutional issue.
	But the Supreme Court is dodging that.
	But that's always one question.
	The second question is, who should decide?
	That first question, when does life begin?
	Should a federal court decide that, or should the states decide that on their own?
	And there's a good argument that that should be left to the states.
	And it's better than what's happened in the Roe era.
	Okay.
	And that idea being...
	The state will define it.
	If you don't like the laws of that state, you move to a state that has laws that you like and you let, you know...
	It's giving more power at a more local level.
	But actually, I never truly appreciated that argument, Robert, is that if it is deemed to be judicial life, then it would be life that is benefiting of federal constitutional protection, in which case the states could not enact laws that would infringe on that constitutional right.
	Without meaning strict scrutiny.
	So there are circumstances of self-defense arguments in the abortion context and others that may pass strict scrutiny.
	But that's not where they're going.
	They're saying whether or not it's a life is a state decision in the first place, not a federal judicial decision.
	We'll get back to some more of the Supreme Court decisions, but we've got some good questions here.
	Barnes, do you think the Biden DOJ has the stones to arrest Trump, or is them putting out...
	Or are they putting out more of a trial balloon to engage public perception?
	They would like to indict Trump and permanently discredit Trump.
	The problem is the consequence.
	It's going to be a heavily politicized case and everything that blows back from that.
	And if they're able to take out Trump, all that does is put DeSantis in the driver's seat.
	And Democrats don't necessarily want that.
	So as we mentioned on Tim Pool...
	The best insurance policy Trump has against indictment right now is the popularity of Governor DeSantis.
	I keep forgetting where we have these discussions.
	We had a lot of discussions in the three hours we were meeting before Tim Pool.
	We went over a ton of stuff.
	All of it fascinatingly interesting.
	Yeah, you get to see the hills and hollers in West Virginia.
	Oh my goodness.
	So, chat out there.
	Now that we're no longer there, no one can find out where we're staying.
	Barnes gives me the address.
	I'm not giving the address.
	It doesn't matter.
	It was a beautiful Airbnb.
	But we're driving off a highway.
	We turn off a road.
	And we drive for six kilometers into the West Virginian Mountains.
	And I was like...
	Gravel roads and the whole nine yards.
	It was glorious and beautiful.
	And I'm a city boy who's seen a bunch of movies.
	And, you know, there's a stereotype.
	Everything was glorious and beautiful.
	But you have those images and those stereotypes from childhood.
	The place was amazing.
	But I had no idea where the...
	I thought we had the wrong address and we were driving to a dead-end road in the middle of the forest.
	Beautiful.
	And we met there and we talked for hours.
	It was great.
	Robert, this one I'm curious about, and this might be a parenthesis to the entire Supreme Court stuff.
	Ask about Bannon's case, July 18. Bannon's case is federal, correct?
	Yes.
	Oh, yeah.
	So it won't be televised.
	He's issued a lot of subpoenas, so we'll see if the court lets him enforce those subpoenas because I think he's doing it the correct way.
	He brought a good motion to dismiss, a very robust motion to dismiss, preserve that issue for appeal.
	I think the court has made some mistakes already in how it's interpreted the law and how it's interpreted jury instructions applicable to it.
	But, you know, so Bannon wants to subpoena pretty much everybody, including Nancy Pelosi and others.
	So we'll see if the court lets him.
	He argues it's part of his defense, so we'll find out.
	And it could be a very interesting trial if the court allows Bannon's subpoenas to be enforced.
	Subpoena as witnesses in his defense, correct?
	He's just subpoenaing witnesses.
	How could they say no?
	How could they say no?
	We're denying you elements of your defense that you think are necessary.
	There are unique defenses that members of Congress have.
	In cases of federal criminal cases, in terms of subpoena enforceability and their ability to contest it.
	But I don't think there's good grounds for the judge to deny his right to subpoena those witnesses and ask him pertinent questions related to his trial.
	So the excuse would be that they don't have any admissible pertinent evidence.
	But clearly they probably do.
	Well, how about if they invoke...
	The very same privilege that Bannon invoked to not respect that.
	I mean, the irony would be lost on the D.C. crowd.
	Where are they trying?
	Where is Bannon?
	Oh, that's in D.C. So Peter Navarro is probably going to, I think, going to face...
	He tried to challenge it pro se.
	I never advised that.
	It didn't work out for him.
	He finally lawyered up and is going to be contesting what they're trying to do to him.
	They may try to recreate the same thing and bring contempt charges against him.
	It shows you who stung them, who they're targeting for criminal prosecution.
	Steve Bannon clearly stung them.
	Peter Navarro clearly stung them.
	Navarro was one of the best advocates for issues with the election fornication.
	People asked on Tim Pool whether I meant to say...
	Fornication, I did.
	That came here from either this chat or the Locals chat, which is also live right now.
	The people are on.
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So I think both of them will see what happens.
	The hurdle is that they're in D.C., D.C. juries, D.C. judges, who have not shown the capacity to provide consistent, impartial justice to anybody in the political arena.
	I'm reading it because David Lankford, I know you're of good faith.
	He says, come down south, Boa Viva, and we'll show you how pigs squeal.
	That was the stereotype in my head, but I'm telling you this.
	I've been to Virginia, and I've talked to everyone on the way down.
	I've met nothing but the finest people I've ever met.
	And I suffer from the big city, the city stereotypes.
	We've seen the movies.
	We've seen how Hollywood has demonized the others.
	I now understand.
	That that demonizing was garbage and based largely on jealousy and political venom.
	So I have disregarded all of that.
	And I got to tell you one thing.
	I'm more scared of going through New York City at this point in time than I am driving four miles down a country road in West Virginia.
	It was beautiful.
	What's a snipe hunt, Robert?
	Someone says we should have taken on a snipe hunt.
	I don't know what that is.
	Do I ask?
	I think that probably covers the U.S. Supreme Court main cases.
	There were another half dozen or so cases of varying consequence.
	There were a lot of technical cases that were issued.
	But next week can save the court.
	They made a lot of decisions this term.
	A few were good.
	A few more were bad.
	But they can salvage this court from the perspective of some of us by overturning Roe.
	And making the Second Amendment read in the words it was written in.
	And we'll find out this week whether they do so.
	We got some good questions in the Super Chats here.
	Let's just bring these up.
	This is a good one.
	Tarkina Meyer says, Love seeing you both on Tim Pool.
	Thank you.
	Question on Amber Heard, Johnny Depp.
	Do you think there's a chance J.D. Depp can get an injunction to shut Amber up?
	She's spreading lies, and she has basically, through counsel, admitted she's judgment-proof.
	It's the second part.
	That's a prior restraint.
	I think Good Logic had a big debate on his show.
	Good Logic in that New York accent, but spelled L-A-W-G-I-C.
	It's Good Logic.
	Basically, that's prior restraint.
	It goes like the Pentagon Papers.
	It's very rare that you can impose a prior restraint on anyone's speech, period, and we want to keep it that way.
	That's unfortunate in part for Johnny Depp, but that matters a lot more to me than Johnny Depp.
	Really now says Morpher Barnes.
	How long do you have to listen to dogs barking nonstop for it to be legally classified as torture?
	Asked Emily and she referred me to the local ordinance I already knew.
	Okay.
	Dr. Steve Turley has discussed such a model of resembling the Colombian Civil War of the 1940s and 50s, I believe, but have to go back almost a year in his archive.
	Robert, do you know what the...
	If anyone knows, I'm going to say it's you.
	The Colombian Civil War of the 1940s and 1950s, what did that look like?
	He just means every means of conflict other than martial or military.
	Okay.
	Is the best way to sort of summarize it.
	All right, and now we got, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in 2021 that red flag laws were unconstitutional.
	How can they try to pass this again?
	Not exactly.
	Not exactly.
	That's been, I know Tucker kind of interpreted that to mean that.
	It doesn't explicitly mean that.
	So there's good case law out there that when applied to red flag laws would say they're unconstitutional.
	But that isn't exactly what that decision held.
	Okay.
	Senator Bill Cassidy responded to my letter excoriating his support of the gun bill because of the red flag law's encouragement with...
	I do not support red flag laws that do not uphold strict due process as if it were possible.
	Well, then, if Senator Cassidy from Louisiana is one of the Second Amendment traitors currently considering gun control legislation, if he's serious, then put that in the law.
	It's real easy to say we will not provide any financial support for any red flag law that does not have all of these protections for due process, privacy, and Second Amendment rights in it.
	It'd be serious.
	Otherwise, he's full of it.
	But it seems like they're mutually incompatible terms.
	Red flag laws mean someone's a danger.
	You've got to go in without letting them know.
	Due process, if you let them know and you go through something, that gives them the time to act on that which was the basis of the red flag intervention in the first place.
	It seems mutually incompatible.
	Exactly.
	And Donald Trump Jr., who's a fan of the show, made that same point that we made last week.
	Imagine...
	Putting the power of red flag laws in the hands of people like Amber Heard.
	Does that sound like a good idea to you?
	And it clearly does not.
	Now, look at how a smart Republican handles these things.
	Jacob Drazen.
	People can find it.
	The Drazen Report.
	D-R-E-I-Z-I-N.
	He's now got a YouTube channel.
	He's probably going to set up a locals channel.
	Has a good blog.
	Had some fun with Let's Go Brandon and some other things recently.
	Great.
	Great studier of what took place in Ukraine.
	Predicted it beyond anybody.
	He's predicted almost everything all along.
	Predicted the fertilizer crisis all the way back in the fall that Duran and I discussed with the two Alexes back in the late fall.
	Apparently, he made like a 50-fold rate of return investing in a Canadian fertilizer company based on that.
	So you can make some real cash listening to some of these ideas if you know how to translate it well.
	But he was talking about, you know, the Democratic Party is the corrupt party and the Republican Party is the stupid party.
	And nothing's better been proof of that lately on the gun control.
	Contrast that to DeSantis.
	What did DeSantis do when the Parkland incident took place under his watch?
	He ordered a grand jury or investigation into school safety.
	He understood what the real issue is.
	That's not the gun.
	It's not the inanimate object.
	It's why is our school safety not as good as it could be or should be?
	And could better school safety prevent these incidents from happening in the future?
	That grand jury investigative report, a bunch of people were trying to hide.
	The Florida court said, no, that needs to be disclosed.
	And my guess is you're going to find lots of embarrassing information about how inadequate school safety protocols and procedures are in America.
	It goes all the way back to the political cover-up.
	Of Sandy Hook in covering up the politicians' culpability in not having effective safety protocols and procedures that some people misinterpreted to mean that something didn't happen at Sandy Hook that absolutely did happen.
	But what didn't happen at Sandy Hook was school safety protocols being in place.
	And that was hidden because they wanted to blame the gun and Alex Jones and everybody else in between rather than look at school safety.
	But that's a great Florida...
	Court decision that will reveal some very interesting information and credit again to DeSantis, who understood where to put the focus on.
	The focus isn't on revoking Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, but is, why don't we have the best school safety we can have?
	And so that will be very interesting when that report gets fully disclosed and divulged soon.
	Well, this was actually one of the topics I was bent on asking you, and I forgot to email you in advance.
	But Alex Jones, trial coming up.
	On the damages.
	But I think it's worth restarting this, not from the beginning, just a summary to get to where we are so that we can know where it's going come this summertime.
	Let's start from relative square one.
	Where is or has Alex Jones been sued for defamations?
	In which states the status of those proceedings explain to us yet again how it is the case that he's been found guilty?
	Denied a defense, denied the ability to defend, and they're proceeding to a trial, but only on the quantum, not on the liability, which has already been determined.
	Just so everybody can understand, coming up to his trial, which should be starting in July or August.
	So in the Sandy Hook School, and I think it's Newtown, Connecticut is a town, what took place was...
	A mentally deranged individual went in and killed a bunch of kids and others.
	Within hours almost of that incident happening, the Obama administration was brainstorming gun control.
	And it became a huge gun control pitch.
	That triggered a political backlash.
	People started to try to investigate using the Open Records Act or the equivalent in Connecticut, like FOIA-type provisions, Freedom of Information Act-type provisions.
	Those were delayed, installed, and hidden for years until they were finally disclosed.
	It led people down various conspiratorial paths that were incorrect about what took place because they saw politicians misusing this event for their politicized purposes to go after the Second Amendment.
	And they saw people hiding, politicians hiding things.
	And that led them to conclude the wrong things.
	But they were right about one thing, which was the politicians had something to hide and lie about, which was that the schools, ever since Columbine, protocol was to make sure that you could lock the inside of a door and have a secure place inside of a classroom if a shooting incident occurred.
	Sandy Hook didn't have that.
	So that is why they found, you know.
	Kids stacked in, you know, dead in bathrooms.
	They were trying to hide and there was no, even the bathroom didn't have a locked door.
	So had they had simple locks on those doors, a lot of lives likely would have been saved.
	That was hidden for years.
	And if I may, let me stop you there just to respond to one of the, and I remember it now.
	And, you know, Kierkegaard's life can only be understood backwards, but it has to be lived forwards.
	At the time, I remember all of the theories, some of which I said, some of which I knew to be false because I have...
	Immediate or maybe first-degree separated family or friends who are related there.
	And so people are like, oh, the crisis actor is nonsense.
	I knew from day one it was not right.
	The issue, the question about raising the school, demolishing it, some people are saying, okay, that's a fact.
	It was done.
	Robert, how swiftly after the incident was that done?
	So, it wasn't too long after.
	Also, there was no criminal trial for the individual.
	And a lot of evidence concerning him ended up being destroyed.
	And that triggered higher and higher conspiracy theories.
	The reality was they wanted the whole focus to be on the gun and no focus to be on school safety.
	And they needed it to go that route.
	To not only cover up what took place, but for their agenda on restricting Second Amendment rights in the country.
	And so, one of the...
	Well, not one.
	The fact that they razed the entire building, it created a lot of conspiracies, some of which were patently untenable.
	You know, it never happened.
	It was all...
	Everyone's actually yadda yadda, and it didn't happen.
	Patently untenable.
	The one where I only now, in hindsight, appreciate where, you know...
	There's legitimate critique is that, as we discussed previously on one of our live streams, had they implemented the protocol that ought to have been, was required, or recommended since Columbine, they might have known.
	I mean, even the schools in Montreal, Canada, have locks on various locations.
	And so destroying the school, raising it, was not a flat, the moon's made out of cheese type conspiracy.
	They wanted to destroy the fact that they didn't have basic protocol in effect that they ought to have had or knew that they ought to have had, so they shaved the school down.
	And they refused to produce, under the various documents they had, under the Freedom of Information Act or its equivalent, Sunshine Laws in Connecticut.
	And so, now, for most of this time period, InfoWars and Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson was a strong critic of all these alternative conspiracy theories.
	He was the editor of InfoWars at that time.
	Alex Jones' original criticism, which you can go to the day of the incident, he's talking about the problem of mental health in America, particularly for young men, what he considers celebrating this kind of violence in Hollywood and in the media and in parts of gaming culture, and that they were going to target the gun and that that would be the wrong place to look.
	And the 99% of whatever InfoWars published, printed, or said affirmed that Sandy Hook happened.
	What happened is about middle of the way, several years afterwards, in responding to various questioners, Jones made various statements that are now the subject to the suit.
	But Jones was not the leader.
	The fake media narrative is that Jones created, instigated, curated, profited from a fake saying that Sandy Hook was fake.
	That's utterly false.
	It's always been false.
	What they took is they took seven minutes out of seven million minutes of words either spoken or published by Infowars and highlighted that.
	And ignored the rest.
	Sued in two states, Texas State Court in Austin, Texas, and in Connecticut in the area where the incident occurred by two different groups of plaintiffs.
	Some of them are related.
	Some of them are like law enforcement responders who want to cash in.
	And they sued him on a whole bunch of grounds.
	He brought motions to dismiss.
	He was denied a right to even bring a motion to dismiss.
	He brought anti-slap motions.
	He was denied a right to even bring an anti-slap motion.
	He had rights to bring motions to summary judgment.
	He was denied his rights for a motion to summary judgment.
	He has a right in Texas to appeal a denial of a motion for summary judgment.
	He was denied that right to even appeal the motion for summary judgment.
	Then he was denied a complete trial on the merits.
	He's not allowed to defend himself at all on the merits of the case.
	Now, I know what you're saying is true, and I think I remember the reasons for some, but not for the others.
	He was held to be in default of depositions for concealing or failing to submit.
	But the anti-slap, on what legal basis was that dismissed and he was precluded from raising it?
	Two different ones.
	In Texas, it went up through the appellate process, and the Texas Court of Appeals is also in Austin, a Democratic-dominated court.
	Including by a judge who wanted to run for the Texas Supreme Court.
	And made novel interpretations of the law.
	And the Texas Supreme Court, over two dissenting justices, did not take up the case.
	In Connecticut, he was denied completely the right to bring in any slap motion because he made public statements critical of the lawyers.
	That simple.
	Unheard of, you know, the Connecticut Supreme Court initially took the case, and then they sort of weaseled their way out and backed out of making a...
	Because that was a clear-cut violation of Jones' First Amendment rights, to say whatever he wanted about anybody in the proceedings.
	He did not commit what's called a true threat.
	There's no good grounds for that whatsoever.
	But the U.S. Supreme Court also didn't take it up when they could have.
	Which they've done in the Sandy Hook cases repeatedly.
	It's why the gun manufacturer wrote a massive, massive check to some of the same Sandy Hook plaintiff's lawyers and their clients maxing out their insurance policy.
	The U.S. Supreme Court didn't intervene when this whole lawsuit against that company was a violation of federal law.
	The excuse from day one, what I said, was that the media has made a mythical case against Alex Jones that isn't based in law or fact.
	And so how do you justify that?
	Well, you claim that the discovery that would prove it has gone missing or destroyed.
	Because the discovery didn't exist.
	It never existed.
	And in my view, they knew it from day one.
	That their whole mythical media take on Jones is just without merit.
	That any factual review would disprove it.
	And so Jones, who produced more discovery, more depositions, more testimony.
	That anybody I've ever known in a comparable case in history, they said he didn't participate in discovery.
	The guy produces millions of pages of documents and emails and information far beyond what anyone else has ever had to produce.
	Look at the New York Times as not having to produce anything while the New York Court of Appeals stays discovery in the James O 'Keefe Project Veritas case.
	By contrast, Jones has said...
	Hours and hours and days and days of depositions and testimony, and yet they pretend he isn't participating, so they deny him a trial on the merits.
	They can't, and now they're trying to preclude what he can argue on the damages trial that's about to take place.
	So it's not clear whether...
	They're both state court, so they might be broadcast publicly.
	So we'll see why that happens.
	But they didn't want Jones to be able to, on a nationally public broadcast trial...
	Have him defend on the merits.
	They didn't want that to happen at all because a lot of these other issues would have gone into it.
	And, you know, Uvalde and some of these other incidents that happened might not have happened if the truth about Sandy Hook and the issues related to lack of school safety protocols, if that was publicly known at the time, every school in America would have been under massive pressure to put out a very good school safety plan.
	That didn't happen because the media lied about this and they continue to lie about this.
	So ultimately, Jones has very robust appeals.
	The question is whether the courts will ever enforce the law when it comes to Jones.
	Because so far, they have denied him basic due process, basic rights to a jury trial, basic rights to civil procedures under their respective laws, basic rights that all of us are supposed to have.
	Now, I'm going to bring this one up.
	Sorry, I'm choking on my own tongue here.
	Viva, a lot of us here don't believe it happened the way they said.
	And we are your fans, not trolls.
	Now, first things first, I didn't call anyone a troll.
	For certain beliefs they might espouse.
	And I won't.
	There are trolls out there and it's a totally different dynamic.
	And I understand that there are a lot of people out there who don't believe it happened the way they said.
	And that much I understand.
	And I understand that with 9-11 as well.
	And I won't even say that someone who doesn't believe that 9-11 happened.
	That it was mirrors and it was...
	I mean, what people should have asked is, a lot of these concerns would have been answered had they done a meaningful investigative full disclosure, if they'd been fully transparent.
	But they couldn't because it would highlight the lack of school safety protocols that were put in place.
	That's why they didn't.
	And it encouraged people to believe the wildest possible interpretations.
	And I wouldn't even call someone who believes that 9-11 didn't happen.
	I wouldn't call them a troll.
	I would just call them someone who believes something.
	Which will never be able to be disproven.
	And a discussion I don't want to get involved in.
	I wouldn't call them a troll.
	I have no problem saying they're wrong.
	And the people still believe certain things are still wrong.
	And you're looking in the wrong place.
	And it allowed you to...
	It allowed the media to discredit legitimate questions.
	It's like the Dominion thing.
	Which would be a good transition to the Dominion case.
	It's when you...
	When you believe something that's not true, that they can prove is not true, that other people are going to think you're either insane or crazy, or that they can be easily discredited, what happens is it discredits all the legitimate questions that people had in the process.
	I think people in the media wanted people to say, either you believe the government narrative about Sandy Hook, or the media narrative about Sandy Hook, or you think it didn't happen.
	There's a whole bunch of third alternatives.
	There's a myriad of options in between.
	It's the same thing as to why I think they've exploited the Flat Earthers.
	And by the way, I won't even call people who genuinely and sincerely believe in Flat Earth, I won't call them trolls.
	I just will agree that we will never have a mutual understanding.
	And we'll agree to disagree.
	I wouldn't call them trolls, but people who pretend to believe the earth is flat for other reasons, exploitive reasons, then I might call them trolls.
	Or who come in and say, who come in and try to, you know, twist the debate or redirect the debate, those might be trolls.
	An example is when you look at everything that Dominion pursuing, what I said from day one was pursuing Dominion, even if you believe it, is you'll never prove it and you'll discredit election challenges, and that's exactly what happened.
	And this week in Delaware, the Delaware court denied Newsmax's motion to dismiss.
	So now pretty much everybody, Fox, Newsmax, One America News Network, and Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, everybody, Patrick Byrne, they're all going to have to face jury trials on Dominion.
	Now, a lot of them supposedly said they wanted to.
	We'll see.
	They can use discovery aggressively, but...
	My guess is that they're all going to lose those cases because they said some things that didn't take much effort to figure out were not true.
	Factually incorrect.
	Just outright factually incorrect.
	And so the only question is going to be the damages.
	Now, Robert, there might be the argument in the Dominion case, the truth would have been just as bad as the lie.
	Or the lie was inconsequential.
	Okay, fine.
	So they're not related entities to...
	Dominion was not related.
	The problem is Dominion keeps getting proof of this.
	So the, for example, this past week, New Mexico, a county in New Mexico refused to certify an election because they wanted further inquiries into how Dominion processes things.
	Now the New Mexico Supreme Court stepped in and forced them to certify the election.
	So they did.
	There were legitimate questions that county had, but focusing on Dominion tends to discredit the other questions that they have.
	And I've heard this story.
	Which election were they refusing to certify?
	It was a local election.
	This was not referring back to 2020.
	No, no, yeah.
	It was not back to 2020.
	It was a recent election in New Mexico.
	I think it was Otero County, if I recall correctly.
	And there were legitimate grounds to bring challenges or want better election review.
	Good that people are taking over the local election councils to do that kind of inquiry.
	They just didn't go about the process the right way in this particular instance.
	And people can say Dominion was a factor.
	The problem is Richard Barris and I looked at it.
	There's no meaningful discrepancy between Dominion counties and non-Dominion counties in terms of what happened in the election.
	There just isn't.
	This was broken.
	You have to start there.
	And if you also understood what was happening, I knew, because I was on the ground in Georgia, and everybody was worried about, they wanted us focused on Dominion.
	I mean, here's the problem.
	Dominion isn't in most of Pennsylvania.
	Dominion isn't in a bunch of counties and states across the country where it just mattered, where the same election irregularity took place.
	So how do you explain that?
	The idea that that was never going to get anywhere.
	People wanted to believe it.
	It was an effective red herring.
	And they did severe damage to challenging and contesting the election because of it.
	Whether you look at it as a matter of fact or look at it as a matter of consequence, it was a failure.
	It just was.
	And again, I'm not a fan of machines being involved in elections at all.
	But in this election, machines are not the reason for what happened.
	Why was there no signature match check ever done?
	Because everybody was obsessed with the machines.
	And it led to an easy red herring.
	It led to people's straw man, their own argument.
	They created a straw man that was easy to knock down in support of their own argument.
	The ghost of Hugo Chavez.
	Yeah, and all this other stuff.
	I mean, like, confusing Dominion with Smartmatic?
	I'm sorry, that's just inexcusable.
	Pretending there's German servers involved and Chinese ballots involved?
	That's inexcusable.
	That was ridiculous.
	It was almost bad fate, the degree to which Sidney Powell and others made egregious mistakes.
	I mean, I don't say we're discussing it, but we had this discussion at Waffle House, and people were like, you know, what you're saying suggests that was deliberate by those people, because they so badly sabotaged the election challenges that you'd almost think it was intentional, given the sophistication of some of the people involved.
	I mean, now Patrick Byrne, he just may be totally insane.
	But, I mean, continuing to believe the Dominion myth about explaining the election is...
	What happens if you get rid of Dominion?
	You're not going to change what could happen because it could happen easily all over again.
	Signature matches are the most effective measurement of integrity in mail-based elections.
	They always have been.
	That needs to be the focus.
	If you don't focus there, you're a sucker in a sap.
	And I just said Barnes is pissed in the chat, by the way.
	And just so nobody thinks that Robert and I are making this up ex-post factor, like after the fact, we've seen the way it turned out.
	Barnes was on this.
	First of all, Robert, I'm not trying to put you under the spotlight, scrutiny, or whatever.
	You called out Q as what you thought was a PSYOP before I even knew what Q was.
	You were ahead of the curve on that.
	People can go back and watch our streams.
	You were saying that Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani were making factually incorrect statements before the defamation lawsuit even was born.
	And this is not Monday morning quarterback or backseat driver.
	We were discussing this months before any of this actually occurred.
	You were sensitizing me to this months before.
	And then lo and behold...
	Set aside all of the stuff about digital.
	Yes, PBS ran a report on Dominion in 2020.
	CNN reported on it in 2017.
	Set aside all of that.
	They documented how it happened in that Time article magazine.
	And meanwhile, everyone was just talking about conflating Smartmatic with Dominion.
	Gun-drawn raids of servers in Germany, which made everyone look stupid for having repeated them.
	From Giuliani Powell to whomever.
	The best way to describe it is Dominion is to the 2020 election what Lee Harvey Oswald was to the JFK assassination.
	Oh, well, does that not make me want to go and look up every...
	You've done a hush-hush on this, correct, Robert?
	Oh, yes, yes.
	And Eric Conley on their America's Untold Stories with Mark Grobert did a whole Q&A recently on the JFK assassination that was really intriguing.
	And they're right that when you're on target...
	Is when you'll get the most criticism.
	When you're off target is when you'll get the most celebration.
	And so the signature matches were always the key.
	They never did it.
	Dominion was always a red herring.
	Doesn't mean I'm against all machines being involved in elections.
	But that isn't what happened in 2020.
	And so we'll see.
	And here's what, they're going to re-narrate this in five years because Dominion's going to win all these suits.
	And they're going to say that everything was just about Dominion.
	And as juries found in every jurisdiction to adjudicate it, they found that the allegations of election fornication are wrong because they're going to limit it to the Dominion side.
	Kind of like they did with Pizzagate.
	They reduced Pizzagate, not to whether or not you have elites involved in Epstein-style behavior, but whether a particular pizza place had something illegal going on.
	They're going to do that all the way through and try to rewrite history.
	Now, I think their full efforts will be unavailing.
	But, you know, it's unfortunate people got caught down that rabbit trail.
	I gotta write this down, Robert, before I forget.
	When you're on target, they criticize.
	When you're off target, they celebrate.
	And when you're over target, they dot, dot, dot.
	Fill it in.
	And I can't help but think of Epstein.
	Dwayne Maxwell, speaking of legal news, was begging for reduced sentencing in part because she had evidence and information that people had been paid or promised payment in exchange for killing her while she was in custody.
	So we'll see if there's any full investigation of that.
	Bill Burr was busy telling us that Jeffrey Epstein definitely just killed himself and busy telling us that...
	The election 2020 was just fine.
	He challenged 2,000 mules.
	You can almost guarantee he didn't watch 2,000 mules.
	Dinesh D'Souza offered to publicly debate him, which he, of course, has not taken up because he's a wuss.
	We talked about it in the special limited exclusive edition for TimCast.
	That's the interview after the interview that's only available at TimCast.com.
	Bill Burr's Bill Barr's unique...
	Not Bill Burr.
	Don't want to defame Bill Burr.
	Bill Barr's unique history and his father's unique history.
	You can go there if you're a member of TimCast and watch that interview.
	That was a lot of fun.
	Speaking of why we were on TimCast was the new Rumble proposed rules.
	And I posted them up on Locals, a link to it.
	And you can review them for yourself and Rumble, too.
	It's great credit.
	has created a participatory process.
	So not only are the rules open source, so anybody can copy them, no copyright, nothing else, asserted.
	They're also not the final rules.
	These are just proposed rules.
	And Viva and I spent about a better part of six months working on crafting and creating these rules to make them as clear.
	Put people on fair notice, to promote as much free speech as is practicable, to recreate the public square into the digital square, to create a digital public square that looks like the public square at your local town hall.
	And at your local town hall, you can't go in naked.
	You can't go in, you know, you can't do obscenity.
	You can't stalk people there.
	You can't defame or dox people there.
	You can't violate trademarks or copyrights there.
	So you can't harass people.
	You can't do targeted, hateful kind of conduct.
	But we created rules that are manageable, that follow American law, follow American jury instructions.
	So everybody's on fair notice.
	A real appeal process.
	And the rules, I think, are the best version of maximizing publicly desirable free speech public squares in the digital space that exists.
	The goal is, hopefully, that these rules become the template that somebody like Elon Musk...
	Can use it Twitter if he ultimately purchases Twitter.
	But you can go there, and if you think the rules can be improved upon, if you think there's something missing, if you don't like a term, if you think this is too exclusionary of some area of speech, then there's an email, Rumble.
	There's an email that's listed on the vivobarneslaw.locals.com, pinned tweet, pinned comment.
	And you can see there where you can send your email directly to Rumble to give your own comment, your own ideas for how to make the best possible, freest possible, most open internet space in the world.
	And I'm going to bring up a clip in a second, but just so everyone understands, I get emails, I get messages, I get criticism.
	And someone sent me something and I'm thinking about it, Robert.
	I'm wondering whether or not it's sufficiently covered in the rules as we've drafted them.
	Artificial amplification.
	I think that's covered in spamming, but I'm going to go back and review.
	On Twitter, they have rules against artificial promotion of accounts to make them look more popular or to make them gain traction.
	I think that's covered, but I'm going to go look.
	People, if you have comments, criticisms, critique, or flattery also always goes a long way, let us know.
	We're there.
	We're open.
	And we drafted these things.
	Not out of the blue.
	After, in my case, seven years on YouTube, Robert, you've been around for longer than me in a great many more diverse circumstances to have included your insights.
	But hold on.
	Let me bring this up because I think it's on point in terms of one of the restrictions on what we've drafted as Rumble Rules.
	This comes from the actual call with Elon Musk and the Twitter.
	Twitter employees interviewing Elon Musk.
	And listen to this, and then I'm going to say something afterwards.
	Just bring this up here like this.
	Okay, that's much better.
	And boom.
	Hold on a second.
	I'm an idiot.
	How many times do I have to do it?
	I'm going to put myself on mute, then I'm going to play it.
	Thank you.
	I wanted to talk about content moderation, go back to a number of the things that you said earlier.
	So this is one I'll take verbatim.
	So you've spoken a lot about the importance of free speech.
	Let's start with the U.S. where we have a strong tradition around this.
	And you touched on this earlier.
	A lot of what's called lawful but awful speech is allowed here in the United States, right?
	Animal abuse, footage, doxing, videos of sexual violence, etc.
	So allowing this type of content obviously could cause harm and make...
	You know, Twitter unusable for the broad audience that you're trying to reach.
	What is your approach to this type of content that's sort of legal, but problematic as it relates to people actually using the service?
	How do you think about this tension?
	As I said earlier, I think we should allow people to say what they want, post what they want, keep in the bounds of the law.
	But that's different from Now, Robert, we have discussed this in terms of...
	One of the examples that came up in the discussion of that tweet was Fauci.
	Fauci's videos of what he did to beagles was removed from Twitter on the basis of...
	First things first.
	Animal cruelty...
	Certain types of violence, certain types of doxing is already illegal and is not awful but lawful or lawful but lawful.
	It's unlawful, period.
	Not allowed.
	The best analogy when we were going through all of this was a two-fold approach.
	One is that almost all of these issues have been addressed at some level in the legal system.
	So, like, harassment's already illegal.
	Stalking's already illegal.
	And we just took language from the jury instructions that are given to ordinary people, because that's where you translate the law in an accessible way to ordinary people, and incorporated them into the explicit and expressed language of the rules, as well as guidelines that are going to be published down the road once we get enough participatory impact and input to be able to modify that.
	But the best way for everybody to think of this is think about your local town, square.
	Public Square.
	And think about what was lawful there and what was not.
	What was allowed and what was not.
	The town Public Square did not allow you to come and kill somebody's dog in front of people.
	It never allowed, didn't allow sexual violence to be brought.
	That's not legal.
	It's not.
	Now, there's a limited circumstance where if somebody's covering what somebody did, like in a trial, like in a proceeding to comment on something, then it's allowed.
	But only then.
	So it's just think about what would be okay in my local town public square.
	If it was, we want to make sure it's okay on Rumble.
	And we've conformed the rules almost as precisely as you can.
	Now there's certain things that are unique to the technological space in the sense of things like spamming and things like bots and whatnot that we're also trying to create rules to restrict and restrain.
	But otherwise it's identical to what the...
	Town Public Square is what Rumble is going to be.
	And it's been that way in terms of its practical administration.
	My standard's always the same.
	If Alex Jones is on your platform, you're a free speech platform.
	And that's what Rumble has never discriminated against him at all.
	And so the goal, but Rumble wanted its rules to reflect its traditions.
	And these rules reflect what the public square looks like and has looked like is what Rumble's base is going to be.
	And so in the response to that tweet, someone said, well, what about Fauci testing on beagles?
	And I said, well, first of all, and they said that was censored on Twitter.
	And I said, first of all, that was probably censored on Twitter to protect Fauci, not to incriminate Fauci.
	The idea is, the distinction is, here, criticize Israel.
	Yeah.
	But if someone says death to the Hebrews, that as their content, that comes down.
	Period.
	But if someone's covering a protest where people are saying death to the Hebrew...
	You can criticize Israel all you want.
	There's a bunch of...
	I mean, Glenn Greenwald's one of the biggest voices on Rumble.
	He's one of the harshest Israeli critics in the world.
	So, I mean, I disagree with him strongly on Israel.
	But he doesn't hold back at all.
	So you can criticize Israel.
	You can criticize anybody, anyplace, anywhere.
	What you can't do is use it to discriminate or target people for purposes of illicit incitement of violence.
	Again, things that you couldn't do in the public square in your local town, you can't do on Rumble.
	That's the goal is to mirror the rules.
	And I was just saying with the Fauci-Beagle testing, I said that should have stayed up because it was newsworthy.
	The reason why I was taken down was actually political in my humble view.
	Someone posting videos of them killing cats.
	And I can think of an individual in particular who's serving a life sentence in Montreal right now.
	Luca Magnola.
	Luca Magnola, whatever his name is.
	Someone posting that themselves as their content is far different than a newsworthy event of a Fauci who has been discovered to have done this in the past.
	So that's where the distinction lies, and it's a big one.
	But I tell you, I think we've got the middle ground, and I think it's exactly what people want.
	Robert, we're two hours in.
	Hold on.
	I flagged, not flagged, starred a ton of Super Chats, and this one's the most recent.
	Rolf Peterson says, Robert, you want to field this one?
	Not necessarily.
	People think anti-discrimination laws only protect racial minorities.
	That's not true.
	It protects targeting people based on race, period.
	And I know Rolf is a bona fide, sincere follower for a long time.
	I get that, practically speaking, that's interpreted that way by the media, but that's actually not the law.
	And the Rumble's rules apply, period.
	It's whatever's legally protected in the local jurisdiction.
	So that will vary by country, by state, by domicile.
	But in the United States, discrimination is not allowed on race, period.
	Regardless of whether you're white, black, brown.
	It's the old Christian song I learned as a kid.
	Red, black, yellow, or white, all are beautiful in God's sight.
	All are protected against from discrimination in America.
	I love it.
	Twitter has...
	Twitter, the site, has illegal stuff on it right now.
	He's worried about what Elon is going to do.
	Dude, I discovered...
	And it's because they've misapplied the word harm.
	You saw her do it.
	Harm is not a legal standard.
	What does that even mean?
	That's exactly the vague, misabused, too much discretion.
	It would be struck down as vague in violation of the Constitution if a government tried to pass it so you can't do things that harm people.
	No, that's why.
	Use the laws on the books.
	We've developed 200 years of good history about what we want.
	And it can still be, as that Twitter person was commenting, a publicly desirable space.
	People liked going to the public square, and you could engage a wide range of opinions.
	It was just certain illegal activities were never allowed in the public square.
	That's all you need to have a publicly desirable space.
	And Rumble already has internal protocols to limit the number of trolls.
	But you're not allowed to stalk and harass and hate people.
	So if you target someone and you try to make their experience miserable, like still happens on YouTube, still happens on Twitter, still happens on Facebook, Rumble rules allow Rumble to remove that person if they continue to engage in that abusive behavior.
	So it's about recreating a civil public square in the digital space.
	I'll field this one.
	Does Rumble commit to delete only material that violates Rumble rules?
	And let me just say, we're not speaking as Rumble...
	Representatives.
	But the rules only allow for the material that violates the rules to be removed.
	It doesn't allow for...
	There's no little carve-out that says...
	If Rumble doesn't like it for any other reason, it can remove it at any time.
	That carve-out is gone.
	It's not in the rules.
	And I was going to say, we're not representatives in the sense that we can't speak for the company, but we've crafted these rules so that there's oversight.
	There's oversight regardless.
	Rumble removes something and someone doesn't like it, they then submit it to a community review.
	And if the community says Rumble acted intempestively, or whatever the word is, then it comes back.
	Rumble will agree.
	To allow a community jury to overrule its own administrators.
	There's a lot of chats coming in now that are not the ones that I flagged.
	Gentlemen, if you apply the standard to how the government left media treat law-abiding gun owners.
	First of all, I love the avatar.
	And yes, okay.
	I mean, points taken.
	I don't want to read things that are going to get us into trouble.
	Let me just refresh here.
	Let me just see.
	Are we still green?
	I think we're still green.
	This is the longest we've ever gone remaining green.
	Rolf Peterson, California DOJ, a hate crime is a crime against a person, group, or properly motivated by the victims real or perceived.
	That's interesting.
	Protected social group, not protected.
	Yeah, I mean, he means how California interprets hate crimes.
	So that's a separate issue.
	Our focus is on what's legally protected in a particular jurisdiction.
	And in the United States, that's everybody.
	Regardless of, you know, you can't discriminate based on race, based on religion, based on ancestry.
	Those are the main categories.
	You can't call to violence to anybody, period.
	You can't stalk people.
	You can't harass people now.
	Harassment's prohibited.
	And what is harassment?
	We use the legal definition.
	You put someone in reasonable fear, and that's objectively reasonable, so it's not just their subjective standard.
	You put somebody in reasonable fear for using the service.
	That's it.
	And the goal is to really get rid of the bad trolls that nobody wants anyway.
	Rumble's not in the position of saying, let's create a product that only 10 people want to use.
	They're in the publicly beneficial product.
	People asked about the App Store rules.
	These rules comply with the App Store rules.
	Now, Google and Apple have misapplied those in the past, and that's a separate dispute.
	I don't think Google will do that to Rumble because they're facing a current big lawsuit from Rumble that's still pending in federal court.
	So I don't think that Rumble has as much to worry about.
	And Rumble has a scale that a lot of others don't.
	And Rumble can continue to use these rules to expand.
	They will be the space you go to to re-experience the public square.
	And that was without...
	Harassment.
	In the public square, someone didn't have a right to harass you, follow you around, scream at you, yell at you, make you feel so uncomfortable that they were in reasonable fear for their well-being, for even being physically present there.
	That's never been legal.
	There's these things people think are legal.
	No.
	Just because some of these trolls that are on certain discords and the rest think things are normally legal in the public square or never legal in the public square.
	So the goal is to replicate the public square with Rumble, and I think these rules come as close to doing it as practical.
	But again, if you look at it and say, I think there's an improvement.
	I think it's RumbleRules at Rumble.com.
	But you can go to the VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	It has the pinned comment towards the top.
	You can click on it, go there.
	It has the email listed.
	And any things that you think will be better or you think we missed, send it to us.
	Send it to that email address and everybody will aggregate it so that there's a participatory process here.
	All right, I'm going to read this.
	John Ritterhorf says, Verbal Ninjitsu.
	Drives me crazy.
	People's ability to twist things and data in a way to suit their talking point is the same as statisticians split hairs to justify their point of view.
	When is enough enough?
	I wish people could speak truthful.
	From your mouth to God's ears, John.
	Okay, we're going to blitz through these super chats because we're over time, but there were some good ones in here.
	Vivan Barnes, what are your thoughts about a court in Texas stripping Paxton of his ability to prosecute?
	I have to take a look at that case.
	I heard about it, but I haven't looked at it in detail.
	Two other big cases that came down this week was the Iowa Supreme Court determined that under the Iowa Constitution there is not a fundamental right to abortion.
	So that means Iowa's laws will shift if Roe is overturned to restricting abortion more.
	And in Kentucky, they made a very good ruling that I'll be posting A highlighted version of at BebaBarnesLaw.Locals.com that said cell phone tracking violates people's Fourth Amendment rights.
	So what's happening is they're using...
	Well, it's what they did in 2000 Mules.
	I was going to say, great.
	Now the Mules get to file a civil rights violation claim.
	Basically, if they ping your phone.
	So they're basically doing something proactive to track everywhere you go.
	And the Kentucky Supreme Court said...
	A person has a reasonable expectation that the government is not pinging their phone to track them wherever they go.
	So as long as you have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, then any search into that is what they called a technical trespass, like a physical trespass.
	It goes back to the Kochel and other decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, where what they were doing was rather than invade your home, they were taking infrared cameras of your home.
	In the Supreme Court, great decision by Scalia.
	Said that's just another version of trespass.
	Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy?
	Yes.
	That's all that matters.
	Doesn't matter whether the trespass is done physically or done technologically.
	And they said that's the same thing with them using pings to track your cell phone.
	That is a search of you, and they need probable cause or a warrant to do it.
	It's very funny because I just operate on the basis that I am being constantly tracked, listened to, surveyed, and pinged, and so therefore I don't operate as though I have that expectation, but that might just be my getting used to the new normal, which is actually 1984 George Orwell new normal, which I shouldn't get used to.
	Great observation.
	I would like the states to collect all tax dollars that require the Fed to collect its portion from the states who could withhold dollars during disputes.
	That's what the Articles of Confederation provided for.
	And it's why the Constitution tried to change that.
	But the apportionment clause was supposed to enforce that provision.
	And the apportionment clause is now impractical politically to enforce.
	So they don't.
	And they get away with it as long as they can call it an income tax or tax outside of the apportionment clause.
	That's why they won't define the word income, keep expanding it, want it to be wealth tax, property tax, etc., because they want to have the 16th Amendment read much broader than the Supreme Court has previously said it can be read.
	Will we see a convention of states in our lifetime, Robert?
	Yeah, increasingly the probabilities are high.
	Based on energy levels, Barnes' energy level seems a little down this episode.
	Is Barnes depressed about current events or just simply tired?
	No, it's just my voice.
	I've been traveling a lot, so my voice is a little bit dry.
	I think the dehydration episode was a lot of fun, and so it went back and forth.
	Obviously, that's a cross-country trip for me.
	But it was a very good, fun Tim cast.
	Luke was good on it.
	Chris Pavlosky was good on it.
	And credit to Rumble for being really committed to this.
	I guarantee you every corporate lawyer told him he's nuts.
	The easiest thing to do is don't listen to Barnes.
	All you're going to do is open yourself up for every lawsuit known to man if you don't keep your word.
	He's decided to keep his word, and he's decided to do so.
	And he hired us.
	He could have hired a different group of people, not people who are going to hold him to it.
	And he stuck with it, doubled down on it.
	It was his idea to make it participatory.
	Incorporating the jury process, the public square concepts, jury instruction ideas, giving fair notice to everybody, a real appeal process, community content creators involved at both the creation of the rules, the enforcement of the rules, and any modification of the rules.
	This is the model that everybody in the big tech world and social media world should look at to replicate and repeat.
	And credit to Chris Pavlosky for being willing to stick with it when I'm sure everybody else told him it was a little crazy.
	Stick with it and agree to long-format interviews.
	If I'm a crooked lawyer, I'm telling my client, never agree to long-format interviews.
	They're too risky.
	Or if you're just Amber Heard's lawyers.
	Don't talk, Amber.
	Please, please quit.
	Our channel, we're not into that, but my goodness.
	It was nice that Taylor Lorenz got outed again.
	And we were the ones to help put Taylor Lorenz...
	On the proper map that she belongs on, which is as a defamer and libeler for what she did to Ariana Jacobs.
	And so more people are paying attention to that case now as they see her doing it again to the people in the law tube space.
	This one's for me, Robert Allfield.
	Is Trudeau finally concerned about his position?
	Is that why COVID Alert was retired and Vax dropped for domestic Canadian travel?
	No.
	Well, is he concerned?
	He's a narcissist.
	I don't think he's concerned.
	Is that why he retired it?
	No.
	They didn't retire it.
	They suspended the restriction within Canada travel, but they didn't suspend it on returning to Canada travel.
	So unvaxxed Canadians, if they travel out, they can.
	When they come back, they have to go to quarantine for no less than 14 days.
	Why did they do whatever they did?
	Subtly, as they announced the suspension of this restriction, which is a suspension of our constitutional rights, they've announced that Double-vaxxed is not going to be fully vaxxed anymore.
	They're going to move to an up-to-date vaccination status by what the news is reporting as of September.
	Meaning, if you're not double-vaxxed and boosted or double-boosted or whatever by September, you'll be subjected to these unconstitutional restrictions.
	So that's coming in Canada.
	I don't think he ever has any concern about his position.
	He's a narcissist, pathological abuser.
	He never will.
	And I don't think he retired these things for any of those reasons.
	It was a bait and switch.
	They said, okay, well, the unvaxxed can travel out now.
	When you come back, you're still going to go to quarantine.
	And by the way, congratulations.
	As of September next year, we're not double vaxxed anymore.
	Now it's going to be up to date.
	And if you don't satisfy the government's criteria of up to date, you ain't going anywhere.
	A couple of...
	The rent control case we'll discuss next week.
	I need to dig into it a little bit more.
	But rent control is being challenged in more places, which is good.
	And as one of the people on Locals noted, there was finally a breakthrough.
	The Louisiana Court of Appeals did find COVID-related lockdowns an insurable event for some New Orleans businesses.
	So hopefully that will start to break through.
	So far, all the courts have found it isn't.
	But we'll cover that in more detail next week.
	Okay, and I'm going to blast with these just so we can finish this before we go.
	Red tyranny flag laws are legalized swatting.
	Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
	Tend to agree.
	After that, it's called tyranny.
	Okay, bring that one out.
	Bring this one in.
	Peppermint.
	Trying to keep victims alive.
	Lautenberg amendment is a good incentive options on current limiting Lautenberg.
	I don't know what that means.
	I'd have to look into that in more detail.
	Okay.
	So does Stephen Colbert crew have something to worry about after wandering where they shouldn't have?
	They should.
	I mean, if they're sincere, it's going to look bad if they let them walk.
	When they, unlike many of the January 6th defendants, that crew was put on specific notice to get out and refused.
	Yep.
	It's even worse.
	I made that as a joke.
	At least they weren't invited in by the police.
	If what's good for the goose is good for the gander, they had better be nervous.
	But they're probably not going to be.
	No.
	Just an observation.
	A false red flag could make a very dangerous situation specifically for the cops willing to enforce it.
	Of course.
	Agreed.
	Agreed.
	I'm way behind.
	It could be a repeat of Ruby Ridge.
	Yep.
	Everyone has to watch the Waco series.
	It's mind-blowing.
	Mind-opening.
	Giving the Super Chat in honor of the trip to Waffle House.
	Hopefully it was dreadfully delicious.
	It was great.
	It was objectively great.
	Yeah, Viva had never had sausage gravy before.
	That's a near sin in the South.
	I'll get that the next time.
	The one thing I was happy about is that the chairs are McDonald's-like chairs.
	They're built for temporary comfort, but not for long-term stays.
	Because I was tired.
	I needed to go to bed early.
	Early as in like 1 o 'clock or 2 o 'clock and then get up to leave at 6 in the morning.
	And I did.
	It all worked out well.
	Senator Nathan Dahm wrote the anti-bag flag law in Oklahoma and is currently running for U.S. Senate and the only anti-war Republican candidate.
	Ah, good.
	All right.
	Okay, it's all about shutting down the most influential populist voice in the world.
	I think that's a Ryan Kelly reference.
	No, it's an Alex Jones reference.
	Oh, sorry, Alex Jones.
	It's mutatis mutatis to all of the other GOP candidates who are succeeding on their merits.
	Dr. Vinay Prasad...
	Well, the question is, when is the FBI going to officially list all of its favors for Governor Whitmer on the campaign finance disclosure report?
	Well, I'll tell you one thing.
	Who's going to be on to that?
	Robert.
	Robert, I forgot his name now.
	Come on.
	The reporter in Michigan.
	The one hour...
	You know who I'm talking about?
	Name's blank.
	Oh, it's so...
	I'm going to have to go to my...
	There is good coverage, by the way, by the inner-city press guy of a very interesting case that Tracy Beans and others have highlighted that people should follow.
	I've only briefly seen glimpses of it, but there's also inner-city press that we've interviewed here, Matthew Lee.
	You can follow him on his blog, follow him on social media.
	That's a very interesting case I want to take a deeper look at.
	Charlie the Duff.
	My goodness.
	Charlie, if you're watching, I'm sorry.
	I couldn't remember it offhand.
	I totally brain farted.
	Charlie the Duff.
	If anyone's going to find it, Charlie, you're going to find it.
	Okay, so we got that.
	We got that.
	And we're almost done here.
	Okay.
	Dovidwlawtube for their thoughts on...
	Oh, okay.
	On the Rumble terms of service, sure.
	Oh, yeah.
	And again, everybody, the goal is to have everybody feedback.
	So, you know, Nick Rickey to everybody else that looks at it, you know, that are really invested in these items, you know, obviously are welcome to send in their feedback.
	And yeah, at some point, we'll probably will do some sort of broad discussion about Rumble rules.
	We can just do a, not a Q&A, but an AMA on the terms and just discuss it, a dedicated stream.
	I can summarize Elon's Twitter town hall meeting.
	Get your lazy ass into the office and earn your salary on merit.
	Yep.
	Okay, so I think I may have missed some super chats, but I can't catch up on the ones that I missed while we were doing this.
	But thank you all.
	Robert, stick around.
	We will say our proper goodbyes.
	So people, there's no stream tomorrow night.
	My apologies.
	Our apologies.
	Hold on.
	Let me just make sure.
	No, I can't even say our.
	It's my fault.
	I forgot.
	My daughter is having a very big birthday party tomorrow night.
	And I'm an idiot.
	I'm an idiot.
	Tomorrow during the day, I might do a walkthrough of Elon Musk's leaked live thingy thing.
	It'll be fun.
	There's some insights in there I think I can offer.
	Run to Florida Viva.
	Don't tempt me.
	Don't tempt me.
	I saw a tweet that Biden DOJ is trying to null California lie that pork can't be sold from pigs inhumanely kept in crates.
	Is this true?
	Yes, yes.
	And we'll discuss it in more detail when I get to review the whole suit, but I've seen the headline.
	And you know, the amazing thing is, as I was driving here from Tim's place, I saw a big truck and there were pigs in the back.
	And I was like, I'm looking at this.
	I don't like the way it looks, but I think still humans should eat meat and bacon's delicious, but they should be treated properly from the birth until death.
	Okay, Robert, phenomenal.
	Thank you.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you.
	You know where to find us, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Any merch that you might want.
	The honesty troll.
	I now get it.
	I troll people, but it's only with the truth.
	Vivafry.com.
	Barnes, there's a new line out with your stuff on it.
	I'm going to tweet it out so that everyone can see it.
	You can all get it.
	Vivafry.com.
	All the greatest lines from Viva and Barnes.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend, people.
	We will see you sooner than later on the interwebs.

▲