Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 10, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:05:13

Ep. 119: Shinzo Abe; Canadian Tyranny; Amber Heard SUED; Biden Troubles; SCOTUS Fallout AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	...of this issue.
	Power.
	It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so.
	End of quote.
	Repeat the line.
	Women are not without electoral and or political, or maybe precisely, not and or, or political power.
	That's another saying that you, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue.
	I don't think the court, or for that matter, Republicans will power.
	It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so.
	End of quote.
	Repeat the line.
	Women are not...
	Before I get going too much, because I'm going to get going on this, I'm going to just take this out.
	I apologize for being a few seconds late.
	Camera's a little off.
	The echo in the room should be a little better.
	Not perfect, but the echo should be better.
	And let me just tilt the camera this way.
	The studio is not fully set up yet.
	You might notice it's not echo, it's reverb, because this room now has a little bit of padding on the wall, as in the acoustic padding, although I could probably use the other padding.
	Good.
	So people say no echo.
	It's amazing.
	Hold on.
	Like, dollar store stuff that my wife ordered for me on Friday, and it came today.
	And I've done a little makeshift also.
	I took some styrofoam stuff that came in a lot of the stuff that we've ordered to furnish.
	An empty home.
	Thank you very much, Potato Head.
	And I've used the styrofoam on the walls behind me, a popped air mattress under the window, and these things that I have to figure out a way to stick to the wall.
	Okay, now that I know that the audio is better, I'm not playing this a second time because we talked about this Friday.
	I'm not playing this a second time to make fun of Joe or what is clearly now, you know...
	Acceptable to recognize as cognitive decline.
	I'm going to play it again.
	But bear in mind, the punchline of this segment is not Joe Biden.
	It's the insidious fake news.
	Although at this point, I guess the punchline is Joe Biden because it's the OrwellianWhiteHouse.gov website that published the transcript of this speech.
	Let's listen to it one more time.
	Power.
	It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so.
	End of quote.
	Repeat the line.
	It is clearly instructions in the caption of the teleprompter.
	Clearly.
	What is also Clear and undeniable.
	He said, end of quote, repeat the line.
	You're not going to believe where this goes.
	It's clear.
	He mistakenly said, end quote, repeat the line.
	Instructions to him before then trying to do what he was supposed to do, which was just repeat the quote, repeat the line.
	It was clear to anybody with half a brain who's not a pathological liar.
	And apparently, the White House thinks that people are either brain dead or willing to believe the lie.
	I saw Tim Kast retweet it, or retweet the tweet from the guy who originally tweeted it, which was Greg Price.
	That's not the tweet, though.
	This was the tweet.
	No, that's not the tweet.
	What the heck is my problem?
	Look, bottom line, you go to the White House transcript of that speech and look what they have transcribed for what Joe Biden says.
	This is what Joe Biden said.
	This is the whitehouse.gov transcript of Joe Biden's gaffe.
	Orwell wrote, we will rewrite history.
	I'm going to...
	You know, destroy the quote.
	We will rewrite history in real time.
	The other part, you know, change the script in real time of what the individual is reading, and the crowd will just go along with it.
	The emperor formally has no clothes, and this is how the White House covers for it.
	Transcribing his speech.
	One of the most extraordinary parts of the decision, in my view, is the majority rights, and I quote, women.
	It's a quote now from the majority.
	"Women are not without electoral or political power.
	It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who registered a vote and cast a ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so." End of quote.
	Let me repeat the line.
	This is the White House, formally,.gov, covering for a gaffe by following it up with a lie.
	It's so shocking.
	The gaffe is a gaffe.
	Look, we've all made gaffes.
	Whether or not you think it's because of Joe's dementia, it's a totally independent issue.
	We've all made gaffes.
	They are trying to rewrite history in real time to deceive those who didn't see the original video, to give the cushion to those who want to lie to themselves and say, it's not that bad.
	He's not that bad.
	That's all that he said.
	Let me repeat the line.
	Let me repeat the line.
	The ballot is consistently higher than the percentage of the men who do so.
	End of quote.
	Repeat the line.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	He did not say, let me repeat the line.
	He said, repeat the line.
	Because it was in the teleprompter as direction.
	Not for him to read in probably a totally different font.
	Probably in square brackets.
	They're lying to us in real time.
	They are, if it's not them, spitting on your face.
	Somebody is spitting on your face and they're trying to say it's just raining.
	Who are you going to believe?
	Your lying ears or the whitehouse.gov transcript, which tells you that he said, let me repeat the line for emphasis.
	It's pathological.
	It's pathological.
	Like, it's...
	The Watergate was a scandal, not because of the underlying crime, but because of the cover-up.
	This is a gaffe.
	It's a freaking gaffe.
	It happens to the best of us.
	It's not the gaffe that is, I'll say, not impeachable, but rather that is criminal here.
	It's the deceitful, overt lie to your face.
	You are either an idiot because they think you're an idiot.
	They will take advantage of you for not having seen the original, or they know you're dishonest and they will just give you whatever fodder you need to live with the lie instead of saying, holy crap, not only is Joe Biden the head of a crime syndicate family, potentially, not only is the nation in shambles, relatively speaking, still better than other countries, but not necessarily in the right trajectory.
	Not only that, not only is he arguably obviously suffers cognitive decline, but in my head and his ability to govern the most population on earth.
	I forgot exactly where I was going.
	Not only is all of this true, you need to live with a lie.
	So here is all that you need to live with a lie.
	We're going to let you deceive yourself.
	Let me repeat the line.
	Liars, liars, liars.
	Specialwh.gov liars.
	Okay.
	Let's get some...
	And then get to the...
	Audio is effed up.
	Gosh darn it.
	If I were in real time...
	Is the audio better now?
	Intermittent audio.
	Do I have to go through that entire thing again?
	Okay, first of all, how is the audio now?
	Slow down.
	It's the microphone, Viva.
	Yes, Viva is reboot audio.
	Audio is garbage, lagging, very much better.
	Is this better, people?
	I hear you, but echo, forget the echo.
	We're doing as good as we can.
	Good, good.
	Okay, speaking of good, good.
	Barnes is in the back.
	Do I need to go over all of that rant again?
	Short story, TLDR, they're lying to you.
	They treat you like idiots.
	They take what was just a gaffe and they cover it up in a manner that is, it's unbecoming of the White House.
	It is unbecoming of anything but something of a regime that cannot admit.
	Of the foibles of their leader.
	It's like rewriting what Joe Biden said in his speech to make it not a gaffe, but instead what he meant to say.
	It's mildly better, but in the same vein as Kim Jong-un saying he made nine holes in one his first time playing golf.
	I mean, it is nothing shy of lying to preserve or Promote the honor, dignity, and power of the leader.
	Just say he made nine holes in one when he played golf.
	How fit is Joe Biden?
	He made nine holes in one.
	Shameless.
	Okay, now let me read some super chats real quick.
	Get to Barnes.
	Taffy, thank you.
	A blessed good evening, Mr. Fry.
	How are you and the family?
	Personal best.
	Bass, right before coming here.
	It's just, it's too damn hot in Florida.
	It's too damn hot.
	But I'll take it.
	Hot for you.
	David, you and Robert are heroes.
	No joke.
	I will take servicemen.
	We are doing a service.
	Barnes is more of a hero.
	I'm just angry.
	I see people in the chat saying to leave Joe alone, but the tragedy is that his handlers are not leaving him alone.
	Forget that.
	They're lying to you.
	I'd leave Joe White alone.
	I would have forgotten the gaffe already.
	But then they have to erase the gaffe on a formal White House government website by lying about what he said?
	Let me repeat the line.
	Do you think I'm stupid?
	I feel like that guy who just did the IKEA ads.
	Viva, I've heard through the grapevine you and your family have made it to Florida.
	Welcome to the United States of America, sir.
	Hopefully your homeland of Canada will be liberated soon.
	Until then, welcome home.
	Viva, we get it.
	Next.
	Okay.
	Well, now I had to do this.
	Thanks, Viva, for providing such great analysis.
	Thank you.
	And by the way, we've got a barn burner of an episode tonight.
	It was an epic rant, even with the audio issues.
	Okay.
	Let's leave it alone.
	Barnes is in the house.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Canadian madness.
	Japanese madness.
	I mean, the media has somehow just forgotten that a former Prime Minister of Japan was assassinated and, like, not a peep.
	Doesn't make sense.
	Interesting decisions.
	Tyson food in hot water.
	What else?
	Sri Lanka.
	Oh, my God.
	Farmers and...
	We got lots.
	Barnes is in the house.
	And let's bring him in.
	Robert, sir, you're looking even, you're looking better and better every time we do a live stream.
	Sweet.
	Yeah, it's the benefits of vacation.
	Yeah, well, you look tan.
	Where did you go?
	Went to Maine, New England.
	Maine, New Hampshire.
	Shout out to whoever it was that gave a gracious greeting in Portland.
	One of our board members.
	Who just greeted, you know, sometimes people have a natural tendency to want to get involved, but he was a very generous and gracious individual.
	Just said, good, good.
	That was the greeting to let me know that he's a board member.
	So that was cool.
	That was fun.
	Shout out to him and whoever he may be in Portland.
	Saw Naomi Wolf and some other folks at a book party in New York.
	New York City.
	So I went to some old territory.
	I hadn't been in a while.
	I hadn't been back to New Hampshire since I was a kid, where I worked, spent summers, and hadn't been back to New Haven since I left Yale as a junior.
	So I got to take in some of those sites as well.
	And it was a great, great trip, good relaxation.
	Now back to the grindstone.
	As you use the guise of fireworks from Canada to sneak out in the night and make it down to Florida and find yourself back in God's country away from the Canucket stand.
	Let me just make sure.
	Can you hear me through this mic now, Robert?
	Is the audio good?
	Yeah.
	Okay, so I fixed that mic issue.
	The week I left, Robert, the government announces boosters every nine months or you're not going to be up to date.
	Tamara Lich goes back to jail for non-com on a bail, which we'll get into.
	And Viva's quiet.
	Jeez Louise, hold on.
	We'll get there, people.
	Let me go to audio.
	Automatically adjust.
	Okay, let's go with that.
	Is that better now, chat?
	Let me see.
	That sounds better.
	That sounds better?
	Okay.
	Yeah, the week I leave, what was the third thing?
	I can't remember the third thing now.
	It's terrible.
	It's terrible.
	But now, hold on, before we even go, what do you have in your mouth and what's the book behind you?
	I think we've seen this book before.
	It's John le Carré.
	John le Carré, A Most Wanted Man.
	It's a good book.
	It's relevant a little bit to one of our discussion topics tonight.
	A former Mexican cartel leader has filed suit alleging a wide range of many years of U.S.-Mexican cooperative torture.
	Of various things.
	There have been rumors of this for a while.
	There's rumors about what really happened to the DEA agent who got killed and who was really behind his torture.
	Things of that nature.
	I don't know if I've put that up as a hush-hush yet.
	Maybe not.
	It kind of correlates.
	Good John LeCroix about rendition.
	They made it into a film with Philip Seymour Hoffman.
	This is a punch, special edition punch cigar.
	I haven't smoked a cigar until now and got back.
	Got to get back into those good, healthy habits that are the key to longevity.
	Viva escaped from Canada like the Von Trapp family of Austria.
	They were chased by the...
	First of all, Robert.
	I guess one announcement.
	I'm going to be in Vegas on Wednesday for the Freedom Fest with a panel with Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe, and now I've forgotten the judge's name, a retired judge.
	So it's going to be a blitz, Vegas and back, because if I leave my wife with three kids and two dogs for more than 48 hours, it'll be my last time.
	Robert, look, we got to talk about the big thing.
	I don't know how much you're able to speak to it or just enlighten people.
	The Shinzo Abe assassination.
	First of all, in my lifetime of a prominent political leader, even if retired, but retired for health reasons, still active, this is as big of a global event as I can remember in my life.
	Can you give any insight as to, on the one hand, who Shinzo Abe was, what might be some underlying explanation for this, and why the media doesn't seem to care in the way that I thought?
	Well, it's hard for the media to care because Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.
	So they don't want to highlight a public assassination using a gun in a country where gun control laws clearly didn't prevent or preclude what took place from taking place.
	There was a good TV series based on a book called Tokyo Vice that's recently out.
	That will depict a lot of the politics of Japan and how they handled things and how nobody committed murder in Japan during a certain time period when clearly people were committing murder in Japan or just written off as something else.
	So you have a bit of the Japanese media tendencies to not cover these matters in an aggressive way.
	Then the Western press that didn't like this particular prime minister of Japan, who's considered to the right of where they wanted, was allied often with Trump.
	There was a photo today that was circulating where Trump, the Japanese leader who was just assassinated and Putin, are toasting at a table.
	They're saying, remember when a time when we once had peace in the world.
	But I don't know enough about it in detail because the vacation was actually a vacation for the most part.
	A little bit of work broken in there, but I just saw the headlines, know a little bit of backstory, but don't know enough to get into the, to give a meaningful analysis.
	Okay, well, and we'll get to it.
	The only news, I guess the interesting news is that it was a homemade double barrel shotgun of sorts, ex-military guy who maybe had the knowledge to do it.
	I have so many questions because I saw the video, one of the, you know, distant videos.
	It makes no sense.
	Homemade or not, someone getting that close to the president with something like that is bizarre.
	Four seconds from the first shot to the second, a clear four seconds.
	Makes no sense.
	Setting all that aside, the media...
	And you know what someone said?
	They called him an ultra-nationalist.
	It's not so much even the media silence.
	National Post, Western media, demonizing him.
	Demonizing the dead.
	There's an expression in French, those who are not there are always wrong.
	Calling a deceased ultra-nationalist as if to suggest he did something to deserve this.
	I don't understand it, but I was listening to the Duran...
	The Friday morning when it happened, I think it was the Durant, or were they talking?
	Boris Johnson.
	Anyhow, yeah, I don't understand it.
	I don't understand how it happened, how the security was so lax, how it took two shots four seconds apart, and how the media just moved on to something else.
	Yeah, I mean, it's been an interesting week internationally.
	I mean, the Canadian trucker convoy spirit spread to those.
	Like I said, don't screw with European farmers.
	You know, don't screw with Canadian truckers.
	Don't screw with European farmers.
	People should learn these.
	Don't poke the Russian bear.
	There's some lessons people should really learn.
	But those Dutch farmers are taking the Canadian trucker tactics right to the core of the government there because of the energy and environmental policies that are trying to steal.
	Farms, basically, from Dutch farmers.
	Sri Lanka's entire government collapsed.
	I mean, they were raiding it.
	They were playing on the gym in the presidential palace, you know, the masses.
	And then they went for the banks.
	So, I mean, they were going for everybody there.
	That, too, relates to World Economic Forum, environmental policy, bad policy.
	It's just backfiring everywhere.
	You know, their Ukraine policy continues to backfire.
	There was a great story this week.
	It turned out that this big Russian general that the British and American media had said was Putin was nominating and he was a gentleman of some girth.
	Turned out he's not even a Russian general.
	He's a retired border officer.
	All the Western media, New York Post, Rupert Murdoch has become a joke, a disgrace in his coverage of the Ukrainian conflict.
	One fake news after the next fake news after the next fake news after the next fake news.
	The irony of what they got banned for was honest news about Hunter Biden, but they've been all fake news about the Ukrainian conflict.
	4chan apparently hacked into Hunter Biden's phone and now is uploading all kinds of documents.
	I'm not going to speak to that until I know more details about what's going on.
	Not a fan of hacking of people's information.
	But understandable under the circumstances because so much has been tried to keep secret about the criminal behavior.
	Of the Biden family.
	But, yeah, it's been interesting news all around the globe.
	I mean, I was gone for 10 days, and it's like, bam, bam, bam, bam, world-changing events back-to-back.
	Abe assassinated.
	Johnson ousted.
	I don't know how familiar or how comfortable you are talking about the Johnson thing.
	He blew it.
	He blew it the same way Republicans are trying to blow it here in the United States.
	And the establishment, political establishment, he came into power because of Brexit.
	He replaced the predecessor because of Brexit and because working class middle England voters no longer had a place in the Labour Party that was increasingly woke and pro-immigration especially and ultimately embracing opposition to Brexit, wanting another vote.
	And that's how he got in.
	But not long after that got resolved, he shifted to an obsession.
	With rebuilding a British empire, started talking about, you know, from London to the Mediterranean, obsessed with the Ukrainian conflict beyond all proportion, just adopting one ridiculous self-destructive policy after another.
	You can hate Putin all you want.
	Slapping yourself in the face over and over again is not a good way to win.
	And so the, I mean, even the Russians were making fun of it today.
	They had a tweet with the Jack Nicholson character from The Shining All Frozen.
	And saying, more sanctions, more sanctions.
	We need more sanctions.
	The West is going to freeze to death at this rate.
	And so there's no question he'll be out.
	But the people that replace him are just as bad in terms of dumb policies on energy, on environment, on Ukraine.
	And so Boris Johnson is proof to the Republican establishment here was what it should be, that Trumpism or its like is the future.
	Bushism is dead.
	Dead.
	And if you try to resurrect it, you'll end up like Bojo.
	I'm going to bring this up because I'm not sure I even understand the reference.
	This is the Japanese islands that are on the border between them and Russia that have been in dispute for quite some time, about a century or so.
	Russia has walked away from the negotiation table because of Japan sanctioning a bunch of Russians related to Ukraine.
	It would not be wise for Japan to try to do it.
	Japan doesn't have much of a military.
	We did that deliberately after World War II.
	They're not going to be going much of anywhere.
	This is the thing.
	I was listening to the Duran, Alex and Alex.
	They're saying the scandals caught up with Boris.
	How do scandals of which everyone is already aware suddenly catch up if not to say there's other things at play here that said, Boris, your time is up.
	Get out.
	And this is the day before Abe's assassination.
	I don't want to feel like I'm connecting the dots or connecting any global dots, but how do scandals of which everyone has already been aware that are baked into the price of the stock suddenly catch up with Boris Johnson to the point where overnight he has to resign?
	Well, really, I mean, he went full lockdown and he went full Ukraine.
	In the same way, I almost went full Jew in New York, in Brooklyn.
	I was sitting there eating in Brooklyn, and I was like, oh, this bagel is so good.
	And I'm like, holy cow, I sound like Mark Robert and Viva talking about bagels in Florida.
	Robert, you're already full Zionist, so you may as well just go.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I still like that meme where they made me orthodox.
	But credit to Mark Robert.
	He and Eric Hundley at the unstructured.locals.com gave me a great list of places to visit in Brooklyn that were fantastic.
	But yeah, I mean, Boris Johnson was, because of the lockdown, it wasn't the scandal that did him in.
	The scandal was emblematic of his bad lockdown policies.
	It was that they were hypocritical, they were duplicitous, and they were just bad policies.
	And they're not conservative policies.
	He wasn't conserving anything.
	And so him going full lockdown is really what gutted him.
	And then the Ukraine thing just put it over the edge in terms of its domestic economic impact.
	Ukraine may seem popular on paper in the UK.
	It's not when people's utility bills are doubling.
	So the, that, and the scandal was just the easy way to use as the excuse for the final push, but it wasn't the real explanation.
	The explanation was bad lockdown policies, bad Ukraine policies.
	But now what is going to be the impact of Boris's ousting?
	It's going to take a couple of months to formalize.
	What is going to be the consequence on UK foreign policy vis-a-vis Ukraine in particular?
	It will probably stay just as bad because the people that are likely to replace them have the same hawkish policies.
	So they're not as tied to the bad lockdown policies, which have mostly ended in the UK.
	But they're going to get all the baggage of the bad economic consequences from those lockdown policies that are now being felt, in inflation especially, but probably in stock declination, etc.
	Britain was also the insurance industry, finance industry for the globe.
	You're nuts now if you put your money in Britain.
	You're nuts now if you rely on insurance from Britain.
	They're about to lose one of the last vestiges of their empire, which was the financial insurance dominance they had in large parts of the globe.
	You're nuts if you continue to do business in the UK.
	Just ask Roman Abramovich how that's turned out.
	Nobody's saying we'll do business there moving forward.
	Britain is just going down, down, down.
	There's nothing that's going to stop it because his political class is even more corrupt.
	And the problem if you're a working class, middle England Brit, is you have nobody to support you right now.
	The Liberal Democratic Party doesn't support your interest.
	The Labor Party doesn't support your interest.
	And now increasingly the Tories don't support your interest.
	So you have nobody representing you.
	And that's kind of the problem.
	Okay, we'll see what happens there, but the idea that it's going to be a couple of months...
	Imagine if your options were George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and that was it.
	I mean, that's basically what you have in Britain right now.
	I'm going to go to Rumble and just make sure that we're smooth on Rumble, as we are.
	Very nice.
	Robert, you saw what happened in Canada this week?
	That's outrageous.
	I mean, it's a crock.
	I mean, do they understand that they're making...
	She's not the person to make an example out of.
	She's making an example out of the corruption of the Canadian justice system.
	The Canadian justice system is not making a good example through her of its honor or integrity.
	It's...
	I mean, everyone...
	Not everyone.
	We had about 5,000 people watching Friday.
	In my most pessimistic...
	Predictions would not have predicted that she would go back to jail pending the hearing on the breach, the alleged breach.
	Non-con, non-compliance.
	Everybody knows what happened.
	Tamara Litch, organizer of the Ottawa Convoy, one of the alleged organizers of the convoy, fundraised, orchestrated, organized this protest, which is now the judge takes judicial notice that this protest gridlocked Ottawa, caused fear in citizens.
	Judicial notice.
	Indisputable.
	He can just say it.
	And the judge is a justice of the peace.
	A lower notch than a judge, but a distinction without a difference, except to how that judge got nominated, appointed.
	The alleged noncompliance attending a gala and sitting at a table with someone who she was not supposed to directly or indirectly communicate with in the absence of counsel.
	Sat at a table with him at an event organized by their counsel.
	It's an awards show.
	Shook his hand after winning an award.
	Whispered something in his ear, took a picture with him.
	Someone posted it to social.
	The Crown comes in and says, go back to jail on your accusations of mischief, underlying accusations, because this is noncompliance with your bail terms.
	Never did I think it could happen.
	And the judge, you know what, Robert?
	I mean, you might not have the weak stomach like I have, but you're getting halfway through a decision and you're like, holy shit, this is going the wrong way.
	And you know it halfway through.
	It became clear the judge was going to lock her up about halfway through that hearing.
	And she's back in jail.
	It'll be two weeks plus now the second time after her initial two and a half weeks on mischief charges.
	And they're going to determine whether or not she breached her bail terms, I think, on the 14th.
	I don't know what other people think of this.
	What do you think of this when you look at Canada and see this happening?
	Is it something you could have ever imagined happening in Canada?
	Yeah, it's an outrage.
	I mean, it shows the misuse and abuse of bail power in general, that because they don't have the same robust respect for bail that we have in the United States, or at least they're supposed to have in the United States, we're seeing how it can be easily misapplied.
	I mean, what's happening is they set terms and conditions that relate to something, and then increasingly they get increasingly distant from their original purpose, their original limiting purpose.
	Something that was about making sure the person shows up suddenly becomes whether or not They said the wrong thing or whispered something to somebody at a meeting.
	It's like, what?
	There's no crime there.
	How does that relate to securing their appearance at trial?
	It has nothing to do with it.
	And it just shows how excessive the Canadian system has become, and it's not a model anybody sane would want to mirror or reflect.
	And I think it's going to keep going in that route, unfortunately, because until there's a massive political shift in Canada, Canada's worse off than Britain.
	No, you talk about people not wanting to invest in Britain.
	Anybody who's thinking of investing in Canada has to have their head examined as well in a place where you get your bank account frozen.
	All of the panels are falling off the wall now, but one of them just fell on the dog.
	You get your bank accounts frozen.
	There's no free speech.
	You can be locked up indefinitely on mischief charges, accusations.
	You have to have your head examined.
	But people seem to not only not be objecting to it, too many people seem to be of the opinion, she shouldn't have done it.
	She took a picture with the guy.
	What did she think was going to happen?
	All right, Robert.
	So, yeah.
	I mean, yeah, our other topics, we'll talk about abuse of prosecutorial power, the Bodega case, Alba case in New York, because that was news when I was there.
	Steve Bannon, the case I think that Nick Riccate is going to be covering, that I think trial starts this week.
	That's the guy that's being prosecuted for a true threat, which is just utter gibberish.
	Melting snowflakes guy?
	Yes.
	That guy's going to trial, facing 20 years in prison for a Snapchat, just about taking his gun and putting it in the storage where it's meant to be at school.
	I mean, it's ridiculous.
	The Michigan Court of Appeals did not properly interpret the true threat jurisprudence, and it shows what some of us said at the time, but we'll get into that.
	But yeah, we got a good case out of Wisconsin elections.
	We got the Texas...
	Governor declaring an invasion.
	What does that mean constitutionally?
	Can he now declare war like the Constitution would suggest he could?
	The Biden administration is really mad about Arizona imposing a citizenship requirement on voting for the presidency.
	We'll get into that.
	The Mexican cartel figure that's suing for torture.
	All the crypto fallout, some of these cryptos look more like Ponzi schemes than they actually look like investment platforms.
	The Tyson Foods had a major loss in the Fifth Circuit.
	Lobstermen may be out of business entirely in Maine, a decision that's not getting enough attention because in the name of a whale, a judge, a federal judge in D.C. is considering shutting down the entire lobster industry in America.
	And then we got about another...
	Half dozen or so cases, including my amended suit for Children's Health Defense against the FDA, challenging their activities, their mislabeling and their mismarketing of the COVID-19 vaccine and the emergency use authorization to young children.
	Let me just see if I can't.
	Everyone's saying that the Wisconsin man charged.
	No, that's not it.
	Where is the story of the individual who got the plea deal?
	Let me see if I can't find this right away.
	Apparently he got a free deal, Robert.
	What's the guy's name?
	That'll help me find it.
	Oh, God.
	Hold on.
	Let's melt some snowflakes.
	I said going to melt some snowflakes.
	Oh, chat, what's the guy's name so I can find it?
	I'll find it afterwards.
	Robert, let's start with one I know that you're going to be happy to start with, Tyson Foods.
	They're being sued class action by their employees.
	Who say that Tyson was making them work in unsafe conditions in the early part of the pandemic.
	Apparently Tyson was not only not allowing people to not work sick, but was...
	What's the word?
	Not compensating.
	They're forcing people, sick workers, to work.
	The people that need the vaccine and mandate that on everybody were at the beginning of the pandemic using it as the pretext that they're a critical infrastructure forcing people to work that were actually not healthy enough to work.
	And so they filed suit over that set of COVID policies by Tyson.
	They filed suit in state court.
	Tyson dragged it into federal court, went up to the Fifth Circuit of Court of Appeals.
	Same argument they made in my case, that they're a federal officer.
	And the Fifth Circuit unanimously said, no, Tyson is not a federal officer.
	That, you know, unless the federal government is directing you specifically to do something, guidance, press releases, these things do not make you a federal officer.
	And consequently, they lost that case.
	So that case will now go back to Texas State Court.
	They are trying to stop the remand in my case.
	They remanded part of the case back to state court and they're begging the judge not to allow that to happen because they're so...
	I mean, why are they so terrified of state court?
	I mean, you know, unless...
	For the lay people like myself who don't necessarily understand, they were not seeking the dismissal.
	They just moved for an automatic change of jurisdiction to the federal court arguing that they were effectively agents of the federal government.
	And then it requires the plaintiff to make a motion, what, for change of jurisdiction or for denial?
	It's called a motion for remand.
	Okay.
	And so they say they're not state actors, federal actors, who then benefit from this jurisdiction.
	What is the idea behind the fact that they think they would get a more preferential or beneficial treatment in federal court than state court?
	Tells you something about federal court, sadly.
	I mean, that's the only way to sum it up.
	That it's a company that does not think state courts, who are mostly elected officials at the local level, will be in their pocket.
	But they think federal judges often will be.
	So they guessed wrong in this case, but it tells you who and what Tyson Foods really is.
	So it goes back to state court, and that's where it's going to be conducted by way of trial.
	As to whether or not Tyson...
	Is culpable for requiring employees to work while sick with COVID in the early stages, resulting apparently by the allegations of the suit, actual death.
	Yeah, and then they turned around and solved the problem by man-aiding a vaccine that also caused death and disability.
	Well, it's fractal wrongness.
	The concept that no matter what they do, it turns out to be the wrongest and most detrimental decision.
	At what point does one assume it's either...
	Incompetence or malice.
	The only thing in common is they screw their employees.
	That's the only thing in common with Tyson Foods.
	They screw their employees at ease.
	Now, what's interesting is Tyson Foods was a company years ago.
	To transition to the Musk Twitter case, Tyson Foods, when they bought a company that now has them subject to a partially major class action about their manipulation, alleged manipulation of meat and food pricing in America that's going through the roof, it appears, according to the complaint, that Tyson Foods is integral to manipulating their antitrust power to do that.
	But years ago, they bought a company, tried to get out of it.
	Delaware court made them, I think it was Delaware court, made them buy it.
	Made him go through with it, which is what Twitter is suing Elon Musk for.
	Because if people went back and watched my hush-hushes on Elon Musk, there were two predictions.
	One was that I wouldn't bet on Tesla stock at the time.
	I think it was back in February I did those.
	By the way, Tesla stock is down about 35%.
	I got a lot of crap from all the Muskvites.
	They're like, ah, you're an idiot, Barnes.
	Well, you know, just saying.
	If you would have dropped out then, you would have made money.
	You stayed in.
	You lost money over the last couple months.
	And my second prediction was that Musk wouldn't actually go through with buying Twitter.
	Now, I was for him raising issues with Twitter and all the rest, to be clear.
	But the way he kind of weaseled out of this at the end, I still don't think he really wanted to buy Twitter.
	I think he was doing this for political reasons because he's already under investigation by the Biden administration and needs allies on the political right, but doesn't want to go through the hassle of actually owning Twitter and all the responsibility that would bring about.
	Now, his pretext has been, I think, is misunderstood.
	Some of the legal commentary was that he was trying to argue a version of extraordinary circumstances, that something extraordinary and unanticipated had happened that allowed him to withdraw from the deal.
	According to his lawyers, that's not the case at all.
	That's not their argument at all.
	Their argument is they made, as part of the merger agreement, they made a precondition to its closing that Twitter fully disclosed certain pertinent material facts.
	The big one being how many of their accounts are real and how many of them are fake.
	They never provided that information, according to Musk.
	And so the disputing court is going to turn all the legal commentary was Musk is going to lose quickly.
	I think they misread it because they jumped to that conclusion before reading the actual merger agreement.
	If the merger agreement did have as a precondition, not due diligence beforehand, but due diligence within it.
	Which said, you, Twitter, will produce evidence to prove you don't have a spam account problem.
	You don't have a bot account.
	You don't have a fake account problem.
	Because all of that relates to the value of their advertising.
	If 20% of their accounts are fake, then they're inflating their advertising value by 20%, at least.
	Maybe more.
	And according to Musk, they never gave him that information.
	And people on our board, bebabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Said that from their experience, Twitter has far more bots and spam accounts than anybody knows.
	And by the way, so the class action lawsuit, there's two now, or maybe there's more, but the important one against Elon Musk.
	It's an interesting lawsuit in the allegations in that it says that Elon, in order to buy Twitter, basically was going to use the value of Tesla shares to do so.
	Because Tesla has now decreased 35-37% over the last few months, it's no longer worth enough to buy out Twitter.
	So then Elon, in order to get out of the deal, has to go out and post some negative tweets, do things to negatively impact the price of the Twitter stock in order to either make it purchasable or, I guess, find another reason to get out of the lawsuit.
	On the substance of the claims in that particular lawsuit, the individual says, Elon, Knew that he no longer could finance the purchase of Twitter with his Tesla stock because it was down so much, so he had to go out and deliberately act in a way to maliciously and artificially devalue the Twitter stock, made negative tweets, etc., etc.
	Chances of success?
	I mean, did I get that right?
	No, no, that's right.
	Yeah, that's the other suit.
	So you have Twitter filing suit to try to enforce the deal, specific performance, as it's called in Delaware courts, and you have other people filing class actions.
	Against him saying he manipulated stock value for the purposes of doing this, and now he's coming up with a fake excuse that has diminished the stock value.
	And so now Twitter, I'm not sorry, Musk or Tesla, or Musk-related company face over 1,000 lawsuits across the country.
	So those are still going, but he's mostly dodged a bullet in all these so far.
	So I wouldn't rule him out just yet.
	My own personal instinct is he never planned on buying Twitter.
	Probably thought they, and put a poison pill in from day one.
	Because a poison pill is something the other side can't swallow so that you can get out of the deal.
	And I think that he knew, I think, from day one that the bots, that all of these social media companies are kind of basically frauds.
	Because they've been doing, this is the big Facebook class action that's currently faced, where they got the internal evidence that Facebook knew.
	They were lying about how many people were actually going to see the ad.
	And so that's their entire model.
	I mean, these are bankrupting events, potentially, for all of these companies.
	And the fact that they were not willing to disclose that information about the bots and spam accounts said, we think it's 5%.
	My guess is their internal documentation says otherwise.
	They also did other things.
	They fired a couple of executives without his consent in violation of the merger agreement, etc.
	I think he's got enough plausible arguments.
	To not have to too effectively back out of the deal.
	I can see...
	And so far, these other cases alleging manipulation of stock value haven't worked.
	And in this particular instance, it's not like Tesla's uniquely gone down.
	Everybody who went big in the pandemic, for the most part, tech companies, has taken a hit.
	Some much bigger than what he has done.
	So I wouldn't bet against Musk in the court of law.
	I mean, so far he's managed to win cases nobody thought he could win.
	I don't think he ever planned on buying Twitter, though.
	And I'm wondering, in terms of Twitter forcing the sale, they're going to have to...
	In theory, nonetheless, there hasn't been a shift of the onus, but they're going to have to show that Musk's reason for not purchasing the company is...
	Invalid or unsubstantiated, and that's going to involve some public disclosures.
	Yeah, and discovery.
	And usually, I mean, I haven't read the whole merger agreement, so I'm taking Musk's lawyer's words for it.
	But given the way he acted and everything else, it would be...
	Their explanation makes a lot more sense than Twitter's explanation.
	Normally, you can't get out of these merger agreements unless it's a really extraordinary development that you could not have anticipated.
	Clearly, he could have anticipated that the bot problem existed.
	His defense is that within the merger agreement, they made this a precondition of its closure.
	And if that's right, then he's going to win this.
	And Twitter's not going to win.
	And, of course, Twitter stock just continues to get hammered and will continue to get hammered when the discovery...
	Because my guess is that the bot accounts...
	There's estimates that bot accounts are as much as 50%.
	And anybody who's...
	And bot accounts, depending on how you mean it.
	It's not artificial AI accounts.
	It's just accounts that only exist for the purposes of promoting, spamming.
	Or truly.
	They're not real human beings.
	They're not consumers.
	They're not potential consumers.
	And that's what they're being sold to.
	They're saying, hey, you'll get 10,000 eyeballs on this.
	And usually they're even real specific.
	You'll get 10,000 eyeballs within this zip code, for example.
	What if it turns out it's only 1,000 eyeballs?
	They've been overpricing their ads by 10x.
	I can tell you, having used Facebook ads, but only for my political campaign.
	There's no conversion.
	There's no conversion.
	There's more conversion on organic viral videos than on paid ads, which is, I think, in terms of legit consumers who are out there potentially to consume, 50% sounds like a decent amount to say the other 50 are only there.
	Multiple accounts, one individual with multiple accounts, straight up newly created accounts, acquired old accounts for the purposes of promoting agendas.
	I've seen it, and it's preposterous.
	Speaking of interesting suits, Instagram was sued this week as a class action, and they're trying to get around Section 230 immunity by focusing on the software, because there's a Ninth Circuit case that said if you're suing them based on the software, like their algorithm, that's not a Section 230 immune suit.
	Their argument is that, and this is based on some leaks that came out from Instagram and Facebook, Which is that they knew they were targeting children in ways they said they weren't, number one.
	Number two, that their net effect on the children, the way they were manipulating the algorithm, was causing increases in self-harm by young girls especially, including suicide.
	And so there's a mass class action against them on challenging their algorithmic manipulation of young people in America.
	And mostly these are kids, kids, under 18, minors.
	And, I mean, the data's clear.
	I mean, there's been a five- to six-fold increase in self-harm amongst young girls that corresponds directly with their use of Facebook and Instagram, Instagram especially.
	And apparently they had some of this data internally, and instead of turning it down, they turned up the algorithmic manipulation.
	So I think that will be another interesting suit to watch for big tech.
	I've got to bring up this one and another chat.
	YouTube is lying to their advertisers too.
	I've gotten ads for a car dealership in Washington State and I'm Korean when I'm an American in Texas.
	And in Korean.
	Oh, when I'm an American.
	Well, no, I can tell you, YouTube has been pretty good with targeted ads.
	I get a lot of Francois Legault ads, like the premier of province, before my videos.
	Unless they're trying to convert the unconvertible.
	I'll take the ad revenue, but I don't think you're reaching people.
	But there was this one.
	This is my thought, Robert.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, the value in Twitter is not in their revenue, but rather their social engineering of political leaders, media, and populations.
	My theory from the beginning is that Twitter is nothing but an intelligence-gathering entity for intelligence.
	There were aspects of that.
	And there were aspects because of DARPA's connections to a lot of these companies and CIA funding of a lot of these entities in some aspects, in some respects.
	And then it converted into a narrative-shaping institution.
	And there's truth to that, true.
	But at the end of the day, they need money.
	So who's going to continue to pay for them?
	Now, McKinsey, the consulting company, got out of a lawsuit this week.
	Because they were using their access to social media data to track down a Saudi dissident and was giving intel and information to the Saudi government so the Saudi government could threaten to torture and kill that dissident and his friends and family.
	I think, by the way, the dissident lives in Canada, by the way.
	But they got out of it because the U.S. court said McKinsey was just doing their job.
	So it's an interesting interpretation of what doing your job means.
	But it shows how social media in particular has been used and utilized.
	But I think Twitter faces serious financial issues if they do not succeed in their suits against Musk.
	And if more data about them being just a thin organization in terms of real support can easily get exposed.
	The big winners...
	Of Elon Musk not buying Twitter are truth and getter.
	Well, Robert, hypothetically, Twitter goes bankrupt and its assets are sold off in bankruptcy.
	What are Twitter's assets?
	Servers?
	IP code?
	It's almost like social branding at this point.
	That's why their branding value is so correspondent to their real value, plus their growth potential.
	But if their growth potential is based mostly on fake accounts, then that's not really much of value.
	And so there were some stories this week about the way in which truth is being capitalized.
	There's some controversy over whether the company that's doing it did it correct, and there may be civil and criminal investigations involving that company.
	There are certain clarifications made on truth's documents in Florida.
	Trump doesn't own truth.
	My understanding is a total marketing deal.
	That's it.
	That just clarified that.
	And the media made it sound like Trump's hiding out, trying to disguise his role in truth by removing him as a director.
	They just clarified what had always been the case.
	So that was a little bit of an overblown story.
	I'm thinking, if Elon buys the assets of a bankrupt Twitter, what is he getting?
	There's some people who think that's what he'll do, that he wants to negotiate a lower price.
	And that is, by the way, the usual outcome of this kind of litigation.
	There's a deal done, and then it falls apart, and there's a lawsuit.
	The usual thing is they don't usually require them to buy the company.
	Sometimes they'll give them damages in lieu thereof, but often they just renegotiate the price.
	Do you think Musk was trying to help Amber Heard with her bot attack issue?
	No.
	Men have bad taste in women.
	That's all I can say.
	It's not bad taste emotionally in women.
	Robert, have you heard?
	That's a decent segue to something we haven't discussed that we're going to discuss tonight.
	The motion to set aside the verdict Amber Heard presented in the Johnny Depp case, just in general.
	That's a unique set of fact pattern.
	So they found a fact pattern.
	Now one question will be like the Roger Stone case.
	What did they know and when did they know it in terms of defense?
	But the issue, here's what appears to have happened.
	A juror's summons went out to 77-year-old grandma.
	Mama, 52 years old, living with grandma, apparently has the same name.
	She decides she'll take the summons instead.
	So she fills it out, comes in, and apparently sat on the jury, but apparently she was never actually the one summoned for jury duty in a case like this.
	Like, how did this happen?
	How did this slip through now?
	I have doubts that Hurd's team...
	Didn't know that until just now?
	You know, there's a temptation for lawyers to have that kind of information and sit on it and only use it if you need it later.
	The danger is a court may call you on it and say you waived it by not timely raising it.
	So the question will be, when did they know this?
	But it is a unique problem.
	It's a rare problem to have.
	I mean, technically, if someone who has not been summoned for jury duty is not supposed to sit on the jury.
	So it's not one of my thoughts as to what might have happened.
	It's not a typo.
	So this is apparently an individual who was not the original person summoned to sit on jury duty.
	I can't do it.
	Okay, so when they say that the process, what did they say is the term might have been compromised?
	Due process.
	How would due process be compromised?
	Even if it's true, it's the daughter of the person with the same name and not the original person summoned, how would due process be violated under these circumstances?
	Well, in the sense that the only people who should sit on the jury are those summonsed for it.
	So if someone gets themselves onto the jury that was never summonsed, like I said, it's never supposed to happen.
	How it happened here is still quite extraordinary.
	But it's a real problem.
	Because the idea is you go through this process by which a jury was picked and it was random and that it was a person who was properly summonsed and so forth.
	Someone effectively steals a jury summons as an imposter to get on the jury became you have confidence in that jury verdict.
	They found, like all their other arguments I thought were weak, they found an argument that's unique and probably good.
	It's a court system.
	You don't want to encourage that.
	Now, they should have been hyper alert.
	It was the Johnny Depp case.
	They should have known 52-year-old women.
	That's basically the one that still have 20 Johnny Depp posters on their wall.
	Well, all I'm saying is if they scrutinize the sheets from the beginning, you don't let that mistake slip.
	If someone's born in 19...
	What did they say?
	It's supposed to be 70. Born in 1945, but actually born in the 70s, you know it.
	Or you have no excuse to not have noticed it.
	From the beginning.
	Did they notice it and did they not care?
	Did they not pay attention?
	Was this something that they ought to have discovered in due time but didn't and therefore too bad, too late?
	That person's not 77. Somebody screwed up in the jury process.
	Apparently they didn't check IDs.
	They didn't check anything.
	Now it doesn't totally surprise me that a state court is not the most careful.
	But it's still a bit of a shock, a bit of an embarrassment.
	So set aside the juror question, what does it take in general to overturn a jury verdict?
	Usually a lot.
	Usually a critical instruction that the jury was given the wrong instruction on the law, that evidence that never should have came in came in and that was determinative to the outcome.
	That's usually your one-two.
	Otherwise, it's a core procedural flaw in the proceedings.
	You know, judge wasn't proper, jury wasn't proper, something like that.
	But this, you know, a core process issue like this with a jury, that's kind of a problem.
	And Britt Cormier says, Barnes, I know old people all look the same to young people.
	However, are they saying they cannot tell the difference between a 70-plus and a 50-year-old after looking at them for months?
	Nope, there is something fishy with that tape.
	I can't understand that at all.
	Also, I don't understand how did none of the lawyers catch it?
	Usually, they must not have had...
	Either they didn't have access or they didn't look at the juror summonses.
	Sometimes that happens.
	Sometimes you only get that later.
	By the way, this is a problem with juror anonymity.
	If there had been no juror anonymity, this would have been spotted much earlier.
	Another reason why juror anonymity is usually bad.
	It would have been spotted within five seconds.
	Like, hey...
	Juror number 15 looks pretty good for a 70-year-old.
	77!
	77!
	Apparently she had the same name, so probably her mom.
	And in fairness, I've seen some pretty young-looking 77-year-olds and some pretty old-looking 50-year-olds without going further than that.
	The bot issue with Amber is hers are ineffective.
	She has a handful of enablers at a PR firm putting on a show trying to manufacture optical support of a confirmed narcissistic abuser.
	The other problem Amber Heard has is her insurer is suing her to get reimbursement of fees and costs that they fronted and paid at some level.
	I didn't know an insurer was helping out at all, but apparently an insurer was.
	Which makes me wonder about her statement about all the money going to legal fees.
	Because remember, that's what she said on the stand.
	She said that she couldn't donate the rest of the pledged money because of legal fees.
	And now she's being sued by an insurer for their payment of legal fees?
	So I'm a little curious about that.
	But maybe it's another act of perjury.
	And Amber Heard is subject to a perjury investigation in Australia that's ongoing right now that got started back up.
	And Johnny Depp got what he wanted out of this trial.
	He got public vindication.
	He's already getting movie deals are coming back in.
	So he got what he wanted.
	I don't think he would retry this case.
	So I'm sure all of LawTube, they probably, there's part of that wouldn't, but I'm sure most of them would love another Johnny Depp trial.
	Though I don't know if it could have the same set of ratings again.
	But I don't think there'll be another Johnny Depp trial, even if this verdict is set aside.
	But Amber Heard's facing suit from an insurer because of the same problems she has with bankruptcy.
	She can't bankrupt out of this case.
	And when you're found guilty of an intentional tort, and because Johnny Depp is a public figure, that meant it had to be an intentional tort, that means that the insurer can sue her potentially for reimbursement of fees and costs, depending on the language of the insurance contract.
	I'm looking at my face, Robert.
	I seem to be glowing under the harsh light.
	I might get some powder at some point, people.
	I am 59. My mother is 79. In a mask, which the juror was wearing, my mother looks younger because my hair is gray and hers is dyed brown.
	If you can't see the whole face, age may not be obvious.
	True.
	And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to wear a face mask as a juror either.
	In my humble view.
	Personally, I think I would be able to tell the difference between 77 and 52. I'm not confident for myself anymore, Robert.
	I asked a neighbor, not in Florida, in Canada, if they were old enough to drive, and she said, I'm 22 and in med school.
	And I was like, oh, God, now I'm that creepy, creepy dude.
	Okay, hold on.
	We're one hour in.
	We're 12,776 viewers on YouTube.
	Not quite at the...
	What did Trump get live on Rumble, Robert?
	I forget.
	It was astronomical.
	200,000 live concurrent views, I think.
	We're not quite there.
	But smash the like button, tap it, double click, and drop a comment to make the chat go absolutely nuts.
	I was at the depth trial.
	If number 15 was who we think it was, I'd say he was around 60, possibly older.
	He was not wearing a mask.
	This one is a she, by the way.
	There's a lot of stuff that we don't know.
	Look at this.
	Now the chat's going nuts, people.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Oh, man.
	And a number of panelists.
	You order stuff off eBay.
	Who would think you get crap?
	Look at this crap.
	There's no adhesive on the back.
	It's just nothing.
	Robert, what's the next good lawsuit for the evening?
	Well, I mean, a big self-defense case broken down very well again by law of self-defense.
	I think he did like a three-hour live stream on it.
	But the bodega guy who was attacked because...
	So a woman goes in with her kid, has apparently an electronic benefits program, is looking to get chips for her kid at like 11 p.m.
	Probably not a Mother of the Year award winner, just saying.
	But apparently the benefits card doesn't go through.
	So, the bodega guy takes the tips back.
	She gets enraged.
	She says, don't you do that, my daughter.
	I'm going to bring in you some colorful language.
	If you can fill in the blank.
	And he's going to do something to you.
	And the guy comes in.
	35-year-old ex-con.
	Comes right behind.
	The stand right next to the guy.
	Start yelling at him, etc.
	Pushes him down.
	He tries to get away from him.
	Comes after him again.
	Appears to come after him with something around his throat.
	Bodega guy gets a knife.
	Hits him twice.
	He dies.
	So New York DA, which is very politically minded, like I was in New York, lower east side, lower west side, not the same.
	Manhattan is not the same.
	People that did not come down when, you know, tourists in those areas, you get harassed quickly and easily anywhere in Manhattan now, in places you wouldn't.
	I would not recommend going to Manhattan right now.
	The crime rate is higher in lower Manhattan than it is in Harlem, than it is in parts of the Bronx, parts of the Queens, places that you were in the more traditional high crime regions.
	And I could see it by who...
	People are just very aggressive.
	Also...
	Graffitis now looks like you're touring Greece.
	It's all over the place now in New York.
	I don't remember it being at these locations.
	Now, Brooklyn was actually very nice.
	Brooklyn had no props.
	But the DA, partially the DA's function, and the DA chose to bring murder charges against the guy.
	And it's triggered outrage across a...
	Across the political spectrum of city council members said, this is a self-defense case.
	This should not be a murder charge, given what happened.
	And the fuller video footage does, as far as I can tell, support the age gap between them, the close physical proximity, the nature of the physical confrontation, I think supports self-defense in this case.
	People in the chat were saying that we had mixed up the cases.
	No, the bodega is the bodega stabbing.
	I believe the guy looked to be an Indian cashier, but I'm not sure.
	His name was Alba.
	He looks older, for sure.
	I think Alba is his name.
	Yeah, Jose Alba, so maybe Latin American.
	Dude, I can't watch the video.
	I've gotten soft in my old age.
	I can't watch these videos anymore, but I saw enough of the still frames.
	Dude comes behind, takes him out of his place of business.
	And the guy has a long blade and stabs the guy twice and he dies.
	And then murder charges.
	And, you know, it would be Rittenhouse if the alleged assailant, I guess, were a young white kid.
	Maybe the weapon has something to do with it.
	And ultimately, so now, well, ultimately...
	I quit it, Robert.
	Hold on.
	Now I'm confused for a second.
	Hold on.
	Yeah, I think they're saying Alba's Dominican, Dominican Republic.
	Okay.
	I mean, my look at it, I mean, it was just, it's New York is getting this way.
	It's feeling more and more like Bernie gets New York, 1980s New York, than 1990s, 2000s, 2010s New York.
	That the combination of the lockdown and a range of criminal policies that...
	The Soros types have instituted in New York are leading to a surge in crime.
	A surge in crime.
	And these kind of things.
	I mean, the idea that, okay, you don't like the fact that you don't have money to buy chips, so you're going to call your boyfriend to rough up the guy behind there?
	It's like, who's thinking of this?
	But that was the behavior when Bernie Getz went nuts and shot everybody on the train.
	And, of course, he was acquitted.
	And it was because the attitude in New York.
	Because criminals became very aggressive and they're becoming the same way.
	I saw harassment in the streets of New York I hadn't seen before.
	I mean, I'm talking like right outside Broadway.
	You know, I'm talking about those kind of places.
	So, you know, I saw Daniel Craig perform, by the way.
	He was good.
	Man, that dude's legit in terms of acting skill.
	Did a very interesting version of Macbeth.
	But he was fantastic.
	True, true actor.
	I think they should drop the charges.
	They're getting a lot of political pressure from across the scale to do so.
	We'll see.
	If it goes forward, I think he'll be acquitted on self-defense charges.
	I got brain farted for a second.
	They're urging to drop the charges, but they've charged him with murder.
	I'm reading from CBS News.
	A bunch of city councilmen today came out for him.
	When I was in New York, there was a lot of...
	Cross-politics, cross-racial belief that it was a self-defense case.
	It's nuts.
	There's some chat that I don't want to...
	You don't want to believe that this is by design.
	But it's nuts.
	And one question is going to be, why did Bodega have to resort to a knife?
	Maybe now, Robert, we've seen how the...
	New York State said they're going to respond to the Supreme Court ruling on Second Amendment issues.
	If the guy has a gun behind the counter, maybe this doesn't happen.
	If the guy coming up to the guy behind the counter knows that the guy might have a gun, maybe this doesn't happen.
	An armed society is a polite society, and maybe someone who thinks the guy might have a gun won't come up and start accosting a guy because they didn't sell him a bag of chips for his kid.
	From what I've seen...
	You see, there'll be a...
	The fallout from Roe and the fallout from the Second Amendment case and the fallout from the EPA administrative state case will continue to be felt.
	So there's a bunch of lawsuits proliferating against various gun laws that exist.
	The Supreme Court overturned a bunch of other gun cases that were pending and remanded for reconsideration in light of their decision.
	But California, New York, probably Chicago, they're all going to try to find ways to undermine it.
	To subvert it.
	And so they'll be continuing legal fights over it for the near short-term future.
	Same with Roe.
	Biden issued an executive order.
	This is one of the comments that came up in the locals' questions for tonight's show.
	The executive order, I don't think it's grandstanding.
	It has very little legal impact, frankly.
	But the bigger efforts are efforts to challenge these laws in court on new grounds.
	So there are a bunch of what's called trigger laws.
	A bunch of states said once Roe is overturned, within 30 days, we put in our new abortion law.
	And a lot of these abortion laws are complete bans.
	Some have exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.
	But some are not even six-week, eight-week, ten-week.
	They're just banned, period.
	There's a bunch of suits that have been filed in those states that had trigger laws claiming the trigger laws are vague or indeterminate.
	They did a lot of judge shopping.
	They initially won in Louisiana, but then that same judge reversed her ruling and said she didn't have the authority to do it.
	The case should be filed in Baton Rouge, not in New Orleans.
	There's fights going on in Utah, fights going on in Idaho, fights going on in Montana.
	In Mississippi, they filed suit and they lost both times, so the abortion clinics are now closed for good in the state of Mississippi.
	So we're going to see a lot of, but there's still going to be, there's great efforts to subvert it.
	There'll be interesting questions about what happens if a state creates itself as a sanctuary state for people to commit a crime in one state and come to the other state without extradition, like Governor Newsom is promising to do in California.
	That raises some unusual fact patterns.
	Traditionally, like there's federal law and constitutional provisions that actually require them to extradite them back.
	But historically, those provisions are when the When what's done is a crime in both states.
	This goes back to last time we had this kind of dispute with the fugitive slave laws of the 1850s.
	Dred Scott kind of reflected this in respect.
	So we'll see what happens.
	There's clearly efforts to subvert the court.
	The threats on the justices continue unabated.
	A justice went out to a restaurant.
	Justice Kavanaugh went out to a restaurant in D.C. So a bunch of people started calling in fake reservations just to cost that steak restaurant money just because they allowed Justice Kavanaugh to eat there.
	This is the insanity of the District of Columbia.
	And when I was in New York, ate at one of the great, great restaurants in New York, the Russia Tea Room.
	But you go to their website, they have this big apology about the war in Ukraine.
	It's like, you're just a restaurant.
	But that's the mindset.
	That's the mentality.
	It's just insanity.
	And the big thing with the EPA case, the real impact of that case, is reducing the power of the administrative state.
	It didn't go as far as it could have, but what it said is if something is a major...
	Now, it was misinterpreted.
	The media says, Supreme Court says, Congress says, we can't stop climate change anymore.
	They said no such thing.
	All the Supreme Court said is if it's a major question, then Congress has to explicitly, clearly, unambiguously delegate power to the administrative branch.
	Otherwise, it's going to be presumed they didn't.
	And the executive branch, the administrative state, can't make up law that Congress chose not to pass on major questions.
	So frankly, it was a sound decision.
	I recommend Justice Gorsuch's concurrence.
	I posted the decision at our vivabarnslaw.locals.com board, which had as the concurrence.
	He goes great footnote, too.
	He reminds everybody that the origin of the administrative state was with Woodrow Wilson and how many nasty ideas Woodrow Wilson had, how anti-democratic he really was, and how anti-democratic the whole structure, ideological infrastructure of the administrative state is.
	So that's well recommended.
	But they'll be continuing fallout.
	What that really means is the administrative state's ability to write their own laws is gone if it's a major question.
	That's its impact.
	So three massive decisions, earthquake kind of decisions, that the left is still screaming about and will try to subvert, but they'll have limited effectiveness over time.
	Sooner or later, those laws and those decisions will be enforced across the nation.
	And I was trying to find AOC's...
	Idiotic tweet.
	Let me just see if I can't find.
	I can't find AOC's tweet where she tweeted out, oh, poor Justice Kavanaugh getting harassed over dinner because now every woman in America is getting pregnant with ectopic pregnancies who are being denied abortions.
	And everything in her tweet, other than being, you want to talk about dog whistles for tolerating or promoting violence against sitting Supreme Court justices?
	You got that.
	Oh, poor Kavanaugh getting his souffle, getting harassed, and he doesn't like it when women are at danger.
	Then talking about ectopic pregnancies, then saying that women who get ectopic pregnancies, which apparently is half of America now, are all being denied abortions, and then mistaken in the fact that even in the 2% of pregnancies that result in ectopic pregnancies, I learned this a few weeks ago, it's a non-viable pregnancy, period.
	It's not even called an abortion to terminate it.
	It's a procedure because it's a non-viable pregnancy and apparently abortion is defined as removing the unborn child from the uterus where this is outside the uterus and it's a procedure in as much as it's an anomaly that will lead to basically certain death for the unborn baby and risking the woman's life.
	So it went from half of America is getting pregnant, they're all ectopic pregnancies, and they're all getting denied abortions, to you're an idiot, AOC, and a liar, and you use your platform to misinform 5 million people with one dumb tweet.
	What's amazing is apparently a lot of medical doctors are propagating this.
	So there are doctors denying women certain medicines because it could impact fertility.
	And it's like none of these abortion laws.
	Cover anybody that's not pregnant.
	And so they're deliberately misinterpreting the law, I think, to panic patients to try to create a political storm to undermine the existing law.
	But this will all get clarified with over the next three, six, nine months or so.
	Legal question.
	Plan B pill immediately given to victims of sexual assault who haven't had positive pregnancies does not fall under abortion laws.
	Correct?
	No, it does.
	It depends on the abortion law.
	So it depends on the abortion.
	But once there is a pregnancy.
	Now, if what they mean is that there's no determined pregnancy, that would be an open question.
	But maybe that's what they mean.
	I think that's what they mean.
	They mean that approach.
	But once there's a pregnancy in some of these states, it's now a legal period.
	Now, there'll be another dispute whether or not, but the FDA's approval of a drug does not preempt state abortion laws.
	So, and I don't see courts doing that.
	Now, I think what states will do is they may fix some of their laws.
	Some of these were older laws on the books that automatically went in, some of them 1800s, early 1900s laws.
	And they may catch up with where the majority sentiment is in their state.
	And in almost every state, the majority sentiment.
	It favors exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
	By the way, that's less than 10% of all pregnancies.
	Over 90% of pregnancies, according to the women who do the abortion, who are getting the abortion done themselves, according to their survey of them, their reason for doing it is basically convenience.
	That's one of those things that the abortion crowd does not like to talk about.
	They like to talk about the unusual cases.
	But the unusual cases are just that unusual.
	No, but that's exactly how bad policy is made.
	You make a rule out of the exception.
	Sexual assault, incest, ectopic pregnancies, which is just the doesn't even apply.
	And then you want to govern it for all of them.
	And I've seen the stats.
	I just don't remember what they are, but like 90 plus percent like it or don't like the way it's phrased.
	Are made out of convenience and not out of medical necessity or some form of physical assault, period.
	Then it's only a question of, if you want to have the luxury of doing it for preference, convenience, when do you draw that line?
	And I'll say, to deny the morning-after pill in the cases of sexual assault or even ever, That might be too early for me, and I'll make some enemies, and that's fine.
	But that's on this issue.
	I mean, the majority...
	Definitely rape, incest, life of the mother.
	And during the first...
	Prior to a heartbeat, the majority sentiment is for allowing abortion to occur.
	People can disagree with that, and I understand why.
	But prior to a heartbeat, it's post-heartbeat that there's consensus for limiting abortion.
	That can be as early as five, six weeks.
	Norm is around eight weeks.
	And there's overwhelming support for limiting abortion after 15 weeks.
	Overwhelming support.
	I think the states will settle somewhere in between these areas.
	And I think what you'll have...
	I mean, the pill, for example, only works up to 10 weeks anyway.
	So I think most around the world, they've settled on basically first trimester abortions are legal and everything else is illegal.
	And I think that's where most of the states will settle.
	Some will be more limiting.
	Some will be more generous, more liberal.
	But that will be the majority of the country problem.
	And XCommerce says here in Norway, it's a 12-week limit.
	By the way, it's a 12-week limit in Norway, a progressive country.
	That's actually right on par with Alabama, which is a regressive state in America.
	It's nuts.
	It's all about framing.
	It's all about framing.
	And I have the discussion with anybody.
	I lost another panel.
	I'll have the discussion with anybody and say, do you support eight-month abortion?
	And the answer is always, of course not, but that's not the issue.
	It's like, well, of course not.
	That's where we start.
	So we agree in principle.
	Let's just flesh it out.
	The one where I have...
	Robert, this is where getting blackpilled is a problem.
	I have always had an understanding for...
	If you understand or learn there's going to be a serious birth defect, like a life-compromising birth defect, should that be an exception?
	I am of the opinion it should be an exception.
	My issue now, having lived long enough to be a black-pilled...
	I'm not in a basement.
	I'm not in a basement anymore.
	I'm just black-pilled.
	Now that I understand the industry behind shmishmorshan, my question is, are they actually exaggerating, amplifying?
	Or I dare even say fabricating.
	I don't want to sound too crazy.
	Are they amplifying or fabricating potential birth defects to promote and encourage people to have the procedure later and later in the state of pregnancy?
	Historically, demographically, abortion is being done for horrific purposes.
	In a sense of disproportionately minority women are targeted and it's that population that's being limited.
	Corresponded to it, it's disproportionately women that get aborted, girl fetuses that get aborted, women that get aborted more than men, and disabled that get aborted more.
	And I've always found that horrific.
	And I don't think that it has ever been good policy.
	But it reflects the eugenics heritage of Planned Parenthood.
	And I'm going to respond to this, because Viva Eugenics Fry and I appreciate it, and I don't mind attacks.
	Hypothetically, you know that the infant is going to be born with some form of irreparable anomaly.
	Is it eugenics to say that if it's early enough in or even at some point, is that eugenics?
	I mean, I don't know.
	In my view, it is.
	In my view, it is.
	I oppose that entirely.
	But I think the majority of the country is going to come to about the 10-week.
	Period, is my guess.
	Maybe I'm late about the Plan B pill where you said, okay, we talked about that, Cannon.
	You've got big biceps, sir.
	If I may comment on that.
	Okay.
	So, then the other, one of the other big constitutional issues that's now up on the plate is the governor of Texas has declared that there is an invasion of the state of Texas.
	And this triggers two constitutional clauses.
	One is the federal government's guarantee of both a state government having a republic, which, by the way, is intriguingly part of the suit that New York state court employees are bringing against the New York state court system, claiming that the vaccine mandate is a violation of the obligation to maintain a republic in the state of New York.
	That was an interesting theory, as one of the theories in the suit.
	But the other provision of that clause is that the...
	The federal government guarantees the security of the states in the case of an invasion.
	But there's another provision that has been loosely called the self-defense clause.
	What it literally means is a state can declare a state of war.
	An individual state can.
	Congress usually has a monopoly on declaring war.
	Of course, that doesn't stop us from having all these wars without any declaration of war since World War II, after World War II.
	But there was no declaration of war for a bunch of these things.
	But there was military action.
	Authorized, theoretically.
	But the states actually have a right to declare war if either they are being invaded or there is an imminent invasion.
	The question becomes, what's the definition of invasion?
	Your classic liberal legal scholar says invasion means a foreign army and only a foreign army.
	The problem is that's not what the history says Constitution...
	The problem with their argument is that's not what...
	James Madison himself said you could use it against smugglers.
	It's anything that goes to sovereignty over land and people.
	If your sovereignty over land and people is being threatened by some invading individual who's not legally entitled to be there, that probably meets the constitutional definition of invasion.
	Now, we don't have a bunch of cases that test this, so we have no idea, because when it went to the courts in the 90s over the same problem of immigration, the court said, this is a political question.
	We're not getting anywhere near this, so we're not going to judicially enforce this.
	So the question becomes, Abbott, what happens if he's now declared there's been an invasion?
	What happens if he says, we're now at war and takes people and removes them to Mexico when that is traditionally a federal exclusive jurisdiction of power, of immigration?
	So we're about to find out.
	But I think some of the people that have assumptions about how that would work...
	I don't know the history behind the invasion clause and how actually elastic and broad the word historically was understood to be.
	But the press secretary comes out and says, immigration is a federal issue, as if to say Texas can't do this, states can't do this.
	All foreign policy is, but this was always an exception in the Constitution.
	The exception, this is Congress only had exclusive, the federal Congress, only people who could declare war, except.
	States could do so if they're being invaded or imminently fear it.
	And again, they applied it to smugglers.
	They applied it to people crossing state boundaries when they discussed it at the time.
	So their assumption, so what you have is a conflict between, and arguably the Constitution resolved it in favor of states.
	If what's happening is invasion, they can declare war.
	And I'm not all that gung-ho on this.
	For reasons that should belabor the obvious, I get we want to control illegal immigration.
	I'm just not in favor of giving governments power for anything because it's almost always going to be misused or abused.
	But from a purely legal perspective, putting the policy aside, I think they got an argument.
	The Attorney General for Arizona, Brnovich, wrote a detailed memorandum explaining why the states absolutely have this power.
	And I thought his argument was better than the critics' argument.
	Robert, I'm going to get to this.
	Dennis Rogers, I'm going to flag this in a question.
	I'm going to ask Robert for some free legal advice.
	Robert, hypothetically, can DeSantis or can any state governor offer any sort of amnesty to someone who's on American soil?
	They can for state charges, but not for another state's charges, another country's charges, or federal charges.
	All right, and so how about federal deportation?
	I mean, hypothetically.
	Okay, forget it.
	We'll talk after.
	I'm joking, people.
	I'm totally joking.
	I was just asking, like, you know, when visas expire, when people, you know, when the federal kicks in, can any state say, no, we'd like to have this individual here because what if I run for governor, Robert, on a visa?
	Can I do that?
	You know, I think you can.
	I don't know.
	Maybe not on a visa.
	But I know, put this away, Schwarzenegger wasn't born in the United States.
	The current, I think it's Commerce Secretary, Granholm, the former governor of Michigan, she wasn't born in the United States.
	That's why they couldn't run for president, by the way.
	But president, I think presidency is the only one that requires...
	If I recall correctly, U.S. citizenship, which does relate to the U.S. citizenship question, Arizona has now imposed a U.S. citizenship requirement.
	You have to prove you're a U.S. citizen before you can vote in a presidential election, get a presidential ballot.
	God forbid, Robert.
	God forbid.
	What's the problem?
	You have to show ID for this?
	Yeah, I mean, basically, it's ID and a few other basic documentary proof forms.
	What happened years ago was Arizona passed a citizenship law for all federal elections.
	No, I'm sorry, for just federal congressional elections.
	That got challenged.
	The U.S. Supreme Court, Scalia wrote the opinion.
	I actually agreed with Thomas and Alito's dissent, not with the...
	I'm blinking.
	I can see him.
	Scalia.
	But the reason was what people are missing.
	The Department of Justice is saying, hey, this is clearly preempted.
	The difference is this.
	The Constitution says that when it comes to congressional elections, the states get to determine it, except Congress can override that anytime they want.
	Congress has passed laws about national voter registration.
	The Supreme Court determined that those laws preempted any attempt to add a citizenship-proof requirement to those laws.
	However, that's not...
	This law only applies to presidential elections, and that constitutional power does not exist.
	Congress does not have the constitutional power to override state governments when it comes to the presidential election.
	So I think this Arizona law should be upheld and ultimately will be upheld.
	You can require proof of citizenship as a state legislature to vote in the presidential election under the U.S. Constitution because the Constitution gives that power to the state legislature and does not have a congressional carve out like it does for congressional elections.
	I said I would never bring up another Mike Bruno chat again, but I will.
	I will because I want to address the substance of this.
	Viva Frye.
	Voter ID is the worst way of verifying voters.
	That is the dumbest idea ever.
	You've wasted two sentences, Mike, and both are without substance.
	Signature match is more accurate.
	It works.
	I can't tell if Mike...
	Yeah, cheap term taxes do work great.
	Too bad we didn't have any of them in 2020.
	By the way, for everybody out there, if somebody tells you every court rejected the idea that there were any illegal ballots in 2020, just give them the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that I put up on our locals board that makes clear the 2020 election, at least in Wisconsin, had...
	Hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots cast.
	Mike, before we even get there, you're right.
	Voter ID is the dumbest thing ever.
	That's why Canada is a dumb country for having two voter IDs.
	I've got to show ID and proof of residence.
	In fact, I think America is the only country on earth that does not have voter ID laws for general elections, unless I'm mistaken.
	So yeah, it's so...
	But I genuinely don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but Robert, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and I'll pull a little Tim Pool here.
	None of this, even if it turns out to be true, would overturn the results of the election as it was run because Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would bring Biden to 290-whatever, Trump to 260-whatever.
	But Wisconsin has now basically said, and I don't understand if it's...
	Prospectively or retrospectively, drop boxes, no good.
	I mean, that's the bottom line from Wisconsin.
	And what they said was those are all illegal ballots.
	That what happened in 2020 election, every ballot that was cast that was not delivered in person by the voter or was put in a drop box was an illegal ballot, period.
	And so they're not going to do anything about it because legally they kind of can't.
	That ship has sailed once certain certifications took place.
	But what they're saying is Wisconsin law was such that those ballots never should have been included in the certification.
	Because drop boxes were always illegal in Wisconsin.
	The people bailed ballot harvesting mules, like 2,000 mules from Dinesh D'Souza's movie, which also included Wisconsin as one of them.
	This is further confirmation.
	Every one of those ballots was illegal.
	And for people that...
	Like, the only argument in Wisconsin state was, well, you don't know who they would have voted for.
	Well...
	Yeah, we kind of do.
	But let's pretend we don't know who they voted for.
	That doesn't matter.
	What it means is you could not certify that Wisconsin election for either candidate.
	That meant it goes to the Congress to vote.
	And the way that is done is actually it turned out the way it was always lined up, which was John Eastman actually did employ.
	I didn't know Eastman did it.
	Eastman had internally my strategy as his strategy, a large part of it.
	Which was that it should go to the House.
	It should go to the House to vote by state delegation, not in general.
	And that favored Trump, 27-23.
	That if there were enough states in doubt, Wisconsin is clearly in doubt, Pennsylvania is clearly in doubt.
	We know from other facts Arizona and Georgia really were.
	But now there's clear court determination that a bunch of illegal ballots were counted.
	And the good news is there'll be no more drop boxes in Wisconsin.
	There'll be no more ballot harvesting in Wisconsin.
	The law will actually be enforced at least moving forward.
	And it was a great Wisconsin decision about standing.
	Talked about the breadth of standing and that if you don't have standing to enforce the integrity of an election, you don't have many rights left at all.
	And so really good, good arguments on those side of the aisle.
	Great, great election decision in Wisconsin.
	I think it was the Thomas More Society that was part of bringing it.
	So credit to them for the good work they did.
	Now, but not to be the wet blanket.
	And first of all, by the way, Anyone who saw me screaming on mute, I was asking where my phone was because I thought my kids had my phone.
	It was right behind my shoulder the entire time.
	I might try to show a picture of that bass that I caught before the stream.
	But Robert, not to get...
	Sit still, people.
	Oh, come on.
	Come on.
	Tyrone, you're new to the channel.
	Sit still, people.
	You move too much once flustered.
	But Robert.
	It's the middle court of the state.
	So it was initial, then now it's appellate, and it's going to go to the next level.
	This was the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
	Okay.
	And it was 3-2, or was it 4-3?
	4-3.
	What happens now, hypothetically?
	Oh, that's it from Wisconsin.
	That's the last court to have any say on it.
	That's it.
	So the Wisconsin state legislature could change the laws, but they don't want to.
	They never put this in place in the first place.
	This was executive branch officials.
	Ignoring the law and got away with it.
	But at least they're not going to be able to get away with it again.
	And that's the issue.
	This is not about undermining 2020.
	It's about preserving 2022 in theory.
	What precedent does this state-level decision have on any other state?
	It doesn't, other than persuasive authority where they have comparable laws.
	Okay.
	And then Bill Barr, who came out and said, it's bullshit.
	They ran that clip 15 times during the January.
	Bullshit.
	There was any election fortification.
	Bill Barr was a fraudster from day one.
	I mean, I had suspicions of that.
	Was hopeful that he was good.
	He was saying all the right stuff.
	And it turned out he was just a fraud from day one.
	And now people see it.
	Just one more confirmation.
	Another court decision.
	That when they actually looked at the law, because all these cases that other people were talking about, there weren't meaningful trials.
	There weren't meaningful discovery.
	There wasn't meaningful evidentiary presentation.
	And most of the time, the legal analysis was purely a technicality about whether you had a right to get in the first place.
	The Georgia election contest by Trump was never heard, ever.
	The Arizona election contest by Trump was never heard, ever.
	So those cases were never fully developed, never allowed to be fully developed.
	Now that they are, after the election, we're seeing clarity.
	Now the U.S. Supreme Court could have provided some clarity, but they absconded.
	And now you kind of see why.
	They had a plan on reversing a lot of other things, and they weren't going to get in the middle of the Trump fight.
	So they were going to skip the Trump fight, and in exchange, you know, reverse Roe, restore Second Amendment rights.
	If you knew that in advance, to be honest with you, it's not a bad trade-off because everybody sees what the Democrats look like currently under their current set of policies.
	And Trump would probably be better off in 2025 than he would have been in 2021 anyway.
	So I think that's how we get it.
	But it's credit to people being very proactive.
	It says if people get really involved and engaged, they can make sure that laws...
	I'm going to not read everything.
	So we all know how easy it is to fornify an election.
	Do it and just act like it was legit because, first of all, it was legit in the sense that one party lawyered up 10 months before the election, changed the rules, ratified the rules.
	And then the other party, I'm not trying to throw shade at Trump or the GOP.
	The GOP didn't care institutionally, and Trump delegated every decision.
	Trump didn't even decide what lawyers were going to represent him in the election contest.
	That was delegated to the Republican National Committee.
	I know because I was going to be one of those lawyers that was going to be representing him until the Republican National Committee said no.
	So it's partially on Trump.
	I mean, that's largely on Trump, frankly.
	I mean, should have known better.
	And hopefully he'll have learned from this experience.
	Time will tell.
	But we'll see.
	It was interesting, you know, at Naomi Wolf's book party, the sort of cross-section of New Yorkers that was there across political lines, a lot of firefighters who are taking the lead, fighting the vaccine mandates, and have a lot of fascinating stories.
	I mean, they believe they know personally firefighters who have been injured and killed.
	By the vaccines.
	So that's what they believe.
	And so there may be litigation coming on that side.
	But in that scope, the two developments were the New York court appointees, court employees have sued over the vaccine mandate imposed on New York court officials and the systematic and systemic denial of religious exemptions by these New York court officials.
	It tells you how bad the New York court officials are, right?
	The judges themselves are violating the rights.
	of their own employees on vaccine mandates.
	How can any of them be independent or impartial when evaluating any other vaccine mandate?
	It's a major, major problem that will need to be fleshed out.
	Also, by the way, for people out there that don't know it, there's ways you can ask for a judge or even a law clerk's, judicial clerk's financial information, financial disclosure form, to see if there's any conflicts out there, as keeps popping up in case after case that we're discovering.
	But we filed a case where there's no conflicts.
	Good judge.
	We filed an amended complaint by Children's Health Defense, me and Bobby Kennedy, a few others, challenging the emergency use authorization, but also challenging the illicit marketing of the vaccine to children between the ages of six months and 11 years old.
	And we filed that amended complaint.
	I think I, yeah, I did.
	I posted the amended complaint, highlighted version of it.
	Very, very big complaint at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You can just go to Robert Barnes and find all the posts and you'll find that post.
	And the goal, it's simple.
	We're not only suing over the misuse of emergency use power because the key is, you know, do they have the right?
	One thing is to say, Once we're doing emergency powers, we can't be sued under, say, the APA.
	It's another thing to say, the way I call it is emergency powers are Pandora's box.
	And what's in Pandora's box, maybe you can play around with outside of APA control.
	But whether or not you can put the key to unlock Pandora's box in the first place is subject to APA review.
	And whether or not, and you just can't say, oh, this power I got, it came out of Pandora's box when it didn't.
	So redefining the word vaccine has nothing to do with emergency powers.
	That's violating the Administrative Procedures Act by lying to the world, particularly young children and parents of young children, about this drug's medical status.
	That it does not fit the common definition and common understanding or historical medical legal definition of the word vaccine.
	So we're suing about that.
	We're also suing...
	About the fact that there are alternatives available.
	They never had a right to put the key in to turn it up and open Pandora's box in the first place.
	None of the preconditions for the use of emergency power were there because there is no emergency facing young children in America medically or legally concerning COVID.
	And then last but not least, they're lying to families and kids.
	They're saying it's safe when they can't say that.
	They're saying it's effective when they can't say that.
	And they're saying it's a vaccine.
	When they can't say that.
	So we filed that suit challenging all of it in the Western District of Texas.
	And it'll go to the briefing stages and we'll probably have argument in the fall over that.
	Was there not, there has not yet been a motion to dismiss in that?
	No, they were waiting.
	Our amended complaint gets filed.
	They file their motion to dismiss.
	We file our response.
	They'll file a reply.
	We'll have oral argument.
	We'll find out in the fall if we can get a federal court to step up to the plate and say, no, the FDA is not above the law when it's doing one of the most dangerous human experimentations on people as young as six months old in America.
	There was something that I wanted to bring up about the testing on six months old.
	I'll remember in a bit.
	I'll remember in a bit.
	I'll get to the minion suit, dude.
	Tim Zink, Viva, does the Supreme Court ruling against EPA have any barrier?
	That's pretty impressive.
	No, it's amazing.
	Potentially.
	So when the ATF is trying to make a rule, the way to apply it is, is the agency making a rule that concerns a major question?
	And there's certain standards for what is a major question.
	It's broad impact.
	If they are...
	Then if Congress didn't explicitly give them that power, they don't have that power and that rulemaking is gone.
	That's true of every federal agency.
	So you just apply that major questions filter to it.
	It won't apply to two-thirds of regulations, but it will apply to some of the most consequential regulations.
	Now, speaking of crazy consequential regulations, we got a couple of eco-laws and this eco-nut judge who loved to use...
	Who's being cute all the way through using the sea language and water language and all that jazz throughout.
	Admitted at the end of this case, in the name of protecting a particular kind of whale, apparently a whale that was fun to hunt, then I guess there's not a bunch of them left.
	So in the name of defending that whale, overturned the decision of a bunch of regulatory agencies and instead admitted that what he's thinking about doing would end the lobster industry in America.
	Would put every American lobsterman out of work.
	I mean, this is one of the great old working class professions, occupations, going back centuries in America.
	Lobstermen, some of the great militia fighters all the way back.
	I mean, there's a great history of lobstermen in America.
	When I was up in Maine, I took a tour, a lobster tour, of the lobstermen and their fishes and their history and all the rest.
	Great old school workers.
	And this judge, single judge, in the name of defending some whale who occasionally gets caught up in some nets, wants to end the lobster industry in America and is actually contemplating it.
	Robert, how do you even make that work with truckers?
	Any industry where there are a high-risk industry, assuming lobster is a high-risk industry, which it is, how do you reconcile is what I was looking for.
	Type of angle with any other industry.
	Tyson Foods, by way of example, shut them down.
	People get caught in machines and they die.
	How do you reconcile that?
	They care more about whales.
	They care more about this whale.
	It was called like the right whale or something like that.
	Some whale.
	And this shows we need to reconsider the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
	All the little lefty stuff, the eco-nut stuff that got passed.
	You know, it's always been nuts.
	Taking away loggers, jobs for some snail or something.
	It's like, no, no.
	This whale is not worth the entire American lobster industry.
	Sorry.
	The whale dies, so, you know, it goes extinct.
	Okay.
	A lot of things have gone extinct over time.
	It's not worth making the lobster industry in America.
	Well, but the other issue would be, would it even protect the whale?
	Okay, so they won't.
	Well, it's not a guarantee that it will.
	Well, that's it.
	They won't do this in America, but they'll do it in Japan.
	They'll do it off the coast of the...
	Greenland or Iceland or whatever.
	It'll be someone else making it go extinct while the industry and the consequences...
	Okay, nuts.
	By the way, Robert, hold on.
	I do remember what I wanted to talk about on the Elmo issue.
	Robert?
	Elmo.
	I got a kid giving me a back massage.
	Hold on.
	I can't find the thing.
	This, Robert.
	Quick, get out of here.
	A super duper bandit is just like Elna.
	You were super duper today.
	Robert, is this illegal?
	It should be.
	In most of the world, advertising to children is illegal.
	In fact, in America, it wasn't broadly done until the mid-1990s.
	And so this broad advertising, we should go back to not...
	I don't like restrictions on any aspects of speech, but marketing drugs to kids just should be off the table.
	It just should be off the table.
	Or at a minimum, everybody that says anything inaccurate should be suable.
	And this is the worst combination because it's the government itself doing the advertising, doing the marketing.
	I mean, the FDA only exists to prevent false marketing.
	And they're the ones doing the biggest false marketing and the biggest mess.
	Mandated medication in the history of America.
	And they're doing it to the most vulnerable population, young children, who are the least at risk from COVID and the most at risk from the vaccine.
	Let me just go refresh monetization.
	Let me just see here.
	We're two hours in.
	We're still green, Robert.
	We'll see when this changes.
	Government propaganda to kids.
	It's nuts.
	And by the way, the Elmo part is part of the suit.
	The Elmo part, the Big Bird part, all the false statements.
	We detail all the false history.
	It's a very well-crafted suit.
	One of the associates that works with me did a really, really, really, really good job detailing all the medical information and legal information and really put great effort into it.
	She did fantastic.
	It's always optimistic when you get good, young, skilled.
	Passionate lawyers that know what they're doing.
	So it gives me faith in the future of the practice and profession of law, which otherwise can, you know, see some things disappointed.
	But yeah, so I mean, we're going right at it across the board on the CHD cases.
	The CHD case before the Sixth Circuit was scheduled for oral argument mid-July.
	The court canceled oral argument, which means they've made up their mind.
	And hopefully they'll reverse because they should give us a right to amend that case.
	If they don't, fine.
	We'll pursue this other case that's parallel there too and go from there.
	The whales comment was a joke, I presume.
	The whales produce 50% of the oxygen.
	The Elmo one was just particularly toxic because it was on Twitter and kids shouldn't be on Twitter in the first place.
	So who the hell is it for?
	Is it for diluting adults into making them think they're making the best?
	It's parents.
	It's all parents.
	Kids, too.
	So the kids think something and go to the parent, whatever.
	In Nashville, a hospital tried to deny a young child access to emergency medical care on the grounds the child wasn't vaccinated.
	They backed down because of public outlash.
	So credit to the public for doing that.
	But it shows that this is a fight that will continue to...
	Move forward.
	And it needs to continue to move forward because of the precedent it will set going forward.
	But yeah, Babylon Bee had a parody that said, after vaccine, Elmo suffers myocarditis heart attack.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Let me just go refresh monetization status.
	And look at that.
	I'm kicked off YouTube.
	I'm joking.
	We're still agreeing.
	Robert, this is actually a very funny thing that I've just flagged because I'm curious.
	Think about it.
	Robert, when was the last time you cried?
	Never.
	I was trying to think of a good comedic...
	Well, when Joe Biden was inaugurated.
	Okay, so...
	It's phenomenal.
	I can tell you the last time I cried.
	I was listening to the...
	I put in a CD.
	The Killers' first album.
	And the song was...
	I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.
	That song is called...
	Whoever knows what that song is.
	I cried while driving the car playing that song.
	That was yesterday.
	Okay, fantastic.
	I love it.
	Different personalities.
	The world needs them.
	Yeah, as a little kid, I was known by Bobby.
	Then I was known by Robert.
	Then I was known by Bob.
	Then as a lawyer by Robert.
	Those people who still know me by all three.
	Oh, okay.
	Sorry.
	I brought this up.
	Not an info.
	Have you talked about the court-martial of James Topp?
	I talked about this with James Topp.
	It's an old charge.
	James Topp is the Canadian marching across Canada who made it to Ottawa.
	The court-martial, the alleged violation of speaking out against federal policy while in uniform, is an old charge.
	Predated his adventure with the march.
	So, yeah, we talked about that.
	I talked about it with him.
	Hey, the politicians in Canada have heard James Topp, and they've jailed Tamara Lich.
	That's what they said.
	F you to all of you.
	Yeah, we got about five cases we can briefly cover.
	Do it.
	Go for it, Robert.
	Steve Bannon's trial's coming up in a week or so, so we'll update that more fully next week, next Sunday, when the trial starts next Monday.
	That's in Washington, correct?
	Yep, District of Columbia.
	Won't be.
	Some people ask.
	Now he's been released from executive privilege by Trump to testify, so he can testify.
	His testimony, and he's willing to testify, I guess, apparently in front of the January 6th committee now, but that may be an attempted resolution of the consent proceeding.
	But otherwise, he can testify at trial.
	People would ask whether that's public on our locals board.
	Yes, that's public.
	It just won't be videotaped because it's a federal court.
	They don't allow that in, unfortunately, still.
	There was an interesting groomer lawsuit.
	Brought against the school district, against the teacher, and against Snapchat.
	And we're seeing more of these.
	So, you know, for all this, oh, groomer, that's made up.
	That's fictional.
	There's more of these popping up in different jurisdictions.
	And where the teacher clearly groomed and groomed and groomed.
	And by the way, it was usually not male teachers with female students.
	It was often female teachers with male students.
	And so in some of these cases, at least, not saying that's what's universally what's happening.
	But the teacher used Snapchat to do it.
	So they sued Snapchat in the school district.
	They said the school district couldn't be held liable because they never allow them to be held liable unless you find them ordering it.
	That's based on the Modell case doctrine, which I'm not a fan of, but it is what it is.
	They let Snapchat out because they said Section 230.
	Provides immunity for groomers now.
	Tells us the problem.
	That shows the problem of even if Snapchat, by the allegations, knew about what they were doing, deliberately used their technology to facilitate what was going on.
	You have courts saying that Section 230 even immunizes them from deliberately or recklessly creating the means of grooming activity.
	But at least the suit against the teacher moved forward.
	Which was good to see.
	But it's interesting seeing how the legal theories work with some of these grooming cases that are starting to come up through the legal system.
	And it's a sign that there's something systematic and systematically wrong for these cases to start to be increasing the way they are in our school system.
	Try to be cynical.
	Equally cynical.
	Someone decides what I might have decided to do as a minor school kid was consensual at the time and now I regret it.
	I don't buy the argument.
	That's just the argument.
	Legally, they can't consent.
	These are 13 years old, 14 years old.
	15-year-old boys.
	And then the social standard is, well, a 15-year-old boy doing it with a hot female teacher, that's a good thing.
	But a 15-year-old girl doing it with a good-looking 30-year-old male teacher, that's assault.
	There's a very big double standard here that people have to...
	And this was a boy suing.
	And what had happened, she'd also encouraged him to use certain drugs, and apparently he OD'd on the drugs.
	Yeah, that was apparently the only reason he got caught.
	The only reason she got caught is he OD'd on a drug, was in the hospital, and then finally, had you OD?
	Well, a teacher that I was having sexual intercourse with was drugging me up, and I barely survived after a couple weeks in the hospital, and sues the teacher, the school, and Snapchat.
	I understand the dismissal against Snapchat.
	All three sought the dismissal.
	The teacher said I was acting as a teacher, therefore I'm immune.
	School says we didn't do anything wrong, therefore we're immune.
	Snapchat says, or Snap, whatever the company was, Section 230 immunity, which I understand, except in as much as Snapchat might have known about the problem and not done anything about it, which might...
	It's where Section 230 reform needs to happen, because this was not the intention of Section 230.
	Was not to facilitate terrorism, not to facilitate grooming, not to facilitate child pornography or anything else.
	And so, you know, hopefully they learn from these cases the importance of public policy reform and smart legislative candidates, whether that's Eric Greitens or Blake Masters or J.D. Vance or Joe Kent, will realize the value in...
	Putting forward some legislative reform proposals as part of their campaigns that I think will help them in this precise context.
	The other cases, oh, this is a dangerous area.
	They were trying to do this during Trump's era, which is to redefine all activity as regulated campaign activity.
	So in Montana, some old guy, former state senator, liked to keep a record of what people were voting for in the state legislature and went around.
	Turing, telling people, look, this guy's a fake Republican and so on and so forth.
	But spent some money for food and gas, etc.
	Well, Montana decided, oh, you have to be a political action committee.
	And so the idea was that they want to take everyday, ordinary activity.
	And if they applied the law strictly, as the Ninth Circuit recognized, you putting a sign in your front yard might require you to register as a PAC.
	You're using Wi-Fi for certain purposes may require you to register as a PAC.
	And there's all these consequences.
	Civil fines, criminal prosecutions, as they were trying to do through Trump era.
	This is a dangerous misapplication of these campaign finance laws.
	And I think the First Amendment restricts it.
	To the credit of the Ninth Circuit, they came in and said, this is unconstitutional because it's void for vagueness, especially in the First Amendment context.
	If it can reach to this much conduct, then it doesn't give fair notice of what you're supposed to do.
	Number one.
	Number two, if it provides too much discretion to an individual executive official, then it's also a void for vagueness, particularly in the speech context.
	So a very good decision that said, this is nonsense that can be applied to a lot of other context as it arises.
	And then the other two cases are cartel cases.
	One just briefly.
	Let's do it, Robert, because I know the guy Machado.
	I know the name.
	And there's going to be a lot of people who are going to say, I don't care if the vilest scum of the earth, drug-dealing cartel members get tortured in jail.
	I think back to Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	Terrorists, do whatever you want.
	If I ever thought this way, I no longer think this way.
	You will treat your most vile enemies the way they still need to be treated as humans.
	Machado, this guy, he's...
	Look.
	He's a guilty cartel member.
	I'm not going out on a limb to say that.
	And he doesn't dispute that.
	Okay.
	He just says, here's what's been going on for years.
	That the U.S. system is cooperating with the Mexican government to engage in constant, continuous torture, to get intel and information.
	That when they're able to drag him to the United States, that the U.S. Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons coordinated and conspired.
	I mean, like, if one part of his allegations is true...
	This shows real problems at the Justice Department.
	Because apparently they falsely claimed he was a member of ISIS.
	So he was supposed to be going to a low-security work camp.
	Instead, he gets sent to Supermax.
	And he gets sent to Supermax in complete isolation on the grounds that he's an ISIS guy.
	He never had any ties to ISIS at all.
	What's happening in our justice system that that even got through the cracks at all?
	But a coordinated torture, basically.
	Using what they could legally to elicit information out of him and not give the best deal for that information to him.
	But it suggests real problems in our drug enforcement protocols because it provides confirmation for what there have been long rumors about and that this includes the DEA agent who died, who another ex-DEA agent believes he was actually tortured, facilitated by the U.S. government officials, including the CIA.
	But so it's terrifying.
	Now on the lighter front, a company bought a manufacturing plant down in Mexico.
	Turned out it was a cartel-run plant.
	So they sued the company that had sold it to them for not disclosing that it's a cartel-run plant.
	But in the interim, they got another company to buy it that didn't.
	They didn't disclose to that company that it was a cartel-run plant.
	So when they got sued by that other company for what they tried to do, the shell game they tried to pull, they asked their insurer to cover them, and their insurer was like, no, no, don't think so.
	You know, this doesn't cover our precise scenario.
	Ninth Circuit, of course, agreed, like a two-page opinion, basically unpublished opinion, but basically saying, yeah, you know, under these circumstances, you probably don't have the best argument for insurance coverage.
	But, you know, be careful what manufacturing plants you buy in Mexico.
	That's the lesson.
	Robert, we're going to end on something.
	It won't be a black pill that we're going to end on.
	Let me just pull up this picture.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	It's on Twitter, people.
	Only there for my diary.
	Robert, look at this.
	Is that a large mouth?
	That is a bucket mouth, large mouth bass.
	And I don't want to look like a bum.
	That's my biggest.
	That's a personal best.
	It's not that big.
	I didn't extend it into the camera.
	Eight pounds?
	Nine pounds?
	It might be six.
	I'd give it six because it had a fat belly.
	I caught a big fat...
	This was 30 minutes before this stream.
	I had to change shirts because I was drenched in sweat because it's too damn hot.
	It's just too damn hot.
	But Robert...
	Oh, hold on.
	Who do we have Wednesday night for Sidebar?
	Well, you're going to be in Vegas.
	Yeah.
	Maybe we'll have a Sidebar.
	We'll do the sidebar next Wednesday.
	And next Wednesday will be Julie Kelly.
	Oh my goodness.
	Speaking of January 6th.
	We'll probably do some locals, exclusives material from Vegas.
	Live from Las Vegas.
	It's going to be amazing.
	I'll introduce you maybe to some good meal of true debauchery.
	One of my favorite restaurants out here.
	The only thing I don't do, Robert, is marijuana.
	Because it makes people...
	My idea of debauchery is righteous wine and great food.
	Okay.
	We will have a debauchery.
	People, stay tuned.
	It's going to be amazing.
	I think it's Thursday at 3 o 'clock.
	The panel with James O 'Keefe.
	I'm going to be leaving Friday morning pretty early.
	I can't do it, but Barnes and I are going to hang.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Robert, leave us with a white pill above and beyond my personal best bass.
	I feel black-pilled.
	And sincerely so.
	And I also feel shame-pilled.
	Setting my own personal issues aside, Robert, leave us with something good for the week to come.
	Well, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case is a testament to the people that kept fighting, kept fighting, kept fighting, and finally got judicial clarification and declaration of what really took place in 2020 by implication, by necessary implication, and helped cure the set of problems, at least in that state for 2022, which is a key and critical state for multiple purposes.
	And it only happened because ordinary, everyday people continue to fight for it in the court of public opinion, the courts of law, and in the courts of legislatures and politicians.
	And so ordinary people, the ultimate white pill is always the people out there.
	That you look in the mirror, you are your own white pill.
	As long as good, righteous people exist, then righteousness always stands a chance.
	Robert, we're going to make a shirt immediately that says, you are your own white pill.
	Boom.
	Okay.
	Everyone in the chat, I'll be going live periodically throughout the week.
	I've got...
	I'm going to have to re-tape the panels to the wall.
	They've all fallen off.
	It's just terrible.
	Garbage.
	Amazon.
	Who the fuck?
	Garbage.
	I'll be live.
	I'll be leaving Wednesday.
	Coming back Friday.
	But live and we're going to have some good stuff.
	So people stay tuned.
	Robert, stick around.
	We're going to talk for a bit.
	Everyone else in the chat.
	You know what?
	Let me just do this real quick.
	Ohio has a both sides bill which would require teaching the Holocaust from the German side.
	I would support it.
	And everyone should watch the movie Das Boot.
	Which is the Holocaust, World War II from the German side.
	History is complicated.
	Leave it at that.
	I support it.
	I don't know if Barnes would be interested to know, but all people I follow on Twitter, his feed by far has the most promoted twits on it.
	That might be a joke.
	Viva, efficient in Florida.
	You need to understand alligators.
	I'm very cognizant of alligators.
	I've got an alligator stabbing knife.
	I'm joking.
	I don't have one.
	I'm cognizant and very much aware of it.
	I'm neurotic to begin with.
	Black budget CIA is funding Twitter, the greatest tool to weaponize populations for the intelligence community.
	That's my thought.
	A $1.
	Thank you very much.
	Let's do this.
	The juror was junior living with senior.
	His father was the same name.
	The lawyers were given all of the info three business days prior.
	Okay?
	Interesting.
	Barnes, do you think Biden will pardon Hunter?
	Barnes?
	Oh my God!
	Thinking of everything they accused Trump of, will Biden pardon Hunter?
	Yeah, I don't think we'll get to that point.
	Biden would resign and they would cut a sweetheart deal before we get to that.
	Fishing residents?
	Okay, the license, don't worry about it.
	Any feedback on the California law affecting truck drivers?
	Like 70,000 losing.
	I gotta look at that.
	I don't know if there's been a later update on that.
	That's the attempt in California to treat everybody as an employee.
	Okay, and I got that one.
	Update on Vax mandates for federal workers barely holding on.
	Yeah, I mean, none of the Vax mandates for federal workers are enforceable at this point.
	So, that hasn't changed.
	What if someone like Stephen Hawking's prediction was predicted as a...
	It's a complicated discussion.
	There's no question about that.
	To me, it's a no-brainer.
	Human life is human life.
	We don't devalue it based on that, period.
	All These Things I've Done is the song.
	And it is.
	And there was an ems about got it also.
	Okay.
	People, stay tuned.
	I'll be live tomorrow at some point.
	There'll be shit to talk about.
	Probably shit coming out of Canada.
	It's sad seeing it.
	Okay.
	Robert, it's good to see you again.
	And I'll see you sooner than later, but we're going to talk in a few seconds.
	Everyone else, you know, snip, clip, share around, whatever.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.
	And that's his.
	I'm trying to go to Barnes's.
	There.
	It's there.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Stay tuned.
	Good stuff coming.
	Everyone else, have a good rest of the weekend.

▲