All Episodes
Previous Next
July 17, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:05:31
Ep. 120: Canada Madness, FreedomFest, Twitter, Bannon, Jones AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I am the screening officer working on the federal quarantine act.
Today I'll be asking a few questions about Miva's quarantine.
To verify that she's in compliance with application, include a day one and a day eight goal assess.
This call should just take a few minutes.
Okay.
Can you confirm that she arrives in Canada on Tuesday?
I confirm that yes, we arrived in Canada Tuesday.
Okay, and a record indicated that she is an unvaccinated traveler entering Canada?
Yeah.
Unvaccinated traveler entering Canada?
Who do not meet the Canadian definition of fully vaccinated are required to be in quarantine for a minimum of 14 days.
Is she under quarantine?
Excuse me, in virtue of what is she supposed to be in quarantine for 14 days?
Yes.
No, in virtue of what?
No, but that's not my understanding of the law.
What do you mean your understanding of the law?
What provision of law are you suggesting requires my daughter to be in 14 days of quarantine?
She's under the federal quarantine act, sir.
No, but what provision of law is it?
Because I know...
I've read the quarantine act.
I've studied the quarantine act.
Okay.
What provision of law?
Because she tested negative.
We've had COVID within the last 180 days.
I understand that.
So she's not required to be tested again.
But since she's not a fully vaccinated traveler entering Canada, she's required to be in quarantine.
Under what provision of law?
She's required.
Sir.
Internash.
Coming back to that.
No, but I'm telling you, I've read the Quarantine Act.
There is nothing in it that...
I understand, sir.
That's a website.
I'm not sure.
I don't believe that's the law.
Yes, she is.
She's required to be in quarantine.
She is 12 years old, so therefore she's required to be in quarantine.
That wasn't the whole video, by the way, people.
That was 2 minutes and 20 seconds to fit onto Twitter.
Once bitten, twice shy, 15 times bitten, traumatized.
Is my audio good before I continue?
Am I live?
I accidentally seem to have gone live by accident on YouTube this morning.
Let me know if I'm live.
Crotch shot.
My wife's like, you realize that's your crotch shot.
I'm going to get into this in a second, right after I feel assured.
Audio's good.
This is the good mic.
It is Sunday night, and you're listening to your law-talking lawyer guy, Viva Fry.
We're live.
Audio's good.
That was one of my final straw experiences in Canada.
This is from a while back, people.
I mean, recently, but not last week, not last month.
This is from several months ago.
Where I had gone, I had crossed the border with my unvaccinated, dirty, unvaccinated, second-class citizen of a 12-year-old daughter at the time.
I had crossed the border for 72 hours at most.
When we came back, had to download the Arrive Can.
And I'll tell you this.
For the people saying, Viva, you knew the rules.
You crossed and you took your chances and you're lucky you didn't get a fine.
First thing I'll say is this.
I was going to say, I was going to swear.
I'm not going to.
You knew the rules and you got what you deserved.
Awesome.
Now do, you know, elderly people wearing shawls.
That's what you get for wearing such tight little shawls.
If anybody gets the Simpsons reference, congratulations.
You knew the rules and you did it anyhow.
There would be some merit to that if the rules were not child abuse.
Second thing, I knew the rules.
And on the Arrive Can app, for anybody who has ever had the displeasure of downloading it, there's a section...
That speaks to exemptions of minor children crossing the border with vaccinated adults.
And in the exemption section of the Arrive Can app is a section talking about COVID infection within the last...
It was either 180 days or 90 days.
I think it was 180 days.
There was an exemption in the Arrive Can app.
We had been infected within the relevant...
Under the Arrive Can app, exemption period, as detailed in that.
I still downloaded that damn app.
I still filled out all of the information, scanned our passports, gave it to the government, told them Mike Child's medical status, and we crossed the border, answer all the questions, and that's it.
We go home.
I get a call five days later or six days later, this call.
I get this call.
Six days later, someone telling me that I'm required by law to compel my 12-year-old kid to be in at least 14 days of quarantine, not because she's sick, not because she's symptomatic, not because she tested positive because we took the tests on both ends of this trip, but because she's unvaccinated.
We took a test.
Prior to leaving, negative.
Prior to returning, negative.
Fit the exemption for prior infection within 180 days of a 12-year-old kid.
I get a call five days upon arrival, five days upon return, from the government telling me that I have to quarantine a healthy 12-year-old kid simply because she's unvaccinated.
And then I ask, you know, the question that any lawyer would ask.
Any reasonable person and maybe even any person.
And I shouldn't say reasonable because a lot of people would not ask this question because they feel scared, as did I. Because they feel pressured and bullied, as did I. And because they don't want to start a fight, as I did not want to do.
What provision of law, Madam Clerk on the phone telling me I've got to lock my 12-year-old healthy kid up because of her medical status.
What provision of law are you referring?
What provision of law?
What compels me, requires me to perform what is nothing shy of child abuse?
Because it comes from the government, doesn't make it not child abuse.
What provision of law compels me to impose this government-imposed child abuse on my own kid?
And we're going to walk through this one more time because there's some interesting things in it.
Sir, other than the repetitive use of the term sir, which is the last resort to I don't know, and I'm going to use your name as though you're the a-hole for making me explain what it is we're telling you to do.
Let's start here.
I've read the Quarantine Act, people.
They can designate quarantine officers to carry out inspections when they suspect there might be an issue.
This is under the Quarantine Act itself.
It just so happens that a lot of the Quarantine Act is sub-delegated by way of regulations to be established at the time or orders in council or the like.
Nothing in the Quarantine Act authorizes the compelled quarantine of healthy individuals.
Healthy individuals who tested negative simply because of unrelated medicals.
Nothing.
Nothing.
You can detain a cargo that you suspect might be infected with vectors.
You can...
Order someone who you suspect might be ill to isolate depending on the circumstances.
You cannot even compel someone under the Quarantine Act to submit to a test because the tests are invasive and no test under the Quarantine Act can penetrate the human body.
I happen to know these things because I'm a lawyer and I happen to be mildly interested in the grotesque constitutional abuses coming down from the freest country on earth under the biggest tyrant of a dictator on earth, Justin Trudeau.
This is six days upon return where we had filled out the form and spoken to everyone we needed to speak to crossing the border.
Six days later.
No news because there was a section in the Arrive Can app talking about exemptions, prior infection, with or without proof of infection.
By the way, pay attention to this because...
At the beginning of this call, this person who knows everything is asking me if we've complied with the day one and the day eight COVID test, which you don't have to comply with when you've had a prior infection.
And she corrects herself later and says, oh, well, that's why you didn't need the test.
She says it right here.
Are you complying with the quarantine day one and day eight test?
No, because we don't have to because of an exemption under this Arrive Can app.
Not that it would make anything more justifiable if there were no exemption.
I should just take a few minutes.
Take a few minutes.
Okay.
By the way, that is me.
That is me at my angriest.
I confirm that yes, we arrived in Canada Tuesday.
This is me at rage levels anger.
They know all this because they have all your information.
Hearts beating, sweating, enraged.
Who do not meet the Canadian definition of fully vaccinated?
Who do not meet...
Hold on.
How do I pause it?
What do you think the chances are she's just not...
She's reading.
You know, I'm just reading from a sheet about how parents are going to be ordered by the government to abuse their children.
You're the parent who is not vaccinated, so you are required to be in quarantine for a minimum of 14 days because it's Canada and it's trusting the science.
For a minimum of 14 days.
Is she under quarantine?
Excuse me, in virtue of what is she supposed to be in quarantine for 14 days?
Yes.
Yeah, no, that's not an answer.
No, in virtue of what?
What?
Because she's an unvaccinated doctor.
By the way, why does she have to be in quarantine?
Because she's unvaccinated.
Let that sink in.
Fill in.
Why do you have to be under involuntary house arrest?
Because you're fill in the blank and see how that flies.
Tested negative, recent infection, tested negative twice.
But because she's unvaccinated, a 12-year-old kid, 14 days of quarantine minimum.
It's not my understanding of the law.
What do you mean your understanding of the law?
What provision of law are you suggesting requires my daughter to be in 14 days of quarantine?
She's under the federal...
Oh, she's under the federal...
What the hell does that mean?
Because I know...
I've read the Quarantine Act.
I've studied the Quarantine Act.
What provision of law?
Because she tested negative.
We've had COVID within the last 180 days.
A listed exemption under the app at the time?
Listen to the arrogance and the pride in that voice.
But because she's unvaccinated, there was like pleasure in it.
Because now we have one citizen who gets to govern another citizen.
Provision of law.
Sir, the international...
The international what?
Where in anywhere in this person's notes would there be reference to anything international?
Where?
Where?
I'll tell you something.
I find that slip-up to be suspicious.
The international...
Oh, I'm sorry.
What the hell are you talking about, Madam Quarantine Officer?
Okay, I see Robert's in the background.
Let me just do the standard intros.
By the way, I held on to that video for a long time, and I'm aware that there may be a disagreement in law as to whether or not my understanding is correct.
When the Arrive Can app has an entire section under the exemption about prior infection, whether or not you have a medical note of proof of infection, proof of positive test, I may be wrong, which is why I don't like telling people what to do or purporting to give medical advice.
If I'm wrong, I'll argue it.
I would not tell anybody else to do anything based on my understanding because if I'm wrong, I don't want to be responsible for that.
That's not how you give legal advice.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
I don't think I'm wrong.
Setting all that aside, this is Canada.
This is the science in Canada.
It is nothing shy.
Of government-sanctioned child abuse.
And there's a part of me that will judge any parent who does this to their kid.
There's a part of me that judges any parent who sends their kid off to the room even when they have COVID.
When Ethan had COVID, I was eating food out of his mouth so that we could just get it together, get it over with.
I would judge a parent who did something relying on these orders.
But I'm judging the tyrant himself.
I'm judging from the top down.
And it's atrocious.
It's nothing shy of atrocious.
Okay.
I have missed a bunch of...
I'm just going to do this while I do the standard disclaimers.
YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
If you do not like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Rumble takes 20% of their Rumble rants, which is the same thing.
And you can feel better supporting us on Rumble versus YouTube.
If you want to support us, the best place is...
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
What a week, what a week.
If you're gonna get miffed, if I do not bring up your super chat, it's supposed to be for support.
It's not a, I cannot promise to bring them all up 'cause I won't.
If I do not bring it up and you're gonna feel rooked, shilled, grifted, whatever, don't give it.
I don't like people feeling bad about supporting or choosing to support.
I do my best, but I do my best.
Viva, you really need to interview Tracy Wilson.
Okay.
And that's it.
That's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.
Yep.
We had a big week.
Two days in Vegas.
I had two dinners with Barnes.
Fantastic stuff.
Freedom Fest was amazing.
Quarantine is for the sick.
This is worse than the house arrest.
Typically when you're under house arrest, it's because you've done something wrong.
House arresting a child, a healthy 12-year-old child.
It's...
Hey, look.
I would trust it to come from none other than...
Justin Trudeau.
Viva, have you said what you are going to be doing in the States?
Have you checked out Patrick Bet David?
He owns Valuetainment and lives in Florida.
Why didn't you make her read the exemption?
I'll tell you, I don't react well.
That's as well as I react when I'm enraged.
I was enraged.
My heart was...
It ruined the day.
I remember where we went that day.
We went to a bouncy house, a trampoline house.
That ruined my day.
I could not have fun at that bounce.
I was enraged.
And above all else, I was actually scared.
Because I wasn't sure that they weren't going to come and take my kid off to a quarantine facility.
I wasn't sure that the government wasn't going to show up at my front door and take my kid away from me.
And I live in Quebec now, where the government knows what's best for your kid, above and beyond the parents.
I was actually scared.
I'll pay a $20,000.
I'll take the $20,000 fine to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Maybe not anymore.
But I was scared that they could show up at your door and haul my 12-year-old daughter off to a quarantine facility where in my neurotic head, I was actually saying, I'll go with her.
I'll go with her.
And then I could see it escalating.
Okay, that's it.
That's the intro.
I'm sorry.
People, I'm bringing on the barns because we've got a big show again tonight.
Robert, feels like I haven't seen you in 48 hours.
How are you doing?
Good, good.
Everyone, let me know if the audio is good, if the audio levels are good.
But Robert, while we test the audio, what's behind you and what's in your head?
So that is a book borrowed from Mark Robert.
You can follow them in America's Untold Stories with Eric Conley or on Locals at unstructured.local.com where they provide a lot of exclusive content.
He was out in Vegas on Friday with a Hollywood buddy of his to talk about a particular project.
And lent me the book General Walker and the Murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Big book.
Big book.
Huge book.
So, yeah, it's a hard-to-come-by book.
So, I think his supporters on PayPal provided the means by which he's able to increase his very large Kennedy assassination library.
And so, that's what that is.
And this is a Hoya de Monterey special edition cigar.
And Robert, we had a good time.
Now we've seen each other three times in real life, and we're in the same country.
It feels like we're closer than we've ever been.
Robert, it was great.
The Freedom Fest was very interesting.
Robert, the origins, the essence of the Freedom Fest, what's it about for those who don't know?
Sure.
So Freedom Fest is a gathering of sort of libertarians and other inclined organizations and individuals that they've been meeting for a while.
I've appeared there a couple of times in the past.
I think C-SPAN broadcast one or a few of them.
So that's what it mostly is.
It's sort of usually in July, usually the week after July 4th or thereabouts, and they get together and just have a bunch of speakers and commentators and fellow-minded folks get to come together and chat.
I was there with the James O 'Keefe panel.
They were sort of talking about it through the lens of what's been going on with James O 'Keefe.
The assault on First Amendment by the government, FBI seizing cell phones of journalists, James O 'Keefe in particular.
Robert, what's your take on what is going on or being done to Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe?
Journalist rights versus ordinary citizen First Amendment rights and whether or not we've crossed the Rubicon, whether or not we're in the next realm of an assault on journalism.
Yeah, it was a good presentation with you, Ron Coleman, and former Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kaczynski, who wrote some good opinions.
He wrote a bad one in one case I had, but if I was going to chat with him, I was going to rag him about that.
But very good, very smart, very thoughtful jurist when he was on the Ninth Circuit.
Kind of got run out on some questionable accusations and resigned a little bit earlier than maybe he originally intended.
But I think the weaponization of the prosecutorial process is what it reveals.
And it's a good bridge to our first favored topic by the locals board tonight, which is the Bannon trial that is going to commence on Monday.
But before we get to that...
What was the number one lesson you learned in Vegas that was taught by one Wesley Trent Snipes some years ago?
Oh, always bet on black, Robert.
Exactly.
And was it profitable again?
Every time I bet on black and roulette, I've always won money.
I leave when we're up.
What happened when we were in Vegas?
So I go.
I'm not a gambler because I hate losing money.
Let the jokes in the chat commence.
I hate losing money.
I feel guilty, stupid, nauseous.
I was up $25 before meeting Robert.
We went out for dinner.
On the way back to my room, after a bottle of wine, I go to the roulette.
I lose $75.
Next day, Robert and I have dinner, and we go to the table together.
We bet on black three times, lost the first, won the second, won the third, and I put a little something down on the square where you get eight times your money on roulette.
I left $75 up, happy as a clam.
So it was very good.
I thought you meant...
Bring your own suntan lotion to Vegas, because I'm still traumatized by that $30 a bottle suntan lotion.
But yeah, it worked.
Gambling is not a way to make money consistently, though.
No, but Wesley Snipes' advice, always bet on Black, I think, for the movie Passenger 57, has always proven profitable for me.
So it proved profitable for Viva in Vegas.
But now, so let...
Robert, the ban in trial starts tomorrow, and I've got...
This is going to broach into...
Ray Epps, which I don't know if you're good to talk about it, but we'll get there in a second.
Ben, okay, lots of questions.
Whatever you know, I'd love to pick your brain.
He's going to trial now on the contempt of Congress indictments.
It's either one or two charges of disobeying a congressional subpoena.
Has anyone else other than Libby or whatever his name, Gordon Libby, ever been prosecuted?
Or was Gordon Libby the only one convicted of contempt of Congress?
There have been more people prosecuted, but in high-profile political cases, it's very, very rare.
So Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress by Congress.
The Justice Department never prosecuted him.
The IRS official, the head of the IRS at the time, who was engaged in massive illicit invasions of privacy for politicized purposes, equally.
Was in contempt of Congress, again, not prosecuted by the Justice Department.
You know, famously, what led to Edward Snowden was the combination of lies, including by Clapper and others, to write to Congress's face.
John Brennan repeatedly lied all the way through his tenure, including all the way back to spying on Congress itself.
Again, none of them ever prosecuted.
So I don't believe anybody in the Obama administration was ever prosecuted, even though many of them were clearly in contempt of Congress.
Often, in my view, what contempt of Congress should be limited to, should be restricted to, is really criminal obstruction.
In other words, lying to Congress in a material way, forging documents that could impact the legislative process.
There was nothing that Steve Bannon did.
That in my view could have even possibly impacted the legislative process.
And just contrast it to Pfizer's defense and the Civil False Claims Act we're bringing on behalf of Brooke Jackson and the American people, where they say that, yeah, maybe we committed material lies to the Defense Department, but it doesn't matter because they didn't choose to do anything about it.
And so that means that nobody should be able to sue us over it.
So you contrast what's really material versus what's really immaterial to their legislative task.
They haven't shown that, but they've liberalized and loosened the laws.
Congress gets to write these laws in the first place, and it's why there shouldn't be this kind of broad, vague...
Provisions like this to entrap effectively people like Steve Bannon.
He was out last week saying it's basically just a show trial.
In D.C., you cannot get an impartial jury.
That's been proven over and over and over and over again now for six years running.
The Bannon trial will be more revelation of that.
I don't believe the CNN did a hit piece on him today, right as the jury is being selected tomorrow.
And it's, I believe, Joe Nierman, Good Logic, L-A-W-G-I-C, on YouTube.
And it sounds like logic in parts of Brooklyn and New York, which Mark Robert and others could speak to.
He's going to be there in person covering the case as well as some others.
It's a federal trial, so that means it's not televised.
I assume we'll see how many witnesses Bannon's defense is allowed to present.
The judge, feeling bound by precedent, has basically gutted all of his defenses so that he's not allowed to say, I did this upon advice of counsel.
He's not allowed to say, I did this because my understanding of executive privilege meant it was not a legitimately issued subpoena.
He's not allowed to present his defense that he did not understand it to be a legitimately issued congressional subpoena because this committee was not properly formed under the rules of Congress, which is supposed to be an element of the offense.
The judge has voiced criticism of some of that prior precedent and says that, you know, some doubts about it.
But effectively, at this point, he's going to trial to show what a show trial looks like in D.C. and going to trial to preserve his appellate remedies on these issues.
But it's at this point.
As his own lawyer said in court, he doesn't really have any defenses available to him.
So the judges stripped him of it.
Apparently, it may be a pretty short trial.
It will be, was a subpoena issued?
Was a subpoena responded to?
End of story by the interpretation of the law.
As it's currently constructed, and I believe it's misconstructed.
But it also shows the problem of the Justice Department, a bunch of political hacks who run the D.C. division, who have politically weaponized the case in a very selective way, as they have all the other January 6th cases, as we saw this week in what was a meme.
You know, grandma's getting arrested and sent to prison for walking around the Capitol without special permission from Nancy Pelosi.
Actually, an elderly woman was sentenced to two months in prison for doing just that, walking around without permission of Speaker Pelosi.
And even though she has cancer, contrast that to the lawyer who deliberately lied and perjured information, obstructed justice, created a false statement to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Activities Court in order to illicitly speak.
One of the worst offenses you can do.
He served no time.
But an elderly lady who has cancer is sentenced to prison for two months by this Justice Department and by this judicial system in the District of Columbia, which should be just named the District of Corruption, and for simply something as misdemeanor trespass on the Capitol's grounds.
We're going to get to the comparison, not just to Clinesmith in a separate case, but to Ray Epps in this case.
But something I don't understand, Robert.
The Judge Nichols, a Trump appointee, so nobody can arguably claim political bias, has stripped Bannon of his defense of professional reliance, understanding of the law, and arguing that the committee itself is not properly formed.
Now, that House Resolution 503, whatever it is, that formed the House, said that the committee must be comprised of a certain number of individuals, and it's not.
So how is he not allowed to raise that as an argument?
These are arguments that affect mens rea and also actus rea.
How is he not allowed to raise them?
And do they become issues for an appeal to the extent they're properly saved?
There are definitely issues for appeal.
The judge found that...
He did move to dismiss on those grounds and the judge denied it.
And so I disagree with the judge's decision in that regard.
The D.C. judges have, almost none of them have shown the ability to be consistently impartial in these cases, even the Trump appointees.
It was, I believe, a Reagan or maybe Bush appointee that sentenced that old lady to prison.
So if you're in the District of Columbia, I've said from the beginning, Neither the judges in D.C. nor the juries in D.C. nor the prosecutors in D.C. are capable of being impartial.
They're politically motivated.
They're politically prejudiced.
They feel personally attacked by what they interpret January 6 to be.
And consequently, they're unreliable.
And the fact that someone's a Trump appointee doesn't always say a whole lot.
It says that maybe, maybe they'll be good, but no guarantee they'll be good.
There's a Trump appointee in the Brooke Jackson whistleblower case, and he lectured me about tweeting about the case.
So, I mean, that tells you a lot.
I mean, President John Kennedy appointed Curtis LeMay, bombs away LeMay.
To the Joint Chiefs of Staff early on in his presidency, and many people believe he was complicit in the assassination of President Kennedy.
So JFK and Trump share that in common, making some very dubious appointments along the way.
And the fact that a judge has been a Trump appointee has been no protection for constitutional liberty, sadly, with any degree of consistency.
They tend to defer to corporate power.
Did they intervene in OSHA?
Sure.
But that was between big corporations and the government.
So they've been good on religious liberty in many contexts, but they have not been a consistent voice on a lot of other cases, particularly if it goes up against the Justice Department or goes up against corporate America.
They sadly have more of a Federalist Society bet, which is their definition of conservatism is country club corporate conservatism, what serves those interests of the privileged few, not those that serve the broader mass, especially an if.
Even if it involves constitutional liberty at stake.
So the fact that the Trump appointee is no protection for Steve Bannon in this trial.
It'll just be used as the talking point on the other side that that's how obvious this case is.
Even a Trump appointee struck or stripped Bannon of defenses in law.
So those could be grounds for an appeal.
Fine.
The triers of fact, the jury don't opine on questions of law.
Another question people are asking, Bannon agreed to testify.
He purportedly, whatever privilege, executive privilege he thought was bestowed to him, he says has been lifted, he's prepared to testify.
Can you explain to those who may not understand why that doesn't relieve him of the charges of contempt of Congress?
So he agreed to testify before the committee and provide evidence to the committee belatedly.
And if he had been charged with civil contempt, that would suffice, because with civil contempt, you can purge your contempt by compliance.
But he's been charged with criminal contempt, and criminal contempt is completed at the time that you don't provide the answer or the information.
And so you can't cure it.
Criminal contempt is not subject to curation.
And so that's why that didn't really achieve anything.
It's not clear if his lawyers gave some bad advice along the way.
Bannon has chosen to often go with your corporate white shoe counsel types.
I've always considered that generally a mistake in politically motivated cases.
Because it doesn't appear they got clear communication from Trump, Team Trump, to assert executive privilege as a basis to resist the subpoena.
It appears that...
That certain information may have been given to Bannon that was incorrect.
We don't know.
But unfortunately, none of that is a defense to his criminal contempt charge directly.
Okay.
And now, I mean, I don't want to be pessimistic.
In my mind, Bannon's going to jail for this.
There's like, even though there's a one month minimum for the charge, a one year maximum, there's a small fine or a big fine.
A grandma, like people need to appreciate this.
We're going to dovetail this into the Ray Epps.
An elderly grandmother woman is going to jail for two months for her role in January 6th.
They're going to unleash the fury on Bannon.
Question, Robert?
I mean, you know Bannon better than me, certainly, but better than most.
Does he want to go to jail to make a point?
Was this part of proving how corrupt the system is?
Or did he just get caught biting off more than he can chew or gambling more than he could lose?
I don't know.
To be honest with you, I don't know what his objective has been throughout this.
It's not been crystal clear.
So the, I mean, I think this judge wouldn't issue a high sentence.
I mean, from a sentencing guidelines perspective, the statutory minimum is the only thing that would make sense.
I think normally be a probationary offense.
So if there's a one month statutory minimum, that would be all that would likely be given.
And then he could grant bail pending appeal.
So that there's no imminent risk of imprisonment with this judge.
I don't think that this judge is likely to issue a sentence that he doesn't grant bail for.
And then he's looking at several years, and most likely it's before the Supreme Court and all of his rights and remedies and relief has been exhausted.
Likely there's a new president in January 2025.
And if it's Donald John Trump, whose ex-wife and the mother of his three of his five children passed away, sadly, this past week.
If it's Trump that's in the White House, then Bannon will be pardoned once again in all likelihood because Trump has said that January 6th has become such a joke of justice that he intends to pardon everybody connected to it because it's been such an over-open...
political weaponization of the process, which is revealed by the cover story that the New York Times was writing this week for one Ray Harris.
Let me see if I can bring this article up while I do it.
Good Logic.
Myself will be covering Bannon.
Good Logic is the only one going to be down in Washington for the trial.
Robert Gouveia is going to get the transcripts and do the night stuff.
And we're probably all going to be inter-collabbing, I guess, at some point.
So stay tuned.
And I'm going to be doing some exclusive commentary analysis for the post-millennial.
So stay tuned for that as well.
But Robert, Ray Epps, man.
Let me just get New York Times.
The newspaper outlet.
That got it wrong and lied to you about the Ukrainian famine.
Stalin.
Hitler.
Hiroshima.
Cuba.
What else?
The First Intifada.
Brian Sicknick.
The outlet that got it wrong and I dare say in fact lied to you on all of those is telling you the truth now on Ray Epps.
They ran...
It's not a fluff piece.
It's like a...
It's a massage piece.
It's the most biggest piece of...
Partisan propagandist garbage.
Ray Epps is the victim of the Trump crowd because he was just duped into supporting Trump and now he's being used as the scapegoat.
For anybody who doesn't know who Ray Epps is, I can't read it without a paywall.
I'll get there.
Ray Epps is the guy who was seen on camera the day before the protests saying, we got to go to the Capitol.
We got to go in the Capitol.
And you hear the crowd.
Start calling him names, calling him fed, fed, fed.
The day of, he's there directing people down to the Capitol.
He was on the FBI's most wanted list in the first days of this and then mysteriously removed.
And according to the article, the reason why he was removed from the FBI's wanted list is because he called them up and collaborated, cooperated with them.
Much like Brandon Strzok, who ended up in jail for a couple of days, house arrest and whatever.
He's now allegedly the victim of the right.
Whereas...
Everyone on the right has been brutalized by the system, brutalized by the Department of Justice.
This guy who was not brutalized by the system or brutalized by the Department of Justice, he's being brutalized by Trump supporters used as a scapegoat.
Robert, does someone have to be an actual Fed to be a Fed or do you call assets Feds as well?
Sure.
I mean, I consider informants, infiltrators.
All of those people, what they call confidential human sources in their internal language, all the same.
So just because someone doesn't have any official paycheck or an official position doesn't change their role in instigation of an event when they're informants and infiltrators and have a special role in relationship with the federal law enforcement branches, which is...
Pervasive throughout, as Gateway Pundit had a couple of exclusives this past week, the past two weeks, about the scale and scope of which they were planning this event inside the government in certain parts, and that the number of informants even exceeds what anyone believes or fully knows.
And that's why it's taking the direction that it is.
But unfortunately, the courts have not been vigorous at enforcing venue transfer requests, at enforcing meaningful jury selection, at enforcing dismissal for government misconduct grounds, at meaningfully limiting the congressional obstruction statutes, or providing the scope of discovery necessary to expose government misconduct.
Or punishing any government misconduct that is documented or detailed.
So that's why these cases, despite the scale of misconduct and malfeasance that's been taking place and has been increasingly detailed and documented by both lawyers and independent journalists, like Julie Kelly, who we will be interviewing this week on Wednesday on Sidebar, has covered this for American greatness and has probably been along with Darren Beatty, who we've already interviewed.
I've been one of the primary people covering the scandal that is the January 6th weaponized, politicized prosecutions.
If anybody does not already follow Julie Kelly, she is my, not my go-to, she is the essential where I get bombarded with January 6th news.
Amazing.
And stubbornly clinging, stubbornly continuing to focus on this.
It's an injustice.
I don't care what anybody thinks how bad the protest was, how bad the right was.
It's an outright political witch hunt of an injustice that's being carried out in real time.
Robert, I'm going to share this just so we can just go through some of the highlights.
Just fluff piece is not the word.
It's political jack-offery is what it is.
This is the article.
A Trump backer's downfall as the target of a January 6th conspiracy theory.
They lied about Hitler.
They lied about Stalin.
They lied about Hiroshima.
They covered, they worked with CIA to put out incorrect information about the negative effects of the fallout, literal, of the atomic bomb.
But trust them now.
Ray Epps became the unwitting face of an attempt by pro-Trump force.
And notice the mischaracterization there.
So, what is the idea that's baseless?
It's something that people haven't actually said.
No one said the FBI was...
Behind the attack on the Capitol.
They've said the FBI had informants and infiltrators and instigators to make certain behavior more likely to occur.
Not that it was solely and wholly an FBI event.
So they create, that's called a straw man.
You create a fake version of your opponent's argument.
You say, that's baseless.
Trying to infer anything associated or affiliated with the argument is.
This is what journalists do.
They're just liars.
They're pathological propagandists.
And the New York Times is one of the worst offenders.
This was, again, the main publication that pushed the lie about weapons of mass destruction that got us into the Iraq War, just as one of their most recent examples of the big lie told so often by the New York Times.
I want to get to the one part, which is...
Oh, listen to this.
By the way, this is shocking.
Mr. Epps further acknowledged that while he moved past barricades into a restricted area of the Capitol grounds, he did not go into the building itself.
The vast majority of those who did not enter the building or commit additional crimes have not been charged.
This is, by the way, admission of a crime.
This is admission of a crime that is, if not more serious, at the very least, as serious as a number of...
Especially if you read the last part of the paragraph above.
They admit that, I mean, they bury in the story why the baseless conspiracy theory is neither baseless nor just a theory.
It's Mr. Epps admitted he sent to his nephew text where he discussed how he helped to orchestrate.
The movement of people who are leaving Trump's speech near the White House by pointing them in the direction of the Capitol, as he was the night before, demanding they go into the Capitol.
Now, the mistake he made is he made that speech with a bunch of Alex Jones fans around, and they spotted him right away.
They're like, you're a Fed.
Yeah, we know who you are, pal.
Go find a different audience.
And he did.
The next day, he found a different audience to get them in that direction, admitted it in writing, admitted it he breached the Capitol grounds, admitted he committed the same trespass.
Almost all these other people are being prosecuted for, and it's the New York Times running cover because they're the favorite paper of the CIA spooks, the deep state operators, and the corrupt acts in the FBI.
By the way, Brandon Strzok did less than this.
Brandon Strzok never entered a building.
He was on a restricted grounds, never entered the building.
Nor did Owen Troyer.
Owen Schroer never entered the building.
By the way, Robert, listen to this.
By the time the violence started spreading, Mr. Epps had already left the Capitol, having helped to get a sick protester to save.
Yeah, right, right.
That's his pretext for after having pulled off the instigation and helped effectuate it, he got out of Dodge so that he couldn't get personally in the middle of it.
The article is nauseating.
And in fact, the way it reads is it tells you everything.
It tells you everything in there, but it's like it frames it in a way that is...
Well, any doubt that Ray Epps was an informant and instigator for deep state operators to help create the conditions of January 6th was put to rest when the New York Times is running cover stories for him.
And they recognize and admit everything.
It's exactly like the Time article on how they fortified the election.
They admit to everything.
A secret cabal controlling the media, influencing, infiltrating politicians, changing the laws.
They admit to it.
But they tell it to you in a way that makes you feel good about believing the lie.
People who want to believe that Ray Epps, he's not a Fed.
I presume if he were a Fed, we would know by now.
Oh, yeah.
Most of these kind of gray space operators, you know, that will be talked about in the book.
Like, Walker was no longer an active general, a military official at the time he was helping conspire to kill the president of the United States.
Now, he had a lot of ties and connections to those folks, but the gray space operators rarely have a badge because they don't want...
Those people to be caught in the middle of it.
They use informants and instigators and infiltrators for that.
Just like the Whitmer case unveiled on a major scale.
So it's the same style of operation.
And folks, it's election fornication.
That's what took place.
And to say, I want to know if he was on a payroll.
I doubt he was a Fed.
I bet money.
Sooner bet on this than bet on Black.
He was a paid informant at the very least.
Because by the way, look at this.
Right here.
That trailer behind him?
This is, you know, he's a nice, look how sweet old man he is.
He can't send him to jail.
He's too old.
But the cancer patient, the elderly lady cancer patient, who did nothing any different, really meaningfully than him, is going to prison.
Someone will say she entered the building, so meaningfully different.
Maybe she committed additional crimes.
I just want to highlight, that trailer behind him, and I now know from experience, that's not a cheap trailer.
That's at least $150,000.
If not more.
Those trailers are expensive.
This guy's got a fancy trailer.
He's sold his house.
He's pocketed all this cash.
He's got his nice trailer.
And he's hiding because of Trump.
Not because he may or may not have been a paid informant or a paid agitator.
And quite clearly was cooperating with the FBI and has been handsomely forgiven for it.
Because at the very least, he's not going to jail.
And at the very worst, he was there setting it up so that people would go to jail.
Okay, so Bannon goes to trial.
January 6th committee hearings is a kangaroo court political witch hunt.
I think we all knew that.
Robert, segue into something else.
The other big news this week, of course, was the fight between Elon Musk and Twitter.
Speaking of politically motivated cases in part.
So the media has tried to spin the case.
Twitter filed suit demanding that Elon Musk, now demanding that he buy it.
All the media originally didn't want him to buy it.
Now they're demanding he buy it.
Which tells you something.
If Twitter really has all this value, like one of the Saudi royals who has got monetary ties in stocks and Twitter claimed, why are they wanting to force Musk to buy it?
It's kind of an admission that it's way overvalued, that they sold it to him at an inflated price, and their basis for it is, well, he waived due diligence.
And this has been a broad misunderstanding by some of the so-called legal experts out there, which is that typically in a merger and acquisition, you have a due diligence period before there's closing.
So you go through, like, it depends, sometimes 90 days, sometimes six months.
It varies.
A lot of corporate law firms make a lot of money off this.
And they pour through all the documents and information before agreeing to close.
Musk waived the due diligence so people thought, oh, that means he doesn't have any claims.
But that's not what happened.
So when Musk filed his response, and he always said from the get-go, the devil will be in the details.
I was on with Allison Morrow, as you were, describing your fleeing Kamida.
It was an amazingly performing stream for Alison, which is fantastic.
Alison Morrow is also on Locals, Robert.
Yes, alisonmorrow.locals.com.
One L. Yeah, one L. Like Ali, like Muhammad Ali.
She's the son of Muhammad Ali, Ali-san.
Morrow at.locals.com.
But what Musk did is Musk changed the negotiation terms.
So he was like, I'll waive due diligence.
However, you're going to agree that certain information is accurate and you're going to covenant to provide information as part of it.
So all he did is really kind of recodify due diligence in a different way within the mergers and acquisitions agreement.
And you're going to say every statement you've ever made to the SEC is absolutely true.
Particularly as to issues concerning bots as a precondition of the mergers and acquisition agreement.
And you're going to provide an information covenant that you're going to give me anything I need that reasonably relates to this sale as before we do closing.
And closing itself doesn't have to be financed until April of next year.
Twitter was pretending that the closing date was October.
In fact, the financing date's the real closing date with an agreement to stay the closing date pending litigation.
So Twitter comes in and they demand an immediate suit.
They demand an immediate trial.
They demand a trial within two months.
They don't want a lot of discovery to take place.
And they're really trying to re-script the narrative.
They don't want the narrative out there to be they have a huge bot problem.
Instead, they want the narrative to be all about Elon Musk.
Elon Musk ran Twitter's stock has gone down.
Musk doesn't have the same financing he did when he originally did this deal, and he's just trying to weasel out of the deal because of this.
And he also can't assert our breach of any covenant because he breached his own covenants by public statements.
And that's their claim.
His response is, the whole thing was always about purging Twitter of its bots, that they made explicit promises that those statements were true.
And when he started asking for information, he discovered they don't have a meaningful way of measuring bots.
This idiot G. Elliot Morris, who's one of these fake pollster analysis, and I say fake because he's terrible at it, predicted, you know, he's predicted a bunch of stuff wrong.
You could follow him to know what side to bet against.
He's like Nate Silver.
Whichever side Nate's on, bet the other way.
You'll probably make more money over time.
Whether sports or politics.
The better polling analyst is always Richard Barris at People's Pundit Daily, who's been the most accurate pollster six years running.
So if you look at what you dig into it and the meat of the suit, I think Musk has a stronger claim.
His claim is, we shouldn't go to trial in October.
We should go to trial in February.
That's before the drop-dead closing financing date of April.
Number one.
Number two, this is a discovery-intensive case because we want to figure out what's happening because it turned out that Twitter's only way of measuring bots was to have somebody look at 100 accounts a day.
And that was it.
There was no sophistication to it whatsoever, no statistical sampling of any substance, no AI algorithmic.
And they have tons of algorithms at Twitter, but they don't have any for measuring bots, don't have any for measuring spam.
And there's really only one reason that would be.
And it's probably the real reason Twitter sued.
Because they're littered with bots and spam.
Because the whole value of Twitter is based on their real-time individual users.
Because that's how they sell their advertising.
If it turns out 20%, 25%, maybe even half in some cases are bots or not real individual human beings, then their value just disappears.
This is a problem for big tech across the board because they've likely been lying in their advertising model on Facebook, on YouTube, through Google about how many eyeballs are actually reading the advertisement because they're saying that they want the bot accounts because the bot accounts get to inflate their advertising dollars.
And that's why Twitter, when Musk found out they don't care about the bot problem because the bot problem isn't a problem for Twitter because Twitter makes money.
It's exposing the fact that their bots is a problem for Twitter.
And Musk is demanding that be the deep dive.
He also made a good argument.
He says, look, they're claiming that I did a bunch of breaches.
Well, that's a whole new ground of discovery.
We're not going to be able to get that in six weeks.
So by their own claims, we need a trial in February.
And what he wants is he wants a deep dive into what the scale and scope of the bot problem is at Twitter, expert testimony, analytics, etc.
Because Twitter clearly has a big bot problem.
And it could mean the end of Twitter financially as a valuable stock.
In the same way that Facebook suit that they face for lying to advertisers about how many eyeballs were on those accounts, they knew a bunch of them were fake accounts, spam accounts, bot accounts.
That's what the case is really about.
I think Musk should win when the trial date takes place, and that will be a sign that he's on pace to prevail ultimately.
So all the predictions of doom and gloom for Musk.
I don't see this judge, based on these set of facts, ordering a quick trial.
And I don't see this.
There's always a chance of it.
If that's the case, the judge is in the bag for Twitter.
But I think usually Delaware Chancery Court judges value their perception of independence in business more than their political affiliations, because that's why so many businesses register in Delaware in part.
reliability of the independence and impartiality of the chancery courts in Delaware.
And again, Musk has a history of winning just winning this earlier this year in a case nobody thought he was going to win.
So I think Musk will ultimately prevail against Twitter.
I'm calling it too.
To me, it's anybody who thinks he waived the due diligence and is now bound to buy it despite overt misrepresentations and arguably SEC violations.
I think they don't have a sufficient understanding of the law or due diligence at large.
When we talk about bot accounts, and I'm bringing this one out here.
These are the ones that...
There's bot, like actual robots.
This is corn, true, out.
And they're rampant, just as robotic responses to any tweet from any, I guess, reasonably sizable account.
Well, especially you see it like vaccine mandate context, Ukraine context, certain special topics.
You'll see 100 peak accounts that are these small, weird names like this.
That will tweet the exact same message.
That will be the exact same message.
I don't know if that account is a bot account or not, but bot accounts look like that.
There's an Elon Musk bot army.
All that they do is they say, go click on the link, and the link is to a watch or something.
But there's that types of bot.
Then there's the more substantive discussion as to what should be considered as a bot.
I don't remember what the term is.
They're monetizable accounts.
They're accounts that you treat as legitimate.
For advertising.
And there can be legitimate human accounts that have no interest in advertising that are not legitimate consumers, but that are there for brigading, pushing politics, pushing narratives.
And those, the question is going to be, are those bot accounts or are they regarded as bot accounts?
Because it's more than 5% outright bots.
But if you include insincere or accounts that are there for spamming and not for actual usage, it's obvious.
Twitter.
Is going to have to prove that Elon's refusal is ill-founded based on the evidence they provided.
Because his theory is they made a material statement to the SEC that they vouched for in the merger and acquisitions agreement that only 5% were bots based on a sophisticated analytical analysis.
It's not true.
It appears that at least not the last part, sophisticated analysis isn't true.
So the G. Elliott Morris was pretending that this somehow met the statistical standard.
You need to study statistics.
It's like, buddy, you can't even read a poll.
Don't tell me about statistics.
So this kind of crowd is, I think, has misunderstood what the real issue is.
The real issue is bots.
Twitter has a bunch of them, probably a lot more than they've admitted, which means they've been lying to the SEC, which means they committed a false statement of fact in the mergers and acquisitions that's grounds for him terminating the deal.
Or renegotiating it to much more favorable friendly terms.
And, if I'm not mistaken, if I'm not, you know, looking for fights, grounds for class action lawsuits by, on the one hand...
Oh yeah, the SEC cases are coming.
The SEC class actions are coming because they made, it's clearly a material statement what percentage of bots they had.
And the fact they failed to disclose that their methodology couldn't adequately and accurately even determine that in the first place is arguably by itself a materially false statement.
And that's a material adverse event for the value of Twitter, without question.
People are acting like that's a hard threshold to meet.
Not in this case, it isn't.
Winston Shittenhouse.
You know the funny thing is?
Winston has a disorder where his testicles never descended.
And I was just thinking about that today, whether or not we want to breed a blind dog with undescended testicles.
Not happening.
Nobody's being put out to stud.
Robert, hold on.
Someone had asked what I'm drinking.
It's not vodka.
Death's Door.
I won't lie.
I was taken by the name of the gin.
It's delicious.
Apparently it's from Wisconsin.
The liquor stores in America...
They drink like crazy.
The liquor stores in America have so much selection.
I've never...
In Canada, in the country that's not a communist, fascist heckhole...
Your selection is so limited by the government's stores.
It's like, here, I don't even know what to pick anymore.
So that's what's in the glass.
But I'm not promoting that.
People under 40, if you read the news, shouldn't be drinking alcohol.
Now, speaking of public health, the couple of news in the vaccine mandate context.
First, a big, big win for members of the Air Force.
A judge in Ohio certified them as a class action.
All members of the Air Force that have asserted religious exemptions or accommodation objections, which they're entitled to be enforced under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and enjoin the Air Force from punishing or disciplining any member of the Air Force based on that.
So it was a very big win for the Air Force that followed up a win previously in the year for Navy SEALs, and then I think a coming win in Florida for all other members of the military.
So ultimately, the members of the military that had a religious accommodation, I believe, asserted all the way through, will prevail in their Religious Freedom and Restoration Act claims against any vaccine mandate or disciplinary action associated or affiliated therewith.
Now, the other news in that capacity was the New York City fireman who brought a broad suit against the vaccine mandate there in New York.
And I know that there are New York City firefighters looking at filing suit for injuries caused by the vaccine.
So in particular, I was talking to them when I was up in New York, met with some New York City firemen about this.
And they're old school guys.
They politically come from all across the spectrum.
And they were like, you know, they keep telling us this was informed consent.
We weren't informed of nothing.
This wasn't informed consent.
And apparently there was a fireman who survived 9-11, who had health consequences from 9-11 that the government also lied about back then.
People forget about that.
They lied to a lot of first responders, nurses, policemen, firemen, about what happened in 9-11, the toxicity of some of the things that they experienced there.
So they had to fight for their rights then, and apparently some of them took the vaccine in order to stay employed and now suffered injuries again.
And now the government is again trying to deny them any relief or any remedy for their injury.
So we're looking at...
People forget workers' compensation laws are only an exclusive remedy for negligence.
They are generally not an exclusive remedy for intentional injury.
And my view is some of the...
Everybody involved in the New York City level, I think, can be individually sued for mandating or instituting this vaccine mandate, and particularly giving misleading...
We're looking at who we can sue on behalf of these New York City firemen because of what took place.
An intentional injury is not subject usually to workers' comp as an exclusive means of remedy.
You can sue them under regular tort law when it's an intentional injury.
And so they're going to be looking at that as well as the injury data.
It continues to show problematic and disturbing trends.
Problematic.
Robert, no medical advice, people.
No legal advice, although you can construe it as that way sometimes.
Listen to this.
Robert, I know you've seen it.
I'm just going to bring it back up just to highlight.
Listen to this, people.
I just recommend it to everybody instead of saying it's a personal decision.
Because at present, we're doing a risk-based approach.
What's the risk?
The risk?
There's always a risk to having any therapeutic.
Therapeutic.
To having any therapeutic.
Therapeutic.
This is my remix.
You want to make sure there's a very strong benefit versus the risk.
If we're an 18-year-old healthy individual, the risk of getting hospitalized, if we have no medical illness, is very, very low.
We know there is a risk, a very small risk, one in 5,000 that may get myocarditis.
Robert?
First of all, setting aside this guy is the reincarnation of Joseph.
Is it Stalin that he looks like?
It's the reincarnation of Stalin.
Robert, setting aside that he's the reincarnation of Stalin, that's Ontario's chief medical advisor, a chief medical officer, acknowledging it's a therapeutic.
And there's a very small chance of a side effect known as myocarditis.
One in 5,000.
Robert, historically speaking, swine flu vaccine.
What were considered to be bad safety results?
Back then.
For a standard vaccine.
Much lower than that.
And the other thing is, notice what he doesn't give.
What's the risk of a young, healthy person, 18-year-old, who has no underlying medical conditions being hospitalized for COVID?
He doesn't give that.
Because that's the risk-benefit analysis, the individualized, stratified analysis that's supposed to take place.
And it hasn't taken place by any government authority I'm aware of, anywhere in the world, quite frankly.
And the CDC, the other news this week is the CDC got caught.
Freedom of Information Act request in part brought about by Children's Health Defense that continues to take the lead in all of these cases.
You know, great work to Bobby Kennedy Jr.
And again, I recommend his book on Anthony Fauci, the real Anthony Fauci, is that the FOIA information showed that CDC, as we suspected, CDC recognized.
They said, oh man, people are pointing out that this drug really doesn't meet our own definition of a vaccine.
And that will hurt the drug.
So we better just change the definition of the word vaccine.
Not, hey, it doesn't really meet the definition of a vaccine, so just admit and acknowledge that.
No, no.
Change the definition of a vaccine.
It's like Alice in Wonderland, where Humpty Dumpty says...
A word is what I say it is.
And that's what they did.
Their own emails proved they deliberately changed the definition of vaccine, not based on any legitimate medical redefinition of vaccine, not based on any legitimate legal redefinition of vaccine, but because they were being exposed that their own drug, COVID-19 drug, did not meet the legal definition of, or medical, or CDC definition of a vaccine.
That is, of course, part of our suit pending before the Western District of Texas against the Food and Drug Administration.
But further proof of it, further evidence of it came out this week.
By the way, the chat has rightly corrected me.
I meant Lenin and not Stalin.
It's Google image.
It's stunning.
You overlay the images.
It's reincarnation.
Yeah, just like Trudeau looks like Castro.
Yeah, well, that might have just been procreation.
It's been recommended by the VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com board that a future hush-hush should be a Viva done hush-hush on the real history of the Trudeau family.
And who is Justin's poppy?
I could not promise to do that.
I can contemplate that undertaking.
What was the thing I was just about to say?
But Robert, they're now just subtly, like they've always been saying it, are now admitting it's a therapeutic.
Whereas once upon a time, anybody who questioned whether or not it was a vaccine, yeeted.
One in five And that's just now.
That's just the documented cases.
Not the cases that have been suppressed.
Not the cases of people who don't know that they have experienced it.
Not the cases of people who will find out later.
Because you can get myocarditis and not know it.
You cannot know it for years.
I mean, the real problem is the long-tail risk we still don't know.
As, again, in their internal documentation, they admit.
They admit they have no idea.
This is the fastest-rushed vaccine to market in American history, number one.
Number two, the least clinically tested vaccine in American medical history.
And three...
The only mass medical experimented drug of this kind in American medical history.
So we're probably going to find out.
I mean, I know people who are experiencing...
The ratio of people that I know who took the vaccine, who have had side effects that doctors identify as side effects as this vaccine, is at a ratio of 10% or higher.
And Richard Barris' polling showed almost 5% out of the gate.
So of severe disabling medical conditions, life-threatening medical conditions.
And so it doesn't surprise me terribly that this data is going to continue to get worse before it gets better.
I try not to share my anecdotal evidence, my anecdotal experience.
That's been my experience as well.
I've known exponentially more people who have had serious issues from one thing more than the other.
But Robert, I was just trying to find the...
Soundbite when Obama said, what we've effectively done is, you know, effectively tested on billions.
What did he say?
He said...
We've live tested it on billions.
Well, check this out.
I went back to the tweet and the tweet was deleted by the author.
Yeah, of course it was.
And now I have to go find the original video.
Well, we've effectively experimented.
We've effectively tested on billions of people.
This is shocking.
I didn't realize he deleted the tweet.
Well done.
When you say the quiet part out loud, go ahead and delete it afterwards.
Well, some of these politicians should learn to talk a little less because the attacks on the Supreme Court are extraordinary.
They're very much a confession through projection context.
Like I've told people, if you want to know what's really happening in the Ukraine-Russian conflict...
Listen to what Ukraine says about Russia and assume they're talking about themselves.
More proof of that.
Because to this question, what happens when they do this?
That's what we're transitioning into right now.
Just as in Ukraine, confession through projection, and they're firing military people and security people and law enforcement people, because it turns out all of them are dissenting.
So what they were accusing Russia of, the massive dissent within their law enforcement, intelligence, and military, is in Ukraine.
And it will always come out a little bit later.
But these politicians, everything they said about Trump, they have been guilty of.
And the political weaponization of the prosecutorial process, Corrupt family members at an extraordinary level in sex scandals, personal scandals, financial scandals, bribery, extortion, embezzlement kind of activities as is detailed in every new latest Hunter Biden laptop release or phone release or leak release.
And we've seen it in the Uber leaks as well as more examples of that.
The Italian government partially collapsing because of some of its policies related to it.
But the attacks on the rule of law.
There's been no greater attack on the rule of law than what we've seen in response to the Supreme Court's latest three decisions.
Their decisions on the Second Amendment, their decisions on abortion, their decisions on the power of the administrative state are all going to get tested right away.
State of New York, now a bunch of the states, California, everybody's trying to figure out ways to completely ignore the Supreme Court's ruling.
So they want to stack SCOTUS.
They can't stack SCOTUS.
They want to scrap SCOTUS.
And their means of scrapping SCOTUS, some have explicitly called for abolishing the Supreme Court.
That shows you where the left is.
The law is just a tool, just a means to an end.
They don't care about principle at all.
It is the effort to now get around and directly confront.
The Supreme Court's rulings.
So the state of New York rushes in, does a quick legislation without meaningful public participation, and the way they fix the problem, again, it was the state of New York that was overturned for its bad laws relating to gun control.
So they come in and they replace, their new standard is you have to have good character.
Again, the Supreme Court said you can't have a limit on licensing to bear arms.
So what do they do?
They just change the definition of what the limit is rather than recognizing they couldn't limit this in the first place.
And not only do they require good character, they require you to go through an inquisition-type process where you have to disclose your family members, your friends, other people who vouch for you.
You have to disclose everyone you live with.
You have to disclose everyone you have relations with.
Not only that, you have to disclose all your social media accounts.
You have to disclose your whole political history.
It's absurd.
It shows what they've always been about.
It was never even about gun control.
It was about restricting people's liberties and rights and having the state have not only a monopoly on the means of violence, but a monopoly in control over you.
It's a Stasi-style, Soviet-style enforcement mechanism.
And then they defined sensitive places, despite the Supreme Court saying, look...
Don't create something that's a substitute for this.
Don't create a system that has excessive fines.
And don't define sensitive locations as every place in your state.
That's pretty much what New York does.
They go in and create a worse restriction on the ability to bear arms.
They create a system, a training system that's going to be 10 times more expensive than the current one.
So it's basically an excessive fine provision.
And then they redefine sensitive locations to basically include the whole state.
If there's a government entity nearby, if there's a government finance entity nearby, if there's a health entity nearby, if there's education nearby, if there's children nearby, if there's a park nearby, basically it's the whole state.
You can't bear arms.
So it's a patently unconstitutional provision.
They have brought a great suit challenging it.
And it's clear the courts are going to have to start going Brown v.
Board style, holding people in contempt in state governments because they will not obey the U.S. Constitution.
When you have the Secretary, we have the President of the United States calling for not obeying it, the Vice President of the United States calling for not obeying the Supreme Court, the Secretary of Human Health and Services saying he's not to not obey the Supreme Court.
And you have governors and legislators saying we're not.
We are in a constitutional crisis stage because the left never gave a darn about the Constitution or respect for the rule of law.
What they accused Trump of is what they were always about, which is disrespect for the rule of law and the ends justify the means.
This New York law shows what they're really about, basically taking red flag principles and making a precondition for even getting a gun in the first place and a good lawsuit challenging it that should.
Strike down all of these ridiculous provisions.
But this is the issue, Robert.
They just got struck down by the Supreme Court, and so now what do they do?
They come in with new regulations, and they say, if you don't like it, take us to court.
And I think you touched on the remedy, the ultimate remedy.
This is like Sisyphus pushing up a rock.
It's like you push it up and it falls back down.
They're going to...
A new regulation.
So what is the ultimate sanction to make sure that they don't just come back after every court ruling, striking it down, saying...
Here's another variation.
Let's try this one.
What is the sanction?
Contempt?
Yeah, ultimately that's where they have to go.
I mean, they're holding Steve Bannon in contempt because he thought executive privilege applied to the provisions to a congressional committee he properly thought was not properly formed.
Whereas these people are, and they're saying it.
They're saying overtly, Supreme Court's gone too far, we're going to ignore it.
I mean, they're saying this openly and publicly.
So at some point...
I mean, right now, they make the state pay attorney's fees for having to litigate it, have another court issue injunctions.
But it's like Brown v.
Board.
Ultimately, the only way you really enforce that is you start holding people in contempt.
But they pay the legal fees.
That's taxpayer dollars.
Nobody's paying anything.
I mean, other than being politically unpopular, it's not out of their pocket.
But hold on.
I just want to bring this one up.
Lewis S., I'm not trying to put you on blast.
Your 1 in 5,000 stat isn't accurate.
You have to be more diligent with your poke sources.
I like you guys, but Barnes gets lazy with the poke evidence.
I just quoted from the chief medical advisor officer of Ontario who literally said 1 in 5,000 for myocarditis of young males, I think in particular.
And that's only, again, what's been documented in detail.
That's the low end.
Chances are it's going to be substantially high.
No question.
And they'll pretend they always said it was higher.
So you might have missed that part where I actually played the video.
Kieran Moore, Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.
So, but Robert, to punish them, contempt is the only meaningful sanction because that affects them personally.
In order to pay costs, they pay it with taxpayer dollars so they might get outed from office the next time.
This is like, it's like whack-a-mole, except it's whack-a, whack-a Democrat politician in terms of them just passing a different variation of the very same regulation that was just struck down by the Supreme Court.
What's even more egregious is what's taking place in the abortion context.
So also the people have added there is a lawsuit now challenging the national firearms registry, the federal gun control laws.
Congress is trying to pass some more limits this week.
Which is just incredible.
I mean, again, it's an attempt to override the Supreme Court, but there's lawsuits challenging that.
There's going to be more lawsuits.
There's lawsuits challenging existing magazine restrictions, all the other restrictions that no longer are constitutional under Supreme Court analysis of that decision.
You're going to see a bunch of...
Gun control laws struck down over the next six months to a year.
And you're going to see a bunch of politicians writing checks to Second Amendment lawyers all across the country.
But the other aspect has, of course, been Roe.
And the attempts to overturn Roe.
Recommendations to establish abortion clinics on federal parkland.
Recommendations to establish abortion clinics on floating ships in international waters or federally controlled waters.
And the one that the Biden administration has actually done.
Which is through the Secretary of Health and Human Services, once again skipping the notice and comment process, once again skipping all of the democratic participatory role for the administrative state, is they are misusing an emergency law governing hospitals not kicking out poor patients to say that now every hospital in the country has to provide abortion services as an emergency treatment.
Now, there's many problems with that.
It led to Attorney General Paxton filing suit on behalf of the state of Texas, challenging it in Texas, the Northern District of Texas and the Lubbock Division, pointing out all the problems with this.
The first one is that, of course, they don't have the authority to do it.
The Emergency Act, what happened was Congress in the mid-90s.
You had hospitals that would play, you know...
If somebody was too poor to afford care and wasn't covered by either Medicare or Medicaid, they would kick them out to whatever hospital might cover them.
So you had poor people in emergency rooms having to go from hospital to hospital to hospital.
So they passed a law that said if you get Medicare funding, don't do that anymore.
That's all the law stands for.
That law is the one that now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the former corrupt attorney general of the state of California, is now saying, and after that, Senator, is that that law means that doctors have to provide abortion and that this executive official's rule overrides and preempts state law.
It's what, by the way, conservative critics always said about Medicare, Medicaid, other aspects of federal care.
They said this will be used to co-opt the practice of and profession of medicine to preempt the state's rights to regulate and control the practice of profession of medicine within their state.
So he's brought suit.
He said, first of all, they don't have the authority to do it because the law never gave it to them.
Second, they don't have authority to do it because they didn't go through the APA.
It's an arbitrary and capricious action.
There was no notice and comment, period.
They didn't even explain effectively why they did it and how they did it in a way that's APA compliant.
Third, violates the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reserves this exclusively to the people.
And last but not least, two other provisions.
It violates the spending clause, because what Congress can't do is use its leverage, or federal government can't say, hey, we give you some money, so now we get to control your life, unless it was part of the original monetary package in the first place.
You can't post hoc attach strings to the money.
When you send the money, you can attach strings to it at that time, but you can't attach it later.
Supreme Court's made this clear repeatedly.
So it's an excessive use of the spending clause power.
And then last but not least, it's exactly what the Supreme Court said you couldn't do in the EPA case.
You cannot delegate, an administrative agency cannot claim it has legislative power on major questions, and this clearly is such a major question, when it is that the law itself didn't give it to you.
One, two other ancillary provisions, this executive order actually violates federal law.
Because it violates the Hyde Amendment and violates the Weldon Amendment.
The Hyde Amendment said no federal funds can go to support abortion, period.
And the Weldon Amendment said you can't discriminate in any way, shape, or form in federal spending based on someone denying access to abortion.
So Texas should win this case across the board and kill this latest Biden proposal to try to undermine the Supreme Court's order.
It's not exceedingly rare, actually.
It's a 1 in 50 case of ectopic pregnancy to say they're going to be denied abortions for ectopic pregnancies when it's an important distinction.
Termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not even considered an abortion.
It's not covered by the abortion ban.
It's a medical procedure because ectopic pregnancies, as I now know, exceptions aside, like rarities aside, are necessarily fatal and therefore pose a great risk to the mother.
With no risk of viability to the ectopic pregnant unborn.
So it doesn't even affect that.
But they use that as though...
And Texas, by the way, like Ohio, has an exception for the life of the mother or severe harm to the mother in its abortion laws, just as Ohio did.
We got more information on the 10-year-old case.
It appears to be a politically staged case because they could have got the procedure in Ohio.
It turns out that a 27-year-old illegal immigrant, non-resident, I think it's illegal alien, would be the legal terminology under our federal law.
So if people don't like it, take it up with the federal law.
That's the legal definition.
And was the rapist.
And it appears that they went to Indiana maybe in part to cover up his complicity because the doctor misidentified, the abortionist misidentified his age as 17 rather than 27. The whole fact this ever went public at all meant it was a politically staged event as Tim Poole has identified that everything about this smacks of being a politically staged event.
Texas similarly has those exceptions already written.
They're trying to redefine emergency care to mean any abortion period.
Is what they're trying to do.
And it's a patent attempt to misuse and abuse federal authority to strip a state of its constitutionally preserved under the 10th Amendment rights.
So they should win on every single one of the claims, least of all just a single one of them.
So hopefully Texas will put an end to this latest attempt to subvert the Supreme Court by the Biden administration.
I wanted to pull up Biden talking about the extremists.
The SCOTUS has been taken over by...
What did he say?
Out-of-control judges doing the bidding of extremist elements of the Republican Party.
And these are the people accusing others of insurrectionist behavior when they are basically saying, we're going to defy the judicial branch and the rulings of the judicial branch.
The executive now runs the judicial and they're the ones accusing others of insurrection.
Robert, it's nuts, but it's par for the course.
No doubt.
One other component.
Congress is talking about passing a law of federalizing abortion protection.
They can't.
Two reasons.
The profession and practice of medicine is delegated to the states and of health care in general.
So it's not an area they can federalize.
And that's part one under the 10th Amendment.
Secondly, this has been clarified by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act case.
So originally Congress wanted to overturn the Supreme Court's limiting of the First Amendment's application in the religious context.
So they passed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
But what did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court said you can't apply that to the states.
You can apply that to the federal government, but you can't apply it to the states because that's outside of your congressional authority.
So you cannot congressionally reverse the Supreme Court of the United States in that way.
You can only congressionally reverse the Supreme Court when they're interpreting a statute and then can impose a statute.
Or when they say there's no congressional remedy yet, you can then provide one.
What you can't do is overturn their interpretation of the Constitution.
Under existing law.
So all these people saying they're going to federalize abortion protection, that is not something that can be constitutionally done either.
I want to get to one thing in a second.
Let me just read two rumble rants.
We've got from Hamartix says these vaccines are actually something called a transfection, which I usually did on cultured cells.
So this individual sounds like they know what they're talking about, but no medical advice and no legal advice.
Federalism.
This is from Boulgadadi.
No state would have joined the union if they knew they would lose their sovereignty.
Speaking of losing their sovereignty, Robert, what do you make of Gavin Newsom parading around the White House like he's trying out a used vehicle?
Yeah, people can go to...
I did a detailed discussion.
We discussed the various shenanigans people can look at as possibilities for what may be taking place with all the people vying to supplant Joe Biden in the White House on the Democratic side between Kamala Harris.
Pete Buttigieg, or Boot Boot Edge Edge, however you say his name.
I have a different pronunciation, but I'll save it from YouTube.
Or Gavin Newsom, who are all angling to kick the old man out as soon as they possibly can, given his collapsing approval ratings.
But I don't know if he has...
There isn't a constitutional remedy for their objection to the Second Amendment decision, for their objection to the...
In fact, by the way, the New York case also raises First Amendment objections because you have a right of anonymous speech, you have anonymous political activity, a right of association, and clearly what the New York law is trying to do is also violate people's First Amendment rights by conditioning one constitutional right on another.
If you want your Second Amendment right, you have to forfeit your First Amendment right.
That itself...
It's called Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine is itself unconstitutional.
You can't make condition one on the other.
But speaking of First Amendment claims and other kind of claims, an ex-porn star went to nursing school.
She didn't publicly obviously go around bragging about her prior history, but somebody found out about it.
And the nursing school didn't like that.
They're like, that's not a respectable nurse.
So they decided to discriminate against her, and she sued.
And it was an interesting particular aspect of the suit, which is we're seeing this more and more recognized.
The more and more courts are recognizing that what a college promises explicitly as part of its recruitment to get people to campus is itself a contract.
That can be binding against them.
And that because they breached that contract as well as commit other violations in the process, she was awarded a very substantial financial reward of what would have been her nursing career's payoffs.
So it was promising starting to limit these colleges acting in political willy-nilly ways against what they promised people who rely upon those promises to their detriment.
To seek recognizable action.
I'm surprised I didn't read that porno actress turned nurse discriminated against.
I would have read it thoroughly and maybe done some additional research to see exactly what she was.
I don't think she was one of the people out on Fremont Street.
I was trying to get you to take photos with her.
Dear God.
Paint people can serve as a bikini.
I discovered that.
In Las Vegas.
Robert, the case that you sent that I found particularly interesting is the class action lawsuit against Uber.
Uber is facing a class action lawsuit because allegedly failing to ensure that their drivers are sufficiently vetted, failing to protect the well-being of their users.
And I didn't know this.
There were a thousand cases of some form of assault, varying degrees of severity up from the lesser degrees of severity to the severest.
A thousand cases in 2020 alone.
And I've only discovered Uber.
As you know, Robert, in Vegas.
I've never had the Uber app on my phone.
And I had these questions.
How do they vet the people?
How do they make sure that the drivers are good?
How do they make sure that the pickups are good?
I figured it would be safer than taxi riding.
I think it's probably safer for the driver, but not necessarily for the user now.
A thousand cases of some form of sexual assault in 2020.
And what is alleged in the lawsuit?
You know more than me.
They were not doing background checks.
They were not requiring fingerprints.
They were basically, for the sake of growth, allowing anyone and everyone to drive an Uber.
Which resulted in some serious problems.
Do you know more details of the overall context to Uber as a business?
So there's been the Uber files.
So a lot of leaked information has been released about how Uber corrupted a lot of governing officials all around the globe, including in Italy, but not limited to there, all over the place.
And what Uber set out to do is to pretend that they were an app, that they were not a taxi service.
That's why they...
Refused to register as a taxi service.
That's why they got into major litigation about whether they had to provide workers' comp or they had to provide employee compensation or whether they could treat them as 1099 instead of W-2 employees.
So they marketed themselves as better than a taxi, but internally treated themselves as not at all like a taxi.
And as part of that process, clearly imposed no meaningful limitations or restrictions in the training and hiring process.
So usually when assault cases arise, they're really tough to prove because courts don't like to hold employers responsible for the intentional torts of their employees or their contractors.
But over time, they've allowed negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent, and it can happen to landlord contacts, things like that.
If you did something that could have easily prevented the injury from occurring, they've increasingly held you more responsible for it.
And so Uber was clearly, you know, basically, if you were a rapist, no better opportunity than become an Uber driver.
They should have put that ad up because that was effectively how they were functioning.
And they were putting people with clear, documented records of sexual assault in a position to drive and pick up young women without notice of the risk to those young women.
And many of them became victims consequently.
And so that's what they got exposed for.
And you combine the Uber leaks, the Uber files leaks, with this suit kind of following up on that, you can see that Uber's in some legal trouble because of their pernicious behavior.
And someone in the chat rightly said, you know, a thousand assaults in however many rides.
But it doesn't really work like that because if you can attribute negligence to even the thousand...
In the hundreds of millions of rides, it's a problem.
And for them to not be doing sufficient background checks for the sake of growth and allowing anyone...
I mean, I had the question.
I guarantee that Uber is safer for the rider, but more risky for the passenger.
A taxi driver...
Exceptions aside, it's not going to do anything.
They have a medallion.
They have their certification.
Incidents have happened, but taxi companies have long imposed these background check requirements for the most part, whereas Uber just didn't because Uber wanted to pretend.
Uber didn't want the responsibility.
Uber wanted the money.
And so that's why Uber did what they did.
And they did this in many contexts, and this is just one of the more egregious ones.
And they figured out their way to get approval without meeting the regular standards was just to bribe a lot of people, which is what the Uber files and the Uber leaks fully disclose and divulge.
So now, I don't know if it's as bad as getting some toxic Skittles.
Okay, I didn't get to this one, Robert.
We always say, like, if you know one in a hundred is bad, if there's one...
Poison Skittle in a bag of 100.
You won't eat the bag.
Robert, what the heck?
Am I going to have to worry about eating Skittles now?
They apparently have titanium dioxide in them.
And it's already been banned in Europe because apparently titanium dioxide has genotoxicity.
By the way, that's one of the things they never even tested the vaccines for.
What is genotoxicity?
I'm not a scientist, not a doctor.
This is not medical advice.
This is just old-fashioned information the best I understand it.
Well, apparently, genotoxicity is when something, as my understanding, can change your DNA or can impact your DNA.
So, in other words, real problem.
In other words, genotoxicity.
Toxic to your genes.
So, not a good thing, usually.
And apparently this is in it.
Now, guess what Skittles' excuse is?
So Skittles is facing a class action for having this in it because Skittles is known from the European investigations that this is very dangerous.
They shouldn't have it in it.
They promised to take it out.
They haven't taken it out.
Guess what agency they're hiding behind?
Not FDA, I was going to say.
Yes.
No, FDA.
I'm an idiot.
Okay.
That's it.
Hey, the FDA said it's okay.
So, you know, again, folks, one out of three drugs the FDA approves for public marketing has to later be revoked because of how dangerous it turns out to be.
They have the worst track record of any public health agency probably in the history of the world.
Robert, titanium dioxide is in sunscreen.
You're going to make me now think I'm right for not wanting to wear sunscreen.
Oh, I think that is wise.
There's a lot of lawsuits around a lot of sunscreens, actually.
There's a range of people that say don't take sunscreen.
But this isn't enough.
You're eating this one.
I used to like Skittles.
I think I'll stay away from them.
I've stayed away from them for some time.
I'm not taking anything that's got genotoxicity in it.
I don't think so.
It's a persuasive case that's uniquely beneficial somehow.
You're going to get railed, Robert, because you smoke cigars and they're going to see there's...
This is healthy.
George Burns, Mark Twain, proven health, proven health.
Mark Twain had a breakfast cigar, post-breakfast cigar, pre-lunch cigar, post-lunch cigar, early afternoon cigar, pre-dinner cigar, post-dinner cigar, and before you go to bed cigar.
And George Burns lived almost forever.
So I'll trust their examples.
And I'll say, I'll just pick my vice.
My vice might happen to be gin.
I know it's not good for you.
Whoever just came out and said, the media says no one under 40 should be drinking alcohol.
I try not to put everything in the framework of by 2030, you'll own nothing and be happy.
They're coming out and telling people under 40 not to drink alcohol at all.
Why give idiotic advice when you know no one's going to follow it?
Unless there's an intention of imposing it.
But yeah, genotoxicity, titanium dioxide in suntan lotion.
And now I'm thinking I'm never leaving the house again.
Okay.
You got to enjoy the dry heat of Vegas.
What do you think about the dry heat?
How did it compare to the humid heat of Florida?
Okay, so I'll tell you this.
I now love rainfall.
I walk the dog in the rain.
The lightning.
I'm getting used to the lightning.
Today, two bolts struck within a kilometer of me.
I think I'm getting used to it, but the dry heat in Vegas is beautiful.
I love the desert.
I don't like sweating through my shirts day in and day out, but...
Well, you know, speaking of skincare, Bath& Body Works was also sued this week on false advertising claims.
What I was following it for was for its doctrine on standing because that has broader applications in a range of contexts, such as the FDA.
Falsely advertising the COVID-19 vaccines.
But it was an interesting suit.
They said that you do have the right to sue if the product is substantially similar to a product you have or would purchase in the future.
That's enough for declaratory equitable relief and damages.
And the allegation is that it was interesting what the excuses they offer.
So the, uh, basically the allegation is that a bunch of the different Bath and Bath and Body Works, uh, products lie about the quality of those products.
And the allegations are in a range of allegations that I won't get into in terms of the details.
But what was interesting is that their defense was, well, one, this is Puffery, I mean, you can call something fast and it's not subject to suit.
You can say a whole bunch of things that as long as it's puffery magically vanishes from either defamation or false advertising place.
But they did a good, robust interpretation of standing to allow the suit to move forward for most of the claims.
But the other aspect was, in terms of false advertising, was it's interesting how far they go to protect corporations.
So they say that a corporation cannot be accused even of false advertising unless all of the scientific data agrees that their statement is scientifically false.
That'll never happen.
If there's a single scientific study out there that says, That's what they do for big corporations.
They have a different standard in a bunch of other contexts when they don't like what natural health people are doing, when they don't like what other people are doing.
So it's an interesting contrast.
I'm always not skeptical.
I'm skeptical of claims about false advertising.
The burger wasn't as big as it looked in the picture.
And I tend to think these are people who are whining.
It's like Falling Down.
The movie Falling Down.
I saw a great meme that said, I was a kid.
I didn't understand this movie.
Now I was an adult.
I get it.
I totally get it.
Does that hamburger look like that hamburger?
That hamburger doesn't look like that hamburger.
I got to watch that movie again.
By the way, so I don't wear antiperspirant.
I wear deodorant because it doesn't have that aluminum whatever.
Because I noticed whenever I wore antiperspirant, this is going back 20 years.
White shirts would get yellow under the armpit.
They would not when I used deodorant.
And then I just happened to put two and two together.
There's something in antiperspirant that stops your body from perspiring, which can't be good for you.
Bed, Bath& Beyond.
Hold on.
I had another thought.
There was another thought.
I think I flagged it.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Okay.
No, that's the one I got.
Oh.
No, forget it.
I forgot now.
Damn it.
Well, speaking of drugs.
The women's NBA player, Greiner, who got picked up in a Russian airport for having a bunch of drugs in her carry-on bag, is pled guilty this week in Russia, likely hoping to get a low sentence.
A lot of people testify very favorably to her character in those proceedings.
And here's the two sort of narratives out there.
Her narrative and the West narrative is that this is a politically motivated prosecution, that she was arrested after the Ukrainian conflict had begun to have a bargaining chip with the United States, and that that's why they prosecuted her in the first place.
And then on the flip side, the Russian narrative is she was randomly caught in a dog testing at the airport.
And she had a bunch of illegal drugs on her.
And the illegal drugs were the kind that were sufficiently in volume to equal the smuggling charge.
And I have a mixed...
I think both are partially right.
So I'm not buying...
Like Greiner's story is that she accidentally forgot that they were in the bag.
It's marijuana vape for anybody who's not familiar.
It was a bunch of cartridges.
So it wasn't like one reefer.
It wasn't...
Honestly, it didn't seem to be enough just for personal consumption.
I'll put it that way.
And the kind of people who smuggle drugs into Russia are going to be people like celebrities and other people, typically.
And if you're a drug smuggler, that's who you look for.
You look for pilots, you look for airline staff, and you look for celebrities, famously in the French Connection.
It was a major TV broadcaster, I believe, for France and pilots who were doing the smuggling.
So there's actually probably will be part of America's untold stories, David Ferry and other stories, about how they were connected to smuggling operations while they were airline pilots and that got some of them fired.
And then they picked up other occupations.
But that's another story for another day.
Another future t-shirt title.
But so I'm not quite buying her story, nor am I buying the Russian story that they truly thought this case was so significant.
That they had to fully prosecute rather than come up with a different solution.
I think it is a bargaining chip because of people.
There have been a good number of Russians that have been, particularly in the Russiagate era, but even before then, that were targeted by U.S. authorities probably for political purposes that are Russian natives or once were Russian natives who are in U.S. prisons.
And so that may end.
This was all happening in the context of the sanctions and the rest.
But she did plead guilty.
The assumption is that there's going to be a negotiated return with the United States.
There's going to be some swap.
But I think both sides have a claim.
She really did have way too many...
Put it this way.
If she'd done that in the U.S. and it was a kind of...
There's some states that don't really meaningfully care about that.
It depends on the jurisdiction, but we've prosecuted people for less over time, to give an example.
I wanted to bring up one chat here.
Maybe don't be stupid and smuggle drugs forever.
This is the thing.
Not in your carry-on bag.
Not that many.
Not have like however many cartridges she had.
Let's just say it was a lot makes it worse.
She had been to Russia multiple times before, so she would have known the laws.
I want to bring this up, Robert, because this is fantastic.
Now, I think a lot of these drug laws are stupid, just to be out there.
And don't go to countries that don't have habeas corpus as a rule of law.
Don't go to countries that might imprison you for 10 years or 13 years hard labor for stealing government propaganda from a hotel.
Don't go to North Korea.
Don't go to countries where you might not get treated the way you think you deserve to get treated if you break the law.
Listening to Reverend Al Sharpton.
We can't sit by and watch this person just sit there and in a 99% rate of convictions face 10 years in jail.
We can't sit by.
My question is Al Sharpton, were you talking about January 6th defendants in America, or were you talking about Griner in Russia?
He was talking about Griner in Russia, but it applies perfectly, mutatis mutandis.
Yeah, the only difference is at least a few people get acquitted in Russia.
What is the federal conviction rate in D.C.?
Well, I mean, for January 6th, for the juries, it's been 100%.
There's one judge trial that is acquitted, but for all the juries, it's been 100% conviction.
And he says we can't...
Now, I am critical of the Russian justice system.
I think any justice system that has a conviction rate over 85%, just due to the risk of human error, just to the nature of human decision-making, is too high.
It's a sign of a system that's corrupt, that the juries are not acting independently, the judges are not acting independently, the prosecutors and the police cannot be trusted to be that accurate at that rate.
Human history says otherwise.
So I consider that a bad sign.
But in the United States, in the January 6th case, it's been 100%.
So in those kind of politically motivated cases, jury convictions are off the charts.
I mean, in the cases I handled in tax cases that were politically contaminated cases, the norm against lawyers not named Barnes is over 95% conviction rate.
They have about a 50%.
Affirmed conviction rate, prison rate against me.
But against everybody else, they do time.
But it is an interesting, it's a good comparison because there is, oh, how horrible it is that you have a politically motivated prosecution and somebody serving any time in jail, well, then you should be complaining about January 6th, Al, as opposed to some of Al's history of who he did promote in the past.
Ten years in jail for such an inconsequential crime.
I still liked Al better when he was fat.
I want to bring up Louis S., who seems to be insisting on digging his own hole here.
775 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis follow receipt of...
Okay.
Dr. Moore's source.
You can't believe what a government official says.
Who are you believing then?
First, you said our sources were bunk, and now the sources are government officials, and you're saying don't trust government officials?
Who do you want to trust, Louis?
You want to trust yourself.
Go ahead.
And by the way...
Speaking of politically motivated prosecutions, the Vault 7 whistleblower was found guilty of everything this week.
He represented himself pro se, but it shows that whistleblowers, that when they're blowing the whistle on government corruption that they don't like, then they also have an extraordinarily high, sadly, conviction rate.
You've got to dumb it down for people who don't know what Vault 7 is, Robert.
I know.
I want you to remind me.
Oh, sure.
I mean, Vault 7 was the CIA files that exposed all the bad stuff that the CIA was up to.
It was another one of the coins for the Alex Jones was right jar.
There's a new documentary coming out about him called Alex's War.
In social media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google is waging war on that movie.
Even though it's an independently made movie, shows every side and all sides of the Alex Jones debate, the social media giants don't want it out there, don't want people seeing the truth about it.
They want to see a different version of it.
But one of the things Jones had said many years ago was that the CIA was developing and investigating the capacity to use electronic control of automobiles to be able to take over the automobile from a distance and cause crashes.
Well, guess what was in Vault 7?
Exactly, the CIA trying to do exactly that, amongst the many other scandals.
This was another WikiLeaks disclosure, and they went after aggressively the whistleblower in New York, is where, again, magically, always ends up these cases end up in New York somehow, D.C. or New York.
They're always competing for where they're going to be, one or two in the most corrupt jurisdiction in America.
D.C. is up, and then Southern District of New York is up, and then D.C. is up.
And that's where these cases magically end up.
And I consider the Northern District of Virginia, in national security cases, basically D.C. extended.
That's where Langley is.
So that's how this breaks down.
So I think he never should have been prosecuted.
I think what he disclosed should have been protected under whistleblower protection laws.
Assuming he did it, it's not clear they really proved that effectively.
But the reality is jury pools in the Southern District of New York and D.C. have not shown the meaningful, consistent capacity to be fair.
Now, recently, in one of the Build the Wall cases, a juror held out who saw it for what it was, and they had a mistrial.
But it was only because the conscientious juror was like, this is a bunch of political crap.
This case makes note.
This isn't a fraud case.
This is a political crap case.
And luckily, that one conscientious person held out.
But the rest were ready to hang them.
So these politically motivated prosecutions and politically prejudiced jury pools continue to show the dangers of where our justice system is collapsing into a Soviet Stasi-style system if we don't start meaningfully correcting these violations.
Actually, before we even get to the Alex Jones stuff, let me do a few chats because I've got a lot.
And this one is right.
Viva, I had lightning strike over a half a mile from me.
It's time to start getting used to freedom units versus metric system.
Remember, no country using the metric system made it to the moon.
Okay, well played.
So don't go to Canada or D.C. If you can avoid it.
Now, the problem, this is where my argument, and hopefully Steve Bannon's trial, reinforces this.
Republicans need to look at, and particularly the populist wing, needs to look at new laws to strip the District of Columbia of being an independent federal jurisdiction.
That shouldn't happen.
You cannot have a system where D.C. gets to sit in judgment of D.C. Because that just will never function.
We've seen how bad it is.
Once they couldn't even convict a lawyer of an obvious lie because he was an anti-Trump lawyer, that was the end of the credibility of juries in D.C. Steve Bannon's case will just reinforce that one more time.
And so they should strip the District of Columbia of its jurisdictional authority, not have a federal jurisdiction in D.C., period.
Whether you make it part of Virginia, Maryland, whatever.
Some other system.
Just scrap it because its jury pool is a joke.
I don't know about that HR 4350.
I'll have to look into that.
I'll be seeing Alex soon.
The trial's coming up.
I guess that's...
It's two weeks away, so we'll probably discuss it more in detail next week.
But I mean, they're not allowing him to defend himself on the merits.
They're trying to restrict how well he can even pick a jury.
So it's the same.
I described it as it looks a lot like 19th century Australia.
All kangaroos and railroads.
That's what the justice system has looked like so far when it comes to Alex Jones.
Do you know the etymology to kangaroo court?
I presume if anyone does, it has to be you.
Actually, I do not.
I learned the...
Not Bakuki.
Oh, that's the wrong one.
Kabuki.
Kabuki Theater.
That's what I know.
To Matt Dehart's question, I don't know about the Hulu documentary Enemies of the State, but I'll take a look at it.
Okay, let me just do this here.
I say we do an analysis on Trudeau's DNA.
Can't do that.
I'm not wasted, people.
This is your projection because you know now that I'm...
I have the same amount every stream because I measure it because I'm crazy.
So we'll talk more about Alex Jones next week because the trial is coming up.
Big Tennessee case.
Critical race theory.
And I put it up at our locals board because if you want to understand the...
What's going on?
What is critical race theory?
How is it infiltrating our schools?
What are its origins?
How is it being misportrayed into the school system?
How is it sneaking into the school system?
What it's really trying to do to kids as young as kindergartners.
And not only is it ideologically contaminated material.
It includes stuff that your children should never be seeing.
Your five-year-old should not be having rape lessons in class.
These are things that shouldn't be there.
And yet that is what is part of what this material is.
It's meant to indoctrinate.
It's meant to convert them into advocates for a particular cause, a cause that is not popular within the broader American people, a cause that in this case, critical race theory and its other related doctrines, has been banned by the state of Tennessee, and yet it is being taught in counties in Tennessee.
So a good lawsuit brought that exposes it, its illicit nature, but it's a good law, if you want to understand it in common everyday parlance, that suit, it's a big suit, it's a long suit, I've highlighted sections.
So you don't have to read the whole thing.
You can just skim through the highlights and get the true gist of it.
It is a very good suit.
Very well brought suit in the chancery courts there in Tennessee against critical race theory.
And Robert, I had on Chanel Fall, an Ontario teacher who was fired, temporarily, I guess suspended, and now being investigated for complaining, criticizing critical race theory.
It's ironic.
Critical race theory, but if you criticize it, you'll get investigated.
But Robert.
I'm not going to bring up the audio of Bolton admitting that he's such a freaking genius.
You can't be an idiot like Trump and plan a coup.
I mean, it takes a genius like Bolton, and he's done it.
Robert, your thoughts, and if you could give us just some examples where the U.S. might have affected or carried out such coups in the world.
There's one right there.
About General Walker, a coup right here in the United States of America.
That's probably the most famous coup the deep state ever pulled, was the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
But I could go into the litany of coups, but we would be here for the next 10 hours, sadly.
And the American people are mostly in the dark about this.
But what Bolton admitted was not only that he bragged about planning coups, he did it while he was working for Trump, that he was trying to do a coup in Venezuela.
So, you know, it's disturbing the aspects of that.
Kangaroo court comes from Australian penal colonies?
I could see that.
And then another one, Pasha Moyer, I believe, said it's not from that.
It's from the leaps that the court takes to get to where they want to go.
Okay, yeah, okay.
I could see that.
That would make sense.
I could see that more because kangaroo courts I would not attribute.
Only to Australia in birth or in prominence.
I mean, they've probably existed since the history of humankind.
Now, have you ever rented a car in the United States?
Oh my good God, Robert.
Not only did I rent a car, I rented a Hertz car in France and I ended up suing Hertz because they gave it to me to the point where it hurts.
I rented the Hertz.
It's in Paris, so you have to bring it back on a full tank.
The gas station is nowhere.
This is pre-Google Maps.
Nowhere to be found.
I bring it back late because I had to find a gas station.
They charged me for an additional entire day, something like thousands of dollars, and then additional penalties.
And I said, I'm not paying any of it.
And they applied it, and I sued them, and I didn't pay a penny because they're criminals.
Reading that lawsuit from Hertz, Robert, give us the lowdown.
So yeah, Hertz has had a history.
Of getting people criminally arrested for stolen property based on disputes of somebody renting their car.
Often a dispute only because Hertz screwed up.
Like Hertz didn't realize someone had extended their rental.
Hertz didn't properly process that someone had actually paid.
Things of that nature.
And they were getting swatted.
You know, people were getting swatted.
People were in a car with their family, and all of a sudden the SWAT team shows up because supposedly they've stolen a car because Hertz screwed up the payment process.
Hertz was trying to dodge all of this by going through bankruptcy after all the lockdown politics that took place.
The bankruptcy court said, no, those cases can go forward independently and separately from that.
And so now those suits are coming back.
So all the cases where Hertz misused and abused criminal law to try to enforce a contractual dispute where often Hertz was in the wrong.
Marion Holtzman says, Welcome to America, Viva.
Forget Florida.
Come to East Tennessee.
Not as hot.
Hashtag Smoky Mountains.
Marion, it's good to see you again.
My only advice on renting a car otherwise is that if you're in a car in Europe, if you're driving, do not pass the Maserati.
Don't pass the Maserati.
I passed the Maserati.
Turns out in France, if the ticket is high enough, they immediately suspend your driving privileges.
Thankfully, somebody else was with me.
They couldn't speak much English.
I couldn't speak much French.
I was trying to explain I was a lawyer like Robespierre, and they were like, you don't want to be like Robespierre.
I was like, okay, no, everybody chill.
Then they thought somehow I was a John Wayne actor somehow from Hollywood.
I have no idea.
You're like, oh yeah, you, bang, bang, bang, bang.
I was like, no, no.
You're French cops going bang, bang, bang.
You're like, everybody chill.
But it was all because I passed the Maserati.
Well, I'll tell you this.
When you rent a car, don't rent Hertz.
They are terrible.
But in that lawsuit, they were alleging that people who reported the car as stolen.
And then sick the police on them where one of the cases, as Robert was saying, was a woman in the rental with her kids in the car being arrested at gunpoint.
Hurts.
Donut.
Terrible.
But hold on.
Well, it could be worse.
You could be on the reality TV show Love is Blind.
And it turns out they, I guess they interpreted that show kind of literally because apparently they get people blind drunk.
To help their ratings.
So the reality TV show has been sued by some of its participants.
They said they would starve them so they didn't have enough food to eat.
They got them drunk.
They did all these other things to create fake drama by traumatizing the reality TV participants.
So we'll see how that...
But I thought it was ironic that the show was named Love is Blind.
The distinction you mentioned for what counts as a bot is why experts call it non-human traffic.
But the real problem isn't the bot behavior.
It's the fact that ads being served to fake users, ad fraud is very big.
No question.
No doubt about it.
Oh, we got this one.
Sorry.
Good news on the lockdown-related litigation.
There was a case that was filed in Wisconsin concerning the prohibition of clerics, of ministers, of priests, from going to see inmates.
And the Wisconsin court struck it down as unconstitutional in violation of First Amendment rights, as well as violating Wisconsin state laws.
So it's good to see those cases continue to go through the system.
Court explained why it wasn't moot, because it was capable of repetition, yet evading review.
And a good reaffirmation of religious rights against lockdown laws that went into force.
And there was an interesting, I think some Seattle politicians during their summer of love accused certain police members of racist murders.
Those, even after they had been cleared by local inquest, they have now brought suit, not only in defamation grounds, but because sometimes people forget defamation is actually a 1983 cognizable claim.
So it's actually a violation of recognized rights under Section 1983 of Title 42. And those Seattle officers were able to successfully sue.
The case is now moving into the discovery stage.
They get past motions to dismiss.
So that, too, was a promising sign and a reminder to folks out there.
Not federal officials, but if state officials lie about you, a way you can get remedies through 42 U.S.C.
1983 under the Civil Rights Act.
What was the name of the council person?
I just lost it.
I wasn't familiar with that case.
It was two white cops who shot a black individual who they believed had a gun.
Evidence turned up that there was a gun, but it was hidden under some debris in the car.
They were charged, but ultimately not prosecuted, or they were cleared?
They were cleared.
Ultimately, the inquest cleared them.
Okay, they were cleared of wrongdoing.
It wasn't a racist...
And despite that, local city council members continued to accuse them of racist murder.
Well, so this...
It doesn't matter who the congresswoman was or the person...
Councilwoman, I think.
Councilwoman, whatever.
You can find the name.
She basically said it was murder.
State-sanctioned murder.
Her defense to the motion...
Or she filed a motion to dismiss saying...
When I said it was murder, I wasn't identifying them specifically or sufficiently, so it can't stand on its four corners.
It was initially granted.
The motion to dismiss was initially granted, and then the suit reinstated, correct, on appeal?
Yeah, reinstated, and the court established that they can move forward to the discovery stage of the case.
So, I mean, and in other news, the more minor news...
Literally.
The minor league players of the Major League Baseball successfully got a big settlement because Major League Baseball had been violating a range of overtime and other laws in the way it treated people in the minors.
So that was a good remedy for a lot of those guys.
Anybody that loves Field of Dreams and What's the Great Bull Durham?
I love Bull Durham particularly.
I've been a minor league baseball fan since I was young.
The great Engel Stadium in Chattanooga that no longer hosts the Lookout, sadly, but used to.
I grew up there as a kid.
So that was a good seed to see those guys get properly rewarded for a long, many decades of underpayment is what was taking place there.
The children have found me, Robert.
I don't know how, but they found me.
Every time the kids come home, it's like the Libyans finding Doc.
It's like, Marty, they found me.
I don't know how, but they found me.
We only have like...
Really three or four other cases.
Crypto cases are proliferating.
It's the biggest number one area of expanding corporate litigation is crypto cases.
Over 200 plus class actions filed just last month.
And this relates to people who are trying to do crypto banks, stable coins, people who are trying to leverage.
And probably overreached, promised things they probably couldn't deliver on.
And there's a range of some big actors that are involved.
Some other people are being sued for potential complicity, including Coinbase.
So as the fallout continues in the crypto world, what it will most likely do is lead to the brave and the strong, if you will, actually being stronger once it's all done and getting rid of some of the fluff and the fraud.
But you're going to see continuous, massive litigation in the crypto world because...
About $2 trillion of value disappeared within a couple of months.
And that generally doesn't happen unless somebody wasn't making accurate statements along the way, including allegedly Celsius and some others.
And so there's also a crypto bank suing the Federal Reserve on the grounds the Fed didn't properly recognize them.
And on the Federal Reserve side of the action, we're likely going to be looking at suit in the fall in the George Gammon Freedom of Information Act because the Fed continues to stonewall rather than produce a single piece of discovery, which usually suggests they're up to something.
So those were the main cases.
The Attorney General of Missouri had brought a case against China concerning COVID.
That was dismissed on the grounds that under federal law, you can't sue foreign governments unless it's commercial activity or very other limited exceptions.
And the court said there wasn't enough exceptions alleged in the China COVID suit.
So that's why that has been dismissed for the time being.
They're going to appeal it and try to fight it up.
And it turned out, as we kind of predicted, In the Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard case, that Amber Heard's people knew all about the fact that a runaway juror had shown up prior to the jury trial, that he wasn't the same person.
It was actually a son and a father.
The article I'd read had misstated that.
But it was a son with the same name as the father.
The son showed up and participated in the trial, but he identified his age at the very beginning of the trial.
So they knew he was the son, not the father.
And all of her motions were quickly...
Deny, deny, deny, deny.
You take your chances knowing it, saying maybe it'll work in my favor, and when it doesn't, then you claim, then you complain.
Can the little guy say VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com?
Oh, dude, hold on a second.
Hold on.
Robert, what did you just ask?
Oh, can he say VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com?
There you go!
One thing that I've been meaning to ask, I took my headphones off so now the kid can hear.
In Vegas, people were asking me about a questionable primary or local.
So there was a governor dispute here in Nevada, a governor's race, between Sisolak, not Sisolak, Sisolak's the current governor, Sisolak is what I like to call him, Sheriff Joe Lombardo.
Who was the sheriff, by the way, when the Las Vegas shooting happened and all the investigation took place that took place relating to it.
Trump was advised to endorse him.
So Trump did endorse him, helped put him over the top.
I preferred, as a candidate, Joey Gilbert.
Joey Gilbert was on the front lines of fighting the lockdowns, on the front lines of fighting vaccine mandates, on the front lines of fighting for adequate public health, including for his own father, who couldn't get certain medical treatments because they were trying to suppress it and deny it.
And he came very, very close to winning despite all the institutional opposition to him and his candidacy.
And he has filed an election contest.
So I haven't read the details of it, so I can't speak to the factual aspects as to how the law will apply to it.
I'll have to read and review it.
I haven't seen the actual election contest itself.
But many states have an election contest process whereby within a certain time frame after the election...
If you believe there were more questionable ballots than the margin of victory, you have a right to certain remedies.
That can be a recall, that can be a rerunning of the race, a range of remedies potentially.
For state offices particularly, it's not how it was going to apply in the presidential context was always a big question mark.
But none of Trump's election contests, particularly the only big one he brought, which was Georgia, was ever litigated.
They're adjudicated because the courts played games and played hide the ball on the case, which tells you how much confidence they had in how this was the most secure election ever.
But yeah, so Joey Gilbert has brought the challenge.
He's legally entitled to under Nevada law.
I don't know enough about the details to know what its prospects are.
Okay, and I guess then maybe we'll talk about it later because there were...
Everyone I met in Vegas, including the taxi drivers, were angry at what happened and everyone thinks that something foul is afoot.
My kid wants to show the gift that I brought them back from Vegas.
The best 30 bucks I've ever spent.
Block your ears.
This is fossilized dinosaur shit.
I literally got it at the fossil shop.
Look at that.
It might be just totally fake, but I like to imagine this coming out of a lizard's butt 65 million years ago.
That's like those little bottles of Elvis' sweat you could buy at Graceland back in the day.
Yeah, but that looks more legit.
I mean, water could...
All right, Robert, we will...
So, when's...
Okay, and then I got this as a gift from someone which I brought down from Canada.
This is a truck made from wood.
Oh, yeah, for the trucker convoy.
Dude, no one's gonna...
I want to talk to the truckers.
I want to say thank you.
Okay, it's a kid's voice.
Whoever said this to you, you know who you are, and it's beautiful.
Now, Wednesday night, Julie Kelly.
I'm going to be going live every day this week covering the Steve Bannon trial and then other stuff.
Robert, white pill for the people who need it, and then afterwards we're going to talk after the stream, but white pill.
Well, it's going to be a future t-shirt.
Actually, which is what I often say is the best white pill is people just go home and look in the mirror.
You are the white pill.
You are your own white pill, and you are the white pill for the rest of the world.
As long as there's good, righteous people trying to develop adequate, accurate information to make a difference in the world, that is the only way the world has ever positively changed is by you helping make it possible in the first place.
So you are the best white pill out there.
Fantastic.
Everyone.
Push the like button before you go.
Leave a comment.
Make the chat go crazy.
Stick around.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Robert and I are going to go talk amongst ourselves.
See you all tomorrow.
Robert, fantastic stuff as always.
▲
Export Selection