Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:29

Sidebar with Julie Kelly, & Day 3 Bannon Trial Recap - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I was featured in a...
	Let me just pull this up.
	I was featured in a Newsweek article today called Right Wing.
	Right Wing YouTuber.
	Steve Bannon guest predicts how court hearing will play out.
	Look at this.
	Canadian right-wing legal analyst and YouTuber David Frye, who goes by the pseudonym Viva Frye, recently claimed that Steve Bannon's trial on charges of contempt of Congress will be wrapped up quickly because of an anti-Bannon...
	Jury selection.
	This is Inception, people.
	And it goes on, and it's a great article.
	I think it's actually quite flattering, despite the name-calling.
	But if being accurate makes me right-wing, like I have recently changed my Twitter profile to, I don't consider myself right-wing, but I do consider it a compliment to be called right-wing.
	This case is politics.
	It's pure politics, and it's politics that has been played out before the committee hearings.
	Testify, Viva.
	Tell it like it is, Viva.
	People, I was going to start off with Justin Trudeau today, but the reality is I couldn't get to that tweet fast enough, but it was probably all for the better because nobody wants to start off a sidebar with vomit in their mouth, which is typically what happens when we have to listen to Justin Trudeau talk.
	The fact that we're going to get this stream going two minutes in, given everything that happened to me today, nothing terrible, just It's ridiculous.
	I just finished shooting the post-millennial exclusive daily recap, so they're going to publish that later with like three minutes to spare.
	We only have Julie Kelly.
	I don't know if I call her a reporter.
	I don't know what a reporter is anymore.
	All that I can say is that Julie, as far as the events of January 6th have been going, has been doing the most amazing coverage out there.
	And not letting people forget, and not only not letting people forget, digging into that which needs to be dug into because nobody else is doing it.
	We only have her for one hour.
	We're going to carry on afterwards with Barnes, and I think Eric Hundley is going to pop in and make an appearance.
	We only have Julie for one hour.
	So I said I wasn't going to waste one minute more than I had to with the intro.
	You all know the standard intros.
	No legal advice, no election fortification advice, no medical advice.
	Superchats, if I don't bring it up and you're going to feel miffed, don't give it.
	We're simultaneously streaming on Rumble, yada, yada, yada.
	You know the shtick.
	Julie, get ready.
	We're live.
	Yeah, I am.
	Okay.
	Okay, so this is our first time actually meeting in real FaceTime.
	I mean, not in real life, but I know very little about you, actually, and I realized this as I was looking you up today.
	30,000-foot overview for the crowd who may not know who you are, and then I'll get into some standard questions, but then really into January 6th.
	Who are you, Julie?
	Who am I?
	This is a question I often ask myself.
	So I am a writer.
	I just call myself a writer.
	It's easy, right?
	Covers all the bases for American Greatness.
	I've been with them since 2017.
	Before that, I was kind of doing freelance writing, really focusing more on agricultural and food issues.
	I'm a former cooking instructor, so I started covering food issues, which sort of led into political issues.
	And then after Donald Trump was elected, started covering the Never Trump movement.
	So it's just been really an interesting progression over the past, let's see, about six or seven years since I started writing full time.
	So that's enough.
	That's enough to cover.
	Everything else I cover on Twitter.
	So if people want to follow me there, Julie underscore Kelly, too, I do a lot of chatting there, as you know, Viva.
	Oh, yes, yes.
	Now, if I may ask, where were you born and raised?
	I'm born and raised in the suburbs of Chicago.
	So my hometown is Naperville, Illinois, which is a western suburb.
	Right now I live in Orland Park.
	So born, raised here, worked in politics in suburban Chicago for years before taking about 10 years off to be a full-time stay-at-home mom.
	Got back into politics, and that's how I sort of fell into writing about politics.
	But I am a lifelong Illinoisan.
	All right.
	And if I may also ask, what did you study in university?
	Did you study journalism?
	Did you study something else that might explain how you got to where you are?
	Sure.
	So I attended Eastern Illinois University, and I got a degree in communications, a minor in journalism.
	I worked in the TV, radio, and TV station there.
	Did an internship actually in Capitol Hill my senior year with Senator Alan Dixon, who is a Democratic senator from Illinois.
	So my background really is in broadcast journalism.
	When I worked in politics, I worked in communications in a press capacity.
	So I wrote a lot of speeches, press releases, policy documents.
	That sort of thing.
	So that's how this all sort of dovetailed into what I'm doing now.
	And politically speaking, have you always been what they call a conservative or did you start off on the other side of the aisle like many other guests on this channel?
	No, never.
	Never.
	I never toyed with the other side.
	I am, though, a recovering neoconservative, so I'm really sad to admit that, that for a long time I considered myself a neocon, so that would be the Bill Kristol.
	Like, Bill Kristol was my political idol.
	When I graduated from college, that's really when he started.
	You know, Bill Clinton had been elected, and he really started the counter-political strategy against the Clinton campaign, a Clinton presidency.
	So I was a big follower of Bill Kristol, a big fan of George W. Bush, etc.
	Not anymore.
	So I call myself recovering Neopenn.
	And if you could, I don't think I know what that term actually means between you have conservative, liberal, I guess you have Republican, Democrat, which are the two thingy things.
	And what's neoconservative?
	Neoconservative.
	So neoconservative, I think, removed a lot of the cultural issues at the time.
	So if you think back to like 1992, after Clinton and the Democrats really swept everything, and that was sort of the Pat Buchanan wing versus, say, the George Bush wing.
	And so as Patrick Buchanan, I think old school conservative, maybe paleoconservative, people would call that really focusing on a lot of cultural issues.
	The neocons like me sort of tend to...
	So really behind the whole idea about nation building, you know, overseas, strengthening our military, obviously after 9 /11, supporting things like the Patriot Act, which I really regret, and the whole Bush doctrine.
	George W. Bush doctrine, which was, you know, this whole bringing democracy to the Middle East, which was a huge failure.
	So anyway, I think that that best explains the difference between a neocon and a traditional conservative.
	Now that you mentioned it, I do have to ask.
	The term regret, I think a lot of we use interchangeably with now I realize I was wrong.
	But when you say I don't even remember what I understood the Patriot Act.
	Back in the day, 9-11, I remember exactly where I was, everything about that day.
	At the time, we didn't necessarily know that it was as a result of maybe some holes in security or some improper surveillance to begin with, but it was used as the pretext for passing the Patriot Act, going to war after war.
	Back in the day, what did the Patriot Act...
	What did you understand it to be at the time, and how did you think it was ever going to be used?
	So it really coalesced all these agencies.
	I mean, that's really where we got the Department of Homeland Security.
	It was, they blamed this lack of...
	Correspondence or connection between all these powerful agencies at the federal level at the time for missing a lot of the signals that led to 9-11.
	But it also massively expanded the surveillance state.
	And that is when you saw huge empowerment resource allocation by Department of Justice, which opened up the National Security Division, which now has been weaponized, as we'll talk about.
	against American citizens.
	So, and I'm sure Robert knows about this too.
	I think a lot of Americans trusted our government to use those powers judiciously to be very careful how they were going to be used against potential foreign terrorists.
	And of course, 2016 was the perfect example, lying to a court that was put together to specifically target foreign enemies, then used against American citizens, misleading that court intentionally to allow for the spying on Donald Trump and his campaign.
	And so that, I would say, I think a lot of people...
	Recovering neocons like me really regrets how much we backed that, didn't ask questions and didn't support people like, say, Rand Paul, who's been really, and his father, been critical of that from the very beginning, because now we have a complete disaster, weaponized state against half the country, and they are not pulling any punches when it comes to using those powerful tools against American citizens.
	What would you describe as your turning point?
	Trump's election.
	I mean, I'm not going to lie.
	It opened my eyes to three major things.
	I was always sort of the, what would George W. Bush call it, compassionate conservative when it came to immigration.
	I think also a lot of the international trade agreements, I see how that's backfired on so many communities, especially where I live in the industrial Midwest.
	I see how it's decimated places like Central and Southern Illinois, where, you know, I went to school.
	And then, of course, the whole idea, what Eva and I were talking about, the idea of nation building.
	So I think those were three big eye openers to me.
	And without Trump really exposing that, what this conservative movement has brought us or and has not brought us more importantly, I think I definitely have to credit Donald Trump for a huge awakening for me and I think millions of others too.
	Julie, you said at one point you took 10 years out of everything to be a mom.
	Irrelevant, but how many kids do you have?
	But also, how do you get back into, you know, I don't want to say the working world.
	How do you decide then after 10 years of that, what do you do to get back into what you're doing now?
	Such a great question, and I really appreciate you bringing it up because it did take at least 10 years off.
	I have two daughters.
	One just graduated from Syracuse.
	She's actually headed to law school, Robert, so maybe she can work with you one day.
	And then my youngest just graduated from high school, and she's headed to St. Mary's at Notre Dame, Indiana.
	I took 10 years off.
	I was a stay-at-home mom.
	I devoted everything to my daughters, to my husband as he was building his career.
	And I'll tell you what was the best decision I ever made because now as I'm looking, you know, a couple weeks now to both of them being gone for the first time, I really can look back and I don't regret that I missed one single thing with them.
	And actually being a stay-at-home mom was so valuable when I re-entered, I wouldn't really call it the workforce because I've been working at home really ever since, doing political consulting, then cooking classes, and now writing.
	I think being a stay-at-home mom...
	Developing patience, endurance, prioritizing what's important, what's not important.
	And I think also a fearlessness that I did not have in my 20s when I started my career.
	So it has been not just invaluable, invaluable to me personally, but also I think kind of huge help to what I call the third phase of my life, which is now kind of building this new career for myself.
	So I really appreciate you asking that though.
	For the moms out there, the women who are working, and now you're staying home with kids and you're thinking, what am I going to do?
	This is hugely gratifying, invaluable being at home, but also it doesn't mean that that's the end.
	There's certainly lots of other opportunities when it presents itself.
	When January 6th first happened...
	What was your initial response or reaction?
	Because I think different people at different places had different reactions.
	There were some that accepted the mainstream media narrative.
	There were some that didn't accept that but didn't necessarily suspect potential federal involvement, informants, infiltrators, instigators, etc.
	And then some of us were immediately suspicious because of our historical awareness of like events, one might say.
	What was your initial reaction?
	I was definitely at the latter, what you just said.
	I was actually laughing.
	I feel bad, but I was laughing at the media portrayal of what was happening.
	I thought this is absurd.
	Why are these people practically in tears?
	And I think I point to...
	One of my tweets that day where they had Jacob Chansley, the QAnon shaman, who had taken Mike Pence's place in the Senate, the deist there.
	And I said, I think I would choose this guy to run the country basically over anybody else who is in that Capitol building right now, wouldn't you?
	I thought it was ridiculously overblown as it was happening.
	And then, Robert, to your point, and I'm sure we've got the same, you know, get the red flags.
	When everyone's singing off the same hymnal, which they were right away, using that word insurrection, as I write about in my book, it started the middle of that afternoon.
	Joe Biden came out and called it an insurrection.
	George W. Bush and his wife Laura.
	Those things don't happen on accident.
	So I think my coverage of the Russia collusion hoax, everything that unfolded there, Robert, I'm sure you did too.
	You were just like, mm-mm.
	This doesn't just happen like this.
	So I think I was a very early skeptic of what was unfolding that day as I was watching it.
	And Robert, I think you were in Washington.
	We live streamed the day of where I remember what I thought at the time.
	And I didn't think it was a totally peaceful protest.
	I didn't think it was an insurrection.
	In retrospect, now I look at it and say, was it...
	Pockets of violence that are used to characterize the entire protest, or was it pockets of peacefulness that were the exception to the violence?
	I'm probably going to go out on a limb and say I believe it was the pockets of violence that were used to characterize the entire protest as an insurrection, especially seeing what happened in Canada with the Ottawa protests.
	But Julie, when do you say, I've got to start digging into this because what I see happening now doesn't smell good?
	I think one of my first articles, I think it was June, excuse me, January 11th of 2021, where I said the Capitol riot will be used to silence what they call the big lie.
	And so what we saw right away, and we see to this day in the January 6th committee, and I'm not saying I'm some like soothsayer, but it was evident that The events of that day were going to be used by both sides to shut down any criticism of the 2020 election.
	Of course, what was happening that day, which is one of the most overlooked, intentionally overlooked aspects of January 6th, is it wasn't really the certification of the Electoral College.
	It was that there were enough Republican senators working with House members to push for this 10-day audit commission.
	What was going to happen for 12 hours?
	It was a public vetting of election fraud in six states.
	And that's what was happening when the first breach occurred.
	We had Ted Cruz and Paul Gosar starting to talk about what happened in Arizona.
	And they were going to protest those electoral votes and call for this 10-day audit.
	That is not what Trump and his supporters wanted shut down.
	That is what Democrats, the incoming Biden regime.
	People like Mitch McConnell, who made it very clear he opposed that audit commission.
	And so that is one of the most overlooked aspects of that day.
	And so I think that that's why a lot of it lends itself to the idea, what I call it now, which is an inside job.
	That a lot of the same interests who brought us Russiagate, who brought us Adam Schiff's first impeachment, obviously the second impeachment, also brought us January 6th.
	There's no way you can look at how the Democrats and the media and establishment Republicans have exploited this four hour disturbance more than 18 months ago and just be like, oh, wow.
	Wow.
	They sure were lucky that happened.
	You know, they sure were lucky that some people broke some windows and caused problems.
	That's not how things work anymore in our federal government that has turned against half the country.
	So I think that...
	That was the initial purpose, was to silence what had happened in the 2020 election.
	What really caught my eye, though, was seeing what I call the political prisoners.
	And that is the DOJ, with the help of federal judges, denying bail to nonviolent protesters based on the fact that they had participated in this insurrection.
	And, of course, that's still a big issue that I cover to this day.
	Yeah, were you surprised by the scale to which you have people who traditionally fit the definition of bail, whether it's looking at just common practice or looking at the Constitution, the Eighth Amendment, or looking at the statutory provisions that enforce it, and that here you have most of the defendants, and maybe you can describe what this is for people who may not know the full scale, most of these defendants are older.
	Most of them have no criminal record.
	Most of them have not been accused of any violence.
	None of them had any of the tools or weapons of violence.
	There's been no proof that there was some advanced conspiracy to commit violence.
	You know, that that's who these people are.
	These were not the Antifa types who ramp it all summer and faced almost no consequence, or BLM, or in the name of BLM, protesters who rioted and looted and burned and most of whom faced no consequence.
	These were mostly older people who were briefly inside the Capitol without permission of Speaker Pelosi.
	Or in some cases, not even inside the Capitol.
	So can you describe for people what the typical charge is and what the typical defendant is and how many of them are still in prison to this day?
	So this DOJ has sought what's called pretrial detention orders for more than 100 people related to their involvement in January 6th.
	And as you guys know, and I'm not an attorney, I feel like I should get an honorary law degree from Insurrection U, though, because now I have all these cool law terms that I'm using.
	I have a pacer account, and so I really became obsessed with reading all these filings.
	And that's when I really became shocked at what I saw this DOJ prosecutors accusing.
	So they've sought pretrial detention orders.
	To your point, Robert, almost all of these people have no criminal record.
	A lot of them have public defenders.
	The majority of them do have charges for assaulting or attacking or interfering with law enforcement.
	But that still does not mean, as we saw throughout 2020, attacks on law enforcement, including at Lafayette Square, which...
	Prompted the lockdown of the White House, the beginning of June of 2020, still does not mean that these people should be in jail for a year, 18 months.
	Going on two years now, in some cases, before trial.
	So you do have the majority who face some sort of assault of law enforcement charges.
	But you also have defendants accused of nonviolent obstruction felony.
	This is the 1512C2, Robert, I know, and Viva, you're probably very familiar with it as well.
	This is a post-Enron law, obstruction of an official proceeding.
	It had to do with witness and evidence tampering that's now been bastardized, weaponized by this DOJ.
	And about 240 Americans face that charge.
	They've added that felony to misdemeanor cases, say in the case of Tim Hale, who went inside the building.
	He walked through a door, no weapon, committed no violence, didn't assault anyone.
	But he was slapped with this obstruction charge.
	You also have the militia.
	The worst militia work groups in the history of militia groups because they went to the capital with no weapons, which is really weird because militias usually have some sort of weapon.
	They had absolutely none.
	Nonetheless, you've got more than a dozen Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy.
	I believe there are four or five of them who are held under pretrial detention orders now.
	Three of them have been held in the D.C. jail since February and March of 2021.
	Then you have the Proud Boys, also a group not charged with any weapons violations, no assault charges, no vandalism.
	But again, this extremely rare seditious conspiracy charge.
	Five Proud Boys have been incarcerated now for over a year.
	Their trial was just moved again, April to August, August to the end of December, which means you will have people like Joe Biggs The alleged head of this will be in prison almost two years, a veteran, no criminal record, no violent charges, in jail for almost two years before he even has a chance to defend himself at trial.
	They are political prisoners.
	So hopefully that gives just a little bit view of what's happening with these free trial detention orders.
	Dozens have been in this D.C. gulag, I call it, which is part of the D.C. Department of Corrections, a prison set aside specifically for those charged in the Capitol breach probe.
	So we also have not just political prisoners, but we have a political prison in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol building as 95 percent of Republican leadership in Congress continues to ignore this.
	Robert, I guess.
	Maybe just field this one while I have it up.
	At this point, is this not a Sixth Amendment violation amongst others?
	And can you prove prosecutorial misconduct, judicial misconduct, yada, yada?
	Well, no doubt you can prove a lot of misconduct.
	I mean, in my view, these prosecutions are selective prosecutions in violation of the First Amendment, freedom of expression, freedom of association.
	In some cases, such as Joe Biggs and some others, you can argue freedom of the press as well.
	In terms of...
	You could argue to a certain degree a Second Amendment violation and that some of these people were just defending themselves from Capitol Police attacks and now have been prosecuted for simply trying to defend themselves from Capitol Police attacks.
	The Fourth Amendment violations have kind of been routine and regular in that a lot of searches have taken place and a lot of searches were probably taking place beforehand by informants, instigators, infiltrators, others.
	Whether it's Ray Epps, who's more publicly known, or many people who are still unknown, Gateway Pundit has identified one.
	Some defense lawyers have identified at least up to 80 different people who were informants, instigators, and infiltrators on the ground that day, probably engaged in illicit surveillance and searches of people's materials in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
	Fifth Amendment violations of due process.
	Sixth Amendment, I would argue, certain aspects of the grand jury indictment process as well.
	Sixth Amendment violations in terms of right to counsel, right to confrontation in certain cases because they're being held, again, without conviction of a crime, until their trial is just being almost indeterminately postponed.
	Their conditions have been bad.
	And then you can also argue Eighth Amendment, without question, Eighth Amendment violations.
	Unfortunately, we have a court process that in politically motivated and politicized cases, I'm down here in Austin, Texas, dealing with seeing what a civil...
	Justice process looks like when the defendant is named Alex Jones.
	It looks a lot like the January 6th cases, a complete mockery of justice in America.
	Now, can you, Julie, also describe for people what some of these conditions are, that there have been people denied medical treatment who needed it, who are being detained, people who have lost their jobs and their ability to support themselves and provide support for their legal defense because of this detention?
	Could you describe some of the conditions of the detention, that if this was Russia, the UN would be holding meetings right now, emergency meetings right now, of human rights abuses?
	Yeah, I mean, if this were...
	We're happening under a Republican regime with Democrats.
	You would have people like AOC, you know, with their invisible handcuffs cuffed to each other outside of this D.C. prison, demanding the release of these political prisoners.
	None of that is happening.
	Of course, the D.C. gulag, many reports of physical, mental, emotional abuse, sleep deprivation, in some instances bordering on starvation.
	The food is not edible.
	Of course, that's nothing new in any prison or jail situation.
	and then the question.
	And so aside from the inhumane conditions, which certainly are evident there, they also can't access their defense attorneys.
	They are forced to be vaccinated, otherwise they can't meet one-on-one with their defense attorneys.
	People haven't seen their family members, not only in person, but on any sort of device where they could see them.
	And they can't get access to their discovery.
	Jail guards and DOJ are messing around with their discovery, trying to prevent these defendants, detainees, from accessing, you know, protected material like surveillance video, which is under strict protective orders.
	So it can't even...
	They can't even build their own defense.
	They can't even meet with their defense lawyers.
	And at the same time, I think the real villains here, aside from DOJ, are these DC District Court judges.
	And I'm talking about judges appointed by Trump.
	By Ronald Reagan, if you can believe.
	There's two judges on there who should have retired long ago, Royce Lamberth and Tom Hogan, who have been particularly cruel to January 6th defendants.
	At any rate, so these people are trapped in a circle of hell in the nation's capital where you have prosecutors.
	Judges, the media, who have nothing but open contempt for Trump supporters and treat them accordingly.
	And their families are going through hell.
	Their families have been destroyed, bankrupted.
	They've lost businesses that they spent their entire lives building.
	They are just anathema in their communities, in their churches.
	You know, they are really branded as terrorists because that's exactly what Joe Biden, this regime, the media, And of course, plenty of Republicans have said as well.
	So it's a horrible, inhumane, cruel fate that these people are suffering right now.
	Julie, I'm not wrong in thinking that the bulk of the charges...
	I don't know which defendants are accused of violent crimes.
	The majority are parading and picketing in a restricted area.
	Trespass.
	I mean, the one is...
	What is it?
	Conspiracy to commit sedition.
	I think that's the most serious charge.
	Who are the defendants that are accused of actual violent crimes?
	Not that it could explain any of this, but what are the violent crimes and what are the bulk of the defendants accused of in terms of violent versus nonviolent crimes?
	So the bulk of the violent crimes would be assault of a federal police officer, not just federal.
	Capitol Police are federal, but also DC Metro.
	But as Robert said, and this is something I've covered extensively, Police officers were given their marching orders early on that day.
	They started attacking the crowd.
	People standing outside on what they called restricted grounds.
	Attacking people who were simply standing out there.
	A lot of people waving flags and they were singing.
	And all of a sudden you'll see a video and a flashbang will go into the crowd.
	And people are being hit with this flashbang, this stun grenade, which you're not supposed to really throw at into a crowd of people.
	There's speculation.
	And I think justified speculation that two fatalities that day, Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, were the result of being hit by stun grenades by police officers who threw them at these men.
	They were left unattended to.
	You had people outside, I don't want to call them protesters, just rally-goers who had to help these men and find some sort of medical attention.
	Both men died of fatal heart attacks.
	This happened before Michael Byrd shot and killed Ashley Babbitt at near point-blank range at about 2.45 that afternoon.
	And also the death of Roseanne Boylan, which looks more and more, given the video that we've seen and eyewitness testimony, that her death, contrary to what the D.C. coroner said, was an overdose of amphetamines, which was a lie, is that her death was largely a result of excessive force used by D.C. Metro.
	And Capitol Police in this Lower West Terrace Tunnel where she was trampled, where she possibly was asphyxiated by this very potent gas that the police were using in this enclosed area.
	And then video of D.C. Metro Police Officer Lila Morris looks like hitting her repeatedly in the face with a baton as her lifeless body laid on the ground outside this tunnel at about 4.30 on January 6th.
	And can you describe for people some of the other anomalies that have yet to be fully either investigated or disclosed concerning what happened that day?
	Because one aspect is the fact that the Capitol Police were the ones initiating and instigating violent conflict with the crowd, including, it appears, responsible for the death of maybe...
	All four people that died that day.
	And that contrary to what some federal judges have said in sentencing, which we'll get to in a little bit.
	But also, there was unusual security lapses that day.
	There was unusual, there's been videotape evidence that's gone missing, videotape evidence that is still hidden, that has not been disclosed to the public, that's not being disclosed through FOIA, not even being disclosed in some cases to the defendants or their counsel.
	Can you describe some of the Kamala Harris's, where she actually was, has not been fully explained?
	Mike Pence, where he actually was, has not been explained?
	the so-called pipe bomber who's never been investigated or indicted, which seems odd, of the DNC that day, where the bomb magically didn't go off.
	So could you describe some of the other evidentiary anomalies, missing evidence, evidence that people have sought that hasn't been turned over that also might be relevant to what really happened that day?
	I mean, there's a lot.
	You just covered really the bulk of it, but there are every week now we find out.
	New interesting wrinkles, like now these Secret Service texts from January 5th and 6th are missing.
	Well, why is that?
	And why now they're reporting today is that this system-wide migration, where they were told to erase all of their devices, are set back to factory settings on January 27th of 2021.
	Now, this would have happened under Joe Biden's Department of Homeland Security.
	This was passed.
	You know, when he took over the not peaceful transfer of power, but of course he was president then.
	This was his DHS, which is overseas, the Secret Service.
	So why were these devices set back to factory settings?
	And why are the missing texts belong to Washington agents who were responsible for numerous protectees, including, of course, the president?
	Also, Vice President Pence and also Kamala Harris.
	Robert, what you know, and Viva, you probably do too, is that this DOJ lied to a grand jury and lied to the court for over a year, claiming that Kamala Harris, as the incoming vice president, so she was under Secret Service protection on January 6th, that she was in the Capitol building when the insurrection happened.
	Well, it comes to find out, thanks to Politico reporting this, Kamala Harris had been taken to the Democratic National Committee headquarters at about 1130 on the morning of January 6th.
	She was at the Capitol building, she said, for an intelligence briefing, then went to DNC headquarters, which is a couple blocks east of the Capitol.
	Now, why did she go there?
	The bigger question is how did Secret Service, her detail, miss this alleged explosive device that had been planted, we've been told by the FBI, the night before outside of the DNC headquarters?
	How did they miss that?
	The photograph we've seen, we've only seen one.
	It's a little pipe that's underneath like a bench thing by DNC headquarters.
	How did that happen?
	And then why was it almost a year before the public found out about this and DOJ had to confess to a federal judge that, oops, that's not true.
	Kamala Harris wasn't in the building.
	She was at DNC headquarters.
	Does this have something to do with the erased Secret Service text that would give us some insight as to why she was taken there, as to why we just found out Secret Service on their own that afternoon when Trump had every intention and had told people at his speech that he was going to the Capitol with them, that suddenly they decided to take him back to the White House, and then also the mystery of Mike Pence.
	Also, we were told by the DOJ that he stayed in the U.S. Capitol building.
	That's not true either.
	Still not exactly sure his location, but he was taken to some sort of loading dock near a parking garage.
	Certainly not within the building, but that's the basis for numerous crimes, right?
	That idea.
	That Pence and Harris were in the building, therefore causing the building to be off limits because they were under Secret Service protection is the basis for thousands of criminal charges, misdemeanors, but nonetheless criminal charges.
	So it would be nice to see those Secret Service texts.
	We'll see how much people push to get them.
	But it's important to note that those were erased after Joe Biden became president.
	And his DHS, not Donald Trump's.
	Even more interesting is that, for those who don't know, the Secret Service was compelled to produce those...
	Where were they compelled to produce those texts?
	Because they were, in fact, compelled.
	And then they said, we updated our systems and lost them all.
	What was the exact timeline and context?
	Well, I believe it was the Inspector General for the DHS who wanted those texts as he was investigating, told to investigate what happened with the Secret Service on January 6th.
	This is a Trump appointee.
	You see the Washington Post is sort of making him the villain that somehow he can't be trusted.
	But he's the one who came forward and said, we've asked for this for over a year, and they have not produced them, and now we've been notified they've been deleted.
	So I'm not even sure that, Robert, maybe you know this.
	I couldn't really follow this.
	There were two House and Senate committee who wanted this also.
	But I don't recall that the January 6th committee had asked for any records from.
	Not initially.
	Only very recently after this all became public did they, oh, well, of course we asked for it.
	But they only asked for it now and when they knew it was gone.
	And so not a terrible surprise there.
	Now, another aspect, can you describe in terms of how this process has worked?
	It's obvious in the bail hearings, but in the discovery process and the timing of trial and jury selection and ruling on issues like This novel interpretation of the obstruction statute to apply to, as you note, people who aren't trying to obstruct anything.
	They're trying to have their voice heard to make sure the constitutional process for contesting electors went through, not to stop it, not to prevent it, not to preclude it.
	That's one of the big lies the media has told and some of the judges have repeated in this case is that if there was any effort to obstruct anything, there was just the opposite to make sure they actually performed and discharged their constitutional duties.
	You know, Vice President Pence might not be up to speed on what those duties are.
	Apparently, he can't read what John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did.
	But putting that aside, can you discuss how bad the judicial bias has been on things like discovery rulings, the timing of trial, jury selection, and how the judges have been in sentencing, some of the insane sentences that have been issued?
	Can you describe what that has been for many of these January 6th defendants at seeing the ugly side?
	I mean, I would just describe it overall as un-American.
	It's nothing that I, as an outsider, not a lawyer, ever would expect to see.
	I mean, certainly we know that there are serious problems with our criminal justice system.
	But this, I believe, is a whole new level.
	Because these people are trapped.
	You have judges who not only are signing off on pretrial detention orders, then denying release when the defense attorneys come back and petition for their client's release, denying it again.
	They are allowing DOJ repeatedly to blow through discovery deadlines that even the court has tried to enforce, but nonetheless they don't.
	Because the idea behind all of it, January 6th is so unprecedented that it...
	It should allow for exceptions to the law.
	That is basically what DOJ is arguing and what judges are going along with.
	While this discovery trove is so immense, DOJ has never dealt with this much video before.
	So therefore, even though, and one judge said it last a year ago, Judge Trevor McFadden, you don't charge people first and come up with the evidence later.
	That's exactly what DOJ is doing.
	Do judges like Judge Trevor McFadden throw out charges that were made in January, February, March of 2021, and a year later DOJ still doesn't have the evidence for it?
	No.
	They repeatedly deny every single judge.
	has denied change of venue motions, which should be a no-brainer, not only because it's Washington, D.C., but you have this sideshow of the January 6th committee hearings, which is only of interest to people in Washington, D.C. The rest of the country couldn't care less unless they're forced to watch it because every network picks it up.
	But this is only of interest to Washington, D.C. So there's only one judge, Judge Nichols, who's actually overseeing the Bannon trial.
	He's the only judge to rule in favor of dismissing the obstruction of an official proceeding count against one January 6th defendant.
	Every other judge has denied motions to dismiss this very novel.
	What Judge Nichols did, DOJ actually has appealed his ruling, and now it's been docketed at the D.C. Circuit.
	So it will be very interesting to see what the circuit does there, because if they uphold, Robert, you could probably talk about this more, if they uphold Judge Nichols' dismissal of the 1512C2, this is going to have a huge downstream effect, not only on pending cases, but people who've already been convicted.
	Pleaded guilty and are sitting in jail, like Jacob Chansley, for pleading guilty to this 1512C2.
	So that's very interesting.
	But he's the only judge who has really put his foot down with anything related to DOJ.
	Everything else, the judges are just going along with everything that this Justice Department wants.
	This, I should say, D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, Matthew Graves.
	He's the one running the show.
	Along with Lisa Monaco, the Deputy Attorney General, longtime Obama loyalist, confidant, and Russian collusion architect, Lisa Monaco.
	Exactly.
	And can you describe for people just how insane the D.C. jury pool is?
	I've described it to people that Martin Luther King had a better chance of getting a fair jury in 1950s Birmingham with an all-white Southern jury that opposed integration.
	Than does anybody associated with January 6th in the District of Columbia, where almost every juror thinks of themselves as a personal victim of what took place that day, just like every judge does.
	Can you describe how these juries often are not being honest when they're asked questions before jury selection?
	Jury selection is not very detailed.
	A good juror is just a juror who doesn't want to lynch you before the trial as opposed to after the trial.
	And the nature of it, of how quickly they've made decisions, how they haven't even applied the facts, they can't explain their decisions after the verdict, that they're applying laws in ways that make no sense.
	Can you describe just how bad the jury pool is in the District of Columbia, especially as to these cases?
	It's horrible.
	And you just said it.
	You said it perfectly, Robert.
	Is that people in Washington, D.C. view the events of January 6th as a personal attack on their private fiefdom of Washington, D.C., that all these deplorables, you know, you have one Judge Beryl Howell, she's like, you traveled all the way from Texas to Washington, D.C. Yeah, it's his nation's capital.
	Like, it's not your personal little fiefdom, Beryl Howell, or any of the judges.
	Like, I hear them say that, and I have to laugh out loud, like, well, how dare you travel from Arkansas and come into, you know, the Capitol Hill?
	That's for people who are far more educated and sophisticated than you.
	Like, that's the whole tone of it.
	So it's, I mean, I kind of have to laugh, although these people who are trapped in, it's not funny at all.
	But at least they're not making any bones about it, right?
	I mean, they consider themselves American aristocracy, right?
	They are the crown.
	These are their little subjects.
	You don't just walk into their shrine, the U.S. Capitol building, which is funny because we've been told the Capitol building was built by slaves.
	And after George Floyd, they were taking down all kinds of statues of people in the U.S. Capitol.
	Now, all of a sudden, it's like, you know, it's like a holy cathedral.
	So at any rate, that is how they view it.
	Several defense attorneys have conducted surveys of potential D.C. jurors.
	It's as bad as you think.
	You know, 70, 75 percent considering January 6th an insurrection.
	Even people who are not engaged in violent behavior are traitors.
	They are terrorists.
	They should be treated accordingly.
	I mean, this is a city that voted almost 94 percent for Joe Biden.
	So they can't get a fair trial.
	And now you have the January 6th committee, as I said, this is causing even more problems for these defendants.
	And you have judges just ignoring the whole thing.
	None of this matters.
	You had Judge Amit Mehta over the summer, last summer, when the hearing started.
	And you had a defense attorney raise this issue.
	This is causing...
	Further poisoning a highly biased, contemptuous jury pool.
	And Judge Ahmed Mehta said, I don't care if the January 6th committee comes and reads this report on the steps of my courthouse.
	I am not moving this trial.
	Well, guess what?
	He's probably going to have to move it because even someone like Judge Maida, an Obama appointee, I think finally is recognizing how this conflicts, creates, really strips these defendants of their rights because they have no relief.
	And it's only going to get worse as the trials, scheduled trials anyway, are coming up.
	And you have this January 6th committee continuing to ratchet up the temperature and not back off.
	So that's, you know, that's just really it in a nutshell what these defendants are.
	Julie, what you're describing, this to me is a black pill.
	Because the idea of what's going on, Robert and I saw it from day one.
	I was like, okay, I've seen hockey riots that were more violent than that.
	And what you're describing is, I know some of the...
	People denied medical treatment for a broken hand.
	How they got a broken hand in custody, I also have questions.
	So set aside the black pill for a second.
	You're immensely well-versed in this.
	How do you do it?
	What do you do?
	Do you read PACER?
	For those of you who don't know, PACER is like the online docket source.
	Do you have people on the ground?
	Do you have inside information?
	How do you go about getting the information that you've got?
	Thanks for that question.
	A lot of it does come from PACER, two sources.
	So PACER, which is the online service where all the filings are made.
	They're not made public.
	Probably spent $5,000 since January 6th getting all of these motions.
	But that's really where I find a lot.
	And then secondly was listening to the hearings because, of course, under COVID, almost all, well, really all of the hearings I could listen to online, which was great and disturbing at the same time.
	But I could hear what these judges were saying.
	And I, you know, I've listened to grown men.
	Sob in front of these judges, men charged with the parading, as you brought up, Viva, the parading offense, a Class B misdemeanor, petty offense.
	The Chief Judge Beryl Howell said before January 6th, the court never even dealt with.
	I've listened to grown men cry, begging for mercy.
	For these judges who give them none.
	And these prosecutors who are sick and twisted and gratified by inflicting pain on people they consider a lower caste of Americans.
	So the PACER, the filings, and then the hearings have been very helpful.
	Also, yes, I have been in communication, remain in communication with defendants, detainees, and their family members.
	So I hear, unfortunately, almost every day, the painful...
	You know, things that these family members are enduring as their son is in custody for 16, 18 months.
	You know, their husband is.
	They're trying to raise young children, worried about what, you know, the fate, you know, what's happening to their loved one in this gulag and certainly what's going to happen to them in the future.
	You know, this DOJ is threatening life in prison for those accused of seditious conspiracy.
	Basically bullying them into taking plea deals or saying if you're convicted by a DC jury, which probably will be, if you're convicted, we're going to ask for life in prison if you don't take a plea deal because the government does not want the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys cases to go to trial.
	And Robert and Viva, you know why.
	Because they'll have to reveal all the government assets, undercover FBI agents and informants.
	We know we're already involved with the Proud Boys.
	They're going to have to reveal all of that in trial.
	They don't want these cases to go to trial.
	So they're using every bit of leverage that they can to torture these people into taking plea deals.
	And a lot of them are not.
	So I would just ask people to continue to pray for them.
	And give them strength, because the only way we'll ever get the truth, unfortunately, is through these people who are being persecuted and tormented by their own government.
	Now, before we move on to some solutions to sort of wrap things up, has the government ever disclosed through this?
	Because the court and the government has frequently referenced QAnon.
	Have they disclosed who QAnon is and whether there's any ties between QAnon and certain three-letter agencies at the United States government?
	They have not.
	That's a great question.
	I have not gotten that question.
	But they do cite QAnon, you know, several times in documents related to defendants and that they were brainwashed by QAnon.
	But no, they have not said anything, revealed anything about QAnon.
	Of course, the judges, as you can imagine, are very incurious about QAnon, except for what they believe that people, you know, should not have followed QAnon and people like Ashley Babbitt, of course, got what they got.
	Came to her because she allegedly was a QAnon follower.
	But no, they have not revealed exactly who or what that is.
	A peculiar lack of curiosity.
	Now, speaking of solutions, the one solution that I've been recommending to people is that there needs to be, as part of at least those people that are on the populist side of the aisle in the House and the Senate, potentially for Trump as well, or other...
	Candidate 2024 presidential bid is that it's time to scrap the District of Columbia as an independent federal judicial district.
	That's a federally created district.
	It doesn't have to exist.
	And we are seeing in these cases, as Viva's been covering with the Steve Bannon case, that the District of Columbia is not capable.
	Of impartiality by the prosecutors, by the judges, or by the jury pool.
	They, again, make 1950s Birmingham look like a beacon of impartiality in a civil rights case or Klan case by comparison.
	What are your thoughts about that as one of the possible solutions that should be recommended as part of witnessing the horror of what this process has become?
	It is the only solution, and I'm so glad that you brought that up, and I would love to see the details about how that can be done.
	I mean, look, you've had six jury trials already.
	DOJ is batting 1,000.
	They have an undefeated record in six trials.
	Every count, every defendant found guilty on every count, unanimous verdicts in record time.
	The case of Guy Refit, who was the first defendant, never went inside the building.
	This jury took less than four hours to deliberate before they found him guilty of the obstruction of an official proceeding.
	They don't even know what they're talking about.
	One juror joked, it took us longer to order lunch than to find this man guilty of five counts, including obstruction, which has never been used this way before.
	And now DOJ comes back and calls 1512C2 a crime of domestic terrorism and wants Guy Ruffett to go to prison for 15 years, which the judge probably will go along with.
	So you're right.
	We have to dismantle this little personal, I don't even know what you would call it.
	It's so rigged.
	Get rid of the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office.
	Absolutely.
	That has to be number one.
	Completely defund it.
	Dismantle it.
	Don't need it.
	If you need a local prosecutor, fine.
	Move political trials outside of D.C., whether Virginia, Maryland, wherever.
	This D.C. District Court, same thing.
	They should not be able to handle any political trials.
	You saw the big difference between Michael Sussman's and Steve Bannon or anyone else's.
	There's no arguing that people on the right can get a fair trial, a fair shake.
	In our own nation's capital, which really says a lot about where our country is right now.
	So yes, that absolutely has to be done.
	I hope there's a huge movement in the MAGA or populist's right to get that done and force these Republicans, because you know, they don't want to touch this at all.
	But we're really going to have to drag them kicking and screaming to do it.
	Guy Refit, for those who also don't know, that was a story, Julie, unless I'm mistaken, about the son who ratted out his father to the FBI.
	About him having bragged about having brought a firearm to the D.C. area?
	That is the guy ref it?
	That is correct, yes.
	So yes, they're breaking up families.
	Now, what else do you think in terms of, I mean, clearly the swamp cannot be in charge of judging the swamp.
	So that's part one, to institutionally dismantle the federal judicial and prosecutorial process in the District of Columbia.
	And I think as an additional remedy, there are some statutes that allow this in certain kinds of cases, certain tax cases, as an example.
	But I think every defendant in a criminal case, in a federal criminal case, should have a right.
	I think it should be established or is established constitutionally, but the courts have ignored it.
	So maybe at least pass legislation that says any defendant in a criminal case should have a right to transfer the venue to his home.
	His home residence.
	If he's so guilty, his home jury will be happy to convict him too.
	It's just if he's not so guilty, then that won't happen.
	It also will transfer judicial control to the local judges because when local judges were deciding bail, they were doing things very different.
	Then the judges in D.C. were doing out of the gate.
	That's why they moved as many cases as they could there.
	What do you think about those and any other proposals you think where we need change in the law so that this is less likely to happen again?
	I really hope that lawyers like yourself and others can put together exactly what that legislation would look like.
	I think it is absolutely necessary.
	It has to be put together before even Republicans, if they do take the House, this has to be ready to go.
	Because now we're going to have another six months of trials, of charges, of this craziness coming out of Matthew Graves' office, now calling 1512C2 an act of domestic terror and seeking a terror enhancement in guy refit sentencing.
	But that's coming for everyone.
	You have three other men who've been convicted by jury trials.
	That's coming for them, too.
	Absolutely has to happen.
	You know, I go back to, and you know this, Robert and Viva, I covered also the Whitmer, I call it, Fednapping hoax.
	Quite a different outcome of a jury of legitimate peers in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the Western District of Michigan, where even though the defense was, their hands were tied on numerous occasions by the judge and what they could present to the jury, nonetheless, saw exactly through.
	What this government FBI hoax was acquitted two men and had hung jury on the other two men who, of course, DOJ is going to retry them.
	Their new trial is August 9th.
	You're talking about two totally different outcomes, right?
	Is that you have people in the rest of the country who don't view the FBI and DOJ and, of course, the nation's capital as some sort of sacrosanct place where Americans are not allowed to You know, especially Americans on the right, are not allowed to exercise their constitutional rights.
	They consider them subhuman, and they're treating these people as such.
	So that has to be front and center.
	Matthew Graves, the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, has to be completely dissolved.
	It is as corrupt as the FBI.
	It is, you know, it's its own little stazzy, and I'm not even sure what the comparisons would be.
	But this cannot continue.
	Now, where can people sort of wrap up?
	Where can people find you?
	Where people can continue to follow these cases and interests related to these cases?
	As a little side note, Robert Mueller was very fond of the D.C. Federal Prosecutor's Office.
	But that's another story for another day.
	In fact, he magically was there when certain events happened when Bill Clinton was president, and somehow he got, as a Republican, a rare nomination at the end of it.
	But you can find those at the hush-hush at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But where else can people find, where can people continue to follow the very good, important, critical, frontline work that you're doing on this and other issues?
	Well, thank you both for having me.
	I hope I can come back soon.
	This was the first time.
	I can't believe a time went by so quickly.
	So I hope so.
	All my work can be found at AmericanGreatness, amgreatness.com.
	I do a lot of just sort of live reporting or posting of motions, as you guys know, on Twitter, Julie underscore Kelly too.
	I'm also at Truth Social and Getter, Julie underscore Kelly.
	So that's really where people can find my coverage.
	And not only will I I continue to cover January 6th, but I also think the Whitmer trial is on some levels more fascinating than January 6th because it is a window into what this government, FBI particularly, is capable of.
	And so I will be filing that new trial when it starts in Michigan on August 9th for the remaining two defendants.
	Julie, you are always welcome back on this channel, and we pronounce it the Whitmer, the Whitmer trial, or the Whitmer kidnapping.
	Julie.
	Sincerely, thank you.
	You're one of...
	I don't know who else is covering the Jan 6 case in as thorough detail as you.
	And it's amazing.
	It's blackpilling.
	But there's a white pillow there somewhere, but people have to suffer, unfortunately, for other people to wake up.
	Can I offer one more quick thing before I go?
	For people who want to help the families or the legal help by lawyers, which are desperately needed, to donate to PatriotFreedomProject.com.
	If you can't donate, and I certainly understand why, especially with what's happening, you can write to these detainees who are in jails, not just in D.C., but across the country.
	And I know...
	It means a lot to these detainees to hear from Americans across the country.
	So I always like to try to end with some hopefulness where people can do something because people feel so hopeless when they hear what's happening.
	Julie, you will come back.
	Guaranteed.
	Now, we're going to stay live.
	Robert and I are going to talk about Bannon's Day 3 trial.
	But Julie, thank you for everything.
	Sincerely, and stay strong.
	And we'll talk soon.
	Okay, you guys too.
	Thank you.
	Have a good night.
	Nope.
	That was one second too early.
	She was going to say you too.
	Robert, hold on.
	I'm going to go back this way.
	That's better.
	Yeah, I think that's better.
	Robert, people in the chat, we're going to go for a little bit longer.
	Hanley's popping in, I think, in like 15 minutes to say hi.
	Robert, first of all, where are you and what are you doing?
	She didn't get the Stewie reference.
	Not a Family Guy fan.
	I didn't initially either because I'd never watched Family Guy until it was showing up the excerpts.
	We're showing up in my YouTube feed.
	Cool whip.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The little guy's funny.
	The baby's funny.
	A little crazy, but funny.
	Where's my money is still my favorite part from the bookie experience.
	But yeah, I'm in Austin, Texas.
	They're busy railroading Alex Jones down here.
	The cases get crazy.
	It's almost unimaginable that the cases could get crazier and crazier and crazier, but they do.
	I'm not his counsel of record or anything like that.
	I'm just here to help in whatever capacity I can in terms of getting the story out.
	And then whatever other way he wants me to help, I'll help.
	But I mean, they're now saying he can't talk about the First Amendment.
	He can't talk.
	He can't say he's innocent.
	He can't say that what he did wasn't outrageous.
	He can't defend himself basically at all.
	In fact, and not only that, on the damages issue, which is the only thing they're allowing a trial on.
	They're going to allow all this inflammatory evidence, fake experts, to come in and talk about white supremacy and things that have nothing to do with Alex Jones because of the political hat lawyer that's running this for the Sandy Hook cases, who's glad to grandstand in front of the press, who tried to plant fake stories about me when I was representing Alex Jones.
	That's Mark Bankston, the guy's bottom barrel.
	Gutter-level lawyer, ethically, and a nutjob and a lunatic who belongs in an asylum.
	Well, they want to bring in, quote, fake experts, apparently, to attack everything related to Alex Jones and things that have nothing to do with Alex Jones.
	Well, Alex Jones is not allowed to defend himself at all.
	Not only that, on the damages issue, the pertinent question is, how much damage did Alex Jones cause anyone?
	Because these are people who never once sought a retraction or correction until the eve of trial.
	These are people who never apparently had a problem with anything Alex Jones was saying until lawyers knocked on their door.
	And so, you know, how much is Alex Jones at fault for any trauma they experienced related to their children's death?
	Wouldn't the shooter have more to do with that?
	Well, not only can no evidence be presented, no lawyer can even reference it.
	So the jury's going to be led to believe that any trauma they've experienced related to a school shooting is all Alex Jones' fault.
	That's what a complete crock.
	The court process is down here.
	Robert, I remember not being politically conscious or even conscious.
	I just remember thoughts from the time.
	I do remember people were blaming Alex Jones for people harassing the families, for being crisis actors, FBI agents, whatever.
	That's what I remember as being the damages of the alleged consequences of the alleged defamation.
	What's my memory accurate like?
	Is that right?
	The whole general narrative was always fake.
	That's why they had to pretend Alex Jones destroyed evidence, because the evidence disproved their theory.
	Jones didn't initiate or instigate or originate any of this stuff.
	Jones, the 99.9% of what Infowars printed and published said Sandy Hook happened.
	That's what Jones said the very night it happened.
	It wasn't until a year.
	If you go into the complaint, I was stunned when I first read the complaint.
	I was like, most of what they're complaining is about seven minutes of words about two years after the incident.
	On something that almost nobody watched or observed out of millions of words published and broadcast.
	And, like, they tried to pretend that there were people who stalked the family related to Jones.
	That was all false.
	That was always false.
	There's nobody that's going to present testimony as to that.
	So that's why they needed to fake the evidence.
	That's why they needed to have a fake case.
	The judges have to pretend, you know, not allow even an...
	Think about it.
	This is an Austin liberal Democratic jury pool, one of the most liberal Democratic jury pools in the country.
	And they're scared of that jury hearing the actual evidence of what happened.
	They're afraid of even that.
	It's got to be an orchestrated case where they've pre-scripted a story that the evidence rebuts.
	So how do they get away with that?
	They don't allow Alex Jones to present that evidence.
	They don't even allow his lawyers to mention it.
	So it's a complete crock.
	It makes the Chicago 7 look like a paragon of fair trials.
	And they're just going to railroad them and hope for a crazy lunatic verdict, like the Westboro verdict, which was like $70 million, or the Charlottesville verdict, where nobody defended it, which was $25 million.
	They want some crazy award because they want the jury to not know all of the key facts that relate to the defense.
	And so it's pure railroading.
	Well, if I'm playing, not devil's advocate, but the fair, not the middle ground.
	Just to compare it.
	In Oberlin, Oberlin got sentenced to like 30 some odd million dollars in damages.
	It was more than the punitive damages were allowed.
	And they brought it down.
	And that was from, they had real, most of those damages were economic harm.
	This was a business that got wiped out.
	And so they had real damages.
	Here you have no economic damages alleged.
	Nobody claims they're out of pocket because of anything Alex Jones said.
	It's solely emotional trauma.
	But there's apparently no evidence that Alex Jones caused them any emotional trauma.
	So what does the judge do?
	Oh, you can't tell the jury what actually caused them emotional trauma.
	Just hear them tell these very traumatic stories that don't relate to Alex Jones.
	They relate to what a school shooter did.
	That also might relate to other things in terms of school safety and other steps that were not taken that could have protected their child's life.
	And just blame Alex Jones for it.
	And Alex Jones' lawyers are not even allowed to say, well, was that caused the emotional trauma from the death of your child?
	Was that caused by the person who killed your child?
	Not the person who said something two years later you probably never even heard?
	They're not allowed to make that argument.
	They're not even allowed to make it.
	I have to be careful in the questions that I ask you because I don't want to ask you a question that you're not allowed to answer.
	They're hoping for...
	I'm not representing him in this capacity.
	I'm just speaking of my own opinion.
	So they're hoping for a $50 million judgment that's going to bankrupt Alex Jones.
	Bankson's been hitting it publicly.
	We're going to ask for something big to stop it forever.
	They want to bankrupt Alex Jones.
	They want to bankrupt InfoWars.
	And they want to bankrupt anybody and they want to use him as a Julian Assange style example.
	To scare and terrorize anybody from ever raising the kind of questions that parents raised at Uvalde that exposed how much police and school official corruption was involved in the failure to save those children's lives.
	They don't want that to happen again.
	And they don't want independent sources of information, period.
	And that's their objective.
	And so the goal is to not only bankrupt them but to...
	Scare off anyone else from ever asking questions.
	You don't want to end up like Alex Jones.
	That's what they want to be able to say.
	In order to get there, they need a crazy verdict.
	And how do you get to a crazy verdict?
	The judge rigs the trial.
	And that's what's happening in Texas and Connecticut.
	Two corrupt judges rigging the trial.
	I've held back at times in the past, but this is absurd.
	This is laughably absurd.
	And it's sad and pitiful and the courts need to be called out for it.
	They're corrupt, politically motivated acts who are creating an Alex Jones exemption and exception to the law that makes a mockery out of American justice.
	The court system is as much on trial in Alex Jones' case as Alex Jones' and the verdict is that the court systems have failed abysmally.
	Everything Jones said this case would become and this case would ultimately be is exactly what it has become.
	It's become worse.
	Said it would be a kangaroo court process.
	This gives kangaroos a bad name.
	Robert, the chat just asked, you know, they sued Remington?
	They sued Alex Jones?
	Did they sue the school?
	Only one parent sued the school.
	The rest did not.
	I mean, at what point does this group of plaintiffs that keeps cashing in and cashing in and cashing in in terms of money and power, how long do we give them immunity because they suffered a horrific, horrifying tragedy?
	Do they have permanent immunity?
	Do they get to blame people that had nothing to do with it?
	Do they continue to get to line their pockets?
	Do they continue to get to politically take away other people's rights, whether it's speech or Second Amendment rights?
	I mean, at some point, there's got to be a limit.
	Suffering a horrible tragedy is a horrifying event, and it deserves and warrants sympathy.
	It does not deserve or warrant your ability to make yourself rich for forever by suing people who had nothing to do with it.
	Nor does it give you the right to strip the rest of us of our First or Second Amendment rights because the gun is not what caused the death.
	The shooter and the things that went into the inadequate safety response is what caused the death.
	I see Eric Howley in the backdrop.
	He's going to pop in in a second.
	But Robert, can anything be done?
	Let's just say Jones is going to get...
	Yeah, continue to support Alex in whatever capacity you can, and then there'll be more news about that.
	Anybody who thinks Alex Jones is going to go gently into that good night has got another thing coming.
	You know, the irony is he probably would have semi-retired four years ago, six years ago.
	You know, he had achieved a lot of what he set out to achieve.
	It's because they decided to do this to him and to set an example so that nobody else would come up and be like him or want to be like him that he decided to fight back.
	And so he'll fight back come hell or high water.
	So just stand with Alex Jones, because even if you disagree with him, dislike him, etc., his voice is critical.
	What all of us said in 2018, we said what they're trying to do to Alex Jones and social media, they're going to try to do to the rest of us.
	We've now all witnessed it.
	Some people paid attention, some people didn't.
	The people that didn't now regret it.
	So pay attention to what they're trying to do to Jones, just like what they're trying to do in the January 6th cases.
	And stand by them in whatever way you can.
	Sometimes that's not monetarily.
	Sometimes that's spreading the message.
	Sometimes that's sharing information.
	Sometimes that's sharing links, however that's done.
	But for those people, I mean, it's a no-brainer because he sells products that pretty much everybody needs.
	So you just find the one that he's already selling.
	It will be cheaper than what you're buying currently.
	So you're going to save money while getting to stick it to the man and stand up for freedom in America.
	Fantastic.
	I'm going to bring in Eric.
	Should have given you a heads up.
	Eric Hunley.
	Oh, my.
	Eric, how are you?
	It's been a while, sir, since you've been on the channel.
	Yes.
	For those watching who may not know who you are, Eric, give us the 30,000-foot overview before we start talking shop.
	Okay.
	I am a wayward podcaster who collects more channels than subscribers.
	At least you finally got the unstructured.locals.com inside.
	You've got to put it on the screen.
	That's always key.
	I'm getting there.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That's good.
	That's good.
	I did love one of my favorite Grobert stories recently.
	It's like, you know it's going to be a great Grobert story because it just starts off, I got a call from a guy named Frog.
	Or a dig.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's all it begins.
	I'm down here in Texas country, and boy, you can feel LBJ down here.
	The feeling, the texture, the ranch country, etc.
	It's kind of interesting.
	I heard you sent a house listing to our intrepid friend.
	Yeah, one of the people on our Locals board, febabarneslock.locals.com, pointed out that Colonel Walker, General Walker, I'm sure he would have corrected me too.
	But his house is for sale.
	So apparently Grobert is going to go down and take a little tour.
	Yeah, he was just telling me earlier.
	Yeah, so he was down there, I think, for other purposes in Dallas anyway.
	I'm here in Austin for a couple of weeks.
	May have some interesting visitors next week that might be covering the trial.
	So a nice good little setup gig here.
	But, you know, I've been watching all the America's Untold stories that I've missed.
	I've gotten through about, like, half of the catalog so far.
	Oh, cool.
	But very persuasive arguments.
	I'd always wondered about Tibbet.
	And I was like, oh, the dude looks like John Kennedy.
	And he could use him as a sub.
	Because they didn't know for sure how Kennedy would look.
	And they're thinking, we can sub him in in case we got an evidentiary problem.
	And maybe they even ultimately did use part of the guy's brain.
	And the bodies got mixed up and they had to travel.
	Hold on a second.
	Eric, you're going to feel this because this is too much knowledge for the layperson.
	What the heck are you guys talking about right now?
	J.D. Tippetts is the guy that they used to prove that Oswald could be a killer.
	Well, actually, they used Walker prior to that because General Walker had a shot that just went right by his shoulder and into the wall.
	And it got attributed to Oswald later because Walker said, yeah, it was Oswald.
	And the Marina Oswald said, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it was him.
	Well, then Tippetts...
	Was a deputy who was gunned down.
	I mean, he was murdered.
	You know, cold blood.
	He was the one that said Oswald killed after he got caught.
	Right.
	That's J.D. Tibbett.
	Yep, that's him.
	And his nickname was JFK.
	Yeah.
	If you look at that part right there.
	Yeah.
	Well, especially if you put the left side of his face next to JFK's face like Eric did on the show.
	And part of it's missing.
	Part of it missing?
	You know, think about it.
	Exactly.
	Man, those guys planned ahead.
	Well, and we're seeing aspects of it.
	Missing evidence.
	Remember all the things that went missing in the JFK case?
	And now even more stuff.
	Hey, the Secret Service is back in the middle of stuff again.
	Just like the JFK assassination.
	People forget how complicit the Secret Service was.
	And especially who was in the Secret Service back then.
	It's kind of partially like that again.
	Not fully.
	But I don't know if you heard, Eric.
	Everything from January 5th and January 6th of the Secret Service was accidentally deleted.
	Oh, I hate when that happens.
	All the texts are gone.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	As it happens.
	You know, it's like the J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ phone conversations.
	It's still there.
	Exactly.
	No doubt about that.
	But I don't know if you saw, Viva, your post-millennial exclusive podcast for the Steve Bannon trial, day one, finishing the top five of Apple Politics podcasts.
	It's nuts.
	It's very cool.
	We'll see.
	All that I know is, like, from my own perspective, I shoot these segments, and then I sit there criticizing myself.
	In abstention.
	There's nothing I can do to change it.
	They're good.
	They're nice.
	You know, 28-minute concise.
	Boom, boom.
	Well covered.
	Not pulling any punches.
	Though you went, you know, because of your interview on War Room, you're all over mainstream media.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's a phenomenal thing.
	I don't know what labels mean anymore, but I enjoy the critique.
	But you guys, you sort of blown my mind here.
	The theory is that this individual's deceased body was used...
	The reason why they killed Tibbett was not just to set up Oswald.
	The question was always, why Tibbett?
	Nobody could figure that out.
	Grobert's theory is that it's because they wanted a double.
	They wanted a double that looked like Kennedy, and that's why they shot him the way they shot him.
	It was in order to have someone that they could use as a substitute for Kennedy's body if they needed to for any forensic purposes.
	And they had just enough time.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It was a double benefit.
	We get to pin something on Oswald.
	And, I mean, like, it may turn out, because I always wondered, maybe Tibbet found out something, and that's why he got whacked.
	Maybe Tibbet was in on it, and he got whacked.
	It turns out the guy's bad luck because he looked like John Kennedy.
	He was a little dirty, too.
	Everybody was dirty in Dallas.
	All you're going to say is Dallas cop in certain inferences.
	God bless all the Dallas cops out there, but those inferences, especially back then, kind of went hand in hand.
	The honest cops got purged out or ended up accidentally shot.
	I didn't know until Grobert pointed out the connection to the thin blue line.
	I didn't know that was the same process.
	It's a great documentary for people out there.
	Thin blue line, fantastic, really well done about how the justice system can go so AWOL.
	I didn't know.
	I was like, it figures there'd be a tie, but I was still a little shocked that there was a tie.
	It's mind-blowing, though, how small these worlds are.
	And you'll see it.
	Every episode we're doing is essentially, here's the Wikipedia article, which is about three sentences.
	He was a businessman in the community and not much else.
	Happened to run across fill-in-the-blank.
	Then you find out, like, DeMora Schulte.
	No, he was nobility.
	He was tied in.
	He was tied in directly with Belarus.
	He came over here.
	He was almost the father to Jackie Kennedy, you know, the future Jacqueline Kennedy, because he was dating her mother, for God's sake.
	So this guy, who then becomes best friends after he recruits Oswald.
	And puts Oswald with Ruth Payne, and it's just, and every single character, it's like, okay, you have three sentences, but then you go lay it out, and we're talking for an hour plus, and just going on and on and on, and there's this, and there's this.
	Oh, and by the way, there's this.
	Jack Ruby, General Walker.
	Now, what the hell would they have to do with each other?
	Well, they have to play bridge every week.
	What better connection there?
	That was the only thing they had in common.
	Well, you know.
	They had certain lifestyle preferences.
	Well, let's not talk about Brian Ferry.
	I mean, it was one after the other.
	I mean, that whole subculture was...
	Wild.
	But you listen to some aspects of the January 6th cases and you see how it got set up.
	We asked Julie Kelly about QAnon.
	She said the government has been completely not forthcoming about who and what QAnon really is.
	Hey, he's in the chat.
	There's what's up with Lord Buckley in the chat.
	There we go.
	Is this the Buckley?
	That's him.
	You know there was somebody pretending to be you, Viva, in the Joe Nierman chat.
	And they fooled Neiman.
	So he's like, oh, Viva's on him.
	I'm going to have Viva live.
	Viva's finally reached out.
	He's like, oh, excited.
	And they're like, no, no, that's a fake Viva.
	That was a fake Viva fry.
	Now, the other Viva fries are usually selling Bitcoin or their porn bots.
	Oh, for sure.
	I don't understand what the purpose is of those bots.
	There's Joe Nierman's got one.
	There's one that says Viva Fry supports Justin Trudeau.
	I don't know.
	Other than being annoying.
	I know.
	I jumped on your stream and actually timed them out when you were on the other day.
	By the way, send Grobert the link.
	Let's get this full...
	Sure.
	Let's get the cube of conspiracy going.
	Conspiracy...
	What's the word?
	Analysts.
	Not fear.
	Dude, people in the chat have never heard of TJ.
	I screenshot it because I'm going to go look this up and I guess have my mind blown.
	We have an entire episode on it.
	Oh yeah, just on Tibbetts.
	It's really good.
	The Ruth Payne thing.
	I mean, a lot of this stuff I didn't know.
	There's a Kennedy playlist.
	If you want to get a rabbit hole, we have a whole playlist on Kennedy.
	Tibbetts was the first one.
	So when was he killed?
	He's the one that triggers the supposed investigation into Oswald in part.
	So, supposedly, Oswald's leaving his house.
	Tibbet comes down, asks him some questions.
	Oswald shoots him and then runs to the movie theater.
	Except we don't know how Oswald got there because one day it's a bus, another day it's a cab, and another day it's this.
	There was always evidentiary problems with that premise.
	But, you know, whoever put it together initially assumed...
	Didn't go that much into detail.
	They were looking at what they needed for a typical state conviction kind of mindset.
	But it likely involves Ruby.
	I think that theory makes sense, that Ruby was probably the guy that did it.
	What I'm curious about is, the part that hasn't been explained to me yet is who got Tibbett to go there.
	And I guess we just don't know.
	But, like, who, what was the lead that led Tibbet to be there?
	Well, there was a coordination.
	I mean, he had a phone call, and I believe he was told.
	And Mark, part of his thing, because there's, like, a whole JFK research community, and Mark is deep into this.
	So this is all Mark.
	It's not me.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And his big discovery was, I forgot the other guy, this other guy who was probably a hitman, who was involved.
	Mark figured out that this guy's jacket was underneath a parked car on the Tippett crime.
	And that's what brought Mark into the fold of all the other JFK people.
	And that's in the Tippett episode as well.
	Have you guys explored why and how Mark got interested in the Kennedy assassination?
	You know, I'm just catching up with everything Mark.
	Yeah, exactly.
	He's like six degrees of separation from almost everything.
	No, not like two.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Yeah, exactly, exactly.
	Well, I think there's actually a tie now with the Moonies because, you know, he had his own issue with the Moonies.
	I know, we have an episode.
	The Japanese Prime Minister.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The whole episode about, you know, supposedly the Japanese Prime Minister was assassinated because the assassin was obsessed with the, or the ex-Japanese political leader that was just recently assassinated.
	It's about Moonies.
	Oh, I didn't know that.
	The assassin was obsessed because he thought his mother...
	Had been bilked out of money and other things related to the Moonies?
	Oh, never mind.
	We don't have an episode about the Moonies.
	Moonies are great.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	You know, I was talking about with some people how good jury selection could be and our mutual friend in Virginia's access to certain databases.
	That will be fun.
	But that's another topic for another day.
	So it's amazing how pedestrian a lot of jury selection is these days.
	But, you know, that's just another.
	Section for commentary.
	Eric, before or if Grobert comes in, what are you doing at 9.15 tonight?
	Okay, I actually have probably my most personally ambitious episode I've ever done.
	And I think, Barnes, I think you would be interested in it as well.
	Because I believe you like sports betting, you like boxing.
	You probably have heard of Tommy Morrison.
	Of course, of course, of course.
	John Wayne, fake John Wayne.
	Yeah, well, guess what?
	No, that was the Irish guy.
	No, his great uncle was John Wayne.
	Yeah, his great uncle was John Wayne, but I'm thinking, I was trying to remember whether it was him or the other guy whose trainer threw the towel before Mike Tyson could even land a punch.
	I mean, look, the Irish guy came in and the trainer was like, get him out of here, get him out of here.
	We just did this for the money.
	But wasn't that someone else that Tyson took out in short order?
	No.
	Oh, no, did he last?
	No, he was scheduled to fight Tyson.
	And then Tyson got...
	Nope, not that either.
	He beat George Foreman for the heavyweight title.
	Then he lost.
	Really?
	Why did I not know that?
	Tyson came out of prison.
	Well, this is why it's an important story.
	He was in Rocky V, for people who want a cultural reference, but he also became a world champion twice over.
	Beat George Foreman, then he lost.
	But he was reclaiming.
	He signed a contract with Don King for $10 million to fight Tyson.
	Tyson had just gotten out of prison and had lost against Buster Douglas before that point.
	And it was all lined up.
	He had to fight two other fighters on the way to Tyson as part of this contract.
	All of a sudden, he came up HIV and is dead in 2013.
	Wow.
	But that's not the story.
	This is the thing.
	His entire life was ruined, right?
	So here's the narrative.
	HIV positive, life ruined, goes to drugs, whores, all the good stuff that typically happens.
	Down in the gutter, trying to rebuild his life, sadly.
	Gets full-blown AIDS and dies in 2013.
	Except for one niggling little problem with this entire story, and that's what my whole episode is, and it's a long one.
	He never had HIV.
	And it's proven in post-mortem autopsies.
	I have receipts from the widow.
	It's an interview with the widow and it's everything.
	The case just got delivered to the Supreme Court again today where she's suing Quest Diagnostics who's in bed with a certain short saint figure in Washington that you love.
	Yes.
	Look, I'm not that stupid.
	I'm just saying...
	The entire time you say this, I'm thinking I listen to Katsuki.
	That's a great setup, by the way.
	That's how you sell a narrative.
	That's a great premise.
	Boom, boom, boom, and then boom.
	I thought you were going to screw me over and say, ah, you've got to watch the show to find out what the surprise is.
	No, no, I mean, that's it.
	But I think that it's still worth it to watch it because I have records, post-mortem, you know.
	It's all there, and I really hope that people do check it out and share.
	Obviously, I want clicks and views, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but I kind of fell into it because it's recommended to me, and I feel like with Johnny Depp, possibly Marilyn Manson, not sure yet, Michael Jackson, whatever, these are people whose legacies have been destroyed.
	This poor man, now consider everybody, top boxer in the world, movie star.
	Everything.
	One freaking test.
	And everything just smashed through the gutter that you're nothing but a horrible lifestyle.
	He literally had a press conference saying, kids, I don't want you to think of me as a role model.
	Because he believed it.
	And it's heartbreaking.
	So I think that it's an important, important story for his legacy in Barnes.
	If you ever want to check it out, all the legal documents.
	She has done.
	She's represented herself all the way to the Supreme Court, which is pretty damn impressive.
	That is impressive.
	It's amazing to think that a life of philandering and cheating and whatever is fine so long as you don't get HIV.
	But if you get it, then you're a moral failure and you deserve to be ostracized by mainstream society.
	Unless you're Magic Johnson and then you get the special medicine and you're fine.
	But I have so many questions, Robert, after having listened to the real Anthony Fauci, I never knew.
	The controversy around HIV-AIDS in the first place.
	I never knew it.
	You mean Fauci telling people you could get it in your kitchen?
	That and I never knew that there were different criteria for HIV depending on country.
	So you had HIV in Canada when you didn't have it in the States.
	You had it in Africa when you didn't have it in Canada.
	I had no idea.
	I had no idea of anything.
	But I also went to...
	Great lengths to suppress that a failed polio vaccine might have been the original source of it as well.
	A journalist did a whole huge book called The River, made it to a documentary.
	Mainstream media went to great lengths to suppress that because that would change the interpretation of rushing vaccines might not be a great idea.
	Well, how are we going to do this?
	He got changed to show up.
	Thank you, Mark.
	Does he know he's here?
	He knows he's here.
	He's boomerying it a little, but he'll get there.
	He's on the wrong microphone, but we won't bother.
	Now you're Sonny Wright.
	We can hear you.
	I have a thing about people with fedoras.
	Eric, hold on.
	Hold on.
	Eric, make sure he knows that he's on air.
	Before something bad happens.
	Yeah, before the young strippers walk in.
	Be like, hey, how you doing?
	Hey, you never know.
	I'm sure he knows.
	Bear's always got crazy girlfriends.
	You're on air, Mark.
	No, he doesn't know.
	That seems to work.
	Mark, yeah.
	He doesn't have the speakers turned on.
	I really want to see where this goes, but I don't want it to happen.
	The speakers, that's probably what he doesn't have on.
	Or the visual.
	I don't think he's seeing us either.
	Let's try it again.
	I'm texting.
	I don't know if he's got it on.
	Mark?
	Mark, you're on air.
	Oh, he just got your text.
	I really don't want to see something bad happen.
	We're going to win.
	Just double check.
	There you go.
	I can't hear you.
	Okay, well, turn your speakers on, bud.
	What?
	Speakers!
	Put in some sound, bud.
	Hold on.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He might be on, like, the speaker might be set to his earphone.
	It doesn't matter.
	If he plugs it in, he can then set them up.
	And I got him headphones, which will be good.
	He knows his life.
	I'll get him headphones so that he can do it.
	Yeah, that should be nice.
	He rarely, rarely uses them.
	This is...
	This is called the boomer moment, folks.
	Okay, let's see.
	People accuse me of being a boomer, but I'm only...
	No, he is a boomer.
	Like, legitimately.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	He's a legitimate boomer.
	We're here.
	He can talk to himself.
	Holy cow.
	Holy.
	There you go.
	There you go.
	Voila.
	Can you hear us?
	What a difference.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's good.
	Wow.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You get to see the live.
	Boomer experiences new technology.
	Yeah.
	Look, I'm still having acid flashbacks from a year ago.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Exactly.
	I don't even know what you guys are doing here.
	I just saw a bunch of links, and I clicked on something, and there are these guys in here.
	Exactly.
	What's the topic?
	What are you guys into?
	I was complimenting the J.D. Tibbett episode, because I had not thought of the possibility.
	I always wondered why he got killed.
	Now, what's the theory as to, is it the radio call?
	Why does he go to that location?
	Why does he go into the setup?
	Well, he was circling around all morning, visiting a record store and going to the theater.
	There's quite a bit of dissension as to what this guy's role was.
	He had a mistress on the side, apparently.
	He frequented the Carousel Club.
	I happen to believe it was this kid, Crawford and Ruby, who did the execution.
	You can walk from that location to Ruby's apartment in literally two minutes.
	The Oswald thing is like you'd have to be an Olympian to make it.
	From where Oswald's apartment was.
	That dog just doesn't hide.
	The main reason he got shot was they needed a body double or wanted to have a body double just in case.
	Right.
	The body does disappear for a long period of time.
	The ambulance disappears.
	I mean, these are all unexplained mysteries about Tippett.
	He was called JFK, by the way, by the Dallas police.
	He did look smack.
	Let me ask you this.
	Why do they need a body double when they already have JFK's body?
	So what would they need?
	Oh, to replace JFK's body.
	There's a problem and they need to re-explain the forensic evidence.
	No, it went in here.
	See, look.
	They shipped two caskets back to Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington, Viva.
	So the two caskets have been identified by multiple witnesses having been delivered to Bethesda.
	Definitely somebody else's brain, according to you.
	Right.
	A lot of people believe the brains were already in Bethesda because it was a school.
	There were plenty of formaldehyded brains that the kids used every day for autopsies quite a bit.
	And originally, they may have thought they could keep Texas control over the case.
	Right.
	Yeah, that was the original battle.
	And that was done through gunplay to get his body out of there by force.
	I mean, there was quite a scuffle with machine guns.
	Pulled out and that casket on the gurney was taken by brute force by the Secret Service.
	No doubt about that.
	Not supposed to move the body because it's a state crime.
	It's a murder.
	It's a state crime.
	Right.
	The coroner was there.
	They were battling with the county coroner in this tug of war in the hallway of Parkland.
	You know, and LBJ already left and everybody thought he had gotten on Air Force Two, but he insisted on getting on Air Force One.
	And trying to contact a guy named Curtis LeMay.
	There's quite a bit of Air Force tapes now, Air Force One tapes, that have become available regarding the search for General Curtis LeMay and LBJ's request that he meet him at Bethesda, at the airport.
	See, I mean, to give people an idea, LeMay was so crazy, he even made George Corley Wallace embarrassed.
	I mean, because of what he said during the 68 campaign.
	He was like, ah, you know, I'd rather just, if I'm going to die or get hit, might as well be a nuclear weapon.
	Why not?
	You know, we just got to start using these nukes.
	That's why we got them.
	We got to start nuking some people.
	He said, let's nuke Saigon, or North Vietnam.
	He said, let's nuke Vietnam.
	He also said, let's nuke Cuba.
	And he wanted to nuke Russia, really.
	He thought, hey, we have an edge.
	So while we have an edge, let's just do it.
	Let's get a George C. Scott style.
	Let's get it over with.
	He was George C. Scott.
	You know, he was going to get his hair messed a little bit, Mr. President.
	How much was Kubrick informed by some of that?
	No, everybody was.
	LeMay was very famous.
	Famously, he said if the Japanese had won the war, he would have been tried and executed as a war criminal.
	It turns out he came up with firebombing Tokyo at a low level to make sure that they would have the maximum infliction of harm.
	There's some estimates that he killed 300,000 civilians.
	He was a good engineer.
	He came up with great ways to get around air defense systems.
	That's how he got escalated so quickly.
	Eric, how old was he when he got his stars?
	We were talking about this morning.
	He got his fourth star in 1951.
	He was 44 years old.
	He was the youngest general since USS Grant to become a four-star.
	Right.
	And he creates the United States Air Force and the whole Strategic Air Command.
	That's all him, the Flying Super Fortress.
	He was also the longest person serving as a four-star general in military history.
	Black Reign.
	Yeah, Black Reign.
	Also the movie.
	That's a good movie, yeah.
	Yeah, with Michael Douglas.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, well, anyway, I didn't know you guys were doing this.
	I was just doing my laundry, and I saw my name in the chats, and I go, who are all these people talking about here?
	This is really weird.
	So what did I miss today?
	Well, we just had a conversation with Julie Kelly.
	She only had an hour available.
	She's been covering all the January 6th cases.
	The Secret Service has disclosed that they just can't find all of their texts from not only January 6th, but also the day before.
	That's interesting.
	Well, regarding documents, when they had the House Assassinations Committee, the ONI showed up and said, literally, we've destroyed all our documents.
	They literally said it out loud in the hearing.
	And they said, where are all your documents?
	They said, we've destroyed them all.
	If that's one aspect that really has, in my view, gone undercover, because I was telling Mark, I've been catching up on all the, you guys, LBJ, I mean, you guys' entire Kennedy series.
	I'm down here in Texas.
	You get a sense of why they love, like, everybody wants to be a pretend rancher down here.
	They all got these, like, iron things and iron fences and gates, and you look there, it's like, okay, it's just some ordinary guy's house.
	There's, like, no even ranch or land or something, but they want to pretend to be ranchers.
	You get that LBJ vibe.
	Oh, yeah.
	Takes a couple days.
	I told somebody recently, if we win a certain case or get a desirable outcome, we're going to party like LBJ.
	Ooh, that's hard to do, my friend.
	That's dangerous.
	That's going to be my new phrase.
	You've just got to get a car that floats.
	Right.
	Floating a car, that's my dream, Buck.
	Yeah, and all the wives around.
	Watch out, wives.
	Yeah.
	That guy was a pure predator.
	I mean, pure predator.
	Well, I was telling Eric yesterday, we did a show on Dr. John Brinkley, and we thought maybe he was related to David Brinkley, since they were both from North Carolina.
	David Brinkley mistakenly or stupidly left his wife behind after a barbecue at the ranch to go do the NBC News back in New York, and his wife was in the guest room in bed, and LBJ came in and said, move over, honey, this is your president talking, and got in and did David Brinkley's wife.
	Can you imagine?
	I mean, the guy was just pure predator.
	That's the way I described it.
	He was a sociopath.
	Oh, completely.
	And he was just always looking for prey all the time.
	Hunting like a mad dog.
	Like a mad dog, looking for a bone.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, Clinton can't get close to LBJ.
	No, no, no.
	Nowhere near it.
	Not only that, I mean...
	Go ahead.
	I'm sorry, Peter.
	Who was the one that dressed in women's clothing, allegedly, behind closed doors?
	Hoover.
	J. Edgar Hoover.
	Oh, Hoover, yeah.
	The FBI director.
	Right.
	LBJ knew that also.
	Yeah, they were neighbors.
	He made him, hey, why don't you do that walk for me, J. Edgar?
	Well, that was after LBJ's aide was arrested blowing a man at the YMCA bathroom that was staked out by the FBI.
	And LBJ flipped out, thought it was a Goldwater.
	You know, dirty tricks, political dirty tricks in '64.
	And Hoover came in and said, "No, I'm sorry, Mr. President.
	We arrested him two years ago also." And LBJ flipped out.
	This is his chief of staff almost, Robert.
	I mean, he had to resign immediately because of the incident.
	It was like three weeks before the election in '64.
	But it was funny when LBJ was doing it.
	So now, how does he talk again, J. Edgar?
	Right.
	Yeah, you can listen to the tapes because LBJ has J. Edgar Hoover come in the office and he says, now how do you know how do these homosexuals walk?
	And he says, well, Mr. President, and he starts demonstrating in the office how to walk like a gay man in front of LBJ.
	And LBJ drags it out on the tape.
	He goes, now what about his, how about them wrists?
	You know, let me see what he does with the wrist, J. Edgar.
	Oh, yeah.
	You knew it.
	I mean, that's just classic.
	That guy was so ruthless.
	Let me just look.
	Someone has a legit point here.
	So much for Bannon coverage.
	Robert, do you want to give a 30-second overview of today, or should I do it?
	Somebody should do it.
	I don't know what happened.
	I'd like to know.
	I only saw some headlines, so I didn't see much detail.
	You can watch the post-millennial exclusive later tonight.
	See, there you go.
	I saw you on Gateway Pundit this morning.
	My Google notifications are not coming in anymore as far as that goes.
	But the summary of the date, Robert, you'll tell me what you think of this.
	Prosecution arrested its case after two witnesses.
	The general counsel for the committee and the FBI agent or investigator who decided to press charges.
	And that's it.
	They said, you know, the bottom line, people?
	They got one letter from Trump in waiving the executive privilege on Bannon, which will be interesting in defense.
	But the prosecution closed this case.
	They had general counsel come and say, we serve the subpoena.
	He knew we had some back and forth.
	He knew he had to comply.
	He didn't.
	And then the investigators say, we looked at some of his posts from before and after the deadlines and the subpoenas.
	He willfully defied it.
	We wanted some of his social media posts.
	All hell's going to break loose.
	We think he might have known something was going to go down, and that was the purpose of it.
	Entirely legitimate.
	Case closed.
	That's it.
	And now it's defense.
	How many did they get to ask questions about Benny Thompson's political bias or things like that?
	So they were trying to ask, you know what, now you mentioned I forgot to mention this in the exclusive at Post Millennial.
	No, they asked about political bias, and the judge said, the only bias we're going to get into is potentially Amerling.
	The general counsel.
	We're not going to ask her about other people's bias.
	And then she testified that they had book groups where they discussed books and they talked politics.
	I mean, it's like high school.
	It's like high school at a federal government level.
	That's all that it is.
	And that's D.C. in a nutshell.
	That's D.C. in a nutshell.
	That's why it's so disturbing.
	Do you ever find out what a kangaroo court, where that emanated from?
	Oh, it's from leaps to get from one point to another.
	They make leaps that other people could make sense.
	Now, do you think Bannon testifies, Viva?
	My prediction?
	I don't think he...
	Do you think defense wraps tomorrow and just goes to closing arguments and jury instructions?
	I didn't even think that far ahead.
	They might call a lawyer now that they have that letter from Trump waiving executive privilege, but Bannon, seeing his pre-trial speech at the steps of the courthouse, I think he has the audacity to testify.
	What would you do, Barnes?
	Would you just say defense rests and call it today?
	Did they get in evidence about him volunteering to testify once Trump wrote that letter?
	Defense, not yet.
	Ooh, I don't know.
	I see.
	There was some back and forth on that because the correspondence between the committee and Bannon's attorneys was in as to whether or not...
	He said, I raise executive privilege.
	They say, we don't acknowledge it.
	Here are your deadlines.
	That's in.
	So the question is...
	What's the extent of that in terms of impact?
	Yeah, it doesn't say in those letters that he now agrees to appear.
	If that's in the letters, then there's nothing he can add and only information he can detract by testifying while also subjecting himself to a perjury and obstruction risk.
	Wow.
	You know, I had a longer trial at the DMV than this guy's going to get.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Welcome to D.C. Justice.
	You could have a two-week trial with Sussman and be dead to rights and still get acquitted.
	Like, I don't know how Sussman's trial went on that long, and then he gets acquitted nonetheless.
	So, short condemnation, long acquittal.
	It's the DC way.
	Have any of you guys actually been picked for a jury?
	Yeah, I've been on juries, yeah.
	Oh, you have?
	What were the cases?
	Real estate eviction case was one.
	And I forget what the other case was.
	Yeah, I've been on a couple.
	What was that?
	They weren't criminal.
	They weren't criminal.
	I loved it.
	I loved being there.
	Yeah, I loved doing it.
	And what did you think of, did it increase or decrease your confidence in your fellow man?
	The trial, well, I'll put it this way.
	The trial I just went to was just after five years of suing someone.
	It ended up in L.A. Superior Court, the most recent thing.
	There was a woman judge with a mask.
	There was myself and my lawyer, both in masks.
	I went to take a...
	She made me sit in a jury box.
	This is a lawsuit against the rehab.
	She made me sit in a jury box away from my attorney and away from her.
	And I tried to take a sip of water from the bottle, lifting my mask by myself.
	And I didn't know anybody was even looking.
	And she says, if you do that again, I'll have you removed from the court.
	And I almost jumped out of my skin.
	You know what I mean?
	It was so shocking that she was yelling at me after five minutes in court.
	Wow.
	But yeah, that was just a creepy experience.
	So I was summoned for jury duty in Quebec, and I went to show up because I was eager to do it, but I was excluded, disqualified, because lawyers in Quebec can't be jury members, which is why I was surprised that one of the jury prospects in Bannon was a lawyer who had pending motions in front of the judge.
	I didn't know it was a judicial thing.
	You can, but you really shouldn't be, but it tells you there's too many lawyers in D.C. That's probably why that guy's there.
	What happened to executive privilege, Robert?
	Does that not exist anymore?
	Is that just a traditional thing?
	Selectively.
	I don't understand executive privilege anymore.
	Well, there's two different issues.
	One is the contempt aspect, which is they've interpreted contempt of Congress to not allow a good-faith mistake of law defense, and you're only allowed a mistake of fact defense.
	And so, consequently...
	You can't assert anything like executive privilege, attorney-client privilege.
	Dershowitz has said he doesn't agree with the charges against Bannon and thinks Bannon should prevail on appeal, in part because of the issues related to executive privilege.
	I disagree with that interpretation of the criminal willfulness under the federal criminal statutes.
	I think good faith, mistaken law should always be a defense, at least in that context, these kind of politically motivated cases.
	Or just, you know, so-called white-collar cases, etc.
	But it's not.
	So, now, what's interesting is his own lawyers didn't figure out that he had a mistaken fact defense until the government raised the issue.
	The government came in and said, well, we're only introducing this to show...
	They were the ones who got all this correspondence in.
	I mean, the defense wasn't going to get any of it in.
	The government says, we want a bunch of it in, and so the defense is like, fine, we want a bunch more.
	But as part of the objection, the judge made clear, if Bannon thought that the executive privilege issue meant that the committee was going to reissue the subpoena with new terms and new dates, and that the reason he didn't show up on the dates given...
	He thought those dates had been indeterminately continued until there was clarification on what was covered and what wasn't covered by executive privilege.
	That would be a mistake of fact defense, which he does have.
	But apparently, that's the first time he had a defense in this case, was thanks to the government being so aggressive at what they wanted to introduce.
	Now, I don't know how skilled his lawyers are.
	I saw Joe Nierman's approach.
	He thought the prosecutors were weak, thought the defense lawyers were kind of average.
	I thought some of their jury selection was real dubious.
	I mean, you're Steve Bannon, you have the resources you do, and you don't have meaningful jury selection.
	I mean, the irony is, jury selection team, he knows one of the great jury selection people, which is Richard Barris.
	I mean, that's who I use all the time.
	And, you know, he could have used Barris to argue for transfer of venue.
	I don't even know if they ever filed such a motion.
	Same with juries.
	Lawyers think they know tons about jurors, and they don't have a clue.
	John Grisham had this stereotype that all fat women were terrible.
	It's that kind of idiotic biases that govern most laws.
	They think they can pick a jury.
	They have no clue.
	If you're going to do it right, you should have someone that's a professional, someone that's a data person, someone that's a body language person.
	You should have access to their data.
	Especially these days.
	It should look like Runaway Jury, which is a 20-year-old movie.
	That's what your jury selection capability should look like.
	There's certain things you can't do that are dramatized in the movie, but 90% of what's in there you can do.
	You can look up someone's old social media trail.
	People don't know there's 400 data points.
	Maybe we'll do it one...
	We'll do it somehow with Richard.
	We'll probably do Eric.
	We'll say, let's see what Eric's really been up to and get his 400 data points and all that.
	Eric and I went over this a little bit in the Garrison case when we were talking about William Joseph Bryan, who came in from the Sirhan case, Eric, remember?
	And he was doing some...
	He wrote the book, The Chosen Ones, and he was analyzing the jury.
	He helped to invent jury selection.
	He invented jury selection, and he came from the Sirhan case, and he went to New Orleans, supposedly on vacation, and was doing...
	And he analyzes, in the book, The Chosen Ones, which I gave Eric a copy.
	Here, he's got a copy of it.
	In that book, he analyzes the jury selection that the Garrison case has just off the cuff.
	They were all working stock, working class guys.
	There were, I think, two or three African-Americans, all blue-collar guys.
	Oh, men.
	Were they not allowed to sit on the jury in Louisiana?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	It doesn't say that in the book.
	It almost has to be, right?
	Yeah, it had to be.
	It had to be all men.
	He made him wear suits, the judge did, in between smoking and paying in hookers.
	Right.
	My question is, I look at Bannon, and he's so disheveled all the time.
	Do you recommend your clients get dressed up when they go to court, Robert?
	I say look authentic.
	That's what I tell them.
	Now, in Snipes' case, he liked our defense.
	If crazy was criminal, half of Hollywood would be in prison.
	I got this outfit from Wesley Snipes, by the way.
	Really?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Hey, Viva learned, when you're in Vegas, I don't know if you play any roulette, Mark, always bet on black.
	Always bet on black.
	How do you like this?
	Barnes is making it sound like we took down the house.
	I mean, I got 75 losses.
	Did he make money?
	I guarantee he made money.
	You tripled your money.
	You went from down to up.
	That's a good deal.
	I quadrupled my losses into the profit.
	It was great.
	From negative 25 to plus 75, and I came home a winner to my wife.
	How do you like Fremont Street?
	I was trying to get Viva to take some photos.
	If you see the video, I scrolled to people who had American flags painted on their boobies and bums.
	I'm a married man, but I felt better on Fremont Street than I did on the main strip because this is without judgment.
	It's a bad state of affairs.
	There were a lot of uncomfortable people and unsavory people on The main strip, where you go under underpasses, you go through these tunnels, and anybody who's seen the movie Irreversible...
	You can tell they're not armed.
	Grobert almost got flagged and couldn't come into dinner because they'd had a shooting on Fremont, so they upped the ante in terms of security.
	And that's why it was so, when Viva was there, so cool and smooth.
	But yeah, Mark almost got stuck at the door.
	We were there a long time, Robert.
	And there's no reception.
	I texted you that we were at security.
	Not down in that restaurant.
	I realize that.
	Cell phone doesn't work at all.
	Yeah, I realize that.
	You were with bad company.
	I was with a company that doesn't have driver's licenses because they've crashed so many sports cars.
	The state of California took away their driver's license.
	I had to drive home with Batman at 140 miles an hour in a Maserati.
	Where did you guys eat when you were in Vegas?
	Barry's, which is the place at the Circa.
	You talk about interesting viewing.
	There was a lot of interesting viewing that night at the Circa.
	But Barry's the old school guy.
	It's named after the chef owner.
	Circa is the newest, coolest casino built in Vegas, in my view.
	Built downtown of Fremont Street.
	Sort of more upscale version.
	Big sports better.
	I know the owner of the place.
	Huge sports better.
	Run into him a couple of times.
	But he gave a really cool chef in Vegas his own place.
	And it's old school Vegas.
	It feels like old school Vegas.
	But done in a contemporary way.
	So yeah, it's a cool place.
	Great place to grab some steak.
	Got some food.
	It was good.
	Food was good.
	Mark, I gotta ask you a question.
	You look like you've changed backdrop.
	Have you moved recently?
	No, I think it's the reverse camera angle that you're seeing my place in reverse.
	Okay.
	I appreciate the fact that there's no purple in your backdrop.
	Purple seems to be the backdrop of everyone on YouTube these days.
	Really?
	Yeah, except for the Rebels.
	I don't have purple.
	All of us are Rebels.
	Do you have the merch cup?
	No, I have it in the kitchen, but I do have my New Orleans key to the city back there, Viva.
	If you take a look, that's over my right shoulder.
	Okay, very nice.
	I see that.
	The key to the city, New Orleans.
	How did you get that again?
	Putting on the world's largest toga party at Tulane University.
	Otis Day and the Knights.
	Yeah, no, the Guinness Book of World Records was there, and it was something like 80,000 people in togas, and we had Otis Day and the Knights.
	It was the whole magilla, you know.
	So the mayor gave me the key.
	Was it Animal House?
	What inspired that idea?
	They called us down there because of Animal House.
	Yeah, I mean, the school invited us to come down and put it on when I was at National Lampoon in 1989.
	I almost went to law school at Tulane.
	Yeah, a lot of people did some devious things at Tulane, including Dr. Robert Heath, who was the Jolly West of Tulane, and a lot of stuff going on.
	Oswald infiltrated the student movement in Tulane.
	Working for Guy Bannister at the time.
	Tulane was a hotbed of Cuban activity back then.
	Yes, yes.
	Because New Orleans was a perfect cross-section to build the crime of the century.
	It was Casablanca.
	It really was.
	It was Casablanca.
	There was spy versus spy, including Ted Cruz's father, Viva, who apparently built the president.
	It was on the corner.
	I always loved it when Trump launched on him because he wanted Ted Cruz to drop out after Indiana.
	He wasn't dropping out yet.
	So Trump launched his whole routine that Roger Stone and Alex Jones had been talking about the day before, which was, what was Ted Cruz's dad doing down there in New Orleans hanging out with Lee Harvey Oswald?
	Might he have been at the grassy knoll if Ted Cruz just went nuts?
	Yeah, I was in the intersection of that because I worked for David Pecker.
	At the Inquirer and the Weekly World News and Pecker was involved with Trump in that storyline about Ted Cruz's dad.
	Pecker was the guy paying off a lot of people.
	Pecker paid a lot of people off.
	Such a perfect name, by the way.
	Such a perfect name.
	It's extraordinary.
	He took some hits and it seemed like he disappeared a little bit.
	After all, everything broke in 2017.
	The interesting thing about Pecker was when the Anthrax hit his photo building and killed the photo editor of the Inquirer, that's when I went down there, right after the Anthrax attack, and he had asked Governor Bush to come in and clean up the building because it needed, like, you know, hazmat vacuuming of Anthrax, and Bush refused to do it.
	And the cost was over a million dollars to...
	Pecker to do it, and he refused to do it.
	So they put yellow tape around the building with the anthrax, and a guy came by and bought it, and his name was Rudy Giuliani for his new security firm.
	Wow.
	Everybody in the chat is freaking out over Pecker.
	In different milieus, I grew up, I knew many Peckers growing up.
	You did?
	Oh, did you?
	Not intimately, I hope.
	Some of them were harder than others, but okay, I'll shut my face there.
	Grobert, what do you guys have on the menu for this week?
	Oh, David Ferry.
	We're getting this week.
	Next week, we're going to Tuesday.
	David Ferry.
	Did Joe Pesci nail him?
	Yes, he absolutely did.
	Oliver couldn't shut up about it.
	It was impeccable what he did.
	Impeccable what he did as David Ferry.
	Now, Ferry, like I was explaining, It had alopecia, the same disease that Will Smith's wife had.
	He was hairless, and he put on the wig, but he would paint on the eyebrows.
	And sometimes he painted them on cockeyed, or there was one this way, one that way.
	But he had no hair on any part of his body.
	We're doing a Q&A on Friday, though.
	About the assassination, yeah.
	Yeah, another one.
	I guess we can go wider.
	David Ferry ran, apparently, 50 to 75 CIA missions over Cuba, Robert, before the assassination, having nothing to do with it, and was a pilot for Eastern Airlines, was fired for predatory sexual practices, tried to become a priest, got fired trying to become a priest for the same thing, and was in charge of the civilian air patrol in New Orleans.
	Which had Oswald as a member, which he denied, they denied for years until that photo appeared of him and Oswald.
	And remind me, who was it that set up the civilian air patrol?
	A guy named D.H. Byrd.
	D.H. Byrd, nicknamed Dry Hole Byrd, because he drilled for so many wells in Texas, and 90% of them came up dry.
	So he was laughed at by these Texas oil men, although a multimillionaire, hit a bunch of wells.
	And he bought a building the year before the assassination, smartly.
	He was LBJ's best friend.
	So he bought a building called the Texas School Book Depository Building.
	So he owned that a year later at the time of the assassination.
	By the way, I feel like a dirty pervert because when someone said dry hole, I didn't go to oil rigging people.
	Oh, that's sick.
	That is sick, bro.
	Speaking of eyebrows...
	Well, they both involve oil, if you think about it.
	Both of them are elusive.
	I will not pick...
	Hold on.
	Why can't I find the damn...
	Were you looking for his dumb and dumber haircut or his TV Herman outfit?
	Son of a gun.
	You know what?
	I don't even know where the window is anymore.
	I can't find the window.
	I am forgiving on people.
	I will not pick on anybody with eyebrow issues because people have eyebrow issues.
	I'll pick on Trudeau for other reasons.
	But it's just funny.
	When you mentioned it, there were a number of pictures of Trudeau with eyebrow issues.
	I'm not sure that he's actually gotten the tattoo, but I think he might have a nervous tick and pull out his eyebrows if I'm projecting.
	You know what, though?
	I refuse to believe that because that would imply he has a conscience.
	Okay, but that's an interesting thing.
	I said, Trudeau, this is projection, people.
	I might compulsively pick out hair.
	It's called trichotillomania.
	I know someone who has that.
	It's a form of OCD.
	It's an extension.
	I was thinking Trudeau might have this.
	But that would imply that Trudeau, when he's not selling out the nation, screwing people in prison, he sits in his bedroom.
	It's like, I feel so bad about what I'm doing.
	That's why I have issues.
	Interesting.
	Etienne de Gaulle says, can we make this a weekly thing?
	I'm going to take that under advisement.
	Take it under advisement.
	I don't have a job.
	This is all I do.
	You and me both, Mark.
	I don't even have a job.
	I'm semi-retired.
	I live in Florida.
	You live in Florida?
	No, I'm kidding.
	I'm just kidding.
	Dude, you come over or I'm coming over.
	We'll see what happens.
	Well, I'm going to be down there.
	So, the interview is next Tuesday.
	My job interview at the DMV?
	No, no.
	The next exclusive with Hundley on America's Untold Stories.
	No, Friday is a Q&A.
	No, Friday we have a Q&A.
	And then next week will be Ferry, which gives more time.
	Because a lot of these shows take time to prep.
	Yeah, it takes me a long time.
	I have to cross-reference all the...
	Mentions of Ferry.
	In this particular case, David Ferry.
	And then I redo the art and try to get all that put together or whatever.
	We try to get videos and then get struck by copyright people immediately.
	Any video we put up.
	I can put up my home movies.
	My grandmother from the grave will copyright strike me.
	Hey, we made it with Buster Keaton.
	We made it with Buster Keaton.
	That was a close call.
	I got a copy strike.
	It was my first sponsored video with American Hartford Gold.
	I got a copy strike at 50,000 views.
	And I contested it.
	I'll see what happened.
	This is for Robert.
	Which is the worst?
	Or which lawyer is worse?
	I mean, Dan Abrams means well.
	Tribe is just ideologically kind of crazy.
	I mean, I disagree a lot with Abrams, but Mark Elias is a skilled lawyer for corrupt causes.
	So that's the difference.
	Abrams is the son of Floyd Abrams.
	His sister's a judge.
	He runs and owns Law and Crime and a bunch of other ones.
	He's the ABC legal news analyst.
	We've sharply disagreed on a range of topics over time, but I don't doubt his sincerity.
	And Tribe is just nuts.
	I mean, he's a smart guy, but he's crazy.
	Ideologically crazy.
	He's crazy.
	Whereas Elias is sharp, sophisticated, for corrupt clients.
	Mark Elias is like you were saying, Walter Sheridan, RFK's guy, who was a lawyer, ex-Deep State guy, and, you know, I was on NBC.
	Same dynamic.
	Far more influential kind of guy.
	Right.
	A fixer.
	A fixer.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Old school fixer.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	Somebody's got a point that Nick Cata, we were talking about Abrams, has a tutorial on disputing copyright claims with Abrams.
	It's very colorful.
	And I'll say this, I don't want to get into YouTube drama about throwing shade or whatever the term is at Kurt.
	I know that some of the...
	Oh, he clearly asserted way too many.
	I get why, but I still...
	The first time I remember him doing that was he did a righteous rant at me.
	Because I was making fun of, I was criticizing people who believe in standing.
	I was criticizing standing.
	I wasn't really criticizing people who believe in standing.
	But he took it as a kind of personal thing.
	And he had a rant that was just funny as a dickens.
	He was like, F you, Barnes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	I was like, this is great.
	I shared it with a bunch of people.
	Because somebody else got it, you know, clipped it, put it up.
	And I shared it with my brother.
	He was laughing for like an hour.
	He's like, this is great.
	But I guess he didn't like it, so he copyright struck it.
	And took it down.
	Yeah, that's fair game.
	It's his business.
	I thought it was funny.
	I didn't think it was funny at him.
	I thought it was a good righteous rant that's kind of funny when people get mad at you.
	I've had people get much madder and do even crazier stuff.
	It's fun.
	But clearly he went a little crazy on the copyright strikes.
	He got a little irritable.
	He was targeted by a whole crew of people.
	He was.
	Good God.
	The same guy sets himself up for a video because, who was it?
	Obviously, whatever.
	Yeah.
	Obviously.
	He did videos talking literally about copyright claims.
	Right.
	And honestly, they did more work on him than Sargon ever did on her because they cut up an entire scenario.
	They did a ping trip on him.
	Yeah, trying to go after the, you know, some of the people might have been trolls.
	I think some are sincere commentators that had their own perspective.
	I think Divine.
	There's some other ones that are clearly sincere.
	Oh, Divinity?
	Yeah, she hates them.
	Divinity.
	And she's doubling down and down.
	Yeah, all that did.
	That was all that's going to happen.
	And to be honest with you, I guess he went a little crazy when Joe Nierman mentioned it, but the dating video thing was funny.
	I mean, it was clearly somebody put a clip together, but I was like, that's some funny stuff.
	He should have taken a bathrobe.
	I kept saying he should get like a bathrobe and then show up and be like, oh, you know, ladies.
	And then just double down on it.
	Embrace it.
	Embrace it.
	I mean, what he said was the best trait in a woman is a very interesting statement.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	What he likes in a woman.
	When he likes it, a woman.
	What was it?
	I didn't hear it.
	It was something phallic.
	I don't know.
	Was it him?
	Was the answer him?
	Yes.
	A little bit more direct.
	Very direct.
	I'm keeping it...
	See, it was funny.
	We'll call it a Peter principle, okay?
	I was just about to say, the kids aren't home.
	And now the kids...
	They can't hear anything, people.
	Very good.
	That's smart.
	How do you like what Sotomayor said about Judge Thomas?
	I didn't see that.
	I heard him say some real nice things.
	He said he's one of the nicest people.
	He's nice to everybody.
	This is driving the left crazy, Robert.
	RGB and Scalia.
	They're like super buddies and they go out every day.
	Argue on the court, but they were just really tight friends?
	Yes, that was true.
	Until he got the pillow treatment at the hunting lodge.
	Again, with Barnes.
	Yeah, listen, you're the first.
	I have him on speed dial.
	I mean, are you kidding me?
	By the way...
	I have recently found out you have to sign up for water when you move into a place, and we didn't, and we don't have water, so we got seltzer for the next 24 hours.
	You could drink it out of the pool down by the clubhouse.
	We could do that, but the pool water is...
	Chlorine.
	Chlorine, yeah.
	So we have a bucket by the toilet.
	It'll be a fun 24 hours.
	Well, you're just prepping for a hurricane, David.
	Yeah.
	You literally are.
	You don't know that, but you are doing it.
	Keep an eye on that dog.
	You got to keep an eye on that dog because there's alligators everywhere.
	The dogs don't walk without a leash.
	And one of the dogs I have a good mind.
	The alligator doesn't care.
	They'll eat the leash too down there.
	They don't care.
	No, we'll see.
	Someone, Robert, on our vivabarneslaw.locals.com said get a generator.
	I'm so stupid.
	What do I do?
	I get a generator.
	What do I have to do?
	I have to hook it to the mainframe?
	No, what you need to do is hire an electrician.
	Make sure it's at least a 5k generator.
	Ask him to have a reverse polarity so that way you can kick on the generator, turn off your main power, flip on the generator power, plug it in the house, and then your house will be run off your generator.
	And you can actually set it up to be automatic as well.
	Eric, I knew Eric would have all the survival.
	Yeah, he's got it going on.
	He's going to come in a couple hours.
	He's probably got like an El Chapo tunnel built underneath that.
	Are you kidding?
	He goes right into the ocean.
	He's got a sub.
	I've already been called CIA.
	You know, I have to have survivor skills.
	How cute that kid is.
	I knew Eric was intelligent.
	I knew it.
	What do you want?
	Oh, he's got a...
	Hold on.
	You want to say something to the world here?
	Okay.
	He does a great VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Ethan, you want to do one VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	This podcast is brought to you by Nabisco.
	V1.Locos.com Bravo.
	Bring him back for unstructured double.
	He missed out.
	That would be a tough one for him.
	What do we got here?
	What do you think about the prospect of the provinces seceding as a group in reforming and country without hijack?
	Nil.
	Zilch.
	Impossible.
	Unfortunately, yeah.
	Flat tax direct to the provinces.
	I guess the closest to is Quebec actually thought about that for a little while, right?
	Quebec was like one percentage of a point away from the public vote for the separation.
	The issue was then...
	Even if they had 51% popular vote, what happens then?
	And it wasn't clear that they could even do it constitutionally.
	So there's still a debate.
	Even if you get the vote, you've got to get the vote and then bring it to the courts.
	Well, tell them about the QLF, Viva, how violent they were back then in the 70s.
	They were worse than the Weather Underground.
	No, they're like IRA.
	You're like the IRA, Viva.
	Didn't your dad witness some of that?
	So none of us had any...
	No, I went to law school with the grandson.
	He's a friend of mine.
	Oh, the grandson of Pierre Laporte, who the guy that was actually, no, I don't want that, I don't want that.
	Who was killed and-Stop it.
	Later.
	My kid went to school next to one of the spots where a mailbox was blown up during that crisis.
	The kid wants me to eat something.
	Eat it.
	Oh, it's poop.
	You can't eat that poop.
	It's disgusting.
	Where did you go?
	To McGill?
	No, I went to McGill for undergrad and then Université Laval for law school.
	Right, right.
	That was the most disgusting, sour thing I've ever tasted, and he knew it, and he knew it.
	But now, Eric...
	But you tasted it.
	Yeah.
	I took a big chance because that could have been...
	You're going to be tripping in about five minutes.
	He's putting it into his shirt.
	I don't even know.
	Eric, you're going to have a premiere now, and everything is going to be directed from here to there.
	So how does that work, and what's the premiere?
	We've discussed it, but...
	How does it work?
	Essentially, when you close this off, supposedly, I guess it works, everybody, if they just stay watching, it'll just go, boom, it's the next video that's playing.
	And it'll kick off at 9.15.
	I'm really hot on the topic.
	I think it's an important show.
	It really is.
	The guy's lost his entire legacy.
	And I would love to see...
	I've heard back from her earlier today that the Supreme Court screwed up her paperwork.
	So they scanned every other page.
	So she's got to get with them to get the thing scanned in.
	But it's kind of a big deal.
	She got up to the Supreme Court before.
	She's fighting with the Ninth Circuit.
	And she's fighting the Nevada Gaming Commission.
	And again, this woman, on her own, has gone up every freaking step of the court.
	And she's piggybacking off of a convicted murderer to get the DNA evidence brought in because they found a tissue sample of Tommy Morrison.
	And she's saying, you know, test the stupid sample.
	Because what they're trying to say is, what are you talking about?
	You know, statute of limitations.
	You know, that was 96. And she's like, you know, hey, this is coming about.
	And all of this came about like she found the contract with Don King.
	That turned up like four or five years ago, and it's been a long, long haul.
	I kind of got lost.
	I mean, she was going through every legal step on the way, and I'm just like, God, can I get one of the lawyers here?
	Because I'm just going, certiorari, what?
	And she's seeking relief from the fact that they falsified the test results.
	Not only, here's where it gets crazy.
	They're claiming that he never was tested positive.
	And this is the really interesting part.
	And then the Nevada Gaming Commission stated, oh, no, well, yes, but we are applying the rules.
	And then she turned it up that the rule that they created was 97, and the test took place in 96. So if it was a test, it was illegal.
	And then it gets better, because I asked her the question of, okay, so...
	How, if everybody says no, he was never tested positive, the doctor on hand said no, wasn't tested positive.
	No, the test he took wouldn't even do it.
	It's not even legitimately for that.
	It's a homebrew test.
	And I'm like, okay, so how did it get out?
	Because the press stamp sure reported he was HIV positive, and that flat out said there were AIDS deniers and everything else.
	And it turns out that at Quest Diagnostics, the woman who called the commission Happened to be married to the chief guy at Yahoo Sports in charge of combat sports, a journalist.
	And for some reason, all the journalists had descended on the place before it even happened.
	And how did they know?
	Anyway, so there's so much chicanery involved.
	It's a really, really long, convoluted story, but I think it's important.
	And the other factor is, you know, he died very young.
	He died at 44. And he looked awful.
	He looked like he had AIDS.
	If I may ask the obvious question, did he end up taking the medications that were prescribed for HIV at the time or AIDS at the time?
	I think he did for a bit.
	You see, he thought he was HIV positive.
	And he even did a press conference saying, you know, kids, don't hold me up as a role model.
	It's a heartbreaking conference.
	He took it for a while, and then he was like, you know what?
	Why am I always feeling good?
	What is going on here?
	I'm supposed to be on death's door.
	Why am I fine?
	Because remember, supposedly he had it, some people claimed it back in 89. Now, 89's a death sentence.
	I'm sorry.
	I remember those days.
	So how in the hell did he last?
	I mean...
	Well, there's an interesting explanation for that in Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book about Fauci and the AIDS debacle.
	Yes, and this is an RNA test, by the way.
	Yeah, it takes up a big portion of the book about the difference between AIDS and HIV positivity and how he mangled this entire thing, Fauci.
	He had neither, though, Mark.
	Neither.
	No, I don't know about that case.
	I'm just saying in the book.
	Yeah, I'm just talking about RFK's book.
	He spends a lot of time talking about Fauci's involvement with the AIDS crisis.
	The real Anthony Fauci.
	Highly recommend book.
	Highly recommended.
	So as we exit, it will automatically go to your show, Eric.
	That's the hope.
	Okay.
	We'll find out.
	Say hi in the comments.
	I'll be in there hanging out and hope everybody enjoys it.
	And Robert, I might see you next week.
	All right.
	All right, people.
	Enjoy the evening.

▲