Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 24, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:58:54

Ep. 121: Pastor FREED; Bannon CONVICTED! Jan. 6 Defendant Tragedy AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	How amazing is this dog?
	She's like, "What the hell are you guys clapping about?" She doesn't know what she did.
	She doesn't know how amazing what she just did is.
	Let me see here.
	Are we live?
	She's not a drunken animal No, he's not Leave her alone with it.
	Let her enjoy the spot.
	She earned it.
	It's the cutest thing on earth.
	And then the dog knocked over the camera.
	Right now.
	People, we don't always have to start off with Justin Trudeau making everyone vomit.
	Speaking of vomit, I was on an airplane today.
	It was a little bumpy coming down.
	A kid sitting behind just to my left.
	Threw up into two barf bags.
	I've never actually, in my 43 years on Earth, seen anybody use a barf bag on an airplane.
	I saw someone use a barf bag, and it made me want to barf.
	We don't always have to start off with Justin Trudeau.
	Oh, what's her name?
	Dina Hinshaw.
	Joe Biden.
	We don't have to start off with things that will make us angry.
	Every now and again, we can start off with something that's going to make us happy, smile.
	Like a paralyzed puggle.
	For those of you who don't know the story, Winston is the white one.
	Pudge is the tubby little paralyzed puggle who crawled up onto a beach chair, whatever the heck those things are.
	Six years ago, my sister-in-law...
	Called me and said, Pudge is acting funny.
	She's panting.
	She's salivating.
	And she's lethargic.
	We take her to the vet.
	24 hours later, she's paralyzed in the back legs.
	Apparently from a slipped disc.
	I said at one point I would take Pudge.
	What I had envisioned in my mind was rehabilitating Pudge.
	Giving a functional Pudge back to my sister-in-law.
	Because I know that my sister-in-law loves that dog.
	She loved that dog.
	She'll always love that dog.
	But not everybody can handle.
	A paralyzed, quasi-continent dog and give it the life that it needs.
	I said, I'm going to rehabilitate Pudge.
	I'm going to gloriously, one day she's going to walk, I'm going to give her back to my sister-in-law.
	She never walked any better than what you've seen right now, and that's much better than it was two years ago.
	And I also fell in love with her.
	She's my dog now.
	No, but it was a mutually beneficial relationship between my sister-in-law, the dog, and Pudge, and me.
	So she has started getting some movement back.
	And it was the day I discovered that by spraying her private parts with a cold water hose, it contracted some movement in her legs.
	And that was my water therapy for her.
	Two more years, she'll be running.
	She's 11 and a half.
	That's the other thing.
	She's an old dog.
	Anyways, the other day, we noticed she was sitting on a lawn chair.
	And we're like, how the heck did that just happen?
	And so I propped up my camera.
	We're sitting around, you know, ignoring her.
	And she did it again, and that's what she did.
	Hello from Vancouver.
	Oh, that's a beautiful salmon.
	Oh, yeah, that looks beautiful.
	So we don't always have to start off with Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, or Kamala Harris.
	But we can get in to Kamala Harris.
	Listen to this, people.
	Listen to this.
	To put it in law.
	There may be litigation, but we will be in a much better position than to not do that.
	And, you know, listen, women are getting pregnant every day in America.
	And this is a real issue.
	And we need to act with a sense of haste about what is at play, what is at stake.
	And codifying Roe will be an important moment in terms of putting back in place protections for At risk.
	And I said this, this is not to be political because I have a position on this issue that I know some people on both ends of the spectrum are going to disagree with.
	Setting aside everyone's personal view on this, I find it fascinating that we have lived through the shifting of the Overton window.
	And for those of you who don't know what the Overton window is, it's a great concept.
	It's that over time...
	The political landscape changes such that what was politically unpopular or politically detestable, if I can use that strong a term, 10 years ago, well, you soften people up and over time, what was politically unthinkable years ago is now the main talking point.
	Once upon a time, Democrats, the ones who were pro-choice activists, pro-choice proponents, wanted it to be Safe, legal, and rare.
	And it was like a marketing point.
	It was a great way of describing the big A. Safe, legal, and rare.
	That wasn't even that long ago.
	That was three years ago.
	And now the Overton window has shifted to the point where you have the vice president effectively talking about it like it's some form of primary form of birth control.
	I know that some people have said, well, that incident, the Ohio girl and the heartbeat law, and she had to go to Indiana to get the big A. I'm going to talk about that with Barnes, because I have some questions about that.
	Because my understanding is that even under Ohio law, it was politically weaponized, but it was not politically necessary.
	But we've lived through the shifting of the Overton window, where it has gone from safe, legal, and rare to...
	Women across the country are getting pregnant.
	Therefore, we have to fix this.
	Fix Roe v.
	Wade.
	Codify Roe v.
	Wade.
	At the federal level, not at the state level.
	We'll get there.
	All right.
	Standard disclaimers before we get further on in here.
	Greetings from Virginia City, Nevada.
	Yeehaw and freedom.
	Mountain kayaker.
	That looks beautiful.
	Superchats such as these.
	Brett Cormier says, I have never met a lawyer that could tell time, yet they bill by the hour.
	How does that work?
	I once knew a lawyer who had per second billing.
	Or it was per minute billing.
	It was something ridiculous where when I saw that advertised on the website, I was like, what?
	I thought I was reading it wrong.
	Like it was per minute billing.
	Like, yeah, in my practice, 0.2 was the smallest increments that we could have.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are or should be simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Let me just make sure that we are.
	I hope my audio is okay.
	I'm, again, as you can see, not in my studio, but I know it's better now because it's a carpeted room, so there should be less reverb.
	Okay, we are live on Rumble.
	Booyah!
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20% on Rumble, so better for the creator, better for the platform.
	Have you tried Gabapentin for dogs?
	It helped my old Doxy with rear leg nerve issues.
	No.
	But I'll think about trying that.
	That's interesting.
	If I don't get to your super chat such as that and you're going to feel left out, grifted, shilled, rook, miffed, whatever, don't give it.
	I'm not saying that to be a glib.
	I don't like people feeling that they've been exploited.
	The Super Chat is a great way to support the channel, a great way to support me and Robert, as is merch, vivafry.com.
	But if you're going to feel angry that I did not bring it up, highlight the comment.
	Do not give it, because I cannot promise to do it.
	In fact, I can promise I won't be able to do it for all of them.
	Most people were okay with it until they pushed the envelope to full term.
	Yep, that's another issue.
	We're going to talk about that with Barnes.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornification advice.
	But I want to share one thing with you that's going to make you all laugh.
	I've noticed this parody account following me on the Twitters.
	It's an obvious parody account because if you go to...
	Am I sharing it?
	Yeah.
	If you go to the person's profile, other than being everything you'd ever see in a typical account that changes their avatars depending on what the thing of the day is, it says liberal parody.
	Okay, it says it right there.
	Some people don't check before thinking the guy's serious, but listen to this.
	Yeah, okay, no problem.
	Let's go.
	I just want to make sure I have the footage.
	My first name is truck driver, last name Pleb, all one word, truck driver Pleb.
	My name is...
	Like my Christian name or my name on Twitter?
	No, your real name.
	My name is Nick.
	And last name Pleb?
	No, it's Pleb on Twitter.
	Truck Driver Pleb.
	He /him.
	That's my pronouns.
	And yeah, I'm one of the organizers.
	This guy's good.
	This guy's good.
	Yes.
	OK.
	And you already explained to me what's going on here today.
	We talked about the slow roll.
	I'm here today to fight against these people.
	I actually...
	I'm a big fan of Klaus Schwab and the New World Order.
	And I think what these people are doing is just going to destroy the planet and climate change.
	So I'm here to counter-protest them.
	Actually, I'm not really an organizer.
	I got you.
	I'm a counter-protester who needs to be heard right now because the planet's going to die.
	And these people are trying to kill the planet.
	Okay, so you're here counter-protesting.
	This guy makes more sense than actual counter-protesters.
	The planet is warming up, okay?
	So the planet is literally burning right now, okay?
	We're not going to have any food in six months from now.
	Climate change is probably the biggest threat to this country since January 6th, insurrection.
	So I have to be here to counter-protest and fight these evil people.
	But the January 6th protest was in a different country.
	Yeah, January 6th was in a different country, but do you see how many people here have Canadian flags?
	That's really racist.
	That's like the sign of racism now.
	So I have to fight these people.
	Okay?
	Have a nice day.
	Okay.
	The Pleb.
	Key him at Trucker Driver Pleb.
	Oh, sorry.
	Truck Driver Pleb.
	Pretty damn good.
	And he's got that Canadian accent.
	I have my close family friends.
	It's like...
	It was classic.
	It was classic.
	And he kept a straight face.
	I can't even lie for the sake of making a joke like that.
	Oh, he's trolling.
	He's trolling.
	Okay, people, on the menu for tonight.
	Lots of stuff.
	I messaged Barnes before the stream.
	I said, Barnes, I didn't get through all my reading.
	The day was beyond hectic.
	But on...
	Someone says Chad troll.
	Chad is good, right?
	Chad is not...
	Okay.
	Donate for the good work that you fine gentlemen do.
	Thank you.
	On the menu for tonight, there's a lot of stuff.
	Banned and indicted.
	Talked about it yesterday, but we're going to get Barnes' take on it.
	Pavlovsky, I'm going to talk about it with Barnes just for a bit.
	Alex Jones, trial is coming up tomorrow.
	Jury selection, and apparently it is going to be broadcast.
	It's going to be broadcast, which it's a state court trial.
	It's one of a series of trials coming up for Alex Jones.
	He's got two in Texas, one coming up in Connecticut.
	Will this be the end of Alex Jones?
	We'll see.
	He's in the context of a trial in which he has been denied the right to present a defense on the merits, having been declared default and guilty by default, and the trial is on the quantum of the damages to be awarded.
	For defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.
	And then what else do we have on the line?
	Oh, then Fauci's been subpoenaed.
	California gun lawsuits.
	Barnes sends me so much homework.
	The Trump-RICO suit I'm interested in.
	Twitter, Musk update.
	All the stuff.
	I see Barnes has checked in.
	I'm going to bring him in.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	You know what?
	I'm going to leave it like this tonight.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, my God.
	Law, too.
	So, Robert, we'll get into it in a second.
	Where are you now, Robert?
	Outside Austin, Texas.
	Little county, Bastrop County.
	Good old rural county.
	County I'm looking at potentially moving from Vegas to maybe in the near short term.
	And if I may ask, Robert, what's...
	In your mouth.
	So this is a Perdoma Cigar Special Edition from a good Habana House cigar shop here in Austin.
	That's cool.
	And then, well, you can't really see the book, but it's a recent, well, not too recent, but relatively recent book by David Mamet.
	What is the title?
	Oh, yeah.
	The Secret Knowledge.
	It's pretty good.
	Hold on one second.
	We're going to see how this works.
	We're missing another book in the back.
	This one's on beer, people.
	I'm going to put this one here.
	I'm drinking beer tonight.
	In case anybody doesn't know, I'm in Texas with Barnes.
	We're in separate rooms just to keep the audio down.
	I'm going to go back to my room.
	I'll see you in a second, Rob.
	Will do.
	Will do.
	All right, people.
	Whose minds just exploded with that?
	I just went from Florida to Texas in 30 seconds.
	Yeah, I came down to Texas to see this, to attend the trial a little bit, and then to turn this into something.
	We're going to drive around Texas and see what's going on here, because I'll tell you, Texas flying over and coming from Florida, it has a little bit more rolling hills.
	It's a little browner from the plane, and it looks drier, and it's hot.
	But apparently it gets cool at night.
	And I'm drinking a beer tonight.
	This is called Devil's Backbone.
	Robert, we'll get to everything, but let's start with the Alex Jones trial coming up.
	We're going to go over some stuff that we've already talked about in the past.
	How is it that Jones has been declared guilty on the merits by default?
	Yeah, it's extraordinary.
	The suit that is going to trial this week in Austin, Texas and Travis County is by two plaintiffs who were the parents of a child who died at Sandy Hook.
	They sued Alex Jones on theories of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	Even though Alex Jones, as I recall, never mentioned them by name ever.
	Or said factually specific things about them by name ever.
	So it was a unique case in that regard, but the Texas Austin Court of Appeals basically established a perilous new precedent for speech and media in America, which was that if you say something that the government doesn't agree with, and somebody is upset or offended by what you said, and they have some connection at any level to the event.
	Then you can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress without actually targeting any speech at them individually.
	So that was the first extraordinary development in his case.
	In this case, it's going to trial.
	The second one is the media mythology about the case, and often the plaintiff's lawyers repeatedly lie about the nature of the evidence in the case, is the mythology is that Alex Jones instigated And initiated and originated the hypothesis that Sandy Hook did not happen at all.
	That is completely and utterly false.
	99% of what InfoWars printed, published, or broadcast concerning Sandy Hook acknowledged and admitted that the event occurred, that the children died, that it took place, who the shooter was.
	The questions that InfoWars primarily and that Alex Jones primarily raised Concern the culpability of Big Pharma and whether SSRI drugs were the appropriate medication, the questions about the psychiatric treatment of young men in America, the celebratization of gun violence by gaming and Hollywood culture,
	and the potential culpability and complicity in local police response times and local politicians in the school safety arena providing adequate safety mechanisms for the children.
	And he said that they were going to wrongfully blame the gun and the law-abiding rights and Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans as the culprit for these traumatic and tragic deaths.
	Midway through, several years after Sandy Hook, some callers would call in, and they raised questions about whether the deaths happened at all.
	And Jones responded in a way that could be interpreted as...
	Agreeing with their comments.
	That is the primary basis of the suit.
	About of the 7 million plus words broadcast by Alex Jones, they've taken about less than 30 minutes of words scattered out over a seven-year time frame and are saying that is the entire basis of their emotional trauma.
	What is the second significant factor?
	It's one of the only defamation cases ever brought where the plaintiffs did not timely seek a correction or retraction.
	Indeed, they didn't seek it until the eve of trial itself, the eve of suit itself.
	And so you have people saying that they were horribly traumatized by the words of Alex Jones, yet showed no evidence that they even heard the words of Alex Jones at the time.
	And if they were so traumatized, why didn't they write a single correction or retraction request for years?
	The other factor that's interesting about this case is that many of the plaintiffs involved are very political.
	They have people running for political office.
	They've campaigned for gun control.
	They clearly oppose Alex Jones on political grounds.
	The lawyers involved are all highly political.
	And have pursued this case for political reasons and have explicitly said their purpose of the suit is to try to shut down and censor Alex Jones for good.
	So that continuous behavior is why we're here.
	Now what's even more extraordinary about this case is that Alex Jones is being prevented from presenting any substantive defense on the legal merits.
	He's not being allowed to defend himself On whether or not he said what they claim he said.
	He's not being allowed to defend the context in which those words were said.
	He's not allowed to present everything else that he said.
	He is not even allowed to say that his conduct wasn't outrageous.
	He's not even allowed to say that he is innocent.
	He is not even allowed to say that he sees this as a First Amendment issue.
	In fact, the words First Amendment and free speech cannot even come out of his mouth or any witness's mouth.
	Not only that, the case is being limited to damages, and the judge has instructed that the jury is not allowed to hear from Alex Jones or his lawyers about whether the emotional trauma they'll hear about these parents suffering had something to do with the person who shot their kids.
	That's not allowed to come up.
	So the jury is going to be left with the impression that this horrible trauma that these parents have suffered The only person they're being allowed to blame is Alex Jones.
	So in addition, Alex Jones has been denied his rights to bring motions to dismiss, denied his right to bring motions under the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Law, denied his rights to bring summary judgment motions, denied his rights to appeal summary judgment motions, denied his rights in some cases to appeal a motion to dismiss.
	It is unparalleled and unprecedented, the sequence of actions that have taken place.
	This case makes a Stasi or Soviet-style show trial look like an emblem of fairness by comparison.
	Last but not least, the judge presiding over the case here in Austin, Texas, was identified in the press as previously working as private counsel associated with Children Protective Services.
	What I can tell you that typically means, don't know yet whether it means that is to this judge, but typically...
	That means a judge who defends pedophiles, a judge who defends child abusers.
	That's the judge presiding over the Alex Jones case.
	This case is a case where the American judicial system is really on trial, and unfortunately the verdict looks like it will be a damnation of that system, even though the goal is to issue such a crazy verdict that they are able to completely take Alex Jones off the air.
	Robert, I mean, so this is the question.
	I have so many, actually, because intentional infliction of emotional distress, conceptually, I can understand.
	They're already going through trauma because, and I want everyone to understand this.
	It's a horrible, horrible incident.
	It's horror of the purest form.
	Nothing about a defense of Alex Jones is intended to be construed as Denying it happened, denying the trauma of everyone who survived that and the parents who lost kids.
	None of that.
	This is a grotesque incident where the grotesqueness of the incident is not going to be somehow attenuated by railroading some podcaster radio host who might have said some things which could have been a little over the top from time to time or even overtly over the top.
	The idea here is that you have Alex Jones is known for pushing the envelope of questioning narratives, floating hypotheses which are tenable sometimes, untenable other times.
	The emotional distress might have been aggravated.
	If someone comes out and says, you're lying, you never even had a kid, that can cause emotional distress.
	And if they do it at a loud enough bullhorn, they can cause emotional distress.
	I understand that.
	Nonetheless, the idea to deny Alex the ability to defend, and this was purportedly on the basis for having defaulted or violated his obligations of disclosure under depositions?
	Yeah, I mean, what's amazing is Alex Jones has produced more documents and sat for more hours of more testimony, as have other people in the case, on behalf of Infowars.
	Than any media defendant I've ever heard of.
	And yet, even though he's turned over his text, he's turned over his emails, turned over stuff that was sent to a junk email box, turned over all kinds of documents and information, they said that he didn't turn over enough and they called him default.
	Now here's the real secret behind this and why I predicted that this was a risk from day one.
	And for those out there, I am not currently representing Alex Jones.
	So I am free to speak my mind.
	Apparently, I've heard that the plaintiff's lawyers are complaining about me speaking out about the case.
	That's how corrupt these plaintiff's lawyers are.
	They're political hacks standing on the bodies of dead kids to line their pockets and take away other people's political rights.
	And I find it disgusting what they've done.
	But in this particular context...
	Jones has produced more discovery than anybody.
	I can't find anyone that's produced more discovery than he is, and yet they pretended that he didn't.
	Why?
	Because they built their whole case on a big lie.
	Alex Jones didn't initiate and instigate any of this, number one.
	And number two, their big lie was that Alex Jones became famous and made his money because he lied about this.
	Totally and utterly false.
	So what do you do when you know the evidence is going to disprove your theory?
	The financial evidence and documentary evidence and the email evidence.
	Well, you pretend it existed, but Alex Jones must have secretly destroyed it.
	That's why they had to go this path.
	Their whole case was built on a lie.
	The judges knew it.
	And the judges, in order to cover up that lie, needed to facilitate it and promote it by pretending he destroyed documents he never did.
	He was, in fact, deposed.
	And he was deposed time and time again.
	Exactly.
	Many, many times.
	I think he sat for like eight days or something, and that doesn't include everybody else for InfoWars who sat for day after day after day after day after day after day of deposition.
	They turned over emails that they shouldn't have even had to turn over.
	I mean, they were sent emails in their spam email where someone was trying to plant child CP on their computer system, and because they turned over all of their emails, anything they'd ever got, even if they'd never read it, then they were accused by the plaintiff's lawyers of...
	Sending CP to the families.
	Utterly false.
	Another big fat lie by the lawyers and the media.
	That's how much he turned over.
	And when you dig down and try to get to what exactly it was he didn't turn over, it ends up being very weak.
	And by the way, that's not the default standards in America.
	I have never seen a default judgment issued in America on these grounds.
	Ever.
	It's supposed to be specific to the specific fact that wasn't turned over.
	That issue can be...
	If they weren't able to independently acquire the evidence, that fact can be admitted against them.
	That's not what this judge has done.
	This judge has not allowed him to defend himself on the substantive merits based on a made-up theory of the plaintiff's lawyers that the judges knew was false, had reason to know was false, and in order to cover it up and punish and prosecute Alex Jones, they need to do this.
	And by the way, everybody, people might say, why should I care?
	Alex Jones admits he made mistakes about his Sandy Hook reporting.
	Maybe these people...
	People out there don't like Alex Jones.
	Because, folks, the same reason we talked about it in 2018 when they banned him from all the social media.
	We said, this is a template.
	Alex Jones is the example, and they're coming for you next.
	And the legal theory they got approved in this case is that if you say anything that the government doesn't agree with, that somebody else feels emotionally offended by, they can now sue you into bankruptcy.
	And if Alex Jones is any example, you won't even get to defend yourself on the merits in front of a trial by jury.
	People have to appreciate that he's been foreclosed from pleading on the basis of default for failure to produce documents, whatever.
	He had been deposed multiple times.
	And again, everybody, this is not to defend Alex Jones.
	This is to defend the process that needs to be respected in order for there to be justice and not literally judgments in the absence of defense because that's not a system anymore.
	That's just an execution.
	And Alex Jones admitted that he said things that were wrong.
	I brought up one chat which is actually, I think, quite on point.
	Winning Reality says Alex was set up.
	The disinformation was calculated and organized.
	The calls were mostly strategy.
	They pulled him in the direction they wanted him to go.
	Alex got so big he disconnected from his face.
	Maybe not that.
	But the idea that, look, we know how agitators can work, how agent provocateur can work.
	Knowing what they wanted to do, get someone to call in, get them to run with it, you get the soundbite, and you get Alex Jones saying something like, Crisis actors, which would imply that their kids were not actually killed and that they're acting.
	And that's distressing.
	I can appreciate that that's distressing.
	What would be the defenses?
	I'd like to hear on the merits.
	What would be the quantum of the damages?
	It has to be realistically correlated to what's going on.
	Is the distressing part that somebody you're going to call a kook or a wacko says you're crisis actors and not the fact that your actual child was killed in this incident?
	Put a quantum on it.
	But there has to be a process that has to be respected.
	And if it's not respected, you no longer have a judicial system.
	You just have show trials like we saw with Steve Bannon.
	Exactly.
	Well, that may be a good bridge into Bannon.
	So the trial happened this week.
	Aviva's here to cover it.
	I may be in and out of the courtroom, depending on circumstances.
	Again, I'm not official counsel of record for the Connecticut lawyers and others that may be listening out there.
	But I'm not going to be silenced just because they would like me to be.
	Now, who knows?
	These judges are capable of crazy things.
	If they try crazy things, I will seek my relief and remedy accordingly.
	But it's a sign of where we're at.
	And more people should be more concerned with this case, regardless of what they think about Sadie Hook, regardless of what they think about Alex Jones, because this is about the American judicial system looking like an embarrassment.
	Just like the January 6th cases, and as a good bridge, just like the disgrace of a case that was the Steve Bannon trial.
	And just one thing before we get there, Robert.
	The idea that a lot of people have never heard of Alex Jones until Sandy Hook, a lot of people in the mainstream didn't.
	And I remember, I only knew vaguely of Alex Jones because Howard Stern made fun of him from time to time.
	So at the time of Sandy Hook, I do remember what Alex Jones was saying.
	Talking about a hoax.
	They were walking around the school as if it was a drill.
	Floating the idea.
	Entertaining a caller talking about crisis actors.
	People are saying there were lies about Sandy Hook.
	I'll go with the plausible scenario now that we've lived through a Uvalde.
	Maybe the reason why they rushed to destroy the school was to hide the fact that it didn't have basic safety protocol.
	I can appreciate that argument, which some people might call conspiracy theory, and others might just call liability theory.
	But most people didn't know about Alex Jones in the mainstream until this.
	It put him in the crosshairs, and they're making an example of him.
	And the question is, Robert, what do you think is reasonable that can be expected by way of any condemnation for the quantum?
	Well, I see it as a threefold question because one is the statute of limitations should have barred these claims.
	Texas law requires you to make a correction or retraction request before suit.
	That didn't happen here.
	So procedurally, this case never should have been brought, period.
	It should have been dismissed right out of the gate.
	Secondly, the constitutional requirement of colloquium means that you have to make a specific factual statement about a specifically identified individual.
	Now, sometimes you can identify that individual by image.
	Or by association rather than by name.
	But here, there were too many people involved for them to know that it was about that person.
	Third, it has to be credible.
	So historically, in other words, your friends or others have to believe it's true about you or it doesn't function as defamation.
	It doesn't impact your character.
	Here, there's no evidence that happened at all.
	There's no evidence that anybody in their community really believed that they were not real.
	And in fact, the very nature of saying someone's not real is not necessarily attacking that person because you're saying they're not real in the first place.
	You're saying that's somebody else up there.
	So this does not fit the definition of defamation.
	Procedurally, it never should have been allowed under the law.
	And constitutionally, it didn't meet the standard under the First Amendment right to protection of freedom of speech in the press.
	But I agree, the real story here was the reason why so many people were suspicious about what happened.
	Was in part because the Obama administration chose to politically weaponize it and politicize it.
	They said that people connected to them said they were going to stand on the, literally said they're going to stand on the graves of these dead kids to get gun control in America, to strip people of their Second Amendment rights.
	That led to a lot of people being suspect because of the history of government false flags when they try to take away people's rights.
	And the other aspect was the very peculiar behavior of the politicians in Connecticut.
	Who were hiding information from their sunshine laws.
	It turned out what they were hiding was pertinent to Uvalde.
	Because if the truth had come out, the politicians would have been properly judged, and school safety would have dramatically improved in America, but gun control would have failed as an agenda.
	So they were willing to sacrifice more kids' lives to get gun control in America.
	Because what was it they didn't do?
	They didn't have a basic mechanism to lock the doors from the inside.
	And because they couldn't, I mean, they found the kids stacked up in bathrooms, folks.
	These kids would not have been dead had they had basic safety mechanisms in place.
	And they got away with it.
	And they got away with it because the courts let them get away with it.
	They got away with it because the Obama administration let them get away with it.
	They got away with it because the media let them get away with it.
	And part of this whole case, Is to blame Alex Jones for Sandy Hook when it was the school politicians who led to Sandy Hook happening at the scale it did and probably had something to do with Uvalde.
	They didn't want people raising questions about school safety.
	Don't ask any questions about whether the politicians stuff cash in their pockets rather than spend it on kids' safety.
	They didn't want to ask questions about police response times.
	They didn't want questions about big pharma.
	They didn't want questions about the kid who committed the shooting, about his poor mental health treatment.
	They didn't want questions about being able to have guns like the person in Indiana, constitutional carry.
	And he had Kyle Rittenhouse level accuracy.
	And that's why a lot of lives are alive today in Indiana, because he exercised that constitutional right to carry and took that guy out with some of the best shooting.
	Anybody seen since Kyle Rittenhouse?
	15 seconds, 40 to 50 meters away with a handheld pistol, and the CNN ran the headline, an armed pedestrian and not a damn hero, but okay.
	Exactly.
	So that, I mean, that's why we're at, this is a scary show trial in America.
	It makes the Chicago 7 trial look like an icon of judicial ethics.
	I'm here to defend Alex Jones in the court of public opinion because I believe in him, because Alex Jones is innocent of a lot of the claims that have been made against him.
	And when we get to damages, even if you say, okay, I think this case should have gone on.
	I don't believe in the constitutional defense.
	I don't believe in the procedural defense.
	I don't believe in the statutory rights.
	Okay.
	How much money is Alex Jones supposed to pay?
	Some of the people that are suing are not even related to people who died there.
	Is everybody supposed to just start getting big checks?
	Big checks?
	Even though they never complained at the time about Alex Jones?
	I mean, we kind of all know that these are fraudulent complaints.
	These people didn't suffer great emotional trauma because of what Alex Jones said.
	They're lying about it.
	And they think, I mean, I suffer a lot of tragedies in my lifetime.
	You know what?
	That doesn't give me a right to line my pockets with other people's money.
	And it doesn't give me the right to take away other people's rights.
	And everybody's scared because they're like, man, these people suffered a horrible trauma.
	Again, some of the people suing didn't.
	Some of them are just like FBI guys.
	What a crock.
	But for those that did suffer a horrible trauma, yeah, that's terrible.
	It doesn't give you the right to line your pockets with other people's money.
	For trauma, you know you didn't really suffer because of what they said.
	And it doesn't give you the right to take away other people's rights, the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the Second Amendment, just because...
	You don't like what happened.
	And so at some point, trauma, this victim identification idea that, hey, I'm a victim.
	I'm now morally superior.
	I'm a victim.
	Now I get to dictate to everybody what's going to happen with their rights.
	Now I get to demand money from other people, like reparations, like other things.
	I don't agree with that as a fundamental premise.
	And it scared too many people off.
	From defending Alex Jones in these cases, because they're like, geez, I don't want to be on the side against the Sandy Hook parents.
	And I'm just, I'm tired of it, to be honest with you.
	No, no, and Robert, I can tell you, like, the pushback I got from even the prospect of having Alex Jones on for a sidebar with you, people just, they have a misconception of Alex Jones to begin with, but setting that aside, one thing I want to touch on.
	I remember at the time.
	The parents who were suing and the plaintiffs who were suing said that they were receiving harassment, they were getting stalked and doxed and harassed by people who were incited or influenced or motivated by Alex Jones' discourse.
	I remember hearing it at the time and just taking it for granted, but now I wonder in retrospect whether or not that was accurate.
	I've seen zero evidence of it.
	Zero evidence.
	So like Megyn Kelly once reported, it's in the new Alex's War documentary, which is a pretty solid documentary, which I saw this weekend at the premiere with Alex and some other folks.
	It's not a pro-Alex documentary, but it's a pretty reasonable one in terms of being balanced and appropriate.
	But in that documentary, it repeated what Megyn Kelly had said, where a defense lawyer for someone had blamed Infowars for this person stalking somebody that was connected to...
	Sandy Hook.
	Problem is, if you dig into the record, that wasn't really true.
	That was a defense lawyer looking for an excuse that he thought a liberal judge would buy to go down on sentencing.
	InfoWars, how you would know that?
	Because if you actually followed and read InfoWars at the time, you knew that Paul Joseph Watson, the editor of InfoWars, was always critical of anybody who raised questions about Sandy Hook.
	You knew how often Infowars said Sandy Hook happened.
	You knew that through most of the time period, Alex Jones always said Infowars that Sandy Hook happened.
	So you knew how that was an exceptional and occasional and rare and not customary opinion.
	So you knew that his people weren't behind any of it.
	And to my knowledge, wait for trial.
	My guess is they will not produce one person who will say that they did anything bad directly to the Sandy Hook people because of Alex Jones and Enforce.
	And they've had years to develop the evidence over 10 years now.
	Robert, I want to bring up Little Rocks.
	Little Rock is an attorney, people.
	Little Rock, hope you're doing well.
	Robert, you are fired up.
	I have been this way for a few years on other issues I've seen in the Eighth Circuit.
	If you can or have time, tell us why 80% of attorneys are Democrat.
	Yeah, I mean, I was talking to a friend of mine here in Austin about some cases of his that have gone crazy, and it's because the lawyers are overwhelmingly from the professional managerial class that thinks they're God's gift to the universe, that thinks they're here to tell you what to do in your life.
	That's how they handle their own cases and clients.
	And they think they're right, and they think they should govern the rest of us.
	Just read Gorsuch's wonderful footnote and his concurring opinion in West Virginia versus EPA.
	Where he describes this was Woodrow Wilson's mindset in the 19-teens.
	This has been the progressive, so-called progressive movement, was always a professional managerial class movement to govern the rest of us.
	And as Mark Grobert recently pointed out on his answering questions about the JFK assassination with Eric Hundley on America's Untold Stories, where you can find on YouTube, and at unstructured.locals.com, where they put up a lot of inside information, text, a whole bunch of stuff.
	They're amazing.
	Everyone should check them out.
	Absolutely.
	Do great work.
	We will be live with them probably a week from Friday for the monthly Freeform Friday show that's always fun and educational, sometimes in surprising ways.
	But as he pointed out, in Eisenhower's farewell address, one of the things he highlighted was not just the military-industrial complex, but he said this new professional class, managerial class, Running things is probably a problem because of how they will arrogate power to themselves for arrogance.
	That's how lawyers are taught and trained.
	That's the socioeconomic class that they currently occupy.
	That's the class that they come from overwhelmingly.
	Very few working class kids go to law school these days.
	And so those of us who are more populist or people oriented or little d democratic oriented, unfortunately, we are the rare exception.
	As Little Rock mentions, in the practice and profession of law.
	It's why people like Alex Jones have such trouble even finding lawyers willing to defend him.
	And I have been the only lawyer willing to defend him in the court of public opinion.
	And I was doing it before I was his lawyer.
	I've done it after I was no longer his legal counsel in these cases.
	And that's because he's right.
	And it's because America deserves better than what we're getting.
	And because I believe in the rule of law.
	And what we saw in the District of Columbia this week was not respect for the rule of law.
	Well, all right.
	That's time for the segue.
	We've covered it.
	Stick around, people.
	One last question, Robert.
	He gets to appeal, obviously.
	Yes.
	The problem is they can often collect on judgments while the appeal is pending, and they clearly want to go in and seize.
	They want to seize all of Infowars and shut them down overnight.
	That's the goal here.
	And they have a judge who completely disrespects the rule of law, so will likely try to accommodate that.
	Okay.
	All right, now let's do it now.
	Why is it not considered a conflict of interest for lawyers to be the ones writing and voting on law?
	Well, I think too many lawyers in Congress, too many lawyers in all these positions.
	And that's true like the UK, same problem.
	They used to have a bunch of labor.
	Labor Party used to actually be laborers, coal miners, and people like that.
	Go back to the 40s, go back to the 50s in the UK.
	No, they don't exist.
	The Labor Party is a bunch of lawyers, and that's why they're a bunch of wokesters.
	This is a class of people we cannot allow to have power.
	Power should be dispersed amongst ordinary people who have a diverse set of life experiences, not a small professional managerial class that thinks they're God's gift to the world.
	I love Barnes.
	I said it.
	I said it.
	I love it.
	Robert, let's hear...
	I guess you're going to rail a bit against Bannon.
	The Bannon trial went down exactly...
	Exactly how we thought it was going to go.
	Exactly as predicted.
	Except there was more time quibbling over procedure than there was actual evidence being adduced by the prosecution.
	Prosecution had two witnesses, one of whom was disregarded.
	I got my questions on that.
	I'll ask you in a bit.
	What was her name?
	Kimberly Ammerling.
	Was the crown, not the crown, sorry.
	The crown's appropriate.
	Somebody pointed out that you kept referring to the prosecution as the crown, but they said, this case, it looks like the crown.
	It's a force of habit because I do come from the parliamentary monarchy or whatever.
	We have a crown.
	We have a queen.
	She tells us the law.
	You come from a constitutional republic and you have the prosecutors presenting two witnesses, the lawyer for the committee and the investigator.
	What was his name?
	Stephen Hart.
	And they ended up disregarding Stephen Hart's testimony, just relying on Kimberly Amberling, who said, yeah, we had the committee, it was properly formed, we issued the subpoena, not respected, end of story.
	One day of evidence, three days of arguments, one day of jury selection, three hours of deliberation, guilty.
	Robert, let's hear your thoughts.
	I mean, it's what we described at the get-go, that the main factor here for those out there...
	Is that contempt of Congress, the last time it had been prosecuted successfully in the District of Columbia was almost 40 years ago.
	Eric Holder, who committed contempt of Congress, Congress said he committed contempt of Congress, was the Attorney General at the time, never faced either criminal prosecution or punishment for what he did.
	James Clapper committed overt perjury to Congress.
	I don't know any more contempt you could have for Congress than to lie to him.
	Faced no criminal prosecution, no criminal punishment.
	Brennan did the same thing.
	He spied on Congress illegally to cover up other crimes the CIA was involved in.
	He, too, faced no criminal prosecution, no criminal punishment.
	And the IRS commissioner, Lois Lerner, who was busy weaponizing the IRS to go after political dissidents, initially so-called tax protesters, and then anybody connected to the Tea Party movement, it was also involved in illicitly seizing medical records in a case I brought.
	Biggest Bivens-class action in American history.
	Over 60 million medical records of over 10 million Americans illegally stolen and spied upon.
	She was an overt contempt of Congress.
	Once again, no criminal prosecution, no criminal punishment.
	Compare it to Kleinsmith.
	Kleinsmith, who commits perjury, helps suborn it.
	Helped create fraudulent documents so one of the highest courts in the land to illegally spy on a political opponent and presidential candidate didn't serve any time at all.
	And now Steve Bannon is going to be sentenced to more time than Clinesmith.
	That shows you what a joke DC is.
	We might have the curse of knowledge, Robert.
	If anyone watching now doesn't know Clinesmith, he was the FBI lawyer in the Carter Page FISA spy warrants on Carter Page.
	On the renewal after renewal after renewal of the unlawful spy warrant in the first place, Clinesmith, FBI attorney, physically alters an email that he received or was exchanged between, I forget if it was the CIA or whomever, the FBI, that identified Carter Page as an asset, which would explain why Carter Page, as an intelligence asset, was mingling with Russians.
	Removes the fact that he was an asset so that it looks suspicious that he's corresponding with the Russians.
	Submits that falsified email that he went into the original email, deleted the words, was an asset, or was an asset, I believe is the term.
	Deletes it from the original email that he had access to solely because he's an attorney in the file.
	Deletes it.
	They submitted his evidence to obtain another renewal of this warrant.
	And the judge rubber stamps it.
	They get, he gets ratted out.
	He gets, not ratted out, he gets found out.
	And guilty, dead to rights, pleads guilty.
	What was it?
	It was no jail time.
	It was retroactive, retroactive being struck from the order, whatever that is in the States.
	And a year later.
	Only for a period of time that didn't meaningfully matter and then reinstated right away.
	It was basically paid parental leave because he and his wife had had a kid.
	That's Clinesmith physically altering evidence to submit to FISA courts, secret courts, to obtain unlawful renewals of unlawful spy wards in the first place.
	No jail time, no nothing, back at practice.
	Bannon, I walked through the subpoena yesterday.
	To call it a fishing expedition would put like...
	Fisherman to shame.
	It's a joke.
	There's a reason why that's significant.
	Because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to issue subpoenas for purely investigatory purposes.
	They can only issue subpoenas that have a legislative purpose.
	So problem one, of course, was this committee was not formed in accordance with the rules of Congress, but the courts are refusing to enforce it, saying, oh, that's a political question.
	Well, this whole prosecution is a political question.
	Throw it out if we're going to play that game.
	But that's problem number one.
	Problem number two is, of course, it's not clear that anybody on the committee actually read and signed the actual subpoena.
	There's some administrative hack to it.
	Third, it's not clear they even properly served it.
	Fourth, they left out the notice that you could be criminally prosecuted if you didn't comply, which is usually critical, essential, and fundamental to being able to criminally prosecute and punish.
	But as you know, last but not least, the very substantive terms of it not only called for information that was privileged under executive privilege, also called for information that might have been attorney-client privileged in other contexts, but it called for a phishing expedition, an investigatory inquiry, purely investigatory, into First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression activities that arguably got into Fourth Amendment issues of privacy as well that were not constitutionally warranted under the circumstances of the subpoena.
	But go to the Constitution's limitation on Congress.
	Congress is not the executive branch.
	They can only issue subpoenas that are necessary and that are limited to and that have a nexus to a piece of legislation.
	Nobody can look at that subpoena and pretend that's what that subpoena was.
	But Robert, in their House Resolution 503 and in the subpoena letter, the letter accompanying the subpoena to Bannon, they said it might have to do with prospective legislation.
	How do we avoid something like this in the future?
	And that's been rejected, by the way, by prior federal courts.
	They've said that that kind of thing is too broad, that you just can't go wandering around asking people private questions like you're a roaming grand jury, because maybe it could possibly kind of...
	Relate to legislation someday.
	It's supposed to relate to specific legislation.
	Specific fact-finding for specific legislation already under contemplation.
	That's not what this was.
	That's exactly it now that I say it out loud.
	Legislation under contemplation.
	Not prospective hypothetical maybe in the future legislation.
	Because when I'm reading through the subpoena yesterday, I'm like, literally, this can and will always be true of any question Congress asks.
	Well, we want to know if you...
	We want your tax forms to know if you evaded taxes so that we might think of some legislation in the future to make sure that you don't do that again.
	But in the meantime, it's a pure criminal investigation being conducted by Congress.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And then you have a jury poll that's a joke.
	A jury poll that's a joke.
	Everybody knew.
	That D.C. jury pool.
	I mean, one out of four, one out of five were so biased and bigoted, they couldn't even hide their bias and bigotry.
	And the court had to strike them for cause.
	And the problem is in D.C., it's like, should you spend time on a jury consultant in D.C.?
	Nope, because they're all bad.
	95% of them are bad.
	The only thing you should do is you should document in the file, using people like Richard Barris, the People's Pundit, To show how biased and bigoted they are, his data has already shown that in the District of Columbia on any political case, the juries are 80-85% pre-convicting people no matter what.
	And that's what this jury was.
	When you just take some time for lunch and then convict, you're not a serious jury.
	That jury is a disgrace to the American rule of law because they're political hacks.
	Many of whom lied, either consciously or subconsciously, to get on that jury in the first place.
	If the jurors were honest in D.C., you wouldn't be able to find a jury in D.C. Because if they're honest, they would all admit that they're biased against anybody affiliated or associated with Trump.
	That's why they acquitted Sussman, who was much more dead to rights guilty than Bannon, and that's why they convicted Bannon at the same time frame.
	And can you appreciate, by the way, less than three hours to convict on charges?
	The legislation was drafted in 1930, and the last conviction was 40 years ago.
	It's not like DUI.
	It's not like speeding.
	They have become master jurists of antiquated law, which has been rarely applied, in three hours.
	Amazing.
	After Bannon also denied, deprived of his rights to a meaningful substantive defense because he couldn't argue the legal...
	Executive privilege.
	He couldn't attack the credibility, not the credibility, the legitimacy of that committee.
	He wasn't even allowed to subpoena the people accusing him.
	Yeah, the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution gives you a right to confront your accusers.
	It goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.
	And who is accusing him?
	The chairman of the committee, Benny Thompson.
	He subpoenaed Benny Thompson.
	His subpoena was quashed.
	He wasn't even allowed to call witnesses and he also tried to subpoena Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, who was the other co-accuser in this case.
	Neither one was he allowed to cross-examine.
	So he wasn't allowed to confront his accusers.
	He wasn't allowed to subpoena evidence in his support.
	He wasn't allowed to present any material evidence backing his defense.
	The jury instructions were almost jury instructions of conviction.
	And he had a joke of a jury pool to begin with and a politically weaponized prosecution that, again, hasn't been brought in almost 40 years.
	And so it reveals how bad the District of Columbia is.
	And the legislative reform we talked about with Julie Kelly in last week's sidebar that I highly recommend people to watch.
	Yes, she did a great job and she continues to do a great job for American greatness that she's reporting on.
	And she agreed.
	We have got to get rid of the District of Columbia as a federal district, period.
	No more Justice Department division in District of Columbia.
	No more judges in the District of Columbia.
	Reassign them.
	Our founders had no anticipation there'd be a special district court, that the swamp would always get to govern the swamp.
	That the swamp would always also get to govern the people who oppose the swamp.
	This has got to end.
	If J.D. Vance is serious, if Blake Masters is serious, if Eric Reitens is serious, if Eric Schmidt is serious, if Joe Kent is serious, if Marjorie Taylor Greene is serious, they need to start proposing legislation now, knowing it will take maybe a little while to get passed, to get rid of the District of Columbia as a separate federal district.
	No mas.
	They have proven themselves to be a joke and an embarrassment to the American rule of law.
	Oh, what did I just do here?
	Hold on one second.
	Sorry, I brought all the chat up.
	Bannon said he's not worried.
	He'll definitely appeal.
	Robert, my question to you.
	What's it called?
	It's called a deferred sentence.
	A bail pending appeal.
	Okay, so he won't go to jail pending his appeal.
	Not in all likelihood.
	Not with this judge.
	I mean, again, this is actually the best judge in D.C. That tells you how bad D.C. is.
	This is as good as it gets.
	This judge is likely.
	He's scheduled a sentencing for October.
	I think he'll only give them the minimum, which would be one month each on each charge.
	I guess they're supposed to be served consecutive rather than concurrent.
	Usually that should be concurrent, but I've heard some analysis that says this particular...
	Again, it's so rare these cases get brought.
	There's not a lot of history or precedent on it.
	I mean, the last time somebody got sentenced on this, the sentencing guidelines didn't even exist.
	So we'll see what the...
	Maybe two months.
	I don't see it being longer than that.
	It could be up to a year.
	Now, maybe it can be up to a year each.
	So maybe it can be up to two years.
	Two years, 200,000, Robert.
	Yeah.
	A lot of judges in D.C. would give him that.
	But I do believe he will get bail pending appeal.
	And so the same conditions of release continued.
	And then he will go up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
	That can take up to a year for the D.C. or longer.
	for the D.C. Court of Appeals to issue a ruling.
	He's already said he plans on petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court because of the issues about can Congress just go run rampant?
	It's not just how the trial was conducted.
	It's can Congress just start pretending it's the presidency and executing executive powers and being a de facto roaming grand jury and going after all the political dissidents and then dragging them in to a D.C. jury pool and D.C. judges because that's where Congress sits.
	To go after their political opponents.
	Or are there some constitutional limits, as the Constitution seems to say there are, on terms of what Congress can do in this context?
	And that could take as long as two years for that whole process to go through.
	And maybe long enough, if it goes, say, two and a half years, that he will be one of the people that Trump has already said.
	He's going to pardon connected to January 6th because of the travesty of justice those cases have become.
	So Newsdrifter asks, can Bannon subpoena his accusers at the appeal trial?
	There's no trial at the appeal level.
	So what happens on appeals is just on the paper, just on the transcripts.
	And the only thing they will be reviewing is law.
	Was there a legal error?
	They don't review the facts, really.
	Yeah, so it's the same thing in Canada.
	There's no new evidence adduced, barring exceptions.
	So no additional testimony.
	Go back and review the transcript.
	That's it.
	They could issue a new trial for them.
	That could be a remedy where they may clarify that those options are there.
	But honestly, that's only going to happen if the Supreme Court takes it.
	And I think that's a real long shot.
	So people are asking this, and I'm thinking there's nothing of national or, you know.
	General interests of this case, it's uniquely interesting.
	Well, except for the Congress aspect.
	So the Supreme Court, every 30 or 40 years, will take a case clarifying the power of Congress to constitutionally do things like this.
	So whether it's expulsion of a member, whether it's seating of a member, whether it's counting votes in a certain election, whether it's subpoena power, whether it's contempt of Congress application of the law.
	They usually take a case like this once every 30 or 40 years.
	They could take that part of the case.
	Does the nature of the committee and its noncompliance with its own rules make it not a committee of Congress?
	Does the subpoena going for information that doesn't relate to pending legislation or legislation that's under consideration make it an illicit use of Congress's subpoena power?
	Again, in the Constitution, try to find where Congress has subpoena power.
	It ain't there.
	By the way, Benny Thompson, from what I understood, was already suing Trump at one point in the past.
	Adam Schiff...
	Yes, he did.
	He was one of the litigants against him.
	Benny Thompson is a political hack who continues to survive based on making sure African American voters feel dependent on the government.
	The moment they actually have African-American empowerment legislation in this country is the moment the Benny Thompsons of the world disappear from political power.
	That's why he's got no interest in actually helping his constituents.
	That's who Benny Thompson is.
	Old school, corrupt Democrat.
	Also, by the way, dumb as a bale of bricks.
	I wouldn't say that.
	I'll just say I've watched the January 6th hearings.
	He does not come off as though...
	As Trump said, they're not sending their best.
	So that's Benny Thompson, by the way.
	But then who else?
	Adam Schiff.
	And who's the other person that has a book, a tell-all book that they're also trying to sell right now?
	I forget the other guy's name.
	Everybody's got an interest in this crap, and it's not a legislative interest.
	Oh, it's that dimwit Kinzinger who was pretending he's a Wolverine and is going to go over and fight in Ukraine.
	Go on over there, Adam.
	Go on over there.
	Get on the front lines of the Don Vass.
	Instead of drafting kids and throwing them into the front lines, get on over there, Adam.
	Show you're a Red Don Wolverine, buddy.
	Get on over there.
	We'll see how, you know, he'd be like Malcolm Nance.
	He'd be, you know, urinating himself and running to the nearest luxury hotel.
	Now, in the meantime, by the way, Bannon gets to run the war room.
	Until he goes to jail, if and when, he gets to run war room without interruption?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, the conditions of his release.
	And this judge, there are other judges that would try to suppress him.
	But this judge will not.
	Again, like I said, this judge...
	It was as fair as you get in D.C. I think the judge still made legal errors and legal mistakes, but it's still there.
	The pizza may be outside the front door, if she's wondering.
	I got the pizza.
	You need a cable?
	We'll talk in a second.
	Okay.
	Plug it in here, and then we'll talk.
	I'm in trouble.
	I'm in trouble, Robert.
	Okay.
	Bring this out.
	I'm going to bring this one out.
	I had a case several years ago where the same thing happened.
	The plaintiff did not have a case, so they invented a discovery violation to get a default.
	I've only seen default in my professional career once.
	And oddly enough, it actually came from the States, where the person was held in default in the States, then took their $100-plus million judgment to Canada to seize on assets in Canada.
	And I'm like, how do you get a multi-hundred-million-dollar lawsuit judgment, verdict, by default?
	How does that happen?
	And then is a court in Canada going to recognize it?
	Because we're not going to recognize something that violates our rules of fundamental justice, one of which is audio, alterum, partum, whatever it is, the right to be heard.
	And not to have an excessively high order rendered in your absence by default and then homologated in Canada.
	But it happens.
	Yeah, now on the white pill side of the equation in the law this past week, Fauci has been subpoenaed because two states, Louisiana and Missouri, have filed suit against not only Joe Biden, against the press secretary, against a bunch of cabinet officials, and in particular the people connected to that disinformation governance board.
	And they filed suit on the grounds against the state actors, saying these state actors are manipulating, colluding, coercing, conspiring.
	With Big Tech to suppress and censor speech concerning COVID-19, concerning elections, and concerning Hunter Biden's laptop.
	That was the three core constituent component factual claims.
	They filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana in Monroe.
	They filed suit on the grounds of First Amendment violations on grounds that this is executive action in excess of executive authority under the Constitution.
	On the grounds that their actions were administrative actions subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and had failed to conform to the Administrative Procedures Act.
	And that they said that these officials are using the carrot and stick of taking or revoking or amending Section 230 and other governmental actions towards these agencies, selectively weaponizing various executive powers in order to coerce them into suppressing dissidents on these topics.
	They brought suit on the grounds that that means their state government actors are not getting access to independent and free information necessary for the function of the state government in some of these matters governing areas of election law and public health, and that they're as a quasi-sovereign of their people, that their people's First Amendment rights are getting denied and deprived.
	They started off their suit with a quote from George Washington.
	I will be putting up a highlighted version of the suit this week at VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	And people will be able to get it and read it for themselves there.
	As part of the suit, the government has sought a motion to dismiss the response of both attorney generals for the states of Missouri and Louisiana.
	And the judge assigned, by the way, was one of the judges who was one of the really good judges right out of the gate about vaccine mandates and their problematic character.
	And we'll get to an update on that in a bit.
	And so he granted They're expedited right to discovery.
	And they are now seeking discovery not only from the Biden administration, but from some particular people.
	They're issuing subpoenas to third-party organizations.
	They want all of Zuckerberg's emails to various government officials.
	But the one that got the most attention is the judge authorized and approved the subpoena to one Anthony Fauci.
	For documents and deposition testimony concerning his role in trying to coerce the big tech platforms to only give an institutional narrative.
	And by the way, Deborah Birx was on TV this week promoting her book, talking about her years of subverting of the Trump administration behind their backs and bragging about it.
	And admitted...
	That she knew at the time they launched the COVID-19 vaccines that they were not effective in stopping transmission.
	But she thought it was better to lie to people than tell the truth because she thought it would be net positive in the end.
	That's who our public health officials are.
	So now Anthony Fauci, for the first time in a long time, is going to have to sit and answer questions about what he was doing to suppress information about whether COVID-19 could have been a lab leak or had relations.
	Relationship, causal relationship to his involvement in the Wuhan laboratory.
	Questions about how he was suppressing information about lockdowns, how he was suppressing information about masks, how he's suppressing information about the vaccine, how he's suppressing information about the threat of COVID-19.
	And in particular, we all know his primary target was to get...
	Robert Kennedy Jr. in children's health defense off of Facebook and Instagram.
	What was he saying?
	Who did he say it to?
	Who did he conspire with?
	Well, he's now on the clock.
	He's got 30 days to answer questions and provide documents according to a federal court order.
	Is he a named party to the suit or just a witness?
	He's not.
	Just a witness.
	But the court authorized all of this.
	That's fine.
	And as a witness, he has certain obligations nonetheless.
	Not a defendant, but rather if he defaults, if he does not produce documents.
	A la accusations against Jones.
	In theory, he could be held in contempt as well.
	I was very long reluctant to come to this conclusion.
	I now believe people need to go to jail for what they've done.
	A lot of them are just outright criminals.
	They're killing kids for crying out loud.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, Robert, but I do hear Dr. Kieran Moore of Ontario.
	Just discreetly, subtly, under the – what is it called?
	Under the breath of his voice?
	Under his breath, refer to the vaccine as a therapeutic, as though people who have been saying this is gene therapy, which is – at first, I thought that sounded a little conspiratorial.
	It is gene therapy.
	At first, I heard people say, it's not a vaccine.
	Now that I, I mean, I knew that that was the case at the time when they changed the definition of vaccine.
	But now you have the doctor, chief medical officer of Ontario, just discreetly, under his breath, refer to it as a therapeutic with a very small chance of myocarditis.
	One in 5,000, very small.
	People need to go to jail for what they've done.
	And I'm not talking Nuremberg in the rope sense.
	I'm talking about there should be trials and people need to go to jail for what they've done because it's, if they didn't know from the beginning.
	They knew pretty damn well early on and continued pushing this stuff and are still pushing this stuff, in Canada in particular, while they admit now it's not a V, it's a T. And there's a small risk, 1 in 5,000 if you're healthy, underage, and let's push it on that demographic right now.
	Well, speaking of that, I mean, to give an idea, you would think that after everything we've discovered and uncovered, that they would not be adding this to the children's schedule.
	And mandating it on young children as a condition of public or any education.
	But the District of Columbia is passing a vaccine mandate on kids.
	The state of New Jersey is looking at a vaccine mandate on kids.
	And what's extraordinary about this is in the District of Columbia, the vaccine mandate applies to all children, period, regardless of whether you go to a public school or a private school.
	So they're going to force any children in the District of Columbia to take this drug that has increasing reports of inefficacy, increasing reports of safety concerns, and particularly for children for whom COVID-19 is not the same level of threat it is for others.
	And so we are looking at filing suit with Children's Health Defense in the District of Columbia to challenge that and all the rest.
	But it shows...
	These are some of the people who belong in jail, the people that are forcing this on little children without informed consent.
	The people who don't belong in jail is a man who was finally freed this week, which was the pastor in Canada.
	Yeah, well, I'll tell you about that, and then we'll talk about a tragic one until January 6th.
	Arthur Pavlovsky, people.
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	Arthur Pavlovsky, the get-out, not the get-out as in, what's-his-face-his-name, Peel, that movie.
	Arthur Pavlovsky.
	The Polish pastor from Canada, Alberta, who told Alberta Health Services to get out when they wanted to come inspect his church services, was put through the ringer.
	Alberta Health Services came in with police, said, we just want to talk.
	We just want to talk.
	And he says, get out, get out.
	The video went viral.
	He was on Tucker Carlson.
	And he says, come back with a warrant.
	And at the time, I said, they're going to come back with a warrant and then some.
	And they did.
	They put him in jail.
	They arrested him for contempt, jailed him a few days.
	The terms of his release involved compelled speech, which everyone at the time knew was absurd, preposterous, unconstitutional, unjustifiable.
	But for the work of Rebel News, Rebel Media, crowdfunding, financing, keeping the focus on getting lawyers, taking this to court, there was this lower-level judge, Judge Adam Germain, political hack.
	Political, a politician, a former politician become judge because of the appointment to the judiciary that comes with playing politics, ran for the Liberal Party, lost in an election.
	He had no chance of winning, but ran.
	Gets politically rewarded by being appointed to the bench by Jean Chrétien.
	We discovered this yesterday.
	This guy orders Pastor Pawlowski, his brother, and another guy, Scott.
	When exercising their rights to freedom of speech, to add the following qualifier, and it was nothing shy of a brought to you by Pfizer vaccine.
	Doctors show that vaccination is good.
	And although I don't agree with this, I'm required to tell you that wear a face mask, socially distance, get vaccinated if you can.
	Court of Appeal came, struck down that order.
	They said it's in so many words, it was as much of a judicial beat down as you can get.
	They said it's it's.
	Unheard of.
	And compelled speech is as much of a violation of free speech as is restricting free speech.
	And then they basically said, you know, a subpoena, not a subpoena, sorry, a contempt order, an injunction, has to name the parties or reasonably be expected to apply to certain parties.
	It's not something that's just applied across a province to anyone and anyone directly or indirectly with knowledge of this court order.
	And the Pavlovsky brothers were...
	Their contempt was overturned.
	Their order to pay $15,000 in costs overturned.
	Vindication across the board.
	And they basically said this is a violation of free speech.
	This violates and shreds our charter of rights.
	And a year plus later, Archer Pawlowski and his brother, David Pawlowski, vindicate at the cost of however many hundreds of thousands of dollars, stress, you know, whether or not they get heart attacks or other issues as a result of the stress.
	Vindication.
	But, flip side, of this stress, Robert, and this is a January 6th defendant, Adam, I'm going to forget his last name, I'm sorry, a January 6th defendant who took his life because he couldn't deal with the pressure and he couldn't deal with the onslaught, the judicial onslaught, and ended up taking his life.
	Chad's going to know the name before I find it, but it's terrible.
	So, a glimmer of hope out of Canada.
	We'll see where it goes.
	But then, meanwhile, terrible news out of the States.
	Absolutely.
	And we're continuing to see that.
	So, you know, Julie Kelly did a great job detailing the horrific nature of what's taking place to these defendants, the stress that they've undergone, the lost jobs, the lost families, the lost careers, the lost livelihoods, the lost savings, the gulag that's been specially formed in the District of Columbia.
	I mean, imagine again if this was Russia and Putin had done this.
	It would be front page news in Europe and the United States on a daily basis about horrific human rights violations.
	But it isn't Russia who did it.
	It's the United States of America.
	And it is a sad and disgraceful state of affairs related to all of it.
	As one of our local folks pointed out, one of the questions they had for tonight was the January 6th committee, now looking at Liz Cheney's about to lose her primary in August in Wyoming.
	She's going to be out.
	Come November.
	By January, she will no longer have a position of power.
	That'll be the first time in forever that neither Bush nor Cheney had a position of power.
	That is a white pill, by the way.
	Just that fact is coming.
	But in the interim, we have to deal with her nonsense.
	And she is now threatening to subpoena the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, just to harass her concerning her views about the election.
	And this is an attempt to harass the wife of the justice that they hate the most.
	And it shows the complete lack of limits on their behavior, particularly for Cheney, right?
	Oh, I'm a believer in Republican and da-da-da-da-da.
	Why is she going after the favorite justice of conservative Republicans in America then?
	She was always a fraud.
	She was always a fake.
	She was always a phony.
	She was a mass murderer, supporter, and accomplice, just like her Darth Vader daddy.
	But it is disgraceful.
	The way that committee continued, because once the court said, we're not going to impose any limits on you, committee, the committee continues to get more and more crazy.
	And now hopefully, maybe this collectively wakes up the U.S. Supreme Court down the road to say, we got to put a limit to this.
	We need a constitutional government.
	Congress is not the executive branch.
	They don't get to be a roaming grand jury.
	Maybe we'll wake up some of the populist wing on the Republican side to realize we need institutional reform, like the kind that some folks associated with Trump may include some people that I know, may include myself.
	But there was a story in Axios and some other publications this week about the plan of people close to Trump to deep fry the deep state.
	When Trump gets into power by 2025.
	But part of that institutional reform needs to be clarity, probably by the Supreme Court, that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to be running around subpoenaing their political adversaries.
	Because that's what that is.
	How does talking to the Supreme Court justice's wife have anything to do with pending legislation?
	Well, they need to see, Robert, if they need to make legislation that relates to justices' spouses.
	Who the hell knows?
	Well, by the way, Nancy Pelosi and her husband are making huge stock deals in advance of special knowledge of legislation.
	And people should ask, how is Nancy Pelosi worth purportedly $100 million plus?
	How did that happen while she was in office?
	How do these politicians keep getting rich while they're in office?
	Only two presidents have gotten poor after leaving office in the past 60 years.
	And their names are John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
	I mean, they killed him, but he was going to be poor either way after being president.
	And Donald John Trump.
	And so we'll see how that unfolds.
	But it shows the continued abuse.
	And as an example, now I continue to predict.
	That the federal government will not indict Donald Trump prior to November 2022.
	I predict they won't indict him, period.
	However, and Merrick Garland made some statements to that effect, but it enraged a bunch of people on the left, so you saw editorials demanding that he be indicted.
	The feds understand, or Garland understands the shitstorm that will unleash.
	However, the Fulton County District Attorney doesn't.
	The Fulton County District Attorney That is now going after and wants to indict Trump for simply speaking up for his election rights.
	And this is, again, because you have these liberal jurisdictions that control state capitals.
	We need to get rid of that.
	That needs to happen at a state level.
	We need to reconsider where power is granted.
	That can be changed legislatively, that the county of the state capitol not be given exclusive criminal or civil jurisdiction in cases concerning the government.
	But this all came out.
	Because she was going after the contingent electors.
	These were the electors that were going to be Trump's electors if, in fact, his election contest was successful.
	In fact, under the law, I helped draft this election contest.
	Under the law in Georgia, it's the electors who are proper parties to such a case.
	They brought their election contest challenge that, again, was based on the threefold factors that they were unconstitutionally.
	The voters who were not constitutionally qualified cast ballots in the Georgia presidential election of 2020.
	The second accusation was that there were voters who cast ballots in an unconstitutional manner in the presidential election, and that the manner and method by which votes were counted in canvas were not constitutionally qualified.
	Because in the presidential election contest, only the state legislature's rules clarify what is constitutionally qualified.
	There was a 300-plus page complaint with exhibits brought in the Georgia election contest.
	The state courts of Georgia violated their own laws, required they hold a hearing in five days.
	They never did.
	In fact, no hearing was held.
	It was scheduled for January 7th.
	Then January 6th happened, and it all ended up getting canceled.
	So the election contest was never heard by a court, ever.
	That was the best evidentiary challenge brought in the country.
	Those electors were subject to investigation by the Georgia grand jury.
	She finds out, the DA in Fulton County, that the electors are willing to testify openly in front of the grand jury because they have exculpatory evidence that shows that Trump did nothing wrong.
	She gets enraged, and the investigators then send out a letter saying, oh, you're all now targets.
	We're going to indict you now, knowing that that means that they have to assert their Fifth Amendment rights to figure out what's going on.
	So that they won't provide exculpatory testimony to a Fulton County grand jury.
	Liberal Democratic community.
	So that means she's committed to bringing an indictment probably to help boost her political ally, Stacey Abrams, who's running for governor in the fall.
	And Trump may end up getting indicted out of the Fulton County state court proceedings rather than federally for the criminal proceedings.
	Because this is a wayward prosecutor wanting to go after Trump for politically motivated purposes to boost the Democratic cause in Georgia.
	Now, I'll tell you, I think such an indictment will backfire in Georgia.
	I think it will backfire even in a Fulton County reasonable jury pool and may backfire with a decent judge getting assigned the case because Donald Trump committed no crime at all in the state of Georgia, and the people who did commit crimes are still in the Secretary of State's office.
	The idea that his crime consisted of find me 15,000 votes, I presume that's what that's what they're talking about.
	It's not clear.
	They're looking at everything.
	They're trying to find anything they can call a crime.
	Now, raising questions about an election, asserting your legal and constitutional rights to legal constitutionally recognized remedies is now being called a crime in America.
	Can you elaborate?
	I mean, this is what people don't necessarily understand.
	Challenging the certification process or the electoral certification.
	It's done pretty much every election symbolically.
	It's the constitutional process.
	So when they keep saying the January 6th defendants wanted to obstruct the transfer of power, that's a complete lie.
	They wanted to enforce the Constitution, not obstruct it.
	They wanted that certification challenge to be heard in Congress.
	They wanted it to be robustly debated in Congress.
	They wanted it to be fully discussed in Congress.
	They wanted Congress to go through their constitutional process and execute their constitutional duties, not avoid them or evade them.
	And that is your right and right.
	There's been an attempt by the left for the last decade or so to say that if you use your legal remedies in a way they don't like politically, they all of a sudden call it illegal and a crime.
	All of a sudden it's obstruction.
	So if you investigate a witness.
	You're constitutionally entitled to.
	Right of confrontation.
	Witness tampering.
	Yeah, tampering and obstruction.
	Well, if that's witness obstruction and witness tampering, the federal government does it every single day in America.
	Nobody tries to intimidate more witnesses than the federal government does.
	The defense is just doing their constitutional duty and performing their constitutional oath.
	Because some of us, when we took it, we meant it and plan to keep it.
	And so that's what's going on.
	It's just a...
	Perversion of the system.
	It's like a Soviet-style logic.
	It's 1984.
	And as Alex Jones always says, the best answer to 1984 is still 1776.
	And that's what we need, more constitutional-style 1776.
	It is crazy, because that which is legal becomes illegal.
	And when Trump comes up there and says, peacefully protest, fight like hell, That's criminal.
	But when Maxine Waters says, get in their faces, harass them.
	When others say, I can't even remember it now.
	That's fine.
	It's just, it is upside down.
	As you pointed out, they formed bail committees.
	The Vice President of the United States formed and fundraised bail committee for people committing violent crimes during the summer riots.
	Trump never did that.
	No, Trump never did that.
	And not that it would have mattered because they didn't get bail.
	You couldn't have posted enough money for them to get out.
	But Robert.
	The one question is, people often say insider trading is legal in Congress, and I don't understand if it's true or not.
	The law has been modified so that mostly it's not.
	So they still have broader protection than ordinary people do, but the law was changed under Obama, actually, to prevent it from happening at the scale it's happening now.
	So Senator Burr is still under criminal investigation, but magically they never get around to it.
	They never get around to the indictment so now.
	I believe his brother's under criminal investigation as well.
	Those guys somehow never get around to getting criminally indicted.
	Like, you know, John Durham is going after another low-level guy.
	He's issuing some subpoenas in support of that low-level guy.
	But how people can still believe in John Durham at this stage is beyond me.
	Statute of limitations passed on a bunch of stuff that he can't even indict on.
	So he was always a fraud.
	He was there to cover up the fraud, to have a few scapegoats to satisfy it so that the big boys walked.
	And unfortunately, that's what's happened again.
	But what I've been telling people is if you want to make a pitch to Trump for him when he gets into 2025, what would be a very smart appointment would be is either as a U.S. attorney somewhere or maybe as a special independent counsel, just let me play Jim Garrison for a couple of years.
	And we could then have some fun with some of these deep state boys.
	But he needs that kind of, he needs a Jim Garrison style special independent counsel to clean house.
	And deep fry the deep state like it belongs.
	I like deep fry the deep state.
	That's going on a shirt, Robert.
	But I want to bring up this one.
	This one's hilarious.
	With Viva moving to Florida, can we see he has been red, white, and blue pilled?
	That's great.
	That is good.
	Deep fry the deep state.
	I need to remember that.
	Chat, don't let me forget.
	Robert, let me pull up some super chats before I forget because I don't want to lose them.
	Little Rock says, this is so long ago.
	I'm so far behind on your videos.
	I was watching one with you on Eric's channel when I got a notification of this one.
	I've been busy catching up on cases.
	Hope you're enjoying the Florida sun.
	I'll be enjoying the Texas sun as of tonight.
	I was there on January 6th.
	I'm facing jail for walking peacefully to the Capitol.
	Cops told us we could go in, then locked us in.
	And while inside I did nothing but look at statues.
	Very sad day for America.
	Oh, absolutely.
	This technique of political show trials by the left was perfected by Stalin and Hitler.
	It's designated to eliminate enemies and scare others.
	And there's no question.
	It will.
	It's the same thing as...
	Right, because it's not just the political show trials and the criminal cases in D.C. in the January 6th subpoenas.
	It's the political show trial of Alex Jones.
	They want to use it as an example.
	To take out future Alex Joneses.
	And they also want to use it to discourage and deter people.
	Look at how many people are friends of Alex Jones that have kept their mouth shut about this case publicly.
	It's time to speak out.
	And you can choose to speak out on whatever subtopic within it you want.
	If you just want to talk about due process, talk about that.
	If you want to talk about right to a jury trial, talk about that.
	Talk about constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of press, talk about that.
	Focus on any angle.
	But it's time for more people in the public.
	To rally to Alex Jones' defense and expose these show trials for the fraud that they are.
	Deep fry the state.
	And someone said, you know, humans, I brought up the chat.
	Oh yeah, that's how we could do it.
	It could be deep fry the deep state, but fry spelled F-R-E-I.
	I don't know that I, that might get, my dad might get a little nervous if we have a shirt that says deep fry the deep state.
	Screenshot, anyhow, just for posterity.
	Don't pick a last name that has freedom in it.
	But someone in the chat said, you know, like, humans are quarrelsome creatures.
	We are creatures looking for drama to the point that we'll, this is my theory, we will take an image.
	It's a perfectly intact image.
	We'll cut it into little pieces that fit into one another, break it into a thousand pieces, just so that we have something to do on a Saturday afternoon to reassemble the pieces of a puzzle.
	We look for drama.
	If we don't find it, we'll make it up.
	That's why kids fight, that's why teenagers fight, and that's why adults fight.
	That and power and money, and sex.
	Everyone fights over whatever.
	Well, speaking of good cases, a Second Amendment win came out of another federal court where a town had tried to pass an assault weapons ban, and the federal court struck it down and said the Supreme Court was clear.
	This sort of thing ain't constitutional anymore.
	So not only are we seeing more suits challenging this, we're seeing more courts step up to the plate, even in some liberal jurisdictions like Colorado, and say, look, the Supreme Court was clear.
	Second Amendment right of constitutional carry.
	And Second Amendment rights are supplied to assault weapons and other guns that have been commonly historically unregulated by the state are within the right to keep and bear arms, as that individual in Indiana showed the importance and significance of it.
	By the way, what was it?
	Someone brought it up.
	Eight on ten shots hit the target 40 meters away.
	They showed the difficulty.
	People have shown where, you know, that kid's got Rittenhouse-level skill.
	I don't want to revel in...
	There is misery at the end of this because people still died.
	But he saved a lot of lives.
	He didn't do what he did.
	A lot more people would be dead.
	Honestly, I still say that's true of Kyle Rittenhouse.
	If he hadn't done what he'd done, more people would have died that night.
	At least this is.
	It's 15 seconds.
	Compare that to 70 minutes in Uvalde.
	Speaking of Uvalde, Robert, are there any developments that you're aware of in Uvalde?
	Just more embarrassments.
	Those people who raise questions are turning out to be right.
	They don't want any future Alex Joneses or anybody else out there to raise questions about what's going on.
	In fact, what they found is that when you raise questions, you get to better answers and you get to better possible solutions.
	It's turned out that all the concerns were really well warranted.
	The school safety mechanisms were not in place.
	The methods of police response were not adequate.
	And one interesting component the media has completely suppressed.
	It turned out part of the reason the teachers didn't respond to certain alarms early on is they've had an ongoing problem with illegal immigrants triggering those when they're trying to track down people here illegally.
	And that's why they didn't process it fully.
	This was developed by one of our members of our board, put up a YouTube video about it, went into good detail about it.
	And it was another fact that the media is completely suppressed.
	I want to pull up something that's going to make people feel a little better in life.
	Let me just see if this is the good video.
	I'll get the video of the pizza delivery guy who saved people.
	Runs into a freaking burning house, saves a kid, punches through a glass window to get the kid out of the second floor.
	Lacerations, smoke inhalation.
	Young, dumb, probably didn't even think about what he was going to do before he did it.
	Amazing.
	So, yes, we need good news.
	We'll get to the good news in a second.
	Let's get to some mildly distracting news.
	Twitter versus Elon Musk, Robert.
	How do they go about getting an expedited trial for this?
	I don't understand this.
	They ask, they say, we need a trial within three months, or what is it going to be, four months?
	How do they get it?
	And what's it going to look like if you have a five-day trial?
	Can you even conduct examinations for the purposes of the trial prior to in order to ensure that it's going to be a true five-day trial?
	So it's the Twitter asked for September.
	Musk asked for February.
	The judge put it in October.
	Suggest the judge is inclined toward Twitter.
	So we'll see.
	And now Twitter hasn't yet responded there with their counter complaint.
	So that might create a different trial calendar.
	We don't know what will happen when that happens.
	So, I mean, the judge bought into the idea that they could do enough discovery to answer the questions that Twitter raises.
	I don't quite see that.
	So it suggested to me a judicial bias in favor of Twitter.
	But, you know, I mean, most of the Democratic...
	Most of the Delaware judges are Liberal Democrats.
	So they've had very creative rulings on defamation cases concerning Candace Owens, as an example, and then often completely opposite interpretations when it's Dominion suing.
	So we'll see what's really happening.
	But I don't see how they can have a meaningful trial on this expedited basis.
	But maybe the judge is just saying, hey, I'll schedule it early, and then if discovery proves to be too complicated, I can always push it.
	It's easier to push back than to push up.
	So that could be what the judge is doing, just a calendar control technique to force the lawyers to quickly litigate.
	But we'll find out.
	Yep.
	I will never be able to stop with the meter crap.
	I still have kilometers on my—and I'm telling the Uber drivers and taxi drivers kilometers, and nobody knows what I'm talking about, and it feels weird.
	It's going to be something that's going to die hard.
	But hold on.
	Hold on.
	Watch.
	This is it, people.
	You want to know what a hero looks like.
	Where's the audio?
	25-year-old Nick Bostic made a split-second life-or-death decision.
	Caution.
	Be damned.
	Look at this.
	They bleep on his arm.
	Look at that house, by the way.
	Just driving.
	You have to be young.
	I was just waiting for the house, but I've never, ever, ever done anything like this before.
	Sprinting upstairs, Vostick woke four kids ages 1 to 18, guiding them outside, but learned a six-year-old girl was still trapped.
	Again, without hesitation, he dove back in.
	What do you got, six-year-old female?
	As firefighters arrived, Vostick was crawling through smoke toward the sound of a screaming child.
	He scooped her up and jumped through a window.
	Saving her life.
	What's going through your mind as you're trying to bust that window out?
	May God be with us.
	We gotta get the heck out of here.
	First responders went to work on his...
	That's a tourniquet, by the way.
	That's a tourniquet.
	But through the pain, only one thing was on his mind.
	Please tell me that baby's okay.
	She was, thanks to Nick, who was airlifted.
	Okay, we can end it there.
	By the way, I've taken first aid courses.
	You're only supposed to tourniquet when the blood loss is so severe that the risk of losing the limb is the lesser of the evils.
	That's a white pill.
	There will be no greater white pill than that.
	Young kid, reflexively, and I'll say kid, not in a demeaning sense.
	My God, it's amazing.
	And God put that person there.
	God, in a spiritual, cosmic sense, not in a religious sense, put that guy there at that moment in time so that he could do that.
	And I say that, and then people say, Viva believes in God.
	But then meanwhile, so many other times, nobody's there and people perish.
	But nuts.
	Nuts.
	And you have to have...
	You have to not have an appreciation for life and death to do that.
	Or...
	You have an appreciation for life and death, and you do that.
	Beautiful.
	Absolutely.
	There were some other interesting cases.
	They had picked up a famous Mexican cartel leader, one who was connected to the alleged kidnapping, torture, and killing of the DEA many years ago.
	Some suspect he was doing so on either the winning or unwitting behest in behalf of the CIA.
	And other U.S. government officials, as has been alleged by several longstanding law enforcement officers who investigated the case.
	But what's interesting is, if you were suspect of what's really going on concerning this particular defendant, what tends to happen is these cartel leaders, many years ago, there was a famous cartel leader, got arrested in Spain.
	Somehow his extradition was denied to the U.S., which is very, very rare.
	Usually means somebody powerful within the U.S. government didn't want it to happen and used local authorities in whatever the extraditing jurisdiction was to prevent it.
	Well, Rafael's extradition was denied by a Mexican judge.
	And so rather interesting because, you know, whatever secrets he has, they're not going to be going to the United States.
	It would appear anytime soon.
	So that was one of the random interesting case developments.
	Also, the Biden administration continues to put interesting groups of people on their list for corruption or other related issues.
	And now it included a famous prior big Paraguayan politician that's recently been put on that list.
	So something is afoot in Central and Latin America.
	I think it was a British Virgin Islands official who got released on bail, even though he was accused of major drug dealing and bribery charges.
	That was a little surprising to people.
	So there's something going on in Central and Caribbean and Latin America that's not probably what looks like it is at face value.
	But it will all be probably future hush-hush episodes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, this was not on our list, but I'm going to ask you nonetheless.
	In one week, by the way, my lighting upstairs is not as good as Robert's downstairs.
	Although, yeah, I look red.
	I'm not red.
	It's just lighting.
	Biden, in one week, Robert, he says that he has cancer, and then the next day says that he's got COVID.
	When supposedly he's had every shot known to man.
	Well, all the doctors are now coming out and saying, double boosted, double vaxxed, I still got COVID.
	They're the lucky ones.
	The unlucky ones are the ones who drop dead jogging.
	But Robert, it's a broader question.
	If Kamala Harris wants to take over the presidency, what's the easiest way?
	You got your 25th Amendment, which is...
	If that's medical ability, not necessarily cognitive, it could be any medical disability that precludes Biden from serving properly as president?
	Yes, yes.
	It requires, I think, the cabinet to go along, and if Biden objects, Biden's reinstated.
	My guess is still that they want to do a, if they're going to replace him, I still think it'll be after the November election.
	They may try to do it before the November election as a shake-up, because if they think they're going to get crushed anyway in November.
	The other thing that we're seeing, again, increasing leaks of impending 100 Biden indictment.
	I'll believe that when I see it, but usually, and my theory has been that they only leak that to put additional pressure on Biden for whatever political purpose they have, including possibly stepping down from the presidency, given that Biden has now hit approval numbers that usually are considered death numbers.
	In other words, low 30s, nobody's ever recovered from it in history.
	So I think that's probably, I'll be shocked that they ever actually indict Hunter Biden, primarily because that's a very difficult indictment to contain.
	Hunter Biden has a lot of corruption connected not only to all of his family, not just Joe Biden, but sisters of brothers, etc.
	But a lot of big deep state actors directly implicates Ukraine.
	The ability to contain that is in serious doubt.
	According to my sources, he's apparently Hunter as they've moved him from Malibu, and now they're trying to hide him out in Venice going to different drug rehabs while trying to keep him from saying or doing anything ill-advised.
	It's so over-the-top, Robert, because it's not like the FBI didn't have the material to investigate Hunter or Ashley or Biden, Joe for that matter.
	They had it for years.
	And hit it.
	And I said, just, you know, tongue-in-cheek, Joe, not Joe, Hunter Biden at best.
	He does that on a daily basis by the leaks of his documents, not only from the laptop, but the latest leaked documents.
	And he's committing it on a massive scale and on a regular basis in all kinds of states.
	You know, if somebody was smart, they might figure out where Hunter was and whether he was in some states that have Less politically compromised individuals, and they could conduct a criminal investigation.
	It's what the left would surely do, and see where that goes.
	But I don't believe anything will come of it publicly, but we'll find out.
	Someone says, Viva, can we just have a moment for Rakita's strike?
	Susan's fresh health.
	No one knows why ridiculous.
	I may need to make a Rumble account.
	I don't know what Rakita's strike was.
	Yeah, I hadn't heard about that either.
	I mean, it's been my advice to Nick to consider backups to YouTube because he had too much success.
	And they were too influential in the court of public opinion on both Rittenhouse and Depp.
	And, you know, I thought they would always come for him sooner or later.
	Again, Alex Jones is the example of what's going to happen to you next.
	For those that are not paying attention to that case.
	Now, both Depp and Hurd filed their appeals.
	There was some confusion about that because, again, there were verdicts against both of them.
	The big one was against Hurd.
	But, you know, Depp was always going to preserve his rights and remedies by appealing that verdict against him.
	And I don't care.
	I don't care about this.
	I never really cared about it.
	I was mildly interested in seeing Amber Hurd have a meltdown that she never actually had.
	So I was wrong on one prediction.
	But Johnny Depp...
	He had a decent grounds of appeal in my view, just because if Amber Heard's a liar, it's not one of those splitting the babies where you can say, okay, she lied here, so $10 million there, and he lied there.
	They can't both be guilty of defamation.
	If she is guilty of defamation because she's a liar, then Depp can't be guilty of defamation because she's the liar, she made up stories, and he rebutted.
	He's presumably appealing, I guess.
	His own defamation order against him for whatever it was, $2 million?
	Yeah, and it was the winner's lawyer said some stuff that they claimed was authorized by him.
	He has a little bit better legal grounds than she does.
	But I think it's probably ultimately the objective is to settle it and resolve it.
	He got mostly what he wanted out of that trial, which was a win in the court of public opinion.
	And you've seen Hollywood and other companies come back to him now.
	He's starting to get the old deals that he had before because he's a unique talent.
	Politically, he's kind of way to the left.
	So, I mean, he said some crazy things about Trump.
	About the last actor to assassinate a president.
	Which, by the way, people call us right, or I won't lump you in their arm if they call me right-wing.
	Well, some people, they say, don't drink and drive.
	For Johnny, it should be, don't drink and talk.
	And also, don't drink and date.
	Well, I was going to say don't drink and something that ends in a four-letter word.
	Robert, what are the chances they replace Harris with Newsom?
	How do they do that?
	There's ways to do that to replace a vice president, but she would need to resign.
	She's not going to be successfully impeached.
	So she would have to resign, and then they would have to try to appoint Newsom.
	I don't see that happening.
	Harris ain't going anywhere in time soon.
	Getting her to resign is very difficult.
	How about if she resigns because she was offered a seat on SCOTUS?
	But I guess that shouldn't sail down.
	Yeah, I think so.
	It'd be weird to resign and then get a gig.
	So I don't see that happening.
	So I think all the talk...
	There'd be more risk of Buttigieg getting that than Newsom getting it too.
	But Buttigieg's got much more...
	Newsom clearly wants to be the 2024 nominee.
	That's why he's running ads in Texas and Florida.
	But I don't see that happening.
	And his efforts to do gun restrictive laws are going to backfire and he's going to get a lot of lawsuits against them.
	So he'll lose those too.
	This people who accuse me, not you Robert, of being a right wing.
	I defend Johnny Depp on the Amber Heard because he's right.
	Despite the fact that he's an idiot.
	He could be an idiot.
	And I'll defend Alex Jones.
	Kind of a nut.
	Kind of a drug user.
	Kind of a political whack job.
	But a great actor.
	And Amber Heard is even crazier.
	I'll tell you this.
	First of all, Rango is the best animated movie of all time after Megamind.
	Amber Heard.
	If no one's seen Rango, you gotta watch it.
	It's just great.
	Johnny Depp and a bunch of other great voices.
	But Amber Heard...
	Can you imagine being in a relationship so abusive that the love that you get after the abuse outweighs the abuse that you got during the abuse?
	And I've never been in one.
	I've been in three relationships in my life, one of which ended in marriage.
	But I can envision what it feels like to have such the love that comes that it overrides the hate that you got from the abuse from the same person.
	I feel a little bit bad for Johnny Depp.
	I think he's an idiot, politically speaking, but that doesn't make him wrong on the Amber Heard definition.
	Exactly.
	One can distinguish the two.
	Yeah, I gave that exclusive to Alex Jones.
	That deal is already done.
	But you can go to the band.video for that exclusive that I gave to Alex.
	But yeah, that deal's already been cut.
	Okay.
	My dog had a slip disc.
	Vet prescribed an aggressive...
	Okay, this is about Pudge.
	We're six years later.
	This dog's nerves are done now.
	Robert, what else do we have?
	A case, though, to watch this week will be several people in Arizona have brought suit that they don't want the upcoming Arizona primary.
	They don't want any of the primary votes to be counted by the machines.
	They want them to be hand-counted.
	And so they have brought suit.
	The court held a hearing this week.
	It's not clear what the court's going to do.
	At least I didn't hear any update.
	And we'll see.
	Because their view is, look, what everyone thinks of the machines, they're too unreliable.
	There's no reason to use them.
	Let's do it the old-fashioned way, the way they do it in many countries around the world.
	Do it by hand.
	And that's a more effective manner.
	And so I think we'll see whether the court goes along with it.
	So that's one of the big cases to watch this week is to see if the court intervenes to prevent the machine involvement in the Arizona primary elections.
	There's elections coming up.
	Oh, I think that case will be this coming week.
	The elections are the next following week, first week in August.
	And I'll break those down.
	The first Monday of August will be on with Richard Barris.
	Robert, do you have any faith in DeSantis being a real populist?
	On domestic issues, yes.
	On foreign policy, it's a big question mark.
	That's where a lot of people are believing that the best combination would be a Trump-DeSantis ticket, that if successful, Trump focuses where he likes to focus, which is on I think that combination would be a particularly effective combination.
	And then if Trump brings in some cleaners to help deep fry the deep state, then that would be the perfect trifecta.
	So there's plenty of us out there working to try to make that a reality just around the corner.
	And in the interim, that's why they're partially obsessed with taking out Alex Jones and then using Alex Jones as an example to take out others who are very influential in the court of public opinion.
	As Glenn Greenwald said at the premiere of the film, he'd much rather be associated with Alex Jones than the mainstream media.
	And that's a very famous liberal Democrat journalist, but he's independent, willing to question the system on its lies, which we've seen too many of.
	Another example of that is Uber got a sweetheart deal, despite getting caught doing all this illegal activity in the Uber leaks, bribes of politicians and public officials, getting caught hiding a massive data leak of their consumers.
	They cut a sweetheart deal with the government to basically pay a very small fine and not be meaningfully prosecuted or punished.
	Lyft was able to win a big case on behalf of their claim that they're an independent contractor, not an employer.
	But the independent contractor laws in California that cause problems for a bunch of truckers may lead to a bunch of trucker strikes going on.
	And California may even have a bigger supply chain problem.
	Due to the litigation surrounding that issue and the legislation that has occurred in California, consequent there too.
	This is now at least the second comment I've read about this.
	Admittedly, my first aid training is 25 years old.
	Incorrect on the tourniquet, Viva.
	Just use them.
	There is little risk unless over 10 to 20 hours, and even then, use if looks needed.
	Thank War on Terror for updating and understanding.
	By the way...
	I'll stand corrected.
	I just remember them saying, don't use a tourniquet unless you have to, because you can lose a limb or whatever.
	But okay, and I stand corrected because that's actually at least the second or third comment that I've seen to that effect.
	In Trump's RICO suits, what happened is they subbed out, he had sued James Comey and a bunch of other people, and they subbed out the U.S. government because they said the allegations concern their activities as government officials.
	And I think that's a weakness of the RICO suit, quite frankly.
	It means that that suit's probably heading toward dismissal, unfortunately.
	So I don't think much will come of that suit, but you never know.
	And so that's the update on that aspect.
	In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court came and said all these ballots were really, 2020, were illegal that were cast.
	This was an illegal change in the election.
	Unconstitutional, Robert.
	Exactly.
	Unconstitutional.
	That's what I was explaining to somebody the other day when they were trying to figure out, well, what's this allegation of fraud?
	I'm like, an unconstitutional election of votes that aren't supposed to count is in most people's definition of fraud.
	The mistake that was made by some of the people involved in this was to put themselves under the burden of proving a particular person was actually dead when the vote happened and all the rest.
	It's very hard to prove that kind of voter fraud.
	The kind of voter fraud that occurs tends to be votes counted that shouldn't have been counted.
	Either because the person wasn't constitutionally qualified who cast the ballot, or, and that can be many things, not just being dead, being too young, not being a resident, voting in multiple states, etc.
	The manner in which the vote was cast was not constitutionally qualified, like these dropbox ballots, like the ones in Wisconsin that weren't properly delivered, that weren't properly mailed, that weren't properly attested to.
	And again, these are prophylactic rules that exist to prevent voter fraud from occurring.
	And then, of course, the counting and canvassing of those ballots and the way that was done procedurally, not supposed to be at night by pulling things out from under tables when no one's around, not supposed to be blocking observers like they did in Philadelphia quite famously by putting the stuff up on the windows.
	And so that's really what that is.
	But in Wisconsin, the answer of the left to the Supreme Court saying you can't do this is to say, well, that's discrimination against the disabled.
	So they've now filed a federal suit, knowing they won't get any relief in the state courts of Wisconsin, hoping they get a liberal democratic court in the federal system to reimpose those rules that were never passed by the legislature and are not constitutional under the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting the disabled.
	And that case has just been filed.
	So we'll see how it progresses and proceeds.
	I don't think it should win.
	But that's the case.
	I don't like my cigar because YouTube doesn't like it.
	If they see or hear smoking, they don't like it.
	Robert?
	Hold on one second.
	Robert, give us a white pill.
	We have two other briefcases.
	There was a bunch on the eclectic interesting list.
	One of my favorites.
	Well, it does turn out you're entitled to a new trial when the judge is banging the prosecutor.
	So that was nice to know.
	So it turned out the judge was banging the prosecutor in a case.
	The defendant found out about it.
	Finally, the Court of Appeals did something.
	Well, you know, that kind of doesn't look so good.
	So they finally overturned that case.
	So that was good news.
	And then there was one.
	Oh, yes.
	The Fourth Amendment exception case.
	Another Fourth Amendment exception.
	So this is the scam they do in DUI cases.
	They like to do it in any other case.
	They want to search illegally.
	Maybe they want to search your car, search your home.
	Maybe they want to search your body.
	So what they do is they say, ah, you have a medical emergency.
	And that's why we need to get these blood samples.
	And so they did it to a DUI guy.
	He made the mistake of...
	Falling asleep.
	They're like, oh, we're worried about his well-being and his health.
	We better rush him to the hospital and get that blood sample real fast.
	And the court said, that's just fine.
	That's a medical exception to the Fourth Amendment probable cause.
	Another case allowed cops to sick their dogs on you.
	And they said that wasn't a clear Fourth Amendment violation, even though there wasn't a cause for that dog to come and attack you.
	So it's more cases where, sadly, many conservative courts even.
	And sometimes they're the lead, don't recognize civil rights when it comes to the Fourth Amendment context because they want to cover up for prosecutors or cover up for police.
	But at least one corrupt case got exposed that involved a corrupt judge and a corrupt prosecutor.
	Now, I'm going to bring this chat up.
	Can you confirm if it's true that Mark...
	So I'll get to this issue.
	So what it is, is under the Constitution, when it comes time for the electors to vote, the electors from the state...
	A single state cannot vote for a president and vice president that are both from that state.
	So in the instance that, let's say, Trump and DeSantis run, they win.
	Let's say the electors form, and let's say Florida is the deciding state and Trump won it.
	In other words, if Florida did vote for both Trump and DeSantis, then one of them or the other would not be vice president or vice president.
	Very easy.
	They can't vote for both.
	Only Florida.
	Only matters if Florida's decisive.
	Doesn't matter anyway because this exact same issue arose in 2000.
	Bush and Cheney were both from Texas.
	All that happens is Trump re-registers to vote someplace else before the electors vote.
	So it's a problem that's been kind of exaggerated.
	People see that and they think, oh, it can't happen.
	Can't happen.
	It's not a limitation on being a nominee.
	It's not a limitation on actually being elected.
	It's only a limitation at the time the electors from that state vote.
	And that's why it's not a problem for Trump and not a problem for DeSantis.
	So, again, it already happened in the Bush case.
	Now, people, I said we'd end it together.
	I just took a picture of Barnes, which one day will be in the history books of the interwebs.
	We'll end it with two super chat rumble rants from Rumble from Hamartix, which says, What happens if South and Central American countries start joining the new reserve currency that Russia and China formed?
	Thank you.
	And then the other one is, I appreciate the education.
	I've learned so much from listening to you.
	Thanks.
	Yeah, so in terms of currency, it won't make a difference, legally or anything.
	But its big impact is a political shift.
	It will lead to the decline of the dollar being the dominant currency in the world over time.
	Go back and watch my hush-hush on Ukraine from the beginning of the conflict and see if what was predicted there is coming true in live time.
	And the best white pill is what's taking place in the mockery of a trial this week.
	It has not stopped or blocked Alex Jones from continuing to fight in the court of public opinion for what matters to him and what matters to his audience.
	Nor has it prevented his audience from continuing to be the front line in defense of freedom of speech by continuing to support him and his network at InfoWarsStore.com, where you can get healthier, wealthier and wiser by producing and supporting it.
	I'm supporting it because I support Alex Jones, support the freedom of speech, support the freedom of press.
	And oppose the mockery of American justice that this case has become.
	So you can continue to be your own white pill by supporting the Alex Joneses of the world to remain independent and keep their voice because the whole case is about suppressing and censoring it.
	And as long as Alex Jones heartbeats, his voice will not be silent.
	I love it.
	I'm reading the chat as you go along.
	All right.
	Now, I don't know how it's going to work.
	Robert, you close your screen down.
	I'm going to go upstairs and end the screen.
	Everyone, thank you all.
	See you all this week.

▲