Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 7, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:06:03

Ep. 123: "Take Him Out!"; Ukraine; Canada; Medical Defamation; Musk AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Very loud.
	Alright, that's very loud.
	Oh, I got something in my eye.
	I got hair in my eye.
	Very loud.
	And you get the picture.
	It's good to be king.
	While there are videos of airports backed up for hours, people being forced to wear face masks as they travel in and out of Canada.
	I think they're back to spot-checking for the Rona as you enter Canada now.
	The country's burning, and Justin Trudeau is in his private jet flying to Costa Rica with his family, unmasked, just whisking away for a couple of weeks while Canada burns.
	And I'm sure he's saying to himself, like the internet meme goes, this is fine.
	That was Justin Trudeau disembarking from a private jet.
	Because he's just finished lecturing the world on carbon emissions, climate change.
	We don't even need to own vehicles anymore is the new WEF agenda talking point.
	While Canada is crippled, while people are being forced into quarantine due to their vaccination status, while people are waiting hours on hours in line at airports, backlogged.
	Who was it from Barstool Sports?
	It took like a day to get out of Pearson Airport out of Toronto.
	He's flying off to Costa Rica for a couple of weeks on his private jet with his family, mask-free, testing-free.
	It's good to be king.
	It's good to be king.
	I had three videos that I was going to start this stream off with.
	That one won because it was Trudeau, but you didn't actually have to listen to him talk.
	But I have to highlight the fact.
	It's like Happy Gilmore.
	He's watching the country burn and he's urinating on the ashes.
	Now, hold on one second.
	Oh, get over here.
	Oh.
	Someone we haven't seen in a long time.
	I haven't seen my boy in two weeks.
	Hold on, hold on.
	He's lost.
	There we go.
	This is Winston.
	Back in...
	Because I'm wrapped...
	My cable's wrapped around him.
	Okay, here we go.
	This is Winston.
	He was at a kennel for two weeks.
	How did you like it?
	I missed you.
	I'm happy to be home.
	Okay.
	Oh, they gave him a bath.
	And he smells so good.
	How's everybody doing?
	I'm back in the home studio.
	Got my ammonite over there.
	My shorty award over there.
	A dog hair over here.
	The 100,000 person play button.
	Freedom.
	Fossilized.
	Petrified wood there.
	And behind me, a mass mortality plate from Green River, Wyoming.
	Okay, we've got a good, great episode tonight.
	I'm no longer with Barnes.
	Barnes, I think, is still in Texas.
	The Jones trial has ended.
	The kangaroo court show trial of Alex Jones, which is totally not scripted.
	Except Alex Jones was literally told what he cannot say on the stand.
	Constitutional rights, be damned.
	Judgment is out.
	$4 million in compensatory damages, and the jury went with a cool $40 or $45 million punitive damages, which will probably be reduced some.
	We've got an amazing show to talk about stuff, but...
	Look, I started with Trudeau, the man who is single-handedly, with a little assistance, destroying Canada.
	Destroying it, you know, it can be rebuilt and it can bounce back.
	I'm not sure under what leadership.
	We've got someone from the Conservative Party who's out tweeting something to the effect that...
	I've got to bring it up, actually, because no one's going to believe me.
	Something to the effect that freedom...
	Used to be a clarion cry, and now it's become a dog whistle.
	The cry for freedom has become a dog whistle.
	Let me just see who this was.
	Running with...
	Oh, that guy who's running for the leader of the conservative party.
	Let me get this here.
	What was her name?
	I'm losing my mind.
	Here we go.
	Tasha!
	Kyridine.
	Let's bring this up.
	Let's bring this up.
	We'll see the level of conservative politics in Canada.
	And I gotta tell you, I don't consider myself to be a conservative or right-wing, but I find it to be complimentary when people accuse me of it.
	But this is the level of politics in Canada.
	This person, Tasha Kyridine, is running...
	Oh, who's she running with?
	Co-presidente campagne de Jean Charest.
	She is the co-president for Jean Charest's run for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
	Jean Charest, people.
	I don't know what makes a Conservative a Conservative, but I know what makes a Conservative a Liberal.
	And when you espouse views like this, Tasha Kiriden says, sorry, at National Post, I have to disagree.
	Quote, freedom, end quote.
	Freedom.
	Has morphed from clarion cry to dog whistle.
	Turns off more voters than it turns on.
	She's talking about freedom.
	This idiot.
	And I'm calling her an idiot because you cannot say something so stupid and not expect to be called an idiot for it.
	Freedom has become a dog whistle.
	It turns off more voters than it turns on.
	And this is idiotic one way or the other.
	She's either wrong, in which case she's an idiot, or she's right, and in which case Canada is doomed.
	People would like safe prison than the risk of freedom.
	But to seriously get up there as a co-presidente, the co-presidente feminine version of the president, because she's a female, Jean Charest, and to say...
	In the name of...
	By the way, the CPC underscore HQ stands for the Conservative Party of Canada underscore headquarters.
	To say in the name of the CPC, freedom has morphed from a clarion cry to a dog whistle, and it turns off more voters than it turns on if Jean Charest wins the leadership to the Conservative Party.
	I don't know.
	I didn't think anyone could be much worse than Aaron O'Toole.
	But when freedom...
	It's a dog whistle for extremism.
	And it turns off more people than it turns on.
	Well, if you elect that crap, enjoy the crap that you've elected to govern yourselves.
	You know what comes out of crap politicians?
	Crap.
	A bank is only as good as their weakest employee.
	A government is only as good as the elected official.
	And maybe sometimes not even that.
	Elect garbage.
	It's garbage in, garbage out.
	And in this case, unconstitutional garbage in and unconstitutional garbage out with Trudeau.
	And yeah, hey guys, if freedom turns you off, this should be Jean Charest's new banner.
	If freedom turns you off, vote for Jean Charest.
	Bunch of buffoons.
	Absolute buffoonery.
	That wasn't the second thing I wanted to share with you.
	The second thing I wanted to share with you before we get started.
	And then we're going to get into the disclaimers, because I see that I've missed them.
	And I want to read the chat, but I can't read the chat while I do this.
	The second thing I want to highlight.
	This is a rant.
	This is a rant, people.
	This is a rant about those who purport to espouse woke politics, decrying racism, bigotry in all its forms, are the racists and the discriminators.
	In the truest form.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	Would you be able to answer this question on one of my tests for social psychology?
	Simple essay question.
	After going through privilege, what privilege is, giving examples of privilege, explaining how there are different types of privilege, like white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, able-bodied privilege, thin privilege, cisgender privilege, straight privilege, and others.
	Have you defined the word privilege yet, ma 'am?
	Wearing an Iron Maiden shirt, which I find particularly confusing.
	Have you defined what privilege is?
	What did she say?
	Thin privilege?
	Thin privilege?
	Did she say able-bodied privilege?
	Christian privilege?
	Have we defined privilege?
	Because I'll define it.
	Privilege is a benefit.
	That is awarded to certain people and denied to others for no other purpose other than adhering or being part of a special group.
	Thin privilege, unless, you know, it's that episode of Family Guy when there's like, when they give things to handsome people and they don't give them to ugly people.
	And even then, the idea that someone is privileged because they were born handsome, we have confused good fortune with privilege.
	Privilege is and has always been about groups grouping together to give certain benefits to those in that group and to not give similar benefits to those in another group.
	Some might even go out on a limb and refer to it as political privilege or class privilege, thin privilege, and just cis privilege.
	You have privilege by virtue of your genetics in terms of your sexual orientation.
	All right.
	So, simple question I ask my students.
	Essay question?
	Essay.
	Tell me one way that you have privilege.
	Tell me one type of privilege you have.
	Whoa, my makeup is all over the place today.
	All right.
	Did she check her makeup privilege?
	It still is.
	Anyway, I always am a mess.
	Tell me what kind of privilege you have.
	Explain how it's an example of privilege.
	And say how your life would be different if you didn't have that particular type of privilege.
	Would you be able to answer that question?
	Can you come up with the type of privilege you have?
	Are you able to say out loud and admit to yourself and to the world that you have that privilege?
	You have the privilege of being skinny, if that doesn't come with hard work and decisions to eat well and exercise.
	You have the privilege of being born a certain way.
	Not privilege.
	The thing I find is my students don't.
	Even when I have clearly explained what privilege is and how it doesn't mean your life has been easy, it doesn't mean you're a bad person.
	Okay, so hold on.
	Privilege doesn't mean your life has been easy.
	Okay, I'm following you here.
	Privilege.
	Still, they just go, oh no, I don't know.
	No, I don't have any privilege.
	Listen to this.
	The test question, a lot of students will leave it blank.
	It could be for a variety of reasons, not necessarily because they don't understand or don't take the class seriously or anything.
	But I get weak-ass answers.
	I've got strong privilege.
	I've got smart privilege.
	You could have said you had white privilege.
	You could have said you had male privilege.
	At the very least, because I have some students that are like, look, I am a black transgender individual.
	I don't have a whole lot of privilege.
	I'm like, okay, now here's the thing about your life.
	Think about certain advantages that you have that you probably didn't notice that you have.
	An example I often go with, I say, you know, Even if you've got disabilities, you don't have all the disabilities.
	There's some disability that you would be lacking.
	Can you appreciate what this individual just said?
	In her mind, whether or not she's directly equating being Black or being transgender with having disabilities, and you might have some, but you don't have all the disabilities, whether or not it was a direct comparison, in her mind and in the mind of everyone who goes around looking.
	For privilege.
	If you're looking for privilege, you need to find.
	Disfortune.
	You need to find.
	Alleged victims.
	You need to find people who you think.
	Are lesser than those who you think are privileged.
	And this woman.
	Goes through looking at white people.
	Like they're privileged.
	And literally.
	Black transgender people.
	Equating that in her own mind.
	Of comparisons to disabilities.
	To say.
	You might have.
	Some disabilities, but you don't have all of them.
	You might be black or transgender, but you don't have all of the underprivileged, whatever the opposite of privilege is.
	This is how the insanity thinks.
	When you're a hammer looking for a nail, when you are a, by the way, by the looks of it, among the most privileged, probably got a good job, probably, I don't know, tenured, unionized, probably can't really be sanctioned, fired very easily, probably got paid throughout the pandemic.
	Talking about privilege and then looking at someone who says, I'm black transgender, I don't know what I have to look for.
	And she says, well, you might have some disabilities, but you don't have all of them.
	Looking at everybody to say who's privileged and who's not, and implicitly in her own bigoted mind, looking at black transgenders and saying, there has to be something sub to them to what I look at and say is privileged.
	I see a white person.
	I don't know if they're gay, because if they're gay, that might make them white.
	But then they have, I think actually at this point in time, they have actually gone into saying there's gay privilege.
	It is madness.
	And enraging.
	Okay, now with that said, I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	I'm going to give these standard intro disclaimers.
	No legal advice.
	No election fornification advice.
	No medical advice.
	Super chats such as this from Chet Chisholm.
	Please pull up the story of Satchel Tate, the kid from Nova Scotia.
	For some, it isn't real until they see it.
	I've been a paramedic here for 11 years.
	This is not normal.
	Sasha Tate.
	Satchel Tate is an 11-year-old kid who had a stroke playing baseball.
	Let me just make sure I'm not mistaken in the stories.
	11-year-old kid had a stroke playing baseball.
	Satchel Tate.
	Let me just make sure I'm not.
	Yeah.
	Satchel Tate is a kid.
	He had 11 years old, stroke playing baseball.
	There's a movement online to get letters written to him.
	Tragedy.
	It's just tragedy.
	Ultimate toothpaste combo on sale at InfoWarsStar.
	I think people are going to be looking for ways to support Alex Jones.
	We're going to get into this discussion this evening.
	Just watch your Albuquerque and Breaking Bad.
	I purchased 600 plus acres a few miles east of El Paso just because my wife and I love the desert.
	Just got wells and using irrigation just because you said you love the desert.
	Beautiful.
	So YouTube takes 30% of all of these super chats, people.
	If you don't like that, we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble Rants is the equivalent.
	Rumble takes 20%.
	So you can feel better supporting a platform you like.
	And more goes to the creator.
	Pierre looks to be a friend of freedom.
	He looks to be less of an enemy of freedom than the rest of that awful, awful party.
	A party is only as good as its weakest link.
	Yes, agreed.
	Sounds like that conservative is an old Hegelian.
	All right.
	Sorry, that was too loud.
	Okay, what do we have on the menu?
	We've got a drone lawsuit.
	We've got Breonna Taylor, cops, second kick at the can.
	We're going to get into the double jeopardy issue.
	Federal civil rights violation after they were acquitted on their state charges.
	Alex Jones, Musk, Canada Madness, more doctors suing for First Amendment violations.
	Let me get this out of here.
	Let me get this out of here, people.
	You know, we have life privilege, is what we have.
	And it doesn't matter.
	People are not using the word privilege right anymore.
	It doesn't matter.
	Bring in on the Barnes people.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Now you look...
	You're back home, aren't you?
	Yeah, back in Vegas.
	All right, awesome.
	How...
	Oh, we're going to have to go into it.
	Before we get to there, Robert, the book, the cigar, and then Alex Jones.
	Well, it seemed like an apropos topic book this week.
	Farewell to Justice, a book about Jim Garrison's fight.
	He was another person subject to widespread smear campaigns and various forms of irregularities in the legal system in his attempts to expose the Kennedy assassination.
	Of course, these days, anybody who questions it, maybe they can be sued by somebody who feels offended by it, according to the new theories being advanced.
	And then this is a Partagas Lusitania cigar.
	But yeah, we got doctor censorship, Nicholas Sandman case dismissed, Alex Jones, Breonna Taylor, abortion issues from DeSantis to Tennessee to Indiana to Idaho, right to film police, the right to protest at court, the remote ID drones, interesting stuff out of Ukraine, a court hack that may have disclosed sealed files.
	The Batman Mobile case that a lot of folks are asking me about on the locals board.
	A musk in Twitter.
	Federal judges shutting down coal mines.
	Federal judges allowing wolves to kill your cattle.
	And SEC latency arbitrage.
	And then some trans rights.
	Apparently you now have a right under Medicaid to get certain gender surgeries.
	So that and other issues for tonight.
	Yeah, I think we'll get through 50% of that if we're lucky.
	But let's start with the big one, Alex.
	Alex, let's start with the big one, Robert.
	Well, the board wanted us to start with the doctor censorship set of issues.
	Okay, well, let's do that.
	So there's a lawsuit coming out of America now, which is very much, I say, similar to Dr. Francis Christian's lawsuit coming out of Canada.
	You know, except Francis Christian is seeking damages for what was a reprisal for exercise of free speech rights, etc.
	In the States.
	This is a group of doctors going after the board, basically, like the board of medicine, alleging that they are...
	Go for it.
	Yeah, there's basically a quartet set of suits.
	So there's doctors suing Twitter for their censorship campaign at the behest and behalf and with collusion with the government, including Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Malone, and some others.
	There's also a group of doctors that have joined the state of Louisiana and state of Missouri suit that got discovery rights against Dr. Fauci and others pending in Louisiana.
	Then there's also doctors suing medical boards for the attempted weaponization of licensure requirements and the misuse and abuse of the FDA about ivermectin.
	And there's a doctor suing the, I think it's Houston Methodist, for their attempts to, for one of the hospitals down there, slandering her and trying to say that her treatment was dangerous and damaging her career accordingly.
	And then the suit you just mentioned, the Association of Physicians and Surgeons.
	are going after the board certification boards.
	These are private entities that have a de facto monopoly over certifications, and those certifications increasingly are critical and essential for a doctor to be able to get credentials at various hospitals and medical facilities, and they're bringing suit.
	On the grounds that there was collusion between the Disinformation Governance Board and other Biden administration officials to try to weaponize the certifications to censor dissident speech, to prevent various conferences from even taking place because doctors felt intimidated by even making a presentation that questioned anything about the COVID narrative, whether it was lockdowns, masks, vaccines, COVID itself, etc.
	But they're also going after the board on two grounds, that these certification boards are monopolies, and thus they're violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, by the way, in which they are utilizing and weaponizing their power to chill political speech they disfavor,
	And going after them for tortuous interference with the economic opportunity presented in the organizations that put on conferences who are not now able to get certain speakers because their certification is being threatened if they challenge the institution.
	Robert, the issue is an amazing one, and I don't think people really think about this or understand it.
	They have the governing bodies basically dictating to the doctors what medical advice, medical procedures, how they govern their doctor.
	Patient relationship.
	It would be as though a bar society, a federal or a state bar society, would tell a lawyer what he has to do or what he cannot do in terms of legal representation of his client.
	In these cases, they're basically, if not directly, telling them what to do, indirectly, because they say, if you don't do it, we're going to come after your license, we're going to defame you, and we're going to effectively remove your ability to practice.
	I mean, I guess one question is, How did it get there?
	And what is going to be the remedy?
	How can a lawsuit basically say to the board that you cannot do this to your members or to the professionals?
	Well, it's two other components to it because here they're going beyond trying to dictate the doctor-patient relationship.
	And they're saying, if you're certified by us, there's certain speech you won't be allowed to give.
	You won't be allowed to present in public your opinions about a wide range of topics if they don't conform to what we say they have to be.
	And that goes beyond medical advice.
	There's also a lawsuit in Australia pending on these grounds as well.
	So that if you challenge the institutional narrative now, even outside of the doctor-patient relationship, they're weaponizing board certifications just like they're weaponizing board licensures and weaponizing public statements they make about these doctors to basically destroy their career.
	And what the suit exposes is that these certification boards, in the context of the certification suit, these certification boards are tortiously interfering with the business relationship that these doctors have with a range of speaking organizations and the like.
	Not only that...
	They are a monopoly.
	They have more than 80% control of the market of certifications.
	And as such, they are subject to the antitrust laws under the Sherman Act.
	And as such, they are violating it because they are misusing their market power to try to prevent and preclude competition of a sort.
	In this case, competition of speech, of competing organizations that are presenting an alternative to the institutional or official or Fauci-approved narrative.
	And it's extraordinary the degree to which, I mean, people like Pierre Corey, people like Peter McCullough, people like Dr. Malone are some of the most well-respected, well-regarded people in this precise area in one way, shape, or form, whether it's mRNAs, whether it's cardiac care, whether it's understanding about viruses.
	I mean, these are some of the best, most well-recognized, well-regarded, well-respected professionals in the country.
	And in the world, and yet every tool against them, whether it's destroying their reputation, destroying their ability to practice, destroying their ability to get credentials, is being used against them.
	Their access to social media, all of it.
	And what it exposes is the degree to which they do not have confidence that they could win an open debate in the court of public opinion.
	And so people are starting, thankfully the doctors are starting to fight back against this.
	Fight back against the FDA trying to do things on ivermectin.
	Fight back against medical licensing boards misusing and misappropriating their power.
	Fight back against these certification organizations.
	Fight back against the universities and the academic institutions and the medical institutions that are trying to defame them and act retaliatory towards them.
	And hopefully that's what will help.
	Robert, we just lost your video.
	Yeah, I'll fix that.
	Can you hear me?
	We can hear you.
	While we're doing that, everybody, so you should know, this is carbonated water.
	I've gone to carbonated water, people.
	That's the state of my existence.
	Oh, he's gone.
	He'll be back.
	And while Barnes is out, I'll bring up some recent stats.
	While the doctors who asked the question, respected doctors with decades of expertise, some of whom were, you know, even the co-creators, if not the creator, because there was a Wikipedia edit war over Malone.
	Was it Malone or McCullough?
	It was Malone.
	After, you know, there was questions.
	Did he create mRNA or did he co-invent it?
	Robert, I put this on Twitter.
	This is an older article.
	Coming from a doctor whose Twitter feed might cause you to raise questions, but at the end of the day, You know, you can argue with the person and say that they are crazy, but you can't really argue with the stats, the numbers.
	And now you've had boards censoring, you know, threatening to remove the licenses of.
	You've had big tech de-platforming, suspending accounts.
	And at the end of the day, the fact checkers admit the stats.
	They admit the increase in a number of illnesses now.
	They just say it's not from that, it's from...
	Something else.
	Insurance.
	Insurance group sees death rates up 40% over pre-pandemic levels.
	40% surge in deaths.
	All cause deaths.
	I think it was from 18 to 48 or 18 to 49. Nobody disagrees with the stats at this point because they're coming out slowly but surely.
	But you got to demonize a doctor who might attribute the phenomenon to something that is contrary to the narrative.
	I mean, Robert, they're going for injunctive relief in...
	The board lawsuit, are they going for the similar relief in the big tech lawsuits?
	I mean, they're going for some combination of all of them.
	Declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, as appropriate as the case may be.
	And so it'll be interesting to watch these cases.
	I think the AAPS case was brought in the Southern District of Texas, the Galveston Division.
	I think the case in Houston was brought in Houston.
	So a lot of them are tied to Texas.
	So it'll be interesting to see whether we get consistent adjudication.
	But it's good to see them fight back, and it's good to see them come up with creative ways to try to push back against this, and we'll see what ultimately happens with it.
	And it's the problem with certifications and licensure and the rest.
	It was always going to be inescapably and inevitably misused and abused to suppress speech.
	Because when you concentrate power like this that gives access to reputations, professions into the hands of a small group of people, they're going to use it on behalf of the people they're aligned with, not on behalf of what they're supposed to be there for.
	These things have nothing to do with certifications.
	They have nothing to do with certifications whatsoever.
	So it shows just how precarious this is.
	And we'll see what defamation law applies, and that's probably a good transition of the Nicholas Sandman case.
	Salmon had brought a range of cases, several of them settled, but several did not.
	And the federal district court this past week dismissed all of those claims on the grounds that the opinion of a, quoting of the opinion of a third party is not the basis of any legal libel claim that can be brought.
	Now, where I disagree with them is whether or not those statements were opinion statements or not, whether those statements, in fact, implied statements of fact.
	But it was an interesting...
	So Salmon's going to have to take those cases up through the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and see if there's some relief or remedy.
	But it shows the wild discrepancy between that definition.
	New York Times is trying to resist a range of discovery and other items on what a definition of a word is in different kinds.
	And you contrast that to what happened in the Alex Jones cases, and you're seeing very different treatment.
	Depending on who the plaintiff is and who the defendant is in terms of requirements of discovery, whether you can state a claim, whether you have access to motions to dismiss or summary judgment, and what the law is.
	Now we lost Barnes again.
	I mean, and I suspect, Robert, you're probably still listening.
	This does not necessarily bode well for Rittenhouse, who's contemplating going after all of the media that had defamed, besmirched, made false statements about him.
	Yes.
	And then what else?
	What is the latest on New York Times and Project Veritas?
	Hold on.
	Someone says my face is not in the middle of the screen.
	You know, the problem is when it comes up one half, one half, my face gets pushed a little bit to the side.
	Yeah, we haven't seen what...
	Rittenhouse has made the announcement he's going to start suing, taking names and, you know, going to go after some media.
	I am not optimistic, if he ever does that, of his chances of success.
	We've seen the way the system...
	It can favor those who it likes, and it can find a way to get rid of that which it doesn't like for those who it doesn't like.
	But even on the substance of Rittenhouse, the idea of defamation for someone who was actually literally accused of and tried for first-degree murder, you're going to have a tougher time proving defamation, proving the statements were false.
	And that even if they were false, that they caused damages.
	But Robert, what do you think?
	I mean, you think this will have an impact on Rittenhouse's likelihood?
	Will it change any motivation, any incentive to file suit?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	So we may have something coming up with Rittenhouse, not legally, but others down the road, but we'll announce that soon enough.
	Now, but Robert, this is the segue.
	Into Alex Jones.
	Let's get this all lined up here.
	The segue into Alex Jones.
	The courts can find a way to dismiss the defamation claims in some cases, and they can find ways to deprive a defendant from even being able to defend.
	We won't go over all of the procedural posture of that particular case of Alex Jones.
	Default verdict in November, went to trial on the damages.
	For some reason, even on the trial on the damages, plaintiff was allowed to adduce certain bits of evidence to which defendant was not allowed to respond, making evidence that had nothing to do with quantum of damages but telling a story.
	You were in there as an exhibit, as evidence, during the trial, how Alex Jones and Infowars literally said the trial is literally being scripted, and it ended the way any scripted trial of this nature would end, save and accept perhaps with the amount on the compensatory damages.
	Jury deliberated for under a day, came back with $4 million, and then went back on the punitive and came back with $45 million for, in theory, on paper, by the headlines, a $50 million judgment.
	But, Robert, it's not a $50 million judgment on paper.
	No, not by law in Texas.
	So the punitive damages in Texas is capped at $750,000 per defendant.
	So what you really have is what's being sold as a $50 million judgment is in fact about a $5 million judgment.
	You know, 5.7 or 8, somewhere in that neighborhood.
	That's what it'll actually be once the Texas law corrects it.
	Also, under the free speech systems, has filed a bankruptcy claim, so that's part of the bankruptcy case.
	The judgment is now, because it's under $25 million when it's legally correct, is now bondable in Texas, so that will take it up potentially to the Texas Supreme Court.
	The Texas Court of Appeals in Austin has not shown the capacity to be impartial in these cases and has applied law in a very peculiar manner.
	The constitutional requirement of colloquium was not recognized.
	Basically, it made illegal.
	You know, questioning institutional narratives if somebody's upset or offended by you, your claims.
	That's what they really did.
	And that's why it's such a precarious precedent from a First Amendment perspective.
	But the other things that were violated, rights to privacy were violated, rights to attorney-client privilege were violated, rights to due process of law were violated, rights to confront your accusers were violated, rights to counsel were violated, rights to trial by jury were violated.
	But, you know, the only question in the Alex Jones case is not what rights...
	But are there any that were not violated?
	Because it goes further than that.
	Texas substantive law about summary judgment was violated.
	Texas substantive law about punitive damages was violated.
	Texas substantive law about defamation was violated.
	I may have to hop on a different browser, and I'll be right back.
	Yeah, go for it, go for it.
	I'm going to take Barnes out while that happens.
	You've all seen it.
	For those of you who don't know, we talked about it a lot last week.
	My question is, yes, punitive damages was capped at two times the economic damages, capped at $750,000 per claim, so per plaintiff.
	So in theory, the $45 million punitive damages awarded by this jury after some of these questions from the jury, such as, are lawsuits like this the appropriate way to go after election deniers?
	The punitive damages are capped in my understanding.
	The only problem is I understood it to be that the judge is the one who has to reduce them if the jury goes over the statutory cap on punitive damages, like we saw in the Oberlin case.
	Remember, in the Oberlin case, the jury came down and gave Oberlin College a greater amount than the cap on punitive damages, and it was reduced.
	And I'll be...
	Perfectly upfront with my own, I don't call it bias, just my own position.
	I was happy to see that happen in the Oberlin case because the Oberlin case was a bona fide, pure example of defamation, of the economic damages resulting from that defamation.
	A bakery that had been around for over 100 years put out of business.
	The owners of it died from stress.
	Real damages.
	Not that there weren't real damages in this particular case.
	They just might not have been proven all that much.
	Robert, the question I have is, the judge in the Oberlin case reduced the punitive damages that went over the legal cap, legal threshold.
	In this case, nonetheless, it is the judge that has to reduce them.
	Is it not conceivable that the judge says, given the egregious conduct, I'm going to reduce it, but not to 750,000?
	I'm going to reduce it to...
	Five million?
	Because Jones' conduct was so egregious in the context of this trial.
	Can she not do that?
	And then it'll have to be to the Court of Appeal to bring it to the statutory limit?
	She's not going to violate that.
	What bothered her was that she wanted the script to end.
	And when I say the case was scripted, what I mean is that there are three movie cameras in the courtroom.
	Including a movie camera staring down the jury the entire case.
	Another movie camera for the judge.
	Another movie camera for everybody else.
	And the goal was to script the ending to be a big, ridiculous verdict amount.
	And so you could tell she was upset when Jones' lawyer said, this violates the law, this punitive damages award.
	And she said, well, down the road we'll fix that.
	But she didn't want that to be the concluding line to the movie.
	Because that's what this was.
	I mean, to give an idea for...
	I've discussed all the constitutional rights that were violated in this context.
	I've discussed many of the substantive law requirements that were violated in this context, including the right to apologize, the right to mitigate damages, the right to bring appeals of summary judgment motions, the right to bring such summary judgment motions, all of that.
	But all of which was...
	But let's just talk about the rules of evidence that took place in the proceeding.
	So she violated the rules of relevance, the rules against undue confusion, rules against unfair prejudice, rules concerning expert witnesses, rules concerning learned treatises, rules concerning party opponent admissions, rules concerning the core of the rules of evidence.
	You couldn't have a more one-sided process.
	This was a trial that not only disregarded constitutional rights, it disrespected the rule of law.
	We have an adversarial trial process for a reason.
	We didn't see that.
	We didn't witness.
	Jones wasn't even allowed the opportunity to question or present any evidence in the punitive damages stage at all.
	Why?
	Because the statements made were ludicrous by the plaintiffs that would be taken apart.
	They had a...
	Expert, who is not, in my view, really qualified to be an expert, get up there and say that Infowars, somebody would buy Infowars for $270 million?
	Are you kidding?
	Without Alex Jones.
	No Alex Jones involvement.
	Someone's going to go buy InfoWars.
	They wouldn't pay $2 million without Alex Jones for InfoWars.
	So the idea it's worth $200 million plus is just ridiculous.
	And yet that's what was allowed in because no one was allowed to present any counter evidence.
	No one was allowed to cross-examine meaningfully that evidence.
	The guy was reading articles and they were pretending the articles were learned treatises.
	They weren't learned treatises.
	That was utter nonsense.
	And anybody who still has any illusion out there that Alex Jones didn't participate in discovery, just watch the trial.
	They have his text.
	They have his emails.
	They have the videos.
	They have the publications.
	They have all of his private financial information, information that goes way beyond this case.
	For the first time, the media identified what was the grounds in Connecticut for default judgment.
	It was not producing social media analytics.
	That's because they don't exist.
	InfoWars doesn't sit around and do social media analytics.
	It's just nonsense.
	It shows that the default judgment was a joke.
	It was a fraud.
	It was basically to make sure you saw the most one-sided trial that I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.
	This was a joke.
	Somebody said, this makes a Soviet show trial look good by comparison.
	I mean, this is the same.
	You can go back.
	Somebody on our locals board put up a quote that came from the Nazi party that sounded almost identical to the language being used by the lawyers and the judge in the case in terms of not allowing any information.
	that's unapproved from being out there to the public.
	And if anybody had any doubt what this case was really about, just listen to the closing statements and the statements made by the plaintiff's lawyers after.
	They actually used the phrase to the jury.
	They said, dear jury, take him out.
	That's what they said.
	They said, don't allow him to ever be heard from again.
	That was the whole nature of their closing argument in punitive damages.
	And later, the plaintiff's lawyer, while lying one more time about punitive damages in Texas so that everybody could have their false headline across the country, all said, we're going to take apart Take him apart like a corpse.
	Compare him to a corpse.
	If Alex Jones had ever used this rhetoric or language, he'd be in jail.
	And this is a plaintiff's lawyer, by the way, who during the case bragged about illegally obtaining attorney-client privilege communications and conversations that he had no right to, that he knew Alex Jones had only the...
	By the way, for everybody out there, contrary to some of the legal misinformation you're hearing about the case, only a client can waive attorney-client privilege.
	A lawyer cannot.
	Only a client can.
	The plaintiff's lawyer admitted in open court that Alex Jones hadn't consented to any attorney-client communications being given to him, but he was so eager to grab them, so eager to seize them, so eager to share them with the January 6th committee.
	And by the way, there was nothing incriminating in there.
	You saw another headline that said, Alex Jones perjury.
	That was the lecture from the lawyer.
	There was no perjury.
	There was no evidence.
	People said that, and I finally got to the substance of what the lie was that those text messages revealed, because in the stream I did on Thursday, someone was saying, the text revealed he's a total liar.
	Apparently, what revealed that he was a total liar was that he said he did not have any text messages relating to Sandy Hook on his phone, and they found some.
	And there was also apparently maybe a correspondence...
	It wasn't about Sandy Hook.
	The only text they had was from Paul Joseph Watson talking about COVID.
	And he used the term Sandy Hook.
	That isn't about Sandy Hook.
	So there was no perjury.
	They had no evidence of perjury whatsoever.
	And not just that.
	They also, at that time, someone said that the text message from Paul Watson was imploring Alex to back off the Sandy Hook story.
	It's not worth it.
	That was already known.
	That was already in evidence.
	It was well in evidence.
	That was part of the evidence they used.
	All the way back at the very beginning of the case.
	So that was produced back in 2019.
	So they had hundreds of thousands, millions of documents collectively turned over.
	Emails, text, financial information.
	I mean, they even had naked pictures of Alex Jones' wife.
	That's how insane the level of disclosure was.
	And yet people are still pretending.
	I'll tell you, any lawyer who defends...
	This case, in terms of what happened procedurally and otherwise, is not a lawyer I will ever take seriously again.
	Because they have discredited themselves.
	You can hate Alex Jones all you want.
	You can think he deserves any punishment you think he deserves.
	You cannot defend what took place here in terms of constitutional rights, in terms of Texas substantive law, in terms of the rule of evidence.
	Nobody who watched that trial thinks, oh, I got to hear both sides.
	I got to see both sides present their case.
	That was how we used to criticize the Soviet show trials.
	We said unlike the Soviet Union in America, you always get your day in court.
	You always get your chance to present your side of the story.
	That didn't happen.
	They denied it at every single level.
	The judge repeatedly grants...
	I mean, to give an example...
	Alex Jones' comments about the jury outside the courtroom have no relevance.
	I've never seen that ever admitted in a trial before, ever.
	What I said about the case being scripted, also no relevance to the trial.
	So that's one part of it.
	The second part of it is the rule of completeness, which was the rule that was most frequently violated in the case, requires under both the state and federal rules of evidence.
	So this is a rule that's in every single jurisdiction, which is you cannot present part of what the plaintiff's lawyers themselves called their whole presentation.
	By their definition, everything they presented were altered clips.
	That was their interpretation of what they themselves were doing when cross-examining Owen Schroyer.
	The whole trial was just altered clips.
	You have to, under the rule of completeness, present the entire context of the statement.
	So when they made the mistake of trying to play just my little piece about that this is a scripted case for future audiences, they were obligated under the rules to present my entire presentation.
	Now, of course, they didn't want anyone to hear that, and they didn't want that to be part of the record.
	They didn't want that to be part of the future film that's being made, live time, in the courtroom.
	And so what does the judge do?
	The judge excludes it.
	Not only that, the judge made one of the most ludicrous evidentiary rulings ever, which is to say any statement by any person on a media network is a party opponent admission Totally false.
	Not only that...
	Alex Jones wasn't there in a corporate representative capacity.
	A different witness testified to that.
	So nothing about the corporation could be used for impeachment anyway.
	It was like violation after violation.
	It wasn't relevant, unduly confusing, unfairly prejudicial, not a party opponent admission, not relevant to impeachment of the witness before them.
	All of it violated core rules of every rule you can imagine.
	And she was just violating them one after the other.
	Everything only had one theme.
	Screw Alex Jones.
	Let's have a one-sided presentation.
	Let's let the world believe in a fake narrative.
	I mean, even people on Tim Pool's program were completely incompetent at their presentation.
	Somebody had bought into the media narrative about this case that was totally untrue.
	Alex Jones...
	This is what they know.
	This is why they had to tell a different story.
	Alex Jones took damages for covering Sandy Hook in the way that he did.
	Nobody was ever happy with however he covered it.
	And so the idea he made money off of it?
	Patently ludicrous.
	Patently false.
	Has nothing to do with it.
	And then the other allegations, though, there's things hidden in the rest.
	Fully disclosed corporate information under penalty of perjury in bankruptcy court.
	That's what was fully disclosed.
	And the state court in Connecticut tried to violate the bankruptcy stay and then got word that that was not going to be okay and finally backed off.
	She was trying to proceed with the Connecticut case while the Texas case was ongoing.
	I dare anybody out there to find somebody, any judge in America, who forced a party to go to two trials at the same time in two different states.
	It's never been done before.
	But she was trying to do it in violation of the bankruptcy stay, and ultimately that did get shut down in Connecticut because the bankruptcy stay is automatic.
	It's a matter of federal law, and yet she was trying to find a way to evade even that.
	That's how little respect these courts have had for the rule of law.
	There's an Alex Jones exception now to pretty much every rule and every law and every right that exists, and if we're not careful, it will become an exception that will be applied to all of us down the road.
	The rule of completeness in this particular trial was laughably applied.
	And this is, I know what I don't know, and I know what I can appreciate.
	You know, this is Texas procedural law.
	But you listen to the rationale of the justification.
	At one point, defense wanted to play, well, they were arguing over the list of videos that plaintiff's counsel had already agreed to, saying, oh, I agree to the list, but not to the videos themselves, because we need all full episodes to be admitted as evidence, because we're not going to let you play an edited clip.
	And I'm saying the same.
	A clip from a four-hour episode is not edited.
	It's a clip.
	And the completeness that they were arguing for was you need the entire episode, not just the context of that clip.
	At one point, defense played a video, and they argued over whether or not they had to play the commercials for the rule of completeness.
	Then, in comes this impeachment of Alex Jones, where they brought in your video, Robert.
	Seven seconds.
	Which you could clearly hear was truncated at the beginning and the end.
	And then the judge says, well, this is obviously going to be allowed on impeachment.
	As if that respected the rule of completeness as per their prior definitions, which was we need to play the commercial break for the rule of completeness.
	Anybody who listened to the trial, I think would have to conclude that it is a joke.
	The only issue in all of this, Robert, is everybody says it's the judge's discretion as to when a party has adequately or...
	It's called the Constitution.
	And the Constitution of both the United States and the state of Texas requires that you have a constitutional right to trial by jury.
	Judges do not have discretion to waive that.
	Judges do not have discretion to ignore that.
	In Texas, it's called a death penalty sanction to issue a default judgment because it otherwise violates your constitutional right to trial by jury.
	That is why historically it has only been applied in extreme, exceptional, extraordinary circumstances where what you're supposed to have to prove is that there is no capacity for you to present your case because of a complete refusal to participate in the case unless it is presented to the judge rather than the jury.
	So I've challenged everybody out there that says this is okay, find me one other case in America.
	In history.
	Where somebody produced this much discovery, participated throughout the case, who was denied the right to bring motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, right to appeal a whole bunch of things, depending on which court, different courts did different violations, and was denied his right to trial by jury, either on the substantive issues or on the punitive damages.
	And here's the other question for everybody.
	I mean, some of this LawTube commentary was just disgraceful.
	I get some people hate.
	I mean, most of them were too scared.
	Most of them were hiding under their couches rather than cover the case because they didn't want to get on the wrong side of certain political pressures in the country and Tim Pool's coverage was very weak.
	It was weak-kneed.
	You don't have to be that scared, Tim.
	In terms of honest coverage of this, I get Joe Rogan hiding under a desk.
	That's Joe Rogan.
	That's who he is.
	When the rubber hits the road, Joe gets running.
	That's what happens.
	That's just reality.
	But a lot of other people should be ashamed of themselves that have legal knowledge.
	What was all the case about?
	If the case is limited to presenting compensatory damages, then why was 90% of the evidence let in?
	It had nothing to do with compensatory damages.
	It was to make a movie.
	That's why it was let in.
	It was let in to say, let's see what a one-sided version looks like so the movie company can reproduce it and be immune from suit.
	I was talking to Mark Robert about this on Freeform Friday, and he was like...
	He'd never heard of anything like this.
	I mean, having a courtroom designed like a set in terms of where the movie cameras are located, and then scripting the trial so every piece of evidence that comes in, even if it's not relevant, doesn't bear it, unduly confusing, unfairly prejudicial, doesn't meet expert standards, doesn't meet hearsay exceptions, doesn't fit the rule of completeness.
	All of it let in.
	The only consistency was, if it was pro-Alex Jones, it's out.
	If it's anti-Alex Jones, it's in.
	That was it.
	This made Soviet show trials look good by comparison.
	Oh, and when the judge, as though it wasn't clear that she knew she was on camera, which says, I'm not done yet, Mr. Jones.
	I know you don't think it's fair, but when I talk, you don't get to talk.
	And I get to cut you off, but you don't get to cut me off over the top.
	But Robert, I have to bring in one clip here.
	Oh, first of all, I want to bring up, just so everybody appreciates it.
	Above and beyond everything that Robert said, take him out, which if we're talking dog whistles from people that hear dog whistles everywhere, take him out has an 86-ish type connotation to it, especially when you then you go into analogies or comparisons to corpses.
	Other than, you know, potentially being dog whistles on Alex Jones as a person, on the substance of it, I am asking you to take the bullhorn away from Alex Jones and all others who believe they can profit.
	off fear and misinformation.
	Plaintiff's lawyer said, I suggest you to return a verdict that is proportionate.
	Okay, that's the thing.
	They are literally saying, take the bullhorn away from people who profit off fear and misinformation.
	And we know who that is because the judge made clear.
	She admitted that Jones believed it, which, by the way, means there isn't grounds for finding him liable in the first place, punitive damages or otherwise.
	But she said...
	Your beliefs don't define truth.
	Basically, she, the judge, gets to define what truth is.
	That's what this case is about.
	You disagree with the official narrative, they get to sue you into oblivion.
	This case had very little to do.
	And the closing argument in punitive damages made that crystal clear.
	Don't allow him to ever be on the air again.
	Don't allow anybody like him to ever be on the air again.
	This is about pure weaponization of the legal system to suppress and censor dissident information.
	And it was in the only way they could get to that outcome, even with a liberal, democratic, authoritarian jury pool in Austin, Texas, one of the most liberal, most anti-Alex Jones jury pools in America, is they still had to script and rig the trial.
	You could only get on the jury if, one, you were willing to award bigger damages than anyone ever has in history, and two, over $100 million in that context, and two, you didn't believe Alex Jones had ever been, that no one had ever said anything untrue about Alex Jones in the history of the institutional media, which they were repeating misrepresentations right after the case about Alex Jones.
	This case was a, like I said, it was a show trial of a show trial, literally for a show that's going to be made, a movie and documentary.
	And anybody who continues to defend it...
	can think whatever you want about Alex Jones, think about whatever you want about Alex Jones and Sandy Hook.
	If you affirm or approve of this case, then you are limiting your own speech.
	You're weaponizing the legal system to take you out whenever they think your speech doesn't meet the officially approved narrative, the means to bankrupt you for doing so, and to have a trial that makes a complete mockery of due process, the rules of evidence, and the adversarial process that trials are supposed to be about.
	That wasn't a trial.
	That was an attempted execution.
	And they made it clear at the end that was their objective.
	They said, By the way, punitive damages is supposed to be specific to the issue before the case.
	And that wasn't what that was.
	Find a punitive damages where they said, take out this business, take them out, kill them, end this business, etc.
	You won't see that in punitive damages claims.
	It's, hey, they caused this particular harm.
	This is the way to deter this and punish this.
	That wasn't it.
	It was...
	We want Alex Jones off the air now, and we want you to prevent him from ever being allowed on the air ever again.
	And not only that, we want you to do this so that no one else like him can ever be on the air again.
	And remember, one of the jurors said, can we use this to go after election deniers?
	And that's sort of like eagerness of the jury.
	So that's where they're going, folks.
	Do you say something that Fauci doesn't approve of?
	Do you say something that the government doesn't approve of?
	Do you say something that the institutional media doesn't approve of?
	then you can be sued into oblivion and bankrupted for the rest of your life because that's what this case was always all about.
	We want to punish profiting off fear and misinformation coming from media outlets that have been literally profiting from fear and misinformation for the last two years.
	And by the way, here's the other evidence they didn't allow in.
	They didn't allow evidence about Operation Northwoods, which was about the U.S. government approving false flags and staging events.
	They didn't allow evidence about how Alex Jones outed the first Iraq war.
	They didn't allow evidence about how Alex Jones outed Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
	They didn't allow evidence about how Alex Jones brought very pertinent questions about what really happened in 9-11 and the Patriot Act.
	They didn't allow evidence about how Alex Jones was one of the primary supporters of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
	They didn't allow evidence about how Alex Jones outed Bill Gates's role in pandemic policy.
	They didn't allow evidence about how Alex Jones outed what was going to happen with lockdowns and mandates and the vaccines.
	They didn't allow him to present any time he'd ever been right.
	In fact, the only time that stumbled into the case, and this will be this is the most memable moment from the case.
	This will be the most memorable testimony from the case was when the plaintiff's lawyer living in their tiny little bubble made the mistake of asking Alex Jones.
	Don't you believe this?
	It's not pertinent to compensatory damages.
	But the plaintiff's lawyer lived in such a delusional world, self-bubble world, that he asked, well, you actually have suggested that there's government people and powerful people engaged in, you know, sex trafficking and grooming and things like this.
	And Alex Jones, in an understated way, said, you mean Jeffrey Epstein and the Clintons?
	Hold on, Robert.
	Meme mastic everywhere.
	Here it is.
	Let me bring it up.
	If anyone has not yet seen it, and the guy's been making hilarious follow-ups to this, here we go.
	One of the things you've been talking about on your show is your allegation that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child trafficking, and the grooming of children, right?
	You mean like what Jeffrey Epstein did with the cleanse?
	Oh my goodness.
	It's ridiculous.
	One of the things you can do is to do.
	6.4 million views.
	You know you've done something right and made a particularly poignant point.
	And that moment is why they didn't want to allow Alex Jones any defense.
	That's why they didn't want to present any evidence on his own behalf, to cross-examine his accusers on anything relevant, to allow in the full video clips that were relevant to any testimony videos that came in, that they had to resort to default judgment so they could print and push a fake narrative that is utterly and completely false,
	because if you did an Alex Jones was wrong jar versus Alex Jones was right jar, The right jar would fill up the first 5% of the issues you examined long before the wrong jar ever gotten close to it.
	And so that's why they couldn't present.
	And that's what I told everybody.
	You have a judge in your pocket.
	You have a jury pool that is like a D.C. jury pool, already prejudiced in one side, and yet you're still so terrified.
	Of what the facts would actually prove if both sides got to present fully their case, that you had to resort to every trick, scheme, scam, and rig to get the outcome that you wanted, to have the movie documentary be what you wanted it to be.
	You couldn't afford even Alex Jones' ability to defend himself because you knew that if the facts truly came out to an impartial jury, you would lose every single time.
	And they would likely have lost on the merits themselves.
	Because when people put the story in the context of what Alex Jones knew and understood, everything he'd ever said about the topic, everything he'd ever said about government institutional narratives, the conclusion you get is Alex Jones did nothing wrong intentionally to harm anybody.
	And again, these are people who...
	You know, who didn't file retraction requests, correction requests, or apology requests in a timely manner.
	And the fact that Alex Jones had apologized profusely for anything he had got wrong about this repeatedly over and over and over and over again was excluded from the evidence, was excluded from the trial.
	It was literally only the plaintiffs and the judges' version of the truth was allowed, the jury was allowed to hear.
	They weren't really allowed to hear his defense.
	If he did present a defense, they said, oh, you're saying, this is what the whole default thing was about.
	Every time Alex Jones said, no, I'm innocent.
	There is no evidence of that because I never did that.
	They're like, that's proof you're guilty.
	Default.
	I mean, it was very much Orwellian.
	1984, that whole interaction between her and Jones where she's like, I define the truth effectively.
	And just because you believe it doesn't make it true.
	And again, if she really believed that, allow robust evidence to be presented.
	Just like with the doctors in the COVID censorship context.
	When they're scared to allow both sides to be heard, it means they know an independent, impartial jury of public opinion or in the courtroom would go against what they want them to do because they don't have the facts on their side.
	They don't have the evidence on their side.
	They don't have the law on their side.
	All they have right now is power.
	And the only question is whether the Texas Supreme Court ultimately...
	And what happens in the bankruptcy proceedings?
	There's also some fake claims about What can be collected from Jones in Texas?
	You have very broad collection defenses in Texas.
	Your homestead is exempt.
	A bunch of property is exempt.
	Cars are exempt.
	Wages are exempt.
	Retirement is exempt.
	Pensions are exempt.
	So the idea that they're going to carve them up is nonsense.
	But it shows you what they were trying to do, what they wanted to do.
	And it only happened because every rule of law was disregarded.
	Every right was disrespected.
	And anyone who looks at that trial and says, that's a good trial, that's a trial we can be proud of, is someone to never listen to their legal opinion again, because it literally won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
	Epstein's Epstein's bedsheet says, Nate live-streamed off of the law and crime for the verdict.
	So we'll see what happens with that.
	Judge had her instructions, and I, for right or for wrong, will abide by those instructions.
	But Robert, before we even get to the end of this, I just want to bring this clip up.
	Because this is another very telling clip.
	This is Jones talking to the plaintiffs after verdict.
	Can't really hear what he's saying here.
	Yeah.
	Something about apologizing.
	She had been shown a fake clip earlier, an altered clip earlier in the day that misrepresented what he had said.
	He had said that she was a very smart lady, was very complimentary of her, etc.
	They didn't play the full clip.
	And he explained that and he said he wanted to support anything that she was part of.
	And then Neil Heslin comes over.
	We'll get there.
	And then the lawyer comes over.
	And that fills it up right there, right?
	It gets better.
	Hold on Robert here.
	It gets better.
	Shut your mouth.
	This is plaintiff's lawyer speaking directly to Alex Jones, whom he knows to be represented.
	Now, I know Alex Jones' counsel is there, so maybe it's in the presence of counsel.
	Robert, just from an ethical perspective, I wouldn't do this ever.
	Am I neurotic, or is this just objectively improper conduct from an attorney to a represented party?
	I mean, it shows that they were scared.
	The plaintiff's lawyers were scared to allow their own clients to talk to Alex Jones one-on-one.
	I mean, that just, it sums up the case.
	It sums up just another aspect of the craziness of this case.
	That the plaintiff's lawyers, it was apparent, were only giving partial information to their own clients.
	How often and how much they were keeping them in the dark is not known.
	But just that little interaction where Jones is trying to talk to them, interact on a direct level, try to ameliorate anything he can ameliorate.
	Again, if this was about remedy, if this was about restorative justice, then you would encourage as a lawyer, the plaintiff, That to go on, to have healing and so forth.
	That isn't what the plaintiff's lawyers were here for.
	They used the family as emotional tools to take out someone they don't like because of his political beliefs and because he's been the primary populist opponent to deep state corruption of anybody in modern American history.
	You'd have to put up with Thomas Paine if you looked up long-standing historical impact.
	In terms of his ability to influence the court of public opinion.
	And Sandy Hook was a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of that.
	99% of what Infowars said about Sandy Hook recognized it happened.
	What they wanted was, and they were able to cover up other facts, the fact that the school safety was never there.
	As I always said, the story of Sandy Hook is politicians lied, so kids died, and then they had to cover that up and blame the gun and blame Alex Jones rather than admit they didn't secure the building the way they should.
	Now, speaking of school safety techniques, what some schools are starting to do, like in North Carolina, they're putting AR-15s in every school.
	Because they realize that guns save lives a lot more often than they take lives.
	And it particularly went down in a constitutional lawful manner.
	But the Jones case is a travesty of American justice, a mockery of American justice.
	It'll be cited by other governments down the road to say, you can't question our courts.
	Look what you did.
	It's that bad.
	It's like January 6th, but even worse because of the legal precedent it's trying to set, the constitutional rights it's trying to eviscerate.
	The rules of law it totally discarded, and the rules of evidence it totally disregarded.
	And in that sense, it goes even beyond January 6th in terms of the perilous precedent it faces to everybody else.
	Just like in the social media 2018 censorship campaign against Alex Jones.
	Started with Alex Jones, two years later was the President of the United States being banned everywhere.
	Some of us said so at the time.
	What was true then is true now.
	Alex Jones is everybody and everybody is Alex Jones.
	And if you care about the rule of law, if you care about constitutional rights, if you care about freedom of speech, if you care about the right to question your government and institutional official narratives, then you have to say this case is an outrage and you have to fight for it to be overturned and reversed because this precedent is a dangerous precedent, maybe the most dangerous precedent to First Amendment freedoms in our lifetimes.
	I'm going to read this and then I'm going to say something to flatter you, Barnes, because...
	You've been right.
	I can't think of when you were, you know, egregiously wrong.
	Barnes, did you note how emotionally invested The Economist was?
	Way too into his task from an excitement standpoint.
	Devastating financial disclosures, but very unprofessional.
	Boldly fake hair and doll.
	I want to say this to everyone who's looking at Robert and saying, he's too close with Alex.
	He represented him, so he's lacking bias.
	Barnes, and I'm looking at you, Barnes, has been right.
	Well ahead of the curve on a number of issues where, at the time, people were saying similar things.
	I can think of Gretchen Whitmer, where people were looking at Barnes and saying, you're connecting dots where they don't exist.
	I can think of Ukraine, which is where I'm going to bring this to, where people are calling you a pro-Putin shill for saying back then what the media is now starting to say at the mainstream level today.
	For those who don't know, CBS is going to run a show if they haven't already run it.
	To the effect that something like 70%, by their own count, of the weapons and aid going to the Ukraine might not make it to its end destination, might be making its hands into the wrong people.
	It was on CNN.
	It was a dissenting view, but now it's still mainstream dissenting view.
	I forget the name of the British guy.
	Saying that Zelensky, once upon a time, was elected on a certain basis.
	To negotiate a certain peace in the Donbass region, and then got egged into fighting a proxy war, egged on into fighting a proxy war by the West, where, you know, if you're America and you see China lining up news in Canada and Mexico, maybe you respond the way Russia is responding to Ukraine.
	You were called a pro-Putin shill, and now the mainstream media seems to be turning the tides.
	First of all, Robert, I mean, anybody who says he's wrong now on Alex, look at his track record.
	And Robert?
	I know you talked about it with the Durands and Alex and Alex on the Durand.
	There is a shift in the mainstream media narrative on Ukraine.
	Am I hallucinating?
	Is it really there?
	And if it's there, why is it shifting now, even though I think I know the answer?
	Yeah, well, I mean, what...
	We talked about from the very get-go, particularly with the Durand, Alexander McCorris and Alex Christoforo, which I may be on with them at some point this week discussing a range of topics, is that Ukraine is a wildly corrupt government where a lot of the money that's being spent is going for a deep state black budget.
	black box that will never show up for what it's supposed to be, that the arms being shipped over will often be used for arms laundering through different places like Lord of War style around That there's going to be human trafficking, as there has been from Ukraine for a long while, but the refugee pretext will encourage that, especially when you have Ukraine saying only women and children can leave.
	Fathers can't, which is what they did.
	They instituted that policy.
	And that you're going to have surges and human trafficking occur.
	Mainstream institutional publications have confirmed every single one of those facts this past week.
	That human trafficking, the arms laundering, the money laundering, the degree and scale and scope of corruption.
	The reason is Ukraine is losing the war, as they were always going to lose the war, in all likelihood by any intelligent military analysis, whether it was done by Colonel McGregor, one of Trump's top allies, or by the folks at the Duran, or by Jacob Drazen, or any of the others.
	He said, if you understood the landscape, you understood that, one, the populations in this region are going to welcome the Russians.
	Which is exactly what's happened.
	You've now had Ukrainian troops complaining of this.
	The great counteroffensive of Kherson never took place.
	And again, who was one of the biggest voices exposing a lot of this early on?
	It was Alex Jones.
	This is why they don't want Jones out there.
	The first lockdown protests were orchestrated by Alex Jones supporters.
	That Alex Jones has become one of the most effective voices for ordinary people in the country.
	Now, he doesn't have a bunch of lawyers and doctors and high-end elite types that are in his core base.
	His core base are truck drivers and cab drivers and carpenters and factory workers and ordinary everyday people.
	For the most part.
	And that's why, and it's their voice getting to get heard by and through their support of Alex Jones.
	And that's what drives them absolutely insane.
	But you see why in Ukraine?
	We got involved in a proxy war that could have led to World War III to prop up a bunch of money launderers, arms runners, human traffickers, and as Amnesty International confirmed this past week, people who are using civilians as shields and firing weapons from schools, from residential areas, from hospitals.
	I mean, they've been bombing parts of the Russian population that's within the Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine, sending in mines, bombing them in, that don't even have a real military purpose because they won't cause problems for armored vehicles or tanks.
	But what they will do is if a kid walks on them, he may lose his foot.
	That's the kind of thing they're doing routinely.
	And the reason they don't want this independent information out there is because the independent information, more often than not, tends to be true and raises questions we all need answers to in a timely manner.
	So I think we'll see now the...
	Other legal front is that Brittany Greiner, the WNBA player who pled guilty to bringing in drugs, she said she didn't do it intentionally.
	I think the pressure that was put on her to cut a plea to get out is why she pled.
	And I think it shows a major weakness in the Russian criminal justice process.
	Sadly, ours is often just as bad, but it's not still as bad as it is in Russia.
	That, you know, their conviction rate is simply too high.
	When you have a real high conviction rate, it's a sign of a totalitarian method of decision making.
	Just the risk of human error is such that it shouldn't get over 90%.
	You know, we get 94, 95% conviction rate.
	Sorry.
	But she did plead guilty.
	Now, she brought drugs into the country.
	And she'd been to Russia many times before.
	She said she did it accidentally, but you would think that'd be something you'd be careful about, but let's put that aside for the moment.
	The Biden administration has proposed trading the merchant of death, Viktor Bout, the lord of war, in exchange for her and a person that Russia says was spying on behalf of the United States that's in jail for espionage in Russia.
	And Russia's countered with they want somebody who, in Germany, who assassinated a former...
	Someone that the Russians identified as a Chechen terrorist who had been given political protection in Germany, and they want him back as well.
	Biden is balking on that, complaining and whining about it.
	And we'll see whether it goes through.
	But it's fact, you know, and people watch The Lord of War.
	We broke it down at vivabarneslaw.locals.com for a box office session.
	Going to do a civil action next week because that shows you how the justice system can work.
	Just in case people haven't seen enough of a dystopian black pill environment of that from the Alex Jones trial.
	In it, he talks about sooner or later, he'll get out.
	Sooner or later, they'll use him as a sacrificial lamb, and sooner or later, he'll get out.
	In the movie, he still isn't jailed yet.
	It's four or five years later that he does.
	But that's who they're talking about sending back, the man called the Lord of War, the Merchant of Death.
	That's who Biden is willing to trade for a WNBA player because she's got a lot of political juice because going back to that video you showed at the beginning of the episode, she fits a higher end of the pyramid of victimization.
	And that's what we're sort of seeing a continuation of, is that where you fit on the victim chart is where you get.
	And we'll see how that...
	My guess is that a deal will ultimately get cut.
	And Griner will be coming back.
	And Victor Bout and probably somebody else will be coming back.
	They're about to put a couple of people accused of Russian spying in Hawaii on trial.
	So maybe those people will be part of it.
	We'll see.
	But I think that trade will probably happen at some point.
	I question whether or not I should bring this up because this is where people cross a certain line.
	Cynthia, I'll tell you one thing.
	We in our family have had, not immediate family, but I guess it's immediate enough, someone who was killed in a foreign country came back in a casket and you know that there are people out there who are going to say stupid things.
	You know it.
	I can tell you one thing.
	The bigger trauma is not what some Crazy people are going to say, and you know they're going to say it.
	People still sit out there and say the Holocaust never happened.
	People still get out there and say the Armenian Genocide never happened.
	You know that there are going to be people who say stupid things.
	What level do you think is the greater trauma in it, by the way?
	Somebody saying something stupid, subsequently apologizing for it to their millions of followers, or the trauma itself?
	And here's another thing.
	Tragedy happens.
	Do you think that you're going to preclude people from discussing massive tragedies of public interest?
	And are you going to be the arbiter of what people get to discuss on massive tragedies of public interest?
	And better yet, by the way, do they get to call into question whether or not the school was following safety protocols, or is that too traumatizing for the people who are already victims of this trauma?
	So you may have crossed a line, still won't block you, but you're crossing a line because what you're actually suggesting...
	It sounds a little disgusting.
	It almost sounds worse than what Alex Jones said, in that there's the old David Mamet, every fear hides a wish.
	And Cynthia, I dare say right now, you've crossed that line, and you might have become something even more disgusting than what you think Alex Jones is.
	But when there are public tragedies, you know, sure as sugar, people are going to deny, people are going to come up with counter theories, and other people are going to discuss.
	And if you think you're the arbiter of who gets to say what, Under terrible circumstances, nobody elected you as that dictator to this discussion.
	But thank you for the super chats and thank you for the support.
	Oy.
	Let's see what else we got here.
	Zelensky and Trudor are both...
	Sorry.
	Go for it, Robert.
	I'll just say, speaking of tragedy being weaponized for cases, the Breonna Taylor police indictment came down this past week.
	Yeah.
	But here's...
	Are we...
	Does Cynthia...
	Do we have permission to talk about this, Cynthia?
	Doesn't matter.
	Okay, off on that, but yeah.
	Breonna Taylor, by the way.
	So the four cops have been indicted at federal level, Robert.
	Now, before we get into anything, I know you've discussed it in previous streams, the double jeopardy issue here.
	They were tried, or they were, I guess, indicted, arrested at the state level, acquitted.
	And now there's a second kick at the can at the federal level.
	They're going after civil rights violations, 1983.
	Is that the...
	So what happened at the state level is only one person was charged.
	He went to trial and he was acquitted.
	The other three, the grand jury found there wasn't even probable cause that they committed a crime.
	So now they've prosecuted under federal civil rights charges all four.
	Including the one acquitted in state charges for the same case.
	This is why I do not agree with the idea that there is dual sovereignty as it applies to the state and federal government.
	I find that a ludicrous interpretation of double jeopardy.
	The point of double jeopardy...
	I mean, again, we are the United States of America.
	There is not a country independent of the states.
	They are just a...
	An agreement between the states, how we're going to govern ourselves between the states.
	But the states are a component of the government.
	And so the idea that this is a completely independent, separate sovereign, like, say, if France had prosecuted somebody and then we prosecute them, is just nonsense.
	It also goes against the principle of double jeopardy, which is that you're not twice put in jeopardy for your own well-being.
	It's not twice by the same sovereign.
	The principle is you should face one trial, not two, three, four, five, however many more.
	My view is this should apply to the mistrial context.
	If you can't get 12 jurors to convict, end of story.
	That should be it.
	It's 12 unanimous jurors or done.
	Not, oh, well, we got eight, so let's try for the next one.
	We got two, so let's try for the next one.
	You know, as the well-detailed by Mark Hunley, by Eric Hunley and Mark Robert in America's Untold Stories about the Abraham Bolden story, that was a man who was wronged by a criminal justice process where they rigged the system.
	Great Secret Service agent, first black Secret Service agent.
	Who exposed facts related to the Kennedy assassination, and that's why he was railroaded and brought up on bogus charges, that the lead witness against him admitted he made up, but the court system still kept him in jail because that's how corrupt our judiciary can be.
	Though the judge, the woke SJW judge in Austin might have set a new record for it.
	The people that ask if I'd been counseled, what would have happened?
	She probably would have put me in jail every night and I'd probably still be there because my willingness to tolerate some of that.
	If a judge is going to go rogue, you have to expose it like William Kunstler did in the Chicago 7 case, even though it's at personal and professional risk.
	So here you have double jeopardy.
	They're going to ignore it because of their dual sovereign nonsense.
	And so the interesting breakdown at legal insurrection by Andrew Branca, that is the law of self-defense, the man of brilliant comedy and satire, frequently on the Nick Riccata show.
	Little side point, Riquetta was on vacation, but just to make sure he didn't live broadcast and cover the trial as someone completely fearless in exposing corruption and fraud in the case, YouTube magically just happened to suspend him for the 10 days surrounding the trial.
	He broke it down and he pointed out, I think, a key fact.
	Which he's like, you look at this indictment.
	And if the facts were true, by the way, they're seeking potential death penalty for these four officers.
	And the one officer I still have problems with, but he did get acquitted at the state level, so in my view, should not be re-prosecuted.
	But putting that aside, he's the one who was shooting everywhere.
	But the other three, the main ground, if their facts were true, definitely true.
	Then I understand where they're going, because the allegation is that they deliberately orchestrated a false and fraudulent search warrant affidavit with perjured information in order to illicitly and illegally execute the search warrant in the first place.
	That's the primary grounds for those three additional people that are being indicted.
	But, as Andrew Branca notes...
	Aside from the fact that a Kentucky grand jury found no such evidence, he goes, the core facts they claim to be lying about, they never say are actually lies.
	In other words, the allegation is that they knew at the time they filed the affidavit that they had no evidence that Breonna Taylor was connected to the drug dealer.
	That was getting any packages for the drug dealer, was operating as a potential backup residence for the targeted drug dealer, etc.
	But what is very odd is in the indictment itself, it never makes that claim.
	It says, hey, these people have falsely stated something, but not that the opposite statement is true.
	Which, as he points out, the question is, did they really make false statements?
	Or are they arguing about their evidentiary procedures rather than whether they were right or wrong or not?
	Because if, in fact, there was a connection between Breonna Taylor and the drug dealer, if, in fact, it was his backup residence, if, in fact, she had been using it occasionally to store documents, files, and mail, then the search warrant is legitimate, even if their evidentiary means to obtain it were in doubt.
	So it really becomes what's the real truth, and the indictment appears to hide more than it exposes.
	But if they knowingly, deliberately lied, and it was in fact a lie as a matter of objective truth, then I understand why they're getting prosecuted for civil rights charges.
	But if they didn't lie, and they're really just sort of nitpicking on the edges, then you have a classic case of over-prosecution by the Biden administration.
	But let's just even take for granted that they lied in the warrant.
	Would this be a case of lying in a warrant, thereby committing a crime that leads to a death that makes them culpable?
	So if you make a civil rights violation by lying in an affidavit that leads to a search warrant that never should have been judicially authorized had you been truthful, any of the consequences, such as in this case a death, you're on the hook for, and that's why it's a death penalty case.
	All of them face potential death penalty.
	So I think that will set some people off.
	But there's a reason the feds do that.
	And by the way, this is from a Biden administration that purportedly is skeptical of the death penalty.
	Just a little tidbit.
	The reason they do that is they get to handpick a jury that's going to be very...
	A pro-death penalty jury is a jury that's going to tend to go with the government more often than not.
	Caveat is sometimes those are jurors who tend to be pro-cop too.
	So we'll see how it unfolds.
	But it really boils down to, I agree with Branca, it's very weird that certain specific facts are not in the indictment.
	It suggests that what they're really saying is, they suspected something, they claimed they knew it, they didn't have the evidentiary support that they said they did, but in fact what they were claiming was at least at some level true.
	So that's a weird case to make a death penalty case out of.
	Robert, speaking of Andrew Branca, I mean, people are asking.
	I think I brought the chat up a while back.
	I don't know if you have an opinion on this, Robert.
	Can Barnes talk about the Vegas smoke shop owner that did very bad things to somebody who was robbing the store?
	Yeah, I've only seen a little clip, so I haven't seen the whole thing.
	So I'd have to see the whole thing before I could meaningfully comment on it.
	Rakeda has his take on it.
	He thinks it's a potentially unpopular opinion.
	It could be murder.
	I don't think the robber died, from what I read in an article on the law.
	Somebody comes into your place of business, your home, and tries to rob you.
	By golly, you have a right to defend yourself fully.
	And it's a presumption that it's self-defense.
	But I'm sure Nevada law probably.
	I haven't looked at Nevada self-defense law, but I'm guessing it is not that robust.
	That's more Texas and some other states.
	I think parts of Tennessee self-defense have aspects of that.
	But we'll see.
	But I think it's the Breonna Taylor case.
	Bottom line is this.
	They don't bring the prosecution but for the politics surrounding the case.
	So I do have a problem with it from that perspective.
	But you're not going to find me defending.
	Cops who deliberately lie about to get search warrants either.
	This is after the civil settlement, which was one of the biggest civil settlements of its kind in this case?
	Yes, correct.
	Some of this is getting just real political.
	I mean, it's hard.
	I mean, just watch how the courts handle Project Veritas.
	Watch how the courts have handled the Sandman and the Covington cases and contrast that to some of these other cases.
	So you're seeing politically motivated, weaponized cases across the board.
	I don't know what this is.
	Let me see here.
	Oh, this is law and lumber.
	Federal district court judges, lifetime appointments, and love...
	To flex their muscles as the kings over their courtrooms.
	And of course, no cameras in the courtroom.
	Can we get a sunshine law passed, please?
	Oh, I agree.
	I agree.
	And that can be changed at the federal level.
	Historically, for those folks out there, there's a right.
	I think the judge in the Alex Jones case violated it.
	A right to public access to the courtroom.
	They used to have trials out in the open.
	We didn't even have them inside a courtroom building.
	So, I mean, literally everybody got to watch and participated.
	So that gives you an idea of what public access used to mean.
	So the idea you're going to have these trials in secret or semi-secret where the judge can turn on or off the cameras depending on what she wants people to witness or see.
	I mean, literally, she was the director of her own film.
	And that's what this was.
	I mean, it's nuts.
	This is a very precarious place to get to.
	But speaking of the right to film, a very good federal court case out of the Tenth Circuit.
	That established a case.
	I brought one of the first cases on these grounds and ran into all kinds of judicial hurdles.
	But slowly, after the fact, in other cases, the court started to fold.
	And now that's more fully established across multiple federal circuits is your right to film police while executing their duties.
	Yeah, duties.
	So the basic, the overview of this is there's an arrest being made.
	A citizen starts recording.
	Cop comes up, flashes flashlight in their face, then apparently gets in their car and sort of pretends to accelerate at them or at least impedes their view to record the arrest.
	The individual sues for First Amendment rights violations.
	I forget the basis of the lawsuit.
	Exactly.
	Film police as part of your First Amendment rights of association, expression, press, etc.
	And then, so they sue.
	Defendants, the cops, Make a motion to dismiss, which is granted on the basis that sovereign immunity, it was a First Amendment right.
	Qualified immunity for cops.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I'm still thinking like the parliamentarian.
	Qualified immunity.
	It was a First Amendment rights violation, but it didn't refer to a recognized law that had been hitherto or prior to recognized by the Court of Appeal, that being First Amendment rights.
	Now, Robert, is the interesting thing in this case...
	That the Court of Appeals said the right to film and the right to record and rebroadcast is itself an extension of the First Amendment rights?
	Is that the interesting catch to this?
	And not only that, that cops are on notice of that.
	And this is a...
	This is partially the U.S. Supreme Court and so-called conservative justices who like police power and prosecutorial power and often come to great lengths to excuse their abuse of power by saying we need a very specific, analogous case before we're going to say a cop was on notice.
	And if they weren't on notice, even if it violated your rights, you can't sue.
	This was a bogus doctrine.
	Historically, back at the beginning of our country, there was no recognition of immunity.
	You, as a law enforcement officer or government official, had to assert as your defense that you exercised your duties consistent with the Constitution, and that was for the jury to determine, and if not, end of story.
	This qualified immunity doctrine was an invented doctrine by the courts, just as the sovereign immunity doctrine was.
	It has no bearing.
	It comes from the idea the king can do no wrong.
	It has no bearing in the modern American constitutional system.
	Courts just invented this to cover up for their politician pals, whether they be prosecutors, police, or elsewhere in the government.
	And that's why it shouldn't exist at all.
	But what the limit has been is whether or not the police officer should know they're violating your rights.
	To me, it's bloody obvious they should know that when someone's filming you doing your job, that that's their First Amendment right.
	But the excuse was the cop had no idea that could possibly be within somebody's constitutional rights.
	And a lower court acknowledges it.
	It's not a clearly identified protected right by prior precedent from the court.
	It's what the district court said, but the 10th Circuit reversed it and said, yes, it is a recognized right.
	Yes, it was known at the time because a bunch of other federal courts had said so.
	So that once that's established that you can't continue to make that qualified immunity defense.
	So that really extends it across the country.
	Makes it more clear that yes, you have a right to film police during their active duty so you have a record of what they did.
	I used to, when I first, I was one of the first lawyers to bring this kind of case.
	I called it the Rodney King defense.
	It's like if you allow cops to beat up the people who are trying to film them.
	Rodney King never happens.
	And so forth.
	And so you've got to have a First Amendment right to film police officers during doing their duty so that you can know you can't interfere with them, but you can film them.
	Just filming them doesn't interfere with them.
	It only interferes with their ability to violate rights.
	Not anything else.
	So very good decision.
	But it relates to another one that also even corresponds to the Alex Jones case.
	The right to protest courthouses case that went up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	You might have to do that one, Robert, because I am not familiar with it.
	So, generally speaking, courts have tried to limit the ability of people to protest at the courthouse.
	What the U.S. Supreme Court has said is that has to be limited.
	So if it could actually intimidate, harass, or influence an actual decision maker, such as a jury or judge, concerning a specific trial, then a court can limit it.
	But that's not what New York tried to do.
	New York tried to prohibit any protest within 200 feet of a courthouse, no matter whether it applied to a specific trial.
	To save the statute, they reinterpreted the statute after a lawsuit was brought By someone who is giving out jury nullification rights, saying, by the way, it's your right to decide the law, not just the facts, which was the historical understanding of the jury.
	Courts have long since stripped that of juries as well.
	So we've already had enough infringement on the right to trial by jury just by the courts usurping things that used to be in their custody in the first place.
	But this is an individual just passing out generic.
	Pamphlets that are not about a particular case and not about influencing a particular case by getting direct access to where the judges and the jury are.
	And so he brought suit.
	The New York State changed their definition.
	They said, we are only going to interpret this law to apply to particular trials, not to just any trial.
	So the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said, yes, the law has to be stopped as applied to people who are not trying to interfere with a particular trial.
	But they would let decide for another day whether the law could even apply in that context, depending on the circumstances.
	Here's the irony.
	Some of the language used is what's not supposed to come in the courtroom, any evidence concerning any of the party's statements about a jury or judge or court case.
	Yet that is precisely what the judge explicitly allowed in to the Alex Jones trial, though only selective clips that misrepresented the full statement being made.
	Here you have a court saying it's a compelling government interest for a court to not allow.
	Such statements to ever come in from outsiders, least of all from parties.
	So it shows you just what a mockery of the Alex Jones trial was.
	But it is a good right to protest courthouses.
	Courthouses should not be immune from the right to protest.
	And it should only be limited to intimidation, harassment, obstruction of specific jurors or specific judges about a specific trial in a specific case in a particular way.
	And it really should be limited to jurors, frankly, because judges are government officials.
	We need to have a robust debate about what they're doing in the court of public opinion, and they should not be immune from the court of public opinion just because they're judges.
	What should be prevented is like bribery, extortion, violence, threats, things like that, not just protest.
	The case could have gone further like the trial court did, district court did.
	But it's a good, still solid Second Circuit opinion about your right to protest in.
	The question would be, in Quebec we recently passed a law that prohibited protests outside of hospitals, but only as relates to COVID measures.
	Would the ruling have been the same, Robert, in the States, do you think?
	At this court level, if it had been about prohibiting protests outside hospitals or, I don't know, other sensitive areas.
	Yes, because the Supreme Court had said so in the abortion clinic context, that there's limits on your ability to limit people protesting outside of abortion clinics, as an example.
	And so it's the same principle.
	The public streets are the public streets, and you have a right to protest there, and especially speech restrictions that are content-driven.
	They're saying you can't talk about topic A, B, C, or D. Those have strict scrutiny applied.
	And unless you can meet that, you know, is there an alternative remedy that's more effective should be the appropriate answer.
	All right.
	Now, I wanted to bring this one up because I don't know the process through which I'm going to be able to work in the word process at least once.
	I need to hear your Canadian accent in each video.
	Is it process or process is the American one?
	And I say process.
	I think the British side process too.
	Yes, it's my British side speaking, the process of going on.
	That's interesting.
	So you can protest outside of the courthouses, but you can't bring it into the courthouse, nor can you bring it onto the front lawn of a judge in the midst of deliberating?
	Well, that part is less clear.
	Usually, historically, it's been about the jury.
	I have First Amendment problems with efforts to limit public statements and public debate about a judge.
	But whether or not...
	You should be able to directly interface with the judge.
	That's probably about a particular case.
	That could be ex-party communication.
	So that can raise a separate set of concerns.
	That's how I think.
	I think that rule should govern that rather than other stuff.
	But it was a solid decision.
	Not as good as it could have been, but a solid decision and on the right path.
	And hopefully the Supreme Court clarifies because some of these, they issued some old rulings about what you could do outside of a courthouse that then they changed how, if it's directed at content, that actually...
	A different rule applies, and they haven't adjusted that to that new case law.
	But we'll see.
	Fantastic.
	Now, let's do a few super chats here.
	Bonjour, ami.
	Kudos to our great attorney, General Jeff Landry in Louisiana, the man that the federal mandate for the jab for a job stopped.
	The man that stopped Biden's ban on oil, gas leases on federal lands.
	Victories ahead.
	Speaking of federal lands, a federal judge, in the name of environmentalism, prevented...
	The Bureau of Land Management from putting a bunch of coal mines online in the grounds of loose environmental claims.
	And for those people out there that say judges are just applying legitimate standing doctrine or the rest, this is another example.
	Here, they're very liberal of finding standing and ripeness and no mootness when they want to get involved.
	I don't think you met these regulations and this subset and this administrative process, etc.
	That really the goal was clearly the judge didn't want coal mining to take place.
	And wants it to be as limited as possible, even though we're facing an energy crisis in the West and to some degree around the globe.
	Same capacity, and a state court judge in Washington appears to be ready to go, based on a complaint raised, about allowing wolves to kill people's cattle without the farmer or landowner or homeowner being able to kill the wolf.
	You're supposed to find more reasonable accommodations than killing the wolf.
	So now you can't even protect your own cattle, your own property from a wolf?
	That's under some interpretation of the Washington law that's taking place?
	And it's like, how do wolves have standing?
	Where do the wolves get standing?
	Some of the wolves get standing, but people injured from vaccines somehow don't have standing.
	It's amazing what courts are willing to do.
	But in the vein of finding excuses, the gun law in San Jose that imposes an insurance requirement and a fee for having a gun in the city of San Jose, an Obama appointee, the same Obama appointee who found 100 excuses to knock down different Trump
	laws, by the way, including saying that the federal government had to provide critical race training and other things like that, and that the elected president could not change that by executive fiat, even though it was only by executive fiat it existed in the first place.
	Which I always love that.
	That's what I used to say.
	It's not ripe in spring.
	It's moot by summer and it's latches by fall.
	That's how the courts rule.
	So if you don't bring suit right away, they say, oh, latches, you should have brought suit right away.
	You do bring suit right away, they say, oh, it's not ripe yet.
	Why did you bring suit so fast?
	I mean, they contradict themselves all the time.
	So she got out of a whole bunch of First and Second Amendment challenges on those grounds.
	Then she decided that an insurance requirement...
	For owning a gun is really no different than a surety bond like they used to have in the old days.
	But the surety bonds were only for people known to be dangerous or there was a reasonable grounds to know they were dangerous.
	It was like if Jesse James comes to town, he's got to post a surety for his gun.
	Not every Joe Blow that comes into town, every cowboy that rolls in, he's got to post surety.
	But that's the insurance requirement in San Jose.
	She said they're really no different than the surety requirements.
	Bunch of nonsense.
	And upheld that provision against the Second Amendment challenge.
	By the way, it turns out a tax is not really a tax.
	Just like a vaccine isn't really a vaccine.
	A recession isn't really a recession.
	Inflation really isn't inflation.
	As Bill Clinton would say, is ain't even really is.
	The judge explained the tax on guns is not really a tax because they're sending the money to a special nonprofit they've set up.
	And since it isn't going directly into the government's bank account, but is going into a non-profit bank account set up by the government, funded by the government, it's not really a tax.
	And so she got around a bunch of local, state, and federal restrictions on the ability to impose a tax on guns.
	I mean, there's a part of me that says I can understand the rationale.
	In as much as you drive a car, it's not unconstitutional.
	To require tax insurance, except for the fact that driving a car is not a specific constitutional right.
	I guess mobility is, but not that specific type of mobility.
	So the argument here, Robert, is going to be it unduly infringes or impedes on Second Amendment rights, because if you have to have insurance and some people can't get insurance, I also presume that some people will simply not get insurance or not be able to, or the insurance market is going to turn into the biggest racket on earth, especially if...
	Whenever someone uses a gun to do something illegal, insurance gets effectively whamboozled.
	And they're going to say, well, then we've got to charge premiums up the arse.
	If you don't get them, you can't get a firearm.
	And it becomes this sort of self-fulfilling prophecy of insurance companies charging such excessive premiums because they're going to get sued blind, like Remington out of Connecticut.
	So you can't start doing is setting up nonprofits to run various pet political projects so that they can get around laws restricting taxing.
	Like in California, there's a bunch of provisions that require local majority consent to impose a tax.
	That's the one they're getting around in California by saying, oh, this isn't really a tax.
	Yes, it says we're putting a fee on you for owning a gun, otherwise known as a tax, but it's not a tax because of where the money goes.
	Historically, where the money goes isn't based on tax.
	A tax is, are you saying, as a matter of being a citizen in your city, I've got to pay something for either the privilege or occupation or property or whatever, or purchase or whatever it may be?
	That's been the traditional definition of a tax.
	But now, according to an Obama judge, a tax isn't even a tax.
	Just like critical race theory has to be taught in federal government institutions, and Trump can't reverse it.
	I mean, it's that kind of...
	Ends justify the means mindset.
	We're seeing the wave of liberal judges, whether it's the SJW judge down in Austin in the Alex Jones case, whether it's this federal judge in this case, whether it's the federal judge that's trying to stop lobstermen from being able to be lobstermen in Maine, whether it's the federal judge that's not allowing coal mining, whether it's the state court judge that's not even going to allow you to kill a wolf killing your...
	Your cattle or your animals.
	It's a ends justify the means logic of the new liberal courts that are coming.
	I'm not sure I understand this chat, but thank you very much, Ian.
	Suspicious observers here on YouTube.
	It'll change everyone's view on anthropomorphic climate change.
	I'm referring to suspicious observers.
	Oh, okay, fine, fine, fine, okay.
	They back it up with science and mobility goes back to at least, goes back to the last Second Amendment argument.
	Historical context is key.
	Show me where they can prevent.
	Thank you very much, Ian.
	Just try to, car insurance is a ripoff.
	Yeah, it is.
	I agree.
	Well, I'm finding out about the health insurance.
	It's the Plaintiff's Lawyer Enrichment Act.
	That's what car insurance is.
	Robert, I'm discovering the health insurance issue.
	The issue in the States, there's a problem.
	There's a problem in Canada as well between universal healthcare that you pay for that's crappy versus insurance that you pay up the wazoo for and then you might not even get to pick your own doctor and then you still have to pay even when you use it and not a little bit.
	There's problems everywhere.
	I'd try to figure out what the solutions are.
	I'd be a billionaire.
	Robert, let's touch on one that I found particularly interesting.
	The drone lawsuit, which was someone suing on the basis that the FAA, I believe, is imposing requirements that drones, recreational drones, have an identification chip in them.
	So the government can always keep an eye on whatever you're doing with those drones, just in case you're trying to fish with them or doing something fishy with them.
	And in Canada...
	Oh no, I got it.
	Robert, we all got it.
	It was not illegal when I did it.
	And I still don't know if it's illegal now, fishing with a drone.
	But in Canada, you've got to have million, I think it's million dollar liability insurance before you can fly a drone.
	It's not a constitutional right to fly a drone and Canada doesn't seem to care much about the Constitution.
	Anyhow, setting that aside.
	This guy was suing on the basis that the regulation imposed by the FAA with a remote identification chip in the drone.
	Violates reasonable expectations of privacy, is excessive, not correlated to any objective purpose, got shut down.
	I would say, I think properly, the idea that you can claim that you're flying a drone in public airspace and that you're not subject to any requirements for flying that drone in public airspace.
	The regulation was upheld.
	What did you find of interest in that decision, Robert?
	Well, I mean, to your knowledge, so do your drones have a remote ID to be able to operate?
	I'm fairly certain that you have to allow the app to track all of your information, your height, where you're flying it.
	I don't know who can intercept that in real time, but you can't turn that...
	No, I mean, what I would say is I know who can, but I don't think people are tracking it in real time.
	I just think you can't disable that because if your drone...
	Does get involved in an accident.
	They want to have all that information.
	So I'm fairly certain you can't turn that off.
	You do have to have million-dollar liability insurance.
	You have to have a serial number on the drone.
	It's got so many things.
	It made flying a drone unfun, except they have a new drone, Robert.
	It's called...
	Let's get it out here.
	No, that's not the drone.
	Oh, this is it right here.
	249 grams takeoff weight.
	Which means it is not subject to any of the regulations which apply to a drone with a takeoff weight of 250 grams or more.
	249 people.
	But they made flying a drone so onerous, so unfun in Canada, I just stopped.
	But no, I think they have all that info.
	Well, I was going to say, yeah, the other interesting part about this suit, to me also, was live time tracking by the federal government.
	of whenever and however and wherever you use a drone and identifying information concerning the individual who has it.
	Like, it's one thing to have some ID in it for tracking for accident or other purposes.
	I mean, the suit was, hey, isn't this a Fourth Amendment violation?
	They're invading my privacy, tracking me on a daily, regular basis using this remote ID requirement tracking device in the drone and requiring I disclose a whole bunch of details about me that they're getting to...
	Keep in track in live time and continuously.
	So it was an interesting component.
	But you knew more about drones than I did.
	So that was the part that I found intriguing.
	It's another way the government's trying to track us in live time.
	Well, there's no question, but also, if you're like, God, it's so easy to get into serious problems with a drone, go fly one over downtown, over protests, over...
	They have so much regulation in Canada.
	You can't fly within nine kilometers of a helipad airport.
	You can't fly over federal lands, railways.
	There's a little tidbit on this.
	Since this law has existed for quite some time, is my understanding, it means that drones over BLM protest, drones over the Rittenhouse case, that government had that access all along.
	They know wherever any drone is operating at any time because of this requirement that.
	And I guarantee you they are doing that live time tracking.
	And it means at a minimum they can go back and say, were there any drones over this place at this time?
	And it shows that they are hiding information on a regular basis about knowing things might have been filmed that they don't want the world to see.
	So that was the other interesting backdoor tidbit of information presented by this case.
	Though it's probably still not as crazy as our last case for the night.
	The Batman mobile.
	Okay, I don't even know.
	I guess what, first of all, I'm a little, if my face is red, it's because I'm embarrassed.
	Have I had a booger, Robert, in my nose the entire time?
	I didn't see it.
	I could see my face.
	Doesn't matter.
	Gonna have to live with it.
	Clips of Viva with a booger.
	It's gonna be like, not Marco Rubio.
	Who is the guy that had a booger fall into his mouth during the 2016 election?
	The bearded guy who's suing Twitter.
	Who's suing Twitter, Robert?
	Which one?
	The Republican guy.
	The chat's going to get it.
	The one that Trump called had a nickname for him.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Chat's going to get it.
	There was a meme during the presidential election when a booger fell out into his mouth and he ate it.
	I don't remember that.
	I remember the bee landing on Pence's head, but I don't remember the rest.
	I think it was Ted Cruz.
	Oh, maybe it is Ted Cruz.
	Okay.
	Setting that aside, okay, this Batmobile case, Robert, I guess nothing about the actual case is interesting.
	What's interesting is how local law enforcement gets involved to, when you're connected, you can get people to do your bidding for you.
	The long story short of this lawsuit, some dude is paying another dude big money to produce a replica of the Batmobile.
	So realistic, it actually shoots fire flames out of the tailpipe, whatever.
	It's going to cost like $200,000.
	The guy in California, the guy making the car, I think, is in Indiana.
	Yes.
	And so apparently the guy who ordered the car never made a payment on it.
	The guy who was building the car bumped it off the production line because he does custom cars and said, I'm not building this until the guy pays me.
	The guy who ordered the car, I'm going to get mixed up on the way this goes here.
	Who sued who, Robert?
	So what happens is the guy who ordered the car discovers that him stipping on the bill has led to the car not being available.
	So he's going to bring suit against him.
	But what he does is he goes and talks to his buddy, the sheriff, there in California.
	And he gets the sheriff to label what the guy building the car did as a crime in California of fraud and whatnot.
	Because when he files suit, the suit is dismissed because the judge says this suit belongs in Indiana where the car is being made, not in California.
	So instead he goes against the sheriff, dummy up some fake criminal charges.
	The cops then leave and go to Indiana where they have no authority or jurisdiction and execute a bogus raid on the guy.
	And so all of this only comes out later that the sheriff was weaponizing the legal system in a patently unconstitutional and legal manner just to help his buddy and pal illicitly enforce something that he wasn't even lawfully entitled to in the first place.
	So the case is blown up.
	It's become known as the Batmobile case, but it shows the degree and scale and scope of corruption, especially in California, that cops thought they could do this and get away with it.
	The sheriff thought they could cross state lines, pretend to be police officers, engage in an illegal raid, try to seize somebody's car to collect on a death that isn't even lawfully owed.
	So it just shows the insanity of it.
	Now, speaking of law enforcement officers who, there was one last bonus case.
	That learned about how the law works.
	The prosecutor in Tampa Bay who went out and publicly said, I'm not going to enforce any state law about abortion.
	I disagree with the Supreme Court, so I'm just not going to enforce it.
	Problem is he's a prosecutor, not a legislator.
	And in Florida, kind of uniquely, not all states have this power, the governor has the right to suspend anybody.
	Other than judges.
	Other than anybody who could be impeached.
	He has the right to suspend anybody not enforcing the law.
	So Governor DeSantis, who has real cojones, stepped forward and said, pal, you're fired.
	You're suspended.
	Now he gets to have a hearing in the Senate, but the Senate's going to affirm his suspension.
	People were shocked because they didn't know that's always been the law in Florida.
	In fact, one of the last big times this happened was in 1937.
	Same Tampa.
	Tampa, a different guy, but same Tampa prosecutor, was in the pockets and in the bed with the mob and was refusing to enforce gambling laws in Tampa.
	This was before Florida took off and when it was sort of a gambling and bootlegging haven.
	And the governor came in and suspended him for not enforcing the law.
	And this is part of the Biden administration is suing Idaho, saying you can't do an abortion ban under the same crazy executive order hospital Medicare mandate.
	That's being challenged by the Texas Attorney General.
	You've had Indiana went ahead and passed abortion law, a law limiting abortion to rape, incest, the life of the mother.
	And then you had, in Tennessee, you had another fake news story, where a Tennessee Chattanooga abortionist pretended that he didn't understand the law, and so someone who had a medical emergency had to go to another state to get an abortion, when Tennessee law explicitly authorizes that as an exception.
	And you're going to see a bunch of these where they want to create scary stories for the public that make it sound like the law is worse than it actually is solely for the purposes, and they'll go off of doctor confusion rather than deal with the reality of what the law explicitly says.
	These doctors aren't confused.
	They know what the law is.
	But my favorite one of that...
	Abortion stories this week was Governor DeSantis reminding the state prosecutors that they can't pick and choose which laws to enforce.
	And the governor is still the chief law enforcement officer for Florida.
	And that applies to everybody in the state of Florida.
	I'm going to bring up some chats, Robert, before we call it for the night.
	Question for Barnes.
	In areas with rising homelessness problems like San Francisco and Portland, what laws can be implemented to fix it without violating rights?
	My city is having similar issues.
	Well, you know, in some cities, they're trying to force hotels to open up their hotel rooms to homeless people.
	In some places, they're stashing them in different hotels.
	So there's trickiness with what can be done legally, but the better remedies are practical remedies.
	Rather than a disciplinary remedy, a carrot remedy of finding ways to solve the housing problem and problems of homeless people, which can be mental illness and other things as well.
	Sometimes it's economic catastrophe.
	What do you think about Infowars accusing the judge of child trafficking during the trial?
	Was that defamation?
	That never happened.
	So what they did during the trial presentations, they again only played a part of a clip of what Infowars published.
	And again, that's...
	There's a difference between publishing and a corporate agent saying something.
	So those are two totally different things.
	The judge completely, conveniently confused those.
	But it simply identified that the judge in the Travis County, Texas, Austin, Alex Jones case, had a long-time association with Child Protective Services.
	And the allegation was that Child Protective Services has had many allegations brought against it across the country.
	of basically leading children to get...
	In fact, the story came out this week of adopted children being abused and Children's Protective Services having information and not doing anything about it because of how they handle foster care.
	And what the judge wrote, co-authored a book or pamphlet...
	That was basically how you parents need to recognize when you should give up your kids and it's better if the government has them.
	That kind of language.
	That was what was actually said in the piece.
	They tried to arbitrarily clip it to try to suggest something different than what was actually said.
	And that's why they did it.
	They altered everything to the trial because they couldn't.
	The truth is not something they could allow be heard in that courtroom because the truth would have set Alex Jones free.
	Was there a tactical advantage to asking Jones about accidentally disclosed privileged communications?
	Was it to imply that Jones was hiding documents from the court?
	It seemed sketchy and stupid.
	Yeah, as Eric Hundley said, the guy came across as, hey, he's the lawyer I've said, if you ever wanted to see what a leprechaun looks like on meth, that's the plaintiff's lawyer I was talking about.
	And Eric Hundley was like, that guy came across as such a smug, unlikable human being.
	And, yeah, I've never seen that.
	Grandstand in court about, hey, I just violated your rights, ha ha ha.
	But it was intended to be a gotcha moment that the media could run with.
	They ran with a bunch of stories.
	Alex Jones perjury.
	There was no Alex Jones perjury.
	It was just the lawyer saying, I hereby declare.
	It was all nonsense.
	Smash that like button.
	That wasn't a question.
	You don't get to say, I think you did da-da-da-da, and then ask a question.
	That's what all these lawyers that are defending this case, did they all skip law school?
	Have they all never done a trial in their life?
	There was nothing about that that was permissible.
	Nothing about that that's okay under the rules.
	People who watch that trial think that's normal.
	You had people on social media saying, oh, this is great, the judge is against Alex Jones.
	I mean, thinking the judge is supposed to be a partisan advocate.
	It's like showing up at a football game and the ref is wearing the uniform of your opponent.
	And comes up and does, I think she did like sustain over 100 objections of the plaintiffs, like less than 10 of the defense.
	Imagine if the referee was throwing penalties against you every time and none on the other side.
	Imagine if they said, okay, your side, the forward pass is now illegal.
	For the other side, you can throw it sideways, backways, the other ways, all count as a forward pass.
	You get to have extra linemen, your wide receivers, you get to have wide receivers.
	The other side doesn't get to have defensive backs, etc., etc.
	I mean, complete crock.
	Robert, one step away from being accepted into the fire department, that step is the jab.
	But they're not considering religious exemptions or accommodations.
	Is there anything I can do, or is this just a loss?
	I think that violates your rights.
	That's religious discrimination.
	And it's the fire department.
	It's a governmental agency governed by the Constitution.
	So I think that patently violates your rights.
	Just like they can't discriminate you in firing, they can't discriminate against you in hiring.
	Isn't there a...
	Well, okay.
	Let me read...
	They ignored it.
	They totally scratched it in the Alex Jones case.
	There's a requirement of giving notice before you can even sue under defamation law.
	They ignored that.
	Oh, that helps Alex Jones?
	Can't apply the law.
	There's a requirement of giving notice before you can get punitive damages.
	They didn't do it, as their own testimony at trial proved.
	Doesn't matter.
	It's against Alex.
	It helps Alex Jones, so we throw that law out.
	And the statute of limitations.
	All these claims were outside the statute of limitations.
	What did they do?
	Threw them all out.
	They didn't throw out the claims.
	They threw out the statute of limitations in the law because it could benefit Alex Jones.
	Yeah, and I presume the argument was that it's a year from knowledge of the defamatory statements or there's an exception in possibility.
	They just gutted it entirely.
	They said there's a one publication rule under defamation, which means that once the statement is made, you can't sue for that statement even if somebody else talks about it or something else, or even if you only find out about it like eight years later.
	But by the way, how could it cause you emotional distress if you didn't hear about it at the time?
	They testified they heard about it.
	By implication, they testified they heard about it at the time because they said they suffered emotional injury from it at the time.
	Which means that's when they had an obligation to file a notice.
	That's when they had an obligation to sue.
	They didn't either.
	And whatever their explanation was, the court's excuse was to scrap the one publication rule.
	To say, we'll say that if you said anything about this topic, even if it wasn't repeating that statement...
	We're going to say any statement you ever made in the history of that topic is now suable, directly against the law in every other jurisdiction, including Texas, up until Alex Jones.
	Now, while I invite everyone to drop a comment and hit the thumbs up so that the chat can go haywire here, I'm going to read some rumble rants from the Rumbles.
	Hamartix says, does this mean I can send my own taxes into a not-for-profit, which send them back and then they're not taxes and I don't have to pay them?
	What's sauce for the goose and all?
	What's sauce for the goose and all?
	Or better yet, if it's not taxes, I'll give all my money to a not-to-profit as opposed to the government that I get to pick and make sure that they use the money properly as opposed to using the way current governments use current tax dollars.
	Thanks for showing that meme, Viva.
	That's another one from DB Crazy.
	From Heart Tackle, fishing company made in America.
	Hey, Viva, off topic, just have to say, love the Breaking Bad trip.
	Thanks for all you guys do.
	And, Robert, that's all the chat I'm going to be able to get to right now, but people need a white pill.
	Speaking of taxes, I'd be extra careful because I'll have one set of rules for you and another set of rules for everybody else, especially as the new Biden budget that just passed the Senate is going to almost double the size of IRS agents going after everybody.
	So that's their solution, is to weaponize the state.
	And we know who they go after.
	They go after the politically disfavored.
	And then go after the ordinary person.
	You know, they're not going to be going after Joe Biden's donors.
	That you can guarantee.
	That's not a white pill, Robert.
	That's actually a black pill.
	What is the white pill with which you're going to leave us so that we can enter a new week not crushed by the realities of the world?
	Well, I think the white pill is the main case we've talked about, but in a different vein, which is that, you know, most people facing the legal onslaught That Alex Jones has faced, the massive media smear defamation campaigns that he has faced, the deplatforming that he has faced, the personal and professional attacks that he has faced, the people talking about cutting up his corpse and take him out, most people would fold, capitulate, and go gently into that good night.
	Not Alex Jones.
	They're going to have to put him six feet under to shut him out.
	And even then, his ghost will be heard.
	Because Alex Jones knows what Dylan Thomas taught.
	You do not go gently into that good night, but you rage, rage against the dying of the light.
	In this case, like in so many other instances, be more like Alex Jones.
	With that said, people, thank you all for spending yet another Sunday night with us.
	Robert, who do we have for the sidebar this week?
	Steve Deese.
	Steve Deese of Blaze TV.
	Well, I won't say the word fraud, but other things related to COVID.
	And he gets college football season.
	He does a Michigan podcast, so we'll talk about Michigan, a little bit of football.
	We have him for about 45 minutes or so on Wednesday, so that'll be fun with Steve Deese on Wednesday.
	All right, everybody else and everyone, thank you all for being here.
	Snip, clip, share away.
	Gonna go look in the mirror and see.
	Do I go back, Robert, and watch the early part where I had a booger or do I just go to bed and sob myself to sleep?
	Everyone, thank you all for being here.
	Thank you for the support.
	I'll be live tomorrow and throughout the week.
	So I'm back in my home studio, which I'm going to try to be building out better than it is now for audio purposes.
	But everyone, we will see you in the new week.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

▲