Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 21, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:09:05

Trump Raid; Malone Sues; FBI Corruption; Whitmer Trial; Charges Dropped & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm tired of a lot of things.
	One of the things that's getting near the top of that list is I'm really tired of people in positions of authority, experts, leaders, journalists.
	They act like there's some kind of courageous moral force in the world fighting evil.
	It's a joke.
	I'm tired of them willing to talk about me, but they will not talk to me.
	Or anyone around me, for that matter.
	They're gonna call me things like a white supremacist, a terrorist.
	A violent person.
	I've never even been convicted of a crime in my life.
	I've never even been charged in the army for being late for work.
	I have a spotless service record.
	In fact, I've been investigated and under surveillance by various police forces and other government institutions for a long time, well over a year, well before I was ever arrested for anything.
	Why?
	Because I'm talking?
	That's the real crime, isn't it?
	Because I tell the truth.
	And they don't like it.
	Because they're cowards.
	I don't know what he's wearing.
	They're cowardly people.
	I don't know what his shirt is here.
	And they act like...
	Some people want to act like this is difficult.
	This is hard to do.
	Just telling the truth.
	It's not hard to do.
	It's very easy.
	It's very easy.
	It just requires that you have some basic human decency and a modicum, an ounce, of what used to be considered the spirit of an adult man.
	That's all.
	You want to talk about what's hard?
	You want to talk about courage?
	You know, these people, these leaders talking all kinds of trash.
	All you do is prey on stupid, ignorant people, shovel gargantuan amounts of taxpayer money into your face and act like you're some kind of moral authority.
	Like you're superior.
	You're scandal-ridden liar.
	Okay.
	It all made sense today.
	Let me just make sure.
	By the way, I'm not sure.
	Don't worry.
	It's all there, people.
	It's all there.
	Are we smooth here?
	I see buffering.
	That's Jeremy McKenzie.
	So let's just set the context.
	Last week, let me make sure that I'm on the proper mic here.
	Last week, I was noticing in the chat, a lot of people were saying, why aren't you talking about Jeremy McKenzie?
	Some people were saying, why are you pretending that you don't know Jeremy McKenzie?
	And I'm like, who's Jeremy McKenzie?
	And this is not a question of channel size.
	It took me seven years.
	To remember my wife's family's name.
	It took me forever.
	I still have to go through my system of remembering.
	Okay, so one person's married to the other person.
	They have to be like Peter.
	He's like, okay, I'm Peter.
	I go connect the dots.
	It took me seven years to learn my wife's family's names.
	I still don't know who Jeremy McKenzie is as an internet being.
	He's been around for years.
	I was doing my research today.
	He's a veteran, 15 years.
	He's got a podcast.
	He sort of does sit-down comedies, he says.
	No, my microphone's not off.
	My microphone is not off.
	Cripe.
	No, hold on.
	USB, that's fine.
	Microphone?
	Oh, God.
	I'm starting again, people.
	I'm starting again.
	What the heck is the...
	Cable for this.
	This, this, this.
	Hold on a second.
	We're doing this again.
	We're doing this again.
	Start all over.
	Do it live.
	Is this microphone not working?
	It's plugged in here.
	It's plugged in there.
	What the heck is going on here?
	Okay.
	Here!
	It's right now.
	What's the problem?
	I do not have a problem.
	I do not have a problem.
	So we did.
	Now I got to start a little over again.
	I'm just going to distract people.
	First, I mentioned the name Jeremy Kennedy and just see the channel.
	That's what I'm seeing.
	I'm going to see my video in my office.
	Start from the beginning.
	That was Jeremy Kennedy.
	I knew the face because I had seen some videos on Instagram back in the day of the conflict.
	I remember this guy walking around talking to a camera about how his name had an evident reference to the parliament because they believed this.
	I didn't think that joke about the official group called Diagon, which is definitely a mistake.
	I imagine a few videos of this guy talking to the camera.
	Didn't know he was on Instagram.
	He was going to tell how his people were there.
	Last week, during my daily life, people started asking me, why are you trying to pretend you don't know who German Kenzie is?
	Why are you talking about German Kenzie?
	And I'm saying, who's German Kenzie?
	I'm kind of the YouTube channel, curious.
	I don't remember people's names I remember I remember what I think when I originally people I look it up, and I put up Jeremy Hensie's name, that face, that I briefly recall when you heard about the German conflict, where this guy, Jeremy Hensie,
	talked about how the Canadian government was doing to think.
	There was an extremist organization called the Diagon.
	Named after the fact that they connected Alaska to Florida with the Diagon went across the country of seeing people who wanted to race back to the Diagon.
	And I remember the guy who took a picture and I can't believe he did this part of actually believing this.
	I wish full heart.
	And then last week people would come home and ask them or talk about everything because they live in an era now where everyone was so Not in my case of history, but in my fake news, being said, being lied to, having people gaslighting, where people immediately, reflexively think, something more sinister is going on here.
	He's fired.
	Ken Johnson, Jim Casey, must be scared the government's come out of him if he recognizes he knows Jim Casey.
	Stop.
	is the idea of every people.
	Let's start with something.
	I'm asked to do it.
	Now I'm just playing my game.
	It's the idea of that now.
	Make check.
	One, two.
	I'm not going on.
	Excuse me.
	Excuse me.
	I'm just kidding.
	I don't want to do this, okay?
	Boomer, stop.
	Do not reach the chest.
	I'm going to give a ball.
	I'm going to get the ball out of my chest.
	You might join in the camera.
	Now I need to get the ball out of the chest.
	I'm going to have to get my wife to the chest.
	Now I can't get the ball out of my chest.
	Give up my rest.
	Do I break it up?
	I'm going to scroll through the ball out of the chest.
	I can't get the ball out of the chest.
	I can't get the ball out of the chest.
	I don't know what else to do.
	It's still bad.
	I'll bet.
	I don't even have to do it.
	I can't get to the end of the story.
	I can't get to the end of the story.
	I want to get up.
	I want to get up.
	Hold on.
	Let me trust you.
	Oh, yeah, that's it.
	Here's something.
	That's perfect.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I want to hear myself hear my friend over here.
	I'm moving the computer.
	I'll be back.
	I'll be back.
	I'll be back.
	And really?
	Thank you.
	Okay, people.
	Let me just wait until I hear myself.
	Nope.
	No, that's fine.
	We're living with it.
	I'm sorry.
	That's extremely frustrating.
	It's not the FBI.
	It's definitely the mic.
	I'm so just for fun.
	No, this is not fun.
	This is irritating.
	But it doesn't matter.
	There will be echo.
	There will be audio.
	Barnes is here.
	Now, I haven't even gotten into the...
	I haven't even talked about Jeremy McKenzie yet.
	Okay, I'm going to do it quickly.
	First of all, I got a ton of Super Chats that I...
	Restart the router and the modem.
	Now, it's the microphone.
	I'm going to have to...
	I'm going to blow out the things.
	Okay, let me just do this.
	The abridged version.
	The clip that you saw at the beginning, the man with the beard, that's Jeremy McKenzie.
	I knew of Jeremy McKenzie by face, but not by name.
	During the Ottawa Truckers Convoy, at one point, I remember on Instagram, I saw this video of a guy walking through the woods talking to his camera, and I thought that was weird.
	What kind of person does something like that?
	And he was saying how his me of this fictitious land of a group and this group called Diagonon, so named because they were saying people who wanted to join Alaska to Florida via a diagonal line across the country.
	I remember him laughing at the fact that his internet joke was...
	...serious, legitimate extremist organization that they referenced.
	in the context of the convoy.
	Still Robert?
	Yeah.
	Can you talk?
	I'm going to try to fix this.
	Try to fix.
	You go ahead and talk to him.
	All right, yeah, tonight we have a good list of items to discuss, including the Trump raid and the did Trump commit a crime?
	Is there any legal basis for it in terms of the federal prosecution that's now looking at it and the various legal experts that are proclaiming it?
	Is there any grounds for it or not, both in terms of the Presidential Records Act, classifications, defense authorization, espionage act?
	We will look at all of those questions.
	The lawyers and journalists who met Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy have brought suit against the Central Intelligence Agency and Mike Pompeo for the alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights due to illicit activities that implicate maybe some other foreign intelligence services that implicate a certain famous casino owner here in Vegas.
	It was kind of like a deep state operation that they We'll be getting into that case.
	The Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature's attempt to limit the wokeness that is being spread through taxpayer-funded institutions on the ground that somehow there's a constitutional right to teach kids wokeness.
	We'll be discussing that case.
	The universities, elite universities, have been caught conspiring to manipulate and fix.
	Prices while not complying with the federal law that only allows them to do so if it is being done to facilitate and maximize access to education amongst poor and working class students.
	Basically what's called need blind admissions policy and need based financial aid.
	Turns out they're manipulating it in such a way to try to avoid fully need-blind admissions and to evade fully need-based financial aid by engaging in price fixing.
	Will be, that suit has been filed and a federal court has found it can go forward past discovery.
	We'll be talking about that case.
	The IRS has finally, finally, after a long time, been...
	Pulled back from their extraordinary, extensive, expansive power.
	They've been getting away with violating people's rights for decades now under a misapplied law called the Anti-Injunction Act.
	A federal court has said it doesn't go as far as the IRS claims.
	With 87,000 IRS agents on deck, this will be a critical and essential return of limitation on IRS power.
	The decision that was made will be going through.
	There's a range of issues concerning transgender rights.
	In Utah, a court has determined that there's going to be a right of transgenders to participate in girls' sports in high school level.
	And the flip side of it, in Florida, a civil rights suit has been filed against a school because the school counselor was apparently giving guidance without disclosing to the parents the issues being done and being told that...
	Telling other people in the school their child is a different gender than the biological gender the child had.
	The child ended up having a suicide attempt.
	That suit relating to those ongoing issues as they go through the court process.
	We have the crazy ruling from North Carolina, which has decided that...
	It's going to throw out constitutional amendments passed by the people of the state of North Carolina and declare any legislation it wants invalid because it doesn't like how those people were elected North Carolina.
	By the admission of the court that did so, 4-3 Democratic to Republican decision.
	All Democrats voting one way, all Republicans voting the other.
	It is extraordinary, unprecedented in American history, not just North Carolina history.
	So those are just some of the highlighted cases we're dealing with.
	We got another dozen or so small and interesting cases that might percolate up.
	Robert?
	Is my audio?
	Sweet, merciful, good.
	You know what it took?
	Let me just make sure I can hear myself here.
	All that it took was me smashing the living crap out of every cable.
	Oh, there we go.
	That's good.
	So, there will be no intro today, people.
	Just...
	Did we lose Viva again?
	It would appear so.
	I'm sure he'll come back.
	So the other case we have tonight to discuss, the FBI caught, red-handed, deleting and destroying evidence.
	Vaccine cases concerning the Marines in Maine, United Airlines, Washington Nationals.
	And then there's a bunch of news in Canada I presume that Viva will cover.
	And then we've got the assassination of foreign political philosophers that actually relates to our Wednesday sidebar.
	So those are just a few of the examples that we got.
	Robert, can you see me now?
	Again, yes.
	You're back in life.
	Usually it's me that's freezing up.
	I apologize in advance, as I did throughout the Michael Malice show, to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Clintons.
	Like the great meme maker who's been repeatedly apologizing for that great Alex Jones, Epstein, Clinton meme from the trial, the only...
	Meme-worthy event from the trial, was Alex Jones' answer in that case, where they were trying to pretend that that never happens.
	Research the Hammer family about that, but that's a hush-hush for future VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	But yeah, so we apologize in advance, and hopefully they won't interrupt with the rest of the show.
	Oh my gosh, it's nuts.
	I'm just going to go down and make sure everything's okay in the backdrop.
	Let's just see here.
	Robert.
	Okay, forget the intro, people.
	I can't do it.
	They don't want me talking about Jeremy McKenzie.
	He's going to be on this week to explain Diagalon.
	I knew his face, didn't know his name.
	He's coming on this week.
	Okay, done.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	No more interruptions.
	Robert, let's start with the big one.
	We don't know if it's an assassination of the daughter, if it's a foiled or...
	Bungled?
	Assassination of the father of a Russian philosopher and aide to Trump?
	What the heck, Robert?
	Give us the rundown, your theory as to whether or not they were targeting the daughter or the father and hit the daughter, and what are going to be the repercussions of this?
	Is this going to be like an Archduke Franz Ferdinand that's going to dive the world into World War III?
	Not likely.
	So Dugan has been called the Alex Jones of Russia.
	And that's probably analogous.
	A political philosopher who's had a range of perspectives and is, well, he's less influential in Russia than Alex Jones is in the United States.
	But a sort of independent thinker, called a Eurasian thinker.
	We'll get into, one of the people that has studied him the most is Matthew Millerman, a Canadian political philosopher, who is our sidebar guest this week.
	So that ended up being apt timing, coincidental timing.
	But so in the West and in Ukraine and amongst the intelligence services and your State Department crowd, they obsess over Dugan and they think Dugan is Putin's brain and Putin's out.
	There's no evidence of that.
	He's not that influential within Russia.
	Outside of eclectic intellectual circles, he's not part of the Putin regime.
	Putin's not close to him.
	None of those stories are accurate.
	And that's why it won't trigger or precipitate any kind of specific reaction of that kind.
	I think the greater concern within Russia won't be that this will happen to Dugan.
	It will be that this happened to anyone.
	In Russia, if it turns out Ukraine is responsible, that there's now they're using Chechen tactics from the early 2000s of engaging in domestic terror, with which Russia and Putin have specific and particular and detailed knowledge.
	So that's the risk of escalation.
	It appears it was Dugan was the target.
	Maybe with his daughter.
	His daughter is also a journalist, commentator, as well as he is.
	They were supposed to both be in the car, and apparently there was an internal car bomb that was meant to go off with both of them in it.
	By pure coincidence, he wasn't in it.
	Apparently, he was in another car right behind her, so he saw his daughter blown up and killed, to which a bunch of people in Ukraine were celebrating.
	So a bunch of pro-Ukrainian types in the West were celebrated.
	So, I mean, it's very disturbing.
	The ongoing basis we see that the people in the West who, in their name of hating Putin, have justified some of the most morally horrendous acts we've seen in recent times in these kind of conflicts.
	But it won't lead to much change in Russia's strategy.
	Russia will pay a little bit more attention to the risk of domestic terror.
	They already had been.
	They broke up a plot a couple of months ago where there was an effort by Ukrainian saboteurs to kill a prominent journalist.
	One concern is that Dugan was on a prominent list that had been a NATO-endorsed list that was a blacklist.
	And the question now is, was this just a blacklist for censorship purposes?
	Or has this now become a blacklist for assassination purposes?
	Because prior as Alex Christoforu of the Duran, which people can find at theduran.locals.com, has been documenting several people on that list have been getting killed over the last six weeks.
	So Senator Rand Paul is on that list.
	Glenn Greenwald is on that list.
	So the greater concern is there's a long history of blowback where the CIA and Western intelligence agencies invoke terroristic insurgencies for short-term political purposes, and it blows back by not being able to control these, whether you look at Operation Gladio and how it went AWOL in Europe in the 70s and 80s, what was supposed to be a stay-behind army to fight a Soviet invasion, became a domestic terror campaign throughout large parts of Europe.
	It's a great effort to suppress that, but we're not fully successful in doing so.
	Obviously, with the various, the Muhadine in Afghanistan, with embracing the Muslim Brotherhood at times throughout the Arab world, including during the Obama administration at times, the so-called Arab Spring that backfired in Egypt and Tunisia and elsewhere, and Libya most prominently.
	So the greater concern that I see is not that Russia will take some extreme reaction to this.
	It is more that we now may have an out-of-control, neo-Nazi-aligned terroristic regime that won't limit itself and restrict itself.
	In the ways that the people who put them in motion may have wanted initially.
	And there should have been immediate condemnation by the Biden administration when that list was put out.
	There should be immediate condemnation of this assassination of a young woman in Russia and Moscow.
	There should be immediate condemnation that Glenn Greenwald and Rand Paul are on that list.
	Who put together that list, Robert?
	Ukrainian authorities did with the backing and support of NATO-aligned groups.
	And the purpose of the list, was it not a persona non grata, or was it something that was intended to be?
	There are people who have wondered what the purpose of the list was.
	Basically, the list was, here are your Russian propagandists who are really in aid of the Russian government.
	So they're accusing Senator Rand Paul of this.
	But some people at the time were concerned it would go beyond censorship.
	And now there's evidence that maybe it is, that someone at least is taking that list, maybe even not without official sanction, and has decided to...
	But to pull off a murder in Moscow of at least a semi-prominent individual is disconcerting.
	It shows a degree of sophistication that is 9-11-ish.
	Or, I mean, just to hypothesize, it's not inconceivable.
	It's some form of organized crime, some sort of infighting, some sort of internal corruption.
	It's not like...
	Extremely unlikely, because Dugan's not that big within Russia, and nor is he that controversial within Russia.
	He's kind of an eclectic political philosopher who's had a range of ideas at different times, who mostly has studied in the West.
	Now, Ukraine obsesses over him, but he's not in a bunch of political, nor is his daughter in a bunch of internal political fights of that kind.
	So extremely unlikely that it's internal.
	Most likely it's external.
	Who else was on that list, Robert?
	Not that we would expect anything like this on American soil, but it was...
	The big one was Senator Rand Paul and Glenn Greenwald.
	Those were the two big ones that I remember right off the top of my head.
	There are others too, but those are two of the big ones.
	Common Creator says, hey, smile.
	I'm scared to even move.
	I don't know what cable is going to pop out of the whatever.
	Okay, that's very interesting.
	I guess...
	Moving on.
	People were saying Gonzalo Lira had a great show earlier today.
	I didn't see it, so I don't know what was going on.
	I'm sure Warlord was on there.
	A bunch of people were on there.
	So there was a range of discussion, a roundtable discussion, where people can follow up there.
	Otherwise, my view is I always follow the Duran as the best place to get continuous updates on the Ukrainian conflict, especially.
	But yeah, I mean, in the weaponization of crazy things, The attempts of all the liberal legal scholars this week to pretend that they could put Trump in prison is the latest bit of liberal leftist inanity as it concerns Trump.
	Well, let's go there because, Robert, you told me on Tuesday, hey, Thursday, it might be good to go down and watch the Trump hearing in person.
	I went down, got in, and covered it in real time.
	It was nothing stupendous.
	My only thing is watching Bruce Reinhart, the judge, I got the distinct feeling...
	Magistrate.
	Magistrate, sorry, that's right.
	Magistrate Reinhardt.
	It's clear, like, it should be clear to everybody, he's got a vested interest right now in making sure that he doesn't come out looking like a highly politicized buffoon who rubber stamps the most unprecedented search warrant in the history of America.
	So he's got a vested interest right now in controlling how the information comes out, framing it under the pretext of judicial rulings.
	Okay, first things first.
	Apparently, the prosecution is going to have a week to submit a redacted affidavit of probable cause in support of the warrant.
	They're going to go and take out the sensitive information.
	What's your prediction?
	I know we might have discussed it, but just refresh our memories as to what you think is and is not going to be found in that affidavit.
	So, I mean, I think your description of it after the...
	Hearing was apt as to what the magistrate was up to.
	So that his goal is, how does he cover for himself?
	First of all, I believe he should have disqualified himself.
	He should have disqualified himself before he ever issued the warrant.
	But he should continue.
	He should have disqualified himself again after the warrant.
	And he shouldn't be the one resolving the publication of any affidavit in support of that led to the warrant.
	He confirmed that the affidavit was the sole basis by which he relied upon to give the warrant.
	But the conflict of interest is still clearly present between he and Trump.
	He's had to disqualify himself previously because of how egregious this conflict of interest is.
	This goes to his overt political hostility detailed in social media, his attempts to cover up for Lois Lerner during the IRS scandal.
	We'll be dealing with another IRS case a little bit later in the show.
	This goes back to his Epstein connections and whether there was corruption connected to how he handled that case.
	All of that, he should have disqualified himself.
	He doesn't.
	It's not clear that Trump or anybody for Trump appeared, I believe, right?
	Nobody appeared.
	I saw his attorney, Christina Bob.
	She was in the gallery, not making any representations or appearing on behalf.
	Journalists were all trying to get a soundbite from her, but he had no counsel appear.
	To make any representations.
	So, yeah, and, you know, it would have been better maybe if that had happened, but that ship has sailed.
	It's what you described, I think, is correct, that he is looking to disclose enough so that he doesn't look like he's covering up the basis of it, while not having the disclosure that would embarrass and suggest he definitely had no such basis.
	So I think you're going to see a very, there was a very, one of our local board members put up a unredacted version and a redacted version.
	And the unredacted version is that Trump is innocent, and the redacted version takes out all the keywords that show he's innocent to make him look guilty.
	It was a great little meme, but I think that's what we're most likely going to see.
	Now, there isn't any legal basis that I can find for the warrant.
	The Espionage Act claims are ludicrous.
	The Defense Act claims are ludicrous.
	The main basis is clearly around the idea that these are either presidential records or that they're classified or both.
	The problem with that, this is where Amy Berman Jackson comes back to haunt the Democrats.
	So Judicial Watch, in the late 1990s, early 2000, I think it was 2000 they brought suit, or 2001, after Bill Clinton left, they wanted certain documents that Clinton had.
	Apparently they're in his sock drawer and places like that.
	You know, that classic Clinton.
	The case goes under the Freedom of Information Act.
	It goes to Judge...
	Amy Berman Jackson, who presided over the Manafort case, over the Roger Stone case.
	If you want to see what kangaroo courts look like, hers was a pretty good one to watch.
	Not as good as the judge that presided over the Alex Jones case.
	That's an all-time classic kangaroo court, but of the same temperament.
	Well, the Judicial Watch's argument was, these are presidential records.
	And that are governed by FOIA, that are in the National Archives custody.
	And the fact that Trump has personal custody, or that Clinton had personal custody over him, didn't change that for FOIA purposes.
	So she had to find a way to say that Clinton didn't have to turn it over.
	So what does she say?
	And she's right about the law on this.
	The Presidential Records Act was designed to govern people who are not the president.
	Designed to govern everybody else.
	Same with classification rules.
	They're designed to govern everybody else, not the president.
	The unelected don't get to dictate to the only elected executive official how those laws get implemented.
	So her interpretation, never been challenged since, is that a president can unilaterally decide what is a presidential record versus a personal record.
	The legal consequence of that is the Presidential Records Act says this law does not apply to personal records.
	So they're not official records.
	They're not government records.
	They're not defense records.
	None of it.
	If they're personal records.
	The question is, who got to decide that?
	Number one.
	Number two, were there any formalities that were required?
	And number three, was that decision reviewable?
	The court said, nope.
	Said, this decision is exclusively in the custody of the president.
	His decision doesn't have to meet any formality whatsoever.
	And it's utterly unreviewable by anyone.
	Not reviewable by subsequent presidents, not reviewable by Congress, not reviewable by the courts.
	Based on that, that means Trump had the unilateral, exclusive right, non-reviewable right, to declare any document he wanted, personal records, which means the Presidential Records Act has no application to this, and a claim that these are government records is nonsense.
	The second issue is classification, which we already discussed, which is reaffirmed in that case and other cases, that the president, again, unilaterally determines what's classified.
	Congress can't override it.
	Subsequent presidents can't override it.
	Once he decides it's unclassified, end of the story as it relates to his records and his possession of them.
	So all they had was the president's personal unclassified records that they rated in the name that the archivist was entitled to them when legally he was not.
	This is what I think we need to flesh out here, because Nate Brody put out a video.
	I know people might not like his politics or some of his assessments, but he puts out a video breaking it down, just explaining in law, under the current explanation in law, how this can all be justified.
	And, you know, the pundits are going with this now.
	Classification versus declassification is irrelevant.
	The argument is that he had government records, refused to...
	I said, okay, let's set aside the classified versus declassified argument.
	Let's just say for the time being, it's irrelevant.
	They were all declassified, or they were not classified to begin with, although they said they were as the basis originally with the fake news, but whatever.
	Let's just say classification is not an issue.
	They were presidential records that he was bound to return.
	So, what you're saying here is basically, he decides what's a presidential record and what isn't.
	That's what the Presidential Records Act says, so that when NARA, the National Archive Registration Act entity, says, we want those back, they're ours, and he says no, well, they get the final say, and then they go to the authorities, and the argument would be, whatever body governs NARA or administers NARA, says, those are ours, they're not yours, give them back.
	He says no, they get a raid.
	Even if that's the argument, now we've moved past, it was classified top secret NSCI, whatever it is, they were ours, he refused to give them back, so we raided him.
	Even if that's the case, how can that be justified to issue a warrant by Reinhardt?
	Well, and the other problem is just they can't get around the Clinton precedent.
	How is it that Judicial Watch could not even be entitled to those records or to see them or to engage in in-camera review, but the FBI is entitled to a raid?
	I mean, that's the problem.
	That the Presidential Records Act, this is an attempt to elevate the unelected bureaucracy over the elected president.
	This is a continuation, legally, of a deep state war.
	Independent and separate from whether deep state actors were trying to get deep state documents that made them look bad, this is legally attempting to say the bureaucracy has more power than the elected branch.
	The bureaucracy has more power than the people.
	The bureaucracy gets to control and determine what is a presidential record and what is it.
	The National Archivist isn't elected by anybody, by anybody.
	The political hack, that's clear from all his records, shouldn't be in the National Archives.
	This is a continued everybody politically weaponizing their bureaucratic position of power for politicized partisan purposes.
	He should be removed from office.
	Just based on his course of conduct in this proceeding, but also just his overt political bias and prejudice that's so over the top he can't even contain it.
	But the problem they can't get around is that judicial ruling, unless they're going to say that court was always wrong, in which case it's going to be, why didn't you say anything about it for 20 years?
	Not only that, if these were government records, Barack Obama committed over 30,000 federal crimes.
	Bill Clinton committed tens of thousands of federal crimes.
	Jimmy Carter committed tens of thousands of federal crimes because they all took records that the archives considered presidential records that they either did not or said they wanted custody over and the archives could just come in later.
	So that's the problem they have.
	And so people trying to defend this have to deal with the fact that it's never been applied this way before.
	There's no court that's ever interpreted it that way before.
	The plain language of the law in our constitutional separation of powers rebuts and refutes their argument.
	That's the problem they have.
	My bigger problem is, let's just even say it's a violation of the Presidential Records Act and he has to give them back.
	Why wouldn't you just...
	There was no risk unless we see something in the affidavit.
	Oh, I mean, they're going to try to claim there was risk that someone else could see the records.
	The records would be destroyed.
	I'm sure there'll be some allegation of that.
	And there was ongoing discussion about what normally happens is the president takes a whole bunch of records with him.
	He wants them for his presidential library.
	The National Archives can designate his presidential library as part of the National Archives.
	And they decide what they're going to allow to be labeled a presidential record for the purposes of National Archives custody.
	And there's money issues involved and a range of other issues involved.
	Everybody takes these records with them.
	And so they can't get around the historical...
	Not only is it utterly unprecedented to raid a prior president and future presidential opponent, a lead opponent, that's never been done before.
	But it's requiring, again, it's always with these cases with Trump, requiring ridiculous interpretations of the law that go against the policy behind the law, that go against the constitutional framework that governs the interpretation of the law, that goes against historical custom and practice, that goes against established legal precedent.
	And that's the problem they face.
	I mean, I agree that on top of that, even if these were government records, a search warrant is ridiculous.
	There isn't probable cause of...
	Again, for probable cause, they needed to show that they had evidence that Trump knew these were presidential records, not personal records, that Trump knew he didn't have legal right to custody over them for any period of time, and that Trump intended to use them in some manner that led to...
	Actual sabotage.
	In their mind, you're trying to undermine the deep state.
	That equals espionage.
	That equals sedition.
	This is the problem.
	They're trying to establish a legal precedent in America where the deep state governs.
	Unelected bureaucrats govern.
	Our constitutionally elected officials don't.
	And it's a matter of fact.
	Whether it was known for 17 months...
	It was known from at least February 2022, Washington Post reported on it.
	So they're saying, we've known that he's had these for seven months, and now we're getting a raid on the basis of some urgency as opposed to going through civil remedy?
	Or, I mean, what would have been a less intrusive criminal remedy?
	Just press charges and say, give it back to us, and if you don't, criminal contempt?
	Well, I mean, if you really thought they were government records...
	And that you thought you were entitled to that.
	I mean, that's the extraordinary thing.
	Someone who thinks they have a right to override the president.
	Based on what?
	There's no law that supports that.
	There's no constitutional provision that supports that.
	No custom and practice that supports that.
	No legal precedent that supports it.
	In fact, it all rebuts it and refutes it.
	So aside from that, you know, critical foundational point, that you can sue to get back the documents if you think you're entitled to them.
	You can bring a civil action and claim these documents to have them designated.
	The reason why they didn't is because they would lose the suit based on existing precedent.
	So they had to pretend something else and escalate.
	Now, the other reality is, they're not really, this is just cover.
	These are fig leaves.
	What I said from the get-go, there's been mounting and mounting and mounting evidence of based on who has come out and partook in the raid, what's been happening to some of the evidence in the records in the raid, what was actually kind of being sought out for by Paul Sperry has detailed this.
	Others have detailed it.
	Newsweek has detailed it.
	So what I said from day one was this was a deep state raid to grab documents that are embarrassing to the deep state, that are exculpatory for Trump.
	Inculpatory for the deep state.
	And their goal isn't to give them to the National Archives.
	Their goal, number one, is to get them out of Trump's hands.
	Number two, probably to destroy them.
	And so the inventory was so vague.
	We'll see what happens.
	They illicitly seized his passports.
	They had to return those.
	Illicitly seized a bunch of attorney-client records.
	They're having a taint team, and they're trying to fight the appointment of a special master to review those.
	This is like, it's what they did with Project Veritas.
	And it's...
	Absolutely analogous Mutatis Mutatis.
	Project Veritas, an allegedly stolen diary, six o 'clock raid, steal cell phones, gather the information, oppose the appointment of a special master.
	They nonetheless then appoint a special master, but they know damn well that they have access to the same illicit information through other means.
	It's the same Mutatis Mutatis.
	They tried it out, and they leaked to the press.
	So you got your press running nuclear document stories.
	You got your press running all sorts of fake stories on the side while they go ahead and do this.
	They tried it with Project Veritas.
	Nobody cared.
	They tried it here.
	They thought they would get away with it.
	Speaking of patterns of behavior, relates to two other cases.
	One is the FBI targeted early on in the Trump administration an Arkansas official that was a strongly pro-Trump official.
	Charged him with bribery, a bunch of other stuff.
	There were questions about entrapment.
	There were questions about evidence that was exculpatory, getting hidden.
	Well, an FBI agent who was a critical part of that case pled guilty to destroying a bunch of evidence and records.
	A lot of confession through projection.
	So we'll see if that ultimately, that guy's still in prison somehow, because the federal courts have not enforced the fact that that's someone that's charged that should have already been dismissed.
	You have an FBI agent who is critical to the case, admitting he destroyed evidence that could be essential to the case, and pleading guilty to it, and you're not doing anything about dismissing those charges for the person still rotting in prison?
	But it shows part of a broader pattern, as reflected also in the ongoing Whitmer case, where the judge is trying to put pressure on the jury to convict somebody because of how bad that case looks.
	But it also relates to the lawsuit filed by the lawyers and journalists related to Julian Assange in federal court in New York that exposed major corruption.
	They sued Mike Pompeo individually.
	For those people that are still clueless about how Mike Pompeo is a deep state hack, that lawsuit helps detail it.
	Bill Barr's implicit admissions about him in his book revealed that, how he made fun of how easy it was for him to jerk Trump around.
	It was one of Trump's worst appointees, and he had some doozies.
	It was people like Mike Pompeo.
	But what it details is extraordinary.
	It impacts Sheldon Adelson.
	It impacts Mossad.
	It impacts the CIA.
	It impacts the Ecuadorian embassy.
	It impacts MI6.
	Because it was the most extraordinary Fourth Amendment violation of any comparable case I can ever remember.
	What they were doing and how they got away with it and how it all started here in Las Vegas.
	Robert, do we go into greater detail of that before we talk?
	Let's talk about Whitmer for one second, actually.
	Government trying to change the definition of entrapment.
	And by the way, did Alison Morrill suspend it from YouTube?
	Yeah, they had an interview with someone talking about mass psychosis about nine months ago.
	They've gone back through, and so YouTube suspended her for a week based on interviewing a psychologist about mass formation psychosis.
	You know what's amazing?
	The World Health Organization has made clear, apparently, according to YouTube, that there's no such thing as mass formation psychosis.
	Robert, and who tells you that there's no such thing as mass formation psychosis?
	Behavioral psychologists.
	What's behavioral psychology?
	Some form of mass formations.
	It's nuts.
	By the way, this is the value in immediately asking for a review of certain videos, is that they can still do it, come back and say, oh yeah, we've re-reviewed it, and you're screwed.
	Okay, well, maybe I'll tweet out Allison Morrow, but...
	Before we get to Pompeo, because I'm not totally familiar with that, much more familiar with Michigan, Whitmer.
	The retrial of the two individuals who were the object of a hung jury the first time around.
	And I believe, by the way, it was 11 to 1 in favor of acquittals.
	Shut up!
	Yeah, there was a holdout.
	There appears to be a Michigan law professor type who seems to know more.
	Julie Kelly has been hinting at this, and she's been covering it extensively, so I encourage people to follow that, about more knowledge about who that one person was.
	But one person held out to try to basically allow the chance of this retrial.
	My view is that violates double jeopardy.
	My view is you get 12 people to convict or end the story.
	That a hung jury is the equivalent of an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.
	The courts have all, you know, they want to retry everybody every time, so they refuse to do that.
	But that, in my view, is what the whole requirement of unanimous jury of conviction is supposed to be about in one trial, not two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight bites at the apple that they get.
	Well, now I'm actually somewhat much more discouraged in terms of my prediction where there might not be an acquittal here.
	Retrial of the two.
	If it was 11 to 1, it'll make it even more egregious.
	It's the same judge as the first trial.
	According to Julie Kelly, the judge gave a soliloquy.
	I think, Robert, that's just explaining to the jury how they are to go about their adjudication.
	A much different soliloquy, basically suggesting some of the jury had a question as to whether or not they can convict, even if they believe that there was no realistic possibility of the defendants.
	Carrying out the intended plot.
	If it was impossible, they were going to go abduct Whitmer, take her to the moon, and then do whatever.
	Even if it was impossible, they didn't have the capability of doing it, can they still convict?
	Which goes to show you where the jury's going.
	The question here is this.
	Why would the judge...
	Now I ask the question, I can see the answer.
	Why would the judge be more prone to trying to get a conviction here?
	Is this to save face for...
	Absolutely a safe face.
	It was a very embarrassing acquittals the first time around.
	Everything that some of us predicted at the very beginning, that this case screamed entrapment all over the place.
	It's just been even more egregious than I could have imagined.
	The FBI creating fake militias, swearing oaths to fake militias, having informants sleeping with people, every possible means to get them to do...
	Smoking drugs with them and then recording them while they're high, talking about fantastical things while they're under the influence as induced by the FBI.
	Sorry.
	It was just, it's all, it's maybe one of the most egregious entrapment cases ever.
	And as Darren Beatty at Revolver News has been emphasizing that the person who put this all in motion at a key hierarchical position in the Detroit FBI was promoted based on that, because remember this was done right before the election to influence the vote.
	It's clear that's what it was intended to do.
	He was then promoted to the District of Columbia and is integral to the January 6th cases.
	Of note, one of the other things that's come out in the Whitmer trial is that the one part of this plan initially was the FBI infiltrators and informants and instigators were trying to get them to take over the state capitol during the lockdown stuff.
	Does anyone really think that's only coincidentally connected to January 6th?
	I think that's why the judge is trying to get any kind of conviction to reverse the media narrative on this case so people don't take a deeper dive.
	He's put his hand on the lever in terms of length of questioning, kind of questioning, nature of jury instructions.
	He's doing every possible to rig the outcome so that it will come back conviction.
	It's what federal judges typically do, sadly, in federal criminal cases.
	And for those who don't know exactly what Robert's mentioning here, Evidence came out that the FBI was pressuring the state police to allow armed protesters into the Michigan state capitol when they were protesting Whitmer's lockdown measures.
	And the rationale, from what I understand, is that their argument was that it was to quell tensions.
	It would ease tensions to allow armed protesters into the capitol.
	Where did we see that again?
	November.
	How many months later?
	Six months later?
	No, not even November, December 20th.
	Just like it's not a coincidence, a bunch of people implicated in Russiagate are part of the raid of President Trump.
	It wasn't the National Archives assigned FBI agents that are down there, folks.
	We see the same overlap between Whitmer and January 6th.
	David Langford says, please put subscriber...
	I haven't noticed any bots.
	There might be some...
	I'll put subscriber mode on for 10 minutes just in case we're having some supreme nastiness in the comments.
	Who can...
	Participant mode.
	Who can...
	Is this it?
	Live chat.
	Subscribers.
	Five minutes?
	We'll go two minutes.
	We'll make it...
	No, there's only one minute.
	We're going five minutes.
	Five minutes subscriber mode if you want to comment, people.
	Apparently, there's some people in the chat saying not nice things.
	We'll come back.
	Speaking of a range of cases connected to...
	A lot of this.
	In Georgia, the wayward prosecution continues unabated.
	Rudy Giuliani testified before the Georgia grand jury.
	There's a special grand jury that's been formed by this leftist Democratic prosecutor in Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold in the state of Georgia, that is going after President Trump for having simply alternative electors, which was his legal obligation to bring a meaningful election contest, and for pointing out to the Secretary of State how many votes were at issue and if he could find more than that in the disputed categories constitutionally, then he would be entitled to that election contest.
	So they're again trying to weaponize, asserting his own legal rights and remedies as somehow a crime, which shows you how insane all of it is.
	And it's all the ends justify the means kind of logic The real crime is disagreeing with them.
	That's the crime.
	Now, you get a sense of what they're capable of.
	And by the way, Lindsey Graham has filed a challenge.
	They've tried to subpoena Lindsey Graham.
	He has filed in federal court to enjoin it.
	The district court refused, but the Court of Appeals today stepped in and said they're not going to allow the subpoena to go forward until the issue has been fully litigated concerning whether or not it violates the speech clause in terms of trying to bring a United States congressman in for these kind of purposes and getting to just what they said and so forth.
	So we'll see how that case continues to unfurl and unfold, but it's another crazy case like the January 6th attempt to go after Trump.
	But to give you an idea of who the real criminals are, Julian Assange's, the suit connected to Julian Assange's lawyers and journalists tells you it's the deep state that's been committing the real crimes, not the people they accuse of committing crimes.
	We're seeing it in real time.
	Someone mentioned the Rasmussen poll that shows that 67% of Republicans, 50% of independents, and 37% of Democrats think that Joe Biden is using the FBI like his personal Gestapo, which is a secret police using terrorist methods to go after political dissidents.
	When 37% of Democrats see that...
	Well, unfortunately, some of those 37% probably cheer it on.
	Well, I think the other 63% say...
	It's not as personal as Gestapo.
	It's justice.
	But what is the Mike Pompeo lawsuit?
	I'm not familiar with you.
	What was happening was journalists and lawyers who came to meet Julian Assange at the embassy in Ecuador would, as they go through, have to turn over their laptops, tablets, and phones as a security mechanism before they talk to Assange.
	We're meeting with Assange, as they understood, in confidence within the Ecuadorian embassy, which is Ecuadorian legal space, sovereign space for those purposes, and then left, got their phones, tablets, whatnot, came back.
	It turned out that every time they came in, their phone was being completely downloaded, everything on it, their computers completely downloaded, the tablets completely downloaded, and being sent to the CIA.
	That's part one.
	Part two is...
	That there are secret wiretaps, secret various microphones, secret cameras recording their live conversations, including attorney-client privileged communications.
	They knew everything that was going on inside the Ecuadorian embassy.
	How that came about was that the head of security...
	That was from a private company employed by the Ecuadorian embassy, came out to a security conference in Las Vegas at the Venetian Hotel.
	While there, he was approached by private security for Sheldon Adelson, the owner who's now passed on, the owner of the Venetian Hotel.
	And they approached him that they wanted the private security company to do secret work for the CIA.
	Which would enrich them in that contract and in future contracts.
	Sheldon Adelson is deeply tied into Mossad in Israel.
	And there has been long-standing rumors that some of the original information that went through WikiLeaks actually went through Israel as to help Trump through Sheldon Adelson, which may have been another ancillary objective of why they were doing what they were doing with Assange.
	But that is uncertain.
	But either way, you had the most massive violation of 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights.
	4th Amendment for sure, probably 5th and 6th Amendment, right to counsel, which includes the attorney-client privilege, right to due process of law, so on and so forth.
	Such that I don't even know how they can prosecute Julian Assange.
	The government has got a sneak peek at all of his legal defense for years now.
	So to put it into legal motion...
	I believe one of the lawyers is connected to William Kunstler, the great civil rights lawyer passed on some years ago, is that this is one of the most severe breaches of the Fourth Amendment.
	And Bivens, so-called Bivens actions, recognize that when federal agents violate your search warrant, probable cause rights, then you do have the right to bring suit.
	So they brought suit against the CIA, and they brought suit against the security agency employed by the CIA, and they brought suit individually against Mike Pompeo.
	Because what they detail is that Pompeo was leading the deep state effort at these massive constitutional violations.
	Now, you won't see that spook-loving, war-whoring Sean Hannity or Sebastian Gorka or any of those hacks talking about this.
	You won't see Douglas Murray.
	I get he gets a few cultural issues right.
	So what?
	The guy's a complete spook hack when it comes to issues of war.
	He whores for war all the time.
	I have no respect.
	For Douglas Murray.
	People said, hey, you want him on sidebar?
	No, he's an idiot.
	I mean, I put him on maybe to embarrass him for a while.
	Where are these people complaining about constitutional rights violations?
	Because you can't complain about the violations of Trump's rights and not complain about the violation of Assange's rights, which were frankly worse than the violation on Trump.
	Robert, maybe it's a stupid question.
	Why would Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment violations matter in the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK?
	So if you have U.S. government action of someone who's under criminal investigation or actually already been indicted, and you interfere with their attorney-client relationship deliberately, that's a constitutional Sixth Amendment violation.
	It's likely a Fifth Amendment due process violation, depending on the circumstance.
	Now, courts have not been great at enforcing that.
	But there's no question that's the case.
	Those rights provide additional protections on top of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your person and property against any search without probable cause.
	So it's also probably a violation of certain treaties, a violation of international laws, a whole bunch of other things.
	But this is a man that Hillary Clinton bragged about wanting to drone bomb, Julian Assange, the biggest publisher of government secrets and whistleblowers in arguably world history.
	So the fact he was ever targeted was outrageous.
	The fact they came up with those fake rape charges was outrageous.
	The fact that Trump didn't pardon him was an embarrassment on Trump's behalf.
	The fact that Pompeo ever had a key position of power when he was trying to trigger wars all over the place, that nut job, that lunatic, is an embarrassment.
	It's an embarrassment to the Israeli government and Mossad, who Pompeo is a big patron of, to be anywhere near this.
	That Sheldon Adelson was in the middle of this, very embarrassing.
	For those people aligned with that side of the aisle.
	So that, you know, they're burning bridges where they shouldn't be burning bridges because they don't got a lot of bridges left in Western politics and political theater.
	So the, so, you know, there's implications there.
	But at heart, this was the CIA engaged in substantial, massive violations of core constitutional rights and liberties of an indicted defendant because the people doing the spying and the criminal work is the U.S. government and the deep state.
	Not the people like Julian Assange or Donald Trump that they accuse of doing.
	What's the jurisdiction of...
	Is there a pending lawsuit?
	Is there a pending motion?
	Yeah, a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.
	All right.
	And Julian Assange right now is where?
	He's still in the UK.
	He's still in the UK, appealing the last part of what he can't appeal of his extradition.
	If the UK courts had any honor or pride or backbone...
	They would stop that extradition, but I don't anticipate the UK courts have any of that.
	They're too busy cheering public assassination, you know, the UK political types cheering the assassination of the daughters of philosophy professors in Russia, while they cheerlead the massive money laundering, arms laundering, human trafficking going on in that corrupt regime of that cokehead, Zelensky in Ukraine.
	So it's continued embarrassment on a global scale.
	What is taking place in some of these policies.
	But the Assange case is really the template for what's deeply problematic about the deep state.
	And the reality was this.
	As long as they could treat Julian Assange that way, sooner or later they're going to treat Donald Trump that way.
	And by him not stepping in for Julian Assange, he put himself in a weaker position for him to be the target himself.
	But anyone complaining about what's happened to Trump should be equally outraged at what's happening to Julian Assange.
	And if you're not, you're just a hypocrite in a partisan hat.
	And it says, for fear of room bugged, Assange lawyers began meeting in the bathroom, but they were recording there too.
	My feeling would be you're in a foreign embassy on foreign soil.
	What expectation to privacy would you possibly have other than the laws of the embassy in which you're in?
	I don't know what...
	Well, two things.
	You're always entitled to privacy against the U.S. government's invasion.
	It doesn't matter where you're at.
	So that universally, that's a restriction on government that's not geographically limited.
	I understand our courts try to find ways around it by calling things war zones and all that jazz.
	It says the U.S. government shall not do boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, period.
	It doesn't matter where the person is, what their residency or citizenship is.
	But in terms of this, and this again was an indicted defendant.
	But the other aspect is, in terms of the Ecuadorian embassies, that's Ecuadorian sovereign land.
	So you're violating another government's sovereign.
	So not only are you violating certain rights and limitations, the way to think of them is they're not just rights, they're really restrictions, governmental restrictions.
	What the Bill of Rights is, is really a bill of restrictions on government.
	And these bill of restrictions were repeatedly violated by the U.S. government in the Julian Assange case, as to his lawyers, as to journalists and the press and everyone else.
	For someone, again, who is exposing deep state secrets.
	The biggest public adversary of the deep state in maybe history, period.
	But definitely, you know, since President John Kennedy.
	So I think that's why it's shocking what took place.
	The fact the press is still hiding from it.
	Is embarrassing on the press itself.
	But the fact that not enough people on the right, you know, if you want independent credibility in the civil rights, civil liberties, constitutional rights world, you can't complain about Trump and say nothing about Assange because Assange is even worse.
	Someone had something interesting to say here.
	Oh, crap.
	Any consensus on who the alleged leaker to the FBI inside Marlach was?
	There still wasn't.
	I'll bet the bank on that.
	They illicitly use surveillance and other mechanisms of getting intel and information and doctor it up as an informant.
	So normally like take the Assange case, probably internally the Justice Department has disguised a lot of the information they got as coming from a whistleblower inside the embassy.
	They do this all the time.
	So it's the most common mechanism of them laundering illicitly obtained information.
	Is in that manner, and they're expert at it.
	But hopefully the courts recognize and respect that case, and it goes forward.
	We'll see if they brought suit in the Southern District of New York.
	I don't have the greatest confidence in that district, as people know.
	So we'll see if there's a lot of liberals that are part of that case, or more of the old school left.
	We'll see if the federal court in New York can give them meaningful discovery, because my guess is it will show even worse abuses than we know about.
	Is there any chance, Robert, you end up getting involved or have any connection to the Assange?
	I've said publicly that I would defend Assange.
	So I have no fear about that whatsoever.
	Everything that's happened has been disturbing to me, Julian Assange.
	People can disagree with him blowing the whistle on certain things, with him publishing whistleblowers on those things.
	Those are people who are apologists for war crimes.
	So congratulations.
	You're right up there with the people who defended the Nazis at Nuremberg.
	So I don't have a lot of respect for those opinions.
	But it is continually embarrassing, in my view, to people in Trump world who talk about the outrageous allegations of what's happening to Trump and keep their mouth shut about Julian Assange.
	They look like political hacks.
	They don't look like sincere civil libertarians who care about constitutional rights in our country.
	Robert, it might be a good time to ask, what's the book behind you, Fixing the System?
	It was part of our book review this past week with Adrian at Viva Barnes Law.
	Dotlocals.com.
	Written by Adrian Kizminski.
	It's about, in particular, its historical, ideological framework of populism, how it differs from both socialism and corporatism, particularly within the economic space.
	And as a fun little book, we did a nice little book review on it and had an open discourse and discussion.
	One of the best part of the Locals Board is not only people's ability to participate and partake, if you want to reach me, the only guarantee is if you make a post there because I read.
	All the posts that are placed, about 500 posts a day on average.
	But also there's a lot of great curated content by members of our board who bring attention to a wide range of topics and issues and ideas, both in their own discussion and in articles and other information that they source and cite.
	So highly recommend it.
	And Robert, you mentioned Nazis, and it triggered a thought I've been obsessing about Justin Trudeau and...
	Canada.
	Medical assisted death in Canada.
	And then you had a case of them taking away trucker's licenses, counterbalanced by a couple of big wins, some fines that got thrown out, some criminal charges that got thrown out.
	The victories, I say they're inconsequential.
	They seem like a drop in the bucket to the deluge.
	But it's good work by the Justice Center.
	So, Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, representing some of the truckers.
	Some of the people arrested during the convoy, they had, I think it's a dozen.
	It was more than six defendants had their charges totally dropped because, lo and behold, the cops didn't take notes.
	They didn't write down contemporaneous statement of offenses.
	As they were arresting them, they lacked evidence.
	And so after having been arrested, detained, arguably abused, dragged through the procedural mud of what the process is, They dropped the charges.
	It's February now, seven months later.
	That's the good news.
	Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, JCCF, doing the Lord's work.
	Stuff that I don't think I could stomach.
	Flip side to that, that's the good news coming out of Canada.
	The bad news, Robert, I've been obsessing about it.
	I tried to go fishing this morning.
	All I can think about, 10,064 medically assisted suicides, medically assisted deaths in Canada in 2021 alone.
	The government...
	Rubber stamping, seemingly, unless there's some massive difference between Canada's population of 36, 38 million and California's population of 35 million, where California has, from what I understand, maybe under 1,000 medically assisted deaths last year or aggregate.
	Canada has 10,064 in 2021 alone.
	Up 30 some odd percent from 2020.
	Up whatever percent from the year.
	I see people making comments to the posts that Hitler started off by euthanizing, by medically killing, handicapped, mentally deficient, mentally ill.
	And in Canada, there are studies coming out saying it's more cost-effective.
	It won't add to the healthcare system burden.
	It might actually incur substantial savings to euthanize people who are ill.
	So don't worry about treating them.
	Kill them.
	And they want to expand the medically assisted death provision of what was removed from the criminal code to include mentally ill, not terminally ill, mentally ill.
	There's a sunset clause which said we're not going to do that for another 18 months and that sunset clause goes away when the sun sets, literally and metaphysically.
	10,000 people in 2021 from a government that has locked people down.
	Devastated them financially, economically, spiritually, isolated them, made people want to die, and then rubber stamps their death because it actually will save, incur substantial savings to the system.
	And I never understood, not to analogize it, analogized, but maybe there's, I never appreciated it, where Hitler started with handicapped, physically ill, physically deficient, and then moved on from there.
	Robert?
	I mean, I don't know.
	What do you even think when you see this?
	Did you know about the number and the extent of the statistics?
	I did not know about either.
	It's an extension of the logic of eugenics.
	So it's not surprising that the same administration that believed in the ability to force an undesired product and inject everybody all the way up to young children.
	And would condition basic freedoms and social liberties and partaking in the public community.
	On the condition of that, would also believe their right and entitlement to encourage certain parts of the population to be dead.
	It's all rooted in the same ideology, idolatry of eugenics.
	And it's the common pattern that includes people like a certain Seattle software developer whose family has long ties to the same ideas and ideology.
	And Tweagirl says 10,000.
	There's no way those people were murdered.
	I can tell you only anecdotally from people who don't necessarily want to come forward.
	There's pressure to be submitted to the administration of death.
	It's medically assisted death.
	It's state-sanctioned murder.
	And people say there's tremendous pressure.
	It's done unbeknownst to family.
	It's 10,000 people.
	Bear in mind, just so everybody can put this into perspective, the Trudeau government shut down Canada, crippled the economy, isolated children, subjected us to medical procedures for 40,000 COVID deaths, 10,000 people they killed in one year alone.
	And, I mean, that's liberalism.
	That's Justin Trudeau's liberalism.
	They've been killing people in the States for over 20 years, but they don't call it that.
	They sell it on as savings and quality of life terms.
	But no, it's different in Canada, and it's different in Canada year over year.
	And we've hit it.
	I was flabbergasted.
	I was shocked, appalled.
	And I'm not giving up on this just yet.
	It's flabbergasting.
	Okay, Robert.
	Well, on the public health front, we'll get to in a little bit the vaccine context, a range of news, Marines, whistleblowers, military whistleblowers, the craziness and zaniness of Maine, and it's sort of another wayward decision out of there on that topic.
	The various issues I have pending with Tyson Foods and on behalf of Brooke Jackson and Robert Malone's libel lawsuit against the Washington Post.
	But before we get that, in what may be the most unprecedented, unparalleled usurpation of constitutional authority, the four Democratic justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court, two of whom are expected to lose in the upcoming 2022 elections,
	such that it will end up going from a four-Democrat, three-Republican Supreme Court to a five-Republican, two-Democrat State Supreme Court, The constitutional amendments concerning voter ID, concerning tax caps that was passed by more than three-fifths of the legislature that went through the entire North Carolina constitutional process and was overwhelmingly approved by the people and the voters of North Carolina.
	They came in, the North Carolina Supreme Court said, well, you know what?
	We didn't like the way the certain people were elected to the legislature.
	We labeled that gerrymandering.
	And so we're going to say that this action by the legislature is all invalid.
	It's all thrown out.
	And we're going to throw out the North Carolina Constitution, throw out the votes of millions of North Carolinians, throw out the votes of all the other legislators, none of whom are implicated in the gerrymandering dispute.
	A gerrymandering dispute that by itself is highly questionable and controversial, and part of it will be up before the U.S. Supreme Court next year.
	But it shows that they're so obsessed with preserving their power, their only chance is to have no voter ID, so they want the 2022 elections to not be done in the way the legislature and the people of North Carolina chose.
	And they're just declaring themselves the super—I mean, they're now literally—the judicial branch is refusing to recognize what both the legislative branch and the people did.
	That's how bad it's got in North Carolina.
	It shows you what liberal justice looks like.
	Liberal justice looks like the same as liberal Canada.
	What do they call it?
	Judicial gerrymandering?
	Sorry, the election process was the result of gerrymandering, therefore the legislation passed.
	Do they abolish all legislation?
	Under their theory, they could abolish every single law that's been passed in North Carolina for the last two years.
	That's how insane it is.
	For the last four years, I think.
	I mean, it's, and by the way, they pretended this has never come up before in the history of courts.
	This has come up, tons of people have argued this.
	People argued, for example, going back to the archivist, whether or not the 16th Amendment that imposed an income tax as an exception to the clauses requiring uniformity and apportionment against internal direct taxation, whether that amendment actually passed.
	Did Congress pass it?
	Did, in fact, the state legislatures pass it?
	Or did they pass something different?
	Was there bribery as part of the process?
	Congress delegated to the archivist the final authority.
	Different people have had this authority in time.
	At the time, all the way back, it was under the Secretary of Treasury and whatnot.
	But currently, it's the archivist.
	And what the court said, there's also issues about whether the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment actually passed because those were post-Civil War Southern governments where they properly cut.
	So this issue has come up repeatedly.
	And the solution by courts is universal, which is you cannot use how the person was elected as a grounds to set aside the action they took.
	And because otherwise you'd get into a nightmare of issues that the courts have no interest in getting involved in.
	All kinds of legislation is passed by bribery and fraud.
	We're going to start throwing it out?
	So even though I think their premise is wrong, it was not a racially gerrymandered election in North Carolina that led to the Republican dominance.
	The Republicans are more popular than Democrats at the state legislative level in North Carolina.
	Richard Barris, the people's pundit who lives in North Carolina, knows about all this.
	Sean Trendy.
	A buddy of mine who's kind of an establishment kind of Republican, who's up at Real Clear Politics, he testified that it wasn't racial.
	My understanding, he testified that it wasn't racial gerrymandering.
	That was just the courts unilaterally setting it aside because they want to racially gerrymander.
	Confession through projection.
	And so the whole premise of it is outrageous in terms of it's not factually, empirically true that these were racially gerrymandered elections, in my opinion.
	But secondly...
	It's something that's commonly come up of trying to challenge legislation by challenging something about how a person got elected or how legislation went through.
	We have, for many sound reasons, not got involved in that.
	That's up to the legislative process and the voters.
	If courts get involved in it, you're basically scrapping the legislative branch of government.
	In this case, there was no dispute.
	The people of North Carolina overwhelmingly favored these constitutional amendments.
	So who they're really throwing out is the millions of votes.
	Remember all the liberals are like, we can't challenge the Trump election or whether Biden got elected.
	Every vote counts.
	Every vote counts.
	Unless you vote against me.
	That's the rule.
	Barnes, any thoughts on the Senate bill to refinance?
	Okay, hold on.
	I'll get to that later.
	Sorry, I thought that was about this.
	But Robert.
	So, what's the recourse?
	This is not the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the highest level?
	No, it was.
	This is the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
	So, it's not apparent there is any recourse.
	Like, what happens if courts just start ignoring the legislative branch?
	Just start ignoring the law?
	Just like the executive branch has been doing for...
	The deep state's been doing forever.
	But, I mean, this is getting really overt.
	Really overt.
	But, like, actually...
	So, let's just say it gets to the highest court of the state.
	And the state says this.
	What potential?
	Can you go to the Supreme Court and say that the highest...
	I mean, they passed a constitutional amendment to overturn some of their past provisions.
	And they're like, we're not going to respect your constitutional amendment.
	I mean, it's a constitutional crisis in North Carolina.
	Because the question is, what does the executive agencies do?
	Do they enforce the Constitution as passed by the people of North Carolina?
	Or do they enforce what the courts say is the Constitution, which is different than what people pass?
	Is there a federal remedy?
	But can the legislature say we're going to dismantle it?
	Because it's a state constitutional issue, so not clear there is a federal remedy.
	But can the state then come in and say, well, we're not going to respect the court, so we're going to dismantle the court?
	The executive branch.
	I mean, that's what you have.
	Now, it's a Democrat in the governor's chair, so it's up to local.
	But that's why they're creating...
	Unnecessary constitutional crises that, you know, the local sheriff, the local official, kind of like during the pandemic, right?
	We had people issuing illegal orders, and the question is, what does the local sheriff do?
	What does the local elections board do?
	They're creating unnecessary constitutional crises.
	But, like, let's say they impeach the judges.
	These courts have already said they won't recognize the impeachment because they don't recognize the legislature.
	They're going places they've never gone before because they so believe that the ends justify the means.
	They see all tools of power as just tools of power.
	They don't believe in any limiting principle applied to those tools of power.
	But Robert, I'm not bringing up some of the chats that talk about CW, but this might be a different type of CW fought in a judicial sense.
	Well, I call it a constitutional crisis.
	That's what it is.
	It's a state of North Carolina constitution, but it's a constitutional crisis formed by a completely out of control North Carolina court.
	I don't think it will salvage them in the elections.
	They're still going to lose.
	Even if the ID law is not enforced, they're still going to lose.
	In fact, it will be used against them in the elections.
	The question is, do they then respect the elections?
	I mean, they're not respecting the legislature.
	They're not respecting the people's vote on the Constitution.
	I mean, you know, they may have to have sheriffs sent in there and arrest Supreme Court judges.
	That's how bad it's getting.
	Impeach the judges?
	Well, as the judiciary, that's gerrymandering impeachment.
	It's the product of gerrymandering elections, and we don't respect it.
	We are declaring ourselves your ever-ruling rulers.
	That's it.
	Exactly.
	I mean, we're just seeing complete lack of respect for the rule of law, complete lack of respect for the separation of powers.
	And, you know, it's an infection of a certain ideological approach that just doesn't respect the rule of law to begin with, doesn't respect constitutional restraint, doesn't respect public will.
	And it's an out-of-control managerial professional class, whether it's part of the administrative deep state, whether it's part of court processes.
	Whether it's part of various agencies, that is completely and utterly out of control.
	And it's not clear to me where the remedy or resolution is going to be, sadly.
	No one's going to let Sam Harris ever forget about that.
	Why people ever elevated that guy.
	It's like Douglas Murray, I don't respect, never have.
	A lot of those people in that world.
	I have great respect for Jordan Peterson as to psychology.
	Outside of that, God bless him, it's not his strong point.
	But he's a brilliant, brilliant in the psychology field.
	But a lot of those guys are...
	Sam Harris is always a joke.
	How do you continue to promote atheism as the solution and religion as the problem after the 20th century?
	I was like, whatever arguments you can make that all the world's evils come down to religion.
	Well, we had atheistic power in the 20th century, and they killed more than 100 million people.
	They established a war.
	They took over half the world.
	They made life miserable for several generations of people.
	The argument in favor of atheism leading to a better world is gone infinito.
	Yeah, you got pseudo-intellectuals who grew up, who was a rich kid.
	That's how Sam Harris, how did Sam Harris make his money?
	He hasn't earned a dime.
	He got it from mommy and daddy.
	He got it from his inheritance.
	That's who he is.
	He's a pseudo-intellectual with a little podcast that talks like one of those little NPR nerd hosts that Saturday Night Live used to make fun of when they had cojones and comedy.
	And so it's not a surprise.
	I'll give him credit for letting out of his lips what he really thought.
	And people were like, one, this guy's an idiot.
	And two, this guy's dangerous in terms of his ideas.
	Because he was saying, I'm fine with Hunter Biden, for those that didn't hear it.
	I'm fine with Hunter Biden burying dead kids in his basement as long as it meant Trump got defeated.
	That's what a joke Sam Harris is.
	He's a political hack.
	He's a quasi-pseudo-intellectual.
	He's a sophist.
	I've never respected anything he said.
	Just because he said some anti-radical Islam thing, people thought he was a genius.
	Being smarter than Ben Affleck just means you're one grade above in the same school for the gifted, and I don't mean the right kind of gifted.
	Hold on.
	I'll pull it up.
	I don't feel the same compulsion to rail against Sam Harris because I didn't know who he was.
	Never listened to him before.
	I knew the name, but I thought I knew the name in the context of...
	I don't know why I associated the name of Sam Harris with Richard Spencer, and I don't know anything from either of them.
	I just remember hearing those names together.
	Never knew anything about them.
	But this is what he said.
	For those who haven't heard it, and look at Trigonometry's face, Costin.
	Hunter Biden, at that point, Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement.
	I would not have cared.
	There's nothing.
	First of all, it's Hunter Biden, right?
	It's not Joe Biden.
	Forget 10% for the big guy.
	Whatever scope of Joe Biden's corruption is, if we could just go down that rabbit hole endlessly and understand that he's getting kickbacks from Hunter Biden's deals in Ukraine or wherever else, right?
	I understand that.
	Or China.
	It is infinitesimal compared to the corruption we know Trump.
	I'd like to flesh that up.
	Look at his face.
	Oh, my God.
	It doesn't even stack up against Trump University.
	Trump University, as a story, is worse than anything that could be in Hunter Biden's laptop.
	Really?
	That's interesting.
	Now, that doesn't answer the people who say it's still completely unfair to not have looked at the laptop in a timely way and to have shut down the New York Post.
	That's a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump.
	Absolutely it was.
	Absolutely.
	But I think it was warranted.
	And again, it's a coin toss.
	I was the one that said we should move on.
	I'll share the link.
	That was shared on Poso.
	But go watch Trigonometry, man.
	I couldn't believe their faces.
	They were like...
	Holy crap, we didn't even ask you to do this.
	It's like the Time Magazine election fornication piece.
	It's out there saying, yes, there was a left-wing conspiracy to deny Trump the presidency by every means, licit and illicit, and they're proud of it.
	And the only thing useful is it exposes the mindset.
	What combined these people is, one, they think they're a lot smarter than they actually are.
	I wouldn't employ Sam Harris for anything.
	I mean, I have that.
	Severe doubts about, and that's skepticism about his intellectual capability.
	But secondly, it has been further misshaped by the sort of intellectually incestuous environment in which they believe they are the gods amongst us.
	What some said is what atheism, by the way, would always lead to.
	Some of my atheist friends out there.
	My religious friends are winning that argument by looking at Sam Harris, is that they would think of themselves as gods and deities.
	And you see this in the legal context and that people are saying, the law is what I say it is.
	It's like the judge in the Alex Jones case.
	Well, I understand you think it's truth, but I determine truth.
	You don't determine truth.
	And I say it's a lie, so that's the end of the story.
	That kind of mindset.
	And it reflects and infects so much over it.
	About so many of these different aspects.
	You see that in the vaccine context, where thankfully, Robert Malone, there was two pieces of news.
	Steve Kirsch was lied about by Media Matters.
	So Steve Kirsch, big in the tech space, had a lot of success, went into the COVID space just wondering what's going on, and exposed a lot of problems just being the data nerd that he kind of naturally is.
	As part of that, there's been all these attacks on him.
	But he goes on Fox News.
	He says, look, I think the vaccine is causing these kind of side effects, these kind of injuries and risk of fatalities, and that it's reflected in a wide range of data.
	He sourced and cited all that data.
	It includes data from insurance adjustment reports, from Wall Street studies of those reports, from all cause of death reported dates from a wide range of places, the correspondence of those to the timing of the vaccine and when the deaths occurred, which age group it's occurring in.
	And just tons and tons of data from a wide range of sources.
	So Media Matters says Steve Kirsch headlines.
	Steve Kirsch lies about the vaccine causing deaths.
	So as he has published, he challenged them and said, hey, that's liable.
	I'm going to sue.
	All of a sudden, Media Matters discovered Truth Jesus momentarily and had to issue a correction.
	And a retraction and a quasi-apology to Kirsch.
	So credit to Kirsch for fighting back and protecting his public reputation.
	Because now you see, it says Fox News guest claims the vaccine is killing hundreds, right?
	All the word lie is gone.
	The word falsity is gone, etc.
	The editor's note is like, well, you know, a lot of people disagree about this.
	This is media matter.
	David Brock group.
	They love to lie and libel people.
	And suddenly they back.
	And why do they back down?
	Because Steve Kirsch was willing to fight back.
	Now, the other person who's fighting back in this context is Dr. Robert Malone.
	Dr. Malone has filed suit against the Washington Post.
	And this goes to something that's called gist, defamatory gist.
	So in defamation law, you might make a lot of statements that by themselves are not actionable.
	They might be protected opinion that don't infer any factual information.
	A lot of people out there...
	Like in Steve Kirsch's case, there might have been some assumption that saying Kirsch lied was a protected opinion.
	It's not.
	U.S. Supreme Court determined some time ago in a parallel case that if you accuse somebody else of lying, then that can be liable unless you have a good faith basis.
	In other words, you are not acting with reckless disregard of the truth that they're a public figure or negligence in the case of a private figure.
	That, in fact...
	They knew what their statement was was untrue, so it was a multiple-level libel.
	Robert Malone brings gist defamation claims are meant...
	It's so weird to see that dog without all this hair.
	I'm still not used to it.
	I know, I can imagine.
	The gist of defamation claims is that when you read the article combined, or you read a sequence of articles about someone that specifically identified...
	That's a requirement in every place except Alex Jones.
	It's one of the many Alex Jones exceptions to the Constitution that they've done to screw him over.
	Is that the gist of it is you come up with a factual conclusion.
	In other words, you conclude some fact about this person that's not true.
	So Malone's point is you look at all the attacks on him, and they're meant to suggest he is deliberately giving people information.
	That is based on fraudulent studies and false information, lying to people in a dangerous way that puts his licensure at risk, not just his public reputation.
	And the gist is that he's lying and he knows he's lying.
	He's like, that's all a lie.
	He details his long history of medical expertise in this field, in this area, specific to mRNA, but not limited to mRNA.
	And so he's brought a good, robust suit against the Washington Post in Virginia courts.
	For the defamation libel that occurred, good for him on fighting back, and it has an above average chance if he gets an impartial judge to proceed to the discovery stage of the case.
	I want to see if I can bring up, it might be too complicated, just to bring up the editing war that went into the Wikipedia page of Dr. Robert Malone.
	Was he the...
	Co-developer, the co-inventor, or the inventor of mRNA, and they used his statements in interviews to try to discredit him as actually having had the role that he had in the development of mRNA vaccines.
	Washington Post, I mean, they're going to have the easiest defense in the world, Robert.
	Well, we're not doctors.
	We couldn't have known that what we were saying was false.
	And he's the doctor, and he knew what he was saying was true, but we were calling him the quack.
	The liar, fabricator of evidence, misinterpreting stats, lying about his credentials.
	But we couldn't have known any better.
	We're just journalists.
	When are they going to overturn or clarify Sullivan versus New York Times?
	Well, I hope they don't.
	I think that he has actual malice evidence here.
	It was with reckless disregard for the truth, the statements that they made.
	They will most likely argue opinion.
	They will most likely argue that all of these statements are...
	I think that's tough because they use words like fraud.
	They use words like dangerous.
	They use words like deliberately spreading misrepresentation.
	They had to go further to defame and destroy them, and then the process did, in fact, legally.
	Defame him in a way that's not constitutionally protected.
	So I think if he gets a conscientious court, he'll get to discovery.
	I'm sure there's even more embarrassing information there.
	And hopefully that he's able to establish a correction of the record.
	At a minimum, deter people from continuing to defame him in other contexts.
	And it's the beginning of many fightbacks.
	So a lot of doctors have joined.
	The states that have sued the Biden administration over their collusion to censor information that's pending.
	Some people have asked me about that.
	They've joined the existing suit we've talked about, pending in Louisiana, brought by the attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana.
	They're right now going to be deposing Anthony Fauci and others that was authorized by that court.
	So we'll see where that goes on the collusion side of the equation.
	But a good suit brought by...
	Robert Malone has to get past the perception that these are opinions rather than facts inferred by those opinions.
	I think he has enough to get past the motion to dismiss and to get into discovery to prove the malevolence that was likely behind this that will be disclosed and divulged and discovered.
	For the time being, only against Washington Post, not against other outlets yet?
	That's correct.
	Only against the Washington Post.
	Who's his lawyer?
	Do you know?
	It's the same lawyer represented Devin Nunes, so there's some controversy about that aspect, but the suit is a pretty well-crafted suit as far as I could tell.
	Now it relates to a wide range of news about the vaccine in the legal world this past week.
	There's the good news and the not-so-good news, depending on your interpretation.
	I'm going to show everybody just his look into it.
	There you go.
	That's it.
	You can see his blind eyes right there, everybody.
	So he can't see at all, the dog?
	It's unclear.
	He might be able to see shadows, but now everybody can see the hair was not covering up functional eyes.
	It's like milky marbles.
	Okay, yeah, sorry, sorry.
	So, go on, Robert.
	What were you saying?
	Oh, so on the vaccine cases, the one out of Maine...
	Which played an extraordinary game.
	The federal courts in Maine are just atrocious.
	I've been before them on other issues for over multiple years.
	So what happened in Maine is the state mandates that healthcare facilities require the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment.
	The state mandate does not carve out an accommodation for religious objections.
	Does for medical, but not for religious.
	So the hospitals and medical facilities deny They fire people who sought religious accommodations to the vaccine mandate.
	They file suit.
	The federal court played a circular game.
	The federal court's argument was, well, the medical facilities are mandated to do so, so it's a reasonable accommodation for them to completely fire you because they would lose their licensure under state law if they didn't fire you.
	But the state also can't be sued under immunity grounds.
	So they're using this as a pretext to overtly and openly violate Both the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, using this game of who's responsible and who's accountable, much as they kind of did in the nursing home context.
	They order certain things in the nursing home.
	Nursing home leads to deaths that are unnecessary.
	Then they immunize the nursing home, but you can't sue the state.
	So you can't sue anybody for the harm.
	That's what the federal judge in Maine did.
	Now, that would go up on appeal.
	I think her First Amendment interpretation is completely wrong.
	This is a judge who didn't want it, but this is a judge who got away with not giving an injunction initially.
	On the grounds that don't worry, there's monetary damages available.
	Then it came around monetary damage, like, oh, no, no, no, no, actually, there never was.
	The question was this.
	So I read that order.
	What I couldn't understand is, did all the claims get dismissed or only certain claims against some of the defendants?
	Did any portion of that lawsuit survive the motion to dismiss?
	I don't think it did.
	Not that I recall.
	Because it was it was it was actually it was crazy where they're saying these people, you know, the claim does not survive immunity or not sovereign immunity.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Yeah, immunity.
	Yeah, it doesn't survive immunity, sometimes sovereign immunity.
	And they said it and it's it's it's logical.
	It's rational because above and beyond medical accommodations, which are there, you work in the health care sphere.
	So it makes total sense because, again.
	Well, that's when you saw the judge's political bias on the issue.
	Because the issue is whether or not there's grounds to discriminate against religion when they're not discriminating against medical people.
	There's medical accommodations, but no religious accommodations.
	So it's a flagrant violation of just the Supreme Court's decisions over the last two years.
	So hopefully the Supreme Court takes it up and reverses.
	Maybe this will be one of those cases.
	They had an opportunity to fix this at the beginning, and instead they've sat back.
	Now, on the good side...
	The military whistleblowers have come forward to Senator Ron Johnson, and he wrote letters demanding information about it.
	What the military whistleblowers are disclosing is that the military has been doctoring and mislabeling the COVID vaccine as being the one that has a biologic license when they're taking actually the bottles for something that's not biologically licensed and sticking a different label on it.
	By the way, it's a crime in America, federal crime and state crime.
	And so a bunch of different whistleblowers have come forward, commanders, colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, you name it, and were part of this letter demanding a full investigation into this extraordinary criminal misconduct.
	In my view, if Republicans are smart, this does meet the definition of an impeachable offense.
	It's a federal crime.
	It's a federal felony.
	It's a federal crime that cannot be remedied by waiting for an election.
	And those are the two grounds you need to impeach.
	This is grounds to impeach Biden, impeach Secretary of Defense Austin, maybe also impeach Vice President Harris, depending on the detail of her knowledge.
	So that's happening there.
	Big win, as predicted, for the Marines.
	In the Florida case, I said it's only a matter of time that sooner or later the federal judge in that case was going to grant an injunction, and he did.
	He said there can be no more religious discrimination.
	In the vaccine mandate context within the Marines.
	So this means federal judges in Texas have issued an injunction on behalf of the SEALs, stopping the Navy from discriminating against them.
	A federal judge in Ohio has issued an injunction against the Air Force, preventing them from discriminating against their Air Force members.
	And now a federal judge has done the same for United States Marines.
	So that was a very big win.
	It's part of a pattern of winning.
	And in the same pattern of winning, United Airlines.
	Which got an appeals panel to say that, yes, you can get injunctive relief in the vaccine mandate context because you're being asked to sacrifice your conscience.
	Plaintiffs that said, I'm going to take the vaccine rather than give up my job, but that means I'm going to forfeit my conscience to do so.
	That is a cognizable claim under Title VII for emergency injunctive relief.
	They had federal appeals court panel, Fifth Circuit had agreed that that's the case.
	United Airlines asked for the entire panel to hear it en banc.
	Only four of the most liberal Democratic hack judges said they were interested in reversing it.
	I think it's 13 of the other ones said they're fine with the decision.
	But a very righteous concurrence written by the Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho.
	Who explained why this mattered and explained why it mattered in Broadcom and talked about how this is part of a weaponization of politics by private employers and others that is going to create problems and the courts have got to step in and stop it from occurring on the scale it is because it's violating people's religiously protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
	But it's a great opinion.
	I put up a highlighted version of the opinion at bebabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But that was a great achievement.
	In those cases, Tyson Foods case marches on.
	I'll discuss it probably more next week, but we filed some reply briefs this week, and I'll be discussing it at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Also, we're filing tomorrow our opposition to Pfizer's attempt to dismiss the whistleblower action brought by Brooke Jackson exposing their fraud in the clinical trial context.
	I'll also be discussing that later this week after it's filed at...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com So, Robert, I mean, it wasn't on the menu for tonight, but it's something relevant.
	Children's Health Defense booted from Facebook and Instagram on the same day.
	No explanation, no cause given, just four and a half million followers between the two platforms.
	Done and done.
	Any recourse?
	Are they thinking about...
	Alex Berenson is going around pretending he invented the wheel with the idea of suing the government over collusion.
	Because the only discovery he has revealed from the Twitter case is a slack discourse.
	These government people and other people always forget, never in writing, always in cash.
	But disclosing that the Biden administration was demanding that Twitter take down Alex Berenson.
	So he's talking about filing a collusion lawsuit, First Amendment violation lawsuit.
	But his suit only has any chance at all if...
	Robert Kennedy wins his children's health defense suit against Facebook and Instagram that is currently pending and the other government actors based on detailed evidence of government collusion.
	So the fact that Facebook and Instagram is escalating against Robert Kennedy, against children's health defense, is further testament that they're willing to do whatever the government asks them to do in this context.
	The key is, does the Ninth Circuit step up to the plate and issue meaningful remedy?
	If not, nobody else has a chance in the Ninth Circuit.
	And it most likely would have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court because Kennedy's case is, again, the tip of the spear.
	But it's due to the success of Children's Health Defense and the success of Robert Kennedy that they are having to resort to these extreme measurements because people are seeing everywhere what Steve Kirsch documented.
	In detail, his Vaccine Safety Research Foundation has been shut down.
	Kersh has spent most of his life as a liberal Democrat big donor, right?
	That's who he is.
	That's who they're going after.
	Robert Kennedy, the most famous son of the most famous Democratic political family in America.
	That's who they're going after.
	It tells you just how nuts this sort of gatekeeping censorship collusion is.
	But, you know, we'll see how it ultimately unfolds.
	In that capacity of trying to weaponize the legal system, one of the great threats is the 87,000 IRS agents that are about to be unleashed on the American people.
	But a big, big ruling came down this week that dramatically reshapes the IRS's power to do what they're used to doing.
	Go with that one right now, Robert, and then we're going to get into...
	Well, there's a couple of smushmortion cases that we should get into.
	So what's the dealio in terms of reining in a potentially weaponized and armed IRS entity, a body?
	So the IRS for a long time has used various what they call John Doe summonses.
	Those are summonses that go to third parties, banks, other record-keeping entities.
	And they often get a bunch of records that concern you as an ordinary person, but you never find out.
	Under the law, you're entitled to bring, if they issue an administrative summons to various third-party entities.
	This is not a judicially approved process.
	It's an administrative summons issued by just some IRS agent.
	And what happens is banks and third-party record keepers turn it over all the time.
	What's supposed to happen is it's supposed to notify you that the target of your information is being sought.
	And you have a right to go to court and bring a petition to quash the summons.
	On whether it's bad faith or a range of other grounds.
	They've been circumventing that with John Doe summonses.
	Because then you don't get noticed because they don't disclose who it is thereafter.
	It's just a massive phishing expedition.
	They did this years ago with Coinbase.
	And Coinbase, a Bitcoin regulatory entity.
	Well, not a medium of exchange for Bitcoin and storage for Bitcoin.
	Turned over massive records on their clients and customers, and those clients and customers never got a chance in many cases to fight it in advance.
	In addition, there's a bunch of other provisions that are outside the Fourth Amendment, and this goes all the way back to the LaSalle decision of 1979, where the IRS convinced the U.S. Supreme Court, don't worry, we won't abuse our administrative summons powers, and the federal court should enforce our administrative summonses because they're not self-enforcing.
	They're not a judicial branch.
	So people think that when they get a summons that it's a judicial summons or a judicial subpoena.
	It's not.
	These IRS summonses are just administrative summonses.
	They haven't met any meaningful legal process.
	Supposed to have all these internal rules.
	They don't enforce them at all.
	Often issued on bogus grounds and in questionable ways to targets that shouldn't be under scrutiny at all.
	They get around it.
	During this stage, because they said, don't worry, we will never mix our civil and criminal divisions.
	We won't be running disguised grand juries as civil cases, what they call eggshell audits.
	We won't do any of that.
	They've been doing it all the time.
	They have these fraud technical advisors that intermediate between the two that run disguised criminal cases as civil cases.
	And the federal courts have done a lousy job of enforcing their violation of these principles.
	They also use something called the Anti-Injunction Act.
	To get around a lot of other things that they do illegally and seizing people's information in violation of either First or Fourth Amendment rights or revenues.
	Or maybe in some context or in some cases Fifth Amendment due process issues.
	The Anti-Injunction Act was designed so that federal courts would not get in the middle of actually assessing the tax or collecting the tax.
	So if there's a lien, if there's a levy...
	If there's a notice that you owe a certain amount of money, that you have to go through the IRS's internal procedures to get resolution.
	You couldn't go to court to get it.
	It's even worse in some states, by the way.
	Like, take California.
	California can go and steal your money out of your bank account claiming you owe money, even though you've never had an opportunity to dispute whether you owe the money at all or whether that money is related to actually you or not.
	They require you to pay the money, and then you can file suit for a refund afterwards.
	Or they get to seize it, and then you can complain after the fact.
	And that can take years to go.
	So in the federal system, it's at least not that bad.
	But basically, what they were doing is anytime they were seizing information, they would say, oh, this is part of our assessment task.
	This is part of our collection task.
	So magically, they're outside the First and Fourth Amendment.
	A lot of us have been saying for years, that's nonsense.
	That assessment is just, hey, you owe a bill.
	Collection is just a lien or levy, period.
	Anything else, information gathering, doesn't matter if the purpose is assessment, doesn't matter if the purpose is collection, is governed by the First, Fourth, and Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as may be applicable, but particularly the Fourth Amendment.
	So somebody brought suit.
	A federal court of appeals this week said, yes, the Anti-Injunction Act does not exempt the IRS from these lawsuits.
	The IRS can't.
	If what the IRS is doing is information gathering, it's not notice of an amount due, it's not a notice of a lien or levy, Then the IRS is as subject to the United States Constitution as everybody else, and you can sue them for First Amendment violations, Fourth Amendment violations, Fifth or Sixth.
	Big, big win against IRS power.
	Probably the biggest win federal court ruling against the IRS since my trial verdict with Wesley Snipes.
	Well, but Robert, is that distinction in the case not somewhat illusory?
	How are they ever going to distinguish, in fact, What is collection?
	What is procedural?
	That's why they made it clear.
	It's only collection if it's a lien.
	It's a levy.
	Those are actions.
	You issue a lien.
	You issue a levy.
	You say, here's the amount due, the assessment.
	If it's anything else, it's subject to the same constitutional rules because that's information gathering.
	So any summons is now subject to federal civil rights suit.
	Any subpoena is subject to federal civil rights suit.
	Any obtaining information, notices, letters, Privacy Act violations, telling other people who are under investigation, which is illegal under Section 6103 of Title 26 of the United States Code.
	All these things back fully in court, full civil rights remedies.
	And it probably didn't hurt that the court was considering this at the time they were adding 87,000 IRS agents to the payroll.
	And also, everyone out there, just so you know, there's a video on Twitter of armed IRS agents in training going in.
	Apparently, that's not what the video was.
	Apparently, it was some other day of training, nothing to do with the 87,000 IRS agents.
	And there was like role-playing for a bit.
	So be careful before you share that video.
	I think there's more context that might make it not what it was passed off as.
	Okay, so that is good, Robert.
	So people have some rights against the IRS.
	Screwing their lives in ways that are beyond repair in many respects good.
	Does it get appealed, however?
	Oh, that was the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
	I don't see the U.S. Supreme Court taking it up.
	The IRS may try, but then they could lose big, even bigger.
	So it's a ruling likely to be continually upheld and enforced.
	Good.
	Now, the one that I thought was very interesting, Robert, I think it comes out of the...
	Oh, where was it?
	United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
	Again, that's why I thought it was sounding familiar.
	The abortion.
	I want to say whistleblower because it sounds like whistleblowing.
	It sounds like undercover investigative journalism.
	And I don't understand how the decision got to where it was.
	It's an older case about...
	I guess not abortion activists.
	Yeah, well, exposing the Planned Parenthood.
	Yeah, but what do they call this?
	It's pro-life activists.
	Had set up a booth, set up a shell corporation, got into this conference where Planned Parenthood gives a private conference to however many thousands of attendees, but they make them all sign NDAs.
	Contracts that you're not going to record, you're not going to disclose, you can't share the information.
	It's almost like going to a Hillary Clinton.
	Fundraiser on Wall Street.
	You can go in.
	You just can't repeat it ever again, and she sure as hell is not giving you the transcript of her speech.
	So they sign NDAs.
	You can't record.
	You can't share.
	Otherwise, diffuse.
	Yada, yada.
	It's an undercover operation.
	Apparently, they're not journalists.
	They were actually journalists.
	They just said it doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So they record.
	They then publish the videos that they obtained in this sting operation.
	They incorporated a shell corporation, posed to some agents to say, we want to go in here and offer our services.
	Let's see what you have to say.
	They got an injunction, let's say Planned Parenthood entity, to prevent the dissemination of these undercover recordings.
	And they won.
	And then, from what I understand, if I understand the procedural posture, they republished some of the video.
	In order to counter some of the criminal accusations they were facing.
	And then they were found to be in contempt of court for violating the court order injunction not to publish or otherwise disseminate the videos.
	And it was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
	And basically they said you can contract away your First Amendment rights of freedom of press.
	And so as long as there's some sort of contract in place, you can't whistleblow on what you see your witness.
	Which is contrary to a bunch of other law.
	That's why it's an unpublished short decision because they don't want anybody re-reviewing it.
	They know they're just making up the law at this point.
	And it's because they're politically prejudiced.
	I mean, the district court judge who presided over this was crazily prejudiced against them.
	This was, by the way, this was the people who uncovered that Planned Parenthood...
	And other related groups were selling baby parts and other things like this.
	For a long time, the media was allowed to lie about their reports, saying, oh, they didn't prove that.
	That's just fake news.
	Why?
	Because a federal judge that was preventing them from publishing the evidence that proved it.
	That's what was going on.
	So there's Orange County.
	Other people followed up on that.
	It is not meaningfully in controversy that abortionists have been involved in the illicit sale of baby parts.
	And it has been going on for decades.
	And they wanted to cover it up.
	Federal courts helped them cover it up by suppressing, doing prior restraint, which is not supposed to ever happen, a trial proceeding that was not an impartial proceeding.
	And by the way, the individual involved, the undercover Project Veritas-style reporter who detailed this, very Upton Sinclair going into the heart of the jungle.
	It turns out the only mistake those big meat factories made was not having Upton Sinclair sign an NDA.
	If he didn't sign an NDA, you would have never found out what was going on in those factories.
	Almost every company requires NDAs.
	This would preclude anybody from ever publishing whistleblower information.
	It is a ridiculous ruling by the Ninth Circuit because it's politics.
	If their politics was different, I mean, animal slaughterhouse videos have come out about this kind of stuff all the time.
	They almost all sign some version of NDAs.
	No court has said that NDA is enforceable in that context because of the right of the freedom of the press, because of the right of whistleblowing.
	And so California has robust whistleblowing defenses.
	They just won't apply them if you're pro-life.
	They're still trying to put this guy in prison.
	He faces criminal prosecution in the fall.
	Criminal trial.
	A trial on his case.
	So I brought up two chats.
	One of them was the meme, Alex Jones was right.
	Because he talked about this.
	The other one was, I saw the footage.
	And Robert, now I think I'm recalling this.
	Some of this footage was very late-term procedures.
	Some babies still in the, is it called the embryonic sac, I believe?
	Like, that late development.
	It was extremely disturbing video footage.
	It was, I forget.
	Chat, who was it that shared it on Twitter?
	She's an activist in the industry.
	I forget her name, but someone's going to know faster than me.
	And for anybody out there who thinks Robert's being hyperbolic, that they sell tissue, this was one of my genuine black pill moments.
	Not just that they sell the tissue.
	I never even knew there was a market for this.
	But the market has parabolic curves in terms of pricing, depending on the lateness of the development.
	Of the tissue, if I'm speaking in code.
	Shocking stuff out of nightmares.
	Like, people might know the movie, the Serbian film, and think, like, that's over-the-top horror.
	Reality is worse than man's worst nightmares.
	I'm just looking to see if anyone in the chat...
	Lila, I think that was it.
	That sounds right, but hold on.
	Lila Rose.
	Lila Rose, there you go.
	Those were the videos.
	And the ninth...
	I didn't know it was unpublished.
	It was just so preposterous.
	They said, well, you're a journalist.
	You purport to be.
	You're an undercover whatever.
	You signed an NDA.
	Well, that's great.
	There goes whistleblowing on the government because you all sign NDAs.
	There goes whistleblowing on the media.
	You all sign NDAs and you sign non-disparagement.
	Contrast it to Trump.
	Trump had everybody sign NDAs.
	Not a single court would enforce them.
	So it shows it's just pure politics.
	The Ninth Circuit playing pure politics with this case because the individual involved is pro-life and exposed the abortion industry and the scandals related to it that shocked and horrified a lot of people.
	And this is an effort to conspire, to corrupt the process, to never have it happen again and then be exposed and to keep the truth from coming out to the public.
	And it gives a sense of the weaponization of the court process.
	A federal judge in Florida is stopping DeSantis' anti-woke law on the idea that teachers and others, state employees, have a right to indoctrinate our kids and talk to three-year-olds and four-year-olds and five-year-olds about topics they absolutely should not be talking about because that's free speech.
	That's free speech.
	Exposing the abortion industry, chopping up babies and selling them for parts.
	Oh, that's not free speech or free press.
	But demanding to teach five-year-olds about whether or not they're a girl or a boy, that's absolutely free speech.
	That's how nuts our courts have become.
	Robert, it's a bizarre universe.
	There's no other way to discuss it, or there's no other way to think about it.
	I just want to see if we had a Rumble rant.
	First of all, we're near 5,000 on Rumble.
	We were over 15,000 here.
	That's 20,000 people.
	I don't want to say taking black pills.
	I hope we're all getting some...
	White pills, or at least some motivation.
	But there was a rumble rant that said, Andres Burzin said, Barnes for Supreme Court.
	Okay, we're running.
	Good people fighting back.
	So apparently a school counselor in Florida was going around telling people that a parent's child was of a different gender than was their biological gender and was giving them these trans ideology ideas behind the parent's back.
	Disguised as school psychological counseling.
	The kid ended up apparently trying to do some bad self-harm.
	That's only how the parents found out about it.
	Parents have brought a suit against the school and the counselor for doing this kind of activity.
	In Utah, on the other hand, they're saying that certain laws passed that limit the ability of men to participate in women's sports, biological men to participate in biological women's sports.
	It had to be set aside, in fact.
	The school policy could march forward.
	There's a lot of efforts by certain judges to impose their own ideological worldview.
	It's coming up in the abortion context.
	Multiple judges are stopping abortion laws from going into force on a wide range of excuses and grounds because they just don't agree with the reversal of Roe v.
	Wade.
	Well, so the Michigan case, I mean, that's one situation where I think I can understand the rationale for the injunction.
	This was...
	A case where there was a 1911 abortion ban law on the books.
	It was, from what I understood, suspended or, you know, it was superseded by Roe v.
	Wade.
	Roe v.
	Wade was overturned.
	And so they want to go back to implementing that outright abortion ban, from what I understood, had no exceptions.
	Not for rape, not for incest, nothing.
	The court says, look, we've had established law, at the very least, in 78. The legislature is going to go vote on this.
	By and large, it'll follow the will of the people if this court's going to respect the will of the people in this state if they get it right.
	If they don't get it right, they won't respect it.
	But it's going to court, so we're not going to overturn a 50-year precedent pending this.
	I can understand that, Robert.
	I mean, is that not a reasonable...
	I mean, the problem is, what's the only reason for a decision for a state law not being enforced?
	It was a Supreme Court decision that's now been reversed.
	There's no longer grounds to continue to enjoin that statute.
	So I understand the judge doesn't like the consequences because the judge thinks maybe the state in a couple of months will overturn that law.
	But that's not the judge's prerogative.
	That's the problem in all these cases.
	Judges are interfering under the loosest grounds because down deep they don't think this should be the law.
	And they are hopeful the legislature will reverse it or the people will reverse it.
	Rather than, but that's not their duty.
	Their duty is, what does the law say?
	The law says this is what happens.
	The constitutional restraint on it no longer exists.
	So consequently, that law can no longer be enjoined.
	And let the legislature do its job.
	And if it fails to do its job, the people will make a determination.
	But stepping in and saying, you know what, that law was passed in 1931.
	I don't remember any courts being concerned about all these emergency laws they used to justify all this extraordinary power, even though some of those were a lot older.
	Suddenly they care about when the law was passed, when it's on a topic they care about.
	So it's just not a good constitutional grounds for what they're doing.
	That's a legislative obligation.
	It should be left to the legislature to remedy.
	And that's, I think, the problem in some of these abortion cases.
	They just don't like the law and want to practically join it and hope that the public and the legislature and the local community will accommodate them at some point.
	I guess just one thing.
	I mean, I guess they could say legislature move quickly and they can also say if you don't like it, you can get in a car and drive to another state for the next two months so you're not actually absolutely precluded from it.
	It's not criminalized.
	You just can't do it here.
	Go to another state that allows it.
	I understand both of those arguments.
	And if they had a pro-choice majority in those states, those laws would have already changed.
	California has very liberal laws long before Roe v.
	Wade was overturned.
	New York, very liberal laws long before Roe v.
	Wade was overturned.
	Illinois, very liberal.
	What the judge is not being honest about is that in Michigan, it's a pro-life majority in the state legislature.
	Just doesn't like that fact.
	So it's pretending the age of the law creates an ambiguity that it doesn't create.
	So he can delay enforcement of it in the hopes that a pro-choice majority reverses course.
	But not admitting the reason why that law stayed on the book since 1931 is because it's what a majority of the state legislatures in Michigan wanted.
	Robert, I'm just going to do this real quick and hope that this doesn't get our entire stream copyclaimed.
	Someone had asked...
	What's the doody about?
	Alright, now kids, I don't want anyone swimming in this pool unless there's a lifeguard on doody.
	Doody.
	Diarrhea.
	Okay, that's close enough.
	We're not going to take more chance than that.
	That's the joke, people.
	You will never hear the word doody again and not think Peter Griffin.
	Doody.
	I didn't know that was about until you brought it up.
	Only last case I had was a university price-fixing case.
	The elite universities, in the name of need-blind admissions policies, have been manipulating and fixing the price.
	And there's a federal law that allows them to meet together and be an exemption from antitrust law as long as what they're actually doing is guaranteeing need-blind admissions and need-based financial aid.
	They were using that as a guise.
	to continue to discriminate against people still based on need and to fix the price of tuition to coordinate amongst them so they would not be competitive either with prices for tuition or competitive in reaching out to need-based financial aid students while continuing to discriminate in favor of wealthy parents who could make big donations to the school which violates the very exception That would allow them to
	be even met in the first place.
	So a federal court denied their motions to dismiss and is allowing that price-fixing case to go forward.
	And hopefully what it will do is it will force them to return to need-blind based financial aid.
	Need-based financial aid and need-blind admissions.
	And for those that don't know what that means, need-blind admissions means you don't discriminate against poor people and admitting them into the school.
	Need-based financial aid means that you are committing...
	To meeting whatever gap there is between affordability and cost.
	So all of that will go.
	It's a case I was concerned with all the way back to Yale because I left Yale over protest about its attempts to reverse need-blind financial admissions and need-based financial aid.
	So the good case, hopefully it marches forward.
	This kid doesn't appreciate it.
	We're still alive now.
	You understand that.
	Okay.
	Your hair smells delicious.
	Okay, Robert, before you bring us out on a white pill, get your hands down here and cover your ears.
	Earmuffs.
	I'm not going to stop railing against what's going on in Canada because I'm so flabbergasted.
	I'm going to come back to it and I'm going to go back to Twitter to rail against it.
	10,000 medically assisted deaths represents 3% of our total death in 2021.
	That is to say, I want everyone to get out there.
	And if you find it shocking, retweet and tweet, tweet and retweet.
	Before Robert gives us the white pill to this minor black pill, 3.2% of Canada's total deaths in 2021 were government administered.
	And they might stand to save a lot of money by doing it.
	That's ginger ale, and you can have another one later.
	Get out of here!
	All right, Robert.
	Please end the stream on a white pill and lead us into the new week.
	Who's our guest Wednesday night?
	So, Matthew Millerman, a professor from Canada that studies political philosophy, has probably done one of the biggest deep dives into Alexander Dugan, the man who was targeted for assassination and whose daughter was killed yesterday, and a wide range of political philosophical topics.
	So he's in the interviews that we do of a range of independent intellectuals providing interesting thought on a wide range of distinct topics.
	And so that's who we have for Wednesday's sidebar.
	And I should say this, by the way.
	It didn't come out in the beginning of the stream.
	Jeremy McKenzie is going to be on at some point this week to talk about Diagalon.
	And tomorrow, Alex Stein, Primetime 99, coming on to tell us about his master trollery.
	But Robert, Give us some inspiration for people who might be discouraged by what they see around them.
	So, I mean, I think the success in a lot of these important cases, the fight back in a lot of these important cases is itself a white pill, but I'll give as an example, the white pill is a, I put out an invitation for people to apply to become interns and clerk for me for the following, for the next year with a lot of these big political cases people had over time said they would like to help, so I formalized that.
	And said, you know, if you want to help, you got, you know, five hours, 10 hours, whatever, I'll try to find a place to plug and play where we can collectively and aggregately use your skill set or labor to be able to improve the quality of our own work, but also ideally help educate people in the legal process in that process so they can become both better defenders of their own legal rights and others, whether they're lawyers or not, would-be lawyers or not.
	But in that capacity, someone sent in a...
	A request to potentially help out.
	But they told their own story.
	And their own story was a mother and a son.
	A son who was wrongfully raided by police, badly treated.
	They couldn't afford legal counsel.
	And so what the mother did is taught herself the legal system as much as she possibly could.
	And despite facing a rogue police force, has managed to get that case all the way to the stage where it's likely going to actually get to a jury trial.
	So it shows the sign self-education is self-empowerment.
	Self-empowerment educates and empowers others.
	And so that is my white pill, is ordinary, everyday people learning their rights, asserting their rights, defending their rights, that not only helps them, but also helps others by establishing worthy precedents.
	And that's what gives me faith about the American constitutional experience.
	Good enough, Robert.
	That'll at least get me through the night until I go back to Twitter and lose it again.
	Everybody, thank you all for being here, for spending another night with us.
	It's been amazing.
	Next week is going to be great.
	Robert, do you have any appearances on other interweb stuff next week?
	Not that I'm aware of, but maybe one or two will come up.
	It's been a busy couple of weeks.
	I was on Michael Malice last week.
	That was a lot of fun with Michael.
	So there might be one or two, but in the middle of a bunch of big cases at the moment.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Everybody, enjoy the rest of the weekend.
	We will see you tomorrow.
	There's three hours left of it.
	Go make the most of it.
	Snip, clip, share, but share.
	And that's it.
	Don't lose faith.
	Stay vigilant, stay civil, and maintain your humanity in this battle for our dignity and existence.
	People, enjoy the night.
	See you soon.

▲