Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 28, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:12:59

Ep. 126: Trump, Biden, Project Veritas, Vaccine Lawsuits & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Threats, violence, intimidation of any kind are always unacceptable, and this kind of cowardly behaviour threatens and undermines our democracy and our values of openness and respect upon which Canada was built.
	As leaders, we need to call this out and take a united stance against it, because no matter who you are...
	Who you love, the color of your skin, how you pray, where you're from, your gender.
	You deserve respect, and you deserve to live in peace without fear of threats or violence.
	Can you believe?
	Oh, look at him.
	He's so proud of himself.
	Look at that face.
	Is he frozen?
	And I can tell you, I, our colleagues on this stage, and indeed our government, will always.
	Fight for this, particularly true today as we celebrate pride in our capital city, but every day as well.
	Can you believe it?
	Well, I got to get to the highlight of that part.
	You deserve respect and you deserve to live in peace without fear of threats or violence.
	because no matter who you are, you love the color of your skin.
	Notice the only thing acutely missing from here is your vaccination status.
	Unless you're one of them dirty unvaxxed.
	A member of that cast.
	In which case, you don't deserve respect.
	You don't deserve your job.
	You don't deserve dignity.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Let me bring this up.
	I'm sorry to make everyone puke again, because I think people...
	The aggregate knowledge of the internet will get the proper joke at the right time.
	Now, hold on, just because I'm totally, totally neurotic.
	Audio's good, people, before I go on for another five minutes.
	If there's a joke out there, or if there's an astute observation to illustrate the egregious level of hypocrisy, The internet will find it.
	So here you have Justin Trudeau taking a selfie with the RCMP horse that's stomping an 80-some-year-old indigenous woman, if I'm not mistaken.
	Because there were two horse stompings.
	I'm fairly certain the one we're looking at here is an 83-year-old indigenous woman stomped by the horse.
	An RCMP horse.
	And Justin Trudeau's...
	I was going to say Luftwaffe, but that's not the word.
	Let's just call them stormtroopers.
	Started off by lying about that.
	They said someone threw their bike at a horse.
	It was an 80-year-old woman, an indigenous woman, if that changes anything, you know, from what Justin just said, with a walker trampled by a horse.
	Luckily, she was out of the hospital soon.
	You got that picture.
	That's not the picture I'm looking for.
	Okay, you know what?
	Hold on.
	I'm going to go back to my...
	To my Twitter feed, because I think, depending on who you follow...
	You know what?
	I'm not going to get it.
	Forget it, buddy.
	What I was going to play was the video of Justin Trudeau.
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	And his French speech, where he says, these people are taking up space.
	What did he call us?
	A small fringe minority with unacceptable views.
	A small fringe minority holding unacceptable views.
	This guy, by the way.
	Now, for those of you who don't know the context, because it's worth repeating, and I'll repeat it again and again.
	And like I'll always say, normal, decent people don't have to walk around condemning violence, condemning what is objectively inappropriate behavior.
	Normal, good people don't have to do it.
	Because it goes without saying.
	So when you get someone like Justin Trudeau, and I will say this, he's not a good person, in my view.
	When you get him coming out and saying, we must condemn violence.
	Someone called Christian Freeland today an effing B, and someone did.
	We must condemn this verbal assault.
	Well, first of all, you don't need to condemn it when you're a decent person, because it goes without saying.
	But when you condemn only this...
	Only some big burly dude in a white tank top approaching Chrystia Freeland, getting into an elevator, calling her an effing bee.
	When you only condemn it then, but not, for example, when you assault other journalists.
	Not, for example, when you berate 20% of Canadians.
	When you demean them.
	When you, what's the word?
	Not when you denigrate them.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	When you reduce them to...
	To vermin.
	Oh, there's a word for that.
	What's it called?
	What's the word called when you degrade a human?
	When you demean a human...
	When you deny...
	Not demonize.
	It's dehumanize.
	Thank you.
	When you dehumanize a good 20% of the Canadian population and you say nothing then and you only come out and say it when you're...
	Right-hand WEF partner in crime gets berated by some dude in some building.
	Your selective outrage is itself outrageous.
	When you only come out and call it out when it's one of your own, but then you dish it out when it's not one of your own, well, guess what?
	You're the problem.
	And so the video is of this individual in a white tank top.
	He looks like he's got a thick Canadian accent.
	Catching Chrystia Freeland as she enters an elevator and wasting the opportunity instead of saying, hey, Chrystia, how's the WEF treating you?
	Or shake her hand and say, hey, can you tell me the WEF handshake?
	Or trolling her like Alex Stein, primetime 99, would do it.
	Instead of doing it properly, The guy does it in a manner that's going to reflect poorly on him, poorly on everybody, and allow the victimizers to now pretend to be the victims.
	That's all that it does.
	This guy did it in a way.
	First of all, if you have to resort to calling people effing bees, you're not verbalizing your disagreement properly.
	It's like flipping the bird to someone in traffic.
	Okay, it might make you feel good in the moment, but it's not how rational people express their disagreements and express their outrage.
	And in doing it, on the one hand, you open yourself up to getting punched in the face when you give someone the middle finger.
	But you resort to calling someone an effing bee, great.
	It'll make you feel good in the moment, but it's going to reflect poorly on everybody.
	And now Krista Freeland, who I see.
	So congratulations.
	You blew it for everybody.
	You did something stupid.
	You did something objectively disrespectful.
	Not that people deserve...
	You could have shown the same level of disdain and disrespect in a humorous manner that no one would have been able to look at you and say, you're the abuser here.
	You didn't.
	You succumbed to your animalistic instincts in the moment.
	And whoop-de-doo, now Justin Trudeau gets to make it look like the small fringe minority holding unacceptable views are buffoons, barbarians, don't know how to express themselves, can't control themselves, and they need a government to do it for them.
	Now, someone in the chat said that we're not live on Rumble.
	That would be a problem.
	So hold on, let me...
	Are we not live on Rumble, people?
	So like I always say, people, and it's not to please the YouTube overlords, it's because it's strategically the right thing to do.
	No, we should be.
	We should be live.
	It's there.
	I'm not saying it to cover my ass.
	I'm not saying it to be controlled opposition.
	I'm saying it because it's strategically the way you actually have to engage in this type of ideological confrontation.
	Come out and scream effing B. Good for you.
	You look like a lunatic.
	No one's going to have any respect for what you have to say.
	And they're going to be able to write you off, write off everyone who might agree with you in principle, but not in expression.
	And congrats.
	You've set everyone back a fair bit of time for the cause.
	We are on Rumble.
	Okay, good.
	Yeah, because I see the thing in the back there.
	So that's it.
	Krisha Freeland now gets to claim to be the victim.
	Jagmeet Singh, by the way.
	Jagmeet Singh, who railed against pearl clutching.
	I'm not pearl-clutching anything.
	I'm just telling you, when you do something like that, when you go up and you had your moment to capture it on film, to embarrass Chrystia Freeland, and all you do is embarrass yourself, I'm not pearl-clutching.
	I've been called worse.
	I'm just saying, if your purpose is to make a point...
	Do you remember when Elon...
	Not Elon Musk.
	The other guy there.
	Beardy McGee.
	From Twitter.
	I'm losing my mind.
	Jack Dorsey.
	You remember when Jack Dorsey had his Twitter feed hacked?
	And instead of doing something insightful, something that would have been like, you know, satire-ish, but it would have been so subtle that people might not have known it was satire.
	They might have actually thought it was Jack Dorsey.
	Instead of using the fact that you just took over Jack Dorsey's Twitter, the CEO of Twitter at the time, you managed to hack his Twitter and you took it over.
	And instead of doing something That really would have awakened people and opened their minds by maybe suggesting facts that people wouldn't know and they would say, "Oh, is that true?" No.
	Whoever did it used it to drop the N-word.
	Congratulations.
	You're an idiot and you just blew the biggest opportunity you had to raise people's awareness to actual facts they might not otherwise have listened to but for the fact that it was coming from a hacked Jack Dorsey Twitter handle.
	So, do not hack, because I think these are probably illegal in certain jurisdictions, but once you have the opportunity and you blow it to be a child, the base is loaded, and you swing and miss.
	So that's it.
	David Lankford, I know that you're using caps, not because you're angry, because it's easier to read, and I know that you are legit and sincere.
	Being nice has really worked well.
	Well, you know what?
	Screaming effing B at Christian Freeland did not work any better.
	So, in the strategic ways to play this game, there are good ways to do it, and there are bad ways to do it.
	Yep, I wouldn't have wasted that chance.
	They hijacked...
	Jack Dorsey's Twitter feed, and they just used it to put out the N-word.
	Congratulations.
	As opposed to, oh, I don't know, let's just say, for example, had the Hunter Biden story been around, but maybe whatever the story was at the time, maybe publish that.
	And everyone's like, oh, interesting.
	And then they find out it's true.
	And then you've got to get Jack Dorsey saying, no, no, no, no, no.
	This is true, but my account has been hacked.
	So you've got to get Jack Dorsey.
	Apologizing for the truth on the basis of a hack to confirm that he's not the one spouting the truth because he doesn't want to, you know, get the email from Hillary.
	Oh, anyhow, so that's it.
	That's what's going on in the news, peeps.
	Yeah, we started the stream and we started with Turto again.
	We got Jagmeet Singh, the man who has yet to disavow potato filia.
	Jagmeet Singh still supports...
	Improper things with young people by virtue of the fact that he has yet to call out Justin Trudeau for posing in an intimate photo with a convicted potato file who did the most horrendous things humans can do to humans.
	All right.
	Big show tonight.
	Trump raid.
	Project Veritas.
	Madness.
	So many lawsuits.
	I've forgotten what I've already read.
	I feel like Homer Simpson, where he's like, Marge, every time I learn something new, it pushes something old out of my head.
	Remember that time I took the wine tasting course and I forgot how to drive?
	That's kind of what I feel like when I'm doing my homework with Robert Barnes.
	Now, it's going to be good.
	It's going to be fantastic and phenomenal.
	I'm neurotic.
	This is the good mic, people.
	Good mic.
	Good mic.
	Let me know.
	Let me just read the super chats and the standard intros.
	Met James on Friday.
	I think we're talking James Topp here.
	He's truly a remarkable man.
	He has invited me to speak alongside him.
	An offer I have accepted.
	We meet again tomorrow.
	Stay tuned.
	Chet.
	I will wait for the video of that speech, please.
	Trudeau always has this bad actor force smile, even in the most inappropriate moments.
	The way he paused after he said it, like he thinks he's winning an Oscar.
	Still paying back my CERB for being fired.
	My taxes owing for starting a business and my student loan for going to school.
	Yay, Canada.
	People didn't appreciate, some people didn't appreciate the CERB that anyone took, the 2,000 bucks a month, you had to pay taxes on.
	And I didn't know if this, I didn't know this is the case institutionalized.
	If you get fired, you got to pay back your CERB.
	Sometimes, you know, being the responsible adult doesn't, is not fun.
	Questions for Barnes.
	What are your cigars?
	Okay, we're going to get to this when Barnes gets in here.
	I'm going to leave that flagged.
	Wake up, Viva.
	You're attempting to rationally reason with people who have the same principles as Schmereris.
	Slammer, you might be right.
	What do you think I'm going to do?
	I'm not going to become as bad as them.
	Period.
	Although speaking of trying to rationalize with people, I try to engage.
	Someone called me a liar today on Twitter.
	I said, give me your best example of what I lied.
	And they give me an example where I was right.
	Another woman called me and said, my hate speech should be removed from YouTube or wherever, social media.
	And I said, give me one example of hate speech.
	This was a woman who referred to someone as an F-U-C-K W-A-D.
	Viva, don't sell the abusers short.
	They will always find a way to turn the tables.
	So Pasha Moyer, not a bad observation, even when you behave properly.
	And I think I do.
	I think I will call them pathological liars, raging psychopaths.
	Yeah, I'll call them names like that.
	I don't use the F-words.
	I don't use certain expletives.
	And I'm not dishonest.
	I don't accuse them of saying things they didn't say.
	And they'll still come out and say, Viva hate speech.
	Yeah, it doesn't matter.
	At the end of the day, I'm sleeping with my own conscience.
	Does the tweet from Defense of Ukraine about...
	I haven't seen that.
	I'm going to keep that there because maybe Barnes has seen it.
	What's the difference between left looking to rid society of unvaccinated calling them every name, but someone can't call her a biatch?
	So you're going to get railroaded as a gentleman playing.
	What did he accomplish, though?
	Ryan, what did he accomplish by calling her the word?
	Nothing.
	Whatever message he had, people in the middle who are the ones you're interested in convincing are not listening to that.
	So he had a moment.
	He had a moment to achieve something that would have swayed the people in the middle.
	And instead, he did something which is going to push the people in the middle into thinking the people on the right are crazy and unhinged.
	The people on the left is going to have no impact on them.
	So what did he accomplish?
	Nothing.
	He made himself feel good.
	For the first, you know, for two minutes.
	This is Bobcat.
	I'm not going to read this out loud, but it's an interesting observation.
	Western University is forcing students to take boosters to attend class.
	Yep, my brother and I are going to have to talk about this this week.
	Please help spread the word about the class action lawsuit from the Democracy Fund.
	You know what?
	I'm going to flag that and I'm going to try to pull up that article right now.
	It's, you know.
	Is that a turtle shell and arrowhead behind you?
	Hold on a second.
	This is a piece of petrified wood.
	This is a trilobite.
	That's a mass mortality fish plate.
	That's all we can see.
	Let's pull up, while we're waiting for Robert, let's pull up...
	People don't understand what's going on in Canada, and Canadians don't understand what's going on in the rest of the world.
	Western University Booster.
	While we know, while we know the statistics now, while we know the statistics, I'm going to call out...
	Western University like it's nobody's business.
	Global News.
	While we know the statistics specifically for certain demographics confirmed inadvertently by Kieran Moore, Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.
	We know the statistics.
	One in 5,000 per dose as confirmed by German authorities.
	Okay.
	For a specific...
	A specific demographic, not for everybody, not for the super old because their hearts have already turned, whatever.
	For a specific demographic, we know the statistics.
	They have been confirmed.
	The university, notwithstanding the science, notwithstanding the fact that certain countries are not doing this, University of Western Ontario is requiring...
	Is this the one?
	August 28th.
	Anti-COVID.
	Listen to this.
	They're requiring boosters for students.
	That demographic.
	A small risk, according to Kieran Moore.
	Small risk.
	One in 5,000.
	What are their risks for the Rona?
	No thanks.
	They're requiring boosters to go back to university.
	Anti-COVID-19.
	And by the way, now they're anti-COVID.
	Now they're anti-vaxxers.
	The people who know the statistics, they've heard the medical officers mention, specify, clarify them, confirm them.
	They're anti-vaxxers.
	Anti-COVID-19 vaccine mandate protests at Western University sees hundreds.
	If they say it sees hundreds, it probably saw more than that.
	Hundreds in London, Ontario, spent yesterday at a protest against the University of Western Ontario COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
	Demonstrators marched around the southwestern Ontario campus and listened to speakers denounce the school's decision to mandate...
	Booster doses of the vaccine for staff, students, and some visitors.
	You try to pretend there's science here.
	You try to listen to the science.
	We know the science.
	This is inhumane.
	I would say it's criminal because I personally believe it's definitely bordering on the criminal negligence side of things because we know the numbers.
	We've heard them.
	I don't need to play this for you because you've heard it a dozen times.
	Western is the only university in Canada to mandate booster shots for all staff and students on campus.
	How old are university students?
	Oh, 18?
	20?
	By the way, I used to play varsity squash, and we used to play against Western, because in Quebec, McGill was the only university that had a varsity squash team.
	We had to go play in the Ontario League.
	We played Western, U of T. Western, U of T. The other one there.
	Starts with a U. It doesn't matter.
	I'm going to forget it all.
	18. Some odd years old.
	Make him take a booster.
	A booster after a double.
	And we know the stats.
	How can it not be criminal?
	How can it be anything else?
	Can't be stupidity.
	It can't be benevolence and it can't be follow the science, people.
	All right.
	I see Barnes is in the house.
	And...
	Let's get this party started, and I'll bring up the other chats while Barnes leads us into the week with...
	Robert, you're looking good, and you're looking young again.
	You're looking younger every time you do this.
	Haircut.
	Haircut, yeah.
	I've got jokes, but I can't make them.
	But you trimmed your beard as well?
	Oh, yeah, yes, of course.
	When's the last time you cut your hair?
	Has it been a year?
	I think it's been over a year now.
	Wow.
	But I'm thinking, you're rocking the Bruce Willis, and I like it.
	Okay, what do you got in your mouth?
	What's the book behind you before we forget to do it this week?
	Unruly Americans, The Real History of the American Constitution.
	And this is a Monte Cristo.
	All right, and Robert?
	That looks like moonshine.
	Are you drinking moonshine?
	No, no, it's actually just ginger ale.
	I thought maybe you were really taken into Florida.
	You're like, yeah, I'm doing it.
	No, no, it's ginger ale.
	I've got ginger ale with ice.
	There might be something else in there.
	It doesn't matter.
	Not moonshine just yet, but they have some good moonshine at the liquor stores.
	You're doing the occasional promotional thing now, so maybe some moonshine people will reach out.
	I said, you know, as far as promos go, I don't think I could do alcohol.
	I couldn't do cigars.
	We'll see, but stay tuned, people.
	Gold?
	Yes, we can do gold.
	Robert, do we go?
	Okay, very briefly, on the menu tonight, there's...
	A trans debate, which is going to be fascinating.
	I've got an article to pull up just to enlighten people.
	We're going to start with Trump, Project Veritas.
	What else is on the menu?
	Lots of vaccine cases, mandate cases, the big whistleblower case against Pfizer, the Tyson Foods case, the case against the FDA's authorizing vaccines for young children.
	And then, so yeah, those are the big, so there's about a half dozen or so big federal contractor vaccine mandate case came down, D.C. case came down, a suit against Major League Baseball, in particular the Washington Nationals, was filed concerning their discrimination against a scout related to a vaccine.
	So a lot of cases on that front this past week, along with Trump, the Biden diary, Project Veritas, whether James O 'Keefe is facing an imminent federal criminal indictment, along with the trans cases, a case about grand jury secrecy related to the First Amendment, a Second Amendment case out of Texas concerning gun rights for young men and women to carry guns outside the House.
	And a few other cases, including one of my favorites.
	Well, there's a case against Oracle and a guy from Narcos, Mexico, shows up.
	Fred, one of the Ochoa brothers, had a case up before the 11th Circuit about what really took place in that case.
	Another, an extradition case that's up.
	But then we have a fun case for the week, which is Jack Daniels versus Bud Spaniels and what the meaning of that is for trademark law.
	It's fantastic.
	Actually, before we get started, Robert, do you have any news or knowledge of Gavin McInnes apparently being arrested and having not been heard of or heard from since Thursday?
	That's all I've heard.
	Elijah Schaefer published that.
	Showed him talking to police apparently live during his show.
	Left, didn't come back.
	And his understanding is that he has been in jail and has still been in jail.
	Based on what?
	Who knows?
	I mean, I think he still lives in New York.
	So that's the problem in living in any liberal democratic jurisdiction these days.
	Because he has no connection to January 6th.
	He has no connection to a lot of other things.
	So he's been falsely blamed for a lot of stuff that wasn't on him in terms of the problem.
	I haven't heard anything more than anyone else has from Elijah Schaefer.
	I haven't heard anything more either, so I'm just waiting.
	I saw Mark Grobert was posting a couple of articles to the effect that nobody's heard from Gavin McInnes in a while.
	If I look distracted, there's a frog on the window.
	And if nobody sees, they're like these, they're not glass frogs, but they're these tiny frogs that stick to the window, and they're fascinating.
	Okay, Robert, let's, I mean, they're all going to merge together, but let's start with the latest on the Trump raid.
	The redacted affidavit, which shows, it shows nothing.
	You got the David A. French's of the universe who are saying, oh my goodness, this, this, I came to the conclusion that he was...
	Illegally holding documents, and this affidavit confirms just that, and the rest they have to redact it for preservation of the investigation.
	Where do we start?
	What's your take on the affidavit that they released redacted?
	So, yeah, I mean, it was very redacted.
	So now the redactions itself has become a meme.
	Trump himself put out a meme that says, here's what they really found at my house in the raid.
	And it was, everything's redacted except make America great again.
	So, you know, even Trump was having fun with it.
	You know, Joe Biden falling up steps, up the redacted steps, things like that.
	I mean, that's going to become permanently part of the intellectual lore.
	The magistrate's logic.
	About his order for what he was going to release and not release was based on the legal analysis is the First Amendment and common right access to the courts, which he acknowledged that, in fact, courts have an obligation to be fully open and public and transparent to the public.
	That's who they're performing their duties upon, or for, supposedly.
	And that's counterbalanced by the interest of people's legitimate interest in privacy or the court's interest in functionality.
	I've never quite bought into the court's interest in functionality unless it's another constitutional right like a right to trial by jury.
	Otherwise, I've always found that to be very dubious because the whole point of the court's functionality is to be open and public and transparent.
	And so how can there be a conflict between the court's functionality and it being open, public, and transparent?
	But it's an attempt to elevate the interest of the state over the interest of those who give it its authority and from whom it needs ongoing.
	For its retained legal public legitimacy.
	But so that was the analysis.
	And ultimately, the court's conclusion was that the interest in secrecy concerning sources and concerning subjects, e.g.
	witnesses, was sufficiently compelling enough that only a redacted warrant sufficed.
	That was the least effective means by which they could...
	I'm sorry.
	The only effective means.
	There was no alternative by which they could protect those public interests weighted against the public's interest in public disclosure.
	And so I disagree with that analysis.
	Now, that is a very common analysis.
	That analysis by the magistrate is not abnormal or deviant from judicial tradition in America.
	Generally, they almost never release search warrants, period.
	Not the applications.
	Not the...
	Probably will cause affidavit.
	And we're talking pre-indictment, not post-indictment.
	Yes, correct.
	Now, I don't know if someone was being sarcastic in the chat where they said, come on, the redacted affidavit contained a lot of information.
	I don't know if they're being sarcastic or not, but look, we'll steel man it.
	The redacted affidavit, I think it was 95% redacted, but it had a couple of paragraphs that said, we tried to get documents back from Trump.
	He was not forthcoming, therefore.
	Well, they kind of, they didn't even say that, at least not in the unredacted forms.
	They say it's very embarrassing what they lay out as their basis.
	Their basis is that Trump left the White House, took documents with him.
	The National Archives asked for some of those documents to come back to them.
	Trump sent them back what they asked for to come back.
	When they searched what was in the documents that they got back from Trump.
	They considered some of the documents to be presidential records, the archives, and the archives considered some of the records to be classified records or labeled classified.
	Based on that, the same division that did Russiagate is the same division responsible here.
	It's Jay Bratt, head of the counterintelligence division of the National Security Division of the FBI.
	It's the exact same people that ran Russiagate.
	It's the exact same people that covered up for Clinton.
	I mean, it's literally the same division and the same department within the FBI that has been in charge of all of these cases magically and miraculously.
	So here they are.
	This is the deep state.
	This is the heart of the deep state in federal law enforcement, is this division of people.
	So that my original hypothesis that this was a deep state raid is confirmed just by who was involved in it, as well as a lot of what's coming out about what was searched for and what the grounds were, etc.
	But what they said is, so they said the archives go back through these documents.
	They identify some of them as presidential records.
	They identify some of them as classified or labeled classified.
	So then they reach out to Trump as to how he's guarding the other records, records he didn't send back.
	And they're secure here.
	There's a contract, and the Secret Service is protecting it.
	It had multiple locks pursuant to their request.
	Cameras filming it at all times, consistent with their request.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We'll be getting those memes for forever.
	And there was no issue, essentially.
	I mean, the only issue was when and where the archives would fund, and it was already budgeted monies to make part of Mar-a-Lago a secure presidential library facility.
	The rest of what's unredacted is, hey, this other stuff had stuff labeled classified, so maybe there's stuff labeled classified there.
	Now, what's of note is there's nothing in the affidavit, the probable cause affidavit, that gives any evidence that's at least the unredacted portion, that gives any evidence that they had any probable cause that there were records that were actually classified there.
	Instead, they said they were searching for...
	Presidential records without clarifying how are they making that determination when other federal courts have already said that's a unilateral decision for the president himself to make, the former president, not the current one.
	And secondly, they don't say anything is classified.
	They say they believe there may be documents marked.
	Or labeled classified, which is not legally classified.
	Every document that has ever been released and declassified has the words top secret and declassified.
	Just go to the FBI or CIA archives.
	You can go right now.
	The information has been released through FOIA over the years.
	It still says classified, still says secret, still says top secret.
	That has no legal meaning whatsoever.
	So it was a bit shocking to those people who wanted to defend this raid.
	Was how weak the unredacted portion of the warrant was.
	Because the assumption was the magistrate was unredacting part of it for the reasons you mentioned.
	To make himself look good.
	Well, this made him look like a complete crock.
	I mean, there was nothing in there that established probable cause to raid the records.
	Then you parallel that to the Trump suit filed this week.
	It wasn't the best.
	It could have been a much better, clearer lawsuit.
	But putting that aside, they requested a special master and a return of seized properties because they pointed out that they go through the whole history as well, and they provide better history than the search warrant affidavit does.
	In their history, they point out...
	The search warrant affidavit did include as an attachment, an exhibit, a letter from Trump's lawyers pointing out there is no presidential records and none of these records are classified.
	They don't rebut that anywhere in the unredacted portion of the affidavit.
	Nowhere is that.
	It's extraordinary because all of these criminal statutes that people are talking about requires that the person that makes it a crime to have documents all is that you are unauthorized.
	You're not an authorized person to have those documents.
	There's nothing in that affidavit that supports the idea that President Trump is not authorized to have his own record.
	Well, from what we've seen, the argument would be what's under the redacted part and how could you say that the president would not be authorized to have pretty much anything?
	I mean, that would be one of the arguments is who decides.
	Well, he's the elected head of the executive branch.
	So, I mean, the only thing really would be records that are right to be kept private by people.
	Certain tax records, certain court records, but not other government-created records.
	In other words, records created by a government agent that don't concern other people's private information is not records that would ever be excluded from the president's right to have.
	Now, let's assume.
	Let's just assume to steel man the redacted affidavit.
	Just to briefly explain my point there is all of these people's authority comes from the president.
	So the idea that the president couldn't have those records is constitutionally absurd.
	That's my point.
	Go ahead.
	Now, let's assume to steal madness like it's nobody's business.
	Trump had private tax records of his political adversaries that he was going to use for blackmail.
	Let's assume that's the case.
	Would the judge have not unredacted that?
	Oh, right.
	I mean, they claim nuclear codes.
	There's nothing in there about that.
	They claim defense information.
	In fact, what's in the unredacted portion is just the agent saying some of this could be you, could be clacked, could be labeled a defense record, but doesn't identify anything.
	In other words, they used the records he actually gave them to claim they were records that he still had that were like the records he had already turned over.
	I mean, this I'd never seen.
	I mean, it was a terror.
	It's a joke.
	Dershowitz.
	I get he wants to defend his fellow Jeffrey Epstein defender.
	Judge.
	I get it.
	I get it.
	You got your own conflict there, Alan.
	Cheap shot.
	Cheap shot, Barnes.
	I mean, I get it.
	But him continuing to defend this magistrate is embarrassing.
	No self-respecting criminal defense lawyer can defend this guy.
	This guy was...
	He issued a...
	It appears, by the way, according to the warrant...
	He issued this over WhatsApp.
	Okay, I was going to ask you that.
	Facebook may have actually had a copy of the search warrant.
	Robert, someone noticed that.
	I don't know if crypto lawyer or was it the umbrella guy who was the first to recognize this, signed via WhatsApp.
	I'm going to say, what the hell?
	Because what the hell?
	Even when I sign a document digitally, I take a screen grab, I edit, and I use my finger on editing software.
	I don't go through WhatsApp, which necessarily means Some entity has that, but how on earth, like, how on earth the magistrate is not sitting at court for this?
	Are they sending it to him at home?
	In which case, could they not have found any other magistrate, not necessarily one who had just recused himself from a file for conflict two months earlier?
	I don't think an honorable magistrate would have signed this warrant.
	Because this was so weak.
	Unless there's something truly explosive and extraordinary.
	In the redacted sections, the unredacted is absurdly weak.
	And as Trump's suit, as Trump's legal claim pointed out, there was really no basis for this to be searched or seized.
	That the understanding of privilege was woefully inadequate in what's in the warrant.
	They suggested there might be...
	They didn't recognize any other privilege.
	They didn't recognize the possibility of executive privilege.
	They didn't recognize the possibility of other forms of privilege that can exist between accountants, between other professionals, etc., medical records, you name it.
	They didn't acknowledge any of that.
	And the only thing they acknowledge is maybe there's attorney-client records, but we'll just have our own little taint team handle that.
	That's always been a crock.
	And so they requested a special man.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's appropriately named, frankly.
	The idea is that they won't be tainted by.
	The investigators won't be tainted by illicitly obtained information.
	But that's always dubious.
	But so they wanted a special master to review everything, but they pointed out there's much more here than attorney-client privilege.
	There's presidentially privileged documents, which are presumed privilege, that have to be proven to have been effectively waived or otherwise they're executive privilege protected.
	And so all of those records, so basically all the records need to be revoked from everyone who's ever looked at them, returned to the special master.
	Nobody should be looking at them until and unless the special master conducts an independent review.
	That suit has been filed also a return of...
	It's beyond any doubt now that they seized far more documents.
	Not only was the search warrant already overbroad in saying, how are the FBI officers executing the warrant supposed to determine what is and is not a presidential record?
	That's not clear at all.
	And it's clear by what they seized, there were no limits.
	So they just seized everything.
	That they thought might be between those four-year time periods, including passports.
	Well, we saw what they seized.
	It's everything and anything.
	But Robert, Trump files this motion to appoint a special master.
	First of all, past his prologue, we saw exactly what happened in James O 'Keefe when he got a special master.
	The FBI...
	Had already had the information that was the object of the special master in front of Judge Torres, but didn't tell Judge Torres that they still had access to it via other means.
	And so they appointed a special master, which was a subterfuge, or it was basically concealing the lie that they already had and still retained access to the very same documents.
	What are the chances they didn't already see everything, mirror everything, and a special master is purely illusory?
	I mean, in terms of its ability to get a remedy, in that sense, there's always that risk once they've seized it.
	But it's an evidence against them, their ability to ever use it in any subsequent proceeding.
	So that's its particular benefit.
	But the federal judge who's presiding over it...
	is looking at, as already said, likely to appoint a special master.
	And so the media spin was, oh, that's a Trump appointee, which is interesting.
	The same media keeps telling us Democratic appointment doesn't mean anything, but Republican appointment is very significant when everybody knows it's been reversed, frankly, for quite some time.
	Republican judges will, with some degree of regularity, vote opposite their party's interest.
	Democratic judges never do.
	And so that's the other thing Dershowitz is not wanting to admit.
	He's not wanting to admit democratically appointed judges are hopelessly partisan biased, not wanting to admit that his fellow Epstein defense lawyer is a corrupt hack, which he is.
	I mean, Dershowitz doesn't figure it out that the Rothschilds were setting him up and introducing him to Jeffrey Epstein.
	That's why he thought Jeffrey Epstein was legit.
	The Rothschilds introduced him to him.
	He still hasn't processed.
	That was a setup, pal.
	Which he still hasn't figured out yet.
	But the warrant is very weak in its justification.
	There's nothing in there that shows...
	They needed to show two things for probable cause.
	One was that Trump had documents that he was not authorized to take that fit within certain federal record requirements, presidential records and defense records.
	And secondly, that he knew so.
	That he had intentional, willful evidence that he was doing something.
	They have neither.
	At least in the unredacted portions of the affidavit.
	So to the degree the magistrate was trying to show people that the unredacted portions, that it was a legitimate raid.
	It was not.
	And the fact that he clearly ignored glaring red flags just from the portions of the warrant that are unredacted, that should have been red flags for him not to handle the case, for an actual constitutionally appointed judge to handle the case, and that this is a warrant that never should have been signed off on, period.
	And that at a minimum should have been drastically...
	Limited and restricted and shrunk.
	None of which he did.
	Of course, he shouldn't have even presided over the issue over this warrant issue.
	The redaction.
	To decide what should remain redacted.
	He's kind of conflicted by already signing off in the first place.
	So you're asking him to second guess his first logic, which he's never going to want to do.
	So I think there's always conflicts.
	I always think a different judge should handle the issue of a return of seized prop.
	Any post-warrant issue should not be handled by the same judge who signed the warrant.
	Because it's just a conflict of institutional interest in that regard.
	But he, of course, was conflicted directly because he'd already recused himself.
	And at this point, he knew that this was an issue.
	Now, when Trump filed suit, he was the same magistrate magically assigned the case, but that case has to get a district court judge assigned as well, and the magistrate was basically begging for him to be assigned, and Trump said, no, thank you, and has been very critical about this magistrate, and is having the judge handle the case instead, the actual constitutionally appointed judge.
	It looks like the judge already gave indicator the judge will grant the special master.
	Of course the judge is going.
	It's too late.
	It's purely illusory, and it's useless.
	But Robert?
	The question that I was just about to ask.
	Darn it.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	When it comes to probable cause, it requires more than an affidavit that says we have probable cause.
	The affidavit has to contain the facts that allow the judge to come to the conclusion that there's a reasonable probable cause.
	So they got to allege a lot of stuff and not just say we have probable cause, rubber stamp it.
	And when it comes to the warrant, it has to be specific and circumscribed.
	And not a general warrant, which is what this is.
	It is evidence that he had committed all the elements of a crime, number one.
	And number two, that because it's the president, that why this was the least intrusive means under their internal rules and protocol for making the warrant reasonable.
	And that neither is there at all.
	In fact, the evidence from what Trump has filed is that they didn't have that evidence and that this was just a desperate deep state raid to seize and steal records that are most likely embarrassing to them that have nothing to do with even the archives referral.
	It's not clear the archives were actually looking to escalate this in the way...
	This division of the FBI chose to escalate it.
	And for those that, like, people don't, oh, it's, you know, these property, these documents may not have been secure.
	Again, declassified personal records that don't have to be secure.
	Secondly, that the security had already been approved of, vetted, and vouched for by the same people who raided him.
	Third, the Secret Service is securing it.
	Fourth, they'd already agreed to enhance facilities with a payment contract for it.
	And last but not least, it's a lot more secure than where Bill Clinton and Barack Obama stored documents.
	I mean, they stored.
	Undisputably presidential records, undisputably classified records, records Obama had not declassified, records Obama admitted were presidential records, and they stored them in an unsecure facility in the suburbs of Chicago for months on end.
	People need to understand this.
	This is at Mar-a-Lago.
	Trump is a former president, 24-7 security, already behind lock and key, paper documents.
	Same here at Mar-a-Lago that's been considered a secure facility now for more than four years because he was a secure facility while he was president.
	This means SCIF access.
	This means all kinds of hyper levels of security for records.
	It's preposterous.
	Like I said on the Twitterverse, anybody who is willing to ignore the FBI, the steel dossier, number one.
	They falsified evidence to try to get Trump with Carter Page.
	What was the other one?
	The Russia hoax.
	This is the same FBI.
	And now people are saying, well, they must have their reasons.
	I mean, you have to be totally ignorant or totally dishonest to lend the slightest bit of legitimacy to any of this.
	Now that you've seen the redacted or the unredacted affidavit, which, like we said, it shows nothing.
	It leaves so much to guess.
	That maybe you'll have to think the judge had good reason.
	It shows nothing.
	It's preposterous.
	And now they're going to make a special master when this information has already been gone through, made mirror copies of.
	The risk for the special master is that you have an independent judge overseeing the proceeding that exposes the scale and severity of the misconduct and it mucks up.
	Procedurally, their ability to quickly escalate this case if they were actually ever seeking to do that.
	I don't think they were, but it also has that side effect.
	So it's a loss for the government if a special master is appointed, but it doesn't, as you note, reverse the problems of what they did.
	Okay, now I'm just going to go to Rumble for one second because I just want to make sure that we are currently...
	Oh my goodness, we've got 5,000 people watching on Rumble, Robert!
	Oh, you know, Rumble got a big boost from Andrew Tate!
	Andrew Tate!
	I think they announced something?
	Well, Andrew Tate...
	No, no, I think...
	Robert knows nothing.
	No, and neither do I. Andrew Tate put out a video Thursday?
	Friday?
	An hour and 13 minutes?
	No, that was his apology video.
	He was on Tucker Carlson, and he mentioned that he's going exclusively to Rumble.
	Because they will not cancel him for making a joke.
	Whether or not people out there think Tate's not a joke, he's a true misogynist with videos, whatever.
	He put up a video.
	Robert, it got like 100,000 views in 24 hours on Rumble.
	People are starting to appreciate.
	And Rumble, I think, was the number one or two app in a whole bunch of categories.
	Number one, all weekend long.
	Nuts.
	Good nuts, not salted nuts, not bad nuts.
	Okay, Robert, special master.
	It's a good segue into Project Veritas.
	We talked about it, I don't remember when, briefly, but they're going to try to indict James O 'Keefe, are they not?
	Yeah, so for those that didn't see the news, there was a plea of guilty entered by two co-defendants in the Project Veritas, well, the Biden diary case.
	It's still stunning to me.
	I never understood how this case developed like it did, and it's even worse when you hear the facts.
	So the facts are that a woman rented a house that Ashley Biden had previously been in, and she left a range of stuff, including her diary, that this person found it.
	Was probably shocked by some of what she read, which included Ashley Biden showering as a teenage girl with her father, Joe Biden, now the president of the United States, in ways she found disturbing and she herself considered part of her addiction to sex and drugs and other things.
	And so this individual decided to talk to other people about it.
	And ultimately, another gentleman got involved and got it to Project Veritas.
	And purportedly, they accepted from somebody, though it's not crystal clear who, $40,000 for the diary.
	So the question was, how in the world was this a federal crime?
	So the idea is that now taking somebody's diary without their clear approval, even if you think it might be abandoned property, and by law probably was, and selling it to someone else across state lines is now a federal crime worthy of massive investigation and prosecution.
	This has never happened in the history of America.
	Somebody find me, stolen diary leads to federal criminal charge case.
	So this is clearly the FBI acting as the personal guard, the personal Stassi of the President of the United States to cover up the scandal and corruption he was involved in.
	And just like the Hunter Biden laptop, we now have confirmation this was, in fact, Ashley Biden's diary, which means that shocking information of inappropriate child molestation, child abuse conduct.
	By the President of the United States toward his own daughter was covered up not only by the press, but covered up by the FBI, taking the lead on it and prosecuting those who are going to try to expose that criminality.
	And so both of these people don't have a lot of money, don't have a lot of resources, going up against the whole FBI and the Southern District of New York.
	Of course, they fold and capitulate and plead to whatever they're asked to plead to, which is a conspiracy to commit all these crimes.
	And again, the whole thing is just having a diary and giving it to someone.
	I mean, this is unprecedented.
	They're taking the Julian Assange-type precedent.
	And they're planning on applying it because if you dig into the plea deal and you understand the nature of the plea deal, it has a high sentence exposure for people that are not experienced through the federal criminal justice process and that there are open pleas that are based on cooperation.
	There's only one person they're going after.
	Anybody that can see this knows who they're going after.
	So it's clear that they have an intent to indict James O 'Keefe.
	On Julian Assange-style publishing whistleblower information, using, again, a loose, weak pretext of somehow money being involved.
	Again, you need money for everything.
	So if you can say any money exchange constitutes no longer First Amendment protection, you don't have any First Amendment protection because you have to spend money for a microphone, right?
	I mean, there is no First Amendment protection if money somehow magically erases it.
	That's what Citizens United made clear couldn't be the case constitutionally.
	But it's clear the Southern District of New York and the Biden FBI and the Justice Department intend, based on this plea deal, on indicting James O 'Keefe, probably before even the midterm elections, to try to limit his effect of his political impact.
	This will be the second time, of course, he's been criminally targeted by a corrupt Justice Department.
	I still encourage him to live somewhere other than the Southern District of New York, but that's up to him.
	But yeah, James O 'Keefe is highly likely to be indicted based on where they're going.
	A baseless indictment, by the way.
	To be absolutely clear.
	Baseless indictment.
	Just as baseless as the Julian Assange indictment.
	This is why some of us said, you know, Richard Grinnell was out there talking about how we need someone to clean up the swamp.
	Well, it won't be you, Richard, because you were the one who helped facilitate the entrapment and arrest and imprisonment of Julian Assange.
	So everybody knows, I mean, he would drop to his knees for Romney if Romney asked him for.
	He just got kicked off because he was gay.
	It's not because he wasn't a neocon at heart.
	People who think this guy's legit because he didn't.
	A few good things at the ODNI don't understand who Richard Grinnell is.
	He's a deep state chill at heart.
	But this is why some of us said, everybody that sat there and said nothing about the Julian Assange indictment, now it's James O 'Keefe.
	I mean, do they got to get to you before you finally be like, oh, golly gee, this is going too far.
	This is the same method, same premise, same structure.
	And he's, at this level, almost guaranteed to be indicted, but it is a baseless indictment.
	It's an attempt to criminalize political opposition and press opposition in America.
	So, two things.
	On the $40,000, from the plea deal that these two defendants entered into, they're basically saying, we were paid $40,000 for the stolen material and asked to go back and steal more.
	As if to suggest...
	Maybe it happened.
	Maybe they got the receipts.
	James O 'Keefe says, here's $40,000.
	Go steal more stuff and bring it to me.
	Moles.
	As if that happened.
	Maybe it did.
	But the question is this.
	There's no way it did.
	And by the way they're characterizing the evidence, they know it didn't.
	What they're going to say is they had these documents.
	They had them legitimately.
	The documents were abandoned.
	And when they had massive threats by the FBI in the Southern District of New York, they were willing to plea and say anything.
	But it's clear their real goal is to, one, their primary goal was to take this, not allow, to intimidate people.
	If you expose the crimes of the politically protected, then you will be, that's what really Trump was doing.
	He was documenting the crimes of the deep state operators themselves.
	Then you will be targeted by this political police force, which the FBI has always been.
	It's just more overt and partisan than it's been in the past.
	J. Edgar Hoover had a different set of political targets, but it was always a political police force.
	We're just seeing it now more glaringly because it's so one-sided and partisan in ways it didn't used to be.
	It used to be political just targeting dissidents.
	Now it's charging anybody connected that exposes any degree of corruption.
	Whether it's the Clinton corruption, whether it's the Obama corruption, whether it's the Biden administration corruption.
	Now, I want to pull this up because I also want to steelman this.
	Found, not stolen.
	Let's just hypothetically say it was stolen by the two defendants.
	Well, you'd have to have a couple of things.
	One is the problem is, were they lawfully entitled to be in the place they were?
	Yes.
	So then the only question is, were they lawfully entitled to take that diary?
	The diary was not part of the house.
	It wasn't furnishings that the lady had rented.
	And it was abandoned and left behind.
	Typically, that's abandoned property by law.
	The state, by the way, takes these things all the time.
	They take all kinds of things under the definition of abandoned property.
	But even if they weren't abandoned property, look at the logic of this.
	This is the same as Ellsberg.
	Did Ellsberg have legal authority to take the Pentagon?
	No, he didn't.
	By that definition, Ellsberg stole...
	The Pentagon Papers from the Pentagon, and thus the New York Times should have been criminally prosecuted for publishing it.
	Well, so that's the distinction.
	It's the same law in Quebec, like property of minimal value that's abandoned.
	You don't even have to look for the owner.
	But let's just steal, man.
	It was stolen by the two defendants who pleaded guilty.
	Robert, unless I'm mistaken on the law, even if they stole it, so long as they stole it with no aid assistance, abetment, or incitement from a journalist.
	The journalist can publish it with impunity.
	Well, let's contrast it to two recent examples.
	The New York Times published Trump's stolen tax records that they knew were stolen and arguably incited it.
	Is the Southern District of New York investigating them?
	Not only that, this week Politico published stolen tax records of donors to Nikki Haley's campaign.
	And the media is celebrating it.
	I mean, this is how openly partisan it is.
	So it's completely okay to publish so-called stolen or unauthorized access to data.
	If you're on the right political side, then you're rewarded for it.
	You're encouraged.
	You're incentivized.
	They really do incitement in aiding and abetting.
	But if you do it for the opponent, then you go to prison.
	I mean, it's so overtly partisan.
	So nobody can look at these two examples and say that we don't have selective prosecution going on.
	But from a First Amendment perspective, historically...
	You have to be really culpable, and I've always said that that's a problematic standard, that unless you stole it, I don't think you should be, if it's a matter of public interest, then you should be able to publish it and print it without being prosecuted for a crime, regardless of how you came about it, in my view, unless you yourself stole it, were in on the stealing of it, so forth.
	And so, by the way, this looks like it may have been also part of a trap at some point.
	And O 'Keefe figured it out, and that's why he gave it back and didn't publish it.
	As he figured out something's going on here that's AWOL, I'm going to call the lawyer up and say, hey, do you, or lawyer up, do you want it back?
	He doesn't, okay, I'll give it to the FBI.
	But I'm not going to actually publish it myself.
	But the, now note that didn't protect him, just like with Trump, if Trump's lawyers had said, screw you to the National Archives, these are his documents, personal declassified documents, you're not entitled to them.
	We'll negotiate a presidential library down the road.
	Then they wouldn't have had any grounds to try to do the raid.
	Trump's constant cooperation was constantly used against him.
	At some point, maybe he'll figure this out.
	This is why hiring former federal prosecutors, which is who all of his inside lawyers are, and I'm not talking about the lawyers that are on TV.
	Those are TV lawyers for him.
	So the lawyers you're seeing on TV are not the lawyers handling his actual case.
	They're just his PR lawyers.
	He's got some of the same people Steve Bannon hired.
	How will that work out for you, Steve?
	Did that end up being a good defense?
	The tendency of people targeted by political actors or in political cases hiring ex-federal prosecutors has been a constant disaster and debacle throughout the Trump tenure, ask General Flynn, and yet they keep making the mistake again and again and again and again.
	That's why they get where they're at.
	But the First Amendment grounds, to me, should be clear.
	That was the problem with, once they said, well, Assange didn't do anything illegal himself directly, but Assange incited someone to give him documents, helped someone get access to these documents, and magically that erased publishing privileges, that erased First Amendment protections, meant they were going to keep doing this, and it would always be selectively used.
	And that's what we're seeing and witnessing in live time.
	Now, it seems that a snake, Plaskin, It's unheard of as federal criminal prosecution.
	It's just...
	I mean, every journalist encourages people to get them to whatever documents they can, knowing that most whistleblower documents are unauthorized to be disclosed.
	So by this definition, every journalist who ever has published anything that was unauthorized to be disclosed can now go to federal prison.
	And that's what people are not realizing.
	They're just obliterating this, this, this protection.
	Well, and then politicized reasons.
	Material facts as well.
	James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas never published it.
	They seem to have gotten wise early on, tried to give it back.
	They are the ones who ever paid it.
	It's also, there's no evidence to know that he believed he was part of stealing anything.
	And it's not clear to me it actually was stolen.
	And again, this has never been prosecuted as a federal crime before, ever.
	Your diary?
	Somebody else has your diary?
	Well, I wouldn't distinguish a diary from any stolen property, but the issue is it's a stolen document, and the Trump tax returns coming from Mary Trump.
	Which are much more protected, by the way.
	And she has much higher levels of protection than an abandoned diary.
	And she admitted going into the law offices and stealing it.
	But no.
	And I'm sure there are people there encouraging her to get documents and information.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	They're saying if you do anything to encourage or incite someone to get documents and information, they can later say that their manner and means in which they obtained those documents was not legally authorized.
	That all then becomes stolen property.
	Stolen property of the government, stolen property of another individual, boom, federal crime, jail for 20 years.
	I mean, that's why this would shut down investigative reporting completely.
	People are not filtering through the full legal consequences of what they're doing in this case.
	Okay, I think we're good on this.
	We'll see where it goes.
	Let's just assume James O 'Keefe does get indicted, Robert.
	It's not as though he's going to be held in jail like the Jan 6th defendants.
	Well, it'll be in the Southern District of New York, so all bets are off.
	You never know.
	I mean, presumably, correct.
	There'd be no grounds for denial of bail.
	There's no grounds to bring a prosecution here.
	He committed no crime.
	All he did is commit a constitutionally protected activity that has become a crime under the Biden administration.
	But you'd have the judicial pool of the Southern District of New York, the jury pool of the Southern District of New York.
	All bets are off when it comes to those people.
	All right, what do we move on to now?
	I had a good one in the back of my mind.
	Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Let me just get a few chats here.
	Okay, so we've established this was a joke.
	Hey, Robert, can you talk about the fake electors thing in Fulton, Georgia?
	Is there any truth in the claims made by the Democrats?
	No, we talked about that before.
	Okay.
	No, that's the dispute we had before about the right to have your own slate of electors.
	To challenge and file an election contest.
	Okay.
	How can they be fake electors?
	It makes even no sense.
	There's no such thing as fake electors.
	There's your candidates.
	These are the other guys' candidates.
	Robert, this is the one.
	It was not on our menu, but I want to get to it.
	What Zuckerberg said on Rogan about the FBI in Facebook.
	What do you think his reason was for this?
	And who was the audience?
	Let's just get a little bit more 30,000 foot overview.
	Zuckerberg, for anybody who didn't see it, says, FBI comes to see Facebook about the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Says, we think this is Russian disinformation.
	You should probably censor it or look at it, you know, deal with it accordingly.
	And they do.
	Not as bad as Twitter, according to Zuckerberg, but they make sure that it sees meaningfully fewer eyes through their censorship.
	Robert, this doesn't make Facebook a public service or a government entity at large.
	But for the purposes of that specific act, does it not make Facebook a government actor?
	Well, you'd like to claim that, but right now the courts are saying no.
	So, I mean, the case that's going to determine this is Robert Kennedy's case against Facebook pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, because that's where the evidence is the strongest.
	So, much stronger than, like, Alex Berenson's potential case.
	And Alex Berenson was also on Rogan.
	Bashing Alex Jones again, of course.
	And this is a guy pretending that he invents things that he's never invented.
	He just does this repeatedly.
	But the biggest suit, the most critical suit, is Robert Kennedy's suit against Facebook for the Ninth Circuit.
	Unless he wins, Berenson's got zero chance of winning.
	Zero.
	I'm sure he'll go and fundraise off the suit again, just like he did last time.
	But so the problem is, right now, in order to prove state actor, you have to prove the courts are requiring you to prove the state literally directed it.
	Emails they're saying are not enough.
	Specific targeting they're saying is not enough.
	Collusion is not enough.
	Coordination is not enough.
	Incentivizing it is not enough.
	Saying that they'll revoke funding is not enough.
	Saying that you'll be subject to antitrust investigation is not enough.
	It's got to be...
	The federal government writes and says, you shall do this, this, and this by this date.
	And then pass a resolution in Congress to make it so.
	And then the president sign off.
	I mean, they're making a joke out of it.
	I mean, they're ignoring it because the federal judges are very protective of big tech.
	They have been ever since Section 230 was passed.
	They misinterpreted it to mean something it didn't mean.
	And ever since then, they've found every excuse possible to not allow you to sue big tech.
	Even as their political protection has been eroded.
	And I'm sure why Zuckerberg did what he did was to defend himself.
	Hey, we're just doing what the FBI told us to do.
	And remember, this was Trump's FBI.
	And again, this is partially on Trump.
	He didn't purge it, so his own FBI was sabotaging him.
	His own Defense Department was sabotaging him.
	His own CIA was sabotaging him.
	His own NSA was sabotaging him because he wasn't exercising his constitutional authority over those agencies.
	And now they believe that they are really governed.
	I mean, that's what the whole Trump raid is all about.
	It's about their assertion that, no, the bureaucracy gets to determine what's classified, not the elected president.
	The bureaucracy gets to determine what's a presidential record, not the actual president.
	The bureaucracy gets to determine...
	What happens and doesn't happen in civil and criminal cases, not the elected president.
	The bureaucracy doesn't exist constitutionally without the president.
	Its only authority is derivative of the president.
	And so it shows how dangerously absurd it is, what they're doing.
	But it's part of a pattern of behavior.
	Okay.
	That was not on the menu, but Robert.
	Oh, no, we got...
	Someone is smashing something.
	Can you stop doing that?
	Sorry.
	The wall is going to come down.
	Speaking of, can you stop doing that?
	We brought our claim that Chittles Health Defense against the Food and Drug Administration filed our opposition.
	They're seeking to dismiss the case on grounds of standing in sovereign immunity and that nobody can sue them.
	This is about the Food and Drug FDA authorizing the COVID-19 vaccine and saying it was safe, effective, and was a vaccine.
	For children under the age of 11 all the way up down to 6 months old.
	And that means, as the District of Columbia was trying to do until they had a setback this week, Institute mandates as to any school child having to get the vaccine.
	Also, the way Texas law works, a random adult can actually authorize somebody getting a vaccine in certain circumstances.
	And foster children are, depending on the FDA's own information, Because they are making their own determination as to whether to get the shot.
	And so they're being told by Big Bird and Elmo to get the shot.
	So we have brought suit saying that all of this was illegal.
	The emergency use authorization wasn't within the emergency use powers because there is no emergency facing young children from COVID-19 in America today.
	Secondly...
	And they didn't meet other preconditions of the emergency use authorization power in the first place.
	The FDA is claiming, as long as we call it an emergency power, you can't sue us.
	That's their theory.
	Our argument is no, whether you were right about whether it was an emergency power is always subject to judicial review, whether it's called ultra-virus action, and as well as APA, Administrative Procedures Act review.
	Then the other claim is that...
	Is that they are labeling and marketing this drug.
	That's what the FDA really is.
	It's a labeling and marketing agency.
	People think of it as a super scientific agency.
	It's not actually.
	It's scientists are there just to make sure the label is right.
	And they've been usurping their powers ever since.
	They were put in place because people used to send in across state lines, the beginning of the 1900s, they'd send a can in across interstate commerce to sell at a grocery store to some sucker or sap in another state that said, hey, here's some nice corn.
	And you open it up, and it's like onions.
	I mean, it's something that isn't at all what the label says.
	So the FDA came and said, well, make sure those labels are honest.
	And if they say corn, it's corn.
	Magically, that became the power to regulate all medicine in America, which was never supposed to be the case.
	In fact, Congress specifically said it's not supposed to be the case.
	Constitutionally, it's not a power they have.
	That's reserved to the states, the police power over medicine.
	But so our contesting is they're labeling this drug as safe.
	They're labeling this drug as effective.
	They're labeling this drug as a vaccine.
	All violated federal law, including their redefinition of the word vaccine itself.
	Violated federal law, that none of these things are emergency powers exempt.
	Go ahead.
	What do they mean by effective?
	Not trying to be tongue-in-cheek facetious.
	Well, at the time, they said effective meant it would prevent infection and prevent transmission.
	The overtime, they've moderated their position to say it means it will prevent or protect against hospitalization or severe illness or death.
	But they've said different things at different times, and what most people have heard, especially when they hear this drug called a vaccine, based on the FDA unilaterally, without going through the notice and comment process, without going through the citizen and petition process, the FDA unilaterally redefined the word vaccine in a way it's never meant in the history of man.
	And my argument, my argument in this case is that that very definition is a lie because it misleads people, particularly say you're an eight-year-old kid deciding whether or not you're supposed to get this shot, and you rely upon the government's agency.
	The government's agency saying, don't worry, it's safe.
	The government agency using Big Bird and Elmo.
	The government agency is saying, don't worry, it's effective.
	And then you see it's a vaccine.
	You're like, oh, I know what vaccines are.
	Vaccines prevent me from getting a disease.
	Vaccines prevent me from transmitting a disease.
	That's what the word vaccine meant.
	They had to secretly redefine it so they could effectively lie to the public because the public doesn't have that definition of the word.
	The public's definition of the word is, this prevents transmission and infection.
	So this is the FDA lying to the world, lying to Americans, trying to put...
	Kids as young as six months old in imminent risk of severe harm, which is being detailed and documented on a regular basis based on, you know, doctor data and falsified tests, as we'll get into in the Pfizer whistleblower case.
	And so consequently, they should not be allowed to continue to issue these approvals and authorizations saying it's safe, saying it's effective, saying it's a vaccine.
	And that's our argument.
	There's no immunity.
	Because this wasn't emergency powers that they were using.
	This was the misuse and misappropriation of those powers.
	And we're saying we do have standing to sue because they caused...
	What did the Children's Health Defense have to do in response to this?
	They had to re-educate the public to educate them on the facts that the FDA was lying to them about.
	So it caused a massive expense on the behalf of the Children's Health Defense, made more complicated by the FDA during this same time period.
	Telling Facebook to suspend and get rid of Children's Health Defense, to demonetize them, to take off their ads, to take off their posts, to take down Robert Kennedy Jr. from Instagram when he had almost a million followers.
	So that made it even more difficult and more expensive for Children's Health Defense to go out there and defend itself, and more importantly, defend the health of young children in America from this massive deception campaign by the Food and Deception Agency.
	And so that's known as injury.
	They also have injury under the APA within legally protected interest and within the ultra-virus standard for challenging under pre-APA law.
	Also, the individual parents face risk because at any given point, some of them are, one of them is a Navy chaplain that moves around.
	They may end up in a location where they force this kid to get a vaccine.
	And that's only possible because the FDA is lying about this drug.
	And the same thing, any Texas parent is at risk because some random person may, in the best interest of the kid, do it.
	And then we represent all the foster children in Texas who don't have any representation, who don't know they're at risk, who are maybe the most vulnerable and the most at risk because all of them can be injured because of what the FDA is doing.
	So this is a case that will be critical to protecting children now and going forward and limiting the abusive power of the FDA.
	Or the courts will continue to allow, in the name of emergencies, a massive exception to constitutional protection in public health in America.
	And we'll find out which way the courts are going to go.
	Well, so if I'm understanding it correctly or assessing it correctly, your biggest issue is going to be standing.
	You're going to say your standing is lost, not lost revenues, but expenses.
	Organizational resources, yeah.
	For the organization and then imminent risk of injury to these whole group of unprotected children.
	The imminent risk, I think, is at least that seems to be.
	More direct.
	The expenses are one thing, but Robert, I'm just going to bring this up.
	This is Albert Bourla.
	It'll tie us into the next subject.
	Real nice.
	Emergency uses of the vaccine have not been approved or licensed by US FDA, but have been authorized to prevent COVID-19 in ages six months and up.
	See fact sheet.
	Robert.
	Let me see.
	I just want to go back so that I have the full context.
	In June, we shared that we are developing a bivalent Omicron, yada, yada, yada, adapted vaccine.
	It's not in quotes, but it should be.
	I'm excited to update that we completed our EUA submission to US FDA today and plan to complete our EMA submission in the coming days.
	Robert?
	This is the problem with emergency statutes.
	Because all of this is being...
	I mean, they admit they cannot meet the biologic licensing standard or don't want a biologic license because of the liability that might trigger.
	And so they're all just constantly...
	I mean, here we are, what, two, two and a half years later, and we're still in an emergency?
	I mean, part of the statute says that Congress is supposed to reaffirm every six months.
	They haven't.
	I mean, there's just no grounds for this.
	What some of us said from the very beginning is in the name of emergency powers, they will strip us of all our rights and remedies.
	And they're still doing it two and a half years later.
	Here, they're doing it for six-month-olds who face no real risk at all from COVID-19.
	I mean, the risk is literally statistically zero from COVID-19, particularly the Omicron variant currently faces.
	Whereas they definitely face real risk from the so-called, from the drug, the so-called vaccine.
	And yet it's still being issued in the name of an emergency.
	I mean, it's ludicrous.
	And it's where it keeps going.
	Now, similar to the other case, we had a big brief due this week, which was on behalf of the United States, the people of America, by through Brooke Jackson as the relator and whistleblower against Pfizer and its related entities.
	Yeah, let me do this.
	One hour.
	We'll start at one hour, 15 minutes, Robert.
	I just want to bring up.
	I'm not saying I'm going to read every $100 Super Chat, but I'm going to read every $100 Super Chat.
	Condemns indict Trump and then try to keep him off ballot by claiming he is ineligible but on a state-by-state basis.
	Force Trump to fight on many fronts and overwhelming him by keeping him off ballots until after primaries, thus destroying his candidacy.
	No, no.
	That was, well, here's where Obama and McCain set the path.
	Because remember, there are issues about whether both of them were born, whether they were natural-born citizens of the United States, a constitutional requirement.
	For eligibility.
	And even a constitutional requirement for eligibility was found as not something subject to judicial review.
	So that all of them had to be on the ballot.
	So you can't keep someone off on those grounds.
	And it has to be constitutional anyway.
	But under that precedent, there's no grounds to do so.
	So Trump faces, even if they prosecute him, even if they convict him, even if he's sitting in jail while he's running for the presidency, they can't keep him off the ballot and they can't keep him from winning.
	That's why it doesn't really achieve that particular objective.
	And that's why I think this was a deep state raid meant to cover up things.
	And that's why the warrant is so thin.
	That's why they went in in secret.
	That's why they didn't want anything videotaped.
	That's why they hoped Trump would never disclose it.
	All the evidence since I hypothesized that this was a deep state raid for deep state documents, almost all the evidence has corroborated that hypothesis since I made it.
	And I think we will continue to find that's the case.
	Okay, now with that said, back to Brooke Jackson.
	Whistleblower lawsuit, Robert.
	Big news this week, and I don't want to mangle it.
	So what was the big news?
	I read it.
	I did my homework, people, but I just don't want to make a mistake here.
	Tell us why it's as monumental as I think it is.
	So, yeah, this is the case.
	This is the case for many reasons, but this is the case about the COVID vaccines, period.
	This case makes or breaks and shapes the future of whether or not we're going to have public health, democratic public health in America, period.
	Because what this case is about is Brooke Jackson, long-term involved in clinical trials.
	So contrary to Pfizer's lies, she has not been some anti-vaccine, anti-drug person her whole life.
	Totally false, just the opposite.
	In fact, she took the Moderna vaccine.
	She now regrets it, but she took it at the time because she thought the issues were unique to Pfizer.
	She didn't find out until later they weren't unique to Pfizer.
	But so she is part of the clinical trials in Texas for the Pfizer vaccine, the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
	What she witnesses is shocking at every level.
	I mean, the way I describe it to people is the standards were so low for basic clinical trials that you could walk in, if you just walked in on a random day.
	You would see needles sticking out of bags, and you could walk into the office, and if you're the janitor or just a random visitor, you could see people's medical information anywhere you wanted to see them.
	When you have that low standards, you can guess what their standards were for adverse events, what their standards were for blinding, what their standards were for all the medically consequential components.
	Their standards were so low that everything was a crock.
	Everything was a joke.
	Everything was bad.
	So she sees this.
	She's shocked by it.
	She reports it.
	And there's a proper protocol.
	As soon as there's an issue, freeze the trial.
	You don't move forward until you fix it.
	To whom does she report?
	So she reports to her supervisors.
	They report it up the food chain.
	And this was a subcontractor working on behalf of Pfizer, but Pfizer is, in the clinical trial context, responsible entirely for everything she did.
	So ultimately, she keeps reporting it up and up to the point it gets reported directly to Pfizer.
	She reports it anonymously to the...
	FDA.
	As soon as Pfizer finds out, Pfizer fires her.
	They never stop the clinical trial.
	They never fix the information.
	Instead, what do they do?
	They falsify, forge, commit fraud.
	They falsify their certifications.
	Because it's part of this process.
	And here's what Pfizer tried to do.
	And they've done this with governments all across the world.
	They've been trying to buy immunity by legal contract.
	So they cut a deal with the Defense Department.
	The Defense Department's going to be the institute giving out, not just to its own members, but across the country, to the COVID-19 vaccine.
	And so that first initial contract, which has been constantly up, was for almost $2 billion.
	In that contract, rather than the Defense Department trying to recreate, because this was during the Trump administration, rather than them trying to recreate...
	All the FDA requirements for what would be a safe...
	The Defense Department knows how to...
	This is a very unusual contract for the Defense Department.
	They're usually doing defense contractors with things they know about, military equipment, etc.
	What do they know about vaccines?
	What do they know about drugs?
	No idea, really.
	So they say, you know what?
	Before we issue you any check, you've got to go through the FDA process.
	And the FDA process included all these rules, regulations, restrictions, required all these forms be filed, all this documentation be kept, etc.
	All those rules exist for the ultimate purpose of making sure that the drug is safe and the drug is effective and that it meets the risk-benefit requirement for an emergency use authorization, which requires that the FDA weigh...
	The risk of the drug versus the benefits of the drug, and they should do so on an individualized, stratified level to create a risk chart so that medical care providers can give competent advice to people.
	But all of that depends.
	What people don't realize is the FDA doesn't do these tests.
	The private drug company does.
	They depend entirely on the private drug company, which funds large portions of the FDA's budget, to be honest and accurate.
	So it's always been a huge risk.
	You have people who are getting paid to get the drug through, not getting paid to be accurate, not getting paid to be safe.
	And here you have a drug that by law, the drug company would never could be sued for the injuries the drug caused.
	So all your incentives are skewed in favor of risk, rather in favor of reward at the expense of risk.
	And so that's how their contract works.
	By the way, the way FDA comes up, so she documents paragraph after paragraph, photo after photo, inside information after inside information, all the problems, that this was just a complete disaster, that you can't trust any of the records and information from the clinical trials.
	They did not meet any of the relevant requisite standards, regulatory or otherwise, that the forms themselves, forms that are designed to say, okay, I'm going to say under penalty of perjury this is true.
	I'm going to make a statement important to the government that this is true, meaning I can be personally, federally, criminally prosecuted if I lie, or it's false.
	So what do they do?
	They just falsify all of them.
	They forge it.
	They change the data.
	They change the documents.
	They change the information.
	They don't report accurately anything that was taking place.
	They hide it.
	They fire the people that reported them and ratted them out.
	And their legal defense isn't that none of those things happened.
	Their legal defense is, oh, we did a deal with the Defense Department, and the Defense Department just required the authorization to be issued.
	And that's it.
	It didn't require we comply with any of these regulations.
	So it doesn't matter if we engaged in mass deception of the FDA in order to get that emergency use authorization, because the Defense Department would issue the check once we got it.
	Who cares how we got it?
	So they thought they contracted their way out of the problem.
	And they were doing this repeatedly.
	Defense Department would say, we rely on the FDA, but the FDA wouldn't actually institute the mandate or write the check.
	So they would say, oh, you can't sue the Defense Department, or you can't sue, in this case, Pfizer, because of this sort of regulatory circular escape game that they're playing.
	So we filed about a 40-page brief in opposition detailing how the False Claims Act, which is...
	Colloquially known as the KTM Action, where an ordinary person is bringing a claim on behalf of the American people, saying this was fraud in the billions of dollars just directly, and it has impact into the trillions in terms of damages and penalties and fines and enhancers.
	But in the billions of dollars, the American people are out of money for something that was unsafe, ineffective, and not really a vaccine.
	Due primarily and principally to the lies and deceptions that the drug companies engaged in during the clinical trial process.
	And so this claim, they have moved to dismiss on grounds they can't be sued.
	Because of this circular contractual argument.
	They even claim, hey, we cut a deal that said you have to go to ADR and an alternative dispute resolution.
	So courts can't even hear this and juries can't even hear this.
	They think they can contract their way around the False Claims Act, contract their way around constitutional rights and remedies to judicial access in federal courts.
	And we'll see what the judge does.
	Legally, we have case after case after case that is pertinent and appropriate and applicable that shows we should win.
	I put up the entire brief at...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com so you can read it for yourself.
	The amended complaint with all the exhibits is also at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We should prevail.
	It took the effort of many, a whole legal team of people that have been working on this for months to put together this opposition.
	And the only question is whether the court has the courage to stand up to Big Pharma.
	And we'll find out soon enough.
	Robert, as you were doing that, as you were talking, I saw my grimace wrinkle getting longer and longer.
	Look at this, people.
	My anger wrinkle is right there.
	That's not a scar.
	That's just what I'm listening to, and I know more details than what you're talking about because I read the Robert F. Kennedy book.
	Listen to it.
	Okay, Robert, we're going to see.
	But now, someone said I'm ignoring the rumble rants, and I'm not.
	There was a $20 rumble rant that says, thoughts if you bought a college degree with your student loans and are unable to pay back that loan, you have been defrauded and the school must be forced to repay the loan.
	Lemon Law.
	John Mortensen says, Google America and it comes up with 12 billion hits.
	Go to the end of the search results.
	It shows 416 links.
	Doesn't show 99.996% of links.
	Does the same on any popular search room.
	I'm not ignoring the rumble rants, Robert, but you're making this very bad.
	I mean, on the good news, vaccine mandates in the District of Columbia, they're about to institute them for young school kids.
	They delayed the young school kids one until January because they lost their employee mandate on District of Columbia employees in D.C. court in front of a judge I've been in front of before, mostly for not following internal rules.
	It was another attempt of an executive agency to circumvent the legislative process, even at the level of District of Columbia local government.
	And so that was good news.
	And once they saw that, they pushed back and we were about to sue on the school vaccine mandate.
	And so they pushed back the school vaccine mandate to January.
	We'll be suing long before then.
	And so that was good news.
	The 11th Circuit made a very good decision, two-to-one decision, but affirming that the case that came out of Georgia, that indeed the federal contractor mandate for vaccines is a condition of the Procurement Act.
	It's a ludicrous application of the...
	Another executive emergency power usurpation, but in this case they said the Procurement Act somehow meant that you could institute a public health mandate on millions of millions of Americans.
	The majority decision, the correct decision, said no you can't.
	The Procurement Act doesn't authorize that power, period.
	So continued the injunction against the federal contractor mandate.
	For those plaintiffs and within the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, it clarified that it wasn't a nationwide mandate, but other mandates have come into play that have been enforced regard to that.
	So that was a good win.
	And then, oh, let's see.
	Then there were three other cases of interest in the vaccine context.
	Well, do we start with Moderna suing Pfizer?
	Okay.
	So look, I read the lawsuit.
	I read some analyses.
	I don't understand the technology side of this.
	Biontech versus Moderna.
	What I understand, Robert, is that Moderna in Texas, I didn't realize it was a very small company, so to speak, has been developing mRNA technology for a decade, over a decade.
	Messenger RNA technology, also known as gene therapy, depending on who you ask, whatever.
	I don't want to get into the medical side of it.
	They've been developing technology, which is novel technology never used in vaccines until COVID.
	COVID hits.
	Never let a good crisis go to waste.
	Nobody's exploiting the pandemic to change the new world order, except for the WEF.
	But they say, okay, we've got the technology.
	We're going to implement this for vaccine delivery system.
	Vaccine in the sense that most people understood it, but not necessarily the same way we do understand it.
	They said, we've got this technology.
	It's been patented for years.
	We're going to apply it to coronavirus vaccine applications.
	Because we're not greedy bastards, we're going to share it with Pfizer.
	I don't know if they shared it with anybody else.
	During the pandemic, we're going to share our patented technology so that other, for the greater good, for the benefit of society, can use our patented technology to develop a vaccine for COVID during COVID.
	They argue now, we're not in a pandemic, we're in an endemic, and not medical advice, this is from the lawsuit.
	Pfizer, which had been using it during the pandemic, is now using it for boosters, endemic, going forward, and they don't want Pfizer making money off their patented technology now, because they've gotten through the pandemic, they've done their social good, and now Pfizer's getting greedy.
	Is that about right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, that sounds right.
	What are the chances that they succeed?
	And what are the chances, as I joked on Twitter, That Pfizer's defense is that technology doesn't work.
	Well, that kind of suit can expose all kinds of things, as Peter McCullough and others have been identifying.
	So the most intriguing part for those of us critical of what's taking place here is what might come out of discovery and what might get published in that case about what was really going on vis-a-vis MRNA.
	And so Robert Malone, who originated...
	He was the key co-inventor of mRNA technology himself, was always a harsh critic of the idea of using this for this particular kind of product.
	And so people in the medical space were the ones most interested in seeing what comes out of this suit.
	So I think what comes out and flows out of the discovery and is published, related there too, will be the most interesting part.
	I'm just responding to Krauss.
	He says, I don't find it funny.
	Krauss?
	You gotta laugh or you gotta cry at some point.
	I think I'm a year out and I've been watching videos.
	Laura Lynn posted a video of embalmers showing what they're finding in young people who spontaneously die.
	I watched the video.
	I think I'm having a heart attack as I watch it.
	It's no honor among scoundrels.
	We'll see where it goes.
	I mean, this answers some of the questions people were saying.
	Oh, there was a patent for this stuff before COVID even hit.
	It sort of explains why there was a patent on some of the technology before COVID.
	And it might also just reaffirm other people's beliefs that big tech, big government, and big pharma were working, planning in anticipation of.
	That's one of the popular jokes is that Fauci may be resigning, retiring.
	But he left a little piece of himself in everybody's heart all around the globe.
	Okay, we'll see what happens to Fauci when he retires.
	And next year, if the Republicans take the House in November.
	The other two cases on the vaccine mandate, I have another case against Tyson Foods in Kentucky, where they're seeking to dismiss on comparable grounds, where they're claiming that telling someone, we're not going to pay you anymore.
	And we're not going to give you any of your benefits as long as you're not vaccinated isn't really an adverse employment action.
	That's one of their claims.
	Their other claim is, hey, we're really immune under federal law, but we're not liable under federal law.
	Our principle is if they were acting under federal law, then they're liable as federal actors.
	If they're not liable as federal actors, then they're not immune under federal law.
	They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
	And we filed our opposition to their motion to dismiss this past week as well.
	It was a busy week.
	Or thereabouts.
	And then another case filed on comparable grounds, and also in the Tyson case and in this other case, more people are starting to pursue a theory I talked about early on that some were dismissive of in the legal community.
	But we're seeing more lawyers see its capabilities.
	And this will transition into another interesting case.
	But it's the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
	The Americans with this and its various analogs.
	So the Washington Nationals have been sued by a baseball scout who had a religious objection to the vaccine, had natural immunity, so he had a medical objection to the vaccine, and was being regarded as impaired in being able to perform his job, and that's what the ADA laws protect.
	You don't have to be actually disabled.
	You just have to be perceived by your employer or the person discriminating against you as disabled, and you are as protected under the law as is someone who actually is impaired or disabled.
	The Washington Nationals have been sued by this baseball scout who pointed out the accommodation he requested was remote work, which is what the baseball scout already does.
	It's like he goes around and watches games outdoors.
	In reports, he doesn't go to an office every day.
	He almost never goes to an office.
	And this guy is being fired by the Washington Nationals, one of their best, most respectable scouts, one of the most loyal, most deserving employees, on the most ludicrous, absurd grounds, probably because of where this particular Major League Baseball team is located, Washington, D.C. But, speaking of interesting ADA interpretations, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week determined that you have a constitutional right.
	To demand public accommodations, state facilities, prisons, schools, and private employers treat you as a woman if you are a biological man who identifies as a woman, including requiring that they place you with other women, including that they only have you searched in certain ways and everything else.
	And that if you don't, if a prison doesn't comply, if a school system doesn't comply, an employer doesn't comply, then that they can be sued under the Civil Rights Act and the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, as treating transgender as gender dysphoria, as a recognized impairment.
	And consequently, the...
	Basically, and there's a constitutional right to this.
	The legislatures can't even try to change this or contest this.
	That's how extraordinary this was.
	Basically, a trans right to every potential remedy available, including remedies that...
	Because here's what it is.
	The ADA law, when they passed it...
	Said this doesn't apply to trans issues.
	This does not apply.
	You will not be considered impaired if it relates to trans issues, if it relates to sexual labeled diseases or impairments.
	No, no.
	We're not giving a special right so that pedos say they're now disabled and have to get special treatment and accommodations or trannies.
	But the court flipped it on its head.
	Robert, let me just ask this.
	What level court was this again?
	The Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the highest levels in the country.
	That was over 2-1 opinion.
	One judge mostly dissented.
	This sounds as preposterous as our Canadian parliamentarians discussing medical assistance in dying saying, if we don't offer it to kids and the mentally ill, it's discrimination based on age and mental illness.
	But Robert, I'm going to bring it up just because people should know this is not blind rage.
	This is substantiated outrage.
	This is just one of many articles.
	New Jersey trans prisoner who impregnated two inmates transferred to men's facility.
	Demi minor.
	I thought it said Demi Moore for a second.
	Bottom line, they're calling it impregnated in a great many circumstances.
	It's called involuntary impregnation, which has a certain word for it.
	What's happening is...
	This has happened repeatedly.
	Trans men get assigned to women's jails and prisons and commit sexual assault against other women inmates.
	And we're seeing case after case about it.
	They pretend this doesn't exist in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And they're now saying that if you're a prison, you have to.
	You have to put men where if they say they're women, you have to.
	In fact, because here they had the standard.
	The standard was you would be assigned to either the male, they separated by gender, and they defined gender purely by genitalia.
	They didn't even defend it by biological birth.
	They said current genitalia.
	That's it.
	The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said that is way too binary.
	Way too binary.
	Not only is that unconstitutional, that's grossly reckless and negligent of you.
	That's how they said.
	That when an officer did a search warrant or did a pat-down of the prisoner, said, well, he knew that she was a woman.
	No, he didn't.
	He said he believed him to be a man.
	Well, no, no, you couldn't believe that.
	I mean, this is the insanity.
	They're trying to create their own reality from federal court and use federal judicial power and the imprimatur of the federal judicial power to force it on everyone else to where you're going to have to pass an amendment to the Constitution to change it.
	It's just amazing.
	And you'll get it, Robert, will get accused of being anti-trans.
	The idea that trans rights, which is a biological male, in this particular case, Trump's a biological female rights.
	You had separated prisons as a matter of law and reality because of the issue of sexual assault.
	It's not a hypothetical.
	It's not a fabricated issue.
	It's a real problem, which is why to protect women prisoners, you had a separation not on gender.
	Genitalia is a good way to go about it because, I mean, I guess a fully transitioned biological male would not be able to impregnate.
	A biological female.
	But they might be able to still assault without leading to pregnancy.
	Other places have pointed out, a sign of a decaying culture is a sign that gets, that devolves into these kinds of trans-type issues.
	That is not the sign of a rising culture.
	That is the sign of a collapsing culture.
	To the rest of the world, when they see high-ranking government officials from the Biden administration who are biological men dressed as women, it does not impress them in Russia.
	It does not impress them in China.
	It does not impress them pretty much anywhere in the rest of the world outside of Paris, France.
	So, I mean, this is not a plausible, likable, appealable public presentation of power, nor is this a consistent with the Constitution.
	I mean, here the APA law was actually written.
	I'm sorry, the ADA law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, said this does not apply to gender identity issues.
	And yet the Fourth Circuit says, The law says, we interpret the law to apply to gender identity issues.
	And it's like, how?
	As the dissenting judge noted.
	And they're like, well, if we thought any differently, we'd have to call it the law unconstitutional.
	Even though there was no constitutional challenge pending in the case.
	They were just going to universally claim it.
	It's because you had two liberal Democratic women judges.
	They're both Democratic women judges.
	One Clinton appointee, the other Obama appointee.
	Who want to institute wokeism.
	Through the power of the courts, using the pretext of the Constitution and their deliberate misinterpretation of federal statutes to accomplish it.
	And now, on the good side, the Biden administration's attempt to force gender surgeries and abortions on religiously oriented medical facilities, including gender transition and certain trans treatments, was rejected by a federal court.
	A federal court in another place enjoined that, said, no, you can't.
	Force this.
	Title IX exceptions.
	The religious right, religious protection exceptions to this still apply.
	And you cannot force people who have a religious objection to such treatment to be forced to provide that as part of their medical care facilities.
	Just before we get there, hold on.
	The dog wants to say hi, which is why he was barking behind the door.
	You want to say hi?
	Yes.
	I want to bring this shot up because I don't want anyone accusing me of the suggestion.
	I didn't say, don't assume the impregnations in the Demi Moore situation involve.
	I don't.
	I'm just saying, in other cases, it does.
	And when the fake news liars that aren't ABCs...
	Do you really think a couple of women inmates couldn't wait to date the transvestite?
	I don't think so.
	When they specifically say impregnate and not engage in whatever...
	If it was an affair, they would have said an affair.
	That's my feeling as well.
	They would have said two inmates pregnant from an affair with another inmate.
	It's...
	It's like the media hasn't taken a side on this issue.
	Now, the Biden administration suffered another setback in their attempt to stop oil leases.
	Now, they played another extraordinary number of legal games.
	Now, it's one of the great Trump appointees, Terry Doty, down in Monroe, Louisiana.
	His name is Doty or Doody, Robert?
	Sorry, sorry.
	But this is the one who stepped in early on and said there are problems with the vaccine mandate, stepped in early on in a range of cases, and he stopped what the Biden administration was doing.
	So the Biden, and it revolves around the word stop.
	The Biden administration, Biden issued an executive order pausing oil leases.
	This is because a lot of, unilaterally, the federal government has claimed ownership over a whole bunch of land, particularly in the offshore jurisdictions that have oil, but also parks.
	Some of that, for some of us, is still controversial, but that's definitely another story for another day.
	Future meme-made t-shirt down the road, which you can get at vivafry.com, the other available ones.
	So if Biden comes in, he says, I'm going to pause.
	I issued an order pausing all the oil leases.
	Because it goes through this complicated process if you want to get an oil lease on any land that has federal government ties, whether it's offshore or onshore.
	And there's provisions for sharing some of the revenue with the states and so on and so forth.
	And a bunch of people actually have gone through all of these, almost got approval.
	Then it suddenly gets pulled by the Biden administration.
	So a bunch of governors file suit, including in Louisiana.
	Because Louisiana has particularly impacted a lot of offshore oil that impacts their state revenues.
	They're trying to clean up certain coastal issues, all the way back to the oil spill, etc.
	And they have real economic interest in jobs and other areas, tax revenues, in these leases.
	So they file suit saying this is an attempt to stop leases in violation of federal law.
	And the Biden administration didn't have the power to do what they tried to do unilaterally in the rest.
	The Biden administration comes back and says, well, we haven't stopped anything.
	We've just paused it.
	And the court can't review this for like 100 different reasons related to using the word pause.
	And the court was like, okay, I agree.
	There's some confusion about the word pause.
	What you did is you stopped it.
	You can call it a pause, but what you did was stop leases from going in that had immediate legal and economic impact.
	That is currently hurting and will continue to hurt these states in ways that is unrecoverable because the federal government has sovereign immunity from monetary damage suits.
	So he said this was a stop.
	We didn't buy any of the excuses about standing or judicial review power.
	He said you can always sue the president.
	Even the president's not governed by the Administrative Procedures Act.
	The president is governed by any ultra-virus action.
	It means that you did something that was outside of your authority to do in the first place and said that's exactly what the president did.
	And then all the cabinet secretaries are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, identified how it was violated in multiple instances.
	Again, it goes back to this recurrent theme of the Biden administration constantly ignoring all of the restrictions on administrative state power.
	Routinely not going through notice and comment.
	Routinely not engaging citizen petitions.
	Stripping the democratic participatory power from the administrative state entirely.
	Going past its legislative limits repeatedly and routinely.
	And then claiming the judiciary has no authority to review them.
	And fortunately, this federal court stepped up to the plate, said they're wrong, and stopped them.
	And thus, those oil leases are going to have to come back online and be back instituted soon enough.
	Robert, I'll bring this one up because this might be a hush-hush.
	And it's funny because I got a letter in the mail about this.
	Viva Barnes, do you believe in weather manipulation and that disasters can be artificially caused due to certain private technology?
	First time I ever heard of that was in the movie Sneakers, which is what we reviewed this week at VivaBarnesLaw.com.
	In one of the lines, Dan Aykroyd's character, he's talking to the ex-CIA character, Sidney Poitier.
	Great cast.
	Robert Redford, Ben Kingsley, River Phoenix, etc.
	Dan Aykroyd's a conspiracy guy.
	And he goes, by the way, did you know the CIA director was in Managua, Nicaragua on this date?
	And the CIA guy goes, yeah.
	And Dan Aykroyd's character, do you know there was an earthquake the very next day?
	You're not claiming we caused the earthquake.
	Well, I can't prove it.
	But you can't rule out anything when it comes to the government.
	Well, hold on.
	I want to go back to one of my conspiracy theories.
	Was there not a very government program intended to try to trigger precipitation by either detonating explosives of the sky?
	There was a whole thing about this.
	Well, they've been trying to develop weather weapons for forever, and how much they've actually succeeded is the only open question.
	There's no doubt there's been many, many efforts by intelligence agencies and governments around the world.
	To be able to influence the weather.
	That's been an obsession going back centuries.
	Good.
	I mean, people claimed to influence the weather who couldn't in order to get power, keep power, or seize power.
	So that's as old as the existence of governance itself.
	Robert, we did miss one.
	I'm just looking at my notes here.
	The procurement decision.
	Oh, that's the vaccine decision.
	Okay, so we...
	The only other big Biden legal news out of the week.
	Which was the third favorite or fourth favorite topic of our message board that directs, curates our direction for the show tonight, is student loans.
	The Biden administration, I'll let you update them.
	It's a cool $300 billion that they have yet to account for.
	It won't cause inflation.
	It won't result in tax increases.
	But they've basically forgiven.
	I think it amounts to $300 billion in what would have otherwise It gets repaid to banks, but I think it trickles up to the government regardless because of who guarantees those loans.
	But Robert, I mean, the question is this.
	People say it's unconstitutional.
	They can't do this in the absence of, what, passing something in Congress.
	Who would have standing to challenge this loan forgiveness?
	This is something that even Nancy Pelosi just last year said was clearly illegal for the president to do.
	And yet the president did it anyway.
	And so there's no question that if it got into court, it would be struck down as illegal.
	The question is here is what some of us have been warning conservatives of for a long time.
	The problem with the standing doctrine is that it eviscerates judicial review of some of the most problematic actions and invites political abuse, discretionary use to favor political partisan causes of the judges, judicial branches favored or disfavored against the disfavored.
	And that's why I've always been against standing is invented.
	The U.S. Supreme Court says there has to be a case or controversy.
	The word standing doesn't exist.
	It says case or controversy.
	It doesn't even say case and controversy.
	It says case or controversy.
	How is there not a case or controversy involving this?
	Clearly there is.
	And yet the courts pretend, no, that's not what case or controversy means.
	It means there's stuff we made up in 1920 that didn't exist before then, these claims.
	But be that as it may, The reason why Biden is doing this, aside from politically rewarding the strongest liberal democratic group, which is post-college young voters in America, the ones that most have student loan debt, are the number one democratic trending community in America.
	It's just a payoff to their constituency.
	No doubt about it.
	But the problem is, despite what the rumble ramp asked for and some of the super chats asked for, there really isn't.
	People that have looked at it don't see grounds whereby a court can say they'll be standing.
	And here's the other problem.
	Liberal judges will change their ruling of standing all the time to favor their cause.
	But here they're going to favor what Biden did, so they're all going to say no standing.
	Conservative judges have taken the bait on believing using standing will limit liberal misuse of the judiciary.
	It won't.
	It hasn't.
	But they're more likely to enforce standing.
	So consequently, you have almost no judges that will listen.
	And the problem is, who has been directly injured by this?
	This fits within, if Congress had done it, nobody could sue.
	So can they sue just because the president did it when Congress didn't do it?
	No.
	That's the short answer.
	I don't know of any court that will find or any comparable case where anybody can sue.
	So Biden will get away with it.
	But whatever you think about its policy, this clearly was illegal.
	This had needed to go through Congress.
	This is not something he has emergency powers, which by the way, here again, emergency power.
	Emergency powers to forgive student loan debt?
	What?
	I mean...
	Trump could use it to pause interest payments because the government was forcing people not to work.
	You could see a connection between emergency powers and pausing payments.
	You can't see a connection between emergency powers two and a half years after the emergency and completely reducing the debt by an arbitrary amount for selected groups.
	But let's just assume...
	How did this come to be?
	Is this an executive order?
	Is this something passed in Congress?
	It's an executive order.
	It didn't pass Congress at all.
	He came in through Congress.
	That's why he did it.
	So there's nothing that can even happen if there's a change in control in November.
	Yeah, this debt's forgiven.
	And it's going to be like DACA, that enough people will benefit from it.
	What future president's going to want to reverse it?
	And that's my next question is, even if you try to reverse it in 2024, if it's a new president, well, I presume then, if you try to reverse it...
	Going to the federal...
	I mean, nobody's...
	The only injured people are the taxpayers.
	And the courts have already said taxpayers don't have standing to sue as taxpayers.
	You don't have individualized damages.
	Right.
	And then if they try to reverse it...
	If someone tries to reverse it in 2024, will there not be what we call in French a droit acquis, like an acquired right?
	Well, you'll get all the trouble that Trump got into for trying to reverse DACA, which courts found every excuse not to do.
	And there'll be a lot of political pressure not to overturn it.
	So, I mean, it's smart by Biden because he promised he was going to do this.
	He delivered something to his core democratic constituency that was otherwise unsatisfied and unhappy with his administration.
	And he's praying they turn out to vote.
	I don't think it's going to translate that way.
	But legally, not much.
	I saw a lot of people saying, oh, this will get struck down in the courts.
	I'm like, no, the courts will deny the standing grounds.
	I don't see who's going to be able to sue the state governments.
	How are they injured?
	How are they going to show what's called an injury by a conservative judge?
	Because, again, you rule out liberal judges.
	They're going to want to approve it.
	So then you get to conservative judges.
	They're upset.
	This is why when conservative judges got obsessed with, oh, we'll use standing to gut judicial power, they didn't realize what they were really doing was gutting their own power, not gutting liberal judges' power because liberal judges were never going to follow those rules.
	And that's why you shouldn't go away from the Constitution to begin with.
	This ain't in the Constitution.
	Standing is a bad idea.
	This case should be a reminder of that.
	Well, I'm just trying to think.
	Can lawmakers not take it to court?
	Very tough for Congress to bring suit.
	Nor will they.
	Why?
	Because Democrats have the House.
	Now, if the Republicans take back the House and the Senate, could they theoretically sue?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Again, what's their injury exactly?
	There's that issue.
	It'll be tricky.
	Maybe.
	An outside shot, Congress could sue if it changes political power.
	Maybe.
	But otherwise, it's not going to go anywhere.
	And then people are going to start to benefit from it right away, and nobody's going to want to reverse it.
	I was going to say, maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene could start that lawsuit, and I was going to maybe use that as a segue into Marjorie Taylor Greene getting swatted three times in a week.
	Because she's proposing legislation that would federally limit a lot of this bad treatment for young children in the name of trans ideology.
	She appeared to, early on, mistakenly blame Kiwi Farms, the sort of a Discord of Discord kind of boards.
	I don't encourage people to go there, but I've represented people connected to Kiwi Farms.
	They're fine people.
	They're just a pure free speech board.
	So nothing against them.
	I'm just saying that people go there and be like, well, hold on a second.
	I wasn't looking for that kind of thing.
	So you might run into a little bit of that and whatnot.
	But apparently she was misled into believing Kiwi Farms caused it.
	Kiwi Farms had nothing to do with it.
	Someone that's mad at Kiwi Farms exposing the fact that they're preaching grooming to underage children that's a trans advocate is...
	That person or that person's fans are likely the source of these swatting against.
	It's the new tool.
	Now you swat your opponent.
	You weaponize the legal system civilly and criminally, and now you swat your opponent.
	And it just shows the levels of insanity.
	But on the good side of constitutional liberty, in Texas, they had limited and prohibited 18 to 20-year-olds from having a handgun.
	To protect themselves outside of the home.
	And a very good federal court decision struck it down.
	It said, look, under that recent great Supreme Court Second Amendment decision, there's not a long historical legacy of limiting guns to people that are 18 to 20 in public in this complete prohibitionary way for one big reason.
	Because the point of being able to arm yourself, and part of it, not the only point, a part of it was to be part of the militia, which is the privatization of state violence away from a state monopoly of a standing army.
	Well, who was in that militia in the founding era?
	17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds.
	So how could you say the Second Amendment planned on keeping that group that was supposed to be armed for the purposes of the militia part of the Second Amendment from being armed outside of the home?
	Was it concealed carry or open carry in Texas?
	It was abandoned, period.
	You couldn't concealed carry, you couldn't open carry if you were 18 to 20, period.
	It was a pure age restriction, just age-based.
	Age and location-based.
	It's the difference if you're in your home.
	So if you're outside of your home and you're less than 21 years of age, can't have it, period.
	This challenge only the 18 to 20 part.
	The court said there's no Second Amendment basis to limit that, so that part of the Texas law is struck down as unconstitutional.
	Very good decision.
	Goes through the history.
	Explains that some of their misanalogous provisions, that a lot of these provisions...
	By the way, a lot of gun control restrictions, you know when they show up?
	They show up after the Civil War.
	And a lot of them start in southern states.
	And you can take a wild guess who it was they were targeting.
	These were deliberate.
	There's a long history of gun control being trying to control and limit the self-defense rights of black men.
	That's what a lot of gun control was and is.
	And a lot of my liberal friends don't like to talk about that history, but that's its history if you dig in just a little bit.
	And the court pointed out, this isn't the founding era, so that these rules and restrictions you're talking about are not applicable to this.
	There's a limited application for what happened during the new civil rights amendments, and you can argue a little bit there, but it can't override the overarching fact.
	That the militia included 18-year-olds.
	That's the one they couldn't get past.
	I'm just trying to reconcile.
	I'm going to get to one super chat from the Irishman in a bit.
	I'm trying to reconcile.
	They don't want 18 to 20-year-olds bearing arms, but they want to authorize children to consent to life-altering and gender transition therapy.
	It's inconceivably intellectually incongruous.
	To a point that's flabbergasting.
	If Biden can unilaterally cancel loan debt, what is stopping him from doing anything unilaterally like blanket amnesty after we have 8 million more people let in?
	The key is when courts say you can sue.
	In the amnesty context, they say that states bear a price for that, so they allow states to sue.
	The big problem here is this broad conservative version of limiting standing.
	Is now backfiring on conservatives.
	That's the short answer.
	But then we have some one-minute cases.
	So Ochoa, of the Ochoa brothers, famous Colombian drug cartel, whose deal with the CIA went south and ended up getting prosecuted as partially portrayed in the Narcos TV series.
	There was another case of his.
	This is like 22 years after he first got brought back to the United States.
	I think he's got like...
	Ten years left on a sentence, maybe six or seven.
	But what happened was, once again, another federal court gutted the Sixth Amendment.
	So he had a lawyer representing him that was going to cut a plea deal, but told him in order to get the plea deal done, he had to pay a $30 million bribe to what it turned out to be to the benefit of another defendant that the lawyer was also representing.
	Clear conflict of interest.
	Courts wouldn't grant him a discovery on it.
	Courts wouldn't grant him an evidentiary hearing on it.
	Courts were like, ah, you had other chances to get something done.
	You didn't get it done.
	It's all because they want to limit the Sixth Amendment context in these kind of cases.
	Also, the other reason may be that real discovery or an evidentiary hearing would probably implicate deep state actors, including, I like to follow these cases because they often tell you the dirty little secrets that get hidden from public view.
	But they'll be there right there in the court file.
	And there's a future hush-hush.
	You can find those at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, alternative takes on institutional narratives, out of this story.
	But it was another unfortunate undermining of the Sixth Amendment by another federal court.
	In another case involving someone who was part of a Ponzi scheme, got extradited to Brazil.
	No, he left and fled to Brazil, got extradited back to the United States.
	And it's another version of the evisceration.
	Of extradition principles.
	Under extradition principles, you're governed by the treaty between the two countries, the U.S. and Brazil in this case, and you're governed by something called specialty.
	In other words, you can only be prosecuted for the crime you're specifically indicted, you're extradited for.
	And so what Brazil did is they sent back this accused Ponzi schemer and said, yes, we're extraditing him, but not for anything that violates our domestic law.
	So you cannot prosecute him or punish him for things outside the statute of limitations.
	He goes to trial.
	Guess what evidence they use against him?
	They drop the charges related to the ones that are outside the SOL, but not the evidence.
	They introduce all the evidence that's the most damning evidence is from outside the statute of limitations.
	And when it comes punishment time, what do you think they do?
	They focus on the evidence that's prior to the bad acts that took place outside, that he was explicitly said he could not be extradited for.
	Why?
	Because federal courts routinely eviscerate extradition law in America.
	They do not respect our extradition treaties.
	They never have.
	Extradition lawyers out there need to raise this in every proceeding.
	They find all the examples, and there are many, where the U.S. Justice Department violates their promise in extradition proceedings, where the federal judiciary guts the meaning of extradition law.
	Because it said you can't be prosecuted or punished for this.
	And what did they say?
	Oh, that just means what crime you're charged with, not what evidence is used to convict you, and not what evidence is used to sentence you.
	I mean, it makes a complete crock out of these extradition treaties, but they do it all the time at the bequest of the government.
	And that's the Utzik case.
	I like the fact that it sort of gives new meaning to the SOL for statute of limitations, almost like shit out of luck, which is what the SOL typically stands for.
	No doubt.
	Now, there's an Alabama grand jury case about First Amendment rights versus grand jury rights.
	The U.S. Supreme Court years ago said no grand jury rule in any state or federal level can prohibit a person from talking about information they knew outside of the grand jury rule.
	That just because you call a person to the grand jury doesn't eviscerate their First Amendment rights.
	It doesn't magically mean anything you talked about in that grand jury room is now secret, even though it was information already known by the individual or independently known by the individual from the grand jury.
	And prosecutors love to abuse the fear of grand jury secrecy to corrupt witnesses into telling a certain select story and not sharing it with others who could undermine that institutional narrative that they're trying to develop.
	Alabama law had a similar law, but it was more limited.
	It said you can't talk about what happens in the grand jury room.
	Somebody brought suit.
	The question that was left open by the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the First Amendment protects your right to speak about what happens inside a grand jury room.
	The 11th Circuit said, no, it doesn't.
	It said that the first of them, it doesn't protect what happens inside the grand jury room.
	So you can't go in and say what questions were asked.
	You can't tell them what answers you gave them.
	You can't tell them that information.
	You can, of course, continue to have a First Amendment right to talk about anything else.
	And the fact that the grand jury may have talked about those topics doesn't restrict your First Amendment rights.
	But I disagree with the decision because grand jury secrecy is being elevated again so the government can act in a Star Chamber fashion in ways that undermine criminal justice, not improve it.
	And I think the First Amendment should be read more robustly than that.
	Especially when they've already gutted meaningful grand juries.
	You can lie to a grand jury and get away with it.
	You can fail to present exculpatory evidence and get away with it.
	You can present evidence that violates the rules of evidence and get away with it.
	And so it's kind of a crock.
	As a federal judge, no less said, back in the 1970s, the grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if a federal prosecutor asks him to.
	So it's quit being an independent institution in the way it was constitutionally meant.
	It should not be given this special protection above First Amendment rights.
	It is what it is.
	Then, three other interesting cases.
	One was a school case.
	This kid goes to school.
	The school resource officer hears from somebody else that the kid...
	Shoved his mom because he had gotten a haircut, didn't want to take his hoodie off, got into a bit of an altercation with his mother.
	School resource officer, SRO, comes in.
	And busts the kid up.
	Does the UFC move?
	Does the face grab, the arm bar?
	Face grab, arm bar, throws him to the ground.
	It slams him.
	Holds him down for three minutes, gets sued for unlawful arrest.
	Excessive force.
	Excessive force.
	But there was the other one that was unlawful arrest.
	And false arrest.
	And they said there could have been a grounds to detain him, the kid, based on two other witnesses reporting this to the officer within qualified immunity standards, which focused on what did the officer know at the time and was his behavior objectively reasonable.
	So it's based a combination of a subjective and objective test.
	His subjective knowledge and whether...
	His actions were objectively reasonable in light of his subjective knowledge.
	But, yeah, there's a little guy.
	Nine o 'clock.
	Why isn't he in bed?
	Why aren't you in bed?
	Doesn't know.
	But, yeah, so, but the excessive force part, which is, was the force proportionate?
	And they look at what crime is the person being charged with?
	Are they resisting or evading?
	Are they being violent?
	Was the force necessary in the execution of an arrest?
	That's what they look for.
	Well, here the kid's just talking to the guy.
	He's answering all his questions.
	It's a minor misdemeanor, even if the accusations are right.
	It's just he pushed his mom, not that anything happened.
	And that clearly did not justify, and it wasn't part of an arrest.
	That did not justify.
	The guy just didn't like the way the kid talked, so grabbing his face, giving him the arm bar, and slamming him down.
	Luckily, the Court of Appeals recognized, no, you don't have immunity for that.
	But the fact they were trying to claim qualified immunity shows how easily it's being abused.
	Because they're trying to say, if you don't have any case exactly like my case, then I'm immune from prosecution.
	And some courts are waking up to the principle that, no, it's about whether you would have fair warning based on existing law, not whether there's exactly the same fact pattern as happened before, because then everybody will get away with it.
	So that was a good case.
	Now, another case, I guess the Ogletree case, is the case...
	A lot of people are doing a remote test in their dorms or at home.
	So a university, Cleveland State in this case, required the people to scan their room for everybody to see before they were allowed to participate in the remote test under the guise that this would help make sure they weren't cheating.
	They make them turn their camera around, show the room, show that you have no papers, and then proceed with the test as though...
	The most idiotic form of due diligence to make sure someone's not cheating.
	But yeah, and he sued on a, what was it?
	Well, it's 1983.
	Yeah, to a Fourth Amendment grounds.
	What's amazing is everybody had always agreed.
	Nobody had even voiced boo until this guy.
	He's like, I don't think you're right.
	I don't think you're entitled to that.
	And so he's the first person to ever resist.
	And so they were going to, you know, cause him trouble.
	So he files suit, says it's a Fourth Amendment search.
	Federal court says, yeah, you're right.
	This is a Fourth Amendment search.
	This is a search of your private residence inside your home by a state actor.
	And then the second question was whether it was a reasonable search or not.
	And their point was there's so many other ways to test a student's competency and aptitude independent of these kinds of tests in the first place.
	But also there's other methods to make sure and deter cheating that are much more effective.
	Than requiring this.
	And so it doesn't meet the standard of reasonableness.
	And so he won.
	He won his case.
	He got to stand up to, you know, you don't get to spy on my room just because I want to take a test remotely.
	So that was a nice Fourth Amendment case.
	And then the other two cases was a big suit against Oracle.
	It turns out Oracle has been massively gathering people's information, private information, without their notice and knowledge and consent, and has been monetizing it and selling it to a bunch of people.
	This is Larry Ellison of Oracle, one of the biggest big tech companies in the world.
	This is a bankruptcy kind of lawsuit.
	They could put them into bankruptcy if the allegations proved true.
	They brought allegations on behalf of a whole class of people that Oracle was illicitly spying and stealing their data on.
	Notably, Oracle won't be facing criminal prosecution anytime soon because they're politically protected and connected.
	But this sounds like real theft compared to the Ashley Biden diary being left behind.
	And the suits include invasion of privacy, intrusion of seclusion, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, a lot of very good legally robust claims.
	So that Oracle suit will be interesting to follow.
	The other fun case of the week is Bud Spaniels versus Jack Daniels.
	So they got permission.
	They got certioria, right?
	They're going to go to the Supreme Court because...
	They're trying to get cert, yes.
	I don't know if they've got it yet.
	I know that I saw the petition for cert had been filed.
	I don't know if the U.S. Supreme Court has taken it yet.
	Okay, and this was because some dog toy knockoff is using Jack Daniel's image and likeness for a dog toy.
	What do they call it?
	I forget the parody name.
	Bud Spaniels.
	So it's Bud Spaniels.
	He'll leave something on your Tennessee carpet.
	So they call it...
	So Jack Daniels was outraged.
	These people are making dog toys about poo-poo, and they're making fun of dogs pooping on people, and they're making it look like Jack Daniels, and we're outraged.
	Now, it's a little ironic being Jack Daniels.
	I've toured Jack Daniels' facility there in Lynchburg, Tennessee, small little county.
	It was a dry county for a long time.
	In Lynchburg.
	Toured the jail, toured a whole bunch of places.
	They showed how the great sour mash whiskey was made.
	The best American whiskey is, in my opinion, is Jack Daniels.
	Gentleman Jack in particular, but there's some other good ones.
	But I'm biased because I'm from Tennessee.
	George Dickel is also from Tennessee.
	Bourbon is all from Kentucky.
	There's no such thing as Tennessee bourbon, really.
	That's a Kentucky proprietary kind of thing, kind of like Bordeaux.
	And cognac and armoniac.
	But, I mean, they would get like a bottle of whiskey every week to go home as employees and finish it off.
	They would dust that thing off before they hit the door.
	So it's like, I don't know how much you can truly undermine the image of Jack Daniels exactly.
	Well, there's no confusion.
	There's no meaningful sort of parasitism or just siphoning business from Jack Daniels.
	Okay.
	That was the point, that for these trademarks, like copyrights, like other things, there are exceptions, and those exceptions include parody exceptions.
	What's interesting is the Federal Ninth Circuit here broadly expanded humorous exceptions.
	And I'm not sure it goes as far as the Ninth Circuit said it does, in terms of whether it's now non-commercial because it's a humorous.
	It's like, that doesn't really make sense.
	That's still commercial.
	They're still utilizing it to sell a product.
	So I think that part of the Ninth Circuit ruling is a little shaky, but I think it goes to the core of what you're talking about.
	Trademark protection is for when you've really damaged my brand by your affiliation or association with it, not by when you're having fun at my expense or mocking it or satirizing it or something else.
	And that's clearly what this product was.
	But the Bud Spaniels versus Jack Daniels is probably my favorite case of the week.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this one up because the Irishman, I promised it a while back tonight.
	I've heard about this, and I'm going to talk about this this week.
	Have you seen the new BC Canada dictate?
	Horgan, who I think is the chief medical officer, is now making anyone who went on maternity leave and or was on maternity leave and required to return but couldn't due to the fact that they refused the vax to pay back maternity leave.
	$20,000 to $55,000 per person.
	I'm going to look into that because I heard it somewhere yesterday.
	So this week, undoubtedly, we'll be addressing it.
	But Robert...
	I'm not going to get to many more of the super chats that I had flagged up there, but people need a big white pill.
	I need a big white pill.
	I mean, other than the fact, you know, kids are nice and, you know, it feels like stuff is really falling apart, Robert.
	So how do you make people stitch it together to have the courage and the vigor to go into another week?
	There's only one salvation out there for everybody.
	Join vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	That's your only hope.
	That's your only future.
	No, just kidding.
	Those are great board, great commentary, great ideas, great contributions, great fun, all the rest.
	I mean, I think that the best encouragement out there is a large part of what's happening in terms of people like the Cleveland State kid resisting.
	So a lot of these vaccine cases they said wouldn't work or have won.
	A lot of these other cases they said challenging the Biden administration wouldn't work have won.
	But take that.
	The Cleveland State case was just an ordinary kid, ordinary college student.
	No one else had ever raised a peep, had ever raised a single objection, ever.
	He's the first one.
	Almost a year plus into the process.
	Thousands of people have gone along with it without second-guessing it for a second.
	And because he has a skeptical wisdom and is a person of action, he was like, I don't think this is right.
	I'm going to stand up.
	And he won.
	So he shows the power of the individual conscience to make a difference.
	So this Wednesday, we'll have another example of that.
	In his own way, it comes more from the left.
	Jackson Hinkle will be our sidebar guest.
	And then Thursday, I will be on at 1 p.m. Eastern with the Duran.
	And then Friday may be specially hosting Alex Jones' show down in Austin.
	Excellent.
	We'll see how all that goes.
	But that's the planned schedule.
	But yeah, just be like the Cleveland State kid.
	Stand up for your rights and you might be surprised you might actually win.
	And I'll give you a little white pill.
	Allison Morrow and Lynn Westover, they're having a gender reveal on Allison Morrow's channel.
	Link is there.
	That's a white pill.
	Children are nice.
	I just got shot in the back with a Nerf gun, and I don't know what's going on here.
	Go check out Allison Morrow.
	I'm going to try to pop in there.
	Robert, are you going to be live on Locals after this?
	Yeah, I'll be at the live chat.
	So not a live stream, but I'll be chatting away in the live chat.
	Okay.
	Excellent.
	Hey, maybe the little guy can say it.
	Hey, Ethan.
	Oi!
	Get in here.
	I don't know what's going on.
	They pester you when you don't want them to.
	He'll be back in a second.
	That's vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	What?
	Where is he?
	Oh gosh, I'm going to get shot again.
	People, thank you very much.
	So Wednesday, sidebar.
	I'll be going live periodically during the week.
	Barnes is on the Duran Thursday, hosting Alex Jones InfoWars on Friday.
	He may end up as evidence in yet a future trial.
	Any updates actually on Alex Jones before we wind up?
	It's going through the bankruptcy process.
	Okay.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone out there, the greatest trick the devil played is telling you you couldn't resist.
	The greatest trick the system played is telling you you cannot resist.
	Did I screw it up?
	That's all right.
	The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he did not exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing you you cannot resist.
	And the Cleveland State guy understood that, and all the rest of us should remember that lesson, too.
	People, go check out Alison Morrow.
	Check out the gender reveal.
	We'll see what it is and see you all sooner than later.

▲