Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:22:13

Ep. 127: Trump's EMPTY FOLDERS! Biden Speech; Zuck LOSES; Louden; Danchenko & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	How beautiful is this, people?
	Oh, I can talk over this because there's no meaningful audio.
	This is my GoPro on the end of my fishing rod.
	And I'm only using 10-pound test, I think.
	I was very nervous.
	It was very nerve-wracking.
	Look how beautiful this is.
	Oh, what's that?
	Oh, so the head that you saw there, my kid threw in.
	Someone was using needlefish.
	As bait.
	And the guts and the innards were on the dock, so we threw it in for the fish to eat.
	Hope that's legal.
	My kid did it anyhow.
	I blame him.
	It gets better.
	It gets better.
	I go to the bottom of the ocean.
	Look how...
	We don't always have to start with Justin Trudeau, but we're going to get there.
	Look at this glory.
	All the way to the bottom.
	Okay.
	And...
	Amazing.
	These fish are like, what is that?
	And now we come back up.
	That thing over there is beautiful.
	Look at that.
	What is that?
	Look at these fish all over the place.
	A beautiful school.
	It's amazing.
	It's just glorious.
	And we caught a few fish.
	I caught a needlefish.
	I was able to release it.
	Those things are nasty.
	Okay.
	Coming up.
	Yeah, I could...
	Hey, it was a successful mission.
	Good evening.
	It's Sunday night.
	By the way, that video is going to go on the interwebs and it's going to see a lot of views, I think.
	I want to see Viva diving with the sharks.
	Is that a thread, Christian?
	I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	One day I might go.
	That's what we did yesterday.
	We went down to the Deerfield International Pier.
	I don't know what makes a pier international, but it makes it sound very impressive and very fancy.
	And it was beautiful.
	We got some shrimp on the dock.
	Was using my light tackle rod.
	We caught a couple of, I think they're called blue runners.
	Someone said they're called blue runners.
	We put him back.
	Caught a needlefish.
	The needlefish tried to bite me.
	They're like long...
	They're not eels.
	They're long fish with like alligator gar type teeth on their mouths.
	It tried to reach back and bite me.
	And it would have been painful.
	Yeah, I love salty...
	Shardy McDumbass.
	Come on, man.
	Okay.
	We're not starting with Justin Trudeau.
	I want to show people in as much as possible...
	There's still beauty out in the world.
	It just happens to be in the natural world.
	Politics ruins everything, and it's probably more appropriately, could be more appropriately stated, people tend to ruin everything, but more specifically, politicians tend to ruin everything.
	Before we get into it, I'll just get into one interesting article coming out of the CBC, and then my recent tiff with them.
	Because they are state-funded propagandist liars.
	Before we get there, standard disclaimers, people.
	Superchats like these beautiful, unacceptable fringe who wrote the book How the Prime Minister Stole Freedom.
	Who else thought Biden's speech looked like something out of Star Wars?
	Should put that in our next book.
	Have a great show, Viva.
	It looked like something out of V for Vendetta.
	I clipped it the night of and put like an image of Biden with Chancellor, whatever the guy's name was.
	I didn't get the right image.
	There was another image.
	The color pattern.
	The body language.
	It was something straight out of V for Vendetta.
	In imagery.
	In tenor.
	In frothing at the mouth.
	Vitriol.
	I like watching you enjoy Florida.
	I loved it there.
	It's beautiful.
	I mean, it's beautiful.
	But freedom is a beautiful thing.
	You need to take the kids to see the manatees.
	Yes, we do.
	There's a place where they can swim with them.
	I think it's north of where you're in Florida.
	I saw this place.
	I saw a place that has transparent kayaks.
	They're not glass bottom kayaks, but they're transparent kayaks.
	And so you kayak and you can see under you.
	We're going to go there.
	We were going to go see the rocket launch yesterday.
	Too many ifs, whether or not we could get there.
	I don't even think that the launch went down or went off.
	I don't think the launch occurred.
	And then we have to worry.
	Too complicated.
	Okay.
	Standard disclaimers, people.
	No medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice.
	If you want to support the channel, lots of easy ways, but bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of all of these little things called Super Chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, a platform.
	That respects free speech, promotes free speech, and is probably going to be one of the most important platforms of our generation.
	They have these things called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, yada, yada, yada.
	You know the shtick.
	Viva, my wife and two daughters live about a half mile from Deerfield Beach Pier.
	We would love to take you guys out for dinner.
	James River, screen grab.
	One day, I might just do a live stream fishing from the pier.
	We'll see.
	So we're starting off with the beauty.
	The ocean is magnificent.
	Fish are beautiful.
	Nature's beautiful.
	Terminal velocity?
	Terminal insanity?
	Stay tuned.
	Don't worry.
	Viva, have you caught a snook yet?
	No.
	Never caught a snook.
	Never caught a tarpon.
	Never caught a drumfish.
	Never caught a redfish.
	Never caught a striped bass.
	My take on the speech optics, they think it would resonate with all of us Yahtzees.
	I'm going to show you two things, actually, before we get started.
	This is the first one, people.
	We're not starting with Trudeau, but we're getting into Trudeau right now.
	Bill Maher.
	Bill Maher, every now and again.
	Justin Trudeau.
	Hold on.
	One second.
	You're laughing, but Justin Trudeau, I mean, I thought he was kind of a cool guy.
	And I started to read what he said.
	This is a couple of weeks ago.
	He was, or maybe this is September, but he was talking about people who are not vaccinated.
	He said they don't believe in science.
	They're often misogynistic, often racist.
	No, they're not.
	That was not smart of him at all.
	Right.
	He said, but they take up space.
	And with that, we have to make a choice in terms of a leader as a country.
	Do we tolerate these people?
	It's like, tolerate these?
	Now you do sound like him.
	And recently he talked about them holding unacceptable views.
	Wow.
	I'm surprised to hear that Trudeau said those things.
	Oh, yes, yes.
	It's an amazing...
	You didn't see the blackface?
	I mean, he's...
	No, I'm kidding.
	I'm not...
	I mean, I was not a good look for him.
	This was a while ago.
	Damn it, I just lost the...
	This was a while ago.
	I think it was in September during the election, before the convoy.
	It's ironic.
	It's not ironic.
	Coincidental?
	Telling?
	That the manner of speech that Trudeau employed vis-a-vis MAGA Canadians back in the day, it's very much in line with the language being used by POTUS last Thursday to talk about MAGA Republicans.
	MAGA Republicans.
	By the way, it's nothing short of an ideological slur.
	Period.
	We'll get there in a second, though.
	This is surprising to people to hear Justin Trudeau employ what I was told was quintessential communist rhetoric.
	After one of my live stream documentation of the Ottawa protest, a man who was from China, I noticed he was following me, asked me if my camera was no longer recording after it was no longer recording, said he didn't want to be on camera for obvious reasons, and said that...
	When Justin Trudeau came out and said the things that he said, unacceptable views, fringe minority, taking up space, this individual who grew up in communist China said, this is exactly what the communist leader was saying about dissident Chinese back in the day.
	And he said when he heard Justin Trudeau use the very same terminology, He said it shocked him, but that it was verbatim translated from Mandarin.
	I think it was Mandarin.
	Same terminology.
	Fringe minority holding unacceptable views.
	And this is surprising to Americans that don't know that Trudeau is saying it.
	Well, I don't know which way this political madness is trickling.
	It might just be like a...
	A tidal wave of political madness.
	It's going both ways.
	Justin Trudeau referring to Canadians, dissenting Canadians this way nine months ago?
	Oh, it's going to be a year, actually.
	Almost verbatim and certainly identical in tone and tenor from what POTUS just said the other day.
	Now I can't get it.
	But we'll get there in a second.
	CBC comes out and runs an article.
	Right here.
	RCMP.
	Listen to this, people.
	And there's going to be some interesting things to say about this.
	RCMP feared that Mounties might leak operational plans to protesters' documents.
	The potential exists for serious insider threat, says the February 10 advisory.
	Some people have been remarking on the fact that when your own...
	When law enforcement might be sympathetic to the plight of the peaceful protesters, you might have a problem, and it might not be the peaceful protesters.
	That might be an indication.
	When you fear mutiny from within the police itself, you might have a deeper problem.
	And Trudeau, you might be that deeper problem.
	Listen to this.
	By the way, this is the same RCMP that had text messages leaked as to how they would love to see...
	Something happened to one of their horses during the protest because it would be great.
	Oh, good.
	Laughing about whether or not someone would get trampled by a horse.
	Talking about exploiting potential injury to a horse.
	Something along those lines.
	I might be not entirely accurately paraphrasing the leaked RCMP messages.
	Leaked by none other than the man who is now public enemy number one in Canada, Jeremy McKenzie.
	Oh, the RCMP laughing among themselves as to how funny it would be.
	If something were to happen as they trotted through peaceful protesters in the dead of winter with mounted police on horses, some of the RCMP might still have a little bit of dignity and say, my goodness, is this how we want to go down in history?
	As bringing batons to bouncy castles?
	As bringing pepper spray to hot tubs?
	Because they did.
	But the way they're describing it, by the way, they might leak operational plans to protesters.
	This article goes on, and we'll get to it in a second, but I made the comment that this is CBC effectively documenting how the Prime Minister of Canada declared war on his own citizens.
	He declared war on the people that he's supposed to be representing.
	The people that he's supposed to be listening to.
	And instead, describing, they might leak.
	They might leak.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	What is the word I'm looking for, people?
	What is the word they're saying?
	They might leak.
	Operational plans to protesters.
	Because you got, on the one hand, tens of thousands of protesters parked their cars honking their horns.
	Bouncy castles, playing hockey, salting the streets.
	You got a bunch of peaceful protesters who haven't...
	When I was there, I asked the cops, I said, did anyone damage anything?
	They said there was a broken window down there, and then tongue-in-cheek, but it wasn't the protesters.
	They're describing that they don't want to let their operational plans be leaked to protesters.
	What the hell do you think the protesters were going to do?
	Get up their hockey sticks and their hot tubs and their bouncy castles and blockade the police?
	Hey, get the kids.
	Get the hockey sticks.
	Police are coming down to bust some heads at Thursday night.
	Whoa!
	We're going to regroup.
	We're going to fight a militarized police force.
	This is how Justin Trudeau is thinking at the time he invoked the Emergencies Act or in the days leading up to it.
	Can't have those peaceful protesters.
	Can't have any RCMP leaking operational plans to the protesters.
	This is a prime minister waging war on his own citizens.
	The potential exists for serious insider threats.
	What the hell is this?
	These are the most peaceful protesters.
	They might have been loud, noisy, and obnoxious to some.
	These are the most peaceful protesters, and we're talking about insider threats?
	Like, if they found out that the police were going to come and start pepper spraying and batoning people Thursday night, Friday to Saturday, discharging concussive grenades, they would have done anything to change their behavior?
	This is...
	A prime minister who has declared war on his own people, the people he's supposed to listen to and the people he's supposed to represent.
	And now you've got the CBC, state-funded propagandists, running hardcover trying to legitimize the concern that there was a real risk that insiders within the police would disclose operational information to the kids playing hockey on Wellington Street.
	The document obtained by CBC News through an access to information request shows the RCMP worried that some of their own might cooperate with the protesters who barricaded streets in downtown Ottawa for weeks.
	Yeah, they would have really changed their plans, people.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Here, let's just pop this into the chat here, and you can all go read that in your spare time.
	So I put out my...
	Observation on this.
	This is a Prime Minister who declared war on his own citizens.
	And I have to stop responding when people are not necessarily responding in good faith.
	But somebody says, let's play a game.
	Go to the CBC website and find a false story for us.
	Much obliged, Scrappy McBuckyball.
	Much obliged.
	Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to do so.
	Here's one.
	Here's one.
	Listen to this.
	From your state propagandist, CBC News.
	The protest convoy had worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country.
	Oh, but it's not CBC who says it.
	It's the anti-hate advocates.
	The worst display of Nazi propaganda in this country.
	Um, sir?
	Canada Anti-Hate Network chair, Bernie Farber, who is the son of Holocaust.
	Oh, well, then he must know what he's talking about.
	Hey, Bernie Farber, I'm the grandson.
	My grandfather fled Poland in 1936.
	I think my grandfather would be kind of pissed off at your hyperbole right now.
	Let's have, as a member of an ethnic minority debate, whose opinion's worth more, Bernie Farber?
	Yours or mine?
	Says people can have opposing views when it comes to healthcare.
	Oh!
	They can have opposing views when it comes to healthcare.
	But Ottawa's protest convoy was taken over by extremists with an agenda.
	Methinks thou dost describe it yourself.
	You anti-hate network spreading the...
	Oh, but this is CBC.
	Okay.
	Oh.
	That's one.
	That's one.
	That's one example of fake garbage coming from the CBC News.
	Worst display of Nazi propaganda in the country.
	Oh, okay.
	That was just one.
	I see Barnes is in the background, so I won't do too many more.
	Here's another one.
	Here's another story that was thoroughly debunked.
	Thoroughly debunked.
	Oh, it's like, this was like on par with one of those anti-vaxxers who refused the vaccine, cries on his deathbed, wishes he had gotten the vaccine.
	You ever notice how those stories don't?
	Don't?
	Get published anymore?
	This was one of those, along those lines, I regret going.
	Protester says he spent life savings to support Freedom Convoy.
	By the way, this entire story is bullshiser.
	Bullshiser, through and through.
	Debunked thoroughly.
	CBC.
	No stance on vaccine mandates, but used own money to help protesters, man says.
	The story was bunk.
	And I went on.
	When will we prosecute the...
	I don't know.
	When will we prosecute...
	We need...
	There was a mass stabbing in Canada today.
	10 dead or 15?
	I have not heard that.
	I didn't hear that.
	Let me...
	Let me go see.
	Look, I'll just take care of some super chats and then I'm going to go look that up.
	Greg, thank you very much.
	My take on speech objects, they think it would resonate with all of the Yahtzees.
	We're going to talk a bit about the speech tonight.
	After seeing John Podesta's art, don't look it up, I've seen it.
	His bizarre emails.
	I cannot say on YouTube the immense anger and disgust I have.
	Only a sick, depraved, demonic, and evil human could create or want such imagery.
	Corn pop in the house.
	Those eyes.
	It's worldwide.
	Every country has been usurped, taken for fools by globalist CCP cabal.
	Hola from Mexico, Viva.
	Never let them take away your rights.
	My people have been subjects instead of citizens for over 200 years.
	My super chats are censored.
	No, they're not.
	Just watch the words.
	I mean, I don't know what words YouTube doesn't like.
	Just spent nine days in the UK.
	Nicest people.
	Makes us Canadians look like jerks in comparison.
	Liverpool is the best city.
	Every bar is a karaoke bar.
	That might be the biggest...
	Disincentive to travel there.
	Oh, Crystal River Manatees.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Barnes is in the house.
	I don't want to keep him waiting for too long.
	One more super chat.
	Biden's speech has only strengthened my resolve to speak out on Facebook.
	If they thought my sharing of CIA, FBI, DOJ, NSA documents every few weeks was a problem before, I wonder how they'll feel about it happening every week.
	We're going to talk about some of that stuff tonight.
	I'm going to miss a lot of super chats.
	And, oh, standard disclaimers.
	If I don't bring them up and you're going to feel miffed, rook, shield, grifted, or whatever, don't give the super chat.
	I don't like people feeling bad.
	I didn't see this.
	Okay, I'm going to bring Robert in.
	Robert, get ready.
	In the house.
	Happy anniversary.
	Thank you very much.
	How goes your battle, Robert?
	Good, good.
	Okay, Robert, I see the thing is, so many things have happened.
	I don't remember what we have discussed together on a stream.
	I don't think we discussed Biden's speech yet.
	I know we haven't discussed the empty folders.
	Robert, it went from nuclear documents to classified documents to empty folders.
	And you still got the Banana Republic lawyers going all in on this.
	They've got to defend it to the death, to their own political demise.
	Carter Page lawsuit on the menu.
	Nirvana, useless lawsuit nobody cared about at the time.
	I suspect people are still not going to care about it now, but we're going to go over it.
	And other good stuff.
	But before we do that, we've been forgetting.
	Book behind you, cigar in your hands.
	Sure.
	The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips.
	So it's going to be on the book list for this fall for VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where we review books, films, and have other conversations, of course.
	And Cigars of Monte Cristo.
	So that'll be nice.
	And yeah, we got a mixture of, you know, some white pills, some red pills, some black pills all mixed in this week.
	We have Oberlin winning, finally, you know, the Ohio Supreme Court turning down the appeal of that big defamation case.
	We have Netflix sued for inventing Anna.
	Turned out that wasn't the only thing they invented in that show.
	We have Alec Baldwin being sued for libeling a Marine family.
	The only thing is why people keep suing in the Southern District of New York.
	I don't understand this, but that's part of what we'll discuss.
	Carter Page has no remedy.
	And if Carter Page has no remedy, do any of us have remedy from illegal surveillance?
	He waited too long.
	He waited too long, Robert.
	We'll get to it.
	Well, that's some of the excuses.
	A lot of the excuses is not statute of limitations driven.
	I mean, it's substantive in such a way that no remedy exists.
	If that opinion is upheld...
	Basically impossible to sue for FISA violations, which the court itself seemed to say that was Congress's intention, which I don't fully accept.
	But it goes back to immunity.
	But it's relevant because of a major Electronic Frontier Foundation investigation that unveiled...
	The scale to which police agencies are involved in massive geolocation spying on people across the country, while the FTC brought suit against another geolocation agency for how much it shares information, which incidentally and accidentally in the process, they confessed information, these government agencies bringing suit, that really revealed that 2,000 Mules was factually correct in some of its claims about geolocation capability.
	But what it means for the ordinary person, I think, is still underappreciated and undervalued out there.
	And it raises questions about Supreme Court cases like Carpenter and Jones, which suggested the limited applicability of these things.
	We have the Navy releasing jet fuel into people's water and then not giving them adequate health care and trying to cover it up after the fact.
	Another gift of the Biden administration that was done just recently in Hawaii.
	We have...
	We have a couple of Virginia cases.
	We have a pronoun case, school case, and a school system that claimed to be above the power of a Virginia grand jury to even investigate it.
	The Loudon sexual assault case, we're going to get there.
	Yes.
	And then we've got January 6th, crazy sentencing.
	We got the new name for BLM, Better Laundering Money, that was disclosed this week.
	We got a huge case, ATF case.
	That was a big case.
	We got a football coach who won a big case over CRT firing on behalf of Judicial Watch, helped do that case.
	We got Starbucks getting sued for its diversity training protocols.
	Another company getting sued.
	Another bank getting sued for discriminatory racial profiling in its grant and bank application process.
	And as you mentioned, we got Durham's last case that raised more questions about what Durham is really up to, given some recent filings in the case.
	FTC trying to shut down Walmart's alternative banking program and independent moneygram in Western Union.
	But we can start with probably the smallest one on the scale.
	What we predicted.
	Did, in fact, come true in the Nirvana case.
	Oh, well, do we?
	Okay, we'll start with the Nirvana case just because nobody cares about it.
	Then we're going to get into it.
	We've got to talk about Biden and that beautiful, whoever thought that was a good idea, you know, deserves a raise of sorts.
	Nirvana case, everybody remembers the guy who was on the Nevermind album with his little schmeckle floating around in the pool, sued for various damages resulting from that image, alleging that He was exploited.
	What was it?
	Embarrassing?
	There were a number of things alluding to borderline sexually exploitive content.
	This is, of course, after that same individual recreated the pose many times, seemed to have made his own adult life off of it.
	I'm not even sure if he had ever mentioned it again, if anyone would have known who he was.
	And he had his lawsuit dismissed.
	There were a number of reasons, but basically he waited too long.
	No, just that, you know, if you wait forever to file suit, in his case, and he had kind of profited off of it, was the...
	There was some evidence that he profited off of it at different times and then just selectively rewrote his memory.
	And some of the media coverage of the suit suggested it was a credible suit when it never was.
	It was a suit that was filed way outside of time frame and on very questionable grounds and was properly dismissed.
	That's because you talk about latches when, by their own conduct, in certain cases, there's legitimate reasons to dismiss the case.
	To purport that you're aware of the damages and then you were pressured into not filing suits so maybe you could extend beyond the ordinary statute of limitations on the basis of impossibility to act, fine.
	When you're aware of it and you're actually exploiting it and then at some point you say, well, I've milked it for all it's worth.
	Now I'm going to go milk it on the judicial sense.
	Then latches can apply and, you know, you can't...
	You can't say you waited two weeks to file the suit, Trump.
	Too sad, too late, too bad.
	You waited too long.
	So this guy waited too long, tacitly accepted it, was well aware of the damages, any damages, any wrongful act, exploited himself.
	But I guess it might be a decent segue, Robert, into the Trump debacle.
	The last week of developments, I didn't misunderstand anything in the Justice Department's filing that they had actually raised the argument.
	That Trump was not entitled to injunctive relief because he had waited two weeks to file the injunction and therefore was time barred from so doing?
	I mean, the request for a special master really isn't injunctive relief.
	They were just trying to say the ship had sailed.
	But again, that's not really a good argument for denial of a special master.
	I mean, I think they would have been better served bringing their actions sooner.
	But there was no legal requirement that they bring it immediately.
	And a special master is an ongoing thing.
	It's not like a punctual come in and stop something at day one and then you're never done again.
	It's someone who has a lasting role throughout the investigation.
	Well, at least through the raid, through processing the raid.
	So it's a document process.
	All that happens when a special master gets appointed is that all the documents are transferred to the special master that are in any way in question or in controversy.
	Ideally, all of them, period.
	And then the special master filters through on an ongoing basis what might be privileged and what might not be.
	And then sometimes allows argument on what might be privileged if there's a dispute or controversy.
	So the government normally doesn't like special masters simply because it delays their processing of information.
	But them saying, hey, we've already processed it.
	Well, then what's the prejudice to a special master at all?
	There's no prejudice to a special master.
	The only prejudice is if the government got it wrong and seized information that clearly wasn't relevant.
	And the court also released this week the more detailed inventory.
	The kind of thing that should have been in the inventory given to them at the scene, in my view.
	And that detailed inventory badly undermined the government's case because it showed very, very few documents that were actually seized that were even labeled classified.
	And that about 99% of what they seized is not even labeled classified.
	And so their only excuse for that is that they are presidential records.
	That's been fully adjudicated, which the government has yet to address, and many of the media defenders of the government's position has yet to address, which I occasionally get comments on the YouTube channels, the rest say, oh, and Twitter, these people clearly don't know what they're talking about.
	Oh, they're like, no, no, presidential records are independently determined to the president.
	And it's like, no, they're not.
	That's already been litigated.
	It's already been adjudicated.
	That's already been decided.
	the only case to look at it says the president has the unilateral non-reviewable authority to determine what is and is not a presidential record for official record keeping purposes, which has to be the case because everybody else's power comes from the president.
	The president's the only elected congressman.
	I mean, this is a complete crock.
	According to Trump, they searched Barron's Robert, where do you think he was hiding the documents missing from those empty folders?
	They're in Barron's underwear drawer.
	And the implication is that they were looking for blackmail material, that they were looking for by Trump.
	One aspect is they were looking for the deep state docs that I think Trump took with them that weren't there.
	48 folders they made a big deal out of, took photographs of those folders that everybody's like, oh my God, Trump is done, he's finished.
	It was amazing.
	Some of these people, God bless them, just panic.
	How do you keep, I mean, honestly, even some good people like Technofog and some others.
	Why do you keep taking the government's word at face value?
	Quit doing that.
	And they're like, oh, it turned out that all those scary-looking photos of, oh, classified, deeply secret, they were empty folders.
	Empty folders.
	They staged the photo with empty folders.
	Let me steel man this in as much as possible, and I'll get to that Super Chat question in a second.
	The implication, and you have some...
	What's his name?
	Kirshner?
	I don't know who the individual is, but you have this guy named Kirshner who used to be a federal prosecutor saying, if this were anybody else, the fact that the folders were marked classified and empty, where do the documents go?
	Where might the documents have gone, Robert?
	Why might a folder marked classified be empty?
	Well, I'm sure that Trump's—two different things.
	It may be that, of course, Trump kept a lot of those files, which, again, he's entirely legally entitled to.
	This idea that you can have somebody that has more power legally, constitutionally, than the president makes no sense at all if you understand our constitutional framework.
	But it's how the bureaucracy really thinks.
	When Biden, in his Red Sermon speech this week, is talking about democracy, they mean the deep state.
	They mean the bureaucracy.
	That these people are a threat to the deep state.
	These people are a threat to the liberal bureaucracy.
	These are unelected people.
	These are people our Constitution gave no right to whatsoever.
	The president could eliminate their entire position.
	So the idea that he could somehow has no legal right to declassify is just insane.
	But putting that aside...
	The other plausible explanation, the only reason you'd keep those folders around is if you already turned over the documents.
	If the documents inside those folders were part of what was already produced back when they subpoenaed them.
	So they were making an implication that was completely false.
	And everybody just took it for granted that the feds were now not lying.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	Everybody panicked in response to it.
	Aside from the fact they're fundamentally legally still wrong about what is and isn't classified, still legally wrong about what is and isn't a presidential record.
	They were completely...
	I mean, they should have known the feds were lying.
	I mean, that's all they've done.
	And it came out this week.
	Last week, it came out the FBI division running this as what I call the heart of the deep state, the FBI.
	Say people who ran RussiGate, etc.
	Now it came out this week because some...
	Even Andrew Weissman, that corrupt hack, is recognizing that there's some serious problems with how the Justice Department has handled this.
	And he was trying to run excuses for them, as Julie Kelly pointed out.
	And it's because it's the deep state wing of the DOJ that's the only attorneys they're allowing in the case, which, by the way, is another sign of a corrupt deep state operation.
	They don't want U.S. attorneys from Miami involved.
	They don't want U.S. attorneys from New York involved.
	They don't want anybody else involved other than their little deep state ring inside the FBI and the Justice Department controlling this case from top to bottom, which means it's about...
	Primarily, my belief, getting back deep state documents.
	John Ratcliffe, former officer director of national intelligence, confirmed that this week.
	Lee Smith, who writes for Tablet, wrote Plot Against the President.
	That was the basis of Amanda Milius' good movie.
	Also wrote that this week.
	Paul Speary, head for Real Clear Investigations, had previously written that.
	So multiple sources are confirming what I said on the day of the raid, an hour after it was published at vibabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Where you get exclusives every night.
	I am intelligent by association, Robert, because I...
	Look, I'm next level under.
	Like, I'm next level not at your level.
	Would not necessarily have gone there.
	And now when I heard that they were going through Melania's drawers and Baron's drawers, so...
	They might be looking for the compromising documents.
	Are they looking for their own stuff?
	Like, they might find something embarrassing about Barron that they can then use.
	I mean, maybe.
	I mean, I think they were desperate to find what they were looking for.
	But my guess is they thought they would have the ancillary benefit that they would get some sort of blackmail on Trump.
	Because, I mean, this is getting to go through his...
	But the thing is, old Trump believes in Barnes' lesson.
	Never in writing, always in cash.
	And whatever you do have in writing, you don't keep at your house.
	Anybody who knows Trump knows he doesn't like email.
	He doesn't like text.
	He only talks verbally.
	You're not going to find much of him in writing with old Donald.
	And so cash depends on the circumstance.
	But my guess is they were hoping to get a little lucky because they're the kind of idiots.
	To have dumb stuff on their computers.
	To have dumb stuff sitting somewhere around their office or their house.
	They think everyone is as inept as they are.
	They think Anthony Weiner.
	They think, who was the other guy?
	John Podesta emails.
	Point well taken.
	I mean, these people had your easiest to prove crimes in the world.
	Oh, sorry.
	I'm just bringing up chats as we go.
	Okay, so Robert, the empty folders.
	It's not going to be a question of he gave the information to Russia.
	I mean, I made that as a joke, but that seems to be the implication.
	I'm sure that's the faintest.
	But why would you keep the folder?
	You only keep the folder.
	I mean, maybe he was having fun trolling them.
	But the only other reason you keep the folder is because the documents were already taken out of the folder and given to them as part of the subpoena process.
	If you were going to give the documents to someone else or keep them, and again, he legally can.
	He legally can give them to other people.
	He could legally publish them to the entire world.
	That's his power.
	That's what the Constitution gives him.
	You got a problem with it?
	Take it up with the Constitution.
	Um, and so the, uh, so it doesn't matter, but he wouldn't leave behind an empty folder if he gave it to someone else.
	I mean, that, that makes no sense, but that's the way these people imagine Trump being like a nitwit criminal criminals.
	I meant like Hunter Biden, like the crap that Hunter like documenting, keeping us.
	Oh, we'll, we'll find him smoking crack with a prostitute because that's the way we think.
	So Trump has to be that stupid.
	Maybe, maybe.
	Maybe Barron's smoke and crack.
	Maybe he bought Barron's.
	Yeah.
	The fact they went at Barron's stuff, and Trump even hinted at that, that he believed that the reason why they went through Melania's personal stuff, the reason they went through Barron's personal stuff, is they're hoping to find something on one of them.
	And they were obviously unlucky and unsuccessful in it.
	But I mean, you look at the Kennedy family, the entire family was targeted.
	I mean, once John Kennedy...
	Turned in their minds against the deep state by 1962.
	It wasn't just John Kennedy that was targeted.
	Robert Kennedy was targeted.
	The kids were targeted.
	If you followed them over time, you'll see a pattern.
	If Robert Kennedy Jr. talks about running for office, suddenly an extraordinary story will leak negative about him from certain circles.
	A lot of that kind of stuff worked with different audiences.
	It's what they live for.
	Do a confession through projection.
	You know, they're obsessed with the idea that the Russians had something on Trump.
	The reality is, you know, they're the kind of people who have something on them, and they wanted to get something on Trump.
	And they clearly were unsuccessful, and Trump's rally this week was a sign of that.
	I mean, their big win this week was in the courts in the District of Columbia, where Carter Page's suit was dismissed entirely without a right to discovery.
	Okay, we'll get there in one second.
	Just one more question, because I do sincerely want to steelman the arguments.
	When the media now is out on a frenzy that the documents were not marked classified, are they suggesting that the information was in fact classified and ought to have been, or are they just clinging to what they've got, which is documents that were not classified?
	They have to excuse the fact that 99% of the documents seized were not even marked classified, which means they weren't subject to the whole thing to begin with.
	And so they're going to pretend, well, they must have...
	They must have secretly been classified.
	They just weren't marked as classified.
	How does that work?
	And again, this is pretending that classification is a process outside of the President of the United States, which if people think this through, that's really both dangerous and absurd.
	Imagine being such a point-of-sale system that you resort to searching a young man's room.
	It's very telling.
	I think they were looking for something.
	They're assuming that Trump's family is like Hunter Biden's family, and they never have been.
	And that's been one of the great testaments to Trump.
	Whatever you can say about his personal life and his personality, his kids are a constant testament that there's something to his character that's a lot better than pretty much every politician alive today.
	Oh, but Robert, not according to Sam Harris.
	Trump cares more about himself than his own children.
	It's evident.
	That's projection.
	That's confession through projection.
	Sam doesn't strike me as much of a family man.
	I mean, he's an inherited kid.
	He inherited all his wealth.
	I mean, he didn't earn it.
	He got it from mommy and daddy.
	But it's not a surprise.
	I mean, it shows the insanity of that world.
	But that's the kind of insanity that leads to that kind of speech.
	But it was...
	To me, the biggest legal news, unfortunately, in this setting, was the Carter Page case that I hope the Supreme Court takes up.
	The D.C. Circuit's not a likely circuit.
	And by the way, this was a district court judge appointed by Trump.
	It was very predictable.
	I'll just read this part of it.
	We're going to get to the fact that the lawsuit was dismissed.
	Carter Page has no remedy.
	Just to bridge this from Trump to Carter Page, this is in the judgment.
	It's towards the end.
	As alleged, the FBI's conduct in preparing the FISA warrant applications to electronically surveil Page was deeply, quote, troubling.
	Indeed, the government has conceded it lacked probable cause for two of the warrants.
	And the FISC has found that the government violated its duty of candor in all four applications.
	This is the same Department of Justice FBI That we are now expected to not question.
	If you do question them, you're a MAGA Republican, enemy of the state, enemy of democracy.
	So that's the segue, because anybody who's scrutinizing and questioning what the Justice Department and FBI are doing with Trump now, that was what was true of them three years ago, four years ago.
	I'm sure they've changed.
	But, Robert, Carter Page sued...
	I forget under what provisions.
	He sued for damages for the...
	Under a bunch.
	So he sued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
	He sued under the Patriot Act.
	He sued under the Privacy Act.
	He sued under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, known as the Bivens Claim.
	He sued under other related claims that come up within the Federal Tort Claims Act.
	So he brought every conceivable claim.
	And a judge appointed by Trump...
	Who was one of his bad appointees, and you could know that because spent a lifetime, it came from the elite academies, then worked as a U.S. attorney for a long time, then was a big Bushite and was one of Bush's top counsel.
	Why in the world Trump appoint someone like that to the bench, who I guarantee voted against him every time?
	Extraordinary.
	And the judge finds excuse after excuse after excuse.
	To prevent Carter Page from getting an iota of even discovery to support his allegations or accusations in the case.
	To even amend the complaint to add additional allegations and facts in the case.
	And the most ludicrous part of her ruling is the Fourth Amendment ruling.
	And the most dangerous from a precedent perspective.
	Because the short answer is this.
	You have massive illegal spying on Page.
	She acknowledges that's not even in dispute.
	You have extraordinary efforts of deception on courts to obtain those illicit warrants.
	You have illicit use of those warrants and public disclosure to third parties to defame and libel Carter Page concerning them.
	If this case, you have Privacy Act violations of not correcting records or not giving records in a timely manner.
	If you have classic version of abusive process.
	The use of a process for political aims other than what it's intended for in a weaponized manner and in an illicit means.
	And yet this judge says Carter Page can't sue at all, can't sue anyone in the government, can't sue the government itself, can't sue any agencies of the government, can't sue any people on any claim, on any basis, at any time, to even get discovery or the right to amend a complaint.
	And she makes it sound like she's, you know, bothered by what took place.
	If the judge was being honest and was actually bothered by what took place, she would have granted amendment with leave with direction about how to get there.
	She would have allowed discovery to take place in support of those amendments.
	In fact, she said the most disingenuous statement in the whole order is her statement that the reason why there's no cause of action under the Fourth Amendment...
	Because she makes a ridiculous ruling, in my view, that the Fourth Amendment is...
	Everything, if it concerns FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Fourth Amendment magically doesn't apply anymore.
	Because, again, the U.S. Supreme Court has said Bivens is still alive in the Fourth Amendment.
	Now, again, it's because of conservatives on the Supreme Court that we don't have more constitutional remedies.
	It's conservatives on the court that are leading the fight to gut...
	Civil rights in America in a range of cases.
	And there's a lot of people still in denial about that.
	But we discussed it when it came up earlier this year where they gutted Bivens' cases for anything other than the Fourth Amendment, basically.
	So federal government can violate all your rights and you can't sue.
	Ha, ha, ha.
	That's the great constitutionalist on the court.
	Save it.
	They also foolishly believe that standing doctrines and other doctrines are really good.
	To limit courts' judicial activism.
	No, all it does is keep conservatives from being able to sue because liberals will screw them and conservatives will screw them.
	Congratulations, you dimwits.
	But what took place here is a classic Fourth Amendment violation.
	That's what this is.
	The search and seizure of information about an individual without probable cause.
	It's a Fourth Amendment violation.
	Violation of reasonable expectation of privacy, etc.
	She acknowledges that they lacked probable cause for at least two, and I forget what the problem was with all four.
	So she admitted.
	It's admitted.
	The question is now, Robert, motivated reasoning being what it is, how is she going to get out of it?
	Yeah, and what she does is she says Feist is an exception, which makes no sense at all.
	So what she's doing is she's playing off of this political prejudice by conservative judges to try to gut.
	To expand immunity, expand standing, say, hey, we got to let Congress set these rules.
	And some of that is well intended.
	It's just going to be misapplied in his poor political handling of these cases, in my view.
	Aside from being, I think, substantively wrong.
	All these cases should be decided by juries.
	Immunity shouldn't exist.
	Whether you did it in the name of the government can be a defense.
	And that's it.
	And you have to have complied with the Constitution.
	That was the understanding at the time of our founders.
	And for a long time thereafter.
	The standing doctrine was made up in the 1920s by lazy judges to get rid of political cases so they could play Pontius Pilate.
	That's what it was, what it is, what it will always be.
	I'll never respect it until the day I die.
	And afterwards, even less.
	So what she says, that's her whole claim.
	And then part of her excuse for this is to say, especially...
	There's no need to recognize a Bivens right to sue in the Fourth Amendment context for FISA when there's all these other remedies under the FISA laws and under the Patriot Act and under the Privacy Act and under the Federal Court Claims Act while turning around and gutting.
	Every single one of those claims is to Carter Page, showing how there is no such remedy.
	If Carter Page doesn't have a remedy, nobody's got a remedy.
	So to pretend there's a remedy is a lie by that hack of a judge, that Federalist Society judge, another failure of the so-called institutional conservatives who've delivered another abomination on the bench because she can't follow basic constitutional law.
	What that was was a fraud on the people, claiming there was real remedy when she was gutted.
	Robert, I'll just ask the question.
	There was a portion of the claim was time barred because it had to have been filed within one year and not three years.
	So that has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment violation.
	What's the statute of limitations for a Fourth Amendment violation?
	Oh, he was well within that.
	The difference that there was like some statute of limitations were one year, some were three, some were four.
	So it depended on the particular provision.
	So some of the claim was dismissed, time borrowed.
	I forget which one it was.
	And some was exhaustion of remedies, claims.
	You know, my view is it seemed to be convenient.
	In other words, she would find a basis somewhere to dismiss everything.
	It was like, if she could.
	And while pretending to be deeply concerned.
	Bottom line is, she doesn't want the deep state to be sued.
	I mean, that's the reality.
	Carter Page's case was about deep state corrupt actors being able to be sued on an individual and institutional level.
	And they don't want it to happen.
	Now the deep state knows all they have to do is label their action as part of national security and foreign surveillance intelligence, and they have no liability anywhere outside a very rare search.
	She said the only way you can sue, she said you weren't acquiring or collecting information unless you're the one putting the tap on the phone, which doesn't even exist anymore.
	I mean, that's very rare.
	People don't do physical taps on phone anymore.
	That's not necessary.
	It's done a hundred other ways.
	So there's nobody that's physically, directly, personally doing that.
	So under her interpretation, FISA also has no remedy anymore.
	Foreign Servant Intelligence Act has no remedy anymore.
	So it's gone, it's finished, it's done.
	So under her interpretation.
	And she pretends she's not gutting it when she really is.
	Because people have to appreciate, like everybody does, I think, watching us now, but in Carter Page, this was the case in which the FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to falsifying evidence.
	The judge herself, I didn't know it was a her when I was reading the decision, found, concluded that the FBI, what did they say, lacked candor in all the applications.
	I forget what the terminology was.
	I showed the section.
	Well, these are things she couldn't dispute because they've been found by other courts.
	They've been found by the government itself.
	They've been admitted and confessed to.
	So she acknowledges all this.
	And then nonetheless.
	Committed crimes in unlawfully spying on Carter Page.
	All of his claims dismissed.
	And a dismissal with prejudice.
	With prejudice.
	No right to amend.
	No right to discovery.
	None of it.
	So to the question in the locals live chat that we got going on.
	The only, I mean...
	There's not much remedy involving the courts, unfortunately, other than impeachment.
	The courts don't discipline themselves, and so on and so forth.
	So the only remedy for Carter Page is to go now to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an overwhelmingly liberal, deep state-oriented court.
	Like here, even when you don't get liberal Democrats, you get deep state protectors, as people have witnessed in the January 6th cases.
	So his only hope is the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies...
	It's issues concerning Bivens and its issues concerning these statutes in particular, because these are matters of critical statutory interpretation.
	But I wouldn't bank on it, sadly.
	This U.S. Supreme Court has not been good in this area.
	It has been gutting civil rights and civil remedies, not expanding them or extending them.
	It's been good in a range of areas, on the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, but not in the areas of suing the government, not in the areas of getting remedy from the government.
	There it's been mostly bad.
	My liberal friends in the civil rights community are quite rightfully Unhappy with this particular court's direction because it's found lots of excuses as can't sue for this reason, can't sue for that reason, can't sue for another reason, can't sue for over here.
	It's either immunity or standing, immunity or standing, congressional interpretation.
	The only one they said you could, you know, someone could, they've said you could sue private employers over a range of things, like in the trans context, etc.
	But not the government, not deep state operatives.
	And national security is the magic mojo that everybody gets to hide behind.
	And all those people that excused and defended the attacks on Julian Assange and Edward Snowden should now see why Assange and Snowden were right.
	All the most corrupt actions and the most corrupt actors will disguise what they're doing as national security.
	We should be the ones to determine whether they really did it in national security's interest, not them hiding their lies behind the protection and the pretense of patriotism.
	I'm just pulling up the decision as you're talking, Robert, and remembering now all of the things, the issue that Carter Page ran a very successful business and then was outed as an asset to the CIA, which is very bad for business under normal circumstances.
	Well, both.
	I mean, first he was a rising person within the coming Trump administration, within the Trump campaign, which had a range of benefits to him professionally and personally and politically.
	And so first they remove him from that.
	They subject him to massive, inquisitive interrogation investigation.
	But they don't just leave it there.
	They next leak to the press that he's under investigation.
	So they destroy his reputation and career.
	And the way they got their information...
	He's pretending that he was a Ruski spy when actually he was a patriotic American trying to do good business around the globe and would repeatedly provide information to the U.S. government if he came across anything questionable or problematic or if they requested he do so.
	But of course, that information ends up becoming public as well.
	So the net consequence is he's wiped out.
	I mean, he's removed from the ability to do what he used to do solely by the lies, deceptions, and misconduct of the government.
	And according to this federal judge, there's no remedy for that.
	But don't worry.
	There's a bunch of statutes that do provide a remedy for it, just not in reality.
	I'm just going to read this because it's like you go to a party.
	My dad once went to a party once upon a time.
	It was like a magician, but it was just a guy speaking English.
	But in convoluted ways that...
	The game was to see who would respond to this individual as though they were making coherent sentences when the whole gag was that they weren't.
	And so you'd see everyone was polite, you know, had a martini, like, oh yeah, you're making total sense.
	But the whole gag was that the person was speaking doublespeak the entire time.
	Listen to this doublespeak of a judgment.
	Similarly, Page alleges that the individual defendants intentionally provided false information and omitted material facts in all four applications.
	To the extent these allegations are true, there is little question that many individual defendants, as well as the agency as a whole, engaged in wrongdoing.
	Even so, Page has brought no actionable claim against any individual defendant or against the United States.
	And that's because she radically restricted, said there's no Fourth Amendment right to sue anymore just because it's in the FISA context, and then radically restricted the meaning of the FISA laws to say that you're not conducting, performing, collecting, acquiring personal information unless you're like the person doing the tap on the phone and listening to the call.
	It's amazing.
	In part, it's because he faces three statutory roadblocks.
	First of all, Congress has not created a private right of action against those who prepare false or misleading FISA applications.
	Well, isn't that convenient?
	And the problem is the next statement.
	It actually has created a law that has civil liability for those who conduct or perform electronic surveillance.
	She's just pretending.
	That you're not conducting or performing electronic surveillance when you're the one creating and using the electronic surveillance.
	It's judicial doublespeak.
	It's all designed to be a deep state cover-up without looking like the fraud that she is.
	Oh my goodness.
	All right, well, good luck and appeal, Carter, and enjoy the cost that comes along with that.
	And we'll see where it goes.
	So Carter Page is SOL, as we say.
	By the way, they burned Carter Page.
	There's always talk about worry about CIA informants and whatnot, and they're somehow trying to tie that to Trump, which is nonsense.
	It's the same game.
	The Julian Assange thing is still idiots out there that believe things about Julian.
	It's like I occasionally run into conservatives who believe nutty things about Nelson Mandela still.
	It's like they don't realize one of the world's greatest human rights activists and leaders in the last century.
	It was mischaracterized and misportrayed by the deep state in the West, like everybody who protested the deep state, as a commie, as a commie terrorist.
	If you disagreed with them, you were a commie terrorist.
	It didn't matter who you were.
	It didn't matter whether you were Priest Romero.
	It didn't matter who you were.
	Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, all of them.
	The reality is, I'll detail more in a bourbon tomorrow at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Is that he was a great human rights, civil rights activist.
	If you listen to his own words at the time, that's clear.
	There's people who still believe that.
	There's still people who believe that Julian Assange hurt classified sources in American national security.
	Utterly false.
	This is always the lie that they tell.
	It's always the lie.
	But look at what they did.
	They actually ruined a potential high-ranking source.
	And anybody affiliated or associated or vetted or vouched for them.
	They're the ones getting informants outed.
	Not anybody else.
	And this is who and what they're all about.
	Robert, yeah, sorry, go ahead.
	I was going to say, it goes to the whole...
	To what's going on more systematically, which is if you can't sue the feds, can you sue the state or local government?
	Hopefully you can under 1983 laws.
	At least they recognize that.
	That if you go down the power chain, then they do allow suits to occur.
	The higher up the power chain goes, the more they don't allow suits to occur.
	That's the only real consistency in these cases.
	But the big Electronic Frontier Foundation report this week unmasked that all that...
	Geolocation information is actually being used by local police forces all across the entire country to map out your entire life.
	And that's because people didn't appreciate or understand how apps really work and why they're free.
	Okay, Robert, I'm not as familiar with this one as I should be, but please do carry on.
	Just explain to people.
	Explain to people how an app is actually free.
	Well, I think we all know the old paradigm.
	If it's free, you are the product.
	We've seen, by the way, we saw...
	I know more than I'm pretending.
	The entire MO of 2,000 Mules and how they went about documenting it was they bought data from cell phones because all of these apps track real-time user data, movement, geolocation to a box.
	No pun intended.
	And that's marketable information.
	That's sellable, and you sell it.
	Now, the particular lawsuit that you're talking about now, that's about where my knowledge ends.
	Oh, so there's two different things.
	One is the news story that broke.
	The second is the FTC suit.
	So the news story doesn't yet concern legal action, though it's a variation of what Carter Page experienced.
	But what is that local police forces...
	Are using the information from the gatherer.
	Something, what was it called?
	Yeah, fog reveal.
	That's apparently the licensor.
	So what happens is you get your app.
	The app tracks you.
	The app then sells your personal information by tracking your geolocation to another data vendor.
	That data vendor, in turn, sells it to someone up.
	It goes up usually the food chain.
	They then do algorithmic data.
	Utilizing the whole tracking of every place you went and what's affiliated with it, using mapping and other information that's out there, kind of like 2000 Mules did, but for very different purposes.
	Not to expose criminal conduct, but to kind of engage in it, to get to know everything concerning you.
	They combine that with all the other data they have.
	This is where people are surprised when they talk about jury selection, if they're doing their job, the kind of data that's out there.
	The data that's out there is, you know, one, there's every time you purchase something, period.
	So those are your financial records.
	A lot of that has been gathered together and sold to third parties, including your subscription services, etc.
	There's all the things you've ever liked or interacted with in social media.
	That information is gathered.
	That information is sold to third-party data vendors.
	There's sometimes certain information concerning politics, concerning church, concerning the rest.
	The state definitely has that.
	The feds have that all the time.
	Some state governments have it because they can take your tax records and create another data, different data points of entry for the algorithm, algorithmic aggregation that becomes who you are.
	And then they add this geolocation component to that to fill it in.
	And so consequently, it's almost minority report, what they can predict potentially, and to be able to explain and track people.
	What this is, is a real-life, your phone, your tablet, is a real-life GPS tracker on your body that goes everywhere that phone or tablet goes.
	And they're aggregating that data in live time.
	And so now...
	What's interesting is the U.S. Supreme Court has twice, first in the GPS tracker context, said that's a Fourth Amendment violation to do that without a warrant.
	Seeking cell phone records at cell towers, they've also said is a Fourth Amendment violation in the Carpenter case when it was explicitly for the purpose of geolocation.
	So how are these local police forces trying to circumvent that?
	Well, mostly probably by trying to keep it secret that this is what they do.
	And how do they do that?
	They'll disguise the source of their investigation, just as they did in Trump's case, too.
	What you do is you do circular logic, you do information laundering, you pretend you got it from a third-party source, you pretend there was an informant.
	This was famously portrayed in the great show The Wire, which was about Baltimore, but has a lot of great, interesting little components to it that are very informative and very apt and accurate in many contexts.
	Not all of them, but many.
	But one of them is that when they are running an illegal wire, they're like, well, how do we get away with this illegal wire?
	They'll say, oh, we'll just come up with a confidential informant.
	I've had actual cases where I've outed actual fake informants on these exact grounds.
	And so what they do is they go into court and they lie about the source of the information.
	They don't tell people that they're getting it in this mechanism because it does have Fourth Amendment ramifications that a lot of these cases around the entire country...
	Maybe illegally sourced cases.
	So all the lawyers out there should look at everything and say, does it make sense how they got this information, where they got it from?
	Maybe they're lying.
	Maybe they got it illegally from this data gathering service.
	Now, their other argument is going to be that they got it voluntarily because people signed up for the app.
	The problem is most people who signed up for the app didn't sign up to give their geolocation to third parties.
	And what the Supreme Court said in the case of the cell tower case, to me, is applicable and analogous here, in that if they just extend it, the app can use your geolocation information for the app's purposes, that that should be considered the scope of consent, not for things other than the app's purposes, because clearly the ordinary person doesn't know, hey, you're giving away your private information to anyone who wants it, because then most people would not even take the free app.
	What is going to be made of the argument that you've read the terms of service that everybody scrolls through and clicks okay to at the end, therefore it's tacit if not explicit?
	I mean, that's going to be the argument.
	But my point is that I don't think that's what people understand the case to be.
	Those are adhesive contracts, so they should be interpreted against the drafter.
	And that's basically what the Supreme Court said.
	Because cell phones have the right to sell your data in many cases.
	And so comparable arguments were made in the cell tower context.
	And the Supreme Court said, no.
	All that matters is, do you have a reasonable expectation in that data?
	And that's independent of whether you would have a contractual claim against the app company for sharing it with a third party.
	This is about whether the government could seize it without probable cause of a crime.
	And the court's position was, you still have a reasonable expectation of privacy because you assume that information is limited for the purpose for which it is shared.
	And so the third-party sharing doctrine does not apply in that cell tower context as an exception to the Fourth Amendment.
	To me, it's the same here.
	Everybody who's getting these apps is assuming they're sharing information solely for the purposes of the app.
	They don't realize that the app can turn around and sell it.
	The app may claim it's a waiver inside buried in the adhesive contract that nobody reads in their long terms of service.
	But even if that were the case, in my view, under the Carpenter precedent, that does not give any of these local authorities the right to search your records without probable cause.
	Now I'm just thinking of that IntelliDrive app that I downloaded onto my phone.
	Where my car insurance tracks my driving to make sure that I'm not braking too hard at any given light.
	And this is where the deep state loves it.
	The feds love this because they get all of it, right?
	They collude with big tech, so they get all of Facebook, all of Twitter, all of Google, all of YouTube, plus they get your tax records, plus that's why they want a central bank digital currency because then they can track every transaction in live time and cut it off in live time.
	And you can add that.
	To these other components, and you can see that information is control, and this would be the ultimate means of control.
	Especially the more statist a government is, the more obsessed it is with controlling the narrative and gathering intel.
	That's the sine qua non of a statist society of any totalitarian form.
	And that's why they like this so much.
	And that's another reason why.
	Deep State didn't want Carter Page's case to go anywhere because it could unravel things at multiple stages of just how rogue and reckless this spying is at the national federal level.
	And now it's extended to the local state level.
	But lawyers out there, others out there should be suspect of whether information has been stolen.
	And I believe this will lead to more, probably class actions to come.
	Because in this local state government context, they do allow you to sue under 42 USC 1983.
	I'll bring this one up just because I'm not complaining.
	You signed up on your own volition, knowing you're going to be tracked.
	You're complaining now.
	But being tracked for what?
	That's the argument for cell phones, right?
	You know you're giving your cell phone information in exchange to be able to get a call and give a text.
	You are, in turn, giving your geolocation information to the cell phone company.
	Does that mean you also are giving it to the entire world?
	And the Supreme Court's point was no.
	You have a reasonable expectation of privacy that it will only be limited for the purpose for which you're sharing it is what it will actually be shared for.
	There's a reasonable expectation of privacy beyond that.
	Because otherwise you start doing the math and all of a sudden your privacy is eviscerated in the modern age.
	All of a sudden you have none.
	You've waived everything.
	Because you have a utility bill, because you have a phone bill, because you ever let an inspector into your house.
	I mean, you could keep extending this to where you would just obliterate the Fourth Amendment.
	And that's why in the modern digital age, it should respect what is common practice within the community at the time.
	And clearly, people signing up for the apps do not...
	Most of them don't know they're giving any tracking information.
	But of the few that do, they believe that it's for the app, not for the world.
	And I'll say this.
	I just take for granted everything is being tracked in real time on my phone.
	Yeah, it's not because I downloaded one extra app.
	Like, you have the phone.
	You get text messages.
	You have Google Maps.
	I mean, the only people who are saying you're idiots for doing this, you must have...
	No cell phone and then all the better.
	But once upon a time, Robert, I'm old enough to remember, white pages.
	Once upon a time, you could get a book and find out someone's name, address, postal code.
	At any point in time, just look to the page.
	And that's easily out there these days.
	But now it's what magazines you subscribe to, what political causes you contribute to, what religion you're a part of, who's your neighbor, who's lived with you, but also where you've traveled.
	Now, this relates to the other suit in this context.
	The Federal Trade Commission has brought suit against...
	What's the name of that?
	I want to pull it up, too.
	Basically, collecting data, selling data of...
	Hold on, Robert.
	Let me get it.
	Let's see who does it first.
	Walmart?
	Koshava.
	So, I think is how it's called.
	It's either Koshava or Koshava.
	So, it's licensed in Delaware, operates out of Sandpoint, Idaho.
	So, it's one of these companies that gathers all the other data vendors' information and repackages and resells.
	And the FTC brought suit.
	And the reasons for the FTC bringing suit are that their allegation are that basically, you can look at it, yeah, a format that allows entities to track the consumer's movements to and from sensitive locations, including, among others, medical care, reproductive health, religious worship, mental health, temporary shelters, domestic violence survivors, etc.
	It tracks recovery.
	It tracks your life.
	Liberal version of this, obviously, because this is the Biden administration FTC.
	But you can apply this and realize how many other places it goes to, right?
	Have you been going to any MAGA meetings lately?
	You know, especially given the Red Sermon speech we saw this week.
	You can see all the other places it goes.
	Now, the FTC's claim is interesting because the FTC is seeking injunctive relief.
	They lost the ability to sue for monetary purposes without DOJ approval.
	Last year by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that determined the FTC had been breaking the law for about 30 years or however long it's been in formation, which is interesting by itself.
	But it always takes the Supreme Court a while to recognize sometimes legal reality.
	But their claim is that this is substantially injurious to consumers without consumers being able to take reasonable steps to avoid it.
	In ways that the risk exceeds the benefit to the public of this.
	And I think where they're going is along the lines I'm talking about, which is they're going to say this has to be like the cell phone context, that the information in order for it to be net beneficial to a consumer and for it to be considered within the consumer's informed consent, because that's what a lot of these principles really are.
	Whether it's called contractual waiver, whether it's called a release, whether it's called no reasonable expectation of privacy, it all boils down to was there informed consent in giving that information to someone else?
	Or you reasonably knew of the high risk of that.
	And I think they're going, they're going to say it's unreasonable unless it's being limited for the purposes of that app.
	So if it's Pokemon or some of these other things, you might have a reason for geolocation for the purposes of the app.
	But you should be able to turn it off.
	When the app, and this is another thing that these apps deceive people in, people don't have the app open and they don't realize the app's still open.
	They can try to close the app, but they don't realize the app's still open because the whole purpose of it is constant geo-tracking because that's how they monetize their app.
	That's how they pay for it.
	They're getting intel on you.
	Tell us about yourself.
	Tell us everything about yourself.
	Tell us as much as you can about yourself.
	Tell us those very things you don't want people to know about yourself.
	And so we can market and monetize that data and information.
	And the FTC is like, that's really a consumer violation.
	They call it unfair.
	And the definition of unfair is something that injures consumers that the consumers cannot reasonably avoid.
	So step one, does it injure consumers?
	Step two, A substantial injury.
	Two, is it something consumers can reasonably avoid?
	And third, does the risk, does the detriment, the injury outweigh the benefit of the product?
	And here, I think the FTC is fundamentally right on a lot of this.
	If they were successful, it would provide a great restraint.
	My own skepticism is that they were only interested in limiting this dangerous power when it was used by Dinesh D'Souza in 2000 and Mule to expose election fornication.
	They're like, oh, that's a sensitive location, going back and forth to put some extra ballots in the box.
	Though I share the concern, because I don't like this at all.
	I think people have been tricked and duped into giving away their privacy in ways that's not within the meaning of it.
	Put it this way.
	There's been as much informed consent in giving away your geolocation information as there has been informed consent in getting vaccinated under the COVID-19.
	So I'll put it that way.
	That's how much informed consent took place.
	And so I think the suit is a good suit.
	And the expose of the police, a good expose, and hopefully we see remedy from it.
	But it's a world that has been mostly legally untouched for the past decade or so, and it's one of the most dangerous invasions of privacy and your liberty that can exist.
	Now, by the way, there's a lot of ways to get...
	To fool the Matrix.
	It's not always a bad idea to have one phone go with other people that do other things and not bring your phone with you everywhere.
	Not necessarily have your phone in your own name.
	There's a lot of techniques that you can trick the Matrix into not knowing what's going on.
	But people shouldn't have to resort to those to protect their privacy.
	Someone says this, by the way.
	Alexa, how are you today?
	Missy the cat.
	And the very funny thing is, I've been getting...
	I'm obviously on some sort of...
	I've been getting those very text messages unsolicited from unknown numbers for the last five days now.
	What are your rates?
	Alexa, what are you doing today?
	I hear you're in the Naples region.
	I've been getting them left, right, and center.
	I don't know what's going on.
	The bottom line, I think most of us do take for granted.
	We're being exploited.
	We're being tracked.
	But for...
	For commercial purposes, not for investigative purposes.
	Where it becomes very problematic is when authorities say, holy shit, we can go buy all your data, find out how close you were to the Capitol on January 6th, get your text messages to see if you're talking about having had, you know, carried certain firearms with you, where you left them, et cetera, et cetera.
	And they use it to turn...
	Think about the others, like, you know, the, you know, why do people go to gay bars?
	What about people who go to certain kinds of places?
	I mean, it provides extraordinary blackmail potential as well.
	And that's what all of it is.
	I mean, the old Facebook joke, right?
	You know five things.
	You like five things on Facebook.
	Facebook knows you better than a friend.
	You like 10 things.
	Facebook knows you better than a good friend.
	You like 50 things.
	Facebook knows you better than your spouse.
	And that was the whole scam.
	You integrate geolocation with that?
	You can see how it can be used for nefarious purposes.
	How it can be used for good purposes is expose a crime in the case of 2,000 mules, but it is much more likely to be used for illicit purposes than justified purposes.
	And again, in my view in those contexts, for example...
	2,000 mules, you could lawfully request that information if it was properly gathered.
	In other words, that's where you should go get a warrant, show probable cause that we believe there is a group of people doing this.
	Here's what information, here's what our basis is.
	And they had enough basis of indirect inferential evidence and say, we only want these particular files.
	And then those files could have been produced and thus satisfied the concern.
	But that should go through that process.
	It shouldn't circumvent that process, which is the way the current system currently operates.
	And I presume to the extent that unless it's otherwise necessary, it would be anonymized and therefore not particularized.
	Each person has a unique ID associated with their phone, which is very tricky to try to undo.
	And then it's not very hard to link up that to an actual name.
	It is another leap to do, but it's not too hard.
	Now, of course, it might link up to a name that isn't the name of the actual person who had that phone.
	In fact, I would guess in a lot of those 2000 Mules cases...
	Their phone will not match their name.
	If they have an IQ over 50. So that's why it's not as easy.
	People are like, oh, it should be easy to track the person.
	Put this away, if it was easy to track the person, that would be evidence they thought what they were doing was on the up and up.
	Still may be an illegal method of voting, but they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.
	If you couldn't, that's more evidence of people who knew what the score was in advance.
	It's not that hard.
	I've had clients in the alternative product distribution business who educated me on the means of communication outside of normal trackable forms.
	And I was startled at how easy and simple it was.
	People are saying burner phones.
	I just operate on the basis that I'm being tracked and surveilled all the time.
	Not in any paranoid, delusional sense.
	Yeah, I have no privacy.
	There were people taking photos of you fishing off the deck yesterday.
	Did people tag me on those?
	No, it was just in Locals.
	It was just in Locals.
	They felt half bad about it.
	They're like, oh, I saw Viva.
	Okay, I took a photo.
	I don't care just as long as no one's going to touch me.
	Okay, that sounds crazy.
	The best thing, to be blackmail free, it's like, don't leave the house.
	But there's always something on somebody that you could possibly find somewhere.
	But Robert, speaking of tracking everyone's last movement and...
	Ben's sending them to jail for five years.
	What was the January 6th?
	There were two cases that came out this week.
	Who got sentenced to 10 years?
	10 years!
	An ex-cop defending himself, defending others against Capitol Police who were attacking protesters.
	Well, basically self-defense, but it's in the District of Columbia.
	So the judge was hostile.
	The jury pool was hostile.
	Grand jury's hostile.
	Prosecutor's hostile.
	You can't get any semblance or sense of justice whatsoever.
	And you got a sentence that's two and a half times longer than the average rapist gets in America.
	Ten years in federal prison for an ex-police officer.
	Coming to the aid of someone else and pushing against another Capitol Police officer who was attacking and assaulting a protest.
	And so it's just one example of the inanity of this.
	But for those that don't know, almost impossible to appeal.
	The federal sentencing processes give so...
	And here's a problem brought about largely by conservatives, which is crazy sentencing ranges, right?
	They have federal sentencing ranges that basically...
	I mean, I favor discretion in judges and juries over sentencing commissions, but I would refer juries first.
	But the way it should start is that it should be capped from the beginning, right?
	When you have these open-ended federal criminal charges where it's like, oh, between zero and 40 years, it's like, what is that?
	You're just giving a judge an excuse to issue crazy, politically prejudiced, disparate sentences.
	That they should look at the actual crime and come up with a realistic...
	And that should be the cap.
	No more giving them lots of range and discretion.
	And that cap should be limited.
	We have evidence that outside of people who are ongoing imminent risk to safety and security, which is really a rare group of sociopaths, psychopaths, people who cannot constrain their criminality.
	Most people by the age of 35 to 40 quit being criminals that have a criminal record before.
	And the certainty of punishment matters far more in deterrence than the severity of punishment.
	Indeed, the severity of punishment at some point becomes counterproductive.
	But here it can become, here it's politically partisan manipulation of the sentencing process because too much discretion was granted by Congress to the federal judiciary in the context of criminal sentencing.
	So it's almost impossible.
	To appeal those.
	Very, very hard.
	Big burden to overcome.
	You can just highlight the absurdity.
	I mean, the judge just made a United States Supreme Court justice by the Democrats.
	Gave softer, much softer sentences to people and was critical of even any harsh sentence for people who had child pornography on their computers than a guy who defended a...
	A guy who had been a long-serving...
	This guy wasn't a danger to anybody.
	No, but she said, Robert, having it on your computer is less grievous than having actual photographs of it and whatever.
	But I don't want people accusing you or me.
	Which he wouldn't acknowledge.
	Put it this way.
	It's invariable that people convicted of child assault are deeply involved in child pornography.
	That those two are deeply connected.
	It's more contentious when people argue adult pornography leading to sexual assault.
	That evidence is frankly tenuous.
	It's not tenuous when it comes to child pornography and child abuse.
	That is a strict one-to-one ratio.
	I think justifiably so.
	Yet.
	Those kind of people get a year, two years, whatever.
	Asimov's kid in California got a sweetheart deal by Robert Mueller when he was the federal U.S. attorney there, who had one of the biggest stashes of CP in American history and got to walk clean and didn't serve a day in jail, after which the W. Bush family rewarded him by making him FBI director not long after, boys and girls.
	But it's a disturbing sentence.
	Somebody who was just outside the Capitol with a sign or something got 30 days.
	Whereas people who illegally attacked the church and the White House when Trump, during the BLM riots, those people are getting paychecks from the government.
	They're writing them checks.
	For even trying to protect the church.
	For even trying to protect the White House.
	That's the level of insanity that we are at.
	And as an example, it leads into a person who got sued because the plaintiff was libeled for just taking a photo of being anywhere connected to January 6th, which was the sister of the Marine veteran.
	Alec, but hold on before we get there, because I don't want anyone saying...
	Viva and Barnes are strawmanning the decision.
	The judge sentenced this guy to 10 years.
	I heard it, and I was like, okay, there was video evidence.
	It should be pretty black and white to convict this guy and sentence to 10 years.
	He claimed self-defense, whether or not it's self-defense, but let's just see the video.
	This is...
	And I hope this is the right video.
	Let me just get the audio off.
	You're standing with a line of D.C. police officers trying to protect the West Terrace of the U.S. Capitol January 6th.
	54-year-old Thomas Webster burst through the mob with a profanity-laced tirade.
	Oh my goodness.
	Ten years, ten years.
	Hold on, sorry.
	I just want to bring it up so that it's full screen.
	Webster's attorney now filing court documents claiming a D.C. police officer used excessive force against Webster.
	It is unclear if Webster's attorney is referring to the officer in the yellow coat who initially pushes the Marine Corps veteran and former New York City police officer before Webster charges.
	Webster's attorney also telling the court he plans to use the body-worn camera footage to prove excessive force used by the officer happened before Webster's alleged criminal acts.
	After the initial skirmish, the video shows Webster on top of an officer who was knocked to the ground.
	In an interview with prosecutors, that officer said as Webster tried to rip off his helmet, he was choked by his own chin strap, leaving the officer unable to breathe.
	In the District of Columbia, a person cannot claim self-defense to justify an assault on a police officer unless that officer uses more force than reasonably necessary.
	And the force used in response against the officer must be no more than necessary for a person's protection.
	Thomas Webster.
	So that's the video.
	And I won't...
	I mean, you all know what I think of that.
	10 years?
	Maybe not.
	That's insane.
	I mean, it's utterly ludicrous.
	It's utterly ludicrous.
	You have someone with no criminal history, who has an extended history of service to protection of the American people, that is at an environment, which, by the way, the Capitol Police was gassing people, attacking people, provoking people, doing a range of things, that in every other context during the BLM riots were considered absolutely horrific and tyrannical and oppressive and the rest, again, such that they're writing checks to the people who did worse acts during the BLM riots in the District of Columbia.
	And here he is, mostly responding initially, complaining about what's taking place.
	As a former officer, as an officer who understands that this is not supposed to be the proper procedure for Capitol, but Capitol Police are a joke anyway.
	There's political hacks, okay?
	They're not real police in a traditional sense.
	And so it's not like they do daily policing of any consequence beyond cover-up various crimes that members of Congress commit.
	I mean, that's all they really do.
	And so he's saying this is...
	And it escalates, and he's attacked first at multiple levels, according to him, and he says the body camera footage proves it.
	But because of the circumstances he's in, he cannot get a fair and impartial trial.
	Not possible.
	And then he's sentenced to 10 years?
	10 years in federal prison?
	I mean, that is ridiculous.
	I mean, it makes little sense at all in terms of proportionality, in terms of sensibility.
	The only logic, nobody has any doubt.
	That if this was a BLM person setting fire to a house someplace, they wouldn't get 10 years.
	And yet somebody who gets into a controversy with a police member about whether they were properly policing, that led to what?
	For a minute he thought he couldn't breathe.
	For a minute he thought he couldn't, that's it.
	So, you know, he had his chin strap on in such a way he couldn't figure out whether he could breathe for a minute.
	Apparently he wasn't hurt, right?
	Because where's the detail of that?
	That would be all over the news for six months, for a year, for two years.
	Had it happened.
	Didn't happen.
	So it's another outrageous verdict by a politically corrupted judicial process that thinks it's sending a message, just like the Red Sermon, to the dissident population to line up and behave, line up and obey.
	And what the court system doesn't understand is it's the court system that is impeaching itself.
	Indicting itself, incriminating itself for its open political partisan prejudice.
	More and more people are waking up, particularly the law enforcement, because this is a veteran police officer.
	More and more law enforcement-oriented groups and constituencies are waking up to just how corrupt the American judiciary is, and some of the worst are federal judges, and you scrape the bottom of the barrel.
	You'll find the Southern District of New York and the District of Columbia.
	It goes full circle back to the beginning of the stream where, you know, the cops are seeing it and they have to worry about defectors within the RCMP tipping off the protesters.
	But I do want to just say, I want to say one thing.
	This is not a cover my own ass.
	This is a cover my own dignity.
	I brought up a chat that said, if you're going to get 10 years for that, implying you may as well do worse.
	Here's the thing.
	No and don't.
	The reality though is...
	When you don't need people to commit the crimes that you want them to commit, to punish them severely, and you do it anyhow, there's a very real risk that you disincentivize people not to break the law when you destroy their lives in a disproportionate manner for any manner in which they may have broken the law.
	And we've seen other cases where they just fabricate alleged crimes out of whole cloth.
	The whole point is you don't give them the fodder to do that.
	Period.
	Oh yeah, well you look at King, you look at Gandhi, you look at the mistakes in some parts of people like Nelson Mandela, that when they took the bait in response to the bad actions of the government, usual violence of the government, in Mandela's case, King and Gandhi did not.
	Mandela did.
	I mean, basically, you know, you wanted just civil rights in South Africa.
	And what happened is that, you know, the South African police, one of the most ruthless and criminal organizations, that a lot of conservatives, by the way, a lot of people on the right, justified and defended South Africa's horrific regime.
	One of the worst regimes in the history of America, of the world, in the 20th century.
	You're talking about money laundering, drug laundering, human trafficking, you name it.
	A bunch of people got together in protest in the 1950s, and they just decided to shoot them all down.
	Killed about 70 people, killed a bunch of women and little kids.
	Naturally, that radicalized Mandela.
	So Mandela aligned with the people that would provide arms and funds.
	Some of those were communists.
	Hence, he got identified and got put in the book as a communist.
	Started doing subversive resistance and revolution, like I hear a lot of people here in the States occasionally say.
	And what happened?
	Within a few years, he's arrested in prison, and so is the whole hierarchy of the ANC, and he lost an audience to large parts of the West that he otherwise had.
	So it was a mistake.
	He himself has acknowledged that, that he should have stuck with the King Gandhi style.
	It's very natural to respond to horrific actions of the government with an instinctual response that is exactly what they want.
	That's what the Red Sermon speech was about.
	It was, as Jack Posobiec noted, Entirely intended to provoke a reaction because they didn't get what they needed out of January 6th.
	The whole world can see this is an overreaction by the government, not an overreaction by the people and the protesters.
	And so as long as people maintain that spirit, the same spirit Trump made his speech in this weekend in Philadelphia, then that won't happen.
	We won't escalate to To worse and more dangerous problems.
	Because that's what they want because they need it.
	They need something to discredit their opponents.
	And right now, everything they're doing is failing.
	They're not getting the provocation and the response that they wanted.
	They're not getting the reaction they keep inviting.
	It's like that meme where the guy's poking the little frog, poking him, and he has an FBI hat or something else.
	Please do this.
	Please do this.
	That's what that whole speech was meant to do.
	Why do you think they use V for Vendetta visual imagery of the president from V for Vendetta?
	They want you to react like V for Vendetta from the film.
	They want a violent resistance, not a peaceful resistance.
	Because as long as it remains peaceful, they're in trouble.
	I want people to see this.
	I...
	Okay, that's not the...
	That will be...
	I just want an image.
	This image right here.
	It's not going to come up.
	That's a good one.
	All those...
	It's the same red and black dramatic imagery, the same anger, the same rage.
	I mean, it's a little bit of two minutes of hate from 1984, Biden's speech.
	But it's mostly this.
	And that's not accidental.
	That's intentional.
	That was meant to trigger this response and reaction.
	Well, you see it in like, but the reaction has come continually from the left because you look at what Alec Baldwin did to that military family and they're the ones overreacting.
	You know, again, folks, Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.
	He's a murderer.
	Deliberate murderer.
	Alec Baldwin murderer.
	Well, let's go.
	We'll call it manslaughter, Robert, because he thought it was a blank.
	He didn't think it was a bullet.
	He thought he was going to scare him in the form of murder.
	So it's all murder to me.
	So, you know, a family from Wyoming has filed suit against Alec Baldwin.
	What happened is their young brother...
	In one case, the husband of one, father of one, some of the plaintiffs, but the main person involved was his sister.
	He goes over to Afghanistan in the debacle that was the Biden method of removal of Afghanistan under the deep state pretext that they built up a great little independent woke version of Afghanistan that basically collapsed within days.
	Her brother was killed.
	At the airport.
	Was one of the people killed because of inadequate security and poor design of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
	Alec Baldwin saw it and sent some sort of check to a GoFundMe that was meant to help the family, that was set up for the family because he had a young wife and a baby girl on the way that he would never get to see.
	Then Alec Baldwin discovers that his sister was there at January 6th.
	Wasn't inside, wasn't arrested, wasn't charged, didn't commit any crime, completely cleared, just one of the many honest protesters of what happened in the election.
	Baldwin goes nuts, starts harassing her, kind of stalking her almost online, and then attacks her in an Instagram post and then continues to attack when he sees the post goes well.
	It's his fans.
	That then start going after her, start sending her messages about she deserves to die, her brother deserved to die, deserved to be raped, assaulted.
	Somehow the media managed never to cover that, right?
	If anybody on the left ever gets anybody that goes nuts on them, the media says, see how dangerous these people are?
	But when the left does it all the time, to people on the right, the media doesn't cover it at all.
	And I would say, does it?
	We talk about...
	They throw out the accusation of dog whistles, which is people hearing things that aren't actually said.
	Then there's...
	I don't know.
	What's the actual thing when it's an actual dog whistle?
	It's not a dog whistle anymore.
	It's just a whistle.
	But, Robert, I just want to read from the...
	These are allegations, people.
	They're not proven fact yet.
	But I suspect this is easily provable.
	This is the private message between...
	Baldwin DMs this woman.
	A woman...
	He DMs her after she posts the picture.
	Commemorating her brother.
	It says, Baldwin, when I sent the money, like this is a guy, it's not charity when Baldwin or the likes of Baldwin give you money.
	It's extortion.
	It's I own you and I own your future actions.
	When I gave you the money for your late brother out of real respect for his service to this country, I didn't know you were a January 6th rioter.
	Royce, this is the plaintiff.
	Protesting is perfectly legal in the country, and I've already had my sit-down with the FBI.
	Thanks.
	Have a nice day.
	Baldwin, I don't think so.
	Your activities resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property, the death of a law enforcement officer, factually incorrect.
	The only saving grace for this is it's a private message, but I think he might have actually suggested this publicly.
	Later on, targets her publicly.
	Yeah.
	No, no, for sure, for sure.
	I just don't know if he...
	He says the same things publicly to some extent, but I don't know if he shares it.
	He doesn't repeat all of them, but he uses words like rioter, insurrection, and then it's by innuendo a lot.
	Oh yeah, and then here, an assault on the certification of the presidential.
	I reposted your photo.
	Good luck.
	What the hell is that supposed to mean?
	And he knows what he's doing.
	I'm going to harass you, put you on blast.
	I have 2 million Instagram followers.
	I'm going to make your life miserable.
	Just because I disagree with...
	Even though he knew, or had reason to know, but most likely knew, that she had been cleared.
	She didn't do anything.
	She wasn't a rioter, wasn't an insurrectionist, wasn't any of those things.
	Again, insurrectionist is a specific federal crime, so if you're going to make that accusation, you need to establish that you have...
	You know, reason to believe it and that each of the elements are present, which, of course, he doesn't know what he's talking about, so he didn't do it in that sense.
	I mean, his only defense is that he's Alec Baldwin and he's too stupid to know what the facts of law are.
	But beyond that, he clearly did libel her and the family because he goes on to put him on blast, deliberately put him on blast.
	Calls her an insurrectionist.
	Yeah, calls her an insurrectionist and does it also by innuendo.
	Like he says, look at all these things these terrible people did.
	By the way, here's one of them, right?
	So he can say, well, I never specifically said...
	She did A, B, C, and D. But I said A, B, C, and D, and then said, here, look at a photo of one of them.
	And that's the problem he has.
	So they brought defamation claims, I think false light, invasion of privacy claims.
	The only thing I think that's weak about the case is not the facts, it's not the law, it's where they sued.
	So Alec Baldwin lives in New York.
	They're from Wyoming, all the different plaintiffs.
	And they brought suit.
	I think $25 million in damage is what they've listed or identified.
	Everybody's got a propensity to put some big money out there to get a press release.
	I'm still not a fan of that, but it is what it is.
	But my problem is why bring a suit when you're a January 6th person at all?
	If you were there, period.
	You're a Trump supporter, period.
	In the Southern District of New York against a liberal icon like Alec Baldwin.
	The chances you get a fair justice, fair judge, a fair Second Circuit, or a fair jury is just remote.
	You've got to get all three.
	And you're just not likely to.
	And watch this suit magically disappear the way criminal prosecution against Alec Baldwin for murdering a person has also not come about.
	And my only, you know, Sarah Palin's people filed in New York.
	I keep saying you don't have to sue in New York nine times out of ten.
	If it's the only choice, I understand it.
	I've had cases in New York where it's the only place we could bring suit.
	But this was not a place they had to go to New York to bring.
	People don't understand that about libel law.
	He targeted her in Wyoming knowing she was in Wyoming.
	Sue in Wyoming, not New York.
	I was going to say that people don't appreciate you can sue in the jurisdiction where the damage occurred, which is not necessarily where the only publication may have occurred or the defendant resides.
	In my Covington case, I sued all in Kentucky.
	I sued all in Kentucky.
	Now, Kentucky's got unique personal jurisdiction rules, so we've got to figure out whether I can sue or not as we go up through the appellate food chain.
	I want to establish new law on those grounds.
	But you can sue anywhere.
	These are big personal jurisdiction disputes.
	Back in the mid-1980s were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the Calder case, which established you can sue in any state for defamation as long as the defamation was published there and injury occurred there at any level.
	So you might get transferred between venues later on.
	But force them to do that transfer, as happened to some of Nunes' cases.
	Don't do it out of the gate yourself, because the Southern District of New York is not a place to get justice if there's any political influence on the case whatsoever.
	Someone says Wyoming tossed it.
	I don't think Wyoming tossed this.
	If it gets tossed in New York, Robert, it's a state claim, they can file in another state?
	It's not precedential.
	So if they filed in state court in Wyoming, they filed in federal court in Wyoming, it wouldn't be dismissed.
	It would be transferred, right?
	Because federal courts can transfer between venues upon request.
	No doubt about that.
	If it was filed in state court in Wyoming, then that can be dismissed if they don't think there's personal jurisdiction over Alec Baldwin.
	But I don't see that.
	There clearly is personal jurisdiction over Alec Baldwin in Wyoming, in my opinion, but you would run that up through the flagpole.
	So to my knowledge, I didn't see anything in the suit that referenced the prior suit in Wyoming.
	Okay.
	I hadn't heard that either.
	You don't have to be limited to that.
	You can find other jurisdictions to sue in.
	The defamation is very broad.
	You don't have to always sue where the defendant lives or where the plaintiff lives.
	Now, I think in the federal criminal context, You should be entitled to the jury of your home residence all the time.
	I think that we should meaningfully enforce the venue provision of the Constitution that was intended in that direction.
	And what jury provisions mean as well.
	But that's not law anyway, as you can see, but it's happening in January 6th cases.
	But the idea that, especially in the technology age, you don't know where Alec Baldwin made those messages or made those posts from.
	You do know he sent them to 2.4 million people, and you know those people existed in every single state of the union, and he knew that.
	So when he did that, he deliberately subjected himself to the personal jurisdiction of every state in this country, and that's the greater legal authority today.
	Well, let me just see this.
	People are saying Royce, Wyoming.
	Let's see if this happened.
	Wyoming-Baldwin lawsuit.
	She refiles defamation.
	Okay, hold on.
	So this is from East India.
	Refiles defamation lawsuit against Baldwin.
	Here, let me pull this up just so we can see if this occurred.
	Share.
	Hold on.
	Chrome tab.
	Family.
	Here we go.
	Okay.
	CNN.
	The family of a fallen US man.
	She files a lawsuit against Alec Baldwin.
	She's seeking $25 million.
	They accused Baldwin.
	She was president?
	Okay.
	So where is...
	The sister and widow filed a similar lawsuit against Baldwin in Wyoming in January.
	A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in May, finding that it did not have jurisdiction over Baldwin since he lives in New York.
	So is this a federal versus state claim issue, Robert?
	So the...
	If they brought it in federal court, then that they can...
	There are two options.
	One is he could have transferred.
	If he chose not to transfer to the Southern District of New York, then they can appeal that challenge.
	So I wouldn't have brought it initially in federal court.
	Now, maybe they brought it in state court.
	Maybe it got removed to federal court.
	Maybe federal court claimed not to have jurisdiction over Baldwin.
	How does the federal district court not have personal jurisdiction over Baldwin?
	That's really ludicrous.
	But maybe they got a bad federal judge in Wyoming that got the draw.
	But that would not be...
	How is it if they don't have personal jurisdiction over Alec Baldwin in Wyoming?
	Federal District Court can't find that.
	Really.
	So, I think that would be a good appellate challenge in that particular...
	Now, they may have not been as specific in certain aspects of the allegations.
	So, the allegations that need to be raised in the defamation personal jurisdiction context...
	Is that Alex Jones, well, not to deal with all the Alex Jones exceptions, is that Alec Baldwin knew at the time he filed suit, at the time he took his action, that were the basis of the filing of the suit, that he had Wyoming supporters on Instagram and deliberately and directly sent a message into Wyoming that he knew that the plaintiffs lived and resided in Wyoming and that he deliberately tried to cause them harm in Wyoming.
	Maybe they didn't allege that.
	Otherwise, if the federal judge said otherwise, the federal judge is wrong.
	But you do get into that.
	You get about one out of five, one out of ten judges in the country who have delusional views about personal jurisdiction.
	Mostly they're politically expedient excuses for not meaningfully addressing the law.
	Yeah, so that would be the problem I would have with it, unless there's something unique to Wyoming law.
	But this is federal court.
	So it went from federal court to state court in New York, which...
	No, no, it went from...
	So some parties filed suit in federal court.
	That got dismissed.
	So new parties plus prior parties filed suit in New York.
	But both cases, federal court.
	To my knowledge, no state court proceeding was ever initially brought unless the...
	Unless the state court proceeding, unless it was removed from Wyoming state court to Wyoming federal court.
	The broader question I have on this, when I'm reading this lawsuit, it's, you know, the damages seem to come not from the defamation per se, pun intended, but the damages come from the pileup.
	Is there, there is no recognized cause of action for triggering a social media?
	No, it's still, I mean, it's the injury that's caused from the tort.
	So that the piling on is part of the injury caused by the libel because of how many people he had.
	Now, they had some other claims.
	Now, maybe they're bringing them under Wyoming law because some of the other claims raised were kind of generic.
	Like it said, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	It was not a crystal clear claim in that respect.
	But, yeah, so we'll see how it sort of filters out.
	But it could have been a little bit better explained and explicated.
	And maybe that's what happened in Wyoming.
	I haven't read the federal judge's decision in Wyoming.
	Maybe they didn't sufficiently allege the things that invoke personal jurisdiction.
	But the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that personal jurisdiction is very broad in the defamation context.
	And so, you know, they would have had to do either a really poor job of pleading or a very questionable judicial ruling.
	For that not to have gone into court in Wyoming.
	All right.
	At least it explains why they're in New York.
	But they're being forced into a bad venue.
	And I'm just thinking, the hypothetical.
	Let's just say someone set aside defamation.
	Someone just triggers online harassment.
	It's like, hey boys, go bother this person.
	I want to think of specific examples.
	But there's no defamation at root.
	Robert, there's no cause of action.
	That's like Kiwi Farms, where you have people that...
	Pile on or accused of piling on to somebody.
	That's not illegal unless there's somebody on that forum line.
	Kiwi Farms itself has Section 230 immunity, but people commenting on it, unless they committed libel, there's no violation there.
	Typically.
	Now, sometimes you might have invasion of privacy.
	Sometimes you might have stalking civil statutes that could apply.
	It depends on where they go and how they go about it.
	But generally speaking, The dogpiling phenomenon of social media is not something that has any legal remedy currently.
	All right.
	I don't know what this segues into, Robert, but I don't feel that we've fleshed out the insanity of Biden's speech enough.
	I could talk about that.
	Well, speaking of defamation, Netflix got sued for a show inventing Anna, another New York case.
	I don't know if it was filed in New York, but the incident all arose in New York.
	You need to clarify this for other people.
	If I was entirely unaware of the Netflix series and the story that is inventing Anna, fill us in and fill me in because I didn't have time to...
	I haven't seen it either, but it was very popular apparently on Netflix, which was about a person pretending to be an heiress and was not and took a lot of people for a ride and lived high on the hog on other people's money thinking she was an heiress.
	One of those people was, I think, a photographer journalist, the one that's brought suit.
	She got taken for a ride at different points.
	So she writes her own article, writes a book, options it to HBO.
	Someone else writes an article, decides to glab onto the story, sell to Netflix.
	And the key is Netflix gets the criminal defendant.
	And the deal with the criminal defendant is to basically pay her legal fees, prop her up in the court of public opinion, make her look good, and provide things apparently for her criminal trial.
	And part of the apparent quid pro quo was to defame the person that this fake heiress blamed on outing her and exposing her.
	And that was the woman who's brought suit.
	So Netflix tells the story, the series, and the way they do it, they mostly do fictional characters, but for this...
	A person who's not part of the case, hasn't authorized sharing her information with Netflix, actually has a potential competitive product on HBO.
	They belittle and attack and apparently libel her like crazy.
	They go through libel after libel after libel after libel after libel.
	So it turned out when Netflix was inventing Anna, they were inventing a lot of things.
	Along the way.
	And I read it.
	I haven't seen the documentary, so I don't know the details.
	But basically, even the reviews were saying, my goodness, you're lambasting this individual for whatever the reason.
	But you get Netflix.
	So they have three recent cases.
	You had the cuties arguable bordering on CP stuff.
	You had the other case, Robert.
	What was the other defamation case?
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	Oh, there's been several.
	They're facing about close to a dozen defamation-related claims of various types because of what they've done.
	I think we've covered three or four of them.
	Yeah, what was it?
	Not the cuties.
	There was another one.
	Oh, there are several that we've covered, actually.
	Yeah, Robert.
	I don't remember the names of which ones.
	Damn it.
	Me neither.
	Anyhow, all it says is someone says bordering.
	Someone said too old to, what is it called?
	Chillin' Netflix?
	I don't even know what that is.
	Oh yeah, Netflix and chill.
	Netflix and chill.
	Well, speaking of somebody who's not going to Netflix and chill is the folks who put better laundering money into the BLM label.
	And as some of us said at the time, this was not a legitimate civil rights organization.
	This was an organization that was not rooted in the black community, not rooted in the black church, not rooted in the black business community, not rooted in the black civil rights lawyer community.
	And I mean the legitimate ones, not just the grifters and ones who want to get on TV.
	There's a lot of people who do very good work in that community, but you don't hear about them much because they're not trying to basically run around and grab a lot of press conferences, like certain Ben Crumps that might come to mind.
	So it turns out BLM, of course, is Better Laundering Money is their real name.
	They're all suing each other now for the degree of fraud they committed.
	They basically took all the donations and ran away with it.
	Very little of it went to the community, went to civil rights, went to serve.
	This is what happens when you don't have the black business community involved.
	You don't have a black church involved.
	You don't have local black civil rights organizers involved.
	You don't have local people.
	Not your community college adjunct professor type.
	But I'm talking about your local boxing club guy, your local, the guy who runs the local, your local barbershop guy, the guy who's got the local franchise, and other connected business members within the black community, black middle class that exists in every town at some level.
	They weren't getting, they weren't part of this.
	In fact, there was a couple of witches, literally witches, that founded BLM.
	They're very antique.
	And so, of course, they were stealing all from each other.
	Tens of millions of dollars.
	You know, real estate scam here.
	Another scam here.
	Their charities are being dissolved.
	They're not recognized because they're not filing forms.
	They're not filing returns.
	They're not publishing information.
	And this is even from liberal jurisdictions like California.
	Like, this is just a complete crock.
	So, BLM got further exposed this week.
	Which is deservedly and justifiably.
	I'll bring this up because some people don't remember.
	Some people never knew.
	Making money in Canada.
	This was another one of the stories that got suppressed on the social media at the time.
	BLM spent at least $12 million on luxury properties in LA-Toronto tax filing.
	Let's see here.
	Black Lives Matter spent millions on luxury properties in Los Angeles and Toronto, according to Ruth.
	In Canada, Toronto-based non-profit M4BJ, that's a very bad acronym, purchased a 10,000-square-foot downtown property for the equivalent of $6.3 million.
	Former headquarters of the Canadian Communist Party was named the Wild Seed Centre for the Art and Activism by...
	Yada, yada, yada.
	The purchase of the Toronto home was part of an $8 million...
	Out-of-country grant in North America to conduct activities to educate and support Black communities and to purchase.
	It really makes one of the most...
	How do I get this out of here?
	It was predictable.
	I mean, the Crips, the gang Crips is actually named Committee for Revolution or whatever nonsense because they all learned how to play the scam during the 1960s.
	The Black Panthers had some...
	Some legitimate components that were politically and socially conscious.
	Hampton and some other guys.
	But a lot of them weren't.
	A lot of them ended up being drug dealers, protecting drug dealers.
	A lot of them was just a new name of extortionist.
	Famously made fun of in the electric acid.
	I always get the whole title wrong.
	Kool-Aid test.
	Thomas Wolfe.
	Great book.
	Where Leonard Bernstein.
	It's Bernstein.
	He's doing fundraising for the Black Panthers, which is just kind of crazy.
	But there's always been a gap, the difference between the grifter organizations and the sincere organizations.
	And there's been a proclivity on the right to consider them all grifter organizations or commie organizations.
	And there's a propensity on the left to excuse both, when in fact there's just two very different groups with very different causes and very different modus operandi.
	And BLM always, always had the fingerprints of being a fraudulent grifter organization, and now it's just being systematically exposed as such.
	I'm going to bring up this chat.
	I can't bring it up.
	I'm just going to say it.
	It's Todd Larson.
	It's a $49.99 super chat.
	No people and no government will wage war for war's own sake.
	Only in the brain of perverse, brewish literatures.
	I don't know what that means.
	MAGA.
	The idea be entertained that anyone can make war from sheer joy in killing your bloodshed.
	Red sermon or another speech.
	I can't find that super chat.
	I wanted to bring it up.
	But one of my initial memories from the practice of law was...
	In the context of a file, which involved not just a not-for-profit, but a charity.
	And I'm like, a lot of people are wearing fancy jewelry, fancy watches when they're running charities.
	And there's nothing wrong with fancy watches or fancy cars.
	If you go run a business, you shouldn't be expecting to wear that stuff if you're running a charity.
	And it left me very cynical at the time.
	This was way back in the day.
	But yeah, no, let's just say, oh yeah, we're buying it for...
	Not re-education.
	For raising awareness.
	We're contracting these massive parties, buying opulent $15,000 jackets.
	It's for raising awareness, people, so it's all justified.
	And you're the bigot if you take objection to us running a not-for-profit or charity in a very lucrative, self-fulfilling way for the greater good.
	Yep.
	No doubt about it.
	So another sort of...
	Corrupt actors that got off the hook, though, this week were the Nazis.
	In this case, the federal judges.
	It's either the deep state, big farmer, or Nazis.
	They can't figure out which they love more.
	I know you've done probably deep dives, hushes on this.
	I bone up and find out about it.
	It goes back to 1930s Germany where Jewish art dealerships were coerced to sell their assets, presumably not at fair market value.
	German citizens being forced by the German government To basically get stolen from.
	Their ancestors or their heirs, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, want to sue the German government for, I don't know, expropriation, theft, whatever.
	Or they just want the property back.
	To the extent it's retrievable.
	And it's artwork that's worth a little more now than it was at the time.
	Robert, my understanding of the posture of this is that the kids who are not German citizens sued in Germany.
	They were booted on the basis that...
	This was done at the time to German citizens, therefore prevented or precluded by German law.
	They then sued in America and also had their suit booted for more procedural reasons.
	I mean, I'll need you to flesh it out.
	Well, just imagine the federal court is Oprah.
	The federal judges are Oprah.
	And the audience that is made up of the deep state, the Nazis, and big pharma.
	And it's the federal court saying, you're immune, you're immune, you're immune, you're immune.
	Because that's what happened.
	So this, again, creation of the courts and partially of Congress, that somehow foreign governments can't be sued.
	It's like, why?
	Again, all the doctrine of sovereign immunity derives from the idea the king can do no wrong because he's God's representative on Earth.
	It is ludicrous to continue to have any doctrine of immunity, period, unless it's explicitly in the Constitution, and it ain't.
	And by the way, they could have put it in there if they thought it belonged there.
	The courts have superimposed it because they want to cover up for their corrupt pals.
	So there's another example of corruption where they actually are pretending they gave fair value, the Germans, the classic Germans.
	The same Germans who want to fight against Russia for the nobility of Ukraine, these sets of Germans still have stolen art, lots of stolen art and stolen wealth.
	From the people they murdered and mass killed, or threatened to mass kill, who barely escaped with their lives by giving away their world's wealth.
	Sometimes the Swiss helped them, the Nazis, sometimes they didn't.
	But here's a case where they're still putting it up in a museum.
	Can you imagine?
	I mean, this is the Great Guelph Treasure.
	I don't know if I pronounced it right, but it's one of the old great medieval treasures of Germany that Göring bought, you know, bought in 1935 when everybody that's Jewish that has any money is trying to get the hell out before they all get whacked.
	And then he gave it partially as a gift to Hitler.
	And now it's sitting in some fancy German museum.
	And rather than say, golly gee, that seems kind of like a bad way we kind of got that.
	Nope.
	They're like, screw you.
	We're keeping it.
	We like it.
	It looks nice on display.
	And so the families that descended from, say, screw you.
	We're getting it back.
	Bring suit.
	And they say, ah, under American law, we're all immune.
	That unless the...
	I think it's, this one's FSIA, as I recall, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.
	Only has these little exceptions because the courts make up this immunity nonsense.
	But what they thought, you'd think the exception clearly applied.
	Because the exception said, if you're suing, if a foreign government that does commercial activity in the United States, that's number one, that's what gives them jurisdiction.
	Number two, the foreign government took property that violated international law, and that's the subject to the dispute, then you can sue.
	That's going to be an exception.
	Magically, the U.S. Supreme Court, by the way, unanimously, this is how they line up.
	They line up for the Nazis in the deep state.
	They just line up right for them.
	Everybody will whore themselves out for them.
	And they said, nah, there's actually a domestic takings exception.
	In other words, as long as the government that screwed you is your own, you can never sue them in another court ever again.
	And the argument they made was, well, we weren't recognized as actual citizens with political rights under the German government, and that principle presumes such rights exist.
	And the federal district court was like, nah, I don't think you pled it well enough, and even if you did, I'm going to say that only applies, you would have to disprove that you're somebody else's national, not that they, that...
	They have to prove affirmatively you are considered a politically protected, legally entitled citizen, which, by the way, basically guts everybody's rights.
	So if you're in a country, steal whatever you want.
	You can't be sued ever in America.
	You have complete immunity, carte blanche.
	Nobody can do anything about it.
	Even the Nazis get away with stealing the gold.
	Federal judge, another big win for federal courts this week.
	I mean, I try to understand it.
	Basically, they got tossed in Germany because it said, well, there was the argument that in Germany was...
	Oh, they thought it was fair value.
	Well, no, but also they said it was...
	It was nothing coerced.
	Okay, it was Goring.
	Okay, yeah, well, it was 1935.
	Ah, okay, yeah, yeah, you were Jewish.
	Yeah, okay.
	No problem.
	That was still fair market value.
	That's who the Germans really are.
	But I, at some point...
	I don't know.
	There's the argument that at some point...
	I mean German political leaders for all the Germans that may be watching.
	I'm not bashing all German people, though.
	I am a little bit suspicious of all of you.
	Well, there goes the clip, Robert.
	Oh, hold on.
	Before we get into the other thing, someone brought it up.
	It's a good point.
	14,000 people watching on YouTube.
	We're up to close to 4,000 on Rumble.
	Apparently, there's only 4,000 likes here.
	It doesn't matter.
	But if you're so inclined, right now, break the chat section with comments just to make it fizzle and hit the thumbs up.
	Robert, people want to hear a bit about the speech.
	I mean, I know we've talked about it.
	You were on with the Duran.
	Was it the day after?
	I was watching with the Duran.
	Oh, the Red Sermon speech?
	Oh, the Red Sermon.
	But hold on.
	Let me...
	I gotta toot my own horn here.
	And we do have...
	We have the ATF case, the Durham case, the Navy case, and a dog's case.
	Okay, well, you know, so we'll do this quickly.
	This is from Town Hall.
	It took less than a day for Joe Biden to retract his attacks on MAGA Republicans.
	I want everyone to understand, the term MAGA Republican, it's a slur.
	And it has to be regarded as such, and anyone who unironically uses it, unironically, should be treated as though they're using any other word to fill in the blank.
	And I tweeted as much, but I...
	I want to say this.
	Joe Biden, who everyone thought would play the role of Mr. Unity, set off a, I won't say the word, I don't want YouTube to accuse me, Thursday, and later went on vacation.
	That incendiary device was the fantastic speech he delivered on the grounds of the Independence Hall of Philadelphia, yada, yada, yada.
	I said this, Robert.
	I love the fact that people find ways to justify their own bigotry.
	I said, if it ever boots.
	Listen to the POTUS speech again and replace the term MAGA Republican with Jew, Muslim, Black, Japanese, or any other ethnic or racial or religious group, and you'll appreciate the tenor and terror of what you just heard.
	The amount of people who then go on to say, you choose to believe fascist ideologies, you get what you deserve, in so many words.
	There were far too many of them.
	And I don't want to fight with everyone on the internet.
	But anybody saying, well, you choose to believe this, you choose to believe being a...
	Get out of here.
	I don't want to see that again.
	You choose to believe being a fascist.
	It's a belief system.
	It's not an immutable race or trait.
	I'd say, awesome.
	Are you justifying religious discrimination?
	What states, where is it where politics and religion are treated on par in terms of prohibition of discrimination, vitriol, hate speech, targeting?
	Are there any states that recognize...
	Political ideology, if not on par with, at the very least, analogously to religious beliefs?
	I mean, in terms of anti-discrimination laws, as opposed to the First Amendment applies across the board.
	True.
	Anti-discrimination.
	That varies.
	That varies by jurisdiction.
	Some do have prohibitions on politically based discrimination.
	But the, I mean, it's, well, it's...
	Relates to a couple of the cases we have this week.
	I think the Red Sermon speaks for itself.
	It was intended to provoke a response.
	It won't get that response.
	And it fell flat on its face and backfired mostly.
	To such a degree that even people on the left were trying to come up with apologies for the weakness of it.
	And the ones that didn't mistakenly unmask themselves as to who they are.
	They're basically the fascists in reality.
	In their mindset.
	In their mentality.
	Now you look at...
	You know, corruption of the government and the system not functioning.
	You have the Durham's maybe last case, the Danchenko or whatever it is.
	And this is part of it.
	He even filed a motion to dismiss that detailed a lot of facts that raise major questions about why Durham's doing what he's doing.
	Danchenko is the only one of two people.
	Who was indicted after Durham's probe?
	Danchenko was indicted along the same lines as Michael Flynn for making...
	Unless the allegations of the lawsuit are inaccurate, equivocal claims about what he remembered based on conversations, and then he faces, what was it, four charges for making false statements?
	Something along those lines?
	Yeah.
	He was one of the identified sources for the Steele dossier, and we watched Taylor of Panama this past week at the board and had a little movie review about it, which I explained that if you understood Taylor of Panama or our man in Havana.
	You would have been able to predict who Christopher Steele really was, the template of operation of who he is.
	But that book and the movie are excellent.
	Pierce Brosnan nails that character in the film.
	Really good.
	It's the real nature of spycraft and who they really are.
	The short answer, they manipulate all the time and make stuff up.
	So Denchenko is listed as one of the sources.
	The FBI claimed in various interviews that he substantiated the dossier.
	So Durham prosecutes him on the grounds that the poor FBI was tricked into believing this whole deep state crew that's in the FBI and the Justice Department, because it's part of Durham's ongoing theme, that a few low-level people made mistakes, and otherwise outsiders tricked the FBI into doing what they did, tricked the DOJ into doing what they did.
	The problem, as detailed in the motion to dismiss by Denchenko, is that that didn't happen.
	Details that he raised questions that impugned the Steele dossier from very early on, that he knew nothing about the Steele dossier, that he rebutted various assumptions they made at various points, that he had some just vague opinion ideas about certain things that they're now wanting him to run through the rigor on, and they're trying to redefine criminal materiality in the process.
	Because what it requires is, it's like a strict criminal version of defamation.
	It requires that you know...
	That you make a factual statement that you know to be not only false but material of impact.
	And it can't be an opinion statement, thus.
	It can't be speculation.
	It can't be a guess as to something.
	It's got to be very specific, very factual, that you know not to be true and that you know will lead them astray.
	And their point is they're trying to bring charges on that go beyond that because it's part of Durham's effort.
	To shift blame from the FBI to people outside of the FBI for what happened in Russiagate.
	And the net effect of it is probably going to be the media being able to spin that the only criminal cases ever brought resulted in probation, dismissals, and acquittals.
	So he's actually undermining.
	And if anybody had any doubts who Durham was, I was one of the critics early on.
	People were very unhappy about that.
	Just listen to what Bill Barr said this week about Trump.
	Where he was throwing Trump under the bus again on ridiculous grounds, claiming, oh yeah, it's probably a serious case here, da-da-da.
	That's who Barr always was.
	He snookered his way into the White House.
	His history...
	I mean, this is a guy whose father hired Jeffrey Epstein, and then he's Attorney General when Jeffrey Epstein mysteriously dies.
	I mean, people can't put one and one together.
	But a lot of people on the right wanted to excuse and apologize for Barr.
	And now see what I've been talking about in these federal society types, of which Bill Barr is a personification.
	And so I think there's major issues with the case because Durham isn't interested in exposing the real fraud.
	It's another cover-up.
	It's another attempt to look like it's exposing something by doing something that's meant to actually cover up the underlying criminality.
	I don't understand the rationale for going after Danchenko.
	Is it just a safe face and say, look, The collusion investigation that yielded nothing, we can't say it yielded nothing entirely, so we've got to find a couple of bad actors.
	It's saying that, yeah, everything about Russiagate collusion was false, but it wasn't because the FBI was corrupt.
	It was because these bunch of corrupt outsiders tricked them.
	That's the reason.
	Well, that actually simplifies it greatly for me, Robert.
	I hear the children knocking on the door.
	What's left on our menu for the evening?
	All right, so we got a couple of Virginia cases.
	Virginia family has brought suit because the school wants to redefine pronouns for their family without their family's permission of their own kid.
	Also, the county that was covering up rapes and sexual assaults because they were being committed by trans students that became an issue in the gubernatorial campaign.
	A grand jury had formed to investigate them, and the school stopped to claim they're above the grand jury.
	That that would be co-opting the school system.
	Just so nobody accuses anyone of anything, it was, I believe, one...
	Individual trans student on two separate occasions after being transferred from one school to the next.
	This was in Loudoun County, people.
	This was like when the shit hit the fan.
	How broad it was, how severe it was, who knew what.
	They tried to stop it all.
	The Virginia Supreme Court this week ruled, no, you can't.
	The school system is not beyond the grand jury.
	A mere grand jury investigation into the school system is not running public education in Virginia.
	But this is their mindset, that liberal bureaucratic mindset.
	My agency can't be reviewed by anybody.
	We're superior to everybody.
	The school actually argued it was school matters and therefore the grand jury should not look into unalleged.
	I'm not even sure if it's alleged because I think it's definitive.
	Sexual assault at one school which resulted in the transfer of the trans student to another school where another one occurred apparently.
	The school said, no, these are school matters.
	No need for law enforcement.
	And also because the trans student had access to girls' facilities was an argument that that's what was causing some of this to occur.
	Nick Ricada, for exposing a trans person grooming kids, got another suspension on YouTube.
	And the Kiwi Farms, the website platform that outed it, Was removed by Cloudflare.
	So there's this continued attempt to suppress information about the problems with treating men as women because they identify as such.
	Legally, public policy, socially, etc.
	So maybe BLM was really a trans Black Lives Matter organization.
	But speaking of other big cases, our other big case this week involved dogs, the Navy, and the ATF.
	Now, the ATF case is the case we talked about several weeks ago, predicted that the federal court would find the ATF's attempts to regulate all gun parts would be in excess of their authority.
	That's exactly what a federal court ruled this week.
	Issued an injunction against its enforcement.
	Said that, also established that substantial economic injury can be an irreparable injury.
	Sometimes that is forgotten by courts.
	That was good to establish.
	But basically, on that specific equitable side.
	But basically, he said, look, it's clear.
	The ATF never, under Congress's laws, has the right to govern or claim to govern by redefining words the ability to look at parts.
	You can regulate guns.
	You can't regulate parts to guns.
	It doesn't matter whether it's called a gun kit.
	It doesn't matter whether it's a ghost gun, whether it's a shadow gun, how the gun is made.
	Can't do it.
	So basically gutted their entire attempt to rewrite the law to have this massive gun grab in America.
	So that was a very good ruling.
	The Navy got exposed dumping jet fuel into water that people were drinking for ingestion and intake and swimming, including little kids, then tried to cover it up, then did things to provide inadequate medical care to the people involved.
	So they brought a very good suit into the Federal Tort Claims Act detailing how this has been a systemic problem by the Navy.
	How they didn't warn like they were supposed to, didn't notify like they were supposed to, didn't take basic steps to make sure that this wouldn't happen.
	It's happened before.
	It continues to happen.
	But it just tells you something about a Navy that would allow toxic water, kind of like a Defense Department that would lie to people about a certain vaccine.
	I'm just wondering whether or not the New York Times ever covered this at the time, or whether or not they were running cover for the government like they've always done historically.
	Not such a big deal.
	Located small, localized leaks, set on fire, no harm, no foul, and pay no attention to the...
	And speaking of our one crazy case of the week, be careful of your dog food, folks.
	So basically, Champion Dog Food was sued in Michigan, federal court, because they advertised their product as premium, ultra, natural, regional, local.
	It sounds almost organic dog food.
	The problem is it's none of those things.
	And let's see what some of the things are in it.
	Heavy metals, chemicals, barbiturates in some cases.
	Robert, that could kill your dog.
	That's the cornerstone of every healthy dog's diet.
	They need to put on muscle mass.
	There's nothing better for muscle mass than heavy metals.
	Right.
	I laugh, people.
	It's nuts.
	This is why raw beef and make your own raw beef, you minimize your chances of arsenic is arsenic.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But the suit is dismissed by the federal court on two grounds.
	claimed that the Michigan law under consumer protection created an exemption for feed, which somehow managed to apply to selling dog food.
	You know, something that sounds like it was an exception meant for farmers is now being applied to super big corporations selling dog food in your local store.
	And then took the economic loss doctrine.
	And the economic loss doctrine was meant that if you have a contractual dispute, sue in contract, don't sue in tort, typically.
	That doesn't mean it precludes it.
	Over time, we've recognized that.
	That rule never made sense anyway, by the way.
	That was meant to protect...
	And the courts, I used to call it the railroad rule when I was in torts first year loss class.
	Because the professor would go around and ask, he was a sort of populist Native American law professor from the left, but a populist guy.
	Go around and ask people what the rule was and different people try to do different interpretations.
	Explain these weird tort changes that took place between 1870 and 1920 in America.
	And come around to me and I'd say it's real simple, the railroad rule.
	And remind everybody, Robert, what's that?
	The railroad wins.
	That's the railroad rule.
	That all these laws changed to fit what was in the institutional interest of the railroad types of America.
	And so it looked like an Alex Jones trial.
	All kangaroos and railroads.
	19th century Australia.
	But that same...
	You know, to me, Phenomeno, the Federal District Court said, economic loss doctrine means that really you're only out the money you expected to gain from buying this product.
	So we're not going to allow you to sue for any of the fraud that the dog food company got.
	Yeah, I mean, I imagine like some of the dogs don't live long enough to even suffer what would be the longer term effects if this were in a human who lived 70 years versus 10 years or 12 years.
	Yeah.
	It's all crap.
	It's all crap, Robert.
	The world is crap.
	Everything's going downhill.
	What are you going to do to set us on a white pill, optimistic, heading into a new week so that we don't sit here pulling out our hair and, you know, mumbling under our breath as to how shitty everything has gotten?
	Well, that was Trump's mantra, the Philadelphia speech.
	It even had music towards the end of his speech, borrowing from the end of his 2016 Republican Convention speech, where he does Make America, and then he goes through a long litany of things, which was to be optimistic, idealistic, positive response, because that's in sort of Trump's DNA.
	And I think that's the appropriate one.
	And you're seeing it in a lot of states.
	So states are finally waking up.
	To using their attorney general power in the case of suing on vaccine mandates.
	The Big Tech collusion case developed massive discovery this week, brought by Louisiana and Missouri, exposing that basically Big Tech was colluding.
	With the government across the board, the government was ordering them to get rid of dissident content all across the board.
	Trump's own administration was undermining Trump doing this during 2020, using COVID as the pretext.
	They continue to do it throughout 2021 and 2022.
	It's the real reason Zuckerberg told Rogan why the Fed came knocking on his door is because he knew this was about to get disclosed in the coming weeks already.
	The FBI was ordering big tech to take down content.
	The CIA was making orders.
	The NSA was having communications to make orders.
	Not just the DHS and the NIH and the White House and everybody else.
	So that was good work.
	And they're waking up again.
	They're starting to use their pension fund power to, rather than be the money launderer of choice, like in California, the pension fund is for corrupt criminal actors.
	Like the Lenar Corporation that got away with a big crime in a case I tried to bring, and every court found excuses why you just can't sue poor Lenar.
	You dig in and find out who they're connected to and figure it out why.
	And certain families in San Francisco that might be...
	Vice President and Speaker of the House and Governor of the State, things of this nature.
	You might find all kinds of things.
	You might find toxic facilities out in a certain little island called Terminal Island and on and on.
	But the states are waking up, some of the conservative states are waking up, Florida, Texas, elsewhere, to the fact they have huge pension funds.
	And it's time to start to use those pension funds, rather than advancing ESG woke causes, to de- To not fund them, to not support them, to not subsidize them, to in fact invest in real investments that follow what is a more appropriate investment strategy to meet the interest of the pensioners and the people of their states.
	And you're going to see more of those.
	You're probably going to even see some securities class actions brought against ESG companies on the grounds they undermine their stock by promoting a bunch of gibberish and nonsense that undermine the value of their stock in ways that are misrepresentations ultimately.
	And people are looking at suing Big Pharma on the grounds that Pfizer and Moderna lied during their SEC filings about the safety, efficacy, and the nature of their drug being a vaccine when evidence is it is none of the three.
	And they all may face major securities class actions.
	So people are fighting back in every way they can through the legal system, diplomatically, politically, in the American way, which is not getting suckered or snookered.
	Into a deep state entrapment plot that can lead to people's mission and ideal being derailed and their power being reestablished.
	So I think the deep state is on a death spiral, and it's only going to take a little bit longer before they can be pushed off the cliff for good, proverbially speaking.
	And to highlight what Barnes is saying, people, what did you call the speech?
	The Red Sermon.
	The Red Sermon.
	It's kind of like the black mass of Johnny Depp and the drug dealer there.
	The Red Sermon.
	It was intended to trigger spiritually and potentially guide people into certain physical responses.
	Hasn't happened.
	Don't do it.
	People say you can't mock your way out of tyranny.
	The responses to the Red Sermon show you that at some point people start listening and people start being very responsive to the humor to highlight the absurdity of what we just saw.
	Fists to the air.
	And some people, by the way, one thing, Robert.
	Some people are trying to Photoshop the image to artificially lighten it and then put them next to each other and say, oh, look, the one on the right was Photoshopped.
	No.
	When you look at the lightened image, people, you can clearly see pixelation.
	The dark image, dark Brandon, was the real image.
	And even though the lighter one is not much better, but the mockery that that speech has faced, it's somewhat inspiring.
	So, you know, we'll...
	Exactly.
	And if people want to sound like an older video or fun video to chill out on Labor Day, they can watch our Freeform Friday discussion with Mark Grobert and Eric Hundley on America's Untold Stories, where Viva got some more vocabulary learned.
	Oh, dear God.
	Don't even go there, Robert.
	But, Robert, this week, who do we have for Sidebar?
	So, Sidebar this week is Sidney Watson.
	So, Sidney Watson, up on Wednesday.
	Live Sidebar, 7 o 'clock.
	I was on, I hosted the Alex Jones show today that people can find at InfoWars, but otherwise have no other plans to, other than sidebars, all I'm going to be doing this week.
	Okay, fantastic.
	People, thank you as always.
	A phenomenal episode.
	Stay tuned this week for some good news, some big news.
	Enjoy Labor Day, people.
	I might be walking the Deerfield Pier tomorrow.
	Or another pier.
	I might be going fishing.
	So we'll see who we run into.
	Robert, stick ramble, say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, snip, clip, share away.
	You know what to do.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Another awesome, awesome Sunday night.
	Happy Labor Day.
	Enjoy it.
	See you all soon.

▲