All Episodes
Sept. 18, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:09:33
Ep. 129: Special Master; Pillow Guy to Sue; Texas; Martha's Vineyard & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
for the vaccination.
And we know all those people who are trying to hesitate a little bit.
We're going to continue to convince them.
We're also people who are far away and opposed to the vaccination.
They're extremists.
Extremists.
They're often misogyny, often racist.
It's a little group but who takes place.
And there, it's got to make a choice as a leader, as a country.
Is it on the same thing?
Or is it on the same thing?
Well, we're going to say, well, the most people, almost 80% of the people have done what they need to do.
We're going to break this down.
Hold on, stop.
Stop, stop, stop.
Before I go on, people, let me...
Traumatized.
Is my audio good?
And let's just make sure that we're live on the Rumbles.
And yes, people, we are going exclusively to the Rumbles.
I'd say in about a half an hour.
I will address concerns.
I will screen grab complaints.
I will send it to the folks at Rumble.
They are working on everything.
But before we get there, we're live.
Audio's good.
Good audio.
Good, good.
Let's break down this.
This is rubbish.
This is the most...
I genuinely believe the word, the appropriate word, is bigoted.
This is bigotry of the highest order.
This is intolerance of the highest order.
This is divisive, dangerous rhetoric of the highest order.
And we're going to break it down.
Now, I believe the time frame, this was on La Semaine de 4 Juli.
It's a Quebecois news show, talk show.
Fairly certain it was in September during the last federal election.
I'm not sure about the date.
99% certain it was during the last federal election.
This is Justin Trudeau spewing off the most hateful vitriol.
Hateful vitriol.
It's called hatriol.
I like that, hatriol.
The most hateful vitriol you can imagine.
And he says it with such pride.
Egging on the encouragement of Julie.
I'm going to break it down.
I don't think the translation is a thousand percent accurate.
Let me just take farouchement.
They are farouchement opposés.
They are ferociously, rabidly anti-va...
Let's get there.
Justin Trudeau.
Being Justin Trudeau.
Stop.
Stop.
We're going to get out of this pandemic through vaccination.
He knew at the time he was saying this, that this was a lie.
He knew it because we knew for a reasonable period of time now, you can't get through a pandemic through vaccination when even the vaccinated can carry, contract, and transmit the virus.
You can't get through it by vaccination because the vaccination doesn't prevent transmission.
Okay, lie.
Just a lie.
Lie.
Most people won't appreciate this if you're from Quebec and you're French or you're an Anglo who speaks French.
When someone tries to be very casual and very cutesy in French, in Quebec French, what he's saying is, tu sais, you know, tu sais.
But, you know, when you try to be cute and casual, you say, like, in Québécois, you link the two and the C, like, he's being casual, cutesy, so informal, so adorable.
He's such a handsome, charismatic leader.
We try to convince them.
We'll continue to try to convince them.
But at some point, if that doesn't work...
Oh, it was La Semaine de Quatre, Julie also, who had the kids on.
These young kids who were saying, you cut them off little by little until they cave.
You cut off their rights little by little.
This propaganda vitriol.
We know a bunch of people.
They are...
Ferociously anti-vaccination.
And then Julie comes in and says, hey, they're extremists.
They're extremists.
And the trending hashtag that's been going...
Hold on one second, guys.
Oh, yeah.
Sparkling.
Not an ad, by the way.
This is great stuff.
I'll talk about that afterwards.
They don't trust science.
Coming from the guy who says we're going to vaccinate our way out of this when the vaccine does not prevent carrying, transmitting, or contracting the virus.
Talk to me about science, Trudeau boy.
They're often misogynist and racist.
I mean, this is the dumbest crap you can possibly imagine.
This is dumber than Jagmeet Singh coming out and saying if you don't wear face masks, you're extremist.
Because he's getting all of it in.
They're anti-science.
From the guy who just said we're going to vaccinate our way out of this pandemic.
They're a misogynist.
Racist.
What else?
Tell us, Trudeau boy.
Tell us.
So, flex their muscles is not the right term there.
Ils prennent de la place means they take up space.
Flexing the muscle might be a metaphoric translation, but it's not a verbatim translation.
Ils prennent de la place.
They take up space.
They are...
Misogynist, racist, anti-science, wastes of space.
This is the Prime Minister of Canada, people.
This is not some wacko on a corner of a street screaming at the sky.
This is the Prime Minister of Canada spewing vitriol on...
I don't know how popular this show is in Quebec.
I think it's pretty popular.
We have to make a choice.
We have to come to a solution.
Right, Justin Trudeau?
Do we tolerate these people?
We have to make some decisions.
We have to make some very important decisions.
We have to find a solution to this problem.
Do we tolerate these people?
My goodness, just slap an accent on that and a bit more of an energetic tone.
And what would that sound like?
The most people, almost 80% of the Quebecers, have done what they need to do.
They have been vaccinated.
We want to return to things we like to do.
It's not those people who are going to block us.
Those people are not going to block us from getting back to normal.
Those racist, misogynist, wastes of space.
I mean, it's...
It's beyond disgusting.
And I won't let the world forget about this.
I posted that tweet.
The hashtag, Trudeau must go, has been trending over the weekend.
Everybody's sharing their stories about how they are a racist, misogynist extremist that Trudeau thinks is taking up place.
The format of the viral Twitter description was, description of the individual, Justin Trudeau thinks I'm an extremist.
Trudeau must go was trending over the weekend.
I had like a half a million retweets.
Apparently, it just stopped all of a sudden.
Someone tweeted out, Twitter has suppressed it.
I went to look in my, the same spot where I went to look up, Trudeau must go was trending yesterday.
It's off.
It went from number one to gone.
Just like that.
And I changed my settings to see what was trending in Canada.
Yesterday, it was number one.
It had 480,000 retweets, I think is how they do it when I saw it.
Today, it's gone.
But now, there's another one coming up.
It's inching up the charts.
Number nine, Trudeau has to go.
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
I put one up, which I think is good.
It was with that video that no one should forget.
They take the test.
You know, it's got to take a decision.
Are we going to tolerate these kinds of misogynes, racist, Oh, we have to make a decision.
Are we going to tolerate these people in our society?
Or are we going to do what's necessary to ensure that they don't take up space?
Oh, no, but Trudeau wants to ban the violent rhetoric.
Trudeau wants to complain about Chrystia Freeland getting heckled by some guy.
Just intolerance.
That's the new one.
I've never successfully created anything that's trended, at least on purpose, that I know of.
Just intolerance.
It's beautiful.
It's just intolerance, but it's also Justin's tolerance.
This is what Justin thinks tolerance is.
We want to get back to normal.
These people are putting us all at risk.
It's hateful rhetoric.
It's disgusting.
And now, for some reason, Twitter coming to the rescue of Trudeau Boy.
I think that Trudeau Boy is good.
I had Trudeau de Toilette, which I think is also good.
I hope you're not still up in the Great North.
I'm not.
I wonder if...
It's disgusting.
It's disgusting.
I'm not mincing my words.
Trudeau is disgusting.
And worse than disgusting, dangerous.
Because when this is how a prime minister talks of his own citizens, and by the way, oh, you know, he's only talking about 20% of Canada or 20% of Quebec at the time of this.
It'll be more, by the way.
It'll be more when people realize now that if you don't want a booster or a second booster or a third booster, now you're the racist misogynist who doesn't trust science, who's just taken up place.
We have to figure out what to do with you.
Maybe, sooner than later, Canadians are going to realize, for shame, For anyone who actually agreed with this and didn't object to this vitriolic rhetoric at the time.
Shame on the person who did not object to this at the time, but never too late to grow and learn.
Just intolerance.
It can trend.
Okay, people, I've got an anecdote.
Now that I've got that out of my system, I've got a story from today.
I think it's tongue-in-cheek, you know, kind of funny, but not as serious as I'm making it up to be.
I think it was close to a near-death experience, at least in my own mind.
I'll get there in a second.
First, a little housekeeping.
Some super chats.
No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice, people.
And yes, we will be moving over to Rumble, the pinned link to Rumble.
The link to Rumble is the pinned chat in the chat.
Etienne de Gaulle says, Viva, what was the name of the gold merchant you mentioned a while back?
And do you still...
Oh, American Hartford Gold.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
It's a service.
I mean, gold has a market price.
It's just a question of getting it delivered to your place conveniently.
This is not an ad.
This is not sponsored, people.
I had sponsored videos in the past.
This is just spontaneous.
American Hartford Gold, but they only deliver in the U.S. So Canadians, I don't know where you get...
I mean, I know where you got gold in Canada.
At least I know where I got it.
But they deliver only to the U.S. American Hartford Gold.
This is not a sponsored video, so you don't see paid promotion on it.
Trudeau is using the Biden strategy of calling half your country, half your population, every nasty thing on the book.
These are evil, dangerous men.
Martin Smith fans you.
Marty Smith fans you.
I concur.
Rumble needs watch list feature to queue up multiple vids, screen grab, or it's a waste of time for me.
Can't keep manually selecting one vid at time while working.
Okay, I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by that, but I'm going to flip that to the team because I know you know what you mean, and I know it's because I'm technologically dense.
And Pasha Moyer, 514, not some wacko on a street corner, but you don't know what he does when you're not watching FIFA.
Oh, God, I know what he says when I am watching.
It can't get any worse than that, even in private.
Okay, Barnes is in the background, but he's going to listen to the story.
I went to Deerfield Beach Pier today.
Deerfield Pier with my kid to go fishing.
I got an ocean rod.
We got one of those kibichi things to catch the little fish so we can try to catch the bigger fish so we can try to catch dinner.
And a storm blew over.
And I think it's clinical.
I mean, it's a number of other things that are clinical about me, but certifiably clinical astrophobia.
I don't want to be outside when I can hear lightning and I can feel what it would be like to get struck by lightning.
So the storm comes in.
I hear thunder and lightning.
I tell them, we're going.
Let's go.
We go to the little boutique at the front of the pier, go inside, have a Red Bull, wait a few minutes.
It looks like the storm is clearing.
So we go back out onto the pier, and as we're going back out, I pass a guy who we were talking to, and I was explaining my fear of lightning as to why I'm frantically packing up like a madman running down the pier.
And he's heading in, and he says, dude, listen to my fishing rod.
Do you hear my fishing rod humming?
And I listened to his fishing rod, and it's going like...
No, it's more like...
And I thought air was inside the fishing rod that was coming out because it had gotten water in it, or I thought the wind was blowing and the fishing line was humming like a guitar string.
And I said, no, dude, look, when I put my hand near the fishing rod, the humming stops.
It sounded like a high-tension power line.
Then I look over at my kid.
And his hair is, like, staticking out like when you touch one of those balls at a science museum.
And I panicked.
Like, it was internalized.
I was like, run.
I know you can't outrun lightning, but I know.
I've seen a bunch of videos.
Everyone says, like, before lightning strikes, your hair stands on end, you feel static electricity, and I'm running.
And as I'm running, I see another woman on the pier, and her hair is just starting to go like that to the side.
Darted, made it inside.
And as far as I know, nobody got struck by lightning on the Deerfield Pier.
But I felt...
I felt the agonizing pain of getting struck by lightning today in my head.
Ran.
The Tesla coil.
But yeah, so if anybody knows, I think...
Dude, his hair was like that.
And I'm trying...
I don't want my panic to be contagious to my kid, but he knew.
Okay, Barnes is in the house.
Let's bring him in.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
You're back at home now.
We're going to have good internet connection.
We will not have a phone on a mic.
Robert, first of all, before we forget this time, cigar and book behind you.
So this was a recommendation of the cigar guy.
It's a Hoya de Nicaragua Cuatro Cinco.
Never had it before, so I'm going to try it.
That's a book, Ratification, by Paul Meyer about the people's debate, which is important and valuable to understand what people were thinking about at the time the Constitution's passage as to its meaning and intent.
Fantastic, and I'm going to post the link to Rumble yet again.
Do you want to do a brief summary of what we have on the menu tonight, or we just get into it?
Yeah.
I mean, the big, big, big, big case, the white pill of white pills, is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said Texas law prohibiting social media companies from engaging in censorship when they reach monopoly power of the public digital square is absolutely and completely constitutional.
And it will likely get up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It already briefly was before.
So we'll get into previewing what that is.
But the decision is a fantastic decision.
Such a good decision that I'll not only be posting a highlighted version of it at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, but we'll be doing a podcast.
So that's the big one.
There's Trump special master news.
Mike Lindell is entangled with the FBI that's apparently just wandering around wanting to investigate and indict anybody they can that's connected to a Trump supporter on whatever grounds possible or plausible.
There's a range of other cases, including what's going to happen with federal digital currency, the efforts by the Treasury Department.
To not only unleash the IRS on everybody, but to go after tornado and other means by which people engage in cryptocurrency and issues as to whether or not that's speech or not.
And several other cases, including a fun one, which is when a federal judge says it's okay to call a meat a veggie because the word veggie is so ambiguous that it apparently includes meat, according to the federal judge.
We'll get to that one because that was my question.
I didn't see that there was actual meat in it.
I just thought that it was not enough vegetables to qualify it as a veggie.
Do we want to start with the Texas decision?
Yeah.
Okay.
So, I mean, this was in the news a while back.
There were two stages of this decision because a while back they said you can't...
The law can be enforced, but they didn't give a good reason.
And now they've given a good reason for which social media companies, even though they're private enterprises, cannot...
Censor, based on viewpoint, discrimination.
Robert, well, I guess one question we're going to get to is, is this going to just be ignored?
Is it going to be applied only in one state?
But flesh out the decision.
Let us know why it makes so much sense, even though a lot of us have been saying this is the way it should be for a long time.
Yeah, I swear I didn't write the opinion, but it basically represents my own thoughts on this topic going on about a half decade.
And it's really striking when you see that when some of us first set out discussing this and laying out the legal roadmap as to why big tech was in the wrong, why there was a legal right to control their conduct, we were in a small minority because big tech had bought off a lot of the legal academy.
So a lot of your, you know, David Frenchy types that are supposedly on the right, a range of people that are supposedly on the libertarian side, were embracing big tech censorship under the guise that they had an absolute right to do so.
That somehow censorship was speech, despite the way Section 230 was written itself to say that censorship could never be speech.
So in that sense, it was striking.
It's really a remarkable ruling across the board.
So Texas and Florida and other states are considering it.
But Texas law is really a pretty good roadmap.
It's what some of us have recommended the changes to Section 230 should reflect on a federal level that would elude some of these constitutional questions that the big tech companies are even trying to raise in the first place.
But putting that aside...
What Texas did is they said if you have more than 50 million users in the public digital square, if you will, then the net effect of that is you can no longer engage in viewpoint discrimination.
You also have to maintain data about when you do engage in it.
That data has to be available to the Texas Attorney General.
They can bring action if you're not being transparent, either to consumers or users or the state, about what you're up to.
But fundamentally, they said you just can't censor.
And what they meant by censor was very broad.
Not just deplatform someone, not just remove their access to it, but also anything that reduces their visibility.
In fact, explicitly included is demonetization, for example.
So this is something that could effectively, financially reverse the equation for all of big tech.
If big tech continue to engage in...
Viewpoint-based discrimination.
It could be sued.
Now, there was no damages imposed on it.
The only requirement is that they would have to reinstate the person with a court injunction with declaratory relief, and they would have to pay the attorney's fees and cost of bringing the case.
So I'm licensed.
I'm a general member of the Western District of Texas, for example, so I can tell you I'm looking at bringing suits soon.
What they did is the big tech companies got together and as soon as the law was passed and before it could even be enforced, brought suit in a federal district court that just went along with every single claim that big tech made and said there's no way this statute could ever be constitutional.
The primary predicate of that, there was a range of secondary and subsidiary issues, but the primary basis is a claim big tech has long made, which is that they have a right.
To censor as their right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom of association.
Now, some of us, you know, David Frenchy types would advance this position.
A range of so-called conservatives on the right would advance this position, as well as a lot of libertarian so-called legal people would advance this position.
And I think Dave Smith at times is unaware of what some of his libertarian comrades are up to.
God bless him.
Because he was recently being very critical of Alex Jones and some other people for Alex Jones' criticism of certain libertarian positions, but it's because a lot of libertarian positions have been corporatist positions, not really constitutional positions.
Not all, but there's plenty of exceptions to that, but far from the dominant sentiment, quite frankly, at least in our experience.
But maybe we'll debate that with Dave Smith if he is able to come on at some point in the future.
That was their core position, is that you could never control what they do at the state level or at any level because they have a constitutional right to censor, a constitutional right to manipulate the algorithm, a constitutional right to editorialize without even people's notice or knowledge that that's what they're doing, a constitutional right to deplatform, demonetize, you name it.
And just to flesh out the argument for people who might...
Only be hearing it for the first time.
And side note, Robert, I got in trouble with the Libertarian Twitter account because I said I don't like tweets where they wish death on people or revel in the death of people.
But I said I don't know who they're trying to appeal to with that type of Twittery.
But the argument of freedom of speech is that these companies are private corporations and they too can exercise freedom of speech, which is to prohibit or block certain speech on their platforms.
The full argument to that is...
It's not a question of them applying rules that are terms of service uniformly or consistently.
They're just outright, politically selectively, prohibiting certain types of speech based on viewpoint.
And they say, well, we can do that anyhow, because even though we're a private corporation, we still have First Amendment rights to block the speech that we want to block, and we get to protect that conduct under First Amendment rights.
That's accurate enough?
Yeah, that's been their argument.
And a lot of so-called legal scholars have bought this argument.
The problem with it, as the Fifth Circuit details, it takes apart all the legal basis for the claims, the historical problems with the claims, and the analogous problems with the claims.
The court also takes some nice pot shots, you know, because they kept saying, you want us to force Nazis and terrorists on here, and we don't want Nazis and terrorists on here.
By the way, they've had no problem promoting terrorism.
So that was kind of an ironic point.
Twitter, you know, has been unsuccessfully sued for its promotion and propagation of a range of terror groups all around the globe, of being a key medium of communication and incitement all around the globe.
So, and by the way, this Texas law...
Basically, if you read the law, the law reads exactly like the rules we wrote for Rumble.
So it carves out direct incitement, unlawful conduct, pornography, stalking, harassment.
Any conduct that's already illegal is not allowed.
And they can completely and freely censor any illegal conduct.
What they can't do is discriminate based on viewpoint.
That's all they're doing.
That's all that it limits, too.
It doesn't limit anything else.
And so what their challenge was is they felt they had a First Amendment right.
The problem is there's no basis for that.
There is no court case, as the Fifth Circuit noted, no court case anywhere ever in American law that has said the First Amendment includes a right to censor.
It doesn't exist.
The right to speech is not a right to censor.
In fact, the cases they cite are cases where someone is forced To either give a certain speech or force to associate with other speech.
The problem for Big Tech is because of their successful lobbying in the Section 230 context, it's already been determined as a matter of federal law that hosting other people's speech is not your speech nor associated with your speech.
So they couldn't make that claim.
And what the Fifth Circuit pointed out is that if they were right, that there's an absolute right to censor, Then all of a sudden, email companies could censor.
Telephone companies could censor.
Banks could censor.
Utilities could censor.
And their point is, we've always rejected that.
Indeed, this was brought up in a different part of the Pruneyard case that I talk a lot about.
In Pruneyard, the California Supreme Court said that malls are functioning as a monopoly on the public square, and consequently they cannot, even though it's a private mall, cannot discriminate against content-based discrimination, viewpoint-based discrimination, based on what speech people engage in, like petitioning and other activities, in the public part of the mall, even though that's all owned by the company.
And they took that up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they said, U.S. Supreme Court, they're forcing speech on us.
They're forcing us to associate with speech.
U.S. Supreme Court said, no, that's not forcing you to associate with speech.
No one's going to confuse someone walking around the mall handing out a petition or anything else or pamphlet or talking about something with the mall, with that being the mall speech.
And they pointed out these other cases, PG&E and a range of other cases, Miami Times, were all cases where someone with the private company was being penalized or punished.
Based on the content of their speech, either they were forced to speak in a certain way, forced to host or associate with speech in a certain way, that would be associated with them.
This is why certain parades, for example, can't exclude people legally, because the parade, anybody in the parade, would be associated with the sponsors of the parade.
That is not the case with big tech as a matter of federal law for over 30 years.
So their point was the big tech's censorship, that's conduct.
That's not speech.
And nobody's going to confuse, and nobody's limited.
The law doesn't limit Twitter from saying whatever it wants in response to somebody's speech, from sticking some sort of label on it.
Doesn't prohibit that either, as long as it's not defamatory or libelous.
And they made that point as well.
They said all it does is you hosting speech, you're not allowed to, in the way you host speech, censor people based on viewpoint.
Especially, as they pointed out, when all of this public monopoly that has been achieved and attained by these companies was attained and achieved by their promise of protecting and promoting free speech.
So they recognized the real problems that exist.
They looked at the full First Amendment history.
And the biggest, most important part of their ruling is that the right to censor does not exist.
It's not a constitutional right.
Just not there, period.
They said even if it is there, it would be because it's content-neutral law.
It just requires no viewpoint discrimination.
It doesn't differentiate between viewpoints.
Then consequently, it would apply to a lower level of scrutiny such that even if it had First Amendment protection, which it frankly doesn't.
It doesn't rise to the level of core political speech that has the zenith of First Amendment protection.
And it's not applicable.
And here, the nature of these rules are fine anyway, even if you could call the speech with a right to censor.
Bottom line, free speech does not include a right to censor.
It includes a right not to associate with whom you want.
But when you're a platform, you're not associating with anybody.
And that's been proven law for 30 years.
Did the decision address Section 230 as to how they can remain compliant with Section 230 while also not engaging in viewpoint discrimination?
Well, because the Texas law did.
So the Texas law said they can censor anywhere federal law authorizes.
They can censor anywhere there's direct incitement.
Basically, our rumble rules.
So anywhere there's illegal conduct, they're completely free to censor.
And so that's always been the case.
But they're not allowed.
To censor based on viewpoint alone.
It must be, this is direct incitement, this is stalking, this is harassment, this is pornography, this is something that's already illegal.
And if it's not already illegal, can't ban it, can't prohibit it, can't censor it.
And you have to keep a record of everything you do censor.
It also required they incorporate a comment, a right to appeal, a due process component before they take adverse action based on any kind of viewpoint.
I mean, this was a simple, clean, neat law, directly conformed to the law.
Now, what happened initially is went up to the federal district court judge.
The federal district court judge said, oh, I hate this law.
I'm going to stop it altogether.
Went up to the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit said, we don't think this law has the problems you're identifying.
We vacate your injunction.
That went up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit on the stay issue.
It has not ruled on the merits as yet.
What was interesting was the vote breakdown.
Four justices said they agreed with the Fifth Circuit for vacating the stay.
Five said they thought the stay should stay in place until the Fifth Circuit makes a ruling.
The Fifth Circuit now has.
The four justices, though, were interesting.
They were the three core constitutional conservatives, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
Was Justice Kagan.
So Justice Kagan dissented from her liberal colleagues and thought the law was just fine, wrote a very strong dissent, suggesting there's problems with big tech control and monopoly in this space.
She has an occasional free speech streak, and it came through strong.
That means they only need one of the three other Republican-appointed justices on the bench.
So who are the three Republican justices that failed to step up at the initial stage?
Unsurprisingly, Justice Roberts.
Also, unsurprisingly, as he did again this week, Justice Kavanaugh.
Conservatives should ask, well, all that fighting they did to get that guy on the bench.
Kennedy recommended him for a reason, folks.
And it's not because he's a constitutional conservative.
He will be sporadically good on certain issues of religion, certain issues of the regulatory reach of the state, certain issues on guns.
He will be mostly useless on a lot of other issues.
And of course, the last justice, Who failed to step up to the plate, Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
As some of us said, outside of the business context, outside of religion, outside of guns, like Kavanaugh, she's an unreliable vote.
So the undependable, as she was as the deciding vote that led to the election challenge never being heard at any level before or after the election by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, all they need is one of those three.
To join the other four.
This is an exceptionally well thought out decision by the Fifth Circuit.
They can't challenge, and they already have four basically justices they know that are with them.
So they just need either Roberts or even maybe the new justice, who knows where she's going to go, the new liberal justice, or Barrett or Kavanaugh to recognize the wisdom of the Fifth Circuit's logic that this law is clearly a constitutionally permitted law.
That the right to censor has never existed.
That if they say it does exist, all of a sudden you could lose your email accounts, your phone, your mobile phone service, a wide range of basic public utilities, your banking access.
Payment processing.
Your ability to exist in a civil society.
But Robert, now, playing devil's advocate just a tad.
The five justices who opposed the stay pending the appeal.
They could come around on the merits and say, look, we were opposing the stay on procedural grounds, but on the merits, we've now seen the light, or we never didn't see the light in the first place.
We were just being stickless for procedure.
It's going to get up to the Supreme Court.
They're going to appeal.
Oh, yeah, high likelihood, is my guess.
In the interim, though, what is going to be the practical impact?
Does this only...
This only has impact in Texas.
Is there a chance that the social media companies or whoever the big tech companies are that this applies to simply say, all right, we're not going to do business in Texas?
Well, yeah, that's not going to happen.
I don't even know how conceptually that can be done.
Also, Florida has a similar law that's also going up through the process.
This Fifth Circuit decision will likely influence the Eleventh Circuit decision.
And there's more states considering this law.
And now that Fifth Circuit has affirmed it, you'll see even more states push it through.
So you'll probably have about half the country.
So does Twitter not want to exist in half the country?
Does YouTube want to not exist in half the country?
Does Facebook want to not exist in half the country?
That's not an option for them.
So their only real option is to risk lots of lawsuits in which they write lots of checks to lawyers for the other side and basically fund their legal opposition.
Or go along and stop doing politically-based censorship.
From a financial perspective, the easy thing for them to do, the practical thing for them to do, is to quit doing viewpoint discrimination and incorporate these rules, basically look at Rumble's rules, replicate them for themselves.
It just goes against the political prejudice of a lot of its engineers, a lot of its high-ranking executives, and some of its key investors, and people like George Soros, and others that have tried to influence and shape their direction.
So that's the tug and pull that's taking place.
But practically speaking, the logical decision is not to get sued by everybody in Texas every time you try to do anything to their accounts.
And so it's also not clear that, from my review of it, I don't think you have to be a Texas resident to bring suit.
I'm still researching that question.
But from my initial review of it, anybody could sue in Texas under the Texas law.
So, potentially.
Because their voice is being limited in Texas.
There's jurisdiction in Texas.
Whenever your account is demonetized, they're preventing people in Texas from seeing and hearing your view.
They're limiting visibility to people in Texas.
That's why, as a practical matter, unless they decided to make themselves inaccessible to the whole state of Texas, they're either going to face a long litany of lawsuits that are coming, or they're going to change their behavior and conduct going forward.
Now, the court left open an as-applied challenge.
This was a facial challenge.
So it suggested that under certain circumstances, there might be some unique set of circumstances where the law isn't constitutional as applied.
But given the breadth of its decision, it's quite clear that you could file suit in federal court in Texas, and 95% of the people that have been deplatformed, censored, demonetized, discriminated against, etc.
They can sue and get their lawyers reinstated, which would be their goal, and have their lawyers' fees paid by the other side.
They're basically making them pay for their legal adversaries if they continue to discriminate.
Let me ask you the obvious question.
Is this retroactive or is this only going forward?
So those who have already been deplatformed prior to this law existing are still going to be without recourse?
Correct.
Okay.
So that'll answer the question for Alex Jones and others.
I was just thinking Texas residents.
Only going forward, perspective, not retrospective, and tough noogies for everybody else who's been screwed prior to this law, but a step going forward.
Very interesting.
I mean, it's almost like they're just going to have to find legal justification now or lawful explanations.
They have to limit their rules to what Rumble's rules are.
They've got to limit it to unlawful conduct if you didn't engage, and they've got to give you a meaningful due process if they claim that you did something unlawful.
So they've got to do both, and they're doing neither right now.
Rumble's rules incorporate both.
That you have to do something unlawful, or you can continue to communicate on Rumble.
And if Rumble thinks you did something unlawful, Rumble affords you a complete, robust...
Multiple levels of due process rights.
This law requires less than what Rumble requires, but still requires more than what anybody like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook is giving.
Google and Instagram and all the rest are ultimately equally applied to it.
The other thing is, to me, they can use this as a predicate to expand new legislation into other areas.
Prohibit banks.
Prohibit email providers from engaging in political viewpoint discrimination.
Prohibit telecommunications companies from engaging in political viewpoint discrimination.
Because this has been happening on a massive scale.
Prohibit internet service providers from engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
They're trying to politically weaponize everything.
I have a client, have a deposition to Marl, in fact, in his case, who was a longstanding Good customer of a major U.S. bank.
And the U.S. bank engaged in decided to undermine his position financially purely for political reasons to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Often the bank in the process losing money itself.
That's what some of these banks have been doing.
They've been costing themselves money just to politically weaponize their access.
We saw another version of that with Visa and the credit card companies saying that they're going to start Creating a separate merchant code for gun sellers so that they can track and trace every single gun company, gun seller, gun purchaser in America.
So that's the surveillance aspect of this.
So removing the ability of companies to discriminate on viewpoint basis when they are the sole source of access in many cases or the primary monopoly level source of access.
Is critical in a wide range of areas.
And this law made clear there is no right to censor.
Your right to free speech is not a right to censor.
It doesn't exist.
Now, if it's truly association, then it's forced speech.
So, for example, somebody said, well, could this force, if you apply this law in broader context, could it force me as an employer to have people wearing political t-shirts I disagree with?
No, it wouldn't because that would likely be seen as your speech.
That's the difference.
On the other hand, if let's say you are an event venue and you let anybody come and speak at that event venue you want, nobody's going to confuse the Milwaukee Bradley Center with promoting the Republican Party simply because it hosts the Republican National Convention.
So, you know, that's always been kind of nonsense to me.
And that's the point.
And that's where all of these so-called legal scholars said it was so obvious that the First Amendment prohibits these laws.
We're always full of crap because they couldn't make an obvious distinction.
Now, some of this is because of the corruption of the legal academy.
If you see people writing tech law newsletters and tech law blogs, I don't know, maybe like tech dirt, people like this.
They're frauds.
What do I mean they're frauds?
They purport to be independent objective analysts who are functionally and fundamentally and often literally in the pockets of big tech.
This is true for many law professors that are in the big tech legal space.
You dig in, and when I dug in early, I discovered how almost all of them were compromised or conflicted.
They're like doctors associated with the FDA and with big pharma.
You dig in and it doesn't take long to figure out.
Follow the science just means follow the money.
And so the same is true here.
But this is a massive decision, a brilliantly crafted decision, a decision in my view of impeccable logic and reason and historical evidence.
And so the U.S. Supreme Court will be under a lot of pressure to try to resist or refuse or reject this.
And if we win on this, then it opens the floodgates.
Fantastic.
Now, Robert, the rumble is a good segue.
We're going to move it over to rumble in one second.
I'm just consulting the poll, which has 2,500 votes, and it's pretty decisive.
How do you feel about an 1,800 start time on Sunday?
40% like it more, 14% prefer 7 o 'clock, and 45% just want to see the results.
The reason why I'm thinking we're going to do this going forward...
On the one hand, we're going to overlap less with Salty Cracker because I was getting a lot of comments to the effect of, I have to choose between two of my favorite Rumble channels on a Sunday night.
The other thing, it's better for overseas because I was getting a lot of comments that in the UK, you know, midnight going into one o 'clock is tough.
And on a personal level, I prefer this because it's better for, you know, not getting driven crazy by kids who should be in bed by nine o 'clock, not strangling me while I'm doing this.
So I think we're going to leave it like this.
On that subject, people, let me just go to...
We're going to move it over to Rumble.
The link is in the pinned comment.
I'm going to share it one more time.
There are 5,000 people here now.
Nearly 6,000 people on YouTube.
We are at 9,200 on Rumble.
We should be at 15,000 in two minutes.
So as I continue rambling, I'm going to go click the link.
Remove from YouTube.
Move it over to Rumble, people.
I know people are making constructive criticism of how it can get better.
It will get better.
Growing pains.
But these are first world problems.
We're going to live with those pains for the time being and make a party happen at Rumble now.
Booyah.
Robert, I had one more question about the Texas decision.
Oh, someone had asked, can Alex Jones create a new account?
And then have this apply.
Creating a new account to circumvent a ban is a bannable offense.
Whether or not...
Yeah, but it would depend on the circumstances is the short answer.
So whether people can attempt new accounts is an open, unresolved question.
I would think they're going to get shut down real quick.
By the terms of service, it's circumventing a sanction.
But who knows?
Material changes.
They have an argument.
Okay, Robert.
Let's go to the other decision now.
Trump, special master.
The judge, the corrupt hack of a judge, refuses to stay her own decision.
Okay, look.
She refuses to stay her own decision to set aside certain documents that a special master, independent third party answering only to the court, should not be able to review at this stage, which is, you know, doing sort of a triage of the documents as to whether or not...
The DOJ should have even had them in the first place.
People are going after the judge in all variety of respects.
I mean, what do you make of this?
I think it was a totally predictable decision.
What do you make of the circumstances?
What's going on now with Trump?
Well, when judges are not political, the legal community on the left then attacks them.
And it's the same community that says you should never question the political orientation of a judge.
So just like when they say democracy, they mean their power.
When they talk about objectivity, they mean their side.
And so this judge's ruling is frankly impeccable.
It's unimpeachable.
The judge's ruling, it's common sense.
It's commonly done in America on a regular basis.
Whenever there's been any seizure that involves any claim of privilege in those documents of any type, The protocol is to not have the government decide whether it's privileged or not, not to contaminate the investigation by having them look at those cases,
potentially privileged documents, but to have a special master, an independent judicial appointee, usually as here, an ex-judge, who reviews just to make sure that these are documents the government has a lawful right to have in its possession.
And it usually works, frankly, to the benefit of the government.
Because the special master provides an independent gatekeeper, and the special master's decision is often not second-guessed by a subsequent court.
It prevents a later argument that the government looked at documents they weren't supposed to and created a tainted tree, a tainted fruit from a tainted tree that contaminated the rest of their case.
And this is why John Ratcliffe, former U.S. attorney, head of the Office of Director of National Intelligence under President Trump.
So the question is, why did they go so berserk and so ballistic on this judge?
Not only the Department of Justice in demanding she stay her decision and filing an appeal contesting it, but so much public criticism from so many people, including Bill Barr and others.
When the arguments they were making had no legal merit, their arguments were truly meritless.
You'll find very few cases ever overturning the appointment of a special master, number one.
Number two, you'll find plenty of cases where there's even an arguable claim of privilege where a special master was appointed.
What she did was customary and commonplace and constitutional and correct.
And again, could often work to the benefit of the government more often than its detriment.
The only time it's bad for the government.
Is when they know they see things they should have never seized.
And when they know they saw things they were never supposed to see.
And that's when they get paranoid.
That's when they go ballistic.
And this was John Ratcliffe's point.
He said this beforehand, as I did.
If they complain about the special master, you know that they know that anybody independently looks at these documents is going to second guess what they did and why they did it.
Because the judge appointed, by agreement, the government didn't object to this particular person's appointment.
They're continuing to object to any special master, but this particular one they didn't, and why would they?
He's an establishment-oriented federal judge from New York who sat on the FISA court, or was a FISA court appointee who rubber-stamped the government on a regular basis.
This is not somebody who has a history of challenging institutional power at all.
Now, why Trump picked him, that's another arguable point.
I don't know if he knows something I don't know.
I would not have recommended him, to be frank about it.
But, again, maybe they know something I don't.
But it tells you how nuts the government's position is.
They're going crazy about a federal judge who's been a FISA court judge, who's been a pro-government judge his whole life, from simply looking at what they did and looking at what they got.
What that tells you is they screwed up.
And they know they screwed up.
Does it tell you that they screwed up?
They know they screwed up, but they want to use the poison fruits of this tree.
They've seen stuff that they shouldn't have seen.
They want to use it.
They know that they won't be able to use it if the special master sees it.
Or do they have stuff that Trump had, which is damning on them, that they don't want the special master seeing?
Because if the special master is playing ball with the Justice Department, the special master will see damaging or compromising information about the Justice Department.
They won't say anything publicly about it.
It seems it would be the other way around, that they know they got something bad, they want to use it, they won't be able to use it if the special master sees it.
It's all of the above.
So they admitted to the judge that they had already looked at documents that they had already flagged as privileged, and that they didn't remove those people who looked at it from the investigative team.
Problem number one.
Problem number two, their filter team was part of the same department, the same group of people bringing the prosecution investigation.
This is not how a filter team is supposed to operate in the first place.
So basically, and they've already admitted they looked at everything.
So if this judge finds any of these documents as something they shouldn't have looked at, they've completely contaminated their case if they were ever planning on pursuing one.
I have skepticism that that was their objective.
And that's why I think the second reason is the more likely reason.
The second reason is that they're...
The documents will show, I think, two different things.
One, that they seized a bunch of documents that they never should have seized in the first place.
That a bunch of them will be documents that they had no business claiming were even subject to the subpoena or the grounds for the search in the first place.
And so that's embarrassment number one.
It means Fourth Amendment violations just continually against President Trump.
The other is that what is in there...
Both isn't what they're claiming, in other words, they're trying to make a big deal about it, suggest somehow it's nuclear, national security, and they won't measure up to that at all, and they'll look like idiots.
And at the same time, there's probably whatever else is in there that might be really significant is likely damning of the deep state itself and of many of these people's allies or they themselves.
And so that it exposes their own illicit behavior.
So that, frankly, is the only reason.
To object to a special master.
The reason they're citing is they're saying even a FISA judge shouldn't look at classified information?
I mean, and what this really is, is about the bureaucracy getting to say we get to keep secrets from the American people, including the elected president of the American people.
Because they're saying, we get to declare what's classified, the president doesn't.
We get to declare what's declassified, the president doesn't.
And only we can look at it, not the president, not the judge, not anybody.
This is about, they believe that because secrets are power in our deep state.
This was the brilliant point of Julian Assange, that the foundation and fundamental critical component of all of sort of deep state corruption.
Is secrecy.
You remove secrecy, you remove the capacity for the deep state to be continually corrupt and get away with it without major public rebellion.
And so just like they kept a lot of things secret in the vaccine context, kept a lot of things secret in the election context, kept a lot of things secret about every war we've ever fought and overseas engagement we've ever been involved in, there's secrets here that they don't want anyone to see.
And the reasonable inference is that those secrets damn them, not damn Trump.
But it's also an attempt to say the deep state is legally more powerful than the elected head of the executive branch, than the president himself.
That the deep state is more powerful than the American people.
That the deep state is more powerful than the Constitution itself.
That's the legal precedent they're trying to set here.
That's why, like, to claim that Trump could have no interest in his own documents as the elected president is insane.
I'm trying to find the video.
I think I just got it right here.
Hold on.
Let's listen to this.
The idea that they're basically saying we're going to override or ignore or try to set aside the judge's decision, which just tells us to be transparent with the third party special master.
We get to see it and then decide whether or not the special master gets to see it to see if we should see it.
It is the administrative state taking over the executive.
It's taking over.
In the judicial branch.
They're saying you, the constitutional judicial branch, doesn't get to second-guess us.
Just as the elected head of the executive branch doesn't get to second-guess us.
So let's listen to this fact fraud.
Now, Robert, no, we'll be nice.
Attack the ideas.
I think it was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it.
Sorry, I talked over the beginning.
Bill Barr, former attorney general, says, I think the decision is wrong, and I think...
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
They should appeal it.
They're going to appeal it to a higher court, but their request to the judge to revise the judge's own decision didn't pass the master test.
The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it.
It's deeply flawed in a number of ways.
I don't think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up, but even if it does, I don't see it fundamentally changing the trajectory.
In other words, I don't think it changes the ballgame so much as maybe we'll have a rain delay for a couple of innings.
But I think that the fundamental dynamics of the case are set, which is the government has very strong evidence of what it really needs to determine whether charge is appropriate, which is government documents were taken, Transified information was taken and not handled appropriately.
And they are looking into, and there's some evidence to suggest, that they were deceived.
And none of that really relates to the content of documents.
Robert, I listen to this, and we don't even need to finish it.
It's just rubbish.
I listen to this, and I listen to it or hear Bill Barr basically giving strategy tips to the Justice Department.
This is not like an assessment.
OK, guys, you better pivot now because you're going to get burnt on what you initially said.
And here's how you should be framing it going forward.
Am I wrong?
No, I think that's exactly right, because they need to maintain the pretext.
I mean, listen to those ludicrous claims to say that the president of the United States couldn't have the government's documents.
The president is the government.
He is the constitutional manifestation of the government.
There is no executive branch without the president.
I mean, it's insane doctrine.
What you're seeing is a deep state act, which is what Bill Barr has been his entire life, part of the Bushite corrupt political regime going back.
I mean, if you combine corruption and incompetency, the peak of the deep state and elected political power, chances are the last name is Bush or somebody affiliated or associated with Bush.
And that's Bill Barr.
That's how he got into political prominence, aside from his dad's connections to Jeffrey Epstein and writing about wanting to sexually assault underage women.
So while he was headmaster of a school involving underage men.
I mean, is it really a coincidence Jeffrey Epstein died while Bill Barr was Attorney General?
A lot of people on the right ignored that because Barr was pretending to be a Trump ally.
And so he got away with it.
He got away with it.
Remember, he's going to meaningfully investigate.
Whatever happened to that investigation?
Kind of like the Hunter Biden investigation?
Got quashed.
Joe Biden investigation?
Got quashed.
Election fornication investigations?
Got quashed.
All Bill Barr.
The most corrupt attorney general in American history is Bill Barr.
So Bill Barr, I bet, is nervous about what might be lingering.
Bill Barr came into political prominence and power.
I'm going to be doing a hush-hush on the history of Bill Barr.
Political prominence and power by covering up CIA crimes for CIA Director Poppy Bush when the House came investigating in the post-Watergate era.
That's who the man is.
So yes, your analysis is precisely right.
What he is here to do is to cover up and facilitate it.
Rupert Murdoch.
He's promoting Bill Barr because he is part of a deep state-aligned agenda that never wanted Trump in and doesn't want Trump to return to power.
That's why you're seeing him on Fox all over the place when Barr is increasingly a hated figure on the political right.
Fox would be better off having somebody who could be more like Sean Hannity, be a fake conservative.
A fake conservative can get away with it in ways that Bill Barr can't because everybody knows what a fraud he is now.
But that's the insanity of this.
It's as if the word classification has this magical attachment to it that's independent of the elected head of the executive branch.
Everybody in the executive branch only has power because the president gave it to them.
The idea that they could restrict the president makes no sense at all.
That's no longer a constitutional republic.
That is an administrative state bureaucracy that has completely scrapped our Constitution.
It is a coup on the Constitution, is what Barr is recommending as a legal precedent, that the president couldn't have the government's documents, the classified documents.
The president decides what documents he gets to have because he is the government as it relates to anything within the executive branch.
He decides whether something's classified or not.
There's no rule or protocol you have to go through whatsoever.
And the fact that he and these other people are pretending there's some sort of impregnable separate basis by which documents become government documents, national security documents, and classified documents that could prohibit the elected head of the executive branch from looking at what his underlings are doing is insane.
It's a constitutional coup.
It's what's been happening.
Since the end of World War II in American government on a routine and regular basis.
But it's never been constitutional.
It's never been the legally correct position.
And it would require a corrupt or partisan 11th Circuit to overturn the district court's decision.
I want to bring up one other amazing take.
It's sort of only incidentally related to this.
I don't know who the individual is by name.
Andrew Wiseman.
Oh, you know who Wiseman is, don't you?
Weisman is the most corrupt federal prosecutor in American history.
Weisman is the guy who facilitated a whole bunch of crimes in the Enron case.
Weisman was part of the lead hack as part of Mueller's team.
And that was a sign that Mueller was not doing an honest, a nonpartisan investigation.
So Weisman belongs in prison.
That's where Weisman is.
Well, maybe I shouldn't have needled him on Twitter.
He put up this tweet and it just had me thinking of...
A number of other examples.
Hitler was charged and convicted of treason for participating in a failed coup.
Trying to draw an analogy.
Dismissed the authority of the court that tried him.
Started writing Mein Kampf in prison.
And upon release from jail, well, the rest is history.
And I just immediately was triggered in the actual critical sense by I dismissed the authority of the court because I remember what Bill Barr said.
And I just had to give him the full montage.
Elizabeth Warren.
Supreme Court extremists do not get the last word.
How do I get the next one here?
Bill Barr calls judges special master ruling deeply flawed, urges appeal.
There was a great one.
Hochschul.
Politicians defy...
And I wrote to him, I said, you know, when your ideological adversaries defy the authority of the court, it's Hitler.
When you do it, it's morality.
I'll go look at that individual.
But Robert.
Epstein and Bill Barr, and now that I think about it, Epstein, the man who totally ended his own life while in jail with the cameras, malfunctioned.
The two guards were asleep, literally.
And he managed to kill himself inside a cell that's designed to prohibit people from being killed.
Apparently, yeah, he had no clothing because he was on suicide watch.
The way they designed the ceilings, the way they designed the beds, the way they designed the material.
All of it's supposed to make it impossible for you to do what he purportedly managed to do.
The guards were sleeping and the cameras weren't working.
And I believe the autopsy indicated that a crushed portion of the neck would be more indicative of strangulation than hanging.
But setting all that aside, Robert, that case is closed.
Those two security guards who were asleep, they were removed or they were, what's the word?
And the warden was just transferred to another position.
There were no consequences at all.
Bill Barr got away with it.
I mean, Bill Barr was always a deep state sleeper agent right next to Trump.
Who snookered Trump into thinking he was doing something about election fornication when he was sabotaging it.
In fact, information was given to Barr while he was Attorney General of explicit evidence of election fraud in Michigan.
And it involved someone that he was trying to promote to a federal judgeship.
And he directly interfered with that investigation, being able to fully investigate.
So it wasn't just unwillingness to inquire.
It was overt acts of obstruction.
Barr is someone that if there's ever a meaningful deep state inquiry, Barr's legacy gets shredded and he ends up being bunk bed mates with some folks in federal prison.
So with El Chapo and that crowd.
And a lot of these people would.
I mean, these are people who are not only defending their immediate prerogative, the way they reacted when Carter and the Watergate folks cleaned house was to plot against Carter and a lot of those people for the next four or five years until they got somebody in.
And Reagan, who actually pardoned a lot of them and put them back into positions of power, which done in the name of defeating the Soviets in the Cold War.
But so they don't have that angle now.
They don't have a communist threat as much as they would like to gin one up in some other form in the same scale from a military cultural perspective.
So that's why you're seeing these people defend them.
But legally, the judge's decision is impeccable.
In fact, I thought it was...
A lot more tolerant and patient in language and remedy than I would have been.
Because to me, this is, again, utterly unprecedented.
No president ever in history has been raided by the federal law enforcement.
No leading presidential opponent has ever been raided by his opponent who is in the White House.
These things have never happened before.
Everybody can see how overtly and openly political they are.
It appears the FBI lied about what was even in there.
And again, this is all documents that under existing precedent from the Clinton case and other cases concerning classified information, the president has to have, constitutionally has to have, a unilateral right to declassify whatever he wants.
It's insane to say otherwise.
Again, because all power in the executive branch comes from the president.
So the idea that the president could be limited by his underling...
Is just insane.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
He can be checked by the judicial branch, separate branch of power.
He can be checked by the legislative branch, separate branch of power.
He can be checked by state governments, separate branch of power.
He can't be checked by people who only have their power because of him.
Robert, I want to actually announce something.
We are over 18,000 people now live on Rumble, which means that not only did everyone from YouTube actually come over and thank you, but on the way...
Some of you had babies and brought them over as well to watch.
Amazing stuff.
This is amazing.
It will happen.
It will get smoother.
But thank you all.
Robert, what was I just about to say?
It's a good time.
Big crowd.
Everyone's listening now.
It's a good time to talk about Martha's Vineyard.
I have legal questions.
First, I'm going to mock everybody involved.
I may or may not play a few Twitter videos to illustrate.
The flagrant NIMBY hypocrisy.
I'm calling it hashtag NIMBY hypocrisy.
Not in my backyard hypocrisy.
DeSantis, who apparently had the foresight of specifically having $12 million of the state budget allocated for reallocating migrants.
I'll use the politically neutral term.
That's rumble.
Illegal immigrant.
We can use the legal term.
The legal term is illegal alien.
That's the legal term.
People make this like the word alien that has a very specific legal meaning.
It means alien from that nation as a non-citizen without a legal right to access to that country.
People get up in arms about illegal alien.
I'm like, that's literally the statutory term.
That's if I'm in court.
That's the term I have to use to define who this person is and how we've always defined them.
A lot of illegal aliens in Florida And he shipped a few up, flew a few up to Martha's Vineyard for a little Labor Day celebration.
50. By the way, now that you mention it, it's the Phil Collins song.
I'm an illegal alien in New York.
50. They get to Martha's Vineyard, which is, I think it's 17,000 people.
It's a small island.
I think it's 90% Democrat, 87% white.
And I want to specify, not that all immigrants are non-white, and not that all non-whites are immigrants, period, full stop.
We're just talking about an ideologically...
Ethnically homogeneous society, literally its own island, wealthy beyond anybody's normal standards, 73% homeownership, 48% mortgage-free homeownership.
And I say that without judgment, just to set the context.
50 Venezuelan migrants are flown in by DeSantis, who has allocated $12 million of the state budget specifically for this purpose.
So like Dave Rubin pointed out, You have Democrat, I don't know, what do they call them?
District politicians in the state of Florida who voted on, approved this budget to allocate $12 million to redistribute, reallocate migrants who are here in the state illegally.
They bring 50 to Martha's Vineyard.
It triggers a humanitarian crisis overnight.
Overnight, they're saying, we don't have the infrastructure for this.
We have a housing crisis here as it is.
And I guess within 48 hours, They're shipped out to a military base in Cape Cod.
But Robert, setting aside the hypocrisy, because you have these very wealthy individuals saying, oh, we'd love to have you, but we just don't have the space, so go somewhere else.
We're not a border town.
The legal side of this, above and beyond the hypocrisy, they're talking, you got Gavin Newsom in California.
I won't call it a shithole state, but other people do.
Water crisis, energy crisis, crime crisis, exodus crisis.
He's now getting involved in saying, oh, the Justice Department should investigate DeSantis, potentially, I don't know, for kidnapping charges or whatever.
Robert, is there any...
Setting aside a highly politicized, totally dishonest judicial system, is there any meaningful or actually potential lawful exposure for what DeSantis did?
Well, the world's leading human trafficking...
Political figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton, because she's, you might say, has all kinds of interesting experience in that particular space.
Just look up Haiti.
Some of the activities related to that.
Some of the people directly connected to the Clinton Foundation, directly related to that.
Was accusing DeSantis of human trafficking.
That was some of the criticisms on the left.
The criticism on the right was, why aren't these people being deported out of the country?
So, it's what's legal for a state to do.
A state...
Does not have the legal power to deport someone outside of the nation's borders.
However, under interstate travel rights, they have the complete power to basically encourage and incentivize someone to go to another state.
And that's basically what they did.
They said, hey, would you like to take a trip to Martha's Vineyard?
They're like, yeah, why not?
So they're illegally present there, etc.
Whether or not they could be arrested and physically forcibly transported there is a different question.
But to my knowledge, none of that has actually occurred.
One of the accusations, I don't know what warranties and representations DeSantis or whoever did this gave to the migrants.
One of the criticisms is that they were told they're going to have jobs and a place to stay.
That's bordering on immoral.
That's what Martha's Vineyard says.
That's that they are a promoted sanctuary city.
That they promote themselves.
All the places that both the governor in Texas, the Democratic mayor, and political figures in El Paso are doing this on a regular basis.
They're paying for people to be bused to New York City all the time.
But two things.
One, that they're more likely to get certain kinds of employment and social services in that location.
And by the way, the Biden administration did this routinely.
Well, that's what we're going to get.
The Biden administration took people and dumped people in states.
Obama did the same thing and dumped them in states that were hostile to him so that nobody there could complain because they were already adverse to him anyway.
Now, the federal government has detention power.
So, you know, where it detains and releases, that's probably up to them.
There's no evidence that I've seen that any of these people were arrested and forcibly transported.
Anywhere.
Now, it's still an open question when someone is illegally present whether or not a governor can enforce federal law in those circumstances.
There's a range of issues surrounding it as to what exactly the legal scope is.
But to my knowledge, they avoided all that.
They said, would you like a free trip to New York?
Would you like a free trip to Chicago?
Would you like a free trip to Martha's Vineyard?
And these are all places that they could reasonably say this is what these places have said.
These places have said they're sanctuary cities.
These places have said that they welcome illegal immigrants, that illegal immigrants should have a right of access here, and that they should be provided shelter and jobs.
That's what these cities say.
Now, it turns out they're lying.
The District of Columbia is lying.
The mayor's like, we can't afford anybody coming here.
We're not a border town.
I mean, what I underestimated...
When they did this, for political optics purposes primarily, because it's only a tiny percentage of the number of people that have come across.
One recent study said there's been a $20 billion adverse impact on just the illegals that have come here since Biden has been in office for less than two years.
So that gives a scale of what's taking place.
Two million plus people.
This is a tiny drop in the bucket.
And I was skeptical that they would react.
I really did not believe.
That you would see this NIMBY behavior, this not-in-my-backyard behavior, to such a degree that NBC News, they had to retract it because they got caught on it, compared illegal immigrants to trash, called them trash, quoted somebody calling them trash.
So what you see is, I mean, the complaint for a long time for those of us critical of illegal immigration, one is we either have a democracy or we don't.
And if we have a democracy that sets the rules as to how many people can come in and on what basis, then we have to stick with those rules or we don't have a democracy anymore.
The second is, overwhelmingly, this immigration burden is being placed on working class communities in America.
Most Americans are sympathetic with most people that are coming here.
Most of them are hardworking, good family people who are trying to support their family.
Now, amongst them are criminals, gangsters.
Drug dealers, rapists, bad people.
And if you were a really bad person, you're better off not being in a jurisdiction that may be trying to track you or trace you at the time.
But instead, find a place that wants to offer you sanctuary in certain parts of the country.
But most of them, good, hardworking people, without any question.
But we have limits.
The way I've always compared it, it's like my house.
Somebody might be a good person.
And who could contribute to the value of my house.
But do I have to open my house to whoever wants to be let in?
No, I don't.
We don't really think that way.
So we have limits.
We have to honor these limits.
And that overwhelmingly, these limits are being discarded at the expense of working class people in America.
Now, many people on the right suspect this is about a political power grab, that they're importing votes and voters to be able to maintain majority support in elected positions of power that they would not have.
But for importing these voters.
I guarantee you that if these voters were a bunch of evangelical Christians from Africa or Latin America, the left would suddenly change their mind about who could be brought into the country on immigration standards.
Cubans, for example, would be a good one where they would all of a sudden...
Yeah, they don't like a lot of the Cubans.
They don't like some of the Venezuelans coming in.
And the Biden administration is taking a pretty hostile position on Cubans coming into the country.
So it shows you the complete contrast.
Certain African groups that have been persecuted for religious reasons that are conservative Christians, they're not bringing them in in many big numbers.
And so that's part.
But the other part of it is, overwhelmingly, the social, political, economic burden has fallen on working-class communities in America, particularly working-class Mexican-American communities that have been in this country for hundreds of years, a century or more.
Back when Texas was part of Mexico, for some of these folks, that's particularly true to parts of New Mexico.
You've got populations that predate the United States that have tied their ancestry to that.
But overwhelmingly, it's working class people whose schools are being stressed, whose roads are being overly impacted, whose housing is being directly impacted, whose employment prospects are being directly impacted.
The working class is paying the price, and disproportionately, by the way, often working class African Americans and Latinos in America.
So, and the question has always been, to what degree is it just virtue signaling power grab for these liberal cities to say there'll be sanctuaries, not allow illegal immigrants to be prosecuted, to refer to themselves as the Underground Railroad, like they're abolitionists freeing the slaves?
And how much of it is brazen, blatant, pure hypocrisy?
Where they refuse to accept any of the accountability or responsibility, economically, culturally, or politically, for these populations in their own neighborhood.
Well, now we know.
D.C. mayor has gone nuts about this.
Martha's Vineyard went berserk about this.
New York City mayor is going nuts about this.
Chicago mayor is going nuts about this.
They're all losing their mind.
And it shows you what a complete scam.
It was all along.
And I didn't think it would politically work to the degree it has.
Because it's exposed this hypocrisy on a grand scale.
I know people who are absolutely apolitical and almost non-political because politics turns them off.
And privately they say...
This is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my life.
Watching them wave at the migrants, and I know some people in the chat are still taking offense.
I'll call the migrants.
I'm not going to go by the legal term, although I might use it more freely.
Illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens.
I've represented people that are in that position, people seeking asylum, people, etc.
So I don't use that legal term with any hostility.
I choose to use the legally correct term because that's undocumented.
It's not that they forgot their paperwork.
They are what they are, illegal aliens.
I might be an illegal alien someday if the Biden administration comes after me in some other country.
Undocumented almost presupposes that they have the documents, they just don't have them now.
They left them at home.
It's one of the dumbest definitions of all time.
This person tells me privately, this is shocking.
Watching the...
They happen to be of a certain demographic on Martha's Vineyard, waving at the illegal aliens that they are now rounding up with the presence of the National Guard, but according to CNN, voluntarily.
They're voluntarily being displaced to a military base in Cape Cod with the help of...
Well, because it poses, like, if they want to go after DeSantis on the grounds that he sent them there, what's their legal grounds to expel them?
No, absolutely.
When they do it...
It's voluntary, even if there's an armed National Guard outnumbering them three to one doing it.
When DeSantis does it voluntarily, it's kidnapping.
But they're waving at them and they say, I love you.
Go.
Don't let the, like my father always makes a joke, like, you know, here's your hat, where's the rush?
Go.
We love you.
One woman was saying, te amo, as they were putting them on buses to get them off their island.
The memes that came out of it are so on point and poignant that even non-political people were shocked.
But Robert.
There's politics, and then there's fake news.
And speaking of sanctuary cities, you can make this stuff up, and it would be funny if it were the onion.
Now you got NBC Boston.
Is Massachusetts a sanctuary state?
It's complicated.
Now it's complicated.
It's a sanctuary state, but not when we don't like it.
And then from the article.
In 2017, Massachusetts' top state court ruled that Massachusetts court officers do not...
Have the authority to arrest someone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally if that person is not facing criminal charges.
The state's high court ruled on Monday.
That's effectively...
Well, that's a typo.
That effectively gave the state sanctuary status.
How did Martha's Vineyard get rid of these people?
That's why they have to pretend that they came to Martha's Vineyard by coercion, but left Martha's Vineyard voluntarily.
Their consent was vitiated by lies coming in.
But now, take ammo and get on the bus and enjoy your military facility.
I'm sure it's going to be much nicer than Martha's Vineyard.
And I'm sure if I was an illegal alien, that first I hop a plane, nice private plane, up to Martha's Vineyard.
Would I consider that coerced?
Or would I consider being put on a bus surrounded by National Guard and sent to a military detention center?
Does that sound more like arrest and coercion?
And they're going to be detained.
They're going to be detained.
I wonder if the ACLU is going to be signing up any class actions against Martha's Vineyard anytime soon for illegal detention, as they've done in a lot of other cases when people have tried to assert immigration law authority.
Something tells me there's too many ACLU donors on Martha's Vineyard for them to take that action.
But it has exposed the hypocrisy and the sham that is the left's immigration position in perfect.
Perfect display.
The kind, moral side of me says using people as political pawns, it's sort of Kantian using people as a means to an end.
But all of politics is using people as...
Well, if I'm an illegal alien and I come here, I honestly don't...
Whatever the situation is, the situation it is.
In other words, it's not something that...
I'm political by being here.
So the fact that I may become a political tool...
That's kind of par for the course when I came here illegally.
I'm going to read some of the rumble rants afterwards, and sooner than later, I'm going to figure out a method to actually bring them up or have them be seen on screen at the same time, but everyone can see them highlighted.
All right, Robert, it's amazing.
But people should contemplate the idea.
These people now are in a military base.
I suspect they're being detained in the legal sense.
That's my opinion.
I mean, we have a standard for when a person who has a reasonable belief they're under arrest, and things like military people and being sent to a military facility usually would count.
How about if they said, I want to stay on Martha's Vineyard.
I'm staying.
There's a church?
Someone will put me up here.
I'm staying.
No, you're not.
It was nice seeing you.
Te amo.
Goodbye.
I mean, just shock.
Where were the immigration activists?
Where were they?
I mean, AOC.
Did she show up crying at the gates of Martha's Vineyard?
Did the immigration activists, the George Soros-funded groups, did they all show up to make sure they had effective advocacy?
Somehow they were gone.
It shows what political harlots these people are.
They don't have principles.
They don't really care about the illegals.
They care about political power and leveraging illegals for political power, and that's it.
If they cared about him as human beings, you would see a radically different reaction.
And to be honest with you, I thought at least some of these people really did.
And they've been exposed that they don't.
They don't care at all.
I mean, I'm not surprised Martha's Vineyard is a bunch of hypocrites, but all of New York, D.C., and Chicago?
Wow.
Those people should be embarrassed.
They like their nice house, but they like being open as well.
He could put up all 50 without a problem.
Put up looking twice.
Was it 18 bedrooms?
8,000 square feet?
It's got 30 acres.
I'm not saying this to be glib.
It's a nice place.
I go camping as vacation.
Tents, 30 acres.
How about makeshift tents?
How about detention centers like they have on the border in the border towns?
They don't want to see those there.
New architecture was discovered recently in Martha's Vineyard.
Obama was putting up some cages again to put up the cages in, kids in property.
And there's new signs of a new wall going up right around Martha's Vineyard.
Robert, but, you know, speaking of Bannon getting indicted for fundraising fraud, colfage and, you know, going on, they had a GoFundMe that was supposed to be for the humanitarian crisis in Martha's Vineyard.
Within 48 hours, all of the people are gone.
They updated their GoFundMe.
It says the migrants left Martha's Vineyard for the Cape this morning.
You are welcome to still give to support the MB Community Foundation and its ongoing work, but any donations as of 11 a.m. today will go to shoring up the organizations that provided assistance over the past few days and to building up a reserve to assist situations like this in the future rather than directly helping this group of migrants and their situation.
That's the social welfare state and liberal organizations writ large.
It's about their own empowerment and their own enrichment, and the victims are solely the excuse.
The pretext for their power.
The pretext to line their pockets.
They couldn't give one rat's rear end about these human beings as human beings.
Alright, Robert, what do we move on to now?
Speaking of power in the governmental space, more talk this week of a federal digital currency as the Treasury Secretary weaponized her power to go against tornado, which I don't understand all the technological aspects of.
...
of the sanction, various aspects of the crypto space in ways that It's not clear there's authority to do so, leading to a lawsuit being supported by Coinbase and others against the Secretary for abuse of power and violation of First Amendment rights.
It's probably not a coincidence that in the same length of time, the White House began proposing implementing its executive order to start to fast-track a U.S. federal digital currency.
Now, for the people out there, Unfortunately, in the political right, well, political right and political left, politics, there's this propensity to clickbait.
And I'm not just referring to like your Tim Pool, Civil War is coming tomorrow again, kind of clickbait.
I mean like clickbait that misleads people into thinking something's going to happen that isn't actually imminent.
Crying wolf, if you will.
And the problem with that is it leads people to be asleep later when it is imminent.
This happened a lot, in my view, where people were talking about there being in Nuremberg trials when they were just sort of...
PR events and things like that.
Similar here is that there's no imminent digital currency.
The executive order doesn't extend that far.
Just like the executive order's attempt to federalize certain election rules doesn't go anywhere near as far as people worry or complain that it does.
It's a problem, but it's not on the scale they think they are.
Elections are still controlled at the state level with very limited federal influence.
So same is here true, but what it shows is their objective, the path that they are on.
And for folks out there, a digital currency, George Gammon and I have been talking about it for many years.
You can find him at Rebel Capitalist and George Gammon on YouTube and other social media spaces.
He is going to be the lead plaintiff against the Federal Reserve because one of the things we requested...
And our FOIA request that the Fed just stonewalled, stonewalled, and stonewalled, and now our appeals are exhausted, we have a right to bring suit, we'll be bringing suit within the next couple of weeks against the Federal Reserve, was what are your plans about a federal digital currency?
Because what a federal digital currency would do is basically tie you, tie your money, your access to any kind of monetary transaction, whether it's savings, whether it's payment.
Whatever it may be, whether it's to pay your food bill, your gas bill, your rent bill, your travel bill, you name it, your hotel bill, your clothing bill, your kid's school bill, etc.
They want that to be tied to a digital format that is much more trackable, traceable, so that they can have more surveillance and ultimately sabotage than currently exists.
Like once the dollar bill is out there, it's out there.
They can track it through the financial system by its numbering and little strips that are put in the dollar bill, but they can't immediately revoke it on a given notice.
They can't immediately give you something.
They can't immediately take it away.
So that's what digital currency does.
All of a sudden, your money could be gone.
Your money could be worthless.
It's the ultimate enforcement mechanism of a social credit system.
It's the ultimate means of social control.
If you can't have the means to get food, To get transport, to get shelter, to get education, to get travel, then the government controls you.
And they know a digital currency achieves and attains that level of control.
That's why they've been interested in it from day one.
It's part of the reason the CIA and others put a lot of money behind blockchain.
As soon as Bitcoin came out, they recognized the blockchain significance of it and how it could be utilized also to maximize control.
So it's another case of a tool invented.
To liberalize liberty and grant more privacy, they are trying to contort into a means of social control.
So there's not been enough talk in Congress and amongst people in the world of public opinion pushing back against any idea of a global digital currency.
It is a dangerous, dangerous path to go down.
And how does it manifest?
The government will issue, concoct a digital currency and then basically...
A null fiat currency?
They call it FedCoin, loosely FedCoin.
So instead of dollar bills, there would be no paper dollar bills.
And so a certain sense that there are little digits on a screen already, referenced in the movie Sneakers all the way back, in terms of the banking and the financial system.
It would make the whole system that way, so that your cash would never be something that would be in your pocket.
It would be either in the form of a card or on your phone as an app.
And that that would be the only means of money, and it's the maximum means of control.
And so that's its great danger.
It's not clear.
In fact, a former Federal Reserve banker was interviewed, I believe, in Minnesota recently, or at least the interviews made the rounds recently, where he said you would not do this for economic purposes.
You would not do this for making the organization work better or institutions work better.
You would only do this for maximum.
Social control.
That that's the only benefit a digital currency provides of this type.
Because, I mean, Bitcoin is different.
And what makes Bitcoin useful is not just its digital aspect.
It's rather the fact that it is not tied to any state and has certain aspects that are able to be shared and bartered, if you will, without the interference, interruption, or intermediary role of the state.
That's not obviously available with a federal bank digital coin.
So, I mean, you save a little bit of money in terms of printing cash, you know, whoop-de-doo.
But otherwise, all it really does is maximize control.
And that's the goal, to use the new technology that was meant to liberate us to control us.
Well, I say, like, in terms of doing this without triggering people's spidey senses, just, you know, go full Trudeau and freeze bank accounts and find legal reasons to do that.
I mean, as it is, we have actual currency, but it's all, for the most part, tied up in banks and used on credit.
So it's all digital, in any event, for 90% of its application.
None of people remember the rule.
Never in writing.
Always in case.
Robert, I'm going to need you to segue because I don't have my notes in front of my face to segue into another good subject.
Well, there's a good little fun case we could...
Sort of stick in as a little intermediary provision, which is the federal, it tells you how federal judges operate.
You know, the way that they will interpret language in a very, look at the, and we can recap as well, the Alex Jones trial, where very vague statements in some cases are being given very limited, discrete, specific meanings.
Whereas, take this case, what happened is a bunch of your big food companies.
Big ag, big agriculture, big commercialized food, which if you dig in, their use of preservatives, their use of chemical additives, their heavy uses of sugars and starches and certain oils are increasingly tied to major health problems in the United States.
Whether it's...
Obesity, whether it's heart issues, whether it's liver issues, whether it's cancer issues, whether it's mind issues.
You can name one disease after another, particularly those that have exploded.
Autism is potentially connected.
That has exploded over the past half century, and they're increasingly finding a tie to big agriculture and corporate food distribution systems using these.
Just the idea that corporatized health would be better than regular health was always skeptical.
So that's part of the reason why they're going after people like Amos Miller, the Amish farmer in Pennsylvania, is he's an organic guy who doesn't want to put certain chemicals on the food.
And the people that want his food products don't want that on their food either.
And yet you have the U.S. Department of Agriculture trying to micromanage his life and his business's life to such a degree you had a federal district court judge.
Order him to designate which food was going to which family member and to label it accordingly.
Something that's always been illegal in America.
That's never been within the federal power ever.
But that's how nuts the whole case got because of how crazy the USDA is.
But it's part of a broader process where the USDA serves the interest of corporate agriculture and doesn't serve the interest of the consumer, the people, or the ordinary farmer.
And in this context, a range of lawyers have been bringing suits.
Some are just plaintiff's class action lawyers looking for cash.
Others are conscientiously motivated by the cases they bring.
It varies by case.
But one is that the big agriculture lies all the time about their food products.
They say certain things aren't in it that are.
They say certain things are in it that ain't.
They tell you tuna is tuna when it ain't.
And in this case, Kellogg was telling people that something was a veggie product that ain't a veggie product.
And the judge went so far as to suggest that veggie, what does veggie mean?
Who knows what veggie means?
Maybe it could even mean meat!
Robert, hold on.
I was reading it.
I didn't, and as much as I read up on this, didn't read that there was actual meat in it.
My understanding, although it'll change radically if I was factually mistaken, is that the complaint was that it was being called veggie.
But vegetables were only the fourth ingredient, and you had some nasty first, second, and third ingredients.
It was not the case that there was actual potential meat in any of that?
Well, the nature of the judge's ruling was so broad that meat could be called a veggie, according to the judge.
At least on this, I didn't see that, because I can imagine for safety reasons, not for marketing.
People might have gastro issues where they can't actually consume meat.
Although they're saying they call these things veggies, and the judge basically said, well, nobody's going to really think that that means it's mostly vegetable.
It might just have to have some veggie in it.
And the first ingredient was cornstarch.
Second ingredient was some corn oil, I think.
Disgusting, nasty things, which is why I don't eat these veggie burger crap, and I vehemently oppose them.
I just like...
Bill Gates wants to force us to eat this crap.
Well, I'll even go with crickets so long as they're actual crickets.
I mean, I've eaten crickets before it was cool to push it on Agenda 2030.
But, like, you eat a piece of meat, you know it's in it.
I miss that, thankfully.
Rob, they're not bad.
If you spice them up properly, they just taste like chips.
The judge basically said it was not ambiguous enough, but veggie, no one's going to really understand or take from that that it's mostly vegetables and therefore, to the extent it has some in there somewhere, first, second, third ingredient, not veggies, close enough and no false advertising.
Which is ludicrous.
Obviously, they're putting the word veggie on there because the ordinary person thinks it's a healthy product or something that is Natural vegetables.
And the reality is Big Ag just lies about all of this.
And we've covered a couple of these cases, whether it's Subway or other food manufacturers.
What you see is federal courts going out of their way to protect corporations.
And you'll see them make completely contrary rulings.
In other words, where they will be very specific and particular and demanding in one context about the limits of language, they'll suddenly be broad and tolerant and open to such a degree that language means nothing.
And it's because the motivation for their decision is not the law.
It's not the facts.
It's political protection of their favorite allies.
And Big Ag is one of the big ones.
I'm reading the chat in Rumble and people are making fun of me.
I went to a Mexican restaurant in Montreal in the Jean Talon market.
So now you're blaming the Mexicans.
No, I noticed they had crickets, dried crickets.
I was like, oh, I've never tasted this.
I got it.
I made a video about it back in the day.
They were crunching.
I missed that one.
I'll send it to locals afterwards.
But the funny thing is, when I read Veggie...
I don't assume that it is healthy, full of vegetables.
I just assume there's no meat in it, and I assume it's going to be unhealthy crap, because I've looked at the ingredients on these things, or the fat content.
You think it's going to be veggie whatever, veggie patties?
It'll have less fat than a hot dog.
No.
It has just as much salt, just as much fat.
It just comes in a form that's not animal-based.
Enjoy your veggie burgers.
They're disgusting.
Nobody should eat them.
So that's funny.
I mean, does a decision like that get appealed?
Does anyone care about it?
I mean, because there's big class action possibilities, and there's a lot of these cases that it will and should get reversed.
But increasingly, it shows a pattern.
Federal courts are going out of their way to protect big ag in ways that will be difficult to undo.
Outside of legislative reform and continuing education in the court of public opinion.
I'll segue the next one, Robert, because federal courts going out of their way to help big, big agriculture.
Right now, we're noticing a trend of what appears to be the courts, for whatever the reason, going out of their way to harm or to frustrate the ability of religious institutions to carry out their purpose as religious institutions.
I hadn't been following the yeshiva case in New York.
I saw people were freaking out about it.
I saw some people were angry at the Supreme Court.
Because of the decision.
You'll explain the law side of this.
I just understood the fact pattern to be at a yeshiva you.
Yeshiva is like, for those who don't know Judaism, I mean, it's like being more kosher than the Pope.
I mean, the yeshiva is, it's religion.
It's Judaism.
It's like the strictest form of Judaism.
I say that with no judgment.
I probably would not be able to survive a day there, nor would they even potentially allow me to be there for a day.
But...
They have a university, it's Yeshiva University, a religious-based institution, and a group LGBTQ want to be recognized by Yeshiva U to have the same rights as other organizations within Yeshiva U, and also that which would compel Yeshiva University to lend an interpretation to the Bible that is fundamentally contrary to the principles.
of yeshiva as an organization, as a religious entity.
They succeeded on getting an interim injunction.
And yeshiva, you appealed saying, you're going to compel us to recognize an organization, I don't know if it's a student body is the right way to put it, that is fundamentally contrary to our religious essence, the fundamental rules of what it means to be religious Jews in our book.
And you're going to compel us to Give interpretations of the Bible, at least until a final judgment, which might overturn things, which we find religiously, constitutionally offensive.
And it went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court...
What did the Supreme Court say, basically?
You still have other options to exhaust before we consider reversing the interim injunction?
Yes.
And again, the key was Roberts and Kavanaugh.
So the three liberals joined Roberts and Kavanaugh in denying Yeshiva University the legal relief that, as the dissenters noted, they were clearly entitled to.
And so because it's a religious university, a religious institution, and as a religious institution, it doesn't have to change its religious character or its core beliefs to accommodate a little wokester group on campus.
And what is there being forced to kind of do that?
In the interim, while their case gets fully litigated.
And so I think it's problematic.
It was a bad decision, in my view.
I'll give an example.
Seventh Circuit this week had a case where a Muslim prisoner refused to honor a tranny guard's self-identification for gender purposes.
And the Seventh Circuit said religious rights trump the person's rights to self-identification.
And said that the Muslim doesn't have to refer to him as a her, despite her preferences to be called her, even though born to him, because of his Islamic beliefs.
Yet here, the U.S. Supreme Court won't allow a much more robust religious rights argument.
In this case, because, now I think ultimately it will get reversed sooner or later, but it's why Kennedy put Kavanaugh on the bench.
That Kavanaugh has this very cocktail circuit kind of mentality.
A lot of conservatives took the bait into believing that because of his frat boy reputation being tarred and feathered in a ludicrous direction of baseless allegations against him, that that would radicalize him in the way they think it radicalized Clarence Thomas.
They're wrong.
Clarence Thomas was a populist conservative because of his grandfather from the time he was knee-eye to a grasshopper, fundamentally.
Now, he went through different incarnations of that, from the left back to the right, to that ultimate direction.
Occasionally we disagree on some topics, but his core principles have been that all the way through.
It wasn't because of dealing with the nonsense that the political class did.
That just made sure he wasn't going to retire from the bench anytime soon.
That's what that was about.
But Kavanaugh is going to be the person Kennedy appointed.
Kennedy didn't pick him.
Unless Kennedy had great confidence, he would be a cocktail circuit conservative.
What I mean by that is people who want to be popular on the cocktail circuit.
The Georgetown crowd, the Martha's Vineyard crowd, so on and so forth.
And that's why he wouldn't stand up when he should have stood up on this case and joined the other conservatives.
The decision, I think, was the wrong decision.
Actually, Wanderluster in the chat in Rumble says, Yeshiva University gets federal funds, so I don't think they can go against federal doctrine, but I could be wrong.
But here's the difference.
That has never applied in the religious context.
So you've always had a religious right that your religion trumps.
So they have tried to superimpose that, starting with the Carter administration.
So certain areas of discrimination have been prohibited in the past.
But to extend this, in fact, when Gorsuch wrote that controversial decision extending certain forms of discrimination outside of their general gender definition in the past, He went out of his way to point out it wouldn't apply in the religious context.
So historically, that's always been an exception to most, not all, but most of those restrictions.
But it's why Hillsdale, a school, by the way, founded by abolitionists in the 1840s and 50s, refuses to take federal funds because what happened was during the Carter administration especially, they politically weaponized federal funds to superimpose Yeah,
they said any compulsion, any violation of religious rights, even if it's temporary.
Is serious enough to warrant interim relief.
And the fact that they can wait until a hearing on the merits means that in the interim, they're going to be compelled to speak, compelled to do things which violate their religious beliefs.
Although Meredith G in the Rumble rant, in Rumble says the Yeshiva University canceled all clubs in response to the failure of SCOTUS while they adjudicate the case.
So I guess they...
That's probably a smart way to go about it, unfortunately.
I mean, that was always going to be the net effect.
Somebody in our locals chat thought it was interesting that you used the phrase final judgment in a religious case.
Well, final judgment is not the expression.
It's not the expression, people.
It's final something else.
But no, final judgment is what happens after the interlocutory.
Here they're saying...
You still have other remedies.
And worst case scenario, just wait until a judgment on the merits, which would potentially reverse the interim injunction.
But in the interim, no pun intended there, you've had to do something.
You've been compelled to say, basically promote an interpretation of the Bible that you think is morally offensive and religiously offensive.
Now, I'll tell you what I find morally offensive.
The continuing atrocious embarrassment of the Connecticut court in the Alex Jones trial.
Robert, while you go on, let me at the very least pull up a white pill to all of this.
But please go.
It's over the top.
But what's your take on the latest?
So, I mean, what we witnessed all week was a complete disgrace of a trial.
It is a pure show trial.
That is a mockery of civil justice in America that is made to look like a trial on the merits, when in fact it is not a trial on the merits, which is mixed to just demonize Alex Jones by allowing any evidence that's adverse to him to be presented, but none of his defenses to be presented, all in the guise of a damages trial that has had almost nothing to do so far with actual damages suffered.
And that's because, as was admitted by multiple people, But starting with the primary, by the plaintiff's counsel implicitly, and then by the primary plaintiff they put up.
In fact, people are suing him who never heard him talk about them ever.
They're suing him under consumer fraud theories and other theories that make a joke out of Connecticut's laws.
And what you're also seeing is a judge who was so ready for this show trial for her little Broadway performance.
You know, the Phantom of the Opera is shutting down in Broadway, but...
Apparently it's not shutting down on the Connecticut Courthouse in Watertown.
The judge, and to his great credit, if you want to expose a show trial for what it is, if you want to advocate without limit, but outside of sticking within your ethical professional obligations, there's been no better example throughout the week by Norm Pattis.
Robert, you're going to have to explain the nuances here.
I think I understand even the nuances, but it's terminology that I'm not familiar with.
People.
You have to watch this clip.
This was after an objection.
And the judge said, I'm sustaining the objection, which was raised by plaintiff's counsel.
And then Norm Pattis says, can I have a legal basis for it?
And then the judicial hilarity ensues.
Listen to this.
I think we're ready for the jury.
My record needs to be complete, Judge.
The basis for upholding that objection is...
We're ready for the jury.
That's not a legal basis, Judge.
May I have a ruling that the appellate court can understand?
There was an objection, and I sustained the objection.
There was no legal basis stated.
I'm entitled to that under the practice book, and you should deny the motion on that grounds alone.
It's insufficient for somebody to stand up.
They're supposed to provide me with notice so that I can respond.
I believe that he argued it for 20 minutes, and I think the record is clear to recap.
He said hearsay, but it can't be.
And if it's not clear, if it's not clear...
Robert, when he says I'm entitled, first of all, I mean, what do you think of that?
So what you're seeing throughout the trial is a lawyer just standing up and saying objection.
And citing no grounds whatsoever.
Objection!
Objection!
And a judge going, sustain!
Sustain!
Sustain!
This judge makes the judge in idiocracy look like a beacon of intelligence and integrity.
That's how bad this judge is.
That's what I've told people.
You can just watch any little piece of this trial and realize what a complete sham it is.
You don't have to be a fan of Alex Jones to recognize that this is a disgrace that they're using him.
To establish that they can run American show trials, that they can strip people of their civil rights and civil liberties, their rights to the rules of evidence, the rights to the rules of due process, the rights to trial by jury, in order to take away his right to free speech, freedom of press, and freedom of association, in order so that he cannot be an advocate about your Second Amendment right of self-defense.
They're trying to strip them all, and they've done it throughout the case.
They violated his Fourth Amendment rights to privacy in multiple contexts.
But just this little illustration is a judge who...
And for young lawyers or people out there watching this, I mean, I've heard from random law students saying, what in the world is this?
You know, we're taught in first-year law school that you can't just say, objection, I object.
You have to say objection and cite either the rule or the evidentiary standard related to it.
So you say, you know, I like to cite the rule because it avoids getting into a public discussion in front of the jury of the underlying content, which you're not supposed to do speaking objections of that type.
We are trying to educate the jury and testify to them through the guise of an objection.
But what we're supposed to do is say, objection, or if you don't want to cite the rule, hearsay, relevance, unfair prejudice, lay testimony, whatever the grounds may be.
And what's happening is they're not doing that.
They're just saying, objection, sustain, objection, sustain, objection, sustain.
Because she's such a robot up there and so obviously prejudiced.
I mean, even people that are anti-Alex Jones, like Uncivil Law and some others, have recognized that this court's behavior is beyond the pale.
Nobody can watch this court's behavior and say, that's a beacon of integrity.
That's a sign of impartiality.
That's the kind of judge I would want in my case.
Nobody can say that.
And it gets worse.
Every single day, screaming at him about whether he stands up in a certain way when he makes an objection.
So he has to stand up in a certain way before he can make an objection.
But the other side doesn't even have to cite the legal grounds ever for their objection.
That's what a crock of a trial this is.
We did a big, long special edition on Thursday.
I recommend that for the more full, robust understanding of the...
This case, its context, its broader social political consequence and other attributes of this case.
But I wanted to highlight that example because that example is just, it's illustrative.
You can tune into this trial and you can't watch it for more than an hour on any day without seeing evidence that doesn't appear to have any relevance to the proceeding and a judge that not only doesn't have the temperament to be a judge, but is so overtly and openly prejudiced and bigoted and partisan.
That it's a disgrace to witness.
While the white pill part of it is you have a lawyer like Norm Pattis, not a fan of Alex Jones, comes from the left, lifelong Democrat, but who knows his job and cares about his constitutional role, and he refuses to allow this corrupt hack of a judge harlot our core and key legal and constitutional principles for the political aims and objectives that she seeks.
So great credit to Norm Pattis.
For continuing effective advocacy.
If you want to watch how you can stay a strong advocate in difficult circumstances with a rogue judge, you can see no better example than watching how Norm Pattis has handled himself in this trial.
I'll play this one because this is also on point.
What I'm trying to do is defend Alex Jones and his contention.
The contention I told the jury.
He's an angry populist who, as Mr. Matty has said to several witnesses, believes there's a global conspiracy to enslave people.
It may not be a belief you or I share, but you can't use a Cutlass statute to silence a person from unpopular speech.
And that's what they're trying to do here.
What I'm trying to do.
It's phenomenal.
I mean, he's doing it in a way that I think most people are unable to do, myself included.
Like, you'd get too frustrated, you'd lash out, and you'd give exactly what the judge wants you to do to reprimand you.
But what he said, by the way, to the judge, I'm entitled to notice.
Notice in that context means the basis of the objection for the purposes of an appeal, correct?
It's both.
In other words, if somebody says objection, that tells me nothing.
How am I supposed to say there's nothing objectionable in my question if I don't know what the grounds of their objection is?
So I need to know what their evidentiary ground, what rule is it, and how does it apply in this context?
And so the fact that she's allowing these objections just without any...
Even, like in this case, they end up discussing it a little bit longer, and by implication, it was hearsay.
But what she's doing on a regular basis is allowing them to just say objection without saying what it is.
They're not just saying what it is.
And it's so she can doctor the record later and create a bogus basis.
For why she sustained an objection that they didn't actually timely and correctly make, that he was deprived of his opportunity to meaningfully and timely respond to because they didn't make the basis of it at the time.
If I did this, I would be in contempt and in jail if I was doing what the disgrace...
Hack political plaintiff's lawyer was doing in this case.
This former U.S. attorney.
Tells you about the quality of former U.S. attorneys, by the way.
Other people have watched this.
They're like, this guy's not even a good lawyer.
He's not skilled.
He bores people.
He repeats dumb points.
He's an angry, contumacious personality.
But if you read the press, they'll celebrate him, demonize Pattis, and worship the judge.
Like law and crime, which has been kind of a joke of him.
Increasingly of a publication.
I helped put law and crime on the map.
Dan Abrams owns it.
I'm a big fan of Rachel Stockman, who's one of the editors-in-chief.
They got too many lefty hacks over there.
At least try to be kind of impartial when you do these presentations.
Don't just play to the wokesters.
That's not a lifelong...
How did that work out for you, Dan Abrams?
How did that work out for your little police show when you tried to play to the wokesters?
You got your show removed, and now you have to sue them to get back your money.
Maybe someday they'll figure this out.
But, you know, you're not getting any honest, independent legal analysis.
You have people like Elizabeth Williamson, total hack for the New York...
The people are going to these people to try to get information, and they're getting unreliable, misleading information, a lot like they got in the Johnny Depp trial.
There they saw, this goes beyond ordinary politics.
This goes, they pick winners and losers, and they shape the facts.
So when you watch this case, you can see what a show trial is.
The show trial inside the court, the show trial outside the court, and credit to Norm Pattis, who's the only one who refuses to play his part in such a show trial.
Yeah, it's amazing.
One last question for my own benefit, Robert.
When the judge said, if I'm ordered by the Court of Appeal for, what was the word?
It wasn't clarification.
It wasn't direct.
Was it directives?
She used the term.
So what she's basically admitting is what she's up to.
It's of corruption of the principle, which is let somebody make an objection without stating their basis.
And then later on, if the Court of Appeal said I erred in the process, I'll make up a basis then.
I'll figure out what the basis might be, might, could have been, right?
That's what you're doing.
So you're not allowed to do that in the legal system.
But apparently you can in Connecticut, or at least with this judge.
All right, Robert, we're going to run out of time, but let's do one, which is going to be, people, this is not an ad.
This is not a sponsored video.
In fact, I used hashtag...
No, what is it?
I used promo code POSO.
But I got my pillow in the mail today.
My actual pillow...
This is the travel pillow that I got a discount for.
For my first order.
And this is MyPillowGuy.
Did you use DiscountPoso?
I did.
I used DiscountPoso.
And we're going to see.
And I think ElectionWizard also has a discount available through MyPillow.
How good is it really?
Well, I'm going to tell you tomorrow morning.
Because I'm a stickler when it comes to pillows.
Me too.
And not to be snobby, I like a down pillow.
I'm a snob with a pillow.
I'm a snob.
Yeah, absolutely.
Otherwise, I can't sleep well.
Well, I'll tell you tomorrow morning, but that was the unboxing, and this is the travel pillow.
So we'll see.
People.
My pillow.
Hashtag.
Not hashtag.
Promo code POSO.
P-O-S-O for up to $40 off your first order.
Or any order.
I don't know.
But Robert.
They go for the president.
They go for allies.
And now they went for my pillow guy, who is not a politician, was not really...
He's a private citizen getting politically involved.
They seized his cell phone.
I don't know what else they seized.
Apparently, from what I read, and I think it was Jack Posobiec who actually tweeted it, his hearing aid was controlled with an app on his phone, and they didn't care.
They took it nonetheless.
And I don't know what he did.
Apparently, he definitely got a new phone.
What the hell is going on?
Why is this not the end of a free American society as anyone knew it?
And is it?
I mean, it's continued intimidation.
So it appears it's connected to the Colorado case.
If there's a Colorado case, that probably means the Colorado political official who exposed issues with how the 2020 election was conducted and then was themselves subject to criminal targeting and criminal investigation.
And I know Lindell has been supportive of some of their efforts.
So Lindell is a prominent financier of election fornication investigations in the conference context, in the television show context, in the legal context, you name it.
So that's why he's on the list.
When I said a couple of weeks ago that I thought they were going to start targeting Trump's key institutional allies, that's what I meant.
People that are high profile, that have a big financial role, are seen as key components to this aspect of the apparatus.
Though it appears that this one's connected to the Colorado one rather than just the D.C. one.
Now, it's rather ludicrous that any of these cases are being taught as criminal, but basically if you disagree with them about an election, they now are calling it a crime.
Which is what they always planned on doing.
But January 6th didn't go the way they needed it to go to put everybody in jail right away.
So instead, it's taking a little bit more time while they weaponized the entire federal judicial process against people.
And they put a lot of high-level political hacks involved in all these cases.
Very partisan people.
People had asked, actually on our locals board, When I said Sessions was a bad appointment by Trump to the Attorney General, but would have been a good one, I think, to the state or Defense Department or U.S. Trade Representative or Homeland Security, what I meant was not that Sessions should have politicized the DOJ, it's that he should have recognized it already was politicized and depoliticized it.
But he was in denial about the Justice Department and thought that they were these pure beacons of integrity and whatnot, and that was always a ludicrous notion.
For which ultimately Trump paid the price by Sessions' unwillingness to recognize that reality.
But so now I would note, by the way, these constant seizures of devices is not the process that was set up 20, 30 years ago.
So when technology started to expand, these cases started getting litigated through the courts.
And the problem is your right to search, say, somebody's office doesn't give you the right...
To seize the entire office.
That's what computers and phones are.
A right to search a home is not the right to seize the home.
The right to search a phone is not the right to seize the phone.
A right to search a computer is not the right to seize the computer.
Because these things are guaranteed to have information on them that is not subject to the search.
And the courts analogize this to looking through...
You know, file cabinets at an office.
You don't get to seize the whole file cabinet.
You get to only look into it and take what is relevant to your search.
What they should have done is, and they have this equipment, by the way.
They could have brought the equipment with them to copy whatever the contents of the phone were and giving them back the phone.
And then if they're going to copy those contents beyond the scope of the search, because some of these searches they can do right there, they can only seize the information that's responsive to the search if they do it correctly.
All they've had is technology for a long time.
Their unwillingness to do show shows how rogue these investigations are, how they don't feel restricted or restrained by judges.
Again, they go crazy when there's even a special master appointed.
Part of it, frankly, because the U.S. Supreme Court itself, including conservative justices, have allowed federal law enforcement to get away with it on the grounds there's no right to bring in action in most of these cases.
Still is in the Fourth Amendment context, but not in many others.
And this search and seizure was almost guaranteed to be beyond the scope of what the Fourth Amendment could permit at his personal detriment.
And that's why he decided he wants to fight back.
And he's talking about bringing a federal civil rights suit under the Bivens claims because one place you can sue federal law enforcement officers, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, under the Bivens doctrine.
And he talked about hiring, and apparently has hired, the one and only Alan Dershowitz.
It's phenomenal.
But Robert, this is my concern is the reality.
They're going to seize his phone.
They're going to look through it.
There's going to be no triage or segregation of information that they're entitled to look for under whatever warrant they had.
They're going to find something and go after him for tax fraud.
They'll find another reason to target him civilly for something totally unrelated as a result of that which they their ill gotten gains of their abuse.
I mean, that looks like the next step in this.
Well, when that's the case, or you suspect that's the case, it's always good to get ahead of the curve by suing them first, taking affirmative legal action first.
If you think you are an inescapable and inevitable target, you have to put them on the defensive quickly.
And if you don't, then you will become such a target.
The only way to derail that misuse of prosecutorial power is to counterpunch.
All right, we'll see what happens.
Robert, what else?
There was the Nicki Minaj, a very quick one, which is another fun one.
Yeah, we can wrap up with a nice, fun one.
I think this was someone whose Twitter or social media account was basically Nasty Ho's.
No, I think it's Naughty Ho, and Ho as in H-E-A-U-X.
It's classic.
Let me just make sure if it's Naughty Ho or Nasty Ho.
It's one or the other.
This vlogger made videos in which she said, Nicki Minaj is doing coke.
She called her a cokehead.
Apparently in the video she was saying, I think in my humble opinion, then she said, no, forget this.
Not in my opinion.
She's doing coke.
Now I went down a rabbit hole.
Nicki Minaj, hashtag, I'm just reporting the news now.
I went down a rabbit hole on YouTube and found a lot of videos which people cite as evidence as to the allegations made by this vlogger.
But Robert, the statement to summarize basically is, You know, I think she's doing coke.
No, I take that back.
She's doing it.
We all know she's doing it.
I believe she's doing it.
I mean, are these actionable statements?
My first reaction would be, good luck, Nikki.
You might win the lawfare, but you're not going to win the lawsuit.
Are they actionable?
It depends.
I mean, it's a close call.
The whole context of her statement, the question will be whether that statement was an opinion with disclosed underlying factual basis or whether it was a factual claim that failed to disclose the evidentiary basis for it.
She would have to show actual malice that she knew that the story was likely untrue.
That would be the biggest hurdle for her, aside from whether or not it's protected opinion or a statement of fact.
Given the person's handle and their context, I'm assuming it's her attempt to use this case to deter other people from making these kind of statements about her.
Always a risk, of course, if it turns out you do use any cocaine.
But I think often people make the statement that I'm going to show you how innocent I am of this charge by bringing suit about it.
Even if I don't win the suit, I'm making my point.
That if any of this statement was true, I would never dare to bring a suit.
And so often I think it's done for that public relations purposes.
But I haven't seen anybody sue, you know, someone calling themselves naughty hoes before.
What I love is both of our Freudian or projection slips.
You said naughty ho and I think I said nasty ho or the other way around.
Her handle is nosy ho.
Nosey ho!
It started with an N. You went nasty, I went naughty.
Nosy.
It turns out she's just nosy.
H-E-A-U-X.
It's classic.
It's something that could only happen in the modern era.
Knowing what I know now, I'll bet, based on some of the video evidence, they won't be able to prove actual malice if they will, in fact, in defense, not be able to actually prove the truthfulness of the statement.
Because there are some bizarre videos on the interwebs.
Even if they're not accurate.
To say it's actual malice, I mean, I don't think you're going to get there, but we'll see.
Robert, first of all, we were less than 100 away from 23,000 live on Rumble, which is monumental, magnificent.
Who do we have Wednesday for Sidebar?
Christopher Ruffo.
Who's done a lot of great advocacy in the school context and outing the woke culture and critical race theory.
He's one of the top people in the country on that.
So he'll be our guest for Sidebar on Wednesday.
Christopher Ruffo.
I know that I follow him, but now I'm just wondering, is he related to Mark Ruffo?
Oh, it's Mark Ruffalo.
Oh my goodness.
For the first part of my following Christopher Ruffo on Twitter, I thought...
It was Mark Ruffalo.
I was like, holy cow, this guy had a political awakening.
Two different people, people.
So that's Wednesday.
That's going to be glorious.
This week, are you having any appearances?
Probably, but don't know the full schedule yet.
I'll have a schedule up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and that's where I'll be updating.
I have some depositions.
I may have some court appearances, so I've got to work around those.
Okay, excellent.
And I meant to get to some of the Rumble rants, but I don't think we'll be able to.
Everybody.
Salty Cracker is live.
So go on over there.
And when you go there, Robert, I think I came up with the name for the crowd.
The V&B Army.
Instead of Salty Army, that's too similar.
Yeah, I don't know what would be the equal to re.
I mean, he's got a good little...
Everybody announces their Salty Cracker presence with the re in the chat.
So I don't know what our version of that could be.
I don't know.
All I know is I like the V&B army.
It's like the parody to the salty army.
V&B army, that's good.
It has some language, some linguistic connection.
I like that.
And it's almost V&RB, which is vodka and Red Bull, which I'm also a fan of.
But either way, so Wednesday night is going to be phenomenal.
I'll be doing...
I'm not sure I'm going to be live streaming the Jones trial all week, but...
Jones may be testifying himself this week.
Well, then I'll be...
Robert, then we...
Yeah, we'll definitely be doing it.
Yes.
If Jones goes live, yes.
And otherwise, it'll be the daytime stream.
Just, you know, short notice and be ready.
Robert, stick around.
We will say our proper goodbyes.
Everyone in the chat also, I did read the chat that I have to...
Not microwave.
Dry.
Put the pillow in a dryer for 15 minutes and then wait before using it.
Thank you.
Thank you all for being here.
Snip, clip, share away.
Clips will be out as of tomorrow.
And it will be on podcast, on Podbean, and wherever else it diffuses through there.
I'll figure out what's going on with Spotify.
Someone said that there was something wrong with Spotify.
I don't know that I ever knew that we were on Spotify, but we go through Podbean and then it branches out, so we'll see what's going on with that.
That's it.
Robert, stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes.
I'm going to figure out how to end this.
Export Selection