Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 9, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:19:30

Ep. 132: Rekieta v. YouTube; Trump Raid; Parody to SCOTUS; Hunter Biden & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We have not asked for this.
	There was never any agreement to take on the job of supporting thousands of asylum seekers.
	This responsibility was simply handed to us without warning as buses began showing up.
	There's no playbook for this.
	No precedent.
	New Yorkers are angry.
	I am angry too.
	We have not asked for this.
	Angry.
	There was never any agreement to take on the job.
	Asylum seekers seeking asylum in New York.
	Let me just go through all of the hypocritical, in-your-face points.
	We're angry.
	New Yorkers are angry.
	New Yorkers are angry.
	Why are New Yorkers angry?
	Please tell, Mayor Adams.
	I am angry too.
	Why?
	We have not asked for this.
	We have not asked for this.
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	Did Texas ask for it?
	Arizona ask for it?
	Florida ask for it?
	Oh, you haven't asked for it.
	And you think because of your geographical benefit of not being on a border, you therefore don't have to deal with what you impose and expect other states to deal with, even though they didn't ask for it either?
	Sorry.
	There was never any agreement to take on the job of supporting thousands of asylum seekers.
	Awesome.
	Now do Arizona, Texas...
	Other border states, border towns, never any agreement.
	Martha's Vineyard never asked for it.
	Martha's Vineyard never agreed to take on asylum seekers.
	That's for border towns.
	They never agreed to it.
	The border towns, they never agreed to it either, but they got no choice because of their geographic locations, you see?
	This responsibility was simply handed to us without warning as buses began showing up.
	Awesome.
	Now do the thousands of people crossing the border illegally into border states, into border towns.
	The hypocrisy, it's so egregious, you have to think no one is that dishonest.
	No one is that much of a liar.
	No one is that so lacking self-reflection that they would get up on a podium and say, we didn't ask for this.
	How dare you bust these people to New York?
	That's for Texas.
	That's for Arizona.
	That's for the people living on the Rio Grande.
	Without warning.
	Without warning.
	Where was it?
	Here.
	Boom.
	Without warning.
	Oh, sorry.
	Texas, they've had warning.
	They've had warning.
	They know they're on the border, so they have to deal with it, even though they never asked for it.
	They have to accommodate all of these people, even though they never asked for it.
	It wasn't thrust on them.
	It was just relegated to them.
	And this is after, by the way, this is after saying, We're the humanitarians here.
	Deliver Martha's Vineyard to us and we'll accommodate.
	But New York's got its own problems.
	It's got crime.
	It's got homelessness.
	It's got its own problems.
	It can't accommodate this.
	Martha's Vineyard, it's got its own problems.
	They've got a housing crisis in Martha's Vineyard.
	They didn't ask for that.
	California's got its own problems.
	They've already got a homeless crisis out there.
	They can't handle them.
	Not in my backyard.
	Not in my downtown.
	Not in my state.
	N-I-M-S.
	NIMS.
	Not in my state.
	Good evening, people.
	How goes the battle?
	Barnes will be here shortly.
	I'm not done ranting, by the way.
	We're going to talk about Kanye West's tweet.
	I went for a...
	You know, I'm not even going to get into it just yet.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election advice, fornification advice, no legal advice.
	We will be moving over to Rumble.
	Not so that we can do things that we can't do here on YouTube, so that we can maybe have an open discussion, but I'm going to post the stream to YouTube tomorrow.
	We're going to go to Rumble because Rumble supports free speech in a meaningful sense.
	We're going to prioritize the streams on Rumble because they are a platform that is walking the talk and talking the walk.
	Wow, I just pulled a George W, didn't I?
	They are walking the walk and talking the talk.
	Reaching out to Kanye to see if he can be the chief creative officer.
	So we'll be moving over to Rumble shortly.
	Let me just make sure that we are, in fact, live on Rumble.
	We look like we're live.
	chat seems to be going active.
	The cleaner is a turd robber.
	Cleaner is a turd robber.
	I don't get it, but Winston Shittenhouse...
	Is that Winston right there?
	That dog looks so much like Winston when he had long hair.
	The Sanctuary Cities are in no position to provide sanctuary.
	Buckle Brush Jones, well played, sir.
	Rumble Rants and YouTube Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of all that.
	If you don't want to support YouTube, but you want to support us, Rumble.
	They have a thing called Rumble Rants.
	They only take 20%.
	So you support a good platform.
	You support creators that you like.
	We're not done with the intro, people.
	We're not done with the rant.
	Kanye West.
	I wake up.
	I'm not big on Instagram.
	I have not been able to access my Facebook account since I moved to Florida because the verification code that it keeps texting me is going to my old cell number, which I don't have anymore.
	So I can't even access my own Facebook account.
	But my goodness, that is not of any significant loss to my psychological and spiritual well-being.
	So I'm not on Facebook and I haven't been on Facebook in four months.
	Not really on Instagram.
	So I didn't see what Ye or Kanye messaged Instagram posted.
	You know, what he posted on social media on Instagram that got him yeeted from Instagram.
	I'm on Twitter today and I see Cenk Uygur saying that Kanye declared a war on the Jews.
	Now, I read that.
	Kanye declares war.
	And I think the declares war was in quotes.
	Kanye West declared war on the Jewish people, is I think how it was phrased.
	And I'm like, okay, something doesn't make sense here.
	Would Kanye West declare war on, let's just say, a good portion of the family of the man that he is now vocally supporting and taking heat for supporting?
	Or maybe does he blame everything?
	That is going on on the Jewish side of Donald Trump's family.
	I don't know.
	I hear it, and I start to say, okay, maybe Kanye West did declare war on the Jewish people.
	So I went to find the impugned post that got him yeeted from Instagram.
	And we're going to read it, people.
	We're going to read it and see if this gets yeeted from the YouTubes.
	Kanye West, who last week...
	Wore the White Lives Matter shirt.
	White Lives Matter shirt.
	With Candace Owens.
	Almost broke the internet.
	And everyone accusing me now of simping for Kanye.
	I said, that's a deliberately provocative shirt.
	I understand the point he's trying to make.
	But I would not, if I'm trying to make that point, prioritize any one race, religion, or ethnicity.
	I would have gone with an All Lives Matter shirt.
	I understand what Kanye's doing.
	A black man.
	Wearing a White Lives Matter shirt with a black woman, Candace Owens, as a big middle finger to the BLM movement, which people are now starting to truly appreciate, is somewhat corrupt.
	It's not necessarily living up to its name or its purported raison d 'être.
	So last week he wears the White Lives Matter shirt.
	And I said, okay, provocative.
	I wouldn't do it.
	I think it would have been better off with a All Lives Matter shirt.
	But I'm not Kanye.
	For good and for bad, I'm not Kanye.
	But that was my position on that.
	Somewhat critical.
	Some people want to push the envelope, push the limits, and understandably so.
	You don't rock the boat by not moving, so to speak.
	Stupid expression.
	Anyway, so that's the backdrop of the context.
	I go to get Kanye's Instagram post.
	I just took it off the screen here because I'm an idiot.
	And I read it.
	And I want to say...
	I'm going to read it to you.
	I'm going to read it to everybody here.
	This is Kanye.
	I don't have the date of this, but it was a couple of days ago.
	I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going Death Con 3 on Jewish people.
	The funny thing is, I actually can't be anti-Semitic because black people are actually Jew also.
	You guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone whoever opposes your agenda.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	It's not clear what he means by this tweet.
	But it's interesting.
	Now...
	This is what drives me nuts.
	I went for a jog and I'm like, I'm trying to think of an analogy for what it's like to try to have a nuanced, thoughtful discussion on Twitter.
	And I'm thinking, okay, I'm jogging.
	I got a gnat in my eye while I was jogging, which really annoyed me.
	But I'm just thinking, trying to have a nuanced, sincere exchange on Twitter, it's like trying to use a wasp nest as a pillow.
	It's like trying to skinny dip in piranha-infested waters.
	Trying to brush the hair of a polar bear.
	I can't think of a good analogy.
	It's like trying to have a discussion with a child thinking the child is going to understand.
	It's frustrating.
	It's like trying to thread a needle with a dry, frayed piece of yarn.
	You think it's possible.
	Conceptually, it is.
	But two hours later, you've realized that you've wasted your afternoon and you've got horrible blisters on your fingers for the attempt.
	We don't need to agree or disagree with Kanye's tweet, per se.
	I disagree with the tweet in its essence.
	The question is, disagreeing or agreeing with the tweet is one discussion.
	Before you can even get there, you've got to understand what the tweet means.
	And so I want to understand, what did Kanye mean by this tweet?
	Is this tweet an open call for war?
	On Jewish people, I didn't know what DEFCON or DEFCON 3 is.
	Anyhow about a defense command?
	So it's like getting ready to go to war.
	Did Kanye West, a man who publicly supports Trump, Trump's family, for those of you who don't know, I believe his daughter converted to Judaism.
	His son-in-law is Jewish.
	His grandkids are Jewish.
	Is he declaring war on the family of the men that he is publicly supporting and publicly taking heat for supporting?
	Probably not.
	If we...
	Not a question of wordsmithing.
	Not a question of simping, as some people say.
	Not a question of defending Ye because he's a member of the tribe.
	Someone accused me of defending Kanye because he's a member of the tribe.
	And I said, you're accusing me of defending someone for an arguably anti-Semitic tweet on the basis that he's a member of the tribe?
	The first question is, what does he mean by the tweet?
	Is it an open declaration of war on Jewish people?
	Or is it possibly, arguably, potentially, a stupid tweet that should have stayed in his draft box, but an attempt at a joke, an attempt at being edgy yet again?
	People are saying, how much clear does it have to get?
	Viva, you idiot.
	Simpford Kanye West.
	Shame on you.
	You're a disgrace to your community.
	He said, I'm going death country on Jewish people.
	How much clear does it have to get?
	Well...
	There's a part of construction of statutes, interpretation of laws.
	You have to read things together.
	They say the legislator doesn't speak not to say anything.
	In French, it's...
	Lawmakers don't speak to say nothing.
	So if they say something, you have to read something into it.
	There are two ways to misread something.
	You can read something into it that's not there, or you can read out of it something that is there.
	And so he says, I'm going DEF CON on Jewish people.
	The funny thing is, I can't be antisemitic.
	You guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone who opposes your agenda.
	Who's he talking about here?
	Is he talking about Jews at large?
	Is Kanye West talking about me here?
	Have I tried to blackball Kanye West?
	No, and I don't think he's talking about me.
	Call me a Kanye simp, a Kanye apologist, even though I still think the tweet is stupid, dumb, and he shouldn't have done it.
	He just gave the big middle finger to BLM last week.
	And now, if you read the second part or the last part of this message before the first, you guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone who opposes your agenda.
	To me, it sounds like he's talking about censorship of sorts.
	Knowing that he just went, I don't know, do we say death con?
	Knowing that he just flipped the bird to BLM.
	He went after the black movement.
	Part of me thinks he's talking about Wojcicki, YouTube, Zuckerberg, Facebook.
	And what he's saying now is, I went after BLM last week.
	Now I'm going after Jewish people.
	First I went after the black people.
	Now I'm going after the Jewish people.
	You guys try to blackball anyone who opposes your agenda.
	Sounds like censorship.
	That's how I read it.
	Still stupid.
	Still going to be exactly the fodder that anybody needs to say Kanye West is an anti-Semite.
	Or they're going to say Kanye West is just...
	He's in an episode now because he's openly manic-bipolar and there are episodes to that.
	They're going to say he's manic-bipolar, he's out of his mind, don't listen to him.
	Or they're going to say he's an enemy, he's an anti-Semite.
	Yeet him some more.
	This also illustrates part of the reason why some people are reluctant to come out and talk about mental issues because it becomes a reflexive way of discrediting them in the future.
	But set that aside.
	To me, it's quite clear what he's doing.
	He says, first I went after Black Lives Matter.
	Now I'm going after people who are Jewish people.
	Watch what happens.
	That's what I think.
	And the media, I think, pretends not to understand that.
	They pretend to read, I'm going after Jewish people, in abstractum, as though he didn't say in the last part of that message, you've tried to censor me, blackball me, etc.
	They can now legitimately pretend not to get the joke and just paint him as an anti-Semite.
	But you try to have a rational discussion.
	And then try to understand what someone meant, even if you're ultimately going to disagree with it one way or the other.
	It's just going to be a question of degrees.
	And you just can't do it on Twitter.
	And you end up pulling out your hair.
	You end up wasting your time trying to respond to responses that you think are authentic.
	And they're just not trying to have honest discussion.
	But that's it.
	What did Kanye West mean?
	Did he mean war on the Jewish people writ large?
	Or did he mean, I went after the Black Lives Matter last week, and tomorrow I'm going after Zuckerberg, Wojcicki, and Jewish people, and we'll see what happens.
	They tried to blackball me, and what did they do after that Instagram post?
	Zuckerberg yeeted yay from Instagram.
	Zuck yeeted yay.
	And then you got Michael.
	I'm going to leave on this.
	I can't stand Rappaport.
	First of all, I never knew Rappaport was Jewish in my life.
	I didn't know Michael Rappaport was Jewish.
	I'm not playing this because this is the type of SHIT that will get a video yeeted from YouTube.
	Didn't know Michael Rappaport was Jewish, but he plays the card when he wants to call other people's names.
	What did he say here?
	I'm up going DEFCON 6 million at Kanye West.
	And then he goes into a diatribe.
	Against Kanye West.
	Accusing him of intolerance.
	Told him to go take a shower.
	Interpret that the way you want.
	I just had to pull out an old tweet from Michael Rappaport.
	Seeing a lot of Jew-hating floating around in the U.S. and abroad.
	I'm not reading this.
	There are words that I hate.
	This is one of them.
	I hate...
	Can we see that?
	Yeah, I hate this word.
	I hate it.
	I hate it when non-Jewish people use it because...
	They use it thinking it's not as offensive as I find it, and I hate it when Jewish people use it.
	I never knew Rappaport was Jewish, but spoiler alert, Rappaport, if you want to dispel anti-Semitic beliefs, don't go around calling non-Jews, what did he say?
	Dumb, goyim, goat breath, F-U-K-C-S.
	Okay, Robert is in the background, and he's been very patient with this rant.
	There's no shame in trying to understand people.
	Understand what they meant and then you can get mad at them.
	We only support illegal immigrants in regions that don't win elections so we can all sell them citizenship votes for votes.
	We don't need them where we do win.
	Interesting.
	Interesting take.
	Nope.
	Hell nope.
	You don't even show up on the front page of Rumble.
	I have to go to my subscriptions.
	Go to Twitter and tweet out that we're live and then that might trigger something.
	I don't know.
	Okay, whatever.
	I'm not angry.
	The crowd will come, people.
	And we got emotions should never dictate truth.
	Agreed.
	Oh, God.
	All right.
	Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Let's do this.
	We got a good show tonight.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	And we're going to go to DEFCON 3. I don't know what DEFCON 1, 2, 3, 4...
	I don't know what it is, but...
	Okay, good.
	We're up to 8,000 people on Rumbles.
	Robert, coming in.
	Coming in hot, sir.
	How are you doing tonight?
	Good, good.
	You're back home, I can see?
	Yes, yes, back a week of travel, but back in Vegas.
	And we're going to talk about why you're in Connecticut and some important stuff.
	But before we do that, Robert, and before I forget, what do you got behind your shoulder and what do you got in your fingers?
	Great book by Kevin Phillips, 1775, Good Year for Revolution, talking about really good political history about that.
	We're also reviewing his book this month, The Emerging Republican Majority.
	At vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	Usually on Fridays when time avails.
	But the 1775, great book.
	This is a La Gloria Cubana, a Steli, a good cigar from Central America.
	And yeah, we definitely do have a busy docket.
	We have a case a lot of people aren't talking about but should be, which was the number one chosen topic on our locals board, which is the Humboldt County.
	Property seizures that are going on in a very dangerous mechanism of confiscating property on bogus grounds.
	That's the lead case to be discussed.
	There's extraordinary government malfeasance and misconduct in the Brooke Jackson-Fizer whistleblower case.
	There's the continued political weaponization of financial services that we exposed last week on PayPal.
	That got actual results by the end of the week after others picked up the story that we covered and broke on Law for the People.
	But it's also happening by places like U.S. Bank.
	They have a whole division, a community development corporation that is politically weaponizing its tools and its means to go after people, including very successful real estate developers that are trying to make a difference and challenge it.
	We have the Waukesha Parade defendant going pro se.
	That FBI agent case we talked about last week that nobody could believe was true, so I sent them the media articles that acknowledged it was true, but most of the media still didn't cover it.
	Not like they've covered the show trial of Alex Jones pretending it's a real one, but the FBI agent was convicted.
	The Uber executive involved in covering up hacked materials was also convicted.
	We have the vaccine passport, the Florida vaccine passport, as we predicted.
	Was, in fact, upheld when it got to the 11th Circuit.
	Over a lot of whining by a lefty judge, but a two-to-one decision.
	Ultimately, great decision.
	Very well thought out, thought through decision.
	Trump is taking his cases up to the Supreme Court.
	His arguments are getting much better as he moves up.
	Voting rights at the Supreme Court.
	Big tech!
	Big, big decision they took this week.
	Big case they took up for a decision this week on Section 230 immunity.
	Does it apply?
	What does the aiding and abetting provision of terrorism mean?
	They took up that case as well, not only in the big tech context, but broader context.
	We got the Oathkeeper trial.
	We got the Durham trial.
	We got Delaware saying mail-in ballots in Biden's home state is illegal.
	A little bit interesting.
	We got up in your neck of the woods, Canada, WestJet vaccine mandate lawsuit that's been filed.
	We got school choice decision affirmed by the West Virginia Supreme Court.
	We have an autopilot, big class action that a lot of people have been waiting for concerning Tesla.
	While Elon Musk is apparently going to settle.
	And now by Twitter after all.
	And because he suggested maybe peace was a good idea in Ukraine, Senator Lindsey Graham suggested punishing...
	Him by revoking tax credits for electronic vehicles just because he was willing to have a voice for peace in Ukraine, even though he's otherwise been a supporter of the Ukrainian regime.
	We got Nick Ricada versus YouTube and how the court of public opinion fought back.
	And we got about a half dozen more.
	Well, we'll see what we can get to, but let's start with Reketa because that is, well, first of all, we're going to do that on both YouTube and Rumble for the benefit of YouTube.
	Haunted Farmer says, yay is a fool.
	For what it's worth, I think Reketa was 100% in the wrong with what he said.
	Robert, let's talk about the Riketa situation.
	His channel was yeeted and has been since reinstated, but he's still on what appears to be a two-week suspension because instead of it being the third strike, it's now going back to a second strike.
	I'm not sure that we know the details as to...
	Which of the four violations, which, if it were one or two of the four violations, have been removed?
	Because everybody has to appreciate, by the time you get your channel nuked for a third violation, you've gotten one warning for violating community guidelines, and then three strikes.
	So he was at basically four, the last two of which I think we know now were what he said about Keffels, about the wall, not about, didn't talk about specific, anyone being, Shot, but said, you know, up on walls was the expression.
	And the last one, by all accounts, seems to have been him saying in a stream, I'm going to go through my complaints.
	These complaints that were filed against me, 45 of them, because of this clear brigade.
	I'm redacting the names for YouTube, but part of the grift, go to locals and F everybody.
	That, I think now, we know was probably the last strike.
	On the basis of referring people to another platform to do something that you can't do on YouTube.
	He's back up, which means that one of the four strikes was probably removed, which got his channel back, but he's still on a penalty for the two weeks.
	What's your take on it, Robert?
	I mean, there's people out there, there's going to be morality, there's going to be legality, and then there's going to be terms of service.
	Let's set aside morality.
	Legality.
	People are asking whether or not it's not doxing.
	And I don't know what the legal sense is because there's no legal definition of doxing, is there?
	No, not really.
	I mean, there's some statutes that have provisions of it.
	But, I mean, my general view is that I thought this was coming because of Reketa's success providing independent coverage of high-profile trials.
	And I do not think it's a coincidence.
	I know he's focused and others are focused on a particular individual that's organizing a brigaded effort against him.
	But my view is it's not coincidental that a lot of this escalated after two things.
	First, escalated after media hit jobs on him after the success of the media coverage of both the Rittenhouse trial and the Johnny Depp trial.
	Which Nick was primarily the leader on.
	Even though other people were involved in covering those trials, Nick Ricada popularized it, brought a lot of people to it through the Rittenhouse case, introduced a lot of the audience to the other people who covered those trials, etc.
	And the media was very unhappy that they could not gatekeep the narrative about trials.
	They thought, hey, we gave an exclusive to Law& Crime, so we'll let those mediocre hacks over at Law& Crime try to pretend to give consequential legal coverage.
	I say that as someone who provided free information for Law& Crime and still like their editor, who I think is a wonderful lady, Rachel Stockman.
	And don't, you know, hate their owner, Dan Abrams, but they become a lefty hack machine with mediocre commentary by mediocre lawyers.
	That's reality.
	So people love the coverage that Nick Ricada provided in the Rittenhouse trial, exposing the media lies in that case.
	I admit I have a bias because I represented Kyle Rittenhouse and was obviously cheering for his acquittal, his deserved acquittal.
	And then the same in the Johnny Depp case, exposing that the media had lied about it in its Me Too movement, support and embrace of Amber Heard.
	I don't think it's a coincidence that the second factor, that all of this escalated by YouTube right when the Alex Jones trials were coming on board.
	Not all, but most of the rest of LawTube was busy hiding under their desk, terrified to cover the Alex Jones trials.
	Because they're wusses.
	I'm going to keep repeating it.
	They can prove me wrong by giving objective coverage of it.
	But a little bit of the coverage that took place was negative to Jones.
	Okay, you're just law and crime meets second number two.
	Good job being junior law and crime.
	Whoop-dee-doo.
	But if you're going to be meaningful independent commentators, cover one of the most important show trials in the history of America, where they're requesting $8 billion.
	Dollars in damages this week in Connecticut.
	I don't think it was a coincidence that that was coming on board and all of a sudden YouTube is escalating their attacks on Ricada.
	So I think these things they're claiming were the reason were pretext.
	This was to keep Nick Ricada from covering the Alex Jones trial in substantive detail.
	And is it really a coincidence that the day before his channel gets struck, he was one of the main law tubers.
	Other than this channel, covering the details of the press conference of the Alex Jones case that I was at and Alex Jones was at.
	I don't think it is.
	Now, the specific pretext, there is no right to privacy in your public address.
	There is no right to privacy in your name.
	And if you're dumb enough to file a fraudulent, bogus ethics complaint, you deserve to get outed for the scammer and schemer.
	And fraudster that you are.
	And that's what these people did.
	A whole bunch of them filed frivolous, false, fraudulent documents with a government agency.
	They decided to list their name.
	They decided to list who they are and where they're from.
	When you do that, you don't have any right of privacy in that information, nor is it doxing to disclose it.
	You chose to...
	First of all, there's no privacy in your address and your name anyway.
	But putting that aside...
	There sure as heck ain't.
	When you decide to institute government action against somebody and try to get them fraudulently, this would be like if you swatted somebody.
	And then you're like, oh, you can't tell the world that I helped swat you.
	Well, no.
	I mean, you don't have a privacy interest in your address or name to begin with.
	This is in the phone book.
	This is in other places.
	But you definitely don't in this context.
	This is the thing.
	Okay, the legality of it.
	I saw Nick on Alison Morrow.
	The four strikes that he got, one was for repeating something that Joe Biden said about COVID, which he got a strike for they never removed.
	So they already set you up for later.
	The second one was having shown the video and commentated on the stabbing in Australia, the guy who got stabbed in the neck.
	And I think Andy Ngo first showed that video on Twitter and it traumatized the living bejesus out of me.
	So you had those two.
	Then come the two statements which, look, it may not be illegal.
	You might think it's immoral.
	The only question is, are you not giving good fodder to YouTube to justify?
	Now that you're at two strikes, bullcrap they may be.
	You're in a position now where they've set you up and he picked, I say picked a fight.
	He clearly was getting brigaded by Keffels and that...
	It's clear.
	I mean, they admitted on social media.
	Yeah, it was someone who he had criticized before because they had suggested that they supported providing drugs to children without their parents' consent.
	I mean, that person was on record saying that.
	And that's what precipitated that entire controversy.
	Now, by YouTube's rules, well, YouTube can do anything because its rules are a joke.
	It allows them to do whatever they want.
	So that's a crock in that sense.
	Now, would he have a traditional legal claim?
	Probably not.
	It'd be difficult.
	But he would under Texas law.
	So he is, I think, well, all you have to have, I researched the law in a little more detail, all you have to have is audience members in Texas.
	And Nick's got plenty of them.
	Nick's originally from Texas, and so I think he has some operations in Texas, too.
	So he could have brought a suit against YouTube for reinstatement in violation of the Texas law, because clearly even the grounds that they were alleging were clearly viewpoint-based.
	They were based on the content of his speech concerning political speech they don't like.
	At least in two of the four instances.
	And like I said, I think their real motivation was to prevent Ricada from covering and exposing the degree of fraud in the Alex Jones trial.
	And he's covering the Rayshard Brooks, where the day after he was heeded from YouTube, he had 23,000 people watching live on a Friday.
	Rayshard Brooks, which we're going to talk about later.
	On Rumble, yes.
	On Rumble, sorry, yeah.
	I think I had another question, though.
	Well, the question is...
	Thanks to the Court of Public Opinion.
	I mean, he got reinstated fast due to the amount of outrage by people that people were able to voice in the Court of Public Opinion that exposed YouTube for doing what they were doing.
	And I think a lot of people underestimate the Court of Public Opinion.
	And I get criticism of, oh, you think the Court of Public Opinion is going to solve all these problems?
	I don't quite believe that, but I believe it's a powerful tool.
	Folks, they don't spend lots of time lying to you and obsessing over what you think if what you think does not matter.
	And that's why it matters.
	And so people made enough noise about it.
	Tim Pool, to his credit, brought attention to it.
	Of course, Jeremy at the Quartering brought attention to it.
	Geeks and Gamers and Ryan at RK Outpost and Sports Wars brought attention to it.
	And Allison Morrow brought attention to it.
	A bunch of other folks, too.
	Good Logic brought attention to it.
	And the aggregate social media outrage got him reinstated fast.
	And that relates to the...
	Now, I think he has said that he is going to be shifting more and more to Rumble because YouTube is not a safe place to be.
	YouTube is only a safe space if you have the right ideas.
	It's an unsafe space if you're a dissident.
	They've made that crystal clear now.
	And even in fairness to whatever violation...
	Let's just say the last two strikes were...
	Arguable.
	Under American law, what Nick said was not a true threat.
	It was hyperbolic verbiage.
	It's a figure of speech which has taken on two meanings.
	The last one, it may not be illegal, but YouTube set up its rules.
	People are saying, you know, no right to privacy in your address.
	Other people might say, well, if I file an ethics complaint, frivolous as it may be.
	If I authorize the lawyer to see my address, I don't authorize the internet to see my address.
	They may or may not misunderstand.
	Your address is just not private.
	It's never been private.
	I don't know where people get the idea that their address is...
	Phone book, folks.
	Once upon a time, we had the white pages where you could look up.
	Yeah, that's public information.
	You do it for property tax purposes, for voter registration purposes, for utility payment purposes.
	There's no right to privacy in that information.
	It can annoy people or irritate people or whatnot, but there's no right to privacy in it.
	But I think it...
	Shows the power of court of public opinion, and it was one of three major examples of that this week.
	Another one, just briefly, was the Florida Surgeon General exposed problems with the COVID vaccine.
	Twitter took it down on the grounds of misinformation, public outrage.
	This was the Florida Surgeon General, the Florida health official, and were guilted into putting it back up, probably with the looming threat of Musk's ownership coming in, probably also influencing that factor.
	But it relates to the one we covered last week, and this again shows the power of court of public opinion.
	We were the first major influencer to discuss the PayPal rules, that PayPal was trying to put in rules to basically weaponize financial services for the purposes of discriminating against those whose speech they didn't like.
	And we covered it.
	Other influencers, Jack Posobiec, other conservative influencers started covering it.
	Then a wider range of people on social media started paying attention to it.
	Then that led to people starting to mass cancel their accounts.
	And within a week of us covering this story, PayPal has fully reversed and said, no, that was just a little accident.
	We accidentally released a draft that we were circulating.
	By the way, which makes them...
	Total incompetent nincompoops.
	Maybe you don't want to let them have access to your bank account in the first place.
	It was a trial balloon.
	It was a trial balloon to see what the pushback would be, and they were shocked at the scale and scope and speed of it.
	Hold on.
	I put out...
	I think it's...
	My tweet was, you know, PayPal caused COVID.
	Go ahead, PayPal.
	It was a joke.
	It's good that people reacted.
	Whether or not they...
	Retracted because of that, or they would have just allowed it to slip through if nobody said anything.
	But Robert, before we mosey on over to the Rumbles, while we have everybody watching, did everybody see a little, it said sponsored video in this video?
	Because the distraction for last week, I forgot to do a read for Field of Greens people, a sponsor that has the cojones to sponsor a show.
	Like Viva and Barnes or Viva Solo when he goes and rants and raves about the universe.
	Field of Greens, USDA Organic.
	It's not, what's the word?
	It's not an extract and it's not a supplement.
	It is desiccated fruits and vegetables, antioxidants, all this other stuff made in America.
	USDA Organic approved.
	Field of Greens, one spoonful is one serving of vegetable.
	I spent a half an hour on the phone with the MD behind the company to make sure I'm comfortable with it.
	I've been using it.
	I can't pretend I feel like 50 years younger.
	So what is it like?
	It comes in a bottle?
	It comes in like a little jug, and it looks like quick, Nesquik, for the children who remember what that looks like.
	Yeah, I mean, I used to get the strawberry and the chocolate.
	Yeah, well, this is a little better for you than that.
	One serving of vegetables each.
	And apparently, if you go put in promo code VIVA, you get 15% off your first order and 10% off recurring orders.
	Fieldofgreens.com?
	Fieldofgreens.
	That's fieldofgreens.com, Robert.
	Field of Greens.
	That's a good web name.
	So fieldgreens.com and then...
	Promo code Viva.
	They'll put it in somewhere where they order it.
	Oh yeah, look for the promo code Viva and get yourself some healthy veg.
	I'll tell you this.
	It doesn't taste bad.
	When I was a little kid, I wouldn't eat vegetables.
	That's how I pronounced it too.
	Vegetables.
	But now I can only eat steak, vegetables, and fruit.
	That's about it.
	Other fruit I can't even really eat.
	Apparently this year you're supposed to have six servings of vegetables a day.
	This is one serving.
	Raw, uncooked vegetables.
	They have certain benefits that desiccated stuff.
	But this is still...
	It's good.
	Not a supplement and not an extract.
	And it doesn't taste bad.
	It looks like you're drinking swamp water because it's literally green.
	It's literally green, but it's good.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	Before we go over to the rumbles, did you already have Mike Davis on your show?
	If so, what was the date?
	I was...
	Busy in airports.
	He's this Wednesday.
	Okay, awesome.
	And now, people, we are going...
	I'm going to put the link one more time.
	We're going to go over to the Rumbles, and we're going to end it here.
	People, go.
	Let's see you there.
	Three, two, one.
	Robert, let's do why you were in Connecticut.
	And nobody covered this, by the way, because even I saw your tweets on the subject.
	This is Alex Jones' trial.
	And I was like, oh, I was waiting for Alex Jones to testify.
	Then I see your tweets, and I was like...
	I didn't put two and two together until we DMed about it.
	You've got to explain the rationale.
	What went on in that trial?
	$8 billion.
	What does that mean?
	They're asking for like $100 million per plaintiff?
	$500 million.
	Okay, Robert, let's give us the rundown.
	Alex Jones decided not to testify, and I think your justification for why he didn't is not just sound, but...
	Fantastic.
	But tell us that, and then tell us, you said $500 million is what they're asking, per plaintiff.
	Correct.
	So, pretty much that trial went, as we predicted, that you would not find evidence of Alex Jones sending people to stalk anybody.
	You would not find any, they would not produce a single witness that connected Alex Jones to anybody who harassed anybody at the families.
	Not one.
	They've had years to develop it.
	They couldn't produce one single witness to support it.
	That's been a big media lie from day one.
	In fact, I didn't hear any witness testify that they connected, that them watching Alex Jones say something and then thinking it was about them and them being upset or offended by it.
	None of them testified they ever sent a timely retraction motion or request at all or correction or apology demand or anything like that that I saw in the trial.
	And most of it, it was people getting up, talking about the horrible tragedy of losing their child.
	None of which has anything to do with Alex Jones.
	And so it's been a pure show trial.
	It's been a disgrace of a trial.
	People who watched it thought it was even worse than I described it and anticipated it, previewed it being.
	And so Alex Jones had already testified early on in the proceedings where the plaintiff's lawyer went nuts and was screaming, yelling.
	It was a circus.
	It was a circus where the ringleader is the judge and the lead clown is the plaintiff's lawyer.
	And so Alex Jones was going to testify on his own behalf as part of a defense, but the judge made clear that if he testified truthfully, if he testified honestly, he goes to jail for as long as six months.
	And so basically what happened is the judge was making clear to Norm Pattis, Jones' lawyer, that he was basically being put into a trap.
	He was only going to be allowed to answer yes, no, or I don't know.
	And if the question didn't call for one of those three answers, and he expounded it all in a way that was truthful about a topic she said he can't talk about, he goes to jail.
	If he says yes, no, or I don't know, when that doesn't actually fit, then they could charge him with perjury charges.
	So, I mean, no matter what, it was a pure, let's put Alex Jones back on the trial and see if we can put him in jail for six months.
	Create more theater.
	And punish him even further for his speech.
	You'll remember the example you used better than I can on your Barnes brief, but you said hypothetical example.
	You've made $150 million off your false reporting on Sandy Hook.
	Do you feel bad about it?
	How did you phrase a question?
	The plaintiff's lawyer would ask questions.
	I call them Senate questions because the Senate would always have six subcomponent parts.
	So they're questions you can't answer.
	Yes, no, or I don't know, honestly or truthfully.
	And the plaintiff's lawyer did this early on.
	It's like, well, with all your coverage on Sandy Hook, didn't you make X amount of money over five years?
	Well, the gross revenues might be that amount, but not the net revenues, so there's that issue.
	And the other has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
	Sandy Hook was hardly ever covered.
	However, the judge had specifically said, you cannot tell the jury how little you covered Sandy Hook.
	You cannot tell the jury that 99% of what InfoWars published and broadcast rebutted.
	The denier movement about Sandy Hook.
	Acknowledge that Sandy Hook happened.
	You cannot tell the jury how many times you apologized to the family.
	Your apologies to her, starting with Joe Rogan many years ago, you can't tell them that.
	You can't tell them that you're in bankruptcy.
	You can't tell them that you didn't intend to harm anyone.
	You can't tell them about other cases in context in which you were right.
	When you expose conspiracies that were in existence.
	So how does he answer that question?
	If he says no, plaintiff's lawyer says he committed perjury, denied his company made X amount of money over six years.
	If he says yes, he's lying because it's not accurate because it has nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
	If he tries to explain himself, oh, you explained, you talked about something you can't talk about, contempt, six months in jail.
	And so while he's going through this bankruptcy proceeding to keep everything alive at Infoward.
	So what they wanted him to do is get up there and read the script we told you to read.
	And if you don't read the script we told you to read, you're going to jail.
	Period.
	Well, that was no deal at all.
	You're mute.
	Just so nobody thinks you're exaggerating, Robert, the judge proudly, loudly, and on multiple occasions said, I'll hold them in contempt right there on the stand.
	And contempt, quasi-criminal, it can be a monetary fine or imprisonment.
	And there was no hiding it.
	She was going to do it.
	She was going to do it, boy, howdy.
	So Pattis, after Jones was called in chief, says, okay, I renounce my right to cross-examine.
	We'll call him in our defense.
	How does he make the announcement to the jury, or how does he do it strategically so that the jury doesn't draw negative inferences?
	Is there a way to do it possibly?
	There was no reason for the jury to care one way or the other, in that sense, because he'd already testified.
	But he just told the judge, given what the judge put him in, you do what's called a proffer.
	You say, here's what the testimony would have been if he was allowed to actually testify truthfully and defend himself.
	And the main goal was, how do I testify truthfully?
	Given where the judge's instructions.
	It was clear.
	Testify truthfully.
	Go to jail.
	First time that's ever happened in America.
	But that's what happened in the Alex Jones trial.
	And so the judge just said, hey, the case is done.
	And we'll go to closing arguments and jury instructions.
	They are allowing a massive punitive damage risk.
	By the way, the amount of money they requested is not just punitive damages.
	In fact, I don't think any of it's punitive damages.
	They want compensatory damages.
	$500 million for speech that they couldn't even identify concerned them or that they ever remember hearing that I heard from the witness stand.
	So, I mean, maybe it happened when I wasn't there, but I wasn't watching it because I did not watch all the trial.
	But I saw no evidence of that.
	I mean, this is unheard of.
	For people that really have their reputations destroyed, the average jury verdict for defamation in America is $30,000.
	And that's when they're actually talked about and their reputation destroyed.
	$500,000 apiece.
	$8 billion.
	$800 million, Robert, not $500,000.
	$500 million per person, over $8 billion.
	It would be the largest verdict by a quantity of over tenfold, a hundredfold.
	It would be a hundred times more than the biggest verdict in the history of America.
	That's the history of the world.
	That's how crazy this trial has become.
	What a disgrace to the rule of law it has become.
	Robert, I mean, I was not there.
	We didn't see the jury.
	But, I mean, what's their face like?
	I saw Pattis.
	He did a great job in closing.
	Matty?
	Matty?
	It's not that I don't like the, you know, that I'm unsympathetic to the plaintiffs.
	Their lawyer really rubs me the wrong way in demeanor, in everything.
	His closing arguments were emotional, preposterous, over-the-top, but not emotional in a justifiable sense.
	Emotional as in exploitive.
	Pattis, on the other hand, said, look, he was great.
	Says, this is not a lottery.
	This is not a pulling the arm.
	Let's just see how much we land on.
	But do you have any gauge as to how the jury was responding in closing?
	Because someone comes up there and asks for $500 million.
	I say you guys are a joke.
	Do you have any indication?
	That would be the reaction of the normal juror.
	But this is Connecticut.
	There's six jurors.
	They have to be unanimous.
	They did not come to...
	I think they deliberated a whole day and came to no conclusion.
	And they start back again on Tuesday.
	But you have Connecticut.
	It's a very liberal Democratic jury pool.
	They've seen a complete show trial.
	How much they understand that is fully unknown.
	So, you know, we'll find out.
	You know, typically in these kind of show trials, the jury goes along with, they play their part in the theater.
	So it's pretty rare for them to go against what they're kind of almost being forced to conclude.
	And adjudicate.
	But it's just an insane, insane request.
	It makes plaintiff's lawyers look like a disgrace, like ambulance chasing, bottom of the barrel.
	All the caricatures and stereotypes fit the way in which this plaintiff's firm has gone about it.
	But they're very politically connected.
	They shook down Remington for $73 million.
	They helped cover up the corruption of the school system because they did not pursue those cases in a timely manner at all.
	The actual party responsible that could be held responsible that was still around, other than the shooter himself, it was the school system and the politicians.
	But this politically connected firm didn't want to sue them.
	The media didn't want to talk about them.
	And that helped facilitate.
	Frankly, more school shootings down the road because people were unaware of how bad some of our school safety protocols and procedures are, which is now the grounds for the Uvalde suit that has been filed in Texas.
	Maybe that never happens if the truth would have come out.
	So I did about three press conferences there with Alex Jones in Connecticut.
	The local media was actually more respectful than the national media.
	Not a surprise there.
	But it's a disgraceful show trial.
	And there's still one more...
	Disgraceful show trial to happen in Texas yet.
	But the more outrage in the court of public opinion, the better the chance that this show trial gets overturned and we don't see its ugly face reappear in America.
	Two things, actually.
	First one, what's the next one in Texas?
	He already had one trial in Texas.
	Yeah, this will be a second trial in Texas involving another.
	Set of Sandy Hook plaintiffs.
	Same default verdict circumstances?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Same judge.
	Same judge.
	Okay, well, that's great.
	And I just want everyone out there to appreciate $500 million per plaintiff.
	One of those plaintiffs was an FBI agent who didn't have any children in Sandy Hook, who was not physically injured.
	Knows nobody who was physically injured.
	$500 million.
	All right, Robert.
	For compensation.
	And by the way, his testimony I did watch.
	We watched it.
	Yep.
	He didn't identify any statement he saw in live time from Alex Jones about him at all, ever.
	Worse than that, in my humble opinion, and I didn't even know this before watching the evidence that plaintiffs adduced, some of the statements and issues that he was complaining about actually arose before Alex Jones even covered it at all.
	Correct.
	From day one, what he was complaining about was coming from other people.
	Yes.
	The trial kept reaffirming.
	They kept talking about not what Alex Jones said or did.
	It was about what somebody else said or did.
	That they never tied into Alex Jones ever.
	This is ugly theater.
	Show trial.
	Disgrace to America.
	Whatever you think about Alex Jones.
	Whatever you think about Sandy Hook.
	It goes beyond the First and Second Amendment implications.
	This is about them trying to set the precedent.
	Just like PayPal set the precedent by going after Alex Jones for where they were going to ultimately try to go.
	Just like Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and YouTube showed us where they were going to go.
	You know, it starts with Alex Jones.
	It finishes with the President of the United States.
	Continues to the Nick Ricadas of the world.
	This is an attempt to see if they can get away with show trials.
	And it's happening at a time where we're seeing the Biden administration show no restraint at all.
	Which, you know, the next two cases we have.
	The Humboldt case, which we'll get to in a little bit, counties seizing property without justification of any kind under a complete scam in Humboldt County, but also relates to what I witnessed this week in the Brooke Jackson case.
	Well, you know, even before we get there, just very quickly on the Rayshard Brooks, someone in the chat over at Rumble says, and it's not a Rumble rant, I read regular chat as well, says, what's the rationale behind default verdicts?
	Because people are looking at Alex Jones.
	I made the analogy, like, Alex Jones is having less of a right to defend himself than Daryl Brooks, not Rachel.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to be...
	That was an innocent mistake.
	Daryl Brooks, who's defending himself and making a mockery of the defense system, but in allowing him to do so, the system is retaining its integrity.
	Alex Jones, less of a right to defend himself than Daryl Brooks, who ran over and killed six people, ran over many more.
	Civil versus criminal.
	Yes, I appreciate that.
	But Robert, what's the rationale behind default verdict as opposed to foreclosed from defending, let the plaintiffs make their case in front of a jury nonetheless?
	So the right to trial by jury is what shapes all of this.
	So there's a right under the Connecticut and Texas Constitution.
	There's also arguably a right.
	And there's a right under the federal constitution for federal trials.
	And typically it is considered enforceable.
	In fact, we'll discuss it in the Humboldt property case.
	It's one of the issues.
	It's an enforceable due process and equal protection right under the 14th Amendment against states.
	And so default is not allowed in criminal cases.
	In my view, it should not be allowed in civil cases.
	Default is, in fact, what should happen is they should have a trial in front of a jury.
	And if the plaintiff or whichever party just doesn't show up, then that jury can adjudicate accordingly.
	But what we're seeing in the Jones case, it's always been a dangerous tool, which is judges try to find excuses to eviscerate your trial jury rights.
	They do so on three grounds, default judgments, motions to dismiss, and summary judgment proceedings.
	It got so bad at summary judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court, about two decades ago, had to clean it up because federal courts were just unilaterally doing it.
	Sometimes they try to do it through jury instructions in criminal cases.
	The Supreme Court had to clear that up.
	So, but default judgment, so my view is default should never be allowed because it violates the right to trial by jury.
	But to the court's current, I mean, and here's the problem.
	It's courts reviewing their own power.
	So do courts want to sit there and say, golly gee, we really don't have that power?
	They're like, oh yeah, I think we do.
	So that's the problem.
	It's where our tripartite system of government falls apart at times.
	And so the default is called the death penalty sanction.
	In places like Texas.
	That's what it's called, the death penalty.
	The death penalty is supposed to be reserved for people who completely refuse to participate at any level.
	And as everybody who watched now the Connecticut case saw, in fact, I was talking to the journalist outside.
	I was like, tell me what piece of discovery that plaintiffs didn't get.
	You've been watching the trial.
	Tell me.
	They could not identify a single one.
	Why is it nobody on the plaintiff's side could identify a single piece of evidence they did not get from Alex?
	But Robert, their argument is going to be, well, we have it now, but he didn't give it up when he had to.
	So what?
	I mean, default judgment is only, death penalty sanction is only when you are denied your ability to prove your case at trial because someone did not participate in discovery.
	And even then, it's supposed to be limited to that issue.
	And there's no connection between the issues she's talking about and the issues she issued a death penalty sanction on.
	So it's just an attempt to misuse and abuse judicial power to circumvent your right to a trial by jury.
	Because they could not allow, even in liberal Connecticut, they could not allow Alex Jones to be able to defend himself and speak truthfully to the jury because they knew it would expose that their so-called case about fake news is a fake case.
	Built on big media lies about what really happened.
	And just so everybody really appreciates what you just said, that even that on which he, let's just agree that he did default on it, profits, Google Analytics, had nothing to do with the defamatory statements themselves.
	And so incidental, ancillary, and yet was used as the codes for the nuclear option.
	I mean, again, he turned over more discovery than any media defendant in history.
	No, but he didn't turn over one document, Robert.
	I challenge you to find one case.
	The journalist couldn't point out anything.
	And I pointed out, I mean, some of them had been following in the neighboring New York the cases against the New York Times brought by Project Veritas and Sarah Palin.
	I was like, have you ever heard of the New York Times turning over the kind of discovery they're openly talking about in the Alex Jones trial that the plaintiffs have?
	Detailed financial information to the minute.
	To the minute of when financial information, of when money was made.
	To the minute.
	And of course, they couldn't connect.
	Sandy Hook to that money.
	They had the money to the minute.
	They couldn't say, okay, here's when he talked about Sandy Hook.
	Let's look at the baseline of what his normal revenue is.
	Did it go up?
	It didn't.
	That's why they didn't talk about it.
	No, they had that information.
	So they knew their whole case was built on a big fat fraud that was blaming Alex Jones for things he was not responsible for, that he was not the person who did, that he didn't make the money they claim he did, that he almost never talked about it, etc.
	They couldn't allow the people to know the truth.
	That's why they defaulted him.
	And as even the Hartford Courant acknowledged, I think he used words like extreme, highly unusual, etc.
	This is liberal Alex Jones-hating media sources that love the Sandy Hook trials, admitting, well, you know what?
	We've never really seen this before.
	And what we saw at trial was further evidence that it was built on a big lie.
	Robert, let's just briefly go over the Daryl Brooks, because in that case...
	He's defending himself pro se, which you're constitutionally entitled to in a criminal case.
	And people might be watching that and saying, my goodness, if anybody deserves to be defaulted, it's Brooks, but it's a criminal defense, so there's no default.
	Some people are just asking, what is he attempting to do?
	He's either crazy, dumb, or maybe both, but he thinks he's doing something.
	He continually refers to a plaintiff in this case when it's a criminal case.
	I was watching Rakeda, and I forget the name of the lawyer that he was on with, hypothesizing that Brooks might be building some sort of sovereign citizen case by referring to a plaintiff in a criminal manner and a plaintiff not showing up.
	Do you have any idea as to what Brooks is trying to do with this defense?
	I mean, technically, a lot of times in criminal pleadings, it will represent the government as the plaintiff on the pleadings.
	So, he may just be reading it literally.
	My view is, I think it shows how we've watered down and diluted our mental competency standards for standing trial.
	So, what's happened is, the government hires a bunch of hacks who always tell you that the person is totally mentally competent to be at trial.
	Because if you're not mentally competent to stand trial...
	Then that doesn't mean you can escape justice.
	It generally means that someone, a lawyer, has to be assigned to you in certain contexts, but it also means your sentence often can be insanity and you go to a mental institution.
	People's concerns about it are that then the person is released once they're designated as sane and thus they might mitigate the length of their sentence.
	So I understand that concern, but that's a different side of the equation.
	I challenge anybody watching this trial to tell me he is mentally competent to stay in trial.
	I don't see that.
	I don't see mental competency to stay in trial.
	Now, I say that with a caveat that I don't like the government's power or the court's power to declare somebody mentally incompetent because that's a dangerous, precarious thing of its own right.
	So I have conflicting sentiments on it.
	But under our existing legal framework, we've so watered down mental competency that we're allowing people that we...
	Because we so want to punish.
	We want to punish more than we want to do anything else in our criminal justice system.
	People are eager to just get up there and punish.
	The net effect of it is we're putting people that we know belong in an asylum in a prison instead, where they won't get the mental health treatment that they need that's not going to fix anything.
	And if somebody's nuts, how do you punish them?
	Because to a certain degree, they're not processing punishment the way you and I do.
	So I think everything about his behavior from the...
	All the public reports about the incident, everything about it screamed, this person is not mentally competent and probably belongs in an asylum.
	And so maybe we should change our punishment protocols so that if you're declared mentally insane, found, it's called not guilty by reason of insanity, but it's a guilt of the crime, but with different protocol.
	Then that's what should happen.
	People have speculated that it's sophisticated.
	I don't see anything sophisticated on it.
	I see a guy who doesn't understand where he's at and is interacting in a very peculiar manner with just wild protests in wild different directions because he doesn't understand.
	He clearly just doesn't.
	We want to morally judge him because of the horrible things he did.
	To me, he's clearly insane.
	He's clearly insane.
	It's interesting.
	I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this, but it's an interesting thing as to whether or not people are imputing or projecting their own foregone conclusions.
	I was watching.
	In the sickest of senses, it strikes me as like an Eric Andre skit.
	Like it's somebody...
	Pretend, somebody saying, all right, I'm an absolute murderous psychopath.
	Now, how do I make people suffer even more?
	How do I game the system even more?
	Knowing that he had social media posts which indicate, you know, maybe he might be batshit crazy.
	He might be off his rocker and has fixated that insanity on partisan issues.
	Knowing what he posted on social media beforehand, you know, people snap.
	Fine.
	But I'm looking, I just see someone who's, you know.
	Absolutely malicious, trying to make people suffer a third time around.
	Ted Bundy was a psychopath who defended himself at times, but he, I thought, was completely competent to stay in trial.
	When you see this guy, do you see a guy that you think is sane?
	A psychopath, I would say, is insane, but nonetheless knew what they were doing was wrong.
	I see a psychopath as just a psychopath.
	I don't see them as insane.
	I mean insanity in the sense of...
	Lack of clarity about the way the world works and where they're at.
	I don't know.
	I've had experiences with people suffering with mental issues, and when they're detached, it's different.
	This guy looks like he knows.
	He's trying to delay things.
	He's trying to get technicalities.
	What the hell motivated somebody to do something like that in the first place?
	You'll never understand if they're of sound mind.
	I guess in that context...
	Because you're thinking he's just not very bright then.
	Because it's not like this is going to work.
	No!
	I don't know.
	That's what I don't know legally what he's thinking.
	He read something somewhere instead of just pleading.
	Or just absolute...
	It's satanic malicious where he wants to abuse the system as badly as he abused the people that he murdered.
	It just doesn't seem detached.
	There would be at least a self-preservation.
	I mean, I guess if there's no self-preservation instinct, maybe.
	I think he can be randomly manipulative, but I don't think he has a broad construct of reality.
	That's the part when I'm watching him, I don't see that.
	Well, and I...
	I greatly respect him.
	I think he really believes crazy stuff.
	I think he thinks he's probably winning great, and he's really taking down the man, and he's taking down the system.
	He believes things are just obviously untrue.
	He was asking the lawyer, not the lawyer, the police officer, if he's being paid while he's testifying, as though, I mean, I saw the objections, as though that's proving a point.
	I don't know.
	I just think he might be unintelligent, but whether or not he's unfit, I didn't get that in as much as, you know, I've seen other people who are...
	Not who are detached.
	Oh, I'm going to say he's totally detached.
	I'm just saying his perception of reality ain't real.
	And that to me is what I consider competency to stand trial.
	In order for him to defend himself adequately at trial.
	In order for him to be competent to stand trial.
	And there's a difference between competency and insanity.
	There can be.
	But you have to be able to process things reasonably.
	And I don't think he can.
	It's interesting.
	I had one more thought about this.
	Darn it.
	I forgot what it was.
	And that doesn't mean they don't have strings of rational thought.
	It just means their broader perception of the world is just not there.
	The best description I ever had is from my law professor who said, it's like someone who kills somebody and says they thought they were hitting a pumpkin.
	And I thought that was a good description.
	In other words, they deliberately did the act, but their broader perception of what's happening in the world is just completely gone.
	And everything about the guy screams that to me.
	It's like, this is a guy who thinks he's the master of something, and he's totally not.
	He doesn't know that.
	He doesn't realize that.
	We're going to see if we ever get...
	I'll ask Chris to get some polls so we can run a poll.
	No, the truth is, someone only ends up like this.
	Sometimes it can happen from other incidents, but usually because they suffered severe abuse when they were young.
	Just FYI.
	And I remembered what I was going to say, Robert.
	It was from the book, Ron Johnson's Psychopath Test, where People pretended to be insane to get out of going to jail and then realized they couldn't get out of the asylum faster than they could have gotten out of jail otherwise had they been convicted.
	Yeah, that's what one of the tippers in our Locals board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, a psychiatric nurse, she said that her general experience was that people who go to prison on grounds of insanity or go to the asylum on grounds of insanity...
	That's definitely true in California.
	Everybody should read the psychopath test, but the whole irony is the person who pretended to be psychopathic and then wants to get out of the asylum, well, they say, of course you're going to act normal.
	That's what a psychopath does.
	That means you're psychopathic.
	You've got to stay here even longer.
	Robert, speaking of psychopaths, and not that I'm thinking Albert Bourla reflexively, But what's going on with Pfizer and the whistleblower?
	Because big stuff happened this week.
	Brooks was all over.
	This is Brooke Jackson now.
	Got Daryl Brooks.
	Brooke Jackson was all over social media.
	What's going on?
	Because it's big stuff.
	So the United States.
	So what happens when you file a false claims act, sometimes called a key team action, is you're a whistleblower who has seen the American people scammed.
	And you have that information and you file a claim in court under the False Claims Act, the federal law, sometimes called KETAM.
	That's what, it was old equitable remedy.
	And that on behalf of the people, they've been scammed.
	Now, what the law allows is for the U.S. government to take over the case if they want, depending on whether the court allows that.
	But they allow the individual to initiate the case and that individual to prosecute the case in case the government doesn't pursue it.
	And in that aim, if the government looks at the case and they say, oh, this is a credible case, there's illegal grounds here, we need time to investigate in secret.
	And so we don't want the defendant to know that we're investigating.
	So judge, seal everything.
	Now, critics have pointed out that one of the great dangers of this...
	Is that the government, particularly in cases where they may be culpable or complicit themselves, government officials and bureaucrats and agents, in the corruption that's being exposed, will use the seal process to hide from the public the information the whistleblower has.
	But what happened here is Brooke Jackson filed her claim in, I believe it was fall of 2020, before...
	All the vaccines start rolling out and hitting everybody around the globe.
	The government comes in.
	Justice Department says, oh, this is a serious case.
	Judge, you got to seal all this.
	We need time to investigate in secret.
	They do this for more than a year.
	Supposedly, they're investigating during this time frame.
	Then the government decides, okay, we're not going to intervene in the case.
	We'll let Brooke Jackson's lawyers take leave.
	So Pfizer comes in and says, Judge, please, please, please don't allow any discovery.
	And after the judge says, Oh, I'm not going along with that.
	I'm going to allow discovery.
	Pfizer then comes back and begs again, complains about me making statements in the court of public opinion about what's going on and about Brooke Jackson making public statements.
	And all of a sudden the judge is like, Oh, we got to shut down this discovery for the time being.
	Total wuss move by the judge.
	But despite that, okay, it is what it is.
	The judge says he's only going to rule on the merits.
	I take him at his word.
	So Pfizer files a motion to dismiss.
	Two other defendants affiliated with Pfizer file their big motions to dismiss.
	We file our big response.
	Their whole argument is, hey, the government would have given us the $2 billion anyway.
	It doesn't matter if we broke every clinical trial rule in the book.
	It doesn't matter if we violated every regulation in the book, even though these rules and regulations are about making sure that this drug is safe, effective, and an actual vaccine that inoculates against transmission of a disease.
	So what Brooke Jackson witnessed is the clinical trials were a joke, one big fat fraud.
	The Pfizer didn't abide any of the core and key principles for safety, efficacy, or the drug being a vaccine.
	So she had information that was explosive, that the world involved in this mass medical experiment, according to former President Barack Obama's own words, were entitled to know.
	But she wasn't allowed to discuss the case because the U.S. government had sealed it under the pretext that they were investigating and thought it was a legit case.
	So we file our opposition to their motion to dismiss and say, look, the whole purpose of the reason why the government wrote a $2 billion check To Pfizer was because they believed Pfizer had complied with all the rules and regulations that are the metric to measure whether the drug is safe, whether it's effective, and whether it's actually a vaccine that inoculates against disease.
	So saying that they would have written, wrote the check for an unsafe, dangerous, ineffective drug that doesn't actually work as a vaccine is ludicrous.
	But that's Pfizer's defense.
	So we cite all our legal arguments and all the rest.
	Apparently, somebody in the government got nervous that we were going to win our opposition to the motion to dismiss and finally get the discovery that Pfizer's busy hiding from the world.
	And so what happens?
	At the last minute, the government files something that I've never seen in a Keytam case in history.
	The government comes in and says, oh, we agree with Pfizer.
	There's no legal grounds for this case to go forward.
	So either the government was lying to the court, Making the court complicit in cover-up and fraud on a massive global scale, or there's been a sudden shift in the Biden administration from where the case started out.
	Now, I'm not saying the local U.S. attorney is involved in this.
	He may just be following instructions from the folks up at D.C. Now, apparently the local U.S. attorney that's on this case has a personal relationship or knows the judge.
	So that has a whole other set of issues being implicated.
	But clearly, Pfizer pulled out all the stops.
	Biden administration pulled out all the stops.
	They are begging the court to not allow this case to proceed to discovery, not allow this case to proceed to trial, which they would never have done if they thought that Pfizer was actually legally right.
	And implicitly, it suggests that the U.S. government, the Justice Department of the Biden administration, was misleading the court, misleading Brooke Jackson, and saying they were investigating this case.
	Because if they really believed it never had legal merits, they should have never requested the case be sealed.
	And it appears what they were really trying to do is that the Biden administration at the top levels wanted to hide this information, misuse and abuse its power to request sealing, make the court complicit in that by granting the sealing order, the court relying upon the government's honesty and sincerity, which is now in serious doubt, so the world didn't know what Brooke Jackson knew.
	And so it raises major questions about what the government and the Biden administration have been up to.
	Did the Biden administration know about how dangerous this drug was?
	How unsafe and ineffective it was?
	About how it wasn't a vaccine at all, because it doesn't inoculate against anything, really.
	As the evidence continues to mount and the Florida Surgeon General put out this week, the spike in deaths amongst young men under 40 years old.
	While they're trying to force this on young children as we speak.
	Was the Biden administration complicit with Pfizer and this massive fraud on the world?
	And, you know, we'll see what happens.
	We'll see if the federal judge keeps his word about sticking to the facts and the law.
	But clearly, there's a lot of nervous Nellies in the Biden administration that are terrified that if this case gets to discovery, it will likely implicate high-ranking members of the Biden administration in covering up one of the worst public health disasters in American and world history.
	And if I can simplify that to make sure I understand, basically the government says, seal it, we're going to investigate.
	The idea there being, if Pfizer did in fact lie, or if the government said, we're going to throw Pfizer under the bus now, they lied to us, give us back our $2 billion and we're going to go after you.
	That would be the smart way of covering their tracks, unless the investigation will necessarily implicate government and government officials, in which case they say, we've investigated ourselves, We would have given the $2 billion to Pfizer regardless.
	And they're not even saying that.
	They're saying, Judge, this is not a legal grounds to complain.
	They're saying that it doesn't matter if Pfizer complied with any of the rules or regulations.
	As a matter of law, this is not a false claims act.
	Which makes no sense.
	Why did you seal the proceedings then?
	Why did you say you were investigating that?
	If this on its face was legally, could not suffice to ever be a plausible claim.
	Then you are lying to Brooke Jackson and lying to the court and lying to the world to cover up Pfizer's corruption.
	You just didn't want people to know, at the time it mattered most, how dangerous this drug was.
	Well, what happens now?
	Let's just say, hypothetically, well, we know now the government says no legitimate claim here.
	Please dismiss, judge.
	Please don't allow any investigation to happen.
	And if they dismiss...
	If they dismiss, I mean, Brooke Jackson has already gone public with her findings.
	What has she not been allowed to publicly disclose over the last year?
	Well, it was the time.
	It was that she wasn't allowed to talk about the case at the time they were rolling out this vaccine.
	So, I mean, and it looks like the government deliberately misused and abused its power to seal to cover up major scandal involving the government, involving Pfizer, involving this so-called vaccine.
	That is not, in fact, a vaccine.
	It doesn't inoculate.
	The data keeps accumulating.
	The vaccine is more dangerous to most people than COVID-19 is.
	Period.
	And now that they know that, but they didn't want the world to know that then.
	How many people would be alive today?
	How many people would not be disabled today had they known the information that Brooke Jackson had and that she brought the case?
	The government was involved in covering up the criminality of Pfizer.
	That's my conclusion at this moment.
	But now it goes to the judge.
	He'll either go along with the government or not.
	We'll find out.
	He said he was just going to follow the facts and the law.
	The facts and the law say we're entitled to discovery.
	Let's see if he keeps his word.
	And for the YouTube overlords, when I post this there tomorrow, Kieran Moore, refer to it as a therapeutic.
	Obama.
	We've effectively tested on billions of people.
	There was one more thing.
	Who would have been alive?
	Who knows?
	There's another tragic story of a Democrat congressman's 17-year-old daughter passing away in her sleep.
	Heart arrhythmia.
	Just healthy.
	Had regular checkups.
	The article specifies, as per a statement from the family, healthy, saw a doctor regularly, and was fully vaccinated.
	17-year-old girl.
	Can't connect any dots because it's virtually impossible to do it definitively, save and accept through that little litmus test called the VAERS system.
	But Robert, if the judge now comes in and says, dismissed, on what grounds would it be dismissed?
	Because they're arguing...
	He would say that it doesn't matter.
	He would go along with Pfizer and the government that it's okay if you lie about its safety, efficacy, and whether it's even a vaccine.
	The government had to pay the $2 billion anyway, and thus it couldn't be a quote-unquote false claim.
	It would be a ludicrous ruling, quite frankly, and embarrassing, given to the court and the federal judiciary.
	But, you know, sadly, our federal courts have not always been.
	When Brooke Jackson merely pointed out earlier in the case that she was hopeful this judge would rule on the facts and the law and not be influenced by Pfizer's power, political power, the judge lectured me on the phone about making that statement.
	But suggested to me the judge is influenced by Pfizer.
	I hope he's not.
	I hope he's going to keep his word.
	But that was a peculiar reaction.
	So that's the reality.
	And this is, again, just last week, Brooke Jackson's prior local lawyer became apparently hired by Pfizer's local lawyer.
	I mean, it's like, what in the world is going on here?
	I mean, it looks like political corruption.
	It looks like collusion.
	Looks like a lot of, not a surprise given this is the most significant false claims act maybe in American history.
	The most significant public health scandal in American history.
	So it's no surprise that everybody with power is trying to stop this case from simply proceeding to discovery.
	That's an important point to remember.
	They don't want, what is Pfizer so terrified of?
	What is the government so terrified of?
	In those files about what Pfizer knew and when they knew it.
	Well, and it will come full circle to some extent back to the Florida Surgeon General making certain determinations.
	When the Florida Surgeon General says something, partisan hack, can't be trusted, and they'll find 15 ways to reinterpret the data.
	I saw one doctor said, I'm trying to find a way to analyze the data away.
	And then I just, you know, happened to go Google this doctor who a year ago said virtually zero, near zero risk for the COVID jab.
	And I said, do you still stand by that knowing what we know today?
	Well, I mean, look at the British doctor, cardiologist, who I think his own father died and has been completely converted from being a big advocate for this to being a big critic.
	Everybody can see the data.
	They can see it.
	They've experienced it.
	Friends and family that have suffered.
	It's in the actuarial data about excess deaths amongst young men.
	It's in the disability data amongst insurance companies about unusual high rates, excess rates of disability claims that appear to be tied to the vaccine.
	It's in people's lived experience of friends and family they know.
	More people know somebody hurt by this so-called vaccine, this fake vaccine, than they do someone who was hurt by COVID.
	That's the reality.
	I'm trying to find the tweet, the video from last week of the Canadian actress.
	Two weeks after her jab, gets Bell's palsy, said she had a tough go after her jab, but she'd do it again.
	And now it goes from there are no adverse risks to I'd do it again because country commands that I do it.
	Robert, what does this segue into?
	Oh, well, speaking of government abuse of power, the Humboldt County case was the top chosen case on our Locals board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And this is an extraordinary case.
	You're going to have to educate me because I am very unfamiliar with it.
	So I'll just read from the introduction.
	The backstory is this.
	Humboldt County is like a hippie county up in Northern California.
	A lot of off-the-grid folks.
	Has been since like the 1950s.
	And it's also a place where a lot of people grew pot before it was even legal.
	Once it became legal, the Humboldt County politicians thought, we got to get our piece of action on this.
	So first they started permitting marijuana farms to, you know, jack up their cash.
	That's what a lot of local permits are really all about.
	They're just a shakedown technique.
	At least the mob is going to provide some value when they extort you.
	But then they decided to expand on it by basically targeting people, claiming that they had been illegally unpermitted, well, without a permit, growing marijuana, even on property that they hadn't.
	And then they disguised the system.
	They used an inadequate investigative system.
	They would charge big fines, would never allow a jury trial, would delay the case while the fines accumulated, deny you the right to get other permits, all in a big scam to just extort their whole population.
	So here's from the introduction of the case.
	Humboldt County fines landowners hundreds of thousands of dollars for things they never did.
	Because Homeboat County doesn't even investigate the charges that it files against the landowner.
	The accused then rarely ever even gets the chance to defend themselves because the county withholds hearings from those who fight the baseless charges against them.
	While the county makes accused landowners wait indefinitely for an administrative hearing without a jury trial, fines continue to accumulate and the county denies them permits.
	The only way out is to pay the county.
	The county's code enforcement policy is designed to squeeze every dollar it can from legalized marijuana, often and usually at the expense of innocent people not involved in growing marijuana.
	They created this program in order to scam and scheme it.
	And so the case goes, and I'll post the whole thing.
	Yeah, I'm trying to pull up the case because now I didn't know it was called Humboldt.
	I just remember reading that.
	Robert, how do they go about it so that the accused are denied a jury trial?
	And how do they charge the accused to go to trial?
	Sorry, go for it.
	What they typically do is they just issue a ticket.
	And often the grounds for a ticket is some satellite footage where they confuse a greenhouse with a marijuana plant.
	They know it's not.
	They just don't care.
	Or they blame a current owner for something that happened 10 years before on the list.
	So they just issue a big ticket.
	And usually they'll be about $4,500.
	Then they delay the hearing.
	And while they're delaying the hearing, the fines go up.
	And you're not allowed to get permits for other things on your property.
	So you're put pressure to settle.
	Then at the hearing, you don't actually get a jury trial.
	You get some lawyer that they've hired that's connected to the county.
	And their allegations, this violates procedural due process, substantive due process.
	It's unconstitutional conditions.
	And that it's a violation of the right to trial by jury.
	And this is the case.
	The thing is, you read it, and they're just allegations.
	And they're allegations from the plaintiff's perspective.
	And I have difficulty even understanding how you could be denied a jury trial and be tried by, what is it, a firm or a corporation mandated by the city?
	Yeah, some local lawyer gets paid to come in and help.
	And what incentive does that lawyer have to give a fair hearing, right?
	The lawyer is going to get, he's getting paid by who?
	He's getting paid by the county.
	So the more cases, the more times he rules for the county, the better.
	So the whole system is one big extortion scheme.
	Humboldt County is running one big massive extortion scheme on its people.
	What's the basis of the lawsuit?
	So it's found in federal court, Institute for Justice, which does great work.
	And basically, it's just a long litany of constitutional violations.
	Substantive due process, procedural due process, rights to a jury trial being violated, an excessive fine, not proportionate or reasonably related to any governmental interest.
	People forget that provision is also included in the Constitution, as well as unconstitutional conditions.
	And that's where the government tries to get you to say, if you want this constitutional right, you got to forfeit this one over here.
	And that is not allowed under our Constitution.
	Likelihood of success?
	Oh, it should win.
	But the key part is to get this out there in the court of public opinion.
	Get these politicians put under the bright light that they deserve to force them to stop this once and for all.
	Humboldt County, a lot of them are working folks.
	It's not like upscale hippie place.
	It's a lot of ordinary people.
	People grow their own food, for example.
	That's why the greenhouses are there.
	So it's just one big extortion racket.
	And usually you find this, when you find counties engaged in this kind of confiscatory seizure process of unconstitutional fines, of illicit means of grabbing your property, of charging permits for things that don't need to be there.
	This is one of the things Joe Rogan got infamously wrong when he was attacking Dave Rubin years ago.
	He was acting like, without these wonderful permits, our construction people would all be negligent and derelict and everything would be fraudulent.
	And it's like, and he seemed to think that it was lack of permits.
	That's why the third world has so many construction problems.
	You can't charge a bribe without a permit.
	The permit's the pretext for the bribe.
	It's so robust.
	The construction industry's incentive to build adequate buildings.
	It's not some permit, which is basically a disguised bribe to the local politician, but it's so that they don't get sued into oblivion or can feel good about themselves when the building doesn't collapse on people.
	That's why.
	If permits were the key to safe buildings, the third world would be the safest place in the universe because they got permits for everything because you can't charge a bribe without a permit.
	Permit's the pretext for the bribe.
	And this is just another illustration of it.
	But it's because they're a working-class community that people don't pay much attention to that this kind of railroading happens in the first place.
	It was what Rich Dad Poor Dad said in one of his interviews in Hawaii.
	It's basically a communist land because you can't do anything with your property because it requires permits.
	And you're basically restricted from peaceful enjoyment of your own property.
	Indeed.
	Robert, the Tesla lawsuit, and then we'll talk about Elon buying Tesla.
	Or agreeing to it, 5420.
	Twitter.
	Twitter, sorry.
	He already owns Tesla.
	Well, most of it.
	The class action lawsuit against Tesla is on the basis that people purchased the self-driving cars under the illusion that they would be relatively autonomous.
	Not totally autonomous.
	Even from the lawsuit, I don't think they're alleging that.
	But sufficiently, relatively, and the basis of the complaint is that...
	Not at all.
	It's intensive.
	It's intensive to drive your own car despite the automated features that were promised.
	I remember my dad has...
	I don't remember which Tesla it is, but it had the feature and then it was disabled, I think, at some point.
	Part of me reads this lawsuit and views it as the guy who puts his car in cruise control and then his RV in cruise control and then goes to take a shower and crashes it.
	That's why they have the label.
	Never happened, people.
	It's an urban legend, but...
	Part of me views this lawsuit along that urban legend.
	Another part of me says, yeah, we were expecting something much more autonomous.
	What do you make of the lawsuit and what do you make of the likelihood of success?
	So it's been amongst Musk's critics and Tesla short sellers.
	One of their biggest criticisms for years has been that Musk's promises and Tesla's promises of self-driving vehicles.
	Was not well grounded in the available science.
	And that he's not only exaggerated, but the allegation is that he is lied.
	So, in studying this over the years, the people that know a lot about this industry, and I turn to them, I don't know as much about it, the more competent, or at least persuasive, evidence is that Tesla has definitely overstated its autopilot program.
	It's the problem with AI in general.
	The ability to replicate the human mind turns out to be a lot trickier than people pretend it is.
	And this is as true in driving as it is in any other context.
	And so there really hasn't ever been the breakthroughs to allow people to drive in an automated way in any near short term.
	There's cruise control, stuff like that, but...
	The automations make a ton of errors.
	So to the extent that Tesla and Musk have made statements to the contrary, and the case goes through all the different times they made statements that at least led a lot of people to believe it was right around the corner.
	And if they paid a little bit extra, they would be on the front edge of this.
	And probably the problematic aspect that also came out is that Tesla, over the last couple of years, Is it effectively Tesla's treating its own customers as guinea pigs to experiment on the electronic vehicle system, on automated, self-automated, self-driving cars?
	And it's been a big pitch of theirs.
	And it's partially why Tesla's, in the views of many, well, put it this way, it's valued at like 10x the ratio of other car companies.
	So people are like, why exactly is that?
	Well, it's going to corner the market on automation.
	And that's going to be a technological revolution.
	The critics have said Tesla's lying about that.
	Elon Musk is lying about that.
	So I think this suit brings a claim for everybody who bought the extra package for self-driving cars on the grounds that various public statements were made, leading them to believe that that was going to be functional, that it's not, and that instead they've really been guinea pigs, and they identify the fact that there's people that have died trying to do these self-driving aspects of the vehicle that don't work.
	So I think Tesla's got a problem in the sense they've over-promised and under-delivered for years on the issue of automated cars because it's probably just not technologically possible in the near short term anyway.
	But Robert, I think it might be technologically possible.
	I think their cars might even be able to do it to some extent now, but are they not going to have the ultimate defense of, well, it's a regulatory issue?
	Don't blame us.
	We couldn't do it.
	Even if we said it were ready for tomorrow.
	We would have to get authorization from regulatory agencies.
	Do they not need government approval?
	Not in that sense.
	And so, I mean, what is...
	They've told different stories.
	They said one story publicly.
	They told the stories of California.
	Internal regulators a different story.
	And, like, what's available is basically, like, cruise control.
	But, like, your automated car will sometimes turn you right into traffic.
	Will turn you right into a brick wall.
	And it's because...
	Recreating the human mind in a vehicle, it's all of AI's problems.
	The fear of AI being able to do that, it just hasn't.
	It's got nowhere near it.
	I mean, they jump up and down when they can win a simple game.
	Oh, look, AI can win a simple game.
	That's not the ability to do all the things the human brain processes.
	And they haven't been able to recreate that experience.
	And the closest you get is basically...
	Higher-end version of cruise control.
	You haven't been able to get something where you can just sit in the back of the car, never operate the vehicle at all, and it can take you wherever you want without severe risk to safety in doing so.
	I've seen both sides present, and that side is much more persuasive, and they've been predicting this now for a decade, and they've been right so far.
	So the question is, to boost the stock, Musk has made a lot of statements that some say crossed the line.
	This suit will get to Discovery, and we'll see what happens.
	It's one of a thousand cases or so that Tesla currently faces.
	I would tend to view this, and this is not because I'm simping for Elon.
	This is, first of all, I would never let an automated car drive me, period, knowing that intelligence was talking about hijacking the auto drive to kill the drivers.
	I'd never let it do that for that reason.
	But this might be like the bondale, the...
	What do they call it?
	The good fraud, like the good promises.
	And we're going to get there.
	But meanwhile, you're owning the cutting-edge car in the first place.
	And if you want to impress your kids and take your hands off the steering wheel, it can read the white line on the side of a highway.
	Just make sure that that white line is clear enough.
	Okay, interesting.
	And I know you spoke about it again on a Barnes Brief on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	By the way, you don't have to pay to support us.
	You can just go join and there's a big community that gets access to a ton of free stuff.
	Your take on Elon finally agreeing to purchase Twitter at the agreed-upon price of $54.20?
	The speculation at the time that he backed out of the deal was that there had been changes in the market that had made it difficult for collateral and other reasons for him to go through with the deal at that time.
	And that what he was really doing was buying time.
	To see so that that issue would get resolved as it was likely to by fall from the analysis I saw.
	And at least those people seem to have been proven accurate.
	And that is the most logical explanation.
	That he may have wanted to try the bot routine to see if he could get it even cheaper.
	But that he had decided that one way or the other, he was actually going to buy it, just wanted to buy it on a different timetable once certain market things had changed in the summer.
	But between the time he put in the bid versus when he was supposed to close, some things happened in the market that made it better for him if he could delay the sale.
	And he just used the bot issue to see if he could negotiate cheaper.
	Seeing that he was on the eve of trial, and then he could be at the risk of a higher price, decided...
	You know, he was going to go through with it.
	So I think he is now going to go through with it.
	It may saddle the banks with some issues, but that's on the banks' part and the way the deal got structured.
	And I think he thinks there's value and utility to move forward.
	As was seen this week by, you know, him putting out, you know, this guy provided Starlink to Ukraine and, you know, very pro-Ukraine, pointed out that given where the course of things were going, you know, maybe a peace settlement would be a smart idea.
	And for that, Senator Lindsey Graham threatened to revoke the Tesla's electronic vehicle tax credit for simply speaking out for peace in Ukraine, as President Trump did again yesterday.
	Lindsey Graham's always been a corrupt hack and a warmonger and a war whore.
	But it showed probably the value to Musk of being able to maintain, you know, how aggressive is Lindsey Graham going to fully be if Musk actually owns Twitter?
	Maybe he approaches it a little bit differently because the guy's kind of a wuss at heart anyway.
	I mean, all those war whores are always wusses underneath.
	And I don't just mean because he probably wears, you know, women's underwear when he goes to sleep.
	I'll say the courage it takes to fight wars with other people's children is truly courageous.
	But Robert, so no one calls you, me, hypocrites or politically partisan bias.
	DeSantis threatens sanctions against Disney.
	For politics, why is that different than Graham threatening sanctions against Elon Musk for politics?
	Oh, it's a major problem.
	I mean, almost guaranteed that they couldn't go through with revoking any electronic vehicle tax credit after Graham made that statement.
	But it just shows you the mindset that someone like Graham would publicly threaten Elon Musk.
	And his goal isn't just to silence Musk.
	It's to deter anybody else.
	To say, if you go out and challenge the war whore narrative for Ukraine, busy, engaged in international terrorism of different kinds, either they or their allies, asking this week that we actually wage nuclear war, and our dementia candidate president going out saying, nuclear Armageddon's coming, nuclear Armageddon's coming, and then the White House having to put out, ignore what he just said, because Zelensky's latest cocaine-fueled nutjob routine.
	While we're blowing up civilian bridges in Crimea and blowing up sabotaging, more proof of that came out this week, that it was sabotaged, that took place in the pipelines, all that.
	But it tells you their mindset.
	Their mindset is, you question us at all on issues like these deep state priority issues like this, then we're going to come after you personally.
	And it's disturbing.
	And so it's good, I think.
	I think Musk will make Twitter more of a free space than otherwise.
	I'm not confident in all of his motivations.
	For that, you can watch the hush-hushes on Elon Musk at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But it's good that Twitter is in a better space from a free speech perspective.
	Elon Musk owns it than its current ownership, that's for sure.
	You took some flack for the Elon Musk hush-hush.
	I think people need to...
	Oh, the people that love Musk.
	Really love Musk.
	I got close friends that have made a lot of money betting on Musk.
	So I always say, I don't fully trust Musk, but nobody's made money betting against the guy yet.
	So that's the two sides of the equation.
	And Robert, I guess before we get...
	Well, we're going to get into the partisan nature of the judicial system in the United States.
	I want to talk about Hunter real quick.
	It wasn't on our menu, but what do you think?
	Is he going to face charges?
	And are the charges that they're talking about having sufficient evidence to charge him for a mere distraction from the actual crimes that are allegedly on that FBI computer or the computer that the FBI has and alleged crimes that might severely implicate 10% for the big guy, Joe Biden?
	I will stick with my...
	What I predicted about Durham was that he would never prosecute anybody consequentially, and he would actually cover up for the FBI, not expose it.
	Now others that have followed this case in detail have come to the same conclusion, that this last prosecution is more of a cover-up effort than an exposure effort.
	And with Hunter Biden, what I've always said is that the deep state will use Hunter Biden as a carrot and stick to keep Biden on script.
	To keep Papa Joe in the right place.
	And if you look at the timing, as some of our local board members made the same connection before I publicly did, which is that Joe Biden comes out and tells everybody, despite polls and the press saying, please don't run again in 2024, he says, I'm running again in 2024.
	The next day, the Washington Post, a favorite publication of the deep state, CIA, national security state, whatever language you want to use on them.
	Is this Hunter Biden's going to get indicted story?
	So I think this was simply a threat to Biden that if he does not, that if he actually runs for re-election, that they will then indict Hunter as a way to derail him.
	So it's just a reminder to him that they run the show.
	He's the puppet, not the puppeteer.
	But I don't see any big indictment coming against Hunter Biden anytime soon.
	Now, Alec Baldwin may be in some trouble, though.
	Well, that's not on the menu for tonight, but we've talked about that.
	But Robert, let's talk about another one that's currently undergoing trial.
	The Oathkeeper, Rhodes, in D.C., trying to get a fair trial.
	Seditious conspiracy, allegedly plotting to violently overthrow the government, stockpiling firearms by transporting them and then leaving him in the hotel room when he goes to protest on January 6th.
	What's your take?
	It's a foregone conclusion he's getting convicted.
	What's your take and what's the ultimate outcome of all of these cases where it's going to be a rubber stamp conviction?
	Do they go any further on appeal?
	I mean, they'll take it up on appeal, but their only likely remedy is going to be...
	Now, I think the sedition charges and the obstruction charges are legally defective, so that might be set aside on appeal.
	But they need to have a conscientious panel.
	It's not clear they'll get one out of the D.C. Circuit.
	Maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up.
	It's probably that Trump or someone like him gets elected in 2024 and pardons or commutes many of them.
	What is being detailed in these cases, aside from the complete joke of the jury pool, is that government continues to hide evidence concerning informants and infiltrators that were involved in instigating January 6th and trying to hide it from the jury, try to hide it from the defendant, and sometimes with the complicity of the courts, unfortunately, going along with that.
	And so that's been the main news on the Oathkeeper case.
	And while the media is talking about them as presumed guilty in attacking them, didn't talk very much about the FBI agent we talked about last week who was found guilty of everything we detailed.
	That's what deep state corruption really looks like.
	That's what dangerous corruption really looks like.
	The Uber people that were involved in covering up hacks from the public also convicted, just like the eBay execs had also been convicted.
	These are the crimes that are not getting the world's attention because the media doesn't want people focused on that.
	Instead, they want them focused on January 6th cases and Alex Jones' show trials because those cases better fit their script only because there is not a conscientious jury or conscientious court to stop it.
	And for those who are not following it, I mean, the level of infiltration in the seditious conspiracy of the Oath Keepers.
	It's the playbook and almost the statistical over-representation that we saw in the Whitmer trial, which ended justly according to us the first time, and then they got their retrial.
	I mean, speaking of, there's a lot of stuff up at the Supreme Court this week, but probably my favorite decision was the 11th Circuit 2-1 decision that said that Florida absolutely has the right.
	To prohibit discrimination based on vaccinated status.
	This was the vaccine passport case.
	Florida had said you can't deny services or accommodations based on a person's refusal to provide personal, private medical information, including their vaccinated status.
	A liberal judge in Florida said, that's outrageous.
	That violates free speech and violates Commerce Clause and a bunch of other nonsense.
	Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that district court decision, said a state has an absolute right and often a duty and obligation to protect its citizens from discrimination based on vaccinated status and that the law is absolutely legal.
	It doesn't govern speech at all for the reasons that we talked about when we first talked about the case.
	This had nothing to do with free speech.
	It was a ludicrous interpretation.
	Regulates conduct, not speech.
	The court made that clear.
	The dissent complained a lot, but the two majority judges really broke down in great detail why the dissent was wrong.
	I posted the case, the case opinion, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but a very good decision from our federal courts while we wait for the Supreme Court to resolve some other big issues this fall.
	It's amazing that we've been around together, Robert, long enough that we discussed this back in the early days.
	And the wheels of justice sometimes turn very slowly.
	We're now two years...
	How long?
	A year and a half later?
	And they finally got the Court of Appeals decision to ratify that you can't ban people because they're not vaccinated.
	You can't ask them to prove their vaccination status.
	Yeah, so you're in the right state there, Viva.
	I will never be up...
	Someone in the chat on Rumble said, Viva, don't get the booster.
	We need you.
	I'm not getting the booster.
	I can't...
	I could not...
	Fathom the person right now, especially a younger man, who would now go out and put that in their body.
	I can't fathom it for this.
	I got a tetanus shot.
	There's other vaccines that are actually vaccines.
	I'll do.
	Couldn't understand, cannot understand anyone who would put this in their body at this point in time.
	FYI for everybody out there, there are now reports not only can it be the spike protein that may be causing some of these health issues in the vaccine can be transmitted through breastfeeding, but also it appears it can be transmitted, according to some recent studies, through sexual activity.
	So if you're on that dating list, only stick with the purebloods, everybody.
	It's good to be married.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants.
	You'll stay married longer.
	Robert, Supreme Court's going to hear a bunch of important decisions, but I think the one that most people are interested in is the Section 230 Immunity.
	The context of that decision is in the context of terrorism, aiding and abetting, promoting terrorism.
	Gonzales' case and...
	Oh, by the way, Fleet Lord Avatar over on Rumble who said...
	Hold on, let me just read this Rumble rant.
	I read it as tongue-in-cheek where he said, Viva!
	You used to do your homework more.
	Hold on.
	It says, Viva Fry, do you do any homework on any cases beyond vaguely knowing who the defendant is?
	I read this with love because I know who Fleetload Avatar is.
	We are covering four times more stuff than we were a year and a half ago.
	I know what I am able to read in a week.
	And what I don't know, I know how to ask questions.
	So that's my purpose sometimes.
	The Section 230 immunity, Robert, is whether or not platforms can claim immunity while...
	Promoting, pushing algorithms that actually promote and put terroristic material, recruiting material, in front of the eyes of people who then go on to be recruited and commit terroristic acts.
	What's going to be the argument?
	And what are going to be the chances of success?
	So the Supreme Court took up two cases from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on this precise issue of what is the scope of Section 230 immunity.
	And people who read it...
	Asked me whether I helped write some of the briefs because they're the arguments I made years and years ago when we brainstormed a group of us ideas for taking down Big Tech.
	And I didn't.
	I had nothing to do with it.
	But it reminds people the value to the court of public opinion.
	If you put ideas out there, you file cases, you file briefs, you argue in the court of public opinion certain ideas, those ideas will get put into the rivers and the streams and the creeks and get up to other lawyers and other legal analysts and other legal scholars and finds a way to get into good briefs, good arguments, good complaints with broader and more arguments and ultimately even courts start to recognize it.
	Five years ago is when we started all that.
	It's great to see it culminate in a very well-argued petition to the U.S. Supreme Court that the court took cert on, so they're going to hear it.
	And so the issue is, what they're going to do is, independent of the consequence on the terrorist side, because they may have an out for Twitter and YouTube and Facebook and Instagram on whether or not what they did.
	Constitutes aiding and abetting under the terrorism act.
	I think they are going to take it to limit Section 230 immunity.
	I think this Supreme Court term, I'll predict it now, will sharply restrict the permissive scope of Section 230 immunity.
	And I think ultimately will authorize in green light laws like the Texas laws.
	So the issue is, all the issues we've talked about, which is Section 230 was started solely for a very limited purpose.
	That an internet service provider, such as those providing message boards, not be held liable for something that's put up there by somebody else, and even if they edit it otherwise.
	In other words, if they wanted them to be able to take down stalking, harassing, illegal, obscene, pornographic materials, without the act of editorializing leading to them being able to be sued, On defamation or libel grounds.
	That's what it was all about.
	All relates back to the Wolf of Wall Street and a lawsuit that was brought concerning by the Wolf of Wall Street.
	By the way, as he talked about when I talked with him...
	He was like, you know, the lawsuit, he goes, we sued for defamation, but actually everything was true.
	But he's like, you know, what are you going to do?
	You've got to sue for defamation.
	You've got to keep the business rolling, baby.
	So that was funny.
	But that's the backstory.
	And that's what they make the point of.
	And they're like, look, what's happened is Section 230 has now been interpreted to be you can't sue big tech, period, no matter what the theory is.
	And this case highlights it because what YouTube and Facebook and Twitter, as other people in other spaces that we've had on Sidebar have detailed, including Eliza Blue, in both the child trafficking and sex trafficking industry and in terrorism,
	the Twitter, YouTube, Facebook chose to monetize Those highly sought-after illicit materials for their personal profit, knowing they were promoting it.
	In other words, what happened is the most critical aid to ISIS was big tech in America, just like the most critical aid to sex trafficking and child trafficking in America is big tech.
	And so somebody who died, who was a U.S. citizen, and this is under the anti-terrorism law, if you're a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, And you are harmed or someone close to you is harmed by a terrorist event.
	You can sue anybody who aided and abetted that.
	So they brought suits saying, look, the people who are ISIS's number one tool for promotion of terrorism was YouTube and Facebook and Twitter.
	And the way they were doing it is they used all the data.
	Like sometimes people complain about Rumble's lack of algorithm.
	That you go to Rumble and Rumble doesn't bombard you.
	With things that you want, because they've grown accustomed to this.
	This was an early complaint of people who are on Locals.
	I was like, what you don't realize is that's bad.
	You don't want people taking all your information and monetizing it by then manipulating you by sending you stuff.
	That's not a good thing.
	I get you think it's a good thing.
	Not a good thing.
	It's been severely damaging to the mental health of a lot of people, particularly young women in America, that grew up on Big Tech.
	I mean, you can see that in the suicide rates, self-harm rates, etc., skyrocketing because of Instagram and places like that.
	So what they did is YouTube would find, okay, who would really want to be a terrorist?
	Okay, they watch this video, they do this, they're doing this.
	Okay, they probably want to be a terrorist.
	Let's send them some ISIS promotional videos.
	And bam, promote it, promote it, promote it.
	And so people are like, okay, we're going to sue.
	You're principally responsible for spreading terrorism.
	In the world.
	Now, I think there's a problem with the aiding and abetting statute going that far.
	I think there is a problem with that because you apply that too loosely, all of a sudden, speech is a crime.
	So I think that provision the Supreme Court will say this can't constitute aiding and abetting.
	But they'll use the case to say Section 230 only means when you're acting as a neutral.
	And you're publishing third-party content.
	It does not mean you're immune for your own algorithmic conduct, for your own speech, for your own activities.
	That would be revolutionary.
	It would radically shrink Section 230 immunity.
	It would open the door to Texas law reform.
	It could totally change the landscape for big tech moving forward, and I think the Supreme Court will do it.
	Well, Clarence Thomas set out his roadmap as to how to do it.
	I can't believe it's two years ago already.
	Robert, the risk, though, is that this is a case that incidentally applies to Section 230, but involves another law which will make it very easy to say, not aiding and abetting.
	We have algorithms.
	We'll do a better job making sure that it doesn't promote illegal activities, but it's all AI algorithmic stuff.
	Anyhow, it sees what you like, and then it generates it.
	We'll just do a better job limiting it when it comes to, I don't know, illicit activities and whatnot.
	But it's not aiding and abetting, and therefore, we'll weasel out of it, and this case will be no more broadly impacting Section 230 immunity than that.
	They're going to go at it anyway.
	They'll use it to, they'll say first, no section, here's my prediction.
	They'll say first, no Section 230 immunity applies, because that was the main reason to take the case, because there was a bunch of conflict between the circuits, more judges.
	What's happening is you're seeing not only more purist constitutionalists on the right.
	Raise questions with Section 230.
	But conscientious, old-school, speech-oriented judges on the left, like Kagan in certain cases, Judge Berzon at the Ninth Circuit said this rule made no sense in terms of how Section 230 is being interpreted.
	I've been in front of her before.
	She's more of a conscientious, left-leaning judge.
	Disagree with her in a range of topics, but tends to be more from the old-school, liberal, Dershowitz-style school.
	And so I think that the reason they took this case was to address Section 230.
	And so they'll address both.
	So they'll carve out protection for big tech from overexpanding, aiding, and abetting too far, while at the same time they will say you are not immune anymore for your own speech, your own conduct.
	Section 230 is not one big green light to do whatever you want without consequence.
	The idea being that...
	If you choose to remove content because it violates clear rules of policy, you'll benefit from some immunity.
	But if you are actively, if your own algorithm is generating problematic content and consumption, then you don't get out.
	Or even further than that.
	In other words, if you preach, like right now, you can't bring a breach of contract claim because they'll say Section 230 or other things like that.
	So in other words, Section 230 will only be, you can't be sued for defamation if you didn't publish it.
	And I think they'll say, that's it.
	It doesn't apply past that.
	And so the whole point of allowing them to editorialize was not to hold them liable as publishers because they editorialize by removing content.
	But it will no longer immunize them for removing content.
	It will no longer immunize them for these other acts, unless it's specifically protected in the statute.
	So their broad viewpoint discrimination will no longer be preempted by Section 230, and that will mean other state claims, equitable claims, unjust enrichment claims, breach of contract claims, misrepresentation claims will be allowed to be brought against them, is what I anticipate the consequence will be.
	It's what I hope it will be, but also I think it's where the direction is moving following where the courts have gone.
	This is a strategy we roadmapped out five years ago, and we've seen more and more judges, more and more scholars, more and more lawyers pick up on it.
	This is a perfect vehicle for that to be resolved.
	And I think that's where they're going to go.
	And so it'll be a big, big, big impact on big tech.
	Robert, do you mind if I take a few minutes to read some Rumble Rants?
	Oh, yeah.
	And we have some chats, too.
	But to go quickly through some other ones, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled their mail-in ballots were illegal, but that was only under Delaware law.
	So it doesn't have application beyond that, but it was a good decision.
	Just to stop you there, on the Delaware decision, It's an interesting decision, but that's the question.
	What broader impact does this have?
	This is going to have to go state by state.
	There's going to be no federal decision.
	I mean, there could be, but it's not the Delaware case.
	The Delaware case is purely a state court case about state law that doesn't have broader application beyond Delaware.
	Which case is the conclusion?
	Hold on a second.
	Mail-in balloting does have to comply with our local rules, and when they don't, they get thrown out like Wisconsin determined earlier this year.
	The Texas Court of Appeals had a case that reminded everybody that intent is not the same as criminal attempt.
	This is a guy who broadcast he was going to go kill some policemen, went up to a place where policemen were located, drove by a policeman and turned around, but didn't go further than that.
	Very important detail, Robert.
	Live streaming the entire time, talking about how he's going to go anti-police, going to kill them, shoot them until they stop moving, yada yada.
	And he had the guns for it.
	He went to where cops were located, etc.
	But their point is, intent is not the same as criminal attempt.
	Criminal attempt, it's like imminent incitement.
	In other words, it has to be beyond the words.
	There has to be the capacity to do it in the case of true threats.
	And there has to be an actual action towards accomplishing it in the case of an attempt.
	And they pointed out, he never actually achieved that.
	And so they set aside his verdict on attempted murder because he never...
	He never was in a position to enact what his intent was.
	Never proactively made any attempt above and beyond speaking when he had the opportunity, didn't move towards, put his hand on, raise a firearm, brandish a firearm, etc., etc.
	But Robert, I read that, and the only thing I'm asking is, okay, I'll say he found a technicality, maybe the correct decision in law.
	Does he get to walk stuff?
	Well, he was convicted of other stuff.
	There's other criminal statutes that apply.
	Okay.
	Good.
	The murder was a dangerous expansion where they were trying to go and credit to the court there, I think, in Texarkana, the Court of Appeals of Texas, for making the right decision.
	The other big Trump cases, or the other, I'll get up to the SCOTUS cases next, but the other one was the, a lot of people were asking about the doctors suing FDA on ivermectin, the Academy of Physicians and Surgeons.
	American Academy of Physicians AAPS filed an amicus brief in support of a suit that was already filed.
	What this is about is the FDA constantly lying about ivermectin to the public, which was causing reputational damage.
	To doctors that prescribed it with hostile action then being taken by state or federal courts relying on the FDA or state or medical licensing boards or hospitals relying upon the FDA.
	And I think I've posted the brief.
	If not, I'll post it.
	Great brief.
	I'll put it up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we put up highlighted briefs so you can just skim through it briefly.
	And get the gist and the key points made.
	But it's good to remind everybody the FDA is not a medical association.
	They're a marketing board.
	That's what they were designed to.
	Like the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not a farm organization.
	It's a marketing board.
	The federal government has misused and abused its power to use their power.
	It never constitutionally or even statutorily had.
	And so they are exceeding their power.
	But you see idiot judges.
	Well, what did the FDA say?
	Because they don't understand the limits on the FDA.
	What they're really saying is, what does my fellow professional class bureaucrat say?
	From my fellow, you know, my Harvard co-graduates say?
	Because that's what they think should rule the world.
	These people have no business doing so.
	They're incompetent.
	But also the FDA keeps lying about ivermectin like they keep lying about the vaccine.
	As more FOIA evidence came out this week disclosing other places the FDA is lying.
	So hopefully they'll be, the key is, is there standing?
	And their point is that when the FDA does something that causes a third party to do something, then that constitutes standing.
	That, in fact, is the issue I'll be taking up to the U.S. Supreme Court in the other case I brought for Children's Health Defense against the FDA because the Sixth Circuit has this very limited interpretation of standing that's wrong.
	If they hear there is there a reputational injury, there's no doubt there's reputational injury.
	Is the FDA's actions a substantial factor in it?
	Absolutely.
	Just because the FDA is the one...
	Inspiring the medical board to take action doesn't mean they can say, well, we didn't do anything bad.
	The medical board did.
	It's never been an excuse in prior standing doctrine cases.
	Standing is, again, everybody, bogus.
	Always been bogus.
	They made it up about 100 years ago.
	Ain't in the Constitution.
	Keep looking for it.
	Ain't there.
	All it's supposed to be is a case or controversy, not the magic word standing.
	But putting all that aside, even under the doctrine of standing, they should have it.
	And hopefully that case moves forward.
	Be a big case.
	Because it could impact a bunch of other things the FDA has been up to bad, like my case for Children's Health Defense with Bobby Kennedy against the FDA about them lying about the kids' vaccine or the vaccine for kids.
	Then we have four other SCOTUS cases, but we can answer some questions first and then run through the SCOTUS.
	And by the way, speaking of SCOTUS, Trump is live now on Rumble.
	So when everybody, when this is over and y 'all go over to watch Trump live.
	Drop a little good good in the chat.
	Real quick, I just want to get to some of the chats.
	It was a $20 rumble rant.
	DEFCON means defense readiness conditions 5 to 1. That was from Brent Wolf.
	This is from Samuel Foundingfather.
	I own Google Stocks.
	What about a class action for hurting shareholders for banning a profitable channel on YouTube?
	That was one of the theories we...
	Yeah, I think that is a...
	And it's going to be an area to go into in multiple other contexts.
	Take what the ESG movement and the left has done and just weaponize it the other way and go after these companies for diminishing the value of their stock by embracing wokeism and other things.
	I think Disney can be sued for all the crap they put on.
	I think Amazon could be sued for that disgrace of a Lord of the Rings travesty that their version of it, which is just awful.
	I think they've diminished Amazon stock by that kind of nonsense.
	And Pfizer can be sued for misleading people about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine that impacted the value of their stock.
	Same with Moderna.
	So I think you're going to see more of these, what they call activist stockholder activism, coming from the opposite direction because they diminished the value of their stock because of this woke left and other corrupt behavior.
	Baby, I'm a simple kind of man says, can you address the fact that H-1B visa holders come from very different culture than America, hence our coding based on their culture origin values?
	I don't...
	I don't know what that issue is, but I don't know enough about it to comment on it in detail.
	Matt G. Hammond says, Robert looked great in the interviews.
	That was about you and Alex Jones, and then I'll just finish with this one right here.
	Jack Flack says, the trans activist community uses the same ban-worthy expressions as applied to TERFs like it's going out of style.
	There's some other Rumble Rats, which I won't be able to get to, but thank you very much, everyone out there.
	Yeah, and to the locals, Chad, who pointed out that they don't think that guy, the Waukesha Parade Killer, is insane.
	They just think he's evil.
	I get it.
	I'm just saying, look at him and say, do you think he has the competency test, what it should be, is do you look at this guy and say, do you think he's got a firm grip on reality?
	That's the main test.
	I don't think so.
	They do, okay.
	Be awake, not woke.
	$5 rumble rant says, Keffels also wanted pics of underage people transitioning, claiming they could help.
	But that's CP.
	Somebody purporting to be Keffels was active in the chat some weeks ago trying to find out your kid's TikToks.
	The guy's a bum.
	Why did you tell me that, Robert?
	I forget.
	I didn't know that, Robert.
	Yes, he did.
	That's who this guy is.
	So, you know, he wants to put Ricardo on blast.
	He can get the return favor.
	I mean, the guy's a pervert.
	That's why he's a pervert, sicko, who wants to harm kids.
	That's who he is.
	And the fact that YouTube is protecting him is an embarrassment and a shame on YouTube.
	Same with Twitter.
	Now, for the four other cases that go to Trump's argument, he went up to Supreme Court.
	Much better.
	Briefing.
	Made good political arguments, good policy arguments, but also pointed out that the 11th Circuit did not even have jurisdiction to do what it did because of the way the appeal was brought up and gamed by the government.
	And that gives the Supreme Court an anchor to avoid the underlying merits if they don't want to get involved in the high-profile political case at this point, while also overturning the 11th Circuit saying you didn't have power to do exactly what you did.
	And there's certain justices...
	Who want to limit appellate courts getting overactive in cases outside the normal realm.
	So I think I posted the Trump brief.
	Good pointing out his control of classification.
	And it's insane.
	The idea that bureaucracy could control over the elected president what's classified.
	His unilateral control over what is a presidential versus personal record.
	They point out a couple of nice facts.
	That the Clinton administration...
	He was putting classified, allegedly classified presidential governmental records in a sock drawer, and the court said that's just fine because the president has unilateral power to decide what is classified, what's personal, and what's presidential.
	The George W. Bush administration had a bunch of records sitting in some storage facility, and I think it was a strip mall, and once again, no questions there that that was entirely within his legal right to do so.
	Not in the custody or possession of the archives.
	And of course, Obama, who famously did the same, putting in an unsecure building.
	Admittedly classified records, admittedly presidential records, and no such consequence.
	So they hammer home that this is unheard of conduct and the big legal problem with unilaterally declaring that the deep state controls what's classified, not the elected president of the United States, while giving them an easy legal hook.
	To say, you're wrong 11th Circuit, but we don't have to get in the middle of the political hot water yet because you had no business making a ruling on this in this stage at the appellate proceedings.
	So that was above average chance that Trump has.
	Not a great chance because the Supreme Court often stays out of these cases at this stage, but above average for them to reverse what the 11th Circuit did.
	And the broader question at law that goes beyond Trump in this particular issue would be declassification and the powers of it for future presidents and for future issues.
	Absolutely.
	And so, I mean, they should take it to clarify those things, but whether they will or not would be a second question.
	Voting rights case was argued this week, two-hour oral argument.
	The core of the issue is, does the Voting Rights Act require you to be race conscious in how you draw congressional districts or race neutral?
	The state of Alabama's position is we should be allowed to be race neutral.
	What happened is in the 80s and 90s, Democrats conspired actually with some Republicans to create majority-minority districts.
	And it was at the expense of Southern Democrats.
	So it was urban minority and Northeastern Democrats favored it because it was going to increase minority representation in the House.
	But a lot of your old-school Southern Democrats didn't because it stripped them of large Democratic voting constituencies in the South.
	It removed a lot of your more populist and traditional and conservative Democrats from the electorate because now they were in a place they couldn't compete with a Republican in, and the majority Black districts were just electing Black representation.
	And so they've used the Voting Rights Act to try to super enforce this affirmative action for congressional representation that, in my view, was never the intention of the Voting Rights Act.
	The nature of the questions in the very extensive two-hour oral argument held.
	The liberals would love to hold on to this interpretation of the Voting Rights Act to continue to require majority-minority districts at a certain level, but the conservatives realize it's time to move past it.
	The courts should not be micromanaging elections, and that you should be allowed to be race-neutral since the whole point of the Civil Rights Act's reforms was to be race-neutral, not race-targeting.
	And so I think the Supreme Court will rule that Alabama's...
	Law district is just fine.
	And it will gut the ability for courts to rewrite congressional districts based on the misapplication of Voting Rights Act.
	And probably a sign of things coming in general.
	I think you're going to see a big push towards race-neutral interpretation of laws in the affirmative action context.
	It's going to strike down some university affirmative action policies.
	Same in the congressional redistricting world.
	Go ahead.
	Well, just this question itself, it'll be race neutral because it's an interesting discussion where some of the justices, I forget which we're asking, it has to be race sensitive as in you can't pack together the black community in one district so that you can dilute them in another and therefore effectively dilute their vote.
	My question is just it's one person, one vote and they want to break it down by race to say, well, we need to draw the borders or we need to draw the districts.
	So that we spread out the concentration for a different political impact than just one person, one vote.
	Where did the idea come from race?
	What was the word?
	Race?
	Not race specific, but race...
	Race neutral.
	Race neutral versus race...
	Motivated.
	Motivated.
	Race conscious is what they would call it.
	Where did the idea of race conscious districting even come from?
	In the 80s, by the left, were they conspiring actually with white Republicans in the South.
	So, because the thought process is, you know what, we can increase minority representation in the House.
	White Republicans are like, we can increase the number of Republicans in the House, so let's stack and pack all the minorities in one or two districts.
	And, I mean, what's interesting is that you could argue it diluted black voting power, because now, rather than being a factor in three or four districts, say, in a seven-district state, they were now really only impactful in two.
	But it was the deal cut between the black political machine and the Northeastern liberals who loved it.
	And so that's how it happened.
	And they said that it's not real racial representation.
	It's a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and it's a dilution of our voter group if we don't have majority-minority districts.
	And to me, that was never what the point of the Voting Rights Act was supposed to be.
	And so it was misguided.
	And it just invited...
	Judicial intervention unnecessarily in legislative districts, in congressional districts, they're supposed to be written by the legislative branch, not by the courts anyway.
	So I think that's where the court is going, and that was most of the interpretation, even from people who didn't want to hear that on the left, that that was their same interpretation of the oral argument this week.
	The other two big cases up at SCOTUS, they're going to take a big attorney-client privilege case.
	So this is about, and it's big in the tax context especially.
	But what's been happening is courts have been saying, we're not going to call your lawyer's advice attorney-client privilege, even though there's a client, even though there's an attorney, even though it concerns the law, even though everybody's expectation by both the client and the lawyer was that it was privilege, if we think it was business advice.
	Now, part of this is to get around the problem of using your lawyer to do things that are not legal at all and then disguising it as attorney-client privilege.
	But they've gone much further than that in favor of the government.
	There's been a split.
	Because when it came to corporate investigations, where often what they're doing is not legal, judges like Kavanaugh, when he was at the D.C. Circuit, and a lot of other federal judges were like, well, we don't want somebody to have to disclose their internal corporate investigation.
	In fact, there was a Halliburton case, old Dick Cheney.
	Well, they got caught defrauding the government.
	They wanted to hide their internal investigation that exposed the criminality and the scale of it.
	And the court led by Kavanaugh said, the D.C. Circuit said, absolutely, that's attorney-client privilege.
	Well, when it's the government saying it's not attorney-client privilege, courts have come to the opposite conclusion.
	So now the Supreme Court will have to provide some guidance.
	When is it attorney-client privilege?
	What they should say is if it comes from an attorney and it concerns matters of law...
	It's privileged.
	That should be the standard.
	But in this particular case, the issue is their argument.
	They're arguing that it's mixed with other non-solicitor client privilege information.
	If it's like literally, what they've said is if your lawyer prepares your tax return, it's not attorney-client privilege.
	I've always found it to be ludicrous.
	There are ways around that.
	So let's say you hire a lawyer.
	The lawyer has someone under what's called a Covell accountant do all the tax accounting review.
	And then they come up with what your tax risk is.
	And then a more limited subset of documents and information is given, but what's necessary, but not beyond what's necessary, to an independent third-party accountant who does the returns.
	They can't get the attorney-client privilege information.
	You get the benefit of good tax law analysis without it.
	So there's ways to deal with this.
	But what they basically did is, if your lawyer's just calculating things, okay, of course, again, that's not law.
	What they've done is they've kept expanding it and saying, if it involves business, if it involves taxes, if it involves something else, magically legal privilege is gone, even though it's an attorney, a client talking about the law.
	And that's the problem with it.
	I mean, would it just not be an issue of what a client has paid the attorney by way of professional opinion?
	I mean, I understand you can then pay for it.
	What they started to say, it doesn't matter.
	If it involves taxes, it can't be attorney-client privilege.
	If it involves finances, it can't be attorney-client privilege.
	Now, the political reality is it's who's asking.
	If it's the government asking, the courts say no attorney-client privilege.
	If it's a citizen suing somebody big and powerful with government protections, magically it applies.
	There needs to be a consistent legal principle to stop this political manipulation.
	And then the last case to discuss, but maybe the fun case to discuss, you can go to jail for parody in America, but maybe one of the funniest...
	Briefs written to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	This is The Onion.
	They're asking for amicus status in this case because they have a vested interest in making sure that people do not go to jail for parody.
	The underlying case, we're in Ohio, I believe.
	A man creates a police Facebook.
	It was a wonderful parody.
	I mean, it was a brutal parody.
	Now, some of it, of course, is like the Onion and the Babylon Bee are coming true.
	For example, one of his parodies was that the local police was providing roaming vans to conduct abortions.
	And all this stuff was meant to be so over the top that it was an obvious parody.
	But actually, there's some jurisdictions that are now going to be...
	There's some in Illinois, they want to send them to the border to induce people to come across the border to commit what would be a crime in that state.
	Which is going to raise all kinds of constitutional and legal issues because you're conspiring in one state to violate that state's laws but do the crime in another state.
	But mostly it was obvious, awesome parody.
	But he was parodying the police force and apparently they didn't take it too well.
	Well, he created a Facebook page.
	It looked like the original.
	It didn't have the blue checkmark.
	He was posting things.
	Hilarious parody to some, offensive, interfering with police operations to others, that being the police.
	He was arrested, detained for four days, ultimately not convicted on a trial, and is suing.
	The Onion is petitioning the Supreme Court for amicus status in this case.
	And their brief is quite funny because when they said, you know, the Onion is the best parody paper on earth, it reaches 4.5 trillion people.
	And I was like...
	Hold on a second.
	I'm trying to think of it.
	I tried to reread it to see if it was talking about 4.5 trillion repeats.
	So they said sometimes parody is absurd and it does not need to be specified.
	Yeah, it doesn't put a disclaimer.
	In fact, the whole point of parody is gone if you have a disclaimer.
	By the way, now I'm about to do some parody.
	I mean, that's not the point.
	Yet that's what the Sixth Circuit said, that they were so eager to protect this local police force from being mocked and satirized that they're like, yeah, you can go to jail.
	And you don't have free speech protection.
	And the Supreme Court will overturn the Sixth Circuit.
	I'll predict that now.
	But if you just want to read a fun brief, The Onion is wonderful by using parody to point out the constitutional protection that must apply for parody.
	Robert, now, I'm a neurotic, fear-of-God individual when they make a factually false statement in a brief.
	Can they get in trouble for making a false statement under...
	Could they be sanctioned for making factually incorrect statements in their brief in amicus?
	Not if it's for parody persuasive purposes.
	And then the second question was also, I appreciate the individual was arrested, tried, and then found innocent, or found not guilty.
	How the hell did he stay in jail for four days?
	Like, how does that happen?
	And how do the police get off on qualified immunity for continuing to detain this individual for four days on those charges, interfering with police operations?
	I mean, because you had a court system that was not protecting the First Amendment when it exposed and embarrassed police, sadly.
	And we've seen too many illustrations and examples of that.
	It's where the system sometimes atrophies.
	But calling it out in a court of public opinion, writing persuasive arguments that get everybody talking just because of how funny it is, that is, you know, it's almost as funny as my favorite ever request for specific relief, which was a criminal defendant who's filing pro se, filed a motion for specific relief.
	And he requested these particular eight people that he thought had screwed him over.
	To the court to instruct them to kiss his rear, literally, in the court.
	So it was a fun little thing.
	But this is great parody, great well-done job by The Onion.
	Fun little brief.
	I believe I posted it as well at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	And Robert, I'll say, we were 20,000 people watching us live while Trump is speaking.
	Trump is now at 50,000 people.
	Live on Rumble, a right-side broadcasting network, I think, was at a much larger number, and very few people watching Trump on YouTube.
	So the exodus has happened, people, and the numbers on Rumble are becoming significant.
	Some people were hypothesizing that YouTube reinstated Nick's channel because the next day he went to Rumble and drew 20-plus thousand people, and I doubt that was the business consideration.
	But, Robert, one more rant or two more rants just because someone said something funny.
	It was...
	Ooh, ooh, quickly.
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	One, two, three.
	One day that Rumble will allow us to highlight comments, but Ildi the Hun says, I'm a one-timer, but I watch you all the time.

▲