Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 30, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:09:08

Ep. 135: Paul Pelosi, Elon Musk, Brook Jackson, True the Vote; White Boy Rick & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Uh-oh.
	I'm in screen.
	Hello, Indivisibles.
	I'm here to highlight something that is keeping me up at night.
	And I know this group really understands what I'm about to say.
	I know we're all focused on the 2022 midterm elections, and they are incredibly important.
	But we also have to look ahead.
	Because you know what?
	Our opponents certainly are.
	Right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election.
	And they're not making a secret of it.
	The right-wing controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures, yes, you heard me that correctly, state legislatures the power to overturn presidential elections.
	Just think, if that happens, the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote or even by the anachronistic electoral college, but by state legislatures, many of them Republican-controlled.
	But there's also good news in the face of this very real threat to democracy.
	Indivisible has launched.
	Crush the coup to make sure we're ready to defend democracy in 2024.
	They've put together a list of critical races in six key states and how you can get involved.
	Do you support Crush the coup?
	The left can't mean and they can't come up with me.
	Crush the coup?
	Why don't you make it sound more like something I make in the toilet in the morning?
	Crush the coup.
	Crush the coup.
	And state legislature candidates?
	Each of these races is highly competitive.
	She's staring right down into the...
	Look at that, my goodness!
	Staring into the pits of your soul, and she's sucking it out!
	She's sucking your soul out right there.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my...
	Look!
	You've been a bad boy, everybody.
	You have not been crew cuts or crushing, now have you?
	And your dollars could very well decide the winners.
	I'm asking you one more time to give me money.
	And the winner of the next presidential election.
	To overturners.
	Yes, you heard me that.
	To rule.
	They're not making a secret.
	To literal opponents certainly are.
	Right-wing extremists already have a plan.
	To literally steal the next presidential election.
	Clip it!
	That was Hillary Clinton.
	I think I got the right mic now.
	Let me make sure that I got the right mic.
	That was Hillary Clinton engaging in some of that there election denial.
	Hillary Clinton is a conspiracy theory pushing election denier.
	And she's an election denier predictor.
	She's a predictive election denier.
	She's an election denier.
	You know what I'm getting at.
	People, you might notice a couple of things here.
	Let me just start off by saying...
	Okay, I've got the correct microphone at this point in time, correct?
	Okay.
	You may notice a couple of things different.
	I am an idiot.
	I don't think the echo's bad because I've got the mats on the ground, but I've gone back to the old backdrop, but I've moved off of the backdrop to create space, create depth.
	And I've put the camera...
	Not on my computer anymore, so it won't jiggle.
	I mean, it only takes seven years to learn these lessons, because I'm an idiot.
	Before we get into it, let me make sure that we're live on Rumble.
	I unfortunately can't access my Twitter feed, because I've been locked out of my account.
	Just so pathetic, KB724, it says in a Rumble rant, on Rumble.
	Before we get into all of it, standard disclaimers.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
	For those of you who choose to support the channel through Super Chats, YouTube takes 30% of this.
	If you don't like that and you want to support the channel, Rumble, where we are simultaneously streaming and, in fact, where we will go over to exclusively at about the 30-minute mark because Rumble, good.
	YouTube, not good.
	Rumble has Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	You can feel better.
	We, the creator, get more.
	And you are supporting a platform that supports free speech, unlike YouTube.
	And now Twitter.
	Those bastards.
	No medical information.
	No election fortification advice.
	No legal advice.
	But we're going to talk about some Shia Tonight people that has hit the fan and you can't ask questions anymore.
	You can't ask questions.
	We'll get into it.
	What a joke.
	All these debates, all the Dems are the same.
	What a joke is...
	Fetterman is not a joke.
	Fetterman is a very sad situation.
	He needs family to take care of him and not exploit him.
	Whatever.
	We've talked about that.
	We might get into it again tonight.
	Have a good, good livestream.
	I am off to a church celebration, but we'll, of course, watch this later.
	Nothing but good topics, I think.
	Tonight is good stuff.
	I mean, the story heard around the world.
	And it's not a question.
	There's no joy in the story.
	Someone got assaulted, but how?
	The details are scant, and the details are curious.
	Did Rittenhouse correctly mark his territory as per daily instruction?
	I don't get the chat, but I thank you for it.
	I'll read one more chat, and then I'm going to...
	Still lots of echo.
	Hold on just one second.
	I'm going to put up on that.
	Okay, give me a second.
	Okay, there we go.
	There we go.
	That should be better.
	You see the mat?
	Let's just do that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Is that better?
	That's better.
	I can hear it.
	Okay.
	That should be better.
	Is that better, people?
	And I don't think it's the mic.
	I think it's just the way I set up the room when I was...
	USB live?
	It's...
	No, because it's a problem with the mic.
	It has been a mic issue the entire time.
	I'm not rebooting this.
	Okay, now it's going to have gotten better for two reasons.
	My apologies, everybody.
	I'm an idiot.
	I went from using the Mac built-in mic to using the camera mic, which I've never used before.
	There's a $5 Super Chat from Lander15 that says, your audio is horrible.
	I think I fixed it.
	Is it better now?
	I think we fixed it.
	I want to pretend that these are things that I do on purpose to make people, to generate...
	Is it better now?
	Sorry about that, everyone.
	It's a good thing I didn't get into my Twitter extravaganza.
	Wrong mic.
	Mic is not on.
	Viva, it's not the mic.
	Panicked.
	You are not using the correct mic.
	Mic is wrong.
	You might see me sweating through my shirt again, everybody.
	My New Zealand bank won't let me rumble rant, but it will let me super chat.
	So we'll give you a couple of bucks here.
	See you on Rumble.
	Thank you very much, Jenny Partridge.
	And look at that beautiful dog staring at the frog.
	Mic is off.
	Let me just go to the bottom and say, got it.
	Ah, okay.
	Jeez Louise.
	Ah, Lord.
	Gotta get out.
	Gotta get here with that hair.
	I'm married.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	Thank you.
	One of these days, I'll get it smooth.
	Can you do a segment on the big chess lawsuit, Hans Neiman versus Magnus Carlsen, et cetera?
	Absolutely.
	I'll do that this week.
	That's fantastic.
	And I know what's going on.
	That is one.
	I haven't read the lawsuit, but I can imagine in the game of chess, accusing your opponent of cheating is a highly defamatory statement.
	My grandmother, God bless her soul, got accused of cheating at golf, was banned from golf courses because she cheated at golf.
	But when you're a 75-year-old lady and I think it was Century Village or maybe Fort Lauderdale.
	You know, being accused of cheating or in fact cheating.
	But let's just say being accused of cheating, not a big deal.
	When you're a chess player and opponents might believe that you're cheating or you are in fact cheating, but someone accuses you of cheating, much more serious.
	I think it's some obscene amount, like 250 million, but whatever.
	How does one cheat at chess?
	So the idea is that he might be getting, you know, like the same way...
	Oh, it's the poker cheating thing.
	Getting information, having people play virtual games, hook up computers, run a scan of all of Magnus Carlsen's chess games so that you can respond to his moves in real time.
	So it involves real-time communication.
	But there is a way to cheat at chess.
	What was the guy's name?
	The guy who allegedly cheated at poker.
	His name started with a P. That doesn't matter.
	Mike Postle, thank you very much.
	All right, so anyways, tonight, big stuff.
	TikTok lawsuits, Chinese detention centers across the world, Paul Pelosi, the story heard around the world, Elon Musk buying Twitter, Elon Musk's tweet at Hillary Clinton, which he then subsequently deleted.
	Oh my goodness, oh my goodness, oh my goodness.
	Elon's response to attacks should be, is it because I'm from Africa?
	Okay, so let me just tell you what's going on with me.
	I have been locked out of my Twitter feed because I allegedly posted a tweet that allegedly broke one of the rules of Twitter.
	Which rule is it?
	Who the hell knows?
	They don't tell you.
	What should you do?
	Delete the tweet, and it's an admission.
	It's an admission of wrongdoing that I broke the rules.
	I don't know which rule I broke, allegedly, because they don't tell you when they lock you out of your account.
	All that I can tell you is...
	This was the tweet.
	I'll get into this just a touch before Barnes gets in here because I don't want to talk too much about the Pelosi incident without Barnes.
	There's this individual named Matt Gertz.
	He's a reporter.
	Put out a 16-thread tweet with himself about now a whole bunch of right-wing Republican extremists whatever are going to believe a whacked-out conspiracy theory because Elon Musk put out a tweet.
	That said, you know, there might be more to this story linking to an article in the Santa Monica Observer, which might be a...
	I won't say a misinformation website.
	It might be an entertainment website.
	National...
	Not National Geographic.
	Not National Lampoon's.
	National Enquirer.
	It might be a National Enquirer type.
	In 2016...
	The Santa Monica Observer, and the same journalist who wrote the piece that Elon Musk links to, wrote a piece that Hillary Clinton died in 2016, and it's a body double that has since been replaced for her.
	Some people might believe it.
	I don't judge them.
	Everyone's entitled to believe what they want to believe, and if it doesn't hurt other people, in a meaningful sense, not in a, how dare you say that sense.
	The guy puts out a 16-thread tweet with himself.
	How people are going to believe this crazy conspiracy theory, and it just, you know, tweets, replies to himself, replies to himself, replies to himself.
	I had responded to him two times before in two separate tweets, and then I just retweet his tweet, and I say, a 16-tweet thread with himself explaining everything that happened before police released body cam footage or disclosed where they found DePop's clothing, because that's what I want to know.
	And Matt Gertz accuses others of conspiracy theory disinformation.
	Massive events will generate massive discussion, period.
	And my punctuation was correct.
	It was the next sentence.
	It was clear.
	That's my tweet.
	That's my tweet.
	Violating one of our rules.
	This happened, by the way, the tweet got flagged at 425 Eastern time.
	And the tweet, I published the tweet at...
	425.
	It was within 30 seconds.
	Maybe within a minute.
	And I'm like, oh, okay.
	That's the tweet.
	Anyone want to take a wild guess as to what rule that can possibly, in any realm of the universe, violate?
	I'm open to suggestions.
	So it says, hold on.
	It says, what do you do?
	What can you do?
	Well, you can delete the tweet by clicking delete.
	You acknowledge that your tweet violated the Twitter rules.
	I don't have enough middle fingers to say how I feel about that recommendation.
	We interviewed James O 'Keefe and he said, you know, the biggest mistake of his life or the thing that he regrets the most was having borne false witness to himself.
	Ordinarily, if I could see the tweet violating a rule, I might be inclined to delete it.
	Not waste two hours or two days or whatever to get the account back.
	Load of crap.
	I'm not deleting that tweet.
	I'm not acknowledging that I broke any rules because that is something that the powers that be will hold against you forever.
	What's very interesting is how that tweet, innocuous as it is, because it's innocuous.
	I'm not making any positive affirmations.
	I'm not making any name-calling, harassment, targeted, doxing.
	Whatever.
	It's innocuous and pointing to the fact that in as much as someone wants to criticize Elon Musk for having shared an article, which he might not really have known what the Santa Monica Observer was,
	in as much as people want to float conspiracy theories, and I'm saying conspiracy theories, and we'll get into it when Barnes gets here, the idea that Mainstream media, within 24 hours, they don't even know where the guy's pants are.
	They can say that right-wing extremists, that this is the result of political rhetoric, right-wing, far-right political vitriol.
	Load of crap.
	You know what?
	Let's talk about it until Barnes gets here.
	Paul Pelosi was apparently violently attacked by what is being described as an intruder into his house at two in the morning who broke through a window with a hammer.
	Allegedly, as the reports are currently going, was heard saying, where's Nancy?
	Where's Nancy?
	Or is alleged to have said, where's Nancy?
	Where's Nancy?
	Paul Pelosi ends up in the hospital.
	Allegedly with a fractured skull and I believe a broken bone on his arm or injuries to his arm, underwent surgery, is expected to make a full recovery.
	Those are the initial details.
	Some are calling it an attempted political assassination.
	And then details come out that the individual, there was a police call placed where it's the reporting person, RP, saying...
	Someone's in my house.
	I don't know who he is, but his name is David, and he's a friend.
	That audio recording on the police recording was actually, from what I can tell, deleted afterwards.
	I'm going to bring Barnes in so that we can get it.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	We have to start with the big one before we go.
	I'll lay the facts down.
	Then we're going to get into all of this.
	That recording, dispatch, was deleted from the list, from the docket.
	The man was arrested allegedly after having lunged at Paul Pelosi and struck him with a hammer in his underwear.
	Allegedly, apparently, a third person opened the door to let the police in.
	And both the man and Paul Pelosi were, at least one was in their underwear.
	Both had hammers apparently, but maybe it turns out that only Paul had a hammer and the man grabbed the hammer from him.
	The man was in his underwear.
	We don't know where his clothes are.
	We don't know.
	Who let the person in?
	Apparently, the initial dispatch was a wellness check on Paul Pelosi.
	And then it turns out that the assailant, the accused, still innocent, you know, legally innocent, is a Berkeley resident, mentally unwell individual who had contacts with nudist individuals, himself was a nudist, hemp jewelry-making individual who resided in Berkeley.
	He's in jail.
	Paul Pelosi has had a surgery.
	And it's expected to make a full recovery.
	And people are running with, Robert, Robert, help the world make sense for us.
	Did I miss any salient facts or allegations?
	Because the facts are not yet known.
	The individual, 42-year-old Canadian from British Columbia, moved to Berkeley.
	Is clearly mentally unwell by all accounts.
	His girlfriend, Gypsy something or other, is a nudist.
	Apparently she's in jail.
	Allegedly, I'm not sure if we know the reasons for which she's in jail.
	The guy allegedly broke into Paul Pelosi's home at 2.40 or 2.00 whatever in the morning.
	Either in his underwear or got in his underwear afterwards.
	There was a wellness check.
	There was a call to the police.
	Paul Pelosi said he was going to the bathroom.
	Got on his phone.
	Police were let in by a third party.
	The man allegedly lunged at, struck Paul Pelosi.
	Did I miss any relevant facts there?
	Well, we don't know all the facts.
	There's some terrible memes in our live chat.
	At VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Visual images, you won't be able to lock out anytime soon.
	But yeah, I mean, this story...
	It smelled like Juicy Smollett's kind of story.
	In other words, not saying that Pelosi faked it.
	It's just saying that the media narrative, the Democratic narrative, makes no sense.
	So the Democrats jumped on this story right away, not as a problem of crime being epidemic in San Francisco, which it is, not as some oddball incident, but it clearly must be right-wingers break into the House as an extension of January 6th to attack poor Paul Pelosi.
	And it's like, In San Francisco at 2.30 in the morning?
	It's like, I don't think so.
	So then, as Harmeet Dillon pointed out, and as others have pointed out, there's intense security around Pelosi's house.
	She explained that it was tough to get service of process because of how intense the security is.
	There's been no explanation about that.
	There apparently is video camera footage.
	None of it has been released or disclosed.
	There's been contradictory stories out of the San Francisco Police Department.
	The initial story was that there was a third person present.
	Now they're saying, no, there wasn't a third person present.
	The wellness check thing doesn't make any sense.
	Why somebody else would be in their underwear doesn't make any sense.
	The only footage we've seen of any glass being broken is the...
	With the glasses coming out, not going in.
	I'll say what I said about that theory.
	I've never broken into a house before, but I can imagine if you smash a hammer through the glass, you can get it pointed through and then to pull it back, you can pull the window out.
	I can see that.
	I wouldn't place too much weight on that.
	But, Robert, for people who are saying, in response to the security query, people are saying, well, Nancy Pelosi was out of town.
	The residence is not left unattended.
	Unsecured while Pelosi's out of town.
	I mean, people can do a number of things to a property when Pelosi's out of town.
	Is that a wrong way to respond?
	I mean, put it this way.
	There's been no official confirmation that there was no security presence.
	And the thing with the glass is the doors don't even match.
	The talk is that he broke in through a sliding door.
	The doors we've seen photos of glass footage are not sliding doors.
	So was there something else going on?
	I mean, all of it.
	And it's the same Paul Pelosi who was recently arrested for DUI.
	So there's a lot of anomalies with this story.
	The attempt by the media and by Democrats to try to blame this on Republicans was just...
	Immediately.
	Yeah, immediately.
	I mean, Bob Woodward embarrassing himself on national TV, suggesting this.
	I mean, what a lazy so-called investigative journalist.
	He's always really just been a CIA boy, but that's another story for another day.
	Nothing about the story makes sense.
	So at least the media narrative makes no sense at all.
	The Democratic narrative makes no sense at all.
	Trying to blame this, I mean, especially after there was a Republican that was attacked by that man who admitted he tried to run over him and kill him because of...
	Of politics.
	That story was buried while this story is highlighted.
	And the media's willingness to believe this nonsense is just that this is going to be an embarrassing story for the media.
	Glenn Greenwald was pointing out there's this huge problem.
	He goes, first, so hold on.
	So a guy breaks into your house.
	He's attacking you.
	And then in the middle of it, he says, yeah, go ahead and take a bathroom break.
	And Glenn Greenwald's like, I don't think so.
	It's all for my number one question.
	And I'm wondering if this is why I got locked out of my Twitter account.
	Where are his clothes?
	Like, he either is alleged to have gone from wherever he lived to Paul Pelosi's house in his underwear.
	Get through whatever security they did or did not have.
	And if they didn't have, let them say it.
	Break into the house in his underwear.
	And then look for Nancy Pelosi.
	Allegedly violently attacked Paul.
	But, you know, Paul is so sneaky.
	He says, let me go to the bathroom.
	Or he took his clothes off in the house.
	Then I got questions.
	Not only that, it's not clear when the assault actually took place, because at least the police report seemed to suggest that it took place.
	It was almost like when the cops arrived, that they're arguing over a hammer, and that Paul Pelosi has the hammer, then the other guy has the hammer, and then he attacks him in front of the police.
	I mean, nothing about this makes sense.
	Now, San Francisco is a notoriously corrupt town.
	Pelosi's have extraordinary political influence in that town.
	So I don't think anybody has confidence that we'll get an honest police report out of this or that we'll get an honest investigation into this.
	But something is clearly way, way off.
	But the political narrative that this was a Democratic political thing, a Republican attack, is nonsense.
	I mean, they were trying to go through his blog, and they just decided to ignore all the leftist stuff, all the BLM stuff, all the nudist camp stuff, all that.
	There was even...
	Instructions apparently by the police to the press not to discuss the fact that he was the nudist guy that people actually were aware of.
	Everything about this screams something else happened than the media democratic narrative coming out of it.
	And my guess is there'll be something embarrassing about Paul Pelosi.
	And I'll say this for everyone out there.
	This is a perfect example where one can...
	Explain the different spectrum of conspiracy theories.
	Some might say, I don't know, I haven't heard this yet, that it just never happened, Paul's faking his injuries.
	By all accounts, he was legit injured, fractured skull, by all accounts.
	In a hospital, etc.
	Someone was raising, not an issue, but questions about the hospital that he went to.
	That I don't know about either.
	It's just a weird...
	Everything about it's a weird story that suggests something else.
	And Elon Musk tweeted about it, but then I guess he took, in response to Hillary Clinton, and even though he owns Twitter, apparently he took down his own tweet, and now Twitter's trying to suppress the story.
	So we'll see how, but it just, this will be a test for Musk.
	You know, Musk, now that he owns Twitter, this is the kind of story that needs full vetting.
	An investigative journalist from the lean's left, Glenn Greenwald, has said there's just huge flaws in this story.
	These are the things that require investigation because they're things that just don't add up.
	How he broke in doesn't add up.
	Why he's in his underwear doesn't add up.
	Why his clothes are gone doesn't add up.
	Why Pelosi has the hammer at one point doesn't add up.
	Why Pelosi's going to the bathroom to make the call before, apparently.
	The wellness.
	The wellness check is the very...
	Wellness check doesn't add up.
	None of it adds up.
	And I guess the call has been leaked, or released, but I haven't listened to it.
	But what we know is there's got to be video footage around that home.
	And why isn't that video footage released yet?
	Something's on there that doesn't comport with the official narrative.
	There's a funny one that said, all 47 cameras malfunctioned.
	Case closed.
	Apparently the cops have body cam footage of the moment.
	You can't tell me the Pelosi home doesn't have security footage.
	There's little, little chance of that.
	I mean, it's one of the most secured homes in America because of her political status and her proclivity for security.
	So you combine the two.
	It's inconceivable.
	But Robert, a lot of people are floating a name around that others might not be familiar with.
	I am familiar with it.
	Ed Buck, do you want to give us the clip and dirty?
	He's a guy Democrats covered up for a long time.
	He would drug young black men and engage in abusive behavior towards them, and several of them died when he drugged them.
	I mean, it was just another one of these sort of sick...
	Perverts that dominate the Democratic Party in California, to be frank about it.
	There's no other way to put it.
	And the media tried to cover for Buck.
	And Democrats tried to cover for Buck until too many dead people showed up.
	It has a weird component.
	It may have a sexual subcomponent.
	Something about it doesn't add up at all.
	We will see where it goes.
	We're going to move over to Rumble soon, but Robert, the other fun of the day.
	So Hillary puts out a tweet, blames it on rhetoric, right-wing extremism.
	The same Hillary who says right-wing extremists are literally going to steal the next election and then goes on to blame it on the Supreme Court justices, implying that they are also right-wing extremists, knowing what just happened with Kavanaugh, which was a legit, overt, confirmed attempt.
	Elon Musk then says in response to that, there might be a tiny bit more to the story, and links an article from the Santa Monica Observer.
	I suspect...
	Which, by the way, I'm pretty sure the Santa Monica Observer is kind of a left-leaning publication.
	I don't know.
	The guy who wrote the article that Musk tweeted, I forget his name now, but someone in the chat will know, he had also written an article in 2016 that Hillary Clinton had died, and it's a body double.
	So, you know, I can see either he...
	Felt bad that he was perhaps making a joke about serious injury to Paul Pelosi, or he just didn't realize that maybe it's not even worth redirecting people to that website because it might be like a National Enquirer type thing.
	But he deleted the tweet, which, as I'm finding out now, it's an acknowledgment that you broke the rules or you did something bad.
	It's an admission of guilt that Elon should not have done, but maybe he has his reasons.
	I'm still locked out of my Twitter account, Robert.
	I realized I couldn't care less about Twitter, but I'm hell or high water not deleting that tweet.
	Robert, before we go over to Rumble, everyone, the link is there.
	It's get ready to move on over.
	What do we have on the menu tonight?
	Bearing in mind we're just not going to get through all of it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The Chinese secret police issue that arose from an NGO's report, there's some controversies about that NGO, but I put up their entire report.
	Their sourcing was Chinese sources, so that'll be interesting to discuss what exactly is going on there.
	We have vaccine case updates, Tyson, Pfizer, New York, Italy.
	We have affirmative action is going to be up at the Supreme Court.
	We have First Amendment cases concerning the rights to observe drop boxes.
	We have the RNC suing Google.
	We have TikTok escaping responsibility in a way that I hope will get ultimately overturned by the pending Supreme Court cases on the same issue, but it really highlights the significance of what this issue is about.
	I mean, TikTok basically helped kill kids.
	That's the short answer.
	And is getting away with it.
	We have someone who wasn't a cop, who acted like a cop.
	Steve Lato called it the fake cop gets immunity too.
	And how the federal courts just find every excuse in the world to give immunity to the political branches, whether they're the federal government, state government, police, or whomever.
	And then another about half dozen or so cases of interest and consequence across the country that developed over the past week.
	And I'll read these before everyone mosey on over.
	I see the numbers going down on YouTube, which is a good sign.
	The woke tech world has gone in overdrive to remove any political opposition from the internet in the last two weeks before the election.
	I just wonder if Elon got a threat.
	Like, Elon, we're going to Alex Jones you if you don't take that down and apologize.
	We'll see.
	Rumble is working.
	So we're live on Rumble.
	There's over 10,000 people.
	LOL, just five, like when AOC was nearly killed at the Capitol.
	Where is she?
	Where is she?
	She has insights for us on inflation that she gave us this week.
	It turns out the government printing currency, printing money has nothing to do with it.
	Good to get that economics expertise from her.
	It's endless.
	Has Trump disavowed the Pelosi attacker pride?
	I think that's a joke.
	Winston did it?
	No, he most certainly did not.
	All right, I see the Democratic trolls are out tonight.
	That's a good sign.
	That means they're subscribing at least.
	What is that?
	I didn't even mean to bring that one up.
	What's this?
	Okay.
	Sorry, I'm not making light.
	I'm more likely to believe this dude is a close but private friend of the Pelosi's.
	Publicly, they've said he never knew him and never met him before.
	Though it's not clear to me how exactly they confirm that because my understanding is he's in the hospital and in surgery.
	So not in a place where he can confirm anything at the moment.
	All right, people.
	That's it.
	Let's do it.
	Mosey on over.
	There's 6,556 people still here.
	We should see the number on Rumble go up to 17,000 in a few minutes.
	I'm going to end it on YouTube.
	And the first thing that we're going to talk about is the election decision, which I'm going to post a clip to and put it here on YouTube afterwards because we are just talking lawsuits, not anything more.
	Removing in three.
	Oh, shoot.
	I did it too quickly.
	All right.
	Let's let everyone trickle in here.
	Robert, You know, let's actually start with the TikTok one.
	Because this is where I read the decision.
	I can't even understand how the judge got to the conclusion based on the premises upon which that judge's conclusion was based.
	So the bottom line of this lawsuit is that parents of deceased children who died doing some choke challenge, the blackout challenge, where they would strangulate themselves until losing consciousness.
	Fucking challenge, Robert.
	It hurts my stomach to think about these things in as much as the suicide kit story.
	They do these challenges, like multiple, dozens of young people, average age 13 died, some as young as 7, 8. They hang themselves with a rope and die doing a blackout challenge, which is algorithmically promoted to them.
	They don't know it exists until TikTok.
	Through its AI, actively puts the idea, puts the trend, puts the challenge in front of their young eyes.
	Admittedly, parents need to be following this.
	I'm proud to say my kids are off TikTok, by the way.
	They're onto YouTube stories, which is just as bad, but a little better.
	Parents sue, and the judge comes to the conclusion that Section 230 immunizes TikTok.
	The judge acknowledges that it's not a question of TikTok removing content.
	And then saying, don't sue me because I removed it.
	It's not a question of TikTok attempting to remove offending material, but not being held liable for that which they inadvertently or cannot remove in time or whatever.
	The judge notes the AI of TikTok promotes the story to the eyes of viewers.
	And then says, but Section 230 immunizes them, so case dismissed.
	There's two aspects to the 230 immunity, and the judge got it wrong.
	Terribly.
	What's your position, and where does it go?
	So this goes right to the issue that's pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was the origin of Section 230 versus how judges have applied it in the 25 years plus since Section 230.
	So Section 230 originated because the Wolf of Wall Street was suing either AOL or Prodigy or both because people on their message forums...
	We're publishing information he claimed was defamatory.
	He's laughed and later said, no, it wasn't defamatory.
	It was all true.
	Just trying to keep the business alive while he could keep going, get another load of quaaludes.
	But it enraged people that the Wolf of Wall Street wasn't even allowed to sue, Stratton, Stratton, well, whatever, Stratton, Oakmont, I believe is the name.
	And the Wolf of Wall Street is to the book and the movie.
	I've talked with Jordan Belfort, a funny guy, a very smart guy.
	He has mostly fixed a lot of things that used to be problematic for him after he served his time.
	But the issue was they didn't want message boards to be held liable as publishers of information that was published by other people on those message boards.
	And the problem was becoming message boards were trying to edit some of that content.
	Prevent obscenity, pornography, stalking, harassment, even defamation, etc.
	And once they took an editorial step, courts were then saying, well, now you're a publisher and you're liable.
	And Congress didn't want that to be the case.
	They wanted robust debate to occur on the Internet.
	So they said, just because you host a message board, even if you edit that message board, you will not be considered the legal publisher of any statement on that message board.
	That was it.
	And it didn't go any further than that in the statute.
	However, courts interpreted it over time.
	What happened was big tech bought off a lot of big corporate law firms, bought off a lot of the legal academy, corrupted the legal academy, corrupted a lot of think tanks to where they were spewing even so-called libertarian think tanks and organizations and publications such that the Koch brothers were all so complicit in this.
	Such that they were taking Section 230 and saying it's immunity for everything big tech does.
	Big tech lies, doesn't matter, they're immune.
	If big tech is acting as both publisher and editor and printer and everything else, doesn't matter, they're immune.
	If they misrepresent things, engage in fraud, engage in unequitable conduct, consumer fraud, immune, immune, immune.
	And one of the big ways that big tech does things, it's most...
	Consequential action is its algorithmic manipulation of the content on its sites.
	So it uses its algorithms to deliberately promote some content at the expense of others, and it often targets and tailors its content to particularly vulnerable audiences.
	So this is why the lawsuit up for the U.S. Supreme Court is about how big tech deliberately said, who would be really good?
	Or who would be a vulnerable, susceptible audience to terrorism and promoted ISIS videos to them?
	Amazon, of course, did it in the suicide kit context where they recommended the different products to be put together so that you could commit suicide for often also, again, underage people.
	In fact, their number one target group has often been young people, kids especially.
	And this is showing up in a wide range of literature.
	There's a movie documentary called, I think it's called The Creepy Thin Line.
	There's some other ones out there where the engineers who designed a lot of this have come out and said what we did was wrong.
	This was a disaster.
	We're seeing it reflected most predominantly with young women.
	So if the Zoomer generation, for example, has a rate of self-harm that is five times higher than the norm.
	And what's the only thing distinct about them, for the most part, is their exposure to social media.
	Girls, it hurts more than any other group.
	And so here, what TikTok did is there was somebody who was promoting something that could and often did cause death.
	And TikTok not only promoted it algorithmically, but promoted it to the most vulnerable, susceptible audiences.
	In this case, young kids, children, minors.
	And they knew they were doing this.
	And often, like with Amazon and the Suicide Kid case, like the social media, both Google and Twitter and the terrorism cases, like as it happened in the child pornography context, they are warned about this.
	And they still don't fix it.
	They still don't remedy it.
	Because their profit is driven by eyeballs, by manipulating audiences, even if it's a bad moral thing that they're doing.
	They're immune because of Section 230.
	In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, it's like this is way...
	Justice Thomas raised this two years ago.
	He said, hold on a second.
	Section 230 was just supposed to be publisher immunity.
	It was not supposed to interpret every single thing they do as publishing.
	Algorithmic manipulation is not them being treated as a publisher for third-party purposes.
	These are all different actions.
	These go beyond what the intention was.
	Same with their censorship and other activities.
	And we'll talk about how Google's manipulating Gmail to suppress Republican election participation in this election, as an example.
	So what the court got wrong is the court, but what the court did is what a bunch of courts have been doing.
	I'm glad the Supreme Court took up those cases, because they need to fix this.
	And hopefully they will.
	And recognize that Section 230 is not wholesale immunity.
	For anything and everything you do.
	It is limited to the context of if a third party publishes something, you're not liable for that if you took no other actions beyond editing your content.
	Algorithmic manipulation is not publishing.
	Not within the meaning of Section 230.
	And this case reveals how severely damaging it has been, but it's a reflection that the judiciary...
	Became co-opted by corporate counsel.
	A lot of them come from big corporate law firms.
	By the legal academy, a lot of them look to what the legal academy says about legal issues for their interpretation of information and statutes, etc.
	The think tanks, there was a co-option and corruption of the academy and of think tanks because of this.
	Not a surprise big corporate law firms were on that side because that's where the money was.
	But it's a deeply disturbing example of why Section 230 has been misused and misapplied.
	And if the Supreme Court doesn't fix it or correct it, it will be left to Congress to do so.
	And people have to appreciate that there's two aspects or two facets to Section 230 immunity.
	And one is that you're not liable for content that remains on the platform if you have protocols in force to try to remove illicit or whatever unlawful content.
	And the other is that...
	You cannot be sued by users for actions you take as a result of moderating the content.
	Have I got the two aspects of it down right?
	And the second is supposed to have a good faith limitation that the courts have not enforced at all.
	A good faith, transparent, non-politically or ideologically motivated, whatever.
	People have to appreciate, TikTok has an algorithm which it specifically creates to generate...
	Put the content in front of the eyes that will consume it so they can market it, so they can make money off of it, and they get immunity.
	I won't compare it to the Alex Jones because I think one is actually overtly wrong and the other is just tangentially, you know, maybe wrong.
	But, you know, Alex Jones, for the cut part aspect of it, false statements made about a third party, not about a product, and then gets nailed for selling the product at the same time or marketing a product.
	And then TikTok...
	Algorithmically designs or designs this algorithm to deliberately do this for proper consumption, for mass consumption, knowing there's a problem, as did Amazon, and they get to wash their hands under Section 230 immunity.
	It's not a double standard.
	It's just two sets of rules.
	Okay.
	So the case is now the one about the terrorism against...
	Was it Twitter?
	The one's against Twitter and one's against Google.
	You think that the Supreme Court will have the avenue through those two pending suits to resolve this issue?
	Yeah.
	Oh, it is the issue.
	The question is, how far does Section 230 go?
	Because after Thomas wrote his concurrence from a denial of a petition for cert, he laid out what he considered the problems.
	And based on that, a few federal judges, including some left-leaning federal judges, like Burzon in California, And maybe even potentially Kagan on the Supreme Court have voiced sympathy with that position.
	And the reason is because this goes beyond political censorship.
	If it was just censoring the right wing, you probably wouldn't get many people on the left that would be concerned.
	But because this is badly impacting children, especially case after case after case, is going through the court system.
	People are like, well, hold on a second, you know, that we may have misapplied.
	Because the statute was, there's no legislative history that says the statute ever anticipated this.
	But you have a lot of fake scholars, fake blogs.
	What I mean by fake is people who pretend to be doing independent objective analysis who are not.
	You dig in and you find out they're bought off by big tech, almost without fail.
	All right, we'll see where it goes.
	It's tremendous.
	Robert, the Chinese detention centers.
	I've heard rumorings.
	These have been going on in Canada for a little while.
	Are they lawful?
	What is going on?
	Are these detention centers, which are detaining Chinese nationals under Chinese law on Chinese embassy soil or on Canadian soil, U.S. soil?
	For those who have not necessarily heard about this, tell us what's going on.
	It was based on a report from an NGO this month that It does have ties to the EU and the CIA and other organizations.
	So there's at least, you know, there's some documentation of funding and issues and things like that.
	And the, but, so putting that aside, their sources, however, appear to all be Chinese governmental publications, statements, or Chinese media, which given it's the Chinese Communist Party dominates the media in China.
	It means it's a pretty reliable source in that sense, if it's revealing something negative about the Chinese government.
	So what appears to have happened is a couple of years ago, the Chinese started setting up police operations overseas.
	But they don't label it always that.
	They've labeled it apparently internally that, but externally they've...
	Put them as part of their joint front, popular front kind of strategy, which is to influence the opinion about China and in particular monitoring the behavior of Chinese people outside of the region of China.
	On paper, they designed this to track fraud.
	So that was their official pretext, was that the Chinese populace was being defrauded by a range of schemes using the online capabilities to do so.
	And that they needed this mechanism and method to monitor it and, as they call it, persuade people that are Chinese Americans to come back to China and confess to crimes and serve time and forfeit assets.
	There are examples of them catching people that they have evidence of fraud doing that.
	The controversial part is that they haven't announced these as police units in the countries that they're located in.
	They have not gone through the regular police protocol.
	There's various information treaties, extradition treaties, and it appears they want to circumvent both.
	It also appears that they are tracking and surveilling dissidents and tracking their activities outside of China, and in particular...
	Threatening family members in China if they don't go along with this.
	And it apparently started with a project a few years ago that was purely domestic initially that they've now just exported, which is a form of North Korea does this all the time to the extreme.
	Collective punishment of, if you don't do what we want, your grandmother's going to lose her power.
	If you don't do what we want, your kid can't enroll in school.
	If you don't do what we want, maybe other benefits will be stripped from your family.
	Maybe they won't be able to travel, as an example.
	And so while on paper, helping things with getting your driver's license renewed, getting your passport or visa renewed, things of this nature.
	It appears that they've been up to other activities, according to this report, and it quoted a lot of Chinese government sources and Chinese press for this, because within China, at least they were bragging about this, see our ability to shape mostly as fraud recovery programs.
	But the problem is this can easily be misused and abused for other purposes, and its most controversial aspect is...
	They're not announcing these as police places.
	They're not announcing, they're not cooperating under various information and extradition treaties.
	They're trying to circumvent extradition in many cases by basically persuading people to come home.
	Well, I mean, we've seen Klaus Schwab, you know, boasting about having penetrated half of the Canadian cabinet.
	Why would China not be boasting itself?
	And just in case, I think this is the right article, one of the right articles.
	This is from the Toronto Star.
	RCMP investigating China's police stations, in quotes, in Toronto region.
	China's embassy insists stations are just being run by warm-hearted people to help reduce driver's license or with other services.
	I think this should be right.
	The RCMP say they are investigating Chinese so-called police stations in the greater Toronto area after the station's existence was revealed by a human rights organization in a report last month.
	It alleges that they're being used to harass and course Chinese citizens into returning to China for various reasons.
	So just so everybody doesn't know, nobody thinks that this is conspiracy theory.
	I mean, the timing is a little bit interesting.
	So those who support China allege that this is part of an ongoing Western effort to be anti-China because of hostility to Xi by the George Soros crowd and others.
	And that's their...
	And that all may be true, too.
	The timing is a little bit peculiar in a certain sense, since apparently this has been active for four years.
	But it doesn't change the fact that Chinese-sourced information and Chinese-sourced disclosures say this is exactly what's going on.
	I can't get into it in detail, but I represented somebody years ago that was a Chinese citizen and a U.S. citizen who experienced exactly this.
	There were allegations against him in China.
	And he was persuaded to return to China.
	So I've seen this in live action.
	So there's no question that this is taking place.
	Legally, the issue is whether or not they're violating any international...
	The fact they've chosen not to utilize information and deportation and extradition protocols that require intergovernmental interaction...
	It's not probably by itself illegal.
	The question is, is threatening somebody's family within China that is a legal resident of a foreign country?
	Might that violate the laws under that country?
	There is also allegations that violate various UN conventions on various forms of humane treatment and things of that nature.
	So it definitely raises disturbing issues concerning what China is actually up to, given some of the allegations that go way beyond just trying to track fraudsters.
	And this is not being done on, not that it would make much of a difference, it's not being done on Chinese embassy property.
	If it's violating Canadian law...
	At the very least, there would be no diplomatic immunity argument.
	This is not being alleged to being conducted only in Chinese embassies.
	No, I mean, they're a little unclear about that.
	So internally within China, they called these police stations.
	Externally, they didn't.
	And so they're claiming that they're just help groups, and to the extent they're aligned with the Chinese embassy, it raises issues of diplomatic immunity.
	But it's not clear that's what's happening.
	China has this United Front project that's very popular, front-oriented, and you research that, and they were clearly bragging about, at various times, including Xi himself, controlling Chinese public opinion and public opinion of China, outside of China, particularly amongst Chinese citizens that live outside of China.
	So, a lot of the focus is to Southeast Asia, a little bit Turkey and UAE, but they've placed this all over the place.
	Australia, Europe, the United States, there's such a center in New York, for example, big Chinatown in New York, too.
	And, of course, in Canada.
	Well, that's interesting.
	There was a $20 rumble rant, which I want to get to.
	Not because of the quantum, just because it's actually timely.
	If I don't read all the rumble rants tonight...
	We'll do what we did a while back.
	I'll read the ones tomorrow in a Locals exclusive.
	But this is MJ Keating who says, what are your thoughts?
	And Robert, you'll let us know what you think, although I know what you think.
	On Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most prominent published and peer-reviewed doctors of our time, being stripped of his medical credentials with no due process.
	Let me just use that as a window to say Dr. Malone is going to be coming.
	I think we almost have it booked for Tuesday.
	I'm just waiting for confirmation.
	Dr. Malone, we're going to do an interview on this channel.
	It might be a daytime, 3 o 'clock.
	But Robert, knowing what you think about licensure agencies and lawyers, licenses, doctors, etc., I won't ask you what you think.
	I'll just ask you how this is happening systematically.
	I'm not sure of the details with McCullough yet, but how is this happening?
	Will there be pushback?
	Will there be remedy?
	So I think there's a suit pending in Texas, if I recall correctly, that we previously discussed that has implications here.
	Because what the problem is, credentialing agencies are generally private.
	The problem, though, is they have deep ties.
	For example, if you're not credentialed, often you can't get insurance reimbursement, can't get placed into hospitals, etc.
	So that will be some of the issues.
	And as I recall, they argued collusion between the credentialing agencies and government agencies to constitute governmental action and some other, and violation of certain credentialing rules themselves.
	And that's becoming recurrent.
	They're using all forms of recognition, licensure, but some of these are not directly governmental oriented, but they've become institutionally critical.
	For your ability to perform your job.
	So McCullough is one of the most well-regarded, well-respected medical people, but he's been one of the strongest critics of a wide range of COVID responses.
	And so not a surprise that they've targeted him for his dissident speech, but it shows the problem with credentialing agencies.
	And I mean, to give an example, it's applied in like real estate context, right?
	Where a wide range of context of private entities, Weaponizing politics to go after dissidents.
	And so you see at the state level with all the licensure, which is deeply problematic itself.
	But now, I mean, we have a speech code case up before the Third Circuit where they're trying to ban lawyers from speaking out, from saying things publicly.
	It's now professional malpractice if they don't like your speech.
	And you're seeing similar variations.
	It's the problem with licensure.
	And it's why I oppose licensure.
	I oppose credentials.
	I oppose all of it.
	But McCullough is just the latest example of how corrupted those institutions have become.
	Because they found zero evidence of any medical malpractice at all.
	It's not just that.
	I don't want to put the juju out there, but...
	Doctors like McCullough and doctors like Malone and doctors like the ones who sounded the alarms from the beginning, it's not just that they have not been wrong.
	They were right well in advance, and what they predicted or what they were warning about at the time, for which they were chastised, deplatformed, unpersoned, has actually, by and large, come to fruition quite accurately.
	And it'll be a big test of Elon Musk at Twitter.
	Not only the Pelosi story and how that's handled on Twitter.
	But particularly the COVID critics who have been systematically suppressed or removed entirely, like Peter McCullough was, like Robert Malone was, like so many of these other prominent, Jordan Peterson, of course, medical or other professionals.
	I mean, I can say, as soon as it was announced that Musk owned Twitter, suddenly you could find Barnes Law on Twitter.
	I mean, for a long time, you could type in Barnes Law and I didn't appear.
	You could even type in my exact address and I didn't appear.
	People have been telling me for years now, actually, that they can't find me or that they follow me and don't ever see any of my posts unless they find a way to go directly to my page.
	It's often difficult to get to the page.
	And so Cat Turd and some others, one of the funniest named Twitter accounts of all time.
	So not just Babylon Bee's reinstatement, Alex Jones' reinstatement, people like that, high-profile political people that have been suspended or barred from Twitter, but particularly some of these COVID health people.
	Now, what Musk has said is that he's forming a council.
	They're going to put in some protocols and get that done.
	Story from the press that shadow banning wasn't happening.
	It was disproven right away.
	Because I went from losing followers on a regular basis, people can't find me, to suddenly find me, suddenly seeing my tweets in their thread.
	Finally, and all of a sudden gaining supporters all over the place.
	It just shows how much suppression they've been engaged in for so long.
	It's a promising sign.
	To be frank, it's pretty hard for Twitter to get worse.
	Promising sign that Musk will make it better, but how much better, we'll see soon enough.
	Well, and in fairness, so people don't accuse us of whatever, Musk says he hasn't changed anything yet, so it's unclear as to what's going on.
	Some people that got fired must have been the ones suppressing stuff.
	In other words, somebody was regularly going in and suppressing stuff for everybody to suddenly...
	Start getting followers again.
	And I've noticed this.
	Every now and again, I'd find a tweet, one of my replies, and I forget how I would see that there was a response that I couldn't get to, that I couldn't visually see.
	And then I opened it.
	It says, nothing to see here.
	So then I had to go open the link in an incognito to see who the nothing to see here was that had retweeted the tweet.
	And then it's an account.
	It's not a bot.
	It's not someone who blocked me.
	It's someone who was just...
	I could not see their response in my own thread.
	And I had to go into incognito to find an indirect way of getting there.
	Yeah, we'll see what's going on there.
	Also, people were posting a lot of tweets that normally would get people suspended in the past that were not.
	Though, apparently, somebody is trying to protect Pelosi to suspend your account.
	The post-millennial article is out.
	I linked it in the chat.
	I haven't read it yet, but everyone, go.
	Put it on blast.
	It's an absolute...
	It's Elon Musk, because he's obviously, he reads a good, some number of these.
	Oh, he's been so active.
	It's actually amazing to see how active he's been.
	And you don't think that it's someone else managing his account.
	Robert, let's get to some election stuff, because I'm trying to make sense of what's going on in this and trying to piece this story together with other news that people are saying, pay attention to the guy, you, who just got arrested for other charges.
	It's all intertwined, yada yada.
	Okay, there's a defamation computer hacking lawsuit filed by an individual, a plaintiff named Koenig, who's suing the two people from True the Vote for defamation, what else, computer fraud, on the basis that these individuals somehow hacked some private information about the plaintiff Koenig as relates to alleged fraud.
	In the voter process.
	You'll have to fill me and fill the world in on the details, but the plaintiff is suing two individuals from True the Vote.
	They claim that they're FBI informants or confidential informants and that they can't disclose the identity of...
	One of the individuals with whom they were acting in concert with respect to this whole plot, which was to hack the computers, find personal information that was allegedly used to out Koenig that led to the harassment of the CEO of the...
	I'll get his name.
	And now they're on the verge of being held in civil contempt and being in prison for not disclosing the name of their source.
	Help it make sense to someone who is not thoroughly familiar with what's going on right now.
	I mean, to me, it's abuse of contempt power.
	So you have an election company that was alleged to have ties to China that they had not disclosed.
	And so they sue to try to find out how these people...
	Purportedly, they sue them because they claim they don't have any ties to China.
	Or not the ties that were alleged.
	And the court grants an...
	I mean, you're supposed to go through a process, you answer the complaint, you go to discovery, you go to motions to dismiss, etc.
	All that thrown out.
	And immediately the judge is demanding extraordinary disclosure of extraordinary information on pain of civil contempt right at the beginning of the case.
	So, I mean, this is irresponsible judicial behavior.
	This old Reagan appointee is the judge and senior status.
	He actually said...
	There's no higher security status.
	Apparently, according to published reports, there's no higher security status than a federal judge.
	Really?
	Is this the same federal court system that just said they can't take a look at and no other federal judge can take a look at those super secret classified files the Fed stole from Trump?
	I mean, see how hypocritical this is?
	How completely contradictory this is?
	I read that where I did not know that judges had clearance.
	I mean, am I wrong?
	Do they have clearance?
	He doesn't.
	He doesn't.
	There are certain circumstances where he has it, but to say he has the highest?
	No.
	And if that's the case, then did the 11th Circuit lie?
	Did the special master lie?
	Because that's a long-standing, that's a FISA court judge, special master, who said, I can't look at anything classified.
	So who's telling the truth?
	This federal judge or the other federal judges?
	Because one of them is lying.
	Flat out lying.
	It tells you a lot about, sadly, federal courts.
	No matter who appoints them.
	A lot of them are just not reliable.
	Well, so this is the lawsuit that's currently underway.
	It's according to the defamation and computer fraud lawsuit.
	Koenig filed.
	That's the plaintiff.
	The Chinese-American CEO, and this is what now I understand what people were emailing me about two weeks ago.
	The founder, Eugene Yu, and his family had to leave their home due to threats from True the Vote supporters after Phillips and Engelbrecht...
	Those are the two defendants who are for True the Vote, worked with Dinesh D'Souza on 2,000 Meals, spread lies at events, and on podcasts, the company is a vehicle for the Chinese Communist Party to manipulate U.S. elections.
	Allegations of a lawsuit, YouTube overlords.
	The same day Koenig sued, Hoyt, that's the judge, issued a temporary restraining order directing Phillips and Engelbrecht to identify each person involved in taking Koenig's data, that's on the substance.
	The saga took an unexpected twist.
	October 4, When Yu was arrested by local police in Michigan, working with investigators from Los Angeles districts, and his business was fraud, I think?
	Well, it turns out he does, in fact, have voter information located in China, which purportedly he said, which I guess he swore under oath previously he did not.
	So he's suing the truth of vote people saying, ah, these Chinese ties, I don't know what you're talking about.
	And then he ends up arrested.
	By a left-wing DA in LA because they find out, oh yeah, he does in fact have he's storing stuff in China.
	Well, they're saying it's his arraignment, Los Angeles charges of grand theft by embezzlement of public funds and conspiracy to embezzle public funds.
	So, Robert, they're going to say...
	And the grounds is that he got the funds on the basis that he was not secure.
	He wouldn't have servers with voter data in China.
	And it turns out he did, according to the indictment.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Now, Robert...
	Imagine, the same day a suit...
	I mean, TROs are almost never granted.
	You have a federal judge on the same day rushing in, demanding to...
	signing a TRO, demanding disclosure of information?
	I mean, but what's the grounds for that TRO?
	A TRO is an extraordinary relief, almost always denied.
	That seeks emergency injunctive relief that can't fix something otherwise.
	What's his ground to disclose information?
	This is accelerating discovery using civil contempt power and emergency injunctive power.
	The judge is misusing and abusing it.
	I mean, that's what's happening.
	I mean, it's extraordinary.
	This eager rush to help someone who is a criminal, an accused criminal at this point, who is in fact apparently engaged in questionable conduct concerning China and our election data.
	And the federal judge is eager to cover up for him and say, who is it?
	Who is it that's ratting these people out?
	Who is it that's disclosing this?
	This was not a fair grounds of a TRO.
	And now he's saying, if you don't give me the names on Monday, I'm going to lock you up until you do give me the names.
	I mean, it's extraordinary.
	By the way, there is an informant privilege.
	The judges repeatedly, routinely refuse to disclose or force the feds to disclose.
	Informants when that information is necessary frequently in a criminal defense.
	And here he's demanding all the informants' names be disclosed.
	What's the emergency injunctive relief based upon?
	I don't see any legal grounds.
	Somebody can find another case where a court in a civil dispute on the same day the suit was filed demanded immediate disclosure of information or you go to jail.
	You won't find it.
	This judge is nuts.
	Some of these senior status judges need to be required to retire because some of them just lost their brain.
	And when he's yipping away about how he has more confidential and more classified access than the president or anyone else or as much as them, he clearly doesn't belong on the bench.
	But this shows you the disparity of how these courts react.
	For certain institutional interests, they rush in.
	For major whistleblowers, they rush to attack.
	It's very revealing and very disturbing how this case is unfolding.
	It's just nuts.
	The only time I've ever seen anything this crazy is we saw variations of it in the Alex Jones case.
	It's a similar kind of dynamic.
	Once these courts get used to abusing power, they're going to keep doing it, keep doing it.
	It's going to be a green light for all of them to do it.
	And I just want everyone to know that Robert is not making this up and that he's not inaccurate, nor am I. Hoyt, the judge, pointed out that as a federal judge, he has the, quote, highest security clearance of anyone in this country.
	No, he doesn't.
	No, he does not.
	And said Engelbrecht and Phillips must divulge the man's identity.
	Again, if he does, then the 11th Circuit lied and the Special Master lied.
	Somebody's lying.
	Somebody's wrong, because the Special Mastery 11th Circuit said, no, no, no court could look at this.
	The feds say classified.
	And this judge is saying, I can look at anything.
	I have the highest security clearance in the world.
	Somebody's wrong.
	Are the two defendants, I mean, they're from True the North, and I don't know if you know this or if you do know anything.
	They're the basis of the 2000 and Mules movie, their research.
	But are they FBI, were they confidential informants for the FBI, or are they, is that...
	What they're saying is that they are part of a FBI, that they have been providing information, both to the Arizona Attorney General and other law enforcement authorities, including the FBI, as to election fraud issues.
	And so now the Arizona Attorney General, I told people that guy was a fake.
	I've been in front of his wife, who Trump foolishly appointed a federal judge, not a federal bench, another not a good judge.
	And he lost, thank God, to Blake Masters in the primary.
	And he said, oh, he's going to get to the bottom of this election fraud.
	Instead, he is trying to sick the FBI and the IRS also on the 2000 Mules people.
	So what's going on is they've made out serious allegations that 2000 Mules took off and the institutions, including Republican institutions, are enraged.
	At the success of this.
	And their response is to try to suppress it, to try to go after people reporting it, to try to attack the people who are doing so, and weaponizing the legal system as part of that process.
	This injunction makes no sense.
	This demand of disclosure under pain of contempt makes no sense.
	I've never seen this happen.
	It just shows the, and people can go out there and try to find another analogous case.
	I would love to be able to file a suit and say, judge, make him give me all the key information I want right now or put him in jail.
	We don't do that for a reason.
	But, you know, this is what I call kind of the Alex Jones case disease.
	Courts are just starting to get more and more assertive at just ignoring the limits on their authority.
	And is it really a coincidence that the two people being targeted are the prime people behind the most popular movie questioning the election?
	And is it also a coincidence that they're coming to the defense of someone who's now been criminally charged by a left-wing prosecutor for criminal activities related to the exact substance of the allegations they were making?
	You'd think the federal judge would be like, hold on a second.
	Maybe I kind of missed the boat on this one.
	Nope, not this guy.
	His arrogance exceeds his competence by a long mile.
	And Robert, I'm going to read two Rumble rants because one is on point.
	Kitty7242 says, love the way you speak the truth, Robert.
	Yeah, and I'll read this one.
	It's a joke.
	I read where Paul asked David, is that a hammer in your underwear or are you just happy to see me?
	The jokes are starting too early.
	There's a man who's injured, but the story doesn't make sense.
	All right.
	Let's say, talking about senile, potentially mentally unfit judges, to the family of a deceased former football player suing...
	Who's she suing?
	I forget the name now, but it's an institution that I'm not all that familiar with.
	The NCAA, because I'm Canadian.
	But a former linebacker's family is suing the NCAA, alleging that her husband's death at the age of 49 from...
	What was subsequently determined through autopsy to be CTE, brain injury, allegedly resulting from repeated concussions, became a known problem at some point in time.
	They're alleging that the NCAA failed to take measures to protect the people they were supposed to protect, that they've exploited them, that this death was therefore their fault.
	It was only the lawsuit, right?
	There hasn't been a decision in this?
	Yeah, correct.
	I mean, suing on the basis that, you know, repeated concussions has now been determined to cause brain injury.
	It led to substance abuse in this individual who died of heart failure and other issues on New Year's Eve 2018.
	Suing the NCAA that they knew and did not take protective measures for it.
	Robert, I mean, what's your take?
	I've read the for and I've read the against and I'm inclined to think...
	The against, you know, for the dismissal of the suit or for the failure of the suit is the stronger argument.
	That being CTE has only been recently discovered or recently determined to be a thing.
	It can only be determined through autopsy.
	And so it's not something that can be diagnosed in real time in any event.
	You know, he died of...
	Alcohol and drug abuse, that was ultimately what did him in, whether or not that was a result of self-medication.
	What do you think?
	Stands a chance, a snowball chance in summer or no?
	Well, I mean, we're going to see more of these because CTE has been, well, CTE itself has been recently discovered.
	There's going to be questions as to what different institutions, the NFL, the NCAA knew and what investigative actions they took or chose not to take.
	And whether or not there was any assumption of risk by the player himself.
	But there's more and more evidence accumulating that the nature of the...
	It's often not just been concussions.
	It's like offensive linemen experience.
	It's people whose heads are shaking like this violently on a constant, continuous basis that that ended up having more health risk than was disclosed at the time.
	And so I think the case is very uphill because courts are going to be un...
	Not likely to allow the cases to pursue.
	It depends on the nature of the allegations.
	Can they sufficiently allege the NCAA knew of a substantial health risk that they took no action to remedy?
	And then whether or not he assumed the risk by the nature of playing and all of that.
	But I think we'll continue to see more CTE cases through the system, and we'll see how they try to resolve it.
	There'll be the legal side and then the court of public opinion side as to how to...
	They've tried to fix this in the NFL a little bit.
	Famously this year they had Tua quarterback for the Miami Dolphins.
	He appears to have played when he shouldn't have and behaved very erratically when he was physically out on the field.
	Seemed to collapse on the field effectively.
	There's more questions about it.
	It's where the balance is.
	Some of your football fans see this as an attempt to just destroy the sport of football.
	Others see it as a concern that the NCAA and the NFL ignored in looking for profit over player health and well-being.
	We'll see it played out both in the public policy arena, political arena, and in the legal arena.
	I think all the cases legally will have difficulty because of Lack of clear information that someone can allege that they knew at the time in which these players suffered these particular health consequences.
	Especially in this case, you're going to have things like actus novus where, okay, fine, even if he had CTE, which is chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
	It can cause things like alcoholism, drug abuse, criminal behavior.
	Basically, your brain just doesn't function correctly, and it can trigger a wide range of what look like irrational.
	A lot of people have seen some of these NFL people kind of go nuts later on in life.
	We'll see about that.
	Speaking of uphill battles, Robert, but before we do that, there's a good question coming from Pool4U, $10 rumble rant.
	Elections coming up.
	How do I research judges coming up for retirement?
	Unfortunately, there really isn't many good...
	I don't know of any good source at the moment.
	So you can try to just look up that individual judge, Google, see if anything comes up.
	There's a site called Robing Room that does some anonymous contributions of people reviewing judges, but even that has limits, and it's not used that often these days, so it often doesn't reveal a lot.
	So it's a space where there's probably a need for independent judge reviews to allow People that have been in front of a judge to comment on them anonymously in a politically protected way and things like that because there's very little information out there about judges typically.
	The places where you get most information is a contested state Supreme Court race where those are elected.
	You tend to get a lot of information by both sides politically what they think.
	But a lot of judges, there's not a lot of meaningful review of judges.
	In a way that I think would be necessary to make an informed judgment.
	So that information is just currently, unfortunately, unavailable.
	Someone will have to spend a lot of time and effort to try to create that.
	And you would need some knowledgeable legal insight probably into interpreting certain judicial actions in terms of that.
	Because unfortunately, usually lawyers know.
	Some lawyers that have had experience in front of a judge will have some sense of them.
	But otherwise, it's very hard to find out, get honest information on a judge.
	All right.
	Well, okay, man.
	And speaking of uphill battles and judges that...
	No comment on the judges, Robert.
	Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, that white supremacist.
	Wikipedia describes him as Afro-Cuban.
	And I don't know if that means African-American and Cuban or the Cuban...
	I don't know what that means, all that I know, pointing it out just because, you know, the Proud Boys are often accused of being a white supremacist group, despite the fact that their leader is quite clearly not white.
	Enrico Taurio, he is going to go to trial on his seditious conspiracy charge in D.C. He's making the request for change of venue, and the judge doesn't necessarily seem to go along with it just yet.
	The judge is saying, you've got a jury pool of 600,000 people in the D.C. area.
	Your arguments for them having consumed the media would be just as true anywhere else.
	Enrique Tarrio's side of things is saying, it's not just media consumption.
	These people lived through the incident.
	They are victims of it in every sense.
	Road closures, day-in, day-out security, news issues, etc., etc.
	And the judge says you have an uphill battle.
	Robert, are we done with change of venues in America now?
	Well, I mean, I see two different, well, three different issues.
	One is, all of these lawyers really need to use the benefit of the polling that Richard Barris, People's Pundit, has done.
	He's done polling on this precise question, and there is a massive, massive disparity on preconceived bias between the D.C. jury pool and any other jury pool, frankly, in the country.
	And so, in particular, I think he compared D.C. and Virginia.
	So, Virginia is a Democratic-leaning state, but what you have in D.C. Is 80% or more presumed guilt?
	You have way less than half everywhere else.
	But unless you put that information in front of the judge, you let them get away with saying gibberish and nonsense like this.
	Oh, I don't know if there's a big difference.
	I mean, come on.
	Apply common sense.
	That's like saying 1960s Birmingham would be just as impartial a jury pool for Martin Luther King as Harlem.
	I mean, you know, come on.
	I mean, you know, they're saying gibberish because they've convinced themselves of dumb stuff in order to allow these cases to continue to proceed in front of a jury pool that is a joke, that has proven itself to be a joke again and again and again and again.
	I mean, Denchenko walked.
	You know, everybody that's on the Democratic side in the D.C. area has walked.
	Everybody that's on the Republican side has been convicted by a jury.
	Every single one.
	I mean, how many times do you have to wake up before you figure out what everybody knows that you're just sticking your head in the sand pretending otherwise?
	But the judge, it's like, it can't be disingenuous.
	It has to be dishonest where he says, okay, we've got a jury pool of 600,000 potential juries.
	Statistically, 570,000 of them are going to be Democrats.
	The judge is then going to say, well, this isn't a political issue.
	This is a crime issue.
	And he said it.
	Oh, my goodness.
	He said it, actually.
	Either in this hearing or in another one, you know, as relates to the 90%, 95%, 100% conviction rate for January 6th, very rarely do we have 360, you know, 24-7 fully documented video evidence of the crimes.
	They did fully documented evidence of the crimes in both the Denchenko trial and that lawyer trial.
	They both walked.
	So, I mean, it's just, so that's part one, but the lawyers need to use the public opinion polling data.
	I've done this before in venue cases.
	It's the only way you get a judge's attention and at least preserve the record to show...
	And then the magic words are presumption of guilt.
	Presumption of guilt.
	And compare the jury pools with public opinion data that's been done well.
	That's what Barris did.
	And if they would use that, they would be in a much better position at least to preserve the record and force the judges at least to be somewhat honest.
	The second issue...
	Is a problem, where the judge is correct, is the U.S. Supreme Court has gutted the meaning of an impartial jury trial for venue purposes.
	And they did this in the Enron cases.
	The Enron cases, they asked to move the trial out of Houston.
	The jury pool was badly contaminated.
	Now there, the court did such massive, extensive voyeur through massive, extensive written questionnaires to an extraordinarily large potential jury pool.
	That mitigated the problem, but it didn't solve the problem.
	Because what that evidence came back in is you had a jury pool that was overwhelmingly biased against presumption of guilt, in favor of presumption of guilt.
	So you clearly have the same...
	If this judge is like, well, you can only need to find 12 honest people.
	Okay, let's survey all 600,000.
	Oh, we can't do that.
	Well, let's survey 60,000.
	Oh, we can't do that.
	Let's survey 6,000.
	Oh, we can't do that.
	Right?
	So that's a hypocritical statement by the judge.
	Right?
	And you have to call him on it as a lawyer.
	So, okay, let's send the jury a questionnaire at all 600,000.
	Then I agree with you.
	We'll find 12 honest ones.
	To be like, oh, that's too much.
	Right?
	So, I mean, that's where he's not being honest.
	But the Supreme Court gutted the right to an impartial trial and venue in the Enron cases.
	But people need to continue to preserve.
	The right to object to that and to moderate that decision highlighting these cases is how abusive they are.
	And put it in its historical correct context.
	I kind of controversially did that in the Snipes case.
	But it got us the jury selection.
	We needed to get a decent jury pool.
	Three bad jurors still got on the jury pool.
	And then the third issue is one I talked about that Norm Pattis, who now represented Alex Jones in Connecticut, also represents several January 6th defendants, including Joe Biggs, is now talking about as well.
	If you read the constitutional language about venue, it's the right to the state and district where the crime committed.
	Well, somebody tell me, is the District of Columbia a state?
	No, it's not.
	So the question is, did the Constitution anticipate that D.C. would never be a place you criminally prosecute?
	Good argument.
	And the argument is, D.C., you have a right to have the trial done in probably the vicinity of your home residence, which is always a place they can bring a prosecution, despite wherever the crime occurred, given that the District of Columbia is not a state.
	And so I think he will preserve that constitutional argument as well.
	And it's an additional one they should all start to raise.
	Because this is a problem, as we discussed with Mike Davis, of the District of Columbia existing in the first place as an independent federal legal jurisdiction.
	It shouldn't.
	They need to get rid of it.
	It's not what the Constitution anticipated.
	It's not what our founders intended.
	Having the swamp get to judge the swamp and judge the critics of the swamp is an invitation to political disaster and lack of confidence in our system of governance.
	And that's what all these trials are doing.
	I mean, the Biden administration thinks all these trials show that their narrative about January 6th is correct.
	What it's really doing is showing the world that D.C. is a joke of a political jurisdiction, that it's a hanging jury pool.
	That you'd find lynching jurors that would be more honest and honorable than you will in the District of Columbia.
	And that nonsense about, oh, the only question is, can you put away your bias to judge the facts fairly?
	That's a ridiculous question.
	Nobody who is biased will ever say they're biased.
	The person who's unbiased but is very self-aware is the person you'll get rid of.
	The good juror is who you'll lose.
	The bad juror is who you'll get.
	And judges who keep deluding themselves.
	With this nonsense that a juror can put aside a presumption of guilt is lying to themselves and to the world and disgracing the Constitution and how they do it.
	You put it quite well.
	The evidence in the Sussman case, it could have been classified more accurately, but it could not have been documented more thoroughly.
	Danchenko, I wasn't following quite as closely, but...
	The case, it wasn't as strong as Sussman, but there was still evidence that he misrepresented a range of things.
	They let him walk because you knew they were going to because he was anti-Trump.
	I think that was in Alexandria or D.C. It was Virginia, but it was D.C. attendant.
	And that's the problem.
	There's just no way you can get him.
	Again, it's like expecting a fair jury and to kill a mockingbird.
	And that's what they have to start.
	Advocates have to start comparing it.
	Judge, you want to impanel a to kill a mockingbird jury.
	If that's good with you in the Constitution, so be it.
	But it's not what the law intended, and it disgraces the judicial branch to even have it go through.
	Oh, Robert.
	Okay, so we'll follow that, but Enrico Tarrio, he's not getting a change to venue unless something miraculous happens.
	They've denied every single one.
	They refuse to grant any of it.
	And it's the judge who presides that denies it.
	Like, is there any...
	I'm going to ask a stupid question.
	Is there any financial incentive?
	Is there any professional incentive for the judge not to give up the file other than the case itself?
	No.
	It's just that it's a deference to the government is what it is.
	Because again, the government effectively picks venue, right?
	They could have prosecuted all these people in their home venue.
	They've chosen not to prosecute any of them in their home venue.
	Tells you everything you need to know.
	All right.
	Now, Sean.
	A-N-Q-N.
	I don't know if that's about a non, but whatever.
	$2 rumble ramp, but it's an interesting question and it reminds me of something I wanted to discuss last week.
	Curious to know, in the case of VAX injury, can't you sue in their private capacity?
	Also regarding Judge Overreach, what are your thoughts on a color of lawsuit?
	Thank you both for this.
	I'm not sure what you mean by the second part, but the first part, Robert.
	And this will just bring us back to something I wanted to discuss last week.
	Do you have any...
	Any opinion or any knowledge on the CDC adding the Rona jab to the schedule of recommended vaccines for children?
	I think it was Greg Price.
	I'm fairly certain it might have been Schellenberg.
	A number of people in the substacks, Alison Moore had a guest saying the reason that they want to add it is so that they can get permanent immunity whereby any vaccine injury has to go through the government program and in order to get that...
	To replace the emergency authorization use immunity, it's got to be recommended by the CDC to go on the updated schedule.
	Do you have any knowledge of that?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
	And it's why they've all played all the games they have.
	So it's the reason why they've never had the biologic licensed one available for forever, right?
	I mean, it's been approved for over a year.
	And my understanding is that what's being given to people is still the emergency use authorized one.
	And the reason is for legal liability purposes.
	That as long as they're under the PrEP Act, they have complete immunity.
	And they don't want to go to being outside of the PrEP Act, it being the actual biologic licensed approved vaccine, until they're on the kids list.
	And now they're on the kids list.
	Now they can release the biologic licensed one because they have immunity under the childhood vaccinations law of 1986.
	And so that's exactly what it is.
	And it was lazy incompetence by the CDC.
	It shows what a joke these institutions are.
	I mean, not only have people figured out that our so-called leading thinkers are not leading thinkers at all throughout the pandemic.
	I mean, there was a big meta-study done by no less than Johns Hopkins in part that concluded every lockdown measurement didn't produce anything.
	And in fact, if anything, produced net negative effects.
	I mean, and they went through all the studies and all the details.
	And yet all our so-called experts all around the world went along with it.
	As they pointed out, at one point, every country except a tiny island in the Indian Ocean did it at some point.
	Every country.
	And you have to ask, why?
	I mean, what tells you our public health authorities are completely broken.
	And the CDC is the ultimate example of this.
	And the fact it was 15 to nothing.
	I mean, you have it, especially at this point.
	How is the COVID vaccine at iteration of number three or four or five of the coronavirus, this vaccine doesn't even work on that.
	I mean, that's why they're updating it to include other things.
	How is this an imminent risk to children such that it should have ever been added to the list in the first place?
	Just nuts.
	And then people should start asking themselves, how many other drugs, so-called vaccines on that list, don't belong on the kids list?
	You know what?
	I mean, I have never been...
	It's like, now I understand the expression, extremists aren't born, they're made.
	I understand now, deniers are not born, they're made.
	And now, the way I saw this, 15 to 0, to add the Rona jab, knowing what we know about it, not knowing what we don't know like we didn't know back in 2021, knowing what we know about it, the risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, just take that alone, admittedly, with an older demographic.
	Now that we know, you know, it might cause you to bleed heavily for an extended period of time, even though we denied it would do that a year ago.
	Adding it to the kids list, it makes me now look at everything on that list and say, okay, where else did they do this?
	If it's happened today, it's not the first time in the history of humankind that it's happened.
	That's just a rule.
	Yeah, what they've learned is stick the label vaccine, call it for kids on any drug, and you're guaranteed profits and immune from suit.
	And that was always a bad idea.
	And now we're seeing how they're so accustomed to, all we got to do is just stick this label on it and boom, we're in magic land.
	And it's why the law should be reversed.
	There should be no immunity for drug companies ever, period.
	End of story.
	Regardless of what the so-called drug is.
	And that's especially true here.
	I mean, it's just revealing.
	And so, we'll see.
	I mean, I had a response.
	This week that we filed Warner Mendenhall and I on behalf of Brooke Jackson, because the U.S. government had made the extraordinary action to file a request in agreement with Pfizer to have the case that goes to the heart of all of this dismissed.
	But they didn't seek dismissal themselves.
	And what it appears is that there's a conflict between the Biden administration and the local U.S. attorney.
	That because why didn't they just move to dismiss then?
	Because suddenly it's not legally sufficient.
	And throughout their brief, they make contradictory claims, the U.S. government does.
	And so it's just a desperate effort to make sure this case does, I mean, again, just doesn't get to the discovery stage, right?
	The court still, if we don't prove it, the court can dismiss its summary judgment.
	And if we're wrong on it, and if our evidence is not persuasive, a jury will sell fine.
	So this is all about preventing discovery from ever occurring.
	And what is Pfizer so scared of, so afraid of, so terrified of in that discovery?
	And so the court has now yet scheduled oral argument on that case, so we'll wait till see to that.
	The court had made very public statements in the proceedings that he would rule on the facts and the law and not be influenced one way or the other by the power of Pfizer.
	And so we'll see.
	I mean, Pfizer's argument is patently ludicrous, in my opinion.
	I mean, the idea that the U.S. government, the taxpayers of the American people, would write a $2 billion plus, because the money just kept flowing, check to something that was not safe, not effective, and not a vaccine is kind of absurd.
	And that they weren't testing for transmission because they were going at the speed of science, Robert.
	Yes, indeed.
	Which, I mean, again, why would the Defense Department write that check?
	They're claiming that it can't be fraud, even if their drug is not safe, not effective, and it's not even a vaccine.
	Okay, if it's not fraud, Robert, the government would have done it anyhow.
	Do the people not have a lawsuit against the government?
	I would not pay my...
	That's not how...
	That's why false claims acts are given to the people.
	They're not given to the government.
	I mean, the government can do it, but they're not the exclusive means.
	That's why when Congress passed the False Claims Act...
	It gave the power of ordinary people to bring that claim.
	Why?
	Why didn't they just give it exclusively to the government?
	Because they didn't trust the executive branch of the United States government to do so.
	Now, why is that?
	It's because most of the fraud that led to the False Claims Act even being passed was with collusion of government bureaucrats.
	That's why an individual has the right on behalf of the people to bring the claim.
	The American people would not authorize billions of dollars for a drug that's not safe, not effective, and not even a vaccine.
	It's money laundering.
	It's just money laundering.
	Everybody gets their cut, and Albert Bourla gets whatever the heck he needs now.
	The other guy from...
	Robert, I had Alison on last Sunday, and I think someone said something inaccurate was said, and I think I have a feeling it was about...
	The vaccine injury program in the States.
	So I'm not sure, but let's just get this clear if you know it.
	You mentioned that 1985 act, and I think that's what it was.
	Once it gets on, once a vaccine or a jibby jab or whatever the hell this is, gets on the recommended schedule from the CDC, any injury then has to go through the government fund, the government program, and nobody, no plaintiff, no claimant can go after the company itself, the manufacturer of the drug?
	That can be, yeah, that's probably what will happen.
	So there's some of us, we're going to challenge it.
	We're going to challenge the PrEP Act as unconstitutional.
	We're going to challenge the addition of this particular vaccine, this particular drug, mislabeled a vaccine, in my opinion.
	That's the allegation of the lawsuit for the YouTube censors.
	Or it's just a statement of Pfizer to Europe.
	Yeah, we have no idea whether this prevents transmission.
	It's the statement of Dr. Kieran Moore, Chief Medical Officer out of Ontario.
	He called it a therapeutic, not me.
	That's what it always was.
	And one of doubtful utility for many people that were forced to take it.
	But that is the common interpretation.
	I guarantee you that's what the drug companies think, put it that way.
	And so that will be contested in court.
	As to, is the scale that broad?
	But to the rumble rant question, could you just file suit in their private capacity?
	The PrEP Act and the childhood vaccination immunizes everybody.
	That's the problem.
	The immunity is so broad.
	The vaccine injury court is a very difficult court.
	It's all bureaucrats.
	It's no jury.
	Limited rights on discovery.
	Limited ability to get evidence presented.
	Limited amount of damages you can collect.
	All of it.
	I imagine the damages are pennies on the dollar compared to what a private suit could have brought.
	The drug companies didn't demand it because they thought it put them at risk.
	Hamartix, $10 rumbarances.
	I used to be a bio researcher in academia.
	I don't know if he means academics or academia.
	What they have done with this medical product is a disgrace to every ethic I was ever trained in.
	It is abhorrent.
	No doubt about that.
	But, I mean, on the positive front, the Maloney government that took over in Italy, first thing they did, or one of the first things they did, was get rid of all the vaccine mandates and erase all fines for people who didn't comply with it.
	So that was a very promising sign from another government.
	And, of course, in New York, it gets confusing because the lowest court in New York is called the Supreme Court.
	If you watch a lot of, you know, was it Law and Order?
	You would have seen that a lot, you know, the Supreme Court of New York.
	But most people get confused.
	They think that's the highest court.
	It's not.
	It's the lowest court in New York.
	But that court found that, once again, whenever they've been forced to present evidence, they can't.
	In any lockdown context, they have it.
	Same as in Canada, right?
	When they had to go to court and present evidence, it ain't there.
	The so-called science doesn't exist in their evidentiary files.
	And then all you have to do is rescind, suspend, do whatever, and then moot, dismiss, like we had in Canada last week.
	Exactly.
	But still a good ruling by the New York court to protect all the New York employees.
	They're, of course, appealing that up the food chain.
	Did I not understand that Mayor Adams or New York says we're not respecting the court order now anyhow?
	Like basically define that?
	I mean, appealing and seeking a stay.
	But you can't actually ignore the order if a stay is denied by the New York higher courts.
	But you never know with the New York higher courts.
	But it is a sign of the unraveling.
	The law is downstream from culture.
	Just like politics is downstream from culture.
	That's because law is politics.
	That's what I've learned over the last four years.
	Law is politics.
	And so the more the court of public opinion raises concerns, this will start slowly but steadily be reflected in the courts that will suddenly wake up to their long snooze on these issues and these rights.
	And so, in fact, a major company...
	Maybe about to announce a withdrawal of its vaccine mandate policy.
	So it's a company that's name sounds a lot like the Nazi company, Tyson.
	Maybe it's just a coincidence.
	I'm not sure.
	But it appears that there's consideration by Tyson Foods to end their vaccine mandate with all the laws.
	I have suits or EOC claims.
	I don't know, a dozen states, something like that.
	A lot of different people they're representing was going to keep suing them.
	We'll see if there's a resolution in that regard.
	But there is some word out from some people that Tyson Foods may be about to walk back its vaccine mandate.
	And it was one of the New York Times featured him.
	The Biden administration featured him.
	The lawsuits probably had something to do with it.
	And I'd promise to sue them into oblivion and have my ghost come back and sue them later.
	I'm not taking that back yet, but hopefully Tyson Foods does the right thing and offers re-employment to everybody that it pushed out, ends its vaccine mandate for all employees, so no more boosters, none of that nonsense.
	That would be a promising indicator.
	That even corporate America is starting to wake up to what a debacle and disaster this policy was.
	Enough people suddenly passing and people have to start asking questions.
	Now, we're at 20,000 on the nose right now.
	Everyone hit that little plus button and drop a comment.
	Just make the chat go nuts.
	20,000 people.
	Everyone, welcome to the party.
	And then after this, go over to the Salty Cracker Party and let them know that you're there.
	Robert, I forgot to ask you coming in, how's everything going?
	How goes the battle?
	Oh, that's right.
	That's right.
	I never got to say good, good.
	Keep going with the drawl of the chat.
	Robert, can the PrEP Act immunity be bypassed in a state based on separation of powers?
	That's a $10 rumble rant from N.T. Galen.
	Right now, no.
	I mean, we're looking at suing to challenge its constitutionality in part on those grounds and other grounds.
	But right now, there's no out.
	And explain just...
	And some people have said that willful fraud is.
	Not really.
	You have to get the government's approval.
	Outrageous.
	All right.
	We're running short on time.
	I think we're doing pretty good.
	But, Robert, let's get to the other big one that's going to go to the Supreme Court.
	The positive discrimination, or just discrimination, as some might say, two cases going to the Supreme Court for discrimination based on race for admission.
	I know of the Harvard case a little bit better than the other case, just said, more of a direct connection to it.
	The idea being that Asian applicants were being, do I say penalized, treated less fairly, or other races were being treated more fairly in order to ensure diversity of the student's student body, which led to, you know, the blog, the articles say equal, you know, Equally qualified students, the Asian students, were being penalized.
	My understanding was that they were actually sort of penalizing in terms of admission, so making it harder for Asian students to get in, I don't know, for equity.
	Allegedly violated Title VI.
	Lower court decision said it didn't.
	Give us the rundown.
	What is Title VI?
	How does this not, if it doesn't violate...
	I don't know, federal funding to institutions that are not allowed to discriminate, how it just is not unconstitutional, the policy in and of itself, because the policy is not in question.
	The policy is there, as far as I understand.
	Explain it.
	How is it even a question?
	So it's because the courts back a ways said that diversity could be a basis for racial diversity, could be a basis of college application admissions.
	But it was basically a temporary compromise on the controversy surrounding affirmative action.
	So affirmative action went in the early 70s.
	It was actually a Nixon administration idea in part.
	And then universities quickly in law schools and graduate schools quickly adopted it.
	And it's grown into effectively a quota program.
	And that's what they proved in the extensive evidentiary proceeding against Harvard in the Boston federal court.
	And when we discussed it previously, I said that...
	To me, it was clear the quotas violated discrimination laws, but the federal judge found an excuse to cover for it.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has now taken it.
	In all probabilities, they've only taken it to reverse, that they're going to likely end quotas and racial diversity as a legitimate grounds to discriminate.
	As you note, the prime victims of this are not so-called Caucasian Americans.
	It's overwhelmingly Asian Americans.
	If they applied the same standards, regardless of race, basically Harvard would have almost three times as many Asian students as it currently does.
	Now, one can argue about whether those are good standards and metrics for getting them in, but it's Harvard's metrics, aside from the race denominator.
	And what happens is now there's still issues with legacy admissions and a lot of other donor-based admissions and things of that nature.
	But putting that aside, the racial discrimination is, to me, unconstitutional.
	Race neutrality is what we should have been aiming for.
	That doesn't mean you can't include somebody's life story as a pertinent factor for admissions.
	And like Wisconsin Law School, when I went there, had chosen that as its metric.
	That metric led to a pretty racially diverse admissions pool of kids who were admitted, but it was predicated upon unique life stories.
	So you weren't just as, you know, years ago, Professor Gates, who teaches at Harvard, a prominent African-American professor, said if we were writing about affirmative action at the Ivy League, the story would not be straight out of Brooklyn, talking about the movie, it would be straight out of Brookline.
	Talking about the very privileged, upper-middle-class suburb of Harvard.
	That has become more and more true.
	It wasn't always true, say, in 1975 or even 1995 when some of these court decisions came in.
	But it's definitely true now.
	In fact, I remember at different places I've been, including at Yale, if you were African-American, you were likely to be wealthier than the average student at Yale.
	So it's like, okay, who exactly are we protecting here?
	Now, I always called it, what would happen if you'd given Nat Turner a scholarship to Harvard?
	Nat Turner being one of the leaders of a great slave rebellion in Virginia.
	It's that you buy off the elite elements, the upper middle class privileged elements of an otherwise potentially dissident political community, and you co-opt their leadership against the interest of their own community, potentially.
	So I think, frankly, that's what's happened with affirmative action.
	And so it's become a way of propagating privilege and wealth within a lot of these communities.
	It's not serving working-class Puerto Ricans or working-class African-Americans or working-class Mexican-Americans and definitely not serving working-class Asian-Americans who are the predominant group discriminated against.
	And so I think it's always been a bad educational policy.
	But I think from a constitutional perspective...
	It's never been constitutional.
	My prediction is the Supreme Court will, in fact, find it's unconstitutional and will finally end quotas in college admissions.
	Practically speaking, I forget, how were they doing it?
	Were they literally asking on your application, race, Asian, Black?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	The funny thing is, they ask it on our bar registration when we renew every year.
	First of all...
	I'm white.
	Do you want...
	Am I supposed to put in religious minority?
	Like, I don't want preferential treatment and I don't want punishment.
	It's irrelevant.
	It should be.
	I don't even know why they ask it.
	Maybe for counting stats.
	And then you have people like Elizabeth Warren getting affirmative action, right?
	Because she's Native American.
	Yes, her high cheekbones, Robert.
	I didn't even know that that was a stereotype of Native Americans.
	Statistically less Native American than a random American.
	That was the...
	Irony of that story.
	All right.
	So, I mean, it is terrible.
	And I knew people were like, I don't want to mention that I'm Asian when I apply now because I'm going to get penalized.
	For what?
	It's not just race-based discrimination.
	It's race-based discrimination based on racist stereotypes.
	I mean, that's what it is.
	They have to be privileged.
	Therefore, we have to penalize them to make up for another group which we think are not as...
	I mean, all terrible wrong, wrong, through and through.
	We'll see.
	And I think it's never been about what they claim.
	It's never really been about racial diversity.
	It's been about co-opting a privileged group of people within dissident communities in the United States, in my opinion.
	And that, again, straight out of Brooklyn, and I'm quoting Henry Louis Gates.
	So that's the reality of Harvard's affirmative action in many other places, too.
	And if people are concerned with making sure people get equal opportunity and deal with that so-called actual privilege, then that should be life story driven.
	People can write essays and look at their life story.
	And if somebody overcame more obstacles, yeah, that is the reason to believe they'll be a better student than someone who didn't have to overcome any obstacles.
	Now, I'm not a big fan of elite education to begin with.
	I think we create an arbitrary limit.
	And say this group of people is more special than the group right next to them, often that's complete garbage.
	I mean, I went to school at Yale, and there was nothing special about those kids at all, aside from the fact most of them should be nowhere near positions of power.
	A lot of people there, formerly known as racism.
	I mean, divide and conquer.
	All right, Robert, what else have we missed?
	We're running low on time, but have we missed any of the big suits?
	Let me take a look at the locals poll.
	Pelosi, affirmative action.
	Oh, the big First Amendment right to watch drop boxes.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, you have to do this one because I'm not up to speed on it.
	So in Arizona, a group of people after watching 2,000 Mules decided they were going to organize volunteers to observe activity at drop boxes to see if they could see people placing more ballots in the drop boxes than they're legally entitled to or seeing somebody do so repeatedly.
	In other words, they drop two off and the next day they're back for two more and so forth.
	Taking down driver's licenses, things like that.
	And they publicly announced their intention to do so in the evident hope to deter illegal meal activity.
	In Arizona, outside of very few limited exceptions, you can't deliver somebody else's ballot.
	And so if you see somebody dropping off, it was they wanted to do 2,000 meals live.
	And so that's what they did.
	The Democrats got enraged, and so Democrats filed suit claiming it was a Ku Klux Klan Act violation and was somehow voter intimidation, which was utter gibberish.
	So the federal court looked at it and said that even if it had the effect of deterring people somehow from voting, which was far from clear, which there was no evidence of, That it's First Amendment protected activity because only true threats are outside of the First Amendment activity.
	And he's like, none of this is true threats.
	He actually cited 2,000 mules.
	He talked about it extensively.
	So now it's officially part of the court record, Dinesh D'Souza's film.
	Its public impact is now part of the court record, public record.
	And identified as you have a First Amendment right to gather news.
	You have a First Amendment right to report news.
	You have a First Amendment right to receive news.
	You have a First Amendment right to videotape and publicize public events.
	And putting in your ballot at a Dropbox is exactly such an event.
	Just like you could monitor people walking in and out of a voting booth.
	The voting precinct and the rest.
	You have to be 75 feet away in certain rules like that that are comparable to polling rules.
	None of this, of course, would be an issue if they would just get rid of drop boxes.
	Drop boxes are the problem.
	Make people go into the precinct to deliver the ballot or vote there.
	The court said, no, you have a First Amendment right to do this.
	You have a First Amendment right to participate in this way, to gather, to associate, to report, to surveil, to inform.
	And that First Amendment right, there was no true threat here, nothing that took away that First Amendment right.
	So it not only provided that for Arizona, I'm sure the Democrats wish they never would have sued, because now they've established something they thought they could get around.
	But it's now a precedent that other people can look at and cite in other cases, anywhere else in the country, because you're entitled.
	I mean, and the other irony with all this is all these drop boxes are supposed to be under surveillance anyway.
	Video, constant, continuous video surveillance anyway.
	And it tells you a lot that Democrats are paranoid.
	I mean, what honest voter is going to be bothered by somebody seeing that they dropped off their ballot?
	I don't think an honest voter is going to be concerned with that.
	I think who's going to be concerned with that is somebody who's up to no good, who now realizes they might get caught trying to pad the ballot box.
	I can understand people don't want to be recorded.
	You are when you walk into a precinct.
	There's all kinds of people around.
	There's political people 100 feet outside.
	There's people yelling.
	There's all kinds of activity.
	There was a New York ad that said they were going to vote in their underwear.
	People want to vote from their living room.
	They want to vote multiple times from their living room.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's a state issue, but to the extent it's a First Amendment constitutional issue, that will have the same...
	It will have...
	Everywhere.
	His basis was on U.S. constitutional First Amendment standards.
	And it's a good...
	I think I put it up.
	Maybe I didn't yet.
	I think I put it up at Viva Barnes Law.
	If I didn't, it'll be up there soon enough.
	And they put up a bunch of stuff there today.
	Because it was good at a recitation of all your First Amendment rights that people forget about.
	People forget that you have a First Amendment right to gather news.
	You have a First Amendment right to receive information.
	People forget about all those things.
	Unless you have that right.
	Unless you're Julian Assange, Alex Jones to some extent.
	Who else?
	Who are the other ones?
	Robert, but you reminded me I've got to do a better job at letting everybody know.
	Anybody who wants merch, by the way, and I'll bring up the one that everyone loves, Never in Writing, Always in Cash, a Robert Barnes classic.
	VivaFry.com to get all of your merch.
	And I'm going to read in Ambalanci, Ambalanci 95, $20 rumble rant, beautiful purple color.
	It says, please accept my tuition payment for the excellent education I am receiving.
	Viva Barnes University.
	Exactly.
	The best university out there.
	And we don't discriminate based on race.
	And we're not a university.
	We're not a university.
	No credentials.
	No credits.
	The only credentials that matter, the quality intelligence and above-average information.
	But the other big case on election context was the Republican National Committee sued Google.
	Because Google, every single month, at the key time for fundraising, Google would accidentally send all of the RNC emails that were sent out to their donor list to their spam file.
	And it kept happening month after month after month after month.
	Because everybody basically on the eve of the month, for political reasons, for quarterly reporting reasons, for a range of reasons, that's their sort of peak fundraising time.
	That was the time when Google kept burying their RNC emails into the spam box.
	And so they filed suit on grounds that it violates a range of California laws.
	And what's interesting is which case they cited the most throughout the complaint.
	It's the Fifth Circuit case we discussed.
	That's one of the most thorough one out there.
	I think that loser, Hogue, that lawtuber, Hogue, was like, oh, I don't think that case is very good.
	Stick to whatever little area of law you do, my friend.
	Don't mess with the other areas.
	It's outside your expertise.
	In fact, you look at the case.
	It's a very well-thought-out case, very well-detailed case.
	People can read it for themselves, Fifth Circuit case.
	But it was cited because it pointed all the analogs.
	And what was really good about the complaint, co-filed by Harmeet Dillon, Who's representing Adriana Jacob now in the New York defamation case against Taylor Lorenz.
	And her partner, Ron Coleman.
	Everyone should go to his YouTube channel representing Nate the Lawyer against Christopher Boozy.
	That lawsuit has been said.
	Ah, I didn't know that.
	Yeah, all right, all right.
	Yeah, good, good.
	Maybe, is that the case Coleman said he wanted us to promote or tell people about?
	It is the case that he said, if you're gonna, we're gonna break it down and we're going to.
	To direct people to Ron Coleman's YouTube channel where they discuss it.
	And Ron Coleman, I'm going to be on his next published podcast, I think.
	Ron Coleman, everybody.
	The lawyer.
	Good, good case.
	And what is it?
	Apparently Western...
	I had forgot this in part until the Fifth Circuit case reminded everybody.
	But this suit also details it.
	Western Union used to do this.
	So in Western Union, that the origin of many common carrier laws...
	All derived from Western Union abusing their near-monopoly power over the telegraph to censor dissident speech and to politically favor one group over another, one party over another, one candidate over another.
	And that's where a lot of these laws came from.
	And there's versions of it.
	This is the common carrier laws.
	There's public accommodation laws.
	The UNRU Act in California.
	Several other laws that limit Google's, also consumer fraud laws, because what Google is doing is saying, please use our email service.
	We won't be politically discriminatory in your ability to send and receive emails, and yet that's exactly what they're doing, so it's a form of consumer fraud.
	So all of those claims now brought against Google.
	It shows the degree of political...
	I mean, when you talk about voter manipulation, election manipulation, Google was even suppressing voter...
	Get up the vote emails.
	Here, I'm reminded constantly somehow on my phone by Democratic groups of, hey, your ballot's not in yet.
	Hey, your ballot's not in yet.
	I wonder exactly how they have all this information, but it is what it is.
	And I'm getting it if I go on TikTok, if I'm on Facebook, if I'm on YouTube.
	I'm getting these messages all over the place.
	If I go to any site, the internet bombards me something with it.
	This is real voter manipulation and other activities.
	Here they are suppressing get-out-the-vote efforts.
	And here it's Google doing it.
	This is systematic election interference by big tech.
	So it's a big case for how that all ultimately filters out.
	It's a donation in kind.
	It has monetary value.
	And people in the chat on Rumble were saying, yeah, they just got a text from Fetterman asking for support.
	But yeah, there's glitches.
	Uncle Fetterman?
	You mean Uncle Festerman?
	No, I can't make fun of him because I feel terrible for him.
	Robert, did you watch that debate?
	Hey, hey, they want him to be a United States Senator.
	I never feel bad for any dude that wants to be a United States Senator.
	If you want to be a United States Senator, you're not allowed to be an incompetent.
	Well, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta, he didn't stake his reputation, but said Fetterman's fine.
	It's only his ability to formulate sentences, not comprehension, based on interviews and videos.
	But I haven't seen the medical records yet.
	Robert, I think we've done one heck of a banger episode here.
	This is glorious.
	What do we have on for this upcoming week?
	I was just going to double-check that we covered.
	I mean, briefly about the Brooks verdict.
	Oh, please.
	I didn't care too much.
	I mean, I think that guy's still nuts.
	Now, I thought he was guilty, but I didn't think he was competent to defend himself at trial.
	And those are three different layers of standards.
	Competence to stay in trial.
	Competence to self-represent at trial, though the two are interrelated, and then whether you were insane at the time of the crime, which I saw is very different.
	But, I mean, I think anybody who watched that trial, does anyone really think that guy was competent to defend himself?
	I don't know, Robert.
	I think he, I would pay him.
	I mean, you think he maybe did it deliberately, but would you call that a good legal strategy, what he did?
	No, I think the guy is a pathological narcissist.
	The sociopath.
	I mean, the guy thinks he's...
	But he acted against his own self-interest in representing himself.
	Doesn't that raise questions of competence?
	It's fair enough, but people are entitled to harm themselves if they want to be idiots.
	But, no, I just watched...
	I mean, I couldn't get over the demeanor.
	I mean, it's a classic manipulative...
	Narcissist thinks he's God almost quite literally alluded to the fact that...
	Ted Bundy, at least, was good in his self-defense.
	I didn't see that.
	Brooks was, from day one, I'm going to antagonize the judge, say a bunch of crazy stuff, have witnesses embarrass me, try to do dumb stuff in front of the jury that gets me scolded.
	I mean, he was probably always going to get convicted because he did the crime.
	But that was a...
	An embarrassment of representation.
	My question is that now, I don't know whether we should give courts the power to declare them incompetent because that's dangerous.
	You superimpose a lawyer on someone who doesn't want that lawyer.
	And the courts, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Do you trust the courts with that power?
	But I don't, I still, and people confused.
	I was not saying.
	He should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
	I didn't believe that was the case.
	Nobody really thought that.
	But people just say he looks functional and he looks like...
	Well, it depends on how we measure competence.
	At least the legal definition is supposed to be intellectually contribute to your own defense.
	And I just didn't see that.
	I saw somebody who's in his own little world.
	So far in his own little world that he's got all these little tricks he thinks are genius that are clearly not.
	Grounds.
	Grounds.
	Yeah, I mean, exactly.
	I mean, clearly, it's just I didn't see a competent representation.
	I didn't think he was competent to represent himself.
	I don't know what the solution to that is because I don't like the courts having the power to overrule that.
	I didn't watch a lot of the trial.
	I didn't take him seriously.
	It was not a learning experience.
	It was entertainment value.
	It was a freak show.
	You're watching a freak show, but the most horrific base that you've ever seen.
	But when you compare him to Bundy, yeah, Bundy was a lot more competent from what I know.
	I didn't experience it firsthand.
	But Bundy also got away with it for a lot longer.
	That's the difference between...
	The good psychopaths and the bad ones.
	But he was actually both.
	He was both at times spontaneous and planned.
	He was unusual in that regard, as sociopaths go.
	But he struck me as someone more incompetent, still bad person, but incompetent more so than Bundy or others.
	But I don't know what the solution to that situation is, necessarily, constitutionally.
	Now, in terms of the death penalty case...
	I mean, it appears there was some dispute between the jury.
	In my understanding, in Florida, you have to have a unanimous verdict for the death penalty or its defaults to life in prison.
	I mean, if there was any case that seemed clearly a death penalty case, he seemed like it.
	So my guess is that people who got on to the panel probably have a problem with the death penalty, period.
	And plenty of people do.
	Matt and the Blonde.
	There's people on the right that do, not necessarily out of moral qualms, but more out of distrust of the state.
	The death penalty, what happens if they turn out to be wrong?
	What if they killed an innocent person?
	I understand that concern.
	I don't have any problem with it in principle.
	It's just do you trust the government or not?
	To be accurate in these cases.
	But I don't have any thoughts beyond that on the Parkland case.
	I was surprised at the verdict, but it must mean during jury selection they got some people that probably just didn't disclose their hostility to the death penalty.
	One way they manipulate those juries, the government, is they require you to support the death penalty to get on the jury, and that's always a much more pro-government jury.
	So that's one of the reasons they often will even request it in the first place.
	They get to manipulate the jury pool in their favor.
	I see.
	I have, in my life, turned against the death penalty, on the one hand, for fear of executing an innocent person.
	And also, I compare my country, myself, to a country that I would not want to replicate.
	And by and large, countries that have the death penalty, you know, they're not countries that you want to emulate in other respects.
	And so that's sort of a guiding rule.
	Grunt167 says, incompetent.
	Did you see that box fort for a $10 rumble rent?
	And Robert, other people in the chat are saying, hold on.
	Lula seems to have won in...
	Oh, I lost the chat.
	Oh, in Brazil.
	Yeah, in Brazil.
	It was very close, but I think the odds were moving in his favor, so that wouldn't surprise me.
	Lula's got a pretty deep base of support there in Brazil.
	More of a legitimate left populist against Bolsonaro's right populist.
	But Bolsonaro made a good run of it, even if he did come up short.
	Was Brazil, was that like the last non-socialist holdout of South America?
	Or is there at least one more now?
	That's a good question.
	I think it was among the last.
	Yeah, it could be.
	It could be.
	You're right.
	You're right.
	Yeah, that is interesting.
	And then the only other verdict is there was a build-the-wall conviction.
	That's the case.
	There was a mistrial.
	And so they retried him.
	I have problems with retrying after mistrials, but the New York jury pool, so they convicted him.
	To my knowledge, I had never yet seen any actual victim step forward.
	I haven't heard of anybody who said, I wouldn't have given the money had I known some percentage of it would go to the founders.
	So instead, what they had was some embarrassing internal text and things like that.
	And hey, look, they used the money for this personal thing or that personal thing.
	So what if the donors still would have given the money?
	I mean, and what is the Southern District of New York?
	All these people had no ties to the Southern District of New York.
	So this was another venue abuse, another prosecutorial abuse, another dubious case that a court refused to clean up even after the first mistrial.
	I don't know if it will be fixed on appeal.
	And you may see another crazy sentence like the Steve Bannon sentence, but this one would be much longer potentially, of someone where nobody claimed fraud.
	Except the government.
	I'm trying to see how many years.
	He hasn't been sentenced yet.
	No, no.
	You were just convicted.
	But up to 20 years.
	That's outrageous.
	It's outrageous.
	Period.
	Robert, we've done it again.
	Who do we have on for Wednesday?
	Do we know for a side note?
	Oh, yeah.
	Justin Hart has got a new book out.
	He's one of the big people.
	Those are critics of the COVID lockdowns.
	That'll be fun.
	Justin Hart.
	All right.
	Awesome.
	And your appearances this week, where are people going to see you?
	Actually, do I have something?
	I have something scheduled, but I don't know what it is.
	So, Tuesday night, 7.30 live, Eastern Time, with Richard Barris on What Are the Odds?
	We may even do another one on Thursday, depending on the circumstances, since the election day is just about a week away.
	We'll see what happens there.
	We'll be discussing that.
	Almost all the odds have moved in the direction of the picks that we've...
	So that's been interesting to watch.
	But otherwise, just some bourbon with Barnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And everybody should know, if you want to support, forget Super Chats, forget Rumble Rants, but we appreciate them.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	It's seven bucks a month or 70 for a whole year.
	The best source of knowledge, entertainment, and community you'll find on the interwebs.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Yes, we've done good, Robert.
	I'm going to...
	Nah, we're going to get cut off a little early.
	I guess I don't have a video lined up.
	Go check out Salty Cracker.
	Salty Cracker put on a good one yesterday about Paul Pelosi.
	Edgy, pushing the envelope.
	But my goodness, it seems that that's what you have to do these days to wake people up and open their eyes.
	But everybody, stay tuned.
	We'll be around.
	Malone, Tuesday, should be there during the day.
	Robert will see if he can make it in for that.
	Wednesday, sidebar, we've got it.
	I'll be covering the...
	Emergencies Act inquiry all week, doing the same thing I did last week, running it simultaneously with daily streams.
	So stay tuned.
	All good things, everybody.
	Thank you all for being here.
	See you tomorrow.

▲