Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 6, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:11

Pelosi-Gate; True the Vote JAILED; Trump sues NY AG; Musk & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Common sense are in.
	Yes, there have been corrupt empires.
	Yes, they manipulate.
	Yes, there are secret societies.
	Yes, there have been oligarchies throughout history.
	And yes, today in 2002, there is a tyrannical organization calling itself the New World Order, pushing for worldwide government, a cashless society, open borders, total and complete tyranny, where human beings are absolutely worthless.
	There's six and a quarter plus billion of us, and the globalists have said it many times.
	There's too many of us.
	We're causing a problem.
	We need to be cold at the tune of 80%.
	It's amazing to talk about that, but it's the globalists, the UN, their own public statements, and they've convinced a lot of liberals and elitist conservatives and others that by going along with this, that we're intelligent members of society.
	It's the ultimate Malthus worldview.
	It is this radical, virulent form of social Darwinism.
	It's the excuse of tyrants.
	And by creating open borders where there's no national sovereignty and only global bodies that control all the resources.
	By centralizing and socializing healthcare, the state becomes God, basically, when it comes to your health.
	And then by releasing diseases and viruses and plagues upon us, we then basically get shoved into their system.
	Yeah, it ends there.
	The thing is this.
	This is from 2002.
	Let me just get to the...
	This is from 2002.
	It's Alex Jones.
	The thing is this, 2002, for those of you who are like 40, is not that long ago.
	It doesn't feel like it was that long ago that it should have been a revolutionary, prescient forecast of things to come.
	But it's kind of amazing.
	2002, a year after 9-11, and what Alex Jones is describing 20 years ago, well, quite clearly, it was in his radar.
	20 years ago.
	Not on my radar.
	And the way he describes it, you can't be that right for the wrong reasons.
	You can be right for the wrong reasons, make a prediction Trump is going to win in 2016 and take credit for being a revolutionary predictor, Nostradamus, whatever it is.
	You can't be that on point by accident.
	And it's quite astonishing.
	Where, you know, he's talking about once you're a, not a ward of the state, but once the state owns you, once you're dependent on the state for healthcare, digital currency, the things that he saw in the works in real time 20 years ago when nobody else saw them, well, you can write off a guy for being a lunatic because he was wrong on a few things, hyperbolic on a few other things.
	You don't get that much right so much ahead of the time.
	By accident.
	And I had responded to that tweet.
	Responded to that.
	He's talking about what happens when the government owns you.
	Once you have become part of the healthcare system.
	Canada.
	Culling the population.
	10,000 Canadians euthanized in 2021 alone under Justin Trudeau's liberal government.
	Culling of the population.
	In Canada, since the beginning of COVID.
	There have been 40-some-odd thousand deaths attributed to COVID.
	In 2021, there were, I think, I might be getting the numbers somewhat wrong, there were under 20,000 COVID-related deaths, even though in Canada, in 2021, the experts had come out and said, we should probably start distinguishing between dying from COVID versus dying of COVID.
	But setting that aside, I think it was like 16,000 COVID deaths, for which they shut down a country, Some of whom insisted on being euthanized because of
	the loneliness and despair they were enduring as a result of the COVID restrictions.
	And you listen to Alex Jones talk about it.
	20 years ago, cashless society.
	I don't know when Bitcoin got started, but this was before Bitcoin.
	You can't be that prescient and on point by accident.
	Now, people are saying YouTube is not showing...
	No, no, we're live on Rumble, people.
	I see it right here.
	Yay, a Rumble browser, thanks.
	Some people don't realize how much of a gift...
	Each day is.
	That is from Dog Digger on Rumble.
	We're live on Rumble.
	So people saying we're not live, maybe there's a bit of a delay, but we're live.
	I see myself right now, and I always make myself somewhat uncomfortable when I see myself.
	People, we're going to be going exclusive to Rumble, I'd say at about the 30-minute mark, give or take.
	I saw that video of Alex Jones today.
	I said, that's the intro.
	We don't need to see Barack Obama and puke in our mouths.
	We don't need to see Justin Trudeau and puke in our mouths.
	We don't need to see Joe Biden and say, sweet, merciful goodness, what the heck has happened to the administration of the most powerful nation on earth, Alex Jones.
	Before, his voice was different.
	He looked a little younger.
	20 years ago, we all looked a little younger.
	Just foresight.
	It's post-9-11, and Jones was asking questions on 9-11 that some people were not asking about 9-11 at the time of 9-11.
	We are live on Bumble.
	So now, people, before we get started, because we've got...
	They're always one heck of a show.
	We've got some stuff lined up tonight.
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	We're going to watch the now-deleted NBC reporting on Jack Pelosi, on Paul Pelosi's...
	We're going to watch that.
	We're going to talk about that.
	We've got Pennsylvania imposing what can only be described as vague and nebulous and therefore absolutely over-the-top and atrocious code of conduct on lawyers, which can have nothing other than the absolute effect, not of chilling free speech, of criminalizing certain types of practice of law.
	We'll get there.
	We're going to talk about Brazil, because I keep forgetting Barnes and I talk about things on other people's channel, but we want to talk about them here as well.
	Got a jam-packed show.
	But, but, but, before we get there, people, you may have noticed, you may have noticed that little thing that said, this stream, this video contains paid promotion, because it does.
	And I'll tell you the anecdote tonight about the paid promotion.
	Pudge, the paralyzed Puggle, has involuntary...
	Urinations and defecations.
	Can't control it.
	Pudge is paralyzed in the back because she got a pinched nerve in the back and lost movement of her back legs.
	Luckily, she retained some control of her bladder and bowel because otherwise that would have been the end of it.
	Well, she had an accident in the kitchen today that I didn't smell.
	Why didn't I smell it?
	I don't know if it's entirely and only because of EnviroCleanse filter that we have in the kitchen.
	I think it is at least partly to do with this.
	EnviroCleanse...
	Air Filtration System is the sponsor of today's stream.
	It's a product that I use in the house.
	It has a massive, beautiful HEPA filter, which filters out particulate matter from the air.
	It's got a patented purification filter in there that uses minerals to neutralize germs, neutralize odors.
	And I think that's why I didn't notice the massive puddle of urine of pudge.
	Because of this filter.
	It's quiet.
	It's beautiful.
	It's used by the Department of Defense.
	No joke.
	You can look it up.
	It's on the website.
	I had to make sure I was able to disclose that fact.
	It's in 300,000 classrooms across America.
	And my goal is to get it into 10,000 classrooms in Canada.
	So that Canadian kids can have proper air circulation without having to open up the windows in winter.
	They can have clean air in school.
	EnviroCleanse.
	Air purification system.
	Go to ekpure.com.
	Promo code Viva.
	You'll get 10% off the unit and you will get a free air quality monitor.
	It's a third-party product, but it lets you know what your air quality is and if or that the product is working.
	And it is quiet.
	It's good.
	It neutralizes germs to like a quarter of the size of the Rona.
	They say, because I'm not a doctor, it will help you.
	Reduce your risks of catching the flu.
	It purifies the air, eliminates odors, eliminates particulate matter.
	It's fantastic.
	I have one.
	I use it.
	I love it.
	And I also love the fact that they support indirectly free speech, but they also support free-thinking radicals like Viva Frye, Robert Barnes, and all of us in the chat.
	So ekpure.com, echo, kilopure.com, promo code VIVA.
	Can you borrow $700 so you can get one?
	They have 0% financing.
	So there's also that option available, unlike those.
	Let me tell you, they have 0% financing under certain terms, so you can check that out.
	But speaking of financing, so moving from one country to another, it's a sharp learning curve of a process.
	We drove down.
	I thought I was going to ship or drive my car back.
	I thought I was going to...
	Drive down, bring some stuff, bring the car back because it was a leased car and I didn't necessarily want to have the car.
	Get down, decide we're going to purchase the Quebec car.
	It's a Subaru Ascent, made in wherever it's made, but it's a Quebec car.
	And I find out that, you know, the insurance company here says you either got to get the car registered or bring it back and get, you know, insure, get a Florida car so that we can insure it properly.
	Okay.
	I go to look to see how one...
	Registers a Canadian car in America.
	And they say it's very simple.
	All you have to do is cross the border and declare the car.
	I was like, okay, well, that's good.
	But the border is four days away or at least two days away if you drive.
	You got to cross the border, pay the duties, get the car inspected.
	You got to pay a bunch of whatever.
	Then you got to go to a DMV in Florida.
	Get the whatever.
	Long story short, not going to happen.
	So we're shipping the car back.
	And we have to get a new car here.
	The leasing company wanted to charge 18% interest to lease a car.
	18% interest.
	I'm not a socialist, and there's no but to that.
	This is the type of...
	What's the word?
	Not free market.
	This is the type of corporate abuse that could turn a conservative into a socialist.
	18% interest.
	And by the way, now good interest, like reasonable interest on a leased car, 4% to 6%.
	That is already highway robbery.
	And you realize the system, I'm not going to go into a whole like the system is designed to keep poor people poor and make rich people richer.
	It certainly seems like that for certain things.
	Neil Oliver, it's a month old, the video, but talked about how the banking system works.
	How you borrow money, creating money out of thin air, and charging you interest on money that they've created out of thin air.
	And if you have no choice but to finance, you end up paying twice as much for the same products.
	You end up paying on a mortgage, because I had one back in Canada.
	You're paying more interest than capital.
	And then you want to talk about, if you go to a car dealer, should we say, well, we'll buy a used garbage car cash.
	Well, they're going to charge you more to buy cash because then they don't get to make the money off the interest that they would have made money off of had you leased or financed from them.
	The system, in some respects, is designed to keep people poor.
	It's designed to keep people dependent.
	And I can now understand why certain people have certain reflexes that are...
	Anti-capitalist to some extent.
	The goal is to get you walking or taking the bus while they fly on private jets.
	It's so obscene.
	It's so abusive that if you're rich enough to have all the cash in the world and you don't have to pay interest, good.
	You can actually make interest on the money that you have.
	And if you don't, they reach up through your bottom hole.
	And it's not getting blood from a tournament.
	It's getting cash from your body.
	It's nuts.
	And you're watching Alex Jones talk about what he's talking about 20 years ago.
	And it all loops together.
	But thank you for reminding me.
	You can get 0% financing if you meet certain requirements on the filter.
	If you need to get a car.
	You're buying a piece of crap, which is going to cost you more money to maintain.
	Worse for the environment.
	Everything about the system is designed to screw and to be counterproductive.
	You end up having to get an old used car.
	Go get an electric car.
	That'll be the solution.
	Good luck.
	Good luck financing it.
	Oh, you want to finance it?
	Well, you're going to pay.
	The banks are going to make their money.
	The car leasing companies are going to make their money.
	And you're going to be lucky to have it if you want it.
	Yeah, so Little Rock says I have zero interest on my new Jeep Wrangler.
	Once upon a time, there was 0% interest, and it wasn't that long ago.
	On our Subaru, we were paying like 500 Canadian a month.
	I think it was a little bit less.
	Oh, it's the corruption of real capitalism.
	Well, you know what?
	Hold on.
	While we're on the subject, well, first things first.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornication advice.
	Anyone who is so inclined to support the channel, they have these things called Super Chats on YouTube, Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of every dollar of Super Chat.
	If you don't want to support on YouTube, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, where we will be going exclusively in about 15 minutes.
	They have Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	It's better for the creator, better for the platform to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
	Pamela R. Walker.
	In a $1 Rumble rant on Rumble says, so if we put it in the White House, will it rid us of that stink?
	Possibly.
	No comment.
	John McGarvey, $5 Rumble rant says, if I had a million dollars, I'd be rich.
	Barenaked Ladies, classic Canadian music.
	But look, we've got some time.
	Speaking of classic Canadian music, I didn't want to make you all vomit in your mouths leading into the stream.
	But we've been around for 15 minutes.
	We've gotten to know each other a little better.
	It's time to make people vomit in their mouths just a little bit.
	It's not Trudeau.
	It's not Obama.
	It's not Biden.
	It's Chrystia Freeland.
	Listen.
	Listen to this.
	Chrystia Freeland, she's a woman of the people.
	She understands the plight of people who are struggling daily in Canada.
	Before COVID, by the way, one in five children in Canada was hungry, was not getting enough food to eat.
	Chrystia Freeland, she's a person of the people.
	Hold on, I just saw this.
	Yeah, sorry.
	She's a person of the people, a woman of the people.
	She understands the plights, the struggle of existence in Canada.
	Let me just get the barf off.
	She understands the plight of Canadians.
	Listen to this.
	She's talking about what she's doing to survive these hard times.
	I think Canadian families are looking really closely at all of their expenses.
	I personally, as a mother and wife, look carefully at my credit card bill once a month.
	And last Sunday, I said to the kids, you're older now.
	You don't want to watch Disney anymore.
	Let's cut that Disney Plus subscription.
	So we cut it.
	It's only $13.99 a month that we're saving, but every little bit helps.
	And I think every mother in Canada is doing that right now.
	First of all...
	Not to pick on bad habits, because I have a few, but I'm going to pick this.
	The sucking in the air.
	First of all, I think it's an indication of insincerity.
	I think that is, compared to her standard baseline, that's an indication of something.
	I think Canadian families are looking really closely at all of their expenses.
	I personally, as a mother and wife, look carefully at my credit card.
	I personally, as a mother and a wife, let me just look at my notes.
	Oh yeah, that's about as sincere as saccharine.
	It's about as authentic as saccharine.
	Bill, once a month.
	And last Sunday, I said to the kids, you're older now.
	You don't want to watch Disney anymore.
	Let's cut that Disney Plus subscription.
	Let's cut it.
	You're old enough.
	You don't use it.
	Let's cut something that you don't use to save $13.99 a month.
	And that's what we're doing.
	To make ends meet in these hard times, during which we've taken three pay raises during the COVID.
	She's worth quite a lot of money.
	No problem.
	But she understands.
	She cut $13.99 out of her monthly expenses.
	While they demand of Canadians, by the way, to subsidize the CBC to the order of a billion, billion two a year.
	We pay more.
	We're compelled to pay more to subsidize state propagandists.
	Then she willingly paid for a service that she no longer uses.
	But she understands the hardships of Canadians.
	She just cut $13 out of her as a wife and a mother.
	I don't understand what those two identity things have to do with anything.
	You will own nothing and like it.
	That's what they want.
	Nothing about this is capitalism.
	This is all a result of the last two to three years.
	Bad policy, harming citizens in every respect.
	Oh, and by the way...
	You will own nothing and you'll be happy.
	You will cut your Disney and you will be happy.
	You will cut all expenses and you will be happy.
	You will eat bugs and you will be happy.
	Coming from Chrystia Freeland, member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum, WEF.
	You all know that.
	We all know that.
	All right.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	Let me get one more super chat in.
	Evander Farson says, you can self-finance all your major purchases by building capital in a private asset out of the banking system and deprive the banks of the ability to inflate.
	Please search Infinite Banking Concept.
	No financial advice either.
	All right.
	I see Barnes.
	He's in the back.
	I'm going to star some super chats so we can get to those afterwards.
	Let's get this show started because I was saving the NBC deletion for Robert.
	Robert, we're going to get into that in a second.
	How goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	We haven't done it in a while, and I've forgotten to ask, what's the book behind you, and what's the cigar that I don't yet see in your hands?
	Oh, the book is T. Harry Williams, great biography of Huey Long, a pretty big book, a famous American populist from the 1930s, and a tatawaje cigar is what I have tonight.
	All right, and everyone, tell me if the audio is too loud.
	It sounded loud on my end, but if the audio is good...
	No, don't touch it, Robert.
	I think it might just be my...
	Computer volume.
	Okay, Robert, we've got a lot on the menu tonight.
	I don't do it.
	Go for it.
	Speech code for lawyers.
	Emergencies Act Canada.
	The inquiry going on there.
	The truth to vote.
	The folks behind 2,000 mules still sitting in a federal jail as of Monday and still there as of this evening.
	The New York court that took over the Trump organization won't allow Trump to do anything with his properties, won't even allow him to submit a financial statement without the judge's personal approval.
	We have Trump suing the New York Attorney General in the state of Florida in state court over those matters.
	We have election law updates on absentee ballots, ballot poll watching, the various reforms that have happened in some of the states.
	And your right to campaign and not be fired from that in the state of New York in a case that went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We have White Boy Rick sues the feds.
	We have a big musical producer who got blacklisted for simply talking about what lyrics he used to cover in his songs.
	We have a...
	It turns out the city, according to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, governments can ban you from feeding yourself or feeding homeless people even at a religious place.
	We have fake cops getting immunity because apparently, according also to the Eighth Circuit, they had no idea that nobody knew that you had to be a cop in order to act like one.
	We have vaccine updates on workers' cop suits, on Tyson Foods, on children's health defense against the FDA.
	We have all the issues at SCOTUS, which include Trump's taxes, affirmative action, the administrative state, what's called FBAR accounts involving the IRS and the Department of Treasury, and the rights of Navajo tribes and treaties and how that works.
	We have the Fourth Circuit making good decisions, limiting Section 230.
	We have how does...
	A lot of people don't know about these journalist shield laws, but how do they work when it's the journalist who gets killed, like what happened in Las Vegas?
	Yeah, I mean, that story is going to...
	There's an amazing question of law that comes out of that.
	We have a big Second Amendment win in New York, the right to carry guns to church.
	We have the right...
	LA politicians, how they bonded in a federal criminal case that's pending in LA.
	It turns out they really bonded well over free trips to Vegas and prostitutes.
	We have another hush-hush being confirmed.
	I say, who doesn't bond over hookers, Robert?
	It's hookers and gambling.
	Hookers and gambling in Vegas goes together, right?
	We have a hush-hush that was confirmed.
	A couple of the people falsely accused of assassinating Malcolm X were not only freed but received a substantial settlement for their wrongful imprisonment.
	And we have the NBA suspending Kyrie Irving for his speech off the court while corruptly covering up sexual harassment by its own players inside the court.
	And then we got the discovery issues concerning the big tech collusion case involving multiple states, multiple courts, multiple jurisdictions.
	Well, we'll see how many of those we get to.
	But Robert, this was not on the menu, but I think we have to talk about it.
	Trump called him Ron DeSanctimonious.
	Robert...
	People can ignore all that.
	I mean, the first thing...
	Go nowhere.
	It develops nothing.
	There is no actual acrimony.
	Not on the DeSantis side, I can tell you that.
	Nor is it.
	There's people who want there to be acrimony between the two.
	And Trump made his little statement, you know, just threw that out there just to let everybody know he's the head guy.
	Other than that, you can totally ignore it.
	There will be much ado of it.
	Nothing will come of it.
	Well, you remember when he responded to the media about having, you know, the accusation about having said inject disinfectant and he said I was being sarcastic.
	So I was positing the idea that it might have been...
	Even possible that he meant it as a compliment in a loving way and not necessarily as a jab.
	He meant it to people that are trying to promote a divide between the two of them just to remind them that he's the boss.
	That's classic Trump.
	I mean, Trump's made these statements about Steve Bannon.
	He's made these statements about a wide range of his own allies.
	So that's not a major surprise.
	I don't think anything will come of it beyond that.
	I was surprised to see not just...
	Left-wing blue checkmarks on Twitter freaking out.
	But, like, right-wing people should have done this shame on Trump, yada, yada.
	And to me, it seems like not just an unnecessary distraction, but almost playing into...
	The mainstream media game of sowing discord among allies.
	That's what they want.
	They want Trump supporters to dislike DeSantis and DeSantis supporters to dislike Trump.
	And some of them took the bait and ran with it, and that's because they're fools.
	So this is not anything to pay great attention to.
	There is no great divide between the two of them.
	DeSantis has made that crystal clear, and you notice that DeSantis didn't care.
	And he just made clear that these rumors being leaked and circulated that he himself is engaged in any of this talk is nonsense, as he's told.
	Everybody who will listen for the last two years.
	So there's no risk there.
	He's going to coast a victory on Election Day, DeSantis is.
	Their relationship will be just fine.
	You never know for sure with Trump because his favorite source is still the New York Times.
	So he tends to panic to certain things that I don't think he should panic to.
	But it's what happens when you actually care about what the New York Times thinks as Trump obsesses over.
	That's a little bit of Trump being Trump.
	But he tends to want to do this to show everybody else is beneath him.
	He's the head guy.
	Whenever he hears any talk of anybody else being his equal, he will make comments like this.
	He has done it for his entire life.
	Political career.
	And another one that is not on the menu, but I know people are asking about.
	We've talked about it.
	We talked about it Friday on Hundley's channel with Grober on Freeform Friday.
	Brazil, the Brazilian elections, Bolsonaro, and I always forget the name of the person who won.
	It starts with an L. Lula.
	Yeah, it's called Lula.
	Okay, so people in the chat, people who watch us, Robert, they want to know stolen election, legit.
	I have no idea.
	Are they both?
	I mean, at this point, Bolsonaro has not contested it.
	That's what I can tell you.
	He hasn't accepted it either, but he hasn't contested it either.
	There are protests, and we'll see if somebody comes forward with some claim.
	I think given where the Brazilian court is aligned, it's very unlikely they're going to set aside the election.
	And Bolsonaro may make the same decision and decide...
	Put it this way, it's a weird stolen election when Bolsonaro's people win really well at a whole bunch of lower levels.
	So if it was stolen, it was stolen in one particular area.
	Where Bolsonaro didn't do well.
	And that's, you know, maybe that's the case.
	We'll see.
	I mean, the internal disputes involving, there is no big, like, people want to keep call Lula a communist or whatever.
	He governed for eight years, folks.
	He didn't increase the state share of the economy.
	So, you know, you call him whatever you want, label him whatever you want.
	He's labeled himself many different times.
	He governed like a pretty moderate leftist.
	Which there's a long history of in Latin America.
	He's likely to do the same.
	His foreign policy isn't all that different, frankly, than Bolsonaro's.
	Their big difference is on crime issues domestically.
	Bolsonaro was cracking down on drugs and gangs.
	Lula is seen as much less likely to do so.
	And thus, folks connected to drugs and gangs and prisoners were cheering Lula's victory on election night.
	So that's where the great concern is domestically within Brazil, is whether or not drug dealers and gangs stole the election in areas where they had disparate influence.
	But it won't matter unless the Brazilian courts or some other Brazilian governmental body goes along with it.
	There are dangerous calls by allies of Bolsonaro.
	To have the military take over.
	Brazil was governed by a military dictatorship very recently, between 1964 and 1985.
	Very brutal.
	And there's people that are associated with Bolsonaro that are affiliated with those groups.
	So there was talk about the CIA trying to get Bolsonaro to make sure he didn't contest it.
	That doesn't surprise me.
	I'm sure the Biden administration interfered on behalf of Lula.
	But it would be a worse mistake, in my view, for...
	Bolsonaro to go along with another military coup in Brazil.
	I think that's what the people who demonized him and didn't like him accused him of doing, and he would be stepping into that.
	But we'll see when anything happens.
	I haven't seen substantiated evidence as yet as to what the basis is to claim the election was not correctly counted the ballots.
	There are people that are confused.
	In Brazil, you can vote no.
	You can negate your ballot.
	You can go in just to basically say, screw you.
	I think both candidates suck.
	And about 5 million Brazilians did that.
	That's consistent with the public opinion polling.
	People are confusing that with 5 million ballots getting illicitly destroyed.
	That's not what that means.
	And you'll probably see a lot of the same thing you saw here in the States in 2020.
	There'll be a lot of red herrings, a lot of misdirection.
	A lot of people will champion bad theories, bad premises, bad facts, bad argument, and not look at the good ones.
	I think Bolsonaro will play this by the book.
	If he thinks he's got a credible claim that might have some success, he'll make it.
	If he doesn't think there is, I think he'll step down, won't have the military take over.
	His allies did very well in a lot of governorships in a lot of regions, and he's in a very good position to come back next time around, whereas Lula's sandbag, you know, limited and handcuffed by limited support.
	Domestically, institutionally, and there's a lot of issues Brazil's facing that are not easy to fix.
	So I think that's what the likely outcome is going to be.
	All right.
	Now, I think we're already a half an hour in so early.
	Britt Cormier, Rumble Rant, says, I do not know which tatouage you have in your hands, Barnes, but I approve.
	Have met Pete a few times.
	Always good time.
	Even got the tour of the Miami operations.
	It's spelled tatouage.
	It's pronounced tatouage.
	Okay.
	And then there's another, there's a $2 rumble that says, Lulu in Brazil will get blamed for the upcoming recession.
	Depression, Bolsonaro can run again next time.
	That's exactly right.
	And a lot of people around Bolsonaro know that.
	Bolsonaro wanted to win, but Bolsonaro was fine with not necessarily winning either because there was a lot of difficulties ahead that were not clear how they're going to be managed.
	Lulu, you know, benefited from a...
	Booming Brazilian economy when he was president.
	It was his successor that ran into trouble on crime and other issues.
	Lula's definitely corrupt, in my opinion.
	I have personal, professional experience on that side of the aisle.
	But his corruption is, you know, honestly par for the course for Brazil.
	But I don't think he's in a good position to recreate what he created before.
	He wants Brazil to have its own UN Security Council position.
	People that think...
	Also, people keep getting confused.
	The World Economic Forum takes credit for everybody.
	People got to quit looking at the site and say, oh, this must mean this person's secretly behind the World Economic Forum.
	I've already seen this about Tulsi Gabbard.
	Totally false.
	Peter Thiel.
	Totally false.
	And now seeing it about Lula.
	Totally false.
	You can be very critical of Lula, and many Brazilians have very legitimate criticisms of him, corruption and drugs and crime being a critical area of focal point for them, but without buying into nonsense that he's secretly part of the World Economic Forum, that he wants Brazil to have its own UN position.
	He's a big believer in BRICS.
	He champions BRICS.
	He's been critical of Zelensky, called him a joke.
	So the idea that he's much different than Bolsonaro on this is mostly mythical.
	He's not that distinguishable.
	But very old.
	His wife of a long time passed away a few years ago.
	He served about a year or so in Brazilian prison before those corruption charges were invalidated by the Brazilian Supreme Court.
	He's not in a great position to manage the country, unfortunately, for the people of Brazil.
	It's an interesting thing about the WEF.
	Because I've been wondering this as well.
	They slap up...
	They call everybody a young leader.
	They call people they invited to something a young leader.
	What does that mean?
	It means absolutely nothing.
	Nothing, Euro wars.
	You're completely wrong.
	You're dead wrong.
	You're badly wrong.
	You're embarrassingly wrong.
	Don't spread fake news because you undermine criticizing the World Economic Forum when you pretend people who are its critics are its secret supporters.
	I mean, frankly, James Corbett has done this at times about Putin.
	Putin's a secret supporter, WF.
	No, he's not, you nitwit.
	Why do you think they're waging war on him?
	That makes you seem like a less credible source when you can't filter out that basic level of information in Intel.
	And I think James Corbett's one of the best analysts out there.
	But it's just people got to quit looking to the WEF and who they...
	It's like the commies used to do this.
	They take credit for anybody who was popular.
	Of course.
	That doesn't mean everybody they took credit for was actually a commie.
	Well, I'll say with one exception, when members of your government are actually on the board of trustees of the WEF, that's more of a...
	If they align with it, if they publicly state statements in support of it, that's what you look at.
	You look at their actual agenda.
	In their actual public statements, in their conduct, not the WEF's taking credit for people.
	It's the individual leader's conduct.
	And that will answer your question much quicker than anything else will.
	People keep looking, and they're taking the bait on things badly, and they're believing people who are harsh critics are superly secret, all part of the total tentacular thing.
	That makes everybody look like an idiot when they criticize the World Economic Forum that deserves to be criticized.
	What was I just about to say?
	It was the WDF?
	Oh, it doesn't matter.
	I'll forget.
	But now, Robert, everyone should go over to Rumble because we're going to end it here and talk about Paul Pelosi because I need to talk about that.
	We talked about it Friday.
	And we're going to play a certain video that NBC decided to delete, not because we can't play it on YouTube.
	I'm going to put it here tomorrow when I put the highlights out and the full stream.
	But we're going to do it over there now.
	It's a reward.
	The free speech platform.
	So head over to Rumble while I end it on YouTube.
	And then I'm going to show you something.
	It's beautiful.
	Ending on YouTube.
	And we will, for people that ask that, for whatever reason, can't access Rumble, like some folks in France because of that, which we're going to do in a second.
	The whole video will be posted at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Yeah, I sometimes forget to put the whole stream there.
	It will be on YouTube tomorrow.
	It will be on Rumble.
	Rumble.
	Locals.
	Viva Barnes Law.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Mosey on over to Rumble in 3, 2, 1, now.
	Now.
	We talked about it Friday, Robert.
	Had you seen the NBC broadcast that was deleted?
	I'm aware of it, but I didn't actually watch it.
	Wait until you see just how damning it actually is.
	So, this was the one time I missed it.
	I didn't see it in real time.
	I didn't get to document it in real time.
	But I found the video.
	And when you see the video...
	Craig, good morning.
	Not yet, not yet.
	Miguel Almer.
	I don't actually know who this guy is.
	I haven't watched NBC in so long.
	They're all new faces.
	This is the report that NBC deleted.
	Craig, good morning.
	When officers arrived here at the Pelosi home exactly a week ago today, they initially didn't have any idea exactly what was going on.
	They knew they had a high-priority call on their hand.
	They knew they had a high-priority call on their hand.
	And these are new details because the reporter spoke to people on the inside.
	They knew they had a high-priority call on their hands.
	Let that bake in the background.
	What was unclear, what was happening inside the property just behind me.
	So dramatic.
	I love NBC's drama.
	This morning, Paul Pelosi is home, back at the house that became a crime scene a week ago today.
	NBC News learning new details about the moments police arrived.
	NBC learning new details.
	And, Robert, I went over the criminal complaint last week.
	And I noted that they said the door was opened without specifying who opened the door.
	I asked that question before this broadcast.
	Sources familiar with what unfolded in the Pelosi residence, now revealing when officers responded to the high-priority call, they were seemingly unaware they'd been called to the home of the Speaker of the House.
	After a knock and announce, the front door was opened by Mr. Pelosi.
	The 82-year-old did not immediately declare an emergency or tried to leave it.
	Who opened the door?
	Paul Pelosi, who's allegedly had an intruder in his house wielding a hammer, whether or not he had already been injured.
	Apparently had not already been injured at this point because they say they saw the attack happen after.
	But instead began walking several feet back into the foyer toward the assailant and away from police.
	It's unclear if the 82-year-old was already injured or what his mental state was, say sources.
	According to court documents, when the officer asked what was going on, defendant smiled and said everything's good.
	High priority call.
	Paul Pelosi opens the door.
	The police don't immediately act.
	They ask everything's good for a high-priority call and allegedly don't know that they're at the Pelosi residence.
	But instantaneously, a struggle ensued as police clearly saw David DePapp strike Paul Pelosi in the head with a hammer.
	After tackling the suspect, officers rushed to Mr. Pelosi, who was lying in a pool of blood.
	What we do know.
	Is he brutally attacked Mr. Pelosi?
	All right, we can stop it there because the rest of it is superfluous for the point that's being made.
	Robert, I mean, I feel like I'm going crazy here, but does any of that make any sense?
	They pulled the report afterwards because they reported, and it seems to be based on court documents or inferred from the criminal complaint, that Paul Pelosi opened the door.
	Coupled with the additional information we got over the course of the week that there was a live video feed to the Pelosi residence that security could be surveilling at all times, but apparently wasn't at this point in time.
	You see ahead of the curve better than most.
	What do you see here?
	I mean, I think it's the same thing that we discussed last week, that something is AWOL and that the media narrative, the original media narrative of the case doesn't make sense.
	And that's still the case.
	And so apparently it was the Capitol Police that secured the facility with their own cameras and were monitoring on a regular basis.
	They haven't explained why it was no one was watching.
	They haven't explained why no one was physically present at the property.
	They haven't explained why they haven't released that footage.
	They haven't released the body camera footage that apparently the police officers have.
	They haven't released that either, nor have they explained why.
	So clearly there's some things about this story that don't add up from the original narrative of the case, and maybe we'll get bits and pieces of it over time.
	He purportedly confessed to the feds.
	Feds brought in additional charges, but then he goes in and pleads not guilty and appears to have suffered physical injuries different than what was reported at the time of his arrest.
	I would suggest injuries incurred from sometime when he was in custody, either by police or by other prisoners.
	So a lot of questions to be asked.
	The San Francisco DA and the Justice Department has made clear they're going to try to hide a lot of information and intel.
	They are actually asking media not to report that this guy was part of a nudist camp, a nudist group movement there.
	His wife's apparently, or his partner, the defendant's partner is apparently in prison for issues involving potential kidnapping for underage illicit purposes.
	So there's a lot of unusual aspects to this story that do not add up yet.
	From the original institutional narrative of a week last Sunday, where they were trying to pitch that a crazed Trump supporter attacked Pelosi because of how dangerous the Trump supporters are.
	That story has mostly fallen apart already.
	There's anomalies with what exactly is or is not his blog.
	There's anomalies with his political past that doesn't appear to be associated with his current.
	Alleged political beliefs.
	His purported statement, according to the feds, is a statement that sounds like a completely crazy person that has lost all sense of the script, not a sense of politically motivated crime in a conventional sense.
	So a lot of things don't add up, and we'll see if in time we find out what they add up to, the facts that we're not being told now.
	Now, I forget the name of the author.
	Elrond?
	Who's the author that you always cite?
	James Elroy.
	James Elroy.
	I don't know how things work in Hollywood or in politics, but if someone has certain pastimes and they want to get rid of an incident cleanly, is it far-fetched to think, okay, I've got someone in my house who I cannot make leave for whatever the reason, and so the initial call was to quietly get rid of this so that nobody talks about it and not because it was a violent attack to begin with and then it turned into that?
	That could be the case.
	You also could have the case that...
	You have somebody turning off security for other reasons and then somebody else shows up.
	So, you know, normally when someone's turning off security, they don't want certain people to be watching or present because they're engaged in behavior they don't want others to know about.
	And then someone else may pop up in the middle of that that is a legitimately crazy person, etc.
	But that there's something in the video footage they don't want people to see and there's some reason why security wasn't present they don't want people to know.
	And so we'll see how that goes.
	One last question is, Candace Owens, I'm not sure if she's the first person to say it, but a lot of people are saying he's charged with a number of things, but not breaking and entering.
	As a lawyer, do we make any hay of that?
	Or is burglary close enough?
	But burglary is, to a certain degree, because burglary...
	But what it is, is they've charged him with things where they don't have to prove that he illegally entered the premises.
	Candace Owens is right about that.
	And that is a little bit odd under the circumstances.
	He's being charged with burglary, but not breaking and entering.
	Because burglary you can commit even if you're lawfully present.
	Okay.
	And there was one last question, which I think I forgot.
	Oh, you know, NBC deleting it.
	And apparently because it did not meet their journalistic standards.
	A load of crap?
	This is sort of like 60 Minutes talking about Ukraine and has to re-edit their documentary?
	Yeah.
	NBC has yet to explain what was inaccurate in the report and why it was so.
	Alright, so that's the latest here.
	Andy ALMQ on Rumble says, Occam's Raider and Nancy tried to create another January 6th right before the election.
	There's a lot of people who think that.
	I mean, there were a lot of convenience, but I suspect otherwise.
	Because otherwise, if you're going to script an event for the purposes of political benefit, you would have the proof of it, right?
	You wouldn't hide the proof of what took place.
	So I think that something happened and they tried to spin it for political profit.
	But I don't think that's why the original event happened itself in all likelihood.
	But we'll see.
	But yeah, speaking of people trying to hide.
	Discoverable information.
	The big tech collusion case brought by the attorney generals of the states of Missouri and Louisiana pending in the federal district court there in Monroe before Judge Doty, who's made a lot of great rulings in the vaccine and COVID context all the way through, unmasked in a range of topics and subjects.
	This is the judge who said that the suit could go forward.
	The allegation is that the Biden administration Weaponized big tech and deputized big tech to censor dissident speech on issues related to COVID, on issues related to elections, and maybe additional issues as well.
	And so they brought suit on those grounds.
	A group of plaintiffs have joined, including a lot of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.
	We may have one of those up on Wednesday.
	I got to find out whether schedule permits.
	For the original sidebar, not like law and crime and everyone else who, Courthouse News, who stole the label sidebar after we started sidebar.
	We're not threatening.
	There's no trade.
	Well, there's a common law trademark, not a registered.
	But yes, I noticed there's a sidebar something on Twitter.
	We were the original.
	But I can't even say we.
	Robert, it was a member of our community that came up with the sidebar.
	It was.
	It was.
	It was a great, great, great, great thing.
	And for the record, by the way, folks, Aviva's not smiling at the photos in the live chat at vivabarneslaw.com.
	Well, hold on.
	I got to go there.
	So what's happened is the judge has ordered the case to go forward.
	They got a first round discovery that exposed high-ranking officials, including the Surgeon General of the United States, the Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure of the Biden administration.
	And the Director of White House Digital Communications.
	And also information concerning former Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
	So the three are current government officials, so they moved to the Federal District Court there in Louisiana to stop all this, saying, oh, this is an encroachment on our rights.
	Basically, there's all these rules that limit when you can depose a federal government official.
	But as the judge pointed out, That those rules are easily met when you have personal knowledge of material information that's not available from anyone else.
	And that's what they have with each of them because these officials were directly, personally, individually involved in the mass censorship efforts, targeting the so-called disinformation dozen, targeting Robert Kennedy, targeting Robert Malone, targeting the original leaders of the Great Barrington Declaration.
	On issues of COVID, targeting anything related to vaccine questions, anybody who challenged it, whether it was safe, whether it was effective, whether, in fact, it was even a vaccine under common understanding of the word.
	This was mass.
	They deputized big tech to do it.
	Their depositions were ordered.
	They begged the court to stop their depositions.
	The court said, no, there is specific evidence already in the record of your direct personal complicity, involvement, and knowledge that only you have.
	You have to sit for deposition.
	Like Jen Psaki during a press conference saying, we have back channels, and we went in and flagged material that we wanted Facebook to act on.
	And as the records now released by The Intercept revealed, there was an open direct portal.
	Between the various big tech agencies and high-ranking government officials to censor certain speech.
	They would even flag specific statements or flag specific people or flag specific topics.
	And the big tech win would do what they were requested to do.
	What they've been denying and pretending they didn't do in the Robert Kennedy case pending before the Ninth Circuit, now it's clear they were and they did.
	So those officials are now going to go back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to try to stop their depositions from occurring in December.
	Meanwhile, Jen Psaki, because she's not a named party and is not an existing government agent, what happens in the federal system is if you're going to subpoena a third party, somebody who's not a party to the case, to be a witness, you subpoena them where they live and reside, typically, or work.
	And a federal court subpoena is applicable anywhere in the continental United States.
	And if you serve it on that person, That person then can go to their local district.
	They have a choice.
	They can go contest it in front of the judge where the case is pending, or they can go to their local court where they even reside and move to quash it.
	Of course, Jen Psaki did the latter because Democrats understand that your audience is the number one factor in the law.
	And so they knew they would have no chance in front of Doty.
	So instead, they went in front of a different judge.
	They got lucky they got a Biden judge on the draw, a Biden appointee, I believe.
	And so we'll see if that judge tries to intrude or interfere with the process of depositions that have been ordered by the federal district court in Louisiana.
	But all the other high ranking people are going to have to sit for depositions soon enough.
	But I mean...
	But what would be the basis of quashing the subpoena for Psaki?
	Take a guess of what she claims.
	She claims something that the press has been telling us Trump has no right to.
	Executive privilege.
	Exactly.
	Executive privilege, I mean, even if that were to be...
	A potential argument.
	Do you not waive that the second you make public statements?
	Well, there's that.
	It's more that the executive privilege is an objection to questions, particular questions, not to being questioned at all.
	Because executive privilege would be, what did you tell other people in the White House?
	There you could argue maybe executive privilege applies.
	What you told third parties is not executive privilege.
	What third parties told you is not executive privilege.
	And that's their primary area of focus.
	Their primary focus is not what she told President Biden.
	It's what did she tell Facebook?
	What did she tell Twitter?
	What did she tell other big tech organizations, YouTube and Google?
	And what did they tell her?
	That's what they want to ask about.
	Okay, that's fascinating.
	So she'll quash the subpoena versus limit the scope of the deposition.
	Could you not invoke executive privilege during the deposition and then debate that afterwards as opposed to quashing the subpoena on the basis of executive privilege?
	Yeah.
	I mean, you can assert it at the deposition.
	You can say, can't answer that question.
	As a part of a transition, as ex-Treasury Secretary Mnookin did, I may be mispronouncing his name.
	In the trial of Trump ally billionaire Tom Barrack that resulted in full acquittals this week in the Eastern District of New York.
	In that case, he testified on behalf of Barrack.
	Tillerson testified on behalf of the government.
	And what Manukin asserted was, to the government's questions, he asserted executive privilege a range of times.
	They're going to argue about that later, but that's the proper protocol.
	You assert it to a specific question, because by definition, not every question is going to even bring up a colourable claim of executive privilege.
	Yeah, that's interesting.
	So we'll see.
	And now the depositions in this, they will be made public after they're done, correct?
	And the Pelosi memes will never end.
	I got distracted and didn't get there.
	Nancy's out of town.
	I'm getting hammered tonight.
	Oh my goodness.
	I've seen one with an x-ray which is very jackass-esque for anybody who's seen the original jackass.
	Understandably, the Pelosi's have got fabulously rich while they're in Congress, while she's been in the House.
	I mean, her stock fund is better than any fund in the world in terms of how well it's produced.
	So people are rightfully jaded about the Pelosi's, and understandably so.
	But Barrick's a guy who never should have been prosecuted in the first place.
	It was a ludicrous indictment.
	It's going after all the Trump allies.
	Well, so I'm less familiar with that story.
	I mean, what was the basis of the charges?
	A full acquittal.
	Is anybody going to care?
	I mean, it'll be buried because it wasn't the result they wanted.
	To Flynn, it's comparable to Steve Wynn.
	It's an attempt to weaponize the criminal justice process to target high-ranking allies of Trump.
	Tom Barrack is a billionaire, was one of Trump's closest friends and best allies.
	While Trump was president, Barrack chaired the Inauguration Committee.
	Barrack also has a fund that invests from a lot of different places, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
	The United Arab Emirates only began to include their monies in his fund while Trump was president.
	And while Trump was president, Barrack's originally from Lebanon, often tried to soothe over the Arab world's approach.
	To Trump.
	And Trump's approach to it.
	Particularly because of the discussions about a Muslim ban and things like that.
	And particularly within the part of the Arab world that was open to considering Trump.
	Iran was not.
	But Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, some of the old royal governance of the Middle East were open to those possibilities.
	And Trump ultimately focused on them with the Abraham Accords.
	Barrack helped bring about the Abraham Accords.
	And so what the government did is they basically looked at anything any key Trump ally has done and seen whether there's a way they could sue that person over it or criminalize it.
	And Barrack is just the latest illustration of this.
	And they accused him of being, guess what?
	An unregistered foreign agent.
	That that was the same scope.
	And the reason why this is confession through projection.
	Like Ron Perlman attacking Elon Musk for being a narcissist seeking his last five minutes of fame.
	Basically, Ron Perlman is describing Ron Perlman.
	He's not describing Elon Musk.
	It was a perfect case of confession through projection.
	Yeah, you can get those shirts at vivafried.com.
	I forgot which one I was wearing tonight.
	Politics ruins everything.
	That's also good.
	And you can get your certificate from Viva Barnes University.
	Or at least a t-shirt reflecting thereof.
	But basically, they brought these trumped-up charges.
	We talked about it briefly a year or so ago when the judge imposed one of the most lunatic bonds I ever saw.
	A quarter of a billion dollars.
	$250 million bond.
	I think it was the biggest bond ever required in history.
	There was never any risk Barrick was going anywhere.
	Barrick's 75, and he was quite confident.
	They picked a good jury, even in the Eastern District of New York, and the jury acquitted him of all charges.
	They acquitted his ally of all charges for the very simple reason that he had a couple of key facts in his quiver.
	One was he tried to help out both Qatar and the UAE, but the government's allegations were that he was a secret agent, unregistered foreign agent for UAE.
	Problem with that is the UAE and Qatar are at odds with one another.
	So that made no sense at all.
	So their second claim was he did it in exchange for Qatar investing in his fund.
	The problem was, I'm sorry, the UAE investing in his fund.
	The problem was Qatar had 10 times more money in his fund, and the UAE's total combined contribution was less than one-half of 1% of its total money under management.
	So basically they just tried to criminalize him trying to help the Trump administration deal in the Middle East.
	And it was pretty clear that was the case.
	And they picked a good enough jury, even in the Eastern District of New York, that saw through the case and completely acquitted Tom Barak and his associate as they should.
	Well, I guess the $250 million bond as an absurd court order condition is a good segue into the other.
	It's an amazing thing how certain injustices just fizzle away.
	They disappear into the ether.
	This is in True the Vote.
	This was my homework for the week.
	I just had to catch up and see what the latest on it was.
	We talked about it last week.
	The company's Connect, not Connick.
	So the company's called Connect, which I guess makes more sense.
	A digital company suing the two of the individuals behind, allegedly behind 2,000 mules, Engelbrecht and Phillips, who were working with True the Vote to get to the bottom of what they felt were highly fortified elections.
	They're being sued for defamation, computer hacking, other stuff by this company called Connect on the basis that the two of them and another third party obtained information on the CEO of Connect, an individual named Yu, that they released.
	Guy got death threats, all sorts of stuff.
	They hacked computers to get private information that they release.
	Their side of the story is that this company was allegedly storing on servers in China.
	Voter information that they were not supposed to be storing on servers in China.
	They worked with the FBI to get information to the FBI for the purposes of advising the FBI of what they thought was illegal activity and made statements in podcasts that connect the company, says defame the company through computer hacking, led to all sorts of problems for Mr. Yu, CEO.
	And then the big 180 twist in it is recently the CEO got indicted on embezzlement charges.
	And Robert, as you explained last week, on the basis that He was, in fact, violating the terms of the contract by storing voter information on servers in China and therefore violated the terms of the contract, thus committing fraud and embezzlement, whatever.
	The judge in the case issued a TRO at the request of Connect, enjoining the two defendants to disclose the name of a third party who they allege also worked with the FBI, might have been a confidential informant, to disclose his or her name that had a role in...
	Collecting, gathering some of this allegedly unlawfully obtained information.
	And the judge said, give the name up or you're going to go to jail for contempt.
	And apparently, so I was reading a little more into it.
	Apparently there was allegedly from the court filing some back and forth where the defendants were playing games saying, we don't have this information or we didn't get it from one of the computers at issue.
	Clarify this at any computer.
	You have to tell us who got this information.
	They then ultimately went with.
	It's a third party who's a confidential informant.
	We're not disclosing the name of our source, period.
	This is on a temporary restraining order at an early stage of a proceeding.
	And last Friday, they were found in contempt.
	And this Monday, five days ago, they were hauled off and detained.
	And that's where any coverage of this story ends, basically four or five days ago.
	And they're still in custody.
	They're still detained.
	On civil contempt, the court order, I pulled it up.
	Day to day, it says, so that it's not shocking.
	It's not indefinite.
	It's day to day until they comply.
	They hold the key to their own cell, I think someone said.
	And there's some nominal daily fine of $85 for noncompliance.
	They don't get out until they pay that either.
	But it looks like they're in jail, detained, until they disclose the name of what is allegedly either a source or a confidential informant working with the FBI.
	And that's it.
	That's the injustice of the week.
	And I don't know what to make of it.
	I don't know how it happens.
	I don't know how you can get out of jail for this.
	I don't know how they can't discover the name through other means before detaining people.
	Robert, I mean, try to make this one make sense for people.
	I think it's insane.
	It's a misuse and abuse of contempt power.
	It's why federal courts probably never should have had, any state or federal court probably should have never had this power.
	Because the theory was that courts, Needed to be able to control their own courtroom and needed to have some means to enforce their orders.
	And consequently, that's where contempt power originated.
	The problem is the entire idea of separation of powers is negated when you give a court executive power.
	Just like the same problem exists when you give the legislative branch executive power.
	Or you give the executive branch, as we'll get into, legislative or adjudicatory power.
	The whole point of separation of power is that you should have to go to another branch of government and get their agreement before you can take certain kinds of action.
	And it negates all of that when you allow a court to just usurp that for itself.
	And that's what contempt power is.
	And I think it's more argument for, over time, circumventing, not circumvent, limiting these things.
	Circumscribing, yeah, the scope and scale of these things.
	Because...
	Here you have, there's a discovery process, right?
	And that discovery process, you ask for certain information.
	If they don't give you that information, you move to compel it.
	Even if after the court orders it's compulsion, you don't give it, then there are certain specific proportionate remedial sanctions.
	What's not done is jailing people right out of the gate of the case on a case that may have no merit whatsoever because you want discovery accelerated.
	It's circumventing that entire due process.
	And that's what the court has done.
	The court said, I'm going to demand you produce certain information right out of the gate before we even see whether the case has any credibility, before we see whether the case has legal merits.
	And if you don't participate in this part of the discovery, you go to jail until you do.
	And that's just not the way the rules are supposed to work.
	It completely ignores.
	This is a judge who's a power-mad judge, Reagan appointee, appointed frankly.
	On affirmative action grounds.
	He wasn't appointed because he was the brightest light on the judicial block.
	He was appointed because Republicans love affirmative action more than Democrats do.
	Especially during the Reagan-Bush era.
	I mean, I knew I had an idiot judge when I had a Republican affirmative action appointee.
	Almost without fail.
	Some of the dumbest judges on the planet.
	Not as dumb as Kamala Harris.
	She's still the dumbest lawyer I ever dealt with.
	And it's not because there aren't.
	Very intelligent people that could fit the affirmative action quotient.
	It's because they look for people that...
	Fit a certain political profile with the affirmative action quotient, namely authoritarians.
	And that's what they got.
	They got petty authoritarians that love to abuse their power when they're like Cartman from South Park when they get to play judge.
	And that's what this strikes me as.
	Now, I believe they're going up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, trying to get a reversal of this ridiculousness.
	It's quite clear that they're going to wait out their time in jail rather than rat out their source.
	Which probably for them over the long haul, boosts their bona fides.
	I mean, these are the people who helped provide the information behind 2,000 mules.
	They've been criticized for not getting into more detail.
	The problem is there's all kinds of privacy complications with disclosure of some of that information.
	And here they had a source, and their source, they have reason to believe, is a confidential informant of both the federal and the state government.
	And they will not disclose that, rat out that source, just like a member of the press wouldn't rat out their source when the confidentiality was critical to getting the information that clearly was accurate because their allegations that this guy was connected to China is proven by the fact that a Soros lefty district attorney in California has indicted him because he was illicitly storing information on Chinese servers.
	I mean, that's the one question is they're suing for defamation on the basis that the statements caused harm and were false.
	They could be, maybe they weren't storing certain types of information, but by virtue of the indictment itself, it would seem that truth being the absolute defense or true enough.
	But Robert, the fact that I was just comparing this to the Alex Jones in a sense, like this looks like.
	Fabricate the default on discovery so you can then go with the extreme sanction.
	But even in this case, it's not default verdict.
	It's go to jail for civil contempt, which could have been done to Alex Jones in theory to compel production of whatever documents they say were not.
	I mean, is this judge learning a bit from the absurdity and saying, okay, I'm not going to go full default verdict.
	I'm just going to go civil contempt to make it more palatable.
	It'll be more politically acceptable.
	It's because he's desperate to, well, I think he's a power mat judge, but his basis is that this information is somehow essential to the emergency injunctive relief, and that the focus is on the information as opposed to a judgment against the defendants.
	All right.
	Okay, that's fascinating.
	Well, I guess, you know, on the subject...
	He couldn't issue a default judgment anyway, because, I mean, they haven't even got to the motion to dismiss stage.
	Well, why would they get there, Robert, if they're not participating in complying with the TRO?
	Ultimate sanction.
	But on the subject of not...
	So by the way, everyone should know they're still in jail.
	It's something that faded from the news five days ago because it's not a very judicially acceptable thing to jail people like this.
	So maybe make a bit more of a social media stink about it and fight in the court of public opinion.
	But on the subject of protecting sources...
	So I want to pull this out.
	I'll pull up the article just because we talked about it.
	I don't even know if we talked about it on the channel, but it was on the news for those who were paying attention.
	Where is it?
	The murder of the journalist in Nevada.
	Cernovich was all over this on Twitter.
	This was a journalist working for Jeff German, or Jeff German, was working for...
	I forget what the outlet is.
	We'll get to it.
	Murdered by the councilman, politician, whomever it was that he was reporting on, Who he reported some expose on and it allegedly cost him his re-election.
	The journalist was murdered.
	And we saw the video of the alleged murderer being arrested when he goes into his garage in a Walter White uniform because I guess after being arrested, they took his clothes for DNA testing and then sent him back in a white jumpsuit.
	DNA found under the nails of the victim of German.
	The DNA of the alleged attacker who's now facing murder charges in jail not being released.
	And now, Robert, I mean, this is the next stage of this is that the alleged murderer is asking for the information on the cell phone and computer of the person he allegedly murdered to reveal potentially confidential sources as relates to the very case that, you know, the very expose that led to this guy getting...
	Not re-elected and potentially having murdered the journalist who ratted him out.
	I think, I mean, that's the factual background.
	So this relates to, what do they call the shield laws, Robert?
	So this raises the interesting question of whether or not someone can murder someone to get past the shield laws that protect journalists.
	I mean, effectively, yeah, the shield laws basically protect confidentiality of sources in certain instances.
	Each state has its own rules and laws.
	But for a long time, the press asserted that the First Amendment included within it the right to protect the confidentiality and identity of their sources.
	The Supreme Court sort of said, probably not.
	And after that, they started to lobby states to pass laws to make it clear they could protect their sources.
	And so there's a range.
	This, by the way, was one of the many rules and laws violated in the Alex Jones case because there's press shield laws in both Connecticut and Texas, and the courts just completely ignored it.
	But the question, it gets real tricky when you're trying to investigate the murder of the journalist himself.
	And so it's like, are you entitled to get to information that that journalist wants to keep confidential in order to produce proof, evidentiary proof, in support of a prosecution of the accused by the government?
	On the flip side, does the defendant, as a right of cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment, the right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment, Does he have a constitutional right that trumps the statutory shield law when it concerns getting to some of that information that might point to other potential culprits for the murder?
	So you're going to see a real complex interaction.
	In all likelihood, they will find the shield law does not trump the government's right to get information that goes to the potential guilt, and they will likely say that the shield law, the courts, this is in Nevada.
	Does not trump the defendant's right of confrontation to examine possible exculpatory evidence and other people that can be accused.
	Because the shield law is there to protect against ordinary discovery requests, but you can usually surmount it if you show that that's the only way you can get the information you need.
	Yeah, but hypothetically, if the murder journalist is reporting on the government corruption as he was, and now you have the very same government saying, we want to see your sources for the purposes of the investigation.
	Yeah, surely they would be purely legitimate.
	They wouldn't be trying to find out who's ratting them out.
	Not in Las Vegas.
	This is one of those situations where I would be scared if I were in touch with German as a journalist, especially if I were one of his sources.
	Yeah, it's going to be a Nevada state court judge, though.
	We're about to have Governor Lombardo, the sheriff who helped investigate the Las Vegas shooting, is going to be our governor, which I'm all in favor of because he's better than Sissy Lack, that idiot that we had during the lockdowns.
	But that kind of tells you how Nevada politics works.
	Probability of the court meaningfully second-guessing the government's motivations in the state built by Harry Reid in the modern era, probably not high.
	Is there any mechanism like, I mean, at state level, a special master type independent third party?
	Well, the biggest review journal may fight it.
	That's the institutional actor who has a motivation to limit it.
	But the newspapers here aren't known for their independent investigative journalism.
	This guy, though, was good, but he's dead.
	And it's another, I believe the person who allegedly murdered him was a Democrat.
	It might be why it didn't make so much of the news as it might have made, hypothetically, a deranged nudist lefty from Canada, former Green Party, known nudist on drugs, attacks Paul Pelosi.
	It's right-wing Republicans.
	When a Democrat is alleged to have actually murdered a journalist who ratted him out, crickets.
	Well, there's no better example of political weaponization of the legal process at both the Attorney General and the judicial level than the insanity of what is taking place vis-a-vis New York and Trump currently.
	Okay, so I'm not fully up to speed on that any more than the civil suit from the Attorney General.
	Trump is now suing the Attorney General.
	Yeah, and this is why.
	The court in New York, so the New York Attorney General files their claim.
	Claiming that Trump's a systematic fraudulent actor.
	Does not assert any victim in New York.
	Not a single person that says Trump has victimized them or injured them.
	Not a single institution that claims Trump has victimized them.
	None.
	But demands a quarter of a billion dollars be disgorged from the Trump Organization.
	Demands that nobody affiliated with the Trump Organization ever be allowed to do business in New York ever again.
	Demands that a monitor be imposed on all of the Trump organization, including assets outside of the state of New York, including trust outside of the state of New York, and that the monitor and the judge pre-approve any action involving any asset of the company or any financial statement or any financial document of the company be personally approved by the monitor, the attorney general, and the judge.
	This is insane.
	This was initially meant as a very limited law to give the Attorney General the capacity to take over businesses that are so systematically defrauding individual consumers in New York that the only remedy was to actually take over the business to stop them from defrauding and to preserve assets to pay back victims.
	That's what this law was for.
	But of course, the law was written in a broad way.
	And New York being New York, its courts have interpreted it even more broadly.
	The court said that the court issued an order taking over the Trump Organization.
	The Trump Organization can now not sell any asset anywhere without the direct permission and approval of this judge, along with the monitor and attorney general.
	Is it formally a trustee, or is it just trustee-like who takes over?
	It's just trustee-like.
	It's an injunction.
	It says, you, Trump organization, cannot do any of these things without my permission.
	You'll be required to have a personal monitor overlook everything you do.
	You will not be required to even submit a document to anybody you do financial transactions with without my personal approval.
	And you're going to have to all personally show up at the end of November for a status conference.
	Personal appearance.
	Clearly he wants to drag and humiliate, embarrass, and attack Trump in person and court.
	That's what that's all about.
	Trump is, of course, enraged about all of this.
	And so he's been very publicly critical of the New York judge.
	Part of how all this happened was this is the judge who got assigned the case early on, a different stage of the case.
	This was the judge that was demanding Trump pay $10,000 a day unless he produced documents that he didn't have.
	He made openly, overtly anti-Trump statements from the bench.
	This is New York.
	This is how their courts are.
	And so when they file their complaint, it's supposed to go to the commercial division.
	The commercial division in a lot of these states are meant to be judges that handle more complex cases that come with a financial background.
	That's the good side of it.
	The bad side of it is a lot of them are corrupt judges tied to the corrupt institutions that are supposed to be governing, but we'll put that aside.
	That was what was supposed to happen.
	The attorney general said, no, we don't want that.
	We want the judge that we've had that we already know is biased in our favor.
	And the court system in New York, let him get away with it and let him reassign the case to a judge who's not even qualified to handle it under the rules.
	And that's why you get a judge issuing an insane ruling.
	He says in the name, he goes, we, the New York Attorney General, has a great interest in, quote, a truthful market.
	A truthful market in New York?
	Truthful market?
	Wall Street?
	Truthful market?
	New York real estate?
	What delusional fantasy land is this lying judge living in?
	But putting that aside, he says even though there's no evidence that Trump intended anything wrong, even though there's no injury to anybody, he can control Trump organization and demand that Trump be submissive to him.
	And that's what he's done.
	So Trump's response was to file...
	I mean, they detailed how the law wasn't supposed to apply to this situation.
	Their whole grounds is this.
	They're arguing in Trump's statement of financial conditions to his various lenders and insurers, he exaggerated the value of certain real estate, which is what everybody does in real estate.
	It's what every marketer has done for all of humanity, and it's what Trump does on a regular basis.
	Maybe the greatest ever, maybe this, maybe that.
	And the judge is making a huge deal out of this, even though no insurer...
	All these are big, sophisticated commercial insurers, big, sophisticated commercial banks represented by big, fancy law firms, none of whom have complained at all, none of whom have been defrauded at all, none of whom have missed a payment at all.
	He's one of the most under-leveraged.
	Highly valued real estate developers in the world.
	Still is.
	And yet, this is somehow grounds for the state to steal a quarter of a billion dollars from you and run your business?
	I mean, as the lawyer said, this is nationalization of a business.
	The judge's like, no, no, no.
	It's just me personally running it, which is somehow different.
	Well, not just like people are noticing in the chat.
	Some are saying, how can they get away with this?
	Others are saying, can the judges be impeached?
	Are these elected judges or are these appointed?
	Some are, some are not.
	It depends in New York.
	Sometimes the mayor appoints them.
	Sometimes they're elected.
	It varies.
	This is an old man judge who hates Trump.
	It is another one of these New Yorkers with contempt of Trump who wants to misuse and abuse his power, who has made clear he will misuse and abuse his power, already has done it in the past.
	But in ways that, I mean, if you're a New York business person, and when you see this is how the law can be used, politically weaponized...
	Who the hell is going to do business there?
	You've got to pack up and move up.
	You have to be insane.
	You have to get the hell out of New York.
	And I've been telling people, I mean, this is what the sanctions did for international businessmen.
	They were like, why are we in London?
	If tomorrow we're politically disliked, they can just steal all of our money?
	They can just seize every boat, house, car business we own?
	You're nuts to be there.
	In the modern world, this is crazy, but your assets are safer in Moscow or Hong Kong, and definitely in Singapore, than they are in London or in New York, which is just nuts for how bad we have got.
	And those countries are notorious.
	For politically weaponizing their justice system to take people's money and property.
	Now we're known as worse, worse.
	And should specify as well, it's not just that you didn't miss any payments on the loans.
	All the loans are paid back.
	No harm, no foul, no plaintiff, no complainant.
	And it's just really disputing.
	Whether Trump tends to exaggerate.
	Are you kidding me?
	I mean, Trump's going to make an argument that all of these things have this great value because that's Trump.
	He's always going to argue, you know, 10 times worth more than...
	Somebody else will say it could be valued at.
	Robert, I'm not stupid, right?
	The bank has as much of a vested interest in accepting the overvaluation as well because it can justify a loan, a bigger loan, and they make more money off of it as well.
	Is that over- I mean, they all made money off these loans.
	Nobody has filed any complaint against Trump.
	That's what makes it insane and absurd and the grandstanding of this lunatic old judge who we need to have mandatory retirement rules for guys like this.
	And so what Trump's response, he tried to file- I'm going to weaponize the Attorney General's position to go after Donald Trump.
	I mean, you couldn't have a better, more clear example of selective prosecution.
	But our courts have so watered down selective prosecution that even this person, this kind of obvious, overt, evident, manifest selective prosecution is going on remedy.
	So rather than deal with it on the constitutional side, because the federal courts have been useless, Trump decided to file suit in state court in Florida because of two reasons.
	One, the New York attorney, suing the New York attorney general.
	Because the New York Attorney General might have made a practical mistake of going after Trump's Florida trust and going after Trump's Florida real estate.
	And so Trump's argument is, okay, now Florida courts have jurisdiction because this is my right to privacy as a Florida citizen.
	It's my right as both a grantor and beneficiary of the Donald Trump revocable trust.
	She's trying to find out what Donald Trump's estate plan is.
	Well, what is the New York Attorney General doing trying to find out what Trump's private will is?
	And that's how insane this has become.
	And judges are doing nothing but saying, yeah, let's keep going.
	Let's keep going.
	Because they're so reckless, so mad with their power that nobody will wake up and go, whoa, hold on a second here.
	And so his grounds are, yes, good legitimate grounds.
	And Florida has a very robust privacy rights.
	This includes...
	The rights to privacy against discovery in civil proceedings.
	This is often a misunderstood and overlooked fact.
	It's really well developed in California, but it exists everywhere.
	Even lawyers don't know about it.
	I once got into an argument with a lawyer, Mark Randazza, who apparently didn't know the right to privacy applied to financial information.
	I'm still annoyed at that.
	Don't be licensed in California and tell me you're a California lawyer and not know that, Mark.
	That's another story for another day.
	So he's brought suit, saying it's a violation of my Florida right to privacy under the state laws under the Constitution.
	Also, as a grantor and beneficiary of the trust, I have the right to make sure someone else doesn't take over the control of that trust.
	This is a revocable trust, meaning Trump can restore it to himself at any given time.
	And his point to the judge is not only does it involve a Florida citizen, a Florida trust concerning Florida property, and that's Florida jurisdiction applies.
	Point is, what New York is trying to do could damage Florida real estate, could damage Florida property, could damage the rights of Florida citizens, could cost the jobs of a bunch of Floridians.
	And does the state of New York's power go that far, or does that raise other additional constitutional questions?
	So we'll see.
	He filed it in state court.
	We'll see if a state court judge will step up to the plate and somebody start to, I think, part of where...
	Trump's agitated DeSantis is that the administration under DeSantis has done nothing about all of these incredible attacks on a prominent Florida citizen.
	There's not much DeSantis can do on the federal side, but there might be something you can do on the state side, but we'll see how that goes.
	But I think it's a good claim.
	The question is whether the courts do anything about it, because this is the worst case of selective prosecution ever, and it is a violation of his rights to privacy and his violations under the Florida Trust.
	They have no business.
	I mean, one of the points they made in New York was, okay, the New York Attorney General claims that somehow the people of New York are entitled to a quarter of a billion dollars.
	People of New York haven't suffered anything yet.
	In fact, they've benefited from Trump tremendously.
	But okay, let's pretend it's a quarter of a billion dollars.
	His property in New York is worth way more than that, by everybody's admission.
	So what are you doing?
	Dictating his properties in Florida.
	Dictating his properties in New Jersey.
	Dictating his properties in D.C. Dictating his properties around the globe.
	Dictating his properties in Las Vegas.
	That's not your business, New York judge.
	It's not your business, Attorney General.
	And yet that's what they did.
	Hopefully the Florida court starts to put a limit on that.
	Well, I'll say it's probably more of a selective prosecution than the McCloskey's selective prosecution.
	But Robert, the question was this.
	The assets are basically frozen.
	This is currently ineffective.
	It's real estate, so maybe he had no plans to liquidate assets.
	But in terms of the day-to-day administration, if this damages his business, who, if anybody...
	He can't do anything without the judge's approval first.
	He can write checks, but that's it.
	He can't do anything involving his hard assets in terms of getting credit, extending credit, communicating with insurers, communicating with banks, or obviously transferring any interest in property.
	Can't do any of it.
	That's utterly insane.
	This judge has issued an order he cited no precedent for whatsoever.
	Couldn't find a single case in the history of America that had done what this judge did.
	Outrageous, but I'll say this, Robert.
	We just breached 20,000 live on Rumble.
	So hit the plus button and drop a comment to make the chat go wild.
	Robert, I saw a comment in Rumble which said Lee Zeldin can come in and fire the Attorney General in theory.
	Oh, that I don't know.
	If Zeldin were to win the governorship and take over, I don't know whether he can.
	I mean, the Attorney General is directly elected.
	So I don't think so.
	Okay.
	Because it's the New York Attorney General that took out Cuomo.
	Okay.
	So I assume Cuomo would have fired her if he could.
	Interesting point.
	All right.
	Fascinating.
	We'll see where that goes.
	But Robert, speaking of opaque and ambiguous laws, this is the new rule of professional conduct coming out of Pennsylvania.
	I'm going to bring it up so we can read it so people understand exactly what this is.
	Have I shared the screen properly?
	What's going on?
	No, I haven't shared the screen because I'm an idiot.
	Hold on.
	Let's bring this up.
	This is the new amendment.
	It's in effect.
	It's not a proposal anymore.
	This is a new rule of Pennsylvania Code of...
	It's based on the American Bar Association's model rule where they want every state to have this rule.
	And the problem is their failure and refusal to define two key words.
	Well, here.
	So listen to this.
	This is Rule 8.4, misconduct.
	It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to skip down to G. Is it big enough?
	I think it's big enough.
	In the practice of law, knowingly engage in conduct constituting harassment or discrimination based upon sex, race, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status.
	This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.
	I looked that up.
	I forget now what it says.
	The paragraph does not preclude advice.
	Robert, so this is rule of conduct now.
	Misconduct in the practice to knowingly engage in conduct constituting harassment.
	I don't know what that means, but you'll tell me if that's a known legal definition in the States.
	Of gender identity or expression.
	Well, and the contrast is, if you look at the rules we designed for Rumble.
	Which is what Elon Musk should look for for Twitter.
	We gave examples, helped define it, go through all those aspects of what discrimination and harassment is.
	They chose not to define those two terms.
	And that's what triggered all the concerns.
	See the Daily Beast?
	I co-write the rumble rules and how do they...
	Alex Jones' lawyer.
	It's such...
	They could have said Ralph Nader's lawyer.
	They could have said Wesley Snipes' lawyer.
	Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyer.
	But no, it's Alex Jones' lawyer.
	That's how the Daily Beast likes to define me.
	Far right.
	The difference is harassment has specific legal definitions.
	But they don't define them in the rules.
	And the problem is they use the same language that universities use.
	And we already know, and this was the argument in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals about why this rule violates the First Amendment.
	We already know from the example of universities how it will be misapplied.
	So that if people simply taught about the history of slur words, they were punished under almost an identical rule at their university.
	If someone voiced certain religious-based concerns about some of these issues...
	They were punished at several of these universities.
	The other thing here is they expanded beyond the law.
	The law talks about sex and race and national origin and ethnicity and age, disability.
	It does not talk about gender expression.
	Gender expression ain't part of any discrimination law in America.
	That doesn't exist.
	So outside, maybe California has something, but I don't even think California has gender expression.
	And if you're wondering what do they mean gender expression, you can kind of guess.
	Basically, if you second-guess drag queens teaching six-year-olds, they're now going to say you engaged in harassment and discrimination and now can have your law license pulled.
	And that's the problem.
	So it's two major challenges at the Third Circuit.
	First Amendment free speech violations.
	Second, that it's vague.
	That the rules are that if you delegate too much discretion...
	In an individual enforcement agency to do something and that you can't know for certainty what's in or out, what's permitted, what's prohibited, then that constitutes unconstitutional vagueness.
	It's both overbroad and underbroad.
	Doesn't get speech you want to, does get speech you're not supposed to.
	And that's clear here because if they would have chosen to define harassment the way we did in the Rumble rules, then they could be consistent with a lot of American law.
	In other words, you can't...
	Target someone to make them in fear of exercising their rights.
	That typically is what harassment is.
	But that's very different than saying something somebody disagrees with.
	Someone doesn't like.
	Someone doesn't support.
	Just have dissident speech.
	This is a backdoor attempt to create a speech code as a means of governing.
	It's why I keep telling people licensing is bad.
	Get rid of all licensing.
	All licensing is bad.
	They're stripping the certifications from Dr. Peter McCullough because even though no one has ever complained, he's had his extraordinary record, the most published in his field in the history of medicine, yet he's losing certifications because of his dissonant speech on COVID.
	This is what happens when you give certification authority and legal and licensure authority to a bunch of little bureaucrats.
	It will be weaponized for speech control, for associational control, for politicized purposes.
	That's what will happen.
	And that's what's happening here.
	Hopefully the Third Circuit recognizes it and strikes down this rule.
	So actually, before we get into what striking down the rule would look like or how it would...
	If it looked more like Rumble rules that we drafted, yeah, we could understand it be more clear and applicable.
	I'm reading it, Robert, where it says it's professional misconduct in the practice of law to knowingly engage in harassment based on gender identity expression.
	I'm just thinking of a hypothetical case.
	Does this not preclude a lawyer from taking a case that, for example, would defend his client's right to not have to gender someone contrary to biology?
	And then would it compel that lawyer?
	Hypothetically in deposition, where his client's position is, that's a he, not a she.
	Would it compel the lawyer, when asking the questions to the plaintiff, to refer to them as a she and not a he, despite that being his client's position?
	Is that an oversimplified fear, or is that an actual real possibility?
	That's exactly what the case is.
	I mean, if they wanted to make this just consistent with the law, they would just say, if you're found to commit a violation in your employment as a law practice for illegal discrimination based on existing federal or state civil rights laws, then that can be considered misconduct, right?
	But they didn't.
	Then that tells you they're up to something else.
	And this all started with the American Bar Association.
	The goal is to weaponize licensure, to gatekeep out dissident speech, and to punish dissident speech through the use of licensures to the revocation and suspension of law licenses to do it.
	That's what this is all about.
	It's shocking.
	I mean, it's almost as bad in Canada.
	They are compelling certain...
	Statements of diversity, inclusion, and equity.
	I'm doing the die as the pun.
	They compel firms to make certain positive statements about inclusivity, etc., etc.
	It's compelled speech, but we've had it in Canada for quite some time.
	To the live chat question from the locals, Rumble doesn't, to my knowledge, our rules don't ban any certain words.
	That if you engage in certain kinds of targeted conduct, then you can lose your right to comment or lose your right to create content for a period of time.
	Obviously, if you use certain words, that will be flagged within an algorithm to...
	See whether or not it may in fact violate those rules.
	But to my knowledge, there's no specific list of banned words by Rumble.
	Yeah, I think that that's accurate as well because otherwise it might eliminate certain comedy.
	It might eliminate certain music.
	People I see on Rumble.
	We got a lot of Rumble tips in the locals from John McGarvey who says assisted suicide is murder, which I'm going to...
	Actually, a good segue.
	I know people want to know what's going on in Canada.
	What is this Emergency Act inquiry?
	Just what's the overview of it?
	The overview is that we all know Justin Trudeau invoked this law called the Emergencies Act, which is the replacement to the War Measures Act.
	It's a law that is intended to be used in times of national crisis, world war, etc., etc.
	National crisis.
	When there is no existing legislation or existing infrastructure, existing...
	A statute that can otherwise resolve the issue.
	So when they had the protest going on for three weeks, the most violent protest in the world where they had bouncy castles and hot tubs in the streets of Ottawa, the occupation.
	After three and a half weeks of not even listening to the protesters, not sitting down to have a discussion, not hearing them, Justin Trudeau, after the provincial and the city invoke an emergency status, invokes this piece of legislation which had been invoked.
	If not only once, maybe twice, but at least once, and maybe only once, when his dad was prime minister back in what we called the FLQ crisis of the 70s, which was Le Front Libération de Québec, which is the Liberation Front of Québec, kidnapped politicians, a man named Pierre Laporte, killed him.
	He was found dead in the trunk of a car.
	We're detonating bombs and mailboxes in my place of birth, Westmount.
	Pierre Elliott declared, you know, the War Measures Act to come in with the military, arrest people, detain them, etc.
	Justin Trudeau invokes it for the second time, if maybe the third time ever, in response to this protest, uses it to come in with a highly militarized police, arrest people, bust people's heads, pepper spray, freeze bank accounts of people who participated in the protest.
	Under the legislation, there's a provision that says within three, there's certain timelines, but basically...
	Under the legislation itself, once it's invoked, you have to have a commission to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the invocation of the act, which is what we're living through right now.
	Worth noting for anybody who's not aware of it, the invocation of the act has to get through the House of Commons and the Senate.
	It went through the House of Commons.
	They voted for it like a bunch of clapping seals.
	And then the Senate looked like it was going to say no to it because when Trudeau had frozen the bank accounts of all of these truckers and people involved in the protest, There was a massive run on the banks.
	And apparently, rumor has it, Trudeau started getting calls from the bankers saying, we don't have money in the reserve.
	We don't have money to give all these people who are withdrawing money.
	Fix what you've done because it's causing a massive run on the banks and we can't handle it.
	So he rescinded the invocation of the act before the Senate could either ratify or reject the invocation.
	But you still have the inquiry.
	Robert, six weeks of inquiry.
	Witnesses are being rejected who want to testify.
	The city of Ottawa gets to present their position.
	The commission has its own lawyer who inquires objectively into the circumstances.
	The government has their own lawyer who has to justify what Trudeau did.
	The convoy has their own lawyer who presents their witnesses to say there was no basis for doing this, etc., etc.
	And it's been going on since early October, going on until the end of November, 9 to 10 hours a day, sometimes 11 hours a day.
	And it's nuts, but it's...
	Anybody who's watched it knows it's a...
	The evidence that has been revealed is an absolute joke to potentially remotely justify it having invoked the Emergencies Act, which is the nuclear weapon of legislation where the urgency was four blocks by six blocks of gridlock traffic at worst.
	Honking horns for a week at worst.
	The city representatives of Ottawa...
	We're complaining about people engaging in microaggressions, giving stink eye to people wearing masks, going into restaurants and businesses not wearing masks because there was a mask mandate at the time.
	It's a joke objectively through and through, but the highlight of last week was Jeremy McKenzie, founder of Diagalong, this radical fake Kekistan, you know, a Canadian version of Kekistan.
	They invoked his fictitious...
	Fictitious country of diagonal on an extremist to say, we've got right-wing extremists who are threatening violence.
	And they invoke this fictitious joke of a meme as part of the invocation of the Emergency Act.
	But Jeremy McKenzie has been in jail for a month on firearm charges, alleged assault charges, in solitary because he refused to have the PCR test.
	And so COVID risk being what it is, solitary in a dry cell.
	It's revealed what a sad joke Canada has become under Trudeau.
	After the commission, they're going to make findings, recommendations.
	There's going to be no sanctions.
	Nobody's going to go to jail.
	It's going to be a report that they have to submit within a year of the invocation of the act.
	It's going to contain recommendations and whether or not findings as to whether or not the invocation was justified.
	So that's it in a nutshell for anybody who is interested.
	Robert, there was a good case that we have on our end.
	Andrea Gay says, you guys are great.
	Keep up the good work.
	And there's another Rumble rant somewhere down there.
	Yeah, I mean, there's a bunch of stuff at SCOTUS.
	There's some stuff on election laws and some stuff in the vaccines, which were the three other popular topics on our Sunday Topics poll from the locals' board.
	Go ahead.
	But there was one, Robert.
	The Shield Law.
	Oh!
	Oh, the hooker.
	We'll get to the hooker.
	We'll do the hooker one.
	We'll save that one for the end because that's a juicy.
	Oh, yeah.
	We got that hate cop immunity and city banning food for the homeless to sort of wrap up some of the insane clown world type cases.
	Do the city banning.
	I mean, the city banning a church from giving out food because it's unsafe products and it has to be regulated.
	Robert, that went to the Court of Appeal and they ratified the lower court decision.
	How did they make sense of that?
	So, yeah, it's Radlitz v.
	St. Louis, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And you had a minister who brought bologna sandwiches as part of his religious ministry to homeless people in the city of St. Louis.
	And the city of St. Louis was going to punish him for doing so because he didn't have a special restaurant license.
	And the issue was, does the city have a right to govern?
	To limit even ministry giving food to homeless people.
	In other words, here you have the homeless people want the food.
	The religious ministry wants to give out the food.
	And yet you have the government saying, no, you can't do it without a special permit from us, the government.
	And it's part of the National Food Control Act.
	And guess what their pretext is?
	Guess what the excuse is for all of these laws?
	It's obviously listeria, Robert.
	It has to be safety from the food.
	Food.
	Food-borne illnesses may spread.
	We might have a pandemic of food illnesses.
	So we have to tell you what you can cook, what you can make, what you can eat, what you can put into your own body, even to the degree that a minister cannot give bologna sandwiches to homeless people.
	That's how nuts it is.
	As they pointed out in the argument before the Eighth Circuit, they're like, this could ban people from having get-togethers and potluck dinners.
	And the court said, well, probably not.
	I mean, probably not.
	And this is why I took the Amos Miller case.
	The government is trying to use the pretext of disease to force you to eat what they tell you to eat.
	They want you to eat...
	Bill Gates is fake meat.
	Number one purchaser of farm, agricultural land in America is Bill Gates for a reason.
	And what does he want to control?
	Population.
	What does he want?
	He wants a lot fewer humans to exist.
	That's his own words.
	You can look them up.
	Somehow vaccines will achieve that.
	You can figure out how that's supposed to work.
	But the other way is controlling your food supply.
	George Gammon had a big breakdown.
	Of course, the Great Reset folks and the World Economic Forum and the George Soros and Open Society crowd.
	All of them are in favor of this insanity.
	Oprah's in favor of it.
	Sat down in that special meeting with Rockefeller and Gates and Bloomberg and all the rest back in 2009.
	You can look it up.
	They met at Rockefeller University in New York City.
	I did a whole hush-hush in part on it.
	And that's what this is about.
	This is about control.
	When it's so extreme that a religious ministry doesn't even have a religious right as part of their ministry to give people food that they need to live, that they want to eat, then you know how nuts our food laws have got in America.
	And a PTA girl in Rumble says, and then they force homeless people to literally pick out of the garbage as if that's going to be less dangerous and safer.
	Although, my father-in-law, He passed away a long time ago, but he did always tell me to stop eating gas station cold-cut sandwiches because listeria in these machines is a rhythm.
	But when I used to work summer jobs, I used to eat gas station cold-cut foods every night.
	Never once got sick.
	But it's nuts.
	It's baloney, as someone said.
	Yeah, it is baloney.
	That's exactly what it is.
	It's a bunch of baloney.
	I hope they try to take that up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Don't know if they will or have the wherewithal to do so.
	The Supreme Court will probably be asleep at the wheel.
	There's a lot of stuff going on at the Supreme Court currently, though.
	We had affirmative action oral arguments where justices expressed very deep skepticism about the excuses because the various excuses, you have two different universities' policies that are in play, the University of North Carolina and Harvard.
	And the University of North Carolina had a few better arguments than Harvard, but both of them were trying to claim one minute they would say race wasn't really a factor, the next minute they would admit it was actually a determinative or dispositive factor.
	The evidence overwhelmingly shows that based on your race predicted your admission success.
	And basically, if you're Asian, you had the least chance to get in.
	And if you fit other racial categories, you had the best chance to get it.
	And there was a ridiculous disparity between them that was impossible to ignore.
	And given the skeptical questions from Alito, from Gorsuch, from Thomas, from even Roberts, from even Kavanaugh, that suggests affirmative action is about to be DOA in America, as we predicted before the oral argument even occurred.
	Other case up before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, they expressed skepticism about the foreign bank account requirement.
	This is a requirement that's caught a lot of people.
	You have people that are dual citizens.
	You have people that had ancestors that lived in other places that left accounts for them in other places.
	You had a range of reasons why people might have a bank account outside the domestic United States.
	You don't have to record that or report that unless there's more than $10,000 in it in a given year.
	But what the IRS has been doing is aggregating that together.
	Not only aggregating, let's say, $2,000, $5,000, $6,000, $6,000, they've been trying to force people to disclose it even if they have $10,000 in aggregate for a bank account.
	The second thing they've been trying to do is issue fines for each instance.
	In other words, you might have one bank account.
	That you failed to report for, say, eight years that you didn't realize you had to report.
	And they want to issue eight fines for it that are the full value of the account.
	So you owe eight times more than the full value of the account and about 30 times more than the tax that could be due.
	The U.S. Supreme Court took up the case and they're expressing skepticism about the IRS's ability to multiply these fines in ways that go up against common sense.
	So that looks like that will be a winner.
	And it's bank accounts.
	It's not an interest in foreign corporations.
	It's just having cash.
	There's different rules for controlled foreign corporation reporting requirements.
	I can tell you my understanding, last I knew, is that money in a sports betting account located outside the United States is not subject to those.
	Just a little FYI.
	Just put your information, everybody.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	And then Trump taxes were up before the Supreme Court and a misunderstanding of a mask mandate case.
	So the mask mandate case was...
	A federal judge out of the 11th Circuit had ruled in Florida the mask mandate was unconstitutional, struck it down and joined.
	Someone else in another jurisdiction had said the mask mandate was okay, and they took that up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The U.S. Supreme Court didn't take the case.
	That was interpreted as somehow the U.S. Supreme Court approving mask mandates.
	They didn't do that.
	They just didn't take the case like they don't take 999 out of 1,000 cases.
	So, people misinterpreted that a little bit.
	I would have liked them to have taken it and affirmed what the federal judge in Florida did, but not a surprise that they don't because they take so few cases.
	About 60 a year.
	Kind of a crock, frankly.
	They're too lazy to do their job, in my opinion.
	Well, Robert, you're going to make an argument for court packing.
	We need more than the original.
	Oh, I think we do.
	It's just that we have disagreements as to who should be in that grouping.
	What was the other issue at SCOTUS?
	I think there was one more.
	Let me get to the main issue at the Supreme Court.
	That was...
	Oh, yes, of course.
	The big case.
	The administrative state.
	So we discussed this case when the Fifth Circuit en banc issued its opinion, saying that the way SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission operates is unconstitutional.
	Because what they've done is they've created a system, the SEC, as this independent agency.
	Run by commissioners with a certain partisan balance who are very difficult to remove.
	And then underneath them, they've set up a multi-layer system, a merits board, and underneath them, administrative law judges.
	And what happens is they write their own rules.
	Then they interpret their own rules.
	Then they adjudicate their own rules.
	Then they enforce their own rules.
	They have subpoena power.
	They have sanctions power, de-licensing power, monetary punishment power, the ability to blacklist people from a range of industries and businesses, and even the ability to get a loan from a federally insured bank, which is pretty much every bank.
	So they've become an authority and law unto itself.
	They're not really meaningfully governed by the executive branch because the administrative law judges are able to make decisions with all the benefits of immunity, kind of like an arbitrator, without any of the accountability of an actual judge because their cases are often secret, so they're not subject to public disclosure or public review, not subject to meaningful appellate review of any consequence, not subject to impeachment, not subject to election in the first instance, not subject to removal by an elected official.
	It has to be, you know, by good cause, by the merits board, approved by the commissioner.
	So there's like three layers of immunity.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court a dozen years ago said this was a problem.
	Said these are people who are not fit within the executive branch, must be responsible to an elected official, otherwise it's no longer a functioning democracy.
	That's what the SEC has become.
	It's the sine qua non of the administrative state-run AWOL, the deep state's control over people's everyday lives.
	And this was a particularly egregious case.
	A low-level assistant auditor, so not someone who's working in the SEC itself, not someone who's working for a publicly traded company, none of that.
	Just a low-level accountant who occasionally audits other entities and audits them as a subordinate.
	Left her job three years before, and they decided they wanted to fine her and ban her from ever being able to do that work again.
	How is this within the SEC?
	We need to dramatically shrink the SEC to Wall Street.
	That's the only place the SEC should be concerned with.
	It should be nowhere.
	But Wall Street.
	We need to relimit securities, relimit all of that to make that exclusively only publicly traded securities on Wall Street is where the SEC has any business.
	They have no other business anywhere else, even if we want to keep the SEC around it.
	That's not clear.
	But the challenge is, so what happens, this lady who's subject goes through this brutal process.
	The SEC, they decide they're the prosecutor, they're the jury, they're the judge in the appeals court.
	So guess what their rate of success is when they initiate a prosecution against somebody?
	If it's not 100%, it's going to be 97%.
	Yeah, it's a little over 90%.
	A little over 90% of the time, they end up nailing the people.
	And of course, a huge number of people forfeit along the way because they go through years of public harassment and personal financial expense that isn't worth it, and so they just settle.
	And in fact, the SEC brags about this coercive power.
	This is the administrative state.
	This is indistinguishable from the Soviet Union in many respects.
	Nothing about this is democratic.
	Nothing about this is constitutional.
	Nothing about this is due process.
	Nothing about this is the separation of powers.
	Nothing about this is the right to trial by jury.
	So some people started fighting it and directly challenging it.
	This lady does.
	She goes through one process, gets railroaded, then the commission sets it aside after the Supreme Court raised some questions about how this process works, and then they were going to make her go through it all over again.
	So she filed suit in federal court, and what do you think the SEC argued?
	Oh, federal court doesn't have standing, no jurisdiction.
	And this is a bad misapplication of laws that have divested federal courts over control over the federal executive branch.
	So the issue pending, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the case, so it's already to the merit stage.
	And it looks like the Supreme Court will finally gut the administrative state's ability to be its own judge.
	And that will be a massive ruling against the deep state, against the administrative state, against this dual state, against this undemocratic, unconstitutional, un-American state that has grown up in the administrative branch of government, executive branch of government, for the last five decades.
	This is, I mean, I think the similar questions and the similar issues came up in FTC COPPA and a number of other situations where...
	You have the body, like you say, making the rules, interpreting the rules, adjudicating on the rules.
	Will this overturn?
	Is it the Chevron principle?
	No, really, because Chevron's still about deference to agencies and the legislative part of the operation.
	This is about them operating as their own judicial branch.
	Okay, interesting.
	And that's what will effectively strip.
	And that's probably the biggest case that's really up before SCOTUS.
	Well, along with Navajo, I mean, this is kind of an interesting, more eclectic topic, but what is it?
	The Navajo tribe wants the U.S. government Department of Interior to have a plan on how it uses the Colorado River to meet the U.S. government's obligations under the 1849 and 1868 treaties it has with the Navajo tribe.
	And basically what they did is they went to the Navajos and they said, look, if you limit yourself to this land right here, we'll guarantee you water, farming, implements, all of that.
	You'll be under our protection against anybody else, state government, foreign government, local government, any other people.
	And in exchange for us giving you that, you give up all your claims to all the other land outside of the reserved area.
	That's what most treaties did.
	Now, of course, what the U.S. government has done is...
	Break those promises for a century plus, even though they have a fiduciary obligation to meet them.
	The Navajo pointed out they control the Colorado River and that the Colorado River Plan should incorporate in it a means to keep their word about water rights access to the Navajos under those two treaties.
	The Department of Interior doesn't want to do that.
	They don't even want a plan.
	It's not just about actual substantive delivery.
	They don't even want to say they're legally obligated to do a plan.
	For that.
	Colorado River is an important resource.
	It's part of the current debate about Lake Mead and everything else.
	So that's part of the, it has a lot of institutional interest involved.
	But if we're supposed to, if we're going to actually keep our word under the treaties, which is governing federal law as much as anything else, then the Navajo position is right and hopefully they prevail before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Well, Robert, I was going to say we'll go out with a bang, literally and metaphorically.
	Is the L.A. councilman himself on trial yet, or thus far this is just a trial about a billionaire Chinese businessman accused of bribing all sorts of officials, including Los Angeles councilmen, bribing them by going to Vegas, giving them tens of thousands of dollars in gambling chips, hookers, hookers that lead to evenings of fun, inside jokes about About an evening with a hooker that was so...
	What's the word?
	When you exert a lot of energy that it led the prostitute that was hired by this billionaire to lure the L.A. councilman.
	She came out saying, water, water, water, and it became the inside joke between this councilman and the Chinese billionaire businessman being sued for bribery, etc., etc.
	Not sued, criminal charges.
	Criminal charges, sorry.
	The councilman himself...
	Has he been charged yet or no?
	Yes, but I think this is an underling that is currently facing current charges.
	I think neither the billionaire nor the...
	It might be the billionaire.
	The billionaire is on trial.
	I'm fairly certain.
	It's the billionaire that's on trial.
	The councilman's trial is upcoming.
	And now it's the councilman's aide who's testifying.
	The billionaire...
	The defense is that it wasn't bribery.
	I was being comped these things by hotels and I was just sharing it with my entourage.
	That's not a terrible defense.
	It raises a doubt in my mind.
	What do you think are the chances?
	For everybody watching, the hotel allegedly comps this guy who goes there and gambles millions.
	The guy says, okay, well, they comp me all this stuff.
	I just invite people to partake in it.
	It's a fun party.
	Reasonable doubt or no?
	I don't think so.
	Essentially, what you have is him giving...
	The councilman said he would only travel out if they had a minimum number of prostitutes and a minimum amount of gambling money to give him for free.
	Welcome to LA.
	That is the nature.
	This guy was wanting to develop a big high-end real estate project in Los Angeles.
	That's clearly why that guy was being given it.
	I think the fact that it could be gratuitous or gifts, the problem is the connection between the two.
	Some of it...
	Of course, being illicit.
	It was tongue-in-cheek.
	I mean, if Justin Trudeau forgot to declare a gift of a weekend vacation at Alga Khan's private island, I doubt this guy declared his gifts, which is what he's basically saying they were, hookers, tens of thousands of dollars in gambling chips, while the guy was petitioning for building permits in LA where this councilman had sway.
	Quite funny stuff.
	I mean, on the upside, I had a hush-hush, I think, before on the Malcolm X assassination, and it said that you can find those at vivobarneslaw.locals.com on the playlist.
	You can just go through the different 64 hush-hushes up currently.
	But the two people that were falsely accused of the Malcolm X assassination have finally been freed, and they're going to get a large amount of money.
	As part of the settlement for their knowing and illicit incarceration.
	It was members of the FBI and state and local police departments that were complicit with the cover-up of who actually assassinated Malcolm X. This is why, Robert, I read into that as well.
	The two individuals had alibis.
	One of them was allegedly in the hospital the day of the shooting.
	They had alibis.
	They had not just bona fide...
	Clear defenses, clear alibis, clear evidence that they were not involved.
	The shooter who admitted to shooting said they were not involved, and yet I'm looking back at this, reading it, knowing what I know now, and saying, my goodness, has the DOJ, DOD always been this corrupt?
	We see the way they're going after people today.
	It's like, okay, my goodness, it's always been this way.
	At the time, I guess this is, I don't know, before your time as well, but like...
	Did people know it?
	Were people saying, my goodness, they're corrupt, we know it, but we're going to live with it?
	Or did they just not know how corrupt it was and has always been?
	I think it varies.
	I think it varies.
	I mean, on that front, there was some good cases that came out.
	So we'll do some 60-second updates on some of these.
	Henderson v.
	Public Data out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	So there's something called the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which limits how debt collectors can use information, gather information, and give information.
	And this includes those that do it in the form of background checks.
	So an employee kept getting denied employment, and he dug in and he found out an agency, Public Data, was giving out the wrong background check.
	They had associated him as being a criminal and all this other stuff, which was completely false.
	So first he tried to, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you're entitled to get that information from the agency.
	They refused to give it to him.
	You're entitled to find out which employers they had given that information to.
	They refused to give that to him.
	And you're under certain obligations to assure the accuracy of your information, and they were not going through those procedures either.
	So what do you think their defense was?
	Section 230.
	Everything you do is on the internet.
	And luckily, now the lawyers, a bunch of...
	It tells you how corrupt our legal academy is and our legal journalists are.
	They were enraged at this decision, but this is absolutely the right decision.
	The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said, no, Section 230 applies to defamation when you're being accused of defamation because you publish somebody else's content.
	That's it.
	As they put it, it's not a license to commit any illegal act you want.
	And what this organization did...
	It has nothing to do with that.
	They're not being sued based on third-party information.
	They're being sued based on their own information, and they're not being sued for defamation.
	They're being sued for not doing their job under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
	So a nice win against Section 230 there in the Fourth Circuit.
	Small blessings.
	Yes, indeed.
	Another case, Hardaway v.
	Negrelli and others.
	This was a great Second Amendment New York case.
	The judge pointed out that New York went absolutely berserk after the Supreme Court affirmed Second Amendment rights against New York's own conceal-and-carry law and how the governor publicly bragged about how she was going to lock people up if they actually followed that Supreme Court decision because New York went through and passed a bunch of loony laws, sensitive place laws.
	Basically, there are places that say Please, mass shooter, come and shoot because nobody here will be armed.
	That's what they should really call it.
	What has been a place that has been a repeated victimization of mass shootings in the United States in the past 10 years?
	Churches, religious institutions, from Philadelphia to Texas.
	So folks, including a pastor who regularly packs.
	Conceals and carries.
	Brought suit.
	Says this does not meet the Second Amendment test under the Supreme Court's recent decision.
	And to the credit of a court in New York, a federal district court in New York, said absolutely they're right.
	There's a Second Amendment right to conceal and carry to church.
	And found that law invalid.
	A couple of smaller cases.
	Drabinsky versus...
	Oh, go ahead.
	Wait, before you get there, Tropical Rocket $5 Rumble.
	That says latest on Amos.
	So the case is still pending.
	There's a hearing that's been moved to the middle of December trying to get a resolved negotiation, negotiated outcome that will protect Amos' right to grow food the way he wants, for Amos' consumers to buy food the way they want, without any concern that anybody's confused by that, which appears to be the U.S. Department of Agriculture's justification for the actions taken to date.
	If the U.S. Department of Agriculture is sincere, then they'll come to a good resolution in the case.
	If they're not, then we'll probably have to litigate it.
	But it's one of the most critical cases about the right for you to put in your own body what you choose, not what the government chooses.
	Drabinsky versus Actors' Equity is kind of fun.
	Famous Canadian musical producer, by the way.
	And what happened was, you know, COVID is happening, so there's all these issues, there's these lockdowns, all the actors are going kind of crazy, some are losing their jobs, some are demanding special protection, you know, actors being actors.
	And in the middle of this, he tried, and then George Floyd happens, and so Durbinsky tries to explain to the actors how he understands this, how when he did some version of Old Man River years ago.
	They end up keeping in the old language because they used the N-word because it really reflected the power of the message that was a pro-civil rights message.
	And he repeated what the N-word was.
	They then filed complaints against him and then blacklisted him and blackballed him.
	It appears to be for reasons that didn't even relate to actually that.
	It was just the excuse to cancel this guy who was a famous...
	One of the world's most famous musical producers.
	So he's filed suit, saying this was all illicit and ulterior motive.
	And it's basically a lawsuit against cancel culture in the musical, acting, theatrical world.
	So we'll see how it goes.
	The NBA, of course, suspended Kyrie Irving because they didn't like some of his comments or statements and sharing videos.
	And the same NBA, though, was sued this week, the San Antonio Spurs, by...
	That excellent head coach, but pontificating political head case, Popovich, who's the head coach of the Spurs, who loves to attack Trump and everything else.
	Well, turns out the Spurs have been busy covering up sexual harassment by their players of various women professionals who work for the Spurs, as was detailed in that civil suit.
	Classic Me Too hypocrisy from the...
	From the Virtue Signaling National Basketball Association who, in between championing human rights, would like China to watch more of their games and will beg and kowtow to China on a moment's notice as nobody bends the knee better than LeBron James.
	I was just going to say, I'm sure King James is going to tweet about this.
	This is going to be his social justice thing to take on.
	Probably not.
	And then just brief updates on the election cases.
	There was an absentee ballot case, of course, in Pennsylvania.
	The Dropbox case, what happened was we talked...
	We talked about it last week.
	They won.
	Then they cut a settlement that enjoined them from doing things.
	No idea why.
	Something weird is happening in the backstory there.
	But a lot of people are critical of the judge.
	The judge just signed their settlement order.
	So I have no idea what's going on in the backstory there.
	But that's just kind of a weird dynamic.
	But while Pennsylvania Supreme Court set aside...
	Any undated ballots to not be counted until later adjudication is resolved, but not to be incorporated within the ballots counted on election day.
	There have been election law reforms in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, that put a little bit more restraint.
	Some a lot more restraint, some only a little bit more.
	Nevada is the one that a lot of people are curious to watch because Nevada, you can still, as long as you postmark your ballot by election day, they can count it for up to four days.
	Why would it take four days for it to get to the election?
	Why can't you go drop it off at the ballot, at the precinct?
	Even for the people for whom it was intended, overseas soldiers who mail it in and it might get there late.
	Oh, not in Milwaukee.
	I think it's Milwaukee where the election official got caught stashing a whole bunch of those to give to the Democrats.
	They got caught.
	Somebody else got caught in a suit in Virginia.
	They had tried to make all the Democrats poll watchers.
	The suit happened and the court said, no, you have to apportion this better.
	In another place, they caught somebody helping somebody vote.
	Explaining how the ballot machine works at one of the election precincts.
	And it was, here you go.
	See this one that says, all Democrats?
	You just mark that one.
	That's how you do this.
	So those are some of the helpers at the various election precincts.
	But at least a lot of that's being, at least some of it, is being caught, exposed, documented, detailed, legal action being taken.
	So we'll see how all those cases work out.
	And on the vaccine front, first win.
	In the workers' comp context.
	So the question was always, some of us have been pursuing the legal theory that if an employer mandated the vaccine and you suffered an injury, maybe even just a psychological injury, by the way, from the vaccine, that you should be able to seek workers' compensation for that.
	And a lawyer who brought one of the first cases, the workers' comp hearing, all this is done in the administrative process, so it gets a little weird, quirky, agreed.
	That that was a worker injury.
	So hopefully we'll see more of those so that people can get at least some relief or remedy through the workers' compensation process for some of these.
	Tyson Foods has more...
	I don't know if they've made a public announcement, but they've been sending more letters saying they are going to revoke their vaccine mandate and re-employ everybody by November 1st that wants the job.
	Or by this month.
	Obviously with no back pay.
	Well, we'll see whether they do that.
	For the people I represent, we're trying to negotiate a much, let's say, a more robust resolution on behalf of those people.
	But it's still good that Tyson Foods folded.
	They made a huge deal about this mandate.
	They were in the New York Times about it.
	They bragged about it repeatedly.
	They went to the White House.
	The fact that Tyson has had to capitulate, I mean...
	Probably the fact that I'm bringing suits everywhere under God's green earth might have helped motivate them a little bit.
	But still good to see that take place, to see some folks get their jobs back that deserve it and are welcome to it.
	But the case is not fully resolved until my clients decide to resolve it on their side of the aisle.
	Italy, of course, revoked its vaccine mandates and also eliminated all past fines for anyone based on a vaccine mandate.
	That's good.
	What happens for those who already paid their fines?
	I think they're going to write checks out of the Treasury.
	And then the federal court scheduled for November 18th, oral argument in Waco, Texas, concerning children's health defense against the FDA.
	This is about the FDA's mislabeling of the drug.
	The allegations are that the FDA labeled the COVID-19 vaccines as safe and effective for children.
	And as necessary for children on an emergency basis, when they're not necessary on an emergency basis, when no emergency exists for children, when the drug is not safe for children, when the drug is not effective for children, and when the drug is not even a vaccine under the traditional common understanding of the word.
	Whether the FDA is moved to dismiss on the grounds that nobody can sue the FDA for this action, that nobody has standing.
	That's that magic word.
	Nobody has standing to challenge what they do.
	They get to do what they do without consequence, according to the FDA.
	We are challenging that claim, and that will be the issue before the oral argument on November 18th in Waco.
	That's fantastic, Robert.
	And who might we have for Wednesday Sidebar, or are we allowed to disclose?
	Oh, I don't know yet.
	So we're trying to get one of the founding authors and founding people involved in the Great Barrington Declaration.
	I would love to get Dr. Campbell.
	I mean, I've reached out, but maybe people can reach out and say, hey, Dr. Campbell.
	Oh, yeah.
	People can definitely reach out and recommend him and do that with any of these people.
	Yep.
	Dr. – and – oh, I forgot.
	The one who's getting sanctioned now, having his license attacked.
	Oh, crap.
	I forgot his name.
	The doctor.
	You guys know who I'm talking about.
	Robert, are we doing something potentially live for election night, Tuesday night?
	I don't know.
	I know I'm going to be doing some stuff with Richard Barris.
	I'm going to be on and off with...
	I think Alex Jones is doing something live as well.
	So, not sure.
	So, maybe.
	I will definitely have a live chat open.
	At both VivaBarnesLaw and at sportspicks.locals.com.
	The sports picks one will be for people who want last-minute bet recommendations on the political betting markets.
	But otherwise, not absolutely certain what the plan will be.
	So it's a little bit sort of open.
	It's Dr. McCullough.
	Thank you very much, everybody.
	Oh, yeah.
	It'd be great to have Dr. McCullough, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Chiardi, a bunch of those.
	So everybody, tweet them out and let's see if we can make it happen.
	I'll probably do something live Tuesday night, but it depends on where I am because I might try to get on location.
	We'll see.
	Robert, we haven't done a white pill for the upcoming week, but I think I know what you're going to say this week.
	But give us some optimism for the coming red wave that we all presume is going to be occurring as of Tuesday.
	Solenex versus Halen.
	This is my white pill.
	This is a little oil leaser.
	Who has got an oil lease in the 1980s on federal land, was never able to use it.
	They tried to stop it, provoke it, you know, contaminate it, misdirect it.
	He fought for, the company fought for 40 years to get the right to exercise the lease that they were given.
	And then at the last minute, the Biden administration comes in, realizes they're going to lose on these other grounds.
	And so they just revoked the lease entirely after he'd been litigating this for 40 years.
	And a federal district court said, no, no, no, you just can't revoke it from this guy.
	These people have had a right to it.
	You don't have the authority to simply revoke a lease.
	It was an arbitrary and capricious action.
	And said, you absolutely have the right to this lease.
	And this lease, you have the right to start.
	Drill, drill, drill, baby.
	Drill, drill, drill.
	Coming up very soon.
	So it showed that somebody was willing to fight for 40 years and ultimately win.
	They might say, the downside?
	Man, 40 years.
	Upside, that's what courage and commitment and patience sometimes does, in fact.
	I'm sure that arthritic middle finger, as he flexes it to the government, is going to make him feel...
	It'll compensate him for the 40 years of lost pleasure and stress.
	All right, everybody.
	Well, we're going to follow the news this week.
	Tomorrow, Andrew Gold, I'm going to have him on at 1 o 'clock.
	On this channel, BBC Documentarian, apparently got an interesting story.
	I'll be going live during the day, second stream, second channel with the all-day-long inquiry for anybody who wants to cure their insomnia.
	Robert, another banger episode.
	As always, everybody, go on over to, I think Salty is still live, drop a little good good in there, and we'll see you tomorrow.
	Everyone, enjoy the rest of the night.

▲