All Episodes
Nov. 13, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:07:57
Ep. 137: FTX, Jan. 6, Election Fallout, True the Vote, Defamation, Tyson & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I just spent the night in hospital with chest pain.
I've had chest pain for about a week.
It started about a week after I got my second dose of Pfizer.
I'm feeling okay.
The pain's being managed with medication.
And the doctors believe it's pericarditis, which is a very rare side effect of the Pfizer vaccine.
It can be treated, which is the important thing.
And really, I just wanted to film this message to say that even despite these side effects, I would get the vaccine again.
For me, it's more important that we all protect ourselves and save lives, make the sacrifices that we need to for the greater good than, you know, and I think the benefits of that far outweigh any potential side effects.
particularly given the side effects of COVID, the long term impacts can be disastrous.
So I'm for everyone to get the vaccine.
Some of us might have to take it on the chin, take some of the Take it on the chin.
Take pericodatus on the chin.
They pale in comparison to COVID, to the risks of COVID.
Let's do this.
We just have to do our part.
This makes me...
Hold on, we're going to walk through this in a second.
I don't want to say this enrages me.
Because I don't know whether or not to be enraged at this individual or just feel terrible for this individual.
Part of me feels like there is literally...
Maybe not literally.
Someone holding a proverbial gun to this woman's head off camera saying, you're in the hospital.
We can't hide this, but you damn well better keep promoting this.
Like, I don't know whether to feel sorry for her or to be angry at her or a little bit of A and a little bit of B. I would love to ask her how she feels now.
I would love to ask her if this...
This public service announcement in support of a medical procedure that just gave her pericarditis, pericarditis, inflammation of the muscle around the heart.
I forget that myocarditis is inflammation of the muscle of the heart.
Pericarditis is inflammation of the sac around the heart.
I would like to ask her if this statement was made willingly with her consent.
If she was pressured by her employers, for those of you who don't know, I should have backed this up a little bit.
Let me just refresh, because whenever I go back, the woman who made the statement, Georgia Clark, Georgia B. Clark, senior communications advisor, legal aid, NSW, ex-journalist, Daily Telegraph, ARV, a journalist.
I don't know if she was a journalist at the time or if she was an ex-journalist at the time.
I want to know if this statement was made voluntarily, if there was overt pressure, or if she just felt...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Discreet pressure, social pressure.
You're in the hospital for pericarditis.
By the way, I've got my mic cable wrapped around him.
You're in the hospital for heart sac inflammation, pericarditis.
It's treatable, though.
You know what else is treatable?
COVID.
A young woman with chest pain for about a week.
As if, you know, heart inflammation.
Treat it.
It's gone.
No harm, no foul.
Line yourself up for your next jab and wait for the punchline of this.
Now, by the way, in fairness, this is over a year ago.
Although even a year ago.
I think people were starting to get wise to the fact that the Jibby Jab did not prevent transmission.
In which case, everything that follows in this public service announcement for a medical procedure which harmed her.
I won't say it came close to ending her life, although a great many people passed suddenly afterwards.
It doesn't stop transmission.
Whether or not it was known then, like it's known now, I think it was.
Thank you.
Very rare.
One in 5,000.
One in 5,000.
Very rare.
You know what else can be treated?
You know what else is pretty rare?
young people passing from the, from the Rona.
Despite this.
Despite the side effects.
Now, this is where I don't know whether or not to feel bad or to feel angry.
If this person now has suffered potentially irreversible, although it was treated, serious side effects, now urging others to go out and do it because she thinks it's for the greater good, whatever that possible greater good could be.
Is this a case of...
Brainwashed Stockholm Syndrome?
Is this a case of someone who actually believes this?
Or is this a case of misery loves company?
I took it on the chin.
Now it's your turn to risk taking it on the chin.
By the way, I would love to talk to her today to see if she feels the same way today that she did a year ago.
It doesn't prevent transmission.
does this statement still hold true?
You want to sacrifice your own heart.
You go ahead and do that.
You go ahead and do that.
Oh yeah, just a wee bit of pericarditis.
They can be.
I suspect the long-term impacts of pericarditis can also be disastrous.
Some of us might.
Who the hell do you think you're talking for?
Some of us might have...
That's a risk she's willing to take.
Oh, really?
August 2021, we knew enough.
Even if I'm supposed to be angry with her, I still feel bad for her.
That is...
This pathological...
In a way, it's sort of like tattooing or the addiction to tattooing.
I've discussed this with people.
It generates a certain bit of pain when it's done.
It releases endorphins.
You feel like you've gotten through some pain and you have something to show for it.
And it's sort of a rush.
I appreciate that.
And I appreciate that with no judgment.
This pathological...
Risk of harming yourself.
You don't even have a tattoo to show for it at the end of it.
I mean, you get a hospital stay to show for it.
This is like the thrill, the risk.
Virtue signaling so hard that you're willing to give yourself the risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, whatever other potential side effects you want.
But it feels so good that just saying, I'd do it again, that releases the virtue endorphins that we all need.
By the way, there is a bigger punchline to this.
The same journalist...
Let me just see when this picture was from.
Did I get the date on this?
August 20th.
I just saw my cardiologist.
This is her cardiologist giving her this advice.
And the inflammatory markers for the pericarditis are gone.
So I'm well and truly on the mend.
I hope you're right.
I just know what other doctors have told me about...
The long-term effects of myocarditis and pericarditis.
I still have to lay low with exercise.
Just, you know, minor things because I can't stress my heart.
Just that thing.
That thing in the center of my body that controls pretty much everything else.
I still have to lay low in exercise and monitor for relapse, but I'm feeling better.
He also says I should be okay to get a booster shot.
I'd like to know the name of that cardiologist.
So that I can make sure never to see that person?
Never to have a loved one go to visit that cardiologist?
He says, lay low for a while.
You'll get over it.
Don't exercise, though.
Don't want to stress your heart after this bout of pericarditis.
But you should be good for the booster of the very same vaccine that gave you pericarditis in the first place.
If that cardiologist told her that, and I would like to ask her this as well, that cardiologist should have his or her license revoked.
Your heart doesn't control everything else.
Your heart pumps blood so everything else continues to work.
That's what I...
Your brain controls everything.
The center stem controls your nervous system.
Your heart continues to allow everything else to function.
I know, Steve, it was sort of...
Oh, God.
Now I'm going to get fact-checked.
Viva!
Wrongly...
Viva the medical hypochondriac.
Wrongly suggests the heart control.
The heart does control everything.
No circulating blood.
Nothing.
No brain.
No central nervous system.
No heart automatically pumping blood.
Although...
Although...
Mike the chicken.
Mike the headless chicken, people.
Mike the headless chicken had his head cut off.
But it still left a portion of the brain that controlled the central nervous system.
Its heart continued to beat.
And it became a circus freak show for a little while, with its owner feeding it down the gullet with a pipette after it had healed.
It had no head.
Guys, look it up.
Mike the Headless Chicken.
So anyways, the thing is, I don't want to be too mean on that person.
I don't know who she is, and I genuinely feel bad for her.
I mean, I know who she is from a social media perspective.
I would love to have an interview with her to ask all these questions.
Was that a voluntary or coerced statement?
Does she still feel the same way now?
And has she...
Has she had any long-term effects that she would be willing to disclose?
I was being pedantic.
I know.
I know.
And as I know as well.
Okay.
Standard disclaimers.
No medical advice whatsoever.
No medical advice.
No legal advice.
No election fornication advice.
Although we're going to be talking about some serious election chicanery.
It's Sunday.
It's Sunday after the Tuesday of the midterms.
And they're still counting ballots.
And there's nothing abnormal about that, people.
It's just the new democracy.
Was a Jurassic Park worth the $109 it cost to take two kids?
It looked like it.
It was good.
I'll close off the video with a little bit of that from Viva Family.
We went to Lion Country Safari, Dry Safari.
It's in Florida.
I don't know where it is.
It's sort of like on the border of the Everglades.
West of Okeechobee and a little south.
It was $109.21 for one adult and two kids.
Was it worth it?
You know, what else?
If you have $100, what else are you going to do on a Saturday?
And you build memories.
Memories are invaluable.
Is it worth doing twice?
Maybe not.
Thank you for the book tweet, Viva.
I hope you enjoyed Unacceptable Fringe.
Who wrote the book.
You know what?
That's a good segue into this.
Unacceptable Fringe.
Derek Smith.
You may know him from such fantastic parody books as The Prime Minister.
How The Prime Minister Stole Freedom.
He's written another one and it's...
I don't know how he came up with this stroke of genius for the title.
Are we seeing the same thing that I'm seeing right here?
Yeah, there we go.
One face, two face.
Black face, blue face.
I mean, it's genius.
In the city of Ottawa, you've probably heard this before, but what you don't realize is we missed so much more.
Who runs the country and affects your bills?
Who holds the seats inside Parliament Hill?
Join us for a tour as we will go places to show you all of the Prime Minister's faces.
Trust us, they'll be honest.
They'll have nothing to hide.
We hope so, at least.
So take a look inside.
And I'm in this book, which is not the reason for which I'm publicizing it.
Publicize the last one as well.
But I'm in it.
And I put the Amazon affiliate link in there.
That means buy it off Amazon.
I get some kickback from Bezos or something.
I don't even know how it works, but I figured if someone's going to buy something, buy it through an Amazon link.
It's good stuff.
Okay.
Let me close that up.
So thank you for the book.
No, Derek, thank you for writing amazing stuff.
Ontario trying to bring back masks.
Do we A, not wear them?
B, wear the most obvious ineffectual mask ever?
I cannot.
I suggest or recommend people break the law or people, you know, defy regulation to prove a point.
It's not something I can recommend other people do.
I think it's immoral, unethical to tell other people to go break the law when you're not the one who's going to have to live with the consequences.
Oh, boy.
I don't know what I would do at this point in time.
I mean, it's like we're living through idiocracy.
We're living through insanity as defined by Albert Einstein.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
P.O. Rourke, 22, Rumble Rant, $10 Rumble Rant, says, interview Ed Dowd about his research on sudden death syndrome.
I will.
We got a $10.
P.O. Rourke says, interview...
Oh, that's the same chat.
I hope you didn't mean to do that twice.
Mahoyo says, usually when someone says the greater good, it's never the greater good.
That was a $5 Rumble Rant.
And joining the Rumble Rumble Angry Otter.
Now, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to get to the Rumble Rants throughout the stream.
I will screen grab them and do what I did last week, a Locals exclusive read the next day.
But just speaking of the insanity, and it's actual...
Hold on a second, I don't have the book.
It's actual insanity.
What's coming out of Canada?
It's immoral insanity.
This might be one of my subtlest...
And most amazing tweets ever.
I'll get to it in a second.
Here we go.
The Globe and Mail.
We talked about it before, but Canada is now expanding euthanasia.
It's now this sunset provision of the original euthanasia law is now being sunsetted to allow euthanasia of the mentally ill.
Canada will allow assisted dying from mental illness starting in March.
Has there been enough time to get it right?
And it's my talking point.
Mental illness in law vitiates consent.
Depending on the type of illness, it can vitiate consent in contracts.
That's why I said can.
Not always.
It can render someone not criminally responsible for their actions.
Can.
Not always.
Even someone who is mentally ill can still be criminally responsible.
If they knew at the time that what they were doing was wrong.
If they had the requisite mens rea intent at the time.
But it can.
And now, it's good enough for Justin Trudeau to allow them to consent to being euthanized by the state.
This is the absolute state of Canada.
Expanding euthanasia from what has already been, I say, an unconscionable expansion of euthanasia.
2021.
10,064 Canadians euthanized by the States.
Or euthanized having gotten the rubber stamp from the...
Not a rubber stamp.
The stamp of approval from the States.
And now they're expanding it even more.
Just to put that into perspective, by my math in 2021, just trying to put all the numbers together.
By my math in 2021, 17,000 Canadians died from COVID.
That was enough to shut down the country, mask up children, compel the jibby jab, 17,000 in 2021.
I think it was like the balance was in 2020 because there's been like 40 some odd thousand deaths of COVID since the beginning in Canada.
17,000 deaths from an illness to shut down the country while the government simultaneously authorizes euthanasia in over 10,000 people.
Try to do the math on that.
This is probably my subtlest, but I think my most powerful tweet.
Do you know who else euthanized the mentally ill Justin Trudeau?
Yes, it's a Hitler reference.
Look up Action for Acton 4. I forget exactly what the name of the program was.
They called the Mercylands back in the 30s.
And you know, like every now and every...
People always say, you know who else?
You know who else liked to do something totally innocuous in order to equate?
A political party or a political leader to Hitler?
Like, oh, you know who else used to deny elections?
Hitler.
You know who else used to drink coffee?
Hitler.
Hey, Trump drinks coffee.
Trump denies.
There are stupid comparisons, and then there are actually meaningful ones.
You know who else used to euthanize the mentally ill?
And that's right.
You got it right.
Yeah, people are saying Operation T4.
It was like action.
There was a German word for it.
Action T4.
Barnes will know.
Maybe he'll...
Maybe he'll help us with this.
Barnes is in the backdrop, people.
And just so everybody knows, if I look distracted or if I have to...
What's the word?
Suddenly put my mic and camera on mute.
My wife is out of town for a week.
I've got two kids and now a guest at the house.
I hear everything.
My daddy's senses are tingling.
I hear laughing.
If I hear too much silence or crying, I might have to run into the other room.
So for the next week, it's going to be me and the kids.
So that's it.
Barnes is the goat.
Oh, here we go.
Intelligentsia action.
So that's it.
Just if I look or sound distracted or if I have to leave, we'll see.
Okay, I'm bringing in the Barnes right now.
And then in about 10 minutes, we're going to go exclusive on Rumble.
The link is there, so get in on it, people.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
Well, let's see.
Behind you, I think we've seen that book and I...
I wish I knew cigars enough to know what that was from the label.
But book and cigar before we get started.
Oh, sure.
This is an Arturo Fuente cigar.
A very good non-Cuban cigar.
And then the book is 1775, Good Year for Revolution by Kevin Phillips.
He's written many great political books.
He returned to writing about American history.
In the early 2000s, when he grew exhausted with American politics and for a period of time found that there was better respite in the past than there was in predicting the short-term future because of his dissatisfaction about where American political power had turned.
So the apropos, given certain circumstances.
All right.
And now, did you see the CanCon video about Dallas, Texas?
Getting votes after polls are closed.
I don't think so, but I think we're going to talk about it tonight.
Robert, I mean, look, we might not get through everything tonight, but do we give an overview or do we just start talking?
Yeah, we'll go through the list.
The election contest and election cases that may be forthcoming.
We'll see.
We'll get to that a little bit later in the show.
We have FTX.
The FTX scandal has many implications, including, not limited to, the election as well.
Judicial Watch uses FOIA to find biolabs in Ukraine.
In fact, we're being supported by the U.S. government.
Whether or not criminal defamation, seditious libel is still on the books and is still constitutional in America.
Dave Portnoy's defamation case, what its status is.
The Covington kids have a defamation petition pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Vindman, what happened to his case against Trump and Giuliani in the District of Columbia.
A big Second Circuit vaccine mandate type case.
Not in the COVID vaccine context, but in the measles context.
A lockdown lawsuit.
What happened to it when it went to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?
All the Fed informants that keep popping up in Oathkeeper cases.
Can a judgment out of Chinese arbitration be enforced in the United States?
The answer might be yes.
Might surprise some people.
SCOTUS update.
Trump taxes.
Identity theft.
What is identity theft?
Can it apply to things that aren't actually identity theft?
Well, one court said yes.
Supreme Court will decide whether that's ultimately right.
The Fifth Amendment.
When can you take it?
Can you take it in a deposition and then not take it later?
Or not take it at the deposition and then take it later?
As showed up in the Flint case.
Big Second Amendment case out of New York with its new gun concealed carry law.
What happened to it?
Tyson Foods caught stealing from farmers.
Shock, shock.
Alexa problems at Amazon are showing up in a major case with them trying to delay discovery.
And can you ban pit bulls?
Can a city get away with that as a case that went up before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals?
The Biden administration's attempt to force...
Doctors to do gender transition treatment and completely obliterate Title IX and redefine it to serve gender identity purposes went into federal court today or this past week, the America First Legal Center case.
And then you have the, what happens when a police chief shows up at the scene, promises a family that he's going to make sure that the person suffering mental illness within is taken care of and is not shot and then goes in and shoots him.
Does he still have immunity?
We'll deal with that and a few scattering of other fun little cases in between.
Robert, let's start with the big one because I was driving around with the kids today and they said, Dad, why are we listening to this crap on the car?
Because I'm playing YouTube breakdowns of the FTX scandal.
I don't think they understood.
Anything of what they heard.
I know they didn't understand it.
If I'm sitting there saying, holy crap, I know I don't understand Bitcoin.
It's why I've never accepted an offer to endorse Bitcoin or do anything paid for Bitcoin.
Let's tackle this because there's probably much more to this than I can possibly understand.
I understand the basics of the economics as to how this happened from an economic perspective, from a reality perspective, how this could have possibly happened.
I'll do my best, Robert.
There are two big...
Or the top two, top three exchanges for Bitcoin, or for digital currency.
One is, I forgot the name already, what's the biggest one?
Binance.
Binance.
The second is FTX.
FTX basically looks like it issued a bunch of tokens, its own special tokens, which it valued itself, which it then sold to...
It's second biggest shareholder, which is a related shareholder, to basically artificially inflate the books to make it look like they were liquid enough to be an exchange for Bitcoin.
I don't know who the players are involved in this, but the bottom line of it is it was a total scam fabricated equity out of thin air to falsify the books to make it look like they were liquid to actually carry on as an exchange.
I'm going to screw it up by being too simplistic, but...
One of the major shareholders sold hundreds of millions of dollars of his interest in the company.
Binance then says we're going to take, issues a letter of intent to say we're going to buy out this company and then revokes it or retracts it when they find out it's a house of cards.
And now we're finding out that the guy behind it, what's his name?
I know it ends in Freed and I know his hair looks kind of like mine, which is already two strikes against me, is a big political donor.
Second biggest Democrat political donor, donates apparently, I guess, hedges his bets and donates to GOP as well, and has filed for Chapter 11. And this is basically going to be the straw that broke the camel's back of bringing in government regulation of digital currencies.
I know I missed a bunch there, but help us out, make sense of what's going on, and the hush-hush aspect to what might be going on behind the scenes with this individual who seems to be wickedly politically connected.
Yeah, I might do a whole separate hush-hush, which you can find at vivobarneslaw.locals.
Hush hushes are alternative narratives to the official narrative throughout of major events through history and sometimes even predicting future ones.
You can go back and watch our January 6th one that was done right after January 6th and how many things are popping like that as we see the trials of the Oath Keepers and other cases.
So this is a case that's got all kinds of components.
So you've got cryptocurrency.
You've got a...
A guy who died in the Caribbean predicting that something was wrong in a certain way in a suspicious circumstances.
You have unexplained sources of original investment income.
You have prominent Democratic donors and Democratic PACs and Democratic leaders of the would-be crypto regulatory space at the...
Commodities and Futures Trading Commission as well as the Securities Exchange Commission, the CFTC and the SEC.
You have Tom Brady and major actors and major personalities who have been involved in marketing and publicizing and even a basketball NBA stadium in Miami, no less.
You got Bahamas, you got Argentina, you got Dubai, you got Hong Kong.
So you got a little bit of everything.
And you even have Ukraine that makes its necessary cameo appearance in any allegation of criminality or money laundering.
So the...
Short version of what took place is that this is the second largest crypto exchange for a lot of non-Bitcoin, often not even Bitcoin.
It's more these other digital coins, some called stable coins, some called alt coins, in the blockchain-derived space.
And this guy is the son of a prominent tax lawyer.
Tax law professor at Stanford.
His mom is also a Stanford law professor.
His aunt is on the World Economic Forum and is one of the leading public health people in the world.
And just to stop you there, when you say on, we're not talking featured on the website, actively involved in policy at the WEF.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
One of the people they've promoted more than anyone over the last half decade.
This is a guy who graduates from MIT.
Goes and becomes a quant that's kind of a derivatives analytics data-driven trader at a small boutique firm.
And then a few years later...
He pops up on the crypto space, and suddenly he's getting big investors and big investments.
He's making all kinds of money.
Supposedly, he's doing it arbitraging Bitcoin between the United States and Japan and other places.
But when people have tried to find out what his original source for all his money was, it's always been vague and obscure.
This is a case where Theranos meets Jeffrey Epstein in many aspects, as others have commented upon, even to the point of sex scandals and the like.
Sex scandals, Caribbean islands, you have all that dynamic allegations of blackmail and extortion lurking in the backstory as well.
Even some suspicious suicides of whether a particular crypto individual was talking about this man.
So Samuel Bankman Freed, SBF as he's more popularly known, pops up on the scene in 2019 forming FTX.
A crypto exchange, the goal being in offering things that some people at the time said seem a little suspicious.
The goal was to get a lot.
One of the great, famous crypto frauds was actually a Canadian years ago.
It appears that this guy just replicated a lot of what he did.
How do you get other people's money?
Well, you promise them things that sound too good to be true.
So he was promising 8% rates of return that didn't quite make sense.
Just deposit your crypto here, and you'll get a great rate of return, and we'll help you leverage so that you can bet on other cryptos at 3x up to 10x levels.
And a lot of people were, well, certain people were skeptical, but not Silicon Valley.
Not the Democratic Party political establishment.
Not the folks at the SEC or the CFTC.
Because this kid was wired.
And everybody connected to him was wired.
They were MIT-connected, SEC-connected, CFTC-connected, Biden administration-connected, Silicon Valley-connected.
His father is a high-end tax lawyer, law professor, also clinical psychologist.
Reads like a Mark Robert novel in that aspect.
And this guy sets up a very complex set of entities that look like that.
He had some help.
You know, going from Hong Kong to the Caymans to the U.S. in ways that a lot of people found too Byzantine to even figure out exactly what was connected to what.
The CNBC promotes him.
Jim Cramer calls him the next J.P. Morgan.
We're going to get into that and we get into Kevin O 'Leary as to the people promoting them and whether or not they took cuts for promoting them.
We know that Kevin O 'Leary was a paid ambassador, a paid sponsor, and an investor.
Sorry, I just wanted to pause that and we'll get back to that in a bit.
Crypto space, though all crypto sort of originally sort of triggered by Bitcoin, it's expanded into all these other altcoins and stablecoins and so forth, and other methods and means of using blockchain, with a lot of controversy about how much of this is legit versus how much of it is a scam.
The way SBF himself described his business practice led a couple of podcasters about a year ago to laugh and say, you're describing a Ponzi scheme.
Because he's like, oh, what you do is you create a box.
And this box, you say, is going to change the world.
It's a world-changing box.
And you get a bunch of people to believe it's going to be a world-changing box.
And the number one reason why they invest is they just think it will keep going up and up and up and up.
Even if it's, in fact, not a world-changing box, it's just a box.
And then he's in the process of facilitating and enabling that to occur.
And he's like, who are you to say the box doesn't have value if people say it has value?
Doesn't that give it value?
That was his response and reaction to people.
So there was actually a YouTuber who six months ago said, this looks like a Ponzi scheme, what this guy is describing.
But nobody in the media covered it.
Once again, like Theranos, like Madoff, both deep, deep, deep ties to the Democratic Party.
Instead, all it was was praise, praise, praise, praise.
He was described as a leader of effective altruism.
He was going to spend all this money because he's particularly pandemic-focused, interestingly enough.
And so much so that the CFTC took photos with him.
These SEC commissioners were promoting him.
And in fact, this reflects a deeper split in the Bitcoin space.
You have, on the one hand, the decentralized, open-source Bitcoin originalist.
These are people who believe in Bitcoin because it's decentralized, because it's open source, so that there's more transparency to contest the corrupting influence of centralized bank currencies.
On the other hand, you have people who are trying to emulate the centralized bank currencies, creating very, and they loosely call the decentralized DeFi, the centralized folks who they want regulation to wipe out their...
Decentralized competitors.
And this guy was the lead on more regulation.
That's why it's deeply ironic that his fraud is now going to be used as an excuse to do what he wanted to have happen, which was regulate his competitors.
But he starts pouring in massive amounts of money to the Democratic Party, second only to George Soros in the history.
Of individual contributions to a political party in the modern era.
You're talking about tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars, and that's just what can be directly tied to him.
Politico had a whole piece on him a couple of months ago about how massively influential he was.
He only paid off, he only made donations to a few small Republicans, names like Mitt Romney, names like Ben Sasse, that might lead you to question exactly who those people are.
But that's where he was going.
So $40 million plus at least to the Democratic Party.
But because he was funneling money in so many other places, it's anticipated.
Like, for example, his mom.
His mom runs an organization that's one of the biggest Democratic get-out-the-vote organizations.
The anomalies we saw in this past election.
He was one of the key funders of.
But then it gets even more extraordinary.
Before you get there, key funders of a get-out-to-vote, does that count as a campaign contribution, or is that just philanthropic, not a donation?
That's where all his philanthropy was going.
It was there towards pandemic work, lockdown stuff, things of that nature.
The next great pandemic, had to really worry about that.
But it gets even worse in terms of money issues because...
Money went to U.S. government, has been giving billions and billions and billions to Ukraine.
Well, it turns out, as Jim Hoft has detailed and others have detailed, you get the Gateway Pundit and other places, some of this money was actually being recycled.
So it went to Ukraine, then Ukraine put money into FTX, and then FTX turned around and gave money to Democrats.
In other words, it appears the Biden administration...
Was illegally funding the Democratic get-out-the-vote operation and Democratic campaigns disguised as Ukrainian war support.
And Ukrainian financial aid is the rest.
So that's all the different places this can go.
The part of the story may or may not be connected to an unusual death in the Caribbean, Puerto Rico.
One of the lead crypto folks put out a tweet, a weird tweet, that said that he was being targeted by intelligence services because he stumbled into this scandal in the crypto space that concerned sexual scandal, Epstein-style sexual scandal, etc.
A day or two later, they find him dead on the beach in Puerto Rico.
Apparently, the official narrative is going to be he went out and drowned himself.
Interesting thing.
One of this guy's icons...
Was a guy who was also one of the great crypto guys.
And a lot of people in the crypto space are Julian Assange-ish.
They're people who are against the system, who think centralized banks and corrupting institutions of government rely upon centralized banks and manipulation of currencies to control populations.
And their reason to be in the space is not just financial, but is often primarily philosophical.
And for them, they're fighting the system.
And one of this guy's icons several years ago died in an odd train accident.
The official narrative was kind of like the Gary Webb, he shot himself twice in the head narrative.
They claimed suicide.
They claimed he committed suicide by walking in front of a train.
So apparently that's what happens in this crypto space.
You say, hey, I think the government's out to get me.
And then you commit suicide in the weirdest ways anybody's ever heard.
Like walking in front of a train or drowning yourself in a rough ocean.
A couple of brutal ways to die.
So, but not long after that, guy died in the Caribbean.
A few weeks later, a story leaks.
And the story shows that there's deep overlapping connections between FTX and the trading business that was supposed to be a separate business.
And that basically the money on the books is all their own printed money.
He's pretending to be a bank.
And the guy's name is Bankman.
So, you know, I mean, it's part of his name.
So the, you know, Bankman Freed, one of those two, you can't trust people with two last names.
Just saying.
That's just a general rule.
Word of the wise.
But the, and as to those people who died, remember eternal truth number two, Epstein didn't kill himself.
It might be applicable in both of those contexts.
But basically, it turned out he didn't have as much assets as they said.
And what the assets were, We're commingled between the two businesses.
And not only that, the assets are their own assets.
It's like they're printing their own money and claiming, ah, it's worth X and boom.
Like his little box analogy.
So that triggered a lot of concern because a lot of people had their money in it.
And he's got a bunch of money.
He's part of Robinhood.
He tried to buy part of Twitter with Elon Musk.
Elon Musk thought, ah, this dude's a little weird.
That's Elon Musk saying somebody's weird.
But he was like, something's off with this guy.
No go.
But he has money in all kinds of other aspects of the crypto space.
He was trying to get regulation imposed so the government could take over it and greenlight the path for central bank digital currencies as the practical alternative to Bitcoin and everything else as to how they're going to pitch it and portray it.
And it turns out he's got major money issues with all these businesses.
So Binance comes in and says, we're going to dump our...
Now, Binance is his main competitor.
Comes in and says, well, we're going to dump what we hold in this because we don't trust what's going on.
And all of a sudden, there starts to be a run, a bank run, so to speak, on this sort of fake token, this box of no real value.
And they sort of try to put a halt to it by saying, hey, we'll buy it back at 22, which lets everybody know what their margin call is because what they've been doing is using this as an asset to borrow money from other people.
The worst part that came out a day or two later was that he had been...
He's borrowing customer deposits to put into his risky trades in the other business.
So as all of this unfolds, he initially comes out and says, no problem, we'll get it fixed, just a liquidity issue.
Turns out, of course, it's not a liquidity issue.
Turns out it's an asset bankruptcy issue.
A day after he said, no worries, no problems, he files for bankruptcy for all the entities.
Knowing that, another story comes out about how weird the whole getup is.
Basically, he and all the executives are living together in a house where they're all sleeping with each other and other kind of weird behavior appears to be going on.
Allegations of blackmail, allegations of extortion, allegations of death threats.
All kinds of weird stuff that sounds just like what this guy warned about about a month ago that died under weird circumstances in the Caribbean.
That was also in the crypto space.
So then all of a sudden, all the panic hits, and they put a freeze on everything.
Everybody's worried about what this all means.
And at that time, they say, don't worry, bankruptcy, everything's going to be frozen.
All of a sudden, money starts disappearing from FTX accounts.
In fact, it looks like over a billion dollars.
They come out and they say they've been hacked.
They somehow magically were hacked at the same time SBF stepped down.
So the concern is that SBF is grabbing all the money, or somebody connected to him is, and he's running off.
He was supposedly in the Bahamas.
One story is that he's been loosely detained in the Bahamas.
Another story is that his plane was tracked going from there to Argentina.
Another story is that he and a bunch of the executives were trying to flee to Dubai because of the no extradition treaty.
Now, what I will say about all of those things...
is people have a misunderstanding about extradition.
Just because there's no extradition treaty doesn't mean you don't end up back in U.S. custody.
There's three ways that U.S. courts have greenlit.
First of all, U.S. courts have said courts can obtain personal jurisdiction over someone if the person is kidnapped.
Kidnapped by the government or kidnapped by private agents.
Doesn't matter.
Goes back to a Pinkerton's case.
I think maybe even in Argentina or somewhere in Latin America from the late 19th century.
Where they said if a court obtains jurisdiction over you through kidnapping, no problem.
The second is, I mean, the extradition law is that if they obtain personal jurisdiction through an extradition treaty, they have to comply with the extradition treaty in the terms of the extradition order.
But they often find ways to weasel out of that, too.
That's an issue for Julian Assange, a risk for Julian Assange.
But the second problem is you can just be kidnapped.
The third problem is you can just get deported to the border.
And the way they do this is they deport you to a plane where U.S. Marshals are waiting.
Now, legally, those are the U.S. Marshals kidnapping you.
Until they're in the U.S. custody, you could legally defend yourself against them, but almost nobody knows that or realizes that.
And U.S. Marshals aren't eager to tell people that.
So just going to a place that doesn't have extradition is no guarantee whatsoever that you don't end up back in United States criminal custody.
But that is where this case is.
The question is, will the media, will Congress, will some smart prosecutor dig deeper to find out the degree of democratic ties to this?
Or will the corrupt politicians use this as their excuse to grab even more power when the problem is concentrated power to begin with?
It's interesting.
It makes sense that some of the talking points I've heard, which are now, he donated to both parties.
He just donated nearly $40 million to one and however much to the other.
Yeah, about $10,000 to the other.
And I know that you're going to probably cover this in a hush-hush, but the idea that if this were a James Elroy novel, who would stand to benefit from this being a false flag or a setup to be the...
The instigation for regulation of Bitcoin, digital currencies, that the government has been clamoring for for a long time.
How does this even get set up in the first place?
Okay, fine.
He starts an exchange.
Regulated or unregulated, I presume it's not that easy to just start up an exchange and get people trading millions or whatever.
However, I don't know what the value of the exchange was.
It's not something that sets up overnight that you can do just because it's unregulated, or am I just being totally naive when it comes to cryptocurrency?
No, I mean, the reason why he was able to do it, I mean, he had a lot of regulated entities.
His problem wasn't regulation at all.
His problem was recommending regulating his competitors unnecessarily.
That would give businesses like his an advantage, which clearly should not be the case.
As a general rule, bad idea to have your Bitcoin on an exchange.
Just FYI.
I mean, people, Mark Moss, others that we've interviewed in the Bitcoin space have repeatedly said, George Gammon, don't have your Bitcoin on a Bitcoin exchange.
Just don't do it.
Have it on a cold wallet, ideally.
But putting that aside, I mean, he had billions of dollars, billions of dollars, money sitting in that exchange.
And the real reason it was sitting there was because he was promising the ability to leverage it.
He was promising the ability, the guarantee of at least a minimal rate of return on it.
Things that should have been red flags of people from day one.
But the reason they weren't was because he's talking to the CFTC head.
He's talking to high-ranking SEC people.
CNBC is promoting him.
Bloomberg is promoting him.
Leading Silicon Valley companies are promoting him.
That's why I say it's a lot like Theranos.
So it's a case of Theranos meets Jeffrey Epstein.
You get FTX.
And then you get the political corruption that was also critical, essential to it.
But from who benefits, right now it's going to be those people.
They not only got to launder Ukrainian aid back to help Democrats, they got massive amounts of money for Democrats that was critical to them holding so many closely contested Senate races and House races and even governor's races in the country.
And now they get to use his fall to get more control and more power.
So the corrupt people at the CFTC, at the SEC, and in the Biden administration.
And some folks in Silicon Valley and their allies, those are the ones who really profited here.
And we'll continue to, by the way, this is playing out.
And I'll just give Kevin O 'Leary a bit of a hard time because his interview was one of the pieces that I listened to this afternoon to try to make sense of this.
He lost his investment in FTX, maybe.
FTX and Kevin O 'Leary announced long-term investment in spokesperson relationship.
Relationship is a remunerated relationship.
This is from last year.
Long-term relationships centers around equity investment and an ambassador deal to be paid in crypto.
And then just to, you know, eliminate all doubts, says Kevin O 'Leary will be taking an equity stake in both FTX trading, yada, yada, yada, along with being paid in crypto to serve as an ambassador and spokesperson to the company.
And he comes out now and says, oh, I made a bad investment too.
I'll learn from my mistakes.
I'd like to know what the wash was between the paid in crypto for the ambassadorship and being a spokesperson and what he lost on the company.
And I'd also like to know what his knowledge was going back.
You know, if you're investing in the company, you're going to ask for spreadsheets.
You're going to ask for balance sheets.
You're going to ask for a lot of financial information before investing however much he invested.
I'm a noob.
I can understand the idea of saying, I'm issuing tokens, which I'm evaluating at X, and I'm selling them to a third party that happens to be a related entity, a commingled my own entity, so that I can say, well, look, I sold it to Mr. X for a billion dollars, so the company must be worth $10 billion because I got nine more of these boxes.
And then you find out that that company is indirectly or directly owned by the same individual.
I could figure that out.
I'm an idiot.
Kevin O 'Leary is either a bigger idiot than me or he's not as much of an idiot as he says he is now to have lost his investment.
Amazing.
Well, where does it go for the time being?
Not to give anybody any investment advice, but I don't recommend him.
I think they have to indict him and everybody connected to him is part one.
That's a misnomer.
The Ukrainian aid doesn't benefit disproportionately red states.
I get that's where people think the military industry is.
You might want to take a new look at that.
But putting that aside, they have to indict him, I think.
And I think they have to indict a bunch of high-ranking people next to him.
And I think they have, in order just to put, you know, they can't probably have him out and about.
If he gets out and about, that will be a little odd if they don't indict.
His security while in custody will be mighty interesting.
I mean, the issue is he's made public statements that led people to believe things that were clearly not true.
And specifically, FTX said they would never use customer deposits in a way it's quite apparent they did.
And so, covering apparently his own losses.
This guy was not some special genius at all.
He was just a scam artist, is what all evidence points to.
But they will try to use this for sure to push through legislation that had originally stalled now to try to control all of the crypto space as much as possible.
And so that's almost a guarantee to have happen now.
It may happen in the lame duck Congress.
It may happen in the new Congress.
I don't think they'll take the gamble that they wait for the new Congress.
I think it will pass in the lame duck Congress.
And they'll use the pretext of this case.
And then the question is, if it's a meaningful investigation, they'll implicate a lot of people.
How do they cabinet?
And I'm sure Biden Justice Department will definitely make sure to cabinet.
Or maybe they just let him escape.
Or just go slow on indicting him.
Something like that.
He is abroad.
They have to find him.
They have to indict him.
Reportedly, he's under Bahamian custody, that he's not allowed to leave the island.
But people tracked a plane tied to him that left yesterday.
So it's unclear what the real status is.
A lot of people predicting an Epstein, Robert.
There is a shirt that says Epstein didn't kill himself.
That wouldn't be the first time anyone would make...
Merch with that.
I'm just trying to think.
SBF.
Robert, we're going to bring it over to Rumble.
I did notice there might be something wrong with the number watching on Rumble, but I don't care about that except to say, is anybody having problems watching on Rumble?
Because it's going to be the segue into the election decanery that is afoot, to quote a Stewie.
So, mosey on over to Rumble.
Oh, my internet looks like it's going to be slow again in a second.
Mosey on over to Rumble.
The link is pinned.
And we're going to talk...
Carrie Lake.
What is it called?
The post-mortem of the election, now that we know a little bit more.
Although, they're still counting.
And there's nothing abnormal about that, people.
You're the conspiracy theorist if you think that's not right.
Head over to Rumble.
I'm going to wind it down here.
And see you there in 3, 2, 1. Now, we'll know.
There's 6,000 people watching on YouTube.
There should be 6,000 more watching on Rumble in two seconds.
But I think the numbers are off.
Yeah, keep stopping.
People say five times five on Rumble.
It's good, it's good, it's good, it's good.
Pete7779 says, good.
So we're live on Rumble.
Robert, let's talk.
Well, here maybe we can commit some seditious libel, which is astoundingly part of a case went up in New Hampshire.
A bunch of states have these laws.
So years ago, Jim Garrison challenged it in Louisiana, and the U.S. Supreme Court said that most seditious libel laws, Which is saying something about the government.
And this goes all the way back to they passed laws saying if you say something bad about the government, we can call it seditious libel and put you in prison.
Violates the First Amendment, but it wasn't fully adjudicated that it violated the First Amendment until Jim Garrison.
But in that decision, they said that you could still criminalize defamatory Actual defamatory libel.
So if you made a false statement of fact about a specifically identified individual with actual malice, then it could still be a crime.
A court out of New Hampshire affirmed the New Hampshire's version of criminal misinformation.
But basically, if you say defamation, you can be put in jail by the government.
But a judge wrote in his concurring opinion that in the modern era, that's really kind of problematic.
To give the government that degree of power to his civil defamation, maybe that's outside the First Amendment, but criminal defamation shouldn't be because it has a high risk of selective prosecution being used by public officials to suppress and oppress dissident opinions.
That case, I think, has an above-average chance to get to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For the reasons articulated therein.
Is this just a civil case or a criminal case?
It's part of a lot of, like the Alex Jones cases and other cases, the defamation context, the Supreme Court's going to have to clarify exactly what can it be?
Is it just limited to civil?
Can it also be criminal?
Do we want the government to have that power in the first place?
A lot of Supreme Court justices in the past, including Justice Hugo Black and others, have said seditious libel should not be allowed, that the defamation can be a civil tort but can't be a criminal case.
And so the question is, these vestigial, there's a bunch of states that still have these laws on the books that allow public officials to bring criminal charges against someone under the allegation they made a false statement of fact about a public official.
And these are really problematic cases.
The media celebrated it, and they called it, you can go to jail now for spreading misinformation.
That's how they put it.
And it shows the mindset mentality of this, and hopefully the Supreme Court comes in and clarifies that, but we will see.
In a comparable...
Go ahead.
I just wanted to bring up one chat, because I don't want to forget.
Matthew...
It was good meeting you yesterday as well.
This is the thing.
I meet people who...
I was at a Starbucks.
Someone said, Viva, how's it going?
And we shook hands and I met Matt yesterday.
And I'm always reluctant to say that I met somebody because you never know if anybody wants to even...
It to be said that you met Viva on the street.
Matt, it was great meeting you.
And if we go back, we blew $15 on lettuce.
In addition to the entry fee to the zoo, you have to buy a piece of lettuce for a buck.
That's worth it.
Matt, thank you very much, and be well.
Hopefully we'll run into each other again soon.
Robert, okay.
Seditious libel is criminal lying about the government.
Exactly.
It's amazing.
I kind of forgot that these statutes still existed, but a lot of them do, and the media loves them, and they're going to be selectively weaponized by prosecutors unless courts put a halt to it, because it's very, very risky to allow that to move forward in that path.
Speaking of defamation...
Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports had sued a publication and some of its authors for writing what he called a smear piece meant to monetize their audience by putting a large part of it behind the paywall.
But a court dismissed the case on the grounds that he did not sufficiently allege actual malice.
And what actual malice, I think it was kind of a high standard, but in terms of how the court interpreted it.
Because you'll see contradictory constructions of actual malice all over the place.
But actual malice is often misunderstood.
People think of it to mean your motive is bad.
It was a poorly chosen phrase, frankly, by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What it actually means is mental intent that you know your statements are false.
That's what it's meant to be.
Or you have no legitimate reason to know that they're true and you don't bother verifying.
And this was from New York Times versus Sullivan.
But Robert, Portnoy's lawsuit, the problem was, even in my mind...
Give me one second.
Sorry, guys.
Hello.
Yeah, please.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay.
Parents are...
Parents are...
Someone's near to pick up a kid.
Portnoy, after the story broke, he came out and put out a 10-minute video saying everything that was wrong with the story, this and this and that.
And the more he spoke, the more nuanced he made the story look.
And if you're going to argue actual malice later on, I've never seen it where they've successfully or sufficiently alleged actual malice.
Once you've gone into a 10-minute video to explain the nuances of why it's not accurate and why they could have done something better, you're sort of making it very difficult to cleanly allege later on actual malice they knew or ought to have known it was wrong when they wrote it when it took me 10-plus minutes in a Twitter video to explain why it was nuanced.
And I think this, like the Candace Owens case, like the case we talked about a few weeks ago, the John Stossel case, I think increasingly courts or litigants are going to have to almost do a poll or do a survey to show that, because like the court concluded that Nobody would reasonably conclude that he was being accused of criminal sexual assault.
And I was like, that seemed to me exactly what they were saying.
It's like, and the legal standard is supposed to be, what would a reasonable jury, could a reasonable jury conclude this?
I think you're, as a litigant, I think you're almost going to, as a plaintiff, you're going to have to almost do a poll and show, you know, we have our focus group.
We had, and someone that has credibility, but that, hey, we did a survey, and in fact, people did draw this inference, because it kind of relates to part of a case that I have before the Kentucky Supreme Court.
We're petitioning the Kentucky Supreme Court on behalf of the Covington kids.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals found that social media is an exception to the publication rule.
So in Kentucky, unlike most states, Most states say you have personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the Constitution allows you to.
And the U.S. Supreme Court decided all the way back in 1984, Calder v.
New Hampshire, another case that was parallel to it, that you can sue for defamation.
You have personal jurisdiction over any defendant if their statement that was defamatory was published in that state.
Period.
End of story.
Kentucky is unique, and it says, no, you have to also have committed a tort in Kentucky.
But historically, the tort of libel is committed wherever the statement is circulated and published.
And here you had people who published the statement in Kentucky knowingly, published the statement to Kentuckians knowingly, about Kentuckians knowingly, to cause injury in Kentucky to Kentuckians.
It's like that's the classic definition of a tort being committed in Kentucky.
But the Kentucky Court of Appeals said, no, no, no.
You have to prove they were physically located within the borders of Kentucky.
That makes no sense.
And I want to clarify something for the Portnoy thing.
I also think the actual malice standard, I would not mind seeing it done away with entirely.
And I don't think the Portnoy suit should have been dismissed on that basis that they didn't sufficiently allege actual malice.
Anybody who read it knew exactly what they were getting at and came to the same conclusions.
The way it's been implemented, the way defamation law has been implemented, as relates to celebrities or public figures, and the absolute impossible nature of succeeding on a defamation claim, even beyond the motions to dismiss stage or the anti-slap stages, I've been flabbergasted as relates to American law.
In the Covington kids, Robert, I don't understand.
I mean, it's 101.
They're talking...
Defamation occurs where it is read or heard.
Not where the person who uttered or published the statement was when they uttered or published the statement, but rather, sorry, where it was published afterwards, where it was heard, and where the damage occurred.
And I don't understand, in a million years, Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Holland, I understand the sovereign immunity, even if I disagree with that.
As it relates to the other defendants in your case, I can't for the life of me understand it.
I'm spitting all over the place.
It's crazy.
What's the next step now?
Because you're petitioning to review the initial decision, correct?
Correct.
So we're petitioning the Kentucky Supreme Court to take the case.
They don't have to take the case, but they should take the case.
And if they do, it's likely that they would reverse and reinstate.
Because there's a lot of case law, including in Kentucky.
That libel occurs there.
The other excuse by the Kentucky Court of Appeals was social media is different.
So if you publish a book that the libel gets spread in Kentucky, they acknowledge, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, that you can sue in Kentucky.
If you publish a newsletter that gets published in Kentucky, then you can be sued in Kentucky.
If you publish a newspaper, then you can be sued in Kentucky.
But not if you publish on Facebook or Twitter.
What?
There's no grounds for that at all.
There's no constitutionally cognizable or legally recognizable standard that says social media is exempt from all the rules of publication.
What they're doing is they're saying they're giving a green light to libel people to make sure you, when you're going to lie about somebody, be in some place where it's really tough to sue physically.
And now you have immunity from libel functionally.
And you cannot even recover in your own state where the injury occurred, where the publication occurred, where the people heard it, where the people were targeted.
Because the key here is they knew they were targeting Kentuckians.
And they were communicating to Kentuckians, saying, do something bad to these kids in Kentucky.
If that's not a tort in Kentucky, what is?
So it was a...
It showed, I think, I believe the political prejudice of the Kentucky Court of Appeals doesn't want Democrats, because these are all Democrats, held accountable for their bad acts towards the kids in Covington.
It shows the wild disparity between that and the crazy rules set up against Alex Jones in both the Texas and Connecticut cases.
It shows you how blatantly, overtly partisan and political the courts are becoming.
In case after case after case, showing contradictory standards when it involves the same legal issue.
Now, one place where the courts did actually enforce the law, thankfully, is that loser Vindman and his ludicrous Ku Klux Klan Act lawsuit against President Trump and Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump Jr. was completely dismissed this past week.
Vindman had brought suit claiming that any public statement made about him was an effort to intimidate him as a witness and thus was equal to the Ku Klux Klan trying to prevent people from voting by lynching people or burning crosses in their front yard.
That's what Vindman said was a comparison.
As the federal court noted, even if defamation Is a predicate act for a Ku Klux Klan Act violation.
By the way, it's kind of fascinating to me.
I was like, well, that's going to dramatically expand the liability under that law.
The court noted that trying to convert every political roughhousing fight of language into a Ku Klux Klan violation would lead to so many lawsuits, no court would ever be able to, no judicial system would ever be able to adjudicate them all.
And said that you have a lawful right to...
Contest the credibility of someone in the political arena, including a witness against you in any kind of proceeding.
Glad to see them finally say that, because that was a great concern, is they were going to try to weaponize the legal process so that you, as a lawyer or advocate, could not even question the credibility of a witness in the court of public opinion, in a case that's all about the court of public opinion.
But it was nice.
He lost all the way across the board, charged all his claims dismissed against all parties, and it couldn't happen better to a bigger loser.
Yeah, I was following that one with less interest, and I still can't get over the Covington case.
At the end of the day, even if the Supreme Court of Kentucky says, okay, we're sending it back, now you've got to basically just go back and start, not from scratch, but start from the beginning again.
Yeah, that's an intro.
It's very frustrating, Robert.
But now, we could have gotten to this seditious defamation.
We could have segued into this from the seditious defamation case.
But the Oath Keepers are on trial, Robert.
And we're finding out that this looks a lot like a Whitmer situation where how many informants are they going to have to foil a plot before it becomes the informants or the FBI orchestrating the plot?
I have not been following the trial as thoroughly as I'd like to, but I know what's going on.
But the bottom line now is we're finding out how much FBI involvement in this seditious conspiracy?
How many informants?
I mean, they waited until the last minute to disclose it.
The feds had been sitting on it and hiding it.
That should be grounds to dismiss a case if the judges do their job, but they don't in these cases, sadly.
They don't in general when it comes to the government, sadly.
But what they're disclosing is there are high-ranking informants all over the place.
And so increasingly, including high-ranking positions.
And so what you're seeing is that this appears more and more what my initial original hush-hush was about, which went through the template, you know, the templates of a false flag.
Again, all those hush-hushes you can find at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We already have 64 episodes up and more coming.
What was that this everything about this smacked of a version of an inside job that there were people that the feds have a problem either all these informants and infiltrators weren't provoking it and weren't doing any of that okay they were just there to report on it Then why weren't you prepared and why did you tell people to stand down on January 6th?
Because the 7th floor of the FBI was recommending no National Guard presence, a bunch of things like that.
So either they lied about what they knew or they were part of a deliberate, complicit conspiracy to undermine the election challenge by getting people to do something dumb on January 6th.
And the unusual inadequacy of Capitol Police, the unusual provocative actions of aspects of Capitol Police in attacking the protesters, the fact that walls weren't in the right place, people weren't directed to the right place, people got stuck in a certain place, the summary execution of some of the protesters that was then blamed on the protesters themselves.
Uh, the, then the, you know, mass detention and imprisonment of many of them for months on end.
One just got out on bail 20 months later, uh, which is just nuts.
I mean, that's a due process, walking, talking due process violation of innocent man in prison for 20 months, uh, just based on accusation had not supposed to happen in America under our bail standards.
And so what, what the trial is revealing is that, uh, It was much worse, much broader, much deeper, much more pervasive than the feds have ever admitted.
That there were informants and infiltrators all over the place, including in high-ranking positions, like vice presidents and things of that nature.
So they weren't just hangers-on who showed up at the last minute who were listening in.
They were top-ranking people making decisions that led to the sequence of events that occurred on January 6th.
For people who don't understand this, how do they go after the lawyers in this?
I'm trying to pull up an article just to understand how they go after the lawyer above and beyond everything else.
This sounds and feels like an all-out assault where FBI comes in, infiltrates.
They've had informants for months in there.
Like with the Whitmer, high level up, orchestrating, organizing, training, financing.
They go in, plant the idea.
They antagonize the idea, sort of water the idea, and then say, look, we got him to say something stupid.
Let's go after him.
He was going to do it but for our involvement, or notwithstanding our involvement.
But how do they go after the lawyer, if you're able to answer that?
I mean, they're accusing them all of being co-conspirators.
And so that is how they're getting it.
And they can only allege that because they were spying on communications that they should have had reason to believe are attorney-client communications.
So it's just one breach of constitutional standards after another.
And it's similar to, and we'll get to the elections in just a bit for those asking about it, it's similar to what happened in aspects of the elections.
But we're seeing overt political weaponization of the legal process to terrorize people who ask fundamental questions, whether it's greenlighting criminal seditious libel laws, or it's the targeting...
Harassment of this kind of activity here.
And it corresponds to one of the big Supreme Court issues.
The Supreme Court did issue an administrative stay this week of Congress's ability to seize Trump's taxes.
And what the Supreme Court said in the Mazars decision, because this is, by the way, for those people out there, Congress has never before in history subpoenaed the president's tax records for years outside of his presidency.
They have never before subpoenaed.
The business tax records.
Never has happened.
These are unparalleled, unprecedented actions.
When they did it, the committee chairman who did it and the Speaker Pelosi, who greenlit it, both said that their goal and their purpose was to disclose Trump's tax information to the world, to the public.
That's what they said.
Then when it was time to issue the subpoena, they realized, oh, that kind of sounds bad.
So we'll just put a cover page and say, We're doing this because we want to look into the audit process.
For a legitimate legislative process, they want to revisit presidential law.
It's only targeted for Trump.
Is that close to a bill of attainder, just drafting a law for one specific person?
They've got their valid legislative purpose, and they say let's subpoena the president outside of his time in his office.
And what the D.C. Circuit did is say we can't look past what they claimed, that they are allowed to give pretextual reasons, and that's it, and that we're bound by it.
And so the petition of the U.S. Supreme Court is saying this is ludicrous.
Under this standard, there's no meaningful review anymore.
There's no judicial review anymore.
As long as you're not a complete idiot and don't put an illegal reason on your paperwork, then now you can steal, you can grab whatever you want.
And their point is the standard under Mazars, the standard under prior cases, was there has to be meaningful judicial overview of the entire record.
And that evaluating purpose is not limited to self-serving definitions of what that purpose is in the formalized legislative introduction.
And there, the district court itself acknowledged that all the evidence showed the real purpose was, in fact, the pretext to get Trump's personal information and disclose it.
Their second point was, under Mazars, The subpoena has to be limited in scope, narrowly tailored, if you will, in scope to the purpose.
And the point was, if the purpose is, let's look at the audit protocols, then that doesn't allow you to look at business returns that are not subject to the audit protocols.
It does not allow you to look at Trump's personal returns that are not subject to the audit protocols.
And it doesn't recommend only looking at Trump's records rather than, say, Biden family records.
And so it violates that part of the Massars decision, again, just issued two years ago by the same U.S. Supreme Court.
And so the Office of Legal Counsel under the Biden administration completely flip-flopped on their interpretation.
The Justice Department did the same.
It shows you how overtly and openly political these are.
But in the process, by the way, they're damaging the OLC.
They're damaging the DOJ because these have been considered persuasive interpretations of the law precisely because courts pretended that they weren't partisan and political.
Now, that can be put to rest.
Clearly, these are just partisan hacks who politically make up things as they go along.
This is not a third-party objective interpretation that should have any persuasive quality or value or effect whatsoever.
But I think the U.S. Supreme Court did issue the stay, administrative stay.
I think they'll continue to.
I think they will take up the case because this cannot be the standard for congressional subpoenas, and they need to limit this misuse and abuse of congressional subpoena power.
Well, Robert, on the subject of misuse of power and staying, I don't know, bad policy, people are saying, and Jonathan Turley is observing that...
Biden is suffering loss after loss after loss before the court.
The most recent big one, I guess, I think, was it on our list?
The Texas Court of Appeal staying the student loan forgiveness program, which was, I haven't read the actual decision, read a bunch of stuff on it.
What I'm shocked is that they got past standing.
In its integrality, I don't know if the judge adjudicated on the standing or just, as a matter of fact, recognized the standing, but the two plaintiffs, which are backed by conservative entities or activist companies or activist entities, alleged standing in that one of them said, I have a student loan, but it's not backed by the federal government, so I don't benefit from this forgiveness.
And the other one said, I have a loan, but it's not.
Not a Pell Grant.
And so I, too, have been left out of the process.
And I've been left out of the process precisely because there was no process.
It was executive order, not a legislative process through which there's administrative procedures that need to be followed, public debate, commentary, et cetera, et cetera.
And so the court suspended it and basically said absolute overreach.
Executive order is unlawful.
And we're putting a pause on it.
What do you think of the fact that they got past standing in the first place?
I think that will be the main issue as it goes through because initially the standing predicate was people that benefited from other programs but would now be punished by this program because it would make their forgiveness taxable where it wasn't taxable under another program.
But then what the Biden administration was doing was it kept shrinking the program to limit people who could sue.
And so the question is whether this court's interpretation that that still provided standing.
My own view of standing, of course, complete garbage is a doctrine.
It's invented.
It's made up.
This is clearly a case or controversy within the meaning of the Constitution.
That should be it.
None of this standing crap.
But that's not where our courts are, unfortunately.
And so consequently, that will be the main issue on appeal.
There was never any doubt that he didn't have authority to do this.
This was not an emergency pandemic-related measure.
It was a, let me see how many votes I can buy by November 8th.
That's what it was.
So that it didn't pass APA standards or anything else.
But the question of whether or not they in fact were injured by the policy, given the Biden administration was constantly limiting standing by who it was taking it away from, will be a question on appeal.
So we'll see how, but the Biden administration may just back down, use this as a pretext to not go forward because they got what they wanted.
It's past election day now.
Well, and, you know, even Nancy Pelosi knew that it was potentially unlawful in the first place.
But past election, that raises the question.
Low-key in the chat says, you know, overturned the day after the election.
It's a Trump-appointed judge who overturned it.
If one were to impute intentions to this, one could say, if the Trump judge overturned it before the election, even more of an impetus to get the young Democrat vote out.
And so maybe it was helpful even to wait until after the election to throw it out.
But then some are going to say, well, Biden already got, he bought his votes with this promise anyhow, so it's tossed afterwards.
If this were to be a scandalous way of overturning it, why do it after the election and not before?
I don't think the court was motivated by the timing, but whether the Biden administration keeps the policy is clearly going to be motivated by the timing.
So that will be what we see.
But the Biden administration did have another loss in a case brought by Stephen Miller and the American First Legal Center, which is very different than a bunch of other America First think tanks in D.C. They're actually fake.
But the America First Legal...
Folks run by Stephen Miller have brought a lot of good cases.
They brought a suit on behalf of several physicians because the Biden administration was trying to use the decision last year, the Bostock decision, in the Title VII context, which said that can actually protect gender identity in certain circumstances, and say it also applied now in Title IX to educational institutions, and it applied everywhere.
So they were telling doctors they have to provide gender transition, hormone therapy, and things of this nature, or they would be subject to discrimination allegations under the various federal laws.
And almost every doctor gets federal funds one way or another because of Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention grant aid.
So these doctors sued and said, This is a misapplication of the Supreme Court's decision, that those are two different laws serving two different purposes, and it violated the Administrative Procedures Act because they made an unreasonable and arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the law that the court should set aside.
The court found they have standing because they're at risk of having to change how they approach their medical treatment based on the law or risk being charged with discrimination claims.
And what the point was is the language is And the Title IX is on the basis of sex as opposed to because of sex, which for at least Gorsuch, who was the fifth vote on the Bostick decision, was a very big, that was very important to him.
He pointed out this doesn't necessarily apply anywhere outside of Title VII.
Title VII, Congress chose this language, and here's why I think it means this.
And the best evidence that Title IX is not Title VII is Title IX has an specifically exempt provision that says Title IX cannot be used.
to prohibit separate facilities for men and women.
The Biden administration wasn't just using this to try to force gender hormone therapy and controversial medical treatments on medical doctors under claims of discrimination if they don't.
They were also clearly intending to use this to force women at every level of scholastic competition within the public school arena and even beyond that, private schools too because they're part of the NCAA.
Basically, it could have forced women to accept men competing in their sports.
And so the court came in and said this does violate the APA.
They do have standing, identified some of the problems, and pointed out on the basis of sex cannot mean the same thing as because of sex under the law because Title IX has a specifically exempt provision that says to treat women and men differently in a range of circumstances that would not be permitted in the employment context.
And so the Biden administration lost another big one in that case.
We'll see how it goes up, but good work by the American First legal folks, Stephen Miller, etc.
What do we segue into, Robert?
Actually, interesting lawsuit.
One that I didn't think I would find quite as interesting as I did.
They call it the ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act, Robert, which is currently before the Supreme Court as to whether or not the ICWA law.
I think it was enacted in 1998, which provides specific procedures for the adoption of, do we say in the States, do you say Indigenous or Native?
Indian.
Indian?
I think that's still the law in Canada, but I think the term has become...
We'll call it by the law.
Politically, people will say Native American, but the term in law is still Indian.
Because everything is Indian, because Indian tribes, etc.
Indian Child Welfare Act, Indian this, so it's all Indian.
The question is whether or not specific rules as relates to the adoption of Indian children which prioritize remaining within the family, remaining within the community to the exclusion of non-Indian potential adopters.
The case that I think brought this to the Supreme Court was A Caucasian non-Indian couple wanted to adopt a baby, Baby-O, and went through some serious hardship to try to get the baby adopted.
Ultimately, they adopted it, but they filed suit, alleging that they suffered as a result of this law.
This law is discriminatory because it's a race-based discrimination that should not be tolerated.
I was listening to a number of interviews and podcasts on this law, and it's just funny.
Politics ruins everything.
This is being framed as...
Right-wing conservatives trying to destroy indigenous culture, indigenous rights, where the idea behind the objection to this law is that it prioritizes or creates special adoption rules based on one's status as an Indian.
One of the situations where I can absolutely understand both sides, and I'm sort of torn as to what the right measure is, The flip side of the argument is that this is not race-based.
This is effectively citizen-based, status-based.
Being Indian in the States, like in Canada, it's not just a race, not just a lineage.
It's a status under the law as much as citizenship is.
And so they've created a law that treats Indians under the law, the way they're defined under the law, as basically being sovereign to American law.
Same thing with Canadian law.
And so the argument is, do we strike down ICWA?
Or do we not strike down ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act?
And the fear is that if you strike down this law that relates to the governance of Indians as a sovereign entity within America, within Canada, it'll lead to the striking down of a bunch of other protective measures, etc., etc.
How do you think it's going to go?
And what's your take on the arguments for and against?
I know Gorsuch is very sympathetic with Indian tribal recognitions and rights.
My old law professor, Richard Monette, was a big supporter of what he called Indian federalism, which is that basically you treat Indian tribes equal to states and think of them in the same frame and use treaties as the...
Negotiating power between the state and federal governments and Indian tribes.
I think the allegation that it's discriminatory is not applicable in this context.
Indian tribes are a separate sovereign organization, recognized by our treaties as such, and Congress can legislate as to them in a manner without violating rules about racial discrimination in other contexts where it might be applicable.
And so I understand.
I mean, the back story is that these laws happened because there was a lot of effort of forced acculturation to remove Indians from Indian tribal members from their tribe to Western culture, American culture, in ways that was meant to undermine the tribal culture.
And that's where the law originated.
Now, the question is, in the modern age, does the law still make sense?
In the sense that the law increasingly of people like this couple who are just wanting to adopt kids and have to go through ridiculous hurdles that they don't understand because they relate to a past time period to which it's not really applicable, which is favoring first an Indian tribe's relatives or some other Indian tribe to raise the kid.
But that, in my view, is an argument for legislative reform.
I think it's just conceptually wrong.
Indian tribes are separate and different.
They're not subject to that law in the first place.
And secondly, it would raise all kinds of collateral issues that would create too many procedural and legal headaches for the relationships between tribes, states, and the federal government.
They may be right about the solution that this should be revisited, this law.
But that's a legislative reform issue, not a Supreme Court adjudication issue.
All right.
Very interesting.
Let's get a small one before we get into the big stuff of the election and where we're at now.
Whenever you send me something, I take for granted there's a more important underlying reason than I am initially able to decipher.
Phoebe Bridges' defamation case against a music producer Forget what his name is.
Where a number of people alleged that this famous music producer had been engaged in violence of a sexual nature, etc., etc.
Phoebe Bridges, among other artists, shared some stories on Instagram supporting people who made these allegations, was sued for defamation, and succeeded on an anti-slap preliminary dismissal of the case.
The judge came to the conclusion that it, you know, public interest.
Well, it happens to parallel part of the Mike Covington case, which is there's one part they didn't dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds because it was a Democratic candidate for the governor of Kentucky who made the statements in Kentucky undisputably at the time.
And that was they claimed that even that basically trying to lead a social media lynch mob.
To go after these kids could not be actionable defamation because it was just subjective opinion.
And the problem with that is subjective opinion is not unprotected when it is in a position that it says, when it doesn't imply facts.
When you do imply facts, then it's defamation like anything else.
So that's where years ago the U.S. Supreme Court said somebody who accused somebody of perjury.
He could be sued for libel.
Clearly, part of his statement was an opinion statement, personal opinion.
But it was one that applied a specific factual statement that this other individual had lied while under oath.
And that's very different than the situation where you fully disclose the underlying facts and it's truly protected opinion.
And so both of those cases relate to courts continue to struggle with knowing the difference.
Between truly subjective opinion that does not imply and cannot be construed by a reasonable jury as implying any fact and those that do.
Similar to the Portnoy case.
I think they got wrong that there was clearly an implied statement of specific fact accusing them of criminal activity that at least a reasonable jury could determine and that that should be a jury determination, not a judicial determination.
Very interesting.
And everybody in the chat, don't worry.
It says one watching now for me as well.
The real-time viewer count doesn't make a difference.
We know that the crowd is out there.
People are absorbing this in real time by the, I suspect, well in the tens of thousands.
But Robert, okay.
On the subject of defamation.
Oh gosh.
And it's going to be the segue into the election updates because people want to know how the hell are things still undecided in Arizona and what the hell happened with this election.
Before we get there, true the vote.
They have been released from jail.
A judge of the Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision, said it didn't make any sense in law.
The rest of the judge's order, whatever it was, I think it was like they pay some nominal amount of damages per day of their defaults, released them from jail.
What I was reading that you sent was, I believe, their motion, their memorandum to have it overturned.
It was overturned.
They're out.
And they've been talking about it.
And it would be great to get them on for a sidebar, Robert, if we can, but set that aside.
Judge let him out and said it makes no sense.
At the same time, Robert, they dropped the charges against Eugene Yu, the CEO of Connect.
And I went through the criminal complaint earlier this week.
If they dropped it all of a sudden, I don't know how they alleged what they alleged in the criminal complaint, only to drop it later on.
But tell us what you think of what's going on in that, and there will be no righting of that wrong.
In terms of them having been locked up for a week, released the day after or the day of the November midterms.
But share your thoughts on what you think of this Judge Hoyt, Court of Appeal, and how on earth they dropped the charges against the CEO of Connect, Eugene Mew.
Put this away, if this was the State Department watching this case, like if in another country, let's say Russia and Putin, All of this would be on blast, and it would all be seen as overtly, openly political to manipulate the outcome of the elections.
You take the two people who were behind the biggest film, the information behind the biggest film, for how the 2020 election was fornicated.
And by the way, the people that were responsible for that Time magazine piece in 2020 that talked about the fortification.
Took credit for 2022 just a few days ago.
They said, see, we did it again.
This is great work.
This is who these people are.
So you have people saying, hey, there's problems with our mass mail-in voting system that violate the law in a bunch of states, and those people are conveniently locked up while they sort of freeze the case, potential criminal case, against the man who did have servers undisputably now in China.
Including private voter information of Americans there, as far as I can tell from the available information.
And the court of appeals did the right thing.
He unanimously said there's no basis to detain these people.
They shall be released forthwith.
Because if you read the petition for writ of mandamus brought by their lawyers, I mean, there was no grounds to lock her up at all.
I mean, it was just patently frivolous.
The judge was a loon.
Is a Trump-hater, apparently.
Even though it was a Reagan appointee, he's a Trump-hater.
By some of his statements and comments.
And it's all part of this suppression of people challenging the integrity of the election.
Which if you have high integrity in elections, you welcome court contests.
You welcome trials.
You welcome evidentiary hearings.
You don't hide them like our judges have been doing.
And you don't lie about them like our media has been doing.
That's a sign that you know there's not election integrity.
There's not election transparency.
And that's probably a good bridge into some of the election issues.
The 2022 election results do contradict every economic model that's out there, contradict every historical parallel precedent that's out there, contradict the exit polls on election night itself from the media itself, and contradict almost every historical past comparable election.
And if this election was being done overseas, if this was a Russian election, the State Department would be denouncing it on a daily basis because you have results that contradict exit polls.
That's one of the signs they take.
Second, you have methods of counting the ballot with delay after delay after delay and key place after key place after key place that, as Tucker Carlson mentions, keeps magically resulting in one party winning.
Over 80% of the time, when there's a delay of 24 hours or more, The election results go to the Democrats.
That looks really bad.
How is it that these really tight elections keep magically swinging in one direction the longer you can delay the counting of the votes?
The entire world can count ballots in a day.
Brazil had their election results in three hours.
France had their election results in four hours.
Brexit had their election results in a few hours.
How can the entire globe count their votes within a day?
Usually the same day, within a few hours, as was done in Florida, as was done in Texas, but they just can't in California.
They just can't in Nevada.
They just can't in Arizona.
They just can't in key state after key state after key state.
And then just magically, Democrats keep coming out ahead over and over and over and over.
We know the people running these elections are Democrats, overwhelmingly, from their past, or are anti, even if they're They're anti-these group of Republican candidates.
And it looks horrible.
Like in Nevada, you have in Washoe County, all of a sudden the cameras go down so you can't see what's happening.
And when it comes out, it's another Vegas-style magic act.
Look at all the new Democratic ballots we found.
Isn't that incredible?
And then you have frauds like John Ralston, who says that anybody that questions an election is evil and terrible, when he himself...
Promoted Russia collusion and his pal Harry Reid, one of the most corrupt politicians he helped cover for for decades, because John Ralston is a corrupt political hack who's a fraud, saying anybody who questions these elections is terrible and evil.
Yes, it takes day after day after day.
And the ballots kept coming in.
As Nate Cohn of the New York Times called it, the big key of this election was the post-election day vote.
How is there a post-election day vote?
It's because these ballots just keep coming in, coming in, coming in.
And then you have the unions who get to cure the ballots.
This means if your signature didn't match, because maybe it wasn't you who did the vote, you get a chance to vote again after Election Day.
People can look all around the world.
They will not find an example of another country in the entire globe that does elections like this.
Nobody has mass mail-in voting.
Nobody in the entire globe does this.
Why?
Well, for that, you can read the international legal standards for elections.
You can read the Election Integrity Commission.
You can read the United States Election Assistance Commission.
You can read Jimmy Carter and James Baker's report from 0405.
You can read the statements of judge after judge after judge.
You can read the statements of the Democratic Party in Georgia in 2009.
What did they all agree on?
Or you can read the New York Times, August 2012.
Mass mail-in balloting equals too much opportunity for fraud.
That's what the New York Times said.
That's what leading election scholars said.
That's what the Election Integrity Blue Ribbon Commission said.
That's what the United States Election Assistance Commission said.
That's what Jimmy Carter said.
That's what the Democratic Party said.
We would not allow these election standards to exist anywhere else in the world.
And recognize the election.
And yet we're deciding the United States Senate based on those standards.
We're deciding the United States House based on those standards.
We're deciding governorships based on those standards.
It is an embarrassment.
America is no longer the leader of election integrity.
It is the seller of election integrity.
And listen to this, Robert.
I saw this yesterday when I was out.
And then the rest of the 75,000 are late earlies dropped off on election day.
We do not know where these are from.
These could be from anywhere in the county, all 75,000.
This is not picked out of a certain area.
These are not pulled by precinct.
And so then just give us the remaining universe and when we should expect those.
Yes.
So we're now left with about 275,000 ballots to count.
And the lion's share, the overwhelming majority of these remaining votes are early ballots that were dropped off on Election Day.
And when do you think we'll get the results from those remaining uncounted ballots?
Good question.
We will continue in the rhythm that we've now established over the past few days.
I would anticipate, again, one ballot drop or one vote update per day in the evening, probably somewhere in this range that we've been somewhere around 60 to 80,000 a day, which would then make us reach completion very early next week.
Very early next week.
Robert, make it make sense, Robert.
First of all, this is Bill Gates, not the Bill Gates, but the Maricopa County.
This is the Bill Gates in Maricopa County saying that they don't know where the ballots are coming from.
At first, I thought he meant, I can't tell you where they're coming from.
It sounds like he doesn't have an idea as to the chain of custody of these 75,000 ballots.
Tuesday to Wednesday.
Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
Five days out, counting 60,000 ballots a day.
We're going to give up.
What the hell is going on, Robert?
I mean, the logical inference.
If this was any place else in the world, and you have unusual vote counting delays, those unusual vote counting delays overwhelmingly favor one side.
The conclusion would be that is an unreliable, untrustworthy election result.
That would be our standards imposed on the rest of the world.
So there's going to be more and more Americans that have serious doubts about the integrity of American elections because of the ahistorical, highly unusual nature of how this election was conducted.
And it's happened all over the place.
It's happened in house races in Washington, house races in New York, house races in other places where there have been unusual, unexplained delays.
That magically always result in Democrats winning.
Again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
I like getting about an 80% or so clip.
So people's assumptions are going to be that that's happening because they're finding enough ballots for the Democrat to win.
I mean, that's the logical inference that many people are going to...
It's the one we would bring if another country did this.
If Putin did this, CNN would be on nonstop about how he stole the election.
So are we supposed to apply different standards to ourselves than we apply to people overseas and other countries and other nations?
So it is embarrassment.
Now, what can be done about it?
The Justice Department could have brought civil rights actions for the fact that you had, in Milwaukee, people arrested election officials for trying to falsify absentee ballots.
In Arizona, a whole bunch of Republicans denied access to being able to vote because the machines magically didn't work suddenly in Republican areas.
But we're seeing none of that.
I mean, according to the polling that I think has now been published, so I can talk about it, Richard Barris did.
The people that reported problems on Election Day were about like a three-to-one margin were Republicans.
And that's because it was mostly Republicans who were voting on Election Day.
But it also shows the systemic problem and the scale of that problem.
Democrats didn't have any problem voting.
Republicans did.
Where is the Biden Justice Department?
Well, they wanted this result, so that's why it's not intervening.
So it's very hard to force them to do their job.
It's hard to sue in federal court and get remedy in a meaningful way that could reverse the election outcome.
So the only means to contest an election in these contests is to file what's known as an election contest.
Those laws exist in Nevada.
Those laws exist in Arizona.
Those laws exist in Georgia.
I put up an example of one that I drafted in 2020 for the Trump campaign and put it up at leaveabarneslaw.locals.com.
So people can see it.
My view is that there is a robust right to bring such an election contest in Nevada and Arizona because I don't believe the signatures will match on enough ballots that don't overcome the margin of victory given how tiny that margin of victory is in Nevada and is likely to be if Blake Masters doesn't overcome it in the late counted ballots, yet to be counted ballots in Arizona.
I don't know whether any, but the issue is people have been blacklisted by the media so aggressively of being called election deniers.
And there's such weaponization against them in the legal arena that it creates this fear, this censor and shame fear.
To silence people to not assert their legal rights and remedies.
Because if a candidate doesn't bring it, other people can also bring it.
But if a candidate doesn't bring it, it is extremely unlikely a court's going to pay attention.
Sadly, if the courts wanted to instill confidence in America's elections, they shouldn't do what that federal judge did to the truth of vote folks and lock up people exposing problems.
They should welcome an open, transparent legal process.
Let's have the signature matches checked.
Hire the Democrats' own signature match consultant because it was the Democrats' own signature match expert who said enough signatures didn't match in Arizona that far exceeded the margin of victory in 2020.
And then the court had to run and hide and pretend it didn't hear that and pretend it didn't matter.
Signature matches, again, mass mail-in balloting, mass absentee balloting is unheard of in American history.
It has no precedent anywhere else in the globe.
It's now produced a second straight set of election results that nobody can explain.
And the consequent, at least no economic model that can explain, no presidential job approval model can explain, no historical model can explain, nothing can explain.
Beyond, a bunch of ballots came in that typically would never have come in, and the question is, are they all on the up and up?
And I suspect they're not.
I suspect at a minimum they don't meet signature match standards.
We know in 2020, people voted in Arizona who said, no, I didn't vote.
Their vote came in by mail.
They said, I live in Tennessee and I voted in Tennessee.
That was never meaningfully investigated by the authorities in Arizona.
The person running on the Democratic ticket for governor is the Secretary of State who runs elections.
So you have a self-serving interest.
And she didn't recuse herself at all.
No court required it.
Because in Arizona, there are a lot of John McCain-style judges on the Republican side, Democrats on the other side.
And consequently, they don't enforce the law in Arizona.
Because what they want everyone to do is to stick their head in the sand and pretend this election was on the up and up.
When millions and millions and millions of Americans believe it was anything but.
Losing confidence in the power of your vote is not the way to continue to build a constitutional democracy.
But some judges are going to have to wake up to that.
For that to become a functional reality.
I asked you before this all went down, where even the New York Times was predicting a loss of both the House and the Senate.
I said, what results would have to happen for people to say, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever?
And I think your answer is...
We're seeing it in live time.
Again, as an example, in the average district...
Where there wasn't Democratic targeting and there wasn't mass mail-in voting opportunity.
Republicans outperformed.
There was about a double-digit swing from 2020.
Republicans outperformed their 2020 numbers by an average of 8 or more points, often by 10 points.
In congressional districts and states where there's mass mail-in voting and Democratic mass targeting, we're seeing something totally opposite.
We're seeing the repeat of the 2020 results.
It's like, again, we've never seen this in American political history.
Unheard of.
There's no precedent for it.
So there's no question that mail-in voting is why.
The only question is, is that mail-in voting representing of an honest vote?
Does Democrats organize better?
Or is it the result of fraudulent votes?
Jimmy Baker said it would probably be part of fraud, that fraud would explain it if the margins were tight.
Jimmy Carter said that if the margins are tight, fraud is probably the explanation.
Federal judges in more than a dozen decisions over the past 50 years said absentee balloting is where all the fraud occurs.
The Democratic Party in 2009 in Georgia said absentee balloting is where all the fraud occurs.
Our own election standards would never allow this form of voting, vote counting or voting anywhere else in the world and call it an election you can have confidence in.
So why should we?
Why should Americans?
Americans shouldn't.
But it'll be up to people like Adam Laxalt, people like Blake Masters and others.
To bring the election contest to try to get this issue finally smoked out and vetted.
This is a problem.
It can't keep happening over and over again, or Americans will lose confidence that their vote has power and that our elections have integrity.
TJ MacD says, Viva, what do you expect?
Fetterman and DeLuca won.
That tells you the state of the elections.
To that comment, I have no problem actually believing that Fetterman...
Legitimately wondering.
I can see that sort of, on the one hand, being something of a meme almost, but also on the other hand, Cernovich put out a tweet and says, you know, he's been talking to Fetterman voters and they view strokes like heart attacks.
Like, it doesn't compromise your mental ability.
It's not a handicap.
And so they had no problem voting for him over Dr. Oz.
I could envision easily people saying, I'm voting for Fetterman.
I feel bad for him.
It's an inspiring story, et cetera, et cetera.
Where I have very big issues.
Is watching what's going on in Arizona, watching what's going on in Nevada, where you have blackouts, where it takes six days to count the vote, and they're still not done.
You have the Bill Gates saying, yeah, we're going to count 60,000 votes a day.
And when we're done, we're done.
It makes no sense.
But Robert, what's the state?
I mean, California's still voting.
I mean, they'll be counting ballots and receiving ballots for weeks and weeks and weeks.
I mean, like, when Mark Robert's prediction is the most accurate, and his prediction was Democrats would openly steal it, And his predictions are the ones disproportionately coming true.
Who has the better explanation for the sequence of events?
It's an interesting thing.
What you say is, okay, mail-in balloting is the issue.
The question is, is it making it easier for lazy Democrats to vote?
Now they can vote in their pajamas.
And democracy is truly being democratized.
Or is it chicanery a la 2,000 mules and more?
And the other problem with mail-in voting is why do we have a secret ballot in America anymore?
Mail-in voting is not secret.
There's no guarantee it's secret.
We used to have rules that said, and by the way, why did New York swing massively Republican?
New York doesn't allow mass mail-in balloting.
The people rejected it, interestingly enough.
That's why.
There's limits on who can do an absentee ballot.
Historically, only a small group of people could do mail-in voting in America.
And usually there were standards in place.
Like somebody had to be a witness and say, I reviewed this and they filled it out in secret.
Nobody saw it.
I didn't see anybody buy it.
I didn't see anybody coerce it.
Anybody blackmail it, etc.
And then hand deliver it in such a way that there's chain of custody.
Here, we have no idea whether somebody else filled out the ballot for somebody.
We have no idea whether somebody blackmailed them, extorted them, coerced them, or bought their ballot.
Pay them.
And the difference is they can see it.
It's one thing if I pay you $50 and say, here's the ticket.
Go vote for these group of people.
I have no idea whether you actually do it when you get in there.
That's the whole point of the secret ballot, was to stop this kind of activity from occurring.
Mass mail-in balloting erases that.
You have no more safeguards anymore at all.
You can go buy as many ballots as you want.
Blackmail as many people as you want.
Extoric coerce as much people as you want.
And it's highly unlikely to ever become public knowledge because of where it occurs and how it occurs.
I'm going to play it one more time because this is not just Bill Gates.
This is CNN.
That are actually election day votes in person.
And then the rest of the 75,000 are late early's dropped off on election day.
We do not know where these are from.
These could be from anywhere in the county.
All 75,000.
This is not picked out of a certain area.
These are not pulled by precinct.
And so then...
And I suspect the defense is going to be...
We don't know where they're from offhand or we didn't pull them out to influence the outcome.
The problem with that is they keep magically counting the Democratic batches first.
And other people can figure out where the batches are.
Somehow he can't.
So this guy's been harshly critical, says the Republican Party needs a whole new Republican Party, hates the Trump wing.
The whole McCain establishment wing had a lot of institutional influence in Arizona, and that's why we're seeing what we saw.
Like, I'm not surprised at Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Nevada, because Democrats controlled the election machinery up and top, left to right.
I am surprised at Arizona slightly.
But at the same time, not, because so many of the old McCain types have institutional controls.
And so we'll see if election contests are brought.
I hope some are at least brought.
I am worried that courts will do what they did in 2020, which was attack anybody for merely questioning the holiness of an election.
The same group of people, by the way, who ran Russiagate for four years, telling us that we're supposed to hold elections holy.
The question is, are these folks election deniers?
Or are the media and the judges and the politicians fraud deniers?
Well, but Hillary Clinton came out right before and said it's the right-wing extremists who are literally trying to steal 2024.
Robert, what is the latest now?
Control of the Senate is with the Democrats and it's still conceivable?
Well, it depends.
I mean, they're still not finished in Nevada counting votes.
What it is, as soon as she took a lead, they ran to and say that she was going to win.
I think the House will still go Republican based on available numbers, but who knows?
Again, it's California.
They keep counting and counting and catching ballots, catching ballots.
If they keep the House, it will be a complete crock.
I mean, the election will have been completely stolen, period, end of story.
And at least half of the country will believe that.
And to understand it, people have never believed that on this scale.
You'd have to go all the way back.
To the Compromise of 1876, where it was stolen, where they called him his fraudulency, and that's why he called Biden his fraudulency the second.
That's the last time we've had a bunch of people in America, half the country, think that our elections were the result of that.
There have been, you know, usually it's about a quarter, the worst case, a quarter or a third.
2000, 2004, about half of Democrats thought it was stolen.
2020, a majority of Republicans thought it was stolen, but it wasn't half the country.
When you get a crazy result like this that makes absolutely no sense, when all the results in places that don't have these kind of methods of voting don't create these kind of results, people are not going to have any confidence in the outcome, especially if judges don't allow a meaningful hearing.
If people like me are wrong, put me to the test.
Let me do a trial, let the world watch it, and let the world see the truth.
It's because courts are scared of that that they're not going to allow that to occur.
Because they know what's going on as well as everybody else.
They're part of a professional class that wants to monopolize power.
But I'll do a deeper dive into this and its related issues with the Duran on Tuesday at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
We'll be talking about the craziness of American elections, its impact on the world, perception the world has of these American elections, and other related issues.
Fantastic.
Who do we have for Sidebar this Wednesday?
Do we know?
No, we're waiting to hear back from some folks.
Okay.
Excellent.
Now, Robert, I should end.
I hear silence, which is typically a good thing.
I hear bunked.
If anybody knows that show, it's Kikuwaka, Cap Kikuwaka.
I just heard the theme song, so they started another episode.
What did we miss thus far if we're going to...
We got four or so cases of consequence.
One is the measles vaccine mandate case.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted for the government and said that there was clear evidence that referring people to, you know, politicians attacking religious exemptions, calling people anti-vaxxers and so forth, that that was evidence that there was religious animus behind the attempt.
What they did is they said if you weren't vaccinated for the measles vaccine as a kid, you couldn't go to school.
You couldn't even go out in public.
And these were kids who had religious accommodations and exceptions.
And so they sued under violation of the First Amendment right free exercise clause.
The district court said, nah, this was all fine.
You know, typical federal district court in New York.
And the Second Circuit, to its credit, said, nah, hold on a second.
There was lots of evidence that the people who pushed this through didn't like religious people, didn't like religious accommodations, called them idiotic anti-vaxxers.
That should go to a jury.
That's not for the court to decide.
Reversed it, reinstate it.
They're going to get a jury trial on that.
That's great to see.
Very big breakthrough on the vaccine context because it will have ramifications in multiple other cases and contexts across the country.
Tyson Foods was caught stealing from farmers.
What they do is they do a deal with a cattle farmer.
And they know that if the farmer changes the way they make their meat, that their only buyer is going to be Tyson because of its de facto monopoly power in large parts of the meat industry.
And so then they went around and decided to screw him on the deal they originally cut with him that induced him to do the deal in the first place.
He went to trial, won a big verdict against him.
Court affirmed it.
Great to see.
I'm always for Tyson.
Tyson Foods is now bringing people back.
That they fired under the vaccine mandate, but they're refusing to pay them back pay.
So all those lawsuits against Tyson are going to keep coming, and I'm going to keep suing them and keep suing them and keep suing them.
The second small case, pit bull ban, and the logic for the pit bull ban was unless you can prove there's not a single rational reason for anyone to ban pit bulls, then it's constitutional for you to ban pit bulls.
I'm not a big fan of this lowly, rational basis review standard that occurs in these kind of contexts, but it's what the Eighth Circuit did.
So the city of Council Bluffs gets to keep pit bulls out of Council Bluff, even though there's a lot of arguments against their ban.
But apparently, as long as they can find any argument in their favor, no problem.
They're the assault canines of the canine world.
They're scary, they're big, they're strong, and people misuse them, so ban them.
The identity theft case before the U.S. Supreme Court, where what they're doing is they're basically saying, under this interpretation, if you do healthcare fraud, they can also charge you with aggravated identity theft.
They're saying if you ever reference somebody else's name at any capacity concerning your criminal conduct, that's aggravated identity theft, even if you didn't steal their ID to cause them any harm.
And that isn't what identity theft was supposed to mean.
And this is about the expanding, expanding, expanding, loosening, liberalization of criminal laws so the federal government can put more people in prison whenever it wants, wherever it wants, however it wants.
So the U.S. Supreme Court hopefully will reverse based on some questions they asked.
So that was a good potential indicator from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Fifth Amendment, Flint cases went up in Michigan for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The question is, if you assert your Fifth Amendment, Or if you don't assert it, do you waive it forever?
And the court made clear, no, you don't.
That it has to be the same proceeding.
And what does that mean?
Not just the same case.
It has to be a single testimonial event.
So if you get up on the stand and waive your Fifth Amendment, for that time you're on the stand, you can't assert your Fifth Amendment.
But you can assert it later on, even in the same case.
Good reversal by the Fifth Circuit that overturned what a district court did.
And probably one of the best cases of the week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, not Second Circuit, a federal district court in New York, basically invalid.
New York went in, and New York's concealed carry law gets overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So what do they do?
They go and pass another version that's even more restrictive.
Well, after vocally vowing not to abide by that court order.
So they say, we're not going to abide by it.
We're going to go redraft slightly modified, equally restrictive regulation.
And fortunately, the court saw through it and invalidated pretty much the whole thing.
And so Second Amendment rights get a big, big win in New York.
Well, unfortunately, they might need those rights in New York, given Hochul's victory over Zeldin, unless, you know, things turn around.
And the only, like, black pill case of the week, but it reminds you of the problems with conservative courts.
Liggins versus Duncanville.
So, a mother had her mentally ill son at home.
He started experiencing some episodes.
So, she calls his doctor.
His doctor says, call 911.
911, the chief shows up.
She explains he's not dangerous or anything else.
He's just experiencing an episode.
And she's like, you know, you're not going to go in there, are you?
You're not going to shoot him.
He's like, don't worry, I'm not going in.
I'm the chief.
I'm not going to shoot him.
I want to do that.
And a few minutes later, he raids the house and shoots the kid.
According to the Fifth Circuit.
Allegedly, he went for his cell phone and they shot him in the stomach.
Went for his cell phone.
That's why he shot him.
Went for his cell phone.
Can you imagine?
In the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said they got to go in there to help him, to protect him.
He might kill himself.
So you shoot him?
So to protect him, you shoot him?
You protect him from harming himself by shooting him?
And apparently, according to the facts...
Right-wing judges wrote this nonsense.
Well, so according to the facts, he had years of mental illness or suffering with mental illness.
When he had this break, he had stopped taking his medication.
His mother calls and says, we're having an episode.
But they sued Robert.
I mean, I can sort of understand part of it.
Look, I can understand you're going to someone who's mentally unwell off their meds.
Unpredictable.
Now, how it goes straight from...
We're not going to shoot him.
We're going to bring in a negotiation team that we never actually bring in.
We come in, shoot him in the stomach when he goes for his cell phone.
How it goes from there, from zero to 100, it's a separate issue, and I think it's a police policy issue or practice issue.
Well, here, they allege that informational sources show there's another protocol, that allege that he deliberately lied to the mother, allege that he, because this was dismissed without any discovery being allowed.
That he also, that he could have waited for the intervention team and that was the proper protocol.
And the court said, oh, just informational sources and factual allegations aren't enough to survive a 12B6 motion, even though that's exactly the legal standard for a 12B6 motion.
These are right-wing federal judges wanting to cover up for corrupt police officers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials.
And the same Fifth Circuit, again, a bunch of right-wing judges, did the same thing in the lockdown context.
So the Golden Glow...
Tanning Salon sued the city of Columbus, Mississippi, had their business stripped for them from seven weeks.
They sued under the Equal Protection Clause because they were treated differently than similarly situated businesses, and sued under the Takings Clause, that they were completely denied operating their business for seven weeks.
And what does the Fifth Circuit do?
They dodged the regulatory takings issue by saying, well, that issue wasn't preserved.
But they claim it's not a taking because they didn't trespass on your property, and you could still use your property for some purpose.
You can't use it for your business purposes.
Somehow that's not a taking.
They're watering down takings laws to where it means nothing.
Where the government can steal your property with no consequence.
And then said, yeah, maybe it could have been equal protection law.
And yeah, clearly all these lockdowns were bad ideas.
But you know, how do they put it?
It was not well understood at the time.
Yes, it was.
Just your professional class colleagues were dead wrong.
And rather than admit your culpability, you're giving them de facto legal amnesty like the Atlantic article wanted.
So that was an unfortunate case out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I forget who I was just talking to about this.
When they locked us in our homes and they said you can't travel outside of the city, they effectively took any property that other people might have had.
In other jurisdictions, you can no longer use your own property, but we're sure as hell going to expect you to pay your taxes on it.
So we're taking in your giving.
It's the give and take.
Exactly.
The only last case was a U.S. company had a deal with a Chinese company.
It fell apart.
The Chinese company took them to a Chinese arbitration.
The Chinese arbitration wrote a big check, almost a seven-figure total check, and they came to the U.S. to enforce it in the United States.
And a lot of people might not know, the U.S., under the Federal Arbitration Act, has included the New York Treaty, that's what it's called, the Convention on Foreign Arbitrations, that allow a party to get a judgment from an arbitration panel in a foreign country and come and enforce it just like it's a judgment here in the U.S. And they even tried to say, tried to get the courts in America to say they have to defer to those foreign courts.
Luckily, they didn't do the latter.
And they did ultimately say that there has to be an arbitral agreement in place that is clear and specific and so forth.
But it's another problem of the Federal Arbitration Act.
It is so broad now that foreign governments and foreign countries can create questionable judgments and enforce it against you, just like you had due process in America when you never did.
That's it.
Interesting dilemma, but arbitration is the way to go now.
It's cheap, confidential, and you can do whatever you want in foreign countries and then come and insist it to be ratified in America.
Nama Papi says, globalism, isn't it grand?
Now, everybody who has been supporting with Rumble Rants, I've been screen grabbing them and I will do a Locals exclusive reading of all of them and answering of as many as I can.
And Robert, if you can make it in, we'll make it in.
So you're on Tuesday on the Durand.
What time?
1 o 'clock Eastern.
Okay, fantastic.
And do you have any other appearances in the upcoming week?
Probably with Richard Barris, Tuesday night, but that isn't confirmed yet.
So the other ones are not confirmed.
And to some of the questions at our locals live chat, what would be the usual stoppers preventing a tech and legal startup from automating FOIA requests?
There wouldn't be any prohibition on doing that.
That's a good idea.
Sounds like the great scam.
The USA gives funds to the Ukraine.
The Ukraine invests in FTX.
And then, whoops, the company goes under.
What a surprise.
And Democrats get lots of donations.
Isn't that sweet?
I'm a retired psych nurse.
Never call cops for a mental break.
Sadly, that's true.
Sadly, that doctor gave bad advice.
Please address the concerns about the tabulation software.
Those are the machines that magically broke down on Election Day in Arizona, and I'm deeply suspect of how that happened.
And what affected House representatives like Jim Jordan threatening investigation on the Dems before the election?
None that were apparent.
The problem with all the people saying that the abortion Supreme Court decision changed it, or there was a youth...
How do you explain New York and Florida and Texas and all these other districts across the country going one way and then districts in these closely contested states somehow going the other way?
Do young people not exist in Florida?
Do pro-choice people not exist in New York?
New York.
That's the more shocking one, which has been traditionally quite blue.
What they have is no mass mail-in voting in New York.
That's what they have.
Florida has strict rules governing it.
Texas has strict rules governing it.
That's the difference.
Alright, Robert.
Well...
I don't know.
Can you give us a white pill on this?
Even I'm feeling rather dark-pilled.
I don't want to say black-pilled just yet.
I'm watching this and thinking, holy crap, it's not as bad as it could have been, but that's not much of a white pill, Robert.
Well, the guy they're trying to crush and kill, and who this is really all about, more so than anyone else...
Is my prediction will be soon, maybe on Tuesday, maybe announcing his candidacy for presidency of the United States.
So the only way you crush a guy like Donald J. Trump is you got to put him six feet under.
As long as he's living and breathing, you can try to intimidate him, coerce him, blackmail him, extort him.
None of it's going to work.
So for whatever faults and frailties the man may have, he clearly inspires fear in the right people.
And I, for one, will welcome him running for president in 2024.
Is there any political infighting?
I mean, he's jabbing at DeSantis.
Yeah, there's a bunch of people trying to promote DeSantis as an expense, but they're doing so in order to derail both.
So if you look at who's promoting DeSantis, it's people who want both DeSantis and Trump taken out of the picture.
This is all about an obsession over Trump.
More so than anything else.
They invented these election methods and mechanisms in part to achieve that, to defeat Trump at all costs, at all prices, at all expense.
I think what will happen is more people will wake up to the need for certain legal reform.
People will wake up to needing to counterbalancing Democrats in some of these areas.
And 2024 will be a real sweep.
I think that's what we'll ultimately transition to.
You know, since 1775, we've been fighting for freedom and liberty.
No reason to give up now.
Fantastic.
Everybody, stay tuned.
I'll be live tomorrow.
We'll have a sidebar this week.
And Robert, stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes.
Oh, I said I was going to play some video at the end.
I forgot what video I want to play.
I'll play it tomorrow.
Everybody, thank you all for being here.
And deep breath.
Stay the course.
Export Selection