Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 20, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:32:47

Ep. 138: Elon Musk, Donald Trump, FTX, Ticketmaster, Theranos, AND MORE! Viva & Barnes Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	See, this guy keeps on trying to bump me every time I walk by.
	Dude, I'm walking down there!
	I'm standing here!
	I'm not leaving, guys.
	You guys...
	You're trying to get in my way.
	I'm here on a public street.
	Get out of my way.
	Oh, my God, guys, I'm so scared.
	The Antifa, they brought their play guns, their squirt guns.
	Oh, my God.
	It was on play guns.
	Did this mess up your arts and crafts time?
	Why is it so tiny?
	Look how scary they are.
	Oh, my God, this guy's so scared.
	I'm so scared.
	He's got his gun.
	He's a big gun.
	He's a big bad guy.
	Oh, look.
	Oh, my God.
	I'm so happy you're protecting these children so they can go get indoctrinated and go in there for transgender story time.
	You're such a good American.
	God bless this guy.
	I mean, these people, these are the real cowards.
	They're hiding behind their masks.
	They got their little guns.
	They think they're so tough.
	We're at a bookstore here in Denton, Texas, where they're trying to do drag queen story hour.
	And of course, typical people here with their mask on.
	Not able to actually stand up for what they believe in because they're all cowards.
	Officer, you think it's unusual they have their assault weapons like that out here in front of a place like this?
	Is that normal?
	No comment.
	She is not me.
	I'm standing here.
	I'm alive.
	Let him go sideways.
	Get out of my Watch out.
	Alright, Alex, you need to leave.
	Who said Alex?
	These are the real scaredy cats.
	They gotta walk around with a gun.
	They can't handle themselves like a real man.
	Alright, guys.
	I just want to announce I'm Primetime99Alexstein and I love y 'all even though you guys don't love me and I know you guys probably love children a little too much.
	But I'm very empathetic to you guys.
	I love you guys.
	Even these guys with the guns, I feel sorry that you guys were probably abused as children and I really hope you guys get the mental health care that you guys deserve.
	I love you guys.
	God bless you all.
	I love you guys.
	I love your rights.
	I think you guys are great.
	We need to actually transition more children.
	We need more drag queen story time for elementary school kids.
	Okay.
	Whatever you think about...
	Alex Stein.
	Let me just get centered here.
	Whatever you think about Alex Stein.
	Primetime 99. Holy crab apples.
	I mean, there's gag humor.
	There's courage.
	And then some might say it takes a little bit of a dab in its toe of the waters of insanity.
	Yeah, great start, Viva.
	I was watching that yesterday at the...
	West Palm Beach Gem, Mineral, and Fossil show.
	And I'm like, this guy's crazy.
	He's certifiably crazy.
	The first thing I thought, by the way, is that if there were no camera there, that guy who fell to the ground would have pressed charges for assault.
	No question.
	And he's sitting there getting up in his grill and saying, I'm standing here as I'm walking with you in your face.
	I have not seen the entire full-length thing, but everybody should go.
	Support Alex Stein.
	Or don't support him.
	You can go watch his stuff and hate it.
	I think anybody who watches that and hates it or finds it offensive, shocking, controversial, probably has other issues.
	But my goodness.
	When I interviewed Alex Stein and he mentioned the story, didn't get into much detail.
	And then I understood the motivating driving factor for Alex Stein.
	For anybody wondering what he means, they murdered his mother.
	Apparently his mom was in the hospital and they put her on a ventilator knowing certain things and he begged them to take her off the ventilator and she subsequently passed.
	And it wasn't a confession through projection.
	It was an astute observation that there seems to be some pain and anger in his eyes.
	But he is most certainly on a mission.
	Okay.
	Standard disclaimers, by the way.
	I was talking with my dad before we went live and he said, when are you going to go live without any problems?
	Your mic doesn't work.
	Oh, oh, did anyone notice it?
	You know the only thing that's not working tonight?
	My hair.
	I took a shower before and brushed my hair and put argan oil in it.
	And so it's not yet in the full Viva Fro.
	But other than being late, because I was sitting here singing a song to myself without realizing that we were five seconds late, things are working.
	Video, audio, and we won't have Any internet problems tonight?
	It's glorious.
	Let's read this.
	Vivi, you gotta watch The Exigency on YouTube.
	It's a 3D animated action and adventure movie, which I think you'll appreciate.
	Good.
	Because if I hear Kikiwaka, Kikiwaka one more time coming from Bunked, is it for kids?
	I will watch it.
	Standard disclaimers, everybody?
	Rumble Rants, Super Chats.
	That was a Super Chat.
	People are free to give them if they so choose.
	To support me and the channel, YouTube takes 30% of every dollar generated through Super Chats.
	If you want to support the channel but don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on the Rumbles.
	Rumble has the equivalent of Super Chats called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	You can feel better.
	More goes to the creator.
	You're supporting a platform that supports freedom of speech.
	I'll say it.
	Even more so than Elon Musk.
	So you can feel better doing that if you want to so do that.
	Best way to support?
	Like, share, subscribe, hit the notification bell, and spread the word.
	What else was I just about to say?
	No medical advice?
	No legal advice?
	No election fornication advice?
	Okay, did you see the new CPSO recommendations for docs?
	Chet Chisholm.
	I did see that.
	I wasn't going to talk about it tonight because it requires a bit of elaboration and I don't want to get too far into it.
	That is not as clear as the tweets are making it out to be.
	And there is, not nuance, interpretation going into that.
	For anybody who doesn't know what we're talking about, tune in tomorrow.
	We'll talk about it.
	But there was CPSO.
	What does that stand for?
	Basically, like Ontario doctors were suggesting medicating people who were reluctant to get vaccinated or who had vaccination anxiety.
	That memo, that internal, you know.
	Document that was circulating has been redrafted, but it's not as cut and dry as it sounds.
	And we'll talk about it tomorrow because it might take a little too much time.
	Nice to see Viva get a shout out from Mark Dice.
	That's fantastic also.
	What happened?
	So Scott Adams and Mark Dice.
	The most funniest thing of the entire weekend is Elon Musk replied to my tweet about Alex Jones.
	It was a thoughtful, thorough, insightful response to my tweet, in which I said, we're going to talk about this tonight when Barnes gets here, but we're going to talk about something beforehand.
	But I said, look, the litmus test is Alex Jones, not because he's radical, whatever.
	The litmus test is Alex Jones on Twitter to determine whether or not one truly is promoting freedom of speech, but not just from the freedom of speech perspective, from the standing up or not bending the knee to government pressure.
	And the threat of litigation pressure.
	To which Elon Musk replied, too bad.
	To my tweet.
	Anyway, I appreciate his dry humor and I didn't take it personally whatsoever.
	Twitter has become very interactive and it's become very fun.
	A lot more fun than it ever was.
	Rittenhouse did not mark his territory himself.
	God, I'm going to get in trouble here.
	Okay, let's do a few more super chats before I get it.
	I haven't done the intro rant yet.
	It's beautiful.
	I agree with Alex, but man, I wouldn't be caught dead doing the things he does.
	That's a quick way of getting sucker punched.
	Yep.
	The billboard Chris, if I'm not mistaken, got sucker punched not badly over the weekend, but I think it was over the weekend.
	I don't think it was an old video.
	How pitiful and disrespectful of that eulogy daughter that daughter gave at her father's funeral.
	JRC1, I know exactly what you're talking about.
	And I wasn't going to talk about it because I don't feel like giving that girl any more attention than she wants.
	It's that video of this girl eulogizing her father.
	She's part black, part white, from what I can tell, because her father seems to be white and she seems to be part white, part black.
	I don't know what the politically correct word is to say it.
	Eulogizing her father by calling him a white supremacist, Trump-supporting, cisgender, whatever.
	I mean, it's like just...
	Check off whatever the words of the day are at what appeared to be his funeral or some commemoration of her father.
	And you could hear some gasps in the audience.
	I couldn't believe it was real.
	I thought it had to be like a play, a monologue, a performance, which it was to some extent.
	It seems to be legit.
	I went through her TikTok feed and I felt deep, deep disgust, anger, and sadness.
	Because TikTok is...
	A breeding ground.
	I'll say of mental illness on the one hand, and I'm not using that word lightly, and development of narcissistic personality traits.
	You went through this girl's Twitter feed.
	It was clear all she wanted was clout, popularity, fame, infamy on TikTok.
	There was a video when she's crying over having gotten to 20,000, whatever they call them, TikTok subs and a million views.
	It's clear.
	In my view, if TikTok or social media were not around and she did not think she would get celebrity status on social media, she would never have done that.
	She will live, God willing, long enough to understand how shameful what she did was.
	And she'll live long enough to be mortified and humiliated by it.
	I think so.
	I always think about that Amy Winehouse documentary, Life Can Teach You a Lot of Things If You Live Long Enough.
	She eulogized her father by...
	I don't know.
	Maybe there's a horrible history there of abuse from her father to her.
	I don't know.
	Even if there were, you know, probably not the way to do it.
	It's like that movie, The Celebration of the Party, that Dutch movie we talked about a while ago.
	But what's clear, she was performing.
	She wanted the social media.
	Points for that.
	She pinned her most popular TikTok video to her profile on TikTok.
	She got the adulation she was after on social media.
	There was a video of her crying and sobbing about the loss of her father, but TikTok is a cancer unleashed by China.
	TikTok is awful.
	I genuinely believe it.
	So I didn't want to talk about it because I don't think she...
	May she live long enough to feel the shame.
	And sorrow of what she's done.
	And may she repent and may she learn.
	I'm sure in the moment she thought that the point she was making is worth it.
	To berate her deceased father, who by the looks of it was at the very least her father.
	Left her money, apparently money that she's going to take.
	And had some childhood pictures of her when she was a baby in her father's arms.
	Sad.
	Now, but that's not what I wanted to start with.
	I wanted to start with this before Barnes gets here, and so we can work into it.
	Things are going wild on Twitter.
	Holy crabapples.
	Trump is back after a poll, which I jokingly said conducted itself much like the elections.
	The longer it went, the better it got for the Democrats or the people who opposed Trump's reinstatement on Twitter.
	It started off at like 60-40.
	Then I saw it at 58. What the heck is that?
	58-42.
	Then it went down to 56-44.
	It ended up at 52-48.
	The longer that poll went on, the more bot accounts were created that voted on it, the more Dem politicians could mobilize their legion of Twitter warriors to go vote on that.
	It was funny.
	But Trump is back.
	And I think most people...
	Actually don't appreciate the rationale, the justification for which Trump was banned in the first place.
	We all knew it was violent tweets, tweets promoting violence.
	I don't think I saw Twitter's justification at the time, because if I had seen Twitter's justification at the time, I might not have remembered it, but I would remember how I would have reacted, because I would have freaked out had I seen it at the time.
	And when I saw what was Twitter's justification yesterday, I'm like, I don't think I saw this because if I had seen this at the time, I know that this is how I would have reacted.
	Twitter's justification for booting Trump is not a justification.
	It reads like motivated reasoning would be doing it too much justice because it would be calling it reasoning in the first place.
	It was a pathologically unhinged, deranged, ex post facto interpretive dance.
	As to how we can get to Donald Trump being such a risk that we have to boot him from social media.
	I don't want to bring up my tweet.
	I want to bring up the actual post from the blog.
	Here it is.
	Permanent suspension.
	Put it this way.
	It was so unhinged and I was so flabbergasted when I saw it that I was convinced it was fake.
	I had to go to...
	Can we see the address?
	Can we see the address bar in what we're looking at?
	We can't.
	The address bar is blog.twitter.com forward slash EN underscore US slash topics slash company slash 2020 slash suspension.
	It's the real blog.
	And we're going to read through this because if I had read through this at the time, I know I would have done the same thing, which leads me to believe I didn't see it at the time.
	Permanent suspension of at real Donald Trump by Twitter, January 8, 2021.
	While he is still president of the United States of America.
	After close review of recent tweets from the@realDonaldTrump account and the context around them, and wait for this, specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter.
	By the way, they don't just hear dog whistles.
	They hear how things are being received and interpreted by third parties, both on Twitter and off Twitter.
	They got their divining rods, their Ouija board.
	We have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.
	Further incitement of violence, by the way, suggests or implies that there was previous incitement of violence.
	Let me just make sure that we are seeing the same thing.
	Okay.
	In the context of the horrific events of this week, they're talking about January 6th, the modern day 9-11, according to some people, the modern day Pearl Harbor, the darkest day in American history, a protest that got violence in certain pockets.
	People were killed that day.
	To suggest as though it was rioters.
	The people that were killed that day, Ashley Babbitt, by that Capitol Police officer, shot point blank in the neck as she went through a broken glass window.
	Arguably Roseanne Boyland, who there's some controversy around her death.
	And then the one person who they suggested, the one officer who they suggested was beaten to death by a group of pro-Trump, a mob of pro-Trump supporters, Brian Sicknick.
	Coroner, unrelated, natural causes, stroke.
	Horrific.
	Horrific events this week.
	We made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter rules would potentially result in this very course of action.
	Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly.
	It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power.
	That the people have a right to hold power to account in the open.
	However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above the rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things.
	We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement.
	It's a comprehensive analysis.
	On January 8th, Trump tweeted the following.
	The 75 million great American patriots, patriots is going to be an operative word here, who voted for me, America first and make America great again, will have a giant voice long into the future.
	They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape, or form.
	Shortly thereafter, the president tweeted, to all those who have asked, I will not be going to the inauguration on January 20th.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	Pathological insanity.
	Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who...
	And an uptick...
	In the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, listen to this.
	These two tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the president's statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.
	Do you know what this is?
	This is verbal diarrhea.
	Or I guess it should be literary diarrhea.
	This is poop on a page.
	This is learn to code diarrhea.
	I'm trying to read that five times.
	Should I do it in one voice?
	Because that's a six-section.
	I'm not going to do it.
	After assessing the language of these tweets against our glorification of violence policy, we have determined that these tweets are in violation of the glorification of violence policy and the user should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.
	It's called a ban.
	You Orwellian idiots.
	We assess these two tweets in reference above, yadda yadda, which...
	Okay, look at this.
	This determination is based on a number of factors, including President Trump's statement that he will not be attending the inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two tweets, one and two.
	That there would be an orderly...
	Transition on January 20th.
	These tweets are being received as confirmation that the election was not legitimate.
	I mean, this is literally Ouija board level interpretive dance here.
	The second tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts and that the inauguration would be a safe target as he will not be attending.
	Oh, that's confession through projection if there's ever been one.
	Holy crabapples.
	The use of the words American patriots to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the U.S. Capitol.
	To whom?
	To the Jay Gotti, the head of legal?
	To delusional people who think this way in their own delusional minds and then project all of that delusion onto other people?
	American patriots is being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts.
	Holy sweet, merciful goodness.
	The mention of his supporters having a, quote, giant voice long into the future, and that they will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape, or form, is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an order.
	Oh, did you get from there?
	Did you get from A to Z and skip the entire alphabet in between?
	They have a giant voice and will not be disrespected.
	We have interpreted that as an indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an orderly transition.
	So we're punishing him for not doing something off-platform that he hasn't yet done that we interpret he's going to do based on words that don't mean anything along the lines of what we've interpreted it to mean.
	And instead, he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
	Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off Twitter, including a proposed second attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 17. As such, our determination is that these two tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood.
	Multiple indicators that they're being received.
	And understood as encouragement to do so.
	Psychotic.
	Holy crab-appled psychotic.
	Everyone involved in the decision to have permanently suspended Donald Trump, that's called a ban in ordinary English and not Orwellian newspeak, should be fired, should have been fired.
	Elon Musk was right to have done it.
	And my good goshness is that pathological.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop, people.
	He is here.
	What did you of the Trudeau versus Xi?
	Oh, what did I think of Trudeau versus Xi?
	The guys at the China show on YouTube said that this was Chinese psyop for the West since it wasn't reported in China.
	That's interesting.
	And I heard someone say it was deliberately done so that Xi could use it for Chinese media to show what a powerful leader he is that he can put Justin Trudeau in his place.
	Canceled my sub to you here on YouTube.
	Is there one I can get on Rumble if they take less?
	Oh, you could sub on Rumble.
	Any day of the week, just me, Nicole.
	And one more.
	Let's do this here.
	To the real debate was the poll about Trump, but honeypotting pots.
	Elon was 100% going to bring back Trump.
	Yeah, Elon did say that he's never seen so many bot accounts created so quickly.
	Okay, we're on.
	Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Tonight we've got some good stuff.
	I'm going to let Barnes break it down.
	At least subject matter.
	Cigar book.
	But because it just popped up, it happened to pop up right as I said it.
	Let's just bring this one up.
	Kimberly Geiger.
	Most of the people where I live don't have any idea what you are talking about.
	Please come to Pennington Gap, Virginia.
	Oh my goodness, how do they not have any idea?
	Share.
	Share the link and let them know where they can get the information that CBS does not want you to get.
	All right, Robert, I'm bringing you in.
	Three.
	Two, one, booyah!
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right, audio is good.
	Robert, what do you have behind you?
	Because that is definitely a new book.
	Yeah, since it's the World Cup, that's a book about what the world knows as football, what America knows as soccer.
	The numbers game, which breaks down a lot of the analytics that a lot of people don't know about the sport.
	My brother and I did a World Cup preview video.
	That you can find both on Sports Wars, on YouTube and Rumble, and also at sportspicks.locals.com.
	A whole breakdown for those that are interested in the World Cup, which started earlier this morning.
	So the World Cup, I haven't followed that in 12 years.
	You know Canada's in it, right?
	Yes, of course I knew that.
	It would be terribly unpatriotic.
	I did know that because I saw that in the paper.
	I mean, what stage?
	It's round-robin, and then they have the quarter semifinals?
	It goes to the round of 16. So you have a first round with eight groups of four, 32 teams.
	That's the round-robin round.
	Then you have the top two from each group advance into the round of 16, then the quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals, being hosted controversially this year by Qatar.
	Okay, very good.
	I was just wondering, someone said, is it gin?
	I'm going to go dry for a very long time now to see if I can fix sleep patterns and other patterns.
	Anthony Huberman's podcast, Andrew Huberman's podcast, was an eye-opener in terms of sleep habits and other bodily functions.
	So, yeah, I'll be doing carbonated water.
	Life just got a lot more boring.
	Robert, but as boring as life can be...
	Holy crabapples, has it been a wild ride on social media, Twitter, and in the lawverse.
	What do we have on for the evening?
	And let's get to it.
	Yeah, so we'll wait for Rumble to discuss an update on the Children's Health Defense Against FDA about the childhood vaccines.
	Because there was a court hearing on Friday on that case.
	And for the election legal disputes that are bubbling up.
	From Pennsylvania to Georgia to Arizona.
	That, too, will save for the rumble section of the show, given censorship issues here still on YouTube.
	But we have all the issues.
	Related to Twitter and Trump being reinstated on Twitter, whether there are legal limitations and practical limitations to whether Trump will actually be back on Twitter anytime soon.
	Elizabeth Holmes from Theranos was sentenced this week, as well as the Molotov cocktail folks from the BLM riots, the lawyers who went and threw Molotov cocktails into cop cars.
	What kind of sentence did they get?
	Did they get a January 6th type sentence or something different?
	We have subpoenas being issued or planned to be issued by the new Republican House.
	We have Jen Psaki trying to challenge her subpoena about big tech collusion.
	We have a special counsel being appointed to go after Trump.
	We have student loan issues that got in Biden's student loan program further enjoined by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that now the Biden administration is trying to challenge at the Supreme Court.
	We have Florida's Anti-Woke Act being struck down as unconstitutional in violation of First Amendment rules.
	The Trump Organization's tax trial.
	Biden's spending provisions on COVID partially being struck down, partially being affirmed by a federal court that involved whether states could cut taxes or not and take the money.
	Lawsuit over abortion pills, Nike sued by an NFL star, Tennessee juvenile life imprisonment found unconstitutional, bio labs and war crimes in Ukraine, judges found not necessarily to be immune or above the law, trial by jury in forfeiture cases, a class action involving FTX, and drones and the Fourth Amendment.
	I'm not familiar with the drone ones, Robert, but let's start with the massive news.
	First of all, Trump is back on Twitter.
	CBS says, it's so funny.
	The people saying they're going to leave.
	They can't stand it.
	I just got blocked by somebody who's involved with Lawfare who says, you know, I can't be on a platform with Trump.
	I'm going to leave, but I'm going to continue doing some stuff here because it's important for reach.
	Yeah, that's what Twitter is.
	The people saying they're going to leave because they can't stand Trump, even though we now know what the two tweets that got Trump yeeted from Twitter were and how ludicrous that discussion was or that decision was.
	He's back on.
	Two questions, Robert.
	You think Elon Musk was always going to bring him back for a number of reasons, and this was a marketing ploy?
	And what of the concept?
	You floated it in one of your responses.
	It's an easy decision to make because probably Trump cannot come back, if not at all, at the very least not entirely, given contractual obligations with truth.
	I have no insider knowledge.
	I don't know if you do, and I don't want you to say anything you're not allowed to say.
	Is that a very plausible argument that Trump can't come back, period, because he's contractually bound by truth to promote truth and not the competitor?
	Yeah, there's two different issues there.
	I mean, it was an easy move for Musk.
	It was good marketing to do a poll and get people all excited.
	But all the people that think Trump is rushing back to Twitter are mistaken for two big reasons.
	One, there's his marketing agreement, exclusive marketing agreement with truth.
	Now, that allows him, after a certain time frame, to post on other social media sites.
	That allows him, and this has all been publicly reported because they're trying to do a, like Rumble, their special purpose vehicle or acquisition committee company.
	That's trying to go public.
	But that isn't the primary reason why Trump is not going to rush back to Twitter.
	There's about a billion reasons for Trump not to get near Twitter.
	And that is that truth is one of his main monetization means at the moment.
	And truth could be worth a billion dollars or more to Trump himself.
	It makes zero sense for Trump to lose a billion bucks to just be back on Twitter and help Elon Musk.
	And by the way, Musk is intimately well aware of this.
	This is why Musk knew this was a no-brainer.
	Let's get a lot of marketing, get a lot of excitement.
	What I said about his whole purpose behind Twitter is most likely About buying political immunity.
	This was in a hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com almost a year ago, back when this first rumor started talk of Musk buying Twitter back in early 2022.
	I said his goal is that he's already under investigation by the Biden administration, and he's wanting to buy immunity on the right, political cover on the right, that he didn't currently have.
	He had political cover on some aspects of the left, but clearly not enough because the Biden administration was unhappy with him for some reason.
	We don't fully know why.
	Him setting up Starlink in Ukraine didn't buy him enough immunity.
	There's 1,000-plus lawsuits against Tesla or Musk for a range of reasons out there.
	And at the time, he was facing a risky case from the Delaware courts that he ended up dodging the bullet on, but he didn't know that at the time.
	It made sense for him to buy Twitter and be perceived as a free speech, right-wing, libertarian hero so he could buy political cover.
	Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch, put out that Musk will now be targeted because he reinstated Trump, and Musk responded and said, oh yeah, no doubt about it.
	And so, in my view, he did this as an anticipatory move.
	He's already under investigation, is my guess.
	Now, you can get a sense of how committed he actually is to free speech, because he responded to you about him saying no to Alex Jones being reinstated, and he said, you know, too bad.
	That shows Musk has no deep commitment to free speech of any kind.
	That's an illusion that people have.
	Trump is purely a marketing move.
	I'm glad because we get to see Trump's old tweets.
	We get to see that it's contrary to a lot of old messages.
	He's got a lot of funny tweets.
	But the idea that Trump is going to demonetize himself and re-monetize Elon Musk, people have their head in the sand.
	That ain't happening.
	Trump, you know, the...
	Trump's not giving up a billion bucks, folks.
	That's not in the Trump DNA.
	So he's already said that if the SEC interferes with his ability to take it public, he'll just take it private.
	He said that several months back.
	So the SEC is trying to interfere with the ability for that SPAC to get off the ground.
	There will be a conference this week, actually Tuesday, about whether or not they are going to postpone the sale to September 2023.
	Because of the issues present.
	I mean, it's trading over $20 or so a share.
	And if people can look up, what's publicly reported is, you know, Trump has about half of the shares.
	I mean, and you can do the math.
	The math is over a billion bucks.
	So that's why he's not going to do anything that could possibly undermine truth, least of all for Musk, who he's not personally fond of at Twitter.
	He was glad Trump promoted, hey, you know, to his truth audience, promote the poll on Twitter.
	Happy to do that, but that'll be the scope of it.
	And people are just in this delusional denial that Trump is rushing back to Twitter and can't wait to get back there.
	I think that's extraordinarily unlikely and would bet against it.
	And people are saying, well, Trump is obviously going to go back now that he's running.
	He wants to maximize his reach.
	You know, the obvious retort to that is he's got...
	Millions of other people who are going to maximize his reach on Twitter more than he would if he posted directly there in any event.
	And just to bring up Elon's response, it didn't seem categorical, but it was...
	He initially says too bad, and then he responds again and kind of moderates what he meant.
	I didn't see him responding.
	Alex Jones is on litmus test, not just on the issue of freedom of speech, but on the issue of bending the knee to political and judicial intimidation.
	If this is a hard no, I'm not being too hard on Elon, this Twitter will be no more trustworthy than Jack or Parag's, to which he said, too bad.
	I'm an idiot.
	I don't know how this works.
	How do I find out?
	Anyway, so then I responded.
	But that's it.
	He's being dry humorous, and it's good.
	It's fun that the CEO of Twitter is actively interacting with people on Twitter.
	It makes definitely an improvement over where Twitter was.
	Whatever Musk's motivations are, promoting it to be less censorship-oriented is in his self-interest.
	So Twitter will be better than it was before.
	No doubt about that.
	But it won't be a rumble-level opposition to cancel culture.
	You won't see that.
	Alex Jones is a great litmus test for that.
	You can find Alex Jones on Rumble.
	When France threatened Rumble, Rumble said, well, fine, we won't be in France then.
	When Senator Rick Scott, the would-be wannabe Senate Majority Leader, threatened Rumble in Florida for allowing RT to continue to broadcast on Rumble, they said, thanks a lot, Senator, but we're not going to change our budget.
	Elon Musk would capitulate in a half second.
	So he's not of the same commitment.
	And he's made that clear in a range of statements.
	He's going to limit the scope of certain speech, etc.
	So he'll do enough to build his brand that gives him some libertarian and right-wing protection.
	He'll do enough to build interest in Twitter to help re-monetize it.
	He wants to make it into China-style WeApp.
	So people should look into that and understand some of the limitations of speech that he may be inclined to.
	But people expecting it to be like robust free speech, unlikely.
	And anybody thinking Trump's going to gut himself by enriching Musk instead is in denial.
	The gallant goose in France says, Trump will write the first half of his post on Twitter, then pull a Viva and say, for the rest, go over to Truth Social.
	Not a bad idea.
	We'll see.
	But Robert is right.
	It's not like...
	He's right.
	Period.
	So we'll see.
	That's why it was probably an easy bet.
	That being said, who else did Elon just bring back?
	Oh, yay!
	He brought back yay.
	Just like that.
	Yeah, he brought back Kanye.
	Brought back Andrew Tate.
	Brought back the Babylon Bee.
	Brought back Jordan Peterson.
	Brought back Kathy Griffin.
	He still hasn't brought back the controversial COVID doctors.
	That will be a real test.
	The people that were very critical.
	Of our questionable COVID policies.
	Peter McCullough, Robert Malone.
	Let's see those people reinstated.
	That would be a really, a real big positive step in the right direction.
	Now, and I don't want to, like, everyone goes to Alex Jones as the case in point example, but Erwin Schroyer, is it Erwin?
	It's Erwin Schroyer.
	Owen Schroyer?
	Owen Schroyer, sorry, not Erwin.
	Owen Schroyer has also been...
	Anyone within the orbit of Alex Johnson influence as well.
	I think Serbana Hernandez, who we interviewed, was kicked off Twitter.
	So we'll see how many.
	I mean, there clearly were a lot of coup attempts against him this week.
	There are a bunch of everybody walking off, like half of the employees walking off the job on a day.
	Predictions that Twitter would collapse.
	None of that has happened.
	I think there is a part of him that wants to run the company in a profitable manner.
	I think he's got multiple objectives, one of which is political cover.
	So he was always going to bring Trump back.
	The poll was just a smart marketing technique to get attention to it.
	And I think he knew Trump was highly unlikely to start using it much.
	So he's not going to be able to rely on Trump using Twitter to drive traffic.
	He needs to continue to find ways to be creative.
	He's talking about video content.
	Converting Twitter basically into like a podcast hosting forum, a video content hosting forum, being able to monetize it beyond just the blue checkmark.
	So he's got a range of ideas as to how to monetize it in the same way to recover some of the money that he spent to purchase it in the first place.
	And I think it will continue to be fun and interesting and engaging.
	It just won't be as free speech or as cancel culture opposed as Rumble is.
	In that sense, he kind of lacks cojones, and that's what I said.
	He lacks cojones.
	If he had real guts and he had real courage, Alex Jones would be reinstated tomorrow.
	But he doesn't.
	So until then, he's a wuss in my book.
	We'll see.
	Maybe he's just playing it slow, or maybe he just says, I've got too much to lose, and I don't want to be sued for $2.5 trillion for hosting.
	We'll see.
	But speaking of Rumble, now's probably the good time.
	Look, we've been here for 40 minutes, people.
	Let's mosey on over to Rumble.
	I'm going to get the link and share it one more time.
	And for whatever Rumble, for whatever complaints anybody has about UX, UI, whatever we call it, I am in direct contact with Chris often.
	And everybody knows...
	Who's this?
	Just one second.
	Yellow.
	Yeah, perfect.
	Thanks.
	Okay, good thing I have my phone on.
	Oh, God, my hair's stuck in there.
	Oh, God.
	Robert, what was I just saying?
	We're heading over to Rumble.
	Oh, yeah, we're heading over to Rumble.
	Any issues, any recommendations, continue to send them our way.
	I flipped them to Chris.
	They know about them.
	They're working on it.
	Growing pains, good growing pains.
	It's putting your money where your mouth is and living by principles.
	France wants them to take certain things down.
	No thank you.
	Out of France.
	For the French who are watching, we'll upload the podcast to Locals tomorrow so you can watch it for those who can't reach it in France.
	I apologize for that, but we're going to do it anyhow.
	Head on over to Rumble.
	We'll be there in three seconds.
	We should see...
	5,000 more people.
	Not end broadcast.
	End broadcast on YouTube.
	Over to Rumble in 3, 2, 1. And let's make sure that we're still good on Rumble.
	I have all the Rumble rants, by the way, as well.
	And I'll be doing the same thing.
	I'll be doing a live locals read of the Rumble rants tomorrow.
	Robert, I'm trying to find an audio clip of...
	Sam Bankman-Fried, because we're going to go through the fraudsters of Washington.
	There's an audio clip of him, I'll find it while we discuss this, where he's speaking in a rather disparaging manner.
	Ezra Levant tweeted it.
	It's one of those things that's so shocking.
	I'm almost shocked that it's real.
	Listen to this before we get into the first subject of the night.
	This is Sam Bankman.
	I just think that people are overreacting, and I really hope that once, you know, maybe we can, you know, just people don't get it.
	Like, most people are stupid, and they're really stupid, okay?
	I mean, just being honest, right?
	So, the other day, I'm sleeping on my beanbag in my office, and, like, one of the cleaning people comes by, and she's like, hey, you know, I hear you, big CEO.
	You know, and I was like, like, shut the f*** up, is what I told her, because I'm like...
	Who are you?
	I don't need, you know, like, I'm not looking for the help.
	Like, maybe I'll donate money to you, you know?
	And, you know, she kind of, like, took that weird, and she told me, like, you know, I'm a guest here, and I said, you know, I was like, I could buy your family, like, 300 million times over, okay?
	And I'd still be a billionaire.
	Now, this was before everything imploded, but the point is, is just, people are really just, they don't, they're just not letting me do what I want to do.
	I heard that.
	There's part of me that says that it has to be a deepfake.
	But Ezra has been very consistent, very reliable.
	Let's assume that it's not a deepfake and it's a real video.
	This is pathological where when we say benevolence is often used as a cloak and the poo-poo has hit the fan.
	Robert, before we get into the class action lawsuit against FTX, Sam Bankman III.
	I don't know if Cuban, Mark Cuban was specifically named as a co-defendant, but Kevin O 'Leary was.
	Brady, Miami Stadium.
	Before we get into that, do you have any developments or what are the latest developments that the rest of the world might not be aware of between what occurred last week and today?
	Yeah, I delayed my hush-hush on the FTX topic because there was so much news this week on it.
	So the bankruptcy court has had filings that revealed things were even worse than some anticipated.
	It was along the lines that we discussed and predicted last week.
	This was a scam top to bottom, left to right.
	But more developments there, and then of course the class action, civil class action that was filed.
	That named Larry David, named Tom Brady, named Tom Brady's wife Giselle, named baseball players, basketball players, the Golden State Warriors basketball team, a range of Mr. Wonderful, the big investor, Kevin O 'Leary.
	So one person after big names who they want to hold personally liable and predicated on, I still think, a little bit of a suspect doctrine.
	But because of the bankruptcy, it may...
	Suck up all of these civil cases, and they all may end up in the bankruptcy court.
	The person assigned to handle some aspects of the bankruptcy, who was also involved in handling Enron's bankruptcy, has called it worse than Enron.
	That it looks like the scam is about 30 billion or so, people that are out.
	It's having continued ripple effects throughout the crypto marketplace.
	Issues with other companies.
	There's now talk that hundreds of crypto-related companies will be filing for bankruptcy because of how much FTX contaminated the entire infrastructure of the crypto exchange world.
	There's questions about Tether's exposure.
	Darren Beatty at Revolver did a detailed piece on some questions about whether Tether is a lot like FTX.
	And whether or not there's government connections involved.
	Again, a lot of the flags we raised last week, talking about Epstein connections and sex scandals and Theranos-style financing, all that's been confirmed this week.
	And it's getting worse in the sense that...
	Tether appears to have some of those same kind of activities attached and associated with it.
	Some people that actually have direct Epstein ties promoting it.
	So an odd claim in the bankruptcy court that the Bahamian government required SBF to hack.
	So the hack, we suspected, was actually an inside hack.
	It appears it was, at least large parts of it, was an inside hack.
	But done at the behest of the Bahamian government so they would have a bunch of money?
	Sounds really odd and weird.
	And then that kind of contemptuous behavior that he describes would be consistent with the profile of who he is.
	And so the deep state aspect of this that Darren Beatty partially goes into in talking about the Tether connections are really quite apparent.
	And that goes back to BCCI and other scandals along those same lines.
	That's kind of lurking in the background.
	Some congressmen are talking about getting into it.
	I would love to see them get into it, because I think it would go to many interesting rabbit holes, including implicating Ukraine, including implicating the Democratic Party's fundraising for 2022, and its get-out-the-vote efforts.
	But right now, basically, everything's kind of frozen in the bankruptcy proceeding while the class action gets filed.
	The interesting thing about the class action...
	It appears to predicate its claims against Tom Brady and others on the premise that what FTX was doing was selling unregistered securities.
	They want to piggyback off of Florida state law in particular, rather than federal law, interestingly enough, in order to argue that this was touting A unregistered security for which they didn't do due diligence and for which they had undisclosed economic interest because a lot of them apparently had part of their compensation was the token itself.
	It's very controversial, the attempt to label every crypto coin a security.
	I have problems with that.
	Because otherwise, you're trying to just say, if you advertise something, you're responsible for whatever the company did, even if you have nothing to do with running the company.
	And there's no allegation that they knew, that I saw in the complaint, that any of these promoters, I mean, they sued Shaquille O 'Neal, Tom Brady, that any of them knew that there was something wrong, and if they did get compensation...
	They lost all that compensation because it appears to be mostly gone.
	We'll see how much they're able to claw back from other payments to other people.
	But the class action struck me as based on a questionable and dubious premise that's trying to get courts to agree to treat crypto as a security so that the SEC can pick winners and losers in the crypto space, regulate and govern things that are in the deconcentrated DeFi, they sometimes call it.
	Open source, Bitcoin-oriented space, which is very different from all these other altcoins and the rest.
	And so we'll see.
	But it's clear there's a lot of rabbit holes that could go very interesting places.
	It's also clear there's a lot of people, particularly connected to the government, who want to use this as a pretext to govern, control, limit, restrict, scandalize, and punish people in the alternative finance space.
	Two things, actually.
	Before we get...
	Well, before I forget.
	The class action, yes, it's casting a broad net going after anybody who was paid or any celebrity who was paid.
	There is a difference, though, in...
	I don't know if Shaquille...
	I have to think back to the allegations.
	I don't know if there's specific allegations that Shaquille was an investor as well.
	But when it comes to paid spokespeople who are ambassadors, spokespeople, and investors, which means that they've seen financials, et cetera, et cetera, does the class action make a little more sense to those people who are wearing two hats as opposed to those who are just paid spokespers?
	Well, I think if you're talking about the Silicon Valley hedge funds that were involved, That's a different animal because they do have access to a range of internal documents and information.
	But someone like Tom Brady could have been given shares and never seen any of the internal financials.
	And the story is that he lost hundreds of millions.
	I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but the best argument all of them have is if they lost money.
	If they lost money, how do you say they were in on a fraud?
	Kind of an odd way to be about it.
	So I think there's better claims against people like Mr. Wonderful and so forth, the Silicon Valley funds.
	Those, because apparently they saw internals that Lynn Alden and others have said, when you look at those, there were red flags all over it for a sophisticated investor.
	So those people could be in some serious trouble.
	We'll see.
	I mean, so far, you know, this had different politics.
	The Southern District of New York would have already arrested SPF.
	And so the fact that there hasn't been a rush to arrest them has been interesting to me.
	Maybe they'll just sit back, investigate all the rest.
	Maybe that's what's going on.
	Maybe they're looking for a way to cover them because most of the media reports this week tried to minimize the criminality involved in SPF.
	Minimize the criminality, but also conveniently omit.
	Where this money went.
	New York Times described it as a collapse.
	He over-extended, over-leveraged, wasn't paying enough attention.
	Washington Post actually ran, if it wasn't the headline of the article, because the headline was either changed or was not that headline from the beginning, someone else tweeted out, the collapse of FTX frustrates the founders' philanthropic abilities to try to prevent the next COVID pandemic, or the next pandemic.
	I'm paraphrasing.
	Basically suggesting that this philanthropist will now, you know, it's interrupting his plans to try to prevent the next pandemic.
	Washington Post.
	Other than that, sugarcoating is not the right word.
	It's almost martyrizing the fraudster.
	The articles that I've read, even the ones in not the New York Times and Washington Post, do not mention, for the most part, where the money went, how much of it went to the Democrats, and then some sort of leave it ambiguous.
	By my count, Robert, there was one article that said 90% of Sam Bankman-Fried's 40 million went to Democrats.
	90%.
	Others are saying it was his 39 million went to Democrats.
	His other deputies, or whatever they call them, 29 or 27 million went to the Democrats.
	His mother, through Mind the Gap, which nobody's really talking about, her own fundraiser, or the family fundraiser, which gets the vote out.
	Raised $140 million this election midterm cycle.
	And from some reports that I read, which are few and far in between because nobody repeats this information, SBF, if he wasn't funding that directly, was getting his entourage to fund it.
	And so you got $70 million directly through SBF and other executives.
	$140 million raised by his mind the gap from his mother.
	This cycle alone, which is up exponentially from 20...
	Well, everything about FTX looks like a deep state money laundering machine.
	Because not only was a lot of money laundered to anti-Trump folks, anti-MAGA folks, Biden administration and Democrats and to get out the vote folks, but also was laundered through Ukraine because of them setting up a plan.
	And we don't know the scope of it yet.
	All we know is that FTX bragged about how they were part of the money going to Ukraine and to help and aid Ukraine and had ties to the Ukrainian banks.
	We don't know how deep it goes.
	We don't know how wide it goes.
	We don't know how broad it goes.
	But it also came out this week.
	That he had Bill Gates-style influence over the media.
	That The Intercept was getting a lot of money from SBF and FTX.
	These kind of publications.
	And The Intercept was interesting.
	Glenn Greenwald considered it to have so deviated from its principle and purpose that he left it in a very public resignation because it had abandoned its original anti-deep state agenda.
	Been co-opted for other purposes.
	And then it also came out that through his brother's organization, they were deeply involved in promoting certain literature about COVID, including the attack on ivermectin.
	So, I mean, this guy's showing up connected to the Bill Gates World Health Organization World Economic Forum agenda.
	His aunt sits on the public health aspect of the World Economic Forum's foundation and is recognized as one of their lead people.
	The money tied to Ukraine, money tied to the Democratic Party.
	What kind of buyoffs and bribes happened with he has connections to the head of the CFTC that wants to regulate crypto ties to Congresswoman Maxine Waters.
	He may have given money to Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell to help undermine populist candidates in the 2022 elections, which both of them did in the primaries, and then abandoned key people like Blake Masters and Joe Kent in the general elections.
	He's showing up everywhere the deep state wants to show up.
	And that makes you wonder, where did he get his money in the first place?
	Which he's never really explained.
	I'll tell you this.
	I've seen enough interviews of this guy.
	He's not like a charismatic Steve Jobs.
	He's not one that instills confidence.
	He actually, to me, seems like he's quite clearly on a spectrum.
	An elitist, self-entitled snob.
	Well, there's part of me that still says that.
	He's the product of two professional classes.
	It's what it was like when I was in Washington, D.C., and I saw a lot of those people walking around.
	I was like, man, these people really shouldn't be allowed to breed.
	It's a bad thing.
	These people create kids and they're even worse than them.
	Well, my point about him being not charismatic doesn't seem particularly...
	Look, there's some people who are...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	They have bizarre behavior.
	He's no Elon Musk.
	He's no marketing guru.
	He doesn't look like he compensates for what his behavioral flaws are with genius.
	They call him a genius.
	I don't know what makes him a genius.
	I've been watching him.
	It looks like he's a patsy or a fall guy.
	As though there's no way he ever did any of this on his own.
	But, Robert, I don't know if that's you rubbing off on me too much where I'm saying this guy's being used by forces beyond him or even exploited by people around him to facilitate all of this.
	And then the day, look, we're only at, what, $500 million, give or take, that's gone to COVID research and the Democrats?
	Oh, but he donated to Republicans the maximum $5,800 that he could donate to Sasol.
	I forgot the guy's name.
	Oh yeah, there.
	But then 10 million to Biden in 2020, and talking about a billion, it never got there.
	He looks like he might have been the perfect element to exploit and to be used as a tool upon and a patsy fall guy for all of this.
	We'll see.
	The class action lawsuit, yeah, it's going after everyone and anyone.
	But I think some people have much more exposure than others.
	And I'm thinking of Kevin O 'Leary in particular just because he did.
	It's not just he was an ambassador and a spokesperson.
	He's an investor.
	And he doesn't, I presume, doesn't just take people at their word.
	He knew that the parents were involved in it, said it in an interview.
	You know, if there's any place I feel safe, it's this place because his father's a regulator, a tax lawyer, as is his mother.
	If anybody can set this infrastructure up to avoid problems.
	This is where they can go.
	That's more information than most people had.
	And if you have that, maybe he's just dumb and took the kid at his word and didn't actually look at financials to see this.
	They almost had to, to be investors the way they are.
	And apparently, from Lynn Alden's breakdown and some others, they did see some internals that should have been red flags right away.
	And so that raises questions about what they're really doing.
	But a lot of those big tech hedge funds in Silicon Valley have deep, deep state ties.
	I mean, we'll see whether this ever reaches full disclosure, full discovery, full transparency.
	For that, there really needs to be some subpoenas.
	And there was talk this week that the new Republican House is going to be issuing subpoenas to a range of people in the Biden administration, including the Justice Department, including...
	HHS, where they had all the big tech collusion coordination coming forward on issues of immigration.
	There's others calling, as MTG called for it this week, major investing, an audit into all the money that was connected to Ukraine and to FTX as part of that inquiry.
	So we'll see how broad they're willing to get and go, but they did announce...
	There will be broad-scale investigations into all the weaponization by the Justice Department, not only weaponizing it to hide information about the Biden family and Hunter Biden, but also about Papa Joe, but also about their political weaponization going after Trump, their political weaponization going after January 6th.
	As just one example, those two lawyers that threw Molotov cocktails into police cars during BLM rioting, The headline I saw this week is that they're going to get 15 months.
	15 months.
	So while people who merely trespass, who weren't actually violent in any real way, at the people's capital are getting like six years.
	Some are looking at 15 to 20 years.
	People actually throwing Molotov cocktails into police cars are getting a year.
	By the time they'll be out in less than a year.
	15 months?
	That was after the plea deal to which they already accepted was negotiated down again by prosecutors or DA.
	I don't know what the word is.
	Just magically.
	The Southern District of New York.
	The ever-reliable, ever-honest, ever-trustworthy Southern District of New York and Manhattan.
	Everyone should just appreciate that.
	15 months for throwing Molotov cocktails at a police car.
	Jacob Angeli, the QAnon shaman.
	Five years.
	Because he had a spear and went into the Capitol.
	I forget the other guy's name.
	He was violent against nobody.
	Was asking for permission when he went by Capitol Police.
	All of it.
	Who was the one whose son ratted him out?
	I forget what his name is.
	Son ratted out Jan 6th.
	He got seven years for carrying...
	I think he had...
	Yeah, Guy Refn, who was ratted out by his son.
	He got seven years because he had a firearm on sight.
	Didn't do anything violent either.
	It's enough to make you blackpilled.
	Well, and that's what hopefully the Republicans took the House.
	Hopefully they really meaningfully exercised this investigatory power.
	It's the only thing they really can do.
	No legislation will get through with Biden there anyway.
	So do use the best thing they can do is, aside from proposed legislation that can put some real meat on the bones from policy, the more effective, efficacious method would be, in fact, to conduct meaningful investigations and have real hearings and have smart people running those hearings and courageous people running those hearings.
	And so we'll see how far and how broad and how wide it goes.
	But they did put the Biden Department, Biden administration on notice this week to preserve records and information because those subpoenas will be forthcoming come January.
	I think Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Effectively negotiated that with Kevin McCarthy, that because they didn't develop, didn't get a big enough majority, they're now dependent upon that populist wing in the House to get anything done.
	And so their plans backfired on them, the Republican establishment.
	And so now they apparently, you know, she said, look, I'll back you, we'll back you if you agree to let real subpoenas and real investigations go.
	And he said he would.
	So hopefully he keeps his word on that, and then maybe we'll get to the bottom of some of these scandalous behaviors, which the Justice Department is trying to dodge by appointing a special counsel to harass Trump.
	Yeah, so I was going to go to Theranos, but we'll go to the other Silicon Valley darling fraudster in a second.
	What do you make of the announcement to appoint a special prosecutor to Trump?
	Well, give Democrats credit.
	They know how to weaponize people.
	When they appoint a special counsel, it's not a cover-up artist like Bill Barr did with John Durham.
	And it's not some weak-kneed guy who's not going to do anything like Sessions did with Huber.
	Instead, it's somebody powerful who's out to get you.
	Like happened, frankly, with the appointment of Robert Mueller, who was out to both cover-up...
	Government complicity and corruption in Spygate, as well as embarrass and undermine President Trump, particularly in his foreign policy positions.
	But the person they appointed is a deep state hatchet man, deep state assassin.
	So that's what he really is.
	He's a political assassin.
	Whenever you see a guy that has previously taken out Republicans and previously been appointed to deal with war crimes...
	Then what you've got is somebody the deep state trusts to do their dirty business.
	So this is someone to go after, harass, harangue Trump, that the Biden Justice Department can plead ignorance on all of it because they have a special counsel.
	Like, oh, that's all the special counsel.
	We have nothing to do with it.
	If they wanted an honest special counsel, they would appoint someone who wasn't a deep state assassin, a Democratic hack, an anti-Republican prosecutor.
	But that isn't who they appointed.
	They appointed a guy who fits all those categories.
	So Trump knew this was coming as soon as he announced his bid for 2024, which he did on Tuesday, as we talked about last week, was going to happen.
	And so consequently, and he's not all that bothered by it.
	I mean, they've been harassing him and haranguing him for years.
	He's unaffected and unimpacted by their efforts to manufacture...
	Claims the Washington Post leaked this week that the investigation report came back on what Trump had, and there was nothing like they said originally.
	There was no nuclear secrets, nothing of any great consequence, no effort of any attempt to monetize it in any way, shape, or form, or give it to anybody.
	So, you know, those judges that look like fools for signing off on the search warrant and then approving it after the fact should be embarrassed and humiliated.
	By the fact that they took the bait on ridiculous and preposterous allegations purely meant to boost midterm prospects for the Democratic Party.
	And so there's not anything there.
	As people are now being reminded, thanks to Musk freeing up Trump's Twitter account, Trump was explicitly and expressly, as he did at his speech that day, Calling for peace, peace, peace, nothing wrong being done, nothing lawless being done, over and over and over and over again.
	To the degree he made a public statement outside the White House, made several tweets to that effect, and that's what he said at the speech.
	Peacefully protest, peacefully and patriotically protest.
	And so there's nothing on January 6th.
	So there's nothing there, but that won't necessarily stop him from trying to drum something up.
	Which also relates to the Trump tax organization trial, tax trial taking place in New York this week, which the media mostly didn't cover.
	And there's a reason why the media mostly didn't cover.
	Witnesses said that Trump and Trump's family had no idea what was going on.
	That the CFO that was engaged in some shenanigans was doing it for his own personal well-being or to look good.
	Had nothing to do with Trump, ever.
	This is the one...
	This is not the AG.
	This is the one of his tax card that was...
	He ended up confessing, and now they're going after the Trump tax organization for what he did on grounds of the tax organization.
	But his and other witnesses' testimony confirmed there's a reason why Trump, nobody, even though they wanted to indict Trump, they couldn't.
	They couldn't even get people to lie about Trump knowing things that he didn't know in terms of these other people's ancillary activities and behavior.
	So the...
	So there's nothing there, but that won't stop them from trying to drum something up in the process, harass and punish Trump as a deterrent to anyone that wants to be like Trump in the future from challenging the political class's monopoly on power.
	But Jen Psaki learned the hard way this week that that immunity doesn't always extend.
	She had been subpoenaed by the Attorney General of Missouri to appear in the Big Tech...
	Big government, Biden administration collusion case that Fauci's having to testify in.
	Other people are having to testify in.
	High-ranking Biden administration officials are having to testify in.
	Here, too, again, you're mostly seeing a media blackout because they don't want people aware of this.
	Like the CBS's that are worried about what a real fact check would look like on Twitter, so they're hiding from Twitter instead.
	Out of protest, because they don't feel good about the security on Twitter.
	They stopped on Friday.
	By Sunday morning, they were twitching like Dave Chappelle, like, we're back, we're back, we're comfortable with the security.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No doubt.
	So she tried to judge shop and bring the case to petition to quash the subpoena in Virginia, got a Biden appointee, and that judge was like, no, this is not.
	Properly in front of me, this belongs back in front of the court that's handling all of this.
	So her effort to cross that subpoena is highly likely to fail.
	She's also going to have to testify as to what she knows about the Biden administration coordinating, colluding, conspiring with big tech companies to censor dissident speech on issue of COVID, on issues of election integrity and the rest.
	And I'm sure there's going to be a lot more eventful and interesting information that comes out of that pretty soon.
	Robert, breaking news, everybody.
	Project Veritas is back on Twitter.
	Ah, there we go.
	I'll give you credit Elon Musk on that one.
	Literally, I just tweeted it.
	I said, well done, Elon.
	But that came from a $1 Super Chat, V6 Neon.
	I'm screen grabbing all of the Super Chats.
	I'm going to read them tomorrow.
	But that's too good a news not to announce in real time.
	They're back.
	They're live.
	Oh my goodness.
	That's a big move.
	I mean, that...
	Musk symbolically is almost as big as Alex Jones.
	And practically speaking, probably more useful.
	Alex Jones has a massive following on his own servers, his own platforms.
	Probably doesn't even need Twitter.
	Project Veritas...
	And Jones put out a very generous statement saying Musk is under a lot of attack.
	He's fine with Musk waiting on reinstating him, wasn't hostile to Musk, and was still supportive of Musk's effort to make Twitter a freer space, because that's Jones' nature.
	Much more generous to Musk than Musk has been to him.
	So we'll see how that progresses and proceeds.
	But speaking of both the Senate and effective lawsuits...
	The Attorney General for the state of Missouri is the one who brought that big tech collusion suit along with the Attorney General of Louisiana.
	He's also brought successful suits challenging aspects of COVID, challenging aspects of mask mandates, challenging aspects of immigration law.
	He also came up with the creative way to sue the Biden administration on their student loan policy.
	Namely, that in Missouri, there's an affiliate of the state.
	That receives interest on those loans that helps use those monies to fund higher education.
	They are now going to be denied because of the student loan forgiveness.
	And that's why the Federal Court of Appeals said, yes, indeed, you do have jurisdiction to bring the case.
	You do have standing to bring the case.
	The Biden administration is now begging the Supreme Court to intervene.
	And reinstate the policy and say there was no standing.
	I don't see the Supreme Court doing that.
	So the Biden student loan policy that improperly circumvented legislation appears to be DOA.
	That's phenomenal grounds.
	I mean, creative is not the word.
	I would have presumed that there's something of a provision of those funds that says, look, this is a benefit and not a right, so you get the interest in as much as it exists, but we don't have to give out loans.
	And so you don't necessarily generate interest.
	Do they get to the merits of that claim?
	I mean, they get to the legal merits because they have cognizable injury.
	In other words, they will lose money because of the policy.
	So once you have that, you have your injury, and then you can examine the underlying APA policy.
	Which is comparable, and by the way, that's Eric Schmidt, who will be in the United States Senate come January.
	So he's done a lot of really good work as Attorney General.
	We'll see if that continues, I hope it does, in the United States Senate.
	My favorite senator, though, will be the senator we interviewed, J.D. Vance, from Ohio, who...
	One, Northeast Ohio, when few Republicans have ever done so in its modern history, even though his opponent is from that precise part of Ohio.
	So it was impressive at the numbers he ran up in working class Northeastern Ohio, ancestrally Democratic.
	And he's been talking about proposing a range of things and hopefully he'll be a leader for populist policies and programs in the United States Senate once he's there and to help.
	Push Trump and Trumpism in the best, most effective political direction for those of us on that side of the political aisle.
	But speaking of standing, that was the big issue amongst others in the oral argument on Friday that I was lead counsel with Robert Kennedy for Children's Health Defense against the Food and Drug Administration on their effort to push COVID-19 vaccines on little kids.
	Well, Robert, so what is the latest on that?
	Now, you've got CDC approves it for the list of standard immunizations.
	Your oral arguments are on what motion now on Friday?
	So that happened last Friday.
	So the government moved.
	We brought suit on grounds that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedures Act because they took certain agency actions.
	So when in a federal government agency...
	Takes what's called an agency action.
	If they don't comply with the restrictions and rules of the Administrative Procedures Act, an individual can bring suit against them.
	Now, there's limitations that can be argued and that the government has argued in this case on those suits.
	Our complaint was that there were several different FDA actions.
	One is that the FDA was calling the drug...
	Safe when it's not.
	Calling it effective when it's not.
	Calling it a vaccine when it's not.
	Saying that there's an emergency for children from COVID-19 when there ain't.
	And that they even redefine the word vaccine without going through any proper process in a way that directly contradicts the plain understanding of it in the common parlance and their own understanding of it for more than a century.
	So we're challenging all of those actions.
	Their excuse was, this was all part of our emergency use authorization, and that derives from our emergency powers, and under the emergency power statute, we're exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act, and consequently, we can't be sued, we have sovereign immunity.
	Their other claim was that we couldn't make a claim for any violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and their primary argument is that nobody that sued So the argument was that the organization Children's Health Defense didn't suffer any injury from their action,
	and the individual parents who brought suit haven't suffered any injury from the action because they're not responsible for the actual administration of the vaccine, nor any mandate or conditioning of the vaccine.
	So that was the...
	It was the motion to dismiss brought by the government that the court heard on Friday.
	And their argument is those threefold factors.
	Our response to that is that, first of all, any organization that suffers a drain or diversion of resources because of an agency action has suffered a constitutionally cognizable injury.
	Sufficient to constitute a constitutionally cognizable case or controversy, which is all standing is.
	Standing is an interpretation of a few words in the U.S. Constitution that say a court must hear any, quote, case or controversy.
	And the argument is there's no case and no controversy unless you have standing.
	This is a doctrine invented only about a century ago, and in my view, is divorced from, not tethered to, our constitutional history or good principle.
	Putting that aside, it is recognized that when an organization has to drain its resources or divert its resources in response to an agency action, that is a constitutionally recognizable injury for purposes of jurisdiction and standing.
	Here, Children's Health Defense had to spend gobs of money and divert all of its resources away from other issues of children's health to spending 90% of its time and its money and resources.
	On counteracting the lies being told by the FDA in mislabeling, misbranding this product as a safe, effective vaccine when it's not safe for kids, not effective for kids, it's not even a vaccine because it inoculates against nothing.
	And as Pfizer admitted, they didn't even test for inoculation in the first place.
	That was actually going to be my next question.
	First question, though, playing devil's advocate, they're going to say, look, as an agency or as an entity, you decide to divert your resources to fight this.
	You didn't have to.
	You chose to do it.
	So you're the author of your own misfortune, any misfortune that you may have.
	I could foresee that argument with children's health defense, not so much with the parents, but we'll get to the parents standing in a second.
	What do you say to that?
	Like, all right, you guys chose to do it.
	You can't hold us responsible for that which you actively chose to do.
	You might be wrong at the end of the day, but nonetheless, you decided to do it.
	Live with the consequences.
	It's not our fault that you're diverting resources to sue us.
	The problem with that argument is then under that circumstance, no one could ever sue.
	In other words, there's all these case law that said, do you divert resources in response to an agency action?
	All those actions are volitional, right?
	You don't have to spend the resources in response to the agency action.
	If the act of...
	If the mere fact it was volitional meant you couldn't sue, then no organization could sue.
	Well, no, I can imagine it not being voluntary or of your own volition if they say we're implementing plexiglass.
	So now I have to put plexiglass because FDA says so.
	So that's no longer of my own accord.
	That's never been the requirement.
	So in other words, all that's required is you have to respond and spend resources in ways you would not have had to do but for the agency action.
	It's not whether or not...
	There's like a direct cost imposition on you.
	It's solely whether or not this is in response to the agency action.
	So if it's something you would have done anyway, if the agency never would have done anything, that's when it's not a constitutionally cognizable injury.
	And that was their argument.
	Their argument is a CHD would have done this anyway.
	And it's like, no, we wouldn't have.
	Children's Health Defense doesn't need to counteract the lies of the FDA if the FDA is not busy lying.
	And so that's always been the standard.
	So it's always so, for example, let's say there's an election controversy and an organization has to go out and educate people about issues related to the election that they only have to do because some agency took a particular action.
	Constitutionally recognizable.
	Environmental organization.
	Similarly, do they have to spend money in response to some policy the EPA has made that they wouldn't have had to spend but for the policy?
	So all that matters is, are you spending the money because of the government's action?
	Or was it money you would have always spent in that precise way anyway?
	And here, their dispute was...
	Only we would have spent it otherwise, but that didn't really hold much water.
	And the court didn't focus on that issue.
	The court seemed to assume that standing did apply.
	We'll see when we get the ultimate decision.
	The court didn't make a decision, but the court didn't focus much attention on that set of questions.
	You're on mute.
	Sorry, my question is more for the parents.
	How do they argue the parents?
	They say the parents don't have standing because you didn't suffer any consequences as a result of what we did.
	I mean, what consequences, following their own logic, what consequences would parents or children have to suffer in order to acquire standing?
	Have suffered an actual physical injury?
	Well, even then, they said they wouldn't have a right to sue.
	So what the FDA is claiming is that...
	So all you need is one plaintiff to have standing.
	And then that's it.
	You don't go further on the standing issue.
	You then go into the substantive issues and the case moves forward.
	So if CHD has standing, CHD also has what's called associational standing.
	So that's your right to raise the claim of your members who don't have to be part of the suit for you to raise that suit.
	So CHD said, look, there's a whole bunch of people that are going to be subject to mandates, that are subject to constant coercion, that are subject to this constant propaganda.
	That may suffer an involuntary intrusion without at least informed consent, which is what this is all about.
	The FDA wanted to focus on consent rather than informed consent.
	So they wanted to say, look, it's always up to the parent whether or not the child gets vaccinated anyway.
	And if there's a mandate, we have nothing to do with that, so we can't be blamed for it.
	And our counter to it is the whole FDA's obligation is to be in the informed consent business.
	This is why courts have found you can sue them for when they fail to provide adequate information about something.
	When they simply allow the importation of a drug that might have dangers to third parties.
	Because that's the business they're in.
	They're in the informed consent business.
	They're a labeler, marketer primarily.
	They're about making sure labels are correct.
	That's what they're supposed to be about.
	Like the U.S. Department of Agriculture, frankly.
	And so in that context, when they are giving bad information...
	Allowing or authorizing bad information, or in this case, doing it themselves or complicit.
	I mean, here you have the FDA commissioner has gone on children's TV shows calling the drug safe and effective.
	They use Big Bird and Elmo to tell kids they're going to get sick unless they take this safe, effective vaccine.
	In fact, the government tried to deny this at the hearing.
	They're like, FDA is not involved in the branding business.
	It's like, they're not supposed to be.
	But they are here.
	So that's exactly what they're doing here.
	The individual standing claims, their argument is we're not responsible for any mandate.
	We're not responsible for any administration.
	We're not responsible for any coercive conditions.
	So even if a parent, even if a child takes the vaccine because of the misrepresentations by the FDA, that's not our fault because there's a third-party intermediary that actually administered it or mandated it or coercively...
	The problem with that is, in the standing doctrine especially, you only have to be a link in the chain.
	You don't have to be proximate cause.
	You don't have to be the final link.
	You don't have to be the only link.
	You just have to be a link.
	And what they couldn't dispute is that if the FDA hadn't taken these actions, none of these risks would be present.
	The FDA was not calling it safe.
	Not calling it effective.
	Not calling it a vaccine.
	If they weren't out there promoting it and pushing it and pitching it, they weren't authorizing Pfizer and other companies to do things like, you want to be a superhero kid?
	Take the vaccine.
	That's an ad running right now across the country, targeting little kids, the ones that are on YouTube TV and that sort of thing, saying, if you want to be a superhero, you want to be Superman, you need to take this vaccine.
	So, in Washington, D.C., a parent was sitting right outside when her children went into a Ronald McDonald's health clinic, and the kids were vaccinated without her notice or knowledge when she was sitting right outside.
	So, these kind of things are happening.
	There's already reports of kids who have died from the shot.
	So, given this kind of risk that's present...
	Our argument, not only that, you have hospitals, including in Fort Worth, Texas, including in Nashville, Tennessee, and in other places around the world.
	It's a real problem in Canada where they've said it's legal, the Canadian courts have, where you can be denied necessary medical treatment if you're not vaccinated.
	And our argument was, so a parent who has to deal with this emotional risk, this weighty risk that their kid...
	If they get an emergency, did they have to wait for the kid to be dead before they can sue?
	And then the other aspect of the parent's injury is not only the emotional weight of that and the risk they have from mandates and coercion for which the FDA is an indispensable, integrable link to the entire process, a key link in the chain of what takes place, the indispensable link of what takes place, but also...
	Throughout the history of false advertising cases, you've had a right to sue when your confidence in the product or the sponsor of the product or the protector of public health denies you the ability to continue to have that confidence.
	And that's our other ground for standing.
	That what the FDA has done is making parents all across the country no longer trust the FDA.
	Which means they don't know which vaccine to take and which one not to.
	Which drug to take and which one not to.
	That is its own injury, has been recognized as its own injury, even in the conventional tort context.
	And so on all those collective grounds, there's multiple bases by which the court can find standing in jurisdiction.
	And that was the argument on that.
	The court mostly spent its time on whether or not we stated a claim.
	Whether or not there's a remedy, which is part of the standing analysis too, and whether or not sovereign immunity applies, because those were the other arguments they were raising.
	Yes, sovereign immunity, I imagine, could be the biggest one.
	But Robert, I want to bring this up, just in case anybody hasn't seen it.
	You were super duper today, getting your COVID vaccine, Elmo.
	This is real.
	Elmo was really glad to have daddy and baby David there with him.
	Baby David, where are you?
	This is real life.
	A lot of questions about Elmo getting the COVID vaccine.
	Was it safe?
	Was it the right decision?
	I talked to our pediatrician so I could make the right choice.
	I learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep himself, our friends, neighbors, and everyone else healthy and enjoying the things they love.
	Question?
	Can we have a hug?
	Oh, come here, son.
	It's so crazy.
	I feel like it can't be real, and I have to keep going down and making sure that this is on the verified account of Sesame Street.
	It's okay to have questions about COVID vaccines for your kids.
	Get the latest facts by speaking to your pediatrician or healthcare provider.
	It's...
	The crazy...
	Joseph Goebbels.
	Sponsored by the CDC.
	Directly marketing it, directly branding it, directly preaching it, directly teaching it.
	And unlike what they're trying to claim in a federal court about an ivermectin case, they have been opining on it directly.
	Not just, oh, we just, you know, we didn't say not to take ivermectin.
	We just said it's a recommendation.
	That's all they do.
	And now it's been added to the kids list, which makes it mandatory in a bunch of places.
	So the court...
	The court saw it as didn't focus so much on standing.
	The court instead asked about, isn't there a potential remedy here?
	Can't I issue some relief?
	And said, absolutely.
	And what we're asking for is bifurcated.
	At this point, we're just asking for the case to move past a motion to dismiss and get to discovery and what's an expedited process under the APA is just to stop the lies.
	I mean, the court doesn't even have to revoke or stay the EUA.
	The court could say no more public statements making representations that this is safe, this is effective, that this has been fully clinically tested, that this is a vaccine, when it's none of those things.
	All those statements are false statements being made by the FDA.
	Well, let's say in Orwellian newspeak, it's now a vaccine.
	I mean, they changed the definition a little bit earlier than COVID.
	But the problem with that is twofold.
	One, they had no right to make the change.
	They didn't go through the proper process to change the definition of the vaccine.
	This is back in 2015, right?
	Yeah.
	More recently, for the actual change of the word vaccine.
	Because their own internal emails show they knew they had a problem, so they went in and changed the word fully.
	In response to concerns about COVID vaccine shot, which is, again, a drug disguised as a vaccine.
	But the other is, for purposes of marketing...
	It's what the public understands a word to mean.
	And that's the problem.
	You can't just say, well, we've decided to just change the word definition, but we're not telling the American people that, right?
	In that Elmo ad, they're not saying, this doesn't inoculate all the requirements they would make of any other company to put a big caveat on the label.
	They're not doing themselves.
	They know the ordinary person thinks the word vaccine means the same thing it's meant for 100 plus years, which is that it actually inoculates against disease, infection, and transmission.
	Transmission is the key one, because even now we're seeing...
	I mean, it's a level of dishonesty that's just beyond words, but Albert Bourla, that tweet from April 1st, 2021.
	You know, the studies in South Africa, 100% effective at preventing COVID-19.
	And now, in retrospect, through the Orwellian interpretation of Newspeak, just tearing up the speech and giving them a new one, they're saying, oh, it meant prevents cases of COVID-19, the RONA, progressing to COVID-19 and hospitalization.
	It means severe cases.
	That's what preventing COVID-19 means now.
	I mean, it's just the media lying to cover up for them.
	But the...
	So, the issue of their other excuse is, so the court recognized that they're, at least in response, we'll see when the court actually issues a decision where it goes.
	But the court didn't ask many more questions about that aspect.
	Saw a remedy as appropriate, because all we're asking, don't allow them to keep lying.
	That's it.
	You know, declare they can't say these things and then join them from it and then just remand it to them to follow their own rules, which they didn't do the first time.
	But the big one the court focused on ended up being in sovereign immunity, which is their claim as the emergency use statute, emergency powers statute.
	It says that the APA won't apply to any exercise of emergency powers.
	And our argument was...
	We're not challenging how they used emergency powers.
	We're challenging whether these are emergency powers.
	Calling a drug safe when it ain't isn't an emergency power.
	Calling a drug effective when it ain't ain't an emergency power.
	Calling a drug a vaccine when it ain't ain't an emergency power.
	It's mischaracterizing the directions of the development under the emergency power.
	So we need to develop a vaccine.
	We need to have whatever operation.
	Warp speed, they want to call it.
	Okay, fine.
	You've developed this product and you want people to take it because it's an emergency, but you can't mischaracterize it and you can't misdescribe it.
	That's a good argument, Robert.
	And so the way I put it is it's like emergency powers is like, you could call it Pandora's box.
	And the whether or not you have a right to open up Pandora's box is always subject to judicial review under the APA.
	Whether a particular power you're using, a particular agency action, is an emergency power, whether it comes out of that box, is also a judicially reviewable question.
	So we're not asking them to say, we're not conceding that, yes, everything they did was a legitimate power that they had a right to open the box to.
	We're saying just the opposite.
	No statute gave them this power.
	No law allowed them to lie to a bunch of kids and to a bunch of parents and caregivers and custodians about their health risk.
	And about drug risk.
	Nothing did.
	And so that statute, that fig leaf, because think about the precedent that would set.
	If a government agency can just unilaterally, arbitrarily say, what I've just done is an emergency power, and now I'm no longer subject to either judicial review or legislative limit or constitutional constraint.
	You don't have a government anymore, not a constitutional government anymore.
	I mean, that was the great problem with the Weimar Constitution.
	The emergency exception written into it is what the Nazis used to illicitly seize power.
	I mean, contrary to popular belief, Hitler was never popularly elected.
	The only presidential race that he ran in that was where people were allowed to meaningfully run, he lost by like 35 points.
	He got crushed.
	They struggled to ever get above a third support at their best.
	That's why they had to steal.
	They couldn't get him honorably.
	So we'll see what the court does.
	I think our arguments are, we're right on the law, we're right on the facts, we're right on morality.
	The hard part is getting federal courts to be willing to stand up to the FDA in this context.
	There isn't a long history of them willing to do so, eager to do so.
	So we'll see.
	But we're right on the law and the facts and whatever happens if...
	If the court rules in favor of the government, then we'll be taking it up all the way to the Supreme Court as necessary.
	Because this power is a dangerous, perilous power.
	The government cannot be allowed to get away with what they've done.
	Do you think your biggest liability, your biggest exposure is on the sovereign immunity?
	I mean, if they're giving sovereign immunity to cops...
	I don't think they have immunity.
	I don't see any good legal argument that they have.
	I see that they have a power argument.
	We're the government.
	We're the FDA.
	We're the CDC.
	This is public health.
	Hey, federal judge, shut up and be silent.
	Get back into your place and let us run the show.
	It's an argument from power, not an argument from principle, not an argument from precedent.
	Do you get to add the subsequent statements by the execs at Pfizer that we didn't test for transmission?
	I mean, the judge mentioned that the boosters, when the judge asked, he says, is it the case?
	Is it not the case?
	That there has been a lack of clinical testing of some of these.
	And the government's like, oh, there's all kinds of clinical testing.
	We're disputing that, of course.
	But the government was, and they're like, oh, maybe you're referencing the boosters.
	And he's like, well, you do agree that at least the boosters, they didn't even do any clinical testing, right?
	So the court seemed cognizant and concerned about what the public health authorities have been up to.
	The question is whether that translates into the court keeping the case for its further review.
	And we'll find out.
	All right, fingers crossed.
	They didn't respond, well, Your Honor, we've tested them on eight mice, so who needs humans anymore?
	Robert, speaking of a specious medical technology, it might be the good segue into Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes being sentenced.
	I mean, I guess people know about that case.
	It's Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, the first...
	Female billionaire, Silicon Valley darling, as they call them, basically lying about a technology that they never had, that they knew that they never had, in terms of being able to run a litany of blood tests off a mere finger prick of a drop of blood.
	It would facilitate blood testing.
	The technology was amazing.
	A drop or two, they could test for, I don't know, if it's not dozens, it might have been hundreds of blood issues.
	The problem being, they knew they had.
	Problems with whatever technology they had.
	They had no basis to be making the claims that they made.
	They circumvented regulatory oversight by claiming it's sort of in-house laboratory technology, which evaded the scrutinizing eyes of the government.
	Went to trial for fraud.
	She tried to raise the insanity defense for fraud, which was subsequently dismissed, and she was just sentenced.
	But Robert, we'll get to the sentence, what you think of it, if I've missed anything here.
	The thing that I found out today, which I found the most shocking, is her argument against incarceration is that she's now pregnant and due to give birth.
	I think it was soon.
	I mean, I don't know how she timed her pregnancy, but I think I know how she timed her pregnancy.
	She got pregnant and is now using that as an argument against incarceration.
	And I was listening to this with my kid.
	My kid's like, well, you can't send her to jail.
	She's pregnant.
	And I was like, you can't just get pregnant.
	To not go to jail.
	That is a level of sociopathic pathology that is next level.
	Like, hey, it looks like I'm going to jail.
	I'm going to get pregnant at this time.
	Unless it was a total accident and I'm being very judgmental, which I don't think I am.
	So setting all of that aside, Robert, she got sentenced to 11 years.
	I don't know what time surge she has, what are going to be the mitigating factors to reduce that ultimate time at the end of the day, but what do you make of it?
	She got pregnant.
	I don't know if you knew that, but yeah, what do you make of the situation?
	I mean, she was convicted of some charges, not convicted of other charges.
	The charges she was not convicted of carried heftier sentencing.
	So the 11 years, I believe, is within the sentencing range that's recommended and that's typical for what she was convicted of.
	And in the federal system, you do about 85% of your time.
	You can get what's called a good time credit of 15%.
	They sometimes, nowadays, let people out the last six months out into a halfway house.
	So an 11-year sentence, the most you're able to knock off, you'll do at least eight years or so.
	And because of that sentencing range, that likely means more of it changes the security level you're sent to.
	So you're often not sent, sometimes, but usually not sent to a low-security facility.
	The low-security facilities have less violent criminals, almost exclusively nonviolent offenders with no violent record.
	They often, you know, get to, I mean, it's not like Wolf of Wall Street playing tennis, that kind of thing.
	That's gone from the federal imprisonment system.
	But it's not, you know, doing a hard time like you're in the movie Undisputed or something.
	So it's not like a state prison at all.
	So she'll probably, though, do a medium security facility, so it'll have more limits, more restrictions, more restraints, given the length of the sentence.
	And so it won't be as...
	It'll be harsh, but not brutal from an imprisonment perspective.
	And the pregnancy may buy or bail pending appeal.
	Because the appeal often takes as long as a year and a half to have it adjudicated.
	So that's where they can kind of resolve that issue.
	But people are often pregnant inside prison, and they have facilities to manage that.
	I'm not often confident in their capacity to manage that, but that's another story for another day.
	I thought all things being equal, about a proportionate sentence.
	Which is all the Eighth Amendment requires, as the Tennessee Supreme Court made clear this week when they said that a mandatory life imprisonment for juvenile defendants convicted of homicide is by definition not proportionate and therefore cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
	And they threw out on constitutional grounds Tennessee's law requiring life in prison for first-degree murderers.
	When those first-degree murderers are juveniles.
	Juveniles who are not tried as adults or juveniles regardless of whether or not they're tried as adults?
	Regardless of whether they're tried as an adult.
	And this stems from a string of Supreme Court cases that has said that because of juveniles lacking mental capacity or diminished mental capacity, they thus have diminished moral accountability under our intent.
	And consequently, before they ruled out the death penalty altogether for juveniles, and then had raised doubts about life imprisonment, if it's mandatory, without individualized discretion for sentencing.
	Now, what's also happening here is this is a judicial branch protecting its own prerogative.
	So the judicial branch saying, we should decide sentencing, not state legislatures imposing mandatory sentencing.
	The courts have been traditionally hostile to efforts of the legislative branch to deny discretion in the judicial branch in this capacity or context.
	Now it goes to one of the tip questions at the live chat going on at vivabarneslaw.locals.com about what you can do about standing.
	Congress could change the law to make it clear that courts have jurisdiction in these cases, and that would be the end of the nonsense of standing, other than the Supreme Court itself invalidating it.
	I don't anticipate the Supreme Court doing that anytime soon, because judges on both sides of the aisle love standing for the political power it provides in playing Pontius Pilate.
	I think the Tennessee decision is probably the right decision.
	It really depends on what you think about moral accountability and criminal punishment.
	Their point is it has to be proportionate, and it's by definition not proportionate, when you have a juvenile involved.
	Other people would say it's proportionate when the severity of the crime by its nature says so.
	What about the underlying argument, why do you need...
	Minimum requirements if you have the discretion of a judge in the first place.
	I mean, all you're doing is effectively...
	It's a mandatory sentence, period.
	A judge can't do anything but issue life imprisonment.
	Is there not an argument to be made that mandatory sentences in and of themselves are somewhat superfluous?
	It would presuppose that the judge doesn't have the good discretion to issue life imprisonment.
	Oh, that's exactly why the laws are passed.
	They don't trust judges.
	That shut me up.
	The late 60s, early 1970s, with the perception you see in Dirty Harry movies, a range of other movies, that judges were soft on crime.
	And in response, throughout the 70s, 80s, into the 90s, they started imposing mandatory sentencing.
	That became controversial in the federal context, in the crack cocaine area, and other areas.
	Now, of course, President Trump...
	In his campaign speech, in his announcement speech for 2024, recommended a death penalty sentence for drug dealers over a certain amount.
	And that will probably be a popular provision.
	And it would probably also be a mandatory type sentence on the grounds that you can't trust judges to do the right thing in the federal system.
	The sentencing guidelines were ultimately thrown out for a range of reasons.
	For similar reasons as the Tennessee Supreme Court did.
	The courts like to protect their prerogative over sentencing.
	The public is often dissatisfied with how they exercise it and try to use the legislative branch to check it.
	And the courts come back and use their constitutional interpretation to counteract the legislature.
	So that's also, that's the backdrop of what's going on.
	But the moral debate is more a matter of, does the nature of the crime Is that how you measure proportionality under the Eighth Amendment?
	Or does the nature of the defendant how you measure proportionality for the crime for cruel and unusual punishment purposes?
	I say the moment you decide to try them as an adult, you've made the decision that morally, intellectually, and culpability-wise, they're adults and therefore to have a second set of standards for what would otherwise be.
	The minimum requirement sentence for an adult, a bona fide adult versus a minor deemed to be an adult.
	Once you've called them an adult in law, it should follow that.
	I don't like minimum sentences, mandatory minimum sentences in general because, yeah, everyone goes like, well, a murderer and it should be the case.
	Yeah, but then you take other types of minor offenses, which carry very serious minimum penalties.
	And I'm thinking Canadian gun laws in Canada, where you're like, yeah, you have a totally innocent person now, and the judge has their hands tied behind their back because he carries minimum sentences.
	I see more injustice there than just leaving it to the discretion of the judge, but now that you make that point, I see that point as well.
	Well, speaking of judges, case of Gibson v.
	Goldston before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concerns a family court judge.
	Who was routinely and regularly ordering court bailiffs to conduct searches of people's homes in the middle of a court hearing.
	And the judge, of course, so what happens is the judge, family court judge, says, well, we'll find out what's going on here.
	Come on, bailiff, we're going to go over to one of the party's houses.
	Now, the party happened to be a law enforcement agent, so he knew the rights that maybe some of them violate on a routine basis.
	But when the judge shows up, he's like, you've now become a witness.
	I move to recuse you.
	Judge says, nah, too late.
	You should have brought that up earlier.
	And then the judge orders the bailiff to go in.
	He tries to film what's taking place.
	The judge says arrest him if he does that and demands the bailiff seize his phone.
	The bailiff then searches the whole property, takes several pieces of property with him.
	And so later on, he sues the judge and the bailiff.
	And a lot of bailiffs think that they're immune as long as they're doing what a judge says.
	No, you're not.
	That's wrong.
	You better read a warrant.
	You better read the law.
	Just because a judge says it doesn't mean you're immune either.
	A common mistake made by some bailiffs who think they just work for the judge rather than work for the country and work for the people.
	The judge claimed, oh, I'm immune.
	I'm a judge.
	The judge admitted the judge does this routinely.
	In family court cases, it's the first person to fight it, first person to contest it, probably because you don't want to upset and offend the judge who controls custody over your children and property distribution.
	But this person was unhappy and sued, probably because law enforcement knows that this was illicit.
	And the issue before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is, is the judge immune?
	And the Institute for Justice has filed an amicus brief in the case.
	The district court said, no, the judge ain't immune.
	It says when you do something that's not a judicial act, you're not immune.
	When you do something that's outside your jurisdiction, and the law and the state in question specifically said they don't have the power to do these kind of things, then you also are not immune.
	You're only immune when you're acting as a judge.
	Just because you do something as a judge doesn't make you immune.
	And so I think the Fourth Circuit will come back with a very good ruling.
	That will make clear judges are not immune when they do things that are not acts within their jurisdiction and that are not judicial acts like searching and seizing people's property.
	So, I mean, I can think of a more extravagant example if the judge issues a sentence that's absolutely unlawful and then claims immunity.
	But, well, Robert, let's just hypothetically, the decision comes down against the judge.
	What happens to the judge?
	Is this going to be a basis for...
	I don't know if the judge was elected or appointed.
	Is it going to be the basis for a disbarring, but a removal of the judge from the system?
	They only issued a small sanction to judicial people, so no surprise there.
	So there's no consequence likely to flow, but the judge may have to write a check and the government that employed him write a check.
	And that will most likely discipline other judges from doing other wayward conduct like this, not only in that area, but across the country.
	So it's always good for judges to remember they're not the sole arbiters and get to do whatever they want.
	This is the problem of immunity.
	I disfavor immunity, period.
	At the time of our founding, you could argue as a defense.
	You did what you did in your constitutionally clothed authority.
	And that was an argument for the jury to decide.
	That's how it should always be.
	It should not be immunity under any of these pretexts because it invites this kind of trouble.
	As an example, take Long Lake Township in Michigan versus the Maxons.
	They decided they wanted to collect a bunch of fines because they suspected this big property owner might be doing something on there that was contrary to their zoning laws because zoning laws are their own intrusion.
	Of property rights, in my view.
	But that's another story for another day.
	But they couldn't see it.
	So what did they decide to do?
	They got some Viva-style drones.
	And they flew them right over the property.
	You can get good.
	You could zoom in on it, too.
	The photo quality is impressive.
	You can go five kilometers distance without even being there.
	Amazing.
	Sorry, go on, Robert.
	So they fly over and get aerial footage, basically invade the privacy of a property.
	And then they use the zoning laws to try to punish the individual.
	And so the first question, as it went up to the court system, was, was this a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
	The government's argument was, nah, we weren't physically on the property.
	We were above the property.
	However, the Supreme Court has made clear there's two grounds on which there's a Fourth Amendment violation.
	If for the purposes of a search, and this is important, if it's not for the purposes of a search, different issue, but if it's for the purposes of a search, for investigatory, law enforcement, information-gathering purposes, that you either physically trespass on the property or invade a reasonable expectation of privacy of the individual, then that constitutes an unconstitutional search if done without probable cause in a warrant or other exigent circumstance.
	There's both, because people forget you have a right not only to the physical property on your land, but you have a certain both reasonable expectation of privacy and against nuisance and trespass claims, a right underneath you to a certain degree, and a right above you to a certain degree.
	And so this has come up in other contexts.
	For example, drug-sniffing dogs.
	Cop would come up with a drug-sniffing dog.
	Knock on your door, get you to answer, see if the dog smells something, then use that as the excuse to go into your house.
	And then the Supreme Court said, no, no, no.
	That's clearly an illicit search.
	Just because you're doing it with the dog on the front porch, it violates reasonable expectation of privacy and to some degree is a trespass.
	The other was, famous case that went up before the U.S. Supreme Court, using infrared cameras where you could see all kinds of things through someone's house.
	And the Supreme Court said that clearly violates reasonable expectation of privacy and really is a form of trespass.
	So under either the physical intrusion or reasonable expectation of privacy test, unconstitutional if without probable cause or warrant or exigent circumstance.
	Here the court said yes.
	The use of drones is part of your protected space.
	It's both a physical invasion on your property, given, as you note, how cameras can really capture all kinds of things, and given the distance it has to fly, is part of the space you have a right to be part of.
	And this has been recognized in other cases.
	Good arguments were made by the amicus and other briefs.
	That pointed out people that have been criminally prosecuted for sending their drone over their neighbor's yard to do stuff they're not supposed to.
	Other examples like that, being able to have a nuisance claim, being able to bring other claims, so that, in fact, it's recognized this is within your property right.
	But in addition, it's clearly a violation of your reasonable expectation of privacy.
	You expect when you're in your backyard, this people's property happens to be a real big backyard, five acres, you don't expect somebody to spy on you.
	From the sky without your permission or invitation.
	And so the court said, yes, it is a Fourth Amendment violation.
	However, the court said, and this comes from right-wing judges, by the way, this problem, the exclusionary rule should really just be limited to criminal cases.
	And this is the this is a problem in the court system where they've screwed and led by just judges and justices on the right to gut Fourth Amendment remedies and say, yeah, you know, really, you could just sue civilly for the invasion and intrusion, but they can use the evidence they gather against.
	The problem with that, they're doing it for political reasons and policy reasons, but it's directly contrary to the plain language of the Fourth Amendment, which has no meaning if the government can be rewarded, literally in this case, financially.
	With civil forfeiture claims, with zoning violation fines, quasi-criminal proceedings because of their seizure of property and forfeiture of property involved, and loss of property rights, if they are allowed to just completely ignore it.
	But that's what the Michigan Court of Appeals said.
	It said, nah, this isn't a pure criminal proceeding.
	No exclusionary rule.
	Government can get away with it.
	Well, that's criminal in the criminal code sense.
	This is statutory, which carries with it.
	Fines, which themselves can then lead to all sorts of different sanctions.
	Statutory infractions, no right or reasonable expectation of privacy or that which is obtained can be used against you.
	Robert, the question I was having is satellite images.
	If the government gets the same images by using Google Earth, then it's okay to use hypothetically in criminal in and of itself?
	I don't think so.
	But that's a separate question.
	So it depends.
	If they're not doing it for a search purposes of that property, then probably yes.
	If it's simply ancillary and incidental, which is, they lie about that all the time.
	But that happens all the time.
	And so the question of how much of it's invasive is an open question yet to be determined.
	But if they're not doing it for search purposes, how they usually get away with some of those things.
	But here, the exclusionary rule should apply.
	They pointed out that the Supreme Court has never explicitly limited it to criminal cases.
	It said in quasi-criminal cases, property cases.
	This is a good case.
	It could even reach the U.S. Supreme Court because the U.S. Supreme Court should clarify.
	Frankly, the exclusionary rule should be applied everywhere, especially because they pretend, just as like Scalia, as an example, would pretend.
	That, oh, you have a remedy because you can sue.
	But on the side of suing, they would gut your rights there, too, to where you couldn't actually sue.
	And so it was a false hope.
	It was making the Fourth Amendment toothless.
	And that's what the Fourth Amendment should not be.
	So hopefully this case will clarify that, either at the Michigan Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court down the road.
	All right.
	Well, I think there's a few cases on FOIA that we'll get to.
	I guess we'll do them in bulk.
	But before we get there, Odell Beckham versus Nike.
	I mean, it's an interesting lawsuit because it makes you realize that no matter how good a contract is, no matter how powerful your lawyers are, and no matter how big the company is, people can fight dirty and do dirty things.
	The 30,000-foot overview, Odell Beckham, great.
	Running back or linebacker?
	Wide receiver.
	Wide receiver.
	I'm an idiot.
	I don't watch sports, but he's a good football player.
	The lawsuit describes his prowess on the field.
	Has a massive endorsement with Nike.
	Gets an offer from Adidas to come sell their product.
	Not that it doesn't show you the loyalty, but it just shows you there's no quality difference in these shoes.
	It's pure branding.
	Bottom line, he gets an offer from Adidas to come and partner with them.
	Nike is contractually empowered to cause Beckham not to be able to accept that offer by matching their offer, which allegedly they do.
	Okay, so they say we're going to match Adidas' offer, and the terms of which are...
	We don't need to get into it, but it involved...
	Let me just get one thing straight.
	It involved royalties.
	It basically promised them a certain amount on royalties.
	Nike says we're going to match the offer.
	They sign their addendum, their contract, and say we hereby match it.
	And then apparently in this, Robert, I don't know if you know the details, but I don't know if it's done on purpose and Beckham doesn't notice it if it's a bona fide oversight that Nike subsequently exploits.
	But they say that we're making a distinction now between earned royalties and net sales to basically say we're not paying you millions of dollars because of this interpretation.
	Of this addendum that we signed, which doesn't necessarily, according to Beckham, accurately reflect the offer from Adidas.
	Nike also says you're in violation of showing our gloves and our shoes because you were wearing a black-on-black version of our shoes or something, or we think you taped over the Nike sign.
	You weren't showing our gloves and our shoes as you're required to do, and so we're issuing you an ex post facto $2 million withholding penalty.
	Robert, what's your takeaway from it?
	More into sports than I am.
	First of all, if you know, was the accident an accident?
	Did Nike do it on drafted and Beckham's lawyers didn't pick up on it?
	Or was it something that Nike says retroactively, either we're pissed at you for whatever the reason, or we're going to interpret this in a way that will screw you out of money?
	And what do you think of it?
	So, I mean, what's interesting is it's a reminder of the reformation.
	Did you ever litigate a case on those grounds in Canada?
	What's the word?
	Reformation.
	Well, I don't know what the Canadian equivalent is.
	Is that good faith dealing type concept?
	It's separate.
	It's the idea that your contract can be reformed to what the original agreement was based on certain factual conditions existing.
	Nike tries to amend the contract sort of midway through.
	They agree to match.
	The original contract says we have a first right of refusal and to match any other offer you get.
	He gets a great offer from Adidas at the peak of his career.
	They come and they say, okay, we match.
	Then later on, they sent out this extension letter because there was all these extension required under the contract, effectively, that actually modified the conditions that it appears Beckham's lawyers or agents didn't catch.
	But it's not clear they actually signed it.
	The lawsuit kind of stays vague on what was there or not there in that sense.
	But their argument is, one, their argument is this couldn't modify the contract because here's what the contract originally was.
	And secondly, even if this is considered a contract, it should be reinterpreted to reform to the original intention of the parties when they both signed the mutually reciprocal contract.
	And so the issue of reformation and whether you can sort of amend in the way Nike attempted to is the interesting legal aspect of it.
	Okay.
	I know under Quebec law we don't have that term.
	I'm trying to think of what the equivalent would be.
	But basically this is always the intent of the parties and whether or not there is some sort of surreptitious attempt or whether or not it's exploitation of an interpretation that no one would have ever given to it given the essence of the contract.
	It's making the news.
	It's a big deal.
	It's funny.
	I mean, no matter how big the company, they might just try to screw you to save a few million dollars here and there.
	FOIA, Robert.
	Judicial Watch.
	Sorry.
	Judicial Watch has been busy.
	So they've got FOIA against the FBI for January 6th.
	They want to inquire as to whether or not...
	The FBI and authorities obtained the bank information of anybody within the D.C. area on January 5 and January 6. And they issue a FOIA request.
	I forget the word now.
	Gromar?
	Gamor?
	What's the exception that the FBI invoked?
	Glomar.
	So Glomar says...
	We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, and if we were to give you this documentation, it would confirm or deny the existence of the investigation, so we're saying no, thank you, piss off.
	And Judicial Watch is appealing that because that initial excuse from the FBI was upheld by the first judge, and now they're appealing that.
	I mean, field this one, Robert.
	If Glomar, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, therefore your request for documentation is dismissed, what would ever be the limits to that excuse from the FBI?
	And for those asking in the live chat at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com, we're going to cover the elections in just a second.
	But as to the FOIA issue, so Judicial Watch brought the FOIA suit because of public disclosures.
	That the FBI, as Tucker Carlson and others revealed early last year, the FBI ordered banks to produce, and credit card companies it appears, ordered them to produce every debit card and credit card transaction in the D.C. area around January 6th.
	And so they were grabbing everybody's personal financial information.
	And transactions in that time, Airbnb reservations, restaurant reservations, anybody that did any gun purchases or ammunition purchases around there, all of that.
	This was a massive search warrant without probable cause of American citizens.
	So the FBI, so Judicial Watch said, okay, we would like to see those subpoenas and see those record requests.
	FBI's like, oh, golly gee, First Air Defensives, we don't know what you're talking about.
	That's confusing.
	That's too vague.
	So they came back with very specific, and they're like, well, okay, we can neither confirm nor deny.
	That neither confirm nor deny, the Glomar case, is, Glomar, depending on how you pronounce it, is only reserved for rare, exceptional cases where the revealing it would reveal an investigation that no one knew about or reveal tactics and techniques that nobody knows about.
	Neither of that is true here.
	This was purely protectual.
	But the D.C. federal court deferred to the FBI, allowed them to hide this information illicitly.
	Now, the hard part is they're in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals, so they may be no better.
	But this excuse is completely ludicrous.
	And credit to Judicial Watch for pursuing it.
	Discredit to the court for excusing it.
	Okay, it's interesting.
	So the Glomar exception, even in its truest form, would be...
	Stuff that is...
	If it were to reveal stuff that is intended to remain confidential to protect systems and not if the public already knows about the investigation, which they do because...
	Everybody knows the FBI does subpoenas.
	I mean, that's not...
	Oh my God, the FBI is a subpoena power?
	That's a big secret?
	I mean, it's ludicrous.
	That was a ridiculous ruling by the court.
	And I'm just saying, well, people are going to say, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.
	Let them pull your bank records.
	Let them see your transaction.
	Oh, but unless you buy something, and not even necessarily a gun, just something else that they can say, you bought that for the purposes of insurrection.
	Oh, did you fill up a jerry can of gas?
	That was for insurrection.
	Now we're coming after you.
	Speaking of something to hide, the Arizona Attorney General finally got off his duff, and he lost.
	His wife's a federal judge.
	He lost in the race to Blake Masters.
	Promised a lot of aggressive investigation about elections.
	Never really felt came through with it.
	But there is so much controversy over the Arizona election results that the Attorney General finally felt obligated, if he wants any kind of political future at all, to demand that Maricopa County start producing explanations.
	As to a wide range of extraordinary actions that took place on Election Day.
	This is independent and separate from the issue of mail-in voting and some film that's come out on people apparently doing ballot harvesting and trying to hide the fact they're doing ballot harvesting that's outside the rules in Arizona.
	By the way, they're trying to disguise their presence and themselves when dropping off ballots.
	If I may just stop you there for one second, actually.
	Is this limited to Carrie Lake versus Katie Hobbs, or are there other races which are suspect?
	I mean, Blake Masters has already conceded, so it wouldn't apply to the U.S. Senate race, but it would apply to the Attorney General's race and the Secretary of State's race, both of whom also have concerns.
	It might apply to even more people.
	I think it was Georgia, where they found...
	That they had forgot a ballot card to count, and then they had to reverse the results of a city council election.
	While another state court judge in Fulton County was busy helping Warnock try to win his runoff against Walker by giving them an extra day of early voting by pretending that the law didn't somehow apply to runoffs the way it applies to regular elections.
	It's amazing how the same Harmeet Dillon brought suit in Arizona.
	Because of what was happening on Election Day.
	Everybody knew that 75-80% of the people voting on Election Day were going to be Republicans in Arizona.
	So given that, they had purportedly tested the machines, no problem.
	They had qualified and certified the machines, no problem.
	Then on Election Day, people go in at precincts and Carrie Lake's doing a great job gathering live testimonial information.
	People making statements that they're swearing to under penalty of perjury.
	She's doing a good job of having them videotape it, put it up.
	I think it's Save Arizona, Save AZ, something like that site.
	You can find it, Carrie Lake, on Twitter.
	And they're gathering extensive information of voter after voter after voter after voter who ran into extraordinary problems on Election Day.
	That if Republicans did it, the Biden Justice Department would have locked everybody up and called it voter suppression in violation of civil rights laws.
	Of course, the Biden administration is silent and mute because their friends won the election, so they're not doing anything.
	The Justice Department, again, abandoning and absconding its duty to neutrally and impartially enforce the election rules to make sure voter suppression of this kind does not occur.
	And then it's turning out things like apparently machines were claimed to be certified that weren't.
	Machines suddenly broke down in ways that were unexplained.
	Repairmen were present in ways that things were delayed.
	So it appeared to be a coordinated effort meant to make it difficult for Republicans to vote on Election Day, and it likely had enough impact.
	And then you had ballots being mixed in with other ballots, counted ballots being included with uncounted ballots, all kinds of other reports coming out of election for an occasion at an extraordinary scale.
	So the Attorney General's talk is intervening, may deny, may prevent Maricopa County from certifying the election results.
	And in addition to that, Carrie Lake is clearly looking at a potential election contest, which you can bring in Arizona, contesting the results, just because she already has more than enough people raising questions that is greater than the margin of victory.
	When you look at the number and volume of people who are denied access to the polls on Election Day in Arizona.
	Robert, I was told that contesting certification is insurrection, but let me bring this up so everybody can...
	This is a montage, people.
	We've got about 20% of the locations out there where there's an issue with the tabulator where some of the ballots, after people have voted them...
	They try and run them through the tabulator, and they're not going through.
	That's what election integrity looks like.
	Because this guy, Bill Gates, is trying to now convince the world that it's a two-minute video.
	I'll share the tweet link.
	It's transparency.
	They're doing everything they can now to make sure every vote is counted after a week.
	And he actually said...
	That's what election integrity looks like.
	And he's tied, and other people in Maricopa County are tied to a PAC that a lot of the old McCain wing of the Arizona Republican Party were setting out to defeat people like Carrie Lake.
	So, you know, you add it together, it raises major...
	Nobody can have confidence in the Arizona election outcomes given the amount of accumulated information that comes out day after day after day.
	Hopefully, the Arizona Attorney General will take corrective action.
	Hopefully, if necessary, the courts will take remedial action.
	The appropriate thing to do is to just do a new election for the offices in dispute.
	You don't have to do every office, just the offices that are in dispute, which in this case are the governor, the secretary of state, and attorney general.
	And that if they won on the up and up, then they'll win on the up and up the next time.
	But at least let's have an election run within the rules that didn't suppress votes.
	Well, I mean, if you can have a runoff in Georgia, why could you not just have...
	I don't know if you wouldn't call it a runoff.
	It's effectively a runoff.
	I was trying to find the video clip of Bill Gates saying that there's some problems with some of the tabulators at 20% of the voting locations.
	And I said that's a very interesting way of saying it because...
	20% problems with polling machines at 20% of the locations doesn't necessarily mean 20% of the tabulators.
	It's conceivable it could be a lot more than 20% depending on which centers they're at.
	So I'd love to know that as a question.
	What percentage?
	It could be less than 20%.
	It could be more.
	I'd like to know that.
	The idea that you have problems with tabulators...
	I love the accent.
	It's like a Canadian-type accent.
	The day of the election.
	And, oh, you can go to another place and vote as if a number of people...
	Through laziness or through other actual legitimate reasons are not going to be able to go find another polling station, wait in line for two hours.
	They're just going to go home.
	And who does that hurt when it happens on the day of?
	It's obvious.
	It's so over the top.
	If nothing is done about it, the irony is going to be that the biggest election denier, Carrie Lake, arguably had an election that a lot of people are going to say was denied to her.
	Harmeet Dillon is working on it right now, right?
	She's actively involved.
	Yeah, she's been on the ground in Arizona.
	So the people that asked whether I would be involved, I'm happy to help.
	So it's up to, you know, the people involved.
	But Harmeet's a very capable and competent counsel, always has been.
	So the, and Cary Lake, I think, is doing a great job gathering evidence, you know, live testimonial video evidence to share that with the public.
	So people can see ordinary people describing nightmare after nightmare after nightmare after nightmare after nightmare on election day with a county run by people who are hostile to these precise candidates and wanted to see him defeated.
	A lot of people don't understand that Bill Gates, it's not a super PAC, it's a PAC.
	He was actively anti-MAGA GOP candidate.
	So like, no less, it was recent memory.
	It's an incestuous, disgusting cesspool that, you know, the internet and the democratization of internet is allowing people to finally realize this in real time.
	It's a lot of stuff I didn't know, but I found it out.
	Okay, so Carrie Lake, the fight continues.
	Blake Masters has conceded.
	The same with Laxalt in Nevada, so it doesn't look like there will be any election contest in Nevada, but there has been a suit filed by some voters in Pennsylvania.
	In Delaware County, challenging any certification based on issues.
	And what a fair number of these people are doing is they want the elections fixed.
	It's like, regardless and independent of the ultimate consequence of this election, we want these things to stop reoccurring.
	And the other things courts need to do is, you can't in Georgia and you can't in Michigan, as they did, allow Democrats to sue and hold up...
	And allow election polling place to be open all night, effectively.
	In Michigan, they were counting in Ann Arbor at 2 a.m., allowing people to vote.
	And then in Arizona, deny it when there was a much worse problem in Arizona.
	It makes the courts look complicit, like that federal judge who tried to lock up and did lock up for a period of time to true the vote people.
	It's become more clear.
	That the election denier rhetoric by the media, by the professional class, by the election fornicators, by the judges, are fraud deniers.
	And they want to gaslight everybody into believing our elections are perfect, when they themselves challenge the elections when they don't like the outcome, because they knew they were going to keep doing this.
	And what they don't realize is you do not garner public confidence by telling people to shut up.
	You don't garner public...
	By censorship.
	You don't govern, you don't create public confidence by secretive behavior.
	You create it by transparency, by openness, and robust election contests that allow full facts to be vetted and developed, investigated, and adjudicated.
	And so hopefully they will start to realize that.
	It's good to see at least the Arizona Attorney General office wake up to that.
	And start doing something, start doing their job, because this wouldn't have happened had they, frankly, done their job before the election.
	But, I mean, is it really a coincidence that the biggest county that was going to decide to vote in the state, all the machines suddenly break down with anomaly after anomaly after anomaly that has no apparent explanation and appears to contradict their own promises and attestations before Election Day?
	Clearly something they deliberate, it looks like they deliberately did what they did to make Republican, to make it possible for late to lose, who is their main target.
	Even if it's not deliberate, it can't happen because it impacts predominantly Republicans the day of in the most important county.
	But Robert, one question was, Blake concedes.
	Can he not still ask for something of an audit?
	Does he lose any legal standing to insist on certain verifications?
	Neither one of them, neither he nor Laxalt, lose legal standing.
	They're just unlikely to bring it.
	It's more likely to come from Kerry Lake.
	All right.
	And then the other question, I don't know if it was Baybert versus Frisch, or who was it?
	It was hundreds of votes where the Democrat candidate conceded.
	If it wasn't Baybert, it was someone else.
	I was thinking, as were other people who might be smarter than me, why on earth would anyone concede with hundreds of votes separating hundreds of thousands unless they were afraid that peeking under the hood of the car might reveal that the engine of the Ferrari had been swapped out for a Ford?
	Yeah, that's true.
	I mean, that is what happened with Hillary Clinton backing Jill Stein's election contest challenges after the 2016 election in Michigan.
	All of a sudden, they realized that there were more votes than voters in some Detroit precincts.
	And they're like, maybe we don't need to go forward and investigate this any further.
	Okay.
	Georgia runoff, what's going to be interesting about that?
	So the interesting thing about that is a judge basically just said, in the context of a runoff...
	They can hold early voting the day after, is it Thanksgiving?
	Thanksgiving.
	Thanksgiving weekend.
	They can do it, yeah, the day after the holiday and the weekend day after the holiday, basically giving Warnock a boost so that he could increase his early voting turnout.
	Because in Georgia, the mail voting went way down because they changed the rules to make that much harder.
	So Democrats need the early voting technique to be able to get out and roll out and organize their vote, which they did a good job of in the first.
	Go around, quite frankly.
	But they were going to have trouble because they had fewer days under the rules.
	So they just got a judge to throw out those rules to benefit Warnock.
	Pretty classic.
	The argument was that the rule of not having early voting on a federal holiday or the day after was intended for general elections and that it doesn't make sense that it would apply to runoffs because of the time constraints for a runoff.
	Look, it's a logical explanation.
	You have less time, Robert.
	The statute is the statute.
	I mean, it's clear the idea that if Georgia wanted there to be a different application of the rules in a runoff, the legislature would have said so.
	He's just making it up because he finds it...
	I mean, frankly, he's helping Warnock.
	That's the only consistent pattern in judicial rulings and election cases for the past since Trump got elected.
	Democrats win, Republicans lose.
	That's been the only consistency.
	There hasn't been any intellectual honesty in it at all.
	Have we missed anything for the night, Robert?
	A little brief mention on the great work by Judicial Watch and FOIA.
	When people said, ah, you guys are making it up and Barnes is full of it and he's a Putin shill by saying that there's biolabs, US-backed biolabs in Ukraine.
	So Judicial Watch did a FOIA and guess what they found?
	A bunch of evidence from the U.S. They redacted like 90% of the pages.
	But what was it called?
	Pathogen Asset Control System being set up all across Ukraine.
	Pax.
	Robert, it's...
	I'm at a loss for words.
	Where you have Victoria Nuland answering Marco Rubio, we don't have biological facilities.
	We have research.
	What did you call them?
	Not biolabs.
	Biological research facilities.
	And we're nervous that the Russians might get their hands on it.
	You got...
	I got a kid trying to bust down the door.
	We got Fauci answering Rand saying, that's not gain-of-function.
	I've had peer reviews of studies say, when we tinkered with this to make it more communicable from animals to humans, that's not gain-of-function.
	And now you have pathogen...
	What was the word again, Robert?
	I have to go get my notes.
	Pathogen asset control system.
	What the hell does that mean?
	Okay, so they're there.
	First of all, we all knew that they were there.
	Call them assets.
	Assets.
	Ask yourself, what would be a pathogen asset called bioweapons?
	It's just, Robert, give it another name, and it's not a lie when you say it.
	What was the...
	Oh, that was in...
	It goes back to FTX where they were saying, well, FTX didn't steal the money because we gave it to Alameda and Alameda, you know, leveraged money.
	It wasn't shareholder money when Alameda did it because it was a loan.
	It's semantics, wordsmithing of the devil.
	So Judicial Watch has now further confirmed that there were other pathogens in Ukraine with U.S. funding.
	Now, funding for development or funding for handling?
	Because they're going to say, well, the U.S. didn't appear.
	It's detailed training manuals that they have, location manuals, how to build the lab manuals, all of it.
	So Alex Berenson, that deep state hack who disguises himself as a sincere COVID skeptic who uses it to gatekeep out.
	He's used his platform to go after Robert Malone, used his platform to go after people who question ivermectin, used his platform to go after Alex Jones, used his platform to be a war whore for Ukraine.
	He screams deep state ally, a guy who went from covering the CIA to...
	Writing CIA novels.
	A little bit peculiar, that is, there, Alex, who sporadically threatens to sue me for exposing him.
	So Barron and other people have tried to be dismissive of some of these issues, but it's quite clear that there was, in fact, bioweapons being developed in Ukraine.
	There was other war crimes this week by Ukraine appeared to have.
	There's some controversy about the video.
	But most people who have watched it came to the conclusion I don't watch those videos because I don't like that stuff.
	But it appears that Ukrainian officials or Ukrainian soldiers are summarily executing Russian POWs.
	There's videos coming out of them keeping Russian POWs in caskets and alive and things like this.
	Not a surprise if you followed anything about the kind of people we're arming in Ukraine.
	While Ukraine kept pretending that it was Russia that hit Poland, when everybody knows it was Ukraine that hit Poland and the rest.
	So it's a sad but unfortunate reality that Ukraine has been a deep state experimental crew pit of despair for a while.
	And they've been funneling money by hook or by crook there.
	Some of which, of course, apparently through FTX came back to us.
	Came back to the right Democratic politicians.
	I have to steel man the opposing side, Robert.
	People are going to say, of course there were chemical, biological, pathogen asset facilities left over in Ukraine, left over from Russia, developed before...
	That's what Berenson tried to claim.
	But you look at these FOIA documents, these are clearly for new facilities.
	These are clearly new training programs.
	These are clearly for new pathogens.
	So that excuse, which didn't hold water at the time, it was a ludicrous explanation by Berenson.
	Once again, he's been outed as the...
	Fake that he tends to be like he was in his criticism of Dr. Malone, like he was in his criticism of Ivermectin, like he was in his criticism and is celebrating the hatred on Alex Jones.
	Never trust a Horace Mann Yale graduate who writes books for the CIA.
	Well, look, Robert, I gotta say, I'm fortunate to not even have had any experiences with Harvard, Yale, or whatever.
	McGill, Université Laval.
	And I didn't have very many friends.
	That's not true.
	I had friends.
	But hold on.
	There was another steel manning that I had to do.
	Okay, so new facilities.
	You can't hide behind the old arguments.
	It had to do with the...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	That's it.
	When Zelensky...
	Zelensky presumably knew from minute one that an errant missile, albeit by accident, hit Poland and killed Polish civilians.
	They had to have known that.
	It's not as though Zelensky could say, we didn't know that, correct?
	Oh, the Poles knew right away.
	Everybody knew right away.
	And so the, I mean, the problem was the Russians hadn't even fired any missiles even in that area.
	And so Zelensky just kept lying about it day after day after day.
	And even the people in the UK were like, chill with these lies.
	Everybody knows we're lying.
	You know, we're supposed to lie and get away with it.
	You know, like pretend that the bio labs aren't really bio labs, but are really, you know, the just leftover that we were double checking on.
	You know, that kind of routine.
	It's so bad that now stuff is leaking.
	Now, Colonel McGregor's belief is that this was actually a Ukrainian deliberate false flag meant to provoke the U.S. to put troops on the ground in Ukraine.
	There's U.S. troops there, but not at the level of direct conflict with Russia that the goal was to escalate.
	McGregor's been saying that he worries about Zelensky doing even a nuclear false flag.
	So again, McGregor, one of our top military people, one of the top Trump national security advisors, has been accurately forecasting things about this conflict all the way through, warning about risk all the way through.
	Petraeus and a bunch of people within the Pentagon want to escalate this into World War III because they think they can win it because they're insane, as McGregor points out.
	And Zelensky in particular is out of control when you have a cokehead like this making decisions and you're pouring money into them.
	Just the fact that they're connected to FTX is just a classic example of everything about Ukraine.
	Untrustworthy, unreliable, criminal money launderers who will commit all kinds of vicious and vile crimes in our name, using our money to accomplish it.
	We should, as President Trump has said, time to get out, time for peace, time to end a foolish deep state propagated war.
	Now I get people like Sebastian Gorka in between bashing Alex Jones.
	Whore for the war, some more, because that's what he wants to do.
	He wants to be Sean Hannity's replacement, clearly.
	He wants to have his own little CIA pin, little deep state approved hat he can wear.
	But for the people who really care about America first, we need to get out.
	It ain't Ukraine first and it ain't Zelensky first.
	It's time to exit before God knows what might happen.
	Well, Robert, let's end it on this because I found the video.
	It's just, it's unbelievable wordsmithing.
	Watch this.
	I only have a minute left.
	Let me ask you.
	In hindsight, now having seen what Zelensky and Ukraine attempted to do, ostensibly, maybe it was an accident, last week, now pay attention to the suggestion that Marco Rubio puts to Victoria Nuland, given her answer.
	Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?
	Ukraine has...
	Biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of.
	So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.
	I'm sure you're aware that the Russian propaganda Groups are already putting out their information about how they've uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country and with NATO's coordination.
	If there's a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it?
	Good question.
	There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy, what they're planning to do themselves.
	It's classic Russian technique.
	This is a woman who was personally responsible for the Maidan coup and this whole conflict in the first place.
	But people should ask themselves, why would you be concerned about the Russians getting information that was part of the Soviet Union?
	Alex Berenson couldn't answer that question.
	If it was part of the Soviet Union stuff that they were just clearing up, then Russia would already have that, wouldn't they?
	It would have to be something different than what was there before, wouldn't it?
	And then secondly, why would you be concerned about it if it was just research and couldn't be weaponized?
	The answer gave away the lie, and credit to Judicial Watch for further exposing it through FOIA.
	Robert, it's been one heck of an insightful, informative two and a half hours.
	What do we have on this week?
	Oh, it's Thanksgiving, so we don't have anything on Wednesday.
	Okay, I'll probably...
	Thanksgiving is Thursday, I'll be in transit on Wednesday.
	I'll go live anyhow, but at least we won't be expecting anybody.
	If I get a guest, it'll be even better, but nobody's going to be expecting Barnes and chanting Barnes when...
	Sorry about last week, Robert.
	It was totally my bad.
	Okay, well, heading into this week, are you doing any appearances anywhere else?
	Nope, nope.
	Got a few legal matters, then heading home for Thanksgiving.
	All right.
	Well, everybody.
	Robert, give us a white pill before I say everybody enjoy the next week.
	Happy Thanksgiving.
	I'll be doing the last week of the Convoy Live.
	Justin Trudeau should be testifying.
	Hopefully, fingers crossed.
	My goodness.
	There's a flying dog.
	Get out of here.
	Robert, give us a white pill for heading into the new week.
	Oh, sure.
	Well, it's about to be Thanksgiving.
	There's lots of things to be thankful for.
	But personally, I'm impressed by one Donald John Trump.
	This is a person that they've made very clear that if he would just shut his mouth and go gently into the good night and quit raging against the dying of the light, that he could have his business back.
	He could have his family back.
	Nobody would be subject to criminal risk, prosecutorial risk, investigatory risk.
	Nobody's home would be getting raided.
	Nobody's business would be being taken over.
	Nobody's reputation would be constantly tarnished and trashed.
	Nobody's business projects like Truth would be under SEC investigation.
	He could go back to being a very happy, very successful billionaire that had its own marketing protection and all the rest.
	But precisely because they've taken the actions they've taken, he has proven his backbone and spine and saying he's going to continue to represent the causes and constituencies he cares about and will not go gently into that good night.
	And so in that sense, Trump is a throwback to our founding generation and precisely what we need at this time, in my view.
	Fantastic.
	And everybody, Salty Cracker is live.
	Other people are live right now.
	If you look at wherever you go, drop a good good in the chat and let them know from where you came.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes, everyone, in the chat.
	Thank you very much.
	I'll see you tomorrow.
	And I will be doing the Locals exclusive reading of the Rumble Rants, which I've screen grabbed all of them.
	And I'll read them live for locals.
	Thank you very much.
	Peace out, everybody.
	Enjoy the night.

▲