All Episodes
Nov. 27, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:13:29
Ep. 139: Twitter Employee Sues; Bolsanaro Sues; Google Pays & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I support mandatory vaccines.
I think every company should do it.
Listen, I don't care.
To me, it's really simple.
We can look out for one another and take care of one another.
Or we can not.
It's that simple.
It's that simple.
As we did with polio.
Listen to this.
So good looking.
So handsome.
Did you feel any backlash from the anti-vaccine?
And did that ever bother you in any circumstance?
He's so polished.
I was listening to a podcast the other day about the polo vaccine, which they screwed up when they first put out, which I didn't remember.
I didn't know.
I was too young.
One factory actually ended up giving a bunch of kids polio and killing them because they weren't filtering out the formaldehyme.
We haven't had any of those problems with the vaccine.
It's been a pretty successful world.
And there were lots of skeptics then, and it took a few years, a couple, three years, to get their act together.
That's what's going to happen.
Get our act together.
We'll get it done.
We have to.
Because that's how we get out of this.
He was just watching a documentary on the polio vaccine.
And he didn't remember because he was too young.
Didn't understand the history of the polio vaccine.
There were some hitches when they tried to get the polio vaccine out.
Why were there hitches?
Because some things can't be rushed.
Some things...
You can't...
Push faster than they can go.
The speed of science is the speed of science.
It means slow for the most part, but it means, above all else, scientific and methodical.
I was just studying a little bit of history, and once upon a time, they screwed up a vaccine in the early stages of the development of the vaccine.
Once upon a time, during the bird flu in the 70s, they screwed up on the vaccine.
They pulled it when it had reported adverse effects.
Exponentially by factors of 10, hundreds less cases of adverse events.
Well, she's studying up on history and not learning anything about it, but let me just give you my blue steel.
I'm so good looking that it doesn't matter what I say.
I'm so good looking that I can get through life pretending to be someone else, relying on my charismatic, chiseled good looks, even if I...
Study history, learn nothing from history, and thus repeat history.
What's the expression?
Those who don't study history are bound to repeat it, and those who do study history are bound to watch other people repeat it.
Swine flu.
Sorry, you're right.
I meant swine flu.
I don't know what I said before.
It's some confirmed trolls.
Well done.
Parody accounts in the chat.
But George Clooney, you know, before the ink had dried on the immunity given to the pharma companies to develop a technology that had never been used in vaccines before.
I didn't think I was going to have to pull this clip up.
I'm going to have to pull this clip up.
If I look tired and cranky, it's because I'm tired and cranky.
What was it?
Albert Bourla?
Albert Bourla?
MRNA new technology.
I mean, some people don't even know the present.
Is it here?
Here we go.
Let's pull up this wonderful clip.
Share.
Present.
Albert Bourla.
Into the weeds here.
And the MRNA technology.
When you and your colleagues were trying to decide which route to go down.
The traditional vaccine route.
Or the mRNA route.
The traditional one?
Or the one that's never been used before?
It was "most counterintuitive" to go the mRNA route.
Because it had never been used before.
And then you went that route.
Explain why.
Because it's very lucrative.
It was counterintuitive because...
It was very lucrative.
When you don't have any liability and you only have gains to be made.
And the government protects you.
And it doesn't matter if you lie to the government to get approval.
Because the government would have given you the money.
It's very lucrative.
It's very lucrative.
Pfizer was mastering, or let's say we had very good experience and expertise with multiple technologies that would give a vaccine.
Antenovirus, some of the other vaccines.
Listen to this.
We were very good in doing that.
Protein vaccines.
We were very good in doing that.
Plus many other.
Traditional vaccines.
The ones that actually worked.
The mRNA was the technology that we had less experience, only two years working on this.
Do you know what two years of experience is working with a new technology that, as you'll see, has never been used?
It's no experience.
Two years' experience.
When you're a lawyer, how many years' experience do you have?
Two years.
Get the hell out of here.
How many years of law school do you have?
Two years.
Get the hell out of here.
Two years' experience.
Two years' experience.
Okay, let's go on.
And actually, mRNA was a technology that never...
Delivered a single product until that day.
Until it delivered 4 billion people, new technology that had never been used.
And trust me, because I'm a vet.
Not vaccine, not any other medicine.
So it was very counterintuitive and I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go.
Counterintuitive is one way of saying it.
Absolutely reckless is another way of saying it.
But Klaus Schwab, he was very good in penetrating the Pfizer.
I'm mixing up my accents now.
And I questioned it.
And I asked him to justify, how can you say something like that?
But they came and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go.
Very, very convinced.
Can we spell convinced with a little dollar sign in it?
They failed that the two years of work on mRNA since 2018, together with BioNTech, to develop a flu vaccine Made them believe?
Made scientists believe something.
That's not how science works.
That's how religion works.
I mean, I'm clenching my fist because it's obscene.
It's obscene.
We have a technology we have two years experience with.
It has never been used before in the context of vaccines.
We have been immunized from the government from all liability.
It was very counterintuitive, but it has proven to be very, very lucrative.
I don't know.
Has anybody in the chat not ever seen that interview from Albert Bourla?
Don't trust a random hypochondriacal YouTubing lawyer.
Trust Albert Buller himself.
It was very counterintuitive.
We've never used this technology before.
Never injected one dose before we changed the definition of vaccine.
Got immunity.
Who do I sound like now?
I sound like Adam Sandler making fun of somebody else.
I don't know who I sound like.
No, no, no, no.
But don't worry.
Go ahead and use it.
And by the way, I'll say it every time.
This is not schadenfreude.
This is...
Someday people are going to start asking the questions.
And until then, it's highly possible that people who might not have otherwise suffered consequences might suffer some consequences.
Prominent virologist and AME itinerant, Elder...
Elder.
Dr. A. Oveta Fuller dies in 67. Let's just go to the article.
Fuller was an ordained, inherent elder in the African Methodist Episcopal Church in the Michigan Annual Conference and served as an adjunct faculty member at Payne Theological Seminary.
She also served for several years as a columnist for the Christian Recorder, writing a column.
Getting to Zero, Advocating for HIV, AIDS, Awareness, and Programs throughout ADHD.
Fuller died on November 18, 2022 after a brief, you have to specify this, non-COVID-related illness.
Funeral arrangements are forthcoming.
Some of you might know who she is because the science, not the science, the Christian stuff aside, she was a virologist who was, and I'm quoting from another article that I included, instrumental in the emergency authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Oh yeah, I believe, here, I think I did.
Here we go.
I brought up a couple of old tweets.
As pregnancy naturally brings a temporary type of immunosuppressive, vaccination against COVID and booster are love and wisdom in action for mothers, a mother-to-be and the people around them.
How Dr. Fuller can say this when in the UK they say we don't have enough information to assure the general public that it's safe.
For pregnant and breastfeeding women.
It's amazing.
It's amazing.
Science is not about agreement.
Science is about testing theories vigorously, rigorously, and remorselessly.
How one doctor can say it's love and wisdom for pregnant women and mothers-to-be, where in the UK they're saying we don't have enough data to say anything.
And then we got another tweet.
I just, you know, wanted to make sure.
From pandemic to endemic, SARS-CoV-2 will require wise decisions by leaders and each person.
Required vaccines have stopped or reduced many illnesses, polio, with some issues, measles, mumps, petruchus, chickenpox, smallpox.
We must add COVID-19 to the list.
But not before we do our clinical trials to see how much myocarditis it might cause.
Because, you know, we haven't done that yet.
When we were telling everyone it's safe and effective, even though the effectiveness is not in preventing transmission, and the safety, we haven't actually done clinical trials to determine if it causes myocarditis.
When we told you all of that, we had no reason for telling it to you, apparently.
I mean, unless they know it's safe and effective and they're just doing those trials on myocarditis to see.
I asked early before we started who wanted to start with vomitus in the mouth, and that's because I have a clip of Justin Trudeau on the back burner.
Figured we'd start with that.
George Clooney proving he's a better actor and a better philosophizer than a historian and ethicist.
And we're going to get into some case law now.
Tonight, vaccine mandates being upheld by the 9th or 11th, I think it's the 9th Circuit.
All right, before we get into puking your mouse, I'm not your buddy guy.
Also, everyone watch State Control, a documentary that covers centralized banking, digital currencies, and briefly touches on Trudeau and what he did.
We're going to get there.
Let me read some super chats before we get there.
Dostalov, keep fighting.
Build the bag.
Oh, man, I don't know what this is.
Iran and China, nobody cares.
There are four lights.
Dostalov, thank you very much.
He gives them eyes, but they refuse to see.
Winston Shittenhouse.
Gives them ears and they refuse to listen.
Gives them brains and they refuse to think.
We love you, Susan.
Thank you.
Nancy Hawk.
I follow because you have other sources.
You still represent the people.
Thank you very much.
Oh, Barnes is in the house.
Okay, hold on.
Okay, so you know what?
I'll save the vomitus for tomorrow.
It'll give us something to talk about.
I argue history repeats and only faces and tech change.
It rhymes.
It doesn't repeat.
Marcus Aurelius' book.
Written thousands of years ago can apply even today because of human nature.
Absolutely agree.
Winston Schittenhouse.
Health advisory.
Too many forced black pill suppositories will damage your sphincter.
I suggest a diet of Dave Chappelle and puppy chow to ease the passage.
Dave Chappelle is going to be in Florida on the 27th to the 30th, and I'm not sure if I'm going to be here to be able to see it.
DTQC.
Protests to change public policy is worrisome.
Just ask Louis Rossman after two hours.
Oh, I'm going to get that video.
I'll cover Trudeau tomorrow.
Barnes is in the house and I don't want people getting too sick.
Superchats.
YouTube takes 30% of every dollar.
If you do not like that, but you want to support the channel, the best place to do it, the better place to do it, on the one hand, is Rumble.
Where we are currently streaming, there was a Rumble rant.
I'm going to screen grab them and read them all tomorrow.
Rumble takes 20% of Rumble rants, so better for the creator and better to support a platform that actually supports free speech in a meaningful sense, even more so than Elon Musk does.
But the best place to support Robert Barnes and me, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, because 70 bucks a year, or people can support with more if they so choose, tons of exclusive content.
You don't even have to be a supporting member to get a ton of the content out there.
We've got a member community of like over 105,000.
Great stuff.
Lots of exclusive stuff.
Robert Barnes's patented hush-hushes.
Okay.
Oh, by the way, and with that said, we are going to be moving over to Rumble exclusively in 16 minutes.
So the link is in the pinned link in the chat.
No medical advice, no election fortification advice, but we will be covering lawsuits.
No legal advice.
Barnes, where is he?
Hold on.
Barnes, he's coming in here.
Three, two, one.
Okay, Robert, where are you?
Tennessee.
Okay, very cool.
Is the sound good?
The sound sounds a little low, but let me try to fix it on my end.
Sure.
And then edit mic settings.
Okay, I'll bring it up just a touch and then people tell me if I've overdone it.
Robert, is that a real backdrop?
That's not a real backdrop.
Oh yeah, that's a real backdrop.
No green screen there.
Okay, that's cool.
It actually looks so perfect.
It looks like a green screen.
Robert?
My nephew set it up.
We use it for sports picks videos and things like that.
My brother and I and my nephew did a World Cup recap and preview that's up at Sports Picks.
.locals.com, also Sports Wars on YouTube.
The Canadians really had a game effort.
It looks like they're going to bounce out the group stage, but played a beautiful game against Belgium, got a little unlucky.
The Canadian soccer team, or football team that's known around the world, did a lot more for Canada than Justin Trudeau did in those emergency act inquiries.
So did he really say...
He's deeply concerned about people protesting about public policy.
Did he say that straightforwardly?
Robert, Robert.
I'll talk about it tomorrow.
Here we go.
Robert, you won't believe it.
Lead protests.
Okay, so nobody knew this was coming.
I was talking over it for a second, but then I heard it.
Using lead protests to demand changes to public policy.
Is something that I think is worrisome.
Using protests to demand change in the public policy is something that you find worrisome?
That's the definition of a dictator.
You're shutting down a safe injection site or something you are asking for changes in public policy.
Robert, it gets even better because it's like in his own tyrannical insanity, he doesn't have a memory.
Listen to what he said a year ago about the Indian...
He called in Canada's High Commissioner to complain about remarks that you made about the farmers' protests in that country.
There's warnings that you've damaged relations between India and Canada.
I'd like to get your response to that.
He doesn't have a memory.
Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world.
Except in Canada.
And we're pleased to see moves towards de-escalation and dialogue.
What a...
Oh my God, Robert.
People, I will rant about this tomorrow when Robert's on.
Yeah, he said it.
He forgot what he said a year ago.
He's a curse.
He's a demon.
He's a cursed demon.
Okay, sorry.
Yeah, so he did say it, Robert.
Wow, extraordinary.
I mean, that's an all-timer right there.
I'm concerned about protests.
People are very worrisome, these people that want to use protests to change public policy.
I'm sure President Xi says the same thing.
I'm sure Kim Jong-un says the exact same thing.
Kim Jong-il, I forget who we're on now.
Robert, what is it above your shoulder, the draft book?
Is that an old magazine?
Yeah, it's an old magazine.
And the number two above your left shoulder, what's that?
That I have no idea what that means.
Okay, so everyone out there trying to interpret that, read into it, don't read too much.
All right, Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
So a lot of different stuff.
We had other World Cup protests.
It was interesting, the country that did so, and the mainstream media in the U.S. not really covering it as expansively as one might anticipate.
We had the English team, you know, taking the knee for Black Lives Matter and that kind of routine.
A protest Trudeau was just fine with, peaceful or not.
During COVID, no less.
During COVID.
Exactly.
Yeah, totally fine to debride COVID protocol into those circumstances.
We had the Scottish trying to get an advisory referendum on independence being struck down by the High Court of the UK.
We had Bolsonaro challenging the Brazilian election and where that is, both in the court system and the legal system.
We have in Arizona, we have a big election contest filed by the Attorney General candidate and a lawsuit filed by Governor candidate Carrie Lake.
With legal issues continuing and a range of other suits back and forth.
We have the Georgia runoff election day suit about how many days you get to vote prior to the runoff that went up to the Georgia Supreme Court.
We've got Trump taxes at the Supreme Court.
We've got Trump special counsel issues.
CNN wants to get out of the Trump defamation claim by saying they have a right to compare anyone they went to Hitler.
We have the Ninth Circuit claiming that vaccine mandates are just fine and can't infringe a fundamental right because apparently they forgot about the right to privacy and medical rights of bodily autonomy suddenly.
In that context, citing the horrendous Jacobson decision as its predicate, in part, with someone who may be on a future sidebar, Aaron Chiardi, who had brought that claim.
And then a range of other cases, including civil forfeiture.
Related cases that we didn't get to last week about whether there's a right to a trial by jury in that context.
And another, we have the Google settling their big privacy tracking violation, paying a big amount to weasel their way out of future difficulty for the illicit activities that they were engaged and involved in.
A Twitter employee allowed to stay at Twitter, even though, you know, this appears to have been fired by Elon Musk.
Threats by Apple and Google and led by Taylor Lorenz at The Washington Post to try to get Apple and Google to de-platform Twitter itself from their app.
The U.S. government pretends don't exist.
And some conservatives, too, by the way.
And in response, Elon Musk talking about starting his own phone company, which would be interesting.
So there's a range of legal issues that are implicated there.
We have the political dynamics of Kanye inviting an uninvited guest to hang out with the former President Trump.
Who's having to deal with all this lawfare that's happening.
They're scheduling trials on his, trying to seize, you know, his $250 million worth of assets from him in New York.
Plus another frivolous kind of lawsuit brought by some other people against him as the lawfare mounts on.
We have a special counsel that has been outed even further as a deep state hack.
The special counsel assigned to prosecute Trump for what he is in more details there.
And a range of other cases from across the country of interest or intrigue at different levels.
Robert, let's actually, we'll start with this before we go over to Rumble.
Let's just get to the Trump saga.
It's gossipy.
It's not so much law related, but the media has more interest in Nick Fuentes.
Being Kanye's uninvited guest to a Trump dinner, they're more interested in that than they are in Sam Bankman-Fried, an FTX scandal, through which they saw hundreds of millions of dollars laundered to Democrat entities.
So they're focused on that.
But Robert, what in the name of high school football happened?
Trump allegedly, from his own social media posts, says, Kanye came to me and says, we want to talk, you know, need some advice, yada yada.
Come over for dinner.
Kanye comes with Nick Fuentes.
Allegedly uninvited.
Trump, after the fact, apparently they had a dinner.
They might have been asked to leave.
Maybe you'll be able to shed some light on that.
After the dinner, Trump says, I had no idea who Nick Fuentes was.
Kanye brings him unannounced.
We have dinner.
They leave.
That's the end of it.
But when you host Nick Fuentes, I mean, it's so outrageous, the attention and the glamour that the media is giving Nick Fuentes now.
But when you have Nick Fuentes come, who said the things he said, you had your You're in counter.
You're running with Nick.
It's going to make Trump look bad.
People are hypothesizing as to, A, is it a sabotage?
Is Owen Benjamin involved?
Somehow I don't understand how that can be the case, except for apparently he's friends with Kanye.
How can Trump allow something like this to happen?
Shouldn't he have a team vetting people that come over to his place, even if they come unannounced?
Robert, if you know anything that's not public...
Or if you can add some insight, I think people would like to hear.
Yeah, I mean, I think Scott Adams speculated that it was part of a Trump takeout effort.
I don't think Kanye was wittingly or knowingly participant.
It looks to me like Kanye is being targeted by grifters and hustlers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Nick Fuentes and others, some ex-Trump campaign people.
There's rumors of Roger Stone.
I can't confirm that on the latter part.
But these are the grifters and hustlers looking for quick cash.
And Kanye's got a lot of money.
And they're making pitches about who they know and how they can generate publicity for him and how they're going to help because Kanye's presidential aspirations for 2024.
Apparently they went in with a kind of lame...
Like their marketing post meeting marketing was...
Their whole idea was that he was going to go in and demand that Trump be his vice presidential candidate.
That's a joke.
All that does is insult Trump.
What Kanye did is burn his bridge to Trump.
That's what he did with the way he handled the meeting and who he brought.
Now you have Nick Fuentes, who has been telling everybody he's on a no-fly list.
And then he's walking through the airport with Kanye.
Was Fuentes lying once again?
This is a guy who likes to chase around little boys in outfits and little furry outfits and things of this nature.
He's mostly a grace grifter.
I don't think he has a sincere belief in his body.
He later gave a big thing about how he's a big supporter of DeSantis.
That's ironic because, of course, he claims that he has a very principled position in opposing aid to Israel.
DeSantis is one of the biggest Israel backers and was while he's in Congress and continued to be while he was governor.
So that tells you how sincere that position was.
It was just looking for Jew haters.
If you're Kanye, hanging out with more Jew haters is not a great way to convince people that you're not really a Jew hater.
That, hey, you just have some unusual beliefs.
I still don't think he has malevolence in that respect, but he keeps, you know, if next up is the head of the neo-Nazi party in America and he's doing a front profile for the Daily Stormer, then I'm going to have to say, sorry, Kanye, you really lost the res.
You're off the res.
But there's people who are going to hustle and grift him, looking for cash or notoriety through his, you know, chaotic campaign for the presidency.
It's clear, you know, I mean, what Trump put is that, hey, Kanye's clearly not all there.
You know, I was trying to help a guy that's not all there, and he's still not all there, so I got the hell out of there.
I mean, that was basically what Trump said.
Didn't know who anybody else was, which is classic.
But it does show both the weakness and strength of Trump's current campaign team, is he's gone back to a 2016 style.
And the upside of that was he didn't have a bunch of hangers on spinning nonsense in his ear, and he acted on instinct a lot.
Downside was open access and people could misuse and abuse their access.
Most likely this was orchestrated by Milo Yiannopoulos.
People liked his appearance on with Tim Pool.
In my experience, he's not someone who's trustworthy.
He screams grifter 10 miles away.
He's always been a grifter.
There's, of course, many allegations and concerns about how he behaved for a long period of time.
I met him when Steve Bannon was busy promoting him.
Back in the 2016 convention, I was like, I want nothing to do with this guy.
This guy screams grifter and hustler.
He's tried to get death threats put out on people and things of this nature.
He's recently converted.
He's no longer gay.
If you buy that, I got a couple of bridges in Brooklyn to sell you.
So this is that world, that sort of grifter underworld.
That Fuentes and Milo and that crowd and that Owen Benjamin tends to attach himself to, even if he's not officially a part of, tend to obsess over hating on Jews and are not productive people.
Went after Dave Rubin, have gone after other people in very nasty personal ways.
So they're not people I have any respect for at all.
But I think...
Kanye should know better, given how many grifters he's had around him his whole life, from the time he's been successful.
But his entrance into politics has unfortunately not disabused him of that.
And he's associating himself with some of the worst, most malevolent grifters in American politics today.
I mean, Nick Fuentes is a wannabe young David Duke.
That's who he is.
And so the...
Embarrassing for Trump, but I think if the downside comes with the upside of him not having certain people in his ear all the time, telling him to follow the Fauci's of the world, that'll probably be net plus over time for Trump.
It won't have much impact at all.
It was a nice little media story for the media to promote.
Clearly part of a coordinated effort.
It makes Kanye look like he's a tool rather than being someone who's his own man at this point.
The very lame post-debrief.
I get Kanye lives in his own world.
That's been rather apparent for a long time.
But he's now looking like it in ways that is not productive for Kanye.
Public aspirations to be taken seriously in the court of public opinion.
To the degree that is an aspiration.
Maybe it's just to express himself regardless of how people interpret it.
But when you're playing around with these losers and grifters and hustlers, you're not helping your cause at all, put it that way.
And he burned a bridge that he otherwise had a nice bridge there to Trump.
To such a degree that Trump would just, hey, yeah, come on over for dinner.
That ain't happening anymore.
And chances are Trump's cut off the phone contact too.
A mistake on Kanye's part, ultimately.
Minor mistake on Trump's people, but not a big one.
If Roger Stone was involved in this, he burnt a bridge, too.
I'd be surprised if he was, but Stone has affiliated with Milo and other people, so that's where the speculation has come from.
Would Roger Stone is out for a vendetta because Trump put him through the wringer by not protecting him in the criminal charges?
Or what would Roger Stone have an interest in sinking Trump?
It wouldn't be an interest in seeking Trump.
It would be an interest in getting Kanye to write checks.
Okay.
Interesting.
That's the modus operandi of certain people.
I don't think Roger would be dumb enough to burn that bridge over something small like that.
And some of these people may be hoping Kanye writes checks.
If you know Kanye, you might want to wait until the check clears.
Okay, so that's one angle to it.
The Milo angle.
I don't know.
I know what I know of Milo just from the internet.
It's times like this when I'm glad I don't have very many friends.
The fewer friends you have, the less likely you are to get in this type of trouble.
I saw what Laura Southern put out the documentary on Milo.
I mean, she detailed Milo's MO for a long time was extortion, entrapment.
That's who he was.
Was looking to blackmail people on the regular.
This goes way back with him.
He was allegations of fraud in terms of his scholarship program and book writing deals and other things.
So the guy's bad news.
He's always been bad news.
I get...
He's a very smart person.
He's very articulate.
I don't doubt either one of those two things.
I don't think he's got any character, moral character, bone in his body.
And that's why I don't trust him and have discouraged people from affiliating, associating with him, or being around him.
To the extent he finagled his relationship with Roger Stone to get to greenlight this meeting with Trump.
You know, he burned a lot of bridges by doing this.
So he better get a big check.
But he was the one behind circulating.
My guess is he was the one behind circulating the story to the Gateway Pundit and circulating it to the Axios and places like that.
That has his fingerprints tattooed on it.
Cernovich has been on a bit of a tear, an anti-Trump tear.
And I say not anti-Trump in an illogical, irrational sense.
Cernovich is raising, I think, very legitimate points that some people don't like him raising at this point in time.
But one of which is, Robert, and you have to feel this.
Okay, like, does Trump not have a team?
I'm going to get to the double standard after this.
But does Trump not have a team to vet?
Or is this a case where somebody shows up and you don't know they're bringing the person in the first place?
What are you going to do when they get there?
Sorry you can't come in when you're with a guest?
I mean, I could see politeness even being a factor that is going to hurt someone here, but you can't vet someone that you didn't know is coming.
They get there.
What's supposed to happen and why didn't it happen?
That's a Kanye thing.
That's a celebrity thing.
So it is extremely common that celebrities have an entourage.
So if you're someone like Trump and you've met with those kind of people all your life...
You're not surprised at the entourage.
You don't know the entourage has any meaning until later.
But, you know, you're not surprised.
Okay, these guys always got three, four hangers on.
That just runs for the territory.
So I'm sure what happens is Kanye showed up and said, hey, I got a couple of buddies with me.
Is that cool?
Trump would be, yeah, sure, no problem.
So now the only thing is, but he's one of the few people who could pull that off.
That's why it feels like a setup in which Kanye was being used.
It didn't help or boost Kanye much, unless his goal is to get the support of the Jew-haters, the Jew-hater United Party or something.
Maybe that's going to be the new Kanye political party.
Unless that's it, it was a negative for him.
But only a celebrity could pull that off, so is the short answer.
And the other aspect is it shows that Trump is not being super controlled.
I think that's a good thing.
So it will come with...
These kind of loose affiliations and associations and meetings with people with Trump won't know that the media will make hay out of.
But the upside is it will also come with meeting people he should meet that the insiders would typically keep out.
So I think it's a net positive for Trump to stay open.
Do 2016, don't do 2020.
Or it's just damned one way and damned the other.
The insiders are going to let the bad people in to take him down, but not the good people that he should meet with.
I had another.
The double standard, Robert.
Obama, it wasn't Louis Farrakhan.
Who was it?
The pastor, the chickens are coming home to roost.
That was his pastor.
Yeah, so the double standard is, it's not just egregious, because one is sort of an accidental dinner with someone you didn't invite who was brought as a guest, and the other one is, I like your newsletter.
I'd like to subscribe to it by joining your sermons.
Am I being unfair to Obama, or was it known?
Was he just innocent, caught up?
At a sermon of somebody who he didn't know what he was going to say?
Or is there just a double standard and more so than I can possibly say?
Oh, I mean, much more double standard.
That pastor was infamous for his very anti-American speeches, inflammatory speeches.
Obama joined that church deliberately because that pastor had a lot of political currency in the south side of Chicago.
And so he wanted the benefit of being affiliated with him without the burden because of a lot of those pastors' statements.
And the media did a great job.
Covering for Obama, as they did throughout.
So no surprise there.
But, I mean, the fact that Nick Fuente is sitting next to Trump, that doesn't matter.
I mean, the media will spin it how they're going to spin it, but that just has no lasting meaning, lasting virtue or value or currency.
It's a one-day story.
And it mostly nets out to nothing in the end.
And we'll see whether Kanye continues to affiliate with these kind of people.
Does he continue to self-marginalize himself in the way he's going about things?
The Owen-Benjamin route, that ain't a route to success.
Just saying.
God bless Owen, but there's a reason he's living out on the farm or wherever.
I don't think that was a path to progress.
The same with where Kanye's going.
He's putting himself into a smaller and smaller cubicle.
He was already a small one.
People forget, Kanye ran in 2020.
He just didn't get on a lot of ballots.
The temptation for the political hustlers to get near Kanye, to get money out of him, is huge.
It brings out all the grifters.
Anybody associated with Kanye...
Suddenly, right?
Like Candace Owens clearly wanted to bring Kanye into the conservative camp.
That's a whole different animal.
And she doesn't need the money.
She's doing just fine.
But these other people, it shows who they really are.
Anybody that signs up now with the Kanye campaign is someone who's a pure grifter.
You can just put them in the grifter box.
Not a hustler.
Not someone who's in between.
Pure grifter.
Anybody who signs up with Kanye now.
And then you see some of these people on social media claiming that anyone who's backing Trump is probably getting paid for it.
You know, like that muscle boy, Dave Reboy, or whatever his name is.
I always am skeptical.
I mean, this guy hangs out with Jack Murphy, right?
And I was like, hold on a second.
The guy who got paid for sticking things up his rear end is talking about other people being a grifter.
I don't know about that, Jackie boy.
Maybe.
Hush, hush would have been a little bit better approach there, son.
But similar with him and Marina Medvin and some of these other people, the idea that you'd make more money associating with Trump at this point than anti-Trump has just never made much sense to me.
The grift has always been against Trump.
There is no grift with Trump with any consistency.
That isn't to say there aren't people who try to jump on the Trump bandwagon conveniently lately.
At the very end.
But the idea that being for Trump is going to be your clear path to easy money and profitability is just...
Anybody who accuses Trump supporters of being a grifter is confession through projection is a grifter.
You can put it right on it because that screams confession through projection.
Because it's like the people who kept insisting Trump was running for office to get rich.
Like, it's a good way for Trump to get poor.
And go broke is to run for president on the ticket, on the platform he's running on.
And that has been proven in abundance.
First president to lose money by being president in American history.
I mean, literally, American history.
Nobody's lost money being president.
Maybe you could argue John Kennedy, but most likely no.
Because he's very wealthy coming in.
But Trump, otherwise, only wanted to lose money by being president.
There's no grift for Trump running for president.
There's no grift for people that support Trump against a lot of this nonsense.
But you're going to see all the grifters start pouring out now.
Either they'll be jumping on the Kanye campaign or they'll love to bash on Trump.
Some people's grievances are personal.
Ann Coulter has a personal grievance over Sessions and some other people.
Mike Cernovich has a personal grievance.
And I understand and respect their personal grievance.
Trump was not loyal to some people that he, I frankly, should have been.
Or Trump made mistakes that he blamed other people for.
So I understand those folks.
But some people are suddenly suggesting DeSantis is some sort of anti-deep state guy and Trump's the deep state guy.
When you're saying loony stuff like that, you might be a little off the res.
But definitely the Kanye people are...
Anyone attaching themselves to Kanye at this point, pure grifter.
You know, and I'll say before, we'll get into the election stuff and Trump's updates on the Rumbles, which is where we're going to go now, people.
38 minutes, 40 seconds.
The link is in the pinned comment.
I'll drop it one more time.
We're going to get into Carrie Lake election contest.
What else?
We're going to talk about...
We'll do all of the election stuff.
Bolsonaro, Carrie Lake, and then we're going to get into a bunch of other good stuff.
Twitter lawsuits.
Vaccine cases.
Abortion pill.
Big abortion pill case.
Abortion law case in Georgia.
A wide range of important cases that continued.
Even though it was a holiday week.
The courts weren't on holiday, unfortunately.
It was a big week with three kids and two extra kids at home.
All right, everyone, mosey on over to Rumble.
Where'd you get the two extra kids from?
Were these the secret paternity kids?
My daughter's best friends came in from Canada, and it was wonderful, but it reminded me of moving.
People just think you're up and moving.
They don't appreciate it.
It's hard on kids.
All right, I'm going to remove from YouTube.
Let's go over to Rumble.
Three, two, one.
4,400 people should be moving over to Rumble.
Thank you all for the patience.
Done.
I know some people, you know, the chat is wild on Rumble until they can get a slow-mo and highlight comments.
I want highlighted comments.
All right, Robert.
Bolsonaro.
Let's do Bolsonaro first so that we can then get into...
The Carrie Lake and the Trump stuff.
So it's been now almost a month or just about a month since Bolsonaro lost the election.
There was some rumoring that the military was going to get involved and invoke.
I don't know what section of the Constitution it is to maintain Bolsonaro in power.
He filed a lawsuit to challenge the results.
You'll flesh out the allegations in the lawsuit.
All that I was flabbergasted about is...
It's not just that the lawsuit was dismissed.
He gets reprimanded for allegedly having abused of process.
Gets fined something like the equivalent of $4.5 million.
Because you can't challenge elections.
And if you decide to take it to court, you might end up with what read more like an activist judge there to not hear a case and adjudicate on a case, but rather to uphold the results and sanction anybody who dare challenge them.
Flesh it out, if you could, in greater detail.
The basis of Bolsonaro's legal challenge, what system are they using in...
Oh, geez.
Are we in Brazil or Argentina?
Brazil.
What system are they using electronic voting machines?
It sounded like they are based on the court ruling.
And is Bolsonaro going to get the military involved to...
I don't know.
Is it a coup at this point?
Field it.
Explain it to the people like myself.
So there were a lot of questions and concerns raised about how the machines operated in certain jurisdictions across Brazil on election day.
And then there was also unusual, well, arguably unusual favorable outcome in one particular province that has a strong gang influence in favor of Lula.
And so he included that amongst other items in his election contest.
The Brazilian Supreme...
The reason why I said that there was no chance of him winning in there is because the Brazilian Supreme Court is anti-Bolsonaro.
It's the Brazilian Supreme Court that reinstated Lula and released him from prison and threw out his entire criminal conviction.
They clearly picked Lula to take out Bolsonaro.
This court was a politically activist court.
The mainstream media in the United States will not put those ties together.
So that's why he had no chance.
But it was revelatory that they not only denied it, but used a lot of hot rhetoric and then sanctioned him and then froze his campaign accounts on top of it for the Mir Act.
And this is part of the professional managerial class around the globe whose power is being challenged, whether it's being challenged in China with protests we're seeing against the COVID lockdown policies there, whether it's protests in Iran at the World Cup.
The biggest protest that happened in the World Cup was the Iranian team protesting in unison against their home nation government in support of the protests there concerning the extreme fundamentalist, Islamic fundamentalist rules being imposed.
That's the main subject of complaint in Iran.
Whether it's the European Union and all the controversy that continues to unleash, whether it's the United Kingdom and its continued failure to have a prime minister for longer than a few months these days, or whether it's the Emergency Act invocation and hearings in Canada, what all of these things have in common.
Like what we're seeing in the United States, is a professional managerial class which dominates the judicial branch in particular, denying populist relief and remedies, but often being very solicitous of anti-populist relief and remedies.
So the same court that said, this is a ridiculous election challenge, is the same court that said, Lula committed no crime and can be released from prison and run for office right away, when almost any review of the record shows both that it was a heavily politically motivated prosecution.
That was fair criticism.
What was also true is he was clearly corrupt as all get out.
And he got a get out of jail, free card, walk right in, and now the court system is facilitating.
Same thing happened in the United Kingdom where the Scots want to be able to hold an independence referendum because they want to be part of the EU.
The UK does not.
The Scottish independence movement almost succeeded before when it had a referendum in 2014.
And what happens, the UK high court comes in and says, no, no, no, only the UK parliament can allow the Scots freedom.
Unanimous.
I mean, you know that that means it's extra-super-duper legitimate, unanimous.
How many judges do they have?
Nine or 11?
They have a lot of judges.
It's the same UK high court that ran and hid on the Julian Assange issue.
So the UK court systems are as politically active as anybody, like the Pakistani courts that interfered and overthrew an elected leader and removed his populist challenge to the Pakistani deep state.
Where the term was first broadly applied in modern era was to the Pakistani governmental system.
So what happened in Brazil is the Brazilian Supreme Court throws it out, you know, says all kinds of nasty things about Bolsonaro, issues this preposterous and ludicrous fine.
And so what that does is that leaves really only one option for Bolsonaro independent of accepting the results.
And his supporters want him to invoke, I think it's Article 142 of the Brazilian Constitution, which allows the military and the defense of the presidency to assert power.
Now, Brazil had a long military junta from about 1964 or so to mid-1980s.
Lula came up with his political power in opposition to it as part of the union movement.
I think it would be a mistake.
Bolsonaro to invoke that clause and create a constitutional crisis in Brazil and return the specter of military rule.
His supporters want it because they believe the election results were stolen.
They believe Lula will continue to engage in corrupt practices.
In particular, their great concern is not foreign policy or World Economic Forum or any of that, where there really isn't a big difference between Lula and Bolsonaro.
Both want to be part of BRICS.
Both sympathetic with Russia and unsympathetic with Ukraine, for example.
But the big difference is on domestic crime policy, where Lula appears to be affiliated with the drug dealers and the gangs that have terrorized Brazil that led to Bolsonaro's rise in the first place.
And they're terrified of what that might look like, unleashing those drug gangs with political power unchecked throughout the country.
And they're willing to say, we would rather have the risk...
Of a temporary military rule for either a new election or a cleaner election, and Bolsonaro continuing in power than what a gang-dominated Brazil might look like under Lula.
I'm hopeful it doesn't reach this stage because I think the military junta stage of Brazilian governance, which was reflected throughout Latin America, was not a good thing.
I understand the concern of Bolsonaro backers.
They knew they had no relief from a corrupted election because of a politically prejudiced judicial pool.
And again, that's the big problem here.
If the Brazilian courts had afforded a meaningful hearing, a meaningful evidentiary test, they would have probably convinced enough Bolsonaro supporters to back down.
Instead, their deepest skepticism and deepest cynicism of the Brazilian Supreme Court being overtly and openly partisanly political was confirmed and ratified by their aggressive, over-the-top behavior.
But this is how courts are behaving.
We saw it here in the United States.
Georgia allows a—the law is clear.
You can't have a Saturday open for voting after a holiday the Thursday before.
And the judge just makes up the rules and says, nah, this is going to help Warnock beat Walker, so we're going to open up polls on Saturday, which will create a mess across the state because some counties would have it open, some counties wouldn't.
And what does the Georgia Court of Appeals and Georgia Supreme Court do?
They go and find some sand nearby and they stick their head as far in it as they possibly can.
Because this is the protocol.
Democrats get whatever they want out of courts.
Republicans get nothing out of courts.
They get arrogance.
They get contempt.
They get disregard and disrespect for people's sincere and serious concerns.
I fear that's what we're about to witness in Arizona.
I was going to say, you know, for anybody who thinks that's hyperbolic, Sussman, acquittal.
The other guy, Robert, the Russian guy.
I can't pronounce his name.
I'd butcher it.
But also complete acquittal.
Clear guilt in both cases.
Acquitted.
January 6th is five to nine years.
Every jury has convicted him of every possible charge.
Steve Bannon convicted in an hour.
Roger Stone convicted quickly.
And the Molotov cocktail lawyers, 15 months.
Yeah, exactly.
They'll be out in less than a year.
Notice how the New York Times worded it.
I think it was the New York Times.
Unoccupied police car.
They just threw a Molotov car, an unoccupied police car.
And as people were pointing out, the BLM riots in D.C., it was reported 60 Secret Service or federal agents were injured that day.
60. That's about, what, four times, five times, ten times the number of people reported injured from the Capitol Police on the day.
And yet nobody was prosecuted for that.
Nobody.
In fact, some of them were given checks by the government.
For the rioting.
I mean, this is so open and overt, and the only people who don't understand it is the political class and the judiciary themselves.
They're the ones that are in denial, and they're in a let-them-eat-cake mindset, and they should remember what that led to last time.
But they don't.
They don't realize it.
It was Danchenko, Igor Danchenko.
You mentioned it en paso, Bolsonaro and Lula.
Pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia.
Has there been any news like that thing last week where the world almost went to World War III because Ukraine allowed the world to think that Russia killed two Polish civilians?
Anything about that?
Or is that as old news as the FTX $20 billion Ponzi scheme scandal?
Well, every time Russia has requested, and this proves my point at least, every time Russia has requested an independent UN investigation of anything, it's been blocked.
So, you know, whether it's the Ukrainians firing off their own missiles into Poland and then trying to blame Russians and trying to escalate and provoke a war.
Or any of the other false flags they've done, which is, you know, too numerous to count.
Or their latest version of tape recording themselves abusing prisoners of war, Russian prisoners of war.
Or harassing local Russian populations or perceived pro-Russian populations in any area or territory they reoccupy.
It's the same set of behaviors.
They're talking now that they can do without power and water for two years.
Well, we'll see how that works exactly.
Hollywood's out there promoting the war as much and as often as possible.
But I don't see any diplomatic remedy likely to occur anytime soon.
And what we'll likely see is they'll wait for the land to freeze.
And it will probably freeze over the next couple of weeks.
And you'll probably see Russians launch a real counteroffensive, is my guess.
And I think Russian patience and tolerance.
It is just diminishing by the day.
So I think they're going to try to take out all the power and electricity.
Not a fan of that method of conflict, but that's where it's going.
And it could create a massive refugee crisis that Europe is ill-prepared to handle at a time when Europe has energy problems of its own accord.
What happens if 4 million Ukrainians, that's only 10% of their population, 4 million Ukrainians flood across the border to Poland?
What if it's 8?
What if it's 12?
What are they going to do?
Are they going to try to send them back somehow?
Pretty tough now with all the warmongering talk from Poland and elsewhere.
Poland ready to handle 12 million?
Poland didn't like the last wave of migrants.
Are they going to like this any better?
We're continuing to see systems of governance fail around the globe, particularly in the Western world, but also in China and elsewhere, because these status professional managerial class methods of governance fail.
That's what they've done for a century, and we're just seeing it on an escalating scale.
We just hope the rest of us don't get caught up as collateral in the process.
And also, just to let everybody know, I'm screen-grabbing all of the Rumble Rants, and I'll do what I've been doing, which is a Locals exclusive for members and non-supporters, where I read them, answer them, and do a daily thing.
So I'm screen grabbing them as we go along if I look somewhat distracted.
We were on the brink of World War III, and we've forgotten about it.
Now, what happened to Zelensky's 10-point peace plan that he submitted to the G20?
Nothing else, Kim.
The only thing that came out of the G20 was the promise of a vaccine passport for the globe.
Progress, Robert.
Baby steps.
Okay, Carrie Lake's lawsuit.
So she's filed, I mean, it's a petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, or mandamus, I don't know how people pronounce it, ordering a public body to do that, which they're supposed to do, because apparently Carrie Lake has made multiple, several, more than one FOIA requests, from what I understand, for information, correspondence, documentation relating to what went down in Arizona, Maricopa County, I think, in particular.
During the midterms.
The lawsuit, I was just looking at it again because it's like, how many pages is it?
It's 18 pages.
But like five pages of the lawsuit, I'm exaggerating.
One, two.
Oh, I'm not exaggerating.
Five or four or five pages of the lawsuit are polling or voting stations where they had problems with the printing ballots.
You know, there were long lineups, several hours told to go elsewhere.
Carrie Lake has submitted a request for documentation, which is...
They thumbed their nose at it.
She asked for it on an urgent expedited basis, given the time constraints here.
They have no answer or said no, I'm not sure which.
And she's filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to order the governmental bodies to communicate the documents.
I got a lot of questions, including what would happen if they don't certify?
Because I've heard things on the news that if they don't certify, all that it means is the votes are not counted.
It could penalize Republican candidates at large.
But lawsuit?
And the latest in Carrie Lake's lawsuit and election run.
Yeah, so what will probably happen is, based on the information she gets and documents she receives, or if she doesn't get it, she'll make the relevant evidentiary inferences.
It will look like, I'm going to mispronounce his name, I think it's Hambida, the Attorney General candidate who came up about 500 votes short for the Attorney General because it has already filed an election contest.
And his election contest is the same issues that what she's trying to develop is more evidentiary foundation for an election contest.
So most of it revolves around what happened in Maricopa County that Maricopa County is hiding.
So they know on election day in Maricopa County a bunch of printers didn't work.
They know a bunch of tabulators didn't work in about half the precincts.
They also know that there were ballots mixed.
So what happened is ballots that had already been counted were mixed with ballots that had not been counted in such a way that would contaminate any ultimate count.
They also have evidence already for people who didn't vote based on their inability to get their vote done on Election Day because of the problems at the precincts.
They also know there's people who voted effectively provisional.
They were told to vote Basically what happened is because of all these screw-ups, either people didn't vote, or they went into another precinct and tried to vote and their vote was canceled, or they voted in a provisional ballot and the provisional ballot was canceled.
Basically there were tens of thousands of people, is a fair estimate, on election day in Arizona who were denied their right to vote because of the failure of the Arizona election machines to work properly and the failure of election officials to train people.
To deal with the failure of the machines.
What now?
They were just looking for some basic evidence.
For example, when you come in, and this is supposed to be part of canvassing under Arizona law as it is pretty much everywhere, do you want to match up the number of people who signed in to vote with the total number of ballots tabulated from the precinct?
That is a problem in Detroit every time because they always end up with more votes than voters.
How did that happen exactly?
You can imagine situations where there's fewer votes than voters, right?
There's some missing ballots.
But how do you get more votes than voters like Detroit has a magical habit of getting?
So they want them to do it.
Maricopa County won't do it.
Then they want to say, well, at least produce what the documents, what you're under the Open Records Act under Arizona law, the FOIA equivalent, tell us what your information shows.
They won't show that either.
And they won't show what training was done.
They won't show what happened with which places.
They won't show why the helpline wasn't working.
They won't show, they won't explain why it is the help people weren't available.
They won't explain how these things suddenly failed on such a massive scale in a convenient way that disproportionately hurt Republicans.
So there's tons of documents and information that Maricopa County, and what you'll hear from Well, Maricopa County is Republican-led.
It's McCain-Republican-led.
So it's led by a bunch of people who had organized political action committees to defeat Carrie Lake, for example, to defeat this Attorney General candidate.
Including Bill Gates, the guy who was in charge of the election day himself.
From what I understand, Robert, maybe I'm wrong from what people said.
He was funding an anti-Trump PAC in 2020.
And bragging about it and telling people it was key to get these people defeated to get a certain outcome.
So these are people that are anti these particular Republican candidates.
They weaponize their access.
Of course, the Democratic candidate for governor was the Secretary of State, so she's the other election official involved.
So, I mean, if this was a foreign country, we would be laughing at the outcome.
We would be saying it's an obvious crock.
This was Russia.
The New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN would have...
Jake Tapper would have a deep dive as to how Russia stole the...
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.
That's my splice.
That's the guy.
I played the whole clip.
We've got 20% of locations, Robert, which doesn't translate into 20% of tabulators, as if one in five is remotely acceptable.
Could be more than 20% of tabulators, but only at 20% of the locations.
But don't worry.
Ultimately, there were reports questioning over half.
Over half of the precincts had major problems.
And then there were reports of big bags of ballots that just went missing, that just disappeared.
And again, because they knew Republicans were disproportionately voting on Election Day, that's what made this very suspicious.
And that in particular, the Republicans supporting these particular candidates that the Maricopa County leaders did not want to see win, the Republican candidate for Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Governor, and for the Senate.
And it disproportionately fell that direction, raises major questions.
And so Lake is just trying to get the information that Maricopa County is hiding.
The Attorney General candidate has already filed an election contest.
His grounds include those grounds already listed that she's seeking evidence of, but also he is claiming that there were a large number of mail-in votes.
That did not, whose signatures on the outside of the ballot form did not match their signature on the voter file.
So I've always thought this was an important issue for anybody to raise in an election contest.
He is raising it.
I assume Carrie Lake would add it to her own election contest for she to bring it later.
It looks like she is very highly likely to.
His election contest case is already going to a recount first before it can even get to certification.
Certification is December 2nd.
Because there's only 500 votes separating them, so they'll do the recount first.
But he's already brought the election contest in anticipation of wanting to block this because the Republican governor of Arizona is a real establishment guy.
He did nothing at all to make sure the 2020 election was done.
I mean, again, in Arizona, you had a man who went on to Fox News who testified under penalty of perjury that somebody had voted in his name.
In Arizona when he lived in Tennessee and voted in Tennessee.
And yet the governor of Arizona certified his vote as an honest vote.
I mean, the governor is just a fraud and a joke.
And the governor was eager to embrace his Democratic, the Democratic Secretary of State, declare her the winner before the election's even been certified or an election contest adjudicated.
So you have a Republican political machinery still in Arizona that is still corrupt.
And so that doesn't want...
Carrie Lake anywhere near the governor's chair.
Doesn't want this Trump-aligned candidate anywhere near the Attorney General's office or near the Secretary of State's office.
Because then you might finally have honest elections and honest law in Arizona.
And the old John McCain machine wants none of that.
Remember, John McCain was famously the Keating Five.
John McCain never saw a bribe he didn't like.
You know, the idea of him being ethical and clean government was always an embarrassing joke.
So that's who these people are.
They come from that wing of the...
And they don't have much voting power, but they have a lot of institutional power.
And guess where they're really in positions of power?
In the courthouses in Arizona.
Robert, I'm going to pull up this video.
We all know what we tend to think of Mark Elias.
But Robert, you listen to this.
I don't think we played this.
Here, listen to this.
I mean, if you look up the term chutzpah in the dictionary...
You find the idea that Carrie Lake is saying that there is voter suppression.
They're complaining that there were long lines.
Well, you know why there were long lines?
There were long lines because the Carrie Lakes and the Republicans have been making it harder to vote.
So he's admitting there were long lines, and that has been an issue in the past.
In Arizona.
They're complaining that voters were disenfranchised due to voter registration laws.
You know why?
Because Carrie Lake and the Republicans have made it harder to register in Arizona.
They're claiming that ballots were thrown out due to mismatched signatures.
You know why?
Because when we sued Arizona to make signature matching more accurate and make it easier for people to cure their ballots, they opposed us.
Okay, so, Robert, other than, I think, Mark Elias making the most compelling arguments for Carrie Lake's challenge, who is alleging?
Who is he alleging had mismatched ballots thrown out?
Is Carrie Lake saying that mismatched ballots were thrown out or the other guy, the Attorney General, thrown out on the one hand and mismatched, counted on another?
What I saw, at least in the Attorney General's challenge, is that there were people whose votes were counted whose signatures did not match.
Not that votes should have been counted when they didn't match.
What it reveals is confidence in America's elections.
We have a protocol for America's elections going back for centuries.
At least a century in terms of the secret ballot.
That is eviscerated by mail-in voting.
Mail-in voting invites all of these problems.
Voters like it because it's convenient.
It's a lot more convenient than having to go to a precinct.
Also, Arizona allows you to vote in any precinct.
You don't have to vote in your home precinct.
All these things create risks.
We have a tradition that has mostly worked most of the time when we had in-person voting at your neighborhood precinct.
When you allow voting to occur anywhere, by any means, you invite election fornication, election controversy, and that's what we have in Arizona.
Unfortunately, I don't have great confidence that the Arizona courts will step up to the plate.
I think Cary Lake is going about it precisely the right way.
Documenting things in the court of public opinion with voter testimonials, you know, one after the other.
There's now thousands of affidavits.
The Attorney General has asked Maricopa County to provide information to some of these key same questions.
So we'll see if what, but I think they're going to ignore it for the most part.
I mean, when you're not even responding to Open Records Act requests, that kind of proves the point.
Carrie Lake will likely win her Open Records Act request claim, but I think the election contest will be uphill because the Arizona courts are not as hostile as the Bolsonaro courts or the UK courts to the Scottish independence effort, but they are of the same mindset and made, and many of them rose to power in Arizona based on the McCain political machine that hates anybody who contests that machine.
They would rather have Democrats in positions of power.
I've had many election cases in Arizona dating back over a decade and a half.
Wikipedia erased it from my Wikipedia entry.
They pretended the only Nader case I handled was one in Hawaii.
That was a small case.
The big case was out of Arizona that was a precedent set all across the country.
Wikipedia just erased it and pretended that case never happened because somebody's been busy trying to doctor and create a fake Wikipedia page.
That's like a 10-year effort.
I don't think I'm yet identified as right-wing, interestingly enough.
That's what they've falsely tagged you as.
Let me go see, Robert.
They just try to misrepresent my legal record all over the place.
Erase all the wins, all the rest.
I don't care.
It's Wikipedia.
But what it, but Arizona has had a history of these problems and these problems are accumulating.
And because the McCain political machine was a corrupt political machine.
And it's a vestigial issue that populist Republicans are still having to fight, unfortunately in Arizona.
And so the it's a, I think this will be the last gasp of the McCain machine, because the anger and antagonism they're settling into the populist base there, I think is slowly but steadily going to purge the Maricopa County supervisors of their positions.
I think a lot of changes are probably coming as people realize how deep The corruption goes on the Republican side in Arizona.
What happens if they don't certify by December 2nd?
I was trying to understand.
It's unique here because there is no federal election at issue.
No Senate elections at issue.
No congressional elections at issue.
No electors are at issue.
So they're under note.
So it's just internal state law.
So they got some flexibility.
And when they take power is still, I think, sometime in mid-January, if I recall correctly.
So they have time to properly address and adjudicate these election issues.
I just don't have any confidence that the Arizona courts will do so.
As an example, in 2020, the Arizona court ordered a signature match check.
And the Democratic Party's designated expert came back and said, with just a sample, that there were so many signatures that didn't match, it was 10 times larger when projected out than the margin of victory in the presidential election.
What do you think the judges and the courts did?
All of a sudden, that doesn't matter.
Ah, we'll pretend it doesn't matter.
That's what they did.
So, I mean, that's how corrupt the Arizona judicial process is when it comes.
So many of them are McCain-tied.
It's the reason why, like, Alex Jones has difficulty in Texas.
Almost every judge in Texas on the Republican side is tied to the Bush family in one way or in shape or form.
So even in some of these Republican states, you run into judicial branches that are still hostile, that would rather Democrats have power than populists have power.
All right.
Well, that's interesting.
Time frame?
I mean, all this will get resolved in the next six weeks, for sure.
But I think the league should win on the right to get the documents and information.
I don't think they'll be that aggressive that they'll deny that.
I think the more likely to deny it is to deny the remedy than they will be to deny discovery.
Denying discovery will be very embarrassing.
You never know.
I mean, again, you saw what happened in Brazil.
The overt, open...
The assertion of power, raw power, and the arrogance of not realizing what that would do.
I mean, that Brazilian judge dramatically increased the risk of a military coup in Brazil.
That's what that idiot did in his arrogant, contemptuous approach.
But it's the professional managerial class writ large.
Their arrogance far exceeds their intelligence, and it always has.
They're a danger to humanity the more power they have.
Robert, I've now noticed in Rumble, they've added a feature where I can mute users for five minutes for the live stream or forever.
And there seems to be one very active.
Some people are calling the person a troll.
I don't like banning trolls.
I wish they had a function where I could just, you know, slower mode on Rumble.
But if I may, what's his name?
It looks like it's Goldfold.
Cool it with the spam.
Otherwise, I'll mute for five minutes and then maybe the stream.
Unless everybody likes the activity of people here.
That's the nice thing about the live chat that's currently open at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
The most aggressive trolls we get is pretty girls with guns or fishing poles.
And lots of memes.
I won't even say what types of memes.
Great memes.
Some brutal memes.
We've got one Mia Santa Claus that we might have as a forthcoming holiday season t-shirt.
A little hush-hush Barnes Santa Claus one created by one of the great meme makers at vivobarneslaw.locals.com We have many that are genius at it and are really skilled at it.
Robert, what was I going to segue into?
Oh, let's do this.
Speaking of corruption, the special prosecutor named to investigate Trump.
I mean, Robert, I'm listening to mainstream media report on this now as though it's the first time.
They're literally saying, now he's in trouble.
You appoint a special counsel.
It's very serious.
They've got to look into things.
As though we didn't go through this with Mueller.
As though we haven't lived through six years of fabricated scandal with Trump.
But what's the deal with this special counsel?
Because from what I understand, he's...
Have you done a hush-hush on him?
You haven't done a hush-hush yet, eh?
Not yet.
But what I said is that he's a deep state hatchet man.
And that's what he's always been.
So he's been a prosecutor pretty much his whole life.
I think a couple of corporate payoffs here and there in between.
You've got to wonder about somebody who...
Prosecutor their whole life, and then they become like VP of litigation at some big corporation.
It's like, how does that make sense?
Hmm.
You know, just do a little math.
You might figure that out.
His wife, of course, helped do the Michelle Obama documentary.
I mean, not just a Democratic contributor.
He's a disguised Democrat, right?
He doesn't contribute officially because he's not dumb enough to have to create that track record for himself.
But if we'd use Nancy Pelosi's standard, which was that Justice Thomas has to recuse himself from anything his wife ever talked about, then clearly this guy should have not been assigned and should have recused himself as special counsel immediately given his wife's overt political partisan ties.
Reality is, everybody knows he's a Democratic hack.
And you can see by who's promoted him how that's happened.
How you know he's a deep state guy is two positions he got.
One, he has back and forth been assigned by the International Criminal Court.
To go after disfavored groups in Europe.
So go after the Serbs, go after the Russians, etc.
So the only guy who gets that gig is somebody with deep, deep state ties and alliances and allegiances.
That's it.
No random schmuck gets that gig.
Because that could go lots of places.
You dig into what happened in Kosovo.
You dig into what happened in Albania.
You dig into what happened in Bosnia.
You dig into what happened in parts of even Croatia.
And a whole different story emerges.
People can go watch the film The Whistleblower to see who was doing what in that region.
Illicitly.
It might relate to a certain Epstein case we're going to talk about a little bit later, at least in its subject matter of sex trafficking.
It might involve the United Nations being the complicit or culprit rather than the other side.
But so that's back and forth to there.
And in between, he was assigned as the public integrity.
Biggest joke in the world.
Department of Justice has a public integrity division.
They might as well call it the Public Promotion of Corruption Division.
Because what they do is they politically target disliked people.
While he was there, he went after the, I think it was the Republican governor of Virginia on some bogus charges that got set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He also coordinated the cover-up of a bunch of, I mean, he was Obama's hand-picked guy to handle political corruption cases.
That means that he was working with Lanny Brewer, one of the most corrupt prosecutors and lawyers around, when Lanny Brewer was there.
I can't tell you the number of lobbyists in D.C. who would try to hit up my clients saying for a certain donation they could make sure the case went away.
That's how corrupt Lanny Brewer was.
Now, I was like, don't get anywhere near any of that nonsense because it's a trap nine times out of ten.
But it's Lanny Brewer who's going to line his pocket and screw you anyway because that's like Lanny Brewer.
But Lanny Brewer, he's a Lanny Brewer protege.
So I'll tell you, one of the most corrupt lawyers in the history of Washington.
So that tells you that this guy is a political hatchet man, deep state aligned political hatchet man.
He helped cover up all Obama corruption.
And what has come out over the last week is that he was neck deep in the IRS scandal.
Now that was a scandal I know a lot about because I was the one who outed part of it and brought a major suit connected to it.
So there were two major IRS scandals that happened under Lois Lerner.
One is the one everybody knows about.
The second one only a few people know as much about, but congressional hearings were opened in both of them.
And what it was is Obama decided to weaponize the IRS to go after his political critics by looking at organizations, backed Tea Party-related organizations, searching for who their 501c3s or 501c4s were.
And guess who was the middleman trying to orchestrate federal criminal prosecutions against them?
Our new Trump special counsel.
He was coordinating with the IRS, providing inside information that never should have been provided to both the Department of Justice and the FBI, trying to drum up criminal prosecutions against Tea Party organizations across the country who are causing such difficulty for the Obama administration.
That's who the guy is.
And so you don't need to know much more than that, than to know that about him.
Now, what else did he help cover up?
That wasn't all the IRS was up to.
The other thing Obama did is he used Obamacare to have the IRS be the record-gathering agency to digitize medical records across America.
And it was to make it everything more convenient for you and easier for you and cheaper for you, of course.
What they were actually doing was threatening medical records companies that if they didn't turn over all their medical records, they would go after them.
The IRS would go after them themselves.
This actually happened to a client of mine who, when he resisted, was targeted for criminal prosecution.
They looked at every single thing in his life.
They illegally tapped him.
His IT guy was secretly working for the government, hacking into his emails.
And the government had promised him a huge refund portion of whatever money they tried to squeeze out of my client.
And so we brought suit, biggest Bivens class action in American history.
Ultimately, the IRS stopped doing it, but only because of that suit and the investigations it spurred.
Otherwise, they would have kept doing it.
This guy was in the middle of all that.
And to give people an idea, that was like your dream file, your blackmail file.
I called it your J. Edgar Hoover wet dream of a blackmail file.
Every judge in California's medical records had been stolen by the IRS.
Every Major League Baseball player.
Every Screen Actor Guild.
Every movie director.
I knew all...
I mean, I had to confirm the accuracy and detail of the records in order to file the suit.
I was stunned at some of the things.
I mean, it would be...
I was like, would this be blackmail material?
Oh, yes.
It would be blackmail material.
Because your medical...
A bed of billing codes are sufficiently specific these days that you know who's...
What judges...
Which kid is being secretly treated for a drug rehab problem that's somehow not been arrested with major issues?
Which Major League Baseball player has an undisclosed injury?
Which movie actor has had five undisclosed heart attacks so he would actually be unbondable if the world knew about it, couldn't make any pay a penny?
Little thing, which movie director's particular perversion required specialized psychiatric treatment?
I mean, stuff like that, right?
And so this guy was a neck deep in covering or facilitating a lot of that.
So he is hired to get Trump.
That's what he's hired to do.
Because he's a deep state hatchet man who's been good at getting Trump.
Mueller was never hired to get Trump.
Mueller was hired to cover up the scandal that was Russiagate and the scandal that was Spygate.
And then Durham was brought in, like Huber, to clean up the mess to make the FBI look good rather than bad.
The difference here is this is someone that is being brought in solely for the purposes of securing indictments against Trump.
Credit to Trump that Trump's reaction is, you know, do your best.
I'm going for it anyway.
But this guy is a hatchet man, a deep state assassin meant to take out Trump politically.
Robert, some people are saying your position is, you know, Trump running for office.
Despite everything where he could, in theory, be left in peace if he doesn't run again.
Some people say he's running for office to give himself some protection from these persecutions, prosecutions.
I mean, all it did is they were always going to shift to a special counsel anyway.
So their excuse was now that he's declared for office, we're assigning a special counsel.
But the reality was because he's declared for office, we're going to now really target him as opposed to just threaten him.
And the special counsel will have subpoena power?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Their own roving grand jury, everything else.
But a big budget.
Now, Marjorie Taylor Greene is looking at whether or not the House can try to cut off funding.
That'll be tricky because usually you need the Senate to go along with you for that.
But there may be, that option may be there.
But that's where the House's oversight is going to be essential.
But this guy's a guy that's deep state protected across the board.
So watch a lot of your institutional Republicans be oddly quiet about him.
Okay, very interesting.
And I guess if there's no more on that, it's a decent segue into the Epstein victims lawsuit.
Jane Doe's one through, however, many, I'm not sure, there's a few, there's more than one, suing Deutsche Bank for allegedly...
And JP Morgan for allegedly making, you know, two to four million bucks a year off of Epstein dealings between 2013 and 2018.
When did Epstein not kill himself?
I remember I was in Nova Scotia when it happened, or New Brunswick.
It was 2019 that he did not kill himself.
That's my recollection.
I remember we were on a road trip and I had to go down to the water to do a vlog on Epstein.
Back in the day, when I was...
For fear of the cosmos, I didn't even want to mention Epstein's name.
Not for censorship reasons.
It was always a dirty story that I never wanted to know anything about, but you can't avoid the necessities of the law life.
So the victims of Epstein's trafficking, the alleged victims, I guess we have to...
No, they're bona fide victims.
They're suing the bank, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, for continuing...
Actually, sorry, not continuing, for commencing to do business with Epstein.
Because after 2013, when the shit started hitting the fan, some institutions were cutting off their relationship with Epstein.
Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Chase said, I forget if they were already continued, but they say, no, it's good enough with us.
We'll do business with Epstein while his reputation is known.
We're not doing these know-your-client forms.
We're not doing a bunch of things that we're supposed to do to make sure that we're not...
Participating in illegal activity or financing funding of illegal activity.
Which one was it that paid a criminal penalty?
That was Deutsche Bank, right?
I mean, both at different times have.
With respect to Epstein wrongdoing?
Oh, I forget which one it was.
I'll have to look it up.
Reading through the lawsuit, they say Epstein's reputation was known, the banks shouldn't have done it, but the money was good.
They weren't following protocol in terms of knowing your client, seeing where the monies were going because they're alleging that Epstein was using money to lure young women for sexual trafficking, etc., etc.
I thought it was a bit of a weakish lawsuit because it was invoking reputation right up until I remembered.
I forget which.
I'll go check when you talk.
But one of them basically pled guilty.
To criminal wrongdoings in that context.
And now I don't see how they don't lose in part on the civil.
But field it from there, Robert.
I mean, is it a legitimate lawsuit?
Are they supposed to not do business with people based on reputation?
Or were they actually knowingly flouting all of their obligations because the money was just too good?
I mean, the allegation is that they were knowingly engaged in contributing to and facilitating federal criminal activity in the form of sex trafficking, particularly.
And then there's also a RICO allegation, and then there's a range of state legal claims.
So it's basically the federal sex trafficking suit that holds aiders and abettors and facilitators civilly reliable for sex trafficking, where they're knowingly complicit or recklessly complicit.
And then there's the RICO claim, where you're deliberately knowingly being used to commit multiple state felonies.
Of a particular identified type.
And then there's a range of state law claims, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, etc., relating to the underlying tort and their notice and knowledge and complicity there too.
I'm glad to see the banks finally being named as defendants because what this really reflects is the oddity...
Of the origin, much like the FTX case that still hasn't been explored.
I mean, FTX has now been sued in a separate proceeding.
Apparently the CEO, that weird chick whose dad was like connected to the SEC and was the MIT grad, apparently she's on a plane to Dubai.
At least that's the latest story or rumor, believing that Dubai won't extradite her.
The only reason that would happen is because the U.S. government doesn't want her extradited.
I can tell you that right now.
But FTX, similarly like Epstein, in that where did his money come from and how did he make it?
This is a point Eric Weinstein has repeatedly hammered away at.
It's like, this has not been an Eric Weinstein would be someone to know.
He helps manage Peter Thiel's funds.
So he's like, there's no good explanation for how Epstein got this money, what Epstein did with the money, what Epstein was doing with the money, how there continued to be profitability.
None of these things made sense, and they're using that to suggest, well, really, it was all one big sex trafficking rate, and that there were tons of red flags going off, and they didn't care because they chose to profit from it.
Probably the problem for both banks is that it appears certain bankers had particularly tight relationships with Epstein and brought the business in and sustained it and maintained it or even transferred it to another bank with them transferring as employees.
Even after he's a criminal convict, even after indictment, the subsequent indictment, etc.
So I'm glad they're going at this because it was always felt like...
I mean, again, we have a sex trafficking defendant and co-defendant in Jelaine Maxwell who no one's been identified as who they were being trafficked to beyond each other.
It's like, was the sex trafficking ring limited?
To Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
Is that really going to be the government's claim?
I know it's what the U.S. government wants to pretend, but this civil suit has a way of opening that door.
Hold the banks a libel because they're the key facilitators of all this, and they know a deeper story, almost guaranteed.
And what involvement did government intelligence agencies have on this?
What ties did Robert Maxwell have on this going all the way back?
What ties did other high-ranking Democratic and political officials have on this?
So it'd be nice to see that fully vetted and fully developed.
Of note, we had both said we are skeptical of the allegations against Alan Dershowitz.
It's noteworthy that the accuser has now withdrawn.
All allegations against Alan Dershowitz.
Those allegations never made much sense.
I think that was made up by some lawyers.
And the victim was encouraged to say, maybe he was there.
You know, you can't be sure.
You went through a lot of trauma.
And they wanted Dershowitz named for their own political reasons to take Dershowitz out of the political game in certain cases where they could.
Dershowitz was always, in my view, falsely accused.
And now there's further substantiation of that from the withdrawal, the retraction of the complaint.
But the banks were clearly complicit.
And a lot of high-ranking government officials and politicians, I believe, were.
Hopefully this case leads to that path if the courts don't shut it down out of the gate, which they shouldn't, legally.
And I just want to pull up the article we're headed, Jeffrey Epstein.
Here we go.
I don't see how they could possibly shut it down.
And Robert, you'll tell me how this is not going to basically...
I mean, are they going to settle if they get a settlement?
But New York State...
Here we go.
This is from...
CNBC.
Deutsche Bank hit with $150 million penalty for relationship to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
And we don't need to go through it, but just New York State financial regulators said Tuesday that they have slapped Deutsche Bank with a $150 million penalty for, quote, significant compliance failures in the bank's dealings with the accused child sex trafficker, now dead investor, as well as to...
So they got slapped with a fine.
I think they paid it.
How do they then...
Have any defense civilly to say, at the very least, this results from our negligence, if not our overt criminality.
The threshold is lower in civil courts.
I mean, how does this not guarantee something of a civil settlement?
I mean, only to the degree there's a discrepancy, that there's not an admission from the civil proceedings, that the evidentiary standard is sufficiently different.
It might be in the federal statutory context, both RICO and the sex trafficking laws.
But I agree, there's enough alleged that it should get to discovery.
And find out what really happened in Discovery.
And I'll be very curious.
If for some reason this case doesn't get to Discovery, I would be very skeptical of what the courts were up to.
I'd put it that way.
And as you said that, you got a little choppy as though the internet was going up, but it didn't.
Okay, to be continued, people.
And maybe it didn't die with Epstein and it's not going to end with Maxwell's sentence.
They had a sex trafficking ring.
They just...
They had no clients.
I mean, it's just an anomaly of life.
Scandalous stories that I never really fully appreciated.
I'm not American, so there's parts of American history that I'm not too familiar with.
But I looked up the Tulsa massacre after you sent me that lawsuit.
I sort of flabbergasted that I imagine it's a big piece of American history and maybe not so much known in Canada.
The Tulsa massacre, almost 100 years to the day, In which, from my understanding, and you'll have to flesh out the details, there was an incident of an alleged black man who allegedly stumbled and fell as he was getting into an elevator to go to the bathroom, allegedly ripped the dress of a woman off.
She screamed.
People thought it was a scandalous attack on a white woman.
The individual was arrested, taken to jail.
And then riots broke out in...
A neighborhood in Tulsa, which was referred to as the Black Jewel or the African-American Jewel of America.
There were, within 24 hours, not riots, from what seems to be a massacre of 300-plus Black people in this neighborhood.
And a cover-up that...
I mean, I don't know how something like this gets covered up or can successfully be covered up for years and decades.
Cover up that led to modern times and now a lawsuit filed by a number of people, but at least three surviving victims who are now over 100 years old for a nuisance.
There was unjust enrichment, which I think was dismissed as part of the claim, but the lawsuit is going to succeed in part to continue going forward.
But the event itself, Robert, I could only learn so much in a day.
Inform those who might not have ever heard of the Tulsa massacre.
Yeah, so I actually did a hush-hush on this.
So if people want an alternative theory as to who might have really been behind the massacre, that the official narrative might be masking a monetary motivation of some other individuals and institutions, then maybe this public nuisance suit might out.
It doesn't pursue that affirmatively as yet.
But if I were advising them, that's the path I would recommend they pursue.
I mean, there's aspects of the suit I find I don't agree with legally.
But for those that don't know, Greenwood was a part, along with Durham, North Carolina at the time, was considered the Black Wall Street.
It was over 10,000 Black Americans lived there.
Some were...
Of actual Indian heritage as well, Native American Cherokee heritage as well.
And they had built up a very successful black business community.
One of the best and most successful in the country.
And it included some African American owners of oil wells, things of that nature.
Some great banks, some great institutions, whereas in Durham was mostly based because of their life insurance success to the black community.
It was more of a diverse economic entrepreneurial activity in Tulsa, the Greenwood section.
And basically what happened is the...
In the riot that ensued, they basically burned down the entire neighborhood.
And sometimes they burnt down the neighborhood with grandmothers or kids in the buildings.
It was clearly organized.
It was clearly orchestrated.
They went out hunting black men that night, went out trying to, particularly to target successful black men, black lawyers and some others.
We're particularly targeted.
And if you dig in, you'll see that there's a property connection in a hush-hush that you'll understand what some of this may have actually been about.
But whatever it was that unleashed it, it basically was one of the most horrendous race-hatred incidents in American political history.
There are still some people that...
Excuse it and apologize for it, and I think that's pitiful.
They continue to buy into some ludicrous lies that were told by governing authorities at the time to cover up their bad acts.
There was no justification for what took place, period.
End of story.
And anyone who apologizes for it should check themselves in the mirror, in my opinion, and check their sources, at least.
So the question is, what remedy would be there?
So it was actually the backstory of a recent TV show that was somewhat politically controversial was the idea that what would happen if you gave reparations to everybody that was related to someone who was injured in the incident.
That's not quite what they're seeking.
Part of the nuisance suit I don't agree with is the idea that continuing race, that race...
Relations can be a public nuisance.
I'm not quite accepting that premise.
That's a precarious presence.
What that would do is allow legal lawfare to put into motion certain critical race theory and other ideas that I am not for that going, progressing in that path.
And using the horrors of Tulsa 100 years ago as their predicate or premise to do so.
What I do agree with is the people that have direct ties to the injuries, direct ties to the property damage, direct ties to the property being stripped from them over time, which is also what happened.
Now, it didn't happen on the scale that I think some politicians thought it would because there were some very smart young black lawyers who fought back.
And they fought back so effectively and successfully that the mass theft, property theft that they tried, didn't fully happen.
As the suit notes, it's urban renewal that is actually the death nail to the Greenwood neighborhood.
That was a liberal project that was often utilized for politically connected real estate developers in certain areas to align their pockets.
And so they're claiming that essentially people have profited from what happened.
To this very day, that part of the suit of the public nuisance that was created, that has continuing effect in property and personal loss, I think has grounds to go forward.
The grounds that says current race relations are a public nuisance, I wouldn't support moving forward.
But it'll be an interesting, I mean, the court is allowing some part of the case to go forward.
And I hope they really pursue the potential conspiracy that may have been present by certain politically connected property owners to disguise a massive theft of property as a race riot, when what it really was was a massive theft of property by the politically connected and protected.
Very interesting.
I mean, interesting.
Why was there such an extensive period of time?
This is not related to the lawsuit, but why were the victims or the survivors so reluctant?
To talk about it?
Or why was there so much suppression about public discourse, about this event, which is unignorable?
I mean, a bunch of local newspapers went and deleted their own archives, destroyed their own archives on this.
I mean, so it was a hidden secret.
And so it really, it would have only been something you felt comfortable talking about by the 1970s or 1980s.
So by the time, you know, you're a whole new generation, a lot of people had passed on, a lot of people just fled, got out of there.
So that's most likely why, that the experience was that it wasn't productive for the victims to talk about it publicly.
And the people who did it, perpetrated it, tried to hide it from history for a long time.
Statute of Libertation is going to be an issue in this?
A public nuisance can be an exception to that.
That's where the theory of public nuisance, I agree with, involves ongoing emotional injury and personal damage that's continuing, property damage that's continuing.
I can see as being a continuing tort outside the statute of limitations, whereas just the racial division, I don't see as a basis to call it a public nuisance.
Okay, interesting.
I mean, it's an interesting piece of history.
And Robert, I just shared the hush-hush on Twitter and in the chat.
I'll pin it afterwards so people can go watch it.
I guess from one theft of private property to another theft of private property, there's been a decision on the moratorium of evictions in California, in San Francisco area.
The moratorium that was declared that you could not evict tenants for non-payment of rent because of COVID ratified.
Ratified on the basis that it was temporary, but Robert, is it still in effect?
Yeah, it's been in effect for two years, two and a half years.
So the court's pretext was, and this is a problem that our Supreme Court has limited taking jurisdiction.
Their whole goal, I mean, taking says, very simple, The government cannot take private property without just compensation.
It's that simple.
Clearly, to me, the lockdowns were a mass taking.
The way the courts and the eviction moratoriums was also a mass taking.
And the way they're getting around it is the Supreme Court has limited the definition of takings to possessory takings, physical takings.
And only certain regulatory takings in ways that, in my view, have completely gutted the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to allow the government to just steal people's property whenever they want with minimal financial consequence to the government.
And for people out there, to give you an idea, the government only has to pay you the value as is, not the value that it could be.
So let's say the government, let's say you've got some beautiful lakefront property.
And that lakefront property, as developed...
It's worth half a million dollars.
And that's what you plan on doing.
But you haven't developed it yet.
The government comes and grabs it first.
Guess what?
They get to treat it like it's farmland and pay you 50 grand.
So, I mean, that's what the courts allow them to do.
And if they can somehow call it not a permanent taking, now they don't have any responsibility.
So what the court said is, well, on its face, an emergency is just a temporary thing.
Yes, it's still going on, but that doesn't make it indefinite.
It's still temporary.
It's a two and a half year temporary.
There might be a 20 year temporary.
And as long as it's temporary, they haven't taken anything from you.
And set aside that, how is even urgent temporary taking, how is that not a taking?
It's like, first of all, I've been, since you planted this seed in my head, I was saying like, the government in Canada.
Telling you that you cannot go out of red zones to green zones during COVID.
Well, some people have cottages.
And so you're stuck in a red zone.
You literally cannot access property that you own because of government edict.
But they expect you to still pay tax on that.
That is a taking and a giving to the government.
Like, here's your property.
You can't use it.
We're not taking it.
But you can't use it.
But we're taking your tax dollars off property that we are forbidding you from using.
And in this decision, Robert, the judge actually says...
Nobody's preventing you from getting out of the real estate market.
You could just find another thing to do in life.
I'd say make it make sense.
It's people who think the government should run the world.
It's another example of the professional managerial class that has no understanding of market economics, no understanding of constitutional democracy or liberty.
And consequently, they think they should run the world.
And if it's their fellow professional managerial class...
Bureaucrats making a decision, they go through every excuse possible to rationalize it and justify it and excuse it, regardless of common sense.
Common sense is when you deprive me of the ability to evict a tenant who hasn't paid rent in a year, you have deprived me, you have taken property rights from me, and that you should compensate me for the value of that.
And pretending, oh, it's just temporary because on the paper when they declared it, it was temporary.
And here's what she literally said.
As long as the government doesn't say it's permanent or indefinite in the emergency order itself, then the emergency order can in fact be permanent, can in fact be indefinite, and it will be labeled temporary by the court so that it's not considered a taking.
And they're like, well, you could always sue the person or just get out of the real estate market.
But as you point out, they're being taxed for the full value of the rental value of that property.
The government isn't turning around and saying, well, you know what?
Now that you can't really rent it out or you can't get the value of the rent, we're not going to tax you.
Oh, no.
And the government's power to seize hasn't been taken at all.
The government's power to evict hasn't been limited at all.
Robert, it's criminal.
It's just that the criminals are the government.
I mean, pay tax, and if you run a loss, we'll reimburse you what you prepaid in advance for presumed income.
But so am I wrong, or does this just have to go to the Supreme Court and they will probably get it right?
It'll go up to the California courts, but whether the U.S., I hope somewhere along the way, one of these COVID lockdown cases reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and they take it.
Because the issue of takings needs to be expanded.
It needs to be restored to its roots and its common sense application.
Because the only thing that will deter the government, even though it's taxpayers ultimately paying it, politicians don't like having to be the ones responsible at any level.
The only thing that's going to stop them from doing another big round of lockdowns is going to be somebody saying that's a taking.
Because that's the only thing they'll be like, because other taxpayers will be like, well, I don't want to pay for that.
And that will create political pressure for them not to do it.
That's the only way it's going to happen.
So I hope, but this is at the district court level.
I'll go up to the California food chain.
I don't expect any relief, sadly, from the California food chain.
So their only hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court somewhere, at some place, at some point, steps in and issues clarity, like they should do on what a fundamental right is.
Okay.
We'll get into another vaccine, the details of this.
I forget who it is.
It's somebody who's told that.
It's the doctor who had already had COVID, who was like, I've already had COVID.
The vaccine won't help me.
The mandate is unnecessary for me to do my job.
And they said, we don't care.
You can't even do your work remotely.
You can't do your work unless you get this shot.
And it was the UC Irvine suit.
But Aaron, I think I mispronounce his name sometimes, Kierdi.
He's going to be on a future sidebar with us when we get the time to arrange it.
Yeah, let me see if I can pull up the lawsuit.
I won't find it, but bottom line...
Oh, no, the decision.
Which one was it?
I'll find it after.
The Ninth Circuit, by the way, it's non-published.
So it's not binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit because even the judges probably know their decision is a garbage decision.
So it's not a binding decision.
But yeah, it's like five pages of lazy judges covering up for their fellow professional class and competence.
The vaccine mandate was that he has to be vaccinated in order to go to work.
And they invoked Jacobson.
They said, look, this isn't the first time this has happened.
It happened under more onerous conditions under the precedent of Jacobson v.
whatever from Indiana.
I forget.
Jacobson.
The state of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts from 100 years ago.
They called it more onerous when that was a $5 fine.
That was losing your job less onerous than a $5 fine.
They called it more onerous.
They cited it and failed to mention that nobody was compelled or even lost very much.
Paid the fine, could carry on.
And then they said he failed to identify a fundamental right that was being violated in his claim as if the right to work, the right to be a member of society is not fundamental.
And not only that, The fundamental right at issue, because this is the substantive due process clause, and this is frankly due to conservatives on the court.
Conservatives on the court have been trying to gut the due process clause.
They don't want it to have any substance.
They think due process only means process.
So that means that, you know, was the procedure done correctly?
They think it infers no substantive rights of any kind.
I disagree with that.
But let's say you put even that aside.
To me, there are implicit.
In the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment rights include the right to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy from the government, the right to medical privacy and medical decision-making.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that in a range of other contexts.
They don't talk about that at all in this decision.
Part of the reason why it's unpublished means it's unbinding.
They're trying to evade.
And the way the courts are getting around this, and again, a lot of right-wing courts have led the way in this, is they require you to have an identified micro-right.
Not a macro-right, but a micro-right.
Like, for example, and the question to me is simply, is the right against forced vaccines a right of bodily autonomy or not?
Does it fall within that?
So to me, there was never a question there was a right to privacy.
The only question is, is there a right to an abortion against the life of the unborn included within that right to privacy or not?
That's a totally separate question.
But what the courts have often done is, oh, you can't just have a right of bodily autonomy.
You have to have a right of bodily autonomy in that specific context previously identified.
Well, of course, that doesn't exist.
That almost never exists because what's being done is unprecedented by definition, unparalleled by definition.
The substantive due process at the time of Jacobson didn't exist as a legal doctrine.
So, you know, in Jacobson, they were simply asking, does the state legislature have within its public policy power the power to fine someone for not taking a vaccine during the middle of a pandemic where it was factually conceded the vaccine was safe and necessary and the pandemic was a high risk of death, severe risk of substantial harm.
The same standard Alan Dershowitz agreed with me was the proper legal standard in our debate.
Where, you know, severe risk, substantial risk of severe harm has to be present to other people if you don't take it.
And the drug that you take needs to be narrowly tailored to achieve the mitigation of that harm.
In other words, it needs to be safe and effective.
And it can't be a higher risk to you to take it than it is a benefit to other people that you take it.
And so here, the problem is they couldn't deal with the facts, right?
The facts in this decision are so on the underlying record.
He had a high-ranking scientist and doctor say he is at less risk of spreading the virus without the vaccine than he is with the vaccine.
He already got COVID.
He already has natural immunity.
That can be compromised by taking the vaccine, as we've now seen all the data for.
As even the Washington Post admitted this week, this is a pandemic of the vaccinated.
Not the unvaccinated, of the vaccinated.
The vaccinated are the ones filling the hospitals.
The vaccinated are the ones filling the morgue.
That's only because everybody's vaccinated.
And it still works.
It's still safe and effective.
There was something that I found in the decision also.
They just say, yeah, well, look, you have your authorities that say not X, but the government has their authorities that say X, and therefore that's not enough to contradict.
Well, it's because the key with every one of these vaccine cases is the standard of scrutiny that applies.
This is another case where a court, Could not find, and this was my contention to Alan Dershowitz at the very beginning, that you will not find a case where the evidence will support a strict scrutiny support approval of this vaccine.
If strict scrutiny is applied, and that's why he was reluctant initially to agree to strict scrutiny, but after I reminded him of the Connie Buck case, he agreed to strict scrutiny because nobody wants to be associated with that case.
The only case cited in that forced sterilization case, the Connie Buck case, was the Jacobson decision.
Every lawyer arguing these cases in front of every court needs to remind the court of that.
They're citing the decision that was the foundation of Nazi eugenics.
They're citing the decision that was the foundation of American eugenics.
They're citing the only case that was cited as the grounds for forced sterilization.
Is that what this court wants to affirm?
Is that what this court wants to approve of?
Make them recognize that affirmatively as often as possible.
But here what this court did is they said rational basis review because there's no fundamental right at all to anything, whether it's a right to work, whether it's a right for bodily autonomy, whether it's a right to make your own medical choices, whether it's a right of medical privacy.
No such right exists.
According to the same Ninth Circuit that says it's so fundamental you can kill an unborn life inside of you, but somehow it magically vanishes.
When it comes to whether or not somebody can stick a needle in you, you notice they didn't deal with that either.
They ignore all the contradictions.
They ignore all of the arguments against them.
That's why the decision is so short.
They want it to sound simple because these are what lying judges do.
When judges lie, they lie by not dealing with their opponent's arguments, pretending the argument is just this little simple argument over here when it's not.
And so because they lowered it to rational basis review, They got to say that a government can force you to do something against your will, invade your body against your will, condition employment based on that, even if their only basis to do so is their own studies, which is amazing.
Not independently confirmed evidence, not independently confirmed expert, because there he won on all that.
He was right.
He had the better experts.
He had the better evidence.
He had the better studies.
The university didn't.
They were the worst.
That's why the court couldn't talk about any of them.
That's why the court couldn't apply even intermediate scrutiny.
The court had to reduce the level of scrutiny by stripping away people's rights and liberties so that it could pretend that any government body could do whatever it wants as long as it cites its own study.
Which, by the way, is not a standard they'll apply when they don't like the politics of a case.
They'll suddenly reverse, of course.
What was the other thing?
There was something in that decision.
That I also thought was...
I forget which.
Yeah.
Amazing distinction between the strict scrutiny and what was the other one?
Rational...
Sorry, what was it?
Strict scrutiny, rational basis?
There's strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review.
And they kept rational basis as low and as dumb as it can possibly be.
Oh, sorry.
That's what I was going to say.
The joke was, well, look, if you don't like the moratoriums, you can get out of the real estate business.
If you don't like the vaccine mandates, find another job.
It's just that easy.
Robert, speaking of criminals sitting down for depositions, Fauci was deposed last week?
Oh, it's this week.
No, no, last week he was deposed.
It wasn't televised or anything, was it?
No.
Though the video of it, I believe it was video recorded, and that may be released at some point.
I hope so, so that we get to see clips of it.
I've only seen some renditions of what other people who were at the deposition talked about, where Fauci admitted that everything was based on what China was doing, that he was just piggybacking off of what China was doing on that side of the aisle.
So he had a lot of suspicions about Fauci's motivations and protocols, that they were as bad scientifically as we suspected.
There wasn't a lot of science to what Fauci was doing at all.
Apparently, that was confirmed by his inability to cite a scientific basis for most of the decisions he made, most of the reckless and crazy and dangerous decisions he made, which many of us at the time said that was the case, because those of us who had looked at the data, looked at the information, could see there wasn't good ground, looked at the history of public policy, could say this is insane behavior.
And now we're seeing, yeah, China did it, thought it might work.
That's your scientific basis?
Yep, that was it.
No studies, no detailed histories, no evidentiary scientific medical analysis, no big commissions?
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
And then he went on to trying to cover up the COVID lab source for which he has personal ties to.
Okay, well, interesting.
So what's going to come of it?
I mean, perjury, can they compare that testimony to his congressional testimony?
We're going to get the sound clips when we get the sound clips and the world will have forgotten.
It would just be useful to get it on document, exactly what happened, how it happened, and why it happened.
And what other admissions he also made in the process.
And so that will be good to see that published in public and hopefully sooner rather than later.
But the House committee is talking about calling him before the House committee as well.
So it will also give them a roadmap to certain questions.
But at least as to the part I've seen reported on so far, It's quite clear that some of our suspicions that there was no science behind Fauci's actions were confirmed by his own deposition.
There will be no consequences.
All right, Robert, we'll go through some of these stories quickly.
Twitter being sued.
I'm looking at a tweet from Elon Musk now showing new user sign-ups at an all-time high for Twitter, to which Jordan Peterson says, this is what failure looks like to the left.
One of those employees who got the email...
Saying, you're going to work hardcore, get ready for long hours, what everyone should be expected to do in their job in any event.
This employee, she was something to do with compliance in Ireland, did not click yes or no on the email, and therefore was deemed to have resigned.
Except she says, I didn't resign, I just didn't click on the yes or no, because...
It wasn't sufficiently detailed as to what the hours would be like, what this new environment would be like, what hardcore means.
And she sued.
She got an injunction to prevent her from getting fired, but the injunction didn't reinstate her.
Apparently they're going to revisit the case next week.
It's an emergency injunction.
So it was an injunction prohibiting her from being fired, but did not reinstate her.
So for the time being, she's not fired.
She's not working.
She didn't get the severance.
She also alleged the severance wasn't adequate.
They're in California, right?
I mean, it depends.
I mean, there are a lot of employees in California.
I think Twitter's base of operations has always been California.
Though there is talk that I think Twitter, the company, was organized in Delaware.
So that's where you have all the different, you know, they like Delaware for the Delaware Chancery Courts and things of that nature.
But those courts tend to be very solicitous of corporate interest.
And there's certain privacy, anonymity protections.
It's one of the favorite shell company locations of fraudsters around the globe, actually, is Delaware.
But, go ahead.
No, I was going to say, because the question is whether or not she's under a different contract that might be...
She might have contractual provisions that preclude Musk from doing this.
It's interesting.
Usually injunctive relief is not the remedy.
We're seeing a couple of these cases where they're issuing injunctive.
It's amazing.
You're forced to take a vaccine you don't want or you get fired.
No court's finding injunctive relief outside of unless there's a religious allegation.
But, you know, the different people, we've seen a couple of cases now, but now in a Twitter case, all of a sudden they can't fire you.
The court's eager to sign off on those temporary restraints.
It's always interesting when they're eager to sign those and when they're eager to not.
And it's usually wanting to protect their fellow professional class compadres.
And that Twitter had a lot of those people.
That was a classic example of how the professional managerial class is incompetent.
And Elon Musk is just proving that in quick order.
Now, I think some of his statements on Alex Jones are self-serving grandstanding that show that he has no sincere or serious commitment to free speech.
And I remain a skeptic of the man's overall moral philosophy.
I mean, nobody's given Elon Father of the Year award anytime soon.
Let's just put it that way.
There's a lot of stuff about Elon that I didn't know.
It's not going to change the substance of the debate.
It's just going to add some history to the individual.
If you're going to say, you know, grandstand about what a great father you are, and that's why you can't let Alex Jones on, it's like, Elon, that's not your strong point.
You know, wanting to have a little cult leadership and having, you know, eight kids by five different women.
And, you know, kids who would rather change their gender than have you be their dad is not necessarily the sign of that.
I wouldn't campaign on father of the year if I was Elon Musk.
Now, but that doesn't mean that, you know, Elon Musk is a dramatic improvement over the inept, incompetent, politically corrupted leadership of Twitter's predecessor.
So I think he'll be an improvement over that.
Some people are cheering for him, I think, in ways that's beyond proportionality.
And some people are expecting some things from Musk.
Musk is going to be interested in Musk.
So he'll do what's in his own political interest, creating enough conservative allies so that he can have some position of influence, monetizing Twitter so that he can line his own pockets, using Twitter as a Chinese-style WeChat so he can mine it for information, for artificial intelligence, so he can be the god of Mars and have a bunch of people sacrifice themselves thinking they can live on a frozen rock.
Until he can be transhumanist, and he and Jared Kushner can create the technology where they can live forever, as both of them want to do, by the way.
So that's why I say, you know, Elon Musk is not going to go on the Icon book anytime soon.
But it was hard not to be an improvement, and it just shows what entrepreneurial approach to Twitter would make it a freer place.
And I hope he does grant the general amnesty he's talking about.
I think as a marker, man's a pure maestro.
Pure maestro.
That is the question.
I was looking up the expression.
It's vox populi, vox a day.
So some people's theory is that he doesn't want to bring Alex Jones back, but he said, should there be general amnesty for anyone who didn't break the law?
I asked for clarity from Elon.
I think I got my lightning in a bottle when he replied once.
I don't think it'll happen again, but I would like clarity from Elon Musk as to what he means by that breaking the law.
Through the impugned tweet or breaking the law off the platform, because in which case, the guy who tried to kill Reagan and...
He's not on Twitter.
He's on YouTube.
He's on Twitter.
And O.J. Simpson, you know, they were found guilty in civil courts of law, found legally responsible civilly.
And I'm not a fan of penalizing people on platform for crimes they committed off platform unless they're intricately related.
So what does he mean by that?
We'll see.
Some people are saying the people spoke, the people vote.
They think Alex Jones will be given back on next week.
I think that would be a good thing for free speech in America.
To his credit, he is taking very seriously the problem of Twitter promoting...
Child pornography and other criminal behavior like that.
Eliza Blue, who we interviewed, who's a big champion of the rights of victims to try to prevent the spread of child pornography behavior, he, Musk, has made a specific commitment to trying to get rid of that on Twitter.
So to his credit for that.
And as a whole, I think 90% of what he's doing is net beneficial to the world on Twitter.
And so I think it will redound to his benefit politically.
Ultimately, because he'll have new conservative allies that he didn't have before all this started.
And Alyssa Milano took your route.
She was like, I can't support this Tesla bit.
I've got to find me a Nazi car to buy.
I can't support white supremacy.
I traded my Tesla.
But Robert, I read it.
I mean, the thing is this.
I'm not the type of person that will hold the grudge forever.
It was founded by Nazis.
It used slave labor during the Holocaust.
But now it offers a good deal.
How long do you hold a company responsible for its historical atrocities?
But when she comes out and says, I'm selling my white supremacist vehicle from Elon Musk, and I bought a VW, I thought she was joking.
And then she's not joking, and she's just an idiot.
But I don't believe in holding the company forever responsible for what it did in the past.
To their credit, they did pay a lot.
They paid some serious reparations, if I'm not mistaken.
But all that aside, to be so historically ignorant, and then also just defamatory, suggesting there's anything white supremacist about Elon Musk.
Hilarious.
Getting the lambasting she deserves, she made it into Fox News again.
Robert, what did we miss?
There's the civil forfeiture case, and what that is, it's going through the Indiana courts.
And the question is, do you have a right to trial by jury in a civil forfeiture case?
I think forfeiture cases, fines, and sanctions power of courts have been dangerously misused and abused, and they're trying to strip individuals of their right to trial by jury.
It's a problem, in my view, in the Amos Miller case.
So we have these courts issuing huge amounts that you're ordered to pay, but no jury has ever determined that.
And the classic definition of a right to trial by jury historically, an action of common law, is any action that seeks monetary damages or monetary relief.
So to me, if money is involved and money is going to be ordered to be paid, I think it should always be trial by jury.
I mean, the problem is, you know who you're arguing to?
The same judges who want to abuse that power, right?
So you're saying, hey, judge, you don't have the power to do what you did.
The judge thinks about it and goes, yeah, I like that power.
I think I'll keep it.
I mean, that's the problem, right?
It's where our separation of power breaks down.
When the judicial branch can ignore, and this goes all the way back to McCulloch versus Maryland, when the judicial branch usurped the power to say we alone determined the Constitution, which was not their constitutional right in the first place, it negates a critical check on power that the separation of powers provides, especially when they're abusing power to help the executive branch or help the government itself, right?
Because the theory was, well, the courts don't have the power of...
Well, when you're helping the government get money, when you're helping the government punish someone, then all of a sudden that is no longer a check on power.
So in my view, the civil forfeiture procedure, like I think about any monetary amount, should go to trial by jury.
It's a big issue.
There it's being decided under the Indiana Constitution, but it would be analogous to most other state constitutional provisions and the U.S. Constitution.
So hopefully it will develop in a way that case that establishes that indeed you have a right to trial by jury because it's a classic.
You have a right to trial by jury in all these constitutions.
It's been interpreted to mean you have a right to trial by jury in any case that would have arisen at common law.
And the classic definition of a resident common law is monetary damages being assigned or assessed.
So to me, anytime money is involved, automatically should be trialed by jury.
Our courts have been running around trying to create new loopholes all the time so they can usurp the power from the jury and put it in their own pocket.
And this is a critical case to limit that power, especially when it enables the government where our separation of powers doesn't work at all in that context.
Well, civil forfeiture is just...
Theft.
Legalized theft from the beginning.
I don't think any of us are going to have a hard time disagreeing on that.
Oh, speaking of...
I won't say theft, but just corrupt activity.
Google.
It is Google.
Yeah, Google got caught with their little privacy.
We're not tracking you.
Turn on your privacy thing.
And then they double-tracked you when you did that.
You explicitly turn it off, and they nonetheless explicitly used it to track your information.
I now understand.
And then told it to other people so they could monetize it to you.
So they have to pay a cool $310 million, which will be a pinprick.
They will be able to pay to break the law.
I don't know how much they made off of this or what other nefarious purposes, though.
Political purposes they might have used it for, but they got slapped on the wrist.
Yeah, it was good, and hopefully those cases will continue to limit their power in that capacity to stop their worst acts and to be used as future grounds to look at breaking them up and their monopoly power as we move forward.
All right, Robert, what did we miss before I start getting bombarded by children?
Well, I was just going to go to some chats in our Locals live chat at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
So, let's see.
Can the Republican Congress recommend prosecution to state-level attorney generals?
They can always write a letter, I suppose.
But the state-level attorney generals can always do what they want in that regard.
Some funny memes.
I'll do all of the rumble rants.
I'll just do one that actually just popped up right now.
Death Sec 1337, can you have on your show Dr. Sean Baker and Alex Thompson from UK Column?
So I'll see who those people are.
I'll take a look at them.
One question here is, if the courts won't do its job in being a check and balance on the other two branches, are we supposed to resort to acute politics for remedy?
I mean, that's the problem.
What is your remedy if the system fails?
Hopefully we can continue to knock on the doors of the courts, knock on the doors of legislative elections, but when the courts fail in the context of elections, it endangers the republic, period, because people lose confidence in the function of their government and they don't think they have any legal means within their governmental remedy to get remedy.
And the government's raw assertion of power, say, if you people pull another January 6th, this is what we'll do to you.
Throughout all of history, that has not worked very well.
The harsher the punishment, the harsher the treatment of people screaming about the government falling apart and not functioning as it's supposed to, has only led to more protest and more resistance, not less.
But it is a problem, and we have a lot of people in positions of power who could care less, sadly, about it.
But I think that covers, and I think we otherwise did cover the main other questions.
And you know what, Robert, we're going to get that Santa Barnes on something for Christmas.
And also, I didn't realize some of the old classics were not on the vivafry.com merch website.
But let me just show you one.
20,000 people have been watching and getting an education.
Where is it?
Where is it?
You've been getting an education, people?
Viva Barnes?
University.
Not a real university, people.
Just so nobody has any misunderstandings.
Get some merch.
I've not been doing a good job even letting people know that this stuff exists.
VivaFry.com.
You can get all of it.
There's a ton of stuff.
We're seeing it there.
And we're going to have some new designs.
We're getting the Honest Abe Barnes on the shirt.
I didn't realize it was not on the website.
So it's coming.
Robert, this week, the sidebar might be Wednesday morning because we got Whitney Webb.
Coming on the 30th, but it's at 9 o 'clock in the morning, so I don't know if that's going to be too early.
Oh, that might work out okay, because I was going to say I'll actually be in transit later in the day, actually.
Okay, excellent.
So the sidebar might be at 9 o 'clock in the morning, followed by a daytime livestream.
Carl Benjamin.
He's going to come on at some point this week.
Sargon of Akkad.
Some people don't know the saga that Sargon went through for the last several years.
It'll be news to them.
This is a guy who was kind of a lefty liberal in the gaming community.
Saw the insanity of what was happening in the gaming community.
Got politically radicalized by the wokesters trying to take over.
It was a part of the Gamergate story.
And his constant political evolution has been fascinating.
He now runs The Lotus Eaters, a really good, informative podcast that's informative and educational.
He's, of course, a funny guy, classic.
Classic in that regard.
And on the good news on the Twitter front, you know, Savannah Hernandez, who we interviewed before Sidebar, she got reinstated rightfully.
She does great grassroots reporting.
Savannah says, or Sav says on Twitter, she's back up and going.
And the one and only, the unordained, unrecognized Pope of LawTube, Mr. Nick Ricada, was also reinstated back to Twitter, which was also good to see.
It's amazing.
Like, you don't have to like the...
If you don't like bad words...
His first tweet back was hilarious.
But if you don't like bad words, don't follow them.
Jordan Peterson's back.
Sargon of Akkad.
Sav says.
Reketa.
Obviously, Trump, who's not using it.
It's Twitter.
I was going to say...
I was going to tweet it out today.
I love Twitter.
I use it as a diary.
I use it for news.
I use it for entertainment.
I don't watch TV anymore.
Go to Twitter.
See who's engaged in fun stuff.
Okay, so all that to say, Robert, we've got a sidebar.
It might be a morning sidebar.
What appearances do you have in the coming week?
Oh, I'm still in Tennessee, so nothing coming up this week other than Bourbons with Barnes at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
Booyah, people.
I've screen-grabbed all of, if not virtually all of, the Rumble Rants.
I'll do a Locals, as I've been doing, read through them.
Robert, there's some black pills, and I had my black pill-ish weekend, but words of wisdom for the week to come.
Well, I mean, I think Carrie Lake is a word for wisdom.
This is someone who went to great lengths to rob her of the governor's chair.
They might get away with it, but she will not let them get away with it with ease.
And she will continue.
And she's fought smart and fought strong.
She's shown the way you can do this.
You fight in the court of public opinion.
You let ordinary, everyday people have their voice heard.
You record those testimonials.
You broadcast and publish them to the world.
You convert them to declarations to be filed in court.
You seek and demand evidence at the first stage.
You show all you're asking for is the evidence to figure out what happened or what transpired and whether it's a legal basis to contest the election's outcomes and the results.
And if there is such a basis, then she will pursue it as the Attorney General candidate also has already done so.
And that shows people who are unafraid by the media intimidation, unafraid by the corrupt Republican establishment in Arizona.
And we're going to find out whether Arizona judges are going to live up to their oaths or live up to their McCain ties.
And we'll find out whether they're honest and honorable or not.
They purported to be, McCain purported to be.
Well, let's see what the truth is.
We'll find out.
If they take the Bolsonaro result, it will be the doom of the McCain power structure in Arizona within a decade.
If they don't take the Bolsonaro outcome and take the honest judicial outcome, then we will get a new election, which is what should happen, the one that is administered in a way that is constitutionally consistent.
I have no doubt that Mark Elias would be screaming for a new election if his candidate was on the opposite side of the currently tabulated results.
So we should have the same standards for everybody, not different standards, depending on which party labels behind the name in any aspect of our legal or political process.
So credit to Carrie Lake for continuing to fight the good fight, but to do so with clear eyes and clear head and a clear heart.
Hear, hear, Robert.
And just because it came up, there was one Rumble rant right at the end, $18.
It says, welcome back, Rihanna.
Everybody, I believe Salty Cracker is still live.
So if you do go over there, drop a little good good in the chat and let them know from where you came.
Robert, I'll talk to you soon.
Well, we'll talk afterwards.
Everybody out there, thank you for being here and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Export Selection