All Episodes
Dec. 5, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
01:19:32
Ep. 140: Twitter Files; Trump's Truth; Kari Lake; Elections; Vaccines & MORE! vViva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I will remind everyone that the number one thing we can all do to keep ourselves safe, to keep our loved ones safe, is make sure that you're up to date in your COVID vaccinations.
And while you're at it, get your flu shot.
There's a lot of people getting sick this year, perhaps because we all were so diligent about being safe over the past couple of years and wearing masks.
That we need to step up again and make sure that everyone's doing everything they can to keep their families, their loved ones, and their communities safe by getting vaccinated and making sure they're up to date.
I'm sorry.
I will remind everyone.
I will remind everyone.
What are we going to remind us of here?
I will remind everyone that the number one thing we can all do to keep ourselves safe, to keep our loved ones safe.
Is make sure that you're up to date in your COVID vaccinations.
Teacher, teacher, how does me getting vaccinated keep my loved one safe if I can still contract, carry, and transmit the virus?
If the argument is at best now, and I'm just trying to follow the science, your science, that the best the therapeutic jibby jab will do is reduce the severity of symptoms for me.
How does me getting it then keep anybody else safe?
There's the old expression attributed to Einstein.
We're done.
We're done.
I think we've all puked enough in our mouths.
There's the old expression that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Einstein.
Einstein dying, piki, piki, piki.
There's an old rhyme from when we were kids.
It's insanity.
I mean, it's absolute insanity.
It's madness.
It's enraging.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
The number one thing you can do to keep yourself and others around you safe is to go get vaccinated.
And now you're letting everybody out there who's already reluctant for booster number seven.
Now you're saying you're going to couple these things with the flu shot?
I wonder what's going to happen to flu shot uptake.
And by the way, what are the stats?
Like in an ordinary season, the effectiveness of the flu shot because of the mutations of the flu virus are like 40 to 70% if you're lucky.
Oh, the number one thing.
I will remind everybody.
Like he's a dictator.
Like he's my parent.
And I have to weigh my responses because I appreciate, I am, I have never hated another, I have never had disdain for another human the way I have disdain for Justin Trudeau.
Not hatred, I should walk that back a little bit.
It's disdain.
It might be hatred.
And you have to make sure that that does not consume you.
As an entity, because hatred is a black hole.
You get too close to hatred and it pulls everything in.
But I listen to that and I have the deepest contempt imaginable for that man.
And then I wanted to think of a nice hashtag like just insanity or just incredulous.
Just incredulous.
Incredulous doesn't mean what I think it means.
Salty balls, you're damn right.
I'm blah, blah, blah rambling unless you're talking about Justin Trudeau.
Salty balls.
What kind of name is that anyhow?
That's the intro.
The rant is over.
Good evening, everybody.
It's the Sunday night with Viva and Barnes on a Monday because Barnes was in transit yesterday and we had to put the stream to tonight.
But yesterday was one heck of a...
Oh my goodness, they had the Twitter thing at 5 o 'clock that I was supposed to listen to but I forgot.
We're going to go over some stuff tonight, but until Barnes gets here.
Intro rant over.
Standard disclaimers.
Thank you very much.
Right on time.
82496410510 pounds says, Breaking UFO hunters descend on the Viva residence after the discovery of multiple unidentified fecal objects.
Winston has approached for interview, but declined to comment.
Winston, get up here.
Get up here.
Get up here.
Oh!
Oh, yeah.
People wanted...
Oy!
No Winston, no peace last time.
Winston is here, alive and well.
It is a dystopian world in Canada.
Sad is not the word.
And we're going to get into the first article of the day.
Winston is here, alive and well.
Good.
You're done.
Oy!
Standard disclaimers.
No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice.
For all those Super Chats, Rumble Rants, thank you very much for the support.
Bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of Super Chats.
If you don't want to support...
YouTube in that way.
We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Link is in the pinned comment in the chat.
Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
They take 20%, so better for the creator, better to support a platform that supports free speech.
What else?
That's pretty much it.
Here's the link to Rumble.
We'll be going over there in a bit.
And, get it?
You may have noticed in the beginning it says this video contains a paid promotion.
Let me make sure that it actually says that.
Because if it doesn't, it does.
I know that I did it.
Let me just make sure, because I'm neurotic, and I want to be more kosher than the Pope, as they say.
It does contain a paid promotion, and that is one of my sponsors, EnviroCleanse Air Purification Systems.
They have a special for Christmas.
Let me just pull this up here.
Hold on just one second.
It is a...
Filter that I use myself at home, it's something that has been working, I think is phenomenal.
I had filters back in Canada.
They were not the same.
EnviroCleanse, I'll make sure that I read the Christmas special.
If you could give one holiday gift that could help the entire family avoid seasonal colds, flu, and even COVID.
These are not my words.
This is...
Patented technology of a company that is used by the Department of Defense in submarines in 300,000 schools across America.
That would be the best gift ever.
Enviroclans is the new science of your home air purification, and they've just announced an unbelievable holiday sale you can't afford to miss.
Here's what sold me on EnviroCleanse.
Air circulation in my home, from room to room, family member to family member, including holiday guests, is a breeding ground for viruses and germs.
It's how colds, flu, and COVID take down the entire family.
You know what's also a good way to protect yourself?
Healthy air, exercise, vitamin C. No medical advice!
Vitamin D. Get outside, get exercise.
300,000 of those units in schools across America.
Department of Justice, not Department of Justice, Department of Defense uses it in submarines.
Patented technology in the neutralizing filter.
It's got a big, fat HEPA filter.
It's whisper quiet.
I haven't brought up the window to show what it looks like.
Hold on a second here.
I'll bring it right here.
I've shown it to you many times.
That's what it looks like.
It's a big, beautiful white box.
You don't hear it.
It cleans the air.
Particular matter, it cleans out volatile organic compounds, smells, germs, etc.
It's $699.
It's not cheap.
But if you use promo code RUMBLE for the holiday season, you get 10% off a free air quality monitor.
And it's a damn good unit, period.
For anybody who knows that they need one, you know that you need one.
For those who don't know that you need one, to the extent you can get it, Everybody needs one.
Clean air is the most important thing on earth.
And there's 0% financing if you fit the criteria, whatever.
EKPure.com.
EK.
EchoKiloPure.com.
It brings you to the website.
Promo code RUMBLE for the holiday season special.
Is there a Mrs. Shittenhouse?
Asks Time Magazine before affirming Winston as one of the top, the world's top most eligible bachelors.
There is a Mrs. Pudge.
Shit in the house.
And she's literally the shit in the house because she shits in the house, I'll tell you what.
Okay, that's the house cleaning, pun intended.
Now let's get to just insanity.
Just insanity.
There was a recent poll out of Canada that shows that two-thirds of Canadians polled support or supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
You have to.
It's amazing.
Two-thirds of the people polled.
If anybody hasn't seen the sidebar that I did with Barnes and Richard Barris, I remember exactly where I was when I did it.
I was in a car in New Brunswick on a place called Deer Island, doing it at night, getting destroyed by mosquitoes, doing a live stream on the road.
And we talked about pollsters.
We talked about...
What a scam of an industry it is.
Not naming any names in particular.
But by goodness, it gives you the headlines that you need so that the media can then promote the narrative they want to promote.
This is from CTV News.
The narrative is two-thirds of Canadians support the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
CTV News is citing a poll that was mandated by the Globe and Mail.
Who mandated NANOS.
Is it called NANOS?
NANOS polling.
Most Canadians back invocation of Emergencies Act during Freedom Protest Convoys.
NANOS.
Mandated by Globe and Mail.
And they just cross-reference each other.
You got another one here.
CP24.
Poll.
Majority of Canadians support Use of Emergencies Act.
I wanted to get the actual article.
Because the actual article...
There's some interesting backstory to this as well.
Is this it?
Oh, this is another...
It's very interesting also, by the way.
Back in February, there was another poll.
This one was conducted by the...
I don't know if the National Post conducted whichever entity it was that did that poll.
Back in February, two-thirds of Canadians support the Use of Emergencies Act and want Freedom Convoy cleared out.
Two-thirds back in February.
Two-thirds back now.
Who did the poll back then?
Oh, back then it was 1,500 Canadians were polled, and two-thirds said they want the convoy to end.
Now, as per the spin of the day, it's two-thirds of 1,025 Canadians polled.
Here's the article, actually.
We can do this.
Majority of Canadians favor emergency invocation polls.
Let me bring this up.
So that we can read this and then...
We don't need to go too far into it.
They got the headline.
Federal government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end last winter's protracted anti-government, anti-vaccine mandate protests is largely supported by Canadians.
According to a new poll, we're not telling you what to think.
We've done a poll by Nanos.
And listen to how they frame it now.
Because it was allegedly two-thirds, 66% supported invoking the Emergencies Act.
My left butt cheek, I believe that.
But whatever.
It was two-thirds back in February.
They've got to frame it now as though after six weeks of inquiry, Canadians have been convinced at the legitimacy of the invocation of the Act.
After six weeks of intense scrutiny at the inquiry into the invocation of the Act, the government appears to have emerged unscathed, according to a Nanos research poll for the Globe and Mail.
For the Globe and Mail, I don't know what portion of the $600 million bailout for print media the Globe and Mail got.
I'm not sure if they have any print media.
I'm not sure how many millions of dollars the Globe and Mail got for COVID advertising throughout COVID.
I'm not sure how many millions of dollars the Globe and Mail got for other government ads.
I don't know in what way the government has buttered up the buns of the Globe and Mail, but...
The Globe and Mail, which if it hasn't received direct bailout from the 600 million for print media, and I don't know if they have or have not, something of a nuanced point to research.
I don't know how much they've received for COVID ads coming from provincial and federal level governments.
I don't know how much they've received for government ads in general.
They mandated Nanos and Nanos came to this conclusion.
But the poll also hints at some political risk for Conservative leader Pierre Poilier, who publicly supported the protests.
Oh, 66% of respondents either supported or somewhat supported the government's precedent-setting decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to the convoy protests that gridlocked the Capitol and jammed some border crossings.
30-foot, whatever.
Where does it say how many people did it?
Here we go.
The poll had 1,025 respondents.
The Globe does not report the margin of error for online polls.
An online poll of 1,025 respondents to allow them to come to the conclusion that two-thirds of Canadians support it.
We'll get to my punchline in a second.
I was just looking this up.
Let me just make sure that we're looking at the same thing here.
If it sounds incredulous, no, incredible to you and to me, well, apparently it was equally incredible to the people replying to the Globe and Mail article, because as you can see here, Andrew Coyne, Andrew Coyne posts, the replies to this are out of this world.
Let's go see what the replies were.
Majority of liberals in favor of the United States.
Okay, polls fixed.
You're welcome.
There you go.
Majority across the country.
Wow.
Not to...
Okay.
Govern yourselves accordingly based on profile.
Majority of people in Ottawa?
And then the person is spamming the chat with tea leaf.
Okay, well, there we go.
We got one thing.
All this tells me is a majority of Canadians have been misled by the federal government and its media.
CTV poll conducted show that three quarters of Canadians didn't support it because there was an online poll by CTV media that did show that three quarters didn't support it and they pulled that bloody poll.
They pulled the poll.
I don't believe any of these polls.
Oh my goodness.
It's almost like the people are speaking and your bullcrap poll is getting called out on the internet, Andrew Coyne.
So we don't need to go further unless we can find the screen grab.
Oh, here we go.
No.
Someone can find the screen grab.
Bullshit amplifier detector.
Bullshit.
So more and more BS.
Nice profile pic.
Absolute nonsense.
Defund the Globe and Mail.
Not reading it.
So those are the types of messages, replies, that Andrew Coyne is lamenting.
Who's Andrew Coyne, you might ask?
Andrew Coyne, explorer.
Founder of La Chine.
Seigneur of Cataratui.
I don't know what any of this means.
Discoverer of the mouths of the Mississippi.
Did he change his profile?
His profile picture, his profile earlier said something about him being involved with the Globe and Mail, but whatever.
He's a columnist at the Globe and Mail.
Maybe it didn't say it before.
Maybe it was on Wikipedia.
I looked up his profile.
I'm just replying to it.
I say, maybe that should tell you something.
A government-subsidized media conducting a poll of 1,025 to justify the government's constitutional overreach.
But yeah, the replies are the problem, not your poll.
He is Principal Skinner.
Andrew Coyne, columnist for the Globe and Mail, is Principal Skinner.
Is it me that's out of touch?
No, it's the kids.
It's the kids.
I just found something very funny.
I just looked up his early life in education.
Coyne was born in Ottawa, Ontario, the son of Meredith Cameron, Neistoby, and James Elliott Coyne, who was governor of the Bank of Canada from 1955 to 1961.
His paternal great-grandfather was a historian and lawyer, James Henry Coyne.
His sister is actress Susan Coyne.
He is also the cousin of a constitutional lawyer, Deborah Coyne, who is the mother of Pierre Trudeau's youngest child.
This strikes me a little bit like from Spaceballs.
Mothers, brothers, roommates, nephews, tennis coaches, repairmen.
He is also the cousin of Coyne.
Who is the mother of Pierre Trudeau's youngest child?
Very interesting family history, which might explain a few things, but...
Did you pull an early life?
Oh, no, not for that reason, if that's what you were thinking of.
I'll tell you the secrets of the internet.
Some people go look up early life to determine other things that I was not interested in.
I just wanted to know...
If he was a liberal, if he was politically connected.
And it seems like the answer, as far as anybody can tell, is yes and yes on both issues.
But I had no idea how politically connected.
Does that make him the...
That makes him the uncle of one of Pierre Trudeau's children.
Interesting.
Nobody believes your polls, Andrew Quinn.
The jig is up.
The jig is up.
Five dollar, five euro.
What happened to the Carl Benjamin sidebar tomorrow at 4 o 'clock Eastern?
9 o 'clock British time.
The time of Britannia.
So here we go.
And we got Mike at Freedom Honey.
Viva, please reach out to Mark Mink, host of the Tango Romeo podcast.
He's the vet spearheading the investigation into vets being offered.
Absolutely.
Screen grab that and done and done.
So that's the poll.
Let me just make sure that Barnes is...
Email me the StreamYard link.
Did I not send Barnes the StreamYard link?
Oh, I'm such an idiot.
People, hold on one second.
I think I did, but it doesn't...
Okay, Barnes is apparently waiting for the StreamYard link.
Apparently, ich bin ein Moran.
Enter studio.
Give me two seconds, peeps.
I'm just going to make sure that Barnes can get in.
Coming.
Enter studio.
Now there's going to be two of me in the studio.
This is going to get very confusing.
Copy.
Close.
Leave.
Okay, I'm still here.
I'm going to go email Barnes.
Robert.
Link.
Voila.
I would explain why Robert's not yet in the house.
Do a hush-hush on McKinsey.
Oh, you should do a hush-hush collab on the McKinsey firm.
There was an article on Radio Canada about them being everywhere inside Hydro-Quebec.
There are certain things that I might not be able to do hush-hushes on because many of you out there may not have known or might sometimes forget.
I was an active litigator in Montreal and Quebec and Canada.
And I always err on the side of absolute neurotic cautiousness and don't come close to breaching any problems.
So yeah, there's some things that I might have...
I might have come across certain things in my practice that might preclude certain types of deep dives onto well-known Canadian entities.
There are rumble rants, which I have been told to read.
Barbisa Ariane.
The truth matters more than your feelings, your opinions, and your preferences.
In fact, it's the only thing that matters.
Fast Learner.
Oh, by the way, Barbara Arison, that was a $10 rumble rant.
Rumble rant.
Fast Learner.
$10 rumble rant.
CPAC also had a poll that was 90% against the EA, and it had thousands of responses.
Do they forget that it gives you the results when you vote?
$5 rumble rant from Fake Name 3. Want to explain why channels with 10 live viewers and the DVR for Der Show are on the front page, but not you with 6,000 or Riketa, when he has had over 8,000 for an hour, up anyone on the page?
I don't know.
I wouldn't attribute any nefarious purposes to that fake name.
I think that maybe they want to try to give everyone exposure.
I don't know.
I don't have that information, but I would not assume anything nefarious.
But thank you for the rumble rants.
I almost forgot the punchline.
Kick in the flipping teeth.
So I decided, I know there are problems with the nature of the poll.
EnviroCleanse gets one more view here.
I know that there's potential problems with the nature of the poll, but I decided to run my own poll and I had a great idea.
Elon, you have to make geographic preferences for polls.
And some people were saying, let me break down the poll results based on a slew of demographics, geography, profile preferences like male, female age, et cetera, et cetera.
Europe.
I don't know how many of the plugins or how many of the things that you would input yourself can be lied about or can be determined factually.
Geographic preference or geographic location, I think, is something that would be difficult to falsify.
And I think it would be something that would be very easy to incorporate.
As a criteria for a poll.
If I do a poll and I only want to poll people in Canada, I should be able to have a little preference that says only make available to people in Canada for voting purposes.
VPN might be an issue.
I don't know how VPNs work.
If you have a VPN and it falsely says Canada, from what I understand, there might be a way to identify VPNs, exclude them.
But I did my own poll.
How many views?
We're at 8,962 votes thus far.
Let's do our own poll.
Canadians, do you support?
Somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or oppose.
This was cut and paste of the question.
Or oppose the government of Canada using the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protests.
Please share from that.
It's been shared 1,200 times and only has under 9,000 votes, which I think means people are actually taking it seriously, treating it respectfully, and not voting if they're not from Canada.
I know that's an inherent flaw.
95.6% Oppose.
And there's no option for strongly opposed, because I cut and pasted the question.
Globe and Mail?
Nanos?
Andrew Coyne?
You're suspect.
Okay, Barnes is in the house.
Not going to keep him waiting for any longer than that.
You're suspect.
And by the way, when I say you're suspect, you're propagandists.
Liars.
Okay.
Biggie Barnes is in the house.
Let's do this.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
Okay, you had people nervous last week, and then I was thinking people were going to think something was really up when you couldn't make Sunday.
What have you been up to?
Oh, just a range of stuff, a family vacation, and then a surprise birthday party for a friend, and then trying to settle a couple of cases.
Okay.
Successful at settling the cases, or to the extent you could?
Probably, probably.
Good.
Well, there's no rest for the wicked, so that's that.
Robert, what was the...
The pollsters, when we did the show with Barris, and we were discussing some notoriously, I say corrupt or tainted, infiltrated pollsters in the States.
Which ones, do you remember which ones were like notoriously bad for being, having been involved in scandal?
It depends on how you define scandal.
I mean, almost all the pollsters outside of a few.
Get a lot of revenue from either corporations or the media.
And consequently, they have been consistently biased in how they phrase things.
I mean, a classic example of this is Sean Trendy, my friend who helps run the Real Clear Politics polling site that aggregates polling data across the country, pointed out this week.
Some years ago, back in the 90s, they misphrased the question.
They had a double negative in a question about the Holocaust.
So the media ran with the story, one out of five Americans denies Holocaust exists.
When they properly phrase it, it was more like one in a hundred Americans are not sure.
But they just, they framed, so that's how they really manipulate the polling more than anything else, is how they frame the question.
That's what my brother taught me when we were in debate in high school.
He said, he who frames, he who defines the terms wins the debate.
So, for example, if you're out there saying Barnes, you know, all you would talk about is Islamofascism in the debate with Nick Quentes, guess who won the debate, boys and girls?
Now, of course, Nicky Boy was busy this week getting folks and all kind of folks into trouble, including Kanye himself.
Robert, I was just thinking, it has been so long since we've seen the term Islamofascist in the chat.
And now it's going to come back with a raging vengeance.
And you know what?
We're just going to go right to Rumble right now.
We're 26 minutes in.
Everybody, head over to Rumble because we're going to talk about it.
We don't want to talk about it too much.
The purpose of it is not to make fun of Kanye.
I'm still convinced about what I'm convinced about.
But we're going to talk about a few things because I think it's relevant.
The link to Rumble is there.
Everybody, head on over.
And drop all the chat you want to drop there.
Ending on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. Heading over to Rumble.
See you all there.
2,500 people should be migrating if they're so willing.
See you there.
Robert?
Okay, we're going to talk about it very briefly.
Everyone has their opinion.
Before we get into Nick Fuentes, Milo Yiannopoulos, And potentially some malevolent intentions there that are well documented because it came out of their own mouths quite publicly.
What is your assessment of Kanye, mentally, spiritually, and from a legal responsibility perspective?
Do you think he's all there?
Do you think it's a troll?
Do you think he genuinely believes it?
Or do you think he's unwell?
I think your explanation is the more likely one.
But I will proffer this alternative explanation.
Based on what he said at the beginning of his conversation with Tim Pool.
So, you know, what was on his mind about why is he entering politics?
Why is he entering public life?
Why is he escalating his inflammatory rhetoric?
Why is he associating with, you know, hated and controversial figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and Nicholas Fuentes?
For those that don't know, Milo was always controversial, but he was the conservative, flamboyant, gay conservative that Steve Bannon and others helped promote because he's very smart, very erudite, very well thought out Englishman.
But along the way, he got caught saying things about how he appeared to approve of.
Groomer activity within the gay community.
In other words, older gay men approaching minors, not minor, minor children, but minors still.
In other words, 14, 15, etc.
Young teenagers that are not legally able to consent and grooming them for gay behavior.
He seemed to approve of that.
That led to his expulsion from mainstream conservatism.
On his way out, and in the last year or two before that had occurred, he had been engaged in a wide range of blackmail activities, extortion activities, bragged about this online.
Things like this.
Lauren Southern has gone into some detail about what she had to put up with from Milo.
So there's legitimate.
And then after that, he gets kind of expelled, expelled, tries to make a comeback initially in kind of what's called the Groyper white nationalist community.
These are a lot of young men who were associated with Richard Spencer and then shifted to Nicholas Fuentes and then in part to Milo.
Milo claimed to have converted away from being gay.
And that he was now a very Christian advocate.
And during this stretch, he was doing things like trying to get death threats against Dave Rubin, things of this nature.
So there's a reason why some of us have been highly critical of any association with Milo Yiannopoulos for quite some time.
I met him when Steve Bannon invited me and some other folks up to the Republican National Convention in 2016.
And when I was there, my first reaction was, this guy is an unreliable, untrustworthy person.
Now, the other person Kanye has been really at the link with, because apparently Kanye terminated Milo this past week, purportedly because of Milo being Milo, maybe for other reasons.
I had a joke, because I had put out a tweet that said, if Kanye is sincerely bigoted against the Jews, does he not realize that Milo Yiannopoulos is, if not Jewish, has Jewish ancestry?
I had a bunch of people, I think...
Correcting me in that they said Milo was not being forthright about his Jewishness.
Other people were saying it's only his father, so they're sort of adhering to the traditional, if your mother's not Jewish, you're not Jewish.
I don't even know what the truth is anymore.
Do you know if Milo is either half-Jewish, part-Jewish, Jewish, or not Jewish at all?
He said different things at different times to different people.
So that's where the confusion arises.
And so then it flipped over.
So Nicholas Fuentes...
Was a young Ben Shapiro wannabe in high school.
Had a contract with the Right Side Broadcasting Network.
That just didn't work.
He couldn't quite hit the Ben Shapiro style.
It's tough to mimic that voice.
That would be one takeaway.
But either way, he wasn't getting the audience he wanted.
Saw that the growth of the Richard Spencer movement that had attached itself to Trump world in 2016.
And attended that at Charlottesville.
So he was there at Charlottesville with his Trump hat, trying to get photographed everywhere he possibly could, etc.
Somehow he's in the middle of all that, never gets arrested or sued, but that's another story for another day.
Goes back home to Boston University, where he promotes again, hey, look at me, everybody.
I went to Charlottesville.
Please do something about it so I can be a martyr and a victim and play that card and get some notoriety.
Finally, it works.
He gets a little bit of notoriety, starts to tap into the race grift market.
And that's an old market.
He learns all the anti-Jewish tropes.
He knows them almost backwards and forwards.
He learns how to communicate them in subtle, indirect language so that the hardcore haters know exactly what he's saying.
But the average person doesn't quite get what he's saying.
He blames Jews for COVID-19.
He blames Jews for the Black Plague.
He blames Jews for pretty much every single war.
There's something out there to blame Jews on.
Nick Fuentes finds a way to blame Jews for it.
While people email me and text me that, oh, you misunderstood.
It's like, no, no, you haven't been paying attention or you don't know.
So that's who he is.
He's a race grifter, race hater.
Though I don't think he personally believes hardly any of it.
Years ago, I debated him on Alex Jones' show because he kept complaining nobody would debate him and debated him on Israel and whether we should side with the Israelis or side with the Palestinians.
My argument was in the geopolitical best interest of the United States to side with Israel over the Palestinians because that's our only practicable alternatives currently in the Middle East debate.
People can sincerely disagree with that.
That's where I disagree with some friends of mine on the right, including Ben Shapiro and others who are critical of Max Blumenthal and others who are very anti-Israel, I think way over-the-top anti-Israel, but I don't think it's because he hates Jews that he's anti-Israel.
There might be some daddy issues there with Sidney Blumenthal.
You could argue about that if you wanted.
Mark Robert might have a point or two there.
There's plenty of people that disagree with aid to Israel on grounds of why being involved, period.
There's people who see Netanyahu wanting to get us involved in a lot of other wars in the Mideast, including Iraq and now Iran, that have a very understandable criticism.
But I didn't believe that was where Nick Fuente's criticisms came from.
I believe his criticisms came from trying to tap the race grift to get the race haters to send him money, because that's been a nice grift going on for a long time.
So that's who Fuentes is.
And Fuentes exposed it.
I was on with Alex Jones earlier today.
Alex said, you know, I had been preaching this to Alex.
I hadn't heard him say that until he was on the show.
Then I was like, well, these people are nuts.
And he goes, you might as well like to eat poo as much as to either be a commie, a fascist, or like Hitler.
And Alex was frustrated by what happened.
He's like, I wanted an honest conversation.
I think Kanye's an interesting guy.
And I wanted to have an honest conversation about what he really thinks and where it comes from.
Because Jones is intensely curious.
Not only very historically literate, but also intensely curious.
And he said he just wouldn't give it to me.
He said he wore the mask the whole time.
He's becoming a meme.
And I'll give you the alternative.
I think the most likely hypothesis is yours, Viva.
I've seen it a lot.
If anybody's been around Hollywood, anybody hits their late 40s, early 50s, Mark Robert could probably speak to it.
There's about one out of three, one out of four, that just flat out lose their minds.
They just flat out lose their minds.
So you can't rule that out, and that's probably the most probable explanation.
There is a backdrop.
Black Jewish hostility that relates to two things in America.
One, urban American Democratic Party politics, those competing for power disproportionately since 1955, 1960, is Black and Jewish political groups, right?
So in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, other places, that's where a lot of it is.
It's like the Italians and the Irish or the Irish and the natives.
And, you know, that's an old contest, if you will.
There's a bit of that.
There's also hostility within the music industry because in the film industry, Because, as Dave Chappelle puts it, there's a good number of Jewish people out there.
Just say it, as he puts it.
Black people get together, definitely a gang.
Italians get together, definitely the mob.
A bunch of Jewish people get together, we're not supposed to talk about that.
It's a coincidence, and you can never...
That's where that joke comes from.
But that's more sincere.
That's not the, I like Hitler nonsense and gibberish Kanye's been spewing.
And he knows that.
And so it's either he's lost his mind and he got associated with an idiot like Fuentes and Fuentes is feeding him all this race grift nonsense and he's just running with it.
Fuentes is a smart kid.
He's just a race grift.
Or it's what he said at the beginning of Tim Pool.
Because when he sets down, something has been on Kanye's mind.
And what Kanye explained is that as accountants had explained to him, he didn't give the exact time frame.
That he owes at least $50 million in taxes.
And he explained how they're coming after him potentially to put him in jail.
And he even grabbed his arm about how that made him nervous.
And then he bridged off to everything else.
And I was like, well, you know, if I was Kanye, and it turns out I got a big tax problem, criminal tax problem, what case would I look up?
Right?
Is there a case out there, somebody famous, maybe even a black male celebrity famous, who was also accused of tax crimes?
Who walked, who mostly walked, didn't serve any real time.
And people out there say, Kanye would never do this because he's losing a quarter of a billion dollar business, potentially.
To give people an idea, at $50 million, he's looking at 20 to 25 years in federal prison.
He's looking at the end of his practical...
And if I can stop you, first of all, is the person you're thinking about, it's not Wesley Snipes.
Okay.
That's exactly who it is.
And if you go to research, I mean, here you have a black male celebrity accused of tax evasion who mostly walked, who did two years at a minimum security work camp where he taught yoga and created a video game.
That's Kanye's exit strategy if he is facing 25 years in federal prison.
If he looked that up and only looked it up lightly, looked at the headlines, stuff like that, he would see a common quote.
And the quote was from our opening statement.
Which was, if crazy was criminal, half of Hollywood would be in prison.
Now, that wasn't really the core of Wes's defense.
It was that a lot of people were going to see crazy stuff, so we had to get ahead of the curve on that.
But the core of the defense was a good-faith reliance defense, which is unique to tax cases, which is, I sincerely believe what I was doing was legal.
My guess is Kanye did indeed do a deep dive.
If he did do a brief try, he'd be like, man.
And then he may have heard of the famous New York mobster.
Who dodged trouble for a good number of years by pretending to be crazy.
He went out in his thing and it was a famous case of him pretending to be crazy.
And it working for a substantial time period.
So Kanye might be like, hey, what if I convince everybody I'm totally nuts?
Then they'll probably just drop me as a criminal tax case.
Probably just move on.
It appears to work for Snipes.
It appeared to work for that mobster guy.
So the best alternative explanation I can give...
For Kanye's behavior, being in his own self-interest and rational, is that it's a massive guise of faking being crazy so he doesn't go to jail.
As we say in Quebecois, Robert, tabernacle, is that a damn good idea?
If that's going to be a novel above and beyond the simple...
My explanation?
People in the chat on Rumble are saying he's playing 4D chess or played 4D chess and failed.
He was just trolling.
Mine is like grade 3 level.
This is a 4D level chess hypothesizing.
And is that to say, if you're accused of or found guilty to owe like $50 million, it's not just a question of repaying the $50 million plus back taxes and interest and whatever?
They would have told them that right away.
In the federal system, that doesn't get you out at all.
Wow.
That's kind of fascinating.
It's just, why bring it up on Tim Pool?
Why bring it up at all?
Like, clearly it's on the front of his mind.
And Tim didn't know to pursue that.
If I'd been right there, I'd have been like, hmm, let's talk about that.
Well, it's true because even from my perspective, I heard it and I was like, oh, okay, he owes 50 million.
Well, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the whatever half billion that he just lost.
So maybe that's frustrating.
But the idea is it would be criminal and therefore repayment is not an option as per his own.
Admissions or fantasies, depending on which way you see it.
And guys like Kanye, because Wes was this way, think prison is like the movie Undisputed that he was in, Wes was in.
But they think of it as hardcore, because the people they know that are in prison are usually in state prison.
Now, at that level, Kanye would be in a serious place, but not a too violent place.
That's all more of a state.
But for someone like them, it terrifies them.
And what was interesting is, he said later that it...
You know, really scared him for a bit.
The way he gripped his arm showed that it was really ripping at him.
And I was like, and nobody picked up on it.
Like, afterwards.
Like, everybody was looking at, oh, he walked off the set, all the rest.
Nobody picked up on that part of his conversation.
And I think, now let's say that's your script.
You're like, I gotta come across as crazy.
I gotta convince people I'm crazy.
The reason I didn't pay taxes...
It's because I thought the Jews were going to steal it all to kill all the black people.
That's why.
Honest to God, I swear.
Something like that.
Whatever it is.
Some crazy script.
And he's not getting the response he gets.
People are taking him seriously at each place.
They're like, this isn't working.
Okay, I'll go on Alex Jones and get Alex to say, you're crazy.
Then the world will understand, yes, I'm nuts.
If there's a sophisticated play, that's it.
Sadly, the reality may be he has just lost it.
Yeah.
I don't believe he's a mean...
No, Fuentes is a grifter.
I get where he's doing.
And for people that keep on a yipping for Fuentes, watch him when Kanye starts praising Hitler.
Watch Fuentes' head go up and down.
He has a pure race grift, bottom of the barrel, David Duke wannabe.
He should waste his time chasing little boys in furry outfits that he likes to do.
That kind of behavior.
But Kanye has never given off, at least as I could tell, malevolent, malicious vibes.
He knew what he was doing when he was saying this ridiculous...
I hope there's a wisdom behind all this.
And that's my thing.
It's like even bonafide sincere genuine anti-Semites don't act like that.
It's not for lack of having run into people who genuinely harbor anti-Semitic beliefs.
They don't run around saying, I love Nazis, I love Hitler.
They don't do that.
But now that you say this, Robert, and you put that in conjunction with his latest Instagram post of accusing Elon Musk of being a half-Chinese...
What's the word?
Hybrid.
Hybrid is the word.
I mean, I still go with my 2D-level interpretation, but my goodness, did you just open my perspective as to what could be the case here.
And people in the chat, I've heard enough of Nick Fuentes.
I don't...
People can believe what they want.
The question really is, does the speech of Nick Fuentes create risks for real-life violence, etc., etc.?
That's a good transition into, you know, was Elon Musk's...
There's two different analyses for Elon Musk.
Did he make the right decision for Twitter versus was his decision First Amendment consistent?
I'll skip the first one for now.
It's not First Amendment consistent because what Kanye posted...
It appeared to be a swastika inside a Star of David.
However, there's a wacky religious group that actually has transhumanist ties and is alien following that uses that symbol for completely different purposes because many people don't know the Nazis stole the swastika.
It was an old symbol that reflected why you find in other places and cultures long predating them.
Now, who knows what Kanye was up to?
And I get why Elon interpreted it the way he did.
It's like, that looks like and feels like a threatening kind of statement when I'm trying to get you to just chill out, bro.
So, I get that part.
But is it imminent?
Mere incitement to violence is not outside free speech.
Only imminent incitement is.
Was it even mere incitement?
But let's...
And by the way, it's the Galien.
I talked about it briefly a few days ago.
They actually settled in Quebec.
The guy came from France.
Really?
Yeah.
All the crazies come from Quebec.
Well, he came from France.
He came from Europe beforehand.
So, ended up in Quebec and it was the Galien symbol.
But, Robert, we're going to back up to another step here.
We've discussed it before.
We'll discuss it again.
And it's what David French is busy talking about on Twitter as relates to...
The Twitter files, and the underlying question, does the First Amendment even apply in the context of Twitter either sanctioning other people's content or imposing suspensions and whatever?
Does the First Amendment even apply as a concept?
It's a private entity imposing its own rules on users.
Setting aside any form of government involvement, which we're going to get to with the Twitter files, I mean, does the question even...
Get asked.
I mean, it's not a First Amendment violation because the First Amendment has nothing to do with a private company imposing rules on Kanye.
Two different things there.
My own view is that, yes, it is First Amendment subject to First Amendment scrutiny because it has monopoly power over the public square.
So that's always been my position, is that the First Amendment...
It does apply to private actors in certain contexts.
One of those contexts is when they have a de facto monopoly over the public square or some part thereof, Twitter does.
They have, in that particular kind of space, compared to Parler and Getter and Truth, they have well over 70% of market share.
And so now the courts have not adopted that position, uh, outside of very limited circumstances.
California has only applied it to like malls and the U S Supreme court has only applied it to company towns.
Uh, I think that's right.
Now, the degree of government involvement...
Courts have been inconsistent about how much they're requiring.
Is it merely request?
Is it coercive?
Is it inducement?
Is it an actual order?
So on and so forth.
And we're seeing, you know, I mean, we saw the Fauci's deposition was released today.
I'm going to do a highlighted version and post it up at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
And so, and also I even got, you know, where did Hitler really come from?
A little hush-hush that I did.
That's currently up at vivobarnslaw.locals.com may surprise some people who was originally backing dear Adolf and where he actually came from.
It wasn't the public democracy that put Adolf in power.
It wasn't the public will of the Germans, two-thirds of whom never voted for Hitler, who put him in power.
It was somebody and some other individuals.
So I think that if Twitter does it by itself under the current court's jurisprudence, it will not be considered.
What is shocking by the other depositions being taken in the Twitter files, and this will be a good transition to that topic, is the degree to which the government has been colluding, conspiring, coordinating, coercing Twitter to suspend.
So I don't think his suspension of Kanye is First Amendment consistent.
It's not.
What Kanye did was not imminent incitement.
It was sufficiently vague to be subject to multiple interpretations.
Someone couldn't even sue for defamation on the basis of it because it's so vague and subject to their varying opinions, the symbol being used.
I get why Elon did it.
Elon took it as a shove off to Elon.
And he was like, well, I'm not going to keep defending you if you're just going to keep escalating in ways that...
Create a nightmare while I'm trying to take over to transition this company into a more transparent space.
But from a First Amendment perspective, nothing Kanye did violated law that's unprotected by the First Amendment.
My issue is setting aside First Amendment issues from a community guidelines in terms of service.
It's not even clear what rule it broke.
The APEC logo for the APEC summit in 2022 in Thailand has...
The form in it, it's called the Hakenkreutz, which is the older version or the original term for what the Nazis co-opted as the swastika.
And I knew that whole history.
The Hakenkreutz in the APEC 2022 summit, it looks exactly like another form.
No one's going to take that as a threat.
And then in which case, is Elon imputing suggested threat into it, in which case it's very subjective and not objective whatsoever?
We'll get to Fauci, actually, in a second, because the different levels of government involvement, as relates to the Twitter files, the Friday night fiasco, not a fiasco, but the feeding frenzy on the internet.
French's position, and I guess in law he's probably more right than wrong, is that, well, he says it's not only not a First Amendment violation, It's the exercise of the First Amendment by a private company doing X, Y, and Z. My question is, okay, you have a provision for coercion.
When the government coerces a private entity into action, it can and will be deemed to be a First Amendment violation issue.
I'm not familiar enough with the case law in the States, but I suspect French might win on the merits of this just because when the FBI comes and says, watch out for censorship, you don't want to have any problems, and then you...
Adhere to their warnings.
Well, nobody was coerced.
Nobody was bribed.
Nobody was threatened.
But I think most people would say that there's something of a veiled threat in there.
What is the threshold?
How much has it ever been tested under American law?
The idea of bribery, the idea of suggested coercion, suggested extortion, suggested threats.
Because when the FBI sits Zuckerberg down, he says, yeah, they sit me down and I take it seriously.
It's the FBI.
And so I act accordingly.
That's...
Indirect coercion.
I mean, has it ever been recognized under U.S. constitutional law?
Yeah, it has in a multiple context.
So inducement can be considered government action, sufficient to bring it within the First Amendment scrutiny.
And coercion has been.
For example, the case that's currently pending that's disclosing all this discovery, the court found that the two state governments sufficiently alleged that the government had ordered, coerced, or induced.
A various suppression and censorship of speech that violated First Amendment rights, and at least sufficient to get to the discovery stage of the case.
So that live case is proof of that.
One of the big cases that went up was the Bantam Books case.
So that was an agency that wanted a book to be banned, wanted certain materials to be banned, but didn't have the power to do it at all.
And yet the U.S. Supreme Court said that was sufficient government action to constitute grounds to sue.
So there's a suit.
Robert Kennedy has a case going up against Elizabeth Warren going up into the Ninth Circuit about her threatening Amazon if they went and published his book.
We'll see.
We'll find out.
Courts have tried to water that down since then to allow the government to do a lot of illicit activities, but the government's been clearly lying about a lot of this.
I mean, what the FBI agent admitted was they had weekly meetings recommending certain people be taken down.
If you're any private company, Do you really ignore the FBI that can put your executives in prison?
Or do you just do whatever they tell you?
I mean, that's where David French is in delusion.
Now, I personally am not for corporations having the same rights as individuals.
That's contra to America's founding history.
Corporations were specially chartered, privileged entities that got special immunities for its founders and investors and its employees.
In exchange for certain obligations that were distinct.
So, you know, I'm not the corporate whore that David French is when he's not busy being a war whore.
But his obsession with the free...
As the Fifth Circuit pointed out, there's limits to that ability.
And when it is and isn't really necessarily their speech that is even at issue in many contexts.
So there's a lot of rebuttal.
But if he was right...
Then all the laws prohibiting Western Union violate the First Amendment.
All the laws limiting utilities violate the First Amendment.
All the laws limiting phone companies violate the First Amendment.
French has not been able to articulate a standard that says, yes, it's okay to regulate their speech, so-called speech, when they censor or can't censor.
But somehow it's horribly offensive.
I mean, who knows how much he's really getting paid money directly or indirectly.
He's living under the same veiled threat.
If you don't toe the line, you get excommunicated or worse.
But the idea, he says, it's not a First Amendment issue.
It's a private company exercising their freedom of speech to censor.
It's either ignoring or pretending it doesn't happen because it wasn't totally fleshed out in the Twitter files release.
It was in the Intercept article.
They've admitted, sitting down with Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, Big Tech, Weekly.
Flagging users, flagging posts, flagging content.
And then to pretend that if the FBI sits you down or potential regulators or, who was it, Manchin says, we're going to investigate your company if you start doing this.
I mean, that is the government coercing action of a private entity to pull it against individuals.
The other question, Robert, actually, before I forget.
French's argument is that the DNC is a private political party, private political entity, therefore not a branch of government, not an arm of government.
And therefore, even if the DNC comes in and says, hey, Twitter, would you take that down?
And Twitter complies.
That's not First Amendment coercive state action.
Something about that seems unpalatable to me, but I don't know.
I mean, it depends.
I mean, DNC is a private organization and can do what they want to a certain degree.
That issue has come up in the election context quite frequently.
So, for example, when the Democratic Party in Texas and other southern states was creating all-white Democratic Party caucuses and thereby dictating who could get the Democratic Party ballot, then the court ultimately interfered and said that wasn't purely private action like they claimed.
So, again, it's not always – with these organizations that have deep ties to elected officials, help create, et cetera, when exactly they're purely private and not purely private is not an open-and-shut question the way he presents it as.
And now, I haven't seen the Fauci stuff at all, but people are hypothesizing.
If the Twitter files released the government involvement in the Hunter Biden story, It's going to be exponentially worse as to their involvement in censoring COVID, misinformation, disinformation.
I mean, in as much as you've gone through it, what were the highlights?
Well, and there's overlap.
So the same guy involved in Russiagate, the general counsel to James Comey, Jim Baker, was also the general counsel for Twitter coordinating the suppression of the Hunter Biden story.
And then you have the overlap of FTX, which according to Elon Musk, he believes FTX gave over a billion dollars to the Democratic Party.
Laundering money for the war in Ukraine.
Laundering money to attack Ivermectin.
Laundering money to support censorship of COVID.
Laundering money to get special Democratic get-out-the-vote operations.
Laundering money to create various fake sites.
Then you have the Secretary of State of Arizona governing her own election for governor.
Who is secretly conspiring with Twitter to remove her critics and people exposing election fraud in Arizona.
So it goes deep, it goes broad, it goes wide.
The biggest disclosure to me, Fauci apparently pled, I don't know, almost as many times as Hillary did.
So it was like 179 times.
Imagine if Alex Jones had said, I don't know, 179 times.
They would have locked him up.
Not just given the default judgment, they would have put him in prison.
Said he committed.
Perjury, obstruction of justice.
But Anthony Fauci, this high-ranking government official, can't even answer where his emails came from.
Can't even answer what he knew at certain time periods.
Couldn't even give one single study to justify anything he ever did during his deposition.
It is an embarrassment to public health.
And then you find out the FBI, high-ranking FBI officials, were the lead people suppressing the Hunter Biden story and other stories.
Which comes out of both the deposition discovery and comes out of the Twitter files.
The FBI was the lead at getting these things crushed and quashed.
And it helped that they had their high-ranking coup plotter from 2016 as the legal counsel, general legal counsel of the Twitter.
Robert, there's a lot to unpack there.
One thing I want to unpack before we forget about it, the laundering.
I mean, Elon has suggested a billion dollars through FTX.
So there's the $40 million from SBF himself that he donated.
If it's not 90% of it, because that was one of the figures I saw, it was the full $40 million.
Two other executives, something like $30 some odd million.
Then you've got the Mind the Gap that his mother's entity, Get Out and Vote, which apparently raised $140 million.
Are you familiar with the interplay between FTX and its various organizations and their involvement with...
The raising of $140 million for Mind the Gap, if there is any?
Because I was under the impression that...
Go for it.
Yeah, I would say we don't know.
Because this is what people can track in public filings.
So that what they can't track is all the shadow money.
The dark cash.
And the money that was filtered through multiple entities.
Like people are trying to figure out Warnock in Georgia has apparently got tons of donations from unemployed people in the state of Washington.
And it's like, why is that?
That looks like it could be laundered donations.
In other words, someone else really making those donations and laundering in other people's names to stay under the limit.
But I think Musk's belief is not without justification.
If you have a scenario where you know 200 million or so went in combined, that you can track and trace, suggesting a billion...
Four times of that that was in the shadows is highly likely.
And so this would be one of the biggest...
I mean, Nixon got into trouble for taking $50,000 donations.
This is a billion dollars laundered in that implicates both COVID suppression, censorship, and implicates Ukraine, the Ukrainian conflict, and whether government money was even part of this.
And this is a guy who was protected by the FTC, CFTC, protected by the SEC, protected by the White House, had high-end meetings with all three, including the head commissioner in different places at different times, and still hasn't been arrested, and is giving interviews all over the place.
And the New York Times and the US are writing puff pieces.
Puff pieces about them.
The Democratic Party found themselves a Bernie Madoff to launder maybe a billion dollars to Democratic campaigns to salvage off the defeat in 2022.
And in the process, they covered up for this guy.
And then now they're going to use his own corruption to go after Bitcoin, a competitor to the central bank digital currencies and central bank currencies in general.
So it was a deep state money laundering machine that makes BCCI look like it was amateur hour.
Robert, I'm going to pull this up just to show everybody here.
I mean, it would be a joke if it weren't so damn serious.
Rep Maxine Waters, we're looking at the same thing.
I found my tweet made it into another article today.
Rep Waters says, "SBF Sam Benjamin Freed, underscore FTX, we appreciate that you've been candid in your discussions about what happened at FTX.
They're thanking this guy for his candor when he has text messages with that journalist admitting that he lied for PR purposes.
They're thanking him for his candor.
Your willingness to talk to the public will help the company's customers, investors, and others.
To that end, we would welcome your participation in our This is Maxine Waters, not a parody account.
Maxine Waters.
Thank you for your candor.
Would you be so kind?
I mean, if only Steve Bannon got this treatment, or Roger Stone.
He replies to her, Rep Waters and the House Committee on Financial Services, once I have finished learning and reviewing what happened, I would feel like it was my duty to appear before the committee and explain.
I'm not sure that will happen before the 13th, but when it does, I will testify.
To which I said, you know, that'll be good enough for Rep.
Max Waters.
When you're ready, Sam, take your time.
Take your time.
You've been very good to Democrats, like delightfully good.
And here's one report where 39.7 million SBF donated in 2022 alone, apparently 10 million in 2020.
His mother's entity down there, Barbara Freed, has something to do with the Democrats as well.
According to a report in the New York Post, she's a law professor at Stanford and co-founded the Democratic Action Committee Mind the Gap.
Which has raised $140 million this election cycle, which is something like, I think it's sevenfold what it was the last election cycle.
He'll get around to testifying whenever he gets the chance.
Robert, the COVID laundering stuff, I haven't been able, I mean, I could see some of it.
The idea behind that is that Sam Benjamin Freed, through FTX Org, they started philanthropic.
Not-for-profits or charitable organizations who were funding, I don't know, grants, financing, awards, whatever, research.
And from what I've been told, but I haven't been able to verify this with my own eyes, so I remain not skeptical, but I would not repeat it as fact, apparently it was funding studies that were used to discredit other treatments, early treatments that have been discredited.
Do you have any firsthand knowledge of those allegations?
Yeah, it's definitely the case that he was suppressing ivermectin and censoring access to ivermectin, which again was the most affordable, most effective early prevention treatment available.
But it didn't line up any drug company mass profit, so that's why it got suppressed.
And it deterred vaccine development, in fact, legally precluded it from being developed.
Because there was no emergency need for it if ivermectin worked.
And so thus, there was a massive campaign against ivermectin that people like Alec Berenson and others were happy to campaign and be part of that campaign as well.
But yes, there was direct money for there, no question.
He came on my radar screen a few months ago when Politico did a front-page cover story about the secret big Democratic donor and how his whole obsession, though, was to be on both sides because he was...
They didn't say he was doing any of this for crypto.
They said he was doing all of this to stop the next pandemic.
So he had his brother running a big anti-pandemic, so a lot of money funneled through there.
And then his aunt sits on the World Economic Forum's public health response.
So, I mean, you couldn't get more deep state than this kid and most of the people that are aligned with him.
And everything about it screams this was a personal deep state piggy bank serving deep state causes.
And it's amazing.
FDX is not being investigated.
They're still harassing Trump.
It shows you the insanity and imbalance of what's taking place.
Robert, someone...
Pamela Walker.
Hold on.
I just don't want to get...
I missed the rumble rant.
Pamela R. Walker.
Good, I remembered.
Asks, do you think Elon is in danger?
And what about whatever is happening between him and the government before all of...
And what about whatever was happening between him and the government before this?
But Robert, let me just pull up.
An article because I love it.
There's some blue check marks on the interwebs who always cry about the mean private DMs that they get, now laughing at Elon Musk, suggesting that the claims, Elon Musk claims risk of his assassination is, quote, quite significant.
And there's people, I won't say what's in their profile pictures or bios or descriptions, but it fits the bill, are now laughing at this.
Yeah, well, the way Musk put it is he wasn't going to be doing any open-air parades anytime soon.
So there's definitely that risk.
And some people asked, is there a connection on our Locals live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com to answer quickly the three questions there.
First one, is there any connection between Berenson and FTX?
Three, yeah, I'll give you one.
It also has three letters in it, like SBF's name.
It's called CIA.
That's the connection between the two, if you dig in a little bit.
Could Kanye have other defenses like a reliance on a counted defense?
Absolutely.
The impression I got was that he hadn't done a deep dive on that for some reason.
I don't know why.
Because, again, if he dug in, you know, Snipes wasn't acquitted of most of the charges against him and all the felonies, half the misdemeanors, because of being crazy, quote-unquote.
It was because he asked questions and the government didn't answer.
And then the crazy part was to deal with certain statements made that a jury might interpret as crazy.
And that was a great line, by the way.
If crazy was criminal, half of Hollywood would be in prison.
That was just beautiful.
I still love that line.
I came up with it.
That's why I love it.
And to the third question.
Any consequences for Fauci or any of these people that are getting caught in the...
Probably not.
For them personally, legally, but it may lead to a court issuing further orders to prevent the government from doing what it's been up to.
And that suit brought by the attorney generals of Louisiana and Missouri, one of whom, that attorney general for Missouri, is about to be in the United States Senate, Eric Schmidt.
So credit to him for pursuing these cases.
Amazing.
I'm just going to pull up a couple of rants on Rumble, and then I'll do the rest tomorrow because I've got a bunch.
You know what?
No, forget it.
I'll do them tomorrow because I can't pull them up in the order in which they came.
Yes, so Sam Bankman-Fried will testify when he's good and ready.
There's been no arrest, no extradition, no nothing.
No seizure of assets.
No seizure of assets.
I mean, if this was a Trump scam, then they would have locked up Trump already, but you can guarantee they would have seized all the assets.
They're seizing his assets for not defrauding anybody in New York.
And here, nobody has, there's been no effort.
That I'm aware of for them to seize any of his assets.
I guess he's filed in bankruptcy, so theoretically that freezes things, but that doesn't seize things legally.
It's amazing the U.S. government is completely asleep.
It's because they don't want to dig into wherever this takes them.
That's enough to give you a black pill, Robert.
We've got a big case of the Supreme Court about speech.
Oh, so this is a very interesting one.
This is like the sequel to that poor, and I'm saying the poor baker.
I forget in what state they were in.
Colorado.
Well, they were being told, bake my cake, paint my fence.
This is like Krusty the Clown from The Simpsons.
That cake baking scenario.
Robert, I just don't understand why the Supreme Court decision didn't resolve that the last time.
Way back in the day, back in the early days of the vlog, the car vlogs.
There was the case of the bakers who refused to bake a cake with a specific message for a homosexual couple, I believe, getting married.
Yeah, it was gay marriage.
He would do any kind of cake, just he wouldn't do a gay marriage cake.
They would sell any existing cake they had in the shop.
The patron said, we want this cake with this message.
They said, we're not putting that message on.
It goes against our beliefs.
That case, I remember this is like, this is the early stages of the Viva Red Pill.
When I discovered the dishonesty in the reporting on that case where they were saying discrimination, they refuse to serve a gay couple.
And I was like, I read it.
I feel like I'm going crazy because that's not what happened at all.
It was the idea that they refused to put on a specific message, be mandated to create a specific work, but ultimately their defense was upheld.
I'm not fully familiar with what happened afterwards because they were targeted again for a different religious reason.
That's not the one that's currently going to the Supreme Court?
No, it's the state of Colorado, though.
So it's somewhat similar to a web designer.
And so she just won't design web pages that promote messages she disagrees with.
And so Colorado has called that discrimination.
That now that they get to have state coerced speech under the guise of anti-discrimination laws.
Now, she hasn't discriminated against anybody.
She didn't say, hey, because you're gay, I won't serve you.
Nothing like that.
If a straight person came and said, I want this particular message on my website, she would say, no, I don't promote that particular message.
If Colorado's law is affirmed, to give people an idea, Nazis could seek out, neo-Nazis in America could seek out Jews in America and demand they promote and put up and design a Nazi website.
A Holocaust denial website.
They could seek out survivors of the Holocaust, like the Nazis did in 1978 when marching through Skokie, Illinois.
Why Skokie, Illinois?
It was the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors in America.
That's why they picked it.
And forced them to do it.
That's how outrageous this is.
This is Colorado showing what California looks like just a little bit.
Add a few mountains.
And to me, it's clear First Amendment violation, but there are some disturbing questions from the left-leaning justices today on the Supreme Court.
And before we even get there, my question about the Colorado Baker is, I thought that went to the Supreme Court and resolved the issue.
It did, but they didn't.
They made it fact-specific.
They said because they said this and said that, and they should have...
Ended it there, but they didn't.
So they're going to have to take this case to stop this.
And this one is about someone who wants a web page set up.
I think it's for something related to...
Is it related to trans ideology?
I think something like that.
The specifics are...
But Robert, the specifics might be relevant for one reason.
Because I imagine...
I was trying to think of an analogy.
If I went to this place and said, make me a cake that says, I hate my mother.
I'm trying to think of something PG-13.
And they say, no, I'm not doing that.
That's a terrible message.
Get the hell out of here.
No one would ever blame them.
The issue is going to be, they're going to say, I'm asking them to put in a message of a protected class, a message relating to a protected class.
So your analogy of the Nazis asking a Jew to make a, I don't know, I don't want to say anything really bad, to make a cake that says, I love, Kanye could ask him to make the cake.
The court could say, That's not a protected religious gender expression, et cetera, ideology.
So private actors can be compelled to make certain speech when it pertains to protected classes, but not when it pertains to just non-protected messages that they find offensive.
And that's what they should clarify has never been part of the law.
The First Amendment.
The First Amendment does not allow the state to compel speech ever, period.
Doesn't matter how...
You know, right someone might think that speech is.
So that's not part of...
And no one has a First Amendment right to force someone to do so either.
So the anti-discrimination laws were supposed to be, you don't deny me access to a service because of some protected position.
That's very different than coerced speech.
You now have to give the speech that I like because I'm part of a protected class.
The latter has never been part of it.
That's where the court should be made clear.
The liberal justices clearly couldn't understand that distinction.
I mean, KJB or KBJ, whatever it is, she sounds like an idiot on the bench, frankly.
She'll probably end up like Kamala Harris, our dumbest vice president ever.
Saying something when you had people like Dan Quayle and others.
But now you're going to...
She may end up being one of the dumbest Supreme Court justices we've had.
Because she made a comparison to It's a Wonderful Life that made zero sense.
At the end of it, she asked a question that doesn't relate to the stats.
She says, well, what about It's a Wonderful Life?
Because all the kids in that movie are white...
By the way, it was a black and white film, but okay.
All the kids in that film are white.
I make some photos that all the kids are white, and I only sell them to white kids.
It's like, okay, that's a totally different scenario.
You're only selling them to white kids.
You're discriminating on who you sell.
That has no analogy at all.
In fact, it appeared to believe that she thinks It's a Wonderful Life is a secret white supremacist message.
That's how nuts this is.
I always said judges look like the person who put them there.
And that's what we're going to get.
We're going to get lunatic lefty types who are really, really dumb, just like Joe Biden on the bench, it appears.
And just so everybody's clear, when Barnes says, looks like ideologically, intellectually, because I was reading some of the comments as well.
The idea that they were analogizing it to saying, well, we don't want to live in a world where people can refuse to serve to gays, to blacks, to Jews.
That's not, it's not even the question at issue here, as the other, whoever's arguing the opposite.
In fact, what they don't realize is they're actually making that legal, that someone, the state could coerce that.
The state could say, for example, it could be considered a religious statement being anti-Jewish, right?
Now you can coerce it.
I mean, this is, it's insane.
Speed, there's always been a difference between equal access to services.
And compelled speech.
Those two things are totally different.
The left tried to conflate them.
They're completely distinguishable.
I think the Supreme Court will draw a hard line, make it clear you cannot coerce speech under the guise of protecting certain groups from discrimination and essential services.
What's it going to be, Robert?
6-3?
5-4?
6-3.
Maybe Roberts will say something grandstanding as a concurring opinion or whatnot.
But the majority will be...
They didn't take it unless they planned on reversing what Colorado was doing.
To me, it's black and white.
It couldn't be.
The idea is nobody's being denied any service.
You want a template for a website?
Take it.
You want to put your own message?
Do it.
But you're going to make me perform a specific act for you, which I don't believe in.
Take what we have, and if you don't like it, goodbye.
Nobody's being denied service, period.
Exactly.
All right, what does that segue into, Robert?
I know which one I want to talk about eventually.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Seditious conspiracy, Robert.
They're batting 100.
They're batting 100.
I don't know.
They're batting 99 because there was that one lucky schnook who got off because he got a judge that said, yeah, when the cops wave you in, Rhodes, Oath Keepers, and his other partner, It's not the first time in American history, but damn well close, that someone's convicted of seditious conspiracy?
I mean, it's been a long time.
The first time they came around was Alien and Sedition Acts, early by the Federalist types, under John Adams.
And Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonians quite correctly rejected it, and they said this was a...
Patent violation.
It was misused and abused to target political critics and opponents.
And when Jefferson got in, he pardoned and commuted a bunch of sentences and got rid of those laws so they were not on the books anymore.
Tried little bits of it during the Civil War.
The next big effort was during World War I, where they locked up a congressman from Milwaukee, Victor Berger, locked up Eugene V. Debs for just giving a speech opposing the war.
So they did the Palmer Raids in the name of it, deported a bunch of people.
So that's how J. Edgar Hoover got his start, was through the sedition laws.
And they were controversial at the time.
They have always been used to target political speech.
They're basically old-school criminal libel statutes that say you can't criticize the government.
That's what they really are.
And that's what Stuart Rhodes was convicted of, because I think they found him not guilty of doing anything actually obstructive.
And this was a lefty D.C. jury, which means the evidence was so bad there was no evidence they could convict on those grounds.
And convicted them on seditious conspiracy, which means they convicted them based on speech, based on text.
It was ridiculous.
I mean, the sedition laws should be struck from the books.
They've always been problematic.
They've always been weaponized against political dissidents.
They've always been used to cover up corruption in government.
They have no business being on the books.
Thomas Jefferson was right.
They're foreign and anathema to the American liberty and constitutional republic.
But their particular application here with a biased jury pool, with a corrupt group of prosecutors who hid evidence of how many FBI agents had infiltrated, how many rats and informants were part of the operation around this.
The evidence at trial didn't support any of the allegations that the Oath Keepers were leading any effort to overthrow the government.
That's absolutely absurd.
They actually protected people that were there.
They protected Capitol Police that were there.
Many of them tried to mitigate any consequences.
That's why you get these wild verdicts.
Rather than just rubber-stamp convictions, the evidence was so overwhelming that even a bunch of lefty juries were like, well...
We won't convict him of everything.
That would show we're not total frauds.
And three other defendants did not get convicted on seditious conspiracy.
Before we even get into the infiltration of the FBI or intelligence law enforcement into this seditious conspiracy, despite their statements that they had no advance warning anything was going to happen, get there in a second.
If you know, is my understanding correct?
Despite all of this, they got their seditious conspiracy charges.
Now they've got their conviction.
Seditious conspiracy and insurrection are two separate criminal charges.
Seditious conspiracy relates to words and planning, and insurrection relates to actual violence committed in the attempt to overthrow.
I'm not wrong about that, correct?
No, correct.
And there's no insurrection charges that have ever been brought here.
Export Selection