Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 11, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:15:33

Ep. 141: Twitter Files; Trump Taxes; Kari Lake; Brittney Griner & SO MUCH MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And the truth that we need to confront now is that medicine and science are being politically perverted around this country that destroys human lives.
	And we have reached a tipping point for the role of medicine and civic life for the health and well-being of LGBTQI + youth and other Americans.
	Those who attack our community are driven by an agenda of politics.
	It has nothing to do with medicine.
	It has nothing to do with science.
	It has nothing to do with warmth, empathy, compassion, and understanding.
	They are rejecting the value of supportive medicine, rejecting well-established science, and simply rejecting basic human compassion.
	Thank you.
	We, Dr. This is so organic.
	who love our communities and love our nation have to confront the fact that the language of care and compassion that they're using is being taken to granted to literally tear our communities apart.
	So we have to stand up.
	We have to take a stand on behalf of those We're being hurt.
	That's what we do in medicine, even when it's difficult.
	We've got to piece through this.
	By the way, let me just backtrack a little bit.
	When I said, did we want to gag in the opener, it was in reference to Justin Trudeau.
	This was actually the substitute for vomitus in the mouth, which I realized afterwards people might have thought I was referring to this.
	This is apropos.
	Because of some news that has broken about which you might be aware.
	A certain transgender Navy SEAL who now wants to detransition.
	And we're seeing Chloe Cole detransitioning team, suing doctors.
	I wanted to play this because I don't remember if we talked about this or if I just tweeted about it.
	But it's...
	So over the top in terms of, geez, Louise, I mean, confession through projection.
	My family members tell me, Viva, or they say, Dave, enough with the confession through projection.
	We got it.
	But it's never going to end.
	It's never going to be enough because it's always going to be there.
	And the people doing it, they're doing it harder.
	They're doing it faster.
	They're doing it with more, I don't know, brazenness.
	With a total lack of introspection or a total lack of honesty, we've got to walk through a few of the elements in this in terms of what Dr. Levine is talking about.
	It's not about science.
	I don't want to screw it up.
	Let's just hear this.
	And the truth that we need to confront now is that medicine and science are being politically perverted around this country.
	This destroys human lives.
	Medicine and science is being politically perverted.
	Which is an odd way of describing it, across this country in a way that is destroying lives.
	You're right, Dr. Levine.
	Politically perverted around this country, this destroys human lives.
	You're right, Dr. Levine, but we're not talking about the same destruction of human lives.
	We're not even talking about the same humans.
	And we have reached a tipping point for the role of medicine and civic life, for the health and well-being of LGBTQI plus youth and other Americans.
	She's talking about youth.
	Levine.
	When someone detransitions, do the pronouns change?
	I'm just going to go with doctor.
	Because whatever we think about Levine, Levine is still a doctor.
	We'll say doctor.
	I would not take my kids to this doctor.
	I might also end that qualification of doctor with quack afterwards.
	But moving on.
	Those who attack our community are driven by an agenda of politics.
	Those who attack our community are driven by an agenda of politics.
	I agree with you, Dr. LGBTQ2IA plus children in our community.
	I agree with you.
	Driven by politics.
	And I dare say some of the doctors are also driven by a little bit of that good old digital green stuff.
	It has nothing to do with medicine.
	Nothing to do with medicine.
	Double mastectomies.
	Top surgery.
	Bottom surgery.
	Puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, has nothing to do with medicine.
	It has to do with the perversion of the practice of medicine.
	Perversion.
	Political perversion.
	It gets even better.
	This entire speech could have been delivered by a...
	It could have been delivered by Matt Walsh.
	Could have been delivered by Billboard Chris.
	This entire speech, verbatim, with a couple of tweaks, mutatus mutandus, could have been delivered by...
	We're vehemently anti-gender-affirming care proponents.
	It has nothing to do with medicine.
	It has nothing to do with science.
	It has nothing to do with warmth, empathy, compassion, and understanding.
	You're right.
	Because when you lob off the healthy breasts of a young child, of a young teenager, it has nothing to do with any of that.
	It has to do with perversion of medicine.
	And it has to do with corruption of what has become a very lucrative business for doctors.
	They are rejecting the value of supportive medicine.
	Yeah.
	When you lop off the healthy parts of a teenager, you're rejecting supportive medicine and you've gone straight into body mutilation.
	Supportive medicine means supporting the individual through the crisis, not catering to it, not exacerbating it.
	The idea that someone thinks they need to lop off healthy body parts in order to ease the mental anguish and distress that goes along with a mental condition, because this is a diagnosable and diagnosed mental condition, the idea that you need to lop off healthy body parts to ease the distress, that's part of the mental illness, not a solution to it.
	Rejecting well-established science.
	Can you believe Dr. Levine is sitting here telling us that we're the ones rejecting well-established science, which is that boys have penises, girls have vaginas.
	Boys have more testosterone, girls don't have as much testosterone.
	Boys develop muscle mass at around 12 to 13 years of age.
	Girls don't quite develop that type of muscle mass.
	There's an entire book my wife is reading.
	She's a neuroscientist, by the way, called Mommy Brain.
	And, like, people are so torn between science and politics.
	It's just a tug of war.
	Is politics going to take over science?
	Rachel Levine is accusing us.
	What did she say here?
	...the value of supportive medicine, rejecting well-established science.
	Rachel Levine is accusing me, Matt Walsh, Billboard Chris, of rejecting well-established science.
	And simply rejecting basic human compassion.
	You know who's rejecting basic human compassion?
	The adults in the room that are allowing children in the room to dictate what happens to their bodies.
	They are the ones who are lacking human compassion.
	Human compassion does not mean catering to the mental issues of someone who is going through a diagnosable, diagnosed mental condition.
	That's not compassion.
	Compassion is not letting your kid eat all of the candy.
	Because they want to eat a bag of candy on Halloween.
	That's called neglect.
	Rejecting well-established science, if you eat that candy, you're going to get sick.
	I don't care that you think you want to.
	You're a kid.
	Your brain is not developed.
	That's well-established science.
	You don't get to make decisions that are going to permanently alter your body for the rest of your life.
	That's why you can't get a tattoo until you're 18. That's why you can't drink until you're 17, 18, 21, whatever the jurisdiction.
	That's why you can't smoke.
	Oh, but you can decide to take hormone replacement therapy, lop off your breasts or genitals.
	And we're the ones rejecting well-established science.
	Carrying on.
	We as doctors and as people who love our communities and love our nation have to confront the fact that the language of care and compassion that they're using is being taken to granted to literally tear our communities apart.
	I actually don't even know what that means.
	So we have to stand up.
	We have to take a stand on behalf of those.
	Who are being hurt.
	We do.
	That's what we do in medicine.
	Yep, we do.
	Even when it's difficult.
	Yep, and you know who the ones that are hurting them are?
	Dr. Levine.
	You.
	You.
	And do you know how we know this now?
	Well, the more people that go through this craze, this phenomenon, this massive industry now, the more people that go through it, the more people that come out of it and say, what the hell did you let me do?
	To my body.
	What the hell did you let me do?
	And that is, this was the segue into that par deux, as we say in Men in Tights.
	I think he was a I think he was a military person.
	What did I say there was?
	A seal.
	I hope I don't get copystrike for this, but let's play this.
	You may not have seen in 2013 an interview with a Navy SEAL, Chris Beth.
	He came out as a transgender Navy SEAL.
	But why we're here today is because of everything happening in America with this transition craze that's going on with kids.
	This also reveals two other issues, which we've discussed at various points on this channel with Dr. Sidney Watson.
	Munchausen by Proxen, Munchausen syndrome by social media.
	We're going to get there because it's a point that Robbie Starbuck brings up in You have something that you want to tell the world.
	What is that?
	Everything you see on CNN with my face, do not even believe a word of it.
	Everything that happened to me for the last 10 years.
	They destroyed my life.
	I destroyed my life.
	I'm not a victim.
	I did it to myself, but I had some help.
	He's an adult.
	He did it to himself.
	Chloe Cole, 15-year-old girl, didn't do it to herself.
	Gender ideology is cultish, and it's not science-based at all.
	They take that desire, that innate human desire to want to change and to want to help people, and they use it just like a cult leader would.
	And the parents are so desperate to fit in with this ideology because of the fear of the us-them.
	They don't want to be othered.
	So now they're using the children as these trophies of like, look at me.
	I have a child that I'm accepting of.
	It is virtue signaling by proxy.
	I've been thinking recently that I don't know enough about the fall of the Roman Empire and I was looking for a good book to listen to.
	I understand the 30,000-foot overview of the fall of the Roman Empire, but I wonder how much of an analogy can be drawn to this virtue signaling.
	Because I genuinely believe if the West falls, if the West commits some form of social suicide, it will be as a result of virtue signaling.
	It will be as a result of the desire to...
	Superficially feign tolerance.
	Because what that does, it's a drug.
	It's a drug as much as Munchausen syndrome.
	As much as Munchausen syndrome by proxy, for those of you who don't know what that is.
	The idea that you get pity, or you get adulation, you get sympathy, you get attention if you're sick.
	And so what that does?
	People face sickness because they get sympathy.
	They get brownies brought over by their neighbors.
	They get more attention than they would have ever gotten.
	In real life, on their own merits to some extent.
	And so it becomes much easier to get this attention by pretending to be sick than by succeeding in health and Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
	For those who, you know, don't want to get sick or fake sick, well, you get your kids sick.
	And then you get to have all of the adulation, the attention, and you get to look like a hero because you're sacrificing yourself for the kid that you're making sick.
	What we have here is not a failure to communicate.
	What we have here is virtue signaling by proxy, a form of social media-created Munchausen syndrome, where people say, I need to show, if only superficially, if only I put out a tweet that says, we can get to some of the superficial tweets in a second, where the people who tend to virtue signal the hardest tend to also be the nastiest.
	People are so desperate to virtue signal to show how tolerant they are that they have to fabricate controversy to show that they are tolerating and accepting of.
	And so what easier way to do that than with your children?
	You don't have to make them physically ill.
	You don't have to feed them windshield fluid in their Gatorade.
	Just convince them that they're a trans five-year-old and that you're so tolerant you're going to let them change their name.
	You're going to let them dress up like whatever they want.
	And this will be the end or the downfall of Western society.
	When people put more value on feigning virtue than actually being virtuous.
	And they put so much more value on tolerance that they're prepared to tolerate atrocities under the pretext of tolerance and humanity.
	for children who are so confused that you're going to allow the kids to mutilate their bodies so that they can express themselves.
	And in as much as TikTok, I believe, I agree with Sidney Watson.
	It's a manufacturer of mental illness.
	It is a manufacturer of psychological disruption.
	I know there's a lot of people out there who think it's a deliberate tactic by China that made the app and wants to infiltrate and degrade Western society.
	And I can very much understand that sentiment.
	I'm not sure that I'm there yet, but that's not to say that I might not get there, and it's not to say that I think anybody who's there is crazy.
	I don't.
	I can understand that idea.
	There's the idea that it's on purpose, but at the end of the day, whether or not it's on purpose or whether or not it's the nefarious side effect of what is effectively a drug, just happens to be a social media drug, it changes nothing.
	You sit on TikTok for a little while, I mean, I've got a bit of hypochondriacy myself with a little insight so I know when it's happening.
	But there's people who don't.
	And there's young kids who are not even developed at that point yet where they just get down a path and they start thinking that they are effectively suffering from some form of condition that becomes a mental illness.
	and it's a curated self-inflicted mental illness.
	I was watching.
	I don't know if you guys know of this.
	I think it's called...
	Sorry, that's me.
	I want to see if it's Chubby Emu.
	Yeah.
	For anybody who doesn't know Chubby Emu, I forget where the name came from.
	It's a doctor who does these very, very, very good...
	It's like A Thousand Ways to Die, but more scientific.
	I'll put it in here.
	I'm so hypochondriacal, like I'm watching these chubby emu, you know, a guy who gets skin cancer, cuts off his own mole, and then this cancer spreads around his body and he ends up at the hospital.
	I can feel myself getting skin cancer.
	I can feel myself having a heart attack, a stroke.
	There was one, the link I just put there in the chat is a kid who accidentally allegedly ate 96 edible gummies thinking they were candies.
	Oh boy.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	The world's gone mad.
	Everything that Dr. Levine said in that intro is true, but of Levine and of the promoters, purveyors, and enablers of this remedy to what is a diagnosable mental disorder.
	And I say that with no judgment, with nothing.
	I say that with no judgment.
	Nobody should be judged, discriminated against for their mental disorders.
	But when medicine starts to cater to those mental disorders, promote them, encourage them, and then lucratively treat them, Houston, we have a problem.
	Okay.
	Now, let me just see something here.
	Do I have my phone?
	I don't have my phone.
	I need to see if Robert is in the house.
	Are we live on the Rumbles?
	There's a $10 Rumble rant and standard intros.
	Daddy Dragon, The Fate of Empires, and Search for Survival.
	I don't know what that is.
	Sir John Glubb, and there's people, there's a website.
	Everybody, how goes the battle?
	I'm sorry that we started off on that.
	It's upsetting to watch.
	And now we're seeing Chloe Cole suing, a detransitioning team suing the doctors.
	We see the Navy SEAL now saying, holy crap, I got sucked into this and I did it to myself, but I had a lot of help.
	Mahuyo, $5 rumble.
	I would argue that politics has already taken over science, hence the replication crisis.
	There's no question politics has taken over science.
	And other people, you mean the vast majority of the rest of humanity?
	Levine is a fraud on every level that has touched the riot.
	A $1 rumble.
	Thank you very much.
	And let me get back to YouTube because I know that we had a couple of rumble super chats here.
	It's correctly addressed as doctored Rachel Levine.
	The goggles do nothing.
	Thank you very much.
	And is this admirable?
	General Kelly.
	You almost got me.
	Good one.
	Now, hold on.
	Let me just make sure that Robert has the link because I don't see him in the backstage.
	I know that I sent it to him.
	Let me just go to my sent items.
	Robert.
	Streamyard.
	Okay.
	I sent it to Robert for sure.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice.
	No legal advice.
	No election fornication advice.
	We will be going to rumble exclusively sooner than later.
	So there's that.
	Until Robert gets here, let me just take a moment.
	There's no sponsored item, no sponsored video tonight, except for my own sponsorship.
	It's not a sponsorship.
	It is our own merch in time for Christmas.
	If you go to vivafry.com and you'll see that's me and my lovely wife.
	That hair is not even six months ago.
	Stress will do wonders for hair growth.
	If anybody wants a shirt, you can go.
	We got Viva Barnes.
	Politics Ruins Everything is the best shirt we've ever made.
	I never wear it and don't get someone saying you're damn right.
	Viva.
	You can get all your stuff there.
	And then we also have Creations by Ziggy.
	Unique Christmas and Chanukah stuff.
	The reason why I say Chanukah like that is John Lovitz had a great bit on SNL.
	Creations by Ziggy for anybody who wants to get some amazing stuff.
	Okay.
	Okay, we're going to start.
	We're going to get like a Rakata-type super chat jokes.
	Make your jokes.
	I am not...
	I actually kind of...
	I feel bad for the person.
	There's no question I feel bad for the person.
	I do wonder, in the Navy SEALs case, if there were other reasons for which they might have done that.
	I don't know what was going on.
	Oh, man.
	Until Robert gets here, who has been following...
	The drama on Twitter.
	People have lost their ever-loving minds.
	And there's absolutely no other way of saying it.
	People have lost their ever-loving minds.
	You got Viva Chia Pet screen grabbed and let's see if we can make that work.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me just get my wife.
	Marion!
	I need my phone.
	Sorry about that.
	People have lost their ever-loving minds on Twitter.
	I've got to bring up a few of them.
	It's been fun on Twitter lately.
	Let me just make sure that I can bring it up here.
	Thank you.
	I screamed very loud into the microphone.
	Let me make sure that Barnes is good.
	Give me two seconds.
	Twitter has been fun.
	The Twitter files never end.
	And they're revealing stuff that's outflipping rages.
	Elon Musk made the news today.
	For those of you who don't live on Twitter and for those of you who don't want to be on Twitter because it's a toxic hellhole, which it is, for those of you who don't know, Elon made the news today because he said, my pronouns are prosecute slash Fauci.
	Which is kind of funny.
	Then you get Richie Torres, who is Congressman New York 15, born and bred in the Bronx, product of public housing, fighting for people whose struggles were my own.
	A laudable purpose in life.
	And I don't judge this person on any deeper level than the last tweet.
	The Bronx is essential.
	Richie Torres for Congress.
	Okay.
	Richie Torres.
	Then says Elon Musk wants to criminalize Anthony Fauci because he disagrees with him.
	As if there's anybody in their right mind who thinks that that's what Elon Musk is doing.
	Elon is no champion of free speech.
	That is what we call a straw man argument of the highest order.
	I have to come to you, not that Elon needs me to come to his defense, but...
	I just have to point out that, first of all, Elon doesn't want to criminalize anybody.
	Prosecute versus criminalize are two different things.
	Prosecute and go through the system.
	Criminalize means bypass the system to make illegal, but that's too nuanced for Twitter.
	So I simply said I'm pretty sure that he wants to criminalize Fauci because Fauci lied under oath.
	Fact.
	Engaged in gain-of-function research in a lab in China, in Wuhan.
	Fact.
	And for those of you who are going to say he didn't directly engage in any gain-of-function research, financing it through third-party NGOs is just a way of concealing the financing, the funding.
	They did.
	Others out there are going to say...
	If they're going to believe Fauci, it wasn't gain-of-function because I have a paper that says it's not gain-of-function.
	All we did was enhance something to be transmissible from animals to humans.
	It's gain-of-function.
	Financed gain-of-function research in a lab in Wuhan, China.
	Some might say that he doesn't want to criminalize Fauci, but just wants to potentially prosecute him because he lied under oath, engaged in gain-of-function, lied about it, financed it.
	Jeopardized the entire planet.
	And I will say, arguably, because it's arguable and you have to, you know, weigh your words on social media, arguably led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, which he did.
	But no, no, it's Elon Musk is now, you know, they have to build this narrative that Elon Musk is not a defender of free speech.
	That he actually wants to stifle free speech.
	And they do it in the most outrageous, strawman ways conceivable.
	Klobuchar is another one jumping on this.
	Klobuchar, Amy Klobuchar, for those of you who don't know who Amy Klobuchar is, U.S. Senator from Minnesota.
	Amy Klobuchar comes out and says, I'm a big fan of Dr. Fauci and how he's calmly guided our country through crisis.
	Ree Musk tweet, courting vaccine deniers.
	Oh my.
	Got to get with the ad hominem.
	Got to discredit your adversaries by calling them names.
	Courting anti-vaxxers.
	Vaccine deniers.
	Sorry, she didn't say anti-vaxxers.
	Got to make sure I get it right.
	Doesn't seem like a smart business strategy, but the issue is this.
	Could you just leave a good man alone in your seemingly endless quest?
	For attention.
	Do we notice a trend here?
	He's a poor schmuck.
	Will you just leave him alone?
	Jamie Raskin talking about Ray Epps.
	He's a good man.
	Will you just leave him alone?
	Amy Klobuchar talking about gain-of-function Anthony Fauci.
	Just leave him alone.
	She's a big fan of Anthony Fauci.
	Let's see what else Klobuchar was a big fan of because it doesn't take much time.
	Barnes is late, Corn Pop.
	I just hope Barnes is coming.
	It doesn't take much time to find previous stupid things that the people who want you to listen to them now, they're saying they're right now.
	Let's see if they were right in the past.
	Here's a gem for maybe Klobuchar.
	July 22nd, when they were trying to tell the whole world, get vaccinated to protect grandma because it prevents transmission.
	But we never said it prevented transmission.
	You're an idiot for thinking we said that.
	July.
	I don't know that this was true in July 2021.
	I might suspect it wasn't, but I don't know.
	I don't know how they know 97% of people hospitalized with COVID-19 are unvaccinated when they don't even know at that time.
	I think it was then where Hoshul was coming out and saying, we don't know who's being hospitalized with COVID versus from COVID.
	We haven't done that small detail.
	We haven't gone through that yet.
	97% of people hospitalized with COVID-19 are unvaccinated.
	99.5% of people dying of COVID are unvaccinated.
	Get vaccinated.
	Protect yourself.
	Protect your family.
	But we never told you that vaccination prevents transmission.
	Here's another beautiful one.
	Klobuchar talking about misinformation.
	This is about Trump and Russia.
	The bipartisan report reforms what we've known.
	Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump.
	Protecting our democracy from foreign interference is vital, which is why we still need to pass my secure life.
	What else was there?
	There was a beautiful one here.
	Met with experts in Hennepin.
	Yada, yada, as we work to combat the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.
	Lies online shouldn't keep people from getting vaccinated.
	And let's be clear, vaccines are safe and effective.
	July 26, 2021.
	To which I, this is news.
	This is new news.
	They're doing the trials now on myocarditis.
	So my question to Amy was simply, when did we decide that it was safe?
	To the extent that we haven't, Pfizer and I think Moderna also are now conducting clinical trials to see the extent of myocarditis.
	The effective part, that goalpost has moved.
	Effective now no longer means preventing transmission.
	It means reducing your symptoms if you do it, if you're lucky.
	Unless you get other symptoms like myocarditis.
	One in 5,000 per dose.
	But now they're doing those studies.
	So when they said it was safe and effective, and effective turned out to be a moving goalpost, based on what?
	Did they say it was safe if we're only now understanding that they're undertaking to do the clinical trials to see the extent to which it might cause myocarditis in young men?
	And Barnes is in the back.
	Let me just get one more gem.
	Let me just get one more gem.
	They also have to turn Elon Musk into public enemy number one.
	How do I get to home?
	Because Elon Musk, he's got to be promoting dangerous stuff.
	On Twitter.
	Can we all agree that Elon Musk is an apartheid-loving, white supremacist?
	From the same person.
	I get to swear.
	Please don't leave me here on my own with these crazy MAGA fucks.
	These are the people talking about a spike in hate on Twitter.
	In as much as there might have been any increase of temporary through bot accounts of racist, you know, N-words, K-words, and whatever, part of me really thinks that it's the people who are calling people crazy MAGA fucks that might be the ones putting out these crazy tweets, creating these bot accounts so they can then say, look how terrible it is, these crazy MAGA effers.
	Outrageous.
	Okay, that's the intro rant.
	It went longer than usual.
	Do we just go straight over to Rumble before?
	Let me do one thing.
	I'm going to read these superchats and then we're going to go over to Rumble and just go and do it straight on Rumble because we're 30 minutes in and let's do it.
	Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Oh my gosh, there's a lot of Rumble.
	There's a lot of superchats.
	Okay, let's do this.
	Randy King, the word homosexual was coined in 1861 Germany.
	It led up to the events that triggered World War I. These are facts, folks.
	Thank you very much, Randy King.
	Pasha Moyer, I am so embarrassed to have Amy Klobuchar as my senator.
	What a joke.
	I got that one.
	Come on.
	Barnes is here.
	He's here.
	He's here.
	Corn pop.
	Bro, let's go kayak fishing.
	Screen grab.
	I haven't taken the kayak out since I bought it.
	It's just sitting in the garage.
	English Constitution Party.
	Are you or have you spoken about the Brunson versus Adam Oath case?
	Hopefully the Supreme Court will decide to take it on January 6th.
	Let's see about that.
	Melissa Wood, take note, alcohol and tobacco companies, this is your way into bigger market share.
	Don't forget piercing and tattoos.
	Are you, or have you spoken about, okay, sorry, I got that one, English Constitution Party, let me grab it, and then one more, J-Mill, before we head over.
	It'll be nice if everyone was forced to admit it's not a vaccine, and that they changed the definition to safeguard the emergency use of said therapeutic, according to Dr. Kieran Moore.
	All right, I'm going to bring Barnes in.
	Robert, sir, how goes it?
	You got a haircut.
	Yes, I did.
	Yeah, I've been needing a haircut.
	Well, you were looking a little ragged and hippie-ish, Robert.
	I think we're just going to end it now and go to Rumble.
	We'll just do the entire thing on Rumble.
	I'm going to go give everyone the link.
	Everyone, let's do this.
	Here's the link.
	It's in the pinned comment as well.
	I can answer the Brunson case is never going to be taken by the U.S. Supreme Court.
	They did great publicity promoting that case.
	That case has zero chance at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	What is the Brunson case for those of us who don't know?
	I get it.
	With an eclectic theory to throw everybody out and so on and so forth and challenge their oaths as congressmen.
	It's the kind of case the U.S. Supreme Court was never going to take.
	It was good PR.
	I'll put it that way.
	Tons of people email me.
	Hey, what about this case?
	That case has zero chance.
	The Barnes bet has been made.
	As the...
	Where is it?
	I don't have it here.
	It says always bet on Barnes.
	Okay.
	We're going to end it on YouTube, people.
	Move a mosey on over to Rumble.
	And I'm going to end it in 3, 2, 1. Ooh, yeah.
	All right, Robert.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Where do we start tonight?
	We're not getting through 35 cases, but...
	The amount of homework I did today, tremendous.
	But where do we start?
	What do we have on the menu from a hierarchy of importance and based on the locals poll?
	What do we start with?
	The number one case on the locals poll will not be our first case because, as Alex likes to remind everybody, you've got to keep something at the end for everybody to hang around and hear all the other good stuff.
	But that will be the Cary Lake case.
	We will get to the Cary Lake case, but just in a bit.
	We have the vaccine cases relating to the FDA and FOIA, relating to Brooke Jackson and Pfizer, and there's a hearing this week.
	Nike being sued for its vaccine mandate, so a couple of vaccine mandate cases.
	Some Supreme Court updates, SCOTUS, free speech in the immigration context, whether or not that can be a crime or not, the Ninth Circuit.
	Struck down a law on those grounds.
	The Supreme Court's probably going to reverse.
	But also elections.
	I mean, does the state legislature have control over certain aspects of the election process or not?
	That oral argument took place at the Supreme Court this week.
	In addition, there's an IRS summons case, which goes to the heart of privacy and where the IRS can just ransack your records anytime they want without even giving you notice or an opportunity to contest it.
	That's up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Then we have...
	We have also in the vaccine context, we have the unvaccinated blood baby New Zealand case and more people being denied donor access, including babies being denied donor access or emergency medical treatment based on vaccination status.
	We have Google.
	Whether Google is a public utility in Ohio, the court said that case is going to trial in May.
	So Google was unsuccessful at getting it dismissed.
	We, of course...
	We'll probably start with the Twitter files here in just a bit.
	And is it a crime or not?
	There was a debate there between Sticks and Hammer and Scott Adams a little bit and some other people about that topic and others.
	Whether a nativity scene can be grounds of a lawsuit.
	Oh, I thought you were going to talk about the nativity scene that was desecrated by the Florida man who engaged in sexual activity with his dog and destroyed a nativity scene.
	I confess, that one I did not hear about.
	Apple helping out stalkers and getting sued for it with one of its new devices.
	We have religious issues at graduation, religious Catholic schools having to deal with gender identity issues in Michigan.
	We have Rumble, and Rumble and locals both sued the state of New York over their hate speech law that's supposed to come into force, actually already has, December 3rd.
	Columbus statutes, the Loudoun County Grand Jury Report.
	We have Hertz having to settle.
	Balenciaga getting caught with that promoting...
	You know, what looked like CP to some people sued and then all of a sudden dropped the suit.
	We have street vendors suing.
	We got professors and pronouns.
	We have our first big trans malpractice, medical malpractice lawsuit.
	We got Children's Protective Services telling people that they let their kids play outdoors.
	They could come in and take away your children.
	I cannot believe that whole situation.
	But there's details to it.
	It's like disgruntled neighbors who happen to work for CBS, which never turns out a role.
	Yeah, it makes it even worse.
	And then we got...
	Hong Kong, death penalties in Iran to protesters.
	Hong Kong protest leaders being jailed and arranged.
	And then, of course, we have the Lord of War being traded for the WNBA star.
	I know some people say they're not interested in it.
	Let's just actually start with Lord of War, Victor Boot, and Brittany Griner.
	Nobody wants to hear about Brittany Griner.
	Fine.
	I've talked about it enough and how preposterous of a trade it was.
	You know, Robin, before we get to Victor Boot, and it'll segue in, how preposterous, humiliating of a trade is this?
	Well, you know, I mean, it's very revelatory from the Russian perspective.
	So to those that don't know, the Russians had locked up several different people, but the two prominent ones America wanted back, one was Paul Whelan.
	He was arrested on espionage charges in Russia.
	He, his family, he, his family in the U.S. dispute that he was engaged in the espionage, former Marine, a little bit of an odd history.
	Which I discussed a bit on Free Form Friday with Mark Grobert and Eric Conley that you can find on their unstructured.locals.com channel as well as their YouTube channel, the America's Untold Stories channel, which had a good G. Gordon Liddy story, some great G. Gordon Liddy stories last week.
	And then, of course, the man known as the Lord of War, because he was the basis for the film that Nicolas Cage played in, also colloquially called the Merchant of Death.
	There's some dispute as to exactly how much of an arms runner he really was.
	There's some that say he was even worse than portrayed in the film.
	There's others that say it's greatly exaggerated.
	He himself says, you know, people just hop on his plane, and he's like, George, what are you doing with all those guns back there?
	He's like, golly, I keep trying to tell him, don't bring the guns, George.
	That appears to be his excuse.
	But a very intelligent individual, as is revealed with his RT interview with Marina, I think it's Putina, if I recall the last name correctly, who was also detained in the U.S. and was shipped back to Russia.
	But originally, U.S. was demanding a one-for-two deal.
	They would send Victor Bout to Russia in exchange for both.
	Paul Whelan and Brittany Griner, the WNBA star who got picked up on having drugs contained in some vaping materials.
	She pled guilty.
	Paul Whelan did not.
	Whelan is serving a longer sentence and harsher conditions.
	Russia made it clear they would do one for one.
	There's other Russians in U.S. custody that they want traded back, but they're not doing any one for two, one for three, one for four deals.
	And so Biden came back.
	Greiner was the one.
	Brittany Greiner is a black lesbian WNBA celebrity charged on drug charges.
	That puts her in a lot of Democratic check-the-box categories.
	She also had very effective, aggressive advocates.
	Paul Whelan, by contrast, has a bit of a sketchy past, purportedly endorsed Trump in 2016, so there was very little mojo for him, though his pedigree sounded like a more...
	Stronger grounds to bring back if he actually was a spy.
	Let me stop you there just for one second because I know that I can't verify everything.
	People on the left are saying Whelan was a thief or something.
	What are the sketchy things of his history that are legit, that are unknown?
	You know he's Canadian, by the way.
	Well, I did know that.
	People are saying Victor Boot should be Canadian with a name like that, but I knew he's Canadian.
	Actually, I saw that he came down to the States and I knew that part of it, which is interesting.
	He carries four passports.
	His parents are of Irish descent, who lived in Britain, who moved to Canada, and in the U.S. That is why he has Irish passports, British passports, Canadian passports, and United States passports.
	He said...
	You know, he answered in depositions once that he had served in a bunch of police capacities.
	Then those police agencies came back and said, no, he didn't.
	So that's just one part of it.
	Volunteered for the Marines.
	He appears to have been dishonorably kicked out of the Marines.
	But after he's dishonorably kicked out of discharge from the Marines, he gets these high-end intelligence security gigs for big companies.
	I can tell you historically, that usually means you're a spook.
	So that's what his resume reads like to me.
	One of those classic Grace-based James Elroy characters, Frank Sturgis types.
	You kind of, even a G. Gordon Liddy type.
	So he was over in Russia.
	He claimed he was there for a wedding.
	He didn't go to certain wedding events.
	The Russians made fun of his defense publicly because he was caught receiving a USB stick.
	From a decently high-ranking FSB person who he purportedly had previously told people he had a special relationship with.
	He said he thought he was just getting photos of churches and cathedrals and tourism photos.
	That didn't sell well over in Russia.
	They were quite convinced he was engaged in espionage, but it was not clear whether it was governmental espionage or industrial espionage.
	But again, a lot of your spook types...
	Moonlight or front for private corporations and companies.
	So his resume reads to me like an Oswald-type spook operator.
	But to the Russians, it was absurd that you would say, please send me the drug addict, what they consider sexual deviant under their laws, not your hero spy.
	In exchange for who you think is one of the greatest arms runners in the history of the world.
	And so they were just laughing.
	I mean, on the Russian media, they're like, you know, poor Paul Whelan.
	He has three things going against him.
	He's white, he's male, and he's heterosexual.
	Biden's never going to trade for him.
	Who was the woman that said that?
	I didn't know who she was, but she spoke quite eloquently, and I'm told that the translation was quite accurate.
	There's a lot of Russian commentary channels.
	Russian media is more in the European model than the American model.
	So you get these channels, a lot of their news channels are three to four to five people sitting around these sort of like big round areas talking to one another.
	And we don't, you know, it's like our old meet the press model, but not the same.
	And we don't have that quite the same model.
	A little bit CNN does on occasion, does that same model.
	It was sort of like The View, except with actual brains.
	The View is very much in the European style, just much lower intellect.
	Okay, so hold on a second.
	So Whelan does have a bit of a colored history.
	Four passports, I already find that very suspicious.
	So they come in and then they say, we're not doing a one-for-two, we're doing a one-for-one, which sort of suggests, as I've heard, they were amenable to a two-for-two, and Biden just said that.
	They would have sent Whelan back if one other Russian would have been sent back, and the other Russian was not that high profile from a U.S. perspective.
	Now, by the way, the victor bout...
	Prosecution was highly, highly dubious by the United States.
	So the two other things that people should know about Victor Bout is it's long believed that Victor Bout was working for the US.
	I mean, the movie that he worked for, he was a freelancer.
	Most of your arms traffickers are freelancers.
	They work for whoever the highest bidder is.
	And there was a long talk that, you know, when the Soviet Union fell apart...
	The U.S. wanted to sort of poach off the best military assets, including arms runners and arms themselves, out of the old Soviet Union.
	I think he was born in Ukraine, if I recall correctly.
	And he was one of the best.
	And he's a pilot.
	A lot of those guys tend to be pilots, Barry Seal types.
	You're great smugglers.
	Because you need pilots to smuggle in drugs, to smuggle in guns, to smuggle in people, to smuggle in money, or smuggle out any of those things, as well as to be useful in military affairs.
	So that's why a lot of these guys end up being pilots in multiple contexts, or show up connected to pilots.
	And Bout was one of the best.
	I mean, you listen to his interview he did with RT, very intelligent, informed interview.
	I don't necessarily agree with all of his perspective, but it gives you a real sense of what the Russian perspective is.
	What Bout really did to offend the US was he quit working for us.
	That's what he did.
	Putin, around 2008, 2009, didn't want any more of that activity going on of arms trafficking to the West without the government doing it.
	I mean, again, the biggest gun traffickers and arms traffickers in the world are the governments.
	U.S. is number one by a long mile.
	Not far behind is Russia.
	Not too far behind that is Israel.
	I mean, there's a lot of these countries that are in the gun-making business.
	But that's what ticked them off.
	So they set up a completely bogus entrapment in Thailand.
	That had no U.S. connection.
	I came across that case not knowing it was connected to the Lord of War.
	I've been a fan of the movie.
	Saying, how in the world?
	This is like the FIFA case, but even worse.
	How do we have jurisdiction here?
	Because this is a Russian citizen meeting people in Thailand about sending foreign arms to Latin America.
	It's like, what does that have to do with the United States?
	How do we have jurisdiction here?
	This is, by the way, what angered the Russians so much about the bout case.
	It wasn't his success as a gunrunner they wanted back.
	It was the fact that they were enraged that the U.S. felt they had global criminal jurisdiction, roving criminal jurisdiction with no tie to the U.S. And so they arrested him.
	The charges of the U.S. federal judge acknowledge were bogus.
	What she said is that this is...
	She gave the lowest possible sentence because she said...
	This is really a technical crime.
	None of this was ever going to happen.
	Everybody involved was a government agent.
	It was as close to entrapment as you could get.
	Now, of course, if you have a prior inclination to commit the crime, entrapment's not a defense.
	But it was a practical entrapment kind of case.
	Also, they violated Thailand extradition procedures.
	Basically, the U.S. put massive pressure on Thailand.
	Because initially, they weren't going to extradite it because they couldn't legally under Thailand's extradition treaties with the U.S. They got massive pressure, so they stuck them on a plane, and that was it.
	He told them, he said, the U.S. empire will collapse before I end up in the, before I'm still in a U.S. prison.
	I mean, he was a confident son of a gun.
	By golly, he turned out right.
	You could see that Cheshire grin when he was hopping off that plane.
	He was happy to do the interview, and it was all Putin talking points.
	Ah, the U.S. hopeless cause.
	They're like the USSR for the 1980s.
	They're all about drug addicts, and they've got men pretending to be women.
	It's disgusting.
	It's just, you know, this whole rant he did, which was kind of a funny rant.
	But it was embarrassing to Biden because of who he traded the world, the person we called.
	The merchant of death and the lord of war for a basketball player, a woman's basketball player.
	And people think that that's sort of like a degrading way or a denigrating way to speak of Brittany Griner.
	But I say the idea to equate the two on political importance is itself insulting to Brittany Griner.
	It's like, okay, Brittany, what you did was as bad.
	You were as politically valuable as Victor Booth.
	To her, that's logical.
	Right?
	I'm an important person.
	I represent, you know, the ultimate woke values.
	You know, the black lesbian occasional drug user.
	But it won't hurt Biden within the Democratic Party.
	There was a lot of pressure for him to get Greiner back.
	I still think that it's not a coincidence they snaggriner.
	I'm not buying that Russian argument that, oh, yeah, he just happened to be at the airport.
	Yeah, right.
	But Putin read Biden well.
	He knew exactly who to get to get people back he wants.
	But the real reason he wanted Bout back was as a statement against that method of global groving jurisdiction.
	And I've never been a fan of those cases.
	I don't think Bout was rightfully criminally prosecuted in the United States, period.
	It's interesting.
	And now, people have said that he's been in jail for 14 years, lost all of his criminal contacts.
	He's not ever going to be able to go back to the arms-running industry, Robert.
	If he wanted, he could, yeah.
	I mean, that man was skilled.
	That man had unique skills.
	It wasn't just a matter of who he knew and how he developed those reputations.
	He was a heck of a pilot, could handle things in extraordinary circumstances, knew how to...
	I recommend people watch that interview.
	Does that look like a guy who's been in prison for as long as he's been?
	He comes out talking smooth, talking informed, talking natural, looks in good shape.
	He looks like the Tulsa King, Sylvester Stallone, that new TV show.
	This guy was ready to rock.
	This guy has a natural set of skills.
	I'm not sure he was as big as some people made him out to be, but I don't buy the Russian excuse.
	He was a Russian businessman who had some bad luck with some extra luggage.
	I'm not buying that whatsoever.
	Fantastic.
	Okay.
	So that is everything anybody needs to know about the Victor Boot-Britney Griner exchange.
	Who do we have left?
	Who do we?
	Sorry.
	Who does America have left that would be sufficiently important to get?
	Oh, there's about half a dozen Russians that we have in custody on some questionable grounds, to be honest.
	Okay.
	All right.
	There's a lot of criticism of the Russians playing hostage roulette, that kind of thing.
	Putin, this has been in reaction to what the U.S. has done over the past decade or so.
	No, I'm not going to Russia anytime soon, but I'm certainly not bringing vape.
	People were saying that she brought in vape.
	It was medicinal or suggesting it was medicinal, but I don't believe that.
	I think they're just suggesting that.
	I think she got used to getting away with it.
	And now they said there was enough there to distribute.
	And maybe that was a side income.
	My guess is that she'd been there many times to Russia and they'd never...
	My guess is Russia knew it and they'd been letting it happen and then just decided, eh, why don't we pick her up?
	Biden will trade for her.
	Nine years for that.
	All right.
	Fantastic.
	Okay, everybody, that's enough on Brittany Griner, Victor Boot.
	I was trying to find the interview.
	I can't find it just yet, but I'll find it and post it to locals afterwards.
	Robert, Twitter.
	There has been...
	I know everybody's sort of...
	That was number two in the locals' poll, the Twitter files, and what the legal consequences might be.
	So this is the question.
	Now, Scott Adams, and I'm not calling anybody out.
	It's a legitimate question.
	I believe it's Scott Adams, or maybe it was Sticks.
	There were a few people on the internet saying...
	He and Sticks and Hammer were debating it, and then I think he blocked Sticks and Hammer.
	Well, the question is this.
	Is there a crime there?
	You got some people...
	The David A. French is saying, oh, this is just a private company exercising their First Amendment rights.
	Is there a crime?
	Who was it?
	It's Robert Govea, who is making an argument for disguised campaign contributions, so some form of election fraud or campaign finance fraud.
	And I forget what the other arguments were offhand, but is there a crime here?
	If it's the government...
	The censorship itself, no.
	Because I'm not a fan of broadening and liberalizing our...
	Now, according to the standards that were being used against Trump, yes.
	Because they're trying to say Don Jr.'s meetings with people constituted in kind contributions and values of information.
	Remember all that nonsense in that Senate meeting?
	My view has always been the same.
	First Amendment should radically restrict the scope of campaign finance laws.
	And we shouldn't call everything somebody does that helps a candidate a donation.
	It needs to be a donation, period.
	If it's not a donation, it shouldn't be covered, period.
	Because otherwise, that's a very dangerous power to give the state and will inevitably...
	I don't think anything Twitter did in the censorship capacity was criminal or even necessarily illegal.
	Now, it might have been by the government.
	To the degree the government was ordering it, that's a First Amendment violation by the government.
	Where Twitter executives are in trouble, and I think a lot of these people are talking about they can sue Twitter now.
	I don't necessarily agree with that either.
	I think you can sue the government, federal government, if you can prove.
	But again, this is already happening.
	Robert Kennedy is already bringing these suits.
	You know, there's not enough in the Twitter file so far to show that they were commanding it.
	It still looks to be collusive more than coercive.
	My view is that should be enough to be a First Amendment violation that you can sue the government to do, and you could enjoin Twitter from continuing to censor.
	But the courts have not gone there yet, so it's going to depend on Bobby Kennedy's case in the Ninth Circuit and probably up at the U.S. Supreme Court, ultimately, is when does the government cross the line?
	When is collusion coercion?
	When is collusion doing what Jonathan Turley calls surrogate First Amendment violations?
	But where the executives are in trouble, individual executives, including Jack Dorsey, including that Yole, that freaky Yole guy, whatever that guy's like.
	I can't remember that.
	That fake lawyer.
	I mean, she's a real lawyer, but she was a bad lawyer.
	The lawyer who was coordinating this.
	The problem is, my guess is Jack Dorsey's statements, he was maybe not even fully aware.
	So there may not be criminal liability for him, but for whoever prepped him.
	Because Twitter officially, in a corporate capacity, through these individuals and lawyers, including James Baker, the former FBI lawyer who was working at Twitter, who apparently may have tried to destroy documents while he was working at Twitter to keep them from being part of the Twitter files because he was pre-screening it.
	To hide the FBI's role in coercing and collusively censoring President Trump and his supporters in a range of topics on COVID and on election integrity.
	But the problem is they made affirmative statements to the Federal Elections Commission.
	They made affirmative statements before Congress.
	They made affirmative statements to investors in SEC filings.
	And those statements consistently said, there's no censorship, period, going on.
	Not only that our rules are applied completely neutrally without any regard to party or politics.
	Those were false statements, and many of them were made under penalty of perjury.
	So that's where Twitter has some criminal exposure.
	They lied to Congress.
	They lied to their investors.
	They lied to the Federal Election Commission.
	They may have lied to the court and the Elon Musk and the Twitter case.
	So that's where they face serious...
	Criminal exposure.
	Now, they're not going to face it as long as the Biden administration is in power, but they may face it once the Biden administration is not.
	And I was going to say earlier that I was one of the ones suggesting or contemplating the idea that what Elon is disclosing could expose Twitter as an entity to suit.
	The corporate, the donations in kind or, you know, the idea is you think it should, First Amendment should not be considered a contribution.
	So somebody wants to run an ad for a candidate, they should be allowed to do it.
	It shouldn't count as any form of contribution.
	Oh, one caveat on that.
	The general rule on elections is you can't coordinate with the campaign.
	So to the extent they do determine that this was something of value to the campaign, one problem that the Twitter executives have is that they were coordinating with the Biden.
	Well, they were coordinating with the DNC, which was...
	And the DNC, both.
	Some people's arguments for it's not state coercion because the DNC is a private political entity.
	That's true.
	The problem is the government side of the collusion.
	Okay, it's interesting.
	They were meeting with the FBI daily.
	And the FBI testimony in the Louisiana, Missouri case is that they were, in fact, ordering people removed.
	And it appears the only reason why they didn't show up in the first round of the Twitter files is because James Baker...
	He may have tried to destroy or delete those files or block those files from Matt Taivi's access.
	Now, my theory was that, you know, it just showed Elon Musk was still naive about who was at Twitter.
	Eric Hundley's theory was that he was trying to out Jim Baker, that he was going to create risk for Baker by letting Baker have the opportunity to expose himself, which clearly Baker did.
	And Baker, for those people who don't know, was general counsel to James Comey, helped coordinate Russiagate, helped cover up Spygate.
	Same guy.
	The level of corruption is unfathomable, Robert.
	It's unfathomable.
	And you've got people saying, no big deal.
	I'm getting bored of this.
	Move on.
	Okay.
	So there is an argument for campaign contribution, finance laws, but you're not a fan of them.
	Collusion.
	Some people are saying fascism because it's literally, you know, collusion between state and government, a state and private company, but that's not, I don't know, fascism is not a crime.
	Treason?
	None of these words that people are throwing around are going to have any...
	None of that has any application whatsoever.
	And there's not clear grounds to sue Twitter in many of these contexts.
	And I'm not sure why they would now.
	What would be the point?
	To reinstate your account?
	I mean, to go at Elon Musk for exposing it?
	I mean, that'd be kind of weird.
	I see people talking about that.
	I don't quite understand it.
	I think...
	I know James Wood's talking about suing the Democratic National Committee.
	Not quite sure.
	What the legal theory would there be?
	I think there are potential claims against federal government actors.
	I think that's clearly the case.
	But I think otherwise, the more liability is criminal exposure on the backside for false representations to members of Congress.
	And also, the advertiser...
	Oh, so he wanted to let us know it's Sticks Hexen Hammer.
	Hammer 666.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, Sticks Hexen.
	Man, man, come on, Sticks.
	I'm going to call him Sticks.
	He got me.
	He goes by Sticks.
	But yeah, Sticks Hexenhammer, H-E-X-E-N-H-A-M-E-R 666.
	He's into the occultish stuff, which is where the name came from.
	Okay, so it's fascinating.
	The corruption is staggering and astonishing.
	And we'll see where it goes with the next Twitter file dump.
	I guess it's a good segue, Robert, into the lawsuit to have Google recognized as a utility.
	I forget what state that's coming out.
	Is that Ohio?
	So the lawsuit...
	It's interesting.
	It's proceeding.
	It is basically an injunctive relief or declaratory judgment to declare that Google is effectively a utility and should be treated as such so that they can't go around and open people's mail to decide who gets to send what, etc., etc.
	I read through the lawsuit.
	It's very interesting.
	I'm not optimistic.
	I mean, what happened this week was just the court said, we're going to trial on this, denied the motion to dismiss.
	What do you think about the lawsuit itself?
	Well, I mean, it's interesting.
	I just practically speaking don't know how a successful...
	Judgment on the merits would materialize.
	So you get a declaratory judgment saying...
	Oh, it's all the public utility laws are then applied to them.
	And there's a whole bunch of those in Ohio.
	So things like political non-discrimination, a bunch of things, it falls on Ohio.
	It doesn't apply outside of Ohio, this claim.
	But it would have major impacts on Google's ability.
	They couldn't censor very easily at all Google or YouTube anymore in Ohio if Ohio wins this suit in May.
	But I mean, internally, how would you verify that Google is not doing it?
	It would involve lifting up the hood to Google to make sure that they're running it.
	It'd be subject to regulatory restraint, request for information, so on and so forth.
	Well, I'm skeptical or cynical.
	I don't think it's going to succeed, but it's nice to read.
	It's fun to read.
	And I don't know.
	Is there anything...
	I guess there is meaningful stuff that can be...
	Outed in evidence.
	So getting to trial is itself going to be a victory because they're going to have witnesses.
	They're going to have evidentiary hearings.
	So we'll see some stuff that we might not have already seen.
	Absolutely.
	And it's an interesting theory to see it go through the legal system.
	And it's coming to terms with the problem of big tech monopoly power, which another example of is Apple was sitting there thinking...
	Man, what device would be really good to help the poor little stalker out there?
	The stalker's trying to stalk somebody, but everybody's interfering with their ability to stalk.
	It's part of their control grid mindset.
	And what was their device they created?
	Air something, right?
	I got it right here.
	Airdrop.
	Yeah, is that what it's called?
	I think so.
	Oh, AirTag.
	It's still called AirTag!
	AirTag's a cold tag!
	So they created Apple AirTag last year.
	And Apple AirTag is this little device that's not internet connected, but Bluetooth connected.
	And it connects to all the other Apple phones.
	And so if you want to tag somebody, you can just stick that little tag somewhere on something that's on their device without them even realizing it.
	And you can, within 100 feet, know where they are at all times.
	So it's a dream for stalkers.
	It's the chip.
	It's a sticker.
	It's something you put on it so that you can geolocate your phone.
	Yeah, you probably got one on all your kids.
	I wish I had one on my phone or my drone.
	I should put one on my drone because that way if I lose it in the Glades, I'll be able to find it.
	It reminds me of the Verichip that they wanted to put under your skin.
	You know, they say, yeah, you don't want your kid to get kidnapped or anything.
	It's like, wow, what a great...
	I want a chip under my skin that anybody can track.
	Robert, you don't have to carry a wallet around.
	You go and you just flash your hand and you'll get food or you won't get food if you've been having a little bit too much to think.
	So, sorry, they're getting sued for this?
	Massive class action on the grounds that it violates certain electronic tracking laws under California law, that it's unjust enrichment.
	Basically, the legal claim is Apple is knowingly facilitating a criminal behavior in helping stalkers harass people, particularly domestic violence situations.
	And Apple lied when they said it was stalker-proof.
	I don't know how they advertised it.
	It's like, no way it's going to be stalker-proof.
	But it's another way they're using geolocation information of their Apple phones, coordinating those to create a map.
	And now they've added this other little device through Bluetooth, adding Bluetooth components to it, tied into Apple phones, that can basically help trace and track anybody, anyplace, anywhere, anytime, usually without their knowledge.
	That's the point of this.
	It's not like I need to know where I'm at.
	This tag is so you're tracking other people.
	And that's one of the criticisms.
	Now, the question is, at what point are companies responsible for the criminal use of their goods?
	And I think people like Apple, who have pushed gun control laws, might want to start second-guessing.
	The wisdom of pushing all these suing gun companies for the misuse of guns, criminal misuse of guns, because there's a lot of technology that is more commonly criminally misused each day than guns are.
	And so once you open that door, it's a dangerous door to open.
	Now they're being sued because they made specific statements that appear to be false.
	And I think that's the most problematic aspect of the suit.
	But it's what happens when you open the door to being held liable for the criminal misapplication of your product.
	Robert, it's not going to be a segue.
	It's just going to be the question that I have to ask.
	The big news, everyone's running around Twitter over the last week saying Trump has been found guilty on fraud.
	The walls are closing in.
	It's yada, yada, yada.
	Can you clarify which entities were found guilty?
	What's going to be the scope of this finding?
	And what is not going to be the scope of the finding?
	So a Trump organization, high-ranking T-financial, I think it might have been the T-financial officer, but a high-ranking financial officer, was doing pretty small-scale tax evasion for himself, using the Trump organization to do so.
	And he has already separately pled guilty.
	He publicly testified that nobody at Trump knew about it.
	To be honest with you, it's kind of minor tax evasion.
	That's taking school things, school bills as corporate expenses, things like that.
	Clearly they profited him.
	They didn't profit the Trump board.
	It's mostly a way to just create more...
	A negative impression around Trump organizations.
	This kind of thing would almost never become a criminal case, typically.
	And they just love bashing, using it to bash Trump.
	But it has no impact on Trump.
	They'll pay a small fine, $1.5, $1.6 million.
	But that's because of the other guy's conduct that he's indemnified Trump organization for, probably.
	So he'll probably end up paying it in one way, shape, or form.
	And it's mostly much ado over nothing intended just to smear Trump in New York.
	This is the guy that was using finances to pay for his private schooling, his kids' private schooling.
	He was calling them corporate expenses when they weren't.
	But that was for his personal profit.
	That didn't benefit Trump work at all.
	It's so amazing because I'm reading the headlines.
	I'm like, I think I would have known about this if it were what they say it is.
	It's the fucking guy that was expensing family expenses, not declaring it, paying personal expenses.
	Okay, interesting.
	Which case is it?
	Is it the New York's civil lawsuit that's accusing Trump of having overinflated the price of his assets to get loans?
	Yeah, that's the attempt to seize all of his assets and seize Trump Organization and put a receiver in charge and have him pay like a quarter of a billion dollars based on something that there is no victim.
	There's no victim at all.
	I'm having sort of a discussion.
	I know the extent of my knowledge, but...
	There's some factual elements that I'm not sure about.
	The extent to which he over-evaluated his assets for the purposes of loans.
	I presume you over-assess your own assets so you can get a bigger loan, better interest rates, etc.
	The bank, to the extent you repay it, doesn't really care.
	The accusation, however, is that he's lying about...
	Even if you went down to as low as they want it to be, the lowest possible value, it was still far more than the loan was valued.
	It was inconsequential to the loan.
	It was not material to the loan at all.
	That's why they couldn't bring criminal charges against Trump.
	Okay, but I'm seeing he over-evaluated certain properties by 3,000%, and I don't have the details to know.
	And a lot of that is, again, it's New York real estate.
	Is exaggeration a crime?
	Exaggeration is a crime if I know...
	I mean, saying that I think my brand, my personal name brand, is worth a billion dollars, that's a pretty darn subjective opinion.
	So the objective lie is to say this has been assessed by a third-party assessment organization at $125,000 when it's $25,000, right?
	That's materiality of crime, particularly if I'm trying to borrow, say, $50,000.
	Now, it's not material.
	If I'm trying to borrow $5,000 and I tell you I have a $125,000 house, $125,000 in equity, I have $25,000 in equity because your loan is still secured at a great ratio.
	And that's what Trump had.
	That's why all these statements were kind of inconsequential.
	Trump is infamous, like all salesmen, for exaggeration, especially in New York real estate.
	I mean, if you would have told people 20 years ago some of these properties would be worth a billion dollars, they would have said, you're nuts.
	But now they are.
	So, you know, I mean, it's New York real estate valuation.
	You're going to get into all of that.
	Especially who he was dealing with.
	He was dealing with some of the most sophisticated banks in the world with massive law firms.
	They knew exactly what the score was.
	Well, that's so that I had two questions about that to make sure I even understand what I don't understand.
	He's over-inflating because he has his own appraisers or evaluators.
	They say it's worth X. The bank...
	Doesn't extend loans just based on the warranties and representations.
	So they have their own appraisers.
	They say, okay, fine.
	We disagree, but whatever.
	We're all professionals.
	It doesn't matter more than enough equity because his loans are real low-level to equity, which I think surprised probably some people.
	He was always good at keeping.
	After he went to the bankruptcy and the rest, he was very good at not getting into a situation where the banks would own him.
	Okay, so that's one end of it.
	Then the other end where they say he's sucking and blowing is he overestimates for loans, but then underestimates for property taxes.
	That's pretty much everybody.
	Those are different evidentiary standards.
	Those are totally different standards.
	Am I still not oversimplifying it by saying, okay, so the owner underestimates it, but that's why you have municipal evaluations.
	That's why you have government evaluations.
	They also don't just rely on the warranties and representations of the landowner.
	They always go low anyway.
	For tax purposes, you have one basis of appraisal.
	For sale purchases, for valuation, you have a whole different valuation.
	It's not the same standard.
	That's why those two don't really match up well.
	Where that becomes a trouble for someone is if they report their income differently.
	They tell the bank their income is a quarter of a million a year, and then they tell the IRS they're making $25,000 a year.
	Well, that's a problem.
	That's a discrepancy.
	But you have two different appraisal standards as to what you think the value of a particular property is worth versus what the government's appraisal standards for taxation purposes are, which are totally different.
	So that was another reason why there was no basis to bring criminal charges against it.
	So instead, they just want to make his life miserable and harass him and harangue him.
	But he did at least get a judge to recognize that he had committed no contempt in regards to those subpoenas out of the District of Columbia for documents.
	The government, Justice Department, tried to get Trump held in contempt and the court rejected it, which seriously undermines any criminal charges they might try to bring related to that.
	Because if it wasn't contempt, I don't know how it could be criminal obstruction.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, that answers a bunch of questions.
	You see people, they're just...
	It's just low-level information on Twitter.
	People just say, oh, Trump found guilty on all accounts of fraud, but it's the Trump org, the fraud of the accountant, a non-issue, and then conflating all of these tax issues to say that he overestimates, to say that he's rich and then underestimates.
	What, if any, underestimation impacted whatever he would have to pay by way of taxes in a potentially fraudulent...
	They didn't find any basis that he had underpaid taxes.
	That's the giveaway, that they don't have anything there.
	They're trying to suggest something to an unsophisticated audience.
	If they had tax evasion, they would have filed tax evasion.
	Mission accomplished on Twitter.
	It's nuts.
	You go down the rabbit hole.
	Of course, it's because they want to believe all bad things about Trump.
	Robert, how high up on the scale did the medical malpractice lawsuit of Chloe Cole factor in?
	We'll get to it anyhow, because it fits in with the intro.
	We talked about this stuff in the intro.
	Chloe Cole, represented by Harmeet Dillon, and another lawyer who I'm not forgetting to be disrespectful.
	I'm just forgetting because I know Harmeet and her name better.
	They sent their notice of intention to file suit to the doctors for medical malpractice and other things.
	They got 90 days.
	Is this a procedure that is required under...
	I don't know what state this is in.
	Is this in California?
	Is this a requirement, a procedural requirement, or is it a courtesy?
	For PR?
	Well, usually in personal.
	I don't know if it's a requirement.
	I haven't done a medical malpractice.
	I've done other kinds of malpractice cases in California, but not medical.
	I would say in the personal injury space, it is pretty commonplace that you issue a demand letter and you give a certain timeframe of response.
	And 90 days is pretty typical.
	So I don't know if it was just follow the custom and practice of that, giving them an opportunity to do remedy and settle and resolve the issue, the insurer usually.
	Uh, before suit is filed or whether it's something that's procedurally required in California.
	Okay.
	So one way or the other, it's a, uh, I want to say 11 pages.
	It's, it's, it's a notice of intent to sue, which is, which has all of the details of what is going to be the lawsuit to come out of it.
	Um, and they're going after medical malpractice, but, but I think mostly, and interestingly, the vitiated consent in that Chloe Cole.
	It's not suing her parents.
	They're suing the doctors.
	They're saying the doctors misinformed us, but also that there were deficiencies in the waivers where they were going to say we could not have consented and we were not acting in full awareness of fact and law because we weren't given all the facts.
	And so you therefore induced us into error even if we signed these medical waivers or these consent forms.
	I don't have enough experience to know.
	The threshold required to get out of these consent forms.
	Typically, I would presume that they're sort of blankets and coveralls.
	And to get out of them, you're going to have to show some concrete omissions, material omissions.
	But what do you think of the argument, the strategy that they're going to say, you didn't inform us when we signed this that there was a great likelihood that Chloe would grow out of this.
	You didn't inform us of the horrible side effects of the procedure, the pain, the scarring.
	And therefore, Any consent we gave you is null and void.
	How do you think that's going to go?
	Yeah, I mean, even worse.
	According to the letter, the doctors told the parents that they can choose between a dead boy and a live girl.
	Dead girl, live boy.
	That was the...
	Dead girl, live boy.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	I mean, that's an extraordinary coercive kind of statement.
	And definitely goes against the premise of informed consent.
	Now, there's two ways to attack this.
	One is the informed consent argument.
	Many words, informed consent, originate from medical malpractice as a form of torative battery.
	That it's a battery because you've been physically invaded in your body and without your consent.
	And that consent had to be informed.
	And for it to be informed, it means all risks, all benefits, both sides have to be given to you.
	This is one of the issues that's now up before the Nike mandate, vaccine mandate lawsuit too, in the vaccine context.
	So here, so that's one approach is that this was not informed consent.
	So this was classic battery, classic medical malpractice of that type because they did not get informed consent because the informed part wasn't there.
	The second part is medical malpractice of standard of care, which is that a doctor acting within a reasonable professional standard of care.
	Would have given them more information than they were given and would not have made certain statements that the doctors did make.
	And so I think they'll have enough there to get to a jury trial.
	I'm sure they'll have the medical experts aligned that will attest to that.
	There's already medical experts across the globe that have been warning about this and saying this is coming, saying that doctors got so caught up with the politics of this, they were doing bad medicine.
	They were not giving people informed consent.
	They were coercing kids, coercing parents under threat that their person would commit suicide if they don't go and do this immediately.
	They were not telling them of the downside.
	They were not telling them of the upside of alternatives.
	Because one of the key parts of informed consent that Harmeet details in the letter...
	Is you're supposed to give them alternatives.
	This is also an issue in the vaccine mandate case.
	It's also the issue in the FDA emergency authorization case.
	Children's Health Defense has pending in the Western District of Texas.
	And another one that's about to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Which is all about, did you offer alternatives?
	Did you give information about those alternatives?
	According to the...
	Plaintiff, the answer is no.
	The parents were never given any information about alternatives.
	They're like, you could do this.
	Here's the risk and reward of that.
	You could do this.
	Here's the risk and reward of that.
	They were never even told.
	So if they were never even told of alternatives and were told, you know, either dead or go this way, those are the kinds of coercive statements that appear to me to both go against the reasonable standard of professional medical care from the information I've seen and go clearly go against informed consent that constitutes battery and medical malpractice in its own right.
	I, I, It has to succeed to get to trial, but it has to succeed at trial.
	My only concern, or the way I can see people wiggling out of this, is it'll be all just too...
	Distinct, like one case at a time, case specific.
	Oh, in this case, they didn't advise about certain things.
	They didn't advise about the statistical likelihood of a trans teenager growing out of it, which is like 96% or something.
	Or they didn't advise on suicide rates of individuals after trans surgery.
	And so they might just tweak their informed consent, make them so long that nobody reads them anyhow, but all the information's in there.
	That's a better approach.
	That's always a smarter approach from a doctor to have it all in writing.
	Have it in writing, you know, a 20-page document, skim it over.
	You've read it.
	Okay, good.
	Sign all in here.
	And then you cover your ass.
	These kind of treatments, parents do tend to read all of it.
	Not all the time, but they do.
	It's why they're not giving it out to them in the vaccine context.
	They've printed something out, but they're not giving it to them when the vaccine's being administered.
	Because a good number of people would read it because it's medical.
	When you sign that car contract, you don't really care, and you know there's a bunch of crap in there.
	But when you're about to go in under an invasive medical, life-altering medical procedure, then you tend to read the details.
	You know what?
	Now that you mention it, Robert, in this documentary, Died Suddenly, at one point they showed that the form that says what is in the vaccine, like the ingredients piece of paper in the box, says intentionally left blank.
	Do you know if that's true?
	There's parts of that that's true.
	But here's what it is.
	You have what the FDA has said should be part of the information, but they're not compelling it.
	And then they're lying themselves when they go out there publicly without referencing it.
	In fact, they directly contradict it routinely.
	Now, they might get away with it like they just did in the ivermectin case.
	So people have heard about the ivermectin case where the FDA claimed, ah, we weren't giving any guidance.
	That wasn't final action.
	We were just, you know, spewing off at the mouth.
	So this is where the doctors and others sued saying, look, the FDA making false statements about ivermectin is interfering with the practice of medicine, which violates, which is outside their authority.
	It's ultra virus.
	And violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it's an agency action that has adversely impacted the doctor's ability and the patient's ability to get the care they need and want.
	And a federal judge was a Trump appointee, but he was one of these.
	He was on the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Appeals and worked with Abbott.
	I mean, the guy's been on every bench known to man.
	And in my experience, people that have been on the bench that long don't turn out to be very good judges.
	Too long on the bench.
	Not enough life experience.
	Too much judge experience.
	And so he dismissed the case on sovereign immunity grounds.
	He said, well, you know, it's not clear it's outside the FDA's authority to yip what they want on social media.
	And yipping on social media isn't really a final agency action.
	And nobody's necessarily adversely affected in terms of their legal rights.
	And so he found every excuse so that the case did not go forward and dismiss the case.
	Now, I'm sure they will take it up on appeal.
	But the love of immunity, the attempts to excuse and exculpate government lies in this context by the judicial branch continue to be a severe and serious problem.
	I mean, what's probably going to ultimately be required is some form of legislative reform.
	Best form of legislative reform is to say there is no such thing as immunity, period.
	That was for anybody or any agency.
	No more immunity.
	Scrap it.
	Scratch it.
	Eliminate it.
	Because it causes...
	I trust juries more than I trust judges.
	So juries aren't perfect.
	Far from it.
	But they're still a lot better than judges or executive agencies.
	It's a broader dispersion and diffusion of power rather than a concentration of power.
	And the concentration of power usually is the problem with power more often than not.
	No matter who it is that has it.
	So, you know, the old statement, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
	And that's precisely what I think kind of took place here with a court finding an excuse and a Pontius Pilate pretext to dodge the suit.
	And the argument was that FDA says, first of all, sovereign immunity is the way to avoid the secondary argument, which was that we weren't telling anybody what to do at all.
	When we put out this wonderful tweet, you're not a horse, you're not a cow, seriously, y 'all.
	Dumbing down their language to talk to the people.
	Stop it.
	What does stop it sound like to you?
	Doesn't that sound like a final agency action that's trying to adversely impact people's medical relationships with their doctors and doctors' relationships with their patients?
	If I'm a doctor, and I mean, I don't...
	I mean, there's doctors, they're suspending their licenses for not taking the FDA advice.
	Well, that's the issue.
	The FDA itself doesn't sanction the doctors, but the disciplinary boards or their administrative bodies do.
	They say, you're not following FDA guidance, so now we're going to...
	Hide the ball.
	The biggest black pill that I've had psychologically to deal with is I can see how everybody shirks off responsibility for what could be or amount to atrocities.
	I'm using that word.
	It's a big word.
	Everybody's shirking off responsibility where everybody gets to commit an inhumane act and say, I have no choice, but nobody says I'm the one doing it.
	FDA says it's just a recommendation.
	We're not telling anybody to do anything.
	Stop it.
	It's a Rachel Maddow literally stop it.
	Then the governing boards come in and say, well, we're just following the FDA's advice, so we're taking away your license or we're going to do whatever to you.
	And then the doctors at the end say, well, I can't do this without having a problem because my licensing body is going to come down on me, even though they don't take responsibility for it because they're just following the FDA who's not giving advice.
	And then you get to court and lo and behold, it's the end of the story.
	Does it go to appeal?
	Does it succeed on appeal?
	And if not, does it need a public warfare battle in the court of public opinion so there's a legislative solution to it?
	We'll probably need court of public opinion because some of it's uncharted territory.
	So the more specific case that is our case, Children's Health Defense, Bobby Kennedy and I, against the FDA for lying to caregivers, custodians, and kids about the safety, efficacy, necessity, and nature of the drug that they're calling a COVID-19 vaccine that's not a vaccine because it doesn't inoculate against infection or transmission.
	Which is the colloquial understanding of it in the ordinary populace.
	And they know they're lying.
	They're not disclosing their underlying sheets when they go out there and call it safe.
	Their sheets say we can't call it safe, and yet that's what they're doing.
	Their own internal documents say you can't call it effective, yet that's what they're doing.
	Their own historic definition of vaccine and the colloquial common understanding of vaccine in the public parlance says they can't call it a vaccine, yet that's what they're doing.
	They know that the facts don't support any claim of an emergency from COVID to children, and yet they're calling in an emergency to COVID for children that necessitates a use of emergency use authority.
	And they're making the same sovereign immunity defenses in that case as they made in the Ivermectin case.
	So I think we have a stronger, cleaner case, but it will depend on the court's willingness to step in and step up and hold the executive agencies responsible for their lies.
	I'm showing Amy Klobuchar's tweet that I talked about at the intro, where they ended by saying, vaccines, questionable, are safe and effective.
	Effective, I think that's been...
	The COVID-19 vaccine isn't even a vaccine, so if you don't mind other vaccines, maybe.
	But the COVID-19 vaccine is not safe.
	COVID-19 vaccine ain't even a vaccine, and it ain't effective.
	I mean, for example, Rasmussen did recent...
	I mean, there's now aggregated sources of data.
	From the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System here in the United States, from a similar one in Europe, from a wide range of word-of-mouth sources, and now from insurance-adjusted sources, from excess death and mortality sources, but now from people's own public opinion.
	Not only Richard Barris had already polled on this from the beginning, Rasmussen recently did as well, and what you find is about one in eight Americans report serious, significant, severe, adverse Responses to the COVID-19 vaccine.
	And you're talking about more deaths to disabilities, disabling injury from a drug, from a vaccine, than all the vaccines combined in the history of reporting the data.
	So that's this Klobuchar lying.
	Now, of course, she knows she can't be sued because she's got complete immunity under the Westfall Act.
	So we'll see if some of the legislative reform that needs to come about.
	Part of the reason why I took the Covington case against Senator Warren.
	Was to expose this problem.
	And maybe, of course, no Republican would run on it.
	You know, now several of them lost that maybe would have helped them.
	But that's another story for another day.
	But hopefully we do get some legislative reform on that side because Klobuchar is just repeating the lies the FDA is propagating.
	And hopefully this all collectively inspires a court to do something about it.
	When you see situations like in New Zealand where the police raid a person's house and take away their baby because they're going to demand the baby get vaccinated blood.
	I'm still, you know, in as much as there were alternatives that were available, what happened is unjustifiable.
	If it's an emergency, it's sort of like the Jehovah's Witnesses with the blood transfusions for minors, where you sort of understand urgency and preserving the life.
	But in this case, it sounds like it's fabricated emergency because of constructed refusal of alternatives.
	Hold on, I had one thought there.
	Because the alternatives were available for people.
	I mean, people had stepped up to donate unvaccinated blood so that the baby would be fine.
	And they wanted to force the baby to take vaccinated blood, even though Peter McCullough and others have said there is a risk that's showing up in the data, that donor transfusion, much like breastfeeding.
	I got a buddy of mine.
	That has good reason to believe that his child almost died, went through, was in the hospital for weeks because of the FDA lying about how a vaccinated mother could spread it through breastfeeding.
	So now his son can't even get breast milk.
	And they'll figure out in time what exactly caused it.
	Nobody in the hospital could explain it.
	So this is about parental control, which is a good, probably, transition.
	To a couple of the crazy CPS cases.
	Well, and Robert, you know, I'm noticing a trend now.
	The dots are out there.
	I may be connecting them, and they might not be connected, but the Amish farmer controlling what kind of food you can put in your body.
	The vaccine controlling what you have to put in your own body or what you can do for your kids.
	The CPS case, I mean, this is lower level.
	Or more, what's the word?
	Macro-level stuff.
	But CPS case.
	It's a story of a woman.
	Where are they?
	In rural Virginia?
	I forget what state they're in.
	A small-town America, not in any derogatory way, but just in terms of way of life.
	Mother lets her three kids play outside.
	They're four, six, and nine.
	And they're not running.
	First of all, when I was nine, I was still climbing cliffs and getting into trouble.
	They're out playing.
	Apparently, there's an incident with a neighbor where they kicked a soccer ball towards the neighbor's cat, and the neighbor has a cat, which is a dead giveaway.
	Sorry, that's a cat joke.
	But apparently, thought the kids were torturing the cat or trying to hurt the cat.
	There's a neighbor dispute here.
	The neighbor calls CPS and basically says, I will not be happy until your kids are taken away from you.
	And gets a caseworker to come in.
	There's a little bit more to the story, but gets a caseworker to come in who says...
	Your kids are too young to be playing outside.
	You can't do it.
	There was another story where the kids were going door-to-door selling Easter eggs and they happened to ring the doorbell of the caseworker assigned to the case.
	So a very small community.
	Bottom line, these parents sign...
	It's not a waiver.
	It's an acknowledgement, a form.
	They sign a form that says...
	What did it say, Robert?
	They won't allow their kids to be unsaid.
	Ever.
	Ever.
	Ever be unsupervised.
	And the parents were like, well, look, we're always watching from the house, stepping outside, etc.
	But the American tradition is kids playing outside unsupervised, to be frank about it.
	That's as old a family tradition, American tradition as exists.
	And it's good for kids.
	It's good for kids to be out there and learn, not playing in some little safe space.
	I didn't grow up on play dates, any of that garbage.
	We played outside.
	We especially waited for our mom to leave.
	Then we went out and did a bunch of stuff we weren't supposed to do.
	But we figured out how to track where her car was coming when she was coming back in so we could get inside and pretend we never did it.
	And the neighbor was also ticked off, but to his credit, at least he didn't call Child Protective Services.
	In fact, he got so ticked off at us playing in his backyard, he put up a fence.
	And so then we would just hop over the fence.
	We'd climb the fence.
	So that crazy guy, he put barbed wire at the top of that fence.
	So we were like, well, you know what?
	That fence looks like a good soccer goal.
	In fact, it's actually shaped like a good soccer goal.
	So we pounded the crap out of that fence.
	We used it as a baseball fence, as the wall.
	We used it as a soccer fence to shoot on.
	That drove him crazy, too.
	But, you know, it was like he gave up at that point.
	He was like, okay, there's nothing I can do.
	It reminds me of a great art exhibit I saw in Milwaukee once.
	A guy designed an art exhibit that was about a broken playground that described dysfunctional society in America.
	So it was the swing that didn't quite go all the way, that ran into a wall, or all kinds of things with it.
	But it was an open public installation art that was meant to be interactive.
	And what was fascinating is kids would come and they found a way to make it all work.
	So I was like, that's the greatest.
	That's childhood imagination, childhood inventiveness.
	That's where you learn things.
	That's where you learn not to talk to the clown in the sewer from the movie It.
	You know, the clown saying, come on in.
	No, no, not a good idea.
	But that's where you learn some of the best values of life.
	And the idea that you should be constantly watched, constantly monitored, constantly observed by some adult is just a terrifying idea to me.
	And now they're trying to make it that they'll try to take away your children if you don't do how, if you're not constantly watching them, constantly monitoring, constantly supervising them, taking away the very concept of free play.
	I was just telling the crowd on Thursday, I think, in my childhood, we used to run through people's backyards.
	We used to go, we had RTPBY, which was running through people's backyards.
	In the wintertime, we had this thing called, we used to call ourselves terrorists and toboggans.
	We used to go down, sledding down a hill and like crash into kids.
	We would play outside alone all the time in an affluent neighborhood so you don't have to worry about certain things.
	You know, downtown New York, you don't let people play.
	Outside of the streets.
	Understandable.
	In this case, they're in like small town.
	They're in the country.
	They're in the country, in the small neighborhood, running around.
	She was in the front window.
	Watching the kids.
	More than I was ever checked on.
	This is insane.
	This is a danger.
	This is about control.
	They want control over how your children are raised, not only in the public schools, but in your own home.
	And they're using child protective services to misuse and abuse this power.
	My experience with child protective services, almost everywhere, has been extremely negative.
	I have no confidence in them.
	They're usually mental, moral freaks.
	They're people that you want, never making decisions about child custody.
	They're disturbed people disproportionately.
	Sorry if some of you out there, maybe, hopefully, some of you are good, conscientious people.
	God bless.
	Not been my general experience.
	But the state is not supposed to be raising your children.
	You should get to raise your children.
	And it's not to cast too wide of a net, but government employees who are typically underpaid, angry, what do they call them?
	Petty tyrants who, they don't create work by not finding problems.
	And it goes from like the most objective child neglect, food, bruises, injury, that.
	Are the parents doing drugs?
	In this particular case, they make sure that there's food in the fridge, which I guess is nice, and then make the parents or ask the parents to sign a form.
	The bottom line of this story, if the CPS agent lives in the neighborhood and asks you to sign a form, don't.
	I mean, once you sign a form, you're screwed.
	Fun stuff.
	Oh, what does it segue into, Robert?
	Well, and you have a fundamental right to parent your children as you like and custody and care of your child.
	And so what's good is there's a push now among a range of organizations to limit the laws governing child protective services.
	That you have to be putting your child knowingly at likely risk of severe physical harm.
	And because they go the emotional route, they'll create excuses for safe spaces.
	If you don't let your kid go to trainee story time, all of a sudden you're abusing your child.
	That's where they're wanting to go.
	I said that that was my red line in Quebec when they passed Bill, I forget what it was, the one that removed parental supremacy from the Youth Protection Act.
	It's going to get to the point where the state is going to determine what's in the best interest of the kid.
	And if they're tolerating these types of medical interventions, kid says, I want to be...
	I want a trans, and the parents say no, and the kid calls up CPS.
	Once the government gets its hook in, they never let it out.
	Oh, exactly.
	And that's probably a good transition to one of the top topics from the locals' board.
	We'll get to the Cary Lake One election, great election contest.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Before you get there, there's 22,884 people watching on Rumble, and I'm told there's not that many plus signs.
	I don't know what benefit it does on Rumble.
	Hit the little plus sign.
	I'm going to do it right now myself.
	Yeah, 982 Rumbles.
	Hold on.
	What do we have now?
	Yeah, more Rumbles are better.
	Rumble it up.
	We're almost at 23,000.
	And we'll get to the rumble suit against New York, which is very good, too.
	But there is an update in the Amos Miller Amish farmer case.
	For those that don't know, this is the Amish farmer that makes meat the way his customers want it.
	They don't want USDA inspected meat.
	They don't want a bunch of chemicals and preservatives and all that crap on it.
	They don't want big corporate agriculture dictating them.
	Hormones and antibiotics.
	Say again?
	Oh, say hormones and antibiotics are the big ones.
	They don't want any of that nonsense.
	What they want is, here's an Amish community that, on average, the Amish live longer and live better than the average person in the communities that surround them.
	Their life expectancy consistently better.
	They have fewer medical ailments and injuries and problems and psychological issues than their local community.
	So, it seems to me like they're doing something right.
	But there's people that, some of them for medical disability reasons, require the food be made the way in which Amos Miller's farm makes it.
	There's others that, as a personal choice, they want it that way.
	Amos doesn't sell any food to anybody that doesn't want it exactly how he's making it.
	He's never mislabeled anything.
	He's never adulterated anything.
	He's never been accused of doing that for any willing...
	And I think the most important thing is, if you're shopping at Amos' place, you're not doing it by accident.
	It's not like you're buying it off a shelf and don't know.
	And he's telling you.
	He's not putting USDA-inspected label on his thing.
	He's not selling it to the local grocery store.
	He's not saying it has preservatives and chemicals that it doesn't have.
	He does none of that.
	He sells to people who say, Amos, we want it made exactly the way you make it, which is without all these chemicals, without all these preservatives, without all this crap.
	Made in a way that promotes organic farming, a farming that has been a tradition within the Amish community for centuries.
	And the U.S. government came in.
	Now, years ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was given the power to, again, protect informed consent.
	It goes back to that principle.
	The goal being that because of what was happening in the 1900s, Was it?
	You'd go to the store and you'd buy something that said kidney beans and inside was green beans.
	Inside was mash.
	Inside was, you know, spam.
	So, I mean, it was that bad.
	So, in order to prevent that, they said, well, we're going to create a labeling agency that says if you sell in interstate commerce, when you put the label on it, what's in there has to be what's on the label.
	This is also how the FDA started.
	It's actually their whole authority.
	That if somebody's selling you a medicine, what's actually in that medicine has to be represented on the outside of the label.
	Just as the FDA was not given the authority to govern medicine, and most of them have no clue, many of them are not doctors at all, the USDA was never given the power to control food.
	They were only given the power to control labeling.
	And many of the bureaucrats at the USDA...
	Department of Agriculture.
	They're not farmers.
	Many of them have zero experience farming.
	They have no idea what they're doing.
	And yet they're running around telling farmers how to farm.
	What they're supposed to be doing is just checking the label.
	So they come after Amos.
	They come after him aggressively over multiple years.
	And he retained me a month or so ago.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Stop there.
	Because he retained you after having gotten fined.
	A whole host of issues.
	The reason why he retained me is next Friday, what was scheduled to occur on December 16th was Amos Miller going to jail, being jailed, a judgment of over $300,000, monetary judgment being issued against both him and his wife and his farm, which they could immediately collect upon, which could shut down his farm while he's jailed.
	And there was a bunch of arrested meat that he couldn't do anything with in the interim.
	Meat that had been seized because it didn't comply with USDA's definition of what's a good meat.
	They called adulterate if it doesn't fit their standard.
	In my view, that's a complete misapplication of the term.
	Adulteration is supposed to be me lying to the public about what's in the meat.
	Not, I don't do it the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture likes me to do it.
	That's a misapplication of the word and the label.
	But it's what happens.
	You give them a little bit of a creak at that open that door.
	They want to come in and they want to control now what you can put in your own body.
	Because this case is fundamentally not only about preventing Amos Miller from farming the way his religious community traditionally farmed.
	It's also about ordinary people getting to decide what I put in my body.
	I don't want USDA nonsense.
	I want something that's not USDA controlled.
	In the century or so since the USDA is involved, including the food pyramid over the last half century, people have gotten fatter and sicker and fatter and sicker and fatter and sicker.
	The USDA is an embarrassment of an agency and an honest government would just eradicate it, period.
	That's my view of the USDA.
	They have failed their test to protect public health.
	They have made our public health worse over and over and over again.
	It's why so many people want.
	Amos Miller-style produced food.
	It's healthier.
	That's why.
	And not just control.
	They're better, more informed than the average USDA bureaucrat is.
	So there's USDA employees who also attest to this, by the way, or publicly attesting this.
	So the goal was there's a short-term, mid-term, and long-term perspective on the case.
	From Amos' perspective, it was to remove the guillotine of going to jail, and I found that absurd and outrageous.
	Number one.
	Number two, remove this big monetary judgment from being issued that could bankrupt his farm.
	And number three, reduce the amount overall while getting some release of this arrested food so his farm can survive economically while we negotiate a more intermediate solution.
	Because the U.S. Attorney's Office has been very fair in Pennsylvania and says they only want to promote the same understanding as...
	I have of the law, which is just to make sure people are getting what they want to get within the law.
	And I don't trust that the USDA has the same motivations in the case, but we'll find out in time.
	But the intermediate solution is to be able to keep the farm afloat and alive and people be able to get the product they want.
	Long-term solution is to build a custom exception plan that allows people to get the food they want.
	And farmers to make it the way they want without the government overseeing all of it and limiting what they do.
	And in fact, there's a custom exception plan written into the law to accommodate that.
	Including that they really don't have the authority to govern, in my view, personal food consumption, period.
	But there's people at the USDA who are asserting they do have that right, by the way.
	They're trying to say, if you go fishing, Viva, and you bring that fish home, you better go get USDA approval before you eat it or feed it to your kids.
	That's the level of insanity of some of these USDA people.
	Well, we did reach a settlement on the short-term issues.
	The contempt hearing will not take place next Friday.
	It has all been put in stay and abeyance.
	There's going to be no monetary judgment of some big amount.
	There's a reasonable payment plan on some of the much more modest amounts that can be paid over many months.
	And there's going to be no jail.
	So Amos and the arrested food is going to be released in a way that Amos can make productive use of it.
	And so the short-term issues have been resolved.
	We're still in the intermediary solutions and the long-term solutions.
	And I'm talking to people that are outside of the Amos camp who want to address a lot of these issues from a constitutional perspective and a legal perspective more broadly.
	But for Amos, at least he'll be able to have Thanksgiving and be able to have Christmas at home.
	Not in jail.
	And the farm won't be facing imminent bankruptcy.
	And there will not be wasted stock.
	There won't be wasted meats.
	Correct.
	The food will go to productive use in a way that's now been approved of, that was arrested, and some of it have been sitting there for a while in the freezers.
	And so, I mean, the government's getting some payment over time.
	I don't know if I should ask.
	Well, the U.S. screen's office has been pretty fair and impartial about this.
	The hurdle, frankly, is consistently the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	So we'll see how they go along forward.
	I'm hopeful that we'll get resolutions so that Amos can get done what he needs to get done, and the people that want Amos's food the way Amos makes it can get it as such.
	Some of those folks may need to start bringing suits to clarify this in a range of jurisdictions in other contexts, independent of and separate from Amos's case.
	Because this is about, we should have, but also I think it's a call for legislative reform.
	Amos Miller's case and aspects of it show they've got to change the laws, remove the U.S. Department of Agriculture from controlling food supply, period.
	They should be in the labeling and marketing business, not the food governance business.
	And at a minimum, it should be made crystal clear in the law that no government regulation shall be interpreted to limit what a person puts in their own body under informed consent.
	That you have a right to dictate.
	Just as your right to farm, in my view, which is being established in more states, we need to establish that you have a right of bodily autonomy means not only a right of what medicines go into your body, but a right of what food goes into your body.
	It's fantastic.
	I mean, it sounds like all around victory temporarily.
	The longer-term solution would be what, that the USDA says?
	To have a custom exception plan that affirms what the law is supposed to be about.
	The law is supposed to be about informed consent.
	And just make that clear.
	Make sure all the labels are correct.
	Make sure the only people that are purchasing it are people that know exactly what they're purchasing.
	Make sure it's not publicly available for sale so that somebody could buy it that doesn't know what they're purchasing.
	It's all about informed consent.
	Let's get the law back to that and have a custom plan that conforms to that.
	The reality is people want Amos' food.
	No one's ever sued Amos for anything wrong with his food ever.
	Oh, but Robert, they said someone got sick and died four years ago related to history.
	The person didn't sue him and they couldn't connect it to Amos.
	It had nothing to do with Amos.
	It's so preposterous because the amount of recalls that you get from major manufacturers who aren't...
	Okay, well, that's fantastic.
	I won't ask the quantum, but there was a lot of...
	It's good.
	And staying in business is even better.
	The amounts is like $30,000 and then there's a $25,000 or so and $25,000 paid over about a six-month time period.
	Is it obviously without admission?
	What is the basis of those payments?
	None of that.
	It's basically remove all the imminent risk and let's get back to a solution that works long-term.
	And the U.S. attorney has been very fair about it.
	So I have no complaints there whatsoever.
	I don't trust the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	So we'll see.
	But I do think long-term, there are people out there that want to misuse this and abuse this power to control what we can eat.
	And it's not a coincidence that the man who's trying to co-op public health in the world is also buying up all the farmland and is heavily invested in a range of corporate agriculture.
	His name is Bill Gates.
	Look at whatever Bill Gates wants.
	Do the opposite.
	That's the solution.
	That sounds awful conspiratorial, Robert.
	I want to read one Rumble Ranch just because it's on point, and I'm going to read the other ones during a Locals exclusive.
	From the John Beck, he says, For Barnes right now, the Give, Send, Go by Ankh and Tracy is legit.
	There's another setup by Austin Estes.
	Is that legit or fraud?
	Austin Estes won at givesendgo.com slash savemillersorg.
	Robert, do you have any knowledge of that?
	I'll repin whatever the current one is.
	Basically, the reason why the Amish were vulnerable is because they don't believe in publicity and they don't believe in going to court.
	My mom was big on that, so I picked the wrong career for her in that sense.
	But Christians don't sue other Christians.
	And I was like, yeah, I understand the principle, but I got a different view.
	If I'm suing them, they probably weren't Christians.
	So I'll put it that way.
	Not the clear certain standards.
	But other people came to his defense because the people who buy his food, people who often need his food for health reasons.
	We're the ones who organized it.
	And so I know there are multiple fundraisers out there.
	I'll pin at the locals at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll pin for a week at the top of the board the correct place where you can go and continue to help him because he's going to need it to be able to survive this.
	He's a little Amish guy.
	He's literally a little Amish guy.
	A sweetheart of a human being that's out there doing this.
	I'm going to be up there actually next week in Amish country.
	Take a tour of everything.
	Figure out the long-term ways.
	How do we keep this farm alive?
	How do we keep people being able to eat what they want?
	How do we respect the religious traditions of the Amish people?
	That's the goal.
	At least this first step.
	The U.S. government has been acting in good faith, the U.S. Attorney's Office.
	And so it produced a very positive initial outcome.
	Amazing.
	And Robert, I just sent you the link so you can see the give, send, go, and we'll notify on Locals if it's legit.
	Yep.
	All right, well, look, we're nearing the end, and I know we have a lot of small ones left, but Robert, Carrie Lake.
	Big one!
	Carrie Lake!
	Okay, so Carrie Lake has filed a bona fide election contest.
	She's alleged what we already know.
	Delays.
	Problems with tabulators.
	I can't hear tabulator in any other way but through Bill Gates, the Maricopa County Bill Gates, his voice.
	She's relying on testimonial evidence that they've gathered from people who had issues.
	Other than in reading the summary of the suit, where they impute intent, or as I always say, avoid trying to impute intent when the outcome is the same.
	Okay.
	She's contesting it.
	What's going to happen?
	What's the process?
	What are the chances of success given what just happened to her on the previous lawsuit where they got sanctioned for legal fees?
	Is the past prologue to the future?
	Is this going to stand on its own legs or are judges going to get influenced by the previous lawsuit?
	And where does it go?
	So yeah, it's a straightforward election contest.
	The standard in Arizona has been established for almost a century by the Arizona Supreme Court.
	Does not require proof of fraud.
	Does not require proof of intentionality.
	It just requires irregularities, mistakes, or other issues that bring the election outcome into doubt.
	So all that you need to show is that there were irregularities, mistakes, or other issues in the processing of the ballots and that there's enough of the ballots that are in dispute that is greater than the margin of victory.
	All you have to have is in doubt.
	You don't have to prove it beyond certain or anything else.
	The typical remedy that is offered, customary remedy, is a runoff election, a new election.
	She has requested all her available remedies.
	She's requested that as a primary remedy, but as alternatives, she could be declared the winner.
	That remedy has been given before.
	Also, that they could portion the ballots in a certain way to make account for the various errors and omissions and mistakes that took place.
	And they could also order an audit of the ballots.
	They could order experts to do signature match checks.
	There's a range of other things they could also do to accomplish the objective.
	For those out there that said, oh, this has never been granted in history.
	Well, actually, it's been granted right in Arizona in the governor's race.
	So there was a prior governor's race where the Arizona Supreme Court voided the election because there was doubt about the outcome because of irregularities in the way in which the vote count took place.
	That's it.
	So the idea that this has never been done, can't be done, won't be done, is all nonsense.
	Now, there is a political hurdle with prejudice in the court system, which I'll get to, but that shouldn't blind us to what the facts in the law are or the politics of pursuing these cases.
	So, go ahead.
	Do I bring up the Bill Gates?
	Let me bring it up one more time just so that nobody says you're making stuff up or for the YouTube overlords.
	Maricopa County.
	Here we go.
	How they're going to argue that there were no errors.
	I'm Bill Gates, the chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
	I won't play the whole thing.
	And I'm Stephen Richard, the Maricopa County Recorder.
	And we're here to give you an update on how things are going so far with the election.
	We've already had almost 44,000 people show up this morning, check in, and be available to vote.
	And things are going great out there, but there's one thing that we wanted to address to make people aware of today.
	And that has to do with our tabulators.
	We've got about 20% of the locations out there where there's an issue with the tabulator where some of the ballots that after people have voted them, they try and run them through the tabulator and they're not going through.
	But the good thing is, is we do, first of all, we're trying to fix this problem.
	Trying to fix it.
	We can stop it from there.
	Katie Hobbs, she said that there's like, she said, he said 20% of the locations Katie Hobbs' lawsuit alleges like 39% of the locations.
	I'm sorry, because I have a question about Katie Hobbs afterwards.
	Carrie Lake alleges it's like in the 30s percentage.
	Some people are going to say...
	It's over half at different points.
	So there's different ones went down for different lengths of time.
	So here are the issues, here are the mishaps, irregularities, the omissions that she details.
	First, the big one is signature mismatches.
	So for those people out there, over a million ballots in Arizona come in by mail.
	The only method by which you can make sure that ballot is a legal ballot is that on the envelope, before you open the ballot, before you allow it to be counted, you match the signature on the outside of the ballot, on the outside of the mail envelope, with the signature on the registration card.
	Because that's not something someone will typically have access to, so it's tough to forge it or make it fraudulent.
	Well, on average, the volunteers working in the election, there's hundreds of people that have filed sworn statements on this in support of the election contest for Carrie Lake, that what they were finding was on average 20 to 30 percent of the ballots didn't match.
	So it was a very high rate.
	And then what was happening is somebody above them, without party observers being present, was reversing their decisions.
	And they were even passing out stickers that you could stick it on there and somehow it magically reversed the original.
	The person actually charged with making sure the ballots match, the signatures match.
	So that's the first one, and that's over 200,000 ballots.
	Again, the margin is less than 20,000 ballots.
	So by itself, the signature mismatches.
	Requires either a further full signature match audit with expert witnesses.
	As they included in the election contest, they pointed out in 2020 that some of these signatures couldn't match.
	In other words, you had someone who had a normal signature and you had someone who wrote almost a blank line.
	That's never supposed to match.
	That's not a legal ballot.
	That's an illegal ballot.
	It appears that over 200,000 illegal ballots were counted in the election.
	When they're less than 20,000, the margin of victory is less than 20. And just to highlight why that's important, it's because by and large, what was the mail-in vote Democrat to Republican percentage?
	It was over 2-1 in favor of the Democrats, last I checked.
	Scratch what I just said, 2-1.
	It was very hot.
	And then you have ballot custody.
	And this is a very well thought through election contest.
	It was filed by the lawyer who worked with Ken Paxton to draft the election contest that went up to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020.
	That's who this guy is.
	Some people asked about Harmeet Dillon.
	She's running for the Republican National Committee chair.
	She was not going to be the person to bring the election contest.
	She was there to help on election day.
	This guy is, well, he had to leave and create his own firm because everybody panicked when he went and helped Ken Paxton file this challenge.
	But that was a very well thought through challenge.
	Again, attorney generals throughout the country joined it.
	Lawyers throughout the country joined it.
	Members of Congress throughout the country joined it.
	State legislators throughout the country joined it.
	So anybody who says that was a frivolous filing is full of it in 2020.
	And so that's who drafted this.
	The second issue I went into is ballot custody.
	So that's always critical.
	And my biggest criticism of machines in their current form is on the issue of ballot custody.
	Normally what happens in ballot custody, you get like, if you have real paper ballots where the machines only tabulate, they're not part of printing the ballot, you avoid this problem.
	But when you have machines printing ballots and you don't have clean chain of custody, Then all kinds of ballots can just flood into the system and be counted that weren't supposed to be counted.
	So it's very strict ballot custody protocols.
	You have to fill out all these forms about, okay, this ballot came in on this date from this person.
	We put it into this box at this date.
	It wasn't open until it was transported over here, so forth.
	Those records are missing.
	They're missing in mass from Maricopa County.
	The ballot custody was a joke.
	Complete joke.
	Complete disgrace.
	Behind second signature mismatches, the second most essential critical defender against fraud, which is strict chain of custody.
	Anybody that does it that's a lawyer, especially a criminal lawyer, knows all about chain of custody.
	When evidence goes missing, the chain of custody is impaired.
	You can't trust the evidentiary value of that evidence anymore.
	You can't trust a ballot to be a legally qualified ballot if the chain of custody goes AWOL.
	And the chain of custody went completely AWOL here because they weren't keeping basic records that they were legally obligated to keep.
	And again, the number of ballots that impacts, over 200,000 ballots, more than 10 times the number of ballots that are the margin of victory.
	Third problem.
	Was the tabulator issue you already mentioned.
	This led to voter suppression, multiple hours of people being in line.
	Many people quit voting.
	Some people went to different locations and then were denied the right to vote at a different location because they checked in earlier.
	That number is as high.
	They don't fully know because Maricopa County hasn't been fully forthcoming.
	But maybe as high as 200,000 people who checked in to vote whose ballots never showed up in the county.
	And apparently the stat is, it's like three to one Republican to Democrat showing up to vote in person on election.
	And they had internal maps on their walls, as detailed by Richard Barris, People's Pundit, who's also a declarant in the case, where they knew in Maricopa County who was voting where by party, which is weird, by the way.
	And again, the head people at Maricopa County had organized political action committees.
	Against Carrie Lake to see her defeated.
	Up next, the fourth problem was mixed matched ballots.
	So what was happening is ballots that had already been counted, had already been tabulated, already been counted, were being mixed in in containers with ballots that had not been counted.
	That's a huge problem.
	So then all of a sudden you don't know which ones already got counted and which ones didn't.
	And this was amplified by their chain of custody problem.
	Then there was...
	Sorry, stop there.
	Does that dilute the count or does that result in double counts?
	Both.
	You can do both.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	The fourth problem was what was called the Dropbox.
	I think it was Dropbox 3 or whatever it was.
	There was a particular box.
	If you went in and your ballot wasn't being counted, you could put it in a particular box and they were going to count it later.
	The numbers of that people reported much higher than was actually showed up in that box.
	There are people witnessed ballots that just went missing, ballots that were in bags that appeared to have never been tabulated.
	So that's the additional issue is missing ballots.
	And again, this would comport with almost 200,000 more people checking in to vote than apparently their ballots were counted.
	It's up to that number.
	And again, they just need 20,000.
	They need 17,000, 18,000.
	Then they're raising four other issues.
	This is that the Twitter files disclose that the election officials in Arizona were demanding Twitter censor people raising issues with how this election was being conducted, including...
	Go ahead.
	This is where I got my name mixed up, because not many people are sort of very familiar with the outright conflict of interest.
	Explain the position that Katie Hobbs, Carrie Lake's opponent...
	Occupied in Arizona.
	I don't know if it's in the state legislature, in the state government.
	What was her role prior to and during the election and during the election verification process so people can fully understand just how bad this is?
	So the Democrat running for governor is the existing Secretary of State.
	She presided over the 2020 election and she presided over the 2022 election.
	So she supervised the conduction of elections in Arizona.
	And she refused to recuse or disqualify herself.
	She was personally involved in the oversight.
	She was seen on location of the counting of the ballots.
	And even worse, what's alleged here is she did two things that were deeply problematic.
	One is she directly interfered with public statements about the election.
	And people raising issues by censoring their opinions on social media, by demanding Twitter remove certain accounts or de-boost those accounts, effectively shadowban those accounts.
	Apparently there's a visibility filter.
	I mean, that's what Scott Adams was saying that maybe Twitter's defense was going to be.
	I'm like, good luck with that.
	No, no, we didn't shadowban anybody.
	We just had a visibility filter.
	And it wasn't politically motivated either.
	We just control it.
	It's doublespeak, but yeah, it's all- At multiple levels.
	So there's the problem for her ordering censoring of people that were exposing some of these problems in the court of public opinion, state action, First Amendment violations of Lake supporters and election integrity supporters using her control of the state authority and her relationship with Twitter and social media to accomplish it.
	Then the second problem is when certain election officials did not want to certify this election in some of the counties because of the problems in Maricopa County, She directly threatened them with jail if they didn't certify the election.
	The law in Arizona does not require, it was not a ministerial obligation for them to certify the election.
	They were, in fact, constitutionally obligated to raise the questions they were asking.
	So her ordering them to certify the election under pain of penalty of jail was itself criminal behavior in the state of Arizona.
	The Attorney General had either cojones or brains, Brnovich, which I doubt he has either, I was in front of his wife, very unimpressive federal judge that Trump foolishly appointed to the bench, more of a power trip authoritarian than anybody willing to take on election corruption in Arizona.
	Katie Hobbs would be under criminal investigation today.
	Then the two other issues, well, actually only one other issue.
	They are challenging, as the Arizona has also challenged, something that I've often said about mail-in balloting in the current form, which is mail-in balloting invalidates secret ballots.
	Secret ballots in Arizona are constitutionally required.
	So the question is, to me, there's no protocols in place to assure that a mail-in ballot is secret.
	There's nothing that requires the voter to sign that nobody saw their ballot, nobody reviewed their ballot, nobody knows who they voted for, they weren't paid for the ballot, none of that's required.
	In Arizona, so that it violates the right to a secret ballot to even allow mail-in voting under the current standards in Arizona.
	So they're preserving that challenge as well.
	So it's a very robust challenge.
	They got a judge who's a BYU grad, which probably means a Mormon, which was a fair number in Arizona, about 5% to 6%.
	Kept a pretty low profile, worked in private practice, worked for some local governments, is a local state court judge, doesn't have a real high profile in general.
	If he is impartial...
	Then Carrie Lake will get a meaningful evidentiary hearing on this case.
	If he is intimidated by the corrupt federal judge that is threatening sanctions against Alan Dershowitz for merely raising questions about the greatness and wonders of the election, before the election, all the way back in the primary state, saying, hey, there's some issues with these machines.
	Dershowitz, like Robert Kennedy, like others, is a fan of paper ballots and isn't a big fan of machine ballots.
	You know, if he's intimidated by it, like a lot of people assume will happen, then he will capitulate and not allow the case to go forward.
	What that will do is damage the appearance of the integrity and impartiality and relevance, frankly, of the judiciary.
	This is where the judiciary is supposed to step up.
	Unlike the Trump cases, which I thought a lot of those cases belonged in Congress constitutionally, not in the courts.
	I did think the U.S. Supreme Court case belonged in the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But a lot of remedies I thought were congressional remedies rather than court remedies.
	In the election contest laws in Arizona, the courts are supposed to do the job here.
	Now, and if they can't, then what Arizona and other states need to start looking at is removing election contest authority from judges because they just can't do their job and giving it to state legislatures instead, as it has been in the past in several states.
	This is an opportunity for the courts to show confidence in the judiciary and confidence in elections by having a transparent process.
	To vet the evidentiary allegations.
	And if they suffice, as I believe they do, Carrie Lake should get a new election, at least in Maricopa County, revote Maricopa County, where almost all the problems occurred.
	But really, just do a runoff.
	Runoffs are not that hard to do.
	Just do a runoff in a month or so.
	But this time, make sure the election is run competently and constitutionally.
	Two questions.
	You said there has been precedent.
	When has there ever been a new runoff called subsequent to an election?
	Oh, often, often throughout the country.
	I think in Arizona what happened, as I recall, they actually declared one person.
	They declared the person who lost the election the governor because of the irregularities and they could prove that enough of the ballots went to the person who was declared the winner rather than they said it was a deserved one.
	But the most common remedy.
	Across the nation has been runoffs.
	I've always encouraged that because that strikes me.
	I don't want judges declaring winners.
	I didn't like the Supreme Court declaring George W. Bush a winner.
	I thought what they should do is do a runoff in Florida, see what happens.
	You don't have to do it with the whole country.
	It's one state that's in dispute.
	That's what should happen here.
	Just do a runoff.
	I mean, we do runoffs all across the country all the time.
	Just had one in Georgia.
	And just make sure it's competently constitutionally run this time.
	How hard is that?
	So this answers the second question is Mark Elias presented an argument for why Katie Hobbs was not just within her rights but objectively right to threaten suit because they had no choice.
	We discussed that last week.
	What would be required?
	The problem was he interpreted the law as ministerial.
	There was no discretion.
	And the reading of the law that's recorded in the election contest by Carrie Lake against Katie Hobbs is that, in fact, that's not what the law says at all.
	So it would not shock me that money launderer Mark Elias...
	I wasn't being honest about that.
	Alleged.
	I don't even know what you're talking about.
	I just think it's going to get me in trouble, Robert.
	But set aside Mark Elias, what would be required in order to safeguard from undue infants from Katie Hobbs?
	What would she have to do?
	She should have refused herself at this point.
	I mean, especially, but she never should have.
	It's one thing, you know, she was constitutionally entitled to run the election, even though she was involved in the governor.
	I don't have a problem with that.
	Stacey Abrams attacked Brian Kemp for that same thing in 2018.
	I didn't have a problem with that.
	I have a problem with her overstepping her role.
	I have a problem with her not following the rules, like in the signature match context.
	I have problems with her interfering and getting censoring dissidents that were exposing corruption and fraud in the election.
	And I have problems with her threatening people in an illicit way.
	I mean, if she had a problem with it, and what she did, she took them to court, just take them to court and argue why you think it's ministerial.
	Don't be threatening them with jail.
	I mean, everything that's happened in Arizona...
	has dramatically reduced the confidence of millions of Americans, not just Arizonans, in the integrity of our elections.
	We cannot continue to operate in a country based on consent of the governed if the governed don't think they gave consent.
	And if the courts had either brains or balls, they would say, we need to have an open, transparent process here so people can have confidence in the outcome one way or the other.
	We'll find out whether the Arizona courts have either.
	Yeah, and they call Carrie Lake the election denier.
	When she lost...
	Ryan Goderski or Godeski or whatever his name is.
	So he's this grifter.
	And you can always tell the grifters because the first thing is you can't figure out how they make their money on a daily basis.
	That's always like a first telltale sign.
	All these so-called, they're gray spades, like David Reboy or whatever his name is, hangs out with Jack Murphy, you know, who liked to stick things up his rear end and put it on TV and sell it for money.
	I mean, that's who these people hang out with, you know, typically.
	So this guy, he's been obsessed with attacking Cary Lake.
	On the grounds that Cary Lake is no better than Stacey Abrams, that election, questioning being an election denier is not being populist, etc.
	Somehow, to be populist is to think our elections are perfect beacons of integrity.
	And you dig in further, the guy's like, oh, I've elected all these populists.
	It's like, who?
	You dig in, the only guy he's really connected to on any profile is Bloomberg.
	It's like...
	Bloomberg the populist?
	I must have missed that.
	So this guy, he wanted to tango, so he started attacking.
	He was like, I'm always happy to tango with you.
	The kid's a grifter.
	He writes a national populist report.
	He doesn't know what populism is.
	But to give people an idea, a history of challenging elections is as old as America.
	We had challenged elections in the Electoral College in 1800.
	Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson participated in an electoral contest.
	Alexander Hamilton contested an election.
	So, you know, we've had Andrew Jackson got his election stolen and ran on it in 1828.
	So the idea that 1876 was famous for, that's why they called the guy who won his fraudulency the first.
	That's what they called him.
	That's why they called Biden his fraudulency the second.
	He's kind of like the mentally disabled version.
	And look at the Democrats.
	Nixon wins in 1968.
	They say he stole it by derailing the Vietnam peace talks.
	Reagan wins in 1980.
	What did Democrats say?
	Oh, Reagan stole it by Iran-Contra and everything connected to the Iranian hostage.
	Poppy Bush wins in 1988.
	Do Democrats accept the election because election integrity is part of always accepting elections as a sign of being an American?
	No.
	They say he stole it because of the Michael Dukakis being an illicit racist ad.
	Then, of course, George W. Bush wins.
	Do they say he win it?
	No.
	They made massive protests that he stole it.
	And they say he stole it in 2004 with the Diebold machines in Ohio.
	Then, of course, Donald Trump wins.
	Do they say he wins?
	Legitimately?
	No.
	They claimed he stole it for years and launched a special counsel inquiry into it.
	So politically, historically in America, to challenge elections is to be an American.
	The populists were always big on election integrity, exposing election fraud everywhere it took place.
	It was part of their big campaign topics throughout the late 1800s and throughout the early 1900s.
	So to be populist is to say, I demand honest, open, fair, free elections.
	It's how a lot of us, my ancestors, helped bring about free and fair election clauses in state constitutions.
	That's why it exists.
	Secret ballot, why it exists is because we wanted election integrity.
	It has been a populist mantle for forever.
	And denying election fraud and election fornication is not being a populist.
	It's being an institutionalist who cares more about covering up problems than dealing with problems.
	And Grodowski is just one in a long line.
	He's on Buck Sexton with Clay Travis a lot.
	Buck Sexton is a...
	Former CIA spook, folks.
	That's who that guy is.
	And Clay Travis, God bless him, he's from Vandy.
	He's only half Tennessee by my book because you can't be full Tennessee and be from Vandy.
	Great, you know, sweetheart of a human being, but he's not exactly the most politically informed guy in the world on these kind of issues.
	And so to all these people attacking Carrie Lake haven't read the suit.
	The suit is an exceptional suit that details extraordinary facts and the law overwhelmingly supports her.
	So what they're really saying is, hey, They stole it.
	Let's just go along with it.
	You know, like some of the people did with LBJ in 1946.
	Maybe if they would have fought LBJ all the way back then fully and thoroughly, maybe President Kennedy doesn't get whacked in 1963 in Texas.
	Robert, I can't think of a better way to end the episode other than that.
	That's going to make one heck of a highlight.
	I could hear it in my head.
	We didn't get to everything, but that's, I mean, look, this is phenomenal.
	So we'll be following Cary Lake.
	We'll be following it all.
	Timeline for Cary Lake?
	Like, are they going to push this through?
	Oh, it's always expedited.
	Election contests are expedited.
	So I assume within, you know, that the...
	And we'll find out quickly.
	Does the court hold meaningful evidentiary hearings?
	In Georgia, they went through procedural.
	The only other good state election contest brought in recent times was the one brought in Georgia that I helped.
	I was part of that process, but I wasn't the lawyer on the record.
	And what they did in Georgia is it was so good that they just never had scheduled a hearing.
	Illegally, by the way.
	That's classic Georgia courts.
	So we'll see with Arizona quickly if he schedules a meaningful hearing and schedules a real evidentiary hearing and allows real discovery.
	If he does, then real remedy should be coming down the pipeline.
	I understand it's uphill because people are used to courts just capitulating and being cowards.
	I understand that.
	I've been one of the most strongest critics of courts you'll find of any lawyer out there.
	But this is a good case, and she's right to bring it.
	And even if you think the courts are not going to do anything, still bring the case to get in the court of public opinion and show that the courts are not the ultimate remedy and we need to change the institutional remedy.
	he got Did you catch your hair?
	He got a bit of a haircut.
	I told him not to do it.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com He says it great though.
	Robert, do you have any appearances this week coming up?
	No, I'm going to be on the road.
	Leave Tuesday and then I'll be in Tennessee until after Christmas.
	All right.
	Well, someone said I should meet you down at the Amish Amos' farm to see what's going on, but we're supposed to go back to Canada for a week, so we'll see what happens there.
	Oh, yeah.
	We'll see what happens, Robert, if I can get past the border.
	Robert, amazing stuff.
	Wednesday, so do we have a sidebar Wednesday or not?
	No, because I'm on the road.
	Okay, so I'll get something going anyhow.
	But for anybody who wants to see it, our interview with Carl Benjamin was great.
	It was fantastic.
	It was glorious.
	So we'll see.
	Okay, Robert, everybody in the chat, thank you very much as always for being here.
	It was one amazing episode.
	You can go to what's Ziggy Shrugged site and get the Christmas ornaments.
	Yeah, hold on a second.
	It is called Creations by Ziggy.
	You can get Viva Barnes Christmas ornaments.
	You can get Hush Hush ornaments.
	You can get Eric Hunley ornaments.
	You can get Grow Bear ornaments.
	Look at this.
	You can get Viva Dreidels and Barnes on a Dreidels.
	Never one of those, by the way.
	One's coming.
	I'm going to get them for the kids.
	We're going to get into some serious Hanukkah gambling.
	We'll get one.
	Everybody.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everybody, this is going to be on podcast format tomorrow.
	Clips are going to be on Viva Clips.
	Oh, they saw my phone.
	And that's it.
	Everybody, enjoy the rest of the weekend.

▲