Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 8, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:29:28

VIVA & BARNES ARE BACK! First Sunday Stream of 2023!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Why and how ready should we be for the next pandemic?
	Well, governments are there to protect us.
	And so they have us practice for earthquakes.
	They have a fire department with lots of full-time people to stop fires.
	They have armies that are there to deal with wars.
	But the pandemic is a disaster that they didn't prepare for.
	The actual resources required to have a global surveillance team, to make better diagnostic technologies, to do quick detection, it's actually not going to be that expensive once the world gets organized and makes it a priority.
	So active preparedness for the next pandemic, because as you've said, it's not a matter of if, but when.
	How do we actively prepare?
	And are you seeing...
	One thing that I think many of you have probably already gotten repulsed by, the government's job is to protect us.
	Keep playing.
	I've got to hear this.
	Anywhere in the world where there's actual preparedness for a future pandemic right now?
	Well, there's some good innovation.
	The idea of improving the vaccine so that they block getting infection, making them so they last a long, long time.
	Being able to make very cheap diagnostics that you could literally produce billions of very quickly.
	So the innovation side, I think, is starting to move.
	But picking how we strengthen WHO, create a special organization dedicated to pandemics, how we staff that, how we get every country to practice for fire.
	You've got fire drills.
	You've got signs.
	So we need a little bit of preparation so that we actually can stop something before it goes global, you know, so we'll have lots of outbreaks, but we don't need Right.
	Can you appreciate what he just said?
	First of all, why?
	Why should we be ready for a pandemic?
	What a hard-hitting question.
	Should we be ready for the next pandemic?
	Well, governments are there to protect us.
	End it there.
	Governments are there to protect us.
	Does it matter that throughout the histories of government, not only have they not protected people, not only have they not protected their citizens, but they've actually and actively done harm to their citizens?
	Governments are there.
	First of all, before I even start, why does this guy have a microphone?
	I know everybody jokingly says he bought it.
	You know, he has...
	What's the word?
	Like, curated geopolitics so that he now has the...
	He has the bullhorn because that bullhorn was purchased.
	He became a billionaire because of his unscrupulous business practices in tech.
	Such that he could then, by the influence of organizations, by the influence of governments, such that a computer tech guy, and I'm not one who says stay in your lane.
	There's no reason why a computer tech guy can't know about pandemics.
	There's no reason why Elon Musk, who's a rocket guy, can't know about social media.
	But that doesn't mean that just because they are a billionaire tech guru, if that's what you want to call Bill Gates, that he knows anything about anything other than the fact that he's bought the bullhorn.
	Governments are there to protect us.
	Except, you know, when they experiment on us.
	And I'm not talking COVID, people, if that's what you thought.
	Tuskegee experiments.
	Governments are there to protect us except when they commit atrocities against us that subsequent governments have to apologize for at residential schools in Canada.
	Governments are there to protect us except when they poison us and then have to cover up the poisoning of their own citizens.
	That they knew about.
	Governments are there to protect us.
	Wrong, Bill Gates.
	Governments are there to do the absolute bare minimum that governments need to do to maintain a civilized society.
	Law and order.
	Critical infrastructure.
	Governments are not there to keep people safe because governments, A, are incapable of doing it, and B, they have been historically corrupt entities that have not done it, that have exploited their monopoly on violence to...
	Cause harm to the people they are supposed to represent.
	And others.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh my goodness.
	Listening to him talk, we should just get vaccines ready for the next pandemic.
	You don't even know what the next pandemic is going to be, yet you've already found the solution.
	And it's like, people now, they just talk about vaccines like it's like a band-aid.
	Like, oh, okay, so we're going to have a pandemic.
	We'll just develop a vaccine.
	It's like that lawsuit that I was in with this useless partner of a shareholder whose contribution to the company was make it better, make it cheaper.
	Okay, great.
	How?
	Make it better.
	Oh, we're going to have a pandemic.
	Let's just make a vaccine.
	We need to get better at making the vaccines for the pandemic.
	So let's do some research on...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Gain-of-function research.
	On potential pathogens and then develop a vaccine for it so that if and when that vaccine, that pathogen gets released, whatever the reason, whatever the accident, will we have a vaccine ready for it?
	Let's do research on pathogens in order to develop a vaccine for a pandemic, the cause of which we don't yet know, the pathogen of which we don't yet know.
	And all of you asking where this pathogen came from, shut your mouths.
	It came from nature.
	It came from people eating bats and pangolins.
	And don't ask because it's apparently now in today's trust the science, moving at the speed of science.
	It doesn't matter where it came from.
	It doesn't matter where it originated from.
	It doesn't matter if it was gain-of-function research, leak from a lab in Wuhan, China.
	That will surely not help you combat it.
	That will surely not help you deliver treatments, pandemic response.
	Doesn't matter.
	From a lab, from gain-of-function research, from nature, doesn't matter, according to the science.
	Okay.
	First of all, everybody, Happy New Year for those who don't follow vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	This is not the first live stream by any means.
	I've been going live during the week.
	This is the first Sunday night live stream back, 2023.
	Some of you might notice.
	Listen to this.
	Echo.
	Echo.
	Does anyone hear an echo?
	Does anyone notice that the audio is noticeably better?
	Let me see if actually anybody notices the audio is noticeably better, because if it's not noticeably better, my wife and I, we wasted so much time putting these panels on the sidewall of the studio.
	No echo.
	Amazing.
	These things right here?
	Panels.
	Acoustic panels.
	On the wall.
	There are two more over there.
	The entire left wall is acoustic stick-on panels.
	They're very good.
	They work when you do it properly.
	Posted a picture of it in Locals and on Twitter.
	There's a carpet on the floor.
	And we might do the ceiling if and when it becomes necessary.
	But it is the first Viva Barnes Sunday night stream of 2023.
	And holy, holy shia, people.
	Like, first of all, there was a lot to catch up on in the last two weeks.
	McCarthy.
	Alex Jones news.
	So much news.
	And then it seems that the Shiite is being disturbed in Brazil.
	We're going to have to talk about it.
	Because apparently extreme MAGA Republicans are responsible for what's going on in Brazil.
	That's what Hakeem Jeffries wants me to believe.
	That's what AOC wants me to believe.
	That's what the hootin' tootin', sleeping with the enemy Eric Swalwell wants.
	Wants us to believe.
	A lot to talk about.
	Barnes is wearing.
	It looks like a leather bomber jacket, people.
	Hold on.
	Before I bring Barnes in, standard disclaimers.
	First of all, Super Chats.
	Winston Schittenhouse.
	Good to see you again.
	The Pudge Lemon Squeezy Bottle, now on Merch Store.
	Not a bad idea.
	That's Pudge.
	I have to squeeze pee out of her so that her bladder fully vacates so that she doesn't get a urinary tract infection.
	Bill Gates reminds me of the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert.
	Bill Gates reminds me of the villain in Despicable Me.
	And once you see it, I don't think you'll be able to ever unsee it.
	Pasha Moyer, thank you very much for the Super Chat.
	Heart Tackle, American-made lures.
	Happy New Year.
	Happy fishing.
	Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on the Rumbles, where we will be going exclusively in about a half an hour or so.
	Let me refresh here and see.
	7,500 watching on Rumble.
	Beautiful.
	Rumble has Rumble rants.
	They take 20%.
	So better for the platform, better for the content creator, better to support a platform that supports free speech.
	You all know that.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice, although we're going to be talking about all of that.
	And what else was there?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Okay, Barnes is in the house.
	I'm bringing him in.
	Three, two, one.
	Bobby Barnes!
	How goes the battle, sir?
	How goes it?
	Good, good.
	Robert, I haven't seen you in two weeks, and you're looking good.
	Yeah, looking a lot better than I felt last week.
	I've been a little under the weather.
	Dare I ask?
	Did you get the Rona?
	No, no, I don't think so.
	It was a stomach flu, I think.
	It was pretty bad, and then another virus or something else.
	So it was like, there's these different colds and flus and bugs, and there may have been food poisoning one day.
	So that was one thing or another for about four or five days.
	But I'm feeling better now.
	So still in Tennessee, back to Vegas later this week.
	I was going to say, you look good, but if you had vomitus and diarrhea for a week, that might be looking good not for the good reason.
	Yeah, yeah, not the best reasons, right?
	Was it?
	I won't ask.
	Diarrhea, I don't so much mind.
	Vomiting, it's one of my phobias.
	The chat reminded me once upon a time what it's called.
	So still in Tennessee.
	Robert, okay, look, we've got so much to talk about because last week people were at least on the locals community.
	They wanted something live.
	I was watching the...
	How many votes did it go to?
	13 votes?
	14 votes?
	15 votes.
	The most in the century, I believe.
	It was amazing.
	People...
	People are dying to know about that, and we've got to talk about it.
	But let me just bring one last one up before we do this.
	Kimberly Geiger, Happy New Year.
	Missed you so much.
	I'm thankful for you both.
	Thank you very much.
	Some people are not so thankful for us, Robert, but they can continue making mean comments on Twitter and in the chat.
	But, Robert, okay, so let's get started on McCarthy.
	And then I got...
	Well, hold on.
	Do you have a book behind you?
	Do you have a cigar?
	No.
	No, no, no.
	Not in Tennessee.
	When we get back to Vegas.
	Robert, okay.
	McCarthy.
	First of all, what is your take on McCarthy as a politician, as a human, as a now Speaker of the House?
	You know, he's an old school, classic, conventional politician of the modern type.
	So he's one of these people that probably was, you know, doing model UN in high school.
	Those kind of people.
	These people that really live.
	For internal politics and love the designation of Speaker of the House.
	They love the title, the nomenclature.
	Joe Biden is representative of this group of people.
	It's the rise of the professionalization of politics in America.
	And it, in my view, has been a very negative factor in American political life.
	That we have people who do nothing from the time they're...
	Teenagers, but run for office and seek office.
	We have lawyers, doctors, a bunch of credentialed people who have limited life experience who are not the best suited people, in my view, to represent people.
	What we have fewer of is small business people.
	What we have fewer of is independent entrepreneurs.
	What we have fewer of is creative types.
	What we have fewer of is just ordinary, everyday people.
	Now, we've never had tons of those in government.
	It's one of the weaknesses of representative government, in my view, is that it dilutes the impact of democracy when you have this interference.
	With someone representing you, and there's this long, notorious history of people not actually keeping their promises.
	There's a reason why politicians are as hated as anybody up there with lawyers and others as professions go.
	And McCarthy's your classic guy.
	I mean, even look at his hairdo.
	I mean, everything about the guy screams professional politician.
	I can't wait to be named chairman of the Model UN.
	So there's nothing about him that's trustworthy, nothing about him that's reliable.
	I don't see him as a dark figure.
	He's not the power freak that McConnell is.
	He's not the nasty war whore that people like Dan Crenshaw, one-eyed McCain, and some of these other guys are.
	It's Eyepatch McCain.
	He said it today on Twitter, or he said it in an interview.
	Eyepatch McCain.
	I say the most insulting thing about that.
	Did I say one-eyed McCain?
	Because I think of the one-eyed ogre.
	That's why I think of one-eyed ogre.
	And so that's why I think of him as one-eyed McCain.
	Making fun of the eyepatch is juvenile.
	It's what he looks like.
	He can't help it.
	I think the truly insulting thing to him, and I'm not talking about you, Robert, I mean, in general, people call him the eyepatch McCain.
	The insulting thing is being compared to McCain, and I think that's actually what insults him.
	The eyepatch thing gave him his panache, gave him his initial entree vu as this sort of popular figure when Saturday Night Live made fun of it in sort of inappropriate ways.
	It's the McCain part.
	That's why I call him the one-eye thing.
	And the reason why is because he sees the world with one eye.
	You know, it's like the sort of the old Homer sort of image, right?
	The one-eyed giant.
	Or the great film, O Brother Art Thou, which is really just a remade version of Homer's great odyssey, is that the one-eyed person doesn't see the world fully.
	And is an ogre of a type.
	You know, you think of that one big eye in the middle.
	When I see Crenshaw, that's who I see.
	And I don't think McCarthy is like that.
	He's a weak-kneed, classic, conventional politician.
	Utterly untrustworthy.
	Won't challenge institutional power for anything.
	Will capitulate at the moment at the drop of a hat.
	Is longtime best buddies with Paul Ryan.
	Is roommates with Frank Luntz.
	These are not people you really want to be associating with.
	If you care about ordinary people, populist values, the little d democratic values, old school conservative values, if you're on that side of the aisle, McCarthy is exactly what you don't like.
	But McCarthy was more simple in all of this.
	The issue was the institutional rot that is the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.
	And it's an institutional rot that has been enabled and facilitated by rule changes over the past several decades.
	Now, in truth, the House has been crap for most of its history.
	That's the God's honest truth.
	And people are like, oh, you know, there was almost a fight on the floor between Mike Rogers and Matt Gaetz.
	There have been actual fights on the House floor.
	People have shot each other on the House floor.
	People have stabbed each other on the House floor.
	They used to really brawl on the House floor.
	So, you know, that didn't concern me much.
	What did concern me is that these rules are atrophying democracy and making ordinary people increasingly believe the United States government is unrepresentative of their interests.
	And that's what this rebellion was about, and it's a rebellion that had been building for decades, frankly.
	When Gingrich took over in 94, he made a bunch of reform changes that were good, and then they went back on him in the early 2000s under W, and the Democrats never liked him, and so they scrapped him.
	And these are reforms that just enable democracy to actually mean something, that your representative be able to, for example, propose an amendment on the floor, that you actually have a bill that is a single bill, not six things thrown into one.
	Let me stop you there.
	When did that become a custom?
	What do they call it?
	The pig fat or the pork?
	They've been doing it erasperatically over the decades, but it accelerated under W and then under Pelosi.
	And then it was continued by the Republicans.
	I mean, Dennis Hastert, for crying out loud, the Speaker of the House of the Republicans, was a pedo.
	I mean, this is not something you should be proud of.
	So these were the kind of leaders, so-called leaders, that were being representative.
	And then Pelosi after him.
	And then the various nitwits and losers on the Republican side.
	And then back to Pelosi.
	And so McCarthy wasn't seen as a weak guy.
	He's not seen as someone anybody really respects.
	He's seen as a tool.
	And the issue was, let's use him and his speakership vote to finally at least create some sort of reform.
	Probably the most The eloquent expression of this was by Chip Roy.
	I worked with Chip Roy during the...
	Well, maybe Chip doesn't want to talk about it, but I worked with him in some different contexts in which he was very sincere and fought very well.
	I'll put it that way.
	Might have been in Georgia in 2020.
	I'll put those connections together.
	But I like Chip.
	I don't always agree with him, but I respect him.
	Very independent guy, a guy who does sincerely care about the institution working, and working in a little de-democratic way, working in ways that's representative of the people's interests and is reflective of their constitutional obligations.
	And to their credit, to Matt Gaetz's tremendous credit, Lauren Boebert, others.
	The Chip Roy, some young congressmen from Arizona, some others, they were able to do something that hadn't been done in a century, which was force 15 votes.
	And what was the consequence of that?
	Certain assurances of at least some form of reform.
	Now, the concern is that once McCarthy became Speaker, That the establishment-oriented House Republicans would then break McCarthy's promise and not go through with the rules reforms.
	I think that would be a massive, massive mistake by those moderate Republicans because they'll earn a certain enmity that will lead to major institutional issues going forward in the House.
	Because while people think the House vote was a means...
	To force these reforms, it is by no means the only means.
	There are ways in which people can create all kinds of havoc if McCarthy doesn't keep his word.
	So I understand the concerns of Richard Barris and others who are like, look, these people have no history of being reliable.
	They're probably, as soon as you let McCarthy in, they're just going to walk it back and turn around on Monday and not vote through the rules package.
	That may happen.
	And I understand what that concern is.
	I think, though, the institutional leaders, after what they just went through, understand what kind of risk that poses.
	And I don't think they will.
	I think you will see them actually go through with the committee promises and the rules changes.
	What do those rules changes mean?
	Big rules changes.
	It means, you know, three members of the Freedom Caucus are on the rules committee.
	What does that mean?
	That means that a whole bunch of stuff, they have veto power for what gets to the floor.
	The ability to propose legislation yourself directly.
	The ability to propose amendments directly.
	I mean, these are real reforms that truly little d democratize the process.
	What had happened is the House had trophied so bad that a small group of elite people in the Congress could unilaterally decide what legislation was even debated, least of all past.
	That, under these reform changes, these are the most dramatic reform changes.
	Since Gingrich came in in 1994, and arguably the most dramatic reform changes in the history of the House.
	And I think that if McCarthy keeps his word and the establishment Republicans don't try to blow up the party all over again, then these reforms will make a real difference in the House of Representatives in the upcoming term.
	What I'm most excited about...
	I mean, no legislation is going to go through, but the ability to propose legislation, to put policy ideas before the court of public opinion.
	By the way, some of these reforms that passed, I was working with Ralph Nader to try to get done in the 90s.
	I mean, this is how long this has been burgeoning, right?
	The ability to just propose legislation, yourself as an individual member of the House, the ability to propose amendments on the floor.
	This should all have been easy and simple.
	They had gutted all of it.
	They had stacked the rules committee.
	Only establishment proposals ever even got debated or discussed.
	Committees that didn't investigate anything except what the establishment wanted.
	The biggest thing that I'm looking forward to in the immediate future is what Congressman Thomas Massey said.
	And it would be humiliating to Kevin McCarthy.
	It would be humiliating to the Republican Party.
	If they don't do what Thomas Massey said they had agreed to do when it's already published now on Tucker Carlson for the world to see.
	And what Massey said were the 10 points or the concessions made so that McCarthy gets the speech.
	The big one is what I've been calling for for a half decade is a church committee.
	That is what's needed.
	Like some people said, oh, ignore all this.
	It doesn't matter.
	You can't pass the legislation.
	I get that.
	Recognize in advance.
	Democrats control the Senate.
	Democrats control the White House.
	You're not getting any legislation.
	That ain't happening.
	What you can do is you can block some bad legislation, number one.
	Number two, what you can also do is propose ideas that become the ground of a platform moving forward so people know what the heck is it we're voting for when we vote Republican because many people still don't know.
	In the working class North, many of them that stayed home and didn't vote or voted Democrat this past time are like, how am I supposed to trust the Mitch McConnells of the world?
	So that's the utility of being able to have a diverse range of legislative proposals put forward, is see which ideas catch fire and become part of the platform for 2024.
	But most importantly, from my point of view, is a new church committee.
	You put Thomas Massey, you put other people like that on that committee.
	You let that committee, you put Matt Gaetz on that committee.
	You put some of those folks on that committee.
	You put Marjorie Taylor Greene on that committee, and McCarthy owes her tremendously.
	People have been critical of her.
	She made a very tactical decision.
	She was going to align with McCarthy to increase her position of power and influence in the House when they've been trying to drive her out, remove her from committees, exclude her from positions of influence, etc.
	She made a tactically smart decision that was savvy for the agenda she supports, and it's a very populist agenda she supports.
	So I have no problem whatsoever with how she approached it.
	I think it was tactically a very wise decision.
	Just as I have no problem with Matt Gaetz.
	I'm a big fan of Matt Gaetz.
	And he proved his utility once again.
	And how he managed this.
	He managed this exceptionally, extraordinarily well.
	But I'm really looking...
	People should not underestimate the power of an investigative committee.
	The Church Committee is the only reason we know about MKUltra.
	The Church Committee is the only reason we know about the assassinations.
	The Church Committee is the only reason we know about a lot of things we know currently about the Kennedy and the King assassinations, both Kennedy assassinations and the King assassinations.
	So while those committees could have been a lot more robust, they could have been a lot more detailed, they could have been a lot better, they were still the most finding other nation in the world that didn't just collapse and fall apart.
	Where they did a meaningful introspection of their most powerful deep state apparatus within the government.
	I mean, did the Soviet Union ever do that?
	I mean, they did one speech after Stalin by Khrushchev that was in secret.
	That was about it, right?
	I mean, that was extraordinary what we did.
	We exposed our own CIA, our own NSA, our own Pentagon, our own military, our own White House, our own FBI.
	That was extraordinary.
	And it was a great period of transparency.
	And the only way you're going to get reform is for more people to know.
	So have more of these hearings.
	Look at what the Twitter files have done.
	Imagine the Twitter files times 10 on steroids.
	That's what this church committee can be.
	So I'm very optimistic about how all this progressed.
	Credit to all those conservatives with a conscience to hold up.
	Credit to Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's playing it a different way for her own reasons, but I think will ultimately be beneficial also to the populist cause.
	You need people on both sides tactically when you're maneuvering in this way.
	And they outmaneuvered.
	McCarthy and the establishment, tremendously.
	The establishment is enraged.
	Sean Hannity was crying.
	He had to put on his CIA pen and put on his Pentagon pen to figure out which deep state he was going to whore for today.
	And he was whining and complaining.
	It didn't matter.
	Mark Levin, another fake populist, was whining and complaining.
	His opinion doesn't matter.
	Mark Levin disappeared tomorrow.
	Nobody would care.
	That's the reality.
	He's like Bill O 'Reilly.
	Nobody cared.
	Nobody ever cared.
	That's what Donald Trump figured out when he went on tour with him.
	Nobody cares about Bill O 'Reilly.
	Nobody ever cared about Bill O 'Reilly.
	He was a Fox News creation.
	He was not himself interesting, except for when he blew up when he was at Access Hollywood.
	You know, him screaming is the only thing that's memeable about him.
	That and his illicit sex tapes with workers.
	So the little phone calls.
	People were always useless, and they got exposed again as useless because these folks didn't bend.
	There's been some criticism of Trump, justify, understandably.
	Trump was playing it his way, and he played it to his advantage.
	And we'll see whether it works ultimately to his advantage.
	Monday will be the determinant to vote.
	If these promises are all broken...
	Republicans are in serious trouble.
	The Republican establishment is in serious trouble.
	If they keep their word, then this is going to be a very promising House session for 2023 and 2024.
	Quick question.
	A church committee has no specific object.
	It exists and can deal with any subject matter that's brought before it.
	So it depends on how it's vested.
	Now, according to the courts, I mean, this was the dangerous of what Democrats did.
	It used to be the case that the committee was limited by the committee's internal jurisdiction, and that was limited by the vote of the whole House authorizing what they could look at, who could be on it, ranking members were chosen in a certain way, so on and so forth.
	However, Democrats have eviscerated all that, all for their little January 6th show hearings.
	They eviscerated all those limitations.
	Now there's none.
	There's none.
	The courts were eager to let the January 6th committee run rampant.
	Okay, if those are the new rules, we get to do the same thing.
	That means if we don't want Democrats on the committee, fine.
	No Democrats on the committee.
	Or our hand-picked four or five Democrats that we like.
	Or we just don't put them on the committee.
	We're not limited by the jurisdiction of what's put into the original order.
	We don't have to have the committee chairman sign off.
	These are the new rules that Democrats set and the D.C. courts, pro-establishment courts set.
	Now, we'll see if they suddenly change and say, oh, you know, now that we think about it, now that you're looking at the CIA, oh, well, you know, because courts are notoriously wusses when it comes to dealing with the powerful interests in American society, sadly.
	So we'll see, but theoretically, there's no limits based on that precedent.
	Typically, before the January 6th committee process, it's limited by the jurisdiction that is established by the committee.
	So by the full house.
	Now, my understanding is what the authority is going to be is to look into the entire...
	It's brought.
	What the church committee was was a select committee on intelligence before there was any committee on intelligence to look at the entire intelligence community in the United States.
	This is supposed to be even broader.
	It's to look at everything.
	It was like a combination of the church committee and the house committee on assassinations.
	And it's combining the two and looking at all the weaponized politicization and partisan use and misuse and abuse of lawfare in America by the Justice Department, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by the IRS, by the Department of Homeland Security, by the Central Intelligence Agency, by the National Security Agency, everything and everybody.
	We'll see if they keep their word on it.
	But if they do, it will be the most powerful committee, arguably, in the history of the country.
	Second question, and actually someone had asked it, and I feel smarter for having thought of it.
	Will single-member amendments be used as a weapon for Democrats to tie things up on the floor when legislation is voted on?
	All that's good to me.
	We'll let everybody propose amendments.
	That's what the legislative process is supposed to be about.
	It's not supposed to be a few people at the top, meet with some lobbyists, and cram down the vote on everybody else.
	That's not what it was ever supposed to be.
	Why do we have 435 representatives if only 15 get to make decisions?
	And that's what Chip Roy's point was.
	He's like, look, the whole country increasingly doubts whether left or right, whether our system works.
	When people see debate like what they saw over the last week, that's a good thing.
	That's what we should see.
	We should see honest debate, honest dialogue, honest discussion, open multiple-member participation where the American people can participate at some level.
	That was the most interesting House vote any American has ever personally witnessed because nobody witnessed the 1921 or the 1856.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, outside of the people, they're in the gallery.
	You know, I mean, for people that don't know, we've gone months without a speaker.
	So, I mean, we've gone hundreds of votes without a speaker.
	Let me ask that.
	That was the next question.
	Like, in 1856, when it went 114 or whatever votes.
	Three months, four months, something like that.
	So what happens?
	Like, first of all, what are the actual powers of the speaker?
	Well, let's say nobody's going to be crying that the House can't vote, right?
	Whenever the government shuts down, they always say the world's going to fall apart, and then the world never falls apart.
	It's like, yeah, let's shut it down for a little while.
	Let's see how it works.
	Say it works for a month, two months, a couple months.
	Hey, you know what?
	It works better.
	The world looks better when the government can't work.
	When no bureaucrat can get into their office, everybody's better off.
	Robert, it might be very analogous to Twitter.
	Cut 75% of the workforce and it still runs good and maybe even better.
	It's more productive.
	So the Speaker of the House, do they actually have concrete powers that are important or is it a figurehead?
	Oh, no, no.
	They have concrete powers.
	A lot of concrete powers.
	Okay.
	So appointments to committees, a whole bunch of things.
	But effectively, what this did is re-democratize a lot of that power so that his power is less distilled in him as an individual.
	I know that you don't think much of the WEF things, but there's a page on the WEF for McCarthy.
	He attended the conference, from what I understand, in 2018.
	Does he represent globalist interests?
	I mean, he's a schmuck.
	I mean, that's the best way to understand him.
	He's a guy that, you know, go to the wind.
	This guy's not, like McConnell, he has a truly defined agenda.
	Some of which, on the judicial and legal side, as Mike Davis pointed out, shared a lot, conservatives had a lot to share in common with that.
	But the other part of McConnell's agenda was very much a corporatist-globalist agenda.
	And there he was a great harm.
	But he believes it.
	I don't think anybody believes Kevin McCarthy really believes anything.
	I mean, that's the truth.
	Kevin McCarthy believes in Kevin McCarthy, and he wants to get promoted, and he loves having a little gavel.
	That's who Kevin McCarthy is.
	That's why he's not, like, when people are saying, well, just keep voting no, I'm like, well, there needs to be an exit plan here.
	I mean, I get, maybe you just shut down the House for the two years, see what happens, see how the government reacts.
	Okay, you can play that angle, but that's what you're playing, because there wasn't an alternative.
	The core problem is the Republican caucus has a minority of populists in it.
	Steve Scalise?
	Scalise probably would have been worse than McCarthy.
	You can make different arguments about some of the other names.
	I had proposed Trump as a temporary solution.
	And that's where it was going to go if McCarthy didn't fold.
	And it was useful.
	Trump played this well.
	I mean, without getting into too much details, what was publicly seen is that Trump put McCarthy over the top.
	What may have been privately the case is that Trump was leveraging it and telling McCarthy that if he didn't concede on a bunch of the concessions being demanded, that he would replace him instead.
	And so McCarthy folded pretty quick.
	Within three days, and that's a sign also who McCarthy is, but he folded on things that, again, have not been done in the modern era of the House of Representatives, giving real power to not only the Freedom Caucus, but more importantly to the individual House member, and calling again for a committee that's only been formed once in American history, that you could argue the War Racketeering Committee is very similar, or 1930s, run by the great Senator Gerald Nye out of North Dakota.
	I mean, that's where we got all the war racketeering information and about how war is a racket.
	You know, it's Medley Butler.
	All the investigative files came out of that committee.
	Fantastic research they did.
	They showed who was making money off of World War I, who was trying to make money off of getting into World War II.
	I mean, all that was fantastic.
	Those are probably the two greatest committees in the history of the House of Representatives.
	And this has the potential to be the third greatest and maybe the greatest of all three if it really is powerful.
	I'm hopeful that that's where it goes.
	And I think that was a smarter strategy than let's just try to shut down the house for two years.
	Robin, I'm looking at...
	I'm looking at...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Rumble's new interface.
	And now, if I...
	Does everyone see as a highlighted Rumble rant, Tinogwen?
	Because if the rants can now be highlighted the way I want it to, that would be phenomenal on Rumble.
	Okay, so I had one more question about McCarthy.
	Well, what would have happened?
	What would have happened if a speaker had not been appointed?
	What does it mean when the government shuts down for three months or two months?
	Concretely, what would that look like?
	We've had examples of it.
	I mean, because the government leaves partially shut down multiple times over the last 20 years.
	So, I mean, 1994, 95, or 95, actually, after the 94 elections.
	Again, in the early 2000s, again in the mid-2000s, again, of course, during COVID.
	And so essentially what tends to happen is the essential services continue and the unessential services get scrapped and most people can't tell the difference.
	So it tells you a lot about what is essential and unessential.
	But as a practical political matter, just shutting down the House would have been an interesting thing, but it had a lot of political risk.
	And it had none of the potential upside.
	I get that.
	And again, I would wait.
	For example, let's say they go squirrely and they say, no, we're not going to make these rules changes, etc.
	Even within this current system, my understanding of the current rules, five House members can all of a sudden revoke the speaker and all of a sudden you're right back to the beginning again.
	So the, if those are the rules that go into place, so that's why I don't think that people that, I get why people are skeptical, very deservedly so, but I think this is going to be different because also there are things going on behind the scenes that I think McCarthy and the moderates are not going to make the mistake of making, of doing that.
	I think they're going to, because of the, because of Gates, because of Gilbert, because of the way everybody played their part, Marjorie Taylor Greene and President Trump.
	In ways known and unknown, we have an opportunity for the House to, you know, that's the only thing Republicans control.
	It's the only place populists have any real influence.
	They have a little bit in the Senate, but very marginal because Democrats control it.
	You aggregate those, and you have the opportunity for them really leveraging their only source of federal power to an extraordinary degree.
	Now, you still have people like DeSantis doing great work in Florida on the grand jury for vaccines and other things.
	And Bolsonaro in Brazil, you have Carrie Lake still litigating her case.
	We have the Virgin Islands prosecutor getting fired for suing everything.
	We've got tons of stuff, but a lot of that is going to have to be a Rumble conversation.
	Well, we are going there right now.
	But, Robert, even before we get into that on Rumble, I've got to ask you about Santos.
	We'll get there.
	Everybody, the link to Rumble.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	And I just posted it again.
	We're going to end it on YouTube in three seconds.
	Everyone move over to Rumble.
	We're 5,700 and change here.
	And we are 13,000 plus on Rumble.
	Everyone move over there and we shall continue the evening.
	Oh, one addendum in response to various locals' comments throughout the week.
	I read all the locals' comments.
	I note that by liking the comment.
	Unless I really hate the comment, I like the comment.
	Even if I don't agree with it or may disagree with it, I usually like it.
	But there was reason for me not to comment publicly on the speaker thing until it all worked a certain way.
	So that's why I wasn't going to comment on it until now.
	Okay.
	Well, that's going to add to the mystery, but I'll read between the lines.
	Okay.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Heading over to Rumble.
	Right now, three, two, one.
	And that's it.
	I think that's good.
	We're on Rumble.
	Exclusively, people.
	And this will be on Viva Clips afterwards.
	Certain sections and the rest of the stream will be on YouTube tomorrow.
	Tomorrow at the time of recording this.
	Robert, okay.
	Very quickly, because I know that you tweeted out at Billy Baldwin about the okay hand gesture with Santos and, you know.
	It's actionable defamation to suggest certain things.
	I jokingly...
	Okay.
	Yeah, okay.
	Everyone, get your memes.
	This is okay.
	All of it's okay.
	People do it different ways.
	The white power sign is two hands.
	Two hands.
	Not one.
	And it's a combination.
	I'm not even going to try to do it.
	But it's a combination because somebody will say, Oh, Robert Barnes, do the white power sign.
	I do it all along.
	But it's two hands, not one hand.
	That's the distinction.
	Everybody knows this.
	ACLU has recognized this.
	The ABL has recognized this.
	Other organizations have recognized this in the past.
	I sued for Cassandra Fairbanks.
	The federal court found that saying that someone doing the OK sign was a white power sign was liable.
	They said because that's a factually specific statement about a very specific gesture that is verifiable by a jury.
	And therefore, unlike most allegations, most statements of someone falsely accusing someone of racism.
	Which are considered opinion that's too vague for a jury to determine, such that you can't bring a libel claim for it.
	They said you can in that context.
	So if Santos wants to sue Billy Baldwin, who's as dumb as his brother, dumb as both his brothers, they're all sine qua non of the sign of the decline of American civilization.
	But that was a clear classic libel.
	And the idea that Santos is secretly...
	I mean, where do these...
	People live.
	Robert, let me flow my...
	People have got plenty of problems.
	By the way, it turns out maybe all of us are Jewish, Viva.
	See, because Jew-ish just means I'm Jew-ish.
	Like I show up at nine-ish for my bourbons.
	So I'm-ish.
	I'm-ish.
	There's a funny anti-Semitic thing, which is, well, when people want to say Jews are involved in banking, well, you could be in banking and not be a Jew, but if you're Jew-ish, which is one of the anti-Semitic tropes.
	I didn't know that.
	I had no idea.
	I had my whole theory that everybody's Jewish because if Jesus was Jewish, which he was, and everyone's a descendant of Jesus and Christianity, that argument didn't fly with the rabbi.
	But my theory, like Santos to me, and I said it sort of tongue-in-cheek, comes off as someone who is a mole who has infiltrated the Republican Party.
	To try to make them look bad at every step and to give the fodder to the Billy Baldwins and to all other left-wing media.
	He's a liar.
	A pathological liar.
	Unless I've misunderstood the rumors and I looked into it.
	Having misled about when his mother died.
	Having lied about being Jewish.
	Having lied about his grandparents being Holocaust survivors.
	And then the okays are...
	I don't believe the OK sign is a sign of white power.
	It started off as a 4chan meme that, you know, the W and the P. It started off as a meme.
	The left got tricked and the ADL, to cover their asses, had to add it as a hate meme thing to their website so they could then...
	Defend their own stupidity.
	I don't believe that it represents that.
	My question is whether or not this guy is actually doing it to give the photo ops, making the lies, so that the media can run with this pathological liar who is now a member of the GOP to demonize the GOP as they've been doing.
	Is he or is he not a mole?
	Is he legit?
	I don't know.
	I think he's just a typical politician.
	You know, he just got caught lying on.
	So, I mean, that's basically...
	I mean, look at who our president is.
	I mean, he lies on a routine basis.
	He says his son died someplace.
	His son didn't die.
	You know, he just makes up random stories on a regular basis.
	So this guy looks at who our president is and figures that's how you get the power.
	So that's what he did.
	That's how I take him.
	I didn't take him as a serious person.
	So I didn't take him as a mole or anything like that.
	I took him more as just, you know, your classic, you know, would-be politician who's just a little more mediocre at it than most people.
	I say that like, you know, yes, Biden lied back in the day, plagiarized.
	He's lying all the time.
	He wakes up, he's lying.
	He's going to sleep, he's lying.
	Now I don't believe he's lying because I don't think he knows the truth or reality anymore.
	Like when he makes flubs about his kids and the grandkids, I just don't think he knows anymore.
	But back in the day, politicians would lie.
	What would be popular right now to say?
	That's who Joe Biden has been since he's seven years old.
	And his mom told him that people were making fun of him unfairly because he's really special.
	No, she was lying to you, Joe.
	You're stupid.
	That's reality.
	It's so instinctive, I think he falls back on it.
	And these kind of people, that's who they are.
	Santos, as far as I can tell, I don't know enough about Santos to know the full story.
	Clearly the media is obsessed with the guy.
	Because they have an angle they can pursue.
	But I don't see it as consequential of any great kind, really.
	It's just these people that keep saying the okay son, because it happened like three times this week outside of Santos.
	Quit pretending the okay son.
	It's already been found to be liable.
	One of you is going to get sued for it and lose.
	It's so stupid.
	Like, I was having a debate about this because someone accused Jack Posobiec and Cernovich because they got the pictures.
	I'm like, all right, good.
	AOC, Obama, every basketball player when they make a three-pointer.
	It's so stupid.
	But I just look at Santos and I say, like, okay, Biden lying, pathologically plagiarizing.
	Back in the day when it wasn't so easy to decipher, so easy to make public, people got away with it and they thought they could.
	I don't believe that anyone living in today's day and age thinks they can get away with a lie.
	To the point where Santos appears to be lying.
	Look at the world.
	Look at all these fake hate crimes.
	A lot of them made money.
	A lot of them still end up on the net positive side of the line in terms of economic and self-interest.
	For every juicy small lay, there's a half dozen that don't get outed for a year or two and profit in the interim.
	And there's many that never get caught or discovered.
	We live in a victim culture.
	Where making stuff up is more often going to be rewarded than punished.
	It's not a good thing, but it's the way of it.
	I do view this through my own spectacles.
	I cannot think of anything worse than being thought of as a liar, and I don't understand how anyone thinks they're going to get away with lying about being Jewish, where their mother died.
	That was my...
	I always think of the Saturday Night Live guy.
	Remember the Saturday Night Live guy?
	He goes, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
	What was that guy?
	My wife is that model Heather.
	Chat's going to have to get that one for us.
	And I made a prediction back before the New Year's that in the New Year, the conspiracy theory that's going to be proven correct is going to be that January 6th was an inside job allowed to happen.
	I'm trying to think of what that evidence would have to look like, but if they form a committee to invest...
	Are they going to form a committee?
	The new...
	I mean, I hope so.
	I mean, they're looking, I mean, the church type committee would get into everything and wouldn't be limited to January 6th, but January 6th would be a subspecies of it.
	And I think that, I mean, clearly there's more and more evidence of all the infiltrators, all the informants, all the advanced notice and knowledge, all the selective enforcement, selective prosecution, selective punishment.
	I mean, we've seen...
	Constant examples of that.
	My original first-ever hush-hush was on January 6th, having all the signs of an inside job, that January 6th had the signs of advanced notice, advanced knowledge.
	One of the great things they could do is just open up all of Pelosi's files and everything that happened with the Capitol Police leading up to it.
	That alone, they're starting to release a little bit of that with the House report.
	What it appeared is there was a deliberate effort.
	To reduce security.
	A deliberate effort to keep security as light and as limited as possible.
	Why?
	Right?
	I mean, they knew there was going to be mass protest on both sides.
	The seventh floor of the FBI and high-ranking data analysts had been looking at the data saying there's a bunch of people saying they're going to raid the Capitol, and yet they issued effectively stand-down orders.
	Why did they do that?
	So, I mean, everything about it stinks to high heaven.
	It was intended to induce a much more, I think, violent.
	They were hoping there were going to be actual deaths, actual assaults, actual kidnappings.
	Maybe they hold the house for a week and they have to bring in the military.
	And then they were going to take out Trump, use it to not only impeach him, but indict him and stick him in a prison cell so that nobody ever thinks to challenge they, the great people.
	I mean, these are people that look at the Capitol and think it's their building, not the people's building.
	How sacrilegious it was that a man with a buffalo hat was standing in the great speaker's chair.
	These people act like Romans rather than Americans.
	Yeah, people have to appreciate that now that we've had, it was the Oathkeeper trial and the Proud Boys are coming up.
	FBI had infiltrated both of those organizations, allegedly, knew of a plan for seditious conspiracy, and then no extra security, and then claimed to have not had advance notice.
	Encouraged it.
	Incentivized it.
	They tried to keep a lot of their names secret.
	I mean, obviously, EPS is one of the biggest clear-cut people trying to facilitate and enable it.
	And now, I don't know if it...
	So we'll see.
	I mean, I'm going to do an update.
	Hush, hush, January 6th, given what we now know sometime this week on the two-year anniversary date, given that almost everything I talked about at the beginning has now been confirmed and then some.
	And when I first did it, it was just a few days after January 6th.
	But all the signs were there and all the signs continue to be there.
	And that's why it'd be great to see them explored in detail.
	Now, I think what's happening in Brazil is different.
	I think that is an organic...
	Here's the thing.
	The media reacted like the idea of occupying a government building is some terrible terroristic event, even though we'd gone through an entire summer of people doing that and worse, of attacking government buildings on a daily basis in places like Portland, Oregon.
	More significantly...
	I mean, the House has been occupied repeatedly by protesters, particularly the Kavanaugh protests, environmental protests.
	People took over Speaker Pelosi's offices long before somebody put their feet up on the desk.
	There are people sitting throughout the entire office on occupying it.
	People threatening, you know, or random people threatening people inside the House chambers.
	So the idea that that is somehow some weird thing is ridiculous.
	I mean, occupying buildings is the way a lot of protests take place.
	Characterize the Bolsonaro protest as somehow January 6th-inspired makes no sense at all.
	Oh, but hold on, Robert.
	It's worse than that.
	I only pulled up three.
	Let me just pull up three.
	It's pathological.
	It's purely pathological.
	This is Eric Swalwell.
	The violent attack on Brazil's government is the first export of Kevin McCarthy's insurrection party.
	That's one.
	Here's Hakeem Jeffries.
	The Unifier.
	He had tweeted hours earlier about unifying the party and unifying the people.
	The violent attack on the heart of Brazilian government by right-wing extremists is sad but familiar sight.
	That one's a little more nuanced in its blame.
	AOC.
	Nearly two years to the day the U.S. Capitol was attacked by fascists.
	We see fascist movement abroad attempt to do the same in Brazil.
	We must stand in solidarity with Lula official.
	Democratically, the more they say...
	AOC participated in, joined, supported the occupation of...
	Well, I'll use Hakim's reference.
	AOC joined and supported in the insurrectionist...
	Violent attack on democracy by seizing the Speaker's offices back in 2017 and 2018.
	So, I mean, the only thing that we should learn from all this is learn to steal the left's language.
	The next time Antifa does something, the next time BLM does something, the next time leftists do something, the next time eco-terrorists do something, or eco-nuts or any of the rest do anything, we call it violent attack on our democracy.
	That's apparently the magic words.
	Protests have now magically become violent attacks on our democracy.
	Occupying buildings is how the Maidan revolution started in Ukraine.
	Funny how that isn't a problem at all.
	That's celebrated by the Western media, celebrated by U.S. politicians when they seized buildings.
	To this day, this is a guy who the House of Representatives had just speak to the United States Congress.
	To the great embarrassment, frankly, if anybody cares about democracy or human rights, promoting him as a champion of both a week or two after he banned people from being able to practice their religion.
	This is after he's banned people from being able to speak, banned people from being able to have freedom of press, has removed all opposition press, has removed all opposition religious beliefs and religious organizations and institutions, has subject them to threats of arrest.
	Has removed his opposition party?
	Has bragged about his opponent being in jail?
	This is who's being held up as a hero to the West by the Hakeem Jeffries and the AOCs of the world, as well as the Kevin McCarthys and Mitch McConnells of the world.
	This will go down as one of the most embarrassing.
	Almost up there with that fake Venezuelan president we pretended was president for two years, and we just now realize, okay, probably not.
	You can be as critical to Venezuelan government all you want, and I'm one of them, without pretending some fake guy is president, like Trump did when he met with him.
	Here's how This is some of the most embarrassing public behavior by our government, but probably none of it will go down as embarrassing as our public, open embrace and celebrating a grifter.
	Well, Robert, you have to destroy democracy to preserve it.
	Everybody knows that, like they did in Canada.
	You've got to burn the village to save it.
	Speaking of Canada, what the heck is going on?
	They're locking up lawyers on New Year's Eve?
	They're threatening to send Jordan Peterson to re-education camp?
	Robert, you think it couldn't get any worse.
	For those of you who don't know, I talked about it last week.
	John Carpe...
	President-founder of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, 17 months after the incident, in which he hired a very, very stupid thing, hired a private investigator to follow a judge around, the judge who was presiding over one of his COVID cases.
	I mean, we know why he was doing it in theory, to try to catch the judge violating the very same protocol that they were going to now criminally enforce on the pastor for holding church gatherings.
	That was 17 months ago.
	Hires a private investigator, gets found out.
	I don't know how exactly.
	17 months later, gets charged and arrested, spends 23 hours in jail.
	I think it's in Alberta.
	I think it's in Alberta.
	And is released but could have faced, I think the charges are intimidation and obstruction of justice.
	How hiring a private investigator could be intimidation?
	I don't know, but maybe there's case lots of that.
	But so John Carpe gets arrested.
	17 months after, you know, due process, timely charges be damned, goes to jail, spends a night in jail, and that's one aspect of the insanity.
	Jordan Peterson, clinical psychologist, certified, you know, has his license, is now being pursued by his order for tweets that he made, one of which was some dude that he gets into a tiff with on Twitter saying, The overpopulation, the animals are going to die, the world's going to burn.
	It's terrible.
	Overpopulation is a terrible thing.
	Twitter, Jordan Peterson replies with a tweet, you're free to leave.
	And now someone filed a complaint.
	It's unethical for a psychologist to encourage suicide, to make jokes about suicide, etc., among other tweets, and he's got other tweets.
	I said to that, you know...
	If that tweet was encouraging suicide, well, then the other guy's tweet was encouraging genocide.
	Because to say it's overpopulation, it's a terrible thing, that means kill people.
	Or it's just an idiotic take or position that, yeah, the world's overpopulated.
	Well, you're free to leave.
	No, I like it here.
	We just need to make other people leave.
	And then the ultimate kicker to that story is journalist Rachel Gilmore from the Global News trying to find other tweets to get Jordan Peterson in trouble with.
	The joke now is that...
	In Canada, journalists hold the citizens accountable to the government and not the government accountable to the citizens.
	It's madness.
	Jordan Peterson is one, you know, he's, as they said on Joe Rogan episode, you know, he's one of the people that has achieved escape velocity.
	He doesn't need his license.
	He doesn't need this shit.
	He is free in the sense that, you know, piss off, take it, and it will have no consequence on me, but I'm going to fight it tooth and nail.
	And may there be more people like Jordan Peterson.
	But I don't know, Robert.
	You looking at this from the States, it's not so laughable anymore.
	They suspended Norm Pattis for six months, but for cause.
	I mean, what's your take on that?
	Well, nothing exposes the absurdity than in the same week that the January 6th committee disclosed thousands of Social Security numbers of government officials.
	And to no sanction of any kind that I'm aware of, to any punishment, many of them are licensed that are on there.
	They're either doctors or lawyers.
	Many of them have credentials that are on that January 6th committee.
	None of them are going to face any consequence.
	There's people talking about suing.
	It'll be very difficult to get any remedy there, too, unfortunately.
	At the same week, they go after Norm Pattis for accidentally giving a link.
	To a discovery database to other lawyers for other Sandy Hook plaintiffs.
	That's all he did.
	He didn't disclose it to the world, anything else.
	And in that link, they found information about Alex Jones' entire phone history, parts of it, including private photos of his wife, which they then used to their political profit, then leaked it illicitly.
	Illicitly used it in a court proceeding, etc., for which they have faced no adverse consequences whatsoever.
	Highly unethical conduct by Mark Bankston and others.
	One of the least ethical lawyers I've ever met.
	Bottom barrel scumbag who tried to spread smear stories about me claiming I was trying to get him killed.
	That's what bottom barrel whack job lunatic nut jobs were in the Sandy Hook plaintiff's lawyer's side.
	The Connecticut ones are just a bunch of corrupt political hacks.
	The Texas ones are lunatics.
	In fact, my joke about the lawyer was how Mark Bankston got to law school was that he got a free ticket to the Nuthouse and the Uber driver dropped him off to law school by accident.
	That's who these people are.
	But here you have someone like Norm Pattis, lifelong civil rights lawyer, lifelong criminal defense lawyer, lifelong liberal in Connecticut who has one mistake.
	That, uh, of, of sharing files that included his, uh, the, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut's case, some of their medical records, which by the way, they hadn't put an issue in the case.
	So frankly, there was no reason why this couldn't be admitted evidence into the trial.
	Pattison, to my knowledge, didn't try to go that route, but I mean, when, when you make your medical issue, a issue for the court.
	At some point, that quits being a private issue.
	You don't even have a right to privacy anymore because you've made it part of the public trial issue.
	You put it at issue.
	I mean, this is one of the risks you have, right?
	As a plaintiff, if you want to sue somebody and you want to make your mental health part of the case, well, guess what?
	They get to go into everything else that could go into your mental health, right?
	And most people don't like that.
	And it becomes part of the public record, part of cross-examination of court record.
	So based on things, as far as I could tell, If they were subject to discovery, then they were subject to public disclosure.
	There was no longer any privacy issue implicated, as far as I could tell.
	And it was only disclosed to other plaintiff's lawyers in another state who were working with those plaintiff's lawyers.
	So there was no evidence of any harm whatsoever to any Sandy Hook plaintiff in the case.
	And yet, based on that, one accident...
	This fraud of a judge, Barbara Bellis, total disgrace to the bench.
	The same one that we watched throughout the entire trial.
	Same judge.
	It's the same joke of a judge.
	So the joke of a justice in the state of Connecticut.
	Connecticut's always been a notoriously politically corrupt state, and it's not got any better.
	But Bellis is a real bell of incompetent judgment.
	And so the fact that she's recommending...
	That Pattis be suspended for six months is ludicrous.
	It's outrageous.
	It's a reflection of why I have long preached against the licensure of everybody and everyone.
	You give power to the government and some corrupt hack, like this whack job judge, to live in a world so delusional she thinks billion-dollar judgments are reasonable.
	You have to be nuts to think this.
	She is such a disgrace to the bench.
	But this is the ultimate proof of it.
	If you had any doubts about her bias and prejudice, if somehow, let's say you're as willfully blind as legal bites, and you just can't figure out how that verdict is excessive, just can't figure it out while your hubby's doing deep state work.
	Well, maybe now, maybe you can.
	Or if you're one of those other folks out there, maybe you can recognize and realize what a corrupt hack this is, that she has weaponized her power now to suspend a lawyer for six months based on one of the weakest claims I have ever seen against a lawyer in a disciplinary setting.
	Setting aside the legal...
	For anybody who doesn't know the context, I like Alita.
	At one point, she was assessing the damages and says, well, $965 million.
	I didn't watch the trial.
	I don't know if it's justified.
	As if there's anything on God's green earth that can justify a billion-dollar damage against...
	The FBI guy...
	No physical harm, no proof of reputational harm, and no real proof of emotional harm, Frank.
	The second biggest winner of that jackpot was the FBI agent who had...
	Nobody who died.
	Nobody who died.
	Nobody.
	But everyone should appreciate the same judge that issued this sanction to Norm Pattis is the same one who said, I won't hesitate to hold Jones in contempt, criminal contempt, if he goes beyond the scope of what he's allowed to talk about in his testimony.
	If he defends himself or says he's innocent, he went to jail.
	Same joke of a judge.
	Pattis, for anybody who doesn't know, I don't even know what the medical records were.
	My question was, to whom?
	It's not like he published them, released it to the public.
	All that happened was he was trying to transfer discovery from one party to another between the Connecticut case and the Texas case.
	And in the process, he shared discovery that was only relevant in the Connecticut case and the Texas case.
	But only, to my knowledge, the only people who saw that were lawyers.
	Well, the only people who could have seen it.
	Number one.
	Number two, to my knowledge, it's public.
	I mean, if it was subject to discovery, I don't see where the right to privacy applies.
	If you have a right to privacy, then it's not subject to discovery in the first place.
	If you had to turn it over to discovery, then the right to privacy has already been resolved.
	You don't have a right to privacy to it anymore.
	So it's not clear there was any private right of those information or those records.
	And then third, there was no evidence ever produced that it was intentional at all.
	None.
	All evidence was.
	Clearly it was accidental.
	He's going to turn over all of Alex Jones' personal phone records intentionally?
	Come on.
	And that was the issue.
	I think now it comes back, is that apparently he was advised that the link connected to some of Alex Jones' stuff, and they said, did you intend to send that to us?
	And apparently he didn't reply within the 10 days, or apparently it said, please disregard that link, and they didn't disregard it.
	That's the Texas part.
	That's the Texas lawyer's part.
	I don't know where Patis plays into that, but the 10-day rule only applies in Texas.
	It doesn't apply in Connecticut.
	In Connecticut, you have additional remedies.
	And in my view, the 10-day rule is, It's not a sole basis by which you can...
	Then I might have gotten this back, as they say.
	Inadvertent.
	But if you're Mark Banks and you know that...
	In fact, he said so on the record.
	He said he knew he wasn't supposed to get it.
	And what did he do?
	He publicly disclosed it to the world.
	And then he went and leaked it.
	No consequences for him.
	None.
	These corrupt judges are just exposing themselves as the political hacks that they are.
	They're a disgrace to the rule of law.
	And the example that they're using against Norm Pattis is a reminder...
	Why we should reconsider licensure laws in America.
	And at a minimum, we should limit who has the power.
	I have a problem with the judicial branch having this authority, period.
	It's the only part of our government where one branch gets to write the rules, one branch gets to enforce the rules, one branch gets to adjudge the rules, and guess what?
	It happens to be the branch governing people who see their own misconduct, their own malfeasance, their own misdeeds.
	The judicial branch is exactly the branch that should have no role whatsoever in the licensure process.
	None.
	Why?
	Because they have a conflict of interest.
	Their interest is in not having lawyers expose their malfeasance and misconduct.
	And the best way to do so is say, hey, I control your licensure.
	You better play ball.
	You better be nice.
	You better not call my decision a wuss decision.
	You better not do things like this.
	Maybe I'll take it out on you.
	Maybe I'll strip that license from you.
	That's why they should never have had that power.
	They've proven incapable of disciplining themselves.
	They've proven incapable of being apolitical and disciplining others.
	And just in case anybody might not know, the January 6th committee released the social security numbers of a number of the Trump allies, witnesses, whatever.
	Over 2,000!
	Over 2,000!
	Clearly illegal!
	Clearly illegal!
	It's a big problem.
	I mean, look, medical information is fine.
	It might provide compromise.
	That's information that was not public, right?
	Unlike, if I'm in a lawsuit and I'm forced to give you documents in a discovery, that, by definition, means it's no longer private.
	Now, you can make an argument for sealing it based on it being only material to the proceeding until it's actually exposed in court, until there's a trial, etc.
	But as a whole, you can't keep that permanently secret.
	You just can't.
	Because that's the whole point of a public trial and a right to a public trial.
	And we don't want to keep that secret.
	By contrast, the committee had access to information that was not...
	That was, by definition, legally private.
	That they only, Arthur, had access to because they're the Congressional Committee.
	And they went and disclosed it to the world.
	Real privacy violations, zero consequence.
	Norm Pattis for defending Alex Jones, suspended for six months.
	It's preposterous, but just not to give anybody any bad ideas.
	What nefarious things can people do with Social Security numbers?
	It's a much more compromising piece.
	Well, the biggest problem is if you have all nine, then it's often people's codes, credit cards.
	ID theft risk goes way up.
	Other forms of fraud risk go way up.
	So, I mean, I was in Tennessee and people were telling me about people that are pretending to own property, trying to sell that property.
	The way they were able to do it is they got their social security number, went and got a driver's license in that person's name, convinced the notary that that was who they were, and they almost were able to successfully sell somebody else's property as their own.
	So that's just one illustration.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, we should note, we're over 20,000 people live viewing right now on the Rumble.
	I haven't figured out how to slow chat yet in Rumbles, so go ahead and make that chat go crazy with a comment.
	Robert?
	Speaking of political corruption, take a look at Joe Biden.
	Once again, we have an Epstein case.
	Bill Barr, of course, was around when Epstein killed himself.
	Eternal truth number one, Epstein didn't kill himself.
	One of the three eternal truths.
	Sally Yates is still corrupt, is number two.
	And number three, well, everybody knows what that is.
	But if you look at what happened, is the U.S. Virgin Islands, to her great credit, the U.S. Virgin Islands prosecutor, went and sued J.P. Morgan.
	Now, you have to ask yourself, why didn't David Bowies do this?
	David Bowies supposedly representing these victims, targeting Dershowitz, targeting purportedly the British royal family, targeting certain people.
	But not suing Bill Clinton.
	Apparently no connections to Epstein, right?
	He wasn't like he was on the Epstein Express and told the Secret Service to stay home repeatedly.
	That didn't happen, I guess.
	Never visited Lolita Island.
	Look at who was sued and who wasn't.
	And that tells you about the lawyers representing the victims.
	May not have been really representing the victims.
	They may have been more like controlled opposition.
	By the way, all those people that bashed Dershowitz, that person has now come forward.
	Only one person made accusations against him has recanted, said she was wrong.
	If you knew the backstory of that case, everything about it screamed wrong.
	We'll get into this with the Andrew Tate case.
	I have been a defender and pro bono representative of victims of domestic violence and abuse for the better part of a quarter century.
	That does not mean I accept every allegation and accusation is true.
	And there's big issues with what the Andrew Tate case, big issues with the Dershowitz case.
	But you look at, and at least that got partially cleared up.
	But will Dershowitz ever get his reputation back?
	No.
	Even people in the chat are still making the jokes.
	And that'll always happen.
	But why didn't David Bowies sue the banks?
	The banks were like, if you dig into Bernie Madoff, who got off scot-free?
	Well, they paid a little fine, but nobody went to jail.
	It was JPMorgan Chase.
	And JPMorgan Chase lives up to its title in many respects, if you understand the history of those boys, of whose names go into that name.
	They were neck deep with Bernie Madoff, too.
	I mean, they show up every other year as Chase will just write another check for how they enabled money laundering of some of the worst activities known to man.
	Now, you know, HSBC and others.
	Well, of course, who said at the board at HSBC, wow, they were engaged in some of that activity and then cut a sweetheart deal?
	One James Comey, by the way.
	But you dig in and find out where these connections are.
	Well, sooner or later, you find your way back to big banks.
	They're usually complicit in some way in major crimes, whether it's massive financial frauds, whether it's human trafficking, whether it's drug dealing, whether it's running guns.
	Almost all the time, those big actors often have some CIA supporters on the side, but your SBFs, your FTX, they've got to have banks complicit.
	And here, the U.S. Virgin Islands comes and says, you know what?
	The bank was neck deep involved in all this Epstein illicit activity.
	And a few days later, what happens?
	She gets fired.
	And nobody can explain how she got fired.
	But there are connections to the Biden administration apparently putting...
	Threats out to the Virgin Islands governor to make sure she got fired.
	So it tells you a lot about where the world really is in our current Justice Department.
	Robert, it sounds exactly like Joe Biden pressuring the Ukrainian prosecutor to get fired, mutatis mutatis.
	I mean, it's the same beast.
	It's just a different jurisdiction.
	It's a different individual.
	And especially, like, I'm just trying to find the article about...
	The Deutsche Bank getting fined criminally or paying a criminal fine for not doing their due diligence on Epstein.
	Why wouldn't they be suing the banks?
	I mean, they are suing the banks, but I don't know which lawyers are doing it.
	And a lot, to my knowledge, for the most part, many of the banks have not been sued.
	And the U.S. government hadn't done anything with them until now.
	And so it really exposes Bill Barr.
	I suppose he was going to go after everybody connected Epstein, just Epstein and Maxwell.
	You know, first ever human trafficker who never trafficked anybody to anyone else.
	No clients.
	They were trafficking to themselves for back massages.
	I mean, that was it.
	Speaking of like questionable trafficking, like that's real trafficking.
	The Andrew Tate allegations smell very bad to me.
	Okay, hold on, hold on, Robert.
	So this is interesting because I am, back in the day, we all became familiar with Andrew Tate because he was being deplatformed from every platform simultaneously.
	Not because he was charged with sex trafficking or Romeo pimping, as the laws might be in Romania, but because he was saying stupid things on various platforms and got systematically deplatformed.
	Rumble took him on, or he came to Rumble.
	It was a big deal.
	And at the time, I was saying, look, I don't care that the guy says stupid things.
	I don't like very much of what Tate has to say.
	At the time, I was saying, this is not the basis.
	To de-platform an individual, to un-person them, to cancel them.
	It's not legitimate.
	It's not the way you do it.
	Even though he is still now currently facing charges in Romania, or at least an investigation.
	I don't know if he's been formally charged.
	I still don't think people should get de-platformed for crimes that they get accused of or even convicted of off-platform.
	And I have this thing where I don't like Andrew Tate.
	I don't like the stuff he says.
	I've got kids and my kids know of the stupid stuff he says.
	I think it's stupid.
	I don't think it's a good influence whatsoever.
	I don't think it's good male role modeling, period.
	But I don't think he should be deplatformed.
	I have one or two checks against him as a human, but still feel the need to vigorously defend his presumption of innocence until, you know, conviction in a court of law based on the evidence.
	That being said, Robert, I've seen the evidence outside of the court of law.
	He talks a lot.
	He said a lot of things and it's all coming back to bite him in the ass right now.
	Maybe people don't know about the Rome.
	What is the type of law?
	It's Romeo pimping.
	Loverboy laws.
	Pimping, which might be illegal in Romania and seems to be illegal in Romania to encourage, manipulate someone into getting into a relationship so you can exploit them financially for sexual financial gain.
	My goodness, Robert, I've seen enough videos of Andrew Tate, not out of context, 30-minute interviews.
	Where he seems to be explaining just that and maybe didn't know it was illegal in Romania, but I find that hard to believe.
	What is your take on Tate and what's going on?
	So yeah, I see there's a couple of things.
	One is this dangerous proclivity to sort of create a victim culture that doesn't draw clear lines between what is abuse, what is illegal.
	And what is just undisliked.
	So to back up, there's a couple of components.
	One is I've seen some discussion that people think Andrew Tate was only recently getting involved in conservative media, and the narrative was he was doing that in order to cover up for these allegations he knew were coming.
	The problem with that is I met Andrew Tate years ago at the Trump Hotel when he was attending CPAC.
	He's been involved in these kind of political issues for a long time.
	So he just got successful at promoting himself at key times when they were trying to de-platform him over the summer.
	The second thing is I'm not a fan of his machismo rhetoric and language.
	Some people are.
	People can take it however they want.
	As a whole, a very smart guy.
	I think it was his father or his grandfather was one of the great young black chess players in history.
	He comes from a family of well-known and very intelligent family background.
	I was aware of his business and was not a fan of his business, but that's my personal moral judgment.
	To my knowledge, it was entirely legal in the way he conducted it.
	But, you know, I've told people in general that are in that industry, the webcam-only fans type industry, it's a high-risk industry.
	I mean, because you're dealing with questionable...
	I mean, first of all, anybody who's doing it, more often than not, is not...
	You're going to have people that are mentally ill.
	You're going to have people that have drug problems.
	You're going to have people that have alcohol problems.
	You're going to have people that are, frankly, just criminals.
	So, how do you...
	Tell somebody that you didn't coerce them.
	I mean, because their incentive to make stuff up is off the charts.
	It just is.
	You have too many people in that field that's that way.
	It's the hard part of...
	There are people who have been in that area who have been abused, and that's why they end up there.
	And the problem of the abuse is it fractures memory, it weakens witness recall in a range of contexts.
	And when I defended, I mean, Wesley Snipes was falsely accused of parenting a child.
	And he had absolutely nothing to do with it.
	Never met the woman in her life.
	She was telling a story that was clearly fictional and fabricated.
	But clearly believed it.
	Because she was someone who had gone through severe abuse issues, then drug issues, had a pimp, etc.
	She was actually trying to hide the identity of the pimp because the pimp was the likely father and so forth.
	So that he didn't have to pay child support to the government because the government was paying benefits.
	And that's what led to the allegation against Snipes.
	And to give you an idea how nuts it was, she didn't even identify him as Wesley Snipes.
	She said his name was Jesus Estratus.
	A.K.A.
	Wesley Snipes.
	He was Cuban.
	They'd been secretly married.
	They had eight kids together.
	The government had done a whole helicopter thing to help do the marriage.
	We called it the Immaculate Conception.
	Blade showed up at her door, said you're beautiful and wonderful, and that's how the conception happened.
	It was ridiculous, and yet the government pursued that case because it was Wesley Snipes.
	There needs to be lines.
	What I'm hearing from the allegations...
	For the most part.
	There's some old ones from the UK that are different.
	But I'm hearing what bothered me about aspects of even the Nixxiom case, which was like when the Second Circuit affirmed the Nixxiom convictions of Ranieri, I think his name was, they went further than they needed to.
	If they would have just said, hey, look, he engaged in blackmail and extortion, those are predicate acts of RICO, that's sufficient, even for human trafficking purposes.
	Then that would have been no problem.
	Instead, it became, you know, seeking status can now be a crime.
	I mean, like, you look at some of the language the Romanian prosecutor is using.
	He's saying, well, they felt manipulated.
	Hold on a second.
	We're going to now, this is like the same problem I had with the Julian Assange case, the same problem I had with the campus Me Too cases, where all of a sudden, oh, you know, she said that she regretted it, and so hence that's now sexual assault.
	It's like, well, hold on a second.
	She didn't say she said no.
	She didn't say it was coerced.
	She didn't say she was drugged.
	She didn't say anything of that.
	The next day she said she regretted it, and now that's sexual, we're going to call that equal to sexual assault?
	Julian Assange didn't use the condom right, and we're now going to say that's equal to rape?
	And I'm hearing them say I'm not hearing it.
	What was the coercion?
	What was the coercion?
	Oh, I thought he was going to marry me?
	That's now the coercion?
	I thought he was going to marry me?
	I expected to hear guns.
	I expected to hear passport taken.
	I expected to hear physical assault.
	I expected to hear isolated in a home.
	Instead, I see I mean, like, the other people they're accusing with him are clearly models that had high-end success in the OnlyFans' face.
	I mean, I have one experience with this when I defended Joe Francis, a Girls Gone Wild guy, on tax charges.
	Now, I utterly despise Joe Francis.
	I've said so publicly many times.
	He publicly attacked me, so that opened up the opportunity for me to respond publicly.
	However, I can tell you that almost all the accusations they were making against Girls Gone Wild were false.
	I went back and looked at all the videotape before the person did the interview.
	They were girls that wanted to be famous, recognized.
	They wanted to be the most popular.
	Like you see in the whole build-up, nobody's really drunk.
	That's all an act.
	The whole model was really built on getting girls who were party girls and had been party girls for a while to pretend to be Nice, quiet girls who went crazy on spring break.
	That was the real deal with Girls Gone Wild.
	But they were pretending that Joe Francis was secretly drugging them all, getting them drunk all, doing all these horrible things.
	And all the Girls Gone Wild crew was involved with it, all the film guys.
	It's like, well, 90% of that.
	Not true.
	So when I hear this, I get a little skeptical because we don't like webcam, or a lot of people, don't like the webcam business because we don't like it morally.
	We don't like it because we don't feel comfortable with it for whatever the reason.
	But I can say that I have not seen allegations that equal human trafficking as yet.
	And this is the problem.
	I mean, Eliza Blue has been...
	Very vocal about this.
	Not so much vocal about Tate, actually, as a specific case, but in general.
	But when you start referring to this, which some people might find exploitive behavior.
	He befriends, he might even get into relationships with women.
	They both make a shit ton of money doing this.
	What relationship couldn't be redefined as exploitive?
	That's my problem.
	We don't have real clear legal lines here.
	All of a sudden, the government can just relabel anything, and anybody who's unhappy about a situation can relabel it, and you go to prison for life.
	Well, it'll only be 20 years for tape, but they're floating the trafficking term.
	People are, I think, rightly taking issue with the trafficking label, but they haven't charged themselves.
	Between Michael Tracy and Eliza Blue, on this issue, I side more with Michael Tracy, because...
	I do think that there's, we should not, because real human trafficking and sexual abuse and assault is so real and so horrible, we should never dilute it with somebody unhappy that they didn't make as much money as they expected.
	And that I tend to agree with on the human trafficking label, whether or not it becomes a charge, separate issue.
	The lover boy laws that they have in Romania.
	About pimping out girls, getting into a relationship with them for the purposes of exploiting them financially.
	Dude, Tate said enough that, to me, that sounds like it's going to even on its own be enough.
	Is that a fight on both sides, though?
	Because I can tell you, a lot of Eastern Europe women have made a lot of money in business exploiting men.
	Well, Robert, I don't know, but they haven't been arrested and detained yet.
	Well, here's the other thing.
	Backstory?
	The only reason Andrew Tate is being prosecuted is because of his speech that has nothing to do with men and women relationships and nothing to do with his webcam business.
	He's being prosecuted because, as it's come out, the U.S. government, the Biden administration, specifically requested the Romanian government prosecute him.
	And they specifically requested it.
	At the same time, he became a high-profile public figure throughout Europe and the United States, including his criticism of the Ukrainian war, which, by the way, Romania has a big interest in.
	Romania would like to take back part of Ukraine, including a certain part.
	They would like to take Moldovia back, frankly.
	They would like Transnistria back.
	They would like Western parts, Southwestern parts of Ukraine, in their minds, back to Ukraine, to Romania.
	So, now, my own view, you know, I get Tate's perspective.
	I would not have been in Romania.
	If I was going to be critical of the Ukrainian war, and I got high profile and had millions of views, I would have been outside of, no, I would not have been there.
	But, you know, I think he was naive about the Romanian legal system.
	That's why he's being prosecuted.
	He's not being prosecuted because of this stuff.
	He's been involved in the webcam business for over 10 years.
	I'm going to show you a clip.
	I don't know when the clip is from, but setting aside trafficking, setting aside lover boy Romeo pimp laws, whether or not this just qualifies as outright fraud, but these are oldish clips.
	These have been around for a while, but I don't know what the statute of limitations is, but Robert, I won't play the full three minutes.
	Just a minute.
	And here's, maybe this is a bit bad.
	Here's where the flamoose would start.
	So it'd be good, like, I had a lot of girls who worked for me, and the best was, like, the Ukrainians or the Russians.
	It was amazing.
	Because they'd get some guy, fall in love, they'd arrange today to meet, all this shit.
	Ah!
	I need a visa.
	Okay, get a visa.
	I need money for a visa.
	Okay, how much is a visa?
	It's $900.
	No, but it's not $900 because I went to the embassy.
	They think I'm a risk, and I need a return flight there and back, and I need a hotel.
	I need to have spending money in my bank account.
	They won't let me come.
	Or how much you need.
	Alright, 10 grand.
	Boom.
	10 G's.
	Boom.
	Thanks.
	Go to the embassy.
	Take a picture outside the embassy.
	Boom.
	Come back.
	They rejected my visa.
	They said we have to wait two weeks.
	After two weeks, they'll give it to me.
	Okay, baby.
	Boom.
	Two more weeks of tips.
	Boom, boom, boom, boom.
	Now he thinks he's going to fuck, right?
	He thinks he'll get the girls.
	Now he's spending more than ever.
	Two weeks, two weeks, two weeks.
	Two weeks come.
	Some other problem.
	Whether it's visa, whatever, whatever.
	We make up some bullshit.
	I'll stop in here.
	All these OnlyFans.
	This goes on where the punchline, punchline, for lack of a better word, is that...
	At the end of this, they get all the money saying, oh, I need more money to go get the visa.
	Extremely common.
	The only question is whether or not it's illegal.
	Have any of the Ukrainian women been prosecuted or Russian women or Romanian women or East European women?
	I mean, this was like my same argument I had with Julian Assange.
	I was like, okay, if we're going to say it's now equal to rape if you don't use birth control correctly, there's a lot of men that now have rape claims against women.
	Because, I mean, there's a lot of NBA and NFL and some other players and some rich other folks that had a lot of baby mamas out there that get nice 21% of your annual earnings because they said, hey, don't worry, I'm on the pill.
	And it turned out they weren't, right?
	We're now going to call that equal to rate?
	And so this is the problem.
	I mean, the nature of relationships are manipulative.
	It's the reason why we no longer enforce contracts for personal services.
	We're like, we're not going to get involved in this.
	And we shouldn't.
	And I think it's a mistake to start to criminalize it.
	And in my view, it devalues the real risk of human trafficking, the real risk of...
	Because the people that, other than the Tates in the world, that are in this world, the Tates you can call manipulators, whatever you want.
	What they're not is the Russian mob.
	What they're not is the Albanian mob.
	What they're not are some of the biggest human traffickers in the world who are like the characters out of the movie Taken.
	That's the other side of this.
	Somehow they're not being prosecuted.
	But the guy who's got a dispute of saying, hey, I didn't get as much money as I thought.
	I thought he was going to marry me.
	I felt manipulated.
	What?
	That is not human trafficking and it frankly shouldn't be a crime.
	I'm going to just bring this up one more time because someone in the chat said it.
	That is a big drink.
	That's three fingers deep, as we say.
	I mean, he always maintained that same McKismo.
	His brother was the same way.
	I don't share that McKismo approach.
	I hate it.
	I don't like it.
	But the thing is this.
	I don't think it's a crime.
	And this is what I want to say.
	I don't like Andrew Tate in messaging, inform, and delivery.
	I don't give a crap about cars.
	I will still work vigorously to...
	I guess he really had those.
	I always wondered whether he really had those.
	Well, they seized them all, so it turns out, yes, he did.
	Were they company cars?
	We'll find out.
	Seized 30 cars worth a lot of money.
	I mean, really what he was good at, frankly, was he was just the Western conduit who knew how to create this burgeoning...
	OnlyFans webcam world that took place after 2000, where the primary people were women, especially in Eastern Europe, but it was all over the world and global, but Eastern Europe more so than elsewhere, because you can make big money.
	He was able to bridge the gap between them and the Western audience, and he made a ton of money doing it, apparently.
	But again, the probability...
	That he was doing anything illegal is just really low when he was doing it for this many years and this much publicity.
	And again, what we now know is the U.S. government specifically requested the Romanian government indict him.
	The timing of it connects to the Biden administration and the timing of it connects to his being politically critical on topics other than...
	Gender and misogyny and all the rest.
	On talking about why young men should not volunteer for their military service because they're just going to use you and grind you up.
	Why the war is a big scam.
	Why all the COVID lockdowns were insanity.
	I mean, it was that discussion, that public profile that put him on the U.S. government's agenda as why he's being criminally prosecuted.
	This is a purely politically motivated prosecution for which I have not seen credible evidence should even exist in the first place.
	Well, unless it's fraud or some other non-sexual human trafficking, Robert, I mean, or maybe allegations will come forward of real coercion.
	Again, I thought Nixxiom had evidence of real coercion, real blackmail, real extortion that was sufficient to trigger the subcomponents of human trafficking.
	I haven't seen that here.
	Instead, I saw language from the Romanian prosecutors like, whoa, we're going to call any manipulation this?
	Okay, we better lock up half the women in Eastern Europe then.
	Get married, young people.
	Relationships for money is a crime.
	There's probably about half of them that have already committed it.
	Get married, young.
	Keep your schmeckles in your pants and stay out of trouble.
	Porno Dave.
	I'm going to read all of the Rumble Rants tomorrow during a Locals exclusive, but I just want to read this one because it caught my attention because the dude's handle is Porno Dave.
	And that's the joke.
	This is not the joke.
	The Mayo Clinic refuses to even evaluate me for a transplant unless I have the COVID vaccine.
	Is this actionable, Robert?
	I mean, this will be a good segue into the latest updates.
	We got a bunch of Supreme Court.
	I think they were...
	SCOTUS, I think, was number two in the poll.
	McCarthy was number one in the locals' poll.
	I think SCOTUS cases was number two.
	Tate wasn't there, by the way.
	I know Tate wasn't there.
	Well, I mean, the utility to discuss Tate in some details because nobody's getting any detailed analysis beyond bashing the guy.
	And if I was on the bashing the guy side of the equation, we would have talked about it for 30 seconds because we'd just be joining the party.
	But I have serious questions about what they're doing, why they're doing it, how they're doing it, what it means for criminal law, whether this is continued political weaponization of the Justice Department by the Biden administration to target dissidents.
	Is it, you know, show me the man, I find you the crime.
	That's what I see with Tate.
	And I am very suspect of the charges against him at this point.
	And I get all of my friends on the right.
	Or loosely affiliated in that world and in the human trafficking advocacy space that have many problems with Tate.
	I understand all that, but that should be seen separately from whether these are credible charges and whether they're being brought for permissible purposes.
	But yeah, the Supreme Court, there's four or five really interesting petitions up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	We filed one of them ourselves, Robert Kennedy and I, for Children's Health Defense against the Food and Drug Administration for its bait and switch on the military issue.
	And the issue is when do you have the right to sue the government?
	And there's essentially our argument is that if the government does something that causes harm, even if it's a third party that causes that harm, If without the government being a link in the chain, that harm doesn't happen, then you should be able to sue them.
	And this is what's recognized for causation for everybody else.
	The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said, nope, nope, you have to prove that the government itself is the sole culprit.
	If there's anybody else, and not only that, you have to show the specific agency you're suing is the culprit.
	And here they've been playing a game.
	Now there is a point of clarity out there.
	There's people out there that think the Defense Department COVID vaccines.
	They don't.
	That's very misleading.
	And I get where people got misled by it, but it's completely misleading.
	It's not accurate at all.
	The government cut a deal to give Pfizer and Moderna tons of money if they came up with a vaccine on a quick basis and gave them easy immunity for whatever they came up with.
	But it is entirely Pfizer's product.
	They own it.
	It's their patent.
	It is their profits.
	So that's key to understand.
	But the other game the government played was separating out responsibility.
	So Pfizer and Moderna said, it's not really us, it's the Defense Department.
	This is what's leading people to be confused about the Defense Department owning it.
	Let me just clarify.
	Responsibility for adverse reactions.
	For anything negative.
	For anything bad about it.
	So the less than my Brooke Jackson case, the whistleblower case against Pfizer, the allegations that Pfizer lied and deceived the Defense Department so they could get billions of dollars because they knew the drug was not a vaccine, was not safe and not effective.
	Pfizer's defense is government would have given us money anyway.
	And so that leads to some confusion.
	But that's part of the game being played.
	Fides are saying, eh, blame the government.
	Don't blame us.
	The Defense Department says, don't blame us.
	The FDA licensed this.
	The FDA says, don't blame us.
	The Defense Department is the one that mandated it.
	Right?
	So everybody's blaming the other so that none of them can be sued.
	Yeah.
	It's a Spider-Man meme.
	Everybody's pointing at each other.
	It's enraging.
	And I'll ask my question in a bit.
	Sorry.
	Go on, please.
	So we're challenging that because historically, your right to sue for somebody causing you injury only requires that they be a link in the chain of causation of that injury.
	Not that they be the only link in the chain.
	Not that they be the sole link in the chain.
	Sixth Circuit said otherwise, so we're challenging that to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	To avoid the government playing this exact game in the future, where they say, ah, you know, you have to prove we're the sole link, and really this other agency's a link, and this other agency's a link, and you can't sue them for this reason, you can't sue these other folks for that reason, to stop this kind of nonsense from occurring.
	Now, on the vaccine front, you had Congress pass a law that Biden signed that revoked the defense mandate.
	So for the Army, for the Air Force, for the Navy, for the Marines, no more vaccine mandate going forward.
	It has not clarified what's going to happen to the people that have already been punished retroactively.
	So that's probably still going to go through the court process.
	There was an attempt to also include that reinstatement language, but several Republican senators, including Romney, refused to join it.
	People should remember that next time they think Romney should have ever been elected president.
	And then in addition, apparently the Defense Department is taking the position that this does not apply to the National Guard.
	So those issues are still going to be litigated through the court process.
	Now, the other big vaccine news was from the state of Florida, where we discussed DeSantis petitioning the Florida Supreme Court to open up a special statewide grand jury to investigate whether or not Pfizer, Moderna, and others committed fraud in the vaccine context.
	As we predicted, the Supreme Court, in fact, in Florida, approved that.
	So that grand jury has now commenced.
	They are reaching out to a range of us in the vaccine space, legal space, asking for some direction and advice and information about how to best help and assist.
	That grand jury.
	It's clear to me Pfizer has committed multiple crimes.
	It's clear to me high-ranking executives at Pfizer, high-ranking lawyers at Pfizer, the same people that are obsessively tape recording this probably right now and are going to transcribe it later and complain to a judge about it.
	I think they're criminals.
	And I can't wait.
	I'm hopeful that the Florida grand jury will put them under the criminal investigation they deserve.
	Because the problem is, we can't keep blaming institutions.
	We need to start blaming the individuals who are culpable at these institutions.
	And so that's why the banks keep committing fraud and get away with it.
	They just write a check and go home.
	No CEO, no CFO, nobody else pays any price.
	And there needs to be a price paid by some of the highest profile executives and I think the lawyers that were culpable and complicit with them.
	And I think several of the lawyers at Pfizer, including some of their outside corporate counsel, were involved in criminal activity.
	In facilitating and enabling a conspiracy of lies to the American people that have led to the greatest public health debacle in our history.
	In addition, we've filed some additional vaccine mandate suits, not only against Tyson Foods and more jurisdictions.
	Tyson has reversed their vaccine mandate, and they're no longer imposing it.
	But they're refusing to reinstate employees or pay at their full original position, at least in some cases, and refusing to pay them any back pay.
	So apparently they want to make a point.
	Well, so do I. So those cases march forward.
	Filed in Arkansas, Missouri, some pending in Oklahoma, Texas, Illinois, elsewhere.
	Also filed suit against 3M.
	Which discriminated against a range of people.
	And we're going to be filing successive suits against 3M based out of Minneapolis.
	Got caught committing other illicit activities in recent years over certain of their products.
	But here, they imposed a vaccine mandate for a period of time, kind of terrorized their employees for a period of time.
	So we're bringing suit, not only for the people that lost their jobs or promotions, but also people who are just emotionally harassed for months.
	Discrimination is discrimination.
	Harassment is harassment.
	It doesn't require that you lose pay or benefits to bring a claim.
	But how about people who are vaccine injured?
	And before you answer that, just so everybody knows, I actually just had an itch on my face and I'm just working around my camera.
	That was not a tell.
	That was not...
	Robert?
	I'm past the point of saying, you know, peace and reconciliation.
	Trials and not retribution.
	Trials and justice.
	There will not be any faith restored in any system until people serve time for what they've done.
	And I'm angry now, but I'm still passive and Canadian, eh?
	But what about people who suffered injuries?
	Tyson, 3M.
	Forget your back pay.
	What about people who suffered?
	I mean, that's coming.
	I mean, right now the problem is getting there.
	So there is a workers...
	For the first workers' comp cases have been going through, and some people have been winning benefits from vaccine injuries in the workers' comp context.
	Additionally, people also from the vaccine mandate context won several unemployment compensation cases.
	So that's been on the good side of the equation.
	Right now, there's such a broad immunity.
	That it is very difficult to figure out how to sue and if you can get a court.
	In all likelihood, it will require federal legislation to be passed.
	That's not going to happen anytime soon, at least not within the next two years, in order to correct this problem.
	And what we should do is we should use this as an opportunity to completely erase all immunity for anybody, period.
	And start with big pharma in the vaccine drug context.
	There should be no immunity ever.
	A jury should determine, if you as a vaccine maker are making something that saves lives, present that to the jury, and you're going to win.
	So you have no worries, no risk.
	You only have worries or risks if you're making a bad product, if you're making a dangerous product, if you're making a product you cannot convince a jury is safe and effective.
	And the fact that they knew they needed immunity was a sign that they knew that they were engaged in illicit activity and were going to cause injury.
	And this was the worst deal ever cut.
	We gave them profit without consequence.
	We gave them power without accountability.
	We gave them riches without responsibility.
	And the people suffering are, it may be a case, we don't know, but we had a famous case this week.
	Example this week of an NFL player who collapsed from a cardiac arrest suddenly from just a hit with another player.
	That has never happened in the history of the NFL.
	There have been millions of those kind of physical hits.
	That event had never happened in the history of the NFL.
	And people want to tell me that there's no chance it has any connection?
	To what we've seen for the last two years.
	Out in Vegas, flag football player suddenly collapses.
	We've seen it for years now.
	People just collapsing in ways we have not witnessed before.
	Not at this scale.
	Not at this scope.
	And I think what we're witnessing, and more and more people are realizing it, is the vaccine caused injury.
	Real injury.
	Myocarditis being one of the more clear ones, but not the only one.
	You have British doctors, more doctors joining Dr. McCullough, joining Dr. Malone, saying it's time to withdraw these vaccines now.
	They are proving to be way more ineffective.
	They're not solving any problems.
	I think Australian data recently shows almost everybody that's in the hospital from COVID is vaccinated.
	I mean, so it appears that your risk of ending up being hospitalized or dying actually goes up with vaccination, not down like it was supposed to.
	This is the biggest public health debacle in history.
	And right now, if you suffered a horrendous consequence from it, there's very little you can do about it.
	So we're looking at workers' cop cases.
	We're looking at bringing individual tort claims.
	There's a case against 3M that may be out there.
	There's a case against Tyson Foods that may be out there.
	There are people that took the vaccine that worked for Tyson Foods that died.
	And others that suffered severe disability.
	It's where several of the whistleblowers came forward initially to me about Tyson Foods and about 3M.
	It was because of severe...
	In fact, almost all of my initial vaccine mandate cases...
	Of people opposing it.
	90% of them were able to not have to get to litigation.
	They agreed to withdraw the mandate.
	But almost all of them that came forward were not anti-vax people at all.
	They weren't people who even knew anything except vaccines being wonderful in their minds.
	It was they knew more people who had been injured or hurt by the vaccine than they knew who had been injured or hurt by COVID.
	And that number keeps getting worse and worse and worse.
	Rasmussen.
	Paul, more than one in four Americans say they know someone who has died or suffered a severe side effect.
	Who they think has died.
	Oh, sure.
	The people they know have died, but they think the cause.
	They suspect the cause of their death.
	I mean, I don't think they're not sure the person's dead or not.
	Well, no, no, no.
	I don't want anyone mischaracterizing what you're saying.
	They believe that the cause of that is a vaccine.
	And they have lots of reason to believe that.
	And the more people's life experience conflicts with what the government is telling them, the more the government's going to be in trouble.
	And they're going to need to fix this.
	And this is a problem that's getting worse and worse.
	It's not getting better.
	Because this is such a disaster, such a debacle, that they can't contain it.
	Robert, I had an encounter with someone.
	I just don't want to unwittingly rat somebody out who might not want to go public.
	I had an intimate conversation with someone, and we were talking about, oh, dude, look at that.
	We know someone, 40-some-odd-year-old dude, myocarditis, right?
	Within hours of the jab.
	Oh, it's an accident.
	Robert, I'm thoroughly enraged.
	I'm thoroughly enraged, and I'm not hiding it anymore, but I still will never advocate for anything bad.
	There has to be some...
	Actual consequences.
	Legal consequences to this.
	Otherwise...
	Right now, our government is still pretending there's nothing wrong with the vaccine.
	And a bunch of courts are still pretending there's nothing wrong with it.
	And so the question is, will a court step up to the plate?
	Will the Supreme Court step up in our Children's Health Defense case?
	Will they step...
	I mean, we're giving them tons of opportunity.
	We're giving them every opportunity in the world for the courts to step into the gap.
	If they don't step into the gap, we're going to need real big major legislative reform.
	And we're going to need it anyway.
	I mean, we are now seeing the consequences of how dangerous it was.
	I mean, Robert Kennedy's been saying this now for years.
	And of course, it also came out this week that the government, Biden administration, specifically requested Twitter stop Robert Kennedy from talking and communicating about these issues.
	Right?
	So now any doubt about that is gone.
	Robert Kennedy was one of their highest-profile targets.
	And again, this is a guy who believed in vaccines most of his life, you know, supported him.
	And it was just people asking him questions, and he said he couldn't answer them, so he went and investigated.
	And what he found was, holy cow, this is crazy, that ever since we increased, gave immunity to big pharma, the number of drugs we're injecting into kids as a condition of getting into schools has skyrocketed.
	And as he recently pointed out, go through the side effect list on those vaccines and correspond it to the explosion of various diseases in America.
	And you know what you're going to find?
	Almost an identical parallel.
	Where there's been an epidemic explosion of certain viruses and illnesses in America, certain diseases in America, certain disabilities in America, is...
	Also, just coincidentally, shows up on the side effect list of all these drugs we've been force-feeding into our children.
	I'm going to answer, I just noticed the comment in the rumble rant, I am not vaccine-insured, period.
	If I were, I probably would not be drinking alcohol anymore because that might aggravate heart conditions.
	But if I have to give up alcohol because of a vaccine, I'll be, you think I'm pissed now, people.
	Jokes aside, Robert, the other thing that we've been noticing or that came out in the news, Was this statistic that it was actually, you know, it's one in 4,357 myocarditis for the Moderna vaccine.
	That's just one adverse reaction, one adverse event.
	And that's just the existing data we know.
	Agreed.
	A lot of people can have myocarditis, never go in, not know it, not realize it.
	Subclinical.
	Three years later, or be like the NFL player, suddenly collapse.
	We don't know if that carved it, but the doctor said he didn't know.
	And then Fauci went out and lied to everybody and said it's not possible the vaccine had anything to do with it.
	Well, let's...
	And actually, thank you.
	Parentheses before we move on.
	DeMar Hamlin...
	I take no pleasure in having the discussion about his tragedy, but his tragedy looks like it's turning out to be a miracle in that he's survived.
	Faculty's intact.
	Whether or not he plays football again, to be determined.
	But if that's the worst of his problems, he's still fortunate.
	99 out of 100 people die from that.
	The idea that now to discuss, to ask, when was he last boosted?
	When was he last vaxxed?
	Because we know that he was.
	Versus...
	Commotion carditis.
	So rare you expect to only read about it in textbooks.
	And that's...
	Wave the wand.
	It's commotion carditis.
	Do I take the one in a million?
	So rare you expect to read about it in textbooks versus an adverse event conjoined with the jibby jab.
	Again, one of the most well-respected, well-published...
	Heart doctors in the world is one of the best in the world at understanding the medical consequences of this and has been willing to risk his career to criticize what's going on.
	His analysis very quick was the best explanation of this is that he had an underlying condition exacerbated by what took place.
	That's a lot more logical than the idea that, as you note, That the very rare incident happened to magically occur on that date.
	And again, if this was the only time it happened, maybe it'd be different.
	But we've been seeing this for two years.
	Soccer players just collapsing.
	Basketball players just collapsing.
	Football players just collapsing.
	There is something to add to that.
	There's a statistic going around like 1,100 or whatever have died or had collapsing.
	There's an issue, a disagreement as to whether or not those are athletes, how they're counting the numbers, etc., etc.
	But I'll tell you this.
	We're still seeing it at a rate we haven't seen before.
	Robert, I'll tell you anecdotally, I've known more people who have died or been injured from what they think was approximately associated with the vax versus COVID.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	By name, I can give you some names.
	And then you hear them confirm in real time it's one in 4,000 for the Moderna jab.
	It's going to be roughly the same for the Pfizer jab.
	Whether we know that to say it now, it will be the case.
	That's just myocarditis.
	Include all other adverse reactions.
	There was a study that came out that showed it was 1 in 800 in the Pfizer trials in a short period of time.
	That was the question I wanted to segue into, Robert.
	What are you able to discuss about that most recent stat that in the trials, the clinical trials, the clinical randomized trials, CRT or TRC, the randomized clinical trials, RCT, For Pfizer, it's 1 in 800 over a very short time frame.
	Can you talk about that?
	Well, I mean, all of the data is why we want it.
	It's what Pfizer has refused to produce in the Brooke Jackson case.
	And clearly, there is extraordinarily damning information.
	So I was critical of the court for not allowing that discovery to go forward.
	And then the court was critical of me for being critical of the court.
	But, I mean, my position is unchanged.
	I think what courts still underappreciate is the world is watching.
	It's like the old chant in the old 60s protesters when they're getting beat up on TV.
	The whole world is watching.
	The whole world is watching.
	Well, the whole world is watching, and the courts need to step into the breach here.
	We have a horrendous public health disaster that the world is witnessing on a daily basis in their personal lives, and we have courts.
	Delaying, denying even basic discovery for months on end.
	Why?
	Why is Pfizer more obsessed with what I say on social media than they are with anything else?
	Is it probably because they have information to hide?
	I mean, that's why they don't want discovery.
	I mean, we don't want anything turned over because whenever anything comes out...
	From the FOIA case, from any other case, it's more damning and more damning and more damning and more damning.
	Again, what Brooke Jackson witnessed was a system that was so bad, there was no way they were doing anything right.
	They had to have lied about everything.
	When you don't even have the right garbage bags to where needles are sticking out, when people's private medical records are plastered on the wall for you to read.
	When people are just out in the hallway and they're laid out on the mattress, I mean, when people who aren't even part of the trial are being included, when you know whether your test is blind or not, I mean, all the most basic elementary rules of science were being discarded in this rush for money.
	And so there's no chance they did it right.
	And so that means you dig into the data, what you're going to find is an utter disaster.
	There's a reason why they wouldn't allow anybody to use it or get access to it without giving them immunity first.
	Israel can't find the deal.
	Now, talk about a frightening conversation.
	My view of Netanyahu, I've always had mixed views of him, but he celebrated treating the people of Israel as a big guinea pig for Pfizer.
	He's sitting there bragging about it, and Daily Wire posted it as if it's some sort of great thing, while Benji Shapiro was running around pretending like, golly gee, I just got fooled.
	I'm so smart, I just got fooled.
	My wife's a doctor, but I just got fooled.
	Why'd you get fooled, Benji?
	Maybe the people that you laugh at and that you mock and that you satirize are a lot smarter than you are, Benji, because that's why you got it wrong, because of your arrogance and your condescension.
	You want to attack the Alex Jones of the world.
	Well, Alex Jones was right and Ben Shapiro was wrong again, as has been often the case in the last five years.
	But, you know, it is disturbing the degree to which you have people like Netanyahu proud that he treated his own public, his own community, his own country, his own people as guinea pigs for Pfizer, and he's proud of it.
	But all of this is embarrassing.
	And I think what we're going to find out is that this is the greatest public health debacle in the history of the world.
	And it compounds the one that came right before it.
	Because number two is going to be all the lockdowns.
	Let me just ask everybody out there.
	Could you all clip the last two minutes of that?
	Robert, I'm going to read something from Rumble just because I saw it and it captured my attention.
	It said...
	Viva, I have adopted the jibby jab phrase on my personal blog.
	Jibby jab is the best way.
	But someone says, rock star, and I think that's the turkey head on the avatar on YouTube.
	Viva said he regrets, can't go back.
	And you're right.
	I do regret it, and I can't go back.
	The one thing I can take pride in...
	I'm guessing you don't regret moving from Canada, though.
	Well, I may be looking into long-term decisions right now, Robert.
	I have a three-year visa, but I'm looking into...
	When the world goes to shit, maybe the wang of America is going to be the last holdout.
	I can't undo what I've done.
	It's been a year and a half.
	I think by all science, the heart issues, which I thought I've had.
	I'm always nervous about dying to begin with.
	I regret it.
	The one thing I can safely say, I never tweeted out that shut up and take your vax.
	Shut up and do it for the government.
	I actually...
	I said, anybody who doesn't want to do it, gosh darn it, you should not be forced to do this.
	I appreciated it was an experimental vaccine when I realized the NIH referred to it as that on their website.
	I never fully appreciated how bloody damaging an experimental vaccine could be.
	And now having spoken with Malone, Brett Weinstein, a number of people.
	I now understand.
	Yeah, goddamn right I regret it because I think I've gotten COVID at least once if not twice since then.
	And sweet, merciful Jesus, I'll take my chances with the COVID now that I know that getting the vax doesn't even prevent me from giving it to my parents, which might have been the only reason my mother was nagging me every day to get it.
	So yeah, I'm fucking angry, Robert, but not that angry.
	Yeah, well, the...
	I mean, other cases that...
	So we'll see how that works out.
	It's going to require some legislative reform and some other things.
	I like Robert is trying to save me for myself right now.
	Robert, please do continue.
	It's very disturbing, but we'll see what comes of it in the coming months and years.
	It should be part of the House Committee investigation, if they're serious, that they should open up, use their investigative powers over the government.
	And that's where I think they have legitimate investigative powers.
	I am skeptical of their investigative powers of private citizens.
	I think that's too easily misused and abused.
	It belongs in the executive branch.
	But for the government actors, absolutely.
	And when you're a government contractor, I think you're part of that equation like Pfizer and Moderna.
	So I hope they have meaningful hearings in the House because there, too, they could do tremendous benefit.
	Let's have a robust discussion and debate.
	Let's have people like Peter McCullough.
	Robert Malone, Robert Kennedy.
	Let's have them before the House and let Pfizer make its defense and let's cross-examine them.
	Because what I hear from Pfizer is what I heard from big tobacco companies for 50 years.
	That, oh, no, your uncle didn't die from cancer, from anything we caused.
	That wasn't lung cancer.
	No, it was something else.
	If it was lung cancer, it was caused by this or that or that.
	Couldn't have been possibly tobacco.
	I mean, people forget the ludicrous nature.
	And how many doctors were like...
	My favorite cigarette is...
	The great medical community.
	Sending it to soldiers in war.
	I mean, here, relax.
	Take a beat off.
	It'll be good for you.
	It's crazy.
	No doubt.
	But there's some other great cases up before the Supreme Court, including a true threats case.
	This actually has impact on the Alex Jones case from Connecticut, potentially down the road.
	Which one is this, Robert?
	Did I miss some homework?
	I think I did.
	So I think the title of the case, let me...
	Pull it up.
	It's Colorado is where it came out of.
	Counterman versus Colorado.
	And the problem is, they're trying to, a bunch of states have done this now, where they determine whether it's a true threat or not.
	So for those people out there who don't know, generally speaking, First Amendment protects all speech.
	One exception is called true threats.
	And what that is, is if you...
	The idea is if you make a statement that's intending to commit a clear violent crime, then that can be punished without violating the First Amendment.
	But the requirement, to give you an example of the kind of statements the U.S. Supreme Court has said do not constitute true threats.
	Brandenburg versus Ohio, Klan rally.
	They say let's go commit a bunch of violence against black men or black people.
	And they say nope, because it was an imminent incitement.
	That could not constitute a true threat and free speech protected that speech.
	Similarly, a person at an anti-LBJ peace protest rally, anti-Vietnam War rally, where a soldier lifted up his gun and looked at his sniper and said the next person he was going to put in his sniper was Lyndon J. Baines Johnson.
	There was a particular criminal statute that prohibited making threats against the president.
	I think it only passed.
	After Kennedy was assassinated, because LBJ was concerned.
	And if you want to know why LBJ was concerned, just watch the Eric Hundley and Mark Robert on their America's Untold Stories to find out about dear LBJ and his nature of why you might think there might be some enemies out there.
	But the U.S. Supreme Court said that was protected free speech.
	So you need imminent and you need either imminent incitement and you need a specific intention to cause someone harm.
	So, like, when we were designing the rumble rules, the goal was to incorporate these rules in there.
	Because one of the big problems that everybody has with all of the big tech rules is these vague, nebulous, subjective standards that say, of third-party standards.
	In other words, it's what somebody else says, I felt intimidated, hence you intimidated me.
	I felt harassed, hence you harassed me.
	I felt offended, hence you offended me.
	The problem is that isn't what the First Amendment is supposed to be.
	The First Amendment is supposed to be, you have a robot, it's only if I intend to cause you emotional harm, put you in immediate risk, feel you're in immediate risk of physical harm, that I have gone outside of First Amendment protection.
	So that's when free speech becomes stalking, or free speech becomes harassing, or free speech becomes a true threat.
	The problem is all the state governments and a bunch of federal courts have said, oh, you know what?
	The nebulous standard of the courts and the juries is okay.
	So the question isn't whether I intended anything to harm you at all, but only did you feel harmed?
	Would a reasonable person feel harmed?
	That standard is so vague, so obscure, as to effectively eviscerate First Amendment protections.
	So in Colorado, you had one of those...
	You had a guy that was clearly a loon.
	I don't know if you get these, but somebody befriended somebody on Facebook, a musician, and kept sending unsolicited messages to them.
	And most of them were really kind of low-key, at least compared to some of the stuff I get.
	I get calls on a daily basis of people complaining about their neighbor upstairs.
	I have no idea why these people call, but they call.
	They tell me sometimes seven times, ten times a day.
	I get people who email constant faces that clearly are not all there.
	Somebody that's wondering why I'm rejecting their marriage proposal is one of the ladies.
	I was unaware I had a marriage proposal out there.
	I'm unaware of who this person even is.
	If you're any degree of profile, you get people who get attached and they're not always all there.
	This person clearly was that way.
	The person would complain about, well, that's an ugly photo.
	Why are you ignoring me?
	I might as well just go off and die.
	Things like this.
	But none of this is really stalking or harassing illegal conduct, as far as I can tell.
	Apparently, it was a total of 10 texts over two years.
	They were never responded.
	This guy is going to prison for almost five years because they're prosecuting him for stalking.
	I was like, that's not what stalking is supposed to be about.
	So, very good brief being brought.
	I'm going to use it as a Barnes Law School example of how to do a good petition for cert to the U.S. Supreme Court and good legal argument in general at VivaBarnesLaw.LawSchool.Locals.com.
	You can get the VivaBarnesLawSchool merch at VivaFry.com.
	So, taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Because Thomas, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Alito have all expressed interest at various times on how this is a problematic standard.
	That right now you have a bunch of courts saying it's whatever the jury thinks a reasonable person would be offended by or would be upset by.
	And then you're subject to the local parochial whims of that local community.
	And nothing worse than the example of this person who faces up to five years in prison.
	Jones was denied his rights to pursue anti-slap remedies in Connecticut on the grounds that him being mad at the lawyer was somehow a true threat that eviscerated his rights to civil remedies in the system, which was just ridiculous.
	Nothing about it was a true threat.
	But that's because Connecticut followed the same.
	Did the lawyer feel threatened rather than...
	Would a reasonable person, rather than did Alex Jones intend harm, how could he when he was sitting in a studio in Austin, Texas, not in Connecticut?
	So that's just one argument you usually use for why something is not a true threat.
	So that's a very big case.
	The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't yet decided to take it or not, but it's a petition to definitely watch because it has broad standing impact that could even have filter down impact.
	On big tech rules.
	Nuts, by the way.
	It's so nuts just to compare it to Canada and just two segues.
	Somebody asked the locals a chat.
	The new question should be, do you identify as Barnes' wife?
	Well, Robert, there's so many on Rumble, I don't even want to get to them.
	Someone said, hold on.
	Oh, I lost it.
	No, but Robert, you didn't respond to someone's marriage proposal, so you're done.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I didn't even know they made a marriage proposal.
	Oh, no.
	Well, you got it in your junk mail.
	Go check.
	I mean, I got, like, real threats.
	I got people that...
	But it turned out, like, the guy...
	So it was after the Covington case, called into the L.A. office, threatened to bomb the office.
	So, like, the FBI had to come in, check everything, et cetera, all that jazz.
	And I've experienced this, especially people that are haters.
	The ones that go to my Wikipedia page and falsify it on a daily basis.
	Those kind of people.
	They'll send me random threats.
	I ignore all that stuff.
	The bombing threat turned out to be a drunk Brit, apparently.
	He was very apologetic.
	He's got a little drunk.
	I'm not out to pursue this.
	Locking up loons is a bad idea to begin with.
	Particularly people who are not.
	What they're doing is they're using these cases to criminalize more speech.
	Just like they're using January 6th, they want to expand it and say, you know what?
	So-and-so felt offended by what you said, crime, so that we're going to be in Count Dankula world.
	I don't want to get too black-pilled, Robert, but is it also not possible that, oh, we're going to find some loons in the world.
	They weren't intent on doing it.
	They were just nutcases.
	I'm not trying to be funny about this.
	Well, the real mentally ill people that are actually dangerous, they manage never to arrest.
	Or they get them and they weaponize them.
	Like, okay, yeah, sure, we're not going to arrest you now for this, but we're going to use you to kidnap Whitmer or we're going to use you to infiltrate.
	This is where I start getting very, very...
	I agree with Julie Kelly.
	That judge's ruling is embarrassment.
	That district court judge who railroaded those defendants, who were clearly entrapped, and then who helped gut the defense in the second trial, so the jury wouldn't know the true facts, that's another embarrassing case.
	And by the way, it's come out more evidence that that guy who ran the Whitmer case had also prior notice and other issues connected to January 6th.
	By the way, I think the same officer...
	If I understand this correctly, has now suddenly retired from the FBI now that the House might be doing investigations and decided to be part of the government anymore.
	That's crazy talk.
	You're going to have to get cashed in kind of like the way Kinzinger did with his fat CNN contract.
	Oh my God, people.
	As soon as he walked out the door.
	This is the institutional corruption of the swamp.
	What I was going to say was, I was going to use that as a segue to say, Mike Ward, the Canadian comic who was fined but exonerated by the Supreme Court.
	There's going to be a live stream interview at Locals.
	Robert, Wednesday...
	Wednesday we have a great farmer.
	So the Wednesday sidebar.
	We have a guy...
	He wrote a great book called Everything I Want to Do is Illegal.
	And he's one of the great farmers.
	He'll be able to give us unique insight into the Amos Miller case, which there was a lot of media coverage of that over the holiday break.
	We did achieve a good temporary solution.
	The long-term solution has not yet been achieved.
	I do believe the U.S. attorney is acting in good faith.
	I do not believe the bureaucracy is acting in good faith.
	So to give an example...
	They went out to help wrap up some things so he could get some food processed and the rest.
	They came out there.
	I had somebody there to film it because I was like, I don't want there to be...
	I've been through this before where the government's always like, hey, let's just do it in person.
	We'll chat over the phone.
	And they always have a convenient recollection that's different than my clients or other people.
	So I'm like, I'm going to avoid that.
	Let's just have it all recorded so everything's on the up and up.
	Nobody's doing anything you're not supposed to.
	Well, the government agents went ballistic.
	They refuse to even do their job under the consent decree unless nobody filmed them.
	Now, why is the government agents so scared?
	Why is the USDA and these folks, why are they so scared to be video recorded doing what they're doing if what they're doing is on the up and up?
	So, you know, I think it's because they've given information, often contradictory information, to Amos Miller, a little Amish farmer, and then they use...
	Their own conflicting information to him later against him.
	So they make him look bad.
	So the ongoing issues are still present.
	What we did is we successfully removed the guillotine of bankruptcy and imprisonment during the holidays.
	That's what we successfully obtained.
	The long-term solution is still a work in progress.
	And the Give, Send, Go that supports all the effort.
	There's a group of people working for him to help keep his farm afloat while he continues on this legal battle.
	Because this is about the U.S. government, particularly the U.S. Department of Agriculture, wants to decide what we put in our own bodies.
	That's not what they're supposed to do.
	They're supposed to be in the informed consent business, putting on the label that what's in the product is what I think it is.
	That's it.
	They're not here to tell me what to eat.
	Just like the FDA, frankly, is not supposed to be super doctor to the world either.
	And yet they're pretending and have usurped that authority.
	And we see how dangerous it has been when the FDA did it.
	People died.
	People are disabled because of the FDA's actions.
	Not because the FDA prevented it from occurring in the first instance.
	USDA is doing the same thing.
	Some of these people need this food for medical reasons.
	Some of them need it for religious reasons.
	So there'll be more legal actions related to some of that if we are unable to achieve a successful result.
	You know, Amos is part of the Amish community.
	They don't sue anybody.
	But some of the people that buy his product do.
	So, you know, the government, so some of that may become necessary.
	But so the legal fight is ongoing.
	In fact, I'll probably be up in Pennsylvania next week, as a matter of fact, to try to oversee some of this, to try to...
	Mitigate the issues that we have with some of the bureaucrats who I don't trust, who I think have not been honest and forthcoming, quite frankly.
	We'll see how, if they're willing to, at some level, we get a global resolution.
	And the goal is still to get that global resolution and get one that allows Amos to make food the way he wants to make it and be able to get it to the people who want it the way he makes it.
	That's what the USDA is supposed to be there for.
	His food has been occasionally labeled adulterated.
	That's just false.
	I get the perspective of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
	You didn't make it the way we said, and if you don't make it the way we said, we consider that adulterated.
	But adulterated is supposed to be, I as a consumer am buying something different than what I think I'm buying.
	Everybody was getting Amos' products exactly the way he made it.
	They don't want the USDA's chemical-laced products.
	We've seen what the USDA has done in the last half century of managing our food supply.
	We've seen what they've done with their food charts.
	Obesity has exploded.
	The health problems have dramatically increased.
	During this period of great FDA-USDA regulation of medicine and food, have we become a healthier, better society?
	You know who has?
	The Amish have.
	Because the Amish, you look at them by almost every metric of physical well-being, longevity, life expectancy, disease, they are better off than almost every community around them and in the entire country.
	Why is that?
	Probably because they're not on the FDA, USDA only list.
	Robert, and not because the Amish probably don't drink alcohol, because I know they don't, but someone was asking what I was drinking.
	It's this, Glendalow gin, the pink gin.
	Interesting.
	Do you like Scottish gin?
	Dude, the Scottish gin is the best because they make good alcohol.
	Robert...
	Oh, sorry.
	Glenn Greenwald.
	10 o 'clock.
	If you can make it, Robert, it'll be even better.
	Also Wednesday.
	So Wednesday's going to be a big day.
	Wednesday would be that 10 a.m. Eastern?
	10 a.m. Eastern, Glenn Greenwald.
	Oh, it'll be good.
	So Glenn Greenwald.
	And then at 7 p.m.
	Eastern...
	We'll have the great farmer guy.
	Yeah, and in between, my wife is going to kill me for having sacrificed the entire day.
	Doesn't matter.
	Excuse me.
	What was I going to say now, Robert?
	And then there's going to be some other great guests.
	Speaking of outrages, I think an innocent man has been set up to go to the death penalty in Texas.
	So there's another petition before the U.S. Supreme Court based on another outlandish, outrageous decision by the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals.
	Concerning the utter corruption of the crime labs in Austin, Texas.
	Where are the lefties, you might ask, given their great concern for criminal justice?
	They should be all over this case.
	So what happens is a woman is brutally assaulted, sexually assaulted, stabbed multiple times, violated with something they can't even identify, etc.
	They decide to blame a neighbor.
	And the reason they originally blamed the neighbor is because his girlfriend complained to other people that when she called him, she thought she could hear him having sexual relations with someone.
	She would later change her story later.
	They had otherwise no evidence.
	When they originally went to do the forensic search, they didn't actually find any evidence tying him whatsoever.
	Not fingerprints, not blood, not semen, not anything.
	And then later, the forensic lab came up with evidence that was, frankly, just weak evidence, even from a forensic perspective.
	What?
	Fingernails or what?
	Just that he couldn't be ruled out for certain blood samples.
	But it was real weak, and it was just he couldn't be ruled out.
	And what exactly that meant was unclear.
	But they made this presentation.
	This goes back to my...
	A reason in part for the O.J. Simpson case, I think O.J. was innocent of the murders that he was acquitted of.
	Still pending.
	People were going to have that night one of these days, three years later.
	Maybe, hopefully, with the behavior panel, because they were game to hop on board that debate.
	But if you dig in deep, I represented one of the whistleblowers in Tennessee on a separate matter, but he had been one of the first big whistleblowers on Crime Labs all the way back to the 1970s, helped John Engler actually get prominent in Michigan.
	And the crime labs were supposed to be, if you watch these fake shows like CSI, you get the impression of these highly professional, very scientific, Fauci-type people sitting around doing deep, very clinical and careful with the medical evidence to make sure it's only done in the correct way.
	That's not the reality of most crime labs.
	Most crime labs are political hacks in the service of the local police and prosecutors who engineer the evidence and then talk big scientific nonsense to jurors to convicted innocent people.
	That's what they really have been for most of the last half century.
	Well, the Austin labs and some of the other labs in Texas were so bad that even the government and the law enforcement shut them down.
	They said this is a total embarrassment.
	They said not a single piece of evidence they've ever attested to can be reliable.
	And they found what they were doing was manipulating evidence to get the conclusions they thought the police and the prosecutors wanted.
	And they were doing it on such systemic scale, they were ignoring every scientific standard of the process.
	So given this guy was pretty much only convicted on this so-called forensic evidence that didn't appear to be even on paper to me, credible forensic evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Once it was clear that none of that forensic evidence was reliable at all, that they took each piece apart, it ended up being just a complete disaster in how they had manufactured their conclusions.
	And in fact, it appears their original conclusions was that there was no evidence to support this guy having anything to do with this assault.
	For which, again, young man going, not only not to prison, being put on the electric chair and executed in Texas.
	And his case now lingers at the United States Supreme Court.
	Why?
	He files a habeas petition.
	The habeas course agrees this is a complete outrage.
	Throws out the verdict.
	Goes to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where the Texas government agrees the case should be dismissed and the trial verdict should be set aside because there was no evidence to convict him outside of this utterly unreliable, untrustworthy evidence that had been thoroughly impeached.
	And what does the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals do?
	Based on an argument nobody made, they say, nope.
	We think the jury still would have convicted him.
	This is because, to my Republican and conservative friends out there, a lot of them are so deferential to corporations, so deferential to prosecutors, so deferential to police, so deferential to governmental power, they're eager to show how tough they are on crime by locking up, and even in this case, killing an innocent man.
	So this case is up before the U.S. Supreme Court, because the question is, does it violate...
	The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution to convict somebody on fraudulent evidence.
	By golly, it sure as heck should.
	So hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case and frees what appears to me to be an innocent man falsely accused.
	You mentioned this particular case, and then I think to not that the guy in the Idaho murders...
	Those that want to know or ask, it's Escobar v.
	Texas is the name of the case.
	The idea that we...
	There are some cases that are so violent, so shocking, so outrageous that you need to find somebody and convict somebody so everybody feels safe.
	And I sort of approach the Idaho murders with the same cynical eye, although...
	This guy screams serial killer, though.
	I know I think that, Robert.
	I think it, but I don't want to say it because I don't want to presume it.
	Everything about him studied criminal, criminology to try to be a better criminal.
	So, and he was in...
	What's the word?
	What's the study that he was doing?
	Criminology.
	Oh, criminal justice.
	Criminal justice applied for an internship.
	Criminology, depending on which school you're at.
	Applied for an internship with the police.
	Like, this guy wanted to know how to get away with it.
	Not that I think he's guilty, but I do, but I'll still give him the presumption of innocence.
	Robert, I think we're on the same page on this, although I don't know.
	This guy screams serial killer.
	So, I mean...
	Well, I mean, I know that in Moscow, Idaho, where the University of Idaho is located, it was really tense for a little while because they didn't know who had done it, what had happened.
	But it looks like they were pretty diligent in the investigative search.
	And what I've seen so far is evidence of guilt.
	And he seems to fit, at least from the evidence we have acquired so far, or we've seen so far, someone that would be a serial killer who would have...
	Committed more murders in the future had he not been caught, is at least what I see so far.
	It's an example of the law enforcement working, as far as I can tell.
	Now, maybe more evidence will come out later.
	But the nature of the murders, when I first heard about it, I was like, that sounds like a serial killer murder.
	It didn't sound like a random fight.
	It sounded like someone who was obsessive, compulsive.
	And was probably a planned serial killer.
	Most are in the planned category.
	Some, like Ted Bundy, were actually both.
	They could be planned and unplanned, spontaneous and planned.
	There's aspects of this murder that have this.
	But it was one of the things about the Texas case, by the way.
	The nature of the murder, I was like, everything about this is not going to be the rando neighbor.
	This is someone, this was very personal.
	When somebody, not only have a sexual assault, but when somebody...
	And they want to degrade.
	They want to hurt.
	They want to inflict pain.
	But knives.
	Knives are extremely personal when you see it used in that way.
	So you're looking for a particular mindset, a certain mentality of a particular kind of killer.
	And it's unlikely to be the neighbor whose girlfriend was complaining.
	The other thing that never made sense to me also about the case when reading through it was like, okay, hold on a second.
	How did the girl hear anything?
	That means he answered the phone.
	So a guy who's a brutal rapist and murderer answered his phone for the girlfriend during the rape and murder?
	Does that make any sense to anybody?
	I was like, there were things about that case that screamed red flags.
	But I agree with you.
	I think what happened is, what usually happens, a rush to judgment to satisfy the community so the community feels comfortable the bad guy's been caught.
	And that's typically when he hasn't been caught.
	That's what's even more dangerous about this.
	But I always tell people that...
	Say, you know, allow some innocent people to go to jail to make sure the guilty go in.
	Say, remember, every innocent person who goes to jail means a guilty person walks for it.
	Guaranteed.
	So if you want the guilty punished, make sure innocent people don't go to prison.
	Robert, we've been going for a little bit too long.
	I can hear from the knocking on the door.
	What have we missed?
	We've got some good short ones.
	Interesting YouTube case.
	YouTube being sued for copyright violations.
	It's how terms of service interface with those copyright violations.
	If you upload the content, you can't sue however YouTube ever uses that content ever again.
	Well, FYI, I've double-checked those terms of service.
	They also change the statute of limitations of when you can sue.
	But there's other issues about whether YouTube is deliberately stripping.
	Copyright identification in music and videos and other art pieces to make it more difficult for people to track.
	And that's a separate violation of federal law.
	And that case is going to go forward in a potential class action against YouTube.
	A reminder about cashing checks.
	So UnitedHealth was in a dispute with a medical care provider.
	They did one of these...
	Audits where they say, oh, we did an audit of 10 bills and we think you overbilled on these.
	And it turned out, and so we're going to assume you overbilled on a thousand of them.
	So they went after one of these medical providers, thought they could whack them, wanted two million, almost two and a half million bucks from them.
	The medical care provider had a smart lawyer and used the old check cash routine.
	So what you do is you send a check.
	This lawyer sent it for 25 grand.
	You send a check, or thereabouts, and you put...
	Full accord and satisfaction.
	Full satisfaction.
	You attach a letter to it that says, here's full satisfaction of this debt.
	If you cash this check, it'll be considered full accord and satisfaction settlement of the debt.
	You make sure it's copied to all the right people.
	And what happened was United took a week, cashed the check.
	A week later, we're like, wait, hold on a second.
	We just gave away $2 million.
	And they lost before the Texas courts.
	Texas courts said, sorry, you got to exercise your due diligence.
	You get a check that says full accord and satisfaction.
	The fact that you have some little payment processor do it for you doesn't change the equation.
	You got a copy of the letter like everybody else.
	So United, credit to that smart lawyer for getting back at United for it's probably overbilling them for $2 million.
	Sneaky fucking bastards.
	That's fantastic.
	By the way, I was given from a child, it's bubbles from a bath.
	Oh, that's impressive.
	Yeah, and when I...
	It smells...
	Good, although I got some up my nose.
	Most of the other cases, there's a qualified immunity takings, tax seizures, COVID cases.
	Hershey's might have lead in it case.
	The Mongols getting to keep their Signia and Enrico case.
	Suing universities for tuition refunds.
	We'll save all those for next week.
	Romeo and Juliet.
	The movie 1968, Romeo and Juliet.
	The two young actors that played Romeo and Juliet are suing because they were filmed naked.
	Now, they're suing more than 50 years after the suit.
	They're both in their 60s or something.
	But they're saying the film has been ongoing and it's still being released.
	And there's certain laws that now erase the statute of limitations for certain kinds of...
	Sexual misconduct allegations.
	And they're using those cases to go after.
	So that's an interesting case.
	But the rest of them we can save for next week.
	Or we'll do something on locals at some point during the week.
	Nature lover?
	It's bubbles from a bath.
	But it smelled like lavender.
	And there was a sticker in it.
	And I don't know what the sticker says.
	Oh, I got some great gifts.
	I got some people that sent some little pins in.
	A little pin of you with a fro and a little pin of me with a cigar.
	So I'll get those and some other wonderful gifts.
	Some people sent in a cool Christmas gift of Johnny Cash and Elvis Presley and some other great stuff.
	So appreciate all of that from everybody.
	And we'll have some bourbons up.
	Bourbon with Barnes and Viva Barnes Law.
	The Barnes Brief will be back up starting tomorrow going forward.
	We've got two great guests for opening sidebars of 2023 with Glenn Greenwald and The Great Farmer.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Robert, I got you a gift.
	I got it.
	I didn't show the bottom part.
	I'll send it to you this week.
	But Robert...
	Oh, we may be doing our first meetups, and the first one may be at some point in late February around your neck of the woods.
	Booyakasha.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Robert, first of all, what I love is that anyone looking at this would think, I'm seven feet tall and you're four and a half feet tall, when I'm about five feet tall and you're six feet tall.
	Let's back it up a little bit.
	Also, this Friday, I will be on with Eric Hundley and Mark Robert on Freeform Friday on America's Untold Stories.
	It'll be beautiful.
	But Robert, we haven't done it in a while.
	I think people might be feeling a little black-pilled because Viva got angry.
	White-pill us going into the first new week of the new year in the Viva Barnes Law community.
	Give us a white-pill because I'm feeling kind of black-pilled.
	Well, I think what happened in the House was fantastic.
	So we had the first meaningful challenge to the slow, steady erosion of the democratizing principles that govern our House of Representatives, and it ultimately resulted in, or potentially has resulted in, the best reforms that have been passed in the House,
	maybe ever, but definitely in several decades, and may lead to one of the best church-style committees that we have been desperately needing for meaningful introspective review of deep state corruption of our system, which includes big pharma, in ways that we haven't seen in about half a century.
	So I think what happened this week is extraordinarily encouraging and is its own white pill for the With that said, everybody...
	That's the end of the first episode of 2023.
	Robert, so we'll see each other at least once, probably twice Wednesday.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you very much for being here.
	2023, it's going to be a make-or-break year, for good or for bad.
	Let's hope for good.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll talk, but everyone out there, thank you.
	Take Robert's words of white pill wisdom.
	Enjoy it heading into the new week, and we will see you Wednesday.

▲