Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 15, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:03:01

Ep. 144: Biden-Gate; SBF Bail; Elon Musk Victory; 2020 Election Stuff & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Had COVID been worse, you know, just enough worse to really get our attention, to really be undeniable, we would have had a different political conversation around it.
	Brett Weinstein would not have been releasing 80 straight podcasts on the dangers of the vaccine if a few variables were changed.
	I mean, just take that, leave COVID exactly as it is.
	Just change it.
	Just make it preferentially dangerous to children rather than to old people.
	Just that small thing.
	One other variable.
	What if the vaccines actually really did block transmission?
	What if the vaccines actually worked?
	Let's say the vaccines really did block transmission but then nothing else.
	Just give me a little more transmission blockage and give me kids being preferentially...
	Killed or injured by this.
	I'm not laughing at the substance of this.
	The platforming of people who were obviously unwell and unbalanced, professionally and mentally, around vaccines.
	Sorry, let me just stop that and rewind that.
	For the night's first hashtag confession through projection, Mr. Sam Harris.
	What did he say there?
	And give me kids being preferentially killed or injured by this disease.
	Conspiracy thinking, the platforming of people who were obviously unwell and unbalanced, professionally and mentally, around vaccines and their skepticism.
	The patience for that would have been non-existent.
	What you just said.
	Is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
	I'm going to stop it there because I don't want the owners.
	I don't want the copyright holders of Billy Madison claiming a two-hour stream because I showed 30 seconds of the most iconic scene in cinematic history, people.
	People say Rumble is not working.
	Hold on.
	It's working.
	Come on.
	Rumble is working.
	Now I've interrupted my mojo, whoever said that, but don't worry, I'm not angry with you.
	Thank you for letting me know.
	If it wasn't, what you just said, Sam Harris, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
	At no point, and by the way, that was a five-minute clip that I had to synthesize down because five minutes was too painful to listen to.
	At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, did you come anything near anything that could be considered a rational thought?
	Everyone who...
	Listen to that.
	It's now dumber.
	I award you no points, Sam.
	And may God have mercy on your soul.
	Let me go put the link to Rumble in the chat and pin it.
	By the way, I give Sam a hard time because I take for granted he can take it.
	I mean, I know he blocked me on Twitter when he was on Twitter because of his last absolutely idiotic Trump derangement syndrome induced.
	I presume he's mature enough to reflect and say, yeah, that was a stupid thing that I just said.
	Let's just assume, for argument's sake, that the pandemic were much worse and targeted children and the vaccine worked.
	Well, then Brett Weinstein would have no basis to have any sort of anti-vaccine.
	No, she-at Sherlock, or as I like to call him now, Sherlock Harris.
	If the pandemic targeted children, let's just change that around.
	That's not just a change.
	That is a paradigmic shift, if that's a word.
	Paradigmic?
	Paradigmic?
	That is a shift of the paradigm.
	It's not like, not to be mean to old people.
	I'm halfway there now, so I can walk both edges of this fence.
	It's not to be mean to old people.
	But illnesses that target old people are fundamentally different than any illness or issue that targets young people.
	And the reason is not a consequentialist, well, an old person's life is worth less than a young person's life because they're not, in law, murder of an old person versus murder of a young person.
	It's murder.
	And you'll go to jail for the rest of your life.
	You might have aggravating factors on sentencing.
	But when it comes to illness, a pandemic, a pandemic that affects those who are already vulnerable and who have...
	Six months to two years left in their life.
	It's paradigmically different than a pandemic that affects the young that have 80 years left of their life, contribution to society, everything there.
	If we just change that one little detail, already off the charts stupid, Sam Harris.
	And I say this, you're an adult, you should be able to deal with this.
	If I say something stupid and I hypothesize one of the dumbest arguments conceivable, I expect to be called out on it?
	I will either defend myself or I will hang my head in shame and say, yeah, not my best moment.
	If the pandemic hit children, and if the vaccine worked, yeah, if the vaccine worked, I think we wouldn't have a problem with it, people.
	Oh, righty then.
	Barnes is in the backdrop, so I'm going to cut this a little short.
	Robert, you want to be in for the sponsor?
	No, no, no.
	I'll do it without Robert in here.
	And then when he comes in, we'll talk about it.
	Everybody, you might have noticed.
	First of all, standard disclaimers.
	Rumble rants.
	I won't get to all the rumble rants.
	If you don't like that, don't give a rumble rant.
	I don't like people feeling grifted, shilled, rooked, miffed, whatever.
	YouTube takes 30% of all of these beautiful things.
	I spat on my computer again.
	In the house.
	Keep fighting.
	Do you have a PO box?
	It's in the about section on YouTube.
	YouTube takes 30% of all of these beautiful things called rumble rants.
	Super chats.
	Rumble?
	Has their own version.
	They take 20%.
	So better for the creator, better to support a platform that supports free speech.
	What else was there?
	No medical advice, no election fornification advice.
	And you might have noticed tonight, people, there was a sponsor that said this video contains a paid sponsor.
	Because it does.
	Because...
	It's a product I like.
	It's a product I have in this house, which has been coming in handy these days because we've had a lot of indoor construction and a lot of indoor defecation from Pudge, who has been waking me up every two hours at night to eat.
	You all know this now, which means that during the day, she's been vacating her bowels a lot more in the house than typical.
	EK Pure, EnviroCleanse Air Filtration System.
	I'm fortunate in that...
	I'm actually sponsoring companies that I use their product.
	I use this.
	It's got patented technology in the air filter part of it, not the HEPA filter, which is a nice, thick HEPA filter that filters out particulate matter.
	It's got patented technology in the mineral filter section of it that neutralizes germs, bacteria that are smaller than the rona.
	This is used by the Department of Defense in submarines.
	It's in 300,000 classrooms across America.
	It's quiet.
	It's sleek.
	It's beautiful.
	It neutralizes VOCs, volatile, organic.
	It basically takes the smell of pudge pee and pudge poo out of the Viva house.
	Although the studio, where I don't have the air filter, has a little bit of a pungent odor today.
	It's expensive.
	It is.
	$700 for a filter.
	We had one back in Canada.
	It was a pile of rubbish.
	And we're still expensive.
	You get what you need and you need what you get.
	And if you go to the website and you put in promo code Viva, ekpeer.com, promo code Viva, you'll get a free air monitor thingy thing and 10% off the unit.
	And what was I going to say?
	There was one more thing about it.
	ekpeer.com.
	They're fantastic.
	They're quiet.
	I think they cover like 1,000 square feet, so one or two in any given household, and you're going to have clean air.
	If you have filthy, germ-infested kids, it will help reduce the spread of the flu virus during the flu season.
	The link is in the pinned comment on both Rumble and YouTube.
	ekpure.com slash viva or promo code viva, but you'll get there.
	And now let's bring on the Barnes.
	Robert, sir, you're not at home.
	No, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
	May I ask why or should I not ask questions to which I don't know the answer?
	Oh, to hear Amos Miller, the Amish farmer.
	Okay, beautiful.
	Hold on.
	I think we're going to actually...
	We're keeping it broad like this all night because your backdrop is beautiful.
	That's a beautiful place.
	Okay, Robert.
	So how long are you there for?
	My people will be here for a little bit longer than I will be.
	I'll be here until Tuesday, and then they're here through Wednesday or Thursday.
	Beautiful.
	All right, Robert.
	I was going to go on a little more about Sam Harris, but I would love to have a podcast with him and ask him.
	He's a big boy.
	He can deal with this, and I'm actually still surprisingly friendly in real life.
	But, Robert, I haven't been following Sam since before what is clear Trump derangement syndrome.
	Is he sullying a legacy, or has he always been thin on the logic and the intellect?
	I was never a fan of him.
	A lot of people became fans of him because he was critical of aspects of politicized Islam.
	But he's anti-religious in general.
	He's anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, in the sense that he's a proud atheist.
	And I think a lot of his arguments for, you know, religion being bad for society, in my view, you know, the atheist argument failed because of the 20th century.
	That after the 20th century, blaming religion for mass murder is tough when atheistic societies killed everybody in a much quicker order than any societies before they've ever had.
	So I never took them very seriously.
	Other people did.
	Other people really praised him.
	He struck me as a rich kid, inherited money, pseudo-intellectual, could talk the talk, but couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.
	And his Trump behavior has proven that in spades.
	But I was never a fan of him from the very beginning.
	Okay.
	And I know people have said he was good fighting against the woke stuff early on.
	The atheism arguments, I have absolutely no problem with atheists, but...
	Yeah, like when you compare historical crimes committed in the name of religion versus the crimes against humanity committed in the 20th century against humans not in the name of religion, I'm finding whether or not you believe in religion, it's a good thing to read the Bible because the morals in the Bible, it's Aesop's fable.
	Whether or not you adhere to the religious spiritual stuff, the expression which has been coming up...
	A lot these days.
	What good is all the fortune of the world for he who has forsaken his soul?
	I screwed it up.
	But watching Pink, Michael Phelps, Questlove do sponsored Pfizer ads and they have the same generic...
	Oh, it will help prevent...
	I did not know that depression and asthma and what was Questlove's?
	Oh, being overweight makes me at risk for severe COVID.
	Cut and paste.
	And I want to know how much they got paid, but I don't really want to know because I'll probably puke.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	We have a lot, but I think we have to start.
	We're going to get into the vaccine lawsuit updates, but we've got to start with Joe Biden.
	Are we calling it Corvette Gate, or are we calling it Garage Gate?
	What's it called right now?
	Well, I mean, really, it's just the sort of hypocrisy and duplicity that's present, that's always been the case when dealing with classification and records, in my opinion.
	In other words, the...
	I don't think it's a big deal that Biden had those records.
	I don't think it was a big deal that Clinton or Obama had those records.
	I think it's much ado over classified records that's too much ado.
	But what it mostly did is gut their case against Trump, in my opinion, because how do you prosecute Trump for something that Biden did even worse?
	Biden has fewer excuses.
	He's vice president, so he doesn't have the same degree of discretion the president does under the Presidential Records Act.
	And he doesn't have the same degree of discretion about declassification the president does.
	And yet he had records in more questionable locations for a longer period of time.
	And so they'll assign a special counsel, but I think the net effect is to negate the Trump claims than it is to facilitate claims against Biden.
	I want to bring up Roger Stone had a quite a hilarious picture.
	Here we go.
	Okay, Robert, it's you'd say you can't make this stuff up, but we're living through quite bizarre times.
	Hold on.
	Roger Stone posted a picture on Twitter.
	It says, will Joe Biden get busted for the classified documents he hid at Caralago?
	And this is I was like, okay, I see this.
	I see this image.
	And now I'm once bitten twice shy for the rest of my life.
	I'm like, okay, what is this?
	I go to YouTube.
	Try to pull up the original video and find it.
	And yeah, this is...
	We can own the 21st century market again by moving to electric vehicles.
	And by the way, they tell me, and I'm looking forward if it's true to driving one, that they're making an electric Corvette and go 200 miles an hour.
	You think I'm kidding?
	I'm not kidding.
	I'm not kidding, Jack.
	So I'm excited about it.
	Look at that.
	It's like, I mean, one's got to wonder, were those the documents?
	Literally, in a video evidence that he put to the internet.
	But okay, so Robert, the legal side of this.
	There are people saying, oh, Biden's was a mistake.
	It's not a crime to take documents.
	It's a crime to accidentally take them.
	The difference between VP and president relates to classification, declassification, but not necessarily to removal of classified documents.
	So the vice president could have been...
	Both, actually.
	Because the Presidential Records Act gives the president unilateral, a non-reviewable authority to declare certain documents personal records rather than presidential, at least until now.
	I mean, now maybe the courts are going to flip and decide that what they ruled in the Clinton case somehow doesn't apply to Trump.
	But while Trump was president, the existing law was the president, under the Presidential Records Act, gets to determine what is a private record and what is a presidential record.
	This was all after Nixon, and the goal was to change the law to make it clear that some records are presidential records that should be maintained in the archives and are not personal records of the president.
	But they gave the president the unilateral authority to make that, this non-reviewable authority to make that decision.
	At least when Bill Clinton was faced with it, Clinton took classified information with him, tape recordings of interviews he had done about classified events, and just had him in a sock drawer.
	And so what wasn't the archives wasn't secure.
	The court said that those documents were not subject to FOIA because they were not even presidential records, because Clinton unilaterally and non-reviewably had the authority to declare what was private and what was presidential.
	The vice president has some of that, but doesn't have nearly the same scale of authority that the president does.
	The second area is the vice president can declassify certain things that he was the one to classify, but doesn't have the unilateral authority the president has to declassify anything, anywhere, at any time.
	And that's where the third difference is Trump's documents were, for all we've seen so far, They were in a place made appropriate for SCIF where you could review classified records.
	It had been a place of storage of classified records during Trump's presidency and was going to be a designated facility by the National Archives for classified material.
	By contrast, Joe Biden's garage never fit that definition.
	Biden is less egregious when he was the vice president, had less classification authority, less presidential records authority, and was storing the documents in a completely unsecure location and facility.
	He didn't even know they were there.
	Apparently, there's a story that his son was paying inflated rent for the same property.
	Which would be a way to launder money.
	It'd be mighty convenient to have classified records easily accessible to your son.
	It's again a confession through projection.
	What did they accuse Trump of?
	That he was taking classified records to monetize it for personal political profit.
	It appears that's exactly what Joe Biden did do.
	Is it really a coincidence that apparently these documents are about Ukraine?
	Or at least some number of them are.
	And that apparently his son had free access to them and was paying a ridiculous inflated rent, if that story is accurate.
	That would be a sign of, you know, that's impeachable kind of behavior.
	Because it's not that the information was classified.
	It's that effectively you could launder bribes of a sitting vice president and future president by giving the money to his son, who in turn would pay inflated rents as the disguised bribe.
	So I think that's really where the broader, bigger concern is, in my opinion.
	The media looks like fools, and Democrats look like fools, for preaching how wholly classified documents are to turn around that Biden just had him sitting in his garage next to his Corvette.
	It just guts their case, in the court of public opinion at least, if not the court of law.
	There was some speculation that this was an effort to push Biden out.
	I don't see that because they would go at Hunter more directly.
	They wouldn't jeopardize their case against Trump by being the source of this.
	I think a white hat person is more likely the source of this.
	Let me stop you there, though, because some people are hypothesizing, and we're going to get into all of the hypotheses, that they'll take Biden out and use this as an excuse to then take out Trump because equal treatment.
	Let's indict, charge, and convict Biden.
	I mean, the problem with indicting anybody on this is...
	You'd have to indict everybody on it.
	I mean, Clinton didn't carefully preserve classified records.
	Obama didn't.
	Obama put them a bunch in an abandoned warehouse.
	So, I mean, like 30,000 plus.
	So the idea that they're ever going to prosecute never made sense to me.
	I mean, it's always a possibility that they'll go completely haywire and AWOL.
	But you can only impeach Biden.
	You couldn't indict him anyway.
	Or if you did indict him, you'd have to sit on it until after he was outside the presidency.
	I think it's always more likely that they were going to leverage his son if they want to force him out.
	And I know there's a range of people who think that's what's occurring now.
	I don't for two reasons.
	One, this jeopardizes the public perception of Trump.
	There's just no way around that.
	And then the other is that there's other means by which they can go at Biden that would make more sense than this path.
	They sat on this for months.
	They knew about it long before the election.
	Somebody came along in the communication chain, saw what was going on, and leaked it to the press.
	And my guess is it's someone who doesn't like the attempts to criminalize it towards Trump.
	It's a white hat type actor.
	Is my read on it.
	Because, and Biden may have thought he could always keep it locked up because, you know, a bunch of people known for months now and it hadn't come out at all until now.
	The question that I had, this might be a dumb question and I feel like I should know the answer, but they impeach Biden on this.
	Trump hypothetically gets reelected.
	Can they use past indiscretions?
	Can they use past crimes to impeach if he gets reelected?
	Or does it have to be an act carried out during the presidency?
	It's a political question.
	So what that has been interpreted to mean is impeachment is whatever Congress says it is.
	So in that sense, yes, not in my view.
	In my view, impeachment should be reserved for people who commit crimes while in office.
	And so that should be more the...
	The approach.
	Otherwise, the prosecution should only occur after they've left office.
	To, you know, say, oh, well, you got elected to the president, so now we're going to investigate something you did before you were president.
	I've never been.
	My interpretation is still the same.
	You have to commit a serious crime, what the Constitution intended.
	You have to commit a serious crime, a felony, while you're president, that cannot be remedied in any other means except by impeachment, because otherwise elections solve the problem.
	So I'm still of that mindset.
	Now, I think some of Biden's behavior towards Ukraine, while he's been president, that's the question is, is this evidence, evidence that he basically paid off Ukraine, that Ukraine's investment in him through his family finally paid off with $80 billion plus of aid to help precipitate a dangerous war on the European continent?
	I think that's where it's relevant to an impeachment inquiry.
	I think that's what they should pursue it as.
	We'll see what they actually do with it.
	In response to how the media are just flagrant hypocrites, where they say under 12 documents found at this location, when it was Trump, it didn't matter how many documents it had, it was potentially nuclear documents.
	Oh, he's got 10 documents, they just happen to be nuclear documents, but there's only 10 of them, less than 12. I guess, just come back to the question of why now?
	And the idea of selling them, monetizing them, or the idea that Hunter Biden, because he's Hunter Biden and he's done what we've seen he's done with his laptop and whatever, could have given access to people inadvertently or whatever, and these could be used to blackmail.
	I mean, what would have to be in these documents that would allow them to be used as blackmail for favors by this regime for foreign interests?
	I mean, I think in terms of...
	I think it generally reflects the fact that they have never taken classifications that seriously unless it's somebody exposing the deep state.
	So I think that's more what it really reflects than anything further or anything, you know, depends on what was in those documents as to whether maybe something else could be there.
	But that was my initial takeaway is that this is how a lot of people operate in D.C. And they've never made a big deal about classifications until it's Trump because they don't like Trump.
	But they've otherwise only, as Glenn Greenwald has mentioned, they've only gone after whistleblowers generally on classification records.
	Not leakers.
	Not anybody that's pro-deep state.
	So I think that it's that discrepancy that's kind of being exposed.
	But I think in terms of the timing, this came across the desk of somebody that's not on the Biden or deep state side of the aisle, is my read.
	Because if it was the deep state, it could have come out before, and I don't think it would be this category.
	The other problem they still have, we discussed this with Mark Robert and Eric Conley on America's Untold Stories, Freeform Friday.
	The same issue, in my view, is that those that want to replace Biden don't have a replacement for him.
	Okay, so that is, and I didn't make it to the Freeform Friday, but glad that I didn't because I wouldn't have this question.
	Now, people say, okay, take out Biden.
	Who then?
	It goes, Kamala Harris becomes president.
	Who becomes VP?
	Or does she disappoint?
	She has to recommend that the House and the Senate by majority under the 25th Amendment put in a new vice president.
	So as soon as the president is out, the vice president automatically becomes president.
	The vice presidency is unoccupied until the House and the Senate, by majority vote, agree on a replacement.
	Interesting.
	If it was a Republican House, that's another problem.
	They're going to push Biden out.
	Who's going to be VP?
	So Kamala Harris goes in.
	Who is she getting to the House?
	A Republican.
	I mean, the idea would be it would be a Republican and then...
	Yeah, but she's not going to do that.
	A Democratic president like Kamala Harris put a Republican as VP?
	I see no chance of that.
	So you might have just another stalemate all over again, and she's still deeply unpopular.
	So I was the first one to say, or one of the first people to say, that you could watch for a risk to Biden by seeing these kind of leaks come out.
	So I get why people think it.
	I just don't think this particular leak was for that.
	And the problem they have is they just don't have a replacement, and the Republican House makes it even more complicated.
	Okay, you know what?
	This might be a good pause to end the stream on YouTube, people, and move it over to Rumble exclusively.
	We're going to continue.
	I have some questions on classification.
	Robert, I just watched Citizen Four following Glenn Greenwald's recommendation, and I'm a little blackpilled.
	I'm not hiding it.
	Ed Snowden has been having his fun trolling Biden about all of this.
	Okay, so we're going to do this in Rumble.
	One last shout out, EnviroCleanse.
	Thank you very much for the sponsorship and thank you for having the audacity to sponsor the hinged, fringed minority with unacceptable views.
	We're going to move over to Rumble.
	The link to Rumble is in the pinned comment in YouTube.
	We're ending it on YouTube in three, two, one.
	Done.
	Okay, Robert, classification.
	I mean, the whole thing is classification has become something of a joke when I...
	Who was it that said it?
	I think we discussed it during one of the streams, where everything is classified, and especially that which might embarrass the government.
	Embarrassment is a grounds for classification.
	When did this happen?
	When did we actually lose all of our freedoms?
	Was it 9-11 and the Patriot Act, or was it the assassination of JFK?
	It's much further back.
	They've been trying to do classifications to hide records and information since the government was formed.
	And then you've had attempts to target dissidents like the Alien and Sedition Act and the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act and all of those things from the very beginning of the founding of the country.
	We got rid of the Alien and Sedition Acts not long after they first passed.
	Then we had the Civil War in which a habeas corpus was suspended and dissidents were locked up without trial.
	That was the second time around of egregious civil rights violations.
	Then you had World War I, which was the third stage, when the Espionage Act came into force, when the Palmer Raids started happening, when people get politically targeted, when congressmen and presidential candidates were locked up for their speeches.
	People forget that happened in America, but it did during the World War I time period.
	And then the deep state really came to true fruition after World War II, with the laws passed in 1947 for the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency especially.
	But also the FBI took on new powers.
	Hoover originally used the Palmer raids after World War I to seize power within the Justice Department.
	And then by the end of World War II, he had basically carte blanche over large parts of federal law enforcement.
	And so he worked together with the Dulles Brothers and others in the deep state apparatus to sort of congeal and form the institutionalized deep state.
	Then you have the assassination of Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy.
	Martin Luther King and Malcolm X all within a half decade.
	And that triggered questions and concerns that led to Watergate, which was really about the deep state trying to pay back Nixon, but instead ended up blowing up back on them.
	And that led to the church committee, which is a good transition to what we predicted last week, which a lot of people were saying, oh, that's nuts.
	That's not going to come about.
	Which was that the House would, in fact, pass a new church committee.
	The House would, in fact, pass the new rules.
	And in fact, that's precisely what we witnessed.
	So the House did, in fact, put in the rules.
	Kevin McCarthy and others kept their word.
	And a new church committee has now been formed.
	For those that don't know, the original church committee was named after Senator Frank Church from Idaho.
	Back when Democrats came from places like Idaho.
	It has long populist history going back to the early 1900s, the Rocky Mountain states.
	And he was one of the first people illegally spied on by the National Security Agency.
	And he formed a select committee on intelligence to supervise what the intelligence community had been up to.
	And as part of that, he exposed MKUltra.
	As part of that, he exposed assassination attempts around the world.
	That led to the House Committee on Assassinations, which investigated the Robert Kennedy assassination, the President Kennedy assassination, the Martin Luther King assassination, and various foreign assassination attempts around the world.
	And we only found out about what all the bad stuff the deep state was up to, thanks to the church committee and its spinoffs.
	So hopefully this new church committee to be run by Jim Jordan.
	On the entire political weaponization of what I would call the deep state, others call the dual state, law enforcement machinery, national state, you know, pick whatever label you want, the Washington establishment.
	It is a critical and essential committee, and its formation provides real hope that we'll finally get some meaningful inquiry and investigation into the corruption malfeasance and misfeasance, a part of which some of that detail has already come out concerning January 6th.
	Kevin McCarthy is going to release all the videos from January 6th.
	They're going to release more information about Capitol Police.
	So a lot of promising efforts afoot on that front.
	Just a heads up for everyone in Rumble.
	What I do, I screen grab the Rumble rants because I can't bring them up through StreamYard.
	I know there's a way of doing it alternatively with software.
	It's a pain in the neck for me and I need to simplify.
	I read these tomorrow or the day after on Locals.
	We go through them and we have a Locals stream.
	So I'm screen grabbing all of them and I'll get to them tomorrow.
	But someone said they don't normally give Frijoles.
	He says, I don't normally pay for chats, but you guys rock in Rumble.
	A $5 Rumble rant.
	Great interview with Glenn Greenwald.
	Great interview with Roger Stone.
	We had a great interview with Joel Salatin.
	It was a busy week.
	Greenwald, I could go for another five hours.
	And Roger Stone, I mean, I could go for another five hours as well.
	There were anecdotes and stories he told me after the interview.
	I was like, geez, we should have gone for another hour.
	So keep some stuff for the next interview.
	Oh, McCarthy.
	So for whatever doubts anybody had about McCarthy, he has come out from my...
	External perspective.
	He's come out swinging, but swinging hard at Schiff, at Swalwell.
	Swalwell, you know, he comes out talking about Swalwell getting booed from the committees for having had, let's just say, whether or not it was an amorous relationship, it was a relationship nonetheless with Chinese spies known to prior politicians.
	Nobody did anything about it.
	Swalwell...
	In, you know, the aggressor playing the victim says, oh, the FBI said I was totally clear.
	And now, look, I'm getting all these mean messages on social media, posting them to Twitter, you know, trying to turn the table.
	But McCarthy's come out swinging.
	If they release the 14,000 hours of footage, what the sleuthing eyes of the Internet and true journalists out there like Glenn Greenwald and others might find, they'll piece together a story.
	My prediction that January 6th was an inside job.
	It might come to fruition.
	We might have the evidence, like concrete evidence.
	So what happens next?
	What's the progression of all of these committees?
	They form them and what?
	Do they start announcing congressional hearings?
	Yep, yep.
	And they start issuing subpoenas, come up with a path of evidence they want to discover and witnesses they want to talk to.
	And so hopefully they look into the Whitmer case, they look into the January 6th case, they look at all the...
	We now know that Russiagate was completely fake all along, just one big hoax, that Twitter knew it was a hoax, that there wasn't any big Russian effort to influence either 2016, 2018, or 2020.
	It was made up, and even lefties on Twitter were telling the government that, and the government was still spinning a false story otherwise.
	So the Twitter files continue to reveal information that provide investigative leads.
	For Jim Jordan's committee to expose the deep state's corruption in their going after Trump, in Russiagate, in Ukrainegate, in all the issues and scandals involving the Biden family, as well as January 6th and the bogus Whitmer entrapment.
	They've got plenty of places to go to expose malfeasance and misfeasance at the highest ranking apparatus of the deep state national security state, whether at the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA.
	So hopefully they will do so in a meaningful way that will vindicate some of the work of Julian Assange, vindicate some of the work of Edward Snowden, and at the same time, appropriately expose the corruption, the deepness of the deep corruption of the deep state.
	Most people were shocked in the 1970s to discover what everybody was up to.
	They couldn't imagine that our government was overthrowing governments and getting people assassinated, was spying on people domestically, was planting things to create dissidents and dissident movements, was involved at some level in the assassination of high-profile public figures.
	All that came as a shock.
	So hopefully people will, the same sort of investigative zeal will reveal the scope and scale of corruption in the deep state today with this new committee being chaired by Jim Jordan.
	Does Trump make the announcement that he's going to pardon the January 6th defendants?
	And is it getting time to the point where the American public might support the idea of a pardon of Assange and Snowden?
	I think Trump has already announced his intention to either pardon or commute all the sentences of the January 6th defendants.
	And I think you'll see him continue to go down that path.
	It's the one place in the court of public opinion they've been successful.
	There was some partial acquittals this week, bench acquittals, of a defendant who clearly never really should have been prosecuted because it was the hardcore lefty January 6th hater, Amy Berman Jackson.
	And she was like, this guy's clearly so crazy that...
	Obstructing proceedings was not on his mind because he doesn't know what's going on.
	So, you know, at least there's been a little bit of judicial honesty in some of the January 6th cases.
	In the others, they're striking their lawyers, preventing Norm Pattis from representing some people.
	You know, so the same shenanigans, unfortunately, continue unabated in the January 6th courts, such that the only probable remedy they're going to get is from a future president pardoning or commuting their sentences.
	Just reading the chat here.
	Someone says Revolver.
	Mary Forbes, 14, says Revolver News has great breakdown.
	Revolver News has the best...
	We've interviewed live here at Sybar.
	Yeah, he had not just Ray Epps, Scaffold Man.
	No one seems to remember Scaffold Man.
	And the pipe bombs.
	Robert, look, I followed this.
	We were streaming not live from, but live of the day.
	What happened with the pipe bombs?
	I was in D.C. at the time.
	You were in D.C.?
	I remember our stream of the day, and then I remember feeling bad about it the day after when the news was coming out that a police officer was bludgeoned to death.
	I was like, oh, maybe the assessment was a little bit too superficial.
	But no, no, no, no.
	It stood the test of time.
	But Robert, the pipe bombs.
	Do you remember about the pipe bombs?
	People seem to not know or have forgotten.
	What was the deal?
	Yeah, I mean, supposedly someone planted pipe bombs to blow up at Democratic headquarters, and I believe maybe the Republican headquarters.
	It was another headquarters.
	Forget which one.
	The other one was.
	But they've never found the person, never identified the person.
	The bombs never went off.
	It's not clear what was going on.
	I mean, a lot of sketchy activity.
	More evidence came out that Nancy Pelosi and Decemberary Mitch McConnell were neck deep.
	At preventing adequate security from being present on January 6th, which suggests their culpability and complicity in what took place that day.
	Of course, more evidence continues to come out about the FBI's infiltration of many of these organizations.
	So, I mean, I think the first ever hush-hush at vivobarneslaw.locals.com was that January 6th had all the hallmarks of some kind of inside job at some level.
	And there's been more and more evidence that has pointed in that direction since then.
	I just said, it's fundamentally inconceivable that it wasn't something of a tolerated event in that at the beginning we said, oh, the FBI intelligence, they were all caught off guard.
	They didn't know this was going to be so bad.
	They didn't know so many people were coming down.
	Nate Brody, many of you regard him as a radical lefty.
	He did a breakdown saying that didn't make sense shortly after, that the FBI...
	And the mainstream media was announcing that they knew people had permits.
	They knew people were coming down to protest.
	The FBI, they were laughing at their plans to enter the house.
	But then it got even worse after some of these trials where Oath Keepers, it's revealed that the FBI had infiltrated this seditious conspiracy plot months before.
	You can't then say that you were so unaware that you were caught with your pants down the day of when you infiltrated the plot months before.
	So on its face, it doesn't make sense.
	But we need like, I don't know, something of a smoking gun of evidence.
	We might actually see.
	All right, I had one more question about Ed Snowden, Robert, just before we get on to the other stuff.
	I don't know if you can answer it, and I haven't run the question by you.
	After the Ed Snowden leaks, and I'm watching Citizen 4 getting enraged because it's not just that they treat the leaker, the whistleblower, like the criminal.
	They are breaking the law, the government.
	On the substance, they're breaking the law, and on the procedure, they lie under oath.
	Did anything come of it?
	Because I had not yet been born then.
	After these hearings, when these government officials lied about the surveillance, black and white, did anything come of it?
	Did anything good come of what Ed Snowden did?
	Well, good, yes, and the public became aware of the scope and scale of spying and surveillance being conducted by their own government on them.
	And that led to some governmental reforms to restrict that to some degree.
	So mostly it was a court of public opinion, some positive action taken by some government agencies.
	But for the most part, the government and the media responded by just attacking Ed Snow.
	You see the clip of Obama in the documentary saying, I was going to do these changes before.
	We need to reassess, but not through illegal leaks.
	And then you have Obama.
	At the end, say he, scandal-free presidency, outrageous, in-your-face, gaslighting.
	All right, Robert, what do we move on to now?
	Speaking of the Twitter files revealing the deep state and the collusion of all disgusting entities to usurp our rights and liberties, Elon Musk also, is he scoring a victory or is he scoring a loss by forcing the class action to go to individual arbitration?
	I was trying to determine...
	Who has to pay for the arbitration if it's strictly Twitter or they have to split the costs?
	If they're going to go, for everybody who doesn't know, class action of some of the employees who were forced to quit because they didn't click on that little, yes, I accept to work hard at my job, and they were contesting their severance or the termination through a class action lawsuit, and the judge said, no, you're contractually bound to go to individual arbitration, so off you go.
	But this is exactly what happened with, I think it was Owen Benjamin?
	Who am I thinking of?
	Yeah, Owen Benjamin and Patreon, where it's not necessarily the victory to have to arbitrate individual claims for cost and etc.
	Not that Twitter has to worry about it.
	What's your take on it?
	I'm not sure how you feel about arbitration clauses, but I think you don't always like them.
	Yeah, no, I don't like arbitration clauses, and I think they're meant as a means to circumvent juries determining cases.
	Now, a lot of people have gone to arbitration to prevent class actions, and the courts have generally greenlit that.
	I'm not a fan of that either.
	But contractually, that appears, under existing law, that Musk's position was the correct one in that they had waived their right to bring a class action claim and had agreed to individually arbitrate their claim.
	To my knowledge, Twitter...
	Pays the cost of that because in order to make it legal under California law, in other places you can force people to pay for the arbitration cost too.
	I don't think that's the case in this instance.
	But it's a win for him while he's also facing a big shareholder class action where he was saying that because of the recent politics issues connected to Twitter, that San Francisco, the Bay Area, can no longer be an impartial jury pool.
	For any Elon Musk case because of the politics surrounding Twitter over the last several months.
	So he has moved to transfer that case for jury purposes to Texas out of the Bay Area because he doesn't believe he can get an impartial jury out of the Bay Area due to the political controversy surrounding his ownership of Twitter.
	All right, interesting.
	Robert, just one question actually came from the Rumble Rant, and I just noticed it.
	It's from T. Gaggiotti, $5.
	He says, Barnes, how does Jim Baker get a job with Twitter where he suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop after serving the same function at the FBI?
	How does he get the job, period?
	I mean, I think we're going to know the answer.
	It's a seamless interaction between big tech, the Pentagon, corporate America, Wall Street, and government.
	It's people who are really working for the institutions they're supposed to be regulating.
	And what they're doing is, you know, the people who work at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for example, who are going to be micromanaging Amos Miller's farm when most of them, to my knowledge, have never farmed a day in their life.
	And what are they going to go do?
	They're going to go work for big corporate agriculture when it's all said and done, more often than not.
	I mean, it came out this week.
	That one of the head Pfizer people was using his former government position and status to put pressure on Twitter to censor information about the dangerous nature of their so-called fake vaccine.
	Then as they call something a vaccine, it doesn't fit the legal, historical, medical definition and common sense definition of vaccine because it didn't stop transmission, didn't stop infection.
	And it, in fact, of course, turned out not to be safe or effective either.
	And they lied about all of it.
	Now, I mean, there's some people that have got caught promoting the vaccine that are now pretending that they had nothing to do with the vaccine.
	And apparently they have now blocked both of us.
	Scott Adams has kind of fallen off the wall a little bit.
	Ben Garrison made a very funny comic strip about him, showing him following the science and now complaining about following the science.
	And he was threatening to sue Ben Garrison for a libel.
	Ben Garrison has been subject to a lot of cancel culture, everything else.
	And I've followed Scott many years.
	I think he's a funny guy.
	I think he's a very smart guy.
	But during most of the pandemic, if you followed him, your general impression would be...
	That he was in favor of a lot of lockdown policies.
	That he was very critical.
	The Bakersfield doctors who raised questions early on.
	Very critical of Robert Malone when he went on Joe Rogan.
	That he was critical of people who raised questions about the vaccine.
	He says he was always trying to promote both sides equally.
	Most of the people I know who followed him didn't get that impression from him at all.
	So I just pointed out that if you followed Scott Adams, You would quite reasonably conclude that he was pro-vaccine and pro-mask.
	Now, maybe he wasn't.
	Maybe a lot of us didn't see every show he put on.
	But his reaction to that wasn't to debate me.
	It was to block me on Twitter, block you on Twitter.
	By ricochet, Robert.
	Look, I'll say this.
	I said it last week.
	I don't care.
	I feel a little bad for Scott because I think it's such a juvenile thing to do, especially among adults.
	But you said something that is so earth-shattering.
	My great disappointment was I thought a guy with his comedic skill set, he would at least come up with a really good nickname.
	And instead it was like, idiot, clown, cloutbert.
	I was like, these are lame.
	This is very underwhelming, Scott.
	You've got to get better at the nickname.
	You're supposed to be a maestro of persuasion and nicknames.
	Clown, that just doesn't cut it.
	That's third grade.
	You've got to get up a notch.
	I think this was your original tweet.
	I can't see it anymore.
	I put up a tweet, plus I put up a Barnes brief at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And I explained in greater detail there that my argument was there was tons of people that really had been increasingly agitated at Adams.
	And they were complaining on our board, saying, you know, the...
	About a range of things he had said or done.
	And I was trying to argue actually kind of in his defense.
	I was saying that I think he trusts institutional sources more than I do.
	And that explains why he has the opinion it is.
	I think most people have good intentions.
	I think 95% of the people we disagree with.
	They just have different life experiences and trust different sources of information than we do.
	But they still want good things for the world.
	I don't think they're bad people.
	Only 5% of the world, I think, are bad people.
	I think most people just have a different perception.
	But when someone disagrees with us politically, we tend to want to see them as...
	We think our beliefs are because we're smart, knowledgeable, and good-hearted.
	So if somebody disagrees with us, we think they must be dumb, brainwashed, or evil.
	And my point is, no, most of the time they just have a different life experience, trust different sources of information, etc.
	So I was saying something kind of not trying to defend him, and he interpreted it as negative and just sort of went off on it.
	But there was a lot of those people who during the pandemic, Steve Bannon, you kind of forget, but early in Bannon, Bannon was screaming for more lockdowns.
	Raheem Kassam was so mad at me, he blocked me on Twitter because of my criticisms over lockdown policy.
	So to their credit, you know, Bandit's come around, Kassam has come around, a lot of those.
	But Adams has kind of come around, but he just doesn't, anybody that says that he ever said anything positive about vaccines or the rest, he's just...
	Kind of going crazy.
	And look, in fairness to Scott Adams, Elon Musk had a bad take at some point.
	Ben Shapiro had a bad take.
	Elon had said very positive things.
	But recently, Musk and Adams got into a debate over...
	The World Economic Forum.
	This is like Adams keeps saying both sides.
	It's like, I don't know what world he lives in.
	Nobody watching him would think he was on both sides.
	They would think he was strongly on one side.
	He might have presented the other side upon occasion, but usually in such a manner, you had no doubt which side he was on.
	Now, maybe he didn't intend to...
	But recently, he was suggesting that anybody who thinks the World Economic Forum wants depopulation or anybody with power or influence wants depopulation.
	He seemed to suggest that that was nonsense.
	And Musk was like, no, there's clearly people that are out there that share that exact agenda.
	Bill Gates has said so publicly.
	Bill Gates said, we're going to reduce the population with vaccines by making more children live to adulthood so that...
	Parents in third-world countries have fewer children to counterbalance excess mortality.
	His obsession has been overpopulation forever.
	The Rockefellers have been obsessed with overpopulation for a century.
	They mean very particular groups, too, in my experience.
	Some people that went through that over the last several years prefer that their opinions be perceived as a little bit different than the rest of us remember it as.
	It was a fun little Sideshow for the week.
	Setting aside the sideshow, the gossip, it's no more serious than that.
	The threat of defamation or libel against Garrison, I mean, 0.00.
	One, there's tons of bases.
	I mean, I get that Adams has kind of forgot, maybe.
	But, I mean, he was highly critical of the Bakersfield guys.
	He was very critical initially of Malone's appearance and was making fun of people for relying upon Malone when he was first on Rogan.
	And again, he was just being very critical of Peter McCullough.
	Peter McCullough is one of the most published medical experts in the world.
	And he's sitting there saying that McCullough is kind of, he's implying that McCullough just made stuff up.
	And then he pretends, oh, I was just on both sides.
	No, you weren't.
	So I think that's where a lot of that comes from.
	And they're still facing him.
	Finally, McCullough was reinstated on Twitter.
	Malone finally reinstated on Twitter.
	More information came out of the CDC acknowledging issues with the vaccines, potentially.
	I mean, they're going to just cover it up.
	Robert, let me bring it up just so that nobody thinks.
	We know about now the...
	I had it in the backdrop.
	Here we go.
	Just a new signal.
	Is this the article?
	CDC FDA identified preliminary COVID-19 vaccine safety signal for persons aged.
	Just add it to the list of all the rest.
	Ischemic.
	Let me go see where it is here.
	About strokes.
	Yeah, ischemic stroke.
	Following the availability and use of updated bivalent COVID vaccines, CDC's vaccine safety data link.
	Near real-time surveillance, yada, yada, met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65 and older.
	So you got myocarditis for people aged, you know, whatever, 40 and under.
	You got ischemic stroke.
	Now, signals.
	They have denied the problem, but they've seen the signals.
	As if VAERS wasn't the original signal-detecting system in the first place.
	Sorry, I cut you off.
	What were you going to say about that?
	Yeah, new issues with the jibby jab.
	Yeah, no, unfortunately, the case we were waiting on, Children's Health Defense in Waco, Texas, the judge decided that we can't sue the FDA, that I guess nobody can ever sue the FDA.
	And so that case will now go up on appeal as well to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The greater concern that continues to grow around the globe is that this public health disaster is going to cause complete collapse and confidence in public health institutions if they don't correct it.
	And I think the courts are missing it by not getting involved.
	Now, there was a good decision by a New York state court that found the vaccine mandate imposed on state employees.
	Was arbitrary and capricious, given that it did not stop transmission or infection.
	So that was a good ruling.
	In addition, there's been a vaccine mandate class action type suit brought against Disney, alleging that against Disney because of ESPN's activities, but also Disney's activities.
	In the argument, they're picking up my argument against Tyson Foods.
	And arguing that Disney was colluding so deeply with the government that it constitutes state action and thus constitutional violations, not just other violations of federal employment law.
	So we'll see if that case progresses in a good direction, hopefully.
	And in the same vein, the U.S. Supreme Court this week, two of the cases we talked about last week that we said were cases to watch, the U.S. Supreme Court took up.
	The true threats case, they actually accept it.
	The case concerning the states taking more property than the tax that's due, the U.S. Supreme Court took that case that we talked about.
	That was the one where it was like they seized a $300,000 home for $30,000 in back taxes and deemed it...
	No, they did it to an old lady.
	They took her a $60,000 home for a $3,000 tax debt.
	An eight-year-old something widow.
	And for people who think, well, if they give her the balance, you know, the $54,000, then that's what you get.
	But no, they deem it to be of the value of the debt.
	They take it all.
	They don't give you any of the equity.
	I think it violates a range of constitutional provisions.
	U.S. Supreme Court took that case, too.
	But the other big case they took, they took eight cases.
	We also, as we correctly predicted...
	The Brunson case was completely rejected.
	There was no dissent, no concurring opinion, all that stuff that they were trying to pitch and push that I got blowback for saying, look, this case has no possibility of going anywhere, and that they're misrepresenting the nature of the Supreme Court's activities and interactions with them.
	I got people coming at me for it.
	Well, that's exactly what happened.
	Supreme Court dismissed their petition, and nobody suggested they wanted to take it at all, whereas the two cases we talked about, they did take.
	The other big one they took is about religious discrimination, and it has broad impact in the vaccine mandate context, even though it's not a vaccine mandate case.
	What it is is a Christian employee, U.S. postal worker.
	Didn't want to work on Sundays because that's when he went to church.
	They said that they could not make an accommodation for him.
	What happened is the current civil rights laws say, under both disability discrimination and religious discrimination, that the employer does not have to keep you employed, even if accommodating your religious beliefs would normally require it, should it be a, quote, undue burden.
	And that no reasonable accommodation is available.
	Now, the Supreme Court used some language back in the 70s that suggested that that was a real low standard for employers to cover.
	The courts have been split over what that means.
	And what's happened is courts have lowered the standard so much that they consider basically almost any burden, anything beyond a minimal burden, on an employer to be an undue burden.
	Almost any accommodation to be an unreasonable accommodation.
	Now, what they've been doing is gutting the law, making it very tough for people with disabilities who've been discriminated against or discriminated against for religious reasons to win their case.
	So the fact the U.S. Supreme Court took this, the three conservatives, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, have already voiced concerns about the misapplication of the undue burden doctrine.
	Now they took it, tells me they're going to overturn those prior decisions and clarify that undue burden means undue burden.
	It means some serious, severe, substantial burden.
	And here we have analogous law from the quarantine context, as Dershowitz conceded to me in the debate, which is in that context, the standard, is there clear and convincing evidence that the person poses an imminent risk to the well-being and safety of others?
	If they don't take the vaccine, that should be the same standard in the employment context.
	An undue burden should be a burden that makes it economically non-feasible for you to compete or something like that.
	Not just, oh, somebody doesn't have to work on Sunday, so we rotate some shifts.
	Not, oh, they get to work from home and that's a little bit of an annoyance on one day out of the month or something.
	And so it's very promising that the Supreme Court took that case because it will probably have very positive ramifications for all the vaccine mandate cases brought under either religious or disability discrimination laws.
	Very interesting.
	And I was just looking up, I don't think I'll pull it up, but the true threats case is a guy who posted some alleged threats to a musician on Facebook and the jury was not allowed to decide whether or not he intended them to be.
	Truth.
	I want to try to get the statements just to get the examples.
	A lot of the statements were kind of, were like self-reflective more.
	I mean, it was more like, oh, you know, there's one or two statements where he says I might as well die and stuff like that.
	But when I looked at it, I was like, they were pretty lame statements.
	As stalker harassment goes, these were not the kind of statements that were typically considered true threats.
	But hopefully the Supreme Court clarifies that at a minimum.
	You have to, as they've interpreted the federal law to mean, you have to subjectively intend a person be in fear of their well-being and safety.
	Otherwise, what happens is you create a quote-unquote objective standard that's not really objective.
	It's a safe space standard.
	And it's a standard of does the jury not like what you said, regardless of whether what you said was intended to and did in fact cause someone to be upset.
	They're removing both.
	You know, you don't have to cause the person to be in fear of their well-being.
	And you don't have to intend to cause them to be in fear of their well-being.
	If a person could be in fear of their well-being, suddenly you're guilty of criminal stalking.
	And that invites safe space type logic that criminalizes dissident speech in violation of the First Amendment.
	And I think that's where the Supreme Court will go.
	And I think they'll overturn the Colorado's interpretation of its stalking statute.
	Yeah, I mean, not that anybody likes getting nefarious messages, but as far as I understood, in the States, far different than in Canada, true threat, specific, targeted, and doesn't have to be realistic from what I recall, but it has to be intended.
	It has to be intended or imminent, one of the two.
	Yeah, I can't find the statements.
	I don't know if the ones that I saw were the relevant statements, but it doesn't matter.
	So this guy sent a bunch of Facebook messages to somebody and got convicted of...
	Stalking, harassment, threats.
	Five years in prison, unless the U.S. Supreme Court reverses it.
	That's a little excessive.
	Obviously, the guy's got a screw loose, but it didn't strike me as a true stalking case.
	Robert, what else do we have on the menu?
	I'm trying to get something in the backdrop here.
	I'm trying to remember from our locals poll.
	I remember the Biden one was number one, vaccines.
	But I'm trying to remember what was number two or three.
	Hold on.
	Let's race you to locals.
	While we do that, well, you know, actually, but while you do that, Robert, just an update, everybody, for anyone who's been following the, you know, Canada's equivalent of where is Tiffany Dover, Jessica Robb, the CTV news journalist who, a week ago to the day, had the medical emergency or medical episode on air live, the day, you know, immediately protected tweets.
	There were some tweets that indicated...
	Multiple...
	There were tweets from a while back about having gotten double vaccinated and boosted and still gotten COVID that people started immediately asking the obvious questions.
	Twitter account gets protected.
	People get blocked.
	CTV News issues a generic sort of statement.
	It was private.
	Don't want to share medical information, but we know that it wasn't anything related to the jibby jab, to which I said that's something...
	Set aside everything else, like this is a very public incident in the context of a very public position on a very controversial subject matter right now, where hypothetically employers could be held liable for hypothetical injury if indeed the injury was sustained from something that the employer mandated, which from what I understand, Bell Media, the company that owns CTV News, did in fact mandate.
	And you get the employer issuing a statement saying, we don't know what it was, but it wasn't this.
	And then silence, basic, pretty much.
	Radio silence for the rest of the week, during which I personally got emotionally invested in this because it was a traumatic thing to watch and I wanted to make sure that the individual was all right and we weren't getting any information to that effect.
	Seems that she's okay.
	Apparently she did a report two days ago promoting a horror movie.
	A Canadian guy made a horror movie in Alberta.
	I see the dynamic of how sometimes people will always still have questions.
	They'll say, well, that could have been a pre-recorded segment.
	And then I went and looked up the marquee of movies playing in the background at the movie theater called Metro City in Alberta.
	It looked contemporary from January 13th.
	So at some point you have to say, I'm glad she's okay.
	We still don't know what happened.
	Everyone can make whatever connections they want or deny whatever connections they want.
	She looks okay.
	Thank goodness.
	Pupukunena Hora.
	And may she be healthy going forward.
	So just wanted to give everybody that update.
	Yeah, the other case that was big in the polling at Locals.com was the case I was involved in, which is Children's Health Defense, along with a range of others, have sued the Trusted News Initiative.
	And like the Washington Post and CNN and several of the big media networks on the grounds that what this was was a cartel to drive out and deplatform their competition.
	And so they brought it as an antitrust claim in Amarillo, Texas.
	And the claim is that the big tech, big media collusion was an illegal effort by big media.
	To monopolize certain aspects of the news space and to incentivize censoring their competition, often with bogus fact checks.
	And so it's an interesting suit.
	It was drafted by a Yale professor and some others and was filed in Amarillo this past week.
	And they're trying to go at the censorship collusion.
	Bobby Kennedy currently has a suit against Facebook before the Ninth Circuit.
	On Facebook, acting as a state agent in colluding to censor.
	He has a suit against Elizabeth Warren for colluding with Amazon and others to try to censor certain book materials.
	And now is going right at the media for its mass efforts to collude with big tech.
	So it's continuing to try to give the courts an opportunity.
	Much as in the vaccine context to fix these issues.
	We'll see if they get involved.
	So far, the district court level, all these cases, they have not got involved.
	We'll see what happens with this case in Amarillo.
	But it's a very well thought out and crafted suit against big media for its efforts to collude with big tech to censor their competitors.
	So brought under the antitrust laws.
	Whistleblower.
	It might be a good time to refresh and allow me to ask some more questions in as much as you can discuss it.
	So Brooke Jackson has filed...
	Who's she suing, Robert?
	Now I'm getting confused.
	So she brought what's called a False Claims Act or a KETAM claim, old equitable claim.
	So technically the United States has sued Pfizer and related companies.
	She has brought it on behalf of the people of the United States.
	Now, she has her own separate claim for wrongful termination that is brought in her own name.
	But basically, the main claim is the United States versus Pfizer.
	That is in the possession of the court on a motion to dismiss.
	The court has continued to delay discovery and stay discovery.
	And we're seeing why Pfizer doesn't want discovery to occur.
	Because in these other FOIA cases and places around the globe where information has come out, more and more damning information continues to be disclosed about what Pfizer knew, when it knew it, and how it hid that information from the public.
	And so her case would be the biggest case.
	The question is whether the court, with all these courts, it's are they willing to step into the breach, have a full public meaningful discovery and trial, and get to the bottom of this.
	So far, courts have mostly not done so.
	They've deferred to the Defense Department.
	They've deferred to the FDA.
	They've deferred to the CDC.
	So now they did step in this week again on the vaccine mandate context.
	The court stepped in and affirmed once again the vaccine mandate injunction, preventing the vaccine mandate.
	For federal contractors, for federal employees, the Defense Department formally and officially revoked its vaccine mandate after Congress made them do so.
	Now, there's still some vestigial litigation over past discrimination related to the vaccine mandate that is ongoing in both the military context and otherwise.
	Also, it appears the Defense Department is trying to get around inactive.
	Continue to impose it on reservists on the grounds they're not in active duty.
	We'll see how that progresses, but there's several suits pending there as well moving forward.
	But her case is one of the biggest cases, but we'll see whether the courts have the willingness to...
	Step in and have a full, meaningful trial on these cases because so far the courts have shown unwillingness to do so.
	Well, that's putting it mildly.
	Now, if you can elaborate, or I think all of this is alleged, and if it's not, you'll tell me what you can and cannot discuss.
	The nature of her whistleblowing, was it testimonial?
	Did she have pictures?
	Did she have documents to evidence?
	The way that typically works is you often have just information rather than the evidence.
	But in her case, she also had evidence.
	So typically what happens is a whistleblower sees something, and what makes it unique to Key Tam or False Claims Act is that it's the government that's defrauded, or in reality, more the taxpayers.
	And so when the taxpayers have paid money for something, and you've witnessed information that says they shouldn't have...
	You can bring a KETAM claim, and you're potentially entitled to part of the recovery.
	And so that's how that typically works.
	Now, in her particular case, she not only had verbal testimony, but had emails, had photos, had documents.
	She had all of that as well.
	There was also expert testimony from ex-FDA people who said the case is a credible case, and so forth.
	And clearly her accusations have been proven more and more true as we've moved forward in terms of inadequacy of information, the fact that the drug is not safe, not effective for many groups of people, that the rewards exceed the risks as more doctors came out and said this past week, including in Britain and elsewhere.
	Britain, Israel.
	I think there was another one.
	I want to say Russia or maybe the Middle East, Syrian maybe.
	But I mean, from more and more places and more and more sources, you're seeing more and more doctors and medical professionals and more people to get access to the data say we should stop this.
	We should not continue to mandate this.
	We should not continue to even issue this.
	We need a halt to assess safety because clearly safety was never adequately assessed in the first place.
	So everything she has said has really come true.
	And it's sad the government didn't openly pursue it itself from the very get-go.
	Robert, I mean, is the reality of this, however, that the politicians, the experts, are too deep in?
	There was a prior chat or a comment, super chat, I don't remember, where it said, had this been any other drug, they would have pulled it from the market immediately.
	Is it the fact that everyone is just too far into this?
	Call it whatever you want to pull back.
	Now, if they do pull it, if they do suspend it, pause it, it'll be an admission of culpability.
	And in two years' time, we're going to be seeing these ads on Fox News.
	Were you forced to take the jab between 2000?
	I mean, is that where we're at right now?
	I mean, there's a lot of reasons why they don't want to do it.
	As a general rule, they've never wanted a second-guess vaccine.
	Vaccines are kind of the holy mantra of the FDA and the CDC.
	Even though there's lots of reasons to question whether or not a lot of the vaccine hype is more hype than substance about other vaccines as well.
	But so you compound that with their unwillingness to recognize they made any mistakes in the COVID context, period.
	You combine the two and you have where they're at.
	And so you have people like Joe Rogan, who was talking with Brett Weinstein, I believe this past week, who was talking about, or at least the interview was published this past week.
	Talking about the need to forgive these individuals and so forth.
	But how do you forgive individuals who refuse to even admit they did anything wrong?
	And so that's really where the problem is.
	Now, hopefully, as part of these committees' investigations, Senator Ron Johnson was on today with Chuck Todd, and Chuck Todd was whining and complaining about everything, of course, as he usually is.
	The sleepy eyes, I think, is what Trump's nickname was for Chuck Todd.
	You had some other ones, too.
	But, you know, Ron Johnson's been one of the good leaders on the vaccine-related issues especially.
	And hopefully there's a lot more investigation into these issues through the new House.
	Because people are increasingly wondering what happened.
	And sadly, so far, the courts have turned a blind eye to it.
	I was saying earlier, you know, that going back somewhat to the Scott Adams Depopulation of elites.
	I'm not saying this to be like, say something I'm not saying something by saying I'm not saying it when I'm saying it.
	I'm not saying it.
	If someone were to write a dystopian novel about how you go about achieving world depopulation, and the step one would be, you force young people to take a shot that causes severe life-shortening problems, potentially reproductive issues.
	We don't know, but now we know that it interferes with women's menstruation.
	So you cause the harm at that level.
	And then the ripple effect is that people become skeptical of otherwise functional, perfectly safe, or within the realms of safety, functional vaccines like, I don't know, I can't think of one, tetanus.
	Some people start cutting their fingers, metal detecting.
	They're not going to get the tetanus shot because it's a vaccine.
	They start dying.
	So you get your double-edged sword.
	Achieving your goal.
	That's how one would want to draft the book if they were trying to achieve that goal with that in mind.
	But Robert, I want to just bring this up because I want to get back to Brooke Jackson, what she saw, and another study.
	I've been told that the fact that it's published in National Library of Medicine doesn't legitimize the study, and I have to see where we're at in terms of the reading of this.
	August 2022.
	Serious adverse events of special interest.
	Still don't really know what that means, but I suspect I know what it means.
	Following mRNA COVID vaccination in randomized trials in adults.
	Robert, this from what I understand goes back to Pfizer's original trials, and it comes to the conclusion the numbers are just...
	Astonishing, and this is a second review of the initial findings.
	Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1, respectively, per 10,000, which comes to 1 in 800 and change.
	Now, we know, and I think we've shared this link on Locals.
	This is what Brooke Jackson was saying from the beginning.
	She was involved with the trials through the trials, or did she leave before?
	From the very beginning.
	Well, she was pointing out the trials were unreliable.
	You could not rely on any of the data and information coming out of the trials to determine safety, efficacy, or whether it's even a vaccine.
	That it was just a complete disaster, like she had never witnessed in her life.
	And the government kind of hit it.
	Sat on it for a year, promising to investigate.
	Never apparently did investigate.
	And then I got involved.
	And Pfizer has demanded that no discovery take place.
	And the judge just dismissed the case and never allow any discovery or trial to take place.
	And all of the accusations she's made were well documented at the time.
	And her concerns have been proven true over and over again.
	I want to bring...
	We're going to get some good clips tonight here.
	Hold on.
	Someone in the chat in Rumble, let me just get the comment in our Rumbles.
	It was a tip from Targo.
	No, it was not from Targo.
	It was Don's wife.
	Robert, is Neil deGrasse Tyson part of the 5% with malicious intentions?
	Well, we'll let people...
	No, he's just somebody who bought it.
	There's another example of somebody who trusted it.
	Like at one point in his debate with Patrick, that David, he says, basically...
	We can trust all the people who make the vaccine, so that's why you're nuts to question it.
	In case anybody thinks Robert is strawmanning, listen to this.
	If you want to get an abortion, get an abortion.
	If I want to get the vaccine, I get to choose.
	If I can't force you to get an abortion, you shouldn't be able to force me to get the vaccine.
	Because it's not about you.
	It's about people you interact with, and that's the social contract.
	We don't even know if the vaccine worked or not at the time.
	Yes!
	That's what the trials are!
	Dude!
	That's why these trials...
	Are you missing data out there?
	But let me ask you a question.
	Are we saying only one type of scientists are right?
	No!
	We're saying that the system in place...
	The 16,000 that signed...
	No, no, no.
	The system in place to test vaccines...
	There's an entire system that's in place.
	That with review boards and all of this, that's in place.
	There's an entire system.
	That's in place.
	And if that system is destroyed, Robert, my entire existence of what I thought I could believe is itself destroyed as well.
	It gets better.
	With review boards and all of this, that's in place.
	Now you can say, what you can say is, I have a better idea than all these review boards and all these agencies and the CDC.
	I have a better idea.
	Here's what you should do.
	And that would have made everything better.
	Okay, you can put forth that idea.
	But what I'm saying is, in a case where you can contaminate someone else, it's not about you.
	It's about the collective health.
	You're assuming.
	You're assuming because somebody can take the vaccine.
	Uh, won't get COVID, which by the way, I don't need to play the clips for you to see it where everybody said, Hey, if you get it, you're not going to get, if you take the vaccine, you're not going to get a Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden.
	I can give you Fauci.
	I can give you, and you've seen these clips before.
	It's not like you've never seen it before.
	They were wrong.
	Hold on.
	So, so, um, the strain evolved.
	Uh, it goes, I mean, the thing about that was, That's exactly why there had never been a successful coronavirus vaccine in history.
	It's because the viral evolution, the virus, will evolve to be more transmissible, less lethal, and will escape vaccines.
	That's why there had never been a successful coronavirus vaccine in history.
	And he's acting like this was somehow shocking, undeveloped, you couldn't have ever anticipated it news.
	But what you're really seeing is deference to authority.
	You're seeing that the people who have a natural deference to authority, some of them don't realize, like Tyson here, probably don't realize the degree to which they have a deference to authority.
	But if you put him up against Bobby Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy would torture him.
	Because Bobby Kennedy understands everything about the process and why there's huge flaws in it.
	Whereas he just assumes this process is flawless, that this process is trustworthy.
	This process is reasonable.
	I mean, one out of three drugs the FDA tells the world is safe and effective, they have to later withdraw because they got it wrong.
	One out of three.
	That's only good in baseball.
	There's a system in place, yeah, and that's why Pfizer and Johnson& Johnson were ordered to pay billions of dollars for concealing the harmful effects of their medicines.
	The biggest criminal operations in the world, as Bobby Kennedy often points out, nobody's been more criminally fined in the history of the world than Big Pharma.
	They have a proven, like I said, you're taking the word of a criminal drug dealer who had no incentive.
	We're very little incentive to worry about safety and efficacy because they had no skin in the game.
	If it turned out that they were killing everybody, so what?
	They can't be sued.
	And they were given guaranteed profits, just huge guaranteed profits by the government just writing them check after check after check.
	For many of these drugs, they're going to have to throw out the door because nobody wants them now.
	So this was a system designed to fail.
	And what you see in people like Tyson, what you see or what you saw in some of the reactions of people like Scott Adams and others was, you know, to some degree probably their shock at how utterly unreliable and untrustworthy these institutions always have it.
	Mike Cernvitz, you know, recognizes, he goes, you know, I got how he got, you know, mistaken on Bill Gates.
	That's somebody that, you know, Adams frequently defended.
	And it's like, what world are you guys live in?
	Bill Gates is a James Bond villain.
	You know, you just know the guy from his tech days when he was hated as a nasty monopolist to realize what a dangerous individual this guy is to be co-opting medical and public health for us.
	And as Dershowitz agreed, it can't just be public health.
	And by the way, Tyson's principle makes no sense unless you assume that the human life has no value in the womb, right?
	Because if...
	Collective health matters, then the life in the womb has to matter, doesn't it?
	He's just assuming it couldn't possibly have any value, right?
	He assumes that, oh, you might be able to give COVID to someone.
	Well, that's never been our standard for forcing anything on anybody.
	It has to be clear and convincing evidence that unless you take the vaccine, you pose a substantial risk of severe harm.
	And again, Dershowitz, big pro-vaccine guy, ultimately conceded that's the appropriate legal standard in this context.
	Nike 7 with a $1 rumble rant and Pirate Fish in a $2 tip in Viva Barnes are talking about a Taiwan study showing 17.1% cardiac abnormalities.
	Because a lot of people aren't going to know.
	The problem with myocarditis is you don't necessarily know you've got it from the...
	From the vaccine.
	Often you don't know you have it, period.
	One of the concerns is the long-tail risk because mRNA is a delivery mechanism of a medical drug we've never used on this scale before.
	Problem one was there's never been a successful vaccine for coronavirus in history.
	Problem two was you're giving drug companies all the incentives to rush it and no incentives to be careful.
	Because there's guaranteed profits and no risk for liability.
	And then problem number three was you're using a technology, an mRNA technology we've never used before on this scale.
	And you combine those three things, everything screamed red flags, and people like Tyson and others just ignored it because they trust the great CDC, the great review board.
	Bullshit.
	Everyone's pointing the finger of responsibility, but Robert, I wish...
	I wouldn't have to.
	I'm neurotic in general, people, and I have the fear of death in general, people, but I suspect this is the article.
	I'm going to read this afterwards.
	Changes of ECG echocardiogram parameters after BioNTech, that's Pfizer, in the senior high school students.
	And I think I saw the number 17.1 in there somewhere.
	There it is.
	It says the male-female ratio in total.
	17.1 had at least one cardiac symptom after the second dose, mostly chest pain and palpitations.
	Oh, it's just...
	I'm not going to swear.
	Last week I swore and someone didn't like me.
	I won't swear.
	I guess life could be worse.
	You could be Hunter Biden's kid.
	And Hunter Biden is petitioning the court to prevent his son, who he's been a judge, the father of, from using his last name.
	I've never heard of such nonsense.
	Robert, make it make sense, because I've heard of kids wanting to change their last name, saying, don't call me Biden, because I don't want to be...
	How can...
	I've never heard of such a thing.
	Is it...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Is it preposterous on its face?
	Not necessarily preposterous, but the laws are designed for people who want to add their name to somebody, not someone who wants to take it away.
	So you rarely see someone file a petition to say, don't allow this person to have my last name.
	Because in many states, it's presumed that if you're on the birth certificate or you're a judge, the father, that's it.
	That's the person's last name, period.
	But typically, if you want to change a name in general, if the kid doesn't want that name...
	Or if a parent doesn't want that name change, then you have to petition the court and show why it is in the kid's best interest that that name change occur.
	What would be his argument?
	That I'm such a disaster of a human being and that my father is such an idiot that nobody would want to have...
	I mean, here the mother and the child have chosen the last name Biden.
	He's been a judge of Biden.
	So I don't think it is in the child's best interest to have his last name removed from him when that appears to be his mother's choice.
	I can imagine it might be in the child's best interest to have the name removed because maybe it will attract unwanted attention of an international type.
	But who knows?
	Maybe Biden is common enough that it wouldn't be identifiable.
	Yeah, I just couldn't understand it.
	Unless he's invoking the benevolent argument.
	Look, my name is so notorious right now.
	It's the only way he can do it legally, as far as I know.
	You have to show the court that it is in the child's best interest that he not have that particular name.
	It reminds me of Johnny Cashong, a boy named Sue.
	He meets his father towards the end, and his father tells him he named him Sue because he knew he wasn't going to be there and he needed to be tough.
	But, I mean, I just don't see what the ability of someone...
	It shows the aristocratic mindset of the entire Biden family.
	That even though I've been judged your father, I refuse to recognize you.
	And I want a court to say you can't be recognized as my son, even though I'm legally recognized as your father.
	I mean, it really shows what a...
	You know, Biden runs around pretending to be a family guy.
	There's nothing about the guy that's a family guy.
	I mean, not that you needed, you know, Ashley Biden's diary to know that fact, or Hunter Biden's laptop disclosures to know that fact.
	But the fact that the degree of arrogance to demand that someone you already fathered out of wedlock not bear your last name suggests an aristocratic mindset from another age.
	But it's very revealing, I think, about...
	The Biden mindset in general in that family.
	They've been above the law, and they believe the law should allow them to be above everybody else.
	Robert, one of the cases which was on the list, the woke versus religion at school, have we talked about that?
	So it's coming up in multiple contexts.
	We've talked about it when it's risen in specific cases, but it's coming up in a couple of more cases.
	So much more that...
	What's happening is there's been an attempt by both the Biden administration and some states to impose gender identity principles on religious institutions, both schools and universities.
	Now, one of the attempts was a federal district court judge this past week denied the effort of the Biden administration to force feed that onto a bunch of religious schools.
	They have to adapt.
	Certain gender identity principles, or they're discriminating in violation of Title IX, federal courts said no, that religious institutions are protected and exempt, as is properly noted.
	But basically, they're just having to fight it out case after case, context after context.
	And in the most part, the religious institutions have continued to prevail in the courts against these efforts to impose gender ID principles as a Title IX principle following federal funding.
	All right.
	Now, off topic, or at least it wasn't one of the subject matters, but Biden was tweeting about it today.
	Let me share it here.
	The student loan business.
	It's going to go back to one of my principles of life, Robert.
	We're looking at it.
	We see the same thing here?
	Yeah.
	Let me make one thing clear.
	Despite Republicans' officials' attempts to block student debt relief, my administration is confident in our legal authority to carry out the plan.
	We'll keep fighting to get millions of Americans the relief they need.
	I always say that when someone prefaces something with let me be clear, what's going to follow is going to be rubbish.
	First of all, I say it's going to be rubbish and misinformation.
	I'm not being partisan here, right?
	It wasn't any Republican officials that put an end to it.
	It was the courts.
	Am I wrong about that?
	Right.
	Yes, correct.
	And so the argument is that he does not have the authority to carry the money.
	What are they called?
	The purse strings?
	Has something changed that he's putting out this tweet, or is this just rallying up the base for unlawful executive order overreach?
	I think it's rallying.
	Particularly, he had a bad week because of the documents being discovered.
	So he's just trying to rally the core Democratic base.
	All right.
	And Marjorie Taylor Greene, now that they're setting up their committees, is Marjorie Taylor Greene going to be on committees that we know of yet?
	I don't know which one she's going to be on yet, but hopefully she, Matt Gaetz, was on Tim Pool in a good interview on Friday on TimCast.
	And, I mean, he clearly has a much greater platform now because of what's taken place.
	The Freedom Caucus members became members of the Rules Committee in such a way they're going to have real influence, already seeing votes on the House floor for things that in the past couldn't get there because of the different rules.
	Robert, I just saw a chat.
	There's a football game tonight?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	There's playoffs.
	Wildcard playoffs that happen.
	So I have not watched any organized sport.
	We don't actually get TV.
	All of what I get is YouTube or actually people that I follow.
	Wildcard means what in football?
	This is the first round, really.
	Okay, so we're 22,500 watching this when there's a very close football game going on right now.
	Not bad.
	Are you familiar enough?
	I just want to get back to Swalwell as well, where he says the FBI exonerated his interactions with the Chinese spy.
	I don't really want to ask Swalwell too many questions for fear of getting accused of anything.
	Do you know what he's talking about when he says the FBI exonerated him?
	Not to my knowledge.
	I don't recall the FBI exonerating him at all.
	And I might have to actually just offer the...
	I mean, he can do it the way Bernie Madoff did it.
	Bernie Madoff said every time the SEC looked at him and didn't prosecute him that they cleared him and exonerated him.
	So it's in that sense of exoneration, not getting prosecuted.
	But to my knowledge, the underlying facts of his involvement are undisputed.
	His degree of knowledge and committing any additional illicit activity is in dispute.
	But the fact that he had ties to a Chinese spy are not in dispute.
	And those ties, are they genital ties?
	Is it a known thing that he had a sexual affair with her, or is that...
	I don't know if that part is confirmed or not.
	Okay.
	Well, at least my reply to him will be, which member of the FBI exonerated you?
	Was it Clinesmith?
	I don't even know if anyone's going to remember that anymore.
	All right, Robert, I'm looking at our list.
	What do we segue to?
	Well, you can pick any of the list.
	I mean, we got about, I think, 25 total cases on there.
	Hold on one second.
	Let me get to it.
	But before, while I do that, this week, what are you doing in Amish country?
	Oh, just going up to see Amos Miller.
	And, you know, the map is not the landscape.
	So, you know, to get a real on-the-ground feel for the farm and all the operations.
	And I have some people here to go over stuff with the feds on Tuesday.
	So it's just those two events.
	Okay, now let me see here.
	Oh, SBF bail, Robert.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Sorry, I'm an idiot.
	What's the latest?
	So as predicted, once they locked him up in the Bahamas in a rough jail, he would beg to wave extradition and come to the U.S. I have a problem with how that was done, but that ship has now sailed.
	He got bail, and there was a lot of confusion on the bail.
	In the federal system, unlike the state system, in the state system, bail is typically real bail.
	Some bail bondsmen post the bail.
	Like in Wisconsin, it's the whole enchilada.
	So if you have a million or two million dollar bail, like Kyle Rittenhouse did, you've got to come up with all that money, dollar for dollar.
	Most systems, it's a 10% system.
	So in most states, if you have a million-dollar bail, it means you've got to come up with $100,000.
	You give it to the bail people, the bail bondsmen post the whole million, and the $100,000 collateral is a fee that they get to keep, even if you honor all your terms and conditions of bail.
	In the federal system, typically it's done on personal recognizance, or what they call signature bonds.
	So they might put a certain amount of money on there, but they often don't require it to be secured.
	Typically, it's just, I promise to pay, or I allow a monetary judgment to be issued against me in X amount if I violate my conditions of release.
	So when SBF was given that huge bail terms, a lot of people thought that meant he had to come up with that amount of money in cash or had to secure it with that amount of money in property.
	That isn't what that was.
	That was an old-school signature bond where he just accepts judgment in that amount if he violates his conditions of release.
	My own view is constitutionally I agree with.
	I mean, clearly he was not, in my view, a flight risk.
	The constitutional standard under the Eighth Amendment is it's considered excessive bail if it exceeds the statutory or legal purpose of the bail.
	And bail, in my view, should be limited to securing your appearance for the purposes of prosecution, trial, and sentencing.
	It shouldn't be your propensity to commit another crime, any minority report-style stuff I'm opposed to.
	Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has greenlit in a split 5-4 decision in the mid-1980s.
	They came in and said you can, in fact, in a Salerno case, bogus case, because one side wasn't even really prosecuting the case, Clear and convincing evidence that the person may commit a certain litany of crimes, that you can detain him without trial and without conviction of a crime.
	I disagree with that.
	I think that violates the Eighth Amendment, but that's the current standard on the Eighth Amendment.
	But even under either one of those standards, given that he did not flee when he had an opportunity to flee, the question is, is it more likely than not that he would flee if he was without these restrictions?
	Or even with these restrictions, not only that he would try to flee, but that he would successfully flee.
	Reality is, there's almost no one that's true of.
	Almost no one in the modern age is likely to successfully flee due to the difficulties of doing so.
	Yeah, but what if they have the intent and they've announced, as did Andrew Tate, having the means to flee?
	Eight passports and they're not going to be able to...
	I'm tongue-in-cheek about Andrew Tate, but the idea that...
	SBF is going to try to go anywhere when he came back from there to avoid the conditions and probably safer here.
	Every country he's extraditable from.
	I'm sure he's on an electronic monitoring tool under his house arrest.
	The number of people who have escaped electronic monitoring, escaped the jurisdiction, escaped ever being brought back from trial is minute.
	It's not more likely than not.
	And that's supposed to be the standard.
	Now, what I think is fair for people to point out is the discrepancy between how he is being treated and how January 6th defendants are being treated.
	The January 6th defendants have very comparable arguments, aren't facing anywhere near the length of trial or length of sentence that SBF is facing.
	He's facing potential life in prison due to the scale and size of the fraud allegations against him.
	More evidence has come out.
	And as I predicted at the time, his ex-girlfriend that supposedly had fled to Dubai, when photos showed up of her in New York, I said she'd already ratted him out.
	She'd already turned on him.
	That's now public.
	She'd already ratted him out.
	Someone else had already ratted him out.
	I don't know how he escapes conviction.
	I think in his mind he's delusional and narcissistic enough that he probably thinks he can.
	But I think the bail was correct.
	But it's also the bail terms that should have been given to the January 6th defendants.
	All of them were low risk of flight, low risk of additional dangerous crime.
	Most of them had no criminal history.
	Most of them were over 50. Most of them, despite giving the opportunity, had not fled.
	To me, that's the best argument.
	When you have the opportunity to flee and you don't flee, court should not punish you for staying around.
	I mean, the irony is if you flee like Mark Rich, then you're in a better position where they can never hold custody over you.
	The irony is you're better off going to a jurisdiction where there is no extradition, where you can negotiate your return.
	But I think SBF is heading towards conviction, heading towards life in prison, heading towards bankruptcy.
	It's only a matter of time.
	All the key people have already ratted him out.
	He continues to accumulate.
	He used customer deposits for his personal investment.
	Which he said he wasn't going to do, which is wire fraud and mail fraud under the circumstances.
	I hate even asking the question, and I don't like putting the juju out in the universe.
	Does he not risk other...
	Is one of the real risks not one of the other risks that we've seen?
	Oh, right.
	I don't think he knows who it is that funded him.
	So I suspect by his behavior...
	That he doesn't necessarily know anything that could seriously incriminate others is my hunch.
	The big question with him was where he got his original funding because his original story didn't make sense.
	So there are many people who suspect that governmental actors or state actors might have been amongst those people.
	But I don't think he's...
	If he's cognizant of it, he's not acting like he is.
	Well, look, not to get too conspiratorial, Robert, but, you know...
	People seem to have problems depending on the circles they hang around in and whether or not this can come back to powerful political parties and where they got massive amounts of funding.
	Well, there's a lot of suspicion.
	I mean, he's connected to Ukraine, raised a lot of money for the Democratic Party.
	So the degree that he does know something, then people will be monitoring what happens to him.
	There's been some statistical anomalies within the crypto universe.
	But one thing before we get past it, Robert, I don't know if you heard this.
	Lo and behold, they found apparently $5 billion.
	I don't know.
	It says in liquid assets, but I don't know how liquid it is.
	The latest, this is from four days ago.
	FTX finds over $5 billion in liquid assets, yada, yada, yada.
	And then it says the $5 billion in newfound assets do not include crypto in custody with the Securities Commission, valued at approximately half a billion.
	That position was valued at $170 million.
	It contains a large amount of FTT and is highly volatile.
	That's not the $5 billion.
	Where it says the $5 billion is, is the attorneys said FDX bankruptcy team is also underway on plans to monetize 300 other non-strategic investments with a book value of $4.6 billion.
	I've had low-scale bankruptcy experience.
	I don't know how you discover $5 billion this late on and what it means or whether or not it's actually worth $5 billion whatsoever, but we'll see.
	Okay, good.
	Let me go back to the list, Robert.
	There was another good one in the list.
	I'm toggling too many windows.
	Okay, so COVID takings, Robert.
	Which one was that?
	Yeah, so that's a case that's up potentially before the U.S. Supreme Court against the state of Minnesota.
	So the question is, when Minnesota shut down a bunch of businesses and shut down some businesses selectively against other businesses?
	Did that constitute a takings under the Fifth Amendment, a taking of property without just compensation?
	Also, did it constitute an excessive fine because of how it was implemented and instituted?
	Did it violate equal protection because it was discriminatory?
	Can the governor of Minnesota be sued in his individual capacity for the violations?
	Because here's what's happened.
	It's like the other cases that got fully adjudicated.
	It was in the injunctive context for religious institutions.
	This is now the second wave of cases about is there going to be any remedy for all the businesses that got wiped out by lockdown orders for which an injunction would no longer suffice.
	And it will be up to whether the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case will have a major consequence and impact on the ability for them to do this in the future.
	So it's a key case to continue to monitor are these takings cases, particularly this one that presents a particularly persuasive argument for it being taken up at the U.S. Supreme Court level, given the kind of inanity of what took place in Minnesota in the severity of the lockdowns, the selectivity of the lockdowns, and their impact on a lot of small businesses.
	It's funny.
	I mean, I know that we have a similar concept under Canadian law, but I don't think any lawsuit...
	Has been filed on that basis.
	And the lawsuits that have been filed have not been well received.
	We know about the...
	What was the one there?
	The charter challenge to the requirement to be fully vaccinated to use a plane and train dropped as moot upheld.
	And I think they're appealing it, but I don't think there's been news on that.
	Canada's had some unfortunate rulings.
	Somebody asked in the chat, you know, the couldn't SBF flee to the Caribbean.
	He was already in the Caribbean.
	That's where he got arrested.
	So in order to successfully flee, you need to go someplace where they're not going to send you back.
	And that's the problem.
	That pretty much every country in the world now will either extradite you or deport you if you're accused of major fraud.
	You're not going to find someplace that won't, to be honest.
	If you're accused of major fraud, unless you, for political reasons, get a certain jurisdiction, generally the only people that successfully flee...
	Are people that have spent a life in crime.
	In other words, people for whom dropping out of civil society is not a problem.
	That have criminal connections all around the globe.
	Arms runners.
	The victor bouts of the world.
	Those are the guys who can disappear selectively.
	But for the most part, it's myth.
	The idea, oh, you go to the Caribbean.
	Well, that's where SBF was, and that's where he got arrested and served in a horrendous jail before he could beg his way back into the U.S. There aren't these magical places like people imagine.
	In the 70s or 80s, sure.
	Back a century ago, you could disappear between states, like the folks did from the famous movie about the Tombstone shootout.
	Doc Holliday fled up to Colorado.
	Back then, states didn't extradite people between states very often.
	But in today's day and age, it is almost with as much regulation and governance just to get on a plane.
	The idea that it's easy to flee is pure mythology.
	And every competent, capable judge knows this.
	They just pretend otherwise.
	Because here's where the politics of the court interferes with the law.
	The law is you're supposed to go to every great length to make sure the person is released.
	That the government has to present persuasive evidence, admissible evidence, that it's more likely than not that you not only will flee, but you'll be successful in fleeing.
	They won't be able to bring you back no matter what they do, no matter what restriction or restraint is imposed upon you, no matter what signature bond is required, none of it, and that you as a defendant can simply issue a proffer.
	Without having to waive your Fifth Amendment rights as to why they're wrong.
	And the reality is in almost all these cases, name the person who flees.
	Is it more often than not?
	But if you're a judge, the only person you upset when you lock them up is that person and their friends and their family.
	By contrast, if you let somebody out on bail and they go commit a crime, everybody hates you.
	So what happens?
	As a practical matter, You have to prove there's no doubt that you won't commit a crime and that you won't flee.
	The burden is illegally and unconstitutionally shifted to you because nobody really cares about the criminally accused rights.
	People say they do.
	And to my conservative friends out there that want bail to be gutted and don't like all these bail reforms, what do you feel the same way about January 6th defendants?
	If you don't like how they're being treated, you've got to believe in bail.
	Or if you don't believe in bail, then admit you don't believe in bail, but you don't get to selectively complain about January 6th defendants in that case.
	And also, I mean, the idea, not just flee to a place where you won't get extradited, but flee to a place where you won't also get arrested.
	The idea that that's an easy thing is just, unless you've got a Bourne Identity style plan...
	And I mean, I have known people who have been able to negotiate with the government from outside the government.
	I'll put it that way.
	But I can tell you all the lengths they went to to be in that position was extremely rare.
	And it's almost impossible to get there in the modern age.
	Or you end up like Snowden or Assange.
	You end up stuck in either an embassy or...
	Well, Sondes effectively jailed.
	And Snowden, because his crime was allegedly political and because Putin was...
	You know, happy to stick it to the U.S. But, I mean, he kind of lucked out because he thought Hong Kong would protect him.
	It wouldn't.
	He thought China would protect him.
	It wouldn't.
	He thought Ecuador would protect him.
	It wouldn't.
	He thought Bolivia would protect him.
	It wouldn't.
	Had he made the mistake of getting into any of those countries, I could have told him.
	I could have told Greenwald, you know, Russia's about the only place you can go if you know the political landscape.
	Now, you know, it's Snipes' case.
	He happened to be in Namibia.
	When the indictment was publicly announced, maybe it happens not to have an extradition treaty with the U.S. And then they had to negotiate with him because they wanted to detain him pending trial.
	They couldn't because he was in a place where that wasn't going to happen.
	And he was a high-profile African-American actor in an African country that had helped enrich that country by doing movies there.
	But outside of those rare circumstances, you're getting picked up and detained, or worse.
	But my pre-trial detainment?
	Only for violent crimes, in my mind.
	Like, violent with a...
	I don't know where I draw the threshold for reciditiveness, but violence.
	The rest...
	And meaningful violence.
	You know, what about Jeffrey Dahmer?
	Someone's asked about that in the chat.
	Historically, constitutionally, I'm not a fan of this, but the Constitution has been interpreted that at the time the Eighth Amendment was passed, that generally speaking, bail was not allowed for people who were accused of murder.
	The reason why I'm not a fan of that is if all it suffices to accuse, sooner or later, it will be misused like it is in the January 6th cases.
	But for those people out there that worry about that, murder has always been treated differently.
	Generally, you're not considered to have a right to bail in murder cases.
	I would also, you know, aggravated assault or rape or things like that.
	But of course, then you get into...
	Wrongly accused and whatnot.
	Yeah, that's the key problem is the old famous statement.
	If it suffices to accuse, what of the innocent, as the famous Roman philosopher said.
	And so that's really where the problem lies.
	And so I support bail always.
	I supported it for Jeffrey Epstein.
	I supported it for Glenn Maxwell.
	I supported it for those crazy lawyers throwing Molotov cocktails into police cars.
	I was for it for the BLM people.
	I'm for it for everybody.
	Because I believe the Eighth Amendment means what it says, and I don't believe the government should have the power to lock you up without conviction of a crime by a jury.
	See, I have to figure out what my threshold is, because I believe in it in general, but not necessarily for the guy who's accused of running over the 18-year-old Republican, and not for partisan people.
	Yeah, I call that selective hypocrisy.
	Like, people ask me, like, well, what do I believe about certain kinds of tax principles or other principles?
	And I'll say, I'm for other people getting taxed, just not me.
	I don't think it's hypocrisy.
	Everybody has a point where in their practical life, it's like death penalty.
	People say, I don't like the death penalty.
	But almost everybody can imagine somebody that they're going to cheer for in the movie to get shot and killed at the end.
	You know what I mean?
	Like your revenge films, etc.
	So that's always the practical.
	That's the brilliance of the Constitution.
	The idea is we have a simple principle and we stick to it.
	We apply it whether we like it or we don't for that individual defendant of that individual accusation.
	All right, speaking of the Constitution, Robert, the 2020 election, when you send me the homework and I started looking into it, I think I came across another newsworthy element from the 2020 election that might not be the subject.
	What's the latest?
	Oh, so just the Georgia Supreme Court properly expanded the definition of standing and said that a 2020 election case reinstated it for the person to go forward with being able to get the documents and information they were trying to get.
	Through the Open Records Act and similar legislative provisions.
	And so it was good to see the Georgia Supreme Court re-examine and these other courts hopefully re-examine these election issues as they get distanced from the election.
	That's why I tell people to fight it all the way through.
	When the election is no longer imminent, then you often get courts that make better law that then will make the next election better to have higher integrity and transparency.
	In Arizona, Carrie Lake's election contest as well.
	The Arizona Court of Appeals has expedited it at her request.
	Good.
	And so we'll see if they do anything with it.
	Hopefully they at least clean up the law because I think the judge made multiple mistakes as to the law governing election contest.
	Now, somebody filed, I guess, an individual suit against the judge.
	I don't know what that's about.
	To my knowledge, there's no legal means to do that.
	So that will probably be a quick dismissal.
	But I haven't seen the actual suit, so I don't know for sure.
	But Katie Hobbs has already been sworn in, right?
	Was she sworn in on the 7th?
	Yeah, already sworn in.
	But in Arizona in the past, in the 1920s, I believe it was, a governor was put in.
	He was governor for a year, and the Arizona Supreme Court threw him out a year later saying he wasn't the actual winner.
	So that by itself is not a barrier to remedy.
	I think the bigger barrier is the court systems not wanting to intervene on behalf of political outsiders in election contests.
	Well, they don't want to do anything.
	To encourage election denialism.
	Well, unless it's a Democrat.
	Democrats do, or a Bush shoes, and then it's completely fine.
	Then the courts are happy to intervene.
	Suddenly they rediscover their robust and significant role in the judicial process, overlooking and overseeing elections.
	It's just when it's a Ralph Nader, when it's a Peace and Freedom Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, when it's a Carrie Lake, when it's a Donald Trump.
	That's when suddenly the courts are closed and the elections are holy and we can't second-guess them.
	No standing, moot, ripe latches.
	We know the order.
	But Robert, this is what I found, just because I googled the search words that you have when you send me my homework.
	And I came across this.
	When is this?
	This is January 13. 16 Michigan GOP electors sued over documents claiming Trump won the 2020 election.
	I don't know if you've heard about this, but a number of Michigan GOP electors were named in a lawsuit after they falsely declared in official documents that former President Trump won the 2020 election.
	I haven't seen the lawsuit, people.
	Now I hear a dog whining.
	One second.
	Okay, here.
	A bunch of plaintiffs noted in the suit that the GOP electors claimed they had convened and organized...
	In the state capitol on December 14, 2020, to cast Michigan's 16 electoral votes for Donald Trump, when in fact this was not true.
	And they're suing for $25,000, claiming that they suffered humiliation, mental anguish, stress as a result of being cast in the false light created by defendants, election lies, and frauds.
	Robert, is this going back to that procedure?
	That was being floated at the time of having a second set of electors come in and cast their vote for Donald Trump.
	Well, in fact, that was the process he was told to go by.
	This is what, in Georgia, they're trying to call a big crime, is that simply going through the process of saying, here's my electors.
	I believe I won.
	Those electors want to be seated.
	That was the legal mechanism to try to get standing in those cases.
	And now they're trying to recategorize legal disagreement as fraud.
	I mean, that's what's extraordinary, is to call a difference of opinion about the election and asserting your proper legal remedies in the first procedurally is now somehow a crime.
	And the constant of effort to weaponize every aspect of the legal system to go after dissidents is what's been particularly unsettling, and hopefully the church committee starts to unveil for broader public consumption and understanding.
	I'm trying to understand.
	$25,000 for humiliation.
	What, because they were told they're not the proper electros?
	It's interesting.
	I'll try to pull up the suit and maybe cover it at some point throughout the week.
	We're going to run out of time, Robert, but class action lawsuit against social media arguing that it's addictive on kids.
	First of all, this is what they call multi-district litigation, MDL.
	It's a massive conglomeration of a number of different lawsuits against a number of different social media companies.
	I say it's baked into the cake.
	You had the former exec from, was it Facebook or Instagram?
	Well, who was it?
	The guy who said it's designed to be addictive and he doesn't let his own kids use it.
	How does a lawsuit like this succeed?
	I mean, I could pull up a summary, but...
	What happens is when you have a bunch of suits across the country that are of sufficient scale, the federal courts say this would be better off if one judge was handling it.
	And that's why it's called multi-district litigation, and they assign it to sometimes a panel or a single judge.
	They've done that here because you have a range of suits brought by people from across the ideological and political spectrum, left to right, across the country, coast to coast, including Seattle City officials who are bringing it, saying, look, this has done severe damage to kids in public schools.
	And this is all about the accumulated injury.
	Big tech caused by targeting young people, often underage, for a range of disturbing products.
	We've been covering some of those, encouraging people to commit suicide, exposing people to stalkers, exposing people to perverts, targeting people to join terrorist groups.
	Some of the worst things that have happened.
	In the past decade and a half has been at the instigation and initiation of Big Tech.
	And the most vulnerable and susceptible group that's been injured are young children.
	And so now the aggregate...
	Sooner or later, this may bankrupt Big Tech.
	Between the collusion with the government that's being outed and exposed, them having...
	Inflating their data to get false advertising records, leading to all the marketing suits.
	All the invasions and intrusions on seclusion and privacy and contravention of their explicit public promises that have led to billions of dollars of fines, damages, and verdicts and settlements across Western Europe and the United States.
	And then this, because this is something that you could see a jury issuing.
	If a jury fully understood...
	Big tech made a lot of its money targeting vulnerable, susceptible young children for some of the most disturbed activities imaginable.
	You can imagine that verdict could be pretty darn big.
	And before they got caught, before YouTube got caught, direct marketing to children based on illegal gathering of their data, they were making money off it by advertising based on the illicit gathering of data while designing a product that is deliberately, by design, Addictive to the children.
	But Robert, one of the...
	I was reading an article and they say, at issue in this case is going to be whether or not the platforms and their algorithms are products.
	And the difficulty I have in even understanding that argument, what else would they be?
	They're just going to be services that...
	Well, Big Tech says that they're all just forms of platforms and that nothing they do is a product.
	They claim that everything is just a community...
	that all they are is an interactive social media.
	Provider, but of no product.
	That it's just like an internet connection.
	It's like a phone line connection to your house.
	That's how they want to be perceived, so they're not perceived as providing a product.
	But clearly, they were providing a product, and the person often was that product, but in the most disturbed form for their particular advertisers.
	All right.
	Well, I think, Robert, there were a couple more, but they were small ones, and I hear racket outside the door.
	I just saw a rumble rant, $10 from Starbuckley, that said, could the documents in the Biden garage have been taken to hide them from the Trump administration?
	I mean, I think he took it.
	That's possible.
	I think you wanted him for some other purpose is my guess.
	But we'll find out when we finally learn what the content is.
	Well, that's it.
	It was my initial reaction.
	Oh, he's president now.
	But he took these before Trump took office while Obama initiated the most peaceful transition of power ever, which in my view was the most subtly violent transition of power ever.
	In the political sense...
	Okay.
	Oh, I mean, and we'll discuss next week the ATF's attempt to expand its authority and try to restrict your guns.
	The big Fifth Circuit case that ruled en banc that the bump stocks were unconstitutional, the bump stock ban that Trump put in after the Vegas shooting.
	Hopefully that will be a guidepost for some of these other ones.
	There's some crazy New York laws coming up.
	So there's a range of Second Amendment cases we'll discuss in a little more detail next week.
	All right, excellent.
	And heads up for next week, there will be a sidebar.
	We're trying to get someone.
	Well, not trying.
	We're going to see who the guest is going to be.
	I, on Tuesday, will be doing another...
	I'm going to be doing these weekly lives in Locals, so it's going to be like another addition to the content.
	Mike Ward.
	Robert, he's the stand-up comic from Canada who was ordered to pay $43,000 for a joke he made about a celebrity disabled child, Jeremy Gabriel.
	It's going to be amazing.
	That's Tuesday.
	Wednesday, there'll be a sidebar.
	What's your schedule like this week, Robert?
	Are you going to be on anybody else's doing any other appearances?
	I don't think so.
	I was on Allison Morrow last week and also discussing the Amos Miller case.
	So you can look that up, Allison Morrow, YouTube and Rumble and Rockfin.
	And was also on Freeform Friday with Mark Robert and Eric Hundley, both of whom may be joining us for our late February, early March.
	Viva Barnes Law meetup in Miami.
	It's happening, people.
	And the only discussion is, where's it going to be?
	What's going to be the format?
	Deep Sea Fishing Charter?
	I don't see...
	I see that getting some opposition.
	Bowling Alley?
	Or something more formal where we sit down and have a...
	It's going to happen.
	And it's going to happen.
	We're going to do a dinner or a live show.
	But yeah, we may have Hunley and Grover in tow.
	That would be amazing.
	We'd have a live Freeform Friday sidebar.
	What I was going to say, Robert, head us into the new week.
	I need a white pill because I've watched Citizen 4. I've been told to watch it again because I'll get more information that I probably missed the first time.
	I could use a white pill.
	I genuinely felt that we have reached the next level of, is it Heidegger's ladder?
	We've reached the next level of tyranny.
	We're never going back to where we were.
	It felt very sad.
	What good came of what Snowden did?
	What good is coming of getting our rights back?
	Or are we just slowly but quickly heading to New World Order, global tyranny?
	Well, I think it was a great week for those of us who wanted to see the House have institutional reforms because they passed those reforms.
	So a lot of fun stuff is going to get to the House floor that wouldn't otherwise.
	And hopefully meaningful investigation equal to the Church Committee to expose deep state corruption, which is a critical first step to the kind of institutional reform we need to return governance to its constitutional roots.
	All right.
	And while all that happens, we will continue either screaming into the void or shaking our fists at the sky.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you very much.
	Tomorrow, Locals Exclusive, I'll be doing the reads of the Rumble Rants because there's a lot.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	Enjoy the week and keep the faith.

▲