All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
02:06:29
Steven Crowder v. Daily Wire; Jeremy MacKenzie; Alec Baldwin; Trump AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The question is for the Minister of Prosperity, who is a Member of Parliament here in Ottawa.
What is the average cost for a home in the City of Ottawa?
Clear question.
The Honourable Minister.
Mr. Speaker, my title is the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.
I'm sure my honourable colleague across the way knows that.
But let me say, Mr. Speaker, 156,000 jobs.
It's like it's a joke.
And it only gets worse.
I mean, you just, you think to yourself, did I not understand something here?
In Ottawa, what is the average cost for a home in the city of Ottawa?
What is the average cost for a home in the city of Ottawa?
And after he gets offended that he was not referred to by his holy title.
Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.
I'm sure my honourable colleague...
What's the average price of a home?
But let me say, Mr. Speaker, 156,000 jobs.
The honourable member for Carleton.
The Minister of Treasury Board can help by telling us the average cost of a house in the nation's capital.
Average cost of a house in Ottawa.
The Honourable Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say 106% of jobs have been recovered since the lowest point of the pandemic.
Member for Carlton.
What is the average increase in house prices since this government took office in 2015?
The Honourable Minister.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy contracted by 17% between February and April 2020, the largest and most sudden contraction in real GDP since the Great Depression, and we're already back.
It's not funny.
It's not funny.
It's gosh darn enraging.
It gets worse, if you can believe it.
Just the average house price.
The Honourable Minister.
5.5 million Canadians lost their jobs, and they're all back.
Member for Carlton.
And what would they pay for the average house?
In 2020, unemployment rated more than doubled from a pre-pandemic level of 5%.
It's like a broken record.
There's words that I can't use because, you know, you get cancelled for using those words these days.
It's like something just is broken in this guy's flipping head.
Average price for a house in Ottawa.
Spoiler alert.
It's expensive.
Why?
Because a lot of the people in Ottawa live on inflated government salaries, but set that aside.
...to a record of 13.7%, 6% now.
Member for Carleton.
I think there's a problem with the audio in the chamber.
The question was, what is the average cost of a house in Canada today?
The Honourable Minister.
Mr. Speaker, our government has made historic investments in housing affordability, and we will continue to do so.
The Honourable Member for Carleton.
And how affordable are such houses?
The Honourable Minister.
Mr. Speaker, our government has made historic investments in housing.
We will continue to do so so that housing is affordable for all Canadians.
Hello, Member for Carleton.
If so, how much have house prices increased since this government took office?
We're paying for this.
The Honourable Minister.
Twice.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about how it is possible for people to afford their houses with good employment.
And that's why employment income fell by an unprecedented $28 billion during the pandemic.
Honourable Member for Carleton.
One last time, in dollars, how much have house prices risen since this government took office?
165,000.
It's the most in-your-face, enraging, clown show you can possibly imagine.
How much are the average house in Ottawa?
What the hell is the problem, just to answer the bloody question?
I forget that guy's name, the minister of...
Of tourism.
Excuse me.
What the hell is so hard about answering the bloody question?
And it's almost like a joke.
It's like it's done to enrage somebody.
It's like it's done to provoke Pierre Poilier to jump the aisle and, like, suplex that guy into the house speaker.
And what the hell use is the house speaker if he's no more useful than a broken egg timer?
How much is the average house?
Unemployment?
The biggest contraction?
We're already back.
Oh, and the Speaker of the House, no sanctions, no reprimands, no admonishments.
It's a broken freaking system, and they're rubbing your face in the fact that they are incompetent and proud of it, and they know you can't do a damn thing about it except for watch the spectacle, rage on Twitter, and then if you...
If you make mean tweets, you know, they'll accuse you of ideologically motivated violent extremism if you call them clowns, if you call them hypocrites, if you call them tyrants.
Good evening.
That didn't make me feel any better.
That actually makes me very, it makes me very, very angry.
And it's not possible that anybody looks at that and says the system works.
Fighting Words says the average house is $623,000.
$500,000 is about what we paid for our house in Montreal in 2007.
I think.
Give or take.
I don't remember.
Home ownership is not a luxury, not a privilege, not a right.
It's something that will not be available to people.
They're going to rent, they're going to be slaves to somebody else, and they're going to be happy.
Okay, fine.
Before we start, everybody, Super Chats, thank you in advance for the support, for deciding to support this channel, this enterprise.
YouTube takes 30% of that.
So if you see that there from D2KC, YouTube has taken $3 of that Super Chat.
We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
They take 20%.
So better for the creator, better for the platform, to support a platform that actually supports free speech.
Why is that flashing?
No medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice, but we talk about all of these things.
So just, you know, if you have questions, go to a doctor that you can trust, go to a lawyer that you can trust, and we're going to talk about some good things tonight.
But this, Viva, I see that you tasted the joy of debating with Vash, the guy who literally said it's more important to have the right...
Political impact than to be right.
I got into a little bit of a debate on Twitter with Vaush, and it's an amazing thing where you can see the gaslighting happen in real time.
Vaush says...
I don't know who Vaush is, how you describe him, but whatever.
He's an internet personality.
Vaush says, everybody always knew that...
The jab causes myocarditis.
It's well known.
Everyone knows it now.
I was like, oh, really?
Here's a fact check from September 21 from NBC or the Peacock News that says, no, the COVID vaccines do not cause myocarditis.
And he says, well, that was in 2021.
Do you know how to follow a linear evolution of time?
I was like, oh, no, you moron.
Because the discussion was, it's always been known.
They've always said, everybody says it causes myocarditis.
No, they don't.
And no, they didn't.
They didn't say it caused myocarditis when they were pushing it, when they were telling you it was safe and effective, and when they were mandating it.
In fact, then they were saying, no, it does not cause myocarditis.
And if you say it does, you're an anti-vaxxer because Bausch is going around calling people anti-vaxxers.
Back in the day, if you said it interferes with a woman's menstrual cycle, you were called an anti-vaxxer.
And they said, no, it does not interfere with a woman's menstrual cycle.
A year later, they say it does.
Back in the day, they called to an anti-vaxxer for saying it wasn't safe for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
They said, no, it's perfectly safe until you go read the fine print on the government of UK where it says, we don't have data to say that it's safe for pregnant or breastfeeding women.
And it's like, in real time, we've always been at war with East Asia.
Everybody knows that it causes myocarditis, but COVID causes myocarditis more likely than the jab.
Oh, okay.
Why would I compound my risks?
Oh, because you're less likely to get myocarditis from COVID after you get vaccinated, except we're still doing the trials on myocarditis from the COVID jab.
Oh, so I got a taste of arguing with an ever-moving goalpost of insincere intellectual discourse.
I learned my lesson.
This is why it should be Winston up there answering the questions.
Oh, Winston would answer the questions better than that.
But you all want to hear a little bit of horror that befell the house today.
We have a Roomba.
The Roomba goes around the floor, you know, sweeping up stuff and cleaning the floor.
It swept up a pudge poop this afternoon.
And we saw it because as the Roomba was going across the room, sweeping, sweeping, it was leaving a streak of fecal slime behind the Roomba.
My wife and I spent about 30 minutes with little sticks and cloth and Lysol picking out the particles from the Roomba.
The Roomba will never be the same.
Neither will I. How are your freedoms going, mate?
Well, we've got a show tonight, people.
We have got a show tonight.
COVID stuff.
We're going to do Crowder Daily Wire stuff because that has ignited a firestorm of debate on the interwebs.
Even though I disagree with Barnes on this to some extent, you listen to his argument, it's persuasive.
What else is going on?
We've got vaccine mandates.
What was in the header of this thing?
Alec Baldwin, charged with involuntary manslaughter, I believe.
And we'll talk Jeremy McKenzie, stuff that's going to go on in Canada.
Jeremy McKenzie, Diagilon, debanked.
Jeremy McKenzie is going to be turned into Canada's Alex Jones.
DTQC.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then they pretend they always agreed.
Then you win.
Abso-freaking-lutely.
DTQC.
DTQC.
Hold on.
Let me see if I got anything here.
Tommy Trees with the $2 Rumble ad says, when are you migrating to the US?
I'm here now for at least two and a half years, and we're going to see what happens.
Long term.
We'll see.
The whole world is going to absolute poop in a Roomba level madness.
But before we get...
So we have a great show tonight.
There's a lot of stuff.
I'll get the list later.
But before we even get there, speaking of the science, speaking of following the science, and they always said strokes were totally normal.
It was so obvious.
Now they say there's a season for strokes.
And by the way...
There's a season for strokes, and they just now discovered this.
Listen to this.
Listen to this.
So what is this link between influenza, infection, and stroke?
Yeah, I didn't know about this either until last year, but it turns out that after flu season, about three or four weeks later, there is a stroke season.
And like you said, most of Canada is getting down off of a big hump of flu.
So now we're starting to see more strokes.
And a friend of one of my colleagues actually mentioned that at work the other day.
He said, have you noticed how many strokes we're seeing?
It's a lot more than usual, it feels like.
So anecdotally, we're starting to see that.
Do you remember when I was called a conspiracy theorist bastard?
What do they call me in French?
Un complotiste.
Conspiracy theorist.
Bastard.
Shameless.
Exploited.
When people are dropping and we ask, this seems like it's happening a lot.
It seems like it might not be natural or normal.
How dare you ask those questions?
How dare you try to...
Profit off someone's misery.
Like anybody takes joy out of any of this.
How dare you ask those questions?
You're a conspiracy theory for thinking it's happening more.
Oh no, no, no.
It's happening more.
Why the doctor right here said it.
His colleagues and him are noticing more people having strokes in urgent care.
I had at work the other day.
He said, have you noticed how many strokes we're seeing?
It's a lot more than usual, it feels like.
It's a lot more than usual, it feels like.
Anecdotally, we're starting to see that.
Oh, and by the way, I went to Twitter and I...
Tagged this doctor and I said, it's interesting that you're suddenly discovering this.
You're an urgent care doctor.
Let me just see where it says here.
Here.
An urgent care physician, meaning, I presume it means he deals with emergencies.
Urgent care, which I presume would mean ER, but maybe I'm wrong.
This doctor who works in urgent care says, I never knew that there was such a thing called a stroke season.
I never, oh, isn't it weird that I only learned of this thing called a stroke season?
Because anecdotally, we're noticing a lot more strokes, and I just noticed it.
When?
When was it?
So what is the slang between influenza, infection, and stroke?
Yeah, I didn't know about this either.
I didn't know about it either until my government and Big Pharma told me, yeah, there's this thing called stroke season, and it has nothing to do with something.
It's just normal.
It's always been here.
You should have known this, doctor.
You work in urgent care, but you didn't know this?
Oh, I didn't know about it until last year.
Until last year, but it turns out that after flu season, about three or four weeks later, there is a stroke season.
Do you know what I've never heard of?
Do you know what I've never heard of?
And I'm a hypochondriac with a morbid fear of death.
Do you know what I've never heard of?
Stroke season.
I've never heard of stroke season.
What I have heard of is that there tend to be more strokes in winter when people are shoveling, when they say the cold air constricts blood vessels in certain areas.
I've heard that, but I don't ever recall hearing stroke season that follows the flu season.
I don't ever recall hearing doctors saying, we're noticing a lot more strokes in the ER.
I don't remember hearing that.
I also don't remember seeing people dropping like flies one after the other in live broadcasts.
I don't remember that.
I also don't ever remember doctors urging people under 40 to go get their hearts checked.
I also don't ever recall defibrillators being recommended to be at high schools.
I don't know if that last story is true.
I saw something on Twitter and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it because I'm not sure if it's a thousand percent true.
I don't remember any of that.
And I went to get that doctor's full interview.
On CBC.
And I clipped it.
And I said, I've never heard of this.
Would you be kind enough to come on my channel to discuss this?
Insta-block.
I was blocked within 30 seconds by that doctor.
It's amazing.
They want to come out.
They want to tell you that seeing people dying more frequently of strokes is normal.
It's always been there.
You're just an idiot for not having seen it.
They want to tell you what to put in your body.
They want to tell you where you can go and where you can't go if you don't put it in your body.
But then they don't want to answer one bloody question in an open discourse on a social media platform that they take to to push their message on other people.
Cowards.
And he protected his account also.
Nobody should be harassed on social media.
My only problem is that a lot of times people say, oh my God, people are sending me mean messages, so that's harassment.
No.
You're a doctor serving the public, going on the CBC, and telling people to believe in stroke season?
You'd better damn well answer some public questions.
And if you don't, you're a coward.
Okay.
Bring on the Barnes.
Barnes is in the background.
Let us bring on the Barnes.
And then we're going to go live exclusively on Rumble in about 14 minutes.
So the link to Rumble is up in the pinned comment.
Let me see what I missed on Rumble.
I missed nothing.
I don't think I missed any Rumble rants.
Viva Before Salt from Mr. Don't Give an F-U-C-K.
All right, bringing on the Barnes, and this is going to be a fun one.
Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
Okay, check your audio.
You sound a little low for me.
There you go.
That's better.
Yeah, when I lean forward, the mic.
Doesn't pick it up.
Robert, have you ever heard of stroke season?
Yeah.
At the risk of asking, the obvious.
Like, we've been alive a long time.
My mother sends me articles of people who drop dead prematurely.
I've never heard of a stroke season.
Robert, book behind you.
What is that?
Oh.
The ultimate...
I was on with Sir Alexander Jones a little bit earlier.
So that's Ultimate Bone Broth.
That's Ultra 12. That's also Ultimate Bone Broth.
And that is Winter Sun.
It's a range of products you too can get at InfoWarsStore.com.
You want to screw with a man?
You want to screw with a deep state?
Go support InfoWars.
Now, if you want one of the most delicious products known to man, there is only one.
You want something fresh right from the farm.
None of that corporate stuff.
You want AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com fresh milk.
Delicious milk.
Now, this beautiful glass is a Second Amendment glass given to me for Christmas by a good friend of mine.
Also recommend that.
We have those on the topics.
But again, if you want the most delish, delish product known to man, fresh milk from the farm, AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
Robert, is that a bullet going into the glass?
Yeah, hence Second Amendment.
That's good art.
I mean, that's good darn art.
Oh, yeah.
Even got a bottle that goes with it.
That's amazing.
See?
With a little Second Amendment quote, a little American flag.
I know you love Miller's milk, but you've got to make sure not to drink too much of it.
I imagine drinking too much milk can cause an upset stomach.
I don't know.
People were worried.
They were saying maybe Barnes has got to go to milk rehab.
Maybe there's some Colombian marching band music playing in there.
It just happens to be so fresh, so delicious that you just feel, wow, like you're alive.
I'll have to do it.
I cannot stand milk.
I love cheese, but I cannot stand milk.
None of that ultra-pasteurized, makes it all cottony in your mouth, corporatized milk.
This is fresh from the farm milk.
If I may ask, how was the week at Miller's Farm?
I'll give a little Amos credit.
So, you know, I said I have a case up there, a criminal sentencing case up there that will actually relate to a topic we'll be discussing later about how you can go to prison for things you got acquitted for.
But the date was getting moved around.
And so I said, hey, whenever I'm up there for that, I'll stop by the farm.
Because I like to quote from the movie Ronin, the map is not the landscape.
Only the landscape is the landscape.
Somebody on our board.
At VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com where everybody's above average.
Kind of like Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon.
Even the trolls are above average.
They have much better nicknames if they're irritable than Scott Adams does when he's irritable.
Gotta work on that, Scott.
Robert, you're a clown, Robert.
You're a clown.
That's the bad.
That was unimpressive, Scott.
Unimpressive.
You've got to have a...
Now, to his credit, Scott Adams, of course, came out, did a mea culpa, said those of us that were critics were right.
He was wrong because he trusted institutional sources, and we didn't.
But the...
But in between calling me various, but basic names, very unimpressive.
I mean, for a guy who has a master mindset, genius persuader, brilliant comedian like Scott Adams, you gotta have a better nickname for Barnes.
Can't be just idiot, effing idiot, clown idiot.
It's gotta be something better.
It's gotta be something with some panache, something memorable.
I was very disappointed in his name-calling.
I expected much better.
I wasn't opposed to his name-calling.
I just expected much better name-calling.
But we'll see how it proceeds.
But so Amos was like, no, you got to come up here.
You got to see the farm.
So I was like, oh, all right.
So come up here.
Come up and see the farm.
And now when I got there, I saw why.
Genius little Amish guy.
Because you get there and everybody's nice.
One of the nicest, most positive energy I've ever been around.
Family is sweet.
The kids are sweet.
The wife is sweet.
Makes a whole homegrown meal with all the food they have right there from the farm.
One of the top five meals I've ever eaten in my life.
You get to go on a tour of the whole farm.
You see the pigs.
You see the cows.
You see all the other animals.
You get to talk to all the workers there, all Amish.
They're laid back.
They're friendly.
They want to show you how things work.
You get to discover that Amos just...
Loves being a farmer, and that's all he wants to be.
Doesn't want to be in the money-collecting business.
Doesn't want to be in the lawsuit business.
He just wants to be in the farming business.
He just wants to make great food that people really like.
And you meet all these nice, sweet-hearted people.
You have this great meal.
So he suckered me into being loyal to life by being exposed to the genius and the beauty of that Amish farm.
And I tell you, but the best part of it was, I have to kind of confess.
It was the fresh milk from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com that you can buy today.
It's fantastic.
Robert, just don't OOD on the milk.
You'll have to go to Lactose Anonymous sooner than later.
What was I just about to say?
Well, we got a lot of topics.
Well, let's start with the one.
We got Steven Crowder versus The Daily Wire.
We won't be talking about the politics of it.
If you want to see that, go watch Freeform Friday, where Mark Robert, Eric Hundley on America's Untold Stories, Viva and I broke it all down.
If you want to see the inside insights of it...
Go to the Bourbons with Barnes at vivabarnslaw.locals.com or just go to the message boards where both Viva and I, we're discussing it most of the week with our members with a lot of great feedback, a lot of great comments, only a little bit of trolling, only a little bit of sardonic stuff, which is okay as long as it's kept in moderation.
Or if you're going to troll, you've got to pay the toll.
Remember to join in order to do it correctly.
But we'll be discussing the legal issues, how to negotiate a contract.
What do we think about it?
We'll be discussing, legally, when can you tape somebody?
And as a broader principle, when would we as lawyers advise somebody to tape somebody, particularly if it's your friend, particularly the court of public opinion, how they might react?
So that will be our breakdown, will be the legal, lawyerly perspective on the contract, not all the politics, not all the personalities for which you can find all those insights elsewhere.
Then we got Alec Baldwin, finally indicted, maybe going to prison, and maybe because of his gun-controlling ways, going to prison for five years.
We have the Elon Musk testify this week in the big Tesla stockholder suit.
We got the Murdaugh prosecution, the Murdaugh trial.
I think Nick Ricada, our friend Nick Ricada, will be broadcasting that trial live.
That is a case about crazy abuse of Southern power.
We got AI.
We got robot lawyers.
We got AI taking copyrighted art.
And then the broader question, when is AI responsible for its intent, for legal accountability?
We got a lot of Second Amendment cases.
We got Illinois Revolt.
We got an Illinois case concerning can you keep a gun in your daycare center?
We got the ATF trying to make everybody a felon overnight.
We got New York doing crazy stuff the Supreme Court's having to intervene with.
And we have the impact of the Alec Baldwin case on what it means for gun issues.
Might they make some dangerous law about guns in the context of Alec Baldwin and in the jury selection context?
If you're Alec Baldwin's defense lawyer.
Do you want the gun-hating liberals who like Alec Baldwin?
Or do you want the gun-loving conservatives who hate Alec Baldwin?
Who's better for your jury trial in that context?
We got Trump lawyers being sanctioned by a Clinton appointee for suing Hillary Clinton.
What a shock that is, of course.
We got religion versus woke back in the federal courts.
We got DeSantis' suspension of prosecutors in the federal courts.
We got Fireball selling whiskey that ain't whiskey.
We got gamers suing Microsoft for trying to buy Activision.
We got election cases.
We got vaccine cases.
And we got a few other fun cases to boot.
Well, let's start with the most obvious one.
I don't know if everybody wants to hear about it or if nobody ever wants to hear about it again.
I think one out of three.
We're jury nullification.
We just want to hear about Amos Miller's delicious milk that you can buy at amosmiller.com.
But I should also add, everyone should go watch Lauren Chen's take on it.
Very good credit to Lauren.
She had a real brilliant personal insight in the middle of all this.
I also highly recommend Night's Watch that you can get on YouTube.
He did a three-hour breakdown.
He did another hour breakdown.
Those were two of the better breakdowns I saw.
Mark Dice did his take.
As well, that a lot of people like.
But Lauren Chan, I thought, you know, she figured out midway through, it was fascinating, when she realized something that we know, the creative talent, where you're dealing with contracts with creative talent, is different than most other people.
And you have to approach it a certain way.
And somehow, Jeremy Boring at Daily Wire didn't know that.
We'll get to that in a second.
But she did a good job.
She realized midstream, you know what?
He takes these things personally.
For him, business is never business.
And she actually got emotional when she realized, I really wish I would have handled that better.
So real credit to her.
Very honest, very authentic.
Lauren Chen, you can see her breakdown, why she knew that there's no way Daily Wire and Steven Crowder were going to fit together.
I was talking about it today with Alex Jones, too.
Alex had been telling him for a while.
Hey, pal, the corporate, trust me, I've been through this.
Corporate America ain't going to be your friend over time.
If you want to be independent, you want to be your own man, the only way to do it is to be your own man.
And nobody's done that more and better, in my opinion, than Alex Jones.
He's built something free of sugar daddies, free of oligarchs, free of billionaires, free of corporate advertisers, free of big tech.
And the rest.
And that's thanks to his audience keeping him alive and afloat.
But it's also thanks to him being fearless.
And by the way, I've seen all of Alex Jones' contracts with his contract.
Many of them have come out and publicly spoken.
He doesn't have anything like any of these terms.
Because as a creative talent guy, he understands creative talent.
I mean, I've done contracts.
I spent the better part of the last six months on a nine-figure contract for dealing with a client.
We're a bunch of idiot Harvard lawyers.
And this, I'd say...
Put aside all the politics, all the personalities.
Forget what you think about Steven Crowder, Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, anything.
Just look at this as a teaching opportunity because almost every person out there is going to have to sign a contract, write a contract, draft a contract, negotiate a contract, or maybe you're a young lawyer or a young law student.
Use this as a learning opportunity on how to or how not to negotiate a contract.
There's this deep-seated instinct.
Patrick Bet-David talked about it on Valuetainment.
There's a deep when he was selling his insurance company, how his lawyer kept blowing it up over and over again.
There's this, the lawyers that go to law school, and you're Ben Shapiro types, who are like, only I understand contracts.
Stephen Crowder just doesn't understand contracts.
No, Benji, it's all the Harvard Law School types that don't understand contracts.
I know, because I just kept bailing out a huge deal.
A deal that was going to make my client nine figures, but make the other side potentially ten figures.
It was a billion dollar potential deal.
And these Harvard lawyers kept blowing it up, blowing it up, blowing it up.
Why?
Because lawyers think of contracts as adversarial, like everything else in the legal process.
They think, how do I get my client the best advantage?
How do I extract the most out of the other side?
My advice to people out there for doing hundreds of contracts, six figures to nine figures, and in particular with dealing with creative content, creative folks, talent particularly.
But this is true for almost everyone.
Everybody wants to be treated like a human being.
They don't want to be treated like a commodity.
So you can't call it just business.
If you do that, you're going to create trouble.
Instead, rather than see it as adversarial, rather than see it as extractive, see it as an opportunity to build trust.
Because in the end, if you have a contract you're going to partner with somebody where you're going to be mutually dependent on each other, one, you need trust more than anything.
And that was a very good point Lauren Chen and others had made.
But also, you want it to be a reciprocal relationship, mutually beneficial.
A way you convince people of that is you first listen to your client.
What are your risks?
What are your rewards?
What are you looking for?
Then you reach out to the other side.
If the other side doesn't want to talk directly, you research them.
You figure out what are their risks?
What are their rewards?
What do they really want?
And you put forward my definition of good.
Good faith.
I get people of different definitions of this.
But for me, a good faith offer is something that is a step forward in building trust.
If it doesn't build trust, you're going to hurt your client's cause.
I've seen tons of great contracts, great deals for both sides, get totally blown up because the very first offer makes a very bad first impression.
And so that's my first rule.
However you do contracts...
Don't do it like Daily Wire does.
Don't say, hey, what's the best advantageous contract for us?
I know that's natural.
I know some people think that way, but particularly with creative talent.
That backfires almost every time.
The creative talent will then start making irrational decisions just out of anger and rage and embitterment.
But the second part is even most ordinary people, they want to see that, hey, you value me.
You want a reciprocal, mutual benefit relationship.
And I'll give an example of what if I'd been negotiating for Daily Wire.
I would have put in the very beginning all the things I'm going to do for Steven Crowder.
I'm going to do this for you.
I'm going to add value here.
I'm going to add value here.
I'm going to add value over here.
Commit to that explicitly.
Start there.
So treat it that way.
That, to me, was the great mistake.
Just from a contract perspective, whatever you think about all the other issues, that was, to me, the great mistake.
And it's a learning opportunity for everybody out there.
I'm not saying respond like Steven Crowder.
That's another matter.
What I'm saying is if you're in the Daily Wire type position, whether you're the employer or the employee, Treat contracts as an opportunity to bridge and build trust, not like an adversarial, extractive relationship.
You know, first of all, what happened quickly is that this entire discussion got falsified in this dichotomy that not whether or not the contract was exploitive, whether or not the contract was bad.
It was a bad contract, and that's why you negotiated.
It got twisted into this, were they trying to silence Crowder, and is Crowder standing up for a righteous cause?
And then it got lost in all of the nuance about whether or not they made a bad initial offer.
They looked at that offer as, what's our best position?
Where can we have all the reward and he have as much of the risk?
I understand that approach, but especially with creative talent, you're guaranteed to get the Stephen Crowder reaction.
You've just burnt a bridge you didn't need to burn.
For what?
To lose 10% of your subscribers in a political controversy?
I'll be honest, if I was on the board of Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring would have already been fired.
This is a total disaster.
Especially Boring knows this.
Boring was a failed screenwriter from Hollywood.
He knows how the Hollywood industry works.
He knows how the media industry works.
He knows how talent works.
If you want to antagonize creative talent...
Do things like this.
I mean, I've worked for, I won't name them all, but I've worked for several creative talent people.
And I would tell the other side when they're going to go, it's like, don't do this, this, or this.
And once or now and then, one of them would do it.
And then the client would just go, F them.
I'm never working with them again.
Screw them.
I'm going to go after, you know, it's like, why?
Why did you make this tactical mistake?
And this is where I get called names.
Whereas I, people out there say he was insulted, et cetera.
And I'm.
Youngest of five kids, been practicing law for, you know, I practiced for 13 years and I just got to the, I get to the mentality of don't be such a baby.
If you get insulted, if you don't want to negotiate, walk away and that's it.
But, you know, getting insulted doesn't do anything other than that.
Yeah, but you're a lawyer.
You're not a creative talent.
You know, the creative talent almost always reacts this way.
And a lot of ordinary people do, too.
I think, you know, the people hate, like when you see people get really mad at the, we're phrased, just business.
And I understand all my business friends were like, look, I have to do business this way, etc.
I understand all that.
Understand that most people want to be valued as human beings.
They don't want to be seen as commodities.
Even though it's a commercial financial transaction, that's especially true with creative talent.
Frankly, sometimes they're in denial about it.
But you have to know this about them.
And as a young lawyer or a law student out there, or simply a businessman who's doing it without a lawyer, approach it from what would make the other person feel good about this offer?
And if you focus on that, you're going to get a lot more of what you want in the long run.
What ends up happening is Daily Wire becomes a big institution.
They deal with this all the time.
It's not that they view...
I don't know.
Oh, I should substitute.
You are a creative talent.
You're just a creative talent.
I knew someone was going to...
I'm not sensitive, Robert.
I don't take that personally.
That's my point.
But you're creative talent, people.
Very sensitive.
You get to the Daily Wire's size and infrastructure, and they say, look, okay, we'll throw a contract out there.
We'll put in the essential terms in one of our boilerplates, and then we'll whittle it down from there.
As a lawyer, we would get these all the time.
What would be frustrating is they send you something that's 100 pages long, half of it's rubbish because it's boilerplate, and it makes more work for you.
And I got frustrated as a lawyer.
I say, look, don't make more work for me because I can't bill my client for this, et cetera, et cetera.
I think it's better off doing is just say what are the essential elements of what you want and keep it to a two-page LOI and then add in the extraneous stuff afterwards instead of doing that.
But the contract itself, like I wasn't defending the contract.
That contract, and people think I'm fixated on the number.
50 million over four years divided by four plus production costs, plus the documentary, plus the comedy special.
I found that exploitive in the sense that it's a big number, but it doesn't translate.
At the end of the line into very much other than your entire year for four years is done.
I wasn't blown away by the number, and people thought I was, but I thought that was a bad contract.
I never would have signed it myself either.
I just wouldn't have blown it up the way Crowder did in a way that's going to make him very, very tough to deal with for anybody else who says, That's the most creative talent.
I mean, in Hollywood, they're all that way.
Why do you think they have the contract that requires, like, I want my eight bottles of this particular water from this room temperature?
But what it boils down to is, a lot of those people, it's about respect.
And if you start out respecting the person as a person and as a human being, you won't have to deal with nonsense like that.
And that's even true with creative talent.
So it's just good advice out there, folks.
Use this as a learning example.
How to deal with a contract.
How to negotiate a contract.
If you're on the contractor side.
If you're on the initiating side of the aisle, especially.
And then I agree with Viva.
If you're going to respond, the better way to respond is to say, hey, let's figure out how, where we can meet risk and reward, risk responsibility.
Is it someone like Crowder?
That's not going to be his thing.
Most agents, honestly, they don't do that.
They just look at the top.
Because what's an agent's motivation?
The top of the number.
So you're better off.
That's why it might be a lot of agents aren't great at contracts, in my opinion.
I got a buddy of mine, Joe Longo, who does a lot of contracts.
But he's a lawyer and does a really good job of it.
Knows how to balance out those equations.
Operates often on a different structure financially to keep the incentives aligned with the client's best interest.
But there was a much better way to respond.
I don't dispute that at all.
And I do have the impression that Jeremy Boring did it this way specifically because, look, we go back 10 years, here's something, just have a look at it, and thought because of our casual relationship...
If you and I were investors in Daily Wire, we would have fired him.
I mean, it would have been, okay, pal, God bless you.
Maybe you mean well.
You're just not the CEO going forward.
Well, I don't know about that because I...
Yeah, you're too nice.
Yeah, you'd be nice.
I would have fired him.
I would have dragged him.
I would have tarted and feathered him.
I'm just more flabbergasted at...
At Crowder's response, where I think in the long run, Crowder may have a point about something.
And like Lauren Chen said, it's a discussion that happens at a higher level.
Like, okay, I licensed videos for the longest time before getting into this.
And I'm getting exploited a little bit.
There's something to learn.
There's something to ask for 60% instead of 50%.
But to make it so bloody personal to go after the intentions and then make it a righteous good versus evil, that might be Crowder.
That was predictable, though.
That's my problem with boring.
If I was just looking at it from a business perspective, throughout all the politics personalities, you know this going in if you're boring.
You should, at least.
I would have known it.
If I was doing a contract with Alex Jones, any of these people, I know this about creative talent.
I know this about actually most human beings.
And I guess in defense of Daily Wire, this is your typical corporate lawyer tactic.
That's why lawyers blow up contracts all the time.
Lawyers got to quit doing this.
Quit treating it as extractive.
Quit treating it as adversarial.
Treat it as an opportunity to build trust because if the trust doesn't work, nothing on a piece of paper is going to matter.
It's going to end up in court anyway.
Make it build the trust.
People are rightly pointing out it was an LOI and not a contract.
Absolutely.
That's a technical difference because if he'd signed it, it would have been a binding contract.
I've seen people throw at me, oh, this was an OI.
Two things with that.
First of all, how many ordinary people know the difference between an offer sheet and a contract offer?
Almost nobody.
Technically, an offer sheet is the same.
I didn't like that technical defense.
It was all these lawyerly defenses when lawyers keep making these mistakes in the first place and causing a lot of this trouble.
I do have problems with the cancel culture provision, cancel culture clause of conservative media.
You call it cancel culture, Robert.
I do have a political problem with that.
You call it cancel culture.
Others are going to call it hedging your bets provision.
Oh, however it's done.
But to give people an idea of the monetary, it was broken down well by Night's Watch on YouTube.
He was on Friday Night Tights.
All hail Friday Night Tights with Nerdrotic and Jeremy from Geeks and Gamers and Ryan from RK Outpost and all the others.
And we'll get to another topic that's come up with that in terms of a mutual friend of ours getting a little AWOL about what is legal and illegal with posting public photos in a second.
But he did a good breakdown too.
But the issue with the contract, when you break down, here's for people the short version.
I did a little write-up at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
It was, by the way, the same thing I had to deal with in that nine-figure contract for six months.
The Harvard lawyers, not the other side, not the other side of the partnership deal who knew my client well, the lawyers kept trying to put poison pills in the contract.
Poison pills that were meant to eliminate all risk for their side.
All it did is enrage my client who understood things very well.
Now, he's a brilliant businessman, so I'll give you an example of how he does business.
First time he hired me, I proposed a certain fee per month, and he said, eh, let's make it about 50% bigger.
And I was like, oh, okay.
Why?
Because he knew he was going to lock in my loyalty and priority for the next five years.
And it resulted in him not doing a day in prison.
They wanted to put him in for 20 years.
It ended up keeping his business when two different groups tried to steal it all.
And his business went from eight figures to nine figures.
So it was profitable for him, too, in the end.
But it was smart.
He understood how to do contracts right.
And he never understood people who tried to blow up clients.
Like, who are these people?
Lawyers.
It's always lawyers.
But take the cancel culture clause.
What it means, in my opinion, is if he had his content struck, if he was struck for he got a content strike for any reason, 25% permanent reduction off his fee.
Another 20% if YouTube suspended him.
Another 20% if Facebook suspended him.
Another 10% if Spotify did.
Another 10% if Apple did.
What does that aggregate into?
In addition, the other penalties that he objected to was if he didn't produce a single episode, he was obligated to produce $192 per year, then he owed $100,000 on top of that per episode.
So what does that mean?
What that means is about 85% of his fee would be struck if Big Tech canceled.
Now, the deal locked him in for four years up to six years.
We've seen deals done with people in this space.
It's pretty rare they demand an exclusive license to all content.
By the way, bad idea.
FYI out there, if you're dealing with creative talent, don't start there.
Let them come back and say, hey, I'll give you an exclusive on everything if you add this.
Okay, good.
Let them be the ones to propose that, don't you?
But they did.
So they would own this whole content, this whole brand, all the merchandise for that time period, all the subscriber list, ad revenue, you name it.
To give an example, Crowder believed his subscriber revenue alone would be $35 million a year for Daily Wire.
You can argue, and Daily Wire did, about whether he was right or wrong about that, but that gives an idea where he's coming from.
That doesn't even deal with merch.
That doesn't even deal with advertising.
It doesn't even deal with other sources of revenue.
So under this deal, basically, that would reduce his deal to about $7.5 million over the full four years.
The problem is, he was obligated, and here, frankly, Jeremy Boring was just sometimes, there was some open dishonesty in my view by how Daily Wire defended themselves in this.
This was also an example of how not to defend yourself in the court of public opinion.
Don't say something that will fool an average person, but not fool somebody who pays attention.
So like Jeremy Boring implied that their contract provision that required Crowder No, it's not.
I've seen creative control provisions.
It has nothing to do with product cost provisions.
So that was just a flat-out misrepresentation.
But putting that misrepresentation aside, the net effect is that Crowder had to pay that.
I can almost guarantee you it cost him more than $10,000 an episode to produce.
So what does that mean when he has to produce more than 750 episodes if, in fact, he was canceled under this contract?
Under this contract, he would end up having to pay money to Daily Wire to exclusively have his profits, have 100% of the profits.
He would lose money on the deal.
Not just lose money in general.
He would be losing money, period.
And there would be nothing he could do about it because there would be no out.
Daily Wire could keep him for six years unilaterally if they wanted.
And every time he didn't...
If he stopped producing his show, he would owe them up to $75 million.
There's an argument as to whether or not those were cumulative or alternative provisions.
But the language of the contract, all that could have been clear, right?
You could have put right in the contract 25% until you're reinstated, 20% for only a six-month time period, or this and the many show, but they didn't.
And again, they know what they're doing at the Daily Wire.
This is a billion-dollar company founded by billionaires.
This is the question as to whether or not they thought they were going to sneak one through on certain provisions to bilk them later on.
And that's what terrified Crowder was he was like, are you doing this to unsophisticated creative talent that doesn't have lawyers, that has 100,000 subs?
And that's why Crowder was so enraged about that part.
That's what he calls him about in January.
He's like, Forget me.
Don't worry about me.
What about other future Stephen Crowders?
This contract would kill them.
Are you going to be doing something different?
And that's where Jeremy Boring jokes about wage slaves.
So my view is I'm opposed to the cancel culture contract.
Cancel culture clause in a contract for a conservative media publication as a political basis.
I understand all the economic rationales for it.
I'm saying that if you're going to be in this space and you're going to market and advertise yourself and say, hey, please subscribe to us so that we can be independent and free from big tech censorship.
Don't create cancel culture clause contracts that give big tech this degree of power over somebody.
Well, and I'll just say, or the flip side.
If someone says, I want to have that in the contract, if you get demonetized for good reason or for bad, and we don't want to hedge that bet, we'll then say, okay, well, I'll have that contract be excluded, but what are you going to reduce the aggregate fee?
Pay me $40 million instead of $50 million with no cancel culture clause.
Anyways, the bottom line, the contract was bad.
That was not the issue.
The issue was rather, was it deliberately bad to silence conservative voices for the purposes of controlled opposition?
Is Crowder benevolent as he says he is while starting Mug Club Forever?
And join me here if you want to support true conservative values.
Whatever.
But Robert, before we go...
I was saying, in that context, if you want that broader conversation, watch one of the best Freeform Fridays on America's Untold Stories with Eric Hundley.
Mark Robert, Viva and I get into a full discussion.
Both sides are presented.
Both the pro Daily Wire, anti-Daily Wire side are presented.
And you can see if there was a fun conversation.
Some people are saying, hey, you guys are talking over each other.
That's the point of Freeform Friday.
It's just wild.
It was.
It was fantastic.
But before we go to Rumble exclusively, we're a little late today, but I'm going to put the link back there because I want...
If you don't know who Tyler Fisher is, and he's going to be on for either a sidebar or a day interview, we'll see.
This is hilarious.
Before we run over...
He had two great ones.
Oh, yeah.
One with Ben Shapiro, the other with Jordan Peterson.
I think the Jordan Peterson one was just...
He just nailed it.
Look at this.
Good evening.
Well, I thought I would comment on the recent, let's say, controversy regarding Steven Crowder and the Daily Wire contract.
Now, I had originally added a few clauses that were not discussed today, so let's discuss them for, let's say...
Transparency.
I don't want to play the whole thing because I want people to go watch the original and follow him.
Just to get a little bit more of it.
And then we're going to stop.
Section 3, Clause A. Stephen Crowder will be required to clean his room on a daily basis.
Failure to do so will result in a $1 million fine.
I know you're thinking, well, that's comically high.
It's like, well, you don't know what happens if you don't clean your bloody room.
Leave it right there, everybody.
It's so damn good.
And that leads us to the last component of the legal perspective on the crowd, which is, what about him tape recording Jeremy Boring?
There's the legal side, and then there's what I have actually advised clients in this situation, precisely what I have advised them, and I'll tell you why and how.
You can have your own strong opinions.
Eric Conley, a lot of other people were like, I don't record my friends, period, business or not business.
I fully understand that perspective.
From a legal perspective, presuming Crowder was in Texas, it is my understanding, the federal law only requires one party in the United States.
The federal law only requires one party to know about the recording for it to be legal.
And then by state, it totally varies.
Some states are two-party states, which require both parties to know or all parties to know.
Others are one-party state as well, only requires one party to know.
Texas only requires one party to know.
I presume, given he broadcasted it.
Now, by the way, even in those two-party states, there are exceptions.
I've used those exceptions.
If you think someone's blackmailing you, if you think someone's extorting you, if you're documenting certain criminal conduct.
Then you're allowed to.
Now, in my view, and this goes to a discussion we also had on Freeform Friday, I believe if you're doing undercover reporting or investigative work or whistleblowing work, you should also be legally allowed to do so.
This is the day-in case in California.
This is the Project Veritas case in several jurisdictions.
I think that's essential, but it needs to have a public benefit.
So it can't be I recorded my ex illegally because I was pissed at her.
That kind of thing.
That's not a public newsworthy benefit.
But if it's a public newsworthy benefit, public interest, then I think that one party should also suffice in those cases.
So that's the legal side of it.
Practical side, I can tell you that if you believe you are now adverse, and let's say I was advising Stephen Crowder, I'd be, okay, you want to publicly discuss this contract.
Daily Crowder may not be happy with that.
Daily Crowder.
I made the same mistake someone else did.
The Daily Wire.
Maybe that's what it should all be called in the end.
But the Daily Wire is a very...
If you're going to get adverse to them, understand this.
They're a billion-dollar company, in my view.
I think they make a quarter billion a year, at least, in revenue.
They are founded...
By not only a couple of Texas oil billionaires, natural gas billionaires, who are involved in cult religions, they're also extremely litigious.
If you track them down, and very aggressive, I mean, what they're doing with their property in Idaho and Montana has been very controversial, not just with lefties, but controversial with locals, you know, farmers, fishermen, etc.
So I would say if you think you're even thinking about publicly discussing this, even without naming them and you think they come back at you at any level, you need to have a recorded conversation to protect yourself.
This is what I've advised people.
I've said, now look, you know, you're burning a friendship.
If it ever goes public, there's going to be some people who never trust you again.
There's a lot of people who don't like this.
So from a court of public opinion perspective, I'd say, here's your PR warnings.
But from a legal side, you often have to because otherwise they're going to represent.
It becomes he said, he said.
And when they have more money and a lot more money and power than you do, you put yourself at risk if you don't record it.
Well, this is the thing.
I don't recommend against not recording conversations, but...
The disclosure of those have to be the nuclear bomb of warfare.
And you don't disclose it just for the sake of trying to score some quick social media points.
Take for granted everybody's always recording conversations.
I just noticed that people who record the conversations always end up looking disingenuous in those recordings because they're talking in a way that indicates they know they're recording.
Oh, there's the queue, by the way.
You want to avoid being recorded.
One, never in writing, always in cash.
Don't talk over the phone.
You'd think people would learn this from wiretaps.
If you do talk over the phone, talk over a burner phone that isn't necessarily connected to you, or as a client in the alternative product distribution business called it, a bat phone.
Said, just in case they need to reach you, Bobby.
But otherwise, also, little cues.
If you're out talking to somebody in person, be in a setting where there's a lot of background noise, water, sound, etc.
Not where it's a physically controlled setting.
Much easier to tap those places.
Much harder, even if you've got a tap going, to get clear sound.
They try to amplify it these days, but due to the deep fake problem, that's increasingly challengeable in court.
So that's just some practical advice about how to avoid.
But you're right.
If somebody you're talking to is suddenly, oddly, oh, what about this?
How about that?
Just be ready to record.
I've had prospective clients call me up and say, should I do this?
And is it okay if I don't pay taxes?
And then it's like, uh-uh, pal.
I know who you are.
Mel Gibson's wife is the best example ever.
Okay, we're going to get off Rumble, people.
We're going to get off YouTube and go to Rumble now.
We got Alex Baldwin.
We got Musk Tesla.
We got AI.
We got Second Amendment.
We got Murtaugh.
We got Trump lawyers.
We got it all.
And we got some Canadian stuff.
I'm going to end it on YouTube.
Oh yeah, they're screwing over Jeremy.
They're screwing over Jeremy.
Oh my goodness.
7,000 people.
They're trying to debank people.
We're off YouTube.
Everyone, you know where the link is.
Robert, let's just start with Jeremy because I've never done this before, people.
I started not a GoFundMe, and I shouldn't even say the word out loud.
I started a GiveSendGo for Jeremy.
Jeremy McKenzie, founder of Diagon.
Not a popular guy because he's done some objectively stupid things.
He's said some objectively stupid things.
He's an unsavory character to the political elite.
He's a political dissident, period.
Whether or not he's said things that are terrible and atrocious.
But Robert, in our locals community today...
I shared that classic, I think it's a classic skit, but I can understand how some people don't like it.
Will Ferrell, when he was the boss, Mr. Tarkinian from SNL, when he was interviewing Pierce Brosnan, and he's like a nice, passive, beautiful boss, and then someone comes in and he blows his temper and it just goes escalating from there.
There's a joke in that skit, which is not much different than the joke that got Jeremy McKenzie in so much trouble for.
One is not funny.
One contextually might be a little bit more comedic.
Jeremy McKenzie has some serious flaws.
And he's facing criminal charges.
But to go from there to say it's time to start debanking.
I'm trying to find the audio.
It's time to start debanking people because they're political dissidents.
They're unpopular and that's it.
We're getting into a realm of social credit.
I have to go to my thing.
So Jeremy McKenzie.
On a Friday night, he gets the Friday night call from the bank.
And I made sure everything was legit about this, that I made sure Jeremy McKenzie did not commit any act of fraud against Scotiabank, that he hadn't done anything overt to warrant this.
He gets the Friday afternoon call from someone from the bank, and it goes like this.
You won't be able to hear the audio.
It's not good.
He receives a letter.
You're going to receive a letter in about a week or two.
The bank has decided to end its business relationship with you.
For no better reason, no nothing.
30 days, get your stuff out, open up a bank somewhere else.
If any of the other chartered banks in Canada are going to open one for you, something tells me this is not a politically free decision.
This is the same bank, Scotiabank, that froze trucker convoy bank accounts during the convoy, apologized for it afterwards because it was unpopular then, so they apologized.
And then when things quiet down, they go ahead and do the exact same thing again.
I started a give, send, go for Jeremy with the idea he's going to need legal fees.
He's too proud to ask for more money because this guy lives off a veteran's pension, has been facing an onslaught from the government left, right, and center.
And now they're debanking him.
They're going to pull an Alex Jones of Jeremy McKenzie because he said bad things that people don't like.
He's a political dissident, and they're going to make an example out of him.
And he's so unpopular that other people out there are going to say, well, he's an asshole.
He said some stupid things, and he's getting what he deserves.
F around and find out.
Fafo.
It's going to be a Fafo with Jeremy, not realizing this is coming to a bank account near you.
So I started this.
It's actually, I've never done it before.
I started a Give, Send, Go.
Let me just see where it is.
And I think we're over $11,000 right now.
And if Jeremy can pay off his mortgage and tell the bank, F off.
And people can say, we're not putting up with this.
This is not how a free country can operate.
And push back on Scotiabank and push back on the bank and push back on the government.
And tell people, it's not because you don't like somebody that you can tolerate this rubbish.
That's all I wish to accomplish out of this.
So that's what's happening.
And we've got to collectively work together to stop this debanking.
Because it's the next big, dangerous political censorship trend that's a lot more consequential, quite frankly, than deplatforming.
Can you imagine?
You debank someone.
It's like, okay, you get your government pension, Jeremy.
Just good luck trying to cash it.
So you're going to go to, I don't know, Instacheck or whatever.
I don't know where you can even...
Withdraw the money.
I don't know how it would even happen.
Oh, we're not...
You're free to go find another federal charter bank.
A bank that operates under federal law.
You're free to go find another one.
I'm sure they're going to be very happy to open an account for you.
What happened to your last one, Jeremy?
Oh, Scotiabank cancelled it.
Oh, well, here's your...
Oh, and by the way, they're still going to respect Jeremy's mortgage for another year.
Scotiabank will take his money for the next year.
Not renew the mortgage in a year or something.
They won't renew the mortgage, but...
Oh, okay.
Did I end on YouTube?
Yeah, have I ended on YouTube?
I think I have.
Yes, I have, for sure.
Okay, Robert, what else?
What do we move on to now?
Well, we got Alec Baldwin.
We got Elon Musk at trial.
We got Murtaugh, Second Amendment, AI, religion versus woke, DeSantis, fireball, elections, vaccines.
Probably the best thing is maybe Alec Baldwin.
Let's start with Alec Baldwin, the man who just couldn't shut up and now has come back to bite him in the ass.
We all know what happened with Alec Baldwin.
He pulled the trigger.
According to the FBI report, on a gun, pointed at a woman, pointed at a person.
It discharged an actual live round, how it got in there, nobody knows, killing her.
He couldn't shut his mouth.
At any stage of the process, he couldn't shut his mouth.
He made statements to the police immediately, like in the window afterwards, which he then contradicted in other statements he made to George Stephanopoulos in an interview.
Look, people were doubting whether or not he would ever get charged because of the politics, because of his celebrity status, political status.
Charged.
Involuntary manslaughter with a potential enhancement of...
Firearm being involved in this involuntary manslaughter, which could carry a minimum mandatory sentence of five years.
And now I fully understand the irony, the sick irony of all of this, that the Baldwin types who wanted mandatory minimums for firearm-related issues, they advocated for this stuff and now they might have to live with it.
Robert, I mean, look, involuntary manslaughter, when it doesn't involve the enhancements, is a maximum of 18 months under New Mexico law, from what I understand.
What are the chances that...
He goes to jail for a mandatory minimum.
Well, it depends on how he gets convicted.
Sorry.
I think there, the three elements of involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico, aside from obviously killing a person, is that you should have known of the danger involved, you willfully disregarded the danger involved, and willful requires that you know the harm may result from your conduct.
And so he clearly has a defense that he did not know there was any risk of any harm, even though the government's theory, the prosecution's theory, is he knew of the risk for two reasons.
One, he was the producer on the set, so that gave him a certain level of accountability and responsibility, which required as part of that knowing risks involved.
And that second, he pulled the trigger without checking the gun beforehand.
And that pulling the trigger without checking the gun, they see as criminal recklessness.
And then he enhanced that risk and seemed to acknowledge that that was a problem for him by lying to George Stephanopoulos and saying he didn't pull the trigger.
And I guess as additional factors to his knowledge of the risk, there had been prior safety issues of which I don't think he can deny awareness prior discharges of blanks, not of live rounds.
So there were previous safety issues which might have made a reasonable person be Even more cautious when pointing a real gun at a human.
So it's a criminal recklessness category.
If they convict him of it, the firearm enhancement will almost automatically apply.
It limits the judge's discretion.
It has to do five years.
So this case comes down, in my view, to jury selection.
Now, I think this is true in all cases for the most part, but I think it's really true in his case.
That he should do detailed focus groups and jury polling.
To see which groups respond to his defense and which ones are not.
I think it will be counterintuitive is what he will likely find.
I think what he will find is that Alec Baldwin fans are bad jurors.
That liberals are bad jurors.
That because they are so directed, they're so anti-gun, and they think you should be paranoid every time you're near a gun, they're going to blame him for not checking the gun.
By contrast, some conservatives, now depending on the conservatives, your real gun-loving conservative who knows a lot about guns probably won't tolerate some of his defenses.
It will be the people that are not scared of guns but don't use them a lot that will be the most like, eh, I'm around a gun a lot.
I don't want to be blamed if something goes AWOL.
So I think that is the type of juror he most likely wants to find.
The Hollywood defense they're floating in the media.
Which is, oh, you don't understand actors.
Actors must do what they are told.
Actors don't have discretion.
This was a defense in Salon by an entertainment lawyer.
Not a good defense amongst ordinary jurors.
Tell you that right now.
Much better defense is, practically speaking, is to have a jury pool that doesn't get terrified when they see a gun, but also it doesn't use guns so much that they know how gun safety is supposed to work.
I do wonder.
I don't wonder.
He would have been better off had he just shut his mouth.
He never would have been indicted had he shut his mouth.
I still stick with that.
Once he went on George Stephanopoulos and said he never pulled the trigger and that he never would pull the trigger because he knows the risk of pulling the trigger, he just went in his defense.
No, no, no, no.
I would never point a gun at a person because that's very dangerous.
I still think you're right.
I still think that he got ticked off and thought he would have a little fun and then he was like, oops.
The two prior discharges of a blank, you know, it proved to him that it's just a firecracker.
Pull the trigger, firecracker.
It'll scare her.
She'll piss off.
I'm convinced because also the fact that he's trying to make anybody believe that he doesn't feel responsible, that he doesn't feel guilty, that, oh, it's somebody's fault.
It's not mine.
Me thinks he doth protest this to most.
But it's very, very bad.
Can he agree to a plea deal now?
I'm sure they offered him one, and I guess he turned it down for pride reasons and professional reputation reasons.
Because I just do not see.
I don't see how he doesn't get convicted, and then I don't see how...
I would say if he picks the right jury, it's a 50-50 trial.
Just because it's clear, or it's mostly clear, he didn't think that there was any bullet in there.
And because of that, if you pick the right jury...
You could get a 50-50 chance of acquittals.
So I think it'll be interesting to watch.
Now, maybe if you jury test it, you'd find something else out.
Maybe you'd find out, oh, actually more uphill or more advantageous than we think.
That's where I highly recommend that for all defendants to have that kind of available to them.
But at a minimum, it does prove one thing.
In general, I agree with some of the Baldwin supporters.
Always stand behind Alec Baldwin.
Well, you blew the joke.
I stand behind Alec Baldwin.
That's the joke.
I just want to read one comment here.
It says, On Rumble while watching Viva on Rumble.
Again, it's okay to troll if you pay the toll.
Well, there's no paying the toll here.
That's just a troll.
But I think it's a joke because there's irony in being on Rumble, watching Viva, complaining about Rumble while watching Viva.
Robin, what happened with Musk?
I didn't follow that this week.
Ah, so this is the big Tesla stockholder suit.
Billions of dollars at issue.
This is back when Elon Musk on Twitter...
Said that he was thinking about going private and that he thought he had secured funding.
So what happened is the stock went up, took a big spike.
Then it turned out he wasn't going private, he didn't have the funding, and took a big hit.
And so for the people who had it during that time period, their argument, or who bought it before it went up and got stuck with it, went down, it depends on which class it is, but it's the class of stockholders.
Who say, I lost a bunch of stock value because Elon Musk said something that wasn't true, namely that he had secured funding.
The judge has already issued summary judgment on whether his statement was true and whether it was reckless for him to say it.
So some of his defenses are already, affirmative defenses are already gone.
The trial is mostly about causation.
They tried to get into a little bit of challenging the underlying premise that the statement was false because he had had discussions with the Saudis about taking it private.
He tried to subpoena the Saudis.
It's very difficult to subpoena anybody foreign for a U.S. court.
Ultimately, that was unavailing and unsuccessful, so they're not going to testify.
That would have been interesting at trial.
So instead, now he also moved to transfer the trial.
He said, I can't get a fair jury in San Francisco because of all the media attacks on me over the last six months.
Now, I think he would have been better suited had he really documented that.
Again, almost nobody's doing this.
Even most people in January 6th cases are not doing this.
Poll.
Do a public opinion poll that proves it.
That proves there's a massive gap.
Between the jury pulling the trial, the courtroom they're holding the trial in, versus the alternatives.
When they don't do that, they let judges off the hook.
Judges just don't like to transfer a venue for any reason.
This judge didn't either.
He's preserving it for appeal purposes.
He actually testified this week.
And the main defense is, what was the cause?
It's causation.
So they're like, look, the stock could go up simply because he wanted to take it private.
And that, in fact, was a true statement.
It was the secured funding part that has been ruled to have been a recklessly false statement.
The other part has not been everybody admits he wanted to take it private.
So the argument is his mere intention to want to take it private.
If that's what caused the stock to price, not the secured funding part, they don't have a claim.
That appears to be the core of the defense at the trial.
Even though, I mean, my understanding from jury selection, there are a lot of jurors who are very hostile to Musk because of how he's handled Twitter at making it a free speech zone.
And because he's laid off a bunch of Twitter employees, he moved Tesla out of California, he opposed a lot of the COVID policies, etc.
San Francisco is just...
I can't imagine he getting an impartial jury in San Francisco.
I've tried cases in San Francisco, and I just can't imagine he being able to under these circumstances in a case that's become politicized.
Now, the irony is people that held the stock after this time frame all made tons of money.
So I always find it a little weird when you can bring a stockholder suit over this little time period when if you actually held it...
You did just fine with Tesla.
That was part of the way he won that one Delaware case.
He faces another Delaware case over whether his compensation package is excessive.
I mean, he's facing tons of legal cases.
But this is a PR case.
Also has billions of dollars at risk for both Musk and Tesla.
I think that we'll see.
The key is what caused the stock to go up.
Was it that they really thought it was about to actually go private because he had secured funding that he actually hadn't?
Or was it because they thought, Hey, this is a great idea.
It's private.
I could cash in.
Whoever wants to buy it private will probably pay a premium like Musk did for Twitter, and I could cash in.
So I think it will come down to jury selection if they're able to filter out the biased jurors enough or not.
Speaking of appeals, actually, we didn't talk about it beforehand, but George Floyd, not George Floyd, but Derek Chauvin's appeal.
So he's appealing his conviction on the basis that couldn't possibly get a fair trial in the venue, in the jurisdiction, where certain...
Where certain witnesses were waking up with pig heads at their former residence, severed pig heads on the front lawn.
It's a short process that they have to request an appeal.
I'm reading like 15-minute arguments.
The oral argument is short.
I mean, the length of time for a typical appeal is years.
But for the actual oral argument, they typically only give you between 10 minutes and 30 minutes per side.
What do you think the chances are of him succeeding on this appeal?
Politically, it's died down, but this is probably the most political charge case ever.
It's not like a judge is going to reverse the conviction quietly in the night without there being another summer of love 2.0.
Nil?
Well, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, I think, is not his best shot.
They've issued many bad rulings on many of the precise legal issues in other less political cases.
And on political cases, they've been really bad.
I think his only shot is if the Minnesota Supreme Court were to take up the case.
I think they have enough cover because Chauvin's serving a bunch of time no matter what.
If they reverse all the charges here on the federal side, he's already doing a bunch of time that he pled to.
So there's no appeal on that side.
So if they're conscientious and care about the law...
And care about the justice system, then they will reverse Chauvin's convictions on at least several of the key counts for the reasons we discussed previously.
But I don't anticipate that they are that conscientious at the Minnesota Court of Appeals, sadly.
Well, I think, you know, you mentioned it that way, that he's going to spend decades behind bars anyhow.
I think they're going to just say, well, then there's no need to overturn it.
And they can avoid the political backlash by doing something that would be...
Politically enraging.
Speaking of politically ill-advised conduct, this is more of a brief topic.
We've previously had Eliza Blue on our sidebar show.
She does a lot of great work exposing issues, particularly related to Twitter and Google.
Previously, you know, promoting...
Well, I mean, we're on Rumble, so, you know, pedo behavior, promoting child sexual abuse content on their sites.
And so credit to her still for the good work she does on that.
Now, with a caveat of this, somebody made a couple of people, Brittany Ventney and the Quartering and a few others, point, I think the Star Wars girl talked about it too, reference that, you know, she has some old videos that are up of her.
Some rap videos that I guess she doesn't like the image of her in those videos.
I mean, they're flattering images, but I think she thinks of them as exploitative and non-consensual.
The problem is, when you are a public figure for which someone has released a public image on a public platform, if somebody else references that or cites to it, there's nothing illegal in what they're doing at all.
Apparently, she has called it illegal.
And apparently, Elon Musk, to his credit, has developed a relationship with her to try to deal with the issue of child porn on Twitter, which is very important.
I guess some people at Twitter took either her statements or somebody on her behalf to suspend the accounts of Brittany Ventney and suspend the accounts of the quartering when they did nothing wrong.
And I don't think she's...
It's a Barbara Streisand effect, what she's doing.
In my view, her past is her business.
I don't care.
I like the work she's doing right now today on fighting these issues.
What I don't support is her or her people, or people in support of her, misinterpreting the rules, misinterpreting the law to suspend accounts like the quartering and Brittany Vintney.
This is just, this is a bad, but it looks bad for her too.
It's going to be a bad Barbara Streisand effect.
Well, first of all, I...
People were, I don't know, I saw tweets that, you know, Viva, you have to chime in.
First, I don't have to chime in at every...
You don't have to chime in about nothing.
That's like we were yipping about the Jack Murphy thing.
I was like, I don't get to chime in.
No, if Jack Murphy wants to do things involving his rear end and whatnot, that's his business.
But I don't have to chat about it.
Now, you know, if he makes a dumb statement of going after Nick Ricada, well, you know, Nick Ricada is going to make fun of you.
Comedy is the best rebellion, you know, the best vengeance.
But the...
But yeah, I always get a kick out when people say, you have to comment on something.
No, because she was on my channel.
We interviewed her.
And now, like, I'm somehow responsible for things that happen afterwards.
I'll say publicly nothing that I wouldn't tell Eliza directly.
It's a bad move, first of all, optically.
And Streisand, in effect, the video now has twice as many views as it did yesterday.
You know, the argument that Eliza was raising is that it's private-produced images publicly shared.
Okay, first of all, that might apply to the YouTube video, but it would not apply to...
But you've got to take down that YouTube video.
I've dealt with this in a range of contexts for people.
You can't blame the people that relink it.
You've got to deal with the original source material and object to that and say, that's what I object to.
I'm not objecting to anyone else linking to it.
I'm objecting to this.
That's the better way to go about it.
Especially people like the quartering are her ally.
And have been her ally in a bunch of contexts.
He hasn't been one of those people dragging through and second-guessing everything in her personal history.
He's been someone who's been a fan and a supporter of her work.
There's no reason to do anything, or her people, maybe her people on her behalf, doing anything to get him suspended.
That's insane.
And the other thing is, look, I don't know the details, and I'm not sure that the excuse or the...
The alleged infraction that she invoked to allow Twitter to suspend the accounts related to that video.
But if what the allegation is, is that the content of that video was non-consensual, well, you're going to do a lot of undermining of your brand when people go look at that video and say, it didn't look non-consensual to me.
Now, and I'm playing, I'll steal man Eliza's argument here because I went through a bunch of those other world star hip-hop videos.
People are saying, oh, she agreed to do a hip-hop rap video.
To me, what it looks like is that they get a bunch of stock footage of women doing things, and then they subsequently later remix it into these awful rap videos.
Like, there was one of a woman just doing, like, gymnastics indoors that had nothing to do with the rap song, but they take that footage and then subsequently remix it, potentially without their authorization.
Maybe Eliza did this, maybe under the influence of the time, who knows?
And then says, you can't do anything with that, and then they, lo and behold, go re-edit it.
So, steel man it, even if that's what happened.
To make the argument that it was non-consensual without further explanation is a branding, devastating mistake.
Period.
And it should have been better off.
It's going back to our Daily Crowder debate.
How to approach this.
When you have people who want to be your allies, just email them or DM them.
Give them some context.
Say, by the way, this person filmed me.
I didn't expect this to go public.
I didn't do this rap video.
I'm going at the YouTube channel to get it taken down.
Please don't link it for this time frame.
I'd really appreciate it.
People like the quartering and Brittany Vindy would have walked away.
I mean, at least, I don't know Brittany, but at least quartering, I know he wouldn't have pursued it.
It's just...
Particularly, she's developing a good relationship, and her supporters are developing a good relationship with key people at Twitter to really go after problematic content.
Especially now, don't misuse that.
That influence for this counterproductive purpose.
Yeah, and especially when people are going to look at it and say, Will, if you call that trafficking, now I'm going to question what you call it.
They're going to find ways to say, maybe you don't mean trafficking.
And part of this may be the Tate people.
There's a lot of Tate supporters that have been at her because she supported people that were making accusations against Tate and Andrew Tate.
So maybe some of that, it wouldn't surprise me.
There's a good number, even though I have said I don't think the Tate case is anything about the case it's supposed to be about.
I think it's about politics and war in Romania, and it's about those statements that Andrew Tate made, not his other more controversial personal gender issue content.
I do hope that some of the Tate supporters are not misusing their authority to try to go after certain people with arrest.
That would be counterproductive.
You mean Eliza?
Eliza or Eliza's supporters or others.
Some of it has a little bit of those fingerprints.
It was like my first reaction to the Jack Murphy stuff.
Now, he kept acting out in such a ridiculous way that I quit.
I started making fun of him myself.
And it wasn't just because Drex and Rakata's routine was brilliantly funny.
Yeah, brilliantly funny and brilliantly profitable for Rakata.
Well, Drex could do a perfect imitation of...
No, you know, the other night they were on like a Friday night fun show and I was like, hey, maybe I'll hop on.
And then they got into one of those conversations that I was like, I don't think I'm going to...
Not only is this like not for kids conversation, it was just not...
It was one of those regated conversations.
So I was like, God bless, but I don't think I want to be on the same screen at the same time that we're discussing this issue in particular.
Even when Eliza was on and we had the discussion, what are we understanding when we say...
It will do not just damage to her brand, but damage to the cause if people now think it's being used flippantly and, worse yet, politicized in Twitter under new management to circumvent the rules that would otherwise never be applied this way to anybody else.
And again, everybody, I would say this privately.
It's just that this is, again, more of a Jack Murphy-type dispute.
It's a brand-compromising dispute.
What would have been the best way to deal with it?
The video's not that bad.
And just ignore it.
If it was something that, like, let's say you'd made that video for your boyfriend or somebody and then he'd sold it to somebody, I get the objection.
I totally get it.
I get that very personal.
That would be revenge porn.
And sometimes it is hard to get that stuff taken down.
I've represented other people that have tried to get that stuff taken down, and it can be difficult.
But what I've recommended to those clients is if somebody else is sharing it, just approach them directly.
If they're acting in good faith, you can get them to agree.
And you won't have a problem.
No reason to burn bridges with allies.
And also...
Impugn the cause.
Because, you know, there was that lawsuit of the kid suing Twitter to take down a video.
They refused to take it down.
And now some people might think that...
Some people could be misled to think that that video was as...
I'll say innocuous because this video is a world star hip-hop video.
It's not porn.
Someone might be embarrassed by it, but it's not CP.
Yeah, if you want embarrassing, try being the third generation solicitor, which is the equivalent of a prosecutor with all kinds of political power and control in South Carolina.
And being accused of faking your own attempted murder, murdering your own wife, murdering your own son, who is currently facing charges of reckless homicide for killing somebody else in a boat accident, all to cover up the fact that you've been busy stealing from your clients for the better part of a decade.
Welcome to the Murdoch case.
Robert, this is the stuff of Hush Hush.
I'm just going to sit back and listen because you're going to...
Tell us.
This is a...
What's his name?
The novelist that you always...
James Elroy.
James Elroy.
I was going to say, James Elroy.
This is a James Elroy story.
What the heck is going on?
So, you know, I started watching this documentary.
I forget which channel.
Maybe it's Netflix.
Maybe it's another one.
It's like a four-part one.
And then, you know, I still have my mom's curse.
So, when my mom had doubts about a book or a movie ending...
She would read the ending first.
I still do that.
If I'm watching something, I'm like, I don't know if I like where this is going.
I'll check to make sure I know the ending.
If the ending is crap, I'm like, screw it.
And I don't watch the rest of it.
But so, this one was like...
First, it started off about the power of this old money.
It felt like a John Grisham novel, too.
You're waiting for that front-line voice from Pelican Brief to come on.
The young lawyer who just cared about the Pelican.
Begins at the beginning of the movie.
The same thing here.
This old money South Carolina family.
Some people ask, why is Trump putting Lindsey Graham on his committee?
Because he wants to co-opt or prevent or block Nikki Haley from contesting South Carolina.
Again, I'm not a Lindsey Graham fan.
He was over whoring for war again over in Ukraine again, and doing everything possible to trigger World War III.
But that's because the Murdoch case tells you a little bit about how South Carolina tends to operate.
It's politics is old money.
There's some folks down there still think they're running plantations.
And so the Murdoch family, a lot of power, a lot of control, always a lot of controversy over how they manipulated that power.
So when his son was charged, there were a lot of people in the community that said his son's going to walk.
And around the time they were saying, his son's going to walk because this family runs this whole county.
They run the whole show.
They've gotten fabulously wealthy while they've been the solicitor and the public prosecutor.
The solicitor is just an old, gives you an idea, old English construct.
And you don't find many solicitors' offices in America.
You do in places like the deep south of South Carolina, because it's a whole different world down there.
I remember traveling through the Mississippi Delta, and it looked no different in the 1930s.
No, that was back in the 90s, so it may have changed since then.
But this gives an idea for the mindset down there.
And so I think where Cade has said he's going to be covering the trial live, and it's coming up.
I would have loved to have watched the Elon Musk trial, but it's in federal court, so they don't allow you to watch it.
But the Murdoch case is apparently going to be broadcast.
It's because of the political pressure.
So his son, what happened was a boating accident.
And in the boating accident, his son got stoned drunk, and his son was one of those angry drunks.
Until I met, I won't say who, until I met a certain person.
I had never met angry drunks before.
I only knew happy drunks.
So when I met an angry drunk once, I was like, whoa, this is not fun at all.
And so the kid apparently was an angry drunk, drove the boat into a bridge and killed a young teenage girl.
And he ended up being charged.
His father tried to manipulate the case, tried to do a whole bunch of other...
Drove it in on purpose, not by accident.
Not clear.
He was just angry and drunk.
So it was one of those, but clearly reckless.
And he tried to pretend he wasn't driving.
They tried to blame it on a working-class friend of his.
So they tried to do that with pressure at the hospital.
But my guess is what was really happening, as it turns out, is that the father was probably terrified that his son's case might open up the case into the father.
So the next thing you hear in the news, the mother, the wife of the defendant, and the son that's being prosecuted...
Both are shot to death.
The father calls it into 911.
Not long after, there's an attempted murder of the father.
The apparent attempt is to make it look like somebody's targeting the family wrongly in an overreaction by this bitter, jealous, envious community.
But then what comes out is that the law firm has fired the father, of whom he's a name partner, because it turned out he'd been stealing for years.
From his clients and then apparently started stealing from the other partners, too.
Classic lawyers.
You can steal from the clients, but you can't steal from us.
You've got to be reasonable.
So he's out the door.
And then they dug in and they started figuring out the only explanation for the attempted murder was that it was entirely a setup, a fake attempted murder, to garner sympathy and distract from these other investigations.
Then they dig in further.
And they find evidence the father killed his own son and wife to try to get all of them.
He faces the murder trial and the robbery trial.
I don't know if both are combined or not, but coming up this month in February in South Carolina, going to be broadcast live.
Nick Ricada.
That's...
Oh, my God.
Is Nick, I say, going to have a field day with that in the most cynical way that only Nick can in a good-natured take on that?
He has Andrew Branca.
There'll be lots of very politically incorrect jokes.
I presume the evidence...
I know nothing about the case.
I just presume that the evidence is...
Pretty clear cut?
Or pretty damning?
There's a lot of controversy over a shirt that he apparently had that apparently had blood splatter on it.
But there's apparently a Fourth Amendment controversy and evidentiary controversy about the admissibility of the shirt.
So, yeah, we'll see.
There's obviously a jury selection case, too, because there's been a lot of media attention in South Carolina about the case.
But, yeah, a little bit.
But down deep, it just shows you most prosecutors are sociopathic murderers.
And I think Reketa is happy to be covering that because the Dumpster Brothers case is not going to be live-streamed, from what I understand.
No televised.
Again, I think the whole world would be better if our courtrooms the world could see.
Absolutely.
They would see what a clown...
What was the trial that we were just watching?
Oh, the Alex Jones in Connecticut.
I mean, everybody saw that.
As much as that trial was set up to produce a result, it still was an utter embarrassment, if not an outrage.
Robert, do we do a little quick one about the fireball lawsuit?
Oh yeah, sure.
That's one of the fun cases of the week.
So it seems like a no-brainer is that Fireball passes itself off as whiskey.
It says, I'm looking at a label here.
And at the liquor store, it sells little bottles of cinnamon whiskey.
Yeah, it says cinnamon whiskey on it.
It's disgusting crap.
I don't know who would buy this.
It says whiskey with natural cinnamon flavor.
That's Jagermeister.
That's the stuff that when it comes up, if it ever comes up, oh my God, does it burn as much coming up as it does going down?
And you'll never have cinnamon again for your life.
Side note, I was playing poker one time with a friend and he kept on filling up our glasses with lychee martinis and filling it up like it was a cocktail, not like a cocktail, filling it up like it was Kool-Aid and not a martini.
And I'm sitting there drinking, playing poker, and I stand up and it was as though someone had slapped me in the face with drunkenness.
Like I went from being normal to being incapacitated drunk.
I vomited up the lychee martini all night.
I could not smell lychee for the next decade without it really making me want to puke.
Go out and enjoy that whiskey cinnamon.
You'll have a similar experience.
Don't do it.
Drink responsibly.
The lawsuit is that it's not actual whiskey because whiskey is aged, distilled, goes through more regulation.
This is malt crap.
Well, what they're selling in the grocery store.
What they've done is...
So what they're selling in the liquor store is still whiskey.
But Fireball got the idea, why don't we sell it in the grocery store?
Now, of course, you can't sell liquor in the grocery store.
So they just sold it and made it look like it was identical.
To the whiskey bottle they sold at the liquor store.
And so people were like, oh, I can get it cheaper at the grocery store.
Not knowing they weren't buying any whiskey at the grocery store.
So just as you know, a malted product, which is not, in fact, has no whiskey in it.
Now, the one they sell at the liquor store does have whiskey in it.
But the one at the grocery store does not.
And so now they are facing a class action for...
Lying to everybody.
To me, that's a no-brainer.
I mean, it's a no-brainer.
What's the percentage maximum to be sold at grocery stores?
Oh, it depends on the state.
In some states, you can sell on different days.
Some states, it has to be this.
Some states, it has to be that.
Some states, you can only sell at the liquor store.
Some states, you can sell some of it at the grocery store.
It all varies by state.
No, because I think they brought the percentage down so they could sell it at grocery stores, not liquor stores.
No-brainer, but how do you sanction?
How do you attribute damages to this?
What their profits were by misrepresenting it?
Yeah, I presume it would be unjust enrichment kind of claim that people wouldn't have bought it.
If they would have known that it wasn't whiskey.
Now, their excuse is going to be that if you look closely at the label, only the word cinnamon was at the grocery store, whereas cinnamon whiskey is at the liquor store.
Oh, crap.
That's passing off on their own product.
We made it look exactly like the one you already know that you get, that you like, but it's just lower quality and not the same product at all.
They're selling like a mini bottle, so you had to have a microscope to see that the whiskey was missing from the label.
Well, that's a no-brainer.
And that's like calling your wine...
My father was involved in a case where they were calling wine Bordeaux, but it's not the actual certified.
They had a name that was confusingly similar.
Robert, let's bring it back home to Florida.
DeSantis, this lawsuit, you're going to need to flesh out the nuances here because if anyone were to read the coverage of him being vindicated after having fired a prosecutor or dismissed a prosecutor, the coverage of the judgment literally said, DeSantis loses, and then when you read inside the article, it says, but the judge sided with DeSantis.
He suspended or he terminated, fired a prosecutor on the basis that, among other things, the prosecutor said, I'm not going to prosecute abortion crimes, or I'm not going to enforce certain abortion laws, among other things.
State attorney, sorry.
DeSantis fires him.
He then sues for First Amendment violations.
And the judge basically says, this was a First Amendment violation, but you could have been terminated for other reasons, so I can't intervene.
And DeSantis ultimately wins, even though he's a bad, bad man.
Is that about right?
Yeah.
So, I mean, on both sides, we read the liberal media.
They misrepresented what took place.
A lot of conservative media, they were like, DeSantis wins big.
They misrepresented what took place.
The court was a hostile court.
The court went and attacked DeSantis all the way through, but found, as you note, for legal reasons, because DeSantis had at least six different grounds that he cited for terminating him, and this is what's called a mixed cause case.
So the law varies by jurisdiction on this, state, federal, and between the circuits, which is what happens if somebody fires you?
Part of their motivation is not legal.
Part of their motivation is.
Different courts have different rules.
But in the 11th Circuit, the rule is, if there's any motivation that was permissible, then you can't sue for the firing.
And the judge's point was, for the six reasons he cites, he has the legal right to do.
And even if it might have violated state law, I, as a federal judge, am not empowered to issue relief for a state law violation.
So the judge takes lots of potshots at DeSantis that I thought were excessive.
Like he pretends there was no policy against certain prosecutions, despite the prosecutor making statements to that exact effect.
This is the, well, you hadn't reduced it to a written policy defense.
So a lot of what the judge said I thought was wrong.
It was a legal win for DeSantis, not quite a political full win for DeSantis, partial win, partial loss politically, but legally a full win because he has the legal right to fire the guy.
And the guy, in fact, in my view, was breaking the law in ways the federal judge pretended otherwise.
Is it one of those cases where less would have been more?
Did DeSantis need to motivate the firing?
He wanted the political bounty, the political benefit of publicly firing this guy for a whole bunch of reasons.
And he wanted those reasons as part of his public record so that he could politically benefit from it.
And so that was inevitable in this context.
Because he's not running for president, Robert?
No, he's not.
That's my view.
Everybody's thinking he's going to, I'm still skeptical.
I was being facetious.
So you actually do not think he's going to run?
No, no.
He was only going to run if Trump, for some reason, did not.
Well, this is a good segue into the Trump crap.
Robert, the documents, the classified documents appointing, not a special master, sorry, a special prosecutor to the Biden classified leaks.
First, I just want to stop right here and just say that Karine Jean-Pierre is the worst press secretary in the history of America.
Like, in retrospect, I now like Jen Psaki compared to Jean-Pierre.
It's...
Watching Jean-Pierre on the...
You would circle back to Jen Psaki.
But at least, you know, circle back and, you know, I'll be waiting.
You won't get there, but at least I'll be thinking you're going to get there.
Watching Jean-Pierre is like watching that Canadian politician at the beginning of the show just...
Listen to your question and just give you a different answer.
This is a serious, serious scandal.
We talked about it a lot last week.
I don't know what more developments there have been.
Did we talk about the special prosecutor that has been appointed and his connections to the administration?
I mean, we just mentioned it briefly, that it's a special prosecutor that's a captured counsel that's highly unlikely to fully vet.
But there were more documents coming out.
Basically, every time they stumble into any place that Joe Biden has lived or been, they find more classified documents.
It's like they'd be stuck on your shoe if you walked through his house by accident.
I mean, that's how many classified documents from his Senate period and his VP period that he had.
And they're trying to pretend they're not classified, which is interesting.
They may be legally right.
Maybe these were at some point declassified.
It's just he could have only done it now.
He could have only done it now while he's president because he couldn't declassify them as vice president in most cases.
Definitely couldn't have in the Senate.
Well, Senate, forget that.
Well, unless...
The president could have declassified them back in the day, Obama?
Oh yeah, Obama could have.
And he could have himself once he's president.
That's true.
Obama could have declassified them.
But they were trying to say, well, there's classified markings on them.
And I was like, that's interesting because in Trump's case, when Trump said they were declassified despite them having classified markings, you said that didn't matter.
Suddenly now Biden says that, oh, declassified markings mean nothing.
So, like I said, whoever exposed this, more evidence came out supporting the thesis that proposed last week on the show, which was that this was a white hat intermediary actor.
I mean, it turns out chief of staff Ron Klain is going to have to resign because of his complicity.
Why?
Because they planned on...
Why is Klain resigning?
I mean, I try to read it.
I don't understand.
It's just like, okay, well, we're embarrassed, so somebody's got to resign.
What's he purported to have done that merits his resignation?
He led the cover-up at the White House of this information from public disclosure.
That's purportedly the backstory.
And that rather than him being outed and put on the hot seat and everybody know he did that, he's just stepping down before the heat can come on and he'll cash in, by the way.
Like Jen Psaki, he'll get a nice fat contract because he knows everybody at the White House.
I mean, that's the best way to be chief of staff.
Be there for a couple of years and then go cash in while the president's still there so you can make all the money.
So I'm not sure he's going to be hurt that much.
But what it shows is there was a sophisticated effort to cover it all up.
Somebody along the chain got wind of it, leaked it to the press, and that's what sort of created the issue.
Now, Mark Robert has a different thesis that was along my earlier thesis that they would try to take Biden out in some ways, and he thinks this is part of an escalating effort to remove Biden.
Maybe it is.
Now, my view is I have the same defense for Biden that I had for Trump, which is that I think this is all overblown.
Now, the only difference would be this.
If he was using classified documents, sharing them with his son and family members in order to monetize access to that information, that would be a whole different animal.
Yes, or if his son had gotten them, or if someone else had gotten them because his son did something and...
Because his son was banging random hoes?
Well, his son is...
What's his son?
Actually paying $50,000 a month for this house, or did he just say he was for the purposes of some application?
Well, we'll see if Republicans do meaningful here.
I mean, the Democrats set the precedent.
Get all the tax records.
Those are now public records, apparently.
So those are the new rules.
Well, the new rules, get the tax records, get the financial records, get the bank records.
Who was Hunter getting paid by?
And how often was he kicking up 10% to the big guy?
Because that looks like money laundering in exchange for access to classified information and other information, monetizing access to his father, the senator, his father, the vice president, in ways that probably jeopardize national security.
If we take the confession through a projection filter and look at everything they accused Trump of, that would be exactly what Hunter Biden is guilty of.
This is my other question, Robert.
First of all, I agree, and I think 100%.
Second question.
They tell Biden's lawyers to stop looking for documents, and they continue to do it nonetheless.
And some people suggest that that indicates interference or obstruction.
I'm sure they're going to argue it's just assistance.
Are they defying any sort of Department of Justice order by doing that, by continuing to look for documents?
And is the real possibility that they are finding them for the purposes of collaborating?
And removing stuff that they might not want anybody to see still?
That's possible.
I'm going to read one Rumble Rant, Robert, because you're going to like it.
Grunt167, my name is Robert and I'm a milkaholic.
I can't stop drinking milk.
From AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com Best milk in the world.
Farm fresh, right from the farm.
And I'm going to read, I'm screen grabbing all of the Rumble Rants.
I'm going to do it during a Locals Live tomorrow, so we're going to get to those.
Okay, Robert, what do we move on to now?
Oh, we got the Second Amendment cases, so we got a bunch.
Okay, go for it.
I mean, I know the one that the Supreme Court is not intervening on an interlocutory basis to stay application of these new regulations that New York imposed after the Supreme Court victory to...
To circumvent the Second Amendment victory that that Supreme Court decision was, New York comes in and says, we're going to make new legislation.
It's going to create safe spaces in a variety of areas.
It's going to create incredibly onerous bookkeeping obligations for gun sellers, which they say is going to put them out of business if they have to go through with this.
Supreme Court says, we're not adjudicating on the merits yet, but we're not granting interim relief.
What did I miss and what more is there to that?
The other one was two cases out of Illinois.
First was Illinois trying to pass a big gun ban, and a whole bunch of sheriffs throughout the state said, no thanks, we're not obeying this, we think this violates the Constitution.
They filed suit, and they got an injunction against the initial enforcement of that gun ban.
The other case in Illinois, Seventh Circuit re-reversed a federal district court dismissal, because what had happened was, if you were a daycare provider, Again, they love to link licensures and taxes and federal funding to ways to control people in ways the Constitution is not supposed to allow.
But here what they said is if you operate a daycare, you can't have a gun on the premises anywhere, even for security purposes.
So some daycare owners sued and said, because you also have home daycare places, places where people are in their home.
So if they were going to operate a daycare from their home, they had to remove all guns from their home.
They're like, this violates our Second Amendment rights.
District Court dismissed.
Seventh Circuit said, in light of Bruin, the Supreme Court, the big Supreme Court decision reversing the New York's laws, the Federal District Court needs to reevaluate this to see whether, in fact, this conforms to the Second Amendment under the Bruin precedent.
So that's a promising case.
What's the Bruin precedent, for those who don't know?
Bruin was the case that reversed at the end of last year, reversed the New York law.
And most importantly, it established a new framework for all Second Amendment cases.
Much of the New York law has already been enjoined by a range of courts.
Not all of it has.
And there's been a range of injunctions issued throughout the country against a range of laws in this context.
And we're just seeing, and this is just the latest example of another law that will be re-evaluated in light of Bruin.
Hopefully, productively.
But it has to stop the ATF from trying to redefine what is and isn't a gun in order to basically make a criminal out of half the country.
And so that's going to go right into the federal court process.
We'll discuss that in more detail once the lawsuit gets filed challenging it.
My understanding is that's imminent.
So once that's filed, we'll break it down in more detail.
But trust me, a lawsuit is coming on what the ATF has done.
Remember the ATF's determination?
The rules set on bump stocks got enjoined by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ATF's attempts to redefine guns in other contexts got enjoined by other federal courts.
So this is just the latest effort of the ATF, and it is likely to be overturned again by the court system because the ATF doesn't respect the Second Amendment.
All right.
Interesting.
Robert, they can't find the leaker.
They can find a grandma in Alaska.
They can find everybody, and they can find them 18 months later.
They're pressing charges against military members for their role in January 6th.
For being there for like half an hour.
They got subpoenas to get access to their Facebook pages.
The guy's name is Coomer, which is an unfortunate name, not because of what it means to be a Coomer, but because of the other Coomer there from Dominion.
They can find all of those people and they can deploy all the resources on God's green earth.
They can't find the leaker, Robert, either because there's too many or because they're not looking or because it might be the justice himself.
I don't know.
I'm saying that.
What's your take?
Is it because there's too many people, too many suspects, they don't want to find them, or it's the judge himself?
Were you on Megyn Kelly about this?
No, I didn't talk about this on Megyn Kelly.
I was talking Alec Baldwin and we were going to talk about it.
Ah, okay, yeah.
So, I mean, it's what I predicted out of the gate was that they were not going to ever identify this leaker and definitely not ever prosecute the leaker because it's who and what the Supreme Court is.
The first evidence of this was the Supreme Court's refusal to allow any outside investigative service involved.
The U.S. Marshals are under the court's control, court's jurisdiction.
Anybody with any experience with the marshals know they don't rattle the judge's chains.
They'll do what the judges say.
Even when it's flatly illegal, U.S. marshals will still do it.
I experienced this firsthand with one of the nicest U.S. marshals I've ever known who engaged in illegal conduct on behalf of the federal judge during a criminal trial.
It involved ex parte communications by the judge to the jury.
That he only confessed at the end of the case after the verdict came in because he was afraid one of the jurors was going to rat him out.
But he was known as Maximum Moody, and he ended up giving a minimum sentence to my client because he got caught doing it.
So it was no surprise to me.
As you note, if they were serious, they could have pulled email files, phone files, social media files.
They would have found who this is without any problem.
First of all, I don't recall how was the draft leaked?
Was it a hard copy or was it digitally?
Because either way, there are very, very easy ways of narrowing it down, pinpointing it, time, location, when was it printed, when was it?
It's inconceivable.
It's inconceivable that they can't identify the leaker.
The only question then is, why?
Are they going to say, we don't want...
Open source intelligence people on the internet have identified the likely leaker.
And yet the U.S. Marshals and the Supreme Court just can't find him.
So it's because it implicates justices.
And they don't want those justices implicated.
It's that simple.
Despite how embarrassing and humiliating it was, it was predictable.
That this would be the inevitable and inescapable outcome.
Also, it's for a secondary reason.
The reason why the court wanted to keep exclusive control over this is they didn't want to see how often justices leak to the media all the time, including one chief justice, Roberts.
He is infamous in Washington for talking off the record to the press about pending cases.
This is one of those hush-hush theories, Robert, that I very much...
I can be very easily persuaded by.
That's phenomenal.
And that's it.
So it's just done.
Everyone move on.
We don't know who killed Epstein.
I'm sorry.
Epstein killed himself.
We don't know who did it.
What are the three eternal truths?
Epstein didn't kill himself.
Sally Yates is still corrupt.
And we all know what that third eternal truth is.
I forgot now, Robert.
Always in writing, never in cash?
It's a Trump technique.
So the Trump always says, oh no, what this is, right?
And he lets everybody's imagination go to where it could be.
Sally Yates is corrupt.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
And the third one is?
Something that everybody down deep knows to be true.
For the love of God, I'm going senile.
I'm going to the chat here.
Okay, I'm not reading that one.
It was my favorite closing argument story from an old school LA lawyer who also explained to me how corrupt the complex court division was in California.
But he said that, which I was shocked at at the time, and how it was connected to corrupt corporate arbitrations.
But he said that his best ever closing argument was a case where his client was completely guilty.
He was like, I couldn't even think of a defense.
And so I just went up to the jury and said, We all know what really happened.
We all know my client is innocent.
Sits down.
The jury came back and acquitted, and they were all debating him.
Hey, was it this?
We all thought it was this.
We thought it was that.
That was the genius of it.
Robert, what was it?
Trump won?
Is that the third eternal truth?
What is it, Robert?
That's the goal of it.
If you never define it, you let each individual pick their own.
We've done this for so long now.
I thought we filled the third eternal truth.
Occasionally, should I say, this could be a third eternal truth.
I'm just going senile.
That's the bottom line.
I blame the kids.
Alright, Robin, I'm going to our list.
One of my favorite little eclectic topics.
Briefly on the elections, Carrie Lake's appeal is still pending.
A.G. Hamada has found some more provisional ballots that suggest he may have won in Arizona for Attorney General's position.
That is still pending in the courts.
And a good right-to-sue case over election laws about standing was found in the 10th Circuit that said, yes, because of the First Amendment implication on election laws, you do have the right to sue, and you do have standing to sue, which is good.
There's a crazy standing case we'll get to in a second.
But one of my favorite topics of this week was, what happens when AI gets involved in the law?
There's actually going to be a robot lawyer that's going to defend a case in court, apparently, coming up.
I just saw the headline.
I didn't read the details.
Also, AI is being sued because an AI company is taking art and using it and creating AI alternatives to train its AI to help train other artists.
And the artists are suing, saying, hold on a second.
That AI work you're doing, that's just derivative of my work.
And without paying me, you're compensating me.
And they're trying to use the AI exception as if it's its own creation.
For the work.
So that'll be an interesting suit to follow.
Because in all these contexts, for example, could you sue, what is it, chat GPT or whatever it's called?
Could you sue them if they defame you?
What if they repeat a statement that's actually false in response to somebody's question?
Could you sue the AI, the AI owner?
And then what happens, what if AI did something legally wrong?
How do you determine legal intent in the case of AI, artificial intelligence?
Do you judge it by its algorithm?
Do you judge it by its creator, by its owner, by its profiteer, or by it itself?
I mean, how do you measure intent in AI cases?
I'd go with all of the above except for the last one, the creator, the program.
The creator, the programmer, and those who make money off of it, I mean, those are the only ones who can have anything to satisfy.
Oh, somebody did point out the actual third eternal truth is, there is no milk better than the fresh farm milk from AnusMillerOrganicsFarm.com.
That's what I thought the joke was going to be.
No, and people say 9-11, that has never been the third eternal truth, but I know that a lot of people, oh man, once you go back and reanalyze history with what you now know, what's the latest on the vaccine front, Robert?
Yes, several different ones.
I mean, the military has reversed its vaccine mandate with one exception, with two exceptions.
One, it's not reinstating people.
It's already disciplined.
That will go forward in the federal lawsuits.
It's also continuing to impose it on reserves.
And so that will continue to be litigated in the reserve context.
The second aspect, as was one of the questions in the replies on the Sunday Topics poll at VivaBarnesLaw.com.
.locals.com, was what about the use of vaccines in our food supply?
And that's going to be its own question.
And what they're going to try to do is induce farmers to do so and then say, my meat is safer because it's vaccinated.
And so now there's some doubts about the ability, whether that could cause the vaccine to...
Leak into a person by consuming that food.
There's disputes about whether that could actually happen.
There's plenty of people that say, no, it can't happen.
There's other people that think it could.
So there's that issue.
I would say, legally, whether or not you can sue is whether or not they mandate it as opposed to just recommend it.
You could potentially sue.
It kind of relates to all the Amos Miller...
Cases about when do I get to pick my own?
When does I, as a farmer, get to decide how my meat is made?
When do I, as a consumer, get to decide what I consume?
And when does the government control and dictate that?
Robert, on that subject, I just want to bring this up.
Some of you might already know it, but it's new to me.
mRNA technology might have the ability, the potential to repair, regenerate cardiac tissue.
So it causes you a heart attack, and then you can go buy it to fix the heart attack.
Robert, who's developing this?
AstraZeneca and Moderna are developing it.
Moderna, the one that has a 15 in 10,000 case of adverse events.
Elon Musk was pointing out that he had adverse events from the vaccine.
His cousin had adverse events from the vaccine.
But don't worry, guys.
MRNA technology that damaged your heart is there to repair your heart.
It's the best thing in the world, isn't it?
The product that causes the problem that causes you to buy another product.
From the same company.
From the same company.
There was that.
Okay.
Oh, and Robert, I'll just read a few of the tips in our vivabarnslaw.locals.com community.
The live chat that's going on right now.
Live chat, there's 273 people there.
273.
Slim underscore Shagan, $1 tip says, is Amos posting this?
And there's a link to Amos Farms.
Pam Walker, Miller, OrganicFarm.com.
You're going to get that tattooed on you one of these days, Robert.
Access to classified info equals treason, doesn't it?
Says Pam Walker.
Plant nerd says Biden out, Kamala out, yelling in.
They want a CBDC, central bank digital currency.
Just like Rishi in the UK, going to be a central banker type.
Then you got FYI USA now says watch died suddenly on rumble.com.
USA Now has another few up there.
Slim Shagan says, I hope Nikki Haley runs for president so she can see how much people see through her facade.
And there's a bunch more, which I guess I'm going to have to screen grab.
And then there's a meme of Robert saying, clean your room, Viva.
Oh, no.
That went through dog shit.
Oh, God.
We got a couple other quick cases to cover.
One, the Trump lawyers were sanctioned almost a million dollars.
Supposedly those other lawyers cost them a million dollars to produce a motion to dismiss.
Really?
It was a Clinton appointee.
And what was the case?
It was Trump suing Hillary Clinton.
So really it was a judge being a political hack, misusing and abusing his power.
Another reason why I think we should pass laws that prohibit judges from issuing monetary judgments without a trial by jury.
That should already be there, in my view.
It's what the Seventh Amendment's supposed to be about, but the courts are ignoring it, so we've got to make it crystal clear because this is why we cannot give judges this power to issue monetary sanctions without jury approval because that would stop all this nonsense.
He's weaponizing his political control over licensure, over monetary sanctions of parties and lawyers for his political point to support the political family that put him in power in the first place.
An embarrassing ruling that...
Hopefully the 11th Circuit overturns, but who knows these days.
The ongoing battle that we talk about between religious institutions and wokeism went to a federal court because about 40 LGBTQ +, whatever the latest alphabet is, sued a bunch of religious schools, but were particularly suing the government because Title IX has an exception in it.
Title IX, Gorsuch mentioned this in his decision.
That a lot of people were upset about, but of course it's pointed out this won't apply to religious institutions because Title IX exempts religious institutions from any of the gender discrimination laws to the degree their religious tenets require their behavior.
So they were doing this because there's some religious institutions that segregate by gender, there's some that are only men, only women, so on and so forth, some that don't recognize gender identity, some that are opposed to gay behavior, so forth.
So a bunch of them sued saying this is outrageous.
This is an equal protection violation.
This is a violation of the Title IX exception shouldn't even exist.
And if it does exist, it should be limited.
Federal court said no.
The government has an interest in protecting First Amendment rights of religious affiliation, association, and expression.
And that interest justifies exempting them from the laws governing gender and gender identity.
And religious educational institutions, as long as they meet the legal definition of it, do not have to abide by the gender identity rules that wokeness is trying to impose on people.
So it was a very good decision.
Hunter was the case.
And so that was a good one.
Gamers are suing Microsoft on nice grounds.
Microsoft is trying to buy Activision that's had its own set of issues over Me Too issues and harassment issues and other issues.
The issue is that...
Basically, this would give Microsoft near-monopoly power in a bunch of the gaming space.
So a bunch of smart gamers got together and sued and said, this is an antitrust violation.
We don't want Microsoft determining our entire...
Large parts of our video game enterprise.
And we know where that's going to go.
That's going to go in a real woke direction given where Microsoft is under the vestigial legacy influence over by Bill Gates.
So good suit.
Hopefully the antitrust laws get enforced.
We'll see if they do.
Those are probably two of the higher profile cases.
One of the crazier cases was here in Las Vegas.
A school teacher, trauma teacher, signed a project.
I said, hey, all the students, you write your own dialogue, and then we'll have some other student read and perform your dialogue in our theater class.
Well, one student wrote a bunch of lesbo stuff, like pornographic, so obscene, the school board said it couldn't be read at the school board meeting.
And another student, apparently maybe a religious student, not sure, young girl, was like, okay, I guess I have to read this for class.
And then her mom found out, and she said, you read what for class?
And brought suit.
Maybe school teachers shouldn't be giving pornographic assignments to young teenage girls.
Robert, that reminds me of a suit that I just became aware of in Quebec where there was an assistant teacher who was grading essays, the subject of which was, give us examples of racist rhetoric throughout history.
The teacher was black, I presume.
And the answers were apparently so offensive on a few of the exams that she sued the school.
For damages, the university for damages, for psychological distress, and they were ordered to pay her $4,000 for the psychological distress of having to have read racist answers to an essay question, which from what I understood was, give us examples of racist rhetoric throughout history.
Well, I mean, speaking of...
Crazy cases involving psychic damages.
So there was a case that's currently pending potentially before the U.S. Supreme Court, taken up by Jay Sekulow and others on an amicus and other basis.
We're in Florida.
There was a school shooting in Ocala.
And so the local authorities said, let's have a prayer rally for everybody.
And a couple of commie, probably atheists from nearby Gainesville, went to it wondering if they would be offended.
And they listened to some of the prayers and like, that sounds like religious prayers.
So they sued.
Now, I'm not a fan of standing in general, but this goes to my point about how hypocritical courts are.
It was like, what exactly was their injury here?
And they said they were psychically damaged.
No actual emotional distress, just psychically damaged by hearing religious prayers at a known prayer rally.
And so it's up for the Supreme Court.
It's like, how is that?
Standing.
But when I sue the FDA with Bobby Kennedy...
They keep saying every court, nope, no standing, no standing.
Even for people who've been injured, people who've lost their jobs, people who've lost their position, people who've been misled, people who no longer trust any drugs at all.
Apparently none of that's a cognizable injury.
Children's Health Defense, which has diverted massive amounts of resources to try to fight this nonsense.
Oh, that's not an injury.
But somebody who goes to a prayer rally, who hears a prayer and suffers a psychic injury, somehow that is standing to sue.
So we'll see how that turns out.
Robert, someone in the VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com chat posted a screen grab from Jack Posobiec, which said that the surviving Silk sister, I forget her name, stood in front of Trump and told him the vaccine killed Diamond and there needs to be an investigation into why people are suddenly dropping dead.
I saw clips of what she said.
Her name is Lynette Hardaway, was the sister.
I saw clips.
I'll look into this tonight and talk about it tomorrow.
I think she implied that that was the case right in front of Trump.
She implied it from what I understood.
She didn't specifically say it.
Why not just come out and say it so that people stop?
Because Trump was present.
Some people were being critical of Trump for some of the statements and other things.
He agreed to pay for the whole funeral and heavily...
That there's grounds to criticize Trump is.
One of them is not criticizing a man who steps forward and a couple that was very loyal to them and doesn't have lots of money and pays for a grandiose funeral procession.
That's not when you criticize Trump.
So God bless Pedro and some others, but that's not kosher.
Now, on the vaccine front, Disney is being sued.
On the grounds that they are so deeply in bed with the Biden administration and so historically tied to the Defense Department that their vaccine mandate was really, along my theory, they're borrowing my theory from the Tyson case, that they're a state actor.
And so it'll be interesting to see how that case progresses and proceeds.
I think it's a tough reach given how the courts are limiting that definition of state actor.
But it's a...
I'm glad people are pursuing it.
And there's a bunch of other grounds they're suing Disney for, of course, under Florida state law, federal violation.
Disney basically completely ignored the religious accommodations for people under their vaccine mandate policy.
Shows who and what Disney really is.
Vernon Jones was a politician who decided to suspend some people he didn't like on Facebook, but he did so from his official account.
And another court found that violates your civil rights.
So if a politician is out there blocking you, you can sue.
And this court found you can get up to $8,000 in personal damages plus legal fees just for the privilege.
So there's a little FYI on that.
Another Supreme Court case involved that they may take involves people are being sentenced in America's federal courts for conduct they were acquitted of.
The jury found them not guilty of it.
And the judge says, I'm going to pretend you were guilty and sentence you as if you were convicted.
And hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court finally takes the case.
A bunch of former federal judges have filed an amicus brief in the case saying this is outrageous.
This is a Sixth Amendment violation.
You should not be criminally sentenced based on conduct for which you were acquitted.
And definitely, I mean, I don't think you should be sentenced for any conduct you weren't convicted of.
But at a minimum, it shouldn't be for conduct you get acquitted of.
And we'll see how that goes.
And then a decent Pennsylvania case.
Redefining aiding and abetting to say if you aid and abet a fraud, you can be sued for it, but you have to have actual knowledge of it.
Now, one little footnote to this.
Why did the court suddenly express concerns about the misapplication of aiding and abetting law when they've been ignoring it for decades?
Because this was a lawsuit against banks.
And all of a sudden, the courts are like, oh, hold on a second.
Banks getting sued for aiding and abetting fraud?
They could probably all be bankrupt because that's all they do is aiding and abet fraud.
By golly, let's limit the definition of aiding and abetting now that the banks are involved.
It's still a good legal principle, but it tells you somehow how the politics makes the law.
And, Robert, what's the schedule for this week?
Do we have a sidebar for Wednesday?
Are you making any appearances in the upcoming week?
I have no scheduled appearances, I don't think, for this week.
Just bourbon with VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
But we might have a special guest this week, and we might actually return the favor and be a special guest on his show.
The one, the only, Alexander Emmerich Jones wants to return to Sidebar.
Booyah.
Okay, it's going to be good.
Oh, so many questions.
So many questions.
Okay, so we might do that Wednesday night.
Yes.
I'm getting a confirmation for him on time.
Okay, beautiful.
And we'll probably do maybe even a long interview on one of his shows at some point this week, too.
100% game.
For everybody out there, I'm always reluctant to confirm it because if something happens, I don't want anyone thinking there's bad stuff happening.
Jimmy Dore should be happening Thursday at 3 o 'clock.
Oh, that'll be fantastic.
I've been boning up on Jimmy Dore.
That sounds terrible.
We've got some big sidebars.
With Glenn Greenwald, with Joel Salatin, with the...
Robert, we have an amazing library.
This will live on.
It's value-added.
Jimmy Dore is amazing.
Unfortunately, we didn't sell it all in a deal to sell our souls to the Daily Wire.
I want everyone to know that people think I've somehow caved in for sponsors.
The deal with Rumble?
Nobody asks me anything.
And by the way, I would have taken issue with it because nobody's going to tell me what I can and can't say.
And if the worst thing is, you know, you get the privilege of sponsoring a product that you use anyhow.
This was not a sponsor for tonight.
Hey, that's a blessing.
That's not a curse.
And if people think that somehow you're less beholden to crowdfunding than to sponsorships, anybody telling you what to think and pressuring you for saying something, that's pressure.
I'm the free dog who might be skinnier than the leashed animal.
Robert, I don't think we need a white pill because I think this has been a pretty optimistic episode, but give us a white pill for the week.
You know, whenever I need a white pill, when I ever need a sort of a re-uptake to re-energize myself, to feel good about the world and support a great family farm operation operating by traditional operation, I get myself some fresh milk straight from the farm.
AmosMillerOrganicFarb.com.
Best white pill you can have all week.
That's going to be a pinned link, everybody.
If anybody wants to go support Jeremy McKenzie on the Give, Send, Go, you're not supporting an individual you might dislike on a personal level.
You are opposing the implementation of a regime that is going to bite everyone in the ass.
It's not what we want in Canada.
You're opposing debanking.
Opposing debanking?
And they try to get away with it on a loathed individual.
I don't think Jeremy's that bad, despite the stupid things that he said.
They try to get away with it there so that it can become the rule.
City of God.
The first time is the rule.
The second time is the exception.
The third time, the exception becomes the rule.
And they're trying to make a rule of the exception of debanking.
Jeremy, it's, what is it?
GiveSendGo.com slash McKenzie, M-A-C-K-E-N-Z-I-E.
Go do it.
Everybody, one heck of an episode.
It will be on podcast tomorrow.
Clips will be out on Viva Clips.
I will be live tomorrow.
I will do the locals live to cover the Rumble Rants.
Thank you all for being here.
▲
Export Selection