Hate that I have to make this video, but I've been constantly being harassed.
There's a lot of dudes like me that have been just trying to get yoked, and you're just constantly being harassed.
Pretty much a guarantee.
She's going to stare over, and there it is.
Can you not film me while you're doing whatever it is that is?
Sorry, I don't even know if she would see what I was doing.
Everyone sees what you're doing.
She wasn't constantly looking over in my direction.
Obviously, you can tell me right now.
She's trying to smash.
She's looking.
Oh!
She's coming over again.
We're going to stop it there.
Ryan Long, that guy's funny.
That's some funny stuff that is, what's the word also, apropos, relevant to today's day and age, where, for whatever the reason, first of all, I hope everybody's happy that we did not start with a stomach-churning, gag-inducing, vomitus-provoking...
Justin Trudeau video.
I could have done it.
Could have done it.
I think we've done enough damage on the bile ducts.
You know, if you vomit too much, it actually starts to burn the back of your throat through acidity.
That guy's funny.
And the video goes on for much longer.
And I'll share the link here so everybody can go show some love to Ryan Long.
He reminds me of one of the guys from Jackass.
I'm not sure which one, and I'm not sure.
I'm thinking of Ryan Dunn.
Okay, no, I shouldn't say that.
Yeah, he's funny.
He's funny.
Good evening.
We're going to have an interesting show tonight.
This is Sunday night with Viva and Barnes on a Monday.
And Barnes sends me the homework, and I'm like, okay, I'm going to get through about 50% of this.
And I think I did.
I got through more than 50% of it.
We've got a lot.
But before we get into that, I'm not going to have a rant.
Like I did yesterday.
Oh, I'm joking.
I'm going to have a rant tonight.
I'm going to consult Robert Barnes as to whether or not I have a claim, a lawsuit against Verizon.
This is going to be like my Maddox X mission, the most expensive $1,500 Verizon ever made.
Knowing what happened to Maddox X mission, if you don't know who that guy is, Google the website once upon a time.
It was funny.
It was once upon a time, the best website on the internet.
And I remember Maddox X mission, other than doing...
I will rate your kid's artwork and it was the most hilarious comedic bit of internet history where he would rate what looked like children's drawings and he was not nice.
They all got F's.
He had one bit where he was talking about some flight booking app that booked him an impossible itinerary in that they booked two flights and it was physically impossible to get from one flight to the next flight.
In time, just physically impossible.
And they would not reimburse him.
And he said, this is going to be the most expensive, however many thousands of dollars you made off this mess.
If Verizon doesn't give me back the $1,500 that they unilaterally took out of my bank account because I authorized prepay like an idiot, I've learned a lesson.
It's going to be the most expensive $1,500 that Verizon ever makes.
Because I...
Hear me out until Barnes gets here.
We're going to have a comedic rant and then we're going to have a serious rant and then Barnes is going to come in and we're going to talk law.
I signed up with Verizon when I came to Florida.
I specifically did not sign up with a contract because I didn't want a contract.
But this apparently offered a rebate if you stayed with them for a certain period of time.
Like after a certain amount of months, they would send you some credit that you could use to do whatever.
Okay.
The service sucked.
I don't know if they have no cell towers out here in Florida.
The service sucked.
And so after about four or five months, I canceled my service.
I wasn't on a contract.
I canceled my service and went with AT&T.
Not much better, but at least I get reception in my own freaking house.
Over Christmas, I'm just checking my bank account, and I notice $1,505 auto-debited from my account by Verizon.
And I'm like, what the flippity F?
I call up Verizon on December 30th and I say, what gives here?
You took out $1,500 for my bank account.
There was no logical explanation that they gave me at the time.
And then they said, we're going to reimburse you by January 8th.
Don't worry about it.
January 8th comes and goes.
I wait a little bit more because I don't want to spend more time on the phone.
I call them back on January 17th.
I say...
Exactly what happened.
I have the reference number.
I have the email I wrote myself the day it occurred.
Then they say to me, we can't reimburse you $1,505 because it exceeds the $1,000 limit that we can have for reimbursement.
And I say, that's amazing.
You took out more money from my bank account on auto pay than you can put back in.
And they said, don't worry about it.
You'll have it back in a couple of days.
Or we're going to figure it out.
They're going to break it up into two $750 charges.
I call up a third time.
On January 25th, after it's not there.
And I say, where is it?
And then they tell me, I'm going to go start a local chat while we do this.
Then they tell me, oh, no, no, no, that's part of the contract.
We took it out because we emailed you some credit for $500 as part of the plan.
And now we're taking that money back because we gave you an email for $500 for the three lines that you had on it.
And I'm like, no, you're not.
Viva live chat.
You said you were going to reimburse that money twice and I never got any $500 credit per line.
Oh, we sent you a deal.
You sent me an email.
Take the email back.
And then I say escalate it because I'll discover small claims in Florida if I have to.
And I ask to escalate and then...
No news.
And I call back today and I say, are you guys reimbursing this?
Because otherwise it's going to be the most expensive $1,500 you've ever made.
And they say, we're going to have someone call you back.
And no one called me back.
Enable live chat.
Let's do it right now.
So I'm a little livid.
I'm like, okay, to auto debit $1,500 from somebody's bank account, which could put them into overdraft, which can cause a lot of problems, is an amazing problem.
That the excuse after the first two times I called when they said, we're going to reimburse you, but it's too much to reimburse you.
They then say, oh, we emailed you a $500 credit as part of the plan.
You got that email.
So we took back $1,500 from your bank account that you never took from Verizon.
And we're not...
Giving it back to you after the first two times of them saying, we're going to give it back to you January 8th.
Oh, it's too much to give back to you.
We're going to split it up.
Oh, I gave permission.
I don't think I did.
Although I will agree.
If this goes to small claims court and that's what a judge says, that's where it'll go.
If this is an absolute deceptive business practice.
I specifically did not take a plan because I don't want a plan.
And specifically, we sent you an email with a $500 credit that you never used, that we never paid, and then we go and take $1,500 out of your bank account.
And, by the way, and after two times, on two separate occasions, affirming it would be returned.
So that's one of my headaches of the day.
Not a big deal.
Be school.
Stay in school.
Verizon earned that the money.
Oh, but it's like, and then the third guy had the audacity to say, we're not giving it back to you.
It's like, oh, I'm sorry.
I have the notes, the confirmation number of the first two times when you said it would come back.
This is the bottom line, by the way.
My lesson is don't ever permit anyone to debit your accounts.
Yeah, credit card is different.
Like credit card, at least you have an extra layer of protection.
Because you can cancel your credit card.
I know people are going to call me stupid.
He who sacrifices common sense for convenience deserves neither quote for 2023.
Okay.
So that's the humorous rant of the night.
It's going to be the most expensive $1,500 they've ever gotten.
Because if this has happened to me, it's happened to other people.
And all I wanted.
All I wanted was the $1,505 that they took out of my bank account.
It could have caused some serious problems.
Okay, so humorous stuff aside, let me see where the Barnes is coming.
He's coming.
An update in Jeremy McKenzie.
I've never done it before.
I started a Give, Send, Go for Jeremy.
Some people think he doesn't deserve it.
Some people think he's getting what he deserves.
Fafo, as they say.
We'll get to that in a second, but here's the update.
We've reached over $30,000 in this Give, Send, Go campaign.
Never set one up before, but I felt compelled to this time because...
Some people can say, oh, Jeremy sounds like a real...
I think I've gotten to know Jeremy a little bit and I don't think he's an anti-Semite.
I don't think he's a racist.
I don't think he's a bigot.
I don't think he's a misogynist.
I think he said some stupid things which people can deliberately choose to misinterpret or take literally because that's the age in which we live.
I'm flagging...
I'm starting some comments here with some potential solutions.
Jeremy McKenzie, founder of Diagalon.
Who's facing gun-related charges, assault charges, seemingly delayed charges from an event that occurred last year, alleged assault of a girlfriend.
Hey, whatever.
He may very well be found guilty at the end of the day.
He may very well be guilty at the end of the day.
This is not the Canada that we live in, where political dissidents, who are quite clearly enemies of the government, get debanked, get arrested, get detained, get held in...
For over two months in pretrial detention and solitary confinement.
This is not Canada that we should know, that we should accept.
And if you think it is because you don't like Jeremy McKenzie, you might be the problem and not Jeremy McKenzie.
Let that sink in.
So Jeremy McKenzie, in the latest travesty here, he was arrested on a nationwide warrant.
Arrested in Nova Scotia, detained in solitary confinement because he refused to submit to the PCR test.
To Saskatchewan, like Nicolas Cage out of Con Air.
And detained there.
I mean, in total, it was like two months.
It was over two months in jail.
And he gets out, but for the grace of God.
He testified for the Public Order Commission.
The Canada's Emergencies Act Commission, he testified from jail.
That's what they wanted.
That's what the government wanted the image of Jeremy McKenzie testifying to be, Jeremy in jail.
He finally gets out after two months and some public outcry, I hope, goes back and then lo and behold, a week and a half ago, he...
Gets debanked.
Scotiabank on a Friday afternoon says, we're cancelling our bank with you.
Go find another bank.
Gets the letter the next Monday.
I publish a letter just to make sure it's all legit.
He has been trying since then to find a new bank account, to find a new bank with whom to do business, systematically denied by everyone that he has talked to.
So now we have a Canadian citizen.
We have a Canadian citizen who is being cut out of civil society by virtue of the fact that he is being debanked and is quite clearly on some list somewhere where he cannot open a new bank account.
It's no big deal, you know?
You're free to live, Jeremy.
You just don't have a bank account into which to put your Government military pension.
You're free to live, Jeremy.
Just, you know, good luck renewing your mortgage next year.
Good luck paying your mortgage when you don't have a bank through which to pay it.
And there are far too many Canadians saying, he's an asshole.
He shouldn't have said Schindler's List was a work of fiction, even though it won the prize for a work of fiction, and even though you can have fictitious stories surrounding real historic events.
Any Canadian who's putting up with this and tolerating it and not being vocal about it just because they don't like Jeremy McKenzie, just wait.
When Justin Trudeau's prancing around talking about misinformation and disinformation that kills people and then puts Pierre Poilievre in the same breath, you think it's only a matter of time before they can find a way to...
Debank people for their political views?
Oh no, now they're only debanking people who are accused of crimes as if that's possibly a justification.
Wait until it becomes deny elections, question elections, debanked.
And what do you think you do when you do this?
From the same liberal progressives who talk about criminal justice reform, rehabilitation, working people back into society.
Just imagine that you took criminals who were convicted and debanked them.
What do you think that does?
On the one hand, you'll make criminals out of people who are not criminals.
You know, my only...
In setting up this give, send, go for Jeremy, my only...
It wasn't even a condition.
I said it after I'd done it.
Jeremy, don't do anything.
Don't give up.
Don't give in.
And don't do anything that you know they want you to do.
So I set this give, send, go up.
The link is here.
And...
It's an absolute outrage, but we've recently crossed $30,000, and people accuse Jeremy of grifting.
First of all, $30,000 is a lot.
If we ever get near the goal of $150,000, good for Jeremy, that's not going to make someone rich for the rest of their lives.
The idea that this is somehow a grift, the people sitting out there accusing Jeremy McKenzie of grifting while they...
Pitch their books and hawk their wares.
There's nothing wrong with it, by the way.
There's nothing wrong with selling books and selling shirts.
VivaFry.com.
There is something wrong with calling other people grifters as though Jeremy is somehow getting rich off this.
He's getting rich by getting arrested.
Solitary confinement.
Being debanked.
$30,000 doesn't go very far these days, people.
Let me bring this one up here.
Since when did debanking become a legal form of penalty?
Who wrote that law?
Who voted for that?
I have to look into something because someone mentioned to me earlier that there used to be a law that basically said banking was a utility up until 2022 and then a law was passed.
I don't know about that.
I don't have to check.
We're live.
Smiley face.
Use a better thumbnail of Barnes?
Okay.
Duly noted, I pulled a picture off the internet and Barnes only has like five pictures on the internet.
I'll get a better one.
Okay.
Jeremy McKenzie.
So that's the latest from Jeremy McKenzie.
And if anybody thinks that this is acceptable.
Oh, well, he's an asshole.
He shouldn't have said those things.
So, you know, F around and find out.
Fafo.
Yeah, we're all Fafo-ing right now, by the way.
And guess what?
One day they'll come for you, too.
But I was only protesting Black Lives Matter.
Well, that's not always going to be popular in Canada.
Black Lives Matter, LGBT rights, they're not always going to be popular.
And if you think you can debank someone for their political views, even crimes for which they've been accused, but not convicted, welcome to the hell that you will inherit.
Okay, what was I saying here?
Now, let's get this here.
Viva, you and Barnes need to have an event in Florida to raise money for Jeremy.
Well, no, if we have something in Florida, we're going to do something to raise money for the hurricane.
I mean, I don't think people have been made whole from the hurricane yet.
Now, let me get to some super chats here.
Steve Britton says, it was Orbitz Viva and Maddox's things I learned about life from an anonymous stock photo models was hilarious too.
Yeah, Maddox.
And then I didn't know what had happened to Maddox.
Viva, look up Deceptive Trade Practice Act in Florida.
Often get attorney fees.
Look into it for $1,500 issues.
I shall screen grab that.
I will get that money back.
Unless I'm truly not entitled to it.
Vivi, you should have canceled transactions.
Stop paying it at your bank immediately.
I think it was too late by that point, anyhow.
I am an attorney, but not legal advice.
2020 Jameson.
Okay, thank you very much.
Now hold on.
And then we got one more here.
Nick Timor, Nick Favore.
I hope the truth doesn't give an F. What your opinion is.
Thank you very much.
Now, by the way, I haven't done this.
I remember the good old days when you had short hair.
I remember the good old days when I thought we lived in a free country with freedom of speech and all that jazz.
All right, we are currently live on Rumble.
Let me see what we got here, if we've gotten anything.
So standard disclaimers, all y 'all.
No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornication advice.
Although we're going to be talking about a lot of it on the menu.
I hope Barnes has the thing.
All good, question mark?
All good, question mark?
You've got the link, question mark?
Yes, so hold on.
Did I remember to put the link for Rumble in the pinned comment?
We're going to be going to Rumble sooner than later.
Here is the link, and let me just go make sure that it's up in the pinned comment.
Okay, it is.
Good.
Hair's looking good, Viva.
Thank you very much.
Did I miss a chat?
I did not.
Okay.
Well, what do we start with until Robert gets here?
Let me just go to my Twitter feed and just pull up an article.
Hold on one second.
Hold on one second.
Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun.
Oh yeah, here we go.
Let's deal with some fun Canadian stuff.
The Toronto Star.
Hold on, I'm going to go open in an incognito window so I don't accidentally boom shakalaka.
The Toronto Star.
You may remember the Toronto Star from such insidious publications as that cover story heard around the world.
When they put in on the cover page, it can only be described as hate speech.
I mean, it can only be described as hate speech.
Hate speech directed at the unvaccinated.
Is it this one?
Okay, it's this one right here.
Look at this.
This was once upon a time, an actual...
For a cover page of print paper, print paper, by the way, in Canada, which as I've been corrected now, when people say that there was a bailout in 2018 and Justin Trudeau bailed out Canadian media, the distinction with the difference, but not that much of a difference, is that the $600 million bailout only went for print paper, not for digital.
Print news in Canada, not digital.
So some outlets, which are strictly digital, didn't get any of that $600 million bailout.
They just...
Sucked on the government teat when it came to COVID ads and government ads and all this other indirect subsidies.
Toronto Star, this was a print headline from what I could tell, a print cover page.
I'll read it.
Toronto Star.
If an unvaccinated person catches it from someone who is vaccinated, boo-hoo, too bad.
I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated.
Let them die.
I don't know who they're quoting, but they're quoting people, presumably.
I honestly don't care if they die from COVID, not even a little bit.
Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU beds.
Just replace the word unvaccinated with any other race or ethnicity.
Oh, but race?
You can't choose your race.
No.
Okay, good.
Great argument.
Substitute it for religion.
You can choose your religion, you hypocrites.
And there are some people who, because of their religion, probably would choose not to take certain jabs.
Simmering divide over who isn't vaccinated.
No jab could mean no job for Air Canada employees.
This was the Toronto Star.
The same schlock institution for which an individual named Brian Lilly works.
Brian Lilly, by the way, look at this.
It's just beautiful.
Someone has to ask the Trudeau government the tough questions.
Someone has to.
It's not going to be political columnist for the Toronto Sun.
I write about federal and Ontario politics.
Sometimes other stuff.
I tweet about ND football and movies.
Sometimes other stuff.
And today is one of those days where Brian Lilly, who is a member of the hateful, spiteful, angry people at the Toronto Star.
Tweets this.
Very happy that Ovechkin and the Capitals came to Toronto and lost tonight.
Losing 5-1 in Toronto looks good on Ovi.
And why does he write that?
Just wait until you see this.
Here, let's go to the article.
Toronto Sun.
Brian Lilly.
Ovechkin shouldn't be welcomed into Canada.
Let's hope Toronto shuns him.
His athletic skills are amazing, but his support for a genocidal dictator is disgusting.
And here they have a picture of Ovechkin from 2012.
You know, very recent.
A very recent picture of Ovechkin supporting Vladimir Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a certificate along with Russian ice hockey team Ovechkin, yada, yada, yada.
Sadly, on Sunday night, barring a last-minute scratch by coach Peter LaViolette, Ovechkin will hit the ice.
This guy, who wanted to cancel unvaccinated Canadians, or sorry, his institution, his outlet, wanted to cancel unvaccinated Canadians a couple of years ago.
Now he wants to cancel somebody else.
Where were we?
They're welcoming this awful, awful man.
We should all want to celebrate magnificent athletes, which Ovechkin definitely is, but he's an ardent supporter of a murderous, genocidal monster named Vladimir Putin.
That's why I can't cheer for Ovechkin and wish the Trudeau government had done the right thing and denied him a visa, an entry visa.
This is the guy, by the way, two seconds ago in his header on Twitter.
Someone has to ask the Trudeau regime.
Oh, sorry, I didn't say the regime.
Trudeau government, the tough questions.
Trudeau should deny a visa to someone from Russia, a Russian hockey player.
Let that sink in.
That's what the Ukrainian Congress had asked the federal government to do.
Can you imagine they want to internationalize a regional conflict into a world war, and they want to nationalize and import conflict in foreign countries into our own country.
Let's start.
Let's promote conflict in our own country.
And it goes on.
Barnes is in the back.
It goes on.
And you can read it.
Boo the guy.
Cancel him.
And understand the absolute stupidity.
Brian Lilly, you're an idiot.
And here's why.
Let's just operate on the basis that Putin is a murderous dictator.
Yeah, Ovechkin should really go back to Russia and start, you know, Taking political stance against a murderous dictator who locks up political dissidents, who locks up journalists, who...
An evil, evil man, as bad as Hitler himself.
Ovechkin should really go and...
He should go spit in his face.
Ovechkin should take to Russian media and lambaste Putin.
That'll go well.
This is the logic here.
They want to cancel him for not...
I don't know what they expect him to do to fight Putin, even assuming Putin is the murderous Hitlerian dictator that Brian Lee...
No.
Ovechkin, you should go sacrifice your life.
You should go get locked up in a Russian prison for pooping on Putin, or we're going to cancel you because we're the most loving democratic society on earth.
If we don't like what you didn't do, we're going to deny you a visa, boo you, cancel you.
Brian Lilly, Toronto Star, rubbish and filth.
My apologies.
All right, Barnes is in the backdrop.
Did I miss...
I missed a couple of Rumble chats here.
Maddox lost, then he went crazy.
Talked to Dick Masterson about it.
Nick Riccata can also tell you he started his own...
He started his channel following his downfall.
Yeah, I heard about that.
The name of the paper is the Red Star.
Okay.
And then one more that I'm bringing in.
Bring on the Barnes.
Okay, what we got here.
You are not in the live section of Rumble.
Have to search for you tonight.
Eight hours ago is a pain in the arse.
Okay, I'm going to go tweet.
You know what?
I'm going to go tweet it out.
Okay, bring on the Barnes.
Robert.
I know you're not sensitive, and I'm neurotic.
I hope...
So people are telling me I've got to take a more current picture of you because it's...
Oh, I don't care.
I like the old one.
Okay, well, I'll get...
Because you don't have that many pictures on the interwebs, and that was like the sharpest, crispest one I could get.
But it is true, now that I look focused, you have...
You're remarkably...
I feel bad saying...
You've lost weight, Robert.
It's remarkable.
Yeah, I still like the old picture.
Also, it's iconic at this point in the sense of it triggers memories of past shows, so I prefer the old photo.
Okay, as in the old thumbnail, not the new thumbnail with an older picture.
Okay, I'm going to go back to it.
I needed one with my longer hair, but I think we're going to just go back to it.
Robert, we're almost...
We're going to start on Rumble.
Everybody, move on over to Rumble.
Here's the link.
We're just going to end it now, and we're going to get into the next.
I've been trying to follow the Murdoch mysteries, but Robert, holy cow, I think I'd put some stuff together.
Everybody, head over to the Rumbles.
Ending on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. Booyakasha.
Oop, not yet.
Booyakasha.
Robert, sir, how are you doing?
Good, good.
What do you have in your hands?
What do you have over your shoulder?
I don't know what type of cigar this is, but that's Jean Le Carre's Taylor of Panama, a book made into a movie, similar to Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana, also a book made into a movie, also based on two spies turned novelists.
Great novelists, by the way, both Graham Greene and Jean Le Carre.
And useful in certain aspects, given the disclosures by Matt Taibbi this week of another version of the Twitter files.
Elon Musk provided Matt Taibbi, which goes into the Hamilton 68 project, which reveals the scale and scope.
Of criminal activities by ex-CIA, ex-FBI, ex-National Security Agency people, some people connected to the government, people connected to Russiagate, Bill Kristol, leading neocons.
In my view, all of them, under the theory, especially being pursued against the meme maker in New York, should be criminally prosecuted for civil rights violations for an effort to truly intimidate, interfere with, impair the 2020 presidential election by...
Falsely libeling and defaming tens of thousands of people as Russian bots when they had no connection to Russia at all, according to Twitter's own hard lefty engineers and analysts.
And much of the media was deeply complicit in this scandal and has yet to have been brought to terms with it.
Hopefully it will be part of an investigative committee, but I thought the tailor of Panama, our man in Havana.
It gives a template for how these Intel operators tend to operate, their operation, Mockingbird style, panache.
There's two different parts of that.
One part of that is infiltration of the media for selling a certain story, but the other part is selling false stories.
And that's what our man and Ivana and both the tailor of Panama, one just comedic, the other really darkly comedic version of this is how the spy craft is really told.
It's what Russiagate really was, and it is relevant, pertinent material, and even an effective transition from your most recent topic.
Well, it is, for those who are not paying attention, because the Twitter files, it's overwhelming at this point, but the Hamilton 68 project.
I don't know if their current intelligence, but certainly ex-intelligence, having set up some sort of platform where they were going to not target, but identify purported Russian bots on social media.
And they knew what they were flagging as Russian bots were not by any means.
They nonetheless did it.
The media nonetheless ran with it.
And these were intelligence individuals, former or current, who knew better or ought to have known better and probably knew better.
And nonetheless did it.
Labeled tens of thousands of legitimate, conservative, wrong-think accounts as Russian disinformation.
And some lefty, peace-oriented accounts, too.
It is...
Robert...
Oh, I'm sorry.
Just to merge that with the meme maker who's facing trial for his meme.
Vote for Hillary.
Stay at home and do it from the comfort of your house.
Text, whatever.
He is being sued for...
Prosecuted.
Criminally prosecuted.
Prosecuted.
Sorry.
Criminally prosecuted for, what are the violations again?
So they have charged him under Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the Ku Klux Klan Act.
So these were laws passed after the Civil War to stop the Klan from intimidating, terrorizing, killing, beating, stealing the property of, threatening or intimidating to do something like that to black voters in the South from voting.
And then it was ultimately extended in the early 19-teens to include things like stuffing the ballot box, falsely counting the vote, all the things that appear to have partially happened in Arizona, by the way, in this last election.
Variations of federal criminal prosecutions occurred over the years.
That's what this law is for.
Now, while William Barr, as the Attorney General under President Trump, lied to the entire American people when he said he had done a full investigation of the 2020 election issues and that he had found no fraud, it has now come out through the Freedom of Information Act, what Richard Barris and I said at the time, because we were in a position to know, Barr was lying to everybody.
Barr never did any meaningful investigation.
For wanting DeSantis to challenge Trump or someone else to challenge Trump currently, go back and look at how many of them were bar simps, too.
And were Durham simps.
And were saying that, you know, there was going to be a big, you know, James Comey is just about to be indicted, as Sean Hannity was lying to people every night, was right around the corner.
You know, that kind of stuff.
It's interesting, the parallels there to it.
But there was no investigation.
That's a FOIA show.
Barr never even investigated anything related to it.
Instead, what did the Justice Department choose to do once Biden was in?
They chose to indict a meme maker known colloquially on social media as Ricky Vaughn.
Actual name is, I think, Douglas Mackey.
Ricky Vaughn was a Charlie Sheen's character from...
Was it not Major League?
It was Major League.
Ricky Vaughn was Charlie Sheen from Major League, if I'm not mistaken.
Exactly.
And that was his image.
And he was constantly being suspended from Twitter and other things.
It was just sort of just a brilliant meme maker.
And he and his buddies came up with an idea to make a meme, to make a joke out of Democrats in the 2020 election that we're going to show how dumb they are by saying, hey...
If you really want to vote, vote for Hillary by texting to this place or sending this tweet.
And they wanted to see how many people took the bait.
Only a few people did.
They're making a big deal.
4,000 people did it.
Okay, that's pretty small in light of Twitter.
They have not proven or produced any evidence that a single person didn't vote because of it.
This was not a sophisticated effort to lie to people about the location of a poll, the date of an election, anything like that.
This was a meme.
In fact, the federal judge referred to it as a meme in his order.
So they moved to dismiss the case on multiple grounds, first on First Amendment grounds, second on due process fair notice grounds, and third on venue grounds.
And on the venue grounds, the problem is there's no rule.
He's being prosecuted in the Eastern District of New York, even though he never did anything in the Eastern District of New York.
He doesn't live in the Eastern District of New York.
None of the identified victims, so-called victims, are in the Eastern District of New York.
Notably, that's because they haven't identified any victim yet.
They haven't identified a single person who didn't vote because of this.
Not one.
And they're wanting to take the statute and say that now, if you spread disinformation about the election process, you can now go to prison for up to 20 years.
They can indict you.
Anywhere, anyplace, anytime, as long as you use the internet to do it.
Well, because, Robert, the argument is going to be, treat this accusation like defamation.
You can make it in Indonesia, and if the meme affects someone in America, like defamation, that's where the damage or the crime occurred, in a sense.
What's different, though, is this is criminal venue.
So if this was civil liability...
That has had a very different standard.
There isn't the same right to a venue in the place where you were, the vicinity of where the crime was committed or where you reside, like there is in the Fifth Amendment criminal context.
And in the civil context, the only analysis is due process.
Is it unfair to have a defendant have to be subject to a trial in a particular jurisdiction?
That's it.
Very limited.
In criminal cases, there has always been a great concern that that power to imprison someone and strip them of all their freedom and liberty is a governmental power we wanted to restrict.
And there were particular concerns about venue abuses in the criminal context, such as dragging colonists away from the colonies and prosecuting them in Britain.
And so the point was that you couldn't prosecute unless that's exactly where the crime was committed or that's where you reside.
And he doesn't reside there.
He didn't do any act there.
Compare it, for example, to the Kentucky Civil Covington case I still have going before the Kentucky Supreme Court where I am not allowed to sue for the victims of defamation in Kentucky on the grounds that the tort wasn't committed there.
Even though they published it there, even though it was received there, even though it was sent there.
Again, civil rules are supposed to be much more lenient for plaintiffs or prosecutors than criminal rules.
And yet here the exact opposite rule is being applied by this Clinton-appointed, Wall Street-backed, Wall Street-affiliated, former government lawyer turned federal judge.
And he made some preposterous statements in his ruling.
Basically what he said is venue is wherever it passed through the internet.
This is a complete evisceration.
They're saying the crime was committed wherever it passed through the internet.
This means anybody can prosecute anybody in any district.
Now, the only way that courts are going to reverse this is if it's used against their pals, against their allies.
Then all of a sudden, hold on a second.
No, venue's always been a limited vicinity.
But as long as it's your political adversary, Democrats are eager to over-prosecute and over-charge in places the case has no business being in.
And because there's allegations of particular racial language used, I think that's why they chose, in some of the communications, internal communications, I think that's why they chose the Eastern District of New York.
Because he was just requesting moving into the Southern District of New York, which is barely better.
But the Eastern District of New York is very African American, very Latino.
And my guess is they're believing that the racial rhetoric...
The judge will enrage the jury pool to agree to be biased against him.
But so the judge actually found that criminal venue can be found wherever something passed through the internet.
This is a complete evisceration of the vicinage rules that has been established since our founding.
The second component is it's a complete evisceration of the limitations on the criminal law.
The criminal law and the rule of lenity requires you have fair notice as an individual that your conduct is criminal before you commit it.
And historically, this law was designed to deal with physical actions, intimidation, threats, beating up people, assaulting people, burning crosses on people, stealing people's property, threatening people's property, or stuffing a ballot box, not counting ballots, submitting a falsified ballot, things of this nature.
It has historically not been applied to people just talking about the election.
The court said, well, this really isn't speech, this is conduct, which is ludicrous.
The court conflated a speech that communicates a true threat with speech about an election.
The second thing the court did, and another ludicrous interpretation of the law, the court said that speech about an election is not political.
That's right.
Speech about an election is not political, according to this ridiculous...
Ruling by this federal judge.
Why did he say that?
Because he didn't want to apply strict scrutiny to the law, which under the Stolen Valor Act interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down a lot of that law about people falsely claiming to be veterans, they said when your speech is about politics, then that is speech that is core political speech, and generally it will not be affirmed as constitutional to punish it, least of all criminally.
But so the court eviscerated the meaning of the Ku Klux Klan Act by saying it applies even in this context.
If you spread disinformation about the election process, it's now a federal crime that can be prosecuted anywhere, anyplace.
That's how dangerous this decision was on both venue grounds, interpreting the federal law, and in terms of void for vagueness and First Amendment attempts that were made to strike down the law.
Do those arguments now, can he raise those before a jury or are those legal arguments that have now been dismissed and so it's going to go to a jury of his peers in a highly politicized area who are going to not deal with any questions of law but only questions of fact, did he do it and was it election interference?
The only argument he's allowing to be submitted to the jury is the government must prove with actual evidence that the tweets That's kind of a ludicrous standard in my view on venue.
It just eviscerates venue.
Venue means nothing now in the federal criminal law.
They've completely gutted it.
Much as they've done in the January 6th cases.
But at least in the January 6th cases, that was about venue bias problems of an impartial jury pool, not people being prosecuted for things they didn't do in the District of Columbia, as is the case in the Mackey case.
The only other thing he's allowed to submit to the jury is the satire defense.
Because his point was, if you look at these memes, it's obvious they're satire.
Here's the irony.
If this was...
A so-called fact-checking organization.
This exact same judge, I have no doubt, would say, this is clearly opinion.
You can't go to a jury trial on this.
That can't be defamation.
You're crazy to call it anything other than opinion.
Same hack federal judicial judge would make this kind of ruling.
But in this case, he says, oh, no, I can't get involved.
This is clearly a jury determination.
So he's only allowing the word satire defense, which means nobody could reasonably interpret it as a literally true statement intended to be interpreted as literally true to be presented to the jury.
So he's being allowed a very limited defense to a very contaminated jury pool.
But guess what the judge did right after he issued this ruling?
He issued a order that the jury pool, that the juries be selected that only jurors who are fully vaccinated Be allowed to be jurors in the case.
So he is trying to now gut the jury trial, right?
So this judge has done everything he can to rig this case, just as the prosecutors have done everything to rig and abuse the law in this case.
Now he's unsatisfied with all the other rigging he's done.
Now he wants to rig the jury trial itself, knowing that a fully vaccinated jury pool will be a jury pool that will quickly convict, especially in the Eastern District of New York.
I have some very bad jokes, dark, morbid jokes about what might happen with a fully vaccinated jury pool that I will not...
But, Robert, there was...
I thought there had been a case that determined that that was an impermissible question or...
Well, the only other judge to even contemplate this was in the Bay Area case of the Theranos prosecution.
And because everybody didn't agree to it...
The court ultimately decided not to go forward with that.
Here, this court put out an order saying, why shouldn't this be a fully vaccinated jury?
Not just vaccinated, fully vaccinated jury.
What does he mean by that?
Does he mean all that you're up to date on your boosters?
That would dramatically limit the jury poll to the most compliant, pro-government...
Liberal Democratic jury pool imaginable, which is basically...
He's already got a lynching jury pool.
He just wants to make sure they got their Klan hats on before they come in.
Well, I'd say not just that, but also the most susceptible to possibly believing that the meme was real.
Oh, of course.
So there's no...
I was looking into the...
I thought they had alleged that there were thousands of people...
Who were duped, but maybe they were just alleging that there were only thousands of people who received the text.
Okay, so the thousands of people and like 5,000 people sent a text to that number.
They didn't show that any one of them would have voted but didn't vote.
Not a single instance of that.
Okay, but I presume it would be easy enough for them to go find any one of those 5,000.
If those people existed, they would have been put in the indictment.
They don't exist.
It is.
I'm sort of torn about this one just because the idea that it was just a joke, but how seriously people take a joke when they say vote from home or the election is on another day and not the actual day, but you're supposed to know it's a joke.
Historically, that's only been applied to government officials.
When you start applying that to private actors, what are the limits?
I mean, do you get to say anything?
Is this information?
And now all of a sudden you're subject to federal criminal civil rights laws.
Historically, this was really limited.
So the only time it was prosecuted like that was when the government officials sent false notices to voters.
I mean, that you would understand.
But dirty tricks are done all the time.
And so if now this is all a crime, a federal crime, 20 years in federal prison, then we're in some frightening territory.
It basically...
That empowers them to lock you up if they don't like what you did during an election.
And to not play devil's advocate.
Judge shop, jury shop, and all the rest of the process.
Or you imagine you put out a meme that Hillary Clinton got arrested, like an article that...
And someone's going to say, I'm not voting for Hillary Clinton.
Trump doesn't qualify for the ballot.
Is that now disinformation that could be constitutionally...
You know they won't do it because they said about Trump to get people not to vote for Trump.
But what about people who said Obama wasn't born in the United States and thus didn't constitutionally qualify?
Is that disinformation that might lead someone to not vote in the election?
Yep.
Bingo.
President for 20 years.
If someone publishes that article from, I don't know, outside of the state or outside of the country.
And this is a meme maker.
I mean, this is even more egregious because this is a guy who made memes.
Nobody who looked at Ricky Vaughn's site or this meme could take it seriously as, again, the satire defense is objective reasonableness.
It's not whether some idiot took the bait.
It's whether someone that's not an idiot would have taken the bait.
And so, but at a minimum, it's just, this is way too loose interpretation of the law.
We see that in the civil cases, they're allowing to go forward against Trump related to January 6th.
People should have been woken up from what happened during the pandemic to how many dangerous laws are on our books that allow dangerous powers to be applied.
This is a good transition.
You know, this is now on the white pill front.
Aside from the great unvaccinated tennis player going back and winning in Australia that tried to ban him from playing there.
That was the white pill of the week, you might say.
But is the effort by Children's Health Defense and others to strike down California's law that attempted to gag doctors and disbar them if they talked about disinformation to their patients?
I'm going to bring up one comment here.
Tulsa.
Ufan says, Viva is the dumbest person on earth in Rumble.
I'll tell you one thing.
I know that that's not true because I know that there's at least one person who's dumber than me.
I met them.
At least one person on earth.
So you're wrong.
No, so Robert, the good news...
Well, first of all, Djokovic winning.
It wasn't an easy victory from what I saw.
I didn't watch the tennis match.
But it is Frank Sinatra's expression, the greatest revenge is smashing success.
You imagine they banned him?
And they revoked his visa.
They stole a year of his professional career.
And the year of his professional career is not measured over 35 years.
It's measured over 7 years, maybe 10 years.
And he came back and won.
It is the biggest middle finger to people who wished him ill, who tried to frustrate his career, who tried to, like, basically...
People were comparing him to Muhammad Ali, who had the best part of his career stolen from him.
Djokovic is a little luckier in that he...
Oh, so out of California, they had this law.
This law basically gagged.
It was a law that was supposed to come into effect on January 1st.
I don't know if it did, if it was suspended.
It did.
No, it came into effect.
So it came into effect.
And it basically said doctors cannot discuss with their patients Medical disinformation, which is not in line with some vague and nebulous term of standard care or standard whatever, with no definition whatsoever, nothing that could make any sense except for the fact that it made no sense and could be therefore weaponized to go after anybody who...
Talks about medical exemptions, who talks about risk factors.
It's, you know, whatever the CDC is not saying right now.
And so they've gotten, it's an interim injunction in joining or preventing application of the law, but it's not on the merits yet, but it's still a good white pill.
Oh, it actually has gone.
So the law was put into place.
They sued in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, before Judge Shubb.
I've been part of federal criminal trials in front of Judge Shubb, so know him well.
And they challenged it on multiple grounds because this law said, if you as a doctor tell a patient something that the scientific consensus doesn't agree with, then you can be disbarred as a doctor.
You can have your medical license revoked.
And so the Children's Health Defense, along with others, Dr. Chiarty and some others, brought suit saying this law violates both the Fifth Amendment, Well, it violates technically the 14th Amendment, which is what applies the rest of the Constitution to the states.
But the constitutional provisions violated were the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the right of due process, which is protected under both the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
And the due process issue was that these laws were void for vagueness.
Also, their vagueness made them impermissible under the First Amendment, and their speech prohibition and punishment as content-based made them impermissible.
The court never reached the full First Amendment issue because the court said it was so vague that nobody in their right mind could think this law was legal.
It stopped the law's enforcement, said nobody in the state of California can ever enforce this law because the court basically said the law is a joke.
They made some fascinating statements in this context that go to big tech and some other things, which we'll bridge up, which we'll transition to in a minute.
Yes, folks, we will be getting to Pfizer-Gate and Project Veritas here in just a second.
But what the court said is, first of all, there's no such thing as scientific consensus.
That doesn't exist.
The term is not a known technical term in the medical or scientific community.
Nobody can even agree what the consensus is.
The so-called consensus keeps changing every other day, especially in the COVID context, that science is a methodology of inquiry.
Not a determination or ascertainment of truth.
And so consequently, saying that the doctor can't do anything that disagrees with consensus doesn't tell the doctor anything at all.
It's so vague that it cannot be enforceable.
It doesn't provide fair notice to you so that you can know what you're obligated to say or not say.
It also provides another way in which the law is void for vagueness is that it provides too much discretion to executive officials without clear standards to limit it and thus invites discriminatory enforcement.
And so the court said that is a complete crock, said all the provisions meant to salvage it.
By talking about it being false, by saying it breaches the standard of care, can't salvage it because it runs afoul of the same problem.
There's no underlying consensus, no underlying agreement as to what's true or not in this context.
No place you can go to and say, this is the bottom line truth that doesn't exist.
And so said that the law can't be enforced, struck it down, great win by Children's Health Defense and the other doctor plaintiffs.
Raises questions about big tech.
Because big tech uses almost identical, vague language to deny people access.
No better example of that this week than YouTube removing Project Veritas' expose video of the Pfizer consultant who exposed the fact that Pfizer is involved in gain-of-function research to make profits off of COVID.
So, Robert, I talked about it briefly last night.
The expose is getting this guy whose position is unclear, but...
I don't think it's deniable.
The only question is, was he a consultant?
Was he this executive?
Was he that executive?
But when Pfizer didn't deny it for 72 hours and has never denied it, that told you all you needed to know.
They not only didn't deny it.
Let me just bring this up because it's a thing of absolute beauty.
They didn't just not deny it.
As far as I'm concerned, they outright admitted it.
This is the statement that they released Friday night at 8 o 'clock, the proverbial document dump when nobody's watching.
And there's just two sentences which are of particular interest.
This is...
Instead of denying it, instead of coming out and saying, we have no idea who that guy is.
He had no business saying what he said.
He had no reason to think that he knew enough to even say that.
Instead of categorically disavowing and saying, we're going to sue Project Veritas for defamation because what they're doing now can seriously damage our reputation, whatever reputation they have.
They don't say that.
This is what they say.
And that's huge, by the way.
What they don't say is gigantic.
Their failure to refute his association with the company, his executive status at the company, his ties to the highest level of people at the company, his access to information concerning their activities.
When they don't deny any of those things, it means Pfizer was dead.
I mean, Project Veritas was dead on.
There are a bunch of lefties jumping up and down, hoping that this was a fake story, that they got catfished by getting catfished, if you will.
And including the Daily Mail ran for cover and stuck its head between its knees rather than cover the story and deleted a case.
If you went to a certain conservative publication and tried to find the story, you had to keep searching for it.
I wonder what publication that might have been.
Daily Wire?
A bunch of them were scared.
They got scared quick.
What's the likelihood O 'Keefe got catfished?
This non-denial denial released, as you point out, on Friday night when you're hoping nobody really reads it is the giveaway that, once again, James O 'Keefe nailed it.
Listen to this.
I'll just read two sentences.
And Robert, we're both lawyers and we're going to read it like lawyers.
In the ongoing development of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, Pfizer has not conducted gain-of-function or directed evolution research.
Wait.
Hold on.
Let me just get the next one here.
Listen to this one, Robert.
In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain-of-function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.
Robert, what does that sound like it means to you?
That they do gain-of-function research, they just call it something else.
And that they've been doing it even in the COVID context, but they call it something else.
My understanding is that their approval is at the BS3 level.
BS3 level does biosafety level 3. I thought you meant bullshit 3. I love it, because that's exactly what it is.
BS level 4, I've often said that.
It's an appropriately named label.
To do gain-of-function research is supposed to be at BS level 4. Purportedly, to my knowledge, they don't have that approval.
They're not supposed to be doing it.
But what it is, is they're getting away with it by just calling it something else, which gain-of-function is itself.
They call gain-of-function biodefense.
It's clearly illegal.
It violates all the treaties, violates federal law.
You're not supposed to be doing it anywhere in the world.
Doesn't matter.
Now, we were doing it en masse in Ukraine, as has been exposed again this week with more detailed information.
Robert, those are bio-research facilities.
And defense labs.
I mean, the theory for everybody out there, gain a function, you take a virus, you engineer it through mutations to make it more lethal or more transmissible.
The legal pretext, the only way this is all legal, is they say they're only doing this...
For defensive, not offensive purposes.
The theory is, somebody else might just coincidentally somehow be designing the exact same unique virus we're trying to engineer, and so we need to develop their virus before they develop it, so we can develop a vaccine or therapeutic treatment before they do it, so before they can unleash it on us.
It's always ludicrous.
Everybody knows it's ludicrous.
It's Principal Skinner going to the burlesque house to get directions as to how to get away from the burlesque house.
And in their press release, where they say in a limited number of cases, when it doesn't contain certain function mutations, we may engineer it to test responsiveness to whatever.
They're admitting it.
But rephrasing it in a way that's common.
They just buried it and put it in lots of little phraseology.
But that means that confession, I consider that released by Pfizer a confession, as the basic, there is a reason they're not denying a single statement made by that individual.
Robert, I'll play devil's advocate here.
I'll steel man the opposition.
They're saying, we're not even dignifying Project Veritas' report.
We don't want to signal boost them.
They could have said that, though.
They didn't.
They just say, somebody's saying we're doing this.
We only do this in select circumstances where this unique thing applies and this variable is applicable.
That's basically what they say.
I guarantee you if there was a single statement he said that was false, they would have jumped all over it.
In fact, before they leaked it, they would have been talking to the press, had the New York Times write a hit piece, had the Washington Post write a hit piece, had all these other media people write a hit piece.
They didn't because, once again, James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas nailed it.
Project Truth, that's what Veritas means.
So great work by Project Veritas.
Great work by James O 'Keefe.
And all those conservative media outlets that ran and covered because they were scared that maybe this time they finally got O 'Keefe, they finally got O 'Project Veritas, should be ashamed of themselves.
And some of my friends on the health freedom movement.
That have gone down a rabbit hole of convincing themselves that gain-of-function doesn't exist, and it's all fake.
They need to research not only the medical work, but the legal work of Francis Boyle.
We discussed it with Alex Jones last week in the sidebar interview.
Francis Boyle is one of the best legal minds on this subject, has been talking about this forever.
If you're going to go down a rabbit hole of saying, no, it's all a super duper triple fake double conspiracy conspiracy within a conspiracy because gain of function doesn't really exist.
You better research and review that work.
And some of the people saying that are good people that do great work, but they've gone down a rabbit hole in a trap.
Gain of function exists.
It's dangerous.
And Pfizer was doing it in the COVID context.
And thank God James O'Keefe exposed it.
And I'll admit, when I retweeted the story, And when I retweeted the archive link from the Daily Mail article that they took down, I got nervous that I retweeted.
When they said it's a fake story, I was like, okay, my goodness, did they get catfished?
Did they get totally duped by the guy?
Then when I retweeted the archive link and said, hey, Daily Mail, did you take down this article and why did you?
Then I was like, oh crap, did I just get duped by a fake archive link?
It all ended up being true.
Daily Mail, the journalist who wrote that story that had it taken down.
And if I'm her...
And she's a true journalist.
She's pissed now.
Because who was it that ran the story finally?
Was it New York Post?
Someone ran the story.
Well, I mean, Tucker, to his credit, covered it right away.
The rest of Fox mostly ran and hid, too, for several days.
Now, Rupert Murdoch was being deposed this past week in the Dominion case, so that might have had a little something to do with it, too.
But I was curious.
But to me, the proxy was going to be...
The fact that all Murdoch's people ran for cover for a while, Daily Mail's connected to Murdoch, so on and so forth.
The reason why they all ran for cover didn't surprise me.
I was curious, would the other gatekeeper, what I consider gatekeepers in the conservative press, like the Daily Wire?
I was like, okay, how are they?
Because they initially covered it.
I was like, is it still highlighted?
Is it top stories?
Because it was top story everywhere in conservative alternative media.
And no, I had to keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.
They buried that thing for a couple of days while they were like, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
And it's, folks, if you want, now granted.
I'm up against Pfizer all the time.
Right now in the Brooke Jackson case, on behalf of the people of America against Pfizer, Pfizer's been monitoring all of these public communications, been trying to use it to slander me in front of the judge on a regular routine basis, trying to get negative adverse action against me related to the case.
They are the second most criminally fine drug company in the history of the world.
Again, you know, El Chapo is a street corner drug dealer criminal compared to the criminal operation that is Pfizer.
So I know how Pfizer operates.
And I knew that if they didn't come out within an hour of that video and say, hey, this is totally fake.
This guy doesn't work for us.
I don't know what's going to happen.
And we demand a retraction.
Then I knew the story was true.
And when they were silent for three days, well, that's all you need to know, brother.
What was I just going to say?
Pfizer?
Oh yeah, no.
Two of the three most fined criminally and civilly pharma companies are two of the three manufacturing the jibby jab.
Now, Johnson& Johnson ordered to pay $2.2 billion in criminal civil fines in 2013.
Pfizer, $2.3 billion in 2009.
No, Robert, the part of me said...
If it were a fake story, they'd let it roll and let all these people embarrass themselves by running with it.
But that statement on Friday night, that's it.
It's a done deal.
They didn't deny anything of substance.
And had Project Veritas been wrong in their affirmations, they would threaten to sue them for defamation.
And they would.
Because Project Veritas, like it or leave it, is an easy target for defamation lawsuits, depending on your jurisdiction.
They would have pounced on it.
And they might still do it to feign.
Oh, and anybody exposing Pfizer.
I mean, I've been subject to retaliatory action.
Brooke Jackson's been subject to retaliatory action.
This is who they are.
I mean, this is a real criminal drug operation.
This is Mexican drug cartels are playthings compared to Pfizer.
Well, do we segue into a real criminal enterprise of the Murdoch murder trial?
Oh, yeah.
We got a bunch.
We got the Murdoch trial.
We got the dumpster mattress trial.
We got the January 6th Proud Boys case ongoing.
We got sentencing disparities between Molotov cocktails and pepper spray.
One year versus six years.
Well, let's do the Murdoch murder case.
And let me just flex the background knowledge that I've gotten into.
I was just, Robert, doing a basic reading and now find out that this goes back like nearly a decade where once upon a time there was a kid who was found dead in the forest who happened to be a gay kid and it alleged blunt force trauma, suspected hit and run.
Apparently one of the Murdoch kids was alleged to have potentially had a relationship with this kid.
It's only a decade later that that death becomes even more suspicious for the purposes of murder.
The cleaning lady of the Murdoch's place falls down the stairs, cracks her skull, ends up dying.
And her family is given an award of several million dollars, which they never see because the Murdoch family siphoned that six point some odd million dollar.
Or it was millions of dollars of payout from the insurance company.
They siphoned it out following her suspicious death, which she fell down the stairs.
At one point, the family said, we have no idea how it happened.
At another point, they said some dogs tripped her up.
The kids had to sue.
They ultimately got the millions of dollars for that.
In the meantime, Murdoch's son ends up getting into a boating accident that kills a woman.
And then a couple of years later, the wife executed the son.
Killed.
The wife was shot with two different guns.
The son was killed with a handgun, I think.
And now the father is on trial for this alleged murder.
I have...
He left out the attempted murder of the father that turned out to be the man on trial that turned out to be a fake attempt so that his still alive son could get insurance benefits.
It was a disguised suicide attempt where he paid a hitman to try to kill him and managed not to die extraordinarily.
I think the gun went and even bullet went into his head somehow and he managed to live.
And then, of course, it turned out he was stealing systematically from clients, stealing systematically from his law firm, and he's part of a family that had basically controlled prosecutions and police in that county for the better part of a century.
Father, he had been solicitor.
His father had been solicitor.
His grandfather had been solicitor.
On the day that his wife and son were murdered, His father was in the hospital dying, and his mother had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.
So it is one of the wildest, craziest circumstances surrounding a family ever.
But in listening to the opening statements, and Nick Ricada and Emily Baker are both following the case live and tracking it live, so you can watch if you want to check in on the trial, either with Nick Ricada or Emily Baker.
Of note...
But from my review of the opening statements and what evidence I have heard to date, I think that Murtaugh is likely not guilty of the murder of his wife and son and that a reasonable jury...
Not clear he can get one in that county.
Half the county thinks he's corrupt and has had people killed repeatedly and that his family's had people killed repeatedly.
And then the other half may be sympathetic to him.
So who knows?
But I think there's serious flaws in the government's case and that a reasonable jury, a righteous jury, probably should find him not guilty based on what I've seen so far.
And people in the chat are saying, wrong, Viva.
It wasn't a handgun.
It was a shotgun.
Yeah, what happened was a double-gauge shotgun.
So here are the key facts.
Double-gauge shotgun.
The son is shot once in the chest, once in the head.
Basically, his brain's blown out.
Then it appears in the sequence of events that the mother comes in hearing the gunshots and starts to run.
The son apparently had a gun.
The gun may have been near him.
It's unknown at the time.
It appears that a second gun that matches the gun the son had was then taken, and she is shot several times.
The premise is that a double-gauge shotgun, you only have two shots in it.
And that the reason for dropping it, grabbing the second gun, and chasing her down was she was unexpected, and they needed a gun with bullets in it.
Other possibilities that there are two shooters at the scene.
What's extraordinary is we have another OJ-style contaminated record case, contaminated scene case.
We have shoe prints that were not properly, photos were not properly taken of, including apparently a shoe print on the back of the wife's body.
Other blood evidence was not properly preserved.
Certain gun or bullet evidence was not properly preserved.
Certain tire tracks leaving the scene were not properly preserved.
A whole bunch of evidence was basically not properly preserved.
All they kind of have against him is...
The statement that he made when I did him so bad, which was what he's alleged to have heard that he said, and then when the investigator said, what did you just say?
He just said, I did him so bad.
And he said, that's not what I said.
And his lawyers didn't object.
That's like the crux of his admission.
That and that his cell phone spotted him as near the scene.
His cell phone video had him near the scene.
It's not a dispute that he was at the house that wasn't far from there, but it's a pretty big property that he was on.
The problem is they got apparently separate tire tracks leaving the scene.
Apparently her cell phone was taken and then dumped in an opposite direction from where he was at.
And that it's indisputable, apparently by the phone records, that the wife's phone was in a different location.
Than he was because he tried to call her phone from the geolocation of the phone records.
And that there's almost no blood on him.
That it's another OJ type case and that the time frame doesn't match up.
In other words, they basically give him about nine minutes to do a bunch of extraordinary things.
Get rid of the guns.
Get rid of the blood evidence.
Get rid of all their other forensic evidence.
Not leave a track record of being there or going back.
Getting rid of all of it.
It's like...
Really?
This is not sounding like a credible story.
And they haven't given a plausible motive that he had to kill either one of them.
So you aggregate it.
From a technical perspective, I thought both openings were weak.
Prosecutor's opening was okay, but it was more smacked of what was not present than what was present.
The defense opening also okay.
Kept talking about reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence.
I never find those to be particularly persuasive.
Tell a story.
Get in and tell a story of what happened.
Give your version.
That's what Johnny Cochran did.
Johnny Cochran knew 80% of the evidence he was going to talk about would never come in.
But he knew they would remember it.
Every jury wants to say, if your guy didn't do it, well then who did?
So you better tell him that.
And your best chance to tell him that is an opening because you might not be able to get it in.
The witnesses might disappear.
The judge might not allow it in.
So on and so forth.
Pretty mediocre lawyering on both sides I've seen so far.
A shocking lack of evidence that really points to Murdoch.
I think Murdoch comes across to me, this is amateur, you know, quarterbacking from a distance of a non-psychologist, so take it with a grain of salt.
Comes across to me as a narcissistic personality that could explain a lot of his conduct.
It doesn't explain the double murders, and the forensic evidence, most importantly, appears to contradict the government's theory.
I have, I mean, there's too much to follow.
I tried to tune in, and I tried to get...
Caught up on the four days, but it's not.
Rakeda, Emily Baker for a Johnny Depp type daily coverage.
I'll be curious about Emily Baker's coverage because she comes from a long prosecutor background.
So I'll be curious to see how impartial can Emily be?
My experience with prosecutors is not so good when it comes to that because my joke about the Murdoch case is that it proves all prosecutors are murderers at heart.
He did try to murder himself, so I got that.
But it does appear he's probably not guilty of this.
It may be the only crime the guy's not guilty of.
He may be guilty of all the others, just not the big one.
So we'll see how all of it progresses.
But then you have the dumpster mattress trial this week, which was also big.
So shocking from what I understand, the father was convicted of murder and the son was acquitted.
And this, for anybody who doesn't remember, I think I was on Rakata's channel when he said it.
Take your swing, baby.
Come on, take your swing.
I'll shoot you dead.
Come on, take your swing.
I doubt it.
No, I'm on Rakata's channel about a year and a half ago.
Why don't you come on up?
Why don't you come on up, buddy?
Come on up.
We're going to kill each other over a mattress in a dumpster.
It's not funny, and this is why I'm on Rakata's channel, and he's like, hey, Viva, have you seen the Dumpster Brothers?
He's like, no.
And I'm watching, he's like, I'm thinking it's going to be a joke.
I'm thinking it's going to be a gag.
And then I see someone get shot.
Dead.
Dude, I didn't want to see that.
Certainly not by surprise.
So father convicted of murder.
The father was the first one taunting the guy, saying, come on, take your swing, take your swing.
And the son behind him, with the shotgun over his shoulder, who ended up shooting.
You're both shirtless, of course, because it's Texas, right?
If you're going to shoot somebody, you've got to be shirtless, apparently.
Fighting over a mattress that was put in one of their property that they wanted in the dumpster.
Robert, so what's your take?
A mattress in a dumpster.
I mean, when I first heard this, I heard Rakita describe it.
Oh, this is a dumpster mattress case.
And I was like, dumpster mattress case?
I was like, somebody didn't really die over a mattress in a dumpster.
Yep, they did.
My favorite one is the real super macho guy.
I mean, look, let's face it.
The victim was a Darwin Award winner.
There's no other way to put it.
It's like that guy out here in Vegas that reportedly wanted to prove he could break the speed record of a car.
And so apparently he might have done so.
They just had to put the records together later because apparently he may have broken the record.
He just apparently didn't design any brakes for the vehicle because they only found the vehicle in tiny little parts all over the desert.
I have no idea whether that's urban alleged or true.
I have a sick sense of humor, so I did find it funny.
But this guy, you're sitting there without a gun, telling two people with a gun, come on, I'm going to kill you!
I'm going to kill you!
I'm sorry, brother.
You took yourself out of the human species with that level of stupidity.
Because that's the, you know, never argue with someone that has a higher, never get into a fight with someone that has a higher threshold of pain than you do.
And generally...
Avoid getting into a fight with someone who has more easy means of killing you than you have.
I'm just trying to...
How does one get convicted of murder and the other one acquitted?
Because the father is provoking.
So the son's not...
So in Texas, like most states, under the self-defense laws, you're not entitled...
Remember, they were trying to misapply this in Rittenhouse, which was ludicrous.
But this is what they were hinting at, but then they decided to abandon it at trial because they realized how absurd it sounded.
So if I come up to you and be like, hey, I'm going to kill you.
I'm going to kill you.
Go ahead.
Come on.
Do something.
Do something.
Go ahead.
Do something.
Well, I'm provoking.
I forfeit self-defense, even if at some point defending myself requires that I commit violence back because I created the whole set of incidents.
If you put the whole chain into, and sometimes this is applied in like bar fight cases where you only started one fight and somebody else ends up shooting somebody or you end up, you know, somebody totally different.
But if it's part of this sequence where you caused it all to come about, you lose the privilege of self-defense.
And so it wasn't a question as to whose bullet killed the individual.
Correct.
It was that the son never provokes.
The son never says, come on, buddy, come on, try it, come on, come on, come on over here.
He never does any of that.
The father keeps doing it.
If I'm the prosecution, I would have argued provocation by extension, like being there with the guy that's provoking, you're both provoking.
But you have to have conspiracy.
Provocation by affiliation association doesn't apply.
You have to show that the kid intended the provocation as well.
And that's where just being next to him isn't sufficient legally.
It's not that I think the father should have been acquitted.
That provocation...
I was so dumb.
I mean, I probably...
I don't know.
I don't like how the father handled it.
However, if somebody's standing in front of me...
Telling me over and over and over again they're going to kill me?
And then they make an aggressive step toward me?
I'm sorry.
I think that is self-defense.
Even the provocative statements, I didn't think revoked that from me.
Well, I just...
I was found not guilty for both the father and son.
Even though, again, I don't like the father's course of conduct.
The guy kept saying he was going to kill them.
Well, not just that, if the basis is the provocation of the father, like, I don't, the father's rhetoric was not that provocative.
It wasn't like...
Not in my view either, no.
And he didn't initiate it.
He's responding, in my view, to the aggressivity of the other individual.
To the so-called victim.
I mean, who, by the way, his wife's there apparently tape recording it all.
The whole thing is sick and static.
These people are idiots times ten.
I'm sorry, I have zero sympathy for the so-called victim.
You're that dumb.
I'm going to sit here and tape, me unarmed, coming up to tell him two people that are armed how I'm going to kill him.
And in shock, they do something about it.
I have sympathy, but humans are perhaps not the smartest animal on Earth.
That's an understatement.
With that said, what do we segue into now?
We've got two other trials.
January 6th, Proud Boys cases.
I put up a new hush-hush at febabarneslaw.locals.com.
Which is a sequel to the very first ever Hush Hush on January 6th.
And you can go back and watch both of them and see how many events that I predicted precisely has ultimately occurred.
Well, one of those was that these cases would reveal that the government was littered.
littered the so-called defendants with informants, infiltrators, instigators, agent provocateurs.
The government had advanced notice of any potential risk, took specific action to reduce the amount of security present.
There was unusual security lapses.
That came out this past week as well.
Confirmation that Pelosi and others deliberately made sure the National Guard was not present.
What also came out is that the Capitol Police...
We're provoking as well.
They were deliberately harming people, deliberately trying to cause harm to people.
But what's happened is the government has very belatedly turned over files that show how many feds were involved.
And they don't want the defense lawyers to ask any questions of the witnesses that would expose that fact to the world and to the jury.
So they're demanding that the defense lawyers...
Preview their questioning to the court and the court pre-approve those questions.
That is deeply problematic because of constitutional limitations on the government and the court.
The right of confrontation is what preserves the right of cross-examination, and that includes the right to not preview any of your questions to the witness, to the judge, Or to the prosecutor?
One question.
I've tried to look into it.
I think I found what I feel to be a satisfactory answer for myself.
Everybody says Nancy Pelosi refused the National Guard.
The rebuttal to that is that Nancy Pelosi is not the one with the power to authorize or order.
That's up to the Capitol Police.
And my response to that is...
But Capitol Police requested it.
Well, now, so...
They requested it to Pelosi, and Pelosi said no.
Okay.
Now, the mayor also said no, even though Trump requested it.
Because it's an amazing thing that we cannot get to the bottom of this one specific question.
Who was responsible for not bringing in the National Guard?
I've seen Hakeem Jeffries and others, I think it was Hakeem on Twitter, say, if Trump had asked for the National Guard, they would have been there.
What's the response to that?
Trump can't call in the National Guard, interestingly enough, in the District of Columbia.
Only the mayor could, and the mayor only would if the...
If the members of Congress, who, by the way, used to completely govern the District of Columbia, they delegated their power in Congress to the mayor to run the District of Columbia.
As Mike pointed out on our sidebar, we should change all that.
But Pelosi, even though the Capitol Police, members of the Capitol Police requested, yes, we need this support, Pelosi said no.
And so it wasn't requested the National Guard be present.
So even though Trump said it should be, the mayor said no, no National Guard present.
Why is that significant?
It's not just for an unusual lapse in security.
It's who controls the security present.
The National Guard is not under the control of Pelosi.
The Capitol Police is.
So by having the National Guard be...
It would change entirely who controlled their behavior, their records of their behavior, whether they would be rewarded or punished based on their behavior.
So in my view, that's as big a reason as reducing the level of security, which she also reduced the level of Capitol Police presence at the scene, too.
Remember, there's 2,500 Capitol Police.
Only a small percentage of them were oddly located there that day.
What the government is requesting is a patent Sixth Amendment violation of the right of confrontation.
Now, unfortunately, who knows with a judge in this kind of case, all the juries are convicting anyway, and you have no better evidence of the judicial bias that's taking place than the fact that a guy who pepper sprayed a Capitol Police officer or took out his pepper spray in response to the Capitol Police doing harm to him and others got a six-year federal sentence.
Wow.
The two lawyers who threw Molotov cocktails into police cars during the Floyd riots only got one year and a day, which means they'll be out in 10 months.
Robert, there was no one in the car.
Come on.
And they knew that when they threw it, which they didn't.
I'm being glib right now.
Robert, let's back up to one thing.
Everyone, I appreciate that.
Absurd difference of punishment.
The Molotov cocktail lawyers had their plea bargain reduced.
They had already pled.
And then they came in, revised it, and reduced it.
Obviously, they did not disagree with that revision of their plea.
But Robert, something I've never actually thought of, I don't think until recently, Sicknick.
Brian Sicknick died of a stroke.
This was January 6, 2021.
Has anybody ever asked the question?
Sorry, and just let me preface that also by saying the Capitol Police were understaffed partly because of COVID.
Has anyone ever asked the question if a vaccine injury could have been involved in sick?
I mean, this timing-wise fits together pretty perfectly.
A lot better than the official institutional narrative.
No doubt about it.
But they won't guarantee they won't do that.
And it's been communicated clearly to the family that if they play ball...
With the January 6th official narrative, then they will likely get rewarded and protected.
Whereas some other Capitol Police who might not have been willing to play ball suddenly ended up Epsteining themselves a few days after January 6th.
Robert, someone said I look more cynical now than I did when they first started watching the channel.
That's an understatement of the year.
I don't understand how there were so many police officers that committed suicide.
And I don't want to put it in quotes.
If it's true, it's shocking.
And if it's not true, it's shocking.
So we're in one of those realms where it's shocking either way.
Even Ghislaine Maxwell now agrees with Viva Barnes' three eternal truths.
Number one, at least, Epstein didn't Epstein himself.
And so she came out and said that publicly, which was interesting to see.
Now, a white pill moment is the last trial we have to cover, which I think you pronounce the name Hawk.
H-A-U-K.
It's Mark Hawk.
The Pennsylvania jury acquits pro-life activist Mark Hawk on all charges.
Another trial I wasn't following, but Robert, I'll read an article, but you give us the rundown.
So yeah, this is the guy who the Biden administration did a SWAT raid of in front of his young kids.
So the freedom of access to clinical entrances or clinic entrances, federal law passed when Democrats were in control, which basically was intended, in my view, to intimidate pro-life folks from being near abortion clinics, providing alternative counseling.
Providing alternative parental parenting protocols.
Providing alternatives to abortion.
And politically protesting.
Doing both.
Because they did both.
People perceived it as just angry protesters.
Often if you went to the clinic, a lot of people were saying, hey, there's an alternative.
Hey, there's an alternative.
Would you like to hear about it?
Things like that.
They were much more productive.
So this and other laws has constantly gone up before the U.S. Supreme Court about where it's being unconstitutional, what its limits are.
So the only left, what's left of the law, is that you can't forcibly injure, interfere with, or intimidate someone from going into the clinic.
And so what happened here was a volunteer outside the clinic got into a pushing match with Hawk.
Hawk explained he was defending his son from being attacked by this person.
The Biden administration wants to intimidate people from protesting abortion and was also enraged at the Supreme Court's verdict judgment sending back abortion to the states that they started these wave of prosecutions on pro-life people, including in Tennessee.
And here, this one was the big first one in Philadelphia.
He went and said, I didn't forcibly impair anybody's ability to access.
By the way, that was almost always obvious because it was some volunteer.
It wasn't someone trying to get access to the clinic anyway.
But also that he was self-defending his son and himself.
And credit to the jury.
Jury heard the evidence and jury said he was completely not guilty.
So a hawk is back home with his family and this bogus embarrassment of a prosecution by the Biden administration is exposed for what it is.
And this was the guy that was arrested.
In front of his family with armed, I don't know who they were, police officers.
I was trying to see how long he might have been detained for pre-trial, but I can't find that offhand.
I don't think it was.
He got bailed pretty quickly.
But I love it.
He got acquitted, so the punishment was the process.
They tried and they lost, and it'll just be another one.
Better luck next time, Joe.
Joe and gang.
Yeah, so that's the story there, I guess.
And then we, of course, have the Memphis case.
Go on with the Memphis case?
That's the one we got the riots over this past weekend.
Oh, jeez, Luis.
Well, hold on.
There was one more that I had to ask you about, Robert.
Okay, no.
This is the five black officers brutally beating a black victim.
And Van Jones taking to CNN to say that this is evidence of racism.
It seems the media's moved on.
It's internalized racism by the racial patriarchy that's been put into the system by the whatever, whatever, whatever.
Ben Crump, he was down there right away.
Old Benji, he could smell that money, old Benji.
He was just rolling right there.
He was like Ben Shapiro looking for another corporate advertiser.
I mean, he was, bam, he was fast.
So, by the way, great interview of Tyler, the great comedian who did a brilliant imitation, not only of Jordan Peterson, but also of Ben Shapiro.
That was perfect.
It was perfect.
The voice nailed it, and the spirit was like...
The whole pitch was an ad.
I am so outraged.
And it's the kind of thing that could cause me to lose sleep.
But I don't lose sleep because I sleep on Eckers mattresses.
It was perfect.
Glorious.
So, I mean, Robert, look, I don't know.
What's the legal conundrum here?
It's five officers.
It's Memphis, Tennessee.
I mean, that's all anybody needed to know.
I saw the video.
They're savagely beating him.
It seems like they're propping him back up to continue to savagely beat him.
I don't understand in any realm of the universe how...
And I'm not an anti-cop guy whatsoever.
I'm not a reflexive back-the-blue.
I'm more of a reflexive back-the-blue because they have a tough job and they need the benefit of the doubt in order to do their job, but not forever forgiving.
I watched this.
I don't understand how cops do this.
I don't understand how they think they're going to get away with it.
Or if in the moment...
Something in them says this is reasonable and justified.
I would say there's...
I haven't done a deep dive, so I cannot authoritatively speak to it one way or the other.
What I would say is, in my view, likely one of two narratives is true.
One narrative is it's cops who, you know, somebody ran away from them, caused them a lot of trouble, and they were going to remind them, you don't do that to us.
And that there's life experience that goes through that.
If you're a cop in the inner city of Memphis, you deal with a lot of crap.
And that's the defensive posture of them.
My view also is you also get a lot of Denzel Washington Training Day cops in that place.
Because your ordinary cop just doesn't want to work that.
And so you get cops that are mean, that are brutal, that are sociopathic.
That's one possible...
Another possible narrative, and I guess Andrew Branca says he doesn't think it was murder, and he has done a deep dive, is it was maybe an honest misinterpretation of the defendant's course of conduct that they were legitimately afraid for some reason.
This is some of the evidence that came out in the Rodney King case that got those cops acquitted in the first place.
Now, a lot of politics was at issue there, a lot of racial issues at issue, a lot of...
Contextual background that was at issue in those cases.
Jury pull issues implicated in those cases.
So a lot of cops have got off for things that looked even worse on tape.
The question is, is there something that happened that we don't fully appreciate yet, that the clips that are out don't fully vect?
Given the George Floyd case was a case I thought early on, well, it looks pretty clear.
Then a lot of evidence came out later that raised real questions about causation.
Things like that.
I still think that Chauvin is a bad cop.
But whether or not he actually caused the death was an issue, things like that.
So it's a case that probably awaits a lot more further evidence.
But it's a problem of crime-police interaction in the inner city.
And one impossible interpretation is it's a misinterpretation.
Apparently this particular defendant didn't have a long track record, etc.
I've met a lot of abusive cops.
I've sued a lot of abusive cops.
On the flip side, it may be cops dealing with a bad situation on a bad night.
Might have misinterpreted something.
Maybe they didn't misinterpret something.
Maybe a full vetting of all the information will tell a very different story once it comes out.
I don't know.
So I'll wait on that aspect of it.
But, you know, the...
The left immediately weaponized it politically, started calling again for defunding police, even though that was not very popular.
First time around, they pursued it.
So we'll see how it all unfolds and unveils in the end.
I'll just say that Harriman in Rumble has a very important comment.
It says, Viva Frye Barnes, the family of Tyree Nichols needs a medal for calling for peace over the weekend.
That prevented riots in most cities, barring the worst cities that riot for everything.
That and...
He didn't seem to have a criminal track record.
So it appears that they may have thought he was a really bad actor and thought he was trying to do something he wasn't trying to do or just decided to do their own version of street justice.
Cops do this all the time.
My friends in the police try to tell me otherwise.
Sorry, seen too many cases of it.
And so I'm skeptical.
That the cop's actions were justified, but haven't researched it enough to say without doubt it wasn't justified.
And I'll read one rumble rant.
It just said, Branca said the boot to the face was deadly for us, and that cop will have problems for sure.
Other cops stop as soon as he was cuffed.
Well, Robert, speaking of immediately politically weaponizing an act of violence, I mean, this is a good segue to Paul Pelosi and David DePop.
I don't know how closely you've been following it.
Who opened the door?
Who opened the door?
So, for gosh sake, I've watched it 50 times.
It looks like Paul Pelosi might have opened the door and then gone right back to the hammer.
There's a number of explanations.
Who does that?
Who has a drink with ice in their hands and then doesn't drop it to use that hand for defensive purposes?
When I look at that video, I look at people who I don't think are unfamiliar to each other.
I listened to, now that they've released his interrogation by San Francisco police, 17 minutes, I don't know if you listened to it, they never once asked him how he got the Pelosi's address and how he got there.
Like, they say how he got there, or they ask him, you know, I think they asked him how'd you get there, he said I walked, whatever.
They never asked him how he got the address.
People saying, like, there's protests there all the time.
The only lingering issue here is whether or not there was a...
The knowledge between the two of them as to whether or not they knew each other, why they waited months to release this video.
And did you hear the phone conversation that he allegedly had with Fox News?
Oh, I might pull it up just for the fun of it.
Robert, it sounds like a robocall.
He allegedly depart from prison, called up Fox News, some local affiliate, and said, I'm sorry, I didn't get more of them.
I let you down.
I should have...
The audio recording sounds like a robot voice, which is only going to fuel speculation.
And then the whole question of whether or not he's mentally well and mentally unwell.
Compare the interview that he had with San Francisco Police with that voicemail or the conversation he had with Fox News.
It's different.
Okay, what else do we...
Oh, well, speaking of mental issues, Robert.
Unbreaded.
The guy...
Unbredded.
And I just finally put the name to the story.
We all remember Unbredded.
What was it?
Touchdown.
On paper.
Unbredded.
And Rakeda also had fun with that meme.
Rakeda does nightly readings of some section of the huge Unbredded thesis that this guy put out there.
808 pages.
This guy was issuing threats to some university in California.
I think it was UCLA.
UCLA.
So the issue obviously was, is he of sound mind?
Is he quite clearly schizophrenic, mentally unwell, MKUltra level, you know, potential mental unwellness.
So the most recent order is that he's been declared unfit to stand trial due to whatever mental illness.
I forget the terminology that they used in the order.
But not acquitted for reasons of mental insanity.
He's going to be, what's the word?
Institutionalized for four months.
Pending treatment to determine if he can come back and then be declared fit to stand trial or, you know, just mentally unwell, as relates to the crimes at the time that he is alleged to have committed them.
But he's now locked away for at least four months.
And for anybody who hasn't read John Ronson's The Psychopath Test, once you get into these institutions, it becomes exceedingly difficult to get out of them.
What is your take, Robert?
They didn't even have to convict him.
This guy's going to jail for four months, innocent until proven guilty, but insane until proven sane.
What's your take?
I would ask people to compare it to the Waukesha case and tell me how much different is it, the behavior of these two defendants.
Now, I get one committed for actual murder, etc.
But my question was that that person's behavior, the standard for legal incompetence is that you're incapable of helping your defense adequately, reasonably.
To me, the Waukesha defendant was not helping his defense at all and that he believed things that clearly were not true or real.
And so that appears to be the case with Unbreaded as well.
Now, the thing I have an issue with is now people tend to confuse incompetence to stand trial with insanity and defense at the time of the underlying charges.
Two totally separate things.
Competence is whether you can stand trial or whether you're capable of defending yourself adequately.
And reasonably.
The other is insanity, which actually is a higher and more difficult standard for a defendant to prove.
Which is not guilty by reason of insanity on the defense of the actus itself.
And unfit to stand trial might be you've suffered brain trauma between and now you can't go to trial.
Or you're just somebody that...
Believes unreal things, but you know the moral consequences of your action.
So you believe unreal things, you're not competent to defend yourself at trial, but you know the moral consequences of your action.
You're guilty, not by reason of it, without regard to it.
You weren't insane, legally insane, at the time of conviction.
And so now the issue I have, most people still don't know, and this is the danger where red flag laws and...
Things that people like One-Eyed McCain love or Dan Crenshaw, the ogre of Texas from Homer's Odyssey has returned just in more midget-sized form.
The federal government and state governments can lock you up without conviction of a crime, without ever having a trial by jury.
And all they have to do is accuse you of a crime without ever convicting you.
Without holding a trial.
And then say you're a danger to others and mentally incompetent.
And if you show those two things, they can lock you up forever.
I've never agreed with that legal standard.
Because that's minority report style jurisdiction.
That's the ability of the government to lock you up without the critical, essential, fundamental protection of the jury.
And that's apparently what Mr. Unbreded now faces.
His life in prison is mentally insane.
Because what happens first is he's in for four months, as you note.
And then if they determine he's still, that he's both still incompetent and a danger to the community.
You don't have to prove danger to the community for the first four months.
But you do to keep him locked up.
They can keep him locked up forever.
This was, I mean, I've mentioned it a few times, but this is what our firm did back in the day.
Like, they would send young lawyers to do motions for confinement, and it was a risk to themselves or others, and you'd get a doctor's report, and they could go away for a max of 72 hours and then get reassessed.
Under federal law, the risk can be just a property of others.
But this is what's, the guy in my mind, and I had an aunt, an aunt, an aunt, who was...
Diagnosed schizophrenic.
And she was crazy.
She would call us up and start recounting her delusional fantasies to me.
It was clear.
She wasn't a danger to anyone, maybe except to herself through neglect.
But the unbredded guy is clearly mentally unwell, schizophrenic, whatever you want to have it there.
And so he might be legally innocent on the merits of his accusations and not actually a danger to anybody or himself, but just have these Schizophrenic ideations.
And now he's locked up for...
You don't get out of these places sometimes when you get into them.
Once you're in, and the psychopath test was a great book about it, where one guy pretended to be psychotic in order to get institutionalized and then couldn't get out.
Because the more normal he acted, the more they said that's what a narcissist psychopath would do to try to get out.
But the crazier you are, they never let you out either.
So this guy, for reasons of mental illness, is going to be institutionalized indefinitely.
Compared to the Waukesha guy, Waukesha could at least formulate a sentence in his defense.
This guy walking around saying unbredded touchdown on paper.
Something snapped.
Now, if that makes him a danger, that's a separate issue.
But not convicted, going away, and we'll see when he comes back to stand trial.
I forget what I was going to say after that.
Doesn't matter.
Robert, what's the next one?
Let me go to our list here.
The next big one is banning guns in Illinois.
Response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision is to basically ban almost all AR-15s, various semi-automatic pistols, handguns, all of it.
They're just trying to prohibit people from owning it, so it led to a major suit because clearly that's the kind of gun that's commonly owned for self-defense today.
That's the constitutional standard as established in Bruin.
This clearly violates that.
And so the Illinois law will be set aside.
It's already been enjoined, at least in part, by a federal court.
And for those that ask what enjoined means, it means prohibited from being enforced.
And so I think it will be summarily overturned, ultimately, without any question whatsoever.
But it's another liberal democratic state that basically is engaging in Supreme Court nullification by trying to overturn it by legislative diktat.
Robert, I mean, this is why, like, I'm looking at the California white pill where they chuck the law because of, you know, void for vagueness, and here they're going to chuck the state's attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.
Is Newsom just going to come back with another different drafted law, or do they take such a political beating that they say, I'm not even going to get another, I'm not going to try it for another kick at the can, but the states are certainly going to try this until they're blue in the face over Second Amendment issues.
Yeah, but California's lost a bunch of cases that are currently pending in court for a bunch of rules they passed.
But it didn't stop New York from doing it, from trying, didn't stop Illinois from trying.
So it's just going to require probably the Supreme Court to, you know, reverse all of these bad laws in a summary fashion that stops it from happening altogether.
And someone said in the chat here, Chrometta says, schizophrenics sometimes need commitment to keep them alive.
My sister stopped eating because she was convinced that all the food was contaminated by radiation.
And my aunt ultimately passed untimely a long time ago.
But there's no question.
The only issue is, how do you view mental illness in terms of precautionary detainment?
And once you get into these institutions, if you've seen how they work in Montreal and Canada.
Do you want to give the state the power without a trial by jury or conviction of a crime to lock you up for life?
And do you want to end up at the Allen Memorial where they have had a history of doing bad things to detained mentally unwell individuals?
It doesn't matter.
But Robert, speaking of unlawful detainment, it seems Mexico...
It's acknowledging fundamental civil rights more than Canada, for that matter.
It's Mexico, right?
They had a decision that just basically determined that their indefinite or two-year pretrial detention has been deemed to be a violation of fundamental human rights.
If only we had the courts adopting similar provisions in the United States and in Canada.
Go for it.
And it's because they're a signatory to an international treaty.
What struck out to me about this, Mexico's protocol of being able to lock people up without conviction over crime while they investigate a crime, is how analogous it is to another country that, to my knowledge, is a signatory to the same treaty.
I haven't double-checked that.
But it's Romania, where Romania is currently locking up the Tate brothers, despite producing no evidence they've committed any crime.
In fact...
The two people listed as victims have come out publicly and said they have submitted on three different occasions to the Romanian authorities that it's total lies and that they were not victims.
A former high-ranking kind of lefty type feminist EU prosecutor has come out and said this case smacks of politics because it appears there's no evidence of any actual crime.
Many other women...
That worked in the same house and the same service for the Tate brothers have said the allegations against them are completely false.
Name the human trafficking.
Where were all the witnesses that came out and said, Nah, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, we're real sweethearts.
They loved us.
They gave us the best treatment.
We can't wait to vouch for them publicly.
There was nobody.
Because I'll help you out, folks.
Human traffickers don't have a bunch of victims that come out and say how wonderful they are when they're completely free and independent of those people.
So Paul Watson has a video up on this.
I think my original instincts on the Tate case are proving more and more true.
His health appears to be deteriorating.
Romania is talking about trying to detain him not only for 30 days, but for up to two years in the same law that the international bodies just found violated international treaties in Mexico and various core human rights provisions.
One interesting question is the connection between the Tate case.
Not only is there a connection between this Mexico decision and its potential implication in Romania, but also between the Tate case and what's going on with Eliza Blue.
So Eliza Blue has been busy getting a lot of people censored and kicked off of Twitter or her allies have been.
I was going to say, we'll steal Manit so that we're not accused of making any, either her or allies who file complaints, flag tweets on the basis that they contain public, sorry, publications of privately produced content.
Yes.
And for the record, by the way, I'm not a big fan of a whole bunch of Tate's personal views on male-female relationships, nor do I think webcam businesses are the morally best businesses to be involved in.
What I'm saying is two things.
I think his human rights are being violated in Romania.
And second...
I think he was really targeted by the U.S. Embassy.
That's already come out.
Because of his political statements about not joining the military, about being opposed to the deep state, that Europe should not be involved in the war in Ukraine.
That's when all of a sudden they became interested in Andrew Tate.
They weren't interested in him for the many, many years he was running a webcam business.
And I'll just add to that, to agree with it.
First of all, I...
It seems that he might have broken whatever Romeo loverboy laws they have in Romania.
People think that they should not have those laws in the first place.
I don't think he's a flight risk, despite what he has said previously, because it's not exactly like he can just run and hide anywhere in the world.
And he's been there since they've known there was an investigation for nine months.
He never fled during the whole time.
So why is he suddenly going to flee now?
And just hold him while you investigate?
He hasn't been indicted.
Again, no indictment's actually been brought and no victim has actually been identified.
It's not.
It's putting the carriage in front of the horse to say, we've arrested you and we're going to detain you while we conduct an investigation.
Oh, but I don't know if they have the same rules like they had where...
Which was the rapper who was detained and he was finally released?
It had a dollar sign in his name.
But they pay you for your time in jail.
I don't know if Romania does that.
I'm pretty sure Romania does.
I think it was ranked.
Next to the only country that was, well, I think it was the worst in all of the EU, and it was second worst in Europe, only because Ukraine always tops the charts for corruption in Europe.
Jeez Louise, between Romania and Ukraine.
But yeah, so Robert, Eliza Blue's been getting into some problems here.
Talk about the Streisand effect.
We had Eliza on about a year and a half ago, and I remember asking the question because the issue, the crux issue of...
You know, her experience as described then.
I was asking, like, what are we understanding by the concept of human trafficking?
Because a lot of people might disagree with this defining what we typically think of human trafficking like Liam Neeson taken.
Not a Girls Gone Wild type thing where you might regret exploitive behavior, but you'd call it something, but you wouldn't call it human trafficking in the sense that we understand it.
And now it seems like there's a...
An overt attempt to shift the Overton window as to what human trafficking means to potentially mean exploitation of behavior that I now regret.
Setting all that aside, and people can go back and watch that interview and try to piece the timeline together here, because the way Eliza responded, or her allies, to a relatively innocuous set of circumstances coming from the quartering Brittany Venti, who were pulling screen grabs from a video from six years ago on World Star Hip Hop saying, Is this part of the trafficking history of which you speak?
And it was a video that looked to be consensually produced, consensually content provided at least.
There were some other circumstances about Eliza acknowledging that video and all the videos are out there and now the sleuths have been turned on to it.
So allegedly they had these accounts banned.
Big accounts who were under ordinary circumstances would have been...
Allies of ELISA and the movement, the cause in general, banned the quartering, banned Brittany Venti.
They're back on now, and others whose names I don't know.
I know the quartering is back on.
Is Brittany Venti back yet?
I don't know if I DMed you.
I mean, the quartering has a few more allies.
You know, we've been lobbying aggressively.
Elon Musk told you he would look into it.
He told me he'd look into...
The banning of the Modi documentary.
But then in response, I took the opportunity to bring to his attention Free Jeremy, Free the Quartering.
Because setting aside everything with Eliza, and the sluice out there are not going to relent, set aside all of that.
What they did to Jeremy is unjust, as we discussed.
It's unjustifiable, in fact, in law.
So just, you know, they can undo one mistake, but it looks like the new boss might be similar to the old boss.
Unless Elon just didn't know and now he knows him.
We'll see.
So Elon has been busy.
He's been in trial with a multi-billion dollar case taking the stand on the case we discussed last week.
The trial is still ongoing.
I think his testimony may have finally ended.
But obviously he's been a little distracted.
I think that was one of his points in response to you.
I got a couple of businesses.
Pardon me a little bit for not daily micromanaging everything.
I don't think he wanted to say that he's been distracted by that trial.
He didn't want to admit that publicly, but that's billions of dollars and a lot of legal risk at stake for him.
So I understand him, and I don't put this on him.
I don't think he's personally involved in this.
Some people thought he was.
I don't think so.
And he brought Dave Rubin out to do a deep dive within, which was, you know, he, Musk is clearly committed to transparency.
I don't think he'll ever be a full free speech guy.
He made that clear early on when he said he would not reinstate Alex Jones.
And I've always said that about him.
But he's a dramatic improvement over the past.
And I don't think he's responsible for what's happening with Eliza Blue.
I think other people at Twitter are responsible.
And Eliza Blue's associates and maybe she herself is responsible.
The question is, the reason why we put her on is because she was doing very good work highlighting how Twitter was promoting I didn't care what her past was.
I didn't care about any of that.
Only cared that I wanted to use the interview with her to get the world to know this is a problem.
Now, once she started going on this pitch, my concern started to...
Particularly because I was worried that not only is it about misapplication and leveraging of power that could undermine the important fight against real human trafficking by discrediting herself and the movement in the process, but also there's another side to what's been happening out there of avaricious lawyers who want to monetize these cases for their personal enrichment and thereby support false accusations and allegations that they should know are false.
Here's a little truth out there.
Some of the key lawyers connected to the Epstein case that did great work exposing Epstein, I think deliberately falsely blamed certain people in order to line their own pockets.
I mean, ultimately, Virginia Guffrey came out and admitted the allegations against Dershowitz were utterly and totally false.
I said from day one that they were.
And the damage is done to Dershowitz.
I mean, I'll go back to the chat now.
I get harassed all the time.
How can you back Dershowitz?
How can you like Dershowitz?
He's a pedophile.
False.
It was always false.
And if you had IQ over 50, you could figure that out.
And again, look, I'll get accused for defending Dershowitz because we're both Jewish, even though, you know, it's nuts.
But the underwear on...
I'm also Jewish.
Robert, you're a Zionist, okay?
Like, you get it worse.
No one's ever accused me of being a Zionist.
They accused me of being Jewish.
But no, even with Dershowitz...
And he kept his underwear on.
That was at a massage in Florida.
That wasn't on Epstein's Island.
But once you throw out these accusations, they leave lingering effects in everybody's mind.
But who was it?
The people who were involved with Epstein were defending the Weinsteins.
Well, let me give you an alternative narrative.
The people that are involved with aspects of this who want to liberalize human trafficking standards to take what happened to Me Too.
So you look at what happened to Me Too under the Obama administration.
They weaponized it in college campuses to go after people to promote, to empower radical feminists, often supporting allegations that did not have any factual basis, stripped people of their due process of law.
Several liberals, lefties, have written on this, about how atrocious and horrific it was.
So the question is, do you have the same thing happening in the human trafficking space, which serves a bifurcated purpose, allows them to politically weaponize certain forms of feminist power grab to use the allegation of sexual misconduct to take out their political opponents?
Much has happened against Julian Assange.
Much has happened against Steve Wynn.
The difference is Steve Wynn was probably guilty, but that's another story.
But still, do you think Steve Wynn was the only casino oligarch to ever engage in sexual misconduct?
I mean, come on.
If you want sexual misconduct, throw a rock at a Democratic caucus, you'll hit somebody who's committed sexual misconduct, I guarantee you.
That's what I told my daughter.
If any guy ever tells you he's a feminist, run.
Run right away.
They're all going to be stalkers and just problematic people.
So they weaponize human trafficking, liberalize its standards in order to go after people like the Andrew Tates of the world, like the Julian Assange of the world.
Remember in Julian Assange's case, they were saying misusing a condom constituted no difference between that and actual sexual assault.
I think under Swedish law, that is a form of assault.
But it had never been criminally prosecuted, to my knowledge, as such, and was deeply—and it's not a coincidence they were targeting Assange with it.
And so the—is it the weaponizing of it to achieve a politically questionable purpose?
Is it also being weaponized by people looking just to line their pockets who are willing to make false allegations or support false allegations to defame and destroy people to enrich themselves?
And at the same time, by doing so, They actually reduce the value.
It's like everybody's a racist.
I criticize conservatives of this.
If everybody's a Marxist, nobody is.
If everybody's a communist, nobody is.
If everybody's a racist, to my friends on the left, nobody is.
Well, if everybody's a human trafficker, then nobody is.
What do you do?
You dilute and diminish the meaning and horror of human trafficking by associating with this.
The question is, is Eliza Blue part of that?
She shows up on a project involving a lawyer connected to the Epstein case, connected to Virginia Guffrey, connected to false allegations against Dershowitz.
She supposedly had a safe house that nobody can ever find or locate, apparently, associated with fundraisers that raised major questions.
Apparently bragged about being a video vixen on tape, and now is claiming that any, uh, Her behavior, as you pointed out, the Streisand effect, but raises bigger questions to me beyond the wrongful banning of the quartering, which quartering is finally reinstated, thankfully.
It raises questions as to exactly what she's up to and what she's about because I have a lot more questions now because of her censor campaign she's been on or her allies have been on.
Robert, I...
Don't disagree with anything you just said.
And it was the one example that struck out at me is when she now ostensibly refers to that world star hip-hop as trafficking or some form of exploitive content, where now I look back at the other case that she was talking about on Twitter, which I know is a bona fide, much more egregious case.
And it's going to dilute the egregiousness of that case because people are going to say, oh, it's coming from her.
It's just another person complaining that someone took photos of them.
And it was much worse than that.
Oh, much, much, horrifically worse.
I think she's doing damage now to the cause against human trafficking.
So that's why I'm raising the issues in this public forum.
But, so, enough of Eliza Blue.
Some people are calling her Eliza Murphy.
I didn't get all the Jack Murphy.
I'm not doing it now.
Robert, but speaking of Wynn Vegas sex stuff, price fixing for the Vegas hotels?
What's the big deal, Robert?
Come on.
Everybody knows it.
Yeah, we got some fun cases we can go through.
We got two big ones left.
The ESG concerns from the Department of Labor and Private Pension Funds and the Trusted News Initiative case.
Some other ones we'll get to.
Next week, we'll be talking about vaccine injuries, where and when you can sue, Children's Health Defense, bringing a FOIA action on that.
We'll talk about that next week.
We'll talk about big tech next week, big lawsuits coming down the pipe, potential class actions to say their whole product is a fraud and harmful.
We're going to run out of time tonight, so we'll do that next week.
We'll have a school and art Van Gogh case next week.
We'll talk about the welfare.
You have a fixation with these stolen art Nazi art things.
I love them because Nazis are bad.
All Nazis.
I want my Nazi scalps.
We got a case involving how insurance companies are secretly gathering all of your medical records, sometimes falsifying your medical records to screw over your insurance application.
Can the government put a wealth tax on you?
Did the Ninth Circuit just approve that?
We'll be talking about that next week.
But let's go to the fun case.
Vegas.
Is Vegas colluding to fix hotel prices?
Now, for everybody out there, the first ever Viva Barnes Law meetup will be in Las Vegas.
We're doing it.
People have bought plane tickets already.
It's the weekend.
We're going to figure out the time.
It's going to be Sunday, February 26th.
We're going to be doing a brunch.
We'll be doing a live show.
We'll be doing our Sunday live show live from the event with live Q&A from those that are part of the audience.
The ticket will include coverage for the venue, coverage for the brunch, cover for the travel cost, cover for the technology, all that.
And then we'll do a locals-only...
After party with everybody there.
The event will go from about 1.30 or so to about 6 or so, maybe 1.30 to 5.30 Vegas time.
And then for those who want to, they can go to another after party as Nick Ricada will be live from, my understanding, on Vegas time, 8 p.m. to midnight.
We will have special guests, Eric Hundley and Mark Robert.
So all kinds of conspiracy thinking.
Any question you really wanted to ask, again, there'll be the live streaming live Q&A.
There'll also be a private audience only Q&A.
We may have some mementos and sign some stuff.
We may have some cool posters of memes.
We'll figure out all the stuff we're going to do.
Viva may be coming up with a song with his musical talent, Viva Barnes Law in the tone of Viva Las Vegas.
We'll see.
But these are just ideas.
But you can set it in your calendar.
Sunday, February 26th.
Be there by 1 o 'clock or thereabouts.
Probably doors open at 1.30 or so.
But so everybody can make their plans and set their schedule.
And now I'm buying my ticket, Robert.
That's it.
The only question is whether or not I come down with the entire family or I fly solo for the weekend.
We'll see.
I get lonely in Vegas without the family.
Plus, having the family.
Oh, there's tons of family stuff to do in Vegas.
I know.
We'll see.
But yes, February 26th.
Viva Las Vegas.
It's going to be amazing.
Robert, hold on a second.
I forgot what I was just about to ask.
The two big...
Do we do the two remaining...
Briefly, the two big cases.
ESG.
So what's happened is the Department of Labor is using its authority under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, colloquially known as ERISA, the acronym, to weaponize private pension plans, which these rules cover the pension plans of about $13 trillion involving...
I guarantee you one half of the audience, over 150 million Americans, are part of these laws.
And what it is, is they are requiring pension plans to adopt ESG principles.
This is about environmentalism.
This basically tells a pension plan, ignore your fiduciary obligation under the common law and the ERISA laws.
Instead, don't look at what's best for the rate of return for your pensioner.
Look at how you can weaponize your control of the pensioner's pension funds for politicized purposes to promote climate alarmism and other agendas.
25 states have sued the Department of Labor, saying that this rule is in excess under the Administrative Procedures Act.
So there's two basic claims.
One, they don't have the law.
Congress never gave them this authority.
Not only does it violate the major decisions doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court put in last year that said unless it's clear Congress gave you that specific authority, you don't have it.
But it's just outside the plain language and the policy purpose of ERISA, which is all about protecting the interest of the pensioner, not politically weaponizing it for politicized purposes that undermine the economic investment interest of the pensioner.
Secondly, they're pointing out it's what's called arbitrary and capricious.
That's not about the substantive merits.
That's about the process the agency went through.
And they go through and look at, you know, the agency failed to consider reasonable information.
The agency failed to consider the public policy issues implicated.
The agency failed to disclose the reason for some of its decisions.
The agency failed to allow participation of key components.
These are the components that go into that.
All of that has been challenged.
Great action.
Again, 25, and I think it's the biggest action since the election, 2020.
The trusted news initiative case.
Children's Health Defense.
And by the way, both of these cases are pending in the same little courthouse, the United States District Court for Amarillo, Texas.
The Trusted News Initiative case Children's Health Defense, along with Jim Hoff, Gateway Pundit, Dr. McCullough, a bunch of others, are suing the Washington Post, the British Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, and Reuters for conspiring and colluding to boycott their competitors, like Children's Health Defense, by weaponizing their relationship with big tech to...
Cut them off, cut the Gateway Pundits and the Children's Health Defenses and the Mercolas off from their potential audience on Facebook, on Instagram, on YouTube, on Twitter, on other places, and colluding to do so in what is effectively a group boycott and an anti-competitive action in violation of the rule of reason to subconstituent components of the Sherman Act that concerns antitrust law.
And their point is they did all of this disguised as...
The Trusted News Initiative, which really was just, how can we monopolize our relationship with big tech to cut off our dissident competitors from sharing dissident information about things like COVID?
Very creative suit.
I confess I was part of trafficking suit.
So the force was, oh, Bars is praising himself.
I only had a little bit to do it.
Great work by tons of other people on the case.
I'm not counsel of record in the case either.
I may become down the road, but not at the moment.
But a very big case.
Again, Jones Health Defense at the tip of the spear for defending right to free speech and right to bodily autonomy in the COVID context.
Fantastic.
Robert, let me read a couple from our vivabarnslaw.locals.com chat.
Jeanette Victoria, $2 tip, said, spend some time in a Ukrainian detention because the U.S. consulate accused me of being a human trafficking because I had a baby via surrogate.
The SBU did what the USA told them.
The prosecutor general of Kiev found that I had not committed a crime, but my daughter was never returned.
The accusation was posted on the internet over a decade ago.
And still to this day, I'm accused of being a convicted human trafficker.
I was detained, but never arrested for that crime.
Mandelichi says directed evaluation of gain of function.
Look up every word in a singular, in a dictionary.
It's wordsmithing to hide the truth.
Robert, please have a conversation with Matthew Crawford rounding the earth.
I think you are misunderstanding how he's explaining things.
He's not saying gain-of-function doesn't exist.
He's saying...
I think he is saying it is something more intricate than what that's what's being missed.
Please let him explain.
Matt Crawford does great work around the earth.
I'm referring to a separate sub stack that was cited in a reply to him that said that basically implied gain of function couldn't exist.
And here was the logic.
You can take this apart in five seconds.
It was if gain of function existed and it was creating dangerous viruses, we would have tons of examples.
Because these facilities are everywhere.
And it assumed that these facilities lacked adequate safety protocols.
I disagree with that factual assumption.
But my counter to that is an easy one.
That's like saying Chernobyl couldn't have happened because we have nuclear facilities all around the globe and no prior Chernobyl happened.
It's bad argument against gain-of-function research.
Now, our one fun case of the week is when is simply...
Orange juice, not simply orange juice.
When it's made by Coca-Cola, says it's all natural, and according to the class action complaint filed against him, is actually filled with synthetic chemicals that have toxic effects on the human body.
So simply OJ, I'd be passing it.
If you want something that's fresh and truly all natural, what you want is farm fresh, delish, delish milk from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
Oh my goodness.
I didn't read this one.
All natural, simply tropical juice has toxic PFAS levels lawsuit alleges.
Coca-Cola claimed juice was healthy despite toxic forever chemicals levels hundreds of times above federal limits.
Who would have thought that you wouldn't want to get your OJ from a Coca-Cola company?
Do you want your food in the future from big corporations or do you want it like fresh, delicious ice cream you can also get from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com?
Robert, my wife Marion signed up, I think, but they don't have meat until next quarter.
Oh, they don't have meat because I'm still negotiating that with the government.
The government still won't let them sell meat.
Now you can get buffalo, you can get bison, because those things are outside the rules.
I'm still negotiating with the U.S. Attorney's Office to get him back in the position where he can actually, he's got chicken, great beef, to be able to sell that directly back in that business.
But they've got tons of other great butter, wonderful cheese, some of the best cheese I've ever had, ice cream.
You don't have to get that.
Farm fresh milk that people think is so good, Barnes looks like he's been doing lines of coke for a week.
Well, Robert, I won't lie.
Sorry.
There were jokes in the chat.
Okay, well, this has been phenomenal.
So we're back to Sunday, next Sunday.
Who do we have on Wednesday?
Our schedule is set for February, but we're still waiting on this Wednesday.
Or the rest of February.
Because I think next week is Nina Infinity, and the week after that's the Duran, and the week after that is going to be that Star Worlds girl.
But I don't think we have anybody for this Wednesday as yet.
I'm going to reach out.
The issue, I wanted to get Dr. John Campbell, but there's a time zone difference, and I have yet to get him to acknowledge me.
But we'll get somebody good.
People out there that follow Campbell telling me, hey, why haven't you been on Viva Barnes?
You gotta be on Viva Barnes.
To all of them.
All of them.
And I want to get...
We should get Russell Brand on here one day.
We will.
But Thursday...
Great interview with Glenn Greenwald, by the way.
It was...
And great.
And with Jimmy Dore.
It's amazing.
I get to sit here and absorb people's lives and then just turn it into an interview.
It's beautiful.
Sunday...
Not Sunday.
Thursday, I've got Constantine Kissin from Trigonometry on during the day.
Friday...
Very special guest.
Stay tuned.
I'll announce it later this week.
So it's going to be a great week.
And on Tuesday, I'm sorry, Wednesday, I will be on with George Gammon.
On Thursday, I will be on with the Durant.
So we'll be catching up with them before they catch up with us in a couple of weeks after that.
And after the show, new annual tradition started for 2023.
Going to be doing live streams.
Uh, bourbons, uh, right after each show we do.
So there'll be a live bourbon with Barnes on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
Starting tonight, we'll be live at about nine-ish Eastern time.
VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
Robert, thank you.
Stick around.
Everybody up there, you can now get Locals TV app on your Apple.
I think on your Roku.
I was busy watching different people last night.
I was watching your ocean kayaking thing.
How do you stay in that?
How do you stay in the kayak?
It's stable.
It's not like a bucket one.
It can't sink.
It's like a stand-up paddleboard almost.
It's more stable than a canoe.
It's my new favorite thing.
I just need to get a roof rack because I can't have anybody else in the car when I stick it in the car.
I'm into it.
I'm sold on ocean kayaking.
I once did ocean kayaking.
I did it once and I became comedic relief for everybody on the beach because I just kept flipping over and then over and then back over and then over and then I found out salt water doesn't taste good.
I swallowed a whole bunch of it so I was like dehydrated.
Finally like...
I paddled my way back in and everybody was still laughing on the beach about my, it's no more ocean kayaking for Bob.
I have the visual there, Robert.
So everybody, it's going to be one heck of a month of February.
Book it February 26th.
Robert, it's been a great night.
Everybody out there, thank you very much.
Robert, stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes.
Everybody, I'll see you tomorrow.
We'll see you Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.