Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 6, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:46

Ep. 147: Viva & Barnes Sunday Night Law Stream... ON A MONDAY!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	No worry.
	Yeah, they have a lot of sources inside the FBI and the CIA, and if the government comes out with their official line, they just write it up like little stenographers.
	They're stenographers.
	They're not journalists.
	They're not reporters.
	You're supposed to fact-check them, too.
	Somebody in the CIA says something, you've still got to say, hey, is it right or is it wrong?
	One of the best examples of that is the Twitter files.
	You see no coverage of this on CNN.
	No coverage of this astounding collusion between intelligence agencies and a social media network to suppress accurate information that would harm the political party that's in power.
	Which is fucking wild.
	It's wild that the news isn't covering this.
	Arguably, that's as big a scandal as Watergate.
	It's as big a scandal as any other...
	Times in the past where we've found that there's been some really shady shit going on that would change the way people would see a narrative.
	It's Watergate on steroids.
	It's Watergate by a factor of 10, but that's not the part that I wanted to highlight here.
	Hold on one second.
	Let's just let this play out.
	Remember when you had Mark Zuckerberg on?
	Yes.
	And Zuckerberg was like, how many times did we play that clip on this channel?
	Yeah, the FBI reached out to us and they said, you know, hey, there's going to be a disinformation dump from Russia coming.
	And so we were ready when the Hunter Biden thing dropped.
	And it's like, OK, well, this is a perfect example of they were just wrong.
	They said, oh, this isn't Hunter Biden's laptop.
	You know, it's no big deal.
	This is just Russian disinformation.
	And then it turns out it was his laptop.
	And so and Mark Zuckerberg was almost doing a victory lap by saying, hey, I only suppressed it in the algorithm as opposed to banning it.
	He was like, oh, I didn't ban it.
	So therefore, I'm good on me.
	They were wrong.
	They got it wrong.
	Do I look pale and tired and ugly?
	They didn't get it wrong.
	They lied.
	When the intelligence came down and sat with Zuckerberg and they said, we get word, some Russian disinformation.
	They didn't get it wrong.
	They lied to Zuckerberg.
	And whether or not Zuckerberg read through the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, they all lied.
	When the 50-plus former and current intelligence officers or whatever they, you know, intelligence agents of disinformation, signed that letter where they said, this has the hallmarks of the Russian disinformation campaign.
	They all knew the Hunter Biden laptop was authentic, genuine, and true.
	They all knew.
	So it's not just a question of them getting it wrong.
	They knew it was authentic.
	They knew it would sway an election.
	They interfered with social media, big tech, MSM.
	And they all went...
	I forget the guy's name now.
	It kind of looks like Eminem.
	They're not the government stenographers.
	I've said this before.
	The media went from being the government watchdog to the government lapdog.
	And nobody will do anything.
	Well, we will rage, rage, rage against the dying of the light, and we will scream it loud and proud here.
	They lied.
	They then went, got big tech to do their bidding for them, got, you know, the New York Times to do their bidding for them.
	I was listening to Joe Rogan, I think it was with Crystal Ball and Sager, you know, talking about how the New York Times got the Russiagate thing wrong.
	They've always been doing it.
	They've always been doing it, but the gatekeeping has been so much easier before the advent of the internet and the democratization of information.
	There's a reason why dictator Trudeau wants to control the internet, and he's well on his way to doing it right now.
	Bill C-11 is passed through the Senate with some modifications.
	Bill C-11 is the...
	No, not the online...
	Yeah, the Online Streaming Act.
	They lied.
	Zuckerberg censored the truth.
	Whether or not he knew he was censoring the truth or thought he was being a good boy for the government, Twitter did it.
	Facebook did it.
	They interfered with an election while accusing others of interfering in elections.
	And they succeeded.
	And now the world, I don't want to get hyperbolic like Tim Pool and we're on the brink of a world war and yada yada.
	It looks like we might be on the brink of a world war.
	I think cooler heads will prevail, but my goodness.
	I don't know why I read the media, but I still do.
	The Doomsday Clock is at 11.30.
	The closest it's ever been to Doomsday.
	Excuse me.
	Let's get some standard disclaimers out of the way before sponsors.
	And then the Barnes is coming in the house.
	Good day, Viva.
	Not streaming on local...
	I knew there was something I was forgetting.
	Damn it.
	I forgot to try to set it up on Locals.
	Okay, I'll have to do it next time.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	Because the problem is we're simultaneously streaming on Rumble, where we are currently live and alive.
	But people in France don't get Rumble live.
	And so when we go to Rumble exclusively, the people in France get shafted, and then I have to download, which I do every day after.
	The entire stream on vivabarneslaw.locals.com so they can watch it because France has decided to screw over their citizens in the name of censorship.
	Passion Moyer, thank you very much.
	Which brings me to the disclaimer.
	Rumble rants, super chats.
	Those things right there, if you want to support the channel, feel free to give a tip and I may or may not be able to read the comments out loud, but I'll do my best to bring it up.
	YouTube takes 30% of super chats.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on rumble.
	The link to the rumble channel is in the pinned comment there.
	Rumble has the equivalent called rumble rants.
	Now, no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice, although we will talk about that stuff.
	But nothing here is legal advice or medical advice.
	If you need medical advice, consult a doctor that you can trust that's not going to screw you and sweep you under the rug.
	If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer and make sure you're engaged in a lawyer's relationship.
	Prayers for Turkey.
	6,500 buildings, 10 stories or taller, have collapsed.
	Outrageous.
	All right.
	And let me see here.
	Why did France ban Rumble?
	France banned Rumble, Midlander, from what I, if I think I understand and I think I do, because they wanted Rumble to de-platform ban RT.
	And Chris Pavlovsky and Rumble said, Zut alors!
	C 'est de la merde, putain!
	And they said, no, we're not banning RT.
	And then, from what I understand, France said, okay, well, we're going to ban Rumble in France.
	And so, unless you have a VPN, you can't access France.
	You can't access Rumble in France anymore.
	Outrageous.
	France doesn't have free speech.
	I don't know where it does have free speech.
	And my goodness, I have been listening to some interviews and podcasts that will just blow your mind and make you understand and truly understand the expression hard times create hard men.
	Hard men create soft times.
	Times create soft men.
	Soft men create hard times.
	And like many of us believe, we are in the era of soft men creating very, very hard times.
	Now, before we get started, you may have noticed, it says this video contains a paid sponsor, which it does.
	And why does it do that?
	Because we've got two sponsors for tonight's videos.
	Birch Gold is number one.
	We watched the world.
	We watched the world.
	We watched the world burn.
	And really, all we want to do is live our lives and live them freely.
	And we want to keep the money that we have without having it stolen by Verizon.
	Sorry, did I say that out loud?
	Verizon.
	Not yet done with Verizon.
	The Biden administration's New Year's goals of tax and spend and turn a blind eye to inflation.
	Is it at odds with your goals of securing your savings?
	When you finally had enough of the games government is playing with your savings in retirement, diversify into gold, people.
	I make jokes, but gold is the gold standard.
	Gold is good.
	If you can afford it.
	If you can, certainly would have lost less money and made some, actually, as opposed to crypto.
	I am tired of my money being impacted by stupid decisions by leaders in Washington and Canada, for that matter.
	Oh, for over 5,000 years, gold has withstood inflation, geopolitical turmoil, and stock market crashes.
	And here's the great news.
	You can still get in.
	You can always get in with gold.
	In fact, you can own gold and silver in tax-sheltered retirement accounts.
	I haven't figured out how that works yet, but you can actually roll over your 401k into like precious metals.
	Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401k into an IRA in precious metals.
	Here's what you need to do.
	Go to birchgold.com forward slash Viva to claim your free info kit on gold.
	With 20 years experience converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals, Birch Gold can help you.
	It's a crazy thing.
	I remember how much gold was back in the day when I first started collecting coins and could never actually afford gold coins.
	Birchgold.com forward slash or promo code Viva and you'll get a kit and it'll show you all what to do.
	Now, speaking of gold, people, something that has been described as being worth its weight in gold.
	It's all doom and gloom, but at the very least, you know, like Donald Trump said, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
	And one of the worst things that can happen, actually, is power outages.
	During the hurricane, Ian and the other one there, I went and got a gas-powered generator.
	No, it wasn't diesel.
	It was the gas we put in our car.
	And then I started reading articles after my parents started sending it to me.
	They're saying, like, David, those gas-powered generators, more people get killed by the generators than they do by the hurricane.
	I don't think that's true, but that's what my parents said.
	But national security experts are warning.
	Our aging power grid is more vulnerable than ever.
	You saw what happened.
	People shooting up power grids, yada yada.
	You go out of power, you lose power.
	I just got an email from somebody.
	That's going to be a problem.
	A blackout lasting not days, but weeks or months.
	Your life would be frozen in time right at the moment the power fails.
	Lights over the country would go out, throwing people into total darkness.
	That's why having your own portable solar power panel is more important than ever.
	It's like, especially in Florida, it's a necessity.
	I did actually return my gas-powered one because I didn't want to get killed, and it was still in the box, wrapped up.
	So with Patriot Power Sidekick from Four Patriots, you get a solar generator that doesn't install into your house, quick, easy, portable, on the go or inside.
	It's small, about the size of a lunchbox, but it's powerful, powerful enough for your phones, medical devices, and even mini-fridge.
	It comes with a free solar panel and free shipping and a practically unheard of 365-day satisfaction guarantee.
	And not only that...
	But you get 10% off your first purchase by typing in promo code VIVA at checkout.
	4patriots.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	10% off your first purchase of the Patriot Power Sidekick or anything else in the store.
	Things that are good to have regardless of what goes down.
	And if you're into camping, it's good stuff.
	The image on Rumble has frozen.
	All the links to the two sponsors are in the pinned comment.
	No, they're in the description.
	But hold on.
	Why?
	Why has it frozen on Rumble?
	Okay, before Robert gets here, Rob, a $2 rumble rant, says, please start Locals Chat.
	Oh, sorry, I thought someone said we had started a Locals Chat.
	I'm going to go start Locals Chat, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Live chat will run concurrently with the stream.
	I'm just going to go like this, live chat here.
	Booyah, chat away.
	What was that thing?
	The RBG chat?
	That's politically correct.
	AI chat.
	Okay, let me just see if I did it.
	Live chat is on, everybody.
	Here is the link to the live chat.
	And now that we've gotten everything taken care of, booyah.
	I want to read...
	Okay, hold on a second.
	There was a $20 Rumble rant.
	The Super Chats.
	Oh, there's a bunch of chats here.
	Hold on a second.
	Rumble isn't working.
	Is it still not working?
	Let me go there and see.
	Why would cooler heads prevail?
	China knows it's pretty much now or never.
	So did Russia.
	Even globalists know it's now or never.
	It will only get worse.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	I will choose to be optimistic right now.
	I think realistic.
	I don't think it's being optimistic.
	I don't know how escalation of the conflict plays out.
	I'll be in Las Vegas for next thing since I'll be there.
	Where do I get tickets for yours?
	We had to reschedule our meet and greet to March 12th.
	That news was posted in vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So it's March 12th, so it will not be the same weekend as Reketa.
	Now let me go to Rumble just to see what's going on here.
	Refresh.
	Don't be a problem.
	Hmm.
	It certainly does seem to be a problem.
	Refresh if Rumble freezes people.
	Well, let me refresh.
	Okay, I'm seeing my...
	Ugly punim there.
	Okay, we're good.
	Barnes is not here yet.
	So I'm going to talk about one story, which...
	Oh, gosh.
	The world in which we live, people.
	Mind-blowing.
	Let me just pull it up because I had it on the backdrop here.
	Before we get into this.
	Okay.
	So here's what happens.
	You all heard about that story.
	A disgusting video of...
	A bunch of school kids beating on a nine-year-old girl on a bus.
	Here's what I want to show you how not racist I am.
	The racial component of that video never crossed my mind.
	Why?
	Because all children behave badly at times.
	All children behave terribly.
	Now, let me rephrase that.
	Some children behave terribly.
	Children and young males, particularly...
	They're idiots.
	I say this with...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	A blanket statement.
	Kids are idiots.
	Young boys are especially idiots.
	And we've all seen that video.
	There's two kids, 12 and...
	I don't know, 12 and whatever, wailing on a nine-year-old girl in a bus.
	The racial component never crossed my mind.
	Period.
	I then saw one person on Twitter at one point claiming that Walsh, Matt Walsh, was engaging in racist rhetoric by using certain rhetoric to describe the incident.
	Like by saying the kids were behaving like animals and someone says, well, that clearly has to be racially motivated.
	Didn't even cross my mind.
	Because kids are kids and bad kids of any race, religion, or creed do bad things.
	That's just the way things work.
	Okay, fine.
	If you haven't seen the video, go look it up.
	It's terrible.
	Don't look it up.
	It's terrible.
	Why would you do that?
	You're just going to punish yourself for no good reason.
	All right.
	So then I see a headline on the interwebs that shows this.
	We want to make sure we're seeing the same thing here.
	We are.
	A headline in the interwebs.
	iHeart.
	And I only know iHeart.
	I thought it was a Montreal thing.
	iHeartRadio is local radio in Montreal.
	Florida student arrested after video shows him beating up nine-year-old girl.
	Now, I knew the video.
	I saw someone post this on Twitter saying, hey, interesting choice in an image given the story.
	And then I go to look it up.
	I go to look it up.
	And when I go to look it up, when I go to look it up, when I get to the story, I'll show you the picture that's there.
	This picture.
	They went from one stock photo to another stock photo of a school bus with a stop sign.
	And so when I see the article, I'm like, oh, I don't see that picture, and I think I'm going to get duped again.
	Once bitten, twice shy, third time traumatized.
	I haven't gotten to traumatize yet because I get traumatized off the second try.
	I made a mistake once.
	It's not soon going to happen again.
	So I was like, oh, okay.
	I'm looking around to see if this is true.
	Did they use a stock photo of...
	Not that it made any difference.
	Someone made it.
	Did they use a stock photo of a white kid wailing on a white kid on a bus for this story, which would be very peculiar?
	And then did they change it after they got called out on it?
	And so I went and I employed the tactics of the interwebs.
	And look what I did.
	Look what I did.
	In the cache of the interwebs, the original photo is still there.
	So you see the photo when you go look it up.
	And lo and behold, they changed the photo.
	They changed the photo to that in the story, and then that's the whole story.
	And I found that shocking and outrageous.
	So someone decided to...
	That's misinformation.
	I mean, there's no other way to describe it.
	That's misinformation or disinformation or malicious, malicious propagandizing.
	Or deflection.
	And to do that, to do that is itself, I would dare say that that's some form of racism.
	It's as if to say, there's something here that needs to be hidden, and therefore I'm going to deliberately try to mislead people as to the essence and nature of the story.
	It also just so happens that the journalist who wrote that article...
	It happens to be black.
	And then that's going to add a next level to this.
	Because when I first saw it, the last name of the journalist was Anderson.
	Didn't exactly look like, didn't raise any flags as to, you know, was someone doing this on purpose.
	To deliberately attempt to conceal the truth of that story is itself racism.
	It is itself a form of bigotry of low expectations.
	We can't even be honest.
	We have to now try to falsify the narrative of that story to anybody who won't know.
	What was Coulter's Law?
	What is Coulter's Law?
	Okay, anyone in the chat, if you know what Coulter's Law is, let me know.
	Now, I see Barnes in the backdrop, so I'm not going to get into the second story, which I'm going to save for tomorrow.
	And maybe I'll have an interesting guest for tomorrow as well.
	We'll see.
	What is Coulter's Law?
	And it doesn't matter.
	It's kind of fraudulent.
	And then the guilt that the picture was changed.
	And so that anybody sharing the original picture might actually then look like a liar.
	Well, someone will look at them and say, why are you spreading disinformation?
	They didn't use that picture.
	It was a school bus.
	Anyway, I did my saluting.
	I'm not going to get bitten again.
	All right.
	Booyakasha.
	Outrageous, not shocking.
	Robert, get ready.
	Robert doesn't look like he's home.
	Hold on a second.
	Oh, hey, we got the mayor here.
	Okay.
	Three, two, one.
	Robert, sir.
	Are you in a bunker planning for the worst?
	No, in the home of the office, Scranton, Pennsylvania.
	Beautiful.
	All right.
	Let's see.
	Let me see if everyone says the audio is good.
	Audio, let us know, people.
	Robert?
	We may have double opened up live chats on locals.
	I didn't realize you had opened one, so I opened one too.
	Whose do we close?
	Everyone in my chat.
	I'm going to end it and go to the other one, but Mighty Piss sent a $1 tip.
	It says, Robert, please teach Viva how to save chat so it can be later accessed.
	It's helpful to go back for links.
	Yeah, what is it?
	You can enable live chat to be read afterwards.
	Yeah, it's a little button at the top.
	Okay, so I'm going to end my...
	I see people going down.
	Everyone leave the chat that I created and go to the one that Barnes did.
	Mighty Piss, thank you very much.
	Yes, stop.
	Robert.
	What do we start?
	I mean, we got a lot on the menu tonight, but...
	Yeah, we can go through first the topics list.
	I mean, we got the usual typical 21 potential topics.
	Musk wins big in another...
	Again, he's like the Teflon Don of Twitter in his ability to win big cases that he's not supposed to win.
	Second big win in four months in court.
	A federal sentencing case.
	I'll describe that up here that I just went through here in Scranton to give people some background on how that process works.
	We got the China balloon, you know, what some of the legal ramifications of that may be.
	We got the Murdaugh trial and some wild 404B evidence that's coming in.
	That's a very popular issue.
	Probably the most popular issue in the law for the ordinary person in trials is 404B evidence.
	Jurors love to hear it, and it's the exact evidence they shouldn't hear.
	We'll talk about that.
	We have medical spying on insurance denial with secret databases of insurance companies defaming and libeling people and denying them insurance coverage.
	We got the Ninth Circuit apparently opening the door for a federal property tax, Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax.
	We have suing governments over hiding vaccine injury databases, including the Children's Health Defense lawsuit, and a Japanese lawsuit against the Japanese government on the same grounds.
	We have DOJ going after Google and AnyTrust.
	We have the Seattle schools bringing a very interesting lawsuit against big tech.
	That's likely the beginning of a lot.
	More to come about how big tech is causing a mental health crisis among school children in America.
	We have rent control, and whether it's unconstitutional, going back up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals may make its way back up to the Supreme Court.
	We have Eliza Blue.
	Can she sue someone for libel?
	Can somebody sue her or her associates for libel?
	Or maybe even tortious interference with coffeebrand.coffee.com of the quartering.
	You too can still get your Valentine's package for the quartering, if you want, from his coffee brand, coffee.com.
	We have homeless sex offenders.
	What happens?
	How do they define, how do they register their address if they're homeless?
	We've got...
	Pot users probably didn't know there's a federal law that prohibits them from even having a gun.
	Well, a federal court might have just said that's a violation of their Second Amendment rights.
	That's one of those decisions where I'm reading it and I'm like, okay, everything in the intro makes me very uncomfortable.
	And then by the end of it, I'm like, yep, I totally agree with the judge.
	We'll get to that.
	And then in a new episode or what's going to be part of all of our future Law for the People, usually on Sunday, today, on Monday shows, we're going to try to incorporate a famous case, a big case.
	Maybe it's a historical case.
	Maybe it's a current case.
	But this one, because there's a recently really good documentary on it, the case I followed because of its broad contours and contacts, which is the case of Kim.com.
	Then we've got When Can Vaccine Injured Sue?
	Based on part of the issues raised yesterday in your interview of what happened in that case.
	But there's a lot of other people that fall in that situation.
	Can they sue?
	What's the impact of the PrEP Act?
	Might there be ways to challenge it?
	Logan Paul getting caught up in the crypto mess has now been sued for class action fraud in Texas.
	We got a big Bitcoin case in London.
	We got bartenders being charged for their customers getting drunk and driving drunk.
	We got the Backstreet Boys, Nick Carter, fighting back against what he calls false Me Too allegations.
	And one or two other fun cases.
	So that's the list.
	We'll get to what we can.
	All right.
	And I'm just going to end it now on YouTube, everybody.
	Let's go over to Rumble.
	Okay, we're ending on YouTube.
	Link is in there.
	Head over.
	Because we're going to start with the Chinese balloon.
	You can now refer to things by their country of origin.
	When it's Joe Biden.
	Okay.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Going over to Rumble, people.
	See you all there.
	2,334 people.
	Go.
	Robert?
	That's a real red brick behind me.
	That's not a green screen.
	No, that looks good.
	It's funny.
	It becomes very beautiful aesthetics.
	One thing in Florida I'm not yet used to is there's no brick.
	There's no brick that I've seen.
	It's all stucco.
	Of course.
	Okay, Robert.
	The China balloon.
	I'm sorry, the balloon from China.
	The Chinese balloon.
	Before we even get into the legalities of it, let's hear your take on which of the two narratives you believe, because there's two competing narratives.
	One is that this is a massive threat, Chinese spy balloon drifting over the Americas, whether or not it's looking for locations, you know, infrastructure to target in the event of a third world war, whether it's looking for...
	Nice, green, lush farmland to purchase if you're China.
	One end of the narrative says, massive threat, spy balloon, take it down, why it wasn't taken down earlier, yada, yada, yada.
	The other narrative is China saying it's a meteorological balloon that got blown off course, coming from China, no big deal, it happens all the time, and if you shoot it down, we're going to be livid and make it into a diplomatic affair.
	Between the two...
	I've skewed it.
	Which narrative do you go with in terms of being the more plausible narrative of what's going on?
	Neither of those two, because we also have the narrative as to whether this happened during the Trump administration and if it did, whether Trump knew about it, which we received conflicting information over the last several days.
	Some evidence Mattis did know about it as Secretary of Defense.
	The Office of Director of National Intelligence, both John Rycliffe and his predecessor, Mike Pompeo at CIA.
	Before he was the Secretary of State, said they did not know about it.
	So we'll see in due time what the truth is.
	But I think Alex Jones' takeaway was probably the most pertinent, which was he gave it its historical context, which is a lot of Americans don't know the Japanese launched a bunch of balloons into the United States or intended to reach the United States, intended to cause mass disaster, fires, all kinds of things.
	I think it was Fugu or something like that.
	Fugo.
	If someone's saying I mispronounced the Japanese, I'm sure I have because I mispronounce English on a regular basis.
	But most Americans don't know about it because the Office of Censorship, that was back when our government was honest.
	At least when they had an Office of Censorship, they called it Office of Censorship.
	They didn't call it something else.
	Told the media not to cover it.
	So many Americans to this day don't even know that happened.
	Even though balloons of these Japanese balloons have been discovered all over the United States and other places, they just weren't as successful as the Japanese hoped they would be, for a range of reasons.
	But the big thing was the ability to have balloons last in the air, because usually what happens is these weather balloons go up, they gather the information, they go up too high, they blow up, they come down, they parachute whatever the database is back forward, or they already transmitted it electronically or digitally.
	The goal here was to have balloons last in the air, not go too high, and to have steerage capacity against various wind controls.
	So this has been an experiment for a long time.
	The U.S. government has a Defense Department budget designed for this, allegations that some of it was intended to be used for domestic spying purposes.
	The thing is a balloon only has marginal utility as a spying technique over drones, satellites, and the like, spy planes, and the like.
	Those are generally better.
	They're just a little more costly, and some, in the case of satellites, don't get to linger that way a balloon can.
	And that's where some of the defenders of China who were saying this was intended to provoke a response to China, etc., this was an overreaction by the United States.
	Now, the flip side is China's explanation and excuse.
	That this was just unexpected winds didn't really make sense because there were no unexpected winds.
	Yes, the winds would naturally take something in that direction, but they knew that when they launched the balloon.
	The idea that it's just a weather balloon isn't really quite consistent given weather balloons don't take the path they took and there's more evidence of deliberate steerage.
	The Chinese only said it had limited steerage.
	It didn't say it had none.
	And the evidence seemed to suggest it did have that capacity.
	The counter theory would be...
	That with knowledge of this history of Japanese balloon weaponization, with knowledge that the U.S. government was trying to do its own balloon weaponization, and that there's a wing of the Defense Department that thinks that China is technologically illiterate when it comes to the defense industry.
	A lot of the same people who said the same thing about Russia, by the way, kept saying they're about to run out of weapons.
	And I remember there were people on our board that were arguing with me about that.
	China had no weapon system, that this is all exaggerated, that their nukes couldn't get out of their silos and all this stuff.
	Well, if you're China and you're on the eve of a summit and you want to make a point to the United States, one way to do so is to make a balloon that lingers right over the populace to where they can see it in a threatening way so it has an effect on the population.
	And the other is that it has steerage capacity for weaponized purposes in the way that Japan tried but failed to do.
	And it would be China's way of saying, we in fact do have military technology you don't think we have.
	So maybe you should think twice before you double up your military stations and bases in the Philippines like we're currently doing this past week.
	So it wouldn't surprise me if this was a deliberate effort by China to say their military technology is much better than some parts of the Pentagon believe as a method of deterrence from that wing of the Pentagon that wants to go to war, because this also came on the...
	after it was leaked of U.S. military officials planning to go to full-scale war with China in 2025.
	Those plans are clearly being produced by elements of the Pentagon.
	And a large basis of it, as Colonel McGregor has pointed out, is the misunderstanding by a wing of the Pentagon that China is defensively weak militarily.
	He and others are suspect and skeptical of that military assessment by wings of the Pentagon.
	This balloon would clearly be testament to that.
	People are saying electromagnetic pulse.
	Yeah, that's one of the weapons that could be used.
	There's a range of weapons that a balloon could carry that doesn't have either the expense or other collateral difficulties in certain utilities.
	There's a reason why Japan was developing it, put it that way.
	I mean, in fact, it was the first intercontinental weapon system before we had intercontinental ballistic missiles was the Japan balloon system.
	And it did travel across continents.
	It just didn't have the scale and scope of success the Japanese wanted it to.
	Now, I had jokingly said in the early days, they're not shooting it down because they don't know what's in it and what better deterrent.
	I hadn't even thought about this technologically, scientifically.
	What would be the possibility of delivering any form of...
	You know, any biological attack from a balloon event.
	Absolutely, it's one of the things you could do.
	That was one of the things the Japanese were considering doing.
	Now, mostly they ended up using it for bomb purposes with the hope of lighting fires all over the United States.
	But it's not so much what it's delivering as the fact that they designed a delivery system that can do it in ways that would be...
	And now, and I think that's why the U.S. military knocked it down, because...
	Before the U.S. military knocked it down, there was a lot of discussion out there in the military technology space that said it's actually very difficult to knock down a balloon at that height.
	Well, Adam Kinzinger was all over Twitter saying, it's at 100,000 feet, you can't knock it down.
	And then people were like, dummy, it's at 60,000 feet, according to the Department of Defense.
	And then he's like, well...
	And then you had other people saying...
	You know, it can't be done and it's dangerous to do it.
	There is a very high failure rate with actually trying to knock it down.
	Now, I don't buy the Biden administration's belief based on past shuttle issues and other things that they were really worried about debris.
	I think they were worried that whatever the payload was would show up with some random farmer finding it and that there would be something about that that would be embarrassing to the Biden administration.
	So they shoot it down over the ocean.
	Where there's no risk that Joe Schmo comes up with it, and most likely it will sink to the bottom of the ocean and never be discovered.
	But it's where I depart with my conservative friends, and my conservative friends saw it as weakness by the Biden administration.
	I don't necessarily.
	There's a wing of the Biden administration that wants war with China.
	And this will be inconceivable to a range of people in the conservative space.
	They won't understand that because they see Biden as the prostitute, if you will, in the relationship with China, and China's the pimp.
	They don't understand that the Bidens, the Pelosi's, etc., see China as the prostitute and they as the pimp.
	And that's why George Soros has been calling for regime change in China now for going on five years.
	These warmongers want to force China to go back to being the servile factory worker they see them as, that the globalists see them as.
	And we're at real risk of escalatory conflict with China.
	And some conservatives, frankly, are playing into it.
	We don't want to go to war with China.
	Trump's policies are still the best ones, which is let's renegotiate trade.
	Let's not extend and expand their social credit system to the United States.
	Let's hold them accountable for whatever happened in the pandemic, including if it implicates...
	It's Fauci and others, but let's not get involved in a land war in China.
	Well, never get involved in a war.
	Sorry, but I'm just trying to think, like visualize what does a war look like with China now?
	It would not be a question of anybody invading anybody's territory.
	It would be launching missiles.
	The plans that have been leaked is the U.S. to invade China, to recolonize China.
	Much like the 1800s.
	And China, as Colonel McGregor has pointed out, China is almost entirely defensively operated.
	It's not very offensively.
	I think that's why they designed the balloon, is they wanted to say, we do have offensive capacity.
	You may not think we did.
	But they're obsessed with the memory of the 1800s, the opium wars, etc.
	I mean, people forget the Brits in the West forced opium on their population.
	That's still not processed by your average American.
	And so the Chinese people are deeply...
	remember that.
	And so as McGregor pointed out, if you really study their best military systems, they're designed defensively to prevent people going up the rivers again and being able to conquer the inside of China.
	They are still weak.
	They launched another airship.
	I mean, that was the airship, the balloon.
	I mean, they launched another air carrier.
	But they're still pretty weak in the naval side.
	They have some strength, and it's a little bit concerning that we keep expanding our military operations in the Pacific.
	It's like, what is our goal here?
	This looks like Ukraine all over again.
	Where we keep doing military operations on Russia's doorstep.
	Now we're doing military operations on China's doorstep.
	It's one thing to say we're going to defend Taiwan.
	It's another thing to have eight military bases in the Philippines.
	It's another thing to want to be extending our naval operation in the South China Seas and the extended islands there.
	That's just provocative behavior.
	That I think is unnecessary and is designed for war.
	But there are people who clearly think they can win that war.
	And a big predicate of it is they have big assumptions about China's military capacity.
	And I think that's a mistake.
	We made that mistake.
	We went into Korea.
	We tried to dominate North Korea.
	China sent a million plus soldiers and we had to pull back to the 38th parallel.
	I just conceptually don't understand how anybody could think you're going to invade a country of...
	Sure, they're not armed yet, but a country of a billion...
	Nearly two billion people.
	Win a winter war in Russia.
	I mean, you have these so-called OSINT.
	They call them bro-O-I-S-N-T.
	It's kind of a joke.
	Open source intelligence people that are clearly affiliated and associated with deep state operatives and the like.
	Or intelligence agencies, if you so choose, that are suggesting that Ukraine and the West can win a war in winter in Russia, even some suggesting Russia's not ready to handle war in winter.
	I guess they, you know, skipped what, you know, there was a meme around that had Napoleon, Hitler, and some past people who've tried to go into Russia in the winter, and how that's been their demise.
	You would think we knew better, but McGregor's pointed out.
	There's a wing in the Pentagon that thinks we can conquer the world.
	There's a wing that's a lot like the post-World War II era of generals that wanted to nuke everybody.
	Curtis bombs away LeMay, who, you know, even George Corley Wallace had to keep apologizing for in 1968.
	And he didn't really mean that.
	He didn't really mean that.
	You know, there's a reason for the movies like Doctor Strange, Love, and the like.
	They represented actual people in the military hierarchy who wanted, I mean, MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War.
	So, you know, Patton wanted to go into Russia after the Soviet Union at the end of World War II.
	So there was, though Patton was nowhere, you know, Patton was just aggressive as opposed to MacArthur and LeMay, two of whom have been icons in parts of the conservative movement, the more militaristic conservative movement.
	who are in denial about how nuts these people were.
	And a good number of them are still in positions of power.
	And they're willing to do two wars at once with the two other great nuclear powers of the world, Russia and China.
	That's how crazy aspects of the Biden administration actually are.
	At least we don't have mean tweets, Robert.
	But speaking of not having Trump in office, so It starts out as...
	It literally starts out as, well, there was a balloon here, but we had three of them during the Trump presidency.
	And then it was like, oh, three during the Trump presidency.
	Then it comes out that perhaps if it did happen, Trump was never told about it by the same military or by the same defense entity that also lied to Trump about the number of U.S. soldiers remaining in Syria.
	What is up with that story?
	What is the truth?
	And what is just created afterwards to make Biden look less bad?
	We don't know.
	We know the ODNI directors denied it.
	There's the Office of Directors of National Intelligence.
	We know that there's a story out there that Mattis knew about it and hid it from Trump.
	What I would say is it wouldn't surprise me if the military had multiple reasons for hiding it.
	So, for example, the military was bragging this week about testing our hypersonic weapons, our first ever hypersonic missile.
	What's ironic about that is, of course, Russia has actually been using hypersonic missiles in Ukraine.
	For the last six months.
	I remember at the beginning of the conflict, a bunch of the same folks saying that Russia had no such weapons, that they couldn't.
	If the U.S. doesn't have it, nobody has it.
	And I think it was embarrassing.
	It would have been embarrassing.
	That China had developed this military technology or technology that could be used for military purposes before the US had, when part of the Pentagon's whole pitch was we can go into China without worrying too much because their technology is so backwards on an advanced military scale.
	And there's still people that claim that economically.
	And sometimes they make good arguments and sometimes I think they overstate their claim.
	But I think there needs to be a balance reached between not deferring to It's sort of an excuse to cover for why Biden didn't knock it down right away,
	when I think the real excuse was the U.S. military didn't want anybody in the Biden administration, didn't anybody want them finding whatever was being carried on that airship for whatever reason.
	There's something there that they're bothered by, and I don't think we'll ever get the whole story.
	For decades to come.
	All right.
	Well, that might leave more questions than answers for some people, but that is...
	That is it.
	If it were to be...
	The balloon never goes down.
	That's Elon Musk's ability to win incredible cases at trial.
	They're going to have to start calling it the Teflon Don of the courtroom.
	So this was the case where he was being sued.
	The class action lawsuit, if I'm not mistaken, because he made some tweets saying we've secured funding to go private for Tesla at $420 a share, $420, which is also kind of funny.
	I don't know if that's done on purpose.
	He thought he had had the backing of some Saudi investors, from what I understand.
	Turned out to be not a lie.
	It either fell through or he overstated it.
	It's not clear if it was a lie.
	And it went to trial.
	And the jury said, Dismissed.
	I mean, I guess they dismissed the claim.
	What are the nuances?
	I mean, the jury doesn't give really a reason, but what's the nuances behind the defense?
	He didn't do it willingly.
	It wasn't a false statement.
	There was no injury.
	What's the rationale?
	This was seen as an unwinnable case for Elon Musk, much like his Delaware win earlier this year, or back in 2022.
	So for those that don't remember, I mean, everything that dealt with the Tesla's buyout.
	of the other solar power company that he was involved in.
	The people thought that was a real vulnerability for him, that he would lose it, that he would owe tens of billions of dollars, that it would put him back politically, it would put him back financially, and put him at risk in terms of the stock value, other things, so the collateral ramifications could be substantial.
	Then he won.
	He won across the board in that case before a Delaware court presumed to be hostile.
	Here, he's in front of a San Francisco jury pool.
	Which they had already done enough survey work to know was very hostile.
	They booed him off stage in front of Dave Chappelle.
	Absolutely.
	And they moved to transfer venue to Texas because they said, look, it's very hard to get an impartial jury pool in San Francisco.
	This was a case where the federal court had already found against him as a matter of law and said that his statements were false.
	And that he couldn't have certain defenses and denied him the ability to get the Saudi witnesses there to support his storyline.
	So, in fact, technically the trial was only being conducted on whether or not his statements caused damages, not whether or not they were true or not.
	So people thought there was no way he could win this thing.
	The stock market, the value of the stock went way up when he said it would go private.
	Then when they found out it wasn't, it took a major tank.
	Those were the class action of people who sued.
	And he's in San Francisco with a hostile judge and hostile jury pool.
	He is the main witness for the defense, to some degree the main witness even for the plaintiffs.
	And he wins across the board.
	They came back in minutes and said, nah, Elon innocent.
	So, I mean, this will send shockwaves to people that are going after Elon Musk and Tesla.
	Because these are two back-to-back cases, presumed to be in front of hostile jury or judicial pools, or both.
	With bad fact patterns that look really difficult to get around.
	With legal findings that appear to preclude even his best defenses.
	And he gets in front of those judges.
	He gets in front of those juries.
	And he is a master persuader and he convinces them that, no, the whole case is bogus.
	And this is extraordinary success.
	It will help him in a wide range of settings.
	People will think he is the Teflon Don, that you're going to waste your time suing him.
	This was a suit they spent tens of millions of dollars on, I'm sure, in legal fees and experts and cost and discovery.
	And they have a favorable judge and a favorable jury pool, and they still get whipped, and they get whipped in minutes.
	So credit to Elon Musk, a big win that's going to intimidate a lot of people from coming after him in the future.
	Yeah, well, and people in the chat are saying, Teflon.
	They can call him Teflon.
	Teflon, yeah, Teflon.
	Which is very good.
	That's not bad.
	I like that.
	And I made the joke, I think it was last Friday during Freeform Friday with Mark Grober, Eric Hundley, where I made the joke, you know, like...
	Robert, how is he doing this?
	He just sends every jury member, I have your Twitter history.
	All right, don't bring up...
	I'm joking, people.
	Oh, Robert, actually, before I forget, the announcement is that our meet and greet is going to be changed the date in Vegas to March 12th, correct?
	That is correct.
	There will be 50 tickets put on sale probably later this week, capped out at 50 people.
	Both the date and the time is moved.
	The time will be from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.
	We won't be live streaming a show.
	It will be an exclusive private event about five hours long.
	It will include food as well as part of it, keeping it at the same $200 a person price capped at, like I said, 50 tickets.
	But we will be doing other events.
	The goal is to do at least one a quarter, maybe one every other month.
	Depends on how this event goes and how everybody's scheduled and so forth.
	So don't feel like this is the one and only event.
	This is just the first event.
	And I plan on doing it annually, the first Sunday of March Madness every year, so that there will be an annual event, Viva Barnes Law Locals event, every...
	March in Vegas going forward, at least is the goal, especially if this goes smoothly and everything goes well with it.
	We just showed we got a great venue.
	It's already been booked.
	Got entertainers coming.
	Got some fun side, little memento-type projects coming.
	And we'll have a live Q&A with everybody there.
	And it'll be a fun, nice event.
	In fact, it'll be Rat Pack style because it'll be me, you, Eric Hunley, and Mark Robert.
	And maybe we'll even do it as the Rat Pack on tour down the road if everybody's, you know, depending on what people's availability is.
	But I know Eric is already available for the Chattanooga event that I'm planning in April for my birthday.
	We even have one of our great meme makers has made a meme for a poster for the event, the ticket invite, which is our faces on the Rat Pack in front of the Sands.
	It'll be a fun, cool little event, and thanks to all the people out there.
	Apologies to those people who booked any travel in advance.
	You should be able to get hotels moved, should be able to get airfare moved.
	In fact, my understanding is things are not as bad as expensive.
	For some reason, that last weekend in February was crazy expensive.
	Nick Riccata's event ended up being three times more expensive for him than anticipated.
	Mark Robert's hotel bill was like twice what it normally is.
	And I was getting other people telling me that, telling me that there was something wrong with something unusually expensive.
	It was more of that price fixing, that Vegas price fixing.
	They knew people were coming in, so they tried to jack it all up.
	Now, Robert, speaking of Elon's successes, which is why he might have been distracted and not following the other stuff that's been going on on the interwebs, we've been talking about it.
	Part of it's drama, and then part of it is also legitimate abuse of power that ought to be highlighted if it is indeed existing, which it looks like it is, people being banned.
	For sharing images, which are public by all accounts.
	And the hole that is currently being dug does not yet seem to have bottomed out by, well, at least Eliza.
	And I say this like, it's just, it's a catastrophe from a public PR perspective.
	It's a catastrophe from a messaging perspective.
	But it's getting dirty and it's getting more complicated.
	Now I know...
	The quartering was talking about releasing some information, telling people to stop sending their minions to have them not release whatever information.
	I don't know what he's released because I'm staying away from the ad hominem drama.
	But there has been some purported alleged potential threats of lawsuits for defamation and potential tortious interference with contracts.
	What is the latest on the legal side of that, Robert?
	Yeah, so I think that, I mean, the first thing was apparently Eliza Blue, who we interviewed several years ago, was doing a good job on Twitter, promoting issues of Twitter's, well, we're on Rumble, right?
	Yeah, child pornography problem, which I thought was a serious problem I wanted attention to, and that's why we interviewed her.
	We wanted the world to know about, this is a problem in big tech space, you should be aware of it for your own kid's sake, but also wanted to put pressure on Twitter to reform its policies.
	Elon Musk, to his credit, as soon as he took over, made it a high priority to reduce the amount of child pornography available on Twitter.
	And he also highlighted Eliza Blue in that context.
	Then some people started, Brittany Venti, and here's the chronology.
	Eliza Blue goes on Tim Pool, and she announces that she is supporting certain accusations against Andrew Tate.
	I suspect it was Andrew Tate fans that started to dig into her background.
	They began to raise questions about the sincerity of her claims as a victim of trafficking.
	And the certain content creators in what I would call the cultural space will be interviewing one of them this Wednesday for Sidebar, Nina Infinity.
	We'll be interviewing another one in two weeks for Sidebar, that Star Wars girl, who, by the way, is completely apolitical.
	It's funny.
	She didn't know.
	What Julian Assange was.
	She mispronounced his name.
	So I was like, no, she's not kidding when she says she's apolitical.
	She's got involved in this issue because of her friends being censored on Twitter.
	But Brittany, they brought to you Brittany.
	Brittany Venti came to her attention.
	Brittany Vennie is another person within this space.
	Chrissy Meyer, someone else we've interviewed, a prior client of mine, had also platformed Eliza Blue.
	And what happened is Brittany Vennie asked Eliza Blue, what is this?
	Because it appeared to be rap videos that she had appeared in and that this was inconsistent with the timeline she'd explained elsewhere of being trafficked.
	Almost the immediate response was Brittany Vennie was kicked off of Twitter.
	Suspended from Twitter.
	And actually, just to pause it there for one second, because this was...
	I went back and re-watched our original interview, and this was part of the...
	One of the questions that we had asked was, how are we understanding traffic?
	Because from her story, it was...
	I got involved with what sounded like going to California, I forget where it was, and sort of becoming like a groupie and getting exploited in that sense.
	And then being...
	Paid to do things.
	And the question I'd ask was, what is trafficking in that sense?
	What does it mean?
	Because it sounds like it might be getting diluted.
	And she told her story, and she told it in detail, which is either good or bad if it doesn't match up with what other internet sleuths have managed to find.
	So there was that element going back to her childhood, when she was much younger, than when this video apparently was shot, created, and whatever.
	And I should correct, or not correct, because it was a hypothesis.
	It does look like...
	That video from WorldStarHipHop was not some sort of stock footage that had been taken, rearranged into a hip-hop video by videos that had been later discovered by her own admissions.
	It looked like it was a project for which WorldStarHipHop publicly affirmed they had the rights to the content.
	So that video, I think, it's been on the internet for six years.
	I don't know if it was aired the year it was shot, but it's been on YouTube.
	For over six years, public, available, people found it, started sharing screen grabs, and they started getting blocked or locked out of their accounts on Twitter on the basis that it was public disclosure of privately produced intimate content.
	That was the explanation that I understood.
	Sorry for the parentheses, Robert.
	Carry on.
	And it appears she or her allies have misrepresented that content.
	That content is not legally protected private content.
	When you go and do a video, now she asked certain people to take down some of the YouTube shows, so some of that was taken down, but it doesn't change the legality of it.
	There's plenty of evidence out there that she voluntarily contracted, even sought out to do these videos, profited at some level from their production, was aware for many years of their public display, bragged about it.
	And now is trying to pretend it's trafficking.
	And the biggest problem is, that's legally not trafficking.
	And it represents a, my biggest concern is the dilution, what you talked about, the dilution of the significance of the term trafficking by doing what happened in the Me Too movement, which was all of a sudden, and on college campuses, which was all of a sudden, anything you regret becomes trafficking.
	It's not.
	Or even just say, having been exploited, some might call it exploitation, is not trafficking.
	And so like, okay, I got either.
	I could have been on drugs and doing things that I am now ashamed of.
	I could have maybe sold myself too cheap.
	So exploitation versus human trafficking was the big distinction.
	Sorry, I cut you off.
	And I think she's diluted that.
	And I was concerned as soon as she became associated with the Andrew Tate case.
	Because in my view, people trying to compare the Tate case to the Epstein case, sorry, I don't see it.
	You can argue, I'm not a fan of the webcam business.
	I don't recommend the webcam business, etc.
	But by all evidence I had seen, it was, again, from the women themselves, it was entirely legal, not coercive, not trafficking at all.
	Did we mention this last week?
	The Romanian court tossing their testimony on the basis that they were, in fact, exploited.
	Like, two of the women who were allegedly trafficked or whatever came out and said, no, we weren't.
	We don't think we were.
	And they had court-appointed expert psychologists come in and say, it's Stockholm Syndrome.
	They were exploited.
	They just don't know it.
	It's classic victim brainwashing, which I could understand under certain circumstances.
	But my goodness, when is the court not going to come in and make the case?
	Yeah, exactly.
	And my concern was also people trying to profit off of it.
	I mean, you had some lawyers who got wealthy and got off the Epstein-related cases.
	And there's a natural incentive in that space to expand the definition and throw people into that pot, much like the Me Too environment that went way past what was legitimate trafficking or legitimate Me Too cases, like the Nick Carter case we'll talk about in a little bit.
	So my concern is that she was starting to be a bad faith actor in the space.
	Then people start pointing out all the contradictions in her story and that she claimed she had a halfway house for victims.
	There was no evidence that actually existed that she was doing all this work with victims.
	Not a lot of evidence that that happened.
	A lot of claims that she had never raised money off of this and then evidence that she had.
	A lot of evidence.
	Apparently the daughter of a...
	A reasonably prominent Illinois state politician.
	Evidence that she had sort of masked and hidden from people.
	No real evidence of actually being trafficked with an illegal meaning of being trafficked.
	The Daily Beast did a story on it.
	Now, I'm not a fan of the Daily Beast, so I'm not going to cite them a lot, but they did raise some questions and issues.
	But mostly what got everybody agitated in the content creator cultural space, culture commentator space, was all the banning.
	Was weaponizing her relationship with Elon Musk and Twitter, which Elon was in the middle of trial.
	So in his response to you, he was like, I'm a little busy at the moment.
	I'll try to get back to it.
	But they're trying to take billions from me at the time being.
	Which was true at the time.
	But the relationship with other people there, including my former client and someone I still think is an adorable human being, even though she's blocked me on Twitter, Cassandra Fairbanks, and now Cassandra McDonald.
	I also represented her husband for free.
	You get interesting things sometimes from folks.
	But she now books for Tim Pool.
	Tim Pool ended up blocking the quartering on Twitter, which is a little strange.
	Cassandra handles a good amount of the booking there, and she was being very defensive of Eliza Blue.
	Cassandra originally blocked me because I was raising criticism on behalf of Kyle Rittenhouse.
	He interviewed last week.
	Sweet kid.
	Great kid.
	He's having to raise money because everybody's trying to sue him into oblivion.
	I won't comment on that judge because I'm getting into trouble.
	I have cases in front of him, but I'm not a fan.
	Let's put it that way.
	He knows that.
	I know that's not news, but I can't say anything else.
	They'll be citing it right away.
	Bobby Barnes said something on Twitter.
	Exactly, exactly.
	With this crazy Canadian.
	But the net effect of it is she tried to get a bunch of people banned.
	Now he's even trying to get YouTube videos struck.
	Including YouTube videos that she doesn't have a legal right to.
	She's misusing her status as a perceived trafficking victim to weaponize any criticism of her activities and her past and any misrepresentation she's made in that context.
	Now, the Twitter, to its credit, did finally reinstate the quartering.
	And saw that.
	I would say just word of the wise out there, as you pointed out.
	There's people I would antagonize in the world.
	I would not go after the cultural commentator community.
	Ask Jack Murphy how that turned out.
	He kept threatening Nick Ricada and threatening the quartering, and now everybody remembers him for one thing, and it involves him putting things into his body in an undesirable manner for most human beings.
	So I think that Eliza and her allies have done very poor work here.
	I have serious questions about her entire backstory.
	I think there should be more criticism from the conservative space over the misapplication.
	We should not allow the trafficking issues to be misappropriated by people who want to use it for their personal grift, whether that grift is fame or money, and diluting and diminishing the meaning of that term to such a degree that people will then be skeptical, like the boy who cried wolf, of legitimate trafficking concerns and complaints.
	And I think that's who Eliza has become by the censorship by her and her allies at Twitter and others.
	Other people have clearly libeled and tortiously interfered, in my view, It's Eliza's allies that, in my view, have tortuously interfered and libeled other people, like Brittany Venti, like the quartering, like these other folks.
	But I told the quartering, as good as his research is with his crowdsourcing of investigative information, that I should employ him as an investigator.
	And he said he would work for Cigar, so I think we'll have a deal coming soon.
	Let me make my dirty joke, just as long as the cigars are only smoked.
	Okay, Robert, that's the latest there for anybody who didn't know, and the issues.
	Coffee.coffee, isn't that it?
	Coffee.coffee brand or something?
	So you're going to support the quartering going through all this.
	He actually makes good coffee.
	Has even a Valentine package you can give.
	That's the quarter.
	I don't know what the link is, but you can check it out on the quartering.
	Would that be a good Valentine's gift, Viva Valentine's gift for your wife, or would your wife be not impressed?
	Well, if she got it for you, would it be a good gift?
	The coffee would get consumed.
	I like gifts that get consumed are good gifts.
	Or the gifts that produce fruits, like I get tomato plants for her every time.
	Those are the best, the gifts that keep on giving.
	But Robert, actually, now that you mention it, hold on, I'm going to put the link to the Kyle Rittenhouse interview.
	Without getting into the judge, Robert...
	That kid, you get to meet him in person.
	He's just a kid.
	That's what he told Nick Ricada.
	I'm just a dude.
	But isn't he one of the sweetest human beings you've ever met?
	Robert, he's a 20-year-old kid, and but for what we know that he did, he would be like the most...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Not nondescript.
	Just a kid.
	He's 20 years old.
	And you realize he's 20 years old.
	Let's just say he has 12 years of conscious life.
	I don't think people have memories earlier than eight years old.
	Four years of his 12 years of conscious life have been the events of Kenosha.
	He's a kid who has had the better part of his conscious life absorbed into one event that has defined him as to who he is.
	And I'm asking him questions like...
	What are you doing?
	What do you do for fun?
	I'm putting the link so everybody can go watch it if you haven't seen the interview.
	He's like, I like to play board games and hang out with friends.
	I'm a 20-year-old kid, and this event has basically crafted the way I can go out or can't go out and made life what it is.
	But he's being sued, Robert.
	We talked about this.
	I get mixed up when we do things on Freeform Friday.
	He's being sued for wrongful death by Huberman, Anthony Huber, the skateboard guy, by his family.
	Yeah, by the father.
	It's a different standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so a higher burden in criminal versus civil.
	O.J. Simpson got acquitted criminally but found guilty civilly.
	What do you make of the chances of this?
	I mean, they made a motion to dismiss for a procedural basis that he wasn't served properly.
	I would disregard that basis.
	But then he made a motion to dismiss.
	And the motion to dismiss was dismissed and it's proceeding to discovery.
	Would you be scared in Rittenhouse's shoes as the defendant in a hostile world of jurors who might not like him?
	Well, I mean, he definitely needs good legal counsel.
	The court he's in front of, that particular judge is a very unreliable judge in my opinion when it comes to matters of law.
	I thought much of the case should have been dismissed.
	I thought they didn't allege sufficient grounds to hold him responsible.
	The same federal court.
	If you'd made those allegations against certain government actors, would quickly dismiss.
	Put it that way.
	But they would have dismissed maybe on qualified immunity and not...
	They might have framed it or phrased it in that way, but I wouldn't...
	Yeah, I won't go any further.
	Okay, fine.
	I don't like the...
	I think the case should be dismissed.
	I don't think there's any merits to the case whatsoever, but there's always risk when you have a judge who would allow the case to go forward, and there's always risk...
	When you have a Milwaukee jury pool, predominantly Milwaukee jury pool.
	So in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
	So yeah, those are his two risks.
	So that's why he needs competent, capable counsel.
	That's why he has a give-send-go that people can continue to support.
	That's what to pay for his legal cost.
	And there's the prior funds that he had received that are also going to that.
	For those asking, no, I never...
	Asked for or received a penny for the work that I did on behalf of Kyle, nor would I. But there are other lawyers who are doing that work for him in those cases who do need to be compensated for their work to make sure Kyle gets the best representation.
	I think it's a case that shouldn't be allowed to go forward.
	But I think if the plaintiffs were smart, they wouldn't focus on Kyle.
	They think the police did bad acts.
	They think the police conspired to do bad acts.
	Well, then focus on the police.
	It's a mistake to drag in Kyle because Kyle is not guilty of anything that they're accusing him of, and it undermines the rest of their claims.
	I didn't want to ask this question to Kyle in particular, but I think we all know the answer.
	He's probably not judgment-proof, but he probably doesn't have that much assets to begin with.
	What he's raising for legal fees is going to be spent on legal fees.
	So they get a $5 million judgment against Rittenhouse.
	Kid's a kid, doesn't have any money.
	I mean, he can bankrupt himself out of that judgment, or would that be a judgment?
	It depends on the nature of a judgment in terms of bankruptcy.
	So, like, punitive damages and certain intentional claims you can't bankrupt out of.
	So that basically would be kind of a cloud over his financial life for a decade or so.
	And it depends on which state you're in as to the collection remedies available.
	Some states have different...
	Limitations on what can be recovered and when it can be recovered.
	But it's a substantial financial risk to his immediate short-term future.
	Okay.
	And Mahuyo, $5 rumor on, says it's coffeebrandcoffee.com.
	That's it.
	And then...
	Coffeebrandcoffee.com.
	Coffeebrandcoffee.com.
	And then Munchlax77 with a $5 rumor on, says, you know what would go with some coffee brand coffee?
	Some milk, Robert.
	Oh, yeah, if you want milk.
	There's a reason I'm here in Pennsylvania, other than the federal case I'll talk about here in a second.
	It's to go down to Amish country and continue to organize the defense for Amos Miller.
	A bunch of folks have been ordering food from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	Best milk in the world, in my opinion.
	Like I said, that milk was so good, people thought Barnes was doing lines.
	Where's all that energy come from?
	It's AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com, fresh milk.
	But the people order the cheese and the ice cream and the bison and the buffalo.
	And everybody I've been seeing lots of feedback is that it's some of the best food they've ever had in their lives.
	We're trying to make it so that there can be real food freedom in America.
	So I'll be continuing to be meeting with the leaders in the community down there.
	But you know what you don't see amongst Amish children?
	This is a good transition into the big tech suit.
	You don't see sky-high rates and rising rates of anxiety.
	You don't see sky-high and rising rates of depression.
	You don't see sky-high and rising rates of bodily self-harm.
	You don't see any of the mental health crisis that so many young people in America are facing.
	And credit to the Seattle School District, no less, for bringing a massive...
	Action against big tech, including Meta, Facebook and Instagram, including Alphabet, Google and YouTube, including TikTok, saying that what these companies have deliberately done is created a product they knew would addict young people, children in particular, and they knew was causing and creating this mental health crisis that has been very costly for the school districts directly.
	So they brought suit on public nuisance grounds.
	I'm a little worried about this use of public nuisance because I've seen it used in the tobacco context, the opioid context, and the climate change context.
	Some of those I thought in the tobacco and opioid context there were legitimate grounds to do so, even if it was getting a little bit iffy as to how far.
	It's just so easy to use nuisance claims for politicized purposes.
	It makes me a little nervous when I see that be the primary premise of their legal claim.
	But I do agree with the facts of their legal claim.
	That big tech has caused deliberately and intentionally a mental health crisis in America.
	This is the first of many suits likely to come.
	And they point out Section 230 provides no immunity.
	They're not suing for libel.
	They're not suing for defamation.
	They're not suing for any of that.
	They're suing for the deliberate choices of big tech to harm our children.
	What I understand is the crux of the lawsuit.
	There's a few of them.
	I think it was another class action.
	Is that they're saying that the algorithm...
	Is this a case in which they're saying the algorithm is not the product or is not a product?
	It's partially.
	I mean, what they're claiming is basically the big tech designed their product to addict kids, number one.
	Number two, to manipulate their neuropathology so that they would use the big tech products more often.
	But while knowing, number three, that the combination of the addiction, the combination of the neuropathic changes they were inducing, By creating such user attention would have the effect of increasing, of creating a mental health crisis for children in America.
	And they didn't care because they thought they would line their pockets.
	And this was, I forget who the guy was from Facebook.
	What was his name?
	Oh, there's a bunch of them.
	I mean, if people want to see a good documentary on this, there's a whole bunch of whistleblowers in this movie.
	I think it's called The Creepy Blue Line.
	Someone may remember in the chat, either at Rumble or at Locals.
	It was a really good documentary that I knew some of this, but it was only watching that, it was like, holy cow!
	I'd seen it in generations of people, and I didn't realize just how horrifying it was.
	And these are people who felt very guilty about ever being associated with the creation of the product.
	But these are some of the foundational engineers.
	There's some little parts of it that go a little too political, but if you exclude those parts, the data was unbelievable.
	The creepy line, that's it, the creepy line.
	I was trying to find it.
	Yeah.
	Okay, good.
	I might watch that with my kids.
	Thanks for finding it.
	Where everybody, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where everybody is above average, like the Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon residents.
	And even the trolls are above average.
	And, of course, you have to pay the toll if you want to troll at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But I want to see more people bring these suits in from everybody I've ever heard, because it could be the end of big tech power.
	When jurors hear the horrifying nature of what big tech deliberately chose to do, it makes big tobacco and the big pharma opioid makers look like small change in terms of the horrors they have visited upon an entire generation.
	The only worst criminals are probably Pfizer.
	Well, maybe you could say in certain parts Tyson Foods, but they unfortunately suffered a little hit in the stock markets this week.
	Because certain of their earnings went down, and it couldn't happen to anybody better.
	Robert.
	That's all I gotta say.
	Well, hold on.
	Speak of the devil.
	I'm not gonna play the music, because first of all, the song was stuck in my head.
	Let's just play it without...
	No, let's play it without audio for a bit.
	This was the Satan...
	The Satanic ritual at the Grammys last week.
	Yeah, and we'll wait for the punchline.
	Here's the punchline.
	You know, Satan worshipping...
	Oh, so that makes perfect sense.
	The devil brought to you by Pfizer.
	And I tweeted out to Albert Brula.
	You know, when people used to say that you guys are a Satan-worshipping cabal, I thought they were being hyperbolic, but then I saw this.
	What do you have to say for yourself?
	Albert Brula has not yet ever replied to me, but he has yet to block me.
	So there's that.
	I know he sees it.
	With his traffic, I know that he sees me.
	That's a good transition into, you know, can anybody do anything about vaccine injuries?
	And the big hurdle to overcome is the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness, or PREP Act, makes it extremely difficult for anybody to sue, and that's what we're going to have to overcome.
	Because what happened is, after 9-11, by the way, the anthrax scare, which may have been, let's say, Questionable in terms of where it really came from, who was really involved.
	Of course, Robert Mueller was infamously involved in falsely blaming maybe certain people and misattributing it to others.
	But it was used as a predicate to create a special immunity if a pandemic ever hit.
	And that any covered countermeasure under the law, nobody could be sued for it.
	Not for creating it, not for using it, not for giving it to people, not for administering it, not for recommending it, not for promoting it, nothing not up.
	There's a misapprehension out there that if you can prove willful misconduct, you can get around it.
	Not if you dig into the law.
	The procedural requirement is that the U.S. Attorney General agree with you.
	So unless the U.S. Attorney General agrees with you about willful misconduct, nothing you can do about it.
	I have the biggest, maybe arguably the biggest whistleblower case in history on behalf of Brooke Jackson against Pfizer over the COVID vaccine, and Pfizer's going to great lengths to prevent the court from allowing any discovery in the proceedings, so far successfully, and are seeking dismissal of the claim on the grounds that nobody can do anything, and the U.S. government in that case is on Pfizer's side.
	So, right now, what we're looking at is, can you bring a workers' compensation claim if your employer mandated?
	Can you bring an assault claim or battery claim if your employer mandated and caused injury?
	Can there be criminal investigations under state law, like the Georgia Grand Jury?
	Could they indict people because criminal state proceedings would appear to be outside of the PREP Act's immunities?
	Could we bring other key TAM whistleblower claims under state laws that are analogous to the claim we already brought from Brooke Jackson and other state jurisdictions?
	We have whistleblowers stepping forward from all around the world who are detailing frightening information that Pfizer knew about its clinical trials in many locations around the world and hid it from everybody.
	It involves spy agencies.
	And other people as well.
	Can't get into detail beyond that, but if you're one of those people who witnessed it, again, continue to feel free to communicate with us, and we'll continue to add those people to the whistleblower claims.
	But right now, and we're looking at whether we could challenge the PrEP Act's immunity as unconstitutional, as a violation of the right to remedy, violation of the right to due process of law, violation of the right to trial by jury.
	A range of issues, but right now it's very tough.
	Well, I mean, I'll ask the stupid question.
	How is it obviously not a violation of certain rights?
	I mean, you have two entities who are the involved, at least one of them potentially the criminal element, contracting your rights to sue away even in the event of fraud or malicious willful conduct, unless one or the other...
	Contracting unindicted co-conspirators, using that word as a joke, decide to let you sue.
	How is that not a fundamental violation where you become a property of the government?
	They can do with you what they want.
	Exactly.
	It's what they did with nursing homes, right?
	Where they gave, you know, the governors would issue orders for the nursing homes to do certain things, gave the nursing homes immunity if they did those things.
	The nursing homes took steps that frankly led to the deaths.
	I've had many people make inquiries to me whether they could take remedy for their grandmother or grandfather dying because of mismanagement of the COVID pandemic response by nursing homes.
	And the answer is most of the time, no.
	Because they created this circular press.
	You can't sue the government because they have immunity.
	And the government made sure the drug company or the nursing home or the hospital or the doctor has immunity.
	And to me, it is a violation of core constitutional rights.
	And we're looking at ways we can try to challenge it and contest it and be creative in doing it.
	Also looking at other potential lawsuits, securities, class actions, maybe one example, because it appears Pfizer and Moderna misled and misrepresented people.
	But two cases that are being brought around the globe that may be of assistance, and actually a third that may be coming, Japan and the Children's Health Defense here in the United States has brought suit, Japan against its government authorities in Japan, here Children's Health Defense against the Food and Drug Administration, because they requested basic information.
	Which is, for example, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control have to have standard operating procedures for how they handle the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, popularly known as VAERS.
	This is, according to the FDA itself, their alert signal that there may be problems with a particular drug or vaccine especially.
	That's why it's called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
	They are required under those procedures to investigate, required to apply certain analytics and do a deep dive on the data, required to interact with a range of agencies and individuals to make sure there's a full investigation to vet the facts.
	There's evidence that's come out that they have done so.
	So Children's Health Defense said, we would like to see these results.
	And the response of the FDA was to claim, all of it's hidden.
	All of its attorney-client privilege.
	All of its interagency memos.
	Like our coming suit against the Federal Reserve on behalf of George Gammon.
	Everything somehow magically couldn't be accessed, read, or reviewed, or even searched or disclosed.
	So credit to Children's Health Defense, they have brought a Freedom of Information Act claim, much as Del Bigtree and Aaron Seary brought a claim on behalf of the high wire against the FDA earlier in the year in North District of Texas that exposed a lot of facts.
	That's where Pfizer tried to ask for those facts, and the FDA asked for those facts to be hidden for 75 years.
	Now we have a parallel action on those issues in Japan.
	And it appears that one of the members of the royal family of Thailand took...
	Go ahead.
	Well, I was going to say, now this is the president of Thailand's eldest of three daughters who apparently was supposed to be the heiress to the country.
	I haven't seen any independent confirmation other than some trustworthy...
	Sources saying that she suffered a cardiac incident on December 23rd, give or take, while training her dog's 44-year-old woman.
	It's typically, it's totally normal.
	People are saying it was three weeks after her booster or her third booster, or they're saying the third shot, which means the booster.
	But I haven't seen any independent evidence of that other than trusted journalists saying it.
	So do you know what the basis of that is?
	Is it insider knowledge or is there a picture of her on social media?
	No, the original source was someone that you could trust probably had access to that information, but the government of Thailand has not formally announced that.
	But it's not like a huge shock that too many people took this, too many prominent, famous, successful people took this, are now suffering the adverse effects of it.
	And that they have, that that's going to ultimately reap a whirlwind, to quote Billy the Kid, or Emilio Estevez as Billy the Kid from the film, time to reap the whirlwind.
	I think Pfizer's going to start reaping that whirlwind.
	And the question is, how long will the U.S. government, including our federal courts, cover for them?
	How long will they hide for them?
	How long will they protect them?
	That will be the only question left in my view, because sooner or later the peasants will have pitchforks and the politicians are going to have to answer to the people.
	And Robert, you know, I interviewed Stephanie DeGarry yesterday about her daughter, Maddie DeGarry, who we heard of briefly in the early days of the rollout and then didn't hear from again.
	And, you know, we're talking about the children's trials, which come after the adult trials, why they would have been doing a children's trial for this in the first place for a demographic at statistically virtually no risk whatsoever by all objective metrics.
	2,000 kids, 1,000 would get the placebo, give or take.
	Such a small cohort to begin with.
	And then to just bury Maddie's incident, which would be one in the 1,000 who got the actual dose.
	Which itself is statistically not insignificant.
	I made the joke, like, why even bother doing the trials if they're going to be done like that?
	Why not just pretend that they've been done?
	I mean, do they have to go through enough sort of, like, fake it so that they can then pretend that they did it properly?
	Or were they just hoping that they would do 2,000 kids, only 1,000 get the jab, and by all statistical metrics, nothing should happen even if it's a bad drug, and then something happened and they have to bury it?
	Why even do the trials on such a small scale to then run with the emergency use authorization?
	Just enough to give themselves cover to be able to push it through, as it would appear to be the case.
	What we know is Pfizer's terrified of discovery because they have demanded the judge in the Brooke Jackson case not allow us any discovery.
	And when I was critical of the judge's decision to do so as a wuss decision, the judge...
	It was a wuss decision.
	Still is.
	The federal courts need to wake up.
	They are asleep.
	They are continuing to enable these corrupt big drug companies, big pharma, to commit some of the worst crimes in the modern era without consequence.
	And you don't have to see many of the stories like the one that she told on your interview.
	To realize the horrors of this.
	And the courts are going to look bad if they don't take remedy, if they don't allow the law to work for itself.
	They don't hold Big Pharma to the same standards.
	They hold everybody else.
	We'll see what happens.
	But I'm hopeful that the court will let the law rule and let discovery take place and let us proceed.
	And my guess is that it will reveal...
	That it goes even deeper and darker than we could ever imagine.
	I'm just looking up to see what the latest stats are.
	It seems to be over 85% of the people in Thailand have received...
	That's old, so it's from December.
	Just what the chances are or what the information is that allows people to say she had just gotten the booster 20-some-odd days earlier.
	Still in a coma now.
	Do you think...
	Do you think the government of Thailand is going to act on this, or are they going to strike some sort of a deal with Pfizer behind closed doors and not take it any further?
	They might.
	It really depends on how personal things are.
	I mean, like we now know, part of Elon Musk's red-pilling of a kind on a range of topics, including censorship, was that he himself felt adverse events from the vaccine, and that he had relatives suffer severe adverse events from the vaccine.
	That was the risk to pushing this, and to pushing this so widely and so broadly, that there would be people who took it.
	Maybe certain people in the White House might have been getting Celine shots, but a lot of other people took it.
	I mean, we'll see.
	I mean, like right now, the only person being put on trial for any of this is somebody who did the right thing, which was the medical personnel in Utah.
	Whose patients asked him to keep his Hippocratic oath to first do no harm and not inject them with the vaccine.
	And now he's being criminally indicted by the Biden administration for his action.
	And it's like, who did he harm?
	He did exactly what his patients wanted and exactly what was the right medical step to do.
	Yet that's who's being targeted, rather than Pfizer by the Biden administration who is trying to prevent them, prevent our whistleblower suit brought by Brooke Jackson, but on behalf of the entire people of America, from even being allowed any discovery in the case.
	So we can't have much confidence, sadly, the Biden administration will ever do the right thing.
	But hopefully the House investigation committees, they've said they're going to investigate this.
	Governor DeSantis has said that the grand jury in Florida is authorized to criminally investigate this.
	We'll know.
	We'll know pretty soon.
	If those committees or if Governor DeSantis' grand jury and the people running it on the prosecutorial side are not reaching out to the Brooke Jacksons of the world, then we know they're not sincere, that it's a political show.
	If they are sincere, then they will be reaching out to the Brooke Jacksons of the world.
	And there's other whistleblowers she knows and others know that reveal even more damning information to come about what Pfizer knew and when they knew it about the dangers of this vaccine.
	And what they could not have not known.
	Because you listen to the Maddie DeGarry story and it's like they have their fingers in their ears and they're singing, la la la, I don't want to hear it.
	But they know it.
	FDA knows it.
	And I want to know if Albert Bourla knows the name Maddie DeGarry.
	And I was just looking up something just to make sure.
	Just imagine, by the way, Justin Bieber and his wife, within a three-month period, his wife gets a brain clot in March 2022.
	Justin Bieber gets Hunter...
	What was it called again?
	Oh, the Hunter...
	It's Ramsey-Hunt syndrome.
	Within three months, the two of them suffer just random stuff.
	And the joke on the internet is, you know, The joke is they got a bad batch or they should have been taking the salient solution and they didn't do it.
	Same bad joke with the princess of Thailand.
	Some of these people that have suffered severe adverse events have been publicly displaying it to people and then they have to deal with schmucks like Alex Berenson.
	Robert Malone called him controlled opposition.
	It's my own view.
	That doesn't mean he hasn't done very good work in certain contexts.
	He has.
	But he often uses his role to gatekeep out any opinions and any people he doesn't like, whether that's Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, Alex Jones, anyone else.
	But he went out of his way to be critical of people describing some of the horrible side effects they felt from this vaccine, which reveals how the degree to which the man has controlled opposition and is a reminder what an utter schmuck he is.
	So if he brings any suits, don't support it.
	Don't fund it.
	Don't back it.
	It's a waste of time, waste of money, waste of effort, effort, because he's an unreliable, untrustworthy narrator.
	I was going to say, the Jewish Zionist Barnes is now dropping the schmuck bomb twice in one stream.
	I'm speaking of some celebrities that are in trouble for a more casual transition to a less consequential topic.
	The one and only Logan Paul got sued over his own involvement in an alleged crypto scam.
	This is the one that CoffeeZilla had done the multi-part series on where they designed some NFT with an egg and someone ran off with the code and then people had already started buying this thing.
	Robert, I don't understand crypto.
	All I've ever done with crypto is lose money on it.
	But I guess this was just written in the stars because they had sold, people had invested, and they never delivered anything.
	And he promised to deliver the product that would go with these little eggs that they were selling.
	In as much as I don't understand it, explain it and try to make it make sense for those who are thick like myself.
	Well, what's interesting about this one is they're not pursuing the securities-type claims that we saw against FTX and some others.
	So in some other claims, they're trying to piggyback off of the Securities and Exchange Commission, trying to expand its scope of authority to get into the crypto space.
	Library had some success defeating some of SEC's claims against it.
	If anybody wants to see how bad the government is to deal with, just follow Library's tweets about the topic.
	And they talk about how they spent millions of dollars to comply with the SEC, and all the SEC did was use that compliance against them.
	And use it for adverse and nefarious purposes.
	You just sadly can't trust the SEC.
	And a lot of people in the crypto space are recognizing that and realizing that.
	But what happened here is, and some might speculate that this was deliberately done to undermine the efficacy and popularity and network adaptability of Bitcoin.
	Because Bitcoin is a decentralized, open-source crypto, very different from a lot of these other closed-source, centralized crypto systems.
	And meant to confuse the average person in such a way.
	That Bitcoin could not be the possible threat to the money monopoly of the central banks that they would like to maintain.
	That would be at least an alternative hush-hush version of events.
	We put up a couple of hush-hushes this past week.
	One controversially on the Freemasons.
	I knew that would be controversial.
	But another one on some other fun topics, including the assassination of Huey Long and how it might be related to the assassination of John Kennedy.
	When they killed the kingfish, they might have repeated the template a few decades later.
	But basically, Logan Paul started CryptoZoo.
	And the lawsuit claims here are not any securities-based claims.
	It's breach of contract, fraud, deceptive practices.
	And so I think it's a more practically rooted theory.
	Now, there is an additional allegation, a cause of action of civil conspiracy.
	And I would wish lawyers would quit making this mistake.
	Conspiracy is a means by which you are liable.
	It is not a separate cause of action.
	You have to attach a cause of action to the conspiracy that is to commit that infraction.
	You've taught me well, Buns.
	The allegation is called fraud.
	And then one of the ways you say, well, this person's responsible because they...
	Aided and abetted the fraud, or they conspired to commit the fraud.
	That's a means by which they're liable, but it's not a separate tort.
	That was in this case, too.
	They alleged it as a separate tort.
	But beyond that, the suit basically calls it a rug pull.
	And the allegation is that basically they had already bought a lot of these crypto tokens.
	Then they go out and promote the heck out of it, wait for it to reach its early peak.
	And then sell out of their own positions and pull the rug from everybody else.
	It was the pump and dump and Logan or Paul's defense was, I never sold!
	If it were to be a pump and dump, you just got screwed by not following through.
	But they were buying up all of the tokens secretly before publicly announcing the project so that when they announced it, everyone was like, oh, whoa, let's go buy these tokens or whatever it is, goes up and then those who had already bought 80% of it at a...
	deflated price or an artificially low price, then get to sell it, jack it up.
	And then it ends up being worth nothing because it's all intangible nothingness.
	We'll see.
	Maybe Logan Paul's good defenses.
	Maybe he didn't make any inaccurate representations.
	Maybe he sincerely believed they were going to develop the game that it was all about making this marketability and making this asset an actual asset of profitability.
	It's going to be tied to the Binance blockchain ultimately.
	But it's clear...
	Generally, statements were made that didn't end up coming true, and some people got rich off of it.
	And that usually is the combination for a class action.
	I'm going to read Arc Crime Attorney.
	First of all, I screen grab all of the Rumble Rants.
	One day I'll get the app and we'll do them run in real time, but I read them live during a Locals exclusive at vifabarnslaw.locals.com sometime in the week.
	But Arc Crime Attorney, who is Little Rock from YouTube, says, you guys remember I lost my leg to COVID.
	My wife, out of fear from my illness, got the jab.
	She is now having the menstrual problems reported and has to have blood infusions due to low blood iron.
	Because she's anemic, I guess, as a result of it.
	It didn't interfere with your menstrual cycles until they admitted it interfered with your menstrual cycle, and you were a conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer for saying it a year and a half ago.
	And the point that Pfizer, executive in the undercover video that Project Veritas released, because they released some more material this week, is he explained the significance of that.
	His point was, if it could impact the menstrual cycle, it means it's impacting core parts to the body.
	Absolutely.
	It can affect pregnancy.
	It can affect fertility.
	It can interfere with pregnancy.
	It goes into breast milk.
	It goes into the baby.
	And the anecdotes that I've heard, and not even internet anecdotes, from people I know, it's gotten too much that people are saying, the stages of grief.
	You get denial, you get anger, you rage, and then you get resignation.
	And I think people are going to get to the stage of resignation because it's monumental beyond anybody's wildest nightmares.
	Robert?
	No doubt about it.
	You talk about a nightmare beyond all nightmares.
	In our big case series that we're going to be doing here episodically on Law for the People, the Kim.com case is a case of nightmares.
	And I won't...
	It's not booked, people, but I've gotten to meet Kim.com on Twitter in these spaces.
	I think he's going to come on one day to talk about it.
	Robert, give us the 30,000 foot.
	Because Kim.com, I remember back in the day, public enemy number one.
	Fraudster, a liar, an online criminal, a pirate.
	And I knew nothing of nothing.
	I didn't...
	Feel strongly about it.
	I just remember that's the impression that has been left with me.
	And when I listened to Kim.com talking, first of all, I never knew he was German.
	Living in New Zealand now, I think, from what I understand.
	He's a smart guy.
	I mean, he's a smart guy.
	And now that I know that the media and the government has demonized everyone who happens to turn out to be the good guy and canonized those who turn out to be the bad guys.
	Bill Gates, just to name a couple.
	I now view everything differently, but give us the 30,000-foot overview, and then I'll see if we can clip this and get Kim.com to do a sidebar with us.
	Well, it's a case that has broad consequences for the entire globe, so that's why people should pay attention to it beyond its example in the persecution of Kim.com.
	So, Kim.com is a kid from a family that had an abusive father whose mother helped him escape.
	And like a lot of sort of nerds of his era, of the 1990s, he found refuge in the internet.
	Now, he got a little creative, as he himself has admitted, with the internet and decided to try hacking a little bit here and there.
	Became a little bit famous for it.
	Got a suspended sentence for a criminal charge for it.
	But he wisely used it.
	He used that obstacle and turned it into an opportunity.
	As a sort of McAfee-style business model of defending people against hacking.
	Built a successful business from that.
	He launched into several other businesses from there, ultimately leading to Mega Upload, which he had moved from Germany to Hong Kong at the time.
	And Mega Upload was the cloud before the cloud.
	It was the means to transfer files to anybody in the world to get access to any kind of documents beyond the walls of censorship a state may provide.
	It was very successful.
	He got married, had a bunch of kids, moved to New Zealand.
	New Zealand kind of invited him there.
	There was concern that because he'd had a prior conviction for the hacking activities back in Germany that he might not be able to get a residency in New Zealand, but he did.
	And so now during the same time period, the movie industry was going absolutely berserk in the United States, claiming that they were losing all kinds of profits from piracy of their films over the mega-upload and other related internet sites.
	This was after the music industry felt it was devastated by Napster and sued everybody into oblivion, including a bunch of grandmas.
	Who downloaded just a few songs.
	Now there was always controversy about this because people who did an empirical economic assessment found that in fact sharing of pirated films does not reduce desirability or sales of those films and that often it has a reverse effect.
	That it introduces films to people who otherwise wouldn't buy the film, who then become interested in the film, interested in other films made by the same director on the same subject matter or made as a series or sequel series.
	And what happens is they go out and purchase those films.
	They go out and go to the Hollywood theaters.
	That a lot of the data refuted what Hollywood was claiming.
	But Hollywood then hired, after they'd hired Jack Valenti, If you want to hear some stories about Jack Valenti, go to America's Untold Stories with Mark Robert and Eric Conley, who will be with us in our Rat Pack-style tour as we do Viva Barnes Law around the country.
	And if anybody doesn't know, Mark Robert is to...
	I won't even limit it only to entertainment.
	To entertainment, what Barnes is to law, and it's like...
	Oh, yeah.
	He has a great description of it, of the difference between us.
	It involves women in numbers, I think.
	Last I checked.
	But yeah, the great descriptions of Valenti.
	But after Valenti stepped down, Senator Chris Dodd, who was famous for, let's say, Me Too-style parties in D.C., had stepped down from the United States Senate and become the lead representative of the movie industry.
	In that capacity, he started to overtly, openly threaten the Obama administration and said if people like, he didn't say Kim.com's name, but it was clear who he was talking about, that if people like Kim.com were not criminally prosecuted and criminally punished, the movie industry would cut off all funding from the Democratic Party.
	He basically said this verbatim on CNN and other places.
	So this wasn't just what he was saying behind the scenes.
	He made it clear in front of everybody.
	The movie industry was extorting politicians to go after their economic adversaries by weaponizing the criminal justice process.
	What happened is Kim Dotcom gets indicted.
	Previously had a German name.
	He changed it to Kim.com.
	The man's a brilliant marketer and has been throughout his life and career.
	Though he himself doesn't drink and doesn't actually engage in the wild parties that he throws for other people.
	Because of what he saw with his father with alcohol is why he doesn't touch a drink.
	But he's just a brilliant marketer.
	And all of a sudden he gets raided with a massive SWAT team raid, helicopters, the whole nine yards.
	In New Zealand.
	In New Zealand, by the New Zealand police, family's terrorized, wife is terrorized.
	They make a bunch of false claims.
	They claim he was hiding in a safe room with a sawed-off shotgun.
	There was no gun.
	The room wasn't locked.
	None of that was ever true.
	They had lied to get search warrants, to get information.
	Because here's the thing.
	All he's being charged with is that his users, that subscribers of Mega Upload...
	Used it to share films without copyright licenses to do so.
	That's it.
	And even though federal law in the United States is supposed to be clear that Internet service providers can't even be civilly sued for the conduct of their users, least of all be criminally prosecuted, there's the additional hurdle, which is in New Zealand...
	There is no copyright crimes.
	This has now been recognized and admitted by the New Zealand high courts in the context of Kim Dotcom's cases, which have been everywhere and gone up and down the court system.
	But so basically, and instead what happened is the FBI coordinated with the New Zealand authorities.
	They lied.
	To the New Zealand authorities.
	Told them that basically Kim.com is this big gangster.
	He's a mobster.
	He's organized crime connected.
	He's connected to terrorism.
	He's connected to child porn.
	He probably has a stash of crazy guns and security guards.
	There'll probably be a shootout if anybody goes in there.
	So all these guys were jacked up to the nines, not knowing all of that was false.
	The FBI deliberately lied to the New Zealand authorities to induce a ridiculous raid for something that didn't violate New Zealand criminal law.
	And by my judgment, didn't violate United States criminal law based on a bogus sealed indictment they got because a grand jury in the United States will, in fact, indict a ham sandwich as a federal judge once pointed.
	But it turned out to be even worse.
	After the raid, it comes out that first, the search warrants were illicitly issued and granted.
	But there's a second issue.
	The police are being very evasive in the hearings being conducted.
	And what that reveals is that, in fact, the Five Eyes Network was involved in Kim.com's case.
	In other words, they were illegally spying on Kim.com in New Zealand all the way through.
	Spying on his text, spying on his phone, spying on his email.
	None of this is remotely surprising now.
	Now that we've seen what the FBI has done.
	Within the last five years, what the NSA has done within the last 10 years, none of it's a surprise.
	And so despite all of the spying, I mean, what things of incriminating nature did they even find?
	That was extraordinary.
	Instead, what they found was very little evidence.
	Now, here's the other thing that happened.
	So there's a legal seizure.
	They seize his cars.
	They seize his money.
	They seize his phone.
	They seize his computer.
	So you have a search warrant based on a crime that doesn't exist, based on lies told by the FBI.
	You have it executed in a manner that only is supposed to seize evidence of criminality, and they seize everything, not just evidence of criminality.
	Third, a court in New Zealand finds it's illegal and violates their laws.
	And what does the New Zealand authorities do?
	They give it over to the FBI anyway, even though the FBI wasn't supposed to have access to it until its legality was determined.
	Then what does the FBI do with it?
	They go back before the New Zealand courts later and misrepresent what's done, using New Zealand court officials to do so.
	They deliberately mistranslate it.
	And this is a classic game the governments love to pull.
	They'll get somebody to translate something because some of the communications were in German.
	And so what they do is they hire a translator and they create bogus interpretations of what the translation is.
	And one of the giveaways will be they don't identify the translator.
	So you can never call them to cross-examine their actual translation.
	So they falsely mislead the New Zealand courts and the New Zealand public into thinking Kim Dotcom said things he never said with false translations put into the court.
	This is basically perjured false testimony that if I did it, they would put me in jail and never let me out.
	Yeah, or if an FBI attorney had done it, they would give him a slap on the wrist and allow him back into the bar society a year later.
	Oh, sorry, it was a suspended...
	Retroactive penalty.
	I'm talking about Kleinsmith, by the way, guys.
	Yep.
	And so first the courts find it's an illegal search.
	It goes up to the New Zealand Supreme Court.
	A lot of political pressure is clearly being brought on that court publicly by the U.S. authorities.
	And all of a sudden the New Zealand High Court decides, oh, it's okay to do illegal surveillance.
	It's okay to do illegal searches.
	The New Zealand government retroactively changes the law to allow the surveillance to occur.
	The New Zealand Prime Minister misleads people to thinking he had no idea what was going on.
	Because it appears behind the scenes that what was going on, but for which the government of both New Zealand and the US continues, I believe, to hide, is that they deliberately gave Kim.com New Zealand residency with the intention of spying on him in New Zealand and arresting and seizing him in New Zealand.
	That they didn't want him in Hong Kong because they didn't think they could get away with the same illicit behavior.
	So they gave him even his residency under false pretenses that likely implicated the prime minister.
	Kim.com started a political party to try to raise the issues about it.
	The media just continued to attack Kim.com, so it wasn't as successful as he wanted it to be.
	But he brought together Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, educated the New Zealand populace that this was a very different topic and subject matter than they thought.
	I mean, the reality is the government just picked on the wrong guy.
	They picked on a guy who wasn't willing to roll over and go gently into that good night.
	And even though it ended up costing him his marriage because his wife, you know, most people don't recover easily from the shock of an early morning raid with AKs and other automatic weapons being pointed at your face for nothing more than what was purely legal under New Zealand criminal law.
	And as I can see, actually legal and protected under U.S. criminal law.
	Basically, he's had to continue to fight the case.
	The New Zealand high courts have been unwilling to provide the legal protection that they should because they get easily intimidated by the United States.
	At first, he couldn't be extradited, and the high courts say, yes, he can.
	Then he goes back up.
	First, the search warrants are found to be clearly illegal, and they reinstate them anyway.
	They say the surveillance is illegal, then they do nothing about it anyway.
	They let the fruit of the poisonous tree from the illegal surveillance, the illegal search warrants, the illegal searches, to all be allowed in against them.
	They allow falsified, fraudulent evidence to be submitted to the court, bogus translations.
	But the courts, the high courts, have said that he's entitled to one more round of challenges and have admitted dual criminality doesn't apply, which means There should be no extradition.
	The New Zealand courts, sadly, are so weak, so pitiful.
	I mean, I've consulted on these kind of cases around the globe, UK, Australia, New Zealand, other Caribbean countries, and I've always urged the local advocates to directly confront.
	the political reality of what these courts are doing.
	Say, here's how America perceives you.
	They perceive you as their little pet dogs That you are a rubber stamp for the U.S. government.
	That's why the FBI lies to them.
	That's why the Justice Department lies to them.
	That's why prosecutors in those foreign countries on behalf of the FBI and Justice Department lie.
	They know they will suffer no consequence.
	They know that the judges themselves are too politically afraid.
	They lack the courage of convictions to enforce their own laws.
	Because here's what dual criminality is.
	In almost every extradition treaty, You're not allowed to extradite someone to another country unless your laws criminalize the same conduct.
	If you don't criminalize it, you can't send it.
	And New Zealand courts have now admitted they do not criminalize copyright infringement.
	So recalling it, calling it racketeering, calling it laundering, calling it fraud.
	Does it apply when the only fraud, the only money laundering, the only racketeering alleged is copyright infringement, and copyright infringement's not a crime?
	So the only question is, will the New Zealand courts ever have the courage to stand up to the wrongful conduct of the U.S. government in the context of the Kim.com prosecution?
	Now, two of his partners struck a deal.
	Are they testifying?
	So he's the only one left.
	And does that have any negative impact?
	Is this like two of the co-conspirators turning against the remaining third because all that the government really wants is Kim.com?
	Does their deal have any negative impact on Kim.com, or are they just off scot-free?
	Well, I'm sure they're putting pressure.
	So the deal is that they can only now be prosecuted under New Zealand criminal law.
	And again, the reality is that means they have to prove some form of fraud independent of and separate from copyright infringement, and they got zero evidence of this.
	I mean, here's the other evidence, what's startling.
	When they dug into the evidence, in fact, Mega Upload offered no extra benefits to people who were doing the pirating activity, which was the original allegation.
	This was a designed model to get pirating.
	No, it wasn't.
	They didn't make any additional revenue whatsoever.
	That was their goal.
	They would have done so.
	They didn't.
	So the allegations against them were false from the inception, but he's the only one that's been able to stand the test of time.
	He believes, as he's publicly stated, That those other people will be under massive pressure to make up stories about him in order to facilitate the extradition of Kim.com.
	But they offered him sweet plea deals.
	He's turned them down.
	They've been offered other negotiated outcomes he's refused.
	He's made clear that he has done more.
	They picked on the wrong guy.
	It was a guy who was willing to fight back and use his resources to do so.
	Well, throw in the Seth Rich angle in all of this, because the prosecution, or let's say the persecution, prosecution starts before Seth Rich.
	It's continuing to this day.
	Has it ramped up as a result of the allegations involving Seth Rich?
	And for those who don't know, Kim.com alleged that he had evidence or could prove or was contacted by Seth Rich and that Seth Rich was the leaker of the DNC emails and it wasn't a Russian hack.
	Is there an argument that he made up those allegations as pressure to try to combat the lawfare, or the lawfare doubled down after that fact might have been alleged in order to punish him for getting that involved in U.S. politics?
	He's been unwilling to go gently into that good night, and he's aligned himself with Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange.
	Belief in privacy, exposing illegal surveillance and illicit conduct, and made himself an open adversary of Hollywood.
	And a lot of these pirated films were being shared in countries where those films were not allowed.
	And his point is that if you have a secure cloud mechanism, what it is is you're past the censors.
	You're past the...
	Whether those censors are the state or private corporations.
	And that's how the law is really being weaponized currently.
	He was designing a system that would have given creators most of the profit from their own creations.
	That was a direct challenge to Hollywood.
	And to the music industry.
	And so he has many powerful adversaries around the world.
	And rather than, you know, just retreat, he has advocated for others who have exposed the misconduct and malfeasance of the surveillance state.
	Thank you.
	All right, it's fascinating.
	You've made it make a little more sense, but it makes no sense why they would get involved in a decades-long battle to take this guy down for what is, at worst, video piracy.
	At worst.
	Calling it RICO racketeering or whatever just gives it a scarier name.
	It doesn't make sense.
	You've made it make a little more sense.
	I tend to think that the doubling down might have had something to do with what I now tend to think is probably more accurate information that he had some information about Seth Rich, which the world has not yet been able to answer, but we'll see.
	Amazing.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	I mean, in another sort of...
	Case that everybody's following, Nick Ricada, Emily Baker, the Murdaugh trial that is ongoing in South Carolina.
	I have increasing doubts about the guilt of Murdaugh as to these murder charges based on the forensic evidence not really matching.
	Andrew Branca and Nick Ricada and others have raised comparable questions about it.
	And I think the judge knows that.
	And I think the prosecutors know that.
	So the big issue this week was whether or not the 404B evidence, and for those that don't know it, that's probably the most consequential legal rule in trials in America.
	Evidence?
	Character evidence, Robert.
	Other crimes?
	I hope I brought up the right window.
	I did.
	Good.
	That's it.
	I mean, it's the state version of that.
	Every state sometimes has the same exact rule, but it has some variation of the federal rule 404B.
	So, I have not been watching it at all.
	What character evidence are they trying to bring up of, I presume it's going to be other wrongdoings, embezzling money, yada yada.
	So, he's an unsavory character who has guilty intent.
	So, for those people out there, the fear is that juries will convict people, not based on the evidence of the crime, but based on the evidence of their so-called criminal character.
	So it's sometimes called propensity evidence.
	You can believe he committed this crime because he's just a criminal.
	And we know that evidence to be unreliable.
	We know that method and premise of operation to be untrustworthy.
	So our rules of evidence exclude that.
	They say you can only admit evidence of other bad acts if those bad acts relate to, say, motive or something else pertinent to the actual acts here.
	The evidence they produced is evidence that he was in financial trouble, allegations he defrauded clients, defrauded partners, defrauded banks.
	They have not tied that in, in any persuasive way that I could see, to the killings here.
	There was no insurance on either the mother or the son.
	There was no clear financial benefit.
	They tried to suggest, well, the mother...
	I had some priority over a particular property, but then it came out on cross-examination that actually the bank had priority anyway.
	So the mother's financial interest would have had no impact on his renegotiation of that debt.
	So basically they haven't found any persuasive explanation.
	And the rule, because courts are so concerned with how jurors misapply propensity evidence, say, ah, you're a bad guy, I'm just going to assume you did this other bad act.
	That they require the government to prove that the probative materiality of the evidence substantially outweighs the problematic inferences of the evidence.
	And whether that's confusion, whether that's prejudice, however it may be right.
	Almost every lawyer I've seen comment on this across the political spectrum has said, That based on what they saw, this evidence should not come in.
	But the court today apparently said, I just saw the headline, that yes, it all can come in.
	That's a sign of a court that knows the government can't prove he's guilty, so it's going to tell the jury, he's a bad guy, so just convict him anyway.
	And the defense, I think they raised, I don't know, a decent alternative theory.
	Like, if anyone was going to try to seek revenge on the family for the wrongs that the kid had done earlier with the boating accident, It would be someone who's angry at that and not Murdoch himself.
	As well as the forensic evidence.
	I mean, the evidence of other tracks being there, other shoe prints being there, of two different guns being used, of the manner and method of the execution, of the limited time frame.
	They have an OJ problem.
	The OJ prosecutors had the same problem.
	They had a very limited time window to explain a lot of forensic evidence that didn't fit.
	Robert, we still have to do the OJ special.
	We're going to do it with a body language panel.
	In fact, I'm going to try to see if at various events, when it's useful, whether the body language people could join our Rat Pack, where it could be useful when we do these Viva Barnes Law Locals events across the country, the tour.
	Because I would be curious what they think of some of the interviews of Murtaugh.
	They may cover it.
	I always say Murtaugh.
	Maybe it's Murdoch.
	I've heard like three different pronouns.
	His last name sounds too close to murder.
	Like it's Murtaugh the murderer.
	And I think of, isn't it the Mel Gibson character from Lethal Weapon?
	I thought it was either Murtaugh.
	That was Murtaugh for sure.
	Not Murtaugh.
	So maybe that's also why I get it confused in my head.
	But I think it's probably, this judge, people are just seeing how judges act.
	And sadly, judges usually want convictions.
	They're usually authoritarians.
	I mean, I was just up here in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in a case where my client got behind on taxes and tried to negotiate with the IRS, made payments to the IRS for many years.
	The IRS discovered he, in their view, had had some substantial success gambling.
	I don't think it was the success they thought it was.
	But it's because the IRS doesn't understand how...
	Casinos operate and gambling operates.
	You take the same amount of money and you're gambling over and over again.
	For example, there was a February in Vegas that I got the attention of a bunch of sportsbooks owners who wanted to sit down and personally talk to me because I bet over gross volume over $2 million in a month on college basketball.
	Now, my individual bets were on average $500 a bet.
	I was just betting a very heavy volume.
	I had come into a system that looked like it was profitable, and I made a little bit of money.
	And that's the goal.
	But I wasn't betting $2 million.
	I was betting $20,000.
	That was the bank rule.
	Now, here's what Vegas does.
	When you lose money...
	They don't send you a 1099 for that.
	They don't give you a special notice for that.
	Nor do they want to.
	They know that compulsive gamblers especially, the way you can know someone's an obsessive compulsive gambler is, aside from having certain sort of up and down personality psychologies, is mostly they will convince you that they win at games of pure luck.
	They will tell you they win at the slot machine.
	They will tell you they win at the roulette wheel.
	Like the Vegas shooter, he claimed to people he won at video poker.
	No, over time, you do not.
	Not unless you're fixing the game.
	And good luck with trying to do that in Vegas.
	And so you get banned.
	The best thing that can happen to you, that scenario, is you get banned.
	There were other ways they handled it back in the day.
	You know, you show up in a barrel when Lake Mead's water goes down.
	But because they see he gambled, they think he had success, they decide to criminally indict him.
	We end up getting a plea negotiation.
	I'm in front of the judge, and some of the people, the prosecutor's very fair, says maybe a little bit of a custodial time, but really didn't think much time incarcerated would make sense.
	But the pretrial services people had wanted like five, six years.
	If I hadn't been involved in the case...
	He likely would have ended up doing seven to eight years in federal prison.
	He's a nice guy, good family man, five kids, good business.
	The business does good work.
	Everybody talks about him being generous.
	Never had any problems outside of the tax issues.
	And I'm in front of this judge and I'm trying to explain to him, I make reference to the tribal elder system, that we should have a criminal sentence.
	Where I agree with my friends on the left is we incarcerate too many people.
	We should have a criminal justice system that focuses on healing the community, not hurting the community.
	I'll never forget when I asked the tribal elder back when I was clerking for the tribal court system, trying to set up a tribal court system that non-tribal members and tribal members would like.
	Ultimately, the only people who liked it were non-tribal members.
	Tribal members all went to the tribal elders.
	And increasingly, non-tribal members did too.
	I was like, what the heck's going on here?
	Talked to the tribal elders and they explained, we look at every case, no matter what kind of case it is, as a chance to heal the community, to make the community stronger.
	We don't focus on the individual.
	We don't become obsessed with what's just for the individual.
	We become what happens with what we do here.
	Will it help the community or hurt it?
	We focus on healing rather than hurting.
	We focus on resolving pain, not inflicting it.
	You know, in a world where an eye for an eye exists, everyone ends up blind.
	And so made that point to the court that our incarceral justice system for nonviolent first-time offenders doesn't work.
	That if we lock people up, it increases the risk of recidivism.
	We remove them from the community.
	We remove their ability to repay the debt.
	We tell them, you know what, for the next year, two years, five years, whatever, you're going to only affiliate and associate with other criminals.
	Does that even make sense?
	And yet, when I'm in front of these courts, they just don't listen.
	They're obsessed with the news headline.
	They're obsessed with what they call, or they're obsessed with the individual justice in their minds.
	They have overwhelmingly authoritarian backgrounds, whether left or right.
	This is an Obama point he was in front of.
	And so while he issued a two-year sentence, which if certain things happen, that can be reduced in a range of ways, may end up being more and a lot less than what he would have faced had someone else been his counsel or the case gone a different direction.
	But it was still frustrating.
	Because it's a failure of our federal criminal justice process.
	We shouldn't be locking everybody up under the sun for every reason.
	In my view, the only people who belong in prison are those people who present imminent risks of danger to the community or for whom vengeance is an appropriate justification of the results, which I think is very rare in limited circumstances.
	But when we lock everybody up...
	And it's where the left is partially right.
	An incarceral justice system has had a cancerous effect on our society and is net negative for the public good.
	Well, I think many people would agree with you.
	They don't lock up the people who need to be locked up, and they lock up those who don't deserve it, thus only making criminals of otherwise non-criminals.
	And Robert, it might be the good segue into what will look like to be the last item of our evening.
	The guy named Harrison gets pulled over by the cops.
	They smell marijuana in the car.
	They ask him to get out.
	They search the car.
	They find...
	Oh, they see he's got an ankle monitor because he's on probation for aggravated assault in Texas.
	What state is this in again?
	I forget what state this is in.
	So it was a federal case brought in Oklahoma.
	I'll briefly talk about the two other cases that we were going to reference, but just briefly.
	A rent control case went before the Second Circuit on grounds that rent control is so egregious now in New York that it equates to a due process and takings violation.
	Taking without just compensation.
	Second Circuit refused.
	Said as long as there's concerns for safety, it's delegated to the legislature even if they take over 90% of your value of your property.
	That may go up to the U.S. Supreme Court to reassess rent control legislation in light of the eviction moratoriums as well that was put in by cities, counties, and states.
	Also, another case was pending in New York.
	Was what happens when a sex offender that's supposed to register an address is homeless?
	The court said that if he's homeless, he can't give you an address because that's void for vagueness because it doesn't define address in a way that he can comply.
	Which is interesting.
	It's an interesting exception to sex offending registration.
	They should probably change the law to reflect and represent that in dealing with that.
	But it's also probably true that it is void for vagueness when they don't sufficiently define address in a way that homeless people can be put on notification as to how they can comply.
	They don't pick a shelter within a certain jurisdiction, within a certain area?
	They could have under the law of address, if they had defined address that way, but they hadn't.
	They defined it in such a way that it would confuse a reasonable person in that position.
	But you're right, the big case.
	We'll have other fun cases next week.
	Bartenders that are being held responsible for...
	It's a timeless case, Robert.
	It's one thing to be civil.
	Now they're going criminal about these people.
	But probably a lot of people didn't know...
	That federal law doesn't just prohibit people who have been convicted of a felony from owning a gun.
	They predict, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, they prohibit any user, you don't have to be intoxicated, you don't have to be addicted, any mere user of anything that's considered a controlled substance.
	An unlawful user.
	Unlawful user.
	You don't have a prescription.
	You don't have some license to use it.
	Any unlawful use of any controlled substance means you no longer have any Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
	The only reason most people don't know about this is most prosecutors don't bring prosecutions based on this.
	A kid gets arrested because he's previously used pot and had a gun in his possession.
	Well, according to the decision, he had marijuana or it looked like there was smoked marijuana.
	Smoked marijuana cigarettes.
	But not that he was intoxicated at the time.
	Well, no, no, no.
	No field sobriety tests, no nothing.
	And also, I was just surprised that he was on probation for aggravated assault.
	So I presumed the basis for not allowing him to be in possession of a firearm.
	Well, by the way, it turned out that was not true.
	In the footnote, the judge pointed out, actually, he was just on pretrial release for an accusation but hadn't yet been convicted.
	Okay.
	Innocent until proven guilty, therefore allowed to own a firearm, except he was unlawfully in possession of marijuana or user of marijuana.
	I'm sure people didn't.
	And not only that, it's not even clear that it requires contemporary use.
	It suggests that if you could interpret the federal law, that if you've ever used pot in your life, you are now prohibited from having Second Amendment rights.
	And I think this was an attempt by the Biden administration to...
	Create a huge loophole to gut people's Second Amendment rights.
	Because they would have likely continued to expand and expand and expand.
	Because again, it didn't require conviction of a crime for illegal drug use.
	It didn't require you being intoxicated.
	The best historical analogy would be if you had ever been an unlawful user of alcohol not owning a gun.
	I mean, that's the public policy analogy.
	Over the broad course of history.
	And as the federal court pointed out, there's no such history at all in our laws.
	We've never done that.
	We've often prevented intoxicated people from having a gun while intoxicated.
	But we've never said if you use alcohol or ever illegally used it, such as would be the case with intoxication in certain instances, operated a vehicle, etc., operating anything else.
	But we've never said because you've ever used something that you can...
	Not have your Second Amendment rights.
	And so the court dismissed the entire indictment and restored and gutted that entire provision of the law, stopped the Biden administration from being able to weaponize this, to strip people of their Second Amendment rights.
	And those who like their wacky weed, who want to marry a Jew named Anna, as I used to say when I was a kid.
	Marry a Jew named Anna?
	Get it?
	Marijuana.
	The kind of joke.
	That's basically my sense of humor.
	It's a joke that takes you five minutes to figure out.
	I would have never gotten it, Robert.
	It was my inside thing when I was like 14. If you've ever done it, ever partook, you now have your Second Amendment rights restored.
	It was my white pill case of the week.
	Fantastic, Robert.
	And again, another, if I dare say so myself, another wonderful episode.
	Rivka saying Mary Jane.
	I got that.
	Mary Joanna.
	Robert, who do we have?
	Sidebar Wednesday.
	Nina Infinity.
	So she interviewed me back a ways.
	A culture commentator about mostly films and topics like that.
	She's also commented on the Eliza Blue aspect.
	So we'll talk about her experience in that.
	Her friend Brittany Venti was subject to censorship related to it.
	And then that Star Wars girl in a couple of weeks.
	And this is continuing to expand the scope of the sidebars.
	Interviewing interesting people with interesting stories.
	Sometimes a political aspect.
	No political aspect.
	Sometimes just an economist, historian, culture person.
	You know, we've covered NerdRotic.
	We've talked to Doomcock.
	We've talked to Jeremy and Ginks and Gamers.
	We've talked to Ryan at RK Outpost and Sports Wars.
	We'll talk to probably...
	We talked to Kelly in Vegas about sports gambling and sports betting and covering the sports world.
	We'll probably have some more people on about that.
	We'll probably talk to Odin at some point of Odin's movie blog.
	So we'll continue to expand in who we talk to.
	But Need Infinity is great.
	And then after that, we have the Duran up February 15th.
	Oh, that's going to be good.
	And then after that, we'll have that Star Wars girl.
	And then after that, my brother will probably come on for an episode to discuss and answer people's questions about political philosophy more broadly.
	What is libertarianism?
	What is anarchism?
	What's this left libertarianism?
	Are there left and right versions of anarchism?
	What exactly is the historical, philosophical definition of Marxism?
	How is it applied or misapplied?
	What are the strengths and vulnerabilities of different ideologies over time?
	So sort of a little mini-class in political philosophy.
	That he'll be on to talk about that he does on a regular basis.
	And on your end, do you have any other appearances elsewhere this week?
	No, I'll be back in Vegas, it looks like, later in the week.
	But I'm in Pennsylvania until I think early, I think leave early Wednesday, back in time to do the sidebar.
	I might do the sidebar from Philly and then extend the state by Thursday.
	But at this point, I'm on the road here in Pennsylvania.
	Perfect.
	And on my end, I'll be live tomorrow, Thursday, in studio with Dave Rubin.
	So I'm going to be at Locals.
	It'll be me and Dave.
	I think I'm fairly certain we booked it.
	It'll be like 2.30 in the afternoon.
	February 14th, stay tuned.
	A certain doctor.
	It's going to be a morning stream.
	A certain doctor will be talking recent developments.
	So all good things coming in here, people.
	I'll check back in on the chat.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Robert?
	Thank you.
	It's fantastic.
	And we'll be seeing each other in person sooner than later.
	I've got gifts for you.
	I've got fan mail and fan gifts for you that I've been keeping here for a while because I didn't want to mail them.
	So we'll get that to you.
	Everybody in the chat, see you tomorrow.
	See you Wednesday.
	See you Thursday.
	See you Friday.
	Robert, see you in a bit backstage.

▲