Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 21, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:44:39

Ep. 149: Viva & Barnes LIVE! Project Veritas MUTINY! Rumble VICTORY! & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And also, just the bounce back of our economy, with so many jobs created after we came out of the pandemic, has put pressures on cost of living, on inflation, interest rates going up to try and keep inflation down, mixed in with the general challenges that people are facing around the world, whether it's anxiety about climate change.
	Anxiety about the pace of change and transformation of our communities, our businesses, our world, the rate of how things are changing around the world is really destabilizing.
	That's something that people are going through all around the world right now.
	And one of the challenges that we're facing as communities is how to hold together.
	Let's just let the Rebel News logo play.
	Anxieties about climate change.
	This is pathological personality disorder.
	I don't know how to qualify it.
	It's classic psychopathic narcissistic personality disorder.
	People are anxious.
	I think that's undeniable.
	But then to try to shift the blame.
	Oh, you're anxious.
	It's not about online censorship.
	It's not about a government that locks you down, shuts your businesses down, forces your kids to get jibby-jabbed if you want them to have a normal life.
	It's about climate change.
	Yeah, it's about climate change, your anxiety.
	It's nothing to do with a government that's shipping hundreds of millions of dollars.
	To fund foreign proxy wars.
	Nothing to do with the government that violently suppresses your constitutional right to protest.
	Nothing to do with the government that has turned your, what was maybe never a free country, but ostensibly a free country into China-lite, North Korea 2.0.
	I'm exaggerating.
	It's climate change.
	And by the way, it's only a matter of time.
	We've already heard the arguments climate change is causing heart conditions.
	Climate change is causing an increase in strokes.
	It's only a matter of time before we start hearing anxiety about climate change leading to heart conditions in the young.
	The young people are having a number of strokes, heart issues.
	Sudden adult or sudden young adult death syndrome, it's because of anxiety about climate change.
	If we solve climate change, everybody, the young people will cease passing prematurely and suddenly.
	And it sounds hyperbolic.
	It's a little hyperbolic, but it's just a matter of time.
	Climate change, video games, supplements.
	What were the other things that they attributed to young people dying suddenly?
	Under 40, doctors are urging you to go get your heart checked.
	Defibrillators in elementary schools.
	It's always been the case.
	Commercials sensitizing you to young women, girls, having catastrophic heart issues on a soccer pitch.
	It's always been that way, people.
	We'll start off with one article before we thank our sponsor and get into the evening stream.
	This is an actual article out of Canada.
	Out of Chinada, as some people are calling it.
	Commie Canada, others are calling it.
	I call it Canada.
	This is the title.
	What's it called?
	The headline.
	COVID-19 linked to rise in heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.
	This is not an old article.
	And from what I understand, this is disputed science.
	This is disputed science, although I had Dr. Asim Malhotra on the channel last week.
	And in his cardiological expertise, he did confirm that severe infection, any form of viral infection that causes inflammation, can land someone in the hospital and can cause cardiovascular issues.
	It can, according to Dr. Malhotra.
	Other studies, from what I understand, of my limited understanding of studies, have confirmed that COVID infection has not been attributed to any cardiovascular issues.
	But there's a debate.
	Let's just say there's a debate.
	The headline.
	COVID-19 linked to rise in heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.
	So when CTV News, the Trudeau propagandists, tweet this out, that's the headline.
	That's not the first thought I had when reading that headline.
	The first thought I had when reading that headline is, what else might be linked to other cardiovascular problems and heart attacks?
	I'm only thinking about one thing right now.
	I agree.
	Three years of incessant fear porn stress, three years of government abuse, three years of isolation, three years of unhealthy lifestyle, three years of being locked down, three years of being terrorized by a child sneezing will have an impact on health.
	It will.
	But there's one other thing that I think, you know, I question.
	We're starting to see some of the science.
	I read the article.
	I started tweeting, actually.
	I say, hey, what about that other thing?
	I said, I'll read the article first just to make sure.
	And look at this.
	You know what burying the lead means?
	Burying the lead means they hide the most important part of the article way at the end.
	It used to be burying the lead, I think, which was like, it had to do with the typing up.
	Type up the most important part of the story way into the article so that anybody who doesn't read past the headline won't get it.
	Anybody who reads the first two paragraphs won't get it.
	Listen to this.
	Whole article, yada, yada, yada.
	Right at the end, right at the end.
	Some COVID-19 vaccines have also been linked to heart inflammation in rare cases.
	Rare cases.
	You know, for young men, one in 5,000 per dose.
	Rare, rare.
	If you follow the reanalysis of the random clinical trials and the stats, rare, serious adverse reactions of special interest.
	One in 800.
	Rare.
	It's rare.
	But whatever.
	Okay, they say it.
	Some COVID-19 vaccines.
	All of them.
	Johnson& Johnson, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer.
	All of them.
	Sorry, Johnson& Johnson was blood clots.
	I don't know where that fits in all of this.
	AstraZeneca was slowly just phased out.
	Moderna and Pfizer.
	So serious, they're now doing clinical trials to see the extent of the myocarditis that it may or may not cause.
	Some COVID vaccines have also been linked to heart inflammation in rare cases.
	However, studies have shown that the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risk of inflammation.
	And getting the virus has a higher risk of inflammation compared to the vaccine, except you can still get the virus after you get the vaccine, so way to compound your risk.
	The studies have shown that...
	Say the line, people.
	The benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risk of inflammation.
	But wait for the end here.
	Quote, this is not me.
	There has been a link between the vaccine and inflammation around the heart.
	Something called pericarditis or myocarditis.
	Very mild.
	It goes away.
	But we've not seen an increase in actual heart attacks related to the vaccine.
	End quote.
	Overguard explained.
	Let me ask you this, Mr. Doctor.
	I'm no doctor.
	I'm just a lawyer with half a functioning brain.
	Maybe a little less.
	CTV News, did you ask the obvious question, which would have been my immediate follow-up?
	Overguard, if there has been a link between the vaccine and inflammation around the heart, how has there not been an increase as well in actual heart attacks related to the vaccine?
	How?
	It's just one of those miraculous things.
	It causes damage to the heart with no further consequences.
	That's miraculous.
	That's a miracle.
	That is purely, genuinely miraculous.
	I mean, the vaccine, it's such a miracle vaccine that it doesn't prevent you from carrying, transmitting, contracting, or getting infected with the virus.
	And the damage it might do to your heart?
	Very rare.
	One in 5,000 per dose at best.
	It magically doesn't do any damage.
	So you get a little heart inflammation, a little scarring on your heart that doesn't regenerate tissue, and somehow, pure magic!
	Nothing more than that.
	Nothing more than that.
	It just, it goes away.
	Fresh as a whistle.
	What is it?
	Oh, my good God.
	Okay.
	The Autistic Tiger.
	I met you at the Project Veritas event.
	Viva, I gave James at PV a tat plushie.
	Oh, the Autistic Tiger plushie.
	PV said the Autistic Tiger was their office mascot.
	Now that James is out, should I ask for PV to return the Tiger's plushie?
	No, no, no.
	Just send James a new one wherever he goes.
	We're going to talk about this tonight.
	This gives me a chance to give the intro disclaimers, and then I'm going to thank my sponsor.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants, which are like the YouTube Super Chats.
	And what was I about to say to that?
	Yes, if you want to support the channel, one easy way to do it is with these highlighted tip-like comments.
	Why can't I see it?
	Called Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of every Super Chat.
	Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%.
	So you're better off supporting a platform that supports free speech, as we're going to see tonight, because they had a smashing success in a New York court challenging hate speech laws.
	So you can support that way.
	You can support through...
	Rumble Rants.
	You can support by going to VivaFry and buying some merch.
	Whatever you want.
	Everyone needs a shirt.
	They're not cheap, but it's a way to support the channel and it's a way to support what we do here.
	And wear a shirt while doing it.
	Check this out.
	Okay, we gotta figure out a way to...
	Okay.
	It's greasy.
	It's got greasy fingerprints all over it.
	And we need to put it on a backdrop so that we can see the VivaFry.
	It was kind of cheap, but...
	Done is better than perfect.
	If you want to support the channel, you can get some merch at Viva Fry.
	And before we get started, I'm going to thank the sponsor of tonight, which is a product I've been using, actually, for a little while now.
	People often ask Viva, what do you put in your hair that makes it so beautiful and curly?
	I'm not joking.
	I went down to the local studio today.
	And I got down there early and I went to get a cup of coffee and a sandwich next door.
	And the woman who served me the coffee, she says, what do you put in your hair?
	Now, I actually...
	Okay, look, this is going to sound totally ridiculous.
	But it's not ridiculous.
	Manscaped is the sponsor of tonight's video.
	Manscaped, you may know them because they ran those ads of, you know, men shaving their genitalia down there.
	I don't...
	Not to give anybody TMI, but I've been married for 15 years.
	I don't really do that.
	I'm not on the market, so I don't really have to worry about certain things.
	But I do need to shave my face.
	And I do need to trim so you get a little bit of the neck hair that goes below the line.
	You don't want to look like too much of an animal.
	And Manscaped has now started making actual devices.
	That are not just for your genitalia, but for your face and your beard.
	And they make this manscaped beard oil, which I've been using in my hair.
	Now, I know it says it's for your facial hair and it's coarse hair and so on and so forth.
	It works well on the hair.
	I should probably do the read because there's a read here.
	It says, breaking news, Manscaped now sells beard products.
	That's right.
	They are once again revolutionizing men's grooming with a brand new beard hedger, ProKit.
	I bought this because I wanted to use it and test it before I decided to actually endorse it.
	From a beard trim to a fresh shave, the technology behind the Beard Hedger Pro Kit allows you to shape your signature beard look.
	I just want mine to not look like a wild, feral dog.
	Now you can finally use Manscaped products to make your drapes match your carpet by going to manscaped.com and insert promo code VIVAFRY for 20% off and free shipping.
	You can take it in the shower for the razor.
	It's got the clips so you can go...
	Clip whatever.
	It's fantastic.
	It's portable.
	It's sleek.
	But the beard oil is very, very good on the hair.
	And I use it on my hair.
	Now, four spritzes is too much.
	Two spritzes is what you need for a full, lush head of hair.
	Now, that is it.
	Manscaped.com.
	Promo code VIVAFRY.
	20% off and free shipping.
	And the link is in the pinned comment.
	And it's...
	Look, if you have facial hair...
	You need to trim it, and I've been using my Weiss leg razor for the last year.
	It doesn't work.
	It doesn't work.
	Okay, let's get this out of here.
	Now, there was another rumble rant.
	Barnes says send him the link.
	Well, that makes me an idiot.
	Invite.
	Why didn't he text me?
	He did text me.
	Why did I put my phone on?
	I'm going to go email it to him.
	Robert, it's coming right now.
	Incoming.
	I thought I did this earlier.
	Yeah, today was a bit of a hectic day.
	I went and interviewed Paolo Figueirado, which means fig orchard in Portuguese.
	Okay, Robert, I sent it to you.
	So there it is.
	I interviewed Paolo Figueirado about what's going on in Brazil.
	And what's amazing is what's going on in Brazil.
	Seems to be what's going on in America, but on steroids.
	It seems to be what's going on in Canada, but not on steroids.
	Barnes said to send him the link, you know what?
	This is a great...
	This is a grift.
	It's not a grift.
	I don't want you thinking that I think like that.
	I don't think like that.
	Thank you very much.
	Barnes is in the house now.
	Oh, he's out of the house.
	He'll come back.
	Jeez Louise, I should...
	You see, the one time I don't read the chat, I hadn't sent him the link.
	So I interviewed Paolo Figueroa.
	His grandfather was the president of Brazil from 79 to 85. And he's had an amazing story.
	He's a journalist and he's been covering what's going on in Brazil.
	Basically can't go back to Brazil because of the state of corruption in Brazil.
	So now, while Barnes comes back in, there he is, and he's got an American flag behind him.
	Robert, bringing you in.
	Hold on.
	I'll bring you in.
	Just make sure I'm good everywhere.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	How goes it?
	I'm sorry.
	I thought I sent you the link earlier today.
	Oh, yeah, no problem.
	Am I coming through okay?
	Oh, you're perfect.
	You're perfect.
	Good, good.
	Yeah, there was some problem on the internet side here.
	Okay, let's see what we got.
	We are good on...
	Rumble as well.
	Pasha Moyer as a rumble rant says, I'll try here too.
	Viva, send Barnes the link.
	Okay.
	And let's see if someone did it in our locals community.
	Yeah, they did.
	Okay, this is...
	That's where I put the message.
	Tell Viva, send me the link.
	Okay, here we go.
	Three people said it.
	And it says, Manscaping Barnes, I'm dying.
	Okay, I just lost that chat.
	We'll get it later.
	We are live streaming on three platforms.
	YouTube, where we're going to end it sooner than later.
	Rumble and Locals.
	And what we're going to try to do, maybe one of these days, maybe not today, we don't have enough time, but we're going to actually end it on Rumble and then continue for a few minutes exclusively on Locals afterwards.
	Robert, what's the book over your shoulder?
	Oh, The Deep State by Mike Lofgren.
	It's a solid book.
	It's a little bit more of an institutional perspective on the deep state.
	But still useful.
	And was early on sort of deep state lingo and language.
	And I thought that made it a useful, productive book.
	Now, Robert, I don't know if you saw any of the stream Sunday night.
	By the way, if nobody...
	I shared the link on Twitter.
	That's one hell of a bass that you and your brother caught ice fishing.
	Yeah, that was a lot of fun.
	Beautiful country up there in the Adirondacks.
	We were up near Lake Placid where we hosted the Winter Olympics twice.
	They got a cool little museum there.
	Got a beautiful skating rink there.
	Nice small town there.
	Went fishing on a small lake not far away.
	So it was a lot of fun.
	Did you have...
	A gas-powered or electric drill, or did you have an auger, or did you have the manual one?
	So we had a guide that knew the area well, so they set up a lot of the little ice fishing holes, and then we had a heated tent, or a tent where the...
	That's designed for ice fishing with a little propane heater inside, a couple of chairs, you know, good chill, smoke cigars, drink a little whiskey, fish a little, all three.
	Beautiful surroundings, you know, and we were the only ones there.
	We were the only ones on that particular lake, so that was really nice.
	About two feet deep of ice, so no worries there either.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	And it's, I mean, that bass was a big bass for winter, for summer fishing, let alone for winter.
	A few other fish too, but they're all that big.
	It's fantastic.
	All right, Robert, I mean, so on the menu tonight, you want to go over the menu quickly, or should we just dive into it?
	Yeah, we got, you know, we got Rumble and Locals, big win over the state of New York.
	We got O 'Keefe and Project Veritas, the Murdoch trial.
	Two big cases, or historic cases, actually three historic cases that we're covering briefly.
	Pepsi, where's my jet?
	The conman lawyer and the case that Mark Robert mentioned on America's Untold Stories.
	The doctor, the JFK doctor who beat the Journal of American Medical Association on a defamation claim.
	The kind of cases that may be percolating up again in the new era.
	We've got, you know, when can you bring lawsuit for having false criminal charges against you?
	We got privacy lawsuits involving biometrics and insurance companies.
	We got Thomas Massey proposing a big food freedom bill.
	We got Discovery that came out in the Dominion case concerning Dominion and Fox.
	We got Spain wants to decriminalize bestiality.
	We got Carrie Lake's case going up to the Supreme Court.
	We got people trying to keep Trump off the ballot by bringing bogus 14th Amendment cases.
	We got Harry and Meghan.
	They want to sue South Park for making fun of them.
	We got an Amish guy, Reuben King, who's subject to a criminal trial coming up in March.
	Based on, in my view, bogus gun charges that a lot of people haven't paid attention to.
	And we got the Biden omnibus lawsuit.
	And, of course, the World Health Organization Treaty.
	What does it mean?
	Is it a new globalist technocracy that's going to be governing our lives soon, as some seem to think?
	You know what?
	Can we start with the WHO?
	And then we'll do that here and then we're going to end it and then go over to Rumble.
	Robert, what is the latest?
	Because a lot of rumors are being circulated.
	I fear it's sort of similar to what we discussed.
	What was it?
	It was over a year ago where they were amending.
	They were not amending a treaty, but they were proposing certain changes that people were nervous would be ratified at a national level.
	What's going on now with the WHO?
	So what they did a year ago was put into process a proposed new treaty, but it's not being eminently voted on.
	That's what people are misunderstanding.
	At this stage, they've just done a draft zero of a proposed treaty that's not going to be voted on until next year.
	So here I think it's important for people just to know.
	What the risks are without exaggerating those risks.
	And unfortunately, people can't seem to fall into...
	They always fall either into understating the risk or overstating the risk.
	There is nothing imminent about the happen.
	All that talk is not the case.
	There's people that have said, oh, they can pass this without Senate approval.
	Nope, no, they can't.
	They said, oh, well, it's enforceable and legally binding without it.
	Nope, no, it can't.
	It will replace the Constitution.
	Nope.
	No, it can't.
	It will replace the House's role in legislation.
	Nope.
	Nope, it can't.
	So let's take away the things that it can't do, that people are mistaken about, while at the same time addressing what they're trying to do.
	So the World Health Organization is trying to use pandemics to seize power, their goal, their objective.
	Is definitely to create, as Francis Boyle has warned about and others, a globalist technocracy that would not just be able to control a pandemic response policy, but in the name of...
	They have equity provisions, requirements of universal health care, funding provisions, intellectual property waivers, supply chain control, which would involve wage control, banking control, business control.
	They do want globalist technocracy under the guise of a pandemic to suddenly replace all domestic governments.
	That fear is a legitimate fear.
	What is mistaken is how imminent this risk is and how constitutional the risk is.
	So there's language in there that says somebody becomes a provisional member even if they haven't constitutionally approved it.
	That's true.
	That doesn't make it binding in the United States.
	It is not binding in the United States as a treaty.
	Until and unless the United States, unless the President proposes it to the U.S. Senate, the Senate puts it, votes for it, votes on it in the Senate, two-thirds of the Senate then approves it.
	Even then, its terms are not binding in terms of implementing legislation.
	Implementing legislation, as the U.S. Supreme Court's already made clear, requires the House pass it, the Senate pass it, and the White House sign off on it separately.
	Not only that, that doesn't resolve the question of whether it's constitutional.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that a treaty is not superior to the U.S. Constitution, but is subject to it.
	Robert, the problem is that's fine at the national level.
	But what we're talking about is international government cooperation, collaboration with other states.
	So hypothetically.
	It's unconstitutional if it were attempted to be implemented in the United States, but try international travel and there will be protocols implemented that have nothing to do with whether or not the United States has ratified these elements nationally.
	Is that not totally the biggest fear of it all?
	I mean, there again, it has to be enforced by the other foreign governments, so you could run into risk that another government is enforcing it, but the United States can't enforce it against a U.S. citizen unless it's consistent to the U.S. Constitution.
	And because, for example, this came up in the case called the Bond case, where the Congress passed a law implementing the various bans on chemical weapons, and then it was used by a federal prosecutor.
	To prosecute a woman who used poison against her husband's mistress, that all it ended up doing was burning her thumb.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court took the case.
	Three of the justices would have thrown out the conviction on the grounds that the implementing legislation violated the federalism principle of the Tenth Amendment.
	The majority decided they didn't need to reach that because they would just reinterpret the law to be consistent with the Tenth Amendment and radically restrict the definition of how the law could apply.
	But all were in mostly agreement that the Tenth Amendment restricts treaties, as an example.
	So in order for it to be binding here, you have to have treaty approval by two-thirds of the Senate.
	By the way, what the Senate often does is they just table it.
	So most of the concerns about it...
	Being immediately enforceable in America are not accurate.
	The broader concerns that even this effort is even afoot is a legitimate, is a very legitimate concern.
	Or that this effort is afoot and governments don't necessarily need governments to implement this if major private enterprise will implement it.
	Like airlines will say, okay, it hasn't been ratified at a national level, but it's our terms of use.
	So you want to get on an airplane?
	You have to show X, Y, and Z. I mean, that's still the case anyway.
	In other words, I mean, private entities are free to do whatever they want anyway.
	The treaty or its existence doesn't change that one way or the other.
	No, but, well, no, except for the treaty might, what's the word I'm looking for?
	Empower, embolden private enterprise.
	It may embolden, it doesn't legally authorize them.
	So they could say, oh, look, we're just trying to comply with it.
	It doesn't matter because the treaty is not enforceable on the U.S. It's good that people highlight the concerns, but there's a pattern of exaggerating concerns, and the problem with exaggerating the concerns is that it leads to, when those exaggerated concerns don't come about, it leads to the cry wolf problem.
	That when there's a legitimate concern, people aren't paying attention because they're like, oh, you also said this was going to do this.
	And so that's where I think it's good to maintain a balance.
	It is a problematic treaty without any question whatsoever.
	But by the way, the World Health Organization's own constitution says that nothing is binding on any member unless that member has complied with its own constitution within its country, by the way.
	Okay.
	Robert, on that note, let me just make sure that I...
	I'm seeing Manscaped ads on this very stream.
	Okay.
	I just want to make sure the link is there.
	We're going to go over to Rumble, but for people who don't get Rumble, we have now also found a way to direct stream to Locals with an RMTP.
	So if you don't get Rumble in France or wherever, go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Link is in there.
	In fact, I'll put up a copy of the draft treaty so people can see it, a highlighted version of it this week on our Locals board so people can see it for themselves.
	Perfect.
	Beautiful.
	Ending on YouTube right now and this entire stream will be back on YouTube, just not live tomorrow.
	Ending 3, 2, 1, done.
	Robert?
	Speaking of Rumble, Rumble had a big, big, big win against the state of New York for free speech.
	New York implemented some hate speech laws or legislation which was intending to govern how online platforms regulate, moderate, flag, identify hate speech on their platforms.
	Rumble and Eugene Volokh were the plaintiffs.
	Eugene was on the channel.
	We did a sidebar with him a long time ago.
	Which one?
	Eugene Volokh, who's got the...
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, we did, but it was on somebody else's channel.
	It was a long time ago.
	But yes, so Eugene Volokh, who we've interviewed with or together, are the plaintiffs, and they argued a First Amendment violation.
	They got a judge, Judge Carter.
	I didn't have time to look up who the judge was appointed by.
	Maybe you know, Robert.
	But the judge basically granted the injunction and said this is violative of First Amendment rights on its face.
	So Rumble is not just walking the walk in terms of not adhering to demands by French governments to censor.
	They are still broadcasting or allowing content that is critical of the Lula government in Brazil to be on the platform despite demands.
	They're walking the walk, talking the talk, giving the platform, and also fighting for the rights of people for free speech.
	What's your take, Robert?
	Does it go past the injunction or do they sort of...
	Tuck tail, redraft, and try to get a second kick at the can.
	We'll see.
	I mean, it was an attempt to pass a Canadian-style hate speech law in the United States.
	They were trying to call it hateful conduct, but that isn't what they're really doing because not only was it a content-based law, and it was based on the content of the speech, certain legal implications came about, and those are inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny under U.S. law under the First Amendment.
	But they were also compelling speech by Rumble.
	They were requiring Rumble to set up a very specific complaint process to basically be a forced rat to rat out its own customers and users.
	Secondly, they were requiring compelled speech by requiring them to have a specific policy and to publish that policy and publish other things concerning it.
	And it went past Rumble's rules, which we helped draft that are amended that are going to be coming into force.
	Soon.
	But even the old rules was about illicit behavior, not about protected speech.
	And so here they wanted to go, like if they, as the court noted, if they had just limited the law to prohibiting imminent incitement and terrorist activities, things of that nature, they would have been fine.
	But they didn't.
	They said you can't use speech that's either...
	How is it?
	The phraseology was either...
	Hateful conduct was defined as either to vilify or humiliate.
	And they're like, what does that even mean, vilify or humiliate?
	Based on certain protected categories.
	And the court said that's clearly content-based speech that violates the First Amendment because it can't pass strict scrutiny.
	And so it was a big win by Rumble and locals to strike, get the law struck down.
	A big win for free speech.
	As the court made clear at the very beginning, In America, as the U.S. Supreme Court said a long time ago, hate speech is free speech.
	The only speech that's prohibited is certain discriminatory use, certain kinds of discriminatory harassment, certain kinds of stalking, basically imminent incitement of illegal behavior or illegal behavior itself.
	Just hate speech is not illegal behavior.
	Vile speech is not illegal behavior.
	It's only certain limited things that are illegal behavior.
	And Rumble's rules focus on that.
	And so critical they brought the suit.
	Critical they prevail.
	I think the state of New York probably won't go back to the drawing board, but we'll just let it die for now because it's not likely they're ever going to get that overturned or changed.
	Now let me see if I can't find who the judge was.
	Judge Andrew Carter.
	I'll see if I can pull that up in a second anyhow.
	It's very good, but it's, you know...
	People have been warning that hate speech laws are coming to America.
	American politicians have been calling for it.
	And when you see how it's been exercised in Canada, Canada should be the canary in the coal mines for Americans.
	If you don't like what you see happening up north, don't let it trickle down south.
	I take credit to Rumble and locals for bringing the case and winning the case.
	Speaking of somebody who turns out wasn't firing blanks.
	Alec Baldwin did get a big win in the case we discussed last week.
	This is fantastic.
	I mean, look, I had a joke.
	I don't want to say it, but talk about dodging a bullet.
	Alec Baldwin dodged a bullet.
	There's a joke in there somewhere.
	If I had that type of content, I'm sure I could work in an edgy tweet.
	So he basically got the enhancement charge dropped.
	of the charges that he was facing and the enhancement charge which was the crime committed with a firearm carried a minimum mandatory sentence of five years and they got that enhancement to be dropped because it required the gun to have been pointed in a manner with the intent to cause fear something along those lines with the intent to intimidate or whatever and The bottom line is, that was not the reason, the intent behind him holding the gun, pointing the gun the way he was.
	And so, you know, people are saying it's a creative argument brought up by the lawyers.
	Not to be smarter than smart, but it seems like the obvious argument.
	And it seemed like an overcharge from the beginning, where they...
	I'm surprised they even insisted that they make the argument, but bottom line...
	Baldwin, just by the skin of his teeth, got out of an amendment that occurred shortly after the commission of his alleged offense.
	So he's not facing five years anymore.
	Now he's facing a maximum of 18 months, even if he's convicted.
	Correct.
	What do you say, Robert?
	Under New Mexico law, that tends to translate into nine months.
	And usually you get probation or the rest if you're a first-time older offender.
	So his risk went way down.
	Even if he's convicted in this case.
	Now, speaking of a trial that's got a lot of controversial attention, the Murtaugh trial continues to march on.
	By time of closing arguments, maybe we'll cover part of them, depending on timing of when those occur.
	Not yet set.
	What's interesting to me is, to me, it fits into the Scott Peterson and O.J. Simpson cases, both of which I have doubts about their guilt.
	The public is convinced of their guilt, and some parts of the public are convinced of Murtaugh's guilt.
	And I think for the same reasons.
	They're seeing deceptive, dishonest behavior, including in his interview by the police department.
	And the question is, is that always evidence of guilt?
	In my view, there's two alternative explanations.
	One is that he's a criminal narcissist, and criminal narcissists don't have the same emotional response as the rest of us do to trauma and tragedy.
	And in the case of a criminal narcissist whose other crimes are getting caught, His first obsession is his image and thinks he may be falsely blamed for the case, so you don't see an honest emotional reaction.
	You often see disassembling and dishonesty, but it's because he's a criminal narcissist, not because he actually committed the crime.
	The second possibility is false confessions.
	These are, people don't know it, two most unreliable forms of evidence are eyewitness testimony and confessions.
	People love eyewitness testimony.
	They love confessions.
	They're the worst pieces of evidence that exist in the world.
	They're the most notoriously wrong.
	They're the two main categories that get people wrongfully convicted.
	And as determined by DNA evidence and other evidence later on.
	Like, that person actually could not have committed that crime.
	And yet, somebody saw them do it.
	And somebody even confessed to doing it.
	People with a certain unsettled psychology that have a deep sense of shame and guilt.
	Often are subject to false confessions.
	Great film on this that really portrays it with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman, shot in Puerto Rico.
	I think it's called Under Suspicion.
	Watch that film to see how a false confession can come about with ease from surprising sources.
	My own view is that the incredible lack of forensic evidence suggests I couldn't be convinced that if I was a juror, he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Put it that way.
	Basically, they have him committing this murder for very weak motive.
	The motive evidence is just not there, in my view.
	Not beyond a reasonable doubt motive evidence.
	But within about 10 minutes or so, he kills both people in brutal execution style with two different weapons.
	Manages to clean up the entire scene so there's no forensic evidence tying him to the murder.
	Cleans up wherever he went to back to the house so there's no evidence between there and the house of forensic evidence tying him to the murder.
	There's no evidence in the house of forensic evidence tying him to the murder.
	No clothes are ever discovered tying him to the murder.
	He gets out into his vehicle and drives to his mother's house and there's no evidence in the vehicle.
	For tying him to the murder.
	He manages to get rid of the guns, get rid of the clothes, get rid of all forensic evidence in this tiny, tight time frame when he's right there the whole time in easily discoverable, searchable property.
	And so it's like, how did he manage to do that?
	Then there's whoever the killer was took the mother's phone but not the son's phone.
	Seems a little weird.
	Dumps the mother's phone in one location that appears to be different than where he was at the time.
	They have detail.
	They know everything about his activity from his phone and from the other phones there.
	So the forensic evidence is nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Now, if people want to see how motivated reasoning works, just follow anybody who came in strongly believing he's guilty.
	There's people on our board that came in that way.
	They will spin and filter every piece of evidence to go towards guilt.
	Any evidence that comes up for acquittal, they ignore.
	Any evidence that they're dismissive of or hypercritical of?
	Any evidence towards guilt, they hyper-focus and hyper-push because that's how the human brain works.
	That's why this case will come down to the trial.
	The judge allowed every piece of evidence known to man against the guy.
	Well, and there's some controversy as to what evidence the judge did allow.
	Now, Robert, I might be in that category where...
	I think the guy's guilty, and I'll say it, I have for no better reason.
	I haven't been following the trial thoroughly.
	It's just one of those things where the guy seems to be too dirty to be given the benefit of the doubt, but I check my own prejudice in this case, but I can see that happening in my own head.
	Okay, I think he's guilty.
	I've heard the evidences to the forensics.
	Apparently it was a short individual who had to have done the shootings based on the way organic material, I think they called it, was splattered on the wall.
	They said 5 '2 to 5 '4.
	Everybody out there, I'm 5 '5 and a half, 5 '6 with shoes.
	So there were some jokes in the chat.
	He lied about where he was in proximity to the killing.
	He said he didn't go out to the dog kennel in the back or whatever, when in fact he did, and it's been now determined based on, I guess, cell phone.
	That was disputed today.
	The defense presented evidence that that was the mother playing a voicemail.
	Okay.
	So we'll see.
	But yeah, that was the best evidence.
	The best evidence is just that he's a narcissistic criminal, or that he's at least a career criminal.
	Drug problem, you name it.
	Which he is.
	I mean, that's not...
	No, what's interesting is he confessed to all those over time.
	That he always capitulated and confessed.
	The other thing that's kind of inconsistent with the murder stuff, I mean, he tried to get someone else to kill him so his son, his remaining son, could inherit, could get an inheritance.
	And why he killed the mother and son, it's like people have this like...
	Five different components of how it's somehow related to his financial crimes.
	What I've told people is, do a compelling closing argument as to how he committed the crime, how he hid all the evidence committing the crime, and what the motive was.
	Because the other problem is the government keeps contradicting its narrative.
	One minute, he did this spontaneously, because that's the only way his behavior is consistent with certain evidence.
	The next minute, it was all...
	Premeditated and deliberate.
	And it's like there's evidence that contradicts both.
	So because they're stuck with him as the sole suspect, and not him as a co-conspirator, but him as the sole suspect, the sole participant, they have theories that contradict itself.
	And so my view is, even if you think he...
	Now, I'll give you a practical lesson for everybody out there.
	No jury follows beyond a reasonable doubt.
	None of them do.
	They say they do, they don't.
	If a jury thinks somebody's guilty...
	By a little thin piece of evidence, by 51%, they always convict.
	They don't let somebody walk that they think committed a horrendous murder because it wasn't all the way to beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Us lawyers care about that.
	Jurors say they do.
	They just don't.
	Been around that too often.
	I've actually asked this in case I've said in focus groups.
	So let's say you really believe he did it, but you're not beyond a reasonable doubt really convinced.
	Are you going to convict?
	And they usually admit, uh, yeah.
	Yeah, I'll rationalize it to get there.
	I've witnessed them rationalizing.
	But for me, it's nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.
	This guy is probably going to spend a lot of his life in prison anyway because of all of his other problems.
	To me, if I was the defense lawyer, what I would hammer home is, remember, if you have reasonable doubt, it means a murderer is out there.
	And you want that murderer to walk free because...
	The government decided to point the finger of blame at the wrong person.
	That's usually when beyond reasonable doubt actually matters to a jury.
	Because they're like, hold on a second.
	I think somebody was waiting for the kid.
	The kid came in.
	They killed the kid.
	They're waiting to kill him.
	Didn't know the mother was still there.
	I think that's why they use a different gun on the mother because they were out of, I think I said double gauge.
	I said something wrong.
	Double barrel shotgun.
	They used both against him.
	By the way, a real brutal way.
	This was an angry murder.
	Normally, if you just looked at the crime scene and ignore everything else you'd said, you'd say, this is an angry murder.
	Number one.
	Number two, you'd say, this is someone who was surprised by her presence.
	Because all of a sudden, they have to get a different gun to chase her down.
	There's evidence of a chase.
	They kill her execution style, for certainty.
	Why take her phone and not his?
	Because they weren't sure what she recorded.
	And then they figure out what she recorded and dump the phone.
	That, to me, is what the forensic evidence points to primarily.
	It really doesn't point to him primarily beyond this guy is probably a criminal narcissist.
	Which brings us kind of into the surprising bit of evidence that was allowed.
	So apparently there was an objection to...
	A subsequent event, Robert, correct me if you know the details and if I get it wrong, and chat, do the same.
	A few months after the killings, apparently Murdoch asked a friend to shoot him on the side of a country road, and apparently it was supposed to look like a revenge killing or a drug deal gone bad or something, where the surviving son would be able to inherit some insurance funds.
	And I don't know how this happens, but the bullet grazes Murdoch's head and doesn't kill him.
	And the judge had said this can't come into evidence prior, but something the defense said or did in cross-examination, according to the judge, opened the door for this evidence, and now they can adduce or the prosecution can present this evidence.
	From what I understand of that evidence, I do have questions as to whether or not that demonstrates guilt or actual innocence, where checking my prejudgments...
	That sounds like a desperate man who's in despair with life and not someone who committed a murder of his wife.
	They've let everything in about the guy.
	You know, his drug habit, his financial crimes, any misrepresentation in his entire life, the attempted, what did you mention, the attempted basically insurance scam.
	I mean, just one thing after the other.
	And the judge's latest excuse was that...
	They raised issues about his competency to answer certain questions after that shooting occurred.
	You didn't have to introduce all the details of the shooting to that somehow open the door.
	This judge is so biased, over-the-top biased, wants his defendant convicted of this murder.
	And is he doing it because he hates the defendant?
	Or is he doing it because he's covering up the real murderer?
	Who knows?
	Might ask those questions.
	Don't put anything.
	Pass some of these judges, God bless them.
	There's a small town down there.
	But he's trying to lynch him.
	And he's committed every reversible error known to man.
	But the case is so hot politically, the assumption is that no appeals court will care.
	And so it's kind of like, speaking of appeals court not caring, the very lazy decision.
	By the Arizona Court of Appeals in refusing Carrie Lake's appeal that she's now taken up to the Arizona Supreme Court.
	Do you want to field it?
	Sure.
	Court of Appeal, was it...
	Well, go for it.
	What are you drinking, Robert?
	Zero Monster.
	Oh, that's disgusting.
	You should be drinking Amish.
	I ran out of the great farm fresh milk from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	Which is the best natural way to get energy.
	Or if you want good eggs, you get no soy in those eggs.
	So if you're eating Amos Miller's eggs, you get Viva-style arms.
	If you're eating regular commercial eggs, you got those skinny little Brooklyn-style soy boy arms.
	AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com, but you go from organic, healthy milk to chemicals in a can.
	Not that I much want to talk, but this is just carbonated water.
	Court of Appeals says no, and now Carrie Lake's only recourse is to the Supreme Court.
	And what do they say?
	No determinate error in law.
	Committed by the judge and we don't reassess assessment of fact.
	And what they did is they hedged a lot of stuff and hid a lot of stuff.
	Like, for example, there's almost no explanation of standing in the case.
	No explanation of ripeness and mootness in the case.
	They affirm that part of the decision, but they manage not to even use the words.
	That's how they are embarrassed they are at how ridiculous part of the decision is.
	The giveaway with a bad decision will be with a bad court.
	Will be what they don't talk about.
	So look at all the stuff they don't talk about.
	And there's more of that than what they do talk about.
	And I think what's a 12-page decision.
	Hundreds of pages of briefs, and they have a 12-page decision.
	They decide to change the evidentiary standard for an election challenge.
	Now it has to be clear and convincing evidence.
	Never has been in the history of Arizona.
	Never has been as such in almost any other jurisdiction.
	There they couldn't get around that because of how the judge ruled.
	They got around the issue.
	They said that you have to have, quote, competent mathematical basis to claim that there is doubt about the election that could alter the result, not just basis for doubt, which, by the way, also completely reverses over a century of Arizona election law.
	They said that the signature match check was just a procedural violation when it wasn't.
	But they don't affirm the standing doctrine the judge ruled on.
	They just say, that was known a few months before the election and could have been challenged then.
	And say, so the court's ruling is okay.
	Not using even the word mootness or rightness or standing or latches.
	Because they're so embarrassed by how ludicrous those arguments are.
	Even the Arizona Court of Appeals was too scared to talk about it in their own published decision.
	They said that constitutional claims are somehow duplicative.
	That's how they dodge all of those questions in one paragraph.
	They admit that you don't have to prove intentionality, which is one of the big issues, which we saw the judge's ruling.
	That was an entire basis of his decision.
	And they say no.
	And how do they get around it?
	They say, well, in this particular case, even the lesser standard isn't met without much explanation.
	So it was a decision by an Arizona Court of Appeals that has a history of political corruption in Arizona.
	I'll probably have a separate hush-hush on that going back a decade ago when they got a prosecutor effectively disbarred and fired for exposing corruption in the Arizona court system.
	You know, imagine a bunch of John McCain's who, you know, people, I remember it got agitated at me when John McCain died that I said I went out and bought a nice bottle of champagne to celebrate.
	And I was like, you always celebrate death of fascists.
	John McCain was also a corrupt hack who lived off of being captured.
	I still like Donald Trump's comment on that.
	But imagine a bunch of corrupt McCain types who are dominating a government, meet the Arizona Republican establishment in positions of elected power, positions of bureaucracy, and the Arizona judiciary.
	That's why it's still a long shot for Carrie Lake with the Arizona Supreme Court, but credit to her for continuing to fight the case, continuing to contest the case, continuing to expose the issues related to it.
	She's still right on the facts and the law, and that's revealed as well as anything by how weak and what things the Arizona Court of Appeals was too scared to publicly discuss.
	Robert, does the Supreme Court ever get involved in this?
	The U.S. Supreme Court?
	They will not because...
	They can raise it with the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal constitutional claims, but all the other claims are specific to Arizona law.
	So the only claims the U.S. Supreme Court could look at is the U.S. constitutional claims.
	And that's extremely unlikely.
	So basically, this will die with what will be the Supreme Court of Arizona.
	The Arizona Supreme Court also is unlikely.
	They don't have to take the case and they probably won't.
	Sadly.
	But it exposes the continued weakness and ineffectiveness of the judiciary in answering election contests from political outsiders.
	Unfortunately, there's a long, notorious, ugly history of that.
	Did the judges...
	The Court of Appeal didn't sanction Carrie Lake's attorneys?
	I'm saying that as a joke.
	Oh, no, to their credit.
	It was requested.
	But even they weren't willing to go that far.
	And that was a sign of a court...
	That knew what they were up to.
	They were trying to pretend, ah, you just didn't meet the standard.
	That's what they were pretending.
	And they created a standard, you know, that almost mathematical certainty that's an impossible standard to meet in election contests.
	Especially given election contests you have to raise within days of the election.
	You get almost no discovery.
	You get no time to investigate.
	The idea that you could prove with a mathematical certainty what took place.
	And again, Arizona is a state whose Supreme Court, almost a century ago, overthrew an election almost a year after the election.
	So the idea that you have to rush this and that you have to meet a ridiculous standard, not true.
	And that's why they don't talk about certain things.
	That's why certain words are not even in their opinion, because they know they can't.
	One of the best ways that courts lie is, and you can tell, is when the opinion's too short.
	When the opinion's too short for factually dense, legally complex case law, then what you have is a court that knows they're making up the story, and they try to keep it short and brief.
	So I've had people who will send me a court opinion.
	They'll say, see, this proved something about how it was briefed.
	And I'm like, read the briefs, then get back to me.
	And they usually come back shocked, law students especially.
	They're like, wow, courts tend to lie.
	Yeah, welcome to American judiciary.
	Robert, the only thing is I have to check that, you know, put that in perspective too, because too short.
	We say that they're ignoring and trying to sweep things under the rug too long, and we say they're trying to confuse and make sure that no one ever reads it.
	And sometimes that happens.
	Well, like in Canada with Commissioner Rouleau's ruling.
	Yeah, the clearing Trudeau.
	Exonerating Trudeau, coming to the conclusion that Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act to violently suppress that three-and-a-half-week peaceful protest met the threshold required.
	For declaring a national emergency for which only the Emergencies Act could be invoked to suppress.
	2,000 pages, four volumes.
	No one's ever going to read it, and the only way I'm getting through it is by looking for certain keywords so that I could see what the judge had to say on specific issues.
	Now, it's a commission.
	It's not a court of law.
	There's no appeal.
	Technically, it doesn't carry the weight of a decision of the court, but there are currently...
	Pending issues before the courts challenges requests for judicial review.
	And you know damn well they're going to rely on this report even though it's, you know, a commissioner's report and not a decision of a court of law.
	But Rouleau, the commissioner, who's not related to Justin Trudeau through marriage, only through politics, political judge, heavily active, you know, over the last 30 years or 30 years ago.
	Came to the conclusion it was warranted.
	It was necessary.
	Freezing of bank accounts was effective in suppressing this.
	And, you know, the only problem was that it caught up spouses of people with joint accounts.
	And if only there were a way of preventing that from happening.
	But cancelling insurance was a step too far.
	The judge came to, I don't have the Diagalon ring that someone sent me in the mail, came to the conclusion that Diagalon, this Kekistan fake meme universe created by Jeremy McKenzie, because they found a ballistic vest with a patch on in Kutz, Alberta, which had nothing to do with the Ottawa protest, it was enough to create a concern of risk for the police.
	So it met the subjective and objective criteria, 2000 page report that no one's ever Justin Trudeau empowered, emboldened, and exonerated.
	And it's disgusting.
	Well, it's basically the Warren Commission report is how much credibility people should attest to it.
	Written in the same style, used to justify and exculpate, and used to highlight dubious evidence and hide critical evidence, which Mark Robert, Eric Hundley, to America's Untold Stories, he was talking about a doctor recently.
	They had a whole episode on them.
	And what was interesting, I did not know, he brought up that this doctor sued the Journal of American Medical Association that lied about this doctor who had waited for like 30 years.
	And the Oliver Stone movie came out and he's like, okay, I got the green light to finally talk about what really happened.
	He was a doctor who was present.
	At the Kennedy, after the assassination with Kennedy's body at the hospital, Parkland Hospital, also present for Lee Harvey Oswald after he was shot.
	And he disclosed certain information, including that, I mean, his own view was that, of course, the first shot came through here, or confirmed aspects of that.
	But otherwise, but also that LBJ was personally trying to...
	He forced a confession from Oswald on his deathbed and was calling doctors to try to arrange it, as well as other information he disclosed that raised serious questions about the official institutional narrative.
	Other doctors that were there, then there was a huge hit campaign.
	People forget this happened.
	If you think Tom Brokaw's a legitimate guy...
	Go back and see what he said about the Kennedy assassination.
	If you think Dan Rather is a legitimate guy, go back and see what he said about the Kennedy assassination.
	In fact, take any of your media icons from after 1963 through, say, 1998 and see what they said about the Kennedy assassination.
	Say maybe Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire.
	See what he says about the Kennedy assassination.
	What you will find is these folks universally repeated, not only repeated the narrative, But often waged smear campaigns against anybody who challenged it.
	This doctor had like an impeccable pedigree and reputation.
	But they came after him on everything.
	He said, LBJ never made such a call.
	LBJ in the room?
	How ridiculous is that?
	That's how insane this doctor is, LBJ, but the President of the United States.
	Come on.
	On and on.
	And then you have these big institutional publications, and they were all doing this.
	They were running hit smear pieces on Oliver Stone, hit smear pieces on anybody that questioned the official narrative, even though this was almost 30 years after the Kennedy assassination.
	Why, Robert?
	I mean, do you think...
	That they are somehow getting some pressure.
	So you think, I mean, and what does that pressure look like?
	Do they come up, do they have meetings?
	Now that we know that intelligence is having meetings, backdoor channels, and weekly meetings with Twitter, Facebook, social media, are they having something similar, mutatus mutandus, over the last decades with our most trusted names in news?
	Absolutely.
	And they'd already embedded those people in most cases.
	So, you know, you're...
	It's not a coincidence Anderson Cooper started out his media career interning at the Central Intelligence Agency.
	It's not a coincidence that Jake Tapper went to Dartmouth with, let's just say, some interesting folks.
	So these people's intelligence connections help get them to where they're at.
	As Mark Robert was talking about.
	And maybe he'll talk about it at our special Viva Las Vegas event, Viva Barnes Law Las Vegas event on March the 12th, where we're going to do a live hush-hush that we'll later record that people will be able to watch on the Viva Barnes Law channel.
	For those who are annual members, or you can pay basically $10 and watch it.
	But we'll be discussing all the sins of Sin City and a full hush-hush, including the Vegas shooting.
	That'll be the only time I talk about it.
	We'll be at that meeting and later release on tape.
	But Tom Hanks, you have a range of people in Hollywood that have basically been promoted through the process.
	Grobert experienced it personally, as he talked about it in our sidebar interview.
	His movie, The Recruit.
	Got hijacked by the CIA and rewritten in a different way.
	And so they're embedded at every level from the very beginning.
	And where they're not embedded at the beginning, they infiltrate like they did at the Twitter files they're exposing, is the scale and scope of their infiltration and direction.
	And that's what happened.
	But this guy fought back.
	I mean, especially, like, what's the Journal of American Medical Association doing writing about the Kennedy assassination?
	Is that really a scientific debate?
	But just like Grobert's point was, just like you're seeing now, institutional publications come after dissident doctors.
	This is not new.
	This is something old.
	They've taken an old script, and they're making the sequel, and we're watching it.
	But this doctor fought back, and he not only fought back, he whooped him.
	He won big.
	He won a big, fat verdict.
	So it's a sign for all those folks that want to fight back.
	You can, and there might be somebody eager to fight back right about now by the name of James O 'Keefe.
	Oh, we're going to get there in a second, Robert.
	Let's just push it back a few minutes further.
	Just let's highlight the main takeaway from the JFK assassination that LBJ orchestrated the assassination of a president so he could become president.
	And effectively confirmed in recent disclosures, recent documents that were released.
	And it's like it's not the most earth shattering thing in American politics that what we were told was a conspiracy theory for 40 years, which reveals the deepest, darkest, dirtiest deep state underbelly in America, which basically confirms that.
	The news broke, and then the news went away.
	LBJ, or CIA intelligence, assassinated a president and then tried to cover it up.
	And nobody's freaking out about this.
	Robert, it's dark days.
	Okay, and before we get to...
	Project Veritas.
	Let me just do this because now that I know how, here we go.
	Let me just read some Rumble rants from Rumble.
	SjoinCA says, Viva, your camera autofocus is refocusing constantly because of the lines in the palm of my forehead.
	Please try a different picture.
	I'll figure that out in a second.
	That was $5.
	$2 Rumble rant from CrazyGuru1.
	Two in a row says, Internet went down for five minutes in the UK, just back online.
	Weird.
	It tied in with my switch to Rumble.
	C.L. Bentley94 says, Hey, Viva, love the show.
	Could you elaborate on a Rumble 8K filing today requesting an increase of 160 million shares to 700 million?
	Robert, I didn't hear about that, but I guess that's just a way of raising funds.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I didn't know about it, so I can't comment on it.
	And YFarmer says, What can state legislatures do to proactively protect against the excess of federal and WHO policies during the next...
	Pandemic Gates keeps talking about.
	And then it says...
	Change emergency laws, prevent vaccine mandates.
	Those are the two big areas.
	Viola Pride says, good thing Barnes doesn't have any hair or it would have gotten blown away in this crazy wind today.
	And P. Moyer says, send the link.
	Okay.
	Robert...
	What the...
	Okay.
	Something is up.
	Because, look, there has been some Twitter...
	Twitter exchanges.
	Last night, I don't consider it a war.
	I don't even consider it a fight.
	Jenna Ellis, who I'll speak for myself, I like her.
	And although I may disagree with her take on James O 'Keefe, or the take she says she's not taking, I think by asking certain questions, even under the guise of I'm just asking the questions, some of them have an accusation baked into them.
	When she originally tweeted, Basically, the board of directors is suggesting that James O 'Keefe misappropriated funds or whatever.
	That was, you know, breaking an objective statement, I guess.
	You replied and said anyone running cover for the board of directors should never be trusted again.
	And a lot of people in the replies to that sent to have taken that as an accusation that Jenna Ellis is running cover.
	For the board.
	I read that original tweet and said, I didn't read it that way, nor did I read your reply as an attack on Jenna Ellis.
	Subsequent tweets from Jenna where, you know, one of them was, if it turns out that he stole money, misappropriated funds, what then?
	I was like, well, okay, if it turns out he, you know, did naughty things to underage people, then okay.
	But by asking that question, you're sort of presupposing some legitimacy to the accusation in the first place.
	The board of directors now, Of Project Veritas in an attempt to mitigate the abject disaster that they have caused for this company.
	Project Veritas has lost over 250,000 followers on Twitter, which represents 20% of the total followers they had the day before yesterday.
	They're now trying to mitigate this disaster by suggesting that James O 'Keefe misappropriated funds from the company that he started, built up from nothing.
	On the basis that he misappropriated funds for a wedding, though James O 'Keefe has never been married.
	James put out a 44-minute video, which was intended to be for his closing speech, his resignation speech to the employees of Project Veritas.
	He knew damn well it was going to go public.
	It might have been done for the purposes of being published.
	Watch the video, people, whoever have not seen it.
	The board of directors originally said James is taking some much-needed time off.
	He wouldn't take a vacation, so he's on paid.
	He's taking a vacation.
	Then they sort of denied that he was being stripped of his powers.
	Then they admit that he's been stripped of his powers, but said we have good reason to do it.
	He was pilfering monies from his 501c3 and 501c4 that go through annual audits.
	Robert, some people are saying, let's wait for the facts to come out.
	Before taking sides.
	And I'm saying enough facts have come out that, first of all, I would have trusted James O 'Keefe from the beginning.
	The board has lied now.
	They've made misleading public statements and now they've gone to their fourth iteration of the justification that he misappropriated funds for personal purposes from the company.
	What's your take on why this is the biggest load of bullshit you've ever heard?
	I'm joking.
	What's your take?
	I mean, I recommend people watch his often emotional 44-minute explanation to the staff.
	I presume one of the staff leaked the report or others did it, but he left that up to them basically by saying, I'm not publicizing this, but letting other people do so if they wanted to do so.
	And he explained a range of facts which showed what we talked about at the very beginning, which this was a coup attempt.
	By untrustworthy, dishonorable, dishonest people.
	I made the point that they aligned frequently as what I like to call the dissimps for DeSantis.
	And some people even on the board thought I was being critical of DeSantis or all DeSantis supporters.
	I was being critical of a very specific group.
	These are social media influencers that are trying to sucker DeSantis into a political suicide mission of challenging Trump.
	And that would end DeSantis' career.
	That's why George Soros is so eager to see it happen.
	He wants to see DeSantis take out Trump and take DeSantis out at the same time because he knows that's exactly what would happen.
	He said so.
	And so, you know, you don't have to be a genius to figure out what this is, though I said that's what was happening from day one.
	And these dissimps for DeSantis are aligned with the board members that were engaged in the coup, including the leading member.
	Matthew Timbrandt, who Steve Bannon, to his credit, has disowned and said he'll never have on again, nor anybody associated or affiliated with him.
	And so, you know, the Dave Reeboys of the world better double-check some things.
	The John Cardilos of the world better double-check some things.
	It's the same people.
	Is it really a coincidence that they were the ones...
	Taking this aggressive action against O 'Keefe in what was an obvious conspiratorial action.
	Now, it's critical also of Ben Shapiro just saying, you know, hey, Ben, are you going to talk about this?
	Are you going to stand up for James O 'Keefe?
	Ben's made a lot of money over the years repeating James O 'Keefe's breaking stories and coverage.
	So I think he owes him.
	But we'll see where loyalty goes over there.
	There's some people at Daily Wire, to their credit, that have.
	Matt Walsh and others.
	But Benji's still mute on it.
	Just saying, Benji.
	You know, if Stephen Crowder committed the greatest traitorous act in the history of American politics, according to Ben Shapiro, then what is it that Project Veritas just did to James O 'Keefe and its corrupt board?
	Know the board is three to two.
	So we now know that it was the one decisive voice leading the coup efforts that was behind it all.
	Also, O 'Keefe detailed all their other deceptive and dishonorable conduct throughout the whole history of this.
	Timing things...
	Go ahead.
	Oh, no, I was going to say, basically soliciting from employees, you know, going to employees and saying, do you have any dirt?
	In James O 'Keefe's video, which I shared in the link in the chat on Rumble and VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, telling some employees, if you get James off the board, you'll get a raise, according to James, but he showed the receipts.
	Yeah, all the way through.
	He went through all the factual details, and to his credit, he said, I'm not going to speculate, but he also pointed out the chronology.
	He said, this all happened right after our biggest breaking story ever, exposing Pfizer and the vaccines.
	And he repeated that about half a dozen times so that people could draw their own.
	He said, that's the fact.
	You draw your own inference.
	That's just the fact.
	That fact tells its own story.
	And the fact that they were out for the money, that they were, well, all the things we talked about and I pointed out at the beginning.
	I was like, they think they're going to be able to maintain it.
	They think that Project Veritas is bigger than James O 'Keefe.
	They think now they get to cash in on the reputation and the notoriety and the cash and divvy it up.
	Now we're seeing internal evidence coming out that that was exactly what they think, that that's exactly what's been going on.
	That's all of it.
	The allegations against him are ludicrous.
	Start with the fact that this is an organization, as he pointed out, that has been checked by outside accountants.
	Outside board members, outside officers, and outside IRS review every quarter for the better part of a decade.
	And somehow in the middle of that is when he was stealing from them, and their grounds are some of the dumbest grounds I've ever seen.
	It's like, well, he uses Uber-style cars, but they were black cars.
	They were pre-arranged cars.
	By the way, that's what you should do.
	If you're James O 'Keefe for security purposes.
	No, no, no.
	Drive around in your own car so people can get your license plate and know what car you drive.
	Or get in a car with a random Uber stranger rather than a preordained...
	When I'm traveling in certain kinds of cases, or I always use a pre-done limo service and the black car service.
	By the way, the price point's not much different than Uber.
	But you do it for security purposes.
	So you know who's who, you know what's what.
	You're not getting in with a random stranger.
	You're not easily trackable and traceable.
	And when you're James O 'Keefe...
	You absolutely should do that.
	Although, I mean, it's one ludicrous claim after another, after another.
	And by the way, it's people who don't know what they're doing.
	Because a lot of these, they know a little bit about tax law involving non-profits, and they think they know a lot about private inurement.
	They don't have a private inurement claim at all.
	To give an example, at a lot of charities around the country, Somebody doing the work O 'Keefe was doing, bringing in the money, on average doubling it every single year to the organization, would be paid in the seven figures.
	Just look at a lot of these organizations in charity.
	They're paid in the seven figure plus.
	He was paid in the low six figures?
	I mean, that's one of the...
	For a guy raising the kind of money he's raising, for a guy with the success he's having, that is incredibly cheap.
	He was working for a quarter on the dollar of what he was worth.
	And for a guy who...
	Look, this is not a critique, but for a guy who, by virtue of what he's doing, will be unemployable by anyone else for the rest of his life.
	And subject to repeated defamation, false civil claims, criminal investigations, criminal prosecutions, wrongful retaliatory actions, all across the board.
	So, I mean, you look at that, I can tell you, if I was the key donor or board member, I would be saying you should be paid $2.5 million a year.
	He should be paid 10% of whatever the gross is because he's at least, at least worth that given his productivity and the rest.
	I would have more security.
	I would have more private cars.
	I would have more of all of it.
	I mean, this guy was doing things.
	Why?
	Because, one, that's how you make him most productive.
	You want to keep people happy?
	The reality is he's so cause-driven, he didn't care.
	He was looking for enough to make a good living and to be secure, but by no means what he was worth.
	We were at the Miami event where they're like, oh, he wasted $60,000 on the Project Veritas event in Miami.
	Well, first of all, everybody there loved that event.
	Second...
	The whole dance routine was for the donors and for the people there to elevate the experience.
	Some people liked it.
	Some people didn't.
	But most people did.
	And it was unique.
	It made it unique and made it stand out.
	Third, those are called loss leaders.
	You do that all the time.
	And so he knows what he's doing.
	These other people have no clue what they're doing.
	They're clearly incompetent as well as corrupt.
	Well, stupid and short-sighted.
	Yeah, it costs $60,000.
	That probably, over the long run, will generate a million dollars in donations.
	In my guess, 2021, he probably raised $30 million to $40 million.
	2022, they're probably on pace to do the same.
	Probably up to $50 million.
	I mean, this is incredible what he has done.
	Nobody's done it in the history of journalistic nonprofits without corrupt corporate sugar daddies running the show.
	Now, who can sue the board?
	Beneficiaries can sue the board.
	Employees can sue the board.
	Other members can sue the board.
	Donors can sue the board.
	Other people that had expectation of contracts can sue the board.
	This board is going to get sued into oblivion.
	These people don't realize they just burned up their career in order to sabotage O 'Keefe, and it is important that they be made the example of.
	They tried to make the example of James O 'Keefe.
	It's important that this corrupt board, and that's why I was putting out the warnings to Jenna Ellis and the rest.
	You defend this board, and you keep defending this board.
	You can interpret her statement multiple ways.
	I was just sending out a broad signal.
	Anybody out there defending this board, some of us are going to come after you for time and eternity to remind the world that on a critical point, you are on the wrong side of that line.
	And we are not going to forget.
	We're not going to forgive and we're going to hold the line because James O 'Keefe is one of the great heroes of modern American politics and public life, restored credibility and integrity to journalism, exposed power corrupt wherever it was, Republican Party, Democratic Party, corporate people, other people, didn't matter, exposed it all.
	And he's someone that needs to be fought for and stood by.
	And that's why my friend Bobby Kennedy took him hiking just to let the world know where he stood.
	Well, I have a feeling they might have been discussing things as well, but who knows?
	And maybe that was a little warning, you know, shot over the bow of Pfizer and other people.
	But Robert, yeah, you know, people saying, hey, the board better have receipts.
	At this point, the board can even provide receipts that they think are receipts.
	They've now lied to people at least twice, maybe more.
	What James O 'Keefe went through at least a half dozen times.
	They either lied to employees, they lied to other board members, they lied to other donors.
	Because what you're talking about is just the lies they told to the public.
	That doesn't cover all the lies they were telling everybody else.
	These are halfwits, midwits, and nitwits thinking that they can sabotage and steal Project Veritas from James O 'Keefe and run them out of the business.
	And they're the ones who are going to get run out on a rail.
	At the end of this.
	People are going to go watch the video of James O 'Keefe.
	At one point, he mentions that the board says the IRS thinks it's better if you have Zoom meetings as opposed to in-person meetings for expenses.
	Robert- People that don't know what they're talking about.
	It's not just that.
	The IRS would put Project Veritas out of business if they could.
	Of course.
	Hey, your biggest enemy...
	That's why there was a sign he was so clean.
	They had multiple levels of lawyer review, accounting review, independent review, so that there's no chance he did anything wrong.
	None, because they would have already put him out of business if they could.
	I mean, when I was like, some of these allegations are the dumbest, lamest, weakest, bogus allegations I've seen.
	And I've litigated not-profit cases.
	By the way, attorney generals can come after him.
	There's a long litany of people that should put the Project Veritas board on their list to put out of business forever.
	Now, because I'm dense, Robert, I need you to just explain this one last time.
	There may be no causation, but there's definitely correlation between the people who are taking to social media.
	They're not overtly defending the board, but let's wait as if we haven't already waited.
	What is, again, the connection between The pro-DeSantis supporters and going after Project Veritas.
	What is the connection between the interests that might underlie those two actions, which seem to overlap?
	It's the main board member who led this, according to all published reports, is Matthew Timbran, son of a Polish refugee who was trying to hustle and grift in Poland before all this.
	He filed bogus defamation claims, etc.
	He is close.
	To the DeSimps for DeSantis.
	They should form their organization, formally name it that.
	Guys like, I think it's John Cordillo, maybe I'm getting his last name spelled wrong.
	Dave Reboy, a group of others.
	Now, some people, like Jenna Ellis, have been hanging out with some of these folks or affiliating with some of the DeSantis DeSimps.
	And they're making a politically ill-advised decision.
	They need to reconsider.
	Now, before they burn up their political future forever.
	And now just so nobody misunderstands, the suggestion here is not that they're involved with this, but there seems to be an overlap.
	But what would be the political interest of DeSantis supporters?
	Oh, I mean, O 'Keefe is a very independent guy.
	O 'Keefe is considered a Trump supporter by a lot of people in that world.
	And it was a way to seize an organization to build stronger monetary and other ties to their associates.
	In other words, if you could convert Project Veritas into basically an extension of the DeSantis campaign and an opposition to the Trump campaign, then you would be doing some people a big favor.
	There's some big donors affiliated with some of these folks that also have big pharma ties.
	So you'd be making allies there.
	A lot of these people that are the DeSimps types are former lobbyists.
	I mean, people have seen a high-ranking person connected to DeSantis has been a foreign agent before.
	Reeboy's been a foreign agent before.
	Things like that.
	That's the world they come from.
	They come from the world of grifting.
	You often can't figure out what their day-to-day actual paying job is.
	So they have a lot of motivations to try to seize control over what looks like a money machine at Project Veritas.
	And they had to delude them.
	And then even if they killed it, there would be some people that would pay them off on the back end for the courtesy of doing so.
	So there's multiple ways they could monetize for their own personal grift and serve the institutional interest.
	Of some of those folks.
	And so maybe in this case, the DS of the DeSimps for DeSantis have another DS reference buried in there.
	All right.
	Well, Robert, that is an interesting sub-theory.
	Bottom line, the board done screwed up seriously.
	They've lied to the public.
	James O 'Keefe showed the receipts, showed the text messages.
	It's shocking.
	And Project Veritas is done, I think.
	And we'll see where James goes, who he takes with him, until 10x whatever he was...
	Maybe not 10x.
	He'll do exponentially better now, and he'll have learned some lessons.
	And James, if you're watching, listen to the wise words of Barnes and drop him a line.
	Okay.
	Robert, what do we have left on the menu?
	So we have Harry and Megan are very upset at South Park.
	I didn't see the episode.
	I wish I could watch South Park but that's a notch too much for my two younger kids.
	So they made fun of them.
	Did you see it, Robert?
	How vicious was it?
	I saw parts of it.
	Ryan Kennell of RK Outpost covered it in one of his YouTube videos.
	By the way, it's supposed to be a Canadian talk show that they're on.
	And they basically make them look Canadian, even though you can tell by the visual image who they are.
	And basically, they suggest that he is less than bright.
	They suggest that she has an adjective that rhymes with rich that best describes her.
	And not the one that starts with a W. And in addition, their mockery is they're going around screaming at everybody.
	Protect our privacy.
	Protect our privacy in public protest and on TV interviews and while writing books and doing podcasts.
	So just making fun of them.
	People keep invading our privacy.
	And just, you know, all the rest.
	So brilliant satire from South Park as usual.
	Obviously, Meghan doesn't understand American law much, nor does the Prince Harry there.
	Because maybe they're thinking they can sue in the UK or something.
	In the US, parody and satire is completely protected.
	They can't sue.
	It's dead in the water in the States, but I can't even...
	Look, not knowing what they say, I can't even see them having a snowball's chance in summer in Canada.
	I'm trying to think of analogizing it to the Mike Ward case where he made some jokes about a handicapped child celebrity where even there, the mother...
	She succeeded on her claim originally because he suggested that she was using the money raised off her kid, not for the benefit of her kid, but to buy a sports car.
	So the Human Rights Tribunal was sort of acting like a defamation court, which they had no jurisdiction over.
	But even from what you're describing, and I'm reading the chat, there's no defamation here.
	They're not making any statements that could be considered to be statements of fact that would be harmful to the reputation.
	They're just poking fun at.
	I don't know where they can expect to succeed on this.
	But now I have to go watch the episode.
	That's for damn sure.
	Speaking of fun suits, or good or useful suits, the Texas Attorney General is challenging Biden's omnibus bill.
	You're going to have to field that one because I know nothing about it.
	So the challenge is based on proxy voting.
	So Thomas Massey has been complaining about this from day one.
	One of Trump's screw-ups was being critical of Thomas Massey about this.
	But Thomas Massey was a congressman from Covington, Kentucky.
	He has a great new bill called the Food Freedom Bill, which is to restore the right of the farmer to grow what you want and restore the right of the individual on informed consent principles to decide what goes into your body.
	Not the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the Food and Drug Administration.
	And to make that a right as part of food freedom, there'll be some forthcoming public relations efforts on that regard concerning a range of cases, because it's why a lot of Amos Miller's customers can't get certain beef and poultry right now, or turkey or chicken, is because the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not allowing them to, under, in my view, a misapplication and misunderstanding of federal law.
	And, you know, they keep saying that they want Amos to be able to provide food and then keep throwing hurdles in the process to prevent it from occurring.
	So we'll see if the, I think the government lawyer involved in the case is very sincere and straightforward.
	But I think the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not being sincere and straightforward in the case.
	Shows the importance of that.
	But he also raised from the very beginning that if you read the Constitution, it says the only time the House or Senate can, quote, do business.
	is when a majority is present.
	If you read the other constitutional provisions, it's clear present means physically present.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has previously said it means physically present.
	What Nancy Pelosi did during the middle of the pandemic was use the pandemic as the pretext to waive physical presence, even though physical presence has always been required through the history of the Congress up until that point.
	And Benjamin Franklin and others tried to Get proxy voting as an alternative back at the time of our founding, and we rejected it.
	We said, no, you got to physically be there.
	No proxy voting.
	You get voted on to be there.
	That's what you're paid for.
	That's what you're hired for.
	That's what you're elected for.
	And the problem is, now there's more than just this bill that this fits this to, so that's where we'll run into some political complication, but the Biden omnibus bill was passed without a majority being present.
	It was passed by most of the voters voting by proxy.
	And that's a serious problem.
	So the Texas Attorney General, to his credit, the Bush regime, by the way, tried to take him out.
	Little Jorge Bush ran against him and got crushed, by the way, deservedly so.
	One of the great vestigial effects of Trump is that all the Bushes and Cheneys have been purged from public office as of today.
	But what he said is, look, this violates the quorum requirement of the Constitution.
	An historical precedent, the founding documents, the plain language of the text, all say it requires physically present.
	They weren't physically present.
	They couldn't do business.
	Consequently, the omnibus bill was passed in violation of the Constitution.
	So it sought a declaration to enforce the constitutional quorum requirement.
	Be a very interesting case to watch.
	The courts may want to run behind political question and abstain, say this is really up to Congress to define what is and isn't physically present, but that's a problem.
	And in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Well, I mean, until such time as they get people in.
	I mean, the problem is they couldn't get it through this house.
	That's why it's consequential now.
	He can't restore it through this house.
	Oh, I see.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	Well, bend the rules.
	Just play by the rules the first time.
	You can avoid all sorts of problems.
	Okay, that's very interesting.
	Robert, let me see something.
	Someone reading a super chat from Vile Pride 14. Vila Pride says, is the truth about the Vegas shooting going to finally come out?
	Saudi helicopters, paddock as the patsy.
	To be discussed at our meet and greet in Vegas?
	Yes, absolutely.
	One of the local tippers asked about why are some of the Republicans in the Senate getting votes to say the accord at the World Health Organization is a treaty to assure the rules you claim apply.
	The way that works is you can pass a treaty, but it's not enforceable through implementing legislation.
	Unless it goes all the way back to the whole legislative process.
	This has been previously adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court in that chemical weapons case where they try to apply it in a ridiculous circumstance.
	In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court took that case twice, by the way.
	They fixed one thing and then they fixed the second thing.
	Somebody asked whether we can comment on Gonzalez versus Google and Legal Eagle's take on it.
	Legal Eagle is an idiot.
	And so, you know, my mom always said don't pick on the mental midgets of the world.
	So I try to avoid it.
	Dwarf tossing is still illegal in most states.
	But that is the case we talked about, the Section 230 big tech case.
	We'll go into more detail on it next week once we get the transcript of the oral arguments today.
	But you can go back and look.
	Gonzalez versus Google was the case we went into great detail on.
	Was that the terrorist?
	One is the ISIS case.
	Both of them were heard today, but basically when the scope of Section 230, and the oral argument was today on the case, but I haven't seen the oral argument, so I don't have an update on it.
	But legally, he was an idiot.
	He was like, the end of the internet!
	The end of the internet!
	That's not what they're meaning by restricting the scope and scale of Section 230.
	They want to return it to its original principles in plain language, which was that it should only apply in the context of libel.
	It should not apply outside.
	If you're being sued because of somebody else's libelous statement on your platform, then you're immune.
	That's it.
	It shouldn't apply beyond that, and it's been misapplied since then, in my view, in these other contexts where they've deliberately...
	That was where YouTube was promoting ISIS to its desired target in ways ISIS could never imagine.
	I'm sorry, that is not Section 230 immunity.
	Never should have been.
	Robert, we're 650 people watching on the Locals livestream.
	This connecting through the RMTP is magnificent, and it's going to resolve a ton of problems for people who are blocked from Rumble in France and elsewhere.
	Let me see here.
	Do we have any more?
	I hear a dog that's whining, and I hear some children that are making noise.
	Yeah, I know we're...
	On the clock.
	Some of the bigger cases we'll cover next week.
	Pepsi, where's my jet?
	Fun case.
	We'll talk about that next week.
	The Kahn Law case.
	Lawyer known as, last name was unfortunately Kahn.
	The Kentucky case they made a documentary on.
	We'll break that down in more detail.
	There's some key facts, key parts, key context they missed in that case.
	And the, oh.
	But one case we can and probably should talk about this week, there's some privacy cases and some biometrics cases.
	We'll talk about that next week.
	Next Sunday.
	We're going to be back to Sunday next Sunday.
	Everybody was Super Bowl travel and there was another thing in there.
	We're back to Sunday night stream this Sunday.
	Okay.
	Yeah, and there's a Ninth Circuit forced arbitration case.
	Some of those we'll cover next week as well as when you can sue for wrongful prosecution.
	But the one case we can cover this week, Two briefly.
	One is the case of Reuben King.
	So Reuben King is a little Amish guy, old Amish guy, from Amish country up in Pennsylvania that the government went and seized.
	He's a hobbyist, a gun collector, sells guns on the side, but he's a dairy farmer.
	That's what his business is.
	He's a dairy farmer.
	Got a big old farm.
	To prove it and show it.
	And so occasionally sells guns, occasionally buys guns, goes to gun shows, but he fits your classic definition of a hobbyist.
	It is not his regular business.
	But they raided him, seized all of his guns, went to confiscate all of them, steal all of them from him, and they're trying to put him in federal prison.
	Why?
	Because they claim he had to have a federal firearms license.
	Now, the problem is this.
	The federal firearms license law specifically exempts hobbyists and private collectors.
	It says you have to be in the regular course of business of doing it.
	And as even experts would opine, that that is considered a gray area, as you can see legal commentary talking about.
	It's meant to apply to somebody who's running a gun shop.
	It's not meant to apply to...
	An Amish guy who loves guns, loves to collect them, and sells them on the side so he can collect some more different guns.
	Well, to play devil's advocate, Robert, when does the side hustle become a substantial hustle?
	Their language is regular course of business.
	And so any vagueness in the law has to be interpreted in favor of the defendant.
	I can tell you from the historical history of it, they were concerned with private collectors and hobbyists being included.
	They didn't want them included.
	They only wanted people involved.
	They basically wanted your gun store involved.
	That's who they wanted.
	And it's not like he was going to gun shows and bringing all his guns and selling them like that.
	He was not in the regular course of business.
	Somebody would hear about him, say, hey, I would like to buy this one.
	He goes, okay, that would allow money to go out and buy another one to replace it.
	Now I can get this one.
	That's who he was.
	And so here's the other thing.
	To get a federal firearms license, you have to produce photographic identification.
	That's against the Amish belief system.
	So they knew he couldn't get a federal firearms license.
	So what they're trying to do is prohibit the Amish from being able to store and sell guns.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	They're also trying to scare and terrorize people into being afraid of the Amish, which is utterly absurd.
	I mean, the Amish don't join wars for a reason, don't fight back, aren't anything else.
	They only have guns for either collection, mostly, or...
	Deal with animals.
	You know, foxes, whatever.
	So that kind of thing.
	They don't believe in using guns against a person at all.
	Well portrayed in the movie The Witness about this.
	People can watch.
	Great movie from the early 90s.
	Harrison Ford.
	It gave me nightmares for the longest time.
	Oh, really fascinating.
	By corn silos and all that, maybe?
	It was the murder scene in the bathroom.
	Yeah, that was good.
	Yeah, the little kid that's in there captures the little kid perfectly.
	So that is a disturbing case that has not got as much attention as normal.
	Because he's Amish, he doesn't seek attention to the court of public opinion.
	Because he's Amish, he hasn't filed civil rights suits challenging what took place.
	And I think the government's taking advantage of that in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
	And I think it's a problematic case to try to apply federal firearms license in this way.
	Definitely to the Amish who they knew couldn't get...
	There should be an exception with the federal firearms law if they're going to try to expand this.
	What they're really trying to do is also use the Amish as a way...
	To create new law to go after other people.
	They're trying to prohibit and limit people from being able to buy, keep, and exchange guns.
	That's what's really going on.
	When you're going at some little Amish guy who you know is a daily dairy farmer, who you know isn't part of this system, they came by his house a year or four or so before and said, well, maybe you need one.
	And he's like, well, when do I need a firearms license?
	And they said, well, if that's your regular business.
	He's like...
	Well, it's not my regular business.
	So he understood he didn't have to have one.
	So they know this is a bogus prosecution.
	They're just getting away with it because he's Amish.
	Any idea as to what the dollar value of this side hustle was?
	Well, he had a couple.
	Oh, not much because he kept storing it in guns, right?
	So he had several hundred guns.
	The only way you get those guns is you sell one, so you buy another one.
	You sell one.
	This is what collectors and hobbyists do, right?
	I mean, if you're in the gun business, you open up a gun store or you have a professional traveling operation where you bring your guns to the gun show and you have 100 guns there and you're selling them and then you go out and buying other ones and selling them.
	That isn't what he was doing and they know it wasn't.
	But they sent undercover people there to say, hey, do you have a gun?
	Oh, yeah.
	And they were secretly recording them and all the rest, knowing that violates, by the way, Amish beliefs to do so.
	But that's who these people are.
	I mean, it shows you how useless.
	Another agency we should just get rid of is the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm Agency.
	It's another useless agency that's more counterproductive than productive.
	A rumble rant from Sage of Four Winds says, wasn't collectors the reason we have a Curio and Relics FFL license?
	I don't know what that means, Robert.
	Do you know what that means?
	It depends on certain circumstances as to when you need it under those circumstances.
	The only other brief matters, three brief matters, DeSantis and Disney.
	DeSantis mostly walked back.
	He said he didn't take away the special tax credit.
	He didn't.
	He put in a new board, but he mostly walked that back.
	Second, the Dominion case.
	A lot of fake news about the Dominion case.
	Oh, actually, Kate, now the only reports coming out in mainstream news are that, you know, the discoveries have disclosed that Tucker Carlson was calling Sidney Powell all sorts of names, didn't believe her.
	They were upset about anybody fact-checking Trump.
	So they're trying to make Fox News look like the villains in all of this, that they were...
	Promoting, repeating information that they knew was whacked out or totally untenable behind closed doors as relates to Sidney Powell and Giuliani.
	Anything damning against Dominion, Robert?
	So they tried to portray Tucker Carlson as being anti-Trump.
	That's false.
	What Tucker Carlson was explaining was, right from the get-go, was he considers Trump a destroyer, and he likes that about Trump.
	Trump comes in and breaks the things that need breaking.
	And his point was that we need to be careful in how we manage this because Trump's going to go to the wall.
	So we've got to make sure that we don't get in the way of Trump.
	And become the next thing broken.
	But at the same time, not necessarily right him if he goes down the wrong path.
	Figure out the right way to manage this while being honest and fair to our audience.
	It shows Tucker understands his audience better than anybody at Fox does.
	And that was misportrayed as Tucker Carlson's really anti-Trump.
	I mean, they were just trying to lie and defame Tucker.
	Now, it also shows Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham up to...
	It shows Rupert Murdoch is a lot more involved than Fox has pretended.
	Fox pretends he doesn't monitor and micromanage things.
	He clearly does.
	That's revealing.
	But the other side that the media decided not to cover was all of the discovery that showed Dominion knew they had systemic problems, that their machines were crap.
	That any kid with a laptop could hack them.
	That they have problem after problem after problem.
	That the media was trying to suppress while that trial apparently is teed up for April in New York.
	Now it'll be federal court, so once again we won't get to see it filmed.
	But mostly the headlines I took away is they're lying about what Tucker said.
	Tucker was actually smart and on top of it.
	And he was right about Sidney.
	He's like, well, Sidney's on the wrong page and she's not listening and she's not paying attention.
	That was his criticism.
	And he was public at the time about his criticism of Sidney Powell.
	No secret there.
	No, and as you were, but Robert, what explains how Sidney Powell and Giuliani just went off the deep end as relates to what they bought into vis-a-vis Dominion?
	Two things.
	Every great crime needs a great patsy.
	Dominion was a perfect patsy from day one.
	That was clear when I was on the ground in Georgia.
	They wanted us to pursue Dominion and not pursue signature checks, just like the Arizona courts never allowed.
	Once again, how does this happen?
	Once again, I mean, Garrett Archer and some other people that were apologists for what had taken place in Arizona, you know.
	Portray themselves as independent election observers.
	And my point to them is, why is it we can't get a signature match check in any of these election challenges?
	Why is it that's one thing courts go to great lengths so we never get a real signature check?
	What are they so scared of?
	What are they so afraid of?
	They didn't have a problem checking signatures when Obama wanted to kick off opponents and get himself elected to the State Senate in Illinois.
	They didn't have a problem checking signatures with Gavin Newsom's recall in California.
	And the DA's recall that allowed him not to get recall in L.A. So it's very selective when they want to do those signature checks.
	Not a coincidence they were scared to do one in Carrie Lake's case.
	That's the ultimate.
	Anybody out there that's getting in a debate with somebody who's like, oh, Carrie Lake is wrong, da-da-da, just ask them that question.
	Say, Why wouldn't the government or the courts allow a signature match check?
	If there's nothing to hide, why wouldn't they do that?
	Not just that.
	If they know that people are losing faith in the system, do it to reinstill faith.
	Absolutely.
	Unless those signatures come back looking bad.
	But so your bottom line takeaway, Sidney Powell and Giuliani just got duped.
	They took the bait and that's it.
	And they had been planting stuff with Powell forever, for years.
	People tried to infiltrate the Flynn camp.
	Connected to the QAnon folks who were planning disinformation.
	I know because they tried to do it to me.
	And it was clear that this was an operation, an intel operation.
	And it was, I mean, it was a Cuban, by the way.
	I was like, if some Cuban intel officer comes and tells you something, just ignore it right away.
	I mean, the disproportionate use of those folks are old deep state boys.
	And they told her, you, Sydney, only you understand.
	Only you have the understanding.
	I only trust you with this super secret information.
	It was a smart pitch.
	Robert, do we have a sidebar tomorrow?
	Yes, that Star Wars girl is tomorrow.
	And, you know, maybe we can discuss some of the insanity with Marvel, insanity with Disney, insanity with the latest Ant-Man.
	She's not political at all.
	She's just cultural.
	You know, as a fun, cultural commentator.
	Our friend Nerdrotic crossed 700,000 subscriptions.
	Congratulations to him.
	And maybe we'll even discuss what she thinks about our one crazy case of the week.
	Spain is decriminalizing bestiality.
	So at least those Spanish farmers don't have to say, hey, I was just trying to push that sheep over the fence.
	Robert, I was going to make a joke that I don't know if it's for the giving or the taking.
	If I'm going to ask...
	If you don't harm the animal...
	No, I'm going to ask the Cenk Uyghur question.
	Well, okay, never mind.
	Well, that's right.
	Cenk is probably going to take a vacation to Spain.
	Alright, so tomorrow night, that's Star Wars Girl, 7 o 'clock.
	And that's it, I guess, Robert.
	Are you having any appearances?
	I'm going to do an after party live on Locals here in a few minutes.
	I was on Charlie Kirk earlier with Warner Mendenhall.
	We'll do another Bourbon After Party after the show tomorrow with That Star Wars Girl, who's a great, great fan and cultural commentator.
	Just cultural issues, no politics, because she doesn't do politics.
	But it'll be fun.
	But as Andrew Beitbart said a long time ago, politics is often downstream from culture.
	Everybody, thank you all for being here.
	We'll see you tomorrow.
	If not earlier, Robert Sickram will say our proper goodbyes.
	All of the streams can be found on podcast if you look up Viva Barnes Law for the People.
	What else?
	Viva Clips for some clips.
	And that's it.

▲