Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 26, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:36:31

Ep. 150: Ohio Left to Burn; Canada Left to Crumble; Rise of Rumble AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, sir, I think Ukrainians can tell you a little bit about freedom and liberty, so why don't you settle down?
	This is a night for them, not for you.
	This is a night for Ukrainians, not for you.
	If you want to stand and cheer with Ukraine, do that.
	You want to wave that Ukrainian flag, please do.
	But let people celebrate that Ukraine is still standing and Canada stands with it.
	Is this not the most psychotic thing one can imagine?
	I'm going to just periodically pause on Justin Trudeau's face.
	He's wearing...
	I appreciate it's Canada and it seems to be cold where he is, except he's wearing a very mild jacket.
	He's wearing black leather gloves like...
	What's the guy's name?
	Bateman from American Psycho?
	He's wearing black leather gloves, which is the stuff you expect Villains out of Marvel movies to be wearing.
	Look at that face.
	First of all, a lot of people are...
	This is not a question of fat shaming.
	And there's no but.
	People are pointing out his face looks bloated.
	Some people are saying it's a body double.
	It's not the real Justin Trudeau.
	They couldn't find the real Trudeau.
	I understand people who might think those things and say those things.
	I don't necessarily share that belief here.
	One thing is clear.
	He looks unwell in all respects.
	This is the Prime Minister of Canada.
	Berating a Canadian citizen that he's supposed to be representing while donning a Ukrainian scarf in front of a Ukrainian flag after having shipped.
	Maxime Bernier says it's up to $5 billion Canadian, but best I could check is it's over $1 billion Canadian.
	This is not the Prime Minister of Canada anymore.
	This is a Prime Minister of Ukraine.
	This is a night for Ukrainians.
	Look at that.
	Man.
	Oh boy, I was about to say something.
	Look at that.
	This is a night for Ukrainians, not for you.
	This is the same guy who last week apologized for, you know, how he described the unvaccinated.
	Well, he's going to be apologizing for this in a little bit, me thinks.
	Not for you.
	Not for you.
	If you want to stand and cheer with Ukraine, do that.
	You want to wave that Ukrainian flag, please do.
	But let people celebrate that Ukraine is...
	Look, it's an unhinged lunatic.
	And I know that I often say if you want to judge a man's character, judge them by the compliments they use in conversation.
	When I'm talking about Justin Trudeau, the only compliments are going to be, my goodness, he has been very successful for a narcissistic psychopath.
	Look at that demonic, unhinged lunatic.
	Canada stands with it!
	Oh, and by the way, just let me refresh this because I posted this highlight yesterday.
	1.3 million views.
	I don't know how the views work exactly.
	What is that now?
	Over 9,000.
	Do retweets, when it gives you the stats on the bottom and it says 8,300 retweets, 761 quote tweets.
	Is the 761 quote tweets included in the retweet?
	I don't think it is.
	9,000 retweets.
	760 quote tweets.
	The man is unhinged.
	The man is unhinged at the helm of what he has created of a sinking ship of Canada.
	By the way, there's our...
	I haven't figured out how to hang it up yet.
	I know you can see a bunch of greasy fingerprints on it.
	The man is at the helm of the sinking ship of Canada that he has pointed the cannons...
	We have suicide rates, opioid overdoses, through the roof, mental health crisis.
	The East Coast couldn't get the funds they need to rebuild without having to resort to fundraising.
	Our Prime Minister is funding a foreign conflict, which is nothing more than a proxy war against Russia.
	And a lot of you have to, Viva's gone full Putin again.
	Putin ship.
	I am not pro-Putin by any means.
	What I am is realistic that this conflict did not start a year ago to the day yesterday.
	This conflict did not start five years ago.
	This is a conflict.
	Between one corrupt government and another corrupt government.
	Between one authoritarian government and another authoritarian government.
	And who is caught in the crossfire and the crosshairs?
	Innocent civilians.
	Not so much innocent civilians on both sides.
	Innocent civilians in the eastern region of Ukraine and innocent Ukrainians.
	I'm not a Putin shill.
	I'm not moving to Russia anytime soon.
	And I've said plenty of things.
	Critical of Putin is an understatement.
	I'm not moving to Russia, nor am I moving to Ukraine.
	And anybody who thinks that it's pro-Putin to say that we are funding a proxy war of one corrupt government against another corrupt and totalitarian government, well, you only woke up last year to this conflict and you didn't learn one bloody lesson from the entire three years of COVID hysteria.
	The same politicians, the same media, and the same experts.
	Who told you to lock yourself down, shut your business down, masks are going to prevent everything, social distance, social isolations, get the jibby jab.
	The same ones who told you that the virus did not originate in China.
	And if you say it did, you're a racist.
	Just today, what was it?
	The Department of Energy is confirming now that it's perfectly plausible.
	It's like low confidence information probably leaked from a lab in China.
	The same experts, the same politicians, and the same media who have spent the last three years lying to you, gaslighting you, getting to change your avatars to rainbows, to syringes.
	My goodness, if you have changed your avatar to the Ukrainian flag and are walking around saying it's good versus evil, you didn't know a damn thing about this conflict more than a year ago.
	And neither did I, by the way.
	Neither did I. I didn't take sides in the beginning.
	I took to the internet.
	And I took to people who know more than me so that I can understand what's going on.
	Because I know damn well at this point in time, when it's an orgy, when it's the holy trifecta of whipping you up into a thoughtless zombie-like frenzy, that's when you take a minute to step back and say, what the heck is going on?
	What's wrong with Putin?
	I can tell you what's wrong with Putin.
	I mean, he does lock up journalists.
	He does go after ideological adversaries.
	I'm not defending, there's not a politician on earth that I will defend, with the exception of Maxime Bernier.
	I ran for the People's Party of Canada, so call me whatever name you want.
	Maxime Bernier is an honest politician.
	And as much as that's not an oxymoron, who has been consistent, who takes the unpopular views despite them being unpopular, who does not change those unpopular views because they're unpopular, and who doesn't jump on the bandwagon when something becomes popular, only to jump off that bandwagon when it's no longer popular.
	Oh, who might I be thinking about right now?
	People, don't worry.
	You need to wash that vomitus out of the back of your throat.
	Oh, let's go to...
	Let's go to the other one.
	Oh, no.
	Sorry, sorry, sorry.
	Hold on one second.
	That's not the right.
	Come on.
	Jamie, take that one down.
	Okay, hold on.
	Stop screen.
	Who's the other politician?
	Turncoat.
	Turncoat.
	Traitor.
	Traitor to Canada.
	Traitor to Canadian interests.
	And rides the wave of whatever's popular.
	Who am I thinking about?
	Hold on, chat.
	Oh, I already brought it up.
	Damn it.
	Who am I thinking about?
	Pierre Poiliev.
	Let me just take this out.
	And what do I mean by Pierre?
	Some of you are going to say I'm being unfair to Pierre.
	You're being unfair to Pierre.
	Pierre Poiliev supported the convoy when it was popular to support the convoy.
	He got on the convoy bandwagon when it looked like they were making political headway.
	And he stood on that bandwagon during the commission.
	He was a proponent of the convoy.
	He supported the Canadians who didn't have a voice, who were being tyrannized and abused by Justin Trudeau's unconstitutional, unscientific mandates.
	Then the commissioner report came out and Pierre Poilier decides he's got to backtrack a little bit.
	He wasn't supporting the convoy because it gave a voice to the voiceless in the face of Justin Trudeau's abuse.
	He supported the convoy because the protesters were apparently protesting just inflation.
	A little backtracking, opportunistic, weasel of a politician.
	He might even be worse than Justin Trudeau because at least Justin Trudeau, you know, is a snake.
	Pierre Poiliev seems to be the snake who's telling you that he's a...
	He's a snake telling you to take a bite of the apple.
	Let's just hear what Pierre has to say.
	Pierre Poiliev.
	The predecessor of Aaron O'Toole.
	Aaron O'Toole, the guy who wasn't against vaccine mandates until it became an issue, but then, you know, some vaccine mandates.
	Wasn't against lockdowns until it became somewhat...
	Then he was sort of like, let's have softer lockdowns.
	The man who lost the federal election to Justin Trudeau.
	Pierre came out.
	Pierre's a man of the people.
	He's coming hard at Justin Trudeau with all of the hard questions.
	And now we're really seeing who Pierre Poilievre is for two reasons, and I may have given you the heads up on the other one.
	Let's see what Pierre has to say.
	I edited out about 20 or 30 seconds in between just to make it fit into a Twitter video, but here, let's hear it.
	A year ago today, a vicious dictator launched an unjustified, illegal and unprovoked attack on an innocent people and a sovereign country.
	He thought that it would be over in days.
	He thought the people would back down and allow for his domination.
	But what he underestimated was the defiance, the determination and the courage of the Ukrainian people, not just in Ukraine, but all around the world.
	Courage and determination that I see right before me here today.
	Woo!
	What he underestimated is well.
	It was the determination of democracies to stand with the Ukrainian people.
	Democracies like Canada, who owe much of their prosperity, much of what we have, to the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian immigrants who have built our land from the prairies to Etobicoke to every town, village, and hamlet across this country.
	You know, there is a way to divide a population through complements.
	Can you imagine every other ethnic minority in Canada having to look at Pierre Poilier and say Canada owes much of their prosperity to Ukrainian immigrants in particular?
	There are Russian immigrants in Canada who have done a great many things for the Canadian country.
	There are Greek immigrants.
	There are German immigrants.
	There are Jewish immigrants, Asian immigrants.
	Oh, no, no.
	But right now, Pierre Poilier...
	Divide?
	This is just as divisive as some of the crap Trudeau has said.
	It's just divisive through another means.
	Import a foreign conflict.
	Say things which you think are unifying, which are isolating, demeaning.
	The Chinese Canadians who built the railway across the country might like to have a word with you.
	Pierre.
	Oh, okay.
	This heritage of Canadians and Ukrainians is intertwined, and our values are intertwined with it.
	We have a necessity to stand with all the peoples who are oppressed around the world, who face invasion of their sovereign lands, and who face dictatorships and terror.
	Who face invasion of their sovereign lands.
	The Canadian indigenous population would like to have a word with you, Pierre.
	Let's see what other foreign conflicts you're going to talk about, Pierre.
	Do you only get involved when it's white Europeans, Pierre?
	As a joke the other day, I put on a list of all the invasions that have occurred in the last decade.
	Pierre was oddly silent.
	A lot of the Western world was oddly silent on all of those.
	It's almost like they only care about invasions or carry out invasions when there's a political financial incentive to do so.
	But hold on.
	That is why Conservatives and His Majesty's loyal opposition will continue to support assistance in the form of arms, humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, and countless other forms of generosity that the Canadian people have shown.
	Well, he looks confident.
	to stand with our friends in Ukraine for as long as it takes so that freedom, democracy, and sovereignty prevails.
	You will always have a friend in Canada as we lock arms with you and push towards an eventual victory that is definitely going to happen sooner or later, and Canadians will be with you all alone.
	Victory.
	We are pushing for victory.
	We're not pushing for peace.
	We're not pushing for a ceasefire.
	We're not pushing for...
	I don't know.
	I know some of you don't think you can compromise with Hitler himself.
	We're not pushing for any of that.
	We're pushing for victory.
	Against a nuclear superpower?
	No.
	What could possibly go wrong?
	All right, I'm going to talk more about that on Tuesday.
	I see Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Tomorrow, by the way, I'm interviewing in person Phil Damaris, Walrus Whisperer, who happens to be in the area.
	So we're going to do another interview, a follow-up in the locals studio.
	Let me just say the standard disclaimers because I see some super chats, which I've missed.
	Okay, here's one.
	Robert, I'll be there in two seconds.
	Dostalov Akmankari says, keep fighting, build a get-home bag with the flashlights because...
	All right.
	I don't want...
	Okay.
	Dostalov, thank you, but I don't want to...
	I'm not making anybody panic.
	I'm just...
	I just have to get, you know, things in perspective.
	Rumble Rants, Super Chats.
	Okay.
	Congrats on your 150th episode.
	When are you doing a legal and provoked meetup in Canada, Quebec?
	We'll see about that, D2KC, but we're doing our first meetup in Vegas in about two weeks.
	Okay, I'll get to some of the Rumble rants in a bit, the chats and the Rumble rants.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I know a lot of people say they don't get it on Rumble when we go live exclusively on Rumble.
	People who don't get Rumble in their country have a problem.
	We are also simultaneously streaming.
	On Locals itself, it's not limited to supporters.
	All members can watch it.
	They have an RTPM thingy thing, so we can do that there.
	So it's there right now.
	The link is in there.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com because we're going to end this in 14 minutes on YouTube and go exclusive to Rumble and Locals.
	Rumble Rants.
	YouTube takes 30% of those.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	They have Rumble Rants, the equivalent.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	Barnes is looking dapper and ready to go.
	I forgot some stuff.
	Everybody, the link for Rumble is there, so when we go there, get there.
	I'll try my best to get to all the Rumble rants.
	If I don't, and you're going to be miffed, don't give one, but I'm going to screen grab the ones I can't get to, do them on an exclusive local stream, read, and Phil Demers tomorrow, and I'm going to talk more about Pierre Poiliev and Maxime Bernier.
	Not Maxime Bernier, Justin Trude on Tuesday.
	Okay, Robert, three, two, one.
	Booyah, sir.
	Where are you?
	Austin, Texas.
	Can you hear me okay?
	We can hear you.
	I think there's a little reaver, but I think it's good enough.
	May I ask why you're in Austin, Texas, Robert?
	Some depositions in a case.
	Okay, cool.
	What was I going to say?
	The meet and greet, Robert.
	We can say this publicly now.
	There's going to be a portion of that meet and greet.
	We were only able to sell 50 seats or offer 50 seats.
	Make sure it goes off smoothly.
	We're going to offer a recording of a portion of that meet and greet, which will be available to all Year subscribers on Locals for free.
	And if anyone wants to buy it, we're going to offer it for sale on Locals, correct?
	Yeah, yeah.
	At each one of these meetups, we'll be recording an hour or so of the meetup.
	That will be an exclusive hush-hush-style conversation about a topic relevant to the community we're holding it in.
	And that will be made available free to people who are annual subscribers at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And also for anybody, for like $10 a pop for people who are not annual subscribers.
	So it's a way to make it easier.
	It's easier to fund those meetups to make them still remain affordable and accessible while having a manageable crowd present.
	So that's the goal.
	Yeah, because people don't appreciate it.
	We're going to do a few locals meetups and see how they go, but you don't want to have a debacle.
	I forgot, who was it that had the massive debacle of a...
	It was Tamaricon?
	Tamcon?
	There was a whole convention that went totally south.
	We're going to see how they run.
	And everybody can't get tickets.
	These 50 tickets sold out in two minutes, Robert.
	So we'll make something available to those who can't get there and it'll be a great...
	And the goal is to do them all across the country.
	And for this one, we have special guests.
	There'll be a Rat Pack style with Eric Hundley and Mark Grobert.
	They may be able to go on the road upon occasion and be part of the traveling Rat Pack.
	So that could be fun if that works out.
	But yeah, the goal is to make it accessible, affordable, available tonight.
	There's some people in Vegas who'll be getting together with Nick Ricada, who's doing a live show, kind of a meetup as well.
	So shout out to Nick and all those folks.
	I met up with him and his wife.
	But I didn't get the special invites that Viva gets me.
	He gets to go with the high rollers, with the big boys.
	Robert, so...
	It was the Rumble was doing the ribbon cutting at their office in Sarasota.
	So, I mean, I think it was logical just because I'm like a four and a half hour drive away.
	I traversed the Wang, the peninsula, like straight across Alligator Alley, got there.
	Donald Trump Jr. was there with Kimberly Guilfoyle, two of their new content creators.
	Russell Brand was there.
	Matt Kors was there, who was...
	Rumble's biggest financial channel, who was also in Eat the Rich, the documentary on the GameStop AMC thing.
	And there were a bunch of...
	It was fantastic.
	And I spent three days with the Rumble team because they had a whole office sort of getaway...
	What do they call them?
	Conferences, meetings.
	And I met up with the locals team, in particular with the rest of the Rumble team, to discuss locals.
	It was phenomenal.
	It was the best time I've had on vacation.
	Without my family in 15 years.
	So, ordinarily, I don't like traveling without the family just because it's lonely.
	This was phenomenal.
	I think it'll be...
	We'll have fun in Vegas, too.
	But it was just amazing and got to meet some great people.
	Robert, what do we have on the evening for tonight?
	So, do cartels own and run the state of Arizona, according to some explosive testimony this week?
	Madison Square Garden faces a vaccine mandate lawsuit.
	I might know about it because I'm the one who brought it.
	The Brooke Jackson, the Pfizer whistleblower, that goes to oral argument in Beaumont, Texas, on Wednesday, live.
	There's still room in the courtroom, so if people want to go watch the oral argument, they can in person.
	I think that's the only way to actually watch it.
	It's not televised or broadcast by any other means I'm aware of.
	But the federal court, I think at 2 p.m. in Beaumont, Texas, is holding arguments about Pfizer's motion to dismiss the various claims.
	So we'll be discussing that a little bit here.
	The Attorney General of Missouri has brought a quororonto petition to remove the St. Louis DA.
	Catholic Bookstore sues Jacksonville.
	Big First Amendment wins in both Texas and Washington.
	Sidney Powell.
	Big win.
	Beating back the Texas State Bar.
	The Biden Attorney General, Mr. Merrick Garland, wants to apparently incorporate race into sentencing.
	We'll see if some of the headlines might be a bit misleading on that.
	Bunch of cases from the Supreme Court.
	Three big cases they took and issued opinions on.
	One, a death penalty case.
	One, a bankruptcy case that we'd actually discussed previously.
	And another one concerning the Fourth Amendment in the context of the mentally ill at hospitals.
	And then two big ones they chose not to get involved in, including the great parody case.
	That was a great opportunity for them to get involved.
	And the major surveillance case that they decided to run and hide from, as is the court's tendency.
	We have the Murdoch murder trial that will go to closing arguments this week.
	You might be covering some of that live.
	If I get the chance, that's pretty remote.
	I get the chance, but I'll jump in on that, too.
	We have medical spying by insurers.
	What happens when they lie about you?
	We have the historic case of the week where we'll try to get to this week is, again, Pepsi.
	Where's my jet?
	We have biometric privacy issues involving White Castle employees.
	We have a Marilyn Monroe statue.
	And whether it can block a road or not.
	For two years.
	It was a temporary thing.
	Oh, yeah, temporary, as long as it's not permanent.
	We got Steve Bannon being sued by his lawyers in New York, wanting about a half a million bucks.
	We got the Caesars Sportsbook being sued for whether they've been lying to people about their so-called risk-free or free bets.
	We have Biden administration under the EPA trying to seize control over all the waterways or claim authority over it.
	And we got Kia and Hyundai apparently make your cars in such a way that they're easy for thieves to steal, so easy that they're recommended videos on TikTok about it.
	So we got a lot of fun cases this week.
	And based on what you just described, I think I only did half of my homework, Robert, but let's start with the...
	Do we start with the biggest one, the Katie Hobbs, now so I can...
	Just so I can prove to everybody, we don't go to Rumble to talk about things that we can't talk about here.
	We're going to Rumble...
	Because Rumble's a good platform.
	But Robert, okay, look.
	So, I spent a lot of time today trying to understand this.
	There's a viral tweet, which is a three and a half minute video of a woman named Jacqueline Brager who testified before the, what was it?
	Is it the Arizona congressional hearing type thing?
	Yeah, the Arizona State Senate.
	So, this woman is testifying and talking about alleged Cartel money laundering that Katie Hobbs is allegedly involved in.
	I'm not saying allegedly to be glib.
	It's allegedly.
	And I've watched enough to...
	When I'm listening to this and I watch an hour interview of the lawyer on another channel, my Dominion German servers flag is going off, but that might just be my reflex.
	The allegation is that it has nothing to do or indirectly related to the Katie Hobbs...
	Carrie Lake, Arizona challenge.
	But in the context of those hearings, Jacqueline Brager brings up the fact that over the course of a decade, give or take in the 2000s, Katie Hobbs has engaged in purported cartel laundering because there were nine deeds of trust that were entered into as relates to immovable properties over the course of a decade, which between Hobbs, her husband, and other parties.
	Which is statistically suspicious.
	It means that they bought and flipped nine properties or were involved in some investment of real estate properties.
	And they have these nine deed of trust documents, the signatures on which are suspicious.
	It looks like they're flipping properties or refinancing properties very frequently.
	There's experts who say that the signatures are falsified or not consistent from one document to the other.
	Launder cash through fraudulent deeds of trust by financing sale of real estate.
	Thus far, it's all allegations, but where it gets a little suspicious is that the lawyer who's done all the research is making these allegations in a book that they're about to sell.
	They allegedly have reached out to the Justice Department or the FBI or authorities and have given their book as the evidence.
	Robert, did you get to watch any of it or look into any of it at all?
	Not very much.
	What I can say that there may be credibility to is the idea that the cartels use bogus mortgage finance companies to launder drug proceeds.
	There's probably truth to that.
	That they can bribe politicians and law enforcement and other people in this and other ways.
	I'm sure that happens.
	I don't have a lot of doubt about that.
	And that a lot of Arizona officials may be tied to various corrupt operations of various kinds over the past decade, particularly those connected to certain political families there.
	That goes all the way back to the Keating Five.
	So, like, such as John McCain, etc.
	And a lot of the people that came up in the Arizona political structure were connected to John McCain.
	So a lot of them probably could easily make cameos in a Breaking Bad episode.
	That being said, a shout-out to The Last Refuge over at the conservative treehouse.
	He spotted right away an issue with the allegations.
	Namely, these allegations have been raised before.
	And the names that they're identifying is the lawyer's ex-wife and mother-in-law.
	And so I'm saying it's bogus.
	I don't think there's much credibility to it at all.
	I think it's a guy still mad at his ex-wife, still mad at the mother-in-law, trying to figure out ways to get back.
	And there's so many bad faith actors that try to hustle in and grift in.
	On legitimate concerns about our election laws and their enforcement, legitimate concerns about government corruption, legitimate concerns about cartel infiltration of aspects of our government.
	But unfortunately, it leads...
	I mean, right away, the allegation struck me as too over the top.
	You know, for 20 years, everybody's involved.
	Nobody's not involved, and it's easily trackable and traceable.
	25%.
	I mean, the interview that I watched...
	Where my flags go up is that it's a fire hose of information that you can't just track one element of the story for one minute.
	25% of the judiciary is involved.
	Politicians are involved.
	Drug cartels are involved.
	We got experts to verify the signatures, and the signatures just don't match.
	Some of the trust companies don't exist.
	And I'm sure there's truth somewhere out there, but they're putting together the story.
	It is very much as you pointed out.
	It's a lot like the Dominion German servers connected to Chinese paper ballots, connected to Venezuelan software companies, connected to CIA operations.
	And it's like, I don't think so.
	You don't need to do that to steal an election in America or anywhere.
	Lots simpler and easier ways to do it.
	And it was too convenient playing into people's biases.
	And what happens when people buy into these fake stories, it discredits the legitimate stories.
	That's why the media is happy to see stories like this be out there, because it will say, oh, you mean you believe in one of those crazy Katie Hobbs theories, like she's part of the Mexican drug cartels and so on and so forth, where there might be concerns if you dug in about connections at some level, just not this story.
	This story screams fake news.
	It screams people trying to get back at people.
	I can't say that with any degree of certainty because I haven't seen the original source documents.
	But to my knowledge, that's because they haven't disclosed any of the original source documents.
	They briefly flashed.
	I mean, I'm sure they're accessible.
	Some deeds of trust, like deeds of sale or deeds of financing in the hearing.
	But just Ed Greenberger, not to give the individual...
	Too much credit.
	I don't know who they are.
	The only objective person left in America.
	Multiple Emmy and Murrow Award winner, former news anchor, dad husband.
	Okay.
	Occasional satire.
	He put out the tweet, which says, if you want to know who's behind the cockamamie Katie Hobbs Sinaloa story, read the Arizona Mirror story.
	Basically, this woman got it from her boyfriend, who got it from his ex-wife, whom he accused of kidnapping.
	And it seems that, again, there's too much to...
	Verify which is part of the tactic.
	It's like, well, did you read the entire decision that they're citing in the article?
	No, but it says apparently a judge dismissed all the claims that Taylor made in the suits in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.
	According to court documents, Mr. Towler's complaint weaves a delusional and fantastical narrative that does not comport with federal pleading standards.
	The court said in one of its rulings, lawsuits he's filed in state courts have also been rejected for similar reasons.
	And you had in the interview...
	Allegations that people were hacking public files to put in fake court documents.
	It's a big mess.
	It's too tentacular, too broad to be credible.
	And then when it all comes back to the ex-wife and the mother-in-law, sorry, that screams fake.
	And just everybody out there, until proof to the contrary, but also...
	In response to the question, well, why isn't the mainstream media touching this?
	There's two reasons.
	One of which is sometimes the story is too idiotic to even dignify with a response.
	Other times, they don't want to respond.
	And I'm saying this because I've seen it happen in other contexts.
	Let the story go wild.
	Let the people hook, you know, sink in their hooks, run with it, so that then later on when they go and they can embarrass everybody who jumps on the story.
	I mean, it's what happened in large part of Dominion.
	It's what happened in large parts of Pizzagate, where you had a legitimate concern that was part of Pizzagate, and it developed into focusing on like a one random store in D.C., and the media allowed people to run with the story, knowing they could discredit all the broader concerns that were legitimate that were part of that.
	And so for everybody out there, these people have produced no proof of their claims.
	Their claims are rather preposterous by their nature.
	They're almost guaranteed to be fake.
	That's what I have to say about it.
	All right.
	Well, you know what?
	With that, everyone, so that we've tackled the big one right off the bat on YouTube Rumble and Locals.
	We're going to end it on YouTube.
	Move over to Locals and Rumble in three.
	The link is there, people.
	Rumble is not accessible in France.
	Si vous êtes en France, allez visiter vivabarnesla.locals.com and you can watch it there.
	And that's it.
	Off YouTube in three, two, one.
	Now.
	Right in unison with my dog barking.
	Robert, I guess it's a decent segue.
	We can get to the Sidney Powell story.
	Bottom line, so a judge tossed the...
	I just don't understand the mechanism.
	It's a bar complaint or a bar investigation into Sidney Powell for ethics breaches.
	Why is it even getting...
	Well, we'll get to the fact that it was dismissed by a judge.
	The judge was a Greg Abbott appointee from what I was able to look up.
	I hope I didn't make a mistake on that.
	People can write it off as a partisan judge, motivated reasoning, looking to dismiss the suit.
	Why would a bar ethics complaint make its way to the courts for dismissal?
	Do they not do this internally and just have their own administrative tribunals to adjudicate ethics breaches?
	Not in Texas, is my understanding.
	My understanding is the Texas Bar Commission brings a complaint in court when they want disciplinary action.
	So that's the way their process works.
	Each state has its own.
	Some states are very internal until the very end, and it reaches the Supreme Court of the state.
	Others actually require it to go through a court process all the way from the beginning, and Texas appears to be of the latter.
	Okay, because in Quebec, I mean, it's administrative tribunals, specialty tribunals.
	When you want to appeal those decisions, there's a certain amount of deference that the courts show to those specialty tribunals, much like they did with Mike Ward being fined for a joke.
	But this is the headline.
	Judge tosses out disciplinary action against Sidney Powell for work on Trump reversal bid.
	I've just got to highlight, Robert, my joke that I made on Twitter.
	Where did it say here?
	Oh, here we go.
	Judge Andrea Buresa, appointed by Greg Abbott, who presides in Texas' 471st District, said the commission had not met its burden in proving that Powell had run afoul of Texas' Attorney Code of Conduct.
	The judge also knocked out the commission for not properly labeling its exhibits in filing, leading her...
	To only consider two of the exhibits they had filed in court.
	I made the tongue-in-cheek joke.
	If they improperly filed exhibits, they should have been sanctioned.
	I think some of the Trump attorneys had complaints because of the manner in which they filed exhibits.
	Maybe not that clerical of a mistake, but what do you think?
	I mean, is it going to lead to anything more, or is this a one-off in a favorable state and the other blue states, blue...
	Ethics societies are going to nail her and all the other lawyers for everything they can.
	It's what should be the result in every state, but because they are politically on the opposite side and District of Columbia involving Rudy Giuliani and New York against Rudy Giuliani, against Professor Eastman in California, that unfortunately you can't bank on those ethics discipline bodies.
	Doing the reasonable thing or the courts doing the reasonable thing.
	Here, I always thought it was absurd.
	The point of these ethical rules is to prohibit lawyers from scamming clients.
	It's not to be a, we don't like the kind of practice of law you engage in.
	As a practical matter, the latter is how it's commonly used.
	Two true crooks like Michael Abinati, Tom Girardi, others are either rarely or very belatedly punished, if at all.
	Whereas people that are political lawyers for political dissidents, they're the ones who are always targeted by the courts and by the court's administrative arm, which is what this is.
	Sometimes people think the bar is a separate group.
	It's not.
	In some states, the bar is a separate group, but they have no enforcement power.
	When somebody says they're a member of the bar, they mean they're a member of the Supreme Court of that state, has licensed them to appear as a lawyer in courts in that state.
	That's what it means.
	So sometimes I'll get stuff like, are you secretly part of the British Accreditation Registry?
	Because everybody knows that's what the bar means, that kind of thing.
	That's all nonsense.
	There's no secret English oaths.
	That's all nonsense.
	But what it reflects is, even a state like Texas, with a very conservative Supreme Court, 7-0 Republican on the bench, still has in its administrative arm a bunch of lefties.
	Because no client complained about her.
	It was ridiculous that an ethics complaint was ever even brought.
	All right.
	And is there anything else?
	Well, the Texas Supreme Court made a good ruling this week.
	The court itself, in the same tradition that this trial court made a good ruling on getting rid of this nonsense against Sidney Powell in reaffirming First Amendment principles.
	And by the way, they used some language that was in a petition just a year or two ago.
	On behalf of one Alexander Emmerich Jones, they didn't take that petition.
	Two of them wanted to.
	Only needed one more.
	But it's interesting that they're using some of the language from his petition about when you cannot bring a defamation claim in Texas.
	It may be a preview of things to come down the road.
	All right, so elaborate on that while I just pull up something in the backdrop.
	Sure.
	So what you had were pro-life and pro-choice groups.
	In a political war over legislative reform, passing some ordinances.
	And the pro-life groups refer to the pro-choice groups as criminal organizations that want to murder people.
	And so the pro-choice groups sued, saying, you're lying about us.
	You're libeling us.
	One court said, no, that's clearly a constitutionally protected opinion.
	Could not be interpreted as a factual claim that you had committed a specific crime under Texas Day law.
	Another court said, no, we should look at whether...
	This was the definition of murder at the time and take it up.
	And so it goes to the Texas Supreme Court to resolve this split in the lower Texas courts.
	And what was interesting is the court unanimously said, no, you can't sue the pro-life group for this.
	And what it made the point of is it said, you know, the First Amendment is very robust, both under the federal constitution and its analog provision under the Texas state constitution.
	That it protects opinions, and that when you're evaluating whether a statement is opinion or meant to be a verifiably factual false statement about a specified individual, of note, the court went out of its way to say all of that was required, you should look at the historical context of the issue, you should look at the temporal context, and you should look at the tone being used and who it is that's saying it and what a reasonable person.
	Hearing those statements think, that's just that person's opinion.
	Or would they think, oh, they have secret factual proof that that person committed a specific crime on a specific day.
	And the language they used is almost identical to the argument Alex Jones was making, I know because I was making it on his behalf, which was that the statements he made in the Sandy Hook cases were not verifiably factually false statements about a specific individual.
	Even if you could say he was making claims that they committed illegal acts, because clearly it was his opinion.
	A reasonable person looking at the historical context of Alex Jones, the temporal context of Alex Jones, the tone and tenor of Alex Jones would say, that's Alex Jones' opinion.
	Not, oh, Alex knows something secret about the Sandy Hook parents.
	And so I think it's a sign the Texas Supreme Court is going to take Alex Jones' case and throw it all out.
	That that verdict's going to be out the door.
	There's still the Connecticut case to deal with.
	But a very good ruling by the Texas Supreme Court to reaffirm, and it's where I disagree with some conservatives, including Governor DeSantis and some others, including Justice Thomas, who are talking about taking away the actual malice standard and changing the libel laws in a way that makes it easier to sue.
	As Trump himself has said, bad idea.
	Always been a bad idea.
	It will be misused and abused.
	To target dissident opinion.
	It ain't going to be used to go after the New York Times.
	And people are naive when they think it's that way.
	So this is a good, robust decision that made clear the First Amendment prohibits any court punishing someone based on their speech unless it's a specific, factually false statement about an identified individual that a reasonable person could interpret to be that.
	It's because I listen to that.
	I know what I think of Alex Jones and whether or not...
	He said some stupid things, whether or not it was in the mind of anybody, anything other than clear opinion.
	Because when you call someone a conspiracy theorist, what you are basically saying is they espouse opinions that are conspiracy theory, not that they are saying X individual committed a factually verifiable act on a given date.
	And I think this is the standard that ought to have and did apply to Tucker Carlson when he referred to the Trump Hush fund the extorters as they're literally committing extortion.
	Or he didn't say literally.
	He said, you know, this is extortion.
	And they sued for defamation and they dismissed it, saying, clearly opinion.
	He wasn't stating facts.
	And in that case, I say, yes, I agree with it.
	It's the same defense as Rachel Maddow when she said, whatever, the OAN is literally Russian propaganda.
	When I listen to that, I have to check my own bias.
	Maybe it's because I dislike Rachel Maddow.
	But when I hear that...
	That I hear as a specific statement of actual demonstrable fact to undermine an individual, to call them literally paid Russian propaganda.
	But I'm prepared to extend that benefit of the doubt in terms of First Amendment rights to the Rachel Maddows because I can understand it.
	And even though calling someone a murderer, like they do with Rittenhouse, might be factually, verifiably incorrect, but might be...
	Under the context, clearly hyperbolic statements of opinion they regard him as despite the acquittal.
	So that's very cool.
	But speaking of which, you're there and I don't know if we're allowed talking about it.
	I should also say I don't even know if you're there because of Alex Jones.
	Where do things stand with his appeal in Texas?
	So I don't know.
	I'm here on another case.
	But my understanding is the appeal is still ongoing in Texas and in Connecticut.
	That the efforts to disbar or suspend Norm Pattis, just like the efforts to suspend and disbar Sidney Powell, failed.
	That the Connecticut Court of Appeals, at least for the time being, has said he can maintain his license and continue to practice while he appeals the substantive basis of that ruling, as well as appealing on behalf of Alex Jones.
	So I think those cases march on.
	But if the Texas Supreme Court is intellectually honest...
	What it is previewing, if it takes the case, it's clearly going to overturn on the ground.
	Because they went out of their way to also say, you have to make the statement about a specific individual.
	And then when someone's making these generic statements about groups, pointing out that's classic definition of free speech, not defamation.
	And that was precisely, I mean, some of the quotes in the court opinion could be taken out word for word from Alex Jones' Supreme Court brief back when he had brought his own anti-slap motion.
	So we'll see how it works.
	But speaking of conspiracy theories that might alight new legal claims we're looking at, the U.S. Department of Energy confirmed this week, I think it was Energy, that in fact, that, well, we're on rumble, that a little COVID-19 germ, in fact, likely came from a lab leak in China.
	Here, Robert, let me pull up the clip.
	As we say this, I'll play it.
	It's on YouTube, so we're going to be able to talk about it freely.
	Hold on.
	Come on.
	Oh, one little side thing.
	One thing Alex Jones did disclose this week is the bankruptcy trustee of the Biden administration wants to take Alex's cap.
	Can you explain that?
	That's another thing where I read that and I just say it's too much.
	I don't even understand how that happens.
	It's a really nice cat.
	It's like worth $1,000, $2,000.
	And so the beggar seems like, I want the cat.
	Give me the cat.
	I mean, can you imagine wanting to take a family's kitty cat?
	How nuts are those people?
	Immeasurably, indescribably nuts.
	Let's watch.
	Oh, it's 10 minutes.
	Let's just watch.
	There is new intelligence that's likely to rekindle the unsettled debate over the origins of COVID.
	Don't you love, by the way, Robert, it's now unsettled.
	A year and a half ago, it was conspiracy theory and racist.
	Now all of a sudden, unsettled.
	In real time, to quote George Orwell, they are rewriting history.
	Energy has concluded that it most likely came from a lab leak and not from an infected animal.
	But two CNN sources...
	Most likely.
	Remember when they were telling us it came from someone eating a pangolin.
	A pangolin.
	There's a whole...
	There was a whole South Park episode about it.
	Remember?
	Because I think it had like the Disney mouse screwing the pangolin and that's how it like spread and all this other stuff.
	I got to start watching.
	I got to watch South Park and catch up on everything.
	It goes on, people.
	Bottom line, Department of Energy.
	And they call it like low-level reliability, mid-level reliability, high-level reliability, as if we trust anything the FBI says.
	And Robert, we're going to get accused of being biased here.
	We don't trust the intelligence when they say something we don't like, but we trust them when they say something we do like.
	This is...
	This is a statement, an admission coming from a party that runs against their interests.
	Therefore, it's more credible.
	That's rules of evidence.
	That's what the rule of evidence is.
	If something's an admission against interest, even if it's hearsay, it's allowed in because it's trustworthy.
	Two years.
	Racist.
	You have the New York Times medical reporter.
	Racist.
	Unfounded.
	Conspiracy theory.
	Confirmed fact.
	And Robert, I was listening to Robert Malone.
	I think it was Malone on Rogan.
	Why is it relevant?
	If we could...
	You know, discuss openly the possibility that it might have been man-made.
	Well, that might affect how you treat it, how you go after, you know, in theory, determining, developing a vaccine.
	If something is man-made, it's not going to behave like a natural virus, and therefore your attack might be entirely different.
	So bottom line, what was conspiracy theory demonized as misinformation?
	I was demonized.
	Not that I was late to the party on that.
	We were demonized for having entertained the notion.
	Called conspiracy theorists, nut-cased, whack-job, Trumpies, far-right, whatever.
	Department of Energy now confirming it's the more likely alternative.
	People died as a result of the censorship of accurate information and the demonizing of the people who spoke it.
	Heads will roll, Robert.
	Nothing's going to happen.
	No, I think it opens up new legal theories, potentially.
	So there are early efforts to sue China, which is difficult.
	But given the Chinese, as Elon Musk mentioned, this is a Fauci-connected activity, where he laundered the money in violation of the U.S. law, laundered the activity, the funding for the activity, through grants, through EcoHealth and others, that he then conspired to cover up his criminality and what he did.
	To me, those are not protected under the PREP Act.
	That's not corrective countermeasures.
	Are protected.
	That's how the vaccine is.
	It's almost impossible to sue them, even for willful fraud.
	You have to have the government's agreement to sue them for willful fraud.
	Brooke Jackson is the only, her case is the only case that could expose what Pfizer did.
	And that's why Pfizer has gone to great lengths to try to prevent any discovery in the case and the case from going forward.
	With, you know, her ringing the judge constantly with personal attacks on me or on her.
	We'll see what happens at the oral argument.
	But to me, being deliberately culpable for the release and then the cover-up, because the cover-up is consequential too by itself, because as Brett Weinstein was explaining on Joe Rogan, the ability to know how to treat and respond to the pandemic depended upon knowing whether it came from a species or whether it came from a lab.
	And so I think Fauci potentially could be individually sued.
	I think some of these other people could be sued.
	Some of these entities could be sued for their complicit behavior in causing all the damage that COVID did.
	And I should correct myself.
	It was Brett Weinstein and not Karl Malone, not Dr. Malone.
	Yeah, it was Weinstein who talked about it.
	And it's the first time I really appreciated when Weinstein said in the beginning...
	They said it originated in a lab and Weinstein immediately dismissed it.
	And then someone in his community said, well, do you know that there's a virology lab in Wuhan, China, where this came from?
	And then everything started making sense to him and he immediately, not backtracked, but corrected himself.
	And he explained how it was interesting that it behaved like a gain of function manmade virus in that it attacked certain functions when an ordinary virus would not attack those functions because ordinary viruses want to thrive and survive.
	And they do that by not killing their host.
	Whereas this attacked functions that would otherwise not be attacked by normal virus.
	Who, Robert, would have standing to sue a Fauci?
	Would it be, you know, the family?
	The standing would be easily because so many people have been injured.
	So the only question is the liability portion rather than the standing to bring a claim.
	And so we're definitely taking a look at it because there's more and more government admissions that this is what happened.
	And they're trying to still hide the U.S.-connected part of it, the Fauci-connected part of it.
	But there's, I think, good grounds to pursue that.
	So I think it's definitely worth looking at whether there's legal liability claims that can be brought for people doing such bad acts, which led to this horrible outcome for so many people.
	And I think the idea of Su and Anthony Fauci, if there's even a possibility for it, I'm all for it.
	And qualified immunity, would that come up as the reflexive defense?
	Procedural basis?
	It depends, because while he used government power to do it, it's not clear he had government authority to do what he did.
	That's going to be the question.
	What happens when you have a government official misusing, abusing, acting really outside of his authority to do what he did?
	That's because Obama administration actually put in limitations to say he couldn't do what happened, and he circumvented it by putting it offshore and doing other things like that.
	You know, led the cover-up.
	And so the question of whether or not he's, put it this way, he's definitely not protected under the PrEP Act or any of that, like the vaccines are.
	So the only question would be whether he's protected by some form of sovereign immunity.
	And I would be in favor of bringing those cases, even if the courts were to find sovereign immunity, because it would highlight the need for Congress to start revoking, you know, end this nonsense of immunity as if we're still governed by kings.
	Sovereign immunity ain't in the Constitution.
	It was implicitly overturned by the Constitution.
	The idea is that the king can do no wrong because he's God's emissary on earth.
	That's what we overthrew.
	And yet courts pretended.
	It was still there and superimposed it on people.
	And that's been the problem.
	And we need Congress to make it clear to courts that doesn't exist anymore.
	Maybe exposing the scope and scale of Fauci criminality, if no remedy is allowed under the guise of sovereign immunity, might be the instigation needed to get Congress to pass reform to change the sovereign immunity laws.
	And just so everybody does recall, and if you didn't know, you'll know now.
	I won't get all the names, but Fauci initially, first of all, denied that it could have possibly originated in a lab in Wuhan, China.
	Originally denied that there was any form of gain-of-function research going on.
	Denied that the U.S. was funding it.
	In reality, gain-of-function research was going on.
	It was being funded by third-party NGOs that Fauci was effectively financing.
	And he lied because there were emails that came out that showed that he and, if anybody in the chat knows the name of the other guy, were killing every story that came out and attacking any scientists who said it might have originated in the lab in Wuhan, China.
	This is in 2020.
	So they knew, they funded, they were engaged in, and then they tried to cover it up at the time and then lied about it, Robert.
	Who would have to go after Fauci for...
	Would it be contempt of Congress for lying under oath to Congress?
	All of that can only be done by the U.S. Department of Justice, which obviously the Biden administration is not going to do.
	It would require a new administration.
	But on the civil side, it's whether or not there's means of establishing.
	He clearly broke the law, and he clearly caused injury.
	So normally, that means you have a right to sue.
	And we'll find out whether courts allow him to dodge it.
	The way they've allowed too many people, they've already allowed the FDA to dodge multiple suits on the grounds that nobody can sue.
	But at least in those cases, the excuse was the FDA didn't, quote, cause the injury.
	We'll see the same thing this week in Beaumont, Texas, because Brooke Jackson has two claims.
	One is a claim brought on behalf of the American people.
	That's a KETAM.
	Exactly.
	Called a False Claims Act.
	KETAM claim.
	Has an old tradition.
	It was put in place after the Civil War because so many vendors were ripping off American soldiers, selling them bad food, bad blankets, bad uniforms, bad ammunition, bad weapons, you name it.
	And the American people decided they couldn't even trust the bureaucrats to enforce the law.
	So Congress passed a special law that said you, the American people, can bring a claim when you have certain knowledge and information.
	Under the Whistleblower Act of the False Claims Act of the KETAM laws.
	And so she brought that claim on behalf of the American people.
	She brought a separate claim against her employer for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy that protects whistleblowers.
	So those are the two claims that Pfizer and the other defendants have moved to dismiss.
	Pfizer's grounds is that the FDA rule, the complaint is in great detail and it shows all the different...
	FDA clinical trial rules that Pfizer violated.
	The claim is simple.
	Pfizer was obligated under the contract to provide a safe, effective vaccine that would, and I quote from the contract, prevent infection of COVID-19.
	In fact, what they delivered was a dangerous, ineffective gene therapy that didn't prevent COVID infection at all.
	Not only that, They knew it, and they knew it from their inadequate clinical trials that violated almost every rule that clinical trials that exist.
	Pfizer's excuse is, well, those clinical trial rules are not expressly and explicitly in the contract, so we didn't have to obey them.
	And even if all the allegations against us are true, that we didn't obey them, it doesn't matter because they weren't made a condition of the contract.
	Some people have mistakenly interpreted this to mean that Pfizer was basically retained to do a bioweapon on the American people.
	If Pfizer is lying, the contract says over and over and over that they must comply with the FDA rules and processes.
	It explicitly says the only reason...
	The Army is not imposing its own separate clinical trial rules is because they have to comply with the FDA clinical trial rules.
	So they're just hoping that their political power will be enough.
	And they're also benefiting from the fact the Biden administration took a reverse to their original position.
	So the original position of the Justice Department was that this was a credible case that they needed to investigate, that they required it be sealed, and she not discuss the case while they were investigating because it was so serious an investigation.
	Now they're coming in and they're not themselves asking for dismissal.
	They're just saying we support Pfizer's motion to dismiss because the folks in Washington don't want any discovery to go on about what the Biden administration knew when it was mandating this dangerous, ineffective drug.
	On its own employees, its own contractors, its own members of the military, and recommending it be added to a kids list to be put in the arms of every kid in America.
	They don't want the world to know that they knew that the drug was dangerous, ineffective.
	Particularly for certain healthy younger populations.
	That it was not a vaccine but a gene therapy.
	That in fact it did not prevent COVID infection.
	That in fact the government got scammed out of billions of dollars by the biggest criminal drug dealer in the world known as Pfizer.
	They don't want the world to know that.
	So they're begging the judge, please judge don't allow any discovery.
	Please don't let this case go forward.
	Throughout the process Pfizer has repeatedly attacked me.
	Repeatedly attacked Brooke Jackson.
	Rather than admit to anything that went on, rather than allow a single iota of discovery to be done.
	If they're so innocent, why are they so scared of a deposition?
	Why are they so scared of basic discovery?
	So we'll be making our argument.
	I know that from a lot of people's perspective, the federal courts are too deaf when it comes to these concerns, that the federal courts don't step up to the plate.
	When ordinary citizens raise these problems before them, that they tend to dismiss these claims unless the government is involved in these claims.
	I am optimistic and hopeful that this court will be different.
	This court has made clear it's going to rule on the law and the facts and not be influenced at all by politics.
	I hope that is the case.
	I think that a lot of federal judges come from a background that tends to defer to the Pfizer's of the world.
	And I hope that this judge shows that he'll just follow the facts in the law because the facts in the law are clear.
	This case should go forward.
	But we'll find out.
	I mean, I have been, a lot of people have been distressed by the failure of the federal courts, the failure of the federal judiciary to hold these powerful people to account.
	And we're going to find out whether they're able to do so in this case.
	Whatever happens, either side, whoever is unsuccessful, will be appealing.
	If we are successful, they have limited rights of appeal at this stage.
	If they are successful, we have an automatic right of appeal.
	So either way, we're going to keep...
	And even if there'll be more attacks on me, I'm sure, by Pfizer, more attacks on Brooke Jackson, that's just sadly par for the course for these criminals because that's who and what they are.
	Again, one of the biggest criminally fine companies in the history of the world.
	They make El Chapo look like a corner street drug dealer.
	That's how...
	Criminal, Pfizer is.
	But, you know, now they're trying to inject this in little kids as young as six months, even though they've seen months and now years of data that prove how dangerous this is to young, healthy people.
	So my sympathy is out the door for these frauds.
	I was going to say Maddie DeGarry is just one example.
	But, Robert, I might be a little confused between the two parallel suits.
	One is the key time, which is Brooke Jackson suing on behalf of the people.
	The government has said we're not stepping in there.
	We support Pfizer's motion to dismiss.
	The other is the reprisals from Pfizer.
	So which one are you talking about now?
	Both.
	So both are brought up for motions to dismiss.
	The claim on the retaliatory discharge should definitely move forward.
	Now, that isn't against Pfizer.
	That's against the company that hired her directly, which is a different company that was doing the work on behalf of Pfizer.
	But we'll see.
	Again, the expectation is that big drug companies always win these cases, that judges don't step up against big drug companies unless the U.S. government tells them to do it.
	And that's the concern, is will the courts do so?
	And this judge said he's going to follow the facts of the law, so that's all we ask.
	Robert, you said the contract between Pfizer and the government was to, you know, safe, effective against transmission.
	When you have the Pfizer executive in Europe, not basically, admitting that they never even tested for transmission because they were moving at the speed of science, I'll ask the stupid question, how does any court, anyone, Get around that.
	This is not like we never had to.
	This is we warranted we would.
	We sold it as though we had.
	And then when it didn't, we pretended we never did.
	Do those statements come up in your procedure?
	All of it's relevant.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, it's a reason why they don't want discovery to be had.
	They know the discovery would be very embarrassing.
	The discovery would further prove inflammatory evidence and incriminatory evidence against Pfizer.
	So all these allegations have been laid out with specificity.
	We're entitled to assume that anything we could discover would in fact be proven true as well at this pleading stage of the case.
	And so in my opinion, it's a no-brainer that this is a case that should move forward.
	I understand that lots of people are telling me that this almost never happens unless the government joins it.
	Well, we're going to find out.
	I mean, frankly, the court sometimes has been more worried about my tweets than it's been worried about whether Pfizer did bad acts.
	So that's been my concern, is how much will this court actually stick to the facts, stick to the law, and hold Pfizer accountable, or will it get distracted by Pfizer's latest complaint of me making public statements about what criminal frauds they are?
	And just for anybody who's watching, when Robert uses the term criminals, Pfizer has been found, has paid $2.3 billion in criminal and civil fines.
	Johnson& Johnson, $2.2 billion.
	Two of the top three biggest criminal and civil fines ever paid in the pharmaceutical industry.
	Robert, let's bring this back to politics a little bit.
	People are going to blame Trump and are blaming Trump will continue to because he was at the helm of this Operation Warp Speed.
	I'll front load this with Trump's defense.
	When you're dealing with a government that lies to Trump about the number of soldiers remaining in Syria, when you're hiring the Fauci's who are lying to everybody in real time, I can anticipate what Trump's defense is going to be, but some people are going to say he's too naive and too stupid to have fallen for this and been told we got a good, safe, and effective vaccine, sell it to the American people, which he did.
	What's your defense or what's your response to that?
	Oh, that President Trump required it in the contract itself, right?
	I mean, the contract goes far beyond the FDA's authorization.
	The contract doesn't just say, we will only pay you when they give you authorization, when the FDA gives you authorization.
	It says...
	This is going to be effective.
	This is going to be safe.
	You're going to deliver us a vaccine.
	And what we mean by that is you're going to deliver something that prevents COVID from happening.
	Right in the contract.
	Repeatedly in the contract.
	They didn't do that.
	In fact, not only that, by the way, they were supposed to deliver it before the election.
	So they tricked Trump twice.
	First, they promised to deliver it before the election.
	And then they didn't.
	They pulled the rug out from underneath them to hurt him in the election.
	And then second, after the election, what they delivered wasn't safe, wasn't effective, wasn't a vaccine, and didn't prevent infection.
	But he, to his credit, required that in the contract.
	Biden's been trying to mislead everybody, saying, oh, it's not in the contract.
	It's in the plain language of the contract.
	In fact, I'll put up highlighted versions of the contract because now they're public documents on our Locals board so that people can see it and read it for themselves.
	Where is that Locals board, Robert, if you may plug it as a fact?
	The one and only VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	But now, Robert, I'm not going to let Trump off the hook just yet, and people are going to call me an anti-Trumper now, some of us.
	Trump said, okay, at some point, they said, we got it.
	Here it is, like victory, like Bush after Iraq.
	It really didn't roll out until after he was out.
	I mean, little bits and pieces did, but the bulk of it didn't roll out until he was gone.
	Actually, now that you mention that, they got it December 2020.
	And the full authorization didn't occur until August of 2021.
	That's an interesting piece of information, Robert, which I'm going to now have to digest and then reassess my prior...
	I'm not playing devil's advocate.
	I know people have these criticisms.
	Oh, it's a fair criticism of Trump that he got suckered into believing that there actually could be a safe effect of vaccine on this.
	But he wasn't the only one.
	There are a lot of people who got taken for a ride on that.
	And there's a lot of people still saying it now two years in when we know what we know and it can't be ignored anymore.
	Now, speaking of vaccine cases...
	We brought a fun case this week on behalf of some Radio City Music Hall workers against Madison Square Garden.
	I believe all of it's owned by James Dolan, according to the New York Post.
	Who owns?
	He also owns the Knicks.
	The New York Knicks, New York Rangers.
	This guy is like a mini Soros, mini Bill Gates.
	He's like doing facial recognition software and trying to use that on people trying to come into his places.
	I mean, so the guy's just a bottom-barrel bum, aside from being a terrible, terrible sports team owner.
	I'm an almost any decent Knicks fan.
	Hates him righteously anyway.
	But this guy discriminated against, you know, wardrobe folks, people who work backstage.
	You know, they had legitimate religious objections.
	Some had other medical and other grounds to object.
	And he fired them all anyway.
	And so we brought suit in federal district court.
	Many of them live in New Jersey, so the case was properly brought in New Jersey.
	And there'll be more plaintiffs that are going to be added.
	But it's going after Radio City Music Hall, Madison Square Garden, James Dolan, for his harassment of people, his discrimination of people, his wrongful termination of people who had legitimate religious objections to the vaccines.
	I was going to pull up this show, but yeah, five employees, religious exemptions denied.
	Guy sounds like a prize through and through.
	Robert.
	Let me just say this.
	At the Rumble Sarasota ribbon cutting, I was talking with the tech team at Rumble, and one of them had a great idea that says, how would a creator feel about little avatars, like a soundboard, so that when you hit 20,000 live viewers, as we did a few moments ago, I could hit a button and 20,000 comes up on the screen.
	We're 20,000 live right now, like I just tweeted, getting a healthy dose of reality.
	But let me just do one thing that I'm able to do now because of...
	Ginger Ninja's recommendation.
	Let me just read some of the chat.
	The Rumble Rants.
	I've screen grabbed the Rumble Rants.
	These are going to be...
	I screen grabbed the super chats on YouTube.
	I'll read those soon.
	But Mahoyo, let's just do this real quick.
	The day after the election, I'll point out, Mahoyo, that's in response to when the vaccine mandates become sort of mandatory.
	Fantastic point that I will actually have to sleep on right now.
	Jacqueline Thompson says, Science magazine scientists created a very deadly virus that crosses from bird to mammal from bird flu.
	People have been reported infected in Cambodia.
	Gain-of-function escape 2.0, 60% death rate.
	Unverified.
	When I post this on YouTube, no medical legal advice, etc., etc.
	Tropical rocket.
	What the hell did these people think was going to happen?
	Another card.
	Distraction up the sleeve.
	Leverett Sr.
	Brett Weinstein.
	Weinstein.
	No, Weinstein, not Weinstein.
	Okay, thank you.
	Peckerwood, who we have seen around.
	Question for Barnes.
	Tom Fitton is always posting prosecutable offenses of elected officials.
	Has anything led to any prosecutions that he can brag about?
	Robert, do you have an answer to that question?
	I think, unfortunately, not yet.
	No.
	Okay, let me bring up the other one that comes under that.
	Rob A. Viva is probably wondering what the hell we are talking about in the chat.
	Yep, because I haven't been following it.
	I don't know if you already discussed this.
	The new breaking news in Arizona, we discussed it.
	Sending love, always money when I can.
	Kitty, thank you very much.
	And recliner, NATO started this war.
	NATO wants World War 3. And then we got another one that just came in.
	Sage of Four Winds says, Canada's, that's Canada's new gun law, has one-off joke item like Serbu BM, stuff that could have only been gotten by the Biden administration sharing Canada.
	So I'm not sure what this means now.
	Do we have any recourse?
	Yes.
	Don't know.
	Don't know.
	We'll find out later, Robert.
	Okay.
	Yeah, we have a, you know, Merrick Garland put out a memorandum that got leaked about whether or not he is encouraging people to consider race in sentencing.
	So, you know, who knows?
	Some people have asked me to speak about Scott Adams getting his comic strip canceled in various publications because of a recent rant.
	I'm blocked from Scott Adams on Twitter, so it's hard to defend whatever it is he said because I don't get a chance to see all of it.
	I saw some clip of it, but otherwise I have no idea, though I oppose cancellation in general.
	But Merrick Garland, it's not quite what the headline said.
	So the headline suggested he was considering race in sentencing.
	Instead, what it was is, in the current sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums, particularly about crack cocaine.
	Have been used in such a way that they've disproportionately impacted black defendants.
	So that if they catch you with a certain amount of crack, you automatically got, say, 20 years.
	But if they found you with 10 times as much powder cocaine, you might get five years.
	And overwhelmingly, there was a racial disparity between those two.
	Now, where I disagree with certain is those laws were put in place at the demand of black congressmen in the 90s.
	Because they considered crack such a danger to the black community particularly that they wanted crack taken off the street and they wanted ridiculously harsh minimum sentences to achieve it.
	It wasn't put in by the white patriarchy to try to screw over black defendants.
	Now, I've never been a fan of the drug war, so I got no problem with them trying to reduce the automatic imprisonment of everybody under the sun, no matter the circumstances.
	But the allegation...
	That racial disparity was the motivation of those laws is just not really true.
	Now, in the same sense, the racial disparity they're talking about does actually exist.
	And I think the headline of Garland wants to consider race in sentencing is really not true.
	I'm not a fan of Garland.
	I've been a critic of him all the way through.
	This is dealing with a fallout from those laws that were actually put in by black Democratic congressmen, but now are considered controversial.
	Because of their ultimate impact over 20, 30 years.
	But Robert, it's very interesting you say this.
	So like black congressmen in the 90s wanted these minimum sentences not to punish black offenders, but rather to deter.
	People with the idea that when it comes to drug addiction...
	Well, particularly crack, that crack was impacting their communities far worse than powder cocaine was.
	But to the extent it's black congressmen or black lawmakers doing this in the 90s, I mean, if they're familiar with the fact that in the 80s, where you had that whole CIA funneling crack into LA...
	How do you explain that?
	Well, a lot of them believe both.
	So they believe the CIA was responsible, and they saw the solution as removing...
	They wanted people to think, if I touch crack, I'm going automatically to prison for 20 years plus.
	And to be honest with you, it kind of worked.
	I mean, they got rid of a lot of people that were causing, you know, the crime rate did drop substantially from the mid-90s into the 2000s.
	And so people, I mean, it was Clinton who pushed that through.
	Our current president, Joe Biden, was a huge fan of that crime bill, pushed it through, he co-sponsored it.
	So they're trying to run away now from what are perceived as racially disparate consequences of their own policies.
	But nobody's honestly discussing that.
	This was actually meant to benefit disproportionately the black community by disproportionately imprisoning people who are in the crack trade who were disproportionately black.
	Okay, it's interesting.
	It's also an interesting just historical understanding that the minimum sentences, the idea would be to deter and not to punish.
	So you could have people implementing it thinking it's a protective measure where it actually just becomes punitive because that's not how you punish drug addiction.
	But Robert, what about the IRS?
	Apparently implementing racial equity in determining who they go after and as a result of which.
	I forget who has requested the FOIA request, but it's to get the documents behind the executive order, which would integrate racial equity in IRS targeting of individuals for, I don't know what, audit, whatever it is.
	And they'd be going after whites, Asian, mixed race couples.
	My hot take before you explain the rest of it to us is this is more of the Biden administration soft bigotry of low expectations.
	The idea being, hey, why even bother going after a certain demographic?
	They won't have any tax dollars that we can go get them for.
	We think the rich people are the whites and the Asians, and therefore it's our reverse discrimination is just discrimination.
	But what do you make of it?
	We'll see.
	I mean, it's Stephen Miller's group, the American First Legal, that's done a lot of good work when they were trying to impose racially discriminatory policies and COVID pandemic relief and farm lending policies, things like that.
	So we'll see what they come up with because they're the ones who say they have reason to believe this is taking place.
	I can tell you that a possibility is it may be a lot like the Garland situation, which is for the last 10 years or so, the IRS has targeted Working class CPA.
	What happened was dramatic expansion of the means by which people could be what's called an enrolled agent.
	Someone could work on behalf of tax, not have an accounting degree, not even have a college degree, and basically do mass tax return filings using the earned income tax credit especially.
	Because what it is, is the reason why you see all these tax refunds.
	Or tax return places all around the country these days is because the average person gets a refund, doesn't pay tax.
	And so they think it's a refund.
	That's a more complicated subject.
	But between the earned income tax credit, the other thing is what happened is a lot of your ordinary, everyday, street-level people, and those people that weren't CPAs or anything else, dug into the tax laws.
	Some of them had worked at H&R Block or TurboTax or other places, and they figured out there's all these benefits out there that the ordinary person doesn't know about, like ways to get education funded through tax credits.
	If you have a small home business, a lot of people do have a little small home business, there's all kinds of deductions you can take related to that.
	Average person doesn't know that.
	The government hated the fact.
	That these people were benefiting from this.
	So the IRS, in my view, for the last 10 years has been disproportionately targeting, and it started under the Obama administration, Black and Latino businesses.
	Because overwhelmingly, that's where these new credits were being taken.
	Because these were the working class communities that disproportionately had not received these tax benefits and was unaware of it.
	And so I think that part of it, what we may find out...
	Is they're trying to correct the imbalance of what the IRS has been doing in the past.
	Though it would not surprise me if they're also trying to use, to say, hey, look, don't worry.
	It's okay that we're unleashing 87,000 new agents because we're only going to take down the white man, you know?
	Okay.
	I mean, it's interesting.
	It's like the idea that they have to correct their prior discrimination, which was itself reverse discrimination resulting from what...
	The government is the only entity that fails up.
	When it screws up in policy, it embigges itself.
	That's from the Simpsons.
	It makes itself bigger to resolve the problem.
	The 87,000 agents, Robert, it's old news.
	There was an information warfare going around this where the right, and I'll just put it very loosely in those quotes, the right was saying, Biden is hiring 87,000 new agents.
	Some of them are going to be carrying guns.
	The left says that's misinformation.
	It's 87,000 over the course of a decade to replace the retiring force of IRS agents.
	And here the stupid Canadian schnook doesn't understand what's true and what's not in that.
	Is the truth somewhere down the middle?
	I mean, both statements are true.
	So they're hiring 87,000 new agents, but it is over a 10-year time period, and some of those will not be additional agents.
	Some of those will be replacing existing agents.
	But there aren't 87,000 agents retiring over the next 10 years.
	So there's definitely new agents included in that.
	And it's intended to be intimidating.
	It's intended to kind of terrorize people.
	Most tax cases are brought for that reason, frankly, whether civil or criminal.
	If it's public, they're brought to intimidate people, terrify people into compliance.
	And writing themselves out, people don't realize every time they fill out a tax return, they're disclosing their religion, their family, their affiliations, their associations, their residencies, often their political party, their political causes that they donate to.
	That's why they love 501c4s and 501c3s, because you get to rat yourself out.
	This is what I believe.
	Here, who do I give money to?
	That's why they like that.
	That's why I don't encourage that or incentivize that.
	Now, some people have asked us to comment on Whether there's any update in the James O 'Keefe Project Veritas.
	I think I put that in the header because I thought I'm an idiot and I thought there was something that developed last week.
	I was talking about it with some people over the weekend.
	Some people are playing the fence and riding the fence or what is it called?
	Sitting on the fence.
	And I told them what I said publicly.
	Fence sitting has come to an end.
	The board has lied in the past, misled in the past, and now they're making statements that they want you to believe to justify.
	All that I know is they've lost 300,000 followers on Twitter.
	James O 'Keefe now has more followers than Project Veritas.
	Has there been any news that we know of?
	I don't think anything new came out.
	Only one.
	Ivory Hecker has been talking to the former whistleblowers, of which she was one for James O 'Keefe, in defense of James O 'Keefe.
	And they said that Matthew, I think Tim Brand, people get on me for mispronouncing things.
	Tim Brand, whatever.
	We know who we're talking about.
	I mispronounce it all the time.
	The son of the Polish refugee who has been a grifter for a while.
	And a little side point.
	My point about DeSantis was people that are supporting DeSantis in a certain space are affiliated with these efforts to get rid of James O 'Keefe.
	It is not a criticism of DeSantis himself.
	Who has said nothing at all.
	Some people confuse the two.
	My point was that some of these people may be pushing DeSantis for reasons that are not even good for DeSantis, as is reflected in their bad behavior promoting this stuff concerning Project Veritas.
	Some of these same people are trying to claim that Fetterman is brain dead or something else.
	I wouldn't trust those people at all, ever.
	They've been a bad source.
	But especially in the Project Veritas, James O 'Keefe context, you can't trust people like that ever again once they show their hand like that.
	But what came up from one of the whistleblowers, I think it was one of the Google whistleblowers, was that he had been pitched by Tim Brand over a year ago, apparently, that he wanted to convert Project Veritas into a private investigative arm of big corporations, that they would go after their corporate competitors and disguise it as independent journalism.
	Uncovering their competitors' fraud and bad behavior.
	That sounds exactly the way that grifter class tends to think.
	And that's what I was being critical of in the DeSantis influencer space.
	Not DeSantis.
	It's this grifter class that's attached to them, that's trying to promote them, I think, for questionable reasons.
	In fact, to hurt him, too.
	But that sounds exactly like them, and I'm sure O 'Keefe would have had zero interest in that whatsoever.
	That would have destroyed Project Veritas' credibility.
	But it shows what a bunch of frauds run Project Veritas now.
	But it looks like James O 'Keefe is plotting and planning his own revenge soon enough.
	The best revenge is a well-lived life.
	And I think James O 'Keefe is planning the best revenge ever, which is a well-lived life.
	Well, I think the version of that expression, I think it's Frank Sinatra, the best revenge is smashing success.
	So may James get that best revenge because I'm not playing favorites.
	I would have given James O 'Keefe the benefit of the doubt every day of the week, but nothing that has come out of this lends any credibility to what the board did, and I will support James until proof to the contrary.
	Taking a sandwich from an eight-and-a-half-month pregnant woman.
	Look, the amount of times I took food out of my wife's hand when she was pregnant, dear God, if she files a complaint, I'm in trouble.
	That's the worst meme I think I've ever seen.
	The meme on our locals board, which has a cannibal eating a Five Guys burger.
	I will never think about a Five Guys burger ever again.
	He's sitting there thinking, I don't think there's five guys in this burger.
	It's like, oh, I will never...
	Oh, yeah, that's rough.
	Well, you know what, Robert?
	Let me read some of our rumble rants.
	Not rumble rants, sorry.
	The tips in vivabarneslaw.locals.com so that we can do this.
	Edster sent a $1 tip.
	It says, don't forget to mention the government's sanctioned killing of over 10,000 Canadians' own citizens.
	The Bar Society of Quebec took issue with me referring to Justin Trudeau as having killed 10,000 Canadians because he didn't do it personally.
	Euthanasia in Canada is what that was about.
	And yeah, I'd like to know what the 2022 numbers are.
	We'll see soon enough.
	Scoot66 says, seeing if tips work.
	Hi, Robert.
	That was a $5 tip.
	Sleepwell says, can you please use your platform to bring attention and look into the terrible practicing of lab testing on beagles?
	In particular...
	The NBR beagle in the UK, NIH mostly funds this horrific practice.
	Well, we did cover, we talked about it.
	I mean, Fauci, the murder, shouldn't say, the alleged ender of lifer.
	We talked about his gleeful testing on, what was it, some fly on beagles.
	It's quite terrible.
	Cass McGraw says, Hawaii meetup, Robert?
	I could.
	Oh, yeah.
	That'd be a fun place.
	We could justify that.
	Absolutely.
	Janet Victoria, there's a picture of a Siamese cat on a piano.
	It says, one, two, zero, zero.
	Cat, ragdoll, best ever.
	Professor Tom, one dollar rant, says, Robert, why did DOE, Department of Energy, announce this versus other health-related agencies?
	Yeah, actually, Robert, why?
	Why Department of Energy?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Because I thought that was particularly weird as well.
	I think it's so they can...
	Who said it, Robert?
	It's not what people know.
	It's when they know it.
	They get the Department of Energy to bring it out.
	It's sort of like written off.
	And then it becomes truth in a year.
	So we'll see.
	Professor Tom says, sue that fucker Fauci out of existence.
	The reason why I read that without censoring is because when I used to watch the Super Bowl at my best friend's father's house, he used to say, hit the fucker.
	And he said it so many times in front of our kid that the kid...
	We didn't ask him.
	He felt guilty and said, hit the trucker.
	And I was like, my kid knows not to say hit the fucker in public.
	Professor Tom, if you need a client to file a lawsuit against Fauci, I volunteer to be tribute.
	That is Professor Tom.
	Jeanette Victoria says, so I go to court Tuesday for a nine-year-old defamation case where a disgruntled...
	Lettuce claimed, I said things I never did.
	I countersued and he settled.
	Several months later, he sued because he claimed some anonymous gab account was me, so I broke the agreement.
	No evidence, no nothing, just his opinion in court.
	Okay, we'll stop it there.
	Woody Harrelson summed it up pretty well.
	That is from S.J. Warner.
	Robert, did you hear about Woody Harrelson's shocking conspiracy theory monologue on the Simpsons on SNL?
	I mean, it's amazing.
	I mean, you have Dave Chappelle, who did his routine right after Kanye, which was, you know, funny as the Dickens, and very politically incorrect about Kanye, about Trump, about a wide range of topics.
	And now you have Woody Harrelson.
	So maybe Saturday Night Live wants to be relevant again after being in the political wastelands for the past half decade or so and lacking true comedy.
	So yeah, it doesn't surprise me.
	Harrelson's known as a very independent thinker.
	He vouched for Wesley Snipes in my Wesley Snipes case, stepped up and didn't fear the consequences in Hollywood or from the government.
	So it doesn't surprise me that Woody thinks that way.
	It's interesting that Senate Live would allow him to say it, that this is what's going on, that this is a conspiracy of big drug companies.
	I mean, he...
	Wonderfully, you know, somebody came to me with a plot that just sounded too crazy to be true.
	All the big drug companies get together and spread a pandemic and make a bunch of money whacking people off at the backside of it.
	And it's like, yep.
	I mean, it was brilliant.
	Brilliantly done.
	Brilliantly delivered.
	Elon Musk, you know, called it based.
	The premise of the joke was correct, was true, right?
	Like he actually got a script that had that.
	I have no idea whether he got it or not.
	It was a brilliant way to present that what's really going on is this.
	What I loved is that the punchline was...
	I didn't see the actual thing because you can't actually see the video.
	NBC is very, very aggressive copyright claimants.
	But the punchline was people are calling him anti-vax conspiracy theorist where the punchline of his joke was I don't need people telling me to do drugs.
	I do that voluntarily every day.
	The idea, yeah, it's quite obvious what he was referring to, but even assuming that that's what he was referring to, the punchline was sort of the exculpatory, exonerating.
	I do the drugs anyhow, so no big deal.
	But the reaction of the media is itself very telling.
	But I just, if anyone in the chat knows, like the premise has to be true, right?
	Like he got the script and said no, or was the whole premise manufactured?
	But either way.
	Funny stuff.
	Maybe SNL is dead in the water.
	I don't care what they do.
	They're not redeeming themselves any time this decade.
	Now, speaking of a big historic case that we're going to try to cover a historic case a week.
	Sometimes we get the time.
	Sometimes we don't.
	But this one is Pepsi.
	Where's my jet?
	So what is that?
	I used to listen to a band.
	I still love them.
	It's a Scottish band called We Were Promised Jet Packs.
	But I don't think it's a reference to that.
	But what's the backstory to this, Robert?
	I don't even think I know it.
	So they made it into a documentary, a well-done documentary.
	And so what happened was Pepsi was trying to compete with Coke.
	And this was during the Cola Wars in the 1990s.
	Pepsi got Cindy Crawford on board.
	And they decided, you know, why don't we give away points as a way to promote it?
	And we're going to be youthful.
	We're going to be hip.
	That was Pepsi's goal, was to get the next generation.
	Because Coke had the older generation.
	And so what they did is they put together a thing where you could get like 10 points for this.
	You bought enough Pepsis, you could get enough points that you could exchange it for glasses, t-shirts, jackets.
	And they were thinking, what's a dramatic way to conclude it?
	And one person knew the old magazines he used to get, you know, Christmas magazines in the mail, the old mail-in days, where at the end they had something like crazy, like a Jaguar or whatever, as, you know, the ultimate Christmas gift.
	And he's like, why don't we finish it with something dramatic?
	And somebody else said, well, what about a fighter jet?
	And so they're going to put in a fighter jet.
	The original ad text was supposed to say 700 million points, which would basically be impossible to get.
	But the people watching the ad were like, nah, let's make it smaller.
	So they made it 7 million points.
	Now, when they ran the ad in Canada, it included a disclaimer.
	We don't actually have the fighter jet at the bottom, but not in America.
	In America, it was part of their great selling point, and there was no disclaimer.
	So this young community college kid's watching this, and he's like, I think I can get that jet.
	So he talks to a buddy of his that he knows is a very independent-minded, successful businessman that he had met as a guide climbing mountains.
	And he comes up with a business plan, and he's going through different ones.
	And he figured this one business plan would be too expensive.
	This one would take too long.
	So then he gets the minutiae of the rules, runs into it accidentally at a...
	Random store where they have one of those big setups with a picture of Cindy Crawford and the little notes you could pick up the guide to getting it.
	And he saw in the back it said for 10 cents you can buy a point.
	You don't even have to buy the drinks or anything else.
	So he goes back to his buddy.
	His buddy's like, I got a check for 700 grand.
	The jet's worth 32 million.
	So let's send it in.
	And what it is, they filled out the form.
	But on the form there was no place to put fighter jet.
	So they just added it in.
	Fighter jet.
	And they put a checkmark by it.
	Set the check in.
	So they set the check in to the Pepsi.
	Pepsi panics.
	Because they're like, uh-oh.
	And because, you know, $32, $34 million jet for $700,000.
	So what they do is they delay, delay.
	And then they send them back a letter saying, no, sorry.
	Here's what we can do instead.
	Here's your check back.
	And here's two $10 gift certificates.
	First of all, this is smelling as bad as the episode of The Simpsons when Bart accepts Stampy.
	He's like, do you want the whatever or the elephant?
	And he says, God, I'd love that.
	I forget what it was.
	Holy crap.
	Well, guess who shows up in the middle of this with actually a semi-decent role?
	Not entirely.
	But guess who was a law student?
	So, I mean, they end up, they write a letter to them saying, hey, this is an honorable.
	We have an offer.
	You made an offer on all the national TV stations.
	We accepted it.
	We sent the check.
	We have an enforceable contract.
	Where's my jet?
	And he does some media.
	But they're not getting enough attention.
	Pepsi sues them before they can sue him in New York.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	On what basis could Pepsi sue?
	Defamation?
	Decoratory relief that they don't got to give them the jet.
	Oh my God.
	That's even more creative than the dumps.
	My dumb guy.
	Okay.
	Amazing.
	Yep.
	And they sue in federal court in New York because they know federal courts in New York tend to be very sympathetic.
	Southern District of New York, as I've said many times, one of the most corrupt districts in the country, in my view, in the Justice Department.
	And the courts have a bad habit of going along with the corrupt actors, the big corporate actors, the big government actors, rather than the ordinary person.
	And so that's what they sue.
	So they're in a legal fight.
	The legal case isn't getting as far as they would like to.
	So they get the word that we need to hire somebody who's good at fighting back in creative ways.
	And by multiple referrals, they get referred to an opposition political researcher who was at that point a second-year law student by the name of Michael Avenatti.
	So Michael Avenatti makes a cameo in the Pepsi Where's My Jet story.
	Now, to Avenatti's credit, I've always said he was a skilled lawyer.
	And he was a skilled researcher.
	He was just obviously screamingly corrupt and didn't know the difference between extortion and settlement and things of this nature.
	And he had brought some frivolous claims against President Trump and had committed every crime known to man and taxes and other places.
	I was one of the first people to out him on that.
	But this is back when he was a young law student.
	And he does do good research.
	He goes back, because this is before the internet, really.
	He discovers that Pepsi has a history of this.
	Pepsi did it in the Philippines, where they sold, said, if you buy Pepsis, you may win the lottery, a special Pepsi lottery.
	Well, Pepsi, according to them, screwed up and misprinted the wrong number on a bunch of bottles that gave away basically a million bucks to tons of people.
	So does Pepsi honor their word?
	Nope.
	Pepsi instead offers them, you know, basically $10 gift certificates in lieu thereof.
	There are mass protests that form.
	And then suddenly, there's a mysterious fire at a Pepsi bottling plant.
	Pepsi blames it on the protesters.
	Public opinion turns.
	Nobody holds Pepsi to account.
	They get to dodge responsibility.
	Years later, a government report will say, actually, it was Pepsi doing the burning and looting of their plant themselves.
	Throwing the brick through their own windows to raise funds.
	Fantastic.
	Old scam.
	So Michael Avenatti puts together what would have been a brilliant PR campaign.
	The mistake is, of course, Avenatti being Avenatti.
	He wanted to go to Pepsi first and say, here's the PR campaign we're going to launch.
	He did the same.
	It's exactly what he did with Nike.
	Like, settle or I'm going to tank your stock by a billion.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, he can't help himself.
	And the other guy, the older guy that was involved in the suit was like...
	Uh, no, we're not doing that.
	We're not going.
	He goes, I know what crime smells like.
	I know what blackmail looks like.
	No, we're not doing that.
	Had he just done a PR campaign?
	The PR campaign was kind of brilliant because it was starting with an image of Pepsi and it finishes with Pepsi as a Molotov cocktail.
	So the, uh, you know, it was nice visual imagery and Pepsi probably had it coming.
	The, uh, and the young kid who loved the idea is like, let's go after him.
	He goes with his old buddy, and he says, okay, and let's Avenatti go.
	And he goes into the court process, and he gets Judge Kimball Wood, one of Bill Clinton's favorite appointees for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	She lost her Supreme Court nod because she had illegal aliens working as nannies.
	But she was a classic corporate neoliberal Democrat in the Southern District of New York.
	Avenatti did understand this.
	He had told them this from day one once they got her assigned.
	And she said no reasonable person could possibly think that was a legitimate offer, which was when Pepsi itself internally thought it was a reasonable, a legitimate offer, according to things that came out later.
	And the key thing is she didn't allow him to do any discovery.
	He wasn't allowed to depose all the key Pepsi witnesses.
	And that's how the corrupt courts colluded with big corporations, another Democratic appointee no less.
	Robert, did he get anything more than the $20 gift certificate out of this?
	He got nothing, and he probably lost however much.
	Well, he got...
	By the way, I just want to pull this up so that no one confuses it with Punch Drunk Love.
	Because the story sounds very similar.
	If anybody has not seen Punch Drunk Love, go watch it.
	It's great.
	But it's about the guy who finds a loophole with the pudding offer and buys more pudding.
	He buys pudding that gets him more value for airline tickets than the pudding is worth.
	I thought that might have been the actual story on which this was based.
	But no, this is another true story of...
	People finding loopholes in promotional materials.
	Speaking of some loopholes in promotional materials, Caesar's Sportsbook is being sued with a class action.
	Okay, Robert, before you even get into that, I'm going to say what I know everyone in the chat is thinking.
	The shadow behind your head either looks like devil horns or a cat.
	Or a cat in the...
	Oh yeah, you're right.
	If I go that way, yeah.
	Or maybe more of a...
	I have to stay like right here for the cat image to be there.
	Yeah, but devil horns, Robert.
	Okay, sorry.
	So what's...
	Hold on, hold on, hold on one second before we get to Caesars.
	There was something I wanted to say.
	I forgot it.
	Forget it.
	Get to Caesars and we'll get to that.
	So Caesars Sportsbook promotes a free bet.
	Or risk-free bet.
	You have $1,000.
	Risk-free.
	You can bet it now.
	So what happens is people think that means it's truly risk-free.
	That they bet $1,000.
	But what in fact happens is if you win the bet, it will basically double your account value for free, if you will.
	If you lose the bet, and you basically get your sort of a credit, and you have 14 days to bet it again, So in fact, it's not truly free or risk-free.
	And so it's more of an incentive.
	The way they used to call this is deposit bonuses.
	And that would have been a more accurate and honest way if they went about doing it, but they're not.
	And so the class action has been brought in federal court, I think in New York, because they're bringing New York claims.
	They're bringing a range of other claims.
	But it's a claim worth a lot of potential money because sportsbooks have been expanding rapidly and speedily.
	And the net effect of it has been that they've done so in some cases, like Caesars, by the way, which is infamous for trying to keep out sharp bettors.
	So that's why I'm no fan of Caesars sportsbook in particular.
	Are you banned by Caesars?
	I have never tried at Caesar's, but I know friends of mine that are banned.
	The other place I'm banned at is William Hill.
	They're a bunch of bums, too.
	Basically, they only want losers.
	They don't want winners.
	But so they're bringing consumer protection claims.
	Misrepresentation, negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims.
	They're bringing a claim under unjust enrichment.
	They're bringing a quasi-contract claim.
	It's one of my favorite claims.
	In equity, a contract kind of exists, if you will, even though there's not a true contract.
	Fraud in the inducement claims.
	Often a way to get around arbitration clauses or other contract clauses is that you were...
	You were fraudulently induced into the contract in the first place because basically these free bets and risk-free bets are neither risk-free nor free.
	Oh, sorry.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah.
	And so they were just being dishonest to people to get them into the sportsbook.
	And Caesars is infamous for being one of the least ethical sportsbooks in America.
	And now where I was going to segue that into my own personal life, Robert, once upon a time when there was election betting, And I read, I actually took time to read the small print on these betting bonuses where they say, we'll double your initial deposit.
	And I was like, oh, great.
	What are the terms?
	You can only cash out when you 10x your original deposit.
	No one does that.
	So you sit there gambling it away in order to try to get it out.
	But Robert, where I was going to really segue it is, I won't say that I won against Verizon, but I'm getting my $1,500 back.
	I'll believe it when I see the check come in the mail.
	And they're going to make changes to their policy in terms of what they tell people and how they go about penalizing people with, what do they call them, chargebacks if they decide to cancel their service.
	So I have effected change.
	I'm going to get my $1,500 back.
	And that's it.
	It happened.
	Because when you list off these headers of claims against Caesars, I'm like, yeah, all of those, in theory, could have, would have applied.
	And if it saves anyone else the same headache in the future, more power to me for having been a stubborn bastard who wasted so much bloody time.
	I was going to say I'll take $10,000 for compensatory damages, but I'm not getting that greedy.
	I will take the change and leave.
	Robert, let me get...
	Hold on.
	I'm going to get to the list because I had one here.
	Another class action is against Kia and Hyundai because apparently their ignition system has no immobilizer.
	And so all you have to do is open the steering column and use a regular USB charging cord and you can start the engine.
	And apparently this is available on TikTok and YouTube about how to do it.
	So just stop right there for one bloody second.
	Everybody knows we bought a used VW Tiguan.
	But it's new enough that it has a fob.
	We recently bought a very old or a 2015, what's it called?
	A Jeep Wrangler.
	It's flipping beautiful.
	I drove that out to the other side.
	Beautiful.
	Top was up because it's too noisy otherwise.
	It has a regular key.
	And I appreciate now a key is a physical ignition and a fob is clearly a digital ignition.
	It's very interesting.
	How do they know that you can't start the car through other means without having the actual key in the lock?
	So, Robert, sorry, my interruption there.
	Explain how they were able to start certain cars more easily than others.
	Apparently, there's something that's called an immobilizer that is connected to the kind of the key itself, to these smart keys.
	That prevents somebody from doing what you can do with a Kia or a Hyundai, which doesn't have that immobilizer.
	And I didn't know there's these TikTok and YouTube videos about how you can steal this car.
	I mean, it's like for all the things that TikTok and YouTube cancel or censor, they promote a video that says, hey, you want to go on a joyride with your neighbor's car?
	Here's how you do it.
	And so they brought a class action suit saying that Kia and Hyundai have known this for years.
	Refuse to correct it.
	And their claim is interesting.
	They're saying, look, you warranty, there's a bunch of state and federal warranty laws specific to the car industry.
	You warrant that this car will be safe and usable for the purpose of me being able to drive it, not my neighbor being able to steal it.
	And so they're bringing breach of implied warranty, Magneton Act warranty, unjust enrichment, product liability, failure to warrant, all that.
	May I ask the obvious?
	Insurance premiums, has that been affected on these particular cars?
	And would that be a potential header of claim?
	That would be another potential claim.
	Because I presume, look, underwriters, we trust the authorities for nothing except when it affects their bottom line.
	So when the underwriters come out and say there's been a 40% increase in deaths of young working-age people, 18 to 40, I believe it because it affects their bottom line.
	So I would presume that any of these cars that are more easily hackable and therefore more easily feebable, It's a dog.
	A dog has made it into the room.
	That would affect itself in the premiums, which people are going to pay extra premiums for having these cars that are vulnerable.
	I'd sue.
	Tackle my name.
	You know, I guess a bad dog is what Steve Baten thought of with his lawyers.
	Because apparently, they billed a huge amount of money.
	Almost 800 grand, it looks like.
	Maybe more than 800 grand.
	He paid him almost 400 grand.
	And they defended him in the contempt-related proceedings.
	I know there's issues about their management of that case, and the facts developed up.
	Defended him in the federal proceedings, some part, I guess, of the New York State proceedings.
	But he apparently decided at some point not to pay them all, and they have now sued him for about half a million bucks.
	Well, that's a problem.
	Look, Robert, if he decides...
	I don't know the details of this case, and I don't think Bannon would be...
	He might be uncomfortable to talk about it until it's resolved, but...
	If you say I'm not paying you anymore and people continue to bill, that's one thing.
	If you say thank you and continue working, and then, whoa, I'm not happy afterwards.
	Having been a lawyer, never billed that much in a file.
	I'm trying to think of the most expensive file I ever had.
	I got screwed on hundreds of dollars and went to small claims, and they said, where's your contract?
	And I said, it was verbal.
	And they said, no, you can't really do that.
	I screwed up my own small claims case.
	Bannon refuses to pay the bill in full, and they've sued him.
	Yeah, and what's interesting is part of their claim is what's called quantum merit.
	So in America...
	The value they brought.
	Exactly.
	And that includes the value you confer, that value, the risk undertaken, the risk removed.
	The interesting thing is, you know, they didn't exactly win these cases, really.
	They tried to take credit for the pardon.
	The pardon was really independent of them, as far as I know.
	They didn't have a lot of success in the contempt proceedings.
	If they were some of the ones advising him and leading up to that, it doesn't look like some of their advice was the best advice.
	So I could see why.
	I didn't know who his lawyers were, but I was saying that the consequences of their representation led me to doubt their skill set as being well suited for this kind of case.
	And so, you know, we'll see.
	But, you know, quantum merit opens the door to a lot of challenges that you can bring as a client.
	Did you, in fact, confer the benefit you claim?
	Or did you leave me worse off than I was before?
	Again, close to a million bucks for this work seems a little high to me.
	Quantum Merit, in my practice, I ran into it with real estate agents where they say, I may not have closed the deal, but the value I brought ended up closing the deal.
	And then the determination is, what was the value of what you did worth?
	So the question is, convicted?
	He's been sentenced, but he's appealing the decision.
	He was sentenced.
	I forgot now.
	Was it two months in jail?
	Something like that.
	Two months, and there was some monetary fine.
	He's appealing it, and he's not been sentenced to jail while the appeal goes on because the appeal is going to take longer than the sentence.
	Yeah.
	This is what I hate about the practice of law.
	In big cases, the lawyers say, it's a big case.
	I'm allowed to bill a shit ton.
	And then bill it.
	And tough nogies for the person.
	That's why I always recommend if you're in a criminal case, a flat fee makes a lot more sense.
	I won't judge Bannon as being a cheap bastard for not paying it.
	He paid him almost 400 grand.
	I've never sued a client ever.
	I'm not a big fan of lawyers doing that, but I also think lawyers would do better.
	By telling clients up front, here's the work, here's the risk, here's the reward, here's what I think is manageable.
	And I think lawyers, more clients should see lawyers as investments and then make an assessment.
	How much value can this lawyer confer on me?
	What monetary value do I put on a particular outcome?
	Which even a criminal case, you can often do that.
	In some cases, because you'll either be able to make money or not be able to make money.
	But also, in the tax cases, there's...
	Other fines and penalties that you can calculate.
	But also, there's usually a valuation.
	You can say, okay, for X amount, I would avoid this particular sentence, for example.
	You know, fear what that is and then invest in a lawyer accordingly.
	And I always tell people, a good lawyer is an investment, not an expense.
	If you see them as an expense, you'll make a bad decision.
	Robert, that's very good advice.
	But there is no one out there who's going to see a lawyer as an investment unless they're drafting a company.
	Well, litigation is never an investment.
	Smart ones do.
	Because if you look at it and you say, okay, I want to get $4 million, say, out of this civil claim.
	And so what am I willing to pay to get the best chance of that?
	And I always give a calculus to people.
	I say, you know, like there's plenty of clients I turn down and say, look, to be honest with you, I'm not worth the expense.
	You know, you're looking at trying to save, say, 60 grand.
	Well, you'll spend more on that legal fees.
	You know, so unless there's a principle at issue.
	Then, you know, I'm not the guy to retain.
	You can probably do that on your own.
	Or have a small local person just that can handle the process of paperwork or what have you.
	But I think if people see it that way, they make much better decisions.
	When these kind of fetus disputes happen...
	Sometimes it's, you know, clients that are always trying to screw you over.
	Whenever I've been generous with a client, they've always been cheap and unreasonable.
	And I've learned not to do that because it just backfires.
	That's different than pro bono work and people can't afford it.
	But if people can afford it and they try to go cheap, they're disrespecting you and they will screw you.
	But aside from that, it's when clients are given bad information.
	And lawyers sometimes don't want to give it honestly and say, you know what?
	This is going to cost you this.
	This is going to cost this.
	This is going to do this.
	You know, this could go as high as this.
	Most corporate law firms don't charge flat fees.
	They charge hourly.
	They try to get ethics boards to ban flat fees.
	Why?
	Because hourlies, they're allowed to run up the bill with crazy amounts, like, in my view, this case was.
	Yep, fantastic.
	I'm going to read some rumble tips, not rumble tips, locals tips.
	Bobcat1947, a $1 tip, says, some of the remote key fobs allow you to send a log.
	A long binary stream to hit every possible combination with the given key space in a second.
	Slim Shagan, $1, says Verizon and Comcast are both the worst.
	I can only get my internet through either of them.
	That's very terrible.
	And Slim Shagan, another one, a $5 tip, says this is just the pudding cups for airline miles.
	Someone realized that the individual pudding cups had counted.
	I think Adam Sandler's character in Punch Drunk, oh, so we got to that, yeah.
	Punch Drunk love buying the pudding cups and getting more value than, yeah.
	Adam Schlegen, thank you.
	Robert?
	Oh, we got some rapid-fire cases.
	Before the rapid-fire, let's get to the rapid corruption.
	The massive corruption.
	Kim Gardner.
	Oh, hold on.
	Is it Kim Gardner?
	It's Kim Gardner.
	Kim Gardner, yep.
	Kim Gardner.
	I mean, I wish one day, Robert, I'd like to get the McCloskeys on.
	The McCloskeys for the...
	Yeah, it's the same one.
	Okay.
	The McCloskeys were the ones who were...
	Prosecuted for brandishing firearms when the peaceful protesters busted down a gate and marched down their private street looking for the mayor's office.
	And they stood on their front lawns.
	That was one of the original car vlogs that I followed from beginning to end.
	Kim Gardner, who apparently failed to show up to prosecute alleged murderers who then got off scot-free.
	Who is the Attorney General Andrew Bailey is moving for the removal of Kim Gardner?
	I've been out of the news of Missouri for a long time.
	What the hell is going on?
	Is she done for as she deserves to be done for?
	Quo waranto, it's tricky to say because it's got W's and R's in there.
	So it'd be easier to do your version of W. Quo waranto, Robert.
	Exactly, exactly.
	So basically, that's when somebody unlawfully holds office.
	So some people were talking about trying to bring a petition for Biden on those grounds, right, that he unlawfully held office.
	But I was explaining to people no court, unfortunately, is going to accept it or listen to it.
	So it's when someone has forfeited their office or unlawfully holds office.
	And in this context, the claim by the Attorney General, who replaced Eric Schmidt because Eric Schmidt was the Attorney General, got elected to the Senate and took Senate office in January.
	So that's why this new Attorney General is there.
	Missouri's been very aggressive, challenging the Biden administration in a range of topics, challenging local governments for going AWOL.
	Same thing here.
	It's been used as an office in a smart political way, in my view, in a lot of ways that conservatives have underutilized the powers of the Attorney General in other states.
	Democrats have been much better at using those powers than Republicans typically have.
	But here, the allegation as to how she forfeited the office, because she's been elected and re-elected in St. Louis, is three things that she's not performing.
	She's not prosecuting defendants that have existing cases, as you mentioned.
	Including, you know, the person who had like 75 bond violations and while out on bond and after all those violations, without any prosecution of those bond violations, went and caused severe harm to a young woman in a reckless accident caused by his recklessness, criminal recklessness.
	That was sort of the precipitating cause in part for this.
	But that is part of a broader pattern of her not prosecuting cases.
	Secondly, to her not informing people.
	So she's not informing the police whether she's going to take a case or not.
	So they have thousands of arrests.
	She hasn't decided whether she's going to prosecute or not.
	And she has discretion about whether to prosecute, but she has to exercise that discretion in informing the police, and that's what she's not doing.
	And then last is not informing victims.
	So there's state law requirements that require a prosecutor to keep victims informed.
	Part of the victims' rights legislation that started in the 80s and was passed throughout the 90s.
	And she hasn't done that either on existing cases.
	And so the argument is that she's forfeited her office by not prosecuting people, by not making a decision as to whether she's going to prosecute people.
	And it's not a punishment for her exercise of discretion.
	It's her failure to exercise discretion.
	And in some cases, ministerial obligations, non-discretionary duties.
	Like informing police, like informing victims, that she has not performed.
	I want to pull something up because I'm not going to miss the opportunity to do this.
	Share screen.
	She is a Soros.
	Call me an anti-Semite, people.
	Go ahead and have fun with the rest of your weekend.
	She is a George Soros-backed prosecutor.
	Soros money that got Kim Gardner elected.
	And if anyone wants to call me names, go right ahead.
	Cheers with my Japanese fish mug.
	We're looking at the same article.
	Soros-backed prosecutor pushed by Missouri AG to resign.
	Hold on, I just lost the article.
	Has a history of scandals, alleged misconduct.
	Kimberly Gardner defiant as pressure bills for her to quit.
	She is, Robert.
	When people talk about Soros money affecting the election of prosecutors, judges, politicians, call it what you will, call it anti-Semitic, call it conspiracy theory if you want to be an idiot on both counts.
	It's true on both counts.
	Soros is backing these people through direct or indirect funding.
	Fox News is not wrong as far as you know?
	No, no, no.
	Not at all.
	I mean, she's had huge departures from her office.
	So it's kind of like Gascon in LA.
	Like the San Francisco guy who got ran out on a rail.
	These people are over the top.
	Like the Philly DA that's been real controversial.
	They're so political in their office that they are causing...
	Often these communities are also seeing dramatic spikes in crime.
	And so that's the ongoing issue as well.
	It's like the Florida DA that DeSantis had removed successfully.
	It's people who decided to politically weaponize their offices in ways that are counter to their core ethical duties and obligations.
	And that's effectively what's taking place.
	Oh, good.
	Look at that.
	I accidentally closed the window, but I still get all the rumble rants back.
	Matt G. Hammond says, what took the Missouri Attorney General so long to go after Kim Gardner?
	Robert, if you have a possibility.
	That petition is, you know, I disfavor that petition in most cases because elections should decide these issues, not courts.
	And so I'm glad that the Attorney General waited until it got way over the top, where there's thousands of cases she's not attending.
	She's basically just not showing up to work.
	It needs to be that circumstance.
	Otherwise, this will be dangerously misused and abused by judges to take out elected officials that have the support of the people.
	Robert, hold on.
	Boom!
	I just took a screen grab with the devil horn.
	I'm sharing it.
	It's going to be good.
	What I was going to say...
	It's amazing.
	Soros backs these DAs.
	And it is Soros and...
	Call it whatever you want.
	It's politics.
	And politics is dirty and nasty.
	He backs these people who are either incompetent or corrupt or a beautiful combination of both.
	They get in there with their incompetence or corruption and screw things up maliciously.
	She prosecuted the McCloskeys, fabricated evidence, reassembled inoperable firearms so as to prosecute them based on charges that required...
	Weapons that were readily capable of lethal force and then doesn't show up to do the job.
	What can anyone conclude other than the fact that this is orchestrated, set aside all the other accusations?
	Is this orchestrated destruction of the most freest and bestest society in the world?
	Yeah, and to give an example of where conservatives have been guilty of this is we saw in the U.S. Supreme Court case this week, Cruz v.
	Arizona, where the state of Arizona...
	Repeatedly was trying to sentence to death someone who they had lied to the jury about.
	So what it was is the jury was misled into believing that if they did not give the death penalty, the person could get parole.
	But that was not the case in Arizona.
	The alternative was life imprisonment without parole.
	The jurors came out later and after read up the verdict and said they wouldn't have given the death penalty had they known the truth.
	And the state of Arizona has been fighting this now for years, trying to still execute this guy because he killed a cop.
	And the reality is they lied to the jury.
	And sadly, four Supreme Court conservative justices were just fine with that.
	And the Supreme Court of the state of Arizona was just fine with that.
	They interpreted their own rules to say it's not a substantial change in the law when the U.S. Supreme Court has twice told us that what we did was wrong.
	Which was ridiculous.
	And the dissenting justices, which include Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett, are frankly in the wrong here.
	Here they're trying to give the state the right to violate due process.
	The Supreme Court has already established it's a violation of due process to issue a death penalty without the jury being informed that the alternative is life without parole.
	And here that's what happened to this defendant.
	No dispute that that's what happened.
	Now, of course, the Arizona State Supreme Court should have set aside the verdict.
	The Arizona governor and the Arizona State Attorney General should not have been trying to get the death penalty.
	The reality is they lied and tricked the jury into getting it.
	That's on them.
	They should have gone back and fixed it.
	Credit, in this case, to Kavanaugh and Roberts, who joined the three liberals, to overturn it and say, no, this is a violation of due process.
	And the fact that it's a state rule being interpreted is no exception to their jurisdiction when...
	It impacts the federal constitutional issue and when the interpretation of the state rule was frankly ridiculous.
	Barrett tried to justify it as totally normal and that's utter nonsense.
	This is where conservatives in their deferential nature to government prosecutors and police go too far.
	It's a lot of conservatives that have established sovereign immunity.
	There's a lot of conservatives that have said you can violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment with impunity and immunity.
	That's coming from conservatives on the bench because, God forbid, prosecutors be held accountable or police be held accountable.
	And this is another example where conservatives, Kim Gardner is assigned where the left is wrong.
	The Cruz case as a case shows where the conservatives are wrong.
	Robert, I was just, I was flattening out.
	I think I've gotten another wrinkle.
	This is my grimace.
	But I got another one here now.
	So let's just stretch those out without using facial surgery.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	I have one up in the background.
	Somebody somehow has put Trump on a meme of, what's his name?
	The van living on a Chris Farley meme.
	And they actually did it where his face looks just like it.
	Well, hold on.
	I don't see the picture.
	I see Bobcat.
	No, hold on a second.
	Let me refresh this here.
	Oh, I see why.
	No, I'm not in the chat.
	I'm only in the tips section.
	Rob, we had almost 800 people watching this on Locals Direct live.
	Oh, fantastic.
	It's amazing.
	All of the problems have been solved, people.
	So if you don't like YouTube, go to Rumble.
	If you don't like Rumble's UI or you're in France, go to Locals.
	If you don't want to go there and watch it for free, go to NBC.
	I don't know what else there is to do at that point.
	Two other bad Supreme Court, actually four other bad Supreme Court decisions this week.
	Go, please.
	Remember the parody case?
	Yes!
	That's the one I was trying to find the screen grab for.
	That's the guy who set up the fake police department Facebook page, and they all got off.
	Oh, sorry.
	He sets up a parody police station, police Facebook page, makes fun of them.
	He gets arrested, detained.
	I'll say mistreated, but that might be hyperbolic.
	He gets arrested and detained for several days, sues for damages.
	All the cops get let off on qualified immunity, and he appealed and ratified?
	Yeah, I mean, sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court just didn't take it.
	So they skipped taking that.
	The big surveillance case about FISA abuse, they skipped taking that too.
	One of my standing challenges on behalf of Children's Health Defense against the FDA, they skipped taking that too.
	And then the other two cases that they issued opinions on this week was reminding everybody just how much they so often love corporations.
	But let me stop here, Robert.
	So nobody says I give you a soft pass.
	Which one was the children's health defense that was not taken up by the Supreme Court?
	So this is when we challenged the bait-and-switch of the military vaccine on behalf of soldiers at the Eastern District of Tennessee.
	Where they were saying, we have the approved vaccine versus the experimental EUA.
	Sorry, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.
	And then they said, but we don't have the approved one for distribution yet, so we're going to continue jabbing you with the experimental ones so that...
	You get none of the protections afforded under the bona fide vaccine legislation.
	Bait and switch meaning we're approved.
	And they told the military, or the military was telling their soldiers, this is the approved one, not the EUA one.
	Because they weren't allowed to use the EUA one on their soldiers.
	So what happened?
	The Supreme Court said you petitioned for cert and they say no-go.
	Exactly.
	The Federal District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said, nah, you can't sue.
	No standing.
	No right to sue them.
	Because the FDA didn't do the mandate the DOD did.
	That's circular game.
	And the DOD said we didn't authorize it.
	The FDA did.
	And the Supreme Court just didn't take the case.
	Motivated dismissal?
	You never know.
	I mean, they don't take 99% plus of cases they get.
	So it's not a surprise.
	A little bit...
	More disappointing was not taking the parody case, not taking the surveillance case.
	Those are cases.
	But they're so intimidated by the deep state that the Supreme Court is like every other court.
	They've shown very little willingness to challenge the national security apparatus, sadly.
	Let me bring up...
	The parody case is the one I want to bring up.
	Let me just go incognito.
	Here.
	Boom shakalaka.
	So that was the...
	Hold on a second.
	If I can move my fat fingers faster.
	Now I can't see where I...
	Soros backed me.
	Oh, Supreme Court rejects.
	Here we go.
	This is it.
	All right.
	Supreme Court rejects Ohio man's bid.
	I can't read the whole thing.
	Oh, yeah.
	To sue the police over arrest of Facebook parody.
	They all got off on qualified immunity and that's it.
	So they can do whatever they want to do in the exercise of their rights.
	But how do they get away from the fact that...
	Qualified immunity, correct me if I'm wrong and if I'm misremembering, Robert, they say in order for it to be acknowledged, in order for qualified immunity to be disregarded, they have to have violated a right that was not prior recognized by the court, correct?
	Oh, sorry.
	They have to have violated a right that was prior recognized by the courts.
	Yeah, and it's not supposed to be like the identical fact pattern.
	It's supposed to be that you know that that's illegal.
	And not knowing parity is protected under the First Amendment, come on.
	That's a Supreme Court just being lazy, in my opinion.
	I mean, they only take 60 to 80 cases a year.
	They act like they're under the worst and hardest burden on a man.
	It's just, they're lazy.
	There's no other way to put it.
	But hold on, Robert.
	What does that have to say about the argument of packing the court?
	Make them up to 100 so they can take more cases.
	Oh, sure.
	At that part, I don't have a problem with.
	It's who's going to be there that I have an issue with.
	In terms of how they want to pack the court.
	But in my view, the existing justices could take 10 times as many cases as they take.
	A federal district court can, with fewer clerks, without the support of every other justice.
	So the idea they can't is just nonsense to me.
	But they would never allow that of private lawyers to say, geez, I'm too busy to do the work that's required.
	But the other two decisions they made this week were as one in overtime, which was a decent decision.
	And then another one was interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act.
	And the other one was in bankruptcy, which I think was a lousy decision.
	Written by Barrett, shock, shock.
	What you're going to find is some of these justices, well, she made it clear.
	Bankruptcy is really for creditors, not so much for debtors.
	Just in case you didn't know, Barrett was going to help you figure that out.
	It's for the banks, not to help you avoid the banks.
	Anybody that's ever experienced bankruptcy.
	Alex Jones is currently experimenting, where they want to take his kitty cat from his kids, can understand these courts, bankruptcy court, is bankrupt when it comes to moral principle or good public policy, in my opinion.
	You definitely can't trust the trustees.
	They're all in on it.
	They often just try to look at how they can hustle the most legal fees out of the poor debtor.
	Lenny Dykstra found this out the hard way.
	A lot of them are in bed with the banks, in bed with the credit card companies.
	Biden made it almost impossible to discharge a lot of your debt, thanks to...
	Thanks to him working at the behest of behalf of the big banks.
	And the decision they did was that if somebody was held liable in a state court proceeding for a fraud, even if they had no knowledge of the fraud, they couldn't discharge that in bankruptcy, even though under bankruptcy law you can discharge anything you didn't do fraud in.
	And they're like, well, they just deferred to if you could be held liable under some agency or other theory.
	Partnership or other theory, then you no longer had the benefit of the bankruptcy laws.
	And it's all because they care more about creditors' collection than they do debtors' remedies.
	And I don't think the decision is...
	The fact that a completely innocent person now cannot use the bankruptcy laws to discharge a debt because somebody else committed a fraud is not what the bankruptcy laws were supposed to be about in their original form.
	Indeed, I had a hush-hush about Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker and their connection to a certain prominent political family and why they might have really been taken out.
	But Pat Robertson in 1988 ran on the principle of Jubilee, which was to forgive debt over so many years.
	That's where the popular understanding and aspects of bankruptcy originated from amongst a part of the populace, a real chance of a rebirth.
	And that isn't being allowed when you're held responsible for somebody else's bad acts.
	And not able to discharge a debt in bankruptcy.
	The employment decision was decent, but the dissenting conservative justices, there's two of them, I found their opinion just kind of nonsense, in my opinion.
	But what it is, is under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if you work overtime, you get paid for overtime, time and a half.
	Now, when they passed this back in 1938, they knew that salaried corporate executives often worked more than 40 hours, and that isn't who they were trying to protect.
	So they said the executive who's salaried doesn't have the benefit of overtime on us.
	A bunch of employers have misused this.
	Often the employee doesn't realize what's happening.
	They'll give them some nominal responsibility and authority over somebody else because it meets one of the checks for being an executive.
	And so this oil rig worker who was working all kinds of overtime, never getting paid overtime, the employer's excuse was, oh, you didn't know it, but you were really in it.
	Executive.
	So long as they're protecting the employee and not the executive, I'd be cool with it.
	I thought flip side, it was going to be an executive thing.
	Oh, I've actually worked a lot of overtime, so pay me more than...
	Okay, sorry.
	That's just the opposite.
	And so the U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision, but several conservative justices wanted the executive loophole to stay in place.
	And this will show something we'll constantly be dealing with with the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Which is these conservative Federalist Society justices may be very good on religion, very good on guns, very good on state bureaucratic power and hemming that in.
	But they'll often be, frankly, awful on issues of police.
	Issues of prosecutors, issues of politicians, and issues of big corporations, because they're frequently deferential to them.
	It should not be as predictive as it is.
	If you tell me which side a big corporation is on, I can tell you which side a so-called conservative constitutional justice will often be on.
	And so we'll see how that goes.
	But that's the SCOTUS wrap-up of the week, which basically was a crappy week at SCOTUS.
	All right.
	What else did we miss before we...
	You know, before we even get into what we missed, Robert, this week, who do we have on for?
	It's Wednesday.
	Who do we have on for Sidebar?
	Oh, I don't know because I don't know if I'll be available because the Brooke Jackson oral argument is Wednesday at 2 o 'clock in Beaufort, Texas.
	That's Vermont, Texas.
	And it's like four hours.
	I have to come back to Austin for a deposition on Thursday.
	Robert, that's a terrible excuse.
	I'm joking.
	We'll find something.
	Okay.
	We have a few rapid-fire cases.
	Briefly on the Murdoch murder trial, he testified, took the stand this week.
	Okay, so I actually boned up on that.
	I was watching it.
	Robert, I thought he was guilty at first.
	Then I thought they didn't prove the case.
	There was reasonable doubt.
	Then he testified, Robert.
	His excuse for lying about the most salient, Jermaine.
	Critical fact of the entire case that he was sleeping during the time of the murders.
	Now he has to say, I lied about having slept through it because I actually went to the scene of the crime six minutes before the crime occurred, but went back, dozed off.
	I now believe he's guilty.
	And I don't want to be like childish superficial and say, oh, I caught him on one lie, but that's not beyond a reasonable doubt.
	He lied about the most critical element of his alibi, then admits to having lied, and his answers in the bigger portion of his testimony were not just equivocations.
	They were like, if I did this, then I would have done...
	If I went back and went for a nap after having gone to where I said I didn't go because I lied to you the first time, then I would have done this.
	I think the guy's guilty.
	The motive that the prosecution is trying to put forward, that he murdered his wife and kid to generate sympathy so that they would go easy on him when he was still facing basically the rest of his life for the fraud charges.
	I acknowledge those are problematic, but that he lied on the most essential element.
	I was sleeping when it happened.
	Oh, I wasn't sleeping.
	I was actually there.
	Four minutes before it happened, assuming the timing based on cell phone data, I think he's guilty.
	But I am open to being convinced otherwise if the cell phone data, that data is inaccurate and so on.
	Robert, what's your take?
	Not that I'm going to defer to it, but I will definitely factor it in.
	Yeah, my takeaway is that it's consistent with my initial hypothesis, which is that he's a criminal narcissist and that criminal narcissists lie compulsively.
	And that he doesn't have the same emotional response most people would.
	That if he came and found them dead, his first thought would be, they're probably going to blame me.
	And so he started spinning a story that involved a lot of lies in order to get around that.
	But to me, I don't focus on him.
	I focus on the forensic evidence of the crime scene.
	And the fact that they cannot tie him to the crime scene through forensic evidence.
	Concerns me.
	And definitely concerns me of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
	That his expert witness that said the person who did this did this at an angle that's more consistent with being 5 '2", that otherwise he was holding the firearm in a very weird way.
	Let me stop you.
	I'm not 5 '2", people.
	Enough with the joke.
	I'm 5 '6", with shoes on.
	So, no.
	But, Robert, the forensic evidence.
	This is where I would get very skeptical.
	I'd say, look, if he frequents the kennel, which is on his property, there would be forensic evidence there to begin with.
	So the absence of forensic evidence is not...
	I mean like the blood and stuff.
	In other words, my understanding of the crime scene is such that there should have been blood on his clothes, blood on his body, and then the guns.
	And they have a real tight time frame.
	So somehow, he not only commits the murders...
	But he hides any forensic evidence tying him to the murder.
	Shoot footprints, blood and DNA, his own DNA on anybody.
	Not only at the crime scene, but between the crime scene and the house, anywhere around the house, in the car, and anywhere from the car forward.
	And so to me, it's like the probabilities of being able to commit that murder in the way we know it was committed.
	It makes it extremely unlikely that he was able to get away, be able to hide all that evidence and erase all the proof of it in such a tight timeframe.
	The second aspect is generally people just don't randomly commit murders and are very good at it.
	The third thing is the most, when I just look at, what I like to do is just look at the crime scene and say, what's the most likely explanation?
	Ignore everything else you know about the case.
	And there, all of it speaks, somebody in ambush, waiting to kill the kid, who didn't expect, who thus had a double-barrel shotgun, and used both barrels, and then was surprised by her presence, grabbed the other gun that was nearby, that may have been the kid's gun, chased her down, shot her, and then shot her execution style at somebody that's real comfortable, at somebody that's done this before, most likely.
	And then...
	Takes her phone with her.
	Because, like, why take her phone but not his phone?
	Somebody who thinks she might have recorded something but knew he didn't.
	Somebody who's waiting in ambush.
	That, to me, is still the most consistent with the evidence that's available.
	And that doesn't point towards him.
	So if I was on the jury, I'd vote not guilty.
	I think this does come down to a jury selection case.
	I can tell you that generally criminal narcissists, Scott Peterson, O.J. Simpson, Fitting in this category, I have doubts about their guilt as well.
	But juries just convict for the same reason you pointed out.
	That's, by the way, why I would have never put him on the stand.
	Well, look, Robert, I immensely respect everything you say.
	And even if I say, look, I'm going to stubbornly stick to my initial analysis, I don't trust a liar.
	And when I think someone's a liar...
	And that's the problem.
	I mean, it's hard to get ahead of that.
	I don't know how I would...
	I don't think I would ever embrace that if I was the defense attorney.
	I'd be tempted to, but I don't think you'd have to find jurors who could really understand that.
	I would try to get into the jury selection.
	That can you sort of plant the idea?
	Can you imagine someone has lied about things and lies a lot, but isn't guilty of murder?
	Well, lies about things like destroying people's lives, but...
	Oh, yeah.
	He's clearly a criminal narcissist, I mean, to me.
	But that, to me, was clear from day one.
	And I initially thought guilt as well.
	And then I saw the forensic evidence.
	I was like, this makes it unlikely.
	My guess, no matter what, he's going to life in prison just on the financial crimes.
	But my guess is somebody else did this.
	If I was a defense lawyer, that would be my focus.
	My focus would be, if he didn't do it, you're going to let the guilty person, a murderer, Out free, walking our streets tomorrow.
	Something, what's his name?
	Murdoch, I think we pronounce it Murdoch, said in his testimony when they said, I forget what it was exactly, but they said, how do you feel about the fact that when you were there, there was a murderer in the woods just waiting, because they had to have been there waiting to kill the kid and the wife after he left, and he said nobody else was there.
	And I'm saying, okay, gosh, darn it.
	For him to affirmatively assert no one else was there, I forget what it was.
	For him to assert that, that's like overcompensating, where I would never say no one was there, especially on a property like his.
	I'm sticking with guilty.
	In the chat, let's just see.
	We've still got a lot of people here in Rumble.
	One guilty, two not guilty.
	Not one Viva's right, two Barnes's right.
	Because I think we both have legitimate points that are defensible.
	One guilty.
	Two not guilty.
	Not will be found, you think.
	Let's just see.
	And we'll probably pull the locals board after the closing lines are made.
	I think from a skill set, defense lawyers have been better than the prosecutors.
	I think the judge has been very biased in the case.
	I think the judge is nervous about convicting him because he's let in stuff he never should have let in.
	I assume, I didn't see it, but if I were them, I would have put a proffer up before the court and I would say, judge, My client would not be taking the stand but for you including this evidence.
	I would have been doing that from the very beginning because that way I preserve the objection on appeal that whatever damage was done from his testimony was because of the judge's bad rulings on evidence rather than the rest.
	But my hunch is somebody else did it.
	And I think that somebody else is going to get away with it.
	And Robert?
	If your hunch is correct, the better part of Rumble right now agrees with you.
	Look, there's a lot of people making three and 17. The better part is saying two.
	I will say Nick Ricada made a point to me.
	We were having cigars.
	He and his wife out in Las Vegas.
	Oh, yes.
	When you're in Vegas fraternizing with Nick Ricada.
	Look, someone sent me a picture.
	I think it was you or Nick.
	I won't say I was jealous.
	But I was jealous.
	I see the two of you smoking cigars and drinking scotch.
	Oh yeah, we had some great, really good scotch.
	But he pointed out that apparently evidence came up that Murtagh supposedly had 50,000 of opioids or drugs a week.
	If that testimony is right, then there's a whole different possible hush-hush conspiracy theory out there.
	Which we'll save for...
	A future meetup of what the alternative hush-hush version of the Murdoch murders might actually be.
	Because there was an issue that he was taking lots of drugs, not just partaking in lots of drugs.
	Robert, there was one other thing I wanted to say about...
	No, I think I said about Murdoch.
	Murdoch.
	We have a couple of...
	We got, let's see, about...
	We got four or five quick ones and then...
	Do it.
	Go for it.
	Go for it.
	I'll read the chat while you do it.
	Good credit.
	A Catholic bookstore is suing the city of Jacksonville.
	And the reason is it's called the Queen of Angels and on violations of speech, press, religion, and due process grounds because the city of Jacksonville is requiring businesses as a matter of public accommodation to basically recognize the preferred pronouns of the customer and to not issue any public policy that would go counter to that.
	So they're suing on the grounds that's coerced speech, compelled speech, in the same way that Rumble won against the state of New York on.
	So credit to them.
	Hopefully that suit is successful.
	It should be.
	We have insurance companies are requiring when you re-up your insurance, probably most people don't know, insurance companies are secretly sharing your medical information with all the other insurance companies to collude, in my view, price fix.
	In violation of your privacy rights.
	What happened here was they misinterpreted the person's request as having certain health problems he did not have, lied to other insurers, including that data in there, so he couldn't get life insurance from anybody, and only found out later and had to sue, but in the process outed how private insurance companies are collusively, illicitly sharing your private medical information to make sure that you can't get...
	Qualified insurance.
	A big biometric case out of Illinois.
	Illinois has its own biometric privacy laws that says if they take your biometric data, your bioidentification data, you know, facial identification, fingerprints, etc., that they can only do it with your consent, and they can only share it with your consent.
	Well, White Castle is taking employees' fingerprints without their consent, requiring it in order to get their paychecks.
	And then sharing it with third parties without their consent.
	This is White Castle, the burger place.
	Yeah.
	Oh, my God.
	Harold and Kumar go to White Castle.
	I'll never watch.
	I'm boycotting.
	I'm going to burn my DVD.
	It's not as good as Crystal.
	Crystal's from Chattanooga.
	Great little Crystal burgers.
	Samuel L. Jackson made his first thing.
	Good midnight run.
	I'm not saying they're healthy.
	They're not famous, Miller, or organicfarm.com healthy.
	But, you know, they're burgers.
	Illinois Supreme Court established that each time they do it is its own violation.
	So White Castle is going to be writing a big check pretty soon.
	The two other big pieces of news, big Fourth Amendment case, state of New Hampshire hospital sued because the commissioner handled mentally ill patients.
	If you're mentally ill, you go to the hospital.
	The hospital diagnoses you as mentally ill.
	You're supposed to be immediately transferred to a state facility.
	But states have been underfunding these facilities for decades.
	They don't have adequate number of beds.
	They don't have adequate numbers of security.
	They don't have adequate number of doctors.
	People are harming themselves.
	People are often committed to these facilities to prevent them from harming themselves.
	And then it's made easier to harm themselves in those facilities.
	And so what was happening here is they were just sticking them at the hospital.
	And sticking the hospital with the bill and making them stay as part of the ER service so the hospital couldn't provide all the ER services to people they needed to provide services to.
	So they brought suit on Fourth Amendment grounds.
	Fourth Amendment grounds, people forget, they always think of takings laws when the government takes a possessory interest in your property that you can only pursue it under just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and often that's limited to permanent takings.
	People forget.
	The Fourth Amendment applies not just in the criminal context.
	The Fourth Amendment allows you to seek remedy whenever the government takes even a temporary possessory interest in property from you without probable cause or without meeting substantial justification.
	And so Doe versus Commissioner, New Hampshire decision, the court ruled that, in fact, it was unreasonable.
	That's all you have to show is the seizure.
	You have to show a seizure of a possessory interest in property and that it was unreasonable.
	And examples of it being unreasonable is that it was not ordered by a court and that it was not even authorized under state law.
	And that's what was happening here.
	And it's going to force New Hampshire to finally and hopefully other states to fund mental health facilities in America.
	Sorry, I cut you off there.
	I accidentally removed the wrong screen.
	That is fascinating.
	And the only other two cases we have is the Biden administration is trying to seize control over All waterways in America.
	Go on, Robert.
	I know nothing about this.
	So the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Waters Act has authority over the navigable waters of the United States.
	That's supposed to be interstate waters or waters connected there, too.
	It is not supposed to be seasonal ponds in your backyard.
	It's not supposed to be whatever they want to label a wetland.
	It's not supposed to be little creeks and rivers that don't connect to any navigable.
	Navigable are part of systems like the St. Lawrence Seaway, which goes interprovincially from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia to Ontario.
	And the burden is it usually screws farmers especially.
	So all of a sudden you have to get a bunch of permitting requests just to dredge a ditch.
	People can ask Nick Ricada about a case he handled about having to deal with that craziness in Minnesota, where everybody thought the guy was crazy because he's a local farmer.
	He goes, like, government's putting drones over my backyard.
	They're like, okay, whatever, George.
	You've been hitting the whiskey a little bit too much lately.
	Turned out that's exactly what was happening because they had all kinds of photos they could only have through drones going in his backyard.
	Unbelievable.
	And all he's trying to do is farm.
	Credit to the state of Kentucky.
	They've sued the EPA because they're saying this is an excess of authority.
	They're suing under the Administrative Procedures Act.
	Because they're saying it's arbitrary and capricious because there's impermissible factors they considered, which is their climate emergency politics.
	They've ignored key issues that were relevant.
	They ignored counter evidence that was pertinent.
	It's an excess of authority of what Congress provided for them in the first instance.
	They didn't properly notify interested parties, including farmers and others like the state of Kentucky involved in the process.
	They also argue it's a due process violation because the rules are so vague as to what is and isn't now a navigable water because they're defining it to be things that never has been before.
	There's a 10th Amendment violation of the principle of federalism.
	recognized and reflected in the law.
	It's a violation of the non-delegation doctrine because it's a major question that's committed to Congress, not the EPA in the first place.
	So hopefully they prevail at preventing this massive power grab by the Biden administration.
	Amazing.
	And the last case but not least...
	The 34-foot Marilyn Monroe statue.
	Oh, yeah.
	So this one I actually did my homework on.
	This is a...
	Where is it?
	It's in California.
	I thought for a second it was the Kiss in San Diego, but that was near the aircraft carrier.
	This is a massive statue of Marilyn Monroe from the famous movie The Seven-Year Itch, where the wind blows up her skirt.
	They put it on the street for display and closed the street down temporarily three...
	Two years ago?
	Three years ago?
	And they say it's part of a parade.
	We have the right under the bylaws to temporarily close out a street for a parade.
	And then keep it closed for two years.
	People petitioned shortly thereafter, were dismissed, were rejected.
	It went to appeal.
	And now I'm looking at the clock as though that's going to give you the answer.
	Two years later, whatever court of appeal was, it says, yeah, that's not what the law says.
	It was a...
	Temporary closure, the fact that it's going to come to an end at some point in the future doesn't make it temporary.
	You don't have the right to do it.
	That's my 30,000-foot overview.
	Did I miss anything?
	Are they ordered to open up the street right now?
	What are they going to do with the statue?
	Because I'll take it over here in Florida if anybody's selling it.
	It's a great statue.
	What's amazing is that the government was saying the definition of temporary was anything that's simply not permanent.
	That's called circular reasoning.
	People out there.
	Definition of permanent is that which is not temporary.
	Now, go home and figure it out.
	But what actually happens?
	Practically speaking, it's remained it back to the trial court to see whether remedy is appropriate.
	So enjoy another two years of Marilyn Monroe closing off your streets.
	Robert, speaking of Marilyn Monroe, this is not a question of goofing out like a fanboy, which I am.
	But I will.
	Robert.
	So I met Russell Brand.
	And my wife says, Viva, I don't...
	Well, she doesn't say Viva.
	She says, Dave, I don't know how to distinguish you from Russell Brand when I see your avatar on Rumble.
	And I met him.
	The only thing that distinguishes us, he's a full head tall of me.
	He's leaning down and it's...
	Robert, I like Russell Brand.
	I love him.
	We were there and I hope...
	You don't want to objectify people when you meet them in real life who are, you know, you've loved them from movies and you see them and you sort of get goofy and you don't want to turn them into objects.
	And I hope I didn't.
	But I had a good time and I met Russell Brand.
	What I will do, because I keep forgetting we have to end this with a video because Rumble at the end cuts off the stream rather harshly.
	I want to show this video, which was from the Rumble event as well.
	Didn't know it was part of the event.
	I'm just looking out in the water and I see a dude floating through the water up to his waist.
	And I'm like, what the hell is going on?
	And this is what happened.
	Hold on.
	What the heck?
	What is going on here?
	What is that?
	Oh, he's going in.
	I had no idea this was going to happen.
	Oh my goodness.
	When people understand that what is required to displace a human, that High above the water.
	You have to have that much weight pushing something to counterbalance.
	It's amazing.
	Robert, all that to say, this will be the end that gets cut off for those who watch this later.
	What are you doing this week?
	Where are you going to be?
	You're going to be working this week, so you might not have that much free time.
	Yeah, I don't know where and when I'll be able to take time out to appear anywhere because I have a lot of depositions, court hearings, and whatnot.
	So we'll see.
	But yeah, in Texas, The big one is in Beaumont, Texas, Wednesday afternoon, 2 p.m. local time.
	Will the judge allow Brooke Jackson's case on behalf of the American people to hold Pfizer accountable for one of the greatest public health crimes in the history of America?
	That might be live broadcast on the interwebs?
	No, no.
	Federal court, so there'll be no...
	Unless you're inside the courtroom, I don't think there's any other means to hear.
	I don't think I can fly out to Texas to see that.
	Do we have any people on the streets in Texas?
	Robert, you're going to be working all week.
	I don't want to ask you the question that's infused with my own projection.
	Are you eager for the next week, or does it crush your fucking soul to know what you have to do for the next week?
	No, no, not at all.
	It's part of the work, and hopefully we get progress in these cases.
	All right, so amazing.
	So for the next week, the schedule, Wednesday, we'll see.
	Tomorrow, it's Phil Damaris in studio.
	I think I might be interviewing also Richard Surrett in the evening.
	He's the guy that I've been on his channel, channel, radio show, TalkSaga960.
	Fascinating guy, like the Canadian version of Robert Barnes and Mark Robert.
	I don't know if it's tomorrow night.
	It might be Tuesday.
	There will be stuff all week, people.
	Robert.
	You're heading into what I think is a black week, a black pill week for me, because I don't want to be doing what you're doing, but give us a white pill to head us out for the week.
	Oh, sure.
	I mean, I think Brooke Jackson is a white pill.
	This is someone that very easily could have kept her mouth shut.
	Someone's been in the clinical trial space her entire life and career.
	Knew that by blowing the whistle, she was potentially ending her career.
	Knew that by blowing the whistle, she was subjecting herself to personal risk.
	Knew that by continuing to be public about it, Pfizer would come after her personally in a range of ways, and yet has never backed down and has continued to help other whistleblowers through this process, continue to be public about it, when in my view, the judge impermissibly Made statements that would intimidate a lot of other people.
	She did not get intimidated and stayed committed to the principle of exposing this horrible thing that had taken place on the American people, this horrible fraud.
	So I think she's a living, walking, talking white pill.
	Phenomenal.
	I'm going to end, Robert, just with this one.
	Just with this last one.
	I don't even know what...
	It's a $33 rumble rant.
	117513.
	If you haven't already been referred to the last two or three shows of the No Agenda show, the best podcast in the universe have had small reports about Veritas from a high level at Veritas to the show.
	I don't know what ITM means.
	Robert, stick around.
	We will say our proper goodbyes.
	As always, it's been a banger of an episode.
	It's been two and a half hours, and I forgot we started at seven.
	Neither my wife nor my kids have bothered me, so I think I'm in big, big trouble right now.
	Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes to everyone else.
	The stream will be on podcast.
	Clips on Viva Clips.
	That's it.
	Go.
	Enjoy the night.

▲