Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 24, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:50:28

Update on the January 6 Trials AND MORE! With Robert Gouveia - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There will be no intro video today.
	We're on short time, and what you might notice, however, first of all, good afternoon to everyone, except the West Coast, because it's still morning there.
	Good morning to everyone on the West Coast.
	You might notice impeccable, sharp, beautiful lighting, a camera that has proper contrast, and that also follows me around if I move my...
	Oh, jeez, you saw my fossil collection.
	Check that out.
	See, I moved all the fossils way over to the side.
	It's very cool that the camera follows me, but I don't like it.
	So, Eric Hundley, when you see this video, tell me how I disable the auto-track feature on this camera, because I don't like it, but I like the camera itself.
	Okay.
	I have an intro guest.
	I was going to start at 2 o 'clock and start with Robert Gouveia.
	We're going to talk about the January 6th, the latest in all those trials, and we're going to talk about it anyhow.
	But we're starting early today, or I guess we're starting on time just 20 minutes early before Gouveia comes on, to talk about Canada.
	I've had the Democracy Fund on, it's at least twice if it's not three times now.
	They are a firm, or they are an entity in Canada that are taking up a lot of these constitutional COVID cases, much like Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, much like Keith Wilson, and they're...
	Dealing with some amazing stuff now, one of which is the arrest of the pastor, Derek Reimer, the guy who was arrested for protesting a, you know, I think it was a drag, not a drag show, sorry.
	It was a drag book reading thing, I think.
	I'm pretty sure it was.
	So, I'm hiding, I hide nothing.
	I mean, I can show you what I'm hiding.
	Oh, now it doesn't seem to be tracking me.
	Whatever.
	But I tell you what, I like this camera.
	I just want it to stop moving because, yeah.
	All right, I'm going to bring on our first guest, Alan Hohner, a lawyer at the Democracy Fund.
	We're going to talk Canada madness, and then we're getting into the U.S. madness when Robert Gouveia comes on, who you might know from watching The Watchers.
	Alan, sir, how goes the battle?
	Hi, Theo.
	Thanks for having me on.
	It's my pleasure.
	I don't know how many times someone from TDF has been on, but it's been a few now.
	But there's been some good stuff happening in Canada.
	First of all, just tell everyone you're a lawyer.
	You look very young, but you look young enough to be a lawyer.
	You're a practicing attorney?
	That's right.
	I'm a lawyer at the Democracy Fund.
	I'm actually their litigation director.
	We are a civil liberties group.
	We're a charity.
	We're located in Toronto.
	And like you said, we do a lot of the same type of work that groups like the JCCF do.
	Fantastic.
	Now, so you're dealing with a couple of big ones now.
	And if I'm not mistaken, or at least in my humble opinion, the biggest is...
	Well, you're dealing with a bunch of COVID tickets.
	And I say COVID tickets not to downplay the severity of what it means for people to get these tickets, but you're dealing with a number of those contesting those tickets issued under the health orders.
	You were involved in the commission, the...
	The Rouleau Commission, which ended wonderfully.
	And you're involved also with Derek Reimer, the pastor who was arrested in Alberta?
	That's right.
	Those are some of our cases.
	So Derek Reimer is sort of an interesting case, if you've been following that one, Viva.
	This was a pastor out in Calgary, and he went to protest a, I guess it was called a Drag Queen Story Hour.
	He didn't feel that it was right, I suppose, that...
	That parents brought their children to the library to have their children read to by drag queens.
	Whatever the case is about that, he went there, he protested.
	And I think that probably, you know, it might have made sense that he could have been kicked out of there.
	But they went much further than that.
	They criminally charged him with causing a disturbance.
	They charged him with mischief.
	I think that was a bit of Overreach, right?
	And so we are involved in this case with funding his defense because, you know, I don't know if you would agree with me, but one of my favorite politicians once said that freedom is indivisible.
	And so, you know, if somebody is being criminally charged simply for expressing something, then that's something that could happen to all of us down the road.
	Well, especially for the disturbance that he's alleged to have caused.
	I mean, the videos out there on Twitter, he was shouting or speaking of a loud voice.
	And then he was, I think, physically lifted up and pushed out of the room.
	I'm going to ask the obvious question because we saw what happened to others who were charged with mischief.
	They were detained for, in Tamara Leach's case, weeks on end.
	In Pat King's case, months on end.
	Chris Barber, I think also months, if not weeks.
	When he was arrested, was he detained for any extended period of time?
	Or was he in and out the same day, as should be the case for all mischief charges?
	Right.
	And I should clarify, so I'm not counsel of record.
	And that allows me, it gives me a little bit of latitude.
	I can speak about it a bit more freely because I'm not privy to all the solicitor-client confidentiality that's happening in this case.
	He was detained for bail, though.
	He had a bail hearing.
	He was released, but the conditions were very strict.
	They were almost impossible to comply with.
	And I don't remember the wording of the conditions exactly, but the bail conditions prohibited him essentially from having any contact whatsoever with anyone from the LGBTQ community.
	And how can anyone...
	How can anyone comply with a condition like that?
	How would you even know if you're breaking a condition like that?
	You couldn't leave your house.
	Alan, I'll answer it cynically as the man who has taken a black pill suppository these days.
	The conditions are intended to be the predicate for future criminal accusations of breach of terms, like they did with Tamara Leach.
	The process is the punishment.
	But also, if they don't get you on the substance, they'll get you on the procedure.
	So issue some conditions of release that are opaque, ambiguous, or unreasonable.
	And when you breach them, get you on that, even if the ultimate underlying charge is dismissed or whatever.
	Well, you know, it's...
	That's quite a theory, Viva.
	But, you know, you're right in a way because if you breach a bail condition, that can be charged as a separate offense.
	And even if you're found innocent or you're acquitted or the charges are stayed on the original offense, you can still be convicted of the failure to comply.
	And breach of terms in Canada, I'm fairly certain, can lead to confiscation of even lawfully procured firearms.
	I'm not sure as to what breach of what terms, but...
	It can cause a world of pain, and I think that's the intention.
	Now, but hold on, when you say you're not the attorney of record, is the Democracy Fund representing Reimer?
	Right, so what we do, Viva, sometimes what we'll do is we'll...
	Defend people directly.
	We'll be counsel of record on a court application or something like that.
	And other times when the matter is a little bit outside of our jurisdiction or we have to act very quickly, we will obtain a lawyer that we know and we trust and who is just top notch and will fund that lawyer to defend whoever it is.
	In this case, it's Derek Reimer and he's being represented by a...
	A lawyer out in Calgary.
	Fantastic.
	I mean, it's so preposterous because even if, let's just say hypothesis, even if Reimer made a scene, these are not things which in any realm of a sane universe should be prosecuted unless the purpose of the prosecution is to make a political point.
	This type of behavior will not be tolerated.
	Now, sometimes...
	That's a legitimate purpose for prosecution when the mischief itself is actually destructive, actually harmful, or actually leads to real problems other than a five-second skirmish that goes viral on Twitter, but maybe the going viral was the issue.
	I know what Keith would say to this, although maybe I won't put words in his mouth.
	Do you feel that there is an overt weaponization of the prosecutorial process?
	Well, you know, I think if someone believed that the prosecution of Derek Reimer was political, they would at least have a cause for believing that.
	And, you know, Viva, you're probably aware that shortly after Derek was arrested, City Council in Calgary, they passed a bylaw.
	They passed it very quickly, right?
	They didn't use the...
	They didn't go through the ordinary steps.
	They didn't send this thing to committee or anything like that.
	They passed this bylaw, and it was called the Safe and Inclusive Access Bylaw.
	And I'd like to just tell you something about this bylaw that I haven't told anyone yet, but I think it's very strange.
	Hold on, hold on.
	Before you do that, everybody watching, snip and clip this, because not very many people know of this bylaw, which many are saying criminalizes lawful protest.
	So, snip clip so the world knows what's going on in, is it Danielle Smith's Alberta?
	Is it Danielle Smith?
	It's Danielle Smith.
	Danielle Smith's Alberta.
	Sorry to interrupt you.
	Now tell us.
	We're going to get to the expedited process after this, but tell us the exclusive.
	Well, Viva, this bylaw is supposed to, you know, if you look at the objective of the bylaw, it's most likely to, quote, keep people safe from protests, which will...
	You know, criticize them based on some ground which is protected under the human rights code, right?
	Something like race, something like gender, something like sexual orientation.
	But the question is really, does it do that?
	And does it perhaps even do the opposite?
	Now, what I'd like to point out is that this bylaw prohibits something called specified protests within 100 meters of a Library or a recreational facility.
	But what is a specified protest?
	And if you read the definition of it, and I'm going to paraphrase it a little bit here because I don't want to read it word by word, but it means basically an expression of disapproval towards an idea that's related to race or gender expression or so on and so forth.
	So consider this, Viva.
	What if you and I If we were 90 meters within the entrance of a library in the city of Calgary and we had a demonstration, we're protesting anti-racism.
	We said anti-racism is a bad thing, right?
	That's prohibited by the bylaw.
	If you're criticizing racism, you're disapproving an idea.
	That is related to race, right?
	So this is a strange thing about the bylaw.
	It was so badly thought out.
	I was listening to...
	Actually, it was a pastor talking about Bill C4.
	And I forget who he was quoting, but he said, ambiguity always benefits the evil.
	Because ambiguity, especially when it's not accidental, will always be weaponized by the ill intent or those who have ill intent.
	And it's funny that you mentioned this prohibiting protest within vicinities of certain areas.
	Quebec did the exact same thing.
	Overnight, under the cloak of darkness under COVID, prohibited protest outside of hospitals, outside of schools, if they related to COVID measures.
	Not for the unionized workers.
	So it's...
	Democracy dies in darkness or overnight or by the legislature.
	Sorry to cut you off.
	Please carry on.
	No, that's okay.
	That's a great point.
	And, you know, we've seen this in provinces in BC.
	We've seen it in Ontario related to other sort of very specified issues, like abortion is one of the issues, right, where people are not allowed to protest because of certain bubble zones.
	But the thing that makes this one unique is that, like I say, it captures the opposite of what it's intended to.
	Capture, right?
	In theory, it's supposed to protect people based on human rights grounds, but it also does the opposite.
	And you know what that means, Viva?
	It means that the bylaw is too broad, right?
	Because whenever you look at one of these bylaws and you're trying to decide whether it can be upheld as a reasonable limit on our freedom of expression, you have to determine the objective of that bylaw.
	Then you look at the objective and you see how it sort of interacts with the measures taken to achieve that objective, right?
	And in this case, those measures go too far.
	They're way beyond the objective.
	Even if you bought the objective in the first place as a valid objective, right?
	If the objective is to keep people safe from discriminatory protests, that's not all this bylaw does.
	It does way more than that.
	It's not proportional to what...
	Basically, it's not proportional, and I don't think it's constitutional.
	Sure, and they'll say, if it's not, take it to court.
	You'll be the first person to get charged on it, contested, on void for vagueness, like they're suggesting with that Bill C-4, which criminalizes conversion theory as defined in the law, which is a one-way street of talking someone into heterosexuality.
	Scary stuff.
	What was I just going to say?
	Are people feeling that this is actually just an overt disguised attack on religion?
	Because talking about the Bill C-4, which criminalizes conversion therapy, really seems to be targeting pastors, priests, the religious.
	This protest seems to be targeting, if not directly, indirectly, abortion-type stuff, drag queen-type stuff, which might Well,
	we'll have to see how it's enforced, right?
	Because if you look at the bylaw, the bylaw would also, you know, it would prohibit Protests which are critical of religion within 100 meters of a library, for example.
	But if that happens, will it be enforced?
	When churches were being burned down all across this country, not much happened.
	I think some people were charged, but there wasn't a huge outcry about it.
	It doesn't seem like the perpetrators of those crimes were really pursued with all of the police resources that were available and which are sometimes, you know, it seems might be sort of disproportionately directed towards other causes which seem a little bit more, you know, politically popular.
	Yeah, I know what I think.
	It doesn't matter, though.
	Some of the COVID tickets that you've been dealing with, there's been some good results out of British Columbia?
	Yeah, I mean, we deal with COVID tickets.
	We deal with criminal charges.
	A lot of the criminal charges are related to the convoys.
	You know, sometimes those tickets, sometimes they're stayed.
	Sometimes we negotiate a withdrawal.
	Sometimes we have to go to trial.
	You know, we have one right now.
	It'll be really interesting to see what the...
	What the judge rules, this was a gathering ticket, and it's such an outrageous set of facts.
	The police came, they knocked on the door, and when nobody answered it, they just opened the door wide open.
	You know, Viva, we're trying to argue that this is a breach of your right to, it violates your reasonable expectation of privacy.
	And, you know, when somebody tried to close the door, the police said, no, you can't do that.
	It's outrageous.
	It's outrageous.
	And the courts, in my humble opinion, have not been doing the job they were supposed to do, which is uphold the law as opposed to please the politicians.
	Last question, Alan, before...
	And then, you know, tell everybody where to find you and where they can support your ventures because...
	Not yours, but the Democracy Fund.
	Oh, no, this is the question.
	In as much as you can answer it without swearing, your feelings on the conclusion of the commission that exonerated Trudeau, ratified his actions, what are your thoughts?
	Yeah, well, you know, they can't be summed up in just a sentence, and I'm worried about taking time away from your other guests.
	But, you know, I really think it all came down to reasonable grounds, right?
	And reasonable grounds is such a...
	It's such a flexible standard that, you know, you can make it go either way.
	It can flex in one direction or another, right?
	And I think in this case, the evidence was so low.
	But, I mean, what are reasonable grounds, right?
	It's something that is more than suspicion, but it's less than a balance of probability.
	That's sort of, you know, the area it occupies.
	And, you know, I think when Justice Rouleau, Commissioner Rouleau, said that the evidence wasn't very good and, you know, reasonable people could disagree with his conclusion, I think maybe that's the best we could have hoped for.
	Maybe we should actually consider this a victory.
	Yeah, reasonable people could disagree.
	Reasonable people could disagree, except, no, freezing bank accounts, it was effective.
	So let's do it again the next time there's a protest outside of a library.
	Well, Viva, if somebody wants to read a little bit more about what we think, we had a short reaction piece on our website.
	They can look at it.
	It's thedemocracyfund.ca.
	If they want to donate to help us with the type of charitable work we do, they can do that there, too.
	Thedemocracyfund.ca.
	I'll put all the links in the pinned comment when we're done, when the stream is over and I can put a pinned comment.
	Alan?
	Let's do this again.
	Keep us up to date.
	I, you know, I not feel obligated.
	I'm going to keep the bullhorn on Canada.
	I did the day before yesterday, or was it yesterday?
	I forget.
	It doesn't matter.
	An entire, you know, a piece on Bill C4, because there are Canadians who don't know what just happened in Canada within the last year.
	And I do tend to think that mockery and public humiliation are very good deterring factors or good factors for change.
	So we'll keep it on blast.
	But Alan?
	Democracy Fund, thank you for everything you do.
	Flip me the links in any case, or Jessica will flip me the links, and I'll put them up in the pinned comment so people can find you and support your work.
	Thanks a lot, Eva.
	Thank you.
	Have a good weekend.
	You too.
	All right, bye-bye.
	All right, people.
	Glowing forehead because I'm glistening with rage.
	I do need a powder person maybe one day.
	I'm not going to powder.
	All right, now I see Robert in the background, and now that I'm looking at our respective studios, People are going to accuse me of having plagiarized his backdrop.
	Purple is the color these days, people.
	I said it as a joke to my wife, and then she ordered this Viva Fry.
	All right.
	I'm going to bring Robert on here, and then we're just going to go over to Rumble afterwards.
	Apparently, the chat is a little wild in Rumble.
	And we're going to go from Canadian madness to American madness, because this is not unique to Canada.
	The weaponization of the judicial process.
	Is it not unique to Canada?
	I don't know if it's trickling down, trickling up, or I don't know if the entire world is rotting from the inside.
	They say that fish rots from the head, but anybody who's seen a rotten fish, I mean, it rots from everywhere all at once.
	All right, so I'm going to bring on Robert in three, two, one.
	Sir?
	Viva!
	What's up?
	Dude, it's been a while.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	This is beautiful.
	I think I like your backdrop better than mine.
	Yours looks beautiful.
	Your camera is great.
	Mine's a little washed out.
	I switched my input, and so I look a little flat today.
	But you look fabulous, man.
	And congratulations on the move.
	Congratulations on coming to the States to Rumble.
	It's been a long time, but a lot has happened.
	So congratulations.
	I'm going to zoom it in so we can do this.
	No, you're still sharpened.
	You're looking.
	Okay, you're looking good.
	Okay, now here's what's going to happen, people.
	We're going to go over to Rumble right now.
	And then after this, we're going to go to Locals for a little bit afterwards.
	The link to the Rumble is in the pinned comment in the live chat.
	And then afterwards, everyone's going to find the links to the Democracy Fund.
	And we're going to get into the madness because nobody's been following.
	There's been a few people following it this closely.
	Robert has been one of them.
	So ending on YouTube, go over to Rumble and we're going to talk January 6th madness.
	Three, two, one.
	We are now exclusive on Rumble and Locals.
	And I'm going to check the chat there to make sure that we're good.
	And we are.
	Robert, when was the last time we talked?
	I mean, we've been messaging, but it's been a little bit of a while.
	How's life going?
	Life's good.
	And I was thinking back, I think it was around the Freedom Trucker Convoy protest, and it was sort of a good segue from what you were talking about with Alan, because today, I think Joe Biden was meeting with Justin Trudeau, and they were talking about their shared values and about how in sync they are.
	And the last time we spoke, I think it was, I made a video about...
	Dictator Justin Trudeau and all of the Freedom Trucker convoy, and you were out there getting your, you know, frozen off, you know, supporting these guys.
	And a lot has happened since then.
	Yeah, well, everybody on my end knows what happened in Canada since then.
	They had the commission.
	Trudeau was ratified, exonerated.
	Now there's a whole new scandal of Chinese Communist Party infiltration into the Canadian government.
	I think it was just yesterday they voted.
	Not anywhere near unanimously, but they voted to actually appoint an independent investigator, whatever they're going to call it, an independent commission, to look into foreign interference, foreign financial interference from the Communist Party of China, to look into infiltration of the Liberal Party.
	But, Robert, let's bring it down to the states and the weaponization of the judicial process to prosecute to the fullest extent of an injustice the people involved in January 6th.
	Where do we even start?
	I mean, let's start from before the current trials.
	Oath Keepers.
	Oath Keepers had their trial.
	And tell us, if you can, give us the overview, what was revealed and what the outcome was.
	Yeah, the Oath Keepers trial, I haven't...
	They're actually still ongoing.
	I think there were just convictions for the last...
	There were several co-defendants.
	You know, these are co-defendant cases.
	And there were some charges.
	There were mostly convictions.
	We covered that one a little bit, but there wasn't anything really explosive that stood out to me on that case.
	A lot of these J6 prosecutions have really been, in my opinion, very uninteresting, actually.
	Kind of just paint-by-numbers, very formulaic, very templated, and it's kind of the same process through and through.
	A lot of these defense teams are not getting really any benefits, any good rulings.
	There was one issue that popped up about...
	Whether one charge could stick.
	And I think that charge is being appealed.
	It had to do with whether it was a very technical issue.
	But by and large, it's been pretty standard operating procedure.
	You know, they kind of read through the script.
	They call it an insurrection.
	And most people are just convicted out of D.C. In my opinion, the jurors there are very likely to convict people just, you know, open and shut without much evidence there.
	But zooming out, there are these two big buckets of the more serious cases.
	Which were the sedition conspiracy cases, and the Oath Keepers was one of those buckets.
	So you have different types of cases in January 6th.
	You have the people who were there kind of on their own, not with a group.
	They were protesting, went with their families, went with their friends, and they got charged as individuals.
	But then we have these two different categories of these insurrectionists, these seditious conspiracists.
	And the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were both of those groups.
	The Oath Keepers...
	Was a very interesting case.
	The trial wasn't that interesting, but the case was interesting because that's one, that's kind of where Ray Epps comes into the saga, because Ray Epps was a former Oath Keepers here in Arizona, actually.
	And so they were saying maybe he was there as a confidential human source or somebody closely connected to the Proud Boys, I'm sorry, to the Oath Keepers, which was Stuart Rhodes, kind of the guy with the eye patch.
	And the allegation from the DOJ is, you know, this was much bigger than Just a protest or just a riot.
	If it was just a bunch of rioters or, you know, grandmas going around the Capitol building on a tour or something like that, that wouldn't have turned this into the national spectacle that they needed it to be.
	So they had to go round up people and charge them with seditious conspiracy, meaning like they were actually going to conspire to take over the country, right?
	Sedition to, you know.
	They commandeer the mechanisms of power in the United States.
	And so they had to go find these two groups.
	They found the Oath Keepers.
	We haven't been following that one as much.
	Maybe we should.
	But it hasn't been as explosive as this other Proud Boys case.
	And so this Proud Boys case was also actually quite uninteresting until just about two weeks ago when we started to see some of the cracks materialize because of some bizarre disclosures about FBI informants.
	Different spreadsheets with hidden data and deleted evidence.
	And so there's a ton to unpack.
	I mean, that's where I have to figure out where we want to start with this.
	I don't want to get the carriage in front of the horse.
	Right.
	I guess start from the beginning and I know which questions I want to ask and I'll get to them if we don't.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, we could zoom in on the Proud Boys and then zoom back out.
	I mean, I have a lot of commentary or sort of revelations that have come out with this Proud Boys saga.
	We've been talking about January 6th for a long time, and I've always had a ton of questions about it and been very doubtful about the official narrative and sort of joking that the Fed's erection and FBI was involved and there are these confidential human sources all over the place and Ray Epps.
	But what we have found this week, I think, really, really unveils the whole thing.
	And just to be clear on some of the numbers here, in the Proud Boys trial, there are five people on trial right now as co-defendants.
	Five of the Proud Boys, one of whom had no even violent tendencies.
	They've been in custody for two years.
	The whole thing has been on the pretext.
	Stop there for one second.
	They've been in pretrial detention for two years?
	Yeah.
	On the basis of charges of seditious conspiracy.
	Seditious conspiracy.
	And if you go through the full indictment, they're making the allegation that these guys were...
	Literally conspiring in their telegram groups.
	They said that they had this plan that was drafted in a PDF to start taking over buildings and stuff like that.
	But as the evidence starts to unpack, we find that there are confidential human sources just embedded all throughout this case.
	And as I was saying, there was five co-defendants and we're finding there are 10, maybe 15 confidential human sources and there's all sorts of evidence that has just been...
	Coming to light, that's really shocking.
	That makes it seem way worse than I even expected.
	I'm still somewhat flabbergasted because I know that there were January 6th defendants that were in jail for up to two years in pretrial detention on, you know, effectively obstruction of Congress charges.
	So Rhodes, sorry, well, we're the proud boys here.
	Two years pretrial detention, do we have any word?
	Did they describe the conditions?
	Are they as good as the January 6th defendants?
	And I'm saying as good sarcastically.
	So, I don't know specifically where the Proud Boys are being held, but there are all sorts of problems in the D.C. jails, and there was just an article this morning about that.
	In fact, they had to remove a bunch of the defendants, and specifically, I'm not sure where the Proud Boys are, but I would imagine it's in the same general area.
	They had to move a bunch of them out of the D.C. jails because the conditions were so bad, and then they are just now moving them back in.
	The problem with all of this, Viva, is we can't really see the evidence on this.
	We have questions about the conditions of the jails.
	There was just a visit, I think, today.
	There were congresspeople who went down there to go actually see for themselves.
	Because when you try to file motions, when all of these defense attorneys are trying to get information about anything, the FBI, the DOJ, they just turn around and they say, these are sensitive sources and methods, or these are confidential, or the investigation is still ongoing.
	And so we can't get access to a lot of this.
	Part of the crack of this facade, I mean, some of it is just coming about through happenstance and through chance and through just mistakes that the government is making.
	And thank God that it's happening because we're finally getting to see what's actually happening.
	But there was on this pretrial detention stuff, Carmen Hernandez, which is a defense attorney for Zachary Real, who's one of the co-defendants, she's made the point many times and she's asked the judge, can we modify his release conditions to get him out of custody?
	This is a younger guy.
	He's got a two-year-old daughter who I don't think he's ever seen yet because he's been in custody since the woman was pregnant, has his daughter.
	He's been in custody for two years.
	Carmen Hernandez has been begging the judge.
	Judge, my client, out of all of these other co-defendants, did nothing criminal, no flagpoles, no spitting, walked in, walked out.
	And can we please, she just made this argument earlier this week, can we please reconsider his bond?
	Can we get him out of custody?
	And the judge says, no, you know, can't do it.
	What is the...
	It's going to be the stupid question because we know the answer.
	What's the rationale?
	What's the basis?
	I mean, we know what goes in.
	It's flight risk, menace to society, etc.
	What has been the justification by this judge?
	It's the judge who determines this.
	What's been the justification?
	The judge is going all the way back to the original ruling.
	So, you know, once they get...
	Judges are very much like this.
	Once they get something anchored in, it's hard to get them to change it.
	So they have made that situation.
	That ruling already a long time ago, and he just keeps deferring back to that.
	And just like you said, it's all about the mechanics of the law.
	And the Justice Department and the FBI and the courts have been very sneaky about this.
	There's certain things that are written in the law, and you've got to obviously follow them how they're written, but there's other areas where there's a lot of gray area, and you can kind of get what you want done.
	And so we can come back to that.
	But in this case, it's exactly what you said.
	Are they a danger to society?
	Are they a flight risk?
	What is the severity of the crime?
	And what's the likelihood of reoffending?
	Are they going to get back in and be involved?
	Are they going to be a danger to themselves or a danger to the community?
	And all those various factors.
	The judge issued a ruling on that a long time ago.
	And what you would expect is that this new evidence would come to light.
	That we see new Jacob Chansley videos.
	We see new videos from inside the Capitol building where it doesn't look like there's this...
	Massive insurrection to seize power.
	It looks like these cops are sort of letting people meander all over the place.
	But when the judge doesn't accept the new evidence, what we're looking for to modify release conditions is a material change in circumstances, something that changed.
	The judge doesn't consider new confidential human sources being released or unveiled a material change.
	The judge doesn't consider material change Brady violations that might have come to light?
	Nothing.
	Hidden evidence, destruction of evidence.
	The judge is, every time the defense pops up one of these issues, the judge just sort of puts a little force field around it and just says, well, that's a problem, but it's only a problem here.
	Our case is not even talking about that.
	And it's been that same pattern.
	So when you're trying to crack the shell in order to see what is actually going on, the judge is putting up force fields.
	Robert, I'll just bring something up quickly because I had to fact check my own memory.
	Were you aware that the Proud Boys were designated as a terrorist entity in Canada?
	I did not know that in Canada.
	I remembered this and then I was saying when they designated the Proud Boys as a terrorist entity in Canada, I don't know that I had ever even heard of the Proud Boys, let alone any act of terrorism that they had participated in, planned, or were foiled.
	The Canadian government designated the Proud Boys group as a terrorist entity on Wednesday, noting they played a pivotal role in the insurrection At the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.
	This is amazing.
	The Proud Boys have faced increased scrutiny after seizing on the former Trump administration's policies, and the group was a major agitator during earlier protests in the Capitol right on January 6th.
	Proud Boys is a far-right male chauvinist extremist group known for engaging in violent clashes at political rallies.
	Canada is the first country to designate them as a terrorist entity.
	I'm sure they were the first.
	And we're hoping not to be the last.
	Set the precedent so that the U.S. could do it.
	And some of us were hypothesizing in Canada that one of the reasons for doing this is it makes it much easier for the government to seize assets because they're a designated terrorist entity and they can do it sort of bypassing the standard rule of law.
	But for those who didn't know that, I think many people did.
	They must be bad because Canada went out of their way to designate them a terrorist group because of their participation in the January 6th insurrection.
	There's a lot of that here.
	They're using that language a lot.
	You know, we hear a lot of our congresspeople calling the Proud Boys and the J6, everybody there, domestic terrorists.
	We hear that all the time.
	Nobody's been charged with domestic terrorism.
	Nobody's been charged with insurrection.
	That is a law here in the United States, and nobody's been charged with that.
	And even these seditious conspiracy charges are a stretch.
	And, you know, we can get into some of the evidence on that.
	But I was surprised that that article didn't call him also a white supremacist.
	There's a lot of that here.
	I think it's implied they're the chauvinist white.
	But maybe they couldn't because the leader, I forget his name, happens to be Cuban and not white.
	Right, Enrique Tarrio, yeah.
	Enrique Tarrio.
	So let's get into some of the evidence and let's get into some of the bombshell, not disclosures, but accidental revelations because there have been a few.
	Yeah, real quick, before we jump in on that one point, you were talking about domestic terrorists and that being a pretext to do other things.
	And I think that's an astute point.
	I saw another idea that maybe they would be the special counsel in the Trump case here in the United States.
	Remember, there's a lot of overlap between all of this.
	The January 6th stuff, I make the argument a lot, was sort of the domestic version of 9-11.
	They wanted the excuse to come and unveil a new domestic security blanket over all of us and unveil Capitol Hill police, FBI, on this homegrown violent extremism and all of these things.
	But the Proud Boys...
	They came into the election a little bit when Donald Trump was on the debate stage.
	If you remember, he said, stand back and stand down and stand by.
	Stand back, stand by, something like that.
	And that was a big explosion down here.
	Everybody said, wow, he's enabling the white supremacists, all of those groups.
	And this was all, of course, before January 6th.
	And so now you also have, to add a layer to this, but you have the Trump investigations going on.
	I would take out the Manhattan investigation.
	I would take out the Georgia investigation and say, what is Jack Smith, the special counsel, doing?
	He is demanding Mike Pence come in and testify.
	I think he really wants to prosecute Trump for J6, for this election interference stuff.
	And that order from Trump essentially is what he's going to call it.
	That makes the connection between Trump and the Proud Boys.
	That's that direct intent, right?
	Trump is organizing his militia, and I think they're going to try to make that.
	Which is why I think the domestic terrorist moniker is so troubling.
	They really want it all to be connected.
	What's amazing is reading that article now in retrospect coming out of Canada, it seems like it's almost like Trudeau is trying to do a solid to his buddy Biden and say, I'll do it up here so that you have some cover for doing it in the States.
	But I don't think in as much as Americans think that they hate the Proud Boys, I don't think that that would ever fly here.
	But I don't know what what goes into the process of designating a group as a terrorist entity in the states.
	But it's like it's like it's like they just want to get the precedent there so that Biden I agree completely.
	And I think it's about execution and making sure that they can beta test it before they have to unroll it on another country, you know, in a bigger situation.
	If you want to zoom even further out, you take a look at what's happening with the banks and the meltdowns and maybe potential CBDCs.
	And if we're all onboarded onto a new digital currency, it's a lot easier to just turn off the truckers at that point or to turn off the extreme ultra mega.
	They're already laying the framework for this.
	Joe Biden has already given a speech on it.
	And so I really do think that that is where they would like this to go.
	And it's important that we keep calling out this bad evidence and holding them to account.
	So that they can't do it.
	All right.
	Now, so we're currently engaged in or involved in, it's day 41 of, which of the Proud Boys are currently on trial?
	So all five of them, they're being charged as co-defendants, and they are, today is day 43. And it's been a long, long slog.
	I mean, the first maybe three weeks were not that interesting.
	It was just the government presenting their case.
	And then about day 30-something, I don't remember exactly what day it was, I've been following it along.
	You know, I'm kind of keeping my eyes on them.
	And I saw, holy moly, there was this FBI agent.
	Her name was Nicole Miller.
	And she got called in.
	I think it was the second day of her testimony.
	And the way it works is, you know, defense attorneys, they want...
	All the files.
	They want all the videos.
	They want all the reports.
	They want everything, right?
	When we go into a case, we say, give us everything you got.
	And the government's going to give us only a certain amount of that.
	They're going to say, well, you don't need everything.
	You don't need all of those reports, okay?
	You just defense attorneys, you know, stop asking for everything.
	You're on a fishing expedition.
	And we say we need more.
	They say you need less.
	So the rules say that when...
	The rules kind of try to make a split down the middle and give this happy medium.
	They say, all right, defense, you can't ask for everything in the world, but when the government puts somebody on a stand and they testify, if they reference certain reports, if they reference certain text messages or studies or books or anything, right, whatever, you can say, I want that material disclosed over to us so that we can verify what they said on the stand.
	So in this case, we had FBI agent, her name was Nicole Miller, And she was in charge of monitoring all of these Proud Boys.
	So there are five of them, and they have to charge them as co-defendants because it's a conspiracy.
	You can't charge one person by themselves as a conspiracy.
	They're saying that all of these guys were colluding together.
	They were the leadership of the Proud Boys.
	They were orchestrating the sedition, literally, right, to take over the country, as ridiculous as that is.
	So they're putting them all together, and they're charging them.
	They're going through a lot of their Telegram groups, their text messages, their emails, all these different things.
	An FBI agent, Nicole Miller, is testifying about it.
	Let me just stop you to contextualize time-wise.
	This is after January 6th as part of the investigation, or is this leading up to January 6th as part of their infiltration?
	So this is...
	She's discussing Telegram internal chats from the days up to January 6th, on January 6th, and days after January 6th.
	And there's a lot of chats, right?
	There's...
	I don't know, five of them that are big ones.
	And then there's sort of leadership groups and organization groups, tons of different chats.
	And so this FBI agent, she spent, I don't know, the last two years or so, combing through all of these Telegram messages.
	And she's putting together the conspiracy.
	She's saying, oh, this person communicated to this person that they're going to be here on this time.
	And you have to imagine, right, if you're going to be...
	Seizing a country, you better have some pretty good plans in place, especially a country as powerful as the United States.
	So they are trying to recreate this story that they're all communicating to get this done.
	FBI agent Nicole Miller is on the stand and she's talking about these telegram messages.
	And the defense attorneys are asking her questions.
	And so you said what to who and who sent the message?
	And okay, so when you were investigating this...
	Who gave you the instructions about...
	Okay, all technical stuff, not even that interesting.
	After she's done testifying, according to the rules, the defense gets to get the documents that she referenced, right?
	As I explained earlier, we don't get everything unless they reference it in their testimony.
	It's called Jenks material.
	So the Jenks material then comes over from the defense, to the defense.
	FBI is down off the stand.
	She just finished.
	And she said, I referenced...
	In the FBI, they have this internal messaging system where they send messages back and forth.
	In her testimony, she talked about those messages.
	The defense said, can we please see what's in there?
	So she sent them over this big Excel row, Excel spreadsheet.
	And there were about 20 to 25 rows of her messages.
	FBI agent Nicole says, I was talking to this person.
	I was talking to this person.
	He sent me a message back and so on and so forth.
	The defense got the spreadsheet.
	And they noticed, oh my gosh, there's all of these rows in the Excel file that seem to be hidden.
	And it's not like 10 or 20 rows.
	Thousands of rows are all hidden.
	And what are these rows?
	These are internal messages from the FBI's internal Slack system.
	They call it Link, where they're communicating back and forth about Lord knows what.
	We don't even know what it is.
	So the FBI is talking about a ton of stuff.
	And this FBI agent, before she gave it to the defense, Deleted or hid a bunch of the rows.
	Defense gets their hands on this.
	They start combing through it.
	We have all sorts of issues.
	I can't even tell you.
	They have messages that one FBI senior person is asking this FBI agent, Nicole, to delete evidence, to delete 338 pieces of evidence.
	Don't know really what that reference is or what that's about.
	It's reminiscent of the Whitmer trial where you had the FBI agent telling the informants to delete some text messages that were otherwise inculpatory.
	No, what sort of?
	Incriminating for the FBI and potentially exculpatory for the defendants.
	Yeah, they said that specifically and then the government responded and they said, well, you know, those 338 pieces of evidence were from an old case, so 20 years ago.
	You didn't need anything.
	You didn't need that information anyways.
	And they also said that it was...
	Just routine.
	You know, it's an old case and it's a routine thing.
	And so the defense is then saying, really, it's so routine that you just send messages in your internal system to delete.
	Just go ahead and delete this, right?
	Delete these 338 messages.
	And then there was another response that said like, OMG!
	Right?
	Like, OMG!
	My boss just told me to delete 338 pieces of evidence.
	So it doesn't seem like it's routine at all.
	In fact, it seems like it's not routine.
	It seems like when the FBI agent got the message to destroy evidence, she was shocked by that.
	But the government goes back to the FBI.
	They go get an affidavit.
	They take it back to the judge.
	And they show the judge.
	And the judge says, well, I guess they said it wasn't part of this case.
	They said it was old.
	And there's no evidence that we've seen in the hidden spreadsheet to show that it did impact this case.
	So the judge just keeps it out.
	I noticed a comment in...
	Sorry, the hair is driving me crazy.
	There was a comment in Rumble saying the judge is effectively just covering up for FBI corruption here.
	It's a strong claim.
	It's hard not to think that.
	I mean, the...
	Is the judge seeing it in camera and saying, okay, I've seen it now and it's irrelevant?
	Or is the judge not even seeing it and saying, well, it doesn't look like it impacted the trial?
	He has seen some things in camera, which is behind closed doors.
	They are filing stuff under seal.
	It's really hard to piece together exactly what's happening, and this is one of the biggest criticisms of federal trials.
	We get transcripts, we get reports from people who are sitting in media rooms and watching on camera, but the federal trials are all sealed.
	They're not published.
	We really can't see anything there.
	It's hard to piece together exactly what is going on.
	With a lot of the details, we're reading the filings, we're reading the motions and seeing what the both sides are saying, what the prosecutors and the defense are arguing.
	But the judge is often making these rulings in court, you know, sort of very quickly on the record, that's excluded, this is excluded.
	And those rulings, I'm presuming, are coming after a long discussion with the team there.
	We don't know, but the judge was former DOJ, was a former prosecutor, has gotten all the awards from all of the people.
	He's in the D.C. Circuit Court.
	And they sort of do things the same way regularly.
	And it's weird that when you see a pattern of rulings consistently going against the defense, you ask yourself why that is.
	Robert, I'm trying to answer this for myself.
	Maybe it's a dumb question, but Jenks material, I understand, is the government's disclosure of evidence relied upon during testimony.
	What's the difference, interplay, or overlap between Jenks material and Brady disclosure obligations?
	So they're sort of...
	They're approaching disclosure issues from two different sides a little bit.
	So Brady is when, you know, anytime somebody's charged with a crime...
	The government has all of the evidence.
	I mean, really everything, whether it's a DUI, a traffic ticket, or seditious conspiracy, the government has it all.
	And so the government is supposed to have a responsibility to disclose to you things that might exculpate the defendant, things that might prove the defendant's innocence, because the defendant doesn't have access to it.
	And the defendant is really at a serious disadvantage.
	You know, the government has billions and trillions of dollars and thousands of employees and all the resources in the world compared to the defense.
	And so with Brady, Brady is affirmatively flagging problematic material that should go over to the defense.
	They have an affirmative duty to do that.
	We see this might exonerate you.
	We've got to give you that.
	Jane's material is almost kind of like it protects the government a little bit.
	So think about it from the other side, the other perspective.
	If you're a defense attorney, and I am, and I...
	We have gotten into a lot of heated arguments with prosecutors and judges about discovery.
	As a defense attorney, we say, we need everything.
	And Mr. Prosecutor, you didn't disclose this one email on that one day.
	Therefore, your case is unconstitutional and it should all be dismissed.
	It's kind of dramatic like that.
	And so we're asking for everything.
	And that's one of our strategies is to see where the government is missing evidence.
	And so the rules have basically told the defense side, you don't have the right to do that.
	You can't go on fishing expeditions and just get everything in the world.
	So Jenks says, it kind of puts up a roadblock there.
	It says you are entitled to certain things, but only after they've been brought up into court.
	And the Jenks materials, it's generally very routine.
	You know, it's not anything that involves hidden evidence or deleted rows or anything like that.
	But this one did, and then it started to really crack the shell into a bunch of other problems in the case.
	Which we should get into.
	Let me...
	Do I do a few rumble rants?
	No, we'll do rumble rants in a bit.
	Okay, so first of all, the judge now sees that they've deleted some stuff.
	We presume the judge has seen what they've deleted and then says it's no big deal, irrelevant, carry on.
	And we are going to get into the FBI allegedly having infiltrated the defense.
	Everybody said don't worry about that.
	I'm not going to forget it.
	So yeah, what else was of interest that was disclosed accidentally, inadvertently by the prosecution?
	Yeah, so in those Excel spreadsheet rows, there was also some talk about confidential human sources and about whether there was enough for the conspiracy charges to even stick.
	So they were sending messages back and forth that they didn't know if...
	This would get them over the hurdle of the conspiracy charge.
	I think they said stuff like, without looking like fools, without looking like idiots, without being foolish, because there really just wasn't that much there.
	And conspiracy is kind of an easier charge to prove.
	It's not a super complicated thing.
	So the fact that they were struggling with this raises some red flags, but it doesn't necessarily eviscerate their case.
	But it does show that they were not as certain about it.
	They were talking about, Whether they could get over the hurdle.
	So that's another thing that kind of stood out.
	One of the bigger issues was about confidential human sources.
	And there was one paragraph, this was a really big one, where one FBI agent is told to go in to a report.
	So confidential human sources are just like other witnesses, except they fill out different reports when the FBI is using them.
	They're informants-ish assets to working with the FBI.
	They're informants, yeah.
	They're informants.
	The FBI retains them.
	There's an official relationship with them there.
	And they get paid sometimes, right?
	Like in the Whitmer case, one of the CHSs was paid $60,000 in a year?
	Yep.
	And do we know if that occurred here?
	I'm sure.
	We do know they got paid.
	We don't know what the numbers were.
	There's this one in these hidden rows, in these internal messages that nobody's ever supposed to see, there's one instruction from one FBI agent to another FBI agent to go into a report and edit out that I was present.
	So one FBI agent tells another FBI agent, you drafted this report, you had a conversation with a confidential human source, you put my name in there that I was there.
	Delete my name out of their report.
	And it's in the spreadsheet, right?
	These are messages that they sent, and this came from an export from an FBI agent.
	So then the defense is saying, wait a minute, that seems a little bit dishonest.
	You're having FBI agents edit out that they were present at meetings that they were present at, and you're just going in there and changing reports, and these reports are related to confidential human sources?
	That's a problem, because it means you're falsifying evidence and you're falsifying reports.
	Obviously that, but also more discreetly, I mean, it shows what is going to be, I think, undeniably advanced FBI knowledge of this alleged conspiracy, which predates January 6th itself, which then further explains, or calls into question, how intelligence could have been unprepared the day of if they had already infiltrated these seditious conspiracy plots well before.
	Exactly right.
	If there's two to one CHSs to charged Proud Boys, Why was this even a concern?
	And by the way, Viva, the judge, this didn't come out in this new spreadsheet document revelation, but there are other confidential human sources that we've already known about, and the defense has tried to get to come in to testify.
	There's one guy called, we don't know officially if he is confirmed to be a CHS.
	It certainly seems like that based on everything we've got out of this trial.
	But he picked up Enrique Tarrio the day...
	Before January 6th from jail, Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, was arrested, I think, on January 4th in Baltimore for some other reason, unrelated protesting reasons, and then got picked up out of jail the very next day by an FBI informant called Kenny Lizardo.
	And the judge refused the defense the opportunity to subpoena this person, to bring them in, to ask them any questions about it.
	And so, I mean, that's a clear example of an FBI informant facilitating this whole thing, right?
	Literally picking somebody up out of jail and driving them to another location.
	If he's part of the conspiracy, if he's the leader of the group and the leader of this seditious organization, what were they doing?
	Why were they, why were they, why didn't they interfere and intervene right then?
	It reeks of the Whitmer entrapment.
	I mean, this is, this is, but for the FBI, he probably literally would not have been there.
	And if they bring him there to commit the crime, I mean, are they not in a legal sense, facilitating proactively enabling the crime themselves?
	themselves participating in it.
	But it's not illegal when the government doesn't, Rob.
	So we all know that.
	Right.
	Yeah, they're allowed to get away with it.
	And, you know, we don't know exactly who was there, who was an informant on January 6th, but the more and more we start going through this trial, I mean, a lot of the strategy of the defense in this case is to ask questions about everybody else in the crowd.
	There's somebody else that they're talking about.
	Again, we can't see what they're pointing to because none of this is broadcast.
	But there's other people in the megaphones who are saying, let's go into the Capitol.
	We've got Ray Epps, who was on the FBI's most wanted list at one point, taken off.
	We've got video of him being violent.
	We've got his own deposition.
	And there's video of him at the initial breach as well.
	So in other words, how many of these informants, how many of other Ray Epps were out there?
	Encouraging the initial breach and then instigating the whole thing and then stepping aside, being protected by the government so that they could just go single out the five co-defendant Proud Boys or the six Oath Keepers and turn those into the political narratives that they need to drive forward the rest of this big domestic unveiling.
	Okay, interesting.
	So let's just say one big revelation.
	FBI picked up Enrique Tarrio from jail.
	The day before to basically make sure that he was there on January 6th.
	He wasn't there physically on January 6th, but he was the leader of the Proud Boys.
	So he wasn't even there.
	I mean, he wasn't in the Capitol building.
	He was not on the grounds.
	He was just in the Telegram chats.
	So that's a whole nother rub, right?
	They were just saying he's guilty of coordinating a group of other people.
	But if you listen to the testimony from some of the Proud Boys witnesses, they say that they don't even...
	They're not organized in that way.
	That's not what they do.
	That's not what these things are set up to do.
	They go and they protest.
	That's what they were there for.
	And it was nothing more than that.
	But they're trying to turn it into a big, giant spectacle.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	Now that you mentioned it, actually, it's one of the sticking points is that Enrique Tarrio charged with all of this despite actually never stepping foot.
	In any restricted area on January 6th itself.
	Maybe the FBI agent didn't do his job properly.
	Didn't get him close enough, Rob.
	Should have drove him to the front door.
	Okay, interesting.
	What other mind-blowing, earth-shattering revelations?
	Yeah, there was another big problem that is offensive to me, but they think this is perfectly acceptable over there in the FBI, but these defendants are also in jail, okay?
	And they're in jail, and obviously they have a difficult time communicating out of jail.
	And in these D.C. jails, they have an internal email system that the defendants can access.
	And so they're sending emails back and forth.
	Now, when the defendants use this system, they go in and they're supposed to click this waiver button, right?
	They say, hey, you know, everything that you send through this system is monitored.
	And that's true.
	You know, when defendants go into custody and they're on the phone with their mom or, you know, anybody, it's important.
	Understand those calls are recorded.
	They are listening to them.
	If you admit that there's a new crime going on or if you say anything about the case, they will listen to that and they will use it against you.
	That's extremely important to know.
	There's also supposed to be a carve-out for attorneys so that defense attorneys can have candid, open conversations with their clients without fear of government prosecutors or FBI agents or jailers snooping on your conversations because, as you know, we have...
	Attorney-client privilege, and we want to protect that.
	It's extremely sacred.
	So these defendants are in jail, and they're sending emails to their attorneys, and the FBI agents are reading their emails to their lawyers.
	First of all, I mean, it now kind of explains, hey, what a convenient accident of pretrial detention extending two years.
	I don't know how long they've been there.
	So lock them up unjustly so that you can then more easily spy on this.
	How does this come out, Robert?
	Again, through these Excel spreadsheet rows.
	So they're talking like high school kids about the evidence that they are getting.
	So these FBI agents are talking about...
	Literally taking out the Proud Boys.
	They want to go after their wives.
	They want to go after their Instagrams.
	They want to just twist and skewer these people so that they can build leverage against the whole organization and just eviscerate them.
	That's basically what they wake up every morning thinking about doing for the last two years or so.
	And so in their messages, they're talking about all of this, right?
	They're saying, hey, this person is going and doing this thing.
	We should go after her Instagram.
	And oh, also, they were talking, somebody, you know, these are FBI agents.
	And so I can't attribute this to the prosecutors yet.
	I mean, the prosecutors defend this.
	So they're just as culpable, in my opinion.
	But these are FBI agents doing the conversation.
	And they're communicating.
	And they said, specifically, defendants are emailing their lawyers.
	And they might actually be going to trial.
	And they brought up good points.
	That's what they were.
	In other words, they were reading the emails.
	To the lawyers and saying, yeah, they've got good points.
	And they were saying, maybe we should tell somebody that they're planning on going to trial.
	So it was looking at what they were doing.
	It's getting advanced warning of strategy for trial, among other things.
	But once you know that, you know that they're actually...
	Someone in the chat in Rumble said there's no privilege, and I presume that's a troll or that's a sarcastic comment.
	When you're in jail communicating with your attorneys, there is an expectation of privacy, Robert?
	Yeah, definitely.
	Yeah, I would definitely disagree with that.
	Now, what the government said that, I disagree with this, and I'm surprised that they even did this in the first place.
	I mean, there are certain things that are just sacred.
	Your relationship with your pastor, marriages, and your relationship with your God, all these different things are sacred.
	Attorney-client privilege is extremely sacred.
	Disclaimer box that they apparently clicked that said, by emailing this, you waive everything.
	And the defense attorneys, they're saying, we don't know anything about that.
	We're not involved in it.
	You can't use that against us, but they're saying that the defendants who were emailing from jail were waiving the right explicitly.
	That's why it didn't apply.
	I don't think you can do that, man.
	I don't think you can waive that away when you're emailing your attorney like that and just give the FBI free range.
	A contract of adhesion imposed on wrongfully detained individuals in pretrial detention.
	Oh my goodness.
	It's in the terms of use.
	It's in the terms of service.
	We're going to spy on your emails with attorneys, therefore we can do it.
	And they did.
	Barnes and I always talk about why they don't air these trials or why they don't make them alive.
	If people saw this in real life, if they saw these words coming out of a prosecutor's mouth, they would lose faith in the judicial system and the process as a whole.
	I don't know how they live with themselves, honestly.
	I think it's disgusting.
	I was trying to think about this in terms of everyday application.
	It's cheating.
	It's gross.
	It's like if we were playing a game of poker...
	You went up to go to the bathroom, and I took a look at your cards and just said what you were doing.
	And then it turns out this isn't a game.
	And then when you lose your hand, then you go to prison for the rest of your life, and I take over your house.
	You didn't notice the little sign on the door when you came in?
	It says, I reserve the right to cheat at poker, and if you come in, you agree to these terms?
	Yeah, and it's your own fault.
	It's your own fault, and you can't leave this poker game, and you have to play or else...
	Holy...
	I can swear.
	Holy shit, Robert.
	And the judge says, well, the judge is not, I'm sorry, well, how did the judge rule on what motion came of this?
	I mean, is this not an immediate motion to dismiss with prejudice?
	Yeah, there's a bunch of motions to dismiss right now.
	So it's an interesting dynamic because you have these five co-defendants and they all have different claims, right?
	They all have different bases for dismissing this.
	So that argument came from one specific defendant, the guy who had his email snooped on.
	And so that's from Carmen Hernandez.
	That, I think, is one of the only open issues that's still pending.
	So in other words, that has not been rectified yet.
	A lot of the other things, like the deleted evidence, the 338 pieces of deleted evidence, the judge basically just disposed of that.
	Now, old case, doesn't matter.
	Other confidential human source stuff, the judge has disposed of that stuff.
	So this one was, I think, still open.
	We have other open motions that are still being briefed.
	Honestly, they were being briefed, but then a new issue popped up, which is the infiltration.
	And so the judge is just like, and yesterday...
	Is the infiltration what they...
	Sorry, when they say the infiltration, they're referring to the spying on the emails, right?
	Not like an actual mole in the defense?
	That's what they're arguing now, okay?
	Actually, just before you get there, because I just have to double-check.
	Rhodes, the founder of Proud Boys.
	He was found guilty already.
	Are any of the defendants who have been found guilty already, now they can presume, they can take for granted they were equally spied on.
	Can they do anything to try to overturn their convictions?
	Yeah, so Oath Keepers was the leader.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	Did I say Proud Boys or Oath Keepers?
	Yeah, so Stuart Rhodes was Oath Keepers.
	Okay, sorry.
	Well, I guess the question still applies.
	We can presume.
	We can presume this was done as well with all the others.
	Are any of them making motions to overturn their convictions?
	100%.
	I would presume this is throughout the entire J6 saga.
	I think every defendant should have questions about this.
	Now, these two were, of course, under the scrutiny of a lot of the FBI, but I would imagine that the Oath Keepers will be filing petitions for post-conviction relief or appealing some of this stuff on...
	I didn't follow that one as closely as I should have, but this is systemic.
	This is not just limited to the Proud Boys.
	I think that they were trying to go specifically find other people to charge with seditious conspiracy, and those charges took a lot longer to come than some of the others.
	I keep getting confused between...
	The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, not for any nefarious reasons, it's just in the convictions, because I'm trying to figure out who was convicted.
	Some of the Proud Boys already pleaded, so that's just who I'm wondering now, can safely presume, maybe more safely than the QAnon shaman, that their emails to their defense were also being surreptitiously spied upon.
	Oh my.
	People don't know this, Robert.
	The defense is very nervous about it.
	I think everybody...
	This is one of those things that you don't...
	You don't expect them to do that.
	You just think that this is kind of a higher standard.
	You swear an oath to do justice as a prosecutor.
	You're not supposed to do this gross stuff, but they're doing it, and it's now out on full display.
	Who's the judge?
	I mean, people want to know in terms of impeachment.
	Can a citizen, I don't know if you know this, can a citizen move for the impeachment of a judge or this has to come from government?
	You can't get a petition that meets a certain number of signatories before...
	You know, someone has to take action?
	Yeah, I think that, so for a federal judge, I think that's got to come from Congress, so they would have to initiate some sort of an action there.
	I get a lot of, you know, a lot of the same question.
	Can we file a class action lawsuit, or what can we do about this, you know?
	And unfortunately, I think the real remedy is to vote, you know, to vote, and to, yeah, it's to vote and to get different people in charge of these things, because, you know, think about this.
	Yeah, it's the judge.
	The judge is making some bad rulings on this, but this is the DOJ.
	This is the FBI.
	They're the people who are reading the emails, and then the DOJ is backing them up.
	It's defending them.
	And then it's all landing in front of this judge's desk.
	And, you know, I am very upset with a lot of the rulings from the judge, but it's...
	It's the people who are doing it, you know, and they're doing it openly and nakedly.
	It's like not even a consequence for them.
	And I'll take the Barnes's, the white pill.
	Well, it'll be good grounds for appeal when they appeal, but I'm tongue-in-cheek joking because everyone knows this is an absolute procedural outrage.
	I mean, it violates the most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
	And not only does nobody give a sweet bugger all...
	There are a great many people who have no idea this is even happening because nobody's following this because it's not aired.
	It's not fun.
	It's not cool.
	It's not entertaining.
	It's not Johnny Depp.
	And they just don't know.
	So, you know, someone said voting does nothing.
	Awareness.
	Raise awareness.
	Cause a little bit of public outrage in terms of people finding out how their, not their Charter of Rights, their Constitution is being shredded and used as unmentionable.
	Okay, so...
	Spying on emails, reading the emails and their defenses, well, they shouldn't have clicked that I accept the terms and conditions when emailing their lawyers from jail in their two years of pretrial detention.
	What are some of the other, what's this that we're hearing about infiltrating the defense, FBI?
	Yeah, so this is kind of a culmination of all of those issues.
	We have, you know, the spying issue with the emails.
	We've got confidential human sources stuff.
	We've got deleting evidence and all of that.
	Yesterday, there was a motion filed.
	I think it was yesterday or the day before, where the defense attorney, it's not a long motion, it's a three-page motion.
	She submitted it and she said, Judge, we are now asking you to compel the government to give us interviews or records or whatever they have, basically everything in their possession, about confidential human sources that have been embedded, literally, in prayer groups for the defendants and in meetings talking about...
	Now, I don't know the nature of these meetings, but apparently conversations with attorneys and conversations with family members about changing attorneys and conversations in prayer groups.
	Now, all of this is taking place after these people have already been charged, right?
	After the government should have gathered the evidence about these people and then prosecuted them and then sort of left them alone.
	But as the defense is literally working this case, there was a mole.
	There was an informant.
	In the group, when the defense attorneys started to prepare their case, so the defense case-in-chief just started this week on Monday, and our final defendant, I believe, who's going to be calling witnesses was Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys.
	So his attorney disclosed over to the government, said, hey, we're going to call this person to come in and testify.
	And the government then said, uh-oh, you're going to call that person?
	That's one of ours.
	That's a confidential informant.
	That's an FBI informant.
	Holy shit.
	They disclosed it to the defense and the whole thing went bananas, okay?
	You're right.
	It's absolutely insane.
	I couldn't even believe it.
	I had to read it a couple times.
	The government sent in the chief of the criminal division from the DOJ into court yesterday to...
	Beg forgiveness.
	Sorry, Judge.
	We didn't know about this.
	And they issued a declaration from one of the FBI agents who actually retained, which is the language she used, I retained this confidential source.
	And if you read through the declaration, we did the whole thing yesterday.
	She's using very, very careful language, okay?
	She says, I never tasked this person to go do these things.
	I never...
	Ordered this person to go in and spy on these attorney meetings or to go spy in on these prayer groups.
	But they did it.
	But they did it.
	They're openly admitting they did it.
	Sorry, I had to...
	Oh, get this out of here.
	I had to reach out to get something to drink.
	You're good.
	Robert, and just so nobody...
	Don't trust Robert.
	Don't trust me.
	Trust when the fake news has to report on this.
	This is...
	Where are we?
	CBS News.
	Proud Boys trial disrupted after defense.
	It's not a fact.
	It's after defense says its witness was paid FBI informant.
	Wow, they make it sound like it's the defense's fault that they had a witness.
	Okay.
	Prosecutors of the trial of the Proud Boys conceded Thursday that a witness to be called by the defense had previously been paid by the FBI as a confidential informant against members of the far-right group in the months before five of its members were to be tried for seditious conspiracy.
	Let me try to make sense of that.
	In the months prior to the trial, not in the months leading up to the seditious conspiracy.
	Right.
	Not in the months leading up to the charge.
	This is not part of the criminal investigation.
	Criminal investigation should be done.
	These guys have already been charged.
	They're being prosecuted.
	We're in months before trial.
	According to court documents filed late Wednesday by defendant Zachary Rell, between April 2022 and January 2023, the unnamed female FBI informant was in contact via cell phone, or via phone, text messaging, other electronic means, with one or more of the counsel for the defense and at least one defendant.
	The FBI says it ended its relationship with the informant upon learning in January that she might be called as a defense witness.
	Well, that's a little too late.
	Way too late.
	Shiat.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	So that's an FBI informant meeting with defense counsel and communicating back with prosecutors.
	And Viva, the motions are even crazier, okay?
	The motions are saying that this person was having conversations with the defense team about changing the defense lawyers, like making decisions involved in the future representation of this case.
	Trying to...
	The word communism is thrown around a little too much.
	And I don't know if it's communism, fascism, or just general banana republic.
	This is the stuff that if you saw it in a movie, you'd say this is too outlandish to be true.
	You have a paid FBI informant trying to dictate strategy for the defense while the prosecution is ongoing.
	And people don't know it.
	And CBS, I'm going to go read that article and put it on blast after this.
	Okay.
	That's very earth-shattering.
	It is.
	And you're right.
	They are blaming the defense.
	If you read the last part of the motion, it says the following.
	This is the government.
	They say that certain defendants or defense counsel chose to communicate with them is a decision made by them.
	They decided to do that.
	However, the government didn't orchestrate any of this stuff, and the government is still unaware of the nature and the scope between the contact, between the informant and the defense.
	There has been no intrusion, and we don't have any recordings.
	Therefore, basically, it's your problem.
	You know, they're saying it's your problem.
	And Viva, I find it morally just grotesque that they would spy on the defense.
	And their attorneys in the middle of an active case.
	I don't know how you can even sleep at night doing something like that.
	They're doing it for the greater good, Robert.
	There's no question.
	It's the brazenness.
	I do chalk it up to the administration.
	It's the brazenness of what has been tolerated under the Biden administration.
	And I don't want to sound like a partisan hack.
	When you see, at the highest level, non-prosecution of the president's son.
	For felonious acquisition and disposal of a firearm, among other things.
	You feel empowered at a lower level.
	Well, this is not that big of a deal.
	If they got away with that at the top level, they'll be proud of me for doing this.
	How does Enrico Tarrio also continue?
	The defense attorneys are totally flabbergasted.
	I can't see it.
	I'm just reading what they're saying, and I'm seeing what's in their motions.
	But this...
	This is actually pretty shocking.
	I'm not sure what's going to come out of it.
	I think that they'll appeal.
	I don't know.
	Today, they're back in trial.
	So what ended up happening, and I'm not up to speed on it yet, but today, my understanding is Enrique Tarrio is, in fact, calling that person.
	So trial's happening right now.
	We'll cover it later tonight on Rumble and on YouTube.
	But they want to get a shot at this person so that they can put all of this on display.
	But this might just be one confidential human source.
	And the other shocking part of this, Viva, is that when we were reading through the documents yesterday, it seems as though, this isn't confirmed yet, but these are all in the motions, that the CHS alerted the government that they were about to be called as a witness.
	And then the government did something about this.
	So they didn't respond.
	This is all coming out again today right now.
	But what the defense is alleging is that...
	They disclosed the witness.
	They said, hey, we've got 93 witnesses.
	Our trial's coming up.
	They disclosed them timely.
	They actually disclosed these witnesses back in December of 2022.
	Said we might call these people.
	We're in the middle of trial.
	The defense is just starting their case.
	They said, hey, on Friday, we're going to call this witness.
	The government is finding out, or that's at the moment the government notified them, is after they said that they were going to call them.
	But the government didn't terminate the relationship with the CHS on their own when they got the notice of their witnesses back in December.
	They only terminated their relationship after the CHS actively came and talked to them.
	After they said, hey, I'm meeting with the defense attorneys.
	They're probably going to call me as a witness.
	Then the government terminated their relationship after this CHS, this informant, had been embedded for years.
	So this January 2023 is when they terminate it.
	These guys have been in custody since 2021.
	And this woman, presumably, has been at dinners, has been at prayer meetings, one of the most sacred spaces ever, in meetings with attorneys and giving counsel on who their representation should be, all while being an informant, paid informant for the FBI and to the DOJ.
	I don't know how you can have a fair fight in that system.
	I don't know how you can do anything.
	It's beyond unfair.
	It's everyone involved should be fired and prosecuted.
	These are crimes.
	It's not just like unethical.
	It's not just immoral.
	I mean, okay.
	There have to be congressional hearings on this.
	I don't know.
	Let's petition some members of Congress to open congressional hearings.
	A pardon at this point is not going to be enough.
	The system is rotten to the core.
	It is.
	Okay.
	I don't know if it can get any more earth-shattering than that, but does it, Robert?
	We'll see.
	Only time will tell.
	I mean, that was the latest.
	We're pretty caught up on it.
	They're arguing about it today.
	There's going to be, I'm sure, additional supplemental rulings on this.
	But, I mean, the defense is getting close to wrapping up their case.
	They wanted to know much more about all of these other confidential human sources.
	There were a couple moments in trial.
	One of the coolest things that the defense team did in this was, I think they have some information about who the CHSs are.
	They just can't communicate that to us.
	It's all under seal.
	But there was one moment in the trial where they brought this FBI agent, Nicole Miller, the woman we were talking about previously, who sent over inadvertently those Excel spreadsheet rows.
	She was on the stand.
	And they're trying to make this argument that the Proud Boys were the initiators of the breach, that they were the cause of the sedition, and they were on the front line.
	They put a bunch of photos up there saying, is that a Proud Boy?
	Is that a Proud Boy?
	Is that a Proud Boy?
	But what happened is a defense attorney delivered this big binder to FBI agent Nicole, like a big, thick binder, and just gave it to her on the stand and said, do you recognize any of these confidential human sources?
	And apparently, I couldn't see it, but the binder was so big.
	That the people who were reporting on it said that it just took her a while because she was just flipping through him.
	It was like minutes in court.
	Flipping through one, no, I don't recognize this guy.
	No, no, don't recognize him.
	And it was like a whole binder.
	And it went on for however long it went on in court, we don't know.
	But the people live tweeting the threads and people who were watching it from within the building were saying it was a long ordeal.
	And it was like this big moment where the jurors and everybody got to realize, how many people are in that binder?
	How many dozens of CHSs do you have?
	And what was their involvement?
	And so the defense response was asking the opposite, asking, is that a CHS?
	Is that a CHS in the crowd?
	Who's that guy on the megaphone?
	Who's this person?
	And the judge is just not letting them sort of escape outside of the bubble that he's created about the acceptable areas of questioning.
	And my question is, how many were there?
	And what was their involvement?
	And were there more CHSs there encouraging the Proud Boys than the Proud Boys were even charged?
	I think there were.
	I think it was 10 to 15. It sounds exactly like Whitmer, where you have more FBI agents and informants than actual alleged defendants, and they're exploiting vulnerable defendants to go through with this.
	I can't understand how the judge doesn't immediately sanction.
	I mean, I don't even know what sanctions can be imposed.
	It's actually, it's just mind-blowing that you have paid informants who are relaying information to the FBI while infiltrating the defense and offering strategy, which presumably is not going to be in the defense's best interest.
	And even if it is, giving the heads up to the prosecution so they can then know how to respond or how to prepare and anticipate.
	Set aside all of the other CHS infiltration.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it's a big, it's a big, big problem.
	And I think it's a...
	Pretty fatal problem to our justice system if it's not remedied, because, you know, what is the remedy to a government prosecutor who does something like this, right?
	You fire them.
	I'd love to see it.
	I think they all should be fired.
	FBI, too.
	It's reprehensible what they did.
	I think it's a breach of their professional code of conduct.
	I actually looked up their professional code of conduct, and I don't see a clear violation of it in there.
	It doesn't say in there.
	Don't read emails from your clients if they waive them in jail or something like that.
	The rules aren't that articulate.
	Don't send CHSs to prayer groups.
	It doesn't say stuff like that.
	But the rules are about doing justice and about upholding the law and about being fair and you've got a duty of candor and you've got responsibility to not take advantage and all of these other things.
	And I think they dropped way below that line.
	But the problem here is not that they don't recognize it.
	They think that this was actually above board.
	They sent in the chief of the criminal division to come and sort of explain it, but just to show that they were taking it seriously.
	But there was not one sentence in their response motion that said, our bad, mea culpa, this got out of hand, we shouldn't do any of this.
	They said, it's your own fault.
	If you met with these people and you didn't vet them, that's your problem.
	But I'm thinking, what is a defense team supposed to do?
	We can't send...
	We can't send undercover moles into the government's house.
	We can't send informants into prosecutor prayer groups if they have a thing, if they even do that, or these other things.
	It's a totally unfair advantage, and these guys are getting abused, and they're not alone.
	They're just a small part of a much bigger problem.
	So where do things stand now?
	Sorry, not closing arguments.
	Defense is getting ready to wind up.
	They're going to have all these outstanding motions, closing arguments, and then what?
	I mean, I'm stupid.
	Is this in front of a judge or in front of a jury?
	It is in front of a jury, and they're thinking that it's going to go to closing arguments sometime next week.
	Part of the difficulty here is that there are co-defendants, and it's kind of fluid.
	So the judge wanted...
	Each of the co-defendants is almost like their own defendant, and they're also adverse in some situations against other defendants.
	So let's say you or I are charged with a crime, something simple.
	It's us versus the government.
	But if you bring in a co-defendant, you and I are both charged with a crime, whatever they decide to charge us with in a few years, then we would be co-defendants in a case and...
	One strategy would be that we defend each other, right?
	We sort of put a force field up around both of us.
	Our interests are in total alignment.
	So I'm not going to point my finger at you.
	You're not going to point your finger at me.
	But that's not what's happening in this case.
	In this case, they are co-defendants.
	So as a group, they are all adverse to the government.
	But there's also some adversarialness amongst themselves.
	So they're pointing their fingers and saying, well, he was the violent one.
	My client wasn't violent.
	And my client does this and his client did that.
	They're trying to have strength in numbers, but also have individual strength, and that causes some adversarial tendencies amongst themselves.
	So that makes the trial a little bit squirrely.
	It's not as templated as a lot of other trials are because we don't even know if some of these questions are cross-examinations or direct examination questions.
	So for example, if one co-defendant calls a witness, So another co-defendant's lawyer can ask that witness questions, but it could be to help their client or it could be to hurt their client, right?
	It could be a direct exam or it could be a cross exam.
	So it's like there are many defense trials amongst the defense in the defense case in chief.
	So it's complicated.
	And my understanding is today that Enrique Tarrio, who is near the end of the list, they're going in the order of the indictment.
	I think he's the fourth out of the fifth defendant.
	He should be wrapping up, I think, his witnesses today.
	And then we'll have some final witnesses presented early next week, and then we'll get into closing arguments.
	But the trial has already been paused.
	I mean, the trial was supposed to take place yesterday.
	They paused it because of these issues.
	They had to have a separate evidentiary sort of hearing, and they brought in everybody to come and address this issue.
	So if that becomes...
	A bigger issue than it already is.
	We don't know exactly what could happen.
	Amazing.
	All right.
	Well, that's January 6th, I guess, Robert.
	What else has been keeping you busy these days?
	Well, we're also talking a lot about Trump.
	So, of course, Trump has his indictment saga that we're following along.
	And I think there's actually a lot of overlap on that.
	So we'll be talking about that today.
	We've been following this one.
	Have you been talking about this much at all?
	Should we dive into it?
	Oh, the Trump?
	Yeah.
	I've been talking about it, talked about it with Robert quite thoroughly on Monday.
	Our Sunday stream was put to Monday.
	I have to toot my own horn because I said earlier this week, and I'm asking Robert actually, he was doing not a hush-hush but a bourbon with Barnes on vivabarneslaw.locals.com and I'm like, what are the chances that the DA either doesn't indict or I don't know, stops the procedure and says, look, Trump was spreading disinformation we never intended to indict.
	And lo and behold, that's exactly what he's alluding to now.
	Trump was setting unrealistic expectations of getting arrested.
	I said it's a stupid question because you don't convene a grand jury if your intention is not to indict.
	So that's too late to try to stuff the poof back in the horse.
	But that looks good at what he's trying to do.
	And whether or not, you know, the public outrage might have removed the political permission slip that this grand jury might have felt empowered to render an indictment on bullshit charges.
	That's a great call.
	I think that's a very good call.
	And I didn't make that call.
	I thought that we were going to see an indictment this week or soon, right?
	And now I'm not so sure about that.
	I was sort of thinking that they want this to happen.
	I still think that we're going to see an indictment.
	I have a hard time believing that they don't indict him.
	I think they've kind of painted themselves into a corner.
	In this whole situation, it may not come from a state, you know, it may not come from New York or from Georgia, but certainly the special counsel, I think, is a lot more competent of a person.
	But I still thought that Alvin Bragg was going to do it.
	I mean, he seems like he's one of the squishiest guys out there.
	He was going to prosecute him, and then he's not going to prosecute him.
	And then he had a bunch of people who left.
	So several people from his office, when he decided he was going to wrap up the investigation, Mark Pomerantz and Carrie Dunn.
	They both said, oh, well, if you're not going to prosecute him, we're going to resign in protest.
	They did.
	They got on 60 Minutes.
	They started a whole law firm about this thing.
	And so Alvin was winding it up, and then he brought it all back all of a sudden.
	And then he, is he winding it up again?
	I mean, you know, it's going, what's this guy's deal?
	I mean, how does it work?
	You presume the grand jury, they convene a grand jury, so it's not like, he can't say we never intended to do it.
	I mean, they took some steps, proactive steps, which are concrete.
	The grand jury...
	It's a stupid question.
	They're not sequestered.
	The grand jury sees what's going on in the world as they're dealing with this?
	Yeah, they should know what's going on.
	They're just like regular jurors.
	They come and go.
	They're there for a longer period of time.
	They'll hear multiple cases.
	I think they're told not to go actively look at stuff.
	If they know they've got the Trump case in front of them and they're going to be back tomorrow to talk about it, they're not supposed to go.
	Just like a regular juror.
	They're not supposed to go listen to the news, avoid the news, avoid the media, don't listen to the things.
	So realistically, and this grand jury had been convened over several days, so it's not like they could have possibly ignored what was going on in the world.
	Whether or not, had there not been such massive backlash, they might have said, oh, well, hey, we've tested the field and it seems that everyone's okay with this, so we're going to be heroes.
	Now they might not be such heroes.
	Or...
	It's weird, though.
	Alvin Bragg, he wound down the investigation prior because presumably he said no basis to indict.
	Two people resigned out of protest, so maybe he's feeling political pressure internally to continue with this from a politically motivated DA's office.
	Maybe he gets a call from, not from George Soros directly, but from the PAC that Soros donated a million dollars to and says, hey, our financiers are not happy with this.
	Who knows what happened?
	And I'm throwing around some conspiracy theories.
	But bottom line, they revived this two years after they put it to bed, and they have a grand jury who's convening this, and then apparently from some of the leaks, or at least what Fox News is reporting, grand jury is not so convinced that they should be indicting on this, and who knows what that has to do with.
	Maybe it has to do with this massive spotlight that Trump shined on this with his tweet.
	I do think they have to indict him on something because they've set the expectation with a frothing, rabid...
	Talking head blue checkmark left.
	And I think they would have.
	I said that it would be hilarious if they don't and then try to blame it on Trump.
	He lied.
	Alvin Bragg is just a good, honest DA abiding by the results of his grand jury.
	But what might have been the case had we not started seeing videos of actual New Yorkers saying, this is bogus and everybody knows it's bogus.
	Jonathan Turley, Dershowitz, Barnes, anyone who knows anything about Lossing.
	This is bullshit through and through.
	Who knows if that changed anything?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	And I think that's a good point.
	Robert Costello was there this week.
	And Robert Costello was Michael Cohen's former lawyer.
	And Michael Cohen was evidently their star witness.
	And I can understand that technique of trying to blame Trump for...
	Crying wolf, essentially, but I don't think that's true.
	I think that he was really driving towards a hard date, and I don't know if he communicated anything to Donald Trump, but remember, Trump is a former president.
	He's got Secret Service protection.
	You don't just go and issue a warrant and arrest him somewhere.
	So my thought, when Donald Trump said that they were going to be arresting him on Tuesday, I thought, I'd done this before.
	I've represented clients, and we've had self-surrender dates where you just say, okay, you're going to get charged with a crime?
	You don't need to come raid my client's house.
	We'll just meet you down there at the police station at this time.
	We'll be there.
	We'll see you there.
	Is that good?
	Great.
	And I would imagine there'd be a similar process like that for Donald Trump, given the fact that he's got Secret Service, who wouldn't take too kindly to FBI agents breaking into the front door again.
	So, to arrest him at this time, put him in handcuffs.
	So, I was expecting that they were going to be...
	Working something out.
	When he said that, I thought, oh, well, he just sort of let the cat out of the bag.
	That's the date that they had self-surrendered.
	And so I didn't think much of it other than that's what it was.
	And then New York also started putting up barricades, mic racks, and all of the fences.
	I mean, they were bracing for this thing.
	And I think with good reason.
	I think that they really wanted to get it done.
	And then Trump, like you said, shined that spotlight on it.
	Robert Costello, Michael Cohen's lawyer, or his Legal advisor.
	They didn't actually form an attorney-client relationship, but they were communicating back and forth.
	Robert Costello said Cohen is a giant liar, and he said that he went in front of the grand jury and explained that to them.
	He said they didn't ask any questions about it.
	He told them anyways, and then suddenly, lo and behold, the next day comes by, and it feels like Alvin Bragg is getting a little bit, you know, pulled feet again.
	I think he's getting pushed back internally, but just so everybody also appreciates this, people aren't making this stuff up.
	Philadelphia Inquirer, New York City prepares for a possible Trump indictment with steel barricades, cameras, and costumes.
	I don't know what the costumes are, but they were literally preparing for it, so it's not like Trump is making it up out of thin air, out of whole cloth.
	And hold on one second, you just had me...
	Oh, yeah.
	This camera tracking, I have to fix this afterwards.
	That's pretty cool.
	It's cool.
	But it's a pain in the ass.
	I want to keep that rumble thing.
	There we go.
	Stop.
	Okay, stop.
	And Robert explains something during our stream, which is quite amazing, which is that if Cohen was convicted or pled guilty to this charge, it's because he made the payment that exceeded campaign finance limits.
	And you can't then go and say Trump himself did it because he contributed to his own campaign.
	So Cohen pleading guilty...
	You know, necessarily implies legally that you can't go after Trump for this, and then they're going to test some novel theory about falsifying business records as to what the reimbursement of the payment was for to Cohen, as if statute of limitations doesn't apply to any of this.
	So, yeah, maybe he got cold feet.
	Maybe even internally they're saying, this is a bridge too far, Bragg.
	You're bringing our DA office into disrepute.
	Who knows?
	Yeah, I'm wondering if he's worried about his career, like his law license, his malicious prosecution, if he feels like this whole thing could explode because the evidence seems pretty bad.
	And I get it, you know, being political, but he's got to run for office again.
	And he's got to, even if he loses, right, he still wants to be a prosecutor.
	You still want to keep your law license.
	I have a hard time believing, though, he's under threat.
	You know, I don't know.
	It's going to be interesting to see.
	I still think that we'll see an indictment.
	Like you said earlier, I'm not sure they can get away with it because they've been calling Donald Trump the worst thing ever.
	January 6th was worse than the Civil War, was worse than 9-11.
	How do you let somebody like that just operate freely when he's the biggest threat to democracy, they keep saying over and over and over again.
	I just think if they don't indict him...
	Then their words are even more meaningless, right?
	They've got to do one or the other to save face.
	Keith Olbermann will have an aneurysm if they don't.
	Yes.
	I mean, who else?
	Rob Reiner, Keith Olbermann, the Krasenstein brothers.
	Oh, who's the other one?
	Stephen King.
	Stephen King might move to Canada if they don't indict Trump.
	Right.
	Yeah, they've been waiting for this.
	It's been years and years and years.
	It's like they were going to reach this big climactic event.
	And then I was speculating, well, what happens if they don't indict him, right?
	What happens to Trump and sort of the MAGA movement and the right if he's not indicted?
	I think that that might actually really inflate the left.
	You know, they'll say, he keeps getting away with it, and they'll double down on everything, and you might see...
	More prosecutors jump into it, which is why I think it's ultimately going to lead to an indictment.
	Somebody somewhere is going to want to make a name for themselves.
	They don't really care about the consequences.
	Might be Jack Smith, might be the DOJ, or it might be Georgia.
	We'll see.
	Are you following the Douglas Mackey, the meme trial that was postponed this week?
	I have not.
	I've been following just the headlines.
	I haven't dug into the trial.
	I did see...
	Something about it.
	It was postponed to next week?
	It was postponed to next week because apparently there was an issue with the defense witness that some article was going to come out and had obtained private emails of the defense expert witness and then contacted his Alabama State University employer to say, do you know that this guy's testifying at the trial next week?
	And then the defense expert witness withdrew from the file so the defense needed...
	Robert, we're living through absolute batshit times.
	It's amazing to witness.
	I hope...
	I hope the system doesn't collapse and we can look back on this and say, hey, remember when the world went absolutely batshit crazy for five years, ten years?
	Who knows?
	Trump seems to have set it off.
	COVID didn't help.
	Sorry, go for it.
	Well, the meme thing is...
	It's shocking because there were all sorts of lefty memes out there doing the exact same thing, talking about voting on Wednesdays and stuff like that.
	Pretty ridiculous.
	It also came up in the trial, in the Proud Boys trial.
	They actually brought up a meme.
	There was one meme that apparently a Proud Boy posted.
	You may have seen it.
	It was the Capitol Hill Police.
	There's some officer who's like pepper spraying some protesters and somebody modified his mouth.
	So like he's smiling.
	And they reposted that as evidence of malicious intent, you know, that the Proud Boys are trying to rally up a narrative to go, you know, take out the police or something like that.
	And it's just, it's people posting memes that are making their way into criminal trials as evidence of criminality, right?
	So it's just, we're in a different era.
	You know, there's very little room for, they're trying to squeeze out They don't want you talking on telegrams.
	They don't want you communicating with other people that you're upset about elections or you're upset about policies or anything like that.
	They just want you to just shut up, disengage, be fearful, because if you say something, you might be arrested or might be a part of J6.
	And it's an all-out onslaught.
	We're seeing it from the FBI, the DOJ.
	We're seeing it from judges now.
	The media is supporting these people against these intrusions.
	And it's...
	I agree.
	I think, you know, this cannot continue.
	If everybody has doubt that prosecutors, if defense attorneys think that prosecutors have moles in their offices, that's not going to work well for our system, you know?
	That might be, it might be done by design.
	Break everything.
	Break everything and it's easier to govern over the broken.
	Right.
	There's, it's not playing fair and we all, you know, we do have to play fair in...
	In the law, that was my take on it.
	They're not playing fair in this trial.
	And the defense attorneys are flabbergasted.
	And unfortunately, the defense attorneys don't have the same tools.
	They don't have the strong arm of the government.
	They don't have the capability to go out there and twist people's arms to comply with them or to give them information.
	So I appreciate everybody out there sharing this stuff and raising the flag about it because it is an evil thing that's happening.
	The wholesale destruction of the system.
	And it's not that people can be fearful of infiltration and whatever and not playing fair.
	They know it.
	It's been confirmed now.
	And when it gets exposed, they call the truth-tellers.
	Tucker Carlson might not tell the truth all the time insofar as he might be wrong, hyperbolic, yada, yada.
	But when he reveals some of the footage that the January 6th committee withheld, exculpatory footage, and then they call him the liar for revealing it, we're living in an upside-down, backwards clown world.
	And there's no other way to put it.
	Shine that light on it.
	Speaking of which, Robert, what's the name of your...
	Tell everyone.
	Everyone knows who you are and where to find you, but just in case they don't, and I'll put the links up.
	Who are you?
	Where can they find you?
	Yeah, so I'm Robert Gouveia.
	I am over on Rumble at Robert Gouveia, right next door to Viva.
	We're also on Locals at watchingthewatchers.locals.com.
	And then, of course, we're on YouTube, too.
	We try to stream on Twitter, and we do a live show every day.
	It's called Watching the Watchers Live with Robert Gouveia.
	And we talk police, prosecutors, and politicians, and we shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice.
	But we cover a lot of the same stuff you and Robert talk about, Viva.
	It's all about, I think, holding the people accountable.
	We want equal standards of justice.
	We want fairness and some progress.
	And I think it's important to keep having these conversations because...
	The mainstream media and a lot of the other people who cover the news, they don't want to talk about this stuff.
	And the DOJ is actively covering up what I think is one of the biggest hoaxes of all time, which is this insurrection hoax.
	And so the more people that can become familiar with exactly what's happening, the better.
	And I think that is a real remedy.
	And the government...
	Their own system is going to fail if they keep this up.
	The government prosecutors are not going to have a functional system anymore because I think people will disengage and the system will break down.
	Maybe that is what they want.
	I'm not sure of it.
	But in the meantime, we'll continue to cover it.
	Amazing.
	And I'll tell you one thing.
	I watch you, I listen to you because I like you for the things that I'm not.
	You are slow speaking, methodical, and I love your mind maps.
	I mean, the mind maps are like...
	It puts into reality what goes on in someone's head.
	You go down paths, holes, and they're beautiful.
	So, Robert, I'm going to stick around and I'm going to read the Rumble rants and then I'm going to go to locals.
	What time are you going live tonight?
	It's 6 o 'clock our time, right?
	6 o 'clock your time.
	6 o 'clock Eastern time, yeah.
	Over on Rumble, over on YouTube.
	We're going to hit Proud Boys and we're going to hit some Trump updates.
	We'll see if there's anything new there.
	But then we have a full Proud Boys trial thread that we're going to read through today.
	It's probably 150 to 200 tweets.
	And we'll see exactly what happened.
	We'll take a look at the most recent filings, see if the judge rules any which way.
	Should be interesting.
	Amazing.
	And it's Friday afternoon, so who knows?
	You get the Friday afternoon document up, you might get the Friday afternoon presidential indictment.
	We'll see what happens.
	We'll see.
	Viva, thank you so much for having me on, man.
	It's really good talking to you.
	Anytime, all the time.
	Very, very good.
	Thank you, Viva.
	Thank you to Viva and the friends.
	We'll see you guys later.
	All right.
	Have a good weekend.
	See ya.
	I like Robert.
	He reminds me of my brother also, by the way.
	I'll show you a picture of my brother in a second.
	Before that, though, people, I'm going to read the rants.
	Then I'm going to go to Locals and discourse with the folks at Locals.
	Here we go.
	Boom, shakalaka.
	VivaBarnsLaw.Locals.com.
	And I'm going to go to the chat here.
	But first, let's do this.
	Share some of this stuff around.
	I just put that CBS article on Blast.
	I don't trust the fake news, but when they have to reveal something that is absolutely devastating, you know that they're doing it, gritting their teeth.
	How can we spin this?
	How can we spin this so that it's as minimally damning as possible?
	And how?
	Bullshit.
	Okay, we're going to read the Rumble Rants here, people.
	$5 Rumble Rant from Ari Berry says, Without God, there is no morality when each individual...
	Finite mind can decide for itself what is right, wrong.
	You have chaos, hell.
	Didn't God advise the Israelites against electing judges for this reason?
	$2 Rombard, Royal Plague.
	I thought I said Royal Lepage for a second.
	Royal Plague.
	Who is the crooked-ass judge?
	Politically and only politically people, and I'm not saying this to be glib or facetious, violence will absolutely not get...
	The desired results.
	So I dare say anybody engaging in violence is a deliberate saboteur.
	Or agent provocateur.
	Royal plaque.
	Royal plague.
	I'm thinking I need to go to the dentist.
	Five dollar rumble.
	They think they can quell the opposition through fear.
	They fear Trump will unite the people.
	Lord of the re.
	$1 rum rat.
	Were these shenanigans as prevalent in the early 2000s and we're just now seeing it?
	Or are these political prosecutions a recent?
	That's the question.
	I am of the general philosophy, if it's happened once, it's happened before.
	And if it's happened once and we've discovered it once, it's happened a lot more.
	You know, like...
	Yeah, that's why I believe that this was probably going on to some degree or another.
	Ever since government existed.
	Five dollar rumble rant tatone or tatoune.
	Judge Tim Kelly is overtly covering up government corruption.
	The House needs to impeach him if only to shine the spotlight.
	Five dollar lost core 23 rumble rant.
	More money to ask Viva to sidebar the council on future conflict.
	They're restarting the stream.
	More money to ask Viva to sidebar the council.
	On future conflict.
	The restart in the stream.
	Oh, well, I think I may understand that.
	Lord of the Re, $1 run around, says, now you know your vlog.
	Peace out.
	Booyah!
	Okay, we've done that.
	And now let me just go to the chat and see what's going on here.
	Okay, we've got some purebloods unite.
	Yeah, I feel excluded by that discussion.
	I don't debate the trolls.
	Yeah, that's always a good idea.
	And by the way, I don't ban or block people for ideas.
	The only issue is, the only one they'll get a warning is spamming.
	The moderation, we don't have as much moderation capacity in Rumble just yet, but spamming the chat, nishtgit.
	Ron Q. Bacardi, never forget that the Democrats will happily burn this country to the ground if it means they can rule over the ashes.
	And some other fun chat.
	I like Robert.
	Do I show a picture of my brother?
	Hold on.
	I think I can because he's got one on...
	Remember, visualize Robert Gouveia.
	And now...
	And now I'm going to show you a picture of my brother.
	Okay, maybe not so much.
	Although my brother...
	Hold on, let me just add this to you.
	My brother, this is my brother.
	He's got the widow's peak, and he's got a lot more salt and pepper than me.
	But that's my brother.
	Lawyer.
	Renaissance man.
	Okay, everybody.
	Let's bring this party over to locals.
	Not exclusive, just we're going to bring the party over there.
	And if you're so inclined to come and join, please do.
	You can join our...
	Wonderful.
	We got 500 and some odd...
	580...
	I don't know what I'm at.
	It doesn't matter.
	500 and some odd thousand subs on YouTube.
	334,000 followers or subscribers on Rumble.
	And we have a vivabarneslaw.locals.com community of over 107,000.
	So come join us there.
	We're going to have some Q&A and I'm going to deal with...
	I hate saying that.
	It's ingrained in my head.
	I'm going to read the tips in Locals.
	Come join.
	I was going to show a video to play us out today.
	Do I have one?
	Oh, here.
	You know what?
	Let's watch Hakeem Jeffries because I haven't seen this.
	I want to see this one.
	We'll watch this to play us out on Rumble because Rumble, I think, still cuts off the video at the end.
	But Hakeem Jeffries, this came...
	Hold on.
	Stop here.
	This came courtesy of Dave Rubin retweeting it and he said Hakeem Jeffries is looking to be the scummiest...
	Jack and Annie in Congress.
	Let's see this here.
	What have I done?
	What have I done here?
	Get this out of here.
	Go here.
	Go here.
	Okay, now I can finally see this.
	Present, share screen, Hakeem Jeffries.
	No, not that one.
	This one.
	This one is Becker News, originally posted it.
	Dave Rubin retweeted it.
	Let's just hear this, and then we're going to meet up at Locals.
	Month three of the extreme MAGA Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
	And they have nothing to show for it.
	Extreme MAGA Republicans in the House have done nothing on the economy.
	Nothing on inflation.
	Nothing on job creation.
	Can you imagine?
	He's blaming extreme MAGA Republicans for having done nothing to remedy the problems that the Democrats have caused.
	Okay.
	They've done nothing to prevent us from destroying the country.
	Extreme MAGA Republicans, and we're going to do some dance.
	On economic growth and nothing on health care.
	But today, extreme MAGA Republicans passed the bill that puts politics over parents and will ban books, censor librarians, and bully children.
	I'm sure that's what they do.
	I gotta say it again.
	Extreme MAGA Republicans.
	Extreme MAGA Republicans.
	Extreme MAGA Republicans want to jam their right-wing ideology down the throats of students, teachers.
	Five times.
	Wow.
	It's cult.
	It's cultish behavior.
	Keep saying it.
	It's the new prayer of Democrat politicians.
	Extreme mega Republicans.
	Extreme mega Republicans.
	Just do the ritual.
	Do the prayer.
	Bow as you say it.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, that's Hakeem Jeffries right there.
	All right, people.
	Mosey on over.
	Mosey, mosey on up to the locals.
	I'm going to put it one last time, people.
	And let's do it.
	All right.
	Ending on Rumble.
	Now go to the live stream.
	End live stream.
	See you all Sunday night, people.
	Peace to Rumble if you're not coming over to Locals.
	And Locals, see you now.
	Booyakasha.
	Locals, what did I miss?
	Viva.
	Heard of a Soko.

▲