Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 26, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:16:10

Ep. 153: Jan. 6 Trial; Paltrow Trial; Kari Lake Judgment AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Both of us have cabinets that are 50% women for the first time in this country.
	The other side is a lot of the other side.
	Even if you don't agree, guys, I'd stand up.
	I'm not going to lie.
	Both of us have cabinets that are 50% women for the first time in history.
	What is a woman?
	How do you even know?
	How many transgender women?
	How many trans people in your cabinet?
	Trudeau and Biden.
	It's not very diverse.
	Listen to this.
	Stand up, men.
	Even if you don't agree, guys, I'd stand up.
	Even if you don't agree, guys, I'd stand up.
	Why?
	Just understand also what's going on here, and I'm going to bring up a tweet afterwards because some people are confused as to why this is offensive.
	Let's play it one more time.
	Both of us have cabinets that are 50% women for the first time in this country.
	Even if you don't agree, guys, I'd stand up.
	Tyranny cloaks itself in benevolence.
	And so does incompetence.
	And so does corruption.
	Imagine this buffoon between Joe Biden and...
	Who's the other one?
	Justin Trudeau.
	Not just buffoons.
	Sent by email.
	Just now.
	I forgot to send Barnes the link.
	That's why I was late.
	They're not just buffoons.
	They're misogynists.
	And I'm not saying this hyperbolically.
	I'm not saying this hashtag confession through projection.
	People seem to have forgotten about Joe Biden's Tara Reid situation.
	A situation where he was accused of being handsy, sexual improprieties with Tara Reid back in the day.
	You know, back in the day when it was believe all women, hashtag me too, except when it's Joe Biden.
	Then people can find a good reason to not believe all women and sorry.
	And by the way, it's not just that these were allegations.
	It's like the Harvey Weinstein's best kept secret.
	Everybody knows.
	And they don't care because politics and party over country and people.
	Let me just pull up just a tweet that people seem to have forgotten about.
	From Lisa Bloom, alleged, self-proclaimed, but I'll say alleged, feminist lawyer, Lisa Bloom.
	I think her mother was Gloria Allred.
	In fact, I don't think her mother was Gloria Allred.
	Unless I'm mistaken.
	Chad, let me know if I'm getting mistaken.
	I'm pretty sure her mother's Gloria Allred.
	Back in the day, not just allegations, not just rumorings.
	It's just unbelievable.
	Let me just pull off the screen grab of the tweet.
	It's still up there, this tweet, by the way.
	This is Lisa Bloom.
	Feminist lawyer, although she represented Harvey Weinstein.
	Feminist lawyer talking about Joe Biden.
	Stand up, stand up, men.
	You got 50% of your cabinets are women.
	More for the sniffing, I guess.
	I believe you, Tara Reid, vis-a-vis your allegations of sexual misconduct by Joe Biden against you.
	You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.
	Not...
	Not something made up 30-some-odd years later that had never been brought up in the past.
	Something that was brought up contemporaneously, presumably, or at the very least, approximately, near the events at hand.
	Told about decades ago.
	We know he is, quote, handsy.
	You're not asking for money.
	You've obviously struggled mightily with this.
	I still have to fight Trump because he said grab him by the P-U-S-S-Y, so I will still support Joe, even though he actually seems to have grabbed somebody by the somethings.
	Maybe it wasn't the lower regions.
	Maybe it was just a little honk-honk to pull up Peter Griffin.
	But I believe you, and I'm sorry.
	There was a second part to that.
	How do I go to the...
	Close that one.
	Here we go.
	The only alternative is Trump, credibly accused of sexual misconduct by over 20...
	Oh my god!
	She just said that Tara Reade was right in her accusations of Joe.
	So Joe Biden, admittedly, by Lisa Bloom's own standards, was handsy, touched this woman improperly.
	But we've got allegations of misconduct against Donald Trump.
	But I know yours is true, but yours is only one that I know is true.
	I've got 20 that are alleged, one of which we're going to be talking about tonight.
	Over 20 women and who openly bragged about sexual assault.
	Do you remember that whole grab-em-by-the-feline line?
	We're going to close this now, and I'll get back to why Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau are not just hypocrites.
	They don't just cloak their incompetence in virtue signaling.
	They cloak their malevolence because Justin Trudeau has his own issue.
	But just remember, by the way, the Access Hollywood tape.
	When you're rich and you're famous, they let you grab them by the...
	Some people say that Trump was admitting to having done it.
	He admitted to having...
	No, he didn't.
	And anybody who heard that heard it because they wanted to hear it.
	And what Donald Trump actually said has proven probably to be true.
	When you're rich and you're famous, they'll let you or you'll get away with it, especially if you want to become president.
	What Donald Trump said was not...
	I literally have done this.
	What he said is that when you're rich and you're famous, and Trump knows a little bit about being rich and famous, they'll let you do it, like they did with Harvey Weinstein.
	Like apparently even Lisa Bloom is prepared to let Joe Biden have done it with Tara Reade.
	But no, no, Joe Biden.
	But he's celebrating the fact that, you know, setting aside the fact that he's handsy and he sniffs little girls and he allegedly, even by Lisa Bloom's own admission, Improperly touched Tara Reade, and she brought it up at the time, but no one listened at the time, even before Joe Biden was going to be president.
	No, no.
	I'm going to listen to advice from Joe Biden about how to be tolerant of women and how to treat women like equals when I'm not sniffing their hair and touching their children and talking about, you know, and doing bad things.
	But hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	Justin Trudeau apologized, groping reporter.
	Yeah, here we go.
	Here we go.
	But no, Justin Trudeau.
	We'll get to the corruption of the incompetence afterwards.
	Right now, they're cloaking their own sexual misconduct in benevolence.
	How could they be guilty of improperly touching women when they are touting the fact that half of their cabinet is women?
	My goodness.
	I don't know if they're saying that good for the women or good for them.
	Trudeau.
	I can't get rid of this ad.
	I apologize to Roar Reporter behind groping claim.
	Yes, this is old people.
	It's more than four years old.
	Because when he's not dressing in blackface on multiple occasions, he's allegedly improperly touching journalists at music festivals and then apologizing to them, even though he says, I'm confident I didn't do anything wrong, but I apologize for the groping claim.
	Canadian PM, very confident he did not act inappropriately at music festival in 2000.
	It's amazing what you think you can get away with when you think you're above standard rules of conduct.
	Medium Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has, for the first time, publicly acknowledged that he apologized in 2000 to a reporter who alleged he groped her.
	But he said he was very confident he did not act inappropriately.
	Yeah.
	But she still apologized for having groped a reporter.
	At the time, the allegation was made.
	But half the cabinet is women people, so they're good people.
	They have to be good people, because look how hard they're flexing their virtue signal muscle.
	Incompetence.
	Sorry.
	Hiding their...
	Own.
	Sexual misconduct.
	Tara, what was her name?
	What was her name?
	The lawyer.
	It was Tara Reid.
	Lisa Bloom.
	We knew about it.
	We've known about it all along.
	I believe you!
	But I'm sorry, I gotta go fight one alleged groper with one admitted groper.
	Justin Trudeau, same problem.
	And then the corruption.
	Justin Trudeau's cabinet, penetrated by the WEF, taking...
	I won't call it bribe money, but taking money in the hundreds of thousands to millions from the Chinese Communist Party, not looking into warnings from his own intelligence that one of the members of his cabinet is literally, if not potentially, a CCP plant or received Chinese Communist Party support to get the nomination.
	And boy, howdy.
	No, no.
	Let's forget all that.
	Forget about the groping.
	Forget about the blackface.
	Forget about the Aga Khan ethics violation, number one.
	Forget about the fact that Justin Trudeau, because he's such a woman lover, fired Jody Wilson-Raybould, the first aboriginal woman to the minister of justice position.
	He was so proud about it when he did it.
	Took the virtue signaling credit for having done it because it's the year 2020 or whatever the hell it was.
	Then fired her when she wouldn't be corrupt.
	Then forget about, that was his second ethics breach, forget about the WE charity, you know.
	He treats his mother equally when she gets on the WE charity payroll for giving paid speeches, even though they don't, you know, whatever.
	But, hey, half the cabinet's women.
	And then some other guy.
	I don't know who it was.
	I see Barnes in the back.
	I better bring him in soon.
	Hold on.
	Just one more, Robert.
	I see one guy on Twitter before he blocked me.
	Oh, the camera's getting me again.
	I don't know where it is.
	Oh, I can't find it.
	Someone blocked me on Twitter.
	What's wrong?
	What's the big issue?
	Why do people have such an issue?
	Nobody complains when it's a room of white men.
	Nobody says they got there because of...
	What do they call them?
	When you appoint someone because of ethnicity or gender or whatever?
	Something higher.
	Diversity higher.
	Nobody complains when it's a room of white men.
	First of all, even when it happens to be one of those rare occasions when it's a room of white men, although you're presuming gender, you're presuming race, you're presuming a lot of things.
	The reason why no one objects or makes a stink about it?
	Because nobody comes out and says, look how we hired them because of.
	Typically, when you see a picture, and you may not like the breakdown, no one's touting the fact that these people got hired because of ethnic, racial, gender reasons.
	It's when people do that, that people then say, well, holy crap, have these people been hired on skill, capability, and proven track records?
	Or have they been hired because they are black, female, gay, and whatever?
	Like Karine Jean-Pierre when she's up on the stump as press secretary and touts her credentials as being the first black, openly black, lesbian press secretary.
	Hey, you know what I would prefer, just before going by, you know, capabilities?
	Someone who can actually tell the truth, string a sentence together, and answer a question directly.
	How about that?
	Okay.
	Okay, so now, by the way.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornication advice, but we will be talking about a bunch of stuff here.
	These things called Super Chats that you see or Rumble Rants.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on the Rumbles, and I'm going to make sure that we are.
	I haven't refreshed it.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, so you can feel better supporting a platform that supports free speech, and more goes to the creator.
	We are also, let me see, simultaneously streaming.
	On Locals.
	So what happens as the order of things, and all of you know this, we go off of YouTube onto Rumble and Locals exclusively in about 20 minutes.
	Then we end it on Rumble and do a little after-party at Locals.
	Okay, now Barnes has been waiting very patiently, and I didn't even get to all of my intro rants, so I'll have more tomorrow for the stream.
	We got a big one tonight, people.
	What was I about to say here?
	I think we're good.
	Okay.
	Robert, I'm bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	All right.
	Well, I'll tell you what's very catchy.
	Is that book behind your back?
	What is it, Robert?
	It's a book written a few years back called The Deep State.
	Actually, a little bit before the terminology became colloquially popular in the Trump era.
	And it was focused on the efforts to cause a military conflict in China by what...
	This author labeled the administrative state within the national security apparatus at the time, for which we have some relevance to some topics this week.
	We have two bonus topics in addition to the 21 topics.
	The two bonus topics we'll talk about right off the top.
	In response to demand from our locals board, in response to the board poll on Sunday topics, are the sanctuary laws that were struck down on Second Amendment issues in Missouri and Oregon, and the TikTok issue that has percolating up the Mises Caucus and others, raising concerns that the law intended to limit.
	TikTok's presence due to its purported and alleged Chinese surveillance operation goes way past China over TikTok, unsurprisingly.
	Well, you know, Robert, we'll do the list, I guess, real quick.
	Ah, yes!
	Here's our 21 topics for tonight for all those.
	In order of chronological sequence after we cover the bonus topics.
	But Robert, what are the chances that we get to all 21?
	Place your bets in the chat, people.
	What number do we get to tonight?
	Okay.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Go ahead.
	So give us the list and then we're talking TikTok and other stuff because I got my questions about the TikTok law as well.
	All right, yeah, first topic tonight, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Jeffrey Epstein.
	We'll do a little bit of deeper dive that had been requested than we discussed before previously when we discussed the motion to dismiss those suits being denied.
	It includes the U.S. Virgin Islands suit as well.
	We got all things Trump, the New York indictment.
	Is it coming or is it not?
	Is the prosecutor getting cold feet?
	The D.C. grand jury is hearing from Trump's own lawyers.
	How did that happen?
	Thanks to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	And we have in the upcoming April civil trial in New York, E. Jean Carroll, the person I think is a liar and a loon, the suing Donald Trump.
	That suit is going to be heard in front of an anonymous jury, in front of a judge.
	If you had any doubts about how much that judge, federal judge, hates Trump, just read his anonymous jury trial order.
	Oh my.
	Robert, I read it and I'm like thinking, okay, the first paragraph, I was like, where's it going?
	Second paragraph, holy crab apples.
	I might pull up for some highlights or just talk about it tomorrow, but nuts.
	Like, TDS.
	Completely.
	Federal judges in the Southern District of New York are not known for being impartial or having intellectual integrity in many cases, in my view.
	Sex offenders in Rhode Island can now live near your school because they said the school boundary rules are too loose.
	We'll discuss what a federal judge ruled there.
	Cops claim a right to anonymity.
	We'll discuss a public access dispute in California.
	Carrie Lake, one of the most favored issue tonight, will be our fifth.
	Topic.
	Big win on signature matches before the Arizona Supreme Court.
	The Gwyneth Paltrow case, which you'll have to break it down because I know almost absolutely nothing about it.
	Aside from it, she ran into somebody and said somebody ran into her and it's in court somehow.
	We got Missouri versus Biden.
	This is a case we've talked about frequently, but people don't always know we've talked about it frequently because there are many.
	Missouri versus Biden cases, so we call it the big tech case.
	Other people call it the Missouri versus Biden case.
	Major denial of emotion to dismiss this week.
	We'll be breaking that case down.
	DeSantis in the pandemic.
	He says that if he had been president, he would have fired Anthony Fauci.
	Well, let's talk about what his record is.
	Allison Morrow had a lawyer from Florida on about some of the problems going on in Florida right now about pandemic laws in particular.
	We got Internet Archive.
	The people that were offering kind of the Kim.com of free library books online has now been denied the right to do so.
	Is that a fair use or is that a fair violation of the copyright laws?
	I'll break down the Vaccine Injury Law Conference I just attended in Atlanta, Georgia.
	A big Fifth Circuit win as we forecast on vaccine mandates out of the Fifth Circuit.
	And we got an interesting concurrence in that Fifth Circuit that talks about something else.
	And should the president have the right to fire anybody in the federal government, not just the very few people he's currently given the power to?
	California wants to have mail-in abortion.
	Want your abortion?
	Mail-in for California pills to be sent to you and other treatment.
	Is that a violation of the extradition and full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution?
	Afro man raid.
	He takes some camera footage of it.
	The cops aren't happy with that camera footage of it, so they're suing him, claiming that he's caused them emotional distress for their raid.
	Employee privacy.
	When do you have privacy in your place of employment?
	Big case concerning Butterball.
	YouTubers sued over FTX, and this is about the whole influencer world.
	We're seeing more and more lawsuits brought against influencers.
	Is it a dangerous encroachment on free speech, or are influencers often secret advertisers and promoters with underpayments under the table?
	Based on what I know, Robert, I'm going to predict the latter because I'm shocked and appalled to see how many times...
	It happens where it comes up.
	They endorsed the crypto and didn't announce that they were being paid.
	Absolutely.
	When is speech criminal?
	That will be debated this week before the United States Supreme Court in the case about aiding illegal immigrants.
	Is there a right to a drag show?
	University of West Texas A&M president doesn't want no drag shows on his college campus, and now he's being sued by a free speech organization about when there's a right to a drag show.
	This relates to the Tennessee case we talked about, Tennessee passing a law banning drag shows where minors could see them.
	When is it obscenity?
	When is it legally protected speech?
	I'll know it when I see it.
	But drag shows, by definition, are adult content and should be treated as such.
	And go knock yourself out in Vegas and wherever you want.
	It's adult content.
	It was by its origin.
	Yep.
	And the Marvel CEO has been fired.
	Was she fired because she was too woke?
	Was she fired because of a contract breach?
	She's threatening litigation against Disney.
	A U.S. Marshal is convicted.
	For framing his ex.
	Where did he get the idea to frame people?
	Hanging around in the Justice Department too often?
	And then last but not least, a big Second Amendment win in California.
	New handguns that effectively had been banned from California for almost 15 years.
	That law has now been struck down as violating the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	Robert, if I may, and indulge me, because I'm going to add one more to the pop-ups that was not on the menu, but I just want to put...
	The CBC and all of Canadian media on blast, and including YouTube, because the hypocrisy and the madness is stunning.
	The insult to injury is stunning.
	I had on the channel a while back Dan Hartman, who is the father of Sean Hartman, who was a 17-year-old kid who died suddenly 33 days after receiving his first Pfizer jab.
	I'm not going to give any medical advice here.
	Because obvious reasons.
	In fact, I never give medical advice, period.
	These are just facts.
	The father applied for the vaccine injury program in Canada.
	You know, you could presume it's sort of obvious as to the basis for which he was applying for this vaccine injury.
	The son allegedly was hospitalized.
	Not allegedly.
	He was hospitalized four days or three or four days after the first jab.
	Black rings under his eyes.
	Went to the hospital.
	Doctors sent him home with some painkillers, and 33 days later, he didn't wake up one morning.
	The father went after some of the doctors for improper treatment, medical malpractice, negligence because they didn't do certain tests, which one would suspect they ought to have done under the circumstances.
	That went nowhere.
	Father applied for injury under the Vaccine Injury Service Program, it's called the VISP, and was denied.
	Okay.
	And all I want to know from the CBC, for all the coverage they have of all things American, the Gwyneth Paltrow trial, Joe Biden coming to Canada, why did they not cover this?
	But it's even worse than that, because CBC doesn't cover it.
	None of the Canadian legacy media, as far as I know, have covered the father's or the son's rejection from the vaccine injury program, despite what some might think is compelling or contemporaneous evidence.
	CBC doesn't cover it.
	And then what does YouTube do when I post a clip on Viva Clips?
	They take it down for medical misinformation, even though in that clip that they took down, all I did was literally quote Dr. Kieran Moore out of Ontario and an article from the National NCBI, whatever that stands for, people.
	Okay, I'm not talking about that anymore.
	But we're dealing with outright...
	Being ignored by the media and then being suppressed by big tech.
	And it's shocking, and I'm going to be a big, loud pain in the ass about it.
	The Western Standard covered it, but it's an alternative media.
	CBC doesn't touch it, and then they rely on their big brother, big hand, to censor and strike a channel for talking about it.
	So I want to raise awareness, and I want to share and shame.
	That's it, period.
	There's no medical advice there, but shame on all of you, you absolute disgusting people.
	Robert, that was my addition.
	Okay, speaking of disgusting people, those supporting...
	Okay, I was going to make a joke there.
	I don't know how I feel about TikTok, banning TikTok.
	I know the way I feel about it.
	I want it off my apps of my iPad, whatever.
	But that's where I, as a parent, make that decision, and I don't need the government making it for me.
	As a Chinese Communist Party algorithm, application that some argue is being used to manipulate and degrade the West.
	Because by all accounts, or by many accounts, although it's yet to be confirmed because I don't know who's in China to tell us if they have a different algorithm, there's apparently a different algorithm in China, so they don't get all this brain-melting rubbish.
	They actually get good stuff being promoted to Chinese children in China.
	But in the West...
	They get recommended mind-numbing, mind-melting, contagion-inducing rubbish.
	That, and there's issue about what they're doing with data, how they're harvesting it, how they're collecting it, how they're gathering it.
	Whether or not we have an issue with how the Chinese government designs the app, collects the data, etc., etc., there's a move in the US now to ban TikTok and to draft legislation to ban TikTok indirectly, but to do much more...
	I would say inadvertently or deliberately, but surreptitiously.
	The legislation, as far as I understand it, doesn't target TikTok or Chinese Communist Party products.
	It would authorize, and you'll tell me how, you know, if I'm missing some nuance, it would authorize the government to basically investigate, confiscate, interfere with, alter algorithms that would do any number of things, including, you know, question election interference or question election outcome type stuff.
	Tell us what the legislation is, if I've overly simplified, summarized it.
	Why couldn't they go after a product of a communist regime as opposed to carte blanche social media?
	And what's your take on it?
	I think based on the laws the Mises Caucus and others has identified is that this has nothing to do with China.
	That that is a smokescreen to get public support for the idea of basically allowing federal government control and legalized surveillance over social media.
	That's what the law actually does.
	The law gets to designate someone a national security threat.
	And by doing so, do all kinds of things to prohibit and prevent their speech in ways that are deeply problematic.
	And they're going to try to sucker you into thinking it's about China when it's probably got very little to do with China.
	As you note, the law itself says nothing about China.
	So this is a problematic law that should get nowhere.
	But when one-eyed McCain, the ogre of Congress, the one and only Dan Crenshaw, is promoting these laws, you should be very, very skeptical.
	This book behind me was about the fact that there was a building up effort to come up with an excuse to wage a military conflict on China to make China into our permanent factory worker of the world.
	Rather than Trump's approach was to not have military conflict with China and to make America the factory worker of the world.
	It's actually the exact opposite of the Trumpian objective.
	There's people who want to marshal military conflict with China in order to make them permanently an economic colonial arm of the globalists.
	And some people get confused about that.
	They're like, well, how are the Bidens and Pelosi's and all their corruption tied to China?
	How could they want a war with China?
	It's because they see China as their colonial attaché, as their little factory worker as opposed to keep their head down, not as a place of independence, politically, economically, or otherwise.
	There's a reason why George Soros, for the better part of a decade, isn't in bed with China, but is hostile to Xi and wants Xi overthrown.
	Their view is that China should be working for the globalists, not the other way around.
	So these are people not to trust.
	This is a bad law that's being propounded and proposed.
	And hopefully the smarter, savvier members of Congress will strike it down.
	There's a temptation to pass these laws because there's some political benefit people think they'll get.
	Similar to like naming things domestic to terrorists.
	It was a bad idea.
	We never should have had the legislation.
	Don't label anybody a terrorist organization.
	You want to know why?
	Because it'll always be misused and abused.
	It's just an invitation to misuse and abuse it.
	There's already plenty of laws on the books to get at actual terrorists.
	We don't need to create new ones.
	We don't need to call the drug cartels domestic terrorists or anything else because that will just get abused.
	Or the Proud Boys in Canada, Robert, have been designated a terrorist group.
	The Proud Boys, who most people have never heard of because they've never done anything.
	Exactly.
	School protesters are getting labeled domestic terrorists.
	Part of the reason, as we'll get into for Missouri B. Biden's success, was they were using domestic terrorism as their pretext to monitor so-called misinformation and collude to censor people.
	And people say we want to declare war against the cart.
	Another dumb idea.
	We don't need to eat declaration of wars.
	We have criminal laws already on the books that are more than sufficient to deal with criminal organizations and operations.
	Robert, I'm going to bring up just one chat on Rumble.
	It's actually a rant on Rumble because it's on point.
	Glenn Greenwald reported many members of Congress supporting the banning of TikTok have significant investments in Meta and Google.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	And I'll just read these all in here.
	Mandatory carry.
	Keep fighting.
	Get a home build with a flashback because it's 9-7.
	All right.
	Mandatory, thank you very much for the support.
	As always, there are four lights.
	Ukraine 2022 is Poland 1939 and the Irishman getter.
	Nice nine rounds of that hat.
	I had a fight with journalist Rachel Gilmore.
	But Robert, look, maybe I'm stupid and just oversimplify things.
	If you want to target a dangerous product coming out of a communist regime, can you not just target that specific product out of that specific regime?
	And they already have laws on the books for this.
	They already have provisions for this.
	Trump was talking about doing it.
	They don't even need a law to pass it.
	I mean, anything involving, right now, national security involving foreign government operations, those can already be limited.
	Plenty of ways, you know, did it limit them with Russian sanctions?
	How much of that has ever been voted on by any parliament anywhere or any congress anywhere?
	So there's plenty of laws that are already on the books, plenty of power that's already available.
	To deal with the specific issue of whether China's doing things impermissibly.
	And if we don't like gathering information, we should be banning it, period.
	We shouldn't be banning platforms.
	We shouldn't be banning people's speech.
	We shouldn't be surveilling it in the first place.
	So these are dangerous laws sold under bogus pretext.
	Always be careful when you see any of the war whores show up campaigning for something, immediately realize something's probably up that's not should.
	Not in your best interest.
	So we'll see.
	And then the other case, a bonus case off the topic tonight, the Second Amendment sanctuary laws that got struck down in Oregon and in Missouri.
	The reason, quite frankly, some of these laws are what I might start calling DeSantis laws, laws that look good on the books, sell good politically, but you know legally won't be enforced.
	And so I knew a mayoral candidate in the South who ran a campaign on the grounds of he would keep abortion out of the city.
	And merely by making that promise explicitly, he guaranteed its legal permission because of how I was like, that's a smart move.
	It's a political move that can never be enforced, that you never have to suffer the consequences for, but you look like you did a big, great fight.
	And so some of these sanctuary laws, like the sanctuary laws that work.
	Who are the ones that a lot of liberal jurisdictions passed on illegal immigration where they just prevented commandeering of their local resources for the purposes of federal law enforcement?
	That's very different.
	That's how ultimately the sports gambling laws in part got struck down.
	That's very different than the Second Amendment sanctuary laws that said, we hereby declare we will never allow federal law to be enforced if we think it violates the Second Amendment.
	Nice political position, but legally you're guaranteeing it's going to get struck down in the courts.
	That's what Missouri did.
	They passed a law that had no chance of survival in the courts because it was so bold, so blatant, so broad.
	And created all kinds of confusion in law enforcement that courts would be sympathetic to.
	So not a surprise that neither of those Second Amendment sanctuary laws passed.
	They seemed almost designed to fail legally.
	A fair number of DeSantis' Florida laws are similar.
	They'll make a bold stand on something, and then you read the law, and you're like, well, why'd you do that?
	You could have done, like in the social media...
	They could have done what Texas did.
	Texas law got upheld.
	Florida's law didn't.
	Well, why?
	Because Florida's law would carve out exceptions for Disney and then add somebody else separately elsewhere and then have language in it that, again, if you're a lawyer, you know it's going to fail.
	So it raises questions.
	I'm not surprised, nor do I really disagree with the court's decision, even though I like it.
	People taking the stand for Second Amendment principles.
	This is invoking, as we'll get into with the California abortion issue, the old fugitive slave laws as the last time we had this degree and scale of dispute between state and federal governments on enforcement of federal law.
	And I'm sympathetic to the political position, but legally these were crafted in a way that had no chance of survival in the courts.
	I'm going to bring this up because it's a good segue to everything.
	I was going to make the joke, Robert.
	Your tie matches the Rumble Award in the background.
	Robert, your tie matches the Rumble Award.
	The TikTok law smells like it's really going after Rumble, locals, etc.
	What it's going after is empowering the government to make more unilateral decisions based on preserving its own interests, narrative, and I'll dare say, disinformation.
	Because it really, as far as I understood, and I've done a bit of research.
	It had nothing to do with TikTok.
	And you're talking about, like, targeting and interfering with?
	I mean, yes, it sounds like going after independent voices and absolutely nothing to do with communist China products, which are available on the open market in North America, which I presume are already, you know, potentially subject to other laws.
	Now, speaking of rumble, it's time to...
	To go over to Rumble.
	I was going to say that.
	We're about to talk about, as I did my introduction to the speech, I was testing the mic at the vaccine injury legal conference.
	And I was like, test, test.
	Epstein didn't kill himself.
	The mic was working when you did that, correct?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Everybody heard it.
	Everybody got a kick out of it.
	So it was just a fun little way to do it.
	But since we're going to broach into Jeffrey Epstein, probably a good time to hop over to Rumble.
	The link is there.
	And by the way, if anybody sees me doing this from time to time, Because it's stupid.
	I haven't installed the app, so I can't disable the FaceTrack function, but...
	Okay, link to Rumble is there.
	And even before we get into any of that, we're going to go from Sanctuary City for Second Amendment laws to Refuge Cities for Transgender Laws, Robert, in Minnesota.
	Very quickly.
	Okay, everyone, head over to Rumble.
	3,357 people should make the migration to the free speech platform.
	If you don't want to go there, go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending in 3, 2, 1. And we are not alone, but we're on Rumbles and Locals.
	Yeah, we may have a record on Locals for a Locals livestream.
	2,400-plus people watching live and in the live chat.
	Robert, you're late.
	I'm at 3,300.
	Oh, sweet.
	Well, everybody behave in the live chat.
	The memes are fun, but keep them kosher.
	Oh, there have been some...
	Try to keep any outright pornographic memes off because nobody likes that and they do get removed.
	For those out there, we will be having a...
	The next live Viva Barnes live event will be in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
	We're going to go in a little riverboat ramble.
	April 22nd.
	If you want tickets, go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	There's a link to the tickets at the top.
	We still have tickets available.
	Probably we'll have tickets available throughout the week before it sells out.
	But yeah, it will be a two-hour riverboat ride.
	Going to have a live podcast.
	Going to have live entertainment.
	But some of the fun has been already the memes that are coming up on the board.
	Me and you in different little suits and outfits.
	We've got to get you in one of those old school 1850s Mark Twain style outfits.
	I'll have my seersucker suit and bow tie and hat ready to roll.
	Robert, I was just wondering how you got from pornographic memes to our next live meet and greet.
	But now I understand it's the memes and not the pornography.
	Oh boy.
	Robert, speaking of pornography, jokes aside, Minnesota.
	You've got now your first transgender lawmaker in Minnesota.
	The person's name is Fink, F-I-N-K-E.
	Passing legislation, or not passing, sorry, proposing legislation which would turn Minnesota into what they're referring to as a transgender refuge.
	It's like a sanctuary city until they don't want it to be one anymore.
	Then they start shipping the migrants to Canada like they're doing out of New York and elsewhere.
	Robert, I mean, I don't know what to make of this.
	The two questions that activists will never answer in the abortion and transgender debate is, as of what point of a woman's pregnancy would you not tolerate a lawful abortion?
	And how young can a person be before you do not tolerate their decision to request the lopping off of their breasts or penis?
	These transgender refuge laws, Robert, how do they pass?
	Why is it not...
	Literally, child abuse or genital mutilation under existing laws, and how are they going to reconcile the willingness to tolerate gender-affirming care that might include genital mutilation with other laws that prohibits child abuse and other stuff that you can't do to minors?
	It'll be interesting because we're seeing a lot of these will be legally challenged on different ways from different places.
	Sometimes a state-federal dispute, sometimes an individual rights, individual liberty dispute, like the right to a drag showcase.
	The Tennessee law will be disputed.
	Already there's lawsuits about the various states that are banning.
	Various transitioning treatment medical intervention on the trans-related issues in children.
	Those laws are being challenged.
	Those laws banning those treatments are being challenged in various courts.
	So on the state-federal side, like these refuge laws, now in Minnesota, you have a deep divide within the state.
	Right now, the Twin Cities runs the state because they have the most voters and they have voted in enough of their allies so that you have one culture in the Twin Cities and a whole different culture.
	So you got rural, small towns, small urban, you know, places like Rochester and Duluth, Minnesota, and, you know, I forget which little town Nick Ricada lives in, but, you know, you have that part of Minnesota.
	And then you got the Twin Cities, you know, the Prince side of, you know, for this musician formerly known as Prince, as he put it.
	That side of Minnesota, which is just a radically different culture, the Twin Cities and the whole rest of the state.
	So you got a political divide there.
	It goes back to the fugitive slave laws, and it depends on the degree to which the supremacy clause interacts with.
	Because like in the sanctuary laws that got struck down was because they were directly challenging federal supremacy on specific criminal laws.
	So if that's on one side, federal laws are supreme.
	On the other side, there are circumstances where the federal laws are not supreme only because they're unconstitutional.
	That is when they unduly encroach upon 10th Amendment rights.
	All rights not expressly given to the federal government are retained by the states and by the people.
	People forget that latter one, by the way.
	But the question then is whether or not this is an area of right controlled by the states if the feds have different opinions.
	Then you have the full faith and credit and extradition clauses, which require states to give up prisoners to other states upon request for extradition purposes with certain limitations.
	You have the full faith and credit clause that requires states to recognize other state laws.
	This was always the dispute in the gay marriage context originally, settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that it was an individual right anyway, so that revoked the ability of any state to do it.
	But there's an obligation on states to...
	We give full faith and credit to enforcement of another state's laws.
	Now, back during the fugitive slave crime, this was a huge dispute during the slave era because you had people that would escape slavery in the South to the North under the Underground Railroad.
	Congress tried to pass laws prohibiting that by imposing fugitive slave laws, a federal law forcing a state.
	to violate its own laws to return someone to a state of slavery that the state didn't recognize.
	Lysander Spooner and Frederick Douglass made a very effective argument, in my opinion, very persuasive argument, that slavery itself was unconstitutional, that it was never, if you understood English common law as our founders did, their failure to include an explicit express slavery clause precluded and prevented any federal enforcement of slavery, was the argument.
	So a lot of these legal issues were never fully vetted.
	They were partially dealt with in the Amistad case when they said born free, always free.
	Well, if that's true, that meant a lot of people were free and there was no legal right to slavery because slavery would run into the same problems as America's income tax laws, which is they don't define who is a slave except by self-referential and circular terms.
	So you have...
	All of these issues implicated.
	When is the law constitutional?
	When is it unconstitutional?
	Because the state's violating the supremacy clause, so the state law is unconstitutional.
	These are the conflicts that come out in these kind of disputes.
	Long history of it.
	About 200 years of history of it.
	One way, shape, or form.
	Just not at this scale.
	Because of what Michael Malice and others would call the natural political divorce occurring in the United States between left and right on cultural topics.
	But we'll find out what ends up with these laws in the long run.
	Clearly, there's going to be a lot of confrontation and conflict on these laws on the Second Amendment, on various aspects of...
	Drag shows and trans rights and abortion and trans treatments and how children should be treated, as California is going to probably set the scale for.
	And we'll figure out what the courts do with them over the next couple of years.
	I'm just waiting for the kids who suffer through these acts to grow up and sue their parents.
	But the question I do ask myself is, if this is somehow ratified by the legislature in any given state, Will children actually be precluded from suing their parents if it was, technically speaking, lawful in that state?
	They could.
	I mean, it never precludes it in the sense that if they can challenge the constitutionality of whatever law is there.
	But otherwise, this usually is probably within the police power of the state, but it varies depending on the nature and language of the law itself.
	All right, well, that's it.
	To be followed in Minnesota, we'll see if...
	I can't make my jokes.
	I'm not a Michael Malice type, but my goodness, I have good jokes.
	Robert, I'm just going to bring up one...
	This is going to be like a bit of a Carrie Lake type...
	Oh, the lawsuit was mostly dismissed, except some of the claims made it through.
	This is the John Doe or Jane Doe plaintiffs.
	The Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Virgin Islands joined this.
	As soon as the prosecutor joined it, she was fired by the Biden administration, but the case still exists.
	Of course, somehow it all ends up in the Southern District of New York, magically.
	But putting that aside, a good ruling by the court denying most of the motion to dismiss on the key issues.
	But you're right.
	If this had been Carrie Lake, like this headline read, Banks still held responsible for Epstein disaster.
	That was the media headline.
	If it was Carrie Lake, they would have said, oh, 80% of case dismissed against banks.
	Yeah, look at that, because you got here.
	I won't read the whole thing, but with respect to Jane Doe versus Deutsche Bank, the court hereby grants defend its motion to dismiss with respect to counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10. Oh, so great.
	But it allows the claim as relates to, one, the claim that defendants, banks, knowingly benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture in violation of 18...
	Now, again, it doesn't mean they're going to succeed on their claim, but it means they're going to trial on it and they're going to go to discovery on it, Robert, unless I'm mistaken.
	That was one.
	That the claim that defendants obstructed enforcement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C., the claim that defendants negligently failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent physical harm.
	And for the claim that defendants negligently failed to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing non-routing banking, all of the claims are.
	Robert, I don't know what the claims that were dismissed are, and I'm not sure that I care.
	They're going to get to sue the Deutsche Bank for impeding application of a sex trafficking law for knowingly partaking in sex trafficking.
	Is this the point in time at which we might find out who might have been on that list, the black book that the names were redacted during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial?
	Yeah, because, I mean, really what they're alleging is that the bank went above and beyond the norm.
	This is not just a case of somebody had a bank account, somebody was doing bad things with the monies that flowed through that bank account, and the bank really had no notice or knowledge of what was going on.
	The allegations here that JPMorgan Chase Bank and Deutsche Bank were knowingly complicit in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking ring, that they were not just facilitating, but inviting and protecting the Epstein ring, that they were able to monitor and manage aspects of the ring through their control of the money.
	That they made it easy for Epstein to do what he was doing, that they actually promoted him in doing what he was doing, and that they profited from him doing what he was doing, directly and indirectly.
	Because the executive, for example, at JPMorgan Chase that was doing all of this, that was allowing Epstein to do whatever he wanted in his accounts, including pay off hush money.
	Somehow New York never got around to accusing Epstein of that being somehow a crime paying hush money.
	A little just FYI there.
	Who they accuse and who they don't in New York.
	Who they care about and who they don't in New York about these matters.
	But it was the head of the entire private banking unit at Chase Bank that was the personal friend and ally of Jeffrey Epstein.
	And the quid pro quo that Epstein brought...
	There's the official one, and then there's what I suspect is the unofficial one.
	The official one is that he said, look, you protect me.
	You allow me to do whatever I want to do with my bank accounts.
	You allow me to use my relationship with the bank in ways to intimidate others where and when necessary or beneficial to me.
	And in exchange, I'll not only get you all the different little fees that will come on various transactions of me using the bank at this scale.
	But most importantly, I'll refer you a whole bunch of high-end private banking clients.
	Private banking being a very lucrative part of the big banking operation.
	I've dealt with these.
	I've actually dealt with the people at Chase some years ago.
	And in fact, they were soliciting me.
	And my clients to be involved in the private banking operation.
	I said no, and then they cut me off two weeks later and froze all my accounts.
	Well, that's another story for another day.
	Just trying to pay my client's tax bill, and it was happening.
	It's going to be a large tax bill, but I was facilitating it because he might not have been in the United States at the time.
	And Chase froze all my accounts and tried to cause all kinds of headaches as political payback and other things.
	But they have full capacity to do these kind of things.
	And so, you know, why didn't they when it came to Epstein?
	So that was part of it.
	But here's what I think the unofficial deal was.
	In order to run a sophisticated sex trafficking ring of global scope, like the kind Epstein was running, that is often...
	In order for that to work...
	Robert, just to act as your shield.
	I will also make note of the allegations that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were tied to Mossad so that no one can accuse you.
	All the way back.
	Robert Maxwell, her father, was deeply...
	He was in bed with all of them.
	He was a smart little fella.
	I mean, there's a reason why he managed to escape the Holocaust before anybody else did.
	I mean, he got out of there.
	I think it was even Ukraine where he was from.
	Maxwell got out of there before all of it, set up a publishing empire.
	How does that happen?
	That doesn't happen accidentally.
	Just ask Constantine Kitson.
	He can tell you about how those things don't happen accidentally.
	But what Maxwell did is he was in bed.
	His later came out.
	It was suspected at the time with the KGB, with the Stassi, with the Mossad, with MI6, and with the CIA, all of them.
	And then when he thought he would yip after he got into trouble stealing pension funds, he took an involuntary swim off his own boat and never came back.
	The boat named Ghislaine after his daughter, who accidentally ends up connected to Epstein.
	I feel smarter for knowing these things, but I know these things because you've told me these things.
	And if anyone hasn't seen my interview with...
	Robert, I'm going to draw a blank.
	She wrote the book on Ghislaine Maxwell, Robert Maxwell.
	Whitney Webb, right?
	Whitney Webb.
	Go watch it.
	I've been accused of entertaining anti-Massad sentiment.
	This is not about targeting Mossad.
	It was all intelligence.
	All the intelligence.
	Yeah, it's part of an operation.
	It's part of the oldest school operations in the book is honey traps of different kinds, entrapment schemes.
	But the other thing you need is you need complicit bank.
	Because you need a bank that can move lots of money around quickly and easily.
	And Epstein, you could say Epstein entrapped the bank.
	The bank entrapped him.
	My guess is the unofficial quid pro quo was that the banks were getting knowledge of who the part of the...
	They were getting in on the entrapment.
	They were getting in on the honeypots.
	And I think they were getting in on some personal benefits for high-ranking bank executives of criminal illicit kind.
	I was going to say, would you clarify what you mean by personal benefits?
	Partaking in the program.
	They like ze little girls.
	That's what I think some of the evidence will find.
	There's reasons why there's already stories of emails between this head of the private banking unit at JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein referring to Snow Whites and things of that nature.
	And I don't think he meant the Zelensky's nose candy kind.
	But so this suit alleges just what's known right now.
	But now that it's past motion to dismiss, that means it's discovery time.
	And discovery time could be the entire real list.
	Not the list they put out.
	The list that people are seeing is the Epstein list.
	That was his contacts list.
	That means nothing at all.
	Donald Trump's in there.
	He put everybody in his contacts list.
	Alec Baldwin was in there.
	That was not the client list.
	And what we had with the Ghislaine Maxwell conviction was conviction for sex trafficking.
	And no clients, apparently, of the sex trafficking, which we might get to see now.
	Well, you know, in Alec Baldwin's defense, when he shoots, whether you're talking about the number of his kids or anything else, he shoots real bullets.
	But this suit goes, it's that they profited from trafficking, which is a specific federal law, if you knowingly profited from it.
	That's all they have to prove.
	That they obstructed any investigation or public disclosure of it.
	There's a lot of evidence of that already.
	And what's the non-routine banking negligence argument is that they have limited duties and obligations in just their banking operations.
	But when they're doing non-routine, like specialized private banking, their duties of due diligence increase.
	And so once they do that, they impose an obligation upon them.
	So this will be a very interesting case going forward, and especially if we start discovering what is in that discovery could be very damning for a lot of powerful people.
	A lot of focus has always been on the customers and the clients.
	There should be even more focus on the facilitators, the enablers, and the profiteers, because that will implicate major intelligence operations, major banks, major Wall Street financial institutions.
	Major media places.
	There's a reason there's been a peculiar lack of interest in the institutional media or even in Congress.
	For all the hearings, where's the congressional hearing into Epstein?
	Kind of odd that they can't seem to get around to that, isn't it?
	So this could be very interesting going forward.
	Robert, obligatory.
	I'm sorry.
	I have to.
	Doody.
	You said it three times.
	Robert, I was going to make another joke.
	Oh, yes.
	No, about banking.
	It's not a joke.
	It's actually truth in jest.
	You know, Epstein can get away with it with JPMorgan Chase.
	I get a call from the bank saying, Viva, why do you get so many $7...
	You know, individual payments.
	I was like, oh, that's just because of Stripe payments.
	So the small guys, you get called up because you get small transactional payments.
	And the other small guys get their banks frozen if they've donated to an illicit convoy.
	But partake in sexual trafficking.
	And you can have tens of millions of dollars changing hands on a daily basis.
	It's an iteration of the old maxim, you know, if you owe the bank $100,000, that's your problem.
	If you owe the bank $1 billion, that's the bank's problem.
	It's the exact same.
	Donald Trump figured that out, and he did a real number on the banks some years ago.
	I'll flip it on its head.
	But all that to say, by the way, there are 5,814 people watching on Locals.
	If you guys so choose to support and become paying supporters, $7 a month, $70 a year, there's a lot of perks in there.
	Go ahead and do it.
	Give my bank reason to call me tomorrow.
	And if you don't, you can become a member and just get a ton of...
	Free stuff for everybody.
	And speaking of Trump, people have tried to connect Trump to Epstein.
	Trump was the one who kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago despite his threats and things of that nature.
	Trump was the one outing Epstein's connections to the royal family and others all the way back in 2015.
	It was Attorney General Bill Barr who has questionable connections to Epstein, including his father being the guy at the school responsible in part for Epstein's first hiring in ways that made no sense.
	That was the Justice Department cover-up artist.
	So, do we start with the civil...
	I guess we'll end with the civil trial that judged that came...
	Well, we can start there because it's evidence of the bias that exists even in the judiciary against Donald Trump.
	So, while Epstein is now...
	The banks are getting sued for having partaken and allegedly profiting from known sex trafficking on Epstein.
	Oh, I don't need to double stand as I talked about it in the intro.
	Trump is getting sued civilly by, what's your name, E. Carroll?
	E. Jean Carroll, the lady I think is a loon who, you know, thinks, I think she fantasized Trump trying to grope her.
	None of it fits.
	It was politically motivated and the rest.
	It's a case that should have been dismissed, but New York changed the law almost ex post facto to try to allow people to sue after the fact for this stuff.
	And the Southern District of New York has gone to great lengths to find excuses to allow the case to progress and proceed.
	And so now it's going to trial in the end of April.
	And the judge has allowed an anonymous jury, which I'm opposed to, always opposed to.
	The media...
	To their credit, intervened in the case and said that no anonymous jury should be present, but the judge granted one because you can tell he hates Trump.
	So what ended up happening is both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to an anonymous jury or did not object to it.
	I'll be right back.
	I'll let you detail that.
	And I'll see if I can pull this up.
	Plaintiff and defendant did not object to an anonymous jury.
	Let me see if I can get the court ruling.
	Here we go.
	It was a media company that objected to it, or that filed, that intervened to object to it, and the judge...
	Let me see if I can do this.
	Present, share screen, Windows, entire...
	Oh, here we go.
	I think I can do it.
	Boom shakalaka.
	We're looking at it, people.
	Who was it from the media that intervened?
	It was down here.
	The news.
	Non-party daily news.
	They're better, but not perfect.
	And the Associated Press.
	Rubbish.
	The matter is ripe for decision.
	So I'm reading this.
	This is a unique case.
	Is it more unique than Derek Chauvin going to trial?
	Is it more unique than Douglas Mackey?
	I guess it's unique.
	It's a former president and potentially a future president.
	So when I say that I wasn't sure which way the judge was going, that gets answered real quick.
	The defendant is a former president of the United States.
	He's been impeached twice, although convicted on neither occasion.
	He's now a candidate for a second term.
	This is where I was ambiguous.
	Okay, he's inspired strong opinions, both highly favorable and highly unfavorable.
	As will appear in more detail below, some individuals charged with crimes in connection with the January 6, 2020 events in the United States Capitol have argued that their actions were attributable to what the individuals perceived, rightly or wrongly, as incitement.
	Then I think, okay, we're done.
	We're done.
	Listen, watch this.
	Hold on, where is it?
	Oh, yeah, here.
	This is when they cite the final report.
	This is where you realize the political power that comes with these bullshit, bogus reports coming from kangaroo court partisan January 6 committees.
	You imagine?
	You got a judge citing the final report of the bipartisan committee that never met quorum, and the bipartisan element of it was an Adam Kinzinger, who's lost his freaking mind, and if you have any doubts about that, go to Twitter, and Liz Cheney, daughter of war criminal Dick Cheney, who has also lost her mind and her seat by a record defeat?
	No!
	Okay.
	But a judge is quoting it.
	Let me make sure I see it.
	Yeah, it's a crock.
	I mean, this judge is known for being a political judge.
	But it shows that the real reason they want an anonymous jury is simple.
	They don't want people to out the bias of the jury.
	Stephen Sykes.
	Trump was critical of the grand jury person in the Atlanta case, who, by the way, outed herself, and the grand jury foreperson in the Roger Stone case.
	And what was significant?
	Those are corrupt people who never should have have been in that position.
	So what the federal judge in the Southern District of New York is really admitting is he wants to make sure that if there's a corrupt member of the jury, that this federal judge will cover up that corruption.
	That's what jury anonymity does.
	Robert.
	Okay, look, I'm naive.
	I will cling to optimism like a drowning puppy.
	Part of me says, okay, well, now they can acquit Trump without feeling the reprisal of the only politically motivated mob that we typically see out there.
	And also, part of me says, look, I would not have objected to some anonymity in the Derek Chauvin trial because the mob was there.
	The politically motivated mob was there.
	They didn't get it, but I think I could have been inclined or sympathetic to allowing it there.
	Douglas Mackey, the meme guy, whose expert witness had to withdraw because some journalists were writing some reports on him with private emails, contact as an employer.
	Anonymity there, I said, okay, I would have allowed it or been sympathetic to it in all three cases, but I understand the argument.
	Into none of the three cases, you're going to do this, you're going to be a witness, you have an obligation to do it, you don't get the benefit of anonymity.
	It's just the one-way street that we're seeing.
	In Chauvin, expert witnesses wake up with pig heads at their former addresses.
	In Douglas Mackey, no anonymity.
	Expert witnesses get doxxed or threatened with worse.
	But now Trump, the jurors, get to be anonymous, which we didn't see in Roger Stone, or when they were revealed in Roger Stone, we saw...
	Part of me wants to believe that they're going to be more inclined to be able to freely acquit Trump.
	But they're going to get doxed later on.
	Is that not wrong?
	Yeah.
	I mean, my problem with it is, once you're part of it, we don't have secret trials in America.
	We don't have star chamber trials.
	And anonymous juries provide for that.
	And they provide for secret star chamber type trials.
	And that the net effect of them almost always is jurors lie to get on the jury.
	Remember, that happened in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
	The juror lied to get on the jury, and then the judge covered it up afterwards.
	So my view is...
	Roger Stone, Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Yeah, crowdsourcing provides critical public information to make sure the juror is doing what they're supposed to be doing.
	As a juror, you are a public official.
	You have the power of the state.
	You forfeit.
	You forfeit any right to privacy.
	That's how it's supposed to work.
	To give people an idea, the old jury trials used to be held in the common square, out in public.
	So the idea that you get to have your verdict in secret...
	Because it's convenient for you?
	No way.
	These are public trials, public proceedings.
	If you're going to be impacted by it, then you just tell the judge, I can't be fair and impartial because there's so much public noise about the case.
	Okay, then you're excused.
	But you need jurors that are willing to be public because they're doing something that's public.
	And that's part one.
	And then part two.
	You need crowdsourcing of who these jurors are, because frequently the jurors lie to get on the jury in these kind of cases.
	And what anonymity really does is hide corrupt jurors.
	And that's why it shouldn't be allowed.
	We saw it in so many of the other prior cases.
	It's what we're seeing again.
	And the fact that he cited two examples of corrupt jurors as his reason.
	To hide their names, meaning if their names had been hidden, their corruption would have also been hidden, was really striking.
	Now, Trump has the same small law firm handling everything.
	I think this is Trump's instinct on being cheap.
	And I always tell people, if your kid needed emergency surgery, or your loved one needed critical surgery, Are you going down to the local strip mall and finding the Indian guy who services mostly Medicaid clients?
	A lot of great Indian doctors out there before people attack me.
	For pulling a Biden and stereotypes.
	But what I mean is, you don't go find the cheapest doctor out there, do you?
	You go out and find the best doctor if your loved one needs medical treatment.
	The same needs to be true for lawyers, folks.
	You go hire strip mall lawyers, you get the Michael Cohens of the world.
	Trump is facing constant trouble from Michael Cohen because Trump was too cheap.
	With lawyers.
	No, that doesn't mean you go hire a bunch of corporate whore white shoe folks who will screw you over in a heartbeat because their loyalty is never to you just because they're overpriced.
	But it means you go find the people that are the best equipped to defend and represent you.
	Not just anybody.
	Some of it, like this lawyer has some good experience in certain areas.
	It made sense for those.
	Not in every area.
	Not like New York trial area.
	Not some of the social media suits that have been brought that led to million-dollar sanctions.
	Now, I think those sanctions were bogus, but I...
	Well, I said at the time, we said at the time, there was major risk of it coming given how the suit was crafted.
	So Trump is getting himself in unnecessary difficulty with, in my view, subpar, quality caliber lawyers.
	When you have people like Alan Dershowitz, who's happy to represent you, one of the greatest lawyers in the history of America, use him.
	You know, just in case people think I'm saying Trump should hire me or hire one of my friends.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	I'm saying Trump should hire many.
	There's plenty.
	of skilled lawyers willing to help and defend Trump.
	And he manages not to hire him, and it's because he likes to be cheap with the money.
	He decided to defer on the elections to the RNC chairwoman because that's where the money was to pay for everything.
	And she hired idiots rather than skilled lawyers to handle his election suits.
	How did that work out for him?
	So just a word of the wise to the Trump camp.
	You know, it's fine to have some of these lawyers around for some things.
	Having around for everything, he's getting himself into trouble because there should have been an objection to the anonymous jury.
	And now it's been waived and that he's waived critical legal rights and remedies.
	So, you know, that's the issue that he's been presented.
	Oh, he's trying to shut the door.
	The paralyzed dog slipped in and nearly took down the lighting.
	Holy cow, the paralyzed dog?
	How did the paralyzed dog do?
	What are you feeding him down there?
	Oh, first of all, Robert, you asked.
	I'm going to answer now.
	She got into our bird food, and our bird food was like a big brick of peanut butter stuck together.
	I don't know what birds it was supposed to attract.
	This is the dog that every time you left could sneak into the closet and steal the candy out of the jacket.
	She ate my kid's backpack because there was a snack left over.
	She ate the entire bird feed thing, and it blocked her up for a second, a day, and then it unblocked, and it unblocked with mass prejudice all over the place.
	Oh, that's a good line.
	Oh, it's disgusting.
	Now, in New York, the New York...
	So the anonymous jury, bad ruling, bad sign of things to come in that trial, bad judge, but Trump has waived any objection because his own lawyers didn't object.
	But is it possible that Trump is under the same impression that I'm at?
	Like maybe an anonymous jury would be more inclined to acquit him if they don't think the mob is going to come after them?
	If so, that's a bad judgment.
	I can tell you it's a bad judgment right now.
	First of all, it's New York, and so that's going to mean about 80% to 85%, I think Manhattan.
	Well, Manhattan, that's more like 90% of the jurors are going to be against them, right?
	So what you have to worry about is biased jurors sneaking on the jury without the world knowing about it.
	Robert, is it possible that it's a little bit of Trump narcissism?
	I don't think Trump has put any thought to it, and this lawyer is not known as being a trial lawyer.
	That's the problem.
	This is not someone who's really familiar with, don't leave anything.
	When the judge says, hey, I think I want to do an anonymous jury.
	Okay, that means he's going to do it anyway.
	So preserve your objection rights.
	So if you think it's even beneficial to you, don't let the judge know that.
	File your objection and preserve your objection rights.
	So now you've got an additional appeal grounds, a compelling constitutional appeal grounds.
	You don't weigh that.
	You've got a biased jury pool and you've got a biased judge.
	Even though it's a bogus case, those other two things are heavy things to overcome.
	Unless he's thinking people secretly love me, so they'll be more inclined to secretly love me if they don't.
	I bet there wasn't even a conversation with him about this issue.
	That's interesting.
	Because that's the way lawyers that are less familiar with this area tend to operate.
	And knowing Trump...
	That is a high risk of that.
	So you have to force the issues into Trump's world on these kind of things.
	And obviously he's more focused on the New York criminal case than he is on this civil case that he sees as nonsense and gibberish.
	Which we're going to get to right now.
	I'm just going to read one comment from the...
	Locals.
	We're at $8,345 on locals, Robert.
	Binger Finger, that's Binger from Rittenhouse Trial Finger, says, strip ball lawyer, that's Rakeda.
	And I was going to make a joke.
	He's a small-town lawyer.
	And he's in the best tradition of small-town lawyers.
	So, I mean, for people who want to support, he's getting harassed by some people, so he's having to pay some legal fees.
	He set up a give-send-go where you can help fund it.
	And so if you're so inclined, that's up to you.
	Now, if you want a fresh jolt of energy, you need to get your brain popped up in the morning.
	He's going to Amos.
	That's what I had to go get.
	I had to get some farm fresh milk from Amos Miller, organicfarm.com.
	Amos Miller, organicfarm.com.
	Bring that cup.
	Bring that cup up.
	That's in a Pabst Blue Ribbon cup.
	You're drinking quality milk.
	That was a gift.
	Someone got me that as a gift.
	That's fantastic.
	And now I was going to say, I got...
	Nick's a small-town lawyer.
	He ain't a strip mall lawyer.
	He's very skilled.
	There's plenty of great small-town lawyers.
	I'm talking about the strip mall, like Bill Murray from that character where he's taking this thing on and off.
	What was that called?
	It was those two girls and it was a setup.
	Oh, man, what was the name of it?
	But basically, he's the lawyer hired by some people to handle something, and it's Bill Murray who's doing it.
	And Bill Murray is himself faking that he's been injured in an accident.
	I'm looking to see if anyone in the chat's going to get it.
	No one in Rumble's got it.
	Let's see.
	Wild Things, Robert?
	Is that it?
	Yes.
	Yes, Wild Things.
	Okay.
	What I was going to say...
	Hold on, I'm hearing echo again.
	Okay, it's gone.
	God, this flipping camera's getting annoying.
	I was going to say it's Dr. Nick Rivieras, who you meant when you said, like, you know, strip mall lawyer.
	Not the Indian, but the...
	Upschool medicine or the downstairs medicine.
	It doesn't matter.
	It's a caricature, right?
	We never do that for medicine.
	Don't do it for law.
	Trump's making another mistake.
	It's paying.
	And again, nothing against that lawyer.
	It's just outside that lawyer's wheelhouse.
	Knowing Trump, Trump was like, why don't you handle everything?
	And they're not a lawyer.
	Very few lawyers are equipped to handle everything for Trump anyway.
	But I think it's just...
	Now, he has better lawyers on the criminal side in D.C., New York.
	Robert, let's take a fake victory lap, or maybe just a self-imputed victory lap.
	I'm joking, everyone in the chat, I don't actually think this.
	So he might be more focused on the criminal case, although a bad civil ruling would be probably more prejudicial for his next presidential run than a criminal ruling, a bad criminal ruling.
	But DA Alvin Bragg has yet to indict Trump, and apparently has gotten cold feet, cancelled a grand jury...
	Yeah, the indictment was supposed to happen on Wednesday.
	Canceled that hearing for the rest of the week.
	Not clear.
	Jack Posobiec was circulating, by the way, something that was a deepfake.
	He was having fun with it.
	You might want to be careful with those deepfakes just because people were actually misled by that one.
	That was at least 20% of the people that thought it was real because they only listened to part of it.
	Listen to the whole thing, you figure out it's a parody because it's obviously over the top.
	Just FYI, I get the utility of it, showing the potential power of it.
	But what he's up to, here's my view, a Democratic congressman who's got deep state ties, who's been promoting this, was purportedly meeting with him this week.
	So my guess is they're trying to figure out, they already saw the blowback, that was part one, public blowback, public opinion blowback, from people like Turley, Dershowitz, others, saying this isn't even a crime.
	Secondly, There probably was some internal protest.
	James O 'Keefe put out with his new O 'Keefe Media Group.
	Now he's left Project Veritas.
	OMG.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Is the...
	I hadn't realized the...
	Goddamn camera.
	Wait.
	There we go.
	What's up?
	Perfect.
	Yes, what did O 'Keefe put out, Robert?
	I'm sorry to interrupt with my session.
	Oh, then he may have sources inside the New York District Attorney's Office that is complaining about this.
	I'm sure there were career prosecutors.
	Again, I mentioned this last week.
	The career prosecutors in that very office had already turned down this case a year ago.
	What about the two that resigned the last time?
	Is it possible that he's feeling like, not retribution, but rather...
	Pressure from the last two that revolted by resigning when he didn't pursue the charges?
	Yeah, I mean, those are the politically motivated people.
	Now, I still think he will indict because there's too much political pressure to indict.
	He's a Soros DA.
	And there's probably too much political benefit for a liberal DA to still bring it.
	But it wouldn't surprise me if the long-term career people are very unhappy.
	Because your long-term, as I mentioned, I've worked with them in prior cases.
	I was opposite them in the Amy Cooper case.
	I've been opposite them in cases that are not very public.
	But in my experience, they're very professional.
	And they don't like overt political weaponization of their offices because it undermines their credibility in all their other cases and their perception of what they do.
	So my guess is he's facing an internal rebellion.
	So I'm sure there's some deep state doubts.
	Is this really the case?
	Maybe we can go back fishing again in D.C. Maybe we can go back fishing again in Georgia.
	Maybe New York's not the case, given the political public opinion blowback.
	But I think the only thing that would get him to stop is if he got blowback internally.
	These are the guys who really make the office work.
	These are the people that have been there 15, 20, 25 years.
	Your young prosecutors are not skilled enough to handle the caseload of a New York DA.
	You need really skilled ones that know how to maneuver in the political shadows, if you will, to get a case to its desired outcome.
	Who know when to plea bargain a case intelligently.
	Who know how to present a case so that you as a defense lawyer know, by golly, you better plea bargain the case.
	Because of where it's going.
	Things like that.
	But also, most importantly, when to and not to bring a case.
	And my guess is he is facing an internal blow-up that's at a much different scale than he probably anticipated.
	Probably thought, now, I'm sure 90% of the prosecutors are liberal, but you just got some old-school pros that don't want to bring a case that is legally questionable.
	They just don't like those kind of cases, and they tend to rebel, and they're seeing public opinion blowback.
	So I think if he doesn't bring in prosecution, it'll be because his own career prosecutors in his own office rebelled against him.
	I think he'll ultimately ignore them and bring the indictment anyway.
	Now, I asked you the question when you were doing a bourbon with Barnes on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where we are nearly at 10,000 people live, Robert.
	I asked you, like, is it possible he says, I'm not going to indict, and I'm going to accuse Trump of spreading misinformation?
	That actually happened on Thursday.
	But is it where he said, you know, Trump misrepresented the likelihood of him getting arrested?
	Bullshit.
	You don't convene a grand jury on multiple occasions if your intent is not to indict.
	But is it possible he now says, all right, grand jury decided not to indict.
	I'm a law-abiding, Doros-funded, $1 million through a super PAC Color of Change.
	I won't indict.
	I live by the law.
	I'm holier than thou, and Trump is the one who's bad.
	Is it not likely that he does that?
	Oh, he could.
	I just don't think that...
	I think the only reason he would actually do that is if he has enough protests within his own offices or the deep state thinks that now they'll be able to indict Trump on charges in D.C. Because the D.C. charges are about the liberal D.C. courts.
	It's been all liberal Democratic judges involved.
	Basically...
	Who, when they're not busy covering up corruption in the January 6th cases, which for those, by the way, I recommend watching Viva's interview with Robert Cuvay.
	Great breakdown of the January 6th cases.
	YouTube is trying to suppress it, but you can get the full show and episode on Rumble, and that's where you can get the best.
	Breakdown on the January 6th cases is the great work by Robert Gouvet.
	Elsewhere, you can get it from Julie Kelly, who we've interviewed for Sidebar.
	You can find her work both on Twitter and at American Greatness.
	She's done fantastic work continuing to break down the January 6th issues.
	And if you wanted a preview of it, you could have watched the first ever Hush Hush at viva barneslaw.locals.com because everything you're now seeing, I basically predicted.
	Two days after January 6th occurred.
	And that, Robert, you've got the judge in New York talking about Trump's incitement words.
	That's what I was trying to pull up in the judgment, how he said, take back our country, fight with respect to the new stuff.
	How hard would it be to get a D.C. grand jury to indict Trump on what the...
	Kangaroo Court of the January 6th already recommended.
	D.C. is even worse than the Southern District of New York.
	It's whether the Biden Justice Department wants to cross the Rubicon by bringing bogus criminal charges against the leading political opponent and former president of the United States, something we have never done in America.
	So does the Justice Department want to cross that Rubicon or not?
	Now, they're forcing his lawyer to provide documents and answer questions that are protected by attorney-client privilege because the D.C. courts refuse to recognize attorney-client privilege when it concerns Donald Trump, is the short answer.
	I mean, that's the political reality.
	The courts are openly and overtly greenlighting the political weaponization of the criminal and civil justice systems against Trump and his supporters.
	And they think there'll never be any blowback or consequences for that.
	Or when they do, they start demanding secret trials with anonymous juries like the New York judge.
	So I originally thought they would not cross that Rubicon, that that was too insane even for them.
	But who knows?
	I think the deep state is committed to criminally indicting Trump somewhere.
	I think that's the promise that they believe is necessary to induce DeSantis into running for the Republican nomination.
	I don't think he makes a run.
	Unless Trump is indicted somewhere.
	So I think they're going to indict him somewhere.
	And the question is New York, D.C. or Georgia.
	It looked like New York because that was the most salacious case with the most favorable state prosecutor that saw no blowback coming.
	DOJ will have blowback, politically and otherwise, institutionally, for this.
	The New York prosecutor can tell Congress to shove off knowing that the D.C. Department of Justice won't enforce any subpoena against him, but...
	Not so much the DOJ.
	They are directly subject to the scrutiny of Congress.
	And so their ability to avoid it is much more limited institutionally.
	They already have members of Congress who want to defund them.
	That talk will escalate and accelerate.
	Trump's now formally and officially announcing policy positions to defund the deep state.
	So they've got to think about this.
	If they're smart, they don't.
	If the New York prosecutor is smart, he doesn't.
	The Georgia prosecutor is smart, they don't.
	But these are people that have shown evident capabilities of incompetence, even exceeding their arrogance and lack of moral compass, or lack of constitutional compass, that's for sure.
	So we'll see where it all goes and ends up.
	My bet now would be that Trump is indicted somewhere before the year is over.
	I think it's a political mistake.
	I don't think it will ultimately damage Trump at all.
	But I will be up tomorrow.
	We're going to do a special edition What Are the Odds with Richard Barris on Rumble at 2 p.m. Eastern Time where we're going to break down Trump versus DeSantis.
	And part of it will be the public opinion polling he just did in response to talk of him Trump being indicted.
	And as even NBC and others were admitting, all this talk of Trump being indicted leads his poll numbers going up, up, and up.
	They've misread the public about their willingness.
	The public is not as eager as they are to weaponize the criminal justice process for politicized purposes.
	Robert, we're going to break the order for tonight because it just segues perfectly into it, and I'm going to say this.
	I like DeSantis.
	It doesn't mean he's perfect, and it doesn't mean he's the best for every position out there.
	Period.
	I like DeSantis.
	He could be more charismatic.
	Big freaking deal.
	These politicians gotta quit going through political class.
	If you know you're going to be a politician for life, like never have a real job, like DeSantis, like Ted Cruz, like a bunch of these people, go at least watch.
	Good speakers.
	Watch the old great speakers, the old great populace.
	Read the old great rhetoricians and public speakers and communicators.
	Read the great speeches.
	You don't have to be a Jimmy Swaggart fan to watch Jimmy Swaggart preach.
	I did it as a kid because I was like, man, I like it.
	He moves musically.
	He talks lyrically.
	There's a reason why he packed out churches.
	It wasn't just because the fire of God was in him.
	You know, all of them could learn something.
	You know, that routine drives me nuts.
	I mean, these people are almost as bad as NPR announcers.
	They all need speaking lessons.
	Every single one of them needs speaking lessons.
	Look, I don't say this because I think of myself in any great way, period.
	So it's not like, it's no confession to projection or criticize others for what you think you're good at, but there's no but.
	DeSantis, hold on, I hear that echo again, Robert.
	DeSantis, he might speak the truth or he might say things that make sense, but not in a way that's extremely compelling or whatever.
	But either way, set that aside, Robert.
	He's persuasively challenged verbally.
	There has been a critique, Robert, about what has been attributed to DeSantis' prior stances on COVID mandates, vaccine mandates, COVID response in general, his position vis-a-vis Fauci.
	And I want everyone to know this out there.
	I'm not taking pot shots at the governor of the state to which I have temporarily moved to reside in because I like him.
	Does it mean that I agree with him on everything or that he's perfect at everything?
	But Robert, for the people out there saying DeSantis was ahead of the curve and or fit to be president and I'll have to be fair also.
	Trump is still out there touting his miracle jab.
	I think he cannot relinquish.
	What he wants to be the success of the vaccine, a vaccine for this Rona, which was neither successful nor a vaccine, technically, medically speaking.
	So I'm not forgiving Trump for that either.
	And I come to the defense of DeSantis, where people are circulating a video of DeSantis, you know, saying how good the vaccine is and take it and you'll be less likely to go to hospital, yada, yada.
	And I say, being pro-vaccine is different than being pro-mandate.
	But Robert, what's your retort to that?
	Because I know, full disclosure.
	You like Trump and you don't think DeSantis is ready, so everyone digests what Barnes is about to say now with that in mind.
	What's your take?
	Yeah, so I think on the issue of, I got into a debate with Steve Deese, and I'm going to appear on his show at some point in April to discuss it further, but there's kind of a mythology building about DeSantis.
	DeSantis himself is parlaying in his interview with Piers Morgan, in which he basically, he said that he would have fired Fauci, and that's the reason why he would be a better president than Trump down the road, is he would have been better than Trump on the pandemic in back 2020.
	The thing is, he was governor then.
	And so you can look at what he did, and what you will generally find is that DeSantis did almost the exact same things Trump did, that he didn't get into any disputes with Trump about pandemic policy at all the whole time.
	In fact, DeSantis became a targeted critic of the media in the summer and fall of 2020 because they saw him as a proxy for criticizing Trump.
	Because by that point, Trump himself had reversed course on lockdowns, masks, and a bunch of topics.
	So I think that there's a political rewriting of history about DeSantis on that side of the aisle.
	And we'll discuss that in a little bit more detail.
	Because when we're going back, is DeSantis' argument a good argument?
	That he would have fired Fauci in 2020 much earlier than Trump talked about firing Fauci after Trump was out of office.
	And we'll look at that and look at his actual track record.
	My biggest concern with DeSantis on pandemic issues is currently the law in the state of Florida.
	Very good interview by Allison Morrow.
	You can find her on Locals, Rumble, Rockfin, YouTube, a bunch of places, with a lawyer in Florida who's been the head of the curve of a lot of these issues.
	And on the law, DeSantis is still not up to speed in my view.
	Like, guess which state?
	Alaska is the only state in America that I'm aware of where, to this very day, you have complete immunity from suit on Remdesphere or any COVID policy as long as you're following Fauci's policies.
	Alaska.
	Of course.
	He keeps passing laws that immunize the hospitals, immunize the doctors, immunize the medical clinics.
	People told him not to sign it in 2020.
	He did.
	People begged him not to re-sign it in 2021.
	He did.
	People begged him not to re-sign it at least in 2022.
	He did again.
	And now apparently he's doing so again in 2023.
	Or planning to.
	This law gives complete immunity.
	For all suit, no matter how negligent the care to anybody in the medical space, as long as they're following Fauci's advice, the CDC's advice, the federal advice.
	It's like, okay, Ron, if you're going to go out there and tell people that you would have fired Fauci, then don't be giving immunity to medical care providers in your state of Florida who are still following Fauci and get immunity because they're following Fauci.
	But now let me steel man a little bit for DeSantis.
	He's not deferring to Fauci per se.
	He's deferring to CDC guidelines, which is problematic in and of itself because they just added the Jimmy jab as the recommended for children.
	Although CDC is still doing Fauci's recommended list.
	Yeah.
	And Florida's not requiring the Rona jab.
	I will never call it a vaccine.
	They're not requiring the COVID jab for schools.
	But they have a pretty robust requirement schedule for other vaccines, I presume based on CDC guidelines.
	Correct.
	And that's where the other two issues are.
	Like, he said he was going to pass a bill banning vaccine mandates.
	Then you actually read the bill, and what the bill actually did is provide for the same religious and medical exemptions that exist under the law, added a COVID immunity provision, which was good, but otherwise said that an employer in lieu of a vaccine mandate could do a mask mandate and a testing mandate.
	Well, that's not a robust vaccine mandate ban.
	It could have been a lot better.
	It was a lot better what he did for state employees than what he did against private employers.
	And that reflects a pattern with DeSantis on the law.
	The laws often don't match the rhetoric, like his Florida Disney deal was a lot less stringent and painful than he said it was in public.
	He recently is bailing out insurance companies in the state, making it much harder for homeowners to get relief, making it much harder for individual consumers to get relief.
	You know, it's called tort reform.
	It's called insurance company written legislation.
	That's what it really is.
	And so, you know, and we see the same thing in the employer mandate, vaccine mandate context.
	Said he was going to ban vaccine passports.
	Dig into the law, all he banned was...
	Producing documentations to prove it.
	Didn't ban employers actually prohibiting people from entry based on vaccine passports.
	So there's a continuous issue with how, of what the law not matching up.
	If your campaign for president is going to be, you would be much better on the pandemic, then start fixing your Florida laws now, Governor.
	And then you have bona fides.
	If you, as from the great movie, Oh Brother, he's not bona fide.
	He wants to be bona fide.
	Fix these three laws on vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and COVID immunity, and make sure that Florida grand jury actually does its job to investigate Big Pharma and Pfizer and Moderna on the vaccine.
	So far, the three laws have not been improved at all.
	They're some of the worst, weakest laws in the country.
	And he hasn't done anything with that Florida grand jury that got formed.
	So he will have the opportunity over the next three to six months to prove he's for real.
	And his fans to say, see, we were right to back him.
	Or for his critics to prove he's kind of...
	All hat, no cattle when it comes to a good range of politics.
	So we will find out.
	But I credit Alison Morrow for putting on the Florida lawyers who've been on the front line of this, noting that Florida's laws don't match up the rhetoric of Florida's legislators or their governor on really protecting people's rights in the COVID context, especially.
	I'm going to share Alison Morrow's link again.
	Is this it?
	That's Viva Barnes Law.
	Oh, son of a gun.
	I shared Alison Morrill's link.
	Let me do it right now, just so everybody...
	12,000 people in locals.
	Here's Alison Morrill's link, and I'm going to put it in Rumble as well, 19,400.
	Check her out.
	Amazing.
	And so nobody accuses Barnes, or me, I don't care if you do, of being DeSantis haters.
	All that DeSantis has to do is follow the damn good advice, and then learn from the criticism.
	Absolutely.
	I would be his happiest supporter if he will do so.
	Fantastic and fantastic.
	Now, this is a briefcase.
	Hey, sex offenders get to live near your school.
	Why is it your kid's school?
	Because apparently the federal judge is like, golly gee, it's so confusing this definition of boundaries for schools and homes.
	Now, to the defense of the federal judge.
	The state law could have been cleaner and better, because state law is always trying to go a little further than they should by being vague and abstract and giving too much power where it doesn't belong for political weaponization later on.
	So that criticism is fair.
	I think it was a little bit nitpicky, though.
	He admitted your language.
	He's like, well, maybe we should just...
	You know, we know it when we see it.
	We know a school when we see it.
	We kind of do, don't we?
	So we don't want the pervs, the convicted pervs, near our kids.
	But it's amazing how federal courts find all this sympathy for kiddie porn convicts and sex offenders when it comes to things like this.
	A bunch of laws that should be struck down for void for vagueness or not, that do criminalize, criminally punish and penalize excessively.
	But, you know, this is not one of those examples of excessive punishment, in my view.
	But now, you know, in Rhode Island, the federal judge said the law is too vague, so now the perv can live near your school.
	And I say it's just, it's a useless, stupid sense of protection.
	Okay, they can only live, what was the proximity, Robert?
	Like a kilometer?
	Within a thousand feet.
	A thousand feet.
	All right, good.
	So they can't live within a thousand feet, but they can just walk and drive and whatever.
	It seems to be like a semblance of protection without any actual meaningful protection.
	A registry?
	I mean, I think sex offenders are the few category of people that deserve very long prison sentences.
	Their risk of recidivism is off the charts.
	It's off the charts.
	It's incurable.
	It's not a disputable fact, and it's not a mean thing to say.
	It's not a drug addict doing something dumb on a drug addiction.
	It's not a...
	It's someone that is a prevert, I don't know how to put it, and needs to be kept away from civil society for as long as humanly possible.
	Call it a mental disorder that does not absolve oneself of liability for it.
	It's arguably, but not arguably incurable, and just so long as you don't...
	Not to bring up Arcade again.
	Just so we don't talk about certain sanctions.
	But yes, long prison sentences and not a Katanji Jackson Brown.
	Not KJB type pardons.
	You don't learn from the mistakes and whether or not it's beyond them doesn't matter.
	We're talking about protection of kids.
	Now, we're about to get to Cary Lake, but right before, briefly, cops are suing in, I think, California because a local guy who got beat up, mistreated by cops years before, Public Records Act.
	There's, you know, Public Records Law, Open Sunshine Laws.
	They're all variations of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, that I encourage people to utilize.
	We're utilizing it to try to FOIA the Fed to audit the Fed in coming litigation against the Federal Reserve related to their failure to be transparent.
	But what he did is he asked for all the cops' records.
	The cops sued on the grounds that they have a right to anonymity.
	And their premise is, hey, what about our undercover cops?
	And it's like somebody's name and ID wouldn't necessarily expose an undercover cop.
	If their photo was published, maybe.
	But obviously they usually use fake names and fake IDs for all of that.
	And maybe you could make an argument in that space, certain people not being listed, but I have more concerns with the idea that cops should have a right to anonymity and nobody know who is actually getting paid by the government to enforce the law.
	I find that a little more disturbing.
	But here's my thought on this.
	You send me the lawsuit.
	I don't know what you're going to think.
	I'm inclined to think it's one thing to know who an officer was on a given incident, on a given date.
	It's another thing just to say, here's a list of police officers.
	And where they live, and a picture, and an address, even if it's, you know, their public service.
	I don't think their address should be publicly disclosed.
	But I think their identity probably should be public knowledge.
	I don't think that should be kept secret.
	I might be persuaded otherwise, but at least my instinct is there's more danger in having secret cops than there is in cops' names being publicly available.
	And where I might...
	The lawsuit's interesting.
	They sound like real pains in the asses, but where I might be inclined to think is on an individual basis, on a stop basis, if someone's involved in an incident, then their identity should not be withheld.
	Just to put up a list of the cops in here, there, and people want to harass cops just for being cops, that's what I can say.
	If someone's not involved in an incident and they're just doing their job...
	That's still criminally prohibited.
	We already have a law on the books that criminally prohibits any harassment of a law enforcement officer.
	I get that people are concerned that lefties will use it to harass the heck out of them in ways that make being a cop.
	I'm just thinking Antifa.
	And I get that concern, but my flip side of concern is what if somebody knew somebody was a cop?
	That that could lead to exposing corruption.
	That could lead to exposing bad conduct that otherwise might not get caught because they didn't know that person was a cop.
	I think in the Ramparts Division in LA, if people would have known certain things, maybe that got exposed a little sooner.
	I'm just instinctively opposed to lack of transparency involving people with law enforcement authority.
	And there's risk on both sides, but I'll take the risk of transparency rather than secrecy.
	See, I guess the one thing is you know a cop is going to be armed on duty and off duty.
	So that might be a big deterrent.
	Nobody sane is going to go do it.
	But clearly Antifa types are often not sane.
	Now, that progresses into our biggest case of the week.
	Hold on, Robert.
	Before you do it, we're just going to tease a little bit with some rumble rants just to get to these because I don't want to lose them.
	Lightgiver Wings says, Viva, you need to listen to Benny Johnson's video today on YouTube.
	A whistleblower spoke to him about why the government is not helping East Palestine, etc.
	And Benny Johnson, I follow him on Twitter.
	He put out a tweet, said, big video coming up soon.
	I'll watch it.
	Sunbeam Valley says, did you say January 6, 2020?
	Shouldn't it be January 6, 2020?
	If I said, whatever, if it's an error in the judgment, it doesn't make a difference.
	Leo919 says, law and order SVU.
	Had an episode in which a woman is raped in a department store dressing room.
	I swear, E. Jean got her story from there.
	Okay, that's back to Trump.
	Big bad bra.
	What is it going to take to get the Fed out of MSN social media?
	Until that happens, this country can't be free.
	Hamartic says...
	He's accusing Israeli intelligence of honey traps, misogyny.
	All right, well done.
	Andres Decano says, what can legally be done to challenge Feteman's body double?
	I saw this.
	Pleb, if you're watching, I saw your tweet, plebs.
	If those images are legit images, they're not the same person, period.
	Call me whatever you want.
	Those images are not the same person.
	Can one legally ask for a DNA test to see if it's really the elected senator?
	Targo the White says, can we get a sidebar with Matt LaRoziaia from FUDBusters?
	He recently testified to Congress on the weaponization of the ATF last week and had the funniest moments in a congressional hearing.
	And then we've got one more that came in the meantime.
	XSSFZIT says, FOIA in New York allows release of all Muni employees and their previous salaries.
	Salary is the one last taboo of Western society.
	Robert!
	At two hours, we might head over to Locals exclusively anyhow, but Robert, Carrie Lake, she mostly lost.
	Don't you read the news?
	She's a nutcase.
	She's an election denier.
	She mostly lost on all of her claims, except...
	It's been remanded for arguably the most important aspect of the claim, which is the signature verification, which was dismissed on the latches, because the original judge, and then I guess the Court of Appeal before it went to Ambon, said, yeah, latches, because she was challenging a statute that existed before the misapplication of the statute, and the judges said, the statute existed before latches when she filed her suit on that claim, and the court Ambon said, no.
	She's arguing about the application of a statute that existed prior to as to how it was applied during the election.
	It is remanded for further consideration.
	But Robert, is it possible that the lower court says, oh, okay, well, we dismiss it on another basis now?
	Oh, that's always possible.
	I think it would be a little bit unlikely because courts in this context don't like being reversed in such a high-profile way.
	So it was fascinating.
	I mean, the media coverage was completely dishonorable and deceptive.
	And so, so much so that you had liberals being like...
	Hold on a second.
	How is the trial court conducting a hearing?
	I thought she lost.
	It's because the media lied to you.
	It is very difficult to win a reversal from any Supreme Court, state or federal, ever.
	And so when you win, to give you an idea, the average numbers are anywhere from one in a ten to one in a thousand.
	I mean, that's how difficult the odds were that Carrie Lake faced.
	And just to stop you there, because people don't understand this.
	So the lower court dismissed.
	The Supreme Court appellate court dismissed.
	And then how did it get to an en banc hearing?
	Oh, so, I mean, what happened here is first it goes to the Superior Court of Arizona.
	Then it goes to the Court of Appeals of Arizona.
	Both of those said no, would not allow the election challenge on the signature match issue on the grounds that...
	It was a ludicrous interpretation of Latchez.
	So then they petitioned for discretionary review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
	The Arizona Supreme Court doesn't have to handle a case.
	No Supreme Court in America, state or the U.S. Supreme Court, has to handle a case.
	And consequently, they turned most of them down.
	They turned them down from anywhere from 90% to 99% of the time.
	So she was facing a huge hurdle.
	The media didn't want the case to go forward.
	The legal establishment didn't want the case to go forward.
	And I was even skeptical the Arizona Supreme Court would do anything because it's history of non-intervention in a lot of these instances of playing Pontius Pilate and ignoring it.
	So I was very pleasantly surprised to see them not only reverse...
	But reverse on the big issue.
	The other issues were going to be very tough to get an Arizona Supreme Court to substantively reverse on.
	Issues about what happened.
	In the cases where he allowed evidence to be presented, very rare does a court ever overturn on those.
	The question was, but there was only one area where he did not allow any evidence to be presented.
	And that was on the issue of signature matches.
	And the issue was a simple one.
	Carrie Lake had substantial evidence that the signatures didn't match.
	And for those folks not familiar, obviously I've been obsessed with this for years, Trump hired me to pursue these issues, and then the Republican National Committee decided not to pursue them, so we didn't get to make this the central issue in 2020 when it should have been.
	But when somebody does a mail-in ballot, there's only one method of security and integrity of that ballot.
	And that is the signature on the outs of the mail-in part of the ballot.
	So it's not the ballot itself, but what the ballot is contained within.
	Just stop for one second.
	Is that the outer envelope that gets sent through the mail, or is that the outer envelope in the package that gets sent through the mail?
	In the package.
	So the package will be sent back, has no signature on the outside.
	You open it up, and then there's another...
	Uh, envelope there where there's a signature and on the inside of there is the ballot.
	The ballot itself doesn't contain the signature.
	It's the outset for...
	For voter anonymity purposes.
	But it's the envelope that does.
	And they separate out the two.
	The ballot goes one place.
	But before they allow the ballot to ever be processed or counted, they have to check the signature to make sure it matches the confidential signature on their voter file.
	That's the signature that comes from when the voter registers in the first place or sometimes is updated by things like driver's licenses and other government information.
	So it's the only mechanism to make sure that that person actually filled out that signature.
	Often the signature also sometimes has an oath to it, depending on the state, that says, you know, nobody bribed me, this is my honest ballot, so on and so forth.
	But the signature is the only way to know whether that person even filled out that ballot.
	There's always still risk that somebody was coerced, someone was bribed.
	There's still risk that someone faked the signature in some manner.
	There's some risk that a ballot was substituted into the ballot that was legitimately signed in.
	You still have all those problems, but it's the biggest way to catch just open, overt fraud.
	And the giveaway is, and to give people an idea, often these signatures are a complete crock, the fake signatures.
	The fake signature will often be a line.
	Just a flat line.
	They don't even try to sign the name.
	They just go like that.
	And Cary Lake caught some of these.
	So what happened was whistleblowers inside the Maricopa County Elections Office reported to Cary Lake's election that, by the way, a bunch of these signatures completely didn't match, and they were counting the ballots anyway, up to as many as 20%.
	Of the mail-in ballots, signatures didn't match.
	When the Democratic Party's own expert reviewed them in 2020, they found a rate of mismatch that was 30 times greater than the margin of victory in the state.
	Just taking a sample size of it.
	So from day one, 2020...
	And in 2022, I said that the most robust area for Cary Lake to ever succeed is signature matches, because I can almost guarantee you they don't match.
	And here's the other reason.
	Courts have enforced signature matches to keep people off the ballot.
	Barack Obama got elected to the state senate in Illinois, kick-started his political career after getting crushed in his race for Congress against the Democratic congressman, I think it was Bobby Seale from the south side of Chicago.
	Because he kicked off all of his opponents getting a court to deny his opponent's chance to run.
	Jimmy Carter got elected early in his electoral career by getting back signatures not to match.
	Obama himself talked about it twice in 2008 and again in 2012 about how critical it was that signatures match on mail-in ballots.
	The New York Times, August of 2012, wrote a whole piece about the dangers of mail-in balloting.
	Jimmy Carter joined Jim Baker, 2005 voter election report.
	Critical that the signatures match, the great risk being from absentee ballots.
	So here, there is substantial evidence that the signatures didn't match at a rate that, if they just take even a small sample, that rate will be 10 times more than the margin of victory in the state of Arizona on a percentage-prorated basis.
	But Robert, quell my neurotic concerns.
	They sent it back for remand, which says, you dismissed the signature verification claim on latches.
	Reconsider.
	What is that going to look like to the reconsideration?
	Oh, so it's up to the trial court.
	But what it's saying is you got latches completely wrong.
	You got the analysis of the statute and the legal challenge completely wrong.
	And it also laid out a better articulated evidence of what the standard is on terms of evidence needed to overturn an election, basically doubt.
	And so it restored that standard, which also was an implicit pot shot at the trial court.
	And the reason my courts care about signature matches is because they themselves have used it to keep people off the ballot.
	So the level of hypocrisy and humiliation they would have to face by ignoring it is very high.
	So one of the few areas they're actually conscientious or cognizant of their own complicity in our election integrity problems.
	And so the...
	So I think this trial court judge will likely at least allow an evidentiary hearing with some meaningful development on whether or not the signature match check was actually done, number one, because that's two separate issues.
	One is, did they do a signature match check?
	And number two, what would a sample look like as to whether or not it was enough to overturn the election?
	If he does a competent hearing, she should win that hearing.
	That doesn't mean she will.
	Doesn't matter.
	Doesn't mean the court systems will step to the plate.
	This trial court failed the first time around.
	Will he fail the second time around?
	That's the question.
	But now the standard is clarified.
	Now the legal argument is presented, and her best evidence gets the chance to be presented.
	And all those people being critical of Carrie Lake for pursuing this case, a bunch of them keep...
	Accidentally showing up in the DeSantis camp.
	It's kind of interesting who's there.
	He's got some unreliable types on his train, put it that way, whether that's his fault or not.
	But a bunch of these people, a lot of these fake populists, some of them even write newsletters they call populist newsletters.
	When they're complete fake populists, they have no idea what populists are.
	But I saw a bunch of them being hypercritical of Carrie Lake for taking this up to the Arizona Supreme Court.
	Not only has she now won the only best chance she could have to have an honest election for 2022, an honest election count for 2022, but she established critical legal principle that everybody else in Arizona can utilize on a go-forward basis that promotes real...
	chance for transparency and integrity in elections, and that can also be cited for comparable cases all across the country in the most critical area for election integrity in this space.
	So credit to Carrie Lake for pursuing it, because doing so was the best case, the best win legally for election integrity in decades.
	But Robert, and I'm going to say this, like, okay, the best case that you could have raised...
	To challenge 2020, but there's nothing pending, nothing current, nothing outstanding as it relates to 2020.
	It established the basis for 2024, because everybody's concerned about this for 2024.
	And what she did is establish the strongest basis that Arizona will have the cleanest election in 2024 that it's had in a long time because of this.
	Just because of this, they're going to have to change how they enforce signature match checks, which will shut down illegal vote harvesting operations in Arizona.
	So just by this decision, I guarantee everybody was shocked on the liberal Democratic side that the Arizona Supreme Court intervened.
	So much so that Keith Olbermann was responding to us on Twitter, trying to suggest that it's ridiculous.
	I get it.
	You want to stick your head in the sand.
	They're all shocked because there had been no win on any election integrity issue at the Supreme Court level anywhere for about a decade on this side of the aisle.
	And Carrie Lake just won it.
	And she won it despite a lot of so-called fake populists, a lot of so-called fake conservatives telling her not to pursue it.
	And someone asked about the little sanctions component.
	That's about one statement, whether one statement was technically correct.
	That's a very minor issue you can ignore.
	What matters about this decision is the signature match check being remanded to the Arizona trial court.
	First of all, I didn't notice if Keith Olbermann directly responded to us or referenced us, but if he did, I'll go look for it shortly.
	But Robert, that paragraph of the sanctions, and I forget who quoted that on Twitter.
	Am I wrong?
	Is that the most utter load of bullshit that you could ever imagine?
	Would they want to sanction someone on one statement of an evidentiary claim?
	What the Supreme Court really did, if they had honest headlines, was they denied 98% of the sanctions request.
	They denied it on these grounds.
	They denied it on all the grounds they were seeking.
	They said the only grounds they would even consider it is whether this one sentence was correct.
	And that's kind of a potshot at the other side, because how much in sanctions do you get for one sentence?
	Well, you might get $300, $600.
	I mean, it's a crock.
	$1 billion, Robert.
	Yeah, exactly.
	He's not Alex Jones, so it's not going to be $2 trillion.
	But so, huge, huge win for Carrie Lake on the critical issue of election integrity that gives her a real chance, if the court is honest, that's always an X factor, whether they have the courage to step up the plate, the trial court in Arizona, but it gives her her best chance.
	That there's no doubt about.
	And most importantly, it establishes an election integrity, transparency, court precedent that's critical for Arizona in 2024, and that's critical in my view for the whole country because it can be used in other states, that it establishes that you have to go through your signature match protocols and your procedures and your protections.
	And if you do, 80 to 90 percent of vote harvesting, it can't be effective.
	Because there's plenty of people that are not getting legitimate signatures.
	It's that simple.
	Like the nursing home and apartment complex, vote harvesting was taking place.
	That wasn't people actually getting somebody's vote and delivering it for them.
	That was people filling out their ballot and fake signing it and sending it in.
	That's what was going on.
	It's not a coincidence that I could find out where the magical turnout was.
	It was in a nursing home that was right next to one nursing home has 50% turnout.
	The other one has 90%.
	We all know what happened.
	It isn't because they suddenly had this motivated interest to vote at that one nursing home.
	It was because some employee took their ballots, filled it out for them, signed it.
	And delivered it to them.
	And Dinesh D'Souza's 2,000 mules caught a few of them delivering it at the boxes because they didn't want to deliver it to the election office because it's, oh, here's my 30 ballots from the local...
	You know, I don't want to do that routine.
	Why do you think they're wearing gloves and taking them off as soon as they put it in?
	Robert, it's COVID.
	It's COVID.
	And if you say anything different...
	Yeah, exactly, exactly.
	Somehow it magically goes away when they put the ballot in.
	So when there's no more fingerprints left.
	So this case was huge.
	So credit to Carrie Lake for putting up with all the criticism, marching forward onward, all the threats of sanctions, all the other political threats on her direction, and shame on all the people that were critical of her.
	You're fakes.
	You're frauds.
	Ryan Godursky, you're a fake.
	You're a fraud.
	You're not a real populist.
	Quit pretending you are.
	Anybody that is dismissive of election integrity is someone you should never take seriously again.
	And all the Carrie Lake critics belong in that space.
	Robert, look, I don't only pull out duty memes from Family Guy.
	You say shame, I'm bringing up another Family Guy meme right here.
	Shame.
	Shame.
	Shame, shame, shame!
	It used to be funny.
	Shame on you!
	I'm going to stop that before we get copyright claimed.
	Someone should do a meme with that.
	Put Ryan Godursky's head on that.
	Put some other fake populace.
	Election integrity is what any populist cares about.
	It's the core to a constitutional democracy or constitutional republic.
	Take your pick.
	But either one, a part of that process, is honest, independent elections where we have honest votes.
	And Carrie Lake pursuing this case, against all odds, against all odds, managed to get a huge win.
	Might not lead to her being in the governor's chair.
	It might lead to her being in the vice president's chair.
	Well, that's what I was going to ask you, Robert.
	And I'm thinking at some point we're going to end on Rumble and just go over to YouTube because we're like, YouTube, sorry, locals, because we're nearly at two hours in.
	Robert, Trump picks a VP for 2024.
	DeSantis, Carrie Lake.
	Somebody else?
	Santos keeps ruling himself out.
	So, you know, he keeps tightening that noose around his future political career.
	So I said last week it's DOA.
	I think what happened last week confirmed that, that a lot of people were skeptical, and then they saw the public opinion polls showing him dropping like a rock.
	His Piers Morgan interview was backfired.
	Wrong person to start their law.
	He's just got people...
	I mean, Karl Rove's admitting he's really running his campaign.
	Another Fox News guy is saying it's the Bush family running his campaign.
	That's kind of...
	Obvious.
	He's hired a bunch of idiots, trusted him, and he's getting torched with it.
	And when your only argument is you'll be better than Trump because you won't hire idiots, and the people running your campaign are even worse idiots?
	You kind of killed your campaign.
	So if DeSantis is smart, he doesn't even run.
	And then he maybe preserves some options down the road.
	But I think he's ruled himself out effectively of being a vice presidential candidate.
	Now, contrary to what Laura Loser, sometimes goes by the name Laura Loomer, was saying, there in fact was an agreement in place for DeSantis to be on that ticket.
	He just decided to renege.
	So that's the backstory there.
	You know, Laura Loomer's always desperate for attention and validation, runs around seeking it.
	She should seek it in some more productive places than trying to waste her time attacking me.
	Because I can go into a lot of details, Laura Loser, and you're not going to like them.
	So skip it and move on.
	And don't speak out of school on things you really don't know about.
	But I think that Carrie Lake has done herself huge favors because she's proven she's the real deal.
	Not only is she the most charismatic I think Carrie Lake, big, big win.
	Big win for election integrity.
	A case that you know more about than I do.
	Speaking of Gwyneth Paltrow.
	There's very few things that I know more about Robert on than useless shit.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to swear.
	Gwyneth Paltrow, Robert, I haven't watched the entire trial.
	Some people in Rumble were saying, Paltrow, Paltrow, Paltrow, and I was surprised that anyone cared about it.
	She's being sued civilly for damages.
	From a retired optometrist or a retired doctor who claims that she ran into him, hit-and-run ski accident.
	I don't want to say a veil, BC.
	I forget where it was.
	It doesn't matter.
	She's being sued for damages.
	She's had a week one of the trial.
	I want to pull up some images, but I can't find them.
	John Lajoie, rapist glasses.
	Look it up if you haven't seen what it is.
	Gwyneth Paltrow showed up to court.
	In a variety of outfits, she's like pulling an amber herd in terms of not helping herself by showing up in different outfits every day and like looking very glamorous or murderous or rapist glasses, depending on where you're going.
	Bottom line, she's accused of having run into a doctor, hit and run, left him to be brain damaged.
	Hit and run on a ski hill.
	But apparently she's like learning.
	I can do 360s on skis, Robin.
	Really?
	That's impressive.
	I can't ski at all.
	I get up there and fall down before I can get two feet.
	No, no.
	I can ski, but I don't like skiing because skiing out of Quebec sucks.
	We don't have powder.
	We have rocky, icy, shitty conditions.
	But I can do a 360 on skis, and I'm decent, but I don't look good.
	My wife looks good.
	She was a ski instructor.
	Oh, wow.
	So you wouldn't have run into Gwyneth Paltrow?
	The only thing I would run into would be maybe a tree, only because I'm trying to do a 360 in les sous-bois, comme on dit en français.
	She ran into this guy, allegedly hit and run, went off, he suffered brain injuries, a traumatic injury, a year...
	Is he really, or is it that kind of faking or exaggerating?
	Robert, I don't like denying people making these types of claims, but apparently from the trial...
	The evidence of his brain injury was a change in temperament, a change in behavior a year later where he allegedly mocked his granddaughter for not being able to close the door.
	That guy was probably already a jerk and now his excuse for being a jerk is he ran into Gwyneth Paltrow on a ski slope.
	And I'm being the more realistic guy.
	I don't want to be too cynical.
	Or he's an older person getting older.
	The kids are blaming his abnormal behavior on a ski injury and not just senility or whatever.
	Bottom line, in fairness to him, he's only suing for $300,000.
	So he's not suing for like $5 billion or $1 billion or $900 million, whatever.
	I guess he's countersuing for $1.
	Yeah, $1 and legal fees because she says the suit is frivolous.
	If you want to see how not to try a case, watch the lawyers in this case so far.
	I have seen a little bit of that, just enough to realize, because I like to learn for the trial lawyer.
	All of them so far have been...
	There's not a single trial lawyer I've seen that I've been impressed by from beginning to end.
	But some of them I've been deeply unimpressed by.
	And some of these lawyers grandstand in half-assed ways.
	What was they arguing about?
	They were arguing about whether or not Gwyneth Paltrow can get gifts to the bailiffs.
	But I know there's one lawyer that you are impressed with.
	It's Norm Pattison.
	I know that.
	Oh, Norm, I'm impressed.
	Yeah, I guess that's true.
	He was on TV.
	I mean, he wasn't given a right to try anything, though.
	I mean, he was denied.
	It was just him standing up to the judge to simply make any statement and ask any question, given how much limitation he was put on.
	But yeah, Norm's right in the middle of all those January 6th questions.
	Yes, which we're going to get to in a second.
	It's a bogus...
	The guy's only suing for $300,000, blaming all of his mental issues a year later on the incident.
	He says she hit him and ran off.
	She was learning how to ski, had an instructor, says there was an incident.
	Isn't she blaming that she thought he was doing a Me Too tour?
	Well, so she said that she got hit from behind by him and that the skis went through her skis and spread her leg, which if you get into an accident, it happens.
	And she's like, her testimony was that I thought I was getting...
	I was sexually assaulted.
	Not that I was, but it was just that's what my thought happened when my legs were getting spread by someone hitting me from behind.
	And that's why she ran off.
	Well, no, no.
	She says she stayed until her instructor said it was okay to go.
	They all got the clearance and they left.
	I'm predicting...
	Didn't she name her kids after Fruits?
	One was called Apple.
	The other one was called...
	I don't know.
	And then the whole issue about the ski trip...
	Probably orange, maybe?
	No, it wasn't orange.
	Someone in the chat is going to know.
	And the whole thing about the ski trip, it was a chance for her to merge families with her new husband.
	Don't care about any of that.
	All that I'm saying is I'm predicting a dismissal because...
	The medical expertise was that his temperament changed a year later.
	And then what else?
	That's about it.
	There's another week coming on.
	It's not a Johnny Depp.
	It's amazing all the people that tune into these things, though.
	It's like 30,000 live on Emily's show, Emily Baker.
	So many live on another one.
	It's like, wow.
	To watch boring lawyers, mediocre lawyers in a boring case.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	Imagine if we had real video trial.
	Like, you know, I mean, Trump's one could actually be fun, depending on how good the law...
	Maybe the lawyers will prove me wrong and prove to be really skilled trial lawyers.
	But no cameras, because it's federal court.
	In the Trump civil trial?
	Yeah, that's federal court.
	Shut the front door.
	Robert, I was thinking I'm going to go up there for that.
	Maybe good logic will go up and he could report on it like he did the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
	Hold on.
	Hold on, Robert.
	Are you fed up of looking like a regular law-abiding citizen?
	Need to add a little bad boy to your style?
	A little bit of dangerous?
	Everyone's going to get this.
	Try rapist glasses.
	They make the everyday man look like a sexual predator.
	Ladies love the bad boys.
	I won't play any more than that for not getting accused of copyright infringement.
	John LeJoy used to be hilarious before COVID.
	Speaking of copyright infringement, that's one of our next cases.
	We have two other big cases.
	This case, two big cases we'll cover here on Rumble and then do rapid fire over on Locals and answer the questions on Locals from there on out.
	But is the Internet Library, the Internet Archive, That does the Wayback Machine had created a digital e-book library, a global internet library of e-books.
	And they got sued by a bunch of book publishers because the book publishers said, we didn't give you the authority to do that.
	We only gave the library's authority to do it.
	And you're not a library that we gave authority to do it.
	So they argued copyright violations.
	Their defense was this was fair use.
	And they was like, look, we're not for profit.
	It's non-commercial.
	We're only lending out the book.
	We're using code so that a person only has access to them for two weeks.
	Then they come back.
	And we're giving access to people that have disabilities and other things that make it or live far distant from a library so they have more access to the e-books through us than they do through any library does.
	And the court determined it wasn't fair use.
	Now, I think some of the court's bias comes through in the fact that they also pretended the Internet Archive wasn't really doing this for non-commercial purposes because they helped fundraise for their not-for-profit.
	It's like, that's kind of a lame claim.
	For those that don't know, fair use comes from the Constitution.
	It's not just in the statute.
	It's not just in the common law.
	It comes from the Constitution, which allows copyright laws to be done only as long as it is promoting and protecting science and art.
	Useful arts is the actual phrase in the Constitution.
	So that's what fair use is about, is are you, through this copyright law, are you maximizing the artistic and scientific and literary value to the world?
	And their argument was, yes, we are, because we're non-commercial, we're limiting it to a couple of weeks.
	Even though it doesn't fit the technical library exception to copyright law, it fits the principle behind the library exception to copyright law and to preserve, to protect.
	It actually promotes arts in certain respects.
	Now, it's not truly transformative.
	Transformative, it actually changes the nature of a work to mean something other than what it was in a way that, again, protects and promotes arts.
	But it means that one of the world's greatest digital libraries is now being shut down.
	I think it was a closer call than the court saw it as, because if they were just allowing free downloading without any limitation, that would be a copyright violation.
	But they had coded it in such a way that it was just like renting it at the library where you had to read it within two weeks and give it back.
	I don't think they were the best target for the concerns of the book publishers, given other people do this in much more egregious ways, in my view.
	And I'm not the biggest fan of too much robust copyright law.
	I think copyright mostly infringes upon art and science these days, rather than protecting and promote it.
	Not only copyright, but also trademark and intellectual property law in general tends to advance monopolistic proclivities that limit.
	Rather than expand it and extend it.
	People take my copyright material all the time and use it.
	I've never complained a single time and I won't.
	Because I think it misunderstands what the Constitution was trying to get at.
	I get that we've got to have some degree of protection in order to provide the monetary incentive for people to produce good art and science.
	But I think we've gone too far in it.
	We're mostly protecting and promoting big publishers, not promoting creative artists.
	For now, the Internet Archive is probably not going to get reversed on appeal.
	It's not going to be compelling enough to reverse it.
	So I think the great e-book library of the Internet Archive is probably shut down for now.
	Robert, just so everybody understands the rapist glasses meme.
	Hold on.
	It's going to be...
	I brought it up, son of a beast.
	And here we go.
	Now you'll understand it, people.
	Are you tired of looking like a regular defendant in a lawsuit?
	Wear rapist glasses, because it'll help you.
	Okay, that was the John LeJoy joke.
	So, up next, the other big, big tech case.
	Yeah, we got this and vaccine injuries, or the vaccine mandates case, and then we'll head over to locals exclusively.
	But the Missouri versus Biden is a case we've covered extensively.
	People often don't know we have because they don't realize Missouri versus Biden generally refers to the big tech case.
	There's actually like a dozen Missouris versus Biden, but the one that people refer to...
	When they're talking about Missouri versus Biden, like Tracy Beans and others, is this case, the big tech collusion case.
	The government moved to dismiss on standing grounds, moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, and moved to dismiss on state action grounds.
	This is the attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana in the Monroe Division.
	Before the good Judge Terry Doty, a Trump judge that has proven his bona fides on a wide range of cases and contexts.
	And this one has been no less of an example.
	He's the one who allowed discovery into Fauci, Psaki, and others.
	And they used that discovery to enhance their evidentiary foundation to get past a motion to dismiss.
	Because the judge said they did have standing as states to raise the constitutional concerns of their citizens because this impacted a...
	This is where the Twitter files really mattered in ways people underappreciated.
	While we suspected certain things were going on, in order to be able to allege them with plausible proof, which is the standard under the federal rules these days, I think it...
	It should be alleged proof, not plausible proof, but that ship has sailed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Twombly, and other decisions, Iqbal and others, requires plausible allegations now.
	So basically, plausible proof.
	But the Twitter files helped establish that, and this discovery helped establish that, because what it proved was it wasn't just a few people here or there.
	It was systemic and systematic.
	And it was collusion with threats of coercion, with intimidation.
	The government has the right to ask private big tech to do something.
	It doesn't have the right to intimidate them to do something with coercive inducements, with either a carrot or a stick, with seductive inducements.
	And it did both here, but it went past that.
	The judge noted the government was a joint participant in these collusive efforts to censor because they created committees.
	That had ongoing relationships, with ongoing directions, with ongoing demands.
	And so some of the things that were missing from prior cases was substantially evidenced here because of the discovery and the release of the Twitter files that gave them the ammunition to say, this is actually state action.
	So the judge said, yes, you have standing to sue because it's impacted a substantial segment of the population.
	No sovereign immunity does not apply because you're requesting injunctive relief on constitutional issues.
	The Administrative Procedures Act, for which there are waivers or denials of sovereign immunity.
	And yes, this is state action, because this was coercive threat.
	This was seductive inducements by saying, we'll give you more immunity and the rest.
	Coercive side, it was, we'll take away Section 230, we'll enforce antitrust laws, we'll launch investigations, we'll issue subpoenas to you, we'll embarrass you publicly.
	So we'll weaponize what power we have in the legislative branch if you don't comply.
	And the executive branch was doing comparable things with the FBI, the CIA, the DHS, to the degree they formed, as we now know, a disinformation governance board.
	And so the combination of discovery of Twitter files sustained the case.
	It's now moved past a motion to dismiss, which means even broader discovery now gets to be sought as to what's going on.
	And it has the great potential to end big tech, big government, collusive censorship in America.
	So it's a big case that has big ramifications that's moving in the right and righteous direction for those of us that care about free speech and opposing state-sponsored censorship.
	So big win there.
	Robert, do we do the rest of this?
	We'll do one more and then we'll go over to locals.
	That'll be the vaccine mandate.
	That was one of the three most popular choices on our locals board.
	And it'll be the big vaccine mandate win on Bonk out of the Fifth Circuit and a brief update on the vaccine injury conference I attended in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, actually.
	Hold on.
	What was I going to say?
	It had to do with Israel, but we're going to deal with Israel's...
	Revolution crisis, once it's materialized and finalized, because it's still in the process of determining whether or not to overthrow a government in Israel.
	What's the last one, or are we going straight to locals now?
	Holy crap, are there 22,000 people watching?
	Robert, I don't know what's...
	There are 22,844 people on locals.
	We'll have a bunch of disgust on locals.
	Reward those folks for chatting.
	The vaccine, big, big, big win out of the Fifth Circuit.
	Go for it.
	This is one of the last challenges to the Biden administration's vaccine mandates.
	A federal court had stopped it.
	The Fifth Circuit initially reversed it.
	The Fifth Circuit en banc, undid it for the purposes of en banc review.
	And this week said the Biden administration did not have the power to impose that vaccine mandate and permanently enjoined it and did so on a national basis.
	So massive win against the Biden administration's vaccine mandates.
	It said some very useful language.
	That's more applicable to everybody.
	It said a vaccine mandate is irreparable injury, period.
	And there have been doubts about that.
	There have been courts that have been saying, no, it isn't.
	It isn't until you've suffered an injury.
	It isn't until this.
	The court said, nope, just the threat of it is an irreparable injury.
	So big statement there.
	Interesting concurrence where two conservative jurors said the Biden administration could have argued.
	That constitutionally, the executive branch has complete authority to fire anybody, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
	And we might have entertained that argument.
	Of course, the administrative state doesn't want that argument at all.
	And they said, but for a future case, we'll entertain it.
	Because we think...
	This was Judge Ho and some other good judges in the Fifth Circuit.
	And I agree with him.
	The president should have complete carte blanche to hire and fire anybody within the executive branch.
	We need to get rid of these civil service reform provisions that have allowed a permanent bureaucracy to override democracy, that have allowed a deep state to arise in the high-ranking institutions in the military and law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the United States government to derail any democratically elected president.
	So that was an interesting little side concurrence to that case.
	That's interesting for future development.
	But big win against vaccine mandates.
	And a lot of great ideas coming out of the conference, co-sponsored by Steve Kirsch, the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, and Warner Mendenhall.
	I attended in Atlanta, Georgia.
	Video version will be available in probably a couple of weeks for people so they can watch it.
	A bunch of lawyers getting together saying, how can we find remedy for those that have been injured either by the mandates or injured by the actual vaccine itself?
	And what can be done about it?
	We're coming up with creative theories and strategies to employ.
	First, for the courts of law.
	Second, for the courts of public opinion.
	And third, maybe for the courts of the legislatures to make changes in the law if we can't get relief or remedy from the court.
	Yeah, but Robert, I'll ask the question here, and then you'll answer it in Locals.
	A good victory at the federal mandate level, what implication is that going to have on employers who had imposed this mandate and been sued or potentially had employees suffer consequences as a result?
	Does it increase their liability, increase their exposure so that there'll be a deterrence at the employer level, the non-governmental level, to be answered in locals?
	Because people...
	Hold on a second before we go there.
	This is the link to locals.
	There's a typo in there.
	Come join us in locals.
	We might break locals.
	It's 23,800 now.
	We might break it.
	But we're going to do it.
	And by the way, I might get broken because my wife is going to kill me because it's been two hours and 15 minutes and we haven't gone to Locals yet.
	I'm going to end on Rumble with two things.
	Nike7 says, you guys are aware Israel might overthrow its government as we speak.
	Benny's family evacuated.
	And then Kitty724 said, thank you for all the whistleblowers.
	And now we're ending it on Rumble and going straight to Locals.
	So everybody on Rumble, thank you.
	I'll be live tomorrow.
	I think I might actually be live with Jenna Ellis tomorrow.
	Robert, it's going to be amazing because I got questions for Jenna in the afternoon.
	I'm pretty sure that it's going to happen.
	Ask her why did she wuss out against Colorado?
	Okay, well, you'll send me private questions and I'll ask her and pretend it's my knowledge.
	Everybody head over to Locals.
	We're going to do this.
	We're going to do an after Locals party extreme ending on Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	If you can't make it there...
	You've had a good two and a quarter hours, people.
	See you on Locals for those who are coming.
	Ending on Rumble.
	And we're going to be on Locals exclusive in 3, 2, 1, now.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Replay's being prepared.
	Okay, we're good.

▲