Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 2, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:17:55

Ep. 154: Trump INDICTED! Meme Maker CONVICTED! Canadian Army WOKE! Viva & Barnes Live

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, I wanted to talk to Viva about this.
	I sent him a text and said, hey, Viva, can you send me a video and kind of explain to me in two minutes kind of what happened, your side of the story, what the Canadian government is doing.
	And you know what?
	Viva was so nice that he said, no problem.
	I said no problem.
	He recorded a video for the plebs audience.
	I did.
	While he was driving his car.
	My wife's recording.
	That's how awesome of a guy Viva is.
	He sent me a video to explain what happened with this Canadian Army turning off the comments while he was driving.
	Okay, that's a good idea.
	I had my hands on the wheel.
	Let's see what Viva has to say about this whole situation with the Canadian Army.
	All right, Viva Frye, what happened?
	What happened with this week?
	Can you explain to me what happened, Viva?
	That's me right there.
	That's me.
	On March 31st, 2023, the Canadian Army, through their verified Twitter account, put out a tweet.
	This happened.
	On Transgender Visibility Day.
	I don't know if it's yet an official federal recognized day, but whatever.
	They put out a tweet saying how they accept all people and diversity into the army of one capitalized term.
	And they put this tweet out on Transgender Visibility Day.
	To virtue signal so hard that it would put I don't know who to shame.
	And I replied to their tweet saying that this Canadian army implemented a vaccine policy which resulted in kicking out of army men.
	Thank you.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	We're coming back.
	Okay.
	I think we're back now.
	I'm going to tether off my phone.
	Some people were saying that the internet was slow.
	Let me know now, people.
	Is the internet faster, better now?
	Wax on, wax off.
	Everybody smooth?
	Frozen?
	Hold on.
	It was frozen a second ago.
	Are we back to live?
	Oy vey, Dr. Vray.
	That doesn't help.
	Frozen, frozen, frozen.
	10-2.
	You froze.
	Late but here.
	I'm going to refresh.
	Give me a second.
	You're back.
	I'm back.
	Good.
	Okay, better.
	Better.
	Yeah, I see two little things here.
	Okay, we're going to leave it tethering off the phone.
	I've mangled this intro.
	This is Pled the Truck Driver.
	He's got his own YouTube channel.
	I linked it here.
	I sent him a video while we were driving yesterday.
	I did not record the video.
	Let me wait for the punchline again.
	I'm telling him what happened with the Canadian army on Friday.
	Canadians, Latino Canadians, while they purport to preach tolerance, Then, apparently, they got ratioed so bad, they restricted replies on their initial shameful things.
	I'll show you the evidence.
	And then, worse still, the Canadian Army official Twitter-handled started hiding replies from Canadian citizens, tax-paying Canadian citizens.
	I'm talking about myself here.
	They started hiding our replies so that other Canadians and the rest of the world could not see replies from Canadian citizens whose tax dollars pay the Canadian Army.
	In response to their idiotic tweet, you seem to have weaponized the Canadian army against Canadian citizens and disgraced the Canadian army at the international scale.
	Well done.
	I would take my hands off and slow clap, but 10 to 2 for safe driving.
	Thank you.
	Here's your slow clap, Viva.
	Thank you, Pleb.
	Thank you, Pleb.
	Good evening to the East Coast.
	Good afternoon to the West Coast.
	The internet might be a little choppy.
	Not in my home studio.
	I came down to LA.
	I guess it was Friday morning.
	Travel is no longer fun.
	It's no longer reliable.
	We sat on the runway for an hour and a half before the plane even started moving.
	The pilot hadn't showed up.
	And we're there.
	They just lie to you.
	The pilots, we have another five, ten minutes.
	We're just waiting for the pilots to show up.
	The pilot's not there.
	Whatever.
	So I did an interview at PragerU with Melissa Streit on Friday, which they're going to be releasing soon.
	It's not like same-day type release.
	A real setup they've got at PragerU.
	Beautiful building, beautiful studios, an amazing team.
	They're doing stuff.
	So I did that Friday and then had a family thing, so we stayed out here over the weekend.
	People go to LA voluntarily.
	Holy cows, I'll tell you what.
	They may go to LA voluntarily, but they can't leave voluntarily.
	I say that as a joke.
	California, geographically speaking, is an absolutely outrageously beautiful state.
	Politically, however, it's beyond the realm.
	So I'm out here.
	We're back home tomorrow, and I'm flipping exhausted.
	I'm an old man.
	I sigh and make noises when I get up from chairs.
	Jet lag destroys me.
	But for those of you who don't know, what happened last week?
	I want to say it was a black-pilled week.
	It certainly was not a white-pilled week, but the black or the black pill that you swallow, the white or the white pill is going to be in comparison, and there might be a white pill to all of this.
	What happened last week?
	What a time for me to take two days to go do something other than daily streaming.
	I interviewed Libs of TikTok, Chaya Rechik, on Thursday.
	Then, you know, flew and got, oh my god, got to bed at like 4.30 in the morning, the equivalent time, East Coast time.
	Friday.
	Oh no, it was Thursday.
	We're sitting on the plane.
	And my wife texts me because we weren't able to sit together.
	We ended up being able to sit together.
	She texts me.
	Trump got indicted.
	I'm like...
	Holy crap, it's not even a Friday afternoon special.
	Thursday.
	Trump indicted.
	Then I get another ping.
	Douglas Mackey, Ricky Vaughn, the meme maker, convicted on election interference.
	Then Friday comes around, or was it Thursday?
	It was Friday.
	I forget when the days are blending into one another.
	The Canadian army puts out a tweet.
	On Trans Visibility Day.
	I don't know if this is a federal holiday yet, but it's certainly like one of those days that every politician who thinks it's necessary to virtue signal their way into relevance felt the need to tweet about Trans Visibility Day.
	The Canadian military put out the following tweets.
	This is the Canadian Army, the official account.
	I'm just going to go to the original tweet.
	Canadian Army, checkmark.
	Not the paid subscribe, not the paid blue checkmark.
	A verified organization, blue checkmark, Canadian Army, puts out this tweet.
	Today, on the International Transgender Day of Visibility, we reaffirm our commitment to providing an open and inclusive working environment that allows Canadians to serve their country with pride and foster a culture where everyone is free to be their authentic self.
	To foster a culture where everyone is free to be their authentic self.
	Canadian military says this.
	I had to respond to them.
	I responded to them a number of times.
	Hold on.
	I don't want to get ahead of ourselves.
	One of my responses just called them shameless virtue signaling hypocrites.
	And I...
	Shared a screen grab.
	I'm still calling it a screen grab, even though 97% of you think it's a screenshot.
	A screen grab of a CTV News article of a fact in Canada that unvaccinated Canadians, unvaccinated military servicemen and women, were fired from the military because they refused to submit to an experimental medical procedure.
	Fired.
	You all know this because I've said it many times.
	Statistically speaking, this is also a known statistical fact.
	Who is less likely in Canada to be vaccinated or jabbed for historical reasons due to government experimentation on ethnic minorities and vulnerable marginalized groups?
	Black Canadians, Indigenous Canadians, Latino Canadians, and women.
	Less likely to be vaccinated, which means that they would be more likely to be the victims of vaccine mandate policies that the tolerant culture of being yourself Canadian Army, as they boast on Twitter, would impose.
	To that, I replied, you yourselves are unwilling to accept...
	Oh, I got ahead of ourselves here.
	As they start getting ratioed, mocked, into oblivion, what do they do?
	They do what all brave, intellectually honest people do.
	They shut down comments and they go one step further.
	They start hiding comments from other people that were being better received than the original tweet itself.
	Some of those comments, mine.
	They hid my comments.
	That one right there.
	Shameless virtue signaling hypocrites.
	They also ended up, I think they hid this one.
	In response to their own tweet and the ratio that they were getting, they then tweeted.
	Like a high school child.
	If you don't like me, stop following me.
	For those who are unwilling to accept all people into the one army team, what the hell is that?
	I have no idea.
	Including Indigenous people, women, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTQ plus communities, or our support for them, we suggest you no longer follow our page.
	We are a Canadian funded army.
	Funded by your tax dollars.
	And we're telling you, if you don't like our message of hypocrisy, don't follow us.
	And I then have to reply to them here.
	This comment, I believe, also is hidden.
	You yourselves are unwilling to accept all people.
	You are truly a disgrace and have made a mockery of the Canadian army.
	This is what's going on in Canada.
	And they've made a mockery of the Canadian army.
	They've made a mockery of Canada because you have a government entity implementing policy.
	That is achieving the exact opposite end of that which they are virtuously promoting, touting, and patting themselves on the back for.
	Oh, we're so tolerant.
	We are open for all religions, ethnicities, etc.
	Except you better get the jab, you bigot.
	And by the way, the people who have to come out and say how tolerant they are...
	You know, it's the old joke.
	When people accuse someone of being racist and they say, but I have plenty of black friends, Jewish friends, Muslim friends, and they say, oh, that's exactly what a racist says.
	I'm sorry.
	An entity that has to come out and boast on social media how tolerant they are?
	My initial reaction?
	They are the intolerant bigots.
	And the Canadian Army proved that.
	Boy, howdy.
	Because they implemented a policy which had disparate impacts on Blacks, Latinos, Indigenous, and women, while they then say, we are open to all.
	We are open to all who ideologically align with us.
	And to show how open we are, we're going to come out on Trans Visibility Day and pat ourselves on the back while making an absolute mockery of Canada at the international level.
	All right.
	Now, Super Chats, as this one right here, Pasha Moyer.
	Viva!
	You think you're old now, soon you'll be singing "Hello darkness, my old friend, I stood up too fast again." I've got siblings who are in their 50s now.
	And we're all aging together, but life is life.
	And it's flipping depressing.
	I've got siblings in their 50s, and I feel like I'm a 13-year-old kid.
	I still feel like I'm wrestling with my brother, like we would stuff pillows under our shirts and do sumo wrestling in our house.
	I still feel like that kid, and I'm looking at them, and they're in their 50s.
	My parents are in their 70s and 80s.
	It's a little depressing.
	Now, all that to say, Pasha, thank you for the super chat.
	Everybody should know, standard disclaimers.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	I did not mean to bring that up.
	I did not mean to bring that up.
	Not to say, like, sometimes I accidentally bring up comments, which...
	If I bring up a comment, it does not mean I endorse the comment.
	What was I saying?
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election for notification advice, no legal advice.
	Super chats, like you just saw there.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you don't like that, we are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	I think this is going to be one of our biggest streams, because the week has been a shit show of madness.
	And I'm sorry to swear.
	An absolute shit show of madness.
	Dustelor Akhmankari gave two super chats A close friend, 80 years old veteran of the Canadian, just got his new medical coverage and he can't get gender surgery up to $70,000, but they lowered his hearing aid coverage.
	Some people are asking, why did you get, for the members on YouTube, why did you get a notification from YouTube that the payment for your membership has been paused?
	It's not an accident.
	It's not sabotage that I know of.
	But everyone should, if you're a member on YouTube, I have been bad at giving the membership perks, you know, sneak peeks because there's nothing to give sneak peeks of anymore because it's all live streams.
	It's going to be paused.
	It'll probably be canceled in the long run, but we'll see.
	But I would recommend, take that support.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where that's where the community is.
	I haven't been good with the memberships, and I apologize for that.
	No pressure.
	It's probably going to be canceled.
	Sooner than later, we'll see.
	But if you're a member and you want to support, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, best place, or just get a shirt.
	Rumble, we're there.
	Let me flag this thing.
	I see Barnes in the background.
	Okay, one more.
	One more because it's Chet Chisholm and I have to bring it up.
	He's covering the National Citizens' Inquiry on vaccine injuries and all that stuff.
	Chet, put the links in there and let everyone know where it's at.
	The CAF fired Dallas Alexander, who is the JTF2 sniper with the longest sniper kill in history over the vaccine mandates.
	Unreal.
	Okay, Barnes is the backdrop.
	He's been very patient.
	Robert, I'm bringing you in in three, two, one.
	I said, Robert, we're not far from each other, but my mobility is limited, and we're here for like another 12 hours.
	So we'll meet up next time.
	It'll be in Chattanooga, Robert, which I'm very much looking forward to.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	We got a busy schedule this week.
	A lot of cases.
	In fact, about half of our topics changed just over the last 48 hours from a range of cases that came down.
	So our top topics tonight is voted on by the board at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The Trump indictment, everything related to it.
	The Brooke Jackson case.
	The TikTok restrict act.
	The Mackie meme.
	conviction out of the Eastern District of New York.
	Robert Kennedy sues Joe Biden.
	Our 21 topics for those following in chronological order.
	We may not get to all of them, but these are the potential topics tonight.
	The bonus case we'll briefly discuss at the top will be the Paltrow verdict.
	But first, in order otherwise, is Robert Kennedy suing Biden, the crazy TikTok law, the Resist Act, the Mackie meme conviction, as opposed to the Project Veritas smurfing expose about what real election fraud might look like, the Brooke Jackson case, the Trump indictment, Blaze Byrne, Sidney Watson.
	The right to a drag show, both in Texas and Tennessee, cases being decided.
	Gun control and everything related to it.
	Media school shootings, those things in the news, of course.
	Florida tort reform, including insurance companies, COVID litigation, and what happened at Disney.
	Fox versus Dominion.
	Delaware courts seem to flip-flop, depending on the politics of the parties as to the meaning of defamation.
	Cash bail in L.A. Climate change at a European court.
	UN asked the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion.
	Andrew Tate.
	First Amendment pro-life speech win.
	Self-defense at issue again in New York.
	Norfolk Southern sued by the U.S. government.
	Trump Jr. wins a defamation suit.
	Crypto token holders can now be sued as partners.
	The UN refuses a Nord Stream inquiry.
	A big Second Amendment win in Minnesota on age limits for gun ownership.
	DNA, abandoned DNA being used to convict a murderer.
	Does it implicate your future Fourth Amendment rights?
	And a little bonus case about strawberry patents.
	Robert, starting with the RFK Jr., is this him suing the Biden administration over online censorship?
	Yes.
	So what is it?
	It's used all the accumulated data that's come out of the Missouri versus Biden case where that was allowed to progress past the motion to dismiss stage into full discovery.
	It already allowed some discovery, including deposing Fauci and others.
	And that case, along with the Twitter files releases, provided the evidentiary confirmation of the case he had previously brought against Facebook.
	He's now bringing directly against the government itself and Biden in particular.
	On the grounds that the Biden administration clearly targeted Robert Kennedy to suppress and censor his speech and to spread disinformation and defamation about him, including banning him off of Instagram, limiting his reach on Facebook, And not just him, but organizations he was associated with, including the Children's Health Defense Fund.
	And so if you, news came out this past weekend that Robert Kennedy is stepping down for, Temporarily from Children's Health Defense in order to announce a potential presidential campaign against Joe Biden in the Democratic nomination process as well in 2024.
	Was meeting with people like Del Bigtree and Aaron Seary and others up at Hyannisport.
	The famous Kennedy compound to strategize the first Kennedy campaign for president since Ted Kennedy's belated campaign in 1980 and since his own father's campaign in 1968.
	The book behind me is about the role of the deep state, including a particular general, Walker, in the assassination of his uncle, John Kennedy.
	Robert Kennedy is on record saying he believes that the deep state and the intelligence apparatus are responsible for the deaths of his father and his uncle.
	And so part of what he's doing politically and legally is bringing and initiating this case against the Biden administration for colluding and organizing and orchestrating social media to censor particularly his speech concerning issues about COVID, concerning issues about the vaccine.
	And it is another path-breaking suit, trailblazing suit that he has brought.
	Along with the many others he's been co-counsel with me on and other cases he's brought against media collusion, big tech collusion, the various governmental actions involving the vaccine and COVID.
	And so this is a continuation of it.
	So it's a very good, well-brought, well-thought-out suit put together by some of the leading legal minds in the nation that has promise of success given the recent success of the Missouri versus Biden case.
	And are they, I presume they're incorporating a lot of the evidence, the new evidence disclosed in the Twitter files, as relates to, for anybody who hasn't seen it, go check out Schellenberger podcast with Joe Rogan, because that's like the most succinct, concise two and a half hour summary of the weeks of Twitter files.
	And there's stuff in there that some people missed, I think, from the Twitter files.
	But the bottom line, they were censoring and they were targeting specific people, the intelligence meeting with social media.
	Infiltrating social media.
	Jim Baker, who was the FBI counsel, external counsel, whatever, inside Twitter, flagging content that they knew was accurate, but that they feared would promote vaccine hesitancy.
	Amazing stuff.
	Speaking of...
	Oh, go for it.
	I was going to say, well, speaking of big tech censorship, the government's method, so Senator Hawley had proposed methods to restrict the TikTok.
	The Chinese ownership and their use of TikTok to gather people's private information in the digital space, that was co-opted by other senators who initiated the so-called Restrict Act, which is supposed to be aimed at foreign adversary involvement in monitoring and surveilling and gathering Americans' private information.
	But it goes much further than that.
	A law that's supposed to be about China and TikTok, in fact, makes it a crime punishable up to 20 years in federal prison for an American citizen to use certain VPNs or even cryptos if they have even the most tangential connection to someone in China or Russia or whomever the government decides to stick the label foreign adversary on.
	So Senator Rand Paul this week took action to block the Restrict Act.
	More people need to be alert and awake that this law is not about China.
	It's not really about TikTok.
	It is about another effort to surveil and sabotage free speech in America by Americans in order to put Americans in prison and penalize and punish them with the ongoing war on free speech in the social media space by this particular administration.
	And the ongoing war against crypto and alternative currencies, or some people consider them commodities, in the crypto space, detailed by Kim Iverson, Operation Chokepoint, and other things like that.
	It relates to Signature Bank.
	It relates to SVB Bank, Silicon Valley Bank.
	That there is clearly a political war by this administration on alternative currencies as well as alternative access to alternative technologies.
	And this is an ongoing effort.
	It's Patriot Act 3.0 disguised as something to deal with TikTok in China.
	People need to rally to opposition to it so it does not slither its way into legislation.
	And I'm going to pull up this article, Robert, because...
	People are saying, you know, there's a risk of 20 years imprisonment.
	So I wanted to see what the fact checkers were saying.
	And now I'm convinced that is actually accurate.
	The Restrict Act.
	No, you won't get 20 years if you use a VPN to access TikTok.
	Well, when they start the header like that, you know they're about to lie to you.
	And I just want to bring up the section here where it says it's very interesting.
	This isn't true.
	There is no mention of VPN or regular citizens accessing ICT services like TikTok in the current draft of the proposed legislation.
	The criminal penalty, here we are, of 20 years or a fine of $1 million or both applies to entities proven to have willfully engaged in activities or attempts at activities that pose national security risks, such as sabotage, subversion, whatever.
	That sounds to me like if they say that your use of a VPN potentially posed a national security risk, then lo and behold, it might not be drafted in a way that says you get 20 years for using a VPN, but it might implicitly potentially lead to that result.
	Get that out of here.
	And in fact, it's what multiple legal analysts in this space have already determined is in fact the case.
	So it's another example of, of course, the fact checkers keep lying.
	Twitter...
	Sort of comedically fact-checked the fact-checkers by pointing out the fact-checkers were lying about George Soros' ties to the DA who indicted Trump.
	They tried to lie about that as well.
	Of course, when they lie, they don't get caught for their lies because the same Delaware courts that are ruling in favor of Dominion against Fox say that fact-checkers actually aren't stating any facts at all.
	Even though they're called fact-checkers, that they're stating opinions that no one could even think is a fact.
	According to the Delaware courts.
	But so it's a reflection of the ongoing misrepresentation.
	But there's a lot of good information from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, from Reason Magazine, a libertarian-leaning publication, others that have done a deep dive on this particular legislation showing how it would be quite easy for a prosecutor to charge and convict and sentence someone up to 20 years in federal prison and millions of dollars in fines if they simply use a VPN,
	not even necessarily And I just wanted to bring up the last line of this fact check,
	which says, From the Senate and the nod from the Biden administration.
	It's not left versus right.
	What do they call it?
	The uniparty state or the unistate party?
	It is political privilege and they love it because it further empowers the government at the expense of the citizenry.
	Robert, what was that?
	Well, speaking of doing so, talking about technology and big tech and social media influence, the case that we had been covering before anyone else, people kind of woke up to it late, the Douglas Mackey case, the so-called Ricky Vaughn meme case, we covered it from the time the indictment was issued.
	I think we covered it about a half dozen times, but I was glad people finally started picking up on the significance of this case, including Darren Beatty, Jack Posobiec, and others over the past week or two.
	Douglas Mackey went to trial in the Eastern District of New York.
	He basically posted a meme.
	The allegation was that the meme was intended to induce people to think they could vote by text or vote in some manner other than by ballot.
	There was no evidence to my knowledge that this actually tricked or deceived anyone into not voting.
	It's deeply problematic to consider memes now criminal behavior outside the protection of the First Amendment.
	But they got the jury pool they wanted in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn and Queens, a place where you cannot get an impartial jury if you're a Trump supporter, even though Mackey himself has no ties or connection to the district whatsoever.
	And all efforts to try to transfer the case, to dismiss the case, were denied.
	The jury was hung.
	The judge kept hammering the jury until the jury came back with a verdict called an Allen charge.
	And the people holding out for acquittals finally capitulated and folded.
	And he was convicted and now faces many years, up to 10 years, in federal prison for posting a meme.
	That was called election interference, according to the Biden administration, who bragged afterwards about how now they could do similar charges against similarly situated people without regard to the First Amendment.
	And it's an ongoing war on free speech, an ongoing war on the First Amendment, an ongoing war using big tech, and against those who would employ social media platforms for free speech or dissident speech purposes.
	So it was a disturbing verdict.
	He has robust issues on appeal, not just the First Amendment challenge of the misapplication of this criminal law meant to deal with the Klan, by the way, not to deal with meme makers.
	Stop you there.
	Explain that, because I understood that this law historically, as we've discussed prior, was intended to prevent the KKK from intimidating Black voters to not vote.
	What's the history of the law, and what was the rationale of the law?
	So after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan organized in the South to try to suppress and repress Black voting participation, not only Black voter participation, other poor whites as well, by the way.
	That part is kind of dismissed.
	It's not a coincidence that in 1900, when the state of Mississippi's population had doubled, its total number of voters was fewer in the presidential election than 1860.
	It wasn't because there weren't a bunch of slaves voting in 1860.
	So it tells you how many poor and working class whites in Mississippi were being excluded from the voting booth as well.
	Because what happened in the post-Civil War era was there was a populist alignment between small farmers, small merchants, and poor working-class whites and ex-slave voters against the orthodoxies that controlled the Deep South.
	And they used as their army, much as the left uses Antifa today, they used primarily the Democratic Party, used the Ku Klux Klan to suppress, censor, corrupt...
	The votes portrayed in the Free State of Jones in the film of Matt McConaughey about a true story in Mississippi.
	Basically, massive voter suppression of all kinds took place.
	In order to deal with that, Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Acts, which is where these laws originate, limiting people from intimidating people, preventing their participation in an election.
	They have, until this case, never been applied in speech-related context ever.
	And that's what took place here.
	So you had abuse of venue.
	You have abuse of the law.
	You have constitutional infringements.
	In addition to that, it appears that they withheld discovery until the last possible minute of exculpatory information.
	There were efforts made to intimidate defense witnesses from even testifying.
	There's the questionable use of the Allen charge.
	All of these things are robust issues for his appeal.
	But justice likely awaits an appeal or a future presidential pardon or commutation because the case raises a serious issue of First Amendment.
	It may go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that only will happen if there's enough outrage in the court of public opinion about the case.
	Now, I'll pull up the tweet, everybody, bearing in mind it was from an account which I believe was known to be a parody account.
	It's not like this was a blue checkmark verified politician, journalist, whatever.
	This is it here.
	It says, avoid the line, vote from home, text Hillary to 59925, Publius Gaius, I'm sorry, the Ricky Vaughn.
	It's not like most people would have even thought it was a serious tweet to begin with.
	But I couldn't find the other image.
	Someone in response to one of my tweets said, there was a left-wing Democrat troll who did the exact same thing with a tweet urging Republicans to vote on another day or vote.
	Exact same thing.
	Maybe...
	Differences that make no distinction or distinctions that make no difference.
	But the exact same thing, not prosecuted, not convicted, even less prosecuted.
	It's the full throttle weaponization of the prosecutorial system, the justice system, the jury system.
	And I don't know what the white pill is here, Robert.
	It has to get to the Supreme Court.
	In the meantime, set aside the fact that...
	Is he going for sentencing on Monday, I think?
	Usually that's another 30 to 45 days set out for sentencing.
	And so we'll see what happens, whether the judge puts any brakes on this, whether he either reduces the sentence exposure or grants bail pending appeal.
	The judge hasn't shown much sympathy or sensitivity to the issues in this case so far.
	And we'll jump the line of chronological order because it's a natural transition into the other thing happening, not coincidentally, in New York.
	Which is the indictment of Donald John Trump.
	That is, Robert, a perfect time for us to end on YouTube, people.
	Head over to Rumble or head over to locals.
	I'll post the entire stream on YouTube tomorrow, but we're going to go support the platform that's supporting free speech.
	Nearly 4,000 people on YouTube.
	Make your way over to Rumble, people.
	We're going to end it on YouTube.
	The link is in the pinned comment in the stream.
	I'll put it up there in a second.
	We're going over to Rumble, people, in 3, 2, 1, now.
	Yeah, Robert.
	All right.
	If we're trying not to think the world is crumbling around us, I'm told by some people, Viva, you're being dramatic.
	It's only because you live and breathe this stuff day in and day out that you think it's more serious than it is.
	It's not a big deal that a former president has been indicted.
	No one's above the law.
	And Hunter Biden, I'm sure, is saying that as he points his ill-gotten gun at a camera smoking hard drugs.
	There's no downplaying that a Rubicon has been crossed here, Robert.
	They've indicted a former president on what was at best, even if, a misdemeanor charge bumped up to a felony.
	I don't understand exactly how they did that.
	That was committed, I don't know, it's a decade ago, if it was committed.
	And even if it was committed, was never a crime in the first place.
	So they have to find the crime of falsifying.
	Business records to cover up this hush payment, which itself would never have been illegal.
	Whereas when Hillary Clinton fudged up, covered up, lied about funding the Steele dossier to leak it to the FBI to then go get unlawful spot.
	Oh, she paid $8,000 and the DNC paid $135,000.
	Trump indicted.
	Have we crossed a Rubicon?
	Is it possible to get too outraged over this insanity?
	Yeah, I'll be discussing the geopolitical fallout from this with the Duran at 2 p.m. Eastern on Friday.
	We'll be doing a deep dive on what this means for the geopolitical side of the equation.
	From the legal side of the question, it is no question it's historically unprecedented.
	And the issue has always been constitutionally.
	What are the limits on state prosecutors or federal prosecutors, for that matter, when it concerns either a former president, No one has ever indicted a former president, and no one has ever indicted a leading presidential candidate before.
	It's never happened.
	And the reason is that they didn't want to test.
	The limits of state power in this respect.
	That was part of the reasons.
	The additional reason is they respected that it simply looks very bad for one party to be indicting the other party's leading candidate for the presidency.
	And in fact, it is a common criticism leveled by the State Department of the United States against foreign governments when they do that.
	The movie that won Best Documentary was about Navalny.
	Who Navalny is like the Lyndon LaRouche of Russia.
	He was never a leading candidate for anything.
	But it won Best Oscar under the pretext that it was terrible that he was ever indicted, even though he was not a former prime minister, never a leading candidate to be former, to be prime minister, or to be president in Russia.
	And yet we condemned and issued sanctions against Russia for that, and now we're doing far worse.
	So the first question constitutionally is, What are the limits?
	That will be tested in this case.
	Should the case be stayed pending a potential resolution of the election until someone is outside the White House?
	The problem is this.
	If a local prosecutor can remove their leading party opponent for the presidency through the exercise of their criminal power, prosecutorial power, Then this opens the door to ways that it effectively prevents meaningful elections.
	It effectively prevents someone from exercising presidential power if duly elected, because the indictment cannot constitutionally remove Trump's name from the ballot.
	And if he's elected, it can't remove him from the Electoral College.
	It can't remove that Electoral College from its vote being certified in Congress.
	Which is even more so now because of democratic reforms that they have passed that make it even harder to bring such contests.
	And then the question is, can a state just lock up the president of the United States, the elected president?
	It has always been assumed that the answer is no.
	But this case will now test that.
	And so that will be one of the big issues.
	They will likely bring motions to stay the proceedings if they're smart.
	I do not have confidence in Trump's current criminal defense team.
	I do not understand why he doesn't have Alan Dershowitz be the lead lawyer on his team.
	I had an hour-long discussion with Alan Dershowitz on the Alex Jones Show on Friday about this case.
	People can find it at banned.video, appropriately named, of course.
	And it was a good, productive conversation.
	It's clear Dershowitz understands all the issues here.
	Dershowitz is one of the very few lawyers in America who has won criminal jury acquittals, has won criminal appellate reversals, has won major constitutional cases, has won high-profile cases, has won politically hot cases, has won cases against the odds.
	That's exactly what this case is.
	And he's a liberal Democrat licensed in New York.
	So why you have sort of a guy who Trump's own team is leaking as kind of a dumb loudmouth who had been on Democratic media over and over again, who suggested, by the way, that this somehow was a crime years ago when he was yipping away as a mouthpiece for liberal Democratic media.
	Why Trump has this idiot as his lead lawyer is beyond me.
	So Trump needs to improve the quality of his defense team quickly.
	His own members of his entourage are leaking this like a sieve to the press because they know Trump reads media.
	Its easiest way to reach him sometimes is through the front pages of a newspaper.
	He could improve in that regard, too, not have that be the main means to reach him.
	But he has a lawyer representing Kimberly Guilfoyle and A-Rod and other people.
	I've seen nothing from the guy that suggests he's the lawyer for this case and seen plenty that he's not.
	But one of the things that should be brought is a motion to stay all proceedings on constitutional grounds because he's a former president and the leading opponent in the campaign and that the case should be stayed until the election for presidency is resolved.
	And if he is elected, that it should be stayed until he's out of the presidency.
	There's still a problem, which is if state prosecutors can weaponize their prosecutorial offices to threaten imprisonment for presidents.
	Then, or leading presidential candidates, then they can effectively control presidential policy through the extortion at risk present in that.
	And that's a major problem.
	The question is whether the courts of New York are capable of stepping up to the table and answering this question, or the Supreme Court of the United States, which is going to have to get involved in this case sooner or later.
	People are asking, but hold on, what is Trump being charged with?
	They said the indictment could include up to 30 charges.
	They've announced an indictment, and as far as I know, we have not seen the actual indictment and the charges brought.
	We have not.
	The fact of the indictment was leaked.
	The knowledge that he would be arrested or processed on Tuesday was released, but the CNN claimed there were 34 business fraud charges.
	The assumption is that these all relate to the Stormy Daniels matter in some way, but it's possible that they reached out to other areas.
	Based on who they were inquiring with the grand jury, that would come as a surprise because it appeared that...
	Professor Turley, Jonathan Turley's approach, another liberal Democrat, very critical of these proceedings, has said that he thinks they've just multiplied the same thing and just tagged on 34 charges to the classic case of over-prosecution.
	But it did mislead people.
	I mean, there are people who thought he's being charged with serious business fraud.
	And that may be the media narrative objective with the structure of the indictment is to avoid the fact that it appears really just to be a Stormy Daniels connected case.
	Now the first question, the next question will be the arrest proceedings.
	Will Trump be processed?
	Will they put Trump in jail?
	Will they try to perp walk Trump?
	Will they try to publicize the proceedings with video or photography?
	There apparently is already concern in the New York Police Department that they see this case as openly and overtly political, that they don't see a factual basis for it, that they see it as an abuse of political, of prosecutorial power, an abuse of their offices.
	So they will likely want these proceedings to go the way that they did for my client, Amy Cooper, the so-called misidentified, in my view, Central Park Karen.
	In that case, they negotiated so that there was no perp walk of any kind.
	There was no visit to a jail of any kind.
	The processing took place outside of the media purview.
	There was no risk to her well-being by putting her anywhere near a jail.
	And the processing took place, and she ultimately only appeared by video, never in person in court ever.
	So we're going to find out pretty quickly whether the prosecutors and the courts are going to do this in a manner that's respectful of the president's position or whether they're going to continue to use this as show theater right out of the gate.
	Are they going to abuse their arrest power for politicized purposes?
	Now, the Secret Service defends the president.
	They will help negotiate this because they have already made clear it would be a risk to his safety to do anything other than how they recommend the processing work.
	Again, there's no training on this for the Secret Service because it's never happened before.
	In fact, no one has even seriously considered it before, not even in the case of Nixon.
	Nixon was only pardoned on federal charges.
	He could have been charged on state charges.
	Nobody thought of, hey, let's go ahead and prosecute him anyway.
	That was seen as insane and dangerous to the country and constitutionally dubious.
	But that'll be the first part.
	The next part will be, will bail power be misused by the judge?
	This judge is a political hack.
	Who has already expressed continuous bias, not only in favor of the prosecutor's office in general, but a former prosecutor and lifelong government lawyer himself, but a very anti-Trump As Professor Dershowitz noted,
	every judge in New York knows that the political power is on the Democratic anti-Trump side of the aisle in Manhattan, a 90-plus percent Democratic voting area, and it is highly unlikely he can get an impartial judge or impartial jury.
	This particular judge has already expressed bias against Trump in multiple proceedings.
	In fact, it appears to me his assignment does not appear random.
	So already the New York judiciary is failing its test of impartiality.
	The process is supposed to ensure a randomly assigned judge.
	This may have been manipulated by the prosecutor.
	They did this in the Roger Stone case.
	So what they do is they say that a case is a related case.
	To get a particular judge that they want.
	This is how Roger Stone got assigned to the same judge who had already, Amy Berman Jackson, who had already expressed bias and prejudice against Paul Manafort, was the feds manipulated to get her assigned the Roger Stone case.
	And so will bail somehow be denied?
	Will the court issue some ridiculous bail order?
	Will the court try to jail Trump?
	Will the court try to restrain his travel?
	Or his social media content, like they did with the Canadian prisoners.
	Can't post to social media.
	Nothing to truth.
	Who knows?
	Exactly.
	So there's constitutional restraints on bail.
	The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is enforceable through the 14th Amendment against the states, and the states have their own comparable constitutional requirements of bail.
	New York, of course, notoriously now has liberal bail rules that are supposed to promote...
	Early release and quick release, not detention.
	They're letting accused murderers and accused rapists out on a regular basis, accused stalkers out on a regular basis.
	It would be an egregious abuse and an unconstitutional abuse of power if this judge tries to weaponize bail to either...
	To prevent the president's travel, to try to lock the president up, to try to require a massive cash bail, to try to seize funds and assets of the president, to try to limit his travel, to try to limit his social media access, or, as is being popularly discussed, an attempted gag order, which would be prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
	Generally speaking, gag orders in the criminal context are unconstitutional, whether it's applied to the lawyer or applied to the defendant.
	It has to be very narrowly tailored, and they have to show a compelling public interest.
	So, for example, you can sometimes, on the eve of a jury trial, restrain what someone can say that won't come into evidence at the trial.
	That's the very limited, limited scope in which higher courts have allowed.
	Gag orders.
	Otherwise, they're just flat-out unconstitutional.
	So if this judge attempts to do that, it will show again this judge's incapacity to be impartial.
	It will show the political prejudice and persecutorial tendencies of this prosecution, if they even request such a gag order.
	It will be a First Amendment violation.
	I'm sure the president will take it up on appeal immediately, all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	And it's the kind of case the Supreme Court is likely to take.
	Because if by merely charging someone, you can prevent your political opponent from campaigning, then that would be a serious problem.
	The president's already announced he's going to speak on Tuesday night at Mar-a-Lago after the event, so he anticipates clear release.
	There may be efforts to try to restrict what he can say in those proceedings about the prosecutor, about the judge, or about this case.
	That, too, would be a First Amendment violation.
	So the judge can try a gag order.
	It can be temporarily enforceable, but it's not constitutionally enforceable, and I anticipate it would be set aside if the judge does it.
	Now, after that, you...
	Go ahead.
	I was just going to ask, state charges, so even if Trump ever becomes president, he couldn't pardon himself for these charges at any point?
	That's correct.
	That's part of the constitutional problem with these.
	It's one of the issues.
	If any local prosecutor can derail, can remove a political opponent with just prosecuting and indicting them, then do we have a federal system of governance anymore?
	We really don't.
	It's something the court has sat on the sidelines with.
	Because of the politics of the Nixon case, they, I think, mishandled the Nixon case.
	They really didn't deal with what are the flow-through consequences of this.
	Same with the Clinton versus Jones case.
	They really didn't go through, okay, what's exactly the consequences of allowing a civil suit to proceed against a president?
	There's problems there that they never fully addressed or answered.
	This case poses those problems in clear relief.
	And depending on how egregious the abuse of power is by the New York courts, we'll detail how much these issues get meaningfully addressed.
	Alan Dershowitz noted, probably other than a motion to stay, which would probably be maybe the second motion brought, the first motion that should be brought, aside from making sure there's no gag order, no unconstitutional restrictions or restraints on bail, is a motion to transfer a venue.
	It's a case.
	Now, there they should do detailed polling, which it won't be hard for the polling to prove.
	You can even find a liberal Democratic pollster, Stanley Greenberg type, to do it.
	We'll show without question that Manhattan is a place that is contaminated with so much Trump hatred, it is impossible to get an impartial verdict.
	And move the case right within New York, one of two places.
	You could move it upstate, by the way, which is what's happened in many police shooting cases in New York, famously in the 41 Shots case.
	Or just move it over to Staten Island, where the area split.
	And where you can actually get an impartial jury.
	That should be the first motion brought, and that's a motion that under select circumstances you can appeal and at a minimum preserve your future rights that its denial would set aside any adverse verdict.
	Then you have motions to dismiss.
	The motions to dismiss could first be brought on statutory grounds, namely that the statute of limitations prohibits the charge.
	They're going to try to argue based on bad New York law.
	That being outside of the state tolls the statute of limitations.
	That makes no sense.
	The statute of limitations is there and only supposed to be told when the prosecution can't indict.
	There's no question they could indict.
	They didn't need the presence of the president and they could have always secured the presence of him throughout that entire time frame.
	They knew where he was.
	He was in the White House.
	So it wasn't like it was hidden where he was.
	Frequently in New York, by the way, during that time frame.
	Didn't change residency until a couple of years into his presidency.
	But there's motion to dismiss for statute of limitations.
	Secondly, a motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds that if the statute can be so broadly interpreted that it could reach this conduct that deprives the president of fair notice and the rule of lenity requires that due process of law dismiss the indictment as being void for vagueness, as being overly broad, as failing to put anyone on fair notice.
	Michael Tracy and others on the left have noted, if suddenly any nondisclosure order payment is now hush money, and hush money is now a crime, if not disclosed as such on government documents, as Dershowitz noted, no nondisclosure agreement, its underlying confidential information is disclosed on corporate documents.
	This makes every nondisclosure agreement's actual legal enforcement by a business or individual.
	A crime in the state of New York.
	It basically turns settlement agreements, potentially, into crimes.
	Settlement agreements are, you know, we want no one to know about it.
	It's a resolution of a dispute, amicably.
	And you can't talk about it criminalizing peaceful resolutions of disputes.
	It's beautiful.
	Then I think there's additional grounds to dismiss.
	If the statute of limitations can be interpreted in this vague way, then it's a violation of the Constitution.
	If a state has the power to derail a political opponent in this manner for the presidency of the United States, then I believe it violates the separation of powers that is established between the federal and state governments under the Constitution, though a motion to stay would achieve the same objective.
	And there may be additional motions to dismiss based on probable perjury before the grand jury.
	Probable misinterpretation of the law to the grand jury.
	Both of those are grand jury conduct that is enforceable through dismissal.
	They can preserve the right to claim that exculpatory evidence not presented is such.
	Right now, the Supreme Court has said that's not a violation of the grand jury clause.
	But that was a very controversial split decision that should be preserved by challenging and contesting it here.
	Then you have motions for discovery.
	That can take place as to what really took place throughout the proceedings.
	Was the grand jury an impartial grand jury?
	What was presented to the grand jury?
	What other evidence exists that exculpates?
	Again, an internal memorandum will probably show that the New York Prosecutor's Office previously determined this was not a legitimate prosecution, that there was not a factual or legal basis to do so.
	Motions to dismiss on selective prosecution grounds in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
	Easy to show here because the prosecutor, first of all, publicly stated he was going to indict Trump as part of his election platform.
	Secondly, other prosecutors refused to prosecute both the New York DA's office and the Southern District of New York on grounds that it would be selective prosecution.
	Third, there's no analogous case that has ever been brought in the history of New York on these factual grounds.
	No historical example of it being brought against a political opponent.
	No historical example of it being brought against a former president on these grounds.
	If this isn't selective prosecution, I don't know what is.
	He and his wife and the other prosecutors involved have stated on social media their intention to basically do a Berea-style prosecution, show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
	If this case doesn't violate selective prosecution, then no case violates selective prosecution.
	The courts have gone wayward in enforcing that.
	This case presents a perfect opportunity for them to re-examine that law and meaningfully enforce the First Amendment rights against selective prosecution.
	In terms of the timing of the case, and obviously this would be a very important jury selection case in terms of void-to-year, written questionnaires, meaningful inquiries into areas of prejudice and bias.
	Trump needs to have the best jury preparation, jury trial team.
	Jury selection team available to him and not gamble on that side of the aisle if he is stuck with a jury trial in Manhattan.
	But in terms of the timing of the case, Dershowitz agreed with me that it is unlikely to be tried until we're right in the middle of elections.
	And if the court is conscientious, it will postpone any trial until after the election.
	But we'll find out very quickly whether this court is conscientious or just another political hack.
	On the court.
	And so it will be, this is an extraordinary case presenting extraordinary risk, but it will present also extraordinary opportunity for the American people to be educated on the deep problems in our criminal justice process that will be exposed once again by this wayward rogue prosecution of the president, who President Trump is constitutionally innocent.
	Legally innocent and factually innocent.
	He's constitutionally innocent because this is selective prosecution, violation of constitutional principles, and a law that's being overapplied and a statute of limitations that's not being applied, to which he had a fair notice right to be enforced.
	Second, he's legally innocent because what they're going to describe is not a crime, because if settlement agreements are a crime, then everybody belongs in prison that's ever done one.
	If nondisclosure agreements are a crime, 90% of businessmen and celebrities now belong in federal prison.
	If funding your own campaign is a crime, then that violates the First Amendment by itself.
	And then he's factually innocent because the only witness that we know of testifying against him is an admitted perjurer, an admitted fraudster, who's now being sued by Alan Dershowitz for defaming and libeling him just two days ago.
	So this is a disbarred, discredited, disreputable lawyer who has a long history of fraud, corruption, and deception, whose own public statements by his own counsel who he released to make these statements directly contradicts the sworn testimony apparently now before the grand jury.
	And this is the only witness they have to testify as to the substantive merits of the case against Trump.
	So Trump is constitutionally innocent, legally innocent, factually innocent.
	It is a dangerous, perilous case that has crossed a rubicon of American constitutional law.
	But it's an opportunity for more American people to be educated about the problems in our criminal justice process, for Americans to rally to Trump's support and the defense of the Constitution.
	And hopefully in the end, my prediction, Donald Trump won't serve a single day in jail for this utter nonsense.
	Well, you put out the meme.
	First of all, I think they're going to try to get their perp walk, their shame photo, because that's what the frothing at the mouth crowd wants.
	You put out a tweet that likened it to Martin Luther King.
	Yeah, I mean, they've tried to put people in jail before.
	At the Riverboat Ramble we have on April 22nd, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
	Still has tickets available.
	The link to it is available at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll be giving a hush-hush about a very similar case that took place back home in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1968.
	1967, actually.
	And we'll be detailing that hush-hush.
	What happened in that case?
	Let's just say it didn't quite go the way everybody in power thought it would.
	And I just reminded folks that Donald Trump's mugshot is going to join some famous mugshots, including that of Martin Luther King Jr.
	So all those people that think a mugshot ends somebody's political campaign need to double-check through American history.
	The only reason I...
	I'm reluctant about the juju that that comparison puts out in the universe because of the way it ended for Martin Luther King Jr.
	But you're 100% right.
	They're going to do it.
	They don't understand the impact it's going to have.
	But, Robert, my concern here is that this New York State...
	What do we call them?
	An optimistic, aggressive prosecutor, or DA...
	Now it's going to serve as the basis for Georgia, Georgia grand jury to say, well, if they did it in New York, we can do it and it's not such a big deal anymore.
	In D.C. for insurrection, voter interference or whatever they want to call it in Georgia, this is just the precursor justification so other, not rogue, but activist grand juries can convict or indict on other charges in other states.
	And now they can say, look at all of these, we're going to get lucky on one of these.
	I see it just going down as now serving as the basis.
	They've got the ball rolling, and they're just going to use this as the pretext for further indictments.
	The issue is, I think they resurrected this case because they had weakness in those other cases.
	So Mar-a-Lago case was falling apart because of Joe Biden's problems.
	They're trying to resurrect it now, recast it as an obstruction of justice case rather than a classified documents case.
	I don't think that will have as much success as they want.
	The same with the January 6th cases.
	They couldn't get anybody to flip to point the finger at Trump and make things up that didn't happen or didn't exist.
	And in Georgia, they not only have a nutty grand jury person that was so nutty, Anderson Cooper called her a nut, but they are in the state of Georgia, which has a Republican governor.
	So in each of those jurisdictions, they have issues either with the facts or with the law or both.
	And even though D.C., they could possibly bring certain cases where they also have a corrupt...
	Grand jury poll and a corrupt jury poll that's politically weaponized.
	That would be Biden administration overtly trying to indict their leading political opponent.
	And I suspect they would rather avoid that.
	I think that's why this New York case got resurrected.
	They saw it as a way to indict Trump without directly implicating the Biden administration, without getting tied down in Georgia where the politics might not align as well as New York does with their interests.
	They have conservatives on Georgia appellate courts, unlike New York.
	So they have conservatives, not many, but still some on the D.C. Court of Appeals, which presents issues.
	So I think they chose New York because they had more political control of the courts, more political control, or comparable political control of the jurors and the grand juries.
	And they had a prosecution one step removed from the Biden administration.
	And so I think that it's less likely rather than more likely that they bring charges in other cases and other places.
	I think they would not have brought this New York case if the New York prosecutor thought someone else was going to bring charges.
	There's risk of a cascading effect of a piling on, but that will look like exactly what it is, and then it will directly implicate the Biden administration.
	And then what happens?
	If some court in that other jurisdiction says constitutionally you can't do this, all of a sudden now the New York courts are brought under great pressure.
	They want New York courts to have a monopoly on this case.
	And the only way they can maintain the monopoly on this case is to not have any other judge or any other jury pool or any other governor have power over the case.
	Okay, this is it.
	Now, I'm making a prediction that disagrees with your assessment right here, although I will defer to your better judgment.
	I still think they are trying to create the cascading effect, and hey, if they get Trump on the classified documents, it'll be an indirect victory anyhow.
	They get to then take out Joe Biden for 2024 and get to replace him with Gavin Newsom.
	They say, look, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
	We're a party of justice.
	We went after Trump.
	Now we're going to go after Joe Biden because we want to get him out for 2024, and we need to give him...
	A way to get out.
	And I had one other reason why I thought they were going to do this.
	I forget the third one.
	But I think that's what's going to happen, even though I appreciate what you're saying, but I'll make a different prediction.
	Robert.
	Do we have any more on Trump?
	Yeah, we'll see.
	They run political risk with all those other cases that they can avoid if they keep this one in New York.
	But I think they felt pressure to bring the case in New York.
	I think there's people who believe the only way they could get DeSantis to run is by indicting Trump and convincing DeSantis that Trump was going to be effectively neutered in 2024.
	We're already seeing from the public opinion polling that this is backfiring in the court of public opinion.
	So at least in the court of public opinion, there's been a rallying effect to Trump.
	He now has a massive lead, according to every meaningful poll, in the polls in the Republican primary.
	His lead over Biden has increased rather than decreased in the general election.
	And almost half of Democrats think that this is a bad prosecution.
	And over 70% of independent voters.
	Say that this is about politics, not about law, that oppose the prosecution.
	This is just a major overreach by sort of deep state connected and deep state allied actors and the Democratic Party to try to take out their leading political opponent that will go down in shame in American legal history and be used against America globally moving forward.
	We will never be able to criticize another government for doing what we just did.
	That, I think, is the best point of this all.
	Like what Justin Trudeau did in Canada, it's not an accident that when our leaders here lose the moral authority to govern, lose the moral authority to lecture other dictators, other dictators feel empowered to do what they want to do, and then to say, who the hell are you to lecture me?
	Trudeau, Biden, you guys live in a banana republic there as well.
	Robert.
	I want to bring up a bunch of super rumble rants because I saw one from Chris Pavlosky himself, and it's an important message that we should read.
	Let me get to a few of these because there is a new thing here, people.
	If you give a chat of a certain amount, I forget what the amount is, you automatically become a monthly supporter.
	Also...
	Chris Rumble, $50 Rumble at the purple one.
	It says, Rumble now supports creator subscription badges where 100% of the money goes to the creator for 2023.
	It's a great move what Chris is doing here because it is better for the creator because 100% of the revenue goes to the creator only for 2023.
	But it's going to be great for Rumble in 2024 because it's going to bring people in.
	But also, as you see here, J. Ash 62 has now become a monthly supporter through a rumble rant.
	Dapper Dave 2021 says the House can attempt to charge Bragg with election interference, but we all know Garland is going to do nothing about it.
	We're going to get to brag on another arguably questionable prosecution or indictment charges.
	Primisfan92, where did Dershowitz support mandatory vaccinations?
	Oh, why did Dershowitz...
	He was wrong.
	Oh, just watch the debate.
	Watch the debate with me on Viva's show over a year, a year and a half ago, and you can get what his position was.
	Yeah, and he was wrong.
	And I think he implicitly admitted he was wrong in the debate with Barnes, but he said something that was a little hyperbolic on another interview.
	Kenzie 67, why is Biden's phone call to Ukrainian DA blackmailing him with billions of...
	Why did exactly...
	He did exactly what they accused Trump of.
	Oh, no, no, no, Kenzie, you're mistaken.
	He was threatening to remove the prosecutor because he wasn't fighting corruption, not to prevent him from fighting corruption.
	P. Moyer questioned, why in the world doesn't a Republican state DA threaten or actually indict Biden?
	It would be the Mar-a-Lago situation all over again, would it not?
	Arkansas crime attorney, who is Little Rock from YouTube.
	$100 RumbleRand says, Since I started this new position, I have not been able to watch live.
	I finally got time tonight, and so glad I did.
	Great to see you guys.
	When is the next live meet?
	I have to make it to the next one.
	Chattanooga, April 22nd.
	It's going to be amazing.
	A riverboat, and I'm playing the harmonica on it.
	MK Telephenomen.
	Just like the Harry Reid nuclear option, this may bite the Dems again.
	They are only for immediate gratification, never repercussions.
	Dapper Dave question for Barnes.
	The running joke is that the New York will transfer venue on any case they want to politically prosecute.
	What happens when there is competing jurisdictions, or can New York do whatever they want?
	So, I mean, you can transfer it within New York, not outside of New York, but you can transfer it within New York, and you have a right to do so in a range of cases, and the facts here strongly support transferring the case out of Manhattan.
	Cup of Sooth says, thanks to Alvin Bragg, it's now legal to pay a sex worker to put something in her mouth, but not to keep something out of it.
	Not bad.
	And four more.
	Christina Wong's 2016 tweet.
	That was what I was looking for.
	Thank you.
	Christina Wong had a tweet.
	It was identical.
	Mutandis mutandis.
	Telling Republicans to text, vote, or vote on Super Wednesday is still up.
	I'm going to go get that.
	Can everyone screen grab that before it gets taken down?
	And then JS62, who is now a monthly supporter.
	Viva, can you and Barnes do a sidebar with Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, who was wrongly accused?
	I would love to.
	I need to refresh my memory as to Blagojevich's conviction and pardon.
	And we got...
	The cha in Chayaretik is not pronounced the same as...
	Okay, thanks.
	And then we got to Deltaros.
	As a disabled person myself, I can honestly say disabled people...
	I disagree with that in theory, in principle.
	But thank you for the support.
	All right, Robert, I don't know if it's on the menu, but while we're on the subject of...
	Corrupt, Soros-funded Alvin Bragg district attorney.
	He's made another massive gaffe with this incident.
	I don't know if you heard about it.
	A parking attendant or someone working in a parking lot spots a criminal going from door to door of these cars, looking in these cars.
	He confronts him and asks him what's in his bag because he thinks he's been stealing.
	The guy pulls out a gun, shoots the parking lot worker in the app, somewhere not fatal.
	The guy wrestles the gun from the man who just shot him.
	Oh, it grazed his ear, too.
	The guy wrestles the gun from the man who just shot him, shoots him in the chest, and apparently, DA Alvin Bragg is pressing charges of attempted murder against the guy who was fired upon by the criminal.
	Robert, I mean, make it make sense.
	Was the guy running away, and he's no longer at risk, and the guy's angry and says, now I'm going to kill you, ha ha ha, and shoots him?
	Like, I don't know if you know any more details about the story than that.
	No, I mean, and this is the same prosecutor who's let actual murderers and rapists and stalkers walk.
	So it's an ongoing attempt that if you use self-defense, that's the one time that this prosecutor will indict you.
	Otherwise, he only indicts his political opponents.
	And by the way, Soros did put a million dollars behind his campaign.
	It was done indirectly through money to a package.
	He didn't turn around and endorsed Alvin Bragg and then supported him.
	But there's no dispute.
	Soros has bragged about supporting Bragg.
	So there's no illusion about that, despite what the media may lie to you about him.
	So this is definitely a deep state coordinated hit.
	And this is what George Soros style prosecutions look like.
	Real criminals walk.
	Innocent people get prosecuted for either self-defense or being his political opponent.
	And it is deeply, deeply disturbing to witness what is taking place in live time in New York.
	Now, DeSantis finally came around to saying what I said he should say from the get-go.
	Politically blew the opportunity at the inception to say he would not use extradition law to extradite Trump to New York.
	He waited until the indictment came down, and there was a lot of political blowback on his prior kind of non-statement.
	And now says, well, yes, in fact, we will not use our extradition powers to send Trump to New York.
	It's not necessarily in Trump's interest, however, to benefit from that.
	If Trump were to try to do so, then, one, he couldn't travel the country to campaign.
	Two, it could be used against him for denial of bail.
	Three, they can still go through the federal courts process and probably get federal judicial process to extradite Trump anyway.
	The point we are making about DeSantis exercising this power is establishing the policy precedent, and it's simply being good politics, precisely because it likely would have no consequences of any significance.
	Some of DeSantis' people are now saying that Trump should...
	Take DeSantis up on it and challenge that whole process.
	That's not in Trump's legal interest to do so.
	But I'm glad DeSantis finally made the point that, yes, indeed, what I said from the get-go was correct.
	Some people said I was making it up.
	He does have the constitutional authority to object to any use of Florida extradition laws when there's been extraordinary constitutional violations in the process of prosecution.
	There's federal law that can challenge that.
	Full faith and credit clause and extradition clauses, etc., that make it difficult to win that in court, but at least try it.
	And I'm glad he at least laid out some basis to do so, but it is unlikely it will ever be utilized or enforced.
	Well, you were right on that, and you were also right, or other people were wrong, on that Trump was lying about the indictment as a fundraising thing.
	But we don't need to pick on them for that.
	I want to pick on Nancy Pelosi.
	For her wildly, overtly, openly shameless communist take on all of this, literal communist take, the grand jury, I thought it was a fake tweet when I first saw it.
	I did the screen grab so I know it's real.
	The grand jury has acted upon the facts and the law.
	No one is above the law except for Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
	But forget that.
	And everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
	Robert, you have a right to a trial to prove your innocence.
	That is literally, literally guilty until proven innocent.
	It's literally what I've been listening to in Michael Malice's book, The White Pill, how communist regimes, fascist regimes throughout history have just paraded their guilty around.
	And you can never prove innocence when there's a presumption of guilt.
	May that be emblazoned on her portrait at the White House.
	You'll have your trial to prove your innocence.
	Robert, what's next on the list, if we have nothing more on that?
	Well, it's sort of another sort of black pill, a black pill throughout the week of legal news.
	The Brooke Jackson case, the federal district court dismissed the claim against Pfizer, is not allowing it to go forward to discovery or to a trial by jury.
	Also dismissed her retaliation claim, but on the retaliation claim, implicitly allowed potential amendment by dismissing it without prejudice, as opposed to the claim against Pfizer he dismissed with Now, from a tactical perspective, this was both expected, this outcome, and I'll get into why, but also not entirely...
	That's undesirable, and I'll explain why that is, which is that I had come to the conclusion that the Biden administration, had this case been allowed to proceed by the judge, would have intervened in the case formally and exercised its plenary power to dismiss it with prejudice itself.
	That we could do pretty much nothing to resist, and it would have ended the case, no right to appeal, effectively nothing.
	Now, the Justice Department didn't want to do that, in my view, because of contradicting its own position for the first year of the case, and because it would damage the Biden administration that it did so directly, and it would set a policy precedent they wouldn't like.
	So they were hopeful, with their statement of interest that they filed, that the judge would take care of their business for them without further political embarrassment.
	But by choosing that path, it does give us the right to appeal.
	And by the time this case goes up and down to the United States Supreme Court, I anticipate it will, a different administration will be in power.
	Now, it might be the same administration after re-election, but there's at least a chance, unlike there would have been otherwise, that it's a new administration.
	And my guess is that it is.
	And that new administration can then choose to intervene, join the case, and allow it to march forward.
	So from a tactical perspective, this actually is not to Pfizer's best interest long haul, given what I think the Biden administration was planning on doing anyway.
	And just so everybody knows, so they can assess your assessment in full awareness of fact and law, your counsel of record.
	So some people might say, you've got to find a silver lining to this black pill, because many people out there are saying this is just a black pill.
	It's a very, very interesting interpretation, because as far as a game of chess goes, It certainly can play out that way.
	I have no doubt.
	They made an unprecedented statement of interest.
	There was no way this Biden administration was going to allow this case to discovery.
	That was very, very clear.
	So they just did want their hands dirty in an obvious way.
	And they made a tactical choice that now gives us the right to appeal, that gives us the right to the Supreme Court, which we wouldn't have had otherwise.
	And it means that if there's a change in administrations...
	Then there can be a change in Justice Department policy, including intervention.
	Now, to the broader overview of the case, in terms of for those that may not be fully aware of it, Brooke Jackson is a clinical trial observer whose job is to make sure they comply with clinical trial rules.
	And these clinical trial rules exist for a purpose.
	That purpose is the way we have assurances that a particular drug is safe, is effective.
	And serves its purposes that it is prescribed for is the clinical trial rules that must govern.
	That means that it's a randomized trial.
	That means it's a blinded trial.
	That means it's a placebo-utilized trial.
	And then a range of other rules to monitor baseline information, to monitor adverse events, to report those events.
	And have other rules for safety and efficacy designed to assure us that, in fact, that this drug is safe and effective.
	If you don't have a clinical trial that meets those rules, then you don't have any confidence that the drug is either safe or effective.
	She was retained by Ventavia, a subcontractor of Pfizer for the clinical stage 3 COVID-19 vaccine.
	Clinical trials in Texas, she witnessed multiple locations and what was taking place.
	And in several weeks, she saw the most egregious violations of both safety and efficacy she had ever witnessed or anyone had ever witnessed in an American clinical trial.
	She reported it all the way up the administrative food chain within the offices.
	The office admitted, her supervisors admitted that it was so bad that they couldn't fix it.
	That they were operating at such speed that there was no way they could comply with the rules.
	They were paying people under the table to come in so it was unblinded.
	I mean, so it was not randomized.
	They were unblinding it so people knew whether they were getting the placebo or the actual drug.
	They were not taking in baseline information to monitor the drug's impact on the body.
	They were not reporting adverse events when those adverse events took place.
	So they doctored.
	The data, they fabricated and falsified invoices and documents to Pfizer, to the federal government, in order to certify compliance with the rules required under the contract to get billions of dollars of money for Pfizer, of which a substantial portion went to Ventavia.
	When she realized nothing was going to be changed at the clinical trials, she reported it to the Food and Drug Administration the same day that happened.
	Somehow, Pfizer found out, and Ventavia fired her, and Pfizer's lawyer was calling her personal cell phone.
	She filed suit and reported it to the federal government in the fall of 2020.
	Her then-lawyers, big Key Tam False Claim Act lawyers, told her that she should not disclose the facts of the case by, in my view, misrepresenting the law, the law of the False Claims Act.
	Is that you are, in fact, entitled to disclose the facts of the case.
	You can't disclose the existence of the case if it's been sealed, but the seal doesn't apply to the underlying facts of the case.
	And the seal is there to benefit the government, not the defendant.
	The seal is there to ensure investigation, not to prevent investigation.
	But they misled her for a year into thinking she couldn't disclose or discuss the case.
	She was assured through the process by her lawyers, by the government, that they were taking meaningful investigative action and that remedy was right around the corner.
	It appears to me that both her former lawyers and the government conspired and colluded to keep this information secret from the American people during a critical time frame in which this may have derailed the entire vaccine from the beginning.
	She, recognizing the issues, reached out to additional counsel.
	Her husband's a fan of Eva Barnes.
	Law.locals.com, where everybody is above average, like Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon.
	Reached out to me, substituted in new counsel.
	She disclosed the facts of the case, not the case itself, to the British Medical Journal.
	They independently investigated, independently vetted.
	And ultimately independently vouched for every allegation she made, the documentary proof she had in support of it, the medical significance and seriousness of it, and published their reports that went viral throughout Europe.
	And the American institutional press tried to suppress here, but ultimately spread throughout the independent media here.
	Pfizer brought a motion to dismiss the case and asked the judge to prevent all discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending.
	The judge granted that motion, and I referred to the judge's decision as a wuss decision.
	The judge was critical of me for saying that, thinking I was calling into question his integrity.
	I was not.
	I was saying he's a coward, and that's what this decision was.
	It was a coward decision.
	It was a cowardly decision by a cowardly judge who should be ashamed of himself.
	If you read the decision, it reads in contradiction.
	You read the beginning of the decision, and you think it's going to rule in your favor.
	My guess, and it's just speculation, the judge wrote an opinion more consistent with his oral argument that denied the motion to dismiss.
	And then midway through, got cold feet, decided to play the Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz, and was too scared.
	As Charles Barkley would say, he's too scurred to take on the U.S. government and Pfizer combined in the biggest public health scandal of trillion dollars of damages, as was detailed with our sidebar last week with Edward Dow.
	Sidebar this Tuesday, by the way, is with the one and only Carrie Lake, so we're on a good roll.
	What time is that, Robert?
	It'll be 7 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday night with Carrie Lake.
	7 p.m. on Tuesday, not Wednesday this week.
	Yeah, one night early to accommodate her schedule.
	But as Edward Dowd documented, and this is why we're on Rumble, literally billions and billions and likely trillions of dollars in damages to the economy globally from the disabilities and deaths this vaccine has caused, this so-called vaccine has caused.
	And so the judge ultimately dismissed on contradictory...
	Conflicting claims.
	It's one thing, then it's another excuse, then it's another excuse.
	Purely technical excuse.
	Contrary to some suggestions, it is not the loony theory being supported by that Sasha lady and others.
	It is not a claim that the Trump administration deliberately created a bioweapon to kill everybody.
	That is not what the judge dismissed.
	The judge dismissed hyper-focusing on technicalities and interpreting the contract in a way that directly contradicted the judge's own statements at the oral argument.
	So, effectively, the judge dismissed on grounds that even if Pfizer committed all of this fraud, the fraud was on the American people, not on the taxpayers, because the fraud happened after they signed the contract, and because the contract's only condition, explicit or express condition in the judge's view, was that it be approved by the FDA, and since the FDA had not revoked approval, there was not yet fraud on the government, even if there was fraud on the American people.
	Of course, the problem with that is it is refuted by what the judge himself acknowledged at the hearing, which is the contract's express condition, express and explicit deliverable, was a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19, by which one metric, by which one measurement was FDA authorization.
	But if, according to the judge, all that other language is surplusage.
	Now...
	Try to find where the judge says that in the opinion.
	One sign you know you've won a case is when the core of your argument is never even addressed by the judge.
	It's a sign the judge knows, or the clerk who probably wrote half of this opinion and can't wait to work for Big Pharma five years from now, probably.
	That's where there's institutional integrity issues.
	It's not with the court.
	It's with the clerks, who too often know they're working for a big corporation that's going to be serving Big Pharma.
	It's like congressmen becoming lobbyists.
	It's like all the FDA people who go work for Big Pharma and cash in on their good work at the FDA.
	That's where there's a flaw in our system.
	These clerks are not really being monitored properly for conflicts of interest themselves.
	We probably need to change the rules there.
	I don't know if that's the case in this clerk's case.
	I'm just concerned that that has been too much of a pattern in other cases.
	But the nature of this ruling...
	Ignored the biggest argument being made, which is, my argument was that the very essence of the deal, which is what the United States Supreme Court said is the definition, the sine qua non of materiality under the False Claims Act, under Key Tam laws, is what was the essence of the bargain.
	Notably, the judge never talks about that.
	And there's a reason, because the judge knows he's wrong.
	The judge knows his opinion is wrong.
	That's why I call it a cowardly decision.
	It's a decision that the judge's own failure to deal with the leading argument by us, it tells you the judge knows he can't even address that argument.
	He can't even answer that argument.
	By the way, this is not new for me.
	This has happened in many, many politically tainted cases where courts are afraid to hold power to account.
	So, in that, it's also why, you know, from the very beginning of the case, when I discussed it with Brooke Jackson, my interpretation was that the government and her prior counsel did not plan on meaningfully pursuing the case, that they had actually been keeping her secret and silenced along the way.
	More and more evidence has developed to support that.
	Her so-called counsel is a hater of Robert Kennedy on vaccines.
	What was he doing even involved in this case?
	There may be some legal malpractice claims coming because False Claims Act lawyers, who often act like they're in the extortion business rather than the public policy whistleblower business, have, in my view, been lying to their clients about what a seal means in a court proceeding.
	It applies to the existence of the case, not the underlying facts of the case.
	That's been adjudicated multiple times.
	So we'll be looking at that option.
	But the other aspect here...
	That I said from the get-go internally, it served no purpose to go out and publicize this before the judge made a ruling.
	But here's the reality.
	When the government doesn't join a whistleblower in a whistleblower federal claim, the courts dismiss the case more than 97% of the time.
	And ask yourself how that's even possible.
	Now, this is the benefit of Mark Gallanter, who taught sociology and statistics and law in the Law and Action program at the University of Wisconsin Law School, where I got my degree.
	It's look at the practical impact of the law and how that may tell you what the real politics or policies behind the law is.
	Here you have a case where sophisticated key TAM lawyers are bringing these claims.
	They are more knowledgeable than federal judges on the substance of these claims, legally.
	They are not getting paid.
	They are risking their labor and time and upfront costs to pursue the case in the first place, because almost all of them are brought on a contingency basis.
	They are pursuing these cases despite the lack of government intervention.
	So how is it they can be wrong more than 97% of the time?
	Is that the most logical explanation for the court's decisions?
	Is it more likely that the courts are biased institutionally?
	Not biased in a way that requires recusal, not biased in a way that's illegal under the rules, but biased in deferring to authority.
	And this reflects how people become federal judges.
	They become federal judges because politicians only want people who have spent their lives being in deference to authority.
	Find the criminal defense lawyers on the federal bar.
	Find the plaintiff's lawyers on the federal bar.
	Find the consumer rights lawyers on the federal bar.
	Find the civil rights lawyers in the federal court system.
	Find the constitutional lawyers on that.
	You won't.
	What you will find is government lawyers.
	What you will find is corporate lawyers, usually both.
	And when you've spent your life, not only that, if you look at their further background.
	Not only have they never represented working class people as a cause on any systematic basis, they don't come from working class backgrounds.
	Overwhelmingly, they come from multiple generations of professional managerial class power.
	Part of the problem with our whole system is having a judiciary with gatekeeping control to preclude juries from deciding these cases, in my view, in violation of the Seventh Amendment.
	Because it gives the professional managerial class a monopoly.
	On deciding these disputes and controversies, and they have proven incapable of doing so when it involves challenging institutions of power.
	And no better evidence of that than the fact that 97% plus of the time, you can predict without knowing any facts of the case, without knowing any law of the case, you can predict exactly how a federal judge will rule.
	You could only do that if they're biased.
	It is compelling evidence of bias and cowardice is what it really is by the federal bench.
	Now, that will not stop us from proceeding.
	We will seek to amend.
	We will seek to appeal.
	And I'll let you ask some questions.
	I'll explain why Brooke Jackson has already won in the court of public opinion in just a bit.
	My question is simple.
	The KETAM dismissed with prejudice, meaning you cannot amend and refile.
	The wrongful dismissal retaliatory claim without prejudice, meaning you can amend and refile.
	What's the rationale for dismissing the KETAM with prejudice, meaning that you can't amend and refile?
	Why?
	The judge said it would be futile because he considered the FDA's ongoing approval an ultimate block from proceeding with the case.
	And there's major problems with that, and it contradicts existing law.
	But that was why he made that ruling.
	By contrast...
	He said there may be other federal laws that can be pursued in the retaliation claim, and there can be additional allegations and accusations that would help substantiate the claim if made.
	And so that's why amendment was allowed in one case, not another case.
	Now, to be clear, if this judge had been like a biased judge, a corrupt judge, he would have never granted a four or five hour hearing.
	He would have taken pot shots at the whistleblower, taken pot shots at me.
	He did none of those things.
	I have no doubt that he believes this is a sincere legal decision.
	But in my view, it reflects cowardice.
	And it reflects a cowardice that is a flaw in our federal judiciary that is reflective of their life experience being too limited.
	And ultimately, this comes back to the politicians.
	The Senate and the federal society types that gatekeep who gets appointed on the right to the bench keep appointing corporate...
	Keep appointing government loyalists to the bench who just defer to authority just as this judge did.
	He deferred to Pfizer.
	He deferred to the FDA.
	He deferred to the Defense Department rather than deferring to the American people in the rule of law and the Constitution.
	And that's where I disagree with him.
	But yeah, we will pursue the case.
	But here is where, and we will also use the case to argue Congress, which is already considering changes in the False Claims Act, changes in pharmaceutical immunity.
	To show this is why we need it.
	Even in these cases, we can't go forward.
	Even when we prove that, in fact, Pfizer's engaged in systematic fraud on the American people, is killing people en masse, disabling people en masse.
	They promised a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19, explicitly in the contract.
	They didn't deliver anything that was safe.
	They didn't deliver anything that was effective.
	They didn't even deliver a vaccine, and it got nowhere near prevention of COVID-19.
	If this isn't a fraud case, no case is a fraud case.
	But it shows the problem of too much pharmaceutical immunity and the need to make these false claims acts more robust to allow private attorney generals to pursue it.
	But in the same vein, in the court of public opinion, Brooke Jackson has already won.
	Because she went public, since she went public...
	And the world discovered what was happening.
	Her target group was to prevent children from getting this max inoculation.
	What has happened?
	This story went global in Europe.
	Multiple European nations have pulled it from even being recommended for children.
	And in the United States, more than 90% of parents have refused to use the COVID vaccine on their young children.
	All kinds of lives were saved because of the actions of Brooke Jackson.
	Because Brooke Jackson went public.
	So just by that itself, it probably cost Pfizer hundreds of millions of dollars, deservedly so, but more importantly, it saved the lives of millions of people around the globe, and that is thanks to Brooke Jackson.
	So those people that tell me, don't bring these cases, you can't bring these, the odds are stacked against you, give up, go home, forego forfeit.
	The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he didn't exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing you you can't resist.
	And there's no better example of that than Brooke Jackson, whose brave and bold actions save lives.
	That's why you fight these cases, no matter the odds, no matter how many Goliaths are on the other side.
	And all you are is David with a few stones, because sometimes those few stones save lives.
	And Brooke Jackson saved lives.
	Fantastic, Robert.
	And someone just sent me an email with an update.
	Bragg won't charge the wounded New York City garage worker who shot suspected people.
	There's a headline.
	And there's a great court of public opinion, right?
	That's the court of public opinion blowing back.
	So even Bragg had to step back.
	And speaking of people who probably should have stepped back, the person I'm personally fond of...
	Dear Sidney Watson, and Kurt Schlichter, who, even though we disagree on a lot of politics on some issues within, he's a conservative, is a very smart, capable lawyer.
	Looks like they might have made some mistakes in suing Blaze.
	I'm trying to get centered here.
	Before we talk...
	Okay, I'm going to move on.
	So Sidney Watson, we covered this before, suing the Blaze, arguing, you know, toxic work environment, religious intolerance because...
	She was mocked on set.
	I don't know, sexual harassment, but along those lines that Elijah Schaefer would have guests on the show who were toxic, who made massage jokes, that she was the butt of jokes from the crowd.
	She made a number of claims against The Blaze.
	In the week when we saw the triad of infighting among conservatives, it was The Crowder versus Daily Wire, Sidney Watson versus The Blaze, Tim Pool.
	The quartering somehow got in there.
	She filed suit.
	We covered it.
	The Blaze have filed, I think, a motion to dismiss or motion to defer to arbitration because they're arguing that she entered into a binding agreement to submit any disputes to arbitration.
	But in the context of that motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, they've included some text messages, some, I don't know if they're emails, but internal messages that reveal that maybe Ostensibly.
	It's not to demean or undermine the allegations.
	Sidney Watson's claims were allegations.
	It may cause some to question the sincerity of those allegations because while Sidney Watson was saying horrible workplace, toxic, misogynist, discriminatory based on religious beliefs, even after the poopoo had hit the fan, she was still saying it's a good place.
	I still want to work there.
	She had text messages showing that she may have known who...
	Jack Murphy was, which might lend some people to think that she knew what she was saying when she said what she said about Jack Murphy, asking him about that article, about him, whatever, so that she might have been in on it in the sense that was aware of it, was benefiting from it, was willingly partaking in it.
	That's where it's at.
	Robert, what's your take?
	I mean, look, I'm not as thoroughly invested in this one way or the other.
	I tend to like Sidney Watson.
	I tend to like what The Blaze does.
	What's your take on the rebuttal that has come from the Blaze now and its eventual impact on the case?
	This goes to arbitration.
	If they have an agreement, it's going to arbitration.
	Yeah, basically, here's what's going to happen.
	Sidney Watts is going to have to write a check to the Blaze when all this is said and done.
	So, I mean, here is the problem.
	Problem one is that she appears to be an independent contractor.
	If she is, then she doesn't have a Title VII claim.
	In fact, it's not apparent she has any claim under the law.
	So that's a big problem, right?
	Out of the gate, legally.
	Second, she did have a clear arbitration agreement.
	And the arbitration agreement provided that if she filed suit in court and the arbitration was ultimately compelled, she would have to pay all the fees and costs, including attorney's fees, for having brought the suit.
	That can be substantial.
	Given the kind of lawyers that are involved on behalf of Blaze.
	So what's going to happen is the suit will be dismissed or stayed.
	Arbitration will be ordered.
	She'll be ordered to have a monetary judgment issued against her for the privilege of filing the suit.
	And then last but not least, if the goal of the suit was reputational, this does not help.
	So first, you have the reputational damage implicit in going after your former employer on public grounds that's going to leave other employers skeptical and concerned with hiring you.
	But even more so, when these kind of facts come out, if you say, hey, look, they put this person on who is so embarrassing and terrible, and then they have internal texts that say, you wanted that person on?
	That you claim that this was the source of the problem, that looks like something else was the source of the problem?
	That you claim that you were bothered by something, that you told them you weren't bothered by at all?
	This looks bad on her future reputation.
	So she's going to lose legally, she's going to owe money to Blaze, and her reputation is going to go down.
	As I pointed out, I like Kurt Schlichter, but I didn't know he had any reputation in employment Title VII law.
	This is an easy law to get tripped up in.
	And I don't know what the plan was beyond embarrassing Blaze with the suit, but it looks like it was a bad plan.
	I hope he got Sidney Watson to sign off on everything because she might have a legal malpractice claim against him now.
	So this is a claim that just backfired badly on Schlichter and on Sidney Watson.
	It looks like Blaze is in the legal and factual right, Sidney Watson completely in the wrong.
	And now, you know, I always say that in Quebec, we...
	Typically, the loser doesn't even have to pay unless someone has filed malicious proceedings, something with the intent to harm a patently baseless lawsuit.
	In this case, some will say, well, the strategy was to make the allegations public.
	If she were bound by an arbitration agreement, she wouldn't have been able to do that.
	So the way that she, these allegations public, skirting around, bypassing, ignoring the arbitration agreement, to thus maliciously publicize, setting aside...
	Whether or not it's even true, but even if it's true, bypassing, deliberately circumventing an arbitration agreement that would have kept it private.
	And so she could be on the hook for, could she potentially be on the hook defamation or some form of malicious filing in that it might be clear to some or arguably clear to some that she bypassed the arbitration agreement that would have kept this confidential only for the purposes of making it public in the hopes of...
	They don't have to go there because the contract itself says if you file suit in court and arbitration is compelled, you have to pay all the fees and costs from your filing suit, including any reputational harm.
	So it was either, I think, a really dumb gamble to file this suit or something got missed along the way.
	Because, again, she's going to write money.
	She's going to write a big paycheck to Blaze for the privilege of damaging her own reputation.
	Not a good strategic decision.
	All right.
	We'll see where that goes.
	Robert, Texas Drag Shows.
	Oh, first of all, by the way, we were at, for a moment, we're back under 23,000.
	We're at 22,900 and zero.
	We were over 23,000 live.
	I think Salty Cracker is starting soon, or has started already.
	Robert.
	The Texas drag show laws.
	What's going on there?
	I've read what's going on, but I'm not thoroughly up to date on it.
	So we got, is there a right to a drag show?
	And this concerns obscenity, and it's pending in two different federal courts.
	On Friday, a federal court in the Western District of Tennessee, which magically found standing.
	It's always interesting when they want to find standing, even though there was no threatened prosecution against the person bringing suit.
	Even though the DA, in fact, said he wasn't going to be prosecuting.
	Even though the county executive in Shelby County said they weren't going to be prosecuting.
	Even though the Attorney General said they weren't going to be prosecuting.
	On the mere possibility that maybe someday somebody somewhere might kind of prosecute, which normally they say, that's not standing, Mr. Barnes.
	Suddenly they find standing.
	Again, federal courts always find standing when they want to.
	It's a bogus political doctrine made up by courts so that cowardly courts can do what cowardly courts like to do, which is hide and cover when they want to.
	Otherwise, it's never a barrier or burden when they don't want it to be.
	Anybody who tells you to take standing seriously is someone not to take seriously.
	But both cases in Texas, Texas A&M Community College...
	Or Texas A&M Corpus Christi, maybe.
	Actually, it is.
	Sorry.
	What it is is a local group does drag shows, but they limit it to adults only, and they do it for fundraising and political expression purposes.
	They brought suit against the school because the school principal or the school president said he would never allow a drag show, period, because he opposed them politically.
	They have a more robust First Amendment claim.
	But the federal court in Tennessee already enjoined the Tennessee law on grounds it was overly burdensome and vague.
	The Tennessee law mostly tracks obscenity law.
	Now, you could make an argument that the Tennessee statute could have been better at what it meant by someplace it could be seen by a child.
	They weren't clear whether that's private residences and other things like that.
	So I understand, and they didn't define what public meant, public place meant.
	So they probably could have been better.
	But the essential issue is this obscene.
	So the obscenity law is as follows under the Supreme Court.
	It's does the local adult, local community standard find something to be appealing to the prurient interest without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
	So it has to appeal to the prurient interest and be without any serious value of something we've generally cherished, according to the local community standards.
	So when are drag shows prurient interest?
	Well, to most people and under most law, dressing up as another gender...
	For display, expressive purposes, has usually been called adult cabaret performances that is considered appealing to the Praurian interest.
	It doesn't guarantee it.
	For example, in the old English plays, all men used to be the actors, someone dressed up as women.
	They're doing so to play the character, not to appeal to Praurian interest.
	So it isn't always to the Praurian interest, but it can be and often is.
	So then the question is, does it have any serious expressive value?
	That's really according to the local adult community standards.
	And that's where it varies by community, in fact.
	In Memphis, they probably have no problem with drag shows.
	In rural Tennessee, they're not so fond of them.
	And so this is because of drag shows taking place in public settings and public parades, at local libraries, at local schools.
	This is what's triggered the public backlash.
	A lot of people don't want minors exposed to it because they think for minor children it is prurient, it is confusing, any value it may have politically or expressively is overridden by its prurient, confusing qualities to minors.
	And the Tennessee legislature, reflecting the Tennessee statewide community, made that decision.
	To me...
	The legislature should have defined public a little cleaner, should have defined child access a little cleaner, should have been willfully, knowingly accessible to a child in a setting of a public accommodation.
	That's what they're really trying to go at.
	They didn't want it at a library.
	They didn't want it at a school.
	They didn't want it at a parade.
	They didn't want it at the local mall.
	They weren't targeting...
	The drag shows in the Memphis downtown bars.
	That was not a great concern.
	People don't understand it, and they're deliberately pretending that they don't.
	Nobody's trying to ban drag shows.
	Nobody's trying to ban trans anything.
	It's the grooming, the sexualizing, the exposing of this stuff to children.
	It is fundamentally adult.
	It is fundamentally sexual because if it weren't sexual...
	You would just have someone reading to children without having to specify that's a man dressed up as a woman, and he does it because it brings him some form of pleasure.
	Like, you don't get into that if it's just a question of reading to kids.
	But Robert, I mean, look, I don't know if you know what's coming out of Canada here.
	I follow Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada, and he tweeted this, and I'm like, I trust Maxime Bernier.
	But I'm still going to verify Maxime Bernier.
	He says, this is utterly disgusting.
	Camps indoctrinating kids as young as seven with gender ideology and sexual confusion are now being promoted and subsidized by all government levels.
	And you see down here, it says City of Vancouver, Canada Council for the Arts, Conseil Canadien des Arts, what we've got here, British Columbia Arts Council, British Columbia, and the Government of Canada Federal.
	So I went to double check.
	I went to the website of this camp.
	Let me see if I can get it here.
	Let's see if they've changed it.
	They haven't.
	We'll do it in real time, people.
	And it's junior drag camp, ages 7 to 11. The tuition includes drag makeup kit.
	Robert, I mean, I don't know what to say anymore.
	I don't know what to think anymore.
	I don't understand the sexualizing of children.
	I don't understand the exposing of children to fundamentally sexual adult material.
	And people think that they're doing it in the best interest of and for The benefit of the children.
	I have been told that I don't know this.
	Sorry, go for it.
	Well, what's amazing is this law was used as the excuse for the transurrection that took place in the Tennessee legislature, where I've been told if you enter a Capitol to interfere with ongoing legislative events for intimidation purposes and trespass thereupon, that that's an insurrection.
	Well, in the name of trans rights and in the name of gun control, they did precisely that in Tennessee.
	Don't expect any prosecutions there out of Nashville.
	And our governor's a complete wuss.
	That guy's the coward of cowards anyway, so he's unlikely to do anything useful.
	He has to be dragged into anything useful, not to play on words.
	But then we had the identity of a shooter.
	One particular aspect of a school shooting in Tennessee couldn't be identified because by their chosen trans identity and the potential relevance to it.
	Now, I refuse to discuss the case in much detail.
	Because we now know the number one cause from a wide range of surveys and data reported in both liberal and conservative press, reported in scholastic reviews and in public opinion polling and historical evidence, that the number one cause of school shootings in the United States is the school shooter getting notoriety afterwards.
	So even if the school shooter is dead and doesn't see that notoriety, future school shooters do.
	The number two cause is these are gun-free zones.
	The need isn't for more gun control.
	The need is to have meaningful means of defense at these places and for the media to ethically, I don't think legally there's a right to prior restrain the media's coverage of it, but I think ethically they should not celebrate school shooters by putting their manifestos on the front page of newspapers, putting their photos on the front page.
	They should be ignored, their identity never disclosed or discussed, not just part of their identity.
	Hidden for political reasons, but not discussed, period, because we know what the problem is.
	And the focus should not be taking away lawful guns.
	There is no connection.
	As even liberal data analysts for FiveThirtyEight when it was at New York Times, liberal NPR executives have acknowledged any deep dive into the data shows that there is not even correlation between lawful gun ownership.
	The only correlation that exists is between illegal gun presence and gun violence.
	So it's not people who lawfully own guns that are causing any problem.
	In fact, their self-defense saves more lives than gun presence costs lives.
	But it's illegal gun possession and use that is over 90% of all illicit gun violence.
	Because almost all of it is tied to gang events.
	It's not your rural, small-town Tennessee that has a gun violence problem.
	It's Memphis, Tennessee that has a gun violence problem.
	It's your gun control cities like Chicago, New York, and L.A. that have a gun violence problem.
	Not rural, heartland America.
	So taking away the lawful gun self-defense rights of ordinary Americans in middle America is no solution at all to the deluded left that has convinced itself that giving the state a monopoly on guns, which is what they don't want to admit they're doing, but it is what they're doing, can even be a practical solution.
	So gun control would not stop any school shootings.
	Back when kids used to take guns to school all the time, which was basically 1880 to 1950, when we had a major expansion of public education in America, you didn't hear about school shootings.
	Why?
	Because people who do these school shootings, these sociopaths and psychopaths, I refuse to get into the political debate of the individual politics of any of these people, because down deep they're just sociopaths looking for an excuse.
	That's it.
	But they love gun-free zones.
	There's a reason for that.
	They want to be able to commit their mass murder without being shot first.
	That's why they target over 90% of mass shootings of this character, public places, has taken place in gun-free zones for a reason.
	So if we wanted to prevent these mass public shootings, the best is to have more guns in the hands of more lawful owners for more self-defense, especially in schools, not less.
	I don't want to give Adam Kinzinger more attention than he deserves, but he's up on Twitter saying arming teachers is not a solution.
	And I might be glitching right now.
	I might agree that arming teachers Teachers is not the solution.
	Jim Jeffries did a funny bit.
	Teachers' jobs are not easy.
	Slap a gun in their hands.
	They may not use it properly, but cynical jokes aside, security.
	Adam Kinzinger says having more armed people at schools is not the solution.
	Meanwhile, we've got metal detectors and armed guards all over the Capitol.
	We didn't have enough of them.
	That's why there was this insurrection.
	David Hogg exposes the same.
	Fallacious reasoning, which is, you know, the good guy with the gun is not going to stop anybody because in Uvalde you had a bunch of cops fully armed waiting there for 87 minutes.
	Well, I'm sorry, that's not...
	First of all, that was not an armed guard or, you know, two at the school.
	It was not proper security at the school itself to make sure that people have to check into the school.
	And when they came, yeah, everybody knows they failed.
	You don't rely on the failures of the police as an excuse now to strip the citizens of their rights to have firearms.
	It's a complicated debate.
	What I do agree with you, Robert, is talking about the individual, glamorizing the individual, it's the wrongest, darkest inspiration for others who would do the same thing.
	But the media coverage has been not just atrocious, malicious, and peppering in the anti-religious sentiment in there.
	A Christian student, that Christian student from a Christian school, and then you had some...
	Some journalists pontificating that there might have been a history of some form of abuse here, which that might not be irrelevant to explaining the trauma that leads someone to commit this type of act.
	But it doesn't respond to the fundamental underlying question, what's the best method of protection in a country that already has 400 million guns in the possession of law-abiding citizens, but the black market guns in the hands of criminals?
	That's not going to address the problem.
	But it's just tragic, it's disgusting, and the way it's being weaponized and exploited.
	Nefarious actors is depressed.
	No doubt.
	I mean, they have no interest in school safety, Democratic, liberal, gun-controlled politicians, because the lack of school safety and the media celebration of the shooter, effectively, by broad coverage, they know creates more school shootings.
	And more school shootings are used as the excuse to take away the lawful self-defense rights under the Second Amendment of ordinary Americans.
	Now, so this Tennessee transurrection that took place in the name of trans rights and gun control is more young people deluded about what basically cheering for the sacrifice of their own liberties because they think it's popular on social media or because the people on the left are in denial about it.
	And it reflects some people on the right are in denial about the effectiveness of drug control and the war on drugs.
	If you have something that is Easily accessible, that is going to be in constant, continuous demand, making it illegal has never worked throughout the history of all societies.
	So you've got to re-examine those assumptions, whether you're on the left about gun control or on the right about lots of war on drugs.
	Now we'll move to our rapid-fire session before, of course, we go over to locals at the end to answer locals' questions live for the locals' exclusive portion.
	We'll try to cover about 10 topics in 10 minutes.
	Okay, you're going to do that in a second, but we've got to cover Andrew Tate here before we go over to Locals.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Well, I think here we'll cover all the quick topics, and then we'll go over to Locals to answer questions from Locals Live for Locals exclusive for the last 15 minutes or so.
	And now, someone did mention to me, they said, when I close the stream, it ends the chat in Locals.
	I'm trying to figure out a way to leave the stream open after we end it so people can continue chatting, but it's when I end it on StreamYards, it ends it across all platforms.
	So I'll figure out a way to do that, and alternatively, we might just set up a live chat.
	We'll probably have just another separate post-show live chat separately that will go out to people after the show is over so that those who want to partake in the post-show live chat after party can do so.
	But in the rapid-fire section, we have first Fox vs.
	Dominion, the exact same Delaware courts that said Candace Owens could not proceed.
	Because a fact checker's statements are just opinion and could not even be considered to be possibly inferring a fact.
	The same Delaware courts said that Fox's merely reporting accusations of election fraud, merely giving their opinions about it, was not at all protected opinions, was not at all the fair reporting privilege, but was just lies and libel.
	So the same courts that had one interpretation about people who described what they were doing as fact checking, being never possible to be called facts, turn around and say people who are explicitly saying that their opinion shows reporting on other information called the fair reporting privilege gives contradictory rulings on the same issue.
	And so Dominion now has had judgment already issued in their favor.
	On a bunch of issues, so they're limiting the scope of trial so that Dominion has the best chance to prevail at trial in a case that shows the continued bias and hypocrisy and double standards of the Delaware courts, the state where Joe Biden comes from and where the prosecutors could never find anything criminal, the Biden administration did, or Biden or his family did, even though they're notorious criminals in the state.
	They're like something out of Frank Miller's Sin City.
	When you see Joe trying to cozy up to the latest eight-year-old.
	The next topic is cash bail in L.A. L.A. has a bail system that basically presumes that you'd get denied bail for about a week until a magistrate actually hears your case.
	That is being correctly challenged because, in my view, that's a constitutional violation.
	It is inconsistent with the actual legal standard.
	Sorry, Robert, I had to share my meme.
	Someone reported this.
	Someone reported this to Twitter, to the German authorities.
	If they didn't understand the context, maybe they could think it was some sort of veiled threat.
	But if someone doesn't understand that this is Joe Biden...
	No one's above the law, Democrats, but Hunter Biden procured that firearm unlawfully by lying on a gun application, felony, and then feloniously disposed of that firearm.
	No one's above the law.
	But to quote George Orwell, some are more under the law than others.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Next one on the rapid fire.
	Who's ever heard of the Germans trying to report rat-out Jews?
	So the next case, the UN wants the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on what governments must do to comply with climate change.
	So this is another attempt to internationally hijack and deprive us of our sovereignty by ramroading it through that disgraced court called the International Court of Justice, which should be called the International Court of Injustice.
	Andrew Tate has been released finally from Romanian jail after 60 days.
	Said he spent his time doing push-ups and reading the Koran.
	Apparently he's become a Muslim.
	Okay, what next for Andrew Tate?
	But he says he'll be back live-streaming on Rumble soon.
	Steven Crowder has already half-broke both Rumble and locals with the millions of people coming in to watch him.
	And his justification for Crowder's choice.
	Been warranted again as he's barely broadcasting a week and already facing multiple YouTube strikes over simply reporting on the trans-related issues infecting culture.
	But Andrew Tate is out.
	That case is falling apart.
	His brother was released.
	The two other women that were charged in the case released.
	There's been no criminal charges brought against him.
	I think ultimately...
	Our skepticism of that case will prove well justified, and the critics who rushed to condemn him should have been a little more careful before they did so, just because they don't like his opinions on something.
	Appreciate now for everybody watching.
	He's on house arrest, Robert.
	He's got some conditions.
	I think the other two were just released.
	I'm not sure.
	He's been in jail since December.
	December, January, February, March.
	Three months.
	Nearly four months on investigative detention and no charges filed yet.
	And he, for his part, says...
	Whether you like him or not, he's trying to spin this as a positive to say, I was in jail for four months.
	No internet, no cell phone, no distraction, focused, meditating.
	And he says, I'm out now and I can't even stand my phone.
	It's a man who sees the positive in a wild injustice because...
	Even if he is ultimately found to be guilty, he deserves his pretrial release pending actual charges and a fair trial.
	Thus far, he's got none of any of it.
	Okay, next one.
	No doubt.
	A big First Amendment win for pro-life speech.
	I think it was Mecklenburg County in North Carolina tried to prosecute people for free speech activities in proximity to abortion clinics or elsewhere on public streets on pro-life.
	A good lawsuit had been brought.
	The county folded, capitulated, and agreed that, in fact, there was a constitutional right to that speech.
	So important to protect our public sidewalks and public spaces for free speech, even when it concerns the issues of life and abortion.
	And that was an important and significant and consequential win that should not be overlooked in an otherwise dark week on the law.
	The Norfolk Southern has now been sued by the U.S. government because they released hazardous materials into the water, into the air, into the ground.
	All those facts now confirmed by the nature of the lawsuit.
	They are being sued to be required to pay the cost of cleanup.
	Of all of those related issues, good to see that Norfolk Southern will have some degree of accountability in this process.
	Donald Trump Jr. won a defamation suit against a West Virginia candidate who blamed him in his tweets for suing, and the court determined there was no basis, in fact, or in the accusation to say that he acted with actual malice at all in any statements he made about the candidate.
	So the case was dismissed against Donald Trump Jr. and could proceed.
	His show gaining in popularity as well on Rumble as interest in Rumble explodes across the board.
	I'm trying to get Don Jr. and or Kimberly Guilfoyle in for a local studio because we're not far from each other and I want to get both of them for an interview in local studio.
	It would be amazing.
	So I'm going to start gently nudging them as of tomorrow.
	Robert, what's next?
	If you're a token holder of crypto, you might be a little concerned about this case.
	So every token holder of a particular crypto was sued because the particular cryptocurrency, the particular blockchain, was hacked for a loss of somewhere around $50 million or so.
	And they can't track or trace the hacker, so they sued the crypto company, but not just the crypto company.
	They claim that everybody that owns a token of that cryptocurrency is actually the owner as a partner under general partnership principles that don't require a written partnership because there's so much decentralization in crypto.
	They're trying to now say anybody connected to it actually has power over it and consequently is an owner.
	Liable for any bad acts that occur related to it or negligence that occurs concerning it.
	And a federal court approved that theory.
	So now individual token holders can be sued for the actions of somebody anywhere connected to the blockchain of that cryptocurrency.
	A little bit of an unsettling ruling, but not a surprise given the ongoing war on crypto.
	Operation Chokepoint is detailed by Kim Iverson and others that appears to be taking place by the Biden administration to pave the path for a central bank digital currency with no...
	Alternatives or competitors in the crypto space.
	It reflects the SEC challenges that have been brought.
	It represents the selective prosecutions that have been brought.
	It represents which banks they've allowed to go under without bailing out that have been brought.
	And now we're seeing it in civil rulings where federal courts are applying partnership principles in ways that have never been applied before.
	Then, or at least not on this scale.
	The United Nations, just like they did with other allegations of atrocities in Ukraine, thanks to the United States, has refused an independent inquiry into Nord Stream.
	If what happened at Busha is the Russians' fault, then why was the United Nations scared to have an independent inquiry?
	Why was the United States afraid of the United Nations engaging in an independent inquiry?
	People said, look at the New York Times reporting.
	I'm sorry, I don't trust the New York Times in general, but if the United States really thought they had compelling evidence of Russian complicity, they would be eager to employ a UN independent inquiry to confirm it.
	Instead, they're scared, terrified, and blocking it, just as they are with Nord Stream.
	Further affirmation and proof that Seymour Hersh was likely right in other evidence today.
	That corroborates an earlier story by another independent reporter, a Jack Murphy that's not That Jack Murphy.
	Earlier had shown it on the Concrete podcast and elsewhere, where you can find more information about him and on his website.
	And he's an anti-Russian guy, by the way.
	What he reported is his sources showed that there was an effort of internal terrorism and sabotage set up by the British and American governments.
	And today they blew up a cafe in St. Petersburg of prominent Russian supporters.
	This has all, I mean, they're not going to be able to blame that on Putin.
	So this appears that domestic terrorism in Russia continues to take place, likely sponsored by the same people who did Nord Stream and blew up the Nord Stream pipeline, which is the United States government and the United Kingdom.
	We'll see if there's ever any consequence, but the UN's decision to hide and run from it while seeking climate change opinions instead shows knowledge of culpability and complicity in Washington, D.C. A big Second Amendment win!
	In Minnesota, on a more white pill moment, 18- to 20-year-olds can now buy guns in Minnesota who had been denied and deprived the right to do so under a string of cases that we said was likely going to be leading in this direction and now continue to move in that direction as more and more state laws get struck down, just as they were in California last week on Second Amendment grounds to enforce the Bruin decision of the U.S. Supreme Court from last week.
	When is your abandoned DNA?
	Allow you to be convicted of a crime.
	So a horrific crime that hadn't been solved for 30 years in Iowa.
	They used those ancestry databases that people like, where they voluntarily send in their DNA.
	They checked the DNA from the case against the DNA in that database and found a list of possible sources, tracked one of the individuals down, waited until he left a restaurant, and got his straw that he'd thrown in the trash.
	And tested it and confirmed the DNA matched from DNA from the murder scene 30 years before and convicted him at trial.
	The Iowa Supreme Court decided a 5-2 decision that that was consistent to the Fourth Amendment.
	Just like they can lift your fingerprints, they can lift your DNA.
	This caused some people's concerns because people leave their DNA all over the place and it's a lot more invasive than fingerprints is.
	But the established law is such now that they can track and trace your DNA as long as there's any place you could leave it in public.
	And our last little bonus topic of the night, strawberry patents.
	Some of you may not know, a lot of strawberries you're eating ain't exactly natural.
	And so there's these patents developed at the University of California.
	They sued some years ago an individual who they accused of...
	Taking their strawberry patents to grow strawberries.
	That person lost, and so Driscoll's, a major fruit production company, apparently also using these patented strawberries, has brought suit but has been less successful so far.
	But it raises a question, how much of your food is actually natural?
	You may think that nice fresh fruit is nice fresh fruit when actually it's some sort of AI robotic genetic creation.
	Time will tell as to what it provides.
	Robert, I'm going to do two things here.
	Just before we leave, I want to show the cover, the front page of Rumble right now because Salty is up and it's amazing.
	It's just an image.
	Goodness, does it tell a story?
	That image that he's...
	For those of you who don't know now, apparently Dylan Mulvaney has been endorsed by Bud Light or Budweiser.
	That's not what I want to show.
	Before we leave, I wanted to read a few of the Rumble rants before we head over to Locals, because there's a few that I didn't get to.
	I've sent the link for Locals for everybody who wants to come for the after-party.
	Nibupsh, $2, says, Might as well hand over a fiver for a monthly since Viva gets it all and we know our tribe needs our shekels.
	Ironbound Kid, just enter a comment on the Great and Free Rumble.
	And it has been censored.
	No difference between Rumble and ShitTube.
	There is, and I'll disagree with you on that.
	Abby33, Kane33.
	Dear Barnes, given that prohibition doesn't work, should the government legalize all things like prostitution in your view?
	Robert, I think you don't believe in that.
	There's two different things.
	One is decriminalization and the other is legalization.
	And the question is what consequences you seek.
	And our public policy should reflect those desired consequences.
	Right now, all prohibition does and criminalization does is create negative side effects that would not exist outside of it.
	So what you have to look at is will criminalization, will prohibition limit the undesirable activities?
	And you have to weigh that against the undesirable activities it creates.
	When you create a black market, you create a legal market for criminal enterprise.
	When you create criminal enterprise that has tangential and collateral effects outside of an independent, the products that they're marketing, including in social harm, including in violence, including in a wide range of ways, including in detouring productive individuals into illicit activities that are counterproductive for society.
	So I think you have to make a meaningful assessment that often there's an attempt to confuse legality with morality.
	And just like indictment doesn't mean you're morally guilty of anything, whether it's Donald Trump or Martin Luther King, in the same way, it's tough to legislate morality.
	And if that's the goal, what's the goal?
	What's the objective?
	Saying, well, we think we'll reduce the use by simply the social disfavor that criminalization provides.
	Okay.
	How much do you think it will reduce?
	And how much bad net of side effects do you create by creating an illicit black market for the product and empowering criminal sociopaths to have a means of power and money?
	And I think that has to be weighed in an objective way that often isn't because people get caught up in either fearing the item, whether it's drugs, whether it's guns, whether it's gambling, whether it's vice, whether it's prostitution.
	They obsess over that.
	Rather than, what behavior do I want to have happen?
	And how do I best achieve the best world?
	That's what law should reflect.
	And too often it doesn't, because people get caught up in the moralistic approach.
	All right, I'll read these quick, so we have to do this here.
	Where was I?
	NK Telefoman says, I want to see indecent exposure charges against these drag show participants and Munchausen syndrome by proxy charges against the parents of these kids.
	What does that say?
	Wahatonin.
	You can't legislate morality.
	NK Telefoman.
	Telefenomen.
	I'm sick and tired of people with no kids insist on telling parents how to raise their children.
	As lawyers, what are your opinions on people hiding behind NDAs and contracts to not present truth?
	Is God not going to honor those as reasons?
	Fornicator says, Cowardly Lion was scared.
	Pfizer's the Tin Man, no heart.
	McGrawton, one, two, three.
	Did you read David Stockholm's Um, article on locking out Trump.
	I didn't, but I screenshotted that.
	I'm going to read it.
	Monster Nav, a lot of people commenting on Trump issue that don't know how the U.S. system works and just how independent the states are or are supposed to be, including many seeming U.S. citizens.
	And then Dapper Dave, Barnes misunderstood my role.
	I meant New York, S-D-N-Y-E, D-N-Y, transferring cases from other states when they have no business doing so.
	What happens with competing jurisdictions in those cases?
	It's sad.
	People don't understand that it is innocent.
	It's a proven guilty.
	Now, Robert.
	And he's right.
	The opinion had the heart of the tin man and the courage of the lion from The Wizard of Oz.
	In my opinion, the Brooke Jackson opinion.
	But, you know, on Locals, I'll have a white pill for the evening about when I almost quit the practice of law.
	Okay, now I'm going to end it on Rumble, everybody.
	And for those of you who say you're going from one stream to the next to the next, yes, because we have a community on locals, some support, some are just members, and we have different, you know, different venues, different communities for all those.
	So I'm ending the stream on Rumble right now.
	It's been amazing.
	It's been informative.
	I still feel black-pilled, Robert.
	I don't feel any better, but we'll see what tomorrow brings.
	Next week, at least, on Locals Rumble.
	It's going to be amazing.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Ending on Rumble.
	See you all on Locals.
	3, 2, 1. Now.
	All right.
	We are alone on Locals, Robert.
	Let me read some of the tips in there.
	I don't know how many there are.
	There seems to be a lot.

▲