Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 16, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:16:42

Ep. 156: Pentagon Leaker; Trump Lawsuit; Baldwin; SCOTUS & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, and to the people that lived prior to this, if you went back and told them what the world would be like, not to mention the rise of the trans militants as the latest militant wing of the regime, that they would have no idea.
	They would think you were talking about some kind of science fiction dystopian, I guess, in a book at the time, or some Jules Verne or something, that there's no way that could ever exist.
	Can you imagine?
	We live in an era where people have a twisted logic, twisted morality to say protecting trans kids means allowing them to mutilate their bodies at a young age before they can even consent to a tattoo.
	That's what protection means.
	Protecting trans kids means adults deferring to the undeveloped, ill-informed judgment of children.
	Testify, Viva.
	It's madness, but it's such madness.
	And I sit here every morning saying, It's beyond the pale of what I could possibly have imagined.
	Five years ago, Jack, five years ago, Jeffrey Rush was getting cancelled for allegedly exposing his genitalia to people on set.
	Now, Riley Gaines is getting physically assaulted because she says, I don't want males exposing their genitalia to me in a locker room.
	I don't want to be forced for that.
	We'll stop it there because everybody's got to have a reason to go find the interview on Jack Posobiec's turning point.
	I think the links are in the...
	Let me just bring this out here.
	I think the links are in the tweet that I retweeted from Jack.
	I did that interview last week, so I have since washed the shirt at least a few times.
	Good evening, everybody.
	By the way, that was a segue into the second clip of the night.
	We're going to start off with some unpleasant reality.
	Then I'm going to show a clip that I figured should give something of a trigger warning, pun intended.
	It involves a fish getting shot by a bow now.
	It's not graphic.
	It's just super cool.
	We're going to get there in a second.
	But before we get there, I have had the...
	You have spoken.
	I have listened.
	People were saying, Viva, bring back the vlogs.
	I cannot bring back the daily vlogs.
	Although I think I can work in a compromise.
	Whenever I have time now stuck in the car, I'm going to do a vlog.
	And I do it on my phone.
	I edit real quick-like, and it's very good.
	I wanted to bring one up.
	A story...
	Is this it?
	This is it.
	A story that one of my trusted sources, a friend, someone who I have now met through this wild world of the interwebs, sent me over the weekend.
	I'll play a couple of minutes.
	It's the latest vlog.
	You can go catch it.
	I just like the intro.
	The CBC is the enemy of the people.
	Defund the CBC.
	defund the enemy of the people.
	Viva Frye, Montreal litigator turned rumbler and this Okay, we'll stop there.
	The story coming out of Canada, by the way.
	Let's play it.
	The story is just atrocious.
	Coming out of the CBC, the CBC reporting that a teenager in a school in Prince Edward Island died suddenly at school.
	But don't worry, they have already determined that the death was from natural causes.
	From the CBC, French school board pleads for privacy after death of students.
	The Ecole François Buert community continued to mourn Saturday after a student at the Charlottetown school suffered a, quote, sudden and unexpected death, end quote, on Friday.
	PEI's French language school board released a statement on Saturday saying the student died of natural causes and it has, quote, deeply impacted the school community and beyond.
	Okay.
	Y 'all noticed the headline of that story said that the school board is pleading for privacy in the wake of this tragedy is an understatement.
	CBC reports that the school is pleading for privacy in the wake of this tragedy.
	What does the CBC proceed to do?
	Name the school and then show an image of the school using Google Maps while describing the tragedy, the atrocity.
	As died suddenly and unexpectedly.
	Knowing damn well, knowing damn well, there's a documentary out there called Died Suddenly.
	Knowing damn well that they use that language, specify that the school doesn't want to be bothered and wants its privacy during this tragedy, then proceeds to name and share an image of the school on Google Maps.
	They know what they're doing.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	And by the way, How in the hell does anybody come to the conclusion within 24 hours that the death was of natural causes?
	How on earth does anybody...
	I'm not suggesting anything, and I'm not trying to be glib or facetious.
	I went to school with someone who passed away at 16 years of age.
	I remember what the parents said the cause of death was.
	I also remember now, in hindsight, what the parents said the cause of death was in order to conceal what the cause of death actually was.
	There could be a lot of other things involved in this story right now that might not be directly related to what people are reflexively and instinctively thinking is at play here.
	But the CBC runs that article with that headline, runs those words in that article, tells people, don't worry, sudden and unexpected death of a teenager, natural causes, knowing damn well what fire they are trying to start with that story.
	CBC.
	Elon Musk funded to the tune of $1.2 billion of Canadian taxpayer money, 70% of its funding.
	And I don't even think that 70% of its funding includes government ads, COVID ads, and other indirect stuff.
	I don't think it includes that.
	I might be wrong, but even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter.
	70% of its funding coming from the government.
	It puts out that article knowing damn well it is trying to start a fire.
	And if it thinks that that fire is already burning, well, they're just a big gust of wind or a big glass of gasoline.
	They want people to do what they pretend they don't want people to do so that when the people do it, they can then run out and say, look at these rowdy anti-vaxxers.
	Can't leave the school alone.
	How'd they find out what school it was?
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	We published it.
	How'd they find out where it was?
	Oh, well, we posted a Google picture map just for good measure.
	They know what they're doing.
	And it's not that they don't care.
	It's deliberate.
	Okay, anyways, so that's it.
	Now, by the way, in case there's any ambiguity, don't contact the school.
	Don't contact the family.
	It's not the time, and it's not something that anybody with any sense of good reason, good logic, empathy would do.
	But when the CBC puts out that phishing article...
	That fishing expedition of an article.
	They're not appealing to the people with good sense and good morals, good virtue.
	They know exactly who they are hoping to egg on into action when they do something like that.
	And they're using our taxpayer dollars to divide us among each other and to destroy the very fabric of Canadian society.
	At the hands of taxpayer dollars.
	All right.
	Defund the CBC.
	Defund the...
	I never understood it.
	I now understand the movement.
	Good evening, everybody.
	I think I see something from JRC1.
	A blessed good evening to you, your family and Barnes.
	You gotta see the movie Nefarious.
	Truly awesome.
	JRC1, first of all, thank you very much for the Super Chat.
	Standard intro disclaimer.
	No medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice.
	Of these wonderful ways of supporting the channel, you see Super Chats on YouTube, Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	So if you want to support the channel, but you don't want to support YouTube through 30% subsidy, you can go over to Rumble, where we are simultaneously streaming.
	I should have made sure that we are, in fact, streaming there live.
	Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	They take 20%, except for the rest of 2023, they take 0%.
	Funding.
	All support on Rumble for the rest of the year, 100% goes to the creator.
	Great initiative from Chris Pavlovsky and the team.
	We're live.
	So for the rest of the year, 100% goes to the creator.
	So head on over to Rumble if you want to do that.
	And what was I about to say with this super chat?
	Yes, Nefarious is the Stephen Deese written movie.
	I don't often say that I get sneak peeks of things because of, you know...
	My channel.
	But I got a sneak peek of that movie and it was great.
	It was actually very much like the movie Angel Heart with Robert De Niro, Mickey Rourke, Lisa Bonet.
	Who else was in that movie?
	It's a similar type of psychological thriller.
	Great movie to watch.
	I've seen it.
	Nefarious.
	If you haven't seen it, go check it out.
	Steve Deese was in the hospital recently.
	Public knowledge.
	He's doing better, which is great to see.
	Alrighty then.
	De Niro.
	De Niro, Mickey Rourke, Lisa Bonet.
	There was one more actor in it.
	Oh, Steve Dace.
	Okay, I might have been them.
	And Tucker Carlson has been exposing what's going on in Canada.
	Yes, siri, Bob.
	Boy, howdy.
	Now, I said we weren't going to start off with only stuff that was going to make you angry.
	And Robert's not here yet.
	So while we have some time, our household has not been without a visitor for the last three and a half weeks.
	My mother-in-law came.
	And spent three weeks here.
	My sister-in-law came at the same time in the interim for a long weekend.
	And DSLR Dave, my thumbnail guy, and now turned friend, has been here.
	And he just left.
	He was here for the weekend.
	He jokingly said on the way out, I'm going to have to make a shirt that says, I survived a weekend with Viva Fry, or I survived a weekend with Viva, because he came here for a vacation.
	He's going to need a vacation from the vacation that he was supposed to have.
	Let me bring this one up.
	That's not the right one.
	DSLR Dave, by the way, for anybody who wants quality thumbnails for YouTube or for Rumble, if you want quality thumbnails, DSLR Dave, you'll find him on Twitter.
	Info at DSLR Dave, hashtag not an ad.
	Dave came here.
	He landed Friday morning.
	Fort Lauderdale Airport was flooded out, still closed by Friday.
	So I get him in Miami.
	We go to Wynwood for lunch.
	So I can show him what I think is the best baguette sandwich place that I've discovered thus far.
	We were going to go to the local studio, but we couldn't make our way there.
	He comes here, sits down.
	We play around for a little bit.
	In the evening, we take my kids somewhere.
	We go fishing on a canal.
	Anyone in locals would know this story.
	I hooked the biggest snakehead I've ever caught.
	It was so big, I couldn't get it out of the water.
	I tried to do my swinging technique where you haul it out of the water, but the fish caught the lip of the mound as I was hauling it up and snapped the line.
	It must have been about seven pounds.
	Might have saved its own life because apparently you're supposed to.
	Saturday, we go to the beach.
	We go out for lunch.
	After that, we went to Gumbo Limbo.
	After that, we went to the Brazilian steak place, got some steak, had a barbecue.
	He was asleep and unconscious by 10 o 'clock at night.
	And then today, we went to do an event with the kids.
	And on the way back, we go to the Arthur Marshall Wildlife Refuge.
	While there, we were there for an hour.
	We saw a barred owl.
	We saw a water moccasin.
	Then we go to the canal to see the alligators, and we see a guy with a bow thingy fishing.
	Watch what we see happen as I'm recording a 12-foot alligator that just is sitting off the canal.
	Watch this.
	Hey, how you doing there, big guy?
	I think I'm getting into this sport.
	Check it out.
	He got it.
	He got the...
	He just...
	Look at the size of this talapia.
	I was expecting the alligator to go after the fish.
	Oh.
	My.
	No.
	Good!
	That's a tilapia!
	Oh my!
	That's a big one!
	I've only got two pounds!
	You gonna eat that?
	You gonna eat that?
	Oh my goodness!
	Don't worry, don't worry!
	Good flipping shot!
	That's a big tilapia.
	And tilapia are good...
	Tilapia might be the best eating freshwater fish.
	After walleye?
	Walleye, they say, is good.
	He didn't use...
	Well, I don't know.
	He says...
	Was it a slingshot?
	I don't know what the terminology is.
	It was an arrow.
	But I don't think it was a crossbow or a bow and arrow.
	Whatever it is, I'm going to go on Amazon, look it up, and get one.
	Bottom feeder?
	Well, I've had tilapia before.
	It's very good.
	And they can sort of live in, like, low oxygen, heavy salt water.
	It was very cool.
	And I don't know exactly what he used to saying.
	Tilapia is good.
	Yeah.
	So anyways, that was the better.
	Now Dave is on his way back to Canada.
	And he's going to need a weekend to recover from a weekend with Viva.
	All right.
	Until Barnes gets here, people, let me go over to Rumble, see if we've got...
	We do have two Rumble rants already.
	Let's bring these up here.
	And...
	Okay, hold on here.
	This is it.
	Two Rumble Rants.
	Viva looks like he has purple hair.
	Oh, snap, Miller time.
	And the Engaged View says, Snakehead meat is good.
	Looks and tastes a lot like Snapper and Grouper.
	I would not eat a fish out of the inner city canals, but I would definitely eat a fish.
	That canal was like right on the Everglades, so it doesn't have all the crap that you get from the road.
	That you get from the road.
	Or the city dirt.
	All right, hold on a second.
	Until Barnes gets here, let me bring something good up here.
	Uh, dun-dun-dun-dun-dun.
	Let's bring this one up.
	Let's just have a little fun until we get into the evening tonight.
	We're going to have some good, good stuff on the menu.
	I see a treble clef.
	No, it's a bass clef.
	Let me see what this has to say here.
	Perch is the best freshwater fish to eat, especially ice fishing.
	I don't like perch, but I've never caught a perch that had enough meat on it to be edible.
	And I don't know how to fillet a fish, so then I cook the whole thing and I sit there picking bones out of it.
	Everybody, this is one of those things where you watch this and one can imagine...
	Hold on, hold on.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	One can imagine...
	If you don't think that this was staged and a setup, I've got questions for this.
	Now, this is at a DeSantis event.
	Here we go.
	Breaking.
	Protester Storm and an unfazed Governor Ron DeSantis at a New Hampshire event.
	They chanted Jews against DeSantis.
	DeSantis, why you'd want to pay the ticket to get in just to do that, I don't know.
	Let me bring this up because it's kind of funny.
	Look at governor races, president races, 2010, 12, 14, 16, 18. Yeah, thank you.
	She was against the stand there.
	You got to have a little spice in the speech, right?
	I mean, you got to have a little fun.
	I mean, you got to have a little fun.
	Why you'd want to pay the ticket to get in just to do that?
	I don't know, but different strokes for different folks.
	Okay, so that is kind of funny, but the cynic in me says one of three things.
	First of all, DeSantis, I appreciate that there's probably security on the outside that checks for stuff that people aren't supposed to be bringing into a political event, but security might be a little lax.
	I don't care that there are two young women who might...
	By the stereotypes of things, people might think that they're not as dangerous as an adult male.
	But I've watched enough UFC and women's fighting in UFC to know that they can be very dangerous.
	Security might be a bit of an issue if two people can get in with that banner and get that close to Ron DeSantis.
	So you might want to look into that.
	The cynic in me also says Ron might have looked.
	I'm not saying this because I'm a...
	I'm not a forever Trumper or an anti-DeSantis whatsoever.
	I like Ron DeSantis a lot.
	That's why I like Florida.
	Part of me says...
	That would be a good setup if the goal were to make Ron DeSantis look good because that does make Ron DeSantis look good.
	It makes him look like he has a sense of humor, that he is cool on the stand.
	And that meme that went around when Trump...
	When someone stormed the stage when Trump was up there and he flinched and then they made a bunch of memes out of it.
	Apparently then the left is all for political violence.
	He looked a little too calm and cool, but whatever.
	My question to the protesters is, who is it for them to say that they speak for all Jews?
	Jews against DeSantis?
	Why?
	Have they not been to Miami, Boca?
	There are a lot of Jewish people in Florida, and they're not against DeSantis one iota.
	This idea that people can speak for anyone but themselves is a wonderful, ridiculous thing.
	But no, I would say that if they managed to get that close to DeSantis, it's a good photo op, but it's going to be bad encouragement for people who might want to run those same risks and try to get close to DeSantis for not such good reasons.
	Alrighty, now hold on one second.
	Let me see.
	Oh, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Okay, well, there we go.
	I'm going to save the next story for tomorrow when I go live.
	I'm going to have my office to myself.
	I'm going to have, most importantly, the bed to myself and my wife because for the last three and a half weeks, there have been no less than one kid in our bed at any given point in time where I've been sleeping on a mattress on the floor.
	Just so that I can sleep without a kid's heel in my face.
	Okay.
	With that said, people, Barnes is in the house.
	Oh, I missed one super chat.
	Sorry.
	Cheryl Gage says, glad you are enjoying your new life in America.
	It's going fast.
	I'm on a three-year visa and we're already finishing.
	We're ending up in year one of it.
	But I am hoping that Canada regains its right minds, although I'm not optimistic.
	I'm seeing what's going on there.
	Okay.
	Bring it in the Barnes, people.
	Three, two, one.
	Mr. Barnes, how goes the battle, sir?
	Good, good.
	Robert, first things first.
	Book, cigar, and what's the status for the upcoming Chattanooga event this weekend?
	Yeah, the book is Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips.
	The cigar is the tabernacle.
	And then the Saturday, this coming Saturday, be Chattanooga, Tennessee, the Riverboat Ramble.
	We've rented out a whole riverboat for part of it for the cruise and for the dinner catered dinner and then after that we'll have a live Podcast Hush Hush just for the members that are attending, though we'll record it and later make it available to people for annual subscribers and on a pay-per-view basis down the road.
	But yeah, that's scheduled for this Saturday, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for all those that have tickets.
	I got my flight coming in, and by the way, people, this is not the harmonica that I'm bringing.
	It's a terrible harmonica.
	I got a new harmonica, and I will be playing on the boat at some point.
	Okay, Robert, I guess we'll do a couple of stories on both Rumble and YouTube before we go over to Rumble exclusively.
	You want to give us a breakdown, a rundown of the menu tonight?
	Yeah, here's our top 21 topics.
	The most selected one was to discuss the Pentagon leaker at the poll at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But our top 21 topics include, in order of chronology, for those that want to...
	Know when we're going to cover certain things.
	First, what about if your city's name is sexist or racist?
	That's actually a lawsuit in California.
	Sanctuary policies are not necessarily racist, as an 11th Circuit determined about a Florida case.
	The Pentagon leaker.
	Megan Fox, the broadcaster, sues Wauwatosa School Board about censorship issues.
	It's a case I'm handling, so we'll be talking about that one.
	They got filed a couple weeks ago, actually, but got assigned to court and whatnot.
	Bunch stuff at Supreme Court.
	We got the abortion pill.
	We got right to sue federal agencies.
	We got the big employment case that's pending that will have a big impact on vaccine mandate cases and issues about jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies.
	The Trump indictment debate, kind of a leftover issue from last week, continued to precipitate discussion in terms of is the impeachment clause applicable to an ex-president?
	And I'll give my reasons for it.
	My response is to those who brought up criticisms.
	When do you know what the scope of the duty of the executive office is, the gap between the Covington case and the Trump case when it comes to libel?
	The Daniel Perry debate, Andrew Branca, had some contrarian takes on it.
	We'll discuss a little bit of that.
	Branca takes a few...
	He's taken the last two public debates rather seriously, rather personally, but it is fun and it's informative.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Absolutely.
	And there's a development of the Daniel Perry case, some post-trial motions for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
	Afghan seizures, the fascinating little case about a dispute.
	What happens when the Taliban seizes your stuff and who can you sue over it?
	The toxins from a defense plant, which is an ongoing issue involving defense plants in the United States.
	A baby rocker that was killing babies.
	One of the most popular baby rockers in America that has led to a range of suits currently.
	School equity policies.
	Loudoun County, back in the legal news, case up before the Fourth Circuit, about their attempts to rat out people for having the wrong views.
	People might be shocked to hear what your kids' views are that are considered racist that can get your kids' future docked in their public school file.
	AI chat GPT libel.
	Poisoning in Peru by U.S. mines and all the shenanigans that make the Donziger case look like almost small change by comparison.
	What's going on there?
	The Beverly Hills forfeiture involving Kuwaiti ministers of defense and major fraudsters and scam artists.
	The Alec Baldwin is seeking dismissal of another rust suit with a pretty interesting motion to dismiss.
	Yeah, she didn't love you that much after all, apparently is the defense.
	The contempt case was reversed about the misapplication of criminal contempt in state courts across America.
	Live streaming trials is an issue pending in Colorado.
	Colorado Supreme Court issued some guidance on that that will probably be impactful for future live streaming of trials.
	The Trump, there's the Uber driver, a gangbanger.
	What happens when your Uber driver is a gangbanger and flashing gang signs and you end up shot sitting in the back?
	The top two proposal that Montana is now trying to imitate from California that has the media all in a tizzy because they think it would work against them, unlike the way it's worked in California for them.
	And then a bonus, a Whole Foods cupcake.
	When a cupcake isn't what the cupcake said it was, and when they tried to hide behind FDA laws to escape liability and responsibility.
	So, Robert, there is, getting to the first subject, and we'll do one or two, and then we'll go over to Rumble.
	There is a town in Ontario called Swastika.
	It's actually right near Timmons, Ontario, which is the birthplace of Shania Twain.
	I drove through it.
	I've got to tell you, I was horrified when I saw that sign.
	I just kept on driving.
	Two funny stories that'll segue into this.
	Did you hear about this, Robert?
	This was out of Nova Scotia.
	The guy got a license plate, which some people thought was called GrabHer, and they thought it was a shout-out to Trump.
	The guy has a Germanic last name, which is GrabHer, and they actually took his license plate from him.
	He appealed the decision.
	It was not overturned.
	He applied to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear it.
	So this guy can't have his horrible Germanic last name on his Nova Scotia license plate.
	All that to jokingly segue into the racist names in California.
	Robert, what the heck is going on?
	So California passed a law that prohibits any community in California from using a name to identify itself that is racist or sexist.
	In particular, it has identified the use of the word squaw.
	So in Fresno, there's a place called Squaw Valley.
	And the city and the county of Fresno are suing the state of California because of all the expense it's going to incur trying to change all the maps, the signs, the markers, all the businesses that would have to change their names and locations.
	That it was like, this is going to be a huge expense.
	And nobody cares here in Fresno about the fact that it's called Squaw Valley.
	And they don't think the state of California has the authority to dictate this in the first place.
	But it shows you the signs of where things are going, that there's actually laws trying to pass on the books to prohibit the reference.
	Offensive.
	Offensive, yes.
	That's the new dictionary definition they've added to it.
	Now, it can mean other things, of course, but because they've said it's stereotypes, the state of California is trying to force an extraordinary amount of expense.
	On people just to go back and change their names to have politically correct names.
	You know, it's what Trump said all the way back during the Virginia debate, where he's like, where does this end exactly?
	This changing of names, these changing of statues, these changing of streets.
	Is it Thomas Jefferson next?
	Is George Washington next?
	Well, you know, apparently any reference that offends or upsets anybody is first on the agenda.
	So it's now a pending lawsuit by the county of Fresno whether the state of California has the legal authority to force people.
	Now, by the way, the Biden Department of Interior is doing the same thing, but they're limiting it to federal lands.
	But so they, for example, required changes of names of the Department of Interior near Squaw Valley or anything else so that they can remove the historical reference to it.
	And it's also this kind of attempt to obliterate history at times.
	I was just about to say that.
	It's like I was listening to a podcast on Joe Rogan.
	It was a surprisingly interesting one of somebody who used to be in the band for Nirvana, one of the other, Soundgarden, I think, and who went to the military.
	Went to Afghanistan.
	And, you know, as he's going through Afghanistan, you're coming across like ancient Greek ruins.
	They got into the discussion about how, you know, the Taliban blew up statues of the past, blew up the Greek-inspired statues of Buddha.
	And it's a question of, you know, it's sort of in another way exactly what they do when they do remake, redubs of old movies.
	And they try to destroy the old version, replace it with the new flavor of the day, the new cult of the day.
	And it's another method of tearing down statues, tearing down history, rewriting history by obliterating.
	It's a way of usurping culture and usurping history by deleting it and creating a new history.
	But the lawsuit is only over the costs, right?
	It's not over whether or not they can order this.
	It was the cost of changing the...
	No, it's challenging whether they can order it.
	I mean, the cost is why they're doing it.
	But they're saying the state of California has no authority to...
	To determine names of streets, neighborhoods, or communities unless it's on state land.
	And they're like, this is not, you know, it's obviously not, this isn't, you know, they can change all the state public parks they want.
	They can't tell you what name you can have for your community.
	And I think they have, the state of California hasn't yet, side of the suit's just been filed, but the state, I haven't heard any argument from the state of California as to why they have this authority in the first place of controlling names that are Just that are not part of state property.
	But it's the direction that things are going.
	This obliteration of the past, erasure of the past, politically correct terms for everything.
	It's part of a pattern of behavior.
	I know what this word is supposed to be.
	I have never heard of that place in Quebec.
	That I can understand.
	How the heck did that even get a name in the first place?
	All right.
	And now someone said it's a joke, you know, it's going to be a nine-hour stream.
	Robert, second topic, sanctuary policies not racist.
	I'm not up to date with this one.
	In which way are they not racist?
	Is it the policies to create sanctuary cities or the ones to destroy the sanctuary cities?
	It's near your neck of the woods.
	So the city of South Miami filed suit against the Governor DeSantis and other state officials in Florida because Florida passed a law that said Opposed sanctuary cities.
	It said no community in the state of Florida can refuse cooperation with federal law enforcement on issues of enforcing immigration law.
	And they sued, and they got a federal district court judge to agree with this suit, which was that banning sanctuary cities was racist.
	Federal judge was like, oh yes, that is so racist.
	That is so racist, you can't even do it.
	So a federal judge said that the state did not even have the legal authority to stop liberal jurisdictions from refusing to enforce federal law because doing so was racist.
	This gives you an idea for where liberal judges are going.
	It's this pure weaponization of their power without any limits by law whatsoever.
	We'll see that in several cases today.
	But to their credit, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
	One, that South Miami hadn't shown any injury from this law.
	They probably were suing the wrong people, and it didn't matter because this wasn't racist at all.
	This was just about enforcing the law, and consequently overturned that district court's decision and reinstated Florida state law limiting the ability for cities and counties within the state to ignore federal immigration law.
	I don't understand how this comes to be in the first place, that people don't appreciate sanctuary cities or cities where the local government says we are not going to respect or enforce federal law.
	And the argument, I presume the argument that they made, is that laws which have a disparate impact on specific minorities can be deemed to be racist by their outcome, if not by their intent, although typically the underlying assumption is that it was an implied intent.
	But here, there's no race to illegal immigrants.
	It's a status of citizenship that can span any race, religion, or creed.
	I mean, I don't even understand how they raised the argument in the first place and then get a judge that says, yeah, there's no federal law that applies state-wise.
	They claim disparate impact and they claimed it was all motivated to hurt people of a racial minority background.
	Even though clearly that's not at all what's going on.
	But it's just judges saying, we like these laws and we're going to come up with excuses to not allow the state, to not allow anybody to legislate differently.
	And luckily the 11th Circuit spotted how nonsensical that decision was and overturned it.
	But the fact that a district court judge even went along with this nonsense tells you where some district courts are going these days.
	All right, people.
	With that said.
	33 minutes and 33 seconds in, we're going to go...
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	One last super chat.
	We're about to cover the Pentagon leaker, but we'll do that on Rumble.
	Oh, we're doing that on Rumble.
	I got questions, Robert.
	Viva, wife and I are planning a trip to South Florida.
	Please put together a compilation of your best adventures of things to do.
	I trust your opinion.
	Absolutely screen grabbed.
	Head on over to Rumble, people, and I'll get those Rumble rants in a bit.
	And then afterwards, guys, we have an after Rumble party on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	See you on Rumble.
	In three, two, one, booyah.
	2,760 people should be making their way over.
	Robert!
	I feel stupid sometimes when I see a comment in the comment section that I say, like, why the hell didn't I think of that in the first place?
	And we'll get to that comment, which is prevalent, which I'm thoroughly convinced is the case now.
	Pentagon leaker.
	There are so many things to discuss of this subject.
	So for the last little while, for those who didn't know, there were these images, photographs, Classified information that had been circulating the internet for a few months now.
	And it started, I think, I don't think they knew originally where it came from, but it was on 4chan.
	And apparently this 21-year-old serviceman in the military allegedly got access to a bunch of classified documents, the bulk of which pertains to the war in Ukraine as relates to American strategy, morale, statistics, some of which also relates to Asia.
	Or I should say the relationship with China.
	I couldn't find enough breakdown of the actual leaked materials because all anybody wants to focus on is this guy's gaming habits, some memes that he put up a few years ago, some pro-gun thing that he has.
	But it's a 21-year-old serviceman who allegedly obtained this classified information and leaked it.
	It comes at a time...
	Well, let's just say.
	It comes at a time when the Restrict Act, that act that was intended to regulate TikTok but made no mention of TikTok but did talk about problematic social media content, when that debate is raging.
	It comes at a time now when the New York Times, in responding to this, apparently the biggest Pentagon leaked papers since Edward Snowden, which was the biggest since the Pentagon papers in Vietnam in the 70s, it's apparently some of the most devastating leaked material that...
	Has occurred in recent memory, which shows that Ukraine is not winning the war like military and media have been telling us, that although Russia might be taking two-to-one casualties, those are casualties they can sustain, and that Ukraine might be missing armaments.
	The war is not going as we have been led to believe it's been going.
	The New York Times, instead of addressing the substance of the leaks, delving in, seeking interviews with the leaker, Basically, dox the leaker, get him arrested, and revel in the fact that they got him arrested.
	Fox News is talking about the leaker's gaming predilections and not the substance of the leaks.
	Daily Mail is, as far as I've seen, basically one of the few mainstream outlets talking about it.
	I guess, Robert, starting on a scale of 1 to 10, or on an order of 1 to 10, do you see the correlation to the Restrict Act movement?
	The substance of the leaks themselves, are they devastating?
	And what are we doing in terms of criminalizing leaks?
	What is the difference between a bona fide leaker and a criminal hacker?
	Or does one imply the other but for good purpose?
	Take it away.
	Yeah, I'm not sure about the first one.
	In terms of the substance of the documents, not a lot was shocking in there.
	I mean, so I don't think it's anything that...
	I mean, it's disputed as to what's an accurate rendition of what's in those documents and what isn't.
	And even there, there's a lot of information in those documents that's still misleading in a lot of respects.
	So I mostly found that inconsequential outside of confirming a few things that was broadly understood to be true by the closer observers of what was taking place.
	So to me, the biggest consequence is just that the deep state continues to prioritize.
	That it's completely okay to leak information that's supposed to be secret, whether from a grand jury or from any kind of military or intelligence community, as long as it serves the interest of the deep state.
	So Vindman can leak like a sieve.
	All kinds of people can go against Trump and leak like sieves and face no consequences ever.
	Indeed, mostly get promoted, get book deals, get to appear on TV shows, etc.
	Whereas if someone leaks something that embarrasses the deep state, that's not deep state approved, they bring down the whole system against them.
	And now they have the overt, open complicity of the establishment press to facilitate the targeting and punishment of whistleblowers.
	To me, what should always be consequential is the person...
	Exposing secrets that we should be entitled to know.
	True, the only thing I believe that should ever be classified, and I'm skeptical of classification designations, period, because it is far more likely that classification labels will be used to keep bad secrets hidden than to keep good secrets true.
	Through the long history of humankind and the nature of power, this was Julian Assange's point, most evil deeds depend upon secrecy.
	Removed secrecy and a lot of evil deeds just can't even happen in the first place.
	And here, there's nothing he disclosed here that should have been classified in the first place.
	The only thing that should be classified is...
	How you make a bomb.
	You know, I mean, certain proprietary military technology, certain ongoing, immediate occurring secret military, maybe, and there even maybe.
	I mean, like, in the name of secrecy, all the critics of Julian Assange wanted to excuse murder.
	That's what they wanted to do.
	Oh, it's very important we keep our murder secret because it's in the name of the country and the flag.
	Those people don't know what the flag stands for and don't know what America was founded upon.
	It wasn't for your war-whoring, militaristic pals.
	So what this kid did was, assuming he did it, I think there's reasonable questions about are our classification labels so loose and weak internally that any part-time guardsman could get them?
	Well, Bradley Manning already proved that was the case.
	So that should not surprise people in that sense.
	What it tells you is that a lot of this shouldn't be classified in the first place.
	And there definitely shouldn't be selective criminal prosecution of people who are disclosing information that are in the public interest to be disclosed that shouldn't have been classified in the first place.
	They should have whistleblower protections in the law because what will happen now is they'll never get a fair trial.
	He'll be denied bail in all likelihood.
	The trial probably will take place in the Northern District of Virginia, where in the name of secrecy, they'll hide all kinds of information from the defense, hide information from the jury, hide information from the public.
	He won't get an impartial trial.
	Nobody does in a national security context.
	And it's all this voodoo stuff that didn't even exist before 1947, largely.
	Most of these classification designations are a deep state invention.
	I've never been a fan of them.
	It's all crap.
	The idea that our powerful leaders have to keep secrets from us for our own good.
	When does that work out for our good?
	You've got to be an idiot to buy that.
	Just so no one accuses anybody of strawmanning anything, one of the allegations about the leaked documents is that it shows maps or strategy for an upcoming spring offensive which could compromise Ukraine's ability.
	Good, good, good.
	Yeah, so don't do it.
	Don't do any more stupid wars.
	That's what the Pentagon Papers disclosed.
	It disclosed all kinds of details about Vietnam.
	And the media used to be a champion of that.
	Now they're not, because they're just the deep state stenographers and little workers.
	I mean, that's who they work for.
	I mean, that's who their true employee is these days, as Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out.
	But this isn't information.
	Why should that be kept secret?
	I don't think that should be kept secret.
	We're not in war.
	Right?
	There's no congressional declaration of war.
	Even then, I'm just not, you know, all these national secrets work to our detriment more than our benefit.
	So I just don't buy outside of very unique situations.
	We're not at war, except what this leak apparently also disclosed, if we assume that it's accurate, is that there are a lot of NATO soldiers or British soldiers on ground.
	They've been hiding that.
	Anybody who's been an astute observer, whether you follow the Duran or others, this has been known for a year.
	It's been known for a while.
	It's only the people who live in La La Land about Ukraine.
	If you're a war whore like Sebastian Gorka, then yeah, sure, you buy the nonsense and the gibberish.
	But if you have a geopolitical IQ over 100, or just over 60, then you knew all this was going on.
	I mean, it's only our politicians and the suckers and the saps and the people who watch the Fox News other than Tucker Carlson who buy this idiotic...
	Nonsense that might be shocked by the discovery of what's really going on.
	But these are the kind of people who still think Lee Harvey Oswald solely and wholly killed John F. Kennedy.
	They believe some of the dumbest stuff on the planet.
	They're people who are just too dumb to be meaningfully part of the public discussion and dialogue and debate.
	It's been obvious for a while.
	What this guy did, it appears that what he did is just...
	Confirm some things.
	Assuming the allegations are true.
	There's reasons to doubt that the allegations are true.
	There's reasons to suspect he's been set up.
	There's reasons that somebody else is who leaked this.
	I mean, because somebody's been leaking information against the war now for a year.
	People that are inside the deep state that think the war is dumb.
	Kissinger is publicly on record saying it's dumb.
	A bunch of people think it's dumb, not just...
	Colonel McGregor and others have said, look, you can agree with all, you can hate Russia all you want, you can believe all the nonsense about Ukraine.
	They were busy bombing churches on Easter.
	That's what Ukraine was doing.
	Busy bombing churches on Easter.
	Those are the people that all the war whores out there are celebrating.
	They're the bottom of the barrel.
	They're one step ahead of Nazis and that's it.
	I mean, they're as bottom, they're worse than communists.
	The Ukrainian, Zelensky's regime.
	They violate pretty much every right that exists that we care about in America.
	Right to press, right of speech, right of religion, you name it, they're violating it on a daily basis.
	And this is who we're supposed to be locking up people for, is for exposing the secrets of our government's complicity in this unjustified, unlawful war?
	I don't think so.
	Well, and Robert, people are going to say, because they've actually said, if you can believe the stupidity.
	If Russia gets confirmation that there are NATO soldiers, British soldiers on the ground, that could escalate to World War III.
	They already know that.
	They've been saying that for a year.
	They've been saying that for 10 years.
	I mean, they blame the West for all of this.
	They blame NATO for all of this.
	So none of this will change Russia at all.
	I mean, Russia already, not its military strategies or tactics or anything else.
	I mean, it knew what was coming and how it was coming and where it was coming from.
	And it's reacted accordingly.
	And it's not going to change the military reality on the ground.
	Ukraine can't win over the long haul.
	They can just delay things and wipe out half their young male population.
	Which they're on pace to do.
	That's about it.
	It's more that the deep state believes it should alone control the narrative.
	And that the media should be its stenographer, not its investigator.
	And that its politicians should be its supplicants, not its critics.
	And that's what this kid is caught up in the middle of.
	Whether he's a patsy or the real deal, he's just exposing it one level.
	The fraud in our system, whichever he is.
	Doesn't matter whether he's a patsy or he's the guy that blew the whistle.
	His targeting is about keeping up the puppet show so that the naked emperor of our military-industrial complex stays hidden from the view of the ordinary average sap.
	And there was some discussion about whether or not the documentation that was allegedly leaked is even authentic.
	Some people are saying it's patently demonstrably false on its face.
	But then I did read some other reports that some of the information had been falsified or modified after.
	That's the end of Russia house, right?
	How do you deal with when your secrets get leaked?
	You tell people they aren't really their secrets, that they're actually faked or hacked or whatever.
	Now, of course, that would be a problem for them because they got to prove that these are their...
	The fact that they've arrested this person...
	It confirms the authenticity of the documents.
	Reuters went out and told everybody when these documents first came out that it was Russian disinformation.
	So once again, the media gets caught lying again, blaming something on Russia that has nothing to do with Russia, trying to hide the secrets of the deep state.
	Greenwald, I think, has been the most shocked by it, just in the sense that he goes to see the media so openly, so overtly, so proudly being the deep state's little B-word.
	You could say.
	It shows that our media is a complete disgrace.
	It's always been.
	It's just now more open and overt than it's ever been before.
	What's unusual is they're bragging about it.
	Look at how I'm the CIA's little stenographer.
	That's what the New York Times is.
	The New York Times has always really been that.
	It's just now more egregiously and overtly so than ever before.
	I was going to pull up the article, but go look at the New York Times article.
	They were happy to identify him and relish in him being arrested.
	And one of the reporters admitted that if he had leaked it to them, they would have tried to hide his identity.
	So it's only about ego.
	It's not about investigative reporting.
	Now, someone in the chat in Rumble said, we'll get to the Rumble right, said, look up Operation Mincemeat.
	Have you heard of this, Robert?
	It was a successful British deception operation of the Second World War to disguise the 1943 Allied invasion of Sicily.
	Yeah, they made a movie about it.
	I think they even made a couple of movies about it.
	I've seen a movie recently about it.
	I mean, there's been a bunch of those disinformation campaigns, and there's some people wondering whether that's what's going on.
	It looked to me when the documents were initially leaked that it confirmed what McGregor and other people had already been saying.
	So that the casualties are much higher on the Ukrainian side, that Ukraine doesn't have much of an air force at all at this point, that they're militarily disadvantaged against Russia, that it would require something extraordinary to do it, that the U.S. and NATO...
	Are really running Ukraine's military strategy, not Ukraine's general.
	This was all known by anybody.
	Michael Tracy, who we interviewed for Sidebar, was there in Poland when he saw all these people organizing everything.
	I mean, he reported it at the time, all the way back in March and April of last year.
	So this is only news to the people that are still in denial, people that still think the New York Times tells the truth, the Defense Department tells the truth, that your average Fox News person tells the truth on matters of foreign policy.
	No, they've been lying.
	If their lips are moving, they're lying.
	And basically, they're just the deep states reminding everybody by going so harsh on this individual that they're in control of the media apparatus, their control of our legal apparatus, and that only the...
	And there needs to be meaningful, robust whistleblower protections in America.
	Because these people often disclose secrets that we should be entitled to know.
	Are our politicians lying to us?
	That's not something they should be able to keep a secret about.
	Keeping a secret about a particular operation that's U.S. soldiers during war, okay, then I get it.
	But that should be limited.
	It shouldn't be about plans months from now, about illicitly being involved in a war we're not supposed to be in.
	Well, that's what people say.
	It's wartime.
	They need to keep...
	Propaganda is justified in wartime.
	People operate on these premises which are so fundamentally undemocratic.
	Well, it's war.
	We expect to be lied to.
	First casualty of truth is war.
	Yeah, of course they want to hide the fact that they're not winning the war.
	They want to hide the fact that the war is not winnable.
	And the media starts running with these stats, like, you know, two to one casualty from Russia to Ukraine.
	Ignoring the population difference in the army size and the history of Russia.
	There was other data that was leaked that said the ratio was 5 to 1 of Ukrainian soldiers dying to Russian soldiers.
	Which is more consistent with McGregor and others that were reported.
	And when BBC did an obituary study...
	That's some of the data they came back with.
	Some of the lies have been some of the most half-assed, midwit, nitwit lies that anybody with any familiarity militarily, strategically, geopolitically knew these lies by the West were just kind of preposterous.
	The only people who could believe them are the same people who think incubator babies were really killed in Kuwait in 1991.
	That still think those nukes were just hidden really deep in the desert by Saddam Hussein.
	It's your Bill Mitchells of the world.
	You know, the people who didn't even qualify to ride the short bus to school.
	I once believed the weapons of mass destruction.
	And when it turned out to be a lie, then I was like, oh, well, they had Scud missiles.
	Those are weapons of mass destruction.
	All right.
	Before we move on, I think we've covered everything on the Pentagon leaker.
	Let me just read a few rumble rants here.
	Philip J. Fry says you're...
	My favorite part of Sunday, henceforth every Sunday, shall be known as Friday.
	Nice.
	That's $10 from Philip J. Fry.
	Grandpas Place says, a government by the people and for the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people.
	Beautiful.
	$10 from Barb Loves Alaska.
	For Robert, please explain qualified immunity in regards to radical Soros DAs.
	Can those qualified immunity be removed from those attorneys?
	And how?
	We're going to get to that.
	That dovetails into a topic we have on tonight.
	Big...
	Something Energens.
	Sorry.
	Fun fact.
	They used tilapia skin in neovaginoplasty surgery.
	Salty certified fact.
	Enjoy your next fish supper.
	Will do.
	And Mandatory Carry says, don't read out loud in Repentagon Leaks.
	Look at Operation Mincemeat.
	Jojo 20, Jojo 2Q2Q.
	Have you seen this?
	Florida Republican rep, Wesley Barnaby, directly compares trans people to mutant X-Men.
	Haven't seen that.
	Mandatory carry being necessary to the security of a free state.
	The duty to keep and bear arms shall not be enforced.
	Keep fighting.
	Okay.
	Viva, please read.
	Please confirm if topic discussed about the Pentagon leaks is legally viewed by holders of security approvals.
	Not dictating what you can, do not, just wish to know if I should step away.
	Well, it's too late for that.
	This is all public information, so there can't be anything wrong with that.
	Mandatory carry says, had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment, a well-protected public.
	Okay.
	Robert, Megan Fox, Loudoun County, back in the news.
	What's going on?
	Oh, so this one's Wauwatosa.
	Yeah, we'll get to Loudoun County in a bit.
	So Megan Fox, she's been on Nick Ricada.
	She does a lot of independent content creation, independent news journalist and broadcaster.
	Wauwatosa in Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee.
	Their school system was proposing a new gender sex education policy for the entire school.
	It was very controversial because it was very graphic.
	It was very pornographic in certain instances.
	And the question is, is this really for the schools?
	I mean, this is the schools usurping their role to be acculturation institutions rather than educational institutions.
	You dig into history.
	That's actually the whole history of American public education.
	But it's just getting more egregious and more controversial as it reaches into sort of the left's favorite cultural issues on race and gender and identity and sexual behavior in ways that are upsetting and offending people all across the country.
	So the school board had a meeting.
	The school board has to meet a couple times a month.
	Its goal, its primary objective is to engage the public at those meetings.
	And at the meeting, first a person spoke up, a person who helped organize gays against groomers, which wanted to distinguish people who are adult, people who are gay, from people who go around trying to groom children into sexual behaviors or gender preferences as children.
	They oppose that, and they don't like the conflation of gay behavior with groomer behavior.
	Even though it's been a controversial subtopic in parts of the gay men community for a little while, in terms of how common that is or is not.
	But they wanted to speak out, and the board wouldn't let the person speak out, the school board, unless they gave their full address.
	Home residents.
	Shut the front door.
	And then the school board cut off, didn't like all these people complaining, so just cut them off.
	Said, well, we'll come back to you later.
	The rationale for demanding the address is to make sure that they are actually residents of the county so that they have the right to speak.
	No, that's not a requirement to be a speaker of the board at all.
	It's just a unilateral, very selectively enforced provision of the board.
	So it has no connection.
	To the board in terms of being a community, you don't have to be a community member.
	You can be from anywhere, any place in the world, and you just submit your opportunity to speak.
	You have a maximum of three minutes, and the whole point is to allow you to be critical of the individuals, and it's a public forum, a limited public forum, but a public forum, for the purpose of public discussion and public debate.
	And that was their first thing, was coming up with a selective doxing of dissident speakers.
	Then the second thing was they cut everybody off and said, we're not going to let a bunch of people speak until the very end, change the schedule so as to make it so that they had to wait forever to talk and not as many would be heard.
	And then the third thing they did is when Megan Fox did talk, they cut her off mid-time.
	Again, all you get is three minutes.
	Cut her off midway through.
	Made defamatory false statements about her, that this was somehow being offensive or intrusive.
	The person who did it, the clerk, didn't even have authority under the clerk's own rules to do it.
	And it's all because the school board has these very broad policies that say, you can't criticize us by name.
	You can't do anything that basically we don't like.
	If we call it offensive or immaterial or irrelevant, which of course basically is so vague.
	That the rules themselves are content-based.
	In other words, it's based on the content of what you say.
	Not when you say it, not where you say it, not how you say it, but the content of what you say.
	And even though they've provided this limited public forum, they don't want people criticizing them.
	They don't want people criticizing their policies.
	And so they either dox them, pause them, or cut them off entirely and defame them.
	And all that violates First Amendment rights.
	So Megan Fox filed suit in federal district court.
	I'm one of the lawyers of record.
	They're in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, going to depend in Milwaukee Division before Judge Stattmuller, because what Wauwatosa School Board is doing, what a bunch of other school boards are trying to do, in a limited public forum...
	You cannot have content-based speech restrictions, and you definitely can't have vague restrictions that are selectively enforced for politically discriminatory viewpoint-based purposes, which is precisely what's happening here.
	Imagine creating a public forum to criticize policies and personnel and politicians and not allow them to call you by name.
	You can't talk about, you can't say my name out loud.
	I can demand your personal home address.
	But me, the politician, you can't even say your name.
	My name can't even come out of your lips.
	It's not to say they get what they deserve, but they're supposed to be public servants.
	They're public servants doing a public forum for public debate, and they're trying to control it.
	They want it to be a mythical debate.
	They want it to look like people affirming them, not critiquing them.
	We have the same problem in Canada.
	My brother, who's gotten quite active, quite vocal for these...
	Toronto, the greater Toronto area, what were they doing?
	It's about vaccine policies.
	And they try to limit the amount of time you can speak.
	They try to limit physical showing up.
	They don't want to have it open to the public physically.
	And you end up having a government that operates in total secrecy.
	You end up having school boards that operate in total secrecy.
	And they're just cutting off people.
	At one point they decide, you're not going to have as much time as we initially said.
	For you to say your piece.
	It's a way to govern in secrecy.
	It's terrible.
	So what is the status of the lawsuit in which you are attorney of record?
	Yes, we filed three claims, First Amendment violations.
	One, a facial claim, that the rules themselves violate the First Amendment because they're viewpoint-based.
	Secondly, an as-applied claim, because as you clearly hear, I mean, what they did, she was appearing by Zoom, which is how they preferred.
	They just muted her.
	Right?
	Pretended that they were listening when no one can hear what she said.
	And it was clearly based on the content of what she said.
	She said nothing offensive.
	She said nothing improper, rude, obnoxious, anything like that.
	Even if those rules were constitutional, which I don't believe they are.
	And in fact, other people had used curse words and been rude and obnoxious, but they liked their politics, so they let them say whatever they wanted.
	It was viewpoint-based, that she was being critical of the policies and the board's handling of the policies, involving what the...
	Board meeting was supposed to be about in the first place.
	And then third, a challenge because the threat to docs people say you must disclose your personal address if we demand it, if we don't like the nature of your speech, chilled speech.
	And so we brought a three-fold First Amendment challenge before the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
	There's case law that supports all of that.
	A public official running a limited public forum does not have the right to have viewpoint-based discriminatory rules or viewpoint-based discriminatory enforcement or content-based rules pretty much at all, unless they're narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest of which none of these rules are.
	And now, Robert, let me see if I have not found...
	Is this one of the videos?
	All right.
	Hello, my name is Megan Fox, and I'll tell you why I'm not going to give you my address.
	For one, I just read your Wisconsin Rules of Open Meetings Act.
	It's a law.
	And the law in Wisconsin is that the public has a right to participate in your meetings, and nowhere in it does it say that anyone has to dox themselves online in order to participate in a public meeting.
	I want you to know that school boards like yourselves have been sued successfully before in the past for doing this.
	It's considered an intimidation technique.
	Now, you can sigh and put your face in your hands, but you need to listen to me when I tell you that you can be sued for what you're doing.
	You are violating people's rights.
	And what you did today, by cutting off public comment in the beginning of the meeting when you had a full house of people who wanted to speak to you, and you made them wait two hours and most of them had to go home because they had to work jobs tomorrow or because they had to get kids somewhere or because they had to go home and get dinner.
	What you did...
	Is violating the public's First Amendment rights to address their public bodies for grievances.
	It is a violation of the Constitution, and you should each be ashamed.
	Sharon, you should be ashamed of yourself.
	Leanne, you should be ashamed of yourself.
	Michael, you should be ashamed of yourself.
	And you too, Jenny, and you too, Jessica.
	And let me tell you something else.
	When people use names in front of your school board, and they come in and they say, I want to talk to you about a specific person on the board, you are not allowed to tell them.
	That is illegal.
	What you are doing is against the Wisconsin Open Meetings Act.
	Now, listen, I have three minutes, and I know that my time is not up.
	You are not to interrupt me while I am speaking.
	This is public comment time, and I'm a member of the public.
	You can sit there and be as uncomfortable as you want, but I have this three minutes.
	So listen to me, Michael.
	When you are talking to people, when they're talking to people.
	You are put into this position, by the way, by the people of this town.
	They are your first priority.
	Where are you?
	They are your first priority.
	They are the people you're responsible to.
	Why would you mute me?
	My three minutes are not up.
	Unbelievable and fantastic.
	Okay.
	And you can tell by their facial expressions.
	These are people that are used to violating the law, used to ignoring public complaint.
	They see this as an annoyance and an irritation and agitation, not part of their public duties and obligations, both under the law and under the terms and conditions of their election.
	These are compensated members of the public office.
	And they handled it disgracefully and in violation of the First Amendment.
	I bring civil rights suits all the time in Wisconsin because there's some government somewhere in the state always violating the law.
	And so this is just the latest in that line of it.
	But credit to Megan Fox for wanting and willing to pursue the case.
	Credit to her for not losing her temper because I think I would have lost my temper.
	I think people would have heard the vibration of rage in the voice.
	So you look for permanent injunction, declaratory judgment, and damage to the attorney's fees, all that.
	Just to stop this from happening again, make them write a check to discourage and deter them from doing so, and use it as a precedent.
	Other school boards across the country so they get the message that no, they don't get to control this.
	Well, from your mouth to their ears, or I should say from the lawsuit's mouth to their ears.
	Okay.
	That's fantastic.
	Scheduling?
	What's the timeframe on these?
	Oh, they'll come in.
	They'll probably try to file a motion to dismiss.
	We should prevail on that.
	Then we get to some discovery.
	A lot of this is relatively straightforward in terms of what happened in the law.
	So to me, it would go quickly to summary judgment of the judge.
	It's pretty clear, I think, that we should win in our favor.
	If the court thinks there's some factual dispute, then go to a jury trial.
	And maybe up to the Seventh Circuit, depending.
	Usually the local governments are always irrationally...
	Refuse to resolve the matter without, you know, forcing you to go through it.
	They often think they can exhaust the opposing side's willingness to litigate by litigating assertively themselves.
	That's been my experience in Wisconsin.
	So we may have to go through that.
	That'll be fine.
	Oh, by the end, at the end of the day, the precedent will be established that jurisdictions, school boards cannot do this.
	City councils, county commissions cannot do this.
	They have public forums.
	They cannot have rules that allow them to discriminate based on the content of speech in a viewpoint discriminatory manner.
	Without it being strictly, narrowly tailored to compelling purpose.
	And that, of course, is clearly not present here.
	It's obvious why they hit the mute button.
	And now, maybe it's not such a good segue, but...
	Ask SCOTUS!
	The question about qualified immunity earlier.
	Who are you suing in this case?
	Prosecutors have almost complete immunity, as we discussed last week.
	Oh, no, no.
	I mean, in terms of the school board.
	Can they say, you can't see me personally?
	Oh, the school board?
	No.
	This is a 1983 suit.
	And this was...
	I suppose they could try to claim that their policies are a different thing, but they might claim that in the individual case that they didn't know what their First Amendment restrictions were, that that won't fly.
	There was an existing case law in the Seventh Circuit on this precise topic.
	It won't have much application here.
	The person who asked whether the fact someone, the Soros DA, will that change anything?
	No, they all have immunity.
	It's almost impossible to sue a prosecutor in America.
	Thanks to courts, by the way.
	It's unbelievable.
	Okay, maybe we'll get back to his lawsuit against Jim Jordan.
	Robert, what do you have there, if I may ask?
	Oh, Virgil's Zero Sugar Root Beer.
	Oh my god, that went from interesting to not...
	Maybe it's good, maybe it's good.
	Okay, SCOTUS, what's the latest, Robert?
	I don't think I'm up to speed on all of them, but what are the latest cases?
	Well, the biggest case, the case they issued this week, the opinion they issued this week, but the biggest, and then there was the stay that they got involved with on the abortion pill, a couple of other smaller cases about jurisdiction and exhaustion.
	But one of the cases everybody's watching is a big religious discrimination case because it will impact all the vaccine mandate cases.
	So what the law is is that you can't discriminate against someone in employment.
	Based on race, religion, sex, natural origin, etc., including religion.
	The definition of religion says that you must reasonably accommodate someone's religious objection unless it would impose, quote, an undue hardship, unquote, on the business.
	Years ago, right after the law was passed, the undue hardship provision wasn't in the law itself yet.
	It was just an interpretation of it.
	The U.S. Supreme Court, the corporate Republicans, the Rehnquist types on the U.S. Supreme Court, basically eviscerated the religious protection and said, undue hardship just means something more than a de minimi burden.
	It was kind of a throwaway line.
	It wasn't particularly pertinent or material to the decision.
	It's been properly recognized by many justices as dicta and not binding on lower courts, but lower courts have rushed to it.
	To enable businesses to discriminate on religious grounds by just saying it's by showing any kind of employment burden, regardless of whether it's a hardship and regardless of whether it is an undue hardship.
	The same phraseology appears in other parts of civil rights laws and other federal laws and has been uniformly defined by either Congress or the courts in those other contexts.
	As requiring a substantial and significant expense.
	In other words, a hardship is something that's uniquely difficult, not just ordinarily difficult.
	And the undue provision makes it look at your particular business.
	And if you're like a really big business, how much of a hardship is it really to accommodate someone's religious?
	To not have to choose between their job or the benefits of their job and their religion.
	And many justices, back in the day it was the liberal justices who complained about this.
	Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan said this interpretation made no sense.
	After that, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have all said this interpretation makes no sense.
	They finally got at least a fourth justice to accept the case, a case called Groff against the U.S. Postmaster, who wanted to take off for the Sabbath, basically.
	And the Postal Office said, well, that is inconvenient for other employees that have to cover your shift.
	And the federal court said, okay, no jury trial.
	That's an undue burden, undue hardship.
	And this is the one the Supreme Court took.
	The belief is the Supreme Court's going to finally clarify that undue hardship does not mean some more than a de minimi burden, but it means the same thing.
	It means in every other legal context the phrase is used and in its common sense definition, which is how they're supposed to be interpreting this statute, which is a significant and substantial expense given the employer's size, scale, and resources.
	So it can take into consideration if you're a small business and you can't meet the religious accommodation and still run a profitable business, okay.
	In that case, you can discriminate on religious grounds because it's economically necessary.
	But that's not most of these cases.
	And in almost all the vaccine mandate cases, every employer knows that if the Supreme Court reverses these prior decisions and clarifies that they need a substantial burden, they're going to lose every single one of these cases.
	That's very interesting.
	But that would only be going forward for vaccine mandates.
	It applies backwards.
	Retrospective.
	Well, okay.
	Because it's about what the law mean and not about a change in the law or anything else.
	So what does the law mean?
	And the law means it should have always meant the same thing all the way through.
	What the Supreme Court should do is say that was dictum.
	That was not binding precedent.
	There's reasons why, even if it was.
	It should be clarified anyway.
	They weren't even interpreting the statute at the time because the statute didn't exist at that time, that part of the statute.
	They were just interpreting some EEOC guidelines.
	But they should interpret it in the way the law was written in so that people's rights are protected.
	Now, the Supreme Court has issued a big decision on administrative agencies, which we'll get to in a second.
	There were two other smaller decisions, three other, I should say, Wilkins, Perez, and the abortion pill.
	So the abortion pill case we discussed last week where a federal district court said the abortion pill violated a bunch of laws and rules, including the APA's own Administrative Procedures Act rules, the FDA's own rules, violated other federal law like the Comstock Act in allowing abortion pills to be transported to interstate mail.
	Everybody panicked in the media, in the abortion industry, on the pro-choice side, and the rest.
	And in fact, tons of people were calling me saying, based on this decision, doesn't this mean they should overturn the results in my cases against the FDA brought with Robert Kennedy against...
	On behalf of Children's Health Defense, because the same logic would say, if these folks have a right to overturn, don't you have a right to overturn FDA when the FDA violates its own rules and regulations?
	So there was panic by the drug industry.
	They went screaming panic at the FDA.
	The Fifth Circuit stepped in and said, well, on statute of limitations grounds, we're going to say that part of the court's injunction we're going to set aside for now.
	But everything about what the government has done since 2016, what Obama administration did and what the Biden administration did, that all those injunctions are going to stay in place because they noted how unusual, I think their exact quote was how, quote, exceedingly unusual, that was the exact quote, regime, this approval of this abortion drug was.
	How they violated just all the rules in pushing it because it was about politics, not about, Again, they shouldn't be in the medicine business anyway.
	Just to pause there, do they not get to rely on the fact that it's been legal in Europe forever and therefore that's somehow a de facto justification?
	It has no impact.
	I mean, so the FDA has to go through a certain process.
	The FDA never went through that process is the short answer.
	Now, to me, what should be happening is the FDA should only be talking about labeling.
	And they shouldn't be in this business, period.
	And states should be able to decide whether to the degree you allow it.
	I'm not a big fan of the government being involved in controlling what medicine you can take, period.
	I think they have to, at a minimum, they should have to go to a certain high level before they say they can limit who has access to what you can put in your body somehow being a government's choice.
	I'm just generally not.
	Don't think that's a good idea.
	But even if you did, I think that should be a state-level decision, not a federal decision.
	The FDA is supposed to be a labeling agency.
	But that ship has sailed.
	The courts just ignore all those legal limits anyway.
	So even if we're going to pretend the FDA is this super medical agency, the pharmacist for the world, they still had to follow certain protocols they didn't follow here.
	They didn't meet their own legal standards.
	Remember, they disguised this as an emergency pandemic drug.
	That's how the abortion pill got approved.
	The abortion pill has never gone through the problem.
	And the reason why it just kind of can't, because it can't meet certain standards, it can't meet certain tests, it can't meet certain limits.
	Is it something that's in big demand?
	Yes.
	Is it something that I think that a lot of states would likely approve if states had legal control?
	Yes.
	However...
	It hasn't met federal standards for labeling it for certain purposes.
	Or if you're going to call them the pharmacist for the world, it hasn't met that standard either.
	And that's their problem.
	And then they've continued to expand and increase it, ignoring clinical studies.
	They just go in and do whatever the politics tells them to do.
	And it's obvious.
	And judges who dig into the record are shocked by how egregious the record is.
	They shouldn't be.
	But, you know, because of what the FDA does routinely.
	I mean, one out of all three drugs the FDA tells the world is safe, they have to recall a few years later because it wasn't safe.
	I mean, they have one of the worst track records in history.
	You know, we should get rid of them.
	We shouldn't even have a food and drug industry.
	It's failed.
	It's clear it's failed.
	Get rid of them altogether.
	If you can't make sure a vaccine is safe, you're totally useless.
	And that's what the FDA is.
	The Fifth Circuit said part of the injunction can stay in place.
	The Supreme Court stepped in and set aside the injunction entirely for a few days, pending emergency briefs being filed in the Supreme Court.
	Justice Alito issued that decision.
	So we'll see what happens.
	The big panic is not just the politics of the abortion pill.
	The big panic is the FDA does this routinely.
	And all the drug companies are like, please don't let people expose how dangerous our drugs are and how the FDA is a crock by allowing them to be able to sue.
	That's what they're screaming bloody murder about.
	If they can sue, then Barnes and Kennedy can sue.
	These other people can sue.
	That's what they want to stop.
	And ask yourself, if these things are so safe, why are they so scared of a jury trial?
	I mean, that should tell you everything about what's really going on.
	They're hiding the evidence.
	The FDA is a crock, a complete embarrassment.
	If the public really understood how unreliable and untrustworthy they are, they wouldn't be able to trust any drug on the market if they're depending on the FDA's licensing or marketing of its approval in the first place.
	So we'll see.
	Now the two other Supreme Court cases, briefly, Wilkins and Perez.
	Wilkins involved land in Montana.
	Federal government said they had an easement across this dude's land.
	People just kept trespassing all the time.
	Apparently killed the dude's cat.
	He's like, screw this.
	I don't think you do have my easement over my land.
	Sued.
	The federal government said, ah, you didn't sue soon enough.
	Hold on a second.
	Was the easement for government accessing whatever or for the general public?
	Oh, that's a way to deprive someone of enjoyment of their private property.
	Yeah, hence he brought a suit to quiet title.
	But if it's the federal government that caused the easement, you have to sue within 12 years.
	The federal government said that the statute of limitations was jurisdictional, so the court couldn't even entertain any substantive arguments about the statute of limitations, about whether there might be other defenses applicable or exceptions applicable because it was a jurisdictional requirement.
	The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, said, no, it's not a jurisdictional requirement.
	A processing claim doesn't take away the federal court's authority unless it specifically says it does.
	And this is a place where I agree with the majority, disagree with Thomas and Alito in dissent, because there's too many times they're coming up with excuses for why federal courts don't have jurisdiction.
	The Perez case was a kid who got screwed over by a school, sued under the IDEA law.
	The disabilities and education law.
	Got injunctive relief because they were trying to prevent him from graduating.
	Then he sued under the ADA after he settled the IDEA claim.
	They're like, oh, he can't sue.
	And the federal court, he has to exhaust his remedies under the IDEA, and he settled that.
	And the Supreme Court correctly said, no, the IDEA laws don't provide for compensatory damages.
	The Americans with Disabilities Act does.
	And so you don't have to go through this exhaustion nonsense when you couldn't have pursued that remedy in the first place.
	That was a good decision, reaffirming the power of access to the courts, which is what all of these cases have in common.
	And that led to the big case about access to the courts, the Axon case involving when can you sue an administrative agency?
	When the very act of what the administrative agency is doing violates your constitutional rights, do you have to go begging to the administrative agency first for them to fix the problem?
	What if the constitutional violation is the administrative process of that administrative agency, where they're combining prosecutorial and adjudative authority in the hands of the same person?
	This relates to a case we talked about over a year ago, back when it was at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, about the lady who was Where the process was the punishment.
	She brought suit saying these ALJs are not even constitutionally approved, violates balance of separation of powers, violates the president's rights to control their employment.
	It violates due process.
	The process itself is the punishment.
	So this involved the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FTC.
	Unanimous decision.
	of the United States Supreme Court.
	Some concurrences by Gorsuch and Thomas that I think are correct.
	They would have gone further.
	Thomas, to his great credit, said if it involves private injury to private property concerning private rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, the Seventh Amendment says that can never go to the administrative process.
	He's right about that.
	The rest of the Supreme Court has eviscerated that during the peak of the New Deal era.
	They just greenlit this whole bureaucratic monstrosity that has usurped the power of the jury.
	So I agree with Thomas in his concurrent.
	Same with Gorsuch about the law should be interpreted to always presume jurisdiction unless explicitly and expressly says otherwise.
	But at least unanimously, they agreed that if you're challenging the process itself, if your challenge is a structural challenge, Then you do not have to go through, you don't have to experience the process when the process itself is the problem.
	So a very good ruling that effectively guts the power of the administrative state in a lot of areas where they have been getting away with carte blanche.
	Well, we'll see what the ripple effect of that is.
	But Robert, I just messaged out on Rumble that we have breaking news and it's actual breaking news.
	Hold on, hold on.
	I'm going to bring it up here.
	Oh no, that's James O 'Keefe.
	Actual breaking news, people.
	This is coming from Pleb the Reporter.
	That's a joke.
	I don't know what a journalist is anymore, but Pleb is someone I know on Twitter.
	He just reported, the CBC is now labeled as government-funded media.
	We won.
	I double-checked it.
	This is true.
	CBC on Twitter now.
	Look at this, people.
	I gotta tell you something.
	I made the joke that Elon Musk heard this and he loves me.
	It's a joke, but this actually does make me feel good.
	This makes me feel like being something of a loud ass on Twitter and social media in a respectful but deliberately mocking manner.
	It yields results, and this is good.
	Now, Elon, you got to get CBC News, CBC, I don't know, CBC Montreal, CBC Toronto.
	CBC has tentacles.
	It is now government-funded media.
	And someone humorously said...
	That's being far too kind on the CBC.
	Cool!
	That just actually happened in real time.
	Because it wasn't the case this morning when I actually put out the vlog from my car.
	Robert, Trump, I guess, is the next one on the menu, correct?
	Yeah, so the issue was, what I argued, and have been arguing, is that the impeachment clause of the Constitution precludes criminal indictment of someone who, even an ex-president, Well,
	And so some people said, well, why would it apply to, they agreed that it applied some, you know, some don't agree it applies in general, but some say it only applies to either someone who is a president or when the acts took place while they were president.
	Well, in Trump's case, there's no dispute.
	The latter is true here.
	The New York indictment is brought based on things that took place while he was president.
	And so there's, in fact, no single act that they allege took place while he was not president.
	That is the basis of the criminal prosecution.
	So that part would apply to Trump.
	Now, I believe it could apply even after that for reasons I'll explain.
	But at least as to this context of when the acts took place while the person was president, the reason why I say it applies to an ex-president is twofold.
	First of all, it's the way the text literally reads.
	The text says, once you impeach and once you remove, then, but only then, can you indict, try, and punish?
	Well, by definition, the person they're referencing as being indicted, tried, and punished is an ex-president, because it's post-removal.
	So it explicitly, expressly by its own language applies to ex-presidents.
	So why should we limit it to the timing of when it is that takes place?
	So it's part one.
	If it's a precondition for one, it should be a precondition for all.
	But the other reason, a policy reason for it, because some people were agitated by it because they were like, oh, that means Biden can't be indicted without going through this process.
	Absolutely, that's what I think it means.
	Because the...
	Otherwise, what happens is you have two comparable risks.
	The risk is that while a person is president, some local prosecutor could use the power of the threat of future criminal prosecution.
	Could say, I'll wait until you're no longer president, and then I'll indict you unless you go along with the policy request that I have.
	And so it's kidnapping extortion is what it is.
	And so the only way you solve that problem, the only way you prevent that problem of giving that power to an individual prosecutor is you require this gatekeeper role of impeachment, of the House and the Senate, two-third Senate vote, before the person can have that actual power.
	Otherwise, you have extortionate power.
	So that's the reason why I believe that constitutional provision, aside from its plain language, has to be read that way.
	Because otherwise, one way or another, you're giving that power to an individual prosecutor rather than through the House and the Senate.
	And the chances that gets misused and abused, well, we now know.
	Well, just so everybody understands, it's that you give...
	Any prosecutor throughout the country the power or the right to prosecute a president after they stepped out of office for things they did during office, which were not, for whatever the reason, used as a reason to impeach while in office.
	It makes absolute perfect sense.
	I'm actually curious to know what the steel man argument to contradict you would be.
	Most of you will come back with it as a policy argument, which is, what about a serial killer?
	What about the Bidens, etc.?
	What about the Bidens?
	If you don't impeach Biden for tax fraud, for quid pro quo, exactly what they tried to impeach Trump for, how do you then prosecute him afterwards?
	And as if to say, that would not be weaponized to the destruction of anybody willing to take office.
	Once you're done, we'll let you do whatever you want in office, and then we'll prosecute the living bejesus out of you once you leave.
	I mean, it'll completely extort them.
	So the bottom line is if you have someone that's committing a serious crime, the assumption is two-thirds of the Senate will vote for that person to be tried.
	I mean, if it's a murder case, rape case, if it's not really politically motivated...
	Then there won't be a problem prosecuting him.
	If not, then you just don't have the political support for that person to be prosecuted.
	I think that's what matters more.
	And if you have a situation where the House and the Senate are conspiring to cover up a serial killer, you have bigger problems in your government.
	So that's my general view.
	So that's my counterpoint to those arguments that were raised this past week.
	Speaking, though, of dual double standards.
	The Trump libel case that is going to march forward in New York has reached an extraordinary double stake.
	Robert, let me just...
	Hold on, I've got to scratch my back.
	Let me summarize what I think I can summarize and the absurdity of this lawsuit.
	The person, her last name is Carol, journalist.
	She alleged that...
	I'm sorry, I don't mean to smile because...
	I don't mean to smile because the allegations in an ordinary universe would be very serious and take seriously and prosecute.
	She alleges that in the 90s, Donald Trump sexually assaulted and raped her in a changing booth, in a shopping, I don't know, I will say a Bloomingdale's, somewhere in New York.
	Neiman Marcus, I think.
	She brought this up 20-some-odd years later, 30-some-odd years later, and so she alleges that Trump did this to her.
	Trump comes out and makes some statements.
	To say, you're not my type, you're a liar, you're just making these allegations to sell your book.
	And then, in addition to having filed a civil complaint for the alleged assault which occurred 30 years ago, invoking some act which allows people to sue indefinitely later, above and beyond that, she then sues him for defamation for saying that she's only making the allegations to sell her book, which conveniently was coming out at the same time.
	The old expression, if they don't get you on the substance, they get you on the process.
	I mean, this is...
	This is like taking that on steroids.
	I get to accuse you of sexual assault and rape, and then when you say anything to defend yourself publicly, to suggest it might be monetarily motivated, I then get to sue you for defamation, and then the question is whether or not the government takes up Trump's defense.
	It's the Westfall Act.
	Whether or not they take up his defense for statements made when he was in office, or whether or not they don't.
	Explain that.
	I know you were involved in the Westfall Act with Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Holland for the Covington kids.
	I still have difficulty digesting that law, but explain what's going on and why this is not a laughably, almost as laughably stupid as Christina Blasey Ford 35 years later accusing Kavanaugh of having run a train.
	Explain why this is not equally as absurd.
	She makes some...
	Outlandish claims that occurred three decades ago, and then when Trump says, no, you're not my type, you're selling your book, she then sues him for defamation, and he might have to go to trial over this in three weeks.
	Yeah, so the trial's been postponed.
	It may get postponed again because of the criminal case pending in New York and how that impacts the jury pool in particular.
	She was going around telling people that two out of three mock juries ruled her favor.
	That tells you about Manhattan jury pool because her case is as incredulous as it gets.
	Typically, you should have a right to have an exculpatory.
	No, but the courts are not applying that law in the context of Trump in terms of defamation law.
	But what's extraordinary is the double standard about the Westfall Act.
	So I agree that the Westfall Act should be read in a very limited way and that it should not allow people to get away with libel unless it's specific.
	Necessary to their duties.
	So I sued Elizabeth Warren and Deborah Halland, then Congresswoman, now Department of Interior Cabinet member Secretary Deborah Halland, because they lied about the Covington kids.
	What did the federal courts do then?
	Oh, they said anytime a politician is speaking to the press, they're immune.
	Anytime a politician is speaking to the public about any matter of public concern, they're immune.
	The D.C. Circuit said that a congressman who lied about his neighbor had complete immunity because it was at a press conference.
	So the issue that Trump raised was, well, clearly, it's a matter of public concern.
	I said this while I was president.
	I said it to the press in response to questions that under your own standards, judges, I'm entitled to immunity.
	But Robert, address it afterwards.
	How is it not patently?
	Excuse me, on its face, a statement of opinion.
	You're just doing this to sell your book.
	Sorry, get to that in a second, but please carry on.
	So, but what happens when Trump comes in?
	The same federal judges that people tell me are just following the law, Justice Roberts, no politics involved here, suddenly reverse themselves when it's Trump.
	And all of a sudden, the Westfall Act, oh, scope of employment, have we previously said that covered anything?
	Oh, we didn't mean that.
	That's not really a categorical rule.
	The D.C. Circuit.
	All of them.
	All of them together.
	Liberals and conservatives alike.
	Just flat out lied about the factual record of prior cases.
	To make up claims, well, oh, in those cases it was undisputed.
	No, it wasn't.
	You're making that up.
	Well, you know what case you won't find?
	Even though it was cited by Trump people in their various briefs?
	The courts just couldn't seem to talk about the Covington kids' cases.
	Because that case is directly contrary to everything they're now saying.
	Because I pursued it on grounds that scope of employment should be read in terms of the restatement, and what Elizabeth Warren did was not within the scope of her employment as a United States senator.
	What Deborah Howland did was not within the scope of her employment as a member of Congress.
	They didn't say it on the floor.
	They didn't say it inside the chambers.
	They didn't say it about pending legislation.
	They didn't say it at a press conference.
	They didn't say it in response to a question from the public.
	They volunteered.
	The information on social media to attack people they dislike based on making false statements.
	And there the courts, including the Trump judges, are like, oh no, it's clear law that as long as a politician is saying anything about a public matter, then they're completely immune.
	And now the D.C. Circuit unanimously says, oh no, we never really said that.
	We never really meant that.
	Scope of employment is really kind of a jury question.
	Now, now that it's not the Covington kids, now that it's Trump, all of a sudden, magically, it's a jury question.
	So they're right on the law.
	It just shows the only way they could make a right decision on the law was if it screwed Trump over.
	And so the D.C. Circuit sent it back to the Second Circuit, saying this is a jury question about what the scope of employment is.
	Let the jury decide.
	Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
	And they defined scope of employment in such a way to make it sound like...
	Trump's statements weren't in service of the presidency, which, by the way, means that the courts completely erred when they denied the Covingtons the rights to sue Elizabeth Warren and Deborah Hallett.
	But you'll be waiting a long time to hear that apology.
	I mean, the Kentucky Supreme Court also wouldn't take up the case, so you can't sue in Kentucky now.
	Hopefully that changes.
	You can be Kentuckians, lied about in Kentucky, where the harm happens in Kentucky, and you still can't sue.
	In Kentucky.
	Unless the person who's made the libel decided to fly to Kentucky and make the statement in Kentucky.
	So the Kentucky legislators need to change that law fast.
	And I think the Covington Kids case will help change that law.
	But the double standard is, it shows you what motivates federal judges.
	It's not principle, it's politics.
	Well, Robert...
	Pepe the Grey says Trump just got to reopen Discovery because that's what I was trying to find, the article to confirm that.
	So apparently it just happens to turn out that the plaintiff, Carol, had her legal fees paid by a not-for-profit that was Democrat funded.
	It's just very coincidental.
	Oh, but are the billionaire...
	A guy connected to LinkedIn, who is the guy who ran the fake Russian bots against Roy Moore in 2017 that were disguised as being Russian disinformation in favor of Moore.
	So, I mean, that's who this guy is.
	It's more billionaires trying to go after Trump.
	Using lawfare to do so, and it turns out they were funding the lawyers.
	Yeah, and Trump just discovered that was granted, I think, one hour additional discovery to examine on who's paying her legal fees, this woman who decided 20-some odd years later to sue, and then someone else had said, let me see if they get the name.
	Signs of Life Jen said, Viva, thank you for bringing up Christina Blasey Ford.
	People have forgotten about her, but she was one of the first big liars, and she caused irreparable harm to them.
	Go back and listen to Ben Shapiro and some of these other losers who saw her testimony.
	Because I just got out of trial, so I knew nothing was happening in Kavanaugh.
	I just got out of trial, and it was the day, literally, it was the day or two right after trial had finished.
	Crazy verdict.
	Long story.
	And I was just taking like a month off because the whole case drove me crazy.
	And it was a day Blasey Ford testified.
	And I see these statements like from Ben Shapiro and others.
	Wow, very persuasive testimony.
	So I'm like, oh, okay, I'll watch it.
	I'm like, that's the least credible witness I've ever seen in my life!
	And then she's obviously lying.
	She's obviously a nut job.
	I was like, you gotta be kidding me.
	It's like, this is why you can't trust the Benjis of the world for anything.
	This was, I remember, Christina, this was back in the day when I thought, you know, being objective, I steel manned both sides, but I still think I said like, you know, all right, how could someone wait 35 years before suing somebody or even raising the allegations?
	All right, it's a big, powerful club.
	They're scared, yada, yada.
	Except for the FBI investigates, you know, Supreme Court justices over and over again, federal court justices.
	At some point, basic common sense has to prevail.
	But that's when I thought, you know, like, being objective means explaining both sides and not taking a very opinionated position against one side.
	One side, lying ho.
	Other side, judge.
	It was crazy.
	I didn't even like Kavanaugh, by the way.
	I was not a fan of his nomination.
	I mean, Kennedy's the only reason he got on there.
	Kennedy said he wouldn't retire unless Trump appointed Kavanaugh.
	That's why Kavanaugh's on the bench.
	But I think people forget her testimony.
	The change in her voice, I think the body language panel, the behavior panel did a great breakdown.
	She's like, I'm going to need something caffeinated afterwards.
	It was, I don't...
	It was bad acting.
	It was bad acting.
	She screamed.
	I was like, I've seen good lying witnesses.
	She was not one of them.
	Robert, it was MKL.
	Anita Hill wasn't a bad liar.
	The substance of her lies were nonsense.
	But the style in which she presented them were much more persuasive than Ford.
	Ford was a crock.
	Anybody who said Ford gave you credible testimony, someone you should never listen to again.
	It was MKUltra in real time.
	That's only in retrospect.
	But I tried to steelman it.
	Why would someone wait 35 years?
	They were scared.
	They were intimidated, yada, yada.
	Speaking of getting into trouble for steelmanning, the Daniel Perry debate, we discussed that last week.
	The gentleman in Austin who was convicted for murder, many people saw what he did as self-defense.
	Andrew Branca got some criticism because he said that he thought the juries could legitimately have voted either way.
	Well, so, well, Branca, I think he would, and this is not to straw man Branca.
	We're defending it as a legitimate verdict.
	I haven't heard him say he would have voted for guilty.
	He just said a rational jury could have voted for guilty.
	And fair enough.
	And I don't think many people say it's an irrational verdict.
	I think most would just say it's politically motivated.
	Because what Branca brought up was legitimate evidence that the guy in his testimony, Perry, at one point said, I didn't want to give him a chance to aim.
	That seems to suggest the gun wasn't being pointed at him.
	And I'll pull a little lawyer wordsmithing, which is saying, having something pointed at you versus aiming are two different things.
	And he didn't want to give the guy the chance to do something worse than raise the arm pointing at, but not necessarily aiming.
	The text messages or the social media posts by Perry saying, I might have to kill somebody today because they're protesting outside my house might illustrate a sense of humor.
	It might illustrate a macabre social media presence.
	Or it might illustrate, I'm looking for a fight and when I find it, I'm going to invoke self-defense.
	Branca gets a little personal or a little defensive when...
	So when the bulk or when people don't agree with him, with this, with the Murdoch conviction, but hold on, I had a thought there and I forget what the thought was.
	Is Bronco right or wrong, Robert?
	The way I would see it is two different ways of looking at it.
	Bronco's looking at it from the four corners of the courtroom, which makes sense from a lawyer's perspective.
	So if you're looking at this from just the four corners of a courtroom, strip it of its social milieu.
	Then the verdict definitely has facts in the record that can support it.
	There was evidence that you could infer that he went there looking for a fight, that he did not fear for his life at the time he pulled the trigger, that he, quote, panicked in his own words or some version thereof, and when he pulled the trigger, that his car wasn't being threatened either, and so that basically his reaction was premature, even if it might have had later.
	Even if he had waited three seconds later, it could have been legitimate.
	And the way I look at it, and I think the broader public reaction, is the social milieu in which this took place.
	And I think it's impossible to divorce it from this.
	If this was just some random town where a guy's just driving through, gets confused with people being around his car, sees somebody with a gun, panics and shoots and kills him.
	That's a different story.
	It wouldn't have any of the public reaction we're seeing.
	We're seeing public reaction because in the summer of 2020, as they had during the 2016 campaign, large members of the left used street violence to take over public communities to terrorize them to follow their political agenda.
	And they often physically assaulted, killed, blew up buildings, burned down buildings, burned down property.
	Physically, you know, somebody, some random schmoe is walking across the street.
	They grab them, they pound them into the submission.
	They did this throughout people at the Trump rallies.
	You're leaving the Trump rallies, especially in California, but also Albuquerque and elsewhere.
	You were getting chased down.
	The media was telling a story of Trump people violent.
	That happened once with someone who had tried to disturb the event and attacked an old guy, punched a guy.
	That happened one time.
	All the violence was all the Antifa types chasing people down outside the community, beating the hell out of them or terrifying them.
	That escalated in the summer of 2020, where Antifa just took over entire communities, not just Portland, Oregon, and terrorized the town.
	And everybody got to see and lie.
	This was the context in which Rittenhouse happens.
	They're watching these communities destroyed.
	They're seeing, like in St. Louis, an old police officer shot.
	He's shot dead right in the middle of the street.
	Shot in the middle of his own building to protect.
	Hold on.
	His name was David...
	David...
	What was his name?
	David Doner?
	What was his name?
	I'm terrible remembering names.
	Oh, son of a beast.
	I want to...
	I can see a picture of him, but I don't remember his name.
	But yeah, the St. Louis police captain.
	African-American.
	But it's happening all over the place.
	It's in that context that the crazies take over Austin.
	They are threatening violence.
	They're using terroristic tactics to assert their political control.
	And it's in that context that this guy drives in between them.
	And it's in that context that he responds the way he does.
	And so I think for most people who see his case as a strong self-defense case, what they are seeing is they're not stripping the case of its political and social context.
	I get Bronco's approach.
	He's just approaching it like a lawyer, what happens in the four corners of the courtroom.
	But I think what happened in the four corners of the courtroom would not have happened but for the political and social context.
	He would not have been prosecuted, as the lead police officer didn't want him to be prosecuted, in most communities across the country because he's reacting.
	I think everything he did at a certain level from the ordinary person's perspective that's not part of the terroristic left saw it as self-defense.
	It's self-defense of our community.
	It's self-defense of our right to be free from these terroristic, violent leftists who believe they can take over the streets anytime they want, anywhere they want, any place they want.
	It's more like the Bernie Getz, Bernie Getz, I think, if I'm not mispronouncing his name, New York case, right?
	Why was he acquitted when he shot a bunch of people when it wasn't clear who had what weapons at all?
	Because it was the context of 1980s New York crime on the subways and people tired of being intimidated and terrorized on there so they saw any action as self-defense.
	So I think most people on the political right see Daniel Perry as self-defense because of the social context that Bronco's not calculating as part of his legal analysis, which I understand because that's what he's doing.
	But it's why I have a different opinion conclusion than he does.
	Because the social context redefines what that case is about.
	And I'll say this.
	On the evidence, I know what Branca's talking about.
	I didn't want to give him a chance to aim.
	Does not mean that the barrel of the gun was not pointed at his body.
	It just means I didn't want to give him a better chance to focus on what he wanted to shoot.
	Second thing, you get swarmed in your car.
	Let me look back at it.
	And because of the context, right?
	It'd be one thing if he just drove into like a random night out.
	Well, no, no.
	And then he's like, well, why did you think these people were swarming?
	Because maybe there's some factual dispute about whether they're actually swarming.
	Okay, fine.
	But the key is...
	The context.
	Is this a guy who has seen what's taken place over the last four or five years?
	The reason they're out there is to terrorize people.
	The reason they're out there is to commit violence against people, to intimidate people, to frighten people.
	Okay, so I'll even steel man you, Robert.
	They're swarming your car after a victory of a hockey game, Game 7. Yeah, nobody's coming to beat the shit out of you and kill you.
	That's what I mean, right.
	And then we would see his reaction differently.
	It could be the exact same set of facts.
	But it's because it's like driving into a known crime zone that had been having a bunch of shootings.
	And five guys, like my brother, God bless his soul, always would stop at some places that were ill-advised when we went on a trip to the Deep South.
	This is your blood brother, your actual brother.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, my brother.
	Yeah, I don't know those bro things.
	I never got the bro stuff.
	So he stops at...
	We were heading towards Graceland because I wanted to stay at a Graceland hotel.
	They had full tapestries of Elvis.
	They had Elvis movies on 24-7.
	You could buy little bottles of Elvis' sweat.
	I was going to say, this sounds like a porn shop.
	You went into an Elvis porn shop, Robert.
	Yeah, it was the ultimate.
	But we're on the way there.
	But if you knew anything about Graceland, you knew the neighborhood wasn't what it used to be when Elvis lived there.
	So my brother stops at just this gas station.
	And not far from Graceland, but I knew the neighborhood.
	And I saw people, and I was like, no, no, no.
	I don't care if we barely get there on fumes.
	We've got to get there on fumes.
	Tomorrow, we'll go find a different gas station.
	He's like, are you sure?
	No, it's no problem.
	Because he gets a nice, nice, nice.
	Hops out of the car, and they're about...
	Twelve guys heading for us.
	And we got in there and he was like, oh, I get what you mean.
	Got in there and got out of there.
	Now, there, context matters, right?
	If I didn't know that that neighborhood was a high-crime neighborhood where people had a history of being assaulted that looked like they didn't belong in that neighborhood, and that wasn't just color of skin.
	That could include clothes.
	That could include quality of car.
	Those are the people that actually were the most often victims down there.
	Then that might have been an unreasonable reaction.
	But it's because of the context.
	And that's what I think the social-political context is what the Perry case is really all about.
	We, watching it, know how dangerous his situation is because of what had been happening over the last five years.
	Let me do two things here, Robert.
	One is obligatory, and I'm late to it, and I apologize.
	Doody.
	So we did it before, and now not so funny and not funny at all.
	Let me just, because I don't want people to forget about David Dorn.
	I saw the video at the time, and it's one of those things, it ingrains itself in your psyche, and you never forget it.
	David Dorn, June 2nd, 2020.
	On June...
	22nd, 2020, David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired.
	He only went to the shop because he got a call to say, come, we have a problem.
	Was fatally shot after interrupting the burglary of a pawn shop in the Ville, St. Louis.
	The incident occurred on the same night as protests in St. Louis, Missouri over the murder.
	How ironic.
	And I remember the video.
	There was some dude recording the video as Dorn had been shot in the chest and they posted to social media as they do.
	77-year-old retired police captain was fatally shot after interrupting the burglary of a pawn shop.
	Imagine this.
	Interrupting the burglary of a pawn shop and you get shot.
	Race and ethnicity doesn't matter.
	He was black.
	He was black and the assailant was black.
	It's just the political reality.
	And here in Austin, these white people are surrounding him.
	It was just these lefties who have been part of terroristic violence.
	That's why so many people on the right who saw it see a different thing than what Bronco sees just looking at the trial record.
	They're looking at that through the filter of what had happened for the five years prior.
	And I get there's good legal arguments about we want to limit self-defense to certain things and that he didn't meet certain elements in a compelling, persuasive manner.
	I get that, but to the ordinary person, this was self-defense because of everything they'd witnessed.
	And it was, what would have happened had he waited two minutes more?
	I mean, what people had seen in all these other cases...
	Five seconds, three seconds, Robert.
	I mean, if Kyle Rittenhouse hadn't reacted exactly when he did, he's dead.
	He's dead.
	And Gage Grosskreutz would be the hero, except in the...
	Daniel Perry's situation, Gage Grosskreutz, is the murderer.
	It's just amazing.
	The David Dorn is...
	I think some people are too harshly critical of Branca.
	He was giving a straightforward legal analysis of what the transcript shows.
	But it's where I disagree with it politically.
	You can't divorce this case from its social political context.
	I think the blowback against Branca is he might not be as forgiving on those who disagree with him as he might want to be.
	But whatever, to each their own.
	And that's it.
	Robert, so that's Daniel Perry.
	And that's a fantastic...
	Ah, yeah.
	So then we got some rapid fire cases.
	We start out with...
	Actually, before the rapid fire, let's just do one that's not rapid fire.
	AI chat...
	We're going to change the order a little bit.
	Just the AI case.
	So AI chat GPT.
	I still don't know what GPT stands for, but whatever.
	There's an Australian, someone in Australia is allegedly coming up as having participated in a crime scheme that he did not participate in.
	Whether or not there's nuance to it, it doesn't matter.
	I think he's suing for defamation because ChatGPT is providing results saying this guy participated in fraudulent, criminal, whatever, when he didn't.
	And what is the legal novel question?
	To me, it seems obvious you sue the programmers who set...
	A Frankenstein monster into motion.
	What is the novel legal question that's going to be brought up in any of these or all of these chat GPT-AI type debates?
	One addendum on the Daniel Perry case, as they mentioned in the chat, at vivobarneslaw.locals.com, where we have a live chat, and we'll have a special after party in just a little bit, is that, as Bronco noted, it appears that the jurors...
	There was an alternate juror there that shouldn't have been in the jury room.
	That wasn't supposed to happen and was going, ah, and had public responses that influenced the jury when they were discussing certain evidence.
	But the more egregious one is one of the jurors went home and did what they all say they never do, which is research, the case, and the law, came up with the wrong law, came back and told the jury that Perry had to prove his self-defense, not that the government had to disprove it.
	An honest judge would vacate the verdict, but don't expect an honest judge in Austin Tech.
	He was listening to Nancy Pelosi.
	Donald Trump will be able to prove his innocence when he gets to court.
	Can I swear?
	I can't swear.
	I should say courageous judge.
	A courageous judge would do the right thing and realize, okay, the jury got contaminated.
	Perry's entitled to a new trial.
	But again, Governor Abbott's already said he has asked for his board of paroles to pardon him.
	The board has to, the majority has to approve that before he approves it, but it's highly likely that Perry will be pardoned regardless of any other circumstance.
	Which won't do any good because he'll still have been convicted.
	People say he's a murderer and he just got off because of policy.
	I would prefer to fair trial.
	Oh, absolutely.
	You just can't get one in Austin, Texas.
	But yeah, the interesting thing is all these AI questions is who to sue.
	Do you sue the programmer?
	Well, the programmer didn't publish the statement.
	The AIGPT in the defamation context.
	So it's like Jonathan Turley and others, basically they libel them, is the allegation.
	And so I think you sue, I mean, it's still weird.
	You're suing whoever published it and wherever it was published.
	So it would be whoever owned the domain upon which the statement was made.
	That's probably subject to the libel lawsuit.
	I would say it's whoever programmed the Frankenstein.
	The ISP issues.
	They may argue they're an internet service provider, that they're not really the publisher of the statement, and so you'd have that issue, too.
	To me, it seems obvious.
	You've created a Frankenstein.
	Frankenstein goes out and kills somebody.
	To me, it's like parents and children.
	What if they create an artificial intelligence version of Viva?
	Yeah, I would sue whoever created the artificial intelligence.
	You know, Rogan is having this problem.
	They keep creating fake advertisements of Joe Rogan.
	And they're good, and you would never know.
	But to me, who do you sue?
	You obviously sue the programmers.
	Or, sorry, the employers of the programmers.
	Because if they're working for a company, you don't sue them.
	But it doesn't seem like a very thoroughly novel question.
	It's like a parent is held to the actions of their children.
	So too should be the AI programmers or the company that employed them for the consequences of the program they devised.
	Presumably you could because they are the ultimate publisher in the sense that it's their agent that made the statement.
	Now, the question is, though, but it definitely is going to get into some tricky, tricky questions.
	And also, when people just use it, when third parties use it to fabricate something that they then publish, then you're like, well, I didn't give you permission to do that with my program, but you did it.
	You published it on your program.
	It's like, well, I was just using their software.
	It's nuts.
	It's crazy.
	We're going to get into a realm where people cannot even believe what they see with their own eyes.
	You know, it's already being pitched aggressively throughout the legal community to hire chat GPT type law.
	You know, what's interesting is they actually write fast and research quickly.
	They could replace...
	A third of all lawyers.
	Well, Robert, I did just, I think it was on Joe Rogan, I saw it, but somebody who had an issue with their dog, the vet misdiagnosed it.
	They put in the pictures, the info to chat, GPT, and they got an accurate diagnosis because it's analyzing all of the chest moves at one time and then spitting out a good result.
	Well, we had a debate this weekend at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com discussing the monetary system.
	You know, something easy to understand, something basic and simple.
	Go for it, Rob.
	I'm not talking now.
	So some of the people responding used the ChatGPT, and actually the ChatGPT actually had pretty good knowledge of the potential answers or the range of subjects out there.
	I was like, that is fascinating.
	But yeah, the...
	Rapid-fire questions before we finish up with Rumble Rants and then head over to Locals to discuss what the locals' questions are there.
	In Afghanistan, what happens when a defense contractor has the Taliban come in and seize a bunch of their property?
	Well, good luck suing the Taliban.
	Go to court.
	So they sued another defense contractor.
	Tough to sue the government, too.
	So instead, what happened was one defense contractor was hiding guns illegally at another defense contractor that was supposed to have no guns present, that was just supposed to be about meals and storage of an office space for non-military activities, etc.
	Of course, this happens all the time.
	That the U.S. government uses those operations as places to hide weapons, as places to infiltrate most of your so-called NGOs.
	Almost every one of them's got some spook on the staff, whether they know it or not.
	The Taliban discovered this and so seized a whole bunch of their property saying, you're really a military facility.
	And so they have now sued for $17.5 million the other contractor that was secretly hiding guns there.
	So it's interesting how those, and sometimes if you dig into those cases, you'll see how the deep state really operates because in the middle of fighting each other, they'll often rat a lot of this stuff out.
	An example of that is what happened with the Kuwaiti defense minister.
	So the Kuwaiti defense minister, according to the allegations, laundered and embezzled over $100 million.
	Saying he was helping build a Kuwaiti military academy in Beverly Hills.
	And instead, he was busy buying Lambos and yachts and penthouses and parts of hockey teams.
	And apparently, what's the big property called the Mountain of Beverly Hills.
	So there's a dispute now between these members of the royal family of Kuwait that's now showing up in U.S. court because the U.S. government is seeking to forfeit it on the grounds that this was all actual money laundering.
	And the irony with all this is the only reason why it ever got outed is the Kuwaiti former defense minister sued these other fraudsters in LA who had stolen the $100 million from them.
	And that tipped off the Kuwaiti government.
	They're like, how do you have $100 million to lose to LA fraudsters?
	So that got them in trouble with the Kuwaiti government.
	The Kuwaiti government then outed this publicly, which led the U.S. government to go, huh?
	I wonder if we can grab the $100 million instead as a silver forfeiture.
	Call it money laundering.
	Line our own pockets.
	So this is how the system really operates.
	And that case is ongoing in L.A. as we speak.
	But I didn't know there was something called the Mountain of Beverly Hills.
	Then we got Deer Lockheed Martin, a plant they had in Orlando, Florida, not far away.
	Their defense facility was leaking every kind of toxin known to man.
	Some of the most dangerous toxins in the world.
	First in the groundwater, then in the soil, then in the air.
	Then the way they remediated it actually made it worse.
	A bunch of people got all kinds of diseases and cancers.
	They're being sued.
	This is a problem for defense contractors all over the place.
	And it will continue to be one.
	They're bringing suit on strict liability, public nuisance, and negligence grounds.
	The public nuisance, I'm not a big fan of because that can be dangerously used as an excuse for climate change policies, lawsuits down the road, though I think it can be a robust means of legal remedy in the proper context.
	But that case is worth following, but it's another sign of the cleanup problems from these defense contractors, what they did in terms of the local domestic environment.
	The baby rocker case, this is the rock and play sleeper.
	If you have one, send it back.
	It's not just send it back, but they've already issued the recall, but apparently they didn't issue the recall properly enough, and then apparently people were still selling it new without specifying the recall.
	It killed, like, Robert, over 100 kids, give or take.
	Yeah, babies.
	The way it was designed basically created a high risk of asphyxiation.
	Asphyxiation, yeah.
	Can't say it.
	Yeah, horrible.
	So the design itself was bad, and then they weren't real super aggressive about the recall, Mattel and the other companies involved with this.
	And they killed kids, killed babies, the most vulnerable people, made tons of money off of it, then didn't even do the recall right.
	And it tells you just what these companies are capable of.
	But a big case has been filed against them in Florida.
	And not that everything comes back to COVID, but just appreciate, they issued the recall when 50-some-odd kids had...
	50-some-odd infants had died as a result of the product.
	Just compare that to others.
	More have died since because they haven't actually effectively recalled it.
	And there's people out there still don't know it.
	The rock-and-play sleeper is a death trap for babies.
	So if you have one at home or know someone who has it, get rid of it.
	Rock-and-play, and people should go to jail over this.
	And should go to jail over this.
	If our system was legit.
	At school, this is a Loudoun County case.
	So Loudoun County created a, not only special racial ambassadors, you know, this is a diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	Racial ambassadors.
	That word, racial ambassadors.
	I'm going to make a shirt.
	We're going to make a shirt.
	Racial ambassadors.
	Okay.
	And then they created a means for you to anonymously rat out your fellow student and get them written up in the school record for, quote, microaggressions.
	And guess what was considered?
	You would get written up in the Loudoun County school system and you're in your student file.
	You would be identified as committing.
	Guess what was considered racist?
	Boys have penises, girls have vaginas.
	Well, that's bigoted, so that would include it.
	But the racist one is if you believe in a colorblind society.
	If you were quoting Martin Luther King, you were being written up for racism and microaggressions.
	So some parents got wind of this, filed suit on behalf of their kids.
	The Fourth Circuit dismissed large parts of the case, but preserved critically.
	That part of the case said that this would chill speech.
	It clearly already had chilled speech.
	This is a First Amendment violation because of the school's complicity in setting it up and enforcing it.
	And consequently, that lawsuit against the Loudoun County school system can move forward.
	But it's an example of just how insane so many school systems have become as they've been culturally co-opted by these woke wackos.
	Speaking of craziness, what happens when a U.S.-owned mine in Peru is poisoning 99% of the children in the local community?
	Well, you engage in every shenanigan known to man.
	While Stephen Donziger made mistakes in his case in Ecuador, those mistakes were misused and abused by, I believe, Exxon to run from all, or maybe with Chevron, to run from all responsibility and accountability enabled by the federal courts who instead made Stephen Donziger, the lawyer, the subject of the attack rather than the corrupt oil company that was polluting the local landscape.
	In this context, what they did is local defense lawyers went in.
	And opened up a criminal investigation into the plaintiffs bringing suit in the U.S. And then they tried to use that criminal investigation to illicitly interview and intimidate, what's really going on, those Peruvian peasants in a criminal investigation.
	So the plaintiff's lawyers got it stopped by going to the federal court saying, Your Honor, make sure they don't communicate ex parte with our clients.
	And they said, well, we have to be entitled to because this is a Peruvian foreign criminal proceeding.
	And fortunately, the Eighth Circuit recognized that that had nothing to do with limiting in the U.S. a U.S. lawyer or party subject to U.S. jurisdiction engaging in illicit ex parte communications.
	That deference to a foreign criminal proceeding did not require that kind of abuse of American legal process.
	But it gives you an idea of what these companies will resort to, and these stories stay buried in the American press about the scale of corruption, environmental pollution, and others by U.S. companies around the world.
	Then we got Alec Baldwin.
	You know, there's different kinds of defenses to use.
	Did you see his latest defense?
	It's not funny, but it's funny where Alec Baldwin's being sued by the extended family members or family members of Helena Hutchins.
	Because he's already settled with the father and the siblings.
	And he's saying, you didn't keep in touch with your sister or father.
	Yeah, his defense is, that woman I killed.
	I didn't kill.
	I just accidentally killed.
	That woman I killed, she didn't really love you after all.
	She didn't really love you enough for you to bring sued.
	She wasn't that close to you.
	She didn't even like to talk to you that much.
	Can you imagine bringing that as your defense when you're Alec Baldwin?
	I'm trying not to steal, man, Robert.
	Jeez Louise, Alec Baldwin's defense.
	At what point can you stop getting sued simultaneously for the same act by every extended family member?
	Flip side.
	Can you imagine telling the mother and the sister you were not that close to your sister and your daughter and therefore dismiss?
	The problem when you're an Alec Baldwin is your legal defenses are in the court of public opinion now.
	So this was like when I sued some people and some journalists and I said the only excuse they can come up with legally is to say that they're too dumb to be a qualified journalist.
	And that was exactly the defense they came up with.
	We're too dumb.
	And I was like, that's not going to work for their professional careers.
	Might help them get out of legal trouble, but not out of career trouble.
	It didn't.
	Those people disappeared from the media landscape after they were on the rise for libeling people about the okay sign, which I was told you couldn't sue on, and the court ultimately said you could sue on.
	I wouldn't allow the case to go forward on actual malice grounds because of their I'm too dumb to...
	I think I did this deliberately, defense.
	But if I'm Alec Baldwin and I'm facing a criminal trial, I don't know if I want to be out there publicly making a defense against the mother and sister of the person I killed saying, eh, you know, she wasn't that close to you.
	She didn't really love you that much.
	You don't have a lawsuit consortium claim.
	Come on.
	I mean, it's like, wow.
	That politically may be ill-advised.
	I get it's the legal defense you kind of think you have to try, but...
	Kind of unfortunate and kind of gives you where Alec Baldwin's mindset is.
	Robert, I hear a dog vomiting right now.
	I'm looking at him.
	The dog's vomiting.
	He appears to have eaten something.
	Robert, hold on.
	I did want to bring up...
	The misuse of contempt power continues to be a problem.
	A Pennsylvania court...
	There was a criminal proceeding hearing.
	The hearing is closed.
	One of the people goes out and sees one of the witnesses and tells the witness, I'm going to get you, you fat lion beef.
	And she runs back into the court and says, he just said this to me.
	And the court says, that's contempt of court.
	I sentence you to three to six months imprisonment.
	Summary contempt proceeding.
	Robert, let me just stop you there.
	The defense in this case was never that he didn't say it.
	It's that he didn't say it.
	In court.
	So, convict me of threatening a witness, whatever.
	Just don't convict me of contempt in court.
	I mean, especially those kind of statements are also kind of vague and obscure.
	It's not clear, you know, in terms of what exactly he's meant.
	You know, especially just calling her a fat lion.
	Well, that's probably within his free speech, right?
	Saying I'm going to get you.
	What does he mean by that?
	Depends on the context and the situation.
	But the fact that they ran to contempt as their charge suggests to me that they knew it.
	They didn't have evidence of something more nefarious there.
	He just had a guy agitated about what a witness had said.
	But the court made clear that summary contempt like that can only happen when it directly is in the presence of the court itself in the courtroom and is obstructing the court proceedings.
	Courts love to misuse and abuse their contempt power because they don't have to go through a grand jury.
	They don't have to go through a trial jury.
	So they misuse it.
	Credit to the Pennsylvania higher courts.
	They set it aside, said, no, this is not what contempt power is for.
	And set the defendant free.
	Then you talk about bad luck and who you're hanging out with.
	That witness had the bad luck of an unfortunate person.
	I sent, well, I sent, we procured an Uber driver for Dave, DSLR Dave, to get back to the airport.
	I didn't tell him this story.
	The Uber driver, for whatever, I still don't think I understand the facts, but the admitted allegations or the admitted facts are that the Uber driver was flashing gang symbols at another car, whether or not that other car intended to shoot.
	The Uber driver or the passenger, passengers alleging that it was like to draw attention to the passenger, but it might have just been the driver flashing gang symbols at another car, opens fire, hits the passenger in the Uber, and she's suing for damages.
	It's a no-brainer.
	Well, it depends.
	I mean, when is, because Uber's people are independent contractors, so when is Uber on the hook for things?
	When they're not, it's always a little bit tricky.
	It gets into complexities of agency law, but it's one of the things that Uber probably should be clearing for.
	New rules, don't flash gang signs when you're driving passengers, and it's one of the unanticipated issues you can unfortunately run into, especially if you're using UberX.
	I never use UberX.
	I always use Uber Premium or one of those because I want to avoid...
	In Montana, they're trying to change the law to go to a top-two law in time for the 2024 Senate race to defeat John Tester, who has been one of the luckiest senators alive.
	He got to run in 2006, one of the greatest Democratic election cycles ever.
	Then 2012, which was a very good Democratic cycle.
	Then 2018, which was the second-best Democratic cycle in 40 years.
	And so now he's up in 2024 and they think they're finally going to get a beat.
	But he's hoping a bunch of libertarians run and sap off enough votes so that he can sneak back in without getting to 50%, which he has had trouble getting.
	So the Montana Republicans have decided, well, we're going to adopt California's rules.
	Going to be top two.
	Whoever the top two contenders are, that's who will make it into a runoff, a real-time runoff for the general election.
	And all of a sudden, the media's going crazy, saying, oh, this is outrageous.
	I remember reading the headline, and I was like, this is the same media that keeps celebrating the California top two system?
	Suddenly has a problem with the top two system?
	Because, of course, it means Tester will get defeated, is what it really means.
	And that's why they suddenly are concerned about, what about the poor libertarians not being on the ballot in the general election?
	Yes, indeed.
	But legally, courts have affirmed that.
	So there's nothing they'll be able to do.
	Libertarians may sue, but I don't see it being successful unless they're going to reverse that California already does the exact same thing.
	And other jurisdictions do it as well.
	But it probably means testers' days are numbered in Montana.
	And then our bonus case, you call it a cupcake case of the week.
	The Whole Foods was selling vegan cupcakes that, according to the allegations of the suit, weren't vegan.
	Problem?
	Somebody who was seriously allergic, a little kid, ate that cupcake, believing it didn't have certain ingredients in it because of Whole Foods advertising, and got badly ill, and had suffered some disabling...
	Well, anaphylaxis had to have an EpiPen and was rushed to hospital.
	Serious stuff.
	Oh yeah, almost died.
	So they sued, and what do you think Whole Foods defense was?
	Whole Foods defense, of course, was, ah, the FDA!
	That this law is governed by the FDA law, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
	That that law, because of the mistakes of Congress, doesn't allow any person to privately sue to enforce it.
	And they claim that that law preempted all the state law claims, so that as long as the FDA wasn't the one suing them, as long as the Biden administration wasn't suing them, that nobody else could sue them, even when they almost kill a kid based on lies.
	Now, credit to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	They said that the FDCA did not go that far, that it doesn't preempt a claim merely because it concerns labeling.
	It only preempts a claim if the only claim is predicated upon FDA-required labeling, that it's not an excuse to lie in marketing.
	But it shows how much that the food and drug industry hides behind the FDA for its criminality and corruption, and it's part of a systemic problem that needs to be fixed legislatively, that this case even had to go through all of this just to get to the discovery stage.
	All right, Robert, let me do this.
	We're going to bring out just, I'll get the last of the rumble rants before we move over to locals.
	Viva, assign me as a mod and I will take care of the spammers and shit talkers.
	Kenzie67, I will.
	But I have very strict scrutiny for spammers.
	It has to be spamming, spamming.
	Okay.
	Jay Ash, Robert, according to what you are saying, we cannot stop what Obama is doing to our country.
	Biden could still be impeached, but we all know Obama is actually running and destroying our country.
	Tropical Rocket, anyone suing agencies based on SCOTUS EPA precedent?
	Fellas Rufus.
	Administrative agencies, yes.
	The claim was never about nukes.
	The WMDs in question were chemical weapons, some of which were recovered.
	Just admit it, Barnes.
	The Washington Post lied.
	Check the UN resolution even.
	That's the person that's still pretending weapons of mass destruction actually exist in Iraq.
	Congratulations!
	You win the CIA dupe of the year award.
	Now I'm going to end it on a rumble with the following ever insightful quote.
	I'm not saying it.
	It's just something I always say in my mind whenever I come across similar circumstances because I've been to campgrounds where I have not...
	Campgrounds?
	Everyone's white and you still say, holy crap, I'm driving in and out.
	This is the quote that we will end the Rumble stream on.
	Enjoy it.
	See you all on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Harold and Kumar.
	Escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	Dude, I'm not scared because they're black.
	I'm scared because they're scary.
	It's not like we got Gregory Hines out there.
	I'm not that scary.
	Everybody must watch Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	Oh, there you go.
	Okay.
	I think I may have heard some words that are actually not appropriate even for Rumble.
	Okay, people.
	Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.
	One of the greatest movies ever made.
	There I said it.
	We're going to end now on Rumble.
	And we're going to go to Locals.
	We're going to deal with some Rumble local tips.
	And have a little after party.
	So everybody...
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	I've got to get here.
	We've done it.
	Robert, this has been one of the best episodes we've ever done.
	Because I had fun doing it.
	And we got to end with Harold and Kumar.
	I'm going to end on Rumble.
	And then we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending the live stream now.
	Three...
	Thank you all for being here.
	Robert, do we have a sidebar on Wednesday?
	We do.
	Yes.
	You know, the one and only, Brett Weinstein.
	Brett Weinstein on Wednesday.
	It's going to be amazing.
	I'll be live maybe tomorrow, maybe Tuesday.
	I'm going to enjoy a house with no guests tonight.
	But everybody, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We will see you there.
	Peace out, Rumble.
	Peace.

▲