Ep. 157: Fox News, SCOTUS, Taibbi, Fauci, Epps, AND SO MUCH MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
|
Time
Text
These agreements require employees of the government of candidates that access these documents to sign confidentiality agreements.
And why is that?
Why is there much more reductions, as my colleague said, in these documents than in other documents?
It's because these documents were signed at the beginning of a pandemic, when everybody was desperate for vaccines, when companies were being told to rush vaccine production.
Do testing in an unprecedented way, in a way they normally don't do it.
So these companies were exposed to way higher liability, putting their products on the market than they normally would because they didn't do the type of testing that normally takes these drugs years to come to market.
They did it all in less than a year.
So that's why these companies said, if I'm going to deliver you this product that I haven't tested in my normal way, I want to have different conditions.
And companies, all countries around the world competing with each other to get these, the countries had less leverage than they normally do.
For example, if we were entering into flu vaccine contracts or monkeypox contracts or other things that were...
Huh!
But these are already signed.
They were signed at a time the government didn't have that leverage in negotiations.
We just wanted to sign as many vaccine contracts with as many producers as possible because Canadians were desperate for vaccines.
And in the end, it worked out.
We got vaccines and we were one of the countries that got to vaccinate everybody the fastest.
I'm going to just pat the dog for one more second.
Okay, down you go.
We're going to play that again.
The dog does nothing to bring down the blood pressure.
We're going to play this again, and we're going to listen to what...
This is Anthony Housefather.
I don't know what party he's with now.
I think he was with the Conservatives.
Chat, you'll know, I forget.
He changed parties or whatever.
Ran in the writing adjacent to my writing.
This is a member of the Canadian Parliament.
Let's just listen to what he said and pause it.
Occasionally.
So that you too should get righteously enraged.
These agreements require employees of the government and candidates that access these documents to sign confidentiality agreements.
Look at the way he said, confidentiality agreements.
Can't even say the bloody words.
Confidentiality agreements.
I got ahead of myself.
They immunized the government.
They immunized Big Pharma to put out shit because there's no other way to describe something that is done.
Too fast, hastily, that is so shitty a product that you need immunity lest you won't put out the shitty product which you haven't tested properly.
And then you gotta go ahead and make your government employees sign NDAs so they don't talk about how and the extent to which the government immunized Big Pharma for putting out shitty products that weren't properly tested.
I got ahead of myself.
I'm sorry.
And I am going to be swearing tonight because I'm angry.
And why is that?
Why is there...
Much more redactions, as my colleague said.
Much more redactions, as my colleague said, as he rightly pointed.
Why are we concealing stuff from you?
Because we fucked up.
Because we actually basically tested on you in real time.
And the pharma companies didn't want to take their billions with liability.
So they insisted, because we were in such a bloody panic, to get as many shots in arms as quickly as possible to forego testing and to immunize from liability.
And now the government employees, we've told them you can't talk about it.
In these documents and in other documents, it's because these documents were signed at the beginning of a pandemic.
They were signed at the beginning of a pandemic, so to hell with science.
It was at the beginning of the pandemic where we had whipped up the public into such a terror frenzy through our government-subsidized fear porn coming from the media.
Just give me something.
Give me something.
Give me some snake oil.
Inject it wherever you need to.
Oh, I'm actually...
Everybody was desperate for vaccines.
Everyone was desperate for vaccines.
Yeah.
Oh, maybe that had something to do with potentially, you know, not allowing other remedies, not allowing other discussions that might have, you know, possibly illustrated to the general public there isn't actually only one way out of this.
But no, it doesn't matter.
When companies were being told to rush...
Vaccine production.
Rush vaccine production.
Now we're not even talking about vaccine R&D.
And I'm using the word vaccine in scare quotes.
Rush vaccine production.
Do you know what that means?
That means, do you remember when AstraZeneca had to recall like a million, I forget which one, it was AstraZeneca or Moderna?
It wasn't just that they rushed testing.
They rushed production.
Hey, YouTube, middle finger up your nose.
This is not me saying it.
This is Anthony Housefather.
Rushing production.
Let me just make sure I heard that right.
Rush vaccine production.
Oh yeah, that's right.
They rushed vaccine production.
We're doing it so fast.
If there happens to be like impurities, if there happens to be like shavings from production, if it happens to not meet quality control, we don't want to be sued for that.
Oh, we're in such a terror.
Let's...
Bypass testing.
Rush production.
Just get something out there because we need it.
Because the government said so.
Do testing in an unprecedented way in a way they normally don't do it.
Do you know what that means?
Oh, in a way they don't ordinarily do it?
You mean like testing it on humans in real time?
Pull up the video from Obama admitting this?
Unprecedented manner in a way they don't normally do it.
YouTube.
Middle finger up your nose, but let's hear it again.
In a way they normally don't do it.
So these companies were exposed to way higher liability, putting their products on the market than they normally would because they didn't do the type of testing that normally takes these drugs years to come to market.
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Faustfather.
I think I remember people being booted from YouTube for saying what you just said two and a half years ago.
How the hell are you saying safe and effective when it hasn't been tested properly, when it hasn't been on the market for long enough?
Let me just hear that again.
Do the type of testing that normally takes these drugs years to come to market, they did it all in less than a year.
Or they just didn't do it.
As Pfizer basically admitted, we never tested for a transmission.
Or they just didn't do it.
Anthony Housefather.
And you and your government employees have a hand in what is, as I've said now, nothing less than fraud and nothing less than human experimentation.
And by the way, I'm in that sample group.
So I have some skin in the game.
So that's why these companies said, if I'm going to deliver you this product that I haven't tested in my normal way.
That I haven't tested in my normal way.
If I'm going to experiment on you and you grow a third arm.
Don't sue me.
I'm not doing it unless you immunize me, but I'll take your money also while I'm at it.
Oh, I'm sorry.
It's not your money.
It's my money.
I want to have different conditions.
And with companies, all countries around the world competing with each other to get these, the countries had less leverage than they normally do.
For example, if we were entering into flu vaccine contracts or monkeypox contracts or other things that were...
Normally available.
If we were entering into contracts with vaccines that have actually been time tested, vaccines that actually worked, well, they wouldn't have asked for such immunity because, you know, the liability wasn't there.
They actually had a product that had a history of safety testing that was tested in the normal way over the normal course of time because you can't rush time.
Safe and effective, they told us.
This would be a different...
Of course it would be a different issue because you'd have data to prove safety and efficacy.
As of now, House Father, you've admitted you had neither.
But these are already signed.
They were signed at a time the government didn't have that leverage in negotiations.
We just wanted to sign as many vaccine contracts with as many producers as possible.
We just wanted to do shit.
We just wanted to say we found a solution.
We didn't care if it wasn't a solution.
We didn't care if it would cause new problems because we're immune.
We didn't care if it caused new problems because now they're immune.
We didn't care if it caused new problems because screw you, the problem's on you.
Because Canadians were desperate for vaccines and in the end it worked out.
We got vaccines and we were one of the countries that got to vaccinate everybody the fastest.
In the end you got vaccines.
Did they work?
Were they safe and effective?
Is your testing done now?
You can say that they're safe and effective.
No, no, no.
There's no comment.
When I was a kid, I was reading Peace in Every Step, a book written by the Buddha.
And I remember being in the Gaspésiana family vacation.
And it was so sweltering hot.
I was sitting there going...
And my brother looked at me and said, no, nothing's going to get you out of this sweltering heat, Dave.
I was in Viva at the time.
Nothing's going to get you out of this sweltering heat.
You're in it.
We're in it now.
These...
I don't want to say MFers, but I'm thinking it.
Admit...
You know, in something which I think up until now probably got minimal viewership.
I found this tweet.
I have to see who I got the original tweet from.
I suspect many people haven't seen that video of Anthony Housefather basically admitting the government immunized pharmaceutical companies because they didn't test it properly.
They didn't go through their ordinary...
Standards.
They were rushing production.
And they're like, well, if we're going to do this, we're going to give you the solution.
We're going to give you the vaccines that you so desperately need to get out of this.
Roll up your sleeves and get as many arms as fast as possible.
Well, we can't test it.
Well, immunize us.
It's criminal, in my humble opinion.
It is a criminal enterprise, in my humble opinion.
Oh.
Oh.
I have, there's a sponsor to today's video.
But before we even get into that, let's just, I say it's a criminal enterprise.
Jim Brewer, I said as a joke, you know, I've always liked him.
Now I love him.
What makes me crazy is, isn't that a well-orchestrated, marketed, funded way to murder?
At the end of the day?
Like to purposely keep people...
From getting healthy and actually stopping people?
What if your mother that you that's your angel in your life and what's being forced and threatened and ridiculed and shamed is that child or that husband and they do it And the people that created all this, let's not pretend they don't exist.
The people that created this, they knew exactly what they were doing because they planned this in steps.
You're not that smart to pull this off without really putting a lot of logic into this.
And to me, that's murder.
I don't know how you explain it in any other way.
Thank you.
Testify, Jim.
Testify, not in court.
Preach it, brother, I believe is the other explanation, the other expression.
And just to end on one more video, one will enrage you, one will be cathartic.
I warned you, get your gag reflexes ready, people.
Let's just go hear what our liar-in-chief has to say today.
I don't know when this clip is from, temporally.
It's recent.
Let's just go here.
Look at this man's demeanor.
Look at the way he's...
There's a nice glass of wine.
Crystal glass.
He's sitting there with his beautiful pressed suit.
I think he's got his $15,000 watch on.
I can't quite tell.
Finest clothes.
Beautiful belt.
Sitting there like not a care in the world.
I'm crossing my legs.
I'm draping my hand over because I'm too cool for school.
I'm the cock of the walk.
Like any.
Modern bit of medical advancements.
There are potential side effects in vaccinations.
Hold on a second.
That got you kicked off of Twitter and YouTube two years ago.
Did you just say that there are?
I thought it was safe and effective.
And if you said that there were any adverse reactions such that you might not want to get it.
You are a conspiracy theorist, tinfoil hat, wearing MAGA-loving, Trump-loving, January 6th insurrectionist, racist, misogynist, anti-Black racist, transphobe bigot.
I'm sorry.
I'm certain I heard you say that, Justin Trudeau.
He actually did say that.
Half of that.
And there are people who've probably gotten very sick from vaccinations on the billions of people who've been vaccinated against COVID over the past few years.
Fuck you.
That's what he's saying.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Did you get sick from that when I made you do it?
Oh, but I didn't make you do it.
Just wait for it.
Too bad.
It was for the greater good.
Thank you for your sacrifice.
Was it Kamala Harris that came out and thanked the victims of the Tuskegee experiments?
Tuskegee?
Tuskegee?
Sorry, Tuskegee.
Tuskegee experiments.
Was it Kamala Harris that came out and thanked them for their sacrifice?
Oh, I'm sure some of you got very sick.
Oh, I'm sorry, Justin Trudeau.
I do recall being demonized.
And I do recall people being censored, deplatformed for saying that a little while ago.
But now he gets to say it.
Look at this guy.
He's just all cool.
Oh, I'm sure some of you died.
I'm sure some of your children...
Myocarditis.
I'm sure some of you.
...made it against COVID over the past few years.
I'm sure.
But there are far more people who obviously have died due to COVID.
Died from not getting vaccinated.
This man's a doctor.
And the idea that people can fly in the face of science?
Well, individuals are allowed to make their own choices.
There may be all sorts of different reasons why someone is hesitant to get vaccinated.
But I make a distinction, and I always have, between someone choosing for personal reasons, To choose not to get vaccinated?
And someone deliberately using misinformation to mislead and scare other people with so-called facts that are...
I can't do it.
This guy knows what's going on in your mind.
This guy knows what your motivations are when you said, I don't want to get vaccinated.
This guy...
He knows what you're thinking.
Oh, and by the way, that's the same guy that admitted, said it publicly.
I'm going to make it very hard.
Almost impossible for people to get an exemption.
This mother, a Cabri.
This mother Cabri.
Okay, I see Robert in the backdrop.
Oh, he just disconnected.
He's going to come back in a second.
Makes me want to puke.
Okay.
This mother, by the way, he said he never, at the punchline of that video, I can't watch it anymore because it's going to cause high blood pressure.
He said he never forced anybody to do anything.
When he said you want to fly to your granddaddy's funeral, you can't fly unless you're vaccinated.
He never forced anybody.
Oh, I'm sorry, you want to keep your job?
Not unless you're vaccinated.
They are lying to our faces in a Chernobyl-like Soviet level.
I never said that, but when they did.
I know what I believe their endgame is here, and it's to provoke people into doing something stupid.
Don't do anything stupid.
Public mockery.
And raising awareness.
People are catching on to this now.
They are now saying the quiet part out loud.
Now they're admitting, oh yeah, some people are going to have side effects.
So that when the vaccine injury program in Canada pays out a lot, I told you, I always said there would be side effects.
Mother effers.
I'm sorry, really, I should not be swearing.
It's not good.
All right.
Could this be a new merch slogan?
I thought I just heard you describe the Fauci ouchie with the phrase safety and defective vacancy.
All right.
Standard disclaimers, no medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
YouTube takes 30% of all of those super chats.
We're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
They have Rumble rants.
They have Rumble rants.
Rumble ordinarily takes 20% of those, but for the rest of 2023, they're taking 0% of that.
So go to Rumble.
If you want to support us, do it there.
It's fantastic if you support.
I think you get like a subscriber badge on Rumble.
And in 2024, they're going to go back to taking their standard 20%.
But for the rest of the year, they're being very good to content creators and to their own brand, if we can say, you know, be realistic about it.
There is a sponsor to tonight's episode, as you may have seen when it said this video contains this paid sponsorship.
When we're talking about the things that people do that actually harm themselves, potentially, you know, just take this rushed thing, you know, there's stuff that you could do that's actually healthy and, like, demonstrably proven healthy.
I actually ingest this stuff, but I also ingest a buttload of raw fruits and vegetables.
It's a little-known fact, or it's known to everybody who knows, that you're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
It's a known fact that most people, and I'm not even pointing fingers at Americans here, Canadians also were not doing too good on the obesity scale, the health scale.
It's a known fact that most people don't have their daily doses of vegetables, fruits and vegetables, with all of the vitamins, nutrients, antioxidants, etc.
A good way to make up for that bad habit, I ate an entire container of arugula this afternoon.
Probably too much.
We don't want to get into detail.
A good alternative to bad habits and to get your fruits and vegetables.
I don't have mine on the table.
Field of greens.
Powdered greens.
They're not...
Extracts.
It's not supplements.
It's powdered food.
Desiccated fruits and vegetables.
Got all the antioxidants.
USDA organic approved.
Made in America.
One spoonful has one serving of fruits and vegetables.
All of the antioxidant stuff.
It's a good habit.
It's healthy.
Do it twice a day.
You get two servings of fruits and vegetables.
Nothing beats raw fruits and vegetables, but it's a good habit to have instead of a Red Bull, which I still sometimes.
More often than not do.
Okay, fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, 15% off your order.
And they also have lean weight loss things that increase metabolism.
It's good stuff.
And I actually use it myself, so it makes it very easy to endorse.
Thank you, Field of Greens.
Now I see Robert has been patient, but Robert does not look like he's home.
Hold on.
Robert, I'm bringing you in in three, two, one faster than I said.
Sir, how goes the battle?
Can you see me and hear me?
I can see you and I can hear you.
You're staring into my soul right now, Robert.
Good, good.
I think the internet's a little shaky where I'm at, so hopefully it goes good through the show.
No, no.
It's super smooth.
May I ask where you are?
Are you still where we saw each other yesterday?
No, no.
In Dallas, here for a Hillsdale event, going to be speaking tomorrow.
They do a range of, Hillsdale College does a range of speaking events throughout the country for their members and alumni and donors.
Hillsdale's great college.
It was actually started as an anti-slavery institution and refuses to take federal funds.
So they use these events to help raise the funds for their students to go through.
They're one of the few colleges of their caliber that doesn't take any federal money or the strings that come with that.
Fantastic.
And Robert, I'll say it.
Look, we had our meet and greet on a...
What was it called?
What was the boat called?
The Princess...
The Southern Bell.
The Southern Bell.
I keep thinking.
We had our meet and greet Saturday night on the Southern Bell Tennessee boat tour.
And then we had the after party on the barge.
It was phenomenal.
There was an unexpected event, which I'll talk about later.
I want to get some stuff clarified before and then see.
We'll talk about it later because it was unexpected.
But the event itself, that aside, was amazing.
You gave me...
I mean, a historical, cultural, political tour and geographical tour of Chattanooga, Tennessee, where I can now appreciate seeing the impact of politics and policies on small-town America, not in a judgmental way, just in terms of the last places to actually see the impact of decisions, of policies, of court decisions.
It was fascinating, eye-opening.
I'll talk about it more tomorrow when I go live without you, but...
We don't need to go over the massive list real quick, Robert.
What do we have on the list tonight?
Well, by popular demand, people wanted us to cover fewer topics more in depth, so we'll be shifting to a 12-topic focus for future Sunday show editions, even on the Monday live edition here.
So tonight's top 12 topics are, first up, media news, Don Lemon out at CNN and Matt Taibbi threatened by Congress.
Second, Alec Baldwin's charges dismissed.
Third, the big news or the most popular topic for us to discuss tonight, Tucker Carlson out at Fox as Fox purges almost all of its populist voices.
Dan Bongino, Laura Lee Trump, also out at Fox.
They had previously used the pretext of Dominion to get rid of Lou Dobbs, one of the prominent populist voices over the last several years at Fox.
We have Fauci, whether or not there's more evidence from the director of national intelligence corroborating other evidence that Fauci committed perjury before Congress concerning his involvement in COVID in its creation.
We have the Global Disinformation Institute getting outed for who it really is, as Oracle and Microsoft both cut ties from it, as its nonprofit, nonpartisan status was revealed maybe not to be either.
We have a lawsuit by University of Wyoming sorority who don't like the trans male pretending to be male in their audience.
We got a frat-hazing lawsuit concerning San Diego State.
We have Bragg, the man who's indicted Donald Trump, losing a big fight over a subpoena by Jim Jordan's weaponization committee for one of the prosecutors that helped him.
We have the Biden crazy mortgage order.
Better the credit.
The more you put down, the less credit you get.
Effectively.
Higher rates for those with good credit.
Lower rates for those with bad credit.
Redistribution through mortgage control.
Is it legal?
Will it be challenged?
Blinken now faces increasing calls for his impeachment based on information that came out about his interference in the 2020 election with his pals in the deep state concerning the Hunter Biden laptop and other controversies.
We have black nationalists and socialists being indicted.
On the grounds that they're helping Russia, the misuse and abuse of the Foreign Agents Registration Act continues to expand into areas previously protected by speech, much as the January 6th prosecutions that went from trespass and mischief up to sedition have misused and abused those criminal laws to circumscribe and criminalize protests.
We have multiple cases on the elections front.
True the Vote wins a big dismissal.
Big First Amendment win for Gateway Pundit.
The Arizona Attorney General might yet, the Republican candidate, may yet be reinstated as the actual legitimate winner there.
We'll be talking about that.
Supreme Court, the abortion pill went up before them.
What did they do about it?
And then just a few small bonus cases.
BitBoy Crypto was threatening to skip court.
We'll see if he actually did do that today.
And Teflon Elon wins again as Tesla dodges another verdict in front of another jury.
All right, Robert.
So we'll start.
We'll do a few and then we'll go over to YouTube.
We'll leave YouTube and go over to Rumble exclusively.
What the...
We might also have to throw in Ray Epps in 60 Minutes because I don't understand.
I think I know what 60 Minutes is trying to do and I don't think it's good, but we'll get there.
So this is wild.
CNN apparently dropped...
Well, they dropped Don Lemon today.
Same day as Fox News apparently dropping Tucker Carlson, but I have my questions about that in a second.
What is that, Robert?
Oh, that's an S-T.
That looks like T. Okay, and we'll get to Taibbi.
So what is going on?
The Don Lemon versus Tucker Carlson being dismissed by their respective networks are wildly different.
Tucker Carlson, I think, has been liberated, whereas I think Don Lemon has been let go.
What is your take on what's going on?
Because I don't think these two are comparable.
So yeah, if you look at Don Lemon, he's clearly planning on bringing a lawsuit by the nature of his statements.
He said that he was released today without a meeting from management.
CNN then came out and said that Don Lemon was lying.
Glenn Greenwald commented on how the lawsuit is coming soon.
I have reason to believe that there will be a good number of witnesses coming forward about Don Lemon concerning his bad behavior towards women especially.
In ways that really constitute sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, just not for a prurient purpose, but for still a discriminatory purpose.
I think people will be shocked to know how many women experienced bad behavior by Don Lemon during his tenure there.
It was a different kind of Me Too discrimination by Don Lemon.
I can't say where I may have got that information.
Let me refresh everybody's memory.
There was this lawsuit.
Robert, I don't expect any nod of approval.
I know nothing internally of that lawsuit except for what I read in the papers.
His alleged sexual assault against your client's name.
I forget his name right now.
Dustin Heiss.
Dustin Heiss.
Don Lemon allegedly, after Dustin made a lemon drop drink joke to Dustin Heiss, allegedly, allegedly, and they settled, and it didn't, you know, it wasn't good for your client, but allegedly Don Lemon stuck his hands down his pants, rubbed in between, stuck his fingers up Heiss's nose, and then says, do you like the P or the V, penis or vagina?
Dustin Heiss was traumatized.
This was in a bar in New York or some fancy neighborhood, and it settled.
Oh, the Hampton.
So it's settled, and there was allegedly other evidence of improper conduct.
And now the poo-poo has hit the fan with Don Lemon on his new show, which I presume was not doing all that well in the first place because Don Lemon sucks and nobody wants to hear anything he has to say.
And now he's been fired, and there might be more stories of improprieties coming out.
Yeah, and apparently he's probably going to say he was sued because he's gay and black, is my guess.
It'll be some combination of racial and gender discrimination suit he'll bring to try to shake down CNN.
CNN has new owners, of course.
Once CNN got new owners, I told people to be on the lookout for some of these changes coming down the pipeline.
Of course, Brian Stelter's been gone for a little while.
Now Don Lemon is gone.
And so we'll see.
And Lemon, I think, thinks he has a much stronger suit than he actually probably does.
So I don't think Lemon would prevail in that suit if CNN fought it tooth and nail.
But, you know, it's not as insane legally as what Matt Taibbi had to see threatened from Congress.
Hold on, before we get there, because I'm reading the chat now, and it seems that people are sufficiently new to the channel that they're not aware of Don Lemon's lawsuit, which settled, and apparently Dustin Heiss said he misremembered.
I'm not saying whether it's settled or not.
At the time that it was dismissed, there were multiple motions pending, including there were issues pending concerning subpoenas for witnesses.
So that's all I can say on this subject.
At the time of dismissal, those matters were pending.
I have no further commentary.
And I don't want to ask you, Robert.
I'm not asking you and I'm not, I just want to read the Dustin Heiss 41 accused lemon 56 of putting quote, his hand down the front of his own shorts and vigorously rubbed his genitalia, removed his hand and shoved his index and middle fingers into plaintiff's mustache under Heiss.
I like the fact that there's sufficiently new people to the community.
Because I covered that before...
I covered that before.
Yeah, before I was his counsel.
Other lawyers were his counsel before I stepped in.
Yeah, that's amazing.
Yeah, I think his days were numbered for quite a while.
But he never really built a strong audience.
was supposed to be sort of an everything for everybody kind of liberal, moderate messenger that checked some diversity boxes and never made a profit for CNN, continued to decline in the ratings, but also behind the scenes was causing lots of problems for other women who worked there.
And I think a lot of that will come out.
And so I thought his days were numbered anyway, that he bought time by that suit not going forward to trial, I'll put it that way, but that there was only so much time he could buy.
I say this not to be...
Revel in the misery of others.
I hope he saved money.
He's a guy who deserves to be fired.
I can say that.
I hope he saved money, and I hope he has a plan B. And not in the plan B sense we're going to get to later tonight.
All right, now, Robert.
So that's Don Lennon.
Good riddance.
No one ever liked him.
I mean, he was on point 10 years ago, but then at least with one issue.
Matt Taibbi, Robert.
So I got...
I mean, Matt was...
Amazing.
I get to Chattanooga, and as I'm en route, I'm DMing Matt, and he says, I can make it today.
What time?
I was like, dude, I will get to wherever you need me to be.
I'll do it from my rental car if I have to.
He came on Friday night and talked about it.
And for those of you who missed that, go watch that interview.
It was great.
Matt Taibbi, the journalist, the award-winning journalist at Rolling Stone for an extended period of time, was the Democrat darling while he, you know...
While he did not question their authority, he's become public enemy number one since, at the very least, maybe earlier, but at the very least since his involvement in the Twitter files, where he basically disclosed what is nothing less than overt CIA, FBI intelligence involvement in social media to suppress neither of the events and interfere with elections.
He testified before Congress as relates to the government's involvement.
Said that CISA, which is the Cyber Internet Security Agency, was a partner with the EIP, the Election Integrity Partnership, which was a Stanford-based initiative to ensure the integrity of elections, yada, yada, yada.
In one of his tweet threads in the reporting, he quoted a tweet that referenced a CIS, which is a cyber internet security, a separate organism, a non-for-profit, which gets its funding from the government, but set that aside.
He saw the CIS.
And thought it was a typo for the CISA, inserted the A in a square bracket, and before Congress said how the CISA, the government federal agency, had partnered with the EIP to basically partake in flagging, identifying, and removing disinformation on social media.
Mehdi Hassan found the mistake and excoriated Matt Taibbi publicly during an interview.
Saying it was perjury, you testified and you said CISA was involved and it was CIS.
A distinction without a difference, if anybody hasn't seen my vlog, go watch it.
It was yesterday.
But CISA was, in fact, a confirmed partner with the EIP regardless.
They were working with EIP regardless.
Matt Taibbi did make a mistake by thinking CIS was CISA and changing it.
Stacey Plaskett, a non-voting member of the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, In her original questioning of Matt Taibbi, referred to him as a direct threat to people who opposed him.
And then after Mehdi Hassan gave her her talking points, sent him a letter, allegedly, a two or three-page letter, saying, you made a mistake in your testimony.
You signed a truth and testimony document, and this is perjury.
You're on the hook for five years, potentially.
My first question, Robert?
What does a non-voting member of a committee mean?
How did she get there?
And what is the authority of a non-voting member of a committee?
Usually non-voting members are people that are from the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, so that they get representation for the purposes of speaking out on issues in committees and in the House, but they don't have voting power.
Because they don't represent a district that has constitutional authority to send someone to vote.
So that's typically what that means.
I assume that person is from one of those places.
That's usually what it means, unless there's something particular to the committee that's true here.
Her letter means nothing unless it's a specific request from the committee and the whole Congress for some sort of content proceeding to proceed by the Biden Justice Department.
And she knows that will never happen because the Republicans in the House will never vote for it.
Of course, on top of that, Taibbi didn't do anything wrong, didn't do anything criminal at all.
Finding a typo is not exactly the biggest crime in the world, nor is it a crime to begin with.
His thought it was a typo, and he subsequently corrected it as far as I know, as soon as he was made aware of it.
The committee itself, the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, is that what the committee is supposed to do, or is that what they're supposed to investigate, Robert?
I mean, part of it, yes.
So it relates to anything and everything where the government has been utilized for political or partisan purposes, and part of that was revealed in the Twitter files that Taibbi had thoroughly investigated and documented.
All the different ways there had been overt and open collusion between the various government agencies and social media for the purposes of discrimination against viewpoint-based discrimination and censorship that was being either requested or in some cases demanded by FBI officials, CIA officials, State Department officials, Homeland Security officials, Biden White House officials.
And that's why his information was material and pertinent for that committee.
But they can't do anything about it.
Democrats hated the fact that a longtime liberal Democrat journalist or affiliated journalist was the one outing their own corruption and collusion for censorship and the rest.
And that's why he was being targeted and harassed for those purposes.
But the committee member can't do anything about it.
Because there needs to be a full House vote and there won't ever be a full House vote because the House doesn't, the full members of the House, majority, don't think Taibbi did anything wrong because legally he didn't do anything wrong.
What do you make of the IRS, not allegedly, it's confirmed now, the IRS visiting Matt Taibbi the day he's giving his testimony before the House subcommittee?
Yeah, it just shows the continued open overt weaponization of every aspect of the justice system and the dual standard we have.
Because contrast that with, you know, when it originally happened, I said I did not think Alec Baldwin would ever face criminal prosecution.
Then they assigned an independent special prosecutor to the case.
She is politically ambitious and was seen as a Republican conservative.
And so she did bring charges against Baldwin.
Baldwin's people immediately demanded her recusal on the grounds of political discrimination.
Keep this in mind out there, folks.
People say, oh, as a lawyer, you should never challenge the ethics of the prosecutor.
You should never challenge the ethics of a judge or the impartiality of a judge.
But if you do so, then that's just always going to backfire on you and backfire on your client.
Well, look what happened with Alec Baldwin's lawyers.
They got that special prosecutor to recuse herself.
After all these accusations targeting and focusing her, focused on her.
What happened after that?
Well, then the new prosecutors on the case first dismissed the felony charges, and then they came in and dismissed all the charges against Alec Baldwin because a preliminary hearing was pending, and they said they didn't have sufficient evidence in their views to win on the preliminary hearing stage.
A preliminary hearing happens in state court cases where you don't go through a grand jury.
Where instead you bring a criminal complaint and then the judge holds a preliminary examination and acts in substitute of what the role the grand jury typically has in other cases or contexts.
And apparently what Baldwin's people are claiming is that they have expert evidence that the gun was manipulated in such a way that it could have gone off without him ever pulling the trigger at any time.
I'm still deeply skeptical of that.
Somehow, what, the FBI missed this?
I don't think so.
I think this is political manipulation, that there was a lot of pressure not to bring in prosecution by Democratic prosecutors against a high-profile Democratic target.
I think the DA was another one of those Soros-picked DAs that tried to get around the trouble by appointing an independent prosecutor, and once Baldwin's people got rid of the independent prosecutor, they're back to politics, and he's probably going to walk and never face criminal prosecution for killing somebody.
Robert, we should be fair.
We always are fair.
The dropping of the enhancement was legally justified.
The enhancement was the minimum five years because the crime was conducted with a firearm.
What was the rationale as to why the enhancement was wrong?
The problem was they had changed the enhancement laws after the incident occurred.
Okay.
So dropping the enhancement was fine.
And legally justified it.
Dropping the charges, are these permanently dropped, or can they go back and...
Okay, explain that.
Their official explanation is that they're just stepping back to reinvestigate Baldwin's new claims that they didn't have time to do prior to the preliminary hearing, and they have the full authority to...
They're only dismissed without prejudice, and they have the full authority to renew those charges wherever and whenever they want, as long as it's within the statute of limitations.
I am deeply skeptical that they plan on doing it.
That they will ever do so.
I think they're going to monitor and measure the court of public opinion's response.
And if there isn't a lot of outrage they hear, they won't prosecute them.
But you have the same thing in the States.
If you don't bring criminal charges in a reasonable period of time, then they are basically moot, stayed, whatever the term is.
I mean, it's been now.
It's well over a year.
If they don't...
Probably the statute of limitations is probably five years, six years.
So they probably have plenty of time.
Outrageous.
He'll walk.
And they're resuming production of the film Rust with the widow of Helena Hutchins, the husband.
It makes sense, people, in an upside-down clown world.
Okay, everybody, we have 3,000 people now currently watching on YouTube.
Make your way over to Rumble because that's where we're going right now.
Link is here.
With all the inside information on Fox and Tucker Carlson and Dominion Settlement and all the rest, then you got to get it on Rumble because we'll be talking about things they don't like to be talked about on YouTube.
I'll still publish the highlight to YouTube tomorrow.
You'll have to wait if you're going to be stubbornly not going to Rumble.
Go to Rumble right now or you can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It's live there as well.
Ending on YouTube in...
Three...
No, not view on...
Jeez, I thought I just ended the stream.
Let me...
I'm such a idiot.
End in three, two, one.
Now.
Yes.
Okay, now we are officially done on YouTube for the night.
How did the video...
How did the camera re-enable?
Hold on, people.
I'm going to...
I downloaded the app, and now I'm going to just disable instant thing here.
Okay, disable.
And now I can move my face.
Okay, good.
Robert, what the hell is going on?
My first question, do we know definitively that Fox News fired Tucker or ended the contract or didn't renew it, or did Tucker say, I'm leaving?
We don't know who precipitated it fully, but we can reasonably infer, given from Tucker's relatively recent behavior, that this was a surprise to him.
So now I do know that Tucker had been telling people behind the scenes now for years.
That he thought his days were numbered at Fox.
The trajectory and history of Tucker Carlson, his father was a big news correspondent out in Southern California.
His father was one of the people who sort of outed someone who was kind of a fraudster, was a criminal on the lam who changed genders and changed names.
And changed a little more than that because they had an outstanding criminal warrant for them while they were designing a so-called new car that was supposed to solve everything.
But Tucker was kind of the prep school conservative, conventional conservative on Crossfire and other places.
Was, you know, co-hosting with Fox and Friends, you know, started the Daily Caller.
And beginning, you know, he was one of the people that began to slowly transition.
The George W. Bush coalition, the Bushite coalition, the post-Cold War Republican coalition was always very fragile because the Cold War coalition brought back a lot of your anti-war, traditional, war-skeptical, foreign engagement-skeptical Midwestern Republicans into the Cold War camp that made them...
It led them to justify the military-industrial complex and its agenda.
But without the Cold War to cover for that agenda, they weren't able to find any other support.
It fell apart under the first Bush when he got under 40%, I think one of the lowest election rates for an incumbent president ever.
Then George W. Bush snuck in in 2000, arguably thanks to the Supreme Court.
That's debated to this day.
Then 9-11 happens, and 9-11 rallies the Republican base enough for him to win in 2004.
Tucker, during that whole time period, is sort of a conventional conservative on the patriotic train, on the Iraq War train, on the Afghan War train, all that.
Ben Norton and others on the left have been critical of him, highlighting that old part of the past, but ignore his recent trajectory.
Then the Bush coalition really fell apart in working class middle America due to a combination of the disastrous war in Iraq and the disastrous bank bailouts in 2008.
And George W. Bush finished as the lowest approval rating of any incumbent president that wasn't impeached in history.
And at various points, he was actually lower than Nixon at his lowest levels after the threat of impeachment.
Tucker started transferring around that time and slowly but steadily became friends with Alex Jones, started tuning into more of the populist right as he saw the populist right had a better, more accurate critique than conventional, traditional Republican partisan conservatism of the Bushite variety.
That populism began to rise and rise.
He would often appear on Alex Jones' show on InfoWars, something you would never see any other Fox hosts do.
And when they let Bill O 'Reilly go after sexual harassment suit number 20 or whatever it was, Tucker immediately took off because Tucker appealed to somebody that Fox was losing appeal to, which was the populist wing of the Republican Party and conservative and independent causes.
And young people, which are also very, the new memers, the Gen Xers, the Zoomers, the millennials, the younger generations.
Not the boomers, not the silent generation, was the group that Tucker uniquely appealed to.
So not only did his ratings on average do a third to 50% bigger audience share than Bill O 'Reilly ever got, but he was tapping young people in ways nobody at Fox was getting access to.
Democrats, independents, nobody at Fox.
So he was their big moneymaker.
He was making 30, 35 million a year, according to various published reports.
But he was making Fox a lot more than that.
No better evidence of that than as soon as it was announced that he separated from Fox today, Fox lost about a billion dollars in stock value.
That's how damaging it was.
And it was, you know, Rogan added a billion in stock value to Spotify when it was announced he was going to go exclusive there.
And that was, I think, fair valuation of Rogan's impact on Spotify.
Tucker, when his exit, cost Fox a billion.
And this relates to why Fox, I think this was, I mean, the report in the LA Times from Murdoch's camp is that Murdoch initiated this, basically told Tucker he was going to be under stricter controls, editorial controls.
Tucker said he wasn't interested in being under stricter editorial controls.
It relates.
To Ray Epps and the January 6th coverage was kind of the final straw.
Has nothing at all to do with Dominion.
There may be a relation, but it's not due to the substance of the suit because Tucker was one of the people that was critical of the Dominion theory from the very inception.
Yeah, but Robert, is there not an attempt potentially to give the impression of throwing Tucker under the bus by timing this so that people in their own minds are going to say, well, shit, they might have...
Now they're really coming down with the hammer and they're punishing those who lied despite that fact?
Because I had to refresh my memory.
I remember Tucker Carlson being the only one, giving Sidney Powell the hard time on where the hell is the Kraken?
Giuliani.
But in the settlement, or at least in the reporting on the settlement, they were lumping Tucker in with Bartolomo, Dobbs.
They were lumping Tucker in with the rest of them when I don't think he was.
But this timing of this decision seems to, at least in the public perception, maybe link Tucker to the decision, and this is a sanction.
Yeah, I mean, Tucker was the most critical of Dominion at Fox.
So the Dominion planned on using Tucker to be critical of the other people at Fox.
They had no claims that Tucker ever made a single false statement about Dominion.
So Tucker didn't induce or create any liability for Fox.
It was that Tucker's private comments show that the other members of Fox that did publish allegedly false statements about Dominion should have known better because Tucker told them not to publish those statements.
But there's no question that there's no correlation between the Dominion settlement directly and Tucker's termination, because Tucker was a favorable witness for Fox, not an unfavorable one, and he didn't hurt Fox at all concerning Dominion.
Tucker has never caused Fox to be successfully sued, ever.
So that explanation wouldn't suffice at all.
And what Murdoch's camp was leaking was that it had nothing to do with that, too.
They immediately said nothing to do with Dominion.
It was to do with how he was covering January 6th.
They wanted to put more editorial control on him.
He wasn't interested in that editorial control, so they parted ways.
The only question would be whether or not, as part of their separation, Tucker's agreed not to go anywhere else, to a competitor or anything else, for a period of time.
That would be my biggest.
How much did they pay him?
They probably paid him full freight.
They probably paid out his whole deal.
So he's getting paid not to work, essentially.
Now, as to Fox, so Tucker took this trajectory that became a very populist voice, the biggest populist voice anywhere in mainstream media.
He wouldn't call himself a populist, but his critique was populist.
Robert, if I can stop you there just for one second.
Do you know how Tucker's MO works?
He's a populist voice.
We listen to Tucker, but...
Does he have a team that does the research?
Does he have a team that answers to him but nonetheless, at the end of the day, answers to him so it's not like he is repeating talking points or points that someone else is feeding him?
His top producer left with him today.
There's several of his producers I know because I've talked to them.
There's several of his producers that are actually members of VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
So they would get their source information from other populist content creators and independent voices, of which we were one, of which Alex Jones was one.
It's not a coincidence if you saw Jones big on a particular topic that you saw Tucker big on that same topic that night, but Tucker was the only one on Fox big on that same topic.
It's because he was a fan.
He talks to Jones all the time.
So Jones thought Tucker would be gone sooner than he actually was based on his conversations with Tucker.
So Tucker had decided, and he'd been more and more public about this, he'd been doing podcasts saying, you know, the whole media machine is a corrupt propaganda, a bunch of, you know, deep state whores and corporate whores who just shill for these empty institutions that hurt America and hurt the people, and that he regretted ever being part of it and had no interest in being complicit in it at any time in the future.
And the moment Fox stepped in and wouldn't let him broadcast certain January 6th video coverage, because remember he got all those January 6th videotapes and only some he was allowed to disclose, that meant the clock was ticking.
And so it's not a surprise that they got rid of him.
I think here's the Fox problem.
One is it's important to not underestimate how the media, liberal media, liberal academy, liberal politicians, liberal elite decision makers.
All have this very delusional perspective that all of America would agree with Barack Obama but for Fox News.
Barack Obama believes this insanity.
These are people that don't understand why Fox News existed.
And guess who else doesn't understand why Fox News existed?
The board at Fox.
So the Fox Corporation, the HBO show Succession is loosely based on Fox, not loosely, it's almost identical to the story of the Murdoch family.
It's quite obvious what they're doing.
It has, you know, liberal political bias thrown in for kicks and giggles because it's HBO and they can't help themselves.
But otherwise, if you want a behind-the-scenes show of what's been happening at Fox, the show Succession is about 75% accurate in that.
Where it's inaccurate is this belief that conservative opinion wouldn't exist but for Fox.
They don't understand the cause and effect at all.
And people like Paul Ryan really think Fox controls conservative opinion, creates conservative opinion, shapes conservative opinion the way the liberal, you know, your Gabriel Shermans and all these other hacks pretend it does.
These are people who think Roger Ailes created Donald Trump, not recognizing Roger Ailes actually fought a war on behalf of Rupert Murdoch to stop Donald Trump in 2016.
Megyn Kelly didn't do her.
She would say it wasn't an ambush question.
I would say it was an ambush question.
And I like Megyn.
I'm a fan.
She's been very kind to us.
We've been on the air with her.
But that's what that was.
And, you know, she just lost out because Trump is the master of such persuasion and redefined that whole campaign by his first answer.
But in Fox's world, they really came about in the 90s because all of media was liberal.
And there was a massive appetite amongst conservatives for something that just wasn't liberal media telling them they're wrong every night and lying to them and gaslighting them every single night.
And slowly but steadily, you know, ABC, which had had conservative voices like Brit Hume and others, were slowly, you know, getting rid of some of those people.
Ailes understood the value of it.
He'd been in political media since the '60s, and Murdoch aligned with him, and Ailes created a network that met the audience, but it was still not the entire conservative audience.
You know, 9 /11 was a dividing line for some.
Others, then the war was another one, and then the failure of that war, and then the bank bailouts was another one.
Fox stayed, however, through that whole time period, for the most part, with a conventional conservative approach.
And its foundational generational audience was the silent generation.
Well, most of the silent generation is dead.
So what you have now is they just have some boomers, and they only have a portion of the boomers.
They were losing market share amongst younger audiences every single year.
Even when they increased audience size, they were doing it almost entirely with elderly communities.
And in Fox's world, they usually built everybody.
Sean Hannity's a Fox creation, a Roger Ailes creation.
Without Roger Ailes, nobody cares who Sean Hannity is.
Bill O 'Reilly proved this.
I said forever that all these other personalities were Fox created.
Even Glenn Beck, who was the most independent of the voices, thought he would have his whole audience go with him.
It took him years to rebuild that audience that he had at Fox.
What Fox didn't understand was that the political zeitgeist was shifting.
And the populist resurgency was becoming stronger and stronger and stronger.
And they didn't see it.
They didn't appreciate it.
They didn't understand it.
They tried to wage war on Trump.
Trump started to wage war on them in January of 2016.
Their brand ID went from plus 20 positive amongst conservatives to negative 20 in just two weeks.
That's when they decided no more waging war on Donald Trump.
That's when they decided to play ball.
That's when Sean Hannity suddenly became a Trump fan.
He wasn't initially.
He was a Ted Cruz backer.
He was sticking through the Murdoch script.
So that's when they embraced Trump, and they had to because they knew they would lose their audience.
2020 election comes along.
They have a bunch of Democratic liberals running their election desk.
They call Arizona much sooner than they should have.
They were very dismissive initially of election issues.
One American News Network and Newsmax were happy to talk about those issues.
They started losing market share fast.
Audience share fast.
And that's when they allowed some of their voices to take the bait on Dominion, like Lou Dobbs and some others.
And then ultimately the Dominion suit happens.
I still think that's a frivolous suit, but we'll get into that in just a bit.
During this whole time period, once Trump was out, Murdoch didn't want Trump to come back.
Puts Paul Ryan on the board, puts a lot more establishment voices on the board.
And so the net effect is they were, but they had brought Tucker Carlson in because, oh, he was this nice, young, preppy conservative.
Not recognizing how fully populist he'd become, but they were scared to touch him because he had the best ratings by far at Fox.
And he was bringing in audiences Fox couldn't get within 100 feet of.
Sean Hannity ain't bringing in any Zoomers.
There aren't a bunch of meme makers praising Sean Hannity every week.
Nobody cares, frankly, what Sean Hannity thinks, except some old partisan conservative Republicans that still think George W. Bush is popular and still thinks there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
That's a losing small group of people.
But I think Fox believes that...
Everybody before Tucker, it didn't matter that they got rid of him.
Their audience stayed the same.
So it sometimes even grew.
I think they've completely misread Tucker.
They don't understand that that Tucker audience ain't tuning into Fox.
Now, they should have seen it.
On average, half of Tucker's audience doesn't watch any other part of Fox.
You know, that's a million, million and a half people.
Two million at some nights.
They don't understand it.
Because imagine if Paul Ryan is your board member.
This guy makes that dimwitted Daily Wire whose Steven Crowder contract look like a genius of business skills.
Jeremy Boring?
Yeah, Jeremy Boring.
The well-named Jeremy Boring.
I mean, whatever you think about Crowder, whatever you think about the Daily Wire, that was just poor negotiation tactics.
But Boring is still more clued in than Paul Ryan is.
Paul Ryan is completely clueless.
He still doesn't.
You mean there aren't a bunch of conservatives that don't want to privatize Social Security and Medicare?
You mean all those Midwestern independent working class voters can't wait to make Social Security not available until you're 70?
Really?
That can't possibly be true.
This is how clueless these people are.
I mean, I told people when Paul Ryan was added to the ticket in Wisconsin, it's like, watch, Wisconsin will be even more democratic than the rest of the country.
That's exactly what happened.
And yet these people, like a lot of your dissimps, they're living in denial land because they haven't studied these results.
I mean, the kind of people who think DeSantis is a better candidate than Trump and that it's a smart idea for DeSantis to challenge Trump are the same people who think it's a smart idea for Fox to fire Tucker Carlson.
And that's where their reality is so deeply disconnected.
It doesn't surprise me.
I would have loved to have known this in advance because I would have shorted Fox Stocks today and made a lot of cash.
I think Fox, because Fox Nation's subscriber service, its number one driver by far was Tucker Carlson.
They're going to lose about a million plus people every night from their audience share.
Worse yet, that million is the younger generation that matters the most to advertisers.
Because, yo, young people can keep buying this product for 50 years.
When you're 70, folks, they know your time is limited.
So, you know, it's now the geriatric network for old country club conservatives and a few religious conservatives.
It's opened the door for One America News Network, opened the door for Newsmax, opened the door for Alex Jones, opened the door for a lot of populist voices to have a stronger market share.
And if Rumble is smart, now, you know, Well, maybe.
I mean, I think he does have the money now.
Chris does.
Even better than Rogan, hire Tucker Carlson to have it every night.
Offer him 50 mil a year to do an every night show at 8 p.m.
And Rumble will become the place for independent content creator speech, whether you're interested in sports, gaming, entertainment, culture, politics, law, news, geopolitics, you name it.
Rumble will be whether you're left, whether you're right, whether you're libertarian, whether you're traditionalist, whether you're populist.
You want an independent voice.
There's only one place you're going to get it.
It's going to be Rumble.
So I hope that's where the deal goes because that's the most logical place.
And the fact that his lead producer has already left with him.
It tells me that Tucker is preparing and planning for precisely that.
You imagine what Rumble has seen now with the Crowder acquisition, despite whatever the investment was, and I have no idea.
The return that they must have seen with the Crowder investment, and it's not to say that Crowder's less than Tucker, but less in...
Yeah, Crowder's less than Tucker.
I like Crowder, but he's nowhere near Tucker.
Tucker is the smart version, the erudite version, the broader audience version of Steven Crowder.
I just want to come to Jeremy Boring's defense just temporarily.
The commercial that they did with...
Well, the guy that just left Tucker, I mean, Crowder, could give you credibility on that accord because he detailed that...
You know, personally, I'm totally shocked that these Hollywood types are narcissists that are impossible to work for.
But that's basically the info.
I'm going to mispronounce his last name, Landau or Dave Landau.
That doesn't surprise me.
I've heard that story many times about Crowder.
And again, I've been a defender of Crowder.
I'm not a huge...
Watcher, actually.
I agreed with him in the Daily Wire debate because this was the future, as Matt Walsh just found out.
Matt Walsh now is going to have to leave YouTube entirely because if he wouldn't use preferred pronouns, then that was it.
But by the way, to give you an idea of the Fox purge, this is a purge of all populists.
Remember what we've heard over just the last three days.
Dan Bongino, also out at Fox.
Laura Lee Trump, also out at Fox.
And this was after they used Dominion to get rid of Lou Dopp.
There's not a populist voice left at Fox unless you count Jesse Waters.
Amazing.
I was going to say, with Jeremy Boring, the commercial they did with the chocolate bar with nuts was good to get back at Hershey's.
Hold on, Robert.
Let me bring this up.
And I do like Gutfeld.
People are asking Gutfeld.
Gutfeld previously has an open invite for me to be on.
I like Gutfeld.
But Gutfeld's more in the comedian sector, right?
So he's interesting.
He's funny.
He's like Steven Crowder.
But in terms of real influence on policymakers, there's nobody that compares to Tucker Carlson in terms of if you care about the populist cause.
Tucker was the number one shaper of that by far.
Robert, I gotta read these.
I didn't notice there were so many.
Jane Catherine Berry says, in response to Fox firing, RFK Jr. has been quoted as saying, Tucker is breathtakingly courageous.
Meredith G., $5 Rumble Rand, says, Carlson's producer's jumping ship indicates he may not be silent for long.
Or he might not be ill-prepared or unprepared.
Okiwiwi.
Viva, please look up Superspreaders on Rumble.
They are showing the National Citizens' Inquiry and...
Could do with your help being known.
Thank you.
I will.
Let me just screen grab that.
I'm also going to be a witness during the National Citizens Inquiry in May.
So it'll be probably remotely because I'm not going to fly to Ottawa for an overnighter.
Karen Tov, I worked at the grocery business for 18 years.
Tucker was a loss leader.
The thing we enticed people to come into the store with.
Absolutely.
He was the only reason I ever paid attention to Fox.
And I'm just going to go, hey, Fox News now is on par with CNN.
Congratulations, you did it to yourself.
The engaged few.
I wonder why Crowder's wife was filing for divorce.
Hasn't been reported on at all.
I don't get into people's marital issues.
I really don't care.
Itsy Bitsy Spider, how much money does the populist pack need to be optimally effective?
Arkansas Crime Attorney, which is Little Rock on YouTube.
You should, you have to get Rumble to sign Tucker.
I invested when I got the hint Stephen Crowder was going to Rumble.
There was no other platform for him.
If Tucker moves that way, I am all in.
I cannot buy, not I cannot buy, I do not want to buy Rumble stock because I don't want anyone accusing me of insider anything.
I have no insider knowledge.
But if I were free and a lay person out there, I would have bought Rumble stock over Crédit Suisse, which I've lost my goddarn investment in.
Britt Cormier, wait another 10 months, Viva.
They will be saying we never required government workers to be vaccinated.
They could have always quit.
All right, Robert.
Oh, now there may be lawyers tied in.
I think there is a Dominion tie-in.
It's just not quite what people maybe think it is.
So first of all, that settlement is absurd.
So let's give a perspective of Dominion.
Dominion is a company of three-quarters of which was bought by, a little more than three-quarters of which, was bought by a Wall Street company in 2018.
And they paid like $30 million or so, $35, somewhere in that neighborhood.
Basically, Dominion was considered a $50 million total value company.
And Fox just pays them $780-some million?
That just makes no sense right away.
Let me stop you there.
Forget the valuation of the company.
Let's say they were a $50 million voting company, but they found $3 billion in gold or oil in their backyard.
Fine.
Fox was being sued for $1.6 billion.
They settled for 50 cents on the dollar with no rights to appeal, no delay to pay.
I mean, I don't know what they might have payment terms, but they settled for 50 cents on the dollar with no appealing of that summary judgment, which was very bad for Fox, but nonetheless a judgment susceptible of appeal.
And they basically guaranteed 50% of the loss as opposed to worst case scenario with all the rights of appeal and the negotiation that comes along with that of twice that or what they're claiming.
If Dominion could even prove those damages, which let's just say they lost some contracts in Texas and wherever, whether or not they were worth 1.6 billion.
Okay.
If on trial, they even lost to the maximum degree.
Just to me, from a risk analysis perspective, it makes no sense.
People accuse me of saying, well, you're not on the inside.
You have no idea what's going on.
I know how bad it was.
They got the summary judgment that deprived them of basically all of their defenses, except the actual malice.
The statements were deemed defamatory.
All of it, they just had to go to trial and defend against the actual malice.
People saying that the internal text messages revealed that Fox knew what they were saying were lies.
First of all, to that, Robert, I would say if you're going to settle for 50 cents on the dollar, you do it before the depositions of the discoveries, not after all the damaging information has come out.
Was there more damaging information that they had not yet released?
Those are my thoughts.
I do not understand how they came to the settlement, and I can only think nefarious or conspiratorial reasons for the settlement, but what is your take?
Yeah, no, I think it's patent malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty by the Fox board, and legal malpractice.
Now, I think two issues.
One, you have corporate lawyers.
Big corporate lawyers are representing Fox.
I think a lot of those corporate lawyers are politically aligned against Fox on these issues.
So, in other words, I don't think they were giving him honest advice.
I think it was advice that was corrupted by their own political prejudices.
So, I think that's issue one.
Issue two is that I think that there's issues about who owns what.
For example, BlackRock appears to potentially own pieces of both sides.
Own parts of Fox, own parts of Dominion.
I'm bringing this up right now because I was just watching the tweets.
Let me just make sure I don't have my DMs up.
This is literally what the real Andy Lee is reporting.
This is from back in February.
BlackRock increases position in Fox Corporation.
All right.
I'm sorry to catch up.
You have them on one side, and then there's, we don't know for sure, but BlackRock may have ownership shares in Dominion.
And so is Fox just effectively writing a check to itself?
So we don't know what's really, are there overlapping owners?
The next question I have is what about these derivative suits and what's happening?
For example, a bunch of corporations over the years chose Delaware to organize in because there's a lot of privacy protections and because its courts were notoriously pro-corporate.
But now Delaware is the home of the liberal democratic president of the United States.
And so we've seen Dominion be, Delaware courts be overtly and openly political for the Democratic side of the aisle in the past half decade or so.
And are they going to entertain these suits in ways they never, these derivative suits against the board and other security suits that they never would have before for political reasons?
So is that factored in?
Because the existence of the Dominion suit and the order issue was being used as a grounds to try to bring a derivative suit claiming the board had breached its duties and tried to usurp control of the Fox Corporation.
So Delaware bias may be a factor here as well, though I think they should face derivative and breach of fiduciary suits from their shareholders for the firing of Tucker Carlson for this ludicrous settlement, because even if you thought they did everything with actual malice, there's just no way a company worth 50 A million.
A million or so in 2018 suddenly has damages, damages of close to a billion dollars of two years later.
No, it would be $1.6 billion, Robert, and that would be even assuming...
But I mean the payout, just the settlement, $787 million.
Yeah, sorry.
I mean, how?
How did you get to be worth $800 million?
Even if you were saying that Fox by itself destroyed your entire value as a company.
How did you go in two years from $50 million to $800 million?
Did Wall Street ridiculously undervalue you in 2018?
Because remember, they're saying these damages occurred to them in December of 2020.
That's when they're saying these damages occurred.
So just two years later, there's no example of that in history.
No, but Robert, it's very easy.
They were promised contracts because they were so successful in 2020.
I mean, that would be the obvious answer.
Yeah, but those kids from a different perspective.
But yeah, but there's just no example of, there was no credible basis for that.
And there's no, if you did any average, there wasn't evidence to me that, you know, the judge was clearly biased against them, but they should still get a decent jury, even in Delaware.
And the likelihood they were going to say, hold on a second, this company just two years before was worth $50 million, and I'm supposed to award close to a billion?
I mean, I'm sorry.
There's almost nobody that would assess it that way, not to mention the robust appeal issues that they had.
My hunch is this.
Behind the board, behind these firings and purgings of populous people, behind this preposterous and ludicrous settlement, Are a bunch of corporate lawyers that have co-opted control of Fox for woke political purposes and for elite old-school Republican political purposes, country club, and deep state reasons.
I think that's what you'll find when you dig in behind this story, that there'll be some common denominators and there are deep state actors and others that are going to pop up in this story.
Paul Ryan will be one of the key components.
And they're misusing their power and credibility as lawyers to get to do things they could never otherwise do by giving bad advice about settling cases, bad advice about firing people, bad advice about who they hire and replacement thereof.
And it would not surprise me at all if Fox disappeared in five years from cultural relevance entirely.
Some people are suggesting that, well, it would be me, that this settlement sets a bad precedent for the Smartmatic Outstanding Defamation suit for all the other ones, and that this might have been...
The massive way of ensuring if you're going to get conspiratorial and say that there's overlapping interest between set aside BlackRock, but just any sort of overlapping interest.
It's a win-win situation.
Fox News pays this terrible thing.
It's a loss for Fox, but it's a win for the other interest.
That they're creating the precedent for future settlements and for future lawsuits.
People are saying it's a settlement that doesn't have any impact, but...
For the outstanding Dominion lawsuits, for the upcoming and outstanding Smartmatic lawsuits, for the lawsuits against Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell, who has money, this might be an investment in the future, even if it's preposterous on its face for now.
Yeah, well, I think the key component of all this is that both the people inside Fox and the Fox's key critics really think that Fox is the only reason for conservative opinion in America.
And the irony is this.
Getting rid of Fox's gatekeeping role over conservative opinion will actually lead to conservative and populist opinion, particularly, exploding.
So what they think they're actually going to suppress, they're actually going to unleash.
All right.
And I'll say this, by the way, we are near 10,000 on Rumble.
Hit the plus button.
Apparently that actually has algorithmic benefits.
Robert, so the settlement with Fox.
Look, I thought it was preposterous.
It's preposterous.
The quantum is preposterous.
The risk-benefit or the risk-reward is preposterous because, hey, if they've got $800 million, they've got $1.4 billion.
So take your chances on a judgment and then pay that $1.4 billion.
I think it's 5% of Rupert Murdoch's entire net worth he just paid to Dominion.
That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
So something is clearly fishy, but I think that...
Whether by inside sabotage or outside sabotage, they may in fact neuter Fox, but what they won't realize is that Fox was actually a key deep state ally to gatekeeping conservative opinion on the right.
And you remove those gates and you let the barbarians in, and some old school populism now gets to rage more fully.
Tucker Carlson will be much more effective if he's on, say, Rumble every night at 8 than he ever was on Fox.
And Rumble at the same time will be a much more effective platform for populist and independent voices if Tucker's there rather than on Fox.
So I think in the end, this is going to be win-win for populist opinion and lose-lose for the deep state corrupt actors that think they have silenced populism once and for all.
And I can tell you this, I know that you've espoused this view or something like it for a long time, so it's not just crafted to fit this particular story.
All right.
Amazing.
Amazing.
Speaking of true perjurers, you know, it wasn't Matt Taibbi in Congress.
It was one Anthony Fauci who got caught.
Well, more evidence amounted to that this past week.
Robert, I don't know if you saw the intro where I may have sworn too much and I feel guilty now because children watch this show.
You saw what our Canadian politicians are basically admitting.
It was a rushed jab.
It was rushed studies.
It was rushed safety and efficacy.
It was rushed production.
And they were so nervous about it, they didn't want to produce it without immunity because it was so rushed and shit all around.
I've interviewed now a number of doctors.
We had Brett Weinstein last week.
I interviewed Jessica Rose today.
She's a doctor.
She's got a PhD.
Oh, jeez, Louise, I just forgot my thought.
It was about Fauci lying.
The spliced, whatever the cleavage site is called.
I can only remember the cleavage because it reminds me of boobs, but not the name.
The cleavage site which indicated it was man-made.
Robert, what did Fauci, what are we learning now that basically we all knew, but Fauci lied about?
It's gained a function, the U.S.'s role in funding it, his role and involvement in it.
What's the latest that brings us back to the limelight?
So there was more detail that came out about Project Diffuse, ironically named, that was pitched to the Director of National Intelligence and others for funding gain-of-function research by EcoHealth.
And that was rejected because they said, look, we're prohibited now from gain-of-function because of the things that got disclosed early on in Barack Obama's second term about its dangers.
So they went back then to Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes for Health, and he greenlit it instead, and he funded it, and they decided to use the Institute of Virology at Wuhan to do what?
To focus on viruses that they could make.
That's part one, making viruses, not studying viruses in existence.
And two, what kind of virus?
Coronaviruses.
Third, what source?
Bats.
Fourth, what was the goal?
To make it infectious to humans.
So the person who confirmed, now this had already been implicitly confirmed by former CDC Director Redfield, but it was confirmed by the Office of Director of National Intelligence, its director, John Ratcliffe, this past week in congressional hearings.
Ratcliffe was one of Trump's best appointees, was one of the really sharper and smarter people involved in the process.
Some people around Trump could have done a better job protecting Ratcliffe, but that's another story for another day.
But Ratcliffe confirmed that what Fauci said was false when Fauci claimed that he had not been involved, that his evidence as Director of National Intelligence is that, in fact, Fauci was involved in funding research at the Institute of Urology at Wuhan.
Number one.
Number two, that it was directly related to COVID-19.
And number three...
That the leak of that research, of one of the specimens from that research from the lab is what caused COVID-19.
So the main responsible, you know, Fauci lied, millions died, was trending on Twitter.
And so it's further, you now have the former CDC director, you now have the former director of national intelligence, both confirming under oath.
That Anthony Fauci committed perjury in answering questions very early on to Senator Rand Paul when he denied any knowledge, any involvement, any role, any culpability, any complicity.
When, in fact, we now know not only did he go to great lengths to cover up the lab leak and orchestrate government resources to coordinate a mass media suppression campaign, he was also, of course, involved in trying to censor and suppress independent voices of a range of people.
A range of folks related to this and other issues, but that he was basically probably the man most responsible for COVID and all the things that happened related to it.
And he did so in circumvention of U.S. federal law, and that's why he committed perjury in the first place.
So they should be looking at ways to further go after, make sure he pays a legal consequence for what he did.
I know we're trying to look at legal ways to try to directly sue Fauci based on some of this new information and documentation.
But, you know, probably one of the things that led to a man who wrote a very good book called The Real Anthony Fauci announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
And if I was at home in Vegas, I'd have his father's book, The Secret Newer World, behind me.
It was one of my two favorite books after my dad passed away when I was a kid.
The other one was Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal, which Bobby Jr. gets a kick out of, by the way, that his dad's book and Trump's were my two favorites.
I can still quote from both of them.
Robert Kenney's book was easier to carry around because it was small and like that size.
Paperback form.
But a lot of great insights in his father's book.
But as he said, he said, look, this is what happens when you censor a guy for as long as they've been censoring me.
Now I'm not going to shut up and I'm going to use a presidential campaign to talk about all of it.
And it's not a coincidence that one of the last guests Tucker Carlson had on was one Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
Robert, I want to just bring this up because it's called the Furin Cleavage Site.
Here you go.
The Furin Cleavage Site.
Now...
I have a joke.
I've been prepping this joke for the last five minutes.
There is, in fact, someone named Mrs. Furen.
Just pull up one.
I googled it.
Kathleen Furen.
There's a person named Kathleen Furen.
Kathleen Furen has the Furen cleavage site, but just so everybody knows, my juvenile jokes aside, the cleavage site of the coronavirus was the area where it looked like something had been spliced into.
The traditional coronavirus to make it more infectious to humans.
And that's called the fear and closure site, which everyone who knew back in the day, I remember people saying it two years ago, but the words didn't make sense to me then.
They make sense to me now.
Who could sue Fauci?
I'm railing against Anthony, housefather in Canada.
And someone says, are you going to sue him, Viva?
I was like, well, first of all, if it's criminal...
I could file the complaint, but I would not be able to carry it to term.
Who could sue Fauci?
Who has standing to sue Fauci?
Yeah, that's what we're going to be researching.
But probably nobody has done more to expose Fauci than Robert Kennedy Jr. in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci.
And I saw a good number of conservatives who started obsessing over where they disagree.
With Robert Kennedy Jr.
And I was, as I said on one of our Bourbons, I don't understand that focal point.
Right now we live in a world of binary choices.
The only question is, is Robert Kennedy Jr. an improvement over Joe Biden?
That's the choice.
Right now it's not Robert Kennedy Jr. or Donald Trump or Robert Kennedy Jr. and a generic Republican.
It's Robert Kennedy Jr. or Joe Biden.
That's the choice.
And so to me, I think we should be focusing on areas of common interest and agreement.
With Robert Kennedy, rather than areas of disagreement.
There's also a video going around that mischaracterizes Robert Kennedy Jr.'s views from about 10 years ago about climate change, which he was critical of the Kochs and the Murdochs and whatnot, but it's being portrayed as he favored locking up people who didn't agree with climate change.
That's a false interpretation of that clip.
He actually clarified it in a detailed writing at the time.
I disagree with him on climate change and some other topics, but people obsessed with where they disagree with him are doing the deep state's bidding as we speak.
Because at this point, the only issue is him versus Biden.
Does his presence in the Democratic primary improve the populist causes of where we have common interest?
And those are issues like big pharma, big food, the defense contractors, deep state, the military industrial company.
All of that, where he has been a critically positive voice for the better part of the last decade.
And he gives Democrats, he's going to be reaching an audience that never hears these messages.
And you can see no better evidence of that than the fact that on the day he announces, all the news stations cover him, but nobody invites him on for an interview.
The Democratic Party announces they're not going to do any debates in 2024.
The same day Robert Kennedy Jr. announces, or the next day, they're like, we've been thinking about it, and we don't think debates are a good idea.
And not only that, they come in and they said that we don't think Iowa and New Hampshire are good places to start either.
Let's start in South Carolina where the good congressman, James Claiborne, has a political machine that can...
Literally deliver the votes.
And we'll see how that works.
Now, I'll tell you, Kennedy, go back and look in 1968 when his father announced he was standing right behind his dad.
And when his dad announced the news coverage that night, Walter Cronkite, others, was nobody in the Democratic Party wanted him to run.
That they're all against him.
The political pros were against him.
The media pros were against him.
The congressmen were against him.
The labor leaders were against him.
The big city mayors were against him.
Every part of the democratic political machine was opposed to his father.
And they were convinced that they could crush his father, that his father would get nowhere.
As his son said, it actually freed up his father to run on the tour of truth, and he plans on doing the same in his father's name in 2024.
But what that truth to her unleashed was a populist rebellion that had him going to the presidency until they assassinated him after he won California in June of 1968.
And so anybody who bets against a Kennedy might want to think twice about it.
I have a deep dive into whether or not in terms of the betting options for the betting markets at sportspicks.locals.com.
But I thought his announcement speech was very good, very articulate, very heartfelt.
It wasn't written.
There was no teleprompters.
There was none of that.
I'm trying to locate the portion of his speech where he talked about Trump and the warp speed vaccination because for everybody saying that he's turning against Trump or trying to complain against Trump, even in his critique of Trump, I did not see it as a critique of Trump.
I saw it as a critique of the deep state.
In terms of the people giving Trump advice, the FDA in terms of cutting corners, I didn't even see his critique of Trump as being directly to Trump, but rather Trump was more of a victim of the circumstance of people saying, this is what you need to do to get this through so you can have your signature thing, the signature warp speed vaccine.
The speech was amazing.
I was going to do a breakdown, but there's too much in it.
He talks about the environmental work that he did.
He talks about racial disparities and racial mistreatment, but not along the lines of fabricated, I'm black, everything that happens to me happens to me because I'm black and I'm white and everything good that happens to me happens because I'm white, but rather the way the Democrats.
The way the state itself has systematically exploited black communities for disposal of toxic waste, building up of dumps, neglect in terms of social...
You want to talk about institutionalized racism, watch his speech and you'll see it, but it won't be the institutionalized racism you're thinking about.
But even his critique of Trump was sort of forgiving in the sense that it sounded like to me, but maybe I'm just reading into what I want to read into it, that Trump was the victim of his surroundings and not the orchestrator of it.
Yeah, 95% of his speech didn't mention Trump or Biden by name at all.
It was very much his own policy prescriptions and what he identified as the big problems, which he considers a quasi-fascistic tie-in of corporate capture of state regulatory agencies that have corrupted our national security policy, our law enforcement policy, our public health policy, our public food policy, and our public lands policy.
And that combined, it has polluted our environment, polluted our food supply, polluted our pharmaceutical.
Our medicine decisions, polluted our military decisions, polluted our national security decisions.
He was particularly even critical of inflation and aspects of currency.
So he presents a populist alternative.
And as you know, he's very much a racial reconciliation, racial realism guy.
Let's deal with the reality that parts of America have been left out and left behind, but let's do so without trying to guilt and shame other people because of the color of their skin.
He made that explicitly and expressly.
So he says what the Democratic Party cannot be is neocons with woke heads on their little bubble balls, their little puppets.
And so I think all of that, a very effective presentation, and you can know how effective it is by the fact the Democratic Party doesn't want to allow any debates in 2024, by the fact that no mainstream media would invite him on.
The View was too scared to have him sit down with them.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.
All too scared to invite him on to a single show.
Tucker was the one bold enough to ask him.
Breitbart, at least, Lee and others were bold enough to ask him.
But not, but, you know, and Joel Pollack, I think, is what the other guy was involved in that.
But others were not and show it.
But, you know, he sold out 2,000 tickets pretty quickly for his announcement speech.
You saw a very cross-racial, cross-religious, cross-class coalition like the kind that Dad built.
So we'll see.
But his candidacy is a white pill for anybody who wanted to see somebody in the Democratic Party actually be a voice for little d democratic principles and precepts.
Robert, and I don't want to be the black pill or wet blanket to the white pill and the dry blanket, but I'm genuinely fearful because...
It's uncontrollable what's happening right now.
It is a Great Awakening.
And you have the people leading the Great Awakening.
It started with Trump, whether you like him or hate him.
It started with Trump.
We knew that we were being lied to.
The media was out there to represent its own interests and not your own.
And now you've got RFK Jr., whose father and uncle were assassinated.
Murdered.
Murdered by the state.
Because whether or not anybody believes the conspiracy theories, they're basically confirmed.
RFK, murdered by the state.
And I have legitimate fears.
They try to economically assassinate, social media assassinate, and if all of that fails, nonetheless, and you're actually faced with a realistic prospect of Democrat RFK Jr. versus Republican Trump, I don't know what's left except for continuing this public uprising of awareness and knowledge.
I'll see if I can find the Trump, the RFK's part of his speech where he talks about Trump.
And it didn't sound like an outright critique of Trump to me, but maybe I'm just still too optimistic, despite all my cynicism.
You see Kennedy's contesting censorship and how it's translated, because just this week, the Global Disinformation Index that's been repeatedly outed by good reporting at the Washington Examiner.
Both Microsoft and Oracle cut all ties to them because the Global Disinformation Index had several domestic American components to it, and what they were doing is they were gatekeeping for advertising dollars on the Internet, and they were described as a non-profit, non-partisan organization that was supposed to be flagging particularly dangerous quote-unquote misinformation, basically letting advertisers know Hey, you might be advertising on a terrorist site.
You might be advertising on a Nazi site.
Something like that.
Instead, they just targeted any group that were conservatives.
And they had misled a bunch of advertisers into not advertising on a bunch of basic traditional conservative sites.
That got outed in a range of legal cases, including the big case against the Biden administration, which is the Missouri and Louisiana versus Biden case that outed Fauci and outed the Biden administration.
The depth and scale of collusion that helped bring about the Twitter files disclosures that was also all brought about originally because Robert Kennedy brought those suits years before in California saying this is what was happening with state-oriented collusion coordination taking place in ways that was directing the censorship by social media.
And so that the secret blacklisting going on by the Global Disinformation Index revealed further Because it turned out that their American compadres, listed as 501c3s and 501c4s, were not properly registering information on their tax returns.
We're trying to redact those in the name of privacy, which they're just not legally entitled to do, hiding payments to board members, hiding payments to people that may have conflicts on the board, hiding donors and donations.
By the way, guess who one of their biggest contributors had been over the last several years?
The State Department of the Biden administration, giving them more than half a million dollars.
And their exposure in the Biden collusion suit is part of what triggered Microsoft, even Microsoft and Oracle, to say we want nothing to do with this organization.
And a whole bunch of advertisers reconsider using them, and many of them dropped them outright.
And all of a sudden, a bunch of conservative publications that couldn't get advertising dollars now are.
And again, this is all something put in motion all the way back six years ago by Robert Kennedy Jr.
Okay, Robert, I want to remain white-pilled, so I'm not going to ask my next question.
Oh, we can talk about some of these people that were cross-dressing as nonpartisan and an actual cross-dresser that got themselves enrolled in a sorority in Wyoming.
Well, no, I was going to ask the chat.
Like, look into my face, people.
Is this eye baggier than that one?
And if it is, why?
Because I'm scared.
I noticed this earlier today, which is what I'm asking.
All right, let's do the one about the...
Not cross-dressing, Robert.
Transgendered.
Do not be dismissive of how someone identifies their penis as a vagina.
This is a sorority.
I was on Megyn Kelly last week talking about it.
I don't know.
I don't remember the name, so it doesn't matter because I don't really want to identify the individual.
It's an old sorority that allows in ladies of good repute.
Kappa Kappa Gamma.
That I remember.
It's Wisconsin, I think.
I don't remember the name of the university.
Wyoming.
Sorry, it's a W. Robert, it's a male who says now, for whatever the reason, I conveniently identify as female, and ladies, you're going to let me into your ladies club, even if it means I sit around with my hands on my junk, talking about vaginas, looking at your boobies.
Looking at your furin cleavage sites, if I may.
And the long and short of it is this individual didn't get into the sorority through the ordinary means, didn't meet the GPA standard, had a 1.9 GPA and not the 2.7 minimum, was not voted in by the members, took the political route, and then got basically, I don't know, what's the word?
I'm like backdoored in, but that might...
That actually sounds worse.
Got in through political means where they said they held a vote online and said if you're going to vote this person out, it's got to be done by not anonymous voting and people felt pressured in.
They let this individual in who's clearly not a woman, never has been, never will be by the grace of God or by God's own dictates gets into the sorority through the backdoor means.
And then in the sorority, sits there looking at the women changing.
They all feel uncomfortable.
Talks about vaginas because, you know, asks what their vaginas look like.
That's what women do all the time.
And there's seven anonymous sorority members who are suing.
But I think there was an issue about whether or not they can sue anonymously.
And I think they couldn't.
But I'm not sure if I'm wrong about that.
I was on with a lawyer named Vinny.
I forget his name.
Vinny Politano.
Do you know who it is?
Court TV.
And he said one of the good options in all of this would be to sue the individual and the sorority for sexual harassment.
Other than stating the obvious, Robert, we're living in clown world.
Is there anything subtle to this story that escapes nuance?
Or is this batshit crazy madness?
Well, it's a sign of what happens when a sorority, in this case, national sorority, goes woke, tries to incorporate men, and ignores the critique from conservatives, which was that you're going to have some people claim to be trans, claim to be a different gender than their biological gender for bad faith purposes.
Whether it's male athletes who fail, who decide that they're now women so they can dominate women's athletes, which is like, again, right out of a South Park satire.
And now it's happened here because this is a guy who, again, he's not getting any treatment, right?
I mean, he's not even really trying to be a woman.
He just identified as a woman and he waits for them to get dressed.
He waits for them to go into the shower.
He waits from other places and then stares at him in ways that they can tell what's motivating him by his physical reactions.
Boner.
He had a boner.
I'm sorry.
She had a bonus.
He's coming in live time inside a sorority house like he's one of the Revenge of the Nerds characters.
And he got away with it.
He's getting away with it because he called himself a woman.
And they brought, I thought, a creative suit, which is they argued this is breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty because the organization made certain explicit promises as a precondition to bring them into the organization and has now breached those obligations of fiduciary obligations to their...
Co-partners, you might say, in the organization.
And contractual obligations as contractees.
So I think they have a credible suit that they can bring.
And maybe it will deter other fraternities and sororities from adopting these same kind of tendencies in the future.
Hopefully.
I was not mistaken.
Let me just see if I can pull up the article.
Yeah, here we go.
University students suing sorority.
Now, I happen to think some people might not like this.
Robert, I know you're going to like it.
They should have to reveal their names.
They, revealing their names, will encourage others to be more courageous.
And if they want to sue, they can't say, I want to sue and I want all the benefits of a lawsuit without the exposure of revealing my name.
I know it's unpleasant and uncomfortable, but that's part of the courage of suing and taking it public.
I don't need, I was trying to find a picture.
There are circumstances where anonymity is justified.
In this particular instance, because they're all adults, I mean, they were concerned with being doxxed and attacked by the left, is what their concern was, and that that shouldn't be a consequence of bringing suit.
But the counter to that is that, you know, courts that operate in secrecy at any level can endanger the democratic function of those courts.
So I think it was a balance to be brought.
This particular judge said that he didn't feel they met that standard to maintain anonymity.
But my understanding is they've all decided to continue with the suit, even their own name.
Yes, and do it in your own name publicly and encourage other people to be brave as well.
I don't care about the person's name.
When you say, Robert, the person was not trying.
There's a video of the individual not trying.
I don't know that there's video of the individual with an erection while looking at the women change.
Oh, and by the way, apparently the individual was going to be allowed to stay in the dorm.
That sorority, like Fox News, should just go bankrupt.
You've outlived your purpose.
Good night.
140 years of history.
Go woke.
What is it?
Get woke, go broke.
And then you have your traditional fraternities doing your traditional things that get them sued, like Kappa Sigma at San Diego State, which hazed the guy so bad, he ended up with an alcohol level of close to 0.5.
And their way of solving the problem was just to dump them off at the hospital door and then run away, according to the suit.
So you do have some traditional fraternities doing some traditional stuff that gets them traditional lawsuits.
But the sorority one was kind of a unique one.
Well, deservedly so.
Do you want to go over the details of that one?
I mean, it's just so obviously terrible.
I mean, I think that covers it.
That was just kind of a fun little reminder that frat boys can be frat boys.
But I mean, that leads us to one of the crazier cases that was our most popular case to cover this week, which was Biden's new mortgage rules.
Okay, you're going to have to field this because I think I understand it, but I don't want to misrepresent it.
So go ahead and I'm going to ask questions that I think I have in my head.
A lot of the mortgage industry is effectively federalized through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And the FHFA basically ends up dictating almost every mortgage in the country.
So that's where this power starts.
And in the name of equity and fairness and economy of lending, the Biden administration has a new rule, which is if your credit rating is 6 to 80 or above and you make a nice big down payment on your house, you're going to pay more fees.
Whereas if your credit sucks and you can't even come up with the cash to put on a down payment, you're going to pay lower fees.
This kind of logic is, of course...
Now, there's some conservatives out there that still think the subprime crisis had to do with these kind of rules.
It had almost nothing to do with these kind of rules.
I was on the very front edge.
This was the area Rush Limbaugh got wrong all the time.
The Bush administration's excuse was that Bill Clinton was too liberal giving properties to poor people, and that's why there was a subprime crisis.
The subprime crisis was more often in Malibu than it was in any other part of the country.
So that was always gibberish and nonsense of conservatives to take the bait on that garbage.
It relates to the failure of our financial system, global banking system writ large, using these things as repo instruments and a shadow banking system that's mostly black box economy that's kept outside the ordinary purview of the ordinary person or even the ordinary regulator so that they can continue to monopolize their control of the monetary system to bankrupt the rest of us whenever, wherever, however they want because of the power it affords.
For that, you can see one of the later hush hushes at vivapornslaw.locals.com.
Now, legally, they can probably get away with it because it's done through federal funding.
And so it's kind of a, you know, pulling the fingers, the puppet strings that come with that federal funding.
So they may be able to, but whether they met the Administrative Procedures Act, whether it has some racially discriminatory effects, all of those things apparently will be challenged by the Mortgage Bankers Association because these loan-level price adjustments in the name of fair lending creates distorted disincentives to have bad credit and to give less money to buy a home.
And it all comes on top of California.
Giving away loans to people, giving away houses to people and loans to people.
And if you dig into it, as George Gammon did, what it really assumes is that housing prices will never decline in California.
And if it does, well, everybody's going to get hit.
And it's part of a broader problem, which is the commercial real estate industry is collapsing.
Because, you know, vacancy rates have more than doubled.
Some places they've quintupled in the country because a lot of people never came back after COVID to corporate office space and retail.
And a lot of your Zoomers and millennials, you know, don't like that work style, don't like the office space from the movie kind of living.
And all of that is doing, and a lot of corporate real estate is not convertible to other forms of real estate.
A lot of small regional banks are tied to those loans.
They may just collapse in a cascading way in a trillion-dollar-plus economy over the subsector of the economy over just the next year.
And then that's compounded with real home real estate, where there's for first time real estate brokers, our economy is shrinking the number of real estate brokers because there's a decline of house volume sales of 20 to 25 percent in various markets.
Housing prices have collapsed in some places, starting on the West Coast, probably moving east throughout the next year or two because interest rates have gone up.
People are kind of locked into their homes, so they're not selling because they can't get a good enough rate on a new property.
And new home construction is having to do massive discounts just to move inventory.
And so I think that's the real political objective behind it.
But legally, it's an insane proposal to say the worst credit you have, the worst capital you put in, the more benefits you should get, and the better credit you have, and the more capital put in, you should be punished.
This is insanity writ large.
There's no caveat to that.
I will just say from my own personal experience, when we were trying to buy a car in the States, and I have no credit, and they said, okay, well, you can buy the car, but you're going to pay 16% interest.
I was like, if I had bad credit, which is the reason why I couldn't get the car, that would kill me.
And we have a workaround, but there's a dynamic there to play with.
I don't know what the solution is, but the problem...
That we're seeing right now is not the solution.
That's just penalizing those who are going to say, well, I'll take it elsewhere.
And then good luck everyone else who is now relying on that to subsidize their purchase because it's not going to happen in two to three years.
And plus, it's not even going to really work because the reality is mortgage costs.
What they're trying to deal with is that the combination of the housing bubble with the higher interest rates, the higher interest rates are a product of Biden demanding the Fed do something about inflation.
The problem was inflation didn't come from the Fed's interest rates.
It came from a combination of the artificial supply suppression during the COVID lockdown policies and the artificial demand inflation from helicopter money.
You combine the two.
You create a reverse whipsaw effect and you get inflation, as Jeff Snyder, George Gammon, others have talked about in some detail.
And forecast over the last several years.
But because they've raised inflation at a time that housing prices spike so badly, partially they spike badly because of some of the supply constraints we've talked about separately, a lot of working class people can't afford a home.
And we're entering a stage where their whole generation will not own homes, which will be contra the whole American experiment going back several centuries, going back to the Homestead Act and the rest.
And they're trying to account for this by punishing, penalizing those with good credit to get good loans.
All it will do is lead to those with good credit not getting those loans.
And it won't help and create any kind of money train for poor working class folks to afford homes that are still unaffordable because the interest rates are still too high and the housing bubble is still too inflated.
And so there's just not much that can be done about it.
Now, some of this might be trying to boost BlackRock.
BlackRock's got a huge problem because they've invested on a huge real estate inventory, thinking that they could build this huge renter's market.
And the problem is now they're running into being underwater on a bunch of their loans.
They've already had to write off a couple of their big commercial real estate loans.
Only a matter of time before they have to start writing off some of their home real estate, mortgage-backed securities.
And mortgage-backed securities are used heavily in the repo market for collateral.
And the increasing degree that they're not, because people don't know whether they're going to hold up or not, is what triggered 2008.
So they're trying to avoid those problems, but they're trying to fix them in these quasi-commy ways that never work.
Hypothetically, what happens if BlackRock just goes under?
They own a bunch of real estate.
They're trillions of dollars.
They're bigger than half the governments on the planet.
Okay, then let me just delete the question.
Robert, let me forget the question I was about to ask.
And as we were going through Chattanooga and those who are sticking around in VivaBarnesLaw.logos.com, this was one of the questions I had asked is a lot of the people we had met or a lot of the areas we visited were renting and not owning.
So, I mean, I guess the question is, who owns it?
Who's renting it?
And then what is the long-term prospect on all of this if people cannot own their own homes?
That's going to be the issue because they really use credit cards in the real estate market to get people to borrow against their future labor as they strip them of the value of their wages between 1975 and 2025.
And the question is, well, when all those chickens come home to roost, what happens?
Somebody mentioned the locals, chat.
I guess the plan is to colonize Ukraine instead.
We'll see how that works out.
But speaking of people getting caught with their hands in a cookie jar in the Biden administration...
The impeachment talk of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken increased this week, justifiably so.
If the Republicans in the House are not too lazier to do their job, they should have already brought more charges of impeachment or investigative grounds, therefore.
But the former deputy CIA director, Mike Morrell, came forward and disclosed that, in fact, Anthony Blinken was the guy coordinating those 51 spooks who put that false information out to the media and others.
That got the Hunter Biden laptop story suppressed.
And the man orchestrating it was Blinken, contrary to some statements he had even made under penalty of perjury.
So there's not only criminal grounds, but grounds for impeachment against Blinken.
This adds to the grounds they're already looking at related to Afghanistan.
Frankly, they should add concerns related to Ukraine.
He's basically been a deep state hatchet man who had probably the most impact on the election of anybody in 2020 by helping to suppress the Hunter Biden story of so-called Russian disinformation when we all know now it was a completely accurate story of deep corruption involving the Biden family and the President of the United States.
Robert, what was Blinken's role?
Because we had a number of...
Different entities at play there.
You had the media, you had the 50-some-odd intelligence employees.
He's the one who organized the 51, the spooks.
So he was the one organizing it in secret, orchestrating it so that it could get done.
And by the way, he and key people in his administration within the State Department were also, I mean...
Susan Rice was over on the domestic side for Biden, and she just got canned this week because everything's going to hell in a handbasket for the Biden administration.
But Blinken was the guy who, and key people, by the way, were part of his organization.
They were funding that Global Disinformation Institute that was censoring and colluding on all of those aspects that impacted the 2020 election.
Now, that he did.
After the 2020 election to cover up and suppress certain information related to it.
But before the election, he was the person on behalf of the Biden campaign organizing and orchestrating the false information that leveraged these people's status as national security folks and CIA and intelligence officers.
Basically, he was the deep state's lead hatchet man for the 2020 election.
And he has many people he put...
Jake Sullivan and others that worked for him, neck deep involved in Russiagate, neck deep involved in Ukrainegate, neck deep involved in all of that corruption and collusion that tried to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections against Trump.
while pretending to be independently investigating so-called foreign interference of the U.S. elections.
To give you an idea how nuts, though, the Justice Department still is.
So our Republican House is serious.
There'll be more meaningful articles of impeachment announced against Lincoln soon on these and other grounds.
But the The Justice Department, to hide all this, decided instead to bring a criminal indictment, misusing and abusing the Foreign Agents Registration Act against the four Almost completely politically unknown members and founders of the Africa People's Socialist Party as secret Ruski agents,
and they're trying to lock them up for 10 to 20 years solely on the basis that they received funding from an organization that had ties to the Russian government, though it is far from clear whether they knew that or not.
But their best evidence was these people are advocating against the war in Ukraine, so they have to be locked up and imprisoned because they could only be doing so as agents of a foreign government without registering.
Robert, I know nothing of this story, but just looping it all together with institutionalized racism, the history, I might have to ask this question before we end the stream tonight, but the history of institutionalized racism in America.
Explain what the heck is going on here.
What entity is this?
So, I mean, it's the U.S. Justice Department indicting individuals, including some, they threw in some ruskies they're never going to get their hands on.
And four, it appears, African-Americans that live in St. Petersburg, not far from you in Florida, who run a little African People's Socialist Party connected to the Black Hammer group and the Black nationalist groups.
Let me just stop you.
The Uhuru movement, I believe it's called.
St. Petersburg, Florida, not St. Petersburg, Russia.
Correct, correct.
St. Petersburg, Florida.
And it's all conspiracy to be an unregistered foreign agent.
This was always the danger of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
I've never been a fan of that law.
When they brought it against Michael Flynn, it was one of the only few times in the history of America it's ever been brought.
And I said, you watch, they're going to keep misusing and abusing this to go after dissident speech they don't like on any matter that they can just say, hey, that benefits a foreign government.
And you're being critical of the American deep state, so now we're going to try to lock you up for it.
So much as the January 6th cases are being abused by resuscitating sedition laws that should have been long dead because they basically are ways to trample on First Amendment freedoms, that the Trump indictment is a pathway to basically make any kind of campaign effort a criminal effort if they don't like the way it was done for whatever reason after the fact.
And now they're trying to target just any dissident speech if you have any organizational ties to a foreign government, even if you don't know or are fully aware that such ties even exist.
It's deeply ironic, too.
The United States government is the biggest spreader, as Senator Rand Paul pointed out about the coronavirus, but this is true around the globe, the biggest spreader of misinformation in the world is the United States government.
And does so in foreign governments all the time.
If you read that indictment as a confession through projection, you will have a roadmap that reads like Confessions of an Economic Hitman because it's how we influence elections around the world.
Here, the only election they could point to was an utterly unsuccessful race for the city council of St. Petersburg.
And the media made a huge deal out of this.
And at the same time, they went after a couple of low-level people in New York.
Making it sound like they were cracking down on these secret Chinese police stations.
And when you dig into the facts, it's an utterly weak case against people who are not even here in the United States.
So it's another example of them trying to bring prosecutions for political purposes, often trying to weaponize.
They even said this in the Justice Department release.
They said the Russians are trying to weaponize the First Amendment.
There's no such thing as illegally weaponizing the First Amendment.
There's only legally weaponizing the First Amendment.
So it reveals the disturbing nature of the case.
But on the good side, in the election context, we had some good news this week as True the Vote got complete dismissal.
Gateway Pundit won a big settlement.
And the Arizona Attorney General might be closer to being declared the real winner rather than the guy who's in the House, in that office now.
You'll go through each of those three in a second, but...
True the vote being, the charges were dropped or they found...
Yeah, dismissed.
Dismissed entirely.
And some people tried to say it was settled, but from what I could find, the true the vote people didn't say it was settled.
They said it was dismissed and they were looking for other...
Remember, this is the case that tried to shut up true the vote on the eve of the 2022 election, that tried to limit, that actually strip-searched them.
Locked them up, put them in jail.
Remember, they were put in jail over this case.
For five days.
And the case was so bad, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it and just dumped it once it had served its illicit purpose.
But that's not a white pill, Robert.
That's a black pill.
They did what they needed to do.
They got the headlines they needed.
The truth of the vote, it was Engelbrecht and...
There's one more.
I can't remember the name.
They got them in jail.
Gregory Williams, I want to say.
They violated their integrity in all respects.
And then two years later, when nobody even remembers the lawsuit, they dropped the charges.
Greg Phillips.
Greg Phillips.
Robert, I mean, that's not a white pill.
That's a black pill.
The white pill part is that they fought back.
A lot of other people would have forfeited and gone home.
These are the folks that are critical to the movie documentary by Dinesh D'Souza, 2000 Mules.
You can still see on his local site to this day.
A lot of people would have capitulated when they're put in jail.
A lot of people would have ratted out every one of their sources.
A lot of people would have said, screw this, I'm going home, and I'm not doing this anymore.
They didn't.
They fought back, and because they fought back, they got complete dismissal and implicit vindication.
We'll see how it translates.
Somebody else that fought back was Jim Hoff at Gateway Pundit.
And Gateway Pundit, remember, famously was denied press credentials by Maricopa County during the heat of the 2022 election controversy.
Just a coincidence.
Yeah, of course, just a coincidence.
They sued.
Media was like, you're not legitimate media.
Well, apparently a court was going to hold otherwise, a violation of their First Amendment rights, and so now Maricopa County is apparently going to write a $175,000 check to Gateway Pundit for the action.
That's going to be one of the priciest denials of a press pass ever seen.
Robert, let me be Black Pill Viva tonight.
That's not a white pill.
That's a black pill.
That's taxpayer dollars paying for the misconduct of the government.
Good for you.
Hey, we fucked up, and you're going to pay for it.
That's a black pill, too.
Okay, Robert, what's the third one?
What's the third white pill before we end this?
And go to locals for a second.
Well, we got two little bonus ones to cover tonight, too, before we hop over to locals.
We're going to save.
Let me just go to our list.
We're going to save the SCOTUS abortion pill for locals.
And then some of the chats.
And I'll try to get the...
I'm going to get the rumble rants before we go.
So you got two white pills, which as far as I'm concerned are black pills.
But what's the third one?
Let's hear it.
The Arizona Attorney General candidate, Hamid, a really good candidate, is challenging the denial of provisional ballots that got cast in the 2022 election in Arizona.
That the denial rate, the reject, so what happens at provisional ballot is you go in, and for some reason they don't have your name at that precinct, or some other issue comes up.
Remember all the issues with ballots not being available, and the machine's not working correctly, and long delays.
One way you could deal with that is to cast a provisional ballot.
Maybe you show up at the wrong precinct.
Maybe the people of the election officials get it wrong.
So to get around those problems, you get to cast what's called a provisional ballot.
It's separated from all the other ballots, and they decide later whether or not that ballot gets to count.
Well, the rejection rate of provisional ballots went way up in particularly Democratic counties in Arizona this year.
Without real explanation.
And the obvious potential explanation was that a lot more Republicans cast provisional ballots in 2022 than 2020.
And that was known to Democratic political officials due to the fallout from the mail-in voting debacle of 2020 in the state of Arizona, where Republicans chose election day in-person voting instead, or even if they voted early, they chose in-person instead of mail-in ballots.
So it appears that, remember that the Arizona Attorney General's race was decided by only 230 votes.
There is over 16,000 provisional ballots that, according to Hamada, the Republican candidate should be counted.
And those are overwhelmingly Republican ballots.
So if any portion of those gets counted because the Democratic folks there refused to properly count them in the first instance.
Which there's inferential evidence from the fact that they had a sudden rise in the rejection rate of those ballots, then Hamada would be, I may be mispronouncing his name, but I mispronounce everybody's name, would be then the Attorney General of Arizona.
And not only would he be the Attorney General of Arizona, but that would be the proper election remedy, if he in fact got more votes, but then he would be in a position to investigate the 2022 election using the state powers of the Attorney General.
So that could be, that will be very interesting to watch.
He's been another, like Carrie Lake, has refused to give up and refused to quit and continued to find every available means to legally contest the outcome of the election.
So we'll know in mid-May what's going to happen with those provisional ballots.
He may end up ultimately holding the Attorney General's position and having a lot of influence on even the 2024 election with how he can make sure that the Arizona election integrity becomes a real factor going forward in Arizona.
All right, Robert, we're going to go to locals for the last portion of this.
My wife is not yet coming here to tell me I'm in trouble.
But before we do that, I'm going to read a few of the Rumble rants.
Let me just do this.
Screen, share, share, screen.
No, wrong one.
Here we go.
I'm going to read these, then we're going to go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Hey, Viva.
Matt Balfour, $10.
I finally managed to escape Canada like you.
Headed to Houston.
That's good.
On May 8th, I feel guilty.
I didn't try to stick it out, but can't wait to be free.
Fight the good battle from where you're going.
And you don't have to feel guilty about anything.
And then get over it, because you will feel guilty.
Get over it.
Nike 7. F-T-L-O-G.
I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that means.
Viva have Blair White for a sidebar is pure gold and will help you understand the trans sphere so much better.
I will.
I think I follow Blair White on Twitter.
Aunt Debbie, $20, crumble rant.
It is likely that the puffiness, this eye here, is greater on the side you sleep on.
The older you get, the longer it lasts.
Okay, for it to go away.
Okay, that's fine.
I'm getting old.
Nike7, I know this is not in his DNA.
Any chance Trump wants to support RFK, as this helps Trump and RFK, they will do him dirty.
Roger Stone has a theory about how this works, and we'll see.
Arkansas crime attorney Little Rock says, oh, Viva, I just took your financial advice and put another $100,000 into Rumble.
Dude?
Do not bet money you cannot afford to lose.
By the way, we have a new merch thing.
I'll show it before we go.
It's tax season, and I have to pay taxes now.
Taxation is not theft.
It's armed robbery.
I'll show you the bumper sticker in a second.
Efits, $20, says Steve Hilton at Fox News and online is a populist.
Doesn't have Tucker's star power, but still insightful.
Kitty724, thanks for tonight.
Good, good, good.
Viva Matt T interview.
Awesome.
I'm going to have to see who that is.
Nike7 Crowder is in a bad place with the Dave Landau interview with the Michael Malice.
I didn't see that.
Hold on.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's tough, people, if you know Crowder behind the scenes.
It's not that big a deal to me.
I think Crowder...
What are they talking about?
Crowder is just very difficult to work for.
It didn't treat Dave well.
And I think that doesn't surprise me at all.
I'll put it that way.
But I'll let people know that's 90% of the world out there in terms of bosses.
There's very few good bosses.
That's just reality, sadly.
Arkansas crime attorney.
That's what I thought, Barnes.
I did a valuation of the company and could not figure out the outcome of the settlement.
That's back to the Dominion.
Jane Catherine Berry won in response to Fox firing.
RFK Jr. has been quoted as saying, Tucker is, quote, breathtakingly courageous.
Meredith G. $5 is Carlson's producer.
Oh, we got that.
Okay, good.
Robert, we are going now.
To Rumble exclusively.
To Locals exclusively.
Sorry.
I'm going to drop the screen.
I'm going to end it.
We have the abortion pill case.
We have a couple little bonus cases about BitBoy Crypto wanting to skip court and Teflon Elon and how he keeps doing well in court.
And then answering questions from the Locals tippers live right there.
We've got a lot and my wife is not yet here, but I hear it coming.
Ending on Rumble.
Going to Locals.
VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
End live stream.
Yes.
See you on Locals.
Now, Robert, I can't share the screen as easily as I've done.