Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 30, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:25

Ep. 158: Disney v. DeSantis; Tracey v. RFK Jr. Crowder v. Crowder; Carroll v. Trump & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Both brothers, as the Republicans would like to call us.
	But recently, many people on the right have been accusing myself and Chris of being paid by the DNC.
	And we just wanted to come on and say, that's an incredibly dumb thing to think.
	Yeah, like, congratulations.
	You discovered we're both signed to Pallet Management, which is in our bios.
	And Pallet's a huge company, right?
	They do marketing work.
	They do management work.
	So they receive that money to do marketing and to cover travel expenses separate from what we do.
	So we haven't seen a dime of that $200,000.
	Do you really think I would dress like this if I had $200,000?
	And again, it's all public information.
	And we're also, you discovered, we're Democrats.
	And we're going to vote for Joe Biden, which I think most people already know.
	And look, if the DNC is handing out checks, we should be first in line to receive them.
	But that's simply not happening.
	And we haven't received a dime from the DNC.
	And we want to make it clear.
	We haven't received a dime from the DNC.
	And we want to make it clear.
	And what's going to come is going to be bullcrap.
	We're perfectly happy to work with organizations that share our vision.
	So if someone reached out to us and say, hey, we're trying to make sure the environment is protected, we'd love to work with them.
	But we are simply not working with the DNC.
	And we want to reiterate that everything that's been posted on social media is public information.
	This is not a home run story.
	It's all out there for everybody to see.
	Yeah, and at the end of the day, we're going to go continue our normal content like people want to see.
	Maybe we'll go hang out with Hillary and Hunter on an island or something.
	But not the home run story you think it is.
	Well, that's a bizarre thing to just throw in there.
	Now, so this was posted by someone who I'm now following called Donut Operator.
	And his question was, why'd y 'all delete this video?
	For those of you who don't know this, I believe they're the brothers, the Sisson brothers, Harry J. Sisson.
	He's got a very vocal, very active Twitter following.
	Before I even get too far into this, let me make sure that we are currently streaming on everything.
	I was a little late because I'm an idiot and I didn't have the right camera plugged in.
	Are we currently streaming on Rumble?
	We are.
	Are we currently streaming on Locals?
	We are.
	Now let's get into this.
	Let's watch it just one more time because it happens so fast that you sometimes can't really keep up with the dishonesty.
	Let's just start from the beginning here.
	Those brothers, as the Republicans would like to call us.
	But recently, many people on the right have been accusing myself and Chris of being paid by the DNC.
	And we just wanted to come on and say, that's an incredibly dumb thing to think.
	Yeah.
	It's not wrong, by the way.
	It's just an incredibly dumb thing.
	Notice there's no denial there.
	No, we're not getting any, we're not getting a dime from the DNC.
	Not that it's wrong.
	It's an incredibly dumb thing to think.
	Look at, listen to this.
	Congratulations, you discovered we're both signed to pallet management, which is in our bios.
	Pallet management may be in your bio.
	The fact that pallet management is contracting with the DNC is probably not in your bio.
	The fact that they do it, though public in theory, might not be that apparent to people who might follow you.
	But yeah, so you're signed to pallet, pallet, whatever it is, who contracts with the DNC.
	We'll get there.
	And Palette's a huge company, right?
	They do marketing work.
	They do management work.
	So they receive that money to do marketing and to cover travel expenses separate from what we do.
	So we haven't seen a dime of that $200,000.
	Like, do you really think I would dress like this if I had $200,000?
	I had to Google it.
	I won't get to that part of it.
	I had to Google, you know, fancy hoodies.
	There are a lot of ridiculously expensive hoodies out there.
	I actually found one.
	Maybe I'm gonna have to pull this up just so that we can...
	Have a good laugh at things.
	There was a hoodie.
	It had installment plans to pay for the hoodie.
	I have to actually bring it up because it's...
	Yeah, this one I think is it right here.
	Hold on.
	There was a hoodie that was so expensive, you could pay for it.
	You could lease your hoodie for the low, low price of $110 a month.
	Yeah, I think this one's it right here.
	I know it's not the same hoodie.
	All that I'm saying is, you know, it could be close.
	Look at the little brown tips.
	Like, I tried to look for identifiable factors.
	Look at the brown tips on the hoodie on this guy.
	And then look at this one here.
	Fifth Avenue Saks.
	Like, look at those brown.
	Are we zooming in?
	They got the brown tips on it.
	Like, I'm looking for a trademark sign of a hoodie that might actually be a little bit of money.
	Doesn't matter.
	It's Saks Fifth Avenue.
	Saks.
	Saks Fifth Avenue.
	$1,350.
	As low as $113 a month.
	I don't often judge people.
	But I'm going to do it now.
	If you put a hoodie on an installment payment plan, you're an idiot.
	Unless it's a very cheap hoodie and you actually have to install...
	Payment plans on clothing, which is not funny.
	If you go out and buy a $1,300 hoodie and you have to pay for it in installments, you're an idiot.
	But there are evidence that they're not getting paid by the DNC, that they haven't seen a penny of that $200,000, that they haven't received a dime from the DNC.
	Is that what I really mean?
	You might!
	Because I've seen some ridiculously stupid clothing out there that costs a ridiculous, stupid amount of money.
	The only problem with what they've said, just, you know, the only problem with it might be the fact that it's actually a lie.
	Hold on.
	Where is the...
	Oh, here we go.
	Here we go.
	The only problem is what they say is it might be a lie.
	Here you go.
	Look at Harry Sissons.
	By the way, for those of you who don't know, these are like, these are Democrat...
	Or they're influencers who are Democrat.
	And now we know, you know, Brooklyn Defiant Dad paid by the DNC.
	These guys paid through their, where is it here?
	Oh yeah, Harry at Pallet Management.
	Which contracts with the DNC will get there?
	By the way, $600,000 on TikTok.
	So he not only is a Democratic operative, or apparently, or at least a proud spokesperson.
	While working for a management company that contracts with the DNC, they spread that message on the Chinese spy app known as TikTok.
	But look at this.
	Ed Krasenstein, who occasionally tells the truth by accident.
	I'm being mean.
	The Krasenstein brothers, you might have seen them.
	They are also...
	I...
	I suspect that they might also be remunerated for posting.
	I don't know, because nothing could explain the sheer vigorousness with which they go out and defend Joe Biden, despite all logic, despite all evidence.
	Krasenstein, it was yesterday, I don't remember when it was, put out this tweet.
	His tweet said, in my opinion, this community notes, because they put a community note saying, That they're paid operatives?
	I forgot what the community note said.
	Entry on a video released by Harry Sisson and Chris Morey is completely unwarranted.
	Fact!
	Harry Sisson is not paid by the DNC.
	He's employed by a company that was contracted by the DNC for social media work in 2022.
	There's an expression that I love called the distinction without a difference.
	Oh, they don't pay me.
	They pay him who pays me to do the work that they want me to do anyhow.
	That's called influence laundering.
	Fact!
	Harry Sisson asked the White House for press briefing passes and received them because he is deemed part of the media.
	To imply that Harry is a Democratic operative is out of line.
	Thanks for your opinion, Ed, but I think you pretty much proved it earlier on in your tweet.
	This would also mean that everyone who works for Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
	are political operatives because the company they work for has received advertising contracts.
	That's a very bad analogy.
	But I think a lot of us would agree that a lot of people working for Twitter or old Twitter were in fact Democrat operatives.
	James Baker, the ex-external counsel for the FBI who became an executive at Twitter.
	Yeah.
	I think a lot of people would say that when a company donates 90 plus percent to a certain political party and then goes out and manipulates social media to influence and favor that party that they've made the donations to, I think a lot of us would say that they're actually operatives.
	Oh, oh, we haven't received a dime from the DNC, Harry J. Sisson.
	Yes, that's because you receive it from a company that receives it from the DNC because that's how they cover their tracks.
	They cover their tracks so that they can then say, look, well, it was public all along.
	You're an idiot for not having known it.
	But it's not, you know, it's not on their bios that they work for a company that contracts for social media content for the DNC.
	All right.
	Winston Shittenhouse says, join me for Winston After Dark, where tonight I shall be twerking to the sounds of holding out for a hero.
	Let me read a few of the super chats before I bring Barnes in.
	I've got to do the sponsor of tonight's episode.
	Ian, LOL, those kids are paid by a company, paid by the DNT.
	So not Democrat shills.
	All right, there was one more, and I'll give the standard intro, standard disclaimers.
	Bring Barnes in.
	Oh, we got some good stuff coming.
	Hold on, I missed one chat.
	Here it is, here it is, this one right here.
	Breaking stock market booms after Winston announces the publication of his memoirs.
	The heck did Winston turn into like a...
	A meme here.
	Cheryl Gage, last week you were about to comment on Jeremy Boring's commercial.
	I thought that Jeremy's Razor video was genius.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election fornification advice, no legal advice.
	YouTube takes 30% of those things that we call super chats.
	If you want to support us on Rumble, Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	Ordinarily, Rumble takes 20%, but they're not doing that.
	For the remainder of 2023, 100% goes to the creator.
	Because Rumble is awesome.
	If you want to support us, you can go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com where you can become a member, a non-paying, non-supporting member, get tons of great stuff, become of a community, or you can choose to support $7 a month, $70 a year, or more if some people actually want to do that.
	And we're going to be coming out with our first Content Plus behind the scenes of our Chattanooga meet and greet.
	It's going to be beautiful.
	Ah, Viva seems a bit caffeinated.
	No, but I got him.
	Pimple that I have to stop squeezing, but I can't stop squeezing it because I got a problem.
	Oh yeah, sponsor of the...
	Bart's is the backdrop.
	He's getting a little...
	Okay, hold on.
	Share screen.
	You may have noticed it says this video contains a paid sponsor, and it does.
	Fieldofgreens.com, people.
	This is their new lean weight loss machine.
	Whatever it is, it's like something that invigorates the metabolism.
	I actually ingest this product, Field of Greens, a desiccated...
	Powdered fruits and vegetables, not a supplement, not an extract.
	It's a food.
	It's USDA organic approved.
	Most people don't know you're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
	Most people don't have that because people are not healthy and they should be.
	One spoonful is one serving of fruits and vegetables, all of the antioxidants, nutrients, all that stuff.
	Twice a day, that's two servings of fruits and vegetables.
	It's healthy.
	It's a healthy habit.
	They've got the lean weight loss stuff for those who are Trying to metabolize and do all that good stuff.
	Viva.
	What is it?
	No, it's not.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code Viva for 15% off your order.
	It's good.
	I have it.
	I use it.
	I also exercise and I also eat tons of greens.
	But go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code Viva.
	And thank them for being a sponsor.
	Let's bring on the Barnes.
	We've got a good show tonight.
	Okay, stop screen.
	Bring on the Barnes.
	Three, two, one.
	Robert, sir.
	How goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Robert, you're wearing a...
	I know it's called seersucker now.
	Oh, I mean, the shirt, I guess, kind of.
	I mean, a real seersucker suit was what I wore at the Ramble, the Riverboat Ramble.
	And it's made of a kind of material that's very adjustable, designed in the South because it was good in multiple weather, particularly warm weather.
	You can wrinkle it up and unwrinkle it quickly, things like that.
	The term seersucker, does it have a...
	I tried to look it up and then I got distracted and forgot.
	What is it?
	What's the historical meaning?
	Do you know?
	That I don't know.
	Okay, and it's S-E-E-R, sucker.
	I thought it was a Sears sucker.
	I thought it was supposed to be an insult of a suit from Sears.
	But then it's kind of cool, and I liked it.
	I looked it up and it dries quickly.
	The British used to use them.
	Robert, I think we've seen the book Over Your Shoulder once before, so we don't need to do that.
	Cigar in Your Mouth Before I Forget?
	Oh, Tatawahi, 10 Years.
	And yeah, that's To Seek a Newer World by Robert Francis Kennedy.
	His last book that he wrote prior to his 1968 campaign as part of his 1968 campaign and prior to his assassination.
	All right.
	And now, Robert, we've got a show and a half tonight.
	And there's some stuff that's going to be sensitive stuff.
	The world is weird, but we have to talk about what's on the menu.
	And then we get started.
	So here's our top 12 topics in chronological order.
	We also have a bonus topic off the top and a bonus topic at the end before we answer questions from tippers and chatters exclusively in the after-party show at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	The top bonus topic off tonight that was popularly requested at Locals and Elsewhere was, does Tucker's contract allow Fox to censor him?
	So we'll get to that right off the top.
	And then at the end, our last bonus topic, Beyonce sues the Internal Revenue Service.
	What's that all about?
	A brief introduction to tax court.
	But first, we'll have the Carroll versus Trump trial, where we'll do our first version of the verdict by Viva.
	If Viva was on the jury, does he send Carroll to the penthouse?
	Or does he send her to the nuthouse based on the outcome of what he's seen so far from the trial?
	You've seen more of that than I have or followed it more than I have.
	I've followed bits and pieces.
	Then we got Crowder versus Crowder.
	We're not going to get into the interpersonal aspect of that.
	We're going to look at how do you look at evidence?
	How can you look at the source of evidence to tell you something that you can infer about the substance of the evidence and some procedural aspects that are universally applicable independent of The Crowder versus Crowder divorce proceedings themselves.
	A lot of people ask that we not spend much time on it.
	We're looking at a different aspect of it, not looking at the interpersonal aspect of it.
	Then we have Disney versus DeSantis.
	That legal mindset has done some great breakdowns on that because his expertise happens to be in the exact, very rare, unusual area that concerns that litigation.
	Election law cases in North Carolina and in the 11th Circuit concerning Florida's election law reforms.
	A little Twitter debate both of us engaged in with Michael Tracy concerning RFK Jr.
	The Brooke Jackson-Pfizer case filed a motion to amend the judgment to allow us to amend the complaint.
	We'll explain what that's about.
	We'll also be putting up the motion and the amended complaint at vivobarneslaw.locals.com later this week.
	At SCOTUS, the death penalty.
	Is the Supreme Court going to allow an innocent man, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General, to be executed?
	The Second Amendment, big wins in Illinois and big cases in Colorado.
	Harvey Weinstein, ally, someone that there hasn't been a lot of talked about, sued under the same change in the statute of limitations that's allowing Carol to sue, going after other executives connected to, guess who?
	Disney and Harvey Weinstein for sexual assault.
	Eva Green, a wonderful actress, wins a UK verdict about a film called A Patriot.
	Trans cases.
	We got two different ones.
	One concerns speech in schools and the pronoun issues in California.
	The other one concerns lawsuits against Tennessee trans laws.
	Do they violate parental rights?
	Do they violate other rights?
	We have Credit Suisse.
	The fallout from that continues with class actions being filed by retail investors.
	So there are 12 top topics plus a bonus at the top and a bonus at the end.
	And questions exclusively in the after party of locals.
	And because our crowd is above average, Robert, Kimmy Deary says seersucker.
	The word originates from the Persian word shir and shakar literally meaning milk and sugar from the gritty texture sugar and the otherwise smooth milk cloth.
	And now we know.
	There's no better proof that the members of evabarneslock.locals.com is above average than the fact that at our event in Chattanooga, they literally saved a life.
	I won't get into much detail about it, but that's how...
	Someone came up to me afterwards.
	Renee, my executive assistant, is a former nurse.
	She spotted the issue.
	Brooke Jackson was there in attendance.
	She's a nurse.
	She spotted the issue.
	Two doctors stepped in, saved the day.
	And I remember afterwards, somebody came up to me and he said, I guess you weren't kidding when you said everybody's above average, AvivaBarnsLaw.locals.com.
	And those doctors have a thank you coming.
	But there was a medical emergency and...
	Incredible.
	And it also highlights the importance of knowing CPR and first aid.
	And all kinds of medical treatment.
	Had that gentleman been anywhere else, likely his life is not saved.
	Because he came to the event, and because the people were there at that event, his life was saved.
	Because the medical emergency was independent of the event.
	So the credit to those doctors, credit to Renee, my executive assistant, who's a nurse.
	People say, you know, why did you hire an executive assistant that used to be a nurse?
	For reasons like that.
	Robert, I'm going to bring up the video before we get into it.
	We're starting with Trump, right?
	Oh, Tucker.
	Our bonus topic off the top topic is, can Fox censor Tucker through 2024?
	Well, Robert, I am now starting to think that maybe my initial assessment was too superficial.
	At the first, you know, I said they're getting rid of Tucker to throw him under the bus for...
	That near $1 billion settlement that they agreed to pay.
	It didn't make much sense, but from a public PR perspective, they could make it look like they're firing Tucker to make right or they're wrong, except Tucker was probably the only one at Fox openly criticizing Sidney Powell.
	So I said, that can't be the case.
	Then I said, okay, it's because he came out and he was critical of big pharma.
	He basically made Fox News look like the scoundrels that they might be by being beholden to pharma that affects the way they cover things.
	But he wasn't talking about Fox News when he did his commentary, but he clearly was.
	I don't think they like Trump.
	And this looks like it's part and parcel of just Shutting down the populist voices come 2024 and really all the other stuff is sort of secondary.
	And if that's the case, then what can Fox News do or what have they done potentially already that might muzzle Tucker Carlson until 2024?
	Do you think he has not an NDA but a non-compete?
	I mean, if he's fired, they can't avail themselves to a muzzle clause unless they fired him for cause.
	I mean, where do you go with it?
	Well, I think the breakdown we did last week was confirmed just within a week in two aspects.
	One, that Tucker had a unique audience, unlike pretty much all of his predecessors at Fox, and that that would show up in the ratings at Fox, and it showed up fast.
	They lost more than half of the 8 o 'clock hour audience, and the other prediction was that it would bleed over into these people that come on Hannity and Ingram after him, and it did.
	They lost up to a third of their audience.
	You're talking about millions of views every single night.
	When you add that up, you're probably talking about in terms of lost hours of views.
	Something on the neighborhood of a billion hours of views they're going to lose over the next year.
	That's why their stock did not fully rebound at all after the announcement of its firing.
	It appears they're still down about half a billion dollars.
	And that appears to be a fair estimate as to how much they lost.
	Every year, they're losing $50 million at least in value, and that that translates into diminished economic value of half a billion bucks on the conservative side, maybe worse over time.
	So I think that's something like 10% or so of Murdoch's net worth being at risk because of this disastrous decision to fire Tucker Carlson.
	The second aspect was that Tucker would not go gently into that good night, but would likely look for, he would be offered alternatives that are actually more lucrative than what Fox's contract was.
	That has already happened.
	Newsmax has announced a $25 million a year offer, and apparently what's been leaked is that he was only getting paid $16 million a year, which was about half what I thought he would be getting paid at Fox, given his value to Fox.
	And Newsmax was talking about not only full editorial control, but letting him actually pick other people at the network.
	Basically letting him run the network.
	Basically it would be Tucker TV is what they're talking about.
	That gives you an idea for how the other people, the competitors, recognize his true market value.
	Tucker himself put out a short video in which what he previewed is a Joe Rogan style, long form.
	Podcast discussion that's probably visual and audio of in-depth discussion of topics not being discussed with meaningful debate, returning it to kind of like firing line with Buckley, combined with Joe Rogan, combined with Tucker Stile, probably focused on populist topics to engage in meaningful debate and discussion, free of the corporate gatekeeping that Fox did, free of the censorship control that corporate advertisers maintain.
	So there are photos put out this week by Alex Jones and his...
	I don't know.
	A few weeks ago, but it gives you an idea for some relationships.
	James O 'Keefe put out some favorable things.
	So, you know, James O 'Keefe might be part of some operation like that as well.
	So I think you're going to see it.
	And then the question become, you know, Megyn Kelly noted that Fox seemed to be playing dirty with Tucker and how they handled it, threatening that they had some dossier leaked, that they had some negative dossier to Tucker.
	They don't understand that.
	None of that's going to motivate Tucker one iota.
	The bogus lawsuit that the New York Times tried to blame on it.
	Another lefty producer managed to weasel her way into working at Fox, who was on the eve of getting fired for incompetence, who's never even met Tucker, who apparently her primary complaint was she didn't like all the Christmas decorations around.
	So, I mean, not a credible legal claim whatsoever.
	But the Megyn Kelly flow to the idea and others as to whether a non-compete agreement would basically censor Tucker.
	Well, first of all, Fox can't enforce that with actual censorship.
	So Tucker can go do whatever he wants.
	They could sue Tucker for economic damages if they have a non-compete provision.
	But there's three problems with that.
	One, it was leaked that they just fired him and that they interpreted as firing with cause.
	Well, if that's the case, then they don't have any enforceable non-compete arrangement in place.
	So they're going to have to have not fired him and continue to pay him if they're going to try to enforce a non-compete.
	Second, it's what's called efficient breach in the law.
	It comes from the Law and Economics School of Law.
	Some of their ideas are very good.
	Some of their ideas are nonsense.
	There's a mixture of the two.
	I once wrote in law school that law and economics theory justified, which was advanced by Richard Posner, that Richard Posner might have to be murdered in the name of his own law and economics theory because it was a rational choice.
	I forget how I got there, but I was not a Posner fan.
	Still am not.
	But some of their aspects are rational.
	They're efficient.
	Breach argument is there's times when it makes more sense to breach the contract for economic purposes for almost all parties.
	So, for example, I mean, what they could sue him for is they couldn't sue him to prevent him from speaking.
	They couldn't sue him from competing.
	They could sue him for the financial damage that they think the breach of the non-compete has caused.
	They generally don't enforce with injunctive relief, especially as to speech and press matters, non-competes.
	There'll be issues about the efficacy of the non-compete, the scope of the non-compete, and its application.
	For example, if he did his own long-form podcast, I don't think that competes.
	If they were going to argue, well, this competes with Fox Nation, well, it doesn't when you've terminated them.
	So, you know, the people terminating Fox Nation because Tucker's no longer on there is because Tucker's no longer on there, not because he's competing.
	If he goes on and later competes, that's on Fox.
	So they don't have any damages.
	So the short answer is no, they cannot effectively censor him using a non-compete.
	And my guess is the non-compete would not be enforceable against where Tucker plans on going.
	And even if it was, it would just be Tucker reimbursing whatever some value that was.
	And again, it's hard to enforce a non-compete when you yourself terminate that person from being allowed to speak on your network.
	I'll bring this up.
	I think this is it right here.
	The Adam Kinzinger's of the world.
	Revelling in what they think is bad news for Tucker, which I think is going to be good news in the long run.
	But we won't watch the entire thing.
	Good evening, it's Tucker Carlson.
	One of the first things you realize when you step outside the noise for a few days is how many genuinely nice people there are in this country.
	Kind and decent people.
	People who really care about what's true.
	And a bunch of hilarious people also.
	A lot of those.
	It's got to be the majority of the population, even now.
	So that's heartening.
	The other thing you notice when you take a little time off is how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are.
	See, this is—we won't play the whole thing.
	I think many people have seen it, but this—it seems like— Well, more people watch that than watched all of Fox News last week.
	I don't know how many millions of views that had.
	I think it's close to 100 across all platforms.
	It's ridiculous.
	And then you got Adam Kinzinger saying, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
	The Pentagon was excited because now they think they're war-horroring.
	The Sebastian Gorkas of the world will have no competition.
	Guess again.
	The fact that that two-minute clip...
	Was watched by more people than watched every Fox News show all week long.
	Tells you just how important and influential Tucker's voice is and how the new platforms, I think that a Rumble exclusive deal would make a lot of sense.
	A lot of other places would make a lot of sense.
	That's the future.
	And they're funding that future.
	They're supporting that future.
	They're enabling that future by removing him.
	And what they're doing is discrediting Fox.
	And who is a critical gatekeeper for the deep state on a range of conservative topics.
	And they basically just they thought they were kicking him out of the gated community and they didn't realize what they really did was tear down the gates instead.
	Yeah, the I mean, I was listening to a number of journalists comment on the fact that the Pentagon and these military heads and the media itself.
	Happy that Tucker Carlson is out because now it's going to make it easier for them to control public opinion and steer, manufacture the consent that they've always wanted to support the war in Ukraine, Iraq, all this other stuff.
	I was listening to Dave Smith on Joe Rogan.
	It's dangerous to listen to that because it's enraging.
	Smith is incredibly well-informed and you just listen to everything the governments have done and now they're celebrating the fact that they're going to have an easier time.
	Manufacturing the required consent to continue promoting these wars, proxy wars.
	It's amazing.
	We'll see what happens with Tucker.
	Pavlovsky, I know nothing.
	I know nothing that's private at all.
	Pavlovsky replied to the tweet when Tucker put out that video.
	So everybody obviously has their eye on the ball because Tucker Carlson.
	Is the ball.
	Everybody else understood their importance more than the deep state and Fox did.
	That they understood that Tucker was a unique and idiosyncratic voice with a unique audience that would follow him and reject people that reject him.
	And they didn't understand that.
	Just like they don't understand Trump.
	And no better example of that than the insanity of that lawsuit paid trial with that.
	Crazy judge by Robert Gouvet's coverage.
	But you followed it more than I have.
	If Viva was to give a verdict on the jury, what would it be for Ms. Carol?
	Would it be the penthouse or the nut house?
	It would be...
	I mean, look, I knew...
	This is like...
	What's her name?
	Christine Blasey Ford on steroids.
	And I remember at the time...
	Trying to be the good guy.
	Like, give everybody the benefit of the doubt.
	How can it take someone 30 some odd years to come up with a story of gang, you know, train, assault of the most egregious nature at a high...
	How could Kavanaugh have gotten through all of the, you know, prior intelligence investigations and clearances?
	Okay, here, I'll steal, man, Christine Blasey Ford's position.
	Holy...
	Listen to this.
	I mean, it...
	Bat shit crazy, Rob.
	There's no other way to put it.
	There's no other way to put it.
	I hadn't seen this clip, but Trump's attorneys are presenting it as evidence.
	This is...
	What's her name?
	Gene Carroll?
	Carroll Gene?
	Yeah, something or another.
	Listen to this, people.
	And I'm watching Robert Gouveia at 2X to try to get through this trial because I'm not following it.
	It's funny.
	He's following Intercity Press, who's doing this day.
	I'm following Intercity Press.
	I'm following Gouveia.
	I'm reading the news just like...
	Triangulate all of this from the perspective of the guy who's there, the guy who's doing lengthy analysis, and the bullshit media that cover.
	Listen to this, though.
	Listen to this.
	The question about this ordeal involves an assault by Donald Trump in a dressing room.
	And it involves the R-word, which she's going to drop right here.
	It's not the R-word.
	But we are asking questions about her understanding of what that word means.
	Here's what she said on CNN.
	You don't feel like a victim.
	I was not thrown on the ground and ravished.
	The word rape carries so many sexual connotations.
	This was not sexual.
	It hurt.
	I think most people think of rape as a violent assault.
	I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
	What?
	Let's take a short break.
	Think of the fantasies.
	Let's take a break.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	Yeah, cut it.
	You're fascinating to talk to.
	Cut it.
	You're fascinating to talk to.
	I don't think anybody has ever said that to Anderson Cooper.
	Long story short, she's crazy.
	I didn't know that she had also accused multiple people.
	Of sexual impropriety.
	The fact that Trump was trying to poison her, she had multiple drafts of a book she was trying to sell at this time with multiple versions of what took place.
	She can't remember the date.
	She can't remember...
	I don't even think she can remember the month or the year.
	Can't remember the month of the year, but remember...
	I can understand people not being able to remember the month of the year, but the time.
	But to pinpoint the time, and you've been...
	The idea to say that most people, it's fantasy.
	And there's nothing sexual about rape.
	I'm trying to steal men again.
	Yeah, it's not about sexual.
	It's not about sex.
	It's about dominance.
	But fantasy?
	I mean, the fact that she perceives this as fantasy and it slips out in an interview with Anderson Cooper and catches him so much off guard, it explains how she sees it and accuses it of multiple other men.
	So, look, her opening statements, from what I understood, or that of her counsel, because there's no cameras in there, was...
	What did they say?
	A promise?
	What I think Gouveia said?
	Fantastical things with no details, no dates, maybe the times of stuff that she's going to have to prove.
	There's been no detail.
	That being said, the judge seems to be wildly anti-Trump, as if that's anything new, withholding or not allowing to be presented to the jury.
	The fact that this entire lawsuit is being bankrolled by some anti-Trump billionaire.
	I forget the name of the person.
	The LinkedIn guy.
	Yep, the LinkedIn guy.
	And there's another element of evidence that's not being allowed to be submitted to the jury, is that above and beyond her having accused multiple other men of sexual assault, I think she accused her ex-husband, who is black or a minority, and she allegedly used some racist terminology to describe him.
	That's not going to be let in because apparently the jury is mixed race.
	And I can understand that being...
	Too prejudicial for its probative value, but accusing multiple other men of sexual assault.
	And then she, you know, and not then, but she describes it this way to Anderson Cooper.
	Crazy.
	I mean, I'd be done.
	I'd be done because I don't think there'd be, I'd have to see video evidence, you know, medical reports of which there's none and of which there's none.
	It's just a crazy person who's fabricating out of whole cloth these decades-old accusations of sexual assault.
	But, hey.
	Take your chances in front of a jury.
	It doesn't matter if it should never have been.
	This is civil, so it's not criminal.
	It's not a question of whether or not it should have been prosecuted.
	Take your chances.
	A jury can suspend disbelief.
	So that's it.
	Yeah, I mean, only the biased judge and a biased jury and the only somewhat decent, some real weaknesses in Trump's defense lawyers could produce a verdict adverse to him because the facts sure don't.
	The facts.
	I mean, I thought she was crazy, but I didn't realize the scale of it.
	You see Anderson Cooper.
	Somebody in the locals chat said that she just mind-raped Anderson Cooper live on TV.
	But, you know, Anderson Cooper is so desperate.
	Go to the break!
	Go to the break!
	We got a loon alert!
	Loon alert!
	You know, you can see why the media has not been putting her on much after that.
	You can see why her book sales didn't do well.
	People just around her realize, oh, she's...
	Crazy.
	Crazy.
	I mean, it can't be hidden during a trial, but we'll see.
	They're going to convict.
	Everything has been weaponized, Robert.
	These are kangaroo courts where it's show me the man and I'll fabricate the crime and ratify the fabrication.
	Speaking of some crazy legal matters, we won't get into the interpersonal stuff because I could care less.
	Crowder versus Crowder.
	What was interesting was the wraparound smear campaign component.
	But one thing that I recommend people to do to learn the methodologies of good reasoning, use the best of the adversarial legal process to improve your reasoning skill set, your understanding.
	One of the tricks of that, the adversarial process.
	Is that you don't improve.
	You're never going to make reason the master of motivation.
	Motivation is always going to be the master of reasoning.
	It's a trick that's necessary for the survival of the human mind.
	Bee's Restaurant is fantastic in Chattanooga, Tennessee, by the way.
	Took Viva there.
	The exact same recipes as when I was five years old in my nice little Sunday suit.
	We got to go there once a couple of times a year as a special privilege.
	Getting out the Lazy Susan with the fried chicken, barbecue, all the rest was fantastic.
	Robert, and I now know what a Lazy Susan is.
	I don't think I ever knew what a Lazy Susan was, but now I think I understand.
	I mean, it's a turntable of food.
	It's like you sit down and you spin this thing around and the food comes around to you.
	But Robert, before we get into the Crowder, let's do it on Rumble.
	Everybody, link to Rumble.
	Going to end this.
	On YouTube.
	And then after we're done on Rumble, we're going to go exclusive afterparty at Locals.
	Okay, ending on YouTube right now.
	Link is in the pinned comment.
	Link is right down in the bottom.
	Head on over to Locals and Rumble now.
	Okay, Robert.
	The Crowder versus Crowder thing.
	Okay, Daily Wire's got it in for Crowder, and it's not to say that Crowder might not have asked for it.
	The funny thing is, like, now Crowder is realizing the...
	Other people can record conversations and disclose them as well, and this is the Pandora's box that has been opened.
	But it's the timing on this.
	Now, some people are saying, yeah, Crowder started talking about the divorce earlier on this week, so the wife had to come up with this video to disprove his life, yada yada.
	Am I now seeing things that are not necessarily there and connecting dots that are not connected, that they go for Tucker Carlson?
	You've got other people on Twitter trying to take out RFK, and now they're coming with...
	Information that they've had for a while about Stephen Crowder and now coming out with it the same week or the week after Tucker Carlson and love him or hate him, whether or not you think Stephen Crowder is a bit of a prima donna, a bit of a jerk or whatever, he's good at what he does in terms of performative, educational, populist news.
	But the timing is curious.
	So am I connecting two dots that are unconnected and what's your take on what's going on?
	So, yeah, I mean, I watch Crowder.
	I don't watch him a lot, but the people that do watch him for his commentary and his comedy, they don't watch him because they think he's a perfect role model.
	There's been plenty, either as an employer, a spouse, a friend, or anything else.
	But Crowder was reacting to things this week.
	Like, some people were trying to pretend that Crowder initiated, out of the blue, a discussion of a divorce that's been going on for over a year.
	I think over almost two years.
	That's not the case.
	Speaking of loons, the only person that might make that Miss Carol lady look normal might be Owen Benjamin.
	There's a guy who's batshit insane.
	People try to promote, hey, put him on sidebars.
	No way.
	First of all, this guy betrays everybody.
	Joe Rogan tried to help him out repeatedly.
	What does he do?
	He betrays him.
	Alex Jones tried to help him out repeatedly.
	What does he do?
	Betray him.
	Steven Crowder tried to help him out repeatedly.
	What does Owen Benjamin do?
	Betray him.
	In between screaming about the Jews, the Jews, the moon, we never went to the moon.
	The earth might be flat.
	And whatever other loony idea that peaks up in his Hollywood brain, wherever he is, out in the nowhere land in eastern Washington.
	Just watched his interview with Allison Morrow back a little ways where she was trying to help him out too and all he does is go off on her for the first five minutes because he's that much of a loon.
	But he, along with others, was publicly attacking Crowder outing the divorce late last week and early this week.
	So Crowder was responding to that.
	And what Crowder pointed out is for the last six months or so, and he pointed out Candace Owens and others, had basically been implicitly threatening.
	He considered it blackmail extortion, that if he continued to talk about the Daily Wire or other matters, that they, in turn, Candace and others, would out his divorce proceeding.
	Candace has a history of doing this, recording people's calls, being very negative and nasty and personal.
	There's a reason they call her Queen Candace.
	And again, I like a lot of her political commentary.
	I don't watch her for her being a role model any more than Steven Crowder.
	I think a lot of her populist perspectives are useful in the court of public opinion.
	But I don't pretend she's some sort of ideal individual that I would ever trust in any situation.
	So Crowder was responding to that.
	And then his wife, I think somebody associated with his wife, maybe the legal team, might not have anything to do with the wife herself.
	It might be some PR people, whatever.
	Because in Texas, you don't automatically get 50%.
	Nerdrotic recently moved there.
	And I was on Friday Night Tights with all the great guys for there.
	I get it's not a cup of tea for everybody, but, you know, they're a lot of fun, funny guys.
	Geeks and Gamers, Ryan Kennel, a whole bunch of others that were cool.
	I guess they call them Quarter Black from the Steven Crowder days.
	It was there.
	A bunch of cool people.
	But I mentioned Nerd Erotic.
	I said, you know, in Texas, during the show, it's not an automatic 50-50, you know, joint.
	Profit state in terms of your share of the wealth when you did a divorce.
	And he made a joke.
	He goes, really?
	Because he just moved to Texas.
	And then he said his wife's probably going to make him pay for that for the next year.
	So that's the case.
	And so from a PR aspect, we'll talk about using the court of public opinion when you're in these legal disputes, ignoring all the interpersonal issues, debate with the crowd.
	I'm not going to get into divorce matters.
	Anybody who thinks they can guess what's really happening, God bless.
	I represented victims of abuse mostly for free, almost entirely for free, for about a quarter century.
	Done hundreds of those cases.
	Let's just say that the behavior does not show any signs of abusive behavior there.
	It's the signs of a divorce that's getting ugly and people using the court of public opinion to try to gain some leverage.
	Because one, Stephen Crowder has big risk in the court of public opinion when the other doesn't.
	So in terms of his wife's not really a public figure.
	So that's, you know, whether you like or dislike it, follow Hollywood divorces.
	Trying to make the other person look horrible in the court of public opinion is unfortunately commonplace.
	It's often leveraged.
	It's the way the game works.
	But what I was recommending and the reason why we had it on our list tonight was how to look at a piece of evidence and learn from the law as to...
	How, the source of that evidence, to make inferences about that evidence, about the substance of that evidence.
	So while everybody was focused on the substantive content of the evidence, I was more curious about how that evidence came about.
	So, especially doing a lot of these kind of cases.
	If anybody doesn't know, there's a three-minute video.
	It seems to have been taken with a ring camera or an external camera, and it has audio, which I also thought was curious because a lot of times these CCTV external cameras don't have audio.
	And the crowd doesn't look good, but take it.
	Let me just preface this here.
	I was critical of the way Crowder dealt with The Daily Wire, and I took flack for that.
	I know people who have gotten divorced.
	I know good people who have done very bad things in marriages and bad people who've done good things in marriages.
	And I would not, like you say, Robert, I will not extrapolate anything more than that other than that.
	Crowder doesn't look good in that particular video, but don't judge a person by their worst moment.
	Some people say, well, that's not his worst moment.
	And I'm like, well...
	For the point that they're trying to make, if they had something worse than that, they would have released it.
	But, Robert, you carry on because it's a good point what you're getting at here, and I think I know where you're going.
	Exactly.
	So when you're looking at what I take apart, years ago I had a case where a criminal case against my client, and I was trying to figure out the source of a range of negative evidence about him and evidence that was key to search warrants and other things that took place in the case.
	And I increasingly, I was like, who could possibly be the source of this?
	And the more I looked at it, I began to suspect that the source was made up.
	He was called a confidential informant, number one, and cooperating witness, number two.
	And I was like, these people don't have access to the things they claim to have access to.
	So I went and broke it down with my client, who they had illegally...
	Captured in Panama and brought here.
	In fact, the Department of Justice, we later found out, actually called it the habeas gravis.
	That gives you an idea for how illicit it was.
	They used the CIA guy that was operating it as a U.S. Marshal, as a regional security officer in the Panama Embassy to do it.
	But that became later part of the case, too.
	But the whole way the case got unraveled is I went to my client.
	I was like, I don't believe that the source of this makes any sense.
	And he started putting, I put together all the information from these same categories of sources and tell me, who could that be?
	Or could that even be a single person?
	And he said, none of this came from a person.
	He says, this came from recordings and documents I had.
	These must have come from intercepted calls, which is what I suspected.
	What they had done is they had illicitly wiretapped him and were doing illegal black bag operations using his car mechanic who had his own tax problems to go in and sneak peek documents and take him out for them.
	And they laundered it, just like the show The Wire, through a bogus Confidential informant and cooperating witness, who when we demanded the hearing on it, the judge, I slowly converted the judge from being hostile to us to being favorable to us because he had been in the Japanese detention camp.
	So every time I could, I'd mention the Korematsu case just randomly, just to remind him.
	And so finally it converted him over time.
	And the day they're supposed to call in the confidential informant to prove that Noah Barnes is just making this up, they called him up the day before.
	They said, Judge, we can't bring him in.
	He just fell off a ladder and lost his memory.
	So they just made it up and pinned it on this guy.
	They couldn't have it.
	So that was a case of using the methods by which evidence was gathered to question the substance of the evidence.
	Second case I had like that years ago, Jerry Marshallette, a great guy out of Atlanta, Georgia, was being falsely prosecuted on a bunch of bogus charges.
	He'd already been convicted.
	He and his father at trial.
	We were coming in to get it set aside on appeal.
	Part of the grounds was to take apart the whole case.
	And something that all of his prior lawyers, highly paid lawyers, had never figured out.
	Was that they were doing the same kind of operations, illegal sneak peek operations on mail operations.
	They claimed they'd randomly come across things.
	They'd even put together reports where two pages of one report was attached to two pages from a different report to create a totally fake story.
	And by taking apart every little thing, knowing how the coded entries work on the top right and all the rest, we were able to put together that it was an entirely fabricated story, falsified documentation.
	Ultimately, he was set free, which was great because he's a great human being.
	But those are cases where looking at the sourcing of evidence will often tell you something about the substance of that evidence.
	Here, you have to ask yourself, so you presume she's the one that's recording.
	She knows it's being recorded.
	She keeps the recording quickly.
	In order to get access to that, it being a ring tape, usually you're putting yourself in a position where you know you're being recorded.
	You know the sound is intercepting it.
	You later get it, and then you later have your people on their own leak it.
	And what that tells you is several different things.
	One is, if this was any kind of abusive relationship, having represented victims of abuse, they never do that.
	They never put themselves in that close physical proximity, by the way, particularly when pregnant, because that tends to be a trigger for actually abusive men.
	And that physical proximity, knowing it's recording, hitting buttons when they're clearly upset and angry and in a bad temper mood.
	That means she has no fear of them at all.
	That was the first thing that I took away from this.
	I was like, okay, allegations of abuse are completely out.
	Well, it was psychological abuse, which I think most people are going to have no problem.
	Even psychological abuse.
	I've dealt with a lot of clients like that.
	They don't initiate that kind of interaction.
	They never did.
	They never tape-recorded things like that.
	They just didn't do things like that.
	Because they couldn't for a whole range of psychological reasons.
	Because psychological abuse has behind it the threat of physical violence.
	And they don't generally want to get in that interface.
	Then you have the second aspect is she's, so once you know, okay, this is a person that knows they're being recorded, is seeking its recording, is planning on using maybe that recording, because there was already divorce, both of them to my knowledge were in the process or already hired divorce lawyers, or looking at divorce, then that tells you a different story, right?
	The most logical inference that I gather from those facts is, one, she's clearly not afraid of him in a meaningful way.
	Second, if you know he's in a bad temper, And you know he's in a bad mood.
	And you know he has a history of saying really dumb, mean stuff when he's in that mood.
	That's a perfect time.
	I'll be honest, if someone was her divorce lawyer, that's the perfect time to get him on tape.
	It's also the perfect time to provoke him.
	To try to get him to say the worst possible things.
	The giveaway to me, the other giveaway to me, the timing up the method by which the evidence was gathered in the substance of the evidence, was like saying something like, you know, I guess you just want me to die by feeding the dogs because that might be poison and might kill the babies.
	It's like, that's kind of an odd statement to like randomly bring up when you're just talking about taking the car to the store.
	You know what I mean?
	So I was like, hmm, this was meant to pull a trigger and make him look really bad.
	And so I think that the whole thing was kind of a setup, kind of staged.
	That doesn't mean that it doesn't impair us, rightly so, Stephen Crowder.
	It just means it tells a very different story when you think about how that evidence could come about than the substance of what you see outside of that context.
	And so that's why I always recommend think about...
	Also, it's the same.
	We'll get into it a little bit later.
	Well, maybe we can branch into it now and flip the order a little bit.
	It's like the Kennedy stuff.
	People are seeing a bunch of comments and statements of Robert Kennedy, many of them out of context.
	And the number of people, the first thing someone should ask is, why am I seeing this now?
	Why am I seeing a 10-year-old partial two-minute clip with no context now?
	Well, for the same reason you're seeing it about Steven Crowder.
	That it's amazing the people who just take the bait every time.
	It's that if you're suddenly seeing something out of the blue, the timing seems weird, that the topic doesn't seem necessarily even relevant, you should immediately ask, what does the person giving me this information want me to do with it?
	How do they want me to react to it?
	How do they want me to respond to it?
	Do they want me to hate Steven Crowder now?
	Do they want me to not align with Robert Kennedy or support anything about him now?
	And if they do, ask yourself, Their interest.
	Maybe it's not.
	If it's not, maybe don't be so quick to take the bait.
	Ask yourself, why are you seeing it now?
	And think about the possible context of the sourcing of the information before deciding its veracity and intent.
	Well, my only, not my only issue, it's like, I know what I think of Steven Crowder, and this is reflective of what I saw in the way he dealt with The Daily Wire.
	People say Prima Donna, Prissy, you know, thinks he's, you know, a narcissist.
	And it's just a coincidence, it's right after he goes big on Rumble.
	Well, but that being said, people watch that video, and he says, you know, he says terrible things.
	And then people say, well, then it's always been like this.
	When a marriage goes sour.
	And when you're living basically as like two cohabitating roommates who don't like each other anymore.
	Yeah.
	Especially if you're intimate partners, you know the other person's weak link.
	The other thing I pointed out was the people who rushed to judgment on this.
	First, we're not thinking about the sourcing of the evidence.
	Second, we're thinking about the context of the timing of its release.
	And third, in my view, most of the people who rushed to judgment on this often are people that likely have similar problems.
	I know they claim otherwise, but here's my thesis.
	In my experience, the people who actually never get into nasty arguments with the significant other, they have one trait in common more than any other.
	They're non-judgmental.
	They assume the best of the other party.
	That's why they don't immediately devolve to the nastiest allegations.
	Those are the same people that we're not going to rush to judgment against.
	Either side in the Crowder case, whether she should have recorded it, whether he should have behaved the way he did, because they're again going to be, let's not rush to judgment.
	The people that rush to judgment, the holier-than-thou types, I've never seen such terrible behavior in my life.
	I can't imagine anybody doing it.
	Not all of them.
	Some of them live in a nice, perfect bubble world.
	But more than not, they're lying, in my experience.
	Growing up in the pastor culture, religious culture, how many times those people represented one thing and behaved totally differently behind closed doors, I can't count the number of times.
	So I'll trust the judgment of a non-judgmental person a lot quicker than I'll trust the judgment of a judgmental person.
	Yeah, and all that to say, does it make Crowder look good?
	No, welcome to divorce.
	It's going to get ugly.
	Now, and here's the thing.
	Why do people do smear campaigns?
	Because they work.
	There's a percentage of Crowder's audience that will go away.
	I looked at it.
	He's losing tens of thousands a day in subs on YouTube.
	And that will happen.
	Until people stop rewarding smear campaigns, smear campaigns will continue to work.
	And that's why I discourage rewarding smear campaigns.
	You know, ask yourself, were you watching someone because you thought their personal life was a beacon of perfection or their employment life was something you would actually want to work for them?
	I can tell you from working in the Hollywood industry and being around it a long time, 80-90% of the people out there that you may think are great people, you would never want to work for and never want to be in a relationship with.
	Just being God's honest truth.
	That doesn't mean they're not useful for their content, for their commentary.
	Tiger Woods, still a great golf player.
	You just don't want to be married to him.
	Robert, I would say, I've known some very, very good doctors.
	You could not be friends with them, and you would not want to rent.
	You would not want to have them as tenants.
	And I said, when Crowder had the kerfuffle with Daily Wire, I said, look, anybody who's going to deal with him on a going-forward basis is going to have to bear in mind that he might be recording their conversation with the intent of releasing it afterwards for...
	Tactical advantage.
	Okay, do it if you want.
	I wouldn't do it, but somebody might lose money for not doing it.
	I think the timing, I don't know if it's necessarily Daily Wire, though Candace didn't help herself by jumping in the middle of this.
	Oh, did she jump in?
	She's responding to Stephen Crowder pointing out her clip.
	But it's what?
	Ask Scott Ritter.
	Scott Ritter is someone that was convicted of some problematic crimes that make people second.
	He has a defense about them.
	The question people should ask is, why did you suddenly hear about that?
	Why was he suddenly targeted on that?
	And as long as we require people to be perfect, if we're going to listen to their voices, we're never going to get important dissenting voices.
	Because the reasons why...
	People ask, why don't more politicians dissent?
	Why don't more people in the lawyers dissent?
	Why don't more people in the content community dissent?
	This is why.
	Because if you do, you will be personally targeted.
	Now, some of us just don't care.
	But that's rare.
	That's doubly rare.
	You're Robert Kennedy Jr.
	You don't care.
	You've been defamed so much.
	It doesn't matter to you anymore.
	But for everybody else, most people don't like to have the worst aspects or the worst moments or the worst components of their lives on public display.
	And as long as people continually reward it...
	They encourage it.
	And in the process, they discourage dissidents because it's the people with institutional power who have the best capacity to do the wraparound smear campaigns.
	And we've got to quit rewarding these wraparound smear campaigns.
	It's the wrap-up, not the wrap-around.
	Wrap-up, wrap-around, all of it.
	But so we've just got to just quit.
	Encouraging and incentivizing that if it doesn't relate to why it is to there being a dissident voice.
	You know, pretty much, well, universally.
	Now, Robert Kennedy Jr., a bit of an exception.
	I happen to know him, happen to like him, know that he has high character, know that he has a good conscience, know that he has a good mind.
	But my reasons for believing his candidacy is a net positive.
	Relates to the substance of his policies.
	Not to how smooth or not smooth the physical vocal cords are.
	Not related to whether he's had a perfect family life or not.
	That isn't it.
	We're not electing pastors.
	We're electing presidents.
	We're not supporting people to be priests of personal character.
	Charles Barkley was right.
	Nobody in this space is role models.
	Don't look to them to be role models.
	Look to them for the value of their content, the value of their commentary, and that's it.
	And don't take the bait on smear campaigns that are meant to dissuade you and discourage you from listening to dissidents and meant...
	To intimidate dissidents from speaking out in the first place.
	There is a threshold out there.
	You know, the Roman Polanski's, once I became aware of that, I will not watch Roman Polanski because I am incapable of separating his crimes from his art.
	When it comes to people having marital problems...
	If you can't separate the crimes from the art, then I get it.
	I think...
	And that, of course, is extreme criminal conduct.
	So it's a...
	More rare instance than is he a good employer?
	Is he a good husband?
	Does he meet my standards of what a husband should be?
	Etc.
	None of which I care about whatsoever.
	The timing was bizarre and the orgiastic revelation.
	It's punishment.
	The message isn't to Crowder.
	It's to everyone that wants to be like Crowder.
	Hey, you go out there and you challenge whoever the gatekeeper happens to be.
	Because Fox was doing the same thing leaking all week that they had a file on Tucker Carlson.
	Megyn Kelly talked about how ridiculous that was, but that it was clearly meant to be an intimidation tactic.
	The goal is everybody else.
	Hey, you're Greg Gutfeld.
	Maybe you think about doing your own thing.
	Maybe think twice, right?
	That's the message.
	It doesn't matter who it is.
	The message is you better not think twice.
	You better shut your mouth.
	You better play ball because whether you're a politician, whether you're a press person, whether you're an academic, whether you're a businessman, whether you're just an independent content creator.
	We will punish you personally if you go against us.
	And we can't reward those people doing that in that manner.
	Robert, before we get into the Tracy, Dick Tracy, Michael Tracy versus RFK, let me bring up the rants because I haven't done these and we've got a few of them and some of them we need to get to.
	Abby 33, Kane 33 says, okay, I don't know what that means.
	Abby Kane 33. Barnes, active duty Marine questioning if voting's a human right.
	Many fellow members feel there should be some sort of national service like Starship Troopers, including EMS Semper Fi.
	Britt Cormier, Barnes, how dare you say Fuzzy Dunlop was not real.
	He was risking his life bouncing around out there on the streets.
	Matt G. Hammond, these people giving Crowder grief because he is a public figure for trying to defend himself is better...
	Better hope they do not have a divorce themselves.
	Arkansas crime attorney, Kimmel Hunt.
	Yes, she is.
	I love Stephen Crowder.
	I actually found Viva from Stephen Crowder.
	And then Arkansas crime attorney, who is Little Rock and YouTube.
	I am what legal mindset would call a Disney pixie dust person.
	I own...
	I don't know what that is.
	And take the grandkids every year.
	I will not watch the new movies or let the grandkids watch them.
	I gave LM $250 on his shows.
	Britt Cormier, Viva, batshit crazy is an understatement.
	She and Amber Heard are what I call bag of crazy cats.
	Once you imagine it, you will want...
	Yeah, the crazy cat lady from The Simpsons, like throwing cats around.
	Batshit.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney.
	Viva, I took your financial advice.
	That better be a joke.
	We're going to talk about KD Swiss tonight, Robert.
	I'm never getting my $6,000 back.
	It's gone.
	It's just burnt.
	Don't invest, people.
	It's the South Park episode.
	And it's gone.
	It's gone.
	We're going to get there.
	We're going to get there because I needed that.
	I could have used that.
	We bought a bunch more Rumble after this BS article came out and caused it to drop.
	I bought more when it dropped.
	No Money Music.
	The jab is satanic and I'm not even practicing Christian.
	No Money Music.
	All hail BlackRock and Vanguard, our not-so-subtle corporate overlords.
	No Money Music.
	Sorry, I screwed up there.
	One day, Vanguard and BlackRock will finally merge to become...
	Blackguard, or maybe Satan Inc.
	The engaged few.
	Hey, look.
	It's that hot new rap group, Nelly and the Bottoms.
	Okay, dude, I don't know what that is.
	Now let me bring this out.
	Remove.
	Thank you all for those home runs.
	Yeah, Mike Tracy!
	Chronological order, though.
	We can stick in, because Little Rock brought it up.
	Disney versus DeSantis.
	Okay, let's...
	Robert.
	I'm trying to follow it.
	This is like a tennis match of legal proceedings.
	Now Disney is suing DeSantis because DeSantis or some board of directors revoked a special development permit that they were having.
	What is going on here?
	So this goes back to many years ago.
	The state of Florida created a special district so that Disney basically could govern itself.
	So it didn't have to go to the city or the county for all kinds of things, including permitting, etc.
	Walt Disney himself played on actually establishing idolized model cities.
	Those model cities never happened.
	They created these fake cities that they used to vote in Disney, the board members of this special district.
	This special district had the legal power to build a nuclear power plant.
	That's how crazy that was.
	Mostly, the biggest power gave them, other than permitting power, to control their real estate.
	It also gave them policing and firepower in select circumstances, too.
	So they could govern a lot of the crazy things that might be happening or conspiracies that might be getting covered up at Disney.
	We'll get into one of those conspiracies they were covering up that led to a lawsuit in New York.
	According to the allegations.
	But most importantly, it allowed them to control taxes.
	And allow them to get bonds, tax-free bonds on favorable privilege terms.
	So they could raise capital in ways that was very preferential to Disney.
	And they could control the taxes corresponded to it.
	So that was the two big everyday financial gifts.
	Disney comes out and attacks the quote-unquote, they call it the Don't Say Gay Bill.
	This is the bill to not sexualize your five-year-olds in public schools.
	That's what the bill actually was.
	It had nothing to do with Don't Say Gay.
	And so that led to a lot of public controversy.
	Florida, under Governor DeSantis in the legislature, originally talked about just no more special district.
	Turn that over to the county.
	Ultimately, he backed off of that.
	And instead, he created a new special district instead and changed the board members.
	Some of us were critical of that because we were for just no special preference.
	Treat them the same as Universal and everybody else.
	But DeSantis ended up going halfway.
	Didn't satisfy Disney.
	Disney saw the old legislative special district was going to disappear and a new one was going to come.
	And all these are creatures of the state.
	They're extensions of the state.
	So it's just the state changing how the state functions.
	Instead of this particular district, we'll have this particular district.
	Instead of these people on the board, it's going to be those people on the board.
	Literally, that's it.
	They inherited the bond obligations, all the rest.
	But what was key was before Disney was able to control the board through their fake cities where they had voting power.
	So they didn't like that a new board was going to take over.
	So they had the old board, the district that was about to get wiped out, sign...
	Development deals with Disney that try to create all these covenants to prohibit the new board from having any power.
	So it was, you know, Professor Jonathan Turley called it a crock.
	So until I did a deeper dive, I wasn't sure because this wasn't my area of expertise.
	It is, however, as it randomly, to me randomly, turns out, because I know legal mindset from his commentary on Nick Ricada's channel.
	And it turns out what Legal Mindset used to do is bond deals with special districts in Florida.
	So this is exactly like his area.
	So he understood this area intricately.
	And he kept saying from the get-go, and I did a deep dive on all his videos over this past week, thanks to the board members, that they tipped me off that he was doing a deep dive at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And what he was saying was, Disney is insane.
	And while the institutional legal bogus academics and people in the press, you know, you had Reuters headlines, legal experts say Disney will crush DeSantis, all this kind of garbage.
	While Turley was saying, uh-uh, and Legal Mindset was saying anybody who knows this area knows that Disney is gambling with their financial future and at risk of foreclosure.
	They got no chance to win any of these.
	So Disney does this secret covenant deal until the king changes centuries in the future, all that nonsense.
	You know, the old rule against perpetuities, they're trying to get around that.
	Because there's law about development deals in Florida.
	What you can do when it's binding, when it's not binding, and they're trying to piggyback off of that.
	New board comes in and says that the old board didn't, the prior legislative district that doesn't even exist anymore, didn't have the legal authority to do that.
	And so those contracts are void ab initio, and we'll re-examine the development deals and what we'll do and what we won't do, but those are void.
	Within an hour, Disney was down in federal court, and we're going to sue in state court, of course, saying this violates our constitutional rights under the contract clause, the takings clause, the due process clause, the free speech clause.
	Their claims are frivolous.
	All the legal analysis you're hearing out there is utter garbage.
	Other than legal mindset and those people.
	All the pro-Disney legal mindset is, all the pro-Disney people are full of garbage.
	Legal mindset is backed up, not only by his expertise, but his arguments.
	The contracts clause, here's the big problem Disney has.
	None of this is really directly with Disney.
	Like, they want to say DeSantis discriminated against us.
	Look at all these statements.
	But all the state of Florida actually did was change itself.
	It changed.
	We're going to have this legislative district be an extension of us.
	Instead, we're going to have this legislative district be an extension of us.
	They did nothing directly to Disney.
	So them going after DeSantis, they have a huge problem.
	They were the third party impacted by all of this, but they weren't supposed to be running that board to begin with.
	And this is why they're doing this real thin, careful deal.
	Because when they issued all those bonds, they said this was an independent state-created entity that they didn't have that wasn't for private pecuniary purposes.
	So they can't really sue and say the bond...
	In fact, they don't want the bond set aside.
	They don't want the new entity set aside.
	They don't want the new board set aside.
	Because if any of that happens, their bonds can be immediately called and they can foreclose on Disney World.
	They can just shut down Disney World to collect on the bonds.
	So that's why they're trying to say, well, no, no, we just want these contracts to be that we cut at the last second to be these holy contracts.
	This is a little Vatican City in the middle of Florida, what Disney tried to carve out.
	And they're holy contracts, constitutionally protected, and nobody can ever change them.
	And the problem is...
	That first of all, under the development laws themselves, the contracts don't conform to the development laws.
	They violate the laws.
	So they didn't have the authority to do it.
	There are contracts that by definition under Florida state law can be set aside anyway for a bunch of other reasons.
	And Florida, they weren't directly targeted.
	The entity is what changed.
	So they don't have a First Amendment claim.
	They can't say it's purely arbitrary because they were getting special preferential treatment in the first place.
	No longer, you don't have a constitutional right to preferential treatment.
	That's what their argument is.
	The contract clause will go nowhere.
	The takings clause will go nowhere.
	The due process purely arbitrary claim will go nowhere.
	And the free speech claims will go nowhere.
	The only shot they have is they got an Obama federal appointed judge.
	And some of those judges have been issuing insane orders, especially in Florida.
	And so maybe they'll get another insane judge issuing another insane order, but it'll be set aside by the 11th Circuit because of the consequences.
	If Disney has a constitutionally protected right to preferential treatment...
	This creates problems for every level of government in the entire country that it will basically freeze the ability to do development deals, freeze the ability to do real estate deals, freeze the ability to do bond deals, freeze the ability to do special legislative districts.
	It will be disastrous.
	And once a judge figures this out, then they're going to, aside from the fact that the law doesn't support them, The policy consequences are way too disastrous, and that's why Disney's case is a frivolous case that should, by an honest judge, intellectually honest judge, get thrown out.
	At some point, that's what will happen.
	Whether it's the 11th Circuit, whether it's the Supreme Court, Disney is going to lose bad in Florida, and they're going to lose market share and other value because of how bad they're going to lose legally.
	But Robert, David French...
	Thinks that DeSantis should lose.
	To understand why Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida should lose in his quest to punish Disney for the high crime of publicly disagreeing with Ron DeSantis, it is first necessary to talk about Totra.
	You can go read this article, people, just to get to the end here.
	The problem is, nothing was done directly by DeSantis to Disney.
	This was a special legislative district that Disney legally promised its bondholders it did not personally control.
	That these bonds were not for their pecuniary private personal gain.
	So that's the problem.
	DeSantis never harmed Disney.
	He had an impact that Disney no longer got preferential treatment because of its illicit, unauthorized control of a state entity.
	Imagine saying that you'd bribed your way into the Defense Department and the President took away the person who you were bribing and saying, You took away my constitutionally contractual right to bribe him and get special treatment.
	That's how ludicrous Disney's claim is.
	Anybody supporting it, you should never listen to again.
	Anyone who says it's credible legally, you can ignore for the rest of your natural born days.
	Sooner or later, this case will be thrown out.
	It's only a matter of when and where it gets thrown out.
	And when it does, Disney's going to lose monetary value on the stock market because they're going to wonder what's going wrong with Disney that they're getting into these needless political controversies.
	And right now...
	If that board wanted to, that board could consider calling the bonds immediately and foreclosing on Disney World.
	Imagine what that would do to Disney financially.
	That's why this is dumb.
	That's why this is dangerous.
	And ultimately, they'll lose.
	All right.
	The prediction is in, people.
	So we'll compare this to David French's assessment, which you can all read and enjoy reading.
	Robert?
	We got to deport him from Tennessee.
	That reminds me.
	All right.
	Election laws is the next one.
	Speaking of crazy judges out of the Northern District of Florida, one of them, so Florida went in after 2020 and they already had good election laws, but they made it more robust.
	Limited drop boxes, made requirement of supervisors being present, limited when you could use drop boxes, imposed fines if the election official didn't properly use the drop boxes.
	To, you know, basically just be an extension of the office with the person there and during election, the same early voting time periods as everybody else, which would dramatically reduce risk of fraud.
	Also, you know, limiting other things that can happen in terms of voter registration, solicitation at the polls, etc.
	Well, a federal district court judge there in the Northern District of Florida, maybe the same guy that's assigned the DeSantis case, said this is wraitheth, wraitheth, wraitheth.
	And his grounds for it was...
	Black voters are Democrats.
	Democrats rely upon these means of fraud.
	Consequently, any means that takes away their means of fraud is meant to hurt Black people and thus violates Equal Protection Clause.
	The 11th Circuit, quite correctly, set all that aside.
	They said none of this is racist.
	They said Florida's laws are still some of the more liberal early voting laws in the country, have always been, have benefited disproportionately the Black and Latino voter groups, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Cuban, that are strong in Florida.
	In terms of voting opportunities.
	And that this is just meant to limit the fraud, which they documented.
	They said there is, in fact, a notorious history of fraud, especially involving absentee ballots and solicitation and coercion at the voting polls.
	So these are very reasonable restrictions and regulations meant to reduce the risk of fraud.
	And not at all racist, for which there was no evidence anyway.
	They pointed out there was no evidence that disproportionately hurt black voters whatsoever.
	Even if you made the mistaken assumption of saying anything that hurts Democrats, sine qua non, hurts black voters.
	In fact, they couldn't prove that at all.
	And so the 11th Circuit said, set all those injunctions inside and reinstated all those good Florida election laws.
	And then, of course, we had the big cases up in North Carolina.
	I was going to show an article just to illustrate to everybody how any law that requires some verification or makes it not more difficult, but places restrictions on voting is deemed to be voter suppression racist.
	But I think we all know that.
	North Carolina, what's the deal?
	Well, when you run on smart issues, unlike the hacks in Wisconsin who are scared to talk about election issues in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, even though that was the big issue that should have been on the ballot in Wisconsin, and thus there was their Romney-like, Ryan-like The candidate got crushed for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and now election integrity is in doubt in Wisconsin, depending on what that Supreme Court does.
	In North Carolina, they effectively campaigned on fixing election decisions at the North Carolina Supreme Court because the liberal Democratic North Carolina Supreme Court had basically determined everything was racist, said you couldn't even gerrymander for partisan reasons, when that's the whole history of gerrymandering throughout history.
	That usurped the legislature's role in redistricting and rewrote the districts to favor Democrats, all the way back to prior to 2018, helping Democrats get back to House.
	Banned voter ID, said voter ID with Raytheth, Raytheth, Raytheth too, and wanted to help felons that were still serving their sentences vote.
	Can you imagine still serving your sentences?
	But the Republican conservatives won the Supreme Court elections in 2022 in North Carolina, and because those decisions were still within the reconsideration window, the newly constituted court said, we're going to do some reconsideration.
	One of those cases was up for the U.S. Supreme Court, considering how this usurped the power of state legislatures in the first place, the redistricting decision.
	And they set it all aside.
	They said, first of all, there's nothing about this voter ID law that's racist.
	It's one of the softest voter ID laws in the country.
	And it does deter fraud.
	So it has a legitimate state basis.
	And there's nothing about it that targets or harasses or even disparately impacts Black North Carolinians.
	No evidence of that whatsoever.
	It impacts people who aren't supposed to be voting.
	That's what it impacts.
	But there's no evidence that Black voters don't know how to get voter ID.
	That's one of the, or get ID in general.
	That's one of the most racist things Democrats preach.
	Black people just can't use their brains to get votes.
	Come on.
	Hogwash.
	You mean you're fraudulent voters, any of whom aren't black.
	Do you want to sneak in and vote when they shouldn't be?
	So they overturned it, said voter ID is back in place in North Carolina.
	Second said no.
	Felons, our Constitution in North Carolina says you're a felon until you've served your sentence and have your rights restored.
	You can't vote North Carolina.
	And they said that, too, is not racist.
	Now, there is a more problematic history of felony laws, but they didn't challenge the North Carolina constitutional provision, so they said that's just enforcing it.
	And in this particular context, there was no racially discriminatory impact of saying that you had to serve your sentence first.
	And so they said no, until a felon's rights are restored, they still can't vote North Carolina.
	And last but not least, the redistricting is for state legislatures.
	So that's not the courts to do.
	So the North Carolina Constitution gave that to the legislatures.
	They're the ones who have it.
	It's a classic political question.
	And what does that mean?
	It's which branch of government is given the power to do something.
	And quite correctly, we did not give courts the power over redistricting.
	We gave it to legislatures.
	And so I think they made the correct decision, gave that back.
	And so now we'll have reasonable districts at the state legislative level and the congressional level.
	That much better, and that won't be packed and stacked in favor of Democrats, where, you know, the district, the liberal judges had authorized, included a district that looked like a highway.
	I mean, it literally went through, like, four counties, just a tiny little sliver.
	Like, that's your idea of nonpartisan gerrymandering?
	No, it was just pro-democratic partisan gerrymandering.
	So, all those cases set aside by North Carolina Supreme Court this week, reinstating real election integrity in North Carolina.
	How did North Carolina go?
	What color was it last presidential election?
	For Trump.
	But now it'll be a lot easier for Trump to win it.
	I want to bring this up.
	It'll help the Republicans in the House.
	I've always said that Justin Trudeau is racist, but now, Robert, hearing the lawsuits, election stuff coming out of the States, I have evidence that he is racist.
	Look at this.
	The voter ID requirements for voting in Canada.
	Option one.
	Show one of these pieces of ID, your driver's license, any other card issued by the Canadian government.
	Option two, if you don't have one of those good IDs, here's one.
	A voter information card and bank statement, utility and student ID.
	Or option three, if you really don't have any of those IDs, you can have basically someone vouch for you subject to all the penalties and they have to prove their identification.
	I didn't realize it.
	Justin Trudeau really is racist.
	Canada is a racist country because by requiring ID, I'm sorry, I'm spitting, it's obviously racist because like that video showed liberals don't think black people know how to go to the DMV and get an ID card.
	It's preposterous.
	The argument that any of these voter laws are racist is racist and that's the way it should be explained.
	We had a little fun this week debating Michael Tracy on Robert Kennedy.
	Hold up.
	I'm bringing something up.
	He was on Freeform Friday with Eric Hundley and Mark Robert, and apparently it went off the rails real quick.
	I'll only play one minute.
	Everyone, go check out this.
	This is Mike Tracy.
	We had him on the show.
	Sent like a reasonable person.
	There's a great meme in the locals chat.
	That he's now, he may be the gold.
	He's definitely up for the gold for worst sidebar Olympics.
	One cannot control what happens to people in the future.
	I just don't understand it.
	I saw the shit on his Twitter feed on Friday.
	I was like, I gave it a pass.
	I gave it a pass.
	Then it's like, okay, but listen to this here.
	The point is that he has a fairly severe and noticeable impairment of his speech.
	And I don't know why it's seen as controversial by anyone to simply note that.
	No, no, no, no.
	I've gotten a ton of messages today from people saying, yeah, they're interested in what he's espousing with his message, but they can't sit through more than 30 seconds of him speaking.
	Right, it was just surprising to me to hear you, an avowed anti-war progressive leftist, denounce the first anti-war progressive leftist to come into the debate because of a speech impediment.
	I didn't denounce him, and I also don't go around avowing myself as that.
	Okay, that's enough.
	Michael Tracy saying his voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard.
	It was so shocking to me because, first of all, everybody should understand this.
	In one of his subsequent tweets, he's questioning whether or not it's even a legitimate or authentic medical illness.
	It's called spasmatic something or other.
	He's got a contraction of the larynx that causes his voice to sound like he's straining to speak.
	That that should be a discussion.
	That that should be...
	I mean, that's all...
	There is, like, ableism.
	That is actual ableism.
	Like, oh, this guy's, I can't stand listening to this guy with a speech impediment or a vocal condition talk about the most meaningful politics of all time.
	And then I just have my own thoughts, like, what the hell is going on?
	We have someone on the left.
	Admittedly, Michael Tracy says he's on the left.
	I don't know what he thinks makes him on the left now, but now I think I know what makes him on the left.
	Going after a fellow lefty who is public enemy number one.
	Robert, I immediately have conspiratorial reflexes now, like, this seems orchestrated.
	This seems almost fabricated and disingenuous.
	What is your take on it?
	So, I mean, my biggest problem with the Tracy rant also came in a broader context of a lot of hit pieces on Robert Kennedy that a lot of people were taking the bait on, of quotes out of context and other statements on other issues.
	He then goes on to try to portray Robert Kennedy Jr. as basically the son of a privileged family who has just been politically ambitious and just wants a job, who's a Hillary Clinton-style Democrat, whose politics are indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, indistinguishable that he never stood up against COVID lockdowns at the time.
	He just started making stuff up that was patently false.
	I realized when he went after him on his voice.
	I was like, okay, you obviously haven't actually been listening to Robert Kennedy for very long.
	You didn't know that the voice was there?
	And then when he started talking about making up claims about his foreign policy, making up claims about his COVID policy, making up claims about his dissident status, making up claims about how he's actually treated his political privilege, his financial personal privilege, that he constantly sacrifices it for the causes of underdogs that he advances, that's when I got agitated.
	And so, a couple of things on this.
	So, one, to give you an idea of how far back Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. has been a dissident voice in the Democratic Party.
	It goes back to his father's campaign, which everybody then, it's fascinating, by the way.
	When his dad ran in 1968, the same press, the same Democratic establishment, many of the same so-called anti-war voices bashed Robert Kennedy Sr., by the way.
	So they wanted the snob McCarthy instead.
	It was going to go nowhere nobody really liked.
	He was only getting votes because he wasn't LBJ.
	But so this is history repeating itself.
	I mean, Robert Kennedy Jr. is witnessing in a live time.
	He was 14 at the time his dad ran.
	So he's the oldest son of that generation of Kennedys.
	That's why he remembers this better than anybody else in that family and represents the best of his father and his uncle better than anybody.
	But in 1974...
	He's in law school.
	He's writing articles attacking the CIA and the State Department for replacing Allende in Chile.
	In 1975, before the Church Committee develops all of its facts, he's attacking the State Department and the CIA and the U.S. military for being involved in foreign assassinations, before there was a law banning.
	In 1979, he's attacking American policy in Pakistan.
	That was part of the arrangement with Saudi Arabia to export.
	By the CIA.
	It was the CIA's plan, not the Saudi's plan, by the way, to export jihadi radicalism to counterbalance Iran and the fall of the Shah there.
	And he was critical of how they were doing that, other aspects, in Pakistan.
	He's trying to negotiate on nuclear power deals with Castro in the 90s.
	Has negative things to say about aspects of Castro, same time, but is not willing to engage in martial conflict as the means to get there.
	1991, he opposes the first Iraq War.
	2001, he opposed the 9-11 Patriot Act reforms.
	Every Democrat but one voted for it.
	Robert Kennedy Jr. wasn't one of the people supporting it.
	He was out critical of it right away.
	Said it was being used as a means to impose a surveillance state on America and on the Western world.
	2005, comes out and attacks.
	The 2004 elections, says the elections are, in the U.S., election machines, he says, are deeply problematic.
	You invite fraud with it.
	You know, wrote the book with Greg Pabst as the co-author or the beginning of the preface to his book about billionaires and voting machines and other means of stealing elections.
	So he was one of the first dissident critics on that topic.
	2005, he comes out very critical of the Iraqi war, talks to Oprah, does an article in Vanity Fair, does other pieces.
	2009, when Barack Obama's keeping and escalating activities in Afghanistan, that was why Obama said to pull out of Iraq.
	He wanted to escalate in Afghanistan.
	Guess who's criticizing him for it?
	Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., on the record, published pieces.
	2014, he's critical of the U.S. policy in Syria.
	2018, he writes his book, American Values, where he blames the CIA for the assassination of his father, the assassination of his uncle, President John Kennedy, says the deep state has been out of control and says that they've been waging war against him and his family for 60 years.
	These are extraordinary things that he's saying.
	During that time frame, He's working on the populist side of environmental law, not the elitist side of the environmental law.
	And what do I mean by that?
	He means defending the right of a black community to keep a sludge and a bunch of dirty landfills in their backyard.
	Representing fishermen, representing farmers, representing ordinary workers against people that are being discriminated against or hurt.
	Because of a range of big corporate policies.
	There's things I disagree with on this context.
	But he has been more on the popular side than the elitist side environmentally.
	That's why he's fighting factory farms going back to the 1990s as industrialized farming and the USDA and the FDA are complicit in creating a bad food pyramid that's going to completely contaminate our bodies and our food system and our food supply and is going to hurt small farmers and hurt small fishermen.
	It goes after industrial farming, industrial fishing, industrial food supply across the board.
	Then after that goes after big pharma starting in 2007.
	Says that what's happening with autism cannot be explained other than we're putting in too many vaccines that we're calling vaccines that have not been fully tested into little kids' bodies.
	We go from a list of three to 65 being recommended in 1989.
	Coincidentally, supposedly, that's when autism explodes.
	That's when a lot of other physical and medical disorders explode, to where we go from 3% of the country listed as disabled in 1930 to more than half having some form of disability by today.
	He goes after, and then in the COVID lockdown context, where Tracy first tried to pretend that he had been some sort of anti-lockdown guy.
	I remember, I was one of the key people on the front line from day one in March of 2020.
	Michael Tracy wasn't helping out.
	Glenn Greenwald wasn't helping out.
	Almost nobody was helping out, populist left or right, other than Alex Jones on the right and one person on the left, the guy who called me in 2020, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	His children's health defense was leading the fight against it.
	Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. goes on Patrick Beddavid in early May and is the first...
	Big, high-profile public critic of the lockdowns.
	Says this is about a surveillance state, stuff that Children's Health Defense had been talking about since March, early March of 2020, from the very beginning.
	And then leads the fight, leads it around the world, speaks in Europe, speaks in D.C., speaks across the country, was organizing conventions and conferences on this.
	And so for Michael Tracy to pretend Kennedy wasn't opposed to the lockdowns, Kennedy is a Hillary Clinton voice on foreign policy because he has like four tweets on Russiagate over six years where he's just citing other articles, is utterly, you can disagree with Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. all the time.
	If you don't like him because you don't like the Kennedy family, fine.
	If you don't like him because you disagree with him on abortion, disagree with him on guns, disagree with him on climate change, that's a completely fair policy position to have.
	Just don't lie about him.
	And what Michael Tracy did was lazy research that failed to do basic due diligence that lied and libeled about Robert Kennedy for whatever reason.
	I don't know what the reason was.
	You know, I said that it seemed to fit a certain psychological profile.
	He was fair in his response saying, you know, that's just me speculating.
	Okay, fair enough.
	But what he did is lazy work.
	He's supposed to be a good journalist.
	What he's done with Robert Kennedy Jr. is so lazy.
	And then he said, anybody who supports Robert Kennedy Jr. doesn't know the facts and is a cultist.
	No.
	He's projecting something of his own in that regard.
	The people who support Robert Kennedy Jr., people like me who followed him for more than 30 years, know what he stands for.
	Knows he's a very independent, dissident voice.
	Plenty of things I disagree with him on.
	But plenty of things he's a fantastic voice on.
	A critical voice on.
	Don't lie about his record.
	People were sharing a clip where he was talking about the Koch brothers.
	Covering up their complicity in polluting industries by funding organizations that create fake news about those industries.
	He was talking about the Koch brothers should be locked up.
	They took that clip and they said, Robert Kennedy wants to lock everyone up who doesn't believe in climate change.
	That's totally false.
	By the way, he clarified.
	He doesn't even embrace most of the climate change agenda because it's a world economic forum, Bill Gates, George Soros agenda to steal power and recirculate.
	So these people circling lists like they just found out some brilliant insight.
	You took the bait on Deepstead.
	Deep state fed disinformation meant for you to attack Robert Kennedy so that a future coalition of populist left, populist right is harder to bring about down the road on issues that really matter, like deep state politics, where Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. has been one of our most important allies for decades.
	And I would just to add to that, even on his environmental stuff, it's not about 15-minute cities.
	What he is about is what most people agree upon in environmental discussions.
	You know, animals going extinct.
	Is bad.
	You don't want to leave nature worse off for your kids than it was for you.
	You want to see salmon spawning up rivers.
	Everybody knows that human development interferes.
	That type of environmentalism.
	He wants everybody to experience the same privilege he grew up with.
	I mean, if you read American Values, you understand his idea of environmentalism comes from being a little kid amongst this beautiful and physical environment.
	He wants everyone to have that in their own local communities with public parks, public resources, public access, a range of food, a range of floral supply, a range of birds and other animals.
	He can talk about it more eloquently than I can.
	That's always been his priority.
	I don't agree with him on the oil industry.
	I don't agree with him on the mining industry.
	And I don't agree with him on guns.
	And I don't agree with him on abortion.
	And I don't agree with him in terms of loyalty to the Democratic Party that he's always been.
	But he's honest about where he disagrees.
	And I'll give an example.
	He has very strong feelings on the NRA and on Alex Jones connected to Sandy Hook.
	He knew that from the get-go.
	And yet he hired me as one of the lead lawyers to work for Children's Health Defense.
	Why?
	Because he understands it's better to build bridges than to burn bridges.
	Build them over common causes.
	Don't burn them over minor disagreements over issues that are not going to change the world anytime soon.
	The deep state is going to change the world for good or ill, and fighting it is going to change the world in much more meaningful ways.
	Look for where you can ally, not look for perfection in anybody.
	But Michael Tracy was just, I said I couldn't follow him anymore just because I think he's someone who's done great work in the past, but his work was so bad here.
	It wasn't just that it was biased.
	It was lack of basic due diligence and basic lies.
	And once I find out a source is not reliable, I'm not one of those people.
	I don't have Gellar Mann amnesia.
	I'm not going to keep going back to a source I've learned is incredulous on something.
	So I just can't trust him anymore on this.
	But it reflects a broader campaign against Robert Kennedy.
	ABC was censoring him this week because they didn't interview with him, and then they censored two-thirds of the conversation from being broadcast because he's that big of a threat to the powers that be, much as his father was, much as his uncle President John Kennedy was.
	I honestly thought the media was going to go after him for this part of his speech.
	We're talking about environmentalism.
	I thought they were going to snip and clip this, and they might still do it to call him a racist.
	Let me see if I got it at the right time.
	That's because...
	Engaged in hand-to-hand combat against the big polluters.
	Okay, give it a few seconds.
	And I wanted to particularly work with people who were most harmed by environmental injury, but also were alienated or marginalized from the mainstream environmental community.
	My first case as an environmental lawyer was representing the NAACP in a lawsuit against Austin, New York.
	We're trying to put a waste transfer station in the oldest black neighborhood in the Hudson Valley.
	And I found out during that lawsuit that four out of every five toxic waste dumps in our country is in a black neighborhood.
	The largest toxic waste dump in this country is Emile, Alabama, which is 85% black.
	The highest concentration of toxic waste dumps in this country.
	Is this outside of Chicago?
	The most contaminated zip code in California is East L.A. Oh, it's giving me an ad.
	At least it's not an environmental ad.
	Or like a corporate ad.
	But that's been his popular style.
	Hold on.
	This was the most important part right here.
	It was probably the largest at that time problem with black youth.
	It was that 48% of them had dangerous levels of lead in their blood.
	And that lead dramatically reduced IQ and also caused severe behavioral problems.
	This is where I thought, being the cynical, black-pilled individual, that they're going to go after him now for allegedly being racist for...
	They don't want to discuss any of the underlying issues, though.
	That's why he has talked about disproportionately autism hitting young black men, especially in the early stages.
	He's talking about all these toxic chemicals.
	I mean, I went to Mexican-American grocery stores in Bastrop County, Texas, and it's all filled with crap.
	I mean, they're killing these people en masse with bad food.
	And they're targeting working class, Black and Latin, Mexican-American communities especially, but also doing it in places like Appalachia and other places like that across the country.
	So, and he's the one to highlight this.
	You know, where is the opioid epidemic taking place?
	Where is the bad food being targeted?
	Where is the bad pharma being targeted?
	Where is the various bad environmental impacts happening on a day-to-day basis?
	You know, it's not Greta Thunberg running around Europe.
	It's working-class black communities that have sludge plants in their backyard.
	And this is where his populism builds a lot of bridges.
	That's why they're paranoid of him.
	That's why they're going to censor him.
	And for whatever reason, Tracy took the bait and repeated a lot of gibberish using his authenticity and authority as an independent investigative journalist to spread lies and libels because he took the bait for whatever reason.
	And his voice, my response was two things.
	I think as an objective matter, Americans care a lot more about the quality of your brain than your vocal cords in terms of it actually mattering as an objective matter, as what should matter.
	And then subjectively, It's clear that physical disability or other disability doesn't matter when Fetterman is in the Senate and Biden is in the White House.
	And he tried to respond.
	It's like, your answers are just weak.
	If Americans really found that disbarring, we don't have a President Biden.
	We don't have a Senator Fetterman.
	But the difference between Kennedy and them is the only limitation Kennedy has is in his vocal cords.
	He has no limitation in his brain, no limitation in his heart.
	And that's what makes him such a threat to the system.
	Other than the voice, he seems very healthy.
	But, Robert, people are saying that the, I forget what the condition is called, was a vaccine injury.
	Spasmodic something.
	It's unclear what the source was.
	I don't think he fully knows what the source is.
	Now, I'm going to read three chats, four, because, okay, five.
	Arkansas crime attorney Little Rock says, okay, Robert, I'm now shorting Disney.
	Thanks for the financial advice.
	Q2Q, who I know is a legitimate, not a troll.
	I understand smear campaign, however.
	Shame on you.
	Excusing Crowder abusive behavior and assuming his pregnant wife's feelings mindset almost 30 years out of an abusive marriage.
	Two plus kids.
	I'll say this to this comment.
	First of all, nobody's excusing what we saw in that video.
	But, I guess, but.
	11 years of marriage.
	I'm not comfortable demonizing someone off of a three-minute video.
	For all the things that went on.
	And I often do say this.
	It's clear, to me at least, the most reasonable inference is that's a bit of a staged event.
	She knows he's got an issue and she exploited it.
	Maybe smart on her part to do so.
	Probably gets a higher percentage now.
	But that's what it smells like.
	You know you're being recorded.
	You say those things in that order.
	You know he's already in that mood when you do it.
	I'm not overly rushing to sympathize.
	But also, having been through a lot of family law, divorce law cases, this is why lawyers hate family law.
	The truth, good luck with finding the truth in a marriage.
	That almost never comes out.
	It often never comes out to either partner in the relationship.
	It's too intimate.
	It's too personal.
	It's too...
	Broad and length of duration to find a deep truth as to one person being in the right and one person being in the wrong outside of extraordinary cases.
	Now, if it's Amber Heard, okay, you can reasonably infer who's good and who's bad.
	Outside of those rare instances, most of the time, both people made mistakes.
	Both people had bad judgment.
	Both people are going to do dumb and bad stuff to each other.
	And highlighting one on the moral scale than the other because one selectively recorded and staged an event for you to publicly see is not good evidentiary grounds to infer a final judgment on.
	I'll just say, I know that I've never said it to my wife.
	How many people have said, I hate you in a fight?
	I mean, like, Singh, I don't love you.
	Again, I did a lot of this kind of work.
	So when I saw that, I was like, that's all they got?
	I was like, that's pretty light.
	Just to say also, you know, I often say experience doesn't always make you smarter.
	Sometimes it traumatizes you.
	And someone who's gone through an abusive relationship might not be seeing that with, you know, more insight, but rather with more trauma and then seeing things in there that they've lived in their own life and projecting it into there.
	But all that to say, I'll get the Arkansas crime attorney says, Jojo, sorry, but I don't take a person and destroy them from one video cut and released to help a divorce.
	Show me testimony and other videos and I will join.
	I think we can do that, Robert.
	And Fonzie Dizzle.
	I didn't notice that, but I will certainly go back and rewatch and look for that.
	Speaking of Robert Kennedy, and one of the reasons why I'm an admirer of him, aside from watching him for 30 years, aside from getting to know him personally, is the reason why I am Brooke Jackson's counsel is because of Robert Kennedy.
	So he's one of the people who wanted to make sure she got the best representation, became concerned whether that was happening, helped put the bridge together with friends of his and friends of hers that led to our representation.
	And we filed a motion to amend judgment under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this week to allow us a motion to amend the complaint.
	That's effectively what it is, laying out why we thought the court concluded that we had an inability legally to plead sufficient facts.
	And we laid out why here's what those facts are and why that is not deficient under the law, even under the court's understanding of it.
	And so I'll be putting up the motion to amend and the amended complaint this week at vivabarneslaw.locals.com as part of the Barnes Law School content playlist.
	And we'll be adding details in it.
	And what we laid out was the four categories of claims that she had, which the court at times seemed to be...
	Went back and forth on interpreting the prior complaint is there was a false fraudulent presentment and a fraudulent certification expressly, a fraudulent certification by implication and false statements connected to a fraudulent claim because what they promised, what Pfizer promised to induce the contract in the first place, this is why there's a fraud in the inducement claim, is that they would deliver a safe, effective vaccine.
	For the prevention of COVID-19, they knew at the very time they promised it that they were lying.
	They knew they could not be.
	They knew because of the problems with mRNA, because of the difficulties with coronavirus, because of the limits of clinical trials, that they could not produce what the contract required, which was a clinically proven, clinically compliant, safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
	Do you amend and add that admission, the admission from that British woman in European Parliament that, no, we didn't test the transmission.
	We were moving at the speed of science.
	We had to test the markets.
	I mean, do you add that in or is that not...
	All of it.
	We add all the new information that has subsequently come out.
	Because when we first filed suit, we didn't even have their contract.
	We didn't have their invoices.
	We didn't have all the other information that's come out through the FOIA process.
	So, nor other public admissions they've made.
	Now we do.
	And so we're saying we should have a right to amend because now we know.
	Like, when we first brought suit, we detailed what happened with Brooke Jackson.
	We believed, I mean, she was claiming that there was fraud on the government.
	He interpreted somehow the complaint not to allege that.
	I have no idea why.
	But we're like, fine, we'll put it in big, bold words and say it over and over again for you if that's what's needed.
	But we now know that they were concerned about her claim.
	Denying them access to money and exposing their fraud.
	So we now know it was fraud in the inducement.
	We didn't know that fully because we didn't have the contract.
	We didn't know what their pitch was.
	We now know what their pitch was.
	Their pitch from the get-go was they said, because it's mRNA, we can produce a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 at speed and scale.
	They knew they couldn't do any of the first four at speed and scale.
	any of them.
	They knew it wasn't safe.
	They knew they didn't even test effectively for efficacy.
	They knew it wasn't a vaccine.
	As FDA admitted this week, it doesn't prevent transmission.
	A vaccinated person can spread it and it doesn't have to prevent it for the purpose of a vaccine, but that's because of their change definition.
	It wasn't the definition at the time of the Operation Warp Speed contract.
	So we're pointing out The judge seemed confused on what the fraudulent scheme was, so we give that to him.
	And he said, well, you didn't allege in detail how all these clinical trial violations translated into a dangerous or ineffective drug that didn't have immunization capacity.
	Like, okay, now we have all that.
	So we added all of it.
	This drug causes disease, causes disability, causes death.
	It doesn't prevent any of the three.
	And so our grounds is we should have a right to amend because we have a liberal right to amend under the federal rules.
	The court's assumption of inability to plead was predicated on misinterpreting the contract.
	Because what the contract actually says, that's why I say a clerk wrote it.
	Like a clerk that wasn't even in the courtroom that day wrote it.
	Because they just cut and paste from Pfizer's argument.
	Converted the court into a rubber stamp.
	It's like Pfizer blew a leaf across the desk and the court signed it.
	And just came through the clerk.
	That's how it feels.
	Because in the contract, it says that there's a bunch of stuff that is outside the scope of the contract.
	But what it says right before that, it says anything unrelated to the development of the vaccine is outside the scope.
	He interpreted that to mean all the FDA rules are outside the scope.
	It was a patently ridiculous and absurd...
	And ludicrous interpretation of the contract, which at the time of the oral argument, he seemed to realize.
	So given that, we're like, look, that's just a basic error of fact.
	And then it is a basic error of law, which is he says once the allegations are simply known, you can no longer bring it unless the government reverses its authorization.
	That's not the law.
	The law is the government has to believe the lies are true.
	It has to believe the allegations are true.
	In other words, it has to believe that yes, Pfizer lied to us.
	Yes, Pfizer violated the rules.
	Yes, Pfizer violated the regulations.
	Yes, it's dangerous.
	Yes, it's ineffective.
	Yes, it's...
	Because the other thing we included is, we now know Pfizer was secretly funding organizations to mandate their vaccine, their so-called vaccine, their drug.
	They were hiding their sourcing of their support of it by funding organizations with other names.
	Not only that, we now know Pfizer was involved because the contract required that they could only be approved and they could only receive it if there was no available alternative because it took the PREP Act terms, the emergency use authorization terms, and explicitly put them in the contract.
	Well, Pfizer knew there were alternatives at work.
	So Pfizer was working behind the scenes to prevent anybody from knowing there were alternatives at work, using their power in the big pharmaceutical industry to do so.
	So we now know this was a big, massive fraud, but the FDA has never acknowledged it was a fraud.
	The FDA is still saying it's safe, still saying it's effective, still saying it's a vaccine, still saying a little bit less now for the prevention of COVID-19, and they're saying they don't believe Brooke Jackson's complaints.
	They're trusting Pfizer's lies.
	Well, in that case, we get to pursue our case.
	We only don't get to pursue our case if Pfizer says, oh, if the FDA say we know Pfizer's lying.
	We know it's dangerous.
	We know it's ineffective.
	We know it's not a vaccine.
	They've never said that.
	The judge just got the law completely wrong.
	It was lazy judges by lazy law clerks that were working for him or just old-fashioned cowardice.
	So our grounds is we have a motion to amend the judgment with a right to amend under the law.
	I don't anticipate the judge granting it.
	I think the ship has sailed in his capacity to be impartial in this case.
	Not because of any corruption, but because of cowardice, in my opinion.
	But it preserves our right to include all of that evidence at the appeals court stage, which is where this is heading.
	And now, I know people in the chat are saying, when do you sue Fauci?
	But if you can't even sue Pfizer...
	Well, I'm trying to figure out a way to sue Fauci.
	So we're trying to figure out more ways to sue Pfizer, more ways to sue the FDA, more ways to sue Fauci.
	This is far from over.
	This is the beginning.
	It's the end of chapter one, not the end of the book.
	All right.
	Now, Robert, Okay, it's terrible and fantastic at the same time.
	I don't think justice will ever be served.
	I have gone...
	I think people need to go to jail now.
	Justice has already been partially served.
	Robert Kennedy came out this week again.
	Why are they coming after him?
	He said, look, I want to be clear.
	I don't want retaliation or retribution against anybody concerning COVID.
	But he said the people committed crimes.
	Hint, Anthony Fauci.
	See his book, The Real Anthony Fauci.
	He goes, they do need to be prosecuted when I become president.
	Well, it's not a question of pressure.
	And maybe that has something to do with them suddenly wanting to attack him.
	And again, there has been partial justice.
	Brooke Jackson went public with the underlying facts of the case, not the case itself, but the facts of the case, after a prior lawyer's incomplicity with the government had tried to get her to silence her, to save kids' lives.
	She saw they were going to try to mass-introduce it to children.
	Over 90% of young children have never taken the shot.
	So the, and it's even higher when you get to the second shot and the booster and the rest.
	Who knows how many lives she saved?
	So that, so she already has had extraordinary success.
	But you're right, complete justice means Pfizer's bankruptcy, those executives in prison, and Anthony Fauci in prison.
	And I say it's not retribution because retribution has like a vigilantism.
	You should go to a prison for Fauci t-shirt at BeaverFry.com.
	Well, after a fair trial, of course.
	Now, retribution has a vigilante aspect to it.
	There should be trials.
	We know what they've done now.
	You know, our guy there, Anthony Housefather out of Canada, said what they did.
	What they did is criminal fraud, and people need to be tried and convicted after a fair trial.
	And it's not retribution, it's justice.
	And I've had it, but I'm still a law-abiding citizen.
	Up next, speaking of justice, the Supreme Court is considering the Glossop case, or he's filed an emergency petition.
	He is subject to be executed on May 18th.
	This is a guy who is...
	No, I read up on this because I had never heard of it before.
	This is one of the reasons why I, as an adult, as a child, as a young person, I supported the death penalty wholeheartedly.
	Under ideal circumstances, seeing the way the system is either abused or incompetent, this guy, this goes back to a murder in Oklahoma.
	They know who bludgeoned a hotel owner to death in one of the rooms.
	They know who did it.
	It was this guy who's clearly mentally ill, among other things.
	Someone else.
	Someone else.
	The guy who was coming was just the hotel manager.
	Another hotel guest killed another person at a hotel, and he's being blamed for it and faces execution for it.
	And the guy admitted to it?
	The guy then, for whatever the reason...
	The guy who did it...
	The guy who did it admitted.
	The guy who did it later recanted and said the hotel manager had nothing to do with it.
	There's no forensic evidence the hotel manager had anything to do with it.
	The Oklahoma Attorney General has come forward and said, we don't have any confidence in this case whatsoever.
	The only thing I don't even understand is why at some point the interrogating police wanted to turn their eye on this hotel manager who had...
	Officially nothing to do with it, and in fact, unless the court has got it wrong, the only connection of the hotel manager to the murder is the testimony of the guy who actually bludgeoned the man to death, and then subsequently...
	Who was on mental health medication, who was an admitted perjurer, who was allowed off the death penalty because he made up these stories against this individual, who has subsequently sought his testimony to be recanted, who the prosecutors and police knew a bunch of this information and hid it from the defendant at trial.
	Destroyed exculpatory evidence.
	Knew they did.
	Oklahoma authorities, I forget who it says, we no longer believe in this.
	Oklahoma Attorney General.
	A bunch of conservative pro-death penalty legislators have said, but what happened, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which is a joke, basically affirmed it over a 3-2 case.
	They love to convict innocent people in the Oklahoma court system.
	It shows what a crock they are.
	And the joke of a board of parole, board of commutations there, that has commutation pardon power.
	And we shouldn't have boards.
	This should be exclusively in the governor's hands, and that's it.
	These boards are not working.
	They're delaying things in Texas.
	They cause issues in California, cause issues in Georgia.
	They allow politicians off the hook when innocent people get stuck in prison.
	That's the only utility they have.
	But the Oklahoma board wouldn't interfere, even though the legislators and the Oklahoma attorney general were saying this guy's innocent.
	So the question is, will the Supreme Court of the United States step up, or will they allow an innocent man to get executed on May 18th?
	It's mind-blowing, but worth knowing and just worth understanding the death penalty is irreversible and there's no exoneration afterwards.
	Innocent people get put to death and it's not something you can...
	Innocent people in jail for life is already enough of an injustice.
	And now that I understand...
	Robert, is it true that it costs more, all things in, to execute a prisoner than to keep them in jail for life?
	Because of the legal cost, yes.
	So it's fascinating.
	I mean, it's a terrible decision.
	We'll see what happens.
	May 18th.
	It's like his third or fourth time on the eve of the execution, the last three times it was stayed.
	It's just embarrassing that our legal system is so bad that when everybody, there was an independent 400-page report, everything, this guy never should have been prosecuted.
	Zero forensic evidence tying him to it.
	Zero financial evidence tying to it.
	The only testimony being incredibly incredulous testimony coerced by incompetent or corrupt or both police officers enabled by incompetent defense counsel and corrupt prosecutors at trial.
	And the fact that no court can set an innocent man free or at least stop his execution is an embarrassment to the American legal system.
	Testify, Robert.
	Okay, do we go to Evergreen?
	Oh, well, we have Evergreen, but the Second Amendment cases, Colorado and Illinois, we have a couple of big cases there.
	Then we have a couple of...
	Then we have another big case of the trans cases.
	And then we have a couple of quick cases.
	The Weinstein case, the Evergreen case, the Credit Suisse case, and Beyonce.
	And I'm going to tell...
	There's going to be something exclusive to locals because I was at a place yesterday where I put a GoPro in the water to try to get an underwater view of an alligator.
	Someone's been feeding that alligator.
	Let's just...
	I'll leave it at that until we get to locals and we'll have something exclusive there.
	First Amendment case, Robert.
	The Bruin decision comes out.
	Supreme Court says, no, you can't regulate.
	We reaffirmed Second Amendment rights.
	Immediately after that case, you got New York State saying, fuck you, Supreme Court.
	We're going to re-legislate and we're not going to listen to you.
	You got politicians in other circumstances basically saying what was otherwise treasonous or seditious.
	Don't listen to the courts anymore.
	We're going to do it anyhow.
	Illinois, I think, was the one that put out this outrageously...
	What's the word?
	Restrictive Second Amendment law.
	And it went up to, I forget, you'll get the details.
	The Southern District, it was at the district court level, went to final judgment this week.
	And that basically got the decision right.
	It said basically you cannot not just thumb your nose at the Supreme Court decision.
	You can't act like it was never, that it never occurred.
	What were the restrictions?
	It was the pickup.
	I mean, they banned anything that they labeled non-essential to the firearm, an accessory to the firearm, things like arm braces, things that help you load ammunition into the gun, anything they considered military use, banned a bunch of semi-automatic guns in Illinois, anything they could label assault rifle that doesn't even really exist, targeting the AR-15 in particular.
	And they try to say it's non-essential, so it's not protected by the Second Amendment.
	It's not part of the arms itself, so it's not part of the Second Amendment like arm braces.
	Try to claim that it was not in common use, certain things that, in fact, are completely in common use.
	Then their defense was...
	Well, these kind of guns weren't used in the past.
	This is a defense that the U.S. Supreme Court's already rejected, saying the question is whether it's common today, not whether it was common then.
	And then for you to justify a restriction, you have to show the restriction was common then, not just common now.
	Illinois tried to reverse that.
	The district court rejected all of that.
	Pointed out that arm braces are necessary for disabled people to effectively use guns.
	Noted many of the accessories were being limited, are necessary for you to load the gun.
	And the court correctly reemphasized the self-defense role of these guns.
	Said, what good is a gun if you can't put any ammunition in it?
	It's like, I mean, this is, you know, just shot down all the ludicrous, it was a good, robust, pro-Second Amendment judge.
	You could see that in the nature of his ruling.
	I'll put that up as well at Viva Barnes Law.
	Dotlocals.com this week, my highlighted version of it.
	So struck down the entire, all the Illinois law restrictions in the same way that other California and New York restrictions trying to rebut Bruin have also been knocked down.
	But of course, that didn't stop Colorado from coming in and saying they don't want 18 to 20-year-olds to have any guns.
	And that even if you clear a background check, you have to wait 72 hours before you can get a gun.
	The Rocky Mountain Gun Organization filed suit challenging both of those this week, pointing out that neither one of them has a history of support in our constitutional history at the key times of the Second Amendment, which was the time it was passed in the 1860s when we passed the 14th Amendment.
	But, Robert, what is the penalty or what's the punishment for these legislators who basically defy orders of the court by just continuing...
	Just injunctions and write some checks for attorney's fees.
	Yeah, but that's taxpayer dollar checks.
	It's like there's no penalty to loss other than just stumbling across the occasional win and then just slowly whittling away at the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States.
	The other big case we have, before we get to the three smaller cases, is a couple of big trans rights cases.
	One involving pronouns in California, the other involving Tennessee's law against gender-altering treatment for minors.
	Okay, Robert, start on that.
	So in California, basically the school, what's interesting about these cases is they kind of contradict each other in the underlying theory in terms of the trans rights side of the equation.
	So in California, what they did is they've instructed teachers to use the preferred pronoun of the student, but to hide that information from the parent and to not use the preferred pronoun around the parent.
	And so it's deliberate attempts of the school to undermine the parent's authority.
	To subvert the parents' directive autonomy over their child's upbringing.
	And so both parents and teachers have brought suit.
	Parents on the grounds that this is by the good Thomas Moore Society.
	The parents have brought suit and the teachers have brought suit.
	Parents on the violation of the right to autonomy of parenting their child, which actually will relate to the other case.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	But the teachers have focused suit because they say this is core speech in violation of their core First Amendment rights.
	And that they sought a religious accommodation because their religious rights require that they not have to use this preferred pronoun or undermine parental autonomy.
	And that that religious accommodation request was reasonable and was unreasonably rejected and withheld.
	Now, the Seventh Circuit has issued a decision that's toward the opposite on the pronoun issue.
	So this probably will all go to the Supreme Court of the United States before too long.
	And we'll see how it turns out.
	But a good suit at least challenging and exposing what's taking place.
	What's interesting in Tennessee is in Tennessee the theory of the people bringing suit on behalf of trans rights is almost the opposite.
	Because what they say is that this is about gender dysphoria.
	Which is interesting because the trans rights movement denies gender dysphoria generally.
	It says that's prejudice and bigotry and its attack on trans people, etc.
	And gender is a fluid, socially constructed idea that doesn't biologically and medically exist.
	And gender dysphoria reflects the bigotry.
	Well, not the lawsuit, because they need to claim it in order to claim certain medical rights.
	They're claiming Tennessee is discriminating against these poor kids who suffer from this mental illness of gender dysphoria that requires gender-affirming care to resolve it.
	And that Tennessee's law is thereby—and Tennessee's law basically says none of these medically, permanently altering medical procedures are legal in Tennessee for minor children.
	And they say, well, first of all, you only limit it to minors, and you allow it for other treatments, and so that's an equal protection violation.
	They say gender identity is the same protection as sex, as a biology, under both the Obamacare provisions and the 14th Amendment.
	I'm not sympathetic to any of those claims.
	I am interested, though, potentially, I have to think through it a bit, the parental autonomy claim.
	Do we want the state determining medical care for a child?
	I don't know about that.
	I don't like this care.
	I think it's medical malpractice.
	I think that that's what's taking place.
	States have always had the right to ban medical malpractice, even if a parent wanted the child to go through the medical malpractice.
	So my instinct is that the state law is valid in Tennessee, but I don't like, as a general principle, the idea of states governing parental choices over their children's medical care.
	So that's the one place that I want to think through and see how the legal briefs develop.
	Because I'm not as gung-ho on that side of the law.
	I'm more antithetical to where the state is.
	But it's fascinating that the trans rights folks are pursuing a theory in Tennessee.
	That's their only way to really have any chance in court.
	That is completely contrary to the entire ideology of the trans movement.
	Well, and it's an interesting thing because I've been reading...
	I have to track the evolution and the editing over time, but once upon a time was the case that...
	Transgenderism, whatever that term means now, was gender dysphoria.
	In the DSM-5, I think it was introduced like 30 some odd years ago.
	And now, psychiatry.com and all of these online websites are sort of, they're starting to slowly whittle away at it.
	They're saying, not all trans people suffer from gender dysphoria, even though the definition of being trans...
	Is the criteria, like two of the four elements of gender dysphoria, and they need to argue this in order to justify that it should be covered by insurance claims and healthcare provided, mutually exclusive, and then dare you call it a mental...
	Not a mental illness.
	A mental illness.
	That's how it's labeled.
	And that's how they're pursuing the case.
	They're pursuing the case on the ground that these are mentally ill kids who need this treatment to survive their mental illness.
	And it's like, wow, no wonder they're not going to be quoting from this case in the pro-transmedia anytime soon.
	This was one of the things I try to say subtly is in Canada, when people say you can't discriminate against...
	You already have laws in Canada that you're not allowed discriminating based on mental conditions.
	And so you don't need additional laws for this.
	But then you say that, and then it was like, well, it's not a mental condition.
	How dare you stigmatize it like that?
	And I was like, now you're the one stigmatizing mental disorders when you're saying we should be comfortable to talk about our mental issues.
	Well, this is what I was trying to bring up.
	I found it now.
	Paul Stanley, I didn't realize he was one of the co-founders of KISS.
	He's going to be public enemy number one because he's taken to Twitter.
	To say this, my thoughts on what I'm seeing.
	Paul Stanley, one of the co-founders of KISS.
	There is a big difference between teaching acceptance and normalizing and even encouraging participation in a lifestyle that confuses young children into questioning their sexual identification as though some sort of game and then parents in some cases allow it.
	There are individuals who, as adults, may decide reassignment if they're needed choice, but turning in...
	Turning this into a game or parents normalizing it as some sort of natural alternative or believing that because a little boy likes to play dress-up in his sister's clothes or a girl in her brother's, we should lead them steps further down a path.
	that's far from the innocence of what they are doing with many children who have no real sense of sexuality or sexual experiences caught up in the quote fun of using pronouns and saying what they identify as some adults mistakenly confuse teaching acceptance with normalizing and encouraging a situation that has been a struggle for those who truly affect those truly affected and have turned Not bad.
	Exactly.
	Speaking of some of these kind of laws, in New York, of course, they amended the laws to reflect the Me Too movement to help people sue Trump on the grounds that the statute of limitations is dramatically longer for sexual assault claims.
	They might not like all the places it goes though.
	A person who was a 19-year-old model who was sexually assaulted by an executive at Disney, which owned Miramax, Harvey Weinstein's company, Lombard, who apparently not only facilitated sexual assault, but according to the suit, engaged in it regularly himself, including assaulting this young model when she was 19. She's now 40. She is bringing suit against Disney as well.
	It's a reminder of Disney's complicity in a lot of these criminal activities, that a lot of the worst behavior by Harvey Weinstein happened after Disney played But it'll be interesting where else this suit goes because it alleges Disney's complicity and knowledge and awareness of it, attempts to continually cover it up.
	So it goes in directions beyond and above just the Harvey Weinstein-connected lawsuit.
	Robert, I was trying to Google something earlier when we were talking about Disney, but am I...
	Was there fabricating memories, or was there not some issues of very serious pedophilic improprieties occurring on...
	Oh, yeah.
	There have been a bunch of Disney employees disproportionately be elected for child porn charges and pedophile charges.
	And was any of it actually occurring on their sovereign state?
	Allegedly, yes.
	I found a couple of articles, and they were just saying how some employees were caught up in a Florida dragnet of...
	And it helped them that they had their own little police force for a while.
	Okay, fine.
	Now...
	On the good Hollywood side, Eva Green is part of a movie called A Patriot.
	It's a good suit if you read up on it, on what happens in Hollywood financing deals.
	When financing goes south, where one side tries to stiff the other side, Eva Green ultimately brought suit, said, look, you guaranteed me a million dollars.
	You screwed up the production of the film so it never got made.
	You're going to pay me that million bucks because I fought for the film, and it was your own fault for screwing it up.
	She went to court, and she won.
	Well, and just the funny thing about how people get screwed in contracts, The contract said, we'll pay you a million if the movie doesn't get made.
	And then the shit that they tried to pull to get the movie to get made, just cut corners.
	We're like, okay, we made the movie.
	It's worse than Leonard Part 6 Bill Cosby flops.
	So now you don't get to back out.
	The way they were trying to cut corners.
	They deliberately tried to make a crap film so they could get out of paying her a million bucks.
	Apparently she wasn't the best witness before the judge, but who cares?
	She won at the end of the day.
	She's a fun actress.
	Well, she said some mean things in text messages.
	I mean, I draft all text messages as though my account will get leaked, so I don't have that fear.
	But what she said wasn't even that bad.
	She was complaining about the shitty quality of what they were trying to pump out of a movie in order to screw her and compel her to be in this crappy movie and not get her million because they failed to produce.
	Are we talking about the shitty walk or the shitty sushi?
	I don't know.
	That's how you pronounce the word city.
	Oh, okay, fine.
	Sorry, I gotta get...
	I have not.
	Other than...
	When the Chinese guy fights the Japanese guy, it's funny as the Dickens.
	Only South Park could get away with that.
	I think I will start.
	I'm going to start watching that with my kid now.
	But we need the other two kids to go to bed before I get...
	13 is old enough, I think.
	13, 14, that's old enough for South Park.
	Robert, what do we have?
	Last case before the bonus, before we go over to exclusive to locals, Credit Suisse.
	Yeah, tell me what's going on there.
	Expect a lot more legal fallout because another bank, First Republic, looks like it's going to collapse this week.
	Follow Jeff Snyder for alternative understanding of what's happening in our global banking system.
	He will be at George Gammon's event if you want a lot of good insight.
	Peter Schiff, a bunch of great people will be there in Orlando.
	I will be there from May 12th to May 14th in Orlando.
	The big events, May 12th, May 13th.
	A lot of great speakers from a wide range of perspectives on finance, business, real estate, the economy, where law intersects with a lot of that.
	Credit Suisse is going to keep getting sued.
	Major class actions over what the government knew, over what other bankers knew, over what happened.
	People who got on the losing end of the stick, it looks like retail investors are going to be filing massive class actions on a continuous basis over what's coming out with Credit Suisse.
	It was a...
	They issued, I don't know what they call them, bonds, but basically that they get to reassess the value of these, not preferred dividends, but they were these, what do they call them?
	Like fancy instruments.
	And the idea was that they get to arbitrarily reevaluate the value of these instruments to zero.
	If they say the company has balance sheet problems, and the defense was the only people to whom these fancy, incomprehensible instruments were offered were sophisticated investors who understood and were willing to lose all their money if their instruments were re-evaluated to zero.
	Problem being, according to the lawsuit, there were a lot of retail investors who got those things and now had their instruments re-evaluated to zero when the government decided to write off their liability so they could save the company.
	I might join one of those class action lawsuits.
	I might hold on to my shares.
	Well, I can sell them anyhow and solidify my damages.
	Son of a bitch.
	What I'll be talking about at the George Gammon conference is jurisdictional diversification, asset planning, tax mitigation strategies.
	It looks like Beyonce used some, but maybe not all the best ones.
	She has sued the IRS in what's called the United States Tax Court.
	That's where when you have a dispute with the IRS over a tax bill...
	That's where you go through.
	They funnel it that way because the IRS wins about 86% of the time in tax court.
	Most of their judges come from the IRS.
	So shock, shock.
	They're very sympathetic to the IRS.
	But we'll see.
	But she might have an above-average chance of success because, well, if you litigate it the right way, you can improve those odds.
	But basically, they're challenging large aspects of her charity, challenging large aspects of her businesses, saying it wasn't a tax-deductible expense, wasn't a legitimate charity.
	This expense was for personal purposes.
	Someone like Beyonce, it's in the court of public opinion and does so much in the court of the public.
	Often, it's very difficult to separate their business expense from their personal expense.
	And a lot of that usually is acceptable for business purposes.
	It's interesting that the IRS discarded it.
	They usually back off.
	People that have the kind of political clout and financial capacity and lawyers on payroll that Beyonce does.
	But it's millions of dollars she's having to fight over to restore her rights to take certain basic things as deductions.
	And it'll be probably a crash course for some people in how the tax court really operates.
	So it'll be interesting to watch the case as it progresses.
	My guess?
	The IRS will ultimately settle rather than run the risk of a verdict that could later be used against them in other cases.
	All right, let me do the last four rumble rants before we go over to locals, Robert.
	Mandy Caravichu says, Viva, you are always so fabulous, but Barnes, wow, you are looking absolutely fantastic.
	You are looking so fit and healthy.
	I love it.
	Keep up the good work, both of you.
	Well, you know what that's about?
	Amos Milk.
	Robert, it's about the milk, isn't it?
	AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com, where you can get farm-fresh milk, farm-fresh yogurt, farm-fresh cheese delivered right to your door tomorrow.
	And we'll see where the next meetup is.
	Kenzie67 says, you need to come to Canada for your NCI testimony and attend all three days.
	You will be forever changed.
	I was there Thursday, Friday, and so glad.
	Buckley is amazing, knowledgeable experts and suffering citizens.
	We'll see if I can do that.
	I might not be able to.
	But Ehong101, if Barnes, Seuss Fauci, or the FDA, then I'll donate to Barnes, even using my credit card.
	And Nibub says...
	Just say Chomos.
	Barnes knows why.
	I don't know what that means, and I think I'm getting in trouble now.
	All right, Robert, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're in two minutes.
	We're going to go now.
	Did I miss any?
	Hold on one second here.
	Let me see this.
	Breaking stock markets.
	Okay, I got that.
	Hold on.
	I got this.
	Isn't the rape trial happening due to the enactment of an ex post facto law?
	Isn't there hundreds, thousands of years of precedence for this?
	And then we got Viva.
	Do you remember when Dr. Shiva stated that he had contacted Cuck?
	I forget why I brought this one up, but I'm trying to think now.
	Okay, and then we got this.
	Is that lighting or is Viva dyeing his hair now?
	I am not dyeing my hair, but I am going to go try to look for that.
	I need to get this.
	How do I get this one off now?
	Like this, like this.
	Okay, people.
	Hold on, Robert.
	I got to give them a link to get to Viva Barnes Law.
	.locals.com.
	It's right here in the chat.
	Come on over because I am now ending this.
	On Rumble.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Probably see you tomorrow.
	I'm going to go live tomorrow.
	There might be some construction in the house that might make noise, so I might have to wait until the afternoon to go live, but I'll see you all tomorrow.
	Locals, we're coming, people!
	Yep, ending on Rumble now.
	All right, let's just make sure that it's happening.
	So, Robert, okay, I'll get the video lined up.
	No, I've got to get all the Rumble rants or the tips here to read.
	Yeah, tippers.

▲