Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 7, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:27:31

Ep. 159: Barstool, Proud Boys, Kari Lake, Trump, RFK Jr., AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Do we go down a path of fear and anger?
	Don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk.
	And division?
	Those people are putting us all at risk.
	And toxicity?
	Small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa.
	They're not in science, they're often misogynes, often racist.
	Fear didn't put food on anyone's table.
	And if Canada, in effect, shuts its borders to a high proportion of those drivers, surely that's a bit shooting himself in the foot, particularly when it comes to goods on shelves.
	It is.
	Hangar doesn't create a single job.
	Mandatory vaccination for federal employees are some of the strongest in the world.
	When we hosted Chancellor Schultz of Germany, he talked at length.
	It makes me want to puke.
	I mean, even if you're to pan the camera around right now, you'll see every kind of looking person.
	You'll see there's probably 30 languages spoken right here.
	There's every kind of person here.
	We're all Canadians.
	They know that we have the democratic values that make us reliable.
	As of today.
	A bank or other financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order.
	We have great resources and even greater workers.
	We'll cap oil and gas sector emissions today and ensure they decrease tomorrow at a pace and scale needed to reach net zero.
	By 2050.
	That's no small task for a major oil and gas producing country.
	But what ties this all together, what makes Canada really valuable, is we treat people with the respect and dignity they deserve.
	Stop it!
	Oh my God!
	What the hell is that?
	Stop!
	They just trampled this lady.
	They just trampled that lady.
	They just fully trampled that lady.
	Obviously, everyone in China should be allowed to express themselves, should be allowed to share their perspectives and indeed protest.
	We're going to continue to ensure that China knows we'll stand up for human rights, we'll stand with people who are expressing themselves.
	Everybody, I'm going to refresh this.
	Credit to...
	Mike Barr TV, and I'm going to share this tweet with everybody so that you should all go immediately and make this the most viral tweet in the history of the Twitterverse.
	I'm a little jealous of that montage because I don't have the patience to do the side-by-side because that requires software that I don't have on my phone, so I just cut to and from.
	That is the most wonderful juxtaposition of...
	Orwellian doublespeak that you'll ever find anywhere.
	It is as though you can just lie.
	And the media sure as hell will not call him out on it because Justin Trudeau is doing everything in his tyrannical legislative power to give the advantage back.
	To the media that has lost it since the advent of the internet, they're not going to put together montages like that.
	They're not going to highlight.
	It's not just hypocrisy.
	It's lies.
	When he got on the stand during the commission and lied about not having called anybody names, and I made up the joke, you know, how he could walk around and say, I didn't call them names.
	I was just making statements of fact that they were unvaccinated.
	The media will not hold him to account, and it takes the independent media to do it.
	The independent media that he is trying to suppress, demote, downgrade, discredit, and penalize under this new streaming act, the Online Streaming Act that has passed the Senate, now become law in Canada.
	It's the most in-your-face juxtaposition of the lies that they spout at their filthy conventions, where they're surrounded by ignorance.
	Or maliciously dishonest members of their ilk.
	You go to the liberal convention and they have Hillary Clinton come and talk with Chrysia Freeland.
	They're all either ignorant or liars because you can't be an honest, open-minded person and go to that convention and listen to Justin Trudeau spout off those lies and not say, you're a goddamn liar, Trudeau.
	I mean, you're a liar.
	Anyways, that was the best montage ever.
	Everyone should go.
	Let me see.
	I'll do it again.
	Here, go.
	Share the love.
	Spread the word.
	Watch that tweet.
	And share it around.
	Now, you may have noticed, by the way, before we get into the standard disclaimers, before we get into the, you may have noticed, this is a sponsored video.
	This is not part of the sponsorship.
	But I got something in the mail.
	Vinyl.
	Five times August.
	Five times August.
	Silent War.
	I ordered it.
	I've been waiting for months.
	And...
	The funny thing is, the only person in our house that's going to be able to play this is my daughter.
	Because she's got an actual vinyl record player.
	Side one.
	God help us all.
	Jesus, what happened to us?
	Out of your mind.
	That's a good song.
	But God help us all is my favorite.
	I will not be leaving quietly.
	Silent war.
	Side two.
	Joe, sad little man.
	Anti-fascist blues.
	This just in.
	Fight for you.
	Gates behind bars.
	Lions produced by Five Times August.
	I don't know where I got it.
	I mean, I know I got it online.
	Get one.
	And support five times August.
	It's beautiful.
	Now I'm going to put this back here.
	Is that good?
	Yeah, that's pretty good.
	And, hold on.
	I saw another yellow thingy thing come up.
	Where is it?
	Where is it?
	I'm just going to go.
	Locals is not going?
	Son of a beasting.
	Hold on.
	Did I forget to do something?
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	If you...
	If you plan to use RTPM, hold on, copy.
	Let me figure this out if I didn't do it already.
	Add.
	I'm not going to panic.
	I'm just going to do this again.
	I'm copying the RTPM and the key, putting it in.
	Locals.
	And now add.
	Okay.
	See what you get by upgrading?
	Not right now.
	Okay.
	Save changes.
	So I've added it.
	And, um...
	Okay, let me see.
	Locals is not going.
	Let me just go to Locals and make sure that we're going there.
	Locals, is it working?
	In the Bellify says, relax.
	It's fine.
	Locals is working.
	Okay.
	Jeez Louise, everybody makes me panic.
	Well, thank you.
	Go for big guy 911 for the super chat.
	Okay, on that note, look, we'll get standard disclaimers.
	Whenever you see these wonderful highlighted comments that come with a little dollar sign next to them.
	Those are called Super Chats on YouTube, Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of these.
	So if you want to support the channel, the more effective way to support what I do, what Robert and I do, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'll get there in a second.
	Or go watch on Rumble.
	Rumble takes 20% ordinarily, but for the rest of 2023, they take 0%.
	So it's better for the creator, better to support a platform that supports free speech, and for the rest of the year, Rumble will not be taking anything.
	2024, they're going to go back to their cut.
	Super duper effective for the rest of the year.
	calling everything a controversy.
	The manipulation of virtually everything nowadays could be our demise as the United States of America.
	There's a number of things that are going to be the demise of everything.
	The absence of truth and the decay of the meaning of words itself.
	For any form of grounded principles, objective reality, time-tested and true principles, totally fluid.
	It makes reality and truth itself fluid.
	$2 for the algorithm and off I go.
	All right, so let me make sure that Barnes has the link.
	There was a This Contains a Paid promo because it does, people.
	And it's one of the products that I use myself.
	Sincere, I've been using it for a while.
	Fieldofgreens.com, people.
	This is their weight loss thing, but fieldofgreens.com.
	Powdered greens.
	Desiccated greens.
	Not defecated, not desecrated.
	Desiccated, which is like basically dried up and pulverized.
	So it's not an extract and it's not a supplement.
	It's a food.
	It's USDA organic.
	Most people know.
	You know the shtick.
	You're supposed to eat your fruits and vegetables, kids.
	Five to seven servings a day and most people don't do it.
	You go to McDonald's.
	You can't get fruits and vegetables anymore.
	And even when you do, by the way, there, it's doused in dressing that makes it almost more toxic than not eating it.
	You're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
	Most people don't do it.
	I do.
	But I still try to supplement a bad habit that I have of energy drinks with a healthy habit.
	One scoop, one spoonful is one serving of fruits and vegetables with the antioxidant powers of everything.
	You get of your super fruits and vegetables.
	It's USDA organic.
	It's good.
	It actually tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water is my joke, but swamp water is swamp water because it's highly nutrient and it has the nutrients of life for all other living organisms.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	If you go there, Viva is the promo code.
	You get 15% off your order.
	They have a new weight loss thing.
	You know, wait, what's going on here?
	So that is it.
	Viva, Viva.
	If you put in promo code Viva, Field of Greens.
	It's good stuff.
	I use it.
	I like it.
	But eat your fruits and vegetables and get your exercise.
	Now!
	There was one other video that we're going to watch today, people.
	Tonight's going to be a good show.
	I don't know.
	I think a lot of people actually tuned in yesterday for my interview with Joanne.
	Joanna.
	Joe.
	And I'm reading the comments today, and it's very interesting.
	There is people who love the discussion.
	There are those who think that Jo is incorrect in her interpretation of Buddhism and gender in Buddhism.
	I know the limits of my own knowledge to even, you know, I did not study religion, so I don't know.
	But it was a fun discussion, and it's interesting just understanding when people get to express themselves, not eloquently, but in longer format.
	Not reduced to tweets, not reduced to name-calling.
	But you get the perspective of teachers who, for right or for wrong, view their students as their children, as their kids.
	We all had teachers.
	The teachers called us their kids.
	And you see the interplay, the push and pull, and it's not conflict, but rather it is overlapping bubbles of influence between teachers who might think that...
	Their sphere of influence extends, overlaps with the sphere of influence of what ought to be the obligation, responsibility, and privileges of the parents.
	And once you understand that that's the interplay, that's the conflict, well, then you have to say, you know, what limits do I set?
	What limits do I expect to be set in a school environment?
	And if those limits are not set and or not respected, then what do I do?
	People say, pull your kids out of public school, pull your kids out of school.
	And, dude.
	Anyone who can homeschool and do it well, Godspeed and God bless.
	But it was a very interesting discussion, so I would recommend everyone go watch it if you haven't seen it.
	824964105.
	Is that supposed to be a word?
	Winstonism, noun, a branch or facet of leftism that believes crapping in one's own home to be virtuous.
	Finally, a leader in which the left can unite.
	Dude, if you have any idea how much crap...
	A feces.
	I had to clean up over the weekend, then I clean up on a regular basis.
	All right, but now speaking of feces, so tonight we're going to talk about a lot of stuff when Barnes gets here.
	Sponsor, fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
	Get your good stuff there.
	Five times August, get your album.
	They are all either ignorant or liars, you said, VIVA.
	I beg to differ.
	Many of them are both.
	Talking about the attendees at the Liberal Conference.
	The thing that I found most shocking, and I told Joe, so this is not like I'm saying anything that I didn't say to her, is that the people who recognize the historical atrocities committed by the government and then are not reluctant to trust the government, who are not reluctant to distrust the government in real time, that's what I don't understand.
	And that is simply a perspective of being deferential to authority, despite all evidence as to why you should not be.
	Speaking of feces.
	Now, we have another something to watch here.
	So the poop is now hitting the fan with the latest deified, martyrized...
	One second, please.
	Get out.
	Get out.
	Damn dog.
	Okay, hold on.
	We're in like George Floyd 2.0, 3.0.
	I don't know what iteration we're at now with the Michael Jackson impersonator.
	I forget his first name and I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
	Neely, who was killed on the New York City subway by a Marine who put him in a chokehold apparently for too long.
	And you watch the media coverage of this and it's like an episode of The Simpsons in the sickest and twisted ways where The media has decided it's running with the narrative that this was a nice,
	peaceful, totally innocent, hardworking busker who entertained millions doing his Michael Jackson impersonation, which is not wrong, except it's wrong by omission in that that was one aspect of a person.
	People are not single-faceted.
	Entities that can be summarized with one sentence.
	He also had mental illness issues.
	He was also a violent, repeat criminal.
	I mean, this is not to say that he deserved what happened to him that day because of his history.
	The history that said might have something to do to explain the events of that day.
	Media is now full deification.
	Innocent individual.
	Just randomly lynched by an angry dude on a subway.
	And the media does it, and it's not clear what happens first.
	Do the mobs amass claiming injustice before and the media reports on it, or do they get influenced by the media, misinformed by the media, and start doing this afterwards?
	This is a video put up by Ian Miles Chong, Still Gray, on Twitter.
	Let's watch this.
	Why your officers take black lives!
	Why your officers take black lives!
	Your office is a trick black heart.
	Your office is a trick black heart.
	Are y'all going to have that?
	Your office is a trick black heart.
	Your office is a trick black heart.
	your officers took black lives your officers took black lives First of all, would the individual in the front be doing this if there were no cameras?
	That's the first question I ask.
	If there were no social media and they did not know that someone or multiple people are going to be recording this, posting it to social media, would that individual in the front be doing this?
	Question number one.
	Is social media, speaking of the downfall of society, is this type of performative protestation of perceived injustice Is it manufactured?
	Is it falsified?
	Is it exaggerated?
	Is it exaggerated by the existence of social media?
	Can we appreciate the irony that you have a person in the front here, I won't get into things that I'm not sure about, seems to be Latino lecturing a black officer about his police department taking black lives.
	I mean, the glance over at the camera, if that's what it was...
	Your officers took black lives.
	Why are you touching me?
	It is madness.
	It's like the scene in the movies.
	It's like V for Vendetta.
	It is...
	It's madness.
	It is a circle of violence.
	I mean, you have people holding up metro stations.
	They were protesting on the metro stations, or the subway stations, which are electrified.
	And you have these incidents where something happens, and there's some other videos of people getting arrested, and then there's going to be another tragedy, there's going to be another incident, there's going to be another protestation, there's going to be another manifestation, can we...
	I won't get into the mental wellness, but there is also the element of mental unwellness where people have the tendency of just saying the same thing over and over again.
	And as they say it over and over again, whipping themselves further and further into a frenzy until something snaps, something cataclysmic happens.
	Same thing with Billboard Chris when he was standing there and the person was in front of his face screaming FU, FU, FU.
	Louder, louder, louder, louder.
	And you know something's going to happen because the person is just...
	Doing it until something else happens.
	But you have a Latino individual lecturing a black officer about his police taking black lives.
	And how many of the people protesting there are either misinformed or wildly ill-informed because they're reading CNN puff pieces about how Neely was a beloved busker who struggled with the murder of his mother.
	One of the questions I'd ask is, why on earth are we in such an environment where these murders are happening so frequently that they are traumatizing generation after generation, struggling with the death of his mother, the murder of his mother, and that pesky little fact that between the years of 2019 and 2021, he happened to have also randomly, violently assaulted three women on the subway.
	How many people protesting know that?
	Not that it would explain what happened, but certainly would attenuate public expectation as to the perceived injustice of what did in fact happen.
	If it turns out you're dealing with a repeat violent criminal who allegedly was acting threateningly and harassing bystanders on the subway, would that maybe change the public perception of the rage and the protests that...
	that people feel is justified and warranted?
	What else?
	Hold on.
	I had something else as the...
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me see.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	Barnes is not here yet, but before he gets here, let's go to the Rumble Rants.
	See what's going on here.
	Did you remember to send the link to Barnes?
	I did.
	You've got the link, question mark.
	People are questioning whether or not I sent it to you.
	Smiley face.
	Sent it by text.
	I sent it to Barnes.
	Real Tadad says, if NDP win in Alberta, can you provide guidance on moving to Florida?
	I did a live stream with my immigration lawyer, so people can go check that up.
	I'll see if I can find it again.
	Felis Rufus 35 says, collect the government, get chickens.
	Mandatory carry.
	Who had also a super chat.
	Being necessary to the security of a free state, the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced.
	Keep fighting mandatory carry.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have...
	Hold on a second.
	Hello.
	Yeah, you can let me...
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	That wasn't Barnes.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written very different Second Amendment.
	A well-protected public.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'll actually...
	I don't know where Barnes is.
	I'm going to send it to him by email as well because I think...
	Give me two seconds here.
	Hold on, people.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And now one other thing.
	One other thing, which is...
	So yesterday, well, we're going to talk about it later during the show, but the Trump trial and the deposition by now heard around the world.
	Trump did not testify at his trial, is not going to testify at the E. Carroll trial.
	Apparently the time has lapsed.
	He will not be testifying.
	There was a 57-minute, not splice, but there was a 57 minutes of deposition from his deposition that was submitted to the jury.
	The 57 minutes is available to the general public if you go to certain, you know, you can find it on certain websites where it's what the jury saw of the highlights, snippets, and clippets of Trump's deposition.
	One of the infamous clips, there's a few that went viral.
	The media was reporting.
	At one point in the deposition, Trump mistook.
	He's looking at a famous photograph, a black and white photograph that has E. Carroll in it, her husband.
	I think he mistook Carroll, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, for his ex, Marla Maples, in the photograph.
	Media went wild with it.
	This is like some subconscious admission that when Trump said she's not my type, she's so his type.
	That he actually mistook her for his ex-wife in his video, in his deposition.
	Now, the honest media should be also specifying, as many of them have, honest, that he did say, oh, the picture's very blurry.
	I think some people are passing that off as though it's an excuse.
	The picture's blurry.
	That's just his excuse.
	Having watched the full 57 minutes of that deposition.
	There were a number of times when even the lawyer said, look, we have a blown up version of the exhibit I'm submitting to because the exhibits that they're submitting are on pieces of paper and patently unclear, patently blurry, as Trump said about the picture.
	And I just had to, you know, I found it interesting that there was another section.
	Okay, let's look at the statement.
	Let's mark it as, what's my next number?
	DJT 28. Okay, so this one...
	I can't read this.
	Well, we have a blown-up version.
	Let's mark it as 28 and 28 to 8. So, it is clear that the exhibits that he's working with are not obvious.
	They are blurry.
	But the media got their talking point.
	What was I going to say?
	Oh, so...
	Okay, Barnes is there in the back.
	I'll be quick on this.
	So, the other one was grab her by the PUS's wife.
	He says, the millions of years in Hollywood, that's how, you know, the superstars act.
	And everyone was going nuts with that on social media.
	Including people who should not have been going nuts with that.
	Namely, Mia Farrow, by the way.
	It's outrageous.
	I don't know if I'm going to be able to see the tweet.
	Yeah, Mia Farrow tweeted.
	I may be able to view this because she blocked me.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	She said, in my million of years experience in Hollywood, most stars don't grab them by the feline.
	And then I just had to say, is this tweeted joke, Mia Farrow?
	You defended child's...
	Roman Polanski, which she did in his libel trial, you know, 20 years later.
	One of your children accused your ex of molestation, Dylan Allen.
	An ex who went on to marry your respective adoptive daughter, that would be, I forget her name now, after Mia Farrow found nude pictures of their adoptive daughter at Woody Harrelson's house when she was 21 years old.
	The daughter was adopted when she was 15. That daughter also accused Mia Farrow of physical and psychological abuse.
	Trump is correct.
	I got so swiftly blocked from Mia Farrow.
	Not even two minutes.
	And then, Barnes, I'm bringing you in.
	And then Robert astutely pointed out, Robert, what's the deal with Mia Farrow's brother?
	At least one of them is a convicted pedophile.
	Well...
	Hollywood is a cesspool of degeneracy, debauchery, and depravity.
	Everyone should avoid it, and I have great difficulty watching movies that come out of Hollywood these days.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, so...
	What do we start...
	Well, okay, Cigar, and is there a book behind you?
	There's no book.
	No book.
	No, the...
	I forget which brand this is.
	I'm going to ask you a crass question, because during one of the Bourbon with Barnes last week, you mentioned your favorite cigar, a Monte Cristo No.
	14, 1959?
	No, Monte Cristo No. 2. What does that type of cigar cost?
	Not to be crass, are they reasonable?
	No, they're extremely rare, because they're pre-Cuban embargo cigars, so not many people have them.
	And so there's a guy at the Ritz-Carlton on Knob Hill in San Francisco who has them.
	And so because he got them from somebody who had an auction who had stored them up before.
	I don't know if he...
	I haven't been there in many years, so I don't know if he still does.
	But that's where you can get them.
	But they're very rare, so yeah, very expensive.
	But yeah, extraordinary cigars.
	This is another ignorant question.
	They don't go bad, cigars, after a period of time?
	Not if they're maintained correctly, no.
	Okay.
	Robert, I guess we're going to probably just hop right over to Rumble right away.
	What do we have on the menu?
	After you do the menu, everybody start making your way over to Rumble.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So, to start off with, we'll have the New York City subway case.
	Then we have the Barstool sports case.
	Cash Patel sues the Defense Department over publishing his book.
	The two different Trump trials, the Carroll trial that you briefly talked about, and the criminal case being removed to federal court.
	The Proud Boys verdict, First Amendment implications of that, of definition of seditious conspiracy.
	Stephen Crowder was kind of talking about that on Friday.
	Robert Kennedy.
	A talk calling for the pardoning of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
	When something that looks like a business card can get you convicted for illegally owning a machine gun.
	The Chevron deference at the Supreme Court.
	Carrie Lake at the Arizona Supreme Court.
	Big Tech Biden collusion turns into a class action.
	The Australian class action over COVID vaccine injuries.
	Gonzalo Lira arrested in Ukraine.
	The Wagner-Russia dispute that popped up over the weekend.
	And a couple of bonus cases.
	The first ever NFT insider trading case.
	Convicted conviction this past week.
	And social media blocking by politicians might be back up at the Supreme Court.
	All right, fantastic.
	I'm going to read one last Super Chat before we go because I haven't been here for a while, before live shows in a while.
	Keep up the good fight.
	Still hope we're in the same gulag when the woke get around to re-education camps.
	Don't give them any ideas and don't put that juju out there.
	Peeps, let's mosey on over to Rumble.
	You know what?
	For the sake of it, I'm going to wait seven seconds so that it happens exactly at 30 minutes.
	Now.
	Okay, we'll see if that worked later on.
	All right, Robert.
	So, okay, we're going to start with Neely.
	I forget his first name.
	The New York City subway case.
	Jordan Neely, yep.
	Jordan Neely.
	A busker, homeless individual.
	There's some videos now resurfacing, or I should say surfacing.
	There's one with Joey Boots.
	Did you see this video?
	Some I have.
	Joey Boots, I think he used to be on Howard Stern, but he used to go get his own...
	He used to do his own videos.
	He's got a video where he...
	Is confronting or being confronted by Neely, but this is like decades ago, and the individual is quite clearly aggressive, talking about effing him up, calling him all sorts of names.
	So we're learning more about who Neely was as a human, who he was in terms of priors.
	Not that it necessarily has anything to do with what happened that day, but it might indicate or it might add some context.
	The Marine, I don't think there's been any charges yet, as far as I know, Robert?
	That's correct.
	So this Marine who subdued this individual because he was acting aggressive, threatening people on the train.
	I don't care if I live or die.
	I've got no food.
	And then they put him in a headlock.
	It seems for a few minutes.
	And the person dies.
	Ruled a homicide before they've done an autopsy?
	I think it was by the coroner who ruled it a homicide.
	And so now we're seeing protests.
	And I guess the questions are going to be, Robert, what do you make of this?
	And how long until the ex-Marine...
	Who did this gets charged, or do you think he's actually not going to get charged?
	Yeah, so, I mean, the Marine involved, I mean, they were calling on the social media members of Congress, New York City's controller, various politicians were referring to it.
	I think Arianna Pressley referred to it as a lynching.
	And that this was a homeless man, though that now apparently is being discarded as a proper term of art.
	It's supposed to be unhoused.
	So a man that's unhoused, his mind appeared to have been unhoused for quite some time.
	He got on the train and the...
	There's some dispute as to what took place.
	What we know is that the New York Police Department, the New York District Attorney's Office, and the Mayor's Office declined to bring immediate prosecution, which suggests that they know something that maybe a lot of those out there protesting do not know.
	Neely is being portrayed as a simple music lover, Michael Jackson imitator, who was just hungry and homeless, who was killed for being hungry and homeless, according to the media narrative in some circles, including the New York Times and elsewhere.
	What the video seems to show is that three different people were involved in restraining him.
	One, the Marine.
	Another was another African-American man who was on the train and another Hispanic man that was involved who also filmed the incident.
	That apparently everyone on the train said that they didn't think that anything was happening that could kill the man.
	They didn't think deadly force was being used.
	They just saw him in a headlock and he was resisting for the better part of 15 minutes.
	Until he passed out, and they just thought he'd passed out.
	They didn't realize he had died.
	To my knowledge, I don't know whether they've done a full chemical autopsy, if that was part of what they'd done, if they'd looked at the blood and everything else.
	But the initial conclusion of the coroner was that it was a restriction on his neck that caused his death.
	Homicide is not the same as murder.
	And so there was media calls for the Marine to be prosecuted.
	The individual involved had a long and notorious, the context for this is threefold.
	One, the individual involved is basically criminally mentally ill, had tried to throw a woman in front of a train, had 42 felonies over just the past seven or eight years.
	Many of those felonies included assaults, included violent assaults, violent assaults with a weapon.
	And included crimes on the same subway train.
	He'd apparently been committing multiple crimes on that, even on a crime spree in that same subway train, apparently for months leading up to this.
	The second fact of context is that the crime in New York City is skyrocketing.
	The homicide rate has more than tripled since the summer of love of 2020.
	They're seeing crime rates that they have not seen in New York City, really going all the way back to the 1980s in parts of New York City, back when another famous self-defense case arose, though it was less plausible justification than this case, which was, of course, the Bernie Getz case.
	For those who don't remember, a man who'd been previously assaulted and robbed on the subway train went and armed himself.
	A group of teenagers tried to do it again, and he shot and killed them.
	And the case became very big in New York City.
	He was ultimately found not guilty and acquitted by a jury.
	He was found guilty on a gun possession charge and served a small gun.
	Yeah, less than a year because it was illegal basically to have a gun in New York City for the most part.
	It's very difficult to get permits in New York City.
	Now, probably a little bit easier given the Bruin decision.
	But he was acquitted of all the homicide charges.
	They found it to be justifiable homicide.
	The justifiable homicide law in New York City, the self-defense law, allows for you to exercise force.
	Under the following circumstances.
	If it's deadly force, you have a duty to retreat, but that duty to retreat doesn't apply if you fear the person could cause harm to somebody else.
	But if it's not deadly force, if you have a reasonable belief that the person is going to severely injure themselves, you can use force.
	If you have a reasonable belief that that person is going to imminently use force against you or someone else, You have a right to use force.
	If you have a reasonable belief they're about to commit robbery or burglary or a certain other group of felonies, serious felonies, then you can use force.
	If you have a reasonable belief that they have committed a crime, then you can use force necessary to arrest them as a private citizen.
	And there's sort of a general principle of proportionality in all this.
	If you're using deadly force, which is defined as readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury, then you need to have reasonable fear of imminent use of serious force that could cause death or serious injury or a certain subset of severe crimes like robbery and burglary.
	A reasonable person There's a hybrid objective-subjective standard in New York law, which is whether you believed it, number one, and two, whether a reasonable person, which is defined as an ordinary person like the defendant in the defendant's circumstances, would have the same belief as the defendant did that justified the use of force.
	This is not an affirmative defense.
	As always, this is a government burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
	To disprove that this existed.
	Now, in this particular context, it would appear we don't have all the facts.
	We have partial video and partial testimony and partial evidence.
	He said he didn't believe he was using deadly force.
	Everyone around him said they didn't believe he was using deadly force.
	A good number of observers who saw it said they would see how he didn't think he was using deadly force.
	But there was people who said that he appeared to be untrained in how to use that particular form of headlock, sometimes called a chokehold, that that's probably what created the risk.
	But Stephen Crowder and others said it looked more like an accidental death than a deliberate death.
	So it's really a question of involuntary manslaughter or not.
	But again, even for that, you'd have to find, if you found he was not using deadly force, was he using force that He knew was readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
	Everyone around him didn't think so, and he didn't think so, and the videotape I saw wouldn't say so.
	So in that instance, as long as it's not deadly force, then it's just reasonable belief in any of those things, that this guy was going to injure himself, this guy was going to commit a crime, and that crime can be very broadly defined, that this guy was going to use force against someone else imminently by the course of his behavior.
	A very big man threw his jacket off.
	Said that he's hungry, he's homeless, and he doesn't care if he goes to jail.
	For life.
	Yes.
	And for someone that's in New York City, one thing that's relevant is what he understood about what's happening in crime in New York and what's happening in the subways in New York.
	So he may not have had knowledge of this individual's specific criminal history.
	So I said that might be excluded from the trial.
	We don't know at this point.
	But what we do know is...
	That he probably knew what was happening in the subways, where there's been attack after attack.
	Many of them have gone viral.
	And what's happening in New York City in crime in general.
	And they had called the police.
	They were just holding him until the police got there.
	And there was a 15-minute delay, even longer apparently, before the police arrived.
	So it looked to me like he was just trying to stop a guy from harming himself and or others and committing a crime.
	And that there was a basis for him to reasonably believe a crime had been committed.
	Because again, an attempt to commit a crime constitutes a crime in New York.
	And that a reasonable belief that this guy was going to cause serious harm to himself.
	Don't care about jail or death.
	A reasonable belief he was going to use force against someone else.
	And so for the physical force used, unless you find it's deadly force.
	Then he has a strong defense.
	Now, if you find it's deadly force, then he's got to elevate that to serious felony robbery or burglary or that he thought this guy was going to cause deadly force.
	There is even a basis for that, given the man's statements and the degree of his resistance, even when trying to be restrained.
	So I think most people who watched it that didn't have...
	You weren't politically motivated and didn't just, you know, see a little clip and listen to AOC.
	Then I think that what they saw was someone who was trying to do something to stop a bad thing from happening.
	And anybody with the current context of knowledge of New York would find his actions reasonable and even heroic, not murderous.
	You know, the funny thing is, I mean, Robert, you said it, others have said it, that, you know, the DA or others have seen the videos and not pressed charges, but even in the bodega clerk there, Jose Alba, I think he was only arrested a little bit of time after the incident.
	He was initially let go because they succumbed to the political pressures, the social pressures to do it, which I have a sneaking suspicion is going to be the case this time, where you have people in the city saying, we're going to burn it all down if this guy doesn't get charged, and if...
	Mayor Adams, I don't know who's in decision to charge.
	If they don't do it, they're going to have some problems.
	And I think politically, it might take them a little more time.
	They're going to pull a Jose Alba, who incidentally, just looking this up while you were talking, Robert, I don't know if he's filed suit yet, but apparently they took some time to charge Jose Alba after he stabbed someone who was attacking him.
	They dropped the charges because of the blowback from their decision, which was influenced by the blowback they were getting.
	And now apparently he's going to sue them for 10 million bucks for the wrongful prosecution.
	I have a feeling they're going to charge this Marine, but just to pull up a couple of other videos, which might be relevant as well, I'm reluctant to...
	I'm going to do it anyhow, and then the chat is going to let me know if this is a tweet purporting to be the man.
	I wonder what AOC...
	I'm nervous about these things.
	You never know if this video is in fact depicting...
	Well, my understanding is this was shared by...
	There were people saying he was doing this.
	As soon as they saw him, there were several people who recognized him who were going on social media saying this guy's been attacking people in the subway for weeks.
	Well, there's that which is...
	That's unclear if it's Neely, but then there's another one here.
	Where is it?
	Hold on.
	Again, you know, 42 arrests in six or seven years gives you an idea for the amount of this.
	So that one is apparently more easily discernibly nearly.
	The other one, not, you know, the tweet says it.
	And the evidentiary means by which some of that may come in is if there's disputes about what he did, or as if the defendant says, this is what I saw, this is what he did, and somebody disputes that.
	The fact that he'd done this before, common modus operandi, might get that evidence in in front of a jury.
	So now the mayor of New York is a former cop, and he's got a severe crime problem in New York City.
	So his initial reaction was not to jump on the bandwagon, said we're going to fully investigate.
	So he has cross-pressures on him politically.
	In other words, so you've got the crazy leftists going nuts, but this mayor was elected to solve some of the growing crime problems.
	So you may see some counter-pushback from him to not escalate this case into a criminal case, given the circumstances.
	But we'll find out.
	I mean, the prosecution of Bernie Gates backfired on the city of New York badly politically.
	Because people rallied to him.
	In reality, what a lot of people's secret wishes were was they thought, well, you know, I bet people will think twice before robbing me now because they wonder whether I'm the next Bernie.
	Years later, it was found out that Bernie did have some interesting views, shall we say, on racial matters that got him, I think, civilly found liable and things of that nature.
	New York is returning to late 60s, early 70s New York City.
	Something else they discussed on the Stephen Crowder show, something I've often talked about, which is that we're returning to the era of Dirty Harry and Death Wish kind of mindset in the popular culture, which is, you know, that was a product of the late 60s, early 70s perceived soft on crime policies that unleashed a wave of crime across urban America to where Places like San Francisco, places like New York, downtown New York City, we're seeing as shitholes.
	I was in New York just last summer.
	Been in New York many times over 40 years.
	First time I was ever in New York as a kid.
	Mom woke me up.
	We were on the Trailways bus heading up the northeast to work in the diner, my grandparents' diner as a kid.
	I think I was 10 at the time.
	And I said, wake me up when we get to New York City.
	She woke me up.
	I looked outside.
	First, I was like, wow, that's exciting.
	I'm in New York City.
	Looked out and saw a man urinating on the side of the wall.
	That was my introduction to New York City.
	It's grown into a beautiful city, thanks in substantial part.
	I think they get a little too much credit at times, but substantial part to the aggressive policing efforts of Rudy Giuliani as mayor in particular.
	As well as other factors.
	Trump, for example, when he first invested in Manhattan, his father thought he was an idiot because Manhattan was such a shithole at the time.
	Trump gambled in the early 70s that it would rebound by the mid-80s, and it did.
	It didn't really fully rebound until the early 90s.
	The Bernie case was part of all that.
	Political reaction, realizing they were on the wrong side of the political line, despite the protest of Al Sharpton and his like, led them to reconsider the entire dynamic.
	And the fact, again, that if they're going to prosecute the Marine, then they really have to prosecute the Latino man and the Black man participating in holding him down and restraining him.
	Are they going to do that?
	I don't think so.
	I mean, do they have the same felony murder that they have in the...
	Oh, it would be simple.
	It would be just an accomplice and a conspirator.
	I mean, they were involved in restraining him.
	You could convict him the same way that they're after all the other Floyd cops on George Floyd.
	I think one of them actually just got convicted.
	They dislike all those.
	Even people never physically restrained him even.
	They're being prosecuted as if they did.
	I'm thinking of the Ahmaud Arbery case where the cameraman...
	Correct.
	As if he was the same guy, because he's part of the joint effort to restrain under the criminal.
	So they would have some difficulty just prosecuting the Marine and not prosecuting the others, but I guarantee you they don't want to prosecute the others.
	And so all of those complexities, political complexities, an independent DA I don't think brings any prosecution here, period.
	So the only question is whether the politics in New York is so radioactive.
	But see, this would make the mayor and the DA look really bad.
	They don't bring a prosecution, and then there's a bunch of political uproar, and so suddenly they do.
	And this is while the DA is in a massive political brawl, bringing the charges against Trump.
	To be this susceptible to political influence would look bad.
	And what it really is is an indictment of the fact that while crime is spiking, the defund the police efforts and the attacks on New York City's finest, as they were once called, has led to massive resignations and a major lack of recruitment or enlistment.
	Of New York Police Department officers.
	So the police department scale is declining while crime is spiking.
	That's a bad combination.
	That's how you get a situation where two-thirds of the...
	Like, for example, one of the self-defense laws in New York is that if you're one of the safety officers on the train, on any commute or bus, common carrier, then, too, you can use force to restrain someone who is causing a disturbance.
	And so, you know, that's where like a lot of people watch this said, well, that's really what should happen when somebody's going nuts.
	And it was just, it was an unfortunate accident that the man ended up dying, but nothing about what he was doing suggested that is what would happen necessarily.
	So, but I mean, but it's the politics of New York City.
	So now the media is already out doxing the Marine.
	And so they're going to do everything they can to destroy his reputation and career anyway, no matter what happens here.
	That's going to encourage other people to just sit by and do nothing.
	People have seen the videos.
	A man will stand up and start attacking a woman.
	In some cases, stabbing them.
	And the person next to them does nothing.
	That's what they're encouraging people to do.
	If they prosecute this Marine.
	I'm predicting they are going to prosecute them.
	And they might drop the charges afterwards.
	But they're going to try to...
	You know, get it on both sides.
	There's that video of this guy having a mental health crisis, grabbing a woman by the hair on the metro, and everyone's just, like, looking down, doing nothing.
	But flip side, nobody has any...
	I mean, if someone's got a knife, it's like you're not exactly charging them either, unless you're a braver person or, you know, more reckless.
	All right, well, we'll see.
	My prediction is in, though.
	They're going to charge him, and it'll take a few days that they're going to try to do it to pacify the mob.
	Robert Barstool.
	Now, I don't know that most people have actually seen the video, and I'm going to do the outrageous thing and just play what I think is the video, Robert, that led to the controversy of this guy, Barry Mintz.
	What's his name?
	Barry Mintz.
	This is the video, I think.
	In real time, uncensored, people.
	block your ears unless you've listened to rap music at some point in your life I want you on the mic I'm gonna shit I mean if I like I said I might fall off like I'm worried who cares Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, Nancy Gotta get some gayo, double up nigga What you need, what you need Oh my God.
	Oh my God.
	Apparently, that clip, by all accounts...
	He knew he screwed up when he read the lyrics because he was reading them.
	So that's what happens.
	Barry Mincy.
	I don't watch Barstool Sports at all.
	I know nothing of it, but I follow Portnoy on Twitter.
	He gets fired at the demand of Penn, which is the overarching company that bought Barstool out.
	Portnoy, I guess, publicizes the fact that the firing was...
	The compulsion of the company that had just bought out Barstool, in its entirety, they started with sort of a 36% stake, and then they bought the whole thing out.
	Then Penn's stock tanked, what was it, like, I don't know, 10%, 15%?
	The day they also announced what some refer to as lukewarm earnings.
	I don't know where things stand right now, Robert.
	I mean, has Penn retracted the decision, re-employed Mincy?
	Is there a public outcry to bring back Mincy that this is over the top?
	Or where's it at now?
	I mean, to my knowledge, he's been terminated.
	And so the interesting aspect of this was Dave Portnoy's original explanation, the CEO and founder of Barstool Sports, as you note, sold a majority share interest to Penn Entertainment, which runs a bunch of sportsbooks and casinos, including runs Barstool Sportsbooks across the country.
	His explanation was that Penn Entertainment...
	Felt they had to do this because they felt that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and other gaming commissions would revoke their license to operate if they didn't fire someone based on speech.
	And according to Portnoy, there was actually a whole bunch of basically speech codes imposed on all Barstool content creators after the sale.
	The sale went through earlier this year.
	Penn Entertainment bought part of them years ago and finished the sale this year.
	My first response was skepticism because I've never heard of a gaming commission threatening or revoking a license based on speech.
	So my first thought was maybe this is all a cover for Penn Entertainment.
	Not wanting to fire them for ulterior motives that they want to use as the pretext that they're being forced to do so by the state.
	And I saw that Penn Entertainment, for example, has been promoting itself on Wall Street as an ESG, diversity, equity, inclusion company.
	However, then a Boston journalist who follows things in detail...
	Said that point in fact, this is exactly what the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has been doing.
	And that in fact, the ESG, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion presentation of Penn Entertainment may be effectively coerced by the various gaming commissions led by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to weaponize licensure of things like casinos and sportsbooks.
	To try to control the speech of a media company.
	And as I started pointing out right away, that's a serious First Amendment violation.
	So somebody's lying somewhere.
	So now Massachusetts Gaming Commission, of note, has not denied this story.
	And so one possibility is that Portnoy is lying.
	Another possibility is that Penn Entertainment is lying to Portnoy.
	Like, Portnoy seem to seriously believe that if they don't strictly limit their speech now at Barstool Sports, that all their licenses could be gone for Penn Entertainment.
	Well, I don't believe that for a second.
	But maybe Massachusetts Gaming Commission, that may be a problem.
	And because, at least according to this independent third-party journalistic report, and there are a bunch of other people publicly stating, by the way, yes, this is exactly what happened.
	And Penn Entertainment didn't deny it.
	So if that's the case, then anybody at Barstool Sports, Mincy included, would have standing to sue the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
	Because if these people think they can use weaponized licensure to censor, to come up with speech codes for content creators and media personalities, they need a lesson in the First Amendment.
	Because the First Amendment doesn't feel like I had some, you know, you get so many idiot trolls on Twitter.
	Quality of debate and dialogue is so low on Twitter.
	You know, every now and then I think, oh, I'll troll through the mentions, scroll through and see if there's something of significance or consequence.
	It doesn't matter which side it's on.
	It doesn't matter whether it's the left.
	It doesn't matter whether it's all the dissimps for DeSantis.
	I pointed out just polling data shows Trump doing better than DeSantis against Biden amongst a whole bunch of key groups.
	And the responses I got were a lot of insane, delusional reactions.
	So, you know, fine to be for DeSantis.
	Just don't live in la-la land fantasy world.
	But so I got responses from some people that wanted to be pretend First Amendment lawyers saying, oh, well, a private company did it.
	It doesn't matter whether a private company did it.
	If the private company did it because of state coercion or collusion, then the state is equally culpable.
	That, as we'll get to later, is what the whole Missouri versus Biden case is all about.
	That, in fact, we'll get into is what later on, what the Australian class action case is all about.
	So this goes all the way back to a case called Bantam Books.
	It went up to the United States Supreme Court.
	In that case, you simply had a commission trying to use state power to coerce a range of publishers to censor certain books.
	But the action actually taken, they didn't have any direct enforcement power.
	So that was their excuse.
	They were like, we couldn't actually censor books because we didn't even have the legal power to censor books.
	Supreme Court said, that doesn't matter.
	If you're coercing or colluding, threatening state power, leveraging state power to get a private actor to do something, then you're the state is just as guilty as if it did it itself.
	True, Robert.
	We've seen that argument raised in the social media content.
	We've seen it raised with with with Jen Psaki, you know, and censoring Berenson and JFK, Candace Owens.
	We're not there, but it has in Missouri versus Biden.
	That's what that whole case is.
	The whole case is not about what the government did.
	It is about what the government did, but it's not that the government didn't cause any of the injury.
	All the injury is what Big Tech did.
	And yet Biden administration is being sued.
	How?
	Because the allegation is that they coerced and colluded.
	And I would note the allegations they have in the case that was allowed to proceed in Missouri versus Biden, pending in Louisiana, is a lot less compelling.
	than what Barstool Sports currently has or Penn Entertainment or anybody at either one of those places has against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
	Because what the journalists confirmed is the Massachusetts Gaming Commission made crystal clear they would revoke the license of Penn Entertainment for Barstool Sports to be available to Massachusetts residents based on the content of the speech.
	I mean, there probably is.
	To the extent that that's true, there's a written policy.
	I mean, there will be...
	Apparently, there are written communications.
	That's open and shut First Amendment violation.
	In Missouri v.
	Biden, they had to do it indirectly.
	They had to say, well, see, they requested this or they asked for this.
	But there's no allegation in Missouri v.
	Biden, that anybody in the Biden administration explicitly threatened the licensure, for example, or any other provision that they had the power to take away.
	It was more very indirect.
	It was three or four steps removed.
	It was just, hey, they called and said, would you please do this?
	And then they did it, but not that it was, if you don't do it, that we're going to weaponize our state power.
	And yet that case is going forward.
	And the cases you mentioned also are The 9th Circuit is listening to the Kennedy versus Facebook case, too.
	Clear case here is this case is much stronger because here you apparently have a licensing board being so overt about it, independent journalists are reporting it.
	Independent journalists are saying, yes, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is imposing speech content codes as a precondition of getting a gaming license.
	And by the way, even in the gaming context, The First Amendment, this has gone up to the U.S. Supreme Court, gone up to the Ninth Circuit, multiple contexts.
	They said even advertising for gaming can't be limited or restricted under the First Amendment, outside of very limited circumstances.
	So the state cannot weaponize any aspect of their power whatsoever to violate someone's First Amendment rights.
	The only question in those other cases is whether the state did so.
	Did they do so in Facebook?
	The argument by Facebook was, no, we weren't doing it.
	And also, their Facebook was being sued.
	And Biden versus Missouri, Missouri versus Biden, the administration's being sued.
	And they're saying you can't go for it, even though they don't have anywhere near the quid pro quo evidence these reporters are confirming took place in Barstool Sports.
	Now, I'll tell you, if Portnoy was the real deal, He would be bringing suit himself right now.
	He suggested that he kind of would, but I've heard no story about him yet.
	So we're going to find out whether...
	Here's the thing for Barstool Sports, as Portnoy himself noted.
	They're the anti-woke sports brand.
	The anti-ESPN sports brand.
	That is why they've exploded in the last five years.
	If they've become another woke sports brand, then they're useless.
	They're just ESPN4.
	Then who cares about Barstool Sports?
	So the whole future of the brand of Barstool Sports and Barstool Sports books are only successful to the degree of Barstool Sports as a popular brand, the anti-woke brand.
	They would lose maybe up to half of their value, at least the Barstool portion of Penn Entertainment, if they are to become the woke sports book.
	So if anybody is smart at Barstool Sports, they'll file suit against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
	And force them to do one of two things.
	Either get them on record saying, absolutely, we would never, ever condition licensure on speech codes.
	Well, that's a huge win for Barstool Sports and everybody else, because now they're on record saying that this can't happen.
	And so that's a huge achievement.
	If or they admit it, and then they're going to lose in court.
	But it'd be like the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to not realize that.
	Yeah, or they say, of course we would never do that, and then we find another reason to revoke your license.
	Oh, you didn't file something.
	But then it's so much harder.
	Like, if I was in Barstool Sports position, the other reason why you sue is any retaliatory action now taken by Massachusetts Gaming Commission looks suspect.
	Whereas without the suit, it doesn't look nearly a suspect.
	Good point, Robert.
	All right.
	Snip and clip, people.
	I think that's a decent position.
	Robert, let me read just a few Rumble rants before we go on to the next subject, which is going to be Cash Patel.
	Alex, David, Duke, David, what about Bill C-11, Trudeau-controlled speech on the internet?
	Dude, I've been talking about it all week.
	We just got one.
	Hi, boy, from McMahon-Carrie.
	Justin Byrd.
	Barnes, I respectfully disagree with your take.
	Trump can't win over any new voters.
	He can't win over any new voters.
	Trump is in good at meaningful action.
	Just rhetoric.
	DeSantis is all action.
	The problem is the polls show he's wrong.
	Even polls that historically undervalue Trump show Trump doing better than he's ever done in the history of their polls.
	So it's like, okay, so why are people saying, in response to pollsters, they're going to vote for Trump if they will never vote for Trump?
	And this is the cognitive dissonance.
	A whole bunch of the DeSantis for DeSantis so convince themselves of this delusion that when you point out all the evidence rebuts them.
	They just refuse to accept the evidence.
	Aaron Rupar just put out a tweet that showed Trump polling higher than Biden, despite the jobs that Biden just announced.
	How does this make any sense?
	Biden just announced the most record-breaking jobs of all time, and people still support Trump.
	Trump has never, ever had a seven-point lead in any ABC News poll.
	In YouGov, on average in 2020, ABC predicted Trump would lose by 10. YouGov has Trump up.
	And I think maybe six.
	One of them has them two, one of them has them six.
	Also the Harris poll, the Harvard poll.
	All three predicted that Trump would lose by 10. So they overstated Biden's support, understated Trump by large margins.
	And this goes all the way back to 2015.
	And yet now all three show Trump winning.
	And Trump doing better than DeSantis amongst key voter groups.
	Young people, working class voters, non-white voters, independent voters.
	Women voters, all the groups are like, oh, no.
	And it's because the media and a lot of your dissimps live with, like Jesse Kelly, all their friends are upper middle class friends.
	And so like Jesse Kelly says, I don't know independents or women that like Trump.
	And it's like, well, that tells me about who your friends are.
	That doesn't tell me about the electorate.
	If you actually knew the American electorate a little bit better, and Richard Barris' poll has been predicting this for months, then you would know that, in fact, Trump is the only one.
	That is a Republican that has success with those groups.
	So these people are just living in denial.
	And when you point out all the evidence that shows it, they're like, I just refuse to believe that.
	And then they just attack you randomly.
	And they just make stuff up.
	If you want to lie, keep lying to yourself and others.
	Doesn't change that it's a lie.
	I refuse to believe the numbers that Biden is posting for the jobs.
	And they're saying, I don't know, 12 million more jobs.
	Most Americans in the poll show, particularly working class, we're already in a recession.
	All that happens when Biden and media tell that lie is it angers these people more because they know in their own lives they're already in a recession.
	They know it from their declining work hours.
	They know it from the declining labor force participation rate.
	They know it from declining real wages.
	They know it from increased rental prices and other core items that they need to survive.
	Everything from cars to groceries.
	And so they know that their economy sucks.
	They know that there's problems with jobs.
	They know that there's problems with wages.
	So when the media tells them and Biden tells them, hey, no, this is great.
	They're like, okay, you're either a liar or you're in the pockets of the rich and the big corporations.
	And that's why Robert Kennedy is surging.
	And that's why Trump is surging.
	MP Morris says, Viva, are you planning to join Barnes in Orlando next week for the RCL?
	I hope so.
	I'm not sure I can make it.
	Theo Frastis says, because I'm not on Rumble as often as I should be.
	Thank you very much.
	Murphs kicks the shoemaker.
	Schumacher says, yeah, baby, great show as usual.
	What's up, everyone?
	Justin Burns, I'm not going to get myself in trouble, but thank you for the super chat, the Rumble rant.
	Am I alone to believe that Kid Robert Barnes is just the same current Robert Barnes, all dapper and well-dressed, but smaller and higher-pitched voice, maybe holding a candy cigar from Fair Frozen?
	OskiWeeWee, Viva, did you get to hear Ted Kuhn's testimony from National Citizens degree?
	No, but I haven't followed on that.
	I'll watch it.
	FleetloadAvatar, ask people to chat to thumb up rank higher in the Rumble leaderboard.
	Also, Mr. Barnes never use their language unless making fun of it.
	P. Moyer, I see over 12,000 watching on Rumble, but only 495 thumbs up.
	Guys, go hit that thumbs up now.
	Marine Lives Matter.
	Dapper Dave.
	Lord of the V. With Field of Greens, I can get my daily servings of fruits and vegetables without the pesky pride flags or wheelchairs.
	Thanks, Vivo.
	Did you remember to send Barnsley?
	Okay, did.
	Good.
	Robert.
	Cash Patel.
	Okay, so he's written a book exposing deep state corruption, sorry, the administrative state corruption, because the deep state doesn't exist.
	And so I don't, I mean, I know how the process works in general, because when you're writing things that might contain classified information, you've got to send it to the Department of Defense or Department of Justice for them to vet it and confirm that you...
	Or either you have authorization to publish what would otherwise be classified information or that none of it is classified and that it's good to publish.
	I don't know how long this process typically takes.
	Kash Patel is making the allegation.
	He was on Steve Bannon's war room.
	It's been written up everywhere.
	Alleging that...
	Whichever governmental authority is in charge of reviewing books for the sake of authorizing publication, dragging their heels, it's taken months longer than it should.
	They're not getting to authorizing the publication of what might be classified information.
	He's alleging it has to do with delaying the release of the book, which is going to be Donald Trump's roadmap to re-election.
	And so he's suing now.
	I'm not clear on who the players are.
	Who you sue?
	Is it the Department of Justice?
	But he's suing to compel action on the review of his book.
	How does that work?
	And is there a way to expedite it without suing and being dragged into a process that's going to last longer than it might have just taken them to drag their heels on the approval?
	Well, they can do.
	I think John Bolton got into a similar controversy.
	This is about preclearance.
	If you're using any information that you may have gathered in a capacity in which you had access to classified information, which Kash Patel did at various points while he was assisting Congressman Nunes in his investigations in 2017 to 2018 that were the first to publicly expose on the Hill the flaws and scam that was Russiagate.
	So I haven't seen an actual copy of the suit.
	Someone mentioned in our locals chat, he's been talking about the suit for a little while.
	So the, I haven't, he just talked, he said Breitbart, he said he had sued.
	So I assume he has.
	I just haven't seen a copy of it yet.
	He said that the legal grounds would be not only various administrative right claims, but First Amendment claims.
	That what he says is happening is that the Justice Department people assigned to this are deliberately Slow rolling their classification review simply to delay publication until after the 2024 election on behalf of the Biden administration.
	So if true, he would have grounds to sue and he could have grounds for early injunctive relief.
	That's what he would be seeking here.
	So the case would proceed much quicker than is normally the case.
	So if he wants to get it published in 2024, he'll need to file suit now in 2023.
	Because usually that will take six months or so before a court will actually hear it.
	But it would be further evidence of the Biden administration's malfeasance and weaponization of the system to try to cover up the crimes of Biden officials and other government officials in the context of Russiagate.
	All right, so nothing.
	It's interesting.
	Okay.
	We'll continue to track it, and we actually get a copy of it, share it.
	Fantastic.
	All right.
	Now, I was going to say, while you talk on this subject, I'm going to try to find a snippet from Trump's deposition.
	The trial, it's not over yet, but the parties have rested their respective cases in the...
	What's her name?
	Carol.
	Yeah, Carol.
	It's a sexual battery and defamation case against Donald Trump.
	Robin, I've been following it.
	Not...
	I've been following what you can follow because there's no cameras in the world.
	You're listening to inner-city press's tweets, watching Robert Gavea go over it at the end of the day.
	I watched Trump's deposition, or at least the portion that was submitted to the jury for their viewing in 50-some-odd minutes.
	I mean, maybe I'm biased, or maybe I'm just blinded by my own foregone conclusion that the case is a load of crap and Carol is a certifiable nutcase.
	But she's presented all of her evidence.
	They had 11 witnesses.
	Carol testified herself.
	Doesn't remember when.
	Doesn't remember a date.
	Doesn't remember time.
	Just remember it happened at this...
	What's the Bergdorf?
	I don't even know what store it is.
	She had a friend who is rabidly anti-Trump.
	Text messages talking about how awful the family is.
	Text messages from her friend that she allegedly called up the day the incident happened.
	Saying how Carol is on some sort of vengeance to sue.
	It was either to sue Trump or to claim sexual assault.
	And her explanation for why she had a negative private message about her friend who confided in her was she was going through stuff in her life at that time that affected the way she saw Carol, but today she stands by Carol and supports her in the case.
	What else is there?
	I mean, Trump...
	So the big story, I guess, of last week was the deposition, and Trump doesn't look good in the deposition.
	He looks disinterested, arrogant.
	You know, he doesn't remember anything, although the lawyers' questions weren't exactly clear and concise either.
	But they've rested their cases.
	Trump will not be testifying.
	The delay for him to testify has lapsed, as per the judge's ruling.
	Tomorrow, closing arguments.
	Robert, I mean, what's your takeaway from what's going on here?
	So I thought, I mean, the evidentiary portion is done, and based on the evidence, no...
	An impartial jury, in my view, would find in her favor.
	It's quite clear her story is nonsense and that she's insane.
	A judge has done everything he could to fix the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
	You have a biased jury pool, so the combination of those two might produce an adverse verdict, but there's a lot of robust, appealable issues, and it's mostly a bunch of nonsense.
	I thought his defense team did an okay job but could have done better.
	It's always difficult when you have a politically prejudiced judge presiding over the trial, trying to curtail and cut off their cross-examination.
	But you often can know where a case is strong when a biased judge cuts you off in a specific place over and over again.
	You can use that as an indicator of, okay, obviously this is hitting home because this judge doesn't want the jury to hear about this.
	And the main thing the judge didn't want the jury to hear about...
	Aside from the extraordinary political prejudice of every single one of her fact witnesses, every witness was either a Trump hater or on the payroll of the Plaintiff's Council, who is themselves on the payroll of LinkedIn founder, who himself is a huge Trump hater, helped fund the fake Russian bot story against candidate Roy Moore, and this week turned out liked to hang out with Jeffrey Epstein at his island.
	What was it that the judge was so scared of?
	It was evidence about the security protocols and customs and practices of personal shoppers at the store at the time.
	Basically, what that would have revealed is that it is basically impossible, at a minimum implausible, arguably impossible for her story to be true because she said no one was around.
	The thing is, Trump would have always had a personal shopper as soon as he walked in.
	He would have been escorted by probably a personal shopper and a security person the entire time he was there.
	There would have been multiple security all over the place because this was a high-end store.
	So the probability that Trump, unseen, went into her dressing room, assaulted her, walked out with nobody knowing it at all, and no video evidence, nothing at all, is basically impossible.
	And the judge was so nervous about that, he kept trying to cut off and curtail the cross-examination on it.
	Now, just a little word of wisdom to lawyers out there.
	Remember to use offers of proof and proffers when judges cut you off.
	Because for the appellate record, you want...
	What is it?
	If a judge says, no, I'm not going to let you go there.
	Say, your honor, I have an offer of proof and proffers.
	Judges hate it because they know it's going to make them look damningly bad.
	And you go through, this is what I would have asked.
	This is what this witness would have answered.
	This is what I would have asked.
	This is what the witness would have answered.
	You go through all the way through.
	If it was going to be 30 questions, you put all the detail in.
	So you preserve the appellate record and you embarrass the trial court judge.
	Remember to always do that because otherwise you can get burned because the appeals courts say, we don't know what would have been asked.
	We don't know what would have been answered because you didn't proffer or put in an offer of proof.
	Just as a matter of procedure, when you do a proof and proffer, do you exclude the jury?
	Yes.
	That's how that should be.
	We'll see if there's even the possibility of impartiality in a New York jury pool given prejudicial judges.
	He'll face a similar set of issues, though my guess, if they're smart, I don't know whether they did this, but in the criminal case, he filed a removal of the state criminal case.
	To federal court, which I'll be honest, I forgot you can do.
	It's because it's very rare you can do it.
	I think there are only 700 cases in American history, and this statute goes back since the end of the Civil War, where this has ever been invoked.
	And most of those cases were, you know, pro se case of somebody trying some shenanigan.
	You've got maybe a couple of dozen applicable cases.
	The Supreme Court's never directly addressed the statute in detail.
	And it's referenced indirectly in a range of other cases, talking about procedural posture, appellate review protocols, things like that.
	So that's how rare it is that this case, you go to the annotated statute, you get like seven cases that are on point.
	But what it is, is a statute that says if a state prosecution, because normally removal is only for civil cases, but if a criminal prosecution...
	Is of a federal officer or of a person who was a federal officer for something they did while they were a federal officer, pursuant to their duties as a federal officer, then in order to avoid prejudicial state proceedings, they can remove the case to federal court in the same jurisdiction.
	And so that's what he did.
	Now, unlike removal of a civil case, it does not freeze the case.
	What happens instead is the court's supposed to make a quick assessment of whether or not there should be a summary remand and just be rejected right out of hand, or if its pleadings are sufficient, then the court's supposed to hold a very prompt evidentiary hearing on it.
	And if the federal court decides that, in fact, removal is appropriate, then the state court loses all power to ever do anything in the proceeding.
	Including control of bail, control of evidence, protective orders, gag orders, all of it stripped right away.
	Now, they cited and quoted the other federal district court decision when the prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, tried to challenge Jim Jordan's subpoena of a former prosecutor in that office, and that Alvin Bragg lost because of statements made by the judge in that case.
	If they're smart...
	They do what the government does all the time.
	And in their paperwork, they would file what's called a notice of related case because it does deal with the same set of facts and the same core issues.
	Then you get that same judge.
	And if he can get an impartial judge, then that judge would likely rule that, yes, indeed, removal is appropriate.
	And all of a sudden, you've totally changed who presides over the case.
	You now have a federal district court proceeding, number one.
	You have a different jury pool, number two.
	You have a Second Circuit Court of Appeals, rather than the New York appellate system, number three.
	All three of those would be substantially to your advantage, and you could probably raise more.
	The only thing I would have added in the basis of removal, they referenced a range of provisions, including political prejudice as part of the motivation of prosecution.
	They mentioned the federal preemption because the state is invoking federal election law as the basis of alleging it's a felony or even a crime at all.
	And that that's a part of his defense, and that there's First Amendment implications because of their interpretation of federal election law, and they referenced how this had never been done in the history of New York or any other state.
	And it's never been done to a former president.
	So you've got multiple layers and levels of unprecedented, unparalleled action by the Alvin Bragg prosecutorial team.
	If he gets the right judge, the case probably does stay in federal court.
	I would have only added...
	My impeachment theory, because even if the courts don't accept it, at least try, which my theory is that impeachment is the exclusive means by which you can indict a president, whether he's a former president or current president, because otherwise you allow an individual state prosecutor to have blackmail power over the president of the United States, which is the whole reason this federal removal statute exists, is so they don't even have that power over a low-level federal officer.
	It's fascinating, actually.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up because it's flipping hilarious.
	Fleet Lord Avatar, thank you for sending me this.
	Hold on one second.
	This is from the trial, apparently.
	When you said in that video that Ms. Leeds would not be your first choice, you were referring to her physical books, correct?
	I look at her, I hear what she says, whatever.
	You wouldn't be a choice of mine either.
	Oh, he's doing a huge shot!
	He's still on his booty!
	He cheated!
	Okay, all right.
	That's hilarious.
	That Rogan thing is going to be used in like every meme because they have a bunch of those from the Alex Jones trial.
	I don't think Trump should have said that anyhow or either.
	I don't think he should have said that.
	And in fairness to the lawyer, because I've listened to the whole deposition that was submitted to the jury, you understand what she was trying to do in that she talked about the three women who have accused Trump.
	Of sexual impropriety.
	Oddly enough, you know, the two others, as far as I know, I don't know that they sued him.
	He made the same quip with respect to all three.
	Not my type.
	She played the video.
	The woman who said that he came on to her rather aggressively during an interview.
	He said, she's not my type.
	The other one from a while back.
	So he says the same thing about all three.
	True, by the way.
	They clearly are not his type.
	Well, and then he says at the end, you know, like, I'm saying it as an insult.
	They're insulting me with these false accusations.
	I'm just insulting them.
	Well, if I would have been prepping Trump, I would have just said, I don't do crazy.
	Well, no, so that's the, you know, in fairness to me, they drew that parallel.
	The only thing is, with one of them, in the Access Hollywood tape, you know, he says, you know, you can grab him by the whatever, where he says he came on to a woman very hard.
	He came on to her very strongly, took her out to buy furniture.
	And so they use that testimony that he takes women out.
	Which, by the way, a lot of that had no business coming in.
	Other people's accusations had no business coming in.
	It shows you how utterly ridiculous this federal judge was.
	You know, that they're allowing, as evidenced here, untried...
	And not allowing in a bunch of evidence that impudes her credibility.
	No, no, it was wildly...
	Including the fact she'd made up allegations against a bunch of other men.
	It was wildly inappropriate because you're having a trial within a trial of something that was actually never tried.
	And then these accusations, which may have been baseless on their own, but they were never tested, serving as evidence here.
	And the lawyer was trying to draw a parallel between Trump coming onto a girl hard and then trying to buy her furniture.
	And in this case, saying like, oh, well, he came onto her hard as well and was trying to buy her stuff at whatever the store is.
	And I'm thinking like, if he was trying to do that.
	The fact that there might not have been anything purchased is probably evidence that it never happened in the first place.
	That's an attempted seduction.
	That's not a sexual assault.
	The two things have nothing in common.
	It was just a weak attempt to try to drag in evidence.
	That had no bearing on the case.
	They could only prejudice the jury.
	That's all it was.
	And they got it.
	Yeah, because the judge is a joke.
	I mean, the federal judiciary has proven in this case, and like the case we're about to talk about, all the January 6th cases, but this Proud Boys case was particularly egregious.
	No capacity to be impartial.
	What's happening is a lot of Republicans and conservatives in the country are getting a crash course in what some of us have known for a long time.
	The political corruption, the prejudice, the parochialism, the bias, the manipulation of proceedings by federal judges, that they often rig cases to get the result they want by applying different standards, different rules of law, different procedures, different rules of evidence, different basic court constitutional principles, depending on whether they want your case to succeed or fail.
	And that's what we saw in the Carroll case in New York.
	That's what we were seeing in the state criminal proceedings against Trump in New York.
	That's what we've seen in the state civil proceedings against Trump in New York.
	And that's what we've seen in all the January 6th cases, including the laughably absurd Proud Boys verdicts that came in this past week.
	Well, Robert, I'm not going crazy because I thought people had prior already been convicted of seditious conspiracy.
	And they were.
	This is back in January.
	Four Oath Keepers found guilty of seditious conspiracy.
	I mean, so they found most recently, this is three days ago.
	Enrique Tarrio guilty of seditious conspiracy.
	I think for Proud Boys now.
	Oh, it was the Oath Keeper.
	So hold on.
	That's why I feel like I'm going crazy.
	This conviction is not a surprise given the prior convictions.
	It was actually, in my mind, a foregone conclusion.
	They're making a big deal of it.
	The ultimate irony.
	Yeah, sorry.
	So that was the Oath Keepers in January.
	Seditious conspiracy.
	Ask a jury member what the hell that even means, and I'd love to see them define it.
	Steven Crowder was making fun of it.
	He's like, what exactly is that?
	He's like, I guess I am seditious of AOC.
	Because, I mean, that's the terrifying part.
	People were immediately predicting that Trump would be indicted under this.
	That would be even more laughably absurd, right?
	Like, right now, the January 6th defendants have very little political protection.
	That other than independent people on the sort of populist right and the content creation community and the activist community, almost no member of Congress has come to their defense.
	A few have, but most have not.
	Jim Jordan is scared to touch it with his weaponization committee.
	Almost no senators have talked about it.
	Only Trump, I mean, for all those dissents for DeSantis, DeSantis has done absolutely nothing about it, said zilch about it.
	Many Florida defendants were brought up in those cases, and he's done absolutely zero, even as at times implied it was the right decision for them to be prosecuted.
	So Trump's the only one saying anything about it, raising money for them, did a song for them, and has said, I'll pardon every single one of them if I'm elected president.
	He was criticized for not doing more earlier while he was president, but that would have been high-risk gamble, frankly, at the time, politically.
	But to go after Trump would be a different animal entirely.
	For one thing, they have zero evidence.
	What convicted these defendants, well, one part was scary.
	Jurors later admitted that they found the lack of evidence to be evidence of guilt.
	It bears reading the statute just so people can appreciate what we're talking about.
	Seditious conspiracy.
	If two or more persons in any state or territory or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States.
	And by the way, that language was not utilized in the jury instruction.
	Or to levy war against them.
	Or, these are not...
	Or to oppose by force the authority thereof.
	That's the one that I have a big problem with, Robert, because I don't understand if two or more people resist arrest.
	Is that not seditious conspiracy?
	And I'm not trying to be glib or like straw man.
	To oppose by force the authority of the government or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States is any obstruction, not necessarily seditious conspiracy.
	Or by force to seize, take, or possess any property.
	Robert, is there an obvious answer?
	Theft, resisting arrest, are those not forms of seditious conspiracy?
	Obstruction of Congress?
	Is that not necessarily seditious conspiracy?
	That's where in my view...
	For people to understand the context of those provisions, they should have the whole statute read.
	Because then it gives you a very different context.
	You're thinking, oh, okay, this is like literally overthrowing the government.
	And some variation thereof.
	And these or provisions are just different ways that can be accomplished.
	When you only excise certain provisions and divorce them from the context of the statute, then it sounds exactly like you're talking about.
	And the jury instruction that was given, Basically required only two things be proven.
	One, that there be an attempted, threatened harm to property or people in general.
	Not even that it's government property or people.
	And that it delay law enforcement.
	That it delay the enforcement or that it resist authority.
	That's it.
	And that's pretty much almost every protest.
	That's what I was going to say.
	Summer of love.
	And I'm not saying that they should be charged with seditious conspiracy because I'm not a...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	A hypocritical asshole.
	That sounds like every protest, but especially the ones taking over the police station and chopped in Chaz.
	And this is why...
	Now, the Supreme Court has always been a wuss court.
	They've always been filled with cowards.
	But they're particularly cowards in times of crisis.
	These laws, first alien and sedition laws...
	Beginning of the country, the Federalists try to use it to go after the Anti-Federalists.
	The Federalist Party, the Jeffersonian wing.
	And ultimately, by the way, Jefferson declared that every state could ignore it because it's unconstitutional.
	That ended up being an issue in the Civil War and so forth.
	When could you just ignore a law because you thought the law was unconstitutional?
	Did a state have an inherent right to do so?
	So on and so forth.
	Jefferson said, yes, states can ignore anything that's unconstitutional.
	That's been resolved by federal power.
	Rather than law, in my view.
	But that ship has now sailed because of the exercise of the precedent of federal power.
	But independent of that, these laws were politically weaponized, and they were brought back during World War I, beginning of the foundation of the second attempt at an American deep state, elevating J. Edgar Hoover and others.
	And they put presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs in prison on sedition for giving a speech.
	And the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to it, and they kept turning a blind eye to it for decades, and they've never gone back and reexamined it.
	And so there's some generic language in the jury instruction that says if it's just protest, but that doesn't solve the problem.
	That, as you note, this is so broad, so expansive, so it can be used basically to criminalize dissent, almost any form of dissent, because all you have to show is possible or a threat of harm.
	To any property of anybody.
	That's their definition of use of force, which is not clearly what was meant.
	Use of force was you got arms and guns and you're trying to raid something to take over the government.
	That's what this was supposed to be about.
	And instead, it's being applied to pure speech.
	It's being applied to pure protest.
	It's being applied to mere trespass.
	Because again, all there has to be is a threat or a possible harm.
	Yeah, but there doesn't have to be any actual use of force.
	There doesn't have to be, according to the jury instruction in this case, any actual harm to any property or people.
	Well, and according, apparently, you don't even have to be there because Enrique Tarrio wasn't even at the Capitol.
	That's right.
	He'd been previously arrested.
	So, I mean, what they convicted him on was pure speech because what was the key conviction, as the jurors later admitted?
	The text.
	Now, part of it was text they thought existed that weren't even produced.
	A sign of what a joke the judge was in the proceedings, that he could allow a trial for a jury to infer that.
	Jurors do that all the time, by the way, but it shows the problem of it.
	The evidence that was excluded was evidence that showed the government informants and infiltrators and instigators were all over those tags.
	That's what was excluded at the government's request.
	And the jury thinks, oh, I bet there's even more damning stuff there, which of course shows you how these jurors are not conscientious juries.
	They're jurors.
	They're not abiding by their constitutional oath.
	In my view, when I say there should be no immunity, I don't think there should be immunity for jurors that don't do their job either.
	In the old days, there wasn't.
	You could only assert your defense.
	You can assert as a defense that you followed your duties, but you had to prove that you followed your duties to another jury.
	The idea that jurors can just ignore, abdicate, violate the law without any consequence, as long as they're doing it on behalf of the government.
	If they're doing it to hurt the government, then the government will prosecute them.
	But otherwise, they have no risk if they just do the government's bidding and screw somebody.
	But by the way, that's the big difference between this case and the Trump case.
	These guys all had a bunch of dumb texts back and forth to each other.
	And it was the texts that got them convicted.
	But it's constitutionally problematic that techs can get you 20 years in federal prison.
	And the other thing that should be happening by any of these so-called liberty-oriented members of Congress, Thomas Massey, some others, Rand Paul, go back and get rid of the seditious conspiracy law.
	Remove all those provisions.
	Only leave it in there for people that are literally armed resistance against the U.S. government.
	That's all it should be there for.
	Would that not fall under?
	Terrorism laws, I presume.
	Terrorism laws vary in their application.
	I think seditious conspiracy for armed resistance is applicable.
	That first part of the statute and the last part of the statute are fine.
	Get rid of the rest.
	And if they were conscientious about being constitutional, they should do so.
	And we'll see if they do.
	I hope that Robert Kennedy considers redefining some of these laws.
	Because to his credit, he made a big announcement this week.
	Before you get there, Robert, it's obligatory because he said it too many times.
	Doody.
	Okay.
	And I was re-watching that Joe Rogan meme.
	Audio off because I was off.
	And my God, it's still funny.
	Hold on.
	Before you get there, my final thought.
	You know, someone had better say that they're going to pardon all of the January 6th defendants if they get re-elected.
	Trump has already said so.
	Yeah, but now, Robert, at the beginning, I was saying, okay, fine, pardon all the non-violent offenders.
	But now seeing the sentences that the violent offenders are getting, I mean, now I understand how at some point you have to pardon even violent offenders.
	This guy, I don't know what his name is.
	Allegedly threw a chair at a police officer and might have used pepper spray on them.
	Gets 14 years in jail.
	And like the Molotov cocktail couple get a one year whatever the hell they plea bargained down to.
	Now I understand.
	Or just that guy that died in the subway car.
	42 felonies.
	42 arrests.
	Many of them serious felonies.
	Did almost no time anywhere.
	And yet people who have no criminal record whatsoever.
	Many of them noteworthy.
	Records in the military and service of their country are now serving decades plus.
	We're talking about Stuart Rhodes serving as long as 25 years.
	I mean, it's just insane.
	Almost entirely based in many of these cases, as you noted, just on speech, people who weren't even there, like Tario.
	So if the Justice Department had been really believed in the confidence of their case, they would have tried these defendants in their home jurisdiction, not in the District of Columbia.
	The fact they wouldn't bring one single prosecution outside of D.C. shows you that they knew they needed a politically prejudiced and partial jury pool and judicial pool to secure convictions because they knew the facts did not justify the verdicts.
	Well, I had cut you off when you were seguing so eloquently into the next subject, which is RFK publicly announcing a pardon of Julian Assange.
	I wanted to see if I could pull up the polls, because apparently RFK is polling at something like 20% support, even on the Democrat side.
	I'll see if I can find that.
	So he's made the announcement.
	Pardon public enemy number one, Julian Assange.
	Do we know what the mental and physical state is of Julian Assange now?
	Because it looked like he might have been irreparably broken two years ago.
	I don't know if we have had more news now, but what is RFK saying that's going to make the deep state very happy?
	Or unhappy.
	I was being sarcastic there, right?
	Yeah, I mean, so he called for pardoning, and I think the same logic could be extended to any convictions under the seditious conspiracy statute and other statutes where guns weren't used.
	I mean, these seditious charges are some of the only ones that have ever been brought.
	Given their long, notorious, ugly history of being used against political dissidents, that I would like to see him also call for redefining the laws so that whistleblowers can't be criminally prosecuted, so that protesters can't be criminally prosecuted.
	But what he did, he said he would have elected, pardoned Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and he listed a bunch of other whistleblowers.
	Because he said, you know, speech and whistleblowing should be celebrated, not criminally punished in America.
	We're not the Soviet Union.
	And so I think that was, you know, the first serious presidential candidate to call for that.
	And so that was, you know, a very promising indicator.
	I mean, he's surging in a bunch of different public opinion polls.
	Started out at 2%, 3%, then 5%, 6%, and now around 19%, 20%, depending on which poll you look at within the Democratic primary.
	And surging with a wide range of constituencies, and two-thirds of Democrats say they are looking for an alternative to Joe Biden.
	So, in fact, Trump's lead over DeSantis in several of these polls is bigger than Biden's lead over Robert Kennedy, who only just announced.
	And so that gives you an indicator of where things are going.
	But credit to Robert Kennedy for willingness to challenge and question and contest.
	All of these wrongful criminal prosecutions that were really accelerated under the Obama administration.
	I'll just read this here and then you'll guess.
	I think I may have spoiled the surprise already.
	Let me see.
	The recent poll showing Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist, garnering 14% of 2020 Biden voters, certainly seems pretty bad.
	Does the Democratic electorate now include a sizable anti-science contingent?
	Can you believe this shit?
	Who would write this shit?
	Oh, it's Jen Psaki.
	Opinion.
	I'll talk about this more tomorrow.
	That's almost like a Beavis and Butthead joke there.
	Inside with Jen Psaki.
	Oh, there's another.
	When Biden put out that tweet with Kamala Harris, get in.
	I had a joke that I can't make because I'm a polite young boy who doesn't engage in that type of humor.
	Talk about insane prosecutions.
	Two folks.
	One guy's looking to go into federal prison for being on YouTube.
	And another one's looking at going up to 25 years.
	And another one's looking at going to federal prison because he printed the equivalent of a business card-sized bottle opener that the federal government called a machine gun.
	Did it?
	I know nothing of this.
	Was it operational?
	Did it fire BBs?
	Oh, it fired nothing.
	It's literally like a little business card that you could use as a bottle opener.
	So the case is the Irvin and Hoover case, two different defendants.
	One of them just talked about this product.
	It was called Auto Key Card.
	One of them just talked about it on YouTube.
	Didn't sell it or anything else.
	And he's facing now 20 years plus in federal prison.
	The other one, it's literally like a business size card.
	And because it had a printout, a design kind of thing on it, and you could take it apart.
	And purportedly, you could take parts of the parts apart.
	In ways that you could make a semi-automatic gun fully automatic.
	And that somehow made the part itself.
	I mean, again, it looks like a business card bottle opener.
	Somebody made the card itself a machine gun.
	Because he didn't pay the tax, didn't have a license, they criminally prosecuted him under the National Firearms Act of 1934 for selling...
	I'm trying to hypothetically steel man the argument.
	Is it that what he did, oh, it's just a small thing, and if you scale it up, you can actually three-dimensionally print an operational firearm?
	Is that the underlying argument?
	Oh, no, no.
	It's just that you could use it as a part to take an existing gun, and if you put it together in a certain way, you could make the gun fully automatic.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	And so the...
	Now, so it's a disturbing prosecution.
	There are lots of other violations that took place in the case.
	I don't know as much about it.
	I just know loosely the allegations concerning various forms of prosecutorial misconduct in the case.
	The fact that one guy could get prosecuted without directly selling it is really crazy.
	But the fact that if all you need to show is that something could be used to help a gun become automatic, then you can understand the risks of this case.
	Arguably, it gets into speech.
	Years ago, they tried to prosecute someone for freely giving out the designs that someone could use to make a 3D gun.
	They tried to prosecute them for doing so, and they said, well, that's really speech, and the court shut it down.
	What's also interesting about this case is that they are bringing one of the first constitutional challenges in recent times to the National Firearms Act of 1934.
	Their grounds are that under the Bruin decision, The National Firearms Act of 1934 can't pass constitutional muster under the Second Amendment.
	By the way, the Attorney General at the time the law was passed publicly admitted that what they were doing was an end run around the Second Amendment.
	They said, well, we can't ban these guns outright because if we did, that's probably a constitutional violation.
	So instead, we're going to call it a tax and then say, if you don't have the license from the tax, then we can ban you from having it.
	Ha ha ha.
	It shows what their real goal is, is nothing to do with tax revenue and everything to do, as this criminal prosecution proves, to try to prevent and prohibit people from having certain self-defense tools available.
	And then they have an as-applied challenge that this is also an administrative problem.
	We'll get into next the Chevron case.
	You know, when agencies can so redefine the law that a bottle opener or something that otherwise looks like a bottle opener and a business card, Suddenly it can be called a machine gun.
	Nobody would confuse this card with a machine gun.
	Merely because you could put it as a part into a gun?
	Then we've given them way too much deference.
	Way too much power to redefine the law.
	Unless they specifically said by congressional legislation that this specific provision required a tax and license or it couldn't be used.
	And again, the tax power becomes so confiscatory at some point.
	As has happened in the National Firearms Act 1934, it becomes prohibiting the underlying thing.
	It becomes stripping property.
	I also think the National Firearms Act has long been a violation of the constitutional limitation on taxation of direct taxation.
	Because you can't tax labor or property directly.
	You can only tax the profit and gain from the labor separated from it.
	That's the constitutional definition of income according to the United States Supreme Court in 1916 that they read into the 16th Amendment.
	And so if it's not income, and what's happening here is you're not allowed to possess it.
	You're not allowed to promote it.
	And it's like, hold on, it doesn't have to be across state lines.
	It's not about taxing the income from it.
	It's simply you're not allowed to possess it, period, unless you have a special license, a tax license from the U.S. government.
	And run around the Second Amendment and a violation of direct taxation clause.
	So they haven't brought the direct taxation challenge.
	They have brought the constitutional challenge, the National Firearms Act under Bruin.
	And they got a great as applied challenge because the facts here look really bad from a government perspective.
	If you're if you're a conscientious appeals court that cares about the Second Amendment or the Supreme Court, then this shows how extreme and how crazy this has got.
	And it raises a combination of Second Amendment cases and the other big case Supreme Court just took this week, which is Chevron deference.
	Well, and I'll give the segue into the Chevron deference because I don't know the details of that case.
	Relates to Bill C-11 in Canada, where we just passed the Online Streaming Act.
	And the Minister of Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, is saying, well, we're going to now, you know, I'm going to issue a directive to the governing body, the CRTC, to define the scope of their authority.
	So you're going to have the administrative body that exists or was created under the act.
	Setting out their own jurisdiction and authority under the Act to define what it is that they govern and the scope of the Act, which is obviously so vague and ambiguous by its own terms that it requires a directive to determine the scope of the Online Streaming Act, whether or not it's going to go after user-generated content, individual content creators, or just broadcasters on the internet.
	What's the Chevron case that's pending now before the Supremes?
	So this is one of the most popular cases, along with the Carrie Lake case, which is coming up right after this one, on our Locals board at vivobarnslaw.locals.com, where a live chat is happening as we speak.
	For those that don't know, the Chevron decision stems from a 1984 Supreme Court decision that said that they would basically defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of the law.
	And the history was that the Supreme Court would only defer to the executive branch when they both contemporaneously and continuously interpreted a law at the time the law was passed, they would give it substantial deference.
	But it had always been limited to that fitting within the general statutory canon that you can look to other alternative interpretations of a statute when it's ambiguous.
	And that's the first predicate.
	It actually has to be ambiguous.
	But if it's ambiguous, one authoritative source would be how did other executive agencies interpret it at the time and continuously afterwards.
	The continuously afterwards part creating a reliance interest that the Supreme Court would be less than interested in overturning.
	But the Chevron decision went much further.
	It said the mere fact that an administrative agency has interpreted the law means we as a judiciary...
	Shouldn't second-guess it outside of extreme circumstances.
	That was a complete abdication of their constitutional obligations under Article 3, and it was an excess of power to the executive agencies in violation of the duty of the legislature to be the ones that pass laws.
	So in my view, it exceeded executive power, abandoned and abdicated judicial power, and usurped legislative power.
	It was a complete violation of all three articles about governing our Constitution.
	Welcome to Canada, Rob.
	I mean, this is like, they've literally created these laws for specialty tribunals, they're administrative tribunals, who are so specialized despite not even having to go through the same rigor to become a regular judge.
	Specialty laws, administrative tribunals, they decide their own jurisdiction, subject to their own rules, deference from the courts because they're specialty administrative tribunals.
	So you end up getting human rights tribunals out of British Columbia.
	Awarding $40,000 in damages because a restaurant misgendered an employee who worked there for a month.
	So, okay, I mean, it's great.
	America seems to be potentially going in the other direction, whereas Canada is going the wrong direction.
	Yeah, so the case challenging is Loper Bright.
	You'll like them as a couple of herring fishermen.
	Good.
	Yeah, so some herring.
	If you want to apparently fish for herring in certain places, You have to pay for a government inspector to be on your boat.
	Otherwise, you can't fish for herring.
	Now, there's certain limitations if you're doing it for personal use and so on and so forth.
	But if you're a commercial herring fisherman, you can't do it without paying the thousands of dollars to make sure, there's the actual cost, to make sure a government inspector is on your boat the whole time.
	I presume...
	I presume that's because it's net fishing and they want to make sure that they're not netting whales and dolphins and tearing up the bottom of the ocean, I guess.
	Just make work for lazy bureaucrats.
	And the only reason this is a regulatory agency interpreting the law in a way it had never been interpreted before, just using Chevron to dramatically expand, basically to legislate.
	In lieu of the legislature, what principles it wants, creating this administrative state behemoth that is not responsive to pretty much anybody, because as we know, it's not even responsive to the elected head of the executive branch.
	And so the U.S. Supreme Court this week took up the case on the grounds of challenging Chevron.
	And there was a bunch of amicus briefs filed.
	The fact the petition was granted likely means, given some of these same justices' comments previously, That it's time to completely reverse Chevron.
	It was divorced from constitutional footing.
	It's a direct attack on the separation of powers.
	And it was an elevation of the unelected over every other branch of government, whether appointed or elected by elected officials.
	And so it looks like Chevron is probably going to face a near death, probably going to be killed.
	And by doing so, executive agencies will finally lose their power to usurp the judiciary, usurp the legislature, and abandon their own executive political control that they've done throughout this process.
	So it's probably, along with the administrative judicial process and the major questions doctrine, this was the third prong that was the foundation of the administrative state's expansive power in America.
	The Supreme Court's already taken away the first two.
	Said your courts don't operate, can't violate it, you can sue for constitutional challenges without going through it, don't have to exhaust remedies in a whole bunch of cases.
	The court system is fraudulent in the way it works, the administrative system.
	Said if it's a major question, you have no business interpreting it in the first place.
	And now they're probably going to say, we're not going to give any deference to any of your legislation anymore, your interpretational legislation.
	So it will be the end of the scope and scale of the power, by no means the end of the administrative state.
	But a substantial curtailment on its power, this probable overturning that's coming by the Supreme Court.
	I only wish it could also be applicable binding jurisprudence in Canada, but our countries have gone separate ways, separate directions.
	Robert, we're going to do...
	Now, you're talking about fake news.
	There was probably no bigger fake news this week than what they tried to report about the Supreme Court's decision, Arizona Supreme Court's decision in Carrie Lake's case.
	So, just because I got confused about the procedure because they had already rendered their decision, which said, one claim goes back, there's an outstanding, we're going to discuss legal fees or extrajudicial costs.
	What order came down this week that...
	Wasn't already the one that had come down previously.
	And why is Mark Elias not reporting on it accurately?
	That's a joke.
	What's interesting is all the media headlines, mainstream media headlines, was Arizona Supreme Court sanctions Carrie Lake's lawyer for making fraud claims without proof.
	That didn't happen.
	It was just a flat-out lie.
	Flat-out fraud by Arizona newspapers, national media, legal commenters.
	I mean, no surprise Mark Elias, the criminal money launderer for the Clinton family, was out there lying about it.
	And so I put out a couple of tweets, and then I just said, here's what an honest headline would be.
	The honest headline is the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the trial court is to take up forthwith her signature verification challenge.
	Rejected all attorney's fees sanctions requests, rejected all other sanctions requests, and simply ordered a $2,000 court fee for what the Supreme Court considered the misuse of the word undisputed.
	It didn't say any claim that Carrie Lake made was without evidentiary proof.
	It didn't say any claim Carrie Lake's lawyers made was without a legal basis.
	In fact, it said just the opposite.
	It didn't say any claim Carrie Lake's lawyers made was a false or fraudulent claim.
	So the courts and commentators were just making that up.
	And they were trying to elevate a $2,000 court fee for the misattribution of the word undisputed, which is a procedural term of art, as somehow big sanctions award.
	What had happened was the trial court had deliberately delayed proceedings in the signature verification.
	Using the pretext that the Arizona Supreme Court hadn't yet ruled on the sanctions, even though there was nothing holding him back on that, in my view.
	In my view, that the trial court was probably hoping the Arizona Supreme Court would give him more cover by saying a bunch of nasty things about Carrie Lake's lawyers, and he got just the opposite.
	And so now he's actually scheduling an immediate hearing on our signature verification challenge.
	So it was another substantial win.
	For Carrie Lake to get that part of the proceeding expedited immediately, rather than letting the trial court delay it even more.
	And a big win on all the attorney's fees.
	And in my view, the court was even wrong on the question of Undisputed.
	I read a portion of the decision.
	It doesn't make any sense, really, because they're saying, well, you said that...
	What was it?
	I think it was a number of ballots.
	35,000 ballots, chain of custody issue.
	The Arizona Supreme Court did not say that that was without evidence, did not say that was frivolous, did not say that was fraudulent or false.
	They said that putting the word undisputed before it was procedurally incorrect because some aspect, not clear which aspect, but some aspect of it was being disputed according to Katie Hobbs' lawyers.
	Now, here's the problem.
	The word undisputed is really an opinion.
	Yes, it's advocating for your clients.
	It's indisputable that he's...
	Every single day in America.
	Now, I can tell you why they sanctioned.
	It's because procedurally in American courts, this most commonly happens in summary judgment motions.
	You're supposed to file two different sets of facts with the court during a summary judgment motion.
	The first is the undisputed facts.
	The other is the disputed facts.
	And it's a kind of professional obligation that if there's even the possibility a fact is disputed, you can't put it in undisputed.
	And the idea is that you have a stipulated set agreement with the opposing party as to which facts are disputed and which ones are undisputed.
	And you have to err on the side that it's disputed unless the other side stipulates that these facts are undisputed.
	However, so I think that's why they did the $2,000 court fee.
	And I think they were probably procedurally annoyed that they probably went down.
	Some judges probably assumed that that really was not being in contest at all.
	And when they found out it was, got annoyed, and that's why they whacked the lawyer.
	So it was a tactical error by the lawyer.
	But I can tell you, every day in America, when I'm dealing with corporate lawyers, I've never seen them tell the truth about Undisputed one single time.
	So the idea that this is somehow...
	I'm going to be using this in future cases.
	I'm going to be saying, hey...
	What's good for the goose?
	Good for the gander.
	A rule, by the way, came out of a court case.
	The popularization of the phrase, in part, came from a court case.
	The phrase preexisted the court case, but it was popularized.
	I learned about that phrase, by the way, because I used to go to class, and I'd read the cases in class that we were supposed to have read before.
	I remember this story, yeah.
	And I was halfway through the goose and the gander case, but I wasn't to the goose and the gander part.
	And the professor called on me early, because it was one of those random, Like old law school structures where they would randomly call on you to do the Socratic method.
	And I was ready.
	I was like, boom, boom, boom.
	And I'll never forget, the professor said, you'd be exactly right, Mr. Parnes, if you would have read the rest of the case.
	So I read through the rest of the case and it was the good, because what it is, the judge says, here's what the rule should be.
	But because the rule is different in all these other cases, what's good for the goose is good for the yander.
	Boom.
	So it ended up being a question on the exam on that precise case.
	I knew it backwards and forwards.
	It ended up being a blessing in disguise that I had not read that going in.
	Not as bad as when I was at Yale, and somebody asked me what they thought about this book, and I gave them some BS answer.
	I hadn't read it at all.
	And then they asked me, well, what did you think about this second book?
	And I was like, well, I don't even have that book.
	And they're like, the book in front of you has both books in it.
	I was like, oh, I didn't even read the title.
	That's how bad it was.
	I didn't even read the cover of the book I was supposed to read.
	I realized there were two books in one.
	A bunch of people started laughing.
	Not as bad as when I went into law school once.
	The only class I showed up for was the last class of the session.
	That's when they give you your teacher reviews.
	I walked in and picked up the teacher review.
	The whole class started laughing.
	I was like, it's a great teacher.
	What are you talking about?
	I don't need to go to class to know she's a great teacher.
	So the word undisputed, to get nitpicky about this, normally they never would.
	Probably it misled a justice on the Arizona Supreme Court, and that's why they whacked him.
	So this is a tactical error.
	But it's as minor an error as you possibly get.
	There was no finding like what they said.
	It was a big win, really, for Carrie Lake.
	So what is the next step on the signature?
	Oh, the court's already scheduled a hearing.
	And so, of course, they can try to renew other theories to dismiss.
	I don't think when the trial court judge sees what the Arizona Supreme Court just did, he's likely to do that again.
	Make that mistake.
	My guess is he'll hold an evidentiary hearing.
	He can enforce the subpoenas.
	I know Maricopa County's holding it back from other matters.
	They're not going to be able to hold it back from him without him being obligated to make an adverse evidentiary finding.
	So they're going to have to produce, likely in secret, a sufficient sample.
	What happened last time in Arizona in 2020 is the court ordered a sufficient sample.
	The experts looked at it.
	And what the expert came back with, the Democratic Party's own expert came back with, said 10% of the signatures didn't match.
	And so if you extrapolated that, that was more than, I think, 100 times the margin of victory in the state.
	So I guarantee you're going to find it again, because what Carrie Lake has shared sometimes is signatures from 2020 that came out.
	Some of those signatures were literally blank lines.
	I mean, these people didn't even try to fake the signature.
	And some people just go, squiggly, squiggly nonsense.
	I mean, it was so bad that it couldn't pass anybody.
	And remember, she has whistleblowers that disclose that during the process, the original signature checker in the Arizona Elections Office would say, no, this doesn't match.
	And their boss would come and say, screw you, we're going to count it anyway.
	So this was always the big weakness.
	The reason why it's a vulnerability in the court system is because courts across America for 100 years have been kicking people off the ballot entirely based on signature matches on petitions to be a candidate.
	Did you do that in any candidate?
	Did you have to go around and get signatures to get on the ballot?
	I did.
	I had to go door to door.
	And then they were all so eager to sign up.
	And then I mentioned what party I was running for.
	I actually had people Stop.
	I can't.
	I can't sign you for that.
	I was like, you know, you're not voting for me.
	You're just giving me 100 signatures so I can get on the ballot.
	I can't.
	Oh, your party is the anti-science, anti-vax.
	You, sir, are going to vote liberal, aren't you?
	Exactly.
	But so what usually happens is if you're a small candidate or a small party, you often have to get three times as many signatures as is the requirement because that's how many.
	That governments, because government bureaucrats love to screw over small parties, third parties, independent candidates.
	That's how many you need to get on the ballot.
	And courts have enforced that.
	And they've enforced it, by the way, in the name of fraud.
	We can't allow any signature that doesn't match to possibly allow someone to get on the ballot.
	Well, can you allow them to get elected to, say, the presidency of the United States?
	Or the governor of Arizona?
	This is why this has always been the weak link of everything that would happen with mass mail-in voting.
	This is why they created the Patsy.
	And the distraction and the red herring of Dominion.
	They wanted everything to be about anything except signature matches because courts are embarrassed by their own words, their own language, their own history, their own actions, where they're going to have to say suddenly signature matches don't matter?
	When almost every judge in America has been complicit at one time or another in keeping some little guy off the ballot or some little party off the ballot in the name of how important signature matches are?
	There's no way to do a bunch of bogus ballots without signature match fraud.
	Without the signatures not matching.
	That's why, again, the Democrats' own expert in Arizona, 2020, 10% of signatures didn't match.
	So Carrie Lake needs a lot fewer than that of the sample size.
	So hopefully she has a really good, high-quality signature match forensic expert.
	Heck, I might use that Democrat.
	I'd be tempted to use a Democrat expert.
	I would have a couple experts, but I'd be tempted to use a Democrat.
	I wouldn't say, hey, Judge.
	Well, I'll use the Democratic Party's own expert.
	He's already looked at this.
	He's already opined on this.
	Because what that told me was he's the kind of expert that values his credibility as a forensic handwriting expert, which is also, by the way, secretly about psychology in your brain.
	It's not about what people think.
	It's not about the physical form of your hand.
	That's why signatures are difficult to replicate.
	People think they're easy to imitate.
	You have to be a true expert to really do a good copy.
	But the problem here was if you're sitting in an apartment complex or a nursing home or a mail drop in the name of some homeless voter or voter doesn't even exist or voters move out of the state and you're casting ballots in their favor, you have no idea what their signatures look like.
	Now, Arizona, by law, has their signature on file, either in the DMV file or in their voter file or both.
	And so what do you do?
	You're like, well, I don't want to get caught.
	I don't want to do it in a way that could entrap me, maybe, but they can figure out that's my handwriting.
	So you just do a scribbly line, right?
	You go mumbo-jumbo.
	The problem is that doesn't even come close.
	And again, Democratic Party, you're an expert, 10% didn't match in 2020.
	My guess is at least 5% didn't match in 2022.
	And she needs, I think, less than 1% to not match in order to be able to...
	Say that the election results are in doubt and a recall should occur.
	Or not a recall, but a re-election.
	From your mouth to God's ears, Robert, we'll see what's left in the term.
	People are saying, hey, Barnes predicted this.
	I still have zero confidence in the Arizona trial court system.
	She should win.
	I don't have confidence that the Arizona trial court system will allow it to happen.
	We'll find out.
	All right, on the next episode, or sooner than later.
	Robert, do we do?
	We only have a couple left, I guess.
	Yeah, so, I mean, briefly, the big tech Biden case we were talking about that correlates to the Barstool Sports case we talked about earlier, that that case people weren't paying attention because Barstool Sports and a lot of people don't care about Barstool Sports or don't care about sports.
	I was saying it's important because it's a big First Amendment case for stopping state agencies from licensing, weaponizing their licensure power to suppress and censor speech.
	And it should scare the heck out of everybody that they're doing it to someone like...
	A Barstool Sports or a Penn Entertainment in the casino environment of all places.
	That means you can guarantee it's happening everywhere else.
	But the big one, Missouri and Louisiana sued Biden administration over colluding and censoring speech through big tech.
	The judge this week allowed that to be expanded to a class action representing everybody that's been harmed by it.
	So that case is marching forward before the Honorable Terry Doty in Louisiana.
	Australian class action.
	Some of these can be rapid fire.
	Yeah, well, they're suing the government, some government entities, some government authorities.
	It's the new direction.
	How do you sue when there's immunity for Pfizer in almost all these countries?
	You find out somebody else you could sue.
	And what happened in Australia, they're suing government officials on grounds that they lied about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
	And in many of these countries, they don't have the same governmental immunities that the United States has.
	And so more countries around the world, starting with Australia, are looking at class actions to be brought on behalf of the vaccine injured against anybody that could be sued who was complicit in the lie, complicit in saying it was safe and effective.
	I think if they're going to use the Alex Jones in cases like that as the standard bearer, one thing I'm looking into is not only suing Anthony Fauci, I'm still going to try to find a way to sue the government and sue Pfizer.
	And the Brooke Jackson case marches on.
	We'll see what the judge in court does.
	That case likely goes up to the appeal food chain next.
	I don't anticipate the district court correcting, allowing us to amend.
	He should give us that right, but I don't think he will.
	But it just makes the appeal more robust.
	But we're also looking at all the other, like the media, for example.
	The media was really directly and deliberately complicit in spreading lies.
	Rachel Maddow.
	Said it was safe and effective.
	She lied to people.
	Some people suffered injuries.
	Some people suffered disabilities.
	Some people suffered death from her lies.
	So I think that we're going to start looking at everybody who lied.
	And everybody who lied should be held responsible.
	Including members of the media as well as members of the government.
	And so trying to figure out ways to sue.
	But Australia is showing the template to that possibility moving forward around the rest of the world.
	And then next up, unfortunate case of Gonzalo Lira.
	Yeah, so Robert, I mean, anybody who doubted it the last time, I think their doubt now is, well, they may still doubt the original story.
	He's clearly been arrested, been detained by the U, what's the acronym?
	The SBU.
	The SBU.
	For those who are concerned, like you can love him or you can hate him, this is very scary for him at this point, correct?
	Oh, yes.
	So, I mean, what I had told people at the time on one of the bourbon shows at our board at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, where everybody's above average, even the trolls and the critics, is that my suspicion was that Gonzalo Lira was arrested originally because of his speech, that they planned on making an example out of him with a bloody execution.
	That because the Duran, Scott Ritter, us, and others, Jackson Hinkle, I think even at the time Jimmy Dore, raised enough of a stink about it because he is a good, for those that don't know, Gonzalo Lear is a U.S.-Chilean dual citizen who lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine, who has been a public political critic of the Ukrainian side in the Ukrainian-Russian war.
	And documenting all the terrible things that have happened in the Donbass region since 2014 by the Maidan coup regime.
	And he said before he was arrested the first time that he thought that he was under imminent risk of execution, that he was trying to hide out at different locations, etc.
	So he disappeared for a period of time, came back suddenly, but it was like a week or so later.
	But when he came back, he didn't talk about the arrest.
	His YouTube channel was gone.
	His original Twitter channel was gone.
	My suspicions I shared with our board members was that one, the Ukrainian authorities were surprised at the blowback.
	There was inquiries made by the Chilean embassy.
	There were inquiries made into the U.S. embassy.
	There was international public outrage in a wide range of media circles that literally went global.
	I mean, we were part of Stardient and the Duran and Scott Ritter.
	But it went global as a story because this was happening routinely in Ukraine, but it was now happening to a U.S. citizen, a Chilean citizen.
	And so I think they felt pressure to release him.
	And by the way, a person over there at the time had already said that he'd already been summarily executed.
	And the day later, I think that was the plan.
	And by the way, this is one of these weird, tranny journalists from Vegas who infiltrates a range of groups who's, let's say she's a little bit spooky.
	He, she, they, whatever the latest pronoun is.
	Why are they over in Kharkiv hanging out with these neo-Nazi-aligned units?
	So my guess was that what they told them was, okay, we're going to release you, but number one, you're not going to leave or go anywhere.
	You're going to tell us where you're at at all times in Kharkiv.
	Number two, we're taking away your YouTube and Twitter channel.
	And number three, you're not going to tell anybody about this anywhere or we're coming for you.
	And that would explain why he never talked about it.
	Explained why he lost his channels.
	Explained why he didn't try to get out of Dodge.
	Explained why he even attacked Scott Ritter for talking about it.
	It was his way of trying to stay around while he remained a critic.
	Now, he's an eclectic personality.
	I think he's a young Chilean immigrant kid who came to the U.S. I think got badly bullied by Americans here.
	I think that formed some hostility to America.
	We didn't put him on sidebar because...
	Thought his personality was a little bit erratic.
	Didn't always follow everything he said or did.
	Don't always agree.
	In fact, often disagreed with a range of things.
	Strongly disagreed with the attacks on Scott Ritter.
	However, he's an American citizen who's now just been arrested and threatened with prison for a long period of time for his speech by the admission of the Ukrainian authorities themselves.
	Ukrainian prosecutor, as covered by the new Atlas, came out and said in their own...
	Facebook and other social media posts and PR releases.
	We arrested him because he said bad things about the Ukrainian government.
	Not because, I think originally they were going to try to plant the thought that he had helped give off positions of Ukrainian military in New York.
	They're not saying any of that now.
	They're solely and wholly saying, he said speech we don't like.
	And he wasn't the only one, by the way.
	There were hundreds of arrests all across the country that Ukrainian authorities announced just this past weekend.
	Because they now feel more confident than ever.
	I mean, they've just done what appears to many to have been, according to Robert Kennedy and others, what appears to be an assassination attempt on Putin or an attempt at some symbolic violent drone attack on the Moscow capital.
	But look at what they've done.
	I mean, they've done terror events in Russia.
	They've done terror events on the bridge in Crimea.
	They've blown up oil places.
	They've killed...
	The daughters of prominent dissidents in Russia.
	They put out effectively hit lists that include people like Glenn Greenwald and Senator Rand Paul on it.
	They have, in the last six months, in the last year, they have banned all opposition parties and arrested the leaders and imprisoned the leaders of those opposition parties.
	They have banned all opposition press, shut down all opposition press, and arrested hundreds of journalists across the country, including Ukrainian journalists that have had to flee the country.
	And then within the last two months, Including on Easter, they have shut down Russian Orthodox churches in Ukraine and arrested priests, and some churches have gone up in flames.
	And they've seen nothing but praise from the West for it.
	The Konstantin Kissins of the world, who might be coerced himself, his mother, I believe, is there, his wife's family's in Ukraine.
	So who knows what's sincere, but if he's sincere, he's celebrated these actions.
	As a supposed democracy advocate.
	When he came on, I keep kicking myself for not raising the argument when he was here.
	He condemned Russia for doing all of these same things, which they probably are doing, and then defended Ukraine for doing it because it's in the time of war and they have to do what's necessary to protect themselves at the time of war.
	Maybe he's coerced because he can't say anything because his family is there.
	To proffer that possibility of an explanation, we may find out a decade or so from now.
	But if it's a sincerely held one, then it shows the corruption of his ideas.
	So when they've seen nothing but celebration of the attack on everything Americans hold core as liberty, and we're holding up this fraudulent government, this extortionate government, this neo-Nazi-littered government as an emblem of democracy and liberty throughout the globe.
	They clearly were so cocky and confident that, watch, we'll arrest a United States citizen for doing nothing more than speech, and the Biden administration will do nothing.
	The question is, will the Chilean embassy do nothing?
	So I know that some people didn't like his style, didn't agree with certain positions he had, etc.
	We should never countenance the arrest of a United States citizen for his speech.
	Period.
	End of story.
	So people should be as outraged now as they were then, should take constructive action as they did then, because it's the only thing that will save him from a long time in a Ukrainian prison and probable death.
	All right.
	Robert, we've done it.
	Oh, we got a few more.
	You got two quick bonus topics, and we got three rapid-fire ones.
	Okay, you do the rapid-fire.
	I'm going to put myself on screen removed for one second.
	Go for it, and then I put the link for locals.
	All right.
	Rapid fire, Robert.
	Well, yeah, we'll do the after-party live at localsvibobarnslaw.locals.com where we'll answer as many of the tipper questions as we practically can.
	If you tip more, you'll get to the top of the board.
	That is not a promise.
	But otherwise in Russia, a big dispute this week concerning the owner-founder of Wagner, known as Purgosian.
	Who put out this video attacking the Russian government, said he wasn't getting enough ammunition.
	Wagner is the, or Wagner, depending on how you pronounce it, is the mercenary group that is very active around Bakhmut and in parts of the Ukrainian operations, along with the Russian military and the various Donbass militias.
	And it kind of went viral around the West.
	He was in front of some dead soldiers.
	He blamed corruption in the Russian military.
	The West said, ah, this is the end of Putin and the end of Russia.
	The world fell apart.
	They really don't know the background.
	Wagner has long been suspected, I think correctly, to simply be a front for Russian intelligence and military that want to be able to do things in a private capacity, Blackwater style, that they might be more politically restrained from doing or even legally restrained from doing if it was the government officially doing it.
	But I don't think there's any doubt that Purgosian has always been the front guy for Wagner, not its real founder or operator.
	Purgosian himself has a unique history, was a Soviet-held criminal for about a decade on various minor charges, but 10 years in Soviet prison.
	Got out, started a hot dog stand, turned that into a grocery store, and then turned that into a grocery chain, then turned that into a catering business, hence the reference to Putin's chef, because he has a lot of catering business with the Russian government.
	He was the guy that was behind the internet research agency that did a couple of lame ads that Mueller tried to pretend was part of the big conspiracy of Russian influence on the 2016 election.
	And then he came out in 2022 as the front guy.
	2023 is the front guy for Wagner.
	And he has been doing these kind of eclectic, odd...
	Viral quasi-press conferences or announcements for the last couple of months or so.
	He's not really running things.
	He wears camos.
	He's mostly been the front guy.
	Got agitated, clearly, at something.
	The very next day, he had a very different tone.
	The Wagner unit continues to march into Bachmut and take the last quarter block or so that's left.
	So it was mostly much ado over nothing, that story.
	I know there's even people on our board like, no, I don't understand.
	Barnes, Russia's right about to crack up.
	Putin's right about to go.
	I've been hearing that for about 20 years now.
	I'll believe it when I see it.
	The NFT, insider trading.
	First ever insider trading conviction.
	What's interesting is the nature of the insider trading.
	So this guy worked at OpenSea, which is this website that's the biggest online marketplace for non-fungible tokens, NFTs, which about 90% of people still don't understand what the heck they are.
	But Trump just sold a few for about $4.4 million.
	I bought one.
	I don't know how to sell it.
	I lost money.
	I don't know how to sell it.
	Don't know where it is.
	I know how to access it, but still don't know what NFTs are.
	Yeah, so they're blockchain-based, unique pieces of art using blockchain technology and a new mechanism.
	Controversial as to whether they're legit or scams.
	But what has happened is the guy responsible at OpenSea for putting the NFTs on the front page was secretly buying up.
	The NFTs before they went on the front page because he knew they were going to go on the front page and making a bunch of cash.
	And I'm a little bit concerned that something like that is somehow defined as insider trading because it's not your conventional version of insider trading.
	I think there's some legal problems with that kind of prosecution, but it'll be an interesting case to watch because of its application into a new technology, but also the legal expansion of the definition of insider trading.
	To being just if you're on a website now, it can be called insider trading.
	And last but not least, social media case that the U.S. Supreme Court may take up.
	There's several of them they have.
	This is about what happens when a candidate, not a candidate, but an elected official, uses their personal account to block people.
	And in the Trump case, the Second Circuit said it didn't matter that it was his personal account because he used it for official purposes.
	Absolutely.
	But then another court said, no, no, unless it's being funded by the government, unless it's within their authority or actual or apparent authority, agency principles, unless it's being directed by the government, unless it's one of his duties, then the personal account, even if sponsoring official content.
	Even if being done and controlled by a public official, even if discussing public matters is not a public forum unless it's being directed, authorized, or funded by the government.
	So the courts have all split on this.
	The U.S. Supreme Court may take the case that will resolve it all.
	I was looking for a politician in Canada who blocked me from their official account, Robert.
	Other than the fact that it's just cowardice in general.
	The idea of a politician doing it to a citizen who's a real person, it's outrageous, but I don't know how they're going to get around that double standard that they want to create.
	They wanted Trump to not be able to block.
	AOC wants to be able to block.
	So it'll be curious to see how that works.
	Robert?
	Oh, hold on.
	We're about to hit 20,000 in real time.
	Is it going to happen?
	It's going to...
	Oh, hold on.
	We have to wait 30 seconds.
	We are 10 people away from 20,000 right at the end.
	91. Oh, no.
	I jinxed it.
	Damn it.
	All right.
	Well, whatever.
	My neuroses will not get satisfied because we're not going to hit 20,000 for the evening.
	This has been an amazing episode.
	We'll get one last addendum.
	Matt Walsh doesn't need to be a boomer con about anime and comics.
	I don't know what you just said, Robert.
	He suggested that only idiots are morally corrupting for people to be interested in games, for people to be interested in anime, for that video games somehow spread violence.
	It sounded like Tipper Gore in the 1990s, and it's like, as Geeks and Gamers, as Nick Ricada, as The Quartering, all pointed out, this is a very backwards mindset that's not empirically rooted or evidentiary founded, and is the kind of like preachy-style religious conservatism that antagonizes and loses voting groups, doesn't reach out to them.
	It's one of the reasons why Trump does so much better than DeSantis.
	Those younger population, the people that, I mean, like people got on me for being on Friday Night Tights, all hail Friday Night Tights with Geeks and Gamers, Nerd Erotic and Ryan Cannell and others, you know, because he didn't like some of the language, some of the verbiage, some of the cultural references.
	Yeah, Robert, there's a difference between partaking in it versus actually living it or doing it yourself.
	And people should, like people were saying, there were not very many, but people were like angry that I'm having a discussion with someone who's clearly a leftist-ish.
	Maybe a communist, maybe a Marxist teacher teaching kids in Canada.
	If that's the silo you want, then maybe enjoy the silo.
	And it's a reflection of just, there's a cultural gap.
	But it's a group that if people want to have political success, they need to understand and reach out to, not preach to.
	And some of the sort of antiquated notions of your Romney-ite religious conservatives that have...
	Isolated themselves severely.
	It can't be a one-size-fits-all political party for some of them.
	But it was just a little side story that happened this week.
	And Robert, you know, before we go over to locals, the link is there, people.
	I cannot ignore the remaining chats here because someone was trying to ask a question.
	Alex Davyduke says, Robert, last question.
	Do you think by seeking the Dem nomination for President Bobby Kennedy will blow the Democratic Party up as good good?
	Alex Davyduke.
	Oh, I hope you didn't mean to send that twice, but thank you for the support.
	Punk Rock Ford.
	Ironically, I'm sure the Democrat in Arizona will use signature matching against the Katie Hobbs recall petition when it's filed in June or July.
	Oh yeah, we saw what they did in California.
	David Duke, Scott Ritter said Lira was likely dead on the arrest.
	Ritter is not reliable.
	He was just reporting what the other person was reporting, that the American-based journalist, quasi-journalist, whatever they are, said he was.
	And it was a very reasonable inference.
	And quite frankly, his escalation of the issue is probably the reason Ritter wasn't dead.
	People can be critical of different things about Ritter, but...
	That's not good grounds for criticism.
	Please talk to Matthew from the FUDBusters.
	He's a Florida attorney who defended the guy from the auto-key card, the absolute flagrant agreements, and hoops.
	I screen grabbed that.
	Be awake, not woke.
	Man Rumble has some serious issues, but I refuse to use YouTube.
	Anyway, I can talk to them.
	Side point, confirmed in Axios this week that Rumble has made an offer to Tucker Carlson bigger than what he was getting paid at Fox News.
	Shut the front.
	Is it better than what Patrick Bet-David?
	They didn't say whether it was better than Newsmax or better than Patrick Bet-David.
	Patrick Bet-David offered $20 million a year.
	And I think Newsmax may have offered $20 million.
	Paveloski, Chris Paveloski is a smart guy.
	My guess is he offered him something like $25-30 million.
	He probably went above everybody else to try to be the first.
	And Rumble makes a lot more sense than to go to an existing network that has certain limitations.
	A thousand percent.
	It's like things coming together in real time, not at anyone's misfortune.
	It's just that this is like the natural progression of things.
	Entry required.
	Did Assange provide material support to the soldiers or U.S. officials to steal U.S. classified material?
	I don't think so.
	Ryu Kirito.
	How do you separate sedition from rights if it's in the Constitution that we have the right to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical?
	I cannot read that.
	That right is referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
	It's not in the Constitution.
	Mr. Scott Awesome.
	How many of those autonomous zones participants were charged?
	None.
	Pepe Pain.
	Robert, were our founding fathers not seditious?
	Should we make it illegal to overthrow?
	Sounds like giving tyrants more power.
	Washington and the homies would have been stacking by now.
	Triumph 90, whatever that number is.
	They should have gotten rid of the conspiracy laws after the Fort Smith's edition trial.
	David, thanks for covering Bill 11. Trudeau controlling speech intent.
	It's nuts what's going on in Canada.
	It's only getting worse.
	They want to ban Fox News or not allow it to be coupled with the packages that come with television.
	The famous Canadian network went bankrupt this week.
	Canadian founded Vice News.
	So the vice is done, finito.
	Originally by Gavin McInnes, who left many years ago.
	Gavin McInnes invented the word hipster.
	All right, and with that, now we're done, people.
	Go on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let me see if...
	Yes, we're over 1,000 people on Locals.
	So everybody, thank you for being here.
	Robert, do you have any upcoming appearances this week?
	No, I'm going to be traveling a lot this week.
	Okay, well, I'm going to see if...
	On Wednesday, we do have...
	Oh, anyway, I messaged him.
	I need him to confirm first.
	It should be confirmed.
	Dave Smith.
	It's this week.
	So it should be Wednesday.
	Stay tuned.
	All right.
	Now we're ending it on Rumble.
	And we're going to be exclusively on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com I will see you all tomorrow.
	Probably, certainly.
	Now we're going to Locals.
	End of the evening on Rumble.
	Now.
	Yeah, Dave Smith.
	I know he confirmed.
	I just haven't gotten the final confirmation for Wednesday in particular, so I've got to DM him now.
	Okay, have we...
	Did I do it?
	Hold on.
	Are you sure?
	Yes, I'm sure.
	Oh, to the chat.
	Yes, Soros actually already bought a large portion of Vice.

▲