Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 14, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:19

Ep. 160: Twitter and Musk FLIP? Marine CHARGED! Scary Poppins SUES! AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Our country is at its lowest point in living memory.
	We no longer have the country I grew up in.
	They are extremists.
	They don't believe in science, they are often misogyny, often racist.
	Canada has changed dramatically and for the worse.
	Inflation is eating away our standard of living.
	Government and household debt has skyrocketed.
	Our healthcare system is hopelessly broken.
	But even worse than the state of our economy is the state of our culture.
	Putting it on pause for everyone listening on podcast on Viva Barnes Law.
	What is it called?
	Viva Barnes Law for the People.
	We're watching right now Maxime Bernier's by-election run launch video.
	And it's damn good.
	And he's damn right.
	Let's just continue listening to this.
	...state of our culture.
	We are living in a completely different society, one overtaken by evil.
	I'm ready to fight.
	I know that if we do not fight for our values and our culture, we will lose everything.
	That is why I'm proud to announce that I'm putting my name forward in the upcoming by-election to be your representative.
	You, the people of Portage Lisgaard, in the House of Commons because families deserve a strong voice.
	This by-election is about giving a voice to the people of Portage Lisgaard.
	It's about your values and who you want to represent you in Ottawa.
	Send me to Ottawa and I will speak out against the anti-family policies pushed by the Ottawa elite.
	I have a message for those who feel forgotten here in Portage Lisgård.
	And Canada.
	This is having one voice of reason in the House of Commons or in Parliament.
	I don't actually know if it's the House of Commons.
	Having one voice of reason would be a start.
	That's an exaggeration.
	There's a few.
	You will be forgotten no more.
	I will do everything in my power to be your voice in Ottawa.
	Here in Portage Viscard, this is where we hosted the biggest PPC rally in the party's history.
	Was that the one where Maxime got arrested for having an outdoor political rally?
	The same week Justin Trudeau was taking a knee for BLM protests.
	Was it the BLM protests in Ontario?
	Thousands and thousands.
	No, I actually think it was the protest for the incident with the guy that ran over the family with his car.
	Thousands and thousands of people gathering there.
	That's fine.
	Maxine Bernier, it wasn't this because it was a smaller political rally of like a few dozen people arrested off the jail.
	In Plum Cooley, near Winkler, 3,000 patriots came out to support our fight for freedom.
	It was the biggest rally held by any political party during the last election.
	Just outside this writing, he was wrongly arrested two years ago.
	For refusing to comply with immoral, unconstitutional and tyrannical COVID restrictions imposed on us.
	Does anyone watching this disagree with this?
	If there's anybody who watches this and disagrees with this, I would like to know why and I would like to have a public discussion with you.
	I feel a special connection to this writing.
	This is where the renewal of our country will begin.
	We have a special opportunity here.
	The opportunity to jumpstart a much-needed political revolution in this country, to make history by electing the first-ever People's Party MP and adding a badly-needed true conservative voice in the House of Commons.
	And it starts right here in Portage Lisgård.
	We will never compromise on our values.
	We will fight until we win and restore sanity in this country.
	In 2023, a true conservative voice is more necessary than ever.
	This by-election is...
	Oh shit, I think I might now have to say that I'm conservative.
	I'm joking.
	I see Maxime in the backdrop.
	I'm joking.
	The People's Party of Canada, for which I ran, it's beyond conservative.
	It's a constitutional party.
	The start of a major turning point in Canadian politics.
	Let's begin this common-sense, populist, conservative revolution right here today for the people of Portage Discard and for all of Canada.
	Testify, Maxime, from your mouth to God's ears.
	I'm bringing you up.
	Okay, everybody.
	Let me just make sure before I bring Maxime in, are we successfully live on all platforms?
	Rumble?
	Yes, we are.
	Locals?
	Yes, we are.
	High Calling says there's nothing on Rumble.
	It is live on Rumble.
	I can see it right now.
	Let me just actually just press play.
	Yeah, we're good on Rumble.
	All right.
	Everybody.
	Uh-oh.
	Maxime seems to have disappeared.
	In that brief time, I needed to check.
	While Maxime comes back in because I see the avatar, I see two super chats.
	I support Mr. Penny.
	99. Mr. Penny's the Marine who was arrested.
	Second-degree manslaughter.
	Charged.
	We'll talk about that tonight.
	Reason why it's not 100%.
	Why is he in a place that nurtures lack of morals, logic, and law?
	JRC1, thank you very much.
	And there was another super chat.
	Little Rock.
	Little Rock, how you doing?
	Good evening, Viva and Chad.
	I have another infection in my leg and have to go to the surgeon again tomorrow.
	Everyone pray it does not mean another surgery.
	We will pray.
	Everybody who knows Little Rock, I think, if I'm not mistaken, had one leg amputated because of secondary issues.
	So everybody who believes in prayer or the just positive zeitgeist and energy, Little Rock, Godspeed.
	God bless.
	Thank you for that.
	Okay.
	I want to bring Maxime in, but I only see the black...
	Okay, now he's disappeared from the link.
	He'll be back in a second.
	So before he comes back in...
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice.
	No election fortification advice.
	No legal advice.
	Whatsoever, people.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Okay, Max is in there.
	Superchats.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	If you want to support the channel, Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They're taking 0% for the rest of 2023.
	100% goes to the creator, but they typically take 20%.
	Best place to support.
	If you like what I do and you like what Robert Barnes and I do, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Get some merch.
	Viva Frye.
	Maxim!
	Let's do this.
	Uh-oh.
	No, your audio is off.
	I don't think you're...
	Hold on.
	Let me just put you on mute.
	I don't think your mic is plugged in.
	You have to try that again.
	Okay.
	I'm supposed to be good.
	Can you hear me?
	There you go.
	You're supposed to be good.
	Yeah.
	You're good.
	You're good now.
	I can hear you.
	Your audio might be low, but I can bring that up.
	Maxim.
	How are you?
	No speak.
	Jeez, I think I haven't spoken to you since my...
	Hold on.
	I have it in the backdrop.
	Well, we haven't spoken or seen each other since.
	Do you remember these days, Maxim?
	I remember.
	Those were the days when the world was falling apart and we said, oh, it's only going to last a couple of months.
	And lo and behold, we're three years later.
	How are you doing?
	Great, great.
	Thank you, Viva.
	Thank you, David.
	And I remember that I called you and I asked you to be our candidate for the election in 2019.
	And, you know, we were supposed to have a meeting inside, but because of the stay-at-home order and all this COVID nonsense, I remember we had a nice walk in Montreal and we had a good discussion.
	And I'm very pleased that you said yes for...
	Being a candidate for the 2019 election.
	And now, you know, I'm back.
	I'm here in Manitoba right now in Winclair and ready to fight, ready for that by-election.
	And I believe it's a great opportunity for the People's Party.
	As you know, our candidate in this riding at the last election did very well, 22% of the vote.
	And we had all across Canada 5%.
	So that was good for a new political party.
	But yes, I'm here and that will be a very fun election for me, for myself.
	And I believe for the country, it can be the beginning of a common sense revolution.
	Let me ask you this.
	I mean, I guess we'll get into why there's a by-election.
	Why is there a by-election in Portage?
	Yeah, because in Canada right now, there's four by-elections because four members of parliament resign, and so the Trudeau government...
	He has to call this by-election.
	And he did it actually today, David.
	And we have the date of the election.
	It will be June 19. So here in Portage Lisgar, that is south of Winnipeg in Manitoba.
	Another one will be in Winnipeg South in Manitoba.
	Another one in Westmount, David.
	Westmount Montreal, your former riding.
	And another one will be in Oxford in Ontario.
	So four by-elections.
	And at the same date, June 19th, and I decided to run in this by-election.
	But the PPC will have a candidate in every riding, in every by-election.
	What happened to Marc Garneau in Westmount, the one who defeated me with 53% of the vote, which shows that people are really thinking about their vote.
	What happened to him?
	Yeah, he resigned.
	He resigned as a minister a couple of months ago and he resigned as a member of parliament.
	So that's why that writing is empty right now.
	So the by-election will start today also over there.
	Amazing.
	So, and everyone, just, you know, Marc Garneau.
	At one point, I tweeted out that everybody hates Justin Trudeau, even Mark Garneau.
	And then he replied to me, he says, how dare you say that?
	Delete that tweet.
	And I was like, I think you're protesting a little too hard.
	Mark Garneau ultimately resigned after having been shuffled out of a position.
	And then did he ever get offered a diplomatic position in France or something that I suspect he, I guess he didn't want to take?
	Yeah, I think.
	But that's rumors.
	People around Trudeau said that they offered that to him.
	I don't know if it's true or not.
	But actually, he won't be a diplomat for our country.
	He resigned.
	And I believe that he will take some time with his family.
	I tell you, I never had anything against Marc Garneau.
	I'm told he's a good person.
	We know people who know him.
	Maybe resigning is the only dignified thing that he's done as a liberal.
	Who knows?
	And by the way, just so anybody doesn't have any wild dreams, Westbound, NDG, it's going to go liberal again, 50-plus percent, because Winston, my dog, could run in Westbound.
	And unless there was a picture, he'd win.
	And even if there was a picture of him on the ballot, he might still win.
	Mark, what explains the 22% support for the PPC candidate in Portage?
	I believe that, you know, first I must say in a portage list guard, we have a very strong organization and we had a very strong organization at the last general election in 2021.
	We had a very good candidate, Solomon.
	He did very well, a young candidate.
	And also I came here at the last election to help him.
	Actually, I had the biggest rally during the last election.
	We had 3,000 people.
	And don't forget.
	David, it was during COVID-19.
	And as you know, the PPC was and is still here, is the last and the only national political party that was against these draconian measures and for freedom of choice, freedom of speech.
	And that election went very well.
	So that being said...
	I believe that here also in this riding, it's a rural riding, a little bit like my older, former riding in Bowes, southern of Winnipeg.
	So as you know, common sense and with rural riding, it's going together.
	So that's why I believe we had 22%, but this time we will do better.
	And I'm very pleased.
	We had a great meeting with our organization on the ground yesterday.
	They're ready.
	And I'll be here all the time to fight and have fun and meeting people and speaking about our great policies.
	Let me ask you this.
	So you're running in Portage, and I'm only calling it Portage just for simplicity.
	If you win, you're going to move out there.
	That's the question, I guess.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Like I told them, I said, you know, the first time I jumped into politics in 2006, before that, I was working in the financial sector in Montreal.
	I was a VP for a bank and different financial institutions for 19 years.
	And I decided to run for a conservative at that time in 2006.
	But I was living in Montreal.
	I did run in Bose, that is about 3 hours and 30 minutes by cars south of Montreal, southeast of Montreal.
	And I said to people in Bose at that time, if I win, I will be part of your life.
	I will stay here.
	And that's what I did.
	And now I'm saying the same thing to our people here in Portage, Lisgar, that, you know, when I will win, I will be with you.
	And let's start that new relationship.
	Let me ask you this.
	You got arrested.
	What was the outcome with the arrest for your wildly reckless mass spreader of an outdoor political rally in Manitoba?
	Did they drop the charges or is that still pending?
	Yes, actually.
	That's a very good question because I will be this Tuesday in the court for that.
	Yes, I was arrested, handcuffed, arrested, put in jail for a non-crime after a little political gathering in a park.
	Actually, it's just near Portage, near this writing.
	And we did a big rally.
	And we had a big rally the day after my arrest, but they didn't want me to do that rally.
	So they put me in jail for 12 hours.
	And the hearing of that case will be this Tuesday in Winnipeg.
	You know, I'm bringing up unbelievable.
	I don't know if this is in response to this.
	I think it is.
	It is.
	You have the child pornography dude out in...
	I think it's Nova Scotia, have the charges dropped because they couldn't get his criminal accusation through the system fast enough, and it's a violation of a constitutional rule of a quick and speedy trial.
	You, meanwhile, Maxime, you were arrested.
	It's going on two years, if it's not two years already?
	That was June, in June 2021, if I remember the date, around June 11, 2021.
	So, yeah, a long time ago.
	Two flipping years.
	The process is the punishment, and you still haven't gotten your day in court, but they don't drop the charges against bullshit protest charges.
	They drop them against the minor stuff, the CP.
	Okay, good.
	So we'll follow up on that and see what happens on Tuesday.
	Politically speaking, Maxime, I mean, look, I'll ask you the black-pilled question.
	Could you have imagined that two years ago that it would be this bad today?
	I mean, we thought it was bad two years ago.
	Is it worse?
	And could you have imagined this?
	Oh, no, my God.
	You know, now what is happening, as you know, in Canada, we have a censorship now.
	The Trudeau government passed a bill, the Bill C-11, and that will allow the CRTC, the government agency, to be able to censor, you know, YouTubers.
	And I'm against that bill, but...
	You know, we never know what will happen.
	And now, you know, Trudeau had a convention, I believe, two weekends ago.
	And one of the political ideas in his program is, you know, if there's another pandemic, Trudeau and the Liberals' partisan were saying that we, the country, must do the same thing that they did at the last pandemic, lockdown, stay-at-home orders.
	Vaccine passport.
	So I don't know if it will come back, but people remember and I believe that people in this writing will remember that I was the only one that was fighting for freedom and the only one who wanted to unite everybody under the freedom umbrella.
	So that may be part of our campaign.
	I believe that people are still remembering that.
	And here there's a lot of small businesses.
	That paid the price because they were not able to be open, as you know.
	For those who I think everybody knows, the Liberals on their website, and I covered it last week, still had the same vaccine passport requirements for federal workers, plane travel, train travel, and it was an updated website.
	So it's not like it was a mistake, unless it was a mistake, but they haven't specified yet.
	Maxine, what do you make of what's going on with the Conservative Party now?
	I mean, there's a few voices there that are more reliable, and I think actually only maybe one, Leslie Lewis.
	What's your take on Pierre Poilievre and whether or not he's just an Aaron O'Toole 2.0?
	Well, you know, Pierre Poliev was a real conservative during his leadership contest.
	And, you know, he knew that to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, you must actually speak like a conservative.
	And that's why he was elected with a huge majority.
	But that being said, now his goal is to be in power.
	And to have more seats.
	So to have more seats, it will have to please the big GTA in Toronto and also in Vancouver.
	So people living in big cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, there's a lot of seats over there.
	As you may know, David, there's more seats around Toronto than in all Alberta.
	And in these big cities, people are more leftists and socialists.
	So Poliev is going slowly to the left.
	And that's why, you know, he's not speaking about the challenge, the big challenge that we have here in Canada about mass immigration.
	Poliev and Trudeau share the same point of view about that.
	Therefore, mass immigration in 2025 will have half a million people that will come here.
	And it's a lot with a country.
	We are only 38 million people.
	That is mass immigration.
	And if you look at the data, Canada received two times more immigrants per capita than any other Western countries.
	So we receive more immigrants than the US or any other country per capita.
	Two times.
	So two times.
	So we must stop that.
	And we are the only national political body that is speaking for sustainable immigration.
	I can go on with climate change.
	Polyev and Trudeau have the same position on that.
	Polyev will impose regulations.
	That will be a cost for businesses.
	They will transfer that cost to consumers.
	We, as you know, will withdraw from the Paris Accord.
	So no any regulation or no tax on climate change.
	We won't do anything for climate change.
	I can go on with the gender ideology.
	Polyev is not speaking about that.
	He voted for the Bill C4 in Parliament.
	That's the bill that you must know that you cannot, if you're a parent, you cannot speak to your child if you have a young boy or a young girl and she's or he is not.
	Comfortable in his or her body, you cannot have a discussion or you cannot go and see a doctor to just to try to explain that nobody can be born in a wrong body, but your kids can...
	Be with some doctors or some school teachers.
	They can promote the transition.
	And as you know, there's no such thing as transitioning.
	You know, a girl won't be a boy and a boy won't be a girl.
	But all the conservatives, including Poliev, voted for that bill.
	You know, the trans ideology is toxic for our society.
	And we must stop that.
	And we will.
	So on a lot of important issues, Polyev and Trudeau are the same.
	And people here in this writing, they have an opportunity to send a strong message to the Conservatives because the Conservatives are taking for granted their support.
	And I hope they will.
	And so we'll have a discussion about all these issues during this campaign.
	I'll just say also add detail.
	When Canada says...
	We're seeing a growth like we've never seen.
	Immigration is at an all-time high.
	The immigration policies, as far as I think I understand it, right now are intended to counter the actual reality, which is emigration out of Canada is at the highest it's been in a quarter century.
	At least it was last year.
	Maybe the stats have changed.
	What way to falsify that number?
	Let in new immigrants and say the population is growing and we're not actually losing.
	Bill C-4, for those of you who don't know, bans conversion therapy.
	But it only bans it one direction.
	You can't convert a kid by telling them you're not a girl if you're a boy and you'll grow out of it.
	That's actually criminalized now.
	Psychiatrists, psychologists can't properly treat their patients.
	Bill C-11 is the Online Streaming Act.
	You got Bill C-18, which is the Disinformation Misinformation Act.
	Maxime, what do people have to do?
	To get you elected in Portage.
	But first, if the...
	Believe in real conservative principles and they're ready for a huge revolution, a common sense revolution.
	First of all, people in this riding must go out and vote because, as you know, by election, the participation rate is very low usually.
	So we want our people to go out and to vote.
	And, you know, the only argument and the lame argument that the conservatives have at every election is don't vote for the PPC because you will split the vote and you will elect Trudeau.
	So there's no such thing as splitting the vote in a by-election because the Trudeau government will be there after the election.
	We are not voting for a new government.
	We are voting for a strong voice in your riding that will represent you in Ottawa.
	And so that's why I believe that we will be able to have a lot of support.
	And I'm asking people living all across the country, if they want to help, they can go on our website, peoplespartyofcandidacy.
	They can donate for my campaign here in this riding.
	They can also be a volunteer if they want to help us and do phone calls because we'll have a lot of volunteers in the writing that will call the voters to be sure that they are supporting our ideas.
	They know what we want to do.
	So they can help.
	They can go on our website and they're going to see.
	They can be a volunteer for the campaign.
	So that's a great challenge because I can tell you, people here in this riding, I did start my campaign yesterday, Saturday, and I had a couple of events with people across the country, across the riding, sorry, mostly in Winclair, and we had a good discussion.
	And they understand that, you know, This time, it's time to vote for their values.
	If they want a new vision for this country, they must vote for what they believe in and not against something.
	And I believe that they will do that during that campaign.
	Well, this is it, Max.
	Everyone, snip and clip.
	At the very least, that last part.
	Share it, tweet it, hashtag vote for Max, hashtag elect Max.
	Maxim?
	We will keep in touch.
	You'll let us know what happens.
	Where can people find you?
	Are you taking donations?
	What can they do to help?
	Yeah, you can go to the website, People's Party of Canada CA, click on donation, click on being a volunteer.
	And if you live in this writing, read our platform and be informed.
	I'll be here.
	I'll be across the writing from now until the end of that by-election.
	I'm very happy.
	It's going well and we have an opportunity to bring a new common sense voice in Ottawa.
	And I believe that people in this writing will be able to make history.
	Because don't forget, David, like the Reform Party of Canada, Western Populist Party, they started that party in 1987 with Preston Manning.
	And we share the same vision.
	We have almost the same platform.
	We, the PPC, the platform that we have, it's almost the same.
	And the one that the Reform Party of Canada had at that time.
	But they had their first Reform Party candidate elected in a by-election also in 1989.
	And after that, the next election, they were able to have 51 Reform MPs elected.
	So that's an opportunity in that by-election to send me to Ottawa and start that common sense revolution in our country.
	Amazing.
	Maxim, Godspeed, sir.
	God bless.
	Make it happen.
	And if we can do anything, we will make it happen.
	So share the word, spread the word.
	Maxim, we'll keep in touch.
	You'll let us know what happens.
	Absolutely, David.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a nice evening.
	Thank you.
	Have a good one.
	All right, people.
	Barnes is here.
	Everyone, stop panicking.
	Barnes is here.
	I've been looking at him.
	I was going to bring him in.
	But if there's going to be a clip to snip and clip and share of Maxim and me talking, you know, Barnes might not want to be part of...
	That goes right.
	But it would also be weird.
	Like, you know, this is Maxime running for the by-election.
	We need that clip where he explains, you're not splitting your vote anymore for anyone who ever bought into that argument in the first place.
	Make it happen, Portage.
	Make it happen.
	Now, before I bring Barnes in, because I...
	Robert, you ready?
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, did you become like 10 years younger?
	No, he's got a haircut.
	You look like a baby, Barnes.
	Okay, you're looking good.
	Now, I think we're just going to go straight to Rumble, but before we do that...
	Oh, shoot.
	I'll have to click and make sure that everybody knows this was a...
	I did put on the sponsored thing.
	Hold on one second.
	Did I?
	Did I put it on that this contains a paid promotion?
	I did.
	Oh, thank goodness.
	I would have felt very bad, like I would have been deceiving people.
	This is a sponsored video, people.
	Field of Greens.
	Something that I use?
	You all know the shtick that you're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day, and most people don't.
	I went to a baseball game today.
	You know what I didn't see?
	Raw fruits and vegetables.
	That's actually not true.
	There was a taco place that had actual raw fruits and vegetables.
	Everything else, brown.
	Fried.
	Nothing wrong with that.
	You're supposed to have fruits and vegetables every day.
	Most people don't.
	Field of greens.
	Desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	It's a food.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's not an extract.
	Every spoonful.
	USDA Organic Approved has one serving of supersonic, pure organic fruits and vegetables.
	It's a good healthy habit to get into.
	It can replace a bad Red Bull in the afternoon.
	It tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water because it's nutrient-filled wonder juice.
	So thank them and use them.
	They're good.
	I use them.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	If you go to the website, promo code VIVA, I hope it's 15%.
	You get 15% off your order.
	So fieldofgreens.com.
	Get in healthy habits.
	Eat your fruits and vegetables, but when you can't, this is a good supplement, a supplemental food.
	It's a food, not a supplement.
	And when you can, even though this is a good habit, it's almost even better than a Starbucks coffee.
	Cheaper, healthier, and you don't have to go, you know, ask for a tall venti fufu with whatever the hell the stuff is there.
	Robert, sir, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	So may I ask where you are?
	Nashville.
	All right.
	May I ask why you are in Nashville?
	Nephew graduating from high school.
	Okay.
	See, I'm nervous, people.
	I didn't know this, and I, like, ask him.
	He's like, well, I've been arrested, David, and I've been trying to keep it quiet.
	All right.
	We're going to go over to Rumble right away because we're 30 minutes in.
	Maxine Bernier.
	Guys, snip, clip, share away, spread the word.
	Hashtag vote for Max.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu just for everybody who knows to follow us over to Rumble?
	Well, Twitter's got a new CEO.
	Is she a woke disaster or is that an exaggerated response or premature reaction?
	Charges in the subway case, like you predicted, sadly.
	Federal gun law invalidated and some other issues involving gun issues.
	The Trump trial in New York reached a verdict on the civil side.
	The scary poppins.
	Suze Fox.
	The Supreme Court had a big Commerce Clause case.
	What came down from that very split decision?
	Georgia election lawsuit from 2020 has been reinstated.
	Carrie Lake had a hearing and may have a trial this week on the signature verification question Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, currently calendared if the court allows it to proceed.
	A big injunction in the immigration case concerning the elapsing of Title 42 and the new parole policies of the Biden administration.
	Fire teachers win a big vaccine mandate lawsuit.
	The debt ceiling.
	Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional, as some have suggested?
	Can Biden unilaterally just start issuing new debt regardless of the debt ceiling under the 14th Amendment?
	In Pakistan.
	Imran Khan arrested and then massive protest and then released by the Pakistani Supreme Court as the regime change effort continues there.
	A few bonus cases.
	Florida hate speech law.
	Is it unconstitutional?
	Gamers versus Microsoft.
	And a couple of big criminal cases that came out of the U.S. Supreme Court this past just recently, including two New York cases that we discussed previously concerning federal fraud.
	And a foreign indictment case concerning when you can indict the bank of a foreign government.
	And so those are just a few quick bonus cases that we have.
	But yeah, about 15, 12 top topics, 15 on the menu.
	Two most popular, Twitter CEO and the Carrie Lake case.
	Oh, yeah.
	Twitter CEO will be first, and then the Carrie Lake case will be middle of the agenda.
	So you got to hang around to get that update.
	And everybody, happy Mother's Day.
	I'm in a bit of trouble because I did call my mother.
	Yeah, happy Mother's Day.
	Yeah, happy Mother's Day.
	You're like, yeah, I'm going to go to a baseball game, hang out with Robert.
	I'll see you later, honey.
	Is today something supposed to be significant?
	What are you talking about?
	Marion came to the game, but the other thing is she came to the game and then I ended up leaving her with Grobert because my kid...
	Wow, that's your idea of a gift?
	Get stuck with Grobert at a baseball game?
	No, what ended up happening is it turns out my kid's a little bit like me and doesn't have an attention span for baseball.
	And he's like, I want to go get a ball.
	So we ended up trying to find the best place to get foul balls.
	Didn't get one, so we had to buy a ball.
	But happy Mother's Day, people.
	Not that my mother counts the kids, but I was...
	Told I was the last kid to have called her today to wish her a happy Mother's Day.
	All right, people, you got the link to Rumble.
	Get on over there.
	There's 1,529...
	What did I just do?
	Am I frozen?
	Robert, do you hear me?
	I hear you, yeah.
	Okay, good.
	Sorry, my face froze.
	1,545 people on YouTube.
	Make your way over to Rumble because we're ending it.
	Right now.
	The entire stream will be up on YouTube tomorrow, but you're going to lose the live.
	So that's the privileges of going exclusive to Rumble and following us at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Okay.
	We're on it.
	We're on Rumble exclusively.
	Robert, I'm going to start with a video.
	I put some stuff on the back burner just so we can see who the new...
	This one's good, I think.
	This one's good.
	Who the new sheriff is in town?
	Yep.
	Accelerate.
	Right?
	To accelerate what we were doing already, but realizing that it wasn't enough.
	So what immediately started happening was that under the leadership of Brian Roberts and Jeff Schell, Comcast set up a fund to the value of $100 million to fight social justice and equality.
	And obviously supporting many, many important groups.
	But it really made a very public statement that we're going to put our money where our mouth is.
	We're not going anywhere.
	And it inspired action across every corner of our company.
	Okay, I think we can stop it there, Robert.
	So this has caused quite a stir.
	Elon Musk.
	You know, he's never been, this is no throwing shade at Elon Musk, we're just stating facts, is that he's pro-free speech, but has never been anything close to an absolutist or even consistent.
	And I say that with respect, you know, banning Kanye West or blocking, kicking Kanye off Twitter when it's not clear what rules he broke to justify that.
	Not bringing back Alex Jones when his justification for not bringing back Alex Jones made no sense because Jones wasn't even kicked off for anything related to statements about Sandy Hook.
	He's gotten into a bit of trouble now with some censoring up in Turkey.
	And this came the day or two after appointing as CEO Linda Yaccarino, who is, we've discussed this, she's not just on a landing page on the WEF, she's actively involved with.
	policy ideologically with the WEF.
	He's appointed her as CEO.
	The week after Tucker Carlson comes on and says, you know, Twitter is the last place for free speech on the internet, which it isn't because there's rum.
	She's actively involved in WEF.
	But good decision or bad decision, leave that aside, it's a slap in the face of the people who have been supporting Elon Musk.
	Why not bring on Klaus Schwab himself?
	So a lot of people are waiting to hear your insights into this.
	I know mine are superficial, not reflexive, but I don't have the depth that I know that you're going to bring to this.
	What is your take on this decision?
	Is it bad?
	Is it a slap in the face?
	Is there good to be had from it?
	Or is there a hush-hush coming on this?
	I see it as three different possibilities.
	So one possibility is what people have identified with concerns with their resume, which, you know, the conservative treehouse, The Last Refuge, did a long resume look at various public statements.
	And that primarily includes her long career in the media, including at NBC Entertainment, the Advertising Council, big corporation advertising group, and the World Economic Forum.
	As you mentioned.
	And in that capacity has made a lot of, I mean, supported the, was, well, whether she supported herself or whether she was tasked with it, was very public in support of the vaccine effort by the Advertiser Council, which is heavily backed by big pharmaceutical industries and things of that nature.
	So, the first possibility is that Elon Musk has decided he doesn't want to stick with the free speech mantra that it's going to be too pricey.
	He's going to go the advertising route.
	He's going to return to the censorship route to monetize Twitter and back out of the free speech commitments he made when he first took over because maybe it's just too expensive.
	Second possibility is that she's weaseled her way in by misleading Elon about her intentions and some sort of deep state or world economic forum or other plant to derail the efforts of Twitter to open up its space to maintain a freer space than was the case before, if not a fully free space.
	The third possibility...
	Is that she is a closet conservative of some sort.
	That she's a closet free speech supporter.
	The reason to believe there is evidence for the third, which is what's extraordinary to me is when people do likes on Twitter.
	They tend to forget because they tend to go to their own profile news feed.
	They tend to think that the only thing anybody externally sees...
	Is there retweets in their own tweets or their quote tweets?
	When, in fact, you can go to their Twitter feed and look up anything they've liked on Twitter, unless it's a private Twitter page.
	I did this, you know, not too recently, but the issue came up recently in the case where I represent a gentleman who, U.S. Bank, I'm alleging conspired to use woke policies to basically Bankrupt him out of a particular business and cause him direct economic harm for politically motivated purposes.
	One of the main co-conspirator complicit parties, in my view, was a general counsel, the lawyer for the Community Development Corporation, a division of, a branch of, the U.S. Bank that ran its own show out of St. Louis.
	U.S. Bank is domiciled primarily in Minneapolis.
	And one of the ways we substantiated our grounds to depose her to the federal court was documenting all the likes she had on Twitter, which was an extraordinary, long litany of woke, crazy nonsense, in my view, and some very embarrassing public statements she was affiliated with.
	The net effect of it was the federal court allowed us to go forward to prove our conspiracy prima facie tort claims, it's a unique tort in Missouri, and to depose her.
	And guess what else happened?
	For U.S. Bank fired her when all that information was detailed just this couple of weeks ago.
	And so I went right away.
	I was like, okay, you know, is Musk really going to betray all his promises overnight?
	Is she really a plant that's going to blow up her own future career by sabotaging somebody else such that she's unemployable by future corporations?
	That didn't seem like the necessary response, even though it was the overwhelming public reaction to her, the announcement of her employment.
	And so I went to her Twitter like feeds, which I found very useful in a range of these sort of corporate personality profiles.
	And I'll just say her Twitter like feed does not read like someone who's woke at all.
	She appears to be a religious conservative.
	She's constantly quoting Kathy Griffin's various, Kathy Lee's various Not the crazy comedian, Kathy, but the other one, quoting all of her Bible verses.
	She quotes Bible verses all the time.
	She's liking Bible verse quotes.
	She's liking Jack Posobiec quotes.
	She's liking anti-ESG quotes.
	She's liking a whole bunch of Elon Musk quotes.
	She's saying, you know, make Orwell Orwellian again.
	And this goes back years, not just after Musk buys Twitter.
	It's clear that she was proactively kind of...
	Aggressively pushing herself towards Musk.
	And then the question becomes why, right?
	If she's just a run-of-the-mill conventional wokester, why does she want to work for Elon Musk?
	If she's a wokester, why does her Twitter likes don't really confirm or conform to any of that?
	If she's a wokester, why is she quoting religious verses all the time, Bible verses all the time?
	So the alternative is she's simply ambitious.
	She's an ambitious person who wanted to achieve success in the corporate media landscape.
	And the best way to do that over the last 10 years was to go along with the woke agenda publicly.
	And even if it's not something they privately share.
	I've got friends of mine that are agents in Hollywood that their clients and their employers would be shocked to know their politics.
	That they think they're just everyday wokester lefties flying the rainbow flag at home.
	And they're quite the opposite of that.
	Same in a lot of high-end corporations.
	Same in a lot of big law firms.
	I have friends that work at the White House.
	All these people, by the way, are members of our board.
	But you wouldn't know from their public resume or public statements any of this.
	You would assume they're, in fact, wokester-style...
	Politically inclined individuals.
	And so the third possibility is that she's a closet conservative who saw in Musk an opportunity to maintain her ambition but escape the wokester prisons of modern corporate media, modern entertainment industry media, and that she's not a true believer in the World Economic Forum but used it to advance her own political ambitions.
	Now, Musk himself has said that her role is going to be focused on getting advertisers and the rest, not on structuring the content rules of Twitter.
	So there's, you know, now there's really kind of even a fourth possibility that she's just brought in for a limited role that has nothing to do with governing the guidelines of Twitter.
	The concerns are that Musk has previously made statements and reaffirmed these statements that he wants to make it into something that's like the Chinese social media app that integrates a PayPal function with a YouTube function, with a search function, with a social media function.
	And the best way to do that is to target certain audiences over time that would involve more censorship than is currently done.
	I don't think she's kind of a plant because if you go into a company and then sabotage that company, no corporation will ever trust you again.
	I get something to pay her off on the backside, but Musk will fire her before that happens.
	And so I don't see that as a likely.
	I see that as a 10% chance.
	I say it's split between Musk wants to turn it into a more conventional corporate structure and she's a closet conservative.
	What I can tell you is I've never known any wokester.
	Who spends every other week liking Bible verses.
	That's very unusual.
	Part of that, you know, I can go back to the, you know, hello children, how do you do?
	Hello kids, fellow kids, how do you do with Steve Buscemi meme?
	Like, you know, trying to, I don't know.
	Or, you know, the liking could be bookmarking and not an actual act of affirmation or support.
	Remember, do remember Elon Musk was on the BBC.
	Talking about how the company is now worth $20 billion less than it was when he got it.
	And that could explain the bringing her on for marketing purposes.
	As far as the closet conservative goes, I'll bank that as much...
	I'll make one addendum.
	She served on Trump's committee on fitness and whatnot.
	So she was known in Trump circles since 2017 as a Trump supporter.
	Maybe I thank you for shutting my big mouth before I opened it.
	But no, I'll say in terms of that, some people will accuse her then.
	I can see that.
	She was trying to infiltrate the WEF, not as a source of...
	You know, just doing what you do to advance your corporate roster.
	You know, if those opportunities are afforded, you jump at it.
	That's just...
	I mean, it may...
	To people that are out there that are in that sector, they know exactly what I'm talking about.
	The number of closet conservatives in positions of power would shock people.
	I know it because I helped a lot of them navigate the vaccine mandate territory because they knew their opposition to the vaccine would out them within their industry.
	And so we went to great lengths for as many as we could to avoid them being outed.
	Some smartly shifted to an employer that didn't require that so they could avoid public outing.
	But if you want to advance, I mean, it shows how disturbed woke socialism is.
	Let's say it turns out she is a closet conservative.
	How bad is it in the corporate environment that someone like her had to completely disguise her politics and go along with a woke agenda that was directly contrary to her personal belief structure?
	Otherwise, she had to sacrifice ambition and employment for it.
	But that's a sad reality.
	So I rate it as even money.
	Just because I know people in the Trump world.
	She took a Trump appointment in 2017.
	And to a committee that didn't have real power.
	It was a committee that just said, look at me.
	I'm a Trump supporter.
	It was on fitness.
	Almost everybody at the time in the corporate sector was turning down anything like that, even if they were pro-Trump, because they didn't want to be outed as it.
	Some people are rightly pointing out that Trump did make a lot of bad picks in terms of people he chose to surround himself with in terms of loyalty.
	He didn't have no power.
	This was solely to be symbolically significant.
	This was just about improving fitness in America.
	What was the other point I was just going to make?
	I guess in fairness, there's always the option that Elon has.
	I can dismiss the CEO as quickly as I did Parag.
	In multiple other contexts.
	That's why I say...
	Odds are she has told him that she is in support of his free speech agenda.
	As you pointed out, it's a relative agenda.
	As we saw this past weekend with him censoring tweets related to the Turkish election in the middle of the Turkish election, where it looks like, by the way, Erdogan's going to have another miracle comeback because it looked like he was DOA a week ago.
	I mean, literally, in some cases, because he was physically, medically disappeared from public view for a while.
	But, you know, and he made clear, look, I'll be transparent when I censor, but I'm going to tell you that there's going to be times when I censor.
	He said, I mean, to his credit, he at least has been transparent about it.
	He said, he responded to you about Alex Jones and said, no, I can let him back in because I have personal dislike of him over Sandy Hook, even though it has nothing to do with why he was censored.
	And so he's made clear.
	Now, I personally, I...
	I responded to him.
	You know, I think there's a fair debate to be had between the Rumble position versus the Twitter position.
	The Rumble position was, if you're going to say we have to censor or we have to leave your market, because Musk's defense was, I don't want to leave the Turkish market, so we'll agree to censor to keep access.
	Paveloski's position with Rumble was, no, we will not allow you to censor us as a condition of access to your market, and so they left France entirely.
	And so the question is, whose position is the more practical one?
	Is it better to have some speech available in that community?
	Or is it better to never accept censorship and have a consistent branding ID that you don't accept censorship no matter what as a condition of access?
	So I think we'll...
	I personally side with Rumble's position.
	I think Musk should address that discussion.
	I think the new CEO, I guess, is going to do a Twitter Spaces presentation.
	She should address that because there's a lot of questions about, you know, I mean, she pushed aggressively a lot of misinformation.
	I get it was her job on behalf of the Advertisers Council, but it was still misinformation about the vaccine that led to a lot of harm.
	What's the risk that she pushes misinformation and tries to suppress dissident information in her new role?
	If she's a closet conservative, now's the time to tell the world.
	Otherwise, Musk endangered his brand and confidence in Twitter with this move.
	I'll be the cynic here.
	Putting it together with his recent interview with the BBC, talking about how they lost a lot of revenue.
	It's worth $20 billion less than it was when he bought it.
	The stresses that go along with it.
	I see this as sort of a way of Elon thinking he's making himself bulletproof, saying, like, I'm not an extreme MAGA Republican.
	Someone called him the most, like, one of the most concerned Republican people on Earth.
	This is his, what I think he thinks is the protection.
	I'm not racist.
	I have plenty, or I'm not an anti-Semitic.
	I've got plenty of Jewish friends.
	I'm not a MAGA Republican.
	I hired Linda Yaccarino as the CEO, and she's on the WES, so try it.
	I think he thinks it's an insurance for that, in that respect.
	I think he thinks it's going to be good for advertising.
	And I think even if it is a question of closet conservative, which I don't think it is because I don't think he can go to the WEF and say the things she said.
	And even if she did and she is a closet conservative, well, it just shows how easily she would say things she doesn't believe in in furtherance of a career, which is not a good attribute to have.
	I think this comes off as an absolute slap in the face of the people who are supporting Elon the most to bring someone on from the WEF who has active affiliation.
	It might be necessary to preserve Twitter, but I think it's bad.
	And we'll see how it turns out.
	But I've now thought about it for the better part of the weekend.
	I think it's bad.
	I don't see as more likely than not the good explanations.
	I see it as maybe, you know, he's trying to make himself bulletproof.
	To the left, which you can never do, and in so doing, he's actually slapping in the face the people who supported him, which are not necessarily right-wing people, people who just don't want to have subversive, indirect, unelected governments from the WEF.
	And by the way, on the turkey thing, Robert, let me bring this up, because I brought up Pavlovsky's tweet from way back in the day.
	This is from a year ago, November 2022.
	Block Russian news sources like Elon Musk.
	I won't move our goalposts.
	Well, I guess this isn't true anymore.
	I won't move our goalposts for any foreign government.
	Rubble will turn off France entirely.
	France isn't material to us, although people in France can't get us there.
	Or, you know, rumble.
	And we will challenge the legality of this demand.
	Now, a lot of people were saying, well, you know, it's the law.
	But, Robert, do you know or maybe you do know?
	My understanding is it wasn't even the law.
	This was just a polite request from the government.
	It's not that there was legislation that justified the request of Elon to throttle certain tweets.
	It was just sort of a heavy-handed recommendation request from the government.
	Do you know more than that than I do?
	No, that's my understanding as well.
	My bet would be that no speech-oriented policy changes on Twitter within the next six months.
	What his motive is and anything else we'll know more long term.
	But that I think is true.
	Whether or not long term he plans on sacrificing speech for advertising dollars, we'll find out down the road.
	So the, I mean, you know, Musk is a billionaire, can do what he wants.
	I think he's invested a lot of personal credibility in maintaining the freer speech on Twitter.
	I don't think he'll deviate from that, at least in the short term.
	But he's not as committed to it as Rumble remains.
	And so that's where, in truth, Rumble remains.
	Now, people had explained that maybe the reason Tucker's talking about going on Twitter is that Twitter's not in his non-compete, whereas Rumble may be.
	So that may be why he isn't going to Rumble or Valuetainment or One American News Network or Newsmax is that they're considered competitors, but that social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook are not.
	And so, you know, in that context, that may be why Tucker's doing what he's doing.
	But if Musk wants to draw that kind of attention in, and that kind of use in of Twitter, I still think he has to follow something closer to the Rumble brand of freer speech than the Advertising Council brand of being advertiser-friendly.
	But we'll find out.
	I mean, he definitely hired someone whose reputation, whose background is being advertiser-friendly.
	The question is how significant...
	I would say that if she's not a closet conservative, it's a very unusual job to take because she's put in a very difficult position, either which way she goes.
	So that's where I lean, slightly, but I lean that she's actually a closet conservative who won't meaningfully restrict free speech unless it becomes economically necessary at Twitter.
	I think if she goes in and screws things up at Twitter and ruins Musk's reputation...
	She'll get fired.
	Good for her.
	I think the WEF would be very happy that she came in and, without even having to work, destroyed the credibility of Musk and Twitter.
	There was something I was just about to say.
	Oh, I was going to say about Tucker Carlson announcing that he's going to Twitter.
	Whether or not...
	He's doing it and not being remunerated, thus not violating any remuneration aspect of a non-compete, whether or not Twitter was not on the non-compete.
	I was disappointed when he said, I'm going to the last place on the internet that respects free speech, and the next word out of his mouth was not rumble.
	I was a little disappointed.
	Maybe it was just an oversight.
	Maybe he's trying to kiss up to Twitter and whatever.
	I don't know.
	But the week has been interesting in its developments.
	Robert, before they get out of hand on Rumble, let's just get through some of these Rumble rants real quick, like.
	Attorney, crime attorney, good evening, Viva and Chad.
	I have another infection in my leg and have to go surgeon again tomorrow.
	Everyone pray it does not mean another surgery.
	Thank you, attorney.
	That was the same.
	That was Little Rock from YouTube.
	No money music.
	January 6th was a fabrication, as are the pandemic and the Ukraine war.
	They're certainly playing by the same strategic...
	Mind Control Playbook.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	No Viva, you thought it only lasts a couple of months.
	I suspect that's lockdowns and the madness in Canada.
	Fraser McBurney.
	I had my charges dropped.
	Here is a link.
	Cut and paste that.
	I'm wondering if Fraser McBurney is the person we met.
	I'm going to check that in a second.
	Real Tad Dad.
	Alberta Reform Party would support Bernie if he agreed to pick 50 ridings where a split would not elect liberals.
	Get some seats.
	Fleet Lord Avatar.
	E-Trump mug.
	Viva, you going to let people make custom emoji for your channel?
	Why not?
	And Fraser McBernie.
	Barnes, why don't you light up the stogie?
	I'm smoking Mondura Torpedo.
	60 ring gauge.
	Great smoking.
	One just came in.
	JCTRB12355.
	That might have been a typo.
	Should have said four or five.
	Great show.
	Okay, Robert.
	Let me go to...
	The subway guy.
	Oh, the subway guy.
	So he's been charged.
	Second degree manslaughter.
	And look, I'll steel man this, okay?
	It's not first degree murder, so they didn't go wild.
	Second degree manslaughter is an act that leads to a person's death, which on its face we have here.
	He did something.
	The person died.
	I still don't understand how the coroner determined it was homicide from neck compression before they did any toxicology.
	I don't know how you come up with a coroner's report in 24 hours when you wait months in every other case for toxicology, but maybe that's on the back burner.
	They caved, or they followed justice, depending on who you asked.
	Second-degree manslaughter.
	You want to flesh out the difference between second-degree, first-degree manslaughter, and what do you think?
	Is this justice, or is this mob justice?
	Yeah, I mean, it's Alvin Bragg.
	And I think Alvin Bragg continues to prove he's no Robert Morgenthau.
	And one of the last great respected state prosecutorial offices in America just is no longer.
	It's now just as political as everybody else.
	It was always political, but not in a half-assed manner that Bragg clearly is.
	And so his indictment of the Marine, who had an impeccable record, the facts that came out in the last week further substantiated the...
	Point of view we put forward from the get-go, which was that an honest prosecutor would not indict, an apolitical prosecutor would not indict.
	They did only prosecute him, not the other people that participated in the act.
	That appears to be purely political because the other people involved are Black and Hispanic.
	And they decided to play the racial game and even made statements that reaffirmed that, that if the races were reversed, they wouldn't even bring the prosecution.
	Which raises its own selective prosecution issues.
	It appears that because he's white and because the victim is black is why he's being prosecuted.
	End of story.
	That's a violation of the 14th Amendment and the First Amendment through the 14th Amendment for selective prosecution deprivation of equal protection laws.
	The facts that came out is that, like we suggested, was likely the case.
	This individual did more than get on the train and say he was hungry and didn't care what happened to him.
	Before that, he was threatening everybody on the train, including threatening them with physical violence.
	That was confirmed by multiple witnesses leading up to the incident.
	So this wasn't a case of a guy panicking in the case of Daniel Perry.
	It was a case of him responding to this individual, making direct and deliberate threats to himself and others to commit crimes and ongoing crimes and attempt to commit crimes against himself and others to potentially suicidal harm or physical harm to others.
	So what must the government prove?
	To bring the indictment, they need to have probable cause of these facts.
	To get a conviction, they need beyond reasonable doubt.
	In order to prove manslaughter 2 in New York, manslaughter 2 in New York is the same as reckless homicide, which can vary by...
	But there are generally similar standards.
	They must show that Daniel Perry, first of all, caused the man's death.
	And as you point out, the coronavirus report appears premature in that regard because certain alternative explanations were not thoroughly investigated.
	It doesn't appear at the time of that initial report.
	Putting that aside...
	The second question is, first, that his death was caused by Daniel Perry.
	The second act was that Daniel Perry's activities objectively constituted both a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.
	Third, that he knew what he was doing, created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.
	And justification is a broad defense.
	Which is effectively incorporated into the statute here as an element of the offense, but it always is if self-defense or justification is raised as a defense.
	But they also have to show that his behavior was not just a substantial risk of death, an unjustifiable risk of death, that he knew it was a substantial risk of death, that he knew it was an unjustifiable risk of death, but also that it was a gross deviation for someone in a like situation.
	And so if he used deadly physical force, then the risk has to have been deadly, outside of a few exceptions that don't appear to be necessarily analogous here.
	Otherwise, if he thought the person was going to or did commit a crime, was wanting to injure himself, was wanting to injure others, all of that allows physical force.
	The only question then would be one of proportionality and necessity.
	Was the length of the chokehold necessary to detain him?
	Everything I've seen shows, because what also came out as additional evidence, is he kept him in the chokehold until he quit resisting.
	Once he quit resisting, he put him in a health position.
	So the original claim that he kept him in a chokehold, the whole 10, 12, 15 minutes, was actually false.
	It appears that he only kept him in the chokehold for the length of time in which he was trying to get out of the chokehold.
	That's why two other people were trying to detain him.
	Now, if I were his defense lawyer, I wouldn't call it a chokehold.
	I would call it a headlock.
	He's just keeping him in a headlock, trying to calm him down while he's going crazy.
	Two other people are helping out.
	When he stops, he puts him in a help position.
	Shockingly to him and everyone who watched it, he died.
	So he's got a very strong, I don't think there's probable cause he knew there was a substantial risk of death.
	I don't think there was a probable cause that he knew there was an unjustifiable risk of death.
	I think as an objective matter, his behavior did not create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.
	I don't think his conduct was a gross deviation for someone in a like situation from the standard of care.
	I don't think he exercised knowingly deadly force.
	I don't even necessarily believe it was deadly physical force.
	So I think the only risk he had to be worried about was risk of...
	A risk of crime for which he had reason to believe.
	Risk of danger to self for which he had reason to believe.
	Risk of danger to others for which he had reason to believe.
	And it does appear proportional to the videotape given the fact that he only...
	He only did what was necessary to stop him from causing harm.
	And once he was no longer resisting, put him in a help position.
	So you look at all of those, I think he has multiple defenses against multiple elements beyond just self-defense.
	And an honest prosecutor would not have found probable cause to indict him.
	An honest jury, an honest judge would dismiss the charges that no reasonable jury could convict him, given the facts that I outlined in its application to the law.
	And I think an honest jury would have quit.
	Problem is, he's in New York City, so there's a low chance he gets any of the three.
	Some might say, look, you need to worry about politics less.
	It's not Trump or a Trump ally.
	This is, you know, a New Yorker, and New Yorkers might be getting pissed off with the Gotham City-level violence, especially in the subway, so maybe he'll get a fair trial.
	But as we've seen with E. Gene Carroll, once you're leaving things in the hands of a judge, or even more so a jury...
	Well, hold on.
	Actually, one last question.
	My nose is itchy.
	One last question, Robert, because I'm concerned about this.
	He has a give-send-go, and it's $800,000 more than it was when I last looked at it.
	How much did he raise in total for him?
	$1.836 million, Robert.
	Yeah, I mean, he'll have a completely robust defense from legally and factually.
	His attorney ran for DA in New York, so he's a politically savvy guy.
	And thanks to Give, Send, Go, we met the founder at a Project Veritas party back when it was real Project Veritas with James O 'Keefe in Miami.
	And a very nice guy.
	And thank God he existed.
	Because, you know, if this was...
	The other fundraising platforms wouldn't have allowed this.
	But Give, Send, Go does.
	And that's why he's able to meaningfully defend himself.
	And if they don't dismiss charges...
	And they do a good job of getting an impartial jury pool, maybe moving it to a different venue than New York, than Manhattan.
	You know, again, if he got into Staten Island, or even Long Island, he's going to get a dismissal, judicial dismissal, or a jury acquittal, one or the other.
	That's what will happen.
	Now, I think even in Manhattan, he has at least a 50-50 shot of getting a, because in Manhattan...
	I mean, again, here's the problem the prosecutor has.
	My understanding is that every single witness, who includes men and women, includes immigrants and citizens, includes black and white, includes young and old, that they are all going to agree that they wanted him to do what he did, that they thought what he was doing was reasonable and necessary, and that what he was doing did not appear to them to be deadly force.
	When you have all of the other passengers on that train on your side and the jury is going to reflect that passenger profile, then you've got serious risk.
	I mean, how many big, high-profile cases does Alvin Bragg need to lose before he learns not to be so openly, overtly political with the cases he brings?
	But by the way, it was risk of Alvin Bragg.
	That was the reason I got the Amy Cooper, so-called Central Park Karen case, resolved by complete dismissal with prejudice to where the cases could never be reinstated.
	That's why, contrary to what Nate and some other people thought, there was no plea deal at all.
	There was no diversion deal at all.
	And that was why.
	I wanted to make sure, first, the deal got done before this lunatic got in, and second, I wanted the deal to be done in such a way that there was no chance he could revive it, because you could guarantee he would have.
	That's why I always tell, you know, when people say, don't you have to worry about politics if you're in the law, that Justice Roberts doing his latest gibberish, that's just nonsense.
	If I had ignored the politics, if she'd had almost any other lawyer in New York, They would have probably put her in a position where she would be getting re-prosecuted right now.
	Because that's who this guy is.
	He has totally changed the...
	I mean, you can't underestimate...
	The show Law& Order was based on the New York Prosecution's Office.
	That's those steps in that courthouse that they show at the very beginning of every episode during the original ones.
	The original older man prosecutor was based on Robert Morgenthau.
	They have taken about 80 years of the most respected prosecutor's office in the country and are making it quickly and rapidly one of the least regarded, least respected prosecutor's offices in the country.
	This man never should have been prosecuted, but thanks to all the people that have raised the funds for him, my prediction is that sooner or later he will not do a day in prison because I think he's got the lawyers to make sure he gets a fair jury ultimately.
	And that was one of my questions.
	I have not yet contributed because I was a little, I say, I'm once bitten, twice shy.
	You see conspiracy everywhere.
	It says campaign created by Reiser and Kenneth PC.
	That's the law firm.
	The firms for this campaign will be received by Kenneth, the firm.
	My concern, Robert, do we...
	I mean, I assume they have some other stuff in the terms.
	And the way this works is...
	He has to do the fundraiser.
	Someone else can do it for him, too, but the law firm can't really do it directly itself.
	And they can get the funds to the law firm, but the funds can't go directly into the law firm's trust account, typically.
	So usually what happens is the funds go to somebody else who's doing the GoFundMe, who has the account, and then they, in turn, send it to likely the trust account of the lawyer.
	Okay, and I'll just read this so that if there's any misrepresentations, it's in their claim.
	Funds are being raised to pay Mr. Penny's legal fees incurred from any criminal charges filed in any future civil lawsuits.
	There will be nothing left that may arise, as we've seen with Rittenhouse, as well as expenses related to his defense.
	All contributions are greatly appreciated.
	Any proceeds collected which exceed those necessary to cover Mr. Penny's legal defense will be donated to a mental health advocacy program in New York City.
	All right, that's good.
	I'll be contributing after this stream.
	Robert, good segue into the madness in New York.
	The woman's cat was named Vagina.
	And, I mean, it's like an Austin Powers joke, like, lot of vagina.
	E. Jean Carroll.
	The way Trump put it was so funny at the CNN town hall.
	She named her cat Vagina.
	Vagina!
	I mean, it's just Trump being Trump and classic Trump.
	But it was an insane verdict that was the product.
	I mean, she had things in there about, you know, sex with dogs and all kinds of social media commentary that the judge kept out of the cage.
	That squirrel meat was an aphrodisiac for dogs or something.
	Her cat was named Vagina.
	That was another one.
	She's a...
	I wanted to be on The Apprentice.
	I mean, again, made a history of false accusations that the judge also excluded from the proceedings.
	Lots of evidence of political bias that the judge also excluded from the proceedings.
	So the judge fixed the trial.
	And when the jury came back, they found no rape had occurred.
	And then the sexual abuse, quote unquote, was basically the tort of battery.
	It didn't require they find there was sex related.
	It was just, did anything happen that could be offensive to someone?
	That's really what the jury was instructed on.
	So the media, of course, went, you know, Trump found liable for sexual abuse.
	What they didn't disclose is Trump found liable for offending someone.
	That would have been an accurate headline.
	They can't do an accurate headline when it comes to Trump.
	And then my favorite part was he said he never sexually assaulted her.
	And the jury agrees, yeah, you didn't.
	But we're going to hold you liable for saying you didn't.
	So you couldn't have a more Trump-hating Democratic jury, more evidence that a Democratic jury poll just cannot be impartial in these cases.
	We've seen it in the D.C. cases.
	We're seeing it in the New York cases.
	They're not capable.
	And at some time, the Supreme Court's going to have to reconsider its wayward jurisprudence over the last half century, eviscerating the meaningful right to an impartial jury.
	They removed the word impartial from the amendment.
	And just made it, yeah, you have a right to a jury trial.
	But the impartiality has been eviscerated.
	This goes all the way back to the Skilling, Enron cases and other cases, where they deliberately allowed prosecutors to pick from contaminated jury pools of people who have already prejudged the defendant and allowed them to preside over the trial.
	That's a crock and a joke.
	And these cases are revealing just how embarrassing that is.
	It's a verdict that almost nobody could even logically explain.
	How is it he didn't commit sexual assault, yet the jury said he lied when he said he didn't commit sexual assault?
	Same jury.
	It's because they're like, you're offensive, Trump, so we're going to find you responsible for being offensive.
	So that's what we're really fine.
	And we're going to fine you $5 million because we don't like you.
	That's it.
	That's all that verdict.
	They said he didn't rape her.
	They didn't believe that he raped her, but he might have touched her.
	So battery, sexual battery.
	And then when he denied having raped her, which means an offensive conduct, the way it was given to the jury.
	Also, one question that would have clarified that, the jury didn't even fill out.
	Question three is blank.
	Let me bring something up.
	I hope the audio is going to be good enough to hear.
	Just to illustrate just how crazy.
	I don't know if we can hear this.
	Oh, the fantasy.
	It's inaudible.
	Yeah.
	But basically, it's a law and order episode that she was very fond of, the same law and order that we were just talking about from New York City that appears to be the inspiration for her, what I believe to be her fabricated story.
	Yeah, it was in that episode where the husband is explaining how they have a rape fantasy in the Bergdorf.
	In the Bergdorf, the same store.
	Hold on.
	Senate evidence didn't confirm or corroborate her story.
	Had they allowed a lot of testimony, the judge also excluded testimony to talk about how the custom and procedures at the time would have had security present, would have had a personal shopper present, that her story was implausible if not impossible.
	But it shows how even a liberal Democratic Trump-hating jury pool admitted that her core allegation against him was false, that her allegation of sexual assault and rape was false.
	How weak does your case have to be for a Trump-hating New York City jury pool to say so?
	But Robert, the thing I found most offensive, I've never done criminal, and I only did civil, and you know...
	We don't do civil jury trials in Quebec anymore.
	In Canada, I don't think.
	The evidence that got in, were they allowed the woman who alleged that he assaulted her on an airplane in first class in the 1970s?
	How did they allow in two other unproven, untested allegations that never met with any criminal complaints, let alone criminal conviction, no civil complaints, let alone civil jury.
	How did they let that in?
	As evidence of MO when they had not themselves been proven and you ended up having an unsubstantiated trial within a trial that allowed Banana Republic lawyers like David A. French to say evidence of other assault was made by way of these two women.
	How the hell did they let that evidence in insofar as that was by far more prejudicial than it could have ever been probative and yet her having accused other men of similar sexual acts was not allowed in despite being more probative and less prejudicial.
	Because the judge knew the allegations were utterly false, and he would have been morally horrified if the jury would have let Trump walk completely.
	So he would rather allow in the most easily reversible trial verdict on appeal.
	He would rather have a verdict that's easy to overturn from bad evidentiary rulings than a trial verdict he couldn't stand in the first place.
	And that's what he did.
	But, I mean, like, that's one of the easiest.
	Normally, that evidence only comes in under very limited circumstances.
	You have to show a common modus operandi.
	You have to have special instructions.
	Its probative value has to substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect under federal rule 403 and others.
	It didn't.
	And just as a bunch of her evidence was pertinent, material, and relevant to her state of mind, to whether she fabricated the story, etc., and the judge excluded it.
	So he made so many consequential evidence.
	That are erroneous, that it puts maximum pressure on the Second Circuit to just throw the whole thing out.
	My guess is that ultimately is what happens.
	There's also constitutional issues still implicated here.
	Yeah, the statute of limitations.
	The Westfall Act, and this goes to the federal system, so the Supreme Court of the United States may ultimately take it up.
	I think Trump could care less about the verdict.
	What it shows, it won't impact him adversely politically whatsoever.
	In fact, if anything, we're down to his benefit, it already has because it creates a perception of weaponizing the legal system against him.
	I think DeSantis' people thought it would hurt, and so they were all eager to announce their campaign sooner rather than later because of it.
	They don't understand this won't.
	And so, if anything, it just continues to embarrass our legal system, that our legal system is seen by more and more Americans as just a political branch, another part of the political aspect of government.
	And so I think, ultimately, my guess is she never gets paid a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar.
	But she does go down into the Hall of Fame for complete crazies and kooks who made our legal system look bad.
	And now, Robert, this is an amazing thing that also came up.
	I'll bring this up.
	The sound should be better on this.
	She did an interview with her attorney, and then I think someone basically admitted that she had a role in the legislation, in pushing, promoting the legislation that eliminated the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits for sexual battery.
	Such that it gave the window, the one-year window for her to file suit for something that had been previously time-barred.
	Let me just see if this is it.
	Something that I think is really important in all of this, and it's the fact that New York passed this law.
	The Adult Survivors Act.
	They passed it just a few years ago.
	Were it not for that law, you never would have been able to bring this case.
	And I just think it speaks to the importance for a lot of other survivors.
	Exactly.
	This would never, I would never have this window this year.
	Of having the ability to bring a lawsuit for rape.
	Robbie can explain it better.
	Well, Eugene actually helped to get that law passed.
	Boom!
	That's it.
	We filed, it was Thanksgiving Day, it was the first day you could do, we filed for rape.
	Robbie can explain it better.
	Neither one of these.
	We actually helped to get that law passed.
	Eugene actually helped to get that law passed that she then used in a lawsuit that was being bankrolled by a billionaire Democrat activist.
	I don't know if it's true.
	She might be lying.
	Under old definition of some people that got prosecuted, that was considered a potential federal crime in New York, which he admitted.
	Now, I don't think it could be or should be, but until the U.S. Supreme Court reversed recently, there were lobbyists being prosecuted for simply having influence on the legislature.
	But yeah, it's not a surprise.
	It was obvious the legislature was targeting Trump and recreating a law that does so.
	That's its own constitutional issues, bill of attainder, and other implications and ramifications and due process limitations.
	But my guess is ultimately she never gets a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar from all this.
	Okay, it's bullshit.
	It's world-class bullshit.
	I have not met anybody who says justice was served.
	Speaking of bogus defamation cases, Scary Poppins don't make a case, though.
	All right, now here's the thing, Robert.
	Can we call her Scary Poppins?
	Can I say, in my humble opinion, she's bat guava crazy?
	What is it called?
	Guava.
	I think it's, she's bat shit crazy.
	This is Nina Jankiewicz, Scary Poppins, the woman who was, she is now suing Fox News for defamation because Fox News was saying how, labeled her the disinformation czar.
	That she was there to censor free speech, and there might be jail time for those of us.
	And I read her lawsuit.
	It's the thinnest piece of trash I've ever read, where she's saying, I wasn't a disinformation governance board.
	I had no power to censor.
	Nobody was going to go to jail.
	When I listened to what Fox News was saying, and it was quite clearly all A, sufficiently true, and B, clearly opinion.
	But she's suing.
	They ruined her life.
	They made her resign from the board, and the government, following the blowback of the Ministry of Truth, dissolved the idea.
	On a scale of 1 to 10, Robert, 10 being the highest, is this a 13 on the judicial bullshittery, or is there any potential legitimacy to the defamation lawsuit?
	I didn't see any factual claim that was false, but that is actionable.
	But as you noted, this is what the Dominion's settlement produced.
	This is why media companies generally don't write those kind of checks ever, because all it does is encourage everybody to come out of the woodwork and sue you.
	I mean, that's all they did.
	The moment they wrote that, that's why I say it was legal malpractice for any lawyer to recommend that settlement for Fox.
	Those are some big corporate law firms, and I think it was breach of fiduciary duty for Paul Ryan and other board members to recommend accepting the settlement.
	That, you know, they did severe damage to themselves.
	That, you know, supposedly firing Tucker was an implicit agreement with it.
	Which, again, Tucker had nothing to do with lying about the Dominion or any false or questionable contested statement about Dominion.
	But, you know, they write that ridiculous check.
	They're going to be sued by everybody and their brother now.
	I mean, everybody's going to sue them.
	They'll try to find political jurisdictions where they can do it.
	And until the Supreme Court steps in and clarifies the law in this area, the Alex Jones perils of bad precedents are going to establish this politically weaponized legal system that uses it to go after their political opponents.
	And this is another illustration of it, but it's going to keep happening everywhere.
	Where people don't like the defendant, they'll write ridiculous checks, especially in Democratic jurisdictions.
	Write checks that we have never seen in the history of libel law.
	To give an idea, to my knowledge, no defamation case has ever reached that high.
	And the average defamation case is very small.
	And for a company worth $50 million...
	I mean, it's not even clear which contracts did they lose.
	They didn't lose the Arizona contracts.
	They didn't lose the Georgia contracts.
	Which contracts did they lose?
	They were worth $50 million in 2018, settled for $787 million in 2023.
	Well done.
	That makes no sense.
	But if you're a plaintiff's lawyer, you're one of those hustlers out there.
	You're a Breaking Bad lawyer.
	You're Bill Murray from Wild Things lawyer.
	If you're any of those people, you're like, let's just sue Fox.
	Anybody that...
	He doesn't like how Fox covers things.
	Just sue him.
	Just sue him.
	And, I mean, that's the crazy door that they've opened.
	And that Fox itself is open.
	But, yeah, the Scary Poppins case looked like it was completely bogus.
	To give an illustration, we talked about, for a brief transition to a bonus topic, that the Brett Favre case against Pat McAfee was garbage, that all that Pat McAfee needed to do was get a lawyer.
	He talked about not getting a lawyer.
	He's like, get a lawyer and remove it to federal court and then challenge on First Amendment grounds.
	He did all three.
	So what did Favre do?
	Quickly dismiss the case before any risk of fees or costs could come back the other way because it was a garbage case.
	But it's nowhere near as garbage as the Scary Poppins case.
	But with these judges these days in the liberal democratic jurisdictions, who knows whether a sure case will get to march on.
	I mean, it's just so openly, overtly political.
	Five years ago, no lawyer would have even taken her case.
	They would have said, this is a waste of time.
	This is a waste of effort.
	Unless somebody else is going to pay the legal fees.
	But now everybody's looking at all that money that flowed from Dominion.
	They're like, well, if those people could get a ridiculous settlement, we can probably shake down Fox for some money.
	What they just paid, what they just saw out of New York.
	Oh, sorry.
	I did not rape that woman.
	People are forgetting there was the aspect of defamation in the Trump case.
	You deny a wrongdoing that a jury doesn't find defamation.
	You get wild settlements for whatever the reason.
	I wish I could pull up some of the allegations, but I shared the lawsuit on Locals.
	She's suing for things like they said that she was a disinformation star.
	They'd be censoring things.
	Our Ministry of Information had no...
	The Brett Favre also...
	It was clear that whatever, I forget the guy's name, what he said was clearly opinion.
	It was clearly opinion.
	I mean, it's just...
	He comedically said, we always said, alleged.
	I mean, so he repeated that.
	I mean, but yeah, it was, you know, I'm a far fan, but that was not a great lawsuit.
	I thought it was an overaggressive letter by a New York lawyer.
	Bad advice to even file the suit against Pat McAfee.
	He was embarrassed because he got caught in an uncomfortable situation and thought that you could stifle people complaining about it or critiquing it by suing them instead of just owning up and dealing with it, which I think he's doing.
	He's starting to make some sage decisions.
	Before we get to the next topic, let me just address some...
	Do you think DeSantis has figured out all those saying Trump would be taken out via lawfare were lying to him and he might not declare?
	Robert, I'm having a sneaky suspicion.
	You just said if he's smart.
	Yeah, if he's smart, he won't run.
	But it's not clear to me that his strategic intelligence is greater than his unvarnished ambition.
	Well, if he thought this lawfare was limited to Trump, he'll be facing criminal charges for flying the migrants off to Martha's Vineyard.
	He'll face human trafficking charges if he thought this lawfare was only for Trump.
	Tropical Rocket said she painted the trees blue.
	I'm not sure what that means.
	Ron the Wolf, can you comment on the assertion that Carol told two friends at the time that she had been assaulted by Trump?
	She did.
	At least her friends say that she did that in retrospect.
	She said she did it.
	In retrospect, you know what the evidence was?
	She doesn't remember when she called her friend.
	She doesn't remember when the incident took place.
	Her friend narrowed it down to spring 1996.
	And she told her friend, her friend said, it sounds like you got raped and you hit your head.
	You need medical attention and call the police.
	She said, no, don't ever talk about it again.
	And they didn't talk about it until 2016.
	That's the evidence.
	The statements are just incredulous.
	In other words, it's two other people who hate Trump who are saying, yeah, she told us something back in the day.
	Nobody did anything about it.
	No documentary evidence was ever produced of it.
	We never ourselves contemporaneously told anyone else.
	We hate Trump.
	And the probability is that all of them are lying and committing perjury.
	That's the probability.
	Not just that.
	The one who she called up at the time and she said, go call a doctor.
	This is serious.
	And she said, no, don't say anything and don't talk about it.
	And she didn't.
	She was on a podcast referring to Trump as herpes.
	Oddly enough, I looked up some defamation per se.
	Saying someone has an uncurable STD is defamation per se, but she wasn't saying Trump had herpes.
	She said he was herpes.
	And that friend also had some very interesting things to say about...
	E. Jean Carroll and her seemingly obsession about suing for these reasons.
	So yeah, the testimony was- She was giving advice about how to market and sell her book and if she enhanced the story, it would help her sell her book and all of those dynamics.
	So that was not, in my view, credible testimony, period.
	There was one other thing that was ridiculous is that they had a former Bergdorf employee saying it was a Thursday evening and there was no one there.
	Someone corrected me and they said, not only are Thursday nights the most popular nights for shopping because people work, they get out of work, stores are open longer.
	The person said, yeah, also people typically get paid on Thursday and so they have money to spend on Thursday.
	It was bullshit from beginning to end and they got away with it.
	They've got to be laughing their way.
	You know, Eugene Carroll continued to be a Trump fan, an Apprentice fan.
	Until he ran for office.
	When do rape victims stay somebody's fan for 20 years?
	I mean, it's obvious nonsense.
	Like I said, even Trump-hating liberal Democratic jurors said a rape allegation was utter garbage.
	All right, and I'll get two more here.
	Did I miss Maxime?
	You did.
	He was the first half hour of the stream.
	Tried to reschedule to see it, but you know how work goes.
	Jay, the real Donald T, it was the first 30 minutes.
	The second 25 minutes.
	Started five minutes in.
	Looks like Ergodon goes to runoff, which he will win easily with the edge.
	All right.
	Thank you very much for those people.
	Robert, you're going to field these two because I'm not as up to speed on them as you are.
	The Second Amendment, what was it?
	Gun laws.
	Let me flip to the notes here.
	Oh, the federal gun law invalidated.
	This is Missouri?
	Oh, no, no.
	The...
	It was the case I shared was the earlier Missouri case that we had discussed.
	This one is the case, I think it was in Virginia, Fourth Circuit District Court, but it wasn't the Fourth Circuit itself, the Court of Appeals.
	But basically, it had a federal law limitation on who can buy certain guns by age.
	And that was found in the same way that a bunch of other cases have gone forward, saying that the limitation on guns of people between 18 and 21 is unconstitutional.
	So it was another validation on limitation on Second Amendment by Second Amendment purposes on various state and federal laws that will continue to be a trend through the court system.
	Now, the Supreme Court Commerce Clause case was one of the bigger cases before we get into the election cases in Georgia and Carrie Lake.
	Okay, go for it.
	So it's a split concurrent.
	This is that pork case, California pork case, where they were limiting what kind of pork could be sold in California that effectively is very difficult for a lot of pork producers to comply with.
	And this was to indirectly favor California pork producers and to penalize other states?
	No, it was just because they didn't like the way pork is handled and pork is made.
	So it was a popular proposition.
	So if it had been what you described, they would have had a robust Commerce Clause case.
	The question is, there's no congressional legislation on something.
	When does the Congress's right to govern interstate commerce prevent states from regulating interstate commerce?
	And the Supreme Court, what they did conclude...
	Is that it does not limit a state from punishing interstate commerce and prohibiting products from being sold within the state unless that law is intended to discriminate against other states in favor of domestic producers.
	They said the latter is, now to me, I don't know why the latter is somehow not...
	Protected state interest, too, under the Tenth Amendment.
	But they've carved that out and they've said that a state cannot do.
	But other than that, that if it's not discriminatory, if it's simply that it has an adverse impact on interstate commerce, that that's insufficient.
	That Congress could choose to regulate it and then preempt state law.
	But until and unless Congress does, states are still free to determine.
	What things can be, at least from a commerce clause principle.
	There might be other issues, privileges and immunities clause, bodily autonomy clause.
	There may be other reasons someone individual could sue, but they're saying pork producers can't sue the state of California for a law that negatively impacts their industry unless they can prove there's a discriminatory purpose or effect.
	In favor of local producers against out-of-state producers.
	And now the decision was all over the place to a degree.
	That's what almost all the justices agreed upon.
	They didn't agree upon why that's the case.
	So you had Gorsuch, Thomas...
	Thomas write one concurrence.
	Barrett write another concurrence.
	Sotomayor and Kagan write another concurrence.
	And then you had four dissenting justices.
	And so their decisions were all over the place as to why.
	But what they agreed on is that unless you show discriminatory purpose or effect, in this context being favoring local producers at...
	At the expense of out-of-state producers, that there is no dominant Commerce Clause claim available to you.
	All right.
	Robert, I want to find a tweet that I was having a fight with this guy, Chris Murphy from Connecticut, Robert.
	Let me bring this up.
	This is a gun question, where they're trying to compare the...
	The murder rate is important between New York and Florida.
	Connecticut is chiming in on this.
	Why is Florida murder rate 65% higher than New York's murder rate?
	Bad luck to humidity.
	Ha ha, you're very funny.
	Now, I cannot find my whole thing in this.
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	They're making the statement based on raw numbers and not per capita numbers, and then people don't understand the distinction between rate, And raw figures.
	And then when they say, well, it's still higher in Florida, even per capita, they then say, well, it's okay to make up the...
	It's okay to lie because you're right in principle, but not...
	You're not writing the statement, but you're in the right direction.
	It drives me nuts.
	Okay, I shouldn't have...
	That was a side note.
	I was trying to segue, Robert, but I think I failed here.
	What's next on our menu?
	Yeah, as I say, the Georgia Supreme Court, like the Arizona Supreme Court, reinstated an election case, in this case, in 2020.
	So this was the case where they were challenging how Fulton County handled ballots.
	And part of the case was a vote dilution claim.
	And the Georgia Trout Court, sorry.
	No, you froze for a second.
	Oh, I got you, got you.
	The Georgia trial court dismissed on standing grounds.
	The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed.
	The Georgia Supreme Court said, we don't follow federal standing principles.
	That if you're a part of a community, that you have the right to sue the people who govern you.
	And so they remanded to the Georgia Court of Appeals, and the Georgia Court of Appeals said, okay, because some Fulton County residents sued, those people actually do have standing to bring their claims of vote dilution from the 2020 election.
	So that's now been reinstated at the trial court, a 2020 election issue.
	It may now be...
	Robert, what do you think?
	No attempted segue here, just to address one point.
	We're going to have a 2020 case revived, so to speak, because the standing that was denied was finally recognized.
	One of the talking points that we always hear Mark Elias's of the world make is that there were 60-plus election cases were filed.
	They were all dismissed.
	All of them proved how secure the elections were.
	I don't know if you have on the back of your mind how many were dismissed on standing, how many never got to any evidentiary hearing, but roughly speaking, which cases were not dismissed on procedural standing and got to actual evidence?
	None got to trial.
	None.
	None got to discovery.
	So, I mean, it's at zero that were actually adjudicated on the merits.
	It just didn't happen.
	All right.
	And now Carrie Lakes, who's making some progress, has nothing to do with 2020, even though she's still being lambasted as the election denier.
	She's going to have, it looks like, some signature verification in Arizona.
	What is the latest that happened last week to develop on what we talked about the week before?
	So on Friday, the court held hearings.
	Robert Gouvet covered those hearings.
	And whether or not it would hold a trial.
	So it's scheduled a trial for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in this week.
	Three-day trial in Maricopa County Superior Court.
	But said it would decide whether that trial would go forward by Monday after hearing an oral argument on Friday.
	Two different issues present.
	The Maricopa County moved to dismiss.
	On grounds that the signature verification process was a discretionary, non-reviewable process in Arizona, so a court can't adjudicate it.
	And then Carrie Lake's team moved to reconsider a different issue and wanted another trial on the issue of the tabulators and the printers on the grounds that new evidence had been presented.
	That they had discovered and uncovered since the prior trial, which gave evidentiary grounds for the court to reconsider its prior hearing.
	In addition, there's a possibility of consolidation of another lawsuit Carrie Lake has filed under the Open Records Act of Arizona to try to get access to certain information that could be helpful to her in this trial.
	So the court will be making a decision on those things probably on Monday.
	The arguments on the printers and tabulators is that an Arizona former Supreme Court judge, as well as an additional expert witness, came forward and showed how the printers were not working in the ways that the state of Arizona claimed they were at the prior proceeding.
	And they're like, look, the prior trial failed to include this evidence because state of Arizona officials lied and committed perjury on the stand.
	We now have proof that they lied, committed perjury, including testimony of a former Arizona Supreme Court judge.
	So we should be allowed to go forward once again on with a full evidentiary record on this new evidence on the issue of printers and tabulators.
	My anticipation is that the trial court does not allow that part of the trial to go forward because I think he'll do as little as he possibly thinks he can get away with doing.
	What I don't think he'll do is grant the second motion to dismiss of Arizona.
	Their grounds there are...
	There's Arizona case law that specifically states that an election has to be overturned if enough signatures don't match.
	In my view, of course, this should have been the focus from the get-go.
	The nature of the Arizona's argument is, well, those cases involve where no signature verification took place.
	Signature verification took place.
	There's this disagreement between the signature checkers.
	The level one signature checkers said at least a quarter of the ballots didn't match signatures.
	And the level two people just disagreed with them and counted them.
	And that's a discretionary decision, Judge, and you can't review it.
	And that strikes me as nonsense.
	Whether or not they meaningfully verified the signatures and whether the signatures actually match is the heart of the issue.
	And I don't think that that should go to an evidentiary hearing.
	And I know why they're desperate for no trial to be presented, because I guarantee you when people see the signatures, they're going to say, those signatures don't match.
	And there's going to be more of them than the margin of victory, because she doesn't need a lot.
	Margin of victory is so small.
	I mean, people, the actual election officials themselves, originally reviewing it, said at least one out of four signatures did not match in Arizona in 2022.
	She needs less than one out of five of those.
	She needs less than 5% of the signatures not to match for the election to be invalid.
	So the question is, does the court run and hide and not deal with that issue and try to dismiss again and hope the Arizona Supreme Court sits on its hands?
	Or does he acknowledge he needs to at least hold a trial on the proceeding?
	And once that evidence comes out for the world, does he pretend the election is fair and clean and legit when it will be obvious to the world that it wasn't?
	Robert, I mean, I'll ask the stupid question.
	Is there not another method to just obtain?
	Access to the signature verification documents, like a FOIA request.
	That's part of the Open Records Act request.
	So that's why she's trying to join the two claims.
	But the proper way that this has been, this has been adjudicated before in Arizona.
	So this is, hold a hearing, have at least a sufficient sample of envelopes randomly selected, have independent experts from both sides say why the signatures do or do not match.
	And here's the other thing.
	They're trying to say...
	That there's no objective standards for matching signatures.
	Arizona is lying about that.
	I know they're lying about that because what Carrie Lake's team can do is look up what the state of Arizona has argued in state and federal proceedings where they have worked to exclude people from the ballot, including Ralph Nader, including the Green Party, based on signatures not matching.
	They have within their own, the Secretary of State has these, and each election office has these.
	And what they have are a guidance to people to match signatures.
	And that guidance provides sufficient objective metrics for everybody to agree.
	So the lawyers were lying to the court last week and saying it's impossible to verify signatures when they have said the exact opposite, including under penalty of perjury.
	To state and federal courts for more than 20 years in Arizona.
	I know because I litigated some of those cases.
	So they have clear metrics, easy metrics, the same ones Barack Obama used to get elected to the state senate in Illinois where he struck all of his opponents because the signatures on their candidate petitions didn't match.
	So not only that, he won't have to use very sophisticated signature match checks because it is obvious most of these signatures don't match.
	They're like blank lines.
	are people who've printed a name in block print for somebody who signs their name in person.
	It's obvious contradiction.
	Robert, just for the fun of it, I pulled up the fact check on the claim that back with the recall in California, 30 percent.
	L.A. County disqualified 30 percent signatures in a petition, not 30 percent on ballots at a recall election.
	Signatures are signatures.
	And if they don't match, there's either a consequence or there ain't.
	Look at this.
	Courts and government officials have been excluding people from the ballot for 50 years, and either the courts were lying and the government officials were lying, or this court has to, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, enforce the same law you judges in Arizona use to keep little people off the ballot.
	Use it to enforce an honest election, and if you do so...
	You either declare Carrie Lake the winner or you do a new election.
	That's the constitutional consequence.
	The only open question is, does this judge have either the courage or intellect to be honest, intellectual honesty, to enforce the law consistently?
	That's it.
	If he enforces the law consistently, Carrie Lake wins and it goes through a new election.
	If he doesn't, he exposes the Arizona courts as the crock many people think they are.
	You got to read the justification here.
	Why were they rejected?
	88,000.
	I hope this is of the same after review.
	I think this is it.
	88,000 of the signatures were rejected from non-registered voters.
	43,000 were from duplicate signatories, according to the RRCC.
	1.3% of the total petition signatures were invalid because of a mismatch.
	And then we get to the end here.
	They just said false.
	The LA County did not reject 30%.
	They found that 30% of the signatures submitted in a petition to vote were invalid.
	Robert, I mean, hypothetically, is there the chance that although the signatures might not be mismatches, they just might not be valid?
	Is that also a possibility in Carrie Lake's case?
	That is under other circumstances.
	But here, they don't need to reach that aspect.
	Signature verification includes more things than just whether the signature matches.
	So, for example, in some instances, you have people who've changed their name and things like that.
	For a range of people getting married and so on and so forth.
	And if they don't update their voter registration, then their signature doesn't count for that reason.
	But here, all they need to do is show the signatures don't match will be a sufficient one.
	They have all kinds of excuses for invalidating signatures, but the primary one here that's relevant is the mismatches.
	And what percentage would she need again?
	Would Carrie Lake need in order to...
	Oh, very small.
	I mean, it's much less than 5%.
	I mean, I think it was 17,000 ballots, and that's about 1%, and I think, as I recall, about two-thirds of ballots were mail-in ballots.
	So, you know, that's what, 2%?
	If 2% don't match?
	Yeah, so like, even if it gets to the California levels of one point some odd percent not matching, which is, remind everyone, Robert, again, what the typical rejection rate is in the ordinary round of things on signature matching?
	Oh, half.
	It's half of signatures are invalidated for one reason or another, and many of those mismatches.
	Now, they're kind of playing games with that because what they did is they invalidated a bunch of signatures which they never checked for matching, right?
	So that's where the LA article is being deliberately misleading.
	But the average is way higher than what took place in Arizona in 2022 across the country.
	The average you have to get, if you're trying to get on the ballot, two to three times as many signatures as you're required to because that's how many will be invalidated by the state officials.
	And most of those are signatures don't match or things like names don't match, things like that.
	Robert, I'm going to bring up this rumble rant because it's going to lead into a question.
	How can we have faith in the future of our country when our judicial system is so corrupt?
	I'll get there in a second.
	J.B. Pearson says we have had 50 years of compromise.
	Live or die on the principles of liberty.
	Liberty doesn't survive on half measures.
	But Robert, what are...
	This was one of the issues that we discussed with Jenna Ellis back in the day before people decided they didn't like Jenna anymore.
	I still like her, but we discussed this in that...
	The GOP raised a ton of money.
	Whether or not it all went for pursuing election reform, what is Trump doing actively other than talking about it, which I still think is something.
	What is the GOP doing in order to ensure that this doesn't happen again?
	And this being what actually happened, not the Dominion allegations of what happened.
	Second question to that is, does the GOP even want to do anything about this?
	Or do they really want to avoid another Trump election?
	I don't know what they're doing on the organizational side.
	At the state level and local level, they have proposed a lot of good legal reforms.
	And some have gone through and some have not.
	So on the legislative level, they've done a...
	Decent job.
	Not a spectacular job, but a decent job improving the laws.
	Particularly in Georgia, somewhat in Wisconsin, slightly in Arizona.
	It depends on the state.
	Some states are stronger and more robust than others.
	And they've made the laws tighter than they were in 2020.
	So that's their main improvement, but there's a long way to go, and there's various efforts afoot to try to match the efforts of targeting voters, low turnout, low propensity voters to get out to vote in the way Democrats have effectively done using mail-in voting.
	Republicans need to mirror and match that as long as those are the rules that exist.
	So that's basically where it's at.
	Speaking of lawless action...
	We got a lot of folks getting together at the border waiting to come in under the new Biden policy.
	So, Robert, I'm trying to wrap my head around this as well.
	Title 42 was COVID-era legislation that allowed illegal immigrants to be turned back for pandemic-related reasons more easily.
	Title 42 is set to expire.
	And there's a flood at the border.
	And I'm trying to understand why there's the flood at the border when, by all accounts, everybody's saying it's not going to be harder to ship off illegal immigrants right now after Title 42 lapses.
	It's going to be easier.
	And some people are saying that the reason why there's a mass surge at the border is because of misinformation, disinformation, which now triggers a number of reflexes in my mind that coyotes and smugglers are saying, The borders open now because Title 42 has lapsed, whereas you have the administration saying, no, that's not the case.
	It's actually going to be easier for us to deport illegal immigrants.
	What the hell is going on?
	Did I explain Title 42 properly?
	And what's going on?
	Yeah, I mean, it's fundamentally correct.
	There was a COVID era policy that has now elapsed.
	The issue is the Biden administration keeps instituting parole rules.
	Which are allowing people to be released without being detained.
	And so under Title 42 and the prior Remain in Mexico policy, they were never processed into the United States in the first place.
	Now, with those gone, they are going to be processed in the United States.
	And the question is, what does the Biden administration do?
	And what the Biden administration is proposing is they're saying, well, we'll have too many people to detain.
	So we're just going to release a bunch.
	Catch and release is what this was called under the Obama administration.
	I mean, like it was a fish, which is kind of weird.
	But putting that aside, I was never a big fan of the terminology.
	But effectively, it's a parole policy.
	Catch and release isn't.
	Come back.
	Come back for your hearing.
	And here's a handshake.
	I promise to do it.
	There's no security.
	There's nothing because they're asylum seekers in principle.
	No electronic monitoring.
	No means of verifying addresses.
	No means of making sure they show up.
	And they're supposed to exclude a bunch of groups from this.
	People that are national security threats.
	People that have criminal records.
	Things of that nature.
	But often that doesn't happen functionally.
	They push this rule through without going through notice and comment.
	And a variation of the exact same rule has already been stopped by multiple federal courts because they said it violates the Administrative Procedures Act, its requirements of notice and comment.
	It also fails to consider critical factors, which are essential under the Administrative Procedures Act for the rule not to be arbitrary and comprecious.
	This again is not legislation that's been passed.
	This is an executive agency taking the law into its own hands and defining it as it sees fit, in this case, the Department of Human Services.
	And so the net effect of all of this...
	Is the state of Florida filed suit right away once this new parole rule had issued?
	And the same Florida federal court that had heard the prior one issued a temporary restraining order and injunction saying you cannot put this new parole rule in force.
	You've got to enforce the laws that exist on the books, which just requires mass detention.
	And you have to, you know, if you're not going to...
	Come up with a new version of a new rule that substitutes for Title 42 or that substitutes for the remaining Mexico policy.
	You have to follow federal law, which requires you to detain these people pending a hearing and not grant mass release, not grant mass parole.
	And so their parole rule has been enjoined by the federal court.
	We'll see how long that stays in place.
	I think it probably will stay in place.
	So the concern and fear that there will be mass release likely won't occur.
	This does put major stress on federal resources because they continue to lack adequate resources to be able to detain everybody that may be coming across the border.
	But there is hope that if everybody knows detention is the outcome, there won't be the same number of people coming across the border in the first place.
	I'm going to ask, again, the naive or ignorant question.
	What does asylum...
	I mean, we're treating them all as asylum seekers.
	What does that mean in law in order to warrant asylum?
	Does it just mean leaving a crime-ridden hellhole of a country, or does it have...
	No, it's extremely difficult to win asylum under the law.
	Very, very hard.
	Arguably too hard.
	Arguably too hard, and so you have a number...
	Almost all these people that claim asylum know they'll never get it.
	That's why they have no incentive to come back for a hearing.
	Okay, that's the answer to the question.
	And then you have the AOCs of New York saying, come up here, asylum seekers.
	We'll give you jobs, which is going to be basically economic exploitation.
	People, you know, they're going to kick out the homeless in New York to try to house the new illegals.
	And in Chicago, they're going nuts because they're like, hold on a second.
	This is going to change our political structure.
	This is going to change our local benefits.
	This is going to increase stress on taxes and crime.
	All the things working class communities have been complaining about illegal immigration for the last 20 years about.
	Now you're seeing African-American, Democratic, liberal communities in Chicago complain about it now that it's being visited on their front door.
	So the illegal immigration continues to be a disaster for the Biden administration.
	That's what the federal court said.
	It's been a chaotic disaster now for years at the border.
	And they can't find their way out of their Trump criticism to a reasonable immigration policy because they don't even want to do what Obama did in terms of aspects of Obama were restrictive on the border.
	Kids in cages was with Barack Obama primarily, not Trump.
	Biden is terrified of that, yet in terms of his white liberal base primarily.
	But the problem is his working class base, as reflected in Robert Kennedy's comments this past week, said border enforcement is critical.
	And he goes, we've got to close the border.
	Criminal behavior that's taking place, like it took place recently in a mass shooting in Texas and other crimes.
	He's like, you know, these are illegals that have criminal records that don't belong here.
	We can have a humane immigration policy without opening the door to mass criminals coming in.
	And also people coming into the labor market illegally.
	And why is Robert Kennedy Jr. saying this?
	It's because the working class base of the Democratic Party, including the Mexican-American working class base, it doesn't want any more mass illegal migration.
	And so the only support left for it is the upper middle class professional.
	But that's where the, you know, Biden is caught.
	He's either got to betray part of his base, the last part of his base that's loyal to him, or he's got to deliver for the rest of the country by meaningfully enforcing immigration laws.
	And right now he's trying to just not enforce them and hope he can dodge the consequences.
	It's amazing.
	The only people who support these wonderful open border policies don't have to live with the consequences of it.
	And when it's brought to their front doors on Martha's Vineyard, then all of a sudden it's inhumane human trafficking.
	Send them to Canada like Eric Adams has been doing out of New York.
	The hell does this camera keep moving?
	And Robert, this will be just a quick one.
	Did you hear the latest in the stabbing of the CEO in San Francisco?
	I did not.
	So apparently, let me just see if I can pull this up after I freeze my camera, but apparently he was, I'm not saying this to besmirch or demean or whatever, just like, it's when, you know, the people living, the people who support the wall problem on South Park.
	Canada ultimately built a wall, then he solved it all by an individual, well, people in the locals chat, they...
	He did something to the Trudeau-type person that helped solve the problem temporarily in Canada.
	All right.
	I'm going to look it up.
	Is this even the article that I'm looking for?
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	Well, this is not the right article, but apparently the CEO who was stabbed in San Francisco allegedly, the article says, was coming back from an underground sexual party with the sister of the person who stabbed him.
	So that's an interesting twist, which might...
	All right, Robert, what do we have left here?
	So up next, there's a couple of big bonus cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, but three cases left on the priority aspects of our agenda, which is one relatively briefly, but fired teachers brought suit on the vaccine mandates being enforced against their jobs, and they won in a settlement that led to...
	Complete reinstatement and back pay.
	So that's another promising victory against vaccine mandates as those cases march into and through the federal court system.
	Now, and then I'll briefly get to the 12th topic back before we get to the 11th one, which is a little bit longer.
	In Pakistan, Imran Khan, who was sort of a populist-style leader, former cricket player, was deposed by a quasi-regime change coup with the aid of the parliament and the Supreme Court because the deep state is very strong in Pakistan, has been for...
	Better part of a half century in its intelligence and military services.
	They hate Imran Khan.
	They've been trying to do like they're doing to Trump, weaponize the legal system to come up with some bogus criminal prosecutions against him.
	He went into court on a civil case and they arrested him to the shock of the whole country.
	Massive, massive rallies occurred that were going to become riotous if they didn't do something.
	So the Pakistani Supreme Court suddenly intervened.
	Same Pakistani Supreme Court that removed him from power in the first place and immediately ordered his release to calm down what could have otherwise been the popular and public overthrow of the government.
	So we're seeing this weaponization of the legal process in multiple jurisdictions around the world continue to see political consequences as there's mass blowback from the various parts of the populace.
	The only other set case we have, before we get to some of the bonus ones, is the debt ceiling.
	Constitutional.
	Robert, I know things that are out of my wheelhouse and out of my interest, but I'm presuming insofar as we've had the Biden administration try to argue the constitutionality for forgiving student debt.
	Well, we know what their position is on this, and it's willy-nilly.
	Forget the three branches of government, the checks and balances, and who controls the purse springs.
	Executive order, I can do whatever I want.
	Or Biden comes in and says, we're going to lift the debt ceiling and to hell with crippling.
	Socially devastating debt.
	What's the deal?
	So it comes from the 14th Amendment.
	And Clause 4 says that the public debt, the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.
	And then now the fifth clause talks about Congress having the power to enforce it.
	So the only U.S. Supreme Court case, I think, is from 1935.
	Where Congress tried to not repay the debt in gold that was promised to be repaid in gold at the time the debt was issued.
	And the Supreme Court, the first question was always, is there any role for the Supreme Court or the executive branch?
	Given Clause 5, only talks about Congress having power to enforce it.
	Well, they said that that was not an exclusive grant.
	That was just a discretionary authorization.
	And so they said, yes, the president and the judicial branch do have a role.
	That was threshold number one that was met.
	Threshold number two was what constitutes questioning the validity of the debt as authorized by law, as is the phraseology from the 14th Amendment in Clause 4. And what the Supreme Court said is...
	Anything that would basically bring that debt into public disrepute and potential default.
	And so, into a functional default.
	They said you had to pay it back under the terms in which the agreement was made.
	Now, Congress has passed a ceiling saying that the, for the, so Congress does two things.
	They pass a budget that says, here's what we want money spent on.
	But they also...
	Pass a bill, the debt ceiling, that says you can't borrow above a certain amount in order to pay those things we told you to spend money on.
	So you have inconsistent messages from Congress and its legislation to the executive branch.
	And the question becomes, what happens when there's a contradiction between the two?
	And the general conclusion is that they have to follow the debt ceiling rather than follow the legislative authorization that doesn't usurp or override the debt ceiling.
	So instead, they've been arguing the debt ceiling is really Congress's effort to invalidate the debt.
	And the argument is if and when they come to a point where they cannot make certain payments, then they can issue debt in the executive branch because Congress wouldn't necessarily have authorization to sue.
	The people who had the right to sue in the case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court were the creditors themselves because they're like, hey, we funded this deal with the government and they're not keeping their word on it.
	Can I ask a stupid question?
	Who are they incurring this debt with?
	Is it with the public via treasuries and bonds?
	So they just keep basically printing money to the public.
	They say, we're going to pay you back.
	But by the way, on those bonds also, you've got interest on those bonds.
	So in addition to, you know, we're going to take that money.
	We're going to pay you interest.
	We'll buy those bonds back at a certain point.
	There may come a time when those bonds are worthless.
	I mean, the U.S. government has never truly defaulted on its debt.
	Some people would argue that they've paid it back in terms different than expectations.
	And argue that was a default, but it's not a true default of non-payment on the principal.
	And so in this context, there's two reasons why, in my view, the debt ceiling is constitutional.
	Primarily, it's the debt ceiling does not do anything to question the validity of debt already issued.
	It is only saying you can't issue new debt.
	And it's saying above this amount.
	And I'll get to why they can actually still issue new debt.
	But if you do so, that's not questioning the validity of any debt as authorized by law, because that authorized by law limitation on what debt you can't question is explicitly in the clause in the 14th Amendment.
	So in my view, the debt ceiling is not unconstitutional because it doesn't question the validity of any debt already issued.
	It just says you can't issue new debt.
	And the 14th Amendment is not a guarantee that the government can issue however much debt it wants without legislative approval.
	Secondly, you can still pay the debt.
	So you can pay the debt because you have plenty of resources anyway.
	You simply prioritize and you pay the debt over other expenses.
	But here's also why you can pay the debt.
	You can issue new debt under the debt ceiling as long as you're using it to pay down old debt.
	So, because you're not exceeding the debt ceiling, right?
	So, okay, I got to pay off this bond.
	I'm going to issue a new bond to pay off that bond.
	Have I increased my debt?
	No.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	I thought that's a crime called kiting, basically using a credit card to pay off another credit card.
	Why is that?
	It's the federal government.
	They get to do what they want.
	They get to print things and call it money.
	Okay.
	Amazing.
	Now, the few bonus cases we have before we get over to the Locals exclusive live chat, which you can join at vibabarnslaw.locals.com.
	We have the Florida hate speech law, whether it's constitutional, gamers against Microsoft, and three big criminal cases that were decided by the Supreme Court just the last couple of weeks.
	Robert, do them quick.
	I don't hear the wife banging down the door yet, but she...
	She might be coming.
	It's Mother's Day.
	She'll be fine.
	You're already at a baseball game.
	It's Mother's Day.
	It's Mother's Day and it's her birthday tomorrow.
	Mark Robert.
	That's really a great Mother's Day gift.
	Well, I'm going to make up for it tomorrow, but it's Mother's Day today and her birthday tomorrow.
	So I got like...
	Oh, wow.
	That's a compliment.
	Yeah, that's easy for you.
	That way you can combine the two and one.
	That's a sweet way to get around it.
	But so the Florida hate speech law.
	This is the law DeSantis signed in Israel.
	That is about targeting anti-Semitism, but often goes after the BDS movement.
	I think I got that right.
	Yeah, it's a boycott, divest...
	Boycott, divest, and sanction, right?
	I think.
	Somebody else may know it in the local...
	Yeah, no, that sounds like what it is.
	Which is targeting Israel.
	But the issue is anti-Semitism is defined so broadly that it probably is unconstitutional for vagueness.
	That case will be disputed very quickly in the courts.
	It was just signed and passed.
	And I'm not in favor of a lot of these speech restrictions.
	They're trying to also get to limit college curriculum and high school curriculum.
	And I get what they're trying to do.
	The question is whether they're overstepping by making it all about what they can say versus what they can teach.
	And, you know, where is the line between those two?
	That's not crystal clear as well in some of the laws they're passing on that side of the aisle.
	So they're all going to end up in court.
	How many of them get struck down?
	Probably open question.
	They were, I thought, a little careless in their legislative language.
	And if anybody's interested, the idea of passing legislation to prohibit boycotts is fundamentally problematic.
	And it's not...
	Look, I'm not going to...
	Boycott Israel.
	If you don't like Israel, don't buy SodaStream.
	I don't know what other stuff comes out of Israel.
	But the idea that you would prohibit boycotting Israel on the basis that it's some form of hate speech, that's getting Canadian.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's being Canadian.
	Some of you don't want to be.
	In terms of the U.S. Supreme Court, we had discussed a couple of big fraud cases.
	This was the attempt to define honest service as fraud.
	A wire fraud where nobody lost any property, and I found that deeply problematic.
	One of it was defining honest services fraud, which is that you've deprived someone of your honest services, an intangible interest, which the Supreme Court tried to dramatically limit in the McNally case back in the 80s, and then Congress went back and reinstated it, but as Gorsuch and Thomas said in my recent dissent, they did a lousy job of it, and this court should not be complicit.
	In the Congress's refusal to define the law with clarity.
	Same is true of the income tax laws for that matter.
	But what the Supreme Court did is they came in and clarified, at least in part.
	So one person had been prosecuted under the theory that private citizens owe the public a duty of their honest services as it concerns government revenue, which is ridiculous.
	And you can imagine how...
	Broadly, that could be applied to lock people up.
	Supreme Court wisely came in and said, no, that is not a permissible definition of honest services fraud.
	You have to have an actual fiduciary and agency relationship with the government to say that there's any honest services fraud that could even be applicable.
	So they overturned that verdict.
	These are all the various...
	Andrew Cuomo corruption type case issues that the Justice Department had broadly expanded criminal liability to get to.
	The other one, so they said you have no right to information and the deprivation of your right to information is not a cognizable property within the meaning of the criminal laws.
	Your right to control certain access to certain things doesn't constitute an intangible interest that is fraud on property.
	And so the net effect is they overturned two different So those were two great Supreme Court decisions.
	The other one was kind of a little interesting.
	It involved the indictment of a Turkish bank owned by the Turkish government for evading sanctions against Iran.
	I find a lot of those sanctions constitutionally questionable in their own terms, but putting that aside, the bank's argument was that under the Foreign Immunities Act, the FISA Act, its own version, a different version of FISA, that they were immune.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said that the foreign immunity laws only apply in a civil context.
	And if it's a criminal case, the federal courts always have jurisdiction in the immunity laws.
	The only immunity that could apply is common law immunity.
	Which, by the way, would suggest local prosecutors could indict foreign governments.
	But they acknowledge that this possibility might exist.
	So that was interesting because a lot of local prosecutors should be looking at what cases they could bring.
	That had up to date been assumed that you couldn't bring them.
	And I think the dissent made sense, which said that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does actually apply, but that since this involved commercial transactions, that was exempt from the immunity provided under the law.
	That was Gorsuch and Thomas.
	But putting that aside, or maybe Gorsuch and Alito.
	Putting that aside, the big impact of the decision was whether or not now states can act, individual local prosecutors can indict foreign governments.
	So that was the other big U.S. Supreme Court case.
	The only other case we have for bonus cases, the gamers continue to fight Microsoft's attempt to purchase and merge with Activision because they're going to steal your ability to game in a competitive way.
	And Microsoft argues, hey, you don't know we're going to screw you, so you don't have standing to sue us yet.
	And the court is deciding, do we have a reasonable basis to know Microsoft is going to screw the gamers or not?
	And that will determine whether the case goes forward currently.
	And that consists of a merger that might result in certain games not being available on certain Xboxes, not Xboxes, but other platforms or devices on which they're available now after the merger.
	And then, I mean, my question was just the expectation that when you buy a game, do you have the reasonable expectation that it will always be available to you in perpetuity?
	I've never thought of that question.
	Competition.
	The Clayton Act is supposed to make sure we have robust competition.
	Clearly, Microsoft is trying to monopolize part of the gaming space.
	See, I don't have to worry about that because I've got my Double Dragons and Contra on cartridge.
	Nobody's taking that away from me.
	Robert, before we head over to Locals, everyone's got the link, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Two remaining Rumble France that I saw right here.
	Here we go.
	Uphail Ryder, why can't we have fingerprint identification for voting?
	And Watchman states this fan from, I guess that's Pittsburgh, I was a prospective juror until the other day now released in the synagogue shooting trial, if that is of any interest to you.
	I'm going to screen grab that as also a national delegate for the Libertarian Party.
	I've screen grabbed to Watchman State.
	I'll have a look.
	But no promises, obviously.
	And I think we should have Dave Smith on this week.
	I have to double check if he's going to come on Wednesday.
	All right.
	Now we're doing it.
	Mother's Day after party.
	Nobody's here yet.
	Mother's Day after party on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But yeah, you know, everyone go check out my video yesterday from Trump Doral, the reawakened tour.
	It was interesting.
	It's a lot of fun.
	Okay, we're going to do it.
	We're going to end on locals, which means that on rumble, on rumble, which means I go to live streaming.
	I go into the back here and I say, end live stream.
	Everybody head over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com now.
	We're done.
	All right, now we go to locals.
	And now I'm going to bring up, Robert, can I share the screen?
	Maybe there is a way I can do this.
	If I can go like this, and I can go like this, and I can do this.
	You know what?
	No, forget it.
	I'm not going to do it.
	Okay, I'm just going to read them.
	USA Now, $1.6 tip.

▲