All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
02:04:57
Ep. 161: Durham Report; RFK Jr.; Kari Lake Trial; TikTok Ban & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
get ready for this video.
Trans people belong here.
Trans people belong here.
We need trans people.
We love trans people.
Trans people belong here.
We need trans people.
We love trans people.
You matter.
You matter.
And I am fighting for you.
And I will not stop.
I will not stop today.
please stop you are loved you matter you belong here I'm going to tell you something.
I'm going to stop this.
I swear to you, I thought this was a deepfake.
I read the article in the news.
Stop.
We don't need to see that again.
I read the article in the news.
I saw the video.
And I still thought it was a deepfake.
And I went to the...
It's a real senator.
Her name is Michaela Kavanaugh.
Not to be confused with Brett Kavanaugh.
This video makes Alex Stein.
Primetime 99. Pimp on a blimp.
Look like a rank amateur, sir.
I'll tell you that.
It's crazy.
I mean, it's crazy.
It's unhinged.
And there's no other way to say it.
So I went to her Twitter feed.
And I saw other stuff.
I saw this video.
She looks, you know, I mean...
I'm standing up against hate.
And you're standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder.
With hate.
I'm standing up...
It's unhinged.
There is no other way to say it.
Unhinged.
And I just asked, are you going to tweet this video here?
No words.
And I don't even care.
She could be fighting for the most righteous cause on earth.
If I'm on the side that she's fighting for, I'm still asking her to sit this one out, wait on the sidelines, and please just stop because you're making us all look ridiculous.
Some people were rightly, you know, observing that this type of like, it's like North Korean crying so hard because you have to cry so hard.
Everybody knows you're fake crying, but you got to cry hard to show your loyalty to Kim Jong-un.
It's that type of public display of absurdity.
Everyone knows it's absurd, but you do it.
And the harder you feign it, the more ridiculous it is, even though everybody knows, the more points you get with the regime.
It's a cult, and that's how it works.
Now, speaking of which, people, if last week was an interesting week for interviews, so too will be next week.
Yeon Mi Park, the North Korean defector, she's coming on Thursday.
I'm pretty sure it's at 1 o 'clock.
It's Thursday.
It's either 11 or 1. It's 1 o 'clock.
It's going to be an amazing interview.
So Thursday.
Keep that in mind.
Yay on me, Park.
I'll send out the links beforehand.
Friday, Solomon Anderson, Zachariah Anderson's brother, the man who, whether or not you think he might have been guilty of something, the process has failed in the conviction of Zachariah Anderson.
His brother's going to come on on Friday, and we're going to talk about that.
So we've got an amazingly interesting week coming up next week.
I got some more videos to play on the intro, but just before we get started, I should make sure that we are...
That we're good everywhere.
We're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
We are.
Let's see if we're simultaneously streaming on Locals.
We are.
We always ask Barnes, what are the books over his shoulder every week?
We're going to do a little bit.
I got some fan mail or some sub mail, and I want to thank them.
I got a book from Ashley Malley, A Bush or a Tree, What Do You See?
Ashley, if you're watching right now, I came into my office room.
And my kid, my youngest, is sitting there reading this book to himself.
And I'm not saying that for any other reason than it actually happened.
And I'm like, good for you, dude.
You weren't reading at the beginning of the year.
Now you're reading to yourself.
So thank you for that.
I got that in the mail.
I got another good book in the mail.
Cities on a Hill.
21 isolated months with the elderly during COVID.
Do I have a note in here from whoever sent it?
Tuviva, thanks for all that you do, Josh.
I got, check this book out, people.
Original print, Finn.
And it's a book of all of the beautiful fish.
What's amazing, first thing I noticed, I go to the back, an ad for Marlboro.
Check that out, people.
That's really, that's quite funny.
And then, you know, Steve Gosney, the death penalty lawyer, sent me a couple of his books.
So now I just have to, the kid's book I read already.
The fishing book I perused, and now I just have to read the other two books.
Everybody, how's everybody doing?
It's going to be an amazing show tonight, because we've got a lot to talk about.
But before Robert gets here, I sent him the link.
He's got the link.
I have a few videos on the lineup.
We're going to talk about RFK Jr.
I don't call it a debate.
It was an interview with Crystal Ball.
If you haven't seen it, Crystal Ball, Turning Point, I think is the name of the show, with the other guy.
His name is Saget.
Saget.
I forget his name.
I'm sorry.
I don't mean to be disrespectful.
It's worth watching the interview.
Nobody's going to be able to listen to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and say he's not eloquent, he's not thoughtful.
Whether or not you're pulling a Michael Tracy and you can't stand his voice or want to pick on his voice, it doesn't matter.
Substance over form every day of the week.
And if you want to talk about ableism, even commenting on RFK Jr.'s issues, which from what I understood, I thought might have actually been the result of a jibby jab injury.
Nobody's going to listen to RFK Jr. express himself and think that he's anything but eloquent and thoughtful in substance and in form.
And there's no doubt Democrats are not going to allow a debate because I actually think RFK Jr. would beat Trump, you know, beat...
If there were a judged debate, it doesn't mean that I think policy-wise I agree with RFK Jr. over Trump and probably not.
But the man speaks well.
The man speaks thoughtfully.
And there's no way, there's a snowball's chance in hell that the Democrats are going to let RFK Jr. debate Joe Biden, who can't string a sentence together, even by the admission of that guy there, Joe Walsh?
Sure, he's old.
Sure, he needs a nap every 20 minutes.
Sure, he can't string eight sentences together.
But it's him or Trump.
But the interview is amazing.
And I just want to play a couple of highlights from breaking points, not turning points.
So I'll play this.
It's just an interesting phraseology.
You know, RFK Jr. recently came out and said he would never join a ticket with Trump.
Just to dispel all those rumors, he'll never join a ticket with Trump.
That may or may not be true.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't join an administration with Trump.
But he says that now anyhow.
See how bad the DNC screws him hard.
Because he doesn't look like he's going to pull a Bernie and just lick the boot and endorse the candidate that just cheated him out of his candidacy.
But listen to what he has to say about this.
So you could endorse Trump then?
An endorsement.
I don't see that happening.
I don't see that happening.
It's different than no.
Keeps going.
I love it.
I love it.
Because first of all, if the left wants to get mad at RFK, this is how they're going to fight.
He could even categorically, unequivocally say that he won't support, endorse Trump.
I can't see that.
I don't see that happening now.
It's not a no.
So you could endorse Trump then?
I don't see that happening.
That wasn't the question.
I think we have so many differences in style and approach that I probably would never end up there.
First of all, I'm not making fun of RFK.
I love it.
Because it's an equivocal answer.
I don't see that happening.
I can't see that happening.
Doesn't mean it's not going to happen.
Wait until we see how dirty the DNC does RFK Jr.
First of all...
Appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Thank you, Crystal.
Yeah, my pleasure.
I'll play another clip.
I like him, and I love the fact that he couldn't give an unequivocal no.
Not hell no.
I don't see that happening, but things can happen where I can say, okay, well, I didn't see it happening then.
I didn't know that they were going to so dishonestly cheat me out of everything, out of my potentially rightful nomination.
Now, Crystal Ball, on the other hand, she is the one who did the town hall with Trump.
I just got to play this clip just for observational purposes.
The lack of introspection, the degree to which people project and are not self-aware of the projection, to the point where, look, I always ask myself if I'm about to criticize somebody for something, not whether or not do I think it's true of myself, is somebody else out there going to be able to say, Viva, that is true of yourself?
You know, like...
When I criticize people for starting a tweet with let's be clear, I make damn sure that I have not myself started tweets with let's be clear or let me be clear.
The sheer lack of introspection of crystal ball in the attacks on RFK are amazing.
Now, I edited this together myself, so she doesn't say it three times, but I highlighted it three times.
But listen to this.
But I think people have shown you where things are wrong, but you don't want to hear it.
Hold on, hold on.
But I don't want to get...
I don't want to get in a debate with you about this because you've spent your life pulling out this stuff.
I think people have shown you where you're wrong, but I don't want to get into it.
I don't want to get into it with you.
I know you spent your life doing this, and I don't want to get into it with you.
I will tell you, I've listened to hours of interviews with you with an open mind.
Oh, yeah.
I'm not persuaded, but I think people have shown you where things are wrong, but you don't want to hear it.
I have not seen that.
I have seen study after study that shows the opposite.
Listen, I don't want to get bogged down in this because I don't think we're going to see eye to eye here, but I think people have shown you where things are wrong, but you don't want to hear it.
So anyways, fascinating.
It's fascinating.
The absolute lack of introspection.
I think people have showed you where you're wrong, but you don't want to hear it.
Yeah, I've listened to all your stuff.
I'm not convinced.
Oh, I don't want to get into it with you because you've done it your entire life.
And you might know more than me, but I don't want to see where I think I'm wrong.
But I'm going to accuse you of not wanting to see where you're wrong.
Oh, who did?
Hold on.
Crystal Ball didn't do the town hall.
Who did it?
Oh, I swear to you, and I swear to you, I thought it was Crystal Ball because I didn't know the woman's name who did it.
And I saw Chris Walter.
I was like, oh, I thought it was her.
Yes, VivaBlocks free speech.
There you go.
So tonight, we're going to have a great episode.
But before...
Oh, shoot, balls.
Hold on one second.
Hold on just one second.
Oh, I knew...
I did forget something.
I did forget something.
I'm clicking this.
This contains a paid promotion like a sponsorship.
This stream contains paid promotion like a product placement, sponsorship, or endorsement.
I've clicked on it.
I am refreshing.
Good.
And now, I'm going to the sponsorship.
Field of Greens, people.
Last week, we got another sponsor, GenuCell Makeup, which I'm not into makeup, but it's a great product with a great story.
Tonight's sponsor is one of the ones that I actually use.
EnviroCleanse, the air filtration, I use.
Field of Greens, I use.
A little known fact, people.
I went to McDonald's today.
Not for me.
For the kids.
The kids wanted to go to McDonald's.
They have decent stuff there.
The brownness, the overall beigeness of the food that comes out of McDonald's, it's a little known fact you're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables every day because they've got nutrients, they've got fibers, they've got antioxidant.
Power is super mega.
Most people don't do that.
I happen to know that I have more than five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day, sometimes way too much, actually, and I will not give you the TMI as to what happens when you eat an entire container of arugula because you can't control yourself.
For those who don't or who have a bad habit in the afternoon of sucking down a disgusting chemical-filled Diet Coke or Red Bull crap, one spoonful...
A field of greens.
It's powdered greens.
It's not a supplement.
It's not an extract.
It is desiccated.
It's like pulverized beef jerky of the vegetable wave.
Where's my container?
That's not in here.
Oh, camera, stay here.
It's pulverized vegetables.
One spoonful contains one serving of fruits and vegetables.
It's made in America.
USDA organic approved.
It's good stuff.
It actually tastes good.
Mildly sweet.
It looks like swamp water when you're drinking it, but swamp water looks like swamp water because it's full of nutrients.
One spoonful twice a day.
Are we on the screen?
We are on the screen.
And it's amazing.
USDA Organic, one spoonful has all of the power antioxidants of fruits and vegetables and all that great stuff.
If you go to fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, 15% off your order.
Healthy habits and healthier habits to get into.
That is Field of Greens.
Promo code.
Viva.
Okay.
Thank you.
The link is in there if anybody wants to go and get their field of greens.
It's good stuff.
So now, what else was I saying?
Until Barnes gets here.
Hold on.
Where is Barnes?
Where is Barnes?
I sent him the link.
Okay.
He should be coming here anytime soon.
I had another good video.
Oh, let me...
Okay.
So, by the way, no medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice.
What was I about to say?
Superchats, rumble rents.
StreamYard has done something where it's automatically starring the Rumble Rants, and so I don't see them until I notice they're starred.
These wonderful things here, for anybody who chooses to support the channel, bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of these super chats.
If you want to support us, you can go to Rumble Rants, and they have the equivalent called Rumble Rants, and for the rest of the year, Rumble is taking 0% of that.
They ordinarily take 20%, so even when they take their cut, it's better for the creator, better for the platform.
It's a platform that supports free speech.
Best way to support us, if you're so inclined, go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year, and you get tons of exclusive content.
The community is massive.
It's wonderful.
There are a lot of supporters.
You can be a member without being a supporter, and you get access to tons of stuff.
If you have an annual subscription, you will notice that you have gotten access to a documentary that I directed, edited, and published of Robert Barnes giving me the brief history of Chattanooga.
Over the course of a day, we went to visit his birth house.
As we were shooting on site, an individual comes out of the house and says in a deep Tennessee accent, may I ask what you're doing here?
Anyway, the documentary is great, but you can go support us on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Here, do you really think RFK Jr. has a shot against Biden and the Dem establishment?
No, I do not.
But I'll tell you this.
What's amazing about that crystal ball interview is that...
He says, look, I believe the environment is an existential crisis.
I disagree with him on that.
And he says, I think it's an existential crisis, but I don't expect other people to agree with me on that.
His reasoning, we're going to get into it a bit more with Barnes, as to I think his reasoning is fundamentally flawed and it drives me nuts that we rely on the experts who tell us the world is going to end, but we see how the experts just told us how the world was going to end with COVID and effed everybody.
But he says, look, you don't even have to agree with me.
But when it comes to the environment, the policies that I'm going to espouse are going to be ones that everybody should agree with, regardless of whether or not you think the Earth is going to end in 12 years.
And his answer is amazing.
It's not going to be the divisive globalist issue it is now.
It's going to be, we want clean waters.
We want a beautiful environment.
We want to preserve the environment for our children.
And everyone's going to be on board.
And I'm not going to run around saying the Earth is going to end in 12 years unless we reduce our carbon emissions to 0% in a country that contributes 1.5%.
I'm talking about Canada.
All right.
And that's it.
One more here before Barnes gets in.
This lady obviously skimped on speechwriters.
Okay.
And I'll get to the rumble France afterwards.
Bring it on the Barnes.
Three, two, one.
Boom, shakalaka, sir.
How goes the battle?
Good, good.
You still look young like a baby, Robert, from the haircut.
Exactly.
That's the net effect of it.
What book do you have over your shoulder?
The Strange Lulls of Old England.
So, for example, it was not illegal to sign into a hotel with a fake name unless you were there for lovemaking.
Then that was a crime under Old England.
So it's a range of interesting...
A reminder of...
As we go through some of these crazy cases, that is not new to the law, sadly.
There's a long history of crazy laws and crazy cases and crazy courts in our past.
Robert, when we get to the roadside baptism, I mean, we're talking about crazy cases here.
By the way, where did that roadside baptism take place?
Well, son of a beasting, I had the article up.
I want to say Chattanooga?
Yes.
Damn it.
I read the article.
I was reading on it.
I didn't know.
That's Hamilton County, Tennessee, right where we were, where people could see a documentary up on, a mini biography documentary up on our first Content Plus production.
Some people were asking what that's about.
That's for when we do special projects.
We need a little bit of supplemental revenue to make those sustainable.
So for those that annual subscribers get it for free, but everybody else gets it, can just pay $9.99 to help support those, to do more live events, etc.
but it's a personal biographical tour of my hometown, which will feature in one of the last cases we'll discuss today, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
To me, I think that person should have given that deputy reward, not a lawsuit for giving them a little baptism.
It was a choice between going to jail for marijuana possession or baptism in a river.
I mean, for goodness sake, it's just like going for a night swim.
I would have done it for fun.
Okay, Robert, so I mean, look, the list, do you want to go through it or should I go through it real quick?
So the bonus off the top that we have for tonight is Donald Trump's truth organization sues the Washington Post.
That's one of the bonus cases for tonight.
The 12 top topics in chronological order for those that are following for the show.
Up first will be the Durham report.
Second will be the RFK vaccine debate with Crystal Not-So-Crystal Ball.
The third up, Supreme Court, Section 230.
And how it was actually not actually addressed.
COVID, a great COVID concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch.
The Warhol case that we talked about before now has reached a conclusion.
The IRS case that we talked about before has sadly reached conclusion.
But some promising concurring opinions from a certain new justice known as Justice Jackson with Justice Gorsuch along the lines that some of us predicted.
She might not be all bad on some cases.
The TikTok ban in Montana goes to court.
The Cary Lake election contest, the case voted number one on our locals board, will be up number five in our order of chronology tonight.
Judicial reform challenged on election issues, election spending issues in Illinois.
We got the traffic stop baptism.
We got fireball.
That lawsuit that we talked about before has now reached the motion to dismiss and decision stage.
Cryptocurrencies and central bank digital currencies.
Texas passing its own laws.
Congress trying to sneak peek at control over cryptos and maybe get a little central bank digital currency in through the back door.
Robert Kennedy was down at the Bitcoin conference talking about this week.
That topic as well.
That's topics 9 and 10. 11. When do legislators have privilege from lawsuits?
That went up to the Fifth Circuit.
And last but not least, the New York charities are trying to spy on you and trying to share information illicitly, which has led to a First Amendment lawsuit in federal court in New York.
Well, and number one, which we're going to do here before we run over to rumble exclusively, the Durham report.
Now, Robert, so let's start with the Durham report.
I tweeted out your 90-minute analysis, which is the most thorough analysis you're going to get.
I mean, I talked about it last week, and it's like...
For those who are following it from the beginning, it shows you nothing new.
But the point that you made in your analysis is quite striking in that the scope of this report, the scope of Durham's investigation, could have, should have, or arguably needed to include any and all players who might have done something to interfere with the election, which in theory might have, should have also included the Clinton campaign.
The scope of his mandate was quite broad, but he seems to have limited himself to dealing with a number of key issues that allowed him to come to some very milquetoast findings, even though the facts behind them are damning, but ignore the Clinton campaign, the DNC, altogether as to their involvement in potential election interference.
My first question, I think you answered it, just going to ask it again now.
Durham did have the authority to recommend criminal prosecution?
Beyond that, I mean, so his powers by the Attorney General Barr pursuant to the special counsel statute and internal regulations was that he was given all the power of the Justice Department itself as to certain subject matters.
And that subject matter was pretty broad.
In terms of people, there was no limitation.
It said any entity, individual, person, period.
So no limitation there.
The only limitation was by subject matter.
And the only subject matter limitation was that it had to be connected to...
The intelligence community and law enforcement as it concerned the 2016 presidential election.
He then voluntarily radically restricted and self-imposed restraints on himself.
And by the way, he was given full investigative power, full indictment power, and the investigative power included full power to use subpoenas, grand juries, you name it.
Immunities.
He had all of those powers.
He had all the powers of the Justice Department as it concerned anybody that had any tie to intelligence, law enforcement, or the 2016 presidential election.
What he chose to do was voluntarily say that if Huber had investigated it before for Attorney General Sessions, he wasn't going to look at it.
That if Robert Mueller looked at it, even though the bar authorization includes the right to look at Mueller, He says because Mueller looked at it, he won't look at it.
And so that he ignored anything that Mueller's team, including Andrew Weissman, did for the most part.
So that was his first limitation was by scope, by subject matter.
His second one was by tools and methods.
He chose not to use many search warrants, seven search warrants.
Contrast that to Mueller.
Contrast that to others.
He doesn't disclose him giving immunity to anybody.
So he didn't use it.
One of the greatest powers he had, he chose not to utilize at all.
His indictment power, he rarely utilized.
Now, we talked about all the way back, almost a month after he was appointed, my skepticism that Durham would do anything of significance.
And I got some blowback from people in the community that he said, well, when are you going to apologize, Barnes, when Durham indicts Comey?
Well, you can keep waiting on that, folks.
He's now issued his report, and it's all done.
He didn't indict anyone of consequence, even though his report details what, to me, is obvious crimes.
What's interesting is not only did he not use the power of immunity, the power of indictment, the power of grand jury subpoenas, for example, James Comey, it appears Andrew McCabe, it appears according to his own report.
To some degree, Lisa Page, it appears.
It also appears Christopher Steele and a bunch of those people.
It appears Miss Food and a bunch of the people that were the, and Halper, that were the operatives, the gray space operator, that a bunch of these people did not voluntarily sit down to an interview, so he did nothing.
He didn't even subpoena them to demand they interview.
At least they'll offer immunity.
Bearing in mind that Bannon might go to jail for his contempt of a subpoena or contempt of Congress.
Well, at least you avoid that risk by just not subpoenaing anybody.
Exactly.
And some people he did subpoena, asserted attorney-client privilege, executive privilege, other privilege.
He didn't even challenge it 95% of the time.
So this was an investigation that was more cover-up than investigation.
So the goal was to come to terms with, what Barr wanted was to come to terms with how bad the Russiagate inquiry was, but to come up with scapegoats that would be low-level, that would be mostly outsiders.
He indicted more people outside the government than inside the government.
He indicted very few people in general.
And that would not call for either indictments of high-ranking officials or institutional reform.
And that's what...
I predicted the Durham report, what Durham would do, and that's exactly what Durham did do.
One quick question.
So when you say that he had all of the power of the Justice Department, that it would be not only to recommend indictments, he could have brought indictments himself.
Yeah.
In fact, the memorandum is just to explain why he did or didn't indict certain people.
And most of that is likely in the confidential section of the report, not the public section of the report.
But you can tell from the public by how he voluntarily chose to limit his scope of what he would subject matter of his inquiry.
Then second, voluntarily chose to restrain what tools he used in the Justice Department.
That was going to guide and govern his outcomes anyway.
But third, he makes clear that he's constantly interpreting the facts in a light most favorable to the FBI.
What he concludes, because my view is motivation was to come to a conclusion that did not call for either high-ranking indictments or institutional reform, was that this was gross negligence based on confirmation bias of the political prejudice of a few people.
Not that the barrel was bad, but just a few apples were.
And those apples weren't criminally bad, they were just grossly negligent.
And that's exactly what I predicted he would do, and that's exactly what he did do.
Now, that doesn't change the shocking revelation still in the report in terms of that this proves beyond any shadow of a doubt what some of us said from the very beginning, which was Russiagate is the most embarrassingly ridiculous allegation ever made in the history of the Justice Department or mainstream media against a presidential candidate.
Mueller never should have had a job.
That never should have been an assignment.
$30 million.
$33 million it cost.
But they recouped some fines, so, you know, it paid for itself.
I mean, it was utterly ludicrous.
I mean, Rosenstein has no excuse.
He should be retroactively impeached.
I mean, for him to, I mean, he knew that this case was entirely fake.
And, you know, Ann Coulter should issue an apology for ever recommending Attorney General Sessions to be Attorney General Sessions because he's the one who recommended Rosenstein.
Rosenstein was a complete joke.
I knew that from his days of the tax division.
So there was absolutely what the...
What the Durham report concludes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that there was absolutely no merit whatsoever ever to Russiagate of any kind, any way, at any time.
And they had to go to extraordinary lengths of violating their own internal rules and procedures, ignoring their own internal analysts and experts, refusing to employ their own required methodologies and modus operandi for investigative techniques in order to make these outrageous claims and seize the...
He's extraordinary powers.
That's not gross negligence.
That's deliberate efforts to seditiously undermine the election to interfere.
As to his credit, Robert Kennedy got a lot of criticism because back in 2017, he was open to the possibilities of Russiagate.
Now, he had very few tweets on that.
Michael Tracy was being overly critical of him.
But Robert Kennedy Jr., as he explained, we'll get into a later topic in his debate with Crystal Ball, he said he's happy to change his mind if people show him evidence that shows why he's wrong.
Well, what does he do after the Durham report comes out?
He goes on Dave Smith.
Dave, you still owe us a sidebar appearance.
Got to show up, Dave.
But Dave's a great guy.
Dave sat down with him on his show, and what does Robert Kennedy say?
He agrees with the Durham report.
He calls it a shocking expose of extraordinary deep state misconduct and malfeasance.
That Russiagate was a complete crock, and that it was an embarrassing election interference.
The media is not really talking about the Durham report.
I'm sorry, I can't stop it.
Sorry, Robert.
I'll play this after you're done.
Oh, you know...
Yeah, sorry about that.
Sorry.
The Democrats don't like...
And the mainstream media is not really talking about the Durham report.
For me, because I've been concerned for so many years about the CIA's illegal propagandizing American people, which it's not legally allowed to do.
Is it just going in and out on my end, or is that your end?
Say it again?
It seems to be going in and out.
I'll share the clip afterwards.
Basically, he comes out and he says that this is the CIA and the deep state interfering in our elections.
So credit to him for it.
That's how compelling and persuasive the Durham report is.
Even someone who is open to the idea that Russiagate was real reverses course entirely because he remains open-minded as a human being.
But it shows how powerful and persuasive it is as to that aspect.
That there was never any evidence for it.
The top analyst for the CIA said there was no basis for it.
The top analyst of Russia, your Jack Ryan types at the FBI said there was no basis for it.
At the National Security Agency said there was no basis for it.
At the Director of National Intelligence said no basis.
So the actual analyst said it was nonsense.
But what did Brennan and Clapper and Comey do?
They went over and talked to Obama and Biden and Susan Rice and Sally Yates and said, let's conspire to screw the president.
And they disguised it.
They laundered it through using multiple levels of laundering.
They disguised it as a national security investigation.
That was their effort to try to derail the president's election, to illicitly spy and surveil it, to then go on and try to undermine it with a de facto coup of foreign affairs policy for more than two years.
And so that's the undisputable, undeniable, ultimate conclusion from it.
Now what was shocking new news in it...
Is two things.
I mean, well, kind of shocking.
I kind of said so at the time is probable, but it was still striking to see it in plain black and white writing.
The FBI had multiple offices who had received independent reports of extraordinary and extensive and expansive criminality by the Clinton campaign going beyond the Clinton email scandal.
But including other issues of bribery involving the Clinton Foundation and a bunch of foreign individuals who said that the Clinton campaign was trying to raise money from foreign sources directly and deliberately.
And what did they do?
The FBI, rather than investigating, they shut down those investigations, they harassed any agent that tried to pursue those investigations, and they tipped off Hillary Clinton that those investigations and whistleblowers even existed in the first place as a defensive advisement.
So the FBI basically was the personal tool of the Clinton campaign and the personal hostile adverse entity to Trump in the 2016 campaign and afterwards for the entire term pretty much of his presidency.
It details that over and over again high-ranking FBI officials can't remember or directly contradict things that are in their own notes, in their own emails, in their own correspondence.
All these people, Peter Stroke, Lisa Page, James Baker, James Comey.
There is overwhelming evidence in the report itself that they should have been indicted.
They just choose not to indict them by giving them the benefit of the doubt as to their bad memory.
Can the Republicans decide to find a way to indict them?
Yeah, I mean, the statute of limitations, Durham's decision is not binding on any future prosecution.
Only the statute of limitations is limiting.
But statute of limitations in many of these cases will run out before 2025.
Maybe that's why Durham took so long?
The other aspect of it, though, that's shocking is the Clinton campaign high-ranking people went in and lied directly to the Durham investigators.
And that's its own basis of criminal prosecution.
It is apparent to me that Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, two high-ranking officials in the Biden administration, lied to the Durham team.
It is also clear that John Podesta lied to the Durham team.
It is obvious that Palmieri and Robbie Mook and Hillary Clinton lied to the Durham team.
They all committed overt acts of obstruction and perjury because they made claims that, as the Durham report details, were patently false and are rebutted directly by plain evidence, including their own emails in certain cases.
Because the other aspect that it confirms is that Russiagate was...
Not only a deep state plot, which he tries to hide.
You have to figure that out by reading between the lines.
He hides the identity of Halper.
He hides the identity of Miss Food or whoever that is or whoever that aggregate person is.
It's never been explained.
But when you figure out it's always the legal attache in London and the legal attache in Rome, and you've got Aussie spies involved and MI6 spies involved, and it's the National Security Division at the FBI, or the Counterintelligence Unit at the FBI, the National Security Division at the Justice Department.
It's the head of the CIA.
It's guys like Clapper.
It's guys like Brennan.
When you understand that's who's running this, you understand this is a deep state plot.
In collusion with, in coordination with, the Clinton campaign that secretly hid It's involvement.
And by the way, this might explain why Elias was pushed out.
Perkins Coe clearly lied to the world.
And in my view, their lead partners deliberately perjured themselves and obstructed justice when they lied to the Durham Committee.
And he refused to indict them, too, because he's ballless.
But it's clear Mark Elias committed some more.
It's clear Mark Elias has been a money launderer and a criminal for most of his days as a Democratic Party apparatchik.
But there's more evidence that he lied to the Durham Committee as well.
Because they were all obsessed with derailing the Durham Inquiry from exposing that this was also a Hillary Clinton orchestrated plot in which she engaged in money laundering and campaign finance election fraud in order to disguise and hide her role, but she didn't stop there.
She then perjured key people, perjured themselves, and obstructed justice and made false statements to the FBI in the course of the Durham investigation to try to cover up their complicity and culpability in the fraud fake hoax that was rushing it.
I had one more question, Robert.
Oh, you probably answered it, but I'm just going to have to ask it specifically.
Durham concluded there was not...
An iota of evidence to support any of the allegations in the Steele dossier.
The Steele dossier was the dossier that was funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Funded by them, they lied about it.
They got that $8,000 fine and the DNC got a hundred and some odd thousand dollar fine because they mislabeled financing the Steele dossier, which they financed.
They then, through their lawyer, was it a suspend?
The assessment was just one of them.
I mean, they had multiple people planting and laundering false intel and information through law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
As I explain in more detail in the podcast version that's available at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you dig in, this was really a deep state plot that started in March, not in July.
And the Clinton campaign just came fully on board in May.
And they were coordinating with the deep state allies, but Durham doesn't want to focus on the deep state aspect, so he instead highlights the political corruptibility of high-ranking agents and the Clinton campaign role, both of which are significant and consequential, but by no means were the lead elements involved.
It's not a coincidence certain people keep showing up whose names are not named.
And just to highlight this, is that Clinton campaign financed the Steele dossier, lied about it.
Their counsel slipped it to the FBI.
The FBI then leaked it to Yahoo News.
FBI relied on Yahoo News to get those unlawful spy warrant, Pfizer warrant renewals against Carter Page.
Durham concludes there was not an iota of evidence to support any of this.
It was gross confirmation bias.
It ought never have been initiated as a full investigation in the first place.
What the hell was Mueller doing for three years investigating and prosecuting people in virtue of an investigation which ought never have been started because it was so frivolous?
What was Mueller doing for three years?
It was just extending the cover-up and continuing the coup d 'etat against the elected president of the United States, particularly with a certain policy.
That was clear from day one.
I mean, this is where people like Steve Bannon got played like a violin.
He got played by people like Mueller.
And this is where Sessions was a weak link.
Ann Coulter doesn't want to admit that, but she's still bitter at Trump for his treatment of Sessions.
Well, Sessions screwed up.
He was a denier about the truth of the deep state.
And so you could call them a deep state denier.
People want to use phrases like election denier.
Well, I like phrases like fraud denier and phrases like deep state denier.
How about just criminals?
I mean, they are unindicted criminals.
Yes, that's exactly right.
So there should be institutional reform.
There's been some calls for it from the effect of the Durham report.
Durham report is a great report for understanding how the deep state really operates, but you do need to read between the lines to figure that out.
It tells you how much Christopher Steele's text.
Like, there was no Russian source.
There never was.
There was no source in Russia at all.
The so-called Russian source was a CIA recruit from Russia who had come over in Russia back in the late 1990s.
He had no meaningful ties to Russia at all.
He would just make up stories that he was told to make up.
The members of the board have watched Taylor of Panama.
I recommend both the book and the movie.
Also the book and the movie by Graham Greene, Our Man in Havana.
That is exactly how until...
I said from day one that if you watch those two movies, it will predict to you what happened with the Steel dossier.
That the Steel dossier was totally faked.
And then it was just made up by rumors by random people sitting in a bar just making stuff up.
That's exactly what it was.
People were like, that can't be true.
Our intelligence agencies don't operate that way.
I remember debating all these quasi-hack lawyers from Lawfare and elsewhere online saying that they didn't follow FISA.
And they were like, no, no, no.
You don't understand how hard it is, Barnes, to get a FISA warrant.
No, that's to meet a high standard of propaganda.
Hogwash?
Now we all know they lied.
They all lie.
All those people should be embarrassed.
All those journalists who won Pulitzer Prizes should be humiliated.
Dan Abrams.
Hey, you can send me your apology next week, Dan.
Dan was sitting there debating me back when I was writing for Law and Crime, his publication, about Russiagate early on.
Because I wrote, people can look it up in case, ah, Barnes is making it up.
I wrote in January of 2017 about this.
February of 2017.
Again, March of 2017.
And Dan Abrams was agitated because he was like, you don't understand this Alpha Bank story.
It's a real big story.
We've got to figure this story out.
That dumb bastard fell for that crap.
Everybody who ever vouched for Russiagate is a joke in terms of if you're a journalist, if you're a lawyer, if you're when he's high profile, you pretended to use your expertise to vouch for it.
Then you're a crock.
You're an embarrassment.
And that's what it should be.
And that's why the media ran and hid from the Durham report.
Because it shows what an utter crock they are.
That our man in Havana is still alive and real today.
That's nine times out of ten what our great intelligence officers are gathering.
It's just crap.
I've been reading about various famous spies recently because of the Durham report.
And to do some hush-hushes on people like the Cambridge Five, on the famous Russian spies.
What's funny is the KGB ignored 90% of what the Cambridge Five gave them because it didn't fit their own confirmation bias.
So they didn't even translate it.
Stalin was so paranoid and the KGB was so, they wouldn't believe anything that disagreed with their assumptions and beliefs.
This is who these people are.
Our intelligence agencies are a crock.
They're a waste of space.
They're a waste of time.
We would be better off if we did what President John Kennedy said, what Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. just said, time to disperse them to the wind.
All right, let's get over to Rumble here, but I'm going to go to Rumble.
We're going to do the Rumble rants before I go to Rumble exclusively.
Do you think January 6th...
I mean, that question answers itself, does it?
But if you have any doubts about it, watch the first ever Hush Hush at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com, which was published just a week after January 6th.
And it depends what everyone means by false flag.
It happened.
It was facilitated by...
That's what a false flag is.
False flag is a pirate.
Puts up, makes you think he's with you.
Puts up your flag of your country on your ship.
And then when he gets real close, takes it down, puts up the Jolly Roger.
Hence, false flag.
Those pirates really boarded those ships and really stole the loot.
But they just weren't actually under the British flag, like their Spanish flag, whatever flag it was, they were pretending to race.
That's exactly what January 6th was from beginning to end.
Okay, I'm going to read these before we go over to Rumble exclusively.
I don't know what that means.
Ask him.
How this is the leverage.
Barnes, what are your thoughts on info on Bill Gates, Epstein, and Melina Antonova, the Russian bridge player?
Yeah, Bill Gates likes young women, and Epstein used it against him.
Shock, shock.
Arkansas crime attorney just ordered the Strange Laws of Old England hardcover, only $14.90 on Amazon.
Britt Cormier, did you see Cristobal try to go...
Head to head with RFK Jr.
After she said, I do not want to get bogged down, she went on to accuse him of being too entrenched.
Get here late.
Got here late.
Sorry, we're going to cover it more, but that's what the intro videos were.
Arkansas crime attorney.
Barnes, what do you think of Marco Polo report on Biden family?
Marco Polo is supposed to come on as well.
What did I just do here?
Escape that.
I just did something.
Oh, son of a bee sting.
Arkansas crime attorney.
What do you think of that?
Okay, we got retired geek Jimmy Dore commented how Crystal Ball is good friends with Marianne Williamson, so it's no wonder she treated RFK Jr. that way.
I don't know what that means.
A. Wohlfor, $100 Rumble Rant says, loved the tour of Chattanooga.
Have family friends there.
Thank you very much, A. Wohlfor.
I think he knows what's coming.
It's just a question of how he's going to respond when it happens.
Cheryl, no, even his family won't support him.
He should be running for governor of California.
And have you thought about having Michael Malice as a guest?
You could discuss his various books like The White Pill, Dead Reader, The New Right, etc.
Would make for a great discussion.
I would love to have Michael Malice.
He's been invited, but he's too busy.
He's always busy.
I don't want to get neurotic.
What's up with that little Michael?
I don't want to get neurotic.
He's an anarchist.
He's running around sparking anarchy around the world.
I just wonder if I did something that he doesn't like me.
That's what I'm wondering.
He said he's got a bunch of stuff he's doing, which is fun.
That's true for a bunch of people.
We've invited tons of people, and everybody's got a busy schedule.
I'm just giving Mike a hard time.
I'm going to DM Smith.
He's got to come back.
You can't guilt him into appearing.
You can't shame him into appearing.
I'm trying to find out what's Michael Malice's weak link to get him on the sidebar.
All right, now we're going over to Rumble.
The regular ones don't work.
Mosey on over to Rumble, ending on YouTube in 3, 2, 1. End it.
Hey, what was the secret code name for Bill Gates?
This was recommended by one of our members of our board.
What was the secret code name for Bill Gates?
Where, on FCN Island?
Yeah.
Do we know this?
Microsoft.
Is it a joke or is it real?
That's a joke.
That's a joke.
Damn it.
That was from the board member.
That was from Technodata.
I was going to go a little dirtier for my guess.
Okay, Robert, we're now only on Rumble and Locals.
Oh, you get it?
Micro-soft?
No, I actually only got the soft part.
I thought it was Mike Rowe, like the guy who bought up the Microsoft domain.
Okay, I'm an idiot.
Robert, the next one on the list is also...
Oh, the RFK.
All right, so I played a couple of highlights.
You heard RFK talk, like even on the things where he knows...
Oh, he believes in the environmental stuff because experts, although as he explained, look, he's relying on Exxon and oil company experts from the 70s saying, we are going to pollute the earth, we're going to cause global warming, but it'll be good for us, bad for the environment, because it'll melt the ice caps in the Arctic, and we'll get to dig it for more oil, yada yada.
Except it hasn't really happened even by the 70s scientists who, you know, simultaneously were talking about global cooling.
The debate was good.
He says, look, I believe the environmental issue is an existential crisis, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor is my policy going to be based on that panic.
What else?
The experts have lied to us about vaccines.
Crystal Ball was trying to push him or pressure him on, you know, people believe in vaccines.
Okay, good for them.
What's your takeaway?
Do you like what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has to say policy-wise?
Well, I mean, I thought he defended himself well.
I thought he acquitted himself well.
I thought that it was a little bit of a setup, what Crystal Ball was doing.
I've never been a big fan of breaking points.
They portray themselves as anti-establishment, anti-corporate media populist.
But on critical issues at critical times, they're always on the establishment side.
So they were on the establishment side on COVID, lockdowns, vaccines, masks, you name it.
Yeah, still are on that side on mandates.
Generally took the side of the pro-Ukraine war initially.
Took the side of the election 2020 was a bastion of integrity and honesty.
So when the rubber hits the road, they're almost always invariably on the wrong side.
And so my view is this.
If you're anti-establishment, you don't get written up in Wikipedia as being anti-establishment.
Instead, you get written up as...
Far right, right?
If you're actually anti-establishment, they smear you.
They don't promote you.
Breaking Points and Sagar and Crystal Ball have had big, fancy write-ups in publications like The New Yorker and The Atlantic.
It's like, sorry, these people are not populist.
They're not anti-establishment.
They're not anti-corporate media.
They are the corporate media.
They're just the younger lefty dissenter sons and daughters of the aristocratic liberal gentry in the case of Crystal Ball.
But when the rubber hits the road, they're almost always on the wrong side.
So I took it as Ball was really trying to set up.
She knew her audience.
Would be a natural Robert Kennedy audience.
So I thought it was a setup to try to smear him as, hey, audience, you can't back him because of his vaccine positions.
And all she's ever done is read the news, the big pharma news release on vaccines because she has, I mean, she had Bill Gates's view.
I mean, she was sitting there saying, well, on autism, there's only ever been one study.
And that one study was revoked.
It's like, okay, no, that's completely false.
You don't know what's been studied.
You don't know what's happened.
You don't even know what happened with that study.
You don't know what that study was and wasn't about.
You don't know what happened with Wakefield.
You don't know what happened with Wakefield's people getting reinstated down the road by when they sued the British government officials.
She has no knowledge of any of it.
Least of all about COVID vaccines, where she was still pretending they're safe.
She redefined the word effective.
She said, no, they're effective.
Well, okay.
Yes, preventing serious hospitalization, which is also not even true anymore.
That's known as a therapeutic, by the way.
That's not known as a vaccine.
A therapeutic minimizes the consequences of disease.
A vaccine prevents you from getting it and transmitting it to others.
That's what a vaccine is.
But the giveaway with her was you could see how Robert Kennedy engages.
He's very curious what her opinion is and what the basis of her opinion is.
She doesn't have one.
Her opinion is based on talking points from MSNBC.
She has never done a deep dive into the topic, doesn't have any meaningful understanding of the topic, clearly hasn't read any of his books on the topic, doesn't know that Robert Kennedy doesn't say anything that hasn't been vetted.
By all kinds of scientific individuals.
I mean, in fact, this is one area where we disagree.
I don't rely upon, I don't like scientists to gatekeep my opinions.
I think any ordinary American can have those opinions.
He prefers not to go that route.
Before he says a word, the reason why real Anthony Fauci took a year to publish and he took almost the whole year to do it, he wanted it vetted by hundreds of experts in the field.
So that's where she was completely clueless.
She didn't understand this is not a place you should even try to debate Robert Kennedy.
If you're going to smear Robert Kennedy, you better get in and get out fast, because this is why ABC just edited out his section on it, because they didn't have a rebuttal on it.
None of them do.
This is why they won't debate it.
This is why Bobby Kennedy's been saying for decades.
Plus, saying, look, if you think that the vaccines don't have any problem, the big expansion of the kids' vaccine list, and that's his main issue, is the dramatic expansion of the list.
Not just any vaccine, not every vaccine.
It's that we, in the mid-1980s, did two things.
We granted first complete immunity to any vaccine maker that was on the kids' list for any harm their drug could cause.
And then second, what happened soon thereafter?
Well, a bunch of drug companies are like, put this one on the list, put this one on the list, put this one on the list, put this one on the list.
And we went from like, when I was a kid, we had three vaccine shots.
Now your kids are going to get like 68, 70, 75, 80. It's absurd.
And all Bobby Kennedy's pointed out is, as that list has grown, so has a whole bunch of illnesses and injuries grown.
And that maybe we should investigate the two, and that there are hundreds of studies out there, not a few, hundreds that have pointed out correlations between a wide range of diseases and things that are in these vaccines.
And the timing and the increased use of these vaccines.
So that's his main point.
And she doesn't have an answer because she's never read any of the material.
She just assumes, well, this high-ranking expert at New York Times says this, so that must be the case.
When I've discussed things with vaccine people, it is shocking how ill-informed they are.
It's like, you know, you can have a different opinion on a vaccine, have at it, but almost none of them have an informed opinion.
The same is truly true for the COVID vaccine.
And my retort, for anybody out there, to everybody, on the kids' vaccine, the COVID vaccine, is real simple.
If I had been debating crystal ball, I said, if this vaccine is so safe, so effective, if the scientific evidence is so overwhelmingly in your favor like you say it is, you say it's unanimously in your favor, then why are they so scared of court?
Why are they so scared of a trial by jury?
Why are they so scared of a public trial?
Why are they so scared of simple discovery?
If they're right, they should welcome those challenges.
The fact that these people have to have immunity for their lies convinces me that they are lying to you about safety and efficacy as the kids' vaccines and COVID vaccines.
Yeah, and why not?
Forget discovery and lawsuits.
Forget the immunity.
How about just disclosure?
Why wait 75 years?
Robert, it's a good segue, actually.
Let me ask you if you are familiar with the issue of what they call hot batches.
So there's a website called badbatch.com.
There's a small number of batches that appear to be disproportionately responsible for the number of injuries reported to date.
So the question I had is this, because- This is what happens, by the way, when you allow vaccines to be done without good manufacturing standards, which is what they did.
And now the question I had is, these numbers are shocking.
Lethality, they put 6%, which some people are saying, okay, well, then the batch had a few thousand if it led to 6% lethality.
But then some articles are saying that the batches were like 1 to 3 million, as much as 3.6 million.
Others were saying, you know, they're 100,000 to 150 per batch.
The question is this.
Do you know how many doses come per batch?
And were these, for those who are going to say, well, you know, these were administered in areas where people were prone to make VAERS claims.
And so that explains why some batches, if they're like in, I don't know, pick a state or whatever, that's prone to making VAERS claims.
That's why that's the case.
My understanding is that the batches were distributed so that this type of anomaly cannot be explained from geographic propensity for filing VAERS.
That's what was supposed to happen.
I know that.
There was clearly something went wrong in these batches, either in what was in the batches or in how they were distributed or both.
Something is clearly AWOL.
And also, just before I forget, that's another segue.
I had on Trista Martin's parents yesterday.
I'm just going to share the GoFundMe people.
The GiveSendGo, my goodness, slap my face for even saying that.
The GiveSendGo was at $5,000 yesterday.
They're trying to get to $20,000 for...
The Headstone Memorial stuff.
If anybody doesn't know the story, because I wasn't aware of the story until late last week, go check out the interview yesterday.
It was on Rumble, it's on YouTube, and I'll just link the Give, Send, Go if anybody can and cares to spare.
Yeah, the hot batch, I had heard about it briefly, but you go to this website and you can put in batch numbers, and you can see 250 deaths, 212 deaths for a batch, and they know this.
And somehow it's not like front-page news that there are some batches, whether or not it's something to do with the manufacturer.
Now that you go back and you see when Johnson& Johnson had to recall, I don't know however many hundreds of thousands of doses, AstraZeneca had to recall doses.
And now you say, well, those are the ones that they got back, and the ones that they didn't recall because of manufacturing problems?
Well, maybe they result in batches that have...
Shocking.
Okay, so you think Crystal Ball, are they trying to get a soundbite to use against RFK?
The goal is simple.
It's why she backs someone like Marianne Williamson.
Marianne Williamson makes her look like she's anti-establishment, but the establishment could care less about Marianne Williamson.
They know she's going absolutely nowhere.
She's a nuisance candidate, not a serious candidate.
So it's not a coincidence that she backs Marianne Williamson and attacks Robert Kennedy.
Robert Kennedy is a real threat to the establishment.
And so it's who Breaking Point is.
I've been trying to tell people that for a while.
I ignore them.
I mostly never listen to them.
I don't pay much attention to them.
Their perspective is useless.
Their controlled opposition, if there ever was.
I think Sagar is well-meaning, but I think he's going to take the check.
I think Crystal Ball has never been well-meaning.
I mean, she's now married to Kyle Kolinsky.
You know, I mean, she's not.
I think Jimmy Doerr's take-a-part of what she did here was a good one.
Glenn Greenwald was much more generous in his takedown than Jimmy Doerr was to them.
I've never been generous to them because people told me to follow him as left populist in crystal ball.
And I was like, nothing about her has left populist.
I was like, this is a crock.
She doesn't even know what populism is.
She keeps describing herself as populist.
She has no idea.
So these are upscale, progressive lefties that sometimes disagree with mommy and daddy.
That's who they are.
They're not people to take serious as anti-establishment.
They're not people to waste your money on supporting.
Robert Kennedy was very generous in his description of him, but that's who he is, and that's more credit to him.
The National Review had a fun piece about Robert Kennedy.
I think it was the National Review.
His greatest defect is his tendency to give credence to people whose opinions don't necessarily warrant it, that he'll listen to anybody, and that's the nature of him.
So credit to him.
He's talking to everybody.
Talk to Dave Smith.
He continues to make the rounds.
He's going to be on with Glenn Greenwald.
Introducing ideas and injecting thoughts into the public consciousness that I think are great.
I think it'd be great to see a debate between him and Biden, a debate between him and Trump, a debate between him and anybody.
Because he's very good, very sharp, but very, you know, pretty fair.
I haven't seen him use any unfair tactics or techniques in any debate.
But I thought the big thing with the vaccine debate, I have not heard the vaccine supporters defend, is defend the legal immunity.
If you guys are so right, that these are so great.
Why are you so scared of court?
Why are you so scared of transparency?
Why are you so scared of the public?
Why are you so scared of a jury?
Something's wrong.
Innocent people don't need that level of immunity, folks.
But our politician in Canada, Anthony Housefather, said the quiet part out loud.
They were asked to do research and bypass the standard protocol for manufacturing, and they weren't going to do it without immunity.
Why?
For obvious reasons.
I didn't like her demeanor.
The demeanor is in the dishonest argument, which you're wrong.
You won't admit it.
I don't want to get into it.
A lot of confession through projection.
She said, oh, you're just so stubborn and won't listen to critics.
And I was like, you're describing Bobby Kennedy.
You're describing yourself.
I've listened to all your stuff, Robert, and I'm just not convinced.
I don't want to get into it now.
Let's move on.
And speaking of moving on, Robert, I guess section 230, what's the deal?
Scotus, so what happened?
A bunch of big decisions, mostly crap decisions, sadly, from the Supreme Court this week.
So on Section 230, remember the big Twitter and Google cases we discussed?
They skipped Section 230.
Now, I have mixed feelings on this.
So what they did is, how did they avoid Section 230?
They said that there's no grounds under aiding and abetting liability to sue Twitter and Google in the first place.
Twitter and Google don't meet the definition of substantial knowing assistance for the purposes of sharing the designed effect.
Now, I empathize with that limitation on aiding and abetting law, but I would note it's different than the Supreme Court has done in criminal cases.
So in criminal cases, aiding and abetting, which should be read even more limited, they expand the definition.
But when it's a big corporation sued for aiding and abetting, They radically restrict the interpretation to be less than what it means in the analogous criminal context, when it should be inverse.
So my view is that part of what's motivating this is helping big corporations avoid liability for profiting, knowingly profiting, off of extreme criminality, which is what was alleged here.
So they said because of that, they said Section 230 is not at issue.
And in both cases, they dodged the big Section 230 case.
So just like the Supreme Court to find the nearest desk to hide under when it comes time to make an important decision.
Well, maybe they just need to wait for the right fact pattern, Robert, so they can answer it once and for all.
Yes, of course they do.
All right.
Interesting.
Up next, we have Andy Warhol.
Remember the Warhol case?
Wait a minute.
That was the one where there was a reproduction of one of his works.
Who was it?
Was it an artist?
It was a photograph of Prince.
Okay, good.
I remember that.
Okay, and whether or not it was sufficiently transformative, what was the outcome, Robert?
What's your understanding of transformative under American copyright law?
I'm curious about, because the Supreme Court basically went in and just radically redefined it.
My understanding of transformative is that so long...
Sufficiently original and also does not deprive the original work of its intended market.
I mean, that would be the number one element of transformation where do I need to go see the original work anymore or is it so transformative that it's a new work on its own and it will not deter me or cause it to be redundant to go revisit the original.
What's interesting is because here what happened is this guy took a photograph of Prince.
A magazine went to Warhol and asked him to make a famous Warhol of that photograph of Prince for the magazine.
But the photographer only licensed that one time for that magazine.
Warhol's estate then went and re-licensed that to another magazine.
The Supreme Court came in and said, and the argument from Warhol's people was, a Warhol is a Warhol.
It is distinctly and by definition transformative.
And that you can't compare a Warhol to what the original source was that Warhol used to make his world.
The Supreme Court came and said, guess what?
That's not what transformative means.
Transformative is dependent.
So it doesn't matter what the creator intended at all.
All that matters is how it's used.
And if it's used for a similar purpose.
It doesn't matter how radically different it is.
That's still a derivative work.
And so consequently, what they said is, the first one was being used for a magazine.
This one's being used for a magazine.
First one was used for commercial purposes.
This one's used for commercial purposes.
Hence, it's by definition not sufficiently transformative to be fair use under the first prong of fair use.
So what's interesting is most people have always thought transformative is I do something to that work That enhances the creative mindset that the Constitution and statute's really about protecting.
The Supreme Court just reversed all that.
Now, similar to the second prong you just identified, is it a marketplace that is ultimately impacted that this derivative work could have been used for the marketplace?
And there, there's some analogy, but it's a fascinating reinterpretation of the word transformative to mean, does it transform the marketplace, not does it transform the work itself?
I mean, this is the image, and just looking at, let me see if I can bring it up.
I can understand it, and this was, look, I'm not to say, I'm pretty sure my prediction or assessment was the way it ended up, because I look at the bottom one right here.
I see this image, transformed, reverse, negative, heightened contrast.
I no longer ever need to see the original.
And if I took that original photograph and someone decided to do this transformation with it, I would be pissed also, and not just pissed, but would think that that's not fair use and that you took my original, and all that you did was highlight, enhance, contrast, and now nobody even knows who took the original photograph.
Attribution is not a way out of...
Copyright infringement anyhow.
But you took my work and you didn't do very much to it.
And now no one even knows that I took the original photograph and you get all the credit?
Damn right I would sue for that.
But seven to two.
So, okay.
Only Roberts and Kagan dissented.
And then the last case up was the...
So the Warhol case is very significant for people that are in the copyright space.
Are you doing it for commercial reasons?
They went out of their way to point out that parody was almost by definition transformative, which was interesting.
Because there they said the use is different, which is interesting.
So basically they're using a market-based approach.
They're saying the market for parody is not the market for the original product, whereas the market for magazine covers is the market for magazine covers.
And so that was a very interesting, complete reversal, but that basically undoes two-thirds of copyright law that's out there, particularly the common sense interpretation of it, so people should pay real attention to it.
I don't disagree with it necessarily, but it's revolutionary change.
The last one was a very pitiful decision by the WUS Supreme Court on IRS summonses.
The IRS was summonsing lawyers' client trust accounts because they thought that the lawyers' client trust account might lead them to information that could help them collect tax on somebody else.
To me, that was deeply problematic at many levels.
Right now, when an IRS issues a summons, you're usually entitled to notice so you can contest it to make sure they're not up to something bad.
This basically designs a huge loophole so the IRS can get around providing notice to people.
Which, by the way, the Supreme Court created this problem in the first place, the 1970s.
They were allowing the IRS to do this.
It led to so much outrage, Congress passed the law and said, no, you can't allow the IRS to do this.
And now the Supreme Court's saying, well, but we're going to see this little exception here.
We're going to carve it out to be a massive loophole so the IRS can go back and do what we said they could do from the get-go.
Because the Supreme Court take boughs of knee whenever it comes to the IRS.
Find many decisions where the Supreme Court ever has the guts to discipline the IRS.
Those justices know the IRS also has their files at their fingertips.
It's a major problem, by the way.
That's where I'm in favor of actually judges being exempt from tax laws.
Because otherwise you're allowed the executive branch by...
The back door to achieve extortionate control over judges, potentially.
Judges actually brought that suit many years ago and lost, unfortunately, because the courts themselves lost out.
But here's the most interesting part, is a concurring opinion that Gorsuch was the co-author of that said that the part of the statute that allows the IRS to get around all the notice requirements of any summons is limited.
To the words, in aid of collection.
And that the aid of collection component requires that the courts be real careful to make sure the IRS is not abusing its power.
The majority opinion recognized this risk and just said, we're going to leave that to another day because it hasn't been fully brief.
But the concurrent said, hey, it's right there in the law.
Everybody can start to enforce this now.
But guess who authored the decision?
Co-authored by Gorsuch.
But guess who the author of that opinion was?
Ketanji Jackson Brown?
Yes.
So I remember I took some heat from some people and I said she would not be all bad.
That on certain civil rights issues she would be better than your average conservative, than Kavanaugh, than Barrett, than Roberts.
People are like, no, you don't understand, Barnes, Democrats are bad across the board.
They're never good for anything.
They'll always be horrible.
And she's had several concurrences of late.
And often, the person she's most often concurring with is Gorsuch.
So it's a sign that there is, I'm glad that I accurately read that there is a strong civil liberties streak in her, because that will be good on civil liberties issues.
There'll be a lot of other issues I don't agree with her on, but this is a place where the right kind of democratic justice can actually be better on some issues than, unfortunately, conservative justices are.
Well, we'll see if ever the trans issue comes up to the Supreme Court.
We'll see if she can identify what a woman is.
But, Robert, if ever the Carrie Lake trial comes up, we'll see if they can identify what a signature verification is.
Let me see if I can bring this video up here.
Oh, wait, this is not the right one.
We're going to watch this video.
We're going to talk about the latest...
Yeah, it's right here.
Okay.
Check this out.
Now my computer's acting very slow.
Okay.
Very slow.
You're going to see 90 seconds of signature verification process.
Verify the signatures.
I'm not going to play the whole thing.
Very scary.
The guy on the left is doing signature verification.
And the guy on the right is doing it.
And the guy on the left is...
Boom.
Verify it.
Verify it.
And it goes on.
This is like the Eye of the Tiger knockoff music.
Okay, so get that out of there.
Robert, Carrie Lake had her three-day trial.
I watched the better part of a day and a half.
Robert Gouveia suffered through the full three days, day in and day out.
I'll say the bottom line of the trial was that, or ought to have been, that what we just saw there is...
Tantamount to no signature verification at all.
The question as put to the judge that they had to adjudicate upon was, did they do signature verification?
Not did they not like the protocol for the signature verification.
That would have been ripe for debate before election day.
They set up the protocol.
The question now is, did Arizona State follow their own protocol for signature verification?
Apparently, as it's set up, and you'll correct me if this straw man is inaccurate.
The bar threshold was set so high that Arizona just has to prove that they did some sort of verification, not that it was thorough, meticulous, or even in all cases respected their own protocol.
And the trial went down.
Cary Lakeside, I think, made compelling evidence that there was like 270,000 signatures that were verified at three seconds or less.
70,000 that were verified at two seconds or less.
That's 350,000 in a...
In a contest that was separated by 17,000 votes, I think that alone is an argument that three seconds and less is no verification at all, but they're going to say, well, we did sufficient verification for enough.
They complicated it, in my opinion, where they started bringing in this backdoor room of 90-some-odd other people doing some form of signature verification at the second-level verification.
In their closing arguments, they sort of said, on the one hand...
They didn't do any meaningful verification for, you know, three seconds and less, but they had this back door of 99 people.
We don't know what happened there.
And I felt that they were confusing two arguments which were mutually exclusive or mutually incompatible.
One being, there wasn't adequate signature verification.
And the other one being, there's so many people, we don't know what they were doing behind closed doors.
What is your take?
What's your prediction?
Was it an impossible bar that had been set up by the judge that they could never surpass, satisfy?
What the law is in Arizona is that there should be two alternative mechanisms for any candidate in an election contest to challenge who do the people vote for?
Because that's what an election contest is all about.
Who, add to the people, actually vote for?
And that requires only counting validated votes, validated ballots.
And those validated votes, there's two ways to show that there are invalid ballots included in the count.
One is...
In the context of mail-in voters, that their signatures didn't match.
Another separate and distinct way is to show that the signature verification process wasn't employed.
And what the Arizona Supreme Court in Miller and then the Arizona Court of Appeals in Reyes said is that if the process isn't followed, you don't have to prove actual fraud or forgery.
You only have to prove that they didn't actually compare.
Signatures and verify signatures.
Because what the statute states, it's not May, says that the county recorder and election official in charge shall compare signatures to make sure they match.
If there's merely inconsistency between the two.
That's all.
That's the legal standard required by the statute.
Mere inconsistency.
Then the ballot envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted until a later stage of it being addressed.
So that's what legally has to happen.
They have to come in, compare the signatures.
Are there any inconsistencies in the signatures?
Are there any inconsistencies?
Set it aside, not count.
Now, what the Arizona trial court did is the Arizona trial court denied Carrie Lake the opportunity to say the signatures don't actually match.
Said the court wouldn't allow that part of the action to proceed.
I disagree with the court's conclusion on that regard, and that will be subject to further appeal.
The only thing the court did allow is allow them to challenge whether or not the Arizona election officials in Maricopa County actually followed the statute.
And again, they don't have to prove actual fraud.
They don't even have to prove signatures didn't match.
All they have to prove under the law is that Arizona and Maricopa County didn't do its statutory job.
Both the Miller and Reyes decision said that if they don't do their job, you have to set aside the election.
Not Carrie Lakes declared the winner.
You set aside the election.
Usually what you have is a new election within a 90-day time frame, something like that.
And so that's the question that the court posed.
And initially the court said it was not even going to look at what's called level one signature verification process.
And by the way, this is the great credit.
This is where I disagree with Jenna Ellis, disagreed with...
Ryan Godursky disagreed with all these people that were being harshly critical of Cary Lake for bringing this challenge.
Because I said, even if it's an uphill battle, that should never be an excuse not to take a case, in my view.
If you think you'll do more harm than good in the law, then don't take a case.
But otherwise, absolutely take a case.
The fact the odds are stacked against you is, you know, when David had a rock, he didn't say, oh man, Goliath's big, I'm going home, I'm getting out of Dodge.
No, you throw the rock.
And that's part one.
But part two was these cases always develop, have an opportunity to develop new law, which Carrie Lake's already won on, the right to bring a signature verification challenge after the election without having to bring it before the election.
Huge victory that will be precedent in Arizona and persuasive precedent across the nation.
But factually, find out what the heck's going on in our elections.
If Carrie Lake had never brought this challenge, we would never know any of these facts.
We wouldn't know any of this.
So we're figuring out what the heck's happening in the signature match process.
I've been saying since 2020 now that the great vulnerability of this mass mail-in voting system is signature matches.
That it's the number one place that you will find fraud.
All the election officials agree with this.
Various international organizations have recognized this.
Various domestic U.S. organizations have recognized this.
Various commissions with Republicans and Democrats have recognized this.
There's dozens of judicial opinions that have recognized this.
The place to look for a voter fraud or an election that was not conducted consistent to the Constitution of either the state or the United States is in the signature match process.
Thanks to Carrie Lake, we now know what the heck is going on.
And it is horrifying.
Well, and if I could stop, just to pause there, and people have to appreciate this, when you're dealing with, what do they have?
1.3 million mail-in ballots.
And you have whatever, two weeks they did this for after the election.
And you've got a voter discrepancy of 17,000 or so.
Ballot.
And they did not need to show that the ballots that were, you know, not verified two seconds or less would have been for Carrie Lake.
They just need to show that it didn't happen.
It wasn't verification.
But just so everybody appreciates, like from the trial, when they're saying, yeah, we verified them, there's like eight points that we look at.
We had training.
They went through training before the election so that they could identify eight points or four points of similarity to look for.
I mean, just logistically, that's going to take 30 seconds of ballot in the best of circumstances.
And so you're dealing with, do the math.
One million ballots.
So if you're dealing with mail-in ballots and it's going to take time to do the signature verification, it's impossible to count them in any realistic time.
And we now know this.
Correct.
That's why what you really need to do to do signature match checks meaningfully, you need to require the ballots to be produced much earlier than they're currently produced prior to Election Day.
You need a staffing that is much bigger and broader.
And you need to have partisan or individual observers for either the party or the candidate available to watch the process at each part of the stage.
And that's what the law anticipates.
Why?
Because the law didn't anticipate this many mass mail-in voting.
That's part of the process.
So that's what needs to happen.
And the real resolution is don't do mass mail-in voting.
It's my view.
It's too costly and expensive to validate.
I can tell you where they're going in the future.
They're going to go biometrics.
Do AI and then just see...
That I can imagine would be very easy.
Well, and they already partially do that.
So you have these software programs designed to validate the election, to validate the signature.
But the problem is, one, there's issues with the software.
There's issues with the application of the software.
There's issues with delegating that to a third party, which the law does not allow or authorize.
And this has been tested.
And Nevada was tested.
And what they found was that things were so elastic that a whole bunch of obviously fraudulent ballots were getting through.
In one case, a guy sent in eight fake ballots with different signatures in different ways, and they validated each one in ways that he had other people sign his name, and they validated every single one.
So it showed what a joke it was.
But here, so that's a burden they were forced on, and I think that the state and the court thought no way they can make that burden.
But what the state should have known was what was actually happening.
Three big problems.
One, there's a whole bunch of people who validated signatures, and we have no idea what they actually did because they were not being taped or supervised because they were doing it from their home, which should never happen, period.
So they begrudgingly admitted that on the stand.
That's category one.
Category two, at least 70,000 ballots, two seconds or less.
Two seconds or less.
You saw from the video, you could barely load it in two seconds.
I was trying to do the math.
What they were really doing was just seeing if a signature existed.
Not whether that signature matched anything.
I said, like, I was trying to play devil's advocate.
Maybe the explanation is, the guy on the left going like the lawyer was saying, like a woodpecker, he wasn't actually verifying.
He was just counting how many ballots there were for a batch.
But no, no, that was supposed to be like, good, good, good, good.
You don't even tell me what the person's name was in two seconds.
And then you have close to 300,000 in three seconds or less.
And again, all she needs is 18,000 ballots in doubt.
Right?
She's more.
And then you have the next problem.
So problem category one, they're validating them too fast for any signature comparison to take place.
And even if they're using software.
So we were like, well, they're using software.
The software didn't flag it that they're not supposed to delegate to the software.
Software there to help them not make their decision for them.
So there's just no way you can go boom, boom.
And meaningfully look at those and make sure in two seconds are flat.
Those people are just going...
That's what they're doing, right on the keyboard.
But here's the giveaway that that's the case.
People who did it under two seconds, guess what their signature match rate was?
99.8%, Robert.
Well, actually, of the last two seconds, my understanding is it was 100%.
Under three seconds, it got to 99.8%.
So they weren't...
And to give people an example...
Using these exact same standards with the same employees, because this is done every year in Arizona when there's a referendum, when there's a candidate who tries to get on the ballot somewhere, they match the signatures on the petitions.
I know of no example, you know, Garrett Archer was trying to pretend to defend this stuff, and I asked Garrett, can you tell me about the example I'm about to give?
I know of no case where the state of Arizona has ever...
We have validated more than 90% of the signatures on any petition.
On average, they strike more than half the signatures.
Now, there's other reasons they strike them, but those included in them is the signatures not matching.
And on average, 20% of the time.
20% of the time, the signatures don't match.
How does it go to 0.2%?
And just so everybody understands, sometimes they get invalidated not because the signature mismatched because they were ineligible voters.
Or they got married and their name changed, things like that.
Or they changed voter registration addresses.
100%.
That's usually what it is.
It's a very small percentage that are actually fake names or fake voters.
Mostly it's honest voters, but they strike them anyway.
And the courts get on their high horse and say, we must keep this little candidate off the ballot because if we don't, we'll have voter fraud in Virginia or Arizona.
Well, what we had was mass voter fraud in Arizona in 2022, also 2020.
And it's proven in the complete joke of verification signatures that took place.
Any signature match check that really took place would have revealed more than 10% of the signatures didn't match.
Far in excess of the margin of victory, both in 2022 and 2020.
And that's, by the way, what their whistleblowers came forward, who did honest voter signature analysis, said is that on average over 20% of the signatures didn't match.
So did Carrie Lake's team, by clear and convincing evidence, show that Maricopa County failed to exercise their statutory, non-discretionary duty to make sure that the signatures actually matched by comparing and verifying signatures?
Clearly she did.
And did she provide clear and convincing evidence that it concerned more than 17,800 or whatever it is ballots?
Again, clear and convincing evidence she did.
The only question is, does this court have the courage to enforce the law?
I don't have any confidence in this court, sadly.
But if the court follows the law, the election will be overturned and there will be a new election and Carrie Lake will win it when it's done in a constitutionally consistent manner under the Arizona state law.
The judge took it under, do we say in America it's under advisement?
Under advisement, figuring out how he weasels his way out of this problem now.
I say, we say in deliberation, or en deliberé in Quebec, but so how long...
Great credit to Carrie Lake for bringing the case.
Very revelatory.
We got systematic problems that need institutional, legislative, and litigation reform.
Some of the reform can happen by legislative change in those states where we have usurped governors like in Arizona.
If that's not fixed, then we need litigation brought early and often to fix this in advance and use all the court's own rhetoric about how you should sue earlier and its mood.
We're going to start suing.
We're going to start suing everywhere.
And we're going to sue early.
Because what we're seeing is all these mass mail-in ballot states, my guess.
Have systematic problems with signature matches.
They're not meaningfully enforcing the signature match requirements.
They're encouraging, inviting, creating a means by which for there to be mass voter fraud.
That's what's taking place.
In four signature matches, you stop 90% of the voter fraud in this context.
I'm just trying to figure out how many.
So it's 10,000 hours.
If it was 30 seconds.
Of signature per ballot.
10,000 hours.
How many years is that if you have one person doing it?
So that'd be five years per person.
So that probably gives you an idea that you need about, you know, you need 1,000 people.
It's insurmountable.
It's insurmountable.
And then you need them trained probably for five to ten hours in advance.
And that's why my view is we shouldn't, you know, it's too costly to do mass mail-in voting.
So make people vote in person.
That's what we should return to.
It's good enough for our founders.
It's good enough for us.
One day, one vote, one piece of ID, and those who are informed...
And a piece of old-fashioned paper.
Well, we'll see what it is.
If there were odds, I would bet that the judge grants the motion, because I bet the odds would be like...
100 to 1, and I could stand to make some money, but I don't know if there's a market for this.
Yeah, I don't know if there is a betting market on that.
Legally, she should win.
Politically, her only hurdle is politics, not law.
Law is on her side.
Again, credit to Carrie Lake.
Carrie Lake's campaign, Carrie Lake's lawyers for carrying this on, despite a lot of criticism, because at a minimum, we know where we need to reform things and how we need to reform things, and we have more legal tools now than we did before to reform things.
The fact the court system may be so political they can't do the honest and honorable thing and put her in power is something that's beyond her control, but also exposes a need for reform as well.
All right, we'll see.
How long do you think it takes the judge to render a decision?
He'll rule next week.
My prediction.
Excellent.
I think we skipped over the TikTok ban in Montana, Robert.
Oh, yes.
So, TikTok, the governor of Montana.
What's his name?
I kind of like the move.
What's his name?
Greg Gianforte.
Banned TikTok, but not just on government devices, on private devices.
Making it, you know, allegedly, purportedly, it takes effect next year, but not allowing stores to carry the app, not allow people to download the app, to use the app.
Not allowing the app to be diffused.
But there's no penalty on users.
The only penalty is on stores.
And on TikTok itself.
There's financial penalties, etc.
There's lawsuits already flying.
First Amendment violations.
Bills of attainder.
I meant to look this up because I thought the bill of attainder meant a law that was set up to surreptitiously retroactive.
Bill of Attainer was a law to target an individual, right?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm sorry.
I'm thinking ex post facto.
The Bill of Attainer, was it not a way to do it indirectly or surreptitiously, but not directly?
Yeah, yeah.
The Bill of Attainer is targeting an individual.
Ex post facto is targeting something before.
So TikTok is saying, look, this law targets us directly, and therefore it's illegal.
But I thought the legislature could target a company specifically.
And that wouldn't violate the rules of Build Over Tender.
But obviously, First Amendment violations, set aside the practicality of how you impose this thing.
I now say that in as much as I think TikTok is a poison, especially in conjunction with the actual poison that China is also infiltrating to America, I think it's all part of a big global...
I've started to sound a little crazy.
It's part of a plot, people.
If you don't put it together, the dots are out there.
But I do see the First Amendment violations.
I don't like the government saying, okay, well, you don't like this app, and so we're going to go after it.
I like the reasons.
It seems that if you already have laws against espionage, spying, violation of privacy rights, you don't need to go after the company itself per se.
Just apply the existing laws to them.
What's your take on the lawsuits on the ban and whether or not you think other states are going to follow suit or whether it's lost cause and it'll get overturned?
Yeah, I think the First Amendment claim and the Fifth Amendment claim are weak.
So the First Amendment claim is free speech, arguing that TikTok is a forum and that they're banning a forum for speech.
The Fifth Amendment claim is due process of law that they weren't given adequate notice before they had their rights to this forum taken away, including expectation, interest, and property they had in their advertising on TikTok.
The next is that the Foreign Affairs Clause makes this subject only to federal legislation, not state legislation.
The Commerce Clause on the grounds that they can't try to ban things extraterritorially.
Federal preemption under a range of federal statutes.
Here's the core problem they have.
On the First Amendment claim, saying that you can't ban an app.
I think is probably a weak First Amendment claim because this happens all the time.
The FCC de-licenses radio stations, televisions, networks, telecom operators all the time.
They did it to China Telecom just a few years ago, and the D.C. Circuit had no problem with it.
So I don't know the consequences of claiming the First Amendment protects TikTok, of saying any app...
Is by definition First Amendment protected, either because its code is First Amendment protected, the argument Apple made when the feds are trying to hack into Apple, or the argument here that they're a forum because of how the app is used, I think is a reach.
I agree with you.
I don't like the idea of the federal government or state government or any government being in the business of banning businesses.
I'm a general skeptic of that, but I don't know if there's a First Amendment violation here.
The second part, Fifth Amendment due process, the users aren't targeted.
The users are specifically exempt from any sanction under the law.
So I don't think there's a due process or a reasonable expectation argument present or takings argument, as far as I can tell.
The Foreign Affairs Clause will be a new tested argument because they cited...
China is spying on Montana as part of it, but that's not a foreign affairs argument.
That's an argument that Montana itself is having its rights violated by the owner of this app.
So I don't think the foreign affairs clause is violated here.
Commerce clause, that argument has sailed with the decision they just issued in the California poor case.
They just said extraterritoriality.
That's a big word.
Or a trippy word.
It doesn't at all preclude state regulation under the Interstate Commerce Clause or the dormant portion thereof.
So I think that argument's DOA.
Federal preemption will be trickier.
There are some statutes that appear to be on point that they can argue preempt.
The state, it's all going to depend on what judge gets the case.
In my view, they get a liberal judge, they'll strike it down.
All the D.C. court judges wouldn't allow Trump to ban TikTok, but they did so not on constitutional grounds, but on grounds that the president did not have unilateral power to do so.
Didn't make a lot of sense under foreign affairs doctrine, since this is a Chinese government-owned app.
So I think it's a close call.
I agree with you.
I'm concerned with the precedent it could set, practically speaking.
If they can simply ban forums by banning apps or banning the means by which that speech forum occurs, that's problematic to give the government that power, even if TikTok is a worthy target of the use of that power.
I don't like the idea the government has that power.
I'm not sure, though, that the Constitution forbids them from having it.
But watching how this case develops will be very helpful to figure out when and where and how can the government regulate the apps that are the platform by which we have speech.
Well, I'm thinking they could have opted for a Pornhub-type Utah thing, which they make people register, make, I don't know, make people ensure that they're 18 and over.
But the issue they cite, you know, security concerns, spying, privacy issues, there are already laws for that, in which case, making more laws to say we're going to go after this app, and then one day they're going to say, well, now we're going after Twitter because we don't like Elon Musk so much anymore.
Ah, well, speaking of those kind of suits, bonus topic tonight, truth!
Has sued the Washington Post for billions of dollars.
I missed it.
I was trying to look it up as you mentioned it.
Do we do the bonus now?
Sure.
Because it relates.
You talked about porn.
So this was the allegation of the Washington Post.
The allegation of the Washington Post was that Truth, Trump's organization, his Twitter alternative, was being secretly funded by a bunch of porn-profiting Ruskies.
So that was the allegation.
And that they were lying in their SEC reports and were actually engaged in money laundering and securities for it.
Turns out, of course, none of that was true.
Little problem for the Washington Post.
So they decide to sue.
Sue in state court in Florida.
Washington Post will remove it to federal court in Florida.
So it'll all depend on judicial assignment.
But he's got a pretty robust claim.
And his argument is if you look at the equitable decline, the value and the equities of truth from the time the Washington Post reported the story, they have argument, unlike Dominion, they have an argument for actual hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in damages.
So this has the best promise of any defamation claim that Trump has brought to date to actually get meaningful relief or remedy.
And it'd be great to see the Washington Post have to write a big fat check.
For just getting so used to and so accustomed to telling any libels and lies about Trump.
That they probably went too far by going after a specific organization that could sue for specific damages without risking undue discovery in other items and telling some of the worst lies you can tell.
They said they were under criminal investigation for securities fraud and money laundering and accused them of doing it on behalf of a poor and profiting Russian bank.
That sounds like defamation per se, Robert.
Yes.
Serious criminal accusation.
What district do we know that they filed in?
It's suited in Sarasota County State Court.
But I'm assuming Washington Post will remove it there to the Southern District of Florida, which will be in Miami.
Okay, well, still better.
There's liberal judges, conservative.
They're all mixed down there.
Okay.
Robert, the next one.
Well, okay, judicial reform in Illinois.
You're going to have to field this one, and then we're going to do the traffic baptism.
What's going on in Illinois?
So, in Illinois, they tried to pass a law that they don't want conservatives, basically, influencing judicial elections in Illinois.
So they said no money from out-of-state donors and no money over $500,000 from independent expenditures.
They didn't want any of these independent groups coming in and spending lots of money to influence the election.
Well, this is what Citizens United was all about.
You have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as you want.
You don't have a First Amendment right to bribe somebody.
Unless you're Rupert Murdoch and you use HarperCollins to bribe, say, a certain governor of Florida to run a self-destructive candidacy for presidency because you guarantee him $10 million disguised as a book deal.
Unless it's one of those legalized forms of bribery.
Otherwise, you're absolutely in your right to spend as much money as you want.
And to the credit of the federal district court, it said the attempt of Illinois to keep out-of-state people from donating, to keep independent expenditures from being spent on judicial campaigns, is in fact a violation of those individuals and entities' First Amendment rights.
and struck it down.
Good to see because you need a robust protection of First Amendment in that space.
I've always been a supporter of Citizens United because my view is campaign reform is almost always designed to help the elite not hurt them.
They'll always find a way to illicitly get money to people if they want and illicitly influence campaigns if they want.
It's designed so that that dissident millionaire, multimillionaire can't...
Break through the elite aristocratic control of our political processes, right?
What does a finance cap really do?
It says, oh, you want to be a candidate?
You need to get 20% of the upper middle class and upper class to support you because they can't give more than 6,600 per couple, right?
So by doing it that way, they're making you get a certain percentage of the elite.
Whereas let's say they can give you whatever you want.
Well, then you only need one.
You need just one dissident millionaire that says, I don't like our China foreign policy.
I don't like giving away our jobs.
I don't like wokeism in schools.
I don't like whatever it is.
One millionaire can totally bankroll your campaign.
Historically, outsider populist dissident anti-establishment challenges are successful from a very small percentage of dissident money being spent on them.
That's why all these campaign finance reforms meant to create...
In fact, they're meant to create elite-governed, elite-driven, donor-controlled, donor-class-controlled elections.
And I'm for transparency, full disclosure of who's spending money for what.
I'm not for any limits on that speech because it's almost always used to help elite power.
So good decision out of the federal court striking down those rules.
Robert, roadside baptism by a police officer.
Now, I was just actually looking at...
Up a fact on this story and it has a tragic element to it.
Let's just back it up to the beginning.
It's a story of a woman who was pulled over.
I didn't fully appreciate it.
It was Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pulled over.
I forget the reason.
But the cops find out that she has marijuana in the car or that she's using marijuana.
She might be high on marijuana.
I forget which.
And basically the cops tell her.
The police officer apparently, what is it called?
Moonlighted as a...
His part-time job is to be a preacher.
Part-time preacher.
Full-time cop, part-time preacher.
So he pulls her over and says, look, you either go to jail or we're going to go to a river and do a midnight baptism and I'm going to cleanse your soul and you're going to walk free and you're going to be born again and you're going to be free.
She does it.
She agrees to it.
There's another deputy or police officer who's watching this.
And then I guess later on...
A deputy go forth.
One of the great names in the history of deputies.
Especially for this.
Go forth.
I didn't pick up on that part.
Apparently afterwards she regrets the incident or feels that she might have been inappropriately touched or compelled, coerced into doing this and she sued.
Now the tragedy is that a couple of years after the lawsuit she died and now I'm looking it up and it says that her name was Chandel Marie Riley died of a methamphetamine.
Fentanyl and methamphetamine toxicity, in other words, overdose, her daughter or estate carried on the lawsuit, and it was ultimately tossed, but she was suing over, what, constitutional violations because she's alleging that she was coerced into either being grossed and coerced into this alternative to arrest, and ultimately the lawsuit was dismissed, but fielded and let us know what the heck is going on.
The suit against the preacher is still going forward, and the suit against the county is going forward.
But she sued Deputy Goforth under a theory of failure to intervene.
Anybody that knows failure to intervene, there is no duty to intervene, generally speaking.
So that claim was never going to go anywhere.
And he tape-recorded it for the purposes of protecting himself.
Because what he said is the detective called him out, asked him to help.
He showed up.
He did not know that she was arrested.
At some point during the process, learns that she had been arrested at that point that night, but didn't know there was any connection to the baptism.
Video records it on his phone because he is concerned with potential false allegations down the road.
Believes that she independently wanted the baptism, kept saying she wanted the baptism, that it was a religious event, and he knew this other cop was a part-time pastor, so he's like, okay.
And then he gets sued for not intervening and stopping the baptism.
So, the Court of Appeals says, well, he has immunity, be qualified immunity, because there's no duty to intervene under those circumstances.
Which, I'm not in favor of immunity for anything, so I'm always opposed to that.
But I don't think that he did anything wrong.
I don't think the other detective...
Now, the other detective's story...
Is that she initiated the discussion of, you know, Bible and God and wanted to get reconnected to religion.
Probably he disclosed at some point that he was a former pastor.
So the idea this was really coerced doesn't strike me as true.
She probably pitched the idea first because she was like, hey, I bet I can talk him out of this by going down this path.
And the idea of giving somebody the option of baptism rather than jail, I don't see.
Where's the harm?
Where's the harm to a baptism instead of jail?
It's like, what are your damages?
You should write a check to the cop, not the other way around.
No, not just that.
I didn't realize...
It said that she died two years later, and I didn't realize she died of an overdose.
Yeah.
I mean, if she followed different paths, she may be still alive today.
Yeah.
So, I mean, it's...
Now, Hamilton County does have severe issues.
It's Silverdale Jail.
By the way, particularly in her case, the jail that she would have gone to, Silverdale Jail, I'm suing on a bunch of cases because it's an utter abomination to the city of Chattanooga and the Hamilton County.
We talked about this at the meetup, right, with the lawyer who works with you?
Jared Jordan, a lawyer who used to be a counsel with me, went out of his own, started his own law firm.
He is co-counsel in many of these cases.
They're just horrendous cases.
I know people who have been treated horribly.
Basically, the Silverdale Jail is a place where you go and get your civil rights horrendously violated.
This woman may not have known it.
I doubt that.
I think she would have known it.
But that deputy did her a huge favor that night.
And then, you know, he saved her from the harm that was almost inevitable inside Silverdale Jail.
It doesn't matter what you, you get arrested for a ticket, right?
I mean, I know people who've gone in for traffic violations, minor traffic violations, and been assaulted in that jail on a repeated basis.
I mean, the cases I'm bringing are some of the most horrendous facts you've ever seen in your life.
So there is a severe, serious problem in the city of Chattanooga and Hamilton County.
And if they don't clean it up, I'm going to sue them into oblivion.
It's my hometown.
They need to fix it, clean it up.
But unfortunately, some of the politicians are too lazy and sloppy to do their job there.
But this was not a case of abuse, in my view, by these deputies.
In my view, these deputies were doing just fine.
Now, obviously, I have a bias when it comes to baptism.
But, you know, I mean, taking a dip in the water is worse than going to a jail that's notorious for getting assaulted within an hour of being there.
Hard to see where your damages are there.
All right.
Well, we'll see about that.
It was interesting.
The header that you sent me is my homework.
It piqued my interest.
Another one, Robert, that I like because I enjoy a snifter of port at Christmas.
So the Fireball lawsuit, we talked about it a while ago.
The Fireball is that cinnamon-flavored whiskey crap.
And if you like that crap, I mean, good for you.
The in-store or the in-liquor-store version has like 33% or 35% alcohol by volume.
They have another version, which is available at grocery stores or 7-Elevens, and it's like 17%, and it doesn't actually contain any whiskey.
It contains a malt beverage like Colt 45 and wine, and they were sued on the basis that it was misleading or fraudulent advertising because people were led to believe the small bottles that you get at a convenience store or gas station contain whiskey like the product that you get from a liquor store.
Although, look, I don't know what the news is, Robert, because if I'm predicting, they should have lost because everybody should know that you don't get hard alcohol at gas stations.
And if you're getting it there, you should presume that it doesn't have hard alcohol in it.
But there's been an update in the lawsuit.
Yeah, so they moved to dismiss on grounds that it wasn't misleading.
But their main grounds was that, because they said they put the words, even though it's an identical, I mean, it's a little, little bottle, an identical image in every respect.
Except the word whiskey is removed.
But there's other marketing of it that leads you to think it is whiskey.
And so their main grounds was the ATF has its own labeling protocol.
And classic for them to use, oh, federal preemption.
We went with the ATF standards.
The ATF approved it.
This is the problem with letting the federal government in anywhere.
Let the federal government in anywhere, all of a sudden they can get out of violating local and state law en masse.
But to the credit of this court, this court was like, That ATF label only preempts for things that relate to the ATF label, and this doesn't.
And the court concluded that, under the allegations of the suit, that he looked at photos like a lot of people would be confused between these two.
I'll bring it up.
Yeah, there it is.
You see it.
It's like if you changed at least something, like, you know, it's a fireball cinnamon.
Granted, the word whiskey is gone.
But they could have put cinnamon malt, because that's what it really is, a malt beverage.
I can understand someone buys it, and then they taste it, and this tastes like shit, because it's 15% cinnamon crap, or whatever that is.
Maybe.
That was the core problem, was they clearly designed this to trick people.
And then not enough people know that it's...
Some people don't know it's the alcoholic content that makes it taste good, necessarily.
They buy it at a liquor store, they see it at the other store, it looks exactly the same, they grab it.
I think Fireball knew what they were doing.
But so Fireball lost the motion to dismiss.
It's on to Discovery for Fireball.
My guess is there'll be some embarrassing information in there.
They should probably start looking at settlement.
Hey, guys, let's make it look exact.
Okay, I might correct my own opinion.
If you buy it thinking it's the original because it looked identical.
Let me just do a couple of rumble rants here, Robert.
Barnes, I missed the tail end of the Carrie Lake judge situation, so I'll ask in case you did say something regarding if this present judge sides politically.
Can Carrie Lake take it to the SCOTUS?
She could take it to the SCOTUS.
She said she would.
It's difficult to find a federal issue.
It's mostly a state issue.
So she would take it back up to the Arizona Supreme Court for sure.
If he decides to ignore the plain evidence.
So that's the big question.
Does he pretend that two seconds of acknowledgement is actual meaningful signature verification?
It's so embarrassing to have to say that in the judicial record.
Well, and now Tatone asked a question that I was thinking.
Carrie Lake's trial was on signature verification, but her team was not allowed to look at the actual signatures.
Explain how that isn't a rigged trial.
Robert, when does Carrie Lake get to actually compare?
The signatures.
She never did.
She never was.
She never was allowed.
So instead, it was just about the process.
But she met her burden there, too.
I mean, it's obvious why they never let her do a signature match check.
It's because they know the signatures don't match.
Can that be remedied by any other course of action, a FOIA request?
She can go through the appeal.
Well, she had a FOIA request.
Here's a FOIA case pending, too, already.
Okay.
One, two, three, four.
Ace.
Robert Barnes is awesome.
Huge fan.
Defending myself from battery charges.
I am innocent.
Learned a lot just hearing you talk about the judicial system.
Any place I can go to brush up on defense?
A lot of that you can look up online.
Nevasa.
Viva.
I have just started a podcast of a similar nature, forward bias podcast.
If willing to answer, what is the normal lead time you're given for homework from Barnes?
Barnes dumps it on me Friday.
And then I gotta do it over the weekend while I'm pretending or while I'm distracted parenting.
I was at the beach today and on my phone.
And then the phone overheats in the sun.
Mandatory at carry.
Can't stay.
Keep fighting.
Thank you, Arkansas Crime Attorney.
I just watched Blaze's new whiteboard on the Biden crime family.
Got the Marco Polo link while watching that.
I'm gonna DM Marco Polo again.
We're gonna make that happen soon.
Can the AGs launch any suits or criminal referrals based off the Durham report?
We answered that.
Have you guys found out if you can email the local members, the locals members of the next meetup?
We'll discuss that and see when it happens also.
Do either of you think they will be successful stopping Trump from running in 2024 by using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, i.e.
seditious conspiracy, Robert?
No.
Okay.
And I think we got the other one there.
All right.
You want to blast through the last ones before we run over to locals for our locals after party?
Yeah, I got one big one, which is up next, which is a central bank digital currency coming soon.
People should pay attention to federal legislation that's currently going through that's attempting to license cryptocurrencies and put the licensing control under the Federal Reserve.
They may attempt a backdoor mechanism of a central bank digital currency, as George Gammon explained at the Rebel Capitalist Live conference.
And he was also on Patrick Bet David, where he gave us a shout-out, which was cool.
He still recommends your bowling video as well.
He's like, I gotta go bowling with Viva so we can do a follow-up on that.
But he was making the right...
He was on the Fresh and Fit podcast, which I thought was kind of funny.
But he was interviewing there.
It was classic Gammon.
Well, how would Gammon go on Fresh and Fit?
He does a mathematical equity investment analysis of the male dating pool in Miami.
So he's like, you know, just do the math.
Who are you really looking for?
Honey, you ain't finding them.
So just do the math.
You want them six foot?
You want them single?
You want them under this age?
And you want them to have this net worth?
Keep trying.
Net worth as a question in dating is juvenile behavior.
They don't deserve to date.
That should never be a consideration.
Okay.
That's all of biological history right there.
That's factor number one or two typically.
You know, history.
Just being real.
So the Congress is trying to regulate cryptocurrencies and they're trying to stick them on the Fed.
And what George Gammon pointed out is the real central bank digital currency is just a centralized ledger.
It doesn't even require something called a central bank digital currency.
It doesn't require Fed coin.
It requires something like the Gaz Bank from the Soviet Union days that was there from 1922 to 1991, which is just a single ledger.
Now, that gets into some complexity.
People kind of get lost now and then as to how our banking and financial system really works.
It's basically ledger accounting.
That's what currency really is.
But for some people, that's elusive to understand.
You have to go through abstract information to get to the simple accessible information.
But the short answer is if you have everything under one roof, you might say, you sooner or later have a central bank digital currency.
Even if your digital currency might be called, Crypto X. Or your bank account might be at J.P. Morgan.
If, in fact, it's all under the Fed's single ledger roof, you have the date, like Russia, Soviet Union, you had a bunch of different banks.
They were just all under the Gaz Bank.
So as long as you're, if there's the equal to the Gaz Bank in the United States of a central bank ledger, that creates a central bank digital currency that with it comes all the problems of social score, social credit score, enforceable systems that can strip you of all your rights and liberties.
At the stroke of a key.
By tying up your financial access to be able to secure your liberty to their centralized control.
So there's some dangerous legislation going through right now that attempts to license, create federal licensing for any cryptocurrency, to stick those under federal control, to not put those under the SEC's control, but under the Federal Reserve Bank's control.
So these are things to watch out for.
Now there's counters of states trying to ban it.
Florida's passed a law trying to ban it.
It's difficult to know whether that's really enforceable or not or how it would be enforced because, again, they might be missing the boat as to how a central bank digital currency actually functions.
Texas is passing its own digital currency back by gold.
I would remind people that, too, can be a little tricky because it's only the promise of the gold.
If it requires you trusting politicians to keep their promise that they will pay you in gold.
Look at the whole history of the world.
Nobody keeps their promises on that.
You'll want to see that it's enforceable somehow through blockchain, that the politicians can't violate it.
Otherwise, it's not a real cryptocurrency, blockchain-based currency built in gold.
It's built in a promise of a politician to sucker you into something that they can then use to control you later.
The devil is always in the details when it comes to these laws.
And we're talking about it in Canada.
The Bank of Canada has put out a call for opinions as to public consultation on central digital banking.
And I just say, Robert, people panic about central digital banking legislation, but to the extent that none of us have cash sitting around the house and we're all digital anyhow on our...
TD, RBC, Bank of America, whatever.
You're already digital banking anyhow.
They just shut your bank account off and you don't have your money anymore.
So it's not digital, but it's digital and you don't have it anymore.
Ask the trucker protesters.
Yeah, absolutely.
So I tend to think also there's a bit, not a distraction, I hate that term, but an overemphasis on digital banking currency, whereas we're all digital anyhow.
And I think it's Gammon that said...
Pay in cash, even if they...
Is it Gavin who said this?
Pay in cash, even if they don't let you, you have the legal right to do it.
Bring cash.
Trying to do more of that.
He had difficulty withdrawing cash from his own bank account.
That's where having too much money tied into any banking system is risk.
Jurisdictional diversification is critical.
Methods of diversification of holding assets, equally critical.
But then meanwhile...
Get, you know, have a gold coin and then figure out how to hide it from thieves or bury in the backyard.
Remember where it is?
Life is about making money and then trying to keep your money because the government is coming to try to take your money.
Have privilege or people like legislators.
So in Texas, a case went to the Fifth Circuit.
They passed election reform.
A bunch of lefties wanted to get what the politicians were up to when they passed that election reform.
And the Fifth Circuit said it's immediately appealable because the district court said, yeah, you can go spy on all their internal communications.
And the grounds was they talked to third parties.
And the Fifth Circuit correctly said third parties are always involved in legislation.
So they said the only question is, are you asking for a document from a legislator that concerns the legislative process?
Doesn't matter if it concerns someone that's also a legislator, a third party, none of that matters.
If it concerns legislation and legislative process and a legislator, it doesn't matter who the other...
Part of that communication or conversation was with, that is entirely privileged to protect the independence of the legislative process from judicial scrutiny.
And if they disclose it and divulge it to the entire world publicly, that can waive it.
But just disclosing it to third parties who are part of the legislative process does not.
So a nice Fifth Circuit ruling that enforced the independence of the legislative process against these lefties wanting to spy into why people were passing election reform.
The only two, only one case and a bonus case left.
So the New York charities, remember the U.S. Supreme Court came in and said, California, you can't track demand to get people's names and addresses under the guise that you're investigating charity fraud?
Well, the state of New York was also doing that.
The state of New York stopped doing it, but they passed a bunch of other rules that said, well, send us your redacted IRS listing of all your donors and addresses.
Which is a bureaucratic, burdensome thing to do.
And so knowing many people wouldn't, so they'd get those lists.
And they clearly have been leaking.
It turns out the source of the Politico article about who Nikki Haley's donors are came from the New York Attorney General illicitly having access to this list after the Supreme Court's decision and then illicitly leaking it.
So there's a First Amendment suit to stop the New York courts from doing so.
It's a reminder to be careful about forming charities in the first place.
That if you have just a regular LLC, then states like New York can't suddenly say they have jurisdiction over your entity.
When you claim it's a charity, 501c3 or 501c4 or anything like it, then they have jurisdiction, means to spy on you, means to try to prosecute you, ask to build the wall people.
So there's a long history.
So be careful.
With wanting every little organization to be a charity just to get a little donation on a tax return.
So you get a $500 deductible.
I'd rather do the Give, Send, Go and contribute there.
It's not deductible on my end, but okay, it's fine.
You won't get whatever you give to these Give, Send, Go campaigns.
Our last case, kind of the white pill case, independent of Gorsuch is great.
So they can be a parallel.
Gorsuch wrote a great concurrence this week in the Title 42 context that said one emergency doesn't justify using another emergency power.
But what he mostly does is he warns everybody in ways that can be used for legislators, used for courts, used in the Court of Public Opinion that went on how horrendous.
I'll put up the highlighted version of the case at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in the Barnes Law School playlist.
Because he goes through, he goes, this was what happened was horrendous and should never happen again.
And everybody at every level should reconsider what took place here, including the judiciary, including the legislature as to COVID.
And a good example of that is Keene versus San Francisco.
A couple of brave folks filed suit against the city and county of San Francisco for their vaccine mandate.
They got a lefty commie judge who denied them injunctive relief and made a bunch of ridiculous rulings in the process, said that their religious beliefs couldn't be sincere, said that there could never be public interest in opposing a vaccine mandate, that.
And losing your job is not irreparable harm.
Exactly.
All three of those.
Ninth Circuit reversed.
Ninth Circuit said the judge was wrong on all three.
Said losing your job absolutely can be irreparable harm.
That it's not the judge's job to second-guess the sincerity of religious beliefs and that there were absolutely sincere religious reasons to object to the vaccine.
For anybody out there, it's useful to be quoting these courts if you have to still deal with hostile or adverse employers in this context.
And that the public interest should focus on protecting people's civil rights.
Not just the purported efficacy of this vaccine, for which this district court judge looks like a joke.
This judge said, oh, the vaccine is great at preventing transmission.
In fact, total garbage.
Another joke of a judge.
All these judges who made up, pretended that they were scientists overnight, like that nitwit crystal ball, making embarrassing claims to the world.
But it was a good white pill moment that even the Ninth Circuit did their job to restore and reaffirm basic rights.
I have cases pending in the Ninth Circuit, so it's very good to see.
So that was one of the white pill case moments of the week, along with Gorsuch's concurrence.
It's just shocking.
They say, like, oh, yeah, losing your job, not irreparable harm.
Oh, we're judging your religious, your sincere, deeply held religious belief.
Oh, that's good.
So you're now my new God.
You're not just God, actually.
You're the judge and God.
It was shocking.
That's who they want to be.
That's who they really see themselves as.
Well, Robert, I've given everyone the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after party.
I'm looking over here.
We got a lot of tips to get to.
We're going to end on Rumble.
I don't know if it's going to be a white pill or a black pill, but it's going to be the closing statement from the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada.
I testified on Thursday.
If anybody didn't see it, check it out.
It was amazing.
Earth-shattering.
Okay, I'm joking, but I'm going to end with the closing statements of...
Let me just make sure I can get it here.
Here.
We're going to end with this because Rumble cuts off when I do this.
It'll be two minutes.
I won't play the whole thing, but just listen to this guy.
I love this guy.
His words resonate.
His demeanor is steadfast.
And meet us on vivobarneslaw.locals.com for the after party here.
Ending it now.
Stay tuned.
Next week is going to be massive.
And see you soon, peeps.
I don't know what that's going to look like this time.
They're going to tell us to wear masks again.
They're going to try and force treatments on us again.
I live in St. Albert.
We're designated as a 15-minute city, so they're going to eventually block off the roads so we can't drive in and out.
But this time we're not asleep.
And there'll be times that we're afraid, but we know how to handle our fear now.
We are Canadians, and Canadians don't cower.
Do you know where the word stormtrooper came from?
I don't know.
Who knew this?
It's what the Germans called the Canadians in World War I, stormtroopers.
They didn't like going against the Canadians.
And we have a reputation.
One of our witnesses who had been stationed in the military in Germany Related that, you know, the Germans would tell their children, you know, if ever you get lost, just go to the home of a Canadian stationed in Germany and you'll be okay.
Because we have a reputation of treating people decently.
We have a reputation of loving each other and loving others because that's who we are.
I want to stop it there.
And everyone can go listen to this.
We have that reputation.
We had that reputation until one person did a lot to undermine that.
Okay, people, we're going to go to Locals Now exclusively.
I'm not going to end the broadcast.
Let me make sure how I do this.
I'm going to end the stream on Rumble and come on over at vivavarneslaw.locals.com and we're going to talk more.
Otherwise, everybody stay tuned.
We'll even answer.
You know, Hunter Biden is pretending he's broke while he takes a $55,000 charter to avoid child support in Arkansas.
And we'll discuss, does Justin Trudeau have a claim against the Cuban government for a paternity of himself?
I want a DNA test.
That's all I want.
Okay, people, I'm ending on Rumble.
We're going over to locals.
Now, three, two, one, booyah.
Robert, okay, I can't see the screens.
I can't see both screens at the same time.
We've got a lot.
Of tips to get through.
So I'm going to do this.
I'm going to read fast and then I'm going to maybe put something in my glass in a second.
▲
Export Selection