Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 4, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:27

Ep 163: Project Veritas; Trump & Kim Jung-Un; DeSantis to Disney AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And we will not allow the central bank to bring in a digital currency to control our money.
	We already have digital money.
	It's called your bank account.
	It's called your credit card.
	We've got a gentleman over there.
	He's little out of here.
	Listen.
	Listen.
	I'll be happy to chat with you afterwards.
	I'll be happy to chat with you afterwards.
	We'll have a conversation afterwards.
	Always here.
	I'll have a challenge to celebrate.
	You know what?
	Look, I understand why people are so frustrated.
	They feel like they're under attack.
	They've under attack by their government model for too long.
	They're frustrated and divided and looking for a chance to speak out.
	I want that young man to understand that I hear his voice.
	I feel the pain that he's been suffering.
	He's a legitimate person, and he deserves the respect of our leaders.
	Minister means servant.
	I will be his servant as well.
	All right.
	Everybody, let me, before I continue, I'm going to leave that up there for a second.
	Let me just remove it.
	Can everybody hear me?
	I'm not at home.
	I didn't bring my good mic.
	And before I get a little too far into my intro rant, I want to make sure that everyone is hearing me fine.
	I need a link.
	No, no, no.
	Before I get into this, before I even break down that Pierre Poilier.
	Okay.
	Good.
	Georgi Grisa says yes.
	Oh, gosh.
	I'm going to show you something in a second.
	Look at it right now.
	You see that fingertip?
	My fingertip is bruised because of what I was doing at a trampoline house today.
	Trying to break a record that doesn't exist or that nobody really pays attention to because nobody goes to trampoline houses and actually tries to pay attention to breaking records.
	Let me just freeze my thing here.
	Okay, I'll show that video afterwards, and I'll show you why I hurt my finger.
	Audio's good, and I want to make sure that we're on Rumble.
	Before we get into this, once bitten, twice shy, third time traumatized.
	And are we live on Locals?
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	All right, some of you might be able to see that I'm in a hotel room.
	We had one hotel room for two adults, three kids, and two dogs.
	Because I'm in the greater Toronto area at my nephew's bar mitzvah.
	We had to get a second room.
	Five people and two dogs in one tiny hotel room was too much, even for the vivas.
	Okay, now what was I going to say?
	Let's get back to that.
	Let's get back to that video clip just for a second before we get into today's show.
	That's Pierre Poilievre at a rally.
	The video, initially shared by Pleb the Reporter.
	He's not my go-to because I don't have a go-to, but I do follow him on Twitter and he does put up good, you know, good clips and videos.
	This is a video of Pierre Poiliev.
	You know, purportedly, Pleb is a heavy on the board of Pierre Poiliev and the Conservatives, believes that if you vote for the PPC, you're vote splitting and you're an idiot.
	We've had our fights about it.
	We understand we will not see eye to eye on this issue.
	I do not believe one is ever splitting one's vote when they vote with the entirety of their spirit.
	And their conscience.
	And I don't vote strategically because then you just end up saying, I'm not going to vote for who I really want to get into office to effect a change.
	I'm going to vote for who I think.
	Welcome to the uni-party system to some people.
	So Pierre Poiliev is at a rally and is a protester.
	And this is like for the conservative bros of the plebs type.
	This is like, look how good Pierre Pauliev is.
	He says the right things, people.
	He says the right things, but I am a deeply cynical person.
	And say, it's a little too perfect.
	It's a little too convenient.
	But he says the right thing.
	I'm not allowed a central bank to bring in a digital currency to control more money.
	As some of you may or may not know, the Bank of Canada is holding consultations as to whether or not we implement a CBCD, Central Bank CBDC.
	Not to be confused with CBD, like cannabinoid oils.
	Central Digital Banking...
	Central Digital CB...
	Central Digital...
	No, Central Banking Digital Credit.
	I think that's it.
	Okay, bad idea, by the way.
	It's full Orwellian Big Brother control of everything and anything you do.
	We already have digital money.
	It's called your bank account.
	It's called your credit card.
	We've got a gentleman over there.
	He's a little educated.
	Listen, I'll be happy to chat with you afterwards.
	I'll be happy to chat with you afterwards.
	We'll have a conversation now.
	What?
	Okay, hold on.
	First things first, by the way.
	I'll have a chat with this gentleman now.
	Is that individual, I'm not saying this is an accusation because I think it might be.
	Is that Josh Alexander?
	Is that someone who might be legitimately protesting?
	I don't know who that is.
	If anybody in the chat knows who that is, the red hat and the suit looks like Josh Alexander, but I'm not sure if that's the protest.
	It's all right.
	You know what?
	Look, I understand why people are so frustrated.
	They feel like they're under attack.
	They're under attack by their government in Ottawa for too long.
	They're frustrated and divided and looking for a chance to speak out.
	I want that young man to understand that I hear his voice.
	I feel the pain that he's been suffering.
	He's a legitimate person and he deserves the respect of our leaders.
	Minister means servant.
	I will be his servant as well.
	That is what all politicians should understand, appreciate, and internalize.
	Justin Trudeau is not the servant of the people.
	In his own mind, he is the master of the people.
	He is their father.
	He's their big brother.
	And he doesn't have to address or dialogue.
	With the ones with which he disagrees, who are just incapable of understanding the world according to Trudeau.
	So that's the question.
	Now the question is, first of all, whoever says Rumble is not live, Rumble is live.
	Refresh your screen.
	Was that protester Josh Alexander?
	That's one question, because I know Josh might have legitimate grievances with Pierre Poliev and the Conservatives.
	It certainly looked like him, well-dressed suit, well-behaved, hands in the air, red hat.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	That was the intro because I didn't want to start with the subject that I really wanted to start with.
	I'm with the family and I could not get time away to do a car vlog.
	And I wanted to do a car vlog on the one hand because I feel useless when I don't feel productive, which is either paradoxical or a truism.
	I feel productive when I'm productive and I feel productive when I'm getting breakdowns and analysis out on subjects that I think people should know about.
	Couldn't do it.
	Absolutely just not enough time.
	And I bit off more than I could chew in terms of what I could do while at a family event with the kids.
	I'm going to share the link to Rumble.
	Oh, that's what I forgot to do.
	I forgot to pin the link to Rumble in the YouTube chats.
	Here, let me do that.
	I'm going to do that right now.
	Link to Rumble.
	Here.
	Boom shakalaka, there it is.
	Okay.
	I'm going to bring up the tweet, and then we're going to break this down.
	People have lost their ability to think critically, and those with the ability are able to exploit other people's lack of critical thinking capabilities.
	Case in point.
	Mehdi Hassan.
	As many of you might know him, the MSN propagandist, the taker down of reporters in his own mind.
	He's the reporter slayer because he got Matt Taibbi on his channel and bombarded him with attacks and overwhelmed him.
	He scored a big fat W because he thought that he publicly lambasted and humiliated Matt Taibbi so that he no longer had to focus on and pay attention to the actual scandal that is the Twitter files.
	Donald Trump made the news again.
	On Truth Social, by posting this, this was his truth post, congratulations to Kim Jong-un.
	Complimenting, praising, it would seem.
	Kim Jong-un, why?
	This is a true story, and we're going to get to it in a second.
	North Korea granted position on the World Health Organization's some prestigious board.
	I'll get to it in a second.
	So Donald Trump says congratulations to Kim Jong-un and the propagandists out there.
	Those who suffer from the highest forms of Trump derangement syndrome say things like this in any normal world.
	This would disqualify a candidate from running for president for either the Democrats or for the Republicans, but not in America in 2023.
	Because it would seem that some people are refusing to understand the underlying point here.
	Now, I came out and said that people's minds are broken.
	That if people don't understand that this is a form of sarcasm, then they are failing to understand what is going on.
	I said, this is clearly sarcastic.
	And people don't really appreciate why or what is meant by that.
	People come out and say, I'm not making fun of anybody.
	These are legitimate points that we have to address if we take a position.
	And someone says, look, he's not being sarcastic.
	He's repeatedly referred to Kim Jong-un as his friend.
	Right here.
	This is a tweet or a Trump truth social thing from Trump.
	Rob, my red button is bigger, better, stronger and is working.
	Truth.
	Yours does not.
	Per my conversation with Kim Jong Un of North Korea, soon to become my friend.
	I couldn't find the other one.
	There's another one when Trump refers to Kim Jong Un as a friend.
	Whether or not you think that Trump is referring to a murderous dictator of a hermit kingdom as a friend.
	In the literal, like, ha-ha, let's have a barbecue sense.
	Or in the political, he's going to be a political friend and I'm going to get this dictator to ease up the oppression on his own people.
	Or whether or not you think it's totally sarcastic.
	Let's just say that we'll agree to disagree and put it in the middle.
	I'll concede that Trump is using the term friend, but maybe in the political sense.
	I need to keep my enemies close and...
	You know, it's a way of wooing politically someone into dialogue, discourse, the international community by referring to him as a friend.
	We're going to be friends.
	Let's even say that he thinks that way of Kim Jong-un.
	Those who have a memory or those who are remotely educated know that Trump does not think highly of the who.
	In fact, he loathes the who.
	Everybody knows I just accepted the cookies and I didn't mean to do that.
	Trump loathes the who.
	He knows, has publicly said, it is a corrupt, incompetent, China-centric organization that seeks to basically strip nations of their autonomy and subject them to the New World Order, a one-world government, a globalist institution.
	He said this repeatedly when he was president.
	He announced his withdrawal from the World Health Organization.
	And I've got to say, mechanistically, I don't know what that looks like and how that operates.
	But he certainly said, we're going to withdraw.
	We're going to stop funding the WHO.
	In the same way, we're going to stop funding NATO, because the West is funding these institutions that are taking their money and then effectively acting in a manner that's against the interests of the West.
	He said this.
	Anybody who knows this would understand where I'm going with this.
	Anybody who doesn't know this needs to understand that which they don't know before taking a hard position on a current issue.
	This is from 2020.
	He said that he would make good on his threat to withdraw from the World Health Organization, an unprecedented move that could undermine the global coronavirus response and make it more difficult to stamp out other diseases and threats.
	Because I think the word corrupt is in here.
	Is it?
	Yeah.
	Because everybody knows that there's this talk of this international treaty that should scare the living pants out of everybody, of basically nations subordinating their national autonomy to the WHO.
	So Trump hates the WHO, threatened to withdraw from it, said he would, and then the Biden administration came back and reiterated their commitment to stay in the WHO.
	If someone regards someone as a friend, would they sincerely congratulate them for joining an institution?
	Or being appointed to an institution that they don't like?
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Others might understand that when you congratulate someone on having been appointed to an institution that you think is a corrupt, loathsome institution that you should withdraw from, maybe there's something more to that compliment.
	And it's not actually a compliment, but maybe something of an insult.
	If not to Kim Jong-un, because you think he sincerely means that they're buddy-buddy friends' friends, maybe it's a critique of the WHO.
	And so what ends up happening is you get the Mehdi Hassans of the world and all those other anti-Trumpers.
	Not that I'm a pro-Trump, I just understand things as to how they're meant and intended.
	But you get people coming out and saying, Trump is an actual, he's an authoritarian dictator.
	Look what he's doing.
	He's complimenting his buddy.
	Kim Jong-un, it's offensive.
	He's complimenting a murderous dictator.
	How awful is that?
	And they don't understand that if they acknowledge that Kim Jong-un is a murderous dictator, which I think we can all acknowledge that he is, well, then they are necessarily saying the WHO just appointed North Korea and Kim Jong-un to their board.
	I should have brought up what it was.
	To whatever position it is that they just brought.
	So you condemn Trump for praising a dictator that the WHO just appointed or gave a seat on a board within the WHO, and you don't understand exactly what you're saying, and possibly.
	Maybe just possibly because Trump might be a whole lot of things.
	Dumb he is not.
	Maybe, just maybe, you are understanding the point that Trump is trying to bring out here.
	Compliment a murderous dictator on having joined the WHO.
	Everyone rails against you for complimenting a murderous dictator.
	And lo and behold, at some point at the end of this equation, you're going to have to understand that there might be a problem with the WHO right now if they are appointing...
	Murderous dictator regimes to their institutions, it might be an institution to withdraw from.
	Maybe.
	Just maybe.
	Maybe I'm totally wrong because I'm totally, you know, ultra-maga-extreme Republican.
	Okay, Barnes is the backdrop.
	Cheryl Gage, if the Seaquarium closed, what would happen to the animals?
	So I just put out a documentary, a mini-documentary on my Viva Family channel.
	I went to the Miami Seaquarium to watch Phil Damaris do a protest.
	And then Phil says, you've got to go in there and see it for yourself.
	And I went in and I saw it for myself.
	There are alternative housing for some of the animals.
	And some animals, like manatees, I think could be released into the wild.
	I don't know, and I'm definitely not an expert, but manatees, even according to those who know at the urgencies, they sit there and eat grass.
	It's not like an orca which has to hunt in a pod.
	And if it's not done that in 50 years, it'll forget how to do it.
	So there's that.
	It's a horrible, horrible, depressing place.
	People's Pundit was defamed on Twitter in RB Mail.
	Okay, I'm gonna have to see that.
	Oh, Barnes just disconnected himself.
	Let me do the standard intro stuff.
	So if I, so I took the initiation for the indication.
	Hold on, my goodness.
	So I took the initiation for the induction into the order of Winstonism and had a sheet on the kitchen floor.
	My wife is divorcing me.
	Okay, thank you.
	Okay, so standard disclaimers, by the way.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice.
	Those things you see, Super Chats and Rumble rants.
	YouTube takes 30% of all Super Chats.
	Yes, Super Chats.
	Rumble ordinarily takes 20% of them, but they're not taking them for the rest of the year.
	100% goes to the creator.
	After that, Rumble's going to take his 20%.
	Still a better cut and better to support a platform that supports free speech, as we all know now.
	I'm rushing because I want to bring Barnes in, but you may have noticed it said...
	Did it say it?
	Hold on one second.
	I know that I put this in.
	I know that I put this in.
	Yes, I did put it in.
	It contains a paid promotion.
	So you should have seen that thing already.
	The paid sponsor, the sponsor of tonight's stream.
	It's my sponsor.
	It's Field of Greens.
	Many of you don't know.
	You're supposed to have between five and seven servings of fruits and vegetables.
	And when you can't have that, what's the best alternative?
	You have to have...
	Raw fruits and veggies, they help with digestion, fiber, nutrients, antioxidants.
	And if you don't get your five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day, and even if you do, Field of Greens, one spoonful twice a day will give you one serving of...
	The good stuff, antioxidants, vegetables, fruits.
	It'll give you one serving with each scoop, so you'll get two servings a day.
	It is not an extract.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's desiccated, dried, pulverized fruits and vegetables.
	It tastes great.
	It looks like swamp water, which I always say because swamp water is high in nutrients, as is Field of Greens.
	So made in America, USDA organic approved.
	I use it.
	Like Joe Rogan says, it's easy for me because I actually use it.
	I actually like it.
	They're a great company made in America, and it's healthy, and a healthy alternative to otherwise bad habits.
	So go to the website, Viva, sorry, hold on, it's fieldofgreens.com.
	It'll bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code Viva, you'll get 15% off your first order.
	The link is in the pinned comment or the chat thing.
	The description, it's in the description.
	Okay, now with that said, what else was there?
	There was nothing.
	I'm bringing Barnes in.
	Robert, sir, get ready.
	Three, two, one.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Hold on.
	Are you muted or am I muted?
	No, I think you might be muted.
	Chat, is Robert muted or is it me?
	Let me see here.
	Barnes.
	Try it again.
	Oh, it might be me.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm an idiot.
	Let me go into settings.
	Sorry about that.
	Let me just see.
	I don't...
	But no, I heard you.
	Audio.
	Mic.
	Speaker.
	So, hold on.
	Is it...
	Barnes is muted.
	Okay, nobody can hear you, Barnes.
	Nope.
	While Robert does that, let me see here.
	It says, I'm trying to watch on Rumble, but it keeps buffering while YouTube doesn't.
	YouTube it is.
	Yeah.
	Rumble's going through growing pains, and they'll figure it out, but we'll take a note.
	Robert, I think I hear you now.
	Good, good.
	All right.
	Robert, look, let me get my camera down here.
	I hate this flipping camera.
	It keeps going on facial tracking, which I don't want it to do.
	Okay, track my face.
	Come down here.
	Okay, stop.
	Robert, I'm being accused of being like a Magadonian.
	I don't even know what the term is.
	Am I right or am I wrong about what Trump is trying to do by saying congratulations, Kim Jong-un, on being appointed to the WHO Hall of Fame?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, obviously.
	I feel like an idiot because you get called enough names on the internet, at some point you might start to believe some of them.
	Okay, fine.
	Done.
	And now he says, you know, Kim Jong-un and him are friends.
	Am I giving Trump too much of the benefit of the doubt or is he talking politics about keeping enemies closer and trying to woo them through some form of flattery because that's how Donald Trump works to some extent?
	Well, he tried to do a peace deal in North Korea originally and he would like to do one again.
	So that's what that's about.
	Okay, excellent.
	Robert, again, we're going to start on something here, but what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Oh, sorry, sorry.
	First of all, 1775.
	I guess I can see the book behind you.
	What's it about?
	That's by Kevin Phillips.
	It's about the American Revolution, the buildup to it, the ideas and the people that helped create it, the founders being more than just the people that signed the Declaration of Independence.
	It's a good book about what ideas influence them and shape them in that process.
	So, yeah, a highly recommended book by Kevin Phillips.
	Excellent.
	And what's your cigar?
	You know, to be honest with you, I don't know.
	I took the label off.
	I always take the label off because I find it annoying so I don't keep them on.
	Is it a rule, an accurate rule of cigar smoking and you're only supposed to smoke it up to the label?
	Not that I know of.
	I smoke it until I can't.
	Everyone says, is the Rumble connection available?
	It's the pinned comment in the chat and we are live.
	I see it right now.
	We are nearing 10,000 on Rumble already, which is fantastic.
	Alright, Robert, what's on the menu for tonight?
	First, we've got a couple of bonus topics off the top.
	Tara Reid has to seek amnesty in Russia for fear of Biden persecution.
	And then another one, a debate popped up between Vivek, I won't try to pronounce his last name, and Dave Rubin on the Florida so-called hate speech law.
	So we can cover that briefly as well off the top.
	Then our core 12 topics tonight are, we have the Supreme Court, We have a trio of decisions.
	We have trans suits.
	We have Disney judge recusals.
	We have Trump judge recusals being sought.
	Project Veritas is the big topic tonight that's suing James O 'Keefe.
	Google healthcare provider tracking.
	Right to a public trial.
	Arkansas book ban lawsuit or library book ban lawsuit.
	The unconstitutionality death penalty for juveniles in Tennessee.
	That has some broader ramifications about cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
	The second most popular topic on the board, when can the state take away your child?
	Child custody rights as a parent.
	That issue went up before the Tennessee Supreme Court this past week as well.
	Fluoride lawsuit.
	They are trying to mess around with our precious bodily fluids.
	Abortion ban, unconstitutional in both conservative states, South Carolina and Oklahoma.
	What does that mean or preview for the future of heartbeat pills in America at the state court level?
	We got a fun little case about gourmet nuts and when they're not so gourmet.
	Though the nut part might relate to a certain Carolyn V. That might be a relevant reference.
	I wasn't going to mention it.
	I don't care about this.
	It's fun stuff.
	We'll talk about it when we get into the Project Veritas.
	And then a Manson accomplice paroled, and then there's one other potential bonus case tonight.
	Yeah, the Manson one's actually very interesting when we get to that because there's the Manson parole overruled by Gavin Newsom as well as Sirhan Sirhan.
	In this one, the California Court of Appeals overturned Governor News.
	Okay, what do we start with for the bonus?
	Can we start with...
	Tara Reid?
	Well, Tara Reid, and we're going to do Tara Reid and Vivenda.
	And the Florida hate speech laws.
	Yeah, and the Florida hate speech on YouTube and Rumble.
	Then we're going to end this on YouTube and go over to Rumble.
	So, Robert, I think I talked about it last week, but Tara Reid had to flee to Russia.
	Or she goes to Russia as a tourist, gets there and says...
	I'd like to stay here now because I was told by Republican lawmakers that I'm in danger in America.
	Now, I took for granted that the second you come out against the machine, the Democrat machine, above and beyond lawfare, they have other types of fare that I won't get into.
	But I suspected that she had to have been getting political hate despite getting affirmed in the truth of her statements by Lisa Bloom.
	Lisa Bloom is Gloria Allred's daughter, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, fine.
	So she gets affirmation from, you know, high up political players, lawyers, Lisa Bloom acknowledges we all knew it happened to you.
	Joe Biden is handsy.
	Tara Reid, for those of you who don't know, is the one who accused Joe Biden of having sexually assaulted her back in the early 90s or mid 90s while she was working on the campaign.
	Apparently, everybody knew about it.
	She says she filed a complaint at the time, but there's no record of that.
	But her husband in a lawsuit talked about how Tara Reid mentioned this.
	When she comes out and says this in 2020.
	She gets shunned, mocked by the George Takeys of the world.
	It went from hashtag me too to hashtag shut the hell up.
	And now she says she doesn't feel safe or she implies that a Republican lawmaker told her she was in danger.
	Now, I don't know what is meant by that.
	Do you have any understanding or more knowledge as to what type of danger she might have been in?
	Political, lawfare, or physical?
	Legal, that she would be locked up.
	That essentially what she was apprised is that there is a grand jury investigation to indict her looking at using violation of Russian-Ukraine sanctions as the pretext to do so.
	Part of a talking point of the Biden campaign, all the way back to the publication of her accusations, was that she was some sort of Russian agent.
	So apparently they've been tracking that path.
	She, I believe, has a book out, went over to Russia to do interviews promoting the book, and then was told while she was over there that if she came back, there was an undue risk that she would be arrested, detained pending trial, and charged with a federal crime and locked up.
	And it was based on her getting that information from multiple sources, politically connected and legally connected sources, that led her to take the extraordinary action of not coming back and seeking amnesty in Russia.
	And this comes in the context of the broader storyline of all kinds of whistleblowers being targeted.
	We have had congressional testimony of FBI whistleblowers who say they've been targeted.
	We have IRS whistleblowers who've had to try to hide out because they've been targeted.
	We have a the big guy, the the big case of someone who filed a detailed report detailing Biden's crime of bribery in exchange for favors to a foreign government that led FBI Director Wray to try to withhold the document under threat of contempt of Congress and only folded this week.
	So we have other whistleblowers who've said they've had to become fugitives and disappear because of threats from the Biden administration.
	So this is becoming part of a broad pattern.
	Joe Biden was famous for saying nobody messes with the Bidens, that he pays them back, that he weaponizes the legal system to do so.
	And let's look at the other people involved, the people who had Ashley Biden's diary.
	Detailing the very scuzzy behavior of Joe Biden as a father to her, what happened to those people who got that diary and tried to go into federal prison?
	So this is part of a pattern now.
	James O 'Keefe, for possibly publicizing the bribery, was put under federal criminal investigation in the Southern District of New York.
	So now, I mean, the question isn't what whistleblower isn't threatened by the Justice Department.
	Or is being threatened.
	It's which one isn't.
	I mean, name a whistleblower against the Biden administration that has publicly stated, under penalty of perjury, other testimony, understatements to Congress, understatements to the press.
	Where they have said that they have been targeted for retaliation by the Biden Justice Department.
	This is the same Biden Justice Department trying to find a way, already having conducted a raid on his leading political opponent and former President Donald Trump, but is now trying to drum up the possible basis of criminal prosecution and criminal indictment of his opponent right before the upcoming election when he is losing.
	To that candidate and past prior president of the United States.
	So, well, we're seeing the complete lack of restraint by the Biden Justice Department in weaponizing their position to go after anyone who exposes the corruption or malfeasance of the Biden administration.
	And Tara Reid is sadly just the latest example of it.
	And now that you mentioned it, I'm thinking out loud.
	You got the Ukrainian documents, the gamer guy there who leaked the documents, going to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, Tara Reid.
	I actually didn't appreciate that that was the rationale behind what she was referring to.
	Yeah, there's a grand jury active looking at Tara Reid.
	I mean, it's unbelievable.
	It's now gone from hashtag me too to hashtag lock her up, but not in the way that...
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay.
	So yeah, that's where the insanity stands.
	I would note, name me the Russians that have fled to America saying Vladimir Putin is trying to go after him.
	There's almost none.
	What we have accused Russia of is what the United States is currently guilty of, as the January 6th case is prominently demonstrated.
	Some people might say they can't flee.
	They're already in jail like that journalist for 25 years.
	But, you know, the journalist gets jailed for 25 years.
	Roger, Robert, the people's ability to rationalize the injustice.
	I say, I point out, you know, I don't defend Russia.
	I'm not rushing to Russia either.
	But they jail a journalist for 25 years.
	And then they jail, you know, the Oatskeeper guy for 18 years.
	And someone says, well, One is totally bogus.
	They fabricated the charts against that journalist.
	I was like, dude, do you not understand how this works?
	I'm sure Vladimir Putin says what that guy said was seditious, undermining of democracy, in the exact same way they said what Rhodes did was seditious conspiracy.
	They just don't understand it, or they do, and they play the intellectual games to get away with their injustice while condemning others.
	So that's Tara Reid.
	Okay, fascinating.
	I mean, do you have any idea what goes into...
	Asking for asylum or asking for citizenship from Putin?
	Yeah, it follows the Russian legal process.
	But it's my understanding she's likely to receive the amnesty from the Russian government because of the current political situation that exists.
	And does that, if you know, does that immediately result in a revocation of her U.S. passport or does she have to renounce that?
	No.
	You can be both a U.S. citizen and a Russian citizen.
	Alright, fascinating.
	People should probably understand that before they jump on the bandwagon of actually demonizing Tara Reid and calling her an agent of Russia because she has to flee because she has to flee the lawfare persecution regime of the Democrats, or at least of Joe Biden.
	Alright, Robert, let's get into the Vivek thing.
	Let me see if I bring this up.
	This is it.
	This is community notes.
	This is Vivek.
	The video does not match the caption of the tweet.
	In the video, he's talking about the primordial value of free speech, and I agree with what he says in the video.
	Free speech, you know, it doesn't exist to protect the speech you like.
	It exists to protect the speech you don't like, and you have to take it with its risks and inconveniences if you believe you live in a free society.
	It's the tweet on the top, which I thought was longer and more, I hope this is the right tweet, where Vivek Ramaswani, that's not so hard, Ramaswani says, DeSantis signed a hate speech bill earlier this year at his donor's request.
	I'd like to know what he means by that, if there's any truth to that.
	I respectfully disagree.
	The right answer to bad speech isn't less speech, it's more speech.
	That's the American way.
	I'm not sure if this is the right tweet, but...
	No, I think that's the right tweet.
	Okay, so Vivek is suggesting that there was this bill passed that suppresses freedom of speech by criminalizing hate speech.
	And unless I'm mistaken, I'll go to...
	This is Ruben's...
	for the community notes that I thought I saw there yesterday, but I don't see them anymore.
	House Bill 269 builds upon Governor DeHantis'record of safeguarding the free exercise of religion in Florida by prohibiting a person from intentionally dumping litter onto private property, that has to do with the flyers, prohibiting a person from willfully and maliciously harassing, threatening, or intimidating another person based on the person's wearing or display of any indicia related to any religious or ethnic heritage, seems reasonable, Creating a new prohibition against displaying or projecting using any medium, an image onto a building.
	Okay, fine.
	Without the consent of the owner of the building.
	I think that's where it gets into the important details.
	Creating a new trespass offense if a person who is not authorized license, yada, yada, yada, enters a campus of state of the unit, threatening or intimidating another person, and is warranted apart, refuses to do so.
	Robert, as far as I understand of that new legislation, It prohibits what they call hate speech, the distribution of it on private property.
	Am I oversimplifying it, or is that one facet, and there's another facet that I'm missing?
	Well, it doesn't even legally prohibit that.
	So I think the problem that arose is how DeSantis and some of the supporters sold the bill.
	So DeSantis signed the bill in Israel, which was weird already, and then said he had banned anti-Semitism.
	Or something to that effect.
	That's how it was interpreted in Israel.
	And it was like, you can't ban anti-Semitism.
	So it was DeSantis, you know, eager for a vote.
	You know, he's like, he reminds me more and more of George Wallace, a guy who would do anything to get a vote.
	But that was one of my trivia questions on Twitter this week, is who is the judge, who is the most racially liberal judge in Alabama in the 1950s?
	And also became governor with the first elected governor of Alabama with majority black support.
	And the answer, of course, is George Corley Wallace, which would surprise many people.
	Both of those facts would surprise many people about Wallace.
	But Wallace just loved votes.
	That's more than it.
	He'd sell any part of his soul to get a little few more votes.
	Good old George Corley.
	But had some strong populist traditions mixed in with the...
	Whoring for the deep state and other things at different times in his tenure, depending on which time you're talking about.
	And then the other thing is the context.
	The context is that Vivek's criticism about donor-based support is that certain groups wanted him to do this in order to quash people who are putting out anti-Semitic flyers throughout Florida and a purported rise in anti-Semitic crimes in Florida.
	And so that part of a vexed criticism is fair enough, but the law itself doesn't restrict speech really at all.
	The law itself just takes laws that are already on the books.
	Remember, we were discussing this with people back about the rumble rules, saying the First Amendment has never allowed you to stalk people, never allowed you to libel people, never allowed you to do what's called true threats, various forms of intimidation, obstruction, harassment.
	I mean, sexual harassment is speech.
	It's still not allowed.
	So is fraud.
	Fraudulent misrepresentations is speech, but we don't tolerate that.
	Correct.
	The First Amendment is free speech, but it doesn't protect speech that crosses certain lines.
	It's never been immunity for stalking, harassment, threatening, violence, or anything like that.
	So the key is true threats.
	So all they really did is they said, A memorial.
	This is really targeting a right-wing, a particular white-wing group.
	Remember that group that went up before the U.S. Supreme Court protesting funerals?
	They basically almost created, it's fair to say they created a kind of safe space law.
	But on college campuses, in your home, and at a memorial service, you're now not allowed to trust to do things that are already...
	I'm not a big fan of creating new crimes all the time.
	It's like, now we have a super-duper crime.
	It's like, okay.
	I'm not a big fan of hate crimes in general because they just tend to elevate the purpose of the crime beyond...
	The crime itself deserves its own punishment, is my view.
	And let's...
	Punished based upon the crime, not the purpose of the crime, in my general opinion.
	But nothing about this impinges on the First Amendment, because all it does is it follows true threats jurisprudence.
	I would like the law better if it would explicitly incorporate the true threats jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court.
	So to give an example, years ago, Virginia banned Burning Cross.
	If the purpose of burning the cross on someone's property was to intimidate them.
	U.S. Supreme Court said burning crosses can be politically protected, but not doing it for the purposes of threatening or intimidating someone.
	So it all fits the true threats jurisprudence.
	Your right to speech is not a right to go into somebody else's home and threaten and intimidate them.
	So Andrew Torba, the Jew hater...
	Was explaining, oh, but now we can't circulate flyers.
	And yeah, you can circulate flyers you want.
	Here's what you can't do.
	You can't knowingly go to a Jewish person's home and put an anti-Semitic flyer on their door for the purpose of intimidating them.
	That's what you can't do.
	You can actually put it on their door if your purpose isn't intimidating them, if you don't know that they're Jewish.
	But what you can't do is target Jewish people and say, by the way, we hate you and you should die and do it on their front door.
	That's what you can't do.
	You never could do that.
	I mean, the law and floor already criminalized this.
	All they did is enhance it, you know, from a one-level misdemeanor to a higher-level misdemeanor, from a high-level misdemeanor to a lower-level felony.
	But it requires the person do it willfully.
	It requires the person do it maliciously.
	It requires the person do it intentionally.
	It requires the person's purpose being directing at them to do some, threatening something illegal.
	Elicit against them if they take certain legal actions.
	And so in that regard, there's nothing about this that violates the First Amendment that I see.
	So the Florida hate speech law has been exaggerated in its interpretation by some bad, in some cases, I don't think Vivek's a bad faith actor.
	Andrew Torb is a bad faith actor.
	He finally quit emailing me his latest anti-Jew rant every month.
	You might not be a Jew, but you can be Jewish.
	I hate that word.
	I have no idea what any of these words mean.
	Though I still love the meme.
	Of me as a rabbi and Nick Fuentes as a crazy Islamist fundamentalist.
	That's my favorite meme from that past debate.
	Nick Fuentes can go on a college campus and speak whatever he wants.
	What he can't do is go there for the purposes of threatening and intimidating someone.
	Effectively stalking.
	Think of stalking.
	Like the criminal definition, I would have liked it better if they would include actual definitions of the word intimidation, harassment, and threat in the statutes.
	But there are other laws and First Amendment principles already established, including in Florida, under the Florida State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, that do give definition and limitation to those words.
	And it's basically you have to direct it at an individual.
	It has to be eminent.
	It has to be specific.
	You know, it has to be to do something illicit or illegal that you're not legally permitted or authorized to do.
	So all the talk of the Jew haters, how they no longer have free speech is...
	Utterly false.
	They just can no longer do something that they never could do, which is stalk, harass, intimidate, or commit crimes.
	And this was my original assessment back in the day when Jordan Peterson was sounding the alarm on our Bill C-16, which added misgendering to aggravating factors for certain crimes.
	And my view at the time was, well, they're only clarifying something which you already can't do.
	Misgendering someone, like saying on Twitter, I'm not going to refer to...
	Dylan Mulvaney is her.
	Well, people said, well, it's going to end up covering that.
	Where I said at the time, look, if you deliberately go up to someone and say he, he, he, he, he, and you follow them and you send them emails and you send them letters, the misgendering is the secondary aspect of the harassment.
	Unfortunately, others were saying it's too ambiguous and it's going to be used to effectively criminalize speech.
	And in Canada, that's what's effectively happened.
	My issue is to create new laws when you already have the existing laws.
	It creates ambiguity where some are going to say, well, if I already had the existing law and this does nothing new, why is it there?
	And some bad faith actors are going to say, well, this is something new and this is how we have to use it.
	And I think that this is intimidating.
	I think when you said...
	X, Y, and Z. You were doing it to intimidate, and that's how it gets abused to suppress and silence free speech.
	Yeah, that's where the concerns come from.
	But here, the statute does have a lot of protections built into it and already has additional ones in the case law such that there's very little risk of that occurring.
	It really can't occur under the statute.
	All they really did is like...
	Right now, intimidation, for example, usually requires some unlawful purpose.
	They've clarified what an unlawful purpose is.
	But it was already there under the law, in my view.
	They just added, really what they did is...
	Make it clear you can't do this on somebody's home.
	You can't do this at memorial service.
	You can't do it on a college campus.
	That was already true.
	They just made it so there's no doubt about the fact that those are spaces in which you can't go and intimidate people.
	You can't go and harass people.
	You can't go and threaten people.
	Again, all of that already a crime.
	And they also said if you do it for this purpose, now it has a higher punishment is all.
	Apparently they've stopped making buzz.
	I don't know that that's true.
	Just bringing it up as we make our way over to Rumble, people.
	We're going to go over to Rumble.
	Are we starting with Project Veritas on Rumble?
	Supreme Court.
	Okay, good.
	We'll go Supreme Court.
	There's a suit about trans rights, judicial recusals, and then we'll get to SCOTUS.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry.
	Then Project Veritas.
	Project Veritas.
	Okay, so we're doing it, people.
	Removing from YouTube, where I will publish all of this in its entirety or highlights.
	The Justin Trudeau highlight.
	Finally got remonetized and fully visible.
	Nearly a quarter of a million views of people who did not know the history of the Justin Trudeaus.
	Yeah, that photo was in light.
	Oh my goodness.
	If there were only one photo.
	The photo was so bad, I need confirmation that it's not a fake.
	Ending on YouTube, people.
	Head on over to Rumble now.
	I always get nervous.
	Did we do this?
	We did this well.
	Alright, Robert.
	Scotus.
	Now look, I'm not going to say I didn't do all of my homework.
	While I was at the trampoline house, I'm trying to read Supreme Court decisions while bouncing on trampolines.
	Which one are we starting with?
	So, first one up, I mean, there's two interpretations.
	They issued a trio of decisions this week.
	One interpretation is political, that they favored corporations against labor unions, they favored corporations against various claims, and then clarified beneficially false claims act law.
	I wouldn't necessarily take that approach because the other common pattern is limiting federal power, limiting the power of federal preemption, limiting the power of federal agencies, limiting the reach of securities laws, while making False Claims Act more robust.
	And I think in a way that's beneficial to those of us who are, like the Brooke Jackson and other cases, pursuing False Claims Act claims.
	Hold on.
	Okay, so what's...
	We start with the labor union case.
	Okay, Robert, you're going to have to do it.
	I didn't do my homework on this one.
	So unions, when they strike, the question is when they strike and how they strike.
	And so sometimes when they strike, they do so in ways to...
	Cause collateral economic damage to the company.
	So, for example, they'll have perishable products on the truck and then hop off the truck halfway through and abandon the perishable products to be perished.
	Things like that.
	This particular context, they did it when the concrete was at a certain level that they were going to lose a bunch of money, the employer.
	So their argument was, under the National Labor Relations Act, that they have a right to strike, and that right to strike preempts any state law claims that may exist, such as conversion or trespass for damage to property, in the context of a strike, as done here.
	The court eight to one.
	Interesting.
	Jackson is going along the lines that I talked about that I thought she would be more of a traditional liberal in the sense of not just a neoliberal, that she would end up being good on civil rights issues, that she may end up being good on criminal defense.
	She was the only dissenter.
	The other justices all got together and they were happy to screw the union.
	But I think they were right about the law.
	They limited the scope of federal preemption.
	And this has been part of a broader pattern in the Supreme Court.
	There's been way too many...
	No standing, no jurisdiction, exhaustion of remedies, federal preemption provisions that have precluded people from seeking relief and remedy at the local and state level in ways that I think go way beyond what was the intention of those laws.
	And in the National Labor Relations Act itself, it says, And so the right to strike is protected, but it does not extend to the failure to take reasonable precautions.
	And so the conclusion of the court was, here they deliberately sabotaged part of the product of the company.
	They helped create the perishable nature of the product of the company, knowing they were going to strike midway through, and that that is not protected under the National Labor Relations Act, is not part of the right to strike.
	And thus doesn't preempt the state tort law claims that were brought.
	Well, it makes absolute sense where a difference between saying, I'm not showing up to work today and we're going to sit in front and pick it, versus we show up to work, start something, and then decide we're going to go on strike knowing that it's going to be effective economic or potentially infrastructural sabotage.
	Because you can see how it could do the thing.
	Exactly.
	The right to strike is not a sabotage of a product.
	It's never extended that far.
	You could see how they could start the factory line, leave midway through, and all of a sudden the machinery break down and be destroyed, far.
	Yeah, that was never within the right to strike.
	They've often breached this, unions have.
	And so it was a good clarity as to where they can go and where they can't go.
	But Kataji Jackson-Brown is the one who said, no, the right to strike includes...
	Because she's just very pro-labor.
	And I don't mind that.
	We need more justices up there that care about labor because they otherwise are very anti-labor in their biases.
	So even though I disagree with her on the law, I like to see her going her own way.
	That's a promising sign.
	Of having a voice for labor and civil rights there.
	She's, you know, again, concurred with four different concurrences with Gorsuch.
	So, I mean, she struck out a very independent...
	I remember a lot of right-wingers telling me I was an idiot for saying that she'll actually be good on some issues.
	That there'll be issues I strongly disagree with her on, but that there'll be issues she'll end up being good on, and that has proven true already in her first term.
	So I think that there'll be some issues where she is much more constitutionally conscientious than the so-called conservatives on the court.
	And the bottom line takeaway from this is basically to unions, which is going to say you no longer get to protest with impunity, so pick the day properly.
	All right.
	Number two on SCOTUS?
	Slack got off.
	So what happens a lot is you register your company to sell securities.
	And the question is, in my view, SEC laws have been way too broadly expanded to extend in all kinds of places and spaces they don't belong.
	This is definitely true, in my view, in the crypto space.
	But putting that aside, one of the other abuses has been, okay, now that you've registered, we can sue you, no matter what, for anything we claim is a misrepresentation, even if it has nothing to do with your registration statement, and even if it wasn't at a time your stock was yet being publicly traded.
	On the stock exchange itself.
	Supreme Court made clear, no, you can only sue on a registration statement when it's because of statements made in the registration statement, not merely after the statements have been made in a registration statement.
	So I think it was, again, another unanimous decision, if I recall correctly.
	I think it was the correct decision.
	More importantly, it's another effort to limit.
	The aggressivity of the SEC and others in trying to go after and super regulate everything on the planet under the guise that everything is a security.
	Is there any case that's pending that's going to clarify as to whether or not NFTs, cryptocurrencies, or securities?
	Oh yeah, a bunch.
	Because there's a class action against SHAC, class action against a bunch of people.
	And then the SEC itself is going after a bunch of people.
	So you're going to see it in a bunch of cases, whether or not what the courts are going to go.
	The courts are likely going to be inclined to call them all securities, but I find that problematic.
	Well, I think they're going to call them securities.
	The question is whether or not they are...
	Whether or not we could agree that they are securities.
	I mean, I don't think anything that's not traded on the stock market should be called a security.
	I think they should go back and clarify that.
	It was a mistake to get to say anything about Wall Street, not about things not happening on Wall Street.
	Because the idea that, as they define it, it's any interest in a company that can accrue in value that could then be deemed to be an investment.
	Anything can be deemed an investment, effectively.
	That reaches a ridiculous sum of things.
	I mean, why would that not include gold coins that you would buy through?
	Potentially can.
	Okay, interesting.
	Number three, SCOTUS, Robert?
	This is the best case, the False Claims Act.
	They clarified that, you know, one of the things corporations have been doing, had been saying, has actually tangential effect on the Brooke Jackson case, is that unless it's objectively, unless a reasonable person would perceive the statement as false, Then it was being interpreted as a safe harbor that even if you as a company knew what you were doing,
	you had a conscious awareness of a substantial risk that the statement was false or that the claim was false, that you could get away with it as long as you could say, well, a reasonable person wouldn't think so.
	And the Supreme Court unanimously rejected that.
	They said, no, if you know what you're up to is fraud, it's fraud.
	Regardless of whether a reasonable person would know it was fraud or not.
	Secondly, they said, well, our statements were just legal opinions and that can never be fraud.
	And here they clarified something that's long borrowed from defamation and libel law.
	They said, if you make a statement that implies false facts...
	That is a fraud claim just like any else, regardless of how it's couched or framed.
	And again, unanimous decision, re-expanding the strength and giving a little more teeth to the False Claims Act, which is beneficial to Brooke Jackson case, but a bunch of anybody in that space.
	Very good ruling.
	And actually, are there any updates on the Brooke Jackson?
	It was dismissed, but it was dismissed with permission.
	A clerk issued a technical order based on a misinterpretation of the record because they were not emailing me.
	So they somehow accidentally weren't emailing me notices.
	And so as soon as we got that said, you guys are wrong, and we filed it, and it should be reinstated on the docket.
	There are a couple of locos out there in the social media space.
	They're like, Barnes has been secretly bought off, and it's all part of an inside conspiracy.
	And it's the people that have gone down some bad rabbit holes.
	And it's like, no, no.
	I'll try again next time.
	I can't blame them because I can understand how people have just become paranoid.
	Oh, it's the genius of the system.
	The genius takes the people that are aware of something, uses their paranoia against them by going into a rabbit hole that self-discredits them with everybody else.
	It was QAnon writ large.
	The same thing is with this whole idea that the vaccine was a deliberate bioweapon by Trump and Biden.
	It's designed to discredit them and send them down this path that is self-discrediting.
	And damages their ability to actually make successful change.
	It's part of COINTELPRO's modus operandi.
	You can go back and read the old memorandums from the 1960s about what they were going to do to the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, all the rest.
	So it's an old history of how the establishment responds to people who have legitimate concerns.
	They inject illegitimate concerns into those groups using their own skepticism, converting it into counterproductive paranoia so that they destroy themselves in the process.
	What you've described is not just QAnon, but also what Alex Jones, I think, recognizes might have happened to him in some of the statements he made about Sandy Hook.
	Sandy Hook, yes.
	It was a classic example of that.
	We're going to get into the trans discussion, Robert.
	And it wasn't on the menu, but maybe I want to ask now.
	The laws that are coming out of Florida about banning the medical treatment for transgender, I thought it was for minors because people are saying Florida is now, you know, was it the ACL or one of those stupid organizations that has ruined themselves said Florida Travel Advisory.
	I think it was the NAACP maybe.
	I forget.
	Don't go to Florida, people, because it's not safe unless you're a cis white male.
	But do you know the laws in Florida?
	My understanding, and I think I've read enough to understand this, is that they're banning any form of what they call gender-affirming care.
	I won't give it the name that I think it is, but I think it's a form of mutilation.
	They're banning it for children and requiring, from what everyone has been clarifying now, requiring it for adults that they actually get the recommendations, the prescriptions, the assessment from an actual MD and not from nurses or non-MDs.
	Is that accurate?
	They're just banning it for kids and making adults get proper prescriptions for these medications so they don't order them off the internet?
	Yeah, and I'm just not a big fan of any of this.
	I oppose trans treatments in terms of as a medical idea for children.
	That doesn't mean I think we should run around banning it everywhere.
	Because that, at some level, starts to interfere, in my view, with your right to bodily autonomy and you decide your own medicine.
	So I don't want the state to have that power, even if it's the most righteous of causes.
	Well, but even if it's for...
	See, I guess the distinction is only whether or not one can agree with it.
	It's the state defining what's good and bad medicine.
	And I've never liked that.
	See, you say that, and it's not an unreasonable statement.
	But then, Robert...
	I mean, none of us like it, because we're like, look at all the negative consequences these people have.
	Here's the solution.
	Just create a civil cause of action that establishes that the state sees this as likely medical malpractice, and someone can sue for damages.
	Do that, but don't strip people of their rights to make their own medical decisions.
	I'm just not for that.
	The immediate pushback, though...
	It also interferes with parental-child relationships.
	I get why they're saying it, but it's a different version of Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village.
	And I get my conservative friends.
	As I've studied this, I mean, in Tennessee, a Trump judge struck down the Tennessee law as unconstitutional for some of the reasons we talked about, that it could be void for vagueness at the time.
	They had some bad definitions in the statute.
	That was his focus point.
	But the more I started looking at this, the more I started doubting it.
	It's the state saying, we know what's best for your kid.
	As a general rule, I don't like that.
	Even if I disagree with the way of parents raising a child, you could argue that with Texas, that Texas says it's a form of child abuse.
	Based on the medical and physical consequences.
	And abuse has always been an exception to parental custody and parental rights.
	On those grounds, I could accept it.
	But when you're extending it to parents, you know, adults can't get it without us having a state licensed doctor saying it.
	You're back in the prescription business.
	Like, I've never just been a big fan of the state running people's medicine.
	It tends to always backfire.
	But the obvious pushback would be...
	Female genital mutilation in minors, or even in adults for that matter.
	But someone's going to say, well, your argument, Robert...
	And it happens in parts of the world as a part of cultural and religious tradition.
	As do many.
	I don't like it.
	It gets to the point of, at what level is it our prerogative, or more importantly, I think we have our moral prerogative to say it's wrong.
	The question is, at what level is it the state's prerogative to start controlling it?
	Because once they do...
	You know where that goes.
	It's who decides, who has the power, and I'm never comfortable with the state having that power as a general principle.
	Yeah, that's interesting.
	I mean, it's an interesting perspective, and then I would say, like, you acknowledge, you say, okay, well, abuse we can agree on.
	You're protecting the child.
	You're protecting another human interest.
	But when you're protecting the child to the degree, like protecting the child from severe physical harm.
	From being able to survive.
	And we'll get into that a little bit later about child parental rights.
	One thing.
	But people can just imagine at what level does it stop, right?
	Once the state says, we know what's best for your child.
	Because isn't it some level that's what everybody's saying?
	They're saying it in a conservative cause, but they're saying the state knows better than the parent for their child.
	Well, where does that end?
	And do we like that idea?
	I could draft a legislation that says it ends at the permanent irreparable mutilation or alteration of the body for purely cosmetic purposes.
	But that's where then getting into adults, why are we telling adults what they can and can't do with their bodies?
	Well, that's a question.
	I mean, especially if they say, like, I want homeopathic stuff.
	I'm an adult.
	Don't tell me what to do.
	But then they say, go to a doctor.
	If it's fine, a doctor should have no problem and you're just creating an extra step.
	I definitely don't like empowering doctors.
	I'm against that altogether.
	We should have learned that from the pandemic.
	Do not empower these monopolistically licensed people any more than they already are.
	That will definitely backfire.
	That's interesting.
	And then you just say, okay, well, allow adults to do what they want and just allow them to sue if they didn't get proper directions on the HR.
	And you can make a statement that you think it's medical malpractice.
	I don't have a problem with that.
	But what does that do?
	That empowers the individual.
	It empowers the jury, not the state, using its licensed monopoly professional class people to be the gatekeepers for what you can and can't do with your own body.
	Now, what was the trans suit?
	That wasn't the one for them.
	You're going to see it's an interesting claim.
	We're going to see more of these.
	The question fundamentally is this.
	Under Title VII, under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, when it says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, is that a reference to biology or gender identity?
	I see it as biology.
	Now, there's some exceptions.
	Gorsuch wrote an opinion that became controversial, but I think he was right because of how it was actually written in that particular statute as to that particular application.
	That's different than saying the 14th Amendment on the basis of sex means gender identity.
	No, it doesn't.
	It means biology, in my view.
	But if you determine that sex in the Constitution means not biology, but gender identity...
	Then they're saying now they have all the same protections as a man or woman would have against state action if it disparately discriminates against them.
	Though I would note Tennessee's health care doesn't want any taxpayer money going to anything, what they consider sexual-related medical treatment.
	And to give you an example, penile implants.
	They won't fund that either.
	So that's where it's not clear that this is really on the basis of sex.
	There's been a decision made by the healthcare folks that trans treatments is really a sexual treatment rather than a biological gender treatment.
	And the challenge is, no, this is really biological gender rather than sexuality.
	And so they're suing under the 14th Amendment, claiming they should, that the exclusion for their care under the Tennessee health care provisions violates their constitutional and statutory rights under federal civil rights laws.
	What, if you know offhand, what amendments of the Constitution pertain to or relate to sex?
	Oh, 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.
	Okay.
	And so the question now, at the time that that was drafted, what year was the 14th Amendment?
	I mean, this is all within the 17th Amendment.
	Oh, Civil War.
	1865, 1863 to 1868.
	And the rationale behind the amendment was to prevent discrimination against women.
	Well, really against people based on race was the target, but it was interpreted as applying also to gender.
	To sex.
	Well, that's going to be the...
	To sex or gender.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, that's...
	Okay.
	It's a Chattanooga plaintiff.
	Chattanooga and a Knoxville plaintiff suing in Nashville.
	Of course they sued in Nashville.
	They didn't want to run the risk of a Chattanooga jury.
	Okay, well, that's going to be the question.
	I'm just thinking, well, I guess it gets into Title IX, but that might be much later on.
	It's all that ultimately resolution of that issue will have major impact.
	Because if the Supreme Court is to ultimately say...
	Gender identity is not the same as biological sex for constitutional and statutory purposes.
	Then states can engage in a lot of limitations on trans-related issues.
	If they say otherwise, then you're never going to get an amendment through to change that.
	So that means trans people have the same protection as women.
	That's interesting.
	Okay.
	And that, to work its way through the system, we're going to have to go through, it's going to be years.
	This is all lowest level, of course.
	And there's a bunch of cases like this coming up in one capacity or another.
	Okay, fascinating.
	Robert, are we going on to the Disney suit?
	Well, yeah.
	We got a couple of judicial recusals.
	First one, the Disney case.
	The other, the Trump case.
	On the little side story on the Disney case.
	So the person who's covered this extensively is Legal Mindset.
	He's a Florida lawyer who specialized in this field of bonds for specially state legislatively recognized organizations in particular, basically.
	And so he has a lot of familiarity with it.
	Apparently a state court judge in Alabama decided to have a Twitter account.
	And he has been attacking.
	He said legal mindset's a fake lawyer and it's a fake account.
	And he actually went, you know, Andrew's his first name, Legal Mindset.
	He goes by, as an obvious reference to his status, Andrew Esquire.
	This judge in Alabama said, I researched him.
	There's nobody with the last name Esquire in Florida.
	I was like, is he being straightforward?
	Did he not realize what that is?
	So, I mean, he's not the brightest bulb in the block.
	He's also running around saying Trump can be indicted and be sent to prison and classified.
	You're a state court judge in Alabama.
	Stick to that.
	Don't try to pretend you suddenly know federal criminal law.
	He got confused.
	Certain so-called affirmative defenses are actually elements of the offense and require under the Due Process Clause to be the burden of the state.
	That's why self-defense is always a burden of the state.
	It's never a burden of the defendant.
	He was getting that confused in the Trump classified information context.
	But yeah, just a little side story on that.
	But Disney moved to recuse the judge because he had made random anti-Disney statements in other cases.
	So it's interesting.
	So they made a motion to recuse the judge, like you say, citing anti-Disney statements in other issues.
	Nothing, according to the judge, over the top and nothing specific, just broad statements in other cases, by no means sufficient to warrant the recusal of the judge.
	And the judge says, not only is this motion...
	Ill-founded and without any basis whatsoever.
	I consider it to be malicious judge shopping, which is all too common these days.
	It's frivolous without marriage.
	But, oh, and then he compared it to the other precedent, which was consistent of a judge making much more pointed statements, doing interviews, and says, what I said in other cases, which I don't really know what he said because it wasn't in the decision, innocuous.
	Totally without merit.
	Judge shopping and it's terrible.
	But I'm recusing myself anyhow because my third cousin or my cousin in the third degree bought some stock in Disney.
	And while this lawsuit is not directly related to the Disney stock, it might incidentally have an impact on the Disney stock if DeSantis or the defendants...
	Who's the defendants in this?
	If the defendants get away with, you know, succeed on their claim.
	So I'm recusing myself even though I don't have to.
	Because it might create the perception of an interest that my third cousin bought some stock in the company.
	Robert, am I reading into it by saying this judge knew that he ought to have recused himself for going over the line in terms of making public statements in previous cases, showing bias in previous cases, but couldn't dignify the defendants by granting it?
	So he says, I'm not granting that for that reason, but I'm recusing myself because my third cousin bought some stock in Disney?
	Yeah, I mean, he'd made several statements that were biased in favor of...
	Disney against DeSantis, who's the defendant in the case, concerning this precise subject matter and suggested he had prejudged it.
	Now, I think what he exposed is the problem of federal judicial disqualification, that unless you have a direct economic conflict, judges never disqualify that should.
	In fact, I've often said I don't even bring the motion because the problem is this.
	A judge who will disqualify is a judge you won't.
	Because they're so conscientious that they will disqualify even when they don't have to because they're really concerned about their biases that might exist.
	A judge that's conscious of his biases is a judge you can easily work with.
	The judge you have to deal with is a judge who's not conscious of his biases.
	And that's the kind of judge that needs to disqualify and never will.
	So this was another example of that.
	But I think he didn't want the political ramifications of staying in the case, given DeSantis was going right at him, based on his history.
	I mean, the guy is a very activist, liberal Democrat.
	His biases are obvious.
	But what it shows you is how weak.
	You basically can't disqualify a federal judge.
	One, that judge gets to decide whether to disqualify.
	It's kind of a crock.
	But unlike state court systems, you don't have an automatic right of recusal.
	In a lot of cases, in a lot of states, you have at least one right of automatic recusal of a judge.
	It's too bad we don't have that in the federal system.
	I think they should institute it.
	And then third, the only grounds that it will do are financial.
	And here at least he recognized that.
	It's often difficult to find out the financial ties.
	The bigger problem in the court system is the clerks.
	A lot of the law clerks.
	A lot of the law clerks are going to work for corporate law firms where they're going to get bonuses that are directly related to cases from clients in the future that can be impacted by what their judge that they're working for does on cases now.
	And those law clerks have a lot of influence on judges.
	When I sought the information about the law clerks in the Brooke Jackson case, I never got it.
	I mean, the judge thought I had got it, but I never got it.
	What I got was, oh, the clerks are now gone, so we don't have to give it to you, which told me probably one of those clerks, if not both, had some conflicts.
	Otherwise, they would have been a little more expeditious in getting that intel for me.
	So it shows a problem in the federal judiciary.
	It probably needs legal legislative reform.
	But it's almost like it's not even a post-conflict.
	It's a pre-conflict in that they know that if they do certain things, they're not going to get certain things later.
	And so it's sort of like...
	Scratch my back now and you'll get the $600,000 an hour speaking fee later in politics.
	But on the judicial side, I just, Robert, I mean, I ordinarily would not have thought a judge would have to recuse himself because his cousin in the third degree bought stock.
	Yeah, it wasn't clear to me what he meant by he never clarified which relative.
	He said third, but that may be the federal legal provision and that may be closer related.
	That may be like sibling, that may be grandparent, and that may be what that means.
	Okay, I was taking it more literally.
	It usually has to be a direct family, typically.
	So that's how I...
	Somebody owns a lot of Disney stock connected to the judge, short answer.
	Now, Robert, before we get into the big topic of the night...
	Oh, there's a great meme, by the way, on our board.
	If anybody knows what this is, I got this at a restaurant.
	And it's like sort of a Chinese gin equivalent and it's delicious.
	It comes in a bottle that makes it look like something like Echinacea or something.
	So I'm going to taste this and see.
	I had a sip of it the other day and it was delicious.
	I got one to take home.
	Let me see what the meme is, Robert.
	Maybe I can bring this up.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	It's the DeSantis one.
	Is it a...
	Holy cow, there's 737 comments.
	Is it a tip, Robert, or is it just a...
	I know, that's okay.
	It just has DeSantis looking like he's homeless, saying, will MAGA for votes?
	Oh, yeah, okay, I see this.
	Oh, we'll see what happens with this.
	The infighting in the DeSantis versus Trump primaries, it's getting uglier than it needs to.
	Yeah, I mean, DeSantis is going nowhere.
	I mean, it's a suicidal kamikaze campaign.
	And I got some heat for saying, look, this isn't going anywhere.
	This is an objective matter.
	Put out my Barnes betting report, political markets over the last several months, saying to short DeSantis bet Trump and bet Robert Kennedy and some other things.
	And all those bets have paid off incredibly well over the last 60 days.
	But DeSantis is probably one of the first candidates to have his numbers go down after he announces.
	But not a surprise if you understood that the Republican electorate wants Trump.
	They've already made that decision.
	Running against it is just counterproductive.
	Where he could make more of a positive impact is if I were his candidate, I wouldn't be running.
	But if I was going to run...
	Do like Robert Kennedy.
	Just run on your own agenda.
	Don't talk about Trump at all.
	Don't get into debates with Trump.
	Your people shouldn't be getting into debates with Trump or Trump's people.
	Just say, here's positive ideas, hoping that Trump picks up some of those ideas and incorporates them into his campaign.
	And that would be good.
	But, you know, they're going around wearing like Casey DeSantis is doing the where woke goes to die in Florida and all that kind of thing.
	These people live in a little bubble that's not the real world.
	I'm just surprised.
	There seems to be a level of personal investment.
	And maybe it's the benefit of...
	I'm indifferent.
	I mean, I would rather...
	I like DeSantis as governor.
	It's why I chose Florida.
	I don't think DeSantis can stand up to the deep state lawfare that Trump seems to be weathering.
	But I'm indifferent.
	One or the other.
	I know which one I think could do the better job.
	I think.
	But the ugliness and the bickering, it's quite stunning and shocking.
	Well, you know, it corresponds to our next topic.
	I mean, a lot of the people tied to Project Veritas are tied to the DeSantis campaign effort.
	And Project Veritas this week chose to sue James O 'Keefe.
	Robert, look, I don't want to get into the...
	Oh, jeez, Louise, I knew I was going to miss that.
	What's her first name?
	Karen Borshenko or whatever?
	Borshenko's the last name.
	Karlin?
	Karlin.
	Yeah, Ukrainian or something.
	We have a phrase for her in Tennessee.
	She's one of those folks that's touched in the head.
	And they don't mean touched by Jesus, neither.
	I don't know what that means.
	So, you know, you've got to be careful picking on the mentally deficient.
	I only knew, I knew of her name from a while back, just because a while back, I thought, you know, I thought it was regarded that she had some decent interpretations of things.
	Someone in our locals community, above average, says, Viva, if you want a distraction from what you're doing last night, Boryshenko's chewing you out at 50 some odd minutes.
	I was like, okay, I'll go see it.
	And Robert, I mean, I don't care about these things.
	If she disagrees with me on the merits, and I want to get your opinion on this, because I do trust your opinion more than mine and more than others.
	But it was like this thing, like, Viva!
	You deleted the...
	You edited the...
	What the hell?
	Like, I say conspiracy theories that someone gets so down in the rabbit hole where they think, like, Viva is now controlled.
	Viva's gonna go delete a video that he posted because he's wrong on something that hasn't been adjudicated yet as though I would even delete it if I were wrong in my assessment and prediction after adjudication.
	Setting all that aside, Project Veritas, I mean, I don't know what the hell they're doing because it seems to me, and I'm not sure if I'm just overly zealous because I think...
	James O 'Keefe is objectively right in all of this.
	I do wonder if it's not just political suicide, if they're not walking their way into counterclaims from James O 'Keefe, OMG Media, the other two employees who they're claiming are contractually bound not to work at OMG.
	But for those who don't know, I went through the lawsuit the other day.
	Project Veritas is suing James O 'Keefe, OMG, two other employees on the basis that...
	They're breaching their obligations under their employment contracts because some people may not appreciate this either.
	When James O 'Keefe started it all up, you know, it's his company.
	It's Project Veritas.
	He's the creator, founder, and everything.
	He signs an employment contract so that he gets a salary from the company because it's a not-for-profit or a 501c3 and 501c4.
	He's got an employment contract with his own company, so it all works well when he's in control.
	The day comes when he's no longer in control, and lo and behold, he's booted out, and now they're saying he's violated the confidentiality, loyalty, all these terms and conditions of his employment contract with Project Veritas.
	But they're basically saying he wasn't terminated.
	He was only formally terminated in May of 2013.
	He was put on paid leave, had his privileges revoked, had to turn in some materials, but he wasn't fired.
	And he was only formally fired after he started OMG.
	He went out and built up OMG, O 'Keefe Media Group.
	And everything that he was doing was for the benefit of OMG to the detriment of Project Veritas in violation of his fiduciary duties, contractual obligations under his employment contract.
	And I say...
	This is all absolute bullshit of the highest order.
	They didn't just...
	Whether or not they fired him technically, they ousted him from the company, they defamed him publicly while lying to everybody that he was just on some much-needed R&R.
	They fabricated ex post facto the basis for his public defamation and slander that he stole a sandwich from a pregnant woman, that he yelled at employees that he was abusive, that he misused company funds for a wedding, which they screwed up on because it was a corporate event that even members of Project Veritas went to.
	To me, this seems like the absolute nail in the coffin of trying to justify constructive dismissal with ex post facto allegations of wrongdoing.
	But I might be wrong, Robert.
	Maybe this is not constructive dismissal.
	Maybe it's not.
	Maybe they're right.
	I mean, give me your take on it and I'll pick your brain and ask you some more questions as you go along.
	But what's your assessment of what Project Veritas is doing?
	Well, from a political level, it confirms what we talked about from the get-go.
	I know we got some pushback from people saying, well, wait to see, like Jenna Ellis and some others, wait to see all the facts.
	Well, we now have all the facts, and what we said from the beginning was true.
	Project Veritas was undergoing a coup by bad-faith, corrupt actors who wanted to silence James O 'Keefe and effectively shut down...
	Project Veritas, people like Matthew Timmon and others, in terms of at least their populist direction.
	And now we see confirmation of that because they have confirmed in their lawsuit that their goal was to effectively mute him, to prevent him from doing anything.
	They suspended him.
	Now, here's a little trick, by the way.
	They say they suspended him with pay in one section, and then a few paragraphs later, they just say they suspended him a few days later.
	And they don't say whether he was paid or not.
	In fact, if you read through the whole lawsuit, a reasonable inference is they paid him for like three days and then quit paying him.
	And forbade him from using the company credit card, forbade him from doing anything.
	But no, he wasn't fired.
	From doing his job.
	So what are they seeking?
	They admit that basically the whole long their goal was to gag.
	James O 'Keefe.
	They had some sneaky lawyers who thought they had found a way to do it and didn't understand who and what James O 'Keefe is.
	What are they seeking?
	They're seeking some of the most ridiculous remedies I've ever seen.
	They want a federal court judge to legally prohibit James O 'Keefe.
	From even contacting or talking to people he's known his whole life if they merely were a donor, prospective donor, employee, or contractor of Project Veritas.
	And that's after they fire him.
	And my understanding is that they weren't paying him as of February, but I might be wrong again.
	If they were, they had it oddly absent from the lawsuit.
	And given I know the lawyer involved, I would say good chances that that omission is a deliberate one meant to hide key facts.
	Yeah, so if I'm wrong and he was paid post-February, we'll find out and there will be a response and probably a counterclaim.
	But just so everybody understands, there is a potential plausible legal basis to this type of lawsuit.
	Oh, under certain conditions.
	For example, there's no non-compete here.
	The FTC is passing a rule that is going to ban non-competes throughout the United States as unfair competition.
	As a non-profit, they might have been exempt from that FTC rule.
	However, there's a lot of legal scholarship out there, and some states are actually passing laws that say a non-profit cannot have a non-compete and still be non-profit.
	It makes absolute sense because profit is not the goal, so how do you deprive someone of competing with a non-profit when you're not supposed to make profit?
	Exactly.
	And that's the problem with all of it.
	Now, they have some supportive case law to the Second Circuit that said, hypothetically, a charity's donor list might be confidential information.
	But there's a lot of counterarguments throughout the legal scholarship that says donor lists are not confidential information because the whole point of all these laws is when an employer invests a bunch of money...
	To create assets of the business and those assets of the business are taken by an employee who didn't create those assets, had nothing to do with those assets, who only access them because of their employment and then takes them to another competitor in the economic space.
	That doesn't apply to any of the facts here.
	All the non-compete...
	Non-solicitation, non-contact provisions that have ever been enforced in America, but including New York, are rooted in the idea that this is a corporate-created asset.
	Interestingly enough, it's actually explicitly in the contract here.
	So they're saying, hey, federal judge, prohibit forever James O 'Keefe from ever even contacting anyone who has ever been or could be.
	A donor.
	Basically shut him down.
	Shut down his entire ability to make money.
	Shut down all his subscribers.
	Shut down his ability to communicate to most of the conservative movement.
	That's really what they're calling for.
	And again, there's no case in the history of America.
	You might, you know, for those people that have little business degrees that want to pretend to, you know, pretend lawyers.
	The little drama hoes out there, like dear Carolyn B. Sorry, there's no case in America that has affirmed that principle.
	Find any case that has prohibited someone from merely contacting or communicating with their own friends and family members because they were once donors to an organization they built.
	You won't find such a case.
	I was going to say, the not-for-profit angle is actually an amazing angle that people ought not forget.
	I was involved in the case.
	It was in Quebec, but it was an employee who, whether or not he was constructively dismissed or quit, immediately began competing with his former employer, using not trade secrets because there was no patented technology involved or even available, but parasitically began, allegedly, competing with his former employer.
	We're commercially profiting off of client lists, off of know-how that this individual might not have made the investment to acquire.
	And yet, it's a bit of a different situation.
	The argument was whether or not it's constructive dismissal.
	And even then, I'm not sure that some behavior would have been tolerable, even if they were fired without cause.
	But we're in this case, Robert, just to quell my own concerns or to satisfy my own ego.
	The argument for constructive dismissal, does it exist in the United States?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That's what my Tyson friends' cases are.
	That's across the board.
	If they say to James O 'Keefe, we're not firing you, but you no longer get to have decision-making, you no longer get to use the company credit card, you no longer get to do X, Y, and Z, which were integral to everything you were doing, but we didn't fire you.
	I'm not.
	And then I think what they came up with is they said, you're no longer CEO.
	They admit that.
	And I think what they also did, because they omit saying what they did, my guess is they stopped paying him as well in early February.
	Now, here's their problem.
	So first, the contract requires they go to arbitration aside from injunctive relief.
	Yet the lawsuit seeks damages.
	So they're already in breach of the contract by the very nature of the lawsuit they brought.
	So that's problem one.
	Problem two is they voided the lawsuit and its provisions.
	Third, the lawsuit is employment at will.
	So to the degree they're claiming he's the one who initiated the breach, there's no breach because he could quit at any time.
	And the only question is these post-employment, post-termination of the contract provisions.
	But one of the main ones they talk about only governs while he was employed there.
	And if he gave them notice, I'm quitting on February 16th, his so-called outside employment activities could not have been illegal or could not have been a breach of the contract because he had already ended the contract by their own admissions.
	I think their own complaint has grounds to dismiss that part of the entire claim because the other component is to the degree they're claiming he did these things before he gave them notice on February 16th that he was leaving unless certain things happened immediately.
	The problem with that is...
	Guess whose consent is required for outside activity as an employee?
	So if they're saying, well, he was really doing this on February 10th or 12th or before February 16th, well, the CEO.
	So O 'Keefe could do whatever he wanted because he could give his own consent while he was CEO.
	He was only no longer CEO after he had quit.
	So that entire provision basically is frivolous, that part of the lawsuit.
	So what's left?
	What's left is...
	Little minor issues about a couple of MacBooks of a couple of employees.
	A little bit of issue about whose work product certain things were of projects that were in place.
	I don't even think that James would be clinging to retaining stuff that he created while he was at Project Veritas.
	But then, Robert, there's the tortious interference with contracts.
	Their key provision is to bankrupt them, not only by the suit, but more importantly, cut off his financing, funding.
	The problem they have there is, let's look at the non-solicitation provision.
	So, basically, first of all, it's too broad.
	And a big danger to these overly broad provisions is that courts strike them down just for being overly broad.
	And just so everybody understands the reason.
	They say, screw it.
	You decide to do something too broad, I'm going to punish you for doing it.
	Because there's no legitimate...
	Again, everything...
	All anti-competitive provisions have to be interpreted in light of reasonable business needs of the company because our legal system disfavors monopolies and anti-competitive practices.
	In a lot of states, these non-solicitation provisions are increasingly, like non-competes, just refuse to be enforced in general because it interferes with the free market.
	But the other problem is they've actually included in the contract...
	The limitation that New York law generally imposes, which is the only information that's considered confidential about donors is information that James O 'Keefe learned, quote, as a result of employment and was not publicly obtainable or ascertainable otherwise.
	What's the problem with this?
	The problem is Project Veritas didn't develop the donors.
	James O 'Keefe did.
	James O 'Keefe didn't get access to the donor list.
	Because of his employment at Project Veritas, Project Veritas got access to the donor list because James O 'Keefe was there and was the founder of it.
	And if you dig into all the history of non-solicitation provisions, it's intended to show where a company is independently invested.
	They go out of their way to say you can't restrain something that the employee created, that the employee already had contacts, that the employee already developed.
	This is about what the...
	The company does.
	And I would say, generally, they say contact information isn't considered proprietary.
	They're suing under the Federal Trade Secrets Act here, by the way.
	Isn't considered a recognizable trade secret in most instances.
	So that's their big problem.
	The two problems everybody pointed out was, number one, it's like, you guys fired him first.
	How are you complaining about what he did?
	That's the other problem, by the way, with trying to enforce the clause about not doing other activity.
	It's only activity that prevented him from doing his job.
	They prevented him from doing his job.
	So none of that, all that's going to get tossed.
	The only thing that's left of consequence in what the case is really all about is about trying to cut off the donors.
	I don't see a court, and they're trying to...
	Have the court impose prior restraint on his speech.
	Judge, prevent him from ever saying anything that anybody could ever interpret as negative about us.
	Poor Project Barathon.
	Prior restraint is also heavily disfavored.
	So that is highly unlikely to be given.
	So all that's remaining is their ability to prohibit him from contacting donors.
	That's not going to be upheld because even under the contract's terms, the information he had to get...
	Only through his employment at Project Veritas, that's not what happened.
	These are people he knew before.
	These are people he knew independently.
	These are contacts he himself individually developed.
	And much of the information has been publicly obtainable for years because it's been publicly released because these are 501c3 and 501c4s.
	So a lot of that information was publicly out there.
	Well, that was the question I was going to ask.
	The donor lists themselves are, to some extent, publicly accessible.
	And if I even know James O 'Keefe and OMG Media, he's not going to have to solicit anything from anybody.
	They're going to be rushing to him, as we've seen in social media, or on social media in the real world.
	If there's any independent source for it, it's not even confidential information in the first place.
	So I don't think it was confidential information because he didn't learn it because of his access to private.
	This whole contract, if you read it, Is it designed for O 'Keefe?
	It's designed for other people that work there.
	So yeah, he signed it, but other than the money amount, the rest has almost nothing to do with O 'Keefe.
	It has everything to do, it's about other people there.
	And so they just, you know, it's where O 'Keefe went AWOL, was allowing such an organization to exist and letting conventional corporate lawyers in the room.
	And now Project Veritas is clearly connected to some...
	Let's say, ethically, morally, challengeable lawyers.
	I've dealt with the lawyers involved.
	I deeply dislike them, personally and professionally.
	Wouldn't recommend them to anybody.
	If they're no longer lawyers tomorrow, I would not shed a tear.
	But putting all that aside, it would be like them to give this kind of swarmy, half-ass advice to the kind of swarmy, half-ass idiots that are running Project Veritas currently.
	I mean, apparently, here's the other problem.
	I don't think they've announced the CEO since he left.
	Whoa, whoa.
	Didn't they have an election?
	One executive director quit the day they filed this suit because he knows it's going to kill what's left of Project Veritas.
	I want to pull that up so everybody understands.
	This is already public information.
	James O 'Keefe was on Tim Pool.
	I forget the guy's name.
	It doesn't really matter.
	Who was it?
	It was a C-something.
	It was an executive who resigned from Project Veritas the day of the lawsuit.
	One might think it's because this person understands that this might be a very problematic lawsuit for the life expectancy of Project Veritas.
	And it's not clear who has replaced either James O 'Keefe or why this person left.
	And some people can hypothesize reasonably that some people internally might understand what they are doing.
	It's an utter destruction of the company.
	Robert, is there a basis for a claim that those who are going to suffer the consequences of the destruction of Project Veritas through their own conduct and arguably malicious lawfare might have a cause of action against the board of directors who partook in this?
	I know some donors were looking at it, so some donors may have some potential claims against it.
	Because this just further enhanced their self-destruction politically and in their likely probable financial future.
	And like I said, you know, the judge that was drawn to the case is an old school Bush Republican, but pretty old school judge.
	If you follow the law and the basic facts in the contract here, their claims, they're not going to get what they want.
	They're not going to get a judge prohibiting...
	The judge might say you can't use confidential information.
	So what?
	There's no evidence he's actually using confidential information because these are contacts he had independently that he developed himself.
	The people were flocking from Project Veritas to OMG.
	It's not like he was going out and saying, hey guys, I left.
	Can you come follow me?
	I mean, I've dealt with this in many contexts.
	You can guess which contexts these particular issues tend to get litigated the most.
	I was involved in a long legal fight over this for some clients.
	I want to be smart right now, Robert.
	Let me think for two seconds.
	It's close to home, put it that way, professionally speaking.
	I'm blinded.
	Law firm breakups.
	Law firm breakups.
	They all allege, this client's mine.
	I own that client.
	You contacted him.
	You solicited him.
	You were prohibited.
	All kinds of ridiculous non-competes.
	Those increasingly non-competes are unenforceable.
	But most employees don't know that.
	There's like 30 million employees that are subject to them that don't know that most of the time it's illegal.
	And hashtag no legal advice, but the whole rationale behind which there's no reduction of overly broad non-competes is that the employer suffers no consequences from attempting to exceed the law.
	So they say you take a chance and ask for too much, you get nothing, so be reasonable in the first place.
	And it's also the free market.
	We shouldn't allow companies to contract their way around the free market as much as possible.
	We should drastically limit that capacity.
	And so the free market, free market employment, free market ideas, free market and the rest, the whole idea of efficient breach under law and economics, all of that disfavors these non-solicitation provisions, non-compete provisions.
	Nonprofits shouldn't be drafting these things at all, in my view.
	I think the confidentiality provision is meant for low-level employees to not get access and then leak information that should be private.
	But that has nothing to do with what's happening here.
	Here they're making it clear that their whole goal was to silence and gag James O 'Keefe and that they saw Project Veritas as a personal money train of special political influence in a different direction than O 'Keefe was taking it.
	And the lawsuit reveals that without any doubt.
	And that there's a lot of sleazy, shwarmy people involved in this process now.
	And anybody who defended Project Veritas at the time should, you know, Jenna Ellis, go ahead and issue that apology now.
	Well, she's got a range of things she needs to apologize for, but go ahead and start there.
	In fairness to Jenna, she did say, like, a few days after they said they were going to have the, you know, show the receipts.
	They didn't show the receipts.
	So, all that to say, everybody.
	You've now heard the two breakdowns.
	The predictions are in.
	We'll visit this and see whether or not someone who says Project Veritas is undoubtedly going to win.
	It's totally, totally clear, cut and dry versus us, who I think will get it right.
	All right.
	And maybe we need to get...
	To the wise, avoid the drama hoes.
	Don't worry about the drama hoes out there for those people that were sending me stuff about, you know, the logic to interview with her and whatnot.
	I was like, I haven't paid attention to her.
	I think her husband was supposedly connected to trying to get me off of Twitter back in the day, Ukrainian or whatever.
	I could care less.
	There's someone that's addicted to drama that's always trying to stir up trouble.
	I was like that shipwreck crew loser.
	Who's always trying to troll and trying to provoke a debate.
	It's like, dude, you're a loser.
	You're always going to be a loser.
	You're going to wake up tomorrow.
	You're still a loser.
	I'm not wasting my time.
	And that is all we're going to say about that.
	So I was going to say maybe we get James O 'Keefe back on sooner than later to give us an update.
	All right, Robert.
	Next one on the list.
	Google Healthcare Provider.
	I didn't read it.
	What's it about?
	Guess what else Google is tracking?
	Well, I'm going to say health conditions.
	What you Google online for questions of medicine.
	Even further, they have placed third-party tracking into the doctor's websites themselves, into the hospital's websites themselves.
	Does it track the names of patients that go through the system?
	Yes.
	So they basically have people's private medical records.
	They've been using Google tracking to know who has what medical condition, who has what medical disease.
	And then they've been selling it because apparently it's the most valuable monetization out there.
	It's about $250 a pop to get somebody's personal medical file.
	I'm sure people are probably shocked.
	I've tried to tell people this, that there's a thousand data points out there available for sale.
	I can find out your bank account.
	I can find out everything for sometimes tiny amounts of money.
	$250, you can get pretty much anybody's medical file.
	Now, thanks in part to Google.
	So Google was taking this information, stealing it really, and then monetizing it and profiting from it and then putting it out to third parties.
	So a major class action brought against Google for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, violation of certain health records laws.
	et cetera, filed in California this past week.
	Another case where Google has been getting rich off of stealing people's information.
	Because once again, folks, if it's free, you're the product.
	That's the problem.
	I just wanted to bring this up.
	I went to YouTube to see what ads I'm getting on videos, and I got Brickhouse Nutrition.
	I got...
	Field of Greens advertising on my own videos.
	I was looking to see, because I do get a lot, Robert, as everybody knows when I bring up a video, toilet stuff and, you know, bowel stuff.
	And now I wonder.
	Because you talk about the dog.
	No, I think it's because I talk about my own hemorrhoids all the time, so I'm getting all these pooping ad stuff.
	Okay, it's very nice.
	So I don't care.
	I live like an open book because I take for granted everybody knows everything anyhow, which is why I don't use Telegram or the other one because I don't believe it's any safer, but that might be my own conspiratorial senses.
	Signal is safer.
	It's not perfect, but it's much safer.
	For one reason, Signal has no centralized storage of messages.
	That's what's unique about Signal.
	Everybody else has a centralized storage.
	Signal does not.
	What is safer is assuming that everyone everywhere knows everything you're texting, DMing, and everything.
	And then just conduct yourself accordingly.
	Never writing, always in cash.
	Robert, hold on.
	The next one.
	What was the next?
	Oh, gosh, Jordan.
	Come on, get this out of here.
	Where's my list?
	The next one, Robert.
	So this is an interesting case, Robert.
	I was trying to find...
	The pictures involved and the people involved, just to see the level of intimidation.
	But this was a criminal trial.
	It wasn't for murder, but it was for attempted murder, gun-related.
	It was a serious, serious charge.
	And I guess some unsavory characters were in the courtroom during the trial, staring down...
	I don't know if they were staring down the defendant or staring down other people, taking pictures, posting it on social media.
	And so at some point...
	Prosecution says we need to move for a closed trial for four days of the trial.
	It was like a couple weeks long.
	And the judge grants it, saying, look, there's been some misbehavior in the courtroom.
	People are taking pictures and posting them.
	Some of the attendees are staring down.
	I think it was the defendant, but I'm not sure.
	It might have been witnesses.
	And the judge grants it.
	The claim was the court reporter felt intimidated.
	And so they granted the four-day closed trial.
	And the defendant, I guess, was convicted, appealed, and he said, yeah, you shouldn't have had that.
	We're declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial.
	It's incredible.
	It's fascinating in terms of, again, the rationale behind the lawsuit was that they basically, the judge of the court concluded there were other less intrusive measures other than ordering a full closed courtroom.
	You know, they could have said, they could have taken confiscated cell phones.
	It wasn't clear.
	If the staring of down was intended to be witness intimidation, but there were other less intrusive means than by rendering this public trial private.
	I suspect you're going to love this because you like this case because trials should be public as a rule with very minimal exceptions.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I mean, just because somebody's intimidating looking and sharing photos on social media is no reason whatsoever for a trial that was originally, to give people an idea, public trials.
	Originally held outside.
	The whole community got to see them.
	So the idea of sharing photos from inside the trial outside is like, that's what should be happening.
	Unless it's a violation of something specific.
	And there was no evidence of that here.
	And so, credits to the New York Court of Appeals, they said, that violates your right to a public trial.
	Gave the defendant a whole new trial.
	Because this court didn't go through the Supreme Court's pretty basic test, that you really have to have very specific factual evidence that you cannot conduct the trial in a constitutional manner without limiting the constitutional right to a public trial, meaning other constitutional rights can trump, such as prejudice to the jury, prejudice to the defendant, etc., can be the only grounds.
	To remove the constitutional right to a public trial.
	So a great decision by the New York Court of Criminal Appeals to remind everybody that.
	Just being intimidating, looking, putting photos on social media, none of these things violate our grounds to deny the right to a public trial.
	And I know nothing about the parties involved.
	I'm just wondering who the threatening people were and what they were doing to stare down the court reporter and potentially the defendant.
	But Robert...
	Now, I'm forgetting, I'm not forgetting, I don't know what stage Ghislaine Maxwell is at, in terms of, I think this issue came up during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial as well, right?
	The right to a public trial?
	Well, her trial was public.
	It's just good on court, so they don't have to televise it.
	Okay, but I thought there was an issue about the juror, as I recall, Ghislaine Maxwell.
	Okay, so scratch that question, I'll go refresh my memory.
	Public, but then limited.
	Okay, so because they're not broadcast and because they had court reporters in there, they were not excluded for any of the witnesses, but some...
	Okay.
	They had a separate room where they did video of the court trial at the courtroom, but you had to be at the courthouse because GoodLogic covered it live.
	But yeah, good ruling in general.
	All right, now Arkansas book ban, Robert.
	We're seeing this in a lot of places.
	Arkansas is seeking to ban books.
	From libraries.
	Well, in libraries and booksellers.
	That's the part that I took away.
	Not to my understanding, private booksellers.
	I thought it was just libraries and other public spaces, I thought.
	I didn't see any direct limitation on publishers.
	That could be right.
	I didn't see that part.
	I think I screen grabbed and highlighted this damn camera is driving me crazy that it keeps triggering.
	I want it to stop moving.
	That was the only question that I had is like public libraries.
	We say public libraries.
	They want to ban obscene material for children or at least put it in an adult section.
	Let's set aside whether or not it applied to private booksellers.
	That might be the separate issue.
	Yeah, that would be a different legal analysis.
	Okay, and now so what's the status with that?
	So a law has been brought challenging in First Amendment grounds, and this law is written pretty clean.
	Here's what's required.
	The book has to be harmful to minors, but they specifically define what that means.
	And they impose a three-prong analysis on what is considered harmful to minors.
	First of all, it must be sexual material.
	Secondly, an appeal to the prurient interest in sexuality.
	Second, it must be patently offensive according to the standards of the community.
	And third, it must lack any scientific, artistic, or other value.
	They basically cut and paste the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on obscenity.
	So here what they've said is, but they've added a separate element.
	It's obscene and it's being sold or marketed or available to minors.
	So they've just said libraries can't have obscene material available to minors.
	That's been held as constitutional over and over again.
	So I don't see where this challenge is successful at all.
	I'm trying to pull up because I had a screen grab where it said, the only question is, it said booksellers.
	So I don't know if that means private booksellers.
	Even with booksellers, they'd still be fine.
	It's just the library analysis will be more deferential by the courts than to private booksellers.
	But if it's public booksellers or other, but even private booksellers, you've never really been allowed to sell obscenity to minors.
	So this is just clarifying that to libraries that appear to have forgotten that.
	And they allow a challenge process.
	The other thing they're challenging in the lawsuit is they allow an individual to come in and say, I think this is obscenity, and it requires them to remove the book from children's access until they resolve whether it is.
	But even that alone, again, as long as it's obscene material that's being prohibited, especially obscene material for minors, That's been held constitutional over and over again.
	Yeah, and while still being available just with certain restraints or certain protections so that, you know, when we were kids in the adult movie section, they had the little beads and you'd go into the room that had the porno.
	And nobody complained about it.
	It just wasn't up there with the new releases unless it was a new release porno.
	I'm joking.
	Okay, I mean, it's interesting.
	This is where I was, you know, in terms of it being available, it'll be...
	It's misrepresented as being outlawed, but it'll just be certain protections for certain stuff that shouldn't be eye-visible to children.
	Put it in a room, and if you want it, go get it.
	It's really like a lot of the trans issues.
	It's about drag shows and things like that.
	Right now, trans drag shows are legal back again in Tennessee, because they were a little bit careless in definition of the law.
	But in general, there's a broad public consensus that you shouldn't be exposing Sexual material of this nature to kids.
	I don't know how this can be controversial.
	And the idea that it's First Amendment protected is rebutted by every First Amendment decision on the topic.
	All right.
	Fantastic.
	The next one on the list, Robert, death penalty unconstitutional.
	So yeah, this is another juvenile case.
	It was a Tennessee case.
	And I think it represents a version of your argument.
	Which is, this is an Eighth Amendment analysis.
	When is punishment, quote, cruel and unusual?
	The U.S. Constitution prohibits not only excessive fines, but any punishment that's cruel and unusual.
	And the argument about juveniles that the Supreme Court said was it's cruel and unusual if the jury and the judge were not afforded the option of giving the person a sentence other than the death penalty.
	So that if the legislature tried to strip that of the jury and the judge, that constituted cruel and unusual punishment by denying them that discretionary power.
	And that's what the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled here, struck down the death penalty punishment and did life sentence.
	But I think it's like the argument that you and others have made is the death penalty is not necessarily inherently cruel and unusual, but when you have incompetent, ineffective...
	Police and prosecutors, where you know that an innocent man might be on death row, that it is cruel and unusual punishment to have the death penalty available in a place where you cannot trust the conviction.
	I think that's the best way to legally articulate that death penalty skeptical argument.
	But was the issue in this particular case the death penalty per se or the death penalty for minors?
	I have to ask myself this question.
	The death penalty for juveniles in this context was cruel and unusual because it did not afford jury or judicial discretion to issue a different sentence.
	Oh, in terms of a mandatory death sentence.
	Yes, yes.
	Well, that's a...
	I mean, what the hell?
	That's a no-brainer in terms of a problem, especially for Minus.
	All right, well, don't...
	It was for violent stuff.
	It wasn't for, like, you know, poaching the king's deer out of the forest, Robert, at least, I hope.
	Yeah, but I think the case that we discussed last week is an example of why a lot of my conservative friends pushed back, and it's like, you know, I know a lot of people...
	who have no problem with a death penalty in principle, that abstractly they don't consider it cruel and unusual.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Interesting.
	Robert, the last one.
	Let's flip it around.
	Let's do fluoride before custody rights because it'll get there.
	So the fluoride lawsuit, now I forget if it's a class action, but the fluoride lawsuit is suing to preclude the, or to prohibit the insertion of fluoride or the continued insertion of fluoride into public drinking water.
	Robert, this is where like, you know, I wet behind the ears still green and getting blackpilled.
	Back in the day, I remember everybody saying like, you know, As of the time they started putting fluoride in public waters, cavities were going down.
	Why in the hell would they ever put fluoride in waters, even if it did what they say it did, but it doesn't even seem that it does what they say it did in terms of preventing cavities?
	Why would public health, why would government take it on themselves to insert a foreign substance?
	And apparently it's on a list of toxic materials up there with lead and other stuff, not to get conspiratorial.
	Why would they have ever put that in water if the only benefit it could ever have had would have been preventing cavities and dental hygiene issues, which apparently it doesn't even do?
	Tell me that I'm not going crazy because now I start to question everything as to why they would put fluoride in water, in drinking water.
	It's a conspiracy to contaminate our precious bodily fluids.
	To quote Dr. Strangelove.
	But, I mean, no, really what it is, fluoride topically applied can have dental benefits.
	They misconstrued it to have such benefits when you ingest it.
	It turns out it's just the opposite.
	When you ingest fluoride, it actually makes the teeth work, but also a lot of worse problems.
	Cancer and other issues, but the big one is it's a neurotoxin.
	It does damage to the brain.
	And we've been poisoning our water supply.
	With fluoride for the better part of a century now.
	And it's everywhere because it ends up in a lot of processed foods as well.
	And so a bunch of people got together.
	People connected to Robert Kennedy and some others.
	Filed suit because under federal law, you have the right to petition the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to pass a rule.
	It's a special statute.
	I like because I think people should have the right to petition the First Amendment and it should be incorporated as part of legislative reform across the administrative bureaucracy as long as we're going to have an administrative bureaucracy.
	I'm for getting rid of that administrative bureaucracy, but in lieu thereof, at least have an individual right to directly petition them.
	And you have a right to sue when they ignore your petition.
	And so here they said, look, we want a rule banning fluoride in the water and the drinking water supply.
	Now, this has now been decades where now we have hundreds and hundreds of studies.
	And we know it does nothing good and does a lot really, really, really bad.
	It's one of the most dangerous neurotoxins to the brain in existence.
	It's up there with, like, mercury and lead and PCBs.
	I'm just pulling it up.
	This is fluoridation of drinking water.
	This is only Point Claire and Durval.
	That's two big cities, two big rural municipalities or whatever.
	Suburbs.
	In Montreal, drinking water has...
	Production plants distribute fluoridation, drinking water, the concentration of which is regulated by the...
	Oh, it's nice.
	It's regulated.
	Don't worry, people.
	It's regulated.
	So Dorval and Poinclair, those are pretty big cities in the greater Montreal area.
	Holy cats.
	Robert?
	That's played a lot, but so it's a good suit, so hopefully we'll see if the court takes action on it and gets the fluoride out of our water after all this time.
	But yes, one of the great conspiracy theories, so-called, of the last century turns out to be true.
	And it explains that I don't know that I've been drinking fluoridated fluoride water, but okay, I was in lower westbound and westbound in my life.
	Robert, I'm going to bring up, I forgot to bring up the rumble rants, but I saw one and I want to bring it up immediately while going through the other ones.
	Conservacock says, Viva got vaxxed.
	He is a sellout.
	Conservacock, thank you for your valuable input.
	Yes, everybody knows.
	Last shot was August 2021, and I'm proud to say, and lucky, fortunate to say, I checked the batch number, and there were very minimal adverse reactions associated with that batch, like minimal, minimal as in non-existence, and but for the grace of God.
	But, ConservativeCart, thank you for showing me that some people are, I guess, some liberals are still watching.
	They want to shame people for what they do with their own body.
	TX47.
	I cannot even watch this.
	Rumble streaming sucks.
	It keeps freezing and I have to reload the page.
	Miss several minutes at a time.
	I'm going to screen grab it.
	They might not like seeing it, but I'm going to flip it over to administration.
	Mandatory carry.
	Being necessary to the security of the free state, the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced.
	Keep fighting.
	Mandatory carry.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment.
	A well-protected public.
	Kimmel Hunt.
	Kimi Hunt.
	I think there's a game with that name there.
	I think I see it.
	KB, Katanji Braxton, went...
	Oh, KB, that's Borschenko.
	Went on Joe Good Logic last night and tried to trash FIFA.
	I don't care, people.
	I genuinely don't care.
	The engaged few.
	You've been gone.
	You've gone big city, Robert.
	The correct pronunciation is touched, not touched.
	Okay.
	Top musicale.
	The problem with saying the government should not prohibit gender-affirming medical procedures on minors is in some places the government is forcing, against the parents' will, such procedures.
	That is exactly the issue.
	That prohibition or tolerance runs both ways.
	And so you say, tell the doctors what they can and can't do, might restrict what they can and cannot do, but then they compel it as to what the doctors think can and cannot do.
	Totally bilateral system of problematic there.
	Okay, never mind.
	That made no sense.
	Britt Cormie says, Viva, if I recall correctly, it was like 30 shares of stock owned by some family member.
	It was under $3,000 in value, which I found ridiculous.
	That's going back to the judge recusing himself.
	Not that you care, but Carolyn Borschenko, a semi-red pill lefty with a YouTube channel, has fallen off the boat, is talking big shit on David about protein veritas.
	Yeah, we talked about that.
	I don't care, people.
	And I also don't care about creating that type of content because it's not what I'm into.
	Vivan Barnes, thanks for sticking up with the little guy.
	Almost all lawyers don't.
	I did my best, but admittedly, I had to stop the practice because, Robert, I don't know how you continue to do it, but God bless you for doing it.
	Oblividan, Joe is one bad hombre.
	Corn pop was the good guy.
	Jack Flack, Twitter just enshrined in their TOS terms of service, the same logic used to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Twitter going downhill quick.
	Flea Lord Avatar, zero buffering here on desktop.
	Oblividan, Hillary killed those today.
	Remember St. Marvin Heemeyer?
	I was always willing to be reasonable until I had to be unreasonable.
	Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.
	I went to the bar on Friday and I wore my keep-up and I came home drunk as F. Found it today on the road.
	That's kind of funny if you did, actually.
	Countdown from five, the jet walk.
	E equals MC Vagina, Lord of the Re, making a John Lajoie reference joke.
	Congratulations.
	Okay, I got through all that on one breath.
	That's fantastic.
	Robert!
	What do we have here?
	So this was our second favorite topic on the poll at vivobarneslaw.locals.com Everyone's above average.
	Everyone's above average.
	Even the trolls.
	But so this is, you know, when can the state take away your kid?
	And so it went to the Tennessee Supreme Court, and it's an unsettling trend that continues unabated.
	So you had what appears to me of a working-class family, and the evidence for that is one parent's working full-time and the other parent's working two jobs full-time.
	They have a baby born with a bunch of health problems because the baby's born premature.
	I mean, everything under the sun.
	They have their grandmother involved in taking care of the baby when they're at work.
	They're constantly taking the baby into the hospital and in medical treatment whenever any issues arise because of all the health issues the baby has.
	They'll clearly probably spend a lot of money out of pocket they can ill afford to take care of the baby.
	At one point they take the baby to the doctor and the doctor discovers damaged rips, cracked rips.
	The medical experts all decide that that must mean that they did something wrong.
	And so over time, they basically tried to, this working class family, trying to take care of a very ill baby, they decide to try to take away the baby from the working class family.
	And what the problem is, it's this dangerous proclivity of the professional managerial class to decide what's better for your kid than you.
	And often using their expertise in it.
	There was no evidence that they neglected the baby at all.
	In fact, the evidence was to the contrary.
	So the only evidence was, well, it suffered a particular medical condition that they can't explain, the medical profession.
	So we're going to blame the parents for it.
	To such a degree, we're going to take the baby away.
	Luckily, the Tennessee Supreme Court ultimately stepped in and reversed and said, look, what you have to have, if you're going to say there's a constitutional right of custodial control over your child as a minor, and in order to interfere with that, You have to have evidence that they know that they're causing harm to the child.
	And then here, even if you presume, for which there was no evidence, that they are the ones responsible for the rib injury, but that doesn't make sense, that there's absolutely no evidence they thought they were or were aware of it, and all the evidence is to the contrary.
	And so even, you know, trying to defer to the so-called expert class in the white lab coat crowd.
	That these parents, there was no evidence they ever did anything wrong, and it reestablished that the lower courts have to prove with clear and convincing evidence that parents know through or are recklessly indifferent to a substantial risk that they know about to their child deliberately causing the child harm before you can interfere with the parent's right to custody of that child.
	So it was a very good decision, but it shows the increase.
	And that's where conservatives should be careful of jumping on the trans, anti-trans bandwagon, because the state and the governments may try to use this to say the state knows better than parents.
	This case was a reminder to me of those principles and the danger of ever delegating to the state and saying the state knows better.
	I think we should keep that very limited to the legal standard established here.
	Substantial risk of harm to the child, known to be caused by the parents, and the parents knew both of those things before there can be any interference or impairment of the parent-child right.
	Well, the first case I ever had would involve this.
	Child custody people...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, I was going to say, I guess the only risk is that the harm to the child part is where people are going to say, I can't trust the experts and I can't trust the system.
	Because the system and the experts are going to come in and say...
	It's going to be harm for the child to not do the gender-affirming care.
	That's exactly right.
	That's where that's going.
	That's why we shouldn't give them that power to begin with.
	What I learned from firsthand experience is you cannot trust the state in these situations.
	The people who work at the child welfare agencies often have the same profile as abusers.
	They're often sick, disturbed people.
	They lied to me repeatedly as a young lawyer in a range of cases that I never forgot or forgave them for.
	And I remember going into court once where a similar abuse of power was taking place.
	And you have these special juvenile courts and family courts that often deal with these issues.
	And I told the judge, let's start with where we need to start for any such issue, the Constitution of the United States.
	And the judge goes, Constitution?
	Constitution?
	What does Constitution have to do with it?
	I was like, you're a judge!
	Just step down now!
	I was like, oh my God!
	So that was my experience.
	The last people on the planet Earth we should trust with control of our kids as the government.
	It's the interesting thing.
	I did the live stream with Joe Unlearn16 where the question that came up over and over again was about a student confiding in a teacher.
	I need to trans discreetly or my parents are going to abuse me.
	And then I've realized an error in my phrasing of now the debate.
	It's that whenever a child brings up abuse, that's a serious issue that authorities have to look into.
	But then you realize as to what might happen when the authorities determine abuse to be something different than what most objective adults would consider abuse to be.
	Absolutely.
	In my view, this should also be jury-controlled, not judge-controlled.
	Robert, who trusts a jury anymore?
	I just trust them more than I trust judges and bureaucrats.
	You know, a lot of the heartbeat bills a lot of people thought would go through, which is that once there's a fetal heartbeat, they have said abortion can't happen after that, and that can be as early as six weeks.
	It's conservative state Supreme Court striking it down.
	Or I should say conservative states.
	One can argue whether these justices are conservative or not, but welcome to rhino republicanism.
	In South Carolina and Oklahoma, the state Supreme Court struck down the heartbeat bills.
	So, I mean, what's the rationale?
	Do they say it's too early or do they say it's ambiguous?
	Too early.
	And basically they're ignoring, because all Dobbs did is send it back to the states.
	They're saying that they think it violates the right to privacy.
	Many of these courts would probably establish a right to abortion, period.
	But what's clear is they're going to at least establish a right to an abortion probably in the first trimester.
	And what I've tried to tell my pro-life friends for a long time is if you look around the globe and then you look at the pill, the pill is effective up to 10 weeks.
	You look at the international median.
	Most countries have settled on the first trimester.
	I was like, that's where the courts are likely to end up.
	That's where legislators and the public is likely to end up.
	They're going to say abortions in the first trimester, okay.
	Anything after that, not okay, unless self-defense is involved.
	And I think that, but they're very reluctant to go there.
	A lot of my most hardcore pro-life friends believe that life begins at conception.
	I've always said, well, if you believe that, then you should be concerned about implantation because over half of the fertilized eggs never even reach the implantation stage.
	And that means you think half of all human souls die every year.
	And it's like, I don't know many of my pro-life friends that are obsessed over that issue because I think down deep.
	Their consistency on their beliefs on that are fairly in question.
	No, I think they could legitimately believe that the potential for human life exists.
	They see it as a religious experience.
	That that's a spiritual, the soul is now in the organism.
	And I get it.
	I'm just saying that there's some contradictions in how that translates into public policy.
	But I think in terms of public will, broader public opinion...
	That where things are likely to settle down is that about half the states will be able to ban abortion after the first trimester.
	A third of the states will be second trimester, and the crazy states will be, you know, until the baby's born.
	No, not just that, Robert.
	No autopsies for one month after the birth.
	That'll be California.
	It's interesting.
	So they say it's too late.
	It's too early in terms of determining criminality.
	In terms of weighing interest.
	Okay.
	Even though I think the reason isn't medicine, though they cite that, I think a comparison I've told people that the courts may end up settling on or public opinion may end up settling on is when brain activity occurs.
	We generally consider someone dead.
	When there's no more brain activity, generally brain activity is not detected until closer to the second trimester.
	Sometimes it's early as 10 weeks.
	But that's going to be, are you 46?
	The abortion pill also works up until 10 weeks.
	So that's where I think things are going to, I mean, you could ban abortion, but you're not going to be able to ban access to that.
	You can legally ban access to the pill, but you're not going to be able to functionally ban access to the pill.
	So that's what I've always told people.
	Ultimately, the settlement range is going to probably come down to the first trimester.
	It's already in Europe.
	Nobody has an issue with the first trimester.
	No country that has a first trimester abortion rule is deemed to be anti-women's rights.
	And the Americans, the pro-abortion side or the pro-choice...
	The most horrific abortions are second trimester in Africa.
	Partial birth abortions, things like that.
	So I think that's just where it's going to settle.
	But it is a reminder to those pro-life activists out there.
	Like in South Carolina, it's that so-called pro-life legislature that put those judges in.
	So that's the kind of judges you get when the Nikki Haley's of the world are picking them.
	Well, now that you mention this, I drove through...
	I believe it was North Carolina.
	I noticed a lot of yellow billboards with red writing and they were all very religious.
	It was religious anti-abortion messaging.
	Very strong.
	They've been elected promising those voters something that they never were going to deliver on.
	But they always have somebody else be the person to deliver the bad news.
	Just as a purely practical thing, who pays for that?
	Is it a known church or a known organization?
	Who?
	Oh, I don't know.
	The billboards.
	I don't know.
	When we drive back down to Florida, I'm taking pictures of each billboard, even if the kids...
	Well, I might be driving alone, but we'll see.
	All right, sorry.
	Robert, the last...
	Well, let's do the one before last.
	We have two bonus...
	Well, you have three bonus cases.
	One I just added late.
	Well, let me see if I got...
	Did I get my email?
	The Manson one is interesting.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	The gourmet nut.
	All right, so the dude's buying nuts, and the nuts say it's packed with protein.
	And there's no indication of the protein nutritional content on the packaging, if I understand this correctly.
	Lawsuit.
	And there was a motion to dismiss from the defendant saying, well, we're not really making any misrepresentations because we say packed with protein, but we're not making any nutritional statements.
	Dismiss the lawsuit, failure to claim all that other crap.
	And they say, no, the lawsuit can go forward because packed with protein has certain...
	In terms of, you know, typical understanding.
	I understand the rationale, but I know when you send me something, it has a broader impact than a superficial one.
	So what is the broader relevance of this in terms of packaging and truth in packaging?
	Well, basically, the gourmet nut protein packed troll mix, trail mix, was kind of like Carolyn B., you know, a nut without value, as it turns out.
	So, for example, what happened is the relevance is the FDA labeling.
	So the argument that they made was, hey, the FDA is preempted, and as long as we're complying with the FDA, we now can commit fraud in the state.
	And the court, to its credit, said, no, federal law didn't go that far, and it doesn't preempt you making false claims about the nutritional value of your content.
	But it's a sign of a problem of way too much preemption.
	There needs to be legislative reform to go at the federal level to drastically limit the FDA's power in this context.
	They should be supplemental, if they should exist at all.
	I don't think they should exist at all.
	But if they're going to exist at all, they should be supplemental, not replacing state fraud claims.
	But luckily, this fraud claim will go forward.
	Despite their efforts to weasel out for...
	They said it was protein-packed when it had very little protein.
	I am now more suspicious of nuts that have no protein.
	If there are, in fact, nuts in this.
	And if it's not protein-packed, it's not nut-packed because nuts are basically nothing but protein.
	Robert...
	Carolyn B., a nut without protein.
	Okay.
	Let's see.
	We have two more topics.
	We're going to do them on Locals.
	One heavy one, one not-so-heavy one.
	We'll do them both on Locals because there's...
	Let me see.
	Robert, we're almost at 1,000 people live on Locals.
	Let's do them on Locals.
	I'm going to end this by showing you my fingertips.
	Can we see my fingertips?
	Robert, I went a little too hard on the game that involved jumping on a trampoline and smacking buttons on a wall.
	I broke my record of the one that I shared on Twitter.
	225, which I think is basically as much as you can get in 60 seconds of jumping on a trampoline and smacking five buttons on the wall.
	But really, look what I did to my fingertip.
	It really hurts.
	Everybody, come on over to Locals.
	We're going to do tips, and we're going to do the two remaining topics, and it's going to be a party hardy.
	We're over 1,000.
	All right, we're doing it.
	Everyone, we're ending this now on Rumble.
	Robert, who do we have for Sidebar Wednesday?
	Do we have anybody scheduled yet?
	None scheduled as of now.
	So I might be live with Sean Spicer between 11 and 1 on Wednesday.
	That would not necessarily be the sidebar.
	I'm going to go guilt Dave Smith in.
	Tuesday, hold on one second, it's not yet confirmed, but I want to make sure I don't want to make a mistake here.
	Natalie Jean Beisner, who you might have seen is the woman...
	Who bears a cross on her necklace making videos that are highly controversial about the very intuitive things about racism, misogyny, all this.
	If you don't know, Natalie Jean Beisner, B-E-I-S-N-E-R, might be Tuesday, not sure, Wednesday night.
	I'm driving back to Montreal tomorrow, so may or may not be able to pull over and do a car blog.
	But, Robert, are you doing any appearances next week?
	No, I did one with Jackson Hinkle.
	Last week, and also did one with Cleta Mitchell a few weeks ago that just got published about the 2020 election.
	So that was my...
	But that's the only ones I was going to do for a couple of weeks.
	Jackson Hinkle was put on the Ukrainian list of bad people, right, recently?
	Yeah, yeah.
	He's on the hit list.
	He's moving to Miami, though, from L.A. Well, oh, great.
	Now he's going to bring the attention to Miami.
	Well, maybe I'll do an in-person with Jackson sooner than later.
	All right, everybody, we're going to end this on Rumble right now.
	The chat says I asked if I looked red.
	Robert, do I look red?
	Not more than normal.
	Okay, well, that's good enough.
	We're going to end on Rumble right now and go over to Locals.
	So I'm ending it.
	Thank you all for being here.
	People, see you next week, which is tomorrow.
	Peace out.
	See you on Locals in 30 seconds.
	End livestream on Rumble, and we will continue on Locals.
	Robert, I'm going to hold my breath and do this real fast, like tipped.
	Scroll up all the way to the top.

▲