All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
02:14:11
Ep. 168: Cocaine in the White House; Harvard Gets SUED! Recall in L.A. AND MORE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There's so many people here.
It's so great to see you as well.
Thank you so much.
There you go.
Okay, look at the camera.
Farmer from staff.
Thank you for coming up.
Thank you very much.
Have a great summer, okay?
We will, you too.
Nathan, good to meet you.
It's not bad, eh?
I believe that you're going to do a good job.
You've done a good job so far.
There's burgers to do as you say.
Are you having a good stand?
How much longer is this?
Oh, loud.
Oh, that's so loud.
That's so loud and that's so obnoxious.
Oh, wait, hold on.
I hear it in the background.
Hold on one second.
I hear myself in the background.
Hold on.
Where am I?
I'm in the background of my own stream.
Okay, give me a second, people.
Okay, put that on pause.
Okay, I think that took care of it.
Oh, that's annoying.
I'll tell you what else is annoying.
No, no, I still hear myself.
Hold on.
What the heck is going on?
Where am I?
I hear myself in the background, people.
This is going to take a second to figure out.
Okay, let me just...
I hear myself 30 seconds later.
Let me take myself out of this stream and figure something out.
Hold on.
Mic check, one, two.
Mic check, one, two.
Let's just see.
I think I figured it out.
Oh, my goodness.
Yeah, Lily Vax, what's up with that accent?
I might get in...
Where is it?
I figured it out.
I figured it out, boys.
I'll tell you.
I think I figured it out now.
Okay, well, that was a minor panic attack.
Let's just go back to this thing for one second.
I'm not playing the whole thing again.
He's dressing like a freaking cowboy.
There's nothing wrong with dressing like a cowboy, by the way, and I started watching Yellowstone, and it's awesome.
It's awesome, not necessarily from a plot perspective.
It's awesome because it shows you the shark, the stark contrast.
You can live in heaven on earth of Montana, and then on the nitty-gritty of even living in paradise, the human conditions are not always as angelic as the surroundings.
Oh, and by the way, I was going to have a riddle.
The two actors who have gotten better at acting as they got older...
There's only two correct answers to this.
One of which is Kevin Costner.
The other of which is Keanu Reeves.
He's dressing like a freaking cowboy.
Okay, doesn't matter.
Oh my god, look at that.
That is the stranger danger gaze right there.
Look at that.
I'm going to eat your soul, son.
But when he goes to flip the pancakes, this had made the rounds on the internet.
Look at his left hand.
Look at Justin Trudeau's left hand here.
I'm not going to play because I don't want to hear that music again.
People were saying, look at his left hand.
He's either throwing gang symbols.
Some people were hypothesizing, like atrophied from a certain jibby jab injury.
And I think it's what I call the hacky sack hand.
I just think...
You know when you play hacky sack and you try to kick the hacky sack or the soccer ball and people do this thing with their left hand and it looks embarrassing and it looks awkward?
That's all that I think is going on, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.
It does look kind of weird, and he's got long, lanky fingers, but he can flip a pancake.
Oh my goodness, the person who put this tweet up, is it going to be there?
Yeah, it says, not to put anyone on blast is just a funny thing.
This warms my heart.
He needed some good Canadian love, and in Calgary, no less, because Justin Trudeau puts up, Happy Stampede, everyone!
Have fun with it!
It warms my heart.
To which I said, isn't it amazing that when they only let in Trudeau supporters, 100% of the people in attendance support Trudeau.
So it's an amazing thing.
Get these ridiculous photo ops with, if they're not actual campaign donors or good friends, it is exactly what it looks like.
A staged, set-up photo-op of a man who cannot walk in public without getting mercilessly heckled.
Why is that?
Because the average everyday Canadian loathes Justin Trudeau, loathes Jagmeet Singh, loathes the liberals, loathes the NDP, does not much more like the Conservatives because they're not much better at all.
Justin Trudeau, if that were open to the public, It would be a different ambiance, to say the least.
Oh, cultural appropriation says...
It's a joke.
It's a joke.
The man has dressed literally in...
He googled the images of Justin Trudeau in dress-up, and the results are hilariously fantastic.
All right.
Let me make sure now someone's saying something about the microphone.
Hold on one second.
Let me just make sure that I got the right mic on at least tonight.
We'll get this...
One of these days, people...
No, we got the good mic.
One of these days, it'll be smooth.
That was funny, though, because I could not find...
There was a separate screen that was playing off Rumble in the backdrop, and I couldn't see it because I used one laptop, and I was hearing myself a good five seconds later, which was irritating.
All right, we've got an amazing show tonight, but before we even get into what was going to be the intro, I was not going to start with Justin Trudeau to make y 'all gag and barf in your mouths and have to swallow it back down, but if I suffered, as to must everyone else watching tonight, we've got one heck of an episode, a stream, a show.
Of content, information, and the wonderful world of law on a Sunday night.
There were two things I had to do before that.
Standard disclaimers.
There's a super chat already in the house.
Cheryl Gage.
Imagine how much you could make selling strands of your hair online.
Barnes, not so much.
Well, different markets for different hairs.
Cheryl.
Okay, that's terrible.
I was thinking beard, you perverts.
There will be no medical advice tonight.
There will be no election fornification advice tonight.
And there will be no legal advice tonight.
But we're going to be discussing a lot of stuff.
RFK Jr. on with two libertarians.
Oh, the reason.
Purported libertarians.
I question their libertarianism.
I do.
We're going to talk about cocaine in the White House.
RFK Jr.
Harvard getting sued for their legacy mission.
They'll let Barnes do the standard intro.
So those super chats that you just saw, they're the $5.
YouTube takes 30% of all super chats.
So if you want to support us, the best place to do it is on the true free speech platform known as Rumble.
On Rumble, I'll bring it up just because I've got it up here now.
They've got these things called Rumble France, such as the one from Britt Cormier, which says, remember all, he's a professional streamer on a closed course.
Please do not try to correct audio issues yourself.
See, now I see myself playing again, but at least I...
Rumble rants.
Here we go.
Put it on pause.
Rumble rants.
Rumble typically takes 20%.
For the rest of the year, they're taking 0%, so 100% goes to the creator.
As of 2024, I think they're going to go back to taking the 20%.
They take less, so it's still better to support on Rumble, better to support a free speech platform.
The best place, absolutely, to support Robert Barnes and myself.
Me and Robert Barnes.
VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
Seven bucks a month.
70 bucks a year.
Gets you tons of exclusive content.
You could just join and be a member.
You don't have to pay anything.
And you get tons of content.
It's a wonderful community where everyone is above average.
Still working on the next merch design layout, which is going to incorporate above average and some of the suggestions from our above average locals community.
What was I about to say there about locals?
Or you can get some merch on VivaFried.com if you want.
This stuff, other good stuff.
Okay, you may have noticed, and I'm going to make sure that it's the case, that I checked that box before starting this stream because Viva is neurotic and Viva is more kosher than the Pope and more transparent than Grandma's Underpants.
That's a Simpsons reference.
You may have noticed when you started this episode, it said contains a paid sponsorship, and it contains not only one, it contains two.
I'm going to do them right now, and then I'm going to get into...
The intro video that I had lined up for everybody.
We're going to be talking about, you know, being healthy tonight.
And so we're going to start with our first sponsor, Field of Greens, that you'll find at Brickhouse Nutrition website.
If you go to fieldofgreens.com, it'll bring you there.
Most people don't understand.
You're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
Keeps you regular.
It has antioxidants in it, nutrients, vitamins, all the good jazz.
Most people don't have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
Most people have unhealthy dietary habits, to say the least.
And I say this.
I went to a water park yesterday.
I'm obsessive, neurotic, and you all know that I could not get over the amount of tattoos that I saw and people who were not exercising healthy lifestyles.
And I say it non-judgmentally.
I was actually looking at one person.
I was like, what?
What could I do as an individual to help that person?
Because it's not sustainable.
It's not healthy.
People, and I have unhealthy habits.
I'm very much aware of that.
Exercise, you know, calories in, calories out.
Eat well in as much as you can.
When you travel, you can't always get your daily dose of raw fruits and vegetables, which is why this field of greens is...
Talking about Bill C-47 out of Canada, which amended the Food and Drug Act that now removes an exemption for, what do they call them?
Natural health products.
I'm going to be talking about it.
We might touch on it tonight, but I'm trying to do a bit of a deeper dive.
Most people don't understand you're supposed to have your fruits and vegetables and they don't, and you engage in bad habits.
This is a food.
It's not an extract and it's not a supplement.
USDA organic approved, made in America.
It's good.
It's healthy.
One spoonful is one serving.
You do it twice a day, you've already got two fruits of, what is it called?
Two servings of fruits and vegetables.
And it's a good substitute for unhealthy habits.
If you go to fieldofgreens.com, put in promo code VIVA, you'll get 15% off your order.
It's good.
I use it.
It tastes great.
It looks like swamp water.
And the reason for that is logical.
Swamp water is full of nutrients that animals need for life, for health.
Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVO.
It's good stuff, and you should use it.
Now, on the more superficial level of things, but it's good to have good, young, healthy-looking skin.
I personally don't care about my physical appearance.
I like the hair more than any adult should like one's hair.
It's become an aspect of my identity.
I probably should take better care of my skin.
You know, suntan lotion is what they say you're supposed to wear.
I have my concerns about wearing suntan lotion, anything with aluminum, zirconium, whatever the hell that is.
But GenuCell makes good skincare products.
I've been testing out the retinol skin tightener thing because I'm going to bring this out for one second.
Everybody knows my grimace right here.
This is my grimace wrinkle of anger at the world or frustration at the world, I should say.
I have been trying out the retinol.
Take it back out here.
To see if it actually does anything about what I've noticed were bags under my eyes.
So if you notice anything good, it's because it works.
What I love about this company, first of all, it's made in America as well.
It's an Egyptian pharmacist who moves to America.
He has his proprietary blends of skincare products, which are so good, he gives them out to his customers at his pharmacy, and they line up next Monday saying, give us more of that.
And he builds a company.
I think they have something like 50-some odd employees.
They're in New Jersey, as far as I remember.
American-made, an American company.
They are the sponsors of the New Jersey Devils.
And, dude, Dr. Drew and a number of other people, I don't know the science behind this, but people swear by the science.
And so if you're into skincare products and you want to look young and you want to be hip and with it and pick up people who you want to pick up in the dating sense, not the...
I don't know.
You know what it is.
It's a good product.
You go to genusel.com, promo code Viva, you'll get 70% off the most popular package right there.
That's it.
I want to take this one up here.
Don't sell your soul.
Oh, in terms of looking young.
I don't know what you mean by this, but I was going to say I thought you meant...
I find staying young, looking young and having life in the eyes, it helps not to sell your soul.
When I look at Justin Trudeau, I see dead eyes.
I see a man who has sold his soul.
I see a man who has gotten physically ugly.
Maybe it's just because of the way I look at him.
I see a man who's gotten physically ugly because of what he knows he has done to...
We're supposed to be his people.
I once upon a time put out a tweet about Jacinda Ardem.
I think she's New Zealand, correct?
New Zealand or Australia, I get mixed up, but I think it's New Zealand.
And I said, yeah, selling your soul takes its toll.
Oh, I didn't say it quite so rhymingly when I said it.
But selling your soul takes its toll.
And, you know, there's a reason why, you know, George W. Bush, when he went into office and when he came out...
I suspect he might have been spiritually weathered by the crimes and atrocities he's committed.
Obama, same thing.
It was not a gender misogynist thing when I said about Jacinda Ardern.
It was just a natural observation of people who have destroyed generations.
Obama came in looking young, you know, oh, but I do guess, you know, like actually having to kill people will take its toll on you and will perk up a few gray hairs.
The eyes are the window of the soul.
All right, we got Bill Gates here.
Breaking news from 824-964-105.
Bill Gates mosquitoes set to be released exclusively in Republican-run areas.
Or I think you mean areas.
I've heard about that.
I'm not sure that we're going to talk about it tonight.
Joe Biden was soulless for years.
So we've got a great episode.
I'm just going to make sure that I actually did send the link to Barnes.
And I'm going to play the video that I wanted to play leading into this.
And then I got distracted by it.
Justin Trudeau.
Let me just make sure that Barnes has this.
I'm going to bring that chat up while I see it.
Yep.
Imagine when you're president.
You have to make decisions that end in the death of people.
I mean, if you're Obama, it's a little more direct.
You know, like extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens via drone.
If you're George W. Bush, you know, it's just...
It's just the price of war, the price of regime change.
A quarter million dead Iraqi civilians so that you can have regime change in Iraq.
I mean, that does have to age the body, age the heart, age the mind.
Maybe.
Some of these former presidents have been living kind of long anyhow.
And Trump, he was only there for four years, for now.
He did not look older coming out than he did going in.
And I don't know how anybody living through what he's living through does it.
All right, now I'll take a couple of super chats and then I want to just play the video that...
Lynn Cruz says, please stop with the disclaimers.
They're getting old and just insulting our intelligence at this point.
At this point, you're the guy they forgot to stop bowing when the king left the room.
What?
Thank you for the super chat in any event.
I'm going to screen grab that one and I'm going to reflect on that afterwards.
The guy that...
Hold on a second.
You're the guy that forgot to stop bowing when they...
Who the heck am I bowing to?
Oh, the YouTube...
Okay, no.
I understand.
Thank you for your super chat.
I'm disregarding that because I actually like it.
It's part of my routine.
Malaria was pretty much eliminated in the U.S. Bill Gates mosquitoes get released and magically have malaria again in the U.S. It's a coincidence, people.
JRC1 says, keep searching for and keep speaking the truth.
The good Lord will take care of the rest.
I appreciate other people's faith.
Sometimes I get skeptical and nervous, but other times, you know, sometimes I wake up in the morning and it feels good.
Okay, hold on.
What I wanted to start with, actually, was this.
If the term...
I know the concept exists, but I'm going to...
Couldn't find the...
Why do I stop this?
I'm going to coin this term.
I think it was Matt Taibbi who came up with the censorship industrial complex to describe the Twitter files and all this stuff.
You've got the military industrial complex.
Now you've got the pharmaceutical industrial complex.
I'm going to come up with a term.
I call it the censorship smear.
And I'm going to play this clip and we're going to talk about this in greater detail when Barnes gets in.
Listen to this.
I listen to it.
And it bothers me that the guy on the top right, his name is something Mueller, Weiss Mueller, I think.
It bothers me that he didn't immediately understand exactly the consequences of what he was saying.
I saw a recent report from Anna Merlan from Vice, who watched your recent health policy summit.
I couldn't find the recording to review myself, so this is her reporting.
She said that you would be actually...
You said you would be actually issuing executive orders from the Oval Office to kind of shape health policy and also kind of target medical journals that you felt had, I don't know, been captured.
Is that an accurate characterization to your approach would be to...
Spoiler alert.
His answer was, I just want good science, but I want to bring it back here.
I couldn't find the reporting myself.
I couldn't find the recording myself to listen to it myself.
Why?
Because I suspect it's been wildly censored all over social media platforms.
Couldn't find the original recording myself, so now I've got to listen to a lying propagandist summarize your words and, spoiler alert, no, it's not exactly what he said.
That is called the censorship smear.
They take your content down.
They ban it, suppress it, make it impossible for people to find.
So they can then misattribute statements to you, mischaracterize it, dishonestly summarize it.
And people don't have access to the original.
And it's probably too hard to find.
It probably takes more than two or three clicks, which is, you know, the sports filter for people seeking the truth.
And what happens?
Even you get Weissmuller.
What's his name?
Weissmuller.
I think it's Weissmuller.
You get the guy from Reason.
Saying, I couldn't find the original, but this is what a liar said you said.
Is there any truth to that?
Oh, wow.
The system works, people.
All right.
Robert's in the back being very patient with me.
I think I forgot other stuff, but whatever.
We'll get to it.
Robert, bringing in three, two, one.
Sir, how goes the battle?
Good, good.
You are dapper as usual, I dare say, Robert.
That's a beautiful tie.
That is a half-Boston, correct?
A what?
A half-Boston knot?
I want to show.
Oh, I have no idea.
Well, I have no idea either.
Chat, you'll let us know.
Robert, before we forget, it says, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the book behind you.
What's that about?
So, yeah, it was brought up when we were reviewing our Book of the Month Club at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which is Lincoln at Gettysburg by Gary Wills this week, or this month.
And people said, and I was mentioning that one of the greatest speeches in American history is Lincoln's very short, very succinct, but ingenious speech at Gettysburg.
And someone said, well, what about closing arguments?
Where would they fit in great speeches given in American history?
And so this is a book, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, with verbatim transcripts of some of the great closing arguments in American legal history.
So it doesn't have all of them by any stretch or even necessarily all the best ones, but it has some of the best ones.
And so I recommend it as a way for people to learn argument, for people, obviously for lawyers who want to learn how to give closing arguments, but applicability is broader than that.
Anybody who wants to understand storytelling, narration, argument, in any format, it's a good book to read from some of the best.
And the cigar that you have?
It is a H. Upman Reserve.
Now, Robert, actually, something I forgot to mention before even getting started.
Tuesday, 1 o 'clock, it's sort of tentatively booked, but it's basically confirmed.
Zachariah Anderson's brother is going to come back on again, Solomon Anderson.
They've just filed the Denny motion in Zachariah Anderson's conviction in Wisconsin.
So I'm going to have had time to read it over.
Solomon is going to go through it with me.
It's going to be real time.
We're going to look through it.
Robert, refresh everybody's memory out there.
A Denny motion is what again?
You know, that's Wisconsin criminal procedure.
So in each state, you have different...
Usually when it's called something like that, it's because it's after a case.
So there's some particular case in that jurisdiction that said, here's a particular method of relief or remedy you can get at some stage of the criminal case.
So that's why, like in discovery, in federal cases, they call it Brady motions or Giglio motions.
Those are after two famous U.S. Supreme Court cases with those names attached.
So that's typically what it involves.
Okay, and we're going to talk about it.
I mean, it's going to go through, I suspect, the grounds of appeal.
It's going to go through a number of stuff.
I think it's the misconduct, but Solomon wants to do it live and wants to do it so that people will actually know the details that a lot of people don't seem to know about this.
So stay tuned for that.
Robert, before we get started, do you want to briefly go over our menu for the evening?
Yeah, so this will be the order in chronology.
The two favorite topics voted on by the board were the RFK debunking of the Reason attack on him by the ill-named Reason publication by the ill-named libertarians that were broadcasting it.
And then, of course, the big Biden-Big Tech collusion order that came out on July 4th.
But in order, we'll start off talking about the cocaine mystery at the White House.
Harvard sued over legacy admissions.
A L.A. recall lawsuit concerning the denial of the recall signatures that were issued on that petition.
Then debunking the Reason Magazine's attack or the publication, the broadcast attack on RFK.
On COVID vaccines in particular.
James O 'Keefe wins a major case in the Ninth Circuit for the right to do undercover reporting.
Then we'll cover the Biden, up fifth will be the Biden big tech collusion case and its consequences.
The Falloon Gong case concerning Cisco and torture by the Chinese.
That was decided by the Ninth Circuit.
A big Tennessee trans ruling out of the Sixth Circuit that conservatives might not want to celebrate as quickly as some think they do.
When they can seize you, arrest you, without probable cause of a crime, just because they think you're a witness?
And when can they beat up somebody for objecting?
When can airport security officials be sued for assaulting you?
When can the homeless just camp out in the local park?
Jurisdiction over the internet, when you sell a product over the internet, where can you be sued now?
Then a judge has to sue to get back onto a court.
And we're going to see how federal judges really act.
There's a lot of implicit disclosures in this case about the sad, pitiful nature of the federal judiciary.
And then the last, a bonus case in Canada now.
You don't need to sign the contract.
You can just send a happy face emoji and you've got a binding contract.
All right.
I brought up some super chats there.
Thank you all for those.
And as always, we'll have a part of the very end of the show will be a special edition part of the show exclusive at vivobarneslaw.locals.com where if you put in a tip in the chat of $5 or more, we'll answer every single one of your tipped questions.
We had a good party there last week, by the way.
It was vivabarneslaw.locals.com, peeps.
Robert, we've been demonetized on YouTube, and I don't give a sweet bugger all.
I've asked for manual reviews.
Just for talking about Robert Kennedy.
Well, I don't know.
It's either Trudeau's ugly face, it's either Robert Kennedy's existence, or maybe it's cocaine.
By the way...
People out there, don't do cocaine.
It goes without saying, despite what CNN, you know, it's just a little cocaine.
They're having a little fun.
Well, you know, and getting into that, you can understand Hunter's mistake.
He thought Casablanca meant Coca Blanca.
Robert, okay, I've got a bunch of legit legal questions about all of this.
It's not just about gossiping and...
Okay, the news of the week, people.
Is that cocaine was found at the White House over the weekend leading up to July 1st.
So they don't know.
It was sometime between Friday and Sunday.
And the reason why that's relevant is they say, well, Hunter wasn't even there as of Friday.
And so it could have been suggesting it probably wasn't his.
But don't worry, everybody.
We probably are never going to find out who brought cocaine into the White House and left it in a highly trafficked area, allegedly.
I had a number of issues with this, one of which is if someone can bring in a white powder into the White House that they were so concerned could have been anthrax, and but for the grace of God, I guess it wasn't anthrax, it was only cocaine.
Well, everyone's very lucky there.
But if they come out and say, we can't find out who brought anthrax into the White House because it could have just as easily been that, you've got a massive security problem at the White House.
The reality is no one with half a brain thinks that that's a reality.
Which means that the idea that they're saying we might never find out whose it was is absolute horse crap, and they know damn well whose it was.
Because like you pointed out on Dave Rubin last Friday when we had the roundtable, there's very few people that can actually make it into the White House without being physically searched on their persons, which might narrow down whose cocaine that might have been.
I guess one question is, has there been any new development like they now say they might find out whose cocaine it was?
The questions I had to you, Robert?
Some people are hypothesizing that they know damn well it's Hunter Biden's cocaine, but if they disclose it as such or discover as much, it would nullify his pretrial diversion agreement over his tax issues and his felonious lying on a firearm application.
Is there truth to that?
Probably not, because the plea agreement has not been entered into court yet.
Well, okay, probably not, but that's to say that if he were, if they discovered it was his cocaine, Then that wouldn't nullify it.
They could still agree to that pre-trial diversion agreement.
Second thing, what is your take on all of this insanity?
They kept locating it at different places as the week went on.
One time it was here, then it was there, then it was over here.
My guess is maybe they found it all five places.
Of course, anybody who saw the...
Balcony scene with Hunter Biden could see somebody who looks like he had just done a bump or two.
And Jill seems to be behaving that way, as you pointed out on Dave Rubin, that her behavior is a sign of, oh no, your son is high again.
He's high at the White House now.
And Joe's in and out of consciousness, so what he processed is unclear.
But the only way that...
Somebody comes into the White House and isn't searched is if they're a family.
So everybody else gets searched.
And I've been to the White House multiple times.
You always get searched and your name run and all the rest.
So the idea that it could be anybody outside of the Biden immediate family is pretty low.
They know, of course, and then they were saying that there's all kinds of security, of course, all over the White House.
So the only person they don't really do meaningful security of, once they're inside the White House, either, is family.
Everyone else they keep a close eye on.
So it's almost guaranteed.
And then, of course, we know that Hunter has a long history of cocaine and drug use.
So the logical...
What basis is to infer that it was Hunter's.
And so the fact that, I mean, he's taken, I mean, Billy Carter was embarrassing.
I'll be on Monday on What Are the Odds with Richard Barris for our July edition of the show, talking about this in a range of topics about, you know, embarrassing kids of presidents.
I mean, Billy Carter tried to monetize the Carter name to sell beer, Billy Beer.
You know, so the Ray Reagan's kids were kind of older, didn't really cause much controversy.
Poppy Bush had some issues with W, but those are mostly earlier than when he was president.
And then Clinton had his famous brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, who had 100 different problems.
Then George W. Bush, his kids were younger, so they didn't pop up as too many issues, nor with Obama, nor, of course, Trump's kids are astounding by comparison.
Trump's kids have been by far the best kids of any president we've had in quite a long time, which probably should give you a little testament to who he is as a human being.
Breaking all records for extraordinary levels of embarrassment.
And it would be one thing if this was just Hunter happens to be a ne 'er-do-well criminal that's unconnected to his father.
The reality is that his father used him to engage in bribery and corruption schemes as a whistleblower from Israel came forth and said he had disclosed to the FBI in 2019.
And the FBI's reaction was to try to put him under criminal investigation and later indicted him for exposing the Biden scale of corruption.
So, you know, I mean, Hunter had reasons to party.
I mean, you know, after he gets his plea deal, he gets an invitation to the state dinner, and then he gets an invitation to the White House on July 4th.
And so it's astounding that this is the...
A way in which, you know, the Biden administration chooses to handle this.
While the Biden administration told everybody that week not to refer to Hunter's daughter as a grandchild of President Joe Biden, that he didn't have seven grandkids.
He only had six.
I mean, it's just, I mean, it remembers they were Grover Cleveland.
When he had some illegitimate kids.
And so the slogan against him was they would chant in the streets, Ma, ma, where's my pa?
Go on to the White House.
Ha, ha, ha.
So this is a new level of embarrassment for our country.
Just Biden himself is an embarrassment.
But the nature of his family's interaction with our public scene is taking it to a new level.
But they know it's him.
They're just not going to do anything about it.
And everybody, if you haven't seen this, I'm going to keep the volume low because it's very loud.
First of all, just look at Jill right now.
That's a look of...
Look at her gripping the thing.
She's like, oh no.
Here comes the embarrassment.
Here comes the embarrassment.
It's not projecting and it's not...
Maybe it's just...
Maybe that's her face.
Maybe that's the way she always looks, but it's not because we have a baseline where she's actually...
Are you saying she has resting bitch face?
I don't even...
I actually changed my word so that nobody would...
No.
Maybe that's just the way she looks, Robert.
But we've seen her before.
She fakes a smile all the time.
Look at this, people.
Honey.
No, she keeps her back to him the whole time.
Yep.
And then does that eye look.
Over her shoulder.
But she says, honey.
I'm sure she says honey to Biden.
Look at this.
Honey.
Look over there, honey.
Look, he's high.
And what's great is...
Where's his hand?
Make sure my nose is okay.
It's almost a joke.
Make sure there's no extra powder around there.
Oh my god.
Joe's like, isn't it funny?
My son's hugging right at the White House.
It's the most egregious in your face.
It's not just corruption.
Remember, they were going to bring decency back to the White House.
Then they have a bear...
Trans breasts on the front lawn.
Cocaine in the White House.
Criminality in the White House.
Someone who is clearly demented and senile at this point in time.
And that's not to make fun of his physical appearance.
That's to make fun of his cognitive ability, capacity as president of the United States.
And then you get CNN saying, just a little cocaine.
You got another guy.
I forget who it was now.
Literally saying, shows a picture of Eric Trump.
And then says, look who's on cocaine.
They're accusing Trump's kids of potentially, in their minds, doing what we know Hunter Biden has been doing and is in the White House right now.
It's atrocious.
It's egregious.
It's insane.
You've got to feel bad for Hunter.
If only Zelensky had been visiting, then he had a plausible...
Other party to blame.
I'm telling you, I think this is revenge from Hunter.
It's revenge from Ashley.
They want to get back at their dad who they deeply, deeply loathe for what he did.
This is my Freudian analysis and they're trying to get evidence of it for a while.
I mean, to do this at this time, you know, to upstage him and to do it knowing when he's on a camera outdoors behaving that way.
It's behavior that's a cry for help that instead everybody's just covering up for Uncle Joe.
I want to bring this one up.
There's two super chats or three and then we're going to go over to the other side of the internet.
Rumble.
The White House doesn't know whose Coke belongs to is because everyone who works there is on drugs.
They can't pinpoint the owner because they all had bags of Coke on the person.
I'll tell you why that theory doesn't make sense.
Because this is the first time where they had to evacuate because they thought it was anthrax.
So people were making that joke, but I don't think it's tenable because of the way they responded to it this time.
So it's not like they know the other stuff is cocaine and don't vacate the White House.
Peter Cochiton.
Have I ever seen this before?
I've never seen you.
Thank you.
I hope you can accept a conservative constitutional being part of your family.
I am part of the Untold American Story family where first heard you guys on Freedom Fridays.
I hope you can accept a conservative constitution.
Well, of course, everyone is welcome here.
Even the trolls, but especially the good faith people who are seeking information and the truth.
Could Hunter also...
Depends where he puts it.
Okay, I don't know if that was the joke.
And we got one more here.
Would the Agnew Kamala...
Would the Agnew Kamala...
Would they?
I think they...
What did they do to Agnew?
They took him out.
He was Nixon's vice president.
Got him, indict him, and removed from the vice presidency so that he would replace him with Ford.
Okay.
All right, people.
With that said, there are 2,271 people here.
13,000 and change and rising fast on the Rumbles.
Get your hineys over to the Rumbles, and we're going to end this on YouTube in 3, 2...
And the link is up in the pinned comment, so you can go to Rumble Viva Fry.
It should be on the front page, anyhow, of Rumble, I suspect.
Go over there now.
We're ending it on YouTube.
See y 'all on the dark side.
Booyah.
And the dark side's a joke.
All right.
Robert?
I think it was a big week for Rumble as Tucker Carlson decided to make his first ever interview with Russell Brand.
I think it has several million views already.
First of all, it was amazing.
I didn't see the entirety of it yet, but I saw the bombshell admissions revelations.
When I checked in briefly, over 103,000 watching on a Friday.
It's good for Russell.
It's good for Tucker.
It's good for Rumble.
It's good for the truth.
It's good for everything.
And Rumble said, not Rumble, Tucker said something which I found truly amazing is that I forget who it was exactly that he had interviewed at Fox before getting fired and they decided not to air the interview where that guy was the head of police or the head of security and basically confirmed countless intelligence members having infiltrated or being among the January 6th crowd.
And I had on last week the lectern guy who told us in great detail what went on that day.
The idea that it is not the case, that this was nothing but a big political setup from day one.
If you don't yet see that, I'll continue to try to help you get there, you know, passively.
All right, Robert, what was the next one on our menu here?
Harvard.
Are we doing...
No, yeah, the Harvard?
Yes.
As forecast just last week, where some people were, you know, saying that this wouldn't happen.
In fact, it happened right away.
Harvard University has been sued over its legacy and donor admissions preferences.
So we heard AOC tweeting about it, and I made the joke when AOC said that, you know, the legacy admissions is disgusting.
It's true racism.
70% of applicants...
Hold on a second.
How did this work?
It was either 70% of applicants were...
The number 70% came up.
70% of the legacy admissions were white, or the legacy applicants were white.
And then I said, well, that's great, but 71% of America is currently labeled as white.
I understand now there might be some, it might be actually closer to 50 because the 70% identified as part white.
And I said, I don't see any racial components of this.
I read the lawsuit, and I was reading the lawsuit saying, okay, everyone agrees that legacy admissions is a...
An institutionalized, corrupt method of preferring giving a, you know, a little bit of a nudge or a heads up or, what's the word, a benefit to the children of former graduates.
But I don't see the racial component to it.
But then I'm reading the lawsuit, and I presume, Robert, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, they have to allege a racial component to it.
Otherwise, it's a non-constitutionally violating or constitutionally offensive practice, which they would not have recourse for.
So the lawsuit is, I forget the organization that filed it, but that alleges that this prejudices African-American students, that these legacy admissions or the legacy applicants are majority white.
That it's a racist policy that violates the constitutional rights of minority applicants.
I'm not wrong in that if there's not a constitutionally offensive part of this claim and it's just a policy that people don't like, there wouldn't be an issue?
Or would there still be an issue because Harvard receives federal funds or other issues that might make it an issue?
Yeah, Harvard's a Title VI funder, receives federal funds, so they're subject to Title VI.
They can't discriminate based on national origin or racial ancestry.
And what it is is that who's underrepresented in the legacy donor pool are Black students, Hispanic students, and Asian students.
So the relevant comparison would not be to the American population, but would be to the applicant pool in this context.
And in the applicant pool, whereas they represent a much smaller share of the total applicant pool, they represent a much higher share of those admitted.
And of those admitted, they disproportionately disfavor people that are Black, Hispanic, have ancestry that is Black, Hispanic, or Asian.
So it discriminates against all three groups.
They highlight the discrimination against Black applicants in particular, but they could have also included the other two as people.
And they do later on in the complaint.
The question of legacy admissions itself, how is that historically a practice at all?
Well, to go all the way back, when John Adams attended Harvard, Harvard did not rank their students according to their academic performance at Harvard.
They ranked them according to the social standing of their family.
So this ancestral prejudice, I call it an aristocracy of ancestry, this hereditary privilege.
Goes back to the old British royal days that we overthrew in the revolution.
But they've been trying to figure out ways to bring it back for more than a century.
And first they came up with schemes to keep out Jewish applicants in the 20s and 30s.
And then when the Civil Rights Act was passed, they had to figure out a way to continue to favor legacy applicants, donor applicants, people who are getting in because of who their relatives are.
And that's where they came up with affirmative action.
Affirmative action was intended to, well, as long as we're keeping equal to our applicant pool of African-American, Latino applicants.
They weren't with Asian applicants.
But they said, as long as we have that, particularly with Black and Latino students, we can't be sued for our legacy program discriminating against those.
Once affirmative action was dead, as I said last week, legacy admissions is dead.
All these forms of promoting applications based on ancestry, because affirmative action was basically ancestral preference, and legacy admissions is ancestral preference.
Donor admissions is ancestral preference.
What people didn't realize is that the number of legacy and donor kids far outnumber the number of affirmative action kids at these schools by usually a ratio of two to one, three to one, four to one.
One out of four white students at Harvard are admitted as legacies or donor-based students.
They have an admission rate six to seven times higher.
than would be recommended by their merits.
About 85% of them would not be admitted to the Ivy League but for who their ancestors are.
Some people are saying, oh, Barnes hates rich people.
No.
I have no problem with nobody at Yale's being discriminated or Harvard or the Ivy League's being discriminated against because of their wealth.
They're being discriminated in favor of solely because of their wealth.
This isn't about someone, oh, wow, you're really smart, but you're rich, so we're going to keep you out.
No.
It's, hey, you're George W. Bush-level dumb, but we're going to let you in anyway because of who your mommy and daddy were.
I feel very ignorant for not...
I think I understand the idea, but the idea behind legacy admissions, you let the children of donors and past graduates in to ensure more donations and more...
That's part of it.
The other part of it is they're trying to deliberately recreate hereditary privilege as a form of power in America.
Because with a system that rewards you based on your academic standing, that a society that says you get a certain kind of job, you get a certain degree of economic, cultural, political power based on which school you went to.
It means that in order to make sure hereditary privilege ends up in corporate America, hereditary privilege ends up in academia, hereditary privilege ends up in the State Department and the CIA, you need to create hereditary privilege as a grounds of admissions in the first place.
So it goes beyond just, hey, maybe we can get some more donations.
Because in fact, when they've done a deep dive, legacy admissions, because it reduces their potential donor pool, it's net negative.
In other words, yeah, you'll get a little bit more money from the people who are legacies, but now you've shrunk the number of people who are legacies, the number of families who are legacies, because you're only recruiting from the same group over and over again.
So you could double, triple the size of the families wanting to donate to your school if you didn't have legacy admissions.
And that more than offsets the increased donations you get from the legacies.
So what this was really all about was recreating...
British overturning the American Revolution, recreating the old hereditary privilege systems that we overthrew, that John Adams hated, that Thomas Jefferson hated, that George Washington hated, that Thomas Paine hated, that Benjamin Franklin hated, that our founding generation hated, that said what made America distinct was it was a true democratization of power.
And not only that, it said merit was going to drive our society, not...
Not who your mommy and daddy were.
This was recreating it.
It is also the foundation of two other things in our system and our society.
It is the foundation of wokeism.
Because how do you justify your legacy admitted status?
You become part of a new clerical class that has a new religion of wokeism.
And you have to virtue signal like mad to morally justify.
You're privileged position that's really purely the product of hereditary connections.
Not only that, it's why we have so many stupid people in positions of power.
If you want an example, look at people like Richard Hanania, a guy that's running around screaming about IQ tests.
If you want an example of why you can't just trust IQ tests, Richard Hanania is the poster boy for why you can't.
That guy's a total idiot.
Robert, was he one of the top three that you had run the poll on in terms of...
Yeah, he's one of our very few...
Sidebar losers.
Up there with Jenna Ellis and Eliza Blue and a few others.
But Michael Tracy's off the list because he's back to being sane again.
I think it was Pablo Rodriguez who made it on.
Oh yeah, he's definitely on there.
I would still like to have him on and talk to him, but I think he unfollowed me on Twitter.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure.
Well, you might be the wrong ancestry for dear Pedro.
He was complaining about ovens, and I was like, yeah, usually he has other intentions with ovens.
So this is why it's so much more important than just admissions to the Ivy League.
This is about their recreation of hereditary power, which has had the consequence of the promotion of, like, for example, when you get your job in the media, or you get your job in Hollywood, and you're not that smart, You're not that skilled.
You don't have good character or good judgment.
How do you keep your job?
You promote wokeism.
That's why you deserve your position.
So if you're a crappy writer in Hollywood, you just fill it with political crap.
And so then if anybody criticizes you, you say, oh, they're just racist, misogynist, da-da-da.
What they're really covering up is not just their promotion of wokeism, it's the fact they're incompetent.
Our State Department, our CIA, our government apparatus and bureaucracy is filled with stupid people who do dumb things because they got in because of who their mommy and daddy were in this educational credential-driven society, which is based on the educational system promoting hereditary privilege, not merit.
Is it, and I have no experience with this, are they known as legacy admissions or is it just they get in, nobody says it?
That's what it's called.
And internally, I mean, did they get up to like seven points?
I mean, to give you that, like, let's say you're a normal applicant's just plus one.
They get up to plus two, plus three, plus four, plus five, plus six, plus seven.
Oh, this is a double legacy.
Total idiot, but double legacy.
Got to let them in.
And that's what it was about.
Again, one out of four white students in the Ivy League is only there because of legacy admissions.
Think about that number.
Look, all that I knew about legacy admissions, I learned from Animal House, and I haven't seen that movie in long enough to refresh my memory.
So, on the merits of the lawsuit, Robert, does it succeed?
Oh, it's easy, because they have disparate, Dial 6 prohibits disparate impact, and it's clear disparate impact.
And you can see why.
It was once they couldn't do affirmative action, they had to get rid of legacy admissions.
Because the whole, and that's where Thomas' point is broader.
Gorsuch makes his point in his concurrence, too.
And I put up both a podcast and a highlighted version of the case.
At vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
And some people are like, oh, you kept repeating aristocracy of ancestry and other things because repetition is beneficial to memory recall.
I had some people complain.
They say, oh, it's condescending to use repetitions.
Like, trust me.
There was one trial where I didn't repeat a lot of things because the judge scolded me for repeating too much.
At the end of the trial, I had lost the trial 9-3 split verdict.
The key jurors came to me afterwards and they said, I really wish you would have talked about this issue.
It was the issue the judge told me to quit repeating.
Right.
Well, it's repetition and rhyming.
And there's a third one, which I can never remember because it doesn't repeat.
They didn't repeat it enough.
It doesn't rhyme.
Bada bing, bada boom.
Repetition and rhyming.
Visualization often helps, too.
The more you can do it.
Trump is as genius as anybody.
I mean, he can take classified documents cases and distill it into the Clinton Sox case.
That's where he's brilliant and masterful in persuasion.
But yet, so they have an open and shut case.
None of these schools can continue to do legacy admissions because they're...
All because of the very nature of favoring kids whose granddaddies went there.
Well, guess what happened?
When their granddaddies went there, they're all white, lily white schools.
So they're going to be discriminating against black students, Hispanic students, and Asian students.
So inevitably, it's going to have a disparate impact.
They can't sustain it.
That's why they're in spin mode, mine, because this wasn't just an attack on a particular form of hereditary privilege and racial preferences.
It was an attack on all hereditary privilege, which is what the Bill of Rights was all about, what that revolution was all about, what the Declaration of Independence was all about.
What the 14th Amendment was all about.
That's why I was telling people this decision has far greater impact than anybody was putting together.
And some are just now processing and absorbing what that meaning looks like.
Amazing.
Okay, good.
Now, that should be it.
Before we're going to move on to the gas call?
LA recalls.
There we got something called electoral signature privilege for Democrats.
Let's...
Before we do that, Robert, let me just...
I don't want to get too far behind on some of the rumble rants.
Let me just capture...
Catch up with a few of them, and I'll read them real quick.
Snuggle Struggle says, late to the party, unsure if you covered Biden sending cluster bombs to Ukraine.
No, and thank you for reminding me.
I have that article, Robert.
We didn't...
Say we were going to discuss it, but maybe we can.
We saw the end of such ammunition because far too many innocent lives die after conflict.
What the fuck is going on?
I'm saying it out loud.
What the fuck is going on with that?
Lightgiver says, you all forget that Elizabeth Warren lied and she said she was an Indian to get in university.
Classic example of that, by the way.
We got Kitty724.
My very first thought was same and the Bongino attested.
Still betting on that.
Now, what was that about?
Okay, Dapper Dave.
Bongino used to be a Secret Service agent and he explained it.
It almost had to be Hunter.
Okay, sorry.
That's the first one there.
We got Kitty.
My first thought was the same.
Sorry, I just read that.
Dapper Dave 2021.
I'm calling it.
An underling will take the blame for the cocaine.
He will get probation.
We'll see about that.
Go for big guy 911.
With Jack Smith's inquisition into January 6th by targeting of Trump's legal team and push to criminalize any conspiracy in sending the votes back to the states is Robert Reddy.
To be prosecuted.
I think that's tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not.
Pouring one out for Captain Corey.
That's Nike 7. Captain Corey, the kid who was terminally ill, in love with Johnny Depp, had that whole, you know, wanted to get to 100,000 subs.
Johnny Depp sent him a personalized message.
He passed away yesterday or today.
So everybody should be thinking of that.
All right, and we've got just a few more that just came in.
I can track my face like I used to.
Is anyone covering Take Care of Maya and Terminally Corrupt?
Tampa, Oversoul and Attorney.
Arkansas Crime Attorney Little Rock on YouTube.
Have to be in Memphis July 16 to August 14 for depositions and trial.
Have you guys determined when the next meetup, meet and greet will be?
Glad I'm able to catch live tonight.
I was going deposition prep tonight.
Do we know when our next meet and greet is, Robert?
I think you're making inquiries of certain places.
So we're waiting on feedback.
So nothing yet, people.
Stay tuned.
All right.
Now, Robert, I know that I'm missing the political component to this recall.
This is...
Let me just pull it...
This is the...
What was he?
Not a police chief.
What was his name?
Gascon is his name.
He's a district attorney.
District Attorney Gascon.
So he's apparently soft on crime.
Used to be in San Francisco, unless I'm mistaken.
So that explains the politics to it.
How shitty he has been for LA.
I guess shitty enough that he almost got to the point of being recalled.
For those who don't know the rules, you need to amass a petition of 10% of the total potential voters or the total registered voters in order to get the recall on.
They were there, except they magically managed to discredit or disqualify a significant portion of the signatures for the recall, such that it never got to a vote on the recall.
And the way they wrote some of these signatures off, Robert, I forget the exact number.
It was 9,000 signatures that were rejected because they didn't match.
And then they found a number of other reasons to reject.
I think tens of thousands or at least maybe 100,000 other signatures to force the recall.
That's the factual pattern.
Tell me about Gascon, what I don't know about him because I don't know very much about him.
So, like the San Francisco DA who got recalled, they had petitioned recall in L.A. because of his policy favoritism.
He's another one of these George Soros district attorneys.
So, the St. Louis one had to step down.
San Francisco one got recalled.
This was one of the other third big challenges, the one in L.A. And they got way more than enough signatures.
And then all of a sudden, the registrar came in and just started striking signatures.
And they didn't even know all the reasons why.
So the registrar prohibited the recall from going forward, saying the signatures didn't reach the 10% threshold.
So they had to sue under California's version of Sunshine Laws, Open Records Act, Freedom of Information Act laws.
And what they found out was what they had kind of accidentally stumbled into.
Was exactly the various corrupt schemes of mass mail-in voting.
Because the multiple categories of being struck, they struck 2% or 3% or so for the signatures not matching.
Again, a rate about 100 times higher than all the other states were doing.
And California itself did when it came to the presidential election.
So that tells you when they can actually apply the standard, suddenly they come up with much higher signature mismatches.
Again, that 2% mismatch would have invalidated the Arizona gubernatorial election involving Cary Lake had it been applied in Arizona.
And again, I've never seen a serious signature match check that hasn't produced at least a 2% mismatch.
So that was one category.
But the other categories were, because the controversy...
What the recall people couldn't understand was they heavily used direct mail to a registered voter list to produce a lot of these petition signatures.
And they're like, how did they strike them all?
And interesting, well, some of it was purely bogus.
So they struck people who might have also signed the petition in person somewhere.
So they said, oh, these are duplicates.
Well, you're only supposed to strike the duplicate.
And they struck both.
They struck both.
But not only that.
They also struck people for marking down their wrong address.
It's like, how do they even know it was their wrong address?
Again, this goes to the...
And then they said, a bunch of these people, they're not registered to vote.
And of course, when they researched, when they did the FOIA suit, they're listed as registering to vote.
Wouldn't be surprised if a whole bunch of them had been busy voting.
So all of a sudden, the state election officials or L.A. County registrar is admitting...
A bunch of people on their rolls aren't really there, according to them.
So either they just completely fake the data to make sure Gascon can get protected, or they expose the degree of fraud involved in mail-in voting indirectly through this suit.
So they've filed suit now to have those signatures recognized and cause the recall to occur.
We'll see what happens with the result of it.
But it's the utility to bringing these cases as you discover how they're scamming you.
And just so that, you know, the talking point is going to be, Robert, of the 100,000, I think it's 100,000, give or take, of the signatures that were recalled, not all of them were recalled because they didn't match.
So some people are going to say, this doesn't prove the case.
Sorry, the dog just...
Oh, not all of them, but still far more than was necessary to overturn the election.
If you had a 2% signature rejection rate, then the Pennsylvania results would have been thrown out, the Arizona results would have been thrown out, and the Georgia results would have been thrown out in 2020.
And then you add in the illegally indefinite confined people voting in Wisconsin, then that throws them out.
So those are four states.
Where the election was illegally, if they just applied the same standards that led to a 2% rejection rate.
You didn't need it to be all of them.
But here what's extraordinary is all the other scams that the case exposed.
That a bunch of, according to the registrar, a bunch of registered voters aren't really registered, even though they're listed as registered.
How is it they're not registered then?
What's the legal basis to say, all right, duplicate signatures or duplicate ballots, so we're disregarding both and not including one?
How is that not...
What's the word?
Disenfranchisement.
It really is.
In the past, they've tried to suggest that somehow that means fraud.
It's like, but how?
They actually exist.
They're an actually registered voter.
They actually signed the petition.
The fact that they made the mistake of signing it twice shouldn't be grounds to strike a vote.
But even if it does amount to a tacit or implicit fraud, there was a lot of it here.
Does it happen a lot all the time when they say there's no fraud and it's the cleanest elections ever?
It is, in fact, the case that Gascon is as funded by Soros as Alvin Bragg, as Kim Gardner is and was.
Oh, yeah.
One of the top priorities of the Soros machine was the LADA's office because of its symbolism and size.
Okay, well, we'll keep track of that.
I thought it was very interesting.
Even if it were reduced to only the signatures that didn't match, it was still 9,000 of 55,000.
It was still enough that it would have been determined.
The other thing they pointed out was, if these people weren't registered voters, then they've miscalculated the 10% threshold too, because it's 10% of registered voters.
So they used one number for registered voters that was much higher, and then they turned around and said, actually, the real registered voters is much lower for the signatures, but they didn't apply that same standard to the threshold.
So there was a bunch of things.
I mean, it was sloppy what they did.
So, I mean, it shows the political prejudice that produced it.
But also shows the serious problems with everything related to mail-in voting in America.
Because these were basically mail-in signatures, a lot of them.
And it exposes that when they strictly apply the rules, they come up with a very different standard.
Raises real questions about what's really happening with the voter rolls.
Do they have two different lists of who's the real registered voters and who's not over at the registrar?
So a lot of interesting questions percolating up from this case.
All right, well, we'll see if it, is there any chance it becomes relevant if only tangentially to...
Oh, yeah, the judge made granted and forced gas gone out.
Okay, but know what I mean in terms of the other pending signature verification lawsuits, this has no impact.
It's a good initial, it's another good standard to use in these other cases.
One of the things I think that's been underutilized is people pointing these out in the election, other election cases, is comparison.
When I brought the Georgia election recall, election contest case, or established the original basis of it...
I highlighted this whole history, used every example of how many signatures get struck in a wide range of contexts, because it guilts the judge.
It's why the Arizona Supreme Court reversed on that issue in Cary Lake.
They're aware of that history, whether they want to admit it or not.
And so they knew it was embarrassing to come up with a standard that was directly in refutation of their own prior actions.
All right.
Fantastic.
Now we move on to RFK, Robert, which is...
The more he talks, the more it becomes clear why MSN doesn't want to let him talk, why Joe Biden will never sit down and debate with him.
He was on Reason.
I know I've read some articles from Reason.
I don't know who the two individuals who interviewed him are.
They purport to be libertarians.
I'm not going to immediately write someone off for an eternity because of what I think was a very bad interview.
And they came in with uncritical premises for...
A lot of criticism against RFK.
So if you know more about the two interviewers, let us know afterwards.
When you explain this.
But the bottom line.
They came out and they...
It's as though it was a setup to smear RFK.
Invoking reports of his...
You know, his speeches, which are not getting coverage or which are getting suppressed, to suggest he's a conspiracy nut, anti-vaxxer nut, and everything he says to the contrary.
He did very well in this particular case.
One thing which I know we've talked about was when the guy, Weiss Mueller...
Who says, you know, I believe that the vaccine saved a lot of lives, and here's some CDC data showing the deaths and how he did this with a number of the vaccines, MMR, or he did it with polio, showing how polio vaccine gets patented, gets administered, and cases drop off the charts.
But then there's, you know, flare-ups in unvaccinated communities, and RFK comes in and says, whoa, which communities were those vaccine strains of polio?
As relates to the CDC data confirming that, you know, unvaccinated deaths, RFK says, whoa, the deaths that they're including in unvaccinated are within, you know, are of those who received one or two jabs but were not deemed to be fully vaccinated.
And so you are in all likelihood getting deaths that are, in fact, adverse reactions, being qualified as unvaccinated deaths.
What's your take on all of it, Robert?
And is RFK Jr. just right?
What's extraordinary is, I mean, I've never been a big fan of Reason, never been a big fan of most institutional libertarians, because in my experience, they're just the rights version of left woke politics, that they're equally driven by selfish narcissism.
And again, for those people out there, I'm not referencing all actual people who call themselves libertarian, not referring to Dave Smith or Thomas Woods or any of those people.
I'm talking about a lot of the Libertarian Party, higher-ups over time, the Cato Institute, and Reason Magazine, which is heavily funded by the Koch brothers.
And so it was interesting that Robert Kennedy sat down and talked with him, I mean, because he's been particularly critical of the Koch brothers over time.
So that's his willingness to talk to anybody.
But what was really dishonest and disingenuous about the—it was the interviewer who actually follows me on Twitter.
But his reporting was the worst because he kept repeating afterwards that Robert Kennedy had no answers for him.
It was because he wasn't listening to Robert Kennedy's actual answers.
But here's an example of how bad—we'll just take one analysis to debunk, which is he puts up the CDC chart.
And what he makes the claim of is he says this chart proves beyond any question, beyond any controversy, beyond any dispute, that the COVID vaccine was safe and effective and it saved a bunch of lives.
The problem is the chart doesn't even purport to say that.
So problem number one with his analysis is he takes so-called libertarian, free minds, questioning authority.
He takes at face value a chart produced by the CDC.
And it's like a CDC that has been caught lying over and over and over again concerning the COVID vaccine.
A CDC that tried to hide its actual data from a FOIA suit for 85 years.
A CDC that we know lied about COVID death certificates.
We know lied about the transmissibility of the vaccine.
So that's problem one, right?
Yeah, that's the chart he's showing.
So problem one is he just takes, this has got to be gospel.
It's the CDC.
It's like, what a crock as a libertarian.
What a crock as a thinker.
They tend to have the same arrogant professional class prejudice of their woke brethren.
You know, Robbie Suave, there's a bunch of these people that are this way.
That's problem number one.
Problem number two with the charge is he thinks this is a safety chart.
It's not.
It doesn't even purport to be.
This is an efficacy chart.
And what Robert Kennedy is explaining to them over and over again is there's a difference between safety and efficacy.
Efficacy tells you, if I take this particular drug, what's the likelihood it will prevent the particular disease that that drug is meant to prevent?
By contrast, safety looks at, if I take this drug, what's the overall effect on my health?
Because, oh, now I don't die of COVID.
Instead, I die of a heart attack.
Well, if the ordinary person is like, okay, I'm not interested in taking something that decreases my overall health.
But this dimwit doesn't even understand that.
He doesn't know the difference between safety and efficacy.
So that's problem number two.
Problem number three is, which he should be immediately skeptical of given that CDC is the source, is how are they defining COVID deaths?
I mean, there we know that they were deliberately manipulating death certificates to, in some cases, inflate, in other cases, deflate the number of COVID-identified deaths.
So it's an unreliable chart, not only because of the source, but because of what they were doing as to this specific chart.
Then you have problem number four.
He doesn't know, and this is the irony.
Earlier in the interview, Robert Kennedy points out that the excess mortality charts around the globe show a direct correlation.
Between when a country got mass vaccination and all of a sudden a spike in their excess death ratios.
And this libertarian guy, this reason guy, this reason without reason, that's what they should rename the publication, says, oh, well, we would need to be able to compare the underlying demographics to be able to know whether these were like-to-like comparisons.
But he fails to employ the exact same methodology when it comes to a chart that he likes.
Because as Robert Kennedy points out, and in answer somehow this guy was too deaf to hear, how are they defining vaccinated?
Because what he doesn't know is there's two major problems here.
Problem one is, they were defining people who took the shot and then died from it as unvaccinated.
Unless it got to a certain length of time after the vaccination.
Yeah, two weeks after the second shot is when they're considered...
So basically, all these people they were killing early, oh, look at all these unvaccinated people who are suddenly dying.
And the giveaway is right there in the chart.
Why is there this suddenly big surge after the vaccine is introduced, right?
I mean, look at that big jump.
Why is that big jump there?
I mean, if there's really a difference in COVID, unvaccinated versus unvaccinated...
Then the long part of the chart should continue to show a big disparity.
But you don't.
It happens at the beginning.
Why is that?
Because that big spike is a bunch of vaccinated people who died after they took the shot.
Robert, let me just go here.
I want to make sure that that actually sounds correct.
There's a second component to that surge.
And it also goes to the definition of unvaccinated.
What he talks about is like versus like earlier.
He's like, well, in order to know whether a graph is correct, we need to know, are you comparing 25-year-old healthy, no comorbidity met, for example, set?
Risk stratification, individualization.
They didn't do that here.
Because what he didn't ask, it's the second reason for that early surge, is why were some people unvaccinated?
And that was one key problem all along with these data, is there are a bunch of people who are unvaccinated because they couldn't be.
In other words, these are people, why could they not be?
Because their health is so bad.
So part of it is that early surge is also part of people who are already near dead who couldn't get vaccination.
And so that's the other reason for that.
And that's where you look at, like, March 2022, there's almost no difference between the two groups, right?
And it varies.
And again, he's only comparing so-called CDC-identified COVID deaths, which is not even right as to COVID deaths.
But the relevant chart you'd want to see here is excess mortality by relevant category of like versus like.
He doesn't even know that that's what you need to look at, even though Robert Kennedy tells him earlier in the interview...
If you look at those charts, they overwhelmingly show people want to get the book Robert Kennedy co-authored Died Suddenly.
I think with Edward Dowd and some other folks.
He has all the charts and data, including from government sources, big universities like Johns Hopkins, these kind of sources.
When you look at excess mortality rates, because that's what you want to know.
If I take this drug, am I going to be healthier or not?
And for that, you don't care just about your risk from COVID.
You care about anything the drug may cause a problem for.
And this is the other thing Robert Kennedy details.
Robert Kennedy goes and explains, look, what we're figuring out is all these vaccinations weaken the immune system over time.
Not getting certain viruses and diseases early in life actually weakens the system over time.
And he's like, we're seeing all of these maybe unintended consequences, but still consequences we can now witness.
And he doesn't understand any of it.
He can't even process it because he just swallows the propaganda and spits it back out.
Swallows the propaganda and spits it back out.
And I'm just sitting here trying to actually steal, man.
What could be the explanation for that spike?
Like you say, Robert, I just wanted to double-check the timeline.
That's November-ish, maybe a little later.
The peak is, I think, around January and February, right when the vaccine is mass-introduced into the United States.
And if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I am, that's when Omicron was taking over, and Omicron was the less lethal version of the Rona, and so that couldn't even be the explanation.
And some part of that is...
A big group of that surge are people that were just about to die anyway who couldn't be vaccinated because of how bad their health was.
But they deliberately knew we're going to stick in the unvaccinated, people who are unusually unhealthy, and people who actually were vaccinated but died before a certain time period of the second shot.
Why?
Because they knew from Pfizer's own data, which, you know, that nitwit libertarian guy in the middle.
Ignore Robert Cain.
Robert Cain explained to them, look at Pfizer's own study, which we got from the FOIA suit.
The Pfizer's own study showed excess mortality.
More people died who took the vaccine than who took the placebo.
So they knew that at the CDC.
So they're like, we got to manipulate the data.
We got to manipulate how we measure COVID deaths.
We got to manipulate who we stick in unvaccinated.
And by doing those two things, they could come up with a fake chart.
That also ignores excess mortality in general, which is the only standard we all care about.
Now, I want to say in fairness, because there's no fairness to be applied here.
It is true that there were more deaths in the unvaccinated group, but the numbers were very marginal in any event because you were dealing with such limited testing.
If you look at like versus like, the death rate, as Robert Kennedy points out, this guy somehow also ignores.
He said, Robert Kennedy had no answers.
No, he kept giving you answers you didn't like and didn't want to hear.
If you look at people who faced very low risk from COVID, which is about 90% of the population, for that group, the vaccine has already been net negative in terms of their overall health.
And that doesn't even factor in that the big risk of this vaccine is long-tail risk, is risk that's expected to happen 5, 10, 15 years from now.
And so that's where the vaccine was an utter disaster and debacle.
He also gets a lot of other stuff wrong.
Like, he cites, there's the World Health Organization.
We can't question them.
They put out a chart.
It must be God's word.
It came down like the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai.
I mean, Mr. Libertarian, Mr. Freethinker, Mr. Independent Questioner.
And he doesn't realize that they have looked at that in great detail.
As Robert Kennedy details, he says the CDC looked at this and figured out that all of the past vaccines that are praised, almost all of them had nothing to do with the reduction of the disease.
How do we know that?
Because in countries where they didn't even have the vaccine, there was a massive comparable decline in the disease.
It related to sanitation in general and health standards improving more broadly.
It turns out when you don't have sewage outside your front door every day that your disease transmission goes down.
That was what it is.
And the CDC, and he details it, and he pretends he didn't listen to it.
He's still running around telling people on social media, Robert Kennedy had no answer.
Robert Kennedy had no answers.
No, Demwitt, you didn't have any answers.
And I was laughing when you said, you know, you're going to fight out 5, 10, 15 years later.
My heart hurts, Robert, when you say that.
Like, all right, all right.
I'm part of the experiment now.
Apparently, it's increasingly clear.
There's certain batches, big problems.
Other batches, no problems.
In Europe, it appears the batches with no problems were salines.
They were not even the actual vaccine.
Up to one-third, according to recent studies, not yet confirmed, but already out there from reasonable sources.
That up to a third, maybe more, didn't actually get the vaccine.
So even the drug companies were so nervous about it, they didn't even send it out to everybody.
Oh, is the theory that it was deliberately saline or that it was just...
Yeah, deliberately.
Huh?
Yeah, well, maybe that's good for you.
Maybe you got the saline.
All that I know is I did do the bad batch search on my dose number, and it was virtually nil, but it's...
I hesitate with my words in terms of what repercussions there should be, but there at least has to be a trial.
Now, there was actually one other thing.
The unvaccinated deaths is a very valid point in that they are including everyone who might have had up to two shots but died.
Before the two weeks after their second shot, and they lump those into unvaccinated deaths.
The polio argument I have heard multiple times where they say, look, polio dropped off.
It coincides with the vaccination program, but it also probably more coincides with hygiene, all this other stuff.
And that's where Robert Kinney kept coming back to the same point.
He's like, let's look at all health data for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
Let's look at that across the world.
The CDC is so terrified of what that will show that they refuse to fund that study.
But there's about 75 such studies out there around the globe.
And so far, every single one shows the fewer vaccines you got, the healthier you got by almost every major health metric.
And that's what they can't refute.
And he talks about that in the show, and they just pretend they didn't hear it.
I mean, he's an example of how libertarian independent media is just co-opted.
Like, it was no surprise the Libertarian Party in 2020 was four lockdowns, right?
Can you imagine?
The Libertarian Party, four lockdowns?
That's because they've been co-opted by the professional class who are a bunch of selfish narcissists whose only consistency is letting they get to do what they want to do.
That's about it.
Unless it involves the professional class and then they're on the same professional class parade that the professional class is on, whether it's affirmative action or immigration or a range of other policies.
But it was an embarrassing interview by reason for how unreasoned it was.
Everyone should watch it.
And prepare to get frustrated.
It's frustrating, but RFK, he needs to debate somebody.
Who's an actual expert who can debunk what RFK says in real time, but nobody wants to do it.
It's because they can't.
That's why they had to do it the way he did it here, where he ambushes them, ambushes RFK, then he ignores RFK.
And that's the whole process.
A moderated debate, that guy gets crushed because he's another example of how many dumb people have positions of power in America.
All right, Robert, we're going to move on to another good, some good news at least.
Project Veritas scores yet another victory, but I want to just show how this is being framed by the media.
It's so glorious.
No thanks.
Ninth Circuit overturns Oregon ban on surreptitious public recording.
It's a victory to the right-wing activist group, Project Veritas, which sued the state in 2020.
It's a right-wing thing now.
Investigative journalism and, you know, Recording in public.
Robert, Oregon was or is a one-party consent state.
That means so long as one party to the recording consents, you can record somebody else.
Except for this law in public settings.
This law required all parties' consent.
Well, that's the only thing I wasn't clear on in this case.
Was this law seeking to implement a two-party consent?
Rule in Oregon as a whole, or was it specifically limited to a different application of secret?
All-party consent.
It was requiring that all-party...
It banned undercover reporting.
But is that not the argument against two-party consent states at large?
Did I just freeze here?
I can hear you.
Okay, good.
Well, if you see my ugly face frozen with a finger pointing to the side.
Is that not the argument against all two-party consent states, is that it bans, it outlaws investigative reporting?
It can.
Usually it can carve out a range of exceptions for it.
But that's where I have always believed that two-party consent states cannot constitutionally apply to a range of First Amendment protected conduct.
And what's interesting is this all arose because the Ninth Circuit several years ago, in a case we also covered, said that you could go in and do undercover reporting in animal farms or at animal processing places.
And that was to promote the left that was doing that, animal rights folks.
And so by the logic of that decision, what they recognize is the mere act of recording speech is itself an act of speech.
It's a freedom of speech and a freedom of press.
And so they said that act is itself First Amendment protected speech.
And so in order for you to ban it, you have to apply the rules that apply to when they can ban unwanted speech in public settings.
And their point was that this law applied to public settings.
It'd be a different dynamic in private settings, in the home.
There'd be other issues implicated.
But if you're in public, in a public setting anywhere, that can include restaurants, entertainment venues, etc., then you don't have the right to suppress or censor.
The state doesn't have the right to suppress or center unwanted speech outside of extraordinary circumstance.
And their point was this did not meet that standard of extraordinary circumstance.
Because your privacy interest is much more limited when you're talking in public than when you're talking in private.
And so your expectation of privacy is really quite low in a conversation you're having out in public where other people can listen in anyway.
But that definitely applies to the person you're talking to being recorded.
That's what was being banned here.
There was one-party consent to these conversations, and they were saying it's still illegal because we require all-party consent.
And that's what violated the First Amendment because they were even prohibiting it if there was a public interest involved in recording the conversation, and even when recording a speech itself, and even when it was occurring in a public setting about a matter of public interest.
That's what the court said.
No, the First Amendment doesn't allow that.
That they don't get close to meeting strict scrutiny, which is applicable.
And even if they called it a time-place restriction, it's still excessive because you can't prohibit unwanted speech in a public setting.
You have no reasonable expectation of that in terms of your privacy prohibiting somebody else's speech.
And that's what videotaping is.
It's somebody else's speech.
Great decision with great consequence.
Thanks to James O 'Keefe for continuing to bring these cases.
Robert, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you just fine.
Am I frozen?
Your face is frozen, but your voice is fine.
So I might have to reboot my entire computer because everything is frozen.
I can't see anything anymore.
So maybe as you take the next discussion here.
Oh no, that's the big one.
I'm frozen.
You can't see my face.
What do I look like?
Do I look ugly?
I'm trying to see if I can...
I know.
You look very contemplative.
I can see it now on Rumble.
It's my computer.
I'm going to try to reload, and then I'm going to see if this works.
You might have to carry it for a few minutes while I reboot my entire computer, and I might lose all of the Super Chats, or the Rumble Rants.
The court did distinguish this doesn't cover eavesdropping.
So, you know, this doesn't cover if you weren't a party to the conversation, then that's a different dynamic.
And if it was in a private setting, it's a different dynamic.
And you might have an actionable suit for invasion of privacy if it doesn't concern a matter of public interest or a public figure.
Well, Viva reloads.
We'll get to the big case.
This week, the July 4th Freedom Celebration in the case of Big Tech, Missouri versus Biden.
This is a case that some people didn't realize.
We've been covering this from the very inception.
Now, what it is is the case is pending in Louisiana because the parties include the state of Missouri and the state of Louisiana.
They brought suit in Louisiana.
Because Terry Doty out of the Western Division of Louisiana, Monroe Division, who'd made very good rulings in the vaccine mandate context and the religious objection context and the mask mandate context and other capacities of like mind, had been able to show and prove and document that there were problems and was willing to stand up to corrupt state action as part of that.
So that's probably why they brought the case where they brought it, because it's a Trump appointee, Judge Doty, who's been pretty smart, insightful, and willingness to challenge authority in places his fellow jurists have not always been willing to go.
Now, other plaintiffs include Jim Hoff, Dr. Kirti, I'm not going to pronounce that one guy's name.
It's like Bacher.
It starts with a B. Long name.
The Stanford doctor has been really good on a lot of these issues.
But Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit is one of the plaintiffs.
And, of course, Children's Health Defense was heavily involved, filed an amicus curia, brief in the case.
And this is the case we were covering about social media big tech collusion.
And the ideas behind this case, Jed Rubenfeld and others associated with Robert Kennedy, have been the ones blazing the path for this case to ever come about.
He's a Yale law professor that was part of Children's Health Defense, and Robert Kennedy sued against Facebook, currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
And he laid out that there were three grounds upon which you could sue the state for various forms of big tech censorship.
And that included coercion, collusion, or conspiracy.
And that if the state was directly complicit and involved with it, then the state could be responsible for it as a joint participant.
Like any other accomplice liable party, an issue that will pop up in the Cisco Falun Gong case we'll talk about a little bit later.
But in addition, you can have coercion and collusion in different ways.
And one easy way to prove both is just to prove that there's threats out there by people with the power to potentially act on those threats.
And even if the threats are empty threats, if they're perceived as having that power, that's the same thing.
But the real thing to look at, whether you're looking at conspiracy liability, coercive liability, collusive liability, is how intertwined the state is with the private actor to where it's difficult to distinguish one from the other.
And here, the judge is granting discovery.
This was the case we talked about.
We talked about Anthony Fauci being deposed, Jen Psaki being deposed, all of those other people.
This was the case we were talking about.
So I keep getting messages.
Hey, Barnes, why haven't you talked about Missouri versus Biden?
It's like, that's the case we've talked about about eight times already on the channel.
We were talking, you know, God bless Tracy Beans.
We were talking about it before Tracy Beans was talking about it.
We were talking about it before anyone else really was talking about it in the political public sphere.
So this was a case.
It now reached the preliminary injunction stage.
And now that Viva's back, we have an update.
Robert, you see me?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
All good now.
So, preliminary injunction was issued.
The extent of the preliminary injunction, it goes until they're going to have a trial on the merits.
What's going to be the time frame in which this is going to remain in effect?
Well, they're moving to appeal the preliminary injunction so aggressively that any appellate court action might stall and delay the timing of the trial.
And the legal threshold for overturning a preliminary injunctive order is a higher threshold, from what I understand?
Well, it depends.
Really, in this case, it's did he apply the law correctly?
Because he details a lot of the facts.
And what he clearly proves beyond question is that there's systematic intertwinement between the state actors and these big tech agencies that engaged in the censorship.
And so then the only question becomes, well, it's not collusive or coercive, theoretically, if the state would have done it independently.
He points out that the fact that the agency would do so independently has historically not been sufficient to show no coercion and collusion.
But separate from that, even if an appeals court says, well, we don't consider this so systematically entwined to call it coercive or call it collusive, Then they have the joint participant conspiracy problem, because they're clearly our joint participant.
So that was the genius of the suit.
And this is where Robert Kennedy deserves a lot of credit, because he was the one to brainstorm this strategy with people that he is...
Put in a role to do things legally.
I think it's Jed Rubinfeld, if I recall correctly, his name.
I've talked to him many times, but I get names confused all the time.
The great Yale law professor has done great work on this, been targeted and harassed for a range of bogus reasons because of his activism in this.
But he's the one that came up with all these theories.
He's like, here's how we can deal with this big tech censorship problem.
And Missouri and Louisiana, to their credit, said, we're going to take this theory and run with it.
And the states having their own independent interest in the freedom of speech, them being able to express such speech themselves as state actors, and protecting their communities from censorship online in the First Amendment.
And there was an APA, Administrative Procedures Act claim, and excessive authority claims, but the main one was the First Amendment claim.
And there was no question that First Amendment violations occurred if these were state actions.
And the argument of the Biden White House and the FBI was particularly named in this case and in the injunction.
The CDC, Centers for Disease Control, was particularly named in this.
A name that reappears repeatedly is Robert Kennedy Jr.
He was one of the primary targets of all of this, arguably the primary target of all of this.
That the categories of speech that we're particularly focused upon here concern...
The COVID-19 issues, vaccines, lockdowns, masks, mandates, etc.
But the second set of issues was the Hunter Biden laptop-related issues as well.
Jim Hoff joined the suit, etc.
And so the court lays out that there's really no question of systematic intertwinement and correlation, at least in terms of causation, in terms of that it's only after...
The state actors, the FBI, the CDC, the CISA, the cybersecurity group who pretended our elections were so clean, they're actually covering up.
That was the other category.
Anything concerning elections was censored.
And so it's another sign of how the administrative state is out of control.
This was done, and it was Trump's own people.
As he points out, there's no evidence the Trump administration had its political appointees had any idea this was occurring.
Instead, they're doing it in secret against Trump's direct will because they were censoring anybody that raised any questions about election integrity, election processes, or election procedures.
So it was about COVID, election, those were the two main issues, and then Biden-related issues as the third category.
And what it showed was that the big tech companies were not censoring at anywhere near the scope and scale until the government sent them letters, emails, set up meetings, set up conversations.
And also after, he pointed out, whenever they decided not to do something, soon thereafter...
Major political officials affiliated and associated with the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, depending on the timing of when it occurred, came out and said, we're going to take away your Section 230 immunity.
We're going to accelerate antitrust issues.
We're going to start regulating you in different ways.
It's going to prohibit your interactions.
So that's the coercive component.
The collusive component is the extraordinary scale of conversations, emails, communications, committees that show their degree of systematic entertainment.
And the third aspect is the scale of censorship only happens after the government demands it.
There is that section.
I was trying to find it, but I can't find it fast enough.
I think it's like at least 20 items.
It goes by lettering, where they go through everything.
Jen Psaki coming up and saying, we've got back channels.
You had Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan talking about, they met with us.
They didn't force us to do it, but when the FBI comes up and says...
There might be a Hunter Biden story coming.
You might want to keep an eye out.
That is the wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
People are saying it was not coercive.
They just asked and they did it.
It's wonderful.
The Election Integrity Partnership comes out and says we're doing indirectly what the government cannot do directly.
And the judge gets it all.
The criticism that the judge is getting is by accusations that the order is too broad and...
But there he carved out exceptions.
What he realized is any degree of communication is going to be a problem.
So he said no flagging content, no communicating of any kind if your goal is to censor content.
And he made clear this doesn't apply to any terrorist threat, cybersecurity threat, actual election integrity threat.
Somebody giving false information about the date of an election or election procedures doesn't apply to any criminal behavior.
He makes clear it doesn't apply to any of those things.
He just says, but what you can't do is what you've been doing.
And because you've been doing it so constantly and continuously, I'm going to prohibit all of you from communicating with them, period, if it concerns content, measurement, unless it fits within those legally recognized exceptions.
Yeah, and most people haven't read the actual injunctive order.
It says, you know, correspondence for the purposes of pressuring censorship.
And then it's specific.
Okay, very interesting.
It's fantastic.
And now, does this become precedent for the other pending lawsuits out there?
Oh, potentially.
I think the Ninth Circuit still hasn't ruled on Robert Kennedy's case.
And it's very persuasive.
Now, Robert Kennedy has sued Facebook, so it's a little different.
Procedural posture.
But he was deciding the same issue.
Was Facebook acting as a state actor in this censorship?
And he identifies Robert Kennedy as one of the prime people that they excluded.
And the key problem was if the social media people had set up independent operations where they had censored a bunch of people on topics not requested to be censored upon or individuals who had not been requested to be censored.
Then they would have had a better argument that this wasn't systematic intervention and intertwinement of a coercive, collusive, conspiratorial nature with the state.
The problem is there are very few examples of that.
In fact, he concludes that the big tech companies would have mostly not engaged in this censorship but for governmental pressure.
All right.
That's a bit of a silver lining, the meltdown.
He issued it.
He published it on July 4th.
The good honorable Judge Doty.
He's up there with Judge Dickman as one of my favorite judges.
Fantastic.
All right.
Now, do we move on to, I guess it's a bit of a, not a white pill whatsoever, but it's a decent, it's a good decision.
Well, it's a white pill that the case is marching forward.
It's a black pill and shocking that this hasn't been covered much more extensively.
So this is a lot of Ninth Circuit.
Which one is the Ninth Circuit again, Robert?
So the Ninth Circuit's out west.
California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Arizona.
Now, this is the Ninth Circuit reviving a case that had been extinguished on the basis that the victims of Chinese torture, members of the Falun Gong, could not sue Cisco, which is alleged, it hasn't been proven yet, but is alleged to have designed a software, a surveillance software, a surveillance program called, a surveillance product.
What's it called?
Golden Shield.
That they deliberately and knowingly sold to the Chinese government knowing it was going to be used to survey, not spy on, but rather be used in the commission of human rights violations against the Falun Gong.
They had sued.
I'm not familiar enough with the law, Robert, but what was the law?
It's the TSA?
Two different statutes.
The Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act.
So they had sued and it was originally dismissed.
Was it dismissed on the basis of standing and revived at least against two of the executives of Cisco and Cisco the company?
Basically, it's been a penny for almost a decade.
What's shocking is the detailed information they have.
The background is the Falun Gong developed as a religious movement in China in the 1990s, had up to 100 million adherents.
For those people that like the Epoch Times, the Epoch Times was founded by refugees from Falun Gong.
That's why they have...
People will note they have a particular approach toward China.
That's why.
It's not the most sympathetic approach toward China, but they got a reason for that.
China decided, the Chinese Communist Party decided that Falun Gong was a threat.
And they have a Mandarin word for it, but I don't even try to pronounce it.
Dao Zhang or something like that.
But it's basically where you go on a purge and you use state power to do so.
And what they wanted to do was to identify members of Falun Gong or people who might be attracted to it.
And subject to them to a campaign of terror.
And the campaign of terror escalated to physical isolation, physical torture, forced detention, ultimately, you know, illicit involuntary organ donation and actual death.
And then threats to family, threats to friends, economic threats, every kind of coercive tool available of the state and its Communist Party allies.
But they had a problem.
They couldn't find all the members of Falloon Gong.
And that's when Cisco came to them and said, We can help you torture!
Not only that, we'll even set up a customer service center to make it easier and more effective for you.
We'll set up a training center to help you do it even better so you can get those Falloon Gong.
They only knew what this was going to be used for.
They pitched it in their bidding for the contracts from China.
And Robert, it's not like they were saying this is for cattle that might be roaming the countryside.
This is as evil villainy as you can imagine, specifically designed for and sold for the purposes of human surveillance and knowing exactly what was going to be done.
Exactly.
Because China did not have the technological means to do this.
So without Cisco, there is no systematic torture of the Falun Gong in China.
And Cisco, again, was bragging about this, putting it as part of their bidding contract, promoting it, pitching it, designed it for this purpose.
This wasn't a case of, hey, we have some surveillance technology.
Here you go, China.
Maybe it'll be used badly.
We hope not.
This was, hey, China, you got a problem with the flu and gong?
We can help you torture.
And we'll have a 1-800 customer service number to help that interrogator and use that software a little bit better if you need it.
For the purposes of tracking and tracing every Falun Gong member, finding their emails, their communication points, all of it.
So it was not only mass surveillance, it was directly, deliberately targeted for the systematic identification for the purposes of torture of millions of people in China.
And they called it China Office 610.
And it was pitched in part by Cisco as your golden shield.
Robert, a lot of people, I never understood it.
I mean, in Montreal's Chinatown, there's a group of Falun Gong that they're always, I don't know if it's protesting, they're trying to raise awareness clearly.
A lot of people have faulted, for some reason, the Epoch Times of having been founded by the Falun Gong.
I don't think I understand that.
Do you understand why people use that or try to use that as a critique to delegitimize the Epoch Times?
Some people recommend certain people for us to be on sidebar because they have good insight, say, on the Ukrainian conflict.
But a lot of them are apologists for the Chinese regime.
Now, I think there's been overstatements about what's going on with the Uyghurs.
I wouldn't use the word genocide because I think that word's way badly abused.
But the idea that China's not punishing, persecuting its religious dissidents is utterly ludicrous and laughable.
And they tend to start thinking, because they don't want war with China, which I agree with, there's a difference between that and saying China's good.
It's like what Trump said.
Was Gaddafi a good guy?
Nope.
Was Hussein a good guy?
Nope.
Is the world better off since we got rid of him?
Nope.
I mean, that was Trump's point, political realism.
But that doesn't mean we have to pretend the Chinese Communist Party is anything to respect or appreciate or want more of.
They have been persecuting.
I mean, this is under Mao.
He's starved almost half its population.
He's the biggest mass murderer of all of human history.
So the idea that I should respect any aspect of these people or pretend that they're some good admirable is a bunch of hogwash.
And that's why, I mean, we...
Invited some of those folks on, I would just end up in a debate with them.
And I try to avoid that with their sidebars, not get into an extended debate like that.
We separate those out.
And you need certain common assumptions to make those debates functional.
I'll quote from the case.
Cisco, operating from its corporate headquarters in America, designed, implemented, and helped maintain a surveillance and internal security network.
For the purpose of Chinese officials greatly enhancing their capacity to identify Falun Gong practitioners, to ensnare them in a system of physical torture, mental torture, forced labor, prolonged detention, arbitrary detention, and death.
I mean, these Cisco executives should be in prison.
And they were able to sue the CEO.
Not the Chinese CEO, because all of those incidents occurred in China.
Because under the Alien Tort Statute and under the Torture Victim Protection Act, there needs to be U.S. territorial connection to the individual's actions for it to be liability.
But what this case made clear was aiding and abetting liability is now well established, which is great.
Now you can sue a foreign citizen, can sue a U.S. corporation for bad things that happened by a foreign state.
When it was critically facilitated and enabled by a U.S. corporation's conduct in the U.S. And you can't sue a corporation under the Torture Victims Protection Act.
I think that part of the law should be changed.
You could sue individuals, though, and they allowed the CEO lawsuit to go forward.
And some of the statements made are just shocking.
I mean, that Cisco did this deliberately from the get-go.
And what this case really is, I mean, torture...
Intentional infliction of severe pain that meets certain definitions of torture and convention.
So it's not just anything.
I mean, it has to be horrendous conduct that all of us would recognize as torture.
And they recognize these as a universal principle.
And the Alien Tort Statutes Act was designed so that when American bad actors are acting on behalf of a foreign country and do bad things to foreign people, they don't get off the hook because they happen to be in America for it.
And it allows that liability.
Now, unfortunately, our conservatives on the court keep trying to water that down because of the corporate whore instinct with some of them, sadly.
But the Nestle decision that we talked about, a lot of that decision was bad.
But part of the decision that was good was they said corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statutes Act.
So this case expanded that and said aiding and abetting accomplice liability.
When you know what you're doing is going to substantially encourage, assist someone in being able to torture people.
You don't get to profit for it without consequence.
But how Cisco hasn't been criminally indicted?
But this case is not only a big case for the Falun Gong and for exposing the Chinese Communist Party.
It's a big case against the deep state.
Because a critical function of the deep state is these corporate third parties that are the key intermediaries that are carrying out these illicit activities around the globe.
Robert, is it obviously political?
The reason for which Cisco is not persecuted or prosecuted, I should say, because it involves China?
They came up to the Clinton administration and they hid from it.
Then the W.W. administration hid from it.
Then the Obama administration hid from it.
And Trump started doing something about it.
And that's when the suit was revitalized.
All right.
Now, before we get to the Tennessee transgender treatment ban, Robert, I've lost all of my windows in the backdrop.
I've been trying to catch up on them.
Let me just bring this up here because there's a bunch of rumble rants that we should get to.
Snuggle struggle.
Obama retained and detained.
Countless within press ejected press from conferences, spied upon them, stole their data.
Far too censorious.
The remaining subverted press will undermine court ruling by proxy.
Divergent Zen.
Additionally, it is not suspicious for former agency employees to suddenly go to work for said company.
This is the former FBI counsel as an executive.
Baker, what's his name?
James Baker?
How is it that whenever you do the freeze phrase with the rumble rants, I always have that kind of facial posture.
That's better than mine.
I saw what mine looked like now.
Just Thinking says preliminary injunction excluded the Ministry of Truth and Nina Jankiewicz and other government departments.
Divergent Zen.
What about Barron?
They didn't seek it against them because she was canned and is no longer there.
So it makes no sense to have an injunction against someone who's no longer a government official.
It had all of it.
It covered the main ones.
The fact that the FBI was in there should wake people up.
Divergence in says, what about Berenson versus Biden?
That I presume...
He's trying to piggyback off this, you know, so I don't have any respect for Berenson.
Jack Flax says, your immune system gets saturated with vaccine COVID antigen that it can't fight the virus, so there's a surge in cases for two weeks after the jab, hence the spike.
Interesting.
Examoon TV, late to the show, but Corey from YouTube channel cracking the box died.
Rest in peace, Pirate Kang.
And then I'm going to read it just so that nobody accused me of not reading it.
I don't know anything about this, Robert.
You'll see if this rings any bells.
Barnes lies about locals.
I requested help last year about a court treating my Virginia disability as community property and saying they didn't care when SCOTUS said I lost it and it cost me 20,000 fees to X. I don't know anything about that.
Fleet Lord Avatar.
And this is, by the way, why I give the standard disclaimers.
There's no legal advice here because you can't do it.
It's all fact-dependent per case.
FYI, JFK murdered most wanted card seen on American Untold Stories.
Oh, yeah.
Grobert wanted me to retweet that.
I forgot to retweet that.
And then we got, I can't track my faves like I used to.
Is anyone covering Take the Cake, Maya?
Okay, I think we got it.
Okay, good.
Now, Robert, Tennessee...
This is interesting.
It's interesting.
We're going to be...
Tennessee passed a law.
Banning transgender therapy.
We're going to have to find another word for this.
Banning transgender therapy, which was therapy with the purpose of...
Basically, no surgical treatment, hormone blockers, or...
No, no hormones, no blockers, no surgeries.
Yeah, it said for the purpose to enable a minor to identify with or live as a purported identity inconsistent with a minor sex.
Their biological sex, yeah.
So it was drafted in the way that one would think the law should be drafted so that it doesn't include puberty blockers for precocious periods, which as far as the argument goes, when you try to prevent or quell a precocious period, it's not to pause it.
It's just so a kid doesn't have a massive growth spurt when they're not yet ready body-wise.
It was initially an injunction, a ban on the application of the law was initially initiated by the lower court, reversed at this point now.
So the ban on the application of the law has been reversed, so the law will take effect as of July 1st.
And Robert, I think it's going to go back to a discussion that we were having earlier a few weeks ago about legislators, I guess, replacing medical advice or the medical decisions on an individual basis.
What is your take on it?
And does this law ultimately get upheld or, I don't know, redrafted?
There's a lot of conflicts between the courts.
There's four federal district courts now that have struck down comparable laws.
This district court now has been reversed by a federal court of appeals.
I think there'll be a split of decisions.
It's likely heading to SCOTUS.
And the parts of the case, I agree.
I agree with a general principle.
The question is means.
A general principle that these treatments...
That ignore biological gender are medically dangerous for children and shouldn't be used.
The question becomes, what means do we use to enforce or implement that policy?
And as a test, I put up on Twitter yesterday and then put up the same poll today on Locals, where we had a weekend debate about this topic, about...
How do you deal with trans treatments without creating some perilous precedent that could undermine parental autonomy and bodily autonomy in the context of medicine for children?
And what's interesting is the Twitter poll, I didn't put the context up, and 98-99% said, I said, here's your four choices.
Who do you think should make the final choice for a child's medical treatment?
The parent, a state legislature, a doctor, or the FDA?
Overwhelmingly, almost 99% said parents and some people were responding to Twitter saying, who in the world would believe anything else?
Well, all the conservatives pushing through these laws apparently believe something else.
They haven't quite put one and one together.
And it's because there's a very understandable negative reaction to the efforts of medicine in schools to try to alter kids' biology in ways that can be permanently damaging.
Like here, the identified concerns by the state legislature were sterility, regret, inefficacy, the fact that it's experimental.
And I understand all of these concerns.
I think the whole effort to change gender is mostly rooted in insanity.
I think gender dysphoria is still a mental disease and should be treated as such and not treated with biological intervention on children.
That does not mean I want to give the state the prerogative to make that choice.
And that's like, here's where I agree with the decision.
These district courts are saying that trans is a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause.
I don't buy that for a second.
So there the Sixth Circuit I think is correct.
There is no such recognition of trans as being a suspect class that requires strict scrutiny for any legislation that impacts them.
Well, so if I may stop you there though, Robert, what if it goes the way of Canada and they add?
Well, that's what I'm opposed to.
And here, the court made clear that's not in the 14th Amendment, was clearly not anticipated at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.
So in my view, it's not part of our Constitution.
And right now, it's not part of hardly any of the federal civil rights laws.
The second component that I agree with is, they said, oh, this is treating that, you know, you could do hormone blockers for some, but not for others based on gender.
This is not discrimination based on gender.
This is targeting gender identity treatment that is considered suspect and dangerous by the legislative class.
And they have made clear over and over again, we have all kind of laws, for example, that favor pregnancy.
Okay, that's not favoring and overwhelmingly favors women, of course.
And we've said over and over again, that's not discrimination based on gender.
So because the treatment itself is gender neutral in terms of...
The idea of this was discrimination based on sex was nonsense.
So I agree with the Sixth Circuit there.
These are the parts I don't really like about the Sixth Circuit's decision.
Two components.
What's happening in these other district courts is they're saying whatever majority of doctors think is what should govern.
They too have not generally been respected.
Respecting parental rights or bodily autonomy rights of individuals.
They've been saying whatever the majority of experts say is what they're going to go with.
I don't agree with that either.
But this court basically said whatever the FDA wanted.
And because the FDA hasn't made a ruling on it, they're going to say it's experimental so the legislatures can still legislate on it.
I didn't like that deference to the FDA throughout the decision.
Like, here's what they said.
They said, quote, the Constitution rarely has a say over the FDA's work.
That's not a good part of this decision.
Another part of the decision I don't care for is how easily they overrode parental choices about children and overrode individual rights to medicine because this relates to the ivermectin and other cases.
They said, quote, the state could prohibit individuals from receiving care they wanted even if their physicians wish to provide it despite the personal and profound liberty interest at stake.
They've now basically gutted the right to bodily autonomy.
The right to medicine of your choice and the parental autonomy all at the same time.
And this is all being done in the guise of, hey, you're scared of those trans treatments, right?
Well, you better be on board with us eviscerating all your rights.
And I still get blowback from people when I'm like, hey, there's a concern here.
Like, oh, you just want to go out and mutilate children, don't you, Barn?
No.
The question is, who's more risked to mutilate children over time?
The child's parents or the state?
And if you don't want the state to have the power in California to force this on parents, then you shouldn't want the state to take it away the right from parents anywhere else.
It is a good argument, and it's a good question as to who should have the final say for the treatment of a child.
But baked into that question is always within the limits of the law and within the limits of child abuse.
We've got to narrow that definition because the problem is right now, if you don't vaccinate your child, child abuse.
Take away your child.
That's where I'm for a very narrow definition of what child abuse comes from.
We're not expanding it to say that even if you and your doctor recommend a treatment, that that's now child abuse.
Once we go down that path, they can define anything as child abuse and the state's taking over your kids.
In some places, they're trying to label as child abuse.
Gendering your kid the way they want to be gendered.
Exactly.
That's where California is going.
Is there a risk that there are dumb parents that make bad choices?
Yes.
Is the risk greater that the state does so?
I think so.
I think I could come up with a good definition of child abuse.
Now here, part of the law I liked that wasn't even challenged is you have a right to bring a private cause of action against a medical care provider who does this because it's experimental.
That I like.
That gives the power to juries, the power to individual plaintiffs, keeps the power with the children, keeps the power with the parents, doesn't let the state override and be your doctor.
Yeah, well, then they were specific about that.
They're going to maintain the private cause of action.
Yeah, you make interesting arguments.
It's just the bottom line is people say, look, child abuse, we all agree.
Parents can't make that decision.
Neither can doctors.
Neither should legislators.
Then how is the decision made?
And that's where we get into it.
Everything always comes down to who you're going to give the power to.
You have a risk of a bad outcome.
What's the best power means to give?
And my view is give that power to parents and individuals, not the state.
All right.
The next one is the next one.
When you can arrest somebody even though they didn't commit a crime.
Well, this is the kid who threatened to go on a shooting spree at school.
I never heard of this case.
The facts go back to 2018.
It's a kid who makes a post.
He's going to go shoot up a school, gives a specific date.
Doesn't show up at school.
I think the school contacts the cops.
I don't exactly remember how they all find out about this, but the parents say to the school, we know where our kid is apparently, but we're not telling you.
Cops show up at their place and the parents try to go.
They try to flee.
The cops detain the woman who gets in her car.
They turn off her car.
The mother.
The husband, who apparently is 270 pounds, 6 foot whatever, and the cops are more like me, 5 '6", 170.
They draw their gun on the father.
They were never under arrest, but they were detained and violently so as far as the father goes.
He had had some surgeries and was all broken and they didn't know and they twisted his arm in the wrong ways.
Violently detained him.
They just detained the mother.
Because apparently the mother and the father said, we know where our kid is.
We're not telling you.
And they say, this is an emergency.
We need to.
Therefore, we're detaining you.
They filed suits.
Yeah.
So, I mean, two different components to it.
One was, I don't like all these exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
They said you can basically arrest someone as long as there's exigent emergency circumstances.
They're a material witness.
And your means of arrest is minimally intrusive.
I get it, but once we start carving out Fourth Amendment exceptions, that tends to be a problematic path.
Actually, I guess before everything, explain the difference to those who may not know the thorough difference between detained and arrested?
Oh, it's really the same thing.
So from a Fourth Amendment perspective, if your physical freedom is limited and restrained, you've been arrested.
They like to call it detained because it doesn't sound as bad as arrest.
People think of arrest as handcuffs and criminal charges.
In fact, constitutionally, the definition of arrest is solely your liberty has been restrained.
You wouldn't feel free to leave physically.
And here, they prevented it.
They said that's just fine because she was in her car.
She might drive off, so it was okay for them to detain her in the way they did.
He gets agitated, and so he goes into his bag and says, I'm going to record you guys.
And I think some aspects of what you're trying to do here is illegal.
And that's when the cops freak out.
They don't want to be recorded.
It's like, hold on a second.
If you're just doing a material witness interview in an emergency situation, that shouldn't bother you for half a second.
But they don't like it, so they drag him out.
They twist his head the wrong way.
They slam his head down on the car.
They spread his leg.
They start kicking his legs out and then kick him again later on.
Then when they do handcuff him, they put it on.
I've been the recipient of this.
They like to tighten up the handcuffs real tight, just to be when they're agitated.
That's when I objected to them illegally raiding my client's house.
On a July 4th party, no less.
Avoid Hollywood Hills parties on July 4th, just FYI.
But it was fun otherwise.
But so they brought two charges, a legal arrest and excessive force.
They said the arrest is just fine because of this exception for material witness, emergency exigent circumstances, and limited intervention.
But they correctly determined...
That the force used was excessive.
And they properly applied the gram factors.
And that is looking at the severity of the crime, the risk to the public and others from the individual's violent risk, basically.
And then what proportionality of restraint was used if the person is evading or resisting.
But if they're not evading or resisting, If there was no crime involved at all, and they're not imminent risk, then that doesn't justify any degree of force, and here they used tons of it.
So at least the court established that that part of the case, the force was excessive.
The other best part of the case is they said disobeying illegal orders is your First Amendment right.
Saying you want to tape record the police is your First Amendment right.
And that cops love to say, if I give an order and you disobey it, I can arrest you for disobeying it, even if my order was unlawful.
And here the court made clear, no, you can't.
And you can't arrest someone because they want to record you.
You can't arrest someone because they're objecting to you.
And you can't arrest someone for disobeying an order that wasn't lawful in the first place.
So those are the good parts of the ruling.
Yeah, but meanwhile, the mother, the wife, does not get to sue.
Her detention was legitimate.
It wasn't excessive.
Neither of them had even been purported to have committed a crime.
They just wanted to know where the kid was, and they refused to tell them.
So the wife does not get to sue, the husband does, only because it was much more excessive, much more violent.
They drew a gun and they roughed him up a little bit.
Yep.
Now, speaking of assaults, we got a nice little airport security assault case that also was decided this past week.
You're going to have to field this one, but before we do, everybody, I actually forget to do this.
Hit the plus button on Rumble and subscribe if you're not already subscribed, although I suspect everybody is.
If we call it subscribed on Rumble, Hit the plus button and join so you get notifications and stuff.
Robert, you've got to field this one.
What's going on?
So the TSA took a woman aside and sexually assaulted her in the name of a search.
And so she sued, and the TSA said, Ah, we're immune.
We're government officials.
We can do whatever we want.
And it was in the context of an investigation.
Yeah, of course.
And luckily, the one area where they've carved out into the Federal Tort Claims Act, immunity.
Is if a law enforcement officer engages in assault, that was the one place they said, yes, you can sue.
But their pretending was, oh, we're TSA officers.
We're not law enforcement officers, was the government's objection.
And the court made a common sense ruling.
It said, if you have the power of law enforcement, in other words, if you have the power to search in order to enforce federal law, Then you're a law enforcement officer for the purposes of exception to immunity when you commit a direct assault.
And here TSA officials, of course, under federal law, are given the right to search as a precondition of getting on a plane.
There's another one of those Fourth Amendment exceptions.
Say, you know, it's just a general regulatory scheme and it's an administrative search.
Yes, it's a Fourth Amendment search, but it's reasonable because it's part of a general regulatory scheme.
Whatever nonsense that is.
But putting that aside...
The good part of the ruling was establishing no immunity exists.
They are, in fact, law enforcement officers.
If you're clothed in law enforcement power, then you're a law enforcement officer, whatever your label is internally.
Okay.
Now, Robert, do we want to do the remaining three on locals?
We'll do homeless here, and then we can do the last two, and then all the tip questions.
Again, if you tip $5 or more...
Then we'll get to it.
The reason why we're doing $5 or more is because if everybody tipped $1, we'd be here until tomorrow.
We might be here for a while.
I'm going to leave this going.
I might have to run somewhere at 825 just to pick up a child that I had pawned off to other parents while I did the screen.
Just leave them.
They'll be fine.
Oh, God.
No, Robert.
You can only burn that bridge once.
Hold on.
Let me read a few of the...
Just before we do the last one.
The Rants on Rumble.
Oh, for goodness sake.
I've lost all my windows back here.
Here, let's do this here.
Okay, boot.
Adriano Valentino Australia.
Love Viva Frye and Robert Barnes.
Let's go, Brandon.
We know what that means.
Monster Nav says, Wretched the Cat tweet.
The civility we once thoughtlessly enjoyed was based on a shared culture where disagreement was on the margins.
Now our disagreements are fundamental.
Not true now.
Struggle Snuggle says, Having the asinine...
Position that protecting the most vulnerable in society is the problem.
That's a fallacy.
We should abolish all gun-free zones too.
We all but sacrifice our youth to predators.
I'm getting so old I can't read small writing anymore.
Divergence Zen.
How did we legally handle castratis and people seeking Tommy John surgery for better pitching?
And Paradil McFlam says, Libertarian here, the split between the Cato Reason libertarians and the Tom Woods, Ron Paul, Mises Institute.
Rothbardian libertarians is decades old.
The latter tend to be far more populous.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
I mean, Mice Institute produces great stuff.
Ron Paul produces great stuff.
Thomas Woods produces great stuff.
Dave Smith produces great stuff.
I'm talking about the institutional libertarians at the Cato Institutes and in the universities and at Reason Magazine.
They produce a lot of crap that's not honorable of the libertarian tradition.
All right.
Now, the homelessness rights challenge, Robert.
It's another thing where, like, I don't know.
What the solution is.
A regulation or a bylaw was created that basically said, you can't camp out.
Robert, correct me if I'm making some mistakes.
You can't camp out.
You cannot stay in public spots.
You can't stay outside in certain areas.
You can't do it.
You basically couldn't sleep in your car.
You can't sleep on the street.
You can't sleep in public parks.
Any place that's public, or even in your own car, you couldn't sleep there.
And you couldn't bring bedding, you couldn't bring pillows, you couldn't bring any kind of camping, anything.
It made it illegal to be homeless.
And that's it.
And it applied to what they call the involuntarily homeless.
And those are people who there's not enough shelter beds.
In other words, you have more people homeless than you have shelter beds available.
Well, the question is going to be obviously if they refuse the shelter beds and then they are involuntary homeless.
Then they're not considered involuntarily homeless.
And then it would be a criminal.
It would be a bylaw.
Then it's fine because then they're voluntarily homeless.
So take it away because the bottom line is they're trying to resolve the issue of homelessness.
They enact this legislation or this bylaw that says you can't be sleeping in your cars.
What do they say?
You can't...
They didn't say pitch a tent, but you can't permanently or a fixed structure.
Well, you can't even use a cardboard box.
You can't use any form of shelter whatsoever.
You couldn't sleep in your own car.
Okay.
And it was challenged on the basis that it...
Eighth Amendment.
Eighth Amendment.
So take it away.
So the Eighth Amendment has two provisions.
It prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, and it prohibits excessive fines.
The U.S. Supreme Court...
Years ago, the most contested case was someone brought suit on grounds of he's an involuntary alcoholic.
And the Supreme Court kind of dodged the case by not deciding the question of whether it applied to him because he didn't establish predicate facts about whether criminal punishments of alcoholism was punishing things for involuntary activities.
The big Supreme Court case, Robinson, is when California years ago made it a crime to be an addict.
To any narcotic.
It didn't mean, it didn't require you actually have any drugs, use any drugs, possess any drugs.
It just said, if you're an addict, in other words, you go to an AA meeting, you've now committed a crime in the state of California.
And the Supreme Court said you can't, based on some involuntary status, make that a criminal punishment.
That's cruel and unusual punishment.
If it was in the fine context, it would be an excessive fine, disproportionate to the permissible public policy.
And here, the Ninth Circuit's position was a split case.
And there's a bunch of justices who dissented from not having petition on bond granted.
Because what this has unleashed politically goes back to a case out of the Ninth Circuit also against Boise, Idaho.
And this is what unleashed homeless encampments across the country.
That basically they interpreted these decisions to mean that they had a right to be homeless, if you will, when that isn't quite what the case has established, but it's what led to an explosion of homelessness.
And so it's politically controversial even within the courts.
And the court made clear it wasn't saying you had a right to be homeless.
It was just saying that if someone is homeless for involuntary reasons, defined as they can't afford shelter, And no free, there isn't sufficient secular shelter available.
I disagree with them on the secular shelter component.
They're saying religious shelters don't count because otherwise that would be an establishment of religion.
I don't agree with them on that.
But putting that disagreement aside, they said if you're someone who basically there's no place for you to stay, there's no shelter available, you don't have the means, the monetary means to procure it yourself, then here they had escalation.
Started out with civil fines.
That ultimately went to criminal trespass prosecutions.
They said, you're effectively making it a crime to just be homeless.
And in these cases, that's an involuntary status.
There were debates about mootness.
There were debates about standing, about class action certification.
Putting aside those procedural issues, they were trying to solve the bottom line, that homelessness should not be a crime under the Eighth Amendment.
That there should be other solutions found by cities other than, I mean, what I found most problematic in the laws passed was making it illegal to sleep in your own car.
I was like, I mean, when you have no other means to sleep anywhere else.
So the, unlike some conservatives that are mocking the decision is, oh, you have a right to be homeless.
I was like, let's look at the law.
The law makes it illegal for you to sleep in your own car.
How is that American?
That's definitely 8th Amendment violation.
And some of the conservatives on the court, sadly, just want to eviscerate the 8th Amendment because they're power-driven rather than constitutionally driven.
But to me, and they say, well, we solved the problem, court.
You can now sleep in some parks, but you just can't bring a pillow or a blanket.
How is that any good?
I was like, the bottom line, the solution here is simple.
You create enough shelter beds.
If you have a problem where you cannot house your population, Then the problem is you can't house your population.
That isn't solved by locking them up when then you house them in your jails.
So the solution here that the courts are directing is clear.
Come up with enough shelter beds.
Come up with enough locations where you do allow it if you want to ban it in other locations.
But your solution is not to make it illegal and make it a crime to be homeless.
That's a decent solution.
The sleeping in the car part actually didn't make any sense because I guess the question would be like taking a nap during the day versus sleeping overnight.
They just wanted to get rid of the homeless.
A bunch of homeless people are coming into the town and they wanted to get rid of them.
But then the flip side to that is people are going to say, well, if you don't make it illegal, then you're going to end up with encampments like you see in California, San Francisco, San Diego.
And you will as long as they're, again, they don't have, you can fine them and even arrest them as long as you provide enough shelter beds.
It's the housing problem.
Created by our economy and society, we'll have the constitutionally protected habit of involuntary homelessness, and the solution is not to make those people who are involuntarily homeless criminals.
All right, with that bit of common sense legal analysis, Robert, we're going to end this on Rumble, and we're going to discuss on Locals the crazy case of federal courts conspiring to kick a judge off the federal bench.
All right.
If that's not...
Oh, hold on.
I didn't give the link to Rumble here.
Hold on one second.
To Locals.
To Locals.
Sorry.
Viva Barnes Law Locals Community is right here.
Ordinarily, I have all of these windows on one screen, but now that things have shut down, it's no longer in one screen.
I'm going to go here.
We're going to end this in one second after I share the link to Viva Barnes Law with a typo, just because.
Head on over to vivabarslaw.locals.com.
We're going to cover this, read the tips, and do a bunch of other stuff.
It's going to be fantastic.
Thank you all for being here, Robert.
So you're on, what are the odds?
What are the odds on Monday at 2 p.m. Eastern time.
And there might be a surprise guest coming to the Duran soon, by the way.
Well, now I'm very curious as to who that's going to be, but I'll ask you after.
We're no longer live.
I'll be live throughout the week, but Tuesday right now confirmed with Solomon Anderson talking about Zachariah's Denny motion.
So I'm going to end this now on Rumble.
Come on over to Locals, people.
Thank you very much for being here.
And that's it.
Ending on the Rumble in 5-4.
There's always a bit of a cutoff, but 3-2-1.
See you on vifabarneslaw.locals.com.
And I think we've done it, Robert.
Let me refresh.
Okay, done.
Boom shakalaka.
Now, let me go back to my Viva Barnes Law window, Robert.
We have two more cases to this.
Well, three.
One's real brief, though.
▲
Export Selection