Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 24, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:14:58

Ep. 179: Trump Gagged; Menendez Indictment; Biden Impeachment; Kari Lake & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We have here in the chamber today Ukrainian-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadian world veteran from the Second World War who fought the Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today, even at his age of 98. And continues to support the troops today.
	I said it yesterday before the news actually broke.
	Not knowing the news that was going to break.
	A bunch of clapping seals.
	They're a bunch of clapping, barking seals.
	They have no idea what they're doing.
	Oh, we're so important.
	Wait for the punchline for those of you who don't yet know what it is.
	His name is Yaroslav Hunka.
	Look it up, people.
	And I was going to say he's in the gallery, but I think you beat me to that.
	But I'm very proud to say that he is from North Bay and from my riding of Nipissing to Miskiming.
	Not to state the obvious, he ain't from North Bay, dude.
	He might live there now.
	He ain't from North Bay.
	He's a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service.
	Thank you.
	That's the second-standing ovation.
	That's the second-standing ovation.
	This is Canadian Parliament.
	Look at this.
	Oh!
	Let me just pause it in the montage.
	The 14th Waffen Grenadier, division of the SS.
	I think that's the secret police, the Nazi secret police, or the SS, the Nazi regime.
	That's what it is.
	14th SS Volunteer Division, Galicia.
	Let's just go back to hearing the clapping.
	I remember that name?
	Jaroslav Honka.
	On 22 September 2023.
	This is from Wikipedia.
	Jaroslav Honka, veteran of the division.
	What was that division again?
	I think I forgot, Bill.
	What was that division?
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	The SS.
	Not even a...
	As far as I understand...
	A volunteer SS, not even a conscripted soldier, a volunteer Nazi soldier, was invited to the Parliament of Canada along with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, where they both received standing ovations from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and most other MPs.
	Let me correct you, Wikipedia.
	All other MPs.
	And I made a joke yesterday not knowing exactly where this was going.
	Pierre Poiliev there with his lackluster clapping.
	Yeah, you're still blameworthy, Pierre.
	Oh, but people, I'm going to leave that window open just in case we have to come back to it.
	For those of you who don't know, and this is a scandal of international proportions, and I'm going to explain why in a bit.
	I wasn't going to start with this, but we're going to put this on blast like nothing in the history of Canada has been put on blast.
	Locals is not streaming.
	There's a reason for that.
	Son of a beast.
	And give me 30 seconds because Locals is not missing this.
	We are going to put this on blast in a way that...
	Edit.
	Add.
	My apologies, Locals.
	I'm an idiot.
	Custom RTPM.
	Right there.
	That's one.
	I knew I forgot something today.
	I've been distracted.
	I got up early.
	Ran a 5K race.
	Went surfing.
	Tried to do some homework.
	179 is the episode and we are going to save it.
	And locals, we should be live now.
	I'm not a rookie.
	What I am is I have distracted thoughts.
	I have trouble focusing.
	There's a machine that is perpetually churning behind my forehead for good and for bad.
	And the last few days, it feels more for bad than for good because I'm distracted and can't concentrate.
	Okay, whatever.
	Now we're good.
	Waiting on locals.
	Okay, I think we're good in locals.
	Let me make sure.
	The one time.
	I don't say, hey, let me just make sure that we're live on all platforms.
	We're not, because, there we go, there we go, we're good, we're good.
	We're live on Locals, we're live on Rumble, and we are live on YouTube.
	Okay, so for those of you who don't know what happened, we're going to put this story on blast.
	It has already picked up the attention of some big, prominent voices in the, what do they call it, the American blogosphere?
	The American political blogosphere.
	Vladimir Zelensky has been doing his North American run, asking for more money, you know, goes to American government, meets with everybody there, asks for another $24 billion.
	The US, as far as I know, as far as I understand, has now given $135 billion in aid, military assistance, or whatever else the term is.
	Over $135 billion.
	I think Canada...
	It's up to $9 billion.
	$9 billion from Canada.
	We are roughly 10 times smaller than the US, so we're still giving proportionately less than the US.
	The people of Lahaina have lost their homes.
	We still don't know how many dead children there are, last I checked.
	They could rebuild every last house that was destroyed in Lahaina for, what I understand, $5 or $6 billion.
	But no!
	Lahaina, the victims there, you need to sit down and be quiet because Ukraine is more important than you.
	Ukraine is more strategically important on the international scale scene.
	You sit down.
	You be quiet.
	Here's your one-time $700 payment.
	And we'll get to identifying the dead children when we have a chance.
	Right now, we're just counting money for Zelensky.
	So Zelensky goes to the US, asks for $24 billion more.
	Then he goes and does his hat-out routine in Canada.
	Meeting with Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau.
	Oh, they're hugging each other.
	They're like, oh, it's such emotional.
	It's a family reunion.
	And they're saying, yeah, well, hey, Zelensky, here's some more Canadian taxpayer dollars.
	They had a guest of honor join Volodymyr Zelensky in Parliament on Friday, and his name was Jaroslav Junka.
	I don't think many people knew who this individual was, and I guarantee you that a great many of the parliamentarians who stood there clapping like a bunch of idiot buffoon seals, just barking on demand like someone threw the little cookie.
	Here's your fish, parliamentarian.
	Clap, you barking seals.
	They take...
	They take...
	Hold on.
	Someone says Rumble is offline?
	No, no, we're live on Rumble.
	They take...
	They're clapping at the guy.
	Because a military hero came with Zelensky, a military hero who is still supporting the troops of Ukraine even today.
	Let that sink in for a second.
	And because these parliamentarians are idiots, and I'm using it in the actual definitional sense, they are unintelligent buffoons.
	They either have an IQ below 80 or they have an understanding of history below 50. They're actual idiots.
	They don't understand the history of World War II.
	I was thinking about it earlier today.
	It's like, everybody says the Soviets were the heroes because they fought and defeated the Nazis.
	The Soviet regime was responsible for the deaths, the killing, of anywhere between, estimates are 32 million.
	To 120-plus million people over their 70-year regime.
	The Soviets are responsible for the killing of what is widely accepted to be the acceptable estimate.
	Over 60 million people.
	Killed.
	Starved.
	Famined.
	You know, sent to Siberia.
	Sent to camps.
	The Soviets are the heroes in the lore of the West because they fought the Nazis because the Nazis were the villains because the Nazis had the Holocaust.
	They were killing the Jews, gypsies, blacks.
	They were going for global domination.
	And because the Soviets defeated the Nazis, the Soviets, who were responsible for killing more than the Nazis, are the heroes.
	They bring out this war hero on the basis that he fought the Soviets.
	Because the Soviets today are the enemy.
	These idiots do not understand history.
	Who fought the Soviets?
	The Nazis fought the Soviets.
	When the Nazis invaded Ukraine, They got Nazi soldiers from Ukraine.
	There was a whole piece, I forget where I read it now, talking about how the Ukrainians, Ukrainian lore views Nazis differently than the rest of the world.
	Because to them, they were less bad than the Soviets.
	That may be the case.
	It's conceivable that in the broader scheme of history, Hitler was bad, so was the Soviet regime.
	They bring out this guy, Jaroslav Hunkka, as a hero.
	You remember what we watched in the intro of this?
	A hero.
	He fought the Soviets, so he's a hero today.
	And they don't understand, they don't know, or they do.
	He was a Nazi soldier volunteer, from what I understand.
	Now you've got the entire Parliament of Canada.
	Literally giving not one, but two standing ovations to a literal Nazi.
	Not a Rachel Maddow literally, literally.
	To a literal Nazi.
	Holy shit.
	Once we're getting demonetized on YouTube.
	Holy shit.
	And I said Trudeau's in big...
	If this is not a scandal to end the Trudeau regime, there will not be one.
	The problem is, it's all of them.
	You see these rat parliamentarians on Twitter now trying to jump ship.
	We didn't know who he was.
	They told us he was a hero.
	If you're an idiot and you're giving Volodymyr Zelensky a standing ovation, because based on your understanding, they're the good guys this time around.
	Why?
	Because they're fighting the Soviets.
	They're fighting the Russians.
	And the Russians now are our enemy.
	Analogize it, you idiot parliamentarians.
	The Soviets...
	We're the allies because they were fighting the Nazis, and yet they were also the bad guys.
	Can that make sense?
	It's conceivable that even though it may or may not be the reality, Russia is now depicted as being the enemy, and Ukraine the hero for fighting the enemy.
	Analogize how the Soviets were lionized, were turned into heroes for fighting the Nazis, despite them being responsible for killing over 60 million people.
	These idiot parliamentarians don't know what they're clapping at.
	They don't understand history.
	They don't understand the present.
	And these are the people marching us into World War III.
	Marching us into World War III and paving the road with our taxpayer dollars to the detriment of the people these idiots were elected to represent.
	And this is a scandal.
	It's not even a scandal.
	It's a bloody outrage.
	It's a shame on Canada.
	And I say the Canadian government, not the Canadian people.
	The tragedy for the Canadian people is that we're governed by these idiots.
	They invited a Nazi soldier into parliament, gave him two standing ovations, praised him for supporting the regime today, the Zelensky regime.
	And I'm separating that from the Ukrainian people who are the victims in this.
	People don't understand this.
	The Ukrainian civilians are the innocent victims in this.
	Innocent victims of Russian aggression, a regional conflict, and the innocent victims of a West who will spare no Ukrainian blood for their proxy war against Russia.
	As long as it takes.
	Oh, what's that?
	Ukrainian regime had a big Nazi problem?
	MSM was reporting on that 5, 6, 10 years ago.
	And then we're told now that they don't have a Nazi problem?
	That it's Russian propaganda?
	They've got such a Nazi problem that their heroes of today are literal Nazi soldiers.
	Set aside everything else that we already know.
	This could work out to be the greatest eye-opener in Canadian history.
	I think the Canadian Parliament just red-pilled all of Canada.
	We had 338 of our members of Parliament giving two standing ovations to a Nazi soldier.
	Well done, Justin Trudeau.
	Holy crap.
	And not just that, I say that's one scandal.
	I think Justin is not long for politics anymore because what Justin just did right now, I would dare say red pill the world.
	But he just brought to the fore that entire thing that we were told was Russian disinformation.
	What Nazi problem?
	There's no Nazi problem in Ukraine.
	Go Google the articles.
	2018, they were running these articles.
	2014, there were documentaries on YouTube talking about the Azov Battalion, the Nazi iconography, the far-right problem in Ukraine.
	And then, 2022 hits, it's all a lie.
	Don't believe it.
	It's Russian propaganda.
	Yep, like the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
	Justin Trudeau just brought back this Nazi problem to the fore of the international discourse.
	He basically just, like, if you watched my exclusive video for Locals beforehand, he basically, like the Dane Cook joke, just took a dump in the coat room.
	The entire world right now is seeing that the heroes of Ukraine now are actual Nazis.
	When we were told that it was Russian disinformation, Russian propaganda, they don't have a far-right problem.
	Zelensky, the saint, the good.
	Putin, the bad.
	People now are going to realize that that's not the case.
	And they were lying to us yet again.
	I made a list over the weekend, all of the massive lies in history.
	They have lied to us over and over again.
	Weapons of mass destruction lie.
	500,000 dead Iraqi children.
	Was it worth it?
	Madeleine Albright says yes.
	What lie today are they telling us?
	And how many Ukrainian civilians is it going to cost?
	It's going to be worth it to them if they can get Putin out of power.
	If they can have their proxy war and win their proxy war and dominate Russia, it doesn't matter how many Ukrainians die, it'll be worth it for them.
	Oh.
	A shame not...
	How do I bring up...
	Oh, I'm in the rumble chat.
	I can't highlight it.
	A shame no one in Parliament had the clown horn sound on their phone during the applause.
	No.
	And you got Pierre Poiliev begrudgingly clapping.
	Oh, I made a joke.
	Oh, yeah, Pierre.
	You'll get...
	The media's good graces for begrudgingly clapping Zelensky as he comes in to steal our Canadian taxpayer dollars.
	Oh, but it was a lackluster clap, so I was doing it under duress.
	You lackluster clapped a Nazi soldier, Pierre.
	Because none of you understand history, you're incapable of understanding the present, and you are marching us towards a future that none of us deserve.
	Oh.
	Okay.
	Oh, I'm not wearing a merch shirt.
	I'm wearing the shirt that I had on all day.
	What a waste.
	All right.
	Good evening.
	Go to the Twitter world, if you're there, and share that video around.
	Never forget.
	Oddly enough, never again.
	Oh, oh, oh.
	Okay, now we'll get to the sponsor right away.
	Did I click the sponsor thing?
	Because I want to be good.
	I want to be the bestest, most...
	Law-abiding YouTube guy.
	I'm clicking it now so that when people come in, they're going to see it right now.
	This stream contains a paid promotion.
	People, when your blood pressure gets elevated because the world has gone absolutely batshit crazy where we're being governed by idiots who will drag us into war, but it won't affect them as long as it takes, so long as we're behind our armed guards, our pensions on government guarantees.
	Hey, if your blood pressure feels like it's getting up there.
	And you want to be healthy.
	And you want to eat your fruits and vegetables, but you just don't have time because you're spending too much time raging against the machine on the interwebs.
	Field of Greens, people.
	It is not a supplement.
	It's not an extract.
	It's a food, desiccated, pulverized greens, fruits and vegetables.
	They contain the antioxidants that everybody needs to be healthy.
	Most people don't know you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	Most people don't have that.
	And they don't know that that's not good for you.
	And what they do instead, they don't eat their fruits and veggies.
	They eat crap.
	Burger King boycott it.
	We'll talk about it tonight.
	They eat crap.
	They don't eat their fruits and veggies.
	They don't get antioxidants.
	They don't get fibers.
	They don't get nutrients.
	And then they feel like crap.
	Then they go to a doctor and the doctor prescribes them some sort of antidepressant because they're in bad shape.
	They're eating bad stuff.
	They're not sleeping enough.
	And instead of just fixing the habits that are making them unhealthy, they go for another unhealthy habit to resolve the habits that they have.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	One spoonful twice a day is one serving of fruits and vegetables.
	Twice a day means you get two twice a day.
	It's USDA approved.
	It's a food.
	It's made in America.
	It's good.
	It tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water.
	But that's because swamp water is rich in the nutrients of life.
	So if you go to fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, you'll get 15% off your first order, I believe.
	I ran a 5K race this morning.
	And I ran it four seconds better than I ran it last year.
	So at least I know I'm not getting tired.
	I'm not getting more out of shape the older I get.
	Probiotics too.
	Thank you.
	Yes, probiotics as well because you got to get the good stuff in your gut.
	18-18.
	That's l 'chaim if you ask certain people.
	And also if you ask certain people, that's a hate symbol right there if you ask the ADL.
	Oh, so I ran a 5K race very early on in the morning.
	I did it in 21 minutes and 53 seconds.
	So four seconds better than last year.
	Then I went surfing.
	Do I want to show the boo-boo?
	Eh, look at that.
	I got a boo-boo.
	I got two boo-boos.
	I can actually surf now.
	The waves are small, but I can actually ride the waves in.
	Okay, I feel like I'm forgetting something.
	Oh, I see Robert's in the back.
	Let me just get, I'll do a few of these.
	Superchats, thank you very much.
	YouTube takes 30% of all of those.
	If you want to support the channel, Rumble has the equivalent called Rumble Rants.
	And the best way to support the channel is vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But the second best way to support the channel...
	Hold on.
	The second best way, and I'm going to go here because we've got to show it.
	Look, we're going to come up with a new merch design sooner than later because the last one was just amazingly good.
	Hold on.
	The second best way?
	That's right, people.
	I got two of them.
	What's my problem?
	This one is here, and then this one.
	Wanted for President.
	I will be drinking a little bit of Freedom whiskey out of my Wanted for President shot glasses in my Wanted for President mug.
	You've got your mugshot shot glasses, your mugshot coffee mug, and I'm drinking what I hope will be the future.
	Freedom.
	But I'm not optimistic.
	Okay, so that's it.
	Those are all the things here, and let's just get these out of the way.
	I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see how Biden can stay coherent long enough to run again.
	Somehow the Dems have to drop him.
	That's the plan.
	It's in the works already.
	That was from Cheryl Gage.
	I'm not your buddy guy says, of course socialists support national socialists.
	Pasha Moyer says, the one time I don't check just proves it's waiting.
	Waiting for you to mess up.
	I was distracted today.
	We are being governed by the worst possible people, and there was an election.
	And there was an election tomorrow.
	Trudeau would be voted in again.
	That is what A24964105 says.
	Catherine Steffi captioned on the YouTube, on the videos on YouTube, now and only Zelensky gets three standing ovations.
	Nothing about the Yazis.
	First they pave the way with our money, then our weapons, and finally it's with the blood of Canadian sons and daughters.
	F all 338 of these war pigs.
	I go with war whore, Chet.
	War whores.
	But war pigs is almost even worse.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Let's get this show on the road.
	Robert, adding to stage.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, can you believe...
	I'm not even going to ask you.
	Can you believe what the hell is going on in the world?
	Yeah, I mean, there's a long relationship between the Western intelligence...
	Sources in Pentagon, military, industrial complex, and the Nazi regime, particularly as it concerns Ukraine.
	But it's still quite extraordinary that you have the Canadian prime minister and all the Canadian politicians gathering to publicly cheer at Zelensky's request a member of one of the most infamous SS Nazi units in world history.
	that was so vicious and vile.
	Even the Nazis thought they went too far.
	It's really, and the media hiding.
	The same media that was obsessed in Canada Robert, I'm like, it's so mind-blowing that I After I tweeted out, I'm like, I was nervous that I made a mistake.
	Did I misunderstand what SS was?
	I mean, I googled all of it.
	It was in the mail.
	The Schutzstaffel was a major paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Nazi Germany and later throughout German-occupied Europe during World War II.
	It began as a small guard unit known as the Saalschultz made up of party volunteers to provide security for party meetings in Munich.
	Like, I thought I was misunderstanding something.
	Like, maybe he's not.
	Exactly what he is or was exactly what he is.
	And like, I'm just waiting for someone to say, well, that was a long time ago, you know, and he needed to fight the Soviets because now they're the enemy.
	But then when he fought them, he was fighting our allies at the time.
	They don't understand anything.
	Now, do you think it's worse or better than he was a volunteer?
	How brutal that regime was.
	I mean, not only was there, it was just dehumanizing.
	It was not only just rape, sexual assault, but the way in which they killed children and women was unbelievable.
	Like I said, Hardcore Nazis were shocked by how nuts the Western Ukrainians were.
	And, I mean, people forget, during World War II, the leading Ukrainian nationalist organization publications were actually banned in the United States and Canada because of how pro-Nazi they were.
	I mean, this goes way back.
	And this is who we've been aligned with all along.
	Zelensky knew exactly what he was doing by having the Canadians and everybody cheer him.
	It's to glorify and glamorize their Nazi past.
	I mean, they're now making postage stamps in Ukraine of Bandera.
	And so it's just, you know, the war whores like that fraud grifter Sebastian Gorka.
	He needs to start issuing apologies for this kind of nonsense.
	But he won't because he and his wife are usually busy pipping themselves out for what cash they can make in D.C. while pretending to be true Trump supporters.
	Anybody who is pro-Ukraine should be embarrassed and humiliated by now.
	Not only at the utter debacle that is the military effort, not only the utter waste of money, but they went into bed with the nastiest, one of the most vicious, ugly regimes in the history of the world.
	Robert, do we forgive him or is he even guiltier for being a volunteer?
	Part of me says, okay, he was a volunteer.
	They were all volunteers.
	I mean, that's what it was nuts about.
	These were the Ukrainian far extremist nationalists who the Poles originally locked up because they were busy committing terrorism against Poland.
	They weren't mostly anti-Russian through their history.
	They're mostly anti-Polish through their history.
	And that's why they were eager to sign up with the Nazis to get back at the Poles and to get at Jews.
	That was their primary target.
	Their primary target was never Russians or other Ukrainians.
	It was other than Jewish Ukrainians.
	It was to get at the Poles and get at the Jews.
	And, you know, that's who they are.
	And that's who they've been celebrating now in Ukraine for ever since the color revolution, that other fake revolution in 2004.
	Maidan Coup, of course, repeated that, you know, recreated it.
	But it goes further back.
	See, go back, you know, Research Operation Gladio.
	I got a whole hush-hush at it.
	On vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I have a hush-hush on the Ukrainian history of how we recruited ex-neo-Nazis.
	Didn't even call themselves Ukrainian, by the way.
	When they first came over to the U.S., they called themselves Ruthenian.
	I mean, it's weird to say, I am a borderlander.
	That's what it means in their language.
	They consider themselves the original Rus, in fact.
	But they've always been ethnic nationalists, the far western Ukrainians.
	They've always been a little nuts.
	And like I said, even the Nazis found him too insane, too vicious, too vile.
	And that's the regime this guy gladly and proudly volunteered for.
	What do we make of the fact the argument is going to be, well, they can't be that big of Nazi regime because they have a Jewish president?
	Yeah, it's like, so what?
	I mean, well, one, Zelensky's as Jewish as Barack Obama's in African-American.
	So there's a lot of asterisk by that.
	It's not exactly like he's some religiously...
	It shows how utterly irrelevant Jewish status generally is in today's political age.
	It generally means almost nothing.
	It tells you almost nothing about the person's political beliefs, cultural orientation, almost anything.
	So outside of certain contexts, it's just very, very limited.
	The, you know, sensitivity to the Holocaust, that's about the only common denominator of people of Jewish background.
	And Zelensky is ultimate proof of it.
	I mean, the guy who helped found the modern version of the Maidan groups was also a Jewish oligarch who fled to Israel when he was under corruption investigations because he wasn't playing ball with the deep.
	He thought he elected Zelensky, not the deep state.
	Found out otherwise.
	So, I mean, it's one of those most irrelevant, insignificant, inconsequential facts that could possibly exist.
	I mean, it's so ironic.
	Who's the guy that they just blew up in the plane who might not be dead?
	What was his name?
	Was it Porsche?
	No, not Porsche.
	Burgosian.
	Also Jewish.
	So, like, you got your Jewish...
	Evil people on the Russian side, and then you got your Jewish saviors on the Ukrainian side.
	And this is funny.
	I'm going to bring this up before we get into the subject.
	Ian says, sounds like to me Nuremberg missed a war criminal.
	Wonder what Israel would do with an SS officer.
	You make the joke.
	People are hiding the Canadian history on this.
	Canada was arguably as bad, if not worse, on a per-capital basis than the U.S. at bringing in Nazis.
	Especially Ukrainian Nazis.
	The Canadian love, Canada love those.
	I mean, what's her name?
	Wasn't your grandfather?
	Yeah, Christian Nuland.
	Not Christian Nuland, Christian Freeland.
	Freeland, a current leader in Canada comes from Nazi stock!
	I mean, it's, you know, not a surprise.
	And also, to this I would say, you know, the Nuremberg, they missed a lot of war criminals because a lot of them were brought in with Operation Paperclip into the States because they were vying for the war criminals.
	And throughout the West, throughout, I mean, they were placed.
	Stepan Bandera was protected by West Germany and the United States.
	And he was the founder of the Ukrainian Nationalists that they all celebrate.
	And if you look at his version of Ukrainian nationalism, it's ethno-nationalism.
	It's very manifestly ethno-nationalism.
	So it's pure, I mean, it's true Nazi ideology.
	And it goes way, way back.
	And they've been trying to hide it for as long as they possibly can in the press.
	But the Canadian Parliament, you know, got tricked into cheerleading it because this is what happens when you're just blindly obedient to the deep state, like so many American politicians and Western politicians are.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So we got the Trump gag order, or the attempt at a Trump gag order.
	The Menendez, Senator Menendez, indicted again.
	People forget he was indicted before.
	The Biden impeachment efforts.
	Carrie Lake, signature case.
	The preacher, a preacher's and public First Amendment rights.
	Social media censorship at the university level in their sophisticated manners.
	Twitter versus Rumble.
	College football player class action, phone seizure, speech in schools about a poem concerning Chauvin, illegal search lawsuit, illegal seizure lawsuits, mail ballots in New York lawsuit, military race-based discrimination, and cheerleaders being pimped out at Northwestern University.
	Holy cows.
	Okay, so let's do one here because we went for a little longer with the intro.
	Which one do we start with?
	Do we do the Trump gag order?
	I think we'll probably do that maybe.
	It and the Carrie Lake case were the two most popular, so we'll probably do it like third and fourth.
	Okay.
	All since we're on YouTube.
	And maybe start off with the Menendez indictment.
	Okay, so this is interesting.
	I have to catch up on all of this because I had never heard of the Menendez, the senator.
	I heard of the Menendez brothers.
	So he has been indicted a second time.
	People don't know this.
	He was indicted the first time and he got off on a hung jury.
	He was indicted the previous time for, I think, similar bribery, similar charges.
	He's been infamous for a while.
	That is when he's not busy chasing underage hookers in the Dominican Republic.
	So this is why, Robert, I feel bad because I'm suspicious of the charges, but then I read the charges of the indictment and I read his history.
	The dude's got a history.
	Hung jury on the previous charges and then goes right back, allegedly, to the crimes.
	Of course.
	Bribery, pressuring public officials, whatever.
	What's the point of being the senator, the head of Foreign Relations Committee, if you can't have, you know, a couple hundred grand worth of gold and cash getting in the closet?
	Three kilograms of gold bars.
	Three individual one kilogram gold bars.
	Suspicious.
	The idiot kept him in his house.
	He had a half a million dollars in cash, which he apparently had stuffed into pockets.
	Also kept in his house.
	He remembered the always in cash part, but he forgot the never in writing part.
	Because apparently he would text his wife back and forth, oh yeah, I got this one, cashed in this one, gave a sweetheart gig to the Egyptians on this one, they're going to give me some money on this.
	This man was made head of the Foreign Relations Committee.
	Think about that.
	So one of the other charges is he was leaking secret information, or I don't know if it was classified.
	Of course he was.
	He was Joe Biden, less sophisticated.
	Now, Robert, so he gets indicted, and then you have George Takei, Adam Schiff coming out and saying, no one's above the law, but he should resign given the seriousness of his charges, yada yada.
	And then I start getting suspicious.
	Maybe they just want to take out- That's because Schiff wants to be elected.
	He's planning on getting elected in California, and he wants to be made head of Foreign Relations Committee, like he was in the House, because he's the deep state's favorite chill.
	Okay, well, there goes my theory.
	My theory was get rid of the mid-tiered guys to say, look, we're being partisan.
	We're being nonpartisan and objective.
	And now let's go after Trump and let's go after Clarence Thomas.
	Because you had George Takei say, yeah, this corruption is bad.
	What's the word?
	Bribery is bad.
	So is Clarence Thomas.
	So let's get out Menendez in New Jersey.
	It'll be replaced by another Democrat, presumably, so that we can then use it as a pretext to go after Thomas.
	If he gets any Democrats on the jury, he'll get the same hung jury he got last time.
	They had him dead to rights before.
	I mean, the background with Menendez is that he's been so brazen and blunt with his corruption, and he ran afoul of some U.S. prosecutors in New Jersey who were enraged that he got off the first time.
	And so they went digging in for the second time, and it wasn't hard because the man's bold and blatant about it.
	But he assumes he'll get another mistrial because all he's got to do is get some diehard Democrats like he did last time on the jury pool in New Jersey, a very Democratic state.
	Notice where they indicted him.
	They indicted him in New Jersey.
	They could have considered her D.C. Right?
	They're looking at Democratic jurisdictions.
	They could have indicted him in many places.
	They're avoiding the conservative ones.
	They're making sure he can stack that jury with his own people.
	They can say they tried hard, and then he can get a mistrial and stay in the Senate, like he did last time.
	I mean, that's the likely path.
	They had just as bad of evidence last time, and it didn't matter.
	Now, not I defer, but I trust your assessment.
	This is a bona fide legitimate indictment.
	Oh, he's been a criminal forever.
	Everybody's known he's been a criminal.
	So, you know, people have different thoughts about why the Justice Department higher up greenlit it, but it's like, I would say, go back to the first time they greenlit it.
	I mean, once they greenlit the first one, that opened the door to the second one, especially because they got embarrassed at the verdict that didn't make sense given the facts they presented.
	So, now here they have some more glaring evidence because he was so blatant with the cash and gold in his house.
	And they have text with him saying certain things that are at least incriminatory by implication.
	But as a whole, this is par for the course in the United States Senate.
	The only difference is he's so bold and blatant and brazen about it.
	He's so in your face about it.
	You know, he doesn't do it through his son and sister and brother like Joe Biden does.
	He doesn't do it through book deals and board seats like Barack Obama does.
	He doesn't do it through a global foundation like Bill and Hillary Clinton do.
	He just says, give me the money!
	Bring it in cash!
	Bring it in gold!
	Hey, honey, we got it!
	We cashed in!
	That's what offended them.
	It wasn't that he was corrupt.
	It's that he wasn't proper.
	Proper in his manners about his corruption.
	What the hell do you do with a one kilogram gold bar?
	Do you shave off pieces so that you can go cash those?
	Where do you even cash in a one kilogram gold bar?
	Well, if you're under investigation, you know the feds want you.
	You don't keep it in your house.
	That's one thing.
	But that's who he was.
	He was that way.
	And because he got reelected after New Jersey found all that corruption about him.
	That's New Jersey Democrats for you.
	They're like, woo!
	And it's the whole nature of the animal.
	And everything they accuse Trump of is what all of D.C. is collectively guilty of.
	The only question is the degree of sophistication.
	He's the only guy that's innocent of it in that town.
	I mean, how do all these congressmen and senators go from being worth $100,000 to $100 million like Nancy Pelosi?
	I mean, when all they've been doing is in public office.
	Robert, good investment.
	She's the Warren Buffett of D.C. Exactly, the most magical one.
	How about Mitch McConnell?
	How did he and his wife make all that money?
	How did he go from being just middle of the road to fabulously, fantastically rich?
	These people make the robber barons of the late 19th century look like amateurs.
	And we have the beacon of that corruption in the White House currently, and President Biden.
	So it's not a surprise.
	I don't expect much to come of it, unfortunately.
	I expect he'll dodge the bullet politically, legally, and otherwise, because that's what happened last time.
	There's just no reason to believe it's going to be any different, unfortunately.
	I'll just say the gold bars.
	I mean, it's too big to hide up your butt.
	I don't know what you possibly do with that.
	All right, let's do it.
	We're going to go over to Rumble.
	Exclusively now, get off this.
	This platform.
	Everyone, come over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	I just sent it again, but let me do it one more time before we go.
	It's Rumble time because we're going to talk about Twitter versus Rumble in a social media spat later on.
	Okay, ending in 3, 2, 1. Oh, I should have brought this one up before I did that.
	Hold on.
	Viva!
	It looks like Francois protested in Quebec City.
	I'll just read this.
	It looks like the Francois protests in Quebec City took steam.
	First they laughed.
	There weren't many people.
	Now they're probably considering invoking the emergency measures.
	I don't know if that's a joke.
	I seriously doubt he'll resign.
	He didn't resign last time.
	His behavior is the sign of someone that's so arrogant, he does it in your face even when he knows they're investigating.
	So he's still texting, still doing it, and keeping the cash and gold in his own house.
	He won't resign.
	He figures he'll just dodge another bullet.
	This is par for the course for a Democrat in today's day and age and for today's senators.
	And he's just more blatant and kind of, he's an honest crook in that sense.
	You know, his criminality isn't hidden.
	All right.
	Now, so, okay, so that's, and you were talking about Menendez, not Trudeau, who's not going to resign.
	What do we go to now, Robert?
	You know, speaking of the pattern of criminality, I know that Dershowitz doesn't yet see an impeachable offense by Biden.
	And I understand his claim, there's partial credibility to his claim.
	In my view, it's the same as it was for Trump's impeachment, the same as it was for Clinton's impeachment.
	There needs to be a crime while he was in office, number one.
	And number two, it needs to be a crime that cannot be fixed by an election.
	And to me, there is such evidence, and it's Ukraine.
	That our policy in Ukraine is a crime in a wide range of levels that endangers global peace and security, and thus we can't wait for an election as a sole whole means of fixing it.
	And it reflects the cover-up of prior crimes, but it isn't because he committed prior crimes that he should be impeached.
	It's because he's committing a current crime.
	In abusing his power of office to cover up criminal behavior by engaging in a lawless war overseas, including the Nord Stream stuff, including the illicit activities over there, including that he's paying off the bribes that he was made over many, many years.
	All of those components.
	That's what makes it an impeachable offense.
	Dershowitz's expressed concern that some of the bases being currently listed are not impeachable is fair enough.
	Of course, Democrats let that chip sail when they said you could impeach anybody on anything with Trump.
	So they've waived all their defenses.
	It's purely political, Robert.
	The other high crimes was political.
	We don't like you.
	Yeah, exactly.
	On those grounds, they open a door they can't close.
	But for those of us concerned with the Constitution, it should be based on...
	Current criminality while in the White House, which includes all of the criminal misuse and abuse of the Justice Department's power to go after his adversaries and immunize himself and connect it up in the reason why it's imminent and requires imminent action.
	It's because of the dangers of the Ukrainian war and its interconnection to this corruption.
	It'd be one thing if there was no illegal activities concerning the Ukrainian war.
	Clearly, the Nord Stream bombing is an act of international terrorism by the president that was not authorized by any law and violated our own criminal laws in a wide range of contexts.
	But it uniquely endangers the world.
	I mean, we're sending more and more aid and escalating the aid there as the Ukrainian counteroffensive continues to flop and fail.
	And that risks and endangers the entire globe if he's allowed to continue.
	And the Senate's never going to convict, but the House should go forward with impeachment on those grounds.
	I was going to ask you a question about that.
	Have they just stopped looking into the culprits of the Nord Stream pipeline, like not important enough anymore?
	Well, they know who it is, so that's why.
	So instead, the CIA floated, blame the Ukrainians.
	That was their approach.
	And as Seymour Hersh and others pointed out, that's not a credible claim.
	The second question is, do we have an idea as to the updated figures on Ukrainian casualties?
	I read somewhere a half a million, which I don't think is all casualties, including dead.
	But do we know how many dead, how many injured?
	I believe they've confirmed over 300,000 Ukrainian obituaries.
	And the usual ratio is at least twice as many casualties severely injured as dead.
	So that would suggest close to a million Ukrainian casualties, including the severely injured, which corresponds with the numbers that McGregor says he has.
	300,000 Ukrainian obituaries.
	Yeah.
	And that a majority of them were their trained soldiers.
	It means increasingly they just have...
	Nobody left to fight.
	Yeah.
	They have old men and young kids just being sent into, just to get blazed down.
	Because they've walked into the Russian trap all summer of sending in wave after wave after wave to just get obliterated.
	And that's why they're getting more and more desperate.
	That's why Zelensky's making his...
	You know, his little tour of the West.
	You know, credit to Senator J.D. Vance, who exposed all the issues concerning that, you know, wacky Tranny, who was, you know, from the United States acting as spokesperson, you know, his exposure.
	I mean, they put Jack Posobiec on the hit list, for crying out loud.
	So it just continues to deteriorate.
	And that's and it's not a coincidence that's that Biden is neck deep in corruption concerning the same country that we're currently illicitly supporting and committing international crimes, not just American crimes, to propagate and promote at the expense and expense.
	The question is whether the Republicans in the House have the courage, most of whom are still whoring for the war like Sebastian Gorka is, no matter what happens, to have the courage to make that the centerpiece.
	This is the same Republicans that took a notoriously...
	And that's why the Republicans...
	Couldn't do anything.
	I mean, the Bush family political corruption has been hovering over any meaningful independent inquiry and fair policy now in all of these contexts, including as Ken Paxton disclosed, and Tucker Carlson, that's what was behind the impeachment efforts.
	While it concerned Big Tech and Big Pharma not wanting him to investigate them, but part of it was the Bush family power regime in Texas.
	Corruptly controlling large parts of the Texas government and trying to illicitly exclude him from his lawfully elected position of power.
	And including trying to prevent by their control of so many of the Texas judges on the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
	Meaningful investigation into election fraud, which they are failing to do on a continuous basis in Texas because of the corruption of the state, because of the Karl Rove Bush regime.
	I mean, Karl Rove is a guy who's neck deep in pipping out young boys to select donors.
	I mean, he's known about it.
	He was complicit with it with the Lincoln Project.
	This is who these people are.
	I mean, they're bottom of the barrel ethically and morally, and they compromise not only public policy, but meaningful investigation.
	So what Biden should be investigated for, for impeachment purposes, he probably won't be.
	And then Dershowitz will have a fair argument that the actual charges against him don't constitutionally add up.
	And that will be because Republicans are as corrupt as the Biden administration on key issues of foreign policy and deep state corruption.
	Last question on this.
	300,000 obituaries of the military-aged men.
	Now they're using old people and young kids.
	Some people are concerned that after asking for hundreds of billions of dollars, they're going to ask for our children and our youth.
	There's always some risk of that, but I think politically that would be a stopper.
	The poll out today by the Washington Post and ABC gave Trump a 10-point national lead.
	That tells you why they're wanting to accelerate his criminal charge in D.C. That's why they're desperate to get some kind of conviction.
	That's why they were eager for some other Republican to step up.
	And that'll probably be a good bridge into the Trump gag order.
	But also, into our scheduling this week, you and maybe I will be out for that second-place contest known as the Republican debate hosted by Rumble.
	Out in LA later this week.
	Yep.
	I got my ticket.
	I'm going.
	And as much as I hate travel and it gives me serious travel anxiety, one cannot not answer the phone when this call comes in and says, yeah, do you want to come down to California for the second hour?
	Yes, and thank you.
	And my goodness, I think...
	Me and the Rumble, well, us and the Rumble team will have what to discuss given the recent events.
	But hold on, so this was the segue into the gag order.
	Yeah, it could be either the Trump gag order, or before we get to the Trump gag order, it is a good discussion of the Rumble between Twitter and Rumble this week, or X and Rumble as it's called.
	For those of you who are not on the Twitterverse in our locals community, if you're not there, there was drama where, well, first of all, The week of the character, economic, financial, political assassination of Russell Brand came to a head where he finally put out an update video.
	It was Friday.
	I think it was Friday.
	Maybe I'm projecting, but I still see the look of terror in his eyes.
	The guy looks like he's on the verge.
	But I don't know who wouldn't be facing this type of machine, given what he's also done in his past.
	He might know how people can manipulate what he's done, but he comes out, puts out a video, says, you know what's going on.
	I'm also under attack by the British government, which is trying to pass a law, like some online security internet thing.
	So how very convenient that some of the state media goes out and finds four girls that are going to say 15 years ago he did bad things to me, although he had never been criminally charged even back then.
	He puts out a video and says, follow me on Rumble.
	It's the, I don't think he said the only place, but he said it is the free speech platform.
	Now, Elon Musk, who...
	It's becoming somewhat apparent.
	I mean, he does good work.
	He's an amazing person.
	He's an amazing mind, but he might have thin skin to some extent.
	He might want to be at the center of attention in a sense.
	He might also not want to feel like he's getting poached from by what he considers to be a smaller platform of rumble.
	He might have taken it a little personally that Brand made that video.
	Not appreciating that Brand...
	Brand is with Rumble.
	He's been with Rumble for a while.
	He put out a tweet saying it's disappointing that Russell, what was the wording?
	Not ignored, but didn't mention Twitter.
	Something along those lines.
	Didn't mention X when X is just as committed to free speech as Rumble.
	That's the part that sticks with you, Robert, and I know why.
	X is just as committed to free speech.
	I'm like, Elon, we're not stupid.
	You know the argument that everyone's going to raise to that.
	You still have Owen Schroer and Alex Jones banned from the platform for off-conduct, off-platform conduct.
	You are much better than YouTube, but you're guilty of it, at the very least, with these two people, and they haven't been all that good with doctors.
	So Elon faced a bit of an evening torrent of backlash from everybody.
	You're good, but Rumble's the best.
	At least that was my take.
	What's your take on it?
	What's Elon up to?
	And is he jealous?
	Well, I mean, the core first problem for Elon is the classic example is the Owen Troyer case.
	So, you know, I represent and my colleague Lexus Anderson represents Owen Troyer.
	Owen Troyer has had his Twitter account removed.
	Even though he's requested reinstatement, they've refused to grant it.
	He was never told any basis upon which his account was removed in the first place.
	He's not been told any basis for why his account has not yet been reinstated.
	In the interim, a fake Owen Schroyer, at Owen Schroyers, that uses his image, his name, pretends to be him, has been verified by Twitter, by X. Despite it being known to X for some time, that the guy's a fake.
	And there are people who interact with him believing it's actually Owen Troyer.
	There's people who send personal information to him believing he's actually Owen Troyer.
	There's people who believe his statements are in the name of Owen Troyer and have negative views about him because the guy will submit like porn and make outrageous statements and offensive statements and all that kind of thing.
	So it's a classic defamation, false invasion of privacy, false light claims, etc.
	And yet, despite legal letters, Twitter has done nothing about it, has refused to remove his account, remove his verification, even though Twitter said their official policy was they would not allow parody accounts that did not self-identify in clear terms as parody accounts, because that's identity theft.
	And remember, I mean, you know, Musk is out there saying, pay me eight bucks a month for this.
	Pay me two bucks a month for this.
	Well, what are people paying for?
	And as he claims to be doing things, he's not actually delivered on.
	So that's problem one.
	And of course, the screaming case is the case of Alex Jones.
	You know, who's on Rumble?
	Who's not on Twitter?
	Big example, Alex Jones.
	Alex Jones is all an Owen Schroyer, easily on Rumble, not anywhere to be found on Twitter.
	While being subject to false light, invasion of privacy, and constant defamation claims, using the tool of Twitter to do it.
	So that's Elon Musk's first big problem.
	Correlated to, I mean, is George Gammon.
	George Gammon had his Twitter account repeatedly hacked and stolen by people who are not him and who block communication to him, who pretend to be his account that previously was his account.
	Twitter refuses to fix it.
	Despite they keep telling him, oh, there's nothing wrong.
	He's like, what do you mean there's nothing wrong?
	This person is stealing contact information, other pieces of information to his economic harm.
	So it's clear Musk is failing on that side of the aisle as well.
	Then you have the constant complaint.
	Jay Bacharya, a bunch of the defeat, the mandates, all the people in the public health space.
	Have been complaining now for quite some time that Musk is clearly suppressing their speech, or at least X is.
	And he again chose a CEO that came from corporate media America who went out and said, we're going to suppress reach.
	Well, free speech in the cancel culture context includes the right to reach.
	Indeed, it's the right of the audience to hear.
	That's what they're suppressing and censoring.
	So when he says, we're just as committed to free speech as Rumble, that's just a lie, Elon.
	That's all that is.
	Now, maybe Elon doesn't know it's a lie.
	He should know it's a lie.
	I mean, it's kind of weird for him to complain about Russell Brand supporting Rumble when Rumble has been the number one supporter of Russell Brand.
	What was stopping Elon from weighing in on this?
	I mean, it was long earlier.
	He could have weighed in immediately.
	He could have publicly wrote the letter that Rumble sent.
	Rumble said...
	Basically buzz off to the UK Parliament when they were saying, you better take Russell Brand off the air.
	Well, where was Musk?
	Or was he worried about those advertisers whose dollars he wants to defray his expensive cost?
	You know, so if his goal was to get political currency with the conservative, with people on the right, on using the free speech banner to achieve it, and you could say the populist left.
	Maybe he needs that currency because he's probably under criminal investigation by the Biden administration.
	It's weaponizing everything against anyone they perceive as anything that isn't thoroughly, completely loyal to their regime.
	So he might have legitimate cause, but it's not a good way to get there by attacking the real ally against cancel culture in the public platformer space, which is and remains Rumble.
	Yeah, and I think he views Rumble as a competitor now that, well, he obviously does, but more so that they have ventured into long format video.
	I had my meme, Robert.
	You'll tell me if you like this.
	Hold on one second.
	Here it is.
	I said, this is Elon's real concern.
	And then I should not have included this part.
	I could have left it at Elon's real concern.
	And there you have Elon Musk with Tucker Carlson looking at Rumble.
	Because I remember when Tucker Carlson got yeeted from Fox.
	He said, I'm coming on Twitter.
	It's the free speech platform.
	We're like, yeah, Tucker, what about Rumble?
	And now maybe, I don't know, maybe I was thinking Elon might be nervous that Tucker...
	Well, as soon as Tucker's out of that contractual restrictions or that's resolved, which is likely the real reason he's only on Twitter for the time being, or primarily on Twitter.
	I mean, his stuff gets recirculated everywhere.
	He's clearly not asserting any copyright protection over these videos he's making.
	Is because Rumble is considered a potential competitor broadcaster platform to Fox in ways that Twitter is not.
	That's probably the real reason he's on Twitter.
	Musk wanted to pretend Tucker was on Twitter because Twitter was somehow the only space.
	For Tucker's expression, when in fact it was the only space that wouldn't get him easily sued by Fox for the time being, is the probable explanation.
	My guess is it's only a matter of time before Tucker does align at some level with Rumbler and have his stuff promoted on that platform.
	And it's clearly driving Musk a little nuts that the left wing...
	That he identifies with on dissident speech.
	The Russell Brands, the Glenn Green Walls, the Robert Kennedys, programs like Redacted and Kim Iverson, that all of these people are also on Rumble.
	Rumble is not limited to the right-leaning side of the populist equation, but it's one of the primary places for all of those left speakers, including exclusive...
	Audiences with Glenn Greenwald's show, with Russell Brand's show, and several others along those lines.
	So it's clear that's what, you know, it didn't bother them that Donald Trump Jr. was on Rumble so much.
	It bothered him that, it probably bothers him some that Donald Trump Sr. is either on Truth or on Rumble.
	He's not on Twitter except one tweet ever so far since his so-called reinstatement by Musk.
	And as I said, that was unlikely to change because of how much money Trump has invested in truth.
	But I think the fact of who it came from, people he imagines he aligns with, the Joe Rogans of the world, if you will, that he's annoyed that Rumble has had success in that space in places he has not.
	But the other reality is nobody who's studied Elon Musk history could ever trust him.
	He's proven that again and again and again.
	I get the Muscovites up there love him, and I've made the arguments in his favor and made the arguments against him at vivobarneslaw.locals.com and a couple of Elon Musk kush-kushes.
	But his critics have a point.
	The ultimate conclusion I would come away with in studying Elon Musk history is he's not a man I would ever trust to do the right thing over the long haul.
	Now I think I understand why you repeat oftentimes that Tucker is not claiming copyright.
	If he's still under contract with Fox and he's allowed to do whatever he wants for free, but he can't claim copyright because that would be making money off his content.
	Now I understand it.
	The primary show is on Twitter.
	It's just a social media platform.
	Very interesting.
	Everyone in the chat on Rumble, I yeeted a couple of clear, clear spammers.
	Matt, we got a lot of spammers tonight.
	Hold on.
	Exker8, I want to give that one a second chance because that might not be a spammer.
	Probably that fake...
	I mean, we said it sent a cease and desist letter to that fake fraud who's pretending to be Owen Troyer.
	And all he does is continue to escalate his activity.
	So we'll find...
	There are ways to get his identity.
	Sooner or later, we will get his identity.
	He'll be individually sued and he'll have to write a big fat check.
	I got another one.
	I got another...
	No, they're clear.
	It's funny.
	I don't think we've had this many spam bots ever.
	So that's a good sign.
	The other thing I was going to ask, Robert, it was about Elon Musk.
	And I think...
	Oh, it was Yakarino.
	And then speech not reach for the advertisers.
	And he said nothing about that, by the way.
	He keeps pretending he's pro-free speech.
	But when people are like, hold on a second, what's going on here?
	I'll tell you, since she's taken over, my impressions have dramatically declined suddenly.
	So it's back to where they were under Jack Dorsey.
	So when Musk first took over...
	All of a sudden, my impressions went back to where they were before I sued Twitter.
	You know, it was just blowing up.
	I think I added like 25% new subscribers within three months.
	You know, it was just boom.
	And then all of a sudden, she takes over and everything flatlines.
	Impressions flatline, link clicks flatline.
	I mean, that's the other problem with Twitter.
	He wants to be the exclusive platform.
	So he's suppressing links.
	So if you go and try to look at where you're going to have success on a social media platform referring people to another platform, he suppresses it.
	It's clear that the ex is doing that deliberately.
	Here's the problem.
	He wants exclusive control over everybody.
	He wants control over your content.
	He wants control over your identity.
	He wants control over your money.
	He's already made this clear, what he really wants Twitter to be.
	He wants it to be what the Chinese are doing.
	With its comparable WeChat and other programs, which could incorporate a social credit score.
	Why do you think he's applying for payment processing?
	I mean, so this is all of...
	And he's been trying to buy off and bribe certain people he can buy off and bribe because whoever's...
	Like, it's interesting who's getting paid by Twitter and who isn't.
	You know, it's your Ian Shongs of the world.
	You know, it's the kind of people who have a history who have Grifter tattooed on their forehead.
	And not in a complimentary way.
	So, you know, whereas other people who are actually producing lots of content, somehow they're not getting any financial support.
	I've never talked about...
	I don't care about the monetization on Twitter.
	I just noticed one time I got the big check, or the first one, which I guess was for several months, and it's been halved every period.
	They never wrote me one.
	It was like, no, no, thank you.
	And not just that, Robert.
	I made a joke like...
	I notice a massive amount of...
	I don't care about followers on Twitter.
	I just notice when the number goes down, and I'm curious as to why.
	Friday night, when I put out a couple of tweets critical of Elon, down 2,000, and I don't care.
	But it is interesting as to whether or not there is some of the...
	He's filled with bots.
	He hasn't fixed it.
	Remember he came in saying he was going to fix the bot problem?
	It's got worse on Twitter.
	It hasn't got better.
	Still harangued by all the lunatics and the nuts.
	And then the other thing is he's got fake views.
	He's got to quit doing the fake views.
	That's a problem.
	For those that don't know, what they did is they have changed.
	It used to be you had impressions and then views.
	Impressions is you're just scrolling through your phone and it's one of the things in your feed.
	You don't know whether you really read it or review it or anything.
	That's not a view.
	A view is click on it and you watch it.
	At least some portion of it.
	Well, he realized he could inflate His views by getting rid of views as a separate stat and just calling all impressions the same as views.
	That's why you'll see something like, Tucker has 225 million people watch something.
	You have to figure out what that actually translates into views.
	It's usually less than 10% and on average 5% is exactly how many views.
	Now that's still good views for Tucker, but it's nowhere near what he's pretending it is.
	And then people who use Twitter to get referrals find it to be the least likely to link click because he's suppressing it because he doesn't want any competitors.
	And why doesn't he want any competitors, right?
	I mean, why not see Rumble as a place where there could be a convergence of energy?
	It's because he wants a monopoly on your data and information so that he can utilize it for his own maximum economic and political purposes.
	That's who Elon Musk is.
	Peter Thiel at least admits it about himself.
	Peter Thiel says, look, when people are like, why isn't Peter Thiel backing a competitor?
	It's like, I'll tell you why.
	He said so.
	He said he's only interested in monopolies.
	He said that's what the great advantage of big tech is.
	It enhances monopolies.
	And so he's not interested in things that would go against the monopoly model.
	So the same is true of Musk.
	That's always been Musk's dynamic.
	And so is he creative?
	Yes.
	Is he independent?
	Yes.
	Is he funny?
	Yes.
	Is he a brilliant marketer?
	Yes.
	Is he trustworthy?
	Hell no!
	Robert, I'm looking at there.
	They are spam bots coming in one after the other.
	Trump's smelly taint.
	Carrie Lake's smelly thing.
	I'm going to eat them as fast as I can see them.
	Bad Elon.
	Bad Elon.
	It's good.
	It means things are going on here on Rumble at least.
	Let me bring this over here.
	Let's do this real quick before we get to the...
	There you go.
	This guy right here.
	Donald is mushroom cock.
	Like, it just comes in.
	Like, boom.
	Let's go here.
	Yeet this right away forever.
	I'll just go as quickly as I can here.
	Entry required.
	Think of how many deportation courts and deportation centers we could have built with all the laundered foreign aid money.
	Now, they don't want that because they want to double the Canadian population through immigration and then call the Great Replacement Theory a racist conspiracy theory.
	My real name.
	Russia equals enemy.
	Enemy equals country that controls its own resources.
	Kappa Sooth says they are just trying to get Biden past the primary season.
	After rigging the last two, they can just skip it this time.
	Asin says, if I utter get yourself a dose of the Canadian healthcare treatment, what would be the imminent threat or am I?
	I see what you're saying there.
	Maids.
	Will it get protected under the First Amendment?
	I wouldn't rely on Canada's First Amendment rights, people.
	Tatone says, Joe Biden's stated reason for running for president was the very fine people hoax.
	Now he's sent hundreds of billions of dollars to actual neo-Nazis.
	Trump should campaign on that hard.
	Finboy Slick says, Honorable Justice Jules DeShane concluded in 1986 that membership in the first Galician was just fine.
	They were the good Yassi's.
	Finboy Slick says, prior to the conflict, second largest Ukrainian population in the world was Canada.
	German SS went to Argentina.
	Ukrainian SS went to Canada.
	I think we even have a state of bandera.
	And this is how...
	I know I'm getting old.
	I can't read this font.
	Saffronia is now a monthly supporter.
	Welcome to the channel, Saffronia.
	Farnicator says he wasn't a spammer, he was a Monty Python fan.
	We got, I'm purely using Twitter to gain knowledge and document history.
	That's what I use it for.
	It looks crazy, the amount that I tweet, but I need it as a diary.
	Because in 10 years' time, that will be the diary of what happened in real time.
	And then you got Rockahora Barnes.
	Are you sure the right to hear is a core aspect of the First Amendment?
	Because the Solicitor General in Missouri v.
	Biden said it's clearly an untested and novel legal theory that doesn't meet the standard on merits.
	Yeah, that's been established many, many times over and over again.
	Thank you all for those rumblings.
	There's nothing novel about that.
	The right to hear.
	The Supreme Court has explicitly said that repeatedly.
	I'm just going to show everyone here.
	Freedom whiskey out of the wanted for president.
	That's how people can sue whose right to speak wasn't violated.
	They said you have a First Amendment right to sue if you didn't get to hear.
	What?
	Certain things.
	This applies also in the ballot context, so that's how I know about it, because it's the right to have people hear someone in the circulating petition context that's as constitutionally consequential as is the right to speak in the gathering of petitions in the first place.
	Well, speaking of speaking and hearing and not hearing or being gagged, Robert.
	Julie underscore Kelly 2 on Twitter circulated.
	It was either the order or the proposed order.
	It was just the proposed order.
	The judge hasn't ruled on it yet.
	Okay, good.
	I'm going crazy.
	Jack Smith submits a proposed order.
	So it says order on it, but it hasn't been stamped.
	And that's what Jack Smith wants by way of gag order on Trump.
	Everything, Robert.
	Anything that can directly or indirectly reach or intimidate witnesses or prospective witnesses.
	Like, I don't want to say that I think I'm happier now with what I said about why Trump couldn't participate in the debates.
	If he calls Pence a traitor in the debate, is that intimidating a witness or a potential witness?
	But I think now it makes a lot more sense.
	I mean, I don't know.
	What do you think?
	What's going to happen?
	So for those who don't know, Smith is asking for a narrowly tailored gag order against Donald Trump.
	And there's a joke in here that would involve, you know, pornographic references of narrowly tailored gag orders.
	I'm not going to do it, but I'm thinking it.
	This is about as narrowly tailored as dot dot dot fill in the blank.
	Robert, I mean, what are the chances that this draft gag order gets approved as is?
	What is the judge doing?
	How long is it going to take the judge?
	And this is Judge Chutney, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	The same judge who has a motion to recuse her right in front of her.
	So it's a couple of things are interesting.
	One is.
	He did not bring this motion before the judge in Florida.
	So neither state prosecutor has tried to bring this in Georgia or New York.
	And that should tell you something.
	It tells you that everyone agrees, the deep state apparatus, the Biden machinery, the Democratic Party, the Justice Department, Special Counsel Smith, the other prosecutors involved in these cases, all recognize that they have a biased, bigoted, prejudiced A judge who has prejudged the case in the DC case.
	They have a judge in their pocket by their own behavior.
	Now, good tactical advice out there.
	If you think you have a judge that really is aligned with your cause, sees the case through your perspective, do not make the mistake of having them go too far.
	Because by doing so, you jeopardize your case on appeal, you jeopardize other aspects of your case.
	Once a judge figures out, oh, I can't trust you to lead me to the right place, even if I want to see your side victorious, or I think your side should be on the law and the facts victorious, you need to help guide me to get there.
	And if you don't, I won't trust you and won't give you what you need when you need it.
	And so it's a mistake, tactically, in my view, but it shows their desperation that that double-digit Trump lead in the ABC-Washington Post poll published today reflects.
	They're like, okay, the indictments didn't work, and maybe even a conviction won't work, and so please, Judge, weaponize your judicial power to prevent Trump from speaking about, as Jilly Kelly pointed, nothing about this is narrowly tailored.
	It is in fact meant to prevent Trump, Trump's lawyers, Trump's campaign, Trump affiliates, Trump associates, from saying anything that could possibly relate to the primary issue in the campaign, which is the criminal prosecution against him and everything concerning the election.
	So it is the most egregiously sought gag order of any high-profile case in recent memory.
	And for those that don't know, gag orders are almost always found to be unconstitutional.
	People wonder, how do they exist?
	They exist because defense lawyers don't fight them.
	They exist because in some cases, like as Ken Paxson explained, he was under a gag order.
	He said, well, the people who put me under the gag order were the Texas state senators that I needed for acquittal.
	So obviously I wasn't going to go out and be publicly critical or fight them on.
	But clearly it violates First Amendment rights and remedies.
	Lawyers go along with it.
	Your average district court judge doesn't really understand their limits until it's fought.
	I've had to litigate this in multiple contexts where judges try to either impose a gag order or punish a lawyer or litigant for something they did.
	This has been litigated.
	I had an extensive sort of mini brief on this and the Barnes brief that you can find at...
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com if you want the whole written version of it with the citations and support and source documents and quotations.
	But the short answer is this.
	In order for a court to restrain someone's speech outside of the courtroom, inside the courtroom they have a lot more control.
	Outside the courtroom they do not.
	The speech has to be so dangerous, so threatening to the ability to do justice.
	To the impartiality of the jury.
	That no other remedy suffices.
	That transfer of venue doesn't suffice.
	That probing voyeur doesn't suffice.
	That a corrective instruction doesn't suffice.
	So what kind of evidence fits that?
	To my knowledge, I in fact don't know the Supreme Court ever affirming and upholding any gag order ever.
	So that should be a sign.
	And to give you an example of the kind of things they've said are okay.
	In a case involving a lawyer who has less speech rights, by the way, some people are confused on the board.
	They're like, oh, a lot of these cases deal with lawyers.
	Lawyers have less speech rights than a litigant does because a lawyer is considered an officer of the court.
	A lot of other stuff I think is an incorrect assumption by the court system, but they have less rights.
	So whatever rights a lawyer has, a defendant always has and has more.
	But in Gentile v.
	State Bar of Nevada, Defense lawyer came out and said, just a few months, I think it was six months or less before trial, he organized a press conference, number one.
	Number two, he organized the press conference to the Las Vegas jury pool.
	I believe it was Las Vegas.
	Third, he did it months before trial.
	Fourth, he referenced things he knew were unlikely to even be admitted at trial.
	And what did he say?
	Judges corrupt.
	Prosecutors are corrupt.
	Cops are corrupt.
	My client was framed.
	I mean, all the most sensational, even things Trump hasn't alleged.
	And yet the Supreme Court of the United States said that could not violate the law, that there could be no ethics rule that allowed prior restraint of that speech or, after the fact, punishment of that speech.
	They said national security in the Pentagon Papers case.
	Couldn't justify prior restraint.
	And let's remember, that's what a gag order is.
	It's restraint on your speech prior to your speech even being made.
	Classic definition of prior restraint.
	You will find almost no injunctions, no court orders approving prior restraint that has ever been fully litigated in the last 60 years.
	So Smith is requesting a patent.
	What he knows is a patently unconstitutional gag order meant to interfere with the civil rights of ordinary Americans to corruptly impede the election of Donald Trump.
	In other words, he is doing the very crime he is accusing Trump of doing.
	And now he wants the judge to even be further compromised, further complicit.
	This granddaughter and great-niece of foreign communists, herself not born in America.
	Yet likes to preach to other people about how she understands the American Constitution while she violates their constitutional rights.
	So under these circumstances, what he's asking her to do is also patently unconstitutional.
	There is no constitutional basis to prohibit Trump's speech, period.
	The only thing they can limit is certain discovery that he would not otherwise be entitled to, that he doesn't have independent access to, him being able to publicly discuss it before it becomes public record.
	That's a very limited, that's the only permissible, permissive control on speech they've provided because it's considered private access, not public access to those materials in the first place.
	But otherwise, the courts repeatedly said your speech does not end at the courthouse door and the mere fact that your party has no impact on the court's ability to restrain your speech.
	So unless you...
	Here's your example.
	Ian, by the way, this is even approved of.
	Lawyers...
	During a jury trial, have come out and attacked a judge on things that could not be admissible to the jury, that the jury could have heard, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just a few years ago said that couldn't be gagged.
	That couldn't be punished.
	So the idea that there is no constitutional basis to impose any gag order on Trump on the scale they're talking about, that doesn't mean this corrupt judge won't do it.
	But if she does, that would be the ultimate proof of her corruption.
	And independently grounds to appeal it, and it may require and compel the Supreme Court to get involved because it's the latest open, overt, transparent effort to corruptly impair and impede and interfere with the civil rights of Americans in the 2024 election.
	What's the status of the motion to dismiss?
	Under deliberation?
	You mean the motion to disqualify?
	The motion to disqualify, sorry.
	It's under deliberation.
	How long does a judge, in theory, have to render a decision on that?
	She should decide that, of course, before she decides a gag order.
	But they can appeal both.
	At least they brought this before the gag order request was made.
	But what it shows is they're not getting the response in the court of public opinion that they thought they would.
	So that they're continuing to misuse and abuse the power of the federal judiciary and the federal executive branch.
	In order to suppress civil rights and civil liberties, just like the Menendez case represents their confession through projection.
	What they accuse Trump of is what they, Democrats, are guilty of.
	Now, another example of that here, what they accuse Trump of is what they're guilty of.
	There's no question they're attempting to rig the 2024 election because they don't think they can rig it at the ballot box in sufficient numbers to get the results they want in sufficient states.
	And the net effect of which is to the most dangerous criminal prosecution, arguably in American history.
	And the question is whether the federal judicial system will step up or will break the foundation of American constitutional law.
	I'm more inclined to think the latter than the former, Robert.
	Two updates, people, in the chat and rumble.
	First of all, Truman HW, Viva's on Adderall.
	I am not.
	I am on no mental medications.
	Except, you know, Snifter of Freedom Whiskey.
	And the second thing, Sad Wings.
	Sad Wings Raging is now a moderator on Rumble.
	I've never done it before.
	I feel naked.
	But I can't keep up with it.
	I can't keep up with the spam in that chat.
	So Sad Wings Raging.
	Congratulations.
	Use the power wisely.
	Don't make me look bad.
	Okay.
	So that's the gag order.
	Motion to disqualify still pending.
	And good point.
	She has to, in theory, issue the judgment on the motion to disqualify before.
	Issuing a gag order.
	It's crazy, Robert.
	Both of which can be appealed.
	Any order that denies him remedy.
	All of these are, there'll be confusion out there that people will see in the legal space because there'll be people who say, oh, you can't appeal that.
	What they mean is you can't, you don't have a right, an appeal as of right.
	In all criminal cases, you don't have, generally speaking, you don't have appeal as of right, which means that they have to take it.
	It's not a mandatory appeal for the Court of Appeals to take until conviction.
	However, a denial of a motion to disqualify and a denial and any imposition of a gag order are appealable in terms of discretion.
	And I hope somebody in the media intervenes.
	And files their own petition, which the D.C. court process allows to say this gag order denies them their rights as members of the press to receive information concerning a public proceeding that governs the election because their collateral issue would be appealable as a matter of right that the Court of Appeals would have to take.
	Now, just to clarify that, I think it's the same thing under Quebec law, as far as I understand.
	Of right means you don't need to ask permission, but appealable means you need to say you're asking for permission, they can grant it or deny it.
	That's exactly right.
	So it's a discretionary appeal for the defendant.
	Because there's been no conviction yet.
	But it's a mandatory appeal of them taking it if it's a third party bringing a challenge.
	Because for them, that ends the case, right?
	I'm saying, hey, I want this speech.
	I'm only here on the gag order.
	You denied it to me.
	You've imposed a gag order.
	You have a right to appeal directly.
	And again, the D.C. court process expressly permits.
	Press organizations.
	You don't have to be a formal organization.
	You can be anybody.
	You can be Julie Kelly.
	You can be anybody.
	And you can file that.
	And ordinary people that have any kind of press or journalistic rights have a means to file that.
	So that's the proper process to go through to assure and secure an appeal over this issue.
	Because this judge is so corrupt, I have no doubt that she'll issue an insane order.
	I don't think it'll be as insane as Jack Smith is trying.
	But she'll expand the gag order because that's who she is.
	If she's politically savvy, she won't.
	But I think she more hates Trump than she is politically savvy.
	I think she would rubber stamp Jack Smith's proposed order.
	If she does, then she seals her fate.
	In my view, because that's the ultimate act of bias and it dramatically increases the probability that either the D.C. Court of Appeals has to reverse it or the Supreme Court steps in.
	Oh, Robin, we are at 19,969 people watching.
	When we hit 20,000, everybody, explode the chat with a comment and also thumbs up that thing.
	Let me refresh this.
	Hit the thumbs up.
	300.
	Oh, we're at 1,300.
	Thumbs up.
	That's better now.
	Okay.
	Speaking of trying to fix elections, the person trying to unfix the elections continues to have to fight in court, and that's Carrie Lake.
	Well, you've got to tell me what's going on, because I'm not up to speed on this.
	I was too busy with Twitter rumble drama over the weekend.
	What's the latest on...
	It's the signature verification issue that's coming back up in Arizona Carrie Lake's case.
	Yes, so very intelligent suit brought by Carrie Lake that on top of her election cases, which are pending before the Arizona Court of Appeals or the Arizona Supreme Court, as the case may be, along with Abe Hamada's cases, Contesting and challenging the 2020 election.
	In addition, she brought the equivalent of an Open Records Act or Freedom of Information Act or Sunshine Law, depending on what it's called in various states, to get access to the voter registration card signatures to actually see if they match and the signatures on the ballots to see if they match.
	The Arizona said, oh, we have to keep that secret.
	That's super duper secret.
	We wouldn't want that out there because then maybe somebody could forge the signature.
	Well, how do you know that the signatures aren't already forged if you don't do a meaningful signature match check?
	Oh my goodness.
	So she has brought suit saying that she's entitled to it.
	They're asserting a statutory claim that's actually directly refuted by the statute.
	This is the one that the various data analysts, Garrett Archer and others, got confused on in Arizona.
	The Arizona law specifically makes clear that if you're contesting an election or you need it for certain journalistic purposes, that none of these records are private and secure.
	Well, your signature isn't private and secure when you file your deed.
	You know, you file title deeds and all kinds of things.
	Your signature's right there.
	So the real reason they're trying to cover this up is they don't want the world to see the signatures don't match.
	And that's what they've been trying to cover up now for several years.
	This is what Ken Paxton went into great informed detail on Tucker Carlson's show.
	He explained the importance of limiting the initial ballot process and making sure the signatures match before you ever gave somebody a ballot.
	And he explained how he brought 12 lawsuits to stop it before the 2020 election in Texas and succeeded.
	And he said that's the only reason why Texas didn't swing like everybody else did.
	Because we didn't have some of the crazy turnout patterns in Texas that showed up in Atlanta.
	Showed up in Wisconsin, showed up in Michigan, showed up in Pennsylvania, showed up in Arizona, showed up in Nevada.
	So you look at that dynamic, and that's where the key component is, and credit to Carrie Lake for continuing to march on, despite the media bashing her, despite...
	Some, you know, people like Jenna Ellis taking potshots at her.
	Jenna should be worried about her criminal case, not worried about the rest.
	But, you know, and some of these other people taking, you know, fake populist running around like that, Ryan Goderski and other people who, you know, misappropriate the label populist.
	That, you know, Carrie Lake's the real deal.
	Continues to have the courage to find every, pursue every legal remedy.
	But also unmask all the problems in our current election procedures and unmask all the problems in our current election laws so that we can have meaningful reform and remedy in the future and prevent and preclude this from reoccurring in Arizona or elsewhere in 2024.
	I know you've mentioned it before, but it would be worth repeating now.
	When it comes to the signature verification, you've got the voter roll, you've got the ballot, and you've got the envelope, correct?
	There are three different places where there's a signature?
	Well, yeah, and it varies.
	So like in Arizona, for example, they've already won in another case on that the signature that was supposed to be matched was the signature to the registration card.
	So there's multiple places where you could sign.
	You can sign your original voter registration application.
	You could sign in renewing your voter registration application.
	You could sign in requesting an absentee ballot.
	You could sign on your driver's license.
	So you could sign on other forms of identification.
	And the reason why they wanted to use the voter registration card is it's the least likely one to be able to forge.
	And it's the one you really want the comparison of.
	Arizona's been violating the law in the last two elections because they haven't been doing that.
	And the court just ruled in Arizona you have to do it.
	Which means the last two elections were not constitutionally done.
	We're fraudulent, basically, in Arizona.
	The 2020 presidential election and the 2022 gubernatorial election.
	But at least precludes it from reoccurring, hopefully, in 2024.
	In fact, these suits are brought.
	But your signature shows up in many different places in public files.
	But there's a specific protocol that's supposed to follow in Arizona.
	And they're obsessed with nobody seeing these signatures.
	Like, for example, one of the requests they could have had is they could have said, well, we agree that these litigants have a right to the signatures, but not that everybody.
	And so we ask that any...
	Signatures turned over to them only be used by them or their affiliates for the purposes of the election or for the purpose of journalistic double-checking.
	But they're not.
	They're trying to pretend this is super-duper secret intel that only the government can ever look at so they can hide from the world how many fraudulent elections have been taking place in Arizona.
	But then why not authorize it in camera with a representative from each party?
	Exactly.
	Because then their scam is up.
	That's what shows their arguments in court are in bad faith.
	Now, the judge wouldn't allow any of Carrie Lake's experts to be experts or testify.
	This judge is kind of known as a wuss.
	So, you know, I don't expect him to step up to the plate.
	They'll preserve the issue for appeal.
	It's going to ultimately be on the Arizona Supreme Court to either do the right thing or show how we have to just bring more cases on other grounds and other methods of legislative reform and the like.
	We've got to go full Ken Paxton in order to get remedy, in all likelihood.
	But the fact of how they're defending this, that they're not even saying, hey, we agree that for limited purposes, for limited parties, they can look at it.
	This tells you that they're just scared of people looking at it, and they want the court to say, carte blanche, nobody can ever look at it but us, the government.
	Wow.
	All right, Robert, hold on.
	I'm going to bring this back in so that we can just get a couple of the...
	The Hrumble France, up in Hrumble.
	Alex Davey Duke says, David in Canada, the one million person for children, march for children against this trans ideology in Canadian schools was huge.
	Like Freedom Convoy, added together with a Nazi in Parliament.
	Trudeau is done.
	Wasn't a Nazi.
	A Nazi soldier.
	Sorry, it's not even funny, but we'll laugh.
	Chang Love says, I know I'm late to the party, but the intro was so sickening.
	Absolutely.
	Ignotum, congratulations, Vivan Barnes.
	You must be gaining traction to attract this many spammers.
	Maybe Newsom's kids listening.
	And we got Chang Love.
	I feel like throwing up here this proud and sickening bullshit from the House Speaker and PM's Moes and the entire parliamentary membership, including PP, dare to stand in.
	Don't dare to stand in.
	Not in my name.
	And that's it.
	Okay.
	Okay, so we got the gag order, Robert.
	What is next on the menu?
	So we got several cases.
	So we got military race discrimination, seizing of phones under the Fourth Amendment, social media censors by universities, when does a school poem, when can it be quoted or published or not, preacher's right to preach in the public streets, male voting in New York, college football player class action, the federal unlawful seizure of hemp.
	And the cheerleader case of Northwestern.
	I remember what I was going to say to you before, Robert.
	It's not on the menu.
	But yet, how could we have forgotten?
	Project Veritas.
	I mean, are you familiar?
	You've been up to speed with what's been going on?
	Oh, their DOA?
	Their DOA.
	And then you had the guy, what's his name?
	Timmerland?
	Timmerand?
	Blaming James O 'Keefe for the demise of Project Veritas.
	Not his firing of James O 'Keefe.
	For anybody who doesn't know, Project Veritas has closed its doors?
	I mean, that's it.
	It's done and gone for, correct?
	Well, it's suspended operations and reportedly is trying to track O 'Keefe down to sue him to blame him for it because, I mean, really it was part of a conspiratorial organization to seize funds and effectively shutter an organization, which is what we said at the time, which is exactly what has come true.
	So, you know, we'll see if they ever do serve him the suit.
	It would be a frivolous kind of suit, in my view.
	But, you know, he would have to defend it and have to bear cost in the defense of it.
	So there's that annoyance that he would have to deal with.
	But, you know, he continues to do what he does on his own grounds.
	Now, what also is interesting is he went out public.
	There's several people who did great work during Project Veritas.
	Who Project Veritas is now refusing to pay their legal fees for the work they did during it.
	Which suggests to me also there's insurers involved who are complicit in a lot of this illicit activity that improperly usurped Project Veritas from its founder, James O 'Keefe.
	It was always a dumb move politically and for the sustainability of the organization.
	They thought they could steamroll James O 'Keefe, which was just not going to happen.
	But he'd been educated.
	He got the Owen Troyer lesson early in life in Louisiana.
	And as he said on our broadcast, he wasn't going to repeat that backing down ever again.
	And they just once again misestimated James O 'Keefe's willingness, just as they keep misgauging Trump's willingness.
	Trump put out recently, it'd be a lot easier if he just kept his mouth shut and decided to abandon politics.
	But that's precisely why he won't do it, is the great and grand conspiratorial efforts to do to suppress and kill his movement by threatening him individually.
	It's just another illustration of a failed coup attempt by this grifter class that, interestingly enough, seems to align a lot with people that have been giving DeSantis such bad advice over the past six months.
	I'm going to just bring up one tweet from Matthew.
	What was his role again?
	He was one of the executives?
	Yeah, he was one of the people that, in my view, was part of the coup.
	I think he was.
	There's a lot of photos of him with a lot of the social media influencers surrounding DeSantis, too.
	This is him replying to...
	Oh, this is replying to Lauren Windsor.
	Bear in mind, this is coming from the guy who outed James O 'Keefe from Project Veritas.
	Lied.
	From beginning to end, yes, Jenna Ellis was wrong.
	I think she's recognized that she was wrong on James O 'Keefe and protein.
	Just look at how childish this guy is.
	The guy's a joke.
	The guy's a clown.
	I mean, at least Steve Bannon recognized who's got a bad habit of mixing in really smart people with utter clowns.
	God bless him.
	But he had this clown on.
	He continues to promote Sebastian Gorka because Gorka pretends to be a Trumper while he's busy whoring for war.
	That's another example of time to jettison that guy.
	This guy's a total schmuck.
	He's acting like a child with the way he's behaving and these kind of statements and context.
	I'm going to read this because I think using the R word is a cancelable offense.
	Mongoloid is just an iteration of retarded, which is what I presume he means here.
	You were nothing but comic relief for all of us.
	We played your deposition tape regularly for the lulls.
	The one where you were clueless about the word editing meant everyone thought you were a literal mongoloid given the stupidity you demonstrated.
	So yeah, let me iterate.
	You're not responsible for anything but comic relief, you clown.
	You do the confession through projection, and you get this is what this guy thinks about himself, that he's an idiot who provides comic relief.
	As someone pointed out in our Locals thread, his coverage of Brazil was also idiotic.
	A lot of his international coverage has been idiotic.
	By the way, also shows up whoring for the war in Ukraine at various points.
	So, you know, it's not a coincidence these guys are aligned.
	But you get a lot of confession through projection in a lot of their behavior.
	Oh, boy.
	Not that it matters, Robert.
	Matthew Timmerant.
	I don't know if it's known that he happens to be Jewish as well, but it just came up in another article that I was looking at here.
	Breitbart called this tax writer as Jewish-American elitist.
	Matthew Timmerant, who himself is Jewish, accuses Washington Post and Applebaum of embarking on Kremlin-style disinformation offensive against the right.
	Well, that...
	That's aged well, Matthew.
	And a lot of these, you know, there's a lot of these grifter types that sort of try to get into the Trump camp post-2016, pretended and feigned to be Trumpers when they were just grifters and hustlers and the like, and he's just one of the many people that has been exposed as such.
	But some of the people defending him, you know, where Jenna Ellis was defending him in the coup attempt, a bunch of these people were defending him, and it now look really bad.
	Yeah, well, I think Jenna did publicly say she was wrong on Project Veritas, so credit to her where credit is due.
	Okay, sorry, that was the one I wanted to add on.
	And now, Robert, there's a number of them which I'm not going to ask the questions, but I might not be able to summarize.
	Which one do we go on to now?
	So we got military discrimination, phone seizure, social media search, Chauvin poem being disqualified from publication.
	Okay, let's do the Chauvin poem because it might be the last of the ones you just listed that I have knowledge on.
	Some kid writes a poem to submit to some high school or university?
	High school.
	Literary public magazine.
	Yeah, the poem wasn't bad.
	I mean, if it were based in reality, it would have been better, but it was about how, unless it was totally satirical and ironic, it was about how Chauvin, representing white oppression, is putting his knee on George Floyd, getting his breath out, save mama for the last time.
	But for the fact that it might not have been...
	Factually correct based on what we think or know might have actually happened.
	It was a decent piece of writing.
	And then the journal said, we're not publishing it.
	Because, what was the reason?
	They said it was not on brand?
	There was an excuse they gave as to why they were not going to publish it.
	Oh, the school said they thought it would upset students.
	And so they did not publish it.
	This individual felt that her rights had been violated.
	And then sued for...
	First Amendment violations?
	Yeah.
	And I think the court ultimately concluded there were no First Amendment violations because she failed to show that there were other people in a similar situation who had been treated differently than she was treated, although I don't know that there was any expectation or obligation that the journal has to publish every submission, and they said they didn't have to.
	That's my cursory understanding, Robert.
	What's the import of this particular case?
	The problem is the continued confusion by courts of what constitutes a public forum and state action.
	And so like in the Missouri versus Biden case, the state defense, the government's defense, which the Supreme Court extended temporarily, the injunction issued in that case.
	But the attempt to conflate censorship with speech.
	And there's been this effort by a lot of the propagandists on behalf of big tech, as well as, for example, often a lot of their defenders and apologists have said censorship is speech, so you can't limit censorship by social media companies without limiting the speech of those social media companies.
	Those are two different things.
	They're not the same.
	They're not equal by law and by fact.
	Well, here again, you have the court, because here's the rule.
	If it's a state actor that prohibited the speech, they can only do so in the school context if either the school is just limiting its own speech, or it's not viewpoint-based, it's not content-based discrimination, or if it is content-based and it's not the school's speech, then they have to show that allowing the speech...
	would materially and substantially disrupt the work of the classroom, the discipline of the school, for which there is no other lesser reason, The problem the judge had is he knew that the school couldn't meet that standard.
	So instead, he pretended that a publication of a literary magazine was the speech of the school.
	It's like nobody thinks that the literary magazine is anything but the speech of the people who wrote in it.
	They don't think that's the principal's view.
	They don't think that's the school's view.
	It's a ludicrous interpretation of state speech, and it's done in order to allow the state to censor.
	They're trying to conflate censorship and speech as being equal when they're not.
	And here, in fact, the literary publication admitted they wanted to publish it, and the school directed them not to publish it.
	And the only grounds is called a heckler's veto.
	He also pretended that this wasn't the judge, that this somehow wasn't viewpoint-based.
	Clearly it was.
	This is called the heckler's veto.
	And there is no heckler's veto.
	You don't get to say, same in like racial discrimination, religious discrimination, the vaccine mandate cases.
	As an employer, you don't get to say, well, my customers won't be happy unless you do this with this speech or this activity.
	The other employees won't be happy.
	That doesn't matter.
	Because otherwise, you'd say, I'm sorry, I have to discriminate against you, black man.
	My other white employees don't like it if I hire you.
	That's never been an excuse.
	Never been a justification.
	And it's called a there's no heckler's veto in that somebody's reaction...
	To your speech is never grounds to punish that speech.
	And yet that's precisely what they did here.
	They can't confuse heckler's veto with classwork discipline.
	So it's an effort to allow the school to engage in censorship disguised as school-sponsored speech, disguised as content neutral when it's viewpoint-based heckler veto encouragement to incentivize censorship.
	I won't read it.
	I think we'll share the case if it hasn't already been done in Locals.
	It was decently written.
	It's a lefty poem, by the way.
	It's not like a right-wing poem.
	It's a lefty poem accusing George Floyd, the Chauvin, and the people around him of causing...
	It's written in the Lynx and Hughes style.
	It's brilliantly effective.
	It's some of the better poetry I've read of students.
	I don't agree with its political...
	But I respect its literary skill and there should be no censorship of it by the school.
	And that's what this federal judge allowed him to do.
	Let me do it right now.
	I'll do it right now.
	The poem is reproduced in its entirety below from the case.
	This is a poem.
	From mama's hands you had not any chance.
	The street, the hood made you so young ashamed.
	To stand tall to control your circumstance.
	Black man, you will crack.
	White men proclaimed.
	Stay down, they say.
	Your fate...
	in our hands obey okay obey me i'm the cop who kneels upon your naked soul who stands on top your darkened head until you stop your sorry cry for mama take no breath i bring justice here pressed upon your neck if i decide you now face certain death a fate deserved because you passed a bad check you can't breathe then cease your black man drama i will make you weep for mama mama It's very New York.
	It's written in that Langston Hughes style, but also written in that almost a bit of a hip-hop style with a little bit of that the revolution will not be televised poetry style.
	So for a high schooler to write that is pretty good.
	And for them to say, well, we don't think people will be emotionally happy with it.
	That's not grounds to...
	I mean, on those grounds, you could censor all speech.
	All dissident speech would be immediately censored.
	It would be the TFS, tough friggin' Shiite, you wind.
	At Université Laval, I was the editor-in-chief of the Law Journal, and an Anglophone, editor-in-chief of the French Journal was one thing, but I had a specific thing that I would write in an anonymous...
	Nobody knew it was me until the other day.
	Well, and I was called l 'avocat du diable, the devil's advocate, and I would write a position, oftentimes defending the states, in Quebec City where they hated America, and it was called, you know, devil's advocate, and then at the end of the year I revealed myself.
	Yeah, oh no, that's what the journals are for, is to be provocative and to make people think, for good and for bad.
	All right, Robert, next.
	So, I mean, speaking of censorship efforts, so in the school context, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where I got my law degree from, was properly sued because of its very sophisticated effort.
	You might call it an Elon Musk kind of effort, like he allows on his Twitter page, on X, to basically suppress speech on their public forum.
	And it's another case that concerns another federal district court that let the university off the hook.
	And what they were doing is they were creating open forum.
	And here's why the social media pages of so many politicians, universities, state actors have an active public forum on their comment thread.
	It boosts the page.
	The more comments you get, the more ability you get, the more reach you get, the more attention you get from the algorithms of these various social media pages.
	That's why, unless you're Joe Biden and you just don't care, you generally don't suppress completely the comment thread.
	But because of this, once you create this open comment thread to boost you, what you're doing is you're creating a public forum.
	It's something that's open and freely accessible to the public.
	And so how are they censoring?
	Creatively, they've imposed keyword filters to be able to hide people's comments from everyone else without the commenter knowing their comment has been hidden.
	And then they target the commenter at their own post and automatically.
	often block them from being able to ever comment, often in the same systematically hidden way.
	So they use these algorithmic tools to create a fake image of a public forum that isn't a real public forum.
	Unbelievable.
	It's like the way that I sometimes view Twitter.
	You have bots engaging with bots, and then there's a real human out there saying, "Holy crap, these people actually think this." And it's all not a simulation, but pretty damn close, Robert.
	Exactly.
	It's meant to create a fake impression of conversation, a gatecap conversation.
	As Robert Epstein recently reported, he's been talking for years about Google and big tech's capacity to improperly and illicitly influence elections by putting their finger on their algorithmic scale.
	He says that they did so disproportionately in 2022, and one of the reasons for disparate results, that you had a national pro-Republican trending electorate.
	That normally would have produced a much bigger House and senatorial and gubernatorial Republican edge.
	He says the reason it didn't is if you look at where social media disparately intervened, it's in those places that got unusual results in favor of Democrats.
	He says that basically they helped flip 20 or more House seats, several governorships, and multiple Senate seats, including the Arizona Senate seat, by, in the last weeks of the campaign, faking their algorithm to inflate the Democratic margin.
	So that's one of the creative ways in which they do so.
	Again, Elon is complicit with it at X until he can show otherwise.
	He's not in the lecturing business until he can show otherwise.
	And that's basically what the University of Wisconsin was doing.
	But the federal court let him get away with it on the grounds that maybe it really wasn't a public forum, when of course it is.
	Public forum is...
	Something you customarily open to the public or you deliberately open it up to the public.
	This is as much a public forum as you possibly get as opening up comments to anybody in the public on your social media page.
	Again, it needs to be a vibrant public forum to push the algorithm to promote the page.
	That's why they do it.
	So the weird argument the district court used was because they censored, it was no longer a public forum.
	So it's okay they censored in a public forum because they censored it.
	It wasn't a public forum.
	It's people who went through law school as linear law students, linear thinkers.
	The people that were literal thinkers, they used to memorize everything.
	When they get to law school, they're like, oh, that doesn't work anymore.
	And they hate law students like me who don't do it the right way, don't go to class and come in and do just fine.
	They think that's a personal insult.
	There's people that are still bitter at me over that, which is so weird.
	But, you know, some of our judges think that way, and it's like, my goodness, how can you not think out of a paper bag sometimes?
	But hopefully the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reverses this.
	They're not always the most reliable circuit on a lot of issues, but they've been usually decent on free speech issues.
	And this is clear.
	All the universities are likely doing this.
	A bunch of state actors are likely doing this.
	It needs to get exposed.
	The effort to hide things, keyword filters.
	Also, keyword filters are clearly content-based.
	And the judge pretended it wasn't.
	No, no, no.
	This content was considered, by definition, outside of the scope of the original post.
	And therefore, it was not based because of the viewpoint.
	But somehow, because of the viewpoint, it wasn't because of the viewpoint.
	It was more bad logic.
	This was just like the school's case, content-based discrimination on a public forum by a state actor, and that's called a First Amendment violation, that they could neither rationalize nor justify.
	And so it's one more example of that, and we even have a third tonight.
	Which one is that?
	I was going to segue.
	That's the preacher.
	And that's a long-standing right is your right to go out in the public forum and preach.
	You can preach whatever you want to preach.
	Here in America.
	And so a preacher goes to a public festival, open to the public, goes to the public streets and public sidewalks of that public festival that was open and free to the public to distribute religious literature.
	And the cops come along and say, eh, you're not really welcome here.
	The festival organizer doesn't like you here.
	And so the preacher sues.
	He moves around until they basically finally kick him out.
	And the acclaim was, and here's another court that couldn't understand, look, if you have a public festival that's open, free and open to the public.
	Like free, open, no tickets for sale.
	You just go onto a street that is public property where they've got a permit.
	It's a public street, a public park, and a public place.
	That is a classic public forum.
	You can't limit speech there outside of limited circumstances, constricted circumstances.
	It didn't apply here.
	Just because you have a permit for something doesn't magically and miraculously convert a public forum into a private space.
	You can't privatize public space to preclude the First Amendment.
	This is part of the problem that they've effectively got away with in the big tech context.
	Going back to the Pruneyard Doctrine that said, at least California can't do it in a shopping mall.
	You can't privatize the public square.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that in the company town context, has not extended it beyond that.
	When company towns were basically taking over public streets, they said, oh, we own these streets now.
	We can prohibit those annoying miners trying to organize.
	Or the Scientologists spreading their, or the Jehovah's Witnesses coming and talking to folks.
	The Supreme Court said, no, you can't.
	That's classic public square, and you can't privatize it.
	But once again here, another federal district court gets confused, this case out of Davenport, Iowa, and is like, well, because they tried to privatize it, it's magically no longer public forum.
	And even though it was content-based speech, they said, well, no, it wasn't because you were preaching or what you were preaching.
	It was because people didn't like what you were preaching.
	That's content-based discrimination.
	How can a judge not get that through his head?
	There's no heckler's veto.
	But it's another case with the same mistake by another federal court.
	Three cases by federal courts across the country that couldn't understand what a public forum is, can't understand what content-based discrimination is, and the reason is a commonality.
	They want to justify state censorship.
	And they're trying to pretend that something is state speech, that something is a private space when it's not, so they can justify state censorship.
	That's what these cases thematically unite around.
	Well, I guess the segue to another school decision, Robert, which is...
	There's no more on censorship.
	We can get into the cheerleader stuff, which is...
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Now we can get to that.
	Why did Northwestern fire that coach over old hazing?
	Was it because they were trying to cover up the fact that they do what a lot of universities do, which is basically whore their cheerleaders and human traffic them?
	Robert, I read it, and I can't understand it, and I hope...
	I hope that people have open enough relationships with their parents that they can talk about these things so that you can get maybe people with a little bit...
	I have many things I want to say that I will not say because they can be misinterpreted.
	Get adults involved so they can do what needs to be done to make sure this shit gets taken care of.
	You have cheerleaders.
	What was the university?
	I forget that now.
	Northwestern!
	By the way, the same university that fired one of its...
	earlier this year, fired its long-standing...
	Well-celebrated coach on grounds that hazing had taken place more than a decade before without him even knowing the hazing took place.
	And the question you have to ask is, did they really rush to fire him so that people didn't use his story to investigate problems at Northwestern?
	And it was not problems by him, but problems at Northwestern.
	Because it turns out they use their control over the scholarships and employment opportunities and cost reimbursements of cheerleader and social status with cheerleaders to basically pimp them out to big donors.
	The allegations of the lawsuit are that these cheerleaders are given a, not a sponsorship, I'm sorry, it's called a scholarship.
	It's four or five thousand bucks.
	Yeah, four or five thousand bucks to go study.
	They're given money.
	They go and they're doing the cheerleading stuff.
	And then they're given certain criteria, like you have to go to certain events.
	And at these events, there are going to be donors.
	There's going to be fancy people who keep the university afloat.
	And we're going to take pictures with you.
	And you're going to come in your uniforms.
	And they're going to be scantily dressed for the women.
	And only the female cheerleaders is this required.
	Absolutely.
	Scantily dressed for the women, but not for the men.
	You know, you take pictures with fans and with donors and they put their hands on your breasts and your butt and you don't say anything because that's how the school stays afloat.
	And one cheerleader at least raised some of these issues to the coach and the coach's name, Pamela.
	I forget her last name.
	I just remember because she's a woman, presumably.
	And I guess presumably also knew how things roll and ignored the sexual assault, the sexual battery, whatever you want to call it.
	Basically, they were threatened, if you actually don't attend these events, you're going to be kicked off the team and you're going to have to reimburse your scholarship.
	And these women...
	And reimburse a whole bunch of other costs and expenses.
	If you don't go along with the sexual harassment, it's going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars.
	These are people that go to be part of the cheerleading team, go to cheerleading competitions, and be at the football and basketball games.
	And instead...
	As she points out, 90% of the time, it's not where we're at.
	90% of the time, we're at these donor events or VIP fan events where we're told we have to dress a certain way.
	We're told we have to be real friendly with them.
	We're told we can't complain if anything illicit takes place.
	We're told we have to change in public.
	When we change, we have to change on a public bus or other places, not in private.
	We're separated from one another, so we don't have support.
	We're isolated with these groups.
	I mean, it was Oprah-style pimping them out, the way Oprah liked to do with Harvey Weinstein.
	So that's what Northwestern, this prestigious school of journalism.
	And here's another interesting thing.
	Here you have the number one university for journalism graduates in positions of media influence in America.
	How is it all of them blame the former football coach for something that had nothing to do with him?
	But have said nothing at all about this case.
	How have they been mute about this case?
	On CBS, on ABC, on NBC, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune.
	There's Northwestern journalists everywhere, and yet they're all complicit in covering up one of the worst scandals in the history of any university.
	You have to wonder how systemic it is.
	But credit to the person who sued, because a federal judge ruled this week.
	This violates forced labor laws.
	This violates sex trafficking laws.
	This violates human trafficking laws.
	But the media still won't cover the case.
	The defendants, the university, a number of the officials made various motions to dismiss.
	And basically, I mean, I don't think any meaningful portion of the lawsuit was dismissed on the motion to dismiss.
	They succeeded on the claims of sex trafficking, emotional distress against various officials.
	Was it not qualified immunity?
	What were some of the bases of the motion to dismiss?
	I mean, they were just trying to claim that they weren't response, that even if all the allegations were true, they didn't constitute a claim outside of Title IX.
	They're like, oh, this isn't really forced labor.
	Yes, it is.
	Oh, this isn't sex trafficking.
	Yes, it is.
	This isn't human trafficking.
	Yes, it is.
	They knew exactly what they were doing.
	And it's been a little kept secret at major universities for a long time.
	And it's disgraceful.
	And it's a horrendous treatment of scholarship students, of young women.
	But it's a scandal that has only been allowed to propagate because the so-called liberal university deans and administrators have facilitated it.
	And because so-called liberal donors have engaged in it.
	And because the so-called liberal media members have refused to cover it.
	It is, and it's not to say that there's an amount of money that could justify whoring yourself out for it.
	There isn't, full stop, period.
	And they don't really, they also, it's not like they're, and hey, by the way, would you like to pimp yourself out, come begin a scholarship.
	That isn't what's in the advertisement.
	For $5,000, they threaten, intimidate these young, they're young girls, and you hope that they talk to them.
	And you think, who's going to need the scholarship money?
	It's going to be disproportionately poor and working class girls at these prestigious schools.
	Robert, I try not to get blackpilled.
	It's blackpilling.
	And then you just hope they say they're not too embarrassed to go back to their parents and say, this is what they're doing.
	And if I say anything, we're going to have to pay $5,000.
	It's blood money.
	It's blood money that they give them.
	And then they think that they own them.
	It's disgusting.
	So the lawsuit carries on and continues.
	What happens?
	Prediction, Robert, does it settle?
	Do they pay out a massive amount?
	Well, my guess is discovery will be embarrassing for the university.
	But the real key is whether the media starts to cover this case.
	Because that's what will crack the back of Northwestern.
	That now we know why they rushed to fire their football coach for hazing he had nothing to do with that was decades old.
	That his players defended him on as not having anything to do with him.
	That was relatively minor, for sure, by comparison to this.
	It's because they didn't want anybody using this case to open the door to the deeper, darker secrets they've been keeping there at Northwestern.
	And given how many high-ranking media members are Northwestern grads, the fact that none of them have covered this is an embarrassment to their continuing disgrace as a media profession.
	Well, everybody out there, snip and clip and make it known, and I'll put this out throughout the course of next week.
	Robert, I'm going to bring these up.
	Oh, look at that face.
	Hold on.
	Turn off your electrical appliances immediately and plug this in to slash electricity bills by up to 90%.
	Up to 90%?
	That sounds pretty good.
	Sorry, I had to get my ugly lizard tongue out of there.
	Lulu Bob says, have a great guest who says he'd love to be on your show, Vivo.
	It's Jack...
	Maxie, former host of Bannon's War Room Pandemic, expert on a Hunter's laptop.
	Well, I did have...
	Oh, jeez, I'm about to forget his name.
	Marco Polo, but...
	Ziegler, Ziegler.
	Garrett Ziegler.
	Had him on.
	I screen grabbed it.
	We'll do it.
	Randy Edward.
	Joe Melendez's daughter.
	Alicia, MSNBC, PBS.
	Introduced Joe Biden.
	At CHCI Gala, I don't know what that is, after lobbying Hunter Biden for access to his father, apples do not fall far from their perverted daddy tree.
	The Red.
	Question.
	On immigrants, is Biden allowing them to come in and to use them as bonds like one a baby is born to create a revenue?
	Does that make sense?
	If you want to be a free citizen, you can sell your sin.
	Daddy Dragon got a new monthly supporter.
	Booyah.
	Daddy Dragon.
	I'm happy Barnes knows Russell Brand is on the left.
	He is a Fabian Society member.
	Blair Clinton's all-international Fabians.
	Marxists.
	I don't know what that is.
	He used to be a conventional leftist.
	Now he's a left populist.
	That's the short answer.
	Probably always had those instincts.
	It's just developed because of the...
	Primarily with a lot of these guys.
	With Greenwald, it goes back to the opposition of the deep state.
	So it goes much longer back.
	His sort of left populism on certain foreign policy and war issues.
	But with Brand, with Robert Kennedy, with Redacted, with Kim Iverson, with a good number of them, it was reactions to the pandemic.
	Pandemic policy red-pilled them in a major way.
	We got American legend.
	This is just in the comment section.
	We will see just how free speech Twitter is.
	My guess is not so much.
	Mal Charyon says, Twitter is no freer than before.
	Elon, rest in peace, Camelot and Cecil.
	Free Camelot331.
	I don't know what that is.
	Camelot's a friend of Nick Ricada, or he's on his Ricada show now and then, and he's been blocked on Twitter.
	He has an interesting personality, but he hates a lot of women.
	I'll put it that way.
	Like or not?
	Seems like a nice guy.
	Just FYI.
	Not my cup of tea.
	I'll put it that way.
	Don't date lots of women.
	Keep your schmeckle in your pants and no one can accuse you of what they're accusing Russell Brand of 15 years later.
	How can Governor Shapiro unilaterally change the way Pennsylvania voters are registered without the state legislature?
	Robert?
	I think that'll be a separate legal issue there in Pennsylvania.
	Which takes us to male voting in New York.
	Let me think if I've read the suit.
	I haven't, Robert.
	Go ahead and explain it to us and I'll ask questions.
	Well, it's why mail ballots don't exist in New York, mass mail-in voting, is because it's constitutionally required that you vote in person unless there's been an explicit constitutionally granted exception to that.
	And this goes all the way back to before the Civil War.
	When they wanted Union soldiers to be able to vote in the 1864 presidential election in New York, which New York was kind of the decisive state for that election going in.
	Back then, New York was a swing state.
	It's hard for people to imagine that these days.
	But during the Civil War era, you had such wide disparities of different groups in New York that it was very different.
	The inverse of kind of what today is politically in terms of within New York and New York nationally.
	But they had to pass a constitutional amendment.
	So they tried to pass a constitutional amendment before the 2022 elections.
	New York State rejected it.
	People in New York were like, nah, we can still have people vote in person.
	So what does the governor, the legislature do?
	They just pass a law saying we're going to do mail-in ballots anyway.
	So the big suit brought by Elise Stefanik and others in New York.
	Pointing out this clearly violates the New York Constitution.
	Everybody acknowledges it going back more than a century and a half.
	And so the only question is, will the New York courts enforce the New York Constitution or not?
	And sadly, you have to actually ask that question in the open because you don't know.
	Because the Constitution is clear.
	There's no credible...
	They wouldn't have tried to add it to the Constitution if they didn't have to add it to the Constitution.
	So they lose the constitutional amendment and then they pretend it was never constitutionally required in the first place.
	And so the mass mail-in balloting should fail in New York.
	The courts should prevent it from being enforced.
	But you never fully know because you don't know just how politically partisan corrupt New York courts, state courts may be.
	It's New York State, not us.
	It's New York State.
	It has nothing to do with the living conditions of the bulk of New York, which is in New York City.
	Mail-in ballots.
	It's just always been the requirement you've got to vote in person in New York, and it dates to before the Civil War.
	It's a New York constitutional requirement.
	Now, it's because, historically, we always recognize the risk of allowing someone to vote by any means other than in person, because it just dramatically increases the probability of fraud.
	This was, again, the conclusion of the New York Times.
	August 2012, where leading experts admitted it.
	It was the conclusion of both the Jimmy Carter and James Baker Coalition Committee of 2005.
	It was the universal agreement of most scholars and courts prior to 2020 that mail-in voting equals the least secure election, just indisputably, for reasons that belabor and belie the obvious.
	You can steal a vote.
	You can bribe a vote.
	You can extort a vote.
	You can fake a vote when the person's not voting in person.
	in ways that you could never do when the person is voting in person.
	I'm just trying to pull up one as we're live here.
	Oh, but it's behind a bloody paywall.
	Get get rid of your paywall.
	You go back here.
	Error and fraud at issue as as absentee voting rises.
	The false narrative.
	That's 2020.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Every mail in ballots, the hanging chads 2020, 2012.
	It's amazing.
	You get to 2020, everything on the Internet changes.
	A conservative league group.
	Oh, that's that.
	Facts about voting by mail.
	Oh, debunking the myth of voter fraud in mail.
	2020.
	It's crazy.
	A complete reverse.
	Yeah, it was extraordinary.
	There was just mass gaslighting.
	But credit to them.
	They're likely, I think they'll win.
	I don't think the New York courts are so blatantly corrupt, so overtly and openly, transparently corrupt.
	And what difference would it make anyhow?
	New York's going to vote blue regardless.
	So why even?
	Yeah, but it was a huge congressional swing.
	So it's mostly about the House races.
	And right now, New York is getting even worse from a Democratic perspective because of all the illegal immigrant issues, homelessness issues, crime issues.
	They're losing Long Island.
	They've always lost, but they're losing by bigger margins, Staten Island.
	They're losing parts of the Bronx.
	They're losing parts of Brooklyn.
	They're probably not losing much of Manhattan, but they're losing a lot of the rest.
	There are areas that trended Trump in 2020 in New York.
	So their concern is that at the congressional level, it increases Republican margins even more.
	If they could do mass mail-in voting, they figure they could defeat that effort in New York and reverse some of those seats.
	So it's mostly about the House of Representatives.
	All right, now, Robert.
	I hear noise.
	It's two hours and seven minutes in.
	Do we go over for the remaining stuff to locals?
	Either way, we got military race-based discrimination.
	When can the government just seize your stuff and never return it?
	College football player class action.
	And when can the Fed seize something when they didn't even have probable cause of it?
	Oh, jeez.
	The last one sounds familiar.
	It's the hemp case from California.
	Oh, God.
	They seized the hemp and destroyed $3 million worth of hemp because they...
	Oh, let's do that.
	Let's end that here.
	And then we're going to go over to locals afterwards.
	So this is California.
	Hemp is legal for manufacturing.
	It's not legal for...
	Yeah, industrial hemp.
	Industrial hemp.
	I forget now how they go and decide that they're going to go raid this person's farm.
	They go and...
	Oh, a DA agent said he saw an aerial footage of it.
	And just so everybody knows...
	Aerial footage would show you the same thing.
	It looks the same.
	It's just chemically compound different.
	It's drones.
	They go in and seize it and destroy...
	I don't know how they destroy $3 million worth of commercial-grade hemp in one go.
	Well, I think they incinerated it in such a way that, yeah.
	But they got to cut it and remove it.
	And then the individual files suit.
	Robert, what was the outcome of the suit?
	Yeah, because what the D agent lied about...
	This was a licensed industrial hemp dealer.
	All you have to do is research his license, review whether or not this could be industrial hemp.
	Look at the quality that was produced from the location, which is basically under the level for it to have any THC.
	They measure the THC by like micrograms for whatever.
	And he had permits that he was not allowed or did not get asked to provide and was not allowed to provide to show that he had an authorization to grow industrial hemp below the microgram.
	The DEA agent could have easily researched whether or not this was industrial hemp or non-industrial hemp, whether it was prohibited or legal.
	Now, of course, even regular hemp is legal on the state side to a certain degree, but this is under guise of federal inquiry.
	But, I mean, there's some backstory here because the DEA agent is clearly lying.
	So, they went, you know, didn't disclose to the judge when he got the warrant that this could be industrial hemp.
	Now, the court's kind of letting the judge off.
	The judge should have asked that question.
	The judge didn't.
	There was nothing in there about, this is, hey, we got aerial drone footage, this is marijuana, we want to go seize it.
	It's illegal for reasons A, B, C, or D under federal law.
	And they did it with federal government and state government complicity.
	They go there, so that's issue one is the warrant.
	Issue two is an execution of the warrant.
	Everybody reads and reviews it.
	They see what's missing from the warrant.
	Don't ask any questions.
	Then when they get there, people are saying, this is industrial hemp.
	This is not, you can just test it right now.
	We got the permits right here.
	They ignore them, refuse to allow them to show them the permits, refuse to test it.
	They grab and seize it anyway.
	And then they don't test it.
	They go and destroy it without ever testing it.
	Stole $3 million from this guy.
	So he filed civil rights suit.
	Under 42, 1983, and then a Bivens action against the federal agents, because despite the U.S. Supreme Court's efforts to eviscerate Bivens, they have said that in the Fourth Amendment context, you still can.
	And the point that he lays out that the judge agrees with, and this is important out there, people think that, hey, if there's a warrant, you can never sue.
	That's it.
	The judge looked at it, said there was probable cause, end of story.
	And what the court made clear is the law doesn't say that.
	If you fail, if you lie by commission or omission, if you fail to disclose material facts that would have reversed the decision of the judge granting the warrant, then you cannot rely upon the warrant to establish probable cause.
	Number one.
	Number two, there was no actual probable cause based on a fair full investigation of the known facts and available facts.
	Third, If you're executing a warrant, you can't rely on the fact you're executing a warrant to immunize you.
	You have to review the warrant.
	If the warrant is facially invalid, wrong address, wrong person, wrong subject of materials to be seized, wrong method of seizure, or you can see that it lacks core, basic, important material information in it, like could this be industrial hemp, then you have no qualified immunity.
	For the execution of that warrant.
	So credit to the court.
	He gets to sue everybody going forward.
	And they owe him a lot of money.
	Yeah, and they're going to pay him out of taxpayer dollars.
	And I don't know what $3 million worth of industrial hemp looks like.
	I presume it's even more than $3 million of marijuana.
	Robert, here, I'm just going to read these before we go over to the locals.
	Viva is thinking Canadian tuition.
	Think 20 times that for these girls.
	Have you covered Hurricane Electric blocking Kiwi farms and the state attorney getting involved?
	If not, will you have the owner on to discuss this, as this will likely determine who can have a web?
	Hold on, I'm going to screen grab that.
	I'll look into that in a bit.
	Retired geek, I'm old enough to remember when mail-in voting was mostly only used by deployed military and expats.
	That's how I remember it.
	Absolutely.
	A 6 '4 midget.
	That's not me.
	Barnes, can you clarify what you meant by saying you are leaning more to direct democracy last week?
	I may be misremembering exactly what you said.
	If I have a choice between ordinary people deciding a topic and the members of Congress, I will choose ordinary people every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
	That's what I mean.
	All right.
	And now what we're going to do, we're going to go to locals, people.
	But I'm going to show you Barney.
	Barney.
	Oh, that's Freudian.
	Barney was my French bulldog.
	This is Winston.
	He's annoying.
	But he got shaved last week.
	And now he's going to go back down.
	He's just scratching.
	Okay.
	So what we're going to do.
	We're going to go to Locals.
	Yeah, we got military discrimination.
	Kind of like those military ballots.
	Something's a little wacky with them.
	We got phones.
	When can the government just come in and seize your stuff and never give it back to you?
	And college football player class action.
	And we'll answer every question of $5 or more.
	If you get over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.
	Dot com.
	I gotta remember, you gotta point like Trump.
	So the key is, like, normally they say, you know, pointing is rude, but not if you do it like Trump.
	You start like this, you know, and then you go, yeah, you're important.
	Yeah, you're important.
	Yeah, you're important.
	So if you start like this, then it's okay.
	That's the key.
	I'm just gonna go with the Bill Clinton.
	I did not have sexual...
	Jesus, Clinton, this looks powerful, but you're not pointing.
	So that's why, yeah, I care about you.
	I'll wake up every day thinking about you.
	All right, we're going to end this on Rumble.
	Get over to Locals.
	How do I do this?
	I'm on the wrong thing.
	Okay, right here.
	Ending it now on Rumble.
	Come on over to Locals.
	Livestream.
	Hit the end.
	See you all tomorrow.
	I'm in transit tomorrow, so maybe no stream, but we'll see.
	Tuesday for sure.
	Wednesday for sure.
	Thursday probably not.
	Ending now.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Booyah.
	Okay, Robert.
	Let's do the...
	The tips here.
	We're going to go to the tips.

▲