Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 8, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:26:40

Ep. 181: Trump Madness; Israel at War; Wrongly Accused; Pfizer AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In the past two months, we've moved weapons and equipment to Ukraine at record speed.
	Drones, grenade launchers, machine guns.
	We're seeing this incredible, historic flow of weapons coming into Ukraine.
	Do we have any sense as to where they're going?
	I'll just pause this now, on the one hand, to break it up for fair use, despite the fact that I know CBS copyright.
	Trolls are going to claim this entire stream.
	I've got two fingers for that type of conduct.
	You understand the question?
	Let's play this back from the beginning because you're all going to understand exactly where I'm going with this already.
	In the past two months, we've moved weapons and equipment to Ukraine at record speed.
	You know the old expression, haste makes waste?
	Well, in this question, haste makes waste.
	And then lays the ground for human.
	I don't want to say human waste because that sounds different.
	To human tragedy.
	Hey, let's just do it.
	Record speed.
	Haste makes waste.
	And when you're dealing with weapons, there's no room for waste.
	Drones, grenade launchers.
	Drones, grenades, machine guns.
	Drones, grenade launchers, machine guns.
	We're seeing this incredible...
	Oh, by the way, this isn't like Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy theory propaganda.
	This is CBS News' own expose, which, spoiler alert for any of you who were paying attention, they had to take this down after having published it because I suspect they got a phone call.
	What the hell are you doing?
	They had to take this down, and you'll see why in a second.
	A more historic flow of weapons coming into Ukraine.
	Do we have any sense as to where they're going?
	Well...
	Who the hell knows?
	The answer is no.
	Coming from this woman here.
	We don't know.
	There is really no information as to where they're going at all.
	You know, all this stuff goes through the border and they're kind of like something happens.
	It kind of like you.
	30% maybe we just find this nation.
	He doesn't know what he's talking about.
	This guy, he's wrong.
	If he's if he's if he's not in jail or worse at this point.
	Are you concerned about Weapons getting in the wrong hands.
	I don't care at all whether that happens.
	What sort of a unit do you command?
	Can't say okay Scary music.
	It's amazing.
	CBS probably thought they were actually doing good journalism once again, for once.
	We can skip this.
	20 more seconds.
	...to believe that that project of integration had effectively meant the banishment of armed forces.
	Where are the weapons going?
	Do you have any idea?
	Oh!
	Arming Ukraine.
	Do you have any idea where the weapons are going?
	We don't know where 70% of the weapons are going.
	They published that, and then they had to take it down.
	Look at this.
	I mean, gosh darn it.
	If I don't keep the receipts, they disappear.
	This is their tweet from well back in the day.
	When was this?
	August 5th, a year ago.
	2022.
	We removed a tweet promoting our recent documentary, quote, Arming Ukraine, end quote, which quoted the founder of the non-profit Blue Yellow, Jonas Ullmann's assessment in late April that only around 30% of aid was reaching the front lines in Ukraine.
	Yeah, we heard that.
	That's what he said.
	He's presumably closer to the action than loopy Joe Biden in his basement.
	Oh, sorry, that's a part two tweet.
	That's for anybody who's going to get to the second, and I can't get to it when I'm in incognito.
	The part two of that?
	Hold on, it's right here.
	We removed the thing.
	Okay, I'm reading from my own Twitter feed right now.
	Since that time, Oman says delivery has improved.
	So, oh, it was only for six months that 70% of the weapons being shipped to Ukraine were not reaching the front line.
	Only six months.
	Since that time, he says it's improved.
	So it's still accurate reporting, but it's been improved.
	To what?
	65%?
	40%?
	Additionally, the U.S. military has confirmed that Defense Attaché Brigadier General Garrick M. Harmon arrived in Kyiv in August for arms control and monitoring.
	That's why they took it down.
	We deleted the tweet because it was accurate, but it's no longer accurate, allegedly.
	We've been told since this report, which is relatively contemporaneous.
	And I kept the receipt.
	Why am I on this?
	I'm sure you all know exactly where this is going.
	I told the locals community earlier on I was not in the mood to smile for this intro.
	It's tough.
	It's tough.
	It's tough to even fake a smile.
	Not that I fake the smile, but it's tough.
	I can't.
	There's no smile.
	We're living in a world governed by the most corrupt, incompetent, morally depraved leaders.
	If it was ever worse than this, I would like to know when.
	You all know what happened in Israel yesterday, and I have no more of an affinity to one person's life than another based on my own religion.
	It's not because Israel is Israel that this is shocking, horrendous, horrific, stomach-turning.
	Under attack.
	It was an attack.
	The number now is 700 dead, and it's going to go up Undeniably, without question.
	And I tweeted out, because I'm reading the news, and I'm like, A, how the hell does this happen?
	It is impossible that something like this happens.
	It's impossible.
	You're dealing with a country that has an iron dome, some of the most developed technology on earth, and a dude is...
	Power gliding into a festival where they massacre 250 people.
	I'm not saying it didn't happen impossible.
	It's impossible that this can be unforeseen.
	That this could be something that could not have been prevented or mitigated.
	It's impossible.
	And it happens.
	And you're like, well, this is atrocious.
	How did it happen in the first place?
	And I tweet out, did this attack last, like, before the police and the military intervened?
	Some of these towns are border towns.
	Some of these towns are in What many people consider to be the disputed territories.
	There's security there in the first place.
	How long did these people go around massacring people without meeting police or military force?
	Minutes?
	Hours?
	Was it seconds?
	Was it minutes?
	It's hours.
	You imagine the orgiastic glee of terrorists roaming the streets for hours killing whomever they see.
	Going door to door taking hostages.
	For hours, uninterrupted, unmet with any police or military force.
	It's impossible that this could happen.
	It's impossible.
	And now you get Bibi Netanyahu, he's done for.
	But now he's going to come up, I'm the wartime prime minister.
	Maybe if countries weren't so focused on their government corruption, they could actually focus on their one and only primordial objective, protecting their bloody citizens.
	Maybe.
	I don't know that there's any correlation in the neglect of a border with enemy nations and being distracted by your own rampant corruption.
	I don't know that there's any direct connection.
	I can imagine that when you are caught up in controversy after controversy, it impedes your ability to govern.
	It's impossible that this can happen.
	In today's day and age, paragliders just cruising into festivals, taking down a fence and coming in with a convoy, and then roaming uninterrupted, unchallenged for hours.
	This is not a remote island.
	And then it happens, and you know damn well before you get there where it's going.
	It now puts everything into perspective.
	Hamas, funded by Iran.
	When was it under Obama?
	Oh, they didn't pay Obama.
	They didn't pay Iran $1.7 billion.
	They didn't pay a ransom in exchange for soldiers.
	They just released $400 million.
	That was Iran's in the first place.
	Plus $1.3 billion in interest.
	In pallets of cash on a plane in the middle of the night.
	Yeah.
	But it wasn't a payment.
	It wasn't a ransom.
	And it certainly wasn't U.S. tax dollars.
	J.D. Vance came under fire, a coordinated attack from these dipshits who are trying to cover up for their absolute neglect.
	It's not like they gave him $2 billion in 2016.
	It's not like they unfroze billions of dollars in assets just recently because they were only supposed to be able to spend that on humanitarian aid.
	It's not as though Biden surrendered.
	How many, was it billions or was it hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry?
	In Afghanistan, in that debacle of a withdrawal that left U.S. soldiers dead and the most deadliest of weaponry in the hands of ISIS terrorists.
	And where are they finding it now?
	It's been confirmed at least by one journalist.
	I forget his name now.
	Jeez, I was just...
	Hold on, let me...
	I have to actually just give him...
	Jim Ferguson.
	He's not a journalist.
	Jim Ferguson is confirming at least that he's had...
	Confirmation from IDF soldiers that some of the weapons used to slaughter Israelis yesterday were weapons that were left in Afghanistan by Joe Biden.
	Oh, and then you get your scoundrel Democrat politician.
	Don't politicize this.
	This is an aggregate failure, left, right, and center, international failure, and now a thousand innocent Israelis who were just at a festival, at a dance festival, walking the streets, celebrating Shabbat, are dead.
	And now Netanyahu's going to come in, and he's going to go raise Gaza.
	exactly what Hamas wants so that there will be mass civilian casualties in Gaza.
	Hamas can't ever win a war with Israel.
	The only way they can do it is provoke Israel to respond, to go into Hamas, raise it, look strong, turn it into a parking lot, kill a bunch of innocent civilians in the meantime, and then they get to justify Hamas's existence in the eyes of those who would support Hamas.
	Or they get to terrorize a civilian population that themselves are held hostage to Hamas.
	People like to think Hamas only terrorize Israel.
	They terrorize Palestinians as well.
	They Hamas has no chance of ever winning a war.
	All they can do is make it the most grotesque attack imaginable to provoke, trigger the necessary response that you know is going to happen that will result in mass amounts of civil casualties, civilian casualties.
	And then Hamas gets to say, look how bad they are.
	The innocent victims caught in the crossfire.
	Okay, Barnes is in the backdrop and I should probably...
	Let me just read a few super chats.
	You all know the rules.
	YouTube takes 30% of this.
	Barnes is going to give us his insight on this.
	Mr. Khan, this was yesterday's interview, is awesome.
	I hope he wins also.
	Hillary wanting to, deprogramming me, is the oxymoron of the century.
	I had Saif Khan on yesterday.
	You want to talk about YouTube suppressing a video?
	I mean, I published it, the whole thing from yesterday, like an hour ago, an hour and a half, 127 views.
	Demonetized.
	It was demonetized.
	And then I asked for manual review, maintaining it unlisted.
	I didn't share the link with anybody.
	And somehow it got 13 views, two sex spambot comments on it, and YouTube has yet to re-monetize it, if they ever will.
	USMCBurro says, Stream note, no legal advice, no medical advice, super chats, 30%, 20% on Rumble.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	What Barnes thinks about the American Law Institute and them being an unelected third party able to reinterpret our laws into new meanings.
	I'll keep it there and we're going to get to that in a second.
	Blazecat.
	U.S. give untraceable weapons to Nazis for a year and then all of a sudden the Jewish state is mass attacked.
	Curious, huh?
	Oh, and then you get Zelensky trying to tack on to this and I won't say co-opt it, but he's sending his condolences to Israel.
	You got...
	Trudeau saluting Nazis in the ovating Nazis in the parliament.
	Now you've got groups celebrating this uprising, unionized workers in Canada.
	You got Joe Biden releasing, unfreezing $6 billion in assets, but they're only going to spend it on food and bread.
	And then they had to give them back the money before because it was their money.
	The same idiots who are arguing for seizures of Russian oligarch assets are arguing that...
	Obama had to give $2 billion to a terrorist regime, Iran.
	It was their money.
	They're hypocrites and they're idiots.
	And it's resulting in human waste, human death and human destruction.
	You should look up the video of Wesley Clark talking how much the U.S. was going to take over seven Muslim countries.
	I don't know.
	I saw that stingray.
	That was a classic video of talking about the U.S.'s war on regime change.
	They're going to go one country after another.
	They said the quiet part out loud.
	Nobody's listening.
	Hamas thanks Israel for having the most restrictive civilian gun ownership laws in the world.
	Tourists prefer unarmed victims.
	All right, I'm going to bring Barnes in here because he's been listening to me scream for a long time.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, I'm going to let your audio, I think it balanced out.
	Now, Robert, I said, I mean, Cernovich, I think, was one of the earlier ones to say, are any of these weapons that Hamas used in Israel yesterday going to trace back to Afghanistan?
	It looks like the answer to that is yes.
	70% of these weapons that are going to Ukraine's front lines don't make it there.
	Do we know what happens to them?
	I mean, they just get laundered through the arms trade globally.
	And that was clearly part of the, frankly, the intended objective all along.
	So it's to continue to facilitate the global arms trade and keep all the military industrial contractors rich into perpetuity.
	No war.
	No money for the MIC so that there will always be war as long as the MIC has influence anywhere in the world.
	And I think we're witnessing examples of that as we speak.
	What do you know of Biden now moving some, what are they, super tankers into, I don't know where he's moving them.
	What's the latest move that you know of?
	Oh, I think it's kind of a dangerous game that's being played on a global scale.
	So you have the four Arab countries that use the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to propagate their own objectives, both domestically and globally, amongst the Arab or Muslim world, seeing themselves as the global leader.
	of the Muslim world and coming from nations that have had a history of having that stature in the past.
	Historically, that's been Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
	Right now, the two biggest propagandists in favor of the Palestinian cause are Iran and Turkey.
	Trump had tried to separate the Saudis and other royals from the Palestinian cause on the grounds that It's probably not a coincidence.
	The timing of this, in part, is to disrupt efforts of the Saudis to reconcile with the Biden administration.
	No, no, no.
	Yeah, none of them have taken in any refugees.
	They, in fact, keep them there because they don't want them.
	I don't know that people don't know this.
	They don't want them either in their societies for the reasons that, similar reasons to Israel.
	I mean, I'm not saying them as in Palestinians, but the extreme faction within.
	They don't want that in Egypt either.
	Bad for tourism.
	Yeah, and bad for the governance of the country.
	Egypt has a long-standing problem with the Muslim Brotherhood, which seized power after the so-called Arab Spring and then was displaced subsequently.
	And Hamas, originally, that governs the Gaza Strip, originated as a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot.
	And so, I mean, whatever happened with Israel's failure of military security was clearly a catastrophic failure for at least a period of time, for which I'm yet to hear a sufficient explanation.
	I get it was the beginning of a holiday period, and I get that there were some weapons that they didn't expect, some methods of attack that they didn't expect.
	But, you know, I mean, Gaza's basically just one big criminal ghetto.
	It's a ghetto controlled by criminals.
	Deeply impoverished.
	They depend upon Israel for key access to key water and electricity.
	They don't have much internal economic development.
	Both Egypt and Israel join in blockading them.
	So it's not like they're in a position to easily get weaponry or get sophisticated weaponry.
	And I get people want to...
	It's a good political point, the Biden administration releasing funds to Iran.
	It's unlikely those funds were directly tied into this operation.
	No, because it was too close in proximity, temporal.
	But the $1.7 billion that was returned to them in pallets of cash, untraceable cash in 2016, that had a lot more time to be, you know...
	Oh, sure.
	They got sufficient resources independent of that.
	And it's all about Iran trying to promote itself as the protector of the region.
	Basically, the reason why this has been for a while an incurable conflict is that the Arab Muslim populations now identified as Palestinians.
	They weren't always.
	That's kind of a development in the last century.
	Previously, remember, if you're in Gaza, Previously members of the Ottoman Empire and before that usually governed by a rotating set of, you know, Egypt and Rome and Caliphates and Persians and everybody else under the sun.
	They just considered themselves Arabs.
	And the Palestinian label became politically useful in the last century and thus it was adopted.
	But if you look at it from the perspective of Hamas or the perspective of the PLO, There's no alternative but their current strategies for the very simple reason that if they give up the war against Israel, if they accept an independent state,
	which is the Russian proposed solution, which Yasser Arafat himself rejected at the Trump Peace Accords, not Trump, the Clinton Peace Accord efforts, Camp David II in 1999, they will lose all their money.
	I mean, what would happen if you had an independent Palestinian state that was not at war with Israel?
	Well, where are they going to get their money?
	They don't have any resources.
	They don't have any internal economy.
	They've been stripped bare of a lot of their intellectual capital.
	Those people have fled and got the heck out, got somewhere else, wherever they could, over the past half century.
	Their entire monetary support comes from global donations for the purposes of them constantly fighting a war against Israel, to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.
	They've conditioned it.
	They said, well, we'll recognize Israel's right to exist if you make Palestinians a majority of the Israel vote.
	That's the same thing as rejecting Israel's right to exist.
	This is why in New York City they were chanting today, from the river to the sea.
	We will be free.
	They mean kill all Israelis, kill all Jews.
	It's the same strategy for over a century.
	My friends on the left who have this delusional communist era perspective of the Palestinian cause is just divorced from reality, as Clinton himself found out the hard way.
	He thought his great legacy was going to be a great two-state peace deal.
	And Yasser Arafat said, look, I don't want to go home and get sedated.
	I mean, Sadat did a peace deal, and then he was murdered.
	That's what happened to me.
	Because he understands the math.
	And it's the same math that all...
	I mean, the day Hamas agrees to have peace deals, the day Hamas ceases to exist.
	The moment the PLO agrees to have peace deals, the day they cease to exist.
	The day they get their own state that's not at war with Israel, they're all broke, and there's no more donations coming in.
	And then there's just an economic refugee implosion around the Middle East that none of the rest, the whole Middle East doesn't want to.
	Jordan kicked him out.
	Syria kicked him out.
	Lebanon tried to kick him out.
	Egypt has repeatedly kicked him out.
	Egypt is more involved in the effective blockade than Israel is.
	And yet all my friends on the left, Scott Ritter can't seem to get Egypt out of his mouth.
	Aaron Maté can't get Egypt out of his mouth.
	Max Blumenthal can't get Egypt out of his mouth.
	You know, so the...
	Why is that?
	It's because they're locked into an old Palestinian good, Israeli bad mantra.
	Now, on the other side, you have the neocons and the war whores on the right in America who are looking...
	I mean, Dan Crenshaw is just...
	He's so excited.
	He's almost like Bill Gates thinking he's going to kill a bunch of people with vaccines.
	He's so excited about World War.
	Oh, maybe we can have a religion-based global war.
	Mike Pence was like, more, more war, more war!
	We should stay the hell out of this.
	Israel hasn't asked us to come in.
	The great risk is if a bunch of other powers jump into this.
	And then you do have a global war.
	Israel is more than able and capable of defending itself.
	Whatever its security failures over this past week are on Israel.
	But its troops, its sophisticated troops outnumber Hamas 5 to 1. Its military firepower technology way outdoes Hamas.
	Hamas knows its only chance is if Israel or if America gets directly involved and have troops on the ground, like we did with Beirut.
	Reagan was smart enough to pull us out of there.
	What happened when we got attacked in Beirut?
	Did Reagan say, oh, we've got to be uber macho and just go in and mass murder everybody?
	No, he got us the hell out because it was the right move.
	We don't need to be there.
	Israel is more than able and capable of defending itself, and under Netanyahu, I have no doubt will.
	The question is, will they be able to handle it in such a way as to keep out?
	Hamas needs foreign aid, needs foreign military engagement.
	They need the support of the Turks and the Egyptians and the Syrians and the Iranians and the Saudis.
	Are they going to get it?
	As long as those countries don't get too directly involved.
	Iran has already been funding everything, but that's been clear from day one.
	Then Hamas just gets taken out.
	Now, that doesn't really solve the problem.
	I see a lot of the macho types saying, go in there and crush everybody.
	How's that going to achieve anything?
	It hasn't achieved anything in forever.
	Until and unless you get the Arab world to no longer use the Palestinian cause to promote their global ambitions and domestic aspirations, you will not solve the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, period.
	Unless you're going to kill everybody.
	You're not going to solve it.
	There'll be people who bore the resentment and want to drive you to the sea.
	That's just the empirical reality of that conflict.
	There is always that argument that there's a portion of the population that tolerates Hamas, even though they don't actively support them, they can't...
	They can't defy them because they'll get terrorized as well.
	And you have to make them be vocal against Hamas.
	And some people have the idea you're going to make life so hard for innocent Palestinian civilians that they're going to turn against Hamas.
	And that's what you have to do.
	I don't think that's feasible.
	I don't think that's possible.
	That hasn't worked for 15 years.
	I mean, the Western world's been doing that since Hamas took over in 2007.
	Now, clearly Hamas doesn't trust that it has the popular approval of its own people or it would have held elections, which it hasn't done since it won in 2006.
	So there's deep internal divide.
	But the best way to think of it is it's a deep internal divide over criminal mob bosses with psychopathic, sociopathic leaders.
	That's where my interesting things was.
	Somebody was suggesting a hush-hush on whether Netanyahu deliberately did something to allow the security breach, given the unanticipated nature of the security breach.
	In order to motivate Israel to rally them behind him during a time of domestic discord and to do what a lot of Israelis going back almost a century have believed in, which is to follow the Palestinian path, to follow the Arab path.
	What did they do whenever they seized properties in the last century that had Jews in it?
	They kicked the Jews out.
	That's what they did.
	My friends on the left don't want to talk about that either.
	The Israelis didn't.
	They didn't return in kind.
	When they occupied territories during the War of 1948 or during the Six-Day War or during the Yom Kippur War, they chose not to do mass expulsions.
	In fact, they've done as many expulsions of their own citizens from regions as they've done Arabs from Israel.
	Arabs have a substantial population both in terms of employment and in terms of actual voting power in Israel.
	They have citizenship unlike Jews anywhere else in the Muslim world for the most part.
	During the last century.
	But there's been an element within Israel that the hawks that think that they should just purge Gaza of its Palestinian presence.
	And Netanyahu will see how far he goes.
	And we'll see how far the world lets him have it.
	But the hush-hush version of a bench, what's fascinating to me is my friends on the left are pushing this.
	I was like, but you do realize what this all banks upon is showing the world What criminal sociopaths Hamas is.
	When I debated Nick Fuentes, he said he would rather have Hamas with nuclear weapons than Israel.
	That's an insane proposition.
	As soon as he said that, he'd lost the debate with anybody with an IQ over 50. So to the degree there was a staged event, it was just Netanyahu showing the world just how horrendous and horrific Hamas is.
	These are sociopaths disguising their beliefs as politics.
	This is a pretext to act on their sociopathology.
	It's a political permission slip to be the sociopath they've always been.
	But what's different is when most people commit massive war crimes on massive scale, they don't videotape it, stick it on TikTok, and brag about it.
	Well, some Ukrainians did, but let's put the Ukrainian neo-Nazi example aside.
	That's what's unique about this.
	And then they get cheered by their supporters in New York City, by their supporters in London, by their supporters in the West Bank, by their supporters in Iran, by their supporters throughout the Arab Muslim world.
	Now, the question is, I mean, the Saudis didn't jump in to say anything right away, because I think what the Saudis realized is what, if they want to be a Dubai-style future economy.
	That's diversified away from oil.
	And that that's their global stage.
	By having things like the Saudi Arabian Football League, which is known as soccer here in America, be a prominent, successful international brand.
	Tourism be internationally desirable.
	All of those things, they can't be associated with this kind of horrific terrorism.
	And that was Trump's genius, was deepening the wedge between the royals.
	And the Hamas and Hezbollahs and Iranian-backed militias of the Middle East while continuing to isolate Iran because Iran is deeply committed to it.
	And of course, what this does is it rallies their demands.
	Well, why do they not want to bring in Palestinians?
	Why do they not give real economic aid to the Palestinians?
	Why is it always humanitarian aid?
	So that the Hamas and the Hezbollahs and the Palestinian Liberation Authority can control their populations.
	By control of basic resources.
	And they only get those resources if they do two things.
	Propagate the war against Israel and create victim porn.
	Get Israelis to do bad things.
	Film it.
	Broadcast it to the world.
	Build up sympathy amongst the Islamic and Arab world.
	And allow those leaders in those places to pretend to be the next world global Muslim Arab leader because they're the ones fighting for Palestine.
	The moment they don't have any Palestine to fight for, the moment they don't have an Israel to abolish, is the moment the Palestinians lose all political currency and means of financial support, and Hamas and the Hezbollahs and the Palestinian Liberation Authority lose all their power.
	That's why this game is locked in, and that's why Trump understood the right way.
	Unless you broke into the Arab side of the equation, you were never going to get peace in the Middle East.
	So whatever Israel does, hopefully they make their borders more secure.
	I mean, they said they were very secure.
	Clearly they weren't.
	Something went wrong.
	Whether it was a staged event or a complete failure of their defense, it was a failure.
	There's no getting around that.
	But bombing the Dickens out of Gaza, what's that going to do?
	You know, I get it.
	You can kill some Hamas and kill some civilians and kill some other people along the way.
	Are you going to change the underlying dynamics?
	Are you going to change popular opinion in the Arab or Muslim world?
	No.
	So, I mean, that's where I think that we're in basically a constant, continuous stalemate.
	Trump was on the right path.
	The Biden administration pushed it back a decade or so.
	I want to say they got the support of some very odd bedfellows.
	This came out of Canada.
	This is an actual, real tweet.
	And this is not to say that one should not have sympathy.
	And understanding for the Palestinian plight.
	This is not the response that you have in the wake of a terrorist attack that has killed.
	It will have killed easily over a thousand people.
	This is a union out of Ontario.
	Palestine is rising.
	Long live the resistance.
	And it's an actual McMaster University union representing, I guess, teachers and employees working at McMaster U. Not a...
	It's fascinating how the left, some of this dates to the communist era, the Soviet Union era, that when Israel turned anti-Soviet, chose America over the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the Soviet Union propagandized the Dickens.
	I mean, if you go back and look at Yasser Arafat, he looks like a suit-wearing student.
	And then he goes looking like Che Guevara.
	That wasn't accidental, that entire thing.
	And credit to Yasser.
	I think he had, what, two billion bucks in the bank at the time in various offshore Western banks.
	At the time he died, he understood the grift.
	But that's what it was, and still is.
	It's a permission slip for sociopaths, an excuse for poverty, and a justification and rationalization for people with a global dominant kind of agenda, at least in the Arab Muslim world, to act out their fantasies.
	But you look at underneath all of this, It doesn't have any kind of legal, social, political, economic sustainability beyond just a constant state of impoverishment for the Arab world.
	Israel ain't going anywhere.
	I mean, people have wondered why don't Elevate Scott Ritter a lot, aside from his convictions, which I guess he has, I know he has explanations of.
	How do you get convicted of that twice, Scott?
	Okay.
	All right.
	Twice you got set up.
	Okay.
	At some point, you're too dumb to rely upon.
	But the other was he gave some of the dumbest military analysis of the Iraq war all the way through.
	Great credit to his bravery exposing the faulty basis for that war as being one of the inspectors.
	So I give him all the credit.
	I give him credit on being a critic of the Ukrainian war.
	But I don't take his military advice or his geopolitical advice straightforwardly because he's been an unreliable author of that information.
	And hopefully we just don't get caught up in another...
	I mean, Netanyahu...
	There's two things to note.
	There is no peace element left in Israel.
	The peace movement is dead.
	Palestinians killed it.
	And whatever was left of it, whatever little vestige of left of it, was murdered on the streets of southern Israel this past week.
	So that is completely finished.
	Netanyahu will have carte blanche to do whatever he wants, militarily.
	Now, the risk with that is Netanyahu wants to go to war with Iran.
	Netanyahu cheered on the war with Iraq.
	He's constantly gone into Syria.
	He has shown he has not shown himself to be a reliable ally on making smart Mideastern foreign policy decisions involving America.
	He also is one of the first people to abandon Trump after the election.
	So, you know.
	I don't have any confidence in him.
	I think he's the smartest politician in Israel, but I think he often goes too far with where he goes.
	But he's going to have carte blanche to do that, and I think you're fundamentally right.
	Hamas only prevails if they rally the I mean, already the Turkey president Erdogan is out there saying, we stand with the Palestinians.
	The lunatic Taliban, in between making sure six-year-old girls can't read, issued a press release saying, we will go to Jerusalem and free it.
	They'll be the new crusaders from Afghanistan.
	And of course, they got Joe Biden's leftover weapons and tanks to help make sure to deliver in person the ones that haven't already been delivered to the Gaza.
	Well, I'm just...
	Part of me is hoping that this will also be the end of...
	I don't think he's entitled to a brute force response because it's not like he didn't know what forces he's dealing with.
	Either way, whether it's a staged event or he just screwed up, it was on his watch that they had one of the big at worst border breaches that he claimed couldn't happen.
	So, I mean, he's getting off the hook from a lot of pro-Israeli elements in America too easily to me.
	I mean, that's where I've always agreed with Trump's position.
	When, you know, Jeb Bush was saying, George W. Bush kept our country safe.
	And Trump said, did I not see two towers fall in New York City?
	Which people were shocked that he said that.
	But his point was, that really wasn't keeping us safe.
	Whoever was behind 9-11, that still wasn't keeping us safe.
	Netanyahu failed on the watch.
	Now, the problem is, there's no meaningful alternative in Israel that seems to have political IQ.
	In my opinion.
	They were too busy trying to make sure their courts could override their population.
	They could override their legislative and political processes in such a way that they were usurping power from the electorate.
	Israel was too busy mandating.
	Netanyahu went down that hole mandating the vaccine, forcing it on the entire population.
	That was another disastrous decision.
	He's lost credibility in a range of areas.
	You've been fact-checked, Robert.
	Office tower!
	Yeah, what happened with that building?
	World Trade Center No. 7. That's a whole other story.
	But I just hope we don't get more deeply involved.
	Americans will support Israel quite reasonably and understandably.
	Hamas has no allies outside of the global south and the Arab world.
	Don't give them any more allies by raising Gaza to the ground.
	That'd be my...
	And don't precipitate direct World War III by getting direct, by putting American boots on the ground.
	Okay, I'm putting the link to rumble in here and I'm going to read these last chats before we head on over.
	Jesse Bear says, please tell me I'm just being paranoid when I think the same people who told Trump that Middle East peace wasn't possible without Palestine would happily start a war to dissolve Trump's Abram.
	Well, I mean, that's clearly part of what's...
	Well, Biden administration has gone to great efforts to undermine it.
	The Saudis started leveraging their oil control along with the Russians for a range of reasons, mostly due to the declining global economy.
	But that had the Biden administration reconsidering its hostile, adverse approach to the Saudis.
	And they were on the verge of restoring the Abraham Accords when this happened.
	That's probably the number one precipitous event here.
	Not the money coming back to Iran or anything else.
	It's Hamas.
	They know they need to keep the Arab world united behind the Palestinians for this war against Israel to continue unabated and for Hamas and PLO to stay in.
	It doesn't help the Palestinian people, but the practical reality, look at public surveys and...
	It's filled with hatred.
	I mean, they teach these kids to hate from the time they're two years old.
	But, Robert, people are going to say that they teach them to hate because they're living in squalor because Israel is keeping...
	Yeah, but they've hated them for a century.
	I mean, the Palestinians deliberately aligned with the Nazis in World War II.
	That's all you really need to know.
	I mean, you dig into the history of this.
	The people that are there, not the people that successfully have just left forever, the rest, the people that are there and many of their allies around the world...
	I have bought into the anti-Israeli mythology from day one.
	And they hate Jews and they want Jews out of there.
	And they just propagandize for the Palestinians.
	And they can't be object.
	Glenn Greenwald can't be honest about this conflict.
	The people on the left that are on this side can't be honest about it.
	And it destroys their credibility on a range of other topics.
	It's like when they pretend China will have a topic about Hong Kong and China tonight.
	As part of our topics, but this is a reflection of a continued lack of geopolitical realism.
	And we have to avoid the twin evils of siding with the encouraging and incentivizing this Hamas effort by treating the Palestinians like permanent victims, which they choose to be in order to propagate this political war, and the war whore side that wants to have an actual religion of World War III.
	All right.
	Now, last one.
	Jem2032, thank you very much for the super chat, but I hope you didn't mean to put a comment in there.
	If you did, put it in without another super chat, and I'll try to find it before we leave here.
	Yeah, just add a zero.
	Make it 1,000.
	No, there's actually a maximum of 500.
	And if it was a typo, let me know.
	That has happened before.
	If Bibi pushed the big red button and glassed Tehran and Beirut, I don't think anyone would come out against him.
	Yeah, they would.
	I think they would.
	Yeah, they would.
	You would rally the entire Islamic world, and we'd have World War III overnight.
	Any attack on Iran is a bad idea.
	I'm obviously an Iranian critic.
	It's a totalitarian regime that doesn't allow elections for the same reason, not real elections, for the same reason Hamas doesn't.
	It knows its people don't fully support them.
	That's why they have to do this, by the way.
	The Palestinian cause covers up for internal political sins and vulnerabilities for all of these Arab and Muslim nations.
	And that's what's going on.
	The question is, who takes the bait?
	And who avoids it over the next coming days, weeks, and months.
	Alright, now this is going to be the last call for Rumble in the chat right there.
	We're ending on YouTube.
	We've got a good show.
	Forget the list, Robert.
	We're just going to jump right into it when we get over on YouTube.
	Ending on YouTube.
	There are 2,591 people who should not be here in five seconds.
	I just want to see the number go down once before I end it on YouTube.
	We're down.
	Okay, now we're at 2,585.
	One more time.
	No, forget it.
	Okay, ending on YouTube.
	3, 2, 1. Booyah.
	And now let's go look here.
	We should see 2,500 people added to the 16,000 and change that are already here on Rumble.
	Forget the list, Robert.
	We'll just jump into it.
	I warned you that I wasn't going to be able to get to all of the homework because I'm solo parenting for the next week because my wife, my wife, she's out of town now.
	And I think I did pretty good anyhow getting to the bulk of what you sent me.
	Some of it I was not interested in, so I wouldn't have read it anyhow.
	I'm joking.
	What do we want to start with?
	Well, I like to give the list just so people have some sense of where things are.
	And if they're watching the replay, they can skip ahead to a later section.
	First, we'll get up with elections on the courts.
	We got a lot of court cases concerning elections.
	Race and redistricting post-SCOTUS.
	Trump, the New York gag order, the New York appeals court, the motion to dismiss the D.C. case.
	Big Tech faces two major cases that could completely change the landscape of Big Tech.
	That includes any trust case against Google and a privacy case against Oracle.
	Brooke Jackson versus Pfizer.
	The second amended complaint has been filed.
	We'll give a little summary of that.
	More drug company lies, this time from Bayer, about birth control, subject to a class action case.
	Hong Kong, you get to go to jail if you import the wrong kids' books.
	Privacy and open records, how do those two intersect?
	Coaches are starting to fight back against the various wrongful lawsuits being filed against them, just as Trevor Bauer is in the Me Too context.
	And then Elon Musk, he's gone along with the game of allowing the lawfare against Alex Jones to be politically rewarded by censoring him off of Twitter.
	Maybe he should think twice about that, as the same lawyers who sued Alex Jones are now going after Elon Musk, planning the same strategy of trying to Alex Jones, Elon himself.
	And what happens when the political battle over public streets is the disabled versus homeless?
	Which side do liberal judges take?
	And a few bonuses that we'll discuss only at vivabarneslaw.locals.com in the after party is who can be.
	Speaker of the House.
	More dumping by DuPont of chemical pollution of the kind Robert Kennedy has exposed over the years.
	And he may be announcing on Monday an independent campaign for the presidency as the good doctor did this past week.
	The good professor there, Cornel.
	Why am I blinking on his last name?
	Cornel West?
	Yeah, West, right?
	For some reason I was blinking on why his last name is West.
	And then Disney.
	Disney's got more trouble.
	Now faces antitrust over its bundling services.
	So those will be a couple of bonus topics we'll cover.
	Plus, if you have any $5 tip or more question to be asked, ask it at bebabarneslaw.locals.com and we'll answer it in the after party.
	All right, so let's start then with the elections, the election decisions.
	Now, I'm familiar with some of these, Robert, but not all of them.
	So what's the deal?
	Basically, there's an effort to continue the 2020 Democratic Party lawfare to try to use the judicial branch to override the election laws of various state legislatures.
	And so far, many of these efforts have failed.
	There was efforts to set aside Arizona laws, efforts to set aside Georgia laws that reformed some of the problems from 2020.
	Those efforts have mostly failed.
	But there's continued efforts in Wisconsin that try to lock in drop boxes into perpetuity.
	Those have mostly failed.
	Filed state court, federal court.
	But some of the new ones are, in Maine, they're trying to block access to voter registration records.
	In Arizona, they're trying to block access, in Carrie Lake's case, to voter signature records.
	In Michigan, they're denying relief for the electors, even after the Attorney General admitted that the basis of the indictment was false.
	In California, the governor's trying to ban manual recounts from even occurring.
	And in Tennessee, they try to make it a First Amendment right to distribute and vote by mail, regardless of state law.
	So we got a range of cases, some of which are at the pleading stage, some of which are at the decision stage.
	Now, I forget the last one that was a First Amendment right to vote by mail.
	Which case was it that I read, Robert, where they wanted to have the early voting for like 90 days before?
	Dropbox is 24-7 for...
	I mean, where is the limit in terms of how early you get to early vote and by what means?
	I mean, this is what they're testing now?
	Yes.
	They're trying to establish a constitutional right to vote the big D, Democratic Party way.
	So in Tennessee, for example, they filed suit, Sixth Circuit-issued decision, two-to-one decision, saying you had a First Amendment right to distribute absentee ballots and a First Amendment right to vote by mail.
	Tennessee has for a long time made it a crime to give someone an absentee ballot.
	The absentee ballot has to be requested by the voter.
	The form has to be requested by the voter.
	Now they've made it easily accessible.
	You can literally download it off the internet.
	So you don't even have to mail in a request anymore.
	I have problems with that.
	I prefer the old process because that process was there to make sure somebody couldn't illicitly get access to a ballot.
	If you think of ballots as voter currency, then you should restrict it strictly like you would money in a safe.
	And anytime you don't do that, fraud inevitably occurs and is invited.
	But they filed suit saying the First Amendment right to distribute as many absentee ballots as they wanted.
	And a First Amendment right to vote by mail.
	And the Sixth Circuit said, and thus they wanted the Tennessee laws struck down.
	And the Sixth Circuit said, in a two-to-one decision, said, no, no, there is no first, this is conduct that's being regulated, not speech.
	Distribution of voter absentee forms that are freely available on the internet for a person to get anyway.
	And the right to vote by mail is also conduct, not speech.
	And it doesn't interfere injudiciously with the right to vote, which is where the Georgia suits also failed.
	And so those laws were upheld.
	In Maine, that the voter registration law concerns federal law.
	Federal law requires public access to certain forms of voter records.
	Again, to make sure people are actually voting that are living, that they aren't voting that are non-citizens, they aren't voting if they're too young, they're not voting if they're a prohibited felon, they're not voting if they are dead or elsewhere, or voting in another state.
	Maine is trying to block anybody from looking at those records to confirm whether that's happening or not.
	Federal law says they're entitled to it.
	They'll likely prevail at the First Circuit, but that's where that case is pending.
	Then you have in California, the governor did just pass a law banning manual recounts because smaller counties wanted to do manual recounts.
	That will be tough to challenge in court, unfortunately.
	But it shows you where California is the direction where the Democratic Party wants the nation to go to.
	Not only mass mail-in voting.
	You know, total flooding of ballots anywhere and everywhere, but now not even able to manually recount the ballots to make sure the machines weren't wrong.
	Robert, Maine has not gone Republican since 1988.
	George Bush?
	Yeah, at least that.
	Now, Maine used to be an old Yankee Republican state.
	It flipped as the Yankee vote flipped in the 1960s and has become a very liberal Democratic bastion.
	But mostly that's the city of Portland.
	Portland is basically, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine are very similar.
	Dominated by old Yankees and radical lefties and the professional managerial class.
	The rural working class populations of Maine really like Trump.
	They lean Democratic, but they like Trump.
	He has won the Maine's second congressional district, I think both 2016 and 2020.
	And that has its own electoral votes based on how Maine operates.
	But the Maine legislature and the Maine governor is all controlled by the Democratic Party.
	And the judges, they're very liberal judges.
	Where were the original voting rules in place?
	One day in paper.
	Was that ever put into the Constitution or American law?
	Pretty much never in the Constitution.
	It's almost all been the state law decisions.
	Very few federal laws governing federal elections beyond non-discrimination.
	And so that's usually always been a state issue, and it's pretty rarely that it's found in the state Constitution.
	So it's the state legislature determining it.
	And what it is, is because a lot of the legislatures in swing states are Republican, there's been the effort to use the judiciary.
	And manufacture legal claims that aren't well-rooted in constitutional history.
	And it's basically just asking liberal Democratic judges to override the Republican legislatures and impose their own rules in the guise of civil rights.
	And there isn't a good constitutional basis for these claims, but that doesn't matter to many of the judges or many of the corrupted Republican secretaries of state who've gone along with it.
	And so it's a continued effort.
	There hasn't been consistent effort, in my view.
	Coordinating challenges to this.
	The latest example is Michigan, where those electors were indicted, and then the attorney general that indicted them said, you know, they all believed it, that they were legitimate electors.
	Okay, that means the indictment is fraud.
	I mean, the indictment is based on the fact that they knew that they were not legitimate electors to be signing off on what they signed off on.
	Correct.
	So, of course, the defense lawyers moved to dismiss.
	The judge ignored it.
	Denied the motion to dismiss, and then the Attorney General went out and said, this is a very Democratic judge and jury pool, so we're going to win no matter what the facts are, basically.
	I mean, just open, overt, partisan political weaponization of the legal process and the judicial branch and the Democratic power within the judicial branch to undermine what the elected representatives and the people actually want.
	They're geriatrics.
	I'm not saying that to be funny.
	These are elderly people, the electorate, right?
	Many of these electors were, yes.
	I had a question, and now I forget.
	Oh, no, I was going to make a joke.
	Douglas Mackey, Ricky Vaughn made the joke, text in your vote.
	They're not going to stop until you can text in your vote naked in your living room.
	That's where they're trying to go with this.
	It's a First Amendment violation otherwise.
	Of course.
	And the one they've had some success in, thanks to the Supreme Court, is the race-based redistricting.
	So they won the Alabama case that established that they now have a right to add, to basically create more black-majority districts.
	And really, that's create more Democrat-majority districts in the South.
	And so they added one in Alabama.
	They may add some in South Carolina and Louisiana.
	Those cases are now back in the courts because the Supreme Court reopened Pandora's box in that context and is allowing race-based discriminatory choices to be made and how congressional districts are drawn.
	And again, overriding the legislature of the states and how that is done.
	And so there, Democrats are getting to pad their numbers in the South in places where normally they wouldn't have the number of representatives they're going to get out of the South.
	All right.
	What next?
	Ah, but there's no more political weaponization more apparent than what's happening to Donald John Trump.
	Robert, okay, well, we might get to this question later on.
	Hypothetically, if Trump were to become Speaker of the House, would his Speaker immunity, or whatever they call it, floor immunity, congressional, would his immunity override his gag order, or would his gag order suppress his immunity?
	Do you have an answer to that?
	It would enhance his argument in terms of the gag order component, that it's an impermissible intervention in another branch of government, so he would have another additional claim to be made.
	Now, whether he can be Speaker or Speaker in a particular role, I think, is not only an unanswered question, but...
	I have some doubts about that.
	Now, he's already endorsed Jim Jordan, so it's kind of moot at this point.
	Jim Jordan is the likely next Speaker of the House, and Trump is not.
	But in the after party, we'll discuss who exactly can be Speaker and why there's a lot of assumptions out there.
	On the conservative side that I don't think are legally or constitutionally correct.
	I was just looking for an excuse, a good argument to convince Democrats that appointing Trump as Speaker would expose him to liability.
	They do it in a second.
	He can't control his mouth, make him Speaker, and he'll violate his gag order and they'll haul him off to jail.
	When Trump was president, we moved towards peace in the Middle East.
	We didn't have an outbreak of war in Israel.
	We didn't have an outbreak of war in Ukraine.
	We didn't have the escalating risk with China that we all face now.
	So we got three potential world war triggers that didn't exist while Trump was president.
	Oh, hey, let me bring up a wonderful, thoughtful tweet from Alessandra Biagi.
	Do you know who she is, Robert?
	She's a senator from New York.
	She writes, I just love it.
	Okay, it says, just shut the F up already.
	Nothing you say is the truth.
	It's so unproductive and unworkable.
	Donald Trump brought stability to the world.
	Your entire education was a waste.
	And that's in response to Elise Stefanik, who says, when Donald Trump was president, we had stability, yada, yada.
	And then I just had to say, that was your best retort, and your entire education is a waste because you're an idiot with no retorts.
	And then I get into the weapons that were used to...
	And there's just no disputing it.
	When Trump was president, we had peace abroad and prosperity at home.
	When Biden has been president, we have war abroad at escalating scale that we really haven't seen in this aggregation since World War II.
	I mean, you know, hotspots in China, hotspots in the Middle East, hotspots in Europe.
	I mean, how do you manage to do the trifecta?
	I mean, we're just now waiting on China and Taiwan to blow up.
	And if it was up to neocon Nikki Haley, it would.
	And so, I mean, it's insanity.
	But that's why they're trying to take him out.
	They're trying to bankrupt him, strip him of his property, strip him of his business, jail him, imprison him, remove him from the ballot, be a warning, put all of his supporters on terrorist watch lists.
	The FBI is too busy chasing down Trump supporters to do its job.
	The CIA clearly is...
	It's too distracted to do its job.
	I mean, you had Sullivan, who's the Deputy Secretary of State, who's a neoliberal war whore going back to the Clinton era, just a couple of weeks ago, saying how the Biden administration policy has led to the most peaceful stage of the Middle East.
	Well, that didn't age well.
	But that's what happens when you have the CIA too worried about Trump supporters than they are Hamas, Hezbollah.
	Or others may be up to.
	There was so much peace under Trump that they had to lie about the existence of troops to not bring him back.
	Okay, so the latest in New York, Robert, I've been following this much more closely than other stuff.
	Leticia James is out of control.
	She's on Twitter multiple times a day tweeting, it's so ridiculous, the art of the steel, because he wrote a book called The Art of the Deal, and it's a meme comparing Trump's valuation of his properties to the county appraiser in Florida for Mar-a-Lago.
	I don't know, whichever, Cushman, Wakefield, whoever they use.
	Thinks that this, you know, this evidence is the fraud case.
	The judge in the case on Monday issued a verbal gag order.
	I mean, I know it's limited in scope.
	I think most people do, but some people might not.
	Basically gagging Trump to not identify or attack any member of Judge Engeron's staff because Trump put the big, bright, shiny spotlight on the fact that Engeron's chief, what are they called?
	Not paralegal, clerk.
	Clerk, she's out there fraternizing with Chuck Schumer, who knows how the FBI has six ways from Sunday to get back at you.
	Judge Ingeron, I think I did a decent job highlighting his words from eight years ago, talking about the tools that he has at his disposal to reach the verdicts that he wants, notwithstanding a jury verdict, tools for summary judgment.
	What's your thoughts on the gag order?
	What are your thoughts on Leticia James?
	Can she not be...
	Oh, sure, but it's New York where, you know, the Democratic Party, she got elected saying she would bankrupt and jail Trump.
	So it's outrageous the federal courts didn't step in sooner.
	It's outrageous the New York Court of Appeals didn't step in sooner, but it has some of the same partisan prejudicial issues as it concerns Trump.
	Trump did try to raise the issue of federal courts in Florida and New York.
	The wayward nature of these New York proceedings.
	That it was a classic example of a retaliatory First Amendment violating action by the state that you could possibly find.
	And yet they just ignored it and ran from it.
	And said, well, no harm yet.
	Well, that harm started to happen as this nutty judge who's been on tape talking about all the different nutty stuff he likes to do.
	Dershowitz, who's a liberal Democratic judge.
	A liberal Democratic.
	Law professor has said this judge's public statements are wacky and shows that he shouldn't be presiding over this proceeding.
	But he was trying to strip the Trump entity of its ability to function, of its certificates of operation, and force it to be controlled by a Clinton-appointed receiver, a Clinton-appointed judge, and he wanted to appoint that judge as a receiver, which could have cost thousands of jobs in New York.
	And the New York Court of Appeals realized how nuts that was and intervened and said, okay, no, that's not going to happen.
	But the New York Court of Appeals didn't do the same thing and just stop this disgusting clown show entirely.
	It's allowing the trial in front of the judge to go forward, which everybody can see is a complete crock as the judge was clowning up.
	Literally, for the cameras this week.
	Takes his glasses off, poses.
	He was so happy.
	It was like the credits out of Growing Pains or, I don't know, a 70s show I can't think of.
	So two questions.
	First of all, for those who don't know...
	Is the word a receiver?
	The word is a receiver, not a trustee in the States?
	That would have been an appointed external party to manage the assets, run the businesses of Trump, instead of the people who know how to run the business.
	They literally give Trump's business to a Clinton protege.
	Because they're not being accused of having misrun and defrauded investors so that they need to run the business responsibly.
	They just say they defrauded the state of New York somehow with overvaluing assets.
	They want to take someone who has no idea how to run this and give over Trump's business to them.
	The issue that came up last week in the trial, it was one of Engeron's rulings.
	Oh my goodness, Robert, I just forgot.
	At least, I mean, there was some...
	Problematic evidentiary rulings he made that proved his own bias.
	Because the absurdity of it was, is this not a jury trial?
	That was it, the checkbox.
	So, I'm having the...
	I don't want to fight with people I like, and I don't want to fight with people who are ideologically aligned on Twitter, period.
	So I put a more broad statement.
	I looked into this...
	Anybody who thinks that there's any part of the practice of law that is so rigid that it would deny a fundamental right on a procedural...
	I just start off by saying that can't be right, so there has to be more to it.
	From what I understand, Robert, it's not the not checking of the box for a jury trial.
	This is brought under a procedure of law that does not allow for a jury trial because there's some case law precedent that says that when you're seeking equitable relief, it's not done before a jury.
	People said, well, you can still check the box anyhow and ask the judge, and if the judge says no, then you can appeal that decision, and that's probably right.
	But is this a case of not being worth the waste of time and judicial resources for something that seems to be settled law by the case law?
	I mean, I always try to assert jury trial rights in any case I have, even when they try to claim it's frivolous to do so, because I have a different constitutional interpretation of a jury trial right than our courts do.
	But it is correct that this proceeding is mostly considered an equitable proceeding.
	And the old difference between law and equity goes all the way back to England.
	And basically, if you could appeal to the king's conscience to override a ruling by the king's courts.
	And so thus arose the civil law, equitable law distinction.
	In some courts in America, you still have state systems that are actually separate courts.
	In Tennessee, for example, you have equitable courts that also have power over legal decisions but are given primary jurisdiction over equitable issues called chancellors, and they generally don't have jury trials.
	And I disagree with this, but the courts have construed it such that if you're asking for equitable relief, that there's no right to a jury trial because of their...
	Two-century-level effort to eviscerate the right to a trial by jury from our Constitution.
	And first they did it by saying, oh, questions of law are not for the jury to decide.
	Completely made up.
	Completely contrary to the history of the Constitution.
	And a lot of the so-called originalists propagate this nonsense.
	Because they think they, the judges, should have the power, not you, the people.
	Despite the important, robust interest in a right to trial by jury from the date of the founding and our founding generation, it was arguably the most important right, as important as almost any other, because it's about who has the power in the end.
	First Amendment doesn't matter if you don't have the power to enforce it.
	Second Amendment doesn't matter if you don't have the power to enforce it.
	Fourth Amendment, I mean, none of it matters if you don't have the power to enforce it.
	Giving that power to ordinary people was critical to maintaining and sustaining that.
	But the courts first eviscerated it by saying questions of law couldn't be decided by the jury.
	Then they said criminal sentencing couldn't be decided by the jury because that was for the judge.
	That's completely direct.
	I mean, Patrick Henry's give me liberty or give me death great acquittal on tax charges wasn't an acquittal on the facts or the charges.
	It was a low sentence.
	It was the lowest possible sentence, $1.
	And guess who determined that sentence?
	The jury.
	Yet according to our originalist judges, left and right, they say, no, no, no, no, that was never part of it.
	We just can't find that.
	When it comes to judges' own power, they have this peculiar way of just not finding the history that says they don't have that power.
	And this is just an extension and variation of it, saying that the equitable, oh, this is an equitable decision.
	Since this is an equitable issue, magically no jury trial run.
	Yeah, that's preposterous.
	I mean, I don't see the downside in having made that argument and then have it as a basis for a deal.
	Exactly.
	Preserve the constitutional argument.
	Preserve the argument that some of these issues are even legal issues under the current definition rather than equitable issues.
	I agree that they should have done so.
	That they didn't is just because the expectation is this kind of proceeding is typically not doesn't have a jury trial.
	So what happens is most lawyers are used to doing something and they're not used to challenging something that everybody's used to do.
	Well, also, if there's just one case law that you know is going to come up as the determinate piece, and unless you want to go to the Supreme Court on that, which they should, but...
	Okay, so that answers that question, and I'm glad that my understanding of it was correct.
	Understanding after having looked into it because the initial explanation was...
	Too absurd to be true.
	And Dershowitz gave the same explanation himself on the topic.
	I did not know that, so I did not copy Dershowitz's thinking.
	Okay, so that's one aspect of the case.
	What are they actually hearing right now?
	Because he's been found guilty of the fraud, right?
	The judge came to that determination.
	Part of it, but not all of it.
	So that's the part that other parts of it they're still presiding over.
	I mean, the whole trial is just a crock.
	It's for show.
	It's clear.
	Everybody knows what the judge is going to do.
	But since the appeals court stayed the efforts to immediately enforce the judgment, no judgment's going to be enforced until this gets fully adjudicated.
	So that's going to be post-election.
	Now, if I were Trump's team, it doesn't look like they're contesting the verbal gag order.
	I would.
	I would challenge that as unconstitutional.
	There's no basis.
	I mean, the only basis a court has ever affirmed prior restraint, and that's what a gag order is.
	It's prohibiting you from speaking in advance of you actually speaking.
	Remember, the New York Times couldn't be prohibited from publishing national security information because the First Amendment protected it.
	That's how strong the First Amendment prohibits prior restraint.
	Is if there is an incurable inability of a jury trial to be impartial without the gag order.
	But there's no jury in this trial.
	So there's no grounds for any gag order.
	And there's no right to a privacy of your judicial staff.
	That is a public record that should be subject to public rebuke and public criticism.
	This judge is abusing his power individually to protect the political partisan prejudice of his own judicial staff in violation of the First Amendment rights.
	I mean, I would be tempted to sue him in federal court.
	The state court judges always argue immunity from these proceedings, but I've done this before and had success with it.
	But at a minimum, I would challenge it all the way up to the New York Court of Appeals and up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	This weaponized lawfare has to be challenged everywhere and every place it can be within the judicial branch to give some part of the judicial branch the ability to save itself from self-destruction and implosion.
	Now, the argument that I think will...
	Prevent a DC show trial from occurring in their efforts to convict and lock him up before the election is the motion to dismiss he brought in the DC case.
	But hold on before we get there, because I know I played this throughout the week, but we've got...
	Hold on a second.
	How many people do we have now?
	21,440 people watching.
	Drop a comment and hit the thumbs up.
	We've got a bigger crowd tonight, and I want to make sure that the world sees what this judge has said.
	This is the judge in the case, Judge Arthur Angeron.
	Listen to this.
	I may let the whole thing run.
	It's glorious.
	Now, I'm going to say something controversial, even though I'm being taped.
	I bet you didn't know this was going to happen.
	That's my own opinion.
	I do only civil trials, personal injury cases, contract disputes.
	Presidential lawsuits.
	Heaven's sake.
	How could they have thought that?
	Well, I have a tool that I can deal with that.
	It's called jury notwithstanding the verdict.
	I can say there is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion.
	And I've done that twice.
	And once I got reversed, and once I got affirmed...
	That's not bad, considering it's sort of controversial to overturn a jury.
	We love juries.
	Wait until he gets into the part...
	Like I said, I just don't want to do that.
	Am I enforcing the law?
	Juries, that's you.
	Some of you have actually been on juries.
	And so, by the way, I love being a judge.
	If you want to go to law school, you can find someone who knows how to reach me.
	I know it's in here.
	It's a wonderful job.
	I have one last thing to say about tools.
	A lot of what I do involves motions.
	These summary judgment motions I mentioned.
	Another tool that he's got.
	Alright.
	Am I following the law or am I making law?
	Okay.
	I'm following law.
	I'm an impartial referee.
	But...
	But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
	And when I have those...
	Somebody can say, well...
	Your Honor, you have to throw out this case because it's just like another case.
	Oh, is it?
	Is it, though?
	Well, is it just like another case?
	What if the defendant was wearing a red sweater instead of a blue sweater?
	Well, that's an extreme example.
	That wouldn't distinguish most cases.
	Most cases.
	There are other facts that do.
	Maybe the education of somebody who supposedly entered into a contract would decide whether...
	The contract was binding.
	This is Trump's judge.
	A tool that I'll call a tool called estoppel.
	Estoppel.
	Somebody makes an argument and I say, you can't make that argument.
	You made a different argument three months ago in this case or even in another case.
	Even in another case.
	So I wish you all luck.
	So I'm a hack.
	I'm a judicial hack.
	Am I enforcing the law?
	What was it?
	Am I interpreting the law or am I making the law?
	I can't sometimes separate my own emotions, and I have tools for that.
	No, you can't make that argument.
	You're deprived of that argument.
	Jury gets it wrong?
	Overturn that.
	Summary judgment the way I like?
	I got that.
	Oh my goodness, did he not know that a decade later that would come back to haunt him, hopefully.
	Robert, that's crazy.
	Is it crazy?
	Tell me it's not crazy.
	Tell me it's crazy.
	Well, I mean, it just shows the partisan nature of who this judge is and his belief that his power can be wielded however he wants for the purposes he wants.
	And you see that in the illicit gag order.
	You see that in the illicit effort to attempt early execution outside of due process of law.
	You see that in the evidentiary rulings.
	You see that in the summary judgment rulings.
	He's someone that shouldn't even be presiding over the proceeding because it should be in the commercial.
	It's a case that shouldn't have been allowed to go forward if the federal courts had done their job already.
	But the same sort of bias exists in the D.C. proceeding that's far more dangerous to constitutional liberty in America than, And to Donald Trump individually and our rights to pick our own president in 2024.
	So in that case, the most recent, this is in front of Judge Chutney, Jack Smith's presidential records case, Robert?
	I'm not confused.
	No, yes, yes, the criminal Trump records case.
	No, no, the criminal Trump January 6th case.
	The records case is in Florida.
	Tabernish.
	Okay, I'm getting mixed up on the jurisdiction.
	This is the case in which Trump has now made a motion to dismiss for presidential immunity because his conduct was that of a president, and thus he's got immunity from it.
	Flesh out the motion to dismiss.
	There's been no ruling on it, although we know exactly what the ruling is going to be.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that this presents the most compelling reason why the...
	Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court will get involved early.
	And the historically immunity claim, you have a right to appeal and a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court.
	That, of course, would, given the normal timeline for adjudication of such motions, that would make it impossible to hold the trial on the rushed schedule this currently judge is trying to try.
	That would push this trial until after Election Day.
	Then they wouldn't be able to get the conviction they want before Election Day.
	They wouldn't be able to get the chance to try to imprison Trump before Election Day.
	And their strategy would kind of blow up and blow back on them in that instance.
	So the issue is that the presidential immunity that's been raised is that this indictment only alleges facts from the time period Trump was president.
	It doesn't allege any fact as part of the indictment that's outside of when he was president.
	So that gives immediate rise to the question of, well, if he would be immune from a civil suit for his presidential acts, why wouldn't he be immune from criminal prosecution because of his presidential acts?
	So the doctrine of absolute immunity stemmed from the doctrine...
	From what I've discussed as to why I think the impeachment clause is an exclusive remedy for presidential misconduct, and that is that otherwise the president is subject to the whim of a prosecutor, some prosecutor someplace anywhere in the country, particularly a state prosecutor, because the president can pardon himself while president.
	But he's also at the whim of federal prosecutors, post-president, when he can no longer pardon himself.
	If a president knows if I don't do things in a certain way, then I'm going to be jailed and imprisoned either after I'm no longer president or while I'm president even.
	Then any individual prosecutor can extort the president and control the president's policy decision making away from the American people and the electorate.
	The president is vested with all executive powers under Article two, unlike Article one, Article three, which puts limits on the legislative and judicial power.
	There are no such limits on the presidential power beyond the constitutional amendments.
	And so consequently, that power is the legitimacy and authority of that power solely in election.
	And the only remedy.
	And while I think I've been the only one until now advocating the position that impeachment is the exclusive remedy, I haven't seen any legal scholars or legal analysts or lawyer pundits or the rest advance the theory I've been putting in.
	Trump's legal team did advance it.
	It said there is a constitutional remedy.
	For indicting a president that is engaged in criminal dangerous misconduct, and that's impeachment.
	And that unless he's been impeached, he can't be indicted.
	They advance the same argument I've made.
	And on top of that, they point out, we've pointed out, he's already been acquitted of exactly these charges by the Senate.
	So how could someone acquitted of the charges be somehow then subsequently prosecuted?
	The idea that a double jeopardy attaches even to the impeachment clause trial is an idea that many legal scholars in the Justice Department have recognized has serious legal merit.
	They've disagreed with it frequently, but they recognize it can't be dismissed.
	So their main legal grounds are simple.
	One, if this was a civil suit, it would have to be dismissed on absolute immunity.
	So why wouldn't a criminal case have to be dismissed?
	Given that poses more risk to the president.
	Secondly, history.
	We'll talk about this later on at the after party about who can be speaker.
	In the absence of legal precedent, that itself can be precedent.
	What does that mean?
	It means historical application of the law is strong evidence as to the interpretation of the law.
	Here, the fact that no president has ever been criminally indicted.
	It's strong evidence that he can't be unless he is convicted in the Senate first through an impeachment proceeding.
	And so the other argument is more powerful, in my view, it's the policy rationale.
	You can't have the President of the United States subject to the extortionate whim of a random state prosecutor somewhere in the country.
	Or the political vengeance.
	They did something when they were president.
	Or retaliation of a subsequent president.
	You can't have that.
	Or otherwise, you no longer have the public in control of the presidency, which is what's supposed to be the case.
	The president's supposed to be in control of the executive branch and the people in control of the president through election.
	If he is subject with the only limitation being the Constitution, other limitations put on the presidency, which are inapplicable here, you no longer have a popularly elected control of the executive branch if he's subject to the random extortionate whims of a criminal prosecutor.
	If whatever argument existed to disallow civil suits against the president are ten times stronger to disallow criminal prosecution.
	It's not as though it would not apply to that which carries a more severe potential sanction.
	That applies to that which carries the less sanction.
	So if it applies to civil, it necessarily has to apply, and then more so to criminal.
	And the two other things, in the civil suit context, they've made two things crystal clear.
	It extends to anything that could even possibly be called presidential.
	So the fact that it's personal, the fact that it's for an election, doesn't matter.
	If it's within the outer perimeter of anything that could be presidential, immunity attaches.
	And second, what they have hammered away at is they've said motives are completely irrelevant.
	The entire indictment's premise is that immunity doesn't exist because of his motives.
	That's exactly what every court in the country for more than half a century says doesn't apply at all in the immunity context.
	So it doesn't matter what his motives are.
	And clearly everything he did, talking to a vice president, talking to the Justice Department, talking to the public, talking to Congress, talking to governors, talking to state officials, every one of those things is patently presidential actions.
	Well, he was president.
	So the indictment clearly should be dismissed on immunity grounds for analogous reasons brought by Mark Meadows and the former Justice Department official that we've interviewed.
	Jeff Clark.
	Jeffrey Clark.
	Jeff Clark.
	Okay, good.
	Jeff Clark.
	In Atlanta, that's also going up before the federal courts.
	My view is this will be the first time it's ever arisen, of course, because no one's even tried this before.
	I think this is the kind of issue that on its face presents compelling reasons.
	I'm sure this corrupt political hack, granddaughter and great-niece of foreign communists, is not going to be respecting and recognizing our Constitution when it comes to Donald Trump.
	This is Judge Chutney, right?
	Yeah.
	If she had an iota of honesty or honor in her, would have disqualified herself.
	It's why we shouldn't put daughters and granddaughters and nieces and great nieces of foreign communists on the bench, in my opinion.
	But putting that aside, I have no doubt that she'll deny the motion to dismiss, but I think this will be too strong an argument.
	For both the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to ignore.
	Which means it is highly likely to be taken up by one of those and highly likely to delay any trial in the proceeding until after the election.
	And that's what needs to happen.
	We need to have an honest election without any...
	Let verdict day be election day.
	And this constitutional question and issue presents it straightforwardly.
	And in a compelling, persuasive fashion.
	And I'm glad they incorporated my argument that impeachment is the exclusive remedy for a rogue president.
	Robin, I haven't read one rumble rant.
	Oh, one quick addendum.
	Guess who they're quoting a lot in the decision about how this is presidential acts?
	Joe Biden.
	Because Joe Biden has been arguing to the Supreme Court.
	That his efforts to censor Twitter and gatekeep speech and govern elections and the Justice Department's intervention in state elections and monitoring elections was absolutely within his presidential duties.
	So throughout, they just keep getting to quote Biden.
	Is this within presidential duties?
	Biden says so.
	So what's the judge going to do?
	The judge is going to say that Biden is full of it?
	It'll still be fun watching this political hack expose how prejudiced she is by trying to weasel her way.
	Through intellectually contradictory arguments that she'll have to make in order to justify this case proceeding.
	But I don't think the D.C. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court will go along.
	So I have tears in my eyes, Robert.
	I've got to use my scrunchie to wipe them down.
	Let me read a bunch of these.
	No, but Robert, they'll just use it against Biden.
	I think they want him out anyhow.
	So use it against Trump so they can use it against...
	See what Newsom was?
	Newsom runs six points behind Biden in the Midwest.
	That's when they have the choice.
	When they don't have the choice, if it's Newsom or Trump, they'll...
	No, no, I mean, if it's Trump versus Biden versus Trump versus Newsom, Newsom does six points worse against Trump.
	I just think those polls are, those hypotheticals when you actually still have Biden, those polls I think are useless in my view, but I don't.
	It's older Democrats don't like, blue-collar Midwesterners don't like Newsom.
	There's nothing about the, Newsom is a weaker, Newsom's even weaker than Kamala Harris.
	That's how weak Newsom is.
	That's crazy to me.
	I don't like him, but at least, you know, he...
	Newsom's only popular on the coast.
	He's not popular in middle America.
	Look at the guy.
	He looks like a blowhard from San Francisco.
	That isn't who they like.
	If you're in the Midwest, Joe Biden is like that uncle...
	Everybody knows an Uncle Joe.
	And most of them don't even mind him.
	So those older Democrats, he's losing independence in the Midwest, but that's not a vote that says, oh, I can't wait for blowhard Newsom to show up.
	Admittedly, Newsom looks like Patrick Bateman out of American Psycho.
	That's all I can see.
	That's why he's got no chance up there.
	That's why he'll never replace him.
	They're stuck with Biden.
	Even if he's dead, they'll put his robot out there.
	Well, they'll hook him up to life support.
	Sean487, Viva as a Christian, God bless and protect your extended family.
	I have to say, going door to door and hunting down babies puts you in a special category.
	Freddie65 says, wish you would have asked Khan how his parents reacted.
	I deliberately did not ask that question.
	I'm not trying to foment strife among Khan and his probably more conservative family in the United Arab Emirates.
	Another factor not covered in the news yet.
	Iranian spies ushered into the D.C. swamp want to bet they were the listening...
	What does that mean?
	Listening post.
	If they heard chatter that the U.S. discovered the plan, they'd call it off.
	You know who's being ignored in that context?
	The leader of Hamas is not in Haran.
	He's in Qatar.
	Qatar is the number one funder of large parts of Hamas.
	But because Qatar has tons of lobbyists, including a bunch of so-called conservatives on the payroll in D.C., you only hear about Iran and you hear nothing about Qatar.
	Interesting.
	We got JCH for Freedom says, I have no words for this world, the West, the US.
	Thank you for all you do.
	Thank you.
	MK Telephenomen.
	Soon to be new waterfront territory.
	Okay, I was in southern Israel.
	In a V. Is there going to be an emergency UN Security Council meeting in New York tomorrow?
	I don't know.
	MK Telephenomen.
	The simply overwhelming...
	They simply overwhelmed the Iron Dome defense.
	5,000 rockets are hard to...
	They had a guy on a freaking fan-powered parasail, like a Homer Simpson in an episode.
	Nothing about it makes sense.
	And it's one thing to overwhelm the Iron Dome.
	Hours without a military...
	Yeah, I agree with you.
	There's no...
	I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why Israel failed in its security.
	I was trying to...
	I forget where it was.
	There was a mass shooting on an island.
	I want to say in Norway or Sweden.
	They got to an island faster than...
	This is freaking Israel!
	And those are border towns.
	It doesn't...
	It doesn't make sense.
	I'm going to get angry again.
	Inavi, thank you, Viva and Barnes, for being flexible from original Sunday schedule to address our current events.
	Yeah, we can't not...
	Alex David Duke says, Scott Ritter is an idiot and Hamas apologist.
	The Engaged Few says, consider this the first donation to the Viva Frye Wife Out of Town Coke and Hooker's Fund.
	Dude, you wish!
	I got three kids, two dogs.
	I'm going to be lucky to get my daytime streams going.
	I've got to put a kid to bed before.
	Okay, MK Telephone says, send boats to Gaza and cart them off to Europe.
	I don't know what that means.
	I'm reading the chats.
	There are plenty in Europe.
	That's another...
	Jim Satala says, "Did you see that Israel decided to ratchet back their gun control a tiny bit because of this attack?
	They're increasing ammo limits from 500 rounds, 500...
	Wait period to one week.
	They learned nothing." I didn't see that.
	Waitison says, "Viva, don't forget my American Law Institute question from YouTube." The brief answer on that is the American Law Institute doesn't rewrite the laws.
	It rewrites the restatements, which some legislatures borrow from, some others don't.
	Courts look to it as a persuasive interpretation of existing law, but they don't have the constitutional power to rewrite law itself.
	This is funny.
	MK Telefoman says, how can they request an absentee ballot if they can't even figure out how to get an ID?
	Wink!
	Contemporaneous compendium.
	I'd love to see Dr. David Wood and or apostate prophet on for a sidebar.
	Speak on the Hamas-Israel issue.
	DW is a diagnosed sociopath.
	DW.
	Oh, Daily Wire.
	And Associated Press is a former muzzle.
	I think that's what it means.
	Either one.
	Fascinating.
	Screen grab.
	I don't like those discussions.
	They're too...
	People are entrenched.
	There's no discussion.
	LEW's Grammy.
	Lou's Grammy.
	What is the assessed rate upon which his property taxes are based?
	Two different evaluations.
	The engaged use is why did they dig up Fred Phelps to preside over Trump's trial?
	I don't know who that is.
	Aunt Debbie says, Viva serious spam trollish is not on Rumble.
	That's a sign of success.
	Barnes, recommendation on reading re-Gaza Israel.
	Good question.
	Actually, Dershowitz has several really good, well-thought-out pieces.
	If you want the left perspective, Noam Chomsky.
	Oh, God, Noam.
	Is it possible that if Trump wins 2024, they impeach him in the House and Senate just to rid themselves of him?
	Stingray.
	Depends who's in control, right?
	Uphill Rider says, would Biden have immunity for actions prior to his presidency?
	Clicked wrong dollar value.
	We talked about this one earlier.
	My view is impeachment's the exclusive remedy, period.
	That argument is not necessary to Trump's motion to dismiss because all the allegations concern actions while he was president.
	Oh shit.
	How many people do we have watching right now?
	Hold on.
	23,000.
	We'll ask this question of the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	Top videos daily.
	Someone should research what Leticia James and the judge bought and sold their houses for and see if it matches the tax assessment and sue them for the same thing they are going after Trump for.
	That would be hilarious.
	I think this power is exclusively given to the Attorney General of New York.
	Okay, that's fantastic.
	Good chat and a good chat.
	Good crumble rant.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, Robert, what do we got now?
	Up next, big tech in big trouble.
	Okay, so Google is being sued for the search engine tie-ins to the apps.
	Is it not the FEC?
	Is it the FEC?
	Either FTC or DOJ plus attorney generals have brought suit.
	That is now in the fourth week of trial in D.C. Oh, they had some interesting tests.
	And I'm getting mixed up.
	No, this is the one where they had the CEO of, not Netflix, Microsoft, testifying as to how much, what is it, unfair competition they're engaging in by tying in as the default search engine on devices, you know, pricing out, penalizing out competition.
	Oddly enough, it's funny, they got Microsoft, who was sued for something similar 20 years ago, saying, yeah, my goodness, it's invaluable.
	We were trying to buy the default settings on phone.
	Impossible.
	So what is the status, Robert, the update or the trial, the latest on the trial, and your predictions for the outcome?
	So, Matt Stoller, a really good antitrust mind who comes from more the Democratic left by tradition, but has been very good on these antitrust issues, and critical of his own party when it has failed to follow through, has said this case could be a defining case for big tech in particular.
	Because if Google loses, the court can order Google broken up.
	In other words, Google might have to sell YouTube.
	Imagine a world where Google no longer controls YouTube.
	I don't think the difference would be that much.
	I think they would wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know how to work things.
	But Rockstar19 in Rumble says preloaded apps shouldn't exist.
	If they ordered something as basic as you get a phone clean and you install the app you want, I mean, that itself would be revolutionary.
	Well, give an example.
	Rumble's suit antitrust claim against Google that's pending in federal court in California.
	Google no longer controlled YouTube and could not legally promote YouTube and had to be an honest algorithm as to video search.
	The biggest beneficiary by a long mile would be Rumble.
	Rumble would financially, like right now its stock has taken some hits from the political war being waged against it.
	Right now, as the SEC likes to tell me, I'm not allowed to give any investment advice.
	I can just tell you, if you were a member of SportsPix this past weekend, you might have been the guy that put a $250 bet in and made $40,000 from it, as one of our members did.
	Shut up, Robert.
	We had a fat, fat, fat, rich weekend.
	But I'm not allowed to give investment advice.
	I'm just saying that...
	If this suit goes a certain way, you can bet Rumble's stock is going to be going, pop, upwards.
	So the, because this case, there's two cases, another one against Oracle, but this case could reshape the internet forever.
	Biden versus Missouri shapes the ability of the government to engage in coordinated censorship, which is huge.
	The Texas and Florida cases pending before the Supreme Court govern the state's ability to protect your right of access to the platforms, which is huge.
	But this case and one other case we're about to talk about are equally huge.
	Within the next year to two years, we may see a complete rewriting of the big tech landscape as they got too aggressive.
	Now, here's the reality.
	If they would have stayed out of politics, they may have got away with all this greed.
	But they decided to get involved in politics and tick off half the nation, half the world.
	And now, as a consequence, they're facing political blowback they thought they were buying immunity from.
	They agreed in the Obama administration.
	The Obama administration covered up a lot of their antitrust activities.
	An FTC report was buried by the Obama administration because they were so deeply in bed with big tech.
	And then they figured as long as they're on the Democratic side, they would be protected.
	And the problem is, it turned out, unless you were subservient to the state, the state wasn't going to be happy even on the Democratic side of the aisle.
	So right now, if Google loses this, it would radically reshape the entire landscape of big tech because the basis of its decisions would not only break up Google, who is the number one barometer of censorship and control on big tech, but it would be a basis to challenge anybody else doing the same thing.
	And again, YouTube has gone to great lengths through Google to suppress Rumble as a competitor.
	If that was all unleashed, I mean, just the damages Google would have to...
	If they lose this, YouTube is going to lose their suit against Rumble.
	And that is a massive, massive, massive amount of damages they can prove there with explosive evidence.
	And then it just all flows from there.
	And that pales in...
	Well, it compares equally to the Oracle class action that almost nobody's paying attention to.
	I don't know that I understand the Oracle class action other than the fact that users are suing for authorization to form a class of people who Oracle was unlawfully spying on collecting data from and selling data of.
	And nobody knows that Oracle does it.
	Oracle is sort of embedded in every website that uses Oracle as a software.
	But, Robert, I'm not wrong.
	Oracle was, it had its CIA origins as in it was founded as...
	I forget exactly why it was a tool of the CIA, but the name itself had to do with Operation Oracle or something along those lines.
	Do you know the origins of Oracle?
	Well, all of big tech was originally sourced by deep state spending, deep state investments, as a surveillance gathering tool and technique, which they, in my view, strangely abandoned in exchange for censorship and gatekeeping control.
	Thereby losing the surveillance value that these technologies offer.
	That, by the way, Elon Musk is kind of bringing back, so just keep that in mind about dear Elon.
	There might be ancillary incentives for him to promote free speech to gather intel.
	But here's the big key.
	What's Big Tech's entire financialization model?
	It's monetizing people's private information.
	And what the Oracle suit says, Is that money that didn't belong to them.
	That's money that belonged to us.
	And that was massive unjust enrichment.
	If they prevail on that legal theory...
	The entire monetary basis of big tech's operation collapses, and they've got to refund everybody in the world the money they've stolen over the last decade.
	Well, or, I mean, it's not to, like, merge two things, or that becomes something of the basis of universal basic income.
	Like, the more data you've shared online, you'll share in the profits of the companies that have been gathering it and reselling it.
	I mean, it could be a win-win.
	It's to share, but that's not what's here.
	Here, where they want the money back.
	And it would bankrupt these companies.
	And it would destroy their economic model going forward.
	And so it's long been, I thought, the biggest problem with Big Tech's model is they did not have informed consent for the monetization of people's private information.
	And that monetization was the entire basis of their profitability.
	Yeah, well, they didn't have informed consent.
	I don't think people knew it.
	Like, I consider myself to be relatively informed.
	Nobody knew.
	I wasn't fully appreciated.
	Oh, nice, nice free.
	The way I thought they screwed you is give you the app for free, then charge you once you become dependent on it, not sell your shit while you're on it.
	Like, you know, Google making me pay three bucks a month now for Gmail so I don't lose emails that I've been keeping for two decades is one thing.
	But gathering selling data, Yeah, it's amazing.
	And they're at the stage in the Oracle lawsuit of, oh geez, I'm now confusing you with another lawsuit.
	Are they at the stage of class action authorization or have they gotten it yet?
	They've prevailed past the motion to dismiss it.
	Good.
	So that's why these two suits combined with the ones that are getting a lot of attention, you know, the Missouri versus Biden and the Texas and Florida state laws up at the Supreme Court, these two suits are even more consequential.
	For the future of big tech and their ability to monopolize public information and gatekeeping access and continue their economic model in general.
	And so we may be seeing the end of big tech within the next half decade.
	That's amazing.
	Okay.
	I won't bring it up, but someone on Rumble, it's MK Telephone, it says, I had to buy a new computer to rid me of Google.
	It is that intrusive into hidden areas.
	I gave up.
	That's the other thing.
	Some of us have just given up.
	I assume my phone is always listening, so I don't even make certain jokes in private.
	All right, what do we got now, Robert?
	Speaking of corruption and fraud involving the government, we filed our second amended complaint by permission of the court in the Brooke Jackson, which is the United States, with Brooke Jackson as the relator, versus Pfizer over the COVID vaccine and the fraud Pfizer committed.
	What is...
	I'm licking my...
	I'm sort of almost drooling.
	What is the...
	What's the basis of the amendments?
	What are you adding to the lawsuit so that it doesn't run into a dismissal later on?
	So there are two different grounds the court permitted amendment on.
	And one was to fully add a robust fraud in the inducement claim.
	And secondly was to address the question of the materiality of the fraud.
	And so the...
	Because the issue is...
	Here, what Pfizer did is the essence of the bargain, that's what the Supreme Court Justice Thomas said, is the way in which you should evaluate any fraudulent claim against the government.
	The essence of the bargain is that Pfizer promised the Trump administration it would deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
	Not for the treatment of it, not for the diagnosis of it, not as a therapeutic, for the prevention of COVID-19.
	That it would be an inoculating, immunizing agent.
	That was how its efficacy was defined.
	Did it prevent infection?
	Did it prevent transmission?
	The second component is that it is safe that the probable risks of side effects from the vaccine...
	We're substantially less than the probable risks of the virus itself in the individual.
	It's supposed to be an individualized, stratified risk assessment for that individual within that group, within that segment of the population.
	In addition, it had to meet the preconditions of emergency use authorization because in order to get that, the emergency use authorization statute required there be no Effective alternative either for inoculation or for treatment of COVID-19.
	And you had to factor in that into the risk assessment for safety and efficacy.
	So what Pfizer knew from the very beginning all along was they could not deliver what they were promising they could deliver.
	First, they convinced the Trump administration, we can give you a safe.
	And they also convinced the Trump administration and the Defense Department and the Food and Drug Administration and the American people and much of the medical profession that there were no alternatives out there.
	There was no ivermectin that could help.
	There was no vitamin D that could help.
	There was no hydroxychloroquine that could help.
	There was no other treatment out there that could help reduce the risk.
	From COVID-19.
	And so the problem is those were all lies.
	They knew there was.
	They knew in particular as regards to ivermectin, lobbied against it.
	Because without that, without proving ivermectin didn't work, they could never get emergency use authorization because it was a precondition to get it.
	And let me stop you there because there has been some disagreements from some that...
	That's not true.
	That if there could have been other viable alternatives that would not have precluded emergency use authorization, that's just flat out false, Robert, correct?
	Yeah, yeah.
	The federal law is very clear on this.
	So you can only give the emergency use authorization when there's no effective alternative.
	Because emergency use authorization doesn't require the same strict medical standards as an actual biologic license does.
	So if you couldn't get a biologic license and they knew they couldn't in that time frame...
	They could only get an emergency use authorization.
	They had approved there was no alternative.
	Otherwise, you don't get an emergency use authorization to short-circuit the biologic licensing process.
	And so that was their first lie, but it wasn't their only lie.
	The question is, how do you classify this, right?
	The essence of the bargain is you're going to deliver me a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 because there's no alternative out there that can even be a therapeutic.
	And it turns out that's not what you delivered.
	And it turns out you knew that wasn't what you were delivering.
	And it turns out you lied all the way through the process.
	You lied to me to get the contract.
	You lied to me to get the payment.
	You lied to the FDA to get the authorization.
	And so forth.
	Is that fraud in the presentment of your invoice?
	Is that fraud in your certification of what you did or didn't do during the invoicing process?
	Is that fraud by implied certification?
	Or is it fraud in the inducement?
	And so because of the unique nature of their fraud, Pfizer's been arguing it's somehow magically none of the four.
	And so what the court recognized in our motion to amend is that a permissible theory that could cover this unique set of circumstances is fraud in the inducement.
	Because it goes again to the essence of the bargain, which is what the fraud claim is supposed to be analyzed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But its best expression, its best legal claim cause of action articulation, by the logic of what the court has already said, is fraud in the inducement rather than fraud in the presentment, rather than fraud in the certification part of the process.
	That's fine.
	So we filed an amended suit.
	I have uploaded the suit.
	It's available to anybody.
	It's not only limited to members.
	Anybody can just go to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	I'll pin it after the show to the top of the board or want to be one of the top posts on the board.
	So you can read the lawsuit for yourself.
	It has not only all the legal claims, it has all the factual basis for that legal claims and the citation to public access to public records or to exhibits to the complaint that detail the factual basis for it.
	What Brooke Jackson established, the other additional claim we're allowed to amend is the retaliation claim.
	That the court wanted more specificity about how this was done in retaliation for Brooke Jackson exposing what Pfizer was doing to the Food and Drug Administration and the Defense Department, which she clearly did, and which was the reason why she was summarily fired.
	She went through the internal part of the process first.
	Was promised relief and remedy, was never given relief and remedy.
	The number of violations she saw were just extraordinary.
	It's one after the other after the other.
	And why are they consequential?
	Why are they material?
	They're material because it goes to the FDA authorization that was a precondition of payment.
	It's material because it's essential to determine whether it's safe or not.
	It's material because it determines whether or not it's effective or not.
	It's material because it determines whether or not it prevents COVID-19 or not.
	And what she saw was the way in which they were gathering data was such a way that they could not establish it was safe, could not establish it was effective, could not establish it would prevent COVID-19.
	And that's why it was material to them ever being able to get authorization, for them ever being able to get payment, for them even really getting the contracts enforceability from the very inception, but definitely throughout its continuation during her time in employment there.
	And when she disclosed it to the FDA, they fired her.
	Now, the other aspect is Pfizer's defense is, hey, Biden administration is with us, so you can't sue us.
	The problem with that is the Biden administration has never explicitly and expressly stated that it acknowledges and accepts Brooke Jackson's allegations as true, because that would be a little bit embarrassing for the Biden administration to say.
	So as long as the FDA refuses to accept the veracity of Brooke Jackson's allegations, then the FDA's actions are irrelevant to the materiality question.
	Robert, have you seen Dr. John Campbell's latest expose about the manufacturing of it?
	Apparently there's some...
	He's like an honorary Viva.
	He's been radically red-filled over the last two years.
	I think I watched him early on.
	He was just your normal, everyday, trust the government.
	I'm sure it's all okay.
	COVID kind of a public health doctor just trying to get the reports and report it to people.
	And as he's seen the criminality, as he's seen the fraud, as he's seen the harm, you've seen him radicalize in real time.
	And the information that Brooke Jackson has developed and others have developed is that it appears that the vaccine that was actually injected in people was not consistently the vaccine that they said it was.
	In other words, it didn't have the same ingredients.
	But some of this was stuff she was identifying at the time.
	They weren't doing dosage control.
	They weren't doing temperature control.
	There were needles sticking out of bags.
	That's where people's private records were tattooed on the walls.
	This was as unsafe and dangerous as possible, and it was guaranteed to produce unreliable data that could never verify the safety or efficacy of this drug.
	And they knew it.
	That's why they did it the way they did it, because they knew it wasn't safe.
	They knew it wasn't effective.
	They knew it didn't prevent COVID-19.
	And they lied to everybody to get where they're at.
	And as the FDA has not acknowledged that what Pfizer did is lies, her suit should go forward to discovery.
	And that's what the Second Amendment amended complaint is about.
	Amazing.
	And everyone should watch.
	I mean, I saw John Campbell's bit on Jimmy Dore where they were talking about the fact that the final product, the manufactured product, was different than the one that was authorized.
	Nobody knows it.
	I think people know it now.
	I can't find the video when I Google it.
	Because I have no doubt that Google and YouTube are suppressing the results not to bring me to that video that I know that I saw.
	I know that I saw it.
	What's the next step in your lawsuit, Robert?
	So you file the Second Amendment.
	The advisor will file a motion to dismiss.
	We'll file our brief in opposition to that.
	The court may schedule a second round of oral argument, and then the court will make an order on the motion to dismiss, which will determine whether we get to discovery or not.
	All right.
	Now I'm going to read another one from...
	Oh, the Google one from MK Telephone when I read.
	Navasa, I know the answer to this.
	Barnes, is your sports picks on vivabarneslaw.locals.com or somewhere else?
	It's on robertsportspicks.com?
	Sportspicks.locals.com.
	Sportspicks.locals.com.
	The $250,000 turned into $40,000.
	That's when I let it ride like you bet on a sequence of events that happened to happen?
	Yeah.
	What is it?
	You bet on a combo.
	It's called a teaser bet.
	And so they made a lot of money this weekend.
	Mother Cabri.
	I would have done it.
	I would have done it.
	Damn it.
	And I still don't want to buy Rumble because I don't want to be accused of any insider or whatever.
	If I were not neurotic and not in a world where the weaponized Department of Justice will go after you for any reason, my goodness, I would invest.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no investment advice.
	Robert, what's the next on our topic?
	Speaking of drug companies lying to American people, just remember everybody, Pfizer makes the Mexican drug cartels look like small change.
	You got these Republican presidential wannabes running around saying, we want a war with the Mexican drug cartels.
	How about deal with the biggest drug cartel, criminal drug cartel in the history of the world, known as the Pfizer Corporation?
	But we got another one that's been caught lying to the American people, and that is the Bayer Drug Corporation.
	I think, aren't they kind of like German?
	I might have some ties to some...
	You're saying Bauer.
	You mean Bauer, right?
	B-A-U-E-R.
	I think it's B-A-Y-E-R.
	Bayer.
	Bayer.
	Is this the IUD case?
	All right.
	So this is an IUD, an inter-urinary device.
	I don't know if I can share a story of someone I know who took one and...
	Nonetheless, had a baby and then had some other problems.
	I'll let the internet run.
	It was not my wife.
	Okay, so set that aside.
	So this is an IUD that was recommended to prevent pregnancies and not disclose that it increased your risk of spontaneous breast cancer or long-term breast cancer by 20 to 30 percent.
	And apparently, from the allegations of the suit, which are not yet proven, but they seem to be strong, they knew.
	They didn't disclose it.
	They pushed this product on a number of pregnant women, and they're seeking class action relief for damages, etc., That's an oversimplistic summary, but I'm not sure that it really is that oversimplistic.
	Robert, what's your take?
	One key was they tried to argue FDA preemption.
	They argued, hey, the FDA approved these labels, and we have to abide by the FDA labeling so nobody can sue us.
	And as the court correctly ruled, might have some relevance to the Brooke Jackson case, they said you didn't disclose all information you had to the FDA, and consequently, you can't rely upon FDA preemption.
	Because we have no idea what an honest FDA would have done, and that's the standard, not what a dishonest FDA would have done, but what an honest FDA would have done, had you disclosed all information.
	And because they quit updating the FDA when all the negative reports kept coming in, that, hey, stop birth control.
	Oh, by the way, we'd probably give you breast cancer.
	But don't worry about that part.
	Just keep birth control.
	They knew people wouldn't take it and use it if they knew this.
	And so they hid this, according to the allegations of the complaint.
	And so the lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss and is going forward on a class-action basis of more drug company criminality.
	Once again...
	These big drug companies make the Mexican drug cartels look like street-level drug dealers by comparison in their mass public harm.
	It's amazing because the IUD had actually triggered a hormonal response which they knew by the allegations of the suit increased your risks of breast cancer.
	But at least you had a baby and you could breastfeed it unless the breast cancer came too quickly.
	Atrocious and horrendous.
	Okay.
	I'm looking at the list, Robert.
	So now are we getting into the Hong Kong jail?
	I didn't read it.
	Oh, this is just a headline news, and it's for my friends on the anti-war left side of the aisle that tend to think anybody that's opposed to the neocons is by definition an ally.
	And that is not always the case.
	Just because the neocons hate Hamas doesn't make Hamas an ally of freedom or liberty in the world.
	In the same way, just because they're anti the Chinese Communist Party.
	Doesn't make the Chinese Communist Party an ally.
	And the latest iteration and illustration of this is that the Chinese Communist Party is arresting people in Hong Kong for what kids' books they import.
	Importing kids' books!
	And these aren't like...
	Tranny and weird.
	These are just books about how maybe the Chinese Communist Party, it's not even specific to the Chinese Communist Party, but because the Chinese Communist Party thinks a kid might read the book and interpret something bad about totalitarianism, basically, they're locking people up.
	No better way to prove you're not a totalitarian government than locking somebody up for bringing in kids' books.
	So they're not reading Michael Malice's White Pill, I imagine, in China.
	I have no doubt that Michael Malice's books about North Korea would probably get you arrested or worse in North Korea.
	I don't think he's going to...
	I mean, he got in there before they knew who he was.
	Who the fuck...
	I'm sorry.
	Who would go to China?
	I mean, like, I don't think...
	No, I don't think.
	I would not go to China.
	I would not have any one of my siblings go to China.
	I would recommend they don't go to China.
	Oh, God.
	Yeah, I'm going to...
	Okay.
	So, it's not the BJ books for the kids.
	This is just straight up...
	Literature for kids that is being bad.
	Yeah, it's just stuff that the Chinese Communist Party is scared someone might interpret as being bad for the commies.
	Privacy and open records.
	I know that I didn't read this one either, but I got the next one wrong.
	Well, it kind of relates.
	So what happened is somebody asked a local library in Colorado to make sure kids didn't have access to the book called Gender Queer, a Memoir.
	So you could probably guess the title of the book that maybe eight-year-olds shouldn't be reading it.
	Dude, I know this book.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to get this.
	Genderqueer, a memoir.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Let me bring it up.
	Let me bring it up.
	Okay.
	Oh, why do I know this book?
	I have not read it because I have not read a...
	Are we in, Robert?
	Did I bring this in?
	I did.
	Okay, good.
	Genderqueer, a memoir.
	Kababa Maya.
	Let's read what the book is about.
	In 2014, Maya Kobabe, who uses E-M-Air pronouns, thought that a comic of reading statistics would be the last autobiographical comic Okay, bear in mind, people, the person writes this for Amazon.
	It's not Amazon writing this.
	E would ever write.
	At that time, it was the only thing E felt.
	I'm going to share an anecdote after I finish this.
	I don't want to distract my thoughts.
	I don't even know what the hell I'm reading anymore.
	Now genderqueer is here.
	Maya's intensely cathartic autobiography charts air journey of self-identity, which includes the mortification and confusion of not speaking English.
	Robert, I'm sorry.
	I got lost on the E-A-R.
	E-M-R.
	Robert, I was in a bank and they have a one-stall private bathroom and it's gender-neutral.
	They have a sign that says gender-neutral bathroom.
	I'm like, it's a one-stall lockable bathroom.
	You don't need a gender thing on the outside except a virtue signal.
	I was at a pet store the other day and there's a person.
	God bless her soul.
	I'm not even saying it in the way that people say it.
	It was a person who was clearly a woman, who was clearly transitioning, had a mustache but boobs, and a buzz cut, and no problem whatsoever, and you can fault me for not having a problem.
	Where I had a problem, I looked at her tag, employee tag, and it said, he, they.
	And then I wanted to say, what the hell does he, they mean?
	It's he, him, and then...
	I'd probably still get over my own issues and say he.
	What does he, they mean?
	What does she, they mean?
	It means he, not him, he, they.
	It makes no sense.
	Robert, what the hell's going on with this book?
	Sorry, that was a big tangent.
	What's going on with this book?
	It does remind me of a federal judge who pulled us aside when someone had gone through a gender transition as a witness to the surprise of everybody.
	And the judge said, what do I call it?
	I'm probably not that, Judge.
	It's going to be a long day for you.
	No, but some people do go by it, but it would make more sense than a few days.
	Right, dear Lord.
	So someone requested, hey, don't have the genderqueer book for kids.
	And the library, being Colorado, Camirado these days, like California, the local newspaper was upset with who dared ask.
	that this book be removed from children.
	Little kids need to be reading this, according to the local press.
	And so they demanded that the, for using the Open Records Act, they demanded disclosure of who requested that kids not have access to the book so that the newspapers could publicly out them and attack them.
	Motherfudger.
	Now, fortunately, Colorado Supreme Court has previously recognized there's a First Amendment right of anonymity.
	And that the state cannot compel the disclosure of certain sorts of record requests or information.
	This includes who bought books, for example.
	Can't require book publishers to give a list of the book purchasers.
	So in the same vein, that applies to certain kinds of Open Records Act requests.
	And so the court correctly recognized that they're identifying information.
	There's a First Amendment right of anonymity in that particular area.
	For the obvious reason, not to be doxed for doing what is within their right to do and petitioning the government.
	And so consequently, the newspaper failed in its effort to out and dox the people exposing the fact that they were wanting to stick porn books in front of little kids.
	But for identifying a home address, I would proudly say, know my name, and it is David Freiheit.
	In terms of objecting to that, holy crap, Robert, if I was laughing, it was because Tech Crisis in the RumbleRand said, Viva, it's interuterine, not urinary, different holes, Viva.
	Interuterine.
	I don't have one.
	I don't know.
	Sorry.
	So that's fantastic.
	So whoever objected to that book can remain anonymous because they don't have the...
	I don't say this judgmentally.
	They don't want to be publicly identified.
	I do say, channeling Gadsad, get your honey badger out there and be prepared to be identified for your beliefs when you believe in them.
	Period.
	Speaking of stand-up for your beliefs, we talked about the Northwestern University...
	Real scandal, which is the university promoting its cheerleaders as basically trying to make them into hookers for rich donors.
	And they didn't have an internal process meaningful to investigate and stop that from occurring.
	When they knew it was happening to be juxtaposed to this.
	Correct.
	And it's probably the real reason Northwestern fired Pat Fitzgerald, their college football coach, who had nothing to do with it.
	This is a college football coach who had an extraordinary record not only on the field but off the field at Northwestern.
	Beloved by his players, current and former.
	Among the most winningest coaches that Northwestern ever had.
	Or any school of that level has ever had.
	When Robert sends me a case, I try to figure out...
	The angle that Robert is viewing it from and the angle that I...
	I read, I know nothing of college football.
	I don't care for it.
	Period.
	Knowing what we covered in terms of the other case where they were whoring out and pimping out, I guess is probably the better word, cheerleaders.
	I was like, does Robert have something against the university on this case?
	And I read the allegations of the lawsuit.
	Like, among the most winningest coaches ever.
	The most well-respected coaches ever.
	There for two decades.
	No issues, no nothing.
	There's a hazing crisis, a hazing complaint of the football players on the Northwestern team.
	They're way old.
	Decades-old complaint.
	And the only complaint is that other...
	And there's disagreements about even basically locker room behavior from a decade before by other players.
	They do a full investigation.
	It totally clears the coach.
	They had less of those incidents than other programs around the country.
	For a reason, because he had instituted a no-hazing policy.
	So this information had been kept secret from him.
	What happened really kind of wasn't hazing, wasn't organized, wasn't institutional, wasn't ever brought to his attention, was in violation of rules and protocols, and was rare and exceptional.
	They recognize this.
	Their own investigation clears them.
	And then there's further follow-up investigation about what's happening in Northwestern institutionally.
	So they quickly fire him.
	And they blame him, and they fire him for cause, hoping to suppress news story that would otherwise have led to the lawsuit about institutional pimping out of working-class peer leaders on scholarship to their rich donors.
	And they try to use Pat Fitzgerald as their scapegoat.
	He's called them on it as suing them for it, and they're going to end up writing him a check of over $100 million, is my guess, by the end of it.
	Very interesting.
	Now I am putting it together.
	There was another angle to him.
	He had an anti-hazing policy.
	I forget what it was, but bottom line.
	Oh, that's right.
	He had agreed, apparently, to a two-week suspension because he ought to have known about whatever hazing they were alleging.
	He agreed to that two-week suspension, and then on the second day after he agreed to it, they fire him with cause.
	The dude was making $68 million over eight years, so that's close to like $8 million a year.
	Yes, because he was in high demand as a coach.
	Because he had achieved success at a program that has very little recruiting capability.
	And he was achieving success off the field.
	In other words, he wasn't like Vanderbilt and some other schools that tried to recruit questionable candidates.
	He didn't have any sex abuse scandals.
	He didn't have any rape, domestic violence, criminality.
	He had one of the highest graduation rates at a place like Northwestern of any college football program in the nation and was still able to win on the field.
	Nobody else in college football had done what he's done over the past decade.
	The great famous coaches like the Nick Sabans of the world, that isn't what they did, and they did it at talent-rich programs.
	So that's why he was always in high demand, and he was just loyal to Northwestern, and they paid him less than what he could get on the open market.
	And then they betrayed him when he became a useful sacrifice to cover up for their real scandals at the corporate office.
	Fantastic.
	Yeah, so the $110 million in damages, which was $65 million for the remainder of his contract, what he could have otherwise gotten...
	They defamed him in such a way that he can't get another job because people now think he was fired for a hazing scandal, and that's false.
	And so punitive damages and defamation.
	Interesting.
	Well, they filed it, so there's been no motion to dismiss yet.
	It's recently filed.
	They'll survive that, and my view is they're going to ultimately write a check because they were lying.
	What was amazing is how many people in the sports media refused to cover this, honestly.
	It was like the Mel Tucker case, and it relates to what we're about to cover.
	Bauer, Trevor Bauer case.
	When any of these Me Too type allegations arise, the media just goes into hiding.
	They either jump on the train beating up on the coach who's accused or the player who's accused or they just won't say anything in the name of somehow honesty and transparency.
	And it's just the opposite.
	They're just being dishonorable and dishonest.
	It was clear the allegations against Fitzgerald were hogwash, and Northwestern was covering up a real scandal, which the same sports media, by the way, who disproportionately comes from where?
	Northwestern University.
	Number one source of graduates for people in the sports media world is Northwestern.
	Why are they falsely blaming Pat Fitzgerald and covering up the pimping scandal of their top administration?
	That should be asked of every Northwestern grad at every sports program, every radio program, every sports writing place in America.
	But in the same context, they've jumped on the false accusations against Trevor Bauer.
	And those are allegations that screamed false from the day it was raised.
	I'm trying to think of why I knew more about the Bauer case.
	I didn't know the guy's name because I don't follow sports at all except for professional darts, which I love.
	That's a sport?
	Oh, dude, it's the most satisfying thing to watch ever.
	Although I haven't watched it in the last year, so I got the World Series of Darts to catch up on.
	Bauer, this is the guy that got accused of rape from a woman who posted the video of herself laughing and smiling next to him in the bed the day after she allegedly was savagely exploited, abused.
	And apparently the lawyers had the exculpatory evidence.
	Much like in the case I had Saeed Khan on yesterday, much like in his case, they knew it, but it was an easy thing to sell.
	It was an easy thing to exploit.
	From a lawyer's perspective, it was an easy case to try to milk for a massive settlement, which is what they wanted.
	And for the media, great clickbait for the media that falsely accused him.
	And they had exculpatory evidence.
	We saw the video of her smiling gleefully.
	Now we have text messages of her saying...
	Get your hands into his bags.
	I'm going to go screw this guy.
	He's worth 51 million.
	He was under, I don't know what his conditions were, gag orders or confidentiality agreements.
	He's now come public with the receipts to show that this was bullshit from day one.
	He looks liberated.
	I don't know how anybody retains a glimpse or an air of optimism after such abuse.
	But it was bullshit from day one and now it's come to light.
	What's your take, Robert?
	And, you know, Major League Baseball owes him an apology.
	This is a guy that got kicked out of Major League Baseball in America based on false allegations.
	And there's a rush to do it and embrace it everywhere.
	In this Me Too era and a bunch of sports, all you gotta...
	I mean, Mel Tucker was clearly fired on bogus grounds.
	More evidence...
	I said from day one that those allegations screamed false.
	More evidence has already come out that the allegations were false.
	That she was in desperate monetary state and it was a pure money hustle.
	And she couldn't believe how much money he was making as a coach, so he was the target.
	And that's in the name of Me Too apologetics, which has always been about a power grab on college campuses.
	It goes back to the book made into the movie Disclosure.
	The people that make false accusations of abuse and harassment are like the people that do it.
	They do it for power.
	And to line their pockets in different ways, in some cases.
	Or in other cases, just to have power over someone else.
	That's the origin of abuse.
	It's more about power than desire.
	And so it revealed...
	Major League Baseball is an apology.
	But it's more of the blowback from the Me Too era that the media has been dishonest about.
	And what's ironic is that when you have a real Me Too case...
	Northwestern working-class cheerleaders being pimped out by high-ranking so-called liberal Democratic donors to their big university alumni.
	The media doesn't cover it at all.
	But when you have fake cases, like the Fitzgerald case against Fitzgerald, the fake case against Mel Tucker, the fake case against Trevor Bauer, the fake case...
	It shows it's purely about politics and power.
	They don't give a rat's rear end about actual abuse.
	Same thing with Saeed Khan from yesterday.
	And especially when they get unpopular victims like an Afghan refugee or an Afghan...
	Immigrant on a visa, it's so easy to blame them.
	It's always easy to blame the big bad men when you have these high-profile cases that get taken too far.
	Robert, what do we have left before we go to locals?
	I've shared the link.
	We have two before locals.
	For locals, we'll talk about who can be Speaker of the House legally.
	The DuPont caught dumping again.
	And a Disney antitrust case that puts Disney right in the crosshairs.
	But our two cases before that is, one is about disabled versus homeless.
	And the other one is, is Elon Musk about to get Alex Jones-ed?
	So Elon Musk, this is the one where the SEC is going after him, wants his testimony, and he says enough is enough.
	He's been sued by the lawyers who sued Alex Jones in Austin.
	Oh, shit.
	Okay, I ran up with the entire...
	I thought this was the SEC that he refused to submit to further deposition, and they've now sued him to get him on depositions for, like, wrong or whatever, market manipulation prior to taking over Twitter.
	Holy cows.
	Okay, what is it?
	So it's the same...
	Well, remember, we first met.
	It's that same lawyer...
	Bobby Barnes!
	Yeah, the video.
	It's that lunatic.
	In the deposition of Alex Jones.
	He's the one suing Elon Musk.
	What's he suing Elon Musk for in Texas?
	Oh, using the exact strategies against Alex Jones.
	So it's all about using defamation law, going after Musk for everything he's ever said.
	90% of the lawsuit has almost nothing to do with what Elon Musk said about his client.
	He's bragging about it on social media, how he's basically going to Alex Jones him.
	Suing in the same Travis County courthouse that we saw what justice looks like there in Austin, Texas.
	It's a complete crock.
	And it's the same modus operandi, same methodology, attacking him because of his politics, using this as weaponized lawfare to go after people that they don't like politically.
	It's because they allowed the Alex Jones case to ever happen.
	Courts should have fixed that, but they didn't yet, the Texas Supreme Court.
	And if they don't, they've let a bad genie out of the bottle that's going to harass everybody.
	It's an attempt to punish people's speech.
	And it's clear he's going after Musk because Musk is allowing more free speech on Twitter.
	I mean, that's that simple.
	But the supposed excuse is that during one of those sort of white supremacist operations that look like a staged event, That didn't look real to a range of people.
	There was allegations that some of them were feds.
	There was a specific allegation that a specific person was a fed.
	It appears that that person was misidentified.
	So what happened is they had a picture of one guy.
	This is what I've told people.
	Anytime these things blow up, be very, very careful about making any statement about a specific person.
	You have no idea what's coming out of the internet.
	You have no idea what's accurate, what's inaccurate.
	Be very careful about jumping down rabbit holes that suggest this person is really that person.
	Like, this is what happened during Charlottesville.
	A bunch of false statements were made identifying specific people as being involved who are not involved.
	Same thing happened.
	Aspects of the Sandy Hook, this same thing happened.
	It's happened involving the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania.
	Where, you know, people totally convinced a different person.
	And so some people put photos up saying the tattoos didn't exist.
	A closer examination show, they did exist.
	But, you know, be very careful of that in the social media world.
	It's an attempt to bait you into putting out inaccurate information.
	I almost got duped into the Fetterman tattoos.
	And I was like, oh, they aren't there.
	It's like, oh, wait a minute.
	Frame by frame, they're there.
	So be careful of all that.
	So Zero Hedge wrote a piece that referenced this.
	And there was other social media posts making these claims that this particular individual was the same as in a photo.
	And so the allegation was this white supremacist organization includes people who want to be feds because this guy looks like that guy and that guy wants to work for the federal government.
	Of course, it wasn't the same guy.
	Now, the problem they have is, Musk never says that that guy is a Fed.
	What Musk has, the quotes they had, it's a lot like the Alex Jones suits.
	Like, you dig into the Alex Jones, Sandy Hook suits.
	First time I was hired to represent him, and Sebastian Gorka, war whore, Sebastian Gorka, is all mad at me because I called him a war whore, but he's also mad at me because out of the fact he keeps pimping for Zelensky.
	But also, he's mad at me, or he attacked me, because I represented Alex Jones.
	And this goes way back.
	Gorka hates Alex Jones, and Infowars has attacked them repeatedly.
	So he didn't like me outing him, so he's like, well, Barnes represented Alex Jones.
	And then he wanted to blame me for the trial.
	I didn't defend Alex Jones at the trial.
	I wasn't afforded that opportunity for a range of reasons, which are irrelevant now.
	But when I first got involved, and was giving broad strategic advice for Jones, first thing that stood out to me was like, Where are all the quotes about Jones?
	Where are the quotes?
	A defamation quote is, this person said this about this guy on this date that was wrong and was intentionally wrong.
	That's it, right?
	And you had to keep digging.
	There's almost no place in here for actual words of Alex Jones.
	You only dig in and you find out, oh, he actually never talked about the people suing him for the most part.
	At all.
	Except broad group categorization.
	The same thing shows up in the lawsuit against Elon Musk because it's the same lawfare lawyers.
	So here's the statements they have.
	Elon Musk says it looks like one is a college student who wants to join the government.
	But he doesn't identify who that one is.
	He calls it very odd in response to somebody else's post.
	He calls it who were the unmasked individuals in response to another post.
	And he says always remove their masks.
	He never talks about the person suing him.
	So what's happening is they're using the same bad weaponized law that was used against Alex Jones to allow suits that the Supreme Court said were never supposed to be allowed.
	You can't sue unless you are named or identified visually or directly.
	They don't have Elon Musk doing that.
	And so they're pretending he did it.
	And they're using the same bad law they made in the Alex Jones case to now Alex Jones, Elon Musk.
	And maybe Elon Musk will have a little more sympathy for what happened to Jones when now he's going to be the victim of the exact same process.
	If he's smart, he should remove that case out of Travis County tomorrow, away from Austin, and into federal court because there is no chance that an Austin judge can be relied upon, to be honest, in any politically motivated case.
	That's why the lawyers are suing there.
	And if anybody can snip and clip that and tag Elon Musk, that would be...
	I'll do it anyhow tomorrow, so you may as well do it before me because they can't do it while we're alive.
	Okay, no, Robert, I was looking up the case of where the SEC is going after him.
	He's harassing him, yes.
	The Biden administration continues to harass him.
	Biden himself couldn't help himself, you know, saying that he doesn't like what Elon is doing, which gives further impermissible imputations to their intentions concerning the various government actions also.
	You know, these lawyers kind of showed up out of nowhere that sued Alex Jones.
	And, you know, my joke about the lawyer that one of the lawyers involved was that, you know, he got a free ticket to the Nuthouse and the Uber driver accidentally dropped him off to law school and that's why he's got a law degree.
	But everything about those cases screamed politics behind the scenes.
	And this screams politics behind the scenes as well.
	But Elon better be awake or he will get Alex Jones in the Travis County Courthouse.
	All right, now this is the last one before we go over to locals.
	It is, hold on, the disabled versus the homeless.
	If I'm thinking like a woke judge, I'm going homeless over the disabled.
	Robert?
	Almost.
	The judge went back and forth on it.
	So the issue is the homeless are taking over public streets, public parks.
	In many cases, they're blocking roads so that disabled people cannot use those public roads, public sidewalks, to get to where they need to get.
	This violates the anti-discrimination laws and the American Disabilities Act, among other legal remedies that exist.
	So they sued.
	The city's excuse was, well, we have to keep the homeless there because we have an obligation we can't remove them unless we can prove that they can afford housing.
	Or that there's a shelter for them.
	And the response of the disabled was that there are other things you can do to provide other places for them other than the public sidewalks that prevent us from getting to where we need to get to.
	So it's like the Sanctuary City debate coming home to New York City.
	What happens when they have to write the checks?
	What happens when they have to provide the housing?
	What happens when they're absorbing the criminal impact?
	of massive illegal immigration.
	All of a sudden, they're like, well, we're not so sure this is such a great idea.
	The same thing here.
	Court went back and forth, but ultimately, I think, correctly recognized that these are city policies, that this is not just a third party doing something that has nothing to do with the city.
	The city is deliberately permitting homeless people to occupy public streets.
	They could provide alternatives that they're not providing, and consequently, they're discriminating and damaging the disabled.
	So ultimately, the lawsuit was allowed to either be amended of making those allegations or go forward.
	So ultimately, they were forced to pick the disabled in this instance.
	Darn it.
	I thought they were going to go with the homeless because the disabled almost are, I would say, not a privileged class in society, but it's almost as though they've already got the societal benefits.
	The homeless have no choice.
	But okay, so I was wrong.
	My predictions are always wrong, Robert.
	So that's why no one should take my advice for betting on anything.
	Okay, so we're going to locals now.
	Hold on.
	Winston does want to say hi.
	It's so weird seeing that dog without hair.
	I know.
	He looks like a Jack Russell Terrier.
	He does not look like...
	Yeah, totally different.
	Look at this.
	What I've noticed is his wang is a lot bigger than I ever thought it was.
	Sorry.
	After I get him back...
	Okay, go down here.
	After I got him back, I was like, yeah, I never saw that before.
	Robert?
	Yeah, so if you want to give a $5 tip or more over at vivobarneslaw.locals.com, we'll try to answer all your questions.
	And we're going to be covering three additional bonus topics exclusive there.
	Who can be Speaker of the House?
	Has DuPont been caught dumping crap into your water again?
	A civil action, the movie, the book come to life.
	And Disney facing antitrust lawsuits.
	We've got Winnie replaced, hashtag fake Winnie, and ooh, Viva.
	You want to, ooh, Viva, I've noticed that you cannot comment.
	That's great.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's great.
	That's great.
	It's a substitute.
	You're just tricking the kids.
	The dog died.
	The dog drowned when he went fishing.
	He's the Ringo.
	By one of those alligator fish.
	He's the Ringo Starr of dogs.
	I think it was Ringo Starr.
	Oh, there's one more here.
	Nike7 says, New hot take.
	It appears Hamas is using U.S. weapons.
	Did they come from Ukraine or Afghanistan?
	Probably both.
	Absolutely last one here.
	Wall Street Journal.
	Right here.
	Wall Street Journal.
	Breaking.
	Iran helped plan Hamas's attack on Israel and gave them the green light for the assault at a meeting last Monday.
	Of course.
	Iran is dragging about this.
	They're not hiding this.
	But the question is, does the mainstream media want a World War III because it's the only way that Biden can possibly...
	Yeah, I mean, that's the risk.
	And what's interesting is how nobody wants to talk about Qatar.
	Or Cutter, as it's sometimes pronounced.
	It's like they're one of the key.
	Cutter, the difference is, Cutter has a huge media network and Cutter has a bunch of American lobbyists, including, unbeknownst to many conservatives, a bunch of your favorite conservatives in Washington are on the payroll of Qatar.
	See who talks about it and who doesn't over the next week or two in the conservative space on this area.
	And they'll be telling you where they get some of their paychecks from.
	Link to Locals, people.
	It's in the chat, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	For those that asked, by the way, the book is Gambler, Secrets from a Life at Risk by the irreplaceable and inimitable and great sports better, Billy Walters, including a section about how bad the Sovereign District is, the Southern District of New York, and its notorious corruption and how he was also railroaded by that system.
	But yeah, and we still have the cups and t-shirts, right?
	That's right.
	I was going to say, for those who asked, I was drinking something out of this, but also...
	Sorry, I should say this.
	Wanted for president.
	Look how beautiful that is.
	What was out of this?
	Yeah, we have mug shots of the mug shot.
	This was just a...
	This was actually water in here.
	So it says, you know, this is a kid's thing that has my last name on it.
	Okay, we are going to end this now on Rumble.
	And then come over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Ending on normal now.
	Everybody, thank you.
	So, guests this week coming up.
	The dude who trolled Justin Trudeau and said, I'm not shaking your hand, you're a piece of shit.
	I've got him coming on, possibly.
	Five times August, coming on Wednesday, I believe, to play his newest song.
	This is going to be great stuff, so stay tuned.
	Robert, do you have any appearances next week?
	No, not that I know of.
	Okay, you've got law work because you're still there.
	Oh, actual practice gets ready.
	Okay.
	Ending now on Rumble.
	Heading over to Locals.
	Enjoy the night, everybody, for who is not coming.
	And to the rest, adieu.
	See you on Locals now.
	All right, Robert.
	Now, before...
	I have no wife who's going to come and get me in trouble.
	I just have a kid who's going to not be...
	Who's going to be tired for tomorrow.
	I've got to scroll up to all of the chats here.
	We're going to read these.
	Okay, good.
	Starting from the beginning.
	By the way, Bill Brown is the next Locals Chat.
	It's coming up, I don't know, sooner than later.

▲