Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 29, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:22:00

Ep. 184: Trump Trials; Biden Loans; Canada MAIDS Numbers; Shroyer in SOLITARY & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Catch an eye?
	No.
	There's a beautiful little bird right there.
	Hello, little birdie.
	How you doing?
	Oh, it's off.
	And oh my gosh!
	Just, you know, just chilling.
	You have to go.
	That's a big freaking alligator.
	Now.
	All right.
	Catch an egg?
	Yeah, we knew there were alligators there.
	We had been there before.
	Everyone appreciate this.
	I'm told that you can measure the length of an alligator in terms of foots.
	Foots?
	Feet?
	If you measure the distance of the nostrils to the eyes or the eyes to the...
	The alligator was big.
	Look at this thing.
	Look at its nostrils.
	Look at its nostril.
	Right there, that little black dot that just opened up.
	Just a little prehistoric dinosaur.
	We have to go.
	Chilling.
	Oh!
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's Sunday night.
	Okay, hold on.
	I'm just going to make sure I'm perfectly centered.
	Clock in the back is the right time.
	Do I look?
	Okay, I don't look quite as haggard as I felt on Friday.
	I feel like the weight of the world is giving me the white stripe of hair.
	I think the weight of the world...
	It's giving me bags under the eyes and making me tired and cranky.
	Okay, I was going to start with something that was not...
	Something that was not upsetting, not irritating.
	This place is called the Arthur Marshall Lokahachi Reserve.
	I don't know how people pronounce it.
	It's amazing.
	They've got a little boardwalk that goes through the forest.
	They've got these tall trees, which you don't see very many of in Florida, with these weeping sort of...
	It looks like cotton.
	Branched on the branches, just drooping down.
	It flows with the wind.
	It feels like you're in Georgia or like a southern state, which I guess Florida is.
	Then you go down to that canal that you just saw, which separates the developed Florida from the Everglades.
	There's a little, like, two-story staircase you go up, and it's flat like the African savannah, or savannah is the word I'm looking for, for 200 kilometers.
	That's like 130 of those Freedom Eagle Liberty thingy things.
	It's just amazing.
	There's alligators at that place all the time.
	You always have to watch out for them.
	There was the one-eyed alligator there before.
	Spanish moss?
	I don't know if it's Spanish moss.
	But let me see here.
	Ekero says, Viva, the weight of the world is blank.
	Also, what's up, man?
	I wanted to start with something...
	Totally flipped.
	I was going to start.
	Well, you know what?
	I have it on the backdrop here.
	We'll go with the other.
	I was torn between Viva and the goat or the alligator.
	Let me see here.
	Let me see here.
	Here we go.
	Viva and the goat.
	Yesterday, in an attempt to distract from the woes of the world, we went back to Strawberry Girls U-Pick, which is a wonderful picking farm thing.
	They have a petting zoo, and I was making friends with the locals.
	Viva and the goat.
	Yep.
	Hello, goat.
	Look at that cute little thing.
	Nice to meet you.
	Yeah, and then...
	Eat my finger.
	Here you go.
	Can you eat my finger?
	Then I spent the rest of the day thinking I had just contracted E. coli or something from the lettuce that I put in my mouth because it was lettuce destined for farm animals and not for human consumption.
	Viva.
	You visit goats to shed the weight of the world.
	Yes, I won't tell you what else I do to shed the weight of the world.
	It involves rubbing the velvety inside of their nostrils, which are wonderfully smooth and beautiful.
	All right, good.
	Good evening, everybody.
	It's going to be an amazing show.
	There's going to be actually only law tonight, I think.
	It's going to be law, because I think when the world is falling apart, being torn apart at the seams, we can all agree on at least a few things.
	Politicians are the scum of the earth.
	Lawyers are the scum of the earth.
	And tonight we're going to have a good crossover between all of them.
	Standard disclaimers, no medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice.
	These wonderful things here that you see, Cheryl Gage, $5 super chat.
	Because I have ad blocker, YouTube is kicking me off the platform in a week unless I buy premium.
	Any thoughts, Viva?
	Here's my thought.
	Let me screen grab that and think about it some more.
	They're going to ban people who have...
	I don't even know what the policy would be.
	But all that to say, Cheryl, thank you for the support.
	Bear in mind, YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you want to support and feel good about the support, you should go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com or alternatively, actually, how do I always forget to plug my own merch, our own merch?
	You can support the channel by getting some merch.
	Check this out.
	Look at this.
	Ooh, wanted for president.
	This is on the menu tonight, people.
	A week of madness in the Trump trial from New York to New York, because there's two of them there.
	No, actually, there's only one going on in New York now.
	To D.C. to Georgia.
	Oh, my goodness.
	We're going to talk about it.
	But if you want to support the channel and you want to wear some awesome merch, go to vivafry.com.
	Ton of stuff there.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com and on Rumble, where they have the equivalent of superchats called Rumble Rants.
	And Rumble takes 20% of that ordinarily.
	Except, exceptionally for the rest of the year, they're going to take 0% of that.
	But in 2024, they're going to go back to the 20%.
	So those are the places you can do this.
	Okay.
	I'm reading some of the chat there.
	We are live on all platforms, YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where after the show, we end and we answer all questions there.
	We've got the tips in Vivabarneslaw, so we answer all of those questions at $5 and more.
	The other thing that I forgot to mention...
	Oh yeah, that's right.
	We're going to end on YouTube in about, I don't know, 24 minutes.
	Take it over to Rumble where we have the party.
	End on Rumble, have the after show on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Okay.
	We're going to go from like, I'm not talking about the Matthew Perry passing.
	I'm going to talk about it a little bit, but there's no political angle to it.
	It's just to say the man had a life of addiction, which takes its toll on the body.
	The man had a social media presence and made social media posts, which everyone's going to go back to now and say, you know, was it this?
	Was it that?
	Was it a contributing factor between a life of abuse on his body through drugs and alcohol combined with the shirt that he was wearing not long ago posting to social media?
	My major takeaway from all of this is, you know, first of all, we're so far out of the my Sharona Cyrus Schman Schmendrick, for those who have been around the channel for long enough.
	We're like three, four years out now.
	People are going to continue dying.
	It's the world in which we live.
	There are stats.
	I talked to Dr. Drew about it.
	I'm not posting that stream to YouTube for obvious reasons.
	I'm just not having that argument with YouTube ever again.
	There's stats, undeniable stats.
	And there will be people just passing as they get older.
	My reflections on this is he was 54 years old.
	I mean, when you're a kid, that's old.
	55, that's old.
	My goodness, 44 years old, 54 years old is just around the corner.
	It's crazy.
	And it's like, it's life.
	It's fleeting.
	And you want to be here and you want to do your best while you're here.
	You want to live as long as you can without compromising your morals where a long life of cowardice is worthless.
	A long life of cowardice is more torturous than a life cut short by living up to your beliefs, living up to your principles.
	That movie Magnolia, P.T. Anderson, the guy on his deathbed at the end, he's saying life is not short, life is long.
	Life is long when you live with regret.
	Shame and live with the wrong decisions.
	So Matthew Perry passed away.
	It's terrible.
	You know, the internet does its thing.
	I've never been into public displays of, you know, thoughts and prayers.
	If you know the person personally, reach out to their family.
	Doing it on social media has always felt a little weird to me.
	Dude passed away.
	And the articles, you know, make it sound like he drowned in a hot tub.
	Yep.
	Drowned in a hot tub.
	After suffering cardiac arrest.
	So the framing is all there.
	Oh, Matthew Perry tragically drowned in a hot tub.
	People say, was it drug-related?
	Did he relapse?
	Did he pass out and then drown?
	No, apparently it was cardiac arrest leading to drowning in a hot tub.
	Then my mother, who you all know is neurotic, but according to Dr. Drew, neurotic but right, says, stay out of hot tubs.
	There's no point going into hot tubs.
	They increase your blood pressure, et cetera, et cetera.
	So that's that.
	But now the Matthew Perry.
	It raises some interesting questions in terms of, you know, what we're noticing.
	Statistics.
	Increases in all-cause mortality of a certain age bracket that can't be explained through ordinary channels.
	But I won't get there.
	But I will bring up Nilly KM.
	Nilly Kaplan from Ottawa, people.
	If you haven't seen her, she's blocked me on Twitter a long time ago.
	She blocked me before I even knew who she was.
	Not a very pleasant person from what her social media persona is.
	A mask tyrant, some have called her.
	A practicing physician, by the looks of it, who you may have known because this is a woman who is a mask fascist or a maschist, sadomasochist, fascist, mask fascist, whatever.
	A jab promoter like it's nobody's business who has been on the show recently through her tweets.
	That I get from my moles because she got COVID twice in a month.
	Despite being vaxxed to the max, despite wearing a mask wherever she goes, she got COVID not once but twice in a month.
	The second time, she was complaining that the symptoms were more severe than the first.
	And that was recently.
	And then even more recently, coming out of Rowan V. Stallion.
	He's got his moles because we're all collectively blocked by this person.
	After having complained about having gotten COVID twice in a month, posts this tweet, Friday reminder that everyone in Ontario is eligible as of next week for a flu shot and the COVID XBB.1.5, say it in Jimmy Fallon's voice.
	Depending on the date of your last booster and infection, also mask up, hashtag mask up indoors.
	It's not a joke, by the way.
	It's not a parody.
	Like, it's not a parody.
	It's a mentally unwell person.
	I'm not a doctor.
	I'm not diagnosing anyone in any formal sense.
	Just colloquial observations.
	Hashtag COVID-19 infections are severely high in our community.
	And she's showing that she got the booster.
	And my question to this post was, is it even advisable?
	I don't know if that picture is an old picture and she's just, you know, doing her public service reminder.
	What that public service is, is questionable.
	Are you even supposed to get...
	Jabbed, boosted, whatever it's called, within such short proximity of not one but two COVID infections.
	Now, I'm not a doctor and I'm not giving medical advice.
	I'm just asking questions that a neurotic individual with thanatophobia, for anybody who doesn't know what that is, it's an acute fear of death.
	I'm just asking the obvious questions.
	I don't want to die.
	I'm not sure that I'd want to live forever.
	I don't want to live a long life of cowardice and compromised principles, but I don't want to make a stupid mistake and cut my life short.
	Are you even supposed to get boosted after not one but two infections within short proximity?
	Within short proximity.
	Who the hell knows?
	That was the lighthearted part of the show to start with that.
	And before I get to some of the...
	Crumble rants and super chats before Barnes comes in.
	Speaking of leading a healthy life, I want to make the good decisions and I want to make the right decisions.
	I make a lot of good ones and I make a lot of right ones.
	Exercise, vitamin D. I'm not really good at not being stressed out, but that I've been told by many people is just hardwired into my body, but healthy diet I have.
	With a few exceptions of, you know, I like red meat, but I'm not even sure that the science is settled on that anymore.
	Healthy Habits, fieldofgreens.com, powdered greens.
	Now, everybody knows or should know, you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Why?
	Roughage, roughage or roughage?
	Fibers, antioxidants, nutrients, all of the good stuff.
	Most people don't have that.
	uh at all most people eat like you know foods that are all brown if you've ever been to england it's like the the color of the food is brown most people do not have colored fruits and they don't have a colorful diet and a colorful diet is a sign of a healthy diet you get your raw fruits and vegetables in and if you don't and even if you do Fieldofgreens.com.
	It's desiccated greens.
	Powdered, pulverized greens, fruits and vegetables.
	With all of the antioxidants, one spoonful twice a day is one serving of fruits and vegetables.
	So you do that twice a day, you're getting two servings of fruits and vegetables.
	USDA organic approved.
	I spent time on the phone with the doctor of the company to make sure I understood everything.
	It's good.
	It tastes good.
	And it's a healthy habit.
	To not sucking down a disgusting, chemical-filled diet beverage, as though that's any healthier, one spoonful in water twice a day is two servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day and all the good stuff, antioxidants, nutrients, etc.
	Go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It will bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA for 15% off your first order.
	The link is in the description.
	Oh my goodness, I didn't send Barnes the link tonight.
	I knew I forgot something.
	Wait a minute.
	Maybe I did.
	I'm not sure if I did.
	I'll do it again just in case.
	Barnes.
	Link.
	Here it is.
	I thought I might have been forgetting something.
	The link is in the description.
	Booyah.
	Now, I was going to bring this up.
	Could you be feeling the weight of the world on your shoulders and have discovered that your path you have taken is the wrong way?
	No.
	Categorical no.
	The path.
	It depends what you mean by the path.
	What I'm doing, where I'm doing it, no.
	The way in which I'm doing it, maybe.
	Things that I'm doing along the...
	I'm always open for improvement.
	No, that the path I have taken is the wrong way.
	I don't think so.
	Ask me that in a year or two.
	No, I could have answered that definitively when it came to the practice of law, as was my sentiment.
	Every day was not better than the last.
	There was not one day where I loved it more than the day before, with the exception maybe of when I left the big firm and started on my own.
	I would be doing this regardless.
	Making sense of the world, trying to make sense of it to myself, and hopefully making sense of it to other people as well.
	Thank you, IT, for the super chat.
	Assuming you mean this world, the answer is just on the high side of 13 times 10 to the power of 24 pounds.
	Not providing the answer in kilograms.
	Pashamora, I'm not going to be able to get to that.
	Answer.
	13 times 10 is 1,300 to the power of 24. Maybe that's the weight of the earth.
	Dude, what is that?
	Okay, now I got to know what this is.
	I'm going to screen grab this.
	If you got IT laughing at you, now I feel stupid that I don't get it.
	All right, I'm not your buddy guy, says Barnes for Attorney General would fix a lot of the problem.
	All right, now before Barnes gets here or until Barnes gets here, I wanted to start...
	Oh, no.
	We're going to have a good laugh.
	We're going to have a good laugh.
	Going to avoid the politics side of this thing.
	We're going to go to Canada for a bit, everybody.
	Mark Garrison is another man who I've been giving something of a hard time to on the Twitterverse.
	Am I giving you a hard time?
	He put out a poll yesterday.
	I didn't know he was doing a highly scientific test.
	He put out a poll on Twitter, is where I saw it, that says, oh, polling.
	Do you support Pierre Poilievre?
	That's the Conservative leader in Canada, of the Conservative Party.
	The leader of the Conservative Party in Canada.
	Do you support Pierre Poilievre importing mega-politics into Canada?
	Now, ladies and gentlemen out there, for those of you who aren't familiar with crappy argumentation tactics or debate tactics, this is what we call loading the question.
	Do you support Pierre Poiliet importing MAGA politics into Canada?
	What in the name of sweet holy hell does that even mean?
	But set that aside.
	He asked the poll on Twitter, and he got lambasted, whamboozled.
	I mean, it didn't help that he had a number of conservative accounts.
	I do not consider myself to be conservative.
	I shared the tweet.
	I know roughly how...
	The audience that we have amassed here is going to vote on that tweet, if only because it's a stupid ass question and it deserves mockery at the public level of the highest order.
	20,000 votes on Twitter and it was 90% said yes.
	Mark puts out and says, look at this.
	I asked the identical question on threads versus Twitter.
	On threads, it was 96% no.
	And on Twitter, it was 90% yes.
	And I said, Because I have half of a brain in my head.
	Mark, how many people voted on?
	You'll notice, by the way, in the picture, it acutely cuts off right below the no.
	It would have said 20,000 votes.
	I don't know how it works on threads because I'm not on threads.
	And I'm not downloading that app.
	Oh my goodness.
	I just said, so how many votes did you get on threads?
	Because I guarantee you, I said, I suspect it's 200 votes.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I've got my moles in there.
	293 votes he had on threads versus 20,000 on Twitter.
	It's the most epic self-own you can possibly imagine.
	And it goes to show you, remember when they said Twitter was dead and threads is going to be the wave of the future?
	The best this guy could get on threads is 293 votes on his tweet and gets 20,000 on Twitter.
	I mean, I said that's his friends, family.
	The Liberal Party and maybe a couple of staffers.
	And that's his vote.
	Yeah, I bet you 96% of them would say no to that question.
	I don't want his mega politics in here.
	Oh my goodness.
	Oh, the weight of the earth.
	Don't put it on your shoulders.
	Okay, good.
	I got it.
	I got it.
	What about if you don't...
	Pasha, you got to factor in the spiritual weight of the world.
	All right.
	So anyways, on the menu tonight, people.
	Oh, share the link around also, by the way.
	But on the menu for tonight.
	Well, Barnes is going to tell us what's on the menu for the night.
	I see him in the backdrop.
	Let me know when you're ready, Robert.
	And let me see if I've got...
	No Rumble rants to read as of yet.
	Let me refresh this page here.
	And let me pause my face.
	Okay, there we go.
	Robert, sir, he looks like he's ready.
	I'm bringing you in.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, now hold on a second.
	I am seeing two new...
	Okay, Wesley Snipes on the back.
	That's not new.
	What is over your shoulder to the book on that side?
	It's Soccernomics.
	A book we'll be discussing at Sports Picks, where we do political predictions, sports predictions, other predictions.
	So having fun so far this year, profitable in all the major sports.
	Though we may put up odds on the new sport.
	Odds that Viva uses his son as bait to catch that alligator.
	I said, I told them, like, we're getting away from the alligator because I've seen videos where they jump out of the water basically the length of their body, but someone rightly...
	And it seemed to be waiting for you.
	It was just sitting there.
	It was like, it opened one eye, it looked up, and then it closed it, but someone rightly pointed out they can only jump that far out of the water in deeper water where they can use their body for the projectile.
	So, yeah, we were safe, but I wasn't messing around with that.
	Did you show the little guy or did you just say, time to go?
	Oh, no, no, he saw it.
	We were looking at it afterwards for a little bit and just staying below the rails.
	It was just chilling.
	It was taking in the sun, but...
	I think it was a good 10-footer.
	I wanted to feed it, but you're really not allowed feeding them.
	I don't want it to get killed, so we left it alone.
	Dude, Mikey, I told you my mother is a neurotic woman.
	I knew about that story.
	She's like, David, don't go near the water with your dogs and your kids.
	I don't know how anybody can't see the alligator if they're not looking for it.
	They're stealthy for animals, but you can see their nose in shallow water.
	You can see them coming.
	You just have to be paying much attention.
	Robert, what's on the menu for tonight?
	First up, Trump.
	That was the most popular topic on the locals' board tonight.
	Covering the contempt when the courts are state actors.
	And also a copyright concerning Trump pending before the Supreme Court.
	Owen Troyer, solitary confinement.
	And an inmate-related lawsuit about lockdowns in Wisconsin.
	Supreme Court, when can they ban you from their social media pages?
	That Supreme Court's finally taking that up.
	In fact, they're going to hear oral arguments on Halloween itself.
	Maybe that's apropos, given some of our politicians.
	You know, the question about if you dressed up as John Fetterman.
	Does that, you know, which character does that count as?
	Is this Frankenstein?
	You know, we watched the young Frankenstein this week on the board.
	Or does it count as, what's his name, that Uncle Fester from...
	Or, well, you could go for a three-four.
	Or does it count as his body double?
	Because a lot of people think that that's not John Fetterman.
	The original Fetterman.
	The bank aiding...
	What happens when banks get caught aiding Ponzi schemes?
	How often does that happen?
	On trial this week, SBF concerning FTX.
	He took the stand on Friday.
	And a Baltimore prosecutor that the Democrats in the media aren't talking about a whole lot, but it's the Freddie Gray prosecutor, goes on federal trial.
	More evidence concerning Biden.
	When you just call everything alone, SBF was giving us lessons on that on Friday.
	Apparently that's also going to be the Joe Biden defense.
	Reggaeton.
	The entire basis of an entire musical genre is subject to a current copyright suit of someone who claims to own all of reggaeton.
	I think that's how you pronounce it.
	I have no idea.
	Magic mushrooms in court.
	When do the statute of limitations apply?
	What kind of injury do you have to know about?
	Two bonus topics for the after party at Locals.
	Benzene might be in your dry shampoo.
	And the big debate about trans in kids' sports before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, probably heading for the Supreme Court, given the judges on the draw.
	And there's a bonus off the top, CBS reporter Catherine Herridge, the government's trying to get her sources.
	I guess we have to start with Trump, because it's the biggest news of the week.
	Do we start with...
	We'll start with the New York...
	What did he get?
	The New York...
	Not contempt.
	What was he...
	Yeah, yeah.
	That's what it was.
	The judge issued more contempt fines and more threats.
	So he issued the first fine, $5,000.
	I forget what the statement was for that.
	Solely because his campaign still had a prior statement on it that was not even issued after his gag order.
	That they didn't delete after.
	They deleted it from the truth, but it was reposted somewhere else.
	They didn't delete it.
	It's $5,000.
	Just like that.
	Poof.
	$10,000 because it's got to go in escalating gradation of sanctions because he allegedly made a statement to an AP reporter or somewhere out in the hallway about, what do you say, the person sitting next to the judge is very biased.
	The person sitting next to the judge is very biased.
	The judge thinks that he was talking about the clerk and he said, you can't talk about my clerk anymore because the world cannot know that she's Chuck Schumer's girlfriend.
	Hashtag joking.
	But, you know, that she was posting pics with Chuck Schumer and then brings him in.
	Robert, I've been following the tweets.
	I've been following Gavea.
	We talked about it on Friday.
	Like, from what I understand, the judge asked Trump to testify or compelled him to testify to explain himself.
	Explain how that's for people who don't understand how that's even possible.
	How does the judge compel him to testify in a civil proceeding about contempt?
	As different forms of contempt is an essence.
	What is, is you see what some of us have known for a while, which is that the most often state official to abuse their power is not in the executive branch.
	It's not in the legislative branch.
	It's in the judicial branch.
	It's what Hamilton and Madison got wrong during the federalist-anti-federalist debate.
	The Anti-Federalists said you can't trust this kind of limited class of people with this amount of power that you're calling a judiciary.
	They will inevitably and inescapably abuse that power.
	And because at heart there was a strong elitist streak in a lot of the so-called founders, the real founders of the people who...
	They got a lot of stuff wrong.
	And one of the things they got wrong was they trusted more their fellow elite class.
	Then they trusted the people who actually made the revolution successful.
	And one example of this was this way too much confidence that the Federalists had in the judicial branch.
	The Anti-Federalists accurately forecast this branch will abuse the power of the most.
	And one of the excuses that Hamilton and Madison and others used was, don't worry, the judicial branch doesn't have enforcement power.
	Don't worry, the judicial branch doesn't have the power of the purse or the power of the sword.
	Yes, they do.
	They just took it for themselves.
	What were you going to do to stop them from doing it?
	Now they seize people's banks' accounts.
	Now they seize people's property.
	Now they have marshals and bailiffs at their disposal.
	They now have the power of the sword.
	They now have the power of the purse.
	And what's going to stop them when they declare that they unilaterally get to decide what's legal and constitutional about themselves?
	This judge is the personification.
	Of the problems with giving the judicial branch power to begin with and any great consequence.
	Now, to his credit, you know, Madison was for jury trials.
	He was for restricting judicial power with the Bill of Rights later on and so forth.
	But this was inherent to putting any elite body and saying, we're going to let you determine what the law is.
	We're going to let you determine what the Constitution says.
	And we're going to give you the tools and the tickets to seize power of the purse and of property and of the sort, which is what they've done.
	This judge is abusing.
	Could a congressman come up and say, I hereby ban you from talking about my staff?
	That would be struck down as unconstitutional by these same courts tomorrow.
	Could the president come out and say you can't talk about my staff?
	No, he'd be struck down as unconstitutional tomorrow.
	And yet a judge is doing it, and there's no consequence.
	There's no cry-out from the courts of appeals in New York or from the federal courts in New York.
	This is a judge constantly, consistently violating the federally constitutionally protected civil rights of President Trump in order to injudiciously interfere with an election and obstruct an honest and transparent election.
	This is a corrupt judge who, if we had an honest legal system, he would be the one behind bars, not President Trump.
	He does not have the power to order Trump to testify.
	He does not have the constitutional power to order any fines against Trump.
	He didn't have the constitutional power to do the gag order.
	There's no constitutional basis for a gag order.
	His staff is free reign.
	They are public officials.
	You corrupt hack of a judge don't get to hide their corruption from the world.
	This is an ongoing disgrace that is a damnation of our judicial system, and so many lawyers are not saying boo about it.
	I'll bring it up.
	I've played it before.
	I'll just play this one part again because it's beautiful to listen to.
	I have one last thing to say about tools.
	A lot of what I do involves motions.
	These summary judgment motions I mentioned.
	And, alright, am I following the law or am I making law?
	Okay, I'm following law.
	I'm an impartial referee.
	But it's hard to factor out my own emotions.
	And I have tools.
	Somebody can say...
	That's it.
	It's hard for me to factor out my own emotions and I have tools.
	Now, Robert, he compels Trump to testify, say...
	What was the meaning of that?
	You violated the court order talking about a member of my staff when you said someone next to me is extremely biased.
	Trump says, I'm talking about Michael Cohen, who was on the stand today, embarrassing himself and basically undoing the prosecution's case.
	And Angeron says, I don't believe you, $10,000.
	Now, you know, he talked about the tools that he has, summary judgments, which he issued in this case.
	And there was a part of his speech where he says, what I'm going to say now is very controversial.
	Juries get it wrong a lot, and I can bypass a jury with a judgment notwithstanding a verdict.
	I was listening to mainstream media report on the Trump New York case, and they're saying, well, Trump's already been found guilty of fraud.
	Now they're just determining, you know, the amount, the level of guilt.
	And I'm like, they've successfully Alex Jonesed him.
	I said they were going to do it.
	Now the media narrative is he's already guilty because this judge said summary judgment guilty on one count of the fraud.
	Now I've sanctioned him $5,000.
	$10,000, which they're going to appeal, and the next sanction's got to be even more.
	Where does it end, and what can be done?
	I mean, the question is, how embarrassing does it have to get for our courts to finally step in?
	Are they just going to end even the appearance and the image of constitutional democracy?
	Does it have to completely collapse?
	Do they have to have 75 million people in the streets before they go, oh, golly gee, maybe I should have done something instead of gone to my third cocktail party in the summer in the Hamptons, Justice Roberts.
	I mean, it's embarrassing.
	It is embarrassing.
	But the judiciary is so part of a professional class that is so prejudiced, so bigoted, and so bubbled that they don't understand this.
	They do not understand that the world looks at this as a joke.
	The world looks at this as an embarrassment that you have this lunatic old man presiding over President Trump in a trial he has no legal power to even preside over on a case that is entirely frivolous and would have been thrown out in any other context, in any other circumstance, prohibiting Trump from speaking about the corruption of his own judicial staff and now ordering summary fines against him.
	And compelling him to speak and then summarizing and then doing more summary fines against him because he loves the power.
	I mean, that's what that little presentation, why the Holocaust Center is inviting a whack job judge is beyond me.
	It was eight years ago.
	So many Holocaust Centers have become a complete crock.
	The ADL has become a complete crock.
	They've become an embarrassment to themselves.
	They do more damage to the issues related to the Holocaust than all the Holocaust deniers in the world combined.
	Nobody has done more damage to the Holocaust issues than the Anti-Defamation League.
	Nobody has defamed more the cause of issues related to anti-Semitism than the anti-defamation lead.
	Robert, it's totally off-topic, and it'll be just a small parentheses.
	They apparently removed Chaya Raychik, libs of TikTok, from their glossary of extremists, the ADL did?
	I don't know if you heard that.
	Well, and their members and board subscribers are realizing that while they've been in bed with these radical lefty nutjobs, that all of a sudden they wake up and realize the person they're in bed with is a Hamas champion.
	And they're like, oh!
	Oops!
	Maybe we made a little mistake.
	A little late now, ain't it?
	And that's the problem, is how late are the courts going to be to salvage the reputation and credibility of the courts themselves?
	This problem has always existed.
	It's just usually they targeted politically marginal players.
	Now, it happened at the beginning of the country.
	At the founding of the country, you had judges weaponizing their power, going after their political opponents.
	It took the United States Senate impeaching...
	The chief Supreme Court judge at the time to get them to back down and realize, oh, okay, maybe we shouldn't just abuse our power so rampantly in front of everybody.
	That would be Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, who back then presided over trials, who was politically weaponizing the trial process, by the way, in New York, to go after his political opponents, just like this case.
	We're back here all over again.
	And the question is, will the judiciary step in?
	Or will they be asleep at the wheel until the whole system crumbles?
	Will the Senate, I mean, credit to Senator J.D. Vance, Senator Vance said the D.C. judge should be impeached, that these gag orders are patently interference in an election, completely in excess of her power, and a violation of her oath of office, and she should be impeached.
	There needs to be more calls for that.
	Our new Speaker of the House that showed some promise, first thing he was doing was going up to kiss up to Sean Hannity and the deep state crowd.
	Saying, don't worry, I didn't mean anything I said and opposed to funding to Ukraine.
	Well, you know, rather than showing what a weak person he is as the new Speaker of the House, maybe he should take on these problems that are so dangerous that no one will believe in the credibility or integrity of the judicial branch or our constitutional government if this continues unabated.
	Because this is just, everybody's abusing their power.
	Every judge can't wait to abuse their power.
	And they're abusing it in ways that the Supreme Court itself has said, you don't have this power of contempt to do what this judge is doing.
	You don't have this power of gag orders or prior restraint to do what these judges are doing.
	You don't have this power to misuse bail in this way.
	You don't have the power to misuse criminal cases in this way.
	And yet you don't have power to do selective prosecution in civil cases in this way.
	And yet they're allowing all of it to happen and they're not intervening.
	And they better intervene or the whole system is going to crumble right in front of us.
	What was I going to say?
	I totally forgot what I was going to say.
	It doesn't matter.
	It'll come back in a second.
	$10,000 fine.
	He's going to appeal it.
	And they carry on with this sham of a trial.
	Do we go on to the one in D.C. or do we go to the copyright case?
	Oh, that's the other Trump case.
	Now, this one is more interesting and more this is the Supreme Court has taken up.
	But probably more likely because of the trademark connection than the Trump connection.
	And it basically...
	Did you get a chance to review it?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'll let you give the fact back.
	Because I was familiar with the F-U-C-T case.
	The other one there, it was an Asian word that was problematic.
	What was the word that they were trying to trademark that they said was offensive?
	It had to do with...
	It had something to do with Asians.
	I'll have to get it back.
	It'll come to me in a second.
	Somebody's trying to trademark Trump too small.
	And they got rejected on the basis that it identifies a living person.
	And as such, the only person who can allow it is the living person or trademark it themselves.
	They're arguing...
	That this then constitutes something of viewpoint discrimination.
	Viewpoint discrimination might not be the right word.
	But that it allows Trump to only authorize use that he approves of.
	So you're only going to get good use of his name in a trademark.
	And I think that's...
	Well, you'll explain.
	You'll flesh out the legalities of it.
	I'm looking to the chat to see if they remember what the other one was.
	But the question I had was, why even...
	I'm not sure that I would have ever recognized that as being necessarily a direct reference to Trump if they're going to use it in conjunction with an image.
	But Trump has a word.
	And it is almost an irony to saying Trump too small.
	It's to say almost that that with which you're trying to trump someone is too small to trump them.
	So I might not have, in the ordinary run of things, necessarily made that definitive connection.
	But what are the rules, Robert, in terms of trademarking something that makes a direct reference to a living person?
	I guess it has to be very distinct.
	Trump is distinct enough.
	Someone said...
	David wouldn't work or Viva wouldn't work.
	It has to be distinct to the person living.
	But what's the law on that?
	Well, yeah, that's part of it is whether it's a sufficiently distinct and unique mark that is subject to trademark protection.
	Then you have state law in which you have a right of both privacy and publicity.
	Your right of publicity controls the right to use your name for your own purpose.
	This is part of the issue in the Owen Troyer.
	A civil case that we have for him about the person imitating him on Twitter is that he's depriving Owen of his right of publicity.
	Now, this guy's starting to go a little nuts because he found out we obtained the process from Twitter to require Twitter to disclose his identity, and now he's going to be sued, so he's randomly emailing various people, threatening whatever.
	He's clearly not the brightest bulb on the block.
	They think somehow he can magically take the case to Chicago.
	It will stay in the Western District of Texas, where Owen Troyer resides, and where his right to publicity was violated.
	But there's an example of it.
	Now, Twitter, by the way, and a little side note, if Elon Musk wants Twitter to become a payment processor in a bank, make sure your people at least fix so that paying subscribers don't have their accounts hacked and never get fixed.
	George Gammon had his account hacked two months ago.
	Mark Moss had his account hacked.
	They are paying subscribers to Twitter and Elon Musk.
	Twitter and Elon Musk keep giving him a robot runaround.
	They say, well, please fix this.
	And they say, no, this can't be fixed.
	And guess what they answer with?
	Please fix this.
	And they're like, no, that part can't be fixed.
	Please fix this.
	I mean, oh, it's a nightmare.
	Who on God's green earth, Elon, is going to use your payment, use Twitter as a payment processor or bank when it's so easy to hack paying accounts as it speaks and you can't fix it?
	So you should fix George Gammon's account, fix Mark Moss's account, and fix Owen Schroer's account so that the fake guy isn't pretending to be Owen Schroer.
	But the right of publicity has some restraint on state common law recognition of trademark.
	Then you have federal trademark.
	The Lanham Act, the federal trademark law, basically just gives you additional remedies.
	So it allows you to establish a rebuttable presumption in certain cases, an incontestable identification or ownership of a trademark in certain cases, certain things like that.
	You don't have to have registered it to have a trademark.
	You just have added benefits if you do.
	However, our law is always consistent with the right to privacy and right to publicity being owned by the living person.
	A federal trademark law for more than a century has stated you can't trademark a living person's name without their consent or a president without their widow's consent or their consent, even if the president is dead.
	And it includes you can't do their name, their portrait, their signature.
	Any of those three.
	Because Trump's name was in on this, it was challenged as whether or not it was subject to being copyrighted in the first place, given Trump hadn't consented to the use of it.
	And trademark is really all about use and source.
	So there's some question as to whether this is a fair application of the statute.
	It's not like anybody sees Trump too small and thinks that's Trump's authorization or source.
	So there's an argument that it's outside the intended purpose of the trademark laws.
	But putting that aside...
	I have a First Amendment right to make money off of Trump's name.
	And that's the problem, of course, with their claim.
	They got Deepak and that crew up there arguing this is a First Amendment issue.
	Problem is, it's not really.
	He can say Trump too small all he wants.
	He's not allowed to make money off of Trump too small by claiming a copyright.
	And there is no First Amendment right to a copyright.
	There's a First Amendment right to speech.
	So I think the decision the Supreme Court should make is a decision they've been sitting on and not making now for the better part of a century, which is that whether or not you get a trademark protection on a viewpoint neutral law.
	As you were mentioning, some of those past cases were not viewpoint neutral as to what was going on, and that's a different dynamic.
	But as to the law itself, as to preserving a right of privacy or publicity in a living individual and not extending monetary benefits to someone trying to usurp that right, I don't see that as a speech issue.
	That's a monetary financial government benefits issue.
	The idea, I was going to say this is the question, he can make money off it, but it can't be exclusive.
	Someone in the chat asked, how can we sell merch with Trump's face on it?
	It's a public domain picture.
	But if someone else copies it, we can't sue them for it because we don't have any copyright in it.
	So it's the difference between exercising the monopolies provided by law versus competing with everybody and just not claiming any of those rights.
	Do you think they're going to uphold the dismissal?
	And by the way, it was called the Slants.
	That was the Asian one where their band was called the Slants, and it was rejected on the basis of obscenity.
	So it's kind of a different question.
	Do you think the refusal to grant the trademark is going to stand?
	Yes.
	I think they're going to say that, except when they're actually deliberately viewpoint-based discrimination.
	They're saying, you know, this particular Redskins, we're not going to allow you to do for political reasons.
	That's a different animal.
	But recognizing the right to privacy or publicity in an individual and their right to monetize that is not a speech issue, in my opinion.
	It's no restriction on the person's speech at all.
	It's just a restriction on their ability to monopolize monetary benefit from it.
	And your right to an access to a state benefit has never been confused with the right to speech.
	And so I think that ultimately...
	That person will lose, and they'll determine that you'll get to keep your right to your own likeness, that you can be the only person who can monopolize that.
	No one else can.
	All right, amazing.
	Now, we're going to go over to Rumble, leave YouTube, and we're going to talk about the other Trump case before we get into the other stuff.
	So everybody head over.
	We're going to see that number drop below 2,000, and I'll share the link.
	No, the number's supposed to go down, not up, people.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	The link is there.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	If I didn't forget to do that, which I did.
	So link to Rumble here.
	And I'll pin it one more time so that everybody sees it.
	Oh, no.
	Okay, it's already pinned.
	All right.
	Let's do it.
	And getting out.
	And three, two, one.
	Booyah.
	All right, Robert.
	So the trademark, which was funny and interesting, New York.
	We're going to go to D.C. for a bit?
	Well, speaking of mistreatment, and I'm glad one thing that's been a crash course for people on the right has been the abuse of the military-industrial complex, the abuse of the existence and abuse of power by a deep state within our own government, the abuse of power by the FBI and the NSA, the abuse of power by our justice system.
	And the abuse of power in the context of criminal defendants and inmates.
	Things that, quite frankly, too many of them didn't care about for too long.
	Our founders did.
	Our founding generation did.
	People who went through the Civil War did.
	Some people who went through World War I did.
	But too many people on the right were dismissive of inmate concerns, criminal defendant concerns, civil rights concerns.
	And now that they've been the victim of that state power...
	They're starting to wake up to it.
	And many people are shocked that somebody like Owen Schroyer could be stuck in solitary confinement.
	It's for COVID, Robert.
	Schroyer is going to work our way into that other lawsuit about inmate conditions.
	And not to say that I was guilty of not caring.
	I don't think I ever didn't care, but it's not something you really think about.
	And the tendency is to say, you know, FAFO.
	F around, find out.
	You'll go to jail.
	You'll be a criminal.
	Why would you get to play tennis on a sunny afternoon in jail?
	But the difference between that, And not having rotten teeth removed from your mouth, as we'll get to in the other lawsuit, is one thing.
	And then you see when you've been maliciously prosecuted or, you know, abused by the system, hauled off for 60 days for speech.
	Somebody online was saying Schroyer wasn't jailed for speech.
	It was for being present at the Capitol.
	I read through the charges.
	It was...
	Among other things, for chanting 1776, which now has a very nefarious meaning, Vivek might want to be careful.
	So Schreuer is being hauled off.
	He was not granted bond pending the appeal of his 60 days in jail for speech, among other things.
	There might, you know, being on the Capitol, if you want to parse hairs.
	He went off and Jack Posobiec...
	I want to say not the post-millennial, but human events, the reporting that he was in solitary.
	And I was skeptical.
	I was saying, how the hell is he going to solitary?
	Was it a punishment to the COVID?
	Apparently, it's the COVID policy.
	I don't know how long he has to be in solitary for, but confirmed solitary for two, three days.
	Who the hell knows?
	And now people are saying, yeah, this is outrageous.
	Robert, what types of prisons still have COVID isolation policies in effect?
	Some people are saying there's always solitary policies in effect when you get to jail.
	Well, I mean, that's part of the problem.
	So, you know, there's now decades of research that show...
	We basically torture inmates in America.
	There's no other conclusion.
	So, I mean, I've brought a lot of lawsuits challenging people that are in custody.
	Now, most of them were in jail.
	In other words, they were not convicted of any crime.
	They were simply charged with a crime.
	Or something else.
	Or people that were institutionalized because of mental illness issues.
	And that their treatment in many of these mental institutions, in many of these jails, and in many of these prisons, is barbarous.
	And would be recognized as barbarous if anybody else in the rest of the world did it.
	And so, particularly if you can contrast it, say, Western Europe.
	Now, are there worse prisons and jails?
	Yes.
	But America's ranked toward the bottom half of the world, not toward the top ten.
	Even though we, unlike most other countries in the world, have an Eighth Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.
	It's that Eighth Amendment that limits how the government can treat a person in their custody, whether in jail, whether in a mental institution, or whether in a prison.
	Now, sometimes what the Fourth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment may apply rather than the Eighth Amendment, As the circumstances may be, but once you're in the Bureau of Prisons, the Eighth Amendment applies indisputably and incontrovertibly.
	The Supreme Court has recognized that means you have a right to adequate food and adequate health care.
	To me, solitary confinement outside of extraordinary circumstances should never be allowed because it is a deprivation and denial of adequate health care, by definition.
	We now have massive amounts of data.
	That isolation of the kind we do in solitary confinement, depriving people of social contact, depriving people of recreation, depriving people of interaction with other humans, depriving people of access to pretty much anything, often depriving them of access to the outside world, often having the light on 24 hours, often providing inadequate food, drives them insane, causes severe mental health problems.
	It doesn't help.
	It doesn't improve the quality of custodial control.
	And so that's where outside of a circumstance, we have someone who is so uncontrollably violent that the only alternative to protect other inmates is their solitary confinement, should anyone be in solitary.
	And that's still not an excuse for why we have these cells that have 24-hour lights on, for why we have these cells with no view of anything.
	For why we have cells with no means of basic interaction of any kind.
	There's ways you could isolate someone without the mental torture aspect.
	I'll give an example.
	25 years ago, the federal government did a study to determine whether images that remind parents of their kids or visits with their kids that are inmates, what impact that had.
	And what they found is it had a very negative impact.
	That it constantly reinforced the parents' failure and caused them to get depressed, anxiety, and other mental health issues that led to violence and custodial control issues.
	So what do you think the federal government, Bureau of Prisons, did?
	They increased by tenfold the number of images they show of parents and children in federal prisons and jails just to torture them.
	That's who runs our prison system.
	People that, you know, Stephen King's novel that became the great book and movie is representative of who runs our jails and prisons.
	It is not an exception.
	It is the norm.
	It is exceptional when you have a decent style prison guard or warden.
	That's unfortunately, they're understaffed.
	They bring in the bottom-level people.
	Usually they're people that are sociopaths, more often than not.
	Again, not all.
	I know there are people out there that work in the Bureau of Prisons that are good people.
	Not saying every single person is bad.
	I'm saying the system is designed to draw in some of the worst, particularly those in positions of power within the system.
	And this particular jail in Louisiana, where Owen Troyer is located, Had mishandled COVID so bad that a bunch of people died.
	So their procedure really was punishment for the prison inmates ever raising the complaint by just routinely sticking them in torture which is what solitary confinement is for days upon their arrival.
	And it shows you how barbaric our prison system is in America.
	In as much as I ever knew anything about it, you know, Jeremy McKenzie, Diagalon guy from Canada, was in solitary for upwards of two weeks.
	Tamara Lich, the Coutts Four, sporadically just thrown into solitary.
	Artur Pawlowski, the pastor, thrown into solitary.
	And the explanation for COVID, which, you know, makes absolutely no sense, period.
	But then it was just for behavioral issues, for punishment and not...
	To protect inmates from the most, like you say, the most violent of violence.
	But Robert, the question was going to be this.
	Oh, the amendment, sorry.
	Fourth Amendment, just so everybody does this.
	Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
	Fifth Amendment, self-incrimination.
	Eighth Amendment.
	And due process.
	And so Fifth Amendment sometimes applies in these contexts if the Eighth Amendment doesn't.
	And then the Eighth is the cruel and unusual punishment.
	Correct.
	And all the state actors are all, they're more and more creative at getting out of things.
	They're like, well, this isn't punishment yet.
	So now we can be cruel and unusual.
	I mean, this is some of the dumb logic some of our courts are accepting.
	And sadly, many of those are usually the conservative courts.
	They're always trying to find an excuse to cover up for corruption in police offices, prosecutorial offices, and the military.
	Those are the three institutions they're happy to cover for, as well as corruption within religious institutions.
	Happy to cover for them, too.
	Our so-called originalists own the court.
	In the court system.
	And the Wisconsin inmate class action is a classic example of this.
	The examples of it, people can easily and very, what's the word, not cowardly, but rather just insensitively say, well, they're in prison, what do they expect?
	Yeah, the sort of callousness that dehumanizes people because they're inmates.
	If you want good treatment, don't break the law.
	And then, I mean, to some extent, good treatment is different than being denied medical.
	What they don't understand is that what you're really saying is not be good or you can suffer this.
	It's don't offend the powers that be or you won't suffer this.
	You're often in prison for reasons that have nothing to do with actual criminal behavior, sadly.
	So the Wisconsin, it's a class action complaint.
	I don't know if it's been authorized or what stage it's at, but it's inmates, each of which detailing the representative plaintiffs talking about how rotten teeth not getting treated, and then when they're getting treated, infections that are not getting treated.
	One inmate with diabetes that had been under control for 15 years denied medical treatment and has all sorts of issues.
	They're suing for all of the...
	Eighth Amendment violations.
	Every method available.
	Inadequate food, inadequate medical care.
	This is a WAPA institution in Wisconsin that's been on lockdown for almost a year.
	It's like, why?
	They still can't explain why.
	And I can tell you why.
	They have inadequate staff.
	And it's a lot cheaper if you just stick everybody on lockdown.
	It mentally tortures everyone, deprives them of social contact, deprives them of recreation, deprives them of physical activity.
	They're also giving them inadequate food.
	They're often stuck with 24-hour lights on, often with no window access to anything.
	And many of these inmates are elderly.
	These aren't gangbangers in their 30s.
	This is some old guy caught on burglary charges in his 60s from old sentencing regimes that had long sentences attached.
	To crimes we no longer attach long sentences to.
	So you've got mostly a lot of elderly, most of the inmates that are suing are elderly.
	Elderly inmates not getting basic medical care, not getting basic food care, because the medical system is a...
	I've sued the Wisconsin system over and over again.
	It's a complete crock.
	They just don't fund it.
	It's the worst possible doctors, the worst possible medical care, you name it.
	Plaintiff Kenneth Dahlberg, 62-year-old inmate who suffers from degenerative joint disease, artificial implants in both shoulders, diabetic, continued heart disease.
	After diagnosis of heart disease, plaintiff Dahlberg was required to have coronary angioplasty and stents.
	Plaintiff Dahlberg was prescribed...
	They don't say what he was in for, as if that might change anything, but these are the...
	You have a bunch of old people with basic problems.
	I mean, we know...
	That in almost all cases, outside of very select kind of crimes, that old inmates are extremely low risk of recidivism.
	That the compassionate release makes a lot more sense in many of these cases.
	Trump tried to expand the grounds of compassionate release in the federal system, recognizing that us spending lots of money locking up derelict old criminal defendants, if they're in there for drugs, They're in there for what you call street crimes of burglary, things like that.
	If they're not in there for a severely violent crime or a particular kind of sex crime, their risk of recidivism is very low.
	And why they're still in there makes no sense.
	And then being treated worse than a dog would be treated says something very bad about our Eighth Amendment enforcement in America.
	And just more people on the right are waking up to it.
	As people like Owen Troyer experience it, they're like, what in the world is going on?
	Because they fancied that this only happened to the bad, mean, greedy, violent sickos.
	No, it often happens to the weakest and most vulnerable and most inconsequential inmates.
	They really probably don't belong there in the first place, or at least not at this point in time in their lives.
	And so that's just being exposed on a bigger, broader scale to a new political audience that previously ignored it.
	But there's a reason why the Eighth Amendment existed.
	Our founding generation did experience this abuse of power.
	People who went through the Civil War did experience this abuse of power.
	People who went through parts of World War I and World War II experienced this abuse of power.
	This is why this law exists.
	It exists because you cannot trust this power to be used correctly in the hands of the people it's given to.
	Robert, first of all, people in the chat are saying, some are saying that my volume is low, and others are saying it's just fine.
	So I don't know what would account for one person's computer having a different audio level, but I'm doing my best to get there.
	What percentage of prisons in the States are private?
	Does it make a difference, private versus public, in terms of the neglect, need to maximize profit?
	Unfortunately, no.
	I mean, private prisons have had some more violent use, violent prison guards.
	That's been the only pattern I've seen so far, that they're more ruthless in putting down any questions or concerns or complaints, etc.
	Being both safe and taking care of people adequately is an expensive proposition for the state to do.
	And that's why only people that are truly ongoing, imminent threats to the community, in my view, mostly should be there.
	I believe in retribution to a point.
	But the degree to which we use the prison system to do...
	Why tax people are in prison makes no sense to me.
	You know, you can make them pay a bunch of fines and punish them financially.
	They're not an imminent threat to the community.
	Well, it would seem house arrest might be a better...
	It's what the rest of the world does.
	America's there with Russia and Iran as three of the only countries in the world that have substantial imprisonment sentences on tax issues.
	That's not company to be in, in the company of.
	So, I mean, it's preposterous.
	Almost nobody in Western Europe does this.
	It's not effective.
	It doesn't work.
	It doesn't deter anything.
	It hasn't changed the tax gap.
	All the prosecutions in the past 50 years, including every time they escalate, tax prosecutions, there's no change in the tax gap.
	The gap between the amount of money they say should be collected, and they do collect.
	And if you understand the nature of it, you know that that's never going to have that impact.
	So it's mostly a waste of money, these prosecutions and punishments, and it's counterproductive.
	I mean, I had a case where a doctor was put in prison, a doctor that provided discounted care to people that needed it.
	All they did was make medical care more expensive in their local community.
	That political hack of a judge, one of these Obama...
	The left authoritarian judges, they love to lock up the white-collar folks.
	That's their real favorite.
	If you're a hardcore street gangbanger, but you got a sob story, they'll let you out easy.
	If you're an ordinary, everyday, upstanding citizen who made one mistake, or what the government decides to now call a mistake, and can get you railroaded...
	Oh, by golly, you better go to prison for five years, even if it means depriving the community of a necessary medical service.
	I mean, they're all authoritarians.
	Doesn't matter whether they're left or right.
	90% of judges are authoritarians.
	And it's even worse that they're more barbaric, the ones that run our jails and that run our prisons.
	And they're an embarrassment to a humane society.
	All right.
	Well, I don't know how that's going to segue into the next topic.
	I was thinking we might get to the SBF, but let's do the...
	The next one on the list, Robert, is social media.
	Government officials blocking people on social media when they're posting from their private accounts but posting government messages or in their capacity of from their private accounts.
	The one that I read was...
	Oh, geez, Louise, Robert.
	I'm going to forget the details now.
	Oh, well, there's two different ones.
	The Supreme Court took both and is going to hear it on...
	So you can reference either one.
	One is the city manager and the other one is...
	Forget who the other one is.
	Well, I think it was the city posting on their Facebook everything that they're doing in the city.
	Some parents apparently weren't too happy, kept on...
	This is like the COVID...
	Well, that's one of...
	Yeah, one is school board, I think, or school-connected officials with parents commenting about issues related to the school system.
	The other one is a person who took his personal page became city manager so he made it in official pages on Facebook for public figures and he didn't like people criticizing their COVID policies.
	So they blocked them and then the question is going to be...
	And delete their comments so that they disappear from the public forum as if they never existed.
	It's a great way to control the narrative.
	Look at this.
	I have no opposition.
	Everything I'm doing is perfect.
	Everybody loves it.
	Yeah, let's go to my Facebook pages.
	We're having some of these cases come out of Canada.
	I'm fairly certain just recently...
	Stephen Guilbeault was ordered to not block members of the media.
	I have to go check the details on that.
	But it seems like it's not really a disputable element here that in your government capacity, you can't block private citizens.
	Is the question here the interplay between their private or their personal accounts?
	But then also, was this not already addressed in a lawsuit that Trump had faced?
	And then AOC goes out and blocks people.
	So what's the question left for the court to answer?
	Well, what happened is there was a dissent in the Trump case, and the Seventh Circuit picked up, or maybe it was the Sixth Circuit, picked up on the dissent and decided to change the opinion on all this.
	So what the Sixth Circuit came in and said is that the question is, when are they acting as a state actor?
	Because you can only prohibit them from banning you and deleting your comments if it's a state actor.
	So what happens when you have a state official that is using their personal page to do it?
	And so, for example, and they're very aware of this these days, when Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Hallin, now Interior Secretary Hallin, decided to libel the Covington kids, they used their official accounts to do it so they could claim immunity.
	They used their personal accounts in other capacities.
	So they're playing games with the idea that their personal account, they can get away with more.
	In certain places, they can block and delete.
	But in their public accounts, they can get away with libel.
	So that's the kind of game that they're playing.
	So what most of the courts have said is it really goes back to one of my favorite aspects of my favorite law school class, which was biz orgs, actually.
	Because it got into the construct of agency and authority and accountability.
	And one of my favorites is ostensible authority, apparent authority.
	When I can be held liable for what somebody else did, even though they weren't actually my agent, because I did something that led people to believe they were my agent.
	So in the state actor capacity, what they've been saying is, even if it's your personal account, In other words, even if it's not literally controlled by the government, and it's not funded by the government, if you're using it for a government purpose,
	if you're giving it the appearance that it is a government page for which you have the authority as a government agent to do, and you use it like a public forum, inviting constituent response, discussing public matters, then in those instances...
	You could be considered a state actor such that you can't ban or censor a conversation.
	If, on the other hand, you're not really doing that, it's truly your personal account, it's being used in the same way it was being used when you were not a public official.
	So in cases like where you had the account before you became a public official, that the account doesn't describe your official position, but rather describes you personally, etc.
	Then the mere fact that you're a government official won't convert that personal account into a public account such that you can still limit public participation, limit comments, delete comments, block people from emailing or communicating on your page.
	But the Sixth Circuit said, no, all that matters is you have to prove this was done by the government.
	Well, that would basically mean all the politicians could get away with setting up public forum, just disguising it just enough as a private account, such that they can get all the benefits of a public forum.
	But none of the detriment.
	They can control the narrative.
	They can censor the narrative.
	They can delete comments they don't like.
	They can block comments they don't like.
	They can block users they don't like to create a fake impression of a public forum that it really isn't a public forum.
	And so that's where the Supreme Court's going to have to resolve this.
	I think the Supreme Court will go the totality of the circumstances guidance with a little bit more limits than they imposed in the Trump case.
	Because in the Trump case...
	He was using the account the way he always used it.
	He was just now president.
	It wasn't a case that he had really converted that into the presidential account.
	There was a separate account that was the presidential account.
	And I thought they were a little too liberal and loose in their application.
	But this other version is so tight as to create a loophole where the ordinary person will see someone acting.
	What they're really doing is they're saying you have to be the literal agent.
	To go back to biz orgs.
	It doesn't matter if you're the apparent or ostensible agent.
	You have to be the actual agent in contract, in funding, in legalized control.
	And we have ostensible agency principles for a reason.
	Because to the person out there impacted by it, they think you're no different than the actual agent.
	And that's clearly the case in this one case, that city manager case.
	He was running that page as a city page.
	He went from a personal account to a page by making it a public account about the city.
	He was posting things about the city.
	The person was responding to city policies.
	He wasn't tracking him down personally and harassing him on city policies.
	He was responding to city policies.
	Because the guy was saying, hey, look at my mayor's having a nice deal.
	Nice meal.
	And this guy's like, in the pandemic, you're locking stuff down, you loser.
	What are you doing putting these post-pickers up?
	That's what he got blocked for.
	That's exactly what we shouldn't be allowed being blocked.
	So I hope, I think the Supreme Court will reject the Sixth Circuit standard, but won't go as far as the Second and the Ninth Circuit did, carve out something that fits the principles of ostensible agency, use those principles we've established for corporate-private liability, simply extend it to the state actor context.
	Now let me ask you a question.
	For no specific reason, Robert, some platforms offer a mute function, which is not a block, so I don't have to see it.
	If I don't want to unblock it, but other people get to see it, would that be violative even if it's done?
	No, that's not limiting the public forum.
	That's not prohibiting the person from communicating in the public forum.
	So the mute probably would not, even by a government account, would not be problematic in all likelihood.
	I keep saying it's not because someone says something that I have to read.
	What's next?
	They're going to make me listen to what they have to say versus just having the right to say it.
	Very interesting.
	What you describe is ideally the way it makes total logical sense.
	We want to protect the robustness and transparency of public forums.
	That's really what the First Amendment is here for in this context.
	So when they're really setting up something as a public forum, treat it as such.
	When they're not really doing so, act accordingly.
	Trump wasn't really creating a public forum on his Twitter account.
	He was mostly doing something that was for his personal campaign and political benefit.
	And he was doing stuff also for personal business and other purposes.
	So it should not have been so easily considered to be unilaterally and universally a public account.
	There are aspects of it that you could argue at certain contexts.
	Maybe it could be used in certain instances, but not in every case, in every instance, like the Second Circuit decided.
	But nor should we say, just because it's a personal account, now every politician can block people, even if they effectively create public forums in the process.
	Now, before we get to the Ponzi scheme, Robert, I've noticed I haven't done the rumble rants.
	There's not very many yet.
	I want to read it very quickly.
	V6neon says, suggest a YouTube channel.
	He is covering and sifting through the news.
	Jihadis taking over Russian airport.
	Going after planes from Israel.
	Jihadis threatening hotels.
	Send out the Jews.
	Soviet show trials are here in the United States.
	I weep for the country.
	That is nothing more than a dead, bloated, rotting sow dangling.
	Particle says, "I see you quote historical judicial judgments, but as the judiciary loses the grasp of history by activists, aren't we just spinning our wheels and waxing for the ways things were done?" And last one.
	I appreciate your efforts, but the game is lost.
	It is not lost yet.
	That's my interjection.
	20 years ago, if we had awakened 20 years ago, it might have made a difference.
	But as the Soviet to factor, who I don't remember his name, we're on level six.
	Yeah, that was a Solnitsyn?
	Solnitsyn?
	All right, Robert, the itty-bitty banks that Leticia James in New York is trying to protect because they didn't get the best interest rate they could have gotten out of Trump had he not overvalued his assets.
	The pool of banks, Wells Fargo, they agreed to pay $3 billion for participating or their participation in a Ponzi scheme involving something called Build Better.
	Equity Build.
	So they basically warranted, not sanctioned, but they basically gave the blessing, made warranties and representations for the legitimate business structure of a Ponzi scheme that they were banking.
	They were financing.
	They were participating in.
	There was a class action from about a year ago.
	They settled on $3 billion.
	And then what you had sent me, Robert, to read was the authorization for legal fees to authorize.
	What other payments that required the court authorization?
	Oh, because there'll be additional attorney's fees on top of that as part of the class action settlement resolution.
	And sometimes these class actions are really just done for the lawyers to get fees.
	But this was actual real money rather than, you know, coupons or that kind of thing that's the big scam in the class action world where they say, well, we're going to value these coupons as like $20 million and that justifies a $4 million legal fee and then you realize the coupon is going to be worth like $100,000.
	And really, it's a bribe to the lawyers to dump the case.
	But in this instance, you have to have actual knowledge of the bank, and that's the hard part in proving aiding and abetting fraud.
	What everybody knows is these frauds never could happen without the banks.
	You need a banking account to transfer to.
	You need a banking account to do the transaction.
	You need a banking account to look legitimate.
	And particularly the bigger the institutional bank, the more likely it is you'll lend that credibility.
	Also, the more likely it is they'll be in bed with the fraudsters because all they care about is their fees.
	And I mean, that's why so many banks, I think now we're up to third, fourth bank.
	It's written a big check in the Jeffrey Epstein-connected cases.
	Why do you think that is?
	It's because they were neck deep in Epstein's activity.
	Epstein got them involved in it.
	Let me play devil's advocate, I mean, quite literally for the banks.
	A lot of people are going to say they deal with thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of clients.
	They're supposed to know their clients.
	A law firm, you open up your account.
	They see monies going in and out, and I would not expect or even want the bank to be saying, hey, that was a big transfer that you just had.
	And I agree with that.
	And that's where you have to prove actual knowledge of the underlying fraud.
	So this is the aiding and abetting liability in the bank context for these various financial frauds and Ponzi's are generally very difficult to prove.
	So if you ever see them writing a check in a case, that means that there was evidence there that they did something.
	$3 billion.
	I mean...
	I didn't realize that Wells Fargo had such a bad reputation, had been sanctioned repeatedly.
	I've sued Wells Fargo a few times.
	So I learned that.
	So they settled for $3.6 billion and they got a million, what was it, a million dollars in legal fees?
	It didn't sound like a lot.
	Yeah, the legal fees were reasonable in the context.
	I mean, what it is is these banks are often, because these people, these Ponzi schemers.
	Promote themselves as access to investment banking services and private banking services for high-end clientele.
	And that's how you get so many of these.
	And really what it is is the Ponzi schemer wants access to those people.
	And so does the bank.
	And that's where the bank often becomes complicit in the scam.
	And they often have actual knowledge.
	They're often given warnings specifically by complaining clients or customers.
	And they ignore them and often go to greater lengths to hide that evidence because often the executive involved, his entire job and pay is based on maybe just that account.
	I mean, how did Epstein get away with it?
	The leading banks of the world were neck deep with him in it.
	Why?
	If you take the most innocent version of explanations, not that it's innocent, but more innocent than the alternative explanation of why the banks might be complicit.
	Like the banks themselves would love to be involved in the extortion business.
	But putting that aside, it's because Epstein brought them high-end customer-client connections.
	And consequently, and that's their real bread and butter for many of these high-ranking bank executives, and they go to great lengths to cover for these guys.
	But the key thing with almost major criminal operations anywhere in the world...
	Is despite the efforts to target crypto, despite the efforts to target cash, the reality is almost no major fraud or scam could happen in the world, nor most major crimes happen in the world, without the culpability and often the complicity of our leading global financial institutions.
	Luke Rutkowski put out a funny meme the other day that said they will quite literally blow up the world.
	Before letting us know who was on Epstein's client list.
	We can't get into it.
	We've done it a number of times.
	Excuse me, I'm choking on my own tongue here.
	Who do you think the connection to Mossad was in the relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein?
	Was it Epstein or was it Ghislaine who had the connections?
	Maxwell was connected to everybody.
	So Robert Maxwell escaped Europe early on.
	And he ended up with connection.
	I mean, there's allegations that he was connected to all sides during World War II.
	But putting that aside, there's no dispute post-World War II.
	He had ties to MI6, the CIA, the Mossad, and the KGB.
	That's how he was able to do the...
	He did a lot of deals in Eastern and Central Europe during the Cold War era.
	That wasn't a coincidence.
	I mean, there were some allegations that the Mossad entrapped him the other way around.
	But there was no doubt he was working for, he had his hand in every till that could be out there.
	He was working for all the intel services at one time or another.
	And so, and Ghislaine Maxwell presumably inherited those.
	There's no doubt of Epstein's connections to Mossad.
	There's not a lot of doubt of his connections to the CIA based on internal FBI documentation.
	That listed him as an intelligence source, as the reason not to pursue him in 2008 and give him a sweetheart deal.
	Dershowitz kind of accidentally let this out.
	I still don't think he's put it together.
	Dershowitz said he was introduced to Epstein by someone from the Rothschild family.
	So I was like, Rothschilds, bankers, Mossad, Epstein, sex scandal.
	I was like, I wonder if they were actually kind of putting Dershowitz in a deliberate position to try to see if they could have blackmail on Dershowitz.
	Unfortunately, the allegations against him turned out totally false.
	We predicted that.
	If you know Dershowitz...
	It doesn't fit the DNA at all.
	Well, people think that the underwear...
	It was like Ralph Nader.
	I mean, they're obsessed with Ralph Nader and they kept sending prostitutes to him in the wrong places.
	I was like, you know, send a prostitute to the library.
	Then you might be able to seduce him and sucker him.
	But, you know, at a random place, Ralph Nader is like, what?
	Totally uninterested.
	What are you talking about?
	And it's not to defend Dershowitz.
	I mean, the whole thing about his underwear and the massage was in Florida.
	It wasn't on Epstein's Island.
	But Maxwell lived a long life.
	I'm just looking this up now.
	He was long.
	70, 68. So not that long.
	Well, I mean, he expected to live longer.
	Fell off the boat.
	Fell off the boat that he named.
	Fell off that boat, right in the middle of the scale.
	He got caught stealing from people's pension funds.
	And he named the boat.
	Presumably he was going to implicate some powerful people to get himself out of that.
	And they said, hey, does the water look good out there?
	That's not an alligator you're looking at.
	Oh, so all that, to bring that back to Epstein, the idea was that Epstein, you know, might have had dirt on people, and we still don't know who the client list is, but apparently, they will apparently bring the world to war before letting us know who the clients were not on that trafficking that seems to have had no clients.
	Speaking of missing client list and donor list, a certain SBF is on trial, but not on trial for who he funneled a lot of that money to.
	Well, that's, Robert, that's the question I'm going to ask you.
	So first, we're going to back this all the way up to the beginning.
	I see a dog.
	I see she's getting ready to do something in my office.
	He's on trial.
	It's like the trial is so not receiving the attention it probably warrants.
	That's terrible.
	Have you seen the Epstein meme in our local live chat?
	Is it a...
	Hold on, let me go up here.
	Is it the...
	No, not Magic Island the airplane?
	Looks like a cartoon?
	No, it's the two cats.
	Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Well, I guess everyone who wants to see that in the Rumble chat is going to have to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Holy crap.
	Okay, so the SBF trial is ongoing now.
	SBF testified on Friday.
	Robert, what does provisional testimony not in front of the jury mean?
	I didn't understand that reading up on this.
	I'm not a fan of those.
	They went ahead and gambled with it, the defense lawyers.
	This judge is a political hack of a judge.
	I'm not a fan of this judge at all.
	He's been a political hack in many cases.
	And so what he said was he was unsure if a lot of the testimony of Sam Bankman Freed would be relevant, and he didn't want to have to sit there and object and instruct the jury throughout the whole testimony, discard this, discard that.
	So he said, I'm going to sneak preview.
	I'm not a fan of sneak previews.
	I've never been a fan of sneak previews.
	Now, the defense lawyers might have been okay with this because they thought, hey, we get to do a test run of seeing what the prosecutors ask them without the jury being there so we can help prep them for actually...
	So they may have thought, given the unique personality of Sam Bakeman Freed, that he needs Adderall to even think, according to him, that that may have made sense.
	Well, hold on.
	Let me see if I...
	Can I bring this up here?
	I have this...
	Do we see this?
	Yeah, yeah, let's see.
	I think this might be the video that I was looking for.
	No, he'd never been on TV.
	He goes on TV in his cargo shorts and his messy hair, and he's playing video games while he's on the air.
	He's playing video games.
	Oh, they're talking over it.
	You would think your first television appearance, you might be a little...
	You know, that's the big short guy who's kind of a defender of Sam Bankman Freed.
	Or at least he came across that way, which was interesting.
	So, yeah, I'm not a fan of that protocol, but sometimes in select cases, you may think it would be better for you to do it.
	I could see his defense team thinking in his case that because he comes across as somebody who may be very egotistical, may lose focus, may say things in a snide way.
	And here you got to see a sneak peek of what the prosecutors were going to ask, how they were going to ask it, where it would go.
	Ultimately, the judge couldn't prevent him from testifying.
	So it was all just about how testimony would be presented.
	And so ultimately he did testify, but the judge is such an arrogant judge, he acted like maybe he could somehow, which is preposterous.
	Criminal case?
	You can't stop a defendant from testifying on his own behalf?
	That just guarantees a reversal on appeal.
	Even our nitwit cowardice courts can understand that.
	But it's interesting defense.
	He's got two lines of defense.
	One is, it was mistakes, not fraud.
	I've tried that defense before, various degrees.
	But if that mistake is so fundamental, like not having, what was the term, a risk exposure?
	Try not to have fancy things, that's one thing.
	I had a client that was, I think the local media reports said that, according to Barnes, he wasn't a Ponzi fraudster, he was an honest dreamer.
	So on and so forth.
	That was a tough case.
	That was a tough case.
	We ended up getting a good disposition out of the case because the judge was so scared I was going to win the case because it wasn't long after the Snipes case that he secretly communicated to the jury ex parte.
	The clerks and the bailiffs and the marshals were all in on it, hid it for me.
	He panicked after the jury came back that the jury might tell me, so he disclosed it himself.
	And they called this judge the hanging judge, and he cut the sentence to less than what the plea bargain was proposed to try to minimize the chance he would get reversed on appeal for such illegal, unethical conduct.
	It was ironic.
	I had such an ethical jury, they took extra time on the one count the judge was trying to, thought would be the easiest to convict, and they acquitted him on that count.
	But as a general rule, if you want to do the honest dreamer, just mistakes defense, it's better if you don't have fancy homes.
	That particular client had, like, Lamborghinis and Ferraris and a lot of other things.
	So, you know, went to Vegas, spent a lot of money there.
	Were they leased through the company?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	All of them bought by other people's money.
	But, yeah, so Sam Bankman's got a combo defense.
	Mistakes, not fraud.
	With an overarching narrative of this was a fly-by-night.
	We were building the plane while we were flying it.
	It's cryptocurrencies.
	It's all crazy.
	It was going so fast.
	Speed and scale was too big.
	Should have had a bunch better risk management people, but I never thought we were going to be successful anyway.
	Line of defense.
	The second line, which by the way, it's smart to embrace the mistakes part.
	An arrogant defense would be like that idiot.
	A lawyer defending Jeffrey Skilling in the Enron case, who said in his opening line, I told people as soon as I heard this, I said that he's done.
	He's probably not guilty, but he's convicted right now.
	Because his own lawyer got up and said, this isn't a case of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
	This is a case of there was no evil at Enron.
	Nobody's going to believe that, you nitwit.
	And he just hung his client.
	He had no, Daniel Petrocelli, he had no business defending a criminal case.
	First ever criminal case, and it's that one.
	He got his client hung, you know, basically prison for life, and he was probably innocent of the charges against him.
	Because that's how just arrogant and nitwit that guy is.
	You know, he convicted O.J. in a civil proceeding in front of an all-white racist jury that couldn't wait to lynch O.J. after the criminal case.
	And then they were, oh, what a genius lawyer he is.
	Oh, it turns out the West Side is a bunch of racists.
	I'm totally shocked.
	The, you know, unbelievable.
	But the, so the smart defense here, he admits the mistakes.
	A bunch of mistakes.
	Should have had a bunch of risk management in place.
	It was too big, too fast.
	I was a kid way over my head.
	Smart, you know, play to the weird math nerd kid over your head defense.
	The second part is, man, I had a bunch of lawyers around and I assumed it was all legal.
	So, now...
	The problem with the reliance defense is he doesn't have a strict reliance defense.
	A strict reliance defense requires that you, in good faith, produce all pertinent facts to a lawyer that you then get the opinion from.
	If you withhold any facts, or if the opinion doesn't concern the subject matter at issue, you no longer have a reliance defense.
	So it plays more broadly into a generic good faith defense.
	Which is, hey, I thought what I was doing in good faith because I had a bunch of lawyers around.
	Not a technical reliance defense because, as the prosecutors pointed out, he had no specific opinions on any of these subjects.
	He had opinions on what he did is he gave it out by piecemeal.
	So he has lawyers writing the terms of service.
	He has lawyers determining the economic underlying structure of the transactions for taxation purposes.
	Very different from the legality purposes of the underlying transaction.
	And so, for example, treating the different aspects as loans rather than dividends or income earned to them, it was solely a tax advantage structure that was done.
	Smart one, by the way.
	However, his dad, by the way, is a big tax lawyer.
	His dad was neck deep in all this.
	Stanford.
	His mom, by the way, where a lot of the money was going, for those folks that don't know, was for his mom running a bunch of NGOs that were out there promoting the 2020 election fraud.
	I mean...
	That were doing the election fraud.
	The secret of all this is Sam Bankman-Fried was the money bags for a huge election fraud in 2020.
	And all of that's been hidden because of how they structured his extradition from the Bahamas.
	And this is an article from NPR.
	We talked about this at the time.
	It's not just FTX Sam Bankman-Fried.
	His parents also face legal trouble.
	Yet somehow not yet.
	Not yet.
	Joseph Bankman-Fried, they taught law at Stanford.
	Bankman is, according to his biography, a leading scholar in the United States tax policy.
	We talked about this at the time they devised the plans.
	And then what was it?
	It was called Bridge the Gap, I think, or True the Gap.
	What was the name of the mob?
	Yeah, True the Gap.
	True the Gap.
	So he raised...
	She was in charge of all these underlying NGOs that were involved in election fornication in 2020.
	I mean, that's the little secret from behind all of this.
	And he was such a brazen scam artist, and he got sideways with other people in the crypto community, so they exposed and ratted him out.
	That he was, in fact, funding his entire investment operation with his client's customer accounts, deposit accounts.
	His excuse for that is twofold.
	One, he's like, okay, all these ex-employees have testified against him.
	He's like, they were doing things I didn't know they were doing, and they're just trying to shift all the blame onto me for stuff they were doing that they never even told me about.
	His other, because he said they were technically not as competent and capable as they were pretending they were.
	That was a smart defense.
	He didn't go full throttle.
	There's a tendency to want to go, All bad, all good.
	Find the nuanced truth and hammer that.
	One myth out there is that as a defense lawyer, you come up with a fraudulent defense to win.
	No, you find the truth that sets your client free.
	Sometimes the jury's willing to accept the moral truth of that.
	Sometimes they're not.
	You might be legally and factually true and the jury not care from a moral narrative perspective.
	So if somebody doesn't pay their payroll taxes...
	Throughout the history of the country, they've always gone to prison if they're prosecuted, even if they have a complete legal and factual defense.
	Juries just don't care because they think you stole from Mama's Medicare.
	That's not what's going on, but that's what they think.
	And so the same could be true here.
	So this case comes down to jury selection.
	But he does have a better defense than had been previously presented by the press because he's laying out...
	Lawyers approve the loans.
	Lawyers approve the terms of service.
	My understanding of the terms of service is that this allowed these loans to be made from deposit accounts to this.
	My understanding is that's how banks operate.
	Kind of interesting point there.
	All banks are criminal operations in America, writ large.
	Dig into it.
	But we just catch them in some of their more egregious crimes on a random basis.
	But so he's playing into an easy caricature of him and playing into a believable image of the witnesses who testified against him such that the jurors could believe those witnesses to a degree and still believe he's not guilty of any criminal fraudulent intent because that's the key issue in the trial.
	The limitation he has is he lived a very nice life during this time period.
	It was other people's money he was playing with.
	A bunch of ex-employees are pointing the finger at him.
	A bunch of money was lost.
	And he was living on fancy homes in the island.
	That's his hurdle.
	What are you doing here, Doug?
	Get out of here.
	Forget the money that he spent on his properties.
	I mean, they can get that back.
	They're going to track down the money.
	Now, the mother's true of the gap.
	Well, that's part of his defense, by the way.
	How quickly he cooperated.
	How quickly he turned over the assets.
	How quickly he volunteered everything.
	His Bahamian lawyer testified on his behalf.
	But they're really anchoring on him, which is a heck of a gamble with a guy who's been so up and down in his personality and his public image.
	But where did the money go?
	They're going to have to account for where the money went.
	It went to various...
	Well, almost all of that's been excluded from the trial and the indictment due to...
	This sweetheart deal they cut with him implicitly by extradition.
	Now it's clear to me why they rushed to extradite him.
	Because I was like, why are they rushing to extradite this politically protected guy whose buddies with the SEC, whose family, whose funds helped elect Joe Biden president?
	Why are they doing that?
	It was to keep control over where the case might go.
	By extraditing him quickly on just the fraud charges...
	When they brought the illegal campaign contribution charges, they had to dismiss those because under extradition and the rule of specialty...
	They didn't negotiate them into the extradition before they extradited.
	It had to be in there.
	Otherwise, it's dismissed.
	No personal jurisdiction for those charges, nor did they ever try to...
	And you can't renew them.
	So they rushed the arrest and extradition to make sure nobody would ever hear or see what the scam was really all about.
	When you say rushed, is it...
	Sorry, is it rushed or is it rushed and this was all part of the scheme to ensure that those charges were not brought at the time?
	Oh, it was definitely all part of the scheme.
	I mean, he doesn't benefit from this because he faces federal prison for a long time, but the system did.
	And it was once it was out that this guy was a scam artist, they were afraid that some other prosecutor randomly, some state prosecutor, somebody else would go after him in ways that would go to the issues of how he was the fundraising tool for the Biden campaign.
	Of 2020, the underlying Biden campaign, the get out the vote campaign.
	Get those dead people out.
	Get those people voting who didn't know they were voting.
	Get those felons voting.
	Getting those kids voting.
	You know, all of that.
	That machine was heavily funded by his source of funds.
	And so you had to keep a lid on that, at least through 2024.
	How do you do that?
	You say, we're going to do justice and make sure we get Sam Bankman freed and we're going to move to extradite him immediately and arrest him immediately on these horrendous fraud charges.
	Oh, golly gee, we can't bring these other charges?
	We tried, but you know.
	It just didn't work out.
	I'm going back to what you said during one of the Bourbon with Barnes' last week where you're like, you know, you're always living a life as though they are trying to screw you at every step of the way.
	Who would be the one to object to this level of screwery in this particular circumstance?
	There's nobody.
	There's nobody.
	Benefits him, benefits the government.
	Well, that was a black pill suppository that I was not expecting for the evening, Robert.
	Thank you.
	If and when, is there any chance of getting the financials just to show where the money's went?
	Yeah, yeah.
	That's already happening separately with the receiver.
	So the receiver's getting all that money through the bankruptcy process.
	They control all of that.
	So the loudest, the people that know the system will get repaid.
	The people that don't know the system, that don't have sophisticated counsel, will be the ones that get stiffed.
	Phenomenal.
	It's rich or poor, it's good to be rich, and it's good to be politically connected.
	Well, Mel Brooks, it's good to be the king.
	Oh, man.
	Okay, well, Robert, do we go to the Baltimore prosecutor trial?
	Speaking of corruption.
	Yeah, it is a template and microcosm of corruption.
	Now, look, I read it.
	I was learning from scratch.
	I didn't know the names, and I know that there's bigger stuff at play in this case.
	Other than the fact that you have a Baltimore prosecutor not paying attention to the crimes of Baltimore, but paying attention to other stuff, I was a little bit lost because there was too much to catch up on.
	What's the situation?
	I know the name means something to somebody who's been paying attention.
	I haven't to this.
	Who's the name?
	So this is the Baltimore prosecutor who brought the Freddie Gray prosecution, right?
	Blame the cops for the deaths of some of these cases that were not, in my view, the most legitimate cases.
	Whether you're talking about George Floyd, you're talking about Michael Brown, you're talking about the case in Florida that involved a private individual, but you had this line of cases that were big BLM cases.
	Freddie Gray was the one who got shot through the spine?
	No, I think he was the one who was in the back of the bus.
	He got the old...
	Van ride, they like to give them.
	And end up dead.
	But wanted to blame all the cops.
	And it was clearly an excessive prosecution.
	But she was one of the early Soros prosecutors.
	But who and what she is, like the show The Wire is all about Baltimore.
	The Baltimore press, the Baltimore politicians, the Baltimore police, and the Baltimore crime scene.
	And the show The Wire is great.
	At doing all this.
	I used to quote the wire a lot.
	And then I realized this quote could get misconstrued down the road.
	Because it was a line about how you can abuse power with fake wires.
	Like you claim you've got something on a...
	Well, with a real wire, but a fake informant.
	You claim your informant is the source to cover up for illegal surveillance.
	I've caught this happening in real time in several cases of mine.
	Where they were saying that this informant...
	Had magically all this information and we would figure out this has to be a legal surveillance that they're disguising as coming from an informant.
	It's one of the favorite things police love to do.
	And because they have to keep it absolutely super-duper secret who their informant is, then that's why they get to hide the fact there never was an informant and they were just illegally spying on people.
	So they even had cooked up stories years ago.
	Local sheriffs and cops and police and others that were using the DEA's system of illegal surveillance on vehicles.
	And they would come up with totally fake stories to get warrants, arrests and convictions.
	Almost nothing was done with it by the court system.
	The court system just pushed it aside like it didn't exist when the scandal broke.
	Despite inmates starting to raise the issue.
	Because they're an unsympathetic group to raise the issue.
	That's who she is, one of the early Soros prosecutors.
	You're going to see a template in what she's about and how all these people operate and the charges brought against her.
	So she's the prosecutor.
	She was married to an up-and-coming Baltimore City politician, city council member.
	They were going to be part of, they're connected to the Kamala Harris political machine.
	And you can see how her brain thinks.
	And not only these politically motivated prosecutions, try to get everybody out on a petition, norm, quorum nobis, I think it was called, on pot charges before marijuana.
	So very political.
	Oh, so hold on.
	When she let everybody out on the pot charges, it was purely a gesture because it was going to be legalized or decriminalized a year later.
	Okay, now I can understand what I read.
	That's who she is.
	So she was an early Soros prosecutor, politically choosing certain prosecutions, politically choosing not to pursue other ones, to remake the prosecutor's office into a tool to rewrite the law, to basically make it easier to be a street-level criminal, to protect street-level criminality.
	This was the net effect of all of her combined laws.
	In terms of who she was letting out, who she was not prosecuting, and who she was.
	If you aggressively prosecute police in marginal cases of police abuse, the police stop aggressively policing those communities.
	And the criminal element gets more power, gets more leverage.
	And this has been known since the late 60s, early 70s.
	She was doing, and Soros' plan everywhere has been to do that.
	You can give him the generous interpretation that he thinks this is an excess of criminal incarceration and so forth.
	Or, in my view, the more likely explanation that it's a nefarious agenda to create more chaos, to destroy national governments and boundaries because he believes that the international elite should govern the world.
	Robert, if I may just...
	I hate to make these observations because I don't like reducing anybody to identity.
	This is the prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby.
	Yep.
	Soros is funding Alvin Bragg indirectly through Colors for Change, I think is what it's called.
	He's funding Kim Gardner.
	Was it Gardner?
	The Atlanta prosecutor.
	I mean, I hate to make an observation as to what connects the three ones we can name offhand.
	I don't know if he's also financing...
	Directly or indirectly, Leticia James.
	Is he exploiting them?
	Yeah, I think he has ties to her.
	And he wants identity politics as part of this.
	So she gets in there, she's married, she's part of the rising couple, part of the Kamala Harris machine, political machine, part of that sort of black upper middle professional managerial class cashing in on government.
	Politically manipulating government for the purposes of their donor who they really serve.
	They don't really serve the interest.
	The old black professional managerial class was forced by segregation to be deeply aligned with the interest, needs, and awareness of the black working class.
	Because if you're a black doctor, your customer base during segregation is just black working and middle class.
	Same with black lawyers, black professionals, black dentists, black chiropractors.
	And you're disproportionately, if you're a black policeman, black fireman in those communities, etc.
	You are deeply connected to those communities.
	Black preachers always have been, because that's the nature of their community, for the most part.
	That's somewhat changed in the past 10, 20 years, but not as drastically as it has for the rest of the black professional class.
	The black professional class has been able to segregate itself, separate itself from the black working class.
	That's what integration afforded.
	That was the kind of accidental side effect, the adverse side effect.
	That King recognized in 67 and 68 before he was killed.
	It's like, oh, civil rights is not going to solve the problem of the black poor and the black working class.
	In fact, Vietnam is more of a threat to the black poor and the black working class man in many respects than the white sheriff was.
	And that's why he was shifting.
	Once he realized economics was at the core of things and the military-industrial complex at core of things, all of a sudden they kill him, of course.
	They don't kill him when he's just doing civil rights.
	They don't kill him when he's doing I Have a Dream.
	They kill him.
	When he starts translating that to a whole different power structure.
	But she's symbolic of this.
	Because how does she see her office?
	Well, she's cashing in.
	I mean, what's she in trouble for now?
	Now, I'll get into what she's really in trouble for in a second.
	But legally, what she's in trouble for is she borrowed from her own 401k and retirement fund.
	Which she could only legally borrow from if she had suffered a recent adverse financial effect.
	And just so people understand, you're borrowing from your retirement fund, which you get to then cash out tax-free later on, but if you can borrow in advance, I don't know what the requirements are, but show an adverse life circumstance.
	I need the money now, I might not make it there.
	Correct.
	There are certain adverse financial consequences, exceptions, that allows that money to be tax-free effectively.
	Okay.
	That she has to show.
	The second is...
	When you apply for mortgages, you have to disclose whether there's any tax liens out there because that could jeopardize the ability to get the mortgage.
	Now, these are some of the weaker charges to a certain degree because there was a lot of other corruption scandals rumored around her.
	She was making close to a quarter of a million.
	She claimed during COVID she suffered adverse financial consequences.
	She actually got a raise.
	And she was using it to buy properties in Florida and then wasn't disclosing things on those loans.
	In fairness, her raise was...
	Not say only, but her raise was $10,000 on a quarter of a million.
	So she got a raise.
	She's buying investment properties in Florida.
	That she's disguising as prime real estate as her own primary residence, which it couldn't be because she's a legal official, political elected official in Baltimore.
	A little publication called Baltimore Brew.
	It shows the power of ordinary people who think, ah, you can't make a difference, etc.
	One of these little random community publications of some little local investigators, grassroots investigators, your Tracy Beanses of the world, your Julie Kellys of the world, sitting there doing it, and they just started connecting, hey, this is kind of weird.
	Look at how our county prosecutor is setting up all these entities that are involved in all these real estate deals in a bunch of different states.
	This seems kind of odd for the county prosecutor.
	That's what led to everything being undisclosed, that she was involved in all this illicit funds.
	Now, where she's getting the money and all to buy millions of dollars of real estate in Florida, but this is how people like this think.
	The whole system is here to enrich me as long as I serve the interest of the donor class.
	I'm not here to serve my constituents' interest.
	I'm not here to help the black community.
	It's all an extended grift.
	It's like what's-his-name just got caught doing at Harvard or Cornell, wherever it was he was at.
	What's his name?
	The famous founder of a lot of the woke black...
	It turned out he was using the funds to fund his brother's bogus charity to help do some other...
	And BLM, of course, itself, massive grift.
	It was just one big real estate grift.
	But if you understand, this is an old scam.
	Nick Fuentes is the right-wing version of the race grifter fraud scam artist.
	A bunch of them are cashing in right now that Israel's hot.
	If we wanted to get a flood of super chats, all I'd have to do is start insulting one side or the other of that, and they would start sending in all the...
	The former sidebar guest I still like.
	Jackson Hinkle.
	He's doing the full-scale Palestinian grift.
	I mean, I'll give him credit.
	Kid needs some cash.
	He's a smart kid.
	Nice kid.
	In a lot of ways.
	But the Palestinian grift is so over the top.
	It's like, dude, at least Reketa acknowledges he's a master grifter.
	If you're going to grift, at least give a few bonus points out there.
	But that's what she thinks.
	She sees the whole political system as one big grift.
	And so...
	She gets caught.
	Now she's getting prosecuted for perjury and mortgage fraud and all this other stuff.
	But the question is, really, why is she getting prosecuted for all of this?
	The backstory is she separates from her husband, ends up divorced from her husband, ended up on the wrong side of internal black grifter politics in Baltimore.
	And so those types outed her to the feds that screwed her on this.
	And so she ended up on the wrong side of the grifter.
	All of them are in on the grift.
	It's just who gets the most in the end.
	If the expression is no honor among scoundrels or no honor among Steve's...
	No honor among Steve's.
	Yes.
	That's exactly what the real political backstory is.
	I'm not fighting with Hinkle anymore.
	I'm not going to fight with Kim Iverson anymore unless they...
	But man, she's making bad arguments.
	When you have to...
	This was my whole...
	This is when I knew...
	I didn't want to do it.
	I didn't want to do it.
	I was like, all you got to do...
	If you do a deep dive into the Israeli-Palestinian debate...
	It comes down to always one simple question.
	Are you okay with Hamas having nuclear weapons?
	And if you're not, like any sane person would not be, then you have no choice in the end.
	You side with Hamas.
	Now, does that mean you have to get involved in the war?
	No.
	Does that mean you've got to give them money?
	No.
	That just means that politically, when you're choosing between one or the other, if you're a UN representative, you can never side with Hamas because the goal of Hamas is to control Israel, and that means controlling nuclear weapons, which is insane.
	And that's how you've seen Kim Iverson saying, it will be okay if Hamas takes over Israel.
	There won't be anything bad that could happen to the Jews.
	It's not like they've been expelled from every other Middle Eastern country, right?
	But these are the double-edged swords.
	People say they've been expelled from every other country.
	For a reason.
	And that's the argument.
	Okay, well then what about the Palestinians?
	They've been expelled from every other country too.
	They've been expelled from their co-religionists.
	That's how bad the Palestinians...
	I mean, like I said, king losers of the world.
	Nobody has lost more than the Palestinians.
	They're king losers.
	Nobody loses more.
	That's all they do is lose.
	And then they whine about the consequences of losing.
	I have no doubt they've lost.
	I think they've been exploited as a people.
	There's no question about that.
	But with Kim Iverson, And then she says, well, the Jews can go back to the European countries from whence they came because that's...
	And then everyone will peacefully coexist as if that makes sense.
	Hamas with nuclear weapons, Kim.
	That's how nuts your position is.
	Kim wants Hamas to have nuclear weapons.
	Check your brain before you say something that stupid.
	Otherwise you sound like Nicolas Fuentes.
	And that's a guy who likes to dress up as a rabbit and chase people around.
	The flip side is nobody trusts Netanyahu, as I don't.
	I don't trust Netanyahu with nuclear weapons either, but his game is a long...
	But not like Hamas.
	I mean, I got lots of criticism of Netanyahu.
	Big difference between Netanyahu with nukes and Hamas with nukes.
	There's no question.
	What drives me nuts is...
	I've never unfollowed anybody for...
	Reasons like this.
	I had to unfollow Hinkle, and I had to unfollow Iverson.
	Yeah, the grift was getting big.
	The grift is working for him.
	That young population aligns with anything they think is anti-establishment, anti-globalist.
	And that's how it's like, okay, you should check yourself when you're on the same side as Hamas.
	But to them, Hamas are the rebels, the revolutionary.
	That's how they can be.
	They can say they're communist, like Trump, and like Hamas.
	Those three things don't go together.
	But in your young millennial Zoomer, it does.
	The grift works until it doesn't work.
	And my goodness, at some point, sooner than later, it's going to stop working.
	Because when channels go from being channels to being bullhorns, and so cheap...
	Obviously, it irritated me a lot.
	It's not...
	Kim Iverson and Hinkle, they're not after the truth, period, full stop.
	Whatever they say.
	They might be good-looking, young, eloquent...
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Smooth talkers.
	They're not after the truth, period.
	That drove me nuts, and then I was done.
	I think they think they are.
	No, I don't even...
	They do not think they are at this point in time.
	I do not think they are, but my goodness, the grift will work until it no longer works.
	It's interesting.
	Well, the reason why I say it definitely is to Iverson.
	We're seeing her in live time deal with these conflicts.
	And it's where you have to end up if you're honest on the topic.
	Now, you can be Aaron Maté and Max Blumenthal and, quite frankly, Glenn Greenwald and not really be honest on these topics.
	They haven't been historically.
	I know you take flack for that.
	You take flack for that.
	Because they're not.
	Scott Horton, they're not.
	Here's why I give Kim Iverson credit.
	She's acknowledging the ultimate objective of being pro-Palestinian.
	It means you're okay.
	With Hamas running the Israel government and population.
	And she's trying to excuse in her mind why that's okay.
	The problem is you really can't, credibly, for too long, excuse that.
	But I'll give her credit for at least realizing that's the consequences of being pro-Palestinian.
	That's the consequence of being pro-Hamas.
	So that's why I give her more credit than I give...
	Aaron Monte, who doesn't want to accept that.
	Max Blumenthal, who doesn't want to accept that.
	Glenn Greenwald, who doesn't want to accept that.
	At least Kim Iverson's being intellectually honest.
	I think her conclusion shows the absurdity of that position, but at least she's intellectually honest enough to reveal it.
	I will give the benefit of the doubt until I can no longer.
	When Kim says, no state has the, quote, right to exist.
	and then i'll say okay well that is in by international law untenable a state has the right to protect its borders then the argument is going to be but israel is violating international law after 19 and i'll say okay fine we can have that separate argument later Are you okay with Hamas having nukes or not?
	And if you're not, then you are only okay with a two-state solution that recognizes the Jewish majority to exist.
	And that means you rebut Hamas's very reason for existence.
	Yes, but I'm going to play a very, very big devil's advocate here at the risk of getting called names by members of my own community.
	We know that Netanyahu has had, by way of strategy, playing Hamas against the PLO.
	Oh, there's plenty of criticism.
	For the purposes of not allowing for the independent, unindependent Palestinian state.
	And I'll have to argue with myself, to which I say, I'm not arguing with them.
	Yes, I don't trust Netanyahu, period.
	For a number of reasons, call me whatever names you want.
	There are sound clips and quotes that prove this as a strategy that will undermine their response to what they're doing now.
	Oh, sure.
	And you get Netanyahu who wanted us to go into Iraq, was constantly badgered for war with Iran, constantly gone into Syria, constantly gone into Lebanon.
	And I don't think those things have secured the peace of Israel.
	But that's very different from...
	It's okay to be on Hamas' side, which means Israel no longer exists, which means Hamas, the ultimate goal of Hamas, is that they're in control of what Israel is currently in control of, not only the population, but nuclear weapons.
	And if you're not willing to embrace that, and some people will ask me on the right, why should we care at all?
	And I say, well, aside from the evangelical part of the right that likes the fact that Israel has recognized their ability to travel there to a land they consider of holy religious significance, even if we put that aside.
	It's mischaracterized as prophecy-supported politics.
	All hogwash.
	Michael Tracy needs to quit being lazy on topics like this.
	Just because you've got a few scattered people that you can find saying biblical prophecy supports our supporting Israel, that's not because that's why a bunch of evangelical Christians back Israel.
	Because historically, they didn't back at the beginning.
	They began to support Israel after Israel constantly allowed Christian trips to Israel for Christian purposes.
	By the way...
	When the Jordan controlled Jerusalem, Christians were banned from doing so.
	Christians in the old Christian quarter of Jerusalem were kicked out by the Arabs.
	This is the other problem that Kim Iverson at least is kind of addressing.
	We know what the Muslims would do if they were in charge because they have been in charge.
	And when they've been in charge, they've expelled everybody else.
	Lebanon, according to...
	You know, certain scholars like Chomsky said back in the 60s was going to be the right example.
	Does anyone want to be like Lebanon today?
	What do they do to that Christian majority nation?
	Oh, did they cause constant civil wars?
	And who was the triggering cause?
	Might it have been the same Palestinians that cause conflict wherever they go?
	If you want to make an argument for the Palestinians, the Palestinians can make that argument by having a civilized society, not a barbaric society, not causing war everywhere they go, not having some of the biggest, bigoted, most prejudiced, most hateful population in the world by every public survey that's done, by every educational program they're involved in.
	The problems of the Palestinians are the Palestinians' fault.
	That's the bottom line.
	And the devil's advocate response to that is going to say, you live in squalered conditions for 70 years, 50 years now.
	Whose fault is that?
	It's theirs.
	That's the question.
	They were in Egypt and they tried to overthrow it.
	They were in Jordan and they tried to overthrow it.
	They were in Lebanon and they tried to overthrow it.
	Why do they keep trying to overthrow every government known to man?
	Including other Arab Muslim governments involved in assassination and terrorism.
	Well, maybe it's because they teach their six-year-olds that their only existence is to hate and eliminate Israel.
	It's the problem.
	The Palestinians have a sick, sick culture rooted in bigotry and prejudice.
	This is why they say they're just recently circulating how no gays will ever be allowed in Palestine.
	They'll kill them.
	What a great example, Kim Iverson.
	What a great example.
	Jackson Hinkle, of a country or government or society.
	But then Kim goes into, I went through and it was so beautiful and this and that.
	I can give another example.
	Go move to Gaza Strip.
	I don't do these things because some of these arguments are too personal to even raise publicly.
	But people who have had family and loved ones kidnapped and murdered by Hamas that were there as humanitarian.
	What lesson have you learned from that?
	A lot of the people that died in the most recent Hamas attacks were there at a peace rally.
	At a peace event.
	And that's why they were there, including Americans.
	And when people ask me why we should care, here's the other reason.
	What's unique about Iran, what's unique about Hamas, what's unique about Hezbollah, is it doesn't end with death to Israel.
	The next very chant is death to America.
	So it's like when Glenn Greenwald's like, how could anybody be opposed to Iran on the...
	Populist right side.
	Maybe because they chant death to my country on a routine and regular basis.
	Maybe because Hamas does.
	Maybe because Hezbollah does.
	Maybe because the Palestinians cheered 9-11.
	Sorry, I got zero sympathy for the Palestinian cause because of the Palestinians' own conduct.
	I take them at their word.
	They've told us for more than a century their only purpose of existence is not to have their own country, not to have a decent civilization, not to have a decent economy, but is to eliminate the presence of Jews from any majority state in the Middle East.
	They've made that crystal clear.
	I take them at their word.
	That means they are unworthy of working with.
	And whatever happens to them is their own bad acts and their own bad doing.
	I said we weren't going to talk about this, Robert.
	I didn't want to talk about this.
	Damn it.
	That doesn't mean that they should go into Gaza.
	I don't understand doing what benefits Hamas.
	Hamas needs victim porn.
	It feeds their entire movement.
	It feeds the money.
	It feeds the volunteer.
	And how, Joel Pollack, do you eliminate Hamas?
	How do you eliminate an idea?
	How do you eliminate the support structure for that idea?
	By military means?
	You can't.
	I'm seeing the videos.
	I don't retweet these things.
	I think it's exploitive.
	I'm seeing the videos.
	Blowing up buildings.
	It's great.
	It looks good.
	It's like shock and awe all over again.
	And then I see dead children.
	And you're inevitably going to have some kids, people who die, who are non-compliant.
	A thousand percent.
	And then you get everybody retweeting.
	Like, what the hell did you expect?
	You can complain about it.
	You can be Joel Pollack and say there's a big legal difference and moral difference between that and what Hamas did.
	I agree entirely.
	But it doesn't change that the actual problem Israel has is the support for the Palestinian cause in the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and Global South.
	You do not defeat that by giving them victim porn on a daily basis.
	And this is the same thing I've heard for the last 30 years of my life from going from the first intifada where I was barely conscious to the second where I was conscious to this.
	It's like, oh, yeah.
	Are you surprised hearing college kid campuses cheer Intifada?
	No.
	Like, it's one thing.
	No, no, I was wrong.
	This will be a legal, a brief legal bonus topic tonight.
	A news, Twitter went viral statement.
	Claiming that DeSantis had shut down a pro-Palestinian group for speech prohibiting anti-Semitism.
	They said he fabricated a justification to shut him down.
	It's all false.
	It wasn't because of anything related to anti-Semitism.
	The group was not being prohibited from speech, but simply no longer going to be a state-funded, state-recognized organization.
	And third, it's because we have always said you can't...
	Well, that's where the semantics debate is going to come into play.
	Did he fabricate the material support for terrorism to shut down their First Amendment rights, or did they materially support terrorism?
	It appears to me they materially supported.
	And it won't be a surprise.
	These kids are on college campuses saying go into FADA.
	So hold on a second.
	Does material support for terrorism include First Amendment expression?
	It does if it says we are part of operation, If that's what they did, then, and this isn't about First Amendment speech, they're still allowed to speak that.
	They're just no longer entitled to state funding for their organization, because under federal law, that's always been prohibited.
	So there was this misrepresentation that it was about anti-Semitism or about the availability of speech.
	That's not my understanding of what took place.
	My understanding of what took place is they're no longer a state recognized for purposes of state funding because they said they were part of a terrorist organization.
	Now, if it turns out they're factually wrong, then that organization has a right to protest it to prove otherwise.
	But the allegation by Glenn Greenwald and others that this was just speech suppression, there are plenty of other good examples Greenwald can legitimately cite where people are being wrongfully targeted for speech.
	This was just not one of those examples.
	And it's a blind spot at Greenwald who doesn't want to admit these are terrorists who embrace terrorism on a routine and regular basis.
	Here I'll give credit to Michael Tracy.
	At least Tracy, who's otherwise critical of Israel and our involvement and support of it, admitted he said, obviously Hamas is crazy.
	He goes, how is it controversial to point out Hamas is crazy?
	And yet the people he picked up who supported him because he was being anti-Israel were like, how dare you?
	We have a congresswoman who's unwilling to question Hamas.
	It's like, how is this controversial?
	Hamas, when it came to power, however it came to power, whatever people want to argue about who supported him when, it was Palestinians that voted him in.
	And when they got in, what did they say?
	They rejected.
	They turned down billions of dollars because they said, we will not agree to anything our predecessors in the Palestinian organization have agreed to.
	We will not recognize Israel's right to exist.
	We will not recognize any of the Oslo Accords.
	I mean, they could have done that and got billions, yet they refused.
	I mean, they're sociopaths.
	They make the Klan look like a tea party.
	I mean, that's who these people are.
	And we have to be honest about both sides, or we're never going to get anywhere with this.
	I didn't want to talk about this, Robert.
	It makes me very upset.
	It makes me very irritated as well because it's the next...
	Because all the Jew haters are coming out.
	At least you're not Gatsad in Montreal.
	I mean, he's getting all kinds of vitriol.
	No, but it's not the Jew haters in a serious, immediate sense.
	It's just like the desecration of dialogue.
	And so you put a tweet out.
	Of something unrelated, and I'm getting called a Zionist.
	Like, okay, I mean, it's just, it's so stupid.
	It just, it makes for discussion to be impossible.
	It's very discouraging.
	I believe there are psyops going on here in real time.
	I don't want to say Jackson Hinkle might be part of them.
	I believe there are players who are opportunistically jumping on this very divisive bandwagon.
	I believe there are players bought accounts just being sent out en masse to sow discord.
	The Palestinian narrative is a version of the woke narrative.
	It's the BLM narrative.
	It's entirely a victim narrative where they have no agency or authority.
	There's a certain portion that I can absolutely believe to be true.
	You live under squalor for 50 years.
	The only question is going to be, who do you blame the squalor on?
	They're going to say, all on Israel.
	And that's a bad narrative.
	That guarantees continued squalor.
	When you refuse to accept accountability, when you believe you have no inner agency, that's the only guarantee for your continued poor position.
	Otherwise, you can improve upon it.
	And this is where Christopher Lash's criticism.
	Anybody that adopts a victim narrative doesn't actually have empathy with the people they are claiming as victims.
	They have contempt for them.
	That I 1,000% agree with.
	Everybody.
	Everybody, including those on social media, exploiting this for their tweets and their clicks, their engagement, are exploiting it and have contempt.
	Hey, suffer more.
	It's good for me.
	The flip side, Robert, is...
	Oh, jeez, Louise.
	I just forgot it.
	I agree again with Robert Kennedy on this.
	Why we're bombing places?
	Why we're proactively involved?
	Why we got all these tanks, all these ships there?
	This is just inviting conflict, unnecessary conflict, and to expand this war beyond the scale.
	We should be telling Israel, don't go into Gaza, do surgical strikes, do what you can, but otherwise focus on your security, and go back to the Trump path of separating out Arab-Muslim popular opinion from the anti-Israeli extermination cause of the Palestinians.
	Because if you would shift that into a Palestinian state...
	What happened as soon as these countries normalized relations with Israel, which is what Saudi Arabia was about to do until this incident occurred, which should tell you who profited, who gained, who was involved.
	Yeah, exactly.
	All of it is also a distraction from our next topic of tonight, which is, of course, the Biden corruption is getting bigger, wider, and deeper.
	Robert, I said I'm going to end this with a mildly funny...
	I wasn't even going to play it tonight because I didn't want to get involved in this discussion.
	But hold on.
	Hold on because it's everything about...
	Oh, hold on.
	I'm going to bring it up regardless of whether or not I have it in the back.
	Ryan Long.
	Robert, do you know who this guy is?
	He's coming on sooner than later, people, so stay tuned.
	I'm not playing the whole thing because I want people to go watch the whole thing.
	It's hilarious in the most cynical way possible.
	One...
	30 seconds.
	In discussing America's involvement in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has made a plea to Congress saying he just wants one more war and then won't ask again after that, he promises.
	Graham then went on to say that he hasn't asked them for a war since Ukraine, which was like forever ago, and it doesn't even have to be a big one.
	He just needs a little something-something to keep him regular, and then he'll be out of their hair hand to God.
	When the topic of de-escalation and the possibility of working towards an agreement for a ceasefire and the safe return of the hostages came up, Lindsey Graham stood up and said, and I quote, "Come on, man.
	Don't do this to me.
	You're killing me here.
	It doesn't even have to be a full war.
	We can even go with a measly proxy.
	I just need a little taste.
	Come on, guys.
	Don't cock block me." Okay, listen, I don't want to have to beg, but I'll beg before getting down on his knees and continuing, "All I'm asking for is a tiny little scuffle with Hamas and a quick little Donnybrook with Iran.
	I don't know what a Donnybrook is.
	I'm gonna look it up after this.
	Everyone go watch Ryan Long, because he's an absolute comedic genius, and I'm not stealing from it, and I don't want to divert traffic from, I want to divert traffic to.
	All right, Robert, that was my black pill.
	I didn't want to talk about it, but we had to, and we did.
	Okay, now we move on to...
	What it's all a distraction from.
	They continued incompetence in disclosure of corruption of the Biden regime.
	What I love, there's a bit of a bridge, a sub-bridge.
	The attack on Israel on October 7, it's not arguably, it's an atrocity.
	The only question is going to be, was it a result of failure of intelligence, distraction from political corruption?
	And I think the answer to that is yes with a but, and you can go from there.
	Coming back to America now, Biden, the senile, demented buffoon who can't make a sentence, who can't walk upstairs, is shipping aircraft carriers of Americans to the Middle East to intercept missiles.
	But apparently is the most corrupt president ever.
	The check, Robert, he has a $200,000 check coming from his brother.
	Repayment of a loan.
	Loan repayment.
	Because, you know, his brother needed a quick something-something, a little 200K for a six-week carry-me-over daylight savings loan.
	Robert, it's so ridiculous, the reality.
	And the justification, you've got Aaron T. Ruppart, A.T. Ruppart, whose name is literally in the Urban Dictionary for a lying sack of S-H-I-T.
	Then you've got Dan Goldman, who is literally the replacement for lying scumbag Adam Schiff saying, the loan, it was just a loan repayment.
	You guys are liars.
	His brother, he was advanced the loan.
	He repaid it.
	And that's the repayment.
	Easy peasy, but they don't show any proof of the loan repayment.
	There's a $200,000 check from his brother to him saying loan repayment.
	And the arguments flow from there.
	What is your take on it, Robert?
	I mean, yes, it's the amount of cash going back and forth.
	I mean, credit to the Republican member of the House who subpoenaed the bank records.
	Because by going into the bank records, we're discovering things that just really cannot be explained normally.
	Including, it appears, that Biden bought his multi-million dollar beachside home with all cash.
	Where did he come up with all that cash?
	He's, Robert, family money.
	Right, exactly.
	Mr. Blue Collar.
	Family money are, definitely, but I mean, it shows how brazen the corruption is.
	The whole family weaponized his office, whether it was senator, vice president, or future potential president.
	By the way, that's why he was suggesting he might run in 2016.
	He knew Obama didn't back his campaign in 2016 and backed Hillary, so he wasn't going to ever run, but he made it look like he was so he could shake down as many people in the interim.
	And then, always talked about running in 2020, even if he wasn't going to run, ultimately he did, but the same goal, shake down a bunch of money in the interim.
	And that's what he's done.
	He's an old-school shakedown artist.
	He just does it at a different scale.
	Then, you know, the senator from New Jersey or the prosecutor from Baltimore or Sam Bankman free.
	So the net effect of it, we're seeing more and more irrefutable evidence, and they come up with the most ludicrous interpretations.
	And it goes back to the confession through projection narrative of 2020, that everything they accused Trump of, Biden has been guilty of all the way through.
	Whether it was the classified documents case, we're discovering, in fact...
	That he did all the things that they accused Trump of, except he didn't have legal authority to have the document where he had it.
	And he actually did monetize it for his personal profit.
	They kept saying, you know, if you dig into Trump's financial records, you'll find something.
	Actually, they found nothing when the New York prosecutor was done.
	She had to manufacture fake charges.
	With Biden, you just dig in a little and you find all kinds of evidence of corruption and criminality.
	They kept saying Donald Trump Jr. should be looked into.
	Turns out he is impeccable.
	No issues.
	But Hunter has more issues than you can count at.
	You take all the combined problems of siblings and children through the whole history of the presidency, and Hunter Biden in one person outdoes them all.
	He's got a little Billy Carter.
	He's got a little bit of this.
	He's got a little bit of that.
	And basically, Biden makes Spiro Agnew look like a minor player who was the last major Baltimore person to be prosecuted before this Baltimore prosecutor in major political charge cases.
	So it's extraordinary, the scale and scope of it.
	Now, this new speaker, the one area he appears to be good at, is he appears he's going to stay consistent.
	He's a constitutional lawyer.
	He comes from a background of helping religious right organizations.
	So there's a lot of, he's a young congressman from northwest Louisiana.
	A lot of reason for hope with him, until he started wussing out right away about Ukraine.
	Running to Sean Hannity, of all places.
	You knew he was going to be a legit if he went to Tucker Carlson for his first interview.
	You knew he was probably going to be a sellout if he went to Sean Hannity for his first interview, and he went to Sean Hannity.
	But he has said he will pursue the impeachment, and he does understand the constitutional basis for the impeachment of whether Biden has used his current policies in office to cover up his long history of family criminality.
	And you could argue...
	That what's happening in Israel is a part of that.
	Because not only distracting from the debacle of the Ukraine conflict for the Western side, with Ukraine getting whooped on a daily basis, and we'll have on all of these and other historical and military topics in a few weeks, November 15th, we'll have history legends for our next big sidebar, which will be fun.
	But to me, the evidence is increasingly unimpeachable.
	Of the impeachable offenses of Joe Biden.
	I asked a very simple question to Dan Goldman and A.T. Rupar.
	Show us the evidence of the loan that Biden advanced to his brother, a short-term six- to eight-week loan.
	Just show us the evidence.
	I might have more questions, but just show us the evidence of the loan that was repaid.
	AmeriCorps, Robert.
	One of the bigger scandals of the $200,000 also is that it was paid the day that AmeriCorps, a company in financial distress, wired the money or sent the money to Joe Biden's brother.
	Are you familiar with the details of that or not necessarily?
	Not with all the details, no.
	But it's part of the—I mean, not only that, remember Hunter Biden and all the shell entities he had connected to Ukraine and the rest?
	And remember some of those shell entities ended up connecting to bioweapons research.
	In eastern Ukraine, where they were experimenting on the Russian population there in the same disputed and controverted regions.
	So all of this comes together.
	And the question is, will the guy launch World War III to cover up for his own crimes before we can impeach him?
	Now, I don't think he will be removed because of the Senate.
	Too many Democrats in the Senate will pardon anything he does, as has already been evident and manifest.
	And even though Newsom was pretending to play, was playing president and visiting Xi in China, I don't know if it really helps Newsom's cause to look so buddy-buddy with Xi.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't know.
	It was like, which constituency is he playing to?
	Maybe he's trying to get...
	Other than pretending he's president.
	No, no, I'm just, he's trying to hook Swalwell back up with Fang Fang.
	Sorry, that's a bad joke.
	I should have made that joke.
	I feel immediately guilty for having made that.
	Okay, done.
	Fine and fine.
	Now we got four fun topics.
	No, we got two topics for the show.
	And three topics for the after party at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Sports Picks is a separate site that I run for people who want political and sports betting information.
	Promoting it tonight.
	But the, and Soccernomics is a fun book about the great sport of European world football.
	But hold on, Robert.
	You know, Ethan has the right size.
	He could be probably a pretty good soccer player.
	He will be a wrestler.
	But I'm not sure that he wanted to be a wrestler.
	Oh, a wrestler?
	All right.
	You want him violent.
	The cauliflower ears were always the pitfall of wrestling.
	I got, in real time, a definition of Donnybrook.
	And it's a free-for-all.
	A usually public quarrel or dispute.
	Never heard that word in my entire life.
	Now I know what it means.
	We got reggae, we got magic mushrooms, we got statute of limitations, we got benzene shampoo, and we got trans and kids sports.
	Let's end on Rumble with the reggae, because that's the only one of those that I know nothing about.
	I read it, and I was like, okay, I know nothing, I understand nothing, and I don't understand why you have a good reason for understanding its importance.
	Do that, Robert.
	I'm going to send the link to locals, and we're going to go over there after this.
	All right.
	And remember, if you want us to answer any question, any tip of $5 or more, we will try to answer at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So the, yeah, so I think it's called a reggaeton.
	I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, but it's a particular brand of reggae that the foundation of which was in the late 80s by a couple of reggae musicians who, my understanding, because I'm musically more limited than you are, it's a drug rhythm in a, not drug, Drum rhythm.
	It might have been inspired.
	It may have also been a drug rhythm if you know reggae.
	Years ago, I got a client who was big into some sort of alternative medicine space.
	And the first time I met him, he saw my hat and he's like, okay, you're with me.
	No problems.
	I'm ready to hire you.
	I had no idea.
	I was wearing this reggae cymbal hat that I picked up because I thought it was cool in Malibu.
	Where Matt Perry, I guess, just passed away.
	But apparently it's a drum rhythm in the song that created the foundation of reggaeton.
	It's my understanding.
	What's happened is almost all the great reggaeton musicians have utilized it, this particular kind of drum rhythm.
	And so it's in thousands of songs.
	It's in all of the entire genre.
	Well, now the creators of that original drum rhythm are suing it.
	They're saying...
	That's actually our copyright, the entire genre.
	So we want all the money that everybody's made from the entire genre.
	So it's a massive suit in the reggae and the music space because of its financial implications.
	There's not a major reggae musician since 1990 that's not impacted by the case.
	Not a major studio or music, you know, Geffen, everybody's involved in the case.
	But the key question is going to be...
	I think because of the scale of the impact, judges are going to be scared from getting involved.
	Yeah, it sounds like they're trying to protect the blues structure.
	Let's just hear this.
	I'm going to refresh this.
	Okay, let's just hear what this is.
	Once I heard it, I knew exactly what it was.
	Reggaeton.
	That rhythm was created by two musicians in 1989 in Jamaica for a song that they did.
	It's been copied ever since.
	Wait, hold on, Robert.
	I saw a fish.
	I'm going to stop that.
	I'm going to stop that.
	Sorry.
	So the question is, I think because it impacts an entire genre, judges are going to be scared of the consequence, of the financial consequence of saying that that's actually copyrighted material.
	But the legal issue is going to be whether or not that particular rhythm, that part of that combination of Of musical notes in that manner with that drum rhythm, whether that's even subject to copyright protection.
	Because the argument is that's common music, not specific musical notes sufficient to be copyrightable.
	And that's going to be the legal dispute.
	It's going to impact the entire music industry writ large.
	Now I forget how the Katy Perry Dark Horse actually turned out.
	I remember thinking that I was shocked by the results at the time.
	That sounds like...
	If that's...
	Protectable.
	That sounds like it might have been ripped off from blues in general.
	It sounds...
	Alright, that's interesting.
	Robert, let me share the link for VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com We got magic mushrooms.
	Are they going to make the DEA schedule?
	We got the statute of limitations.
	When an injury is not always an injury.
	We got whether benzene might be in your shampoo.
	And we got...
	Will they let trans in kids sports?
	And just to whet everyone's appetite on the mushrooms, it's changing it from Schedule 1, non-medicinal, to Schedule 2. The benzene, is it causing cancer?
	That's it.
	With that said, Robert, what appearances do you have coming up this week, if any?
	Oh, no.
	I'm going to be in Florida for the premiere of the Rumble special premiere.
	of the police state, the one that's the live premiere at Mar-a-Lago, which I assume is still going on.
	Now that I think about it, I'm going too.
	I don't know that I had that in my agenda.
	It's there.
	I'm going.
	It's Wednesday night, I believe, isn't it?
	Okay, Wednesday night.
	So long as it's son of a beasting, I might have double booked myself.
	Halloween is Tuesday night.
	Okay, well, no, I didn't double book myself with Halloween, but we'll see.
	I'm going to have to go check my agenda right now.
	And although we're going to see each other...
	And then I'll be at Children's Health Defense Conference in Savannah, Georgia this coming weekend.
	And then I've got to fly up to Cleveland, Akron, Ohio, to meet with the Justice Department prosecutors in the Brooke Jackson case to see whether the Justice Department might do their job.
	You never know.
	All right, I'm ending it, people, on Rumble now.
	Come to Locals.
	I have a typo, and it said do tit now instead of do it now, but we're going to live with that.
	Ending it on Rumble, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, this has been amazing.
	I don't feel any better, but whatever.
	At least I know more now.
	Ending on Rumble in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Going to Locals, and I'll see you there, people.
	Peace out.
	Enjoy the weekend.
	Booyah.
	All right.

▲