Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 26, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:20:27

Ep. 188: NYU Sued; Elon Sues Media Matters; Trump Sues Media; Shroyer Update & MORE! Viva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is a manatee in a fish tank that's barely three body lengths.
	There's another one right here.
	You all hear the cheesy Muzak of this video?
	Like, you hear music right now?
	This doesn't make sense.
	This is a manatee.
	In order to monitor naive and high risk manatees, a bullet tracking device is created before release.
	The information transmitted allows biologists to follow the migration and data patterns of individual animals for up to 12 months after their reintroduction.
	I'm going to go to a wide angle just so you can get a feel for the actual full size of this tank.
	Alright, you can hear the clown music?
	Good.
	Just for those who are listening on podcast right now, we're watching my video from Miami Seaquarium.
	This is Romeo the manatee.
	I think he's 67 years old.
	I think this is the same manatee.
	Listen to this.
	How old are these guys?
	I'm asking the guy there.
	65 years old.
	1950.
	1958.
	In this size thing?
	I believe.
	This was my video documenting, I just, I went to the Miami Seaquarium for a Phil Damaris walrus whisperer protest, but...
	That's possibly one of the worst things I've ever seen in any zoo.
	This was my document.
	It's been since 1958.
	And it seems that...
	That's their existence.
	And there's a little door that they can go from one to the next.
	True story.
	Those sunglasses are now at the bottom of the ocean.
	That, I'm fairly certain.
	I mean, that is the Romeo.
	There were two manatees at the Miami Seaquarium.
	I went down because the walrus whisperer, Phil DeMers, was organizing a protest.
	I was not yet blocked by Miami Seaquarium on Twitter.
	And I went down to document the protest.
	And then Phil said, ordinarily, I don't tell anybody to give money to Miami Seaquarium.
	Go in there and look at it.
	I had never been there before.
	I tend to like zoos and aquariums to the extent they don't have higher order animals that look miserable.
	I remember going to the, I want to say the Bronx Zoo.
	It was definitely in New York.
	And we were there with my kids.
	There were animals in there.
	They looked so bloody depressed.
	There was a zebra, not a zebra, the neck, the giraffe.
	In an enclosure, I mean, it's the size of a big classroom.
	The backdrop was a palm tree savanna painted on a brick wall.
	And I'm like, this is miserable.
	We were at another zoo, I forget where.
	There was a bear that looked so depressed, I kept the kids out of the enclosure.
	Preservation, fine.
	You know, helping injured animals that can't be released to the wild, fine.
	But we know what goes on when you start to market animals in captivity.
	Oh, there was an animal that was injured.
	It can't go back to the wild.
	How did they get injured?
	Don't ask.
	I got blocked by Miami Seaquarium shortly after making that video.
	Phil Demers, who, stay tuned, will be doing another, I think, in-person interview because he's coming down to Florida for another event, sent me an article in the Daily Mail.
	Let me see where I'm going to pull this article up here.
	Let me see this here.
	Where is it?
	Oh, for goodness sake.
	He sent me an article that was in the Daily Mail about Romeo at the Miami Seaquarium in captivity.
	And I had to post it, but I had to show my documentary.
	Let me pull it up because it's worth viewing.
	It's atrocious.
	Here, let's bring this one up here.
	and bring it up incognito and he's raising awareness about apparently Romeo has now been taken out of public display or something along those lines and the the animal's name is Romeo a 67 year old manatee uh living the most uh depressing existence imaginable I went to see it it's got two they're not even big swimming pools Well,
	I guess too many people were complaining about seeing a depressed, higher-order mammal swimming around in soup for 1958 people.
	So stay tuned for news on this because Phil Damaris is putting Miami Seaquarium on blast, and I guess to some extent so am I, but they blocked me on Twitter after that documenting the existence of those animals.
	There are considerations with predatory animals that you can't release an orca just like that into the wild if it doesn't have a pod, if it's forgotten how to hunt.
	I'm not a marine biologist.
	I'm not a doctor.
	And heck, I don't even give legal advice, but I don't know what would be required in order to release a sea cow back into the ocean.
	Manatees, for those of you who don't know, they're called sea cows because they're big, fat, not stupid animals, very intelligent animals, very social animals.
	They eat grass off the bottom of the ocean.
	And so I don't know what would be required to release a manatee into the wild.
	Part of me thinks...
	An animal would rather die in the wild than die in captivity.
	I don't know.
	Maybe that's just my projecting.
	But I don't know what would be required to release a manatee back into the wild.
	I don't think much would be required.
	Thing's not going to forget how to eat grass off the bottom of the ocean.
	Maybe it won't be as aware of boats, but manatees, generally speaking, are not that aware of boats, or at least not responsive to boats.
	They get hit by them all the time.
	So that's it.
	Stay tuned for that.
	We have some other introductory stuff going on, but why was I late?
	It seems that YouTube has changed a configuration around ever so slightly.
	And I couldn't find the pinned section to put the pinned link so that when you know it's time to end on YouTube, you have the rumble link to go to the free speech platform.
	So I'm sitting there like, what the heck?
	They changed one little bloody thing and I can't find things anymore.
	Good evening.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not saying that Thanksgiving week is over in America and that kids go back to school.
	But Thanksgiving week is over.
	And kids go back to school tomorrow?
	Oh my goodness, have we had one heck of a week.
	My daughter had three best friends come down.
	That's three extra people in the house.
	My other kid had his best friend come down with his mother.
	That's five extra people in our house all week.
	My parents came down.
	We went fishing.
	We had an amazing week.
	But all good things come to an end.
	Kids go back to school tomorrow.
	I get back to my daily routine.
	Holy crabapples.
	But for those of you who are not following me, there's a second, third YouTube channel called Viva Family.
	But on Rumble, I've got a second channel called Viva Random.
	Just so I can post random videos of random stuff, family stuff, not law, not legal, not politics related.
	We went back to the Loxahatchee.
	Animal refuge?
	Not refuge.
	Refugee?
	Not refugee either.
	Refuge.
	It's a refuge, not refuse.
	It's an amazing place.
	Whenever we go, we see alligators.
	I keep telling my kids, they're going to understand this one day.
	Wonderful things happen when you get out of the house and get off your device.
	Now, I say that knowing full well that I am virtually always on my device, but I like to say that is because...
	I need to document the world.
	We went down to the Loxahatchee.
	It's the Arthur R. Marshall Wildlife Refuge.
	Today, we get there and we see what looks like an alligator with something big in its mouth.
	The something big in its mouth turned out to be a snapping turtle.
	I think it was a soft-shelled snapping turtle.
	It would be very ironic if it was an alligator snapping turtle.
	And look what happens here.
	I had to mention that somebody had turned on alligator growls on their phone so that nobody would think that this alligator was growling throughout the entire video.
	But we see an alligator with a massive snapping turtle in its mouth.
	And then this happens.
	Look at this!
	Yes, I'm sitting there with my device recording.
	Look at this.
	Look at this.
	Oh, there you go.
	Hello.
	Oh, yes, sir.
	Take it.
	We just go.
	This is just happening.
	Right in front of us.
	Get in my belly.
	Anyways, the video is a long video, so go check it out.
	And so you might notice behind me a turtle shell.
	Hold on, actually.
	How stupid of me not to do this right away.
	You might notice a turtle shell behind me.
	You might notice something on that turtle shell.
	They look like little shot glasses.
	Oh, there.
	I got an extra one here.
	Because they are.
	Wanted for president.
	Maureen Brown says it was a great video.
	Oh, my God.
	It was just crazy.
	It's just amazing.
	I mean, if only we had seen it eat the turtle or capture it in the first place.
	But it took an hour for that thing to eat.
	It had to conserve its energy when eating.
	It must have taken all day.
	So all I have to say is that you might see the turtle shell behind me.
	Pick that gem up at the Gem and Rock show.
	But you see on top of it, wanted for president.
	Because Christmas is just around the corner.
	My goodness, one of my kids' friends is talking about decorating their Christmas tree already.
	Got a month.
	If you want good Christmas gifts and you don't know what to get and you have a liberal or Democrat Biden voting, Biden supporting cousin, friend, brother, spouse, whatever, get them a wanted for president mug.
	Get them this shirt so that they can understand what is truly I say.
	Because democracy is on the ballot, people.
	They've got their talking points for this election cycle.
	Democracy is on the ballot.
	We couldn't hear what Alex Vindman said.
	No, Yevgeny.
	Eugene Vindman was saying in the video yesterday, for those of you who saw my testing out Rumble studio yesterday, it was good, but there's some improvements we need to make.
	Go get your liberal or conservative or Canadian or European friend wanted for president.
	The best merch on earth.
	And if you don't want to go with something totally political, you want to go with something slightly less than political, populism fixes everything.
	Is the response to the "Politics Ruins Everything" line of merch.
	Every time I wear this shirt out in public, I get multiple compliments on the shirt.
	But speaking of "Politics Ruining Everything" and...
	Holy Crab Apples.
	I'm getting fed up with Twitter because it is becoming apparent.
	This is not a critique.
	This is no shade on Elon.
	It's becoming apparent that there are forces at play on Twitter that are actively and overtly trying to manipulate consent, to manufacture consent, to manipulate public opinion, but also sow discord.
	And my first-hand experience with it, I don't like talking about the Gaza-Palestine-Israel conflict.
	I don't like talking about it.
	You know, there are some aspects of it which are not nuanced.
	There's no nuance to terrorism.
	There is some part of it that is a real politic.
	There may be no excuse for terrorism and there's no but to that.
	You must nonetheless find a solution.
	It's too complex.
	It's too nuanced a discussion to have on social media.
	I'm listening now to Dave Smith on Rogan again.
	And even as I listen to Dave Smith, I now can see where even in the nuanced discussion...
	There's nuance within the nuance that it's an impossible discussion to have.
	But I came across a tweet.
	And I could not help myself.
	I could not resist.
	And not for good reasons.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	I know I had it.
	Here we go.
	I come across this tweet from someone who I've never seen before.
	Why is it popping up in my feed?
	Well, obviously because it's a tweet.
	That's generating engagement.
	It's a tweet that's generating divisiveness, that's eliciting the types of responses that's good for the algorithm on Twitter.
	Marie Campbell.
	And I have to go to the profile.
	I've been conditioned or traumatized to look at the profiles now.
	I don't know who Marie Campbell is.
	See a bunch of numbers in the name.
	Ex-Big Five Consultancy Managing Director.
	I don't know what that is.
	Co-editor, international relations analyst, journalist, curator at The Curated IT.
	The complicated, explained.
	37,000 followers and 3,000 following.
	So it's not a one-to-one ratio.
	It's 10 to 1. It seems more legit.
	Whatever.
	This was the...
	Oh, by the way, the...
	What do we call it?
	The profile pic?
	Now that I think about it, looks like Emily Marsh.
	Is it Emily Marsh?
	Yeah, it looks like Emily Marsh.
	And you'll see why that that is relevant afterwards.
	Puts out this tweet.
	I'm not a facial expression expert, but judging by the look in her eyes and the expression on her face, I say this is a look of appreciation and thanks.
	Might it be that she is saying thanks for being treated unexpectedly well whilst in captivity?
	I'm like, it's nauseating.
	First of all, some might say it is an oxymoron to talk about being treated unexpectedly well Whilst in captivity, you might be getting treated less bad, but getting treated unexpectedly well whilst in captivity.
	Well, I mean, they give Romeo lettuce, so I guess Romeo should be thankful for not being, you know, abused on a daily basis.
	This is the release of a hostage, I forget her name, or I didn't know her name in the first place, who's being released.
	Purportedly released.
	I think she's one of the hostages that was released.
	And this account is saying, oh my goodness, I'm no facial recognition expert.
	She looks like she's thankful for being treated properly, unexpectedly well, whilst in captivity.
	And I had to make...
	I mean, I got engaged.
	Mission accomplished.
	And I said, it's so sick it defies words.
	First of all, look, spoiler alert.
	It turns out that this account is allegedly a troll account.
	It was revealed sometime earlier this year, and I was not aware of it.
	I post what is a sensible response to a nonsensical position.
	Oh my goodness, might it be possible, like the other hostage that was released a while back, where everyone's like, look at that.
	She goes and shakes hands with her captors.
	Maybe there's a little bit of admiration.
	Maybe they were still holding her husband.
	I said, maybe she's one of the hostages who's still holding her brother.
	Maybe she's one of the hostages, that kid who you saw in the picture, whose parents were murdered, being released today.
	Oh yeah, they're going to be grateful to the proper treatment.
	I forget what the word was now.
	Being treated well while whilst in captivity after having been taken into captivity and having their family either murdered or kept as hostages.
	I reply to this and I get notified that it's a...
	It's a troll account.
	And the problem is people are engaging with that troll account.
	People are engaging not knowing it's a troll.
	I engaged with it and said what I thought, which is, holy crap, it's not the first time that I've heard this idea.
	First of all, it's an iteration of Stockholm Syndrome.
	People don't seem to understand.
	Yes, captors...
	They sometimes end up feeling love or connection to those that are holding them captive.
	I mean, it's how people stay in abusive relationships for such extensive periods of time in the first place.
	I forget their name.
	Stockholm Syndrome was a syndrome that was created out of this kidnapping.
	I forget their names now.
	One of the kidnapped victims ended up falling in love with their captors.
	One became one of the captors, became one of the terrorists or the hostage takers.
	Forget the details, but whatever.
	You can Google it yourselves.
	I mean, it's a phenomenon.
	And to suggest that because that might happen as a self-defense mechanism or as a coping mechanism, that it somehow means that they were taken captive after over a thousand people were slaughtered, it's idiotic.
	But the amount of people in the comments section agreeing with it, agreeing with a troll bot, I don't know if it's a bot or a troll, whatever.
	It's manufacturing public sentiment while also sowing discord.
	And I said also like...
	I think it's a relatively insightful observation.
	It's an iteration of E. Jean Carroll's rape fantasies.
	We've all forgotten, you know, Trump was convicted in New York in the E. Jean Carroll case.
	There was that interview that E. Jean Carroll gave with Anderson Cooper where she described rape as sexy.
	I think it's sexy, Chris Cooper.
	What was his name?
	Anderson Cooper.
	Yeah, we got to cut the break now, crazy lady.
	Like, it's crazy.
	But...
	First of all, some people are going to convince themselves, oh, if I get taken captive, I'm going to fall in love with my captors.
	It's going to be a next blockbuster Hollywood movie.
	And then there's also the people out there who cannot make sense of the horror of the situation and have to find a way to minimize it to themselves to cope with it.
	Similar to the way certain people cope with other mass tragedies.
	It never happened.
	There's some other explanation for it.
	Or, you know, whatever.
	So that's that.
	Mind-blowing.
	But irritating.
	And it's becoming impossible to engage on Twitter unless you know that you are engaging with someone who you know to be a real person because there is something bigger at play here.
	Hollyweird probably has a script on this already.
	Yep.
	It's an orchestrated campaign.
	To rationalize, legitimize, and minimize terrorism.
	Some people say it's just rabid Jew hatred, but you're seeing it's not just directed at Israel.
	It's not just directed at Jews.
	It is destabilizing.
	There's a concerted, orchestrated effort to destabilize the world as we know it.
	And I made a joke that it's not just Chinese intel.
	It's not just liberal.
	I think Chinese and some...
	Activist organizations in America are working together.
	Also, long story short, I got blocked by Lindy Lee.
	So after my theorizing that Lindy Lee might be a Democrat Chinese working operative, which I think is definitionally true given profile pic and work experience, Lindy Lee blocked me on Twitter.
	All right, I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	What was I about to say?
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornification advice.
	We are currently live on Rumble, just about to reach 10,000 viewers already.
	We are currently live on Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Everybody on Locals.
	For those feeling that I ignore the chat on Locals during the streams, I'm working it with the tools that we have.
	Thus far, Rumble Studio did not integrate Locals so that I could pull up the chats in real time.
	When it works, it's going to be glorious.
	But the locals, if you feel miffed that I can't follow the chat in real time like I do with highlighting these types of super chats, we get our Locals exclusive after-party show where we will take all of the tips, over $5, engage there.
	That's the exclusive portion that we give to our community at Locals.
	Now, Barnes, before I bring you in in two seconds, Caleb Crowe says, I Socratically examine rather than letting it bother me.
	If it's a troll account, it causes them to fail getting their desired reaction.
	True.
	And then we got to Cheryl Gage.
	He says, go magnet fishing.
	Score some fresh mozzarella.
	Can't beat that.
	Oh yeah, that was a good one too.
	And if we had gone magnet fishing with that gator, you know, they were magnet fishing on the other side while that gator was eating and devouring a turtle.
	Okay, so that's it.
	We're going to do this.
	I'm going to give you all the link to rumble because for those of you who don't know...
	At about 30 minutes in, 40 minutes in, we're going to end on YouTube.
	Go over to Rumble exclusively.
	End the stream on Rumble.
	Go over to the afterparty at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And that is it.
	Barnes, coming in.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	It looked like you had a good Thanksgiving with the fishing and everything?
	We went fishing with my dad.
	We saw an alligator eating a turtle.
	I mean, it doesn't get much better than that, but...
	I'm excited.
	I'm going to maybe hopefully get our bed back.
	That is to say my wife and our bed back, not yours and our bed.
	Anyway, the house is going to be quieter as of tonight.
	So, yeah, it's good.
	It was fun.
	What did you do, Robert, if I may ask, for Thanksgiving?
	My little sister and her husband made some great food.
	So that was fun.
	Now, oh my goodness.
	Robert, I'm going to ask you what the book is behind you, then I forgot an announcement for tomorrow.
	Hunter Tom's, is that Fear and Loathing?
	But it's fear and loathing on the campaign trail.
	His coverage of the 1972 campaign, which, as I mentioned on the Duran, has some apt references to today in terms of a lot of the politics that we're witnessing is almost like a reincarnation of the late 60s, early 70s.
	Some of what's happening on college campuses.
	Some of what's happening in sort of the divide between the wokesters and moderate Jewish.
	Democrats, that they're witnessing the blowback of what unleashing that did.
	Same thing in late 60s, you know, that the anti-war movement blossomed into a terroristic movement in certain parts of the country on the left side.
	The embrace of the Palestinian cause as somehow, you know, Che Guevara revolution chic became a late 60s, early 70s phenomenon as well.
	Sort of tracking the Soviet Union.
	So there's a lot of political parallels that I think gets useful.
	And of course, Hunter Thompson's one of the all-time great political writers.
	Almost nobody can write quite like Thompson can.
	His campaign for Sheriff in Aspen is still one of the great all-time fun campaigns to follow and track.
	I won't do more than two shots of acid at a time, I think was his campaign promise.
	So a lot of fun.
	And then it was fun being on the Duran last week.
	I think we talked about Israel for about 20 minutes, at which, of course, all the Jew haters came pouring out.
	And they're still shaking in anger and rage and frothing at the mouth over just about 20 minutes of rather moderate explanation for me and from Alex.
	Hamas, probably pretty bad.
	Just saying.
	Hamas, you don't really want to be on the side of Hamas.
	You even ask the Arabs and the rest of the Arab world about Hamas, and nobody likes him.
	They all like him to be gone.
	But people didn't like any talk about that.
	It all had to be Israel bashing and Jew hatred.
	And my funniest part was when conservatives were telling me to, yo, let's talk to Norman Finkelstein, just because Candace Owens had him on.
	In her ongoing effort to get fired by the Daily Wire because she got a bad contract, is what it appears to me.
	Queen Candace not happy with not enough gold being stacked up in Queen Candace's coffers.
	But people don't know.
	Norman Finkelstein is an open communist.
	His parents were communists.
	They spent their whole lives defending the Soviet Union after the Stalin...
	Disclosures took place with the Khrushchev speech.
	I mean, this guy's a full-blown commie, and he got old-school conservatives saying, you should listen to the commie, Bob.
	The commie understands Israel.
	Yeah, right.
	This is a guy who, if you want any idea for how bad faith he is, some people suggest we have him on sidebar.
	I recommend people go back and look at the YouTube Democracy Now debate with Finkelstein and Dershowitz.
	Dershowitz is there to try to just do it.
	He keeps saying, let's just have a debate about the policy.
	All Finkelstein, the fink, he put the fink in Finkelstein, does, is attack and demean Dershowitz after saying he would never do that because he's a bad faith actor.
	All these people are bad faith actors.
	Why is it all the people on the Palestinian side almost all obsessively talk about Israel?
	They never talk about, what's the solution?
	Even Finkelstein has admitted, actually, Dershowitz's solution is probably the correct solution.
	But he says, don't worry, Palestinians, later on, you can go and kill them and take them out.
	This is a guy who cheered October 7th.
	That's who Norman Finkelstein is.
	He cheered October 7th.
	He has defended rape.
	He has defended terrorism.
	He's defended murder.
	He's defended mass murder.
	And people are saying, oh, but he's against genocide.
	No, the only genocidal side in the Palestinian debate are the Palestinians.
	That's the genocidal side.
	Has been for more than a century.
	So that was a little bit fun, but we mentioned the book there.
	It was mostly a conversation about other topics.
	You know, Spain, Catalonia, Argentina, Malay.
	You know, what's it like to have an Austrian libertarian?
	Austrian economics-oriented libertarian as president of a major country.
	I mean, that's a fascinating component.
	What's happening in Ukraine?
	Great preview by the Duran about where they think Ukraine is going over the next year.
	Really good explanation there.
	What's happening in China?
	What's happening in the U.S.?
	And most of the topics were, of course, all the crazy lawfare here in the States, which continues unabated for one more week.
	Well, now I'm too curious.
	Do you remember what Dershowitz's proposed solution was that Finkelstein...
	Oh, he supported the two-state solution, always has.
	Dershowitz has been on the...
	He was part of, like me in the 90s, the peace-oriented side of the Israeli debate.
	And then what happened was Yasser Arafat said, shove off.
	And it wasn't because Yasser Arafat was being a bad guy.
	It was because he didn't want to get killed.
	He said, I don't want to end up like Sadat.
	He goes, no, I can't actually give you a two-state solution.
	I'll give you a two-state solution.
	You let us come back and be a majority of Israel.
	Well, it was a two-state solution with the right of return of, I think it was, what, 5 million Palestinians?
	Yeah, exactly, which is the same thing.
	There is none.
	That's to get rid of Israel.
	That's why their favorite chant is from the river to the sea.
	So the Palestinians have rejected every single two-state solution ever since.
	And Finkelstein even recognizes it's the only actual solution.
	But his way of trying to sell it to the Arab world, Hezbollah, who he's been a big fan of, Hamas, who he's been a supporter of.
	Go back and read some of the gibberish he wrote in the 90s about how, oh, the women are out in bikinis on the beach here in Gaza.
	A bunch of other nonsense that he would just spew.
	He's not even a real scholar.
	He testified for Holocaust deniers.
	That's who Finkelstein is.
	And people take him seriously.
	Is it because they like his position on Israel?
	Is that really why people like him?
	Or is it because, no, they're sincerely impressed by his intellect?
	I don't think so.
	It's always fun to find the Jew who is rabidly anti-Israel with no...
	Well, and that reflects the old.
	That goes back to the anti-Zionists.
	I mean, the biggest anti-Zionists in the late 19th century were Jews.
	The Jewish left, particularly the commie left.
	The Jewish commie left was very anti-Zionist.
	That's why people don't understand why Franco-Zionist is anti-woke.
	Old-school communists are anti-woke because they don't like anything that interferes with the class struggle.
	Or whatever the struggle is.
	In his case, the class struggle is the oppressed Palestinians against the oppressor imperialist Israelis.
	That's that old sort of divide.
	But the old Jewish left was the most anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli group.
	And they still are.
	Chomsky, Finkelstein, all these kind of guys.
	I just still can't.
	People get called Zionists online, and then I ask for the definition of Zionist.
	It's sort of like the definition of woke.
	There are so many varying definitions.
	I mean, there are some definitions of Zionism that, yeah, I would agree are offensive.
	Then there's others, which, if it just means a Jewish state.
	Historically, just meant a Jewish state.
	That's all it historically meant.
	And all these other things have been added onto it over time.
	Just meant a Jewish state.
	They want it.
	And the other thing is, I get a kick out of conservatives opposing, and I get a real kick out of Arabs and Muslims opposing.
	You shouldn't be able to have land by conquest, even if it happened a century ago.
	Hmm.
	Did Islam just magically, grassroots, originate all the places that exist today?
	Or did it come by, oh, hold on a second, conquest?
	There's not a part of the world that isn't by conquest.
	People are making some of the most preposterous arguments, legally, policy-wise, everything else, because they hate Israel.
	If you want to hate Israel, go at it.
	But don't pretend it's based on sound geopolitical realism.
	You just hate Israel for whatever reason.
	Well, that wasn't on the menu.
	Robert, hold on.
	Was there stuff?
	Okay, what is on the menu for tonight?
	Because we might have to add one.
	Well, we got a little bit tied into all this, which is the way the Israeli debate is popping up legally in America.
	What's happening on college campuses?
	Professors on both sides getting fired or suspended or not fired or suspended, as the case may be.
	Student protests, when do they go too far?
	Student groups, when do they go too far?
	What does a private campus have to do versus a public campus or other places?
	There's bus drivers that refuse to drive people to certain protests because they didn't like what the protest was.
	In this case, they didn't like pro-Israeli protests.
	And so in certain sectors.
	You have all that going on.
	And it gets into free speech on college campuses.
	Free speech as it relates to material terrorism.
	Because Amos is a terrorist organization.
	I have to stop you here, Roger.
	I'm going to bring up some dumbass's comment.
	It says, LOL, greedy Jew could even take out the midstream commercials.
	What I love, see, it might be a joke.
	It might be just like a tongue-in-cheek.
	What I love is when anybody says greedy Jew for running an ad, the flip side to that is spoiled and entitled consumer that wants two hours of free content and doesn't...
	Why is it when I have to sit through a 30-second ad?
	Yeah, and I'm the greedy one.
	But no, YouTube will run the ads.
	And if you don't like it...
	Yeah, and hopefully Rumble will be sometime soon, too, because that will be good.
	And then if you want to, you know, ad-free, go to Locals.
	Oh, yeah, I'm the greedy Jew for just, you know, wanting to earn and be successful at what I do, and you're not an entitled punk for saying, give it to me for free, and I don't even want to have to sit through a free ad?
	My goodness, then get off YouTube!
	Okay, sorry.
	Yeah, oh, but so we got, so it's where free speech intersects with college campuses, where free speech intersects with material terrorism.
	That's where this is playing out in the American political legal space.
	Then we got NYU students filing harassment suits.
	Where's the line, basically?
	What is the obligation?
	And some of the political backstory, where the real secret lobby is.
	Is the secret lobby the Jewish secret lobby, or is it somebody else?
	Then we got Elon Musk fighting back, suing Media Matters, connected to another anti-Israeli guy, George Soros.
	Speaking of Jews.
	Then you got Trump continuing to fight for dismissal and continuing to file robust briefs in the D.C. case.
	Speaking of fighting back, Truth is fighting back.
	Sued almost all the major media, Democratic-leaning, liberal-leading media organizations this past week for its various lies and libels about the success of Devin Nunes and the folks over at Truth, who we met at the premiere of Dinesh D'Souza's Police State film that we recommend that's available on Rumble, as is Plot Against the President, now available on Rumble, because Amazon Prime summarily canceled it.
	Amanda Milius' great film from several years ago that previewed everything we now know about Russiagate, Amazon apparently was so offended by how successful it was that it eliminated it from Amazon Prime.
	So even if you paid for it, you cannot now watch it, which I think is grounds to sue Amazon Prime, which will be a separate matter.
	But also available on Rumble are those other items, including police state.
	But truth, it looks to me like an open and shut case, frankly.
	Supreme Court, the administrative case, the case about the administrative state, probably more important than Chevron deference doctrine, is up at the Supreme Court.
	It's about a case we previously discussed, the administrative law judge power in the SEC context.
	But that issue...
	It has legal implications around the entire administrative state.
	And if the Supreme Court makes the right ruling, they could permanently gut the administrative state.
	They also have a big takings case that members of our board have been asking us to discuss.
	They haven't yet decided whether to take it.
	I hope they do because it tries to gut takings law in America.
	It's ridiculous.
	When people understand the fact pattern, it's ridiculous.
	Oh, completely.
	Speaking of ridiculous, the bogus standing doctrine.
	Was misused and abused again, this time by New York courts to excuse that judge's quarantine and isolation powers being way past what they should be.
	We'll have an update on Owen Schroyer.
	We got America First Legal Group.
	Stephen Miller continues to bring some of the best lawsuits of any organization in the country, this time suing Mesa County schools for improperly, secretly changing the gender of elementary school kids without their parents knowing about it and junior high school kids.
	And then we got a big First Amendment win against the misapplication of terrorism and the COVID vaccine posting, COVID lockdown context, posting on Facebook.
	Then we got a couple of fun cases.
	We got frontier baggage fees, turns out to be bogus half the time.
	Fortnite fees, Fortnite admitting they've been charging bogus fees, especially if they could hook your kids on the app.
	Economic loss doctrine properly restricted in Tennessee.
	Coach Kiffin at Ole Miss sued for a range of arguably bad behavior.
	And an update on Owen Schroer.
	All right.
	Now, some people think my mic is...
	Oh, and Pfizer sues Poland.
	There might be a more robust defense than Poland even knows about.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, I'm just going to...
	Hold on.
	I'm not going to fix it.
	I'm not going to touch my mic.
	I'm just going to bring it close to my face.
	Robert, can we just add one off the bat?
	The Georgia decision from Judge Totenberg.
	Oh, yeah.
	The Georgia Dominion case.
	We're just going to add that off the bat.
	Then we'll head over to Rumble.
	People are tweeting out.
	I deleted a tweet because it could be misinterpreted in terms of being more optimistic than it actually is.
	But people were tweeting that Totenberg issued a ruling unfavorable to the Dominion votings in Georgia, where I can see how people can interpret the ruling that way because there's some favorable comments made there about the known security risks of electronic voting machines.
	But Totenberg has not issued any ruling on the merits.
	It's 135 page ruling in response to a motion to dismiss, I think, where she's saying, no, it's going to proceed to trial.
	We're scheduling the trial for January.
	But bottom line, I mean, So we're going to have a trial.
	It will not be a jury trial.
	It will be a bench trial in January.
	Is there anything more to that decision from Totenberg than that?
	The biggest thing that people are missing that everybody's quoting that case is that suit was brought by Democrats.
	Totenberg is a very liberal Democratic judge related to the NPR's Totenberg.
	And this goes from the 2018 election in which Democrats claimed Republicans stole it through machines.
	So the context is what all the people talking about this, referencing this, are stripping the context out of it.
	Because it guts or counters, you know, why are the Democrats suing?
	Why are they suing over Republican-win elections?
	Why is a Democratic judge issuing this ruling?
	In other words, if Democrats are using Dominion to steal elections, they have a mighty weird way of showing it by trying to get rid of Dominion in Georgia.
	Now, I agree with the court's conclusions about all the problems with having too much machine involvement in elections.
	So I'm all for the machines getting thrown out and them having to go to paper ballots.
	There used to be unity on this.
	Election side of the aisle, for those of us both on the left and right, Bobby Kennedy was one of the biggest critics of machines being involved in elections going back to 2004.
	He said that the machines caused the election issues and raised fraud arguments in the 2004 presidential election in Ohio.
	But what happened is Trump took over the issue in 2020.
	And so all of a sudden, most of the Democratic left suddenly decided they loved machines.
	But not all of them.
	The old school election people on the election front going back several decades have long opposed any machines.
	They prefer paper ballots, which would tell you how Democrats took 2020.
	It probably wasn't the machines, if they're trying to get rid of the machines.
	But I'm all for the case going forward and forcing paper ballots back in control of the system.
	Which would also have a chain of custody issues and other issues.
	The big question was whether or not a Democratic judge, after Dominion became such a Republican issue after 2020, would stick with her original position because she had this position early on.
	By the way, this was the case that was used, in part, to get all the mass mail-in balloting, by the way.
	So there were aspects of this case that were not done for the most positive purposes, in my view.
	But in terms of where it stands now...
	It's a suit that will show the deep, ongoing issues with having machines, period.
	Dominion or otherwise.
	And it shows how insane it was that Fox wrote that big check to Dominion.
	Anybody involved in this space knew about this case.
	This was the main case against electronic voting machines in the United States for the past half decade.
	It came after the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia by the guy who lost the lieutenant governor's race, brought the suit, the Democrat, and claiming that there was an unexplained drop-off in a range of Democratic precincts.
	Now, that might have had something to do with Stacey Abrams getting some extra ballots in just for her, and that lieutenant governor not giving the cash to her organization to make sure they were added to the ballot.
	But they blame the machines.
	But it is a good case for exposing the problem with machines.
	No question about that.
	And I support the court's conclusions to date.
	Alright, and what was I about to say?
	We're going to head over to Rumble right now, so everybody, get your butts over there.
	But before we do, Robert, you mentioned RFK.
	I almost forgot to mention this, and I'll mention it before we leave.
	Tomorrow, Kyle Kemper is going to be coming on at noon.
	And for those of you who don't know who Kyle Kemper is, because I didn't associate it because their last names are not the same, it's Justin Trudeau's brother.
	And Justin Trudeau's brother, Kyle Kemper, is working on the Bobby Kennedy's campaign as well.
	I just saw a message in that inbox that Twitter has enabled that comes from people you're not following.
	And every now and again, I go check it and 99 out of 100 are not necessarily messages that you reply to.
	And I see this guy.
	It was from September.
	It's like, oh my goodness, I missed this.
	He's coming on at noon.
	It's not going to be all about Canadian politics, but there's going to be a lot about it.
	And I verified with him.
	He's not going to have a problem with me saying that I absolutely hate.
	Justin Trudeau.
	But noon tomorrow...
	Are you going to ask him if Justin is his real brother?
	I cannot divulge that at this point in time, Robert.
	Yes.
	No, no.
	I'm going to ask all the questions.
	I guess you could ask it the nice way.
	What do you think about all this talk that it's amazing how much Trudeau looks like Fidel Castro?
	Do you think there's any truth to that?
	It's...
	Oh, I should not read the negative...
	This is why Viva is a grifter.
	He doesn't call Barnes out for anything.
	Oh, God.
	You know what?
	I've given some trolls too much attention.
	Noon.
	Tomorrow.
	It's going to be fantastic.
	And it's not only going to be about Canada.
	It's going to be about RFK's campaign as well.
	Okay.
	So, good.
	We've lost 200 people on YouTube.
	That's the way it should be.
	Now let's lose all of them.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	Oh, no!
	Sorry, Robert, one last one before we go.
	Let me just read these superchats before.
	So I was charged with assault once, then I beat it from forced name change.
	I get the joke.
	Ibogaine is a dissociative psychedelic.
	I know Rogan talks about it all the time as a method to treat other forms of addiction and problems.
	Illegal.
	Barnes, river to the sea, can't stop from Euthrates to the Nile.
	Okay, then we got Cars In Depths.
	The Deep State really doesn't want Chevron overturned.
	From Cars In Depths, Hugh Thomas says, Robert, buying you a copy of, quote, trust your atoms, end quote, Amazon.
	The most innovative theory of liberty since Locke.
	You won't believe it.
	Screen grabbed and I'm not your buddy guy.
	Last one that we're moving over.
	It doesn't amaze me.
	It doesn't amaze me Argentina can count how many millions of paper ballots the same night, yet America and certain states can't do the same.
	Yeah, makes sense.
	Makes sense when it has to make sense.
	Ending on YouTube in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Come over to Rumble.
	It's in the pinned comment.
	Booyaka, sha, done.
	All right, Rumble, what's the first one we start with now that we're...
	On Rumble exclusively now?
	Sure, we can discuss the, it's Rumble, so the Free Speech Zone, discuss some of the free speech issues around the protests taking place in, particularly in college campuses.
	And you've got, probably an example is the NYU lawsuit, the suit against New York University by a group of Jewish students talking about how the harassment has been a problem for a decade.
	But has really escalated after the October 7th attack, that it got a lot worse.
	And the question is, what duty is there for a college campus?
	Can they restrict speech in this context?
	Because the other controversy is...
	Various student groups being defunded, being delisted, not being allowed to organize based on allegations that they're providing material support to a designated terrorist organization.
	What are the First Amendment limitations in that context?
	When can college campuses allow speech to be the basis of disciplining teachers and professors?
	Teachers on both sides have been suspended in various cases.
	There's been arguments that even more should be suspended.
	What's the gap?
	At what point is anti-Israel fine and how much does it bleed over into attacks because of somebody's ancestry or background?
	You had the Obama guy arrested because he got into an argument with a vendor in New York City, but I thought the NYU University case is kind of a good filter.
	I'll ask you questions on this because I'm not as up to speed on this as the rest, but what is the basis of the lawsuit that you can go after a university for failing to provide security?
	Are they going under university bylaws or university contract or law at large?
	All the above.
	Someone asked me the other day if I was Jewish.
	He's like, yeah, you're a good lawyer.
	You must be Jewish.
	I was like, you know...
	I wouldn't screw around with Jewish people.
	I mean, there are a few good Jewish lawyers.
	Well, Barnes, I'll make the joke every time.
	You don't have to be a Jew to be Jew-ish.
	And so you are Jew-ish to many.
	Okay, sorry.
	Well, give them credit.
	They brought the most robust suit you could bring.
	So they're suing under four claims.
	Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which says any federally funded educational institution has to not discriminate against people based on race or religion, ancestry or national origin.
	So that's the first claim.
	The second claim is a claim of breaching state civil rights laws under New York State.
	They're analogous provisions.
	The third is bringing suit under breach of contract theory on the idea that when you pay tuition to a university and enroll in that university, that the university has effectively agreed to be bound by its various public policies and statements.
	As a term of its contract.
	And then last but not least, they're claiming consumer fraud.
	NYU is in the consumer solicitation business, namely getting students to enroll, and in the process made certain promises that were actually false and fraudulent at the time they were made, and that have now caused injury.
	The injury alleged is the degree of students' inability to enjoy equal access to educational opportunities on campus, not only in the classroom, but outside the classroom.
	Now, the suit, in my view, at times crosses the line between complaining about speech and claiming about unprotected conduct, because those are two very different things.
	There's a line between those two.
	Same issue has popped up in Florida.
	University of Florida system under Governor DeSantis has kicked out certain groups from registration and access to student facilities.
	These are the public universities.
	Different rules apply to private universities concerning whether or not they're providing material support to Hamas.
	And that has its own issues.
	The Supreme Court has only once addressed that question of what material support for terrorism permits as a criminal prosecution or other form of punishment within the confines of the First Amendment.
	That was a 6-3 decision.
	The three Democratic judges dissented at the time.
	The conservative Republican judges all agreed at the time, and the moderate establishment Republican judges.
	That it did not, as long as it was limited.
	So, essentially, some of the complaint in the NYU case concerns the organized, orchestrated strategy, the explicit.
	This is what Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracy, and some others are not being fully forthcoming about.
	Groups supporting the BDS movement, groups supporting Students for Justice for Palestine.
	A lot of these groups, two things to note about them.
	One, a lot of them are strongly affiliated with Antifa-type organizations.
	Most of them come from the communist left, hard left.
	They believe in violence as a tool and method and mechanism of getting results.
	They welcome, celebrate, reward terrorist events when it's done against their adversaries.
	Think in TIFA, and you get a sense of what they're doing, and this goes to the second part, what's happening on campuses.
	They've explicitly said their goal is to make it uncomfortable for anyone to be pro-Israel on campus.
	Well, that's very different than saying you want your point of view to be the most persuasive.
	They are choosing to use and employ what mostly to date conservatives have been the target of.
	Which is harassment campaigns, stalking campaigns, intimidation campaigns, showing up at the other person's events and trying to shout them down, making threats, doing things like targeting Jewish dorms to put you've been evicted underneath it, under the guise that, oh, you're just trying to make a point about Palestine.
	They weren't evicted in Palestine.
	They all left, and then they got their ass kicked in war and keep whining about it.
	There were no mass evictions.
	That's hogwash.
	It's always been hogwash.
	But it gives you an idea, but they target them deliberately, and they've said explicitly, their goal is to make it uncomfortable for anyone to be pro-Israel on campus.
	That crosses the line into harassment, which is not...
	I mean, they're saying anybody who's anti-Israel...
	Is harassing based on race or religion.
	That's not true.
	So there's a balance here, and it's hard to get that balance in the current political environment because either you're pro-Israel or anti-Israel, there's no in-between, and if you have any pragmatic view in between, then you're either a Zionist shill or you're a...
	A Jew hater that's beyond all capacity to have reason.
	So when there is a balance between the two in this debate, and the same is true legally.
	Now, what happened in Florida is an example that's referenced in the NYU suit.
	They're complaining that some of these groups they think should have been kicked off of campus on the grounds that they're providing material support for terrorism.
	That's mostly a misapplication of that doctrine.
	What the Supreme Court has said is you can't, at the direction of a terrorist organization to a foreign terrorist organization, or in a manner that's coordinated with them, you can't provide material support to them.
	You can advocate for them independently.
	That was going to be the question, and which was my issue with DeSantis in as much as, you know, whether or not you like BDS, I think people should have the right to boycott whoever they want, even if it's in a mass-coordinated campaign.
	But providing material support to terrorism, can that extend into words?
	I mean, I guess if you're planning...
	It can to a degree.
	Supreme Court said just because it's words doesn't mean it's protected.
	But what it said is, as long as the words are in coordination with them, to them, at their direction, and you know they're a terrorist organization.
	Now, you don't have to know it's going to support a terrorist cause.
	So what they had was these groups.
	And again, this is part where the Greenwalds and the Aaron Matés and the Blumenthals and the Michael Tracys and the rest, and the Noam Chomskys.
	These groups are saying what they did, Students for Justice for Palestine, some other ones, after it happened, they told people to use the hashtag and the commentary named after the operation that went in and committed all the terrorists.
	They said, call what you're doing this.
	That was overt support for terroristic events.
	However, that does not mean it's not constitutionally protected.
	At least as to material terrorism or under imminent incitement or true threats.
	Because in order for...
	So that's not material support if it's not done at the behest, at the direction of, in coordination with or to Hamas.
	And so I thought the university could conduct an investigation in Florida to see whether there's coordinate.
	But my guess is there really isn't.
	That this is independent.
	Advocacy.
	It's like, or like the sickest, not in the sick and the good sense, but like the most deranged troll is, yeah, call it whatever the hashtag, the name of the operation, or pull a BLM and put a guy with a paraglider and say, we stand with, you know, use it as best.
	Well, that's, well, but that's also what they did.
	So Students for Justice for Power and some of these other groups put the paraglider as their symbol while passing out flyers on campus.
	Is that constitutionally protected?
	Most likely the answer is yes.
	It's getting close to the line on incitement and true threats, given what had just happened.
	And when they did things like target Jews and say, here, take a look, then it might get a little bit closer.
	So again, harassment and stalking is conduct.
	So even if the speech is the means of the conduct, that's not protected speech when it has the purpose and it's known to have the likely intended effect of harassing somebody, of stalking, of inducing a state of fear in a reasonable person.
	Which, by the way, is clearly what the Students for Justice for Palestine and some of these groups are doing on the NYU campus and other college campuses.
	Their goal is to induce, they are engaged in illegal, unprotected conduct that could be a separate, independent, brown...
	Grounds of taking them off campus.
	But that should be the focus.
	We shouldn't blur the line the way both sides want to blur the line.
	The defenders want to blur the line and call all of it speech when it's not.
	And the NYU plaintiffs, they want to blur the line and call all of it illegal conduct when it's not.
	And we need to stick within that constitutional barrier.
	Both as to material support in college campuses, public universities.
	But the interesting thing, I'll give them credit in the suit.
	The real backstory, they noted, is the dramatic, and by the way, media hasn't covered this.
	When there was a spike in college campus anti-Jewish incidents since 2012-13, they only focused on the part that took place during the Trump era, and they tried to blame it on Trump.
	It had nothing to do with Trump.
	It was coming from the left more often than any other group.
	And number two, as a study ultimately showed, it directly corresponded to how much money they were getting from Arab and Muslim governments.
	Because when they talk about a secret lobby, there's a secret lobby with billions of dollars of cash, all right.
	It's the anti-Israeli lobby, not the Jewish lobby.
	You want a grift?
	Let's say you're Queen Candace Owens and you're looking for a new promoter.
	The easy cash is on the Arab-Muslim side.
	Qatar alone has given over $3 billion to U.S. universities and academies.
	What else is Qatar famous for?
	It's where they host the millionaire members, founders of Hamas.
	That's who deeply embed with the Muslim Brotherhood is Qatar.
	All of this goes back to the Muslim Brotherhood.
	If people want to see what Erdogan's real views are, search his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.
	You might be a little surprised.
	That's why his rhetoric is what it is.
	He's got to keep certain.
	There is indeed secret lobbies with secret groups, secretly masterminding with secret influence a genocidal effort.
	It's known as the anti-Israeli cause.
	That's the dirty little secret.
	It's confession through projection en masse.
	And the reason NYU has been caught in a trap, like, why isn't NYU a historical strong tie?
	Jewish donors, Jewish members, famous Jewish graduates, Jewish faculty members.
	It's because of all the money they're getting from the Qataris and the Arabs and the Muslims.
	That's why.
	That's where all the cash is.
	And they're like, okay.
	We want to be nice enough to keep the Jews from crying about it, but we want that Muslim Brotherhood money.
	And that's the dirty little secret about what's really happening on college campuses, why they've tolerated this nonsense.
	I mean, what are the chances that any of that comes out in Discovery if this ever gets there?
	First of all, do you think it gets to Discovery or does it get tossed?
	I think it does get to Discovery, depending on what judge it draws.
	And if it does, a lot of embarrassment.
	I guarantee you there's internal disclosures, internal discussions amongst high-ranking administrators at NYU.
	About this in terms as crude and crass as this.
	How do we keep this money in?
	What they found was the more money you received from foreign Arab or Muslim governments, the more anti-Semitism dramatically spiked on your campus.
	Does anybody really think that's a coincidence?
	And the ratio was 3 to 1, 4 to 1. Almost all the anti-Semitism spikes on college campuses are directly correlated to...
	And ask yourself out there, whichever side you are on the Israeli issue, why do you never hear about Qatar?
	Why do you never hear about their involvement?
	Think about it because they aren't limited to buying off universities and academics.
	They've been buying off think tanks.
	They've been buying off consultants.
	They've been buying off some of these media people you think are...
	Independent.
	You know, Alistair Crook, you think he's some nice British fella down there in Lebanon and Beirut giving independent analysis?
	Try again.
	He's been getting big fat checks from Qatari Royals and others.
	That's why he's doing what he's doing.
	The dude's just a hoe.
	But that's what he was in his MI6, so nothing really changed.
	Just his payer changed.
	But that's the real interesting backstory that there's been very little discussion of in this suit.
	But to its credit, it brings up...
	And that discovery is a definite sore spot and vulnerable point for NYU and every other university in America.
	Well, Robert, I mean, it might be...
	The interesting thing here, I guess it'll be the good segue into the next one, is the irony now is that a lot of activist organizations, and there's been some Jewish ones and some not Jewish ones who have been...
	Opening, you know, with open arms welcoming the policies that are now biting them in the ass.
	And this is basically, in my view, what led to that tweet from whatever account it was that said, it's hilarious now, in a sarcastic way, seeing Western Jews complaining about anti-Semitism on campuses when...
	Very much, these are the policies, these are the practices that a lot of organizations, Jewish and not, had been advocating to protest Trump, for example, other speakers that they didn't like, for example.
	And now look at this.
	It's like the late 1960s, it's Leonard Bernstein holding, you know, Thomas Wolfe makes fun of it, you know, holding a rally or holding a fundraiser for the Black Panthers.
	And the absurd parody of this, you know, the electric Kool-Aid test, and I forget the rest of the title of the book, but brilliantly described, or Leonard Bernstein is up there doing it.
	And it's the old Jewish liberal, especially the guilt aspect that was played off on a lot by the young radical left, embracing these lunatic causes.
	And then it backfired on them because these causes are affiliated with people that are historically unreliable allies.
	As Sam Adams said during the revolution, be careful about riding a tiger because a tiger might eat you.
	And I think we've seen some dynamics of that also reflected in the ongoing political fallout that will have a wide range of legal consequences over the next year or two in the States.
	But a lot of your Bill Ackmans, your older pro-Israeli hedge fund guys, those kind of guys, they didn't fully realize who they were getting into bed with.
	It's the David Weissman on Twitter.
	I forget who he is but saying I can't believe I supported you BLM now you're doing this to me and it's like you didn't you didn't think that they would employ the tactics this is why ideologically I would not ally a liar ally myself with someone who I know would employ tactics that I think are unfair in war I'm called a sissy for it but my view is it's only a matter of time before they do it to you and so David Wiseman Can't understand.
	But I supported you.
	But we're an ally.
	And now they're throwing rocks at my window, quite literally.
	And then Elon Musk, in response to this tweet, you know, he said, you speak actual truth.
	And then he took flack.
	And then he says, I was only talking about the ADL.
	I wasn't talking about Jews as a whole.
	And obviously, nor could you, because Jews, Jewish ideology is not monolithic in as much as you have, you know, a lot of...
	Statistical over-representation of Jews involved in the first impeachment.
	So, too, did you have a lot of Jews on the Trump side defending it.
	So, they're not ideologically aligned.
	Whatever, Musk got in trouble for that.
	But, it's a good segue into Musk now taking the battle to Media Matters for America.
	And another anti-Israeli Jew!
	That's an old tradition for George Soros.
	Well, okay, so, I mean, look, I was just in real time looking into who funded, founded Media Matters.
	Soros gave it a million bucks back in the day, 2010, to help it fight Fox News.
	Hillary Clinton, not a Jew, but to many might be Jew-ish, you know, haha, was involved.
	Podesta, who's not, you know, whatever, but...
	Founded by David Brock?
	Is that the guy's name?
	If anybody knows how to grift, Brock is one of the king of the grifters.
	Well, at the risk of, you know, I won't be able to push back on this because I only know what I've read on Brock and it ain't good, Robert.
	Can you tell people who Brock is and what his history is?
	So he's just, he's a mid-tier operator.
	He's sort of like a Roger Stone kind of political operator with a certain acumen and skill for media manipulation.
	That's really what he does well.
	He initially employed and deployed that skill set against the Clintons in the 1990s, was one of the key people getting up, putting together information for the American Spectator and other publications about Clinton's long litany of corruption in history.
	He parlayed that at the end of the 90s into a relationship with the Clintons and became one of their key defenders and advocates.
	It was like, see how I can run this extortion game pretty well.
	And so he's always looked for who's going to give him money so that he can go out and extort somebody or harass somebody, disguised as some non-governmental organization.
	There's even connections to David Brock and allegations concerning Pizzagate, for example.
	So this goes way back with Brock.
	But he's an old-school grifter.
	I don't think anybody thinks David Brock has any core convictions of any kind.
	I think he's just classic grifter in that regard.
	But so he helped form Media Matters amongst other organizations, and they target the politically disfavored groups.
	Media Matters was one of the key, one of their obsessed targets over the past 10 years has been Alex Jones.
	I mean, they had people who spent every minute of every hour of every day watching, reading, and transcribing anything printed or published by Alex Jones for years.
	This is why, by the way, they falsified and fabricated a report that tried to blame Jones for a bunch of things related to Sandy Hook that had nothing to do with Jones by misquoting him, quoting him out of context, taking certain things and putting him into a different place.
	And their misleading formulation is what led to the lawsuits against Jones.
	And when they figured out the lawyers early on...
	That, in fact, those claims weren't what they thought they were.
	That's how they had to coordinate a strategy to make sure that no jury ever heard a trial on the merits.
	Because it would have rebutted what everybody thinks they know Jones said about Sandy Hook.
	It was actually very different than what they thought he said.
	And that all came from media matters.
	Misrepresenting the record.
	You know, what they were very good at.
	For example, earlier this year, or last year, I think it was earlier this year, Steve Kirsch, Media Matters improperly targeted him.
	And I gave him advice that forced Media Matters, one of the few times they've ever done it, to issue retractions and corrections.
	Because they do this all the time.
	What's unique is trying to do it to Elon Musk.
	I mean, it's like there's people to screw around with.
	I don't know, like two groups.
	I mean, as a general rule, I wouldn't go out of my way to screw around with Jews.
	Just words wise.
	And I also wouldn't go out of my way to screw around with billionaires who like to sue people.
	I mean, that's probably not well advised.
	But he went a little too far because his paymasters were demanding it.
	And the suit, as you discussed, reveals shocking facts about how Media Matters operates.
	I won't go into the details of the suit again, because I did it basically for the entire stream Monday, except to say that Media Matters puts out a report that says and shows how Media Matters, quote, found...
	Advertising adjacent to offensive content.
	It turns out that in order for them to manufacture or fabricate that result, they took over accounts that bypassed the new account rules in terms of advertising pairings.
	I don't know how that works.
	And they only followed Nazi accounts and they only followed big brand accounts.
	And they continually refreshed, refreshed, refreshed, until they finally screen grabbed an ad running adjacent, a big brand account, because they were only following Nazis and refreshing so they could see ads.
	The question is this.
	I'll get to the slap question afterwards.
	But their argument is going to be, we found it, it's a figure of speech.
	It doesn't matter.
	It happened.
	Whether it's one in 500 million, what we reported was factually correct.
	It happened at least once.
	And if it happened once, you can bet that it happened more than once.
	What can be described as fraudulent in that method through which they generated?
	Or can it be described as legally fraudulent in the method through which they generated that actual result?
	Because they would try to represent it as being commonplace.
	And that's the core problem.
	That their method for determining whether it was commonplace actually proved it was extremely rare.
	And you had to artificially manipulate the algorithm in order for it to ever occur.
	And so what they were trying to portray as ordinary and regular was in fact exceptional and unusual.
	Now there are multiple levels of irony in this.
	Because you have Media Matters key employees, a bunch of them hate Israel, and have said all kinds of ridiculous anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish comments over the years, along with other forms of racial and religious bigotry.
	And so for them to be attacking anybody is kind of ironic under the circumstances.
	But putting that aside...
	Their tortious interference claims should at least go past the dismissal and into the discovery stage, which I think will reveal more embarrassing internal documents and information that they had to manipulate this result.
	In other words, their story to all these corporate advertisers is if you advertise on Twitter, your ads are likely to show up on racist accounts.
	And next to racist material as if they're endorsing it and suggested Twitter wasn't doing anything to preclude that.
	They knew otherwise because they had to gain the accounts to even create a rare instant of those.
	What about the argument that they'll raise that it's not...
	The lawsuit does not allege...
	Active interference.
	It alleges they published the article, but not that there was any call to action or solicitation.
	Oh, it doesn't matter because the tortious interference is just that you do something that impairs somebody else's prospective economic opportunity or existing business and contractual relationship.
	And so here the tort is defamation or libel.
	So the same First Amendment principles apply, even though it's a different denominated tort.
	But it's that tort that has that impact.
	It's really just a way of suing for defamation in a different frame.
	And people like to do it because it sometimes throws courts off about defamation law, application.
	And sometimes you're doing it to get around certain procedural provisions.
	In Texas, for example, to sue on defamation, you'd have to give certain kinds of notice.
	Unless you're suing Alex Jones, then you don't have to give that notice and the courts let you out of it.
	But everybody else has to give certain kinds of notice and whatnot.
	And so they're avoiding some of those procedural pitfalls by bringing it in a different frame.
	But the same legal defenses would apply to media matters.
	I just think they've alleged enough to get past Okay, good.
	Well, that answers one of my concerns, although it is directly related to the jurisdiction and venue that they chose.
	Okay, so federally, because this is federally in Texas, tell that to me one more time.
	Why doesn't the state...
	Because it's a substantive federal rule that interferes with the federal rules of civil procedure, and as such, under the doctrine of when a process rule applies in federal court of a state in certain contexts, but a substantive rule like that that takes away certain procedural remedies you're entitled to under federal law.
	That's considered to interfere and impair the federal rules of civil procedure and therefore can't apply.
	So anti-slap is seen as its own Rule 12 motion to dismiss or Rule 56 summary judgment motion, but without following the contours of federal law.
	And so because it interferes with federal rules of civil procedure, most federal courts have held that it doesn't apply.
	It varies by court, though.
	Some federal courts enforce it.
	Some do not.
	In Texas, they made clear it does not.
	Okay, now, excellent.
	That at least responds to one of the questions that I had raised.
	I'm going to do this.
	I forgot to hit this.
	You see this little red button?
	It's a plug-in, and it allows me to maintain all of the rants in this highlighted sense, and I didn't do it until the Kenzie one, so I know I missed some.
	I apologize, and there's no way to retrieve them.
	If I do find a way to achieve them, I'll screen grab them and talk about them tomorrow.
	But I'll do this.
	Kenzie67 says, Barnes, it is all about oil and gas, the canal to the coast, and the Iranian refinery.
	Get with the program.
	Ginger Ninja says, I'm concerned about these cases setting precedent for future DOJ targeting of people like Schroyer, Jones, etc.
	Similar to the First Amendment Patriot Act.
	And Ginger Ninja says, you're forgetting one, Robert.
	Also not advisable to screw around with rednecks.
	There was a funny meme that was around there.
	Oh, it was a long group.
	Also, I don't go into...
	Unless I know the circumstances, I avoid black bars, redneck bars, and definitely Indian bars.
	You better know what you're doing.
	My Indian law professor taught me a great lesson.
	We were doing tort class, first year, first semester of law school.
	He was chief of his tribe for a period of time.
	So you mean Indian as a native, not Indian as a native?
	Native American.
	As someone has taught me whose wife...
	He's part Native American, so it's politically okay to say this, and we're on Rumble.
	Feathers, not dots.
	It was in The Simpsons, I believe it's fair to say in real life.
	If it's in The Simpsons, that's another good pretext.
	We used to go back and forth and have fun trolling each other all the time.
	Brilliant guy from the left, but unique set of political viewpoints because of his Native American background.
	But we had a class lesson where this guy's at an Indian bar that's not an Indian with his girlfriend.
	Indian comes up and says he'd like to date with his girlfriend.
	He says no, and they end up getting into a fight.
	And so it was looking at, you know, salt and battery and, you know, what are the different elements and is it applicable because it's tort class, first year, first semester class.
	And he thought, he went around getting everybody's answer and he came to me.
	He was like, Barnes, you got to have the answer.
	And I wasn't getting where he was going.
	He goes, it's simple.
	If an Indian comes up and asks to dance with your girlfriend, you say yes.
	So that was the full answer.
	But that's a general, you know, be careful.
	Some of those bars, those are some tough places to get into.
	There's some places on Rossville Boulevard, back home in my home, East Chattanooga, that they once went in and ordered Corona with a lime.
	And that caused a lot of problems for those people who didn't know.
	You don't order Corona with a lime on Rossville Boulevard.
	Did I?
	I'm going to add one to the list.
	It's keep your schmeckle in your pants.
	Nothing good happens after 8 o 'clock.
	And stay out of bars.
	Nothing good happens in bars.
	Alright, well now, getting to the next, what is it?
	Tortious interference defamation lawsuit of Truth Social versus, I don't know, 20 media outlets.
	It's a lot simpler.
	Excuse me.
	It's a lot simpler, I think, as the fact pattern goes.
	Because apparently they, I mean, I read the lawsuit.
	I didn't cover it in the same depth as Elon Musk's, but apparently, I don't know who the initial journalists were, that they ran a report that basically said Truth Social lost $73 million, which, according to SEC filings, so it's like, here's the authority, it's definitive confirmed fact, and a loss of that size for a company like Truth, I would imagine, could nefariously impact shareholder value and a number of other problems.
	Well, especially because they're right in the middle of their SPAC.
	They're trying to get their SPAC merger through, their special purpose acquisition vehicle.
	Oh, so they're not public just yet.
	Right, right.
	They're going through that transition stage.
	So it's particularly detrimental.
	Clearly, the false news story was designed to prevent that from being successful.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	I thought they had already gone.
	I thought they had already obtained whatever, gone public.
	I think they've gone through part of it, but I don't think the final stage yet.
	So it's a similar process to what Rumble did.
	And if they say you've overvalued or you're posting losses and you've lied about profits, well, that could mess everything up.
	I don't remember who...
	And I remember this was after the SEC falsely investigated them with bogus harassment, bogus claims.
	They had to resolve all of that.
	That was used to try to derail the effort of Trump going public as well.
	Holy shit, do they fight dirty, Robert.
	They fight...
	And so they ran this article.
	According to SEC filings, they lost $73 million.
	The disinformation laundering mechanism comes into full force.
	One outlet reports it, the other one cites the original.
	Whatever.
	All bunk.
	The SEC filing to which they referred did not show any loss of $73 million.
	And so the question is, will it get past the New York Times versus Sullivan malicious, what's the word?
	Well, actual malice.
	Was the article published, was the disinformation, the factually incorrect statement published You, Robert, are of the opinion?
	It's obviously so.
	Have they alleged enough in the suit to get past?
	Oh, definitely.
	Because they all shared a particular factual claim that Truth had lost $73 million, and that factual claim was false, and that there was no factual foundation for it whatsoever, that they were told about that factual foundation, that it was factually false, and failed to produce any evidence substantiating it, and refused to issue full corrections and complete retractions.
	So they brought suit to the state court in Florida.
	I'm litigating this currently for Robert Kennedy in New Hampshire.
	What they'll probably try to do is remove it to federal court, and they may try to move to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds.
	United Airlines is claiming, I've sued them in multiple contexts over vaccine mandates.
	They're claiming that they can only be sued in Chicago.
	It's like, I'm not so sure that's what personal jurisdiction stands for.
	But it tells you something about what they think about Chicago courts, I suppose.
	But independent of that, when, as the suit alleges, they published the statements in Florida, they directed it to cause injury in Florida.
	Those are the two components that are necessary for personal jurisdiction.
	When I was fighting it out for the Covington kids' cases, we ultimately won that part.
	They just said under Kentucky law, the person had to physically be in Kentucky when they lied about you, which makes no sense, but that's how Kentucky courts weaseled their way out of dealing with the Covington kids' suits and the state court system.
	So the federal court says to remember with its own cop-outs.
	So here they've alleged that, you know, truth, Trump is in Florida.
	Truth has organizations in Florida.
	The goal was to cause injury to truth.
	That's to cause injury in Florida.
	So the personal jurisdiction, famous case, Calder versus State of New Hampshire, liability, libel case, defamation case, neither party was in New Hampshire.
	And yet New Hampshire had personal jurisdiction.
	Why?
	Because it was published in New Hampshire and it caused injury in New Hampshire and that was knowing.
	And so I think that it should stay in Florida.
	Now, they'll probably try to move it to federal court, but the problem there is all they need is a defendant that's in the state of Florida and they can't remove it on removal grounds.
	To federal court, they have to find some other federal law claim grounds to remove it to federal court.
	They probably don't want to risk the state court, is my guess.
	So probably the first thing they'll do is remove it.
	Then they'll probably try to move it to dismiss on some personal jurisdiction or First Amendment grounds.
	They should lose the First Amendment grounds.
	They made a false statement of fact, as alleged, without a factual basis, that they refused to correct or remedy when told it had no factual basis.
	And they should lose on personal jurisdiction grounds because they defamed someone knowing it would cause injury in Florida and published it in Florida.
	It's a no-brainer.
	That's why defamation is very favorable.
	You can sue in wherever it was published.
	So you think it succeeds?
	It needs to be that way.
	Otherwise, what some of these courts are doing, like what they're arguing in my Kennedy case, they're arguing that you can only sue me where I physically live.
	That's their claim.
	Then a libeler could find the best jurisdiction that's the hardest to sue in and just libel people en masse, knowingly publishing false statements outside of the state, knowingly causing injury outside of the state, doing so intentionally.
	And suffer no consequence under those states' legal laws because they have political protection where they're physically at.
	That's never been how libel law works or any tort work.
	Well, it might hinder execution if they live in a nation where it go homologate the judgments and seize assets wherever.
	But where the damage occurred, it's a no-brainer.
	But, okay, so interesting.
	All right, well, we'll see.
	To be continued, we'll be following it.
	But on Trump, further on Trump, Robert, the next one is the motion to dismiss.
	Are these the inflammatory charges in the D.C. suits?
	Which one is this?
	Well, so the motion to strike, the judge denied.
	That would go up.
	That would be just preserved for the record.
	That's in D.C. with Judge Chuck.
	In D.C. And these motions to dismiss were also all brought in D.C. And the gag order hearing was held before the D.C. Court of Appeals where...
	Somehow, magically, three Democratic judges got assigned to us.
	It's random, Rob.
	It's always random.
	How many judges are not Democrat judges in D.C. in any of them?
	You would normally get at least one Republican judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
	So the fact that they're constantly not present on a lot of these January 6th or Trump cases definitely raises questions about what's happening and how random the assignment is.
	We'll see.
	Even the ACLU said the gag order goes too far.
	A bunch of attorney generals intervened and said this gag order goes too far.
	Even though there were some dumb questions by the judges who were like, oh, but the speech might make somebody feel bad.
	The speech might lead to threats against somebody.
	That doesn't matter.
	That has no bearing on speech and its constitutional protection.
	If that's the rationale, the gag order might make people make threats.
	It is the gag order.
	Right, so by that definition, that makes it illegal.
	And you get judges who'd love to post-hoc rationalize these things.
	So you never know the D.C. Court of Appeals, but if the D.C. Court of Appeals does not set aside that gag order, I think the Supreme Court will step in and will set it aside.
	And it will begin the unraveling of these cases.
	So the D.C. Court of Appeals did not...
	They haven't ruled yet.
	They haven't ruled yet.
	And do you think they're going to?
	I predict they will.
	Yeah, they will in the next month.
	They will probably before Christmas.
	Oh no, they'll issue a ruling.
	Do you think the ruling is going to strike the gag order?
	If they're smart, they're going to have to at least limit it.
	So, you know, it would be politically dumb, tactically dumb, as well as legally without precedent for them to affirm the scope of that gag order.
	And now, I think I covered, I did cover the fact that they were using as evidence in the D.C. court Angeron, I don't know who's drafting these letters for and on behalf of whom, but basically, they say, look at all the threats Angeron got in New York when his gag order...
	It's almost like it's coordinating.
	It's almost like the New York judge is coordinating with the federal prosecutor against Donald Trump.
	But, Robert, I read through some of the voicemails that they transcribed.
	Oh, yeah, they use anti-Semitic tropes, and they use the F word, the six-letter one, not the four-letter one.
	I didn't really see much in there, and I presume that was the best of the best.
	Because anybody who makes an actual threat can be put in jail or prison for 20 years.
	So they really didn't have much except people complaining about them, which is people's right and entitlement.
	So they had very little else that were true threats that could be called imminent incitement.
	Which is relevant to what we were discussing in college campuses.
	It'll be relevant to another case we're going to be talking in the COVID Facebook context.
	A guy who got arrested for a COVID Facebook post.
	But it shows the effectiveness of Trump's campaign that they are terrified of him.
	Not only do they agree they want to lock him up before Election Day, not only want to bankrupt him before Election Day, but also want to prevent him from speaking out on his own behalf.
	During the election.
	And it's exposed for what it is.
	And it went so far.
	Now, it's like you look at the motions to dismiss.
	And we've discussed them before, but they're all robust in their replies by the Trump team.
	That this indictment violates his First Amendment right to free speech, violates his First Amendment rights to free association, violates his First Amendment rights against selective or vindictive prosecution, violates his Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law because of how vague these statutes are now being interpreted against the rule of lenity.
	It violates the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution.
	It violates the Article 2 and the implicit immunity that must be given a president from criminal prosecution for these actions.
	For during the time and tenure of his presidency.
	So all of those motions to dismiss are robust.
	They're quite strong.
	I have no doubt the district court will summarily deny all of them because this district court is such a hack.
	For example, if she was smart, she would have limited the scope of the gag order.
	If she was smart, she would have restricted, she would have granted some of the motion to strike.
	Right?
	Look like you're fair.
	Pretend to feign impartiality so you can get to trial and completely gut the person in areas where you have the most discretion.
	That's how smart judges really screw you.
	I usually say, I don't mind dumb people, I don't mind criminals, but you put them together, you've got a problem.
	In the federal judicial system, I don't mind when they're dumb.
	I don't want the criminals to be smart because then they'll screw you with style and fashion in ways that are very tough to get reversed on appeal.
	It's very tough to question in the court of public opinion.
	These judges are so over the top, so nuts, so loony, that they are inviting further review.
	And it's like the Colorado judge.
	She could have just said, eh, look, it doesn't apply to the president, the 14th Amendment exclusionary clause.
	It's clearly correct.
	But instead, she went around and said, look at what an interactionist Trump here.
	And now, of course, the Colorado higher courts might have to address that question.
	Which otherwise they wouldn't have had to address.
	I don't know if this was on our list, but perfect segue into everybody is appealing the Colorado Judge Wallace's ruling.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	By the way, if anybody's asking, now I don't have a rope.
	I'm using a GoPro to put under my sciatic to relieve some of the pressure so that my leg hurts.
	I'm an old man, Robert.
	My sciatic nerve is hurting me.
	Colorado, everybody is appealing the decision.
	And it's an interesting thing.
	They're appealing it for like...
	Sort of diametrically opposed, but yin-yang reasons.
	The petitioner who wanted Trump off the ballot is appealing the decision, saying the judge got it right on the insurrection, her findings on insurrection, Trump participating passively or tacitly in insurrection, but they got it wrong, or she got it wrong, on the insurrection clause not applying to the president.
	Trump is saying, you got it right that the insurrection clause doesn't apply to the president, and insofar as it doesn't apply to the president, you ought not have adjudicated on Trump having participated in an insurrection.
	You're saying, okay, he's the president.
	Article 14 was subparagraph 3. Insurrection does not apply to the president because he's the president.
	But I determined that Trump participated in insurrection.
	It doesn't make sense on his face.
	Now, both parties are appealing.
	I've gone through, analyzed, or summarily analyzed both.
	Obviously, Trump has the better argument.
	Is there a risk that in appealing it...
	The other side already appealed, so once the other side appeals, you can cross-appeal.
	I don't want to use the word idiot.
	Is she a dumb judge to have come to the conclusion...
	That insurrection clause doesn't apply to the president and yet I'm going to adjudicate on how it applies to him.
	He insurrected but it doesn't apply to him.
	Well she's such a political hack she couldn't help herself.
	So that was inescapable.
	But I think a New Hampshire court also threw out an election ballot access challenge.
	More people are suing in more states.
	They're losing in every single case, as I predicted they would.
	And I think that's probably still going to occur.
	There's at least some risk because we've got judges that are completely nuts, willing to do things that have never been done before, like exclude a major presidential candidate from the ballot.
	It's never happened.
	Not in American history.
	The New York Times, what I talked about, New York Times confirmed this past week.
	They said there's already a coordinated campaign by mostly Democratic-aligned lawyers, I know a good number of them, who are coordinating to keep Robert Kennedy off the ballot.
	They're already trying to figure out how they can keep him off the independent ballot as independent because he's polling well enough that he would be the first independent since Ross Perot in the presidential debates.
	Which would be a major game changer, potentially, for everybody involved in the election.
	So they're trying to plan to keep him off the ballot.
	But the net effect, constitutionally, there's no basis for it.
	So they just need courts rogue enough or corrupt enough to try to facilitate it.
	I hope what's most likely to happen is all these courts are just going to not intervene in the election rather than make long, detailed rulings like this judge did.
	They're going to probably try to avoid all that if they can.
	But the easiest thing for the Colorado or higher courts to do is to say the judge was correct about the interpretation of the insurrection clause.
	But by the way, the court should not have ruled on anything else because that's dictum and is unnecessary and is not binding Ray Judicato or collateral estoppel for any future proceeding.
	That'd be the smart thing, but you never know.
	You got a lot of lefties in the Colorado court system, so they've been willing to do crazy things before.
	But I've never come across this in my practice.
	How often does a lower court decision get overturned on a dicta?
	Like the dicta being non-binding?
	Not very common, but the unusual component here is that other parties will try to argue collateral estoppel.
	And Ray Judicata from the proceedings.
	And this gamesmanship, it's a good bridge to the takings case before the U.S. Supreme Court right now.
	Well, hold on, hold on.
	Before you get there, I actually want to highlight this.
	Argue estoppel.
	And we've heard Judge Angeron in the New York case say, I've got tools.
	I can invoke estoppel.
	You can't raise that argument.
	You can't say that Trump didn't engage in insurrection because I got a Judge Wallace in Colorado who said he did.
	But Robert, even before you get into that, I need to bring it up because you're talking about the same playbook, a cabal of people.
	Hold on, hold on.
	A cabal of people.
	Time Magazine.
	They're doing the same thing about election interference.
	This is from 2020.
	That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told.
	Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, a well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies working together behind the scenes to influence perception, change the rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.
	They were not rigging the election.
	They were fortifying it.
	And they believe the public needs to understand the system's fragility in order to understand that democracy in America.
	In order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
	And that is what we're witnessing right now.
	A concerted, coordinated effort.
	Changing the laws, public perception, yada, yada, yada.
	A secret cabal.
	And now I forgot what we're segwaying into.
	Yeah, I mean, well, that's why they're going to go after Kennedy, just like they've gone after Trump.
	But the other reason for Trump to challenge it is collateral estoppel cannot apply to any pending case until and unless all appellate rights have been vindicated in the prior case.
	So you want to drag out the Colorado case out of the U.S. Supreme Court because that will take it at least a year, year and a half before it could be called a final judgment.
	But meanwhile, the media runs with it.
	You got Crystal Ball.
	Oh, that's going to happen anyway.
	Yeah, well, that's going to happen anyway.
	Do we go to the takings case?
	Here's the game that the federal courts are now playing in the Fifth Circuit with a case that's up before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court hasn't yet determined whether they're going to take it or not.
	Hopefully they do, because it's something the Supreme Court has corrected in the past.
	But here's how it works for taking.
	So you file a claim, so the state comes and takes something that's not their legal right to take.
	So what was happening...
	The federal courts were saying you have to first exhaust your state remedies.
	And what would happen is in those state remedies, the state system would screw you, and then that would be used as collateral estoppel for when you try to sue federally.
	Then that, too late.
	And it's like, okay, so you're never getting a federal form to vindicate a federal constitutional right.
	U.S. Supreme Court said you can't do that.
	So the federal courts came back with a new solution.
	The new solution is that they claim there is no basis to sue in federal court.
	So if you sue in state court, the state can remove it to federal court because it arises under federal constitutional issues.
	But because there's no cause of action right to sue, it's then dismissed with prejudice.
	So you can never sue whenever the state steals your stuff.
	So it's now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court takes it and corrects it like they did before.
	Robert, we've got to lay out the fact pattern here.
	But hold on.
	So when a state court dismisses it with prejudice, it means you can't file later federally.
	No, because here's what happens.
	What used to happen is you had to exhaust your remedies in state proceedings.
	And then the factual findings in those state proceedings would be legally bar you from relitigating those in federal court.
	So even though you had to write the federal remedy after exhausting your remedies, not really.
	The state was getting to control whether or not you ever got a remedy.
	U.S. Supreme Court said you can't do that.
	There's a federal constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment for just compensation for any taking that's applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, and consequently, you can't remove that remedy by forcing a state adjudication of it first.
	But now the federal courts are saying, if you sue, you can't sue in federal court, it's going to be dismissed with prejudice because there's no federal cause of action for a takings claim.
	That Congress hasn't created one, so now they're saying it doesn't exist.
	But if you sue in state court, The state removes it to federal court on the grounds that it arises under the federal U.S. Constitution.
	It's one of the grounds you can remove a case from state court to federal court.
	But because there's no right to sue in federal court, the federal court then dismisses the case.
	Okay, fine.
	Sorry.
	And now this case is in Texas.
	They're building a highway.
	They they put in some median divider for the purposes of the highway, whatever safety or whatever.
	And it changes the flow of water such that it causes flooding on a farmer's land.
	Massive.
	They knew about it.
	There were apparently remedies they could have taken to ensure it doesn't happen.
	Under Quebec law, in our civil code, you're not allowed changing the natural flow of water.
	I suspect that's the same elsewhere.
	It's a specific codified provision.
	And so it always lends to neighbor disputes.
	Someone builds a fence, puts up a wall, and the natural flow of water is redirected.
	It either...
	Deprives a river of its natural source and it dries out, or it causes flooding.
	In this case, it caused flooding.
	The farmer says, you basically took my property with this highway because I can't use it.
	The flooding is massive.
	And what happened?
	So it's going to be up to the Supreme Court because basically you can't sue it all.
	I mean, that's the current problem.
	There's no place for remedy.
	All of a sudden, the just compensation clause for takings is now invalid in America.
	If this law is allowed to uphold, it makes no sense whatsoever.
	I think the Supreme Court will step in and clarify that, yes, indeed, there's clearly a...
	that Congress doesn't have to provide a statutory cause of action for this claim to go forward.
	Now, here's some of the conservatives on the court have been the problem.
	They've gone out of their way to say, come up with all these excuses about when you can't sue for constitutional violations.
	We discussed this in the Bivens context.
	Where they only allow it for Fourth Amendment and this violation, but not a whole bunch of other violations.
	And that's why I think they're wrong.
	I think there's implicit in the...
	There's no right if there's no remedy.
	And so that has never made sense to me, the idea that Congress has to specifically give us an additional procedural mechanism to enforce our constitutional rights against the government.
	That never made sense to me.
	But we'll see how it progresses.
	But yeah, it's a problematic Texas Fifth Circuit case.
	That what didn't even meaningfully address the merits in the opinion that hopefully the Supreme Court takes or, you know, you're kind of screwed if you're in those circuits for a little while fighting on this issue.
	But it's not as big.
	It's important, but still not nearly as big as the big case before the Supreme Court that they will be listening to on, I believe, Tuesday or Wednesday, the 29th.
	So let's see, Wednesday.
	Oral argument, Supreme Court is the big administrative state case that's going to decide the future of the administrative state in America.
	You're going to have to deal with this one all the way from beginning to end, and I'm going to ask questions as we go along.
	What's the fact pattern?
	What's going on?
	What's the state of the case?
	And what are the issues?
	So this was the case we discussed out of the Fifth Circuit that involved the SEC and their administrative law judges.
	It's now up at the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court has now taken cert.
	This is where what's happened is, in the limited facts here, you had the SEC go after someone who was not a registered trader, wasn't registered with the agency.
	No consumer filed any complaint about him.
	No client filed any complaint about him.
	For whatever political reason, they decided to go after him.
	And what's extraordinary is, thanks in part to poorly written laws, but also due to the misapplication, And misappropriation of the power under those laws by the SEC.
	This case is a perfect example of the problem of the administrative state.
	So we have separation of powers for a reason.
	Congress has to pass the laws.
	The president is the only one who can enforce the laws or his delegates.
	And the judiciary is the only one who can adjudicate disputes concerning the laws.
	Yet the SEC usurped all three.
	The SEC was deciding legislatively whether they would bring a case in court or whether they would bring a case in their own SEC courts.
	Administrative tribunals.
	That's correct.
	Administrative law judges hired and retained by the SEC.
	And who couldn't be fired by the President of the United States without special things.
	We have this in Canada and everyone in the States refers to them as communist tribunals.
	You have administrative courts, administrative judges.
	They don't even have to have been practicing lawyers for 10 years as with normal judges.
	They determine their own rules.
	They enforce their own rules.
	And there's deference given to interpreting their decisions.
	I mean, this is what makes Canada what it is.
	And maybe the States will fight back against it.
	Sorry, so carry on.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	That's what the administrative state has become.
	And they've done so by usurping powers the Constitution explicitly prohibited them from getting.
	Where they're outside of the legislative branch, yet writing legislation.
	They're outside of the judicial branch, yet they're adjudicating disputes.
	And they're outside the elected head of the executive branch, even though they're the ones enforcing the law and executing the law.
	So it's extraordinary.
	You have an administrative state.
	That is the origin of the word deep state.
	The word deep state is a derivative of the word dual state.
	The dual state doctrine dates all the way back to the late 19th century, late 1800s, when an author at The Economist was trying to explain how Britain could have a system of government that was indifferent to changes in election outcomes.
	And their theory was, well, really, we're starting to see a, quote, dual state.
	A state within a state, a state of its own that isn't subject to political pressure because it doesn't hold office pursuant to elected office.
	It pursues office pursuant to these civil service reform codes that the professional class and the managerial class imposed on the rest of us in the late 19th century in the name of opposing corruption.
	And they usurped that power, and as that doctrine was expanded and extended by Germans and others who came over to try to explain the rise of fascism, the 1950s and 1960s, looking back on it, and they said a key problem was this rise of a dual state.
	And when you apply that dual state doctrine to the national security apparatus, the military-industrial complex, the intelligence community, A famous leftist of the late 60s described it as a deep state,
	a dual state that is deeply entrenched and is in key positions of unique forms of power with military law enforcement surveillance capabilities with the capacity to extort or blackmail anybody or bribe anybody or engage in various extra-legal violence anywhere around the world or domestically.
	As in this past week, we had the commemoration of the assassination of President John Kennedy done by the deep state, but covered up by a range of people to this day in substantial part by the mainstream media.
	But the key, their legal key to their power is usurping constitutional authority they were not given by the founders.
	And so this case challenged all of it.
	It said, first of all, the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution gives us a right to trial by jury in any matter of civil penalty.
	And I've argued this against contempt fines, argued this against sanctions being issued by courts.
	At any level, if it involves taking money or property from somebody, got to be a jury first.
	I've long argued that.
	Courts have ignored it.
	Finally, the court stepped in because here you had these administrative fake courts.
	Issuing civil penalties into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that clearly was a Seventh Amendment right.
	To give people an idea, this goes all the way back to the Star Chamber.
	This goes all the way back to the Revolution.
	I mean, the Star Chamber was usurping jury trial rights that had already been established, getting back to the Magna Carta and before in Britain.
	It's all the way back to the 9th century in Britain.
	The Norman Code and all the rest.
	And then the British government did it again during the Revolution.
	And how they were doing it was they were doing civil fines by assigning it to vice-admiralty courts and thereby avoiding jury trial rights.
	Because when they went to jury trial, one of my great predecessors, Patrick Henry, back when juries had sentencing power like they were supposed to, as well as judgment power, he said, give me liberty or give me death, and they issued the lowest possible fine to screw the government.
	So British government was like, screw that.
	We're not going to let these colonists judge their own disputes.
	We're going to call it an admiralty jurisdiction issue and stick it into vice-admiralty issues.
	And it was such a source of outrage, it led to the Seventh Amendment's adoption of the Bill of Rights.
	And here we are back with the federal government saying, no, this is public rights.
	Public rights, by the way, are things that you have only because the government gave it to you.
	This is like a government franchise, government license, government benefit.
	It has never meant to apply whatsoever to constitutional rights.
	Never meant to apply to their ability to take my money and property that was never the government's to begin with.
	That's the best way to understand public rights.
	It's property I have only because it came first from the government.
	The civil penalties are not money that came from the government, as much as the government might like to pretend everything comes from them.
	And so the first problem was this violates the Seventh Amendment.
	The second problem is they're doing legislation because they're deciding whether to go to court or whether to go to their in-house courts.
	And by the way, when they went to court, they would only win 60% of the time.
	When they went to their in-house courts...
	95. 100.
	100.
	Damn it.
	They were hitting 100%.
	These corrupt hacks were so...
	They couldn't even at least throw somebody a bone now and then.
	It's the Jose Canseco of administrative tribunals.
	It's amazing.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But that's called the non-delegation doctrine.
	Congress cannot give its legislative powers to the executive or judicial branch.
	The executive cannot give its judicial powers or its executive powers to the judicial or legislative branch.
	And the judiciary cannot give its judicial powers to the executive or legislative branch.
	And yet that's what's happening.
	They're usurping all of them.
	Without any constitutional authority.
	And so that's a violation of the non-delegation doctrine for them to even have that power to decide courts or in-house courts to begin with.
	And then you have the last problem, which is the take care clause says the president's got to be able to fire people because he's the only elected head of the executive branch.
	This corresponds to the nonsense of bringing a insurrection claim against the president.
	How does the president insurrect himself?
	It's ludicrous.
	But also it relates to the classified documents cases.
	It's classified for him.
	So how can he violate something that's for him?
	It's just insane.
	It turns our entire Constitution on its head and puts the administrative state at the top and the president underneath.
	And that's what the SEC was doing by removing these judges from the power of the president to even appoint them in the first place or remove them later.
	And so that violates the Take Care Clause in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
	So it goes to the core of the abuse of power of the administrative state, and if the Supreme Court goes along with the Fifth Circuit and says, yeah, they're right across the board, and maybe even expands some doctrines, it will eviscerate the illicit power of the administrative state legally in America.
	Whoever's watching now has to snip and clip that last two minutes.
	I've been thinking that the entire time.
	Please.
	Thank you.
	Tag me.
	No, Robert, I wanted to bring up the Seventh Amendment.
	I've never read it, actually.
	In suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of the trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any other court of the United States than according to the rules of common law.
	Robert, when people say the...
	Sorry, the controversy.
	The Constitution is a living, breathing document.
	What would the $20 be today if you had to interpret it?
	It can't be $20 because that would be every lawsuit.
	Well, I mean, that's a good quote.
	What would it be?
	I'd have to go back and look.
	It'd probably be pretty, maybe $200,000.
	Okay.
	And so it would be a $20 multiplied by two every seven years type thing.
	That's hilarious.
	I didn't even realize.
	And they've interpreted the common law provision to be, if you had a right to trial at the time of the revolution, to trial by jury, you have a right to trial now.
	And historically, that common law has been anything that involves money, period.
	Equity, equitable courts, equitable jurisdiction.
	It goes all the way back to, you used to have the civil courts you'd go to in England, and then you could appeal the alternative to the court's conscience and the chancellor.
	And that's who...
	The court's conscience was the equity powers.
	And those equity powers end up forming the basis of trust law and a bunch of other things that a lot of people get even confused on today when they're trying to do tax planning and asset planning and things like that.
	But it was only those things that appealed to the king's conscience that were excluded from the right to trial by jury.
	Everything else!
	Was right to trial by jury.
	And now I think like a $50 parking ticket can result in thousands of dollars of fines and jail time.
	So like when everyone was saying the COVID tickets were just tickets, no, they add up and they can land you in jail.
	Now, but hold on one second.
	And the Seventh Amendment is the civil right to trial by jury.
	The Sixth Amendment is the criminal right to trial by jury.
	All right.
	Well, now I remember the segue, Robert.
	Okay, so first of all, that's fascinating.
	It's amazing.
	I've never actually read the Seventh Amendment.
	One day when I apply for citizenship, if I apply, I'll know this all by heart.
	This is a segue into, I guess, if you're going to go to the Constitution, we're going to go to standing now, and we're going to go to New York, and we're going to go to COVID lockdown measures, and who gets to challenge them, who gets to succeed, and who gets to get overturned because of lack of standing.
	This was a lawsuit brought by, was it a senator or a congressman?
	I don't know if it makes a difference.
	By a legislator.
	By a group of legislators and others.
	Brought against Kathy Hochul, or the government now, I don't think Kathy Hochul was in charge.
	The commie governor of New York.
	About COVID lockdowns, quarantine measures, and they were saying these are unlawful, these are unconstitutional, yada, yada, yada.
	They win at the lower level.
	The lower court says these violate the separation of powers.
	They're unconstitutional.
	I think I might be bastardizing.
	Tell me if I did.
	And then it goes to the Appeals Court.
	And the Appeals Court of New York says, we reversed the decision because they lacked standing.
	I don't know how anybody on earth who's governed by a law could lack standing to challenge the law by which they are governed that might result in their imprisonment.
	From what I understood, though, they said you lack standing because if you want to challenge this law, take it up with the legislature.
	And not with the courts, which I don't understand, because if the legislature adopts a law that is violative of the Constitution or whatever rights, you can only go to court to challenge it.
	And they didn't, I don't know, they didn't remand it.
	They overturned the decision and they said, you lack standing to challenge it when the lower court said it violates your rights.
	You might be right, but you didn't have the interest to bring that suit.
	How do you make that make sense to a layperson, Robert?
	It was very simple.
	They wanted to excuse the governor's power in the first place.
	The New York courts have been very friendly and favorable to all the abuse of quarantine power.
	Because a lot of your public health-based laws are rooted in quarantine principles.
	And the traditional quarantine principles are constitutionally constrained.
	This goes back to the debate with Dershowitz.
	And Dershowitz acknowledged, and by the end of the debate, Agreed to the legal standards that I set up at the beginning of the debate, which is he recognized you should have clear and convincing evidence that someone poses an imminent risk to others' safety or well-being before you can require that they take any particular vaccine under those circumstances.
	There has to be substantial risk if they don't do it to other people.
	It has to be certain that the taking the vaccine will substantially reduce that risk and that the way in which it has to be clear and convincing evidence that the government must meet the burden.
	And he also agreed ultimately that this should go through all processes, that any quarantine law should first be passed by the legislative branch, then approved by the executive branch, then authenticated and then any dispute concerning its enforcement go to the judicial branch.
	That's what didn't happen here.
	There was no legislative action.
	The executive branch usurped that authority and decided to rewrite the rules using its quarantine powers.
	By the way, the Alex Joneses of the world have been warning about for 25 years, saying this quarantine power is a dangerous power.
	You know, that's where the old FEMA camp line came up.
	You know, for many years, if you listen to Infowars, the initial announcer would be, you know, welcome to FEMA District 22, live from behind the resistance.
	But he was right all along.
	I mean, it's the reason why it's in X-Files, who Jones, by the way, was friends with several of the authors on there.
	You should go look at The Lone Gunman, episode one, about six months before 9-11.
	See what it predicted there.
	Might be kind of interesting for folks.
	If you want a little hush-hush style fun.
	But that is the core of the issue, is this misuse and abuse of quarantine authority outside constitutional constraints.
	And one of the ways they do so is the legislature never has any role in it.
	And here the legislature sued because they're like, we didn't get a chance to write these rules.
	You're just...
	Changing the rules and dramatically extending and expanding them way past quarantine.
	Because quarantine is, there's an immediate emergency, number one.
	Number two, you have the disease.
	And number three, you present an imminent risk to others that can only be remedied by quarantining.
	That has nothing to do with stay-at-home orders.
	That isn't what quarantine law is ever approved of.
	And that's what the governor was saying.
	Well, we're just going to rewrite him and say, well, we have the right to do this, so why don't we have the right to do everything else?
	And the courts are like, yay!
	And then the legislature is saying, this is our prerogative, not yours.
	And what do the courts say?
	Oh, you don't have standing to come to us.
	Ha ha ha.
	After a lower court said it was already violent of the separation of powers.
	That's what blows my mind.
	And did it issue the ruling against the legislators as legislators or as citizen petitioners?
	It issued them for the legislature as part of their legislature, as well as part of organizational groups and other components, that they denied standing to everybody.
	That's why I've always said standing is a bogus doctrine.
	An invented doctrine.
	But then, Robert, under this case, who would have had standing to bring the suit?
	Only somebody that's locked away.
	That's what the court made clear.
	They're only going to let the subject of the suit bring suit.
	And even then, watch.
	They'll find excuses, pretext.
	No, but then they're going to say it was a legislative decision.
	You, as a victim of the legislation, have no recourse.
	Vote them out of office.
	They may easily come up with another cop-out.
	And what it reveals is these judges that love these rules and restrictions know they can't meet constitutional scrutiny.
	And so they find every procedural trick in the book to avoid ruling on the merits, which is one of the oldest games judges play.
	And they've been playing the Pontius Pilate pretextual game of, I wish I could get involved, but golly gee, I can't ever since Pontius Pilate.
	And you always talk about it.
	Just for those who may not know, what's the Pontius Pilate reference?
	It's the man who threw Jesus under the bus and said, I had to do it.
	Oh, except he didn't do it.
	Other people did it.
	He wished he could do something about it, but he just couldn't get involved.
	Sorry, seems kind of unfair, but I'm staying out of it.
	I can't get involved.
	That's why I call it a Pontius Pilate pretext.
	It's judges who know they're wrong on the law, usually like the politics of the bad law, and so they say, golly gee, we just can't get involved.
	You have no right to sue.
	Even though it makes no sense, because U.S. Constitution simply requires there be a case or controversy.
	That's all.
	Not that you have standing.
	Now, maybe you don't meet the cause of action, right?
	Maybe you haven't been injured, but that should be a different analysis, not whether you have access to courts to begin with.
	Here, these legislators representing the legislature of New York have been injured because their legislative power has been usurped by the governor illegally, unconstitutionally.
	And yet the courts are saying, nah, nothing we can do about it.
	Screw you.
	Do they send it back for remand, or is it over?
	I mean, that's over.
	I mean, now, they could try to take it to another higher court, but that's all.
	I mean, at this point, somebody that has to be subject to it, and what they're doing is they know these emergency powers will stay dormant until something scary happens, and then the courts will run and hide.
	When someone's actually injured by these laws.
	We're in the middle of an emergency.
	Yeah, like the next respiratory virus that's raging across China.
	Oh my goodness.
	But Robert, speaking of respiratory viruses raging across countries and people going to social media to make very offensive posts.
	I forget, it's out of New York, this one?
	The guy who put up the, they've got orders to shoot and kill?
	Oh, I think it was in Louisiana.
	This guy goes to his Facebook page and says, the orders are in, the infected, shoot and kill.
	It sounds funny and it is hilarious.
	And he was doing it as a joke.
	On his Facebook page, he gets into a back and forth with his brother-in-law, brother, I don't know whomever, and they're like making jokes.
	Oh, you're going to get us arrested and yadda yadda yadda.
	The cops show up at his place and arrest him, cuff him.
	Charged him with terroristic threats.
	And I read the Facebook post.
	I'm like, oh, did they mean that the police would shoot the infected or the infected would shoot the police?
	And the judge was like, doesn't matter.
	What are the two?
	And we're going to...
	So he sued for Eighth Amendment violations.
	Yeah, I mean, multiple and Fourth Amendment violations and First Amendment violations.
	So because this goes back to the true threats, imminent incitement, limitation, goes back to qualified immunity and how it's misused and abused.
	Because here what happens is the district court is like, how dare you be promoting false information on Facebook during COVID?
	That's very scary.
	Right?
	Yeah, this is one of the COVID freaks.
	You know, all these old judges were super freaked out.
	They had five masks on, and they were putting all the double levels of plastic on and asking everybody if they're vaccinated before they walk in within the step.
	I had a state lawyer who I went to shake his hand.
	He went, no, no, no, no, during this whole thing, because he wanted no physical contact.
	I mean, it was that kind of, you know, freakishness behavior.
	He was that kind of person.
	He was mostly bothered that this guy was making any comments about COVID that could be interpreted as questioning the COVID narrative, though he was doing so in a comedic fashion.
	When the cops showed up, it's your classic abusive cops routine.
	The cops said, next time you post on Facebook, maybe you better not F with the police.
	What was happening was a lot of cops in a lot of communities were under stress.
	Because they were being asked to do illegal orders.
	And these kind of cops were eager to do the illegal orders.
	They were just happy with doing the illegal orders.
	Other cops were not.
	But it was these kind of cops that went and arrested people.
	They didn't like posting stuff on Facebook exposing the nature of their orders.
	That something like this could be taken as a serious suggestion rather than a comedic suggestion.
	I want to find the message.
	I'm going to find it verbatim so that nobody has anything else.
	Yeah, it's in the court case.
	Actually, it takes it out and puts it in there.
	And the district court dismissed his case completely, saying, oh, yeah, clearly a police officer would think this was a terroristic threat, and clearly this guy doesn't have good grounds.
	So there was probable cause for the arrest.
	So even if everything was dismissed, ultimately, that doesn't matter.
	There was probable cause at the time.
	And even if there wasn't probable cause, there was no reason for this good, hardworking officer to be doing otherwise.
	We've got to be patrolling.
	And he even said that it wasn't First Amendment protected speech.
	This is a federal judge.
	It wasn't First Amendment protected speech to talk about COVID in any way that questioned the official narrative because that was a true threat of public.
	That was imminent incitement of lawless action.
	It was like, what in the world?
	Incitement is being a joke to begin with.
	Even if it wasn't, nothing about this meets true threats or imminent incitement.
	They were so expanding the law that this judge was trying to say it wasn't First Amendment protected speech if it was False.
	If it was untrue.
	If it questioned the official interpretation of events.
	And so multiple levels of problematic rulings by this court on qualified immunity, on constructive knowledge of police officers, on First Amendment, Fourth Amendment.
	And Eighth Amendment and other restrictions.
	And Fifth Amendment due process issues.
	The law in Louisiana is clear that terroristic threats basically has to mirror imminent incitement and true threats jurisprudence in order for it to be constitutional in the first place.
	And what that requires is both likelihood and imminence.
	In other words, I say something that it doesn't matter how violent it is, it's got to be likely and imminent that it will occur.
	If not, it's not a true threat.
	If not, it's not imminent incitement of others to lawless violence.
	So that's what the Brandenburg line of cases has made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.
	So making a joke on Facebook, by definition, is not imminent incitement of lawless action or a true threat.
	And so consequently, and no cop that had bothered to take any training on the topic would have thought that could be a terroristic crime.
	Okay.
	The question and challenge the police.
	Thank God the Fifth Circuit stepped in and finally fixed the case.
	Well, if anybody saw my face this entire time, I'm just trying to find it rapidly.
	Share, share, share.
	Justin.
	Rapids, Paris.
	Paris.
	Paris.
	My goodness.
	Rapids Parish Sheriff's Office have issued the order.
	If deputies come into contact with, quote, the infected, end quote, shoot on sight.
	Lord, have mercy on us all.
	The hashtags are important.
	COVID-19.
	We need you, Brad Pitt.
	Because it was a World War Z reference.
	They came, they arrested him.
	And the cops came up to this guy's house, grabbed him in his garage, throw him down, arrest him, accused him of terrorism, and tried to ruin his entire life.
	Say, don't F with the police, son.
	They might have succeeded in all of that, but at least he's acquitted for now, or at least, you know, justice.
	Oh yeah, they're going to have to write checks.
	They're all going to have to write checks for what they did.
	So they got lucky with a crazy federal district court judge that fortunately the Fifth Circuit, after some time, fully remedied.
	Robert, what do we move on to now?
	Well, speaking of bogus terroristic threats, we've got multiple cases left.
	The big one left is the Pfizer-Poland vaccine dispute.
	But this one relates to that one.
	A brief update on Owen Schroer.
	Owen Schroer.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	I brought this up for a reason.
	I didn't bring it up.
	It's on the backdrop.
	Owen Schroer.
	Here we go.
	Let's hear it.
	Thanks to all of you, the amount of mail Owen has received, by the way, this is not managed by Owen in jail, has received has been nothing short of mind-blowing.
	That needs a hyphen.
	Oh, that's annoying.
	I'm joking.
	That includes over 300 books, which is incredible.
	However, he's unable to read them all.
	That said, he has asked, quote, would anyone consider sending me some word search books?
	Schroyer has been in solitary for a little bit after his initial solitary.
	He's out of solitary, Robert?
	Finally.
	After a lot of public complaint.
	So a lawyer that works with me, Lexi Anderson, Lexis Anderson.
	She's amazing.
	Yep.
	She talked to him and put out a public statement earlier in the week.
	And at that time, and then he was finally fully released.
	The problem was he was locked up in solitary for no good grounds, was given a joke of a hearing.
	Listen to how the...
	He kept asking what rule he violated so he could defend himself, and they wouldn't tell him.
	They're like, no, no, no, you're guilty.
	It was like, okay, what law did I violate?
	No, I can't tell you that.
	Just you're guilty.
	Well, how do I defend myself if I don't know what the rule is?
	Well, that's even more evidence you're guilty.
	I mean, that's what a joke.
	That Bureau of Prisons facility, directly contradicting the sworn testimony of the Biden Bureau of Prisons director before Congress, specifically asking about Owen Schroyer in questions by Matt Gaetz.
	It appears that internally, the Bureau of Prisons has been designating and other federal agencies.
	This has been reported by Julie Kelly at American Greatness and others.
	Julia Kelly's done a lot of great coverage on the January 6th cases.
	I think she was just on recently with you.
	Yeah, I had her on.
	She's amazing.
	I just wish I had more than 30 minutes, but I'll get her again for like five hours, maybe.
	So, yeah, I think we've had her on several times, promoted her work because good work.
	But, you know, like on airline designations, other things, they're listing anybody connected to January 6th as a potentially dangerous terrorist.
	And so I think they're doing this kind of...
	It appears to me, I suspect, there's been internal designations inside the Bureau of Prisons to identify people in this way.
	And what it does is, so let's say you're at the local prison.
	You may not be a corrupt cop or warden or Bureau of Prison employee, but you see, oh, this is a potentially dangerous terrorist-type person coming in.
	So you're going to treat them differently, aren't you?
	You're going to be super, and you're going to ratchet up the punishment, even though it's not what you're supposed to do.
	For misdemeanors.
	And the misdemeanors saying 1776 on the Capitol steps.
	That's what it is at the end of the day.
	Being in the Capitol when they decided they don't think he should have been in the Capitol because previously he was in the Capitol and they didn't like how he was in the Capitol.
	I mean, it's just insane.
	But his basic due process rights, contrary to the promised statements of the Bureau of Prisons head, were not honored, were not recognized, were not respected.
	He's also...
	While he was in solitary, he was denied access to his books, denied access to essential materials, and a lot of it apparently disappearing.
	It happens at Bureau of Presence.
	Somebody's redistributing it to themselves.
	So this is a particular facility that has had a history of problems.
	During COVID, people died who didn't need to die because of the mismanagement of the facility.
	It's also a low-security facility that should not be having violent defendants in there, but often violent defendants are being placed there, contrary to Bureau of BOP policy.
	So Owen's case is exposing not only the political targeting of people in the way Bureau of Prisons is operating, but the systemic problems with the Bureau of Prisons in general.
	Solitary should not be allowed to the degree it's happening in our federal prison system.
	Or just period.
	Period.
	Yeah, it's something that's very rare.
	It should be simply segregation.
	It shouldn't be punishment.
	Let's say you want to isolate someone.
	You should be able to isolate someone without the...
	Without denying them sleep, without denying them food, without denying them light, without denying them exercise, without denying them access to books and materials.
	As was happening here, they were trying to deny Owen Schroer access to his lawyer.
	They were illegally reading his legal mail outside of his presence in violation of the BOP rules.
	And again, all of this suggests perjury, potential perjury, by the director of the Bureau of Prisons before Congress when she apparently lied to Congressman Matt Gaetz about Owen Schroer's case.
	And also, just so nobody takes that out of context, the light issue is constant lights, not no lights.
	The lights are on.
	Right, right.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You get no darkness to sleep.
	Robert, before we move on, I just want to bring up the rumble rants because there's one that pertains to my pain in the ass.
	Robert, can you give a two to three sentence summary of the Eighth Circuit ruling that only executive branch can sue over the Voting Rights Act violations?
	That part I agree with.
	So the Voting Rights Act is a specific federal law that certain racial discrimination provisions and dilution provisions that are under the Voting Rights Act were only meant to be applied to the Attorney General and that the federal government has to be the one to bring them.
	That's different than constitutional rights.
	I think people should be able to sue under the 14th Amendment for voting violations right now, any individual.
	But when you're seeking the specific remedies, which can be very intrusive of the Voting Rights Act, that was meant to be just a federal government action, an attorney general action.
	So I agree with that Eighth Circuit decision to the degree it focuses on that.
	I don't agree with any aspect of it that tries to use stating as a pretext to prohibit constitutional adjudication.
	Amen.
	James Gartner says, Now, I had this under my butt.
	I replaced it for the GoPro.
	This is a stone I got in Texas, Robert, when you were there for the Alex Jones trial.
	It's a black...
	Whatever.
	You rub your thumb on it and it rubs away the bad vibes.
	It didn't work on my butt.
	But I think Soros is a psychopath and has been since he was 13. That's T1 at 990.
	Yeah, who knew working with Nazis wouldn't have a good impact on your brain?
	It'll mess you up for life in the same way that you might end up...
	Unless you're George Soros.
	And then you sit there and you kind of laugh about it on 60 Minutes.
	Ha ha ha!
	Yeah, we took away that guy's property.
	Ha ha ha!
	But for every George Soros that survived and became a billionaire, there were 10,000 other ones who got executed summarily when they were no longer useful.
	I don't know what he did to survive, but...
	It's the randomness of life.
	GM Gochi says, box theory, soap is greater than ballot, greater than jury, greater than ammo.
	Are we in the jury stage now?
	I know where you're going with that.
	We're not going to answer that.
	Slidy Pie says, Viva, you need to get an MRI to see if you have a herniated disc.
	I was basically crippled by it over a period of time.
	It started mild and got worse.
	Had emergency surgery.
	Best thing I ever did.
	I'm not a surgery fan, and I don't think I've done anything to herniated discs, but I don't know what's involved in that.
	I jog every day, so maybe that's it.
	According to CPI inflation calculator, Robert, $20.1789 is worth $699.25 today, nearly 3,400% cumulative price change.
	Someone else?
	That was from GM Gauthier.
	E-M-R-S-K-X, whatever.
	It says $20.1776 is worth $707 today, according to CPI Inflation Calculator Index.
	Okay, good.
	We got it.
	Robert, what do we have next?
	Oh, my God.
	The last big case is Pfizer.
	We also have a school case, a Fortnite case, a Coach Kiffin case, a Frontier case, economic loss case.
	Some of those cases we'll cover at the afterparty at vivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	But the big case left to discuss is Pfizer versus Poland.
	Okay, I know nothing of it.
	I didn't know Poland was being sued by Pfizer.
	I hope it's because they're not paying for their shit jab.
	Robert, what's the lawsuit about?
	That is.
	Yeah, I'm smart.
	I'm smart.
	The European Commission cut a sweetheart deal.
	Vonder crazy there.
	Vander crazy, as Alex Christophe refers to her.
	I finally figured out how to remember how to say his name.
	It's Christ for you, basically, in Greek.
	And it's easy to always remember Greek people's first name, Greek men, because half of them are Alexander.
	They're all often named after Alexander the Great.
	Every parent's looking and saying, oh, he's the next Alexander, if you're in Greece.
	But it calls her Vander crazy because of all her loony ideas.
	But she did a sweetheart deal.
	And she was secretly communicating with the head of Pfizer in the lead-up to it on behalf of all the other European countries.
	It was a $20 billion deal just for Europe, guaranteeing 2 billion vaccines being purchased.
	So at $20 a pop for the next two years.
	Of course, what happened is, because of the great efforts of Children's Health Defense in Europe and elsewhere...
	And Brooke Jackson, I was going to say.
	Of Brooke Jackson and how her suit was publicized and popularized, many people, including those in Europe, started to second-guess the efficacy and the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer.
	And so countries started to not have the public demand for the vaccine that they anticipated.
	And here they were stuck with the bill.
	The Polish government wasn't going to pay the bill.
	Like, this is nuts.
	Like, just keep it.
	We're not paying for that.
	Now, Poland waited to sue.
	I mean, Pfizer, probably behind the scenes, was manipulating the Polish election to get their more populist wing thrown out.
	The populist wing in Poland had made the mistake of embracing nationalism on the Ukrainian war, and that had led to their political downfall, in my view, in Poland.
	They're already disliked by the EU for other reasons, and it didn't salvage their relations with the EU, and it just undermined their relations because they have this huge Ukrainian refugee problem now in Poland that is culturally unsettling for a Polish political group party that had got to power being anti-immigration, being, hey, let's have less immigration, and all of a sudden they're letting the Ukraine sit in mass.
	And so that being a mistake, it allowed the EU side to win the elections.
	It's a center-right side.
	But before all of that, and so I think that's why Pfizer is suing now.
	They're thinking different government.
	They can coerce this government that's more of a kiss-up to the EU to settle and write a big check for them.
	And they're probably going to settle without even having to deliver the drug because nobody wants the drug.
	But what their original Polish defense was force majeure.
	They said the Ukrainian war had caused so many refugee problems in Poland, they couldn't afford it.
	By the way, force majeure was already provided for in the contract, so they're not going to get out of it on force majeure.
	Well, nobody knows because nobody has seen the contract.
	Poland is bound by a contract that the European Commission signed that's secret.
	You mentioned they're binding taxpayers to billions of dollars.
	Pfizer's suing for $1.2 billion.
	Assume it's the South African contract, the Canadian contract.
	Exactly.
	Super-duper secret.
	And all of them, they got special immunities and all these other provisions.
	My argument, we'll see.
	I think CHD Europe, Children's Health Defense Europe, may help work with the Polish government because, to me, they have a bigger, broader defense.
	Pfizer was publicly promising at the time of the delivery of this that it would actually be a vaccine and that it would be safe.
	And that it would be effective.
	And that it would prevent COVID-19.
	Even the language in many of these contracts uses that reference.
	So to me, they have fraud claims against Pfizer.
	And if they really are smart, Pfizer has sued them in Belgian court because the EU did the deal in Belgium.
	So they're going to have a court hostile to Poland on the topic.
	Poland should open up a separate civil and criminal investigation into whether Pfizer caused massive death and disability in Poland by the dangerous nature of their drug that they withheld from public disclosure.
	And create your own leverage would be smart for Poland.
	And we're happy to hear to help them.
	I'll be filing our opposition to the Pfizer's motion to dismiss later this week in the Brooke Jackson case.
	And Brooke Jackson continues to gather more and more intel and information that exposes the scale and scope.
	This is the biggest criminal fraud in American history, maybe world history, by any company, that it caused more death and disability than any product maybe ever has of its nature.
	And so I think that that should be part of...
	Pfizer's legal defense strategy, rather than just write a billion-dollar check for counter-effective, harmful vaccines that have probably cost the Polish government a lot of money in medical expenses, unemployment, disability payments, as people like Edward Dowd are tracking.
	Snip and clip, everybody.
	Do that with that portion right there.
	Robert, I just read an article about how cantaloupe is being recalled in the United States of America because nine people died from it.
	Cantaloupe across, I don't know.
	Imagine that.
	20-some-odd states.
	In contrast to what this vaccine has done.
	Recalled, if you bought it between X states and X states, if it had an expiry date of whatever, any one of these 20-some-odd states, I think.
	You know what food never needs to be recalled?
	Amos Miller Preserve of Food.
	Organic form.
	In fact, you can still go.
	Right now, there's still a fundraiser available.
	You can get the 16-ounce size.
	Apple butter, right?
	Homemade apple butter from Amos Miller, the great Amish farmer, standing up for your rights, his rights, and everybody else's rights to farm, the freedom to farm, the freedom to have whatever food we want, not what the government dictates we want, not some contaminated cantaloupe, but delicious apple butter that you can still get and support Free America Law Center in the process.
	You can also get a bunch of other great products, pumpkin pies.
	You can get a bunch of meat.
	You can get delicious, delicious milk.
	You know, Amos Miller Organic Farm.
	Or you can go to the pinned, either the tweet or the, on my, at Barnes underscore Law on Twitter.
	Or at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	Also, it has a direct link.
	You can go and order the product today while it's still left.
	They recalled cantaloupe from 20 states because of nine deaths.
	Compare and contrast that to the Jibby Jab.
	Atrocious.
	Robert, do we end?
	Hold on.
	There was something else I wanted to say.
	Yeah, I think for the...
	Yeah, all the other ones are for the after party.
	We got a school secretly changing kids' genders.
	We got Fortnite stealing from you and your kids.
	We got Coach Kiffin.
	Turns out he's got some issues.
	No shock there.
	And people might think I have some sort of Tennessee vendetta against Elaine Kiffin.
	They'd be right.
	And I'm going to keep it.
	They've got frontiers, baggage fees, and a little bit about how economic loss doctrine cannot limit your tort rights.
	Okay, I'm going to give the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	All tips, at least $5 or more, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're doing it.
	And tomorrow, I will have Justin Trudeau's brother.
	I asked him, I said, do you mind if I...
	Who may know the insight.
	Probably do a DNA comparison.
	What if it turns out he's only his half-brother?
	Well, no, no.
	So he is only his half-brother because it's from another father why he has a last name.
	Oh, he may not be the brother at all.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	Yeah, he's going to be the half-brother.
	They came out of the same woman.
	So he's already half-brother, but maybe even more ways than one.
	Oh, I see where you're going with this, Robert.
	One step ahead of me.
	Damn it, it drives me crazy.
	So what am I going to do now?
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me make sure I give everyone the link.
	Hold on.
	There might have been some rumble rants that I have to read.
	Present.
	Share.
	Up here.
	No, no, no, no.
	Let me see it.
	Did I miss any?
	No, we didn't.
	Okay, good.
	Ending it.
	Get your butts on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com tomorrow noon.
	Kyle Kemper.
	I do not want to define him as Trudeau's brother because he's his own human and he's running with...
	RFK June.
	It's going to be amazing.
	Okay.
	Now I've got to go back over to Rumble.
	End it there.
	And I go live streaming.
	Okay.
	Good night, everybody.
	See you in five seconds on vivabornslaw.locals.com.
	Peace.
	Booyah.
	Crack my knuckles.
	I haven't been bothered by a kid yet.
	Okay, Robert, we're here.
	Let me go back here.

▲