Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 10, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:11:27

Ep. 190: Hunter Indicted AGAIN; Trump Gag CONTINUES! RFK Ballot LAWSUIT! Sarah Silverman AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, it's great to be back.
	I gotta tell you.
	Had a big steak dinner last night.
	Fantastic.
	Had some homemade cookies, chocolate chip.
	Also fantastic.
	Slept in my own bed.
	Man, was that great.
	And just feeling really rejuvenated here.
	My first day back at home.
	Even was able to pop in over at InfoWars and see the crew and do a segment of the War Room.
	Went on Alex Jones' show yesterday.
	A lot of moving parts.
	And really, I'm just hitting the ground running.
	Okay.
	Two things.
	First of all, I get a Brad Pitt Fight Club vibe from Owen, and I love it.
	Stay tuned to the end of this, well, stay tuned to the end of the stream, but wait for the end.
	There's a punchline to this video, because the entire time it's going on, I'm wondering what the heck is Owen Schroer doing?
	Banging on the table.
	I was wondering.
	I thought I knew what it was.
	Just wait for it.
	In fact, next week, I've already got a couple things lined up that I'm really excited about.
	I'm gonna be going on with Tucker Carlson at the beginning next week.
	That's going to be amazing.
	Going to be going on with Tim Poole.
	That's going to be amazing.
	Hopefully at the end of next week.
	That's going to be amazing.
	Hosting the Infowars War Room from 3 to 6 p.m.
	Every day where we're gonna have a new show link up Owen Troyer dot show so a little easier to remember than perhaps the band dot video slash war room but either way a Lot of big things coming and I'm still just taking time to enjoy life this weekend, but with such a busy week Ahead with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones and Tim Poole and He's not drinking Field of Greens.
	Spoiler alert.
	My own hosting duties, plus a bunch of other stuff, dealing with legal stuff and probation, just a lot of busy stuff coming as I get free from jail, so I'm gonna need to have my strength, and what better way to get my strength back than to slonk.
	We're gonna go with seven raw eggs today.
	The glass is full, so I'm gonna need my strength back.
	I haven't been able to slonk eggs in jail, so let's get it going.
	You can hear it.
	You can hear it going down.
	How do the yolks go down?
	How do you swallow a yolk?
	Already feeling stronger.
	Let's go.
	I swear to you, I've never done it before.
	I have no idea what goes into it.
	I have no idea what it tastes like.
	I have no idea what it feels like when a yolk goes down your throat and then it breaks the membrane of the yolk and I guess the yolk-y stuff gets splashed down your throat.
	I guarantee you I would vomit.
	Guaranteed.
	And that doesn't come with an asterisk, hashtag, not a guarantee.
	Guaranteed.
	Every now and again in the winter in Canada, you get cold and you get phlegmy snot and you snort back and people cough up loogies.
	I gag when that happens.
	I imagine drinking seven raw eggs would be like drinking an entire pint glass full of human snot.
	And yeah, all that to say, Owen, that's really...
	Setting aside that I think texturally, I can't imagine anything being any grosser.
	I would also immediately die for the fear of getting salmonella.
	I know it's irrational.
	I was brought up with a neurotic mother who imparted that neurosis on me.
	I was brought up thinking if you...
	If you touched a raw egg into your mouth, you would instantaneously die.
	There was this place called the Orange Julep.
	It's like Orange Julius in the States.
	And they use raw eggs in their juice as one of the ingredients.
	We were brought up to fear, like the plague of death, eating raw eggs or uncooked eggs.
	Oh, so this is the, I hear your body absorbs the egg protein better when it's cooked.
	So that's the only rationale that I've ever heard in terms of changing the proteins of meat when you cook them.
	Maybe that's the rationale to drinking raw eggs.
	Look, I've gotten off on a tangent in terms of the nastiness of drinking.
	Slocking down seven raw eggs.
	Owen Schroyer is out of jail.
	This announcement came last week when I was on the road to Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
	Road trip we did.
	I don't know how my kid does this.
	He likes sitting in a car for eight...
	To 12 hours and just, you know, staring out the window and playing on an iPhone.
	We drove to Tuscaloosa, Alabama and back Monday out, Friday back or back by Friday to watch the RNC debate.
	For those of you who had been watching the streams last week, this is all not new to you.
	It was amazing.
	We saw the debate.
	It was fantastic.
	I did my analysis of the debate on Friday's stream.
	We're back now.
	As we were out of town and the news broke that Owen Shroyer was getting released early, Lord knows why, a week early.
	Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak.
	But then it's like, he's not out until he's out.
	And now he's out.
	Back to work.
	Back to the grind.
	Back to the fight, the proverbial, metaphorical fight for freedom.
	And good for him.
	Good on him.
	If I'm projecting, I think he looks a little tired.
	I think he might look a little skinnier than he did when he went in.
	But he's a free man, sort of, with some whatever limitations, and it's fantastic that he's out.
	Not only is he out, by the way, the news of the day!
	The news of the day!
	Look, I don't know, do I get to take credit for this?
	I've made a bunch of predictions that never come to fruition, but excluding all the predictions I get wrong, I'm batting 100%.
	Friday morning, as I'm driving back from Tuscaloosa, we were actually driving back from Lake City, Florida, because we stopped overnight.
	I listened to Alex Jones on Tucker Carlson.
	A fantastic interview where I learned some things that I had to talk about subsequently.
	I said after that interview, Elon Musk is bringing Jones back within a month.
	Not within the month, within a month.
	Because that interview had everything that needed to be said publicly that would give Elon Musk the proverbial, not plausible deniability, but the excuse to bring Alex Jones back.
	Oh, I wasn't really fully aware of the fact that he was deplatformed.
	Not for anything he said about, Sandy Hook.
	Not for anything he did on platform, but because of what he did.
	Was it Oliver Darcy, that dweeb?
	But for bullying Oliver Darcy, a man who's responsible for bullying countless other people, but for bullying Oliver Darcy in line at some convention.
	I forget where it was.
	That, in conjunction with Elon Musk's recent go F yourself if you think you're going to blackmail me with money because one of the rationales, the explanations, the justifications for not bringing Jones back.
	Was that it would create exposure and liability for Twitter.
	So I said within a month it's going to happen.
	And I was not aware that there was a poll being run by ALX.
	I'm not sure if it was at the same time or shortly thereafter.
	News of the day.
	Alex Jones, back on Twitter and his first engagement interaction with the Twitterverse after five years, was retweeting...
	An Andrew Tate tweet, which basically said, to honor Alex Jones coming back, to honor Elon Musk, tell a globalist today to go F themselves.
	I'll put the video up there.
	We are so back, or we're so back there's a typo on it.
	So that's the good news.
	I mean, that's...
	If anyone's looking for the preemptive white pill, that's the white pill.
	Whether or not the social media pressure campaign had anything or raising awareness of Owen Schroer being put in solitary for a week because of COVID and then for a month because of whatever, he's out early.
	So there's something of a white pill there, except, you know, the white pill in tyranny is the cessation of the injury.
	Alex Jones is back.
	That is, when Elon Musk said, you think you're going to blackmail with money?
	Go F yourself.
	That's as much of the middle finger that he can possibly give in real time.
	And so that's another white pill.
	The tide possibly is changing.
	There was a Twitter space today.
	I didn't get to listen to the whole thing.
	And I didn't get to listen to it, but Alex Jones was on a Twitter space with Mario Nafal and Jack Posobiec was on it.
	I forget who the others were.
	And it was interesting.
	Is Elon using Jones to help save his company?
	It's an interesting tactic.
	I mean, whether or not he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, opportunistic reasons, you can always impute ill intentions even to the righteous decisions.
	I dare say, it doesn't matter.
	It was a little later than it should have been.
	You know, it doesn't jive with Elon's prior explanation for why he's not bringing back Alex Jones.
	You know, something about politicizing children, but when Piers Morgan does it, it's A-OK, but when Alex Jones does it, no, no.
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	Doing the right thing.
	For the wrong reasons, you'll never be able to definitively prove it.
	And doing the right thing later than you should have, you can always say, why didn't you do it yesterday?
	At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
	What's done cannot be undone.
	So two white pills.
	All right, now, but before we get into the show tonight, I'm going to run a poll in Twitter.
	Not Twitter, what I'm talking about, in YouTube, because I don't think we have the function for polls yet on Rumble.
	For those of you who don't know who I am, I've gotten back to the weekend car vlogs because I have a little extra time on the weekends when I'm sitting in a car waiting for the kids to go Christmas shopping at Target because I'm not going into Target, as we say in Canada.
	Kids doing kickboxing, I'll sit in the car waiting and I'll make a vlog.
	So I did two vlogs this weekend.
	One was celebrating, commemorating, reporting on...
	The former president of University of Pennsylvania, Liz McGill, who is no longer the president of University of Pennsylvania because she found it too difficult to categorically state that calling for genocide of any group, doesn't matter which group, is violative of a university's bullying and harassment policy.
	She couldn't bring herself to say it.
	It's an amazing thing.
	Too smart for her own good.
	It's context dependent.
	And I believe that the Dr. Gay from Harvard is next on the chopping block.
	Why it was Liz McGill who had to resign before Dr. Gay because both their answers were equally horrid?
	I don't know.
	One can hypothesize.
	Maybe Liz McGill's really insidious smirk.
	And did anybody notice it looked like Peter Stroke?
	When Peter Stroke was testifying, they had that same smirk.
	Someone should do a side-by-side.
	I said in my video from yesterday she looked like Hillary Clinton.
	What difference does it make at this point?
	But her smirk.
	It's a psychopathic, arrogant, pompous, holier-than-thou, above-the-law smirk, very much reminiscent of Peter Stroke during testimony.
	Someone should do a side-by-side.
	So I did that vlog.
	Today I did another vlog, which I shared the link of beforehand, about an Ohio police officer who is moving to another precinct, another office closer to home, and his chief, in whatever city it was in Ohio, is not letting him take his police canine, his service dog, not the services and disability, but the police dog, with him.
	To retire the dog maybe one to three years early.
	They've been together for five years.
	The man wants to move closer to home and wants to take the dog.
	Retire the dog and take it with him.
	Take him with him.
	Take the dog with him.
	Police chief says, no, it's a tool.
	And there is no price that you can pay to take that tool with you, which makes even less sense.
	Because tools have a price.
	Compensate for them.
	The guy wants to pay $10,000 for his own dog to take him.
	No, no, no.
	We're not doing that.
	So let's raise some awareness with that.
	But before I run the poll on YouTube, And run over the first story before Barnes gets here.
	First of all, if you don't know who I am, Viva Frye, Montreal litigator turned Florida rumbler.
	My real name is David Freiheit.
	The last name is Friedem in the German.
	My grandfather came from Poland.
	It was Freiheiter at the time.
	Freedom fighter.
	But I guess he fled for freedom and didn't fight for freedom.
	So they dropped the ER, but not for that reason.
	Freiheit!
	We start on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We end on YouTube, go over to Rumble, and when we're done with the stream, we go over to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community, where everyone is above average, and we take questions, take tips, and have our wonderful after party.
	All right.
	You tell me.
	I got into a Twitter fight with Justin Hart.
	He's been on the channel before.
	I like him, and there's no but to that.
	I like him.
	But his judgment has been thoroughly compromised, I think, by his derangement against Trump or his support for DeSantis, which I think is questionable at this point in terms of sanity.
	Maybe I'm sensitive.
	Maybe I'm the jerk.
	I want everyone's take on this.
	And I'm going to run a poll.
	You're going to tell me, is Viva right?
	Is Viva wrong?
	But starting with the video that sparked it all, because it's a damn good video in as much as Instagram and AI is the tool of the devil.
	It really allows you to add captions pretty accurately, pretty simply without me spending four hours typing them myself.
	This is the video that I put out on Twitter and elsewhere.
	About January 6. It doesn't make sense by their own evidence.
	We had infiltrated with informants.
	We knew of the seditious conspiracy.
	We got a conviction based on the informants who were embedded.
	FBI informants embedded with the two groups.
	And yet, we didn't know anything was going to happen on January 6. And yet, we opened the doors and let them in.
	And there's video footage of it that was never disclosed to the public.
	And yet...
	The protesters, though there, were peaceful right up until the time the cops threw concussive grenades in, fired off rubber bullets, blasting people in the face, and then they got violent.
	That's called a setup, Dana.
	And what did they do with the events that ensued?
	They weaponized it to go after everyone and anyone who was there or in the...
	Testify, Viva!
	They used it to classify basically half of the country as domestic terrorists that need to be surveilled.
	What did they do with it?
	They used it as a pretext to go after Donald Trump on indictments.
	They used it as a pretext to try to get Trump off the ballot.
	It was a setup, Dana Bash.
	It doesn't make sense by their own evidence.
	That's the video.
	I thought it was entirely accurate.
	I don't say things that are not accurate.
	Justin Hart comes out afterwards and then says, um, none of this is true.
	None of it.
	Not, I disagree with, maybe they didn't open, the doors were magnetic, they didn't open them.
	Not, oh, the guy who got blasted in the face with the rubber bullet, he was asking for it.
	No, none of this is true.
	To which I then replied, sassily, what did I say?
	What did I say here?
	It was this.
	It was this one, I think.
	This is the one that got him upset.
	He says, why do I make it?
	Oh, I said, I don't understand why someone would shred their integrity over this particular issue.
	And then he says, why do you make it personal?
	And I said, are you not?
	You think I'm making it personal?
	If you come out to the world and say none of this is true, a condensed video, which I think all of it is factually true, and I provided the receipts of that memo, 21TD159, Google it.
	The evidence that was adjuiced during the Oath Keepers of the Proud Boys, informants embedded for weeks or months prior to the capital attack.
	All of it was true.
	Why do I make it?
	You're calling me a liar, ignorant, stupid, or dishonest to the world.
	I think that's personal.
	And that's the last we've interacted on that.
	And the question is this.
	Am I right or am I wrong?
	We're going to run that poll in a second.
	When I get Barnes in the house, do I see him in the back?
	I could have gone on for a lot longer with that, but maybe Barnes is going to have a...
	Robert, has Justin Hart lost his mind?
	Well, I think what's interesting is your video went viral.
	It was the first ever hush-hush at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com just a few days after January 6th.
	Where we talked about how this is likely what we're going to find out that this was.
	And in the infamous words of the now reinstated the return of the king, Alex Jones, the Twitter, January 6th was an inside job.
	And the evidence for it was there right then at the time.
	And as this was our number one topic voted on by the board at viabarneslaw.locals.com where everybody's above average.
	Even the trolls.
	Even the haters.
	In fact, I'll have a special.
	Amos Miller is putting together a Barnes box of exceptional of some of his and my favorite products from Amos Miller's Organic Farm.
	And he's going to make it available at a special discount for starting off for the members of vivabarneslock.locals.com.
	We'll extend it to everybody else next week.
	But everybody there can get it.
	And of course, if you want to ask a question for us tonight.
	Put a tip of $5 or more.
	That's a real cheap tip for access to a couple of famous lawyers going so famous that Justin Hart has to tell lies about January 6th.
	Because it was an inside job.
	It was.
	The evidence of it is accumulating.
	At this point, it is indisputable by anybody acting in good faith.
	But then I get neurotic.
	Okay, maybe.
	Was it the statement classifying half the country as domestic terrorists?
	Okay, that's a little hyperbolic, but they did it?
	Pretty much.
	I mean, not only that, it was an inside job from day one that you could know, because if you look at the telltale signs of something that's an inside job, one of the key things you look for is unusual lapses in security and unusual behavior by those involved in the security apparatus.
	Both of those were abundant, and frankly, it was abundant at the time.
	Just we didn't know the degree and the scale and the scope of it.
	I said that my guess is over time we would discover that January 6th was filled with informants, infiltrators, and instigators.
	I knew just because of the security lapse that it was an inside job.
	Because that couldn't have happened.
	But you have 2,500 Capitol Police.
	You have over 10,000 National Guard available that Trump said should be made available at the Capitol on that day.
	The National Guard is called off by the D.C. mayor.
	And Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell issue variations of stand-down orders.
	Now we know that the others...
	Capitol Police were all part of the informant infiltrator instigator operation.
	Some were letting people in.
	Others were provoking things by attacking crowds, throwing old ladies down the steps, throwing sound grenades into the middle of a crowd, crowding people in, telling them to go over here, then telling them they couldn't be there with nowhere to go, and then starting to attack them, escorting some through the Capitol all the way through.
	Those people later get charged with crimes.
	Who did nothing, who stayed right within the lines of being directed by Capitol Police.
	And that doesn't even get to the ray epses, the informant.
	At this point, according to members of Congress, according to people who've seen the data, according to people who've seen the videotapes, you had hundreds of undercover informants, infiltrators, and instigators in that crowd trying to get the crowd to do things that were not in their interest to try to provoke a response and a reaction.
	You have the cover-up of the cop who shot an unarmed woman right in her chest with no legal consequence.
	That's just some of the examples of what took place there.
	They still haven't explained the fake bomber.
	The guy who put fake bombs at the DNC headquarters and other places.
	They've never gone after him.
	They've never put him on blast.
	They've never said where he's at.
	Why was the bomb fake?
	Well, I mean, this screams inside job.
	And if you can't see it...
	You're somebody like Justin Hart who's deep into the dissimp camp who can't acknowledge anything that is favorable to Donald Trump.
	Both sides in the sense that the Democrats are exploiting this for political purposes, as is the DeSantis camp, and that's what really, really irks me about all of it.
	But Robert, look, everyone...
	The DeSantis camp is useless, just like DeSantis.
	The guy's got no future.
	I mean, his wife, she was so busy measuring the drapes in the White House, she's starting to suffer a clear mental breakdown that she's now realizing the White House...
	Bye-bye, bye-bye.
	The closest she's going to get is a tour if Trump lets her walk through next time when he's back in.
	She's out there telling Iowans to illegally vote, non-Iowans, to illegally come to Iowa and illegally participate in the Iowa caucus process.
	The Republican Party and a bunch of people had to put out and say, no, by the way, you legally can't do that.
	Only Iowa residents can participate.
	She's inducing massive voter fraud.
	No wonder the DeSantis camp doesn't think anything went wrong with the 2020 election.
	They're trying to engage and elicit it right now.
	So these people are not credible anymore.
	They have no credibility.
	It's like neocon war Karen Nikki Haley has no credibility after that last debate to the degree she ever had it before.
	But anybody who's in denial about, I mean, this is one of the points Mike Cernovich has been making about the various Palestinian apologists.
	He's like, all right, so these people are deeply bothered by people being railroaded in a criminal case.
	Well, what have they said about January 6th?
	And you dig in, and of course, 95% of them have said nothing about January 6th.
	They're very hypocritical and selective, probably because you scratch.
	It's like all the speech debate going on.
	Is it true you can be anti-Israel without being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic?
	Absolutely.
	But is it also true that almost everybody who's anti-Israel, you scratch the surface and the Jew hatred comes pouring out?
	Yes, it is.
	People who are now saying...
	There are some people saying that that woman, Liz McGill, she shouldn't have been...
	I think there are issues there that we should debate.
	But in honor of those people, I thought I should pick a non-controversial book tonight.
	So this book is entitled Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters.
	Written about the history of the long history.
	People suddenly are concerned with...
	Colonization and colonialism and all this other stuff they throw at me in the Israel debate.
	Well, nobody's been a bigger imperialist or colonizer in religious history around the globe than the Islam religion and those who practice it and the Muslims.
	But it's a little good reminder for all those wokesters that think America didn't invent slavery.
	America invented the end of slavery.
	Americans died to end slavery.
	That's America's history on slavery.
	By contrast, I don't think have they ever apologized yet out of those Islamic countries for the long, notorious history of Islam's core support, sponsorship, and promotion of massive slave trade long before the West and long after the West?
	I don't think so.
	It's a good book, by the way.
	It's an Ohio State Italian history professor.
	And he's just like, man, he didn't even know this history.
	And so he dug in.
	This isn't like some...
	This isn't like some whack job that Norman Finkelstein will testify for that denies the Holocaust.
	It's not one of those kind of people.
	This guy's a legit historian.
	He doesn't have really a bone.
	Historically, there's a reason why Thomas Jefferson, the beginning of our country, is talking about the Barbary pirates and the concern over the slave trade of North Africa.
	And that all ties into the Islamic slave trade.
	And it's one of those things politically.
	That they just don't like to talk about in the wokester universities of today.
	Well, I mean, they clearly don't care about free speech.
	That doesn't mean that some people aren't going too far in wanting to obliterate the line.
	No question about that.
	I was just going to say also, talking about the slave trade and the concern for it.
	Culturally, I believe it's alive and well now, thanks to Hillary Clinton and Al in Libya, which, you know, don't talk about it as politically inconvenient as well.
	But actually, just before I forget, Robert, because I want to just, everyone should know the homework that's out there.
	Google 21 TD 159.
	This is the memo, the internal memo, that Yogananda Pittman had in D.C. in December, detailing what they knew was coming in terms of a risk.
	It's Capitol Police people who are testifying this was an inside job, including the former deputy chief.
	I mean, so it's like, you know, this is not, when you're out there pretending, how bad do you have to be into the dissimp world when you're out there pretending that the January 6th, they sound like the Fox people 15, 20 years ago towards Alex Jones when he was saying 9-11 is not what you guys are selling it as, that at a minimum there's complicity.
	By the U.S. government, which we all now know, as Vivek has been saying, a lot of this is not really controversial.
	The CIA knew things that they hid.
	The State Department knew things that they hid.
	The Bush administration knew things that they hid.
	They misused it and abused its power of this shocking trauma to do surveillance, which right now is pending before Congress.
	Credit to...
	And here's where the pro-Israeli crowd goes way too far.
	Is it the case that a lot of these Palestinian groups want to make life miserable for Jewish kids on college campuses and anyone who's pro-Israel?
	Yeah, they've said so themselves.
	This is what Greenwald and Mate and Tracy and the rest don't really honestly forthcomingly talk about.
	At the same time, are there people on the pro-Israel side who are trying to use this as a new excuse for censorship?
	Clearly there is.
	We'll talk about this with a Trump gag order.
	There's a line.
	We've talked about it in drafting the rumble rules.
	Private universities, the Ivy League, they're not governed by First Amendment limitations.
	So I'm not making that argument.
	But I'm saying if you care about robust free speech as much as practicable on a college campus, there's an easy line between stalking, harassment behavior, and legally protected speech behavior.
	Some of the groups are deliberately targeting Jewish kids and pro-Israel kids, particularly Jewish kids, for harassment purposes.
	That's what should be punished.
	Some of it is just speech that shouldn't be punished or targeted.
	And for people like Joel Pollack at Breitbart, and people at AIPAC and some of these other groups, if you're targeting Thomas Massey, you've lost the script.
	This is not an anti-Jewish guy at all.
	This is a guy who opposes various forms of foreign aid everywhere, opposes foreign intervention everywhere, but he's one of the best liberty advocates in all of Congress.
	If you're attacking him, Joel Pollack, at Breitbart and elsewhere, people are going to think you're more loyal to Israel than America, and you're going to lose the script, and you're going to lose supporters, and you're going to lose sympathizers on those who do recognize That large parts of the Palestinian cause are trying to do woke Antifa-style tactics of making life miserable and then just want to say, oh, it's just speech.
	It's just speech if you're doing it to persuade.
	It's not just speech if you're trying to target somebody for harassment on a college campus because of their religious or other identity.
	And that's what a bunch of them are doing.
	And the Ivy League wants to pretend otherwise because their wokesters have turned on them.
	The revolution is chopping off its own.
	And this is what happens when you let a bunch of left...
	This is what Cernovich has been talking about.
	It's like...
	All these pro-Palestinian crowd, just listen to them on any other topic.
	These are not people you want to be associated with.
	These are people you don't want to be affiliated with.
	They're lying, fraudulent hypocrites nine out of ten times, including people like Scott Horton, who just starts frothing at the mouth about the Zionists, and he can't be reasonable about anything.
	Just watch his debate with Will Chamberlain and Tim Pool, just like his discussion with you.
	It's impossible to be there, but we've got to stake with the line.
	If it's stalking or harassment, illegal.
	If it's just persuasive speech, it's not illegal.
	Let's draw that line, and somehow nobody can do it either on the left or the right, depending on whether it's Trump or Israel.
	It's an issue.
	Well, this is where the question gets muddied in the waters, where they say, okay, First Amendment issues versus campus policy.
	And so some people are saying, look, if it's not illegal, then it should be awful but lawful, calling for the genocide of an identifiable group.
	If it's not illegal, I'm not sure.
	Robert, is over- No, it's not illegal.
	These private universities can absolutely limit speech.
	There's no question about that.
	There's sometimes that something might be tied in to things being a public forum in select circumstances, but they absolutely can.
	And within free speech restriction, like public universities and public schools, which are governed by speech restrictions, Ivy League's not, if it interferes with their educational duties, they can do it.
	And that's where it's like the suit that we talked about, the Jewish kids against Colombia.
	There was places where they were clearly on the right side, where this was stalking behavior, harassing behavior.
	We're going to go to a Jewish group and do this.
	Those conservatives have been the victim of this.
	Greenwald and Tracy and these other people don't understand why there hasn't been more free speech outcry against the hearings and so forth.
	It's because the groups they're aligned with are the groups that, under the guise of speech, stalk and harass people into making life miserable on campus with Antifa-type tactics.
	Nobody really thinks.
	Anybody that knows these groups knows they're not there to do this speech.
	If you're trying to do persuasive speech, you would not chant from the river to the sea.
	If you wanted to be persuasive speech in America, you would not chant Intifada today, Intifada forever.
	These are not things you would do.
	And I get people pretending, oh, who knows what from river to the sea means?
	Who knows what it possibly means?
	Everybody knows what it means, especially those who are chanting it.
	From river to the sea is calling for the genocide of all Jews in Israel.
	That's what it means.
	You don't hear any Israelis saying that about Gaza.
	They're accused of doing it in Gaza, but they aren't cheering it or chanting it.
	I don't know.
	I'm sure some people...
	That isn't a genocidal chant.
	But that can be free speech on a public university campus.
	The limit even on a public, you know, speech is not protected on a private university campus.
	But if it interferes with their duties, this is where if you do it in a classroom, if you do it at other students or groups, if you go to a student's dorm to do it, which, by the way, they all do, these Palestinian, pro-Palestinian groups, they brag about it.
	They say that's their goal and objective.
	That's what makes it an unusual.
	First Amendment situation.
	This is not just, hey, let's suppress speech because we don't like anti-Israel speech.
	There's some people trying to do that, trying to misuse what's happening into that.
	But that's not the core of the issue.
	The core of the issue is they target Jewish kids for harassment, stalking, and any pro-Israel, just like they've been stalking conservative kids for the last decade on these campuses, making life miserable if you hold a view they don't want you to hold.
	And that's very different than trying to be persuasive and going to the Yale Political Union and giving your side.
	That's not what they're doing nine times out of ten.
	But that's also where we should all be drawing the line, whether it's private campuses or public.
	We should be encouraging robust debate that says you can't use this to stalk and harass.
	You can engage in whatever debate dialogue you want to, even horrendous and offensive dialogue and debate.
	And that line is being obliterated.
	It's being obliterated in the Trump gag order context, too.
	So, you know, different groups, different incentives, different motives.
	But there's a legitimate concern that the speech is just a thinly disguised for harassment and stalking, which has never been legal.
	And calling for genocide can be legal.
	Going up to the group to try to induce a specific individual to feel a sense of fear because you're calling for their genocide, that's not legal.
	That's always been a line, and many of these pro-Palestinian groups explicitly say their goal is to go past that line.
	It's interesting.
	I would have even given a more gray zone.
	I know the historical meaning to From the River to the Sea when people say it.
	Some might say that that's still an analogy, a metaphor for genocide, for lack of a better word.
	But where someone was...
	The woman, Liz McGill, answering the question, well, you know, if it's followed up with action...
	Action, you know, threats of genocide, and I mean overt death to this entire group fill in the blank.
	It doesn't have to be Jews, it could be blacks, gays, trans, and something tells me if it were genocide against trans, oh, she would have had a very quick answer to that.
	But when someone says, well...
	I agree with you there.
	Now, what she was doing, correct First Amendment interpretation.
	The problem all these Ivy League people have is they don't believe in the First Amendment.
	Every single one of them has obliterated the First Amendment on their campus.
	They got into their positions by doing it.
	That's why they have no credibility on that.
	And that's why they were caught in a catch-22.
	They didn't want to offend their big Arab donors.
	They didn't want to offend their woke lefties on campus.
	They wanted to pretend they're free speech without admitting things that show that they don't care at all about free speech because they've been obliterating it for a decade on campus, got to their positions by doing so.
	The free speech position would require imminent incitement.
	And so merely calling for genocide...
	I've seen some people suggest that calling for genocide is not protected.
	Dershowitz has acknowledged.
	Yes, it is.
	He doesn't think on private campuses, college campuses, it should be for reasons that interferes with a whole bunch of things.
	On the First Amendment issue, not on the school policy issue.
	Correct.
	He thinks that there should be a difference between that because a private university is not governed by First Amendment.
	And he thinks that a robust debate should have certain limits on a college campus in order to make the debate actually effective.
	That goes where the First Amendment cannot.
	What she was answering is the First Amendment does require imminent incitement.
	And I see people saying that calling for genocide is not First Amendment protected.
	Yes, it is.
	When is it not protected?
	If you're going up and trying to induce fear in someone right there or present.
	So I'll give the classic example is the famous Klan case.
	So when they're doing it at a Klan rally, they're calling for direct violence against black citizens.
	The Supreme Court said, ah, that's protected because there was no imminent incitement.
	No, incitement of imminent lawless action.
	By contrast, if they were doing it in a black neighborhood, if they were doing it at a black community event, if they were doing it for the purpose of and with the likely impact of inducing fear of a person that they're about to get attacked, then it's no longer protected.
	It has to have that imminent risk of lawless action.
	It's the same thing the D.C. Circuit tried to obliterate in the Trump gag order case.
	The imminent incitement requirement part.
	They at least mostly gutted the gag order, but that's the difference.
	The question is, is that applicable to a college campus?
	On a college campus, they can go further because it's okay to limit speech if it's too necessary to promote and protect their educational mission.
	So that's where they could say, okay, the problem all these professors had is they banned a speech that they call hate speech they don't like for a bunch of political reasons.
	It's just not calling for the mass murder of a group of people based on their religion, it turns out, because it's a politically unprotected religion, particularly it's the religion on the opposite side of a lot of their big donors from the Arab Muslim world, and especially Qatar.
	And that's the other dirty little secret here.
	So, I mean, that's the money war that's going on between big pro-Israel donors.
	They're just now stepping up, recognizing how nefarious the Arab money that's poured in, that's been as nefarious as the Chinese money into American universities over the past decade.
	Well, it's a shame that Liz McGill can't think as fast on her feet as you can.
	But the issue there was the question was not about First Amendment rights on the campus.
	It was about violating campus policy, whether or not calling for the genocide of Jews or anyone violates the policy.
	I want to bring this up because I don't think most people know exactly what a brand We're marching to a Jewish community.
	True.
	That could have been the grounds.
	And to Dershowitz's credit, he defended the Nazis.
	And so that's where he has much more credibility to me on this topic than most others.
	But if the question, it's like there you have a public community and not the same as a college campus where you've invited members that you have a certain duty to protect.
	That's not true for just the random.
	There is no broad duty to protect.
	On the government.
	There is in the context of universities.
	There's an implicit contractual obligation under their rules and policies and under their tuition.
	This is part of the Columbia lawsuit.
	So that's where there's a bit of a difference between that and just whether Skokie has to say...
	You can march, but just not through that neighborhood.
	If Skokie had said, you can't march through that neighborhood because that is the highest per capita incidence of Holocaust victims in America, and we think you're doing this in order to terrorize those individuals.
	They may have been constitutionally okay if they had limited it that way.
	That didn't end up being the issue, though.
	I want to bring up the statement because I think people think it was worse.
	I say worse than it was.
	This is the quote.
	That was at issue.
	This is an organizers meeting.
	We have quite a few members here today.
	We're not a revengeant organization, but if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court continues to suppress the white Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
	And so the revengeance, I don't even know if that's a word.
	So even to me, like, that's...
	You mean a Klansman can't speak English?
	Well, I mean, I don't know if it's been added to the Urban Dictionary since...
	That to me, that's black and white.
	That obviously has to be pronunciation, Robert.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That to me is objectively must-be-tolerated exercise of free speech.
	Calling for the genocide, even if it's from the river to the sea, I could be allowed to think that most people don't know what it means.
	Or intifada today, intifada forever.
	Or saying they're part of the October 7th operation.
	Using that tag.
	Or putting, like not only BLM, but a bunch of Palestinian groups on campus did, handing out pamphlets with those gliders that came in and terrorized Jews on October 7th.
	That stuff that's, you know, they're really, from a university perspective, you can absolutely ban that constitutionally because of the nature of the campus and the inflammatory nature of that that could...
	Reasonably lead someone to believe.
	It would be like, for example, Klan activity has almost always been banned on college campuses, right?
	And so it's the same grounds, right?
	So is putting up a cross in a public event, protected speech, a burning cross?
	Can be.
	Not when you put it on somebody's lawn, it isn't.
	Then it's a crime.
	Because that's intended to intimidate and terrorize a person.
	It generally is prohibited on college campuses because college campuses have a right to protect their educational purpose and their obligation to protect their kids on campus.
	So that's where there really is a line.
	And I'm just urging people on the right to be consistent about where that line is.
	Don't blur it because you have an excuse now to bash people that are on the anti-Israeli side of the aisle.
	That's where we should stay with the line, whichever side.
	The free speech line and including the free speech on college campus line, which I agree is different, but there's still a line there that we can maintain that protects robust speech on campuses without interfering with our educational mission and without unduly limiting speech.
	Robert, I just was about to do one thing.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, we're going to get ready to go on over to Rumble.
	Before then, you're going to give us the list of items.
	But hold on.
	I noticed someone said something in the chat.
	Love you both.
	I can't watch when you go to Rumble.
	Rumble will not let me watch live streams.
	The alternative to that, come over to Locals.
	Locals has its own separate server platform base for live streams.
	So for whatever the reason, if you don't like Rumble...
	I would say get used to it, and they're going to work on working out the glitches, but come over to Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, I don't know if that was number one on our list, but what do we have on the list of the menu for tonight?
	We got a big win for Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. getting access to the ballot and protecting everybody else's access to the ballot in the process.
	A certain Hunter Biden indicted.
	So we got that.
	State Department.
	The sophistication of the State Department censorship apparatus.
	They did it in secret against Trump while Trump was in the White House and now continued unebated.
	And has been exposed by a range of other suits has led to Attorney General Paxton, the Federalist, and the Daily Wire bringing suit in Texas based on, by the way, a Robert Kennedy-created theory of this being a First Amendment violation.
	So we're seeing the logic of those cases extend and expand into the legal universe.
	We got Trump seeking a stay, finally, but that's a good sign in the D.C. Circuit.
	We got the gag order that was...
	Mostly eliminated.
	There's a part of the gag order that he can appeal to the Supreme Court where if they take it, he can still get reversal.
	I'll explain what the court is trying to get away with and where there's a problem.
	Trump first read it and thought that he was still gagged.
	If you understand what the gag order's limitations are.
	Not really.
	It basically court staffs about all.
	And we got the New York trial being extraordinary evidence.
	It's unbelievable that it's still going on and that, I don't know, heads have not ruled.
	Metaphorically speaking, politically speaking.
	Sorry.
	We covered the top topic, which was going to be topic number six, the January 6th setup.
	Austin judges, including a certain infamous Austin judge the audience might be familiar with.
	Is ordering abortions to be done in Texas against Texas law.
	Texas Supreme Court is having to step in.
	In Mexico, they got problems with their judges.
	So they're recommending a reform.
	And where do they recommend the reform?
	First Amendment case.
	Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	Gun dealers being forced to hand out suicide prevention materials before they're allowed to sell a gun.
	The NCAA, the National Communist Against Athletes, is being sued again.
	Sarah Silverman continues her battle on behalf of a wide range of copyright folks against artificial intelligence.
	Those cases took a major setback over the last two weeks.
	And the Screen Actors Guild...
	More popularly known as the Film Actors Guild with South Park, has been sued over the vaccine mandate by conscientious members.
	So those are our 12 topics for tonight.
	Okay, so what we're going to do now, I'll give the links out one more time before we head on over.
	Actually, let me do some super chats before I forget because I haven't gotten to any of them yet.
	Okay, I'll go fast.
	Cheryl Gage, doing five pull-ups while holding your bike between your legs.
	Not bad for an old guy.
	The bike has clips on it, so the bike...
	I don't actually have to press it.
	It's just clipped into my shoes.
	And I did actually more.
	The only reason I only did five was because that was my third take.
	Lower your mic volume a bit.
	Well, it's well too late for that.
	I'm not going to touch it.
	Local said it was good.
	I'm going to leave it as is.
	The chemicals are turning the freaking frog's gaze is not a banned account.
	Sorry, the last one was from Steve Britton.
	Forbes, FBI and other agencies paid informants $548 million in recent years with many committing authorized crimes Oh, we saw it in the Gretchen Whitmer case, how much they were paying their informants.
	Retaliate's not the right word.
	Will he seek justice?
	We'll see.
	Chant a call for violence and therefore illegal.
	We've talked about that.
	Ian?
	The imminent incitement component or the direct harassment component.
	I got this one, poke rob, and then we got done.
	After 9-11, a lot of people said...
	Oh, yeah, a lot of people did say bad, dumb things.
	Viva, was that calling for genocide, too, or was it an expression of exacerbation?
	I'm not sure what position of power they were in.
	If they were at the Defense Department, then that's a whole different thing than if it's Joe Blow.
	Post Talk says, where is the specific place I can find the evidence of voter fraud in Georgia?
	I'd like to see it for myself.
	Just Trump's election contest.
	Find the 400-plus page complaint and all the attached affidavits.
	That's the best place.
	And we got campus policy like community policies at Google, YouTube, and formerly Twitter.
	Says Lynn Westover.
	I barely recognize him with his clean-shaven face in that older picture.
	Lynn, nice to see you again.
	Just got back from a concert I was singing in, and I'm almost caught up at 2x.
	The concert was great, and so is this.
	Best of both worlds.
	Okay, now we're going to go over to Rumble, and if you don't want to go there, for whatever the reason, locals link incoming, and then we're ending on YouTube, or as it's otherwise known, Commitube.
	That's it.
	Leaving.
	Three, two...
	Hold on one second.
	How do I do this?
	Why do I have a brain fart?
	Remove, remove.
	Okay, done.
	All right, Robert, so we're going to start with the RFK Jr. case.
	I didn't know there was an order in it.
	I just read the lawsuit.
	This is in Utah, where they're creating exceedingly premature deadlines by which to get whatever is required to get on the ballot.
	I don't know.
	I mean, look, I know it was involved to get on the ballot at a Canadian federal election, which I think is totally different and probably much more streamlined, and yet it was still difficult.
	From what I understood, they had created in the Utah case a January 6th deadline to get however many thousands of signatures you need to get on the ballot, among other extremely costly requirements.
	RFK Jr. file suit seeking an injunction, a stay of the requirements required.
	I don't know what the deadline would have turned into in order to get all these things done, because it wouldn't have been able to be done over the next three weeks, cost-wise, weather-wise, etc.
	I had not heard that the ruling had come down, but...
	What are the requirements?
	Who sets these rules as to what is required to get on a ballot state-wise?
	How do they set these rules?
	How are they enforced?
	And who does it?
	And what happened in this case?
	So this is a case or a legal issue that I've long been involved in.
	People can look up Nader v.
	Brewer, the wonderful former Secretary of State and Governor of Arizona, who liked to say dumb things that allowed me to sue that state repeatedly.
	She was the gift that kept on giving.
	The real history of the election law in America is, of course, a ballot was foreign to our founders.
	There was no written ballot.
	You went in and voice voted frequently in public.
	There was no secret ballot either.
	So that was invented technically by the Australians, but adapted here in the late 19th century.
	And while it was pitched as a way to promote...
	Your right to privacy and anonymity in your vote.
	In reality, it was to break up the political machines and help the professional managerial class seize power from the working classes that often benefited from those political machines.
	Most people have read about political machines and think they are indicative of corruption without question.
	There were plenty of corruption within political machines, but as a general rule, they were less corrupt than the state that has replaced it.
	That's because the professional managerial class writes the history, and they decided to portray them that way, as they did at the time.
	But, for example, by going to a state ballot, when the state monopolizes the printing and publishing of the ballot...
	They're able to limit people who couldn't read from voting, people who...
	And there was a lot of illiteracy, particularly amongst the working classes at the time, and immigrant working classes as well, that they could effectively hurt working class voting.
	But that wasn't why it was pitched.
	It was pitched as, the government's going to control the ballot to help you make sure it's a secret ballot and the rest.
	Of course, what they then did over time...
	Is they use the fact that they print the ballot and have a monopoly over it to say, well, we need to print it by such and such a day.
	And in order to print it by such and such a day, we need all this advanced time to know who's going to be on the ballot.
	They also started to change it so that they're like, oh, you know, we can't have the ballot be too, we can't have too many choices for people.
	Because golly gee, that will just confuse the heck out of people.
	And we can't allow that.
	So we can't have any of these so-called frivolous candidacies out there.
	So in the name of protecting your right to vote, they have been limiting who you can vote for by determining who can get on the ballot and how.
	Now, here's the other little dirty secret to all of it.
	Most of these limits weren't there even when the state took over the ballot at the beginning of the 20th century.
	Instead, whenever a third party or independent candidate did really well, all of a sudden they had new rules about who could get on the ballot and how.
	So, for example, the timing issue is they recognize that most candidates and third parties don't even emerge until something goes sideways with the two major parties.
	So most of your third party famous candidates or causes didn't start.
	Until late July or August of a presidential election year.
	Because it's in response to what's happening generally at the conventions.
	And it's a late developing issue.
	And even if the cause or the candidate knows they're going to run in advance, most voters don't have any interest and don't pay any attention until late summer.
	So what did a lot of states try to do?
	They tried to put in laws limiting, saying, well, you know, you can't get on the ballot in November.
	Unless you tell us about it in January or March or April.
	Every time these laws have been challenged, for the most part, they've been struck down.
	Based on the first big case was actually George Wallace in 1968.
	But the second big one was John Anderson in 1980.
	Not a surprise that the Supreme Court cared about John Anderson because he was one of them.
	He was an elite, old-school, silk-stocking Republican challenging Ronald Reagan.
	And so, you know, they didn't have as much sympathy for George Wallace, but that was a more constitutionally robust court.
	The 1980 court cared about John Anderson, and all the judges know that this is a game being played by the two-party system to keep their competitors off the ballot.
	That's what it's always been about.
	I've represented probably more people in this space than any lawyer out there.
	I've represented the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Taxpayers Party, various independent candidates, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, you name it.
	Robert Kennedy now.
	It's all of them.
	What they share in common is that the only people they're trying to keep off the ballot are the very people that they say they're never trying to keep off the ballot.
	Because the only people that keep up the ballot are frivolous candidates that no one would ever want to vote for.
	But by definition, they're only enforcing these laws against people that a lot of people have a lot of interest in voting for.
	So it's all a big, fat fraud.
	If the Supreme Court had real guts, they would have eviscerated these laws completely a long time ago.
	Right now, every state has its own rules.
	They have different deadlines, different forms you have to file, different people who can sign the petitions, different people who can circulate the petitions.
	So they have every scam known to man.
	They put in all these little procedural tricks, and they create a self-justifying system that's circular in its logic.
	They said that because we have this system, we need these other rules to make sure this system works.
	So this part of the system is necessary for that part of the system, even though no part of the system is ever necessary to begin with.
	So, like, if you don't fill it out, the signature's on the right form, with the right lengths, the right size, boom, all invalidated.
	If your signatures don't match, which, by the way, they got strict enforcement of that when it comes to little fellas trying to get on the ballot, Barack Obama knows all about signatures matching, or not matching, because that's how he got into the state senate.
	He kicked all his opponents off the ballot because he got an election official to rule that their signatures didn't match, not enough of them matched, and he had no competition.
	This is what the scheme is for.
	This is what it's really about.
	None of these rules should be present.
	In states like Tennessee and other places, where they don't require circulating signatures, getting signatures, they just require pay a $200 fee.
	We've never had more than 10 candidates on the presidential ballot in Tennessee.
	So this myth that there's some big confusion out there that the ballot would be hopelessly impossible to interpret if you allowed anybody to run is a bunch of hogwash.
	America has fewer candidates for its presidency on a majority of ballots than Iran does, than Russia does, these countries that we hold up as totalitarian regimes.
	That's how bad our election laws are.
	So credit to Robert Kennedy for challenging him.
	Utah was saying you had to submit thousands of signatures by January 6th for a ballot that they're not going to print until September.
	I mean, it was preposterous.
	The Supreme Court said no state probably needs more than 75 days.
	That means any ballot limitation that's before August should be struck down.
	Now, most of the judges are partisan hacks in this environment, so they come up with every excuse.
	This is where I learned about mootness and standing and ripeness and that garbage for Pontius Pilate pretext to avoid their constitutional obligation.
	If you file suit in spring, well, it's not ripe yet, Mr. Barnes.
	If you file suit in summer, well, it's moot by now.
	And by golly, if you sue in fall, that's latches.
	You should be sanctioned for doing that.
	Even though they told you earlier you can only sue later, and when you sue later, they say you should have sued earlier.
	That's the game they play.
	But credit to Robert Kennedy.
	Challenged it.
	Very well done brief.
	And the state of Utah knew they were going to lose.
	So they said, we'll give at least several more months.
	So we don't have to have an emergency injunction because we're not going to enforce this for several months at a minimum, which will probably get him on the ballot so he won't care and go on his way.
	But you're going to see him.
	The New York Times announced that the Democratic Party is putting together big law firm budgets.
	Just to keep Robert Kennedy off the ballot in as many states as possible.
	That should answer people's question about who insiders really think Kennedy's campaign impacts, by the way.
	It's not Republicans putting together a bunch of people's Democrats.
	Now, that doesn't mean Republicans won't help them.
	When I was representing Ralph Nader, Republicans and Democrats were both trying to keep Nader off the ballot because they saw an independent winning a bunch of votes as more of a threat than their political party opponent winning power.
	Was the duopoly falling apart?
	Was the uniparty getting struck down with independent third party?
	That terrifies them.
	It always has.
	It's the only thing that's led to any change in America, and that's why these cases are so important.
	So what is concretely the agreement that entered into with the state of Utah?
	They say we're not going to...
	There has to be some sort of agreement.
	They've just said we're not going to enforce this so, judge, you don't have to hold an emergency hearing.
	So that's how they're trying to avoid.
	Their risk is attorney's fees.
	They don't want to pay the lawyer fees on the other side.
	They're not going to enforce it, though.
	They're not agreeing to any summary judgment on a specific date.
	The judge doesn't have to hold an emergency hearing because there's no imminent risk of him being kept off the ballot.
	And no risk of them saying later on, yeah, well, you waited too long for the non-emergency hearing and now you're foreclosed.
	Oh, they usually do do that, but that's why...
	I assume the Kennedy people are making sure they get this in writing.
	I've dealt with this over and over again, where they usually ask for the customary, courteous, hey, can you give me another 15 days for this?
	Can you give me another 20 days for this?
	And then they argue, no urgency, because he gave me a delay, so it couldn't be that urgent in the first place.
	Not that I've had anybody do something similar to me in practice.
	Well, it's a tough tie between corporate whores and state lawyers.
	But they both, they lie to you all the time.
	You can never take anything they tell you at face value.
	That's why I'm still agitated.
	Tyson Foods misled me about our case early on.
	That's why I still have so many cases against them.
	And will continue to.
	Like I said, after I'm dead, my ghost is going to come back and sue Tyson Foods.
	But credit to Kennedy for bringing it, because this is another critical area.
	And Kennedy's a perfect candidate because usually the person suing is someone the courts can dismiss.
	They think they can get away with keeping them off the ballot because they're at 2%, 1%.
	They can't do that with Bobby Kennedy.
	And depending on the poll, he's as high as 22%.
	And because of his name, you really can't do it.
	But everybody can see, okay, if I keep this guy off the ballot, everybody knows this game is rigged.
	So that's why I hope he does it because he can help unrig the game for people in the future.
	There is no precedent value to this acknowledgement, however.
	Yeah, because I've gathered and some other people have gathered all the times courts have allowed these injunctions or even allowed the state to corrective action without the necessity of it because it gives arguments.
	In fact, they cite them all.
	In fact, I provided them all in full disclosure to the Kennedy people.
	So here's all the cases.
	And they included a bunch of them.
	It was incredibly well written where it says they should just give up and abandon this because of the 1984 decision, which said April was too early.
	And they're already three months earlier than that.
	That was great.
	I get it in writing.
	Always in writing.
	There's things that are never in writing and always in cash.
	But when you're dealing with the government or corporate lawyers, always in writing.
	Check.
	Check.
	Get a check.
	Get it in writing.
	Okay, so good news for RFK.
	I guess another white pill.
	But again, the white pill is only justice.
	It's not anything more than that.
	White pills, Robert.
	Well, it's a bit of a white pill, though it's inside a black pill.
	So this is my question to you because I listened to your bourbon with Barnes on the Hunter Biden indictment.
	And I'm trying to think of where.
	Oh, it being...
	A pretext to get him to plead the fifth during upcoming congressional testimony.
	We'll get there in a second.
	For those who don't know, Hunter Biden has now been indicted with nine additional charges related to tax.
	There's some misdemeanor and what's the other one, the more serious one?
	There's tax, I think, tax evasion, fraudulent filing, and failure to file, and failure to pay.
	There's also lawful failure to pay and misdemeanor failure, and where that fits in between misdemeanor and felony can vary.
	I was losing the word for felony.
	So there's some felony charges, some misdemeanor charges, and there's a 56-page indictment coming out of the District of California.
	Central District of California.
	Central District.
	They have their own tax division.
	That's what I think you're going to have to flesh out to people after I'm done summarizing this, but everybody should know what's in there.
	They're basically accusing Hunter Biden of having willfully not paid taxes for four years, even though he self-declared he would owe certain taxes.
	Through a series of shell companies, he took in millions and millions of dollars, split it three ways among his various business partners, depending on the deal.
	He had different business partners for his Romanian deals, different business partners for his Chinese deals, different business partners for his Ukraine Burisma deals.
	He took in the money.
	He knew that he had to pay taxes.
	He didn't.
	The indictment alleges that instead of paying his taxes, he spent it on hookers, adult entertainment, various women, withdrew $1.6 million from ATMs over the course of four years.
	I listened to Marco Polo, Garrett Ziegler on Robert Govea, explaining that the mechanism, how does someone withdraw $1.6 million over the course of four years, that would take a very long time to do.
	Monthly withdrawals is one way.
	But according to Marco Polo, what Hunter would do is he would basically give hookers and drug dealers a PIN code that would allow them to withdraw cash from the bank account to pay for the drugs and the sex.
	And so that's how you can...
	And he had above average limits.
	Most people, that's what I was noticing, throwing a lot of people off, is they're like, hey, that would take forever because it's like $500 a day or $5,000 a day.
	Hunter had different ATM limits than the rest of us.
	And he was able to provide a pin code access to third parties to withdraw the cash for him.
	And so they had whatever, $600,000, I think, on women.
	I might be getting the numbers mixed up.
	That's what they were able to trace.
	The $1.8 million would get subdivided down to the various categories.
	If they knew where the cash went, they'll never know where it went.
	Although I guess they could figure out who took out the money.
	So hookers, drug dealers could be provided a pin code and withdraw cash from the ATM without Hunter being present.
	So that's how you get to $1.6 million.
	Okay.
	Which is illegal source income.
	Now, they don't talk about the biggest illegal source income, but all of this in different ways is illegal source income either coming in or illegal source income going out.
	And apparently, also according to Garrett Ziegler, and I'm not doing this to throw him under the bus, it's not my information, apparently business partner three, not identified in the indictment, is Joe Biden's brother.
	What's his name?
	It's James or Jim?
	I think it's James, isn't it?
	It's apparently Joe Biden's brother, business partner number three in the indictment, the one who reimbursed his brother $240,000 loan repayment.
	So it's a bloody, godforsaken criminal enterprise going on there.
	The indictment comes out of the Central District of California.
	This is a federal court, Robert, because it's tax, right?
	Oh, yes, yes.
	So how does the federal court do this?
	They effectively usurping or bypassing the fact that the DOJ wasn't doing it.
	That's what I don't understand.
	Oh, I mean, it is the Justice Department.
	So it's the Justice Department Special Counsel David Weiss assigned to it, working with the Tax Division of the Central District of California.
	Okay, so...
	So, now knowing that it is controlled by the same people, David Weiss was the one trying to get him in on the sweetheart deal and give him immunity, non-prosecution, waiting too long to go after certain charges that then lapsed because of statute of limitations, knowing that it's those players, why do it?
	Yeah.
	Agreed.
	I mean, I think that's where the issue that is present is the why and the timing.
	So part of this is because of all the IRS whistleblowers.
	This put the IRS in a bad position because the whistleblowers exposed the degree to which they gave preferential treatment to Hunter Biden.
	And I think that definitely put people over at the tax division in a position where they really wanted to be able to clear their own reputation by bringing the case.
	Then you have Weiss trying to protect his reputation.
	And I still think it's a controlled case.
	And I'm not the only one.
	Professor Jonathan Turley has said the same thing.
	He has said that what's extraordinary is that what stands out about the entire case is that it's really an illegal source income case.
	It's about him receiving money for things that look like thinly disguised bribery to bribe his father.
	And that this was a Biden family corrupt operation to monetize That I can forgive Joe Biden for.
	The alleged beating of the dogs is...
	Yeah, different animal.
	Literally.
	But so that's really what the case is truly about, and it tries to hide that throughout the entire indictment.
	It tries to disguise why did he have to engage in mass-scale tax evasion?
	Because it's an illegal source income that he would have to be reporting.
	That's why.
	Why is he not filing returns during these key years?
	To protect his father's political career and to get president so they can really cash in.
	That's what the whole backstory is.
	Like, why didn't he just file the returns?
	Why didn't he just pay the tax?
	Because if he did so fully and honestly and forthcomingly, it would disclose their involvement in the Biden crime family of monetizing access to Joe Biden, both while he was vice president and in anticipation of him becoming president, and based on classified documents that he took that he didn't have the authority to have, that he could sell access to, the information to, while he was at office.
	This is a guy that leaves the vice presidency and all of a sudden he's...
	He's got Delaware beach houses and $11 million or whatever it was.
	You know, crazy amounts of income suddenly pouring in.
	It's like, based on what?
	So this was about, you know, and then of course the sophistication of involving art.
	I mean, what's different is a lot of money laundering in art is just you usually don't pretend to be the artist yourself, like Hunter Byte.
	You find some other artist, you pretend this artwork is really valuable, and you launder money that way.
	There's movies made about it.
	It's one of the favorite methods of money laundering in the world.
	Also, by the way, if you want to have secure assets, not a bad thing to do either under certain circumstances.
	Watches and jewels are a little bit easier to transport, but art can be an easy way to...
	Art's hard to seize, right?
	Unless they actually have physical access to it, the government.
	Hard to get, you know, if you store it, secure it the right way, it can be worth a lot of money.
	But so that's the timing.
	Interest me because it's on the eve of Hunter having to testify.
	Now, obviously, it'll be even easier for him to just take the fifth and not testify at all before Congress because he's got this tax indictment.
	And they needed Hunter to flip in order to be able to really successfully impeach Joe Biden in the court of public opinion.
	They can impeach him in the House, but to impeach him in the court of public opinion, which is their ultimate objective because they know they're not going to get a conviction out of the Senate.
	They needed someone like Hunter Biden to flip.
	Hunter Biden's not going to flip when he's facing, from his own father's Justice Department, five to ten years.
	By the way, that's the average sentencing risk.
	Sentencing risk here, he would get at least five years, typically.
	Up to ten without much difficulty.
	And if they throw in a legal source income, which is what this really is.
	And the other thing that's covered up here is, how many laws is he violating?
	I mean, he basically violated a law every state he went, so there's state law.
	Interesting, California hasn't indicted him yet, because California could have also indicted on the same basis the IRS, the Justice Department did, because of ties to California income sources and expenditures.
	But everybody could have been indicting for his involvement in human trafficking, his involvement in, there's evidence that he knew that's what it was on his laptop.
	The evidence, the scale of the evidence.
	I mean, now we look back.
	That laptop was an extraordinary revelation and the suppression of it by the mainstream media at the insistence of the CIA by people still being paid by the CIA, which is now being publicly disclosed, is really the most remarkable election interference that took place in 2020.
	In the history of America, possibly, Robert, I'm pulling out...
	Marco Polo's report on the laptop.
	He sent me a box to give out to select people when I go to events.
	Sorry, Marco Polo was suggesting that it looks like the California tax authorities were basically following his itemized breakdown of the finances of what Hunter spent his money on and incorporated it into the indictment.
	The question that I had was this.
	So I said...
	You know, it didn't look like they were playing nice with Hunter because they didn't have to make certain allegations that they did make, unless I, you know, maybe I don't know.
	When you're alleging tax fraud or tax evasion, do you have to allege what they spent the money on and not taxes?
	For willful failure to pay, you do.
	Because here's the, there's different, failure to pay is real risky, in my view, constitutionally.
	So we don't have debtors' prisons in America.
	And we don't have protesters' prisons in America.
	Now, right now we have people in prison for both.
	But we're not supposed to constitutionally.
	And tax runs right up against that.
	And that's why there's a robust willfulness defense, robust good-faith defense.
	But, for example, if all you do is you owe a tax and didn't pay, that cannot be a crime.
	Otherwise, we have debtor's prisons again.
	Hey, you owe a debt.
	The debt's to the government.
	You didn't pay.
	You go to prison.
	That's why it requires a unique kind of criminal willfulness.
	They had the means to pay, deliberately chose not to pay, and used evasive methods and mechanisms to prevent you, the government, from collecting the tax.
	That's why dealing in cash so extensively, that's why what he was spending it on can have material relevance.
	Now, I think the other reason here is this is the Biden Justice Department.
	Here's my alternative theory, like a hush-hush version.
	I think the Biden Justice Department actually fears Hunter Biden testifying against his father.
	I think they are effectively blackmailing the president's son into keeping his mouth shut.
	Keep your mouth shut and you don't go to federal prison for five to ten years.
	They thought they had that deal done previously, and then it got blown up by public exposure.
	And now I think they worry.
	I think Joe is very worried.
	I mean, is it really a coincidence his daughter's leaving behind her, you know, 12 Steps diary about the perverted behavior of her father?
	And then Hunter left a laptop with this incriminating information behind?
	I mean, these are people that are eager to testify about how nuts their father is and how he's destroyed their lives.
	And I think what Joe Biden is doing is using the Justice Department to make sure they keep their mouth shut.
	That's a very, very interesting theory.
	My operating theory is that both children hate the father for the abuse that they inflicted or neglect, and have been actively trying to sabotage him by living the most reckless lives imaginable.
	And they have not been able to successfully sabotage him because the agency's intelligence, criminal justice, everything is working to protect Joe Biden.
	Depict this with a bit of a humorous angle.
	Why else would you indict the kid?
	You indict the kid to keep his mouth shut, is my view.
	You don't indict the kid if you think indicting him will cause him to rat out the father.
	You indict the kid to keep him from ratting out the father.
	Fascinating.
	Snowball's chance in hell.
	I mean, what are Hunter's outs given this indictment at this point?
	Well, I think he will argue that the prior deal is still enforceable.
	So that will be one motion to dismiss.
	Otherwise, my guess would be to delay the proceedings until after the election with the expectation that if he keeps his mouth shut, Daddy will pardon him.
	Mother Cabri, Robert, you are a smart, smart man.
	Okay.
	Like I said, Joe's dumb, but when it comes to being a criminal, he's not that dumb.
	He's actually a decently smart criminal.
	Just low-level criminal.
	Not mastermind, not Lex Luthor, but...
	That's a damn, damn good theory.
	All right, we'll see how it pans out.
	The next one is the State Department censor suit, but I'm forgetting now my trigger words.
	Not my trigger, my clicking words.
	Which suit is this?
	This is the Texas one with the Daily Wire and the Federalist.
	Ah, yes, yes, yes.
	And it actually involves NewsGuard, which I'm wondering if Marissa Streit from PragerU is following this, is aware of it.
	I'm going to send it to her afterwards.
	So the Daily Wire production companies are suing only government entities, though, right?
	They're not suing NewsGuard as a private enterprise?
	Correct.
	This is just after the State Department.
	Okay.
	And they're alleging that, I mean, it's an amazing thing.
	They're alleging what we all know happens is that the State Department basically funds, works in collusion with private enterprise to censor through soft, indirect, and direct censorship to penalize, use these entities like NewsGuard to downgrade the worthiness of these companies.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	Deter advertisers and create financial penalties, de facto financial penalties, to make business hard for the...
	Unpopular media companies, Daily Wire, PragerU, etc.
	Tim Pool, for example, has had his issues with NewsGuard.
	Once they downrank you or demote you, it makes it harder to get advertisers or they use it as an excuse to boycott.
	Allegedly, the government is working hand-in-hand with these entities, doing indirectly that which they cannot do directly.
	And Daily Wire has said, no mas, enough, and we're suing.
	You're going to want to probably flesh out a little more detail as to the...
	Yeah, and the Texas attorney, really it looks to me like Paxton wanted a couple of allies and he was the instigator of the suit, is what it appears.
	But some of this is because of good reporting by The Federalist, which is one of the parties to the suit.
	Some of it's because of good reporting by The Washington Times.
	Some of it's been good reporting by Matt Taibbi at Redacted.
	And some of it's due to good reporting by Glenn Greenwald.
	Some of it's due from the discovery that arose and came out of Missouri v.
	Biden pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But almost all of the legal theory is thanks to one man, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr.
	So RFK has been leading the effort on this now for many years.
	He has worked with some Yale professors and others to brainstorm how to sue the censorship industrial complex.
	And the idea from the Yale professor that I've talked to and worked with on a range of helping develop some of these parallel cases that now Paxton, to his great credit, is borrowing and utilizing and bringing suit himself as the attorney general, because of all the certain weight, is there's three areas where the state is complicit in this censorship campaign.
	There's joint activity, and there's previously been Supreme Court cases, Blum and Sparks and others.
	That have said, if you're substantially intertwined, substantially encouraging, or jointly conspiring or participating to such a degree that it's almost indistinguishable what's a private actor and what's a state actor, then the state's on the hook for even the actions of a so-called private company.
	And here, that's exactly what people didn't know until a lot of this information came out, and Paxson developing it as well in the lawsuit.
	Is it agreed to which the State Department, much of it in secret, outside of their authority by congressional statute or delegation, a lot of it started in the Trump administration, working against Trump in secret.
	His own State Department was secretly working against him, Mike Pompeo, in extensive detail, basically operating like the CIA does, the deep state does.
	This is a deep state.
	This tells you that it was the deep state plan because it operated like a deep state plan.
	In other words, you get sort of black bag sources of money that have very little audit trails.
	You then set up a bunch of bogus private front groups that purport to be doing the activity, and it's all being funded and placed.
	It is mutatis mutatis identical to what we saw in the Twitter files, where you have government agencies working with the EIP, the Election Integrity Partnership, where they're basically saying, here's the funds, you go out and find us what we want, so that we can then say...
	Censor it, tag them, flag them, etc.
	But we're not doing it.
	We're just funding you and you're doing indirectly what we're not allowed doing directly, which was verbatim what the EIP said.
	My dog is running around.
	Robert, tell me why that's not wrong.
	My dog's gonna pull down the cable.
	Hold on.
	So that's exactly what took place.
	And what it is, is they were, you know, like these CIA front groups, like Worldwide Imports, that kind of thing.
	They created, you know, Disinformation Index.
	They created the Global Engagement Center.
	I mean, they created CIA-type names.
	I mean, the names are like right out of a Bond film.
	You know what I mean?
	So this whole thing is deep state.
	This is, credit to Paxton, he's going right at them.
	But that's what this is.
	This shows how much the censorship...
	It was not just some political partisan wish list.
	It was not just Fauci doing his own thing to cover his own complicity.
	In what Robert Kennedy, great new book out, the Wuhan cover-up, talking about the long history of bioweapons, he places Wuhan in the context of the dangerous bioweapon research that's been taking place under biosafety and biodefense bogus guidelines forever.
	But what is this Fauci?
	Was a figurehead, a frontman for the deep state, part of the deep state operation.
	This deep institutional influence of corrupt actors whose goal is to manipulate public policy for their own self-enrichment or empowerment of their own ideology, whether it's a George Soros or a Bill Gates.
	So you look at that dynamic.
	And that shows you the degree to which the censorship efforts were a deep state-focused effort.
	And the first guy they went after, the template was, the man reinstated this week, Alexander Emmerich Jones, after he was on with Tucker Carlson.
	And then they had him and Vivek were on a Twitter meetup with Elon Musk chatting away early today.
	So you see Elon fully extending the bridge that he...
	Remember, he told us.
	He told you.
	I'm never going to do it.
	I'm never going to do it.
	The Rolling Stone is already using that against him.
	A year ago, he said he would never do it, and now he's done it.
	And I'm having a bit of a Twitter back and forth with a man now who I've gotten into it with.
	Hold on.
	It is here.
	On it, Ryan Sheet, he's back.
	Elon Musk went through reinstating with Alex Jones to Twitter.
	Sandy Hill captains.
	Parents lost their kids.
	Alex Jones attacked them daily.
	That's factually incorrect.
	His followers harassed the parents.
	Some did.
	The court decided this fact.
	Factually incorrect.
	There was never any trial on the merits.
	It's amazing what people think they know.
	But it's not a coincidence that he was their first target.
	That was a sign that this was a deep state operation.
	Not just a Democratic partisan operation, not just an anti-Trump operation, but a deep state operation.
	Because what was distinct about Alex Jones from any other group, from say the Daily Wire or the Federalist or Ben Shapiro or any of these other conservatives that might be disliked?
	He's the number one guy that's been critical of war operations, the surveillance state, biggest promoter on the right of Julian Assange, of Edward Snowden, biggest critic of Trump whenever he did foreign intervention or was thinking about it.
	The guy who outed, you know, what Vault 7 outed about CIA plots years in advance.
	The guy who, as Tucker was talking about, was previewing 9-11.
	Months before 9-11, his buddy that was doing the Lone Gunman show connected to the X-Files predicted it almost to the script months in advance.
	So that's why when he was the target, it told you not only is this the template, this is a deep state operation.
	I mean, when I was his counsel, there was ties to Bill Gates coming after him.
	There was ties to Bezos coming after him.
	There was ties to George Soros targeting him.
	This was the deep state is the one running the censorship industry.
	The deep state is the one running the anti-Alex Jones lawfare.
	It doesn't get any more obvious than the deep state 51 intelligence officers coming out and saying that the Hunter Biden laptop story bears the earmarks or hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
	Basically, you got a kid trying to tell the world how sick his father is and the society he's had to inhabit.
	So sick that it's rottened out his own soul.
	And the system is terrified and paranoid that he's going to turn rat.
	And so all of this to cover up for Hunter has really been about shutting him up long enough that they can keep the old man in so that they can do their dirty business.
	But great lawsuit by Ken Paxton.
	Great job in that regard.
	And good by the Daily Wire and the Federalist Society to join the case.
	And further exposure of the scale of deep state corruption in this context is critical to Refurbishing real democracy.
	It's not to segue into the next one that I think you might be expecting, Robert, but while we're on Ken Paxton in Texas, can we jump to the abortion case?
	Because I'm genuinely curious to know what you think about it.
	Did you see who that judge was on that case?
	No.
	Who was it?
	Her name might have rang a bell.
	Who do you think didn't care about the law and was just saying, I hereby order the abortion to take place.
	I don't care what Texas law is.
	It was an Austin judge.
	Oh, no!
	I don't remember her name now, but Alex Jones' judge?
	It was Alex Jones.
	As soon as I saw the headline, I was like, I bet that's Alex Jones' judge.
	What's her name again?
	She's just the lunatic, corrupt hat to do that kind of thing.
	What's her name?
	Maya, whatever, whatever.
	Oh, she's the one who's yelling at Alex Jones.
	Okay.
	So this is...
	You played part of my video.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's like, hey, let me come in.
	I'll give you a real story.
	I almost fell off my chair because I forgot I'm not using a chair with a backing.
	I've used a new chair today, and it actually feels better.
	And before, by the way, that was Pudge dragging her paralyzed behind around the studio, and she nearly pulled down the cables on the lighting.
	So that was the panic there.
	Speaking of freedom, Owen Schroyer was free this week, so congrats to him.
	I don't know about Eaton's.
	He's drinking seven eggs.
	I'm not sure about that part, Owen.
	But glad to see he's finally out.
	Thanks to a lot of people out there that sent him books, letters, prayed for him.
	Oh, that makes a difference because he got out earlier than he would have normally.
	He didn't spend the whole time in the hole like I think would have happened normally.
	Worse things could have happened to him inside but for all the political pressure so that Warden knew the world was watching.
	So credit to everybody out there for...
	Doing a difference.
	But glad to see Owen out and about.
	Have you ever drunk a raw egg in your life, Robert?
	Dear Lord, no.
	I've had quail eggs on top of beef tartare.
	Oh, that's really good.
	Those are delicious.
	I like boiled eggs.
	I like deviled eggs, but I'm not drinking no raw egg.
	Well, I'm thinking, oh, I would never drink raw eggs, but I've had quail eggs on beef tartare, which many people might think is absolutely disgusting.
	Oh, that's really good, though.
	That's really different.
	It's delicious.
	All right, so the Texas lawsuit is based on the Texas law that prohibits abortions after a certain date.
	I forget what it is.
	With limited exceptions.
	With limited exceptions, apparently one of which did not include the non-viability of the fetus.
	So this is where I'm not sure I know all the facts, and I did as much reading, not as much because I didn't do all of it.
	Apparently the exclusion did not include the non-viability of the fetus.
	And so this woman who's at...
	I want to say 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy, discovers that her fetus suffers from a...
	To the extent the diagnosis is accurate, it's trizanome 18. It's, I guess, sort of a form of Down syndrome, although it's another type of syndrome.
	The baby's not going to be viable, apparently, according to the articles.
	I don't know if that's true according to the lawsuit.
	And the woman says, I want an abortion.
	They say you can't get one because of the law.
	Doesn't provide an exception for non-viability.
	Is it accepted fact in the case that the fetus would be non-viable and the woman's life was at risk?
	Oh, no, not the latter.
	Because all you have to show to get an abortion in Texas at any time is that the abortion either presents an imminent risk of serious bodily harm or substantial impairment of any substantial bodily function.
	See, there's a claim that...
	There's no claim that going through the pregnancy will endanger her.
	It's only that it might risk future pregnancies.
	Fertility, that's right.
	Okay.
	Fertility.
	That would be sufficient.
	My guess is there's some doctors that are not...
	Well, there's one or two things happening.
	That's really true, but doctors are using it as a factually...
	Persuasive case to try to undermine the abortion laws in Texas?
	Because that could be the backstory.
	Or it's not really fully true.
	In other words, it's not something the doctor feels that if somebody investigated him, they would agree with that conclusion on.
	And so that's my suspicion.
	It's the latter.
	These are Austin liberal judges who just want to eviscerate the abortion laws.
	Yes, but look, and I'm inclined to like Ken Paxton and agree with most of what he does.
	When I read the descriptions of this case, I'm like, if the fetus is going to be non-viable, I know some people...
	Well, that would never be grounds, though.
	Everything's within the self-defense context.
	So the part of the abortion laws I agree with is the self-defense context.
	So self-defense is not whether the baby's alive or not.
	The self-defense is I, the mother, if I go through with the pregnancy, I'm in danger.
	I've argued with my conservative friends who oppose abortion at any time, but definitely in a later term of the pregnancy.
	I was like, well, we allow people to defend themselves, even against someone that's not culpable.
	Let's say someone's fallen asleep in a car and coming right at me, and the only way I can survive is to take their life.
	I'm legally allowed to do that.
	Their culpability is not a relevant factor legally.
	So all of that would be self-defense for the mother.
	But to the degree, if they're wrong about the part about her substantial bodily impairment of future fertility, unless she goes through with the abortion, let's assume for the moment that, because if that part's right, then she has a legal claim under Texas law as it exists.
	And I think constitutionally under self-defense principles.
	But if that's not the case, if the only risk is to the baby, you can't kill the baby in the name of protecting the baby.
	That's not self-defense legally.
	And so I get, now, I have suspicions on some of this.
	My concern is that some of this is people don't want to have a kid with Down syndrome or have other mental limitations.
	I mean, there's a long, unfortunate history.
	Of people being aborted because of being the wrong color, being the wrong gender, or having a mental condition that they don't like.
	I don't like a lot of this testing they do in the pregnancy stage to tell you whether they're going to have this medical.
	Unless it's done in some way you can treat the person, this is designed to create eugenics, in my view.
	And there's a little undercurrent there that felt a little...
	I was like, it wouldn't shock me.
	If a full investigation would reveal eugenics at root, at least in some people who are part of this.
	Maybe not the mother.
	Maybe it's the people bringing the suit.
	Maybe it's the people funding the suit.
	Maybe it's the people connecting to the doctor.
	But that part concerned me.
	If they start saying the mental condition of the fetus allows you to kill the fetus, that's eugenics.
	That's all that is.
	I'm more open to the idea of the viability of the fetus.
	Identifiable clear forms of some form of crippling, debilitating condition that I know people would disagree with it, and I understand that they would disagree with me for saying I can contemplate that as being an exception I would allow for in the law.
	How do you do that without then that line getting real?
	Well, because it's the same argument about circumcision versus female genital mutilation.
	One permanently alters the functioning of something.
	The other one is cosmetic to some extent, or it gives, you know, cosmetic.
	It doesn't alter the functioning of an organ.
	If we say it's okay to take a life because that life is not going to be a happy life.
	Not a happy life.
	I think that's got to be a hard line where we say no, never.
	Well, the happy life wouldn't be the way I would describe it if I were going to draft legislation for it, but say permanent, irreversible...
	But then wouldn't that justify various forms of eugenics?
	It would change the condition for eugenics of substantial deformity, but it would still be a form of eugenics.
	I get the sympathy.
	People don't want someone brought into life that can't have a happy life, that's going to be miserable, that's going to be paying for themselves and everybody around them.
	But I have never found a limit that doesn't open the door to eugenics.
	I mean, that's the argument.
	But then it's like you go through the hypotheticals.
	If you know day one the baby's going to be born and die because its heart's on the outside of its body, would you allow that?
	I mean, those are like, you go from the black and white, and then you have to legislate or argue the differences.
	So it was just as a matter of fact where they said the fetus was not going to be viable.
	And I'm like, okay, well then, I don't know, to me that seems like a reasonable...
	It seems like a reasonable court order.
	Well, it's just not within the Texas public policy permission.
	And then it would be a question of if you don't like the policy, then you go to another state.
	Then the question would be, could this person have gone to California, for example, and gotten it done in a heartbeat?
	And that's why all these cases I'm suspect of, all these abortion-related cases over the last two years, because usually there's a very easy practical solution for the person.
	And it's like, I think this is a political case, and they're bringing it to make a political example.
	They're not really doing it because they really need the procedure.
	Because if they did, they would just get it done.
	So that's my...
	Especially when time is of the essence and they take time to go to court for an injunction as opposed to a six-hour drive.
	I don't know how long it is from Texas to California.
	Okay, Robert, before we get into the next subject, I realize I haven't done any of the rumble rants and we've got a new follower, it looks like, or a member of the community.
	Francis Montgomery.
	I knew a Montgomery back in Quebec.
	Can you guys make a video about the Reedy Creek Disney audit here in Florida?
	It's really interesting.
	Screen grabbed.
	Aunt Debbie is now a monthly supporter.
	Aunt Debbie, welcome to our above-average community.
	Matt Reese.
	Since, as most Islamic scholars agree, there has never been a land of Palestine, do Palestinians actually exist?
	Wouldn't the inhabitants of Gaza be more accurately referred to as Gazans?
	I think most people with a knowledge of history would agree with that.
	Viva, this is from T1990.
	Viva, I've got a movie recommendation for you to take your family to.
	The Boy and the Heron.
	Dude, you have no idea why that is so prescient.
	My father-in-law, his spirit animal was a heron.
	Okay, and my kid, whenever he sees the hair and he says, hey, Grandpa, it's weird and it's beautiful.
	Nike7 says, Viva February 2024 is approaching.
	Have you or others considered the great value of a documentary about the trucker protest?
	I think it would inspire Canadians and others.
	The timing would be amazing.
	There are various projects in the making for that, and I might be participating as a document, not as a participant in one of them, so stay tuned.
	Pinochet's helicopter tours.
	Why is there no FARA charges against Biden?
	Obama and others are just as guilty.
	Robert, a good question.
	In the intro paragraph, they referred to Hunter Biden as a lobbyist, which I thought was weird, as did Dan Bongino when it was his idea.
	I can't steal it.
	Are they opening the door for FARA violations?
	Are they saying, hey, Hunter, you better shut your face or we'll come after you for FARA violations?
	Oh, no, I don't think so, because the problem with all of that is...
	They're trying to stay away from locking him in and inculpating his father and the family.
	So they're trying to give him an incentive to not testify against his father and to be dependent on his father to avoid jail without doing something that would require him to out his father in the trial itself.
	Deb's Wish says statute limitations has been used as a reason Hunter can't be charged with additional tax evasion.
	Can those in authority obstruction of justice can hunter then get additional charges no i think no no no that was from a deb's wish uh b shopper says viva great numbers tonight love authentic creators like you and robert sharing truth no love from alex on spaces for rumble and crowder who have been the I didn't hear it.
	Look, when you have 50,000 things going on in your day and you forget to mention something, don't take it personally.
	Part of life is not taking things personally because there's a lot of Innocuous, natural explanations for forgetting things.
	People are forgetful.
	So unless it was an outright, Rumble sucks, Twitter's the best, give him the benefit of the doubt.
	And he's been very publicly, he's helped Crowder a great deal and supported Rumble.
	Yeah.
	Am I going to get offended he didn't mention me?
	Hells no.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	We've got two more here.
	Last minute, Leon.
	Can you please interview Hillel Neuer, a Canadian human rights lawyer?
	Why do I know him?
	I'm going to look that name up.
	I think I...
	Canadian human rights lawyer and executive director of UN Watch.
	is famous.
	Where are your Jews speech at the UN?
	And then we got Grandpa's Place, six hour drive from Austin West and you're still I know that, incidentally, because when I was there with my kid for Alex Jones' trial back a year and a half ago, my kid says, hey, I want to do a Breaking Bad tour in Albuquerque.
	I was like, okay, let's do it.
	It's the next state over.
	Eight and a half hours to cross the border just to get from Austin to New Mexico.
	Roswell, we spent the night in Roswell, did the next day all around Breaking Bad, went to house after house.
	And then drove back.
	Not as long as the drive from Florida to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, which was a beautiful drive.
	All right, Robert, what's next on the menu?
	Let me see here.
	We got Trump.
	Oh, Trump.
	Okay, well, I can do the New York trial, and you can do the stay, because I don't know what's happening with the stay.
	The New York trial, my good God, they had his expert come out and say, yeah.
	Shame on all of you for bringing this prosecution.
	It goes back to the fight that I'm having with this guy on Twitter, Ryan Sheed, where people are like, well, he's found guilty, so he must be wrong.
	And they don't understand in the fraud trial, in Alex Jones's defamation trial, it was a default verdict.
	Based on alleged discovery violations, they bypassed evidentiary obligations, they bypassed statute of limitations issues, they bypassed all complex thorny questions of law.
	Default verdict.
	Angeron has followed suit of the witch judge in Austin and said, look, I skip all the hearing on the merits.
	I declare a summary judgment fraud of his evaluation of Mar-a-Lago.
	And then people say, well, he had a trial, so he must have been found guilty based on the facts.
	They did not have any meaningful trial on the fraud.
	They declare fraud, Angeron, nipple judge Angeron and his girlfriend Allison Greenfield.
	They declare fraud on the evaluation and then proceed to six weeks more trial.
	On what?
	The amount.
	And Trump's defense comes in, and they basically say, this is all garbage.
	The Deutsche Bank came in and said, we would have given him, we would have extended him the loans, even if we had halved his original self-evaluations or whatever, his own statements.
	We would have cut them in half, still given him the loan.
	We did our own due diligence.
	We're not idiots.
	We're the Deutsche Bank.
	We've worked with such clients as Jeffrey Epstein.
	We know what we're doing.
	The mistakes on the square footage of the condo?
	Big effing deal.
	It changes nothing.
	These are innocent mistakes to the extent that they're even mistakes.
	And then he tried to shame Judge Engron and everyone for bringing this prosecution.
	The case is Alex Jones 2.0.
	It's a steaming pile of judicial dog crap.
	And then the only question is, where does it go from here?
	Robert, where does it go from here?
	Well, I think in the court of public opinion, anyone that had any degree of independence observing the trial would come to the conclusion that it's a complete crock.
	Here you have some leading experts, leading professors of finance, of banking, the bank itself, the insurance people themselves, the corporate executives themselves.
	They've all testified the same way, that in fact there was nothing fraudulent about this at all, that they don't even think it was false.
	They don't think it was even exaggerated.
	In fact, the conclusion of one of his experts was, I would have gone higher on Mar-a-Lago.
	That Trump was actually underestimating its potential value, as can be witnessed now in the marketplace.
	That Trump didn't even fully anticipate where that land value would go.
	And that he understated a lot of his real estate wealth, not exaggerated it.
	And so you have no fraud case at all.
	None.
	Zero, zilts, zonka, nada.
	And you've got a corrupt partisan hack of a judge with his corrupt partisan staff, including his clerk, maybe writing his opinions for him, presiding over a show trial that is an embarrassment to show trials.
	And so there's no question that he'll still screw Trump, but it increases substantially the probability that Court of Appeals in New York sets it aside.
	But what it also does is it increases Trump's It's like Russiagate all over again.
	It's like what January 6th has actually proven to be for those who studied it, which is a fake case after fake case after fake case.
	And at some point you're like, okay, you can't accuse this guy falsely again and again and again and have any credibility six months from now, come election day.
	They think they can get away with it in D.C. because they have a partisan jury pool, a partisan judge, and a partisan court of appeals.
	But this week they appealed the denial of immunity.
	And what I have been suggesting as a strategy now for quite some time, I was glad to see them embrace.
	Which is start filing motions to stay all of these cases until the constitutional questions get resolved.
	Because it would allow the Supreme Court to get involved without even making a substantive ruling.
	The Supreme Court could step in and say, this all needs to be stayed until we can have a full briefing on the merits because there's so many big constitutional consequences here.
	It would allow the Supreme Court to also stop the embarrassment of the judiciary interfering in a presidential election.
	And then what the Supreme Court could do is wait until see the election outcome and then say, okay, here's how we're going to go.
	But you always want to give them practical options that don't require them to go full throttle, either with you or against you.
	Give them something that gets you what you need for the time being.
	They're now seeking not only an appeal of the immunity order, on the grounds that he has constitutional immunity for the prosecution brought in on both the argument I made about impeachment being a bar, on the argument that impeachment effectively creates double jeopardy risk in this case, but also on the grounds that constitutionally you can indict the president for doing his job.
	And so on those three grounds, they're saying this should all be stayed until the higher courts resolve it.
	So I don't expect the D.C. Court of Appeals to step in because they're a bunch of political hacks, as we saw again this week.
	But it gives the pretext for the Supreme Court to step in, which is enhanced by seeing these disgraceful proceedings in New York.
	Now, that leads to the other big decision this week, which was the gag order.
	The main effect, as Trump's people realized a little bit later, What probably happened is his lawyers told him, you know, just be careful.
	They're overly cautious.
	But the reality is the Court of Appeals eviscerated 95% of her gag order because her gag order had no real limits on it at all.
	Instead, what the D.C. Circuit said is, if you're doing something that has the risk of inciting obstructive delaying behavior, or that's your intent, Then that speech can be limited, but only as to judicial staff, not as to the court, not as to the special counsel.
	You can do whatever you want about the court.
	You can do whatever you want about special counsel.
	You can talk about witnesses all you want, as long as it doesn't have a legal obstructive intent, purpose, and likely impact.
	That's already legally prohibited anyway.
	So the restraining order, the gag order, says you can't break the law.
	Exactly.
	That's all they really did.
	Now, there was one place where they tried to blur it.
	It was interesting to me.
	They're trying to blur it the same way conservatives are trying to blur the Israeli speech.
	It's like, separate out the Thomas Massies of the world, who have very legitimate viewpoints you might disagree with, but are not rooted in trying to kill anybody.
	He's trying to reduce the number of deaths in the world.
	God bless Joel Pollack.
	Very smart, very nice guy, but Breitbart shouldn't be doing hit pieces on Thomas Massey, one of the most important advocates for liberty interests in the country.
	In fact, you should call your congressman and tell him to back the Prime Act and all the good reforms that Thomas Massey's trying to pass so people like Amos Miller can make food the way we all want it.
	But that's what Thomas Massey's busy doing.
	But the same space here, where they were blurring the line is they said...
	Well, Trump can't say anything about the court staff that will lead to two things.
	Obstruction and delay of the trial because of robocalling the staff, doxing the staff, or harassing the staff.
	Now, there the problem is they're blurring the line on imminent incitement.
	They don't say anything about...
	They say this has already happened.
	It's like, no, Trump hasn't violated any imminent incitement.
	They're citing the New York case.
	It's like, that is an imminent incitement, right?
	And you aren't responsible for the consequences of what somebody else does because of your speech.
	That's never been grounds to legally limit First Amendment.
	And the three Democratic D.C. Court of Appeals judges, who again had to admit that this gag order was so bad they had to eviscerate 90% of it while pretending they weren't eviscerating 95% of it.
	But they're trying to salvage this little piece of covering up the judicial staff.
	First of all, doxing is not even illegal.
	If you're a federal employee getting paid, the world should know who you are.
	You don't get to be in secret.
	We don't have secret courts in America.
	These judges got to get that through their head.
	They got to quit doing this.
	I've been threatened by that with judges, and I have to remind them, your clerk is staff.
	They get taxpayer paychecks.
	That's who pays them.
	They're not entitled to anonymity.
	Just the opposite.
	The world's entitled to know who's making decisions that impact our lives and our liberties.
	And so that part's garbage.
	The other part that's garbage, they don't tie it to imminent incitement.
	It has to be imminent incitement.
	It can't be, you say something, somebody else does something, we're going to now blame you for that and say somehow it violates Jaguar.
	I hope they go back and arrest Bernie Sanders for the guy who shot up the baseball field in Judge Scalise.
	Go arrest Bernie Sanders.
	Something he said, did it.
	And Rachel Maddow.
	Who said a lot of things that helped light BLM on fire in the summer of love.
	She was raising bail for them.
	Sorry, I can't get angry.
	She was raising bail to bail out the protesters.
	The violent thug criminals.
	The only BLM people I respected in that were the real thieves.
	Those are the guys right there.
	While the BLM protest, they were breaking off and robbing banks along the way.
	And I was like, I can respect you.
	I can respect you, a real criminal.
	They understood what the march was about.
	What I love is that when they were talking about the riots in Ireland that Conor McGregor caused, you know, whatever, and they said like, oh, some of them are protesting the far-right stuff and others are looting stores.
	I'm like, I don't think the same protesters are protesting the far-right stuff and looting stores.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	I don't think I am.
	But the Court of Appeal has adjudicated on that, restricted it, and I knew that that was the angle because the way the news frames it upholds most of the gag order.
	It knows.
	You know when you see that because that was the news.
	You know that it's materially prejudicial to the position.
	Yeah, it's completely false.
	They denied most of the gag order.
	They completely revoked most of the gag order by saying, you can't do this speech if your intent and likely effect is to obstruct the proceedings.
	But by the way, this doesn't apply at all to the special counsel or to the court itself.
	It only applies to the court staff.
	And so, yeah, you can't obstruct the proceeding.
	No, duh.
	Where they try to blur the line is to suggest if you get people to do mass robocalling deliberately and intentionally with the purpose of delaying the proceeding, then that can be limited.
	I don't agree with him on that.
	That's not consistent to First Amendment prior restraint law.
	That's the grounds he could appeal to the Supreme Court and give an additional opportunity for them to step in.
	And clarify this once and for all.
	But there was a lot of...
	The media lied about what the DC...
	Even three Democratic judges admitted 95% of her order was garbage.
	Well, my issue is like, I don't know how to piece out how it applies to the reality, their order, the way they frame it.
	It's like, okay, you can't do this.
	I do, because I've done these before.
	And I can tell you, basically, it would be impossible under their current reconstruction to argue that he has violated the order.
	They would need him to say, hey, everybody.
	Don't do it, Robert.
	Don't say it.
	This particular judicial clerk so that I can stop the proceedings from happening.
	Outside of that, they have nothing.
	There's nothing that's gagged anymore.
	Mass robocall is a non-offensive example.
	I thought you were going to go tell him that because lawyers are going to be paranoid of what Trump might say.
	So they're going to over say, hey, just don't say anything, please.
	Well, and that is the intended result.
	It's indirect suppression of speech.
	I was like, no, you're free to say whatever you want.
	You know, just obviously don't do something that obstructs a witness.
	He knows how to do that.
	And let him make an example of it and see what the example goes to.
	If he tweets out.
	Allison Greenfield.
	Doesn't matter.
	I won't say it.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Very good.
	January 6th, we talked about it at the beginning.
	Austin, we talked about the abortions.
	Now, Mexico, Robert, I didn't read this.
	I didn't read this.
	So what is going on in Mexico?
	So in Mexico, the president comes from, like, most central Latin American versions of populism.
	Though Malay, the right-leaning libertarian-oriented populist, was just inaugurated.
	With a great speech in Buenos Aires in Argentina.
	Robert, hold on.
	Now that you've mentioned it, it's right there in front of my face.
	So this is, I believe, from his speech now.
	Mark Robert is saying that he's committed an about-face on the Paris Climate Agreement.
	Robert, I thought this was Harry Potter.
	When I saw this first, I made the joke.
	Not to be mean.
	I legit thought that that was Harry Potter.
	All right, so he's been sworn in now.
	Yes, and he said, you know, liberty and also great speech.
	But the Mexican president comes from the left populist side of the equation, which is the much more common populist political expression in Latin America and Central America.
	And I guess, but like all populists of all political stripes, the professional managerial class doesn't like him.
	That's the permanent enemy of populism everywhere.
	Perked up in positions of power in Mexico, in the Mexican judiciary.
	And so the new Mexican president, who's also, by the way, was very sympathetic to Trump's challenges on the election because he himself had been the prior victim of stolen elections.
	Stolen elections that have, you know, made Netflix series like Narcos, rather infamous stolen elections.
	Some of his...
	Political party, affiliates, associates, even family members.
	But so he's calling for institutional reform by returning judges to elections, which it's a reflection and recognition that the judiciary is a constant hindrance to most liberty movements historically.
	Unfortunately, they have not been the last protector of liberty.
	They have often been its first infringer.
	And the Mexicos call for let's change all our judges to no longer be appointed but directly elected.
	Credit to him because he could just try to stack the courts in his own way.
	And instead he's saying, no, let's return power to the people because that will at least give us a slightly better chance at better judges.
	It's not a perfect solution, but it's a better one than allowing them to be appointed because when they're appointed, they tend to be worse.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Now, Robert, I realize on the January 6th case, on the January 6th setup, we forgot to deal with the actual case of the guy who was just sentenced to 11 years and three months because he brought a frickin' hatchet.
	Maybe he brought some other stuff to the Capitol protest.
	Didn't use anything.
	Didn't go into the building.
	This is a 59-year-old man.
	I mean, it's just one injustice after the next, but...
	And again, the average rape...
	Convicted defendant gets four years in America.
	This guy got 11 years, didn't even go inside the Capitol.
	But didn't commit an actual act of violence.
	Yeah, no act of violence towards anybody.
	He brought a hatchet.
	That was the biggest thing.
	And then he said death to tyrants and whatever.
	Make it sound so scary.
	It's what they're terrified of.
	They're terrified of ordinary people recreating the American Revolution.
	But it's fiction.
	It's fabricated.
	These people didn't do that.
	In fact, more and more evidence is coming out that the only violent interaction at all between any member of Capitol Police and anybody there on January 6th was in response to Capitol Police violence.
	That's why they've been hiding the tapes all along.
	None of these people were as violent as everybody else was in the summer of love throughout America.
	And almost none of them faced any prosecution or punishment, including the ones in D.C. Who tried to raid the White House and burn down the church across from the White House.
	That loser, Legal Schmeagel, tried to bring a lawsuit.
	I'm pretty sure he lost, because I've never heard him talk about it again.
	He lost like he usually is.
	That's what losers do.
	They lose.
	That's Legal Schmeagel.
	Otherwise known as Legal Eagle here on YouTube.
	But so you look at the...
	But the other thing this defendant alleged is he's preserving the issue that this entire thing was a setup.
	People have to understand this.
	Ex-police chief, two decades of untarnished service from what I understand, he brought a hatchet to Capitol.
	Jesus, I bring a hatchet going hiking.
	So if I'm camping and I say, oh, it doesn't...
	11 years in prison.
	That's a death sentence for a 59-year-old man.
	He drove from his home to California to Washington.
	How dare he?
	Instead of flying so that he could load his car with weapons.
	Federal prosecutors said, and all he brought was a hatchet, because that's how you overthrow a government.
	Maybe back in the day.
	It's an absolute atrocious outrage.
	And he details all the informants, infiltrators, instigators, provocative actions, lack of security presence, inconsistent actions of the Capitol Police that were agent provocateurs in one way, shape, or form, sometimes escorting people in, sometimes directing them to certain places, sometimes physically attacking vulnerable people.
	I mean, like, why do you attack an old lady three times, throw her down a flight of stairs?
	You do that to provoke the crowd.
	Why are you throwing the equivalent of almost like grenades and their sound effect?
	Well, I think you experienced that.
	I experienced that in Ottawa.
	It's like, why are they doing this?
	Then I understood what they're doing.
	To trigger a panic response from the crowd.
	Panic or violence, both of which lead to the same thing.
	An excuse for the police to come in.
	That's exactly right.
	Speaking of defending yourself...
	There's a big case before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals where the First Amendment and Second Amendment intersect.
	This is very cool.
	So this one, it's interesting, Robert, because again, I'm a Canadian schnook.
	I'm inclined to say, what's the big deal?
	Hand out the pamphlet.
	It talks about suicide.
	It's good to know.
	What state are we in?
	Is it Maryland?
	It's not Maryland.
	It is Maryland.
	Okay.
	So Maryland gun dealers are allegedly, purportedly, based on some bylaw regulation, whatever it is, Being required to distribute, hand out suicide prevention pamphlets prepared by the state, by the county, at the place where they dispense the selling of guns.
	Because apparently there's a causal correlation between selling guns and suicide, more so, I guess, than vehicles and suicide with association, more so than drugs and suicide, overdoses, more so than ropes and suicide.
	I mean, are you buying that rope to tow a car?
	Think about suicide prevention.
	Not to make light of it.
	The only question is whether or not this can be compelled.
	And so they say, hand out these flies when you sell a gun because people should be notified about the risk of suicide just in case they're buying the gun to off themselves.
	They say this is compelled speech.
	We don't have to do it.
	The retort argument is that you're a commerce.
	This is commercial speech.
	It's different than individual speech.
	You can be compelled to do it for public policy reasons.
	Now I don't recall.
	I don't think any judgment has been issued.
	This is a lawsuit seeking the...
	Oh, the district court ruled in favor of the state.
	It's now on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
	I guess I missed that.
	Oh, no, I did not miss that part.
	Okay, I'm sorry.
	So they're appealing the underlying court decision, which was, this is fine.
	It's lawful compulsion of speech.
	Sorry, no, that I did get.
	There's no ultimate resolution just yet.
	I'm inclined, not to say like I'm a pushover because now I realize what happens if you say yes, you give them an inch, they take a mile.
	It's like, okay, we'll do it.
	Hey dude, put your pamphlets here.
	If people want them, they'll take them.
	Just don't make me do anything.
	That still would be giving them an inch for which they would take a yard, a mile of everything.
	I understand.
	This is like you're forcing only gun dealers, not any other enterprise, not any other business that might have more of a correlation to overdoses, deaths, killing yourselves.
	What's your take?
	Where do you think it goes?
	And does this go to the Supreme Court?
	Potentially, depending on what the Fourth Circuit decides, because it's a compelled speech case.
	And the state is not allowed to compel you to do speech unless they have compelling justification.
	And they admit they couldn't meet that, so instead they pretended it was actually not really compelled speech, the judge.
	It was commercial advertising regulation.
	And compared it to a famous lawyer case about whether you can regulate lawyer advertising.
	And the lawyer advertising, they said, the Supreme Court, that it's commercial advertising, so you have a lot more restraint there.
	Now, by the way, people forget they still struck down a wide range of limitations that bars where Supreme Courts were trying to impose on lawyers all across the country.
	But they allowed some of it.
	Because of, well, if I'm advertising a product for sale that has less First Amendment protection than political speech about an issue of public import.
	The problem is forcing people to give out suicide prevention manuals when you sell your product.
	You might as well do that at Burger King and McDonald's.
	By the way, you'll die if you keep buying this.
	That's not commercial advertising regulation.
	That's just coerced speech with a political message.
	To undermine gun sales because they don't like it politically.
	Ironic, you know, in Baltimore, like, you know, it's not like you're restricting legal gun sales is really your problem.
	Most of the gun violence takes place in Baltimore.
	Illegally purchased guns.
	When you buy your Metro Pass, they should make you worry about a murder risk.
	But when you decide to rent or live in Baltimore, they should give you...
	By the way, this is the equivalent of suicide in terms of your increased risk.
	So the...
	And it's clear the message they're trying to impose.
	The other thing the judge said was, oh, this is just factual information.
	Merely factual.
	They're not really doing an association.
	You've got to be kidding me.
	I go to buy a gun and suddenly he said, oh, by the way, you need to have this.
	So just the fact of doing it is coercive and associational.
	No, but then I can imagine a world in which, oh, they go seize somebody's ass, you know, they go raid somebody's house and he's got suicide prevention pamphlets in his house and they say red flag laws.
	He shouldn't own a gun.
	He's about to, you know, he's a risk.
	I mean, I could see that it goes there very easily.
	See, it's obvious what they're doing, and you just have a political hack of a judge who doesn't like the Second Amendment, who's trying to gut the First Amendment to get there.
	The Fourth Circuit should reverse.
	If they don't, hopefully the Supreme Court will take up the case, because this is just another way for them to try to undermine gun laws.
	There are a couple of Second Amendment cases that struck down part of and upheld part of New York's concealed carry laws.
	That's probably heading to the Supreme Court, too, because so many liberal judges refuse to enforce their Second Amendment ruling.
	The same way the Austin judges are refusing to enforce the Dobbs ruling.
	So they're wanting to ignore what the Supreme Court did and just do their own thing.
	Regardless.
	And that seems to me what's happening in the common theme in some of these cases.
	But what I found curious, or at least my question was in reading this, is there a distinction between commercial speech and individual speech to the extent that, you know, on cigarettes they make you affix a warning on the package?
	That's the kind of thing you can do.
	If it's purely factual and it relates to the product, then you can limit how it's advertised.
	Because it's commercial speech for a commercial purpose.
	That doesn't have the same protection as political speech about a public matter or religious speech.
	The question is whether or not this is political versus matter of fact.
	This is not even commercial.
	This isn't saying regulating the advertising.
	Also, he contradicted himself.
	How is it regulating the advertising of guns and it says nothing negative about guns?
	He makes both claims.
	Those claims are contradictory.
	That it has to be pertinent to guns for it to be commercial regulation of commercial advertising of guns.
	So he just lies.
	I mean, this is your classic, corrupt, partisan political judge.
	In their own order, they'll say things that contradict each other.
	And that's what that judge did.
	All right, before we get to the next subject, and then we're going to move over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com sooner than later.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	No, it's not here.
	It's here.
	Looks like we have another member, Robert.
	Okay.
	Six-hour drive from Austin West.
	You're still in Texas.
	I got that.
	La local loca.
	The lady wouldn't have to drive to California because New Mexico allows full-term abortions and we are right next door to Texas.
	Then we got Credence Gold is now a monthly supporter.
	Credence, welcome to our above-average community.
	Texas Lady Jane.
	I know that name.
	Barnes and Viva.
	Best show on the internet.
	Blessings and peace.
	Thank you very much.
	I'll take the piece.
	Because that is a blessing.
	Have any of you gents hear anything about the Ohio train derailment?
	News or lawsuits?
	That's East Palestine.
	Creedence Gold.
	No, but good refresher of a memory.
	I'm going to get Nick Sartor back on sooner than later.
	LostCore23.
	Barnes needs more crabs for Christmas, given his feelings towards my home state.
	Also, Viva.
	Check out Blaine Pardo's Writer's Fix Problems show on a future conflict channel.
	Read Blue Dawn.
	All right, we'll do.
	Robert, let me bring this out.
	Let me bring this back in.
	Oh, there was a good statement on our Locals board, fivobarneslaw.locals.com.
	We'll try to answer all the $5 tip questions.
	Not trying.
	We will.
	As a matter of commercial advertising, laws should be passed that if you're going to work for either Bill or Hillary Clinton, that there is an unusual risk of suicide.
	Oh!
	Sorry, I'm screaming.
	Yes.
	Okay, it does it.
	I was going to make a joke and name a name, but I won't.
	Do we do the next three, or do we do one more here, then we'll move on over to VivaBarnesLaw.locals?
	We'll do one more here, and then we'll do the other two at the afterparty at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Let's do the one that I don't care about, Robert.
	NCAA is sued again.
	Sports...
	We'll save the NCAA and the SAG-VAX mandate for the afterparty.
	Let's cover Silverman.
	Okay.
	Suing AI.
	So she's suing AI.
	I forget which one it is.
	Which one is it?
	I forgot the name.
	She's involved in suing all of them.
	She has different suits in different places.
	She's claiming that the AI has been programmed to read her book and summarize it.
	As if, first of all...
	Sarah, you should be happy that someone read your book, even if it's a robot, that they've unauthorized read and summarized it, thus, I guess, what, deterring anyone from reading her rubbish book?
	Maybe it's good.
	I don't know.
	AI has it in their algorithm that they are appropriating portions of the book for the purposes of the programming and summarizing, et cetera, et cetera.
	And she says, they're making money off my hard work.
	I'm sympathetic to that to some extent, but is she going to go after, like, Book review clubs and Oprah Winfrey who read these books and then summarize them to the public as if that's potentially free advertising that you would have never otherwise gotten.
	This is the fundamental legal question of AI being programmed to aggregate the information of the internet and then provide a Google type search engine result for what is fill in the blank.
	I'm sympathetic, but I don't really care if the book is good.
	People will read it.
	And a summary is going to be the advertising that she probably couldn't pay for.
	What's your take on the lawsuit and the chances of it going anywhere?
	So right now, all these suits are running into a brick wall judicially because the fundamental, the biggest part of their claim was not specific copyright infringement, but general copyright infringement.
	And it's to what you just described.
	It's the idea that AI itself is built on...
	The incorporating all of this copyrighted material in anything it ever produces.
	So the question is, is that an act of copyright infringement?
	Or is it fair use, even if it is?
	And even without there being specific copyright infringement, such as, say, selling her book for free or for a dollar or something like that.
	The courts are all saying it's not.
	The courts are wanting to protect AI as the reality here.
	They're saying that, I think, politically.
	They've made the decision that unless you can prove specific copyright infringement, you don't have a copyright infringement claim.
	For example, hey ChatGPT, give me a copy of her book.
	Oh, here it is.
	I found it on the internet.
	Versus, give me a summary of her shitty book that no one's going to pay money to read.
	Or give me a summary of Peck's topic that might borrow from ideas in her book.
	Things like that.
	Now, I haven't tried out this Grok.
	Supposedly, if you have a...
	I guess I don't have the right level of membership.
	But apparently, Grok is kind of more of a fun AI.
	The Elon Musk Twitter AI.
	I don't know if you've tried it yet.
	Apparently, you can roast yourself.
	I have never tried...
	You can actually roast you.
	I have never tried any AI.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	Back in the day when you sent...
	That GPT actually had a relatively fair description of me.
	Maybe they've changed that now, but the initial description was like, hey, all right, this is actually...
	Well, hold on.
	This is not a fake Wikipedia one that people keep messing around with.
	I've never done it.
	What does chat GPT have to say about me?
	I don't care because...
	Yeah, yeah, you should.
	You look at Biba Frye.
	He'll probably now say famous right-wing extremist.
	But maybe he'll be honest.
	Maybe he'll be independent, impartial.
	But the idea that they program it to do something, can you be held responsible for the consequences of the program that you...
	We're saying no.
	Right now, they're saying...
	Now, the other thing is, nothing AI produces is itself copyrightable.
	That's why you're seeing all these memes now and other images on YouTube creator videos that are really good.
	Better Bachelor uses like 100 of these.
	Eye-catching, I wonder what that is.
	But he's using AI.
	Because AI, nobody can make a copyright strike claim.
	So there's that aspect of it.
	But then the question is, okay, what if what produced that?
	Was a bunch of stolen copyright material.
	And what the courts are saying, that doesn't matter.
	Unless what they put out there is stolen, specifically infringes your copyright.
	The fact that what they put out there might have borrowed from yours originally doesn't matter.
	Too distant, too disconnected.
	And then they're saying copyright laws preempt all the other state laws, like unjust enrichment, etc.
	So it looks like AI is mostly going to be able to legally...
	Stand without being successfully sued for copyright infringement.
	Well, I've got a children's book that I want to use AI to generate the images for, and I might still do it.
	Didn't your wife have a book, a kid's book?
	She did.
	It's called...
	I don't have it here.
	It's a brain book.
	I'll share it with the community.
	Again, it's a coloring book.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, my biggest concern with AI is it's programmed and the woke internet being used to train it.
	I mean, based on a wokeness, how long till it concludes that white people are evil or humanity will destroy Earth?
	Or...
	Just floating this.
	Or how long until it realizes its creators are mental challenged people?
	Someone in the chat.
	I think this is the chat GPT version.
	says viva fry is a popular law blogger and youtuber known for discussing legal cases and providing legal analysis in an uh engaging way his content often breaks down legal complex legal matters into understandable and accessible explanations legal topics and cases making law more approachable for his audience so i don't know if that's our board members version or pt but that would be an honest chat to you That's better than Wikipedia.
	Amazing.
	Okay, Robert, what we're going to do now, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Two remaining topics, and then...
	Hold on one second.
	Let me just get this here.
	Link there.
	And the after party.
	So, Robert, what do you have on the menu for this week, professionally, social media-wise?
	Just a lot of work.
	So, we watched the first Christmas movie of the year.
	Which one was it?
	Die Hard, of course.
	We're probably going to do It's a Wonderful Life this Saturday, and then December 23rd, my favorite Christmas movie, National Lampoons.
	Christmas vacation.
	And we'll have some bourbons and some Barnes briefs.
	But nothing else planned for this week.
	I was on Aussie TV last week.
	Talking about the Biden family corruption.
	Yeah, I saw that.
	It's not music to the ears.
	It's singing to the choir for anybody who already knows what's going on.
	Oh, hold on one second.
	There's one more here.
	IBB Blani says, did you see that Putin was shown the moon landing videos, ran them through AI, and says they are fake?
	Yeah, AI says they're fake photos.
	Supposedly, Google's own AI says the moon landing photos are fake.
	It's classic Putin trolling the West by doing that.
	Oh, really?
	He's like, I couldn't imagine that.
	Or...
	It was actually faked.
	They haven't gone back since because they destroyed the technology and can't recreate it because it was done on an 8 megabyte computer and you have 50,000 times more computing power on your iPhone.
	Yeah, I'm not saying I believe the conspiracy theory.
	I just understand people who do.
	People get real excited about it, too.
	Alright, so we're going to end this on Rumble.
	I'll be live all week.
	I'm not going anywhere.
	I'm obsessive-compulsive and will be obsessive-compulsively going live.
	Stay tuned.
	I got a car maintenance thing tomorrow morning, so that might...
	I'm not going live at 8.30 tomorrow morning.
	Come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, and we're going to do the after party there.
	Take the tips, and Robert, we'll see you over there.
	Three, two, one.
	Peace out, everybody.
	Booyah!

▲