Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 12, 2025 - Viva & Barnes

02:04:40

Ep. 245: Los Angeles ON FIRE! Gavin Newsom FOR JAIL? Trump SENTENCED! Pardons & MORE! VIva & Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	What is this executive order?
	What are you hoping to accomplish?
	We've got to be thinking three weeks, three months, three years ahead.
	At the same time, we're focusing on the immediacy, which is life safety and property.
	And so that's exactly what we're doing with disaster assistance, making sure people are getting their applications, addressing the issue of fraud.
	And that's an issue we've got to address, price gouging.
	So executive orders on price gouging, recovery.
	We want to get inspections, units like this.
	We want to get our inspection teams out here.
	They're already starting to get out here.
	We've come up with some timelines.
	So we can get within the next few weeks all that done so people can get their insurance claims.
	We can then start the big contracts to remove the debris, to address all the hazmat issues.
	Same time that I've got to button up the canyons here as it relates to potential flooding of a lot of atmospheric rivers.
	Remember, we're in the middle of winter.
	This is January.
	In fact, the day of this fire, a stone's throw away.
	It's a crow flies.
	There was snow.
	Right up the mountain.
	Same day as this devastating fire here in Altadena.
	And so all those things have to happen concurrently.
	But here's the big thing.
	I'm worried about issues of rebuilding as it relates to scarcity, as it relates to property taxes, meaning scarcity of resources, materials, personnel.
	I'm worried about time to getting these projects done.
	And so we want to fast track.
	By eliminating any CEQA requirements, I've got Coastal Act changes that we're making.
	I want to make sure when someone rebuilds that they have their old property tax assessments and that they're not increased.
	All of that's been done in the executive order we just announced.
	CEQA governor and the Coastal Act are both environmental regulations, and if you're going to be suspending those temporarily, are you concerned about problems that may result from the suspension of those environmental regulations and potential abuse by developers?
	Yeah, we're not going to, and within this executive order.
	Where do we frame those abuses?
	Can you imagine that they're talking about, as concerns, potential abuses by developers in the executive order, which is years in the future?
	This is such a classic bait and switch in terms of don't look over there, look at this executive order that's going to help you in the years to come.
	When there's not water in the fire hydrants right now.
	And I made a joke like, man, he should have just signed an executive order that fire hydrants should produce water.
	I'm going to play it out because it's just, it's classic.
	This is an iteration of Parkinson's Law of Mundanity.
	You basically bookmark that in the context of maintaining the existing footprints.
	On the Coastal Act, they allowed just a 10% variant.
	So we're going to be very mindful of that.
	California leads the nation in environmental stewardship.
	I'm not going to give that up.
	But one thing I won't give into is delay.
	Delay is denial for people's lives, traditions, places, torn part.
	Torn asunder, families, schools, community centers, churches.
	You've seen it.
	The number of schools that have been lost in this community.
	And we've got to let people know we have their back.
	We're going to be back.
	We're going to do it efficiently and effectively.
	Don't turn your back.
	Don't walk away because we want you to come back, rebuild, and rebuild with higher quality standards, more modern standards.
	We want to make sure that the associated costs with that are not disproportionate.
	Just so...
	...dancing. So I'll just check.
	I got a new...
	......
	......
	Let me just go to local nature.
	Is it the good mic and my audio is good?
	Let me see.
	I'm going to press the button.
	Oh. Whew.
	I'm going to press the button.
	button.
	And now we're going to try it again, people.
	Don't worry, I'm coming back.
	Oh my goodness.
	I got the new cable.
	We cannot hear you.
	Don't worry, people.
	I... I think they can hear you now.
	Can they hear me now?
	I can hear you.
	You're a fixed sound.
	I don't...
	Does it matter?
	I hear Robert, but I don't see him.
	Guys, okay, now you can hear me, and let me just go to locals.
	Viva, we can hear you now.
	Good, loud and clear.
	I had to reboot studio.
	Serenity now.
	Let me get back into what I was talking about with Gavin Newsom.
	Did we hear Gavin?
	We knew we heard Gavin Newsom.
	I know we heard that because I was listening to it myself.
	They should have signed an executive order that there should be water in the fire hydrants.
	I'm not going to play the entire thing.
	I just want to play the beginning, but also highlight that someone actually posted this unironically saying, there's no way you can listen to Gavin Newsom explain the situation and say he's incompetent.
	I thought the person was going to say, you're right, he's a criminal.
	The recovery will be long, but he gets that.
	It's about life, safety, and prosperity.
	This person was not saying that he's not incompetent to add the humor.
	He's a criminal or criminally negligent.
	And like, how can anyone be so...
	Intellectually stunted.
	And then I saw that this person is a DNC delegate, which explained everything.
	I'm going to play just the first part.
	Middle-class community like this.
	Here. You're here with us on Meet the Press to announce a new executive order.
	What is this executive order?
	What are you hoping to accomplish?
	It's closet.
	We don't need to listen to this.
	You're here on Meet the Press to announce a new executive order.
	What are you going to do in the years to come to make sure that you can solve the crisis of your making today?
	And he's talking about price gouging?
	And removing the red tape to rebuild so they can get inspectors to go inspect the rubble behind him?
	It's absolutely criminally negligent.
	I'm going to get Barnes' take on this, but no water in the fire hydrants.
	Mark Grober was on yesterday, and one of our locals members and one of our community members who sends me a lot of good stuff sent me a...
	I forget this guy's name.
	I should give him the credit.
	A 35-minute explanation as to what went down.
	In California.
	I'll play this as an intro and then we're going to bring Barnes in.
	Oh, I've got to do the ad.
	We've got our sponsor, Coffee, coming up soon.
	Hold on.
	Now for the heart of the controversy.
	Firefighters ran out of water.
	After battling the flames for about 15 hours, LA's fire hydrants ran dry.
	Now they have three 1 million gallon reserve tanks up high with just gravity feed for pressure to power their hydrants.
	And that ran out after about 15 hours.
	Now, 3 million gallons of water is actually not that much.
	But here's the problem.
	This is the Santa Ynez Reservoir.
	117 million gallons of water.
	This holds 117 million gallons.
	That means that this could have refilled those three 1 million gallon tanks over 30 times.
	And guess what?
	This was out of operation.
	This reservoir has been empty since February 2024.
	Nearly a year.
	We can pause it there.
	Why was it empty?
	Because there was a tear in the covering.
	Which was allowing stuff to get into the water so maybe it wouldn't be fit for human consumption.
	And it was a mild repair, out of commission for a year, one mile as the crow flies from the fires.
	Jokes aside, Gavin Newsom should have just issued an executive order last year that fire hydrants shall produce water during times of emergency.
	We're going to get into that.
	We're going to get into that and a lot more.
	But before anybody gets too enraged and you want to make sure that you can start a day.
	With good coffee, people.
	And I can tell you that I started a day with bad coffee today because we ran out of 1775 coffee and we had to drink Jamaican Me Crazy.
	Not that it was bad, but it was flavored and it wasn't good.
	This is the coffee to start your days off, people.
	Hold on one second.
	What's my problem here?
	It's delicious coffee.
	Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	I'm going to pick something up here.
	Ah. Thank you.
	Yes, people.
	It is time to make mornings great again.
	If your coffee tastes like it was brewed at a UN meeting, watered down, directionless, and catering to the lowest common denominator, enter 1775 Vitality's Coffee, bold and built for patriots who lead, not follow.
	This is one of Rumble's partner companies as well.
	So you're supporting a company that actually supports free speech and got some news on Rumble.
	So we'll get to that.
	Lion's Mane, Rishi, sharpen your focus faster than calling out fake news while Cordyceps powers energy like a Trump...
	Tweet at 2am.
	And those hand-picked Bolivian beans are bold, delicious, and amazing.
	No fillers, no compromises.
	Proudly backed by Rumble, the platform that stands for truth, independence, and the fight for freedom.
	Go to 1775coffee.com.
	Use promo code VIVA.
	You get 15% off.
	Make mornings great again with a coffer that is bold, delivers uncompromising quality, and supports the people that we love and the company that we love.
	Rumble. 1775coffee.com.
	Promo code VIVA.
	Okay. We're going to get into it.
	We're going to get into a lot of things tonight.
	But I think, obviously, we're not going to...
	We're not going to be able to ignore the elephant in the room, which is on fire right now.
	California. Barnes, you ready to come in?
	I hear him.
	And now I see him.
	Yeah. I went...
	Marion ordered...
	And I wanted to make sure that I got a good adapter so that it doesn't fritz in and out.
	But I'm starting to think it's actually...
	A question of getting logged out for whatever the reason of Rumble, of Rumble Studio.
	Robert, what's the shirt about?
	Making some shirts at Merch at 1776 Law Center in support of Amos Miller and other worthy projects, vaccine mandate cases.
	That was in the news this week as it appears that the Texas Attorney General is going to have to go to the appellate court to also get any relief as the courts continue to close the doors as much as they can.
	And appropriately celebrating with special milk from AmosMillerOrganicFarm.com.
	Got some cookies for sale that are helping a 1776 Law Center fundraiser.
	And they're perfect with Amos Miller's milk.
	Robert, so on the menu tonight, we're going to talk about the TikTok oral arguments, which I don't know how convincing they could have been to drive the Kalshi market the way they did.
	I wasn't even following it, but like, holy crap, it went from like 30% chances that they're going to maintain the ban to 70%, and that seems to be where it's at right now.
	TikTok, California, this is stuff we didn't get to last week.
	What else do we have on the menu?
	There was, well, yeah, obviously California got preemptive pardons.
	We got Trump sentencing, how that progressed, what happened at the Supreme Court in that regard, some Supreme Court cases upcoming.
	And then I think from last week we had a few leftover cases.
	Yeah. Well, okay, we have to obviously address the big one.
	I had Grobert on yesterday, and you were on with Grobert on Friday.
	What's going on in California?
	And apparently you guys went for three hours on Friday talking about this.
	Yeah, that and some other topics, yeah.
	Alright, I mean, first question first.
	Let's start with the basics and we'll get into all this afterwards.
	Can they be criminal negligence?
	At what level does this have to rise to for them to be potentially exposed to criminal negligence?
	Well, I think if they did really dug in, they would find that this goes substantially beyond criminal negligence.
	Now, I'd say, for the ordinary person, criminal negligence...
	It varies by the kind of case and the kind of instance and so forth.
	As a whole, in the American legal system, negligence is not sufficient to criminally punish anybody.
	Generally, it requires for criminal punishment to apply some degree of recklessness or intentionality.
	And negligence itself would be insufficient.
	Bigger problem isn't, you know, just sort of, they could ascribe it to sort of general negligence of the California governmental structure and it's how people get hired and who gets hired and all the diversity, equity, inclusion stuff and all the rest.
	But I think it goes beyond that, especially as to these issues, because there's been an ideological motivation and incentive to see Malibu burn.
	And I think that puts it in a different...
	Different place.
	You referenced a book last week.
	It was called Burn Malibu?
	Or was it just called Burn?
	Mike Davis has one that's a prominent one which includes within its chapters about letting Malibu burn.
	And that's the most prominent one.
	But the title of the chapter was Burn Malibu Burn.
	And then there's other texts out there along the same lines.
	And it's been a theory.
	The left basically has thought that resources should not be spent.
	Especially, you add in the hardcore environmentalists, the extreme ones who don't really believe in human beings.
	I mean, down deep.
	They think the planet should be for everybody except humans.
	And you get to that ideological formation, which a lot of the people in positions of power in California believe in.
	And the reason why there wasn't this big outpouring of sympathy or remedial action taken is, even though Malibu is a very liberal democratic jurisdiction, as is the Palisades, Powers that be in California, ideologically, think that it's a waste of resources to try to protect Malibu, and thus burn Malibu burn.
	That's part of the problem with our system, is we allocate too much resources to these privileged populations.
	So that's where, to me, when this went up the way it did, I think if they dug in, they would find more.
	than government incompetence.
	They would find an ideological commitment and people looking to profit as well.
	When you add in that they made it difficult to be insured in these areas, and what that means is that if your house burnt down, you can't rebuild because you don't have any money to rebuild because you didn't have an insured property.
	And part of that was done by governmental action as well.
	The making it difficult.
	They chose not to lift the rates and continue to refuse to take the corrective steps necessary to limit the risk of what just happened from happening.
	The fires are not just the product of incompetence, they're the product of an ideological contamination of the California government authorities and some federal government authorities who also failed here in the Biden administration.
	I got a text that says...
	I want you to see this chat.
	It was moving fast.
	Someone in the community lost their home.
	And it says, I want to punch Newsom's face.
	We lost our house.
	The entirety of Palisades did not need to be decimated.
	And he's patting himself on the back.
	They've got Palisades 11% contained.
	But he touts his successes before the failures.
	People in the chat on Rumble are saying the audio is low, but I listen to it and it's fine for me.
	And I think, I don't know if it's a handful of people, or maybe refresh or check your volume.
	Chinatown. When was the last time you saw the movie?
	Oh, it's been a while.
	I was going to watch it on Saturday, but got sick this week with a bit of a cold, and shook it loose, but not until today, actually.
	So it was going to be the movie of the week for the locals board.
	It was going to be Chinatown, because it's been years since I've seen it.
	Yeah, I'm trying to...
	I have to go rewatch it because I was telling Groberry yesterday that I haven't seen it since I was a kid and didn't appreciate it back in the day.
	But the ideology to let Malibu burn or to cause it to burn, I mean, the systematic failures, they can't be an accident after a certain point in time where one of the latest breaking news is that, at least that reservoir, I forget what it's called, but 117 million gallons was out of commission and empty because they were fixing the tarp on the top of it.
	And that was one mile away, elevated, which would have replenished everything.
	The insurance scandals people are talking about, Grobert went into it about how the insurance companies were flying drones over houses to try to cancel policies by saying, change your roof or we cancel the policies.
	In your estimation, is there blame on the insurance companies as being part of the conspiracy or simply making the economical decision to stop coverage because it's not economical anymore?
	Well, I mean, the state could have allowed them to lift rates, and the state didn't.
	Or they could have taken the corrective actions to reduce the risk of a fire becoming like this, which is what the insurance companies were also requesting, which they didn't.
	So, I mean, I'm not an insurance company fan, as a general rule.
	My view is if insurance is a good idea, they wouldn't sell it to me.
	So, you know, I'm a skeptic of it by nature.
	But, in this particular instance, government complicity was the far more critical culprit than the insurance companies.
	Oh, did I pause you there?
	No. Okay, fine.
	Robert, can you...
	Some people are saying your mic is...
	Your audio is too low.
	Could you bring your mic in a little bit, or is it too...
	Sure, sure.
	How about here?
	We'll see if that's...
	Okay, we'll see if that gets better.
	Okay, it's...
	And now, in terms of systematic ideological stuff, I mean, set aside the Burn Malibu, Burn Malibu, you got...
	DEI coming home to roast, as Grobert says.
	First of all, what has the state been doing with the federal funds that they get for disaster relief?
	Because some people are suggesting there was no financial incentive for the state to actually take care of these issues because when they have a crisis, they get federal funds to compensate.
	What's the truth to that?
	That's only partially the case.
	There won't be enough funds to fully compensate.
	But the state doesn't care because it doesn't care about these populations, even though these populations vote Democrat.
	I want to see if anyone's got any good questions in here.
	Nayoka says, okay, good.
	This is from Locals.
	It wouldn't be a stream without Viva starting with the technical issues.
	That would have ruined the experience.
	I'll get it.
	I'll get it one of these days.
	I mean, there's the issues of...
	Some people had asked about, you know, can you refuse an evacuation order?
	And it depends on the circumstances.
	This goes back to the COVID orders.
	At what point can they force you to leave your home, for example?
	To force you to abandon your home?
	And generally speaking, courts enforce evacuation orders is the short answer and don't hold government responsible even for mistaken evacuation orders, which is a problem.
	Because as Gobert pointed out, there was an evacuation order issued in Hollywood.
	That should not have been issued.
	And they haven't even said who it was that issued it.
	I mean, this is the problem with complete deference.
	I mean, the other problem with saying, oh, it's a natural disaster, so now we're going to throw out all your constitutional liberties.
	The government can now arrest you.
	The government can now take your property away.
	The government now can do all these things because, oh, it's a natural disaster.
	And somehow that makes it a magical exemption from the Constitution.
	But unfortunately, there is court decisions along those lines.
	Another element of this insanity is that the alarms were going off, the alert messages, text messages were going off without any human...
	They were going off by accident and they couldn't control it.
	And then you have the criminal gangs and the illegals issue.
	Because, I mean, the reason part, why can't they fully evacuate?
	Because LA is a sanctuary city that's protecting all the illegals and protecting all the homeless.
	So that even though they know the homeless are setting fires, committing crimes, doing a range of bad acts, same with a lot of the illegals.
	Some of the illegals fly in to commit a crime and then go home right after the weekend, right from LAX.
	That's been a problem in the Palisades, in particular now for the last several years.
	It's much harder to commit crime in Malibu because it's a small Pacific Coast highway.
	You're between the mountains and the ocean.
	So good luck trying to commit a crime without getting caught there.
	But in the Palisades, they could, and they were.
	And then as soon as these things started happening, it looks like fires were set deliberately as maybe potential distractions to facilitate criminal activities, organized criminal activities, people going in and robbing homes that had been evacuated before the fires got there, things like that.
	It's a problem they've known about for forever, but because they want to wish it to occur, wishcast it to occur, they were not ready and were not willing to do the things necessary to protect the actual citizens and homeowners.
	And of course, in many of the hotels that were supposed to be used for evacuees, they're full because the homeless and the illegals are there.
	So it's just a sign of a complete disaster.
	That has been unfortunately predictable about California for some time.
	Some of us have been warning about it.
	I lived in Malibu.
	For those who don't know, more than a decade.
	It originally looked like the house I lived in forever was gone.
	It looks like he may have...
	It was a Mormon guy who owned it.
	He had specially designed it so that it would have this foam encasement in case of fire around the house.
	Looks like it worked.
	It looks like actually his property is one of the few that survived.
	Other properties that I've rented over the years are all gone.
	Dukes and Moon Shadows, restaurants used to go to all the time, gone.
	It's like the memories don't exist.
	It's just vanished off the face of the earth.
	There was talk.
	James Woods had put out his video.
	His house didn't burn, but all of the neighboring houses did.
	There's talk.
	How does eminent domain work?
	What is the government's...
	Power or prerogative.
	It should be limited, but all they have to do is say a public purpose and they can take whatever they want and courts let them do it.
	And in terms of the fair market value or just compensation?
	They only have to pay you what the value is at the time they took it and it's generally the lowest value, not the actual...
	Like, let's say it's development value is much higher.
	You don't get that valuation.
	The courts have gone out of their way to let the government not only take your property, but take it as cheaply as they can.
	It has to be just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
	That's all that's required.
	But just compensation, they've watered down to where it's not just compensation.
	Let's put it that way.
	Armed robbery when it's coming from the government.
	And when they, hypothetically, can they say it's now contaminated and therefore it's absolutely worthless, so we'll take it off your hand and do the decontamination ourselves.
	Yeah, they can.
	They can also foreclose because people will have to owe property tax on property that, like they're discovering in North Carolina, even though their property is destroyed and valueless, which is another idiotic thing that governments do.
	I'm going to bring this one up because on Commutube, the rumble rants or the superchats disappear.
	This is Beavis Wallace.
	Beavis Wallace in the house.
	Gruberian Roberts spoke about how money was reallocated to illegals and the homeless.
	Where are the people made homeless by the fires going?
	Can the government be charged for not caring for our citizens?
	That's a $100 superchat.
	I mean, they should be, but unfortunately, the courts don't allow it.
	So it's generally not much you can do, unfortunately.
	Particularly, of course, in California.
	Now, maybe some courts will reconsider some of the bad law that's been made in the past under the factual circumstances present here.
	But that's what you would need.
	Otherwise, it's very...
	Now, the plaintiff's lawyers in California are going to try to blame this on anybody but the government because the government's the hardest party to sue.
	So they're going to look for private actors that could be sued?
	Like PG&E for the fires being started in the first place?
	Because PG&E has a history of causing fires to be started throughout California.
	I mean, but not to let them off the hook, because I'm sure they've made decisions that have been in their best interest financially, but not the environment's or risk's best interest.
	Fires in dry land occur.
	It's the nature of the beast.
	There's no known...
	Is there any known, say, not...
	Criminal negligence, but prioritizing profits over safety when it comes to PG&E?
	Oh yes, for 20 years.
	They are despised in certain circles for a good cause.
	Let me bring this one up here because it's funny.
	The Engaged View says, of course we heard Newsom.
	I can easily recognize the sound of bullshit landing on the ground of our feet.
	I mean, it is going to do severe damage to his presidential aspirations.
	How the fuck is Gaffin still the frontrunner in the Democratic nominee on Kalshi, although he has dropped 17% to 13%?
	To bet against him at 13%, there's not enough return there.
	Especially you're waiting three years for a payoff.
	I'm waiting three years for people to forget this.
	Does this sink any future political aspirations?
	Potentially. He'll have trouble for the mayor.
	The mayor was an idiot anyway.
	Karen Bass.
	Karen Bass.
	Yeah, because she doesn't know how to handle it.
	Doesn't care.
	Pure ideologue.
	Total whack job to be the mayor of a city of like the size of LA.
	Kind of like, what's her name?
	Ended up getting run off from Chicago.
	Lightfoot. Yeah, Lightfoot.
	So very similar.
	Bass, similar background, similar ideological orientation, similar lack of basic political skills, which she has shown in abundance.
	And she's tossing the lesbos off the train.
	The lesbos that she put in charge to run everything, she said, hey, you actually defunded these things.
	She's like, you're not supposed to say that.
	You're gone.
	And so you'll see some of that.
	And then we'll see whether some ulterior agendas may be present five years from now if this property is bought up cheap and somebody gets fabulously rich off of that.
	But we won't know that for sure.
	Right now it's speculation.
	For three to five years.
	And traditionally, in Malibu especially, but in L.A. in general, it takes forever to get approvals to develop a single home.
	I mean, as Grobert pointed out, single-family homes are now discouraged from being built at all.
	He said that you're not allowed building single-family dwellings anymore, or they don't issue permits because they want communal living.
	And I said, I didn't realize that when we call it Commie California, it's literally Commie California, communal living.
	That's exactly what it is.
	I told friends of mine to get out about 10 years ago, and some can't because they own restaurants there or their business is based there and so forth.
	But all those that could get out did get out.
	And this is why.
	You could see it coming.
	Well, I knew at least people anecdotally who wanted to get out but couldn't sell their houses because no one was buying them because you couldn't get them insured.
	And it's like...
	And now I don't know what the situation is that they've burnt down and I don't think that they have insurance.
	It's unreal.
	The eminent domain.
	The government just has to say now it's a disaster zone and we claim it.
	And everybody is thoroughly SOL, which stands for shite out of luck.
	That's it.
	It depends.
	It depends on how they develop and what they're going to use it for.
	And then what compensation would be just if they're going to actually keep it.
	My guess is they're not going to keep it.
	CB over on YouTube, I'm going to get to the rumble rants in a second.
	Has there been an event of this magnitude because of this much government corruption combined with this level of media?
	A natural disaster?
	I'd have to think about it.
	This is the biggest in my life.
	I don't even want to call this a natural disaster.
	I mean, Western North Carolina was a complete disaster, too, but that was mostly the federal government.
	Western North Carolina from the hurricane.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, no, and the funny thing is...
	No, funny.
	It's not funny at all.
	I can view that as a natural disaster.
	I view Hurricane Milton as a natural disaster.
	I view this as criminal negligence.
	I mean, whether or not it started from the fire poles and the high Santa Ana winds is one thing.
	Then it's arson.
	Then it's...
	Not incompetence.
	When Grobert explains how they have a known problem of stealing fire hydrants for the value of the metal, and they don't replace them, and that they're empty, and that the double-speaking liar, whoever it was, I figured I played the clip yesterday, says, well, yes, because the reservoir, the reservoir, the one million gallon ones emptied out, but those were supposed to be, you know, fueled or funneled into from the 117 million gallon one.
	That's empty, and you know it's empty, and it was a minor repair.
	This is like...
	I don't view this as a natural disaster the way you view hurricanes, tornadoes.
	No, that's true.
	You're right.
	Did I read it here?
	Let me read the rumble rants and see if we didn't miss anything because we're going to move on to other stuff today.
	I don't care what the politicians say.
	Most of these people will never get to rebuild their homes.
	This is from the engaged few.
	The Coastal Commission will curtail the...
	No. Oh, Gavin Newsom says he's going to cut the red tape.
	He's talking about preventing price gouging and...
	Facilitating rebuilding when the fire is not even contained yet and it's not clear that they even have water.
	Of course, we heard news.
	Okay, I got that.
	How did the banks holding those mortgages allow them not to be insured?
	My mortgage company requires homeowners insurance?
	Absolutely. Do we see bailouts coming?
	That's a fair question because if these people have mortgages, they don't have insurance, nobody's getting...
	Made whole in all of this.
	That was from Tarkina53.
	Ribo says, I work for insurance carrier.
	We write a lot in California.
	The insurance board in California handicaps the carriers.
	They won't let you raise your rates for exposure, so carriers either pull or go non-admitted.
	Just seen a news clip.
	One family saved after home.
	They had previously gone and bought loads and loads of garden sprinklers, put them all over the house on the ground.
	Plus, fire never passed where it was watered.
	Linda WPHD, can you see the possibility that the globalist elites have conspired to destroy LA so that it could be rebuilt for the UNWEF 2030?
	You know, people were saying for rebuild for the Olympics 2028 to make it a smart city because they had all these big plans.
	I don't think they even have enough time to do that.
	No, they don't.
	Non-admitted means carrier not backed by state guarantee funds for insurance and then the rates overall are higher and the carrier has carte blanche power to exclude and carve out items on the policy.
	Let's talk about Resnicks and their ownership of most of the water in California.
	Cali sounds just like South Africa.
	Third World Shithole says King of Biltong.
	Karantov says his kids.
	As a kid growing up by the Ottawa River, I got to see from my backyard water bombers getting water from the river.
	Very cool.
	Glad to see them save California today.
	Not so that it should all be bad news.
	Let me show you this.
	This is from an account that says, "Des images impressionantes, "un immense bravo à nos pilotes et texiciennes "qui actuellement à l'œuvre en Californie "pour combattre les feux de forêt.
	"Vous rendez tout le Québec fier." Impressive images, big bravo to all the pilots and technicians who are doing amazing stuff to combat the fires.
	You're making Quebec proud.
	I can't imagine anything crazier than skimming.
	So they're picking up water when they're skimming like that?
	Yep, they're picking up water when they're skimming like that, and then they pinpoint release that water.
	Onto the, uh, onto the, onto the ass.
	I don't know how they do it because like I, I once drove a fish tank to a friend's house and we had to empty it out to like three inches of water.
	And it was, it destabilized the car to drive with that.
	And then they, they scoop it up.
	They dump it on, on a pinpoint.
	It's, and they do it over and over again.
	They go low flying.
	And if there's high winds, it's outright insanity.
	There was, there was another good one here.
	Let me, let me see if we can pay some tribute to the heroes who were bailing out or at least attempting to bail out.
	The criminals, look at this.
	You don't need the audio.
	It goes down.
	And by the way, so they say, why can't they pump saltwater?
	They can't pump saltwater through the machines, through the infrastructure, but they certainly could or should have thought about having a saltwater backup in the event that there's dry fire.
	Because the environmentalists oppose using saltwater for fires.
	That's why.
	And so now they're doing it anyhow.
	It's all the ideological crazies of California, the reason why they are not prepared.
	It's a combination of corruption and ideological contamination that put people in a position where their livelihoods and their whole life estates could go up and smoke in an hour.
	I don't understand how this is physically possible.
	It's like...
	The water would slow down and the plane, when it touches it, and then they got a...
	It's amazing.
	So congratulations to the people who are actually helping with this and not the jackasses that started it.
	I think we got everything.
	Let me see if I missed any...
	Oh, I wanted to bring up a funny meme over on our vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	It said the police chief is John Candy's relative.
	Okay. Yeah, I mean, you see her run and you're like...
	That doesn't inspire confidence at all.
	And so, you know, they've damaged the, they reduced the amount of equipment for the fire trucks and fire based on budget cuts because they wanted to give more money to homeless pet projects, ideological programs, illegal immigrants, and send it over to Ukraine.
	I mean, they've done everything except take care of the people of Los Angeles now for a decade.
	It is absolutely astounding.
	Budget cuts, DEI hires, 20% of their equipment donated to Ukraine, known problems with the fire hydrants, known empty reservoir during the Santa Ana wind season.
	Hypothetically, Barnes, when Trump gets in, is there some sort of federal investigation that they can look at?
	Absolutely. And so does Gavin need to get his name on the pardon list?
	It hasn't been added yet.
	It's driving me crazy.
	Okay, well, let's do the pardons before we head on over.
	We're going to go over to Rumble and vote with our feet, vote with our eyeballs, and I'll post the rest of this to Commitube tomorrow.
	Okay. Okay, okay, okay.
	Not that I've been following it obsessively because I may have placed some long shot bets and some investments.
	I believe that Liz Cheney was undervalued when she was at 17%.
	I believed...
	Kinzinger was also undervalued because my theory is that if they're going to pardon Benny Thompson, they're going to pardon also Liz Cheney and I think Kinzinger and maybe all of the Jan 6 Committee.
	I think Trump, who's currently at 4%, is wildly undervalued because I'm thinking, especially with the sentencing on Friday, and I want to float something by you, that Biden might say, I'll pardon everybody, unification, and everybody on the Jan 6 Committee.
	First question first, we've talked about it.
	Preemptive pardons.
	It's a market on Cal sheet, and it was under 50% at one point.
	Will Biden issue any preemptive pardons?
	I thought the odds were good at 40, and now it's at 50-some-odd percent.
	People say it's a thorny or unresolved legal question, but my understanding is it wasn't.
	Nixon was preemptively pardoned when he hadn't faced any.
	So it's not a thorny, opaque legal question, correct?
	No, no.
	Not once they pardon Nixon.
	Okay, good.
	So I feel smart.
	And I was like, okay, fine.
	Those odds, it's not the legality that would impede Biden.
	And then some people are saying, well, he gave a preemptive pardon to Hunter.
	I was like, yeah, that one is 50-50 because it was sort of based on federal charges that were already filed.
	There may be ancillary.
	So he can issue a preemptive pardon in your view.
	And I thought that was the case as well.
	Does he do it?
	Whom does he do it to?
	And have you made any predictions on sportspicks.locals.com?
	Yeah, yeah, I have.
	I got some picks up there.
	But the two you mentioned were the easiest ones.
	Definitely Cheney.
	I think that's more than a 50-50 proposition that Cheney will get to pardon.
	Maybe Kinzinger.
	I don't know about the rest of the committee because I think the rest of the committee isn't that concerned.
	It's the loyal Republicans who are loyal to the deep state rather than the Republican Party who are going to be looking for protection.
	From any indictment under the Trump administration, in part because they were also, not only did they do the deep states bidding at the expense of their party and their constituents and President Trump, but they did so also at the expense of the law, and they often violated the rules and violated laws about how they went about it.
	So I think on those grounds, I would be very surprised if Biden does not pardon Liz Cheney before he leaves office.
	And there may be some other Biden Now, I'm sure the Biden crime family is going to commit as many crimes as they can right up until Inauguration Day, and then that's when he'll probably pardon them.
	A preemptive pardon is simply preempting an indictment.
	It is not preempting the crime.
	So what you probably cannot do is a pardon that says, I hereby pardon you regardless of what you do in the future.
	That kind of thing.
	That's where there's more legal debate.
	Even there, there's a good argument that you could issue preemptive pardons of future conduct.
	You would go back to the privateers.
	People forget about a lot of the so-called pirates.
	17th, 18th century were actually working for governments.
	With us, we're called privateers as opposed to pirates.
	Even if they were wearing the Jolly Roger, they had protection.
	Well, how did they have that protection?
	Usually some form of almost preemptive pardon is what was there.
	That you were doing this on behalf of the government.
	It wasn't formulated like a preemptive pardon, but you could say it kind of was one.
	In practice, in effect.
	So there's an argument that you can pardon future conduct, even.
	That hasn't been tried.
	The years of preemptive pardon is past conduct, but the indictment hasn't come down yet, and there's been no conviction yet.
	I've got to ask just specific examples because Benny Thompson, for whatever the reason, has rocketed up within the last, I'd say the last day.
	There are two questions here.
	We've established that you think it could cover state crimes where there's an argument there, but it definitely covers federal crimes.
	The current belief is that it can't cover state crimes, but there is an argument that it could.
	And you're not even before Benny Thompson.
	My theory, just working this into Trump's conviction with Judge Marchand, is the judge gave him an unconditional discharge at a state-level indictment.
	There was at least one of the three underlying predicate felonies was a federal crime.
	I think it was federal election interference, whatever they wanted to call it.
	Now that he's been convicted...
	Do you not think there's a better argument for Biden, the unifier, to say, I'll pardon him for the federal element to reduce his exposure for any future potential issues?
	Because if he was convicted at the state level, based on a federal crime as the predicate act, he could, in theory, be indicted at the federal level.
	He's going to be the president, but he could do this so that, I don't know, claim some sort of unification-type last gesture.
	Yeah, I always thought that was a smart move.
	I thought he should have done that when he pardoned his son, and that would have led to be less focused on his part of his son.
	And he still has time to do that.
	He could pardon Trump.
	He could pardon people in the Republican world.
	He could pardon Matt Gaetz.
	He could pardon whomever to try to provide some political cover for the Democratic pardons that are definitely coming.
	Does he wait until, procedurally speaking, he's issued a bunch of pardons.
	Does he wait until, at this point, until the last minute to issue whatever declaration of the pardons?
	I think it's going to be a mixed deal.
	I think there'll be some issued this week, and then some will be issued literally the last day.
	And I think some of his own family, if he's going to add his own family members, will be the last day.
	All right, now I'm going to ask you one for my own.
	Also, by the way, the Biden family's not bashful.
	They're out there soliciting.
	This is their last grab for cash.
	So the entire family has made money for 50 years on Joe Biden's access to political power.
	He's about to lose that forever.
	That means that they're going to be out and about cashing in as late as they possibly can.
	And he'll want to pardon as late as possible so that it includes anything they did.
	They're about to do over the last two weeks in selling access to the presidency to cash in one last time.
	I'm going to ask you one from my own personal perspective, Robert.
	Sam Bankman-Fried.
	Motivated reasoning, and when it comes to Sam Bankman at 5 cents to 5% chance, I've rationalized it to myself.
	Am I overestimating the political clout that his family had within the Democrat Party?
	Well, we're going to find out.
	Put this away, if he has dirt that he's been sitting on, then he'll get pardoned.
	If he didn't have dirt he's sitting on, or they don't believe he does, then he won't be.
	If he gets pardoned, it means that there is high-ranking Democrats he could have implicated that he didn't, knowing if he kept his mouth shut, he could get a pardon from Biden on the way out.
	He does still have an appeal.
	His appeal is still pending, yeah.
	Interesting. All right.
	And what might account for the fact that within the last 24 hours, Benny Thompson's chances for a pardon spike?
	It must have been somebody said something publicly about it.
	Thompson doesn't strike me as a guy who's worried that the Trump administration will go after him, but he was chairman of the committee that orchestrated a lot of the illegal activities of that committee.
	So he, Kinzinger, and Cheney would be the most logical people to pardon off that committee.
	Okay. Let me make sure there's no questions on this before we move on to a different subject.
	Let's see here.
	No, no, no.
	Okay, I'll get to those afterwards because they're not specifically on point.
	Let me see if there's anything in locals on the pardons question.
	Okay, no, there's some other stuff.
	We'll get to all that stuff afterwards.
	All right, what we're going to do right now, people, because we are going to vote with our feet and vote with our eyeballs, we're going to go over to Rumble or Locals.
	But here's a link to Rumble.
	Link to Rumble.
	Boom. And I'll give everyone the link to locals if you want to come over and support there and join.
	No, we're discussing, speaking of pardons, President Trump's pardons.
	And I wasn't sure if I dreamed it.
	I double-checked it before I got on today.
	I was like, did J.D. get into a debate about January 6th defendants or did I just dream that?
	And he did get into a debate about it.
	So we'll have a discussion about who should Trump pardon on the January 6th defendants.
	Beavis Wallace says, sweet, innocent Viva, Biden is not going to pardon Trump unless Trump hands over some cold, hard cash barns.
	How much money would it cost?
	No, I disagree with everybody.
	Because if he hates Kamala, first of all, he was very, very chummy chummy with Trump.
	If he wants to use it as some sort of political cover, although some people think he no longer needs that.
	The dude's on his last legs and can do whatever the hell he wants.
	I think he would want to have it go down as his legacy.
	Because he thinks it would...
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It would be a smart political move.
	And, you know, we talked about it years ago, that it would be the smart political move for him to make.
	And I was surprised he didn't make it when, after the election, he pardoned Hunter, but not Trump.
	Yeah, and now I say, now that Trump's been convicted, he's got the opening.
	Yeah, he's got everything that he could get out of all those things, politically and PR-wise.
	The Democrats have got all they're going to get.
	So why not, you know, on the way out, look grandiose and try to deter and discourage.
	Yeah, look benevolent, the great benevolent Joe Biden, and try to discourage Trump's people from looking any further about a range of things that I'm sure the Biden family would like not to be looked into, and the deep state would like not to be looked into.
	I agree with Julie Kelly that their behavior suggests they don't think.
	Norm Eisen doesn't think.
	Biden doesn't think.
	A lot of the others, Liz Cheney, some others, apparently don't think they're going to be targets.
	They're acting, you know, Mershon is real cocky with the way he went forward with that sentencing.
	Now, as we predicted, Trump would never serve a day in Rikers.
	Said that that was all for political theater.
	Oh, yeah.
	We got proven correct about that.
	Well, let's dive into that one when we get over to the Rumble.
	Yeah, we got the Trump sentencing, we got SCOTUS, we got who Trump could consider pardon, and then answering any questions that people have as well.
	We got Nibub.
	Let me just see what the number is.
	The number's got to get under 5,000.
	There's still 5,000 people on YouTube.
	Come on over to Rumble or come on over to Locals.
	But while we've got the audience there, I will get King of Biltong in the house.
	Nibub says, get me in and I will build the wall with my bare hands.
	King of Biltong says, start your health journey this year with some tasty high-protein meat snacks.
	Biltong is packed with B12, iron, zinc, creatine, and more.
	Get some at BiltongUSA.com, promo code VIVA, 10% off.
	Did some calculations on the empty Santa Inez.
	At full capacity, it is enough to supply 13,000 hours of water to a single 2-inch fire hose.
	Simply no excuse it was empty.
	There's no question about that.
	And then regarding the LA fires, this is from V6 Neon.
	Then comes the rain and the mudslides.
	Yeah, we talked about this yesterday.
	They're already planning for it.
	You hear Gavin talking about that prospect coming up.
	Get your butts up.
	Good, we're under 5,000.
	If anybody's watching this on YouTube and you're going to complain that there's a little blurred screen, now's your chance.
	Rumble. Viva Frye or Viva Barnes Law.
	.locals.com and we are making the migration now.
	Okay, the Trump sentencing.
	I didn't realize there was...
	It's so amazing.
	They released the audio.
	They haven't had an audio released from this entire trial throughout.
	But when it's time for the prosecutor to lambaste Trump and accuse him of violating the Constitution, when it comes for Judge Murchon, I hadn't heard his voice before, come up and say, you know, be holier than thou in his sentencing.
	Then they release the audio.
	Unconditional discharge basically means...
	Zero consequences, except he's living with the confirmed status of convicted felon, which is all that it was about.
	And when I say confirmed status, that's what the prosecutor said.
	He deserves.
	This is to cement or cement to solidify his status as a convicted felon, which is all that they wanted.
	So first question's first.
	I know you'd mentioned it earlier.
	The fact that it's an unconditional discharge with no meaningful penalty in terms of a sanction, that makes it harder or slows down the process to appeal in that there's no urgency to appeal it?
	Well, exactly what I said is what happened.
	Because Mershon put in his earlier order last week that he was unlikely to issue any incarceration sentence, that's what the higher courts relied upon for saying, we don't have to get involved now.
	They're like, oh, he's already said he's going to do just a discharge, so there's no consequence.
	There's no consequence we have to get in front of.
	We can just take it through the regular appellate chain.
	Now, the four...
	The conscientious constitutional conservatives on the bench, on the Supreme Court, recognized that was inadequate.
	The shenanigans themselves were a disgrace to the rule of law and a danger to the incoming president.
	And that's why Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh said they would have stopped the criminal conviction right away to re-examine just the insanity of that entire case.
	And unsurprising to some of us, surprising to some of the rubes out there, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the justice to screw Trump again and to allow the lawfare to march on again.
	As we talked about, we were, I think, the only people warning, and Alex Jones did too, about Barrett.
	Said Barrett's not a reliable, trustworthy choice on constitutional issues.
	Her professional background, her resume, her CV, her biography, all scream she's a wannabe Justice Roberts.
	And I got so much crap from so many people on the right who had deluded and denuded themselves into thinking that she was the next Scalia.
	And it's like there's nothing in her background that says she's going to be the next Scalia.
	Just look at her actual decisions while she was on the bench.
	They were horrendous.
	She, you know, green lit.
	The Jacobson decision.
	She approved of lockdowns.
	She approved of forcing vaccines on people.
	She thought Jacobson, which was one of the worst decisions ever issued in the history of the Supreme Court, was one of its best decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
	She came from the corporate Southern aristocracy, the same corporate Southern slave-holding aristocracy.
	That, you know, they made sure that the black Republican gubernatorial nominee in North Carolina got smeared on the eve of the election so he couldn't win because they don't want a black man to be governor.
	That's who these people are.
	That's who they've always been.
	They are corporatist establishment hacks.
	She's deferential to the Catholic Church.
	So yeah, you'll get a good decision on abortion.
	She's okay on gun control, so you'll get some decent decisions on gun issues.
	It will be a split, and that's what she's been.
	In all of these other contexts, everything about Barrett screamed she was going to be the next Roberts.
	And every conservative who vouched for her, who attacked me and others, should be apologizing.
	They should be out there on the social media saying, golly gee, we got it wrong again.
	That the Federalist Society doesn't know what the hell they're doing, or they don't care about conservative principles.
	They care about institutional establishment interests.
	They will be the first to defend the FBI and the CIA and the NSA.
	The fact that Barrett had the chutzpah to defend this absolutely outrageous...
	And again, Dershowitz has called it an embarrassment to the rule of law.
	Jonathan Turley, Professor Turley at George Washington University, another Democrat called it an embarrassment to the rule of law.
	Fetterman, Senator John Fetterman, said it was a joke.
	And yet Amy Coney Barrett can't figure that out.
	And is it a coincidence that, remember, she was also the key judge who made sure that nothing took place towards big tech during the election?
	She was the one that said, well, we don't have clear evidence that the government's forcing any kind of censorship going on here.
	Because Amy Coney Barrett is a liar!
	Big fat liar!
	She took that $2 million bribe in the book deal that she got.
	To be the future Justice Roberts, had her people leaked to Politico how eager she was to be the future Justice Roberts, how she was shoving it to those Thomas supporters and shoving it to those conservatives who are stupid enough and suckers enough and saps enough to vouch for and vote for, including President Trump himself, who got taken for a ride by his so-called conservative allies.
	But everybody on social media that vouched for and that attacked the rest of us should be apologizing.
	Why do you keep getting it wrong when it comes to judges?
	Over and over and over and over again.
	You thought Roberts was going to be this great conservative jurist.
	You thought Kennedy was going to be this great conservative jurist.
	Anthony Kennedy.
	All you do is get it wrong.
	Get it wrong.
	Maybe just don't even give advice in the future.
	Because she has been one of the worst nominees and one of the worst decisions President Trump made in his entire administration was Amy Coney Barrett and she proved it once again.
	To him directly and in person.
	You know, it was a one-page decision.
	It was very simply put.
	It basically said, given that Mershon has announced his intention to give an unconditional discharge, there's minimal risk for Trump, and so we're not going to intervene.
	It's such a legally untenable position because they admit that there would be exposure if the judge were to do something different, but they're going to go on the judge's basically stated intent not to do something stupid.
	But they're acknowledging that in law there's a problem, but to the extent that in fact there's no risk, we're not going to get involved.
	And it was one page, and she signed off on it.
	It was her decision.
	If she hadn't made that decision, that case would have ended, and that lawfare would have ended, and Trump wouldn't have had to go through any of it anymore.
	And it's just an embarrassment as to who and what she is, and she's going to continue to be that.
	But I mean, I consider the irony, it's the same week.
	That Zuckerberg proves that she lied in the record.
	Oh, no.
	Facebook wasn't being ordered by the government to do anything.
	And Zuckerberg goes on Joe Rogan and goes, Oh, yeah.
	We were being ordered to do things.
	Just like Children's Health Defense and Robert Kennedy had alleged.
	And so Amy Coney Barrett's willing to lie about facts to cover for Big Tech.
	That's who she is.
	Everybody who vouchs for it will be like, I'm so confused.
	Because you didn't pay attention.
	That's why.
	Because you do your due diligence.
	That's why.
	And I can't take your knowledge on this.
	We were discussing it, but primarily you were discussing it and you had the insights.
	When it comes to Zuckerberg, though, and his recent revelations and his recent about-face, I know that he's saying that.
	I'm skeptical.
	I think he was a lot more of a willing participant than a coerced individual.
	Oh, sure, but this didn't work.
	Now, I think on the flip side, I've said all along about Zuckerberg, he's not political.
	He cares about money.
	Unlike some others.
	After 2016, people forget Soros went after him.
	Soros was trying to short the stock, trying to wage war on him.
	That's when he suddenly was like, oh, okay, I'll go along with whatever you want on the elections.
	I'll go with whatever you want on censorship, whatever you want on COVID.
	And I agree with you.
	He went along with it full scale, knowing it was wrong.
	His belated, golly gee, I wish I wouldn't have done it, is all bogus.
	It just didn't work out the way it temporarily worked for him in that it backed Soros off.
	Soros quit harassing Facebook.
	But in the end, it got him a lot of enemies.
	And he looks at Musk and he's like, I'd rather be where Musk is at than be where I was at.
	And so I think what he's saying now is sincere in that he wants out of this mess.
	I think he never wanted to be in the middle of the mess because he's just a greed freak.
	More than anything else.
	But I agree with you.
	He was much more culpable and complicit than he's now letting on.
	I think he's a greed freak, but I also think...
	My theory is he's just wildly jealous of Elon.
	I'm sure he is, yes.
	Rubbing elbows with...
	What do you make of the fact that he put now Dana White on the board of Meta, Facebook?
	Well, that's a smart move on his part.
	I mean, Peter Thiel...
	He was on the board of Facebook, tried to speak out, and he was ignored.
	And now he sees that Peter Thiel, David Sachs, J.D. Vance, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, they're in like Flint with the Trump administration, and he's on the outs.
	That's why he's like, okay, I've got to...
	Also, CHD, Children's Health Defense, had brought another suit detailing all the ways he had violated their rights.
	What he can do is restore children's health defense and Robert Kennedy's accounts to Instagram and Facebook immediately.
	Prove you're legit.
	If you're legit, this isn't just a weak political move to try to buy cover with Trump by misleading Trump into thinking you're not going to be the prick that you've been the last decade, that you weren't complicit in stealing an election.
	I mean, if there's anybody who's involved in stealing an election, it's Zuckerberg from 2020.
	He would be one of the top.
	If we were to do a meaningful investigation of what really happened in 2020.
	So if he wants cover and immunity from all that, then he better start with action.
	Not just words about, golly gee, we're not going to censor anymore.
	Restore Children's Health Defense account fully to Facebook and Instagram.
	Restore Robert Kennedy's account, who's going up to be nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services, immediately to Instagram and Facebook.
	to the others that were critics.
	There's a bunch of people in the vaccine injured community who created communities on Facebook that got shut down.
	Restore them.
	Restore them ASAP.
	I think he's going to get out of Dodge with just some loose words on Rogan.
	He's wrong.
	Well, it's interesting.
	He's got a lot of self-serving reasons, above and beyond financial, but exposure legally to say, I didn't do this voluntarily, I was coerced into doing it, because we now know definitively that he's censored and wrongly, even according to his own admission, the people who were suing him.
	Children's Health Defense, John Stossel, Candace Owens, they were suing him for these very reasons.
	He seems to have admitted it out loud, but passing the buck and saying, I was extorted or coerced into doing it by the government.
	And therefore, I lack the mens rea, although we're talking civil cases.
	It didn't cover his ass mode, but I think he's wildly jealous of Elon Musk.
	Well, because he's an ego freak.
	Not a power freak, but ego freak.
	And the money freak and ego freak.
	That's my read on Zuckerberg, always has been.
	And his wife is ideological, so he was eager to get on the good graces.
	Of the would-be big tech oligarchs.
	And it just didn't work.
	Because what happened was Trump beat him.
	And so the smart oligarchs jumped sides to Trump.
	And Zuckerberg's just a little late to the party.
	He should have jumped sides six months ago.
	I mean, the other thing with Facebook, you have access to incredible data.
	His data probably showed him that Trump was going to win.
	Because you can use the face...
	That's how people were rumoring that Elon was calling the election before the mainstream media was calling it, because he knew with internals that Trump had won.
	I mean, that Trump was going to win.
	I want to bring up, actually, there's a question here, then I'm going to respond to someone's accusation.
	At text, he says, as Robert Gavay has asked, will Trump be able to vote since he's now a convicted felon?
	First of all, first things first.
	Joe Nierman issued a retraction correction that he needed to be sentenced to be a convicted felon, said he was initially wrong on that.
	Now I think he's going to have to go back and correct and say he was right on that.
	People have been asking, now he's a convicted felon.
	Does Trump, does he lose rights as a result of being a convicted felon, gun ownership, and voting rights?
	It's not a final sentence.
	So the sentence isn't fully adjudicated until the appeal is resolved.
	All right, and now let me get to the second comment there, which is live on screen, and I'm going to bring the receipts.
	I love it.
	It's an accusation, it's not a question.
	Never saw the clip of your, quote, takedown of Candace you told you'd definitely post two weeks ago.
	Funny how everyone that debunks Candace forgets to post their argument.
	Cowards. Il Sartre, if you're going to make stupid strawman accusations, you'd better make sure that the video's not up.
	First of all, there was never supposed to be a takedown of Candace.
	Those who think like children.
	You can see what her opinion is, and you can see what our opinion is.
	And you can contrast the two.
	Now, where is it?
	Because I know that I posted it.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's up on YouTube.
	It's up on Rumble.
	It's a separate standalone video.
	So I hate to be mean, but I did this twice.
	Maybe you meant that as a joke.
	Barnes' alternative theory of the USS Liberty is there.
	It took a little time to get up because I couldn't download the video from locals.
	But it's up there, so thank you.
	And it was never a takedown.
	It was a...
	Alternative rebuttal.
	And I think it's more plausible than Candace's theory.
	It's easy.
	If the focus was taking down Candace, that would have been really easy.
	Stalin's not Jewish.
	You lunatic.
	So, there's just one.
	She has said some really incredibly stupid things over the last month.
	The focus wasn't on those dumb things.
	It was the high-profile debate about USS Liberty.
	And we just contrasted our opinion with hers.
	It wasn't a takedown ever.
	If the goal was to take down Candace...
	We could do so.
	It'd be very easy.
	I'm just being real.
	You know, Queen...
	Everybody makes mistakes.
	Everybody makes mistakes.
	Reid Hoffman for those...
	I didn't make mistakes.
	He sees Jews everywhere.
	Here's a Jew.
	There's a Jew.
	Oh, my God.
	Over there's a Jew.
	They're all Jews!
	Look, Robert, you cannot argue with statistical over-representation, but Reid Hoffman, people, not a Jew.
	At least not as I can tell.
	Well, it's like even fascinating.
	Tick history is going through the common denominators of the site.
	I highly recommend the site.
	T-I-K.
	History. That dude is like super brilliant.
	The fascinating stuff.
	I don't agree with all of his perspectives, but great, incredible insight.
	And what's interesting is he was going through, so there's the stereotype that a bunch of the communists were Jews.
	And he's pointing out that there's actually something common with these fascists and Nazis and communists, aside from an ideological shared belief in statism that they all had.
	The other component is not that they're really Jewish.
	They're disproportionately anti-Jewish, even those that had Jewish history.
	Like Karl Marx had Jewish heritage.
	But it's fascinating.
	It's disproportionate to this group, though.
	There's always been self-hating Jews and self-hating Christians and all that kind of jazz.
	But what's fascinating is that disproportionately, those Jews that were associated with communism or fascism, particularly communism...
	We're disproportionately hated the fact that they had Jewish ancestry.
	Karl Marx was a notorious anti-Semite.
	So it's a little tidbit.
	The other thing is, they're all crazy.
	He's shown that they have this unique belief structure that basically they all grow up with distant rejecting father figures, smothering mother figures, an ideological belief system that focuses on altruism as a belief structure, but it is later stripped of its religious tenets because they reject the underlying religious tenets.
	Whether it's Lutheranism, a lot of them were converted Jews to the Lutheran tradition.
	But he points out that almost all of them abandoned it, but basically needed to be taken care of psychologically.
	He goes through this fascinating...
	He shows how Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, all these people share these rather unique upbringing, cultural experiences, social beliefs.
	You might not be...
	You might not be making the point that you want to be making and they say, yeah, a lot of these Jews have genetic mental disorders.
	Manufacturing consent.
	Noam Chomsky.
	Another good example of a Jewish guy who's been very critical of Israel.
	I won't call him an anti-Semite or anti-Israel.
	Max Blumenthal, the gray zone, is Jewish.
	Probably one of the leading Israeli skeptics.
	In the influencer space.
	But it was an interesting tick history I recommend.
	If you want to understand the real, it has nothing to do with Jewish religion, Lutheran religion, anything else.
	It's an unusual family upbringing that shaped a lot of these guys.
	It's along the way of attachment theory of personality.
	Yeah, I'm a Zionist pawn!
	That's the type of thing a Zionist pawn would say.
	On the one hand, your argument doesn't debunk the statistical over-representation, and some people are going to say the Jewish culture have been academics so that they might not be doing it in the name of Judaism, but it might be part of the history and the culture of being Jewish.
	Others are going to say the Jews have been historically very progressive, even at what it means progressive to the point of destruction, even of their own nation-state.
	But anyways, bottom line, you can't ignore the statistical over-representation, but you've got to make sure that you don't get it wrong.
	Especially if you get into the teak history, you realize that Judaism, the most significant thing that's unique to them is how much they were ashamed of their Jewish heritage.
	That's what stood out.
	I was like, okay, there's some psychology there that's afoot, because it would stay strong.
	I mean, like a lot of the...
	I mean, Lenin's crew were anti-Israel.
	Stalin, who's not Jewish, I think, Candace, was the one who thought he could cut a deal with Israel and was the first country to recognize Israel was the Soviet Union, and then turned on him when he realized that Israel was going to side with the U.S., not the Soviet Union.
	But it is fascinating.
	If you want to understand true correlation and causation, I recommend Teak Histories of various texts.
	Also, it's critical to understand, like...
	The unique ideological belief of shrinking markets with the form of socialism that Hitler adapted, if you understood that about Hitler, you could predict everything about Hitler in ways Neville Chamberlain and everyone else couldn't figure out.
	Yes, he was always going to go to war.
	He was always going to go to war, at least in the East.
	And he was doing so because his belief about the economy...
	When you have a nutty belief about the economy...
	It can lead to disastrous consequences.
	It's like we were talking about with Malibu.
	When you have some nutty idea that Malibu should burn, it's going to lead to policies that lead to Malibu burning.
	But yeah, Tick History, highly recommend it.
	How do you spell it?
	T-I-C-K or T-I-Q-U?
	Just T-I-K.
	T-I-K.
	Very cool.
	Okay, so Trump sentencing Merchant.
	He's not on the list for pardons.
	Speaking of pardons, should Trump pardon all January 6th defendants?
	There's no question.
	In my view, there's no question I've been on something of a campaign to promote it.
	At this point, I'm very sympathetic to even the violent ones, and I'll put that in quotes.
	The footage is coming out now.
	Additional footage has come out showing the cops opening fire on a crowd to agitate them, specifically.
	And throwing tear gas in for no good, as if they don't have the right to...
	What was that up until the moment of?
	Peacefully protest.
	The question's going to be, well, who's going to be the first one to get pardoned?
	Enrique Tarrio?
	I mean, there's odds on this, but do you think Enrique gets pardoned?
	Well, I think what threw everything for a wrench today was whatever JD said.
	I saw JD's follow-up comment, but I didn't see JD's initial comments.
	Was it on Twitter?
	Let me go see if I can pull this up.
	I know his response was on Twitter.
	That somebody perceived what he said as Trump is...
	When he came back, he said Trump's going to do an individualized assessment.
	Now, my own view...
	I get what J.D. is saying.
	My own view is you don't...
	Any individualized assessment would come back to the same conclusion.
	Every single case...
	Did the prosecutor follow the rules?
	No. Every single...
	You can cite examples of that.
	Were they prosecuted in D.C.?
	The answer is yes in every single case.
	That means the grand jury was contaminated, the judicial bench was contaminated, and the trial jury were contaminated.
	To me, that alone, adding in the hidden discovery that's applicable to everybody, everybody could have benefited from these disclosures that are only now coming out and others that are still hidden.
	It means the process was so tainted that to JD's point that any time the process was completely contaminated, we've got to throw those cases out.
	That applies to all of them.
	Now, if you want to go through and prove that with each one, you can.
	But again, to me, look at what all of them have in common.
	All of them went before a D.C. grand jury.
	All of them went before a D.C. trial jury.
	All of them went before a D.C. judge.
	That was the problem from day one.
	The grand juries could not be impartial.
	The trial juries could not be impartial.
	The judges could not be impartial.
	Plenty of evidence and data for that.
	They can get expert opinions from Richard Barris, People's Pundit Daily, did the big data poll because he surveyed D.C. versus other jurisdictions, and it was clear that D.C. was the most prejudiced jurisdiction in the country.
	And the most prejudiced jurisdiction he'd ever surveyed, and he's been doing trial research for me and other people for the better part of a decade that he'd ever seen.
	And so to me, that's why I've been encouraging them to have that focal point.
	Focus on the process.
	Don't get waddled down.
	It was the same argument I made earlier on in the Alex Jones cases.
	Don't get stuck arguing the details of who said what when, but look at the process.
	Is the process a process we can have confidence in?
	Producing a competent constitutional comporting outcome.
	And the answer has to be no for every single January 6th defendant.
	So just pardon them all.
	Because what would the mechanism even look like?
	They're going to go one by one.
	There's a thousand of them?
	There's a thousand plus.
	There's a thousand plus.
	I don't know how it even works in general.
	Someone comes to the president and says, here, you should consider this pardon.
	Usually there's somebody in the Justice Department and somebody at the White House who is assigned handling pardons.
	And they go pardon requests, commutation requests, etc.
	Some of what's being considered are labeled pardons under like Calci's betting rules.
	Calci considers a commutation also to be a pardon.
	I was curious about that because technically like Roger Stone, for example, didn't get a pardon.
	He got a commutation, so he didn't have to serve any time, is my recollection.
	I think the felony status, I think, hung with hand.
	It sticks to me, if I recall right.
	So it varies case by case.
	But I get the idea of trying to do an individualized system.
	The problem here is what was so systemically bad was universal to all of them.
	And that's why, I mean, originally I started off in the same position J.D. had.
	Sell it, separate out the violent from the non-violent.
	The violent can go through the legal process, see what happens.
	The non-violent should all be set free immediately.
	But now, when I've seen how bad contaminated the entire process is, I can't have confidence in any verdict.
	You can have confidence that every verdict and process was tainted.
	Period. Full stop.
	It's only a matter of degree.
	Someone in our locals community posted us the link here.
	I think it's this.
	Let's hear this here.
	This should be.
	It's 30 seconds.
	President Trump says there's a process.
	Where is the line drawn on who will and wouldn't be considered for a pardon?
	I think it's very simple.
	Look, if you protested peacefully on January the 6th and you've had Merrick Garland's Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned.
	If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned.
	And there's a little bit of a gray area there, but we're very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law.
	And there are a lot of people, we think, in the wake of January the 6th who were prosecuted.
	All right.
	Well, I still like him.
	I still trust him.
	I think that might be a confusing...
	That's the politically correct caveat.
	Well, it's the same position I had three years ago, but it's not the one I have now.
	And the reason for my change, and I think he partially reflected that because he put up later, he clarified that if the process was constitutionally contaminated, then that too would be grounds that what he meant to say was...
	All nonviolent people are getting pardoned no matter what.
	Everybody else may be getting a pardon if their case was contaminated.
	That's how I take his combined statements to me.
	And I think that's the proper approach.
	The reason why I wouldn't...
	Well, what they know is anybody that's violent that gets pardoned or has been accused of a violent crime, that will be the media's highlight.
	They won't talk about...
	They would like, at least initially, out of the gate...
	For every single case that gets highlighted to not be a violent case.
	And get to the violent cases a month or two months from now.
	For example, after a full review is done of their case.
	I get that.
	And that's a smart political process to take.
	The reason why I have a different approach is I think the entire...
	I want the world to focus on the process.
	The process is bad.
	Now the best way to do that is to add other cases that are not January 6th cases into that fold.
	And look for big names.
	Julian Assange, Ed Snowden, Roger Ver, Bitcoin Jesus.
	These are the cases.
	Ross Ulbricht, who he's already promised he's going to commute the sentence ASAP, day one.
	Do those cases as well.
	And then you don't have to worry so much about the way the media is going to try to portray it because there's going to be all these big cases that everybody can't help but talk about.
	Bitcoin Jesus, Ross Ulbricht, Silk Road, so-called Dread Private Roberts.
	These are prominent cases that impact key communities and constituencies that were clearly victimized by an out-of-control Biden Justice Department.
	But it goes back to why we have a system that says better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent man go to prison.
	What is that American system rooted in?
	It's rooted in the greatest danger to our freedoms and liberties.
	It doesn't come from our fellow man.
	It comes from our government.
	And so we always have to side with doing whatever it takes to prohibit and punish the government from engaging in bad behavior, because that is a greater risk to us than a single criminal going free.
	And that should be the point of the January 6th cases, that it doesn't matter what they're accused of.
	The process was the punishment, and the process was unconstitutional in how it was handled.
	The grand jury was not impartial.
	The trial jury was not impartial.
	The judges were not impartial.
	They were prejudicial.
	And the punishment was disproportionate, given what has been issued to other people, guilty of police brutality, some of whom get...
	Bail. Get bond released pending their choice.
	Their speech rights were denied.
	Their associational rights were denied.
	Their press rights were denied.
	Their rights to petition government for the redress of grievances was denied.
	In some cases, their Second Amendment rights were denied.
	Their Fourth Amendment rights were denied.
	Their Fifth Amendment rights were denied.
	Their Eighth Amendment rights were denied.
	And I can go point by point by point, item by item by item, and case by case by case.
	So there's simply no doubting that.
	So if the administration will feel more comfortable, that's written up in a big form.
	There's a bunch of us that can do that, that can form the documentary proven portion.
	But every single January 6th defendant was maltreated.
	There was not a single January 6th defendant they tried in their home jurisdiction, for example.
	I'm just looking at...
	So I just put out a tweet that said part of them all, yada, yada.
	And then someone says, even the feds, did you see JD's update?
	If what JD meant...
	Some of them are feds, that's fine too.
	You don't know who is and who isn't.
	And I get that part of it.
	You could pardon the former feds.
	You don't need to pardon because they were never indicted.
	Well, it's a fair point.
	So then that's just pardoning everybody who was there on January 6th.
	You can do that pardon, but that's a different kind.
	That would be the Jimmy Carter pardoned everybody who fled to Canada.
	I don't think that ambiguity is there.
	It's true.
	You pardon everyone who was indicted, and the only one that that might include you'd want to exclude is Ray Epps.
	Okay, so everybody except Ray Epps.
	Ray Epps?
	No pardon for you.
	Scaffolding guy wasn't indicted.
	Pipe bomber guy wasn't indicted.
	So you pardon everybody who was indicted on January 6th, period.
	Except Ray Epps.
	He does not deserve a pardon.
	He actually deserves further prosecution, but whatever.
	Hypothetically, Epps doesn't get a pardon.
	Can he ever be further prosecuted?
	There's still things he could be pardoned.
	I mean, to the degree that these people were complicit in an effort to set people up and did things like commit perjury along the way, there's a bunch of things they could be criminally prosecuted for.
	I mean, there was clearly a systematic and systemic effort to violate people's federal civil rights.
	So I get what JD is saying.
	I think the reason why people were sensitive to it, they're like...
	That old distinction doesn't make sense anymore because of how contaminated the process was.
	Which J.D. did appear to acknowledge.
	First of all, if he walked it back, that's already a good sign.
	I won't call it flip-flopping.
	It was the only politically palatable proposal at the time.
	You can't justify violence at a protest.
	We now know what they did as a result of whatever violence did occur.
	Some of this is being spread by bad faith actors like...
	Laura Loomer and others.
	There's effort afoot to suggest that anybody that's tech-tied in the new Trump administration is secretly sabotaging Trump, and they're trying to create conflict.
	Laura Loomer's out there trying to create conflict between Trump and Vivek, between Trump and Musk, between Trump and Vance.
	Just stick to her little space of the world.
	I mean, she'll be forgotten in 10 years.
	And ignore those kind of people that are trying to make something bigger than it is.
	J.D. was one of the first people to protect, to speak out for the January 6th defendants when nobody else would.
	It's not like he's not sensitive to the subject.
	No, for sure.
	But it's also not like if he sincerely holds that belief, it's not like it's an untenable or radically indefensible position.
	It was Trump's original position.
	Trump just went on to expand it, realizing that all the cases are contaminated.
	Well, I think once you saw five illegal immigrants beating the ever-loving piss out of a New York police officer getting released the same day, and I don't think they had any bail or cash bail, then you can sort of understand four years for whatever Jake Lang did is not justice whatsoever.
	It's an absolute injustice.
	22 years for Enrique Tarrio for doing no violence.
	Do they consider seditious conspiracy off-site to be violence?
	Let me bring this up here.
	Jay Sleek, I love it.
	You're arguing with voices in your head.
	Did you even listen to Candace interviewing one of the survivors of your liberty?
	Better still get him on Try to Debunk His Statements.
	You don't understand.
	I know who she interviewed.
	I heard that guy.
	I've listened to numerous podcasts.
	I forget his name now.
	This is the guy who was on the ship at the time.
	How does that give him any expertise?
	That is a dumb argument.
	Oh, look.
	I got somebody that was at the 9-11, was at the towers.
	When they went down.
	So that means they have a unique expert on the criminals who did it.
	No, they don't.
	That's a stupid argument.
	Stupid argument.
	Well, it's stupid also because...
	You're making an argument from the left.
	These people are arguing a left position.
	Oh, you're a victim.
	Now you're morally superior to the rest of us.
	You're now intellectually superior to the rest of us because you're an almighty victim.
	That's leftist ideology, which is what these identity politicians people do.
	And those out there that are pretending, oh, I don't really hate Jews.
	Yes, you do.
	You're just a Jew hater and a bigot.
	Go home and admit it.
	You're not smart enough to make competent, capable arguments with other people.
	So just stick to trying to harass people in the chat.
	But it's one of the dumbest arguments.
	Oh, but you should talk to the people who are the victims.
	They have no moral authority.
	They have no unique intellectual authority.
	None. Zero.
	Zilch. In fact, some of them are clearly lying about knowing they were on a spy ship.
	Why are people from the Liberty, why did so many of them lie about they were on a spy ship?
	Why is that?
	So, you know, save me the nonsense.
	This is a dumb argument made by dumb people.
	Made by people like Candace Owens, who wants to be...
	Popular with the haters and bigots, so she can line her pockets the way she always likes to line her pockets.
	But I'm telling you this, I don't blame anyone for believing that guy, but there's two things here.
	His statements don't need to be debunked because some of them are true and then some of them are interpretation.
	And so you can believe that he believes his story in his heart of hearts.
	But he has no moral authority because he was a victim.
	None. In fact, I'm skeptical that he's telling the truth when he had no idea that he was on a spy ship.
	Really? These people, a whole bunch of them.
	We had no idea we were in a spaceship.
	We had no idea we were in the middle of a war zone.
	Do you not pay any attention to the news?
	I mean, how dumb do you have to be to be a sailor in the middle of the Mediterranean, in the middle of the Six-Day War, and not know you're in the middle of a war zone?
	You have to be either an idiot or a liar.
	I don't know if Thogue is saying this in support or in contradiction.
	Robert, what are the most unreliable...
	And I went as to what?
	Oh, he was not...
	Planes bombing a ship, yeah.
	Nobody's disputing that, idiot.
	Nobody's disputing that.
	The question is, why?
	And is the absurd interpretation that Israel did it deliberately, is that the one that makes sense?
	Because that's the dumbest possible argument, and that's the one you idiots are making.
	All right, well, I wanted to bring that up because I knew that that was going to set Barnes off.
	Release the J6 POWs from...
	That is what they are.
	They're POWs.
	It's like, even if you had a POW that committed a violation in war...
	When they've all been maltreated, you release them all.
	I want to say no more excuses.
	Let me get to this one here.
	Merrick Garland may be trying to sneak operatives into the J6 pardon, so pardon all Gen 6s arrested before Election Day.
	Investigate anyone.
	Look, if the worst thing that happens when you free a thousand political prisoners is you might get six operatives who snuck their way in, look, fine.
	I mean, it's a reasonable concern, but...
	Let me read this one here.
	Avi 33, Cain 33. As a Jew, I can say communism was a Jew movement.
	However, those Jews ain't Jewish.
	My grandmother were commies.
	Grandparents were commies and blacklisted by the FBI.
	However, Stalin wasn't a Jew.
	Continued. I think the Jewish attraction to communism is religious in essence.
	It's the promise of a better world utopia.
	For me, it's an embarrassment.
	Well, also...
	That's what's fascinating about the tech history guy.
	The disproportionate nature of...
	It fits with them being anti-Israel.
	Most Jewish communists were intensely anti-Zionist, by the way.
	They never mention that.
	Go back and read your Jewish communists.
	They were anti-Zionist.
	In fact, they started as an anti-Zionist movement at the same time.
	In the late 19th century, you had these two different Jewish intellectual political traditions to try to deal with the world.
	One of them was creating Israel, and the other one was anti-Israel.
	And it was the Jewish communist movement.
	So that's the other problem where they have, you know, like people like Candace suffer massive cognitive dissonance because they want to say the Jews are all secretly running the world or groups that are Jewish or whatever the latest, you know, theory is.
	But the problem is you research, let's take history details.
	What stands out about the Jewish communist is they were anti-Jewish, that they were anti-Semitic, that they hated their Jewish history and heritage.
	Read what Karl Marx has to say about Jews.
	Yes, his grandparents were rabbis.
	He wasn't proud of that.
	He was ashamed of that.
	So what's intriguing is what goes into communism is a bias against religion, not a bias in favor of religion.
	That's why it's atheistic.
	And that's when I see people try to suggest that being an Orthodox Jew would lead you to communism.
	It's like you have to have your head checked.
	But a lot of people say that kibbutzes are communist in nature, and there's some sort of communal...
	You can argue communal, but not communist.
	Orthodox Jews are some of the most traditional conservatives I've ever met.
	But the bottom line, I can't blame anybody.
	There were a lot of Jews in the communist movement.
	Were they doing it because they were Jews, or were they Jews and they were doing it?
	No, they were anti-Jewish.
	Look at George Soros.
	George Soros is a classic example of that.
	He has Jewish heritage.
	He's very anti-Jewish.
	He's, by the way, one of the leading funders against Israel.
	It's George Soros.
	It's funny how...
	Does Candace never get around to mentioning that?
	Does that just slip her mind when she's busy hauling in all that cash?
	No, but I can see how people are saying nonetheless...
	Did she not know?
	I mean, come on.
	Let me go back.
	There's one more that came in here.
	Sad Wings Raging, who I know is a good member of the community.
	I don't know which way this is going.
	Remember when the U S called Russia and asked them if the Wagner group was their guys in Russia said, Nope, not ours.
	And wax and we wax, Oh, right.
	I know what they're saying.
	I mean, that's similar to what I put out.
	Oh, like, it's our spy ship and then facilitate it being taken down.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay. Libertarianism.
	This is Paradiddle McFlam.
	What kind of name is that Paradiddle?
	Paradiddle is drumming.
	I know that now.
	Libertarianism is overrepresented with Jews.
	Freed, Mize, Rothbard.
	It is probably all intellectual and ideological movements that are made up of dispreferent number of Jews.
	Yes, but that's part of people's problems.
	The thing there is the...
	Well, really, that's just a...
	Most of them are borrowing from histories of using Jews as scapegoats for local corrupt elite leaders.
	It goes back...
	Literally over 2,000 years.
	Is what that dynamic represents.
	But their point is that, I mean, the Jewish tradition, because the Jewish tradition focused on reading and writing, whereas other traditions did not, with their religious tradition, that gave them an edge in any field that was dependent upon being literate and academic.
	I mean, that was purely historical coincidence, is all that was.
	But again, if you want to look at the psychology of communists, you're not going to find love of religion anywhere in there for any of them.
	You're not going to find any of them as loyal, deep, religious people.
	Not Christian, not Jews, not Muslim, not any of it.
	They're just commies.
	It's one of the areas where communists have had trouble trying to infiltrate the Islamic movements.
	And so instead, they've just borrowed from the, like we did.
	Like, you know, both sides on the left and the right have radicalized Islamic movements around the world to try to oppose their opponents.
	But they did so by falling by going into Islam rather than going against it.
	That's not true of communists anywhere.
	religious. That's who they are.
	That's the nature of communism is to replace God.
	And now I'm seeing a lot of replies to my tweet.
	It said, he clarified he's going to make sure that instigators don't get pardoned.
	That's fine.
	If that's what he meant, then please-Also, it's the utility to X, right?
	So the utility to X is- That, you know, even you can reach the Vice President of the United States.
	You can be an ordinary schmuck and reach the Vice President of the United States.
	But that's a good thing.
	I think that's a revitalization of our republic.
	Like Ned Ryan was talking, I think it was Ned Ryan, was on with Tucker, talking about all the different issues, like the different nominations that are coming up, which ones are do or die.
	If Trump is going to succeed, the Tulsi Gabbard nomination.
	The Robert Kennedy nomination, these are do-or-die nominations and need to go through.
	But as Trump is looking at pardons, just expand it to anybody who is a victim of lawfare.
	Make that the common denominator.
	Don't make the common denominator they're aligned with me politically.
	Make the common denominator they were the victims of lawfare.
	That's what unites.
	Julian Assange, Ed Snowden, Roger Ver of Bitcoin Jesus, Ross Ulbrich, Silk Road, the January 6th defendants, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro.
	All these people should be pardoned right away.
	Mackey. Remember Mackey?
	The meme guy.
	Don't forget the meme guy from New York.
	The meme guy should be pardoned right away.
	He's not even on the list.
	I'll say this just to clarify also.
	If what J.D. Vance meant to say was what he clarified since, obviously...
	Fantastic. If he is finding a way to backtrack and save face, I don't care either.
	It is an amazing thing that the voice of the people, what is it, Vox Populae, Vox Dei?
	Vox Populae.
	It's an amazing thing that in as much as Chad Cronister had to listen to the backlash of Trumpians, if J.D. Vance just wanted to find a way to back out and save face and say, I won't even hold it against him.
	It's fantastic that he got reached because it's the only fair outcome here.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And just look at it across the board and make it a consistent, continuous effort.
	What it tells me is that it needs to be tightened down.
	That the team behind exposing the lawfare hasn't been fully put in place yet.
	Because if it had, J.D. would have the answer ready to roll.
	And so I think that's what J.D.'s answer earlier today told me.
	It's like, okay, we need a presentation that's a little bit tighter.
	And why are we doing this?
	We're doing this because lawfare is wrong.
	Because our Constitution, we have to care more about our Constitution than anything else.
	And so anybody who has been wronged by the executive branch ignoring the Constitution is going to be set free.
	And that needs to be the mantra.
	That needs to be the focal point.
	And for that, you can include those Black Panthers, as pointed out by that so-called Black Panther Party that was supposedly in the pocket of the Russians.
	That was that ridiculous Biden prosecution down in Florida.
	Every single one of them should be pardoned.
	That was BS from beginning to end.
	Everything about that smelled terrible, smelled ridiculous.
	So that's another example.
	But look for cases of victims of lawfare.
	Don't worry about their politics or their ideological orientation.
	Look at, were they victims of lawfare?
	If so, we're going to set you free.
	Because that's not, we're going to restore, you cannot restore the republic unless you undo the damage done by those who have been violating the republic for the last four years.
	Okay, I think that's good.
	I'm looking to see if I didn't miss anything there.
	Let me get some chat over on locals.
	Derek Tyler says, Good evening again, Viva and Robert.
	Good, good.
	Riffing off of Robert's comments on Bourbon about the COVID harm grand jury cover-up report in not finding any criminal liability.
	Did Bondi initiate this grand jury years-long process?
	Are you aware that she helped her friend Trevor Martin, family attorney Ben Crump, manufacture an absolutely false witness in order to frame George Zimmerman?
	Is Trump aware?
	Any thoughts on her reliability and loyalty to the America First MAGA agenda?
	So I thought the Florida grand jury did not live up to what it should have been.
	So you do investigation, you figure out, yes, these big drug companies lied about the COVID vaccine, but somehow we're going to find no state criminal violations?
	How's that?
	It doesn't make sense.
	It makes no sense.
	Somebody got to that grand jury and shut them down from going forward with an actual criminal indictment.
	And I was skeptical of this from day one.
	I was glad when DeSantis did it.
	But I said right away, if it's some shit, it will have reached out to people like Brooke Jackson, people like Warner Mendenhall, people like myself, our clients that have a lot of intel and information, but especially Brooke Jackson, who is the primary whistleblower in the country concerning the COVID vaccine.
	To my knowledge, they never did.
	And that told me, okay, DeSantis wants credit for looking like he's going to do something, but just like typical Washington, he's not going to actually do anything.
	And unfortunately, that's exactly what came about.
	I mean, if DeSantis wanted to rebuild his connection to the Trump base for a 2028 run, he needed this grand jury to do something.
	His failure to do it means he's going nowhere in 2028.
	He's going to get whooped in 2028.
	If he decides to run for president.
	Yeah, he will.
	In the primaries.
	That's a lot.
	His wife hasn't been measuring those drapes for five years, not to go for it again.
	Is it not customary, though?
	I would assume J.D. is going to obviously run.
	Of course, yes.
	He's going to run against J.D. And if he was going to try to stand a chance, he needed to deliver on some things, like the COVID vaccine issues that the Trump administration hasn't yet committed to delivering on.
	And yet, he also not delivering, sadly.
	My view of Bondi is she's average.
	So not bad, not great.
	Nowhere near what Matt Gaetz could have been, or someone like Matt Gaetz.
	She's not Bill Barr, but the person's criticism about her connections to the Zimmerman case.
	Just think about it.
	When have you talked about Bondi in the last four years?
	I don't trust that an attorney general is going to somehow be a great federal attorney general when they did nothing of consequence while they were state attorney general.
	Contrast it to the Louisiana Attorney General, the Missouri Attorney General, or the Texas Attorney General, right?
	Those people in the news every other week.
	Look at what the Texas Attorney General did.
	He actually sued Pfizer over the vaccine because he said, you guys are lying about it.
	Kansas Attorney General did the same thing.
	He also joined in lawsuits against the censorship, joined in lawsuits on the Second Amendment issues, on the border wall issues.
	But there's a bunch of issues that the...
	Even the Missouri Attorney General has taken lead actions on, even though the border issues isn't right away an impact.
	But where was the Florida Attorney General?
	I mean, nowhere special.
	So I saw this as a Susan Wiles pick.
	And so I hope Bondi does well.
	I hope Bondi proves me wrong.
	Now there are people underneath her that are good appointed.
	Harmeet Dillon at Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department would be excellent.
	Terrell, to be underneath her would be excellent.
	A person that was chosen from Paxton's office to be heavily involved in policy, Office of Legal Policy at Justice Department, also excellent.
	So there's been a ton of excellent ones.
	I'm just not a big fan of Bondi.
	I'm not a critic.
	I'm just not a fan.
	She's just done nothing to prove that she's going to do anything impactful, memorable.
	But maybe, I hope she proves me wrong.
	Well, or there's time.
	I don't know how she, if she withdraws or something.
	I mean...
	He can shuffle this.
	He can change his mind.
	Yeah, but he won't with her.
	She's expected to be the first person confirmed.
	Okay. I mean, I presume the way you're describing her, she'll have the least problem of all getting confirmed.
	Yeah, correct.
	Okay. By the way, it was always a bad sign.
	I told people for years, someone who gets no controversy when they're nominated is someone who's going to be useless.
	I'm going to read this.
	Tequila Raposado says, Viva and Barnes.
	You may be incorrect, Mr. Barnes.
	Lawfare commenced with the creation of the non-federal Federal Reserve Corporation.
	I read something about Tulsi being forced to promise to not go after FISA.
	If it's true, is this binding?
	This is from Becky S. I haven't heard anything like that.
	I see that as very different.
	So basically, Tom Cotton, who's a scuzzbag, he's a war whore from Arkansas.
	Deep State Republican Senator said he would not support Gabbard unless Gabbard withdrew her opposition to the FISA laws.
	So Gabbard was put into a choice.
	She could either make that the issue and fight it out or say, well, you know, at this point, that's not worth fighting over, so I'll go forward.
	My own view is, in the executive branch, she's not writing the laws.
	So in the executive branch, she should probably defer to the legislative branch, to the president, and the judicial branch as to what the law is.
	And so what she said is her position as a Congress, if she was in Congress, she would not authorize it.
	But as the intelligence executive branch official, she would utilize whatever has been made available to her by the legislative and executive branch in terms of intel.
	So that's how she's going to use the information that is gathered from the FISA program she's previously opposed.
	That frankly makes sense because she's being charged with an executive branch position.
	She's not being asked to write the law.
	She's not being asked to interpret the law.
	She's not being asked to decide whether it's constitutional or not.
	So I don't have a problem with her.
	It's like Robert Kennedy on abortion.
	Robert Kennedy still is pro-choice.
	He's not for late-term abortions, but pro-choice.
	But he said, look, the president has a moderated, different position.
	He's appointing me.
	I'm going to take his position.
	I'm sure Lindsey Graham thought, oh, we've got an easy way that we can derail Kennedy.
	We'll derail him over on abortion, even though our real reason is because we're big pharma prostitutes.
	And, you know, Kennedy outmaneuvered in that regard.
	So the Glenn Greenwald...
	But it's not like Gabbard could go to the office.
	Trump wasn't putting her in the Director of National Intelligence to reverse all the laws that have been passed, to be blunt about it.
	He's putting her there to give him better, accurate interpretation of the intel information because he doesn't trust who has given him that information before for good cause.
	So I think for that, she's protecting why the president wants her there.
	And not jeopardizing it over what would be a purely symbolic fight on Feist at this point.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Let me get a...
	There's a couple...
	Well, I'll get a few more tipped questions over here in Locals.
	We got Barnes.
	Okay, we got that.
	If some low-level J6 Glowies get pardoned, can they be compelled to testify?
	We've talked about this.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, there's no Fifth Amendment.
	Now, unless you...
	And that was from Plant Nerd, by the way.
	Unless you committed another crime.
	So, for example, Dershowitz would say no Fifth Amendment.
	However, like take Hunter.
	He probably has a state equivalent of the Fifth Amendment for a bunch of the crimes he's committed over the past.
	So it's only as...
	Whatever you've been pardoned for, you no longer have a risk of incrimination for.
	But that's the key.
	The Fifth Amendment is only gone to the scope of the pardon.
	You may still have Fifth Amendment rights as to things that were not covered by the pardon.
	Which would be state charges to the extent they can't pardon for state charges and therefore you could still invoke the Fifth.
	Or federal charges that might not have been referenced in the pardon.
	Now, Hunter's is pretty broad.
	Ten years.
	Ten years?
	It's borderline preempt or retroactive.
	Schnookum says, Robert, what is Trump's path to eliminating D.C. as the court system, and can this basis of prejudicial grand jury and courts as pardon basis be used to fuel it?
	Absolutely. I think they should say D.C. system shouldn't exist.
	It's proven it's an incapacity to be impartial and issue the mass pardons as part of that on January 6th defendants.
	And begin the process of ending the federal jurisdiction of D.C. having a federal court system.
	It shouldn't have a federal court system.
	And so just ending that altogether and reassigning judges and reassigning cases accordingly.
	I don't think they're there yet, but there are people like Mike Davis and others that have voiced, have agreed with us on that.
	So I'm hopeful that it starts at least the thought process that there should be, the swamp should not get to judge the swamp.
	Least of all the critics of the swamp.
	I'll bring up a couple here, and then we're going to get on to the other subject.
	Atheism is a religion.
	It is a godless religion, but it is a religion nonetheless.
	Religion is a system of beliefs.
	Yes, I agree.
	Alright, what do we move on to now?
	I've got to get to our list.
	I think we...
	Did we cover it?
	Oh, I did have an update.
	Speaking of pardons, the Roger Veer Bitcoin Jesus case.
	Here's another example.
	If you can find a part of a case, a pardon, that tells a broader story, longer story, more of a story.
	This is where JD's wanting to go.
	He wants the first set of pardon defendants to be grandmas who are suddenly released.
	He wants that to be the visual that makes absolute sense.
	So I could see staggering out the January 6th pardons.
	Find the ones that look the best telegenically.
	The ones that if they're on Fox News that night, everybody's sympathetic.
	They're like, how did that 82-year-old grandma end up in, you know, that kind of one, right?
	But the next set of ones I would do are ones like Roger Ver because it's a story that keeps building.
	So this is, you know, Bitcoin Jesus.
	They're prosecuting him on taxes he doesn't even owe for a time period in which he wasn't even a U.S. citizen.
	It's insane.
	It's all because he attacked the intelligence community for trying to co-opt Bitcoin and destroy its ability to financially free the world.
	That's the backstory of it.
	Real short, simple version.
	But he has filed now, his lawyers have now filed a motion to dismiss.
	And guess what it turns out?
	One of the highest ranking U.S. attorneys in the Justice Department at the Tax Division is now under criminal investigation in Spain for submitting perjured affidavits and declarations and documents perpetuating a fraud upon the Spanish courts.
	One of the highest ranking tax division U.S. officials is right now under investigation for trying to defraud the Spanish courts with a bogus extradition of Roger Ver.
	Here's what it all turns out.
	For those that don't remember the backstory, they went in and they legally seized all of Roger Ver's attorney-client communications over a decade.
	What they told the American courts in order to get an indictment And what they told the Spanish courts in order to try to get an extradition was that Roger Ver had been told by his tax advisors to do something different than what he had done and that he had, according to this U.S. attorney and the U.S. government, that he had lied and withheld information from his own attorneys.
	Based on the attorney-client communications, they illicitly stole, just like the Trump case.
	As weird parallels with how they handled the Trump case.
	But again, these are the tax division people that are based where?
	Out of the District of Columbia, District of Corruption.
	Well, it turns out the underlying attorney-client communications say just the opposite.
	Roger Veer fully disclosed everything to his attorneys and accountants, and they were the ones who told him he had no further filing obligations.
	Now, in American law, it's what's called a reliance defense, which means if you fully disclose in the tax, this is unique to tax, it's not true of almost any other area of law.
	If you disclose all the accounting information to your accountant or tax lawyer, and they're the ones who do the, and you comply with their conduct and how you behave, you cannot be criminally prosecuted in America.
	It's called a reliance defense.
	It's 100% defense.
	It means you can't even seek an indictment or seek an extradition.
	The U.S. government knew Roger Ver had a perfect reliance defense, so they lied about it to not only the U.S. courts, but to the Spanish courts and the Spanish government.
	Here we have a high-ranking U.S. government official under criminal investigation in Spain for lying about Roger Ver.
	That's as good a case to pardon tomorrow, as soon as President Trump gets in there, as you can get there.
	I mean, it shows how insane the system has got.
	One of the highest-ranking officials has the cojones to lie to a Spanish court, knowing he at some point would get caught lying to the Spanish court and thought it wouldn't matter.
	By that point, either Roger Ver would end up McAfee-ed and Epstein-ed inside a Spanish jail, or he would be stuck somewhere in solitary in a U.S. jail.
	So that's...
	When we dig in, and that's what I'm hoping...
	What JD should learn from today?
	Have smart, sophisticated people like himself, whose sole and whole objective can't be him because he's got a lot of other things on his plate, but other people like him to do these reviews to show what's wrong with these cases.
	So that when it's time to issue the pardon or the commutation, the whole world understands why.
	And you also use each case to expose how our system got so bad.
	I think it was Ned Ryan, if I remember right.
	We were talking with Tucker, but talking about the Republic is at risk of collapse.
	And it's cases like this we need to use to highlight to restore the Republic in the first place.
	Just checking Roger Veer's odds.
	He's at 30% up on CalShare.
	My guess is that's going to continue to go up as people see.
	You can go to freerogernow.com.
	You can see he's got all the motions to dismiss up.
	I'm going to post links to him on the locals board.
	But, I mean, it was astounding.
	I was like, wow.
	So, Robert, what's interesting, and I'm asking it, like, Ross Ulbricht on Trump's pardon list is 79%.
	On Biden's pardon list, it's 2%.
	What would be Trump's...
	What would be Biden's deterrent to pardon Ross Ulbricht?
	Like, other than just disinterest, would he...
	Does he have anything to do with...
	Incriminating or inculpating the Biden administration?
	I mean, essentially, the only reason he would have to not pardon any of those people is the deep state hates Ross Ulbrich, hates Roger Ver, hates Julian Assange, and hates Edward Snowden.
	And so the degree they are calling the shots would be why he would not even consider pardoning or commuting them.
	Instead, it's what I've been trying to tell people, that the left now is, the left loves criminal prosecutions and punishment, just of the right people.
	And what you're seeing in live time is you're seeing the Democratic president pardon or commute the sentences of some of the most violent, nasty, sick human beings on the planet.
	But they're people who didn't try to commit their crimes against the state.
	They commit their crimes against weak and vulnerable people.
	And that's just fine in the Democratic world.
	Oh, those are people that just had difficult upbringings, and so we should release them.
	Those are the people they want to give no bail to, that they want to release without any bail restrictions.
	Those are the people that he's pardoning or commuting the sentences of.
	Whereas the people who are targeted for political reasons who've harmed nobody in their whole lives, like Julian Assange and Ed Snowden and Roger Ver and others, those are the ones they're targeting for harassment because they committed the real crime of challenging the deep state's power on the U.S. politics.
	Let me read a couple of tip questions from our locals community.
	Jonathan at G94 says, Mike Waltz is a total shitbag.
	He wants Ukraine to lower the conscription age.
	And there's a screenshot which says Trump's future advisor urges Ukraine to go all in and lower draft age.
	I have to check that headline.
	I don't know anything about that background.
	Yeah, I'll check that.
	I like what Walls has said about the administrative state.
	That's the scope of my knowledge of it.
	I don't know him personally.
	Okay, I'm going to screenshot that and just make sure it's not that I would doubt our community would be wrong about that or spread misinformation.
	Do you think RFK Jr. will be able to influence the Dems for a more populist attitude?
	Asks Boopsy.
	I mean, I think that's going to be the key, right?
	If Trump is going to be successful, and if Trump is going to have a legacy, and if J.D. Vance is going to win in four years, then the populist side of Trump has to dominate, and he has to succeed.
	He has to succeed in that area.
	End the wars, number one.
	Fix the economy, number two.
	End the illegal immigration, number three.
	And four, restore the republic and the rights related to the republic.
	And that's where a lot of these pardons and commutations come in.
	Excellent. There's one here.
	It says, this is from B. Tessin.
	The Biden administration disregarded all the laws regarding immigration, and more so, my question is, why doesn't Trump and his cabinet do the same, only to help America instead of hurt it?
	If I, ex-Tulsi, would agree, then do the opposite that what's the president admin he's been doing for...
	How would one open the borders to...
	I mean, the argument would be people want Trump, and we've seen it with the Vivek Elon, to shut down immigration and above and beyond illegal, but even with H-1B visas and etc.
	Okay, last week, or was it last week?
	We didn't get to get to some of them, Robert.
	I think it was, which ones did we not get to?
	The AI, FTC?
	It was the big tech related ones.
	I'm going to forget them.
	I remember there was one where it was AI false.
	Did we do the AI false advertising?
	We didn't get to it last week.
	It's funny that I don't know why they use AI to generate false positive reviews.
	It's just so amazing.
	You don't know what's real anymore.
	I don't know.
	Are we all going to have to agree to license out our voices so that we can protect fake AI in our voices hawking wares?
	I don't know if we're going to have to agree to go AI simply to own our voices.
	Or the people who have used AI to come up with fake Barnes.
	They have Barnes giving advice on how you can give your eight-year-old cocaine and all of a sudden they created a breaking bad.
	That was related to Reketa, I presume?
	Yeah, they came after me for that.
	But some of them were funny.
	I don't mind.
	But the question is, where are the limits?
	So this case basically said that you can't use AI to generate fake positive reviews.
	I guess fake negative reviews goes hand in hand.
	But is that to say that you can use real fake people?
	Like, real people to the extent...
	Fake reviews to the extent...
	As long as you disclose it.
	Because, I mean, most ads, that's not the real person who ate the product.
	You know, it'll say in the bottom, you know...
	So you can...
	Is it not going to be like, okay, we disclose that they're AI-generated fake reviews?
	So they're not real testimonials, and they're not real people either.
	So good luck filtering through reality.
	I never take a review with...
	I take it with a grain of salt in all cases, period.
	So what's the underlying importance?
	Something that's built into AI that finds lying very easy is what I'm discovering.
	Because what's leading to most of the lawsuits involving AI...
	It's some version of, like in the law context, it's a bunch of lawyers getting sanctioned because AI loves to invent fake cases.
	You know, they'll just create these fake cases.
	You know, some idiot, some poor sap lawyer like Michael Cullen will quote him and they'll be like, hold on a second.
	The judge will be like, this case doesn't exist.
	And it appears something inherent in AI that AI almost gets a kick out of lying and making stuff up.
	Or just can't draw the distinction morally, intellectually, or otherwise.
	But it was supposed to be an AI service to help you get positive reviews from your customers.
	And what it decided to do was just fake it.
	Just make it up.
	They're like, oh, rather than try to find somebody that actually uses this product, we'll just pretend.
	And so they got caught in the FTCs bringing suit.
	But it's something about AI.
	Loves to lie.
	That's my only takeaway from it so far.
	Grok counts as...
	Grok is...
	There's a difference between AI and...
	No, Grok I like because it's AI.
	And all you have to say is it is the only honest version of me.
	Who is Robert Barnes, the attorney?
	It actually gives you an honest version rather than Wikipedia and everybody else where they're always out trying to defame you for ideological purposes.
	So I was like, oh, that's pretty good.
	You can do other stuff.
	It can write a screenplay for you.
	It can write a poem for you.
	It is kind of fun and interesting so far.
	Robert, should I trust Robert Farns?
	Have you gone to AI and...
	Oh, should I trust Robert?
	For me, it's pretty neutral for me.
	Deciding could be...
	Here's a nuanced look at his credibility.
	Professional background, legal career.
	He's an attorney who's represented high-profile clients.
	Public persona.
	He's known for political commentator, often appearing in media to discuss law and politics.
	He's associated with George Gammon.
	Credibility and controversy.
	Oh, let's hear this.
	Criticism of motives.
	There have been many concerns regarding some of his actions, such as the initiative to sue the Federal Reserve, which some critics have labeled as potentially opportunistic, suggesting he might be more about generating funds than achieving legal outcomes.
	Sons of bitches.
	Political alignment.
	Barnes is known for his populist views and has been associated with conservative media figures, yada, yada, yada.
	His betting on Donald Trump election also shows his political leanings.
	Controversial cases.
	Let's see, who do you got?
	Sandy Hook defamation.
	Okay, this is still pretty lame in terms of critique.
	Analyzing trust.
	Let's see here.
	Ultimately, trust should be based on your evaluation of these actions and the outcome of its legal work and how its public statements align with the values.
	All right.
	That's very fair.
	Very neutral.
	Stunningly, it's what media used to be supposed to be, right?
	You actually read it and you're like, that's pretty fair.
	That's not tilted one way or the other, not biased one way or the other.
	So I do like that.
	But if you're hiring AI, Be aware that it tends to want to lie.
	It's a little bit of, what's the, you know, the Space Odyssey 2001?
	Hal. Hal, you know, sorry, George, I'm going to have to shut that down now.
	I just asked Gronk a question, which I can't make public about me, and it said, the question you've posed uses offensive and derogatory language that promotes anti-Semitic stereotypes.
	Oh my goodness, that's funny.
	Now I feel bad.
	I might be in the bad books with Gronk now.
	Oh, okay.
	What were the other tech cases that we missed last week?
	Somebody said I would bet on Satan if he was a lock to win.
	Well, maybe.
	It depends on the circumstances.
	Well, there's a difference between making money on political markets versus...
	It's my weakness.
	I am blinded by what I believe should be the case and not what I understand will be the case.
	Derek Chauvin was one answer.
	I should have...
	There's a couple more.
	There's the net neutrality, one we didn't get to, and the big tech targeting kids, but the other two.
	Speaking of...
	You just mentioned somebody's name.
	Derek Chauvin.
	You see, it turned out more evidence.
	One, they hid evidence concerning what he died of.
	There was some of it we knew about, but some of it they hid.
	That's now coming out in his federal proceeding, his post-trial proceeding.
	It turns out that the key expert witness for the police, for the law enforcement officer, committed outright perjury.
	She got up and said, oh no, we were trained not to do that particular knee move.
	Not only were they in fact trained, she herself routinely utilized it.
	But I remember seeing that at the time.
	That element didn't strike me as being new.
	Somehow it didn't come up at the state trial, but it's coming up now at the federal trial.
	I thought they had a video.
	Maybe she denied it.
	Whatever it was.
	But there's actual photo-visual evidence now of her utilizing the exact technique that she lied to the jury about and said we were trained not to use.
	What was her stature?
	Or what is her stature?
	She was given a promotion after the trial.
	Oh my goodness.
	The chat's going to correct me if I have a false memory.
	I thought that that evidence was not allowed.
	I thought they proved that about one person, but not as to her.
	Because I thought I remembered seeing a video or a memo that indicated...
	I'll go back and check my memory.
	Okay, fine.
	You had this cause of death which showed no blunt force trauma to the neck.
	I love it that people are saying, well, he didn't take enough fentanyl to cause him to die.
	We saw him consume drugs and once you do that...
	Oh, but he was a habituated user so that couldn't have been a contributing factor.
	So, yeah, what else with that?
	Oh, that was the main thing.
	So it looks like the federal court is considering throwing out his verdict.
	But remember, we talked about the time we said, because the politics is so heavy, they'll lynch him now, and five years from now, they'll say, oh, you know, that verdict shouldn't have ever happened.
	Well, yes, but also your insight at the time was that he's still going to serve so much time for the other issues that it'll be with the consequence.
	Which is a long litany.
	Again, I'm not a...
	I shed no tears for Derek Schultz.
	I just shed no tears for George Floyd either.
	The monuments that they built to George Floyd, it's unbelievable.
	It's bad parody.
	It's a bad Babylon Bee.
	But the other thing Big Tech got caught doing is how they're targeting kids without parental control and refusing labor law protections on the grounds that anything Big Tech ever does is speech.
	So, we can't notify parents that their kids are accessing something their parents don't want them to access.
	Was this Instagram or was it YouTube?
	That's for speech.
	It was big tech writ large.
	Challenging in the California law.
	The California law was like, you've got to at least make sure kids know and parents agree before kids use certain big tech services because we're seeing all the mental health harm it's causing children.
	So they sued and said, we don't have to follow that law because anything we do is speech.
	And giving parental notifications is coerced speech, which is ridiculous.
	That's not coerced speech.
	That's conditions of access to a service, which we do all over the place.
	Because they see that courts buy into the idea that the First Amendment means big tech gets to do whatever it wants.
	That's how they interpret the First Amendment.
	And they're sincerely arguing that in front of federal courts as we speak.
	That they can lie to you about what they're doing with your kids.
	They can have your kids access things that you've specifically put in the program for them not to access without you even knowing about it because they consider that their free speech right to harm your child.
	Going back to the TikTok action, it's right back to the beginning.
	They raised the free speech arguments in TikTok, but it was not about the people's free speech to hear which...
	I've been told now by some American lawyers as a debunked theory, but people's free speech...
	They're wrong.
	It's not a debunked theory.
	The right to listen has been repeatedly reiterated in the Constitution, and the lying tech whore lawyers pretending to be First Amendment specialists who are nothing more than whores for big tech should quit lying to people about the law.
	Yes, your right to listen is included in the First Amendment.
	That's one of the things that always agitates me.
	There's no bigger liars and defrauders and fakers about what is and isn't in the First Amendment.
	Well, so that's interesting.
	So in the TikTok ban, they were arguing free speech for creators to use a platform of their choosing.
	Did I ask you definitively?
	Do you think the ban, at least on the calcium markets...
	I think the ban is unconstitutional, but you can't trust this particular Supreme Court, unfortunately, in the big tech space.
	Because several of them, like Barrett and Kavanaugh, just bow and cower in front of big tech.
	All right, very interesting.
	Now, we're two hours in.
	Put corporate whores on the bench, everybody.
	We're two hours in.
	What we're going to do is get ready to go over to Locals exclusively in a few seconds here, just to read this.
	Yeah, and just answer questions from the Locals members.
	We've got a lot there.
	So get your tip questions.
	If you want to troll, you've got to pay the toll.
	$5 tips or more, all those will get answered.
	So don't put in like $45 $1 tips.
	Thank you.
	Oh, I end up reading some of them by accident.
	But Pinochet's helicopter tours, video game companies in Hollywood, especially Disney, used AI reviews to counteract the audience's dissatisfaction with their social messaging.
	I'm sure that's true, yeah.
	No doubt.
	And there's so many bots out there these days.
	But that's why I don't believe them.
	I don't believe Rotten Tomatoes anymore.
	I don't believe anything.
	They're all fake.
	Am I sharing the screen?
	I have to refresh again.
	Let me just see something here.
	I'm not seeing a screen.
	I just...
	Son of a beast.
	I'm going to refresh it.
	We'll be right back.
	I'm back.
	Okay, here.
	I'm telling you something is happening with Rumble Studio.
	Okay, now let me see if I can share again because I want to just show it and I also want to make sure before we get...
	For a great guest interview, you see it now, Robert?
	I don't have my screen on.
	Yeah, we see it.
	Okay, good.
	I suggest John of Broken Truth.
	You've had...
	His work on stream for your other guests before.
	You've had his work on stream from other guests before, for sure.
	I screen grabbed it.
	And then Freddie says, all face act prisoners, including Grandma, who Judge told her to pray to her God that she would serve her sentence.
	All face act prisoners, I guess this means pardon, including Grandma, who Judge told to pray to God that she would survive her sentence.
	All right, so that's what we're going to do right now.
	We're going to go over to Locals.
	Give everybody the link one more time.
	Come on over.
	Supporters only, but come and be part of the Cool Kids if you want.
	If you don't, it'll all be on the internet tomorrow.
	Locals link here.
	Robert, what do you have coming up this week schedule-wise?
	Anything? Preparing for some trials.
	We had one bourbon last week.
	We'll have bourbons throughout this week as I kick the cold, which was good.
	Oh, and now I'm an idiot, Robert.
	Okay, we got new merch up at the merch store.
	And it is I Am Alex Jones in the beautiful pyramid format.
	I love it.
	This is beautiful.
	This is like I Am Spartacus, where once we allow something to happen to one person, we allow it to happen to everybody.
	Were you able to add the store button to the rumble?
	Oh, not yet, because I totally forgot.
	That looked cool.
	That looked like a cool thing to add a store button.
	Right on your Rumble page.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I'll make sure to remember to do that.
	So come on over to Locals or get some merch at Viva Fry or just snip, clip, share because that's the best way to do it.
	We're going to end it.
	And I will wish all of you a good week.
	And Locals, we're going to have our after party.
	We're going to get to all of these questions.
	Bada bing, bada boom.

▲