Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - Timcast IRL - BLM Activist Says "The Revolution Has Started" Of Waukesha w-Rekieta Law & Kash Patel

00:00:00.000 the other night we had a very serious attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

00:00:14.000 A man drove an SUV through a parade, striking many, many, many people.

00:00:20.000 There are a lot of injuries.

00:00:22.000 Now, the motivation is a big question.

00:00:24.000 And we try to tell everybody, you know, why don't you wait a little bit till we can figure out what's going on.

00:00:28.000 But it seems like there's no clear motivation.

00:00:30.000 Now, the police are saying it's not terror-related.

00:00:33.000 There was no pursuit.

00:00:34.000 But also trying to make it seem like he was fleeing from some kind of domestic issue or some kind of knife fight, which makes no sense because he was not being pursued.

00:00:42.000 In that case, maybe the story is an angry man decided for no reason, just in the heat of the moment, to ram through a parade instead of turning off onto any one of the side streets.

00:00:50.000 Or as one BLM activist put it, they think it was retaliation over the Rittenhouse verdict and that the revolution has started.

00:00:57.000 I don't know if I take that all too seriously, but I think what I do take seriously is the fact that on both the left and the right, it is being viewed as political or terror.

00:01:06.000 I shouldn't say entirely on the left, of course, the establishment left is trying to downplay this and say, oh no, no, nothing's happening, nothing's happening.

00:01:12.000 But when you have a lot of, you know, activists on Twitter saying he was just defending himself, or this is what you get, or things like that, or, quite literally, it sounds like the revolution has started is the full statement.

00:01:23.000 Uh, maybe it sounds like the revolution has started.

00:01:26.000 Not because of what happened, but because of what people are saying.

00:01:28.000 So we definitely will get into that, and we also have an update on, uh, the Kyle Rittenhouse, uh, Kenosha.

00:01:33.000 Not so much Rittenhouse, but there are civil lawsuits being fired off already.

00:01:36.000 I believe one, one, more than one so far?

00:01:38.000 Two, right?

00:01:38.000 Two so far.

00:01:39.000 Two so far.

00:01:40.000 So we're gonna get into all that stuff.

00:01:41.000 We got some other stories, too, but we've got, uh, two excellent guests today, and, um, glad to have you, Rakeda Law.

00:01:47.000 How do you, should I introduce you as that, or?

00:01:49.000 Introduce yourself, man.

00:01:50.000 Yeah, hey, what's up?

00:01:51.000 I'm Nick Riccato of Riccato Law, a small law firm in central Minnesota.

00:01:54.000 Very happy to be here, by the way.

00:01:56.000 Thank you very much.

00:01:57.000 Oh, thanks for coming, man.

00:01:58.000 And yeah, I have a YouTube channel.

00:02:00.000 It's called Rikada Law.

00:02:02.000 We talk about legal stuff and sometimes we talk about, you know, ridiculous other cultural stuff and anime because... Well, that's cool.

00:02:10.000 I want to add that you say a small law firm, but you had a massive live stream during the trial with this big panel of lawyers.

00:02:20.000 So while the Rittenhouse trial was going on, you were what everyone was tuning into for the most part.

00:02:24.000 And I will say this.

00:02:26.000 Last week, Tuesday, we had Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Michael Malice, Blair White, me, Luke, you know, Drew Hernandez.

00:02:34.000 We had 110,000 concurrent viewers for this big, you know, crazy battle royale.

00:02:37.000 You, on your stream of lawyers, 130,000-plus people watching because you guys were giving insightful and excellent commentary into what was going on with the trial in real time.

00:02:47.000 So that's amazing.

00:02:48.000 So we have a lot to talk about.

00:02:50.000 I guess you have updates for us too.

00:02:52.000 Yeah, there was a... Well, we'll save it.

00:02:54.000 Okay, I was going to preview it, but we'll wait.

00:02:57.000 But it's related to Dominic Black, and this will be really, really interesting.

00:03:00.000 Yes, something, you know, no one has probably talked about this or heard about this, so it's going to be pretty cool.

00:03:05.000 Cool.

00:03:05.000 Right on.

00:03:05.000 Pretending to guns, too.

00:03:07.000 We also have Cash is back.

00:03:08.000 I'm back.

00:03:09.000 Cash is back!

00:03:09.000 He's back!

00:03:09.000 Yes!

00:03:10.000 What's going on, guys?

00:03:11.000 We love Cash.

00:03:11.000 Congratulations on your successful tour day, Austin.

00:03:13.000 Pull the mic up a little bit, yeah.

00:03:15.000 I heard it was pretty awesome down there.

00:03:16.000 Yeah, it was absolutely fantastic.

00:03:17.000 Do you want to introduce yourself?

00:03:19.000 Cash Patel, 16 years in government.

00:03:21.000 You can find me at fightwithcash.com.

00:03:23.000 We're going to get into it, but I launched my merch site tonight, fightwithcash.shop.

00:03:29.000 Special discount only for TimCast viewers.

00:03:31.000 Type in TimCast, you get a discount tonight on all the merch.

00:03:35.000 You also, aside from working for the Trump administration and in government, you were a trial lawyer?

00:03:39.000 Yeah, I pretended to be one for a while.

00:03:41.000 I was a public defender and then I became a federal prosecutor, so tried about 60 jury trials to verdicts in criminal cases, state and federal court.

00:03:49.000 It was awesome, and then I was just like, I really want to go make some money, and so I stayed in government.

00:03:55.000 Alright then.

00:03:55.000 Well, this will be great.

00:03:56.000 You guys will be able to talk to us about the trial.

00:03:58.000 We have a lot of updates.

00:03:59.000 We'll start with the Walker Show stuff, but we got the rest of the crew.

00:04:01.000 They're chillin'.

00:04:01.000 Yeah, you know, I really don't like lawyers.

00:04:04.000 I'm a recovering lawyer.

00:04:06.000 But you guys are okay.

00:04:07.000 You guys are fine.

00:04:08.000 I'm kidding.

00:04:08.000 I'm really excited about today's show.

00:04:10.000 And the shirt that I'm wearing today, I think pretty much says exactly the situation we're in as it highlights the Hunger Games, Animal Forms, They Live, Brave New World, The Matrix, V for Vendetta, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, all depicting your current reality.

00:04:22.000 If If you think this is an accurate statement and want to highlight it with the rest of the world, you can on TheBestPoliticalShirts.com.

00:04:33.000 Get yours before the supply chain shortages stop you from getting it.

00:04:36.000 Thanks for having me.

00:04:37.000 Over here, we got the fun-loving internet surfer.

00:04:39.000 What's up?

00:04:40.000 Ian Crossland.

00:04:42.000 Happy to be here, baby.

00:04:43.000 Let's go for the ride.

00:04:43.000 Ian looks like he's still in bed.

00:04:46.000 I am.

00:04:46.000 We're still cold, man.

00:04:48.000 He just came out of bed.

00:04:48.000 It's like 70 degrees in this room or something.

00:04:51.000 And I'm also here.

00:04:52.000 I'm ready to get educated on law, so let's get going.

00:04:55.000 Before we get started, my friends, we have a sponsor tonight.

00:04:58.000 You know him, you love him, BioTrust.

00:04:59.000 Go to strongerbonesandlife.com and you can get 51% off of your ageless multi-collagen.

00:05:06.000 I have it right here.

00:05:07.000 I love this stuff.

00:05:08.000 You don't really notice it.

00:05:09.000 I put it in my drinks, my coffee and things like that.

00:05:13.000 It kind of dissolves instantly.

00:05:14.000 I used to say I put it in my smoothies, but I'm like, I haven't been having smoothies that much lately because I've been cutting out the sugar.

00:05:19.000 But this stuff actually adds a kind of creaminess to your coffee or drink.

00:05:22.000 And it's collagen.

00:05:23.000 You need it.

00:05:23.000 Your skin, your bones, your joints, all that good stuff.

00:05:26.000 So, as you know, we have skate parks here.

00:05:28.000 I try to skate as much as possible.

00:05:29.000 Haven't so much in the past week because we are traveling.

00:05:31.000 But as I'm getting old now, I try to make sure I have this.

00:05:34.000 So make sure you go to Stronger Bones and Life.

00:05:37.000 You get a 60-day money-back guarantee, the healthy aging support of collagen in its ideal forms, the five key types of collagen you need from four different sources.

00:05:46.000 For every order today, BioTrust will donate a nutritious meal to a hungry child in your honor through their partnership with NoKidHungry.org.

00:05:52.000 To date, BioTrust has provided over 5 million meals to hungry kids.

00:05:55.000 Please help them hit their goal of 6 million meals this year.

00:05:59.000 It is non-GMO, free of artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and sweeteners, free of gluten, antibiotics, RBGH, and RBST, nearly no odor or taste, unlike bone broth or other collagen supplements, and there's no clumping.

00:06:12.000 You get free shipping with every order, free VIP live health and fitness coaching from BioTrust team of experts for life with every order, and their new e-report, The 14 Foods for Amazing Skin with Every Order.

00:06:22.000 Again, strongerbonesandlife.com.

00:06:25.000 And as I always say, these are the companies that are willing to back these important conversations.

00:06:28.000 If we talk about this stuff, defending Kyle Rittenhouse, talking about these court cases, these are difficult subjects, and you know they are ripe for cancel culture.

00:06:36.000 So these companies are the companies that truly support us.

00:06:38.000 So thank you again to BioTrust.

00:06:39.000 But don't forget, go to timcast.com.

00:06:41.000 Become a member.

00:06:43.000 You will get access to the Members Only segment.

00:06:45.000 We'll have one up tonight at around 11 or so p.m.

00:06:47.000 But I want to point out we have the Green Room episode.

00:06:49.000 This is behind the scenes as we prepare for our show with Alex Jones and Ben Stewart.

00:06:54.000 So you might want to see this.

00:06:55.000 Alex wasn't on the show.

00:06:55.000 He just randomly comes into our trailer.

00:06:57.000 So that's a Members Only segment you can check out.

00:06:59.000 But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share this show right now.

00:07:03.000 Smash the share button.

00:07:04.000 Take that URL, post it wherever you can.

00:07:06.000 Help us out.

00:07:07.000 It is the most important thing you can do.

00:07:09.000 He has a history of doing that.

00:07:11.000 He woke me up in my trailer last year.

00:07:14.000 I think that's also on your sponsor lounge as well.

00:07:16.000 It is, actually.

00:07:17.000 One of the oldest first member videos we have is Alex Jones storming into Luke's camper while he's sleeping and waking him up.

00:07:24.000 That's the amazing content you get as a member.

00:07:25.000 First time seeing him in 10 years after fighting, and I'm like, what?

00:07:28.000 Alex is standing over you in your bed while you're vulnerable and napping.

00:07:33.000 This is how it ends.

00:07:34.000 Alex, finally come for me.

00:07:37.000 But sharing helps.

00:07:38.000 It really does.

00:07:38.000 So how about you smash that like button.

00:07:40.000 Let's jump into this first story we have from the Washington Examiner.

00:07:42.000 Check this out.

00:07:43.000 As most of you know, I want to be careful.

00:07:45.000 It's a very serious subject.

00:07:46.000 I mean, it is horrifying watching what happened in Waukesha.

00:07:50.000 If you haven't heard, a man took an SUV and he plowed into people just running them over.

00:07:55.000 There's several casualties, dozens of injuries.

00:07:59.000 There is a very horrifying video where a little girl is just bouncing, a little toddler bouncing in the street.

00:08:04.000 And the car passes within, you know, maybe a foot or two of this kid, and I'm just thinking the parents must have been crying seeing what happened and knowing how close their child came.

00:08:14.000 It's just horrifying, and we want to know what the motive is.

00:08:16.000 We don't necessarily know.

00:08:17.000 Everybody's speculating, and it's hard to say for sure, but this guy has a criminal record involving kids or a child, so that's very serious.

00:08:25.000 But he's also a Black Lives Matter supporter.

00:08:29.000 He supported black nationalism.

00:08:31.000 He's been critical of Trump.

00:08:32.000 And there's been a lot of speculation.

00:08:33.000 So here's the story from the examiner.

00:08:36.000 Black Lives Matter activist wonders whether Waukesha attack was linked to Rittenhouse verdict.

00:08:41.000 Sounds possible the revolution has started.

00:08:45.000 I'll call out the examiner a little bit here.

00:08:47.000 His exact quote is a little bit different from, sounds possible, and then they stop, the, then quote, revolution has started.

00:08:53.000 He says, I believe his exact quote is, but it sounds possible that the revolution, okay, to be fair, they're only taking out a couple words.

00:09:01.000 He says, but it sounds possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin.

00:09:05.000 It started with this Christmas parade.

00:09:07.000 This is a guy named Vaughn Almays.

00:09:10.000 Now, I don't think it's fair to say this guy is calling for it, agreeing with it or otherwise, but I think it's important to note that this guy, not like he's a powerful influencer, that's his frame of mind.

00:09:19.000 That he sees this, and his immediate reaction was retaliation over the Rittenhouse verdict.

00:09:23.000 Many people on the right have pointed out the same thing.

00:09:26.000 It is two days, not even two days, not even two full days from the Rittenhouse verdict, when already tons of leftists were saying, I'll be careful about how I phrase it, but threatening death.

00:09:36.000 On many people, not just Kyle.

00:09:39.000 You have people going on Twitter saying retaliation, revenge, something like this happens from a guy who's been promoting this stuff on his social media.

00:09:46.000 That's what it seems like.

00:09:47.000 Now I want to stress the police have said there's no, they do not believe it's terror at this point.

00:09:51.000 They're saying he was not being pursued.

00:09:53.000 He was fleeing some crime, which I think makes no sense.

00:09:56.000 We have this from Andy Ngo.

00:09:57.000 He supported BLM causes, George Floyd, black nationalism, and he has a post about how to run away, about running people over on the street and getting away with it.

00:10:07.000 So, that being said, the big takeaway is not what his true motive was, and I say this often when it comes to this stuff, it's how people react.

00:10:15.000 If the left and the right are both reacting that this is political, it becomes political.

00:10:19.000 Yeah, I think not just how they react.

00:10:22.000 I agree with you on that.

00:10:24.000 How people react, it becomes political.

00:10:26.000 It gives us a pulse check on the country and where we are.

00:10:29.000 We've been hearing this sort of rhetoric kind of bubbling beneath the surface in, you know, internet forums and stuff over the past couple years, but it's becoming more and more of a mainstream idea.

00:10:39.000 Oh, sorry, I'll get on the mic.

00:10:41.000 But the other aspect of this is the media's culpability, because the media has been misrepresenting the Kyle Rittenhouse case for the past year, and they've been misrepresenting the case after the verdict, after the facts have come out, over and over again.

00:10:59.000 If you watched our show, we had the entire trial streaming and you could see the actual facts coming out in real time from the witnesses who were there.

00:11:07.000 That clip was amazing.

00:11:07.000 has completely whitewashed over those facts being put out there.

00:11:12.000 The only place that's done anything to even mildly walk it back is CNN saying, oh, we

00:11:17.000 now found out that the gun didn't cross state lines.

00:11:21.000 That clip was amazing.

00:11:22.000 I don't know if you guys have seen it, but they're like, we've learned some things in

00:11:27.000 the trial and then they just rattle off this huge list of everything they glossed over

00:11:31.000 and got wrong that we've all known since the beginning.

00:11:34.000 And then when Cernovich was like, they're scared of getting sued, the reporter responded with, Sir, I am just a reporter.

00:11:40.000 No one's making me say this.

00:11:42.000 And I'm like, Bullcrap. 0.65

00:11:44.000 Yeah, they're just running cover for the coming so they ...

00:11:47.000 don't have a repeat of the coming to trial but I would ...

00:11:49.000 go even further I would say that the minute of the ...

00:11:52.000 corporate media because that's what they are they have ...

00:11:54.000 been race-baiting hustlers for the past two years on an ...

00:11:57.000 insane level pushing a divide and conquer.

00:11:59.000 Ever since Occupy Wall Street I would say became more ...

00:12:01.000 prominent but the last two years has kind of crescendo ...

00:12:04.000 in this moment of insanity that really has real-life ...

00:12:06.000 effects we saw the Main Street in the late 90s and the ...

00:12:09.000 early 2000s and the early 2000s and the early 2000s and ...

00:12:11.000 really has real life effects we saw the mainstream media ...

00:12:15.000 purport things that actually resulted in people getting ...

00:12:18.000 hurt injured or killed in many instances social media of ...

00:12:22.000 course promoted that but look at look at what CNN look at ...

00:12:25.000 their headline today their headline today was like.

00:12:27.000 It was, quote, there's nothing more frightening than an angry white man.

00:12:31.000 This is after the tragedy.

00:12:32.000 A day after.

00:12:33.000 Yes, hours after.

00:12:35.000 Five people died, 48 people were injured, and this kind of thinking, it's not just an exception to the rule, it is the rule for the corporate media.

00:12:44.000 This guy, he's speaking because he probably watches a lot of corporate media.

00:12:48.000 There was another Illinois Democrat that almost said the same exact thing, Mary Lamansky, who said that this was karma, And that this was an act of self-defense because Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted.

00:13:03.000 So these are mainline white women Karens even talking about the same points as this BLM guy that you just played that just released that video.

00:13:12.000 Now how the police gonna come out and say, yeah, the guy's political.

00:13:15.000 Yeah, all these political people are celebrating it, but it's not terror.

00:13:20.000 Well, look, he's not wearing a turban.

00:13:22.000 I mean, to be fair.

00:13:24.000 But the left would immediately be like, that's not terrible.

00:13:26.000 I like the subjects of today's conversation.

00:13:28.000 One, karma.

00:13:29.000 I'm like the resident Indian, so I'm definitely be able to talk about that.

00:13:32.000 Two, we're talking about defamation and we're going full turban. 0.98

00:13:35.000 So I'm like, I'm ready to go.

00:13:38.000 Awesome.

00:13:38.000 But no, I don't know if you know this, but that's why I started fightwithcash.com.

00:13:43.000 I'm suing New York Times, Politico, and CNN for $150 million for defamation because of my work during Russiagate and the Trump administration.

00:13:49.000 They've literally defamed me across the board.

00:13:51.000 And then when I left government earlier this year, people were like, I want to sue for defamation.

00:13:56.000 I don't know how to do that.

00:13:57.000 So literally, the entire legal trust is... I don't make a dime.

00:14:00.000 We cut checks to lawyers who are willing to take on defamation cases across the country.

00:14:05.000 And that's what we're doing, and I'm glad you guys are fighting the fight, and if you need help, let us know.

00:14:09.000 I got good news for you.

00:14:11.000 I think at this point, you could just be a defamation lawyer and probably be rich for the rest of your life.

00:14:18.000 You'd never run out of work.

00:14:19.000 It's not hard work.

00:14:21.000 I mean, you know, normally, I remember going back a few years, and it's like defamation and stuff, and it's like, well, how do you prove damages, and how do you prove this, and how do you prove that?

00:14:29.000 And these days, it's like, just give CNN five minutes to report on a story, and then you can sue them, and it's clear, actionable, it's easy to prove that they were wrong, they knew they were wrong, and you just make some money.

00:14:43.000 We'll call it sandmanning.

00:14:44.000 Yeah, well, we have a bunch of people doing that work, right?

00:14:47.000 Sandman paved the way for going after journalists.

00:14:51.000 Project Veritas has been making huge headway, winning a lot of pretrial motions in New York that people didn't think they could win.

00:14:58.000 New York reinforced its anti-SLAPP statute, made it a lot stronger, and they went ahead and steamrolled right over it in their case against New York Times.

00:15:08.000 And so the biggest bar to a defamation lawsuit has been Can I afford the lawyer to do it?

00:15:16.000 Because lawyers, you know, unless it's a really clear case and a really clear case of defamation is extremely rare, you're not going to find a lawyer taking it on contingency.

00:15:24.000 They got to put in the hours.

00:15:25.000 If you're going after someone like CNN, the amount of resources that have to be expended to fight those guys is massive.

00:15:32.000 So you can't just assume that you're going to win and be able to recover.

00:15:36.000 I want to talk about a lot of that in greater depth, because we do have a story.

00:15:38.000 There's civil lawsuits filed in the Rittenhouse case, so we'll get much more in-depth on this.

00:15:43.000 But I want to shift it back to, you know, this tension that's rising between the left and the right following this.

00:15:49.000 What scares me is that, for the longest time, we have seen instances of some kind of violence.

00:15:54.000 And immediately, I mean, let's be honest, The establishment, the corporate press, is much more likely to do this than the right is, to the right's disadvantage.

00:16:03.000 Cal Rittenhouse is a perfect example. 0.82

00:16:05.000 He crossed state lines with a gun, he shot black people, like none of which is true, but they just keep saying it over and over again. 0.96

00:16:11.000 Then when it comes to, you know, other instances, you'll get the right, or not even necessarily the right, but the anti-establishment, the establishment critical, whatever.

00:16:20.000 Saying, you know, this might not be political, this might be random, and we'll try to make sure we're getting the facts correct.

00:16:26.000 Now I'm seeing a lot of people say, no, revenge.

00:16:28.000 Now I'm seeing all these tweets from conservatives saying, I don't care why the guy did it, if he has any posts that are pro-Black Lives Matter, this was a Black Lives Matter attack.

00:16:37.000 If we escalate to that point, and I think the establishment's driving it, this is going to contribute to more chaos, more clashes, and it actually will invoke more attacks and just make everything worse.

00:16:48.000 Yeah, I mean there's a lot of details here that we should talk about, but we should talk about it in an honest perspective.

00:16:54.000 That last one, that's it.

00:16:55.000 that he was deliberately turning into people when he was driving. He wasn't being chased. He called

00:17:01.000 for political violence on white people before. He did refer to white people as quote the enemy. 0.99

00:17:06.000 He was a huge Colin Kaepernick fan. There's a lot of- That last one, that's it. Yeah. That's

00:17:10.000 the most offensive thing I've heard. Is it all Colin Kaepernick's fault? Of course not.

00:17:15.000 But some of these details do matter and they do deserve to be talked about in an honest,

00:17:20.000 real way where it's not just pointing at people. But he was an extreme criminal.

00:17:24.000 He had he had an extensive criminal past.

00:17:27.000 He was just released two days ago on $1,000 bond, which the Milwaukee.

00:17:32.000 County DA was bragging about his bail reform now of course he just came out publicly and he admitted what he did was a mistake bailing him out his his record is is huge why was this man walk in the streets with such a crazy extensive record.

00:17:47.000 I'm even saying that as not a fan of the prison industrial complex, but there's something that needs to be discussed here that obviously the corporate media is not willing to discuss, doesn't want to discuss, that highlights a lot of nastiness within our society that does deserve to be surfaced.

00:18:02.000 In my opinion.

00:18:03.000 Don't forget that one of the things that he was being charged with was skipping bail.

00:18:08.000 So he actually has a record of not honoring the bail agreements that he has.

00:18:15.000 And so for them to go ahead and then grant a reduced bail to an absurd amount, a thousand dollar bail, to put it in perspective, in my tiny town, my town is, or the big town near me is about 20,000 people.

00:18:29.000 And I had a guy on a, it's the lowest level of felony drug possession charge you can have, like a class E felony.

00:18:37.000 And the bail for this was possession of a little bit of THC, was $20,000.

00:18:42.000 Wow.

00:18:42.000 And so this guy- Wait, he just had a little bit of THC and they're trying to lock him up in prison?

00:18:47.000 He actually didn't have any THC, which was even better.

00:18:50.000 But yeah, that was the justification.

00:18:53.000 It was CBD oil and they said, oh, there's probably THC in it.

00:18:56.000 It was embarrassing.

00:18:58.000 But the bail on that was $20,000.

00:19:00.000 This guy gets a $1,000 bail.

00:19:02.000 He's got a rap sheet that is significant with felonies on it.

00:19:06.000 There's 25 mugshots of him in multiple states.

00:19:08.000 That's all I have to say.

00:19:10.000 But $20,000 bail, that means two grand down, right?

00:19:12.000 That means two grand in Minnesota.

00:19:14.000 In Wisconsin, they have, uh, well, two grand down, but if you, uh, if you go ahead and honor the bail agreement, you don't get any back.

00:19:23.000 Um, cause that's, you're, you're paying that fee to a bondsman.

00:19:25.000 So, um, a bondsman will put up your 20,000 in exchange for 10%.

00:19:29.000 I see.

00:19:30.000 I see.

00:19:30.000 In Wisconsin, they don't allow that in Wisconsin.

00:19:33.000 It's cash bail.

00:19:35.000 Uh, they don't allow you to full, full, full amount.

00:19:37.000 So that's why Kyle had to pay the $2 million, uh, on his bail.

00:19:42.000 In Illinois, isn't it like you pay up 10%, you put up 10% or something?

00:19:44.000 Yeah.

00:19:44.000 Some states have that built in.

00:19:46.000 Other states use bail bondsman to do it.

00:19:48.000 Wisconsin, it's the full cash amount.

00:19:50.000 So his would be the equivalent still of a $10,000 bail in Minnesota.

00:19:55.000 But that's, that's nothing.

00:19:56.000 I mean, and it's absolutely embarrassing that this guy with several felonies and skipping bail on his record.

00:20:03.000 So like this case highlights like people who actually want to do criminal justice reform and bail reform and bond reform.

00:20:09.000 Look, I've argued a thousand bail hearings.

00:20:11.000 Okay.

00:20:11.000 On the defense and prosecution side, right?

00:20:13.000 And there's some nasty guys that get let out, and then there's some really rich guys who shouldn't get out but get out because they got a lot of money, right?

00:20:19.000 And this kind of conversation we're having actually goes back to that, which is where the conversation should be.

00:20:24.000 But when CNN and everybody else jumps in and starts talking about race and hurling fake news and making up facts that don't exist, then we overlook the biggest problem.

00:20:33.000 Yeah, I don't think there's like a normal human being on planet Earth that thinks this guy should have been out on bail.

00:20:39.000 21 years as a convicted felon, running around town, skipping bail, convicted of serious aggravated felonies.

00:20:45.000 And oh, by the way, what was he on bail for previously?

00:20:48.000 Punching the mother of his child and running her over twice, allegedly.

00:20:52.000 Yep. 0.99

00:20:53.000 Right?

00:20:53.000 So, okay, is that not a violent crime?

00:20:56.000 Um, maybe.

00:20:57.000 And what's he doing on bail?

00:20:58.000 You have this defund police movement that comes in and it just sort of, it's an avalanche.

00:21:02.000 And what these prosecutors now do is they just curtail themselves to the whims of the media.

00:21:06.000 And they're like, well, this is, this is the right thing to do.

00:21:08.000 We should just give everybody bail.

00:21:09.000 And I was like, I never heard that when I was a public defender.

00:21:11.000 Do you think CNN producers cry themselves to sleep at night?

00:21:17.000 I'm not joking.

00:21:18.000 They might cry in their sleep.

00:21:20.000 Only if they're honest.

00:21:21.000 So no.

00:21:23.000 No, no, but let's be real, like, there are regular people who work at these companies, these media companies.

00:21:28.000 And sure, maybe Brian Stalter twirls his mustache before bed, he doesn't cry.

00:21:33.000 You know, that's a guy who goes on TV every day and just... Without pants.

00:21:36.000 Well, he doesn't comb his hair.

00:21:38.000 Well, yeah, lack thereof.

00:21:40.000 But look, there's a lot of things he said that are just so outrageous and obvious, it's like, man, and this guy claims to be a media reporter?

00:21:46.000 Truth be told, people need to understand this about Brian Stelter's show, is that it's often about nothing.

00:21:50.000 Like, when I was flying back from Austin, I was watching it, and he was talking about something that was totally irrelevant.

00:21:55.000 It's like in-the-weeds media stuff.

00:21:57.000 So, irrelevant to people who work in media.

00:21:58.000 But then when he gets into, like, fake news, and then he just makes stuff up, or just lies, or whatever, it's like, does this guy even really care?

00:22:04.000 Now, I don't think he does, but, We've seen the Veritas videos of people who are like, man, we used to do news.

00:22:11.000 There's like a guy sitting in a room and he's just like, I remember we used to go out and do reporting.

00:22:15.000 Now it's just, we just do panels about Trump.

00:22:17.000 Like, I'm willing to bet that there are some people who are just producers, man.

00:22:21.000 They're just people who want to operate the camera and want to get the story out.

00:22:24.000 And they're sitting there every day.

00:22:25.000 And it probably feels like their heart's in a vice every day they got to go in.

00:22:29.000 MSNBC too.

00:22:30.000 I mean, look, look at this.

00:22:31.000 Tucker Carlson used to be on MSNBC. 0.53

00:22:33.000 They used to have, like, Republicans, Conservatives, Moderates.

00:22:37.000 There are people who have probably been in that company for a decade, 15, 20 years maybe, and they've watched all this happen, and they're probably crying at night.

00:22:44.000 I'm not even kidding.

00:22:45.000 Imagine you put in two decades at a big network that used to do good reporting and good opinion stuff, and now it's Rachel Maddow.

00:22:52.000 You're probably just sitting in bed crying, asking where it all went wrong.

00:22:54.000 I don't think there's a lot of those people, though.

00:22:56.000 I mean, I'm in a lot of these studios every week doing hits.

00:22:58.000 I'm not on CNN or anybody.

00:22:59.000 I'm suing.

00:23:00.000 But you meet a lot of the people, the everyday people that make it happen, the cameramen, the editors, the writers, the people who've been there for 10, 15, 20 years.

00:23:07.000 And most of them have been subjugated by the big corporate media, CNN, MSNBC, and the like.

00:23:12.000 They basically don't allow you to work there unless you agree with their top line, which is what they're promoting at the end of the day.

00:23:18.000 I go into Fox, for example, right?

00:23:20.000 I'm not making this up.

00:23:21.000 Half the people at Fox are Democrats.

00:23:24.000 Oh yeah, they're in New York City!

00:23:26.000 And they don't fire them, they don't bury their voice, they just come in and do their job, and they know who the Hannity's of the world are.

00:23:33.000 But during Occupy Wall Street, when Geraldo showed up, and the activists all surrounded him, screaming fake news, and they were throwing water on him, the sound guy yelled, I needed a job.

00:23:41.000 Something like that.

00:23:42.000 Like, that dude clearly was not happy working for this network.

00:23:46.000 And people were screaming at him, he was like, it's just a job, I need work, I need the money!

00:23:49.000 And they're just like, screaming at him, fake news.

00:23:51.000 I kinda feel like, You know, I worked for some of these companies a few years ago, and I watched how they changed.

00:23:58.000 And I left.

00:23:59.000 Immediately.

00:23:59.000 Like, I work for Vice.

00:24:01.000 Vice?

00:24:01.000 I wanted to work there because they were, you know, Shane Smith, the CEO and one of the founders, said on Stephen Colbert, we're not left, we're not right, we're not Republican, Democrat, we just, you know, we're storytellers, we want to talk to people, and we don't want to be a part of that.

00:24:13.000 And I'm like, man, that spoke to me, right?

00:24:16.000 And then I go and work there, and I watch the changes, and I watch the slow things, and then eventually I'm like, I should go somewhere else.

00:24:20.000 A new start.

00:24:21.000 I go to an ABC company, thinking it was a new joint venture, it was not the same as the corporate HQs, and in the first few months they really were like, do your thing, you know, it's like, they called it nice vice.

00:24:32.000 Like, don't cuss and do the weird stuff with hookers, but, you know, go do the field reporting. 1.00

00:24:39.000 Within eight months, they were like, we've decided we're all going to become woke feminists.

00:24:41.000 And I'm like, can I leave?

00:24:42.000 Can I not be here?

00:24:44.000 So I watch like, you know, there are probably people there who had good intentions.

00:24:47.000 And now it's just become they're stuck in these machines.

00:24:51.000 And I mean, what do you do?

00:24:52.000 Look, we talk to people all the time on this show.

00:24:53.000 They comment.

00:24:55.000 They're saying, I can't just up and quit my job.

00:24:56.000 I can't just leave.

00:24:57.000 I have a family and things like that.

00:24:58.000 Imagine working for CNN over the past four years.

00:25:01.000 And you're like, What do I do with the ratings going down?

00:25:04.000 You're not finding a new job.

00:25:05.000 They're doing layoffs.

00:25:06.000 You're lucky to have work.

00:25:07.000 Nah, they're crying themselves to sleep.

00:25:08.000 Well, another thing to really kind of think about here is that a lot of these high-level people, a lot of these like top journalists, majority of them have major substance abuse problems.

00:25:18.000 I remember once I got drunk with the White House press corps at Bilderberg and they could drink like Fish.

00:25:25.000 It was absolutely awe-stunning.

00:25:27.000 And then when you look at the inner workings, all of them are using one substance or another, whether it's big pharma, whether it's illicit substances, they're off getting high to the extent where they don't have to realize what they're doing.

00:25:37.000 Because if they did, they would be absolutely mad with themselves.

00:25:40.000 Because, I mean, look at the headlines. 0.98

00:25:42.000 MSNBC had another headline today talking about how Thanksgiving is white people celebrating genocide and violence against blacks.

00:25:49.000 How does that make any logical sense at all?

00:25:53.000 It doesn't. 0.75

00:25:54.000 CNN, MSNBC, all these people are literally regurgitating scripts that they're given and the scripts are becoming more ridiculous by the day.

00:26:03.000 So to see them as drug addicts actually makes a lot of sense when you see what actions they're capable of doing and the atrocities that they're responsible for on the general public, in my opinion.

00:26:14.000 I don't know who tweeted this out.

00:26:16.000 I can't find it.

00:26:16.000 But I'm pretty sure Rachel Maddow said the dossier was backed by Russia.

00:26:21.000 Like, she finally came out and said— She said that?

00:26:24.000 I'm pretty sure.

00:26:25.000 I saw a tweet from a verified— Devin and I are going to go on her show and make her say it again.

00:26:29.000 Make her say it again.

00:26:30.000 So maybe I'm wrong.

00:26:31.000 Maybe I'm wrong.

00:26:31.000 I want to be clear.

00:26:32.000 I haven't pulled it up or anything, but I was scrolling through Twitter and someone posted a quote, and it's like Rachel Maddow saying much of the dossier, you know, blah, blah, blah, was created, was it sourced by Christopher Steele or whatever, but it was actually coming from Russian sources or something like that.

00:26:48.000 I mean, so yeah, as the guy who ran the Russiagate investigation, this one always, you know, rings true with me.

00:26:53.000 We knew five years ago that the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign paid for it, screwed up the FBI, perpetuated the biggest fraud.

00:26:59.000 But for five years, this is everything we're talking about today in like, you know, in less than 30 seconds, the media just ran with it.

00:27:05.000 They just ran with the false narrative.

00:27:07.000 Even though we had the information we produced with the American public, they didn't want to review it.

00:27:10.000 It's not that Rachel Maddow didn't have access to some of the facts.

00:27:13.000 Right. 0.97

00:27:13.000 She had access to Adam Schiff, the biggest, you know, clown in America. 0.97

00:27:16.000 But they didn't want to put out the facts. 0.94

00:27:18.000 What was it the New York Times said about Veritas?

00:27:21.000 That their reputation is so bad we can't possibly harm it?

00:27:25.000 So basically what they're saying is, let's break down what they said in that regard.

00:27:29.000 I could be wrong about that because I don't have the documents in front of me.

00:27:31.000 I'm pretty sure New York Times said they're, you know, indefamable or something.

00:27:36.000 Yeah, libel proof.

00:27:37.000 Right.

00:27:37.000 What New York Times is basically saying there is, because we're a gang and we can all beat you up at the same time, you can't blame me for swinging the crowbar because 10 people were already swinging it.

00:27:48.000 It's like, uh, I understand that Snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche.

00:27:52.000 But, uh, yeah, we'll just sue everyone with the crowbars.

00:27:55.000 You can't claim that because all of the media is smearing Veritas you get to as well.

00:27:59.000 To the judge in that case's credit, and again, the reason they were going with libel proof is it would be, if the judge were to determine they were libel proof, then they would dismiss the case and New York Times would be able to go after Project Veritas for their attorney's fees.

00:28:14.000 To the judge's credit, he basically said exactly what you did.

00:28:18.000 Yeah, they're only libel proof because you're citing each other.

00:28:21.000 All of these news publications are just citing other news publications all saying the same thing with the same kind of basic source behind it that you guys don't like them.

00:28:30.000 That doesn't make someone libel proof.

00:28:32.000 If a whole bunch of people gang up on someone and say the same thing, that doesn't make you libel proof if the underlying thing isn't true.

00:28:39.000 So they got lucky.

00:28:41.000 with the judge in that case.

00:28:43.000 Occasionally, you get a judge who will actually go through, apply the law, and apply some logic and reason with the law.

00:28:51.000 And this guy seems to have been doing it.

00:28:54.000 Yeah, they are lucky.

00:28:56.000 There were some updates in the Veritas stuff.

00:28:58.000 I think a court ordered the New York Times to stop publishing their privileged communications, and the New York Times said no.

00:29:05.000 And then I think the judge responded with, excuse me?

00:29:10.000 I was, so this is a really big part of the whole defamation process, what's happening with Veritas and like the defamation as a whole, that the New York Times is being sued by Veritas.

00:29:21.000 They are given access to Veritas' privileged legal communications, which basically just interfered entirely with the court's process, with Veritas' process, and they did it with a smile on their faces.

00:29:34.000 I have to imagine when the judge found out He was probably like, yo, you're spitting on me now!

00:29:39.000 Like, I gotta deal with this stuff, and you have access to their... You know what's gonna happen if I rule on this?

00:29:44.000 Veritas is gonna file so many complaints that I'm gonna get overruled on everything.

00:29:49.000 I mean, what are your guys' thoughts on how the judge would react to someone getting their, you know...

00:29:53.000 I mean, I had not heard about the privileged communication thing.

00:29:56.000 Do you know how they got access to it?

00:29:58.000 It is believed.

00:29:59.000 The FBI.

00:30:00.000 Oh, okay.

00:30:00.000 So, sorry.

00:30:01.000 I did hear about that.

00:30:02.000 I did hear about that.

00:30:04.000 My mistake.

00:30:04.000 I gotta imagine the judge was, like, fuming.

00:30:08.000 There are very limited circumstances in which a judge can put a prior restraint on speech of a party.

00:30:15.000 And, you know, this would be one of those sort of situations.

00:30:19.000 Look, you got access, however you got it, to their privileged attorney-client communications.

00:30:25.000 You should never have seen that.

00:30:27.000 That stuff should be privileged from everybody, including the FBI.

00:30:32.000 And so now, no, you can't go out and start publishing it.

00:30:35.000 It's not press worthy.

00:30:36.000 It's not newsworthy.

00:30:37.000 You're just trying to gain an advantage over your lawsuit opponent.

00:30:41.000 That's the time that this should happen.

00:30:43.000 If they keep it up, you know, the judge hopefully will resort to sanctions and heavy sanctions.

00:30:48.000 Yeah.

00:30:48.000 I mean, look, judges, you know, the one, whether they were appointed by a Republican, a Democrat or whatever, it doesn't matter.

00:30:54.000 The one thing they hate more than anything is getting reversed.

00:30:58.000 It doesn't matter at what level, or state, federal, county, local appeals court, they hate being told, I got it wrong.

00:31:04.000 And what this guy's doing is, if I have to rule on this, like you said, Tim, he's going to issue all these rulings, and then they're going to contest them, and he's afraid that they might actually, some crazy appeals court might actually come down and say, actually, legal privilege communications in this instance are okay, for whatever Mickey Mouse reason that the media trumpeted.

00:31:21.000 I think he's playing it pretty good and pretty safe in that he's probably avoiding trying to issue an actual ruling that can be appealed, but he's trying to get the lawyers to get in line with the FBI and support the privileged communication.

00:31:34.000 And we saw this with the Rittenhouse case, right?

00:31:38.000 Judge Schrader, he was so hesitant to issue a definitive ruling on anything, even on the evidentiary issues pre-trial.

00:31:44.000 He says, I'm going to I'm going to hold off on this with a predisposition towards keeping them out.

00:31:54.000 It's like, that's not a ruling.

00:31:56.000 Just say, this can't come in or this can come in.

00:31:58.000 And then you can change your mind later.

00:32:01.000 You're a judge.

00:32:01.000 You can do that.

00:32:02.000 I think a lot of us are happy with some of the rulings from the judge in the Rittenhouse case, but his inability to issue a ruling on the fake evidence admitted by the prosecution has resulted in... I see it.

00:32:13.000 This is what Antifa is putting out in spades.

00:32:16.000 They're posting news clips that say, prosecutors showed video, they say, is of Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a gun at activists.

00:32:26.000 That's it.

00:32:27.000 And now they're saying, now all the antipos going, Kyle Rittenhouse was waving a gun around threatening people, and when they tried to stop him, he killed him, and the judge let him get away with it.

00:32:36.000 The judge, if he had a stronger spine, I'll say he has some of a spine, because he did dismiss the gun charge, he did do some rulings, he could have said, that's a computer generated image, Ow.

00:32:46.000 Sorry.

00:32:48.000 Let me know what you think, because my argument was the defense had no idea how to explain that the prosecution admitted CGI evidence.

00:32:55.000 My thought process was the defense should have asked the expert, when was the image file created?

00:33:01.000 And he would have said, last week.

00:33:03.000 So this image file was not created on August 25th, 2020?

00:33:05.000 No, it was not.

00:33:07.000 Your Honor, this image is not from the night in question.

00:33:09.000 I'd rule it be, you know, inadmissible or something.

00:33:12.000 That's one way to go about it.

00:33:13.000 The other way is simple.

00:33:14.000 They had tons of evidentiary issues in this case.

00:33:17.000 Normally, you have to have someone who will testify that the thing that you're looking at is a fair and accurate representation of the thing that happened.

00:33:27.000 And the only guy that they had testify about this footage was a detective who looked at it on his iPhone.

00:33:34.000 And when you really factor in the fact that a capital murder case, the entire theory of the prosecution got blown out in the first half.

00:33:41.000 That's why this footage came in.

00:33:43.000 And they had to change their entire strategy.

00:33:45.000 And a kid's life in a capital murder case hangs on the idea that a detective, who was not present that night, pinched to zoom on an iPhone and thinks he saw something that he can't replicate because he didn't record that pinch to zoom.

00:33:59.000 There's no way for the defense to look at it, challenge the authenticity of it, say that there's interpolation adding pixels.

00:34:05.000 Um, they, they tried sort of to ham fist their way into that argument.

00:34:11.000 Uh, but, but at the end of the day, what they needed to do was just say, your honor, there's no way anybody here can testify that the picture we're seeing now is a fair and accurate representation.

00:34:22.000 It worked.

00:34:23.000 I don't know if the prosecution actually cared about the end results, the cultural impact.

00:34:30.000 But then you get people posting these things.

00:34:32.000 The Black Lives Matter supporter saying Rittenhouse was pointing a gun.

00:34:35.000 Then you get people believing the latest attack was a retaliation.

00:34:39.000 So we'll bring it back to this Veritas thing.

00:34:43.000 You mentioned this judge.

00:34:45.000 He's not like he basically is not really wanting to rule on the fact that the New York Times has access to their legal documents, which in my opinion, I don't know how they can continue the court proceedings at that point.

00:34:58.000 So the judge seems to be doing nothing.

00:35:00.000 Is that the gist of it?

00:35:02.000 I don't know what the judge has said about it.

00:35:04.000 I've just heard about the disclosure, allegedly by the FBI, to Project Veritas' enemies.

00:35:12.000 With that being said, I mean, if the judge is not issuing a gag order on some of this stuff, then he's hesitant to try and restrain the press.

00:35:19.000 And I think at this point— Well, he did.

00:35:22.000 The judge said, stop publishing Veritas' privileged communications.

00:35:27.000 The New York Times said, no.

00:35:29.000 We have a First Amendment right to report the news.

00:35:31.000 And we have a story right here.

00:35:33.000 It's from today, actually.

00:35:34.000 New York Times urges no prior restraint against Veritas' coverage.

00:35:39.000 Basically saying, Veritas' claims do not implicate the kind of extraordinary public harms, such as national security, that American courts have suggested.

00:35:45.000 Okay, blah, blah, blah.

00:35:46.000 I don't care what they're arguing.

00:35:47.000 Let's get a little bit hypothetical then.

00:35:48.000 My question is...

00:35:50.000 You've got person A suing person B. Person B illegally obtains person A's communications with their lawyer as it pertains to this lawsuit.

00:36:00.000 How could a judge handle that case? 0.82

00:36:02.000 I mean, he's got to throw it out.

00:36:03.000 It's just straight-up privilege.

00:36:05.000 But here's the thing, right?

00:36:07.000 Unfortunately, it's happened before.

00:36:08.000 When Bob Mueller was U.S.

00:36:09.000 Attorney in Massachusetts, he actually had a criminal case where he surveilled a client and their attorney's conversation and utilized it in the prosecution. 0.99

00:36:16.000 Came back to bite him in the butt. 0.97

00:36:18.000 In one of the biggest narco-trafficking cases out of Florida. 0.99

00:36:21.000 Same thing.

00:36:21.000 The U.S.

00:36:22.000 attorney's office, obtained the communications between the defendant and his lawyer and didn't

00:36:27.000 disclose it.

00:36:28.000 Now in those criminal cases, it's a little different, right?

00:36:30.000 There's a harsher penalty because due process is at stake, but the rule of law is the same.

00:36:34.000 It's a privileged communication.

00:36:35.000 All you need to ask New York Times is if they're okay with this, then what Project Veritas

00:36:39.000 should do is be like, fine, give us all of New York Times' privileged communications.

00:36:42.000 Oh, and the judge could be like, yes, you can.

00:36:44.000 And release it to the general public and make everyone see it.

00:36:47.000 I mean, that's what the New York Times is doing.

00:36:51.000 Then we just see all the emails where they're like, don't cover Epstein.

00:36:56.000 That story, we got to make sure it doesn't go anywhere.

00:36:58.000 Just like, of course, CBS News, which Project Veritas exposed, was hiding a huge expose, which they had, according to one of their reporters, How do you think I'm joking?

00:37:08.000 How do you think I'm joking?

00:37:35.000 Here's the only good thing that comes with this.

00:37:38.000 If, like you were saying earlier, you know, lawyers are expensive, these suits are expensive, but when you bring them and they're credible, they take one to two years.

00:37:45.000 At the end of it, you actually get some really good rulings on what we call case law precedent, if these cases survive.

00:37:52.000 But what these guys try to do is drown them out.

00:37:54.000 Like Veritas isn't going anywhere, right?

00:37:56.000 These guys are actually, if I was The Times' lawyers, I'd be like, you need to sit down and shut up, because we might squeak out of this case, but you are going to mess up the future of defamation for defendants if you keep down this track, because the judge will force, he might not issue now, or in a month or six months, but in a year, he's going to have to make some rulings, and those rulings will likely get appealed, and then affirmed, and then it's law.

00:38:16.000 Are judges obligated to stick to case law?

00:38:20.000 Like if someone says in the case of- They're supposed to.

00:38:22.000 Theoretically.

00:38:23.000 Yeah.

00:38:24.000 They're supposed to follow binding authority.

00:38:28.000 And the idea is that they'll get reversed.

00:38:30.000 And as Cash said earlier, if they get reversed, that's the worst thing a judge wants to do.

00:38:36.000 There's not much practical effect for lifetime federal judges, but New York state judges aren't lifetime appointees.

00:38:42.000 And so there could be real effects for them.

00:38:46.000 But imagine, just rolling it back, if this stands, If what New York Times is doing stands, what's to stop any news publication who ever gets sued from just illegally obtaining the privileged communications of their opponents and publishing and shaming them?

00:39:02.000 That's why this judge has to go ahead and issue the order.

00:39:06.000 And if New York Times doesn't like it, take it to the Supreme Court.

00:39:09.000 Go ahead, appeal it up to the New York Court of Appeals, and then appeal it to the United States Supreme Court, call it a First Amendment issue, freedom of the press if you want, and let them determine it.

00:39:20.000 Because then, you know, if we get that case law in the books, okay, fine.

00:39:24.000 But at the end of the day, Judges do have some limited ability to issue a gag order when there is sufficient justification.

00:39:33.000 And I can't imagine how illegally obtaining your opponent's privileged communications and then trying to publish those privileged communications to shame them would not meet straight scrutiny.

00:39:43.000 Maybe I'll get my lawyer in my defamation case against the Times to file for the Times' privileged communications and then send them out.

00:39:52.000 And what's the Times' argument going to be?

00:39:53.000 They're going to be like, well, we previously argued this is okay.

00:39:56.000 I'm going to cite this!

00:39:57.000 Right.

00:39:57.000 Like, here's an article from the New York Times.

00:39:59.000 No, I have to imagine that when it comes to losing in court, it's when you directly try to affect the judge's powers and their ability to do their job.

00:40:08.000 So it's like, you know, you go in front of a judge and you're like, this guy kicked my dog.

00:40:12.000 And the other guy is like, I didn't kick his dog.

00:40:14.000 And it's like, here's a video of him kicking my dog.

00:40:15.000 He owes me a hundred bucks.

00:40:16.000 The judge is like, I am involved in this.

00:40:19.000 I think the evidence stands and the judge, you know, it's an issue of ruling or however it goes.

00:40:23.000 What happens when you have someone saying, your honor, I'm going to attempt to directly interfere 0.88

00:40:29.000 with your ability to rule on this because screw you, I should be allowed to do it. 0.65

00:40:33.000 I feel like that's the fastest way to lose. 0.97

00:40:35.000 There's just no world that I can imagine being in and I've appeared in court probably 3000 times

00:40:40.000 that if I ever said that to a state court judge or a federal judge, the federal court judge

00:40:44.000 would probably lock me up for contempt of court for being so arrogant.

00:40:48.000 I remember when Krause, he'd just be like, what?

00:40:50.000 Or she, didn't Krause talk back like several times in the Rittenhouse trial?

00:40:54.000 Which is insane to me because- Don't get brazen with me.

00:40:57.000 I know, I'm pretty sure I was watching you guys when you guys were like, oh, whoa, 0.99

00:41:00.000 like don't talk back to a judge, are you nuts? 0.99

00:41:04.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:41:04.000 State court's a little different. 0.99

00:41:05.000 I mean, you know, this is the one we talked about, I think, a couple weeks ago.

00:41:08.000 The reason we get such a wide berth in the Rittenhouse case, state courts allow cameras.

00:41:12.000 No federal court in America allows a camera, which is why you get those cartoon caricatures.

00:41:16.000 So state court almost becomes movie-like.

00:41:18.000 So there's a little more freedom.

00:41:19.000 I mean, you're not supposed to talk back against a judge, period.

00:41:21.000 I never did that.

00:41:23.000 But there's a little more freedom because they also get, like, a little... I mean, this guy's, like, one of the most famous judges in America right now.

00:41:28.000 Oh, yeah.

00:41:29.000 These guys, first of all, they're lawyers, so they have egos going in.

00:41:34.000 Second of all, they're given a robe that tells them they get to decide the fate of lives every single day, and that their decisions have the force of government behind them.

00:41:43.000 So you can imagine, like, just the audacity of telling the government no, and the government having a mouthpiece with a human ego behind it to say, no, yes.

00:41:53.000 I mean, so basically, the New York Times gets a hold of Veritas' lawyer communications about how they operate, what they're doing, while they're being sued by Veritas, which directly impacts the lawsuit.

00:42:06.000 And the judge said, stop publishing this stuff. 0.82

00:42:10.000 And New York Times said, shut up, judge.

00:42:12.000 I have to imagine it's like, you're going to lose! 0.98

00:42:16.000 Sanction them.

00:42:17.000 Sanction them and let them take it to the Supreme Court.

00:42:20.000 Maybe they win.

00:42:20.000 Well, this is also on the heels of the FBI raiding James O'Keefe and his employees' apartments, taking their cell phones away from them.

00:42:30.000 Cash, when you said, I want my lawyers to do this, I was going to recommend you also get an intelligence agency to go after your enemy.

00:42:36.000 down their doors and take away their cell phones and take their communications that way and then

00:42:40.000 you can release it to the general public without even involving the judge. So in the other instance

00:42:44.000 actually I think my friend Harmeet was representing James O'Keefe in Veritas's case she actually

00:42:48.000 got that judge to issue a ruling and and stand down the communications going over. That's the

00:42:54.000 right way to do it that's what this judge should be doing but for... Didn't he do that? I thought

00:42:58.000 Harmeet posted the judge's... Yeah on that first ruling.

00:43:01.000 I'm saying in terms of this privileged communication.

00:43:03.000 It should be the same exact thing.

00:43:05.000 There's not really a difference there in terms of the law.

00:43:09.000 One, you don't have access to that information.

00:43:11.000 Two, you can't be putting it out if you don't have lawful access to it in the first place.

00:43:15.000 And there's no difference.

00:43:16.000 Evil people. 0.93

00:43:17.000 You know, because it's like, we can agree to disagree on a lot of things, but when you're like, your fundamental rights are void because I'm a journalist, I'm like, nah, you're just evil.

00:43:29.000 Like, the idea that, okay, so, when it comes to the United States, comes to the Constitution, comes to what we believe other people are afforded, they're afforded their legal defense, their right to due process.

00:43:36.000 If you think, we have a First Amendment right to take away your right to due process, I'm like, nah, that doesn't work that way.

00:43:42.000 That would be like someone being like, I have a right to guns, so I'm going to rob people.

00:43:45.000 No, it doesn't work that way.

00:43:47.000 It's basically what they're doing.

00:43:49.000 Yeah, I agree.

00:43:54.000 It's the arrogance and I would say the death rattle of a lot of major media companies.

00:43:59.000 We've seen competition growing.

00:44:02.000 I mean, heck, this show is competition for mainstream media.

00:44:05.000 They know it.

00:44:06.000 They know about independent media and how it's been changing the landscape over the past really decade or more.

00:44:13.000 And they're now lashing out.

00:44:15.000 And that's why they hate Veritas, right?

00:44:17.000 Because Veritas is started by a guy who goes out and does the things that media used to do.

00:44:24.000 And they can't control the narrative.

00:44:26.000 They can't stop someone like Project Veritas.

00:44:28.000 They can give them a roadblock here or there, but they can't do it.

00:44:31.000 And the more independent voices that come out, the more we're going to see this sort of retaliation.

00:44:37.000 Let's talk about this.

00:44:38.000 We got from CBS Denver.

00:44:41.000 Denver attorney files civil action in Kyle Rittenhouse shooting.

00:44:44.000 Now, before I actually read what it's about, I want to stress, I was browsing Reddit earlier, and there's a tweet from a guy, not even a link to the story.

00:44:52.000 They don't even have the decency to actually post the link.

00:44:54.000 They post a screenshot of a tweet, not even a link to the tweet, no decency to even put the tweet, post the tweet link.

00:44:59.000 And the guy says, breaking news, the first civil lawsuits in the Rittenhouse trial have been filed.

00:45:05.000 And all of the comments are saying things like, Kyle Rittenhouse is going to lose this lawsuit because civil lawsuits are easier to win than criminal cases.

00:45:12.000 And it's just a wave of people being like, Kyle's going to lose, Kyle's going to lose.

00:45:16.000 And then finally, like, you know, I'm down a hundred or so comments.

00:45:20.000 I see one guy say, who's going to tell them they're suing the city and not Kyle Rittenhouse?

00:45:24.000 So far, they're not suing Kyle.

00:45:30.000 The big money for anybody who wants to sue is in the city, and you know what?

00:45:33.000 I agree.

00:45:34.000 For the people, so you've got what, like Jacob Blake's family?

00:45:37.000 They're suing the police.

00:45:39.000 Okay, I don't know about all that.

00:45:40.000 The guy was grabbing a knife and fighting with the cops.

00:45:42.000 That's an uphill battle.

00:45:43.000 Yeah, yeah.

00:45:44.000 To say the very least.

00:45:45.000 But for the Anthony Huber?

00:45:48.000 They're suing?

00:45:48.000 I'm like, oh yeah, the police should have been out there stopping the riots.

00:45:51.000 So if they want to sue on that grounds, I mean, by all means.

00:45:54.000 That's a tough one, though.

00:45:55.000 Like, the cops should have been trying to stop the guy from doing what he was doing that was the crime.

00:46:00.000 No, no, no, no, no.

00:46:00.000 If the police were actually out stopping riots, there would have not been anything happening.

00:46:04.000 And if Huber hadn't been rioting, then there wouldn't have been a problem.

00:46:07.000 Well, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers have no duty to protect and serve the citizen.

00:46:14.000 So that's also going to be something that's going to be leveraged here, I think, because again, that's something that was said as a president.

00:46:20.000 I think Ian nailed it, actually.

00:46:21.000 I mean, probably an uphill battle when they're like, we're suing you.

00:46:25.000 And it's like, well, maybe we should have been protecting you, but you were the one doing what needed to protect people from.

00:46:31.000 Yeah, right now, by nature of being dead, I think Huber has the best lawsuit against the city.

00:46:37.000 Not that that's saying he has a good chance, but Gage, who's alive, went on the stand and admitted that he lied in his civil lawsuits against the city by omitting the fact that he had a gun with him, that he brought that.

00:46:52.000 And that's under oath.

00:46:53.000 He can never walk that statement back.

00:46:55.000 I mean, they're trying to.

00:46:56.000 They're doing their little media apology tour that he started the next day after his testimony.

00:47:01.000 He's showing up on Michael Strahan's show and then going on some other show after that.

00:47:06.000 He was on Good Morning America, his first show that he debuted on, and they were treating him like a celebrity.

00:47:12.000 Did they ask him when his perjury charges come in?

00:47:14.000 Exactly.

00:47:15.000 I was just going to ask you guys, is he going to face any charges?

00:47:19.000 Oh no, no, he's not gonna get perjury because it'd be the Kenosha County Prosecutor's Office.

00:47:23.000 Let me, uh, tell me, you guys, you know, you're a lawyer, you're a recovering lawyer, tell me if you think I'm on point here.

00:47:31.000 I think some of this is obvious, but here I'll speculate.

00:47:35.000 Gage Grosskreutz had a second DOI in January of 2021, I believe.

00:47:39.000 It was six days before the Rittenhouse trial.

00:47:41.000 It was dismissed on a motion to the prosecution.

00:47:44.000 Gage Grosskreutz had a signed search warrant against him for his cell phone that the prosecutor told the police not to execute.

00:47:54.000 Gage Seems like, you know, he had this, he also had this $10 million, let me slow down, he did have, I believe it was a $10 million lawsuit, was it against the city or the police?

00:48:05.000 The city?

00:48:06.000 I believe it was the city.

00:48:07.000 The city.

00:48:07.000 He had a $10 million lawsuit against the city over what happened.

00:48:11.000 But then he testifies under oath, contradicting his own lawsuit, which clearly means he's going to lose.

00:48:15.000 So it sounds to me like they went to him and said, you have two choices.

00:48:20.000 You can plead the fifth, move forward with your lawsuit, maybe win 10 million bucks.

00:48:24.000 And your second choice, enjoy that money while you're rotting in prison, because we're going after you with the full weight of everything on your second DUI, on your gun charge.

00:48:31.000 We're going to get you on attempted murder of Kyle Rittenhouse.

00:48:33.000 And he probably said, I will do anything you say.

00:48:37.000 Yeah, so there's an interesting thing with pleading the Fifth.

00:48:41.000 You have an absolute right to plead the Fifth in criminal court, and it cannot be used against you.

00:48:45.000 You cannot draw negative inference from it.

00:48:47.000 In fact, we saw that Binger just towing the line of mentioning Kyle Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights almost got the case entirely dismissed at that point in time.

00:48:56.000 But when you plead the fifth in a criminal suit or in a civil suit with pending criminal charges or anything like that, the other party is allowed to draw a negative inference from the issue.

00:49:08.000 So if I ask Gage the question, you know, did you provoke this incident?

00:49:14.000 And he says, I plead the, you know, I plead the fifth.

00:49:16.000 Or did you bring a gun to this?

00:49:18.000 I plead the fifth.

00:49:19.000 They're allowed to draw the negative inference that yes, he did bring the gun with him.

00:49:23.000 Or yes, he did.

00:49:23.000 The defense came?

00:49:25.000 Yeah, the other party of the civil lawsuit.

00:49:27.000 Oh, it's not criminal.

00:49:28.000 So right.

00:49:29.000 The criminal and the criminal lawsuit has to be ignored here.

00:49:33.000 But when you have parallel suits, you've got this criminal case where he's a complaining witness.

00:49:37.000 So he's basically a party along with the state.

00:49:40.000 And then you have the civil case.

00:49:41.000 If he pleads the fifth in that criminal case, then the civil case, the city gets to use that against him.

00:49:48.000 And so he was, uh, the prosecutor may have made a deal like that.

00:49:52.000 That's certainly possible.

00:49:53.000 And I, I think Binger was out making tons of shady deals and, uh, and various threats to certain witnesses, um, and, and just ignoring Jumpkick Man entirely.

00:50:02.000 And they knew who he was.

00:50:03.000 Right.

00:50:03.000 The defense actually came out and said that was withheld from them.

00:50:05.000 Yeah, well, to be fair, when he went into the DA's office asking for a deal, they all looked up at the ceiling so they didn't know he was there.

00:50:12.000 You know, so that was fine.

00:50:15.000 But yeah, in that case, if he were to plead the fifth in his criminal lawsuit, it would basically tank his civil lawsuit because the city gets to do it.

00:50:22.000 But from a prosecutor's perspective, look, I did it too.

00:50:26.000 You know, your flex is to go to other people and say, I'm going to prosecute.

00:50:30.000 I would go into a massive conspiracy and be like, here's 16 defendants.

00:50:33.000 Who wants to chirp? 0.99

00:50:35.000 Literally, be like, first one to me, go.

00:50:37.000 Everybody else is going down.

00:50:38.000 But at that point, I knew I had the evidence.

00:50:40.000 I wasn't bluffing the case, right?

00:50:43.000 I was saying, I can use some assistance, and I don't need to put 16 people away.

00:50:47.000 Because you also know that not everybody is as culpable as the next guy.

00:50:51.000 There's different levels of it, right?

00:50:53.000 So from a prosecution's perspective, not everyone should go down for the same amount of time just because they were involved in the whole thing.

00:50:58.000 So that's where you get some wiggle room.

00:51:00.000 I think this prosecutor is crazy, And probably just went in there, didn't have his case together, and was just, like, walking the big walk and trying to say, I'm going to do what I want, I'm going to pound my chest, I'm going to go on TV, I'm going to make the world's greatest case since OJ, except he, you know... I think Krause tampered with all the evidence.

00:51:19.000 I don't know if you saw my Twitter thread about it.

00:51:21.000 It's speculative, to be completely fair, but I think it's speculative only in one key area.

00:51:25.000 What do we know?

00:51:26.000 The drone footage, they admitted, which was their special key evidence that showed Kyle, they claimed, to be pointing a weapon, which it didn't show, by the way, it was too blurry, it was nonsense.

00:51:34.000 But it came in a weird format, 844.

00:51:35.000 It was 1920 by 844, so it was cropped.

00:51:40.000 Someone took footage that appeared on Tucker Carlson, cropped out the top, presumably from Tucker Carlson's show, and removing the Fox graphic.

00:51:49.000 It was then further cropped and compressed, renamed, and sent to the defense.

00:51:54.000 I think you know this stuff.

00:51:55.000 Krauss has a cropping software format factory and compression software handbrake on his laptop.

00:52:01.000 So here's what I was talking to this Antifa guy and he said, yo man, like that's wildly speculative for you to be claiming that stuff.

00:52:06.000 And I was like, well, hold on, hold on, hold on.

00:52:09.000 Evidence that was given to the defense was cropped and compressed.

00:52:12.000 The prosecutor who gave the evidence to them that way has cropping software, specifically for cropping, and compression software, which is specifically... It's transcoding, but one was like, it does cropping and mixing, one does compression.

00:52:23.000 So, look, I'll put it this way.

00:52:25.000 If I see a person on the ground with a stab wound, and then I see a guy holding a bloody knife, Okay, I'll admit, it is me speculating to say that guy with the knife stabbed the person on the ground.

00:52:36.000 It's what they call being caught red-handed.

00:52:37.000 But I also think it's fair to say the person with the weapon in question that was used, presumably the same kind of weapon to kill someone, and they're right there!

00:52:47.000 I mean, I don't know if you agree with me on that one.

00:52:50.000 Well, the thing making it even worse is whether or not Krauss cropped the footage and compressed it. 0.87

00:52:58.000 One, it was idiotic of them to use a laptop that had anything other than—we saw it with the defense, right? 0.51

00:53:04.000 During the jury deliberations, they said, we have a clean laptop. 0.99

00:53:07.000 The only thing on it is VLC.

00:53:10.000 And the files that they need to view.

00:53:12.000 That's it.

00:53:13.000 There's nothing else.

00:53:13.000 A sanitized laptop.

00:53:14.000 And what's a laptop that can play video cost?

00:53:17.000 $300?

00:53:17.000 You can go to Target and buy one.

00:53:20.000 So that's not a problem.

00:53:22.000 Why the state had a laptop with that software on it, along with other evidence, is baffling.

00:53:28.000 But the problem with it is that Krauss stood up and he said, I don't know anything about compression.

00:53:34.000 I don't know anything about, you know, how you manipulate these video files.

00:53:38.000 And then we see because of their mistake of having this stuff on this computer, we see it there and it's like, Look, I know about compression.

00:53:48.000 I know about cropping video.

00:53:50.000 I don't have handbrake.

00:53:53.000 So someone who has it, you're like, okay, why do you have this if you don't know anything about it?

00:53:59.000 And the state shouldn't be manipulating and cropping evidence anyway.

00:54:01.000 They send it off to the crime lab to do that.

00:54:04.000 Extra nonsense. Why can't we what how come we don't have leaders who are willing to actually make a move?

00:54:09.000 I'm talking about the judge here He intimated putting the prosecution on the stand under

00:54:15.000 oath. So this is what I've done on the spot This is well, most judges don't do that

00:54:20.000 They can do that.

00:54:21.000 This is what this judge should be doing.

00:54:23.000 The trial's over, right?

00:54:24.000 He can be issuing, instituting contempt proceedings on his own.

00:54:28.000 There's no defense and prosecution in that scenario.

00:54:30.000 Every judge has this right.

00:54:32.000 If he thinks, to your point, if he thinks someone lied that appeared before him, that's a contempt proceeding against that person.

00:54:37.000 The NBC News reporter person that was chasing around the jury, right?

00:54:42.000 That, in my opinion, is one of the most egregious things you can do is intimidate a jury.

00:54:46.000 That's an actual crime, but let's set aside the crime.

00:54:48.000 What can the judge do?

00:54:49.000 The judge can haul in that person and NBC News and say, who gave you that instruction to follow the jury?

00:54:55.000 What was your instruction and what were you supposed to do?

00:54:57.000 And if he lies, contempt of court.

00:54:59.000 And the penalty for contempt of court is going to prison or he can fine you as much money as he wants to.

00:55:04.000 He should be doing that now.

00:55:06.000 Contempt, how long can they send you to prison for?

00:55:08.000 Is it jail or is it prison?

00:55:10.000 I think it's up to a year.

00:55:11.000 It's up to a year per count.

00:55:12.000 Yeah.

00:55:13.000 And then you can stack them.

00:55:14.000 And the judge just decrees it, right?

00:55:16.000 Right.

00:55:16.000 And the money, there's no real, like, limitation.

00:55:19.000 I mean, you can't go wild, but you can fine a company a lot of money for being held in contempt.

00:55:23.000 That's the power that judges are supposed to wield to keep these people in check, especially when prosecutors lie to their face.

00:55:29.000 But when there's an acquittal, this judge is probably, my guess, just going to be like, I'm not going to do anything.

00:55:34.000 When someone- Where are the leaders?

00:55:36.000 Well, that's it.

00:55:37.000 There's no good judges.

00:55:38.000 When someone gets hit for contempt, if they lie about the same thing over and over, do

00:55:40.000 they get a contempt charge every time they say a lie?

00:55:43.000 You can.

00:55:44.000 You can.

00:55:45.000 It's doable, right?

00:55:46.000 That's what's supposed to happen when prosecutors bury or withhold exculpatory evidence, evidence

00:55:50.000 of innocence or doctor evidence.

00:55:53.000 The only remedy for that is not the state or the federal government bringing a case.

00:55:57.000 It's for the judge to come in and say, I'm going to hold you in contempt.

00:56:01.000 Show me why I shouldn't.

00:56:02.000 as the judge likely to say, look, Bretton house has gone home.

00:56:07.000 That's it.

00:56:07.000 I gotta work with these guys.

00:56:08.000 Look, I've been there.

00:56:09.000 They're gonna be there in my chambers again and again and again.

00:56:12.000 If I start a conflict that can't be resolved, I'm making my job worse.

00:56:15.000 You nailed it.

00:56:16.000 They don't wanna deal with the headache.

00:56:18.000 And I've caught prosecutors in massive narco-trafficking cases burying evidence of innocence.

00:56:25.000 I waited a year and a half till I got to the first witness in trial and exposed it and got those cases thrown out.

00:56:30.000 My next move was like, hey, judge, you want to issue contempt proceedings?

00:56:35.000 Wow.

00:56:35.000 this person lied to you for 18 months and we just proved it and the case just got tossed.

00:56:39.000 And every time they're like, well, let's talk about it later. I got to work with the

00:56:45.000 C.U.S. Attorney's office. I got to work with the defense bar. You know, I don't want to be out

00:56:50.000 there. When I got falsely arrested, I told you the story off air because I've said it on air

00:56:55.000 too many times. But when I got falsely arrested when I was a teenager, I was told by the police

00:56:59.000 the reason they so long story short, my brother and I got attacked, jumped and beat up by security

00:57:04.000 guards because of mistaken identity or something to that effect.

00:57:07.000 When we talked to the cops, they said, look, you know, we know that you guys didn't do anything wrong now, everything's been resolved, but we gotta work with these guys.

00:57:15.000 You know, they're a big part of the economy here in the small suburb.

00:57:18.000 We get calls from them all the time.

00:57:20.000 If we get into it with the security guys, it's gonna be a nightmare for us, so we're gonna let them get away with the attack on you.

00:57:25.000 And enjoy, you know, I hope you enjoyed the eight months of your life you spent in and out of court and all the money you lost.

00:57:31.000 That's how it works.

00:57:32.000 No accountability.

00:57:32.000 The state is friends with the state and the system.

00:57:34.000 Well, one thing to remember with these judges, and this is a problem with the system, is that they often work in the same, like in my town, they're in effectively offices are in the same building as the prosecutors.

00:57:48.000 And they're in, when they're not in their offices, they're just in court and they have these cattle call hearings.

00:57:53.000 And so you're sitting there with the prosecutor, they're co-workers for five hours straight

00:57:58.000 as they go through this big stack of files.

00:58:01.000 Defense attorneys file in and out and some of them get friendly.

00:58:04.000 But the other issue that the judge can always fall back on is well, yeah, in this case, Kyle would have been prejudiced

00:58:12.000 if he was found guilty, but he wasn't prejudiced because the jury came to the right conclusion.

00:58:17.000 So since there's no harm, it really doesn't look good to do it,

00:58:21.000 to go back and revisit this issue.

00:58:23.000 And that's why I was on the same page with you.

00:58:25.000 Once he said, well, why don't we, we could put you guys on the stand under oath

00:58:30.000 and get an expert in here.

00:58:31.000 I'm like, yeah, do it, judge.

00:58:32.000 Dismiss the jury.

00:58:34.000 Dismiss the jury for the day, for a week, whatever you need, however long you need to get an expert.

00:58:39.000 Let's put these prosecutors on the stand.

00:58:40.000 Let's get them under oath talking about how they emailed it to their personal Gmail account from their .gov account and then sent it when everything else was sent by Dropbox.

00:58:49.000 Let's find explanations.

00:58:50.000 Thirty seconds on that laptop and I can tell you if he did it or not.

00:58:55.000 Thirty seconds.

00:58:56.000 You pull up the log files and you can see what they did.

00:59:00.000 Like that.

00:59:02.000 Ten minutes.

00:59:03.000 Ten minutes to put him on the stand.

00:59:05.000 Jerry can wait and have a bag of Doritos while they're waiting. 0.99

00:59:08.000 Give him some pop.

00:59:08.000 Give him some Pepsi.

00:59:09.000 Now the other person that can do something with that Yeah.

00:59:12.000 is Kyle, right?

00:59:14.000 Putting aside the defamation stuff, for one instance, because it's basically that case, I would take,

00:59:19.000 if I were advising him, I would take that to federal court for violation of his civil rights, right?

00:59:24.000 That's what happens when you have prosecutorial misconduct at the state or federal level.

00:59:28.000 Your best bet is this whole thing that you see in the movie is like, I'm gonna sue you for Melissa's prosecution.

00:59:32.000 That doesn't really exist.

00:59:34.000 It's like really hard to prove.

00:59:36.000 Yeah.

00:59:36.000 Like one in a bazillion.

00:59:38.000 But what you can do, I mean, suing for a violation of your civil rights is also very difficult, but it's very, it's very real in this case.

00:59:44.000 This guy, this kid was charged with capital murder and the prosecution doctored his evidence.

00:59:49.000 That's pretty damn good.

00:59:50.000 Now, What you'll have to prove in federal court is, hey man, you

00:59:53.000 won your trial. Well, okay, my life's now screwed up because of this, because I was

00:59:57.000 labeled a domestic terrorist falsely, a terrorist falsely, a racist falsely, you know, member of 0.73

01:00:01.000 the cake, whatever. He's got a good list to make that case. Well, and he's got a bunch of news

01:00:08.000 organizations dutifully reporting that he raised his gun and provoked the attack and that the ruling

01:00:15.000 is unjust because of that.

01:00:17.000 So the news can kind of feed this in and if he's got civil attorneys or if he's got prospective civil attorneys who are thinking about things like this, you know, hopefully they'll be capturing those things.

01:00:29.000 And it's not going to go against the news companies, but it's going to say, this is the result of the state infringing on my client's civil rights, and here's the damage that was done because now it's all over the major media that he provoked an attack that he never did.

01:00:42.000 And real quick, you can quantify damages from a media sense in terms of PR rectification, Basically, if they dedicate one minute in defaming you, and you need to then pay one minute to counter that lie, it's very expensive.

01:01:03.000 If you guys were Kyle's lawyers, what would be your first step?

01:01:05.000 Who would you go after first in this entire matter?

01:01:08.000 The prosecutors, the media, the state?

01:01:10.000 How would you navigate that field?

01:01:15.000 Well, whatever he's going to do is going to be tough.

01:01:18.000 At the end of the day, he won.

01:01:20.000 And we were talking about libel proof earlier.

01:01:23.000 Part of the problem with the way we prosecute things is if any opinion out there is based on the prosecution itself, based on what's in the complaint, people are able to formulate reasonable opinions based on that.

01:01:37.000 Now, there are issues because a lot of the stuff that's being reported by some of these places never happened.

01:01:42.000 For example, saying that Kyle shot three black men.

01:01:45.000 That never happened.

01:01:46.000 So that's not really a subject of the complaint.

01:01:48.000 That's a way to attack.

01:01:49.000 But, I mean, for my money, I'm going after Krause and the county of Kenosha, and by extension the state of Wisconsin, on the deprivation of civil rights.

01:01:59.000 I think that's a great approach.

01:02:02.000 I believe they do have a U.S.

01:02:04.000 For defamation, it's going to be based on individual news publications and what they've said.

01:02:08.000 Wasn't it The Guardian the other day that said he shot three black guys in the independent?

01:02:12.000 The Independent.

01:02:13.000 So that's going to be tough because that's in the UK.

01:02:16.000 So that I believe they have a U.S. office.

01:02:18.000 I believe they do have a U.S. office.

01:02:19.000 OK, so you might be able to go after them, but you're really going to have to do very

01:02:24.000 careful sifting, as we saw with Sandman, right?

01:02:27.000 They had something like 57 statements and only three went through because almost all of them are opinion.

01:02:33.000 Anything that says Kyle's a white supremacist, that he's a racist, that he was racially motivated, those are going to probably be opinion statements.

01:02:40.000 But they all said he crossed state lines with a gun.

01:02:42.000 That's a statement of fact.

01:02:43.000 Right, right.

01:02:46.000 On its face, a defamatory statement.

01:02:48.000 Then the next thing... So Kyle's a little bit of a different... He's differently situated than almost anyone else would be, right?

01:02:56.000 The second he got arrested, this case went global, right?

01:03:00.000 So what they will argue is not against the defamation.

01:03:03.000 They will argue that Kyle's a public figure.

01:03:05.000 Right.

01:03:05.000 So once you become a public figure, Man, that defamation hurdle is huge.

01:03:10.000 In order to show damages, you have to satisfy this bar that's almost impossible to satisfy, even if you prove Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun, Kyle did not shoot three black men, Kyle is not a domestic terrorist, he's not a racist or a member of whatever.

01:03:23.000 That's what I would recommend to Kyle and his crew.

01:03:27.000 is that I would write an open letter to the Department of Justice for them to initiate a federal civil rights investigation of the Kenosha County Prosecutor's Office and the police that investigated this case.

01:03:36.000 Because they have done that repeatedly in the past when there has been racial unrest and cities were burning.

01:03:42.000 That's DOJ's biggest civil wrong.

01:03:44.000 I think the DOJ is more likely to go after Kyle.

01:03:46.000 No, I agree.

01:03:47.000 I would just make this, I would do that as part of a sort of a grander media strategy to be like, we asked the department to come in and do X, they said no.

01:03:55.000 Now I have my rights under defamation and this and that, and what other options do you have?

01:03:58.000 Do you guys think the Tucker Carlson documentary complicates this because it kind of paints him as a public figure?

01:04:04.000 Always.

01:04:04.000 Look, whenever you're making statements, like, you never hear me talking about my defamation cases except to say the pleadings are public, the instance is there, they lied about this meeting, that's all I say.

01:04:14.000 If you give an interview on that, these lawyers are going to go in there and just tear you apart and use that in pleadings.

01:04:19.000 Yeah, because Tucker Carlson was filming a documentary on Kyle during the entire court proceeding.

01:04:24.000 Which I agree with Kyle's defense lawyer.

01:04:26.000 I would have been like, no way.

01:04:28.000 You're out.

01:04:29.000 You cannot, cannot be here.

01:04:31.000 But it's Kyle's choice at the end of the day.

01:04:33.000 Yeah, if it's Kyle's choice at the end of the day.

01:04:35.000 It might be someone else's choice.

01:04:37.000 We don't really know.

01:04:38.000 But I'm really glad you mentioned the grander media strategy because we're talking about how hard these cases are to win.

01:04:45.000 That doesn't mean that a defamation case can't be valuable.

01:04:48.000 Yes.

01:04:48.000 Whether you win or not, Kyle's got this big dilemma.

01:04:52.000 He's 18 years old and he's facing a life where his name will forever be tainted by what happened to him.

01:04:59.000 And that's really unfair.

01:05:00.000 But a defamation case can be a way to launch himself into, if he wants to embrace a media spotlight, he can become a spokesman against stuff and a defamation case is a way to do that.

01:05:13.000 Talk about the broken prosecution system.

01:05:16.000 Talk about the fact that media can run roughshod over people, raise a lot of money doing it, get some sponsorships behind them, and become a media figure in the way that some of the Parkland kids have done.

01:05:29.000 They've taken that obviously different side of the political spectrum.

01:05:34.000 There is a way to make a career out of that when otherwise his career's prospects got chopped down considerably from the average 18-year-old kid.

01:05:42.000 Let me ask you, if you're a public figure or involuntary public figure, I think that's what they call the Covington kids, then the standard would be actual malice or gross negligence regarding the facts, right?

01:05:54.000 It's actual malice for any public figure.

01:05:58.000 But doesn't that also include gross negligence?

01:06:00.000 No.

01:06:01.000 No.

01:06:01.000 That's different.

01:06:02.000 Really?

01:06:02.000 It's like actual malice, gross negligence.

01:06:04.000 Really?

01:06:05.000 I thought even if you're a public figure... It's your intent.

01:06:07.000 It's your intent.

01:06:12.000 Even though, if you watch the trial for even 10 minutes, even though you could look at any of the filings, when they lie about, when they say he crossed state lines with a gun, right now, even though Dominic Black is currently being prosecuted literally for giving the gun to Kyle in Wisconsin, that's not actionable.

01:06:34.000 So the the actual malice standard from a journalistic perspective is that the journalist and this is this is so frustrating.

01:06:42.000 The journalistic outlet has to have a standard that they would typically do to conduct research and they have to fail to meet that standard.

01:06:51.000 That's the gross negligence I think you're talking about.

01:06:54.000 Right.

01:06:54.000 Is is that they still that's how you show actual malice is if they have a standard and then they fail to meet the research standards that they would otherwise do.

01:07:03.000 Okay, okay.

01:07:04.000 I will tell you this.

01:07:05.000 Then if Kyle Rittenhouse files a loss, he absolutely should sue every single one of these outlets because I will love it when they're like, our standard doesn't include using Google.

01:07:15.000 We don't take 10 seconds to Google search any of these things.

01:07:17.000 We just say them because we made them up.

01:07:19.000 But here's the, here's the kicker.

01:07:20.000 I'll be happy.

01:07:21.000 This is part of the reason I'm out there raising all this money for people's defamation lawsuits.

01:07:25.000 It's not just, yes, there's insane amount of value in bringing cases that have some merit.

01:07:31.000 But like you said, the biggest obstacle is money.

01:07:33.000 So we'll take care of that and fight with cash.

01:07:35.000 We'll pay for your lawyers and we'll review your case for free.

01:07:37.000 But the other kicker in bringing defamation suits, if you bring them in the right state courts, it's that they have to divulge.

01:07:44.000 Once you get past this mid-trial phase called summary judgment, they, the defense, has to disclose their sources.

01:07:50.000 to this plaintiff.

01:07:52.000 Really?

01:07:53.000 Why is that important?

01:07:54.000 Because then you're, because what the judges decided is, well, this case has enough fact issue to go to a jury.

01:07:59.000 I, the judge, am out of ruling on that.

01:08:02.000 Now here we go, discovery.

01:08:03.000 And oh, by the way, you don't want to settle?

01:08:05.000 You, the defense, like in Virginia state law, which is where all my cases are being brought,

01:08:09.000 they have to, once we get past summary judgment, tell me who is the sources of your stories.

01:08:13.000 And if they fail to do that, it's a default judgment.

01:08:16.000 What if they lie or only give you a few?

01:08:19.000 I guess they could.

01:08:19.000 That's always possible.

01:08:20.000 But I think that's why it's also worth bringing.

01:08:22.000 So if they say we will not reveal our sources, it's a default judgment?

01:08:25.000 You win.

01:08:27.000 That's why Devin Nunes brings a lot of cases in Virginia, right?

01:08:30.000 Yeah, so Devin and I, dear friend, my former boss, he actually had a huge win in federal court, in the appellate court about a month ago.

01:08:38.000 And yeah, we bring, we just bring cases to clear our names.

01:08:42.000 You know, Devin's a little different.

01:08:44.000 He's like the public figure of public figures after Russiagate.

01:08:47.000 But he's doing it for the reasons we're talking about.

01:08:49.000 Yes, he was defamed.

01:08:50.000 Yes, they attacked his 90-year-old grandmother.

01:08:52.000 Right.

01:08:53.000 And he realizes the bar is very high.

01:08:55.000 But what happens is we're trying to correct the media.

01:08:58.000 And the way you do that is you issue a monetary judgment against them.

01:09:01.000 The other way you do that is you take them to federal court, get past summary judgment and get their sources and tell the world.

01:09:07.000 Yeah, that's one of the strategies.

01:09:10.000 When someone lies against you, you have two options, money or the truth, or both.

01:09:16.000 I mean, hopefully you get both.

01:09:18.000 But a lot of people will lose a defamation suit, but they'll lose the judgment.

01:09:24.000 But people will get the option of seeing, oh, there's another side of this story.

01:09:28.000 And those stories will consequently get a lot of media coverage because the initial story got a lot of media coverage.

01:09:34.000 And that can have a ton of value in itself.

01:09:36.000 It's true.

01:09:37.000 debilitate to at least tell, hey, at least the people who don't hate me.

01:09:40.000 You know what? I didn't do any of this stuff that they're saying.

01:09:43.000 They're lying about me. You know, they're lying about me.

01:09:45.000 And that can have a lot of value to the problem right now is if CNN came out and

01:09:50.000 said, you know, Rekheda hates chocolate ice cream. 1.00

01:09:54.000 Some, you know, it's true. And no, no, no.

01:09:56.000 Let's say it's not true. Let's say it's not true.

01:09:57.000 Anybody who likes CNN.

01:10:02.000 Well, maybe you're not a good example.

01:10:03.000 Let's say Trump.

01:10:04.000 Let's say CNN comes out and says, Trump hates chocolate ice cream according to those familiar with his thinking. 0.98

01:10:12.000 You know, that ridiculous line they like to use. 0.86

01:10:15.000 Anybody who likes Trump is going to say they're lying. 0.57

01:10:18.000 And then Trump will be like, it's not true.

01:10:19.000 I love chocolate ice cream.

01:10:21.000 And then anybody who hates Trump is going to believe CNN.

01:10:23.000 Right, right.

01:10:24.000 So it's like, there's almost no point even bothering except for monetary damages.

01:10:29.000 It depends.

01:10:31.000 It depends on the polarization of the figure.

01:10:32.000 I mean, Trump is an extremely polarized figure, more than probably anyone else on earth, right?

01:10:39.000 But for for Devin Nunes, you know, for someone who's maybe 75 percent of the way to Trump's level of polarization, I think there's value there.

01:10:51.000 I really do.

01:10:52.000 I guess Kyle's too polarizing.

01:10:54.000 Kyle Reynolds.

01:10:55.000 I don't think so personally.

01:10:57.000 His personality is kind of unknown.

01:10:59.000 It's more about the media's portrayal of him at the moment.

01:11:01.000 They're calling for his death.

01:11:02.000 He just came out and said he supports Black Lives Matter.

01:11:05.000 He also said he's sick of the left and right using his case in order to push their political agenda.

01:11:10.000 So he's coming out and making a lot of statements which are shocking and surprising a lot of people, including people on the right.

01:11:16.000 And those statements are the ones that actually carry weight in court.

01:11:19.000 And when you get rulings, that's when people start paying attention.

01:11:22.000 You're never going to get his message of that message of saying, I'm on the left and the right or I'm in the middle out there unless you actually get rulings in court.

01:11:29.000 And that's why he's got to bring those cases.

01:11:31.000 It's a mistake for Kyle Rittenhouse to come out and say that he's supporting Black Lives Matter or criticizing one side over the other.

01:11:38.000 Probably should just avoid the polarization subject altogether.

01:11:42.000 But I'll put it this way.

01:11:43.000 One of the problems I see with, I guess we'd call it the right, was one of the jurors, this was going around, when asked in jury selection, he said he wouldn't be a good juror, he wouldn't be fair because he's pro 2A and he supports gun rights. 0.75

01:11:57.000 That was a big thing, right?

01:11:58.000 And that right there is like, I agree with our constitutional rights, so I shouldn't be involved in this because only people who don't agree with Kyle's rights should be judging him.

01:12:10.000 Yeah, there's this weird proclivity of people who are honest to be honest to the fault of themselves.

01:12:18.000 No one is going to be able to remove every bit of bias from their decision making.

01:12:23.000 Anybody who goes into a jury—the person I trust least is a person who's like, oh yeah, I can ignore all of my biases when making this jury decision.

01:12:31.000 Yeah.

01:12:32.000 Everybody's got some biases.

01:12:34.000 The question is, can you reasonably make decisions?

01:12:37.000 And a lot of people do that every day.

01:12:41.000 The real issue with that is when you've got a criminal case, the person who says, oh man, I don't know if I could be impartial in this.

01:12:48.000 That's the guy who's going to be the not guilty vote.

01:12:51.000 Right?

01:12:51.000 Like that's never going to be the guilty vote.

01:12:53.000 If the guy's like, I hate this guy, he's not going to go, oh, I, I, I, you know, I, I just can't be partial on or impartial on this.

01:12:59.000 I'm going to stay on the, or I need to leave the jury.

01:13:02.000 No, if, if you, if you hate the defendant, then you're going to want to be on that jury.

01:13:06.000 And most judges, look, the job of the prosecution defense, when you're doing jury selection is to strike people you don't like, or you think you don't like, or there's a possibility of you not liking them.

01:13:15.000 What happens though, 99% of the times is you get someone to say, Yeah, you know what?

01:13:19.000 I'm not going to be fair in this case because of my pro-2A position.

01:13:23.000 The judge jumps in and says, well actually, I'll remind you this is jury service, it's a constitutional right, goes through a litany of legal things, and then basically asks him again, are you sure you can't set that aside?

01:13:36.000 We're not asking you not to be pro-2A.

01:13:37.000 Are you sure you can't set it aside and be impartial?

01:13:40.000 Set it aside?

01:13:41.000 The judge should say, just to point out, the Second Amendment is a constitutional right.

01:13:47.000 If you're saying that you are opposed to constitutional rights, then perhaps I understand your argument.

01:13:52.000 You're being too pragmatic. 0.54

01:13:54.000 I would be, I'd be a crazy judge.

01:13:56.000 The judges want, see, what the judges don't want to do is dismiss everyone, because you could pretty much dismiss 95% of all jurors in any trial at any given time if you didn't apply that standard, then there would be no jury trials ever.

01:14:08.000 So the judge's job is to be like, we got to really keep these people in the box.

01:14:11.000 And despite all of the crap that Schrader got from the media about being pro-Kyle or whatever,

01:14:18.000 in that jury selection, one of the people stood up and said, I just don't believe that anybody should have a machine gun.

01:14:23.000 And the judge took the time to say, well, just so you know, like there's no allegation that anyone in this case had a

01:14:30.000 machine gun.

01:14:31.000 This is a semi-automatic, right?

01:14:33.000 And he takes this really painstaking process to go through and explain that this was not a machine gun.

01:14:39.000 It's not fully automatic.

01:14:40.000 It's one trigger pull, one thing.

01:14:42.000 It's perfectly, generally legal firearm that's, you know, and he did take pains to do that.

01:14:48.000 And that is someone who is likely going to be opposed to Kyle Rittenhouse.

01:14:52.000 Was that juror selected?

01:14:53.000 I don't know.

01:14:54.000 At the end of the day, I don't remember.

01:14:56.000 But it was early on in that jury selection process, and that was kind of a slog.

01:15:00.000 I don't think I could ever be on a grand jury or a jury.

01:15:05.000 I'd just outright be like, I am heavily biased against the state, and there is literally nothing that's ever going to change my mind.

01:15:11.000 OK, I'll tell you this.

01:15:12.000 They might accept your word on that.

01:15:14.000 Yeah, yeah.

01:15:15.000 We were talking with Michael Malice on the show, and he was telling the story that he... I think it's mostly fictionalized for legal purposes, but he basically said to a prosecutor in a grand jury, I'm an anarchist, and I will not return an indictment.

01:15:27.000 And he was like, well, too bad, you're on the grand jury.

01:15:29.000 And so he convinced everybody to return no indictment.

01:15:32.000 And the prosecutor was like, what?

01:15:34.000 What just happened?

01:15:35.000 It's like, do you let an anarchist on a grand jury?

01:15:37.000 They're going to take charge.

01:15:38.000 Here's what we would do with guys like that, right?

01:15:41.000 The judge would call us up sidebar and be like, we're not going to pick this guy.

01:15:44.000 He's going to be the alternate.

01:15:45.000 I'm going to make him sit here for two months.

01:15:48.000 And it's the judge's call.

01:15:50.000 I'd be completely honest.

01:15:53.000 If I got jury duty, I'd go there and be like, I would absolutely love to be involved in this process.

01:15:58.000 I love the idea of jury duty and civic duty.

01:16:00.000 And I am also heavily biased against the state.

01:16:02.000 I'm just being completely honest.

01:16:03.000 I would love to weigh all the evidence.

01:16:05.000 And if you were fair and honest, I would make a fair and honest assessment.

01:16:07.000 But keep in mind, I don't trust the state.

01:16:10.000 Do you have a duty to inform the judge or anyone picking you that you believe in jury nullification?

01:16:16.000 Yes.

01:16:16.000 You have to tell them if you believe in that idea.

01:16:20.000 Even if you're not asked directly.

01:16:21.000 Jury nullification is just literally illegal.

01:16:24.000 As a defense attorney, as a public defender, I wanted to argue jury nullification.

01:16:28.000 Like, look at my poor client.

01:16:30.000 He's just this state versus this penniless pauper.

01:16:33.000 You can't do that.

01:16:34.000 There's crafty ways to get around that.

01:16:36.000 The other thing about jury selection is About 80% of your reversals come from improper jury selection.

01:16:43.000 This is why judges are so guarded against it, because they want to make sure it's the racial thing.

01:16:48.000 It's called Batson Challenges or whatever.

01:16:51.000 Every juror has a racial profile under the law, and you can't strike one just for some race decision.

01:16:59.000 And a lot of reversals come because the defense and the prosecution don't do enough to what we call state the record of what the case actually is and the judge screws up and that's where a lot of reversals come in.

01:17:10.000 This is the first I've heard that jury nullification is illegal.

01:17:13.000 What's the history of that?

01:17:14.000 I thought it was totally legal.

01:17:15.000 No, you can't.

01:17:16.000 The premise is you have to be able to argue the facts that are presented in the case, right?

01:17:22.000 And the facts that are presented in the case as to whatever the charges.

01:17:25.000 You can't go in there and be like, this guy has had the worst life in human history.

01:17:30.000 This is why you should acquit him of murder because he's just, you know, has had the worst luck, has been stabbed, has been, you know, shot at.

01:17:39.000 His mother died.

01:17:40.000 That's why you should acquit him.

01:17:41.000 You can't say that.

01:17:42.000 You can say you should acquit him because he's had a rough life, but in the instance of the murder thing, he actually didn't do it.

01:17:48.000 What if it's like a drug charge and you don't believe in the law?

01:17:52.000 Like you don't believe the law should have been implied here because you don't believe in victimless crimes and you don't think this should be used on him.

01:18:00.000 So that's why you want to nullify this by voting as a juror and saying this shouldn't be applied here.

01:18:05.000 Then what should happen is the state should be very careful in what questions that they ask the jury on voir dire.

01:18:13.000 And if they don't ask you those questions, then you don't have to answer those questions, but you keep it to yourself.

01:18:18.000 You don't stand up and say, I believe in jury nullification.

01:18:21.000 If you're going to go nullify a jury, and by the way, I fully 100% support jury nullification.

01:18:28.000 This show is brought to you by jury nullification.

01:18:32.000 No, I 100% support it.

01:18:33.000 If you believe a law is unjust and you are on a jury for it, then you have that right, but you cannot stand up and tell the judge and the prosecutor and the defense attorney that you're going to do it.

01:18:43.000 Defense attorneys can't argue for it.

01:18:45.000 And if they do, that's one of the few ways that a defense can get a mistrial and a redo at it.

01:18:53.000 What would happen if you were on the jury? 0.99

01:18:55.000 Like you got on the jury, you were selected, and then when you were walking in one day you said, I'm going to nullify, I'm going to fuck with them. 0.99

01:19:00.000 They'll just dismiss you. 0.99

01:19:01.000 They'll dismiss you as a juror.

01:19:03.000 Same deal they had with the guy who- Really?

01:19:04.000 There's one way to get out of it, huh?

01:19:05.000 Yeah, getting out of jury duty is really easy.

01:19:07.000 What you do is you go to the bailiff and you tell a racial joke.

01:19:12.000 For those that don't know, that's actually what happened in one of the jurors.

01:19:14.000 Yeah, it's part of the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

01:19:16.000 But it's also important to know that a lot of people who were charged under very heavy drug charges, under very heavy crimes, were many times allowed to let go because of jury nullification.

01:19:28.000 Because people said, hey, this is obscene that this man was using this substance for, let's just say, medicine.

01:19:34.000 But there's been so many different cases And then the jury said, there's no way I agree with this morally.

01:19:39.000 I'm going to impose jury nullification.

01:19:41.000 I don't know if they announced it or didn't announce it, but I also heard of cases of people being arrested outside of courthouses because they were advocating for jury nullification.

01:19:49.000 I also saw videos about that.

01:19:51.000 So is that what you meant, Cash, by it being illegal?

01:19:55.000 No, don't get me wrong.

01:19:56.000 It is illegal for a defense attorney to go in there and argue jury nullification.

01:20:00.000 It's unlawful.

01:20:01.000 The defense, yes.

01:20:01.000 You cannot do that.

01:20:02.000 But as a citizen, as a juror, I could practice jury nullification.

01:20:05.000 Let's live in the real world.

01:20:08.000 Look, I would try cases all the time and be like, the way you beat the cops is you put the cops on trial and make the jury feel worse for your client than law enforcement.

01:20:18.000 You're playing to jury nullification by trying to address facts that show that.

01:20:22.000 And juries are going to be hip to that, and they can make that ruling on their own.

01:20:26.000 You just can't openly argue for it.

01:20:28.000 You can pitch it, and of course, juries do that all the time.

01:20:30.000 So you could say something like, you could say, you know, a guy was arrested with CBD And they're arguing it's an illegal drug, which is completely unfair.

01:20:40.000 Here's the facts.

01:20:41.000 So even though technically the state is correct, the jury's probably going to be like, yeah.

01:20:45.000 But you can't tell them that they have, they could do that.

01:20:48.000 You can't say it and you can't, if you're, you're on a pretty thin line because a smart prosecutor will jump up and be like, that's jury nullification.

01:20:56.000 And the judge will come down on you.

01:20:58.000 Yeah.

01:20:58.000 But as a citizen, a lot of people don't even know what it means.

01:21:01.000 A lot of people don't even understand what jury notification is or victimless crimes.

01:21:05.000 So I think, you know, talking about it and spreading this kind of word, letting people know that the average citizen, if they participate in our court proceedings, have a right to throw down unjust laws.

01:21:15.000 I mean, that's a big power there.

01:21:17.000 A judge will tell you, no, that's unlawful.

01:21:19.000 He'll listen to instruction will be it's unlawful.

01:21:22.000 If they decide to do it, what are they going to do?

01:21:24.000 Right?

01:21:24.000 Like how are they going to I mean, to be honest, the judge says if you believe the state has proven, you know, these things about a reasonable doubt, so you can just be like, I don't believe them.

01:21:32.000 Yeah, you didn't meet the bar.

01:21:33.000 Oh, okay.

01:21:34.000 Yep, and that's the way.

01:21:35.000 But remember that when you're under voir dire, you're under oath, and you are required to answer those questions truthfully under penalty of perjury.

01:21:44.000 And so, you know, it's really up to the state to craft their questions to try and eliminate things like jury nullification.

01:21:50.000 And that's why you saw, in fact, some of these race-based dismissals cropping up is because, you know, in the South, for example, during Jim Crow, you might have a white defendant and a black victim and you would have a jury that they would try and strike any black jurors from that jury because they would want a jury notification even if the facts mixed up based on race.

01:22:19.000 So, jury notification, it can be used in an inappropriate way.

01:22:22.000 It has in the past.

01:22:23.000 But now we tend to think of it as more of a liberty-minded position, attacking things like victimless crimes.

01:22:29.000 And that, frankly, lies at the feet of things like mandatory minimum sentences.

01:22:33.000 When you've got people who have, like, four marijuana plants going a mandatory minimum of 20 years in a federal prison, someone goes, that's not really justified when a Joseph Rosenbaum gets out and ate.

01:22:45.000 Yeah.

01:22:46.000 But people don't know this.

01:22:47.000 You know, they sit on a jury and the judge says, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the law, it matters what I instruct you, and they say, okay, I'll lock the guy up.

01:22:55.000 That's what Miles was telling us.

01:22:57.000 He said, you know, do you really want this kid's life to be completely ruined?

01:23:00.000 Do you want to be the people?

01:23:01.000 You'll have this on your conscience for the rest of your life that you destroyed this person's life over what, a substance or something?

01:23:06.000 And then people were like, yeah, I don't want to.

01:23:08.000 My attitude on this is, the reason why I would almost, like if I was on a grand jury, I'd almost never indict, is because I'm not the judge over other people, sorry.

01:23:16.000 Like, I can certainly have my opinions and be judgmental, but like, to actually tell me, we are gonna grant you partial power, along with this other group, to condemn a person to either a court proceeding, which is arduous and difficult, or, as a jury itself, to jail, prison, or death, I'd be like...

01:23:34.000 But that's why grand juries are so big, right?

01:23:37.000 That's why there's like, you know, 32 members of a grand jury.

01:23:40.000 The preponderance of the evidence standard is 51%, 49%.

01:23:42.000 Not, you know, did he maybe do it versus did he not do it?

01:23:46.000 And also you only need like 17 of the 32.

01:23:48.000 I forget the exact breakdown.

01:23:50.000 And you put me on a grand jury over property crime or possession or anything like that and I'm going to be like...

01:23:55.000 Thumbs down.

01:23:56.000 Sorry.

01:23:57.000 I mean, and obviously I think crime is bad, property crime and stuff.

01:24:01.000 If it's like victimless stuff, like literally someone chilling in their house minding their own business with some weird thing, you know, that they're not supposed to, the government says you're not allowed to have, I'd be like, nah, government's wrong.

01:24:10.000 What if they're playing videos from facial abuse on a big screen outside in their front lawn?

01:24:15.000 What would you do then?

01:24:16.000 They're doing what?

01:24:17.000 Playing videos from facial abuse on a big screen.

01:24:20.000 Facial?

01:24:21.000 Never mind.

01:24:22.000 We probably shouldn't get into it.

01:24:23.000 I'll put it this way.

01:24:28.000 Don't worry about it.

01:24:29.000 I don't know if it was like an esoteric joke I missed. 0.70

01:24:32.000 No, it's like a violent pornographic website. 0.84

01:24:36.000 Right, right, right.

01:24:36.000 Oh, okay, okay.

01:24:39.000 I think that's a civil issue.

01:24:41.000 Yeah, there you go.

01:24:42.000 I think you can potentially argue like minor disorderly or something or disturbing the peace, which I really am not a fan of as a law because like, dude, tell me what I did wrong.

01:24:50.000 Cop, you know, like I was telling that story, the cop claimed that because I was yelling, call 911, I was being disorderly.

01:24:56.000 I'm not kidding.

01:24:57.000 They were like, he was yelling and I was like, I was yelling, call the police!

01:25:00.000 And they were like, we don't care.

01:25:01.000 So I got charged with it.

01:25:03.000 So look, you know, if you've got a person who's projecting, you know, really inappropriate

01:25:09.000 stuff, I don't believe in obscenity laws.

01:25:11.000 I think George Carlin was right when he went out and said the seven words you can't say

01:25:14.000 on TV.

01:25:15.000 And if the neighbor's got a problem with it, I think you've got a civil issue where the

01:25:18.000 neighbors can maybe take up some kind of civil complaint and maybe this is resolved.

01:25:24.000 I don't think it's criminal, you know what I mean?

01:25:26.000 Wait, if a guy's putting video of himself naked out on the street?

01:25:29.000 If somebody was projecting on their own home, inappropriate.

01:25:32.000 Oh, I thought it was out front in their yard.

01:25:35.000 Yes.

01:25:36.000 So like on the front of their house, they're showing inappropriate things like on your

01:25:38.000 garage.

01:25:39.000 That's what I do.

01:25:40.000 Exposing yourself in public.

01:25:42.000 I'm just talking about general.

01:25:44.000 Thank you.

01:25:45.000 What's considered obscene.

01:25:46.000 You don't need to talk about and get into specifics because we're trying to be family friendly.

01:25:49.000 The point is... How can you not object to that stuff though?

01:25:53.000 I do.

01:25:53.000 And I think it's a civil issue, not a criminal issue.

01:25:55.000 I don't think the police should come and arrest a guy because he was making a statement.

01:26:00.000 That depends on who he's making a statement to.

01:26:01.000 When the police are allowed to be like, this is obscene, they'll say your politics are obscene too.

01:26:06.000 So, if someone's like, I believe in these things and I'm gonna, I think people, there's nudists.

01:26:12.000 This is a political view on clothing and the rights of individuals and there are women who walk around naked in New York City. 1.00

01:26:19.000 Sorry, not naked, topless.

01:26:20.000 Because in New York City they're allowed to.

01:26:22.000 So if somebody wants to make a statement about what they deem is socially acceptable or not, and it's a public statement, I would argue it's a civil issue, and there's potentially disturbing the peace there, but I probably would not indict.

01:26:33.000 There's that entire feminist movement, right? 1.00

01:26:35.000 Femin. 0.95

01:26:37.000 That's what they do. 0.96

01:26:37.000 They're topless and they paint— No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. 0.96

01:26:41.000 Sorry to interrupt you.

01:26:41.000 Oh, yeah, yeah, go ahead.

01:26:42.000 It's well beyond them being topless.

01:26:45.000 Okay, I haven't checked in on it lately.

01:26:47.000 The stuff, I was in Ukraine and the things I was told about the stuff they do is like hardcore, overt, and I can't say it.

01:26:55.000 Wow.

01:26:56.000 Did you see the, have you ever seen my favorite Femen clip is when the one runs at Putin and he gives her the thumbs up right before she gets tackled?

01:27:05.000 I would not indict.

01:27:06.000 I wouldn't indict.

01:27:09.000 Look, my dad's pretty funny.

01:27:10.000 If it involves kids, if someone's doing something, you know, wrong with kids, I'll be like, consenting adults, I, consenting adults can do what they want to do, man.

01:27:20.000 Leave me out of their business.

01:27:21.000 That's what I get if someone's projecting it on their house and my son is in his room looking out the window at it.

01:27:25.000 I'm like, well, now we got a problem.

01:27:27.000 And it might be criminal.

01:27:29.000 No, you go and you close his window and say, son, don't look outside.

01:27:33.000 Or if he's sitting in the front yard.

01:27:34.000 Come inside.

01:27:36.000 Why would I let him put me out?

01:27:37.000 No, no, you can't.

01:27:38.000 What do you mean he put you out?

01:27:40.000 If he's going to force me to hide my son indoors and bar the windows, he's gone too far.

01:27:45.000 But that's a civil matter.

01:27:46.000 It's a public, it's a nuisance.

01:27:50.000 It's not a trespass because they're not physically intruding on your property.

01:27:54.000 But we have a whole tort called a nuisance.

01:27:58.000 And it's when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of someone's property.

01:28:02.000 That's a civil tort.

01:28:03.000 So that exists out there.

01:28:04.000 It's for this exact same thing.

01:28:07.000 If you have like an offensive smell, say someone buys a property next to you and puts in a pig farm.

01:28:12.000 Oh, it happens.

01:28:13.000 Right. And no, it happens. Yeah. Yeah. And so, or, or they put up bees, right? Like they put up bees and the bees are

01:28:19.000 coming in and stinging your kids or something like that. Uh, you, you have, uh, you have different ways to deal with

01:28:24.000 this civilly. I think I fully agree with him.

01:28:26.000 But I would say Ian, like your perspective is overtly authoritarian. Well, I'm talking about like porn, if it's 0.65

01:28:31.000 like, doesn't matter. Grotesque. It starts with that. 0.92

01:28:34.000 on where those are at.

01:28:35.000 If the video is depicting illegal activities, then I think there's a question about what they're showing.

01:28:43.000 If it's 18 and over activities?

01:28:46.000 Actually, that's a good point.

01:28:47.000 That might be criminal.

01:28:48.000 Showing adult content that requires you to be over 18 publicly might be a crime.

01:28:54.000 Could be.

01:28:54.000 That was the first thing I thought of when we were talking about it earlier.

01:28:59.000 You have to have, you actually, the city would actually have to have a law that states that showing this type of stuff, you know, the public display of these images is not allowed.

01:29:07.000 And some of those get struck down as being overbroad.

01:29:11.000 And even if you're prosecuted for them and they've been on the books, you have an overbreath.

01:29:16.000 Kids?

01:29:16.000 There are federal pornography statutes on the books that basically say if you

01:29:20.000 if you show the wrong audience and I forget what the wrong audience is off

01:29:24.000 the top of my head but basically kids of a certain age X or it's shown to X

01:29:30.000 number of people you can get into a federal crime.

01:29:33.000 So a smart prosecutor or a savvy one would be like, you might just be showing it on your house, but there's probably like a thousand people coming by seeing it.

01:29:41.000 So you could basically be in what's called the distribution business.

01:29:44.000 So you get them on the violation of the broadcast rights.

01:29:47.000 Yeah.

01:29:49.000 But as a public defender, I had to represent a lot of people charged with some pretty nasty sex crimes.

01:29:54.000 One of them was distribution of pornography.

01:29:58.000 And there's not just, like, distribution of pornography isn't sending someone Playboys.

01:30:02.000 It can happen in a variety of ways, like live audiences, just giving somebody a memory stick and being like, yo, put this in.

01:30:11.000 So, a better example would be, they were showing, if they projected video of a cow slaughtery or something.

01:30:17.000 You know, so you're actually seeing videos of the cows get mounted up and have their

01:30:21.000 throat slit or whatever and it's just, you know, blood spilling out and stuff.

01:30:24.000 So the issue there is, this is really interesting, when I was doing hospital environment training,

01:30:29.000 they showed a video of a pig femoral artery bleed.

01:30:32.000 Ooh.

01:30:33.000 On purpose.

01:30:34.000 That's a lot of blood.

01:30:35.000 A guy just flopped to the floor past that. 0.90

01:30:36.000 So bleeds in some people trigger a response.

01:30:40.000 I forgot, there's a nerve. 0.78

01:30:40.000 Vagal response? 0.78

01:30:41.000 What is it?

01:30:42.000 Vagal response can make you pass out.

01:30:44.000 And so, basically, out of this, you know, 40 people in the room, one guy saw the video and just flopped to the ground.

01:30:50.000 Blood pressure dropped.

01:30:52.000 He went unconscious.

01:30:53.000 So the instructor came and lifted his legs up to put the blood pressure back into his head.

01:30:57.000 And then he immediately tries getting up and the guy screamed at him, don't move, don't get up.

01:31:01.000 And the guy was like, I'm fine.

01:31:02.000 He goes, no, you're not.

01:31:03.000 You're only conscious because I'm holding your legs up. 0.54

01:31:05.000 But so that's an interesting question.

01:31:07.000 If that, if it is known among these like hostile, these are like special forces guys, if it is known among them that you can trigger a reaction of people which can be serious and medically problematic by showing a video, maybe it's flashes and someone could be epileptic.

01:31:23.000 Now we're talking about potential criminal intent to do harm to others.

01:31:27.000 Well that's what happened to Eichenwald, right?

01:31:29.000 People were tweeting at Kurt Eichenwald the flashing images and he allegedly had an epileptic seizure response to it.

01:31:38.000 Or he's just epileptic.

01:31:39.000 Yeah.

01:31:40.000 So he said it was an attempt on my life or something like that and they charged the guy.

01:31:44.000 Yeah, the Texas court, I would say, strained the federal battery statutes.

01:31:51.000 Yeah, because it was a federal crime.

01:31:53.000 The federal battery statutes on that one by saying that the photons from the thing hitting his eyes, because that was intended for those lasers where we're actually directing a beam into someone's eyes for the intent of injury, in my opinion.

01:32:07.000 But yeah, that was wild.

01:32:09.000 Also, Kurt Eichenwald is a weirdo. 0.83

01:32:11.000 Yes, he is.

01:32:13.000 Well that's that's that's him and uh for all uh we'll just we'll leave him to his vices I suppose him and his family uh let's go to super chats if you haven't already smash the like button subscribe to the channel and go to timcast.com become a member we are gonna oh louis you look just get in front of the camera not even paying attention Yeah, go to TimCast.com, become a member.

01:32:35.000 We're going to have a members-only segment coming up, and we're going to talk a lot about some of the darker stuff in the Rittenhouse case for sure, and the law.

01:32:42.000 Like, we already started getting into some dark territory right there, but we're going to talk about some stuff that's probably not family-friendly in the member section.

01:32:50.000 Become a member, but let's read some Super Chats.

01:32:53.000 All right, let's see.

01:32:53.000 Jordan Jones says, Ricada Law, how tall is Tim?

01:32:56.000 Is he a socialist 5'8 or a normal 5'8?

01:33:00.000 Also, Kermit or Wisconsin, voice your intro.

01:33:04.000 Oh, OK.

01:33:06.000 Hi, I'm Nick Ricada of Ricada Law, a small law firm in central Wisconsin.

01:33:14.000 And thanks for watching, Your Honor.

01:33:17.000 Can you say, don't you know?

01:33:18.000 Don't you know?

01:33:19.000 Donut.

01:33:21.000 Donut.

01:33:23.000 You know what the funniest thing is?

01:33:24.000 When I meet people, I meet a lot of people, they either think, they go, wow, I thought you were going to be shorter.

01:33:29.000 Or they say, wow, you're a lot, oh no, they say, I thought, they either think I'm really tall or I think I'm really short.

01:33:34.000 Yeah.

01:33:35.000 Your exact height I thought you would be.

01:33:37.000 Perfect.

01:33:37.000 The funny thing is though, it's because it depends on which selfie they've seen with me.

01:33:41.000 So like when Charlie Kirk and Vosch are here and they're both 6'3 or whatever, like Charlie's 6'5 and Vosch is 6'3 and I'm 5'10 or whatever, I look very small and I'm like, hey!

01:33:52.000 But then we have like, you know, Michael Malice or someone like, you know, with Joe Rogan and they're I think like 5'7.

01:33:57.000 Then I look a lot taller.

01:33:58.000 And so depending on which episode you've seen, I met a guy at the airport and he's like, Wow, you're massive!

01:34:04.000 What?

01:34:04.000 And I was like, alright.

01:34:06.000 And he's like, thanks, dude.

01:34:07.000 And it's also, too, like, the cameras point down at a slight angle.

01:34:10.000 Oh, yeah.

01:34:11.000 They're slightly above and then down.

01:34:13.000 And, um, one of them actually caches is, like, on the ceiling, basically.

01:34:16.000 Yeah.

01:34:16.000 So am I gonna look really tall?

01:34:19.000 Sorry.

01:34:20.000 Sorry, buddy.

01:34:20.000 Not today.

01:34:21.000 Yeah.

01:34:22.000 Alright, let's see, let's see.

01:34:22.000 Chase T says, was Rogan hungover on your JRE episode or just off?

01:34:28.000 I don't know.

01:34:28.000 Oh, did that come out today?

01:34:30.000 Uh, on your episode?

01:34:31.000 Your episode did come out today.

01:34:33.000 You know, um... A little late, but yeah.

01:34:35.000 Yeah, I was kind of bummed because we were talking a lot about the Rittenhouse stuff and we were waiting for the verdict because it was recorded last Wednesday and so it comes out on a Monday and...

01:34:46.000 The verdict came in last week, so... It's all over.

01:34:48.000 I mean, I guess it's a good Monday for a lot of people who didn't know a lot of details.

01:34:51.000 There's a lot of people who probably watched who believe the lies.

01:34:55.000 And I was able to clear a lot of things up about a lot of what happened.

01:34:59.000 Though, you know, I don't know, I'd probably be called biased because a lot of what I focus on was how they were lying about Kyle, how Kyle was, you know, being smeared in the prosecution and stuff.

01:35:09.000 And I think, you know, there probably could have been more points made about the defense's screw-ups that didn't come up because I just didn't care.

01:35:15.000 Did you happen to see the CopeFest that they had on Brian Stetler with David French?

01:35:21.000 CopeFest?

01:35:22.000 Oh yeah, I saw that!

01:35:24.000 David French is like explaining how bad the media got the Kyle Rittenhouse story and Brian Stetler's like, mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

01:35:34.000 It's embarrassing.

01:35:35.000 I just love that clip where the reporter is just like, I'd like to read you a list of everything we got wrong.

01:35:41.000 One.

01:35:42.000 Not really like that, but it was basically like a six minute rundown of everything they got wrong.

01:35:48.000 And it was all stuff that could have easily been known the day it happened.

01:35:53.000 Hey, look, I'm really excited to hear them in their defense filing for the defamation suits.

01:36:00.000 Look, our standard is to do no research.

01:36:02.000 Yes.

01:36:03.000 Not even a minute.

01:36:05.000 In fact, we don't even have Google.

01:36:07.000 There's no internet in our building.

01:36:08.000 None.

01:36:09.000 That checks out.

01:36:10.000 Yeah.

01:36:11.000 All right.

01:36:12.000 Let's see.

01:36:12.000 John R.

01:36:17.000 I sent a COVID micro plush to a friend with a humorous note that said, sorry, I gave you COVID.

01:36:21.000 Triggered.

01:36:22.000 Another friend asked if I knew a lawyer who would help him with a class action lawsuit against the unvaxxed. 0.98

01:36:27.000 I'm running out of sane friends.

01:36:31.000 That'd be really funny to get the, sorry, I gave you COVID.

01:36:34.000 I think Michael Malice said he has a COVID positive shirt or something like that.

01:36:38.000 Did he say that?

01:36:39.000 Yeah, he's positive about COVID.

01:36:40.000 He's being very positive about it.

01:36:43.000 Captain Jdub says, Nick, could Midwest Lawyer explain the meaning of Little Binger's email address to my mom?

01:36:48.000 I loved your stream, but it also made for some uncomfortable conversations.

01:36:51.000 Yikes.

01:36:52.000 And I've actually had people ask me if that was his real email address.

01:36:55.000 I don't know.

01:36:56.000 But it might be?

01:37:00.000 You know those people look up background check websites?

01:37:05.000 People ran those.

01:37:06.000 And they found you.

01:37:08.000 And his former email address was, should I say it?

01:37:12.000 Is that okay?

01:37:13.000 Fluffer, right?

01:37:13.000 Flufferboy2004.

01:37:15.000 I want to mention something, though.

01:37:17.000 That was real. There was like no way that's where I'm like, that's real. We'll explain more and the members

01:37:22.000 When your children are not listening. Yeah, I don't I think it's fuzzy

01:37:28.000 I want to I want to mention something though. I have a friend who's you know, pretty Antifa and

01:37:36.000 Just all of his posts are like written house bad written house this he was posting the state has a really strong

01:37:42.000 case I know just really bad law and his friends were also antifa

01:37:46.000 were like dudes stop like But he was saying like no. No, no, hear me out

01:37:51.000 We were arguing over the facts of the case And then I said something like, you know, the prosecution was, in my opinion, tampering with evidence.

01:38:01.000 And that sets horrifying precedent for the future.

01:38:03.000 And then he responded with, that's irrelevant to the facts of the case because the state is illegitimate.

01:38:08.000 And then I said, well, hold on, we agree.

01:38:10.000 Are we done?

01:38:12.000 Can we just be like, we both think I'm exaggerating a little bit.

01:38:16.000 You're like, you know, I'm not a I'm not a statist for the most part, but I'm like limited government.

01:38:21.000 But like when we get to the point where we're both just like the prosecution, the whole system is broken and bad, I'm like, we don't need to argue about the rest of this.

01:38:28.000 Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty.

01:38:29.000 We'll move on.

01:38:30.000 But can we start from a place of like the system is broken for a lot of reasons and then just work our way up from there?

01:38:36.000 That would be very nice.

01:38:40.000 Okay.

01:38:42.000 Pop Raider says, Tim, this is an example of the lefties blanket statement, criminal justice reform, buy one felon and get nine free doesn't work.

01:38:50.000 What does that mean?

01:38:51.000 Like one person, one innocent person should go free.

01:38:53.000 I don't know.

01:38:55.000 Buy one felon and get nine free.

01:38:59.000 Oh, maybe if you, maybe by, uh, maybe it's what you were talking about earlier where you've got 16 people and you go, okay, first one to come to me.

01:39:08.000 So you, you buy one guy and then you get the rest of them.

01:39:11.000 Maybe that's the, I don't know.

01:39:13.000 Yeah, I'll be more specific and when I say like I'll probably never indict or convict, you would just have to show me hard proof.

01:39:21.000 Like there's no question.

01:39:23.000 If you came to me and said, look at this fuzzy video, I'd be like, no, I don't care.

01:39:27.000 You got to show me literally the dude committing the crime.

01:39:29.000 And if it's like victimless, get out of my face.

01:39:33.000 But if you had, like, this guy claims it was self-defense and here's what happened, I'd be like, well, then he claims self-defense.

01:39:38.000 It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.

01:39:40.000 So if he says it was self-defense, unless you can prove otherwise, I'm not convicting.

01:39:44.000 And no emotional argument.

01:39:45.000 You gotta literally show me the video.

01:39:47.000 There's a video.

01:39:48.000 My brother posted this.

01:39:50.000 Or actually, it's not my brother.

01:39:51.000 Someone else.

01:39:54.000 It's a close-up shot from that moment in question where the prosecution argued that Cal Reynolds pointed the gun.

01:39:59.000 There is a close-up.

01:40:01.000 Fairly high resolution.

01:40:02.000 Have you seen it?

01:40:03.000 Yeah, one of the cell phone videos.

01:40:04.000 Yeah, it's actually in the defense's exhibits.

01:40:06.000 jumps out at him, and then he turns and he starts running.

01:40:08.000 He never points the gun, he never has a second chance to do it.

01:40:11.000 But the prosecution just made all this up.

01:40:13.000 The defense didn't find that video.

01:40:15.000 It's everywhere.

01:40:16.000 I mean, you guys found it, didn't you?

01:40:17.000 Yeah, it's actually in the defense's exhibits.

01:40:20.000 Yeah, I believe it's in there.

01:40:24.000 And the key though is once you get on the record a piece of evidence, you get to use it in closing argument.

01:40:31.000 And that's kind of the lawyer strategy is get these statements, these moments in time that I can then use to build my story at the end to the jury and remind them what they saw and let them ignore a bunch of stuff that they saw too.

01:40:44.000 And the key to this that everybody needs to understand is that All of this comes from one detective looking at a drone video that's grainy and tiny already on an iPhone that no one can verify.

01:40:56.000 That's the only testimony that he raised the gun.

01:40:58.000 And they had the opportunity to bring in the Zeminskis. 1.00

01:41:01.000 They could have granted immunity on the one arson charge for Joshua Zeminski.

01:41:05.000 He's got a million other issues in his past.

01:41:08.000 This is not necessary.

01:41:10.000 They could have granted him immunity to get rid of the Fifth Amendment issue and had him testify to raising the gun.

01:41:15.000 Someone is... what is this?

01:41:17.000 Someone's spamming, I guess.

01:41:17.000 Oh.

01:41:17.000 He's a scary communist revolutionary who would be unpredictable on the stand.

01:41:21.000 And they know it.

01:41:24.000 Someone is.

01:41:25.000 What is this?

01:41:26.000 Someone's spamming, I guess.

01:41:27.000 Oh, yeah.

01:41:28.000 Oh, well.

01:41:30.000 Alright, let's see.

01:41:31.000 Daniel Maxwell says, We should always treat those who are accused of criminal act as innocent until proven guilty in court.

01:41:36.000 If we fail to do that, then we will become what the woke far-left accuse us all of being.

01:41:42.000 I always do.

01:41:43.000 Always.

01:41:44.000 This morning, with the guy in Waukesha, he wasn't arrested, he was a person of interest.

01:41:48.000 And a lot of people were like, he was politically motivated, they're outright saying it, he's a BLM supporter, and I'm like, he was a BLM supporter.

01:41:53.000 It may be politically motivated.

01:41:55.000 We have no evidence he's the actual suspect or committed the crime.

01:41:59.000 We only know him as a person of interest.

01:42:00.000 For all we know, he was at home sleeping.

01:42:02.000 Someone stole his car.

01:42:03.000 I mean, maybe not.

01:42:04.000 I mean, the likelihood is probably that this dude got in his car and, you know, did this.

01:42:08.000 There's a picture of him inside the car.

01:42:10.000 Yeah, but it's not... I'll tell you this.

01:42:12.000 I will tell you this.

01:42:13.000 If I was sitting on a jury and said, here's the photo that everyone's posting on the internet and here's a photo of him, I'd be like, nah, not guilty.

01:42:19.000 Like, it's a blurry, low-resolution photo.

01:42:21.000 You can see a face and a beard.

01:42:23.000 And so I can be like, maybe!

01:42:25.000 But you want me to lock a guy up for a long period of time on that?!

01:42:28.000 Dude, get ready for defects when they show a video of the guy saying things that he didn't actually say.

01:42:34.000 Oh yeah.

01:42:34.000 And what do you do?

01:42:35.000 I mean, look at this.

01:42:36.000 They were able to get computer-generated images admitted in evidence because none of them had the experience.

01:42:42.000 What happens if the prosecutor, let me ask you guys, what happens if the prosecution says, we've uncovered this video and it is, I mean, you've seen the deep fakes and they're like, and it shows the defendant plotting, you know, the attack.

01:42:54.000 Well, I mean, look, if it's an actual deepfake, you know, a prosecutor should never use it, but that's not saying it won't happen.

01:42:59.000 What if they don't know?

01:43:00.000 Well, first of all, I think the amount of forensic tools you have at your disposal as a prosecutor, you can find out.

01:43:08.000 Basically, what you're saying is, like, an agent brings you a video that the agent knows is a deepfake, doesn't tell the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's just like... No, no, no, no, no.

01:43:16.000 Yeah.

01:43:16.000 They get a unicorn bit of evidence on a Friday, you know, five days into the trial, that appears, and it's a video, and it's low-res, but clearly depicts the defendant, and he's saying, like, I'm going to walk over to these guys, I'm gonna get him triggered, I'm gonna get him, and then as soon as they come after me, I'll take him out and claim self-defense.

01:43:36.000 What if the prosecutor gets that and goes, whoa, we got him?

01:43:40.000 Well, the way this is supposed to be handled and was not handled in this way in the Kyle Rittenhouse case is the defense is not supposed to stipulate to the authenticity of pretty much anything, especially when... So when you're in court trying to introduce evidence, you have to lay foundation.

01:43:55.000 You have to say, where did this come from?

01:43:56.000 How do you know it's true?

01:43:58.000 What thing is?

01:43:59.000 That's why you have to introduce evidence through a witness.

01:44:02.000 The witness for the prosecution on all of the videos was a detective And they said, how do you know that these are accurate?

01:44:10.000 And he said, well, I went on Twitter and YouTube and downloaded the videos.

01:44:14.000 And again, this is another detective who's not there that night.

01:44:18.000 If anybody on the defense bar is watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and not understanding how damaging that The allowance of that evidence in through those means was, especially when the drone video came in the same way, even though it's an emergency piece of evidence and should be put through higher levels of scrutiny because it's coming in in the middle of trial and they've had no time to prep for it. 0.67

01:44:43.000 If they're not looking at that, they're insane.

01:44:46.000 You need to get the person who took the video, who was there that night, like Drew Hernandez, like Richie McGinnis, like Gage Groskowitz.

01:44:53.000 They had three good sources.

01:44:54.000 Oh, or the one guy— They were all bad, though, for the prosecutors.

01:44:57.000 Well, right.

01:44:58.000 And that's because the facts were bad for the prosecutors.

01:45:01.000 But the other guy, the defense witness, is brought in.

01:45:04.000 I can't remember his daughter.

01:45:05.000 He was in the car with his daughter, and they had the cell phone footage, you know, that they brought in.

01:45:10.000 My audience called him Juan Wick, but whatever.

01:45:13.000 That's why you can bring those people in, subject them to cross-examination.

01:45:17.000 What were you doing?

01:45:17.000 Why were you filming this?

01:45:18.000 Why did this catch your attention?

01:45:20.000 What was up with that?

01:45:21.000 Those are the questions you're supposed to ask to lay the foundation for the evidence.

01:45:24.000 And a lot of that evidence came in with just a detective saying, well, I went to a website and downloaded a video.

01:45:29.000 It's like, is it a full video?

01:45:31.000 Was it edited?

01:45:32.000 Was it cropped?

01:45:33.000 Does it have a specific slant to it?

01:45:36.000 You know, who took this video?

01:45:38.000 I had no idea.

01:45:38.000 But you don't have to.

01:45:39.000 So this is where a lot of defense attorneys get it wrong.

01:45:43.000 You do not have to be a witness or there in the time that that photo or video was taken to lay the foundation, the predicate foundation.

01:45:51.000 That goes to chain of custody, and a judge decides that.

01:45:54.000 It doesn't go to a jury.

01:45:55.000 But if you can subject yourself to cross-examination and be credible in saying, yes, that's what it looks like for all these reasons, you can be the chain of custody witness.

01:46:04.000 Yeah, but you have to be able to testify that what is on the screen is a fair and accurate representation of what happened.

01:46:11.000 And when you get attenuated by a detective whose sole testimony, and this is, again, the defense's fault in this case, the guy's sole testimony is, I went to Twitter and YouTube and downloaded the videos.

01:46:24.000 No, I totally agree with you.

01:46:25.000 This is insane.

01:46:26.000 So you have no idea where these videos came from?

01:46:28.000 Right.

01:46:28.000 You don't know when the files were created?

01:46:31.000 And that's exactly... Can you tell me if these videos were manipulated or edited in any way?

01:46:36.000 And even if the defense screwed up on this piece, which they did, what judge in their right mind would let that in alone?

01:46:44.000 The judge can always jump in, even if the defense attorney's clowning around, and say, where the hell is this from?

01:46:48.000 Yeah, and Schrader was overly permissive in this case.

01:46:52.000 And he seemed to indicate throughout the trial that, I want this to go to a jury and be done Kind of as openly as possible.

01:47:00.000 And in a standard criminal prosecution, it would be grounds for appeal if Kyle would have been convicted on several different places.

01:47:09.000 Yeah, but he spends a year in prison after the fact while he's waiting, right?

01:47:13.000 He was out.

01:47:14.000 No, but like if he's convicted and sentenced?

01:47:16.000 He could be taken in.

01:47:19.000 Yeah, you can make a motion that he would be subject to probation and let out on release conditions.

01:47:25.000 That would be in the judge's discretion.

01:47:26.000 But for capital murder?

01:47:28.000 That's a tough one.

01:47:29.000 Most guys, when you get convicted, the prosecutor stands up at the end of the court and says, he's a convicted felon.

01:47:35.000 His bond status is different.

01:47:36.000 Remand.

01:47:37.000 90% of the time, you're going in.

01:47:40.000 Yeah, for that.

01:47:40.000 All right, let's read another one.

01:47:41.000 We got this one from Trunan on a Shabbat of Pressure, Batakaf Care.

01:47:44.000 He says, Tim, please tell Rakeda how to say my name so we can get it right in the future Super Chats. 0.99

01:47:50.000 Love both your guests tonight and all the compound usual suspects.

01:47:55.000 So I guess you've been mispronouncing Trunan on a Shabbat of Pressure?

01:47:58.000 Probably.

01:48:00.000 I painstakingly transcribed what Joe Biden said.

01:48:04.000 Truin Inanna Shaba Depressur. 0.87

01:48:10.000 I sat there, I slowed it down.

01:48:11.000 Truin Inanna Shaba Depressur? 0.76

01:48:14.000 Yes!

01:48:15.000 It sounds like he was saying we're gonna do true international something under pressure.

01:48:22.000 Can that be the next Blimp, Luke?

01:48:24.000 Yeah.

01:48:24.000 I think it makes sense.

01:48:27.000 The more blimps, the better. 0.68

01:48:28.000 I'm pro-blimp.

01:48:30.000 We built the blimp, but Luke's idea is to put the Let's Go Brandon on it.

01:48:34.000 And another statement, which we can't tell you here on this family-friendly platform that I think I'm very proud of as well, that usually hangs up on my RV.

01:48:42.000 I think we should, I agree, we should, yes, put that banner on the blimp.

01:48:47.000 And if you're wondering what that is, I guess we'll have to bring us all up in the less family-friendly earmuffs for your children, if you want to listen to an episode.

01:48:54.000 It's so much fun.

01:48:56.000 Heather Barrett says, Nick will you be covering the Ghislaine Maxwell case?

01:48:59.000 Ooh, jury selection just started.

01:49:01.000 In some sense, but as Cash stated earlier, there are no cameras in federal courtrooms, so we will not be able to cover it in the same way that we were able to cover the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

01:49:12.000 So I will be looking for another full trial, and the biggest one on the horizon for me is Kim Potter, the taser, taser, taser lady. 0.84

01:49:20.000 I have heard there will be cameras in the courtroom for her, so we might be able to do a full trial of her.

01:49:26.000 But for Jelaine Maxwell, it will be tough.

01:49:30.000 You have to sit there.

01:49:31.000 You have to just take notes, sit there, stenographer.

01:49:35.000 Could we fundraise someone to be there to report to you and you can make a report almost at the end of every day of the court proceeding?

01:49:42.000 Wait, wait, wait.

01:49:43.000 We can send one of our journalists.

01:49:44.000 Yeah, we could just send one of our reporters.

01:49:47.000 Okay, can we do that?

01:49:49.000 Yes, we can.

01:49:49.000 Do it.

01:49:49.000 That would be great.

01:49:51.000 This is in Minnesota, right?

01:49:52.000 No, no, no.

01:49:53.000 No.

01:49:54.000 No.

01:49:55.000 Maxwell?

01:49:56.000 Oh, it's in New York.

01:49:57.000 Oh, Maxwell.

01:49:58.000 Yes, yes, absolutely.

01:49:59.000 We get a reporter in there?

01:50:00.000 Yeah, if we have media reports for Ghislaine Maxwell, I'm sure, you know, tons of people

01:50:04.000 have been asking me to have the panel of lawyers review this case and talk about it.

01:50:10.000 The question in all of these things is, can we get the information?

01:50:13.000 That's the main thing.

01:50:14.000 So if we have a reliable source, it's not filtered through like, you know, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, then I'm certain we can put some stuff together.

01:50:24.000 We need a court reporter. 0.78

01:50:25.000 Yeah, but remember, in federal court, so if you send anybody in there that's not the lawyers, no cell phones, so they'd have to literally be there writing everything down, then run out at lunch, give you an update.

01:50:36.000 It would have to be someone with legal experience.

01:50:38.000 Yeah.

01:50:39.000 So if you guys know anyone, our reporters couldn't do it.

01:50:41.000 Because if they say something like... I think the easiest example for most people they don't understand is with prejudice.

01:50:47.000 I see all these people on Twitter saying like, whoa, they said with prejudice like they're racist or something.

01:50:52.000 That's not what it means.

01:50:53.000 But it's a legal term.

01:50:54.000 It has a different definition.

01:50:55.000 So we need someone who understands that.

01:50:56.000 Otherwise, imagine you get a layman in there and they say something with prejudice and he goes, because they were racist.

01:51:04.000 I bet you Veritas and O'Keeffe can get you somebody tomorrow.

01:51:07.000 Yeah.

01:51:08.000 Yeah, I mean... Well, I would be interested in this as well, so feel free to email me, info at wearechange.org.

01:51:15.000 But it has to be a lawyer.

01:51:15.000 It has to be someone with legal expertise.

01:51:17.000 I mean, a paralegal.

01:51:19.000 Paralegal's just as good.

01:51:21.000 3L law student.

01:51:22.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:51:22.000 Actually, that's not a bad idea.

01:51:24.000 Yeah, there might be there anyway.

01:51:25.000 Send emails.

01:51:25.000 Email jobs at timcast.com, and I'd love to get someone with legal experience or law understanding.

01:51:31.000 That's gonna be a fun trial.

01:51:33.000 Oh yeah.

01:51:33.000 Six weeks.

01:51:35.000 The Rolling Stone wrote that the media establishment and people in high society are afraid of what's going to come out because of this trial.

01:51:43.000 It's gonna be awesome.

01:51:45.000 I love the tweets when all the celebrities are tweeting support for Rosenbaum.

01:51:51.000 My thing was like, stop assuming things about people.

01:51:54.000 I looked at the tweet from Mark Ruffalo where he called him Jojo and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:52:00.000 A pet name for this guy?

01:52:01.000 And I see all the responses were like, don't you know what he did?

01:52:04.000 Don't you know what he did to children?

01:52:05.000 Don't you know?

01:52:05.000 I'm like, why do you all assume good?

01:52:08.000 Like this guy is just a poor bumbling fool. 0.99

01:52:10.000 Like you see them do these things over and over and over again. 0.99

01:52:14.000 I'm sorry.

01:52:15.000 I'm sorry. 0.97

01:52:16.000 If you are of the opinion that someone like Mark Ruffalo has simply made an honest and ignorant mistake, not realizing who he was supporting, you are the internet's definition of insane. 0.96

01:52:26.000 Constantly touching the flame and going out. 0.91

01:52:28.000 Maybe it won't burn this time.

01:52:30.000 Maybe it won't burn this time, because this dude does this a lot.

01:52:33.000 And not just him, but a bunch of other people.

01:52:35.000 When Hollywood actively supports covers for Weinstein, the media covers for Epstein, they know all about it. 0.50

01:52:42.000 And now you hear them cheering for Rosenbaum, I'm like, maybe it's time to stop desperately assuming they're people who are just ignorant and realize, yeah, they know exactly what they're cheering for.

01:52:53.000 But we'll talk a bit more about that in the members segment. 0.97

01:52:56.000 Hollywood is filled with some really nasty, bad people.

01:53:00.000 I'll just leave it at that. 0.97

01:53:02.000 FoxChaseRacing says, Nick is the kind of guy you can trust with your drunk, naked wife, but not your last glass of the Dalmore.

01:53:10.000 No joke, Nick is one of the smartest, nicest, funniest guys, and one with a functioning moral compass that inspires.

01:53:15.000 Nick, you're a class act, my friend.

01:53:17.000 Hey, what's up Fox Chase?

01:53:19.000 Thanks, buddy.

01:53:19.000 So what's the Dalmore?

01:53:21.000 Dalmore, it's a scotch.

01:53:23.000 Ah, okay, so you just steal it from everybody.

01:53:25.000 Yeah.

01:53:25.000 Well, Dalmore Cigar Malt is a fantastic scotch, by the way.

01:53:29.000 Where did our pappy go?

01:53:30.000 Oh my goodness.

01:53:31.000 It's over there.

01:53:31.000 He stole it!

01:53:34.000 It's delicious, by the way.

01:53:35.000 I'm going to have more in a little bit.

01:53:37.000 You know, we have a really nice booze shelf and we've had like, I would say 90% of people are sober.

01:53:44.000 They come in and say, I don't drink anymore.

01:53:45.000 And so I'm like, would you like to imbibe our delicious and costly alcohols?

01:53:49.000 And they're like, oh no, not me.

01:53:51.000 I don't drink anymore.

01:53:51.000 And I'm like, oh man.

01:53:53.000 But Nick comes in and he's like, where's the whiskey?

01:53:56.000 Sir, come with me!

01:53:57.000 It's like Willy Wonka.

01:53:58.000 Like, look at all of the great whiskey you can drink.

01:54:00.000 I was excited.

01:54:01.000 I was like, yes, try the Pappy.

01:54:02.000 You have to try the Pappy.

01:54:03.000 I've tried two different Pappys.

01:54:05.000 That's great.

01:54:05.000 They're both great.

01:54:06.000 I guess one technically isn't a Pappy.

01:54:08.000 It's the Family Reserve or whatever, but one is or something.

01:54:10.000 It's like the Keystone.

01:54:12.000 I like the Family Reserve.

01:54:14.000 I liked it better.

01:54:15.000 The 13-year.

01:54:15.000 Oh gosh, it's good.

01:54:17.000 We have the Laphroaig and apparently it tastes like the bottom of an ashtray.

01:54:21.000 I'm gonna do that one next.

01:54:23.000 Band-Aids.

01:54:24.000 I get the Band-Aid flavor.

01:54:25.000 A little bit of road tar.

01:54:28.000 That's great.

01:54:31.000 What did they say?

01:54:31.000 It's actually like peat?

01:54:33.000 Yeah, that's it.

01:54:33.000 Very mossy.

01:54:34.000 Very mossy.

01:54:36.000 It's like eating a campfire that's put out.

01:54:40.000 We're not crazy here.

01:54:41.000 I'll be honest, I actually like the taste.

01:54:44.000 I'm not a drinker or anything, but I like that kind of flavor.

01:54:49.000 Lagavulin's another one that's just solid on the smoke and peat.

01:54:54.000 SharkBiteBiz says, hey Tim, loved you on Rogan.

01:54:56.000 Huge fan.

01:54:56.000 Give a shout out to my show on YouTube.

01:54:58.000 SharkBiteBiz just chatted with GWAR today about how NFTs are the gateway to the multiverse.

01:55:03.000 Yeah, the multiverse.

01:55:04.000 Totally tippy.

01:55:05.000 Ian would love it.

01:55:07.000 SharkBiteBiz, thank you very much.

01:55:08.000 Hey, thanks for that.

01:55:09.000 Thank you.

01:55:09.000 Nice.

01:55:11.000 Missykin says, Tim, based on the idea that people act different in front of a camera, do you think that Vice News embedded with the Supremacists in Charlottesville, hoping it would provoke them?

01:55:19.000 Uh, no.

01:55:20.000 I actually don't know.

01:55:24.000 Actually, I don't know enough about the people who embedded with the Charlottesville crew for that stuff, but I actually trust them a little bit more than I don't.

01:55:33.000 I don't know them enough, but there's a few reporters who were involved who had done things of principle that I remember.

01:55:39.000 I can't get specific, it's been too long.

01:55:41.000 But I remember talking to them and being like, that was a class act.

01:55:44.000 They said something, they called out some fake news, and we're like, that's BS.

01:55:47.000 But Vice as a whole, man, really went down the gutter.

01:55:49.000 It's kind of crazy to think that like, You know, I was the first person they hired for VICE News.

01:55:55.000 They had an idea they wanted to do something, but they didn't want to do on-the-ground reporting.

01:55:58.000 So when I came there and basically argued with them for six months about why they should hire me, long story short, they said, OK, all right, maybe VICE News will be field reporting and less just documentary.

01:56:08.000 And so I actually went on the ground in Ukraine and Venezuela and Brazil and all these countries.

01:56:13.000 And then to see where it is now, and just like what it turned into.

01:56:16.000 I'm kind of like, oof.

01:56:18.000 I used to be like, did you know that I was the founding member of Vice News?

01:56:20.000 Now I'm like, I don't know.

01:56:21.000 I have nothing to do with that stuff.

01:56:22.000 I don't know what you're talking about.

01:56:24.000 I don't know.

01:56:25.000 No, no.

01:56:25.000 Oh, no.

01:56:26.000 No, I have it on my Twitter.

01:56:28.000 Only Wikipedia posts it now.

01:56:30.000 Now they're like in big bold letters, like everyone should know.

01:56:32.000 But there was a point where I was very much like, you know, very proud that it, after I had left, it was doing really well.

01:56:39.000 They were doing great reporting, Syria, internationally.

01:56:41.000 And then it just went like, it's not really news anymore.

01:56:44.000 It's just like feminism, you know? 1.00

01:56:46.000 Yep.

01:56:47.000 I know why, too.

01:56:48.000 I think I talked about it on the show, because I have a friend who was an executive.

01:56:50.000 And it was basically that the investors revolted over the potential lawsuits they were facing.

01:56:56.000 Long story short.

01:56:57.000 And so they decided one way to protect our image with these lawsuits coming is to embrace feminism wholeheartedly and make that a core part of our message.

01:57:04.000 And they were just like, OK.

01:57:05.000 Vice is the HBO one?

01:57:07.000 Vice is a- they were on HBO, now it's on Showtime, but they're just a big media company.

01:57:12.000 They shot an episode about me.

01:57:13.000 Oh, yeah.

01:57:14.000 How was it?

01:57:15.000 I went out to Telluride after I retired, and they wanted to just shoot- Oh, that's right.

01:57:18.000 And they came out and filmed me for two days, and they used 67 seconds of footage.

01:57:23.000 Well, that was- they had a daily show.

01:57:25.000 They had a daily show and a magazine.

01:57:27.000 Now, that story about what I was told might not be true.

01:57:31.000 I don't know.

01:57:33.000 I do know what I experienced, but I was told by someone who was a former higher-up that lawsuits were a big deal, and that they had accusations against people in the company over harassment and things like that, and they were like, we gotta get in front of this.

01:57:48.000 They also had, um, Vice had a really big PR blunder when one of their hosts of Vice on HBO admitted on YouTube that he raped a masseuse.

01:57:58.000 I'll give some legal advice.

01:57:59.000 Never do that.

01:58:02.000 He went into great detail.

01:58:04.000 Holy moly.

01:58:04.000 Yeah, it was, um, you know, the dude who painted Facebook and then like they were like, we'll give you stock in exchange for painting this place.

01:58:11.000 And he was like, okay.

01:58:11.000 And then he became a multimillionaire.

01:58:13.000 Yes.

01:58:14.000 I like that guy.

01:58:15.000 I think that was him.

01:58:16.000 I could be wrong.

01:58:16.000 Gosh.

01:58:18.000 I like him less.

01:58:19.000 He's been Rogan.

01:58:20.000 He's like a really eccentric artist.

01:58:23.000 He did a podcast.

01:58:24.000 I may be getting this wrong.

01:58:26.000 Show, something.

01:58:26.000 David Show, is it him?

01:58:27.000 I gotta look it up, yeah.

01:58:29.000 Facts Check Man, this one, and I will preface this with it's been a long time since I've, you know, this is years ago, this is nine years ago, whatever, eight years ago, but I remember being at Vice when this went down and he's on YouTube in a podcast being like, so there I am at this, you know, massage therapy place.

01:58:45.000 And he goes into detail, which I won't, what?

01:58:48.000 Detail here what about how he grabbed the woman and was like very excited and then they were all like, uh Definitely David chose the Facebook guy.

01:58:56.000 I don't know if it's the same guy.

01:58:57.000 I'm pretty sure that was him He was on vice, you know, maybe yeah, and then they were like, what do we do?

01:59:01.000 And then they were like, I got an idea nothing.

01:59:04.000 Just don't say anything You'll pour fuel on the fire and let it you know, I'll blow over so welcome to media.

01:59:09.000 Huh?

01:59:09.000 All right.

01:59:11.000 We'll grab a couple more here Yes, It's Tess says, Tim, you should have Amazon's Utopia writers on your show and discuss what would be revealed in season two.

01:59:22.000 There was also a British version, but it only lasted one season.

01:59:25.000 It would be an interesting conversation.

01:59:26.000 Great show, but very creepy.

01:59:28.000 Yeah, you know about Utopia, right, you guys?

01:59:30.000 No idea.

01:59:30.000 Utopia is a show that aired on Amazon recently, I think it was this past year, about a tech billionaire who is concerned about overpopulation, who's working to make fake meat, decides that the way to save the planet is to create a fake pandemic so that he can rush through a vaccine without proper approval or testing, and the vaccine actually sterilizes people.

01:59:51.000 Oh, there you go.

01:59:52.000 It's a pretty good show, but it's a little, well, no, some of the acting, well, it's not really, I mean, it's just like, they had to put a disclaimer saying this is not real life in any way.

02:00:03.000 This guy wrote this in 2016.

02:00:06.000 I think it was actually written over a decade ago.

02:00:09.000 Yeah.

02:00:09.000 Did you know that there was a book called the Titan and it was about a large cruise ship that hits an iceberg and then sinks with all the rich people on it?

02:00:17.000 I believe it was called Titan, right?

02:00:19.000 I think so.

02:00:20.000 Yeah, and it was written like 50 years before the Titanic sank.

02:00:23.000 Wow.

02:00:24.000 Yeah, that's a true story.

02:00:25.000 True, true, true story, huh?

02:00:26.000 Crazy, huh?

02:00:27.000 Jack says Mark Ruffalo is from Kenosha, Wisconsin.

02:00:30.000 Is that true?

02:00:30.000 I gotta look that up.

02:00:31.000 That sounds like one of those facts that sounds like it's true, but it's not.

02:00:35.000 It's like gotta be?

02:00:37.000 Yeah, like who would just say that?

02:00:39.000 Oh, wow.

02:00:40.000 Really?

02:00:40.000 Yeah.

02:00:41.000 It's so weird, because, you know, being from Chicago, like, we all know Kenosha.

02:00:44.000 We all know Antioch.

02:00:45.000 You know, we all know these places.

02:00:47.000 So, for me, it was actually, it's fairly easy to see through some of these lies.

02:00:51.000 Because when they were like, he crossed state lines, I was like, from Antioch?

02:00:55.000 Like, what?

02:00:56.000 He, like, probably walked out his backyard.

02:00:57.000 Like, what are you talking about?

02:00:58.000 What does that mean?

02:00:59.000 For a lot of people who don't know anything about Illinois, they're assuming that, you know, he got in his car, drove a hundred miles to a city he's never been to.

02:01:06.000 And that's how the lies work, man.

02:01:07.000 That's how they get you.

02:01:09.000 Joseph Rosenbaum crossed several state lines from his convictions in Arizona all the way up to Wisconsin.

02:01:15.000 Yeah, yeah, man.

02:01:18.000 We'll do this one more.

02:01:19.000 This is a good one.

02:01:22.000 Oh wait, what's this?

02:01:23.000 Joshua R. Polson says Veritas hired Paul Cali of Cali Law to file their complaint to the feds.

02:01:29.000 Really?

02:01:29.000 Is that new?

02:01:30.000 I don't know.

02:01:31.000 Tree Climber says Alec Baldwin trial.

02:01:33.000 Yeah, what are your quick thoughts on what's going on with the Alec Baldwin stuff?

02:01:36.000 Ooh, quick thoughts.

02:01:38.000 Okay, maybe not, maybe not.

02:01:40.000 Well, I'll keep it simple.

02:01:41.000 Do you think there will be any charges or indictment?

02:01:44.000 I don't think they'll do it against Alec Baldwin.

02:01:46.000 If they do any charges or indictment, it would be maybe negligence, criminal negligence against one of the armor or the more likely that assistant director, whatever, who's he's a guy who said the gun was clear without and admitted to the police that he didn't check it.

02:02:01.000 They're going to pay off the family.

02:02:02.000 Yeah.

02:02:02.000 Oh, yeah.

02:02:03.000 Huge check.

02:02:04.000 We got a regular chat here that I have to read.

02:02:06.000 I think it's really good.

02:02:08.000 OK.

02:02:08.000 Joe Joe Biden.

02:02:09.000 Yes, I like it.

02:02:11.000 I dig it.

02:02:12.000 Yeah.

02:02:13.000 Luke, you gotta make a shirt.

02:02:15.000 I saw that.

02:02:16.000 Luke writes it down, I'm making a shirt.

02:02:17.000 I got my notes.

02:02:19.000 Mark Ruffalo tweeting out support for Joe Joe Biden.

02:02:21.000 There you go.

02:02:22.000 And the only people who know, like only if you know, you know, you know what I mean?

02:02:25.000 If you know, you're kind of like, yikes.

02:02:29.000 All right, everybody.

02:02:30.000 If you have not already, you can help out by smashing the like button, subscribing to this channel, and sharing the show with all your friends.

02:02:35.000 Take that URL up top, paste it on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram.

02:02:39.000 Well, you can't really put it on Instagram, but you can click that share button.

02:02:41.000 That really helps out.

02:02:42.000 Don't forget, go to TimCast.com.

02:02:43.000 We're going to have a members-only segment that apparently is going to be very gross.

02:02:47.000 And not family-friendly.

02:02:49.000 I might need alcohol.

02:02:50.000 You are free to grab all of it.

02:02:51.000 We definitely need more.

02:02:52.000 We got a bunch.

02:02:52.000 But we got to talk about, you know, there's a lot of stuff with the Maxwell trial.

02:02:56.000 There's a lot of stuff with, you know, Rosenbaum and the aftermath and what we're talking about with Joe Biden we'll get into.

02:03:00.000 So make sure you check that out.

02:03:01.000 You can follow the show at TimCast IRL, basically everywhere, or like TimCast underscore IRL or something.

02:03:06.000 You can follow me everywhere at TimCast.

02:03:08.000 I'll be posting stuff on Instagram more.

02:03:09.000 I'm trying to, you know, Twitter is ugh.

02:03:11.000 But you guys want to, well, Ricketa, do you want to shout anything out?

02:03:14.000 Yeah, I'll shout out my YouTube channel, Rakeda Law on YouTube.

02:03:18.000 I do nightly live streams at 11 p.m.

02:03:21.000 Central Time.

02:03:22.000 They tend to go till 2 a.m.

02:03:23.000 Central Time.

02:03:24.000 And starting Wednesday, I'll be adding a daytime show that will have an open invitation to a bunch of lawyers to join the lawyer panel.

02:03:34.000 We'll be discussing more focused legal topics on that show and be looking for trials to follow a la the Rittenhouse trial.

02:03:41.000 So come check it out.

02:03:42.000 Cool.

02:03:43.000 Thanks for having me back, guys.

02:03:44.000 I really appreciate it.

02:03:45.000 Real quick, FightWithCash.com with a K. Basically what we're doing, traveling around the country, raising money for people who have been defamed and deplatformed.

02:03:54.000 All the money, I keep nothing, all of it goes to lawyers who are skilled in defamation suits.

02:03:59.000 We will pay for them and we want nothing in return.

02:04:01.000 We want you guys to have your day in court and help fix the correct media.

02:04:04.000 If Kyle's Camp is in need of funding, let us know.

02:04:07.000 Info at FightWithCash.com.

02:04:08.000 More importantly, The best announcement I've had in a while, which I said at the beginning of the show, the merch store went online at fightwithcash.shop and all of TimCast audiences gets a discount tonight.

02:04:19.000 Just jump in the discount code TimCast.

02:04:21.000 I want that.

02:04:21.000 And you get the jacket, you get the beanie, you got the hat, you got t-shirts and all the proceeds, all of it, go to right back to the Offensive Legal Trust for fightwithcash.com.

02:04:30.000 So thanks for everything.

02:04:31.000 Awesome.

02:04:31.000 Well, Cash, thank you for the beanie.

02:04:33.000 I might have to start a beanie competition with Tim.

02:04:37.000 Who knows?

02:04:37.000 But I appreciate it.

02:04:38.000 Thanks for sending that to me.

02:04:40.000 And yeah, a lot of crazy stuff is happening all around the world, especially in Holland and Belgium and Italy.

02:04:45.000 I talked about that extensively on my YouTube channel.

02:04:48.000 We are change and I also did a really special video about what I would do if I was 21 years of age, if I had to start all over.

02:04:55.000 I talked about that exclusively on LukeUncensored.com.

02:05:00.000 Hope to see some of you guys there.

02:05:01.000 Thanks for having me.

02:05:02.000 That was great.

02:05:03.000 Great to see you again, man.

02:05:04.000 Cash and Nick, good to meet you, man.

02:05:07.000 Hope to see you guys again.

02:05:08.000 Wonderful night.

02:05:09.000 Ian Crossland.

02:05:09.000 That's iancrossland.net.

02:05:10.000 Check it out.

02:05:11.000 Peace out.

02:05:12.000 And before we go, I have two little bits of completely unrelated trivia.

02:05:15.000 So if you pass out when you see blood, you have a form of vasovagal syncope.

02:05:20.000 So that's correct.

02:05:20.000 It's the vagus nerve that affects your ability to handle the sight of blood.

02:05:25.000 It's like a strong response.

02:05:26.000 And there were not one, but two books that predicted the sinking of the Titanic well before it happened.

02:05:31.000 Which is really interesting, including, yeah, the Titans.

02:05:34.000 Did you guys see that creepy video where the bailiff in the courtroom's foot disappears on stream?

02:05:39.000 Yes.

02:05:40.000 I was joking when I tweeted it, but people are taking it seriously.

02:05:43.000 I said it was a simulation the whole time.

02:05:44.000 It was just a streaming glitch. 0.95

02:05:45.000 But I had people responding like, you're crazy.

02:05:48.000 And I'm like, I was joking. 0.77

02:05:49.000 It's a YouTube glitch or something.

02:05:53.000 This is why artifacting and compression are very, very important topics for young defense lawyers to learn.

02:05:58.000 This video should be preserved.

02:06:00.000 If it ever comes up again, like any trial, it's like, I'd like to use this evidence.

02:06:03.000 Your Honor, I'd like you to watch this clip from YouTube where the cop's foot disappears.

02:06:07.000 From the court's feed.

02:06:08.000 Yeah, right.

02:06:09.000 All right, everybody, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and we will see you all there on 11 or so p.m.

02:06:15.000 Thanks for hanging out.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - November 23, 2021

Timcast IRL - BLM Activist Says "The Revolution Has Started" Of Waukesha w-Rekieta Law & Kash Patel

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript