Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #413 - BLM Activist Says "The Revolution Has Started" Of Waukesha w/Rekieta Law & Kash Patel

Episode Date: November 23, 2021

Tim, Ian, Luke, and Lydia sit down with lawyer Nick Rekieta and recovering lawyer and former government official Kash Patel to discuss the recent events in Waukesha and the BLM activist who theorized that it may be related to the organization, how CNN journalists must deal with their insanely biased reporting, how the NYT is dealing with the judges' order to stop publishing Project Veritas' private communications, the Denver attorney filing a civil action case against Kyle Rittenhouse, whether Kyle should sue the prosecutor on civil rights grounds, and the groundbreaking interview of Kyle that showed him voicing his support for the BLM movement. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The other night, we had a very serious attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin. A man drove an SUV through a parade, striking many, many, many people. There are a lot of injuries. Now, the motivation is a big question. 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. But it seems like there's no clear motivation. Now, the police are saying it's not terror-related. There was no pursuit, 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. 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. Or as one BLM activists put it, they think it was retaliation over the Rittenhouse verdict and that the revolution has started. 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. 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. 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. Maybe it sounds like the revolution has started, not because of what happened, because of what people are saying. So we definitely will get into that. And we also have an update on Kyle Rittenhouse, Kenosha. Not so much Rittenhouse, but there are civil lawsuits being fired off already. I believe one, more than one so far, two, right? Two so far. Two so far. So we're going to get into all that stuff. We've got some other stories too, but we've got two excellent guests today. And I'm glad to have you. Ricada Law, how should I introduce you as that? Introduce yourself, man.

Yeah. Hey, what's up? I'm Nick Ricada of Ricada Law, a small law firm in central Minnesota. Very happy to be here, by the way. Thank much oh thanks for coming man and uh yeah i have a youtube channel it's called ricada law we talk about legal stuff and sometimes we talk about you know ridiculous other cultural stuff and anime because well that's cool well i just want i want to i want to add that um you say a small a small firm, but you had a massive live stream during the trial with this big panel of lawyers. So while the Rittenhouse trial is going on, you are what everyone was tuning into for the most part. And I will say this. Last week, Tuesday, we had Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Michael Malice, Blair White, me, Luke, Drew Hernandez. We had 110,000 concurrent viewers for this big, crazy battle royale.

You, on your stream of lawyers, 130-plus thousand people watching because you guys were giving insightful and excellent commentary into what was going on with the trial in real time. So that's amazing. So we have a lot to talk about. I guess you have updates for us too. Yeah, there was – Well, we'll save it.

Okay, I was going to preview it, but we'll wait. But it's related to Dominic Black and this will be really, really interesting. Yes, something...

No one has probably talked about this or heard about this, so it's going to be pretty cool. Cool. Right on. Pretending the guns too.

We also have Cash is back. I'm back. He's back. Cash is back, yes! What's going on, guys? Congratulations on your successful tour day, Austin. Hold on a couple of minutes.

I heard it was pretty awesome down there. Yeah, it was absolutely fantastic. Do you want to introduce yourself? Cash Patel, 16 years in government. You can find me at fightwithcash.com. We're going to get into it, but I launched my merch site tonight, fightwithcash.shop. And special discount only for TimCast viewers. Type in TimCast.

You get a discount tonight on all the merch. Oh, wow. Very cool. You also, aside from working for the Trump administration and in government, you were a trial lawyer? Yeah, I pretended to be one for a while. I was a public defender, and then I became a federal prosecutor. So I tried about 60 jury trials to verdicts in criminal cases, state and federal court. It was awesome. And then I was just like, I really want to go make some money. And so I stayed in government. Oh, boy. All right, then. Well, this will be great.

You guys will be able to talk to us about the trial. We have a lot of updates. We'll start with the Walker Show stuff. But we got the rest of the crew. They're chilling. Yeah. You know, I really don't like lawyers. I'm a recovering lawyer.

But you guys are okay. You guys are fine. I'm kidding. I'm really excited about today's show. And the shirt that I'm wearing today, I think um pretty much says exactly the situation we're in as it highlights the hunger games animal farms they live brave new world the matrix v for vendetta 1984 fahrenheit 451 all depicting your current reality if you think this is an accurate statement and wants to highlight it with the rest of the world you can on the best political shirts.com

get yours before the supply chain shortages stop you from getting it. Thanks for having me. Over here, we've got the fun-loving internet surfer. What's up, Ian Crossland? Happy to be here, baby. Let's go for the ride. Ian looks like he's still in bed. I am. We're still cold, man. It's like 70 degrees in this room or something, 65. And I am also here. I am ready to get educated on law, so let's get going. Don't forget,

go to timcast.com. Become a member. You will get access to the members-only segment. We'll have one up tonight at around 11 or so p.m., but I want to point out we have the Green Room episode.

This is behind the scenes as we prepare for our show with Alex Jones and Ben Stewart, so you might want to see this. Alex wasn't on the show. He just randomly comes into our trailer, so that's a members-only segment you can check out.

But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share this show right now. Smash the share button. Take that URL, post it wherever you can. Help us out. It is the most important thing you can do. Luke, you look like a... He has a history of doing that. He woke me up in my trailer last year.

I think that's also on your sponsor lounge as well. It is, actually. One of the oldest first sponsor member videos we have is Alex Jones storming into Luke's camper while he's sleeping and waking him up. That's the amazing content you get as a member. First time seeing him in 10 years after fighting. And I'm like, what? I'm kidding. The world?

Alex is standing over you in your bed while you're vulnerable and napping. This is how it ends. Alex, finally come for me. But sharing helps. It really does. So how about you smash that like button. Let's jump into this first story we have from the Washington Examiner. Check this out.

As most of you know, I want to be careful. It's a very serious subject. I mean, it is horrifying watching what happened in Waukesha. If you haven't heard, a man took an SUV and he plowed into people, just running them over. There are several casualties, dozens of injuries. There is a very horrifying video where a little girl is just bouncing, a little toddler bouncing in the street, and the car passes within 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. It's just horrifying. And we want to know what the motive is. We don't necessarily know. Everybody's speculating, and it's hard to say for sure. But this guy has a criminal record involving kids or child. So that's very serious. But he's also a Black Lives Matter supporter.

He supported black nationalism. He's been critical of Trump. And there's been a lot of speculation. So here's the story from the examiner. Black Lives Matter activist wonders whether Waukesha attack was linked to Rittenhouse verdict. Sounds possible. The revolution has started. Now, I'll call out the examiner a little bit here.

His exact quote is a little bit different from sounds possible. And then they stop. The, then quote, revolution has started. 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. He says, but it sounds possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin. It started with this Christmas parade. This is a guy named Vaughn L. Mays.

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, that he sees this and his immediate reaction was retaliation over the Rittenhouse verdict. Many people on the right have pointed out the same thing. 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 on many people, not just Kyle. 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.

That's what it seems like. Now, I want to stress the police have said there's no, they do not believe it's terror at this point. They're saying he was not being pursued. He was fleeing some crime, which I think makes no sense. We have this from Andy Ngo. He supported BLM causes, George Floyd, black nationalism. And he has a post about how to run away about running,

running people over on the street and getting away with it. 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. If the left and the right are both reacting that this is political, it becomes political. Yeah, I think not just how they react. I agree with you on that. How people react, it becomes political. It gives us a pulse check on the country and where we are. 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 of years.

But it's becoming more and more of a mainstream idea oh sorry i'll get on the mic um but uh the 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. If you 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. The media has completely whitewashed over those facts being put out there. The only place that's done anything to even mildly walk it back is CNNnn saying oh we now found out that the gun didn't cross state lines that that clip was amazing i don't know if you guys have seen it but uh uh they're like we we've learned some things in the trial and then they just rattle off this huge

list of everything they they glossed over and got wrong that we've all known since the beginning and then when cernovich was like they're like they're scared of getting sued the reporter responded with sir I am just a reporter no one's making me say this and I'm like bull crap. Yeah they're just running cover for the Covington so they don't have a repeat of the Covington trial but again I would go even further I would say that the

corporate media because that's what they are they have been race baiting hustlers for the past two years on an insane level pushing a divide and conquer agenda. Yeah, I was going to say. Far longer than two. But ever since Occupy Wall Street, I would say it became more prominent. But the last two years has kind of crescendoed in this moment of insanity that really has real life effects.

We saw the mainstream media purport things that actually resulted in people getting hurt, injured, or killed in many instances. Social media, of course, promoted that. But look at what CNN, look at their headline today. Their headline today was like, it was, quote, there's nothing more frightening than an angry white man. This is after the tragedy. A day after. Yes, hours after. 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. This guy, he's speaking because he probably watches a lot of corporate media. 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. So these are mainline white women Karens even talking about the same points

as this BLM guy that just released that video. Now how are the police going to come out and say, yeah, the guy is political. Yeah, all these political people are celebrating it, but it's not terror. Well, look, he's not wearing a turban, to be fair. But the left would immediately be like, that's not terror. I like the subjects

of today's conversation. One, karma. I'm like the resident Indian, so I'm definitely able to talk about that. Two, we're talking about defamation, and we're going full turban. So I'm like, I'm ready to go. Awesome. But no, i don't know if you know this but that's why i started fightwithcash.com it's literally i'm suing new york times political and cnn for 150 million dollars for defamation because of my work during russia

gate and the trump administration they've literally defamed me across the board and then when i left government earlier this year people were like i want to sue for defamation i don't know how to do that so literally the entire legal trust is i don don't make a dime. We cut checks to lawyers who are willing to take on defamation cases across the country. 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. I got good news for you. I think at this point, you could just be a defamation lawyer and probably be rich for the rest of your life. Just you'd never run out of work it's not hard work i mean you know normally i remember going back a few years

and it's like defamation and and stuff and it's like well how do you prove damages and how do you prove this and how do you prove that and these days it's like just give cnn five minutes to report the story yeah and then you can sue them and 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. We'll call it Sandmanning. Yeah, well, we have a bunch of people doing that work, right? Sandman paved the way for going after journalists.

Project Veritas has been making huge headway, winning a lot of pretrial motions in New York that people didn't think they could win. 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. And so the biggest bar to a defamation lawsuit has been, can I afford the lawyer to do it? 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. They got to put in the hours. If you're going after someone like CNN, the amount of resources that have to be expended to fight those guys is massive. So you can't just assume that you're going to win and be able to recover. I want to, I want to talk about a lot of that in greater depth because we do have a story.

There's civil lawsuits filed in the Rittenhouse case. So we'll get much more in depth on this. But I want to shift it back to this tension that's rising between the left and the right following this. What scares me is that for the longest time, we have seen instances of some kind of violence. 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. The Cal Rittenhouse is a perfect example. He crossed state lines with a gun and he shot

black people like none of which is true, but they just keep saying it over and over again. Then when it comes to, you know, other instances, you'll get the right or I should not even necessarily the right, but the anti-establishment, the establishment critical, whatever, 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. Now I'm seeing a lot of people say, no, revenge. 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. 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. 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, because there are some people arguing that he was deliberately turning into people when he was driving. He wasn't't being chased he called for political violence on white people before he did refer to white people as quote the enemy he was a huge colin kaepernick fan there's a lot of that last one that's it yeah that's the most offensive thing i've heard is it all colin kaepernick's fault of course not no now but but some of these details matter, and they do deserve to be talked about in an honest, real way, where it's not just pointing at people.

But he was an extreme criminal. He had an extensive criminal past. He was just released two days ago on a $1,000 bond, which the Milwaukee 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 record is huge. Why was this man walking the streets with such a crazy, extensive record? 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 in my opinion don't forget that one of the things that he was being charged with was skipping bail like so he actually has a record of not having uh not honoring the bail agreements that he has and so for them to go ahead and then grant a reduced bail to an absurd amount, a $1,000 bail, to put it in perspective, in my tiny town, my town is, or the big town near me is about 20,000 people.

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. And the bail for this was possession of a little bit of THC was $20,000. Wow. And so this guy – Wait, he just had a little bit of THC and they're trying to lock him up in prison? He actually didn't have any THC, which was even better. But yeah, that was the justification was it was CBD oil and they said, oh, there's probably THC in it.

Oh, wow. It was embarrassing. But the bail on that was $20,000. This guy gets a $1,000 bail. He's got a rap sheet that is significant with felonies on it. There's 25 mug shots of him in multiple states. That's all I have to say. Yes.

But $20,000 bail, that means two grand down, right? That means two grand in Minnesota. In Wisconsin, they have, well, two grand down. But if you go ahead and honor the bail agreement you don't get any back um because that's you're paying that fee to a bondsman so um a bondsman will put up your 20 000 in exchange for 10 i see in wisconsin they don't allow that in wisconsin it's cash bail uh they don't allow you to full full amount so that's why kyle had to pay the two million dollars uh on his bail in illinois isn't it like you pay up 10 you put up 10 or

something yeah some states have that built in other states use bail bondsmen to do it uh wisconsin it's the full cash amount so his would be the equivalent still of a ten thousand dollar bail in minnesota but that's that's nothing mean, and it's absolutely embarrassing that this guy with several felonies and skipping bail on his record. So like this case highlights like people who actually want to do criminal justice reform and bail reform and bond reform. Look, I've agreed a thousand bail hearings, okay, on the defense and prosecution side, right? 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.

And this kind of conversation we're having actually goes back to that, which is where the conversation should be. 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. 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. 21 years as a convicted felon, running around town, skipping bail, convicted of serious aggravated felonies. And oh, by the way, what was he on bail for previously? Punching the mother of his child and running her over twice, allegedly. Yep. Right? So, okay, is that not a violent crime?

Maybe. And what's he doing on bail? You have this defund police movement that comes in, and it just sort of – it's an avalanche. And what these prosecutors now do is they just curtail themselves to the whims of the media, and they're like, well, this is the right thing to do. We should just give everybody bail. And I was like, I never heard that when I was a public defender. Do you think CNN producers cry themselves to sleep at night? I'm not joking.

They might cry in their sleep. Only if they're honest. So no. No, no, but let's be real. They're regular people who work at these companies, these media companies. And sure, maybe Brian Stelter twirls his mustache before bed. He doesn't cry. That's a guy who goes on TV every day and just –

Without pants. Well, he doesn't comb his hair. That's true. Well, yeah,'t comb his hair. That's true. Well, yeah. Lack thereof. 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. Truth be told, people need to understand this about Brian Stelter's show is that it's often about nothing.

Like when I was flying back from Austin, I was watching it, and he was talking about something that was totally irrelevant. It's like in the weeds media stuff. So irrelevant to people who work in media. 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? 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.

There's like a guy sitting in a room and he's just like, I remember we used to go out and do reporting. Now it's just, we just do panels about Trump. Like I'm willing to bet that there are some people who are just producers, man. They're just people who want to operate the camera and want to get the story out. And they're sitting there every day. And it probably feels like their heart's in a vice every day. They got to go in MSNBC too. I mean, look, look at this. Tucker Carlson used to be on MSNBC. They used to have like Republicans, conservatives, moderates. 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. I'm not even kidding. 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. You're probably just sitting in bed crying, asking where it all went wrong. I don't think there's a lot of those people though. I mean, I'm in a lot of these studios every week doing hits. I'm not on CNN or anybody I'm suing.

But you meet a lot of the people, the everyday people that make it happen, the cameramen, the editors, the writers, the people who have been there for 10, 15, 20 years. And most of them have been subjugated by the big corporate media, CNN, MSNBC, and the like. 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. I go into Fox, for example, right? I'm not making this up. Half the people at Fox

are Democrats. Oh, yeah. They're in New York City. 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. 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, something like that. Like that dude clearly was not happy working for this network. And people were screaming at him. He was like, it's just a job. I need work. I needed the money. And they're like screaming at him fake news. I think I kind of feel like, you know, I worked for some of these companies a few years ago and I watched how they changed and I left immediately. Like I worked for some of these companies a few years ago, and I watched how they changed.

And I left immediately. I worked for Vice. Vice, I wanted to work there because they were – 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're storytellers. We want to talk to people, and we don't want to be a part of that. And I'm like, man, that spoke to me, right?

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, a new start. 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, like don't cuss and do the weird stuff with hookers, but, you know, go to the field reporting. But then within eight months, they were like, we've decided we're all going to become woke feminists. And I'm like, can I leave? Can I not be here?

So I watched like, there are probably people there who had good intentions and now it's just become, they're stuck in these machines. And I mean, what do you do? Look, we talk to people all the time on this show. They comment. They're saying, I can't just up and quit my job.

I can't just leave. I have a family and things like that. Imagine working for CNN over the past four years, and you're like, what do I do? With the ratings going down, you're not finding a new job. They're doing layoffs. You're lucky to have work. No, they're crying themselves to sleep. Well, another thing to really kind of think about here is that a lot of these high-level people,

a lot of these top journalists, majority of them have major substance abuse problems i remember once i got drunk with the white house press corps at bilderberg and they could drink like fish it was absolutely awestunning and then when you look 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 because if they did they would be absolutely mad with themselves. Because, I mean, look at the headlines. MSNBC had another headline today talking about how Thanksgiving is white people celebrating genocide and violence against blacks.

How does that make any logical sense at all? It doesn't. You know, CNN, MSNBC, all these people are literally regurgitating scripts that they're given and the scripts are becoming more ridiculous by the day. 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. I don't know who tweeted this out. I can't find it. But I'm pretty sure Rachel Maddow said the dossier was fun was backed by russia like she finally came out and said she said that i'm pretty sure i i saw a tweet from someone from a very devon and i are gonna go on our show make

her say it again make her say it again so maybe i'm wrong maybe i'm wrong i'll be here i 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, 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. Yeah. I mean, Sully, as the guy who ran the Russiagate investigation, this one always rings true with me. We knew five years ago that the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign paid for it, screwed up the FBI, perpetuated the biggest fraud. But for five years, this is everything we're talking about today in less than 30 seconds, the media just ran with it. They just ran with the false narrative.

Even though we had the information we produced with the American public, they didn't want to review it. It's not that Rachel Maddow didn't have access to some of the facts. She had access to Adam Schiff, the biggest clown in America, but they didn't want to put out the facts. What was it the New York Times said about Veritas? That their reputation is so bad we can't possibly harm it? So basically what they're saying is let's break down what they said in that regard. I could be wrong about that because I don't have the documents in front of me.

I'm pretty sure New York Times said they're indefamable or something. Yeah, libel proof. Right. What the media, 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. It's like, I understand that Snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche, but yeah, we'll just sue everyone with the crowbars. You can't claim that because all of the media is smearing Veritas. You get to as well.

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. To the judge's credit, he basically said exactly what you did. Yeah, they're only libel proof because you're citing each other. 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. That doesn't make someone libel proof. 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. So they got lucky with the judge in that case. Occasionally you get a judge who will actually go through, apply the law as – and apply some logic and reason with the law.

And this guy seems to have been doing it. Yeah, they are lucky. There were some updates in the veritas stuff i think the court ordered the new york times to stop publishing their privileged communications and the new york times said no and then i think the judge responded with excuse me like i 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. 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. I have to imagine when the judge found out, he was probably like, yo, you're spitting on me now. Like I got to deal with this stuff and you have access to their – you know what's going to happen if I rule on this? Veritas is going to file so many complaints that I'm going to get overruled on everything. I mean what are your guys' thoughts on how the judge would react to someone getting their – I mean I had not heard about the privileged communication thing. How did they – do you know how they got access to it?

It is believed the FBI. Oh, okay. So sorry. I did hear about that. I did hear about that. My mistake. Yeah. I got to imagine the judge was like fuming.

There are very limited circumstances in which a judge can put a prior restraint on speech of a party. And this would be one of those sort of situations. Look, you got access, however you got it, to their privileged attorney-client communications. You should never have seen that. That stuff should be privileged from everybody, including the FBI. And so now, no, you can't go out and start publishing it. It's not press-worthy. It's not newsworthy. You're just trying to gain an advantage over your lawsuit opponent. That's the time that this should happen. If they keep it up, you know, the judge hopefully will resort to sanctions and heavy sanctions. Yeah. I mean, look, judges, you know, the one whether they were appointed by a Republican,

a Democrat or whatever, it doesn't matter. The one thing they hate more than anything is getting reversed. It doesn't matter at what level or state, federal, county, local appeals court. They hate being told I got it wrong. 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 so i think he's playing it pretty 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 and we we saw this uh with the Rittenhouse case, right? Judge Schrader, he was so hesitant to issue a definitive ruling on anything, even on the evidentiary issues pre-trial. He says, I'm going to hold off on this with a predisposition towards keeping them out. It's like that's not a ruling. Just say this can't come in or this can come in and then you can you can change your mind later you're a judge you can do that but i think 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 uh i see this is what antifa is putting out in inades. They are posting news clips that say,

prosecutors showed video, they say, is of Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a gun at activists. That's it. And now they're saying, now all the Antifa is 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. 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 some rulings. He could have said, that's a computer generated image. Oh, sorry. Let me know what you think. Because my argument was the defense had no idea how to explain that the prosecution admitted CGI evidence. My thought process was the defense should have asked the expert, when was the image file created? And he would have said last week. So this image file was not created on August 25th, 2020. No, it was not. Your honor, this image is not from the night in question. I'd really be, you know, inadmissible or something. That's one way to go about it. The other way is simple. They had tons of evidentiary issues in this case. 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. The only guy that they had testify about this footage was a detective who looked at it on his iPhone. 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. That's why this footage came in. And they had to change their entire strategy. 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. There's no way for the defense to look at it, challenge the authenticity of it, say that there's interpolation adding pixels. They tried sort of to ham fist their way into that argument. 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.

It worked. You know, I got to be honest. I don't know if the prosecution actually cared about the end results that's going to the cultural impact. But then you get people posting these things. The Black Lives Matter supporter saying Rittenhouse was pointing a gun. Then you get people believing the latest attack was a retaliation. So we'll bring it back to this Veritas thing. You mentioned this judge, 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. So the judge seems to be doing nothing. Is that the gist of it? I don't know what the judge has said about it. I've just heard about the disclosure by the allegedly by the FBI to Project Veritas' enemies. 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. And I think at this point – Well, he did. The judge said stop publishing Veritas' privileged communications.

The New York Times said no. We have a First Amendment right to report the news. And we have a story right here. This is from today actually. New York Times urges no prior restraint against Veritas coverage, basically saying Veritas' claims do not implicate the kind of extraordinary public harm, such as national security,

that American courts have suggested. Okay, blah, blah, blah. I don't care what they're arguing. Let's get a little bit hypothetical then. My question is, 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. How could a judge issue – how could a judge handle that case? I mean he's got to throw it out. I mean it's just – it's straight-up privilege. But here's the thing, right? There's – unfortunately, it's happened before when Bob Mueller was U.S. 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.

It came back to bite him in the butt. In one of the biggest narco-trafficking cases out of Florida, same thing. The U.S. Attorney's Office obtained the communications between the defendant and his lawyer and didn't disclose it. Now, in those criminal cases, it's a little different, right? There's a harsher penalty because due process is at stake, but the rule of law is the same. It's a privileged communication. All you need to ask New York Times is if they're okay with this, then what Project Veritas should do is be like, fine, give us all of New York Times'

privileged communications. Oh, and the judge could be like, yes. And release it to the general public and make everyone see it. I mean, that's what the New York Times is doing. Why not? Yeah, go ahead. Then we just see all the emails where they're like, don't cover Epstein. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That story, we gotta make sure

it doesn't go anywhere. Just like, of course, CBS News, which Project Veritas exposed Yeah, yeah, yeah. framing and the way that these people just frame stuff is just so disingenuous they had an article that was titled press freedom advocates alarmed that project veritas just muzzled the new york times that's their understanding of the situation and again it's it's it's it's so mind-boggling to see this kind of like twisting and turning a manipulation of basic facts to push a narrative and an agenda here's the only good thing that comes of this 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 at the end of it you actually get some really good rulings on what we call case law precedent if these cases survive but what these guys try to do is drown them out like veritas isn't going anywhere right

right these guys are actually if i was the times as 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 can't 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 in this law well our judges obligated to stick to case law? Like if someone says in the case of – They're supposed to. Theoretically.

Yeah. They're supposed to follow binding authority, and the idea is that they'll get reversed. And as Cash said earlier, if they get reversed, that's the worst thing a judge wants to do. There's not much practical effect for lifetime federal judges, but New York State judges aren't lifetime appointees. And so there are – there could be real effects for them. 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. That's why this judge has to go ahead and issue the order. And if New York Times doesn't like it, take it to the Supreme Court.

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. Because then if we get that case law in the books, OK, fine. But at the end of the day, judges do have some limited ability to issue a gag order when there is sufficient justification. 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. 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. And what's the Times' argument going to be? They're going to be like, well, we previously argued this was okay. I'm going to cite this.

Right. Here's an article from the New York Times. 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. So it's like, you know, you go in front of a judge and you're like, this guy kicked my dog. And the other guy is like, I didn't kick his dog. And it's like, here's a video of him kicking my dog. He owes me $100. The judge is like, I am involved in this. I think the evidence stands. And the judge, you know, it's an issue of ruling or however it goes. What happens when you have someone saying,

your honor, I'm going to attempt to directly interfere with your ability to rule on this because screw you, I should be allowed to do it. I feel like that's the fastest way to lose. There's just no world that I can imagine being in, and I've appeared in court probably 3,000 times, that if I ever said that to a state court judge or a federal judge, the federal court judge would probably lock me up for contempt of court for being so arrogant. Remember when Kraus – He'd just be like, what? Or she? Didn't Kraus talk back like several times in the Rittenhouse trial?

Which is insane to me because – Don't get brazen with me. I know. I'm pretty sure I was watching you guys when you guys were like, oh, whoa, like don't talk back to a judge. Are you nuts? Yeah.

State court's a little different. I mean, you know, this is the one we talked about a couple weeks ago. The reason we get such a wide berth in the Rittenhouse case, state courts allow cameras. No federal court in America

allows a camera, which is why you get those cartoon caricatures. So state court almost becomes movie-like. So there's a little more freedom. I mean, you're not supposed to talk back against a judge, period is why you get those cartoon caricatures. So state court almost becomes movie-like. So there's a little more freedom. I mean you're not supposed to talk back against a judge, period. I never did that. But there's a little more freedom because they also get like a little –

I mean this guy is like one of the most famous judges in America right now. Oh, yeah. These guys, first of all, they're lawyers, so they have egos going in. 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. 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. 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. And the judge said, stop publishing this stuff. And New York Times said, shut up, judge.

I can't. I have to imagine. It's like you're going to lose. This is going to get good. Sanction them. Sanction them and let them take it to the Supreme Court. Maybe they win. What would that happen?

Well, this is also on the heels, on the FBI raiding James O'Keefe and his employees' apartments, taking their cell phones away from them. Because, 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 and bust down their doors and take away their cell phones and take their communications that way. And then you can release it to the general public without even involving the judge. So in the other instance, actually, I think my friend Harmeet was representing James O'Keefe in the Veritas case. She actually got that judge to issue a ruling and stand down the communications going over.

That's the right way to do it. That's what this judge should be doing. Didn't he do that? I thought Harmeet posted that. Yeah, on that first ruling. I'm saying in terms of this privilege communication. It should be the same exact thing. There's not really a difference there in terms of the law. One, you don't have access to that information. Two, you can't be putting it out if you don't have lawful access to it in the first place. And there's no difference. Evil people. Because it's'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 like the idea that okay so when it comes to the united states comes the constitution comes to what we believe other people are afforded they're afforded their legal defense the right to due process 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. That would be like someone would be like, I have a right to guns, so I'm going to rob people. No, it doesn't work that way. That's basically what they're doing. Yeah, I agree.

It's the arrogance and I would say the death rattle of a lot of major media companies. We've seen competition growing. I mean, heck, this show is competition for mainstream media. They know it. They know about independent media and how it's been changing the landscape over the past really decade or more. And they're now lashing out. And that's why they hate Veritas, right? Because Veritas is started by a guy who goes out and does the things that media used to do. And they can't control the narrative.

They can't stop someone like Project Veritas. They can give them a roadblock here or there, but they can't do it. And the more independent voices that come out, the more we're going to see this sort of retaliation. Let's talk about this. We got from CBS Denver. Denver attorney files civil action in Kyle Rittenhouse shooting. 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.

They don't even have the decency to actually post the link. 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. And the guy says, breaking news, the first civil lawsuits in the Rittenhouse trial have been filed.

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

And then finally, like, you know, I'm down a hundred or so comments. I see one guy say, who's going to tell them they're suing the city and not Kyle Rittenhouse? The lawsuit, no one's, no one, so far, they're not suing Kyle. The big money for anybody who wants to sue is in the city. And you know what? I agree. For the people, so you've got what, like Jacob Blake's family, they're suing the police. Okay, I don't know about all that. The guy was grabbing a knife and fighting with the cops.

That's an uphill battle. Yeah, yeah. To say the very least. But for the Anthony Huber, they're suing. I'm like, oh, yeah, the police should have been out there stopping the riots. So if they want to sue on that grounds, I mean, by all means. That's a tough one, though. Like the cops should have been trying to stop the guy from doing what he was doing that was the crime.

No, no, no, no, no. If the police were actually out stopping riots, there would have not been anything. And if Huber hadn't been rioting, then there wouldn't have been a problem. Well, the Supreme Court. That's a good point. The Supreme Court ruled that police officers have no duty to protect and serve the citizen. So that's also going to be something that's going to be leveraged here, I think, that's something that set that was set as a president i think he had nailed it actually i mean probably an uphill battle when they're like we're suing you and it's like well we maybe we should

have been protecting you but you were the one doing what what needed to protect people from yeah right right now uh by by nature of being dead i think huber has the best lawsuit against the city 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 that he brought that and and that's under oath he can never walk that statement back i mean they're trying to they're doing their little media apology tour that he started the next day after his testimony. He's showing up on Michael Strahan's

show and then going on some other show after that. He was on Good Morning America, his first show that he debuted on, and they were treating him like a celebrity. Did they ask him when his perjury charges come in? I was going to ask you guys, is he going to face any charges? No, he's not going to get perjury because it'd? Exactly. I was just going to ask you guys, is he going to face any charges?

Oh, no. No, he's not going to get perjury because it'd be the Kenosha County Prosecutor's Office. Let me – tell me, you guys, you're a lawyer. You're a recovering lawyer. Tell me if you think I'm on point here. I think some of this is obvious, but here, I'll speculate. Gage Grosskreutz had a second DOI in January of 2021, I believe. It was six days before the Rittenhouse trial. It was dismissed on a motion of the prosecution.

Gage Grosskreutz had a signed search warrant against him for his cell phone that the prosecutor told the police not to execute. Gage seems like, you know, he had this, he also had this 10, let me slow down. He did have, I believe it was a $10 million lawsuit was against the city or the police, the city? I believe it was the city. The city. He had a $10 million lawsuit against the city over what happened. But then he testifies under oath contradicting his own lawsuit, which clearly means he's going to lose. So it sounds to me like they went to him and said, you have two choices. You can plead the fifth, move forward with your lawsuit, maybe win 10 million bucks. 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. We're going to get you an attempted murder of Kyle Rittenhouse. And he probably said, I will do anything you say. Yeah. So there's an interesting thing with pleading the Fifth. You have an absolute right to plead the Fifth in criminal court, and it cannot be used against you. You cannot draw a negative inference from it. 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. 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. So if I ask Gage the question, you know, did you provoke this incident? And he says, I plead the, you know, I plead the fifth.

Or did you bring a gun to this? I plead the fifth, or did you bring a gun to this? I plead the fifth. They're allowed to draw the negative inference that yes, he did bring the gun with him, or yes, he did. The defense came? Yeah. The other party of the civil lawsuit. Oh, it's not criminal. So right. The criminal lawsuit has to be ignored here. But when you have parallel suits, you've got this criminal case where he's a complaining witness. So he's basically a party along with the state. And then you have the civil case. If he pleads the fifth in that criminal case, then the civil case, the city gets to use that against him.

And so he was the prosecutor may have made a deal like that. That's certainly possible. And I think Binger was out making tons of shady deals and various threats to certain witnesses and just ignoring Jumpkick Man entirely. And they knew who he was. Right. The defense actually came out and said that was withheld from them. 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.

So that was fine. But yeah, in that case, if he were uh plead the fifth in his criminal lawsuit it would basically tank his civil lawsuit because the city gets from a prosecutor's perspective look i did it too you know your flex is to go to other people and say i'm going to prosecute i would go into a massive conspiracy and be like here's 16 defendants who wants to chirp literally be like first one to me go everybody else is going down because. But at that point, I knew I had the evidence. I wasn't bluffing the case.

Right. I was saying I can use some assistance and I don't need to put 16 people away because you also know that like not everybody is as culpable as the next guy. There's different levels of it. Right. 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. So that's where you get some wiggle room. 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 i don't know if you saw my twitter thread about it it's it's speculative to be completely fair but i think it's speculative only in one key area what do we know the drone footage they admitted which was their their 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 but it came in a weird format 844 that was that was the it was it was 1920 by 844 so it was cropped someone took footage that appeared on tucker carlson cropped out the top yeah presumably from tucker carlson's show and removing the uh the fox graphic it was then

further cropped and compressed renamed and sent to the defense i think you know this stuff kraus has a cropping software format factory and compression software handbrake on his laptop. 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. And I was like, well, hold on, hold on, hold on. Evidence that was given to the defense was cropped and compressed. 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.

So look, I'll put it this way. 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. It's what they call being caught red handed. But I also think it's fair to say the person with the knife stabbed the person on the ground they call being caught red-handed but i also think it's fair to say the person with the with the weapon in question that was used presumably this same kind of weapon to kill someone and they're right there i mean i don't know if you agree with me on that one well the the thing making it even worse is uh whether or not

krauss cropped the the footage and compressed it, it was idiotic of them to use a laptop that had anything other than – we saw it with the defense, right? During the jury deliberations, they said, we have a clean laptop. The only thing on it is VLC and the files that they need to view. That's it. There's nothing else. A sanitized laptop. And what's a laptop that can play video costs? $300.

You can go to Target and buy one. So, you know, that that's not a problem. Why the state had a laptop with that software on it, along with other evidence, is baffling. But the problem with it is that Krause stood up and he said, I don't know anything about compression. I don't know anything about, you know, how you manipulate these video files. And then we see because of their mistake of, of having this stuff on this computer, we see it there. And it's like, look, I know about compression. I know about cropping video. I don't have handbrake. So, so someone who has it, you're like, okay, why do you, why do you have this? If you don't know anything about it? And the state shouldn't be manipulating and cropping evidence anyway.

They send it off to the crime lab to do that. So it's extra nonsensical. Why can't we – how come we don't have leaders who are willing to actually make a move? I'm talking about the judge here. Well, that's what I was going to ask. He intimated putting the prosecution on the stand under oath. So this is what the judge – I would have done it on the spot.

This is – well, most judges don't do that. They they can do that this is what this judge should be doing the trial's over right he can be issuing uh instituting contempt proceedings on his own there's no defense and prosecution in that scenario every judge has this right if he thinks to to your point if he thinks someone lied that appeared before him that's a contempt proceeding against that person the uh nbc news reporter person that was chasing around the jury, right? That, in my opinion, is one of the most egregious things you can do is intimidate a jury. That's an actual crime, but let's set aside the crime. What can the judge do? The judge can haul in that person and NBC News and say, who gave you that instruction to follow the jury? What was

your instruction and what were you supposed to do? And if he lies, contempt of court. And the penalty for contempt of court is going to prison or he can fine you as much money as he wants to. And he should be doing that now. He can – contempt, how long can they send you to prison for? Is it jail or is it prison? I think it's up to a year. It's up to a year per count. Yeah. And then you can stack them. And the judge just decrees it, right?

Right. And the money, there's no real like limitation i mean you can't go wild but you can find a company a lot of money for being held in contempt that's the power that judges are supposed to wield to keep these people in check especially when prosecutors lie to their face but when there's an acquittal this judge is probably my guess just gonna be like i'm not gonna do anything when someone where are the leaders well that's it there's no good someone who gets hit for contempt if they lie about the same thing over and over, do they get a contempt charge every time they say a lie? You can. You can.

It's doable, right? That's what's supposed to happen when prosecutors bury or withhold exculpatory evidence, evidence of innocence or doctor evidence. The only remedy for that is not the state or the federal government bringing a case. It's for the judge to come in and say, I'm hold you in contempt show me why i shouldn't and as the judge likely to say look britain house is going home that's it i gotta work with these guys look i've been they're gonna be there in my chambers again and again and again if i start a conflict that can't be resolved i'm making my job you nailed it they they are they don't want to deal with the headache and i've caught prosecutors in massive narco-trafficking cases burying evidence of innocence 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 my next move was like hey judge you want to issue contempt proceedings this person lied to you for 18 months and we just proved it and the case just got tossed. And every time they're like, well, let's talk about it later. I got to work with the U.S. Attorney's Office. I got to work with the defense bar. I don't want to be out there. When I got falsely arrested, I told you the story off air because I've said it on air too many times. But when I got falsely arrested when I was a teenager, I was told by the police the reason they – so long story short, my brother and I got attacked, jumped, and beat up by security guards because of mistaken identity or something to that effect.

When we talked to the cops, they said, look, we know that you guys didn't do anything wrong now. Everything has been resolved. But we've got to work with these guys. They're a big part of the economy here in the small suburb. We get calls from all the time. If we get into it, the security guys, it's going to be a nightmare for us. So we're going to let them get away with the attack on you 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.

That's how it works. The state is friends with the state and the system. 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. And they're in, when they're not in their offices, they're just in court and they have these cattle call hearings. And so you're sitting there with the prosecutor, they're co-workers for five hours straight as they go through this big stack of files. Defense attorneys file in and out, and some of them get friendly.

But the other issue that the judge can always fall back on is, well, yeah, in this case, Kyle would have been prejudiced if he was found guilty. Right. But he wasn't prejudiced because the jury came to the right conclusion. So since there's no harm, it really doesn't look good to do jury came to the right conclusion so since there's no harm you know it really doesn't look good to do it uh to go back and revisit this issue and that's why i was on the same page with you uh once he said well why don't we we could put you guys on the stand uh under oath and get an expert in here i'm like yeah do it judge dismiss the jury minutes dismiss the jury for the day for a week whatever need, however long you need to get an expert.

Let's put these prosecutors on the stand. 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. Let's find explanations. You give me 30 seconds on that laptop and I can tell you if he did it or not. 30 seconds. You pull up the log files and you can see what they did like that yep the the 10 minutes 10 minutes to put them on the stand jerry can wait have a bag of doritos while they're waiting a little give him some pop give him some you know pepsi now the other person

that can do something with that is kyle yeah right it you know putting aside the defamation stuff really one instance because it's basically that case I would take if I were advising him. I would take that to federal court for a violation of his civil rights. Right. That's what happens when you have prosecutorial misconduct at the state or federal level. Your best bet is this whole thing that you see in the movie is like I'm going to sue you for malicious prosecution. That doesn't really exist. It's like really hard to prove. Yeah. Like one in a bazillion. 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 this guy this kid was charged with capital murder and the prosecution doctored his evidence that's pretty damn good now what you'll have to prove in federal court is hey man you won your trial well okay my life's now screwed up because of this because i was labeled a domestic terrorist falsely a terrorist falsely a racist falsely you, you know, member of the K, whatever. He's got a good list to make that case. Well, and he's got a bunch of news organizations dutifully reporting that he raised his gun and provoked the attack and that the ruling is unjust because of that. um the the news can

kind of feed this in and if he's got civil attorneys or if he's got prospective civil attorneys um who are thinking about things like this uh you know hopefully they'll be capturing those things and and it's 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 it's all over the major media that he provoked an attack that he never did. And real quick, sorry, Luke, you can quantify damages from a media sense

in terms of PR rectification or whatever the right word would be. 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. If you guys were Kyle's lawyers, what would be your first step? Who would you go after first in this entire matter? The prosecutors, the media, the state, how would you navigate that field? Man.

Well, whatever he's going to do is going to be tough. At the end of the day he won and uh we were talking about libel proof earlier 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 now Now, there are issues because a lot of the stuff that's being reported by some of these places never happened. For example, saying that Kyle shot three black men, that never happened. So that's not really a subject of the complaint. That's a way to attack. 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. I think that's a great approach to take. And then for defamation, it's going to be based on individual news publications and what they've said. Wasn't it the Guardian the other day that said he shot three black guys? The Independent. The Independent. So that's going to be tough because that's in the U.K.,

unless they have a US office. I believe they do have a US office. OK. So you might be able to go after them. But you're really going to have to do very careful sifting as we saw with Sandman, right? They had something like 57 statements and only three went through because almost all of them are opinion. Anything that says Kyle is a white supremacist, that he's a racist, that he was racially motivated. Those are going to probably be opinion statements. But they all said he crossed state lines with a gun.

That's a statement of fact. Right. So that's a – on its face, a defamatory statement. Then the next thing – so Kyle's a little bit of a different – he's differently situated than almost anyone else would be, right? The second he got arrested arrested this case went global right so what they will argue is not against the defamation they will argue that kyle's a public figure right so once you become a public figure man that defamation hurdle is huge it is you 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. That's the, what I would recommend to Kyle and his crew 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, because they have done that repeatedly in the past when there has been racial unrest and cities were burning. That's DOJ's biggest civil law. I think the DOJ is more likely to go after Kyle. No, I agree.

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. Now I have my rights under defamation and this and that and what other options. Do you guys think that Tucker Carlson documentary complicates this because it kind of paints him as a public figure? 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. 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. Yeah, because Tucker Carlson was filming a documentary on Kyle during the entire court proceeding. Which I agree with Kyle's defense lawyer. I would have been like, no way. No, thank you. You're out. You cannot, cannot be here.

But it's Kyle's choice at the end of the day. Yeah, if it's Kyle's choice at the end of the day. It might be someone else's choice. We don't really know. But I'm really glad you mentioned the grander media strategy because we're talking about how hard these cases are to win. That doesn't mean that a defamation case can't be valuable. Whether you win or not, Kyle's got this big dilemma. He's 18 years old and he's facing a life where his name will forever be tainted by what happened to him and that's really unfair but a defamation case can be a way to launch himself into uh if he wants to embrace a media spotlight he can become a spokesman a spokesman against stuff and and a defamation

case is a way to do that talk about the the broken prosecution system talk about the fact that media can run roughshod over people raise a lot 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. They've taken that obviously different side of the political spectrum, but there is a way to make a career out of that when otherwise his career prospects got chopped down considerably from the average 18 year old well let me ask you in if if you're a public figure or involuntary public figure i think what they call this the covington kids then the standard would be actual malice or gross negligence regarding the facts right it's it's actual malice is for for any for any public figure. But doesn't it also include gross negligence? No.

That's different. Really? It's like actual malice, gross negligence. Really? I thought even if you're a public figure that— It's like your intent. It's your intent. So 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 that the journalist – and this is so frustrating. 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. That's the gross negligence I think you're talking about. Oh, OK. Right. 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. Okay. Okay.

I will tell you this. Then if Kyle Rittenhouse files a lawsuit, 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. We don't take 10 seconds to Google search any of these things. We just say them because we made them up. But's the here's the kicker i'll be happy this is part of the reason i'm out there like raising all this money for people's defamations lawsuits it's not just yes there's insane amount of value in bringing cases that have some merit

right but like you said the biggest obstacle is money so i'll you know we'll take care of that fight with cash we'll pay for your lawyers enroll we'll review your case for free. But the other kicker in bringing defamation suits, if you bring them in the right state courts, it's that they have to divulge. Once you get past this mid-trial phase called summary judgment, they, the defense, has to disclose their sources to this plaintiff. Really? Why is that important? Because what the judge has decided is, well, this case has enough fact issue to go to a jury i the judge i'm out of ruling on that now here we go discovery and oh by the way you don't want to settle you the defense like in virginia state law which is where all my cases are being brought they have to once we get past summary judgment tell me who is the sources

of your stories and if they fail to do that it's a default judgment what if they lie or well i mean i guess i guess they could that's always possible but i think that's why it's also worth so if they fail to do that, it's a default judgment. What if they lie or only give you a few? I guess they could. That's always possible. But I think that's why it's also worth praying for. So if they say we will not reveal our sources, it's a default judgment? You win. Wow.

That's why Devin Nunes brings a lot of cases in Virginia, right? Yeah. So Devin and I, a dear friend, my former boss, he actually had a huge win in federal court, in the appellate court about a month ago. And yeah, we bring – we just bring cases to clear our names. You know, Devin's a little different. He's like the public figure of public figures after Russiagate. But he's doing it for the reasons we're talking about. Yes, he was defamed.

Yes, they attacked his 90-year-old grandmother, right? And he realizes the bar is very high. But what happens is we're trying to correct the media. And the way you do that is we're trying to correct the media. And the way you do that is you issue a monetary judgment against them. 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. Yeah, that's the – That hurts. That's one of the strategies.

When someone lies against you, you have two options, money or the truth or both. I mean hopefully you get both, but, uh, but a lot of people will lose a defamation suit, but, uh, they'll lose the judgment, but, uh, people will get the option of seeing, Oh, there's another side of this story. And those stories will consequently get a lot of media coverage because the initial story got a lot of media coverage. And that can have a ton of value in itself to rehabilitate, to at least tell, hey, at least the people who don't hate me, you know what? I didn't do any of this stuff that they're saying. They're lying about me.

You know they're lying about me, and that can have a lot of value too. The problem right now is if CNN came out and said, you know, Rakeda hates chocolate ice cream. It's true. No, no, no. Let's say it's not true. Let's say it's not true. Let's say it's not true. Anybody who likes CNN, well, maybe you're not a good example. Let's say Trump. Let's say CNN comes out and says Trump hates chocolate ice cream, according to those familiar with his

thinking, that ridiculous line they like to use. Anybody who likes Trump is going to say they're lying. And then Trump will be like, it's not true. I love chocolate ice cream. And then anybody who hates Trump is going to believe CNN. Right. Right. So it's like there's almost no point even bothering except for monetary damages. It depends. It depends on the polarization of the figure. I mean, Trump is an extremely polarized figure, more than probably anyone else on Earth, right? But for Devin Nunes, for someone who's maybe 75% of the way to Trump's level of polarization,

I think there's value there. I really do. I guess Kyle's too polarizing, Kyle Rinaus. I don't think so personally. His personality is kind of unknown. It's more about the media's portrayal of him at the moment. They're calling for his death. He just came out and said he supports Black Lives Matter.

He also said he's sick of the left and right using his case in order to push their political agenda. So he's coming out and making a lot of statements which are shocking and surprising to a lot of people, including people on the right. And those statements are the ones that actually carry weight in court. And when you get rulings, that's when people start paying attention. 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. And that's why he's got to bring those cases.

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. Probably should just avoid the polarization subject altogether. But I'll put it this way. that he's supporting Black Lives Matter or criticizing one side over the other probably should just avoid the polarization subject all together. But I'll put it this way. 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.

That was a big thing, right? 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. Yeah, there's this weird proclivity of people who are honest to be honest to the fault of themselves. No one is going to be able to remove every bit of bias from their decision making. 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. Yeah. Everybody's got some biases. The question is, can you reasonably make decisions and a lot of people do that every day um the real issue with that is when you've got a criminal case the person who says oh man i i don't know if i could be impartial in this that's the guy who's going to be the not guilty vote right like that's never going to be the guilty vote if the guy's like i hate this guy he's not

going to go oh i i you know i i just can't be partial on – or impartial on this. I'm going to stay on the – or I need to leave the jury. No, if you hate the defendant, then you're going to want to be on that jury. 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 him. What happens, though, 99 percent of the times is you get someone to say, yeah, you know what? I'm not going to be fair in this case because of my pro-2A position. The judge jumps in and says, well, actually, you know, remind me. 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? We're not asking you not to be pro-2A. Are you sure you can't set it aside and be impartial? Set it aside. The judge should say, just to point out, the Second Amendment is a constitutional right. If you're saying that you are opposed to constitutional rights, then perhaps I understand your argument. You're being too pragmatic. I would be, I'd be a crazy judge. 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 So the judge's job is to be like We got to really keep these people in the box And despite all of the Crap that Schrader got from the media About being pro-Kyle

Or whatever In that jury selection one of the people stood up and said the crap that Schrader got from the media about being pro-Kyle or whatever. In that jury selection, one of the people stood up and said, I just don't believe that anybody should have a machine gun. And the judge took the time to say, well, just so you know, there's no allegation that anyone in this case had a machine gun. This is a semi-automatic. And he takes this really painstaking process to go through and explain that this was not a machine

gun it's not fully automatic it's one trigger pull one thing it's perfectly generally legal firearm that's you know and and he did take pains to do that and and that is someone who was likely going to be opposed to to kyle rittenhouse was that juror selected i don't know at the end of the day i don't i don't remember but it But it was early on in that jury selection process, and that was kind of a slog. I don't think I could ever be on a grand jury or a jury. 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. Okay, I'll tell you this. They might accept your word on that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. 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. And he was like, well, too bad. You're on the grand jury. And so he convinced everybody to return no indictment, and the prosecutor was like, what? What just happened? It's like, do you let an anarchist on a grand jury? They're going to take charge. Here's what we would do with guys like that, right? The judge would call us up sidebar and be like, we're not going to pick this guy. He's going to be the alternate. I'm going to make him sit here for two months. And it's the judge's call. I'd be completely honest. If I got jury duty, I'd go there and be like, I would absolutely love to be involved in this process. i love the idea of jury duty and civic duty and i am also heavily biased against the state i'm just being completely honest i would love to weigh all the evidence and if you were fair and honest i would make a fair and honest assessment but keep in mind i don't trust the state do you have a do

you have a duty to inform the judge or anyone picking you that you believe in jury nullification that you believe you have to tell them if you believe in that idea even if you're not asked jury nullification is just literally illegal so like as a defense attorney as a public defender i wanted to argue jury nullification like look at my poor client yeah he's just the state versus you know this penniless pauper you can't do that there's crafty ways to get around that But the other thing about jury selection is about 80 percent of your reversals come from improper jury selection. This is why judges are so guarded against it because they want to make sure – it's the racial thing. It's called Batson challenges or whatever.

Like you can't – every juror has a racial profile under the law, and you can't strike one just for some race decision and a lot of reversals come because the defense and the prosecution don't do enough to to 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 this is the first i've heard the jury nullification is illegal what's the history of that i thought it was totally legal no you can't what the the premise is you have to be able to argue the facts that are presented in the case, right? And the facts that are presented in the case as to whatever the charge is. You can't go in there and be like, this guy has had the worst life in human history. This is why you should acquit him of murder because he's just, you know, has had luck has been stabbed has been you know shot at his

his mother died that's why you should acquit him you can't say that you can't 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 what if what if it's like a drug charge and you don't believe in the in the law like you don't believe the law should have been implied here because you don't believe in victimless crimes and and you don't think this should be used on him. So that's why you want to nullify this by voting as a juror and saying this shouldn't be applied here. Then what should happen is the state should be very careful in what questions that they ask the jury on voir dire. And if they don't ask you those questions,

then you don't have to answer those questions, but you keep it to yourself. You don't stand up and say, I believe in jury nullification. If you're going to go nullify a jury, and by the way, I fully 100% support jury nullification. This show is brought to you by jury nullification. No, I 100% support it. 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. Defense attorneys can't argue for it.

And if they do, that's one of the few ways that a defense can get a mistrial and a redo at it. So wait, wait. I didn't know that. What would happen if you were on the jury? Like you got on the jury. You were selected. And then when you were walking one day, you said, I'm going to nullify the – I'm going to fight for that. Oh, they'll just dismiss you.

Yeah. They'll dismiss you as a juror. Same thing they had with the guy who – There's one way to get out of it, huh? Yeah. Getting out of jury duty is really easy. What you do is you go to the bailiff and you tell a racial joke. For those that don't know, that's actually what happened to one of the jurors.

Yeah, yeah. That's true. That's part of the Kyle Rittenhouse case. 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. Because people said, hey, this is obscene that this man was using this substance for, let's just say, medicine. But there's been so many different cases. And then the jury said, there's no way i agree with this morally i'm gonna impose jury nullification 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 court courthouses because

they were advocating for jury nullification i also saw videos about that so is that what you meant cash by by it being illegal or no it's at no don't get me wrong it is illegal for a defense attorney to go in there and argue jury nullification it's unlawful the defense you cannot do that but as a citizen as a juror i could practice let's live in the real world if you have a jury and they feel but look i would try cases all the time and be like i would 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. You're playing to jury nullification by trying to address facts that show that. And juries are going to be hip

to that. And they can make that ruling on their own. You just can't openly argue for it. You can pitch it. And of course, juries do that all the time. 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. Here's the facts. So even though technically the state is correct, the jury is probably going to be like, yeah. But you can't tell them that they could do that. You can't say it and you can't – you're on a pretty thin line because a smart prosecutor will jump up and be like, that's jury notification, and the judge will come down on you.

Yeah. But as a citizen, a lot of people don't even know what it means. A lot of people don't even understand what jury nullification is or victimless crimes. So I think 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, I mean, that's a big power there. Well, a judge will tell you, no, that's unlawful. He'll listen judge a judge will tell you no that's unlawful hillis's instruction will be it's unlawful if they decide to do it what are they going to do right like how are they going to i mean to be to be honest the judge says if you believe the state

has proven you know these things matter reasonable doubt so you can just be like i don't believe yeah you don't need the bar oh okay yep and that that's the way but but it's remember that when you're when you're under voir dire you're under oath and you are required to answer those questions truthfully under penalty of perjury. And so, you know, it's really up to the state to 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. So jury notification, it can be used in an inappropriate way. It has in the past. But now we tend to think of it as more of a liberty-minded position attacking things

like victimless crimes. And that frankly lies at the feet of things like mandatory minimum sentences 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. But people don't know this. They sit in 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. That's what Malice was telling us.

He said, do you really want this kid's life to be completely ruined do you want to be the people 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 and then people were like yeah I don't want to 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 like I can 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, I'm not going anywhere near it. That's why grand juries are so big, right? That's why there's like 32 members of a grand jury. The preponderance of the evidence standard is 51%, 49%. Did he maybe do it versus did he not do it? And also you only need like 17 of the 32. I forget the exact breakdown. Man, you put me on a grand jury over property crime or possession or anything like that, and I'm going to be like, thumbs down.

Sorry. I mean – and obviously i'm i think crime is bad property crime and stuff if it's like victimless stuff like literally someone chilling in their house minding their own business with some 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 what if they're playing videos from facial abuse on a big screen outside in the front lawn what would you do then they're doing what playing videos from facial abuse on a big screen never mind we probably shouldn't get into it if i'll put it this way don't worry about it but i'll i don't know if it was like it was like an esoteric joke i know it's

it's it's like a a violent pornographic website right uh oh right, right. Oh, okay, okay. I think that's a civil issue. Yeah, there you go. 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. Cop, you know,

like I was telling that story, the cop claimed that because I was yelling call 911, I was being disorderly. I'm not kidding. They were like, he was yelling. And I was like, I was yelling, call the police. Like, and they're. I'm not kidding. They were like, he was yelling. And I was like, I was yelling, call the police. And they were like, we don't care.

So I got charged with it. So look, if you've got a person who's projecting really inappropriate stuff, I don't believe in obscenity laws. I think George Cron was right when he went out and said the seven words you can't say on TV. And if the neighbor's got a problem with it, I think you've got a civil issue where the neighbors can maybe take up some kind of civil complaint. And maybe this is resolved. I don't think it's criminal.

You know what I mean? Wait, if a guy is putting video of himself naked out? No, no, no. If somebody was projecting on their own home inappropriate – Oh, I thought it was out front in their yard. Yes. So like on the front of their house, they're showing inappropriate things. Like on your garage.

That's what I do. Exposing yourself in public kind of laws, right? I'm just talking about general what's considered obscene. You don't need to talk about and get into specifics because we're trying to be family friendly. The point is – How can you not object to that stuff though? I do. And I think it's a civil issue, not a criminal issue.

I don't think the police should come and arrest a guy because he was making a statement. It depends on who he's making a statement to. When the police are allowed to be like, this is obscene, they'll say your politics are obscene too. So if someone's like, I believe in these things and I'm going to – I think people – there's nudists. This is a political view on clothing and the rights of individuals. And there are women who walk around naked in New York City. Sorry, not naked, topless because in New York City they're allowed to. 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. There's that entire feminist movement, right? Femen. That's what they do. They're topless and they paint. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Sorry to interrupt you. Oh, yeah. It's well beyond them being topless. Okay. I haven't checked in on it lately.

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. Wow. Did you see the, but 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 i wouldn't indict look my dad's pretty funny if it involves kids if someone's doing something you know wrong with kids i'll be like consenting adults i contending adults can do what they want to do man leave me out of that business that's where i get if someone's projecting it on their

house and my son is in his room looking out the window at it i'm like well now we got a problem and it might be criminal no uh you go and you close his window and say son don't look outside or if he's sitting in the front yard you come inside i'm why would i let him put me out no no you can't you can't what do you mean he put me out? No, no, you can't. What do you mean he put you out? If he's going to force me to hide my son indoors and bar the windows? But see, that's a civil matter. It's a public, it's a nuisance.

It's not a trespass because they're not physically intruding on your property. But we have a whole tort called a nuisance. And it's when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of someone's property, that's have a whole tort called a nuisance. And, and it's when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of someone's property, that's a, that's a civil tort. So that exists out there. It's, it's for this exact same thing. If you have like an offensive smell, say someone buys a property next to you and puts in a pig farm or whatever. Right. And Oh, it happens. Yeah. Yeah. And, and so, or, or they put a bees, right? Like they put up bees and the bees are coming in and stinging your kids or something like that. You have different ways to deal with this civilly.

I think I fully agree with Tim on this one. But I would say, Ian, like your perspective is overtly authoritarian. Well, I'm talking about like porn. If it's like – It doesn't matter. Grotesque porn. It starts with that but then where does it go after that? If it's classy porn.

Well, hold on. If the video is depicting illegal activities, well, then I think there's a question about what they're showing. If it's 18 and over activities? Actually, that's a good point. That might be criminal. Showing adult content that requires you to be over 18 publicly might be crime. Could be. That was the first thing I thought of when we were talking about it earlier.

It might actually be crime. Could be. That was the first thing I thought of when we were talking about it earlier. So you have to have – It might actually be criminal. You have to have – you actually – the city would actually have to have a law that states that showing this type of stuff, the public display of these images is not allowed. And some of those get struck down as being overbroad. And even if you prosecuted for them and they've been on the books, You have an overbreath case. There are federal pornography statutes on the books that basically say if you show the wrong audience, and I forget what the wrong audience is off the top of my head. Kids. I would think, right. But basically kids of a certain age, X.

Or it's shown to X number of people, you can get into a federal crime. Interesting. 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. So you could basically be in what's called the distribution business. So you get them on the violation of the broadcast rights. Yeah. But as a public defender, I had to represent a lot of people charged with some pretty nasty sex crimes. One of them was distribution of pornography.

And there's not just like distribution of pornography isn't sending someone Playboys. It can happen in a variety of ways, like live audiences, just giving somebody a memory stick and being like, yo, put this in. A better example would be they were showing if they projected video of a cow slaughtery or something. So you're actually seeing videos of the cows get mounted up and have their throat slit or whatever, and it's just, you know, blood spilling

out and stuff. So the issue there is, this is really interesting, when I was doing hostile environment training, they showed a video of a pig femoral artery bleed. Ooh. On purpose. That's a lot of blood. A guy just flopped to the floor past that. So bleeds in some people trigger a response.

I forgot. Is it nerve? Vagal response. What is it? Vagal response. It might be. You pass out. And so basically out of this 40 people in the room, one guy saw the video and just flopped to the ground.

Blood pressure dropped. He went unconscious. So the instructor came and lifted his legs up to put the blood pressure back into his head. And then he immediately tries getting up. And the guy screamed at him, don't move, don't get up. And the guy was like, I'm fine. He goes, no, you're not. You're only conscious because I'm holding your legs up. But so that's an interesting question.

If that, if it is known among these like hostile, this is, these are like special forces guys. If it is known among them that you can trigger a reaction to people, which can be and medically problematic by showing a video, maybe it's flashes and someone could be epileptic. Now we're talking about potential criminal intent to do harm to others. Well, that's what happened to Eichenwald, right? People were tweeting at Kurt Eichenwald the flashing images and he allegedly had an epileptic seizure response to it. Or he's just epileptic. Yeah. So he said it was an attempt on my life or something like that.

And they charged the guy. Yeah. The Texas court, I would say, strained the federal battery statutes. Yeah, because it was a federal crime. 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. But, yeah, that was wild. Also, Kurt Eichenwald is a weirdo. Yes, he is.

Yeah. Indeed. Well, that's him. And for all – we'll just – we'll leave him to his vices, I suppose, him and his family. 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 going to – oh, Luke just get in front of the camera and not even paying attention. No regard, Luke. See his big old face. Starring loose head. Yeah, go to TimCast.com. Become a member. 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. 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. Become a member, but let's read some super chats. All right, let's see. Jordan Jones says, Rakeda Law, how tall is Tim? Is he a socialist 5'8 or a normal 5'8?

Also, Kermit or Wisconsin, voice your intro. Oh, okay. Hi, I'm Nick Rikada of Rikada Law, a small law firm in central Wisconsin. And thanks for watching, Your Honor. Can you say, don't you know don't you know you know the funniest thing is when i meet people i meet a lot of people they either think they go wow i thought you were going to be shorter or they say wow you're a lot uh no they say i thought they either think i'm really tall or i think i'm really short yeah that's way up your

exact height i thought you would be perfect the. The funny thing is, though, it's because it depends on which selfie they've seen with me. So, like, when Charlie, Kirk, and Vosh are here and they're both 6'3 or whatever, like, Charlie's 6'5 and Vosh is 6'3 and I'm 5'10 or whatever, I look very small. And I'm like, hey. 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. Then I look a lot taller, and so depending on which episode you've seen, I've met a guy at the airport, and he's like, wow, you're

massive! And I was like, alright. And it's also, too, like the cameras point down at a slight angle. They're slightly above and then down, and one of them actually caches is like on the ceiling, basically. So am I going to look really tall? Sorry. Sorry, buddy. So am I going to look really tall?

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry, buddy. Not today. Yeah. All right. Let's see. Let's see.

Chase T says, was Rogan hungover on your JRE episode or just off? I don't know. Oh, did that come out today? On your episode? Your episode did come out today. You know. A little late, but yeah. Yeah. I was kind of bummed because we were talking a lot about the Rittenhouse stuff.

Boo. And we were waiting for the verdict because it was recorded last Wednesday. So it comes out on a Monday and the verdict came in last week. So I mean, I guess it's a good Monday for a lot of people who didn't know a lot of details. There's a lot of people who probably watched who believe the lies. And I was able to clear a lot of things up about a lot of what happened 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, you know, being smeared and the prosecution and stuff. And I think, you know, there probably could have been more points

made about the defense's screw ups. They didn't come up because I just didn't care. Did you, uh, did you happen to see the, Cope Fest that they had on Brian Stetler with David French? Cope Fest? Yeah. Oh, yeah, I saw that. David French is explaining how bad the media got the Kyle Rittenhouse story, and Brian Stetler's like, mm-hmm, mm-hmm. That's crazy.

It's embarrassing. Oh, it's great. I just love that clip where the reporter is just like, I'd like to read you a list a list of everything we got wrong one and not really like that but it was basically like a six minute rundown of everything they got wrong and it was all stuff that could have easily been known the day it happened hey look i'm really excited to hear them in in uh in their you know defense filing for the defamation suits. Look, our standard is to do no research.

Yes. Not even a minute. In fact, we don't even have Google. There's no internet in our building. None. That checks out. Yeah. All right.

Let's see. John R. I sent a COVID micro plush to a friend with a humorous note that said, sorry, I gave you COVID. Triggered. Another friend asked if I knew a lawyer who would help him with a class action lawsuit against the unvaxxed. I'm running out of sane friends. Whoa. That'd be really funny to get the, sorry, I gave you COVID.

I think Michael Malice said he has a COVID positive shirt or something like that. Did he say that? Yeah, he's positive about COVID. Oh. He's very positive about it. Captain J-Dub says, Nick, could Midwest Lawyer explain the meaning of Little Binger's email address to my mom? I loved your stream, but it also made for some uncomfortable conversations. Yikes.

And I've actually had people ask me if that was his real email address. I don't know. Wait, wait, wait. But it might be? It was – you know those like people look up background check websites? People ran those. And they found you. And his former email address was – should I say it?

I mean is that okay? Fluffer, right? Flufferboy2004 at Yahoo.com. I told you that was real. There was like no way that's real. I told you that was real. There was no way that's real. We'll explain more in the members only segment when your children are not listening. It's fuzzy.

It's fine. I want to mention something, though. I have a friend who's pretty Antifa, and just all of his posts are like Rittenhouse bad, Rittenhouse this. He was posting the state has a really strong case. I know, just really bad law. And his friends who are also Antifa are like, dude, stop.

Like, but he was saying like, no, no, no, hear me out. 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. And that's its horrifying precedent for the future. And then he responded with, that's irrelevant to the facts of the case because the state is illegitimate. And then I said, well, hold on. We agree. Are we done? Can we just be like, we both think, I'm exaggerating a little bit. You're like i'm not a i'm not a statist for the most part but i'm like limited government 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 kyle rittenhouse was found not guilty we'll move on 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 that would be very nice okay poprator says tim this is an example of the lefty's blanket statement criminal justice reform buy one felon and get nine free doesn't work what does that mean like one person one innocent person

should go free i don't know oh we're on a buy one felon and get nine free like i'm not sure i'll follow that oh maybe if you maybe by uh maybe it's what you were talking about earlier where you got 16 people and you go okay first one to come to me oh yeah so you you buy one guy and then you get the rest maybe that's the i don't know yeah i'll i'll i'll be more uh specific and when i say like i'd probably never indict or convict you would just have to show me hard proof. Like there's no question. If you came to me and said, look at this fuzzy video, I'd be like, no, I don't care.

You got to show me literally the dude committing the crime. And if it's like victimless, get out of my face. 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. It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer so if he says it was self-defense unless you can prove otherwise i'm not convicting and no emotional argument you got to literally show me the video there's a video my brother posted this um or actually it's not my brother someone else it's uh uh it's a close-up shot

from that moment in question where the prosecution argued that Kyle Rittenhouse pointed the gun. There is a close-up, fairly high resolution. Have you seen it? It's one of the cell phone videos. That's right. And Rosenbaum jumps out at him and then he turns and he starts running. He never points the gun. He never has a second chance to do it. But the prosecution just made all this up. The defense didn't find that video. It's everywhere. You guys found it, didn't you? Yeah, it's actually in the defense's exhibits. Yeah, I believe it's in there. And the key, though, is once you get on the record a piece of evidence, you get to use it in closing argument. 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.

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. That's the only testimony that he raised the gun. And they had the opportunity to bring in the Zeminskis. They could have granted immunity on the one arson charge for Joshua Zeminski. He's got a million other issues in his past. This is not necessary. They could have granted him immunity to get rid of the Fifth Amendment issue and had him testify to raising the gun.

The reason they didn't is probably because he's a scary communist revolutionary who would be unpredictable on the stand and they know it someone is what is this someone's spamming i guess oh yeah oh well all right let's see daniel maxwell says we should always treat those who are accused of criminal act as innocent until proven guilty in court if we fail to do that then we will become what the woke far left accuse of all accuse us all of being uh i always do always this morning with the guy in waukesha he wasn't arrested he was a person of interest and a lot of people were like he was politically motivated they're outright saying it he's a blm supporter i'm like he was a blm supporter it may be politically motivated we have no evidence he's the he's the actual suspect or committed the crime.

We only know him as a person of interest. For all we know, he was at home sleeping. Someone stole his car. I mean, maybe not. I mean, the likelihood is probably that this dude got in his car and, you know, did this. There's a picture of him inside the car. Yeah, but it's not a – I'll tell you this. I will tell you this.

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, no, not guilty. Like it's a blurry, low-resolution photo. You can see a face and a beard. And so I can be like, maybe. But you want me to lock a guy up for a long period of time on that? Dude, get ready for deep fakes when they show a video of the guy saying things that he didn't actually say. Oh, yeah. And what do you do?

I mean look at this. They were able to get computer generated images admitted in evidence because none of them had the experience what happens if the process let me and answer 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 well i mean it look if it's an actual deep fake you know a prosecutor should never use it but that's not saying it won't happen what if they don't know how do you how do you well first of all i think the the amount of forensic tools you have at your disposal as a prosecutor

you can find out basically what you're saying is like an agent brings you a video that the agent knows is a deep fake doesn't tell the prosecutor and the prosecutor just like no no no no they get a unicorn bit of evidence on a friday you, 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 going to I'm going to get him. I'm going to get him triggered. I'm going to get him. And then as soon as they come after me, I'll take him out and claim self-defense.

What if the prosecutor gets that and goes, whoa, we got them? 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 the, so when you're, when you're in court trying to introduce evidence, you have to lay foundation. You have to say, where did this come from? How do you know it's true? What, what thing is, that's why you have to lay foundation. You have to say, where did this come from? How do you know it's true? What thing is? That's why you have to introduce evidence through a witness. The witness for the prosecution on all of the videos was a detective. And they said, how do you know that these are accurate? And he said, well, I went on Twitter and YouTube and downloaded the videos. And again, this is another detective who's not there that night. If anybody on the defense bar is watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and not understanding how damaging 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. If they're not looking at that, they're insane. You need to get the person who took the video, who was there that night, like Drew Hernandez, like Richie McGinnis, like Gage Groskowitz. They had three good sources. Oh, or the one guy. They're all bad, though, for the prosecutors. Well, right. And that's because the facts were bad for the prosecutors. But the other guy, the defense witnesses brought in, I can't remember his daughter. He was in the car with his daughter and they had the cell phone footage, you know, that they brought in. My audience called him one wick, but whatever. That's why you can bring those people in, subject them to cross-examination.

What were you doing? Why were you filming this? Why did this catch your attention? What was up with that? Those are the questions you're supposed to ask to lay the foundation for the evidence. And a lot of that evidence came in with just a detective saying, well, I went to a website and downloaded a video. It's like, is it a full video? Was it edited? Was it cropped?

Does it have a specific slant to it? Who took this video? And he had no idea. But you don't have to. So this is where a lot of defense attorneys get it wrong. 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. That goes to chain of custody and a judge decides that. It doesn't go to a jury. But if you can subject yourself to cross-examination and be credible and say yes that's what it looks like for all these reasons you can be the chain of custody witness yeah but you you have to be able to testify that what is on the screen is a fair

and accurate accurate representation of what happened and when you get attenuated by by a detective who's who sold testimony and this is, again, the defense's fault in this case. Yeah. The guy's sole testimony is, I went to Twitter and YouTube and downloaded the videos. No, I totally agree with you. Yeah. This is insane. Yeah. So you have no idea where these videos came from?

Right. You don't know when the files were created? And that's exactly. Can you tell me if these videos were manipulated or edited in any way? And even if the defense screwed up on this piece, which they did, like what judge in their right mind would let that in alone?

The judge can always jump in, even if the defense attorney's clowning around and say, where the hell is this from? Yeah, and Schrader was overly permissive in this case. 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. And in a standard criminal prosecution, it would be grounds for appeal if Kyle would have been convicted on several different places.

Yeah, but he spends a year in prison after the fact while he's waiting, right? He was out. No, but like if he's convicted and sentenced? He could be taken in he you yeah you can you can make a motion that he would be uh subject to probation and let out on release conditions that would be in the judge's discretion but for capital murder that's a tough one listen most guys when you get when you get convicted the prosecutor stands up at the end of the court and says uh he's a convicted felon yeah bond status is different remand 90 of the time you're going it.

Yeah. Yeah, for that. All right, let's read another one. We got this one from Trunan Anishaputapreshir, Batacaf Care. He says, Tim, please tell Rakeda

how to say my name so he can get it right in the future Super Chats. Love both your guests tonight and all the compound usual suspects. So I guess you've been mispronouncing Trunan Anishaputapreshir? Probably.

I painstakingly transcribed what Joe Biden said. Truan Inanna Shaba Depressor. I sat there. I slowed it down. Truan Inanna Shaba Depressor? Yes! It sounds like he was saying we're going to do

true international something under pressure. Sharing. True international. Can that be the next blimp, Luke? Yeah. I think it makes sense. The more blimps, the better. I'm pro-blimp. We built the blimp, but Luke's idea is to put the Let's Go Brandon on it.

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. I think we should – I agree. We should, yes, put that banner on the blimp. And if you're wondering what that is, I guess we'll have to bring this all up in the less family-friendly earmuffs for your children if you want to listen to it episode. It's so much fun. Heather Barrett says, Nick, will you be covering the gillane maxwell case

jury selection started in some sense but uh as kesh 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 so i will be looking for another full trial and the the biggest one on the horizon for me is kim potter the taser taser taser lady i have heard there will be cameras in the courtroom for her so we might be able to do a full trial of her but uh for for jelaine maxwell it will be uh it'll be tough yeah i mean just like take notes sit there stenographer 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 exactly what happened? We can send one of our journalists. Okay, can we do that? Do it. That would be great. This is in Minnesota, right? Maxwell?

Oh, it's in New York. Yes, absolutely. If we have media reports for Ghislaine Oh, Maxwell. Yes, yes, absolutely. We can get a reporter in there. Yeah, if we have media reports for Ghislaine Maxwell, I'm sure tons of people have been asking me to have the panel of lawyers review this case and talk about it. The question in all of these things is can we get the information? That's the main thing. So if we have a reliable source that's not filtered through like CNN, ABC, MSNBC, then I'm certain we can put some stuff together. We need a court reporter. Yeah, but remember, in federal court, so if you send anybody in there that's not the lawyers, no cell phones.

Right. So they'd have to literally be there writing everything down, then run out at lunch, give you an update. It would have to be someone with legal experience. Yeah. So if you guys know anyone, our reporters couldn't do it. Because if they say something like – I think the easiest example for most people they don't understand is with prejudice. I see all these people on Twitter saying like, whoa, they said with prejudice like they're racist or something. That's not what it means.

But it's a legal term. It has a different definition. So we need someone who understands that. Otherwise, imagine you get a layman in there and they say something with prejudice and he goes, because they were racist. I mean, look, this is pretty – I bet you Veritas and O'Keefe would get somebody tomorrow. Yeah. Yeah, I mean – Well, I would be interested in this as well. So feel free to email me, info at wearechanged.org.

But it has to be a lawyer. It has to be someone with legal expertise because – I mean a paralegal. A paralegal is just as good a lawyer. It has to be someone with legal expertise. I mean, a paralegal. Paralegal is just as good. 3L law student. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually, that's not a bad idea. Yeah, there might be there anyway.

Email jobs at timcast.com, and I'd love to get someone with legal experience or a law understanding. That's going to be a fun trial. Oh, yeah. Six weeks. 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.

It's going to be awesome. I love the tweets when all the celebrities are tweeting support for Rosenbaum. My thing was like, stop assuming things about people. I looked at the tweet from Mark Ruffalo where he called him Jojo. And I'm like, yo, yo, yo. Like a pet name for this guy. And I see all the responses were like, don't you know what he did? Don't you know what he did to children? Don't you know? I'm like, why do you all assume good? Like this guy is just a poor bumbling fool. Like you see them do these things over and over and over again. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 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, constantly touching the flame and going out. Maybe it won't burn this time. How? Maybe it won't burn this time because this dude does this a lot and not just him, but a bunch of other people. When Hollywood actively supports covers for weinstein the media covers for epstein they know all about it 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 yeah but we'll talk a bit more about hollywood is filled with some really nasty, bad people. I'll just leave it at that. Fox Chase Racing says, Nick is the kind of guy you can trust with your drunk, naked wife, but not your last glass of the Dalmore. No joke, Nick is one of the smartest, nicest, funniest guys,

and one with a functioning moral compass that inspires. Nick, you're a class act, my friend. Hey, what's up, Fox Chase? Thanks, buddy. So what's the Dalmore? Dalmore, it's a scotch. Ah, okay. So you just steal it from everybody.

Yeah. Well, Dalmore Cigar Malt is a fantastic scotch, by the way. Where did our pappy go? Oh, my goodness. It's over there. He stole it. It's delicious, by the way. I'm going to have more in a little bit.

You know, we have a really nice booze shelf. And we've had, like, I would say 90% of people are sober. They come in and say, I don't drink anymore. And so I'm like, would you like to part imbibe our delicious and costly alcohols? And they're like, oh, no, not me. I don't drink anymore. I'm like, oh, man. But Nick comes in and he's like, where's the whiskey?

Sir, come with me. It's like Willy Wonka. Like, look at all of the great whiskey you can me it's like willy walk i like look at all of the great whiskey you can drink i was excited i was like yes try the pappy you have to try the pappy i've tried two different pappies that's great they're both great i guess one technically isn't a pappy it's the family reserve or whatever but one is or something and it's like the keystone i like the uh the family reserve i liked it better the 13 year oh gosh it's good yeah but we have the lefroy again apparently it it tastes like the bottom of an ashtray.

I'm going to do that one next. Yeah, yeah, yeah. By all means. Band-Aids. I get the Band-Aids flavor. A little bit of road tar. That's great. What did they say?

It's actually like peat. Yeah. That's it. Very mossy. Very mossy. It's like eating a campfire. I mean, that's put out. I mean, we're not crazy here.

I'll be honest. I actually like the taste. Oh, yeah. I'm not a drinker or anything, but I like that kind of flavor. Flavor, yeah. Yeah, Lagavulin's another one that's just solid on the smoke and peat. Sharkbitebiz says, hey, Tim, loved you on Rogan. Huge fan.

Give a shout out to my show on YouTube. Sharkbitebiz just chatted with Gwar today how nfts are the gateway to the multiverse yeah the multiverse totally tippy ian would love it shark bite shark bite biz thank you very much how you think for that thank you nice missy kin 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? No, I don't. I actually don't know. 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. I don't know them enough, but there's a few reporters who were involved who had done things of principle that I remember.

I can't get specific. It's been too long. But I remember talking to them and being like, that was a class act. They said something. They called out some fake news and were like, that's BS. But Vice as a whole, man, really went down the gutter. It's kind of crazy to think that like, you know, I was the first person they hired for Vice News.

They had an idea. They want to do something, but they didn't want to do on the ground reporting. 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. And so I actually went on the ground in Ukraine and Venezuela and Brazil and all these countries. And then to see where it is now and just like what it turned into, I'm kind of like – I used to be like, did you know that I was the founding member of Vice News? Now I'm like, I don't know. I have nothing to do with that. That's not what you're talking about.

I don't know. No, no. Oh, no. No, I have it on my Twitter. Only Wikipedia posts it now. Now they're like in big bold letters like everyone should know. But there was a point where I was very much like very proud that it be it after I left it was doing really well. They were doing great reporting Syria internationally. And then it just went like,

it's not really news anymore. It's just like feminism. Yeah, you know, yep. I know why too. I think I talked about on the show because I have a friend who was an executive. And it was basically that they, the investors revolted over the potential lawsuits they were facing. Long story short, 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. And they were just like, okay. Vice is the HBO one?

Vice is a, they were on HBO, not on Showtime, but they're just a big media company. They shot an episode about me. Oh, yeah. How was it? I went out to Telluride after I retired and they wanted to just shoot me. And they came out and filmed me for two days and they used 67 seconds of footage.

Well, they had a daily show. They had a daily show and a magazine. Now, that story about what I was told might not be true. I don't know. I do know what I experienced, but I was told by someone who know, someone who was a former, like, higher up, that lawsuits were a big deal and that they had, they had accusations

against people in the company over, like, you know, harassment, things like that. And they were like, we got to get in front of this.

They also had, Vice had a really big PR blunder when one of their hosts of Vice on HBO admitted on YouTube that he raped a masseuse and went, what?

I'll give some legal advice. Never douse. Oh, my God. What? I'll give some legal advice. Never do that. Don't do that. He went into great detail. Holy moly. Yeah, it was, you know the dude who painted Facebook? And then they were like, we'll give you stock in exchange for painting this place. And he was like, okay.

And then he became a multimillionaire. Yes, yes. I like that guy. I think that was him. I could be wrong. Oh, my gosh. What was his name? I like him

less he's been rogan he's like a this really um eccentric artist he did he did a podcast i i may be getting this wrong show something david show is it him i gotta look it up yeah um 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 or 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 and he goes into detail which I won't detail here what about how he grabbed the woman and was like very excited and then they were all like uh and then definitely David chose the facebook guy I don't know if it's the same guy I'm pretty sure that was him he was on vice you know maybe yeah and then they were like what do we do and

then they were like i got an idea nothing just don't say anything you'll pour fuel on the fire and let it you know all blow over so welcome to media huh all right we'll grab a couple more here yes it yes it's test says tim you should have, you should have Amazon's Utopia writers on your show and discuss what would be revealed in season two. There was also a British version, but it only lasted one season. It would be an interesting conversation. Great show, but very creepy.

Yeah, you know about Utopia, right, you guys? No idea. 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 oh there you go it's a pretty good show but it's a little

some well no some of the acting well it's not really i mean it's just like people thought they had to put a disclaimer saying this is not real life in any way and like don't this guy wrote this in 2016 i think it was actually written over a decade ago yeah 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 i believe it was called titan right i think so yeah believe it was called Titan, right? I think so. Yeah, and it was written like 50 years before the Titanic sank. Wow.

Yeah, that's a true story. True, true, true story. Crazy, huh? It's a title, but yeah. Jack says Mark Ruffalo is from Kenosha, Wisconsin. Is that true? I gotta look that up now. I have no idea.

One of those facts that sounds like it's true, but it's not. It's like gotta be. Yeah, like who would just say that oh wow really yeah it's so weird because you know being from chicago like we all know kenosha we all know antioch you know we all know these places so for me it was actually it's fairly easy to see through some of these some of these lies because when they were like he crossed state lines i was like from antioch like what he like probably walked out his backyard like what are you talking about what does that mean?

For a lot of people who don't know anything about Illinois, they're assuming that, you know, he got in his car, drove 100 miles to a city he's never been to. And that's how the lies work, man. That's how they get you. That's why you got to fix the media. Joseph Rosenbaum crossed several state lines from his convictions in Arizona all the way up to Wisconsin. Yeah. Yeah. Man.

We'll do this one more. This is a good one. Oh, wait. What's this? Joshua R. Polson says, Veritas hired Paul Calley of Calley Law to file their complaint to the feds. Oh.

Really? Is that new? I don't know. I don't know. Tree Climber says, Alec Baldwin trial. Yeah. What are your quick thoughts

on what's going on with the Alec Baldwin stuff? Ooh. Quick thoughts. Okay. maybe not. Well, I'll keep it simple. Do you think there will be any charges or an indictment? I don't think they'll do it against Alec Baldwin.

If they do any charges or indictment, it would be maybe negligence, criminal negligence against one of the armorer or the more likely that assistant director or whatever. He's the guy who said the gun was clear and admitted to the police that he didn't check it. They're going to pay off the family. Yeah. Huge check. We got a regular chat here that I have to read. I think it's really good. Okay.

Joe Joe Biden. Yes. I like it. I dig it. Yeah. Luke, you got to make a check. I saw that. Luke writes it down.

I'm making a check. I got my notes. Mark Ruffalo tweeting out support for Joe Joe Biden. I saw that. Luke writes it down. I'm making a shirt. I got my notes. Mark Ruffalo tweeting out support for Joe Joe Biden. There you go. And the only people who know, like only if you know, you know. You know what I mean? If you know, you're kind of like, yikes. All right, everybody.

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. Take that URL up top, paste it on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram. Well, you can't really put it on Instagram, but you can click that share button. That really helps out. Don't forget, go to TimCast.com. We're going to have a members-only segment that apparently is going to be very gross and not family-friendly. I might need alcohol.

You are free to drink all of it. We definitely need more. But we've got to talk about there's a lot of stuff with the Maxwell trial. There's a lot of stuff with Rosenbaum and the aftermath and what we're talking about with Joe Joe Biden we'll get into. So make sure you check that out. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL basically everywhere or like TimCast underscore IRL or something. You can follow me everywhere at TimCast.

I'll be posting stuff on Instagram more. I'm trying to – Twitter is – but you guys want to – well, Rekhaida, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, I'll shout out my YouTube channel, Rekhaida Law on YouTube. I do nightly live streams at, Reketa Law on YouTube. I do nightly live streams at 11 p.m. Central Time. They tend to go till 2 a.m. Central Time. 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. We'll be discussing more focused legal topics on that show and be looking for trials to follow a la the Rittenhouse trial. So come check it out.

Cool. Thanks for having me back, guys. I really appreciate it. 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. All the money, I keep nothing. All that goes to lawyers who are skilled in defamation suits. We will pay for them and we want nothing in return.

We want you guys to have your day in court and help fix their correct media. If Kyle's Camp is in need of funding, let us know. Info at fightwithcash.com. 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. Just jump in the discount code TimCast. I want that. 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. So thanks for everything. Awesome. Well, Cash, thank you for the beanie.

I might have to start a beanie competition with Tim. Who knows, but I appreciate. Thanks for sending that to me. And yeah, a lot of crazy stuff is happening all around the world, especially in Holland and Belgium and Italy. I talked about that extensively on my YouTube channel.

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. I talked about that exclusively on LukeUncensored.com. Hope to see some of you guys there. Thanks for having me. That was great. Great to see you again, man.

Cash and Nick, good to meet you, man. Hope to see you guys again. Wonderful night. Ian Crossland. That's IanCrossland.net. Check it out. Peace out. And before we go,

I have two little bits of completely unrelated trivia. So if you pass out when you see blood, you have a form of vasovagal syncope. So that's correct. It's the vagus nerve that affects your ability to handle the sight of blood. It's like a strong response. And there were not one but two books

that predicted the sinking of the Titanic well before it happened, which is really interesting. Including, yeah, the Titans. Did you guys see that creepy video where the bailiff in the courtroom's foot disappears on stream? Yes.

I was joking when I tweeted it, but people are taking it seriously. I said it was a simulation the whole time. It was just a streaming glitch. But I had people responding like, you're crazy. And I'm like, I was joking. It's a YouTube glitch or something. This is why artifacting and compression are very, very important topics for young defense lawyers to learn. This video should be preserved if it ever comes up again, like any trial.

It's like, I'd like to use this evidence. Your Honor, I'd like you to watch this clip from YouTube where the cop's foot disappears. From the court's feed. Yeah, right. All right, everybody, head over to TimCast.com. Become a member, and we will see you all there around 11 or so p.m. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.