DeSantis openly condemns the World Economic Forum and their globalist policies.
(mobile.twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (92)
sorted by:
Interesting observations about Barnes.
I have recently had similar doubts about him as well.
Something about him rubs me the wrong way.
Looks like he constantly employs the tactic of a limited hangout where he will talk about something true but will make sure to not touch on anything truly subversive.
I see Jack Posobeic and TheLastRefuge guy from the conservative treehouse also do this exact sort of thing.
I don't trust any of these political commentators these days.
They all have their little scheming agendas.
Limited hangout, bingo. There are a lot of these around lately and they're poisonous. Keep your eyes out for Jeffrey Sachs doing the rounds on the podcast circuit these days: a chummy friendly old professor type who calls out the lying press and just tells it like it is, goshdarnit! (but also happens to be the chair of the covid 19 commission report, a WHO cheerleader and crusader for structural adjustment, absolute WEF viper)
One of the big red flags for Barnes for me was when the whole Jack Murphy controversy broke at the beginning of the year, Barnes threatened to sue people for libel for anyone who was dunking on Jack. And he said this was because he had represented Jack in the past. This had two implications. First, his opinions are for sale. This should be obvious given that he's a TV lawyer. Second, his legal arguments are for sale and do not depend on the actual law. The truth, such as Jack places dildos in his ass and talks about cucking and fucking dudes, is an absolute defense to libel claims and Barnes knows this. But you can pay Barnes to argue anything about the law. This should also be obvious given that he's a TV lawyer. But the bottom line is that you can never take what he says at face value.
I've mostly stopped watching Barnes because his partner Viva surreptitiously left Canada without being honest with his audience first (while also leaving all the pro-convoy folks behind to fight battles themselves).
I don't necessarily think it's odd for lawyers to hold heterodox and defensive views regarding former clients like Jack Murphy.
There's likely a complex interplay between not wanting to accidentally break client-attorney privilege, not wanting to deep six the prospect of future legal work from said client along with not wanting to send a signal to the industry as well as prospective future clients that you are willing to throw past clients under the bus.