Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 31, 2023 - Triggered - Donald Trump Jr

01:13:40

The Interview You've All Been Asking for: Trial Lawyer Robert Barnes | TRIGGERED Ep.64

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you you
	guys welcome to another awesome episode of Triggered, and I think you're really going to enjoy
	tonight's show.
	We have trial lawyer Robert Barnes.
	He's worked on a lot of high-profile cases.
	He's a big advocate for free speech.
	I'm sure you've seen him all over social media.
	Twitter, truth, exposing the left's corruption case by case.
	I know I've seen it in the commentary from those of you watching, so I think you're really going to learn a lot from Robert Barnes tonight.
	Make sure you're liking, make sure you're sharing, make sure you're subscribing, and download the Rumble app so you can get notifications of this kind of things.
	We're taking it to the fake news, even conservative fake news, We're taking it to big tech.
	We're able to do it, but we're not able to do it without your guys' help.
	So liking, sharing, subscribing, pushing this message is all part of it.
	We got to play the game. We got to play it fully.
	So you guys are a big part of that, along with our incredible, brave sponsors.
	So before we begin, I want to make sure you guys look and check out the great folks over at Goldco and take the steps needed to secure and stabilize your portfolio.
	Guys, we see the chaos from Joe Biden and the Democrat radicalist agenda.
	It's getting worse every day.
	We saw the Fed recently raise rates to the highest levels in 22 years.
	Add that to the inflation, the reckless spending, the global turmoil we see playing out every day, and I want you to be prepared.
	So owning tangible, physical, inflation-hedging gold and silver can help secure and stabilize your portfolio.
	And Goldco is top-notch customer service.
	They'll answer all of your questions.
	They'll walk you through the process step-by-step so you can learn on your own.
	Check them out at donjrgold.com.
	That's D-O-N-J-R-gold.com to learn more.
	It's simple. They'll take you through it.
	They want you to educate yourselves, and you can make a decision.
	But let's face it, we see what's going on.
	It feels like 2008 all over again.
	We're going to hit a wall going 1,000 miles an hour, even though we've been slowing a lot under the insanity of this administration.
	It's gonna get worse.
	And we see that. So go check out DonJrGold.com and learn more.
	And while you're at it, don't forget to check out the incredible folks at Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
	I have a feeling you're gonna have a phone in your pocket, guys.
	So if you're gonna do it, have it with a carrier that supports the things that you believe in, where they put America first with every call while getting the same nationwide coverage as the major carriers.
	Patriot Mobile provides you dependable wireless service at an affordable price, putting your dollars into action and supporting freedom-loving values.
	They donate literally a portion of every dollar to support groups that fight for the First Amendment, that fight for the Second Amendment, our great right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life, protecting our brave police and first responders.
	They fought some of the school board battles and won.
	Okay? These are guys that support you.
	Instead, you could be supporting the woke companies that hate your guts
	and will weaponize your hard-earned dollars against you.
	So it seems like a simple one to me, and you're going to have a cell phone in your pocket.
	So for fast, quick, easy activation, go to patriotmobile.com slash triggered.
	That's patriotmobile.com slash triggered.
	And vote with your wallet, folks.
	It's simple. You see what the other side is trying to do.
	You see what the parent companies of AT&T, for example, did trying to cancel Newsmax and OAN from cable.
	They don't even want you to have a voice.
	So you can keep feeding that beast, or you can go to patriotmobile.com slash triggered for fast, free activation.
	Seems like a no-brainer to me.
	But with that, we're going to be joined now by attorney Robert Barnes.
	All right, guys. We got the great Robert Barnes on here.
	So, Robert, first and foremost, welcome to the show.
	First time on. But, you know, I see it a lot in the comments.
	Your name actually pop up.
	So I know you got a great following on here.
	Obviously, you're with on David.
	You know, Viva Freya on here all the time, talking on Rumble, one of the other adapters at this platform.
	You know, for those who may not know, and I think there's a lot of them that do, but for those who may not know, can you introduce yourself a bit to the audience, talk about your career in law, some of your biggest cases, and how you ended up sort of being with such a big following while analyzing, say, the Trump indictments and really the left's destruction of our legal system and the weaponization and lawfare that we're seeing coming from the left today?
	Sure, yeah. So politically, old school, populist background, became a lawyer in 2000, representing people across the political spectrum, mostly on civil rights, constitutional, and in criminal cases.
	And it, I mean, literally, some people get upset about somebody I've represented, and I said that's easy because they dislike one another.
	I've represented everybody from Ralph Nader to Alex Jones, from Jill Stein to the Covington kids, from the Green Party to the Libertarian Party.
	You know, everybody across the political spectrum, Robert Kennedy to Donald Trump.
	And it covers the entire political spectrum because what I care about is constitutional rights and liberties.
	I became kind of a public figure because the insanity started to ratchet up in 2015, early 2016.
	The first time someone asked me to comment was on a tax aspect of Donald Trump, then
	the candidate, keeping his tax information private.
	And I explained the read because they do a lot of criminal tax and civil tax cases, explained
	that that's a very normal and in fact a well-advised thing to do.
	And just as the political insanity ratcheted up where the left sort of dominated the legal
	profession, sort of co-opted it, the statist version of the left.
	Not people like Bobby Kennedy, not people from a civil rights or civil liberties tradition,
	but people that are like a 1930s Soviet mindset mentality, where the ends justify the means.
	And I saw them weaponize the legal system in some of the most insane and inane ways
	I'd ever seen to the great detriment of our constitutional republic.
	And so I became more of a public figure because I was horrified at what they were trying to
	do to the country and to the rule of law and the constitution that I deeply cherish.
	Okay, so some of the lawfare, you know, let's just generally call it that, that we're seeing, I mean, you know, we're, and our viewers, now they see it because it's so flagrant, because it's so over the top, because it's just used every day, and the hypocrisy, the two-tiered system of justice that we talk about all the time, I mean, it's so in their face, but this isn't necessarily a new tactic that I mean, how long has this been going on?
	What are some of the bigger, you know, cases that people would understand just to say, hey, it's not new.
	It's just gone so much further today.
	Absolutely. What I've said is it's measured up in scope and scale to an extraordinary and perilous degree.
	So the people I represented were generally outsiders, dissidents, and that's usually who they weaponized the legal system against.
	Going all the way back, I mean, the British did it to a wider range of people right before the American Revolution.
	Patrick Henry's famous Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech was arguably the greatest tax acquittal of all time.
	So that had happened, but we scaled it back in America with only selective actions taken, the Alien and Sedition Acts briefly in the early 1800s.
	Then you had the targeting of labor activists in the 1890s and 1900s.
	Eugene V. Debs during World War I and Congressman Berger.
	So there are little bits and pieces.
	We saw it against Martin Luther King in the 1960s in the American South, 1950s.
	But we hadn't seen it on this scale at all before.
	So I had experienced it because for about a better part of a quarter century, it defended people being targeted for political reasons, but they were mostly little-known people.
	People on the outskirts or the outside.
	What was so dangerous about this is now they were trying to do it to the leading candidate for the president and then the incumbent president, now the leading opponent of the existing political administration, and effectively trying to strip 80 million Americans of their ability to vote in the 2024 election for who they want.
	That's where it became dangerous, but it's always been there.
	And I always tell people, if you want an example, Look at the Cuban show trials, the Soviet show trials, the Stassi show trials.
	I mean, we saw it today. Today we see an announcement by a judge in D.C. of a trial date that makes absolutely no sense, right before Super Tuesday.
	The only logic to do that is to try to prevent President Trump from campaigning in the primaries and to try to get a conviction to try to influence the 2024 November elections.
	That is a pure show trial.
	Yeah, so, yeah, for people who haven't been paying attention, the Obama, I mean, D.C. judge literally said, Super Tuesday, it's like 12 or 14 states.
	That's when they have their primary.
	The D.C. trial from my father and his indictment starts...
	The day before that, trying to take him off the playing field, not just for that day, but presumably in the weeks leading up to it, because, you know, some of these things, they'd like to try him for up to and including things that involve the death penalty.
	Robert, like... How is it, though, that, you know, while this has been going on so long, how is it that the lawfare has been so co-opted by the left?
	Why haven't the right sort of fought back fire with fire?
	Are there no, you know, conservative trial attorneys that are willing to do this?
	I mean, you know, and I get it.
	It's sort of the conservative mindset, live and let live and this, but, like, we've turned the other cheek so long.
	And it's like the greatest gift we've given to the left because we've allowed them to assume control over virtually every institution in America.
	And I don't just mean governmental.
	I mean, you know, academia. I mean, even pop culture, sports.
	Like, military generals are woke leftists now, and I'm trying to figure out how this jives with, like, the door kickers that I know that clearly aren't.
	How is it possible that it's been so one-sided?
	Why is that? It's really a class war, and essentially the left took over the professional managerial class, and then they made the professional managerial class through credentialing and licensing the gatekeepers to all the institutions of influence.
	They control things like public relations and human resources at major corporations.
	They increasingly control where pension funds are even being invested on Wall Street.
	That's where ESG comes from.
	By definition, they control the legal process because you have to have a lawyer, which means every judge comes from it.
	And they share these same professional managerial class prejudices that were heavily shaped by what was happening in schools.
	Because they made education the ticket to professional class access.
	And then they used that control over the educational process to culturally condition an entire generation.
	To sort of do Gramsci-style slow walk through the institutions.
	And before we know it, Hollywood's all controlled by the left.
	The state, you know, all the bureaucracies are controlled by the left.
	The judiciary is controlled by the left.
	The legal profession itself, people supposed to be advocating, are controlled by the left.
	And the wrong kind of left.
	Not the Robert Kennedy, Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley left, but the statist, Soviet, Stasi-minded,
	ends justify the means left.
	And that's effectively what happened.
	And we woke up too late, and all of a sudden, all of our institutions of influence at every
	single level, whether it's Hollywood, culture, academia, law, politics, the state, corporate
	bureaucracies, key decision makers on Wall Street, all controlled by people who hate
	ordinary Americans.
	So let's, you know, we have an expert on here, like I love following you on social and seeing
	you break down the cases, both, you know, where, you know, the pitfalls, the dangers,
	but also, you know, how to combat some of them.
	You know, for the audience, can you take us through the cases?
	So there's four, they're all kind of big, they're all kind of different, and they're all kind of different to me with a purpose, right?
	You have some of the stuff that sort of Isolated at the state so that you can't sort of have, you know, the party component.
	Obviously, it gets a lot deeper than that.
	But can you take us through the cases and lay out how the law is being misapplied in each one of them?
	What are the big holes?
	And with Jack Smith, with Fannie Willis in those indictments, and what are they trying to do, you know, in the lawfare aspects of what's going on versus what would be constitutionally acceptable by anyone else?
	It's really three levels of unprecedented, unparalleled legal actions in each of the indictments.
	So first, we've never had a former president indicted before.
	We've never had the leading presidential opponent of the presidential incumbent administration indicted before.
	Those two things by themselves raise a wide range of constitutional issues.
	But what's also extraordinary here is each of these indictments pursues novel legal theories never pursued before.
	Extraordinary all four do.
	The New York indictment seeks a theory of damages.
	The idea that you settling a case privately in your corporation somehow defrauds the corporation is the nuttiest, looniest theory ever.
	There's not another analogous case in the country.
	The idea that keeping your own documents, which is what the president keeping classified documents are, which he can declassify at any moment while president, the idea that that somehow could be a crime has just never been charged before.
	The idea that challenging an election, which has been done since the beginning of American history, is somehow now a crime has never been done before.
	The idea that political activities can be a RICO charge has never been done before.
	All of these things are unparalleled.
	And by the way, if they could, I feel like the Democrats would be in serious trouble based on a lot of the behavior, based on a lot of the things that they sort of let slip.
	Let's just say if it was conservatives doing it during, say, the summer of 2020, summer of love riots, wouldn't be acceptable.
	Oh, no doubt. I mean, there's a lot of confession through projection.
	You go back to Russiagate and Spygate, everything that happened, you listen to the allegations.
	The allegations during all of those things against the president was that the president and his family, including you, were involved in some sort of conspiracy to influence the elections and make yourself profit.
	Well, what were they talking about?
	Joe Biden and Hunter Biden conspiring with Ukrainian politicians and others to line their own pockets in order to cover up criminal behavior.
	It's amazing. I know that I am not the great man that Hunter Biden is.
	I aspire one day to maybe be half the man that Hunter is.
	But like, you know, in all fairness, I have a feeling if it was Don Jr., I'd be in Gitmo.
	And rightfully so.
	Oh, no doubt about it. And then you look at what the campaign indictments are, and again, or even look at the New York indictment.
	Was there an effort to cover up, you know, elicit money laundering to cover up election activities?
	Yeah, it was what Hillary Clinton did, using Perkins' code to disguise money laundering for campaign funds to Fusion GPS, who, by the way, was represented by the law firm, who a particular judge, now presiding over the Trump trial in D.C., was a partner at.
	Aren't those the same lawyers that magically picked up Ray Epps' trial?
	You know, sort of shocking that they would pick up one of the instigators of January 6th and just represent them out of the kindness of their hearts because it definitely was not a setup.
	I believe that's the one, isn't it?
	There's extraordinary overlaps and connections that keep popping up.
	Hunter Biden ends up connected to these same law firms and attorneys and the same judge.
	I mean, you have the judge in the D.C. case, who you couldn't make this up, who, as the New York Post has reported, is literally the granddaughter and niece of the most famous foreign radical communists in Jamaica.
	I mean, so radical that the socialists kicked them out.
	I mean, how radical do you have to be for that to happen?
	And yet now she's the judge presiding over the Trump case in D.C. And the same judge who said, hey, you January 6th defendants, you're going to have to sit in gulags for two years or longer because we need more time before we can go to trial, has now said President Trump has six months To prepare for a case with over 12 million documents expected to last at least three months in trial.
	There's no case like it that's ever been done.
	For perspective people, I think I saw the analogy that the legal defense team of my father used was that if you took pieces of paper and stacked them, that this is taller than the Washington Monument.
	All right? They have to, with a team of a, you know, you can't have just a million people looking at something, because you've got to be able to actually assimilate all of that information and combine it.
	So you have to do that with a team, but a stack, a book, the height of the Washington Monument, and they're supposed to figure this out by early March?
	It's insane.
	So, Robert, you started off sort of talking about sort of the unprecedented attack on what was then a sitting president, now a former president, and I don't think anyone's actually making the claim that if the president actually went up and shot someone, that they shouldn't be subject to our laws.
	No one's making that case, but the fact that they're actually creating...
	Almost new rules, new precedent to try in any sort of machination to create a crime after the fact is what the real issue is.
	Because people are like, well, you don't want him to be killed again if they actually did something, but that's not what they're trying to do with these cases.
	They're trying novel legal theory, and they're trying it with You know, I guess to the Trump campaign's point, to someone who's got a platform, who's got the ability to fund it, who's got millions of followers, they don't even care.
	If they can do this to the President of the United States, they can, and if you've been watching, they intend in the future to do this to anyone who would stand in their way.
	Oh, completely. I mean, because not only are the prosecutions unparalleled and are totally novel and wildly creative and a complete weaponization of the legal process and the legal system, but in my view, the Constitution was designed to prevent local prosecutors from hijacking our elections and hijacking the presidency.
	But through both the impeachment clause and the First Amendment.
	That the impeachment clause says if you want to indict the president, there's a way to do so.
	You impeach him in the House, you convict him in the Senate, and then you can pursue criminal remedies against him.
	I think that has to be the exclusive remedy to go after someone that's the president.
	Otherwise, the president's at the whim of any local prosecutor anywhere in America.
	The second issue is the First Amendment.
	The First Amendment, in my view, is designed to preclude the incumbent administration from indicting their opponent.
	If this election, at a minimum, all these indictments should be stayed pending the outcome of the election.
	Otherwise, we're seeing what's happened.
	Donald Trump has to appear in all of these cases.
	They're scheduling the cases so that he cannot campaign at all from March through November.
	Because after the March trial is the late May Florida trial, then after that's going to be the New York trial, then right after that they're scheduling the Georgia trial.
	So he's never able to campaign.
	One of the greatest campaigners in the history of American politics, they're trying to literally legally remove from the ability to campaign.
	If the First Amendment isn't there to protect against that, what's it there for?
	Yeah, and the timing and the magnitude of it is all so clear.
	It's obvious what they're doing.
	Now, I'll say this, and maybe this is crazy, but Trump may be the one person that can actually benefit from that, meaning sort of like the mugshot.
	It was designed to embarrass.
	It was designed to humiliate.
	It was designed to get everyone to tuck tail and run, and it's had the opposite effect.
	I mean, I think you could see that here.
	Because if they did it with one thing on a serious thing, maybe you would take it seriously.
	But because they're pursuing it from all these angles, because they're trying to make sure that the remedy that works here doesn't there, so they get every possible chance to be able to stop him, it's almost so obvious that the American people see it.
	He may be the one person that could actually benefit from this total miscarriage of justice.
	No doubt. And he's done it very well.
	And what he said to Tucker is exactly right.
	The key to all of this, the bulwark against all of this, is the American people.
	And Sticks and Hammer had a great set of tweets today where he was saying, look, they want you to quit.
	They want you to forfeit.
	They want you to go home.
	I like to say that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing you he doesn't exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulls is convincing you that you cannot resist.
	And that's what all the... It's about trying to build up futility and a sense of defeatism.
	And people saying, oh, okay, the election's going to be stolen anyway, so nothing I do matters.
	They're going to lock them up, and I can't make a difference.
	And what President Trump's point was is, as long as you believe otherwise, it will, in fact, be otherwise.
	Because that's the key point.
	That's the thing they have to break through or they lose.
	I agree with that 100%.
	Now, that said... Can you ever get a fair trial here?
	You know, clearly, you know, the prosecutors, you know, with shady reputation overturned unanimously in the Supreme Court, you know, Can you get a fair trial?
	I mean, it's clearly designed so you can't, right?
	Whether it's the judges, the prosecutors that magically, you know, magically get paid, you know, Jack Smith, oh, you know, with overturned every time, history of corruption, and just not playing by rules, I mean, that seems hand-picked to do the bidding of the regime.
	But, you know, even if you break it down beyond the judges and the prosecutors, if you have a stacked jury, how do you overcome that?
	Now, in some of the cases that are, let's call them federal, I guess, you keep appealing to the Supreme Court and hopefully, you know, normalcy prevails, right?
	But it doesn't matter. It's a delay tactic.
	It's designed to drain you. It's designed to, you know, drain your coffers so you don't have the funds to be able to either fight other things or to campaign or whatever it may be.
	How do you overcome all of that?
	More importantly, How do you overcome it in the places where they're designed to take that out of it?
	They're in the states.
	There is no necessarily appeal to the Supreme Court.
	People say, well, petition to go to federal court.
	Like, it's not that simple. They've got to sign off on these things.
	What would your legal strategy be handling some of these things, or each of the four?
	Because they're all kind of different, and they're designed, I think, different so that at least maybe something lands.
	Right? There's a reason there's so many charges, not just one.
	They don't need to win all of them.
	You know, for me, with Russia, Russia, Russia, when they said, you know, well, we want to try him for treason.
	You know, it's a crime punishable by death.
	I didn't just have to win the legal battle.
	I also had to win the PR battle.
	And those two things are often very separate and distinct.
	They only have to win one.
	You got to win both. And in my father's case, you got to win both plus 97 counts with the array designed to make it almost impossible to win.
	Oh, completely. I mean, they're going to prioritize D.C. because the New York case was too weak.
	Nobody cared. The Georgia case is so nuts.
	There's no way that was going to go to trial quickly.
	In the Florida case, you have a possibility of a fair judge and a fair jury.
	So that's why they settled on D.C. and they have a lynching judge and a lynching jury pool.
	And the judge is already trying to contaminate the ability to even have an impartial jury.
	Because the judge is threatening Trump's lawyers saying, if you do a poll to show that there's actually the jury pool is so prejudiced, you have to let me know in advance.
	I've never seen a judge do that ever.
	The idea that a poll could prejudice the jury pool is literally insane.
	You talk to a thousand people out of a million.
	So it's almost impossible to prejudice them.
	It's misuse and abuse of judicial power by this rogue judge.
	So in D.C. it is not possible to get, with that judge and that jury pool, it is not possible to get an impartial jury or anything even vaguely resembling one.
	I mean, what was extraordinary was President Trump won the sexual assault rape charge with a bunch of liberal Democrats in New York.
	But that would require an even more bigger achievement in D.C. You're talking about only 3-5% of people in D.C. support the president.
	Yeah. And they'll keep them, that's who they'll keep off the jury pool.
	Of course, those will be, you know, the 5%, you know, in a jury pool of 20, they'll find those two people, you know, and get rid of them.
	You know, that will be where they'll use their hatchet.
	So you have a 100% stacked jury.
	And I guess it's why Jack Smith, Went to a D.C. grand jury for something they knew would end up in Florida.
	Talk about that because you see the insanity.
	Like, what does a D.C. grand jury have to do with a case that's going to be tried in Florida?
	Clearly, they were trying to pre-bake the answer because they knew they'd be able to get what they wanted out of it.
	But doesn't that sort of, I mean, theoretically or legally, wouldn't that take Florida off the table immediately as, you know, just like mistrial done, like you can't do that?
	Or is there some sort of standing that they have to actually pull that off?
	It's an independent grounds to move to dismiss on venue and vicinity grounds that they deliberately abused the grand jury process because a grand jury isn't roaming.
	You can't handpick your grand jury to indict somewhere else.
	And then he not only did that, the chief judge, quite frankly, in D.C. conspired, in my view, To deprive President Trump and others in that case of their rights, including forcing an employee to give up his counsel, hire a lefty federal public defender who then coerced that guy into testifying against somebody else.
	I mean, if I as a defense lawyer did any of these things, I would be in jail.
	And yet the judges are doing these things.
	And so I think they have to bring every single motion, motions to dismiss, motions to continue, motions to stay.
	I think all these cases should be stayed until the election.
	If all these cases are so good and so clean, well, then there's no need to interfere in the election.
	Let's let the people vote with an honest election with no campaign interference.
	And you can bring the cases back after the election day and let the American people have a say in all this.
	Yeah, that's what strikes me as odd, right?
	The people, the media, all those people that, you know, screamed about democracy, you know, if Trump, you know, tweeted Merry Christmas or something like that, they're losing their minds.
	You know, they scream when, you know, Putin locks up his political opposition.
	Awfully silent now.
	I don't hear any of those people screaming about this.
	I don't even hear them making the analogy.
	They're similar but different because they're not at all different, but that doesn't matter.
	So rather than even talk about it, they just pretend like it's not even happening.
	What is going on with that?
	Because it is striking how flagrant this could be.
	I have a feeling if the You know, if it was, you know, D and not R under attack, you know, there would be a press, you know, not just Robert Barnes or David Frey talking about it, you know, on their podcast or Don Jr.
	Like, there would be actually people who'd label themselves journalists, even if they're just regime propagandists these days.
	And, like, talking about these instances and how corrupt and how flagrant it is and how bad it is, and yet there's literally not—there's almost nothing out there, which, again, why I tell people, like, you know, like, share, subscribe, watch this kind of programming, check out Robert on social, so you can actually see— Honestly, even Fox News will not tell you.
	They won't even talk about these things because it's not had in polite company.
	You still want to get invited to the cool person Christmas party in Washington, D.C. You can say some stuff about maybe tax reform, but you can't really talk about This weaponization of our institutions because they're all doing it.
	They're all part of it. Or they're fine with it because, you know, if you're fine with it, they'll leave you alone.
	You can be conservative light and then you have an easy existence in Washington, D.C. Very much so.
	I mean, it's very Orwellian.
	Language means the exact opposite of what language means.
	All of a sudden, 2 plus 2 equals 5, and if you say otherwise, you get shocked one more time.
	And it's the complete distortion of law, the complete distortion of democratic principles, the complete distortion of constitutional history.
	The complete distortion of America.
	And what I tell people is this case isn't really just about President Trump.
	It's about the future of the country.
	Either we're gonna survive or we're not gonna survive.
	And how these cases are handled and how the public responds and reacts on Election Day will shape the future of the country.
	Because these are cases, I mean, this implicates First Amendment rights in terms of selective prosecution, First Amendment rights in terms of freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government, one of the most foundational rights constitutionally.
	Every single thing they accused President Trump of, as Professor Turley, a Democrat, acknowledged, if you took out all the First Amendment activities, all you're left with is a haiku.
	There's nothing else left.
	Every single thing he's doing is petitioning the government, which is everybody's fundamental right as an American.
	It was one of the number one things complained about in the Declaration of Independence was the wrongful denial of the right to petition the government.
	And here we are, the president, he's petitioning the vice president, he's petitioning Congress, he's petitioning his own Justice Department, he's petitioning the secretaries of states and governors and state legislatures.
	That's his constitutionally consecrated right.
	And going back 400 years, the English court said that the right to petition means you cannot criminalize petitioning.
	And yet that's what they're doing in the Florida case, in the D.C. case, in the Georgia case, in different ways, in different respects.
	Not just interfering in the election, Not just trying to illicitly indict a president who's been acquitted of the charges in Georgia and acquitted of the charges in D.C. by the Senate going through the constitutional process of impeachment.
	I mean, there's a guy who's been impeached twice, acquitted twice, his whole life, macroscopic, microscopic view.
	I told people he must be the most innocent New York real estate man in the history of America.
	Ever. By any doubt.
	They couldn't find a spec, and instead they had to make up fake charges for fake cases, but in the process they're endangering America's constitutional future.
	You just brought up a good point.
	I mean, you know, Georgia, I mean, was tried in the United States Congress.
	You know, that's what impeachment, to your point earlier in the show, that's what impeachment is designed for.
	I mean, is there, I don't know enough about it, I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a scholar, but I mean, isn't that sort of like double jeopardy?
	And how does that ring true?
	I mean, I guess that'll never be viewed that way because the mainstream media, the press, the DC elite, the big tech will make sure no one even hears that argument.
	But it sort of feels like, haven't we done this before already?
	And the answer is, we have. Oh, no doubt.
	In fact, this has been an ongoing legal debate for many decades.
	It only came up twice.
	It came up after Clinton was acquitted in 2000 when the Justice Department wrote a legal opinion.
	Same in the early 1970s.
	And the Justice Department realized there's a conflict of opinions out there.
	But the language is simple.
	What it says is only somebody that is convicted It can be subject to being tried, imprisoned, sentenced, indicted.
	So the point is, why is that clause there if you can just ignore it and do the same thing that somebody's been acquitted?
	And you can realize the public policy reason.
	All of this is we don't want the president of the United States subject to any random prosecutor who can say I'll lock you up if you don't do what I say politically.
	Then we no longer have a functioning constitutional democracy.
	No longer have a functional elected president because he's subject to the whim of any random prosecutor anywhere in America.
	And there's a lot of those.
	So unless the impeachment clause is read in the way that it's actually written in, then we're at constant danger of the presidency being hijacked by wayward rogue prosecutors.
	So that's why I think there's motions to dismiss in all of these cases on those grounds alone.
	Well, I guess the question is, will that matter with the level of bias that we've seen?
	You know, again, the screechers of democracy...
	Strangely quiet. You know, the people that understand these things, if there's a point that favors Trump, conveniently forget that point.
	I guess the question is, in this sort of weaponized system of justice, can you actually get that fair trial?
	Even if the Constitution is pretty clear, does it even matter at this point?
	Well, that's the two other things that are really on trial, more so than President Trump, is the American Constitution and its future and the judicial branch.
	Because the judicial branch is going to confirm to the world, are they still a credible, independent institution that can function in a nonpartisan manner with integrity that's consistent to the rule of law?
	Or have they been so politically hijacked that they're willing to deprive 75 million plus Americans of their...
	I mean, President Trump is on pace for more than 80 million Americans, maybe even more than 90 million Americans, to vote for him in 2024.
	Are we on pace that the judiciary will be complicit in a process that denies 90 million Americans their right to vote for whom they want?
	90 million Americans the president they wish to see in the White House.
	And so that's where we're going to find out.
	Now that's where I'm for Trump bringing every challenge possible.
	And when you have a biased judge, motions to disqualify that judge.
	Motions to continue proceedings.
	Motions to stay every single case.
	Motions to dismiss on the impeachment clause, the supremacy clause, because all of this was while he was president.
	Every single indictment concerns conduct while he was president.
	At some level, even the Florida indictment concerns some conduct from when he was president,
	when he removed the documents and arguments concerning it.
	Although that's not even supposed to be subject to state indictment under the supremacy clause,
	and arguably he's immune under the article two from the federal charges.
	Then there's grounds to dismiss on the first amendment grounds because of the interference,
	the selective prosecution, the disparate targeting.
	As you mentioned, if these same standards were applied to Democrats, half of the Democrats
	would already be in prison.
	You have Fourth Amendment issues because they invaded his attorney-client privilege.
	They invaded his privacy.
	They illicitly seized information.
	They illicitly obtained information.
	There's Fifth Amendment implications under the Due Process Clause.
	And there's Sixth Amendment implications under the Grand Jury Clause because, as you noted, they hijacked the D.C. Grand Jury for a Florida case.
	There's Sixth Amendment right to counsel issues implicated because they forced his own lawyers to disclose attorney-client privilege information.
	By the way, how is that, you know, when you read that stuff, I mean, that's just like Oh my God, right?
	You see that with some of the co-defendants.
	Well, you can't have that counsel.
	We're not going to give you a deal if you're with that guy.
	So we're going to give you, you know, the public defender and you're going to sing and we're going to then leave you.
	I mean, you know, they're dragging in like, you know, the handyman quite literally, you know what I mean?
	Because he was there for something.
	They threatened the guy with his life.
	I mean, in all fairness, you know, for us at this point, Robert, like we shouldn't have, but we've gotten used to this.
	We've gotten used to literally be, like, essentially on trial for our lives.
	They tried doing it today. Again, treason.
	You know, it's a crime punishable by death, and you have the head of the Intelligence Committee saying, I did it.
	Those people are strangely silent on Hunter, and all of the times he actually did it, it ended up being nonsense.
	They lied. They altered emails.
	They gave that to CNN. They ran with it.
	The walls are closing in. I've gotten used to that.
	Now when they say they're trying me for death, that's like Tuesday.
	Like, ho-hum. You do that to, like, the handyman.
	You're telling me that that kind of lawfare, that kind of malice, they'll get that guy to say anything, whether it's true or not.
	And I think that's their intention as evidenced by sort of the scoundrels and the records of those scoundrels that they've put in there for the prosecution.
	It seems clearly intended to do just that.
	Yeah, that's who Jack Smith is.
	That's who his team is.
	Much as Mueller's team, I remember being critical very early on of both Mueller and Andrew Weissman.
	Well, now just follow Andrew Weissman on Twitter and MSNBC. All the people defending Andrew Weissman have no credibility anymore at all.
	The Andrew McCarthy's of the world and some others that continue to defend some of the aspects of those cases, they just have no legitimacy because we've seen how partisan and prejudiced they are.
	And we're just seeing it on full display.
	But we have these constitutional processes in place in order to make sure we have the best system
	for an adversarial process, most likely to give us truth and liberty
	and the best protection of both and justice along the way.
	That's why our attorney-client privilege system exists.
	That's why rights to due process exist.
	That's why you can only indict in a grand jury in the place where you're gonna bring the indictment itself.
	You can't use one grand jury to indict in another case, another context, another state, another jurisdiction.
	You can't do any of these things in order to- That's the reason why there's a right to an impartial jury and an impartial judge.
	Not a judge who's previously stated, basically, she thinks Trump should be locked up before this indictment was ever even brought.
	Not a jury pool that is so committed to him.
	Richard Bares, People's Pundit, has done plenty of surveys on this.
	DC is the most contaminated jury pool in the country.
	I've told people Martin Luther King had a better chance with an all-white jury in 1950s Birmingham, Alabama, than Donald Trump does in the District of Columbia.
	And why do we even have a D.C. court system?
	It was created by Congress.
	D.C. is not part of the original states.
	I agree with Mike Davis.
	I agree with others that say D.C. needs to be scrapped.
	Congress needs to retake its authority, get rid of it as a separate...
	Why should the swamp get to not only judge the swamp...
	But the swamp get to judge the critics of the swamp.
	It's insane. That's what's scarier to me.
	I mean, the notion that they're able to do this.
	And when you talk about all these things and the way they're designed to work, I mean, it only just reinforces the level of genius Our founding fathers had, though I imagine they'd be rolling over in their graves if they saw what's happened to their, I mean, about as perfect system as you can get.
	I mean, it's such a flagrant contempt for all of that, such manipulation of all of that.
	And again, thus far, they've gotten away with doing that quite well and quite effectively.
	No doubt. And that's what makes it all so scary.
	That they can do this to a billionaire, former president, would-be future president is terrifying to the ordinary person.
	It's how they got to coerce certain people to just make up stories.
	They weren't able to do that throughout Russiagate.
	Weren't able to do that through much of these cases.
	But that's the kind of person looks and says, if Trump, if they can get him, they can get me.
	I'm a nothing. I'm a nobody.
	I'm an ordinary person.
	It communicates a message of complete crushing of America's constitutional democracy.
	I mean, what right to petition do any of us have?
	What right as a lawyer do I have to advocate for someone if, like Professor Eastman, I now can get indicted for it?
	The idea that you could now be sent to prison for simply pointing out the election wasn't done, consistent to the rules required by the Constitution and the legislature of the state of Georgia?
	Literally no one had thought about this.
	There's all kinds of law review articles built up to 2020.
	Bill Kristol and his pals game plan doing this kind of activity in the summer of 2020.
	Nobody's indicting them.
	I mean, so you have an actual criminal in the White House in Joe Biden, an actual criminal who sought it in Hillary Clinton.
	Both of them walk completely clean and free.
	And maybe the most innocent president we've ever had, one of the only people to actually lose money while being in office rather than gain millions of it, is the one being subject to the most extensive lawfare in the history of America.
	Well, so we talked about, you know, the amendments, you know, the sort of the violation of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, all of these things.
	But there's also apparently some other push by state Democrats, as well as some of the sort of never-Trump, rhino establishment figures in the, you know, let's call it, quote, Republican Party, to try to get my father off the ballot citing the 14th Amendment, disqualification clause.
	How would a case like that play out?
	How would it have to work out for them to get their way?
	And what are the flaws with their argument?
	Not that the flaws, again, the flaws may not matter because of the world in which we live
	and the sort of, you know, the two-tiered level of justice and enforcement, the way they look at these things,
	but how would that end up looking, you know, say, in front of the Supreme Court?
	So legally, their argument is meritless.
	It's the old Civil War that said that if you, before the Civil War, you took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, then foreswore that oath and took an oath to the Confederacy, that you were thereby not allowed to hold certain offices.
	And those offices were House, Senate, and Elector for President, or other lower offices.
	Of note, that clause doesn't even apply to the President of the United States.
	They explicitly chose to only apply it to the elector, not the President.
	Why is that, by the way?
	Quite frankly, because they couldn't even think of it applying to the president because they were applying it to the Civil War Confederates, and there was no U.S. president who had betrayed them.
	There were people who had been senators or House members or judges or lower offices or electors that had, or could be in the future, but nobody that—it was meant to be a disqualification punishment for the people who abandoned the U.S. government for the Confederacy.
	That's it. Dershowitz has made this point.
	He's like, applying this outside the Civil War context makes no sense.
	So that's why they didn't include the presidency.
	But the other reason that Dershowitz and others would argue is because they wanted the qualifications and impeachment clause to be the exclusive remedy because they didn't want Congress to be able to remove the president without going through the impeachment process.
	They didn't want because otherwise you create a parliamentary presidency.
	They didn't want the state legislature, some random state official to be able to remove the president or you no longer have a president functionally.
	So that was the other reason why they wanted to keep the qualifications and impeachment clause as the sole
	measurement of the presidency.
	The second problem is it doesn't even apply to being on the ballot.
	It only says you can't hold office if these certain provisions are met.
	It says nothing about ballot access.
	And this has been litigated in multiple other contexts.
	People try to challenge Barack Obama about whether he was a natural-born citizen.
	People challenge John McCain because he's born in Panama, whether he was a natural-born citizen.
	What the courts all said in all of those cases and similar cases is that nobody has the authority to remove someone
	from the ballot.
	If they otherwise qualify for the ballot, unless they admit they're not qualified, like they say, I'm 30 years old or something like that.
	I haven't been here for 14 years.
	I'm not a natural-born citizen.
	They said that there's no authority of either any state-level governing official or a private citizen or a court to keep someone off the ballot.
	To give an example, the most historically analogous circumstance, Eugene V. Debs was actually charged, convicted, and in prison for sedition.
	Now, he just gave an anti-war speech, but that was the nature of it.
	In 1920, he was on the ballot all across the country, over 30 states, every state he wanted to be on the ballot on.
	So this has historical precedent that this doesn't apply to the ballot, doesn't apply to the presidency, that nobody has this authority.
	This is left to Congress and the Constitution, not left to courts or local state officials.
	The third problem, of course, is that there are broad amnesties granted twice.
	This came up in the Madison Cawthorn litigation, came up in the Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	They tried to do this to Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Paul Gosar.
	They failed in all three cases to get them off the ballot.
	The fourth problem is, of course, there was no insurrection here.
	President Trump hasn't even been accused of that.
	Minor details, Robert.
	Don't let the truth and facts get in the way of a good story.
	Stop this. Exactly.
	So it doesn't even apply.
	It couldn't even apply. It shouldn't even apply.
	No honest or honorable court would allow it to apply because it would then allow local officials to hijack the presidency by denying people their right to vote for whom they choose.
	And so I think a Supreme Court would not allow this for a second.
	An honest and honorable court wouldn't allow this for a second.
	That doesn't mean you won't get some crazy, some rogue courts and crazy politicians like the Secretary of State of New Hampshire who got elected running on a Trump ticket promising voters he was pro-Trump, who's now saying, oh, maybe I'll try to keep Trump off the ballot in New Hampshire.
	And then you got, you know, Nutty Newsome doing what he's trying to threaten to do in California just to get another news story in his face in the papers.
	But legally, there's plenty of precedent that says state and local officials never have authority to remove someone to determine for themselves who is and isn't qualified for the presidency.
	And it doesn't apply to the president.
	It's a Civil War provision that doesn't apply in general.
	And President Trump committed no insurrection anyway.
	All minor details, but you bring up five pretty valid points that seem to be totally ignored by everyone talking about it as though it's a viable tactic.
	Which, I mean, again, I guess that just shows you where we are in the world.
	And of course, all of this is coming as Joe Biden is implicated in a massive foreign bribery scandal.
	I mean, think of the insanity.
	If Trump tweeted Merry Christmas, Bob Woodward would be out there.
	This is worse than Watergate!
	But what Joe Biden actually is, like, way worse than what happened in Watergate.
	Like, not even close, in my mind.
	Do you see this as a line for the impeachment inquiry?
	I mean, I know a lot of the people watching right now, and I'll see the comments light up right now...
	Must go to impeachment right away.
	But there is some legalese about the inquiry allows you to gather a lot more information that basically shuts off the second you actually go full impeachment.
	Can you talk a little bit about that?
	Because I think sometimes, and I get it, because I'm...
	Frankly, one of them, oftentimes, until I find out the details, sort of frustrated with some of the inaction.
	Now, I'm sure some of it's just the other side stonewalling, us not being aggressive enough.
	I'm not pretending that's not the case.
	But there are times, you know, the inquiry allows you to go after a subpoena more information that you wouldn't all of a sudden get if you go right to impeachment.
	And, you know, if we had a DOJ interested in actually the rule of law...
	What other crimes could Joe Biden be indicted for?
	Because it seems like between China, Ukraine, even the Russia stuff, it's just so overwhelming.
	It's hard to believe, and it's also hard to believe that there's almost no one talking about it.
	Yeah, I said that, you know, basically Joe Biden is what LBJ is like.
	Just imagine a lot dumber.
	Low IQ LBJ. That's exactly what he is.
	His criminality is as broad.
	his intelligence is weaker.
	But basically, he's been the Biden crime family since the early 1970s.
	He weaponized his office and access to his office and used his family members, his brother, his sister,
	and then his son, when his son was old enough to make it profitable for him,
	to basically line their pockets collectively.
	And now some of that was lining the pockets of the Democratic political machine in Delaware,
	the Democratic political machine nationally.
	It's the real reason why Obama picked him.
	He didn't pick him because he had some magic appeal to blue-collar voters.
	This is a guy who's got crushed every time he's running Iowa, New Hampshire in the Democratic primaries, including in 2020.
	It's because he was, you know, Hillary Clinton represented the new wave of democratic corruption with the Clinton Foundation.
	Joe Biden represented the old school democratic political machine corruption, weaponizing your position in Congress or the Senate in order to line your pockets and those of your family, your friends, and your political allies.
	And he was a master of it.
	When I was a defense counsel, or when he was vice president and I was doing criminal defense work, People connected to Biden would come and recruit clients of mine to say if they made a certain contribution or donation, oh, Uncle Joe would make it all go away.
	And I would tell my clients, stay away from that.
	Like, you know, those were high-profile political cases that could go sideways real fast.
	Bad idea to get connected.
	But it was so open, so brazen, that that's who Biden was.
	And that everybody knew it in Washington.
	I remember being shocked that the first time it happened, and then I'd do a little inquiry, and it's It's open knowledge.
	That's how Joe operated.
	He used the family to shake down people out of money all the time on a regular basis by weaponizing his office.
	So you go through that.
	You have crimes in pretty much every county or state in the country.
	I mean, anytime Hunter went through a place, he committed a crime.
	He couldn't travel through...
	So where are the Republican AGs?
	Why don't the Republican AGs find...
	It feels like that would be an easy one.
	And if we're gonna, you know...
	We shouldn't be playing this, you know.
	The Republican AGs should be doing more to hold the Biden crime family accountable.
	Because you're right. Like, whether it's the LLCs or the passing through or, you know...
	The prostitution and across state lines and the...
	I mean, there's stuff there.
	If we wanted to play the game like the Democrats, we could easily do it because God knows I saw what they tried to do with me and there was literally nothing there.
	Here, I mean, you've got like the...
	I mean, is there... What's bigger than a smoking gun?
	Like the smoking atomic bomb, you know, of information out there.
	And it's like, you know, we don't want to really...
	We don't really want to do that. They're not even opening up investigations.
	I mean, it's the same problem I have with Congress.
	It's like, I understand waiting on impeachment because impeachment can limit the scope of your inquiry, but let's have full-scale investigations and let's not limit it to Biden.
	We should have it on Biden.
	We should have it on, in terms of criminal investigations, Joe and Hunter, but on the impeachment inquiries, Have it on some of these rogue judges.
	These judges are bragging about their illicit behavior.
	They're showing up to President Trump's arraignment.
	Nobody's ever heard of that.
	They're showing up to another judge's arraignment so they can sit there and cheerlead because they're so open.
	And this includes the chief judge of the District of Columbia.
	This is outrageous behavior.
	All of this should be subject to impeachment.
	It's worse than what Samuel Chase got impeached for as a Supreme Court
	justice at the beginning of our country, when he politically weaponized
	the judicial system in order to go after his partisan opponents.
	And so there's even more grounds here.
	So I think in the same, but you're right.
	Every local district attorney in America likely has jurisdiction over both Clinton
	crimes and Hunter Biden and Joe Biden crimes because of the amount of the money
	laundering and all the different places they use and all the different facilities
	they use and all the different places that money came to or went or passed through.
	As well as the fact that literally if Hunter drove through your town, he
	committed a crime, either a drug crime or a prostitution crime that you can somehow
	be at some level can be prosecutable.
	The fact they're not even opening up investigations.
	Same with the Clinton Foundation.
	They were global. They were in every county effectively in the country.
	Their criminality broadly impacted everybody everywhere.
	Anybody could have investigated them, and yet nobody did.
	Whereas, by contrast, Democratic prosecutors have put Trump and his family through microscopic, microscopic inquiry on everything in their entire lives.
	And all they could come up with is bogus charges.
	So the fact that they don't open these inquiries, the fact that, like in Georgia, that they are talking about it, but they should already be forming a special legislative session and opening an inquiry into the district attorney.
	Not only that, the attorney general by law in Georgia is supposed to appear in federal court in the two cases removed by Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows.
	And make an appearance.
	And what he should be saying is, Judge, these charges should not have been brought and they should be dismissed as a matter of law.
	Instead, he's AWOL. And this is the Republican Attorney General of Georgia.
	So, there needs to be constant pressure in the court of public opinion for Republicans
	to simply obey their oath.
	Nobody's asking them to violate their oath.
	Nobody's asking them to do what's been done to Trump, the Berea treatment after the old
	KGB, show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
	No, they're just saying, we already know the crime, please just investigate it.
	What should an agenda like of the...
	Of a Trump administration.
	If you had a second Trump administration, what should their DOJ agenda look like?
	What would you be doing differently?
	In four years, what are the wrongs that you could remedy to set the path of the Department of Justice?
	I use that in major air quotes because it's like, you know, my eyes are rolling in the back of my head so hard I'm going to give myself an aneurysm.
	But what would that agenda look like?
	We need a deep six, the deep state.
	So President Trump's on exactly the right path.
	And what the Justice Department needs to do is two things.
	One, they need to just radically shrink.
	We need to fire as many of these.
	We don't need this many prosecutors.
	We don't need this size scale of the FBI. I mean, I think President Kennedy was right.
	Time to disperse the CIA to the wind.
	As President Trump just talked about with Tucker, CIA lied to him while he was president.
	Kept information from him while he was president.
	And he suggested that maybe it's even connected to assassinations that are.
	I mean, these are dangerous institutions which threaten the American constitutional experiment.
	And if we're going to succeed and survive, it's kind of like Lincoln and Gettysburg.
	If a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not going to perish from this earth, we need to deep six the deep state for forever.
	And what a Justice Department should be doing is a very limited focus on deep state corruption.
	That's where they should be focused on.
	The Clinton corruption, the Biden corruption, the FBI corruption, the CIA corruption.
	That should be the focal point.
	Ordinary everyday Americans leave that to local law enforcement to resolve, not a politically corrupted FBI and DOJ to resolve.
	I love that. You mentioned him earlier.
	Mike Davis, friend of the show.
	I don't think he could get an elected attorney general, but we could have him in there temporarily.
	So maybe we need a Robert Barnes, Mike Davis temporary AG office to get all of that stuff rolling to take the heat off of anyone else who probably would...
	I mean, it's going to be a tough position for anyone because...
	All of the people and the powers that be will do whatever they can to stop exactly what you have happening, you know, right now from happening.
	So it'll be so important to get people, not just who are good and smart and understand that, but those who actually have the guts, you know, I'll say the balls, to actually stand up to what's going to be coming for them.
	You saw that, you know, you saw that with Barr.
	He talked a tough game for about two days and then they threatened to impeach him and he Scurried off like a scared child because he still wanted to be loved by that DC establishment that he'd been around his whole life.
	We don't need that.
	We need more of the opposite of that.
	Absolutely. And that's where I think the biggest white pill through all this has been President Trump's reaction to everything.
	Most people would have capitulated and folded.
	He has not. And he's giving an example of how to resist corruption.
	That you need a spine of steel and balls of brass.
	And you need people who are willing to stand up.
	When I was a kid, I loved Medgar Evers.
	I read his quote. He said, you know, why aren't you afraid to die?
	And he said, well, most men die a thousand deaths every day.
	I'm only going to die once.
	I was like seven years old and I heard that.
	I was like, that's awesome. I want to be like Medgar.
	I got some bad ass, yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
	And that's the right mindset.
	That's the right mentality. When Tucker was asking your dad about, you know, what happens if they're going to probably try to kill you if they can't.
	And you can tell he just shoves it out of his mind.
	It's like, you can't worry about that.
	Yeah, you can. If you did that, I know for me, my lawyers during Russia, you can't go on TV. Are you kidding me?
	They'll weaponize it against you.
	I mean, I heard this. You can't tweet that.
	What are you doing? You're going to go to jail.
	They're going to put you in jail forever.
	They're going to probably actually, in my case, try me for the death penalty, whatever it may be.
	I go, you don't understand.
	I can't sit there.
	Two years later, Two years later, they come up to me and go, you know what?
	You were right. Now, if you make a mistake, that's a problem, right?
	Because they'd be on you, right?
	It wasn't a trap. It was a perjury trap.
	But as long as you're smart enough to not fall for the flagrant obvious mistakes, they go, you're right.
	They wanted you to curl up in a ball and die.
	Then you appear guilty.
	They got you.
	And by the way, when you do curl up in the ball and suck your thumb crying for your mom,
	like, they're not going any lighter.
	It's like those who apologize to the mob these days.
	Like, you know, they didn't do anything wrong.
	They agree with what they said.
	They're right by any standard.
	You know, you see the people backtracking the stuff that they say about, you know, not having, you know,
	I don't know, men in women's sports or some of the craziness of the trans agenda
	and three-year-olds transitioning.
	They say it, they mean it.
	Two days later, I did not mean what I said.
	I was, you know, of course you did.
	But, like, you're caving to the mob.
	You know, bending the knee doesn't get you forgiveness from them.
	It just starts the, hey, we were actually right.
	See, he was wrong.
	It only starts the onslaught.
	It only starts the attack, and you can't ever give up.
	Absolutely. Bending the knee just gets you decapitated, gets you guillotined.
	That's all that happens. And this is true of any sort of tyrannical system.
	It never respects any degree of...
	They will interpret it as weakness.
	Any attempt at condolence, any attempt at acceptance, any attempt at tolerance, you have to just full-blown resist and refuse to recognize the threat.
	It's a sense that once you realize—this is what Nelson Mandela talked about.
	He talks about that poem, I'm a captain of my own fate, I'm the master of my own soul.
	What did he mean by that?
	even though he was in prison, he meant that once he understood that if they couldn't conquer his
	mind, they couldn't conquer the movement, that that made him more free than his captors and his
	people imprisoning him, that that would in turn empower the movement and destroy their effort.
	Because it's all ultimately about controlling our minds.
	They want the American people to reject Donald Trump. They want the American people to embrace the
	system, to embrace the open corruption and falsely accuse the innocent man of being the criminal.
	And if they can't achieve that, then they don't get their objective and the whole ballgame
	reverses. It's like the El Salvadoran president, who they tried to take out multiple ways. What's
	now? He has a 90% approval rating, dramatic decline in crime. When he was with President Trump,
	he said, Trump's a cool guy.
	I'm a cool guy. We all get along. And that part of what unleashed the system against him. And
	it's the system that now is as weak as it's ever been in El Salvador. And they have a populist
	icon as president. So Trump is paving the path for how to respond to this extraordinarily dangerous
	corruption. And if people follow it, it will be like following Paul Revere's warning sign and will
	protect and save and salvage American liberty for another generation.
	Yeah, it's all one big psyop.
	You just can't fall for it.
	You know, they can take out the world's most powerful man, but they can't take out 175 million Americans, half the country, that finally gets it and becomes unafraid.
	I mean, a whole tenet of the show, you've got to become unafraid.
	You've got to be able to have these conversations.
	You can't just, okay, well, we'll turn the other cheek.
	We have to engage in that dialogue.
	And when you do, I think you'll realize there's so many more people just like you out there.
	You know, it's And that success begets success.
	Sort of the breaking away from the shackles of fear allows you to do that.
	And once you realize it's like, oh, wow, I'm not the only one, not even close.
	But they want you to believe that you are, which is why they're trying to divide and conquer that way.
	So, you know, Robert, before we leave, as we look ahead to the 2024 election, talk a little bit about...
	What the Trump campaign, and frankly, what others, because I think you're going to need to do this with congressional candidates and Senate candidates and others, but talk about what those campaigns can do legally to stop any of the, you know, Democrat dirty tricks, because I imagine there's going to be a lot of them.
	You already see it, you know, just when we thought it was, you know, the Ukraine war season was just wrapping up and we still have our decorations up, you know, We got a new vaccine coming.
	We got mask mandates.
	We got spikes. No one's actually seeing it.
	It's all bullshit, but that doesn't matter.
	They're going to jam this down our throats because, hey, we're getting into election year and we're going to have a pandemic every four years and probably in some off-cycle years where it matters and the control of the Senate may matter.
	And so talk a little bit about what people can do and what those campaigns should be doing and focusing on To prevent the inevitable shenanigans, whatever they may be.
	Again, they should just follow, really, Trump's example.
	So, for example, even though Trump's been completely shut out, censored, attacked, lied about, libeled, defamed in the mainstream media, the ordinary person still hears him because he constantly goes around them.
	Whether it's using truth, whether it's using rumble, whether it's using rallies, whether it's Tucker on Twitter, he continues to get direct access to the American people.
	And ordinary candidates should do the same.
	So that's part one.
	Continue to use the alternative, independent, free speech part of free tech to get around big tech, big media, big government collusion to censor their message.
	Secondly, whatever you do, if you're a candidate out there, don't hire anybody from Washington, D.C. that's part of the professional political class.
	These are the people that cost us 2022.
	They said, oh, keep your distance from Trump.
	Keep your distance from MAGA. And all that did was cost us Senate seats, cost us governorships, cost us a bunch of places.
	Stay part three, be proactive.
	Like Carrie Lake has continued to fight the election fraud that took place in Arizona in 2022, be proactive also ahead of the game.
	Get smart, sophisticated, look at what Mark Elias does for Democrats, and we need to match that on the Republican side, match that on the conservative side, match that on the popular side.
	I'm hoping Robert Kennedy does the same in the Democratic primary process.
	That, you know, defend your constitutional rights and liberties, and Robert Kennedy's doing that.
	He's brought suit against Google for its censorship efforts, challenged the Biden administration, demanded Secret Service protection.
	I think you'll be seeing more suits brought soon on his behalf, pushing back against these illicit attempts to censor and suppress his message.
	All candidates do the same thing.
	And the ordinary person, stay engaged.
	Stay involved. Don't take the trick of thinking, I can't do anything.
	The election's going to be stolen.
	They're going to imprison Trump.
	I should just shut my mouth.
	I should just keep my job.
	And I understand ordinary people have things they've got to worry about.
	I totally get it. But in the same way, if you do all that you can do, To make a difference within using the legal remedies available to you, using the available court of public opinion.
	They don't obsess over what you think if what you think did not matter.
	They don't obsess over what you say if what you say did not matter.
	So remember that power, use that power, because it's the power that brought about America in the first place.
	And if we remember our past, then we know the path to a better future.
	Yeah. Now, listen, I agree with you 100%.
	That's why I tell people, you know, like, share, subscribe, this kind of, you know, content, yours.
	You know, where can our viewers find you, Robert?
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com is where they can find all the content.
	And you're on the usual socials.
	You're on Truth. I know that.
	You're on Twitter, etc.
	Yeah, just Barnes underscore Law.
	All right. Well, guys, check him out.
	You know, Robert's out there. I mean, he gets into, you know...
	Sometimes so far into the weeds on the legal theory, but it just shows you, once you actually know what's going on, the sort of high-level messaging of the Democrats and the people trying to shut down the America First movement, it doesn't actually fly.
	So, you know, it's just great content.
	Robert, thank you for all that you do.
	Thank you for being on the show, and we'll have to have you back, because I imagine there will be a lot to talk about in the coming months, if not years, as the insanity continues.
	No doubt. Glad to be here.
	Thanks, man. Appreciate it.
	Well, guys, thank you so much for tuning in.
	Robert, thank you so much for your time.
	Guys, be sure you're liking, sharing, and subscribing.
	It's really simple.
	If you're watching this live right now, and I know thousands of you are, go click the little like button.
	It's so simple. Just click the thumbs up.
	Like, it takes two seconds, but that way other people will see what we're doing and you can get that message out.
	Also, download the Rumble app so you can get notifications, subscribe to the channel, etc.
	This fight is ours. We got to do it together.
	Need your help. So hit those things.
	Also make sure to check out our incredible sponsors that take some guts to sponsor a show like this.
	Check out the folks over at Gold Co.
	by going to DonJrGold.com and learn how to protect your We're good to go.
	Learn about it. Let the folks at Golco take you through it.
	Go to donjrgold.com, D-O-N-J-R-gold.com.
	It's that simple. Also, go check out the great folks at Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
	For free activation, you go to patriotmobile.com slash trigger.
	They make it quick and easy for you.
	You can choose to vote With your wallet.
	You can support companies like Patriot Mobile who give back to the causes that we all believe in with every dollar that they earn.
	Or you can continue to feed the beast of the big corporations that make up literally, as far as I'm concerned, the rest of wireless.

▲