Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 23, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:02:50

Sidebar with Jenna Ellis! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	To risk our own freedom and to lay down our own lives.
	Unfortunately, today among us, there are also those who want to trample those basic rights.
	Canada, once a symbol of the modern world, is under your quasi-liberal leadership and over the few...
	past few months it has become a symbol of violating basic human rights and civic freedoms.
	We have witnessed women being trampled by horses Single parents, their bank accounts are being blocked so that they cannot pay for their children's schools.
	They cannot pay for medicine.
	They cannot pay their electricity bills, their water bills.
	They cannot pay the debts they have, their mortgages.
	For you, maybe these are liberal methods.
	But for many citizens across the world, this is a dictatorship of the worst kind.
	Wait until you see Trudeau's face at the end of this.
	We are assured that the citizens of the world, when united, can stop any regime that wants to abolish the freedom of citizens, whether by bombs or by harmful medicine.
	Thank you.
	That closes the debate.
	Thank you, dear colleagues.
	Thank you once again, Prime Minister, for being with us.
	We look forward to having you here quite soon again.
	Thank you.
	This debate is closed.
	We move to the next item.
	Oh, this debate is closed.
	First of all, before we even get started, look at this thing.
	Does he look clean?
	If he doesn't look clean, at least he looks angry.
	He's still angry at me.
	I don't know what his deal is, that he hates the bath so much.
	Why do you hate the bath?
	We'll find out.
	We'll get to the bottom of this.
	Now he's trying to destroy the mic.
	Okay.
	My goodness.
	So for those of you who don't know, let me get his name.
	He's born in Zagreb, Croatian.
	Oh, I'm going to mangle, obviously, his name, so I'm not even going to try.
	Someone in the chat will let me know.
	But Glorious, and the things he said.
	Canada, once known as a democracy, now known for violating constitutional rights, and he referred to Canada, the Canadian government, as a regime.
	And some people are wondering, like, what's Justin Trudeau thinking in all of this?
	Is he ashamed?
	Is he embarrassed?
	I guarantee you, Justin Trudeau, in his own narcissistic, deluded mind, if I'm guessing intentions, thinks that this guy from Eastern Europe just doesn't understand.
	He doesn't understand what Justin needs to do for the good of Canadians.
	And Canadians don't understand it either.
	Okay, people.
	We're not going to waste any more time with an intro rant than we need to.
	I'd say it's never wasted time.
	We're not going to invest anymore in an intro rant because we only have Jenna Ellis for one hour, give or take.
	I know that if we need to go past it.
	It was extremely short notice.
	Jenna graciously accepted, and it's phenomenal.
	I was on her podcast, I don't know, it was two months ago, I think, maybe?
	I've lost track of time and everything.
	And for those of you who may not know, Jenna Ellis is, I guess, best known...
	As being an attorney for Donald Trump and the campaign.
	And it's going to be phenomenal.
	I'm not even going to waste any more time solo now.
	I see Jenna in the backstage.
	I'm going to bring Jenna in.
	How goes the battle?
	Hey, David.
	Great.
	And so great to join you.
	I was so excited to get your text today.
	And I was like, of course I will hop on.
	So thanks for having me.
	It's amazing.
	And I was reluctant almost.
	It was last minute.
	We had a doctor who it didn't work out with.
	And I was like, I don't want it to seem discouraged.
	I see how it is.
	It's glorious that you came and thank you for doing this.
	Look, ordinarily, I was seeing chat, Dave, don't waste a half an hour on personal intro life because we don't have that much time.
	I looked on Wikipedia.
	I don't know when the last time you looked on Wikipedia was, Jenna.
	I love my Wikipedia page.
	Okay, so true story.
	Candice Owens and I have talked about our Wikipedia pages, and she was like, I knew we would be best friends because your Wikipedia page is almost as much of a hit job as mine is.
	And we had a laugh over that because, yeah, my Wikipedia page is full of leftist rhetoric, and it's hilarious.
	So, yeah, I love that people can Google me.
	I learned so many things about my own life from Googling me that I never knew.
	So, you know, Google can really teach you some things.
	Jenna, are you sensitive if I bring up the Wikipedia page?
	Not at all.
	I think it's hilarious.
	I'll just say one thing.
	They have a way for picking the in-between moments for the picture that features...
	I mean, they couldn't use your official...
	I googled your image for the thumbnail.
	There were a hundred.
	I don't say this is a bad picture.
	I'm just saying it's not...
	Yeah, because I was in the middle.
	I was speaking at the Turning Point USA Young Women's Leadership Summit.
	And of course, that was actually a really heavy...
	I decided last minute to change my topic and give more of a personal life story and talk to these young women about choosing God's path for your life and understanding your vocation and calling.
	So it wasn't this, you know, kind of lighthearted thing.
	And so this moment actually, to me, I think is kind of funny that whoever the leftist is that picked that wanted me to probably look a little more stern and have kind of the upward view and not nearly as flattering as some of the other pictures.
	So, you know, I fully support and understand Emma Watson trending for having, you know, not a great picture from whatever event she was in on.
	So, you know, it's just one of those things where it's like, that's, it's just so funny.
	And just so people can appreciate images, I mean, just so everybody can appreciate what there was by way of pictures to choose from.
	Anyhow, so going back to your Wikipedia page, I go in to just see, you know, your life history.
	And we'll do it real quick.
	You're 37 years old, so actually very young, surprisingly young to have achieved what you've achieved in life.
	Born into a religious family?
	Yes, both my parents are sincere evangelical Christians, and I grew up in a Calvary Chapel background.
	I was actually homeschooled all the way through K-12, loved it.
	My older brother and younger brother were as well.
	So yeah, we grew up Christian, but really going through law school was actually when my faith became my own because I was confronted with this rhetoric that law school teaches you that law and morality is completely arbitrary and whatever standard that the current sovereign wants to set.
	That draws the lines of morality.
	So I've actually come up recently with this phrase called moral gerrymandering.
	And that's what a lot of the...
	The current quote-unquote conservatives that may not be as religious tend to do because they're trying to take bright line rules like life begins at conception.
	There is no other scientific way to describe life like male versus female.
	Those are very bright line, non-arbitrary lines that are defined by empirical self-evident truth as our founders here in America described it.
	But law is taught as completely arbitrary and that we can redraw the moral boundaries whenever we want to.
	So, for example, pre-1973, abortion wasn't...
	Wasn't fully legal, and that was still we respected the right to life.
	And then suddenly, because nine robed justices decided to arbitrarily draw the moral line at quickening and the undue burden test, then suddenly that became the test for morality.
	And so I was confronted as a lawyer.
	If I want to go into a courtroom and advocate for truth, how do I do that in a context of a vocation?
	Where morality is so subjective.
	And so that was really when I had to determine for myself as an adult, what do I really believe?
	How can I philosophically advocate for this?
	So I started reading a lot.
	And in the vein of more philosophy, that like C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity had a huge impact on me.
	A lot of actually Martin Luther's writings, a lot of these things, and the founders' writings as well.
	A lot of the founding fathers who...
	Who understood and debated all of this.
	And so I ended up, and I'm kind of jumping ahead, but I ended up writing a book in 2015 called The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.
	And it's my argument from a legal perspective why we are founded as a Christian nation that recognizes self-evident truth, not from a faith-based perspective, because anyone can reject God.
	A lot of people reject God.
	For eternity, that's a problem.
	But in terms of advocating in a courtroom, I don't come into...
	Justice John Roberts, you need to hold for my opinion in my case and my client because I'm a Christian.
	That doesn't actually matter to the judicial system.
	The legal standards, how we articulate where the boundaries are, what is right and wrong in society, how we determine what is offensive in society, criminalizing, all of those things.
	Those are moral determinations that all societies have to contemplate.
	So that book was kind of my transition from practicing criminal law full-time to doing a lot more media, to doing constitutional law.
	I became an allied attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom and started...
	Focusing a lot more on constitutional issues.
	Won't read it out loud because this can get you in trouble on the YouTube verse.
	But Jenna, the first thing you said actually, you said a sincere evangelical?
	Yes.
	What does that mean to an idiot like me who has no idea what that means?
	I know what the evangelical means, but I might need clarification on that.
	But is the sincere a religious category?
	Well, so evangelical has actually been a term that's become fuzzy, kind of like conservative as well.
	So evangelical as opposed to Catholic, for example.
	So for me, being a sincere Christian means that I believe that the Bible is...
	God's full truth.
	And I believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to address the problems of man and that the Bible contains the full inerrant word of God.
	And so I believe that we understand the answers to life's most important questions that we all have to contemplate.
	Who are we as human beings?
	Where are we going?
	Where will we spend eternity?
	Who is God?
	All of those questions.
	Can and must be answered through the lens of the Word of God.
	And so I believe that the Bible alone is sufficient to address those most important questions.
	And so that, to me, means being a sincere Christian.
	I know this is a technical question.
	We will not dwell on the religion side of this.
	Evangelicals believe in the New Testament, correct?
	We believe in both, actually.
	Here's my technical question.
	I've never met anybody who has...
	I haven't asked too many people.
	We should have a full discussion on this.
	Maybe when we have more time, we'll do it.
	But my one question, if it includes the Old Testament, the Old Testament includes the rules of kashrut, like being kosher.
	Why do Christians not follow the rules of kashrut in the Old Testament if both form part of the Bible?
	Right.
	And so as a lawyer, you'll appreciate this in being a Canadian, right?
	So you have the Canadian Constitution, which is binding on Canada.
	I am an American citizen, and I know you're coming up for your citizenship, and then you will be governed by the rules of the United States, right?
	So similarly, in the Old Testament, God gave the Levitical law to specifically the Jews, not to the Gentiles.
	But once Jesus came as the promise of fulfillment of that law, now no one, including Jew or Gentile, is bound by the Levitical law.
	We are now under the age of grace.
	And so those laws...
	That were specifically given to that culture are now no longer applicable.
	But the moral, sovereign truth and moral law doesn't change.
	And so that's why Jesus said he came to fulfill the law.
	And so we don't, as Christians, now observe the Jewish law and the Levitical law.
	We observe the moral law that God teaches throughout Scripture.
	So it's not a matter of believing the New Testament versus the Old Testament.
	It's understanding the full context of Scripture.
	I'm going to clip this bit and send it to the person that asked me that question, or that I asked it to him 15 years ago.
	Fantastic.
	Okay, so in your Wikipedia page, I'm not bringing it up again because I don't like Wikipedia for certain things, but they challenged your authority as an alleged constitutional lawyer where you wrote the book and they said, New York Times, and I forget which other garbage outlet they said, remarked that she had never been in a federal court.
	How do you acquire experience in constitutional law and what is your own experience in constitutional law for anyone who subsequently wants to think it's good enough or write it off?
	Yeah, well, I think that's really an interesting issue that the left chose to harp on because all they've tried to do with every single one of Trump's lawyers is to diminish our credibility and authority, whether that's actually coming after me because I'm young, because I'm a woman, because they've said that I'm a bleached blonde, which is totally not true.
	This is my natural hair, guys.
	So all of those ways, they're trying to just undermine my authority.
	And in order to practice any area of law, as you know, as a lawyer, We don't actually have to specialize.
	Once you get your bar license in the jurisdiction that you're licensed in, you can actually practice anything.
	And the bar assumes that you will be competent enough for the cases that you undertake.
	And so in terms of constitutional law, one of my mentors, who is a very dear friend, he actually wrote the foreword to my book.
	He's the CEO now of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
	He founded the Homeschool Legal Defense Association years ago.
	He actually, one of his first cases was...
	So you don't actually have to have any particular experience as long as you are licensed in that jurisdiction or you do what's called pro hoc vice, which is you basically go in for that matter specifically, which is how I represented John MacArthur and Grace Community Church in California.
	I affiliated with co-counsel in California because I'm not licensed in California, but I was admitted to the bar there just for that one particular matter.
	So really, it's not necessarily a matter of specializing.
	Some people choose to specialize, and they get a lot of experience in that.
	Some people are general practitioners.
	And as far as for me, I have defended, I was a prosecutor.
	Then I was a criminal defense attorney that actually contemplates a lot of significant constitutional issues, right to counsel, you know, all of the things that we contemplate in our Bill of Rights that protect people's ability to defend themselves from overzealous prosecutors.
	So that actually was practicing in constitutional law.
	Then I also taught as a professor for four years at Colorado Christian University.
	I developed their entire legal studies program kind of from scratch.
	And so I was the head of their department.
	I've been an allied attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a nonprofit that deals specifically with First Amendment questions and issues.
	And then, of course, with President Trump as well.
	He has the right to counsel like anyone else.
	And so it's up to his determination what lawyers he chooses.
	And so for me to go in as one of his lawyers, I was half the age of some of the others.
	Some of them didn't really like that because I didn't go through the traditional route of, you know, being a Capitol Hill staffer, working my way up.
	But he saw that I was talented, passionate, and said, you know, come work for me now.
	And the great story about that, and I have to tell this really quick, because everybody always asks me, you know, how did you get to work for Trump?
	Well, after I wrote my book and I started doing more media, my background and bachelor's degree is actually in journalism from Colorado State.
	Didn't go to an Ivy League school.
	I didn't care to.
	I thought I was going to be a career prosecutor.
	God obviously had a different path for my life.
	And once I was doing more media on my book and promoting that, then a lot of different outlets would ask me to come back on to explain more legally substantive issues.
	And ultimately, I ended up getting an opportunity to go on Fox News, on Newsmax.
	John Bachman, who's a VP of Newsmax, very dear friend of mine for years.
	And lo and behold, President Trump actually does watch television.
	So one day, out of the blue, I get a call on a Sunday afternoon from a 202 number.
	And I thought it was a sales call, so I let it go to voicemail.
	And good thing I listened to the voicemail because it said, Hi, Ms. Ellis, this is the White House operator.
	The president's reaching out to you.
	Could you please give us a call back at your earliest convenience?
	And if you've ever seen the movie The American President with Annette Bening, and, you know, she's the lobbyist that meets the president, and he just calls her randomly, and she thinks it's a colleague that's totally messing with her, I completely had that moment of, like, wait, this is not, this can't be happening.
	But I called it back, and I'm like, hi, so this isn't meant for me, but, and they said, oh, no, no, no, hold on just a moment, you know, we'll put you right through.
	So he gets on the phone, and he goes, Jenna, how's it going?
	And I'm like, hi, Mr. President.
	It's such an honor.
	It's so great to talk with you.
	It was, yeah, I've seen you on TV and you have this big, beautiful title, Constitutional Law Attorney.
	I love it.
	It's huge.
	I want to ask you some questions.
	So we spent an hour on the phone and I'm thinking, you know, this is the only time I'm going to get to talk to the President of the United States.
	I will give him my honest opinion about everything.
	And I did.
	And that apparently was impressive enough that he said, you know, when are you coming to D.C.?
	Come see me.
	And I said, I will be there right as soon as you as soon as you ask me to.
	So about a week later.
	I walked into the Oval Office and he said, Jenna, I think you're a brilliant lawyer and you work for me now.
	And I said, okay.
	That is like out of a movie.
	If I ever get a call from Justin Trudeau, I don't think it's going to be for the same reasons.
	Barnes is in the back now.
	Everyone's asking where he is.
	I'm going to bring him in.
	That's a story for a movie, for a book.
	Bringing in Barnes.
	Hold on.
	Do we like this or do we like this layout?
	I think this is better.
	What do we say?
	Yeah.
	Otherwise, it's going to be too narrow.
	It's too narrow like this.
	Okay.
	No, no.
	We need more space.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Good, good.
	Okay, man.
	Robert, I know you're going to have a question.
	I mean, do you have one off the bat or I delve more into this story of Donald Trump calling you up and inviting you in and saying, you work for me now?
	Robert, go for it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the question I had is probably a little bit ahead in the chronology, but is to discuss the...
	One of the biggest grifts maybe in the history of campaign or political fundraising, which is that there are a bunch of us, including Jenna, working on the election contest challenges.
	The Republican National Committee and some others, but particularly the Republican, raised millions and millions of dollars to help fund those election contests.
	And as those of us who are neck deep in the election contest know, Much of that money never saw any actual election contest.
	What was your experience in that?
	I know you've raised it directly and publicly with the Republican National Committee Chairwoman, but it was an extraordinary grift.
	Ultimately, certain election contests didn't get filed in certain states.
	There weren't as many lawyers available because of this.
	There were investigators that needed financial support that didn't get it.
	Every day, I was getting the same emails and text messages to send money in to help the president's election contest, and almost none of it went to that.
	Right, right.
	And you're absolutely right in everything that you said.
	And for those who didn't see, back in about April of 2021, I very publicly left the Republican Party over Ronna McDaniel's lies and also the chief counsel.
	And this grift started well before November of 2020.
	Everyone who was at the RNC was telling President Trump, we have this handled, we're going to be fighting.
	Ronna told me personally, you know, we have this.
	This voting apparatus of how we're doing all of these different contests, because in the context of COVID, and it's very obvious that the left and the Democrats manipulated.
	manipulated COVID as a pretext in order to usher in a lot of executive orders and bypass state legislatures under their emergency acts and manipulate the process of voting, all of the mail-in ballots, the administration of the election.
	This was death by a thousand cuts.
	It wasn't as simple as one silver bullet that was so obvious, and it wasn't as simple, as complex as it seemed in the year 2000.
	We all remember the hanging chads.
	Those were a couple of counties with one state and basically one issue.
	We now had multiple states, even before 2020, mainly Democrat states and all of the swing states that were challenging their The way that the elections were administered in that state by using COVID as a pretext and saying we are now going to allow for a different kind of administration of our election and not abide by the state legislative rules.
	And this is problematic constitutionally because under Article 2, Section 1.2, the Constitution requires that the state legislatures Select the manner in which the electors to the Electoral College are chosen.
	And prior to 1824, this wasn't even done by the popular vote.
	The state legislatures actually chose the electors to the Electoral College.
	And then a majority of states decided to delegate that authority.
	And that is a way that the state legislatures can function in terms of their electoral system.
	But it is a principle of the Constitution that it has to be according to the manner in which the state legislature sets.
	So there was a huge problem even before 2020.
	I don't believe that...
	Any significant amount of resources or not nearly significant enough from the RNC and from the campaign was actually put into this.
	And Brad Parscale, who you all knew, was previously Trump's campaign manager and then ultimately was changed out for Bill Stepien in mid...
	Mid-2020, in the whole midst of the Oklahoma-Tulsa rally, that was kind of the pretext to remove him.
	He actually has said publicly, and he's told me I can say this publicly, he had a plan that was going to actually put lawyers in key states and make sure to litigate this up front that never got done because Bill Stepien refused to follow through on that plan.
	So that was all prior to November 3rd, and that's why everyone on the Trump legal team was very focused on...
	Some of the administration of elections and very concerned even going into election night.
	Then when we saw all of the ways that the executive branch just completely ignored how to administer their own elections according to state law, that was when we had this, what I like to call a multiple pileup of a car accident.
	This isn't just one state having one crash, a single car crash.
	This is like multiple states you have to figure out.
	What happened?
	And build a case on a very, very, very short timeframe.
	So once we started doing the post-election stuff, and I said this very publicly on my good friend Andrew Klavan's show on Daily Wire when he said, okay, well, what's the likelihood of success here?
	I said, honestly, very minimal because it's easier to prevent.
	A crash or prevent something than to try to reconstruct it and to build it later.
	And this type of complex litigation often takes years, if not decades.
	We were working on a timeframe of less than three months.
	But to get to your question, Robert, as well, very specifically, the RNC also did not do enough after the fact.
	they were fundraising, which may have actually been potentially fraudulent fundraising.
	Because when they were saying, this is all going to go to the legal team, the legal team, which I was a key member of, we never saw any of those resources.
	You had the RNC's chief counsel, Justin Reamer, who's sending emails to Liz Harrington, who's now the Trump's spokesperson, who then worked for the RNC, saying that what we're doing is a joke.
	He was telling people at the RNC, So we just need to let this go.
	Then Ronna McDaniel.
	In April of 2021, went on Newsmax and said that all of that was a lie.
	She saw the screenshots.
	And that moment was when I said, I can't support this party anymore until they get better leadership, because she is out and out lying, saying that she didn't know any of that or that she promised Trump she would fire Justin Reamer.
	So she's a liar.
	The RNC.
	I feel like I just stepped into a dispute that I had no knowledge of beforehand.
	I know Robert mentioned it, and someone says, Viva, can you sum up everything she just said, please?
	The bottom line of this, from what I can surmise and what I understand, is the RNC was leveraging the constitutional or the election challenges.
	For fundraising, under the pretext that the money that they fundraised would go towards financing these legal battles.
	And bottom line, Jenna, from what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, little to any of those, how many millions of dollars got raised?
	It was about $365 million.
	And I would love to know where all that money went.
	Exactly.
	I mean, in Georgia, as an example, also Justin and other people part of that team were deliberately misrepresenting things about the legal challenges to the president early on.
	They lied about Georgia.
	I mean, they did a basic misreading of Georgia law that had to have been deliberate.
	Claim that he couldn't ask for a recount until there had been certification.
	It was patently false.
	I ended up in the middle of that.
	I didn't know I was in the middle of it until I was in the middle of it.
	But the...
	And they were constantly undermining any of the legal efforts to independently challenge it.
	A lot of them were compromised because they had hired law firms that worked for some of these election officials who had done the problem.
	It was particularly problematic in Georgia.
	You had the president's legal team in Georgia that these guys at the RNC had retained were also the legal team for Ratburger.
	So it was like, how are we going to...
	Expose the secret deals he did and come after him when you're also his counsel.
	And they were misrepresenting basic facts, trying to divert legal resources, trying to discourage lawyers actually from bringing certain challenges.
	They were obsessed with not allowing a signature match to occur.
	And we never got one.
	Never got one from any place.
	I mean, I think just the news, Mr. Solomon did a recent report detailing that an actual signature match check would have shown more votes in doubt.
	And this is going to Jenna's point about misadministration.
	Aside from all the rule changes in the sense of allowing this flood of mail-in ballots and sending out mail-in ballots and completely gutting the chain of custody in terms of how those mail-in ballots were submitted, how the voter got them, how the voter returned them.
	That's the dropbox issue that Dinesh D'Souza is doing a documentary on.
	But the one way to always catch it was signature matches, because if the signatures don't match, then that would be your way to know that vote is not a credible vote.
	It doesn't cure a whole bunch of other problems, but at least it addresses that problem, and none of them would do it.
	And a key was the RNC running interference.
	Throughout the process, misrepresenting people throughout the process.
	But what was most egregious was raising all this money.
	Because my whole team and everybody down there never got paid.
	And I didn't care, but there were...
	A bunch of other lawyers whose assistants we could utilize that just couldn't continue to work for free for months on end.
	That just wasn't practical.
	Investigators.
	I mean, we were getting great info out of Georgia, and we couldn't ask these people to work for free for forever.
	And then there's just real cost of all kinds of things that you just have to put out cash for.
	Just administrative costs, things of that nature.
	And no money was ever forthcoming.
	And, I mean, she had promised that certain Georgia lawyers would be hired.
	It never happened.
	And they had got accustomed to misleading the president.
	To what degree do you think Trump understands that this is what happened?
	I mean, today he withdrew his support from Mo Brooks because Mo had sort of walked back certain things on these issues.
	But how much does he understand that some of the people, including Ronna McDaniel particularly, Romney McDaniel.
	These people let him down.
	Yeah, and that's a great question, and one that, unfortunately, I can't answer just from being his legal counsel.
	I can't get into some of the specific conversations that I had with him, and especially in light of all of the things that are going on, some of those things are still privileged.
	But what I can say is that I personally, in my own opinion, is obviously I'm very disappointed in Rana, in the entire RNC, and I hope that President Trump does see through that.
	I hope that he is...
	is still going to continue to take election integrity seriously.
	I think he is.
	That has been a key issue that he's raised in all of his rallies.
	And the other thing to add on to everything that you just said, Robert, along with that, along with the RNC basically running out the clock as well, the Democrats were doing the same thing.
	And you have to understand the RNC never wanted Trump to be the nominee in 2016.
	So they were working against Trump's team.
	And there was a lot of contention between the actual Trump loyalists and the people who knew that he's a great president versus the establishment.
	We saw that in the first two years of his presidency and how the House and Senate We saw that throughout the four years.
	But then also, the other thing that was going on in the midst of that was we were also getting significant threats, death threats, threats of harm, threats of vile, disgusting acts against all of the attorneys, myself included.
	I mean, I had to report a ton of personal threats.
	It's now come out publicly that I lived in the Mandarin Hotel in D.C. with my other co-counsel on the fifth floor of the Mandarin first.
	I mean, it was it was so insane.
	And the only reason that Rudy Giuliani had to go up to Pennsylvania to argue that one particular case, which was completely and that just that one issue that has been completely misrepresented by the press as far as submitting a third amended complaint in Pennsylvania.
	The only reason he had to argue that was because the night before.
	Our local counsel received such a significant threat to herself and to her children that she was on the phone crying, saying, I can't go through with this.
	And when you live in a society where lawyers representing clients are getting threatened, and now we have this whole 65 project that is intentionally targeting me and 110 other lawyers to come after our bar licenses simply because we represented President Trump.
	That's like a communist, Marxist sort of society that you don't even have the right to counsel.
	And that was all going on in the background as well.
	Well, let me ask you the human side of all of that.
	I mean, you can shrug it off now.
	I don't know if you actually can.
	What type of lingering, lasting scars does that leave?
	I mean, when you get these threats and the Internet's the Internet and people say stupid things, but when you get specific targeted, not harassment, but outright threats.
	Do you ever get over that?
	Do you ever feel safe?
	Do you ever, do you take it all that seriously?
	Or did anything come of it, like arrests, convictions, and whatever?
	Like, how do you deal with that, and how do you get over that, if you do?
	Yeah, and that's a great question.
	And, you know, my faith really became even more pronounced through that, of saying, I know that this is where God has me, and if I back down, and everyone else backs down, then...
	What will President Trump do?
	Where is the truth in advocacy?
	So it actually made me angry and it emboldened me to say I'm willing to stand up for truth.
	And I actually tweeted that and I said, you know, leftists, do your worst, because this is something that when I signed on to be an advocate, I meant it.
	And I'm going to go into court and I'm going to advocate for my client.
	I'm going to go into media and advocate for my client's interests because.
	In the context of the legal field, that's what lawyers do.
	And if our founders can pledge mutually their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the truth, and for this country that we also love, then I can't do any less.
	So that actually made me mad.
	And I think it might have been a different contemplation if I had kids.
	That's something that I think is just so incredibly disgusting.
	I don't even have words to say how vile that is.
	But for me, myself, it made me angry enough to say I'm going to stand firm and encourage everyone else to stand firm because this is not how we do things in the United States.
	But there is trauma.
	And thankfully, I have a really good support group.
	I have friends that are lifelong friends because we've been in the trenches.
	We know what it's like to have been traumatized through this.
	So it isn't something that you just brush off.
	And after I tweeted, I'm standing firm, I'm standing boldly, that was when the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, All of these others went just completely to the mattresses to say, we are going to try to take down the credibility of this woman because she's standing firm.
	And so for me, seeing that just made me want to fight.
	Harder and more strongly.
	And thankfully, I have friends that even to this day, we all went through a very traumatic experience.
	We're still going through it, but I'm still standing firm on election integrity.
	I don't care that I've had to defend something like 30 bar complaints.
	I'm going to still say, you know what?
	I deserve to be a lawyer.
	You're not going to take away my bar license.
	But guess what?
	Even if you do, it's going to be for an invalid reason.
	And I'm not backing down just because of your ridiculous threats.
	Had you been through anything before this in terms of the sort of personal attacks based on your professional activities, professional licensure attacks, financial attacks?
	I mean, one reason why all the corporate firms ran for cover and jumped ship was because of their risk that they faced from other clients.
	I mean, there were lawyers, of course, who had to leave prominent law firms to continue to do the work that they're doing.
	And so had you ever been through anything like this?
	Obviously, this was a whole different level, but at any level in the sense of, okay, if you represent this person, we're coming after your license, we're coming after your business, we're coming after your other clients, we're coming after you personally.
	Well, simultaneously with representing President Trump and moving kind of way more into the national spotlight, I was representing Pastor John MacArthur out of California against the ridiculous COVID mandates.
	And that was a completely different situation, but there was a lot of hate that was...
	That was intended for him.
	A lot of people called him that he was not being faithful to his ministry because of reopening his church and saying that church is essential.
	So I kind of have these two parallel clients that were both standing firm.
	On very significant issues to our country simultaneously.
	But prior to that, no, I personally, I mean, I had gone through some things and had to stand up for truth in other significant to me personally ways.
	That I think helped develop my courage and embolden my faith, but nothing at all to this level.
	And thankfully, because of how I ended up working for President Trump, even throughout the several years that I worked for him, and people would say, well, you can't say this, or you can't tell him that, or you're going to get fired, or he's going to not like you anymore.
	And I just said, you know what?
	I'm here, and I serve at the pleasure of the president, and I'm going to tell him my best advice.
	And if he decides he doesn't like me anymore, fine, I'll go back to Colorado.
	Like, I really don't care, you know?
	And so it was great that I didn't have these types of ties and, you know, financial issues and, you know, corporate issues and stuff that other people do that will make them less emboldened.
	And that's something that I think I'm going to always carry throughout my profession is to say I'm never going to get into a situation where...
	I will compromise based on not being willing to risk something professionally because all I have is my integrity and my faith, and I'm willing to always stand up for that no matter the cost.
	You said you had, and not to hold you to the number, but a number of bar complaints.
	Now, I don't know how the process works in the States.
	In Canada, you have the initial investigation.
	If the Bar Society decides there's sufficient merit, then they open a formal complaint.
	Did any of them reach the stage of formal complaint in the U.S.?
	If you can get into it without getting into the details, what types of ethical complaints are people leveraging against you?
	Are they clients or are they outside non-clients who just say, you lied to the court when you said something that the court said was factually incorrect and therefore you should be disbarred?
	Right.
	So all of them have been from non-clients.
	So none of them have been from any of my clients.
	And I've actually never had a bar complaint from any of the clients that I've represented throughout my career as a lawyer.
	All of these that I faced in the context of the post-election activity have been from outside people or groups who have simply said, you're perpetuating the quote-unquote big lie and you deserve to be disbarred because you're an insurrectionist and all of these other terms.
	The Colorado Bar, where I'm bar licensed, has thus far been willing.
	And it does work in the same way where there's a request for investigation before a formal investigation is actually opened.
	And they have thus far dismissed these out of hand, saying this does not rise to the level.
	You may disagree with Ms. Ellis's opinions, but that doesn't mean that there's an ethical violation.
	And Colorado is very liberal right now.
	And so I've actually been surprised and grateful that the...
	Colorado Bar has been very fair in this, and they've seen that if the precedent is just attacking your political opponents because of their clients, that will set a very bad precedent for the profession of law.
	then no one can have a lawyer.
	I mean, lawyers, as you both know, being lawyers, we represent our clients to the best of our ability, no matter what they're charged with, no matter if their last name is Trump or Clinton or Epstein or Have you got caught up at all in the January 6th committee in their scorched earth approach to find out information about?
	Anything and everything, even though it appears to have no real relationship to January 6th.
	Well, Wikipedia said that Jenna was subpoenaed.
	This was relatively recently.
	I was actually, yes.
	So I was subpoenaed and I actually saw...
	Alex Burskowitz at a conference a couple weeks ago in Florida, and he had this great blue hat that said, it looks like a Trump hat, and it said, subpoenaed across it.
	And I was like, I want one of those because there's very few of us that actually get to say that we're part of this ridiculous next witch hunt.
	So I have been subpoenaed because my own lawyer will advise me of this, and I've promised him any of those questions I have to say I can't answer at this point.
	But what I can say, of course, is that it is...
	Absolutely just another witch hunt.
	And you can even see that by the composition of the committee.
	The fact that the minority party was not allowed to put on some of their choices like Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.
	There's no reason for that unless it's political persecution.
	This is a modern day star chamber and that's all that it is.
	Well, I would say the bipartisan elements of that committee.
	Are Liz Cheney, as far as I recollect, if I recollect correctly.
	And Adam Kinzinger.
	You can call them, you know, the bipartisan elements.
	Yeah, the litany of losers.
	Robert was saying this, and I didn't fully appreciate the importance of this, is that prior to the election itself, and a lot of people were remarking.
	As to how active litigation was going on within the DNC itself.
	There was a lot of...
	They were lawyering up.
	People were saying, like, my goodness, they got hundreds of lawyers and we haven't even gotten to the election yet.
	Some people out there say Republicans are just playing ball or the GOP, RINOs, I guess they're called, Republican in name only.
	I know this now.
	That they're basically playing ball.
	They don't care really what happens so long as they all retain their power structure in Washington.
	And a lot of people were hypothesizing that they're not getting involved.
	They're not fighting it.
	In advance of litigation, because they don't really care so long as they preserve their own power, people are criticizing the GOP for not having anticipated and acted well in advance in the same degree to which the DNC did by filing lawsuits, arriving at confidential settlements as to how election would be carried out.
	Is there fault to be laid there?
	And what is the explanation for why the GOP was virtually inactive?
	in pre-election litigation Absolutely.
	And I fully blame them for that.
	And my opinion is that they absolutely did not do enough.
	And the reason for that is because the GOP is only self-interested enough to preserve their own power in Washington because Washington is purely and totally transactional.
	And so as long as they can maintain their power base, they're basically the DNC light.
	Both parties need each other to survive in Washington.
	But what the DNC is willing to do that the RNC is not willing to do is to actually...
	We have to be more strategic than that.
	And so when we're seeing people like Mark Elias, who is the DNC's basically chief lawyer, who has said on the record, this was in January of this year.
	He tweeted that the DNC and Democrats are going to actively go after sitting Republican members of Congress.
	And this happened to Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina, basically using the 14th Amendment and the language of if you have previously taken an oath of federal office and then you've participated in a quote-unquote insurrection against the United States, you are no longer qualified.
	That is the only reason.
	That the left is still using this term insurrection.
	It's because they want to falsely harness the text of the Constitution, manipulate it like they do everything else, and they want to litigate and say, because you are a quote-unquote insurrectionist, we will now invalidate your eligibility for public office.
	That is exactly what they have tried to do every single witch hunt against President Trump.
	All they want to do is disqualify him for federal office.
	And so what they've done in laying this groundwork, Is to try to disqualify all of the true America First patriots that care about this country and understand that President Trump's agenda is for freedom and liberty.
	And so the RNC doesn't actually believe in that.
	And that is what I did not understand until I came to Washington, how truly disgusting the swamp is and how many people are purely political mercenaries.
	They don't care about the issues.
	They never cared about President Trump.
	There were so many people on the campaign.
	In high-level positions that were there only to advance themselves because they don't have a genuinely marketable skill set for the real world.
	So all they can do is leverage and negotiate their transactional relationships to continue on.
	That's exactly what's going on with Bill Barr right now.
	His ridiculous book against President Trump, then he comes out and says, well, you know, the election or the laptop thing, you know, we knew about this.
	And he's trying to play both sides.
	Why?
	Because he's appeasing.
	The Washington beast.
	That's what needs to stop.
	And that's why I have endorsed as many America First patriots across the country as I possibly can, because this will not stop until we get people in office in high-level positions who are not beholden to Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and Kevin McCarthy and Ronna McDaniel and this disgusting underbelly of Washington.
	For those out there, Trump was told that they were being proactive at defending this wave of lawsuits that Mark Elias brought all across the country where he was able to leverage these often secret settlements that changed the rules from what the legislature set and thereby, in my view, made it an unconstitutional election since the Constitution only allows the state legislature to set the rules for a presidential election.
	But he was misled about this.
	A classic example is what happened in Georgia.
	The lawyers who were representing him through the campaign, and one of the mistakes that, you know, it's typical for an incumbent president to delegate to the national committee of the party the whole campaign.
	So him doing that was traditional, it's just it was not in his best interest for that to occur.
	And because that happened, the lawyers they picked in Georgia were the lawyers representing the Secretary of State.
	And they negotiated that secret deal against Trump's interest while purporting to represent Trump.
	So this is how this was recurrent.
	It was not for lack of Trump's awareness.
	He kept talking about the risk of mail-in balloting and what was happening with it quite extensively throughout the campaign.
	It was that the RNC was compromised and did not have Trump's best interest at heart.
	They wanted Trump to get out the vote.
	So they could win House and Senate seats.
	They didn't care if Trump won as part of that equation.
	Just fundamentally.
	Now, what are you up to now these days on some of these issues of election integrity?
	Yeah, so, you know, of course, there's been model legislation that the election integrity leaders, there's a group that I'm in, that Conservative Partnership Institute, where Cleta Mitchell, who was one of the lawyers, I'm sure you know her out of Georgia, she worked extensively on this, and she's mainly the leader of that group.
	And there's a lot of election integrity partners that we are working even with the America First Policy Institute, many other nonprofits as well as law firms that are looking at the states trying to pass model legislation.
	Of course, Georgia did pass some and the Heritage Foundation put out an election integrity scorecard.
	I think actually the America...
	Heritage, in my view, just because they want to support some of the other rhinos like Brian Kemp, are looking at Georgia as the number one for election integrity.
	Clearly, that was not the case in 2020.
	I don't think currently it's going to be the case for 2024.
	But we're all working on legislation.
	The problem with that is the same thing as it was in the post-election challenges.
	these state level legislators fear the national RNC and they fear the Republican Party.
	They fear getting reelected to their RNC My position on that is what good are you if you're in an elected position and you're not using your power for the purpose for which your constituents...
	Elected you.
	Then leave.
	But of course, they're career politicians.
	So some of them are kind of going back and forth.
	There are some states that are still conducting audits.
	Of course, the mainstream media is trying to say that that's absolutely ridiculous, even though we've had a special counsel report out of Wisconsin that's actually calling for decertification.
	I've been talking to a lot of the state legislators as well about what that means constitutionally and to correct the record for decertification.
	If at least three states were to decertify and basically pass a resolution through both chambers to say our election was not according, was not followed according to our process.
	And so our state law was violated.
	And ultimately, I think the courts are going to have a huge, huge A constitutional crisis, and they should.
	Because this, of course, has never happened in the context of a presidential election, but that's why continuing to fight for this is so important.
	Once we move past some of the legislation, as some of the sessions are wrapping up, the emphasis now for 2022 is on the executive branch.
	So you have, for example, in Arizona, the Secretary of State Mark Fincham is who I've endorsed.
	He was a representative who was part of all of this election integrity effort.
	He is totally solid.
	He's running for Secretary of State because he wants to make sure that the 2024 and future elections are done according to state law.
	So we need to, across the country, look at some of these key races like Secretary of State.
	Or, for example, like in Pennsylvania, I've endorsed Doug Mastriano for governor there.
	He is a current senator.
	He was part of this whole election integrity effort as well.
	He gets it.
	The governor in Pennsylvania gets to appoint a secretary of state.
	So if he gets elected, he can appoint someone who understands that the administration of elections is important.
	So this is a legislative issue, but it's also an executive and administration issue.
	And so in 2022 and the elections that we have and right now the primaries.
	We have a huge opportunity in the executive branch and also the attorneys general like Ken Paxton, who has a runoff against George P. Bush.
	Are you kidding me?
	George P. Bush doesn't know how to litigate his way out of the paper bag.
	He has no experience.
	He is a lawyer, so he's qualified.
	But Ken Paxton is doing so much for the state of Texas that the RNC encouraged Louie Gohmert to run just to get to this runoff.
	So these types of elections are important.
	People can donate.
	People can definitely endorse candidates.
	But the most important thing is get out and vote and make sure that you are voting strategically so that we get these people in office who can truly make a difference.
	It's always easy to, if a George Bush is on the ballot, just don't vote for him.
	That's the end of the story.
	Whether he's called George or Jorge.
	But speaking, there's a lot of concern out there that the 2022 general election will be a repetition of the 2020 election.
	What efforts are being made to prevent that from happening?
	Yeah, and that's where I wish that there was more being done for legislation leading up to that.
	But the administration is important.
	And so now that hopefully we're in a post-COVID crazy sort of world, you're not going to get the same types of issues like the distancing for poll watchers.
	That was a huge thing in Michigan where they had six feet social distancing where the Republican poll watchers were basically not able to effectively So some of these things that were problematic in 2020,
	there are efforts on the ground by really good people who are there who are part of the party, but they're not controlled by the National RNC, that are getting out the vote, poll watchers, and making sure that they're also volunteering as poll workers so that they can make sure to follow the law and be part of the administration of the elections.
	Without getting into whether or not people are hypothesizing on a 2022 variant, which state was it that had confinement attributed to anyone for COVID?
	Was it Wisconsin?
	Yeah, that was Wisconsin.
	You could only vote by mail there if you were indefinitely confined.
	Indefinitely confined.
	Obviously, that's not what COVID was.
	The courts have later recognized that was an improper application of the rule.
	That's what's so frustrating, is that they mooted out so many of these cases.
	And for everybody who says, you know, oh, we lost, you know, 63 cases.
	Well, first, the Trump campaign never filed 63 cases, so that's false.
	But also, we never got past standing.
	We never actually got to argue any of these on the merits.
	And so the few that we have actually won, and they've gone back now and said, you know, yeah, that was a bad application, great.
	But for all of these, it was such a short timeframe.
	And if a candidate for the highest office in the nation doesn't have standing to adjudicate the constitutionality of his own election, then whoever has standing to make these challenges.
	Jenna, thank you for these answers.
	I've been watching.
	I've been waiting for them.
	Do you think anything real progress can be ever made, even with changing our leadership, if we do not regain control over language, information, and communication?
	Speaking of regaining control over language, Jenna, I know that you're watching the confirmation hearings.
	How do we feel about the answers, the questions, the treatment of this particular SCOTUS candidate that is currently being grilled for the last three days?
	But I mean, if it's a grilling, it's only on one side.
	The other side is barely cooked.
	How do you feel about what's going on and what are your thoughts on KBJ?
	Well, it's total political theater.
	And for a longer analysis, of course, everyone listening can listen to my podcast from today, the JennaEllisShow.com and wherever you stream.
	But the bottom line for this is that it is political theater because you have good questions from people like, you know, Ted Cruz, even Lindsey Graham, I'll give him credit.
	You know, Marsha Blackburn saying, can you please give me the definition of what is a woman?
	But that didn't go far enough.
	And for Judge Jackson to not respond and say, I can't give you an answer, that's a lie.
	Of course she can give an answer.
	Even if her answer is, I believe that gender is a social construct and that it's based on feeling and it's not based on biology.
	That's still an answer and it would still be truthful according to her sincerely held belief.
	But to say that she can't give a definition is just pure political theater and all she's doing is not wanting to make news so that she gets her confirmation as easily as possible.
	She will be confirmed because Republicans, of course, are totally spineless.
	I have no doubt that at least a few are going to vote for her confirmation.
	But the thing that really upsets me about this, and I wrote an op-ed today in Newsmax, the thing that upsets me is that when she says that she can't and that she doesn't know and that she's lying about that, that means that she is not willing to participate.
	In a constitutionally required process, because for an appointment of a federal judge, that has to go through advice and consent of the Senate.
	Why?
	So that we make sure that the judicial philosophy of what is supposed to be the unbiased branch of government, not political, that she will maintain her oath of office.
	And so by not participating in that process and declining to answer and say that she can't, as a candidate, For the U.S. Supreme Court, she's undermining the Constitution and actually, in my opinion, violating the Constitution by not being willing to respond.
	That is disqualifying.
	Now, Robert, this is going to be for both of you because I'm playing devil's advocate, maybe politically, spiritually, etc.
	If she didn't give this answer, it probably would have been the better answer.
	But hypothetically, had she answered...
	I can't answer that question because it might be key, central to any upcoming litigation, specifically Title IX lawsuits.
	What is a woman?
	And if I then give my answer as to the definition of a woman, I will be presupposing the conclusion of a potential future litigation, specifically dealing with Title IX or other sex-based discrimination laws or lawsuits.
	So had she said, I can't do that because that might presuppose a litigation question in the future, So I abstain.
	It would have been one thing.
	But what do you make of that argument?
	That Title IX sex-based discrimination, it may be a focal point in the future.
	What is a woman?
	I say it like it's almost like a satire idiocracy, but what is the definition of a woman?
	Is Leah Thompson a woman for the sake of discrimination under the law?
	And so had she said that, it would have been a better answer, but would that not have been a legitimate answer to both of you?
	No, because that issue is not relevant to the Title IX analysis.
	The Title IX analysis may protect gender identity and may protect gender discrimination, but whether someone is a man or woman is not necessarily subject to the issue or the standard.
	For example, in certain contexts, gender identity either is or isn't protected under Title IX.
	That doesn't answer the question as to gender itself.
	And so I think that's partially why she didn't answer that way.
	I mean, she could have, and it would have been a more politically efficacious answer.
	And she could have dodged.
	Ever since Bork's nomination, most nominees have avoided.
	Any topic of controversy by saying that might impact my future decision-making and so I can't answer.
	Now, to be truthful, I've never found that to be...
	That effectively negates the advice and consent portion of the Senate's constitutional obligation.
	So even when it was being done by conservative judge nominees, I did not favor it.
	I thought they should be honest and forthright and then let the chips fall where they may.
	And it's always fair to say, I don't know how I'm going to rule in a future case.
	I can tell you my general beliefs, my general inclinations, what I've generally said, it's what I think now, it may change my mind.
	That would all be honest, rather than hide their political beliefs and inclinations behind that.
	But I think the other fact was, this was just revelatory.
	I mean, these Democrats prepared their nominees very, very well.
	Much better, frankly, than Republicans typically do.
	As was evident in...
	Kavanaugh.
	But even to a certain degree with Barrett when she forgot the five parts of the First Amendment.
	So forgot the fifth part.
	But maybe that showed up when she was AWOL on the election contest cases.
	The president was promised she would be a good vote with because she was involved in the Bush litigation.
	Mistaken application.
	But that's another story for another day.
	I think she's just being revealing.
	And she's being deceiving.
	About a wide range of other topics.
	Pretending that she doesn't know what critical race theory is when she sits on school boards that help enforce it or school bodies that help enforce it.
	Especially a high-end liberal black professional class individual that's deeply involved in democratic politics hasn't read about critical race theory in detail.
	I don't think so.
	A lot of things she's just lying about.
	You know, she could have avoided on some, just try to use that and see if you can get away with it.
	But I think there's limits to that, the political sustainability of it with the Senate, because that's her real audience.
	It's not the public, it's the Senate.
	She just needs, you know, as Jenna says, a couple of Republicans to go AWOL.
	Now, Manchin has suggested he might not vote for her, but Romney and Sasse are both making strong inclinations they are going to vote for her.
	So we'll see what happens.
	But I think the Republicans will disappoint their party base one more time.
	Over and over again.
	And David, to your question too, I think it would have at least been better for her to say...
	That, you know, I can't answer a policy-based question.
	And like Robert said, I can't comment on how I may rule in the future.
	But this is where Republican senators, especially, you know, people who are lawyers like Ted Cruz, why not ask her about the Bostock decision and about reading in to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the term sex?
	Does she agree with that opinion?
	And those are the types of questions that I agree with Robert.
	We are negating the efficacy and the entire constitutional intent of advice and consent if...
	The nominees are saying, well, I can't comment on anything because I may hear a case at some point in the future.
	Well, yeah, the fact that you're going to hear cases in the future is the exact reason you're sitting there.
	So we need to understand what is your philosophy?
	Are you going to believe that you can redefine the term sex apart from what the 1964 Congress contemplated?
	Are you going to believe that Roe is a settled law?
	Is there such a thing as super precedent when you have the Dobbs?
	I mean, all of these things are so important to understanding the mindset of a judicial officer.
	And if advice and consent was simply rubber stamping someone who was constitutionally qualified, well, the Constitution doesn't actually even require a Supreme Court judge or any judge, for that matter, to be a lawyer.
	So, of course, she's qualified in the sense that the Constitution requires.
	But in the sense and the intent of advice and consent of the Senate...
	That is a completely separate question.
	And I'm tired of the Senate being so politically minded and they're more concerned about their sunbites.
	I mean, Lindsey Graham was tweeting.
	I'm going to be questioning Judge Jackson today.
	It's like, you know, good for you, buddy.
	We all know that.
	Why is the emphasis on yourself?
	That's not the point.
	The point isn't getting these little sound bites that then you can go on Tucker Carlson later and talk about.
	The point is doing your job.
	And this is also why, as a slight rant, I'm also a fan of repealing the 17th Amendment.
	Because when you have now direct election of senators who aren't subject to recall by their state legislatures.
	That is a measure of accountability that we have now removed through that amendment.
	And so I think that the whole point of why the founders provided that advice and consent goes through the Senate is because the Senate was supposed to represent the will of the states.
	And it's the states who ultimately have this litigation that's going to go up in front of the Supreme Court.
	And when you see all of these bills, you mentioned the women's sports bills, all of these that are going to start being litigated and contemplated in all of these cultural issues, the states and the state legislatures need to have a say in it.
	And unfortunately, they don't.
	Well, two questions.
	One's going to be preposterous, but I'm going to ask it nonetheless.
	In the context of the application of Title IX.
	Has the question as to what is a woman or how is a woman defined under the law ever been answered?
	And then the second question, before Jenna, we lose you for the night.
	I've heard the argument that Title IX has nothing to do with sports.
	Anyone invoking Title IX to explain why there are women's classes and men's classes in sports has misunderstood Title IX.
	First question first.
	Has Title IX ever answered the thorny legal question, what is a woman under the law?
	Robert, you can answer this one.
	I'm not aware that there's any specific law that has said woman is defined as.
	But in terms of, I think that there is a presumption that when you have sex, sex means something.
	And that the term, the biological difference, it has to be empirically defined.
	And so in terms of what did the 1964 Congress contemplate, obviously that term sex was meant to protect biological women.
	So it was implicit.
	Up until now.
	But I don't think, and I may be missing something, so Robert, you can chime in, but I don't think it's actually been explicitly said or set down because it just hasn't really been necessary until this point.
	And it's ridiculous we've been contemplating this in 2022.
	Well, the way I've always answered it is I think God gave folks a clue as to which gender you are.
	And it's not based on feeling.
	It can be a bigger or smaller clue depending on the...
	Okay, never mind.
	I'll skip my own self-deprecating jokes.
	You guys can talk about that when I leave.
	Second question.
	So I've heard the argument that Title IX had nothing to do with sports.
	Anyone arguing it does is misinformed, mal-informed, ill-informed.
	Between two lawyers who know more than me, educate me so I can respond to that counter-argument.
	Do they mean in terms of the recent competition where the man that was a very poor, was like ranked 400-ish, is now the number one women's?
	I'm not sure how much Title IX applies to that circumstance, but the whole reason why there's a bunch of money spent on money losing women's sports, also money losing preppy sports like lacrosse, things like this, is because...
	of the necessity of having equal spending for men and women's sports that is interpreted, at least by university administrators, as being required by federal law.
	I mean, that's been around for a while, a long time.
	I mean, that's where, like, the money, men's football, pays for women's softball.
	To give you an example.
	Or you could say pays for men's lacrosse.
	Sports that are not financially self-sustaining.
	And that's been interpreted by university administrators as they have to make sure there's gender parity in what they spend on supporting sports to a certain degree, or at least certain availability of sporting activity being equal.
	In terms of the law.
	As far as I know, that's always been the case.
	You can make specific arguments as to whether Title IX applies in this instance or that instance, but suggesting that there's no impact whatsoever on sports from federal law is just not correct, at least according to every university administrator for the last 50 years.
	Right.
	And to go a little bit, and I totally agree with that answer, and to go a little bit more philosophical, everybody is suggesting and some conservatives are weighing in on this in a...
	In a way that they're more comfortable with, because there is this huge cancel culture push to not be a quote unquote bigot or hateful or have hate speech.
	I mean, we've seen the Babylon Bee, Charlie Kirk and others who've been now suspended on Twitter for for saying certain things that Twitter defines as hateful conduct.
	I find that ironic, by the way, because the hateful conduct or hate speech.
	The term and condition in Twitter's user, term and condition, actually says that religious affiliation and faith is also protected in that same clause.
	So what about my faith?
	What about Charlie Kirk, who's a Christian?
	That should be protected, but he's the only one bumped because he's not going with the current cultural...
	Compelling interest that the left is trying to shove on everyone.
	But so conservatives are trying to couch this in terms of fairness.
	And I don't think that that's the correct philosophical or legal way to go about this because sports aren't fair in the sense that everybody has an exact same equity.
	Interest and equal participation element.
	There are people who are just naturally gifted.
	They're going to be better swimmers.
	There'll be better, you know, artists and artistic things or judges that have different views on things, you know, whatever it is.
	Sports aren't necessarily fair.
	It's the application of specific rules.
	And so if we couch this just in terms of fairness and say, well, that's not fair, then I think that's losing the heart of why true women.
	Biological women are so frustrated with this whole trans issue.
	It's not about fairness.
	It's about truth.
	And truth is that there is a measurable difference between a man and a woman.
	And the reason that we've always had rules and laws against sports doping, for example, is because that takes away the quality of what an athlete, when you're participating in an event, expects from an equal application of the rules.
	It's ironically the exact same issue.
	That we were trying to litigate in the post-election stuff.
	It's just equal application of the rules.
	If Trump had lost fair and square, then that's how it goes.
	I didn't vote for Obama, but he became the president, right?
	There's always in any contest, whether it's an election or it's a sports event, there's a winner and a loser.
	That's fine.
	But you have to have arbiters and enforcement of rules and application of the rules that are consistent.
	And that isn't just a matter of fundamental fairness.
	That's a matter of making sure that everybody is on the same playing field.
	And so if we only couch it in terms of fairness, I think we lose the bigger picture in this whole debate.
	Now, Jenna, I know you have to go because you were gracious enough to accept this on short notice and you have plans.
	If you are amenable, we will do this again because there's hours and hours and hours of questions left to answer.
	You're amazing.
	Objectively, full stop.
	End of story.
	So let's do this again.
	I love you both.
	I will come on anytime.
	Okay, amazing.
	So thank you very much for coming in.
	Robert and I are going to stick around and talk about the Stormy Daniel stuff that you can't talk about.
	I'll just say go Trump on that one.
	Yay, he won.
	We're going to talk about stuff that we couldn't address with you because you are still a practicing attorney and have solicitor client privilege stuff that you can't talk about.
	Thank you for everything.
	Thank you for what you're doing.
	Stay strong.
	I mean, you don't need anyone else to encourage you to have faith.
	Robert, what do you have to say?
	Oh, just where can people find you?
	Oh, thank you so much.
	So you can find me at thejennahellisshow.com.
	That's my podcast.
	I'm a contributor to Newsmax.
	And then follow me on all of the social media, including Truth Social, at Jenna Ellis ESQ.
	Jenna Ellis ESQ.
	Boom.
	Done.
	It's in the chat, and I'll put it in the pinned comments.
	Jenna, thank you very much.
	Let's do it again.
	Thank you both.
	All right.
	Have a good night.
	Did I lose something here?
	How do I do this?
	There we go.
	Robert.
	There we go.
	Let's talk Stormy Daniels.
	Come on.
	I've been holding that in all night.
	All right.
	I'm joking.
	You mean just the attorney's fee award?
	Say it again?
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, there was...
	So, yeah.
	The recent developments in Stormy Daniels, it was, I believe, on appeal.
	That her appeal of the initial order was dismissed, and she's got to pay Trump $300,000.
	Explain it, because I don't think I remember the details, although I think I remember it en diagonale, as we say in French.
	Yeah, I predicted it at the time.
	She brought a suit against Trump for defamation.
	It was not a credible defamation claim.
	The court, I knew the judge that was assigned the case, and he was one of these no-nonsense judges.
	You don't always get that, but he was one of those types.
	I dealt with him in the, actually, Joe Francis case.
	Another story.
	But he had ruled That the anti-slap law applied in federal court in the Ninth Circuit, and it does, and had ruled that, so not only was it dismissed, it was dismissed with prejudice, but that meant she owed Trump's fees.
	And the initial trial court award was around $300,000, something like that.
	And she challenged that on appeal.
	I believe she was also challenging the rule that the anti-slap law applies.
	There's always a possibility of a...
	I don't think the Supreme Court would take her case, but there's a possibility they'd take some case because there's a split.
	The Ninth Circuit is one of the only federal circuits that says that the state anti-slap law applies in federal court.
	D.C. Circuit has said, no, it doesn't.
	Fifth Circuit has said, no, it doesn't.
	Eleventh Circuit has said, no, it doesn't.
	So, well, the Second Circuit has said, maybe sometimes and maybe not other times.
	But so for the most part, the Ninth Circuit's on an island in that regard, and that's the only reason why she owes fees.
	So there'll be more fees for the appeal under the anti-slap laws if it continues to apply and she doesn't successfully petition the Supreme Court for cert.
	So that's the base of that.
	I mean, it was an Avenatti grandstanding suit.
	You know, the Avenatti, of course, stole money from Mercy, testified against him in his criminal trial, and I think that one was in New York.
	He has so many pending.
	He's already convicted now of two different criminal trials, and he's still facing multiple ones in L.A. Even though I think he might still be out somehow.
	He originally got out some sort of COVID release protocol or some BS.
	So I don't know if he's still out somehow.
	But it's interesting who gets released and who doesn't pending appeal.
	Or even pending trials.
	The January 6th case is a test.
	So yeah, that's basically the update.
	This was all...
	She got into trouble because of Avenatti.
	So it was a bad suit.
	Shouldn't have brought it.
	Waste of time.
	Waste of space.
	The media promoted the suit.
	A bunch of law Twitter said it was a good suit.
	I want to Google it.
	I'm looking it up now, but I haven't gotten there.
	What was the allegedly defamatory statements that Trump made about her?
	It was something innocuous as far as I recall.
	I'm going to try to find it if anybody knows.
	Well, you know, I mean, I know Trump's going to probably say this in the future.
	He called her a horse face, but that's definitely, you know, he's going to say, see?
	Court said it was true.
	He's a horse face.
	He looks like a horse.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to try to find it.
	Of course, the popular meme is that only Trump could be accused of banging a porn star, and the porn star has to pay him.
	That meme is circulating.
	That doesn't hurt Trump's image in that sense at all.
	Basically, he had made a bunch of statements that implied parts of her story were not true, but he used...
	Such aggressive adjectives as the kind to be classic opinion.
	Now, my thing was, I don't know how under the Westfall Act he could be sued.
	I mean, if Elizabeth Warren, Deborah Hallin, everybody else gets out, the Westfall Act applies to the president too.
	I thought just on those grounds alone.
	It should have been dismissed.
	But the court ultimately dismissed it.
	The court didn't like the case, challenged it early on, signaled that.
	Avenatti just paid no attention to it because he was too busy grandstanding and grifting.
	And I knew that judge and said, this judge is going to dismiss and she's going to end up paying Trump's fees.
	And I got a lot of blowback from law Twitter.
	These experts of law Twitter didn't know what they were talking about as usual.
	Just because their politics just prejudices them so they can't objectively see the law.
	I mean, it's kind of like our current...
	International conflict.
	There was a person who commented on our Sunday show, this one or the last one, and they were objecting to the idea of objective analysis.
	I don't think they fully realized it, but they were talking about how they're post-grad students and all that jazz.
	But they were assertively, if you believe something, if something is objectively different than what your subjective belief is of what you want to have happen, then it's morally evil.
	To share your objective belief.
	And this is the law Twitter had this mindset about any suit involving Trump.
	And it was clear the suit was frivolous and meritless.
	And it was going to get dismissed.
	For primary reason, in my opinion, because of the Westfall Act, whatever you think of the Westfall Act, it clearly does apply to the president.
	But if you're going to interpret, and this applied because this was him defending himself while president.
	So it's not like he was like, and Warren and Howland commenting on something that had nothing to do with them.
	But here he's talking about himself as president, defending accusations against him as president.
	And so clearly he was immune.
	But the court went beyond that.
	The court just said, these are clearly adjectives.
	This is hyperbole.
	These are not factual claims.
	If anybody in the chat can pull up the statements that were the allegedly defamatory statements, I couldn't find anything fast enough.
	And a horse face was not bringing up anything.
	There was one rumble rant, which I'm going to get to.
	It says, in real life.
	Just sending well-deserved dollar sign.
	Thank you very much.
	That was a $20 rumble rant.
	Okay, that was good.
	First of all, Jenna is...
	That's amazing.
	It's amazing and the ability...
	It's not an ability.
	When you have the four stages of knowledge, there's...
	What is it called?
	Ignorant ignorance.
	You don't even know you're ignorant.
	Then you have...
	You know, knowledgeable ignorance.
	You know you're ignorant.
	Then you have knowledgeable incompetence.
	Then you have knowledgeable competence.
	And I think the last level is subconscious competence.
	I screwed the entire thing up.
	The bottom line is, at the beginning, you don't even know what you don't know.
	And at the end, you don't even know what you do know.
	And in between, you know that you don't know things, you know that you're learning things, and then they become reflexive.
	Jenna's answers to a lot of those questions were reflexively substantive good answers.
	And I didn't ask her my Rudy Giuliani imitation question.
	How do you imitate Rudy Giuliani?
	Drink, please.
	I was going to ask her about what I think is a relatively or comparatively unflattering picture on Wikipedia.
	I was going to look up Giuliani to see if they picked the one where he was sweating with his hair dye, thinking that that somehow proved that what he was saying was...
	Stayed away from all the Sidney Powell and the Dominion-related questions.
	I think I know the answer would have been no comment on those things.
	Can't comment on certain stuff.
	We'll have Jenna back and we'll go for another solid two hours.
	Robert, what else is going on?
	You're watching the confirmation hearings.
	How does it work?
	We have the questions and yada, yada.
	It's all show grandstanding for some and then grilling for others and blah, blah, blah.
	What's the process in terms of the vote itself?
	How many votes does she need?
	What's the composition of we're before the Congress right now?
	How many votes does she need to get confirmed?
	So it's just the Senate that decides it.
	And she'll just need, because Kamala Harris can be the deciding vote, she just needs 50 votes.
	So either all the Democrats hold, or if Manchin drops off, pick up one Republican.
	So that's where...
	What's the composition right now of the Senate?
	Is it 50-50?
	Okay, interesting.
	And it's going to go party lines regardless of her not willing to answer what a woman is.
	I think Manchin is the only Democrat that's voiced any doubt.
	So the...
	I mean, if they had made a different nomination, this would have been a sailed in.
	The reason why Lindsey Graham was even aggressive today was because he was in agreement with the...
	The very prominent, powerful black Democratic congressman from South Carolina who wanted to nominate Childs from South Carolina.
	Graham had already said he would vote for her, so she was a guarantee, and this would be pure theater.
	Because they did not nominate Childs, they're at risk, and this is much more aggressive questioning.
	I am somewhat surprised that she didn't have better answers.
	For the defendants in the child porn cases.
	So we're going to get there in a second.
	And by the way, I'm saying, I'm watching this and I don't want to try to read too much body language.
	She looked genuinely uncomfortable.
	She looked genuinely incapable of answering questions which anyone in their right mind ought to have known were coming.
	Getting to the CP cases, because I don't...
	I understand what they're getting at, but I don't know the particular case itself.
	Which is the case that they keep referring to that she sentenced under the guidelines for?
	Well, I'm going to look it up while you see it.
	Oh, there's a bunch.
	There's a bunch.
	I think there's seven.
	There's seven different cases.
	They've highlighted certain ones, but I think Holly's gone through all seven.
	And her justification and rationalization for them has not been well prepared.
	And I heard the rationalization, which you'll explain to me under the law if it makes a difference, which...
	I'll venture a guess it doesn't, is that the law was passed before the internet and somehow, you know, if you're just sitting around looking for something to do on a Saturday night on the internet, you're less culpable for the CP, cheese, pizza, whatever, maps.
	You're less culpable because it's on the internet.
	You can just go and click on it and therefore you should be, you know, dealt with less severely than if you ordered prints or took the prints.
	And then I can sort of understand an aspect of that is...
	If you go back to the day when you had to have physical prints, you either took the pictures or you knew the person who did versus just surfing the internet like a bored teenager.
	But Robert, I mean, in law, that distinction is non-existent?
	Yeah, I mean, what she reflects that's not being discussed even by the right is there are a bunch of judges, including a lot of them on the right.
	Who don't like the application of the current sentencing guidelines to the child porn convictions.
	Now, some of their concerns you can understand, but I think it's a misplaced concern.
	It's a misunderstanding of the nature of these kind of convictions.
	The concern is that just looking at an image has become severely criminally punishable.
	And their theory is that it's not, well, you know, she sort of went down one of their explanatory reasons why they think that.
	There's a concern there of free speech that's understandable.
	They're like, okay, what's the scope to which we criminalize an image where there's no, in their view, direct victim?
	Where I think they're wrong, aside from the fact that this kind of activity has always been outside of the First Amendment, is that the reason why the underlying activity exists It would be one thing if they said the images did not involve real people at all.
	Then you have a little bit closer of a debate.
	I still think I'm still of the same opinion on the subject, but I can see where they're coming from.
	The problem is almost all of these convictions are not based on manufactured images.
	They're based on real images.
	The reason why the real images occur and the individual was harmed is because there's a market out there for them.
	So to try to separate out the underlying crime from the person that's an accomplice in that crime and arguably the reason for the crime's existence.
	Is what they're, I think, misplaced on.
	But it tells you a lot about federal judges.
	This has been common amongst a lot of federal judges.
	She's not unusual in this.
	They have unusual sympathy in this subject.
	Like I said, some of it you can understand is a certain intellectual interpretation of things and so forth.
	A lot of it, it tells you something about the mindset of federal judges.
	They're like, oh, you just got looking at some kiddie porn.
	That could happen to any of us on a Saturday night.
	No, it couldn't.
	That's hogwash.
	What's absurd about it, the most absurd thing is to treat the digital world differently than the physical world.
	When the digital world replaced it, you have no physical photographs.
	It has replaced it.
	It has not been a lesser form of violating.
	It's just become the alternative.
	You don't have hard copies.
	You don't get them in the mail.
	I don't understand the distinction in the first place.
	It made it easier and more profitable.
	And so it increased the amount of human trafficking that occurred.
	It increased the amount of abuse that occurred.
	That's the reason these laws exist.
	And where she's being dishonest in part is she's been against this all the way through.
	She lobbied when she was on the Sentencing Commission to reduce these crimes.
	And it reflects a broader proclivity amongst the left.
	People can just Google the articles attempting to normalize pedophilia, which is always interesting.
	It was the right's criticism.
	My religious conservative friends said, okay, we understand where you are on gay marriage, but how do you stop that from going into saying any kind of activity is okay?
	You know, the old Wisconsin farmer joke, which is I was just trying to push that sheep over the fence.
	Robert, I'll tell you one thing.
	I've never heard that joke.
	I heard it from my criminal law professor.
	Where does that line stop?
	Because if you start saying there's no line, then you're back in the old Berkian debate about justifying conservatism as you need some line.
	And that once you obliterate lines, you create a sort of chaotic environment that you get things like the French Revolution going as AWOL as it did.
	And so the same principle was here.
	If we don't draw a clear line about things, like, okay, let's say you want to move the line into accepting consensual adult...
	Homosexual relationships.
	Okay.
	Are you going to draw...
	Where's the line then?
	Or are you just saying there's really no line?
	And there was a part of the argument made by the right and actually really being made by the left, but hidden because it was unpopular, which said they didn't want a line.
	They wanted to normalize any of these behaviors, including now as we see trans identity, trans political protection, legal protection, to such a degree that...
	I mean, we're watching something that would have been a...
	In fact, it was...
	A South Park episode some way, way back where a man enters a woman's competition and wins.
	I think maybe he was supposed to be the macho man from the wrestling world.
	And now we're seeing it in live time.
	I mean, it's South Park parody come to life.
	And the same thing with some of this.
	And I think Holly did a very good job.
	I've been encouraging people up there for a while in the political world.
	If you're going to go after a judge, go after their past rulings, their past decisions, particularly in the sentencing environment, but other key environments that expose their political preferences and prejudices.
	And so Holly's done a good job on this.
	The rest of the Senate has done so-so because there's more rulings like that.
	And here's her other problem.
	She's viciously harsh, sentencing-wise, in a bunch of other areas.
	So it's like, what justifies you being viciously harsh on, say, A tax defendant.
	And then being overly generous to not only people convicted of child pornography, what is considered one of the worst crimes for most people, but her answer on going low on some key drug dealer charges, saying there were no victims.
	Those kind of statements, she was not prepped.
	Or if she was, it was a bunch of fellow lefties that don't understand how unpopular those ideas are.
	Yep.
	You talk about the opioid crisis and overdoses.
	But hold on, Robert.
	I'll bring you one thing up because it's Canada.
	And we've been accused of not having free speech here.
	Let me just bring this down.
	Because when you say the depiction, in Canada, our CP laws are one step beyond what you have in the States.
	This is Betensky-Shickman.
	I have no idea who they are, so this is not a disguised ad.
	I just Googled this.
	I know what the law says.
	I'm just trying to find someone else to summarize it so I don't get accused of...
	Misrepresenting the law.
	Very generally speaking, the definition of CP in Canada is any material, and that can include digital or paper, or art, and that was the one that went to the Supreme Court in Canada, that depicts a person who is under 18, and this is the other one that went to the Supreme Court, or who is depicted to be under 18. So in Canada, everyone in the States should appreciate this.
	Cartoon involving people who are depicted to be under 18. Not real pictures, not nothing.
	Stories and depictions in Canada qualifies as CP, which will get you in big, big effing trouble.
	And the other reason that these laws exist is because there is an extraordinary high overlap between people who purchase this and get this material and people who abuse children.
	There's an incredibly high overlap.
	Her explanation for having sentenced a number of CP individuals under the sentencing guidelines was that it was digital, it was very short-lived, and they didn't, yada, yada.
	And, I mean, but Robert, what does it take?
	I want to put some of the Democrats on blast in terms of, like, you're going to confirm the nomination of a Supreme Court justice to be.
	Who refuses to define what a woman is, who claims that she can't do it because she's not a biologist, who then says, you know, I sentenced CP offenders under the guidelines because it was digital.
	And, geez, I would now question what this person does on a Saturday night.
	There's no real chance she does not get confirmed after three full days of hearings.
	Oh, no, there's still a chance she doesn't get confirmed.
	I mean, she was risky in ways that Childs was not.
	That's what I thought.
	They would nominate Childs.
	Because I don't think they realized quite that she was risky.
	But again, they had Graham sewn up with Childs.
	They don't this time.
	And there may be pressure.
	I mean, I think somebody will break Romney, Sass.
	It may not be Lindsey Graham.
	Graham is actually bitter over what happened.
	And I mean, all of these guys.
	It's not a coincidence that the same senators that may crack and nominate this individual to the highest court in the land are the same people currently leading the effort for us to get involved in more war in Ukraine.
	So people just start to see some of the connections here.
	They're probably not coincidental connections entirely.
	And so we'll see.
	We'll see what...
	I would say, right, I said before, 50% chance.
	Still watching everything.
	It's more watching how much active institutional conservatives are coming out against this nominee in the sense of, you know, political activism, etc.
	But, like, the RNC is not putting any money behind ads about this.
	Things like that.
	That shows and tells you that there'll be some cracks in the dam.
	Now, someone says here, LAFD rafter.
	Los Angeles Fire Department rafter, if I'm guessing.
	What happens when you're on social media?
	Well, first of all, the first part of that, I mean, I've never had any of that pop up on social media.
	The question is this.
	Feds plant stuff.
	They did it to Alex Jones.
	They did it on another website that they don't like.
	Upload a CP and then say, look at that.
	You've got to take him down.
	Robert?
	The law doesn't criminalize that.
	The law doesn't criminalize that.
	The law only criminalizes knowing possession.
	Okay, and I presume also if people send you something but you never open it, there's metadata to confirm you never opened it.
	And if you open it and call the cops right away, you know, you might be, whatever.
	You might end up losing your job and business because you work at a laptop computer shop.
	I wasn't going to say it.
	I just snorted.
	I was not going to say it, but that's exactly what I was thinking.
	Not talking Hunter Biden laptop.
	Those are family members.
	Tie in that aspect of the laptop to Ashley Biden's diary and start to see a pattern.
	The big guy, by the way, if I'm looking at your back, dude, if that's you, congratulations, because that's ripped.
	That's ripped.
	Viva, she did answer about the woman definition.
	She stated on the record that biology determines it.
	That's the other thing.
	Now I'm thinking maybe the lefties want to go after her.
	I'm not a biologist.
	Oh, so there is a biological difference between males and females.
	Setting aside men and women.
	Because I'll agree.
	What's the definition of a woman?
	What's the definition of a man?
	Am I a man?
	I'm, you know, small.
	I cry during commercials.
	I cry listening to Sigur Rós.
	If you've never heard, it's magnificent music.
	Does that make me a man?
	One thing I know, it doesn't matter what I feel like internally.
	Biologically, I think I'm a male.
	Whether or not I'm a man, that's up for discussion.
	Robert, what else is there?
	On your side of things, what's going on professionally if people want updates on what's going on?
	Yeah, not a lot on that side.
	I'll be on tomorrow morning with the, well, tomorrow morning my time, I think 1 p.m. Eastern with Duran to break down all the craziness of what's happening in the globe that just keeps moving at such a rapid pace each day.
	Someone asked in the chat, the book is Ratification, about the people's debate of the constitutional, the original.
	The U.S. Constitution, written by Pauline Meyer.
	It's a good book that details what people are thinking.
	And you know what you won't find in there?
	Somebody saying, well, what if a man's a woman?
	That won't be in there.
	I think XXXXY is the fair way to do it.
	It's not up to choice.
	It's up to genetics.
	I just made the joke earlier today.
	You're going to have to wait for your designation on your birth certificate for them to test your...
	I mean, there's a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people.
	For whom there is actual question of gender because of biology.
	But beyond that, everybody knows who's a man or a woman.
	I will never be part of this wokester.
	I'm sympathetic with people who have real kind of issues and whatnot.
	Don't want anybody to be hurt or harassed.
	But pretending I gotta call a he or she, I don't think so.
	Well, but here's the thing.
	I won't...
	There's...
	Elements of fact.
	Call me a factual thing that I'm not like.
	If someone said, call me the tallest person on earth, I think our relationship would be short-lived.
	If someone says, call me...
	Fine, I'm not there to fight with people.
	But if someone says, and it's controversial, I don't know how it became controversial, should Leah Thomas, an individual who spent the better part of their human life as a biological male...
	Then deciding I want to compete in women's sports, transitioning and after having gone through one year of hormone suppression therapy, saying now I'm biologically the equivalent of a female, let me compete with them.
	I have no problem saying you should not be allowed to compete in female sports.
	It might be unfortunate for you, but you've made a decision and you have to live with it because biology is biology.
	Just ask KBJ.
	Just ask KBJ.
	Next potential Supreme Court.
	It's biological and it's unfortunate for you, maybe, but go do what you've been doing for the last little while.
	Everything else?
	Should you be denied a job as a teacher because you're transgender?
	No.
	Because it's not a relevant aspect of that thing.
	Should you be denied a job as a pilot?
	No.
	Should you maybe not be allowed to compete in biological female sports?
	Yes.
	Because you have procured yourself an unfair advantage and by virtue of your choice to go from biological male to biological female, you're prejudicing people who have had no choice in this debate.
	Other than that, I might call someone something that they tell me to just to avoid conflict and then I would have a very short-lived relationship with them.
	I mean, I think in terms of what she'll be like, I said before any of this came out or any of the hearings that she would be the, you know, The black Sotomayor.
	If you read her history, I had a case in front of her.
	She managed to magically never rule on it.
	It involved FBI corruption.
	So shock, shock that she managed to involve Andrew McCabe.
	Never could get around to making a ruling.
	Wasn't that convenient.
	And always was on the fast track for higher nomination.
	But if people want to know who she'll be, that's who she'll be.
	She's very much in the Sotomayor school.
	Which means, by the way, that on the occasional constitutional issue impacting criminal defendants, she might be good, as Sotomayor sporadically is, on the Fourth Amendment in particular.
	So it won't be all bad, but it'll be about 75-80% opinions that at least I think most Americans wouldn't side with.
	This is funny.
	Humor is humor.
	A well-timed joke.
	I'm waiting for biological men to start playing in the WNBA.
	At least it will be finally watchable.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	I enjoy watching women's tennis more than men's tennis because the rallies last longer and it's a little more suspenseful.
	I have a comment on that, but I will reserve it.
	Okay, Robert, I think I know where you're going.
	Now, the other question that I was going to ask...
	Oh, sorry.
	I was going to say, you're on with the Durand at 1 o 'clock.
	Whose time?
	Eastern.
	New York time.
	Okay, 1 o 'clock Eastern.
	I'm on with James O 'Keefe at 11 o 'clock Eastern.
	Robert, I will be done by the time 1 o 'clock strikes so that I will not...
	Perfecto.
	Yeah, it'll be amazing.
	And then I'm going to tell...
	That'd be great.
	How long do you think O 'Keefe will go?
	Well, I mean, if I can keep him for two hours, it'll be great.
	Remember, we had him on Sidebar.
	He was looking at his watch past an hour.
	James O 'Keefe, Robert, first of all, O 'Keefe and the likes of you, I mean, are...
	My schedule, I can reschedule things.
	But between the two of you, you guys actually have productive lives beyond the interwebs.
	But that to say, it's O 'Keefe and Jared, one of the lawyers for Project Vertos.
	We're going to talk about...
	The latest closures.
	Yeah.
	Massive illicit spying.
	By the way, what they did is, it's clear now.
	So they already had, going back to right after the election, illegally seized a whole bunch of their emails and private communications, including attorney privilege protected materials, including First Amendment protected materials, including journalistic privilege protected materials under various state laws.
	And this is the government often does this.
	When they have obtained something illegally.
	And they try to launder it by obtaining it legally.
	So they'll often subpoena or search warrant for something they already have, but they need an independent source, a clean legal source to avoid the fruit of the tainted tree.
	Or the tainted fruit of the tree, however it's phrased.
	Poisonous fruit of the tainted tree.
	I think that's it.
	We understood.
	But now I have a dirty thought in my mind, Robert.
	I don't know why.
	But they launder it.
	So if people ever watch The Wire, in one of the seasons, they do an illicit wire.
	And there's a wire that's not approved, not authorized.
	And they're like, okay, how do we launder this information that we're getting to this illegal wire so that we can use it and cover our...
	They said, oh yeah, we'll say we have a confidential informant.
	This actually happened in a case of mine.
	They had illegally done black bag operations, sneak and peek operations, illegal surveillance on a massive scale.
	They had laundered it through a confidential informant.
	And I remember reviewing my client, and my client was like, man, I was like, it looks to me, in putting the pattern together as to who the source is, that I can't find a single source of this.
	This is very weird.
	And I reviewed it with my client.
	And the client was like, oh, that's from a phone conversation.
	That's from a document.
	I was like, okay, that's what I thought.
	And on the eve of the hearing, where the judge had ordered the confidential informant to appear, the prosecutor said, oh, he just had an accident and he's got memory loss now.
	And even the judge was like, hold on a second.
	That's what they're doing.
	So they're in the middle of just massive, massive corruption by the Southern District of New York.
	And by the way, a lot of this corruption happened while Attorney General Barr was the Attorney General, while a quote-unquote Trump appointee was running the Southern District of New York.
	And so it shows, I mean, the degree to which he did not have control over his own Justice Department, his own intelligence apparatus, his own State Department, just like he didn't have control over his own election lawyers in the Republican National Committee that would compromise him.
	So that's what they've done.
	Robert, but speaking of the smear, the wrap-ups, I think, do I want to get YouTube?
	No, thank you.
	I don't know if this is the good audio, but it should be.
	Speaking of the wrap-up smear and what you're talking about laundering information.
	You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest.
	And then you merchandise it.
	And then you write it.
	And they'll say, see, it's reported in the press.
	She knows the system.
	So they have that validation.
	Oh, come on.
	Finish it up.
	Don't tell me that.
	I don't want...
	Robert, is that good enough?
	Do I need to find the original?
	Yeah, that's it.
	It's what they did with Spygate.
	You create a false rumor and information.
	You launder it through the FBI.
	The FBI then leaks it to the press.
	The press says, FBI is investigating.
	It's one of the oldest scams in the book.
	A lot of the information they obtain, they obtain illegally.
	The government does routinely.
	To give an example, years ago, it came out and then the media just buried the story.
	That there were all kinds of drug prosecutions all across the country that actually were derived from illicit surveillance at a federal level that had been shared then later with local officials in many instances.
	And the local officials' cops had just gone in and just lied their rear ends off.
	That's why I'm not one of these deferential cop conservatives.
	When Dershowitz and others say that all they do is lie, that's because the experience is disproportionately...
	Nobody lies as quickly and as easily as a cop on the stand.
	That's just reality.
	My skepticism of a lot of police officers comes from dealing with how often they lie on the stand.
	Biggest number one perjury group in America, police officers.
	That's just reality.
	Sorry for any cops in the audience.
	I'm sure you're not one of them.
	In their minds, they're justifying it because they caught a criminal.
	And so they just have to come up with a cover story about how they got this intel or information.
	And they all did.
	They manufactured stories all across the country.
	And there was almost nothing done with these cases later on.
	So what Project Veritas has stepped in the middle of is systematic corruption.
	Systemic corruption.
	That's what they've stepped in the middle of.
	And credit to James O 'Keefe.
	For willing to aggressively challenge it at every single stage and step of the way.
	Because that's the only way you effectively fight back.
	Though you might ask them, Dear James, when are you moving out of New York, for the love of God?
	I mean, at what point do you not want to be in that state, in that jurisdiction?
	Let me just take that down.
	I'm going to add that to one of my questions.
	Hold on a second.
	Dear God, James, when are you moving out of New York?
	Florida's okay.
	This kind of abuse, well, it happens across the whole federal jurisdiction, much more likely in three places than any district in California.
	But generally speaking, the two worst are the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York.
	And the Southern District of New York has made an art form of it.
	Indeed, to some degree...
	Dear Rudy was a part of a lot of these activities back in the day.
	I won't get into it.
	Maybe I'll get into it one day.
	There's some history between you and Rudy.
	I'm hypothesizing.
	But Robert, setting that aside, James O 'Keefe, I'm going to ask them tomorrow.
	I mean, you know the circumstances.
	You know something of the details.
	You have a federal judge who issues a special master to protect privileged confidential information.
	The FBI department, whoever's doing this, the prosecution, knows that they have obtained information which probably overlaps, and they subsequently, to the nomination of a special master, renew secrecy orders.
	How does it happen?
	Do the judges who authorize those orders know of the special master's order?
	Sorry.
	Do they know of the federal judge who appointed the special master order?
	Is there any way they could not know about it?
	Annalisa Torres, this federal judge, is she not going to be effing livid as to what's going on?
	This happens every day.
	So ask yourself whether federal courts give a darn.
	They don't like being embarrassed.
	So because of the high-profile nature of this, that may concern them a little bit.
	But federal judges cover up this every single day.
	So you often have to build and build and build and build or get lucky with the court.
	Like the judge who...
	Went and ordered all those things in the case I was talking about.
	Initially, it wouldn't give us any relief at all.
	And we just had to chip and chip and chip.
	Also, he happened to be a Japanese judge.
	And he had been appointed by LBJ.
	And LBJ judges all had the same streak.
	They were first and foremost driven by power.
	But underneath it, they would have this sporadic conscientious streak.
	Which was like Lyndon Johnson.
	If you knew Johnson, he was 90% power ruthless.
	But 10% was the kid from East Texas Hills.
	And so this particular judge had been in the detention camps during World War II.
	So every time I did a brief, I found an excuse to quote Korematsu.
	And ultimately, he flipped.
	And then he got great by the end of the case.
	Almost dismissed the whole thing.
	Ended up doing it through his sentencing.
	My client faced 22 years, and he basically got time served.
	He, unfortunately, was on tape telling people I'm not out of pay taxes, so it was a little bit tricky.
	But it ended up being a great result.
	All of his people and some other people got charged in Florida years later all got 15 to 20. But so it's tough.
	So unless they're lucky with this judge or this judge is sufficiently embarrassed now, they're probably going to have to keep working on her.
	Because, I mean, what clearly is this is laundered information.
	But what people are also seeing is magistrates and these judges, they rubber stamp whatever the government asks them.
	It is almost unheard of.
	For them to challenge a probable cause affidavit for a search warrant or any of these sealing orders.
	The secrecy orders.
	I mean, they can't be rubber-stamped.
	You have to allege why it needs to be maintained secret so that there's no destruction of evidence.
	They should just be honest.
	They're about to find out that we already have this information and we did an illicit warrant to launder information we already had, Judge.
	And maybe they did have that kind of...
	If you watch Billions, those kind of conversations might happen a lot more often than you think in terms of...
	Federal judges and folks behind the scenes.
	Someone said something very funny in the chat and I forgot where it was.
	Let me see if I can bring it up here.
	Darn it.
	This cigar, by the way, is La Flor Dominicana.
	The Andalusian.
	Oh, interesting.
	I'm typing for me.
	But hold on.
	They protect their system.
	That wasn't it.
	Hold on.
	Viva?
	Have Barnes tell you about John Doe investigations in Wisconsin if you want to see how far things can go.
	They can also do it.
	There's some very controversial John Doe investigations in Wisconsin.
	The IRS can do it.
	They call them John Doe subpoenas.
	So they can issue subpoenas not even knowing his information they're stealing, in my opinion, and get a whole bunch of people's private bank records from around the world.
	But John Doe investigations in Wisconsin have a particular definition, and there's been some really problematic ones.
	Talix is well-read, not only a great meme maker, but well-read.
	He even understood about the battle policy, which all of these Twitter generals clearly have no clue about, still talking about things that they...
	Or they're just lying, which is always possible when it comes to these kind of things.
	But yeah, it'll be interesting.
	James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas are giving people a master course, a crash course, in how our legal system really operates.
	And so it'll be very interesting.
	What do you make of the ACLU's, I call it an impotence statement.
	It's a backhanded, it's like a backhanded statement.
	We decry the Project Veritas deception.
	I don't even know what the hell they're talking about.
	But then they come out and say, but we don't like what the government's doing either.
	Do you think, Robert, in your humble opinion, I read it as me thinks they doth protest too much.
	Does the ACLU have emails that maybe they don't want to worry about the government coming in?
	Oh, I mean, no, it's because the ACLU has been the lead on challenging a lot of these laws.
	And so the problem they have is...
	Here you are, the lead civil liberties organization on the abuse of these kind of warrants and sealing orders.
	And now it's someone that you don't politically like who's been the victim of it.
	And the ACLU has been awful, but it exposes them badly if they don't support the O 'Keefe Project Veritas challenge.
	So they've been so politicized.
	It shows how badly they've been politicized.
	This would have been a no-brainer five years ago for the ACLU.
	So it's humiliating.
	I mean, mostly the ACLU has litigated this on behalf of alleged terrorists.
	So alleged terrorists, you don't have any problem affiliating with them, but Project Veritas?
	No, they're deceptive editing.
	It's so horrendous it requires a first-line decry of their deception.
	And then they get into condemning outright.
	They have to.
	They've been the lead on this for the last 20 years since the Patriot Act passed.
	But Robert, I mean, bottom line?
	What do you think is going to happen of this, Project Veritas?
	We'll see what happens.
	The government got caught.
	They already caught them.
	So the only question is, I mean, there's one question of what the court does about it.
	The court may or may not do something.
	That's up in the air.
	However, the government knows they've been caught.
	Prosecutors know they've been caught.
	So the question is, how much do they keep pushing on this?
	If somebody was smart at the Southern District of New York, they would just drop this.
	Limit its exposure.
	Move on.
	But you have, like I said...
	About the Ukraine war conflict.
	It's not just a matter of morally corrupt people running things, conscienceless people running things.
	It's really incompetent people who don't even know how to look out for their own interests.
	They should have dumped this already.
	But as soon as they should have known that this was going to be dug into, just drop it and move on.
	Unless they've used this information already, that they illicitly obtained for something else, and that's why they're trapped.
	I mean, it's like the Whitmer case.
	Why not drop that once you knew everything was going to get exposed?
	The trial is embarrassing.
	It turns out in Whitmer, federal agents were planning the idea of raiding the Capitol.
	Now, that was the state Capitol, but do you think that idea was limited to Michigan?
	Robert, it's Julie Kelly who's covering it.
	I mean, I'm not speaking for Julie Kelly.
	If you're watching, please come on.
	But Julie Kelly is going to come on, please.
	We have to get Julie on.
	Hold on.
	It was this question.
	No, it wasn't this question.
	Does Barnes still think Durham will go light on indictments?
	We'll get to that in a second.
	There will only be a few outside actors.
	No institutional insiders are going to get hit.
	None.
	Once you got that deal with Clinesmith, that sealed the deal.
	That meant nobody higher up.
	There's going to be no Peter Stroke indictments.
	There's going to be no Clapper indictments.
	There's going to be no Comey indictments, Andrew McCabe indictments, Jim Baker indictments.
	None of those people are going to get hit.
	Once you understand how they build a case, you understood that as soon as that plea deal was announced.
	He can keep going after outsiders and nail some corrupt lawyers and a few other private actors, but that will be about it.
	He's actually pushing a narrative that the poor FBI got tricked.
	It wasn't the FBI who was part of it.
	It wasn't the FBI who was leading it.
	It wasn't the FBI who was instigating it.
	They were tricked by a couple of these bad, corrupt outsiders.
	Come on.
	Well, this was the question I remembered now when you said it.
	You said, unless they've used this information and now they're stuck in the lie, they've got to protect the wrong that they've done with the poison fruits of the tree.
	I forget what the exact expression is.
	Fruits of a poisonous tree.
	Fruits of the poisonous tree.
	They seized James O 'Keefe's cell phones.
	They got the special master to protect the confidential journalistic information and the solicitor-client privilege information.
	We now know.
	Talked about it for an hour and a half today.
	That they had that information, if not somewhat overlapping, probably entirely overlapping from prior secrecy orders, which were kept confidential.
	And they've got names, informants, what do they call them?
	The people who provide the information?
	Sources.
	So they probably acted on it.
	And so now the hypothesis might be they're too far gone to just say drop it.
	You're going to find out what we did with it.
	Robert, what are the chances that they did not already act on what they've obtained illicitly?
	They may have already acted on it, but not done so in a legal way.
	In other words, unless they plan on using...
	What's the point of all this?
	The point of it could be that there's some information they obtained that led to an investigation that they want to use as evidence.
	Unless it's an evidentiary trail that requires that they...
	Launder and clean up and vet and have a court rule.
	It's okay that you have this particular piece of evidence.
	Unless they have to have that, they should drop it.
	The only logical inference is that they have to have it for some reason.
	Aside from incompetence and arrogance, which you can't underestimate at all.
	Not involving the Southern District of New York.
	The SDNY is usually smart at avoiding politically savvy targets.
	O 'Keefe has now proven he is one of those.
	So if the smart prosecutor there would drop the case, they might formally hold on to it for a period of time.
	This is information nobody would have ever known but for them continuing to pursue him.
	And the question is this.
	If the ultimate bottom line was just to protect publication of that diary, First of all, they are never unpublishing it once it went on the national file a while ago.
	If they're trying to make it look like Russian misinformation, like Hunter Biden's laptop, they failed.
	What, I mean, other than creepy, I mean, do you think they're trying to protect the information in that diary?
	Or right now, are they just using that as the pretext to broaden the scope and go after anybody and everybody who they want to?
	I think it's twofold.
	I think it started off as shutting it down by trying to, by finding out who knew what and then targeting those people.
	But I think it expanded into just going after James O 'Keefe.
	I remember the Southern District of New York found an excuse to go after Steve Bannon.
	They've gone after other people too, I won't disclose, but they were unsuccessful in those efforts.
	But they've been targeting anybody they considered a high-profile political ally of Trump.
	So, of course, it's public that they went after Rudy Giuliani.
	I don't think they got to where they needed to get.
	But that's the fact they would go after one of their own.
	You know, one of the originally put SDNY on the map politically.
	Just tells you just how completely out of control they are.
	I mean, you have the local prosecutors for the state of New York who are trying to go after Trump.
	And the new DA gets elected.
	He looks at their case and he's like, I'm not, this is crap.
	We're out of this.
	And they go ballistic, resign, and leak everything to the press.
	So it gives you a mind.
	These are people that are just accustomed to do, think of them as Soviet apparatchiks from the Politburo kind of people.
	That's how they think.
	And that's what people are underappreciating.
	Same reason why we're almost in World War III, that you have people who are very blinded, don't have objective, realistic analysis of anything.
	Regardless of what you think is subjectively good or bad about Trump, good or bad about war, whatever, these people are incapable of objective analysis, and that means they're very dangerous because they stumble and they go places they never should.
	But it also means they're dangerous to themselves.
	I mean, a lot of people on the right...
	Are going to get educated about how abusive the criminal justice process is, just as they were throughout the Trump escapades by what they're witnessing.
	I think this grew into targeting James O 'Keefe and Project Veritas.
	And I think, as he's already talked about, and as Judicial Watch has already exposed, this is also related to Big Pharma.
	I think they escalated when O 'Keefe...
	Started outing big pharma related to the vaccines.
	So if you look at the timing, that appears to correspond.
	I think initially it was, let's just get some intel as to how people know about this diary and how we can shut it down.
	And then when O 'Keefe kept going and then went in most, not on the diary, but on just issues in general, but especially when he crossed the bridge into, I mean, went after CNN, but also.
	Ultimately, Big Pharma especially, I think that's when they decided to escalate to try to tar and feather and intimidate him further.
	Well, I guess we're going to end on this, by the way.
	The diary was a trap.
	And this is what I've truly understood of the expression of those who make peaceful protests impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
	It goes back to this statement here.
	The diary was a trap.
	It was a trap.
	And it was a trap that James O 'Keefe...
	But when you don't fall for the trap, and the punishment is as severe as if you had fallen for the trap, when you don't commit the crime, but the punishment is as severe as though you had committed the crime, that is what the expression means.
	If you make peaceful protest impossible, you make violent protest inevitable.
	As if to say...
	If you punish peaceful protesters the way you will punish violent protesters, you disincentivize anybody from saying, I'll take the law-abiding path because the consequences are going to be the same.
	With this diary, I have no doubt it was a trap from day one that Project Veritas did not fall for.
	And they said, hey, anonymous tipsters with your lawyers, take it back.
	And then they didn't take it back.
	And then what does Project Veritas do?
	They then hand it off to the FBI, who then used it as the pretext to do all of what they were doing.
	Unbeknownst to Project Veritas for eight months before, when you penalize someone for the crime they didn't commit, you disincentivize them not to commit that crime in the first place.
	It's the whole theory of not over-penalizing people for certain crimes when the next level crime would have carried that weight.
	Robert, you are on the Duran tomorrow at 1 o 'clock Eastern Time.
	That is going to be...
	What time is that your time?
	That's...
	10 a.m.
	10 a.m.
	So it's not too early.
	Okay.
	We have Sunday stream coming up.
	What else should people be looking forward to?
	And for those who are getting blackpilled but maybe don't want to be getting blackpilled.
	Oh, sorry.
	Hold on.
	You know what?
	Did you watch Coy Griffin rumble January 6th?
	Robert, what is the latest on the January 6th?
	We'll call them political prisoners.
	The detainees.
	What's the latest on them?
	Who's getting out?
	Is anybody getting out?
	After a year plus?
	Nothing new that I know of.
	It's outrageous.
	Okay, it's outrageous.
	So you're going to be on with the Duran tomorrow.
	We'll send the link around.
	I'm going to be on with James O 'Keefe at 11 tomorrow, so stick around for that.
	Robert, stick around.
	You and I will talk for a little bit after this.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you very much.
	We will have Jenna Ellis on again because we have many more questions and it was phenomenal.
	Thursday, Friday, whatever.
	We'll see you all on the interwebs for the rest of the week.
	Enjoy the night.

▲