Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 14, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:19:28

Ep. 124: Trump, Alec Baldwin, FBI, IRS, Robinhood, Roy Moore AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's hard to think the unthinkable, but there comes a time when there's nothing else for it.
	People raised to trust the powers that be, who have assumed, like I once did, that the state, regardless of its political flavour at any given moment, is essentially benevolent and well-meaning, will naturally try and keep that assumption of benevolence in mind when trying to make sense of what's going on around them.
	People like us, you and me, Raised in the understanding that we are free, that we have inalienable rights, and that the institutions of this country have our best interests at heart, we'll tend to tie ourselves in knots rather than contemplate the idea those authorities might actually be working against us now.
	I took that thought of benevolent, well-meaning authority for granted for most of my life.
	God help me.
	Not to put too fine a point on it, I was as gullible as the next chump.
	thinkable.
	I'm not going to play the whole thing.
	It becomes more and more obvious to me that we are no longer being treated as individuals entitled to try and make the most of our lives.
	But as a barn full of battery hens, just another product to be.
	That's where I wanted to stop it.
	People, I'm going to get the link for this.
	Everybody...
	Has to go listen to this.
	And they, you, watching this now, let me just tilt this down a little bit.
	I want it perfect so I can see the freedom right up there.
	You, everyone who's on Twitter, or even not, share it.
	It's nine and a half minutes.
	The most eloquent, insightful analysis you'll ever hear.
	I described it as intellectual art, and I'm an idiot because I know poetry is a form of art, but I meant intellectual poetry.
	The prose, the pace, it's mesmerizing just in its delivery.
	I mean, in a way, it could just be...
	What's it called when you have the random lettering on websites?
	There's a word for the random...
	It could just be reading the phone book.
	The pace, the tone would be mesmerizing.
	But the insight, Neil Oliver.
	I only discovered him in lockdown, so I don't know who Neil Oliver was before or what he was.
	I don't know if Neil Oliver was like me four years ago, wanting nothing more than just a laugh, to take life like a wonderful game.
	I don't know if Neil Oliver was like me 20 years ago.
	When the war in Iraq, I was listening to Neil Oliver.
	And I'm thinking, holy crab apples.
	He's describing me in a very meaningful sense.
	I remember the way I thought back in the second Iraq war.
	They wouldn't make stuff up.
	They wouldn't lie about weapons of mass destruction.
	Why would they do that?
	Why would they risk innocent lives?
	I remember thinking like that.
	You know, I look at Neil Oliver not knowing what he looked like three years ago or two plus years ago.
	I don't know if he was clean-shaven, short-haired like me.
	You know, wide-eyed, naive, looking at the world like, you know, the government is there to take care of us and you should trust the government.
	I don't know if he looked like me three years ago and now we're sort of going down the same psychological, intellectual, political journey of discovery and realization.
	That it's not just like this now.
	It has always been like this.
	But in the second Iraq war, and they said WMDs, and they came out with their seven agencies, MI6, CIA, FBI.
	They all came out and they said, Iraq has WMDs.
	We have to go and invade.
	Shock and awe.
	Broadcasting war, primetime news.
	I remember it happening.
	And I remember thinking, oh, look at that.
	Yay.
	Go, America, go.
	I'm not criticizing Americans here.
	I'm criticizing the Bush regime at this point in time.
	And the media machine.
	Let's televise primetime destruction of a nation.
	Annihilation of civilians.
	Blowing up homes.
	Let's celebrate it.
	It's for the entertainment of the West.
	And I remember thinking, it's got to be for a good reason.
	They wouldn't do this just for money.
	They wouldn't do this just for strategic interests.
	I remember having faith in a government system.
	And then they didn't find the weapons of mass destruction.
	And they kept on looking harder and harder.
	Oh, he must have moved them.
	He went from one palace to the next.
	Oh, they won't give him access to a palace.
	That's because he's hiding weapons of mass destruction in the basement.
	The way Trump is hiding nuclear documents in Mar-a-Lago.
	And then they didn't find them.
	Oh, we didn't find them.
	But we found Scud missiles because in the first weeks of the war, Iraq was launching Scud missiles at Israel, and that was the fallback moving of the goalpost argument, except I didn't even realize it was moving of the goalpost argument back then.
	Back then, I ran with that argument because I was blind, naive, and I'll say stupid.
	Not stupid in the brain firing, just stupid in that I didn't even know what I didn't know.
	Hey, Winston, Winston, don't do that.
	He's eating one of the sound panels.
	I didn't even know what I didn't know.
	I didn't appreciate what a moving target of an argument was.
	Oh, they didn't find sarin.
	They didn't find weapons of mass destruction, but they shot Scud missiles, and he wasn't supposed to have those under the treaty.
	So, quarter of a million Iraqi civilians dead?
	Justified, because he had Scud missiles.
	And now we know what we know.
	Neil Oliver is amazing.
	I've been watching him throughout COVID.
	Amazing.
	Insightful.
	Share it.
	I was going to share another video about CBS today.
	Blaming overweightness in children on climate change.
	I'll save that for tomorrow.
	Blame it on climate change.
	They don't even understand.
	People think obesity is a purely American issue, and they're wrong.
	They don't even know what they don't know.
	They're not stupid in the brain.
	They're just...
	Ignorant with information.
	Obesity in Quebec, the province of Quebec, is a very serious issue.
	And I think it even rivals the stats for obesity in the States.
	So, yeah, go blame obesity in Quebec on climate change.
	It's frickin' minus 20, six months a year.
	Okay, we've got a big show tonight.
	Barnes is in the house.
	Bringing you in, Barnes.
	Here we go.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	The person on the poll who ran that poll on Twitter, I saw it.
	Good, good was the answer.
	I think it had 100% of the votes when I first saw it.
	Robert, you're looking dapper.
	May I ask what you're twirling in your hands and what's the book over your shoulder?
	So two books, both from James Elroy, part of the American Tabloid Trilogy.
	The Cold 6000 is the middle one.
	The first one is American Tabloid.
	And the third one is Bloods a Rover because it's about a substantial part, J. Edgar Hoover.
	And it would be educational about how the FBI really operates.
	I have a hush-hush up about J. Edgar Hoover that I'd done a little bit earlier, but repinned it because it's applicable and apropos currently, at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And there's still people in the old institutional right, the sort of boomer cons, that still defend J. Edgar Hoover and the old FBI.
	It's fascinating.
	They think that the current issues are some sort of weird deviation, some Democratic Party infiltration of the hierarchy of the FBI, and don't recognize this is what the FBI was founded to do, illicit activities to surveil and suppress dissident voices in America, including even when it reaches up to the presidency of the United States.
	We've got to be careful, Robert, because apparently now you can't criticize the FBI anymore because some unhinged individuals might think it's a great idea to go do exactly what the FBI might want you to do so they can then say, can't criticize anymore because unhinged individuals might take it the wrong way.
	The cigar is actually, apparently, Pappy...
	Pappy's is making cigars.
	Pappy's makes the best bourbon.
	The 23-year Pappy's is the best bourbon made ever, probably.
	But now they're making cigars, so that's what this one is.
	It's a novel experiment to try out.
	Fantastic.
	I'm going to bring up a few super chats and then I forgot my disclaimers.
	Warning!
	Viva's immaturity is contagious.
	I heard someone say the word duty.
	Duty.
	And I spent the next 10 minutes saying duty.
	It never gets old.
	And when someone says what you have...
	I just got that.
	I didn't know what that joke was about.
	Oh, it's a family guy where he says...
	I remember that he goes, Doody laughs, but I never understood why he was laughing.
	And then he goes, Doody.
	Diarrhea.
	And then he says, Lois, Doody.
	And then she says, not now, Peter.
	I'm carrying lemonade.
	And when you hear people say what someone...
	When someone do-do, like what you have to do or what you do-do.
	Then you're going to also just hear the doo-doo.
	All right, but now standard disclaimers, people, super chats.
	30% goes to YouTube, 70% to the creators, us.
	If you don't like supporting YouTube to that extent, we're also on Rumble.
	Rumble rants, same thing.
	20% to Rumble, 80% to the creators.
	Not going to lie, former Trump voter here, this is hilarious watching Trump crash and burn.
	But in all seriousness, we can't let this guy get the nuclear codes.
	Go away.
	I don't know what's satire anymore.
	Someone on Twitter accused me of being jealous of Justin Trudeau's looks, and I don't know if they're joking.
	Just fly to Drone near Sherbrooke, such a beautiful place for drones.
	Yes, they are.
	Be careful.
	I'm here to be radicalized by far.
	I can't even make these jokes anymore.
	Someone might think it's a dog whistle seriousness.
	You're supposed to eat the bugs, not go jogging in them.
	For anybody who didn't see that clip on our Viva Barnes nuts.
	Okay, Robert, here looks like we have a question before we get started for the evening.
	If Congress has oversight of FBI, what prevents the FBI from ignoring Congress and telling them to get bent?
	What teeth do they actually have?
	This will bring us into our first subject.
	Money.
	They can defund it.
	All right, well, we're going to get into this because we can't not get into...
	Yeah, for the folks out there, our topic list tonight, we got Donald Trump.
	Bob Dylan, Alec Baldwin, Roy Moore, Mark Cuban, Disney, Meta, Facebook, FBI, Predict It, and even that fat ass Nadler himself, the walking, talking penguin in Congress ahead of the Ways and Means Committee.
	We got the Trump raid.
	We got Trump taxes.
	We got Saudi spies working for Twitter.
	We got banksters getting convicted of manipulating the gold market.
	We got...
	Banks getting politicized and getting exposed for their political weaponization of access to financial services.
	We got China saying no more extradition or cooperation with the United States on criminal cases.
	That might have a much bigger impact than people know.
	The Canadian Vaxport scandal that got exposed by their version of a Freedom of Information Act request.
	Opioids at Walgreens.
	Largely responsible or substantially culpable for the opioids epidemic as found by a court in California.
	The CDC playing sleight of hand.
	87,000 new IRS agents with guns and ammo ready to come knock on your door.
	We got the mayor of D.C. begging for the military to stop the immigrants coming across their border.
	Suddenly borders matter.
	We got COVID speech.
	We got a collusion on blacklisting that's being brought by adult entertainers but might have a much bigger, broader impact for how people can sue the various big tech for big censorship that's taking place under a theory that's being advanced in that case.
	We got the ATF trying to establish a gun registry and being sued by the Attorney General of Texas for their attempts to impose attacks on suppressors.
	We got suits over homeless people going both directions, public nuisance and suits by the homeless.
	We got Iran getting off the hook for the money that's stored through a bank at Citibank.
	We got copyright cases.
	We got crypto scandals.
	We got taxes on streaming entities.
	And of course, you know, we got that little one, Viva versus the USA Today.
	Oh, God.
	We'll see if we get...
	We'll probably get to that one at some point.
	But, okay, whether or not we get to all of those, Robert, we have to start with, obviously, the biggest one, the news of the week, the raid, and the subsequent developments.
	We talked about it a bit on Wednesday.
	There have not been many new developments since, but people have questions.
	I guess there have been some developments.
	Merrick Garland gets out on Wednesday or Thursday.
	I forget which.
	FBI is having their good name dragged through the mud.
	They're patriotic, law-abiding law enforcement.
	I can't say anything more than that.
	And then two hours later, there's a leak that apparently there's nuclear documents in Trump's Mar-a-Lago place.
	They then execute the warrant.
	It's not leaked, but they release the warrant and they release the exhibit list or the list of items, but not the affidavit in support of the warrant, from what I understand.
	What do you make of the warrant itself?
	What do you make of the item list of the items they seized?
	If they in fact seized executive privilege material or solicitor-client privilege material, did the FBI break the law?
	And what is your basic overall assessment?
	It's going to go a while, Robert.
	Let it rip.
	Sure.
	So, I mean, for those that got the inside intake early at bourbonwithbarnes at vivabarneslaw.locals.com on Monday, just within an hour or so of the raid, most of my explanation in terms of predictive quality came true the rest of the week.
	So there are two narratives out there.
	Well, there's one dominant narrative, and then I'll give you my narrative.
	The dominant narrative was this is an attempt by the...
	Biden Justice Department to take Trump off of the 2024 election calendar by convicting him of a crime that has as a consequence the inability to hold federal office, and that it was based on Trump having documents he was not entitled to have, either because the archivist was entitled to them under the Presidential Records Act, Or they were defense-related documents and thus could not be in his private custody.
	Or they were classified documents and thus he didn't have access to continue to keep them.
	And that they're looking for a pretext to prosecute him out of the District of Columbia with politically contaminated grand jurors and trial jurors and untrustworthy courts.
	To be able to railroad him into some form of criminal conviction, independent of and separate from January 6th, because they don't have evidence of any criminality in that regard, even for a kangaroo court process with the jury trial and grand jury politically tainted partisan prejudice in the District of Columbia.
	My theory was different.
	My theory in print was that this was a deep state raid, that this was a raid not intended for the purposes of any kind of criminal prosecution or punishment.
	For the primary reason that any criminal charge would require disclosure of what documents they were really, truly seeking.
	And my view was that this was that Trump had taken with him documents.
	Before Trump left, he asked all the agencies which documents they really wanted to keep classified.
	And there was speculation at the time that they basically gave him their deep state, deep secret wish list.
	To remain secret, and he declassified them but didn't publish them.
	He just took them with him.
	And that it would be potential insurance against indictment, insurance against assassination, insurance against other political threats that he knew he was going to be facing after leaving the presidency, particularly if he sought election again in 2024.
	And that they were paranoid about what was in those documents.
	And so they were willing to risk the massive political blowback from an unprecedented raid of a former president and future presidential candidates, personal residents, for the purposes of getting those documents.
	If I was right, what I predicted at the time was that when the warrant, this was before the warrant was released, that when the warrant is released, you'll find it to be very vague.
	and very uncertain as to what exactly it's seeking.
	It will be very elastic in what criminal statutes it claims there's probable cause of.
	That it will be notoriously overbroad in what it is seeking and that they will be very bland and generic in their inventory.
	They won't list in detail what exactly they took because they don't want anyone to know what exactly they were looking for.
	And that we would find out they would have kept the lawyers from overseeing it or anyone else in Trump's world.
	They would ask cameras to be turned off so nobody could know what it was they were actually seeking.
	That the goal wasn't to actually get these documents and restore them to their lawful owner, but to destroy them permanently and fully in the hopes that they were the only copies that existed.
	It's not clear they have found such documents.
	They searched for a long time, you know, over 12 hours, then seized everything that was kind of there anyway.
	Apparently Trump had told him he kept the super secret documents in the safe.
	They had a safe cracker there.
	They opened the safe and the safe was empty.
	You know, Geraldo Rivera Al Capone style.
	So Trump seemed unfazed and unbothered by what took place.
	It was outrageous and offensive what took place.
	And he brought that to the court of public opinion.
	But he personally, by everybody who's talked to him since then, is...
	Not rattled and saw this coming at some level.
	Understood what the deep state war that he's in the middle of.
	It has been ever since his candidacy rose to prominence in 2016.
	So let's go back to what a warrant is supposed to look like.
	First of all, a warrant, go to the constitutional standards, then talk about DOJ ethical standards, then talk about custom and practice, then talk about the role of the judiciary.
	So the constitutional requirement is threefold.
	There has to be probable cause of a crime for which there is specific evidence in the place that you're asking to be searched, and you can only request that which is evidence in support thereof.
	That's probable cause.
	The second aspect.
	Is presentment, which means that when you get to the place you're going to search, you give the warrant to the person who has custody over the property so that they can make sure you actually comply with what the warrant states and don't execute what's called a general warrant, which we'll get to in a minute.
	Then the third aspect is particularity.
	This is the requirement that you specify individually.
	Which documents you're seeking and how probable cause exists both for the crime and for that document being evidence of the crime.
	Unlike civil discovery, which is under a general rule that if it could lead to discovery in America, you can request and get the information.
	That's not the case in the criminal search warrant context.
	You have to have particularity.
	You have to meet probable cause that both the crime exists and probable cause that the document you're asking to search and seize is evidence of that crime.
	What you cannot do is say, I want to search your whole house and see if maybe there's some evidence of some kind of crime there.
	That's what's not allowed.
	That was the general warrant that the British were given prior to the American Revolution.
	Which allowed the army basically to come in and the colonial authorities to come in and ransack your home, raid and ransack your home in search of maybe they'd find something.
	They could search anything and they could seize anything in the hopes that maybe it would be evidence of some sort of crime.
	That's why we impose the particularity, presentment, and...
	Probable cause preconditions for the execution of the search warrant.
	Now, at the time of the warrant, you're supposed to present it.
	Only search what you've been authorized to search.
	Only seize what you've been authorized to seize.
	Allow there to be oversight to make sure you're complying with it.
	And then at the end of it, you provide an inventory to the person whose documents you seized and say here, and that too should have particularity in it.
	Not, we took...
	You know, six cabinets.
	We took five boxes.
	Box 14. They had numbers on the boxes.
	If I can just pause you there for one second.
	The probable cause, as relates to the crime, the crime is something under the Espionage Act, if I'm not mistaken, Robert?
	Well, take a guess, because they list four.
	Okay.
	And we'll get to a second, or I'm going to come back around to the probable cause issue as we go through the judicial process and how it's supposed to work.
	But the inventory is supposed to be detailed, given to them at the time of departure.
	The warrant itself can be unsealed.
	A defendant who has their information seized can file a motion for return of seized property under federal law in the federal courts.
	Before the search warrant can be executed, there's an internal process before it reaches the judge.
	Which is the Federal Bureau of Investigation has internal rules as well as the Justice Department that guide and govern when they can request a warrant and how they request a warrant in the first place before a warrant is done.
	As will be relevant and we'll talk about a little bit later in the FBI seizure of the information and documents and property from the vaults in California and how that case has been exposed as completely AWOL.
	One of the requirements, ethical requirements, that they attested to and admitted to in court in those proceedings is that they're supposed to choose the least intrusive means of obtaining documents or information.
	The search warrant is supposed to be the last resort.
	Alan Dershowitz has been talking about this.
	Jonathan Turley has been talking about this.
	The normal protocol is a request.
	Then it can escalate into a civil suit.
	Then it can escalate into a civil subpoena.
	Then it can escalate, but only then, to a criminal search warrant under extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.
	That's part one.
	Part two is, if the target is politically sensitive, then the highest-ranking officials have to sign off.
	That's why when they were trying to say that Garland didn't sign off, I said from the beginning, Garland signed off, guaranteed.
	The head of the FBI, Christopher Wray, has to sign off.
	The assistant attorney general has to sign off.
	And the two Senate-appointed attorney general officials, the assistant attorney general, Or Deputy Attorney General, depending on how their phraseology is.
	And the Attorney General have to personally sign off, which of course Garland later admitted.
	In fact, he did.
	And here again, because this is where you get, and it will relate to a later case we'll talk about, Trump's taxes case, the Mazar's decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, another Trump case, which said that when you're searching and seeking and looking for, and this was in the legislative context, but there's no reason it wouldn't also apply in the Fourth Amendment to the executive branch to a subsequent branch of government context.
	When you're looking for presidential records, it needs to be the only way you can get them is those means, and they have to be necessary to whatever your task is.
	So you kind of have an additional requirement superimposed upon probable cause under the MESAR's decision if applied to this, and I think it could and should be, at least ethically and professionally and typically, and by custom and practice it is.
	So we have never authorized a search warrant on a former president in American history.
	We have never authorized a search warrant on a leading presidential opponent in American history.
	Now, that doesn't mean it's never been done to a presidential candidate.
	We'll get to a little later.
	It has been.
	Just not a leading candidate and not a past president.
	Well, and just to open up a small parentheses, I mean, it's never been done against a president or a leading candidate before, because the last time they tried to do it, Robert, they tried to do it surreptitiously behind the FISA courts through equally unlawfully obtained search warrants.
	And just for everybody out there who doesn't truly appreciate the broadness and vagueness of the warrant itself, they asked for all presidential records created from January 21, 2017 to January 2021, which in theory would render academic every other itemized element of that warrant in that it's everything under Trump.
	So I'm sure you'll get there, but people should appreciate the vagueness on the probable cause.
	And the fishing expedition that this was not limited and circumscribed as we were led to believe.
	It was everything and anything, anywhere and everywhere in Mar-a-Lago, with the exception of private guest quarters.
	Sorry.
	Carry on.
	Exactly.
	So you have that internal ethical process.
	You may have some additional issues because it's the president who's a former president that you're seeking information for for certain professional and ethical duties.
	It's strongly discouraged and dissuaded.
	In addition, where you search has to be a place where you have probable cause, the documents that are probable cause of crime exist.
	And then in terms of...
	Making sure you don't search or seize information outside of that or information protected by either executive privilege or attorney-client privilege.
	So that's the required preconditions of a warrant before even seeking it to a judge.
	Then you have the judge is supposed to review the warrant for constitutional adequacy and really should look at compliance with these other provisions.
	Because here the courts play a game.
	The courts frequently don't allow certain good faith challenges to come.
	To challenge whether there's a good faith basis for the government's action.
	Because they say, don't worry, the government has all these internal rules that limit their ability to do so.
	They've done this most often in the IRS context.
	But then, when the government violates those internal rules, they do nothing about it.
	And they say, well, those are just internal rules.
	No legal remedy.
	Well, you stripped them of a legal remedy on the grounds of those legal rules published that there really should be a due process right, and some courts back in the day said there was, but these days the courts just don't act as a meaningful gatekeeper.
	But the judge who presides over it should be a judge who does not have a conflict of interest.
	And so let's go through all the problems with the warrant.
	First, it wasn't the least intrusive means.
	So it violated FBI ethical and professional rules to ever request it in the first place.
	Second, due to the political sensitivity, it didn't rise to the levels of exigent necessity.
	Nor did they have gone through the intermediary steps of either a suit or a subpoena to try to obtain the records or information that could be either professionally compliant with their duties and obligations under their own rules of conduct or the politically sensitive target issue rules that specifically apply in the Justice Department.
	When they request these in the first place.
	Then you have the problem that you have a clear conflict of interest with high-ranking FBI officers involved in the search warrant process who are under criminal investigation or could be because of their involvement in Russiagate, Spygate, Ukrainegate, the various conspiracies against President Trump, as Paul Sperry has documented and detailed.
	And when he simply put this up at Twitter, Twitter immediately suspended permanently his account, which tells you he was right over the target.
	And so Garland shouldn't have participated either because of the obvious political conflict of interest, which is compounded by Garland's personal history.
	Garland himself would have been on the Supreme Court, but for Donald Trump winning the 2016 election, then you have Garland being the political appointee of the Biden administration, going after the lead opponent of the Biden administration to replace the Biden administration.
	So, you know, this all screamed for complete independent counsel involvement that has no political contamination.
	Remember, this was the pretext for the appointment of Robert Mueller.
	Note, it was not done here at all, at any level, just as it has not been done in the Hunter Biden-related scandals and investigations.
	So it didn't meet professional standards for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	It didn't meet the ethical requirements for politically sensitive and conflicted conflicts of interest targets for the Justice Department.
	Then they request it from a magistrate, and you can go shopping with these warrants.
	They do it all the time.
	They wait to see who's on duty and only submit the warrant when they know the magistrate on duty is a judge who's compliant.
	Have a duty overload, Robert.
	Explain the judge shopping, because the magistrates are on, what, two-week circuits, one-week circuits, if it's anything like...
	It varies by court.
	Sometimes it varies by day.
	People were curious when they found out the warrant.
	Didn't require immediate execution.
	That's because they were waiting for the right judge because normally, a normal judge would say, hold on a second, you're asking me to sign a warrant on the former president of the United States?
	You're asking me to sign a warrant on the leading opponent of the incumbent administration?
	Something neither of which has ever happened in American legal history?
	I want to make sure you've crossed all your T's and dotted all your I's.
	A lot of judges would have stricken large parts of this warrant because they can revise how the warrant is written.
	A lot of judges would have said no, would have said, whoa, no, no, no.
	So what they did is they waited, shopped, shopped, shopped until a particular magistrate came in.
	And this magistrate was really unique.
	Two things that are unique about this particular magistrate.
	Who the judges are saying it's so horrible and awful that people are saying bad things about him for doing his job.
	He didn't do his job.
	The judiciary continues to fall and fail to do their job.
	They need to look in the mirror for the criticism, not look at the public who's rightly and righteously critical of their failure to perform their constitutional duty.
	This judge disobeyed the oath he took and disrespected the robes he wears.
	What this judge is, is a politically corrupt hack.
	Who should have never been appointed to a magistrate's position.
	So the first part is how do these magistrates work?
	Federal judges get to delegate their duties, in part, to these magistrates who never go through the approval process.
	The judges themselves get to select them.
	I've never liked magistrates.
	I don't think there's any role for them in the constitutional system.
	Federal judges need to get off their rear and do their job and quit delegating it to magistrates.
	So that's problem one I have with all this.
	So that's how he exists in the first place.
	But it shows you how bad our system of judicial magistrate appointments are that this guy ever got appointed.
	So this guy was in the Justice Department when Jeffrey Epstein was first being criminally investigated and his extraordinary, scandalous behavior getting exposed.
	And first you have the U.S. Attorney's Office intervene and interrupt the state prosecution investigation that was being considered.
	That's one level.
	The second is...
	While he's at the Justice Department, he gets inside information about the Epstein case.
	He resigns and goes to work for Epstein, which shouldn't have happened in the first place.
	He should have disqualified himself.
	He was automatically, in my view, disqualified from representing anybody that had been under criminal investigation at the Justice Department while he was there.
	So he flips over, helps cover up all of Epstein's scandals.
	Many people for years have accused him of losing his inside information and inside connections to help facilitate.
	Maybe the main person that helped facilitate.
	A lot of other people took the blame.
	He may be the main person, this now magistrate judge, that helped cover up Epstein's massive crimes and scandals.
	Somehow from that background, he gets appointed to magistrate.
	Now in the interim, he defended Lois Lerner, who destroyed documents while she was his IRS commissioner.
	It was an open and overt contempt of Congress for which she never faced any criminal prosecution and punishment.
	And what was she doing?
	Because it kind of relates to the 87,000 IRS agents coming next year that is just about to be passed into law by Biden.
	What she was doing was politically weaponizing the powers of the Internal Revenue Service to target political dissident groups.
	This included Tea Party groups.
	This included so-called tax protester groups.
	And this was at the same time that the IRS was using its Obamacare Enforcement Authority to seize the private medical records of millions of Americans.
	I exposed that in part when I brought the biggest Bivens class action in the history of the country against the IRS.
	Because they had stolen from 60 million medical records of 10 million Americans, including almost every judge in the state of California, including their family records, which judge or family members are seeking divorce treatment, sexual addiction treatment, drug addiction treatment, alcoholism treatment, which most movie producers, most screen actors, most Major League Baseball players, all their records had been illegally seized and stolen.
	I called it J. Edgar Hoover's wet dream of an extortion blackmail file.
	She was the commissioner during that tenure as well.
	Because of the Bivens suit, they had to pull back from doing that, but that gives a mindset of who this guy ends up being connected to.
	So after that, he gets to become magistrate because of the judges, not because of Trump.
	Pause right there for one second.
	Difference between a magistrate and a judge, for those who don't know?
	So again, magistrates are just appointed by the judges.
	They're not themselves.
	They don't go through the Senate process, the presidential confirmation process.
	But they have been given by the judges authority to issue search warrants, which I think is a huge problem.
	It was not the constitutional intention.
	But so he gets appointed as magistrate.
	Trump has filed a major RICO suit against Hillary Clinton, a bunch of members of the FBI, etc.
	Which magically this judge gets assigned to.
	This judge, just a week or two before he signs the warrant, there's multiple motions to disqualify him, to recuse him by Trump's team because of his extraordinary conflicts of interest connected to the Clintons, connected to other defendants in the case.
	He finally belatedly acknowledges this and recuses himself from the case.
	Just, what is it, a month or a month and a half or so, four to five weeks, six weeks before they go shopping to him for the search warrant.
	And rather than recuse himself, which is what he should have done, he's already recused himself from these kind of matters involving Trump.
	Here he's signing an unprecedented warrant of extraordinary scope against Trump.
	And does no meaningful restrictions or limitations on it.
	Just acts like a rubber stamp.
	I've often said a lot of federal magistrates, the FBI could blow, the feds could blow a leaf across their desk and they'd sign it.
	They are a disgrace to the rule of law and American constitutional rights in America.
	They do not meaningfully play the gatekeeping role they are constitutionally obligated under their oath to do.
	So this guy should have recused himself.
	Instead, he just signs everything that's there.
	Now let's talk about the warrant itself.
	Well, hold on, hold on.
	Before you even get there, Robert, one question.
	Ordinarily, you get a magistrate with ethics.
	Would a magistrate not say, kick this up to a judge?
	Or would a judge never actually sign off on this warrant in the first place?
	Well, a good magistrate.
	What a good magistrate would have done is, recognized the conflict, would have immediately recused and done nothing.
	And then let it go to the next magistrate.
	But a good magistrate would have said this case needs to get a district judge's approval.
	Absolutely.
	Given the nature of what said, hold on a second, this is not something.
	But they knew this magistrate was corrupt enough to disregard the conflicts of interest, to disregard the rules restricting the way these warrants get requested or issued in the first place, and most importantly, to discard the constitutional constraints on the issuance of a warrant.
	And he'll say, look, I know I recused myself in the civil matter.
	This is criminal.
	It's urgent.
	They need to do it today.
	I'm the magistrate of the day.
	So therefore, I just got to bring this up because I found this when looking for the PDF of the recusal that we just found.
	This comes from the Jerusalem Post.
	The judge who signed FBI's Mar-a-Lago warrant facing violent anti-Semitic threats.
	Let me be clear to everyone out there.
	Don't do this.
	Because if it's true and they're bona fide threats and not critique, this is what you get.
	And they use this to stifle critique.
	And the extraordinary, it's like any criticism of Garland, they try to recast as anti-Semitic.
	Any criticism of George Soros, they try to discard as anti-Semitic.
	That's not the grounds anybody's criticizing these people.
	So the core of the public criticism for all of these people is their failure to go through their professional obligations, their ethical duties, their legal restrictions, and constitutional constraints, and not politically weaponizing the justice system against their adversaries.
	That's the criticism.
	And people trying to hide behind the anti-Semitism are trying to disguise the real meaning.
	Oh, the criticism and the real import of the criticism.
	Well, I'll take it one step further.
	I didn't know Merrick Garland was Jewish until ABC or CBS, whoever it was, pointed it out.
	And then by pointing it out, seemingly spreading or confirming old tropes that, you know, find the JEW, which is one of the tropes, and they out him.
	90% of the people I polled on Twitter, and it was a 15,000 person poll of our respective environment, didn't know Garland was Jewish.
	The threats...
	I didn't.
	I wasn't aware of it.
	Yeah, Merrick.
	And by the way, I have to correct myself.
	Merrick was the elephant man's last name, not first name.
	But no threats.
	Don't do it.
	Don't resort to anything bad because they'll exploit it so that nobody can then legitimately criticize Garland or Bruce Reinhardt.
	Not because, you know...
	He might be thoroughly corrupt and unethical, signing off on a warrant a month and a half, a month after recusing himself in a file for conflict of interest.
	But Robert, now get on to the warrants.
	Yeah, but people are afraid of warrants.
	I think what a lot of them are complaining about were ethics complaints being filed with the Judicial Council.
	Now, I don't anticipate them doing anything because they pretty much never do anything unless you're a political dissident, disfavored individual.
	This particular magistrate was doing the deep state's bidding just like...
	The attorney general was, just like the FBI director was, just like all of them were.
	So now we go to the substance of the warrant, and this is what should have been flagged by the FBI right away, should have been flagged by the DOJ right away, should have been flagged by Garland right away, should have been flagged again by the magistrate right away.
	All four managed to, they knew exactly what they were doing.
	The requirement of particularity means just that.
	It has to be very specific, what you search.
	You cannot have a general warrant anymore.
	That means if you have evidence of very particular records and documents that are evidence of criminal activity, it needs to be particular and specific and tied to that.
	Instead, you can't have a request that says any record within the four years.
	Because, by the way, the Presidential Records Act doesn't apply to any record created while he was president because personal records are already exempt.
	In addition, the Presidential Records Act makes clear, number two, number one, the Presidential Records Act only applies to specific records.
	It doesn't apply to personal records.
	Explicitly exempt.
	There's a broad category of what those constitute.
	Almost every ex-president gets into a fight with the archives or other people about what is personal versus presidential.
	The, uh, is that in terms of presidential records, there's no criminal enforcement statute in the presidential records act.
	So it's a unique application to try to superimpose other criminal laws onto it in the first place.
	But by definition, asking for all records that were created during the presidency, by definition, ask for things that were clearly passed and overbroad, even with their ludicrous interpretation of the presidential records act.
	I just wanted to add one, the fifth one to who should have flagged it.
	The judge, Garland, the magistrate.
	Someone else, I forget who you said.
	And the media, by the way.
	Once this warrant was made public, was published, the media should have said, oh, this isn't how it works.
	You don't say we want any presidential record created by the president during his presidency as part of a warrant.
	That's not a warrant.
	That is get naked, bend over, and I want to have access not just to the outside, but to the inside as well.
	It's a general warrant.
	It's a general warrant, which is what the Fourth Amendment prohibits.
	And it's glaring, and it's right on the face of the warrant.
	So none of them could have missed it.
	And so this was a deliberate, overt violation of Trump's constitutional rights committed by members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and the magistrate himself.
	And so that was the glaring problem from the get-go.
	Now, then you go to presentment.
	It appears they didn't present the warrant at the time.
	There was delays.
	They didn't allow immediate transparency.
	They didn't allow people to watch what they were doing.
	They asked that the cameras be turned off.
	Apparently thought the cameras were turned off when they weren't.
	And in the interim, it has now come out.
	They tried to claim an informant and tipped him off.
	I suspected that was doubtful from day one.
	Said so immediately.
	For a lot of reasons.
	One, if you had an informant that close to Trump, you're not going to blow him up now.
	Secondly, the search warrant affidavit never gets disclosed unless it goes to a criminal prosecution.
	You have no entitlement to have it released.
	Government will not release it.
	It will stay hidden until and unless and if there's a criminal prosecution.
	And my view is they never planned on a criminal prosecution on this case.
	This was about grabbing and destroying documents that are embarrassing to them that Trump has.
	That's what I believe.
	And the conduct before and after that we now know about.
	Is much more consistent with that explanation than an open, transparent, authoritative concern about special documents that Trump was purportedly not supposed to have.
	Now we'll get to two other categories.
	One is this classification misnomer.
	And then the other is about the National Archivist.
	Before you do that, just one question.
	Do you know, do we know, allegedly Trump has implied...
	That his surveillance footage, his surveillance cameras were working while they were there and he saw what the FBI did during their nine hours raiding of Melania's wardrobe, cupboard, whatever.
	Do we know if this is true?
	People have asked, are you allowed filming, recording the FBI while they search your own property, while they interview you at your property?
	Well, this goes to the case we discussed last week, the right to film police.
	So that as long as you're not intruding, you have an absolute constitutional right to film police.
	And that's no difference with the FBI, with the federal level.
	It's the same right.
	So you absolutely have a right to do so.
	And they don't like it because it often...
	I mean, I took the case that was a testing case on this many years ago and ran into all kinds of hurdles with the courts.
	But slowly but surely, with subsequent cases using the same theory that I advanced, the courts were worn down and had to recognize it and respect it.
	I always called it the Rodney King defense.
	If they couldn't have filmed what was happening to Rodney King, there never would have been a prosecution of what took place.
	And I get people with different opinions about what happened to Rodney King.
	But that's the point that courts usually understood.
	They didn't in my case.
	They didn't want this exposed.
	But over time, they ultimately had to.
	And my client, it was a search warrant.
	He was filmed.
	What happened is he filmed a search of a drug house that had lots of guns and money that, according to the inventory, had no drugs, guns, or money.
	And so my guess was that if what I told someone who was helping on the case initially, I said, just dig in, find out whether the cop who did the raid was a hand-picked everybody else on the team.
	And then you have a shield situation from the show The Shield.
	And of course, that's exactly what turned out to be the case.
	And so that was what he didn't know he was filming.
	He just liked the truck.
	He thought it was a cool truck.
	That's my guy.
	He had no idea he accidentally, they destroyed the film footage, of course, that he accidentally was filming them likely taking drugs, money, and guns and pocketing it rather than turning it in for an inventory.
	But for that reason and other reasons, you're absolutely entitled to film it.
	Now, it appears they had illicitly subpoenaed, or by questionable means, subpoenaed his own video footage beforehand, and that was really their source, not an inside informant.
	So I think that's what will come out over time.
	You'll see.
	That's coming out in a couple of places that are deep state sources.
	If you see, the other giveaway that the deep states run in a case is it immediately leaks not to the local press, but it leaks to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
	When it comes out in those three publications, it's a deep state operation.
	It's not a legitimate up-and-up normal operation because that then is leaked by local folks.
	So the particularity, clearly it was overly broad.
	So it was a facially invalid warrant in that respect.
	And then on the presentment, they didn't present it in a proper way, in an effective manner.
	Now here there's a split in the courts.
	Some courts say you don't have to present until the end, which makes no sense at all.
	Other courts recognize the whole point of presentment is so that you can observe it to make sure it's compliant.
	And that can only be effective if you do it right at the scene, right at the time, right out of the gate.
	By the way, I don't think they thought...
	This would ever become public knowledge.
	They went in with plainclothes.
	It did not leak at all until Trump himself told everybody about it.
	That means the deep state didn't leak it in advance, like they do cases where they want the world to know about it.
	They probably thought Trump would be too embarrassed by the fact of the raid to publicly disclose it.
	Not understanding that Trump understands this game very well, or well enough.
	Trump is the one to say, these nuts are raiding my house.
	They're ransacking Melania's closet.
	They're on a little panty rig going on there.
	That's probably what may have happened.
	They thought this probably never would come to light publicly.
	But so you have the problems with particularity in the warrant itself, problems with presentment in the way they handled it, problems with another version of presentment is the inventory so that you know what you can see, whether they complied with the warrant and what you can request to have returned.
	That's very bland and very generic.
	And again, I think...
	I went over it briefly on Friday.
	I assume it's authentic, legit.
	It was just box number 14, box number 5. Various documents.
	Roger Stone's, what was it called?
	Pardon documents.
	Binders of photos.
	It read like a joke.
	It was like if you were storing items in a storage unit, which I'm doing now, it would be more detailed than what we saw coming out of the seizure of Trump's Now, let's go to the other red herring that was out there.
	So the Presidential Records Act, in my view, is a red herring because there's no criminal enforcement statute within it.
	If they intended that, they would have put one within it.
	Instead, it's civil consequences that clearly are not intended at a president.
	Its target is at the archivist and other employees to make sure they handle things correctly.
	There's even a process for destroying certain records that goes through a certain thing, etc.
	But the other component is that what typically, the Presidential Records Act itself allows the archivist to designate another facility that's under archivist level, some level of control or whatnot, to be able to have for the storage of the documents.
	This normally is the presidential libraries that get set up.
	So it is not this is very commonplace that records get taken and kept and preserved by the president for their personal presidential records.
	If their personal records, they're not even covered by the act.
	If their presidential records, they typically get to have custody that the archivist agrees to in some presidential library.
	So the idea that this was some sort of crime is just gibberish and nonsense.
	It would mean every president...
	That's ever left the White House, and all of them have taken records, going back to George Washington.
	Now, the Presidential Records Act hasn't existed that whole time, but has existed for a substantial time period.
	Obama and everybody else committed crimes.
	So it's just, it's a joke.
	There was information on the French president.
	I presume that Trump has information on every political leader out there.
	Oh, and what was it?
	But Robert.
	The nuclear codes.
	I don't know if we're going to get there.
	Not the nuclear codes, sorry.
	Nuclear documents.
	There couldn't be any nuclear codes, of course, by definition, just because the nuclear codes changed.
	The idea that there, that was clearly another red herring to say why.
	Because they did not anticipate that Trump would ever disclose this, number one.
	Number two, they didn't anticipate that even if it were disclosed, that they would get massive public blowbacks.
	So massive that even lazy institutional conservatives had to talk about it.
	So one is you had your populist base enraged.
	That they might have kind of anticipated.
	But then it went into the institutional representatives that are aligned with the populist base enraged.
	That caused them a little more concern.
	Then it went to anybody that has any hopes of presidential or national ambitions or political ambitions in general was enraged.
	And then you have the Fox News enraged.
	And then you have...
	Leading traditional establishment insiders enraged, even to the point that McConnell had to make a statement.
	You know, he hated making a statement because he wanted this case to come about.
	So when they got such massive blowback is why Garland had to go out and say he did it, because the FBI wasn't going to fall on the sword for it.
	And it's also why they started leaking different stories.
	It's the nuclear plan.
	It's Iran.
	It's special information about Macron.
	It's the nuclear codes.
	All ludicrous nonsense.
	All ludicrous nonsense.
	They said nuclear documents.
	They didn't say the codes.
	Some people were floating the codes around as if they don't understand that they change daily, if not more so.
	But nuclear documents.
	Very broad, top secret, SCI, whatever.
	It could be in there.
	But now they've sort of...
	This is going to be the moving goalpost.
	Weapons of mass destruction, which everyone understood to mean something specific, to SCUD missiles, they're going to go from nuclear documents to Iran documents, which might have to deal with the nuclear reactor in Iran.
	And the problem with all that, they're trying to put it under defense documents.
	All of this is ultimately predicated upon classification at some level.
	And while defense documents doesn't always make that delineation, the practical provision always has.
	And here, their problem was that the President of the United States can unilaterally, without going through any procedure or protocol, declare something unclassified.
	He controls it.
	The Supreme Court's already adjudicated that.
	Congress can't override it.
	Future President can't override it.
	Doesn't matter.
	Once he's declared it not classified, it is for his purposes, period.
	And for his publication of it, purposes.
	That ship has sailed once that happens.
	So there's only one elected executive official, and that is the President of the United States.
	And so once that's done, that's done.
	And so they didn't have a classification argument.
	And they were trying to pretend they did.
	They didn't.
	In fact, it had been protocol since Trump had been in the White House.
	He liked to take documents back to the private residence part.
	And so he just made a unilateral declaration.
	Anything he takes with him is unclassified, period.
	End of story.
	So the classification argument, they don't have anything on.
	And really, that's where the defense argument is at least implicitly tied into, even if technically they can try to argue a way around it.
	It would be a ludicrous interpretation to say the president can't keep his own documents.
	I mean, that's what ultimately they're trying to say.
	It's a crime for the president to keep his own documents.
	That means every president has committed a crime.
	It makes a joke out of the criminal law statutes.
	It negates the purpose and intent of every single one of these criminal statutes.
	And so the people started pointing to the Espionage Act.
	It's a ludicrous application under these circumstances.
	That just is.
	But putting that aside, they were saying that some of these criminal statutes have disbarment clauses, which say that if you're convicted, you can't hold federal office.
	It has no application to the presidency, period.
	So this has also already been litigated in multiple contexts by the U.S. Supreme Court, both presidential and congressional, which is that the United States, this is why term limits, when passed by a state, are found unconstitutional.
	It's that the Constitution sets the exclusive standards.
	By which a person qualifies for election.
	This is why they said Congress can't deny someone seating.
	Adam Clayton Powell is an example, being seated in Congress, because that too, they have a power of an exclusion they have to go through the constitutional process for, but not the process of not seating him in the first place, because the Constitution alone sets the qualifications for the president.
	And I believe it's 35 years of age, native-born citizen who's been resident in the United States for 14 years.
	That's it.
	You can't add to it.
	So no criminal conviction.
	And this has been effectively, there's precedent for, a little more than a century ago, Eugene V. Debs, who had already been previously the socialist candidate for the presidency, was convicted under the Espionage Act for giving an anti-war speech.
	The Espionage, the fact that people on the left are celebrating the Espionage Act is amazing.
	This has been misused and abused against...
	It's been misused and abused a lot more often than it's been correctly used.
	It's usually used against whistleblowers and dissidents.
	That's the reality of it.
	We should just strike it from the books.
	It's been misused so often, it's not worthy of a criminal statute under a constitutional republic.
	But for Trump, it's irrelevant.
	He could run from Eugene B. Debs, convicted in the Espionage Act 1918, was sitting in prison.
	While he ran on the ballot in 1920 for the presidency of the United States.
	Had he won, he would have been in the presidency.
	And so consequently, all this talk that they could disbar him is not true.
	All this talk that they could in any way disqualify him through criminal process is not true.
	They could politically make his life difficult.
	So they could even prosecute him and do a sham trial in the District of Columbia.
	If he runs and wins, he pardons himself.
	End of story.
	And yes, he can pardon himself.
	Most constitutional scholars concur on that.
	To me, it's quite obvious.
	The Constitution doesn't limit it.
	The Constitution says your only remedy for a president pardoning himself is impeachment and removal.
	But it doesn't prevent the pardon's application.
	How can he pardon himself when he's no longer president?
	If he gets elected president.
	They can't keep him off the ballot.
	So even if he's in prison and he runs and he wins, he's the president.
	What if they get him on a state charge?
	My understanding is...
	It doesn't matter.
	Oh, in a state charge, he would still be elected president.
	So he would still be the president of the United States.
	So you would have a state trying to keep him from doing the presidency.
	There, there'd be a state-federal disparity, and he would likely have to be freed under those standards as well.
	So you can't prevent a president from being president.
	That's the short answer.
	American people choose him.
	End of story.
	I accidentally swiped myself out of the stream when the hypothesis went to him getting re-elected.
	So I was confused as to how a former president who's not president could pardon himself.
	But yeah, okay.
	Understood.
	But Robert, they'll just say Eugene V. Depp, whatever that precedent was, is old.
	It's too old.
	The court has adjudicated this repeatedly.
	There's really no serious question about it.
	And you won't find any...
	Even the...
	Trump haters, for the most part, acknowledge and admit this, that this is not a potential remedy that's available.
	Their hope is that it politically discredits him to such, if they were to bring a criminal prosecution, that it would politically discredit him sufficient to damage him.
	But what they just witnessed, if they wanted a sneak peek at what this was, by the way, the timing is that the DOJ internally is not supposed to do anything that could impact the elections once it hits 90 days before the election.
	They executed the search warrant on the 91st day before the midterms.
	So that's also part of the timing of all this.
	My guess is they were waiting until they got the right magistrate and then boom.
	But they were on the clock for when they got this warrant authority.
	But even if they are to criminally prosecute him, it doesn't prevent him from running.
	It doesn't prevent him from winning.
	If he wins, end of story.
	The idea that the system is going to keep locked up.
	The elected president of the United States.
	I mean, the system is suicidal at times.
	I don't know if it's that suicidal.
	Then you just might as well give up.
	Then you're just forfeiting the constitutional republic entirely.
	And you're acting from raw power.
	You don't even have the pretext or pretense of legitimacy.
	What they saw was so much blowback in the court of public opinion, it's going to terrify them from bringing a criminal prosecution.
	Doesn't mean it'll stop them because as Henry Kissinger was pointing out this week, we have total nuts running American policy right now.
	He's like, why are we trying to have a nuclear war with both China and Russia?
	This is really kind of crazy.
	This is Kissinger, people.
	When the clown, when the joker is out telling you the people are nuts, you know how crazy the asylum is in the Biden White House.
	But I think that this was about getting documents that embarrass them, and I don't think they got those documents.
	So I think that, which might partially explain.
	Why Trump is in such cheery mood and is busy raising money, saying, get the nuclear coats, send some cash today.
	Just having fun with this.
	Which enraged the left.
	But he understands the scam that this is.
	That's why he took the Fifth Amendment in New York to the Attorney General, who's trying to find a way to railroad him there.
	Now, as a transition, it didn't stop the D.C. Circuit from allowing the...
	That fat-ass Nadler, the walking, talking penguin of Congress, looks like the penguin.
	It really does.
	Especially Danny DeVito's version.
	He is going to get a sneak peek at six years of Trump's tax returns unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case which they make.
	Robert, I think I read this decision where the judge basically said...
	It could relate to legislation as relates to...
	What's the piece of legislation that they're talking about?
	Something of the audit, the presidential audit?
	Here's their pretext.
	So the U.S. Supreme Court already scolded the D.C. Circuit on Trump, saying before you allow any records like this out, you need to meet a much higher standard.
	And basically, you need to show that there's a legislative purpose that requires these particular documents and that it's the only means by which you can...
	Meet that legislative purpose is to get these particular documents.
	And that has to be almost like a strict scrutiny kind of analysis, a necessity, kind of like the probable cause analysis, but even stricter.
	And so how do they justify six years of records relating to anything that even concerns Trump of all the tax records in the IRS?
	Now, this is 26 U.S.C.
	6103 is the statutory protection of privacy.
	Under the Internal Revenue Code.
	Now, there's issues that the court didn't address about that statute.
	There's an exception in the statute that says Congress, if the head of the Ways and Means Committee, which is fat-ass Nadler, if they get it, if he requests it, they have to turn it over, but they have to only review it in closed session unless the entire House votes to release them.
	The thing with that statute, the court, D.C. Circuit, pretends...
	There's no right to privacy otherwise, that this is just a statute that created a right that didn't pre-exist in your tax records.
	Problem with that is that would raise Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues with tax returns because the issues with tax returns is they ask for information that is otherwise protected as private under the Fourth Amendment and ask for information that might be self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
	The way they get around this is to pretend it's all voluntary.
	The other way they get around all of this is to pretend That is to say, hey, we have a statute that makes sure that that can't be misused or abused, can't be illicitly shared and the rest.
	So pretending that stripping that statute of its constitutional context is what allows them to give this limited interpretation of it that I think constitutionally must exist to construe that statute.
	But putting that aside, the legislative purpose, they even admit, they contradict themselves.
	They acknowledge that they have to show the documents they're seeking are necessary.
	There's no other means to get them and that they are the only documents that could serve a legislative purpose.
	The only legislative purpose identified is the audit procedure of auditing presidents.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So, and then they admit later on in the decision that they're actually allowing the committee to go up, quote, blind alleys in search of things.
	Well, blind alleys ain't material necessity.
	Those two things contradict.
	And yet the circuit doesn't even recognize its obvious contradiction.
	It's why the U.S. Supreme Court may take up the case, because clearly the D.C. Circuit's only going to give lip service to the Supreme Court saying just two years ago, you can't do this, you have to go through this analysis, and then they didn't go through it by their own admission in the references they used.
	The question is this, how does the audit protocol, governed by looking at the substantive tax returns from six years of Trump, The audit protocol should be talking to auditors, should be talking to IRS personnel, should be talking about what they know, not Congress getting to spy on Trump's tax returns.
	And it's also, it's for prospective legislation.
	How does even looking back at one specific president for a finite period of time, whereas he's no longer president, it would be utterly, I can't even imagine a manner in which it could be relevant.
	To any legislation as relates to presidential audit, what you would need are policy opinions, where the areas of risk are at large in general and not specifically unless the idea is that Trump is going to have violated this up-and-coming to-be-drafted legislation or to be modified.
	It almost seems like the piece of legislation was created solely for the purposes of trying to get Trump's taxes.
	That's obviously what it is.
	The second thing they did is they got around the First Amendment retaliatory claim.
	Where Trump detailed how, look, none of this is for a legislative purpose.
	The Supreme Court has already previously said, Congress...
	Here's my view.
	We need to just...
	The courts probably won't recognize that you have to get Congress to do it yourself.
	So that'll be how this gets done and will be tricky.
	But constitutionally, as the D.C. Circuit admits, there's no constitutional authority for Congress to ever subpoena anybody.
	Period.
	That's probably for a good reason.
	Congress was supposed to write laws, not subpoena people.
	It doesn't mean they can't hold hearings, but they can't subpoena people for those hearings or subpoena records for those hearings.
	It's clear they will usurp the power of the executive branch and will breach the separation of powers for their own ideological agenda, much the same way the ATF is usurping legislative powers to go after guns under the Biden administration for legislation they can't get through Congress, unless we say no subpoena power, period.
	They will just misuse and abuse it.
	They always have.
	They always will.
	Their remedy should be we request information, and if they don't get it, they can either pass legislation based on that, including taking away funding from their oversight duties of governmental agencies.
	But, you know, this aspect is being misused and abused because it's clear what they did.
	But their First Amendment retaliation claim, Trump detailed all of the explicit and expressed statements of members of Congress that they intend to use this to go after him personally.
	Which the Supreme Court said is illegal.
	Not allowed.
	You're not allowed.
	Congress does not have the authority to target people for personal exposure.
	And yet, so how does the D.C. Circuit get around it?
	They say, we don't look at motivation.
	No, no, we never do that.
	We never look at motivation.
	This is the same D.C. Circuit that looked explicitly at motivation repeatedly when it came to striking down Trump legislation or Trump executive action.
	So they're just frauds, like usual, with federal courts when they want to get away.
	We're doing something that's unconstitutional.
	So it's amazing the flip.
	Suddenly motivation is irrelevant.
	We can't know what their motives are.
	We can't look at what their motives are.
	We have to look at what they say their motives are on the legislation, but not all their other statements.
	They did just the opposite to Trump.
	And not even that we expect consistency and it's not the, well, if motivation was relevant for Trump, it's relevant here, whereas it shouldn't have been there, it's not here.
	It's that they openly say, we're not getting into the intention of the legislation.
	But they say that they need it, and therefore we effectively have to defer to their better judgment.
	And that's precisely what the Supreme Court, Mazar, said no.
	Can't do.
	And also they said you can't have these blind alleys, and they say we're going to let them look up a blind alley.
	They didn't limit it at all.
	They didn't limit it by year.
	They didn't limit it by subject matter.
	They didn't limit it by nexus to Trump at all.
	But is the risk not that the Supreme Court says this is too specific of a question?
	No, because they took up the same basic case in Mazars.
	It was financial records in that context.
	So now it's the tax records.
	And so I think their complete refusal to apply Mazars in a meaningful manner beyond lip service gives an above-average chance of the Supreme Court taking it up.
	And I just wanted to point out, we had just breached 17,000 live viewers on YouTube and over 5,000 on Rumble, which is 22,000 people watching live, having their minds...
	Filled with information, Robert, because you have been on quite the tear on these Trump issues.
	Reading the judgment, it read like motivated reasoning.
	It says we're not getting into intentions.
	They say they need it.
	There's an objective legislative purpose, which seems to be a piece of legislation concocted out of thin air, specifically so they could go after Trump's taxes.
	The IRS, am I not wrong, Robert?
	I brought up a comment earlier.
	Do they not effectively have all of Trump's stuff regardless?
	Well, there's actually an ongoing audit.
	In other words, they're saying we need to know whether the IRS audit of a president is adequate.
	This law went into place after Watergate, that there's an automatic audit of the president's tax returns every year.
	We need to make sure it's adequate.
	When the audit's still ongoing and the IRS hasn't whispered one word of complaint about inadequacy of the audit.
	That's why it's a joke.
	And they hide that from the opinion.
	And they never connect up.
	With any degree of detail.
	Often in court opinions, look for what's missing to disclose what the court itself is hiding.
	And what they're missing is any clear nexus, necessity, between these tax records and improving audit protocol.
	And so, yeah, it's a joke of an opinion.
	There was a concurrence by one of the few conservative judges that's on the D.C. Circuit who was like, there's some issues here that haven't been adequately dealt with.
	So we'll see whether the Supremes should take it up.
	No guarantee they will, of course.
	But all of this is setting new precedent.
	It will hurt their tax return case, what happened with the raid.
	The blowback on that was global.
	And people around the world were like, wow, the president's now, you know, you get to raid your opposing party now.
	You know, the opposing candidate, your opposing party, you get to put under criminal investigation in the United States now.
	There's even banana republics that think that fails it.
	Well, this is my other question.
	Let's just say the Supreme Court doesn't take it.
	Trump turns it over.
	Do they leak it for a criminal investigation?
	Do they say, whoa, in our legislative exploration process, we've discovered more crimes from Trump.
	Now we've got to hand it over to the DOJ, who's going to delve into it and find something to indict Trump on some tax issue.
	How plausible or how realistic is that?
	Well, the IRS already has it, so if they want to mess around with Trump, they can't.
	So that's already in the Justice Department's custody in the tax division.
	But leaking it to the public is going to be the bigger concern.
	And like all these promises, again, we would never do that.
	And we have to go through a whole congressional vote before any of it comes out.
	Does anybody think that's what's going to happen?
	Now, on the good news front on that side of the aisle, the stay may stay in place up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court may not decide whether to take the case until there's a new Congress in January.
	And when there is a new Congress come January, this will be a mood issue.
	And it will be DOA in the end of it.
	And Democrats may not get back control of the House for a long, long time with the way they're going and proceeding currently.
	Someone said dark times.
	Don't forget to laugh.
	So we'll keep trying to remember to laugh.
	Is dark times a good segue into 87,000 new armed IRS agents?
	Okay, first of all, let's just start from the beginning.
	87,000 new IRS agents.
	That doubles the existing IRS task force.
	I'm not mistaken on that?
	Well, it depends on where they put them.
	But if they make them all special agents, oh yes.
	It's the biggest expansion of the IRS's personnel power ever.
	And what, hypothetically...
	I'm just trying to think of the cost of this.
	87,000 employees.
	I saw a chat from earlier that says, 20 bucks a day is $14 million a day just to employ them.
	Where do they get the money to pay the salaries for those 87,000 people?
	It's from tax dollars.
	Robert, what are they realistically going to do?
	Are they going to only target the billionaires, the gazillionaires?
	Or are they just going to go start squeezing blood from a turnip?
	Well, you don't need...
	More than one or two agents on a millionaire-billionaire case, right?
	And so, I mean, even if you have four or five, let's say it's the biggest team you have, whatever.
	By definition, you don't need 87,000 new agents to go after rich people, right?
	That's about prioritization of existing resources, not about needing more resources.
	Now, there was a misleading map out there that was right but wrong.
	The map that people saw of which counties the IRS audits, that was of the earned income tax credit audit.
	So that was disproportionately basically Black and Hispanic America.
	That's where that target was.
	But that's not the IRS profile in general.
	What is true about the IRS audit profile in general is that half of all audits are done of people who make less than $50,000 a year.
	Okay.
	Half.
	Half.
	So very few.
	Target people over a high income for a wide range of reasons.
	The most important being those folks can afford very competent, very capable counsel.
	And the IRS doesn't like capable, competent counsel.
	They like terrorizing and intimidating ordinary, everyday people who can't afford expensive counsel.
	And so that's part one.
	Part two, a lot of the tax lawyers that are advisors that are out there that are affordable and accessible.
	Are often ex-IRS themselves, ex-DOJ themselves, and consequently, they're often still working for the system.
	If you cut them, they still bleed government blue.
	It's that kind of mindset and mentality.
	Never hire an ex-Inquisitor to defend you against the Inquisition.
	Just word of the wise.
	And so that's why they do what they do and who they target.
	And so this is to definitely target...
	People of ordinary means.
	The only people of any degree of means at all that will be targeted will be, we already know, because the Obama administration in second term previewed this.
	And it's a lot of the same people that are back in positions of power that they're trying to put into more, to have more power.
	And that is to weaponize the Internal Revenue Service to target political dissidents.
	There's a book called Confessions of a Tax Collector that reads like Lord Conrad going into the heart of the jungle.
	And he basically goes nuts by the power-intoxicating effect of being an IRS agent.
	By the way, Mark Robert asked this question on America's untold stories with he and Eric Hundley about why they're armed, why there are billions of guns and ammo and the advertisement said, be ready to shoot to kill.
	They don't have to be accountants.
	They don't have to be...
	They don't have to know a thing about taxes.
	In fact, the average IRS agent, revenue special agent, as the Confessions of Tax Collector details, is an ordinary authoritarian schmuck.
	And about half of them are psychopaths, in my experience.
	And for those that don't know, I do lots and lots of tax representation in the civil and criminal world, have for 25 years.
	Got into it.
	Through political cases.
	Because so often someone is being targeted for political reasons.
	Not just partisan reasons.
	It might be their ideas.
	They might be dissident within their particular community.
	They might be needing a sacrificial lamb or sin goat within their particular community.
	But political influences contaminate much of what the IRS does.
	And going back to Lois Lerner, that's what she was doing.
	She was unleashing the power of the IRS on their political dissidents.
	Because taxes are so nebulous.
	Almost nobody does a perfect tax return.
	It just doesn't happen.
	And as they are expanding what you have to report and what has to be disclosed, $600 transactions on PayPal or Venmo or whatnot, then that's going to dramatically expand your risk exposure.
	So because it's almost impossible to get it perfect, and even if you use the TurboTax or H&R Block, frequently those big entities...
	We'll blame you for any mistake that gets made.
	Oh, they didn't turn over that information.
	They didn't tell me.
	Your accountant that you think is reliable and trustworthy, the moment the IRS knocks on their door, they have no accountant privilege in most jurisdictions.
	There's no privilege of the communication between you unless you hire the accountant under the attorney.
	And then you have attorney-client privilege to the accountant's work, but otherwise you don't.
	They rat you out in five seconds and blame you for everything.
	And if they're like an accountant crook who puts you in some bad tax deals, you guarantee they're going to blame you fast to get out of their own trouble.
	And they've used their weaponization of the licensure process, which the IRS usurped, by declaring...
	They did a deal that said you could be an enrolled agent in front of the IRS if you were already a licensed lawyer or accountant.
	They then turned that into power to regulate every licensed attorney and accountant in America.
	So I was on the front end of fighting that as well for many years.
	This is a political weaponization tool.
	And the key to understand about the IRS, why and how it becomes one, aside from how they hire people.
	By the way, the reason why they have guns is historically, they were the ATF.
	Historically, they were regulating moonshiners and gangsters, etc.
	So that's where they're original.
	And there's this vestigial authority where basically nerds with guns.
	And a lot of them are not even qualified nerds.
	Most of them are not qualified nerds.
	They're just nut jobs.
	So it's going to be your authoritarian...
	You know, you're Fred Otash's of the world, for those people that know that reference.
	The man they called Gestapo Otash.
	He's going to be a future Hush Hush episode on the deep state.
	Filmed all kinds of people, taped all kinds of people, including Marilyn Monroe on her deathbed, by the way.
	Those are the kind of people that they're going to give a lot of power to.
	And so it's a...
	And sadly, like your typical tax defense lawyer out there is thrilled at this because they're like, cha-ching!
	There goes all the clients.
	There goes all the cases.
	So they're not going to be arguing against it because so few of the people that are in the tax base actually care about constitutional limit or restraint.
	And those that do, the Larry B. Crafts of the world, get harassed into oblivion by courts and bar associations and the rest.
	So the ability to contest it and fight it is going to be its own struggle.
	But this is political.
	Weaponization.
	And the other key thing to remember about the IRS, they know almost everything about you.
	Your tax return is a confession every year you make.
	It's like going to the priest.
	You talk about more often to the tax man than you often do to your priest or your pastor or your shrink because you disclose who you are, who your relationships with, who's your family, what church you go to, what schools you go to, what charities you donate to, which parties you give to, where you spend money, how you spend money, who pays you money, where you get money, your whole life.
	Right there in the little IRS phone.
	They get your credit card statement, which will show what subscriptions you have, which I have.
	I thought that was about to be a confession.
	No, I was going to say, I was going to make a joke in there, but they see what you donate to.
	It's a full spiritual colonoscopy.
	But Robert, people are saying these IRS agents are necessary to find some of that COVID money so that the government can restore its coffers.
	Or others are saying this is going to be another Barack Obama targeting Tea Party entities, you know, for political purposes.
	I say it's a little bit of both.
	If the government needs money, it's going to know who to go after, who to harass.
	Could you just, in a two-minute parentheses, explain, for those who may not remember, the Obama IRS being sicked on Tea Party, what was it?
	Not a CPAC, but Tea Party entities.
	For political purposes.
	It was one of his non-scandals.
	501c4s and the rest.
	So these were during the Tea Party started forming what was loosely labeled Tea Party.
	It was really a conservative populist protest movement that developed its voice over time in 2009 and 2010 in response to various Obama policies, including Obamacare and including the way the global financial crisis was handled by bailing out all the banks but not ordinary people.
	They formed a bunch of 501c4s to help raise funds.
	By the way, I've told people long before this...
	I'm not a fan of the charity organizations.
	I helped start Free America Law Center.
	It's an LLC.
	It's not a charitable organization.
	Because that's just a trap to have the IRS monitor you, spy on you, try to do things like they did to the Tea Party folks.
	But they used it.
	The government encourages people to use 501c4s.
	Hey, we'll give you a deduction.
	Just rat yourself out.
	Tell us about your donors.
	Tell us what you've been donating to.
	It's always a trap.
	But, you know, people do it.
	And so they used the...
	I mean, Sidney Powell's getting targeted in Texas and Florida concerning whether she did it correctly.
	I mean, it was always a trap.
	I didn't tell people that, but...
	They used that to target.
	It started with tax protesters, which they've been doing forever.
	These are people that raise questions.
	They call themselves Truth in Taxation Movement.
	The IRS called them Illegal Tax Protesters.
	They had to change the title after they lost a bunch of cases that I was a part of.
	But then they were like, oh, the word protest sounds bad for criminal convictions.
	We've got to change this.
	They started using the word denier.
	I wonder if that has any particular heritage or legacy.
	Notice now everything's...
	It's not a vaccine protester.
	It's a vaccine denier.
	It's not a COVID lockdown protester.
	It's a COVID denier.
	Because the Holocaust denier always sounded great.
	So let's just borrow the denier phrase rather than the protester phrase.
	They want to accuse other people of anti-Semitism while they exploit the oldest expression of the most egregious kind.
	Facts, climate deniers.
	Anybody who questions anything today, you're as good as questioning the existence of the Holocaust.
	Exactly.
	And they started targeting those groups, but then expanded it in the second term of Obama under Lois Lerner when she was the IRS commissioner into targeting anybody that had the words Tea Party in there, or any words like that.
	So they were harassing all organizations that were politically formed around protesting the Obama administration.
	They got caught doing this in part because at the same time I brought my Bivens class action where I've almost all medical record companies in the country, by the way.
	These are your medical records.
	There's a reason why Obama said we're going to digitize all your medical records for you in order to be able to make sure that the medical records are easily accessible just in case you're traveling.
	That was always a trap.
	The goal was not, no longer, you know, they don't want to have to do the Watergate plumbers thing and break into some Ellsberg's shrink's office to figure out what's in there.
	They want to be able to have all those records available at a stroke of a key.
	Also, it wasn't coincidental that Obama chose the IRS to be the enforcement mechanism for Obamacare, supposedly a health project.
	Now, that not only helped him with, you know, Roberts on the Supreme Court, but it also critically...
	Gave them the power to now not only have all your financial information, which discloses so much of your life, but now private medical information.
	And they were going around to medical record companies and just seizing these records and nobody was protesting.
	My client was like, uh, hold on a second.
	Which, by the way, they subjected him to four years of harassment because he spoke up about it.
	He hired me about midway through that process.
	They went after every single thing connected to him because he blew the whistle on him.
	But I brought that case at the same time Lois Lerner was getting, that it came out, well, it came out, let's just say, it came out sources, what she was up to.
	And then she was put, and so what happens?
	The old Hillary Clinton delete bleach bit button showed up, which if you know anything about IRS records, you know the records are stored in multiple locations on multiple servers.
	The idea that these, and mostly in Martindale, West Virginia, by the way, because of old William Byrd, it was a pet.
	Project for him to get cash in his pocket to have these computers down there.
	Now, Palantir is involved in it, but they're still limited in that aspect.
	But so the goal was to, as soon as they got caught, she deleted everything.
	Said, oh, the records got lost, and then had contempt of Congress because she wouldn't produce information or testimony.
	So that's the history of how they weaponized it then.
	They're going, Roosevelt weaponized it in the 1930s against people he didn't like.
	So Nixon thought about it, but didn't pull the trigger on it in the 1970s.
	Lyndon Johnson probably used it, you know, proving it's a little tricky, but there's evidence of it against a range of people.
	And so it's not a surprise that it's being re-weaponized again politically.
	And that's going to be the goal and objective.
	So people should just get educated on all their rights.
	There's a taxpayer bill of rights.
	There's a good faith defense that's unique to tax law.
	There's a reliance defense that's unique to tax law.
	There's ways to...
	Educate yourself to defend yourself against the coming raids.
	The Trump raid was just a preview of what IRS is going to look like.
	Someone jokingly said, do I want to go back to Canada now?
	It's coming to Canada as well, and then some.
	The only issues I think, in my observation, people are beginning to push back a little faster and a little harder, and there's a lot of politicians.
	Okay, so it is as scary as everybody thinks it should be, 87,000 new age.
	How do you lay those people off once you've expanded the administrative state by 87,000 employees?
	You just fire them.
	The easiest way to do it, because of civil service protection that they get once employed, is funding.
	You just cut off the money.
	Cut off the money, all this will go away.
	What is the funding that's going into this?
	Do we have the figures yet?
	Oh, I mean, yeah, this was part of the Build Back Better.
	This is the Build Back Better budget.
	Oh, good God.
	Okay, well, I remember the Build Back Better.
	I say the awareness is a parabolic curve, and the higher you get on the awareness, even if you were high before, it doesn't seem high by comparison.
	Now, speaking of another thing we were right about, at the time, live on Tim Pool, our very first TimCast.
	Oh yeah, Alec Baldwin.
	We said at the time, Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger.
	I bet money, he pulled the trigger.
	I like to say it's Captain Obvious level material.
	The FBI got it right four months after the investigation.
	Tell people what happened this week.
	Now, by the way, this was leaked in the middle of August on a Friday, which Mark Robert pointed out.
	When you have really damaging information that the system doesn't want the world to know about, you wait until a Friday in August to disclose it.
	I got to pull up a tweet, actually, that it was NBC.
	The framing.
	It's unclear why they want to protect Alec Baldwin, but it's clear that they do.
	So the four months...
	What was it?
	My goodness now.
	It's November.
	It's like, how many months is it?
	It's a long investigation.
	They've concluded the FBI got this right.
	Six months later, he pulled the trigger.
	The gun didn't just spontaneously discharge.
	There was no problem with the gun.
	He pulled the trigger.
	Forensic evidence, even the FBI that didn't want to conclude that, concluded that was the only conclusion that could be reached, which means he lied to the world when he said he didn't.
	Well, he said...
	He said his finger wasn't even on the trigger.
	He said it was like this, remember?
	His finger was straight, and he went like this.
	This was never in here.
	Remember, I would never do that.
	I would never even point a gun at someone with my hand on it.
	I would never point a gun.
	But she told me to.
	The director of photography was telling me what to do with the gun.
	Cock it, but not go boop.
	So everyone should appreciate people, a lot of people have been charged for less.
	Now the question is this, Robert.
	I haven't read the FBI report, the conclusion.
	He pulled the trigger.
	No...
	Horse emoji, poop emoji, Sherlock.
	My operating theory, he pulled it on purpose, thinking it was a blank gun because he wanted to scare her.
	He was pissed off.
	He was impatient.
	Whatever.
	What comes now?
	I mean, can they somehow find a way not to press charges?
	Santa Fe says they need to study it for a while.
	It's going to take them a while to review it.
	The Soros prosecutor in town just, you know, even though it's a clear report, you know, got to reread it, rethink about it, reread it, rethink about it.
	Now, I don't know how it works, but is it not the case that a civilian could file a complaint with the authorities to press charges?
	Can there be a civilian complaint based on the FBI report?
	The DA controls that exclusively.
	There's a few places where private citizens can try that sort of thing, but generally speaking, it's exclusively in the DA's power.
	If he does not get charged, it is political favors.
	It's another version of the Trump raid.
	It's another version of Bannon's contempt of Congress.
	It's another version of Alex Jones' trial.
	It's the circuit that's only being applied in one direction.
	And it's so embarrassing even Frenchie David French had to say, oh man, this looks so bad that it's always one-sided.
	I mean, Hillary Clinton, not President of the United States, while Secretary of State, illegally had actually classified information on her private servers, deleted and destroyed it.
	Perjured herself, and other people perjured their testimony in response to it.
	Face zero consequence.
	Zero raids.
	Zero subpoenas.
	Zero indictments.
	And yet, lots of people have been caught up in a much worse activity than even the worst, craziest allegations against Trump.
	And yet, Trump's facing it.
	And here you have Alec Baldwin actually killed somebody, pulled the trigger to kill them, and still isn't being prosecuted.
	By the way, Alec Baldwin...
	Unlike the members of Congress that had their phone seized by the FBI this week, unlike Pennsylvania state legislatures that had their phone seized, unlike key Trump advisors, including his own lawyer, that had their phone seized, Alec Baldwin still hasn't produced his phone records in the case.
	I'm sure they're all there intact as well.
	But this is how CBS News framed it.
	Listen to this pathology.
	It has been nearly 10 months since actor Alec Baldwin's prop gun was discharged on a New Mexico film set.
	Now the FBI has completed its forensics investigation and handed the case over to the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office.
	Alec Baldwin's prop gun.
	They say prop gun knowing that people are going to make it.
	Was discharged.
	Was discharged.
	The prop gun.
	It's a real gun.
	It's a real gun.
	It just happens to be the property of the set.
	Was discharged, not he pulled the trigger.
	And then now the FBI completed its forensic investigation, and they don't mention the conclusion of those findings.
	I mean, I can't even begin to try to make sense.
	Of why?
	I mean, is he politically connected?
	Is it just, you know?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Of course.
	I mean, he's been one of the Democratic Party's biggest advocates, made fun of Trump on Saturday Night Live for four years, been one of the harshest Trump critics.
	That's why he's being protected.
	Especially in Santa Fe with a Soros prosecutor.
	Well, if he does not get charged, and it's not that, you know, lock him up.
	He deserves to get charged based on equal application of the law.
	Well, speaking of equal application of the law, the media didn't want to cover this case this week.
	Roy Moore won a $8 million plus defamation judgment against a big Democratic Party political action committee because, as I said at the time to a lot of flack, he was being lied about.
	The allegations against him screamed fake from day one.
	The allegations did not.
	I've dealt with many, many abuse victim cases, and there were just red flag after red flag after red flag that the accusations being made against him were not true, not likely to be true.
	And the more innocent you are, the worse you defend yourself because you don't understand, like, how is this coming about?
	You don't process it.
	The people who know how to defend, the people who are guilty have really good defenses right away.
	You know, your Bill Clintons of the world are ready to defend themselves because they've been prepping.
	For a long time, what their answer would be when somebody figured out the crime they committed.
	The person who's totally innocent is completely sideswiped by the accusation and is like, this is nuts.
	Move on.
	And so based on false allegations, he was denied a seat to the United States Senate by lies told.
	They got to present a full trial to the federal court there in Alabama, and the jury concluded...
	A jury that was not politically prejudiced concluded that it was clear that he had been lied about repeatedly, routinely, and deliberately, and thus awarded the $8.4 million verdict.
	I'll steal, man, the other side, Robert.
	First of all, just in case anybody forgot about the allegations, Roy Moore, an old man, running for a Senate seat in Alabama, right?
	2017.
	Special election because Jeff Sessions had been appointed Attorney General.
	The accusations against him came from a woman who was 69 at the time, who said that this happened in 1979.
	This media campaign had, they accused him of it being systematic.
	They raised a bunch of different accusations.
	So then what ended up happening, the first one comes out, and then as the media runs with it, an accusation from 1979, a bunch of other people come out of the woodwork, say that he asked them out when they were in their 20s.
	I mean, still decades-old allegations.
	It cost him the seat.
	There's no question.
	Nobody can deny it.
	It was right before the vote, right before the election day, whatever.
	He lost.
	Now, Robert, but apparently he also lost some of his other defamation lawsuits.
	I don't know what jurisdictions they were in.
	Yeah, the other suits he brought weren't related to this.
	The other suits he brought were Sasha Baron Cohen did a parody based on fake pretenses of interviewing him.
	And he sued him, and they said because it was a parody, Cohen couldn't be sued.
	So that was the other defamation case that he brought.
	So the media highlighted that one while they tried to bury this one.
	This was the big one.
	Well, they highlighted it, or to say, you know, it wasn't a politically neutral jury, it was a politically motivated jury, because he's got home field advantage, Alabamans, although...
	The way jury selection was done in that case, my understanding is with jurors who had no feelings one way or the other about Roy Moore.
	Well, my argument is, he lost the election in 2017, so even if you assume it's a random jury pool, to get a unanimous verdict is still...
	A statistical anomaly, if you assume it's 50-50, who don't like him or didn't vote for him.
	But my ultimate conclusion, Robert, from this is, all right, good.
	So this Democrat super PAC has to pay $8.2 million a few years later.
	So it costs $8 million to buy an election.
	I mean, what's the broader lesson, the broader impact that's going to change politics going forward, as opposed to them just factoring this into the cost of doing elections?
	Well, it's mostly to restore his legacy, and that's why he brought it.
	It's not even about the monetary recovery, which may be tricky with a political action committee.
	So it was to establish what the record really was.
	So it was good for his personal purposes, but also good for the public history records as well.
	He was also the victim of, you know, the LinkedIn owner was running a Russian...
	Claimed to be running.
	Accused a bunch of bots of being Russian bots that he was actually complicit involved in.
	So, I mean, there was a bunch of...
	They went to the mattresses.
	And the first election fornication that took place before 2018, before the big one in 2020, took place in Alabama in 2017, if you study some anomalies in the precinct results.
	So they went all out to keep Roy Moore from being elected.
	But as part of that, they just libeled him left and right.
	But the media is trying to pretend that that didn't happen.
	And you contrast that to, say, the Alex Jones coverage, and you see what the media is up to and what they're about.
	But another guy who's been recently libeled, who they got caught libeling him, was Bob Dylan.
	That false allegations and accusations of sexual misconduct were outed as being so false as to be frivolous that the claim was even brought, and they're looking at potential fees against the people who did it.
	So from the get-go, that case did not make sense to me.
	And it's just part of the extortion racket that some people run.
	The kind of criminality that people like Michael Avenatti had tattooed on his forehead were these kind of folks.
	And Bob Dylan was falsely accused for those folks out there.
	Yeah, but the unique thing about that case is that they brought suit, they withdrew their suit.
	Apparently because it was so frivolous.
	But now Dylan is going after not the plaintiffs, but their lawyers for having had the audacity, the lack of ethics to bring a suit that they knew they should not have brought for the purposes of a shakedown.
	What state is this in, Robert?
	I don't know.
	I thought it was New York, but I'm not certain of that.
	In general, at large, it's a little more difficult to go after counsel to a party for a frivolous suit than the party itself.
	The Osundiro brothers are doing it.
	Whatever happened to that, to Garagos and Justice Smollett's attorneys?
	They were suing them for defamation.
	But typically you've got litigation privilege so you can make allegations in court.
	But what's the threshold to breach in court for a lawyer to be sued for damages for filing a frivolous suit?
	A failure to research.
	So a complete failure to research facts and law.
	That typically.
	Unless you have, if it's law, unless you have a good faith basis for changing the law.
	But if you were really running an extortion racket, which is what the accusation here is, then that would be subject to sanctions.
	But what it suggests, any finding of frivolity would suggest that they knew all along that there was no good basis to accuse him.
	That they just smeared him in the court of public opinion and thought the threat of such smearing would lead him to write a check, and it didn't.
	And so it ultimately may have backfired on him.
	There's a good number of people in this space, unfortunately, that operate that way.
	The extortion racket's been a big racket in LA, going back to Fred Otash and others.
	So it's the nature of the game.
	But speaking of criminal cases that the media didn't want to talk about this week, there are really three.
	One is a Twitter employee was convicted of using his access at Twitter to help the Saudi Arabian government spy on dissidents, out their family members and other connected parties for potential...
	You know, fierce retaliation against those individuals.
	And, you know, it's an extraordinary case that the media is not covering at all.
	Another one that the media is just like they didn't cover the Vault 7 case of the whistleblower.
	Now it's going to, you know, get railroaded because he disclosed the CIA's bad acts to WikiLeaks.
	But the Twitter employee conviction.
	Yeah, he was convicted of trial.
	Another conviction was for years, many have suspected that the Wall Street banks.
	Well, several of them, banksters, went on trial, and most of them were also criminally convicted.
	And again, the media paid almost no public attention to this extraordinary case, proving and documenting beyond a reasonable doubt.
	The scale and scope of corruption on Wall Street, manipulating available markets.
	And there was a little bit of attention, but not much detailed analysis because of the blowback from the Pelosi visit and how embarrassing it makes the Biden administration look.
	The Chinese government announced it was suspending all cooperation, including extradition on criminal cases, including Hong Kong, around the world.
	That would be the biggest government to...
	To say no cooperation or extradition in criminal cases for people that are not even their citizens of any nation in the world in a long time.
	So that was an extraordinary reaction against the U.S. that the U.S. also doesn't want to talk about because it makes Biden look like he doesn't have a strategy vis-a-vis China.
	And this sort of loops right back to the beginning.
	And if anyone goes back to watch Neil Oliver's full clip.
	Talks about it.
	When you realize it's full corruption through and through, and we're living in an era now where the new liberalism is, don't question big business, don't question big pharma, don't question big government, and if you speak out about it, shut your face and pay your taxes, pay your IRS agent.
	Throughout the public health arena.
	So Walgreens gets caught.
	Found to be key to the opioids epidemic in California.
	At the same time, the CDC changed its rules to say maybe we shouldn't segregate or discriminate against the unvaccinated on COVID-19 vaccines anymore.
	Well, it makes a stealth change to its document about risks of the vaccine because they had previously been telling people, don't worry, that spike protein won't stay in your system.
	And now they took that part out.
	What do you think that means?
	Given there's a big Thailand study out, that the heart consequences might be much worse than anybody even previously thought possible in terms of side effects.
	No medical advice, YouTube.
	And not just mentioning what Dr. Francis Christian did mention, that the cumulative effect of just keeping on injecting this spike protein, it could potentially, who would have thought the human body might respond, Worse and worse after more and more.
	But the CDC, Robert, they changed their guidelines to specify no distinction in treatment between unvaxxed and vaxxed.
	Meanwhile, in Canada, apparently Trudeau hasn't gotten the memo.
	He's got his own Canadian governing body for medicine, which is not yet there.
	One can only hypothesize as to why.
	And it's just like, they just do it discreetly and it's done.
	It's like it never existed in the first place.
	Even after they got outed in Canadian court this week.
	Oh, yeah.
	And so, I should clarify, there were some tweets about discoveries where experts were basically specifying, the experts in Canada were basically specifying, we had no studies, we had no documents, we had no supporting documentation to legitimize or validate.
	These vaccine passport policy that we were enacting.
	The discoveries were not at the federal level for the flight restrictions.
	It was at the provincial level, but it was still for vaccine passport policy that was being enacted in Quebec, in Ontario, and being subsidized by the Trudeau government to the tune of a billion dollars.
	And these experts, these are like medical experts who are the consultants, advisors, having their brains picked.
	To enact this policy confirmed under oath in stunning fashion.
	We didn't have any documents.
	There was nothing that we were relying on.
	And one of the experts basically said, we didn't have these documents.
	And I hope as a citizen that they exist.
	It is black and white confirmation coming out of Canada that it had nothing to do with science.
	It was all politics.
	And the government that said, trust the science, we follow the science, has not been following it from day one.
	And they're not following it now because the CDC comes out and says, none of this different treatment for vax versus unvaxed makes any sense.
	And yet, nonetheless, in Canada, they still have their idiotic policies.
	They're still talking about bringing back vax passports.
	If you're a 13-year-old kid unvaxed coming into the country, you can test negative.
	You've got to quarantine for 14 days.
	If you test positive, but you're vaxed, you only have to quarantine for 10 days.
	They don't trust the science and they lie about it.
	And that's the latest out of...
	Trudeau's Canada.
	Whereas Denmark is suspending any more shots for kids.
	18 and under.
	Exactly.
	Now, Alex Berenson finally did get around to disclosing some of the discovery he got in his case.
	And the discovery shows it's basically one document so far.
	I think people thought it would be a little more than that, but we'll see.
	He's busy sending me emails, threatening to sue me over and over again.
	So when he keeps his word, then all of us will be happy.
	But what it did show is that a Biden administration employee was specifically demanding his suspension from Twitter.
	So he's talking about bringing a First Amendment suit.
	Now, if Berenson spent more time advocating for other people's speech rights and not just his own, then he might have advocated for Robert Kennedy's suit, which is going to shape whether or not he has a colorable claim.
	He thinks he has a great case.
	Because he pays no attention or he's actually negative towards other people's free speech, then he doesn't probably know what the risks are legally.
	The key is Kennedy's case.
	Kennedy's got to win that case.
	Now, another good case has been brought by Physicians for Informed Consent against medical boards.
	The organization that helps give advice, guidance to medical boards across the country had recommended that medical boards start weaponing medical licensure.
	And going after doctors just for their speech, not for their patient care, but for alternative patient care under COVID, but just speech, pure speech.
	So California was starting to open up investigations.
	So credit to the physicians for informed consent.
	They filed suit saying this is a patent First Amendment violation, as well as a violation of other provisions.
	And basically, and one of the things they identified was the U.S. Supreme Court said the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional.
	And what they said is you can't just, even if you think the speech is false, you can't ban it.
	You can't punish it.
	You can't censor it.
	It has to be, again, defamation is a limited exception that only applies with additional constitutional constraints on defamation.
	So it was a good suit brought in California that is trying to stop out of the gate them from even trying to weaponize their licensure controls to prevent people from having public speech.
	Merely because they're a licensed professional.
	Because the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear in multiple cases, the fact that there's a licensure rules in place, the fact that it's professional speech doesn't change the First Amendment analysis.
	You cannot limit speech based on its content or punish it based on its content, period.
	You can limit, in some instances, specific medical advice given to a specific patient.
	In terms of whether that complies with the standards of care, but you cannot use that as a guise to say, you now, because you're a doctor, can't speak publicly.
	So a very important suit brought against the California Medical Board to try to stop in its tracks the weaponization of licensure against dissident doctors in the country.
	They've been doing this for about at least a year in Canada, and I had on one of the doctors who had her license revoked.
	She had her practice shut down because she was found to be issuing too many exemptions for the RONA.
	The other good two attacks are they're pointing out a lot of these rules that they cite when the medical boards are trying to get away with their void for vagueness.
	It's a due process violation.
	If a person of ordinary intelligence didn't know that the rule prohibited their conduct, that means it's not an enforceable rule in the first place.
	And they use a good phraseology that comes out of California law called underground regulations.
	I'm going to start stealing this phrase.
	For other cases.
	Because what it is, is it's when a regulation doesn't go through the proper notice and comment process.
	And so in California, they'd come to term those underground regulations.
	And I kind of like that because it communicates the subversive, illicit nature of these attempts to regulate and punish outside of the democratic process, little d democratic process, which is relevant to the...
	I don't know what that is, but before we get there, Robert, I had one more question.
	We glossed over the Walgreens being sued in San Francisco for participating or having been found to have played a role in the opioid crisis.
	They were being sued for, what was it, a public nuisance?
	Contributing to a public nuisance.
	The judge said, we found that you have.
	One fact that I just found outrageous is that this Walgreens, over the course of 14 years, had issued 100 million opioid prescriptions.
	Their wrongdoing was found to be that they were not checking the prescriptions to make sure that they were valid or not suspect prescriptions, just filling them out, rubber stamping them.
	But so I won't get into the evidentiary burden that they overcame to show that Walgreens contributed to the opioid crisis.
	But this public nuisance business I mean, what could they be ordered to do?
	Would it be paying money?
	And what's the exposure on judgment or on quantum, on remedy, as opposed to the conviction itself?
	So the public nuisance doctrine, you know, the people mostly, it's when you create like a crime infested area, you have an environmental pollution problem, things like that is how people conventionally conceive of it.
	So applying it to this context is a bit novel.
	But I did think it fit for the most part, because you have, you still have to show culpable knowledge.
	But there's no question the consequences of the opioid epidemic in the city.
	Created a major public health problem for the city and for the people in the city.
	And so it did meet that proxy.
	You know, the fact that it wasn't a smoke in the air, but it was some pill in the body, to me, shouldn't have been that legally significant or consequential.
	And so then the question becomes what the remedy is.
	And traditionally, it's making it so that the public health problem is no longer a public health problem of a major scale.
	What it does show you...
	Is the degree to which what big pharma is involved in.
	Because here you have these Walgreens that during the COVID epidemic often refused to give legitimately prescribed drugs because they personally disagreed or the CDC disagreed with that particular medical treatment that the doctor had recommended and prescribed for a patient.
	The same people were eager to flood cities and counties and states across America with opioids that they knew were killing people and wrecking communities.
	So it shows you what these big farmlanders.
	Okay, interesting.
	Now you're going to do the ATF, but I'm not sure I know of that lawsuit, Robert.
	So what we can do too, we can actually talk about public nuisance, can do Brown versus Phoenix, the city of Phoenix.
	And this stems from a Boise, Idaho case that went up to the Ninth Circuit that partially explains why we've had a homeless epidemic.
	It's not the full explanation, but it's part of it.
	What happened is people sued in Boise, homeless people sued in Boise.
	You can assume that somebody else helped them file the suit, an organization on their behalf, etc.
	Sued in Boise on the grounds that Boise's laws that prohibited public camping and public property.
	And then criminally punishing that was a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
	This stems from the U.S. Supreme Court saying that cruel and unusual punishments includes any punishment for something that shouldn't be a crime.
	And this concerns involuntary conduct in particular.
	Now, it debates about it because the Supreme Court is going back and forth on what about involuntary intoxication cases, right?
	And they issued a 5-4 decision, but the fifth decision you could interpret as meaning two different legal precedents.
	The Ninth Circuit interpreted it to mean if a homeless person has no access to shelter for no fault of their own, then they have basically a right against criminal punishment or prosecution if they are camping in a public space.
	And so from that decision, a bunch of cities...
	Kind of panicked and started to not discipline or control homelessness at all and not even impose criminal laws, any criminal laws in homeless areas.
	And homelessness started going, wow, all over the country, particularly in the West.
	Phoenix's answer, some cities have come up with different answers.
	Phoenix's answer has been to basically say, you know, if you come to this zone, we won't, homeless people, we'll give you free tents to be there and we won't punish you for anything.
	Not public nudity, not public obscenity, not public drunkenness, not drug use, not public defecation, not street fights, and often we'll just clean up after there's a homicide or a serious violent crime or a break-in.
	So a bunch of folks have sued the city of Phoenix, saying this is a public nuisance, saying the city had alternatives.
	That they didn't use.
	Because they said where this is happening is a neighborhood of real people.
	And where this is happening is a neighborhood of real businesses.
	And there's places they could have created as a safe space for the homeless that would not have been as badly impacted.
	They can't even sell their home.
	Nobody wants to go to their businesses.
	They can't walk outside.
	They're bombarded with illegality.
	Their houses get invaded on a regular basis, etc.
	So they've brought suit on public nuisance grounds, well, some Arizona constitutional interpretation.
	They have an interpretation of due process that's a little tricky.
	They're applying it under the state constitution that the U.S. Supreme Court has said doesn't apply under the federal constitution.
	So they're kind of a reach there.
	But they're demanding that the judge order the city to remedy the public, find it, it's a public nuisance, and remedy it by following what Denver and some other cities have done, which is simply to take the homeless and create a place if you're not going to create adequate That's why in California you have them ordering hotels, in some cases, to house homeless people, which has its own set of issues.
	But what some places have done is taken them to places that a lot of people don't go to, that is not a neighborhood, that is not an active business area, that's not a popularly used public park.
	And those are the places that they are setting up as places where homeless can be if they need a place to stay and they don't have access to shelter.
	I think they should win their public nuisance suit on those grounds.
	It is outrageous.
	Even in Austin, I was on 6th Street, which apparently I now know is the worst street in Austin.
	If you're a resident and you live in these areas where they're simply not enforcing any form of statutory or criminal offense, At noon, there were things that you're not supposed to see at noon.
	I can only imagine what it's like after sundown at night.
	But some people say, well, it's true.
	What's the alternative for what it costs and what it's going to cost them to find the appropriate alternative?
	Not ideal, other than maybe actually setting up temporary barracks.
	They set up field houses, or what are they called?
	Field thingy things.
	Field tents for COVID.
	That no one used cost millions and millions of dollars.
	They could do something similar for this, but they'll find the solution when it starts costing them more money not to find the solution and just letting it run rampant.
	Exactly.
	Now, speaking of out-of-control agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the dear beloved ATF, which took over that role, I think, in the 70s, if I recall right.
	From the Internal Revenue Service.
	You can imagine if they had that power, how terrifying that is.
	But, I mean, they did have it, but if they had it in the modern age.
	So, basically, the ATF is trying to ban all guns and create a national gun registry, effectively.
	The way they're doing it is redefining what is a firearm to include a bunch of parts.
	And including homemade firearms for private use.
	It's called, you know, ghost gun legislation, things like this.
	But the rules are so broad and expansive, it includes a bunch of...
	Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, users, owners, that the laws have never covered.
	And it imposes a tax on those things, which, you know, as Attorney General Paxton is separately suing the Biden administration over their tax precondition to get suppressors, because under the new Supreme Court decision, suppressors are common use, and there is no historical tradition of regulating them over time.
	You can't tax a constitutional right.
	You can't say, well, I'm not suppressing your First Amendment rights.
	I'm just taxing you every time you talk.
	You can't do that.
	That part of the Bill of Rights trumps the taxing power.
	Limits and constricts it.
	And the same is in the case here.
	But they have multiple claims.
	Basically, you could interpret marketing materials as covered by the new firearm regulations.
	And this is because they want to get 3D guns and things like that.
	And so they're reversing the definition of firearm that's been there for over 50 years.
	They're dramatically expanding their power.
	They didn't go through Congress.
	They didn't give meaningful notice and comment on most of these new rules that they're proposing that are supposed to go into force at the end of August.
	It's an attempt to regulate the homemade private...
	So as they point out, there's First Amendment violations because they're trying to govern the content of speech and the marketing materials.
	It's a Second Amendment violation, most clearly, because they're trying to regulate something that historically does not have historical regulation that would, in fact, impose such severe restrictions as to prevent a lot of people from having access to these guns or to these firearms.
	Fourth Amendment, because some of it's really because they're requiring it.
	They're trying to create a national registry.
	Is really also what they're doing.
	To register your own homemade firearm or part of a firearm or fire parts, that would basically be a national registry of everybody who has any connection whatsoever to the firearm industry or any connection at all in their private home to firearms or marketing related to it.
	And so that raises issues in the Fourth Amendment because it's basically searching and seizing information without probable cause of a crime by this compelled disclosure requirement.
	It's a Fifth Amendment due process violation because a lot of it's void for vagueness.
	It's unclear and uncertain whether you're in or you're out.
	It says, hey, write us a letter to figure out whether you're in and out, and maybe we'll help, maybe we won't.
	That's not really an answer.
	It's a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act because they ignored evidence that was relevant.
	They didn't articulate a clear standard for some of their changes.
	They're radically reversing their own past precedent for over half a century.
	And on top of all that, they didn't go through meaningful notice and comment.
	And they identify that it violates specific federal law.
	It violates federal law in the sense that the federal law prohibits.
	The U.S. government from developing a national registry.
	This is a backdoor attempt at doing a national registry of firearms because once you do a registration, it's necessary to proceed it to confiscation.
	And that's part of the reasons Congress has always banned it.
	But there's other constitutional issues.
	This is an attempt at legislation, even though the U.S. Supreme Court said in the West Virginia versus EPA case that on major questions like this, this is a classic major question, a common activity that's constitutionally protected by the entire country, that has to go through legislation, can't be done by the ATF, but they're trying to circumvent it because they know Congress has never passed this when it's come up.
	And so it's a separation of powers breach.
	It's also an interstate commerce clause breach because what somebody's doing in their home with a privately made A firearm doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce.
	This doesn't.
	Nothing.
	Nada.
	So it's an interstate commerce violation as well as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act in these specific federal laws, excess of delegated authority, so on and so forth.
	So it's a good, robust case.
	And I didn't realize the scale of it.
	So reading, it was like a 158-page complaint with lots of exhibits.
	And I'm still by no means a firearms expert.
	Firearms person will give you a better breakdown on the firearms impact.
	But I got the takeaway, which was this was an attempt to create a national registry and make life living hell for gun owners in America.
	Yeah, it sounds like the status quo in Canada, Robert.
	Yeah.
	They're trying to import Canada.
	Okay.
	One that we can do very quickly, just before we forget, is the Robin Hood.
	Not a big deal, but everyone remembers what happened in Robinhood when they put a hold on certain trades that you could place when they were having that short squeeze with GameStop.
	What were the other meme stocks that they were doing it with?
	Anyhow, so So they were sued.
	AMC, American movie.
	American movie.
	AMC.
	There was a class action lawsuit accusing them of market manipulation, unlawful stock price manipulation, because the basis was that they failed to disclose the reasons for which they were imposing these trade restrictions.
	I forget what their actual...
	What was their actual explanation, not the actual reason?
	What was the reason they were giving?
	They suggested there was a commonplace collateral issue that did not mean that they had a liquidity crisis, did not mean that they lacked financial issues.
	It wasn't because they have backdoor deals with companies holding the opposite side of the short.
	For those that don't remember, these are the meme stocks, a bunch of ordinary, everyday people.
	Using WallStreetBets, Reddit, figured out that there were some smart investors who were on the opposite side of some big hedge funds shorting some popular stocks like GameStop that a lot of these memers love.
	And so they gathered up collectively their populist power and tried to do a short squeeze on the shorts.
	Where basically the shorts, because they have to keep...
	Buying the stock to try to limit their exposure, which drives the price higher, which makes them buy more stock and more shorts buy stock, hence called a short squeeze.
	And so Robinhood, who had ties to a big company that was doing a lot of front running, but that also was on the opposite side of that short, as well as had actually an undisclosed liquidity crisis when they were about to do an IPO in six months.
	They could have wiped them out.
	Went out and made it very difficult for people to be able to continue to buy the stock.
	Well, basically prohibited it while dumping it, some of them dumping it themselves.
	And it basically made it, favored the short squeeze, people.
	Favored the shorts, favored the big hedge fund.
	Everybody went nuts.
	Dave Portnoy did a big interview with the lead executive.
	The Robinhood was formed out of Occupy Wall Street, by the way.
	That's where its founders got the idea.
	Where it was taking everybody's stimmy money and sticking it back in the market.
	And these people just leveraged it in a populist way.
	Maybe in the first time I said one of my favorite phrases is, never forgive, never forget, hold the line.
	I guarantee you Trump will come 2024.
	That's going to be a revenge tour, baby.
	So the new addition to the terminal list is going to be the political careers of a lot of these hacks and deep state boys.
	They filed suit.
	I remember when we discussed at the time a bunch of people on Twitter and along.
	Oh, you're idiots.
	They can't file that suit.
	That suit's going nowhere.
	It's going to be dismissed.
	It has no chance.
	Federal judge this week said, case goes on.
	They established a legitimate theory.
	We're going to discover it.
	And based on whatever, taking the allegations as...
	Brief thing.
	Robin Hood lied, everybody.
	They had a massive liquidity crisis.
	They never would have gone public.
	The CEO never should have done that interview with Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports because all the lies he yipped are now the basis by which this suit is going forward.
	And the idea that they manipulated the stock price through deceitful public representations is by impeding the trading on the app, they effectively curtailed the ability of people to...
	Force the squeeze to go higher and higher.
	Stop trading.
	The squeeze sort of stops to really oversimplify it because I know I don't even understand it that much.
	Speaking of app scammers, another crypto scam got exposed this past week in a suit involving a major crypto platform.
	And I saw a recent documentary on that big Canadian guy.
	What a brilliant Ponzi scheme.
	This is a different case.
	He used the platform where you could buy, sell, and trade.
	It turned out what he was doing was he was pocketing the money himself for his own speculations and losing it all.
	He's the guy who disappeared in India or whatever.
	Probably died.
	People still aren't fully sure.
	And it was a whole documentary.
	It turned out he's a huge scam artist connected to criminals and mobsters and extortionists and all nine yards.
	But it was a genius Ponzi scheme.
	How do you get people's money?
	And the only way it worked was if not enough people demanded their money out as part of the exchange, this exchange, then we're putting their money in.
	And that's how he was pocketing it on the side.
	And he disappeared and died right around the time he was about to get outed.
	But another variation of this, in part, somebody was offering interest payments if you put in your money on the crypto exchange, offering no commissions, things that couldn't realistically be there.
	But they used high-profile influencers to get billions of dollars put into this crypto exchange marketplace.
	And it turns out, of course, they already declared bankruptcy because they weren't on the up and up.
	But one of the main promoters got sued personally this week, won Mark.
	Cuban, who apparently was promoting an obvious scam.
	I'm not up to speed on that, but this is why, if you're good, do your due diligence, although he's part of the scam.
	If he's allegedly part of the scam, do your due diligence, people.
	That he knew about, that he had inside profits on it.
	Some of this had red flags from the get-go.
	People like George Gammon have said, people like Mark Moss have constantly said, here's what you need to look for, here's what you need to avoid.
	And it was clear that, you know, you have no, what they were really doing was front running and getting extra profit off the exchange value.
	And they were charging much higher commissions rather than the zero commissions they were charging.
	But when someone's like, hey.
	Free commissions, no commissions, and I'm going to give you interest rate on your return.
	You're like, how exactly do you make money then?
	Probably because they're scamming you.
	And that's what's like.
	Mark Cuban didn't know that while he was vouching and validating these guys.
	So he's the latest influencer to get caught up in this because different people.
	Paul Pierce got caught up in one.
	Kardashians got caught up in one.
	Pretty Boy Floyd got caught up in one.
	A bunch of them have been caught up and named in various suits.
	It's just Mark Cuban's the biggest one on the block so far.
	Now, Robert, before we end with a white pill, I want to get to some rumble rants on the rumbles.
	One was from Andris Berzen said, Gentlemen, please do a sidebar with the lady from 303 Creative before the new Supreme Court session.
	This is a great free speech case.
	I've screen grabbed it, so we'll see about that.
	I'm not familiar with it.
	A point for art says, a friend of mine had to dig through years of stored boxes and suffered great health issues due to IRS insinuating 800,000 wrongful filing.
	Oh, 800,000 wrongful filing.
	No one could make out their paperwork, too.
	Yeah, they go back forever.
	Oh, I got two ones to cover briefly, but one is a really good one.
	Dangard versus Meda.
	So what this class action is about is it alleges that...
	When a certain executive took over OnlyFans, that they cut a deal, these are the allegations of the suit, class action suit, with Facebook and Instagram, now known as Meta, you know, classic Zuckerberg.
	I mean, even his own AI says the dude's a psychopath.
	And his own AI says the elections don't make sense.
	And his own AI also says, by the way, that Alex Jones didn't get a fair trial.
	Just FYI.
	Even the AI.
	So they can figure it out, but Dershowitz can't.
	Read the transcript next time, Alan.
	But in terms of the suit is that once they took over OnlyFans, Facebook and Instagram cut a deal whereby they would suppress...
	Content of alternative platforms to OnlyFans.
	And what's interesting is some of the details of the suit and the legal theory it might impact for people way past this case.
	The details of the suit is that there was this collective created by Big Tech, which I want to get it right, G-I-F-C-T, apparently.
	And the pretext was we're going to organize and create a database of certain URLs, identifiers, etc., that are terrorists or support terrorism.
	Or otherwise dangerous.
	This was supposed to be the phraseology.
	They took all the non-OnlyFans adult entertainers and put them on a terrorist dangerous list so that all of a sudden their platforms fell off the cliff while OnlyFans got all the traffic.
	So that's the allegation.
	What's interesting is this coordination of database.
	Their argument is this has nothing to do with Section 230.
	Because this isn't about terms of service, and thus not subject to arbitration or jury trial waivers, but is instead a separate claim of manipulation of the algorithm itself, manipulation of data, and basically mislabeling, and you could even say libeling, people for personal profit.
	Hence, they brought tortious interference claims and claims of prospective economic opportunity, contractual relationships, etc.
	And that's when you do something illicit.
	That interferes with someone's economic opportunity or contractual relationship.
	There has to be an underlying tort itself.
	They have some claims like civil conspiracy and whatnot.
	People got to learn civil conspiracy is not a separate tort.
	So I don't know why they keep doing this, but plaintiff's lawyers keep making that mistake.
	But otherwise, a sound suit.
	What was interesting to me is you look at when they put this into place, and it's right before they went after Alex Jones.
	And they said it was based on hate speech grounds.
	Alison Morrow, which people can find at alisonmorrow.locals.com, also available on YouTube, Rumble, Rockfin, etc., did a breakdown pointing out that the last time they took out Alex Jones before the suit, they also lied to all of us about what the real grounds were and what its implication would be.
	They said, oh, it won't lead anything past this unique area.
	I suspect they actually secretly libeled Jones amongst all the big tech giants, which would explain the coordination.
	By putting his name and Infowars and other related names in that database, identifying him as a terrorist.
	And the question then is, does that open the door for a lot of other suits to be filed, where even though the damages are from lack of access to social media, the cause of action is not.
	The cause of action thus would be outside the protection of Section 230.
	And you could bring suit on libel.
	Tortious interference and other grounds, libel can be a form of tortious interference, by saying what they're doing is they're mislabeling people as terrorists in their secret database to suspend people's access to social media.
	So it's a very interesting, I mean, it's a fun little suit on its own side, but it has interesting legal, practical policy ramifications, this little suit brought by alternative adult entertainment business.
	Fantastic.
	And what's the last one that you had, Robert?
	Oh, fun little case.
	Here in Las Vegas, a landlord felt really bad for the single mother.
	And so he said that, you know, even though you don't pass the credit test, I'll help you get into this building and I'll let you be a tenant.
	But you'll need to exchange certain favors for me.
	But he was like, you know what?
	I better protect myself.
	I should put this into a contract.
	So he did.
	He gave her a contract of exactly detailed what the nature of the favors would be.
	He, of course, is now favoring filing.
	He has a suit filed against him for a range of discrimination and harassment behavior.
	And he really, apparently, his defense at court is, I thought I defended myself by putting this in the written form.
	And it repeats the old rule, which we'll have some t-shirts for soon enough.
	Never in cash.
	I mean, never in writing.
	Always in cash.
	He forgot that rule as well.
	Robert, I'm going to get to five Rumble rants before we do this.
	Serenity Prayer says, It seems we simply have lutex everywhere we look.
	They're above the laws, so chaos will continue.
	How do I close that screen?
	Another one here, which is from Yates Networks, says, watching T-U-G, that umbrella guy, but love and appreciate you guys.
	We'll switch between two streams.
	Keep fighting for us or US, I'm not sure which.
	Spread the truth.
	We love you dearly and stand with you in the face of adversity.
	Thank you very much.
	And let's just do two quick ones here.
	Phylaxi says, the FBI knows this is their end.
	That is why the IRS will be the new enforcer.
	Interesting.
	And last one, Robert, before you have to give us a bit of the white pill or at least some optimism.
	15,000 on YouTube.
	Good to you, champ.
	This is from JoeK84.
	The truth can't be suppressed forever.
	Also, no cut for YouTube.
	YouTube is asshole.
	Okay.
	That's, I think, a Salty Cracker reference.
	Robert.
	Oh, speaking of FBI, by the way, they were, like we predicted, that seizure raid where they seized all the vaults.
	By the way, it turned out that the warrant itself, the U.S. Attorney promised the court would not, in fact, seize the contents of the vault.
	They would not seize it.
	And they were, in fact, planning to do forfeiture all along.
	They violated their own ethical rules.
	They violated the search warrant principles.
	They violated the Fourth Amendment.
	So it just gives you an idea of what the FBI is able and capable of.
	And it's a fascinating thing.
	You go through that joint statement of fact where they have to admit, deny, and you have a number of the allegations are undisputed.
	As relates to the FBI's potentially unlawful abuse of seizure of private vaults, opening, taking the items out, not itemizing them, etc., etc.
	Yeah, they didn't have probable cause for it all along.
	But it gives you an idea.
	I mean, they just did this a couple of months ago, folks.
	So this gives you an idea.
	What Trump experienced is not the abnormality.
	It's unfortunately way too common.
	They just did it to a guy with too high a profile for them to get away with it this time.
	And I'm having a discussion with people who say, oh, you're sowing distrust in the FBI and in politicians.
	Yeah, it's not sowing it.
	If you have trust in these institutions, you are ignorant or you're a part of the institution trying to convince others that the institutions are clean and proper.
	They're not.
	They're historically not.
	And now when people look at this and say, I presume guilt from what the FBI just did to Trump, it's not.
	Conspiracy theory out of thin air.
	It's substantiated, evidenced over time, big and small.
	From Clinesmith to the Vault case to a number of other things, which we don't need to go over again now.
	But Robert, because people should not leave unhappy after watching one of our streams.
	What should we be thankful for?
	Oh, that the safe was empty?
	As soon as I heard the safe was empty at Trump's house, I knew that Trump was...
	Because the nervousness with Trump is that sometimes he's behind the eight ball in dealing with deep state corruption.
	When I found out the safe was empty, that told me why he's been in such a jolly mood all week.
	So if Trump can be in a jolly mood when they've just violated his rights in a way no president has ever had violated, then that's a white pill moment because it means...
	Trump is ready for the fight and geared up and may have already won part of it in ways they didn't anticipate.
	If you're betting, Robert, I don't know that there's a market for this.
	Does Trump get indicted or does he not get indicted?
	No one's going to hold you to this.
	What is your assessment?
	I still lean.
	I don't lean as strongly as I did.
	The question is, how much does the Democratic Party and how much does the DOJ and the FBI hold themselves?
	How suicidal are they?
	It's that simple.
	Because this showed, just the search warrant rate, that there will be a massive political blowback in the court of public opinion if they go any further at all.
	And it will backfire at an extraordinary rate and extraordinary level.
	I mean, they've already damaged and destroyed their credibility to such a degree that mainstream institutional conservatives are calling for abolishing the entire Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	We don't need it.
	It was created by executive order.
	It's Hoover's bastard creation all the way along.
	And this is a guy who cross-dressed as a Democratic law enforcement guy.
	That's what he wasn't really was.
	And so I think that's great.
	Fantastic.
	And then that's where sometimes people wonder, why is Barnes optimistic?
	Is he delusional?
	Is he really deeply embedded in the system?
	What is it?
	It goes back to my old principle.
	The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he didn't exist.
	The greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing people you cannot resist.
	And at least one Donald John Trump this week is pretty confident he can resist it and do so successfully.
	So I'm on board.
	Awesome.
	Everybody, sorry late to June Barnes discuss Crossfire Hurricane.
	Well, we got to it.
	Before we leave, because we're still 16,000 people watching, drop a comment in there.
	And make the chat go haywire.
	And also, just hit the thumbs up before you go.
	Robert, who do we have on for Wednesday's sidebar?
	Savannah Hernandez, a young reporter who's been on the front of the border, been on the front of riots, been on the front of protests, been willing and courageous to cover, like, I'll be on with Michael Malice this week, the Alex Jones trial, with full honesty and openness and transparency.
	So, Savannah Hernandez, coming up this Wednesday, which will be fun.
	And I'll be over after the show at the live chat at vivabarneslaw.locals.com So if you have any additional questions, hop in and I'll be answering a good number of them.
	Alright, awesome.
	I was going to say one other thing.
	Are you doing other appearances this week?
	Duran...
	Anybody else?
	I know.
	I was on with Duran last week.
	Great breakdown of everything right after the Trump parade.
	So people can watch that.
	We break that down.
	The Alex Jones case, everything that's happening in China, Ukraine, elsewhere, and the kind of insanity around the globe.
	But even Henry Kissinger is saying he's crazy.
	And so people can watch that.
	But the only one is Michael Malice this week that is currently scheduled.
	Okay.
	Awesome.
	Everybody, thank you for being here.
	Thank you for participating.
	Snip Clips, share away.
	Viva Clips.
	For the highlights, vivabarneslaw.locals.com right there.
	vivafry.com for the merch.
	We're going to have new merch coming out, so stay tuned and go.
	Enjoy the rest of the weekend and the rest of the week.

▲