All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
02:22:55
Viva Sundays! Trump, Lindell, Desantis, Project Veritas, Alex Jones & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I pulled up the wrong video.
Hold on one second, people.
Nerds.
Okay, let's remove it.
Let's do this properly.
You're getting an extra head start today, people.
Okay.
Stop share.
Share screen.
Let's do this properly.
Forget what just happened.
Start again.
Who sends you?
Listen to this.
I can go in and I can pull up the reports myself, but I've not been doing that because I don't...
Mr. Jones, the question is, who's doing it now when you do get them?
Well, I'm not allowed...
Does anybody send you...
I'm not allowed under the judge's order to tell you about what happened to my company.
That's not true, Mr. Jones.
What I'm asking you is, who sends you daily sales reports?
He's answered.
He has been answered several times.
Okay.
You're telling me to answer the question.
Alright, so I'm going to excuse the jury again.
You're going to get your exercise today for those of you who wear jackets.
So just put your pads down and you'll follow along.
We're going to talk about this more when Barnes gets here, but we'll watch the video now.
I think he's following the rules here.
I think he was probably going to say one of the bankruptcy people are in control of it.
Who sends you the daily sales report?
Objection!
Well, that was nice and loud.
So...
That calls the identity of a person.
No, no.
So, in fairness to Mr. Jones, he could have said whatever the lingo is for a bankruptcy...
A trustee is the lingo.
Yes, until yesterday, the CRO, the bankruptcy is in full control of everything.
So that's not responsive to my question.
Objection.
No.
Because I can't say it's.
This is a trial, people.
I said, who sends you?
He says no one does.
When he gets them, he gets them from the bankruptcy.
I don't think he said no.
That is correct.
We're going to come back to this because this trial on the damages, because it's already a default verdict on the merits, it's a gong show.
Well, someone says a clown show is probably more the accurate term.
It's a gong show.
Because what you have is someone, a party.
Being restricted in what they can say, cannot, being told what they can't say, basically, and effectively told what they must say.
A lawyer who knows the rules, deliberately either pushing the envelope, trying to get Alex Jones to slip up, and we'll talk about it.
That's what's going on in this trial.
Alex Jones is being asked questions that he knows under the rules of this, what Barnes is going to call a kangaroo court, Trial.
I don't think anybody can much disagree with that.
He knows he can't answer it in front of the jury without being held in contempt because this judge said she would be very, very ready to hold Alex Jones in contempt of court.
A lawyer asking questions he knows Jones can't answer.
Jones saying, I can't answer these questions.
And then they have to kick the jury out while they have this debate over objections.
We'll talk about it.
But before then, people, how's everyone doing?
It feels like it's been weeks since we've last seen each other.
It's been 48 hours.
Thursday night, Thursday afternoon, I did a stream with Keith Wilson, the attorney for the Honorable Brian Peckford, among other people.
We did a live stream talking about the most recent hearing in...
Federal court in Canada about Brian Peckford's charter challenge.
I was in New York City for the Rumble post going public after party.
I was invited down and I don't like traveling.
Don't like traveling without the family.
And I flew down Thursday.
Had the party Thursday night.
Flew back Friday.
Let me just bring up one I was going to start with this video, but I figured we had to get this video of Alex Jones out of the way so that everybody understands what is going on when Barnes and I talk about it.
New York City, it's a unique place.
This was from the terrace of the NASDAQ building, where Rumble is now trading publicly under the ticker symbol RUM.
Spoiler alert, they had rum at the party.
That's too loud, that's too loud.
This was a locals exclusive post at the time.
So since we got Peyton Roberts couldn't make it down to the party, so I'm partying for both of us.
This is the Rumble party right now.
It's not public on NASDAQ, and they're making parties.
Look at New York.
New York is a beautiful city.
Architecturally, the people, the people are beautiful as well.
There's a New York spirit.
There's a New York attitude for good and for bad.
I got off the airplane, went to the bathroom, and someone cut in line.
And the guy behind me is like, hey, yo, you can't cut in line.
I was like, dude, we don't need to fight over a urinal.
But it's beautiful.
It's a beautiful place.
Rumble has gone public.
People, I noticed people saying they sold out already.
That's the wrong take, people.
Rumble having gone public now.
Merged with a company that was already trading publicly after getting shareholder approval.
It's the new era now.
It's the new era where you actually have...
I know people don't like the interface.
They have complaints, criticisms, constructive criticisms.
It is going to...
It's going to be an alternative.
A viable, ever-growing alternative.
For free speech in the meaningful sense.
Not free speech you can run around hurling ethnic slurs and insults.
In the meaningful sense.
And as we've discussed in previous streams, employing terminology that is...
Robert and I drafted it accordingly as relates to their terms of service, which is very much similar to what we saw in the legislation in Texas.
Big tech platforms, once they've acquired a monopoly status of sorts, from imposing viewpoint discrimination.
That is what we mean at this point in time by protected speech, free speech.
It is public discourse that is free from viewpoint discrimination.
So that's what's going on.
Now let me read...
Oh, sorry, I didn't even give the standard disclaimers.
The link to Rumble...
Is in the pinned comment.
And I see that Carly Ellison, the troll of trolls, is in the house trying to incite people to make false reports of terms of service or community guidelines violations, which is itself contrary to the rules of YouTube.
But I don't care.
But she pointed out one thing which I felt necessary to clarify.
It's against the community guidelines to refer people to other websites, other platforms.
No, it's not.
What is against the terms of service or community guidelines on YouTube is to refer people to videos or content that is otherwise not permitted on YouTube, because that would be doing indirectly what YouTube does not allow you to do directly.
So just so everybody knows, the person who's in here, in the chat, encouraging others to report disinformation, timestamps of disinformation in my live streams, confession through projection, who could have ever thunk?
Is promoting misinformation in this stream to try to get me in trouble?
Oh, and also trying to direct people to her account for DMs.
Whatever.
Just so everybody understands that.
Now, standard disclaimers.
Christopher Walsh, $5 Super Chat, says, these days, if you didn't experience a robbery, you didn't experience New York.
So, funny story, I'll tell you that.
I don't know if I'm getting crankier, more cynical, more tired, you know, more curmudgeony.
I've always loved New York City.
I've always loved Times Square.
It had a novelty, which I think has worn off now.
Either it's gotten worse or I've gotten softer.
But the hustling in Times Square, it's one notch off of just robbery.
I mean, I call it polite robbery now.
The hustle, in order to succeed in Times Square...
It's gone from selling albums to, we're going to get money out of your pocket, and you better just make sure it stays peaceful.
I don't like Times Square anymore.
I don't know if I'm cranky, cynical, looking for problems.
It feels a little different in spirit, but Central Park is the most beautiful place out there.
Like, it's singularly unique.
If New York City ever lost Central Park, the city would be done for.
North Korea might be safer from your fellow citizens, but not from your government.
Oh, so what else?
Oh, sorry.
Standard disclaimers.
No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornification advice.
YouTube Super Chats, they take 30% over on Rumble, which I should have checked to see if we're live there.
We have these things called Rumble Rants, and I see two of them.
A $50 Rumble rant from Medic Deb says, always grateful for your work.
Thank you very much.
And Grandpa's Place says, I went to move my channel to Rumble a week ago, and it still says pending.
Hmm.
I don't know about that.
So what do we have on the menu for tonight, people?
Yeah, we got Alex Jones.
We got the Alex Jones trial.
I watched the cross-examination of Alex Jones.
It's a masterclass in what not to do as an attorney, even if you hate the opposing party, even if you have nothing but disdain for the opposing party, even if you think they are the evilest scum of the earth, and even if they are the evilest scum of the earth, one does not comport oneself.
The way the plaintiff's attorney is comporting himself.
You don't do it.
It's unprofessional, it's undignified, and it makes a mockery of the process.
We're going to talk about Project Veritas.
Pro tip, three-card Monty is a scam.
No, until Barnes gets here, let me share an anecdote.
So I'm walking back from the NASDAQ to the hotel where we were put up, or where we were staying.
A guy comes up to me and gives me an album.
He says, this is my new album.
And then I say, no, no, thanks.
He says, no, come on.
He said something that I said, okay, I admire the hustle of the individual.
I'll buy an album.
It's probably going to be just as good as the last one I bought a few years ago.
Good.
I listened to it once or twice, as my grandmother said, the first and the last time.
So I give the guy 10 bucks and I take the CD.
And then he says, no, no, I know you got changed for that 50 in your pocket.
I was like, what?
You got changed from the 50 here.
And he starts pulling out money from his pocket.
And I know that I don't have a 50 in my pocket.
I know that because I didn't have a 50 in my pocket.
I was like, no, dude, I don't have a 50 in my pocket.
I know you got one.
Just take the CD back and leave me alone.
And I didn't say it rudely, but that's how it ended.
Basically, I just got mugged for 10 bucks.
DeSantis and Trump 2024 Dream Team.
Yeah, well, DeSantis is on the menu tonight as well.
Because...
DeSantis and other players are being sued for the Martha's Vineyard political stunt.
They found a law firm to represent...
The legal term is illegal aliens.
I know that now.
To represent some of the illegal aliens to file a lawsuit against DeSantis for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress for having flown them to Martha's Vineyard.
Sued by a Soros group?
Yeah, I was going to look into the legal, the law firm representing them.
Aaron Taylor, do I know the difference between direct and cross-examination?
Yes, I do.
Is that to say that a lawyer who has disdain for his opposing party should be disrespectful?
Should talk over them?
Should be absolutely emotional and out of control?
No.
Direct examination is...
Well, I mean, it depends on the context.
Direct and cross-exam...
Cross-examination typically is when it's an adverse witness, which is what, oddly enough, an adverse, the other party's witness, which is, oddly enough, what Pattis would have to deal with in terms of Alex Jones by cross-examining him, even though it's his client.
After the chief examination by plaintiff's attorneys.
Oh, Alex Jones was never cross-examined.
So I made a mistake if I said cross-examined, Aaron.
So point well taken.
I'll correct myself.
He was not cross-examined because Patis, we'll get into it, specifically said he's waiving his right to cross-examine Jones after the examination in chief from attorney Maddy.
Because they'd be more limited in cross-examination, especially based on the rules, than they would be when they called Alex Jones as their witness.
So yeah, if I said cross-examined by Maddie, I apologize.
It was examination in chief.
First Sweden, now Italy flipped to the right.
Who next?
Anyhow, so that's it.
What else is on the menu?
We're not going to start with something until Barnes gets here.
Let me pull up.
Oh, oh, oh, let's start with something coming out of Canada.
That's amazing.
We'll talk about wordsmithing and why people hate lawyers.
And I dare say sometimes rightfully so.
My brother, who has now gotten very interested in the world around him, although he's been interested in it, he's gotten more vocal about it, less shy, has been noticing that...
On a lot of websites or several websites in Canada, they're taking out or they're discreetly editing out the term safe and effective when referring to a certain Fauci juice jabby jabby.
They just discreetly started updating websites and removing the term safe and effective in respect of the jab for children.
And I'll just pull that up to show the homework.
That's a frog that I saw on my...
Here we go.
The befores and afters showing safe and effective being removed.
Now, these are from parenthomework.ca.
They're not from government websites per se.
I'm not actually certain who owns the domains.
But this one was from...
Oh, kidshealthfirst.ca.
Just discreetly, you know, just memory holding it.
We're living in George Orwell's 1984, where with the internet, it's so easy to change it because oftentimes, unless you've been paying attention the entire time, you don't even know that it's been changed.
And is the internet slowly scrubbing references to safe and effective regarding the jab for kids?
The sites were created by Ontario hospital coalitions that track ongoing safety and efficacy data.
Is the new data driving the change?
Did federal marketing funding dry up?
Something else.
Questions.
Inquiring minds used to want to know.
Now inquiring minds just want to shut up and sit down.
But what I found, just surfing one of those websites, is even more amazing.
Lawyer talk and legalese.
Non-sequiturs.
You're not being lied to, but you're being misled.
Very interesting things.
Check this out.
This is from the kidshealthfirst.ca.
Is the COVID-19 vaccine, I believe now, given what certain doctors said, this should maybe say therapeutic, but that's not the fight for this argument.
Is it safe for children and youth?
Oh, the answer they give is yes.
Health Canada has authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
So appreciate what you just saw there.
This is called a non sequitur.
It's silent.
It's subtle, but it's a non sequitur.
Is it safe?
Yes.
And here's a fact that indirectly could imply safety, but doesn't in and of itself directly state it.
Is it safe?
Yes.
And here's a random fact.
Health Canada has authorized the BioNTech vaccine.
They've authorized it.
Is it safe?
Well, the segue here that they're not making is they could not have authorized it if it were not safe.
That's what is basically being said here.
But notice they're not saying that.
They're just saying, yes, it's authorized.
Conclusion?
Quasi-unrelated fact.
Children 5 to 11 get the pediatric vaccine.
Another fact.
And children 12 end up get the standard vaccine.
Just facts.
The vaccine is given to fact.
As part of the rigorous scientific review process, they have determined that this vaccine...
Here you go.
Now they're going to get to the conclusion, which...
How do they get to this conclusion?
Safe with no serious side effects, works well in providing a strong immune response, and the vaccine is of high quality.
Well, that sounds like it was actually translated from...
A foreign language.
Listen to this.
Legalese.
So these are the conclusions now.
First, the non sequitur.
Yes, it's safe.
And Health Canada approved it.
Here they say it's safe.
No serious side effects.
What's to back that up?
No serious side effects have been identified in the trials of 5 to 11-year-olds.
No side effects have been identified in 5 to 11-year-olds.
No serious side effects, so that implies that some side effects have been noticed but not serious, okay, set that aside, have been identified in the trials of 5 to 11-year-olds.
And then another fact.
Millions of people aged 12 to 17 have received the COVID vaccine in Canada.
I'm not reading too much into it.
I'm reading it the way it was deliberately drafted.
No serious side effects have been identified in the trials.
Well, this has been going on long enough now in real time that if I want to be reassured it's safe, I want to know that no serious side effects have been identified in 5 to 11-year-olds, not with that little bracket of in the trials, especially since I don't know how many 5 to 11-year-olds were in the trials to begin with.
200?
300?
Wordsmithing, they're not lying to you, but they're misleading you in real time.
Egregiously so.
There was one more super chat, which I'm going to see.
How can the appeals court completely dismiss the Clinton sock drawer argument?
I don't know what that means.
Hold on.
Let me bring this up.
I see Barnes in the backdrop now.
And in our locals chat, people had some good recommendations as to what the top stories of interest were tonight.
How can the appeals court completely dismiss the Clinton sock drawer argument?
I'm going to flag that because I'm not sure what it means.
People, Barnes is in the house.
Remember, we're going to be going exclusive to Rumble at about the 30-minute marker.
It's in the pinned comment.
And by the way, if anybody does notice I say anything factually incorrect, tell me.
Let me know.
Don't impute malicious intent if I said cross-examination and not examination as though I did it on purpose.
But let me know.
And I will happily, gladly, and readily correct myself in the next live stream.
Which will be tomorrow.
Okay, bring it in the barns.
One, two.
Robert, sir, how are you doing?
Good, good.
Let me see if your audio is loud.
I'll let the chat tell us.
Robert, before we get going, before you give us the menu of the night, I've gone over it.
What book do you have behind you, and what cigar do you have in your head?
The book is the book that we are reviewing at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, doing Friday night book reviews on different sections of the book throughout the month.
This election season.
It's the Emerging Republican Majority, written by Kevin Phillips.
It was actually a text he started drafting in 1966.
And he predicted things that became extraordinarily prescient in time.
And Cigar, it's just called HR.
I forget which brand it is.
But yeah, we got a nice, at least a dozen topics tonight to cover, including the Clinton sock drawer issue.
That's in reference to the fact that Clinton put materials that were presidential records and potentially classified conversations, tapes of it, in a sock drawer and never turned it over to the National Archives.
Judicial Watch sued.
And that's the case where the federal district court said the president gets to make unilateral decisions about what is and isn't a presidential versus personal record in terms of the classification of it, and said that there was no right or entitlement by anybody to that other than the president.
But we'll get to how it applies.
So we got a big electoral clause case up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
We got whether Zuckerberg committed tax fraud as well as election fraud in his election fortification efforts.
While we're still on YouTube for a few more minutes, we'll talk more bluntly about it when we're back over on Rumble fully.
Robert, by the way, they're letting people talk about this now on YouTube.
YouTube is slowly, I think it's now becoming as acceptable as it became to talk about Verona originating in a lab in China.
But we'll see.
Maybe YouTube is starting to feel the pressure of the Rumble.
I'll be discussing the Amos Miller, the Amish farmer case, and its consequences for everybody because it goes way past him or the Amish community.
The Trump special master 11th circuit decision that put the deep state over democracy.
Uh, the Trump, uh, versus New York, the ludicrous application of a New York state law to try to take over all of Trump's businesses, uh, and bar him from ever doing business in New York again and take over all of his properties.
Mike Lindell's suit against the FBI being brought by Alan Dershowitz.
The FBI caught lying in the lockbox case that we discussed previously in LA.
The continuing disgraceful show trial, that is the Alex Jones trial.
A comparable...
Another, more piece of evidence, to the degree anyone needed it, that the D.C. jury pool is a waste of time as Project Veritas was assigned damages on bogus grounds, and a jury trial just held there.
The, in my view, frivolous suit brought against Governor DeSantis in Massachusetts, but it's in Massachusetts, so who knows, based on the Martha's Vineyard issue, where apparently getting free tickets, free hotel, and free food has become false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
That's what happens when you let cases like the Alex Jones case go forward, as you're going to get bad, crazy legal doctrines.
A pro-lifer who was raided by the FBI SWAT team style in front of his kids because they didn't like how he handled himself at a protest.
The vaccine mandates, Head Start mandate struck down.
Vaccine mandates in New York struck down.
Vaccine mandate issues were being brought up in Canada to different responses.
COVID insurance disputes about what is and isn't physical.
And the Russian mobilization and referendums taking place in the Donbass and other regions of Ukraine.
So whether to join Russia and whether or not the Balkans provide precedent from an international legal perspective for the legality of the actions being taken.
So, Robert, I mean, I don't even know which one should we start on.
Should we start on the SCOTUS case, the...
Electors Clause.
Yeah, that's who the poll takers at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
It and Amos Miller were vying for first.
So, yeah, we'll start with the Electors Clause case.
And this is a case that if you were at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, you're probably familiar with the legal principles involved during the Barnes Law School videos we were doing back at the time of the election controversy and dispute.
Back in November and December and January of 2020 and 2021.
So the Constitution provides, under the Electors Clause, that the legislatures of each state will decide how people are represented in terms of federal office.
This includes the legislature of the state having exclusive power over how they will pick the president and the state legislature having power along with Congress over how members of the House and the Senate are selected.
The issue has come up before the U.S. Supreme Court because many justices in the past have voiced concerns about what's been happening at the state level, which is state courts are intervening in trying to usurp the power of the state legislature, in particular in North Carolina, once the state legislature became Republican.
And the state Supreme Court had a 4-3 Democratic edge.
They suddenly decided that their free elections clause of their state constitution gave them the court the power to pick how redistricting would take place, rather than the state legislature.
They repeatedly rewrote the rules, according to whatever standards they set, to such a degree that you had four political scientists appointed by a court.
Who are affiliated with the Democratic Party and often met in secret with them, actually shaping and writing the districts that people will be elected from in 2022.
One of the people they took out through their redistricting was Madison Cawthorn, who lost a large part of his district and then lost in the primaries.
So the goal, this case up for the U.S. Supreme Court, on whether that is patently illegal, that stripping courts of that power is the goal of the challenge.
The Supreme Court has agreed to take the case.
Briefing has already occurred.
Oral argument is going to occur.
And it's a major case that would restore the state legislators as the source of power.
Not just in congressional elections, because the implication will be that they have the exclusive power in presidential elections, which will in turn potentially preclude what took place in 2020 from reoccurring again.
Break it down for the – I just forgot the word now – the districting.
When they – what's the word?
I just lost it.
Redistricting?
When they redistrict.
I know we've talked about it.
I'm not totally comfortable with the concept.
How does it work?
How often do they do it?
And what are the criteria for redrawing the bounds of any particular districts?
So the way the Constitution provides is that the legislature of each state, once they are apportioned by the census effectively, which that's a separate dispute that's burgeoning up in the courts, because the census somehow accidentally wrongfully determined the population of a bunch of states that just...
They accidentally discriminated against conservative states and favored Democratic states, right?
So we'll see if that ever ends up getting wrapped up.
When Trump tried to fix the census, Congress went nuts.
They sued him.
They took all kinds of things because they knew they had control over who was implementing and administering the census.
And once again, they used the COVID pandemic because the census was taken in 2020 as the pretext for their errors.
But putting that aside...
Since it says, you state Tennessee, here's how many congressional districts you get.
Here's how many representatives in the House you get.
You always get two senators by definition under the Constitution.
The senators are elected statewide, so there's no redistricting to be done.
But in the case of the House of Representatives, there is.
And so the question is, what areas within a state will determine who represents the state and the interest of the state in Congress?
So like in Tennessee, It's usually nine members of Congress.
So the Constitution next says, exclusively vest the legislature of each state with that power.
Now, sometimes the controversy has been, what if the state legislature itself, or by constitutional referendum, gives that power, delegates that power to an independent commission?
A split 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision says that's okay, that's still legislative power within the meaning of the Constitution.
But the four dissenting justices thought no.
They thought that it always had to be done by the legislature of each state.
Isn't there a principle delegatis non potes delegare?
Would that be a case where the five say, by legislative methods, they said they can delegate this to an administrative body or somebody else?
Where the force says, no, it's their power, not theirs to delegate?
Exactly.
Because it's a unique situation where the state legislature is explicitly, effectively kind of created by the U.S. Constitution.
Because the U.S. Constitution says the legislative body of each state will be the state that determines the apportionment of how...
The redistricting takes place.
The redistricting takes place.
And typically it takes place every two years after a census, but sometimes there's redistricting that occurs in between there too.
But typically that's how it works.
But so it's almost a federal constitutionally created body.
So the various lawfare folks on the left, once Democrats lost majority control of the state legislature in North Carolina, Came up with a novel theory.
Their theory is the definition of legislature under the U.S. Constitution is actually dependent upon the state constitution that creates that legislature.
And thereby, the state constitution can limit the state legislature and the state constitution can thereby give powers to either the executive branch or the judicial branch to overrule the state legislature.
Many state constitutions include a clause that guarantees free elections.
I would note the courts have never been willing to use that to enforce against fraudulent elections, just a little side point.
But the new lawfare theory was that the free elections clause effectively allows the judiciary to overrule the state legislature in redistricting despite the explicit reference and exclusive power given to them by the U.S. Constitution.
And they had always rejected that throughout history, pretty much every state.
But once Democrats started losing legislative power in a bunch of these states, oh, courts suddenly saw it totally differently, magically shifted their perspective.
And in so doing, suddenly said, no, the electors clause doesn't define legislature.
Legislature is what our state constitution says.
Therefore, our state constitution can restrict our state legislature.
Therefore, we can overturn redistricting.
And they then also created a new constitutional right no one had ever heard of before, which was that free elections meant no partisan bias in redistricting.
That's not at all what, of course, it means.
Nor has it historically been applied.
Again, Democrats are the masters of redistricting and have been for many, many generations.
They're only discovering these when they no longer control the redistricting process.
So the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the state legislature's maps.
They came up with all these little standards that just conveniently meant Democrats had better chances of winning house raises.
So the state legislature went back, came up with a new set of maps.
Courts overturned that one.
Said nope, still not good enough.
Not getting enough Democrats in there.
They appointed four political scientists, disproportionately Democrats themselves, of course.
There was motion to disqualify them that were ignored by the courts.
There were communications between the so-called independent neutral experts and the ex-party communications with the plaintiffs, i.e.
Democrats.
And they came up with a, and they wrote the map in secret.
So we went from the elected branch in public drafting the maps to four political scientists secretly writing the maps, which just accidentally, circumstantially, ended up favoring Democrats.
So they took the state legislators, and then a bunch of a meek guy joined in this, took this case up to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the North Carolina Supreme Court doesn't have this power.
No North Carolina court has this power.
Governor doesn't have this power because the U.S. Constitution exclusively gave it to us for a reason.
Well, let me ask, it's either the obvious question or the dumb question.
Who then intervenes to not have oversight but keep in check and balance the legislature themselves if they decide to do something totally funky?
It's non-reviewable.
I mean, in fact, this was debated at the time of the founding.
Should it be reviewed?
The only people who can review the House and the Senate choices is Congress.
They have some supervisory role.
But essentially, the founders decided we only want...
The elected legislators to be setting the rules for how electors get appointed and for how members of the House and the Senate get appointed.
And Congress's only role will be as to Congress itself.
They will have no role outside of what's separately identified over the state legislators' choice of electors.
And the point was, if somebody else has that power, then you're giving that power to them.
It's either in the hands of the elected representatives or it's not.
The remedy, if they misuse their power...
Is that the ballot box?
Now, the other two limitations are the 14th Amendment.
One I agree with, one I don't.
So the 14th Amendment clearly was intended to ensure that the manner in which redistricting was done would not be racially discriminatory and authorize the Voting Rights Act and other bills, though a lot of those laws ended up being misused in my view.
But clearly the Constitution did intend that with the 14th Amendment.
Now, the other part that the U.S. Supreme Court just made up out of whole cloth...
Is that the 14th Amendment requires one person, one vote.
What this did is, like, people have asked, why can't we have a version of the Electoral College within a state if a state chooses to do so?
Well, Tennessee long did.
Tennessee gave more political weight to rule in small town areas to represent the culture and value of those communities than it did big cities.
That meant that it wasn't pure one person, one vote in the portion of the state legislature.
It was based also on where you happen to live, reflecting the political values of that community.
U.S. Supreme Court came and said, no, no, no.
One person, one vote.
Just coincidentally favored urban liberal Democrats, just put it that way, and urban political machines in the urban political establishment and disfavored the rural small town communities that now could be openly politically discriminated against without protection.
But those are the only two restrictions on apportionment.
It has to be one person, one vote.
It can't discriminate based on race.
Okay, and now, so hypothetically, not hypothetically, the courts can intervene if there's itself a constitutional violation in the manner in which the legislature is exercising its powers.
Other than that, it's to the legislature, and if people don't like it...
If they're violating one person, one vote, or they're violating racial discrimination, the courts have power.
Nowhere else.
North Carolina is the one that said...
Oh yeah, actually we do.
We can actually decide also whether it's partisan or not.
And so the Supreme Court agrees to take it up.
What does that mean procedurally?
When is there going to be any movement on this?
Before 2024, but after 2022?
Probably after 2022 at this point, because they're operating with these maps.
But before 2024.
I mean, the oral argument is coming up.
The decision will issue sometime in 2023.
So maybe sooner, but definitely by 2023.
And my prediction, you've already had Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch all voice the opinion that the Electorist Clause denies and deprives anyone but the legislature of the state of decisions over redistricting, other than Congress.
And so there's your five.
Barrett's an unknown.
But my guess is, I don't think Barrett would go AWOL on this one.
So I think it'll be a 6-3 decision that determines that strips court, and the lawfare of state courts usurping this power.
It will also end executive branch agency misconduct in the context of elections.
And its biggest impact, in my view, won't just be redistricting.
It will establish what I was arguing all the way back in 2020.
The state legislature has the exclusive control.
Over who, how electors are appointed.
Congress has no role in that one beyond election contests, which is a separate issue.
They have no, they don't get to oversee those rules at all.
They do it over the House and the Senate.
They don't over the electors.
And by affirming that, it will explain just how illegal the 2020 election, unconstitutional the 2020 election always was.
Which, we can talk about some of the...
Who is up?
Are we just on Rumble yet?
Well, I was going to say, I didn't realize we're almost 40 minutes in.
People, I know some people don't like it.
It's a little less convenient for the chat.
We will live with it.
Growing pains.
And it's my agreement with Rumble anyhow.
It will grow.
I mean, I'm following the chat live at vivabarnslaw.locals.com So if you want to hop in that chat rather than the Rumble chat, go ahead.
And I say people.
Pressure on Rumble to fix the bugs is what they need almost.
So we're winding it down on Rumble.
Link's in the pinned comment.
And let's do this.
Three, two, one.
I think we're alone now.
All right.
We are on Rumble exclusively.
And when this processes, I'll put the link in the pinned comment in the comment section.
Robert, where do we go to from here?
What's the...
Oh, so let's talk a little election fornication.
Okay, you go.
I don't even know where to start on this one.
So the Center for American Renewal, which is a more populist-aligned organization trying to support more populist ideas in the think tank world, one of the few that's legit, unlike America First.
America First Legal is very good.
That's Stephen Miller.
America First Policy Institute is a bunch of corrupt deep state hacks aligned with Jared Kushner and big oil money out of Texas, pretending to be the substitute cabinet for Trump.
I mean, Trump, you know, you can't underestimate his foolishness in that regard of thinking they're America First, but they're not.
And some of those people affiliated with them use the big tech lawsuits to promote themselves, those big tech lawsuits that lost quickly because they were poorly brought, poorly drafted.
But the Center for American Renewal is a much more legitimate organization.
People like Cash Patel, others affiliated with it.
And they filed a referral request and a kind of a whistleblower complaint.
But it wasn't from inside information.
To the Internal Revenue Service, Charles Reddick, who I know from back in the day.
It's another story for another day, is what I think about Charlie.
But the outlining...
How Zuckerberg and Zuckbucks, as it came to be known, not only committed election bribery, as identified by the special counsel appointed former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin, by co-opting the election machinery, the administrative state regulating the elections in key areas, but also engaged in massive-scale $400 billion worth of tax fraud, and did so by disguising his partisan political activity.
As non-profit 501c3, non-partisan, non-political activity.
That he used that as the front to do it, both because it was easier to co-opt various election government agencies in the effort.
It was basically one massive Democratic get-out-the-vote effort, which included illegal drop boxes, the refusal to enforce rules.
The state legislature set rules for how electors are to be appointed governing their elections in the terms of signature checks, in terms of who was qualified to cast a mail-in ballot, how they cast that mail-in ballot, all the drop boxes detailed in 2000 Mules and all the issues that involved.
When he's talking about the different organizations that were involved in this, D'Souza, almost all these organizations depended upon the money funded by Zuckerberg through establishing those illegal drop boxes and mass mail-in voting and questionable qualifications of voters and no signature match check and no adequate counting and canvassing of the ballot in the first place.
And what's amazing is it's Zuckerberg.
So, of course, he took a tax deduction for all of it.
So he wrote this off as a tax deduction, not only to use the 501c3s.
As a front in order to be able to infiltrate election government agencies, including the Georgia Secretary of State, by the way, Ratberger, took millions of dollars from Zuckerberg to do his bidding because it gives them more money to hire more people and their staff and make themselves look good and promote themselves, etc.
It was also where they targeted this, right?
It'd be one thing if they were across the state of Georgia, for example, but it wasn't.
You track where they spent the money.
To ensure there was a maximum get-out-the-vote effort through drop boxes and mail-in balloting, delivery of ballots, etc., outside of the legal framework, it's overwhelmingly in Democratic-oriented counties.
So that's where they targeted their efforts.
So that shows it was purely partisan.
But it goes beyond that.
As Molly Hemingway from The Federalist has detailed in a range of pieces, they often hired Democratic political consultants.
So, I mean, these nonpartisan, nonpolitical organizations are almost all invariably run by longtime Democratic activists, number one.
Number two, they were using much of the funds to pay Democratic political consultants to come up with a Democratic game plan.
And the only reason they have tax-free status and the only reason that donors to it get a write-off on their tax returns is because they're supposed to be non-political, non-partisan, purely charitable entities.
These were not 501c4s.
These were 501c3s, pure charities.
You can't get involved in politics.
And here they were overtly doing it.
And then he took probably a 400, the assumption is, a $400 billion tax write-off.
So he not only committed massive-scale election fraud in 2020, Mark Zuckerberg committed massive tax fraud in 2020.
Well, so first of all, the argument is going to be get out there and vote is nonpartisan.
We pick populated areas, which tend to be Democrat, and we employ the best of the best in those areas, which tend to be whatever.
Call them Democrat-aligned think tanks.
Does that, I mean...
That's going to be the rebuttal argument.
Is that not going to hold any water?
No.
I mean, remember the Tea Party organizations are being shut down for being political, even though they were 501c4s, which allow certain forms of political activity.
If you want to be involved in politics, you can't be a 501c3.
It's that simple.
Everybody knows this.
And these were overtly political organizations.
What he did is he funded organizations that had pre-existing budgets, but they were pretty small budgets.
And he all of a sudden...
Converted them for politicized purposes.
I mean, if they weren't hiring exclusively Democrats, if they weren't paying Democratic consulting firms, if they weren't targeting almost exclusively Democratic areas, maybe it'd be a different story.
But that's what happened.
And so their ability to pretend that this was nonpartisan when it was overtly partisan and in which there's wide-ranging evidence of in their hiring practices, in their promotion practices, in their expenditure practices, etc.
To me, it violates the point and purpose of a 501c3 organization, and thus, they shouldn't have tax-exempt status, and Zuckerberg shouldn't be allowed a tax deduction.
And in my view, he knew this all the way through, and he just committed fraud to perpetrate the election hoax that he wanted.
Well, so let me ask you that.
The consequence is going to be what?
You have to pay back some money that you deducted as...
Oh, I mean, what it should be is prison for 20 years.
That's what I'm getting with this.
We'll get to the...
We're talking about a $400 billion tax fraud.
It would be the biggest tax fraud case in the history of America.
This is what they funded into these entities to get out and vote in Democrat regions.
I mean, sorry, $400 million.
This is through Facebook.
This is not Zuckerberg.
This is through Facebook, the entity, not through Zuckerberg.
No, no, it was Zuckerberg personally, he and his wife.
See if that's even worse, actually.
Yes, it is.
Okay.
And my guess is if you dig in deeper, you'll find Zuckerberg used Meta, Facebook's new name, and Instagram to manipulate elections even further.
You'll find that he used it to let Democratic voters know.
People that they use their algorithms to figure out who's a democratically inclined voter and then used their institutional resources to promote democratic stories, suppress republican stories, promote democratic candidates, suppress republican candidates, and make sure democratic voters got out to vote and didn't do so the republicans.
That you've had massive election fraud by one of the biggest big tech companies that now also involves tax fraud at multiple levels, violation of state laws in multiple states.
If any of the, if Brnovich, that wuss in Arizona, Who got whooped in his Senate race, deservedly so.
I mean, his wife's on the federal court because Trump put her on, and that was another mistake.
But he says he's serious and sincere about this.
Zuckerberg should be under massive criminal investigation.
Trump and Giuliani shouldn't be under criminal investigation for asserting constitutional rights and exposing election fraud.
Zuckerberg and Facebook should be under criminal investigation for engaging in an election, and now it's apparent, tax fraud.
We had discussed this earlier as well.
I mean, this is personal on Zuckerberg's side, but then we had floated the question, suppressing a story could be deemed to be a contribution in kind.
When Facebook got involved...
Yeah, these were illegal donations.
They were disguised illegal donations.
That's what they were.
It sounds an awful lot exactly like what was described in that Time magazine of a secret...
I mean, they bragged about it.
They bragged about it.
And Zuckerberg did this in part for his own political reasons.
He did it in part because they attacked him so much for Cambridge Analytica, which had no meaningful impact on the 2016 election.
That was a crock.
And did it because George Soros brought massive pressure on him.
He was trying to short his stock, was waging war on him.
And Zuckerberg realized if he helped defeat Donald Trump, George Soros would go away.
And he did.
And he used George Soros' methodology.
Non-governmental organizations to do so.
The problem is he violated state and federal law, tax law and election law in the process.
Which state is going to be the first to take any action?
The Justice Department is not going to happen.
Well, Wisconsin could have, but they've kind of wussed out because they have a corrupt political leadership in the Republican Party there, including the majority leader of the House.
And that's still the hurdle.
The hurdle is still the main hurdle to institutional election reform and exposing the bad acts.
Our leaders are within the Republican Party.
And in some cases, judges that Trump appointed, you know, as we'll get to the special master case.
I mean, it's these old establishment, Federalist Society type folks.
The publication of Federalist has nothing to do with the Federalist Society.
The Federalist Society has been co-opted for a long time by corrupt deep state actors who favor institutional power at the expense of ordinary people and always have and always will.
And that's one of the main hurdles.
The only way to answer that is in the court of public opinion, hoping somebody has either the brains or the brouhaha to actually take action in these cases because it's getting egregious.
Well, I mean, we're going to get to it, but we're seeing the...
Tax issue cases that Leticia James is filing against anything Trump in New York.
We see the lawsuits that are being filed seemingly by activists, law firms against DeSantis.
There are red states, Texas, maybe Abbott, Florida.
I don't know how much of this could have been argued to have been done in Florida.
Is it a question of finding a Republican governor of a Republican state to say, let's pull a little Leticia James in our state, but...
Let's make sure it's a little bit more legally sound.
Well, DeSantis ran a clean shop in Florida.
And that's why, by the way, if you note Florida, which almost always trends with the rest of the country in terms of direction, Florida went more Trump than it did the cycle before.
But Florida didn't have any of these late reporting problems.
That's because they got strict rules and they were strictly enforced.
DeSantis replaced some of the Broward County corrupt people himself personally.
He's taken out corrupt DAs in Florida.
So that's why it didn't happen much in DeSantis.
But any local county prosecutor could bring these claims.
That includes Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan.
There's Republican rural county prosecutors who clearly have this power.
They're just not exercising it.
They're not utilizing it.
And that's a mistake.
They've got to start to wake up.
I mean, the reason why they're waging war on...
J.D. Vance and Blake Masters is because both of them understand it's time to quit being unarmed and pretending that we're in Marquis Queensberry rules when we're in a gutter fight.
And you got to respond accordingly.
And, you know, within what the Constitution allows and permits.
This was illegal behavior, unconstitutional behavior.
Constitution absolutely permits and requires for confidence in election integrity.
That Mark Zuckerberg and his allies be criminally prosecuted for what they did.
Are you betting?
Or it's just not going to happen?
Not going to happen anytime soon.
It will require new gubernatorial elections.
Maybe if Carrie Lake is elected in Arizona.
Maybe if the Republicans win in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or some combination thereof.
Maybe they'll suddenly discover some cojones in Georgia.
Not likely with Ratberger likely to get re-elected as Secretary of State since he's implicated in this corruption.
And maybe if Trump wins in 2024, something will finally happen.
But it will likely require major election change and continued effort in the court of public opinion to put pressure on people to take remedy, because this is outrageous.
Here you have one of the biggest tax frauds ever, one of the biggest election frauds ever, and nobody's even investigating this person.
People in the chat on Rumble are saying the Rhinos won't do anything.
Oma Kawau says, can you talk with the Supreme Court leakers, Sotomayor and Gorsuch made statements that some information should be released this week?
We'll see when that gets there.
My bet is that no one will ever be prosecuted for that.
That's my bet.
I made the bet all the way back.
I'll make the bet just because I've seen how things work now.
Certain people get prosecuted up the wazoo.
Others do not.
MedicDeb says, put your cigar away.
People are going hungry.
People are cold.
How can I respect you?
I don't know if that's supposed to be...
I'm assuming that's a joke.
It has to be because one...
If it's not, c 'est la vie.
Hey, if people are cold and hungry, we can briefly transition to Russia.
It's because of the EU and the George Soros-inspired Bill Gates idealized the Joe Biden administration's ridiculous policies on energy.
And it includes sanctions as half of it.
I mean, in Europe, the EU, and I'll be on later this week, two notes in that regard.
What are the odds?
Returns, but at a new time.
Every Tuesday night at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively on Rumble, Richard Barris, People's Pundit, and I will be breaking down the election.
This Tuesday will be the Senate races.
The next Tuesday will be the Governor's races.
The next Tuesday after that will be the House races.
And then we'll be just breaking down different races as we go along.
And always getting into news and information and other information as well.
But what are the odds?
Returns, Tuesday night, 7 p.m. Eastern.
And Thursday at 1. I will be live with Duran breaking down everything geopolitically on YouTube and Rumble, and that will be fun.
But it's because of terrible policies.
I mean, I guess the EU is going to – are they going to sponsor blankets for people?
Robert, let's back it up one second before we get there.
The latest news out of the Russia-Ukraine war is that Ukraine is making gains, gaining back territory in the east.
Russia has resorted to conscription.
Fighting-aged men are fleeing Russia if they can.
The narrative is that it's collapsing for Russia.
Ukraine is finally making the big push.
You'll discuss it more with the Duran on Thursday.
That's their wheelhouse.
But what do you know about that before we get into Europe decommissioning nuclear power plants while they are predicting a dark, cold winter?
So yeah, so the Ukraine had basically Russia abandoned certain areas around Kharkiv, and Ukraine went in, and that's it.
And it's being celebrated as a massive counterattack victory.
It is, as Colonel McGregor explained.
It's sort of a temporal, ephemeral, illusory victory that mostly has marketing value, so that they could hustle more cash out of the West to propagate the war a little bit longer.
What Russia announced was two things.
One is they are now holding referendums, which I think end Tuesday.
If you want on-the-street interviews with people, Patrick Lancaster is doing them throughout the whole region, explaining the history of that.
One result was expected in the Donbass region, another in the Zaporozhne and Kherson regions that border Crimea that are all Russian-occupied.
The vote that's taking place...
Is whether they want to join Russia.
Russia has said that once the vote, Russia has brought in international observers, but not international observers from the West, international observers from the global South, Asia, Africa, Latin America, to validate the way in which the elections are being conducted.
Ukraine passed a law that said that anybody who even voted in this would be considered a criminal.
And if they ever retake those lands, they'll put them in prison for five years.
What that tells me is that Ukraine believes an honest vote would produce an overwhelmingly pro-Russian sentiment in those regions.
But that action guaranteed Russia's going to win.
Russia has now said, as soon as that happens, they will incorporate those regions into Russia and will consider those regions Russian.
What that means is...
Any attack on those regions will be seen as an attack on Russia itself.
So it will no longer be a special military operation.
It will be a full state declaration of war.
So the military efforts are going to escalate.
And in that respect, Putin gave a speech where he noted two things.
One, he gave details that people had rumored was true, but he confirmed, at least the Russian version of it, We're under the belief that Ukraine had agreed to a settlement in Istanbul in March,
in early April, and that basically what it would do is it would recognize Crimea and Donbass as Russian or independent, and Ukraine would keep the rest, and that would be kind of the end of it.
However, the West, Boris Johnson and the Biden administration intervened.
And told Ukraine not to sign any peace deal.
This, by the way, was at the same time that Trump was putting out a public statement supporting the peace deal and supporting peace.
And it's insane to be involved in this war.
It's a dumb war.
And so he confirmed that.
And so he laid out, look, it's clear that the West and its current approach will just escalate, escalate, and escalate.
So we're going to hold these referendums and automatically incorporate these lands within the region.
Using the Balkans precedent as their international legal grounds to do so, supported by the international court, by the way, thanks to the West.
And then also ordered a partial mobilization.
And what a partial mobilization is, is that he called for the reserves, people to be in the reserves, to come forward.
Anybody who wanted to volunteer would receive certain recognition, financial benefits, etc.
The West started out with a story that this was a mass draft.
It's not.
It's nowhere near full mobilization.
They're talking about 300,000 troops.
A real mobilization in Russia is 40 million.
So that's not full mobilization.
Very, very partial.
But the West version of this was, as you identify, chaos.
It's going to destroy.
Putin about to fall.
John Brennan on TV.
Putin, maybe just days, maybe weeks.
They're fleeing.
They're trying to get across the border in Finland.
They're jumping on the planes and escaping as fast as they can.
Almost all of which, of course, turned out fake news.
I'm sure there are some people that got out of Dodge that thought they might be next.
There's always people that aren't eager.
But they had such a volunteer response that they got more than the 300,000 in just two days.
Russia is taking on, its young men is taking on a militaristic culture.
What's being celebrated on social media.
I'm not sure there's such a great thing.
I'm sure Russians do.
I'm not so gung-ho on this.
But imagine, you know, sort of game of duty.
In other words, you're a hero.
You're cool.
You're hip.
You're popular.
You're a patriot.
You're a great person if you join the military.
So think of our U.S. military ads.
The better ones, not the current woke version.
And put it on 10. And that's what's going viral in Russian social media.
So, in fact, there was a protest by the organization people most opposed demographically are young urban liberals in Russia.
They immediately protested this, had a big protest in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The next day was a 10 times more massive counter-protest in support of what took place.
And in fact, a lot of Russians were in rage.
This is why Putin allowed the Russian liberals to protest.
He knew the reaction would be rage from patriotic Russian types.
This is like people who are questioning 9-11 at the time.
If you experience that, you're an unpatriotic terrorist supporter to raise questions about.
That's what's happening in Russia.
Putin has been more restrained than his populace.
The people of Russia have wanted to escalate for a while, and their rage has been building and building and building and building.
And the Ukraine taking back a little bit of land provided a nice political pretext to push it all over the edge.
So what's coming, and then Putin made this speech.
Some people in NATO, some people in the West have been saying stuff like, Putin will never use nuclear weapons.
We can threaten our use of nuclear weapons to deter Russia.
You've had articles like, why not use nuclear weapons?
You've had articles like, limited nuclear warfare isn't all bad.
There was one from 10 years ago that said, a small nuclear war might be good for the environment.
But that was not in the context of Russia.
Exactly.
That's the kind of insanity that was being regurgitated.
So Putin made clear, he said, any attack on Russia using those kind of tools will be responded to fully.
And just remember, what wind goes this way can go that way too.
And we have more nuclear weapons than any country in the world.
And he said, I'm not bluffing.
So he's making it clear to the people that thought he's bluffing.
He will respond with nuclear weapons if nuclear weapons are used against Russians.
And he will see.
Once the referendum is confirmed, the whole war changes.
All of a sudden then, it is a full-scale war.
It's no longer a special military operation.
That takes the handcuffs off of Russia's military.
You'll see Russia's military start to target things that they consider civilian infrastructure.
I've sought some people be very critical.
I'm a critic of targeting civilian infrastructure, to be clear.
But let's also be clear.
America always hits civilian infrastructure.
We call it...
Dual-use infrastructure.
So our excuse for attacking purely civilian electric plants and water facilities...
It's used for the military, Robert.
That much I remember from the shock and awe.
I believe I remember that.
Anywhere we go, we just leave rubble.
And there's military arguments for it.
I'm not dismissive of those, but I'm saying that us being critical of Russia now targeting civilian infrastructure when we would have been bombing it from day one is kind of...
Not exactly the most credible position for us to have.
But that war is about to escalate in a major way, and Ukraine has very little hope.
It can try to survive the winter, but I think that'll be it.
Now, I'm still of the opinion that they're unlikely to go past the regions they currently occupy and the referendums are in.
I'm not convinced they're going into Kharkiv and Odessa, but...
Scott Ritter is.
McGregor thinks maybe.
Maybe Harkiv and Odessa.
I never thought they were going into Kiev or Western Ukraine.
That never made sense to me.
But we're seeing more clear.
This appeared to be a Russian plan.
Russia was going to see how this played out.
They didn't get a peace deal.
This is very Putin.
He doesn't use all his tools at once.
He escalates and says, okay, now you can settle.
Okay, if you don't, I'll escalate a little more.
Okay, still can settle.
That's the thing.
But what he's doing is legally...
He is a lawyer.
He's very legalistic in his approach.
In other words, they're only going to escalate to a state of war with Ukraine when it's actually Russian people in Russian territory legally being attacked.
The idea of the referendum, it is pertaining to the territory that, in theory, was supposed to be negotiated as per Zelensky's election platform in 2014.
This was...
2018, yeah.
2018, sorry.
I want to pull up...
The Maidan coup.
And the whole precedent is the one we in the West set.
And Russians have intimate familiarity with it because it was what was used to break up the Soviet Union and then used to break up Yugoslavia.
The most glaring example of it currently is Kosovo.
So this is, do people in a place have the right to just declare their independence from the governance that they're currently part of the territory of?
The Russian position back at the time of the Soviet Union and New Yugoslavia was no.
The West position was yes.
I mean, this goes all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, right, of self-determination, so on and so forth.
The incipient building of nationalism that unleashed a lot of these tendencies, etc.
To shift identity from local kinsmen to broader country, you name it.
And various political controversies rage over it.
But the West took the position that Croatia could just break off and declare itself a country.
That Slovenia could do so.
That Czech and Slovakia, Slovakia could do so.
Bosnia, Herzegovina could do so.
All of those regions could break.
Kosovo ultimately could break off.
And that we would recognize them.
And we even planted military facilities.
And when Kosovo broke off, we militarily intervened.
To bomb the heck out of Serbia and then put a NATO base in Kosovo.
So what Putin is doing is, well, it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
I'm going to take what you did in Yugoslavia and what you did to the ex-Sovia Union, and I'm going to return the favor.
I'm going to have these people say whether they want to be part of Russia, they did, now part of Russia, just like you guys did before.
And that's why we don't have much, and the international court approved that as the Kosovo.
So there is no legal grounds to challenge he did under our own established precedents in the West.
I brought up Justin Trudeau's tweet on this where he says, Canada denounces Russia's planned referendums in occupied regions of Ukraine.
We will never recognize them.
This is a blatant violation of international law.
It is a further escalation of war and it is unacceptable.
And this is coming from a country in which we held a referendum twice.
To discuss, contemplate the separation of a province to form its own nation.
Where it would have been recognized had it occurred, I believe.
And setting aside Justin Trudeau's violations of international law, which I posted in a tweet.
Another discussion.
So all of this goes on, Robert.
Some people are hypothesizing that Ukraine might have needed a W in order to agree to a negotiated resolution of the dispute.
Others think Russia's losing it.
This is the West's financing of the war paying off.
Setting all that aside, we'll see how it pans out.
In the meantime, and this was the segue that went into a tangent, Europe, energy prices, cold winter in Europe, and why?
Is it Belgium?
Which country is decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the same time?
Many of the countries are, and this is all their self-imposed sanctions, cutting off Nord Stream 2. And proposing things like don't take a shower but once a week.
Try to go and chop down your local tree to put firewood in the chimneys that don't exist because we forced you to shut them down over the last 10 years for green policy.
It's a combination of anti-Russia hysteria that has led to suicidal economic policies that may shut down large parts of European manufacturing and industry.
And then that's just the economic side, fueling extraordinary inflation that is squeezing everybody and has toppled multiple governments.
The Italian government today is likely to switch to a right-leaning, Euro-skeptical government because of this.
And then on top of it, you know, I mean, they're talking about people giving out free blankets so that people can deal with a lack of heat, you know, that they're not going to have.
So I guess the EU sponsored blankets everywhere.
And then green policy.
So the green policy that's been very popular in continental Europe has made traditional methods of energy expensive.
And it turns out, you know, solar only goes so far.
By the way, people should look up where solar energy and the various electric energy sources, those minerals come from.
They come overwhelmingly from China.
There's a reason why China...
Big, big dedicated to green efforts.
They have the most coal places of any place.
They have the massive coal pollution of any country anywhere.
But in the air so bad they had to spend years trying to purge it so that the Olympics, everybody didn't die trying to run around the track.
But they're so deeply committed to them dominating the electric industry because that's where all the natural resources that go into it come from.
But that's where that political reality, and we'll continue to see that reality.
Now, I think the Italian change of government won't mean much legally.
The EU Ursula van der Krazy, as Alex calls it from the Duran, it calls her, threatened, overly threatened the Italian public and said if they vote for a government that's anti-EU, that the EU will punish them the way they punished Hungary and Poland.
Well, hold on.
Let me stop you there for one second.
It was a number of questions in the chat on Rumble.
Predictions for Italy.
The right groups will win, but they will once again not deliver because some of the key people that are going to prevail aren't really committed to any actual policies that would undermine the EU outside of immigration.
The one area where there will be conflict will be immigration.
But otherwise, they already flipped sides on the Russian war issue.
They did things to make sure that the establishment and the EU establishment didn't...
They're going to be elected by people who want to re-examine the entire EU relationship, but they have no interest in doing so because they cared more about winning than doing something once they won.
So yes, they will win, but it won't have much probable consequence.
Beyond immigration, it will have an impact on immigration.
Immigration, well, that's a good transition.
I mean, immigration continues to rock Europe and take out the neoliberal majority.
A combination of the Russian sanctions and green policies are backfiring.
Immigration is another part of the globalist agenda that is not popular, reflected in the Italian elections about to happen.
But that doesn't stop people from continuing to try to fight it here in the States after Governor DeSantis.
I'll give the brief rundown of the facts.
We've been talking about it.
The political stunt.
DeSantis is accused of using illegal aliens, the legal term, as political pawns.
They came through in Texas.
They were flown, put up in a hotel somewhere between Texas and Florida.
They arrived in Florida.
We don't yet know the exact context, however.
And then they were flown from Florida to Martha's Vineyard with a $12 million fund that was passed in the budget by the state of Florida.
Flown to Martha's Vineyard.
Outrage.
Political pawns using people, inhumane, yada, yada.
Within 44 hours, these political pawns are flown off of the pristine 87% white, 90% Democrat, affluent Martha's Vineyard.
Flown off, put into a government military facility in Cape Cod.
Some might argue that's detention.
But they did it voluntarily, according to the media.
Even though there were 125 armed National Guard for 50 migrants, 48 migrants.
They're out within two days.
Martha's Vineyard, in the meantime, sets up a GoFundMe to help deal with this humanitarian crisis.
They thank the migrants for enriching their lives for 44 hours before they were handed a hot meal and then booted from the island.
Okay.
Media outrage.
And then they later admitted that the money actually wouldn't go to the migrants.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry.
Kicker in the tooth.
Yeah.
They admitted that...
Any donations now, it'll go somewhere.
I mean, it can't go to what never was needed in the first place.
Okay.
Now, it seems that some very activist lawyers, because the migrants were brought to a military base in Cape Cod, provided lawyers faster than the January 6th defendants were provided lawyers.
And now it seems to be clear why.
There's a petition for a class action suit.
I don't know why class action is the proper procedural.
Unless it's just the same thing as a joiner of actions in this circumstance.
A bunch of them are suing DeSantis.
I don't know, 13 counts?
Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Fraud.
Whatever.
The basis of the lawsuit is that they were told.
They were given a voucher for McDonald's meals.
They were put up in a hotel.
They were told they're going to be flown somewhere where they're going to have accommodations, jobs, and whatever else they need.
In this new country, which, as far as I understand, is what the border towns would have had to do in any event, or be expected to do.
The lawsuit is on the basis that they were lied to, they were exploited, they were deceived into where they were going and why they were going there, and now they're suing for intentional infliction of emotional stress and 13 other causes of action.
Robert, some people on the interwebs are asking how do these...
Illegal aliens, legal term, have any rights under the Constitution whatsoever.
Can you just field that one right off the bat?
Once they're located within the United States, then any action taken, they're a person for the purposes of the suit.
So they are protected under the civil rights laws as much as anybody once they're here.
Before they're here, different dynamic.
But once they're here, those rights protect them.
And so the only rights that they would not have would be ones that are specifically reserved for...
American citizens under the Constitution.
Which are very, very few are reserve justice citizens.
And so it's extraordinary twofold.
One is that the sanctuary cities are turning out not to be sanctuary at all.
I mean, here you have this wealthy liberal area that declared itself a sanctuary city, said it would protect illegals located within their jurisdiction, would provide help to them.
And as soon as they show up, within 48 hours, they're out of there.
Guarded by the National Guard, purportedly voluntarily.
So the theory of the suit is quite extraordinary.
They brought the class action in the District of Massachusetts because it's the only kind of liberal federal courthouse that might entertain, in my view, a nonsense suit.
I know no comparable suit ever being successful.
So they're claiming false arrest.
Well, let's see what they got.
Free food, free hotels.
Free airfare.
They get placed in a place that says it will provide resources and aid and sanctuary them.
And that somehow is being arrested?
Being imprisoned?
Being intentionally inflicted with emotional distress?
Last but not least, the problem they don't talk about in the suit, they all signed releases.
They all signed complete releases.
That they were doing this voluntarily, they knew of the risk, and they wouldn't sue anyone.
So I think the releases are a complete part of the claim.
The case shouldn't be in Massachusetts.
It should be transferred to Florida, where there's less nutty judges than there are in Massachusetts.
But Robert, they're going to argue.
Well, first of all, if I'm arguing, let me just take this down.
I'll bring it back up so we can see the causes of action in a second.
But Robert.
The releases, I mean, I'm going to say that the release, they're going to argue vitiated consent clearly.
They might even argue that it wasn't presented in the language they understood.
They gave it to them in both English and Spanish, and they signed it in both.
I would have less of a problem thinking they can get out of the releases, especially given the nature of the suit, but they have to...
Not traditionally.
In other words, we enforce these releases across the board.
So the, I mean, the...
They can try to argue fraud in the inducement of the release, but this is argued all the time, and courts reject it all the time.
They say, look, you signed something that said, no matter what, I won't sue you.
If you give me this ticket, no matter what, I won't sue you.
You can't say, golly gee, I really thought A, B, C, or D, because then the releases become useless, and they become contractually unenforceable.
You can always say, I thought something different.
So I don't, by traditional release law in America...
They shouldn't get out of these releases.
But the other problem is this does not meet the definition of false arrest, false imprisonment, of substantive due process, of misapplication of federal funds.
It's simply of any federal tort, of any federal civil rights action, or of the state tort, frankly.
It's not clear to me they can even sue these individuals under the tort theories.
I think various immunities apply that would preclude and prohibit that.
So I think those claims are dismissed right out of the gate or should be.
I mean, tons of people end up in actual jail because a cop lied to them.
None of them get to sue for false arrest.
None of them get to sue for false imprisonment.
I mean, there's never been an actionable, recognized claim ever.
The irony in all of it is that's when there's an actual false arrest and an actual imprisonment.
They actually went from Martha's Vineyard to a military detention center, and I suspect a great many of them would have...
If the scientists had done what Massachusetts did, they'd have a stronger claim.
But because arrest is, you do not feel free to leave.
They admit they got on the planes voluntarily.
They admit that.
They don't dispute that.
They instead say they thought they were going to New York or Boston rather than Martha's Vineyard in particular.
And that somehow that converted them into being arrested because they were on a plane.
I'm sorry, that's not the police forcing you.
They had to allege that the police forced them on the plane.
Never happened.
They admit it didn't happen.
They don't have a false arrest claim.
They don't have a false imprisonment claim.
It's so shocking to the conscience that it's a substantive due process violation.
I've had cases where people died in state custody and courts said that wasn't a substantive due process violation.
No way this is a substantive due process violation.
They would just have to make up law out of whole cloth.
The state tort claims don't exist because of immunity issues.
So all you're left with is the supremacy clause and the completely bogus discrimination claims.
They don't even allege facts.
That these people were targeted because they were Venezuelan.
Because they were Latino.
They don't even allege the facts.
They just stick those claims in.
This is racist.
This is racist.
You've got to actually allege racism.
Robert, you know what's amazing is that the sucking and blowing of politics.
In certain circumstances, Venezuelans, and I've had this discussion, are not a race because they have European descent.
They have mestizos.
In certain contexts, Venezuelan...
They're Caucasian, according to some.
In other contexts, it's racism.
DeSantis, by the way, gets strong support from the Venezuelan community in Florida.
This wasn't targeting Venezuelan.
The backstory here is Venezuela is pulling another Muriel boat lift like Castro did.
For those that don't know, what Castro did to screw with the U.S. was he took all the people in his asylums.
And all the people that were the worst people in his prisons.
And he said, hey, want a free boat to America?
There you go.
Watch old Jimmy Carter twist.
Because our policy was we welcome any Cubans.
And that's, of course, the movie Scarface is partially about that.
The Venezuelans decided to return the favor.
So they are apparently releasing some of their hardest core criminals and sending them up to America.
It's not clear whether this group is part of that or not.
But that's the backstory as to why Venezuelans, who have otherwise been pretty welcoming in Florida, may have been caught in the middle of all this.
But the problem is, one credibility issue, and it was them claiming they told me something, that I signed something different as a general rule, can't get there.
But even if they did, no grounds that that's a federal civil rights violation.
And there's no evidence of racial or national origin discrimination.
So what they're left with is a supremacy clause claim.
Which is the federal government has exclusive prerogative over our external borders for immigration purposes.
But this was not done as deportation.
So this isn't immigration.
So there is no supremacy clause claim.
This is a frivolous lawsuit that totally depends on a politically prejudiced court to allow it to go forward for any minute of time at all.
Let me just bring up the causes of action.
Oh, son of a beasting.
Hold on.
What I love also, by the way, in the complaint, it actually alleges that they were flown on a charter plane.
At $12,800 per ticket.
I mean, they're trying to score the political points.
Their last claim is misappropriation of federal funds.
They don't have standing to bring that claim.
I'm not a fan of the standing doctrine, but if it's going to be consistently enforced, they sure as heck don't have grounds to sue.
Listen to this.
The first cause of action, there's 12, so bear with us.
Violation of 4th and 14th Amendment.
Illegal seizure.
False arrest pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983.
Civil rights devil.
Yeah, didn't happen.
Violation 14th Amendment.
Substantive due process.
Yeah, this wasn't shocking to the conscience.
Didn't happen.
Dismissed.
Violation of 14th Amendment.
Equal protection pursuant to 42 USC 1983.
There was no racial discrimination here.
Bogus, not even alleged.
Dismissed.
Against defendants DeSantis.
What was it?
Violation 42 USC.
Oh.
What is this?
Fourth cause of action.
Violation of 42 U.S.C.
I have to pull that up.
I don't know what that is.
It's a specific statute that prohibits racial discrimination.
Didn't happen.
Don't even allege it.
Motion to dismiss.
Okay.
Let's keep going.
Violation of the Supremacy Clause.
You dealt with that one, Robert.
Yeah.
Dismissed.
Procedural due process, 42 U.S.C.
against all defendants.
Dismissed.
There was no state action here that involved a substance of property or liberty interest.
They were never arrested.
Period.
And civil rights.
I guess conspiracy then goes out the window as well if that doesn't exist in the first place.
Yeah, conspiracy is not a separate tort.
This is just lazy lefties writing nonsense.
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Act.
This is their claim that the federal funding that was used for this funding, in part, was misapplied.
That's not their right.
And it would be the most unique place.
Hey, I got money that didn't belong to me.
It's a claim they don't have legal grounds to sue on.
Dismiss.
All right.
False arrest, fraud.
A bunch of torts.
Don't apply.
Immunity.
Intentional influence of emotional distress.
Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.
Why a class action as a vehicle and not a joiner of actions or just individual plaintiffs?
There's only 48 of them.
Oh, I mean, the...
Oh, if it's...
You can...
Yeah, it's kind of bogus to call it a class action.
They're trying to tag in other people that aren't even part of their case, in this case.
So that's what they're trying to do.
It's really a joint action of 48 plaintiffs.
Okay, and that's assuming all 48 are...
And I'm sure...
What promises have they made?
Do the illegal aliens get to sue the lawyers if the lawyers made false promises to them about what would happen with this lawsuit?
What I love, in the lawsuit, Robert, it says...
They were promised jobs, accommodation, and other necessities.
I mean, what they're basically saying is that's the promise everybody makes to begin with, except that promise only applies to border states or border towns, not to Martha's Vineyard.
I mean, they're not legally entitled to any of it, to begin with.
And it's also what these communities originally said.
Sanctuary committee said.
But again, it's not actionable grounds to sue.
It just isn't.
So they're going to have to make it up.
They're relying on the kind of court that presided over the Project Veritas.
You beat me to it.
We're going to get to it now.
Project Veritas, I won't bring up the article, but this is the case where they had a mole applied to get an internship within the...
The corrupt election fornication machine of the Democratic Party.
And the person got in.
Secretly recorded conversations with very politically connected individuals, Bob Kramer in particular, got some very compromising recordings.
Project Veritas puts out a highly edited expose.
And by definition, I'll concede.
What's the word?
What is the word when you agree to something?
I'll concede.
It was highly edited because when you have hundreds of hours of footage and you have to put it into something smaller, it's highly edited by definition, but not necessarily deceptively edited.
For deceptive editing, go to the plaintiffs lawyers in the Sandy Alex Jones trial.
That's what deceptive editing looks like.
We'll get there, but right now, when they say highly edited and they intend to use it interchangeably with deceptively edited because that's how they use the terms interchangeably.
So this organization, I forget the name, they sue Project Veritas, the democracy...
Ah, I forget the name.
They sue Project Veritas for fraud and for...
What was the other basis?
What was the other cause of action?
Preposterous.
Fraudulent misrepresentations to obtain secret recordings, deceptive editing, and damages.
And they win.
Because they're in the District of Columbia.
They won a jury verdict, which said that when you go undercover...
If you lie to the object of your undercover reporting, that's fraud, and that's deceptive, and that can lead to damages.
There's a part of me that can understand a part of this lawsuit.
If you apply for a job, and the idea is like, well, I'm an undercover reporter.
You're lying.
You are committing some form of fraud, but I don't know what statute they would specifically rely on to say it's some form of civil fraud.
But you are committing fraud.
But how is it fraud?
In other words, did they give you...
Are you suing for the money you gave them?
Because that's what fraud is.
Fraud isn't, hey, I got access to your secrets because...
But that would be an invasion of privacy claim.
But they don't have that claim.
So the fraud would be, I gave you a job, I wouldn't have given it to you otherwise.
The damages then would be measurable by...
How much money you're out of pocket that you wouldn't have been and you hired somebody else.
That's not what they're suing for.
Or the damages that result from the person not doing the job the way they undertook to do the job.
To my knowledge, I've never heard of such a suit being unauthorized.
I'm playing devil's advocate because something, I mean literally, something rings a bit.
If I'm employing people, they say, yeah, I'm going to do a good job.
I get into your business and I document your wrongdoing, which was my intention all along.
Cause you damages.
I lied to get my foot in the door.
You paid me for me not to do my job properly.
And also I do the job in a way that costs you money.
I would go to my way to find a cause of action there.
It's the fact that this is within the context of what is undercover expose journalism and people doing their homework and due diligence on the people they hire when you're in certain organizations, political in nature, newsworthy in nature, and involved in nature.
It's not like going into a mom and pop's shop.
As an undercover IRS agent, saying, hire me, I'll do your bookkeeping, but I'm only there to find crimes.
Which is, I mean, all undercover policing.
I mean, by this theory, undercover policing is all illegal.
Well, except they'll argue undercover policing gets court authorization.
I mean, there's actually no court authorization in advance.
Say what you just said again, Robert?
There's no court authorization in advance at all.
I mean, the courts just...
Don't consider this actionable for a range of reasons.
And again, to my experience, it's not actionable.
And it's not just because that it's either undercover police or undercover reporting.
That raises the stakes.
But generally speaking, if you hire someone, you can impose a non-disclosure agreement on them.
And then you sue them for the damages you suffer from a nondisclosure agreement.
If you hire someone and you don't require a nondisclosure agreement, you're a problem.
But the problem with the NDAs is that people have used those to suppress whistleblowers.
And then you and I, and I think right-minded people in the actual sense, not the political sense, say you can't use an NDA to prohibit whistleblowing.
I mean, that's...
Correct.
I mean, we've always carved out that exception.
I mean, this is an attempt to get around all those.
That's what this is.
I mean, it's a claim that never should have gone forward.
It's similar to some of the craziness in the Alex Jones trial, where he's being sued for consumer fraud.
It's like, what?
So, I mean, there's no grounds for that.
So that's the problem.
They're attempting to make it illegal for you to expose their bad acts.
That's the end of this.
And we have laws that say, no, you can't do that.
And yet, that's what happened.
And then you have a D.C. jury pool that's such a joke that they are a political rubber stamp.
For the right cause.
Again, it reinforces the real remedy here, aside from courts clarifying both protected actions of speech and press and not allowing these torts to get around limitations we've imposed on them in comparable and analogous context and factually identical context.
But we've got to get rid of the District of Columbia as an independent federal jurisdiction.
It must end.
This is an embarrassment.
It's being politically weaponized for politicized purposes in civil and criminal cases.
The swamp should not get to judge the swamp.
The Blake Masters, J.D. Vance, other people, Joe Kent, others, Thomas Massey, should say it's time to actually drain the swamp, and the first way to do so is to end the District of Columbia as its own jurisdiction, period.
End of story.
Then most of these things don't happen.
Robert, someone in the chat in Rumble, not a Rumble rant, just a comment, says, how did they lie to get their job?
I can't purport to know the details of that trial.
I was not following it.
I know what happened.
To me, the idea that everyone conducts a business not knowing if someone is coming in to infiltrate...
I guess you're right.
The NDA would resolve a lot of unfair business practices.
It wouldn't pertain to...
If what gets outed is your illegal activity, your problem, not their problem, that's how we've said the NDA doesn't go that far, and for good cause, good reason, and can't for a bunch of public policy reasons.
So we limit the contractual enforceable remedies because we don't want to prohibit disclosure of wrongful conduct.
I mean, that's...
And they're trying to circumvent it all because people instinctively sound, well, I wouldn't want to be taped by someone I didn't know was taping me in ways that will embarrass me.
Well, then you can bring an invasion of privacy claim under certain circumstances.
But if you consented to them being there, if it's in a one-party state so that only one party has to know about the recording, that's on you.
And if you want to protect your privacy in that context, then there's an NDA.
If what they're saying has no public policy, invasion of privacy torts have these limits on it.
If what they're saying is no public benefit, then you can sue.
But when it does have a public benefit, you're limited.
They're skirting all of these legal provisions.
Hold on, what was I just about to say?
And the jury pools are a joke.
A six-figure verdict?
For what?
For having your crimes exposed?
In D.C., you get money if you riot, if you're on the right side politically.
You get money if you loot.
You get money if you burn.
Now you get money if your crimes get exposed.
That's how the D.C. works now.
What was particularly...
Concrete evidence of the bias of the jury is that they refer to it as deceptive, highly edited videos.
What Project Veritas put out was factually correct.
Now, I don't know what evidence was adduced during the trial, whether or not they showed, whether or not the plaintiffs showed that, oh yeah, it was edited in such a way to give it a meaning that it did not have in real time.
I doubt that.
In fact, I'm certain it wasn't.
Those videos were not deceptive.
They were edited because they have to be.
But the jury came to the conclusion that embarrassing information being released and put into a short, digestible format is deceptive.
I mean, that's where they're off the deep end, and they had to find the solution that they wanted to come to, which was, oh, this is embarrassing, and we need to punish them for it, so how do we get there?
If you're a Democrat and your crimes get exposed, you get to sue the other person for exposing your crimes, and the government will investigate the person who exposed your crimes and try to put you in prison.
That's the new America legal system under the Biden administration.
Well, that's a good segue.
That is a good segue into Alex Jones, Robert.
I mean, I played the two-minute highlight from one of the highlights from Alex Jones' testimony in chief from...
Attorney Maddie.
I explained it.
We discussed it a bit in the beginning.
With the clarification, thanks to whomever it was, it was the examination-in-chief and not the cross-examination from Attorney Maddie.
Robert, it's...
Tell me.
I mean, Maddie's conduct as an attorney, it's beyond unprofessional.
I don't care how much he hates Alex Jones.
It was over the top in all respects, and it turned into an absolute gong show.
But Robert, Jones is sitting there having to remind the judge that he can't talk about his bankruptcy, that he can't talk about any slew of other things.
For those who don't know, why legally?
What is the rationale as to why Jones cannot talk about the bankruptcy of free speech systems?
Because this is a show trial where he was supposed to be scripted as the villain and he refused to play along.
But the judge, like people have asked, why is the defense not talking about the fact that Alex Jones didn't make money off InfoWars?
That money came from other sources?
Oh no, you mean off the Sandy Hook coverage?
Right, right.
Neither InfoWars nor Alex Jones made any money off of saying Sandy Hook didn't happen.
That didn't happen.
That's what's a hoax.
No, but I don't know.
You could never make that argument because they might make money just by virtue of...
You mean the click-through to the product placement and the ads?
They're going to have made money.
They had no evidence of that because it doesn't exist.
Because here's the problem.
Alex Jones almost never denied Sandy Hook.
Was never really part of the Sandy Hook denier movement.
He answered two callers' questions.
Wasn't tied to any advertising of all at any time.
There was no tie to it.
Well, no, they're putting up just the standard evidence of running a business online the way it's not related to Sandy Hook.
That's their problem.
So why is he not allowed to explain that?
That none of this has anything to do with Sandy Hook.
His financial success?
Nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
The main evidence of which is that two things.
Over 99% of everything InfoWars published and broadcast said Sandy Hook happened.
Right.
Number two.
Sadie Hook coverage was less than 1% of all coverage during this time frame.
Those are critical facts that tell you, did he make money or not?
Well, no, it would only prove that 1% of the money he made over that time frame came from the objective.
Well, but it would have to be a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage.
It would have to be, if you imputed value to it, it would be one one-thousandth of 1%.
But remember, they have all his financial information.
So they know what days he made those statements, and they could try to tie it in.
Why haven't they?
Well, they're trying to do it because I have.
He didn't make money.
Sandy Hook was a net loser for him.
Challenging Sandy Hook cost him money, cost him support.
But, Robin, I'll just skip that debate because some people will say, well, look, he covered it.
He ran ads that day.
He got ad revenue.
He was, you know, using his numbers, whatever.
Again, the plaintiffs have that.
Why haven't they talked about it one time?
I can tell you why.
Because you look at the actual details, they didn't make money connected to it.
They couldn't show any connection at all to him making money to it.
So that's a core problem with their whole theory of the case.
Not only did he not originate it, didn't instigate it, never sent people to people's homes, never said anybody's name but one person once, and that was in a different context.
And so all of it, they don't have any of their theory, but also he didn't make money off of it.
Yet you've heard tons of evidence.
On how he supposedly made hundreds of millions of dollars off Sandy Hook.
So why is the facts not coming out?
Because the judge said he cannot tell the jury how little he covered Sandy Hook.
He cannot tell the jury how he didn't make money off Sandy Hook.
He cannot tell the jury how it cost him more than it helped him.
He cannot tell the jury how 99% of his info was covered said Sandy Hook happened.
Because they have to build a lie for the jury to buy in order to write a big check for things that don't even relate to compensatory damages.
But, Robert, I haven't misunderstood that the legal reason for which Jones is now prohibited under contempt of court, and she's been very keen to remind everybody of this, about the bankruptcy, is that if he tells the jury that InfoWars or free speech systems or he is bankrupt, that might impact the quantum they would be inclined to award.
At this stage of the proceedings?
The problem is nothing about Jones' finances is relevant to the compensatory damage.
None of it is.
They're allowed to present all the evidence that suggests he's rich and famous off of Sandy Hook.
He's not allowed to explain how he's in bankruptcy and didn't make money off Sandy Hook and hardly ever covered it.
And 99% of the coverage that Sandy Hook happened.
Why?
Because the truth would lead to a low verdict.
That's why.
This is a fake case.
about supposedly fake news.
The case is a fake case because you have a corrupt judge and a rogue ambulance chaser plaintiff's lawyer trying to tell a lie to the world with the help of libelers like Elizabeth Williamson, who is the real person who has grifted and made money off of Sandy Hook.
You know who the biggest moneymakers are off of Sandy Hook?
The media.
The media knows every time they glamorize a mass shooter that it increases the probability And the media wants it to happen because they line their pockets with it.
And the Democratic politicians in Connecticut, aligned with this corrupt court system and lawyer, also make political gain off of it because it's their excuse to take away everybody's guns.
There is an incentive by the media and the Democratic politicians, and why they're weaponizing this case in part, to encourage another mass shooting to happen.
They want it because they get rich off of it.
They want it because they get political power off of it.
That's the reality they don't want anybody talking about because Alex Jones was the one talking about it.
The studies that they've shown that they've demonstrated about copycat people getting motivated by the glamour that the media gives is undeniable.
People just need to look it up.
And the media knows this.
Because the media's even talked about it.
And then they do it again.
They talk about how they shouldn't do it.
Don't mention the guy's name.
And then they do it.
And they spend weeks covering The perpetrator and not other issues.
But Robert, the bankruptcy issue is the only one.
I just don't understand it because the rationale is what you just explained.
The judge says...
Because it counters...
Oh, I mean, none of it is relevant.
His finances are not relevant.
No, no, hold on.
Stop, stop, stop.
I understand that.
But if the jury were to know that they're in bankruptcy protection now, the reason for which the judge ostensibly is saying, you can't tell that because it'll influence the jury to give a lowball amount because they're in bankruptcy.
If I'm...
I would argue the exact opposite, that if they know the company's in bankrupt, they'll give a massive verdict because no harm, no foul.
They have no money.
So what's the difference?
You don't know what its impact would be on the jury, but mostly it's to be able for them to tell a lie to the jury, to write a big check when none of it is relevant to the trial at all.
I understand the rationale.
If they hear bankruptcy, they hear punishment.
They hear suffering.
They don't see super rich guy getting powerful off of San Diego.
It completely negates the plaintiff's narrative.
That's why it's not being allowed.
Not because there's good legal grounds to let one in and not let the other in.
That much I understood.
I'm someone in the chat that I'm not playing devil's advocate.
First of all, I've got to raise the arguments that other people would raise.
The other thing that I understand in terms of why he's precluded from discussing finances is the reason that, Robert, the unstated reason is that it would then get into a discussion about...
Where he made the money, how he made it, and why his channel grew.
Just so everybody appreciates it.
If you watch that examination, the plaintiff's lawyer was falsely trying to imply that all of his money and success comes from, that he's one, currently very successful, and secondly, that all of it comes from Sandy Hook.
Both of which are lies.
They're lies by the lawyer.
The court wants, that this corrupt court wants the jury to believe her truth.
And that's why, not only that, the judge actually ordered that Alex Jones couldn't even give meaningful answers.
Said you have to say yes or no.
You can only say yes or no.
People have to watch that.
That's what I find shocking.
Yes, no, I don't know.
That's not how answers work when you're being asked questions of the nature of the outcome.
They have like four subparts to them.
These are like Senate.
This is one of the worst.
If you want to see how not to be a lawyer, watch this political hack Chris Maddy in court.
He was so bad at controlling his own.
This was not only theater, it was bad theater.
This was not only a show trial, it was an ugly show trial.
I'll say this.
I find Maddie's behavior more offensive to the victims of Sandy Hook here than Attorney Pattis.
I'll just read one Rumble rant.
It's from Jean Diaz 021 says, I'm sorry, but that plaintiff lawyer in the Jones case is completely detestable.
I know the judge is letting him do it, but it's despicable.
Yeah, I mean, everybody that thought that I was exaggerating now realize otherwise.
Now, credit to...
GoodLogic, who's now covering this trial.
Credit to Nick Ricada, who's now covering the trial.
Ricada actually, you know, he got so enraged he had to take down the video later and put up an edited version.
Because anybody watching this is like even on civil law.
Some people that are hostile to Jones are saying that they can't justify this judge's behavior.
They can't justify this plaintiff's lawyer's behavior.
They're seeing an embarrassment.
This is a group that lives in such a small world.
They think like the Soviets did with show trials and like Castro did.
They thought that the reason why trials create confidence in the public that some outcome was justice to an individual is because of the appearance of a trial, the illusion of a trial.
There's a juror.
There's a judge.
There's lawyers.
There's advocacy.
There's testimony.
What they don't understand is it's the confidence and the substance of those proceedings that creates confidence in the public.
When they see a show trial, Not only does it not instill confidence in the outcome, it actually instills doubt in everything that's going on.
And it goes beyond that.
It instills doubt in the justice system itself.
Study anybody who was part of those communities and those show trial worlds, and it led to undermining belief in the justice system of their government, not enhancing it, and diminishing confidence in the outcome.
I mean, this is so bad that Elizabeth Williamson for the New York Times.
Loves to grift off of Sandy Hook.
Loves to make money off of these people's pain.
I mean, everything they accuse Jones of is who these plaintiff's lawyers are, is who Elizabeth Williamson is, is who the media is.
They love it when these parents suffer horribly because they can just go cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching with interview after interview with Big Pharma ad in between.
Just lining up, filling their pockets.
But it's why they can't challenge what the media does.
They can't challenge what politicians do.
They can't challenge what Big Pharma does.
They can't challenge what the mental health industry do.
They can't challenge school safety protocols because that doesn't serve their money making profit.
This whole case has been an exposure of confession.
Through projection.
What they accuse Alex Jones of is what Elizabeth Williamson is guilty of, is what the New York Times is guilty of, is what CNN is guilty of.
And she goes out and makes up a total statement.
She says that Norm Pattis decided not to call Alex Jones for cross-examination because he was so embarrassed at how horrible Alex Jones was on the stand.
It was completely made up.
It was a complete fabrication of a total lie.
Let me stop you there so that no one accuses you of the bias because you represented Alex Jones.
And I don't think you're compromising your assessment, but people are going to say that you're biased.
What happened is that Matty examined Jones.
He was getting into so many issues that Jones had been precluded by this judge to get into that Attorney Pat has basically said, I'm not going to cross-examine him because I'm going to be so limited in the scope by what he's not allowed to get into but I think I need to get into to re-establish what had been the door that had been opened by Maddie.
I want to avoid that.
I'm going to just call Alex as my witness where I have a little more latitude to get to the things that I think need to be gotten to without breaching the court orders as to what he's not allowed to get into.
But it really, really, really set like a trap.
And the fact that Matty was able to ask so many questions that the judge knew he was not allowed to ask, that Jones was not allowed to answer, that he did it anyhow.
And then let Jones answer, was it, am I getting a little too blackpilled?
Was he trying to set Jones up for the criminal contempt that the judge was so eagerly awaiting for?
I mean, probably so.
I mean, but anybody who watched that did not come away.
With thinking Jones fell apart, it was that Maddie fell apart.
Jones was very sharp, defended himself fully, made clear I've apologized to the family, but I'm not apologizing to ambulance-chasing plaintiff's lawyers.
Made it clear, like he said, this is also material that's completely irrelevant.
What Jones says outside the courtroom about a court, I've never heard that ever be relevant to a trial ever in my life.
During the trial, it's not like statements he made contemporaneously with the acts.
What relevance does it have to compensatory damages for these plaintiffs?
It has none.
But you refer to the judge as a tyrant.
And he said, yep.
And Matty said, you just refer to anybody you don't like as a tyrant.
He goes, nope, only the people that act like tyrants.
And he says, move to strike.
He says, move to strike.
Move to strike is an answer from his own question, which he was doing all the time.
This was an out-of-control plaintiff's lawyer, an out-of-control court, an out-of-control case.
Credit to Nick Ricada and GoodLogic and others for covering it.
Frankly, LawTube should have been covering it more.
You can't all be a bunch of wussies glamming off a celebrity case.
God bless you, but step up to the plate.
And in fairness to me, Robert, Jones came up the day I was on a plane going to New York for the Rumble and coming back on Friday.
But I was watching it.
It was worse than anybody could possibly imagine.
Nobody could watch that and say that the plaintiff's attorney conducted himself in a professional, competent manner.
It was...
It was great.
It was bad.
Bad theater.
It was a hissy fit for the sake of it because he thinks the hissy fit will get him virtue points.
It's kind of like the insanity of the Trump Attorney General case in New York.
The derangement of the 11th Circuit case.
But before we get to either, probably good to get to the Amos Miller case.
Amos Miller.
We've talked about this a couple of times.
This is the Amish farmer.
And again, people, I'm going to steel man this because There is another side.
It's not, according to some, just the case of an Amish farmer who's being picked on for selling his local product to locals.
The basis of the issue is that allegedly this Amish farmer is not employing safe practices for farming.
He's not properly labeling products.
Apparently in 2014, a death was associated.
With milk that he produced.
He's not just a local guy.
He's shipping across the country with a network.
Complex network of distribution.
So it's not just a mom and pop's Amish farmer.
This is an industry.
And it needs to be regulated the way the industry is regulated to ensure that people don't die from drinking, you know, poison milk.
That's the steel man of the other side.
He was issued...
Well, I mean, the core of it is that what's happening...
You have a farmer who...
Family farm.
Doesn't sell in retail.
Sells to a private membership association.
So these are people who want their food made in a very particular way.
They do not want their food controlled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
They do not want certain chemicals on their food.
They do not want certain additives or preservatives on their food.
In fact, his entire customer base is based on people who do not want.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's version of food.
So that's the background for the case.
Further broader context is, let's get to the short-term issue.
Come October 31st, he faces a hearing in which the U.S. government is seeking over $300,000 to start.
There won't be the end of it.
$300,000 and potentially millions of dollars to the point where they could bankrupt.
They want a judgment added to the case where his wife will be added to the judgment without any due process at all.
As a defendant after the fact.
Correct.
As a defendant after the fact, just added, here's a judgment.
It's on you now.
Just like that.
End of story.
They want the judgment to be immediately collectible so they can seize the farm, seize all assets that they want immediately.
And if he doesn't go along, they want him put in prison.
They want him jailed until he does what they want.
So you have a farmer facing imprisonment, his wife facing an imminent judgment, him facing a huge amount of money, and that could lead to the bankruptcy of the farm, unless he does exactly what his community of faith and what the people buying the food do not want him to do, which is have USDA licensed, marketed, branded, chemical, preservative, added food.
So now let's go to the broader legal context of how all this came about.
In 1906 or thereabout, even before then, there was efforts afoot.
Big agriculture wanted to consolidate their power against smaller farmers.
That's one part of the equation, beginning in the 1900s.
The second was Upton Sinclair wrote a book called The Jungle, which purported to expose the Chicago stockyards as producing unsafe food.
Sinclair famously joked, I aim to hit their heart, I hit their stomach instead.
Now, the book is a fictional book.
It was taken as accurate muckraking.
There's controversy to this day how accurate in fact was.
Regardless, European meat producers used the book to say American meat's unsafe.
We have to keep it out of our European markets as a competitive edge.
The answer to that was Roosevelt passed the Meat Act and the Poultry Act.
Now, Congress was concerned that the federal government would take control over the family farm.
Congress was concerned.
And it was doubtful whether the Commerce Clause extended that far.
Today, the Interstate Commerce Clause has been expanded to where it's kind of a crock.
But under the original understanding, our federal government would only deal with trade between states, not deal with any intrastate activity.
We've eviscerated that under a range of theories, but that's another story for another day.
Congress wanted to lock into the law that the U.S. Department of Agriculture would not be...
Regulating family farms.
Would not be regulating how we make our own meat and our own food.
Would not be regulating religious communities that use animal sacrifice as rituals as a method of religious expression.
So they said this law only applies to food shipped into and through interstate commerce.
Now, what is that traditionally understood to be meant?
The goal was that I have a consumer.
I go to my local grocery store.
I want assurances that the food meets some method of safety testing.
A proxy for that is that it could be USDA marked.
And that the mark, basically just like the FDA, the USDA was created as a branding agency, a marketing agency, whose power was to inspect those facilities that wanted to distribute across state lines into the retail markets of unknowing consumers to protect the consumer's knowledge.
It was never supposed to be regulating small farms in America.
It was never supposed to regulate voluntary consumer choices in America.
It was not what the USDA is trying to become.
And by the way, this case started under Trump because Trump had no eye on the ball for what his own administration was doing.
Bill Barr helped propagate this lunatic case that you have a situation because for the fact, they never showed that Amos Miller product caused any harm at all.
And as a general rule, And here's a key fact.
How many consumers of Amos Miller are protesting or filed a complaint?
Zero.
Zilch.
Zuka.
Nada.
When I'm reading the news from the other side that wants to depict the Amish farmer as the enemy, they say one death was attributed to his milk in 2014.
If that's the unit of measurement, how many deaths have been attributed to...
Anything that bears the USDA stamp of approval.
They never even proved up that tie.
And by the way, what does it have to do with his meat and poultry or anything else?
What it is, is they're trying to use this case as a means to establish a precedent that the USDA wants to take what was supposed to be interstate labeling control, and they want to govern what you get to put in your own body, your own food and your own body.
Here you have people are saying, I don't want food the way the USDA wants it.
They're saying, nope.
You can't have it that way.
And we'll use our control over interstate labeling of a product that's not even being distributed in regular interstate means going to local grocers or retailers.
It's going to people who said, I only want this product this way.
They're trying to deny what was supposed to be about increasing consumers informed choice is now being used to strip them of that choice.
And remember the USDA, you know what they consider healthy?
Bill Gates synthetic corn.
That's what they consider healthy.
Bill Gates, biggest landowner now in America.
His fake beef, that's what they consider healthy.
Do any study of the Amish, and you will find by almost every health metric, they are healthier.
This is about the USDA's attempt to monopolize our food supply.
And they targeted an Amish farmer to prove the precedent.
And that's why they're going to such extreme lengths.
I mean, there was even a part of a ruling which said that Amos Miller had to label what he was going to produce for his own family and say, here's what George is eating.
Here's what Lucy's eating.
Federal judges are making insane orders that are way past their power.
And what it is is the USDA knows they can't do this directly.
So they're using judicial process to do so.
They bring a case based on something that isn't quite related.
And then they expand, expand, expand.
And then like we're seeing in the Alex Jones trial, they misuse judicial power and the threat of contempt.
So you're getting ridiculous monetary judgments without a jury trial.
You're getting...
Orders to put somebody in prison who's committed no crime.
That's how insane it's getting.
And that's why Amos Miller's case impacts everybody.
It's about your right to eat what you want the way you made it, and the federal government ain't got no business with it.
Well, because it's the distinction that you draw, which is going to a grocery store and buying products which you assume have gone through some, I don't know.
Some standard of production is one thing.
If I go to the wonderful USDA food charts and food products that have done such wonders for our health over the last 30, 40 years.
And set that aside.
But if I go to the ostrich farm in St. Eustache and I get an organic ostrich egg, I know for certain.
And that's why I'm there is to get it from this particular farm because they have products I want.
They do it in the way I want.
And now they're going to come in and say, no, you can't sell these ostrich eggs.
You can't sell this ostrich meat.
Unless we impose the USDA requirements here where the very people going here are going here because they don't want those.
And that was an exclusion.
So there is an exclusion.
Now it's just a question of extent and scope.
This guy sells interstate, which is what the article that I read highlighted.
But it's from people who deliberately seek out this producer because of the way he produces and not by accident getting it on a shelf thinking it went through the USDA.
And the reason they targeted him is in the Amish community, they shun publicity and try to avoid the legal system.
So the government knew this would be a very vulnerable target.
There wouldn't be a fight back in the court of public opinion, in all likelihood.
There wouldn't be much of a fight in the court of law.
And he tried to fire his lawyer multiple times.
The court wouldn't allow him to.
Has superimposed that lawyer on the case, and this lawyer is out bashing his own client to liberal press.
And this is a lawyer, when you dig into his history, has a long record of ethics complaints, has a long record of investigations and suspensions.
So here you have a federal court, like a star chamber, forcing a rogue lawyer on someone who doesn't want him, who's behaving in a patently...
It's funny, one of the articles that I read also brought up the fact that this Amish guy had gone through several lawyers, as if to paint him as a difficult client.
There's very few people that are in this field.
There's very few people who understand the broader political context.
There's very few people that are willing, and people in the Amish community don't want public attention.
But this case needs to be publicly discussed and exposed.
Credit to Tucker Carlson for talking about it.
Because of the consequences.
It's about our right to farm the way we want and the food we want, the way we want it.
The USDA is trying to strip that away from us.
And they're willing to lock up an Amish farmer in order to prove their point and bankrupt them in the process if they can and his wife and his family to prove their point.
Now, I think there was a GoFundMe at which they're using.
Yeah, I think they're using GoFundMe, unfortunately.
And they were trying to raise some of the money.
They got up to like $30,000.
I can't share the GoFundMe.
You can go find it if you want, but I'll maybe send out a little feeler to see if they start a Give, Send, Go.
He does have a new lawyer.
Robert, who might that be?
Me.
Someone in the chat just says, why doesn't Robert represent them?
Robert?
Okay, so I guess I'll post the links where people can support, but it has to be a Give, Send, Go, people.
It can't be GoFundMe.
As I still call it, GoF me.
So, Robert, the next stage is...
Has it been pushed to October?
In October 31st hearing to try to put him in prison.
Put him in prison for not paying a fine.
There's been a bunch of crazy things when I read through the docket.
It's a case that went AWOL because the government hasn't kept it on track and didn't keep the court properly informed about the limits of what the court should be doing.
And the combination of the two is how we got here.
And you got someone who's not familiar with the federal legal system, the legal process, the regulatory process, just trying to do...
What his community of faith has always done, how his family has always farmed, and what people want him to produce.
And he's just trying to do that the best he can with, you know, rogue USDA agents who shockingly are lying repeatedly throughout the proceeding.
We'll be inquiring into that aspect and other aspects.
But it's a case that needs to be fought back on in every terms possible to achieve a resolution that protects the right to farm as you see fit and for us to pick food as we see fit.
Because the USDA has gotten way too big for its britches.
That threatens our food and fuel, our food and farming in America.
All right.
And now I was told, shut up.
Is this it?
Anki, Maine for Amos Miller.
There's a Give, Send, Go.
And it said at least $162,000 on Give, Send, Go.
Amos Miller Organic Farm is our century-old Amish farm.
Okay, I just shared the link, people.
I hope it's the right link.
Yeah, that sounds like the right link.
160,000.
Okay, well, there's the link again, people, if anybody wants it.
All right, so, Robin, we'll obviously have...
Because it's our right to eat what we want.
The government's preferred big ag-favored chemicals, which is, by the way, what the whole...
It was always a big scam.
It was a marketing labeling to prevent Europeans blocking it, but it was mostly so big ag could run out small agriculture.
The more you increase the regulatory cost, you provide scale.
You basically incentivize scale.
So big agriculture gets to dominate.
And what it is, is all of us are seeing the crap we've been eating for the past 40 years, thanks to that ridiculous pyramid chart and all the processed food they've been sticking down our throats.
You go into a grocery store, there's almost nothing there you can buy that's actually good for you.
It's almost all crap on top of crap on top of crap.
And so you have ordinary people trying to fight back by becoming very self-educated, becoming very self-informed, get what they want.
I mean, that's why they hate Alex Jones in the supplement market.
It's people trying to get away from big pharma.
The same thing here.
People are trying to get away from big ag and they want to be able to eat what they want that will be healthier for them and their families.
And the government's trying to prohibit it because basically the U.S. Department of Agriculture is just the marketing department of big ag.
All right, now I think we're only going to have time for Robert.
Have we missed it?
We can cover the Trump.
Cover the two Trump cases.
You're going to have to explain how Leticia James has the power to file a civil suit against Trump.
Filing a civil suit where they want, on the basis of fraud, that Trump overstated the value of buildings, the value of his property, when getting loans from banks.
The bank never complained.
The bank got repaid.
The bank was apparently aware of it, which is where I have the greatest difficulty understanding any potential fraud, if the bank knew.
That it was being over-evaluated for whatever the reason.
And Leticia James is suing civilly to misappropriate the profit made from the sale of properties, not from the interest that ought to have been paid if loans were set out at the proper rates.
The profit from the sale of properties.
I got so many questions, Robert, because I don't understand how this lawsuit has any basis.
How can Leticia James file a civil suit?
A frivolous claim, for lack of a better word.
You know, and maybe good logic will break it down because it's a New York state law issue.
It's Executive Law 63, Section 12, which, of course, as always, gives the state way too much power.
And what it's intended to do is that if you have a full-scale, wholesale, fraudulent business that's scamming and hurting people on a regular basis, the Attorney General can intervene and have the court appoint a receiver, divest profits.
It's meant to protect the ordinary consumer in the state from a pathologically fraudulent business that can't be dealt with in any other form.
Now, my view is states should never have this power.
Tort law can resolve this problem, and plenty.
And now we see with Letitia James why this is so dangerous.
So she got elected on the campaign platform that if they voted for her, she would go after Donald Trump.
She should never have been allowed to use her office for these purposes with such a clear, specific retaliatory purpose in violation of the First Amendment.
But both the state and federal courts have turned a blind eye to it because it's Donald Trump.
She then put everybody connected to Trump under massive, whole-scale, wide investigation for looking at everything he'd ever done for over 20 years, every business transaction, every personal filing, every bank filing, every tax filing of he or his family or any business connected to him.
And all she could come up with is that she disagrees with how Trump rates his brand.
There's no consumer complaint.
There's no victim identified at all.
No bank is complaining.
No real estate deal is complaining.
No other government official is complaining.
No consumer is complaining.
It is the only such case ever brought in the history of America.
Where you have an attempt, and let's talk about what she wants.
She wants a monetary judgment that would strip him of all of his money, wants a receiver appointed that would take over all of his businesses and all of his assets, would decertify all of his businesses in the state of New York, would ban him from ever borrowing money from a bank again, and would prohibit other things.
The state wants to own Trump.
Prohibit his family from doing business in New York in any way, shape, or form.
But Robert, The bank knew that he was over-evaluating assets, whatever, and still gave him a loan.
I mean, this is a dispute over brand value.
You're right.
Whether they thought it was overvalued or not, none of them ever complained, ever.
My question is this.
And by the way, if they thought that he got the better of the deal...
They have plenty of remedies.
They're the bank.
I guarantee you they thought that valuation was sufficient for the purposes of lending them money.
Banks don't give money to people that they think are making up the information.
And they made money and got paid back.
But my question is this.
If it's wrong for Trump to borrow against overvalued assets, if the bank knew it, is it not equally wrong for the bank to lend against overvalued assets?
And if they're going after Trump, why shouldn't they be going after the bank with the same remedies?
Well, because, of course, there's no injury.
As you point out, there was full repayment of the loan.
So, I mean, the problem is that this is a case of no injury, no victim, period.
That this was a political witch hunt that is weaponizing every means of state power to strip Trump of all of his property and all of his basic rights.
It's a reminder, James O 'Keefe, get out of New York.
Get out of New York.
Get out of California.
Get out of New York.
Get out of Chi-Town.
Get out of these states.
These states are politically weaponizing every tool available to go after their political dissidents to where they will strip you of your basic rights, liberties, and property if you stay in those states.
Got to get out of them.
I'm sure Trump regrets how long he was in New York.
And now I think there's another level to the escape from New York meme that was making its way.
And this is the same Attorney General, by the way, who could never find anything wrong with the Clinton Foundation.
It's preposterous.
You read the suit.
You read what they're asking for, and you understand the facts.
It's preposterous.
But preposterous seems to be par for the course.
But less preposterous, Robert, the latest in the Trump raid special master.
What's the word now?
The talking point of the day seems to be put up or shut up for Trump.
MSNBC, CNN, put up or shut up is the new crossing state lines for Trump and his conduct here.
Special master was appointed.
The special master is saying, if you guys are alleging that you've declassified documents, show us some documentation to prove it.
Substantiate the claims.
What I don't understand here, Robert, is, first of all, the judge set out...
Who set out the timeline?
Was it the special master or the judge that set out a timeline?
Special master, I think.
I mean, part of it was by the judge and then the special master did his own order.
It's a pretty tight timeline.
But one of the things that they're saying had to do with...
The allegedly classified information, documentation.
Trump's team, as far as I understand, is saying, show us what it is and we'll tell you if we declassified it.
And the special master is saying, if it's classified, they're not going to show it to you because the fewer people that need to see it, the better.
Am I misunderstanding something here?
Or is Trump basically being asked to confirm declassification of documents that they won't give him back, that they took from him, that he says were declassified, that they say were classified?
Yeah.
I mean, what you saw was this 11th Circuit Court.
Similar to the special master that Trump himself agreed to and recommended.
Two of the three judges on this court were Trump appointees.
Basically, you see how much our federal judiciary behaves like cowards when it comes to the deep state.
That ruling was a horrendous ruling.
So the government requested a partial stay of the judge's order only as to allowing them to look at the classified documents, the documents marked classified.
Again, there's been no legal determination that they actually are classified.
They were simply marked classified.
The documents marked classified, they could use for any criminal investigative purpose, which is what the judge said you can't do.
You can look at them for national security.
You can't look at them for criminal investigative purposes.
They said that, you know, basically we have the same people doing both, which tells you how this is a deep state raid, deep state operation all the way across the board.
The federal judges are like, oh my god, it says classified.
It says classified.
We better hide under our desks and make sure nothing happens.
That's what a bunch of sad, pitiful, disgraceful wussies, these bad Federalist Society appointed hacks were.
They have whored themselves to the deep state.
They have abandoned their constitutional obligation and they put the deep state over democracy.
They are the disgrace to the American institutions.
And one more reason why the Federalist Society should never be used as a barometer of appointment again.
They actually said, national security is so important, even we as judges shouldn't look at the documents.
Imagine that!
The deep state gets to stick a label on a document, and magically, no other part of the government can ever function again.
Robert, for anybody who thinks Robert is exaggerating right now, the judge literally said, I don't have the literal code, verbatim, paraphrasing, if I don't have to see it, the more hands-off, the better.
If it's classified in national security...
Fewer people seeing it, the better.
If I don't need to see it, I'm going to go by your prima facie evidence that is classified national security, and I don't need to see it in order to render my order or to do my job as the special master.
The special master is now doing voluntarily what, let me reference, is refusing to do, voluntarily, finding a pretext, what Judge Cannon authorized him to do, which was review the material, come to a determination.
Now this special master, whose credentials we now know, says, I don't need to see it if they say it.
And the 11th Circuit said, no judge should be looking at this.
This has the words classified on it.
I mean, that's how pitiful they were.
They also made a preposterous claim that they said once a document has ever been labeled classified, some bureaucrat stuck the label classified on it, which they abuse all the time for no consequence, then that means nobody can ever have a personal or possessory interest in that document.
Which, by the way, is going back to that early question.
They said just the opposite in the Clinton case.
When Clinton decided to stick documents and tapes that could be labeled classified in his sock drawer, they said nobody had an interest in it but Clinton.
Now they turn around and say Trump couldn't even have a personal or possessory interest, even in his own documents, that he himself created if somebody stuck the word classified on it.
This is the deep state over democracy.
This is making a national security apparatus immune from transparency, immune from democracy, immune from judicial review, weaponizing every legal system available to punish those who expose them and challenge them.
It means reform.
We need to radically restrict what can be classified in America.
It was always a dangerous experiment.
This is Julian Assange's whole point.
Crimes can't happen unless secrets are kept.
If you want to end criminal acts of government, you need to undermine the secrecy they use to abuse their power.
But seeing these pitiful, disgraceful, deep state deferential judges completely butcher the law and the Constitution to promote and protect the deep state, to hate deep state, just put the magical words classified on it, and all of democracy will quit functioning now.
Go have at it.
Robert, I did a fun run this morning.
Not a fun run.
It was a fundraiser run for Wounded Warriors.
And it was a 5K, which I did in sub-22 minutes, 21.57.
But I ran into somebody who watches the channel, and they said Barnes should be the next Attorney General.
I don't know what has to change.
I can classify everything.
I mean, there's still law enforcement exception for things in terms of FOIA disclosures.
But no more classification has been abused all the way through.
Only, in my view...
It should be extremely limited.
Who can classify?
The president can never have this power to declassify, taken away.
But the ludicrous claim of the court was that once classified, these are always government records that no one can have an interest in and no one can ever look at again.
That's a patently ludicrous claim.
Belied by the facts, belied by the law, but most importantly, it's very anti-our Constitution.
It completely guts our Constitution.
It elevates the bureaucracy.
Above the elected head of that bureaucracy.
And it was a dumb ruling.
It was a dangerous ruling.
But it's the way the federal courts behave.
Federal courts have for almost a century now allowed the deep state to operate and to use judicial power to elevate the deep state in control of our government.
And they have visited horror after horror upon us.
And a lot of it falls at the hands and the feet.
Of an incompetent, corrupt, deferential that we'll do this year.
You know what?
I said that we'd let end there, but we cannot end without talking about Lindell.
Because speaking of deep state and...
Okay, Lindell, Robert, he's suing the FBI for a variety of legitimate, at least prima facie legitimate violations.
But I think that's going to go about as far as I can kick a bowling ball.
Uphill, not downhill.
That's easy.
But the question is this.
For those who don't know, Lindell, coming back from a hunting trip, pulls into a Hardee's, which I don't know what it is, gets blocked in front and back by FBI.
Has his phone taken from him.
He's interrogated for 30 minutes, according to his complaint.
And I don't think it's much disputed.
Has his cell phone, or they agree to surrender his cell phone.
And he's suing for various, I believe, civil rights violations and due process violations.
I mean, Robert, what's your take?
What can you add in terms of not leaving everyone blackpilled tonight, but it seems over the top.
It seems egregious.
And is it as egregious as everyone thinks it is?
Oh, yeah.
I mean, it's an attempt to weaponize the legal system and go after anybody raising questions about the election or aligned with Trump or adverse to deep state priorities.
And partly it's related to the Colorado election.
Issues that are taking place.
Tina Peters and others.
And so credit to him, like credit to Project Veritas, for fighting back, for seeking legal relief and remedy, for publicly outing this, and credit to Trump for fighting back.
Now I think his lawyers could have...
Better, more robustly presented certain arguments.
But when you have ex-federal prosecutors, they don't tend to do that, frankly.
So I think it's a weakness.
I think Lindell made a smart choice in Alan Dershowitz to be his counsel in these proceedings.
And I think that's a good move.
And because some people say it's a waste of time with our corrupt, our federal courts have been or incompetent or cowardice they have frequently exposed.
For all of those cases, there's the white pill case of the week.
Which is the great federal judge in the Northern District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, Terry Doty, who's made many good rulings in this context, overturned the Head Start mandate.
And for people that don't know how pernicious that mandate was and joined, I think, about half the country, half the states in the country joined the case.
So the injunctions in all of those states.
This Head Start mandate, first of all, it was predicated on the power to pick which buildings Head Start facilities are in.
That was the power they said, well, from that...
We can dictate everybody's medical policies.
So the judge was like, uh-uh.
That violates the major questions doctrine as articulated in the EPA case that we discussed at the end of the last year's Supreme Court term.
But in addition, it violated the Administrative Procedures Act and how they went about it.
Because again, of course, they completely ignore any participatory or democratic role in the process.
But to give you an idea how pernicious this was, it was a vaccine mandate on anybody who worked or came into contact with the Head Start people.
It was a mask mandate on two-year-olds that applied even if they were outdoors.
I mean, and they were tracking everybody.
It was a massive surveillance program disguised as a Head Start procurement policy.
But credit to the judge who said this is patently illegal, quoted a lot of great constitutional founders, talking about the judicial branch's job to keep the executive branch in check.
And he did so to his credit.
And stop that horrendous policy from going forward in most of the country.
Fantastic, Robert.
It's amazing.
There's 23,600 and some odd people watching now.
This is amazing.
Salty Crackers Live.
So once we wind up, I think, have we agreed on V&B Army?
Or are we going with V&B Crew?
When you enter the chat, go to Salty Crackers Chat, just say, good, good.
Okay, that's it.
It's done.
People?
Barnes has spoken.
It is good good.
When you mosey on over, let him know how you got there with the good good.
Robert, so your schedule, Wednesday, who do we have for sidebar?
We have the one and only author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad.
Oh, that's going to be amazing.
That's going to be fantastic.
Rich Dad, Poor Dad.
And I see people in the chat, they want us to get James Lindsay on, so let's see if we can...
Oh, he already said yes, it's just arranging a time and date.
Matt Stoller already said yes, he's arranging a time and date.
We will have Mike Davis the week after that, the great lawyer, Gorsuch, former clerk, exposing all the ridiculousness with the Trump raid.
He's been fantastic on a range of issues the following Wednesday.
And Monday, I'm sorry, Tuesday, 7 o 'clock, Eastern Time.
What are the odds with Richard Barris here on Rumble, breaking down the campaign?
And Thursday, 1 o 'clock, YouTube and Rumble, with the Duran, live.
All right, everybody, enjoy what's left of the weekend.
I'm going to feel guilty if I don't do it.
Happy Passover.
Is there a hurricane down there or something?
The hurricane seems to be coming in on Tuesday or Wednesday.
So we've got a generator.
Ah, so will this be your first hurricane?
It will be my first hurricane.
Are the kids excited or terrified?
They're excited.
I plan on riding the roof of the house with a flag.
And I got a drone.
So I'll document everything.
But we're getting set up.
Just make sure we have everything.
It'll be fun.
It'll be fun.
I'm excited to fish on flooded streets and see what I can catch.
But it'll be good.
It's Rosh Hashanah.
So everyone out there celebrating.
Enjoy it.
And all the rumble.
Stockholders got to celebrate this past week, so congratulations to all of them as well.
It's amazing to see what Rumble has succeeded in doing.
Someone in the chat on YouTube said agreement, and they didn't seem to know.
People, PR, it's my channel on YouTube, but it involves Barnes as well just for our weekly streams, but I have signed exclusive content creation with Rumble.
I'm going above and beyond.
We're doing everything exclusive on Rumble after a certain point because it will force Rumble to evolve faster and it will sensitize people to the fact that there's another platform out there.
There's an alternative.
Stay on YouTube.
The streams go up the next day so people can still see it there.
But Rumble is the future.
And now I hear kids screaming loud out there.
People, go.
Enjoy the weekend.
Check out Barnes Tuesday, Thursday.
I'll be going live during the week and Wednesday sidebar.
Robert?
Stick around.
We'll say our proper goodbyes.
And I need to remember, it takes five seconds for Rumble to end.
So I'm just going to sit here with my fingers up.
▲
Export Selection