Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 12, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:12:21

Sidebar with "The Article III Project" Founder, Mike Davis! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The economy remains top of mind for voters.
	J.P. Morgan, J.C.E.O., said the U.S. is likely to enter a recession in the next nine months.
	Bank of America says the U.S. could start losing 175,000 jobs a month.
	Gas prices are on the rise again.
	Should the American people prepare for a recession?
	No.
	Look, they've been saying this now.
	Every six months they say this.
	Every six months they look down the next six months and see what's going to happen.
	It hadn't happened yet.
	Can't finish a sentence.
	I don't think there will be a recession.
	Cannot finish a sentence.
	That is, we'll move down slightly.
	Look, think about what's happened.
	Just wait for the punchline of this, by the way.
	We have done a better position than any other major country in the world, economically and politically.
	We still have real problems.
	But look at what I've done.
	Look, look, look.
	Watch this now.
	That significantly makes a point about, you know, for example, the American Rescue Plan.
	Did I just kick myself out of the stream?
	I didn't.
	You know damn well that if they could have edited out that section of Joe Biden dropping his cue card notes, whatever it was, they would have.
	But they couldn't because it was so integrally woven into his rambling, incoherent response.
	If Joe Biden had a cue card of notes, a cheat sheet, it means he had a cheat sheet of the questions Jake the fake tapper was asking him.
	And they could not get that.
	They couldn't edit that gaffe out of that interview in as much as they wanted to.
	All right.
	We've got a guest who's got a hard out at 8 o 'clock.
	I would like to let people trickle in as we do this because of the time constraints.
	We're not going to cut this and go to rumble halfway through.
	We're just going to stay on YouTube.
	But before we get into it, while everyone trickles in, yes, Alex Jones.
	Just a nifty little $965 million verdict because there's multiple plaintiffs.
	It's not $1 billion against one plaintiff.
	It's 16 plaintiffs, some getting $50 million, some getting $120 million.
	We're going to talk about it.
	But before we do anything, and before I bring in the guest who's in the backdrop along with Robert Barnes, I'm going to thank the sponsor.
	Again, of today's show, a product that I use, and it sounds kitschy and whatever, home title lock, people, is if you own a property and you own your home, and apparently it's a type of fraud that's relatively prevalent in the United States, people borrow against your home.
	And so you think you own your property, they take your quick claim deed, whatever, forge your signature, borrow money against your house, and then you don't find out until people say, yell the bank $50,000 because Joe Schmoe forged your signature and now you owe it.
	HomeTitleLock.com forward slash Viva.
	And $20 a month, if someone pulls your deed from the registry, wherever it is, you'll get notified.
	They will freeze any sort of borrowing that can be affected against your property.
	And, you know, if you own property, despite what Rich Dad Poor Dad says, it's your biggest asset, $20 a month is kind of a decent insurance.
	And just also...
	Double verify everything.
	I ran this by my house insurance as to whether or not this is real fraud and whether or not this is a legit product and confirmed.
	And then I signed up myself.
	Okay.
	Everyone is trickling in.
	We've got...
	I'm going to bring them in a little earlier than that.
	I also just want to thank sponsors who have the cojones to sponsor The Rabble.
	The Fringed Minority.
	The Hinged Fringed and Proud.
	Unacceptable views.
	People like myself.
	It's great.
	Alex got screwed.
	This is an injustice.
	It's beyond that.
	And yeah, that we'll talk about at length tomorrow.
	Tonight, we have Mike Davis, founder of the Article 3 Project.
	And I see in the chat a lot of you didn't know what the Article 3 Project was.
	And a lot of you went to the website.
	And it's interesting.
	We're going to bring him in.
	It's going to be an interesting discussion.
	Hard out at 8 o 'clock.
	So we'll be staying on YouTube and Rumble for this entire stream.
	Let me bring in Mike first.
	Mr. Davis, how goes the battle, sir?
	I'm doing very well.
	I fight the battle every day, so I'm having fun.
	I've been watching a lot of your interviews today, and I know now firsthand the degree to which you're fighting the battles.
	Let me bring in Barnes and put myself on the bottom so I only cover my face.
	Okay, Mike, thank you for coming on.
	This is going to be phenomenal.
	I'm not going to delve too much into your childhood because we have time constraints, but 30,000-foot overview for those who may not know who you are, what the Article 3 project is.
	Overview, then we're going to get into some details.
	So, I'm Mike Davis.
	I am from Iowa.
	I went to the University of Iowa for undergrad in law school.
	Got involved in politics.
	Interned for Speaker Newt Gingrich during Clinton's impeachment.
	Went back, started students for George W. Bush across the state of Iowa.
	Got involved very heavily in the Bush campaign.
	Went to work for Senator Chuck Grassley, my home state senator, after I...
	I graduated, then I went and worked in the Bush 43 administration, went to law school at Iowa, campaigned the whole time, went back to the Bush 43 White House, helped with the hiring and firing of political appointees.
	That's where I met Neil Gorsuch.
	He helped him get into the Justice Department, helps him get onto the 10th Circuit, and then he dragged me out to Colorado.
	I was one of his first clerks, was a civil litigator in Colorado for 10 years, and then...
	Of course, he's dragged me back out to D.C. to help him get set up, to get confirmed and set up on the Supreme Court.
	And then I was going to go back to Denver.
	I had a good life there, and I got mired in the swamp.
	Chuck Grassley's office called again.
	They wanted me to be the chief counsel for nominations for Trump's first two years.
	And so we helped Trump set records for the number of judges he appointed to the bench.
	And then I was going to go back to Colorado, and I keep getting roped in to start these groups and doing these fights.
	And so I started the Article III project to, at the time, it was to fight to confirm President Trump's judicial nominees.
	Now it's opposing Biden's nominees.
	It's defending constitutionalist judges.
	Once they get to the bench, they have lifetime tenure, they have pay protection, but they're still humans.
	And so I like to defend them, like Clarence Thomas, when they go after him and his wife.
	When they go after my old boss, Gorsuch, for killing Sonia Sotomayor with his mask gate on the Supreme Court.
	Silly things like that.
	I also started the Internet Accountability Project, which goes after big tech from the right on antitrust, Section 230, and data privacy.
	And so I have my hands full.
	I'm defending Trump on the Mar-a-Lago raid.
	I'm defending the rule of law.
	It's a constant battle.
	Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of Republicans in D.C. who have a backbone.
	And so I tend to be getting into a lot of these fights solo, but it's fun doing it.
	What was it like being a law clerk?
	For Gorsuch, it was terrible because he had to deal with me for so long.
	But it was a great experience.
	I actually learned a lot as a lawyer.
	As an appellate law clerk, you learn how to think like a judge.
	And as an appellate law clerk, you learn how to think big picture and then be able to zoom in and focus on the minutia.
	So it's a really, really good experience.
	There's a reason that law firms pay these clerks, you know, $400,000 for Supreme Court clerks for their bonus.
	And, you know, I think it's $200,000 for the appellate clerks because they add so much value to the whole law firm.
	I didn't cash in.
	I ended up going to the Senate Judiciary Committee instead and starting these groups.
	But it's a very good experience.
	Gorsuch is one of, Justice Gorsuch, I forget to say that.
	He's one of my good friends.
	He's been one of my good friends for almost two decades.
	And so it was fun to help him get set up both times and get off to the races.
	Mike, did you just say the clerks get paid upwards of $400,000 a year?
	They get a $400,000.
	This is crazy.
	The Supreme Court law clerks get a $400,000 signing bonus from law firms.
	In addition to their salary, In addition to their end-of-year bonus.
	So these, you know, these young law clerks, I wasn't young, I was old like the rest of my co-clerks, but these young law clerks, you know, 27, 28 years old are going and making a million dollars a year their first year out of their clerkship.
	Okay, so now that makes total sense.
	Do they get promised this bonus in advance in order to be enticed after they do their clerkship?
	And if so, is there not a little bit of politics or corruption that that could breed while they are clerking?
	So it's up to each justice, but like, for example, Justice Gorsuch would not let us talk to law firms until a certain point in the term when the cases were done.
	And then if you're talking to law firms, because it creates recusal issues, which you just discussed.
	And so you have to be very careful about that.
	But it's, those clerks are, I mean, present company excluded, these Supreme Court clerks are truly the best of the best.
	They are the top of their class, the top law schools.
	And they also have remarkable backgrounds in addition to that.
	So they are certainly the cream of the crop and they're worth every penny.
	It's a lot of money, but they add a lot of value to all firms.
	And how much do you think the ideology of what's shaped law schools in the past several decades is the core issue for those of us that see courts sort of going AWOL on a wide range of issues from constitutional precedent, sometimes not even caring about the public policy impact, it seems, and aspects of the Trump case, that seems to be the case.
	What you're describing is that's not a reflection of a lack of intellectual capacity.
	But it may be a reflection of ideological indoctrination that's contra our constitutional history.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, the Marxist left have taken over every institution in America.
	It used to be that, you know, it was just academia.
	Now they've taken over the military, right?
	And so it's just they're subversive.
	They're insidious.
	They've taken over corporations, big tech, other corporations.
	They've taken over the entire country, right?
	And I guess the only...
	I think the only industry they haven't taken over yet is probably big oil, but you know that's coming next.
	Law schools are liberal.
	I don't think law students are liberal.
	I think the conservative or moderate independent ones just keep their mouth shut because they don't want to deal with the harassment and the cancellation from their woke cupcake classmates.
	I remember I was at the University of Iowa.
	This was 20 years ago.
	And it was a contracts class.
	And this whack job professor was teaching critical race theory 20 years ago in contracts.
	And I'm thinking, what the hell does this have to do with contracts other than the Marxist left trying to destroy contracts and destroy our country?
	So you mentioned you're still in private practice.
	And you're working with the Article 3 project.
	I guess, briefly explain what that is, because that's going to weave in and out of the conversation tonight.
	What's the Article 3 project?
	Concretely, what does it do in reality?
	And then I'll put the links later for people to support it.
	But what is it?
	How did it get started?
	What are you doing with it?
	It is a 501c4.
	It's a nonprofit organization.
	It's a political advocacy organization.
	And so during the Trump years, the final, I ran the Senate Judiciary Committee nomination.
	I was the chief counsel for nominations for the first two years of the Trump first term.
	And then the second two years, I started the Article III project to fight for the confirmation of Trump's judges from the outside, defend these judges, defend the rule of law, punch back against the left.
	And now it's to defend constitutionalist judges, defend the rule of law, and...
	We're not mindlessly opposing every one of Biden's nominees just because I think that's a stupid strategy.
	But the ones that are particularly bad, we come out hard against them, like Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
	The Republican side, the conservative side, they're stuck in a bygone era, and they don't want to fight.
	And at the Article 3 project, as I told the New York Times when we launched this thing, Three and a half years ago, Carl Holtz almost fell out of his chair.
	I said, I'm taking off the gloves, I'm putting on the brass knuckles, and I'm breaking the left's glass jaws.
	And so that's what we're doing.
	I like to give the left a healthy dose of their own medicine.
	So I'm tired of conservatives who like to lose gallantly.
	I want to win, and I want to break their nose doing.
	What do you attribute that to?
	Is it the Iowa upbringing?
	In other words, the background?
	What is it that a lot of younger, sharper conservatives, constitutionalists, others recognize the need to...
	We had Rich Dad Poor Dad on.
	He was making the exact same point that it was time not to try to play by Marcus of Queensbury rules when you're in a gutter fight.
	What do you attribute that to in your upbringing, that mindset?
	I think it was growing up with red hair.
	You learn to have to have very thick skin.
	I was actually raised by Democrats.
	My parents were like crazy leftists, but I was a Republican.
	I was a conservative before I even knew what that meant.
	My parents were like these bleeding heart liberals.
	My mom campaigned for Jesse Jackson in 1988 because she thought Michael Dukakis was too conservative.
	I mean, I was raised by lunatic left-wing, you know, bleeding heart Catholic types.
	And I saw my parents work, like in Des Moines, Iowa, there was one school where it was majority minority.
	Both my parents worked at that school.
	My dad was a public school teacher.
	My mom was like an associate who made sure that kids were getting to class on time and doing the discipline, right?
	So that's how I was raised.
	And I saw at a very young age how these liberal programs, these handouts that were supposed to be helping poor...
	Oftentimes, black kids trap them in intergenerational poverty.
	And I'm like, this is wrong.
	This is terrible what they're doing.
	But the left, as I got older, I saw it was intentional.
	They're doing this on purpose.
	They want class conflict.
	They want race conflict.
	This is, you know, not every Democrat, not every liberal is doing this on purpose.
	But there's the leftist part of the Democrat Party who they are absolutely...
	Trapping people in poverty and creating this conflict on purpose.
	I always say today's Democrat Party is not our parents' or our grandparents' Democrat Party.
	These are not liberals who love America and just disagree with conservatives on the best way to get there.
	These are leftists.
	They hate America.
	They're trying to divide and destroy America so they can recreate it in their Marxist utopian society.
	You know, we've seen that playbook for 100 years where 100 million people have been killed.
	Around the world under this Marxist ideology.
	I see with Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the 15 pronouns, the gender chaos, the racial chaos, the chaos, the COVID chaos, the chaos that we've seen over the last two and a half years with BLM, with COVID, the Marxist left has really, they're not even trying to hide their ugly faces anymore.
	They're just out there.
	And so it's important that we punch back.
	We fight back.
	We're not cowards because we're going to lose our country if we don't.
	I want to get back to this.
	And when you punch back, do they not punch back as well?
	But before we even get there, concrete example.
	Ketanji Jackson-Brown.
	KBJ or KJB?
	KBJ.
	Ketanji Brown.
	Brown Jackson.
	Brown Jackson.
	Concretely, I want to understand when you want to oppose a nominee, what did you practically do to oppose?
	KJB.
	KBJ.
	So what I did was I dug into her judicial record, going back, her legal record, going back 25 years to Harvard Law School, where we saw that she had this disqualified...
	Look, she has great credentials, right?
	She went to Harvard Law School.
	She clerked on the Supreme Court.
	She was a federal public defender.
	She was a district court judge.
	She's clearly qualified on paper to be elevated to the D.C. Circuit.
	I don't know if she was ready quite yet to go to the Supreme Court, but whatever, right?
	If she would have been there for another year or two, certainly she was ready to go to the Supreme Court.
	But she's a plausible candidate on paper.
	So I never said that she wasn't qualified for the job.
	I said that her record disqualified her for the job because as the Article 3 project dug into her judicial record, we pulled up her law review articles.
	We pulled her district court decisions.
	We read her record.
	And what we saw with her record is she has this disqualifying Pattern of extreme leniency to sex offenders of kids.
	And it was every instance where, eight out of eight times, every instance where she had discretion to sentence these people who possess traffic, these child rape videos, traffic in these child rape videos, trade it for pleasure, and you create this industry where kids get kidnapped and raped.
	Every single time, eight out of eight times, she gave rock bottom leniency.
	And then we pulled her law review notes from law school where she argued that these people who traffic in this garbage, this child pornography, child sex and torture videos, they're not pedophiles.
	She argues that they're not pedophiles.
	And she did this on the Sentencing Commission as well.
	She single-handedly...
	She was the Trojan horse on the Sentencing Commission to get the Sentencing Commission to try to recommend more lenient sentences for people who traffic in child pornography.
	And she has this theory that if they're looking at child pornography, they're not pedophiles, therefore they're not dangerous to the community, and therefore we're locking them up for too long.
	And that's just...
	That was contradicted by the witnesses who came before her at the Sentencing Commission, who, when she raised that theory on the Sentencing Commission, they said, no, no, no, no, that's not true.
	They're actually pedophiles.
	They're actually dangerous.
	And she ignored that and made it a key finding of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
	She made it sentencing policy, right?
	So we pointed out her disqualifying record.
	We didn't attack her.
	We didn't, you know, say that she was not qualified.
	We said she was disqualified.
	I didn't do anything, personal attacks.
	You know, people are saying, oh, you're criticizing Ketaji Brown-Jackson, you're a racist and a sexist, and I'm just tired of that, right?
	You have to be able to look at someone's record.
	If you're going to nominate her because she's a black woman, and that's what Biden said, he was only going to nominate a black woman.
	He nominated a black woman for this job.
	You can't just say, okay, he nominated a black woman.
	We can't dig into our record, because if we dig into our record, they're going to say we're racist and sexist.
	I just don't give a damn if they do that.
	In terms of the Trump raid, I have been surprised.
	I thought to at least some degree the Justice Department, while it was weaponizing everything legally, would show some restraint when it comes to a former president, the lead opponent of the incumbent rivalry party, particularly when they're breaching all precedent to do so.
	Bill Clinton, of course, famously kept records in his sock drawer.
	George W. Bush had them in a separate place.
	Barack Obama famously kept admittedly classified records at an abandoned furniture warehouse.
	And there are records that he can declare as presidential.
	That's the whole point of the law.
	There's no criminal enforcement statute in the Presidential Records Act.
	That was deliberate and intentional.
	This was meant to apply to people other than the president, frankly.
	It's what it's really there for.
	It's a record-keeping mechanism for records that...
	The archives should have that are not the president's records that he's decided to keep as his own.
	Can you give people, like, there's been so much misinformation out there from the mainstream legal analysis about this, acting like it's somehow unparalleled, it's unprecedented, that it's clearly illegal, that it's a crime, when I see no evidence of any of that?
	Yeah, so this unprecedented, unnecessary, unlawful home rate on President Trump was complete political.
	So, as you said, first of all, let's step back.
	The president, as the commander-in-chief, has the absolute constitutional power to declassify anything he wants, in any manner he wants, for any reason he wants, and he doesn't have to get permission from any bureaucrat who works for him to do that.
	And that is confirmed by a 1988 Supreme Court case, Department of the Navy v.
	Eagant.
	Separate from that, there is the Presidential Records Act.
	The president has the absolute statutory...
	Power under the Presidential Records Act to take his records when he leaves office.
	And it is his sole determination whether he can take these records and make them his personal records that belong to him or presidential records that go to the archives, the bureaucrats and the librarians, categorize it, and then it gets sent back to him to put it into his library.
	That's the Presidential Records Act.
	Before Nixon, presidential records, that means anything written or received by the president or his staff, those are presidential records.
	We're personal property of the president.
	That changed with Nixon, with the Presidential Records Act, and what they did was, like you said, there's no criminal component to it.
	It is meant for the staff, like you said, and it's the president's sole determination.
	So we talked about that 2012 Clinton-Sotterer case.
	So Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch sued.
	President Clinton, because he had 79 audio tapes, eight years of his presidency, in his sock drawer.
	And these were highly classified conversations, conversations that Clinton had with foreign leaders, his secretary of state, his top aides.
	These are clearly classified.
	These are born classified.
	It doesn't matter whether they're more classified or not.
	They're clearly classified.
	So Tom Pitten and Judicial Watch Sue.
	This Obama judge in 2012 correctly holds that under the Presidential Records Act, it is the president's sole determination whether records are personal records or presidential records.
	Presidential records include classified records and non-classified records.
	So this idea that, oh God, he had classified records.
	Of course the presidential records include presidential records.
	They're going to include the most classified records that we have because it's the freaking president, right?
	So Clinton had these records.
	He had these audio tapes.
	The fact that he did not turn them over to the archives when he left office made them personal records under the Presidential Records Act, and it didn't matter whether it contained classified materials or not.
	So remember, former presidents get Office of the Former President funded by Congress.
	They get staff.
	The staff gets...
	Security clearance.
	The former president has a security clearance.
	The office space has secure office space called SCIFs.
	They have secret service protection, right?
	If we trusted this president to have these classified records for 48 years as president, why the hell would we not trust him as a former president?
	Do we think he's going to become like some Russian mole or Chinese mole after he leaves office and sell these things?
	It's just nonsense.
	So when the president received classified records as president, Including from the CIA or any other intel agency, they become presidential records.
	And so he's allowed to take them when he leaves office.
	And then the Espionage Act, so you saw with Garland, they used the Espionage Act, the Federal Records Act, which is completely different from the Presidential Records Act, and then obstruction of justice as their predicate, potential crimes to go get this bogus home raid, general warranty, illegal and constitutional.
	General warrant from Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who just recused from President Trump's civil lawsuit versus Hillary Clinton on Russian collusion on June 22nd.
	Somehow his clear judicial bias, where he had a 2017 Facebook post trashing President Trump, somehow that judicial bias magically disappeared.
	Six weeks later, the Biden Justice Department, they go down to him and they ask for this general warrant.
	And they went in and did this unprecedented, unnecessary and lawful home raid of President Trump.
	Again, the Presidential Records Act doesn't have a criminal component.
	And they went under the Espionage Act, which would not apply here because the president declassified these records.
	And even if he didn't declassify them, he has the right to have them under the Presidential Records Act.
	They do this home raid.
	They go through Melania's underwear drawer.
	They go through Barron, their 16-year-old son's room, and they take 11,000 records.
	So if you've taken 11,000 records, you know damn well it was an illegal raid of a halt.
	I mean, two questions.
	I thought the Melania's underwear drawer was a joke, meme at first.
	Did they go there because they knew that Bill Clinton hid documents in his sock drawer, so they figured they'd go to Melania's drawer?
	Or are they looking for potentially other stuff to embarrass or blackmail Melania and Trump's kid?
	That's a very good question.
	I mean, what are they looking in a 16-year-old kid's bedroom for?
	I mean, that's just, it's ridiculous.
	If you look at the inventory from the raid that the Justice Department produced, look at number one.
	Number one was the Roger Stone pardon document.
	Why would they make that number one on their inventory raid unless it was a giant FU?
	From the FBI and the Justice Department, Biden Justice Department to Trump for pardoning Roger Stone.
	Number two, and I don't know this for sure, but I presume number two, and this is the reason for the raid.
	Number two talks about leather-bound documents, and it had TS, SCI documents on there.
	I don't know this for certain, but I can almost certainly guarantee you, based upon leaks from the Biden Justice Department to Newsweek, to Bill Orkin at Newsweek, where they said that the point of this raid was to go get Trump's...
	Trump declassified Russian collusion documents.
	Trump declassified these on January 19th, 2021, with a presidential memo.
	The FBI, the intel community, convinced the outgoing White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, that there could be Privacy Act violations if they release these documents.
	So Mark Meadows on January 20th, the day they left office.
	Issued this memo saying, okay, do your Privacy Act review and then get these out as quickly as possible.
	Well, the Biden administration never did that, so they kept those documents.
	I am pretty confident that that was the reason for the raid, because that's what they leaked to Bill Arkin at Newsweek.
	I think it was on October 18th.
	That's what I think they leaked, and I'm just trying to go off memory.
	So they went and got these Russian collusion documents, and the reason they did is because these documents...
	If you look at news sources, are so damning because it shows that Obama, Biden, Hillary, the FBI, the intel community colluded and made up Russian collusion allegations against Trump to influence the 2016 election and to continue to go after him after he won the presidency.
	That's what this is all about.
	Everything else is smoke and noise and BS.
	They can pretend like, oh, it was so bad that Trump had these documents.
	It was such a danger to our national security.
	Remember, office of former president.
	Federally funded staff, security clearances, SCIF, Secret Service protection.
	These documents did not leak from President Trump for 18 months.
	The only time they started leaking is when the Biden Justice Department raided them and got them back from President Trump.
	That's when they started leaking.
	Is there any chance the Supreme Court takes up the case?
	I thought they made good arguments about the technical nature of whether or not there was even appellate jurisdiction for what the 11th Circuit did on the issue of the Special Masters Authority to review classified Documents labeled and marked classified.
	Do you think there's a chance that they will take it up?
	So there's an emergency appeal right now before the Supreme Court.
	Candidly, I'd be very surprised if the Supreme Court does anything with that because it's a bad vehicle, bad time.
	What I think is going to happen is this will get resolved by the Supreme Court in one of two ways.
	Once the special master...
	Does the review of the records, the 11,000 records that were seized from Mar-a-Lago.
	The Biden Justice Department was able to dupe the 11th Circuit into thinking that the 100 documents Mark classified should not have been in Trump's possession.
	They did this on an emergency appeal to the 11th Circuit.
	Three judges got duped there.
	The Biden Justice Department did not properly brief the Presidential Records Act.
	Including the fact that the Presidential Records Act does not distinguish between documents marked classified and other documents.
	And so they duped the 11th Circuit into thinking there was some urgency that Trump can't have these records, that the special master can't review these records because these are the highest classified records in our arsenal.
	We can't let them happen.
	It's just complete nonsense.
	Three doofus judges, including two Trump-appointed doofus judges on the 11th Circuit, bought that.
	In the Biden Justice Department, they misrepresented the Presidential Records Act.
	That being said, this will get resolved by the Supreme Court in one of two ways.
	There is a Rule 41G motion under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure where Trump can file down with Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida.
	It's basically, this was an illegal raid.
	Give me back all the 11,000 of my documents.
	And that needs to come.
	Trump needs to file that rule 41G, amended motion, rule 41G, give me back my records.
	This raid violated the Fourth Amendment.
	It was an unreasonable search and seizure.
	It was a general warrant from a biased judge.
	And I had the absolute right to these records under the Presidential Records Act, whether they were classified or not.
	That's what Mike Lindell is doing with his FBI raid, right?
	Yes.
	No, I haven't followed that as closely as I should, but I'm...
	Almost certain it was a Rule 41G there, right?
	So that's how you get back your records after an illegal raid.
	So that would go through the civil process, Southern District of Florida, 11th Circuit, Supreme Court.
	I think that's what Trump needs to do is move on that, right?
	And I think they're waiting for the special master to finish their review before they do that, but move fast forward on that, get that resolved through the Rule 41G.
	The alternative way to get this resolved by the Supreme Court is...
	Biden stupidly indicts Trump in D.C. Some uniparty judge in D.C. doesn't throw out the indictment because the Presidential Records Act is controlling here, not the Federal Records Act.
	You can't commit espionage as the president.
	It's constitutionally.
	It's legally impossible for the president to violate the Espionage Act because he's the president.
	He can declassify anything he wants.
	It's the Presidential Records Act that applies, not the Federal Records Act.
	And it is legally impossible, according...
	To a recent OLC memo, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel memo, you cannot...
	It is almost impossible for someone to obstruct investigations into non-crimes, right?
	If there's not a crime that the Justice Department is investigating, you can't obstruct the investigations into those non-crimes, right?
	So that's the legal issue that would get a D.C. Uniparty judge where there would be a motion to dismiss the indictment.
	That, you know, party judge would deny it.
	The Obama stacked D.C. circuit would probably rule against Trump.
	And so then it would have to get resolved by the Supreme Court through the criminal route.
	It will get resolved by the Supreme Court one way or the other.
	And I am very confident the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor because it is crystal clear under the Presidential Records Act, under Department of Navy versus Egan, under the Clinton Stockport case, that Trump did not do anything wrong as a matter of law for how he kept, took and kept his records in Mar-a-Lago.
	Remember, this was, when he was president of the United States, he used Mar-a-Lago as his office.
	It is very secure.
	I've dealt with the Justice Department for 20 years.
	There's always been politics involved, but not to the degree of overt partisan politicization.
	And that you combine that with what we're seeing in the District of Columbia.
	I've compared it to your Martin Luther King, your civil rights movement in the 1950s South.
	You're not getting an impartial judge.
	You're not getting an impartial jury pool.
	We've seen in the Roger Stone case, Steve Bannon case, the General Flynn case.
	We're seeing it in a lot of the January 6th cases.
	What looks like justice, American justice, does not look like what we're seeing in the District of Columbia or what we're seeing right now from the Justice Department, even going around arresting pro-life protesters and raiding their houses from Pennsylvania to Tennessee.
	Two things, this overt, open, partisan politicization of our criminal justice process from the seventh floor of the FBI over to the hierarchy of the Justice Department.
	Came out, they offered a million dollars to Christopher Steele to give dirt about Trump in 2016.
	And how problematic is it that we have this situation?
	I call it the swamp getting to judge the swamp.
	And the swamp getting to judge the critics of the swamp.
	D.C. is a federal, is a congressionally created...
	Yeah, and this is very important.
	And this is where Attorney General Merrick Garland has frankly stunned me.
	Because I thought, you know, I kind of felt, I didn't feel bad, but I thought, okay, my boss took his seat on the Supreme Court.
	Thank God for our country that Gorsuch is there and not Garland.
	But I thought that, you know, Garland would just be some liberal.
	D.C. Circuit Court judge.
	Yeah, he'd be a liberal, but not, you know, not an activist, kind of harmless.
	I actually thought he was a pretty good pick for Biden for Attorney General because, you know, he's this respected liberal judge from D.C. He worked in the Justice Department, the Clinton Justice Department as a top official.
	He oversaw some key cases.
	I think Oklahoma City, Unabomber cases.
	So he was very well respected.
	He was on the D.C. Circuit.
	I think it was 14 years, something like that.
	And then he gets there, and it's been so politicized and weaponized since he got there.
	And a good sign is that he picked Vanita Gupta as his associate attorney general, the number three, and Kristen Clark as his head of the Civil Rights Division.
	And these are two left-wing radical activists who I had to deal with on a regular basis, fight with on a regular basis when I ran the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation process for then-chairman Chuck Grassley.
	I mean, these are...
	Hardcore, as radical as you can get.
	And I'm thinking of Garland.
	I asked.
	I said, is Garland picking these people or are they being shoved down Garland's throat by the Biden White House?
	And he was picking them.
	So I'm thinking, OK, this is a very bad sign that Merrick.
	I actually, thank God Molly Hemingway bit my head off and smacked me because I actually even contemplated endorsing Garland's for AG.
	And I thought, OK, the president gets to pick whoever he wants.
	Let's, you know, the Garland.
	You know, my boss, you know, took his seat on the Supreme Court.
	Maybe I'll be magnanimous for my boss, Gorsuch, and do my boss a favor by endorsing him.
	Thank God I did, because the guy is...
	Yeah, I see your face, and I don't blame you.
	But you raised the question, is Garland picking them, or are they being jammed down his throat because he's just a passive individual now who holds a grudge against those who denied him his seat on SCOTUS, and he's an old, tired man and is just going to be a pushover for the powers that be.
	Watching from the outside, I'm not convinced the people who are at the heads of the government are controlling anything.
	It does seem like things are being thrust on them and they are figureheads and easy pusher.
	Garland is very much micromanaging the Justice Department.
	He works late into the evening and he micromanages that place.
	So this is on Garland.
	He's not some old, washed-up judge who's the figurehead.
	He is absolutely micromanaging this.
	And think about what they've done here.
	You talked about...
	They're sending FBI teams to go after the FBI squads to go to the homes of pro-life protesters who are allegedly violating the FACE Act, which is protesting at abortion clinics, sending in FBI teams to do this while they're giving amnesty to the pro-abortion radicals who are terrorizing Catholic churches, crisis pregnancy centers.
	Which is also part of the FACE Act is what I think it's called.
	You have these same people who are these abortion activists who are terrorizing Supreme Court justices and their families outside of their homes, which is obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C.
	1507.
	You do not have a First Amendment right to obstruct justice by harassing and intimidating federal judges outside of their home.
	We saw this, the deadly consequences when you dox federal judges.
	An Obama-appointed judge in New Jersey had her 20-year-old son Daniel murdered, and her husband Mark seriously wounded because some deranged lunatic doxxed her and showed up to her house.
	It is very dangerous when they're doing this.
	We saw this with Justice Kavanaugh, his wife Ashley, and their two teenage daughters facing a 1 a.m. assassination attempt.
	Even after that assassination attempt, Merrick Garland...
	It's still allowing these protests to happen outside of these Supreme Court justices' homes, saying they have a First Amendment right to be there.
	Well, why do they have a First Amendment right to harass and intimidate Supreme Court justices, which they don't, but these pro-life Christians somehow don't have a First Amendment right to be outside of abortion clinics praying, right?
	So it's just completely weaponized.
	He sent 15 FBI agents to go investigate Bubba Wallace's noose and sick the FBI after parents.
	He gives amnesty to these left-wing lunatics who are harassing and intimidating Supreme Court justice.
	I mean, there's a whole list here I'm looking at.
	You send the full force of the FBI to go after every grandma and goofball who trespassed and paraded on January 6th, yet they are hunting down.
	They've given amnesty.
	They've dropped the cases.
	The Trump Justice Department of the cases against BLM and Antifa rioters who caused billions of damage, destroyed American cities, attacked police, attacked the Portland Federal Courthouse on a nightly basis for months, killed dozens, caused billions of damage.
	It's crazy.
	I mean, we saw this.
	I could just go down the whole list here.
	With the National Archives, they sent a 30-person hit squad to go get Trump's documents, but yet they had the Clinton-Sotterer case.
	Obama records in a bowling alley or in Hoffman Estates in a warehouse.
	It's just crazy how they have weaponized the Justice Department so fast over the last 18 months.
	And this is squarely on Biden, squarely on Merrick Garland.
	The FBI Director Chris Wray is a total coward.
	He lets the FBI run him.
	He's in over his head.
	And it's Lisa Monaco, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, Vanita Gupta, Kristen Clark, the civil rights head.
	These are bad people, and when Republicans take over the House and hopefully the Senate in November, they need to impeach these people for what they've done, how they've destroyed the rule of law in this country by weaponizing and politicizing the Justice Department.
	I have an idea on the D.C. side.
	I just wanted to float it by you.
	So Congress creates the District of Columbia.
	Congress can uncreate the District of Columbia.
	Yes, they can.
	And it seems to me that that's something that needs to be on the legislative agenda.
	Because we've seen, you know, like, if we said, hey, why don't we try all the Democrats in a small rural East Texas County that votes 94% Republican, there would be outrage all over the place.
	But that's what's happening to everybody, that the swamp gets to not only judge itself, but judge its critics with its own jury pool made up of a bunch of government lefty bureaucrats.
	And we've seen, I mean, they couldn't even get convictions for the Antifa rioters.
	Those are rioters that did...
	Real damage throughout the city from the Trump inauguration.
	Grand juries would issue no bills.
	Juries would quit in cases.
	I mean, we saw it in the lawyer case, the corrupt lawyer, Clinton lawyer case.
	I mean, he was dead to rights, clearly lied.
	And yet that jury acquitted him.
	Why?
	Because they weren't going to acquit somebody who's on their political side.
	What do you think about the idea of not having a federal district of Columbia separate court system?
	I agree.
	I 100% agree.
	It's all these uniparty judges.
	It's 95% Democrat jury pool and 5% Trump-drains write-outs, right?
	Why the hell do we want our country's most pressing decisions decided by these nut jobs inside the District of Columbia?
	Hell no.
	I actually would take it even a step farther than that.
	I think Congress should repeal.
	So under our Constitution, D.C. is a federal enclave.
	They need to repeal the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973.
	We need to have Congress run D.C. again instead of these woke idiots like Muriel Bowser who went to war against the police and went woke.
	I've had three drive-by shootings on my street corner over the last year and a half since BLM made their presence known in D.C. The police can't do their jobs.
	It's a mess.
	There's crime.
	There's homeless camps everywhere.
	There's garbage everywhere.
	Businesses.
	Shut down under these crazy COVID restrictions.
	BLM and Antifa, they've destroyed this city.
	This is the nation's capital.
	It should be the best city on the planet, and it looks like a third-world Marxist hellhole right now.
	So Congress needs to grow some backbone.
	I always say that the D.C. politicians are the only reptiles on the planet who lack a backbone, so they need to find their backbone when we...
	Instead of just, you know, tweeting and giving tough talks, they actually need to legislate.
	They need to earn power and use power and take away D.C.'s home rule.
	And in the interim, have the police force report to a committee appointed by the president and Congress, right?
	Because we just cannot have law enforcement.
	We cannot have police report into these woke idiots like Muriel Bowser.
	Could you explain to the Schnuck why was the District of D.C. created in the first place?
	It was created under our Constitution.
	The first capital, where was it?
	I might be getting this backwards.
	Was it New York, then Philadelphia, then the third place was D.C.?
	And I think I'd have to go back and look at this.
	I think it was because it was closer to where George Washington was down at Mount Vernon, right?
	So they had to create this 10-mile by 10-mile federal enclave on the Potomac between Maryland and Virginia.
	Actually, Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia, used to be part of D.C., and Congress broke them up.
	And part of my power grab here, when we repeal the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, I think we need to retrocede Arlington and Alexandria back into the District of Columbia so we can have Washington District of Columbia, Alexandria District of Columbia, Arlington District of Columbia, and then take away their right to elect senators and representatives.
	We'll turn Virginia red permanently and we'll disenfranchise all these government workers who live in the D.C. area, right?
	And we'll make them part of the District of Columbia.
	Someone had asked in the chat, when you punch, do they punch back?
	Now, to the extent you say you're actively representing Trump, I'm going to ask the obvious question.
	Have you had people file ethics complaints, go after you quite personally for your conduct as a professional?
	I am not.
	So I'm not representing Trump.
	I am doing this through the Article III project.
	I'm not Trump's lawyer.
	I'm a Trump fan.
	I'm happy to punch.
	And frankly, I don't care if they punch me, right?
	So I've been doing this for, you know, reporters, left-wing activists.
	They'll come after me.
	And then look what happens.
	So then I punch back even harder.
	Like Ruth Marcus from the Washington Post did a whole opinion piece bashing me.
	And so I just made her life living hell until she she cried uncle and called me and told me to stop.
	So these reporters, these these left wing activists, they know if they mess with me, I'm going to come back at them.
	I always say I compare myself to a homeless man with a knife.
	Right.
	You you might be able to beat me up, but you're going to get cut.
	And is it worth it?
	Exactly.
	Now, what are some of the other big legislative items that you're hopeful that if Republicans take back the House and the Senate?
	Now, with Biden there, it might be blocked.
	But part of a legislative agenda, if, say, Trump is back or someone or DeSantis, whomever, in 2025, that what are some of the key legislative reforms we need to do to institutionalize in order to reduce the risk of this happening again?
	So, there are a lot of things that need to happen.
	It needs to be that power.
	We have concentrated power in this country.
	It's concentrated in government in D.C. It's concentrated in corporations.
	Particularly, it's concentrated in big tech.
	I'm running, in addition to the Article 3 project, I'm running the Internet Accountability Project to take on big tech.
	There is a bipartisan, rare bipartisan closing window of opportunity between the You know, the populist left and the Trump right to take on big tech right now with antitrust.
	And so Congressman Ken Buck, Republican All-Star from Colorado, my former boss Chuck Grassley from Iowa, Tom Cotton, Mike Lee, are working with a bipartisan coalition to get key bipartisan big tech antitrust reforms done this year in the lame duck session, and they need to get done.
	And there is a...
	Look, I disagree with Biden on everything.
	I think he's an incompetent, demented, bad person.
	He's a terrible president, and our country's suffering for it.
	The only thing that he's doing right is he's good on big tech antitrust.
	And he's appointed two people, Lena Kahn at the FTC and Jonathan Cantor at the Justice Department's antitrust division, who share my view that big tech has too much power.
	They violate the Sherman Act.
	They violate the Clayton Act.
	But we have this thing called the Consumer Welfare Standard that conservatives made up at the Chicago School 40 years ago.
	Bork, Scalia, you know, my judicial heroes on a lot of things.
	They're just wrong on antitrust.
	And this Consumer Welfare Standard makes it where big tech has antitrust amnesty.
	Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple have antitrust amnesty.
	They have too much market power.
	They're monopolies.
	They use their power to crush competition.
	Shutter small businesses, cancel conservatives.
	We need to fix this legislatively to give the FTC, Justice Department, State Attorneys General, and private litigants the power to finally take apart, to dismantle, break up big tech.
	And I'll give you a quick example.
	People said, if you don't like Twitter, build your own.
	Okay?
	Well, Parler did that.
	They quickly got a $1.3 billion valuation.
	And so what happened?
	Parler got blamed for January 6th, even though January 6th protests were organized on Facebook.
	Google and Apple kicked Parler out of the App Store duopoly, and Amazon kicked Parler off the Internet and crushed it.
	Parler filed a lawsuit.
	One of its claims was antitrust.
	It got kicked because of the consumer welfare standard, right?
	Because under the consumer welfare standard, they just look at price.
	And when you're looking at big tech, things are supposedly free.
	Free Gmail, free Google Maps, free Facebook, free Twitter, free, free, free.
	It's not free.
	They're making trillions of dollars by...
	Gathering, surveilling us, gathering as much information as they can about us and selling us to advertisers and making trillions of dollars off of this.
	But because we don't pay for these services, the consumer welfare standard basically says we don't have antitrust claims.
	And so that's why we need to fix this legislatively and we can get this done now.
	Jim Jordan opposes these things.
	I've been going to war with Jim Jordan.
	He's wrong.
	He's carrying Google's water.
	He must be called out.
	He must be stopped.
	Why does Jim Jordan substantively disagree with it?
	Substantively, he said, well, that's a good question.
	I've been doing Internet Accountability Project now for almost three years.
	When we first started this thing, Jim Jordan said, you know, censorship, censorship, the way we fix censorship is through the free market, right?
	Through, you know, we need to...
	We need to we can't do 230 reform because we just need to let the free market fix it.
	Right.
	So then we saw what happened with Parler.
	Right.
	So then we said, OK, there is no free market.
	A free market requires a functioning market.
	And when big trillion dollar big tech monopolists are using their market power to crush competition.
	We no longer have a free market.
	This is why we have antitrust laws, is to protect the free market.
	It is a targeted law enforcement measure to kill the anti-competitive tumors on the free market so we don't need industry-wide regulations.
	Facebook's calling for regulations because they can afford them.
	It's an entry barrier for startup competitors, right?
	So Jim Jordan, we said, okay, your free market solution didn't work.
	See Parler.
	Now let's do the antitrust.
	And now he's saying, oh...
	We can't do antitrust.
	We need to do Section 230.
	The problem with Jim Jordan is he takes too much of Big Tech's money and the Koch Network's money.
	There's the George Mason University, Mercatus, that whole world.
	His staffers come from that world.
	They take Google-funded trips around the world.
	It's a revolving door between Jim Jordan's office and that Google-Koch world.
	That's why they're doing this.
	They gaslight.
	It's not that he just opposes these bills and he's not on it.
	Look, if he's Daryl Issa, Daryl Issa from California just comes out and straight up says, I'm not supporting these bills because I like big tech.
	They're my constituents.
	Great.
	That makes sense.
	Jim Jordan comes out and says he's going to fight big tech.
	He's going to crush them.
	And then behind the scenes, he does their bidding and makes it even worse as he knifes the people like Ken Buck.
	Senator Grassley, my former boss, Tom Cotton, Mike Lee, he knifes them in the process.
	And so ask him.
	Have him come on your podcast and ask him why he's doing Google's bidding.
	What do you think the chances are of improved Republican leadership?
	Like a lot of, like some of these issues were there early on in the Trump administration.
	Some of us were talking about it, but ran into a lot of...
	Hurdles, you know, whether it was Jim Jordan on a big tech or McConnell on something else or Paul Ryan on something else, that a lot of the sort of populist build-up Trump base wanted to see action then on big tech and other things that didn't happen.
	And some are still concerned.
	They're like, okay, we're going to work hard, get Republicans elected.
	But what's the chances that we get better leadership going forward to be able to implement the things that people really care about?
	I think it is critical that we pass as many of these bills as we can in the lame duck session at the end of this year.
	Because I don't think that Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan are going to bring bills that do anything for big tech.
	There's not the support right now to do Section 230 reform.
	There is political support right now to get these antitrust bills passed that would finally start to break up.
	Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple's gatekeeping power over information and commerce in this country.
	And these are critically important bills, and we can stop them.
	We can stop them.
	We can get these done right now.
	Like, one of these bills, S2992, the nondiscrimination bill, would be a rifle shot into big tech.
	It would cause a lot of damage.
	And I'll tell you, just so you understand how much of a rifle shot this would be, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple have spent $200 million this year opposing S2992 alone.
	What does that mean, they've spent $200 million?
	What does that look like for people who don't know?
	They spend money on TV ads to attack these bills and say that we're going to take away Amazon Prime and we're going to break the internet and all that nonsense that they do.
	It's nonsense, but they have very deep pockets.
	They've spent $200 million.
	Just on one bill alone.
	That's how effective we've been at the Article III project and the Internet Accountability Project to make these front and center issues.
	Look, we were the first group on the right to take on Big Tech with the Internet Accountability Project.
	In three short years, we have gone a long way in changing the dialogue.
	Big Tech has done a lot of it to themselves by canceling conservatives, censoring, being too woke, going after deplatforming Trump.
	Rand Paul and the COVID censorship, and now they're debanking people.
	They've gone too far, right?
	And so they have too much power.
	They cannot be trusted with this power.
	Concentrated power in America, whether it's in government or corporations, is dangerous.
	And that's where the new Republican movement needs to get around this concept.
	Look, I'm not saying big is bad, but when you are a monopoly...
	When you're using your market power to crush competition, you are a cancerous tumor on the free market and you need to be eradicated.
	Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple need to be broken up.
	If Google competed against YouTube instead of acquired YouTube, there is no chance they would be censoring Rand Paul and these other top doctors on this COVID stuff.
	Speaking of sort of the last substantive policy question that you just mentioned before we break up, I'm concerned about what's happening in the financial services realm.
	So I represent a client, very successful, did a lot of great business projects, mostly helping refurbish properties that would benefit inner city neighborhoods because he was a Trump supporter.
	He got targeted by one of the top five financial institutions in America, by a major hotel franchise, and by a range of others.
	And they were trying to take him out.
	And then we're seeing this on smaller scale.
	Saw it in PayPal, where they floated that trial balloon before it got shot down.
	They lost a little cash in the market, thankfully.
	But the next risk is financial services weaponizing politics for the purposes of taking out conservative causes or conservatives, period.
	What could be done legislatively on that side of the aisle?
	Well, and that's already happening.
	We just saw this with PayPal, where they said that they're going to fine people $2,500 for You know, misinformation and disinformation.
	And there was a huge backlash.
	But what needs to happen is that Congress, Republicans say, oh, we don't want to use government power.
	Nonsense.
	We need to earn power.
	We need to use power like the left does.
	This is not, again, this is not the quaint old Democrat party of our parents and grandparents.
	This is the Marxist left.
	They're trying to destroy us.
	They're trying to cancel us.
	From the public square, they're trying to debank us.
	We need to fight back.
	And if Republicans are not willing to do that, we need to primary them and beat them.
	I know you've got to catch a plane.
	Where can people support the work that you're doing and follow the stuff that you do?
	I really appreciate you having me on.
	It's article3project.org, article number 3 project.
	And then I'm on Twitter, Getter, Truth.
	When I'm not kicked off of Twitter five times, my personal is M-R-D-D-M-I-A.
	M-R-D-D-M-I-A.
	That's Michael R. Davis, Des Moines, Iowa, where I'm from.
	And then it's at Article 3 Project, at Article 3 Project.
	And you can learn about the Internet Accountability Project.
	If you go on there, click on War Room.
	And that will take you to the Internet Accountability Project where we talk about these legislative fights that we're having this year to finally rein in big tech.
	It's time for Republicans to put up or shut up.
	Mike, email me all of those links and I'll put them in the pinned comment.
	And if we've got 120 seconds left, one question I need to ask.
	Sure.
	You were involved in the Kavanaugh hearings?
	I was the Senate staff leader for then-chairman Chuck Grassley.
	What was that like on the inside to see that level of treachery during the confirmation process?
	It was utter chaos.
	And it was stunning to me how many Republicans were so weak during that process, even the ones we thought were so tough.
	And if it weren't for it, I know that, you know, people complain about Mitch McConnell a lot.
	I'll tell you, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley as the majority leader in the Senate Judiciary Chairman were rock solid during that process.
	If they had wavered...
	At all during that process, Kavanaugh would have went down.
	We would have lost.
	The Republicans would have lost the Senate.
	We would have lost the Supreme Court.
	We would have lost the country.
	And they did not waver.
	They were rock solid.
	McConnell made anger conservatives in a lot of ways, but he is rock solid on judges.
	And he was very good during that process.
	Phenomenal.
	Robert, are we going to stick around and talk a few more minutes after this?
	Just a few minutes.
	Mike, thank you very much.
	Amazing stuff.
	Send me all your links.
	I'll put them in the pinned comment on YouTube and Rumble.
	And we'll make friends on Twitter now.
	Thank you so much for having me, guys.
	Alright.
	Have a good night.
	Thanks, Mike.
	Robert, hold on.
	I'm OCD.
	This has to be like this.
	And this has to be like this.
	Amazing.
	Oh, yeah.
	He's great.
	They're doing a lot of fantastic work.
	I was supposed to be on with Alex Jones here in a little bit.
	So, yeah, well, you got to go do that and talk about the billion-dollar verdict, Robert.
	People in the chat, let's end on that.
	Such an outlandish decision, it makes an appeal virtually guaranteed?
	It increases the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case.
	But because I don't have any confidence in the Connecticut court system.
	So as long as people continue to raise alarm about this in the court of public opinion.
	It increases the probability.
	The two big libel cases the U.S. Supreme Court took up were partially because of outrageous verdicts.
	$5 million verdict in the New York Times versus Sullivan, probably worth $50 million today.
	$77 million verdict in the Westboro Baptist case.
	Everybody who knows anything knew that those cases were about impermissible punishment of speech.
	That the families didn't suffer a billion dollars in damages because of statements they didn't even hear that weren't even about, didn't even name them, right?
	I mean, it's the most outrageous, outlandish verdict in American civil justice history, period.
	It makes it look bad.
	It makes plaintiffs' lawyers look bad.
	It makes the judicial systems in Connecticut and Texas and Austin look bad.
	It makes it look like a bad joke.
	This makes the McDonald's verdict, which actually had better grounds for it if you knew the whole facts of it, look like a pristine verdict of justice.
	This is an utterly outrageous verdict that exposes what a mockery of a trial in civil justice this case became.
	People are going to say, it's not a billion-dollar verdict, Robert.
	There's 16 plaintiffs.
	One of them got $120 million.
	The other one got $50 million.
	They gave an FBI guy, that FBI, $90 million.
	Nobody died.
	He didn't suffer any physical harm related to him.
	$90 million.
	Jones never even talked about him.
	He admitted he never saw Jones talk about him.
	$90 million.
	It's an outrage.
	I'll tell you what's getting very tiresome is argue with people on Twitter.
	David A. French.
	Says defamation is not protected speech.
	It's like, David, trials typically are protected or guaranteed.
	If you skip the part where they skip the trial, oh, then everyone's like, well, he should have just complied with discovery.
	Well, obviously, whatever default he didn't comply with...
	It was not a big deal because they had all the evidence at trial, whether they got it sooner or later.
	And you go through these loops.
	It's insanity trying to have a sane discussion on Twitter.
	Just the damages by itself.
	I mean, the damages by itself is nuts.
	You think people can be sued for a billion dollars for their speech.
	That's never happened in the history of the world.
	If you think that, you're a nut.
	That it shouldn't have anything to do with the civil justice process.
	All right, so you're going to be on Jones tonight.
	Riccate is going to be on as well?
	Yes.
	People, you know what to watch tonight if you're going to look for some entertainment.
	Infowars.com.
	I'm going to read a few of the chats after you go, Robert, and just hang around for a bit.
	All right, go.
	See you soon.
	People, you may have seen it.
	Winston is on my lap.
	Winston.
	I am Winston Schittenhouse.
	Okay, he's been keeping me warm here.
	I'll read some of the chats that I didn't get to.
	That I've...
	Hold on, hold on.
	What's my problem?
	I can still see the chat on YouTube.
	Whose money is it again?
	For those of you who don't know, the verdict came down today.
	Whoever was reading the verdict, I was listening to this with somebody who's apolitical.
	And they said, how is the person reading this without like...
	Not laughing because it's not funny.
	How are they reading these quantums with a look of credulity on their face?
	$190 million for the FBI agents.
	This might be like the country is not dying.
	And this might be that little needle that pops the balloon of the insanity.
	And people are like, oh yeah, a billion dollars.
	You think what you want about a billion dollars after a default verdict.
	And so I'm getting into these exchanges on the Twitterverse.
	They seem good-natured, but then I realize I'm not dealing with good-faith actors where they say he had a trial.
	And I said, no, he didn't have a trial on the merits.
	They only had a trial on the quantum.
	It was a default verdict on the merits, not in front of a jury.
	The judge said so much noncompliance with discovery.
	I grant verdict by default.
	They didn't even have to prove their case in front of a jury.
	So it's nuts.
	But let me read some of the super chats that I didn't.
	What about the abortion leak?
	That wasn't a super chat.
	That was just a regular comment I wanted to ask him.
	Mike Davis talked about that in other interviews.
	The autistic tiger we met at the Project Veritas event.
	Tiger just freaked everyone out at New York City Comic Con.
	With his upside-down drawings.
	And ABC is running his story nationwide tonight.
	Go, Tiger!
	Fantastic stuff.
	This was also just a comment that I wanted to ask.
	I did not get to ask this one.
	Sorry about that.
	What do we got?
	Barry Britt, are you covering the Emergencies Act Commission?
	I'm going to be paying attention to it.
	And maybe get...
	The Emergencies Act Commission is what's going on in Canada.
	Starts very soon.
	I don't know exactly when it starts.
	Investigating Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act to determine whether or not it was a legitimate invocation of the nuclear weapon of legislation.
	I'll be following it.
	Oh yeah, I didn't get to this one either.
	Taking a dump on Viva's homework is a political statement and should be protected under the First Amendment.
	It is protected under the rules of the House, primarily because I cannot stop the dogs from doing it.
	What do you say?
	Oh yeah.
	Maybe my breath.
	Maybe my breath smells a little bad.
	Winston Shittenhouse.
	Good to see you again.
	When is someone going to recognize and pursue the fact that Google, Alphabet, YouTube, yada, yada, yada, are government creations masquerading as private corp?
	Discovery suit.
	That argument has been raised in terms of they've gotten subsidies to get where they are.
	They've gotten tax breaks, et cetera, et cetera.
	Oh, it starts tomorrow.
	Good.
	I'll be covering it.
	We'll see if we cover it live.
	It might be interesting.
	Pudge is alive and well.
	She's out there.
	Didn't take a dump on my homework, but she took a dump in the house, but it just comes out randomly.
	Now, there were some Rumble rants that I did not get to that are still...
	We need to integrate Rumble comments into the StreamYards app, but apparently that's a StreamYards issue and not a Rumble issue.
	Oh, Grammykin, $5 Rumble rant, said the U.S. Capitol should be at Leavenworth, Kansas, centrally located conveniently near prison.
	I think that's the only Rumble rant that I actually got a screen grab of.
	The trial is just an absolute joke.
	And we're still only seeing one...
	Oh, no, we got 4,600 watching on Rumble.
	It was showing one viewer throughout the stream.
	I will be streaming tomorrow.
	Guaranteed.
	We'll go into more detail and maybe we'll go over the...
	Reading of the verdict.
	Oh, and the judge afterwards thanked the jury.
	Viva, you now have one billion reasons to play it safe.
	It's so preposterous.
	Well, I'm not worried about that.
	I weigh my words and verify information and, you know, correct if ever.
	For example, today on Twitter.
	I said that O.J. Simpson was found guilty in the civil trial after a trial, whereas Alex Jones was default guilty with no trial.
	And then the meticulous eyes of the interweb said, he wasn't found guilty in a civil trial.
	He was found responsible.
	Yeah, you got me.
	Anyhow, so that's it.
	It's outrageous stuff.
	Go check out Barnes Ricada on...
	InfoWars.
	It's going to be special.
	One last thank you to the sponsor for today, HomeTitleLock.com forward slash Viva.
	That link is in the bottom for property owners, homeowners who want to protect their property.
	I want to see if there's any more grounds.
	Yeah, I have not been watching the Daryl Brooks trial.
	That's just nuts.
	EuroWars in the Rumble section says, So how much is calling parents domestic terrorists worth?
	This is the irony of the Jones verdict.
	Both sides of the political spectrum know that it's ridiculous.
	It's just that one side likes the fact that it's ridiculous because it's against their ideological enemies, and they don't think it's ever going to come back to bite them in the ass.
	Vaush, I shouldn't impute intent into Vaush's tweet, but everyone's tweeting, 965 million LOLs.
	Okay.
	If you think that that's good, and you think that anyone is safe from that, yeah.
	Andrea Gay says, check out the Kanye West story about JPM canceling him.
	JPM is...
	That's a bank, correct?
	Why can't I think of what JPM is?
	Hold on, everyone.
	Let me see what...
	JPM...
	What is that?
	Okay, JP Morgan Chase.
	Fine.
	Yeah, well, he put out an ill-advised Instagram post that's going to cost him a lot, it would look like.
	Locals is the only free space.
	Rum is public, a.k.a.
	owned by BlackRock.
	That is S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-E-D.
	Yes, Rumble is public.
	Well, first of all...
	If you think Rumble's not safe, Rumble owns locals.
	So if that's the rationale, then it's a bad logic.
	But Rumble is public, but still controlled by Pavlovsky.
	And so the risk is Pavlovsky has an about face or something happens to Pavlovsky and the company falls into different hands.
	Like Barnes and I have been saying for a while, however, the platform, the company went public on warranties and representations that it would respect viewpoint neutral.
	It would adopt terms of service, which will be clear, and will also be applied with no political viewpoint discrimination.
	If they backtrack on that, you know, arguably class action lawsuits, much in the same way that, well, the arguments have been made for, against other platforms.
	That's the basis of their having gone public.
	Those were the warranties and representations to shareholders.
	There's always a risk.
	Life is risk.
	So if anybody thinks there's no risk in this, there is.
	But you have to have faith in the company, in the people.
	And I do.
	So, what else?
	Can't sue Big Pharma.
	How do you like that, Jack Burton?
	No, you can't sue Big Pharma when big government immunizes Big Pharma.
	On the warranties and representations that safe and effective.
	And if it turns out now that the pharma had lied to the government in order to get those immunities, then maybe you could have a lawsuit.
	And we'll see what Barnes' lawsuit with Brooke Jackson involves down the line.
	So that's it.
	Okay, let's not get too much into what we're going to discuss tomorrow.
	We'll talk about this tomorrow.
	Go watch InfoWars.
	Barnes is there.
	So it should be very interesting.
	I might have to watch it myself after I try to take care of some housekeeping.
	And we'll be live tomorrow.
	Tomorrow's Thursday.
	During the day, tune in.
	Everybody, that was fantastic.
	Mike is an interesting guy.
	Article 3 project.
	And I'll put all the links in both Rumble and YouTube so that people can...
	So that people can go support if they so choose.
	Everybody, thank you as always.
	Great to see you.
	I will see you tomorrow.
	Do I need to give the standard disclaimers?
	You've watched a man passionately describe how he's defending what he believes in.
	I will still stick with the mantra, and I think Mike is doing it.
	Do it in a way that makes your parents, your children, and your pets proud, and you can never be led astray.
	Go enjoy the evening.
	See you all tomorrow.

▲