Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 20, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:04:14

Ep. 152: Trump Madness; Reparations; Paltrow Ski "Hit & Run" AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We might have some answers about who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
	And what's wild is it's not who anyone initially suspected.
	Now, some really important context about this pipeline is that it transformed natural gas from Russia to Europe.
	Because of that, it gave Putin leverage in the war.
	He could turn the taps on and off, and Europe would go into a tailspin because they needed that energy.
	And then one day, the pipes blew up.
	Now, people started pointing fingers right away.
	Some thought it was Russia.
	Others thought it might have been the US.
	Because the U.S. made it pretty clear that they weren't thrilled about how dependent Europe was becoming on Russian energy.
	Some context might be important, which I think one of the pipelines wasn't actually functional.
	The U.S. made it clear that they weren't...
	What did she say?
	How did she describe it here?
	How dependent Europe was becoming on Russian energy.
	Because the U.S. made it pretty clear that they weren't thrilled about how dependent Europe was becoming on Russian energy.
	The US made it pretty clear they were going to end the pipeline one way or the other.
	Let's just carry on with some context.
	Others suspected maybe Ukraine blew it up to try to take away some of Putin's leverage over Europe.
	But if Ukraine was to blame for this, then Europe would probably be pretty pissed because they were helping Ukraine so much in the war and now their energy prices are skyrocketing.
	By the way, when we know who actually did this, let's ask that question again.
	Why wouldn't Europe be pretty pissed with the fact that it was the U.S. by all accounts, and that being Seymour Hersh with Intel, and all logical accounts, and the ever damning admissions?
	One way or another, if Russia invades Ukraine, we're going to put an end to the North Stream pipeline.
	How are you going to do that, Mr. President?
	It's in Germany.
	We'll find a way.
	Victoria Nuland said the same thing.
	Why wouldn't Europe be pretty pissed with America right now?
	Good question.
	Well, according to the New York Times, intelligence suggests it wasn't a country at all.
	In fact, they believe a pro-Ukraine non-government group was behind the sabotage.
	And there's no evidence the Ukraine government knew.
	It looks like we might have some answers.
	Can you believe this, people?
	It's not that I don't mean to pick fun at Rachel Gilmore in particular.
	The level of idiocy.
	This is beyond Wikipedia news.
	It's TikTok news of the most ignorant, misinforming nature.
	And then when you criticize journalists for propagating this propaganda, propagating propaganda, you get in trouble.
	You get called a bully for picking on these journalists who are just doing their job to spout.
	Pure rubbish.
	Let's get some context.
	Here's some context.
	Victoria Nuland said they were going to end the Nord Stream pipeline.
	President Joe Biden said they were going to end the Nord Stream pipeline.
	The CIA met with Germany the summer before the pipeline was ended and said it's going to be ended.
	They were conducting, I don't know, tests or they were conducting what they call the military training in that part of the ocean in the days leading up to this.
	No, no, no.
	But it's...
	The technology required to do this, as detailed by Seymour Hersh in his article, was impressive.
	So impressive that the people who did it were actually impressed with themselves for having done it.
	Set all that aside.
	It was some sailors.
	It was some pirates.
	Some pro-Ukrainian pirates that sank death charges, blew up the pipeline, and nobody noticed.
	It's amazing.
	It's absolutely amazing.
	Some people had asked if I could start with Fauci.
	Don't worry.
	We're going to get to Fauci.
	I said, who do we start with tonight?
	DeSantis, Russell Brand, Fauci, or Gilmore?
	I had to get to the Gilmore one because we're going to talk about, you know, just that pesky little drone that was downed in international waters and now there's a scramble to get this drone.
	It's just an American drone, just doing recon in international waters.
	It wasn't bothering anybody.
	It was actually Russian jets that were harassing this.
	Innocent drone that was just, you know, flying like a bird.
	Okay, but before we get too far into anything, people, the moment of truth.
	I'm going to rumble right now.
	I haven't seen anything in the chat.
	I'm going to hit refresh.
	Testify, people!
	Hallelujah!
	We are good and live on Rumble.
	Let me go to Locals, vivabarnslaw.locals.com, where there is a meme of Vladimir Putin, shirtless with a fishing rod.
	He just caught a drone.
	We're live on Rumble.
	We're live on Locals, and we're live on YouTube.
	We will be ending this early on YouTube, as we typically do, going to Rumble and Locals Exclusive.
	There will probably be an after-party at Locals.
	I may have a hard out at 7.30 when the family comes and harasses me to get back to vacation, Dad.
	I don't relax well, and I don't say that as a humble flex.
	I don't relax well, and it's probably a problem.
	I mean, it's probably not healthy.
	I don't like relaxing.
	I don't know how to relax.
	When I'm sitting on a bench, whatever those things are called, you know, you lie down at the beach, I had to go for a jog.
	And I was listening to yesterday, the day before yesterday, I was listening to Michael Malice's...
	Quite pill.
	Today I was listening to Robert Govea summarize the January 6th, day 39 of the Proud Boys trial.
	Then I was listening to some other stuff.
	Okay.
	But before we get into any of that, people, you may have noticed this stream contains a little box.
	It says, this video contains a paid promotion because it does.
	And yet again, people...
	It's one of those wonderful paid promotions because it's something that I use, use before getting as a sponsor, and continue to use today because I love it.
	Manscaped.
	I've got text to read.
	I'm not good at reading text.
	It has to come from the heart because it will.
	Manscaped 2.0, people.
	They have the new thing called the Weed Quacker.
	The weed whacker.
	You can go out and whack the weeds in the tool shed.
	It's a good eraser.
	It's a good clipper.
	Some people use it for down south, which is why I never used it back in the day, because children, when you get there and you're married for 13, 14, how many years now?
	It's going to be 15 years?
	Holy crap, it's going to be 16 years.
	When you've been married for 16 years...
	It's not that you let yourself go.
	It's just that you let certain parts of yourself go.
	Although I was never really into trimming the Netherlands or the nether regions beforehand.
	But trimming my beard, it's amazing.
	It's got the beautiful switch.
	You can clip up and down.
	You can grade the way you shave.
	You can shave underneath so that you don't have neck hair going down because I don't like neck hair going down.
	But what I love about Manscaped, in particular, people, and you can see it in that image right here, the deodorant is good.
	It makes you smell good.
	All that other stuff, but the beard oil.
	Because I put the beard oil in my hair.
	Look at that.
	It's beautiful.
	I put the...
	Oh, gosh darn it.
	I put the beard oil in my hair, even though I'm not sure if you're supposed to put the beard oil in your hair, but it makes the hair lush, smooth, silky.
	It makes your beard nice and soft.
	It's beautiful.
	The Manscaped beard, shampoo, conditioner, all the stuff.
	It's got all the good stuff.
	If you have a beard, if you have a facial hair, and a lot of people do, I've been noticing it.
	If you have hair down on your other parts and you want to keep it trimmed, you're a young dude or a young lad, lass, out hitting the bars.
	Don't hit the bars.
	Go to the libraries.
	Go rock climbing.
	Meet people in meaningful ways.
	But if you want to trim down there, it's good.
	You'll be able to trim down there without giving yourself an accidental circumcision 2.0.
	Manscaped.com promo code VIVA.
	You'll get 20% off and free shipping.
	And it's great.
	It's absolutely great.
	I genuinely use it.
	I used it before they were a sponsor and I'll continue to use it after.
	What is it called?
	Manscaped.com promo code VIVA.
	David's wife is a saint.
	I might have to fix that thing there.
	My wife is a saint because she is now occupying the children while I do this.
	Hey, look at that.
	Oh my gosh, that shows the contours of my nose.
	So, oh, standard disclaimers also, by the way.
	So the fro downstairs is just as wild as upstairs.
	Thomas Caldwell, 74. It isn't, but we're not talking about Viva's down hairs, okay?
	We're not talking about Viva's groin hair, but, you know, people do trim down there.
	It's beautiful.
	There was another one.
	Another super chat, which I missed up here.
	And this will give me the standard disclaimers before we get into it.
	Viva, at some point, please post pics of you and Ian Rumpel before COVID and now what has happened to Canadian law.
	Yeah, Rumpel, Rumpel of the Bailey.
	Ian Rumpel, Rumpel of the Bailey.
	Great law channel as well.
	His hair has gotten long as well.
	I don't know when he started growing his hair.
	I think he was growing it before COVID.
	I don't know.
	What was I going to say?
	Yeah, the standard disclaimer is Rumble Rants, Super Chats, these things that you see here.
	Let me just bring it back up.
	YouTube takes 30% of that.
	If you don't want to support YouTube and you want to support us, you can go right now to Rumble.
	They have Rumble Rants, and I'm going to see if I've got any none yet to bring up.
	They take 20%, so you can feel better supporting a platform that supports free speech, better for your creator, and if you don't want to do that...
	The absolute best way, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where you can get tons of exclusive content if you are a paying supporter or just join the community of not paying supporters.
	We're at 107,000 plus now.
	Members who get a ton of free content, but if you want to pay $7 a month, $70 a year, or more if you so choose, great way to support us and ensure that we can continue doing what we're doing the way we're doing it, but bigger, better, badder, and harder.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice, no legal advice, although we will be talking about a bot lawyer, chat AI type bot, that's being sued because it's allegedly passing itself off as a lawyer, but it's not a lawyer.
	And before I continue, audio's decent.
	I'm using the Mac mic, so let me know if it's decent enough.
	Viva is changing by the meaning of harebrained for positive.
	Oh, so, okay, look, I said I'm going to...
	I'll stay out of the light just like this.
	I said I was going to start with either Gilmore Fauci brand or DeSantis.
	DeSantis, I might say for Barnes because I know he's going to have a good take on it.
	Let me just play this beautiful ad.
	Oh, that was much louder than I thought it was going to be.
	I don't have a crush on Brand.
	I like his philosophy of life.
	I listen to his book Recovery.
	I think he is spreading a message of positivity.
	But I know people are going to disagree with him in this message here, but this is Rumble's new ad campaign of sorts.
	Don't assume that free speech means the right to freely hurt people's feelings.
	Why would you use free speech to hurt someone when we can use free speech to bring people together?
	This is a time for true unity.
	Free speech revealed that we are more united than they'd ever dare imagine.
	It's time to break free.
	Rumble.
	Yes.
	I know some people out there are saying free speech is specifically the right to hurt someone's feelings.
	Free speech is the right to go up to the president and say FJB.
	Forget Joe Biden if I want to keep it kid friendly.
	What Russell Brand is elucidating here, on the one hand, is not a rule, but an ideal.
	Also, what Russell Brand is elucidating here is the fact that Rumpel I'm not going to compare it to other free speech platforms.
	It's not going to be the platform where people run around and run to so they can scream expletives and insult each other.
	Russell Brand and Rumble are expressing the ideal that the meaningful free speech that people have been battling for That people have been fleeing the censorship on YouTube.
	What that meaningful free speech is about is about the free speech to challenge the narrative.
	Yes, like I said on Twitter, and it's quite...
	Can I pat myself on the back?
	It's quite insightful.
	I don't know if it's my original thought.
	I think it is, but who knows what's original these days while the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron and a toaster mixed together.
	Free speech is like a knife.
	It can be used to harm people.
	It can be used to defend yourself.
	And it can be used to spread, you know, like spread butter on toast.
	Except it can be used to spread the truth.
	Free speech can be all of those things, and people will use it for all of those reasons.
	I also do adhere to Jordan Peterson's ideology that, you know, sometimes, unfortunately, speaking the truth hurts someone's feelings.
	You call someone a he when the he thinks she's a she, he's a she, and you're committing a crime in some countries.
	But Russell Brand is expressing an ideal and depicting and hoping to create a rumble that is free speech, not in that people run around screaming expletives at each other, but in that people are empowered to speak truth to power and actual truth to actual power, not lies.
	Okay, hold on.
	It's going to drive you crazy.
	Let me just close the board.
	Oh, God, my knee.
	Okay.
	That might make it worse.
	So that was part two.
	That was a fun one to talk about.
	Let me see here.
	I think I saw something.
	Why has Barnes stopped drinking Essence of Winston?
	Dude, I don't know what that means.
	What is Essence of Winston?
	But thank you.
	A24964105.
	Okay, what does that mean?
	I don't know.
	All right.
	And actually, before Barnes gets here.
	Before Barnes gets here, one last one.
	The last video of the day.
	Fauci, the alleged criminal.
	Now, I'm not saying Fauci is a criminal.
	I'm calling him an alleged criminal because I hope one day there will be fair trials.
	And I do believe that if one day there are fair trials, Fauci will go to jail.
	Would go to jail in any other realm of the universe.
	He would go to jail if for nothing other than contempt of Congress or perjury, I guess.
	What would it be?
	Contempt of Congress or perjury?
	Listen to this, by the way.
	And, you know, on the subject of free speech, the meaningful free speech, not the free speech to run around insulting people.
	Or I should say gratuitous insulting people.
	The meaningful free speech to say things like, hmm, that thing you call the vaccine, why are you calling it a vaccine if it doesn't do the things that vaccines have traditionally done?
	Oh, that thing you call the vaccine might not be doing what you said it was going to do, and now we'd like to challenge that and not be kicked off of platforms, demonetized, ostracized, called tinfoil, hat-wearing conspiracy theorists.
	That's the meaningful free speech.
	Had we had it...
	Lives would have been saved and would have been saved in a very substantial sense.
	We're going to talk about, oh, we're going to talk about a class action lawsuit for the administration of remdesivir.
	I keep, what do they call it?
	There was a word that when death is near or something, remdesivir, which might have killed hundreds of thousands of people, you know, just that little pesky thing called organ failure.
	But listen to Fauci spewing medical misinformation, spewing it like he has explosive diarrhea after a night at Taco Bell.
	What's that doing with vaccine?
	Oh, I don't know how you got me yet.
	I'm waiting for the review.
	Oh, you should get it first.
	Okay, that way you won't give it to them.
	I thought I would give it to them if I get it.
	No, no, not at all.
	In fact, we got to get you vaccinated so that if you were to get infected, you could pass it on to them.
	So you're actually protecting your family by getting vaccinated.
	Well, I heard that it doesn't cure it and it doesn't stop you from getting it.
	No.
	So on the very, very, very rare chance that you do get it, even if you're vaccinated, it's a very you don't even feel sick.
	It's like you don't even know you got infected.
	It's very, very good at protecting you.
	Just the Anacostia.
	So get up there.
	All right.
	See you later.
	There's an expression in French.
	The more things change, the more things stay the same.
	Or, more eloquently put, by Mark Twain, history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	I mean, I do not reflexively run to identity politics.
	Ever.
	Period.
	Full stop.
	In my interview with Hotep Jesus, where we're talking about where he's sharing an anecdote of being on a plane in first class and someone does something which he then says they're angry at seeing.
	A black man in first class.
	And I said, maybe we have to engage in racial deprogramming so that you get that reflexive thought out of your head.
	I don't have those reflexive thoughts where someone makes a joke about frugality.
	I don't assume they're making that joke for reasons of stereotypes about me.
	You all know the joke, how copper wire was invented.
	Let the chat answer that one, because I didn't know about that stereotype about the Scots.
	But how is copper wire invented, people?
	It's quite a funny joke.
	I watched that video, and I see Anthony Fauci, a medical expert, going to communities and telling them, inject this experimental medication.
	Don't worry, it's good for you.
	The government wouldn't lie, you know, like the way they did for decades during the Tuskegee experiments.
	I mean, what that looked like to me, and I don't typically, I don't go for it based on the racial identity aspect, but because of the government citizen aspect, what I just saw there looks uncomfortably close to the Tuskegee experiments,
	where the U.S. government Where the U.S. government is going to communities and thinking people are dumber than them and saying, oh, no, it's good for you.
	Take it.
	Take it.
	You've got to protect your kids.
	You've got to protect your kids.
	Oh.
	Anyhow, so that's what I got out of that.
	Tuskegee.
	Okay, I get it.
	Maybe I said Tuskegee.
	Is that?
	Is that?
	Kid Rock.
	That looks like Kid Rock if I don't know who Kid Rock is, and I know who Kid Rock is.
	The more things change, the more things stay the same.
	And now I'm getting Tuskegee.
	Okay, dude, and that, I don't know who that looks like.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Oh, but the science has changed.
	Unlikely.
	I think Rachel Gilmore had one of those from way back in the day for City News or Global News.
	Breakthrough cases are ever so unlikely.
	They're ever so rare.
	There's only been 8,000 cases in Ontario.
	Now the majority of people who are dying from COVID are jabbed.
	But that's because most people are jibby-jabbed.
	Yeah, most people are jabbed with something that doesn't do what they were promised it was going to do when they were coerced into getting it.
	Now, nobody has seen Barnes saying, Viva, send me the link.
	I sent him the link.
	All right, look at this.
	We're going to do one more.
	I think I'm going to get to DeSantis before Barnes gets here.
	Okay, let's share a scream so that we can look at some rumble rants.
	Here we go.
	Mahuyu, $5 rumble rants says, this scream Reagan iconic line.
	Oh yeah, it screams the nine most terrifying words in the English language.
	I'm from the government and I'm here to help, which is either nine or ten.
	Tuskegee.
	Hard G. Tuskegee?
	Oh, Tuskegee.
	That's Leverstetter.
	Leverett Senior.
	Says Tuskegee.
	Hard G. And then The Broom.
	$5 Rumbrand says, I hear Pfizer created the shot one night at Taco Bell.
	All right.
	Well, let me see.
	We're going to get it all.
	We're going to get it all.
	Oh, we even have one more in the background.
	Oh, yeah.
	Good, good.
	Okay.
	Let's watch this.
	So the big news is we'll see what happens tomorrow.
	Apparently, from what the news is saying, they're getting ready for riots and protests, setting up barricades, etc., etc., in anticipation of Trump being arrested and cuffed.
	And there's some people on the interwebs.
	Sorry, it's got to scratch my face.
	There's some people on the interwebs spreading fear porn that...
	People are talking about violence.
	Who is it?
	Who the hell knows?
	I mean, it's an amazing thing when you can create bots, you can create chatter to say whatever you want so that you can then pick and choose from random bot accounts.
	They may or may not even be real people talking about the violence that no person in their right mind is suggesting would be warranted.
	But DeSantis had been a little too quiet for a little too long and came out today with what some people are saying, a little too little, a little too late.
	But let's hear what he has to say.
	DeSantis.
	On Barnes.
	Not on Barnes.
	On the Trump scandal here.
	Let's just bring this up here.
	Okay.
	So I've seen rumors swirl.
	I have not seen any facts yet, and so I don't know what's going to happen.
	But I do know this.
	The Manhattan district attorney is a Soros-funded prosecutor.
	And so he, like other Soros-funded prosecutors, they weaponize their office to impose a political agenda.
	He says he doesn't want to even have jail time for the vast, vast majority of crimes.
	And what we've seen in Manhattan is we've seen the crime rate go up, and we've seen citizens become less safe.
	Okay, so just stopping there.
	So far, so good.
	Dropping the big name, the S, Soros.
	Okay, there's a joke in there.
	Oh, Soros is an anagram.
	It's the same backwards as it is forward, much like...
	So far, so good.
	Dropping the truth bombs.
	Yes, another Soros-backed DA.
	Remember, we talked about it yesterday for those who managed to catch the stream, which you would have caught if you had gone to VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	The dude's backed by Soros.
	Heavy.com refuses to acknowledge this fact, rather just citing a bunch of other sources that state the fact and people who objected to this fact at the time of the fact.
	So far, so good, right?
	So, you're talking about this situation with, and look, I don't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair.
	I just, I can't speak to that.
	But what I can speak to is that if you have a prosecutor who is ignoring crimes happening every single day in his jurisdiction, and he chooses to go back many, many years ago to try to use something about porn star hush money payments, that's an example of pursuing a political agenda and weaponizing the office.
	And I think that that's fundamentally wrong.
	I also think it's important to point out when you're talking about these Soros-funded prosecutors, yes, they may do a high-profile politicized prosecution, and that's bad, but the real victims are ordinary New Yorkers, ordinary Americans in all these different jurisdictions that they get victimized every day because of the reckless political agenda that these Soros DAs bring to their job.
	They ignore crime.
	And they empower criminals.
	You knew someone wrote that line.
	I don't know what goes into paying porn stars hush money for, you know, that type.
	People were laughing.
	It was a jab.
	It was a jab that is a strong indication of a primary jab.
	That hurts people.
	It hurts a lot of people every single day.
	The Soros district attorneys are a menace to society.
	And I'm just glad that I'm the only governor in the country that's actually removed one from office during my tenure.
	All right.
	Look, it was a needle.
	It was a jab.
	And there's no question about it.
	And a jab that...
	It was a far more safe and effective jab than the other jabs that we're accustomed to.
	All right.
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	Maybe we're going to start with what Barnes thinks about this.
	And no, I'm not going to say what I think just yet.
	I'm going to see what Barnes thinks.
	Okay.
	Bringing on the Barnes people.
	And in.
	Hold on a second.
	What just happened here?
	Oh, that's great.
	I get real-time receipts.
	Now I can see that my wife, she just bought some ice cream somewhere with the kids.
	Okay.
	That'll keep them busy for a while.
	All right, Robert, I'm bringing you in in three, two, one.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Now, dare I ask, Robert, what on earth has been going on during March Madness?
	Because I'm not into it, but I heard people in the elevator.
	They were talking about people who had bet on, like, A sequence of bets, and they would have won them all had one game not gone a certain way.
	Do you know what that means?
	That depends on the circumstances, but what is a lot of people had money on a...
	There was a big, what's called a bad beat.
	So last night, the very last game of the very first round, Gonzaga against TCU.
	I had Gonzaga to win by a certain margin, four and a half points, to win by five or more.
	They're up by six.
	With 0.7 seconds left.
	And the TCU team rolled the ball all the way near half court.
	A guy grabbed it and threw it up at the last second.
	It went in.
	And so all the Gonzaga bettors lost their bet.
	Oh, they still lost the game, but they lost by less.
	I mean, Gonzaga still lost the game, but Gonzaga.
	So it was maybe the most famous bad beat in the history of March Madness.
	So it was a little bit crazy.
	But yeah, we got 21 possible topics tonight, plus a bonus topic.
	Our chronology tonight, for those that want to follow in sequence.
	First up, we have the banking crisis, what that means, what's going on.
	We have another banking-related issue, Chase Morgan and the Epstein case in the news, in the legal news.
	We have our Fed suit with George Gammon, coming up a FOIA suit against the Federal Reserve, related to some of all these issues.
	We have the January 6th cases, verdicts today in the Oath Keepers case.
	Robert Gouvet has been doing great coverage, watching the Watchers.
	You can follow him on Locals.
	And elsewhere, YouTube, Rumble, etc., on the other aspects of some of the embarrassing judicial conduct and prosecutorial conduct in the January 6th Proud Boys cases.
	Then we'll get to the big topic of discussion.
	That'll be topic number five tonight.
	You've got to hang around a little bit to get to that, which will be the impending indictment in New York City of Donald John Trump.
	We have an attempted arrest warrant of Vladimir Putin issued out of the International Criminal Court.
	We have the California State Bar wants to let you know that if you tweet the wrong way, they might try to disbar you.
	They couldn't find Michael Avenatti.
	They couldn't find Tom Girardi forever.
	But if you tweet about BLM, they are currently trying to disbar a lawyer for his tweets about BLM.
	We have the meme defendant.
	Some people said, hey, why have you guys not talked about this?
	We've talked about this case about a half dozen times.
	We talked about it twice last week, Robert.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What is people didn't put one and one together?
	The meme defendant case is the same case that we're talking about.
	Some people know it by name.
	Some people know it by the name of the defendant.
	Some people know it by the name of the person.
	It's all the same case being prosecuted out of the Eastern District of New York.
	But due to intimidation efforts, one of his key expert witnesses is now not going to testify.
	What would that be if the defense did that to a government expert?
	I can tell you.
	Involves jail time.
	We got the sex offenders can now live near your school, according to a federal court.
	We have Wyoming attempting to ban the abortion pill.
	What does that mean?
	What will be some of the legal challenges?
	We have somebody suing because of somebody inducing someone else to get an abortion.
	What might that mean, given this is continuous impact of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe as it gets played out at the state level?
	We have remdesivir lawsuits that are starting to percolate and spread.
	What might that mean for Pfizer vaccine immunity?
	We got a big vaccine safety conference coming up later this week in Atlanta, Georgia.
	I'll be at.
	I'll do a little preview of that conference.
	There's still tickets available.
	I believe people want to attend.
	Madison Square Garden has a biometric measurement that's now the basis of a suit.
	I may be on the list of people banned from Madison Square Garden for recently suing over a vaccine mandate.
	Are the Sandy Hook plaintiff's lawyers at risk for a legal malpractice suit?
	From their own clients.
	We'll discuss that about what's going on in some of the craziness in the Alex Jones bankruptcy proceeding.
	We got robot lawyers being sued for not being real lawyers.
	Kind of an interesting suit.
	We got Hunter Biden countersuing the tech repairman on the laptop issue.
	Big win against the Biden administration for a case we talked about just a few weeks ago.
	We predicted the win against the attempts to regulate waterways, which included regulating your pond in your backyard, by the way.
	Viva's got like a huge lake back there with like alligators and crocodiles and weird fish that like jump out and like teeth and all this other stuff.
	We got a crypto influencers are being sued just for being on YouTube saying they like crypto.
	We have a $243 million verdict that came in for Samsung.
	This was a bet the bank lawsuit and it went all the way to a jury trial and Samsung dodged a quarter of a billion dollar bullet from the jury.
	We got Lobsterman in Maine filing.
	They're done with the environmentalist lying about them, so they brought a libel lawsuit.
	And last but not least, our fun case of the week.
	There's a South Park lawsuit involving South Park this time.
	I've just started watching South Park again, and it's what comedy is supposed to be.
	Robert, before we even get into it, we're just going to end it now on YouTube and go over to Rumble.
	We'll make up for yesterday, people.
	So there's 2,400 people now on YouTube.
	Mosey on over to Rumble and let's make it awesome.
	The link is there ending on YouTube right now.
	So anybody watching on YouTube, go to Rumble, go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, or you can watch the entire thing tomorrow when I post the entire stream.
	It just won't be live.
	Ending on YouTube now, three, two, one.
	Robert, okay.
	I'm thinking crisis.
	Look, this is why I don't give financial advice.
	This is why I'm an idiot.
	I bought Credit Suisse when it was at an all-time low.
	Five days ago.
	Robert, what the hell's going on?
	I mean, I understand the basics.
	We had Gerald Salente on last week.
	He explained this as well, but what the hell's going on?
	You put your money in a bank.
	They invest your money elsewhere.
	What are they doing that there could be a banking crisis where they don't have the money?
	That their clients have deposited into their banks and I'm channeling that awesome scene from South Park and it's gone.
	Here's a hundred bucks.
	We're going to invest in some derivatives and it's gone.
	Please get out of the line and make it for customers.
	What the hell is going on with the banking crisis?
	So the Federal Reserve said, don't worry, we have all the tools we ever need.
	And then they announced new tools.
	The Biden administration said, don't worry, we're not going to be bailing out Silicon Valley Bank.
	I think George Gammon called it stupid Valley Bank.
	They said that at 9 a.m. in the morning and by 5 p.m. they said, change that, we're going to be bailing out the unsecured depositors of the bank.
	So there's all kinds of rumors and ruminations going around.
	I still think one of the best and most independent economic analysts on this is Jeffrey Snyder.
	He writes sometimes for Real Clear Politics.
	He has a YouTube channel.
	I was introduced to him through George Gammon.
	You can also follow George Gammon, who's got good breakdowns on this at both his channel and the Rebel Capitalist Pro channel.
	I'll be at a conference in mid-May in Orlando discussing this and some other issues concerning this.
	I see three issues going on.
	One is you have a global liquidity crisis, which is the euro-dollar system created after the end of World War II, which was to deal with the lack of elasticity in the money supply in the collapsed global economy that was now U.S. dominant.
	Private financial institutions and even non-financial institutions, to some degree, started issuing dollars.
	Not reserve dollars, not dollars from the Federal Reserve, not dollars backed up by anything, gold standard or otherwise.
	Just started issuing them.
	Basically, it was a ledger system, effectively.
	But it was a ledger system.
	It's denominated in dollars, and this became known as the Eurodollar system.
	This was before the existence of any euro.
	It has nothing to do with the actual euro currency.
	This just means dollars outside of the United States circulating in the United States.
	By the late 1980s, this was so unmanageable to track that the U.S. government quit trying to even track it.
	They have no idea how much debt around the world is denominated in dollars.
	And the consequence of that is that we can have constant, unexpected, unanticipated liquidity crises globally.
	It's also what squirrels assumptions and analysis that's going on, either about global inflation or deflation, as well as what's going on in terms of the dollar as a reserve currency.
	A lot of people are still focusing on a debate that's...
	We've got a system that nobody really understands.
	In fact, that was the real takeaway last week.
	The central banks, they have no idea what's going on.
	Our big political leaders, they have no idea what's going on.
	That's why they flip-flop within 24 hours.
	That's why they don't see it coming.
	That's why they don't anticipate it.
	Three, I mean, you had Credit Suisse, Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank, a crypto bank before that.
	You have First Republic Bank and a bunch of regional banks at risk.
	You had more people use what's the primary credit, what used to be called the open window at the Fed.
	These are banks looking for last resort money, cash liquidity.
	More of that happened last week than happened in 2008 and 2009 in the global financial crisis.
	What's happening is big banks are sitting on their money.
	The big banks are refusing to help small and medium-sized banks.
	But the liquidity issue is global.
	It shows up in Japanese bonds, German bonds.
	It's showing up in China, cutting its rate.
	It's showing up all around the world.
	Because this is a global liquidity problem.
	Because there's too much mismanagement of what exactly is taking place in the euro-dollar system.
	And the central bankers are pretending they control things they don't control anymore and have it for quite some time.
	So that's in the backdrop.
	Then you have two political objectives that have people very suspect.
	One, it looks like there is a war on crypto.
	And some believe it's an attempt to create a central bank digital currency.
	DeSantis, to his credit today, we'll get to what was not to his credit today, but what was to his credit today was his criticism of central bank digital currencies.
	But the theory is that a competitor...
	To a central bank digital currency are all the crypto, not only Bitcoin, but crypto alternatives.
	And that the banking system is using the global liquidity problems and malfunctioning of the financial plumbing of the world's currency exchange system to take out its crypto competitors.
	And that it's not a coincidence that Silvergate was taken out in that respect.
	There's some controversy over whether it was even insolvent when it was taken over.
	And there's comparable criticism of whether or not they deliberately chose not to help Silicon Valley Bank initially because the big banks want to swallow up the small and medium-sized banks, the old every crisis presents an opportunity, to continue to consolidate power.
	We've gone from over 5,000 financial institutions in the 80s to almost only 1,000 today across the United States.
	The banking system has been constantly and continuously consolidated.
	And that's exactly the opposite of what should happen.
	You listen to Richard Werner and others, small credit union style banks, somewhat to some degree like the German model, provide more productive capital than big concentrated Wall Street driven financial institutions have done in the asset bubbles of the past four decades.
	And so the question is, Are the big banks deliberately using the global liquidity crisis to squeeze small and medium-sized banks out of business so that people like UBS can buy up even Credit Suisse for literally, as you probably now know as a stockholder, pennies on the dollar?
	I still don't understand why them buying it would be such a terrible thing.
	What the hell do I know?
	That's why I shouldn't be doing this.
	Hey, they're one of the world's great money launderers.
	The only one that's better is the HSBC Bank.
	Oh, who sat on the HSBC Bank?
	Who was on the board during key money laundering time periods?
	Do you remember?
	I'm not sure that I knew to remember.
	There was a certain FBI director known as James Comey in between his stints at the DOJ and the FBI.
	But Robert, Silicon Valley Bank, they have what?
	They say like $210 billion in assets that they manage.
	What's the mechanism through which they find themselves in this problem?
	People give them their money.
	They say, here, open up a bank account.
	And then the bank then invests that money in other stocks.
	And then what?
	Come time to pay, their stocks are not worth what they invested and they don't have the cash to pay out, literally.
	A run on their bank accounts?
	It's really a trifecta.
	I think the broader issue where Jeffrey Snyder's been good is that Silicon Valley is an example of a deeper institutional problem than it is the cause of any institutional problem.
	That what you have is you just have a global financial liquidity problem that's bifurcated.
	One is the completely unmanaged creation of U.S. dollars outside of the U.S. that we have no control over and don't even know the volume of.
	Such that there can be unanticipated consequences to increasing the value of the dollar globally, that it could crash foreign economies overnight.
	That doesn't even get into the insanity of the derivatives market, which is just computers gone wild in terms of bets on leverage, on top of leverage, on top of leverage, and then all the asset bubbles that are global.
	So you've got that sort of underlying issue of which Silicon Valley Bank is kind of just an expression, just one manifestation.
	And then the other issues are specific to Silicon Valley Bank, which is you had woke, incompetent people hiding their incompetence behind their wokeness like half of Hollywood.
	People who really...
	They don't write woke stuff because they're woke so much as they write woke stuff because they can't write.
	And to hide the fact that they're incompetent, which is what some of these high-ranking bankers were.
	I mean, you can't write the script on some of this.
	They took one of Lehman Brothers' high-ranking executives at St. Lehman Brothers, and he had a high-ranking position at the Silicon Valley Bank.
	They were investing huge amounts of money in BLM and all these other loony causes.
	So you had that set of issues.
	You had another set of issues in which they really were, as George Gammon identified, Stupid Valley Bank.
	They didn't hedge their risk on a range of treasuries and other things that the feds have helped cause trouble in and the way they've raised rates in an unanticipated manner.
	But that was easily hedgeable.
	That was just incompetence.
	They did have a bit of a run on the bank in the sense that the crypto economy being attacked.
	Institutionally and being attacked by fraudsters and scam artists like the FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, with a lot of political ties and connections.
	Again, there's some people that are suspicious and suspect about what exactly that was all about.
	But whatever the source, not Bitcoin, which has actually been booming in value, but the rest of the crypto alt economy has been getting hammered.
	In the crypto exchange world, a lot of the people, and then that led to certain tech industry people getting hammered.
	And consequently, that led to effectively a bank run.
	But that only became a problem because they hadn't managed the asset side of their portfolio.
	And even that only became a problem because the big banks wouldn't help them out.
	And that's only an issue because there's actually an underlying global financial crisis that nobody's paying much attention to.
	So what you're going to see this week is Biden and the Fed come out and say, nothing to see here, nothing to see here.
	But from a legal perspective, the question is...
	How are these bailouts continuously legal?
	And they're supposed to be secured up to $250,000.
	Not secured more than that.
	And yet the banks are just coming in and bailing them out.
	And you dig in deeper.
	It's always a government fund.
	They pretend it's not a government fund.
	But you look at the ultimate source of the revenue and it's a government fund.
	It's just disguised through multiple layers and levels.
	And there's clearly legal questions about whether this is even legal in the first place.
	Same with the problems of the bailouts that took place in 07, 08. 809.
	In the past, bailouts, saving and loans, bailouts, etc.
	A lot of them have questionable legality.
	And the Federal Reserve is supposed to have this limited purpose, and yet it's running around just creating new entities out of the blue.
	And all of this more broadly reflects what happens when you do a massive experiment on a population in economics, which is what lockdown economics globally was in 2020.
	We induced artificial supply shocks.
	We induced Artificial stimulant demand.
	And you combine the two and you get the whipsaw effect in the economy of too much inventory.
	And all of a sudden you've got to dramatically shrink the inventory.
	Massive employment, then massive layoffs.
	You had the tech industry thinking this was going to be permanent when it was actually just temporary.
	Lockdowns were not going to be permanent.
	Too many people protested for that to become happen.
	So this is the backdrop.
	And the reality is our leaders are all globally incompetent.
	And the ones that are not are busy writing little jokes about...
	Snow White through people like Jeffrey Epstein.
	Robert, let me just ask you this.
	If the goal were to have a centralized digital currency that the government could make you download as an app and predicate on proper behavior, and they wanted to get there, making it look like it was a natural, unfortunate accident.
	Or necessary.
	What would the powers that be be doing any differently than hiking interest rates?
	What would they be doing differently than what they're doing now?
	Only they would actually win their economic war against Russia.
	The ability to impose a central bank digital currency is still pretty strong in the West, but it's DOA around the globe because China, India, Pakistan, Africa, Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe.
	None of them are interested because they just saw what the U.S. could try to do with that and what the West could try to do with that.
	We'll discuss the International Criminal Court case up in a bit with Vladimir Putin.
	A global digital currency is dead.
	DOA.
	Never going to happen.
	And that doesn't mean Russia or China or Brazil or India won't domestically try their own.
	And there's no question that's the roadmap that they're going down.
	And there's fair criticism of whether there's targeting of small and regional banks, targeting of crypto exchanges, targeting of crypto-backed banks, targeting of crypto as an alternative and tacking it in the SEC context, whether it's Ripple or Library or others.
	It does appear to have a coordinated plan to take out competition and at the same time present an emergency crisis.
	Predicate for them to come in and seize power and issue a central bank digital currency.
	So I think it's a real risk that people have to be alert and pay attention to.
	But I also think there's actually a global financial liquidity crisis that only a few smart actors know about.
	George Gammon several years ago pointed out that somebody was betting long tail risk that the Fed would suddenly reverse by summer of 2023 and be lowering rates rather than raising rates when everybody was saying they would be raising rates through 2023.
	That looks to already be in place.
	So somebody knows something, but it's because they were buying some big tail risk exposure.
	And if you follow George Gammon, you would have known about it years ago.
	But you can't rule out that there's nefarious intention of using a crisis as an opportunity as well.
	All right.
	Well, on that note...
	Damn creditors.
	Robert, yes.
	Jeffrey, I mean, you're talking about bank bad behavior.
	So J.P. Morgan, one of the original founders of the idea of the Federal Reserve at Jekyll Island, where he had his own apartment and then ultimately his own property on that little island off the coast of Georgia.
	You know, The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, a good book, well-scripted, well-told tale of financial fraud and corruption that dates back to efforts all the way to the beginning of the country.
	Basically, it turns out, not only was J.P. Morgan Chase facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's behavior and activity, And with deep knowledge of it, because they were running his prime banking operations and financial operations and, frankly, money laundering and embezzlement and extortion-likely operations.
	Maybe or maybe, well, it depends on who you believe on the embezzlement side, whether you believe the Victoria's Secret founder or not about what he knew was going on or didn't.
	But it turns out the relationship was a lot cozier than that.
	And now lawsuits against them are getting to progress and proceed.
	You have to wonder, why didn't David Bowie sue J.P. Morgan Chase?
	Supposedly representing the victims of Epstein, how is he representing these victims and yet not suing the big financial institutions that are one of the easiest targets?
	Instead was trying to defame and destroy Alan Dershowitz, who would ultimately be vindicated as all the allegations against him being totally and utterly false.
	The people that still come up to me who believe those allegations don't realize the so-called victim herself completely recanted.
	Basically implied she was put under pressure by her lawyers, one of whom was, at one time, David Bowies.
	But just like he somehow managed not to sue Bill Clinton, even though there was clear Clinton ties to Jeffrey Epstein, managed not to sue Bill Gates, who really loved to go on the Lolita Express to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
	The prosecutor who sued for the U.S. Virgin Islands was summarily fired by Joe Biden, but that hasn't stopped the cases from ultimately going forward.
	Courts today...
	Said the suits and the cases against JPMorgan Chase can proceed.
	And what's coming out already, Discovery might be mighty interesting, what's already coming out is that there's very damning and damaging text and emails from high-ranking Chase executives to Jeffrey Epstein talking about Snow White and other things that suggest overt and open complicity with what was going on there.
	Well, it will not be shocking or surprising to anyone to imagine that some of the JP execs might have been to the island and might have had damning information that was being used as blackmail to ensure compliance.
	And you had Mossad connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
	You have MI6 connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
	CIA connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
	FBI and Robert Mueller connections to Jeffrey Epstein.
	There was internal reports that suggested he had been an informant all along, and that's the real reason he got an original sweetheart deal.
	So Robert Maxwell, the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, was also, who was a publisher, an investor, and a massive conman and thief who mysteriously died off the back of his own boat.
	Because apparently he suddenly couldn't learn how to swim.
	A guy who was also connected to Mossad, also connected to the KGB and the Stasi, also connected to MI6, famous for connections to honeypot cases.
	Is it a coincidence that these big financial institutions turn out to be deep in bed?
	Maybe quite literally.
	With the Jeffrey Epstein and his ring of often underage or very young, often it appeared to be coerced, sex trafficking ring.
	People who are new to the channel should go back and watch some of our older streams on Robert Maxwell.
	Eternal truth number one, Epstein didn't kill himself.
	And I remember where I was when you first opened my eyes to Robert Maxwell.
	We went over the Mossad history, his death, naming the boat after his daughter Ghislaine.
	I was at my mother-in-law's place in that sunny veranda listening to this.
	So wet behind the ears, I didn't know anything back then.
	And my goodness, if I knew then what I know now, wow.
	All right, we'll see what happens there.
	The lawsuit, I mean, is it going to be all be under seal or is this going to be open for the public to see?
	I mean, I presume that we're going to probably indirectly get to that black book list, but would it not be sealed under these lawsuits as well?
	Most of that shouldn't be sealed, but we'll see.
	We'll see what happens as these cases proceed.
	But it's also why, you know, it's critical we get real discovery as to what the Federal Reserve is up to.
	I think I will add to my FOIA request to the Federal Reserve information about what did they know about Jeffrey Epstein?
	What did they know about suspicious activity reports about the Biden family, which apparently came in by every bank teller in the world because everything that Biden's touched appeared to have suspicious activity tattooed all over it, even though Biden's denying the million-dollar-plus Chinese payment.
	That's the latest scandal, corruption scandal, connected to Biden to be reported.
	But we'll have more updates on that.
	But we will be, George Gammon will be filing suit.
	I'll be filing suit on his behalf against the Federal Reserve for their failure to turn over a range of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
	We're calling it Audit the Fed by Foying the Fed.
	They don't want to turn over anything.
	In fact, it took them on the eve of suit for them to finally produce a list of documents that explain how their own internal...
	The Fed, in fact, has been digitizing everything and archiving and keywording all of it.
	So they've been lying about their inability to search, lying about their inability to find digital documents all along.
	Which means not only should we have success in our suit, but we're going to be filing new FOIA requests for all this other information, also these new things they've created out of the blue.
	See whether there's a conspiracy like some have suggested, like Yellen seemed to confirm, that they're going to bail out big banks at the expense of small banks and help big banks use the Fed and the U.S. government's own treasury and liquidity like UBS did, using the Swiss government to buy up Credit Suisse on the cheap, to buy up these small and regional banks so they could concentrate power, not only for central banks, Bank digital currency, but also, as we talked about in the Qualiza case against U.S. Bank, to enforce woke social credit systems.
	I mean, if you only had four or five banks to go to and they all were on the same monopolistic pattern of behavior, you can imagine from the big tech monopoly example what that world looks like.
	All of a sudden, you can't bank.
	They debank everybody.
	That's where this is.
	Not only going in a global digital currency system, a central bank digital currency system, that makes enforcing such a woke code much more easy for them to achieve, but also it's the risk of debanking at an institutional level because most of the people that are unsecured depositors at small and regional banks, which are much more secure than big banks are, as a general rule, in terms of how much money of their funds are secured under federal law.
	Our small-medium entrepreneurial enterprises, the very people they see as political threats, the mini-Trumps of the world, and people like Michael Qualiza, they could just wipe them out with woke enforcement of select policies if these were the only people in town you could do meaningful business with.
	Well, that's why we've got to support and we've got to bring suit against the Fed, but we'll use the information the Fed's already produced to produce templates.
	at FreeAmericaLawCenter.com that people can emulate and imitate.
	And I'll put them up at VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com so that you can copy and paste for yourself your own request to the Fed because we're learning how they keep track and trace records internally so you can easily or we want to democratize the FOIA, the Fed.
	Audit the Fed process for ordinary people, and that will also be forthcoming.
	And hopefully we can get to the truth of how the Fed thinks what they're doing is illegal at all, because a lot of it seems way outside the scope of their at least original legal constitutional statutory authority.
	And I just posted the link, if anybody has not yet seen our interview with George Gammon, where they talk about, Robert talks about, we all talk about the FOIA request, the procedure.
	If you issue another FOIA request now, Robert, though.
	We filed a suit based on the denied ones.
	We can keep filing new ones all the time.
	And do you amend your existing suit only once that period, the time frame within which they have to respond?
	It becomes a new suit, unless it relates back.
	So we're not going to amend our FOIA request any further.
	We're going to start issuing new ones based on new requests for new information.
	Based on these new techniques that they're trying to...
	I mean, we FOIAed them about all their conversations.
	What they knew about the income tax, what discussion they've had about a wealth tax.
	Biden is clearly...
	What we talked about, I think, a couple of weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit implicitly approved the idea of taxing unrealized gains by claiming it's a tax on foreign corporations, so that makes it okay.
	Well, now what is the Biden administration proposing?
	A tax on people's unrealized capital gains.
	They're going to start there.
	The unrealized capital gains is a straightforward property tax in violation of the apportionment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
	That's what it is.
	They want to get it approved.
	They want to disguise it as a wealth tax on billionaires so that they can then impose a federal property tax on everything you own, your house, your car, your clothes, everything else.
	That's where they're going.
	And they want to get away with it by disguising it as something it's not.
	And legally and constitutionally is simply not appropriate.
	But it looks like that's...
	It's going to have to be fought out in the courts.
	But the Fed case is just the beginning of it.
	Now, let's play devil's advocate.
	If they want to tax unrealized capital gains, are they also going to allow us deductions, unrealized capital losses?
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	All right.
	That's interesting.
	Now, before we get into the January 6th, everybody, I've been told, I don't know how it works, but the algorithm on Rumble actually does respond to the thumbs up or the likes or whatever.
	So 13,731 people watching now on Rumble.
	Give it a like or hit that plus button and let's replace us on the cover page.
	Robert, January 6th.
	Surprise, surprise, I guess.
	Another six convictions because once the leaders have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, all the other ones are slam dunks.
	The jury doesn't even have to contemplate this anymore.
	I was watching Gouveia.
	He's fantastic.
	He's going through it like meticulously because some dude is live tweeting and he's going over the live tweets.
	The bottom line here, I mean...
	We've got another six Oath Keepers convicted today.
	They're not convicted of seditious conspiracy.
	They're convicted of easier stuff to find guilty.
	What was it?
	Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
	Conspiracy to prevent a member of Congress from doing their duty.
	Destruction of government property and civil disorder.
	Robert, what do we learn from this other than three things?
	These are not three eternal truths, although one of them might be there at some point.
	The Fed was involved.
	They knew what was going on.
	They let January 6 happen.
	And you can't get a fair trial in Washington.
	What else are we to take away from this?
	I mean, those are the main things, and I think it reinforces what we've discussed, which is the impossibility of an impartial trial.
	And part of this falls on the courts, because in the Proud Boys cases, they've, you know, able to document, you have the QAnon shaman case, where Tucker Carlson dominates from the release, you know, discloses from the released files that he was, in fact, being escorted around for almost the entire trip by Capitol Police, and that he was constantly telling people not to engage in any violent or disruptive, illicit behavior.
	Which was never turned over to him, according to his own lawyer, prior to him pleading or being sentenced.
	So you got that disaster.
	You got what's happened to the Proud Boys, where they discovered internal emails and documents, which the prosecutor said they accidentally turned over.
	I'm sure it was accidental because it showed that complicity of the federal agents in not only setting things up, that many of the so-called CHS, Confidential Human Sources, e.g.
	rats, e.g.
	informants, e.g.
	infiltrators, as the very first ever hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com predicted was the case just days after January 6th, documenting it in great detail, the attempts of the feds to destroy evidence in the case.
	And what is the judge's approach?
	To limit the ability for the jury to even hear that.
	To limit any cross-examination of the corruption of the federal agents.
	To criticize and condemn the defense lawyers for exposing this fraud on America that the DC federal court system is complicit in.
	And so what it shows is the complete failure of the D.C. court system to uphold the rule of law.
	It shows the complete incapacity of the jury pool in the District of Columbia to be an impartial jury, as is required under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a criminal case, or for the grand jury to be sufficiently impartial and independent, as is required under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
	And it is a continued embarrassment on the Biden Justice Department that just overtly and openly weaponized the legal process for politicized purposes to make up a fake narrative about what happened on January 6th, which they're now trying to use in U.S.
	Robert, Pasha Moyer...
	With a $5.14, which is the Montreal area code, says, I'm back from my travels and in need of a horse-sized white pill.
	What you got for me?
	Robert, we're seeing the wholesale destruction of the prosecutorial Department of Justice system.
	Like, we talk about it, it's like, okay, it's out there for everybody to see.
	The problem is, it doesn't seem like anybody cares.
	And we're watching...
	The system itself be turned into a series of kangaroo courts.
	It was in the Whitmer case where you had more informants and FBI agents than defendants, where you had a similar FBI colluding with the informants to destroy, delete text messages.
	In this case, I forget who the FBI agent was, sought to destroy or delete...
	I presume it would have been exculpatory evidence.
	And then the judge berates and, you know...
	What's another word?
	I wanted to have another word.
	Berates the defense counsel for trying to bring it up for the jury to hear.
	Okay, people who are paying attention understand what a debacle, kangaroo court system this is turning into.
	But what's the white pill for everybody who says short of violence because nobody should engage in violence?
	You'll see where that goes.
	What can people do?
	Well, I mean, in terms of the lawyers in the court case, continuing to document this in the court of public opinion is essential, but also continuing to provide what's called offers of proof.
	And this is not done adequately by criminal defense lawyers across the country or even civil trial lawyers, which is when you're on appeal, you need to be able to prove what it is you would have been able to prove had evidence not been excluded, had a line of questioning not been precluded.
	So it's very important for lawyers to learn that skill set.
	Figure out what's your ideal best case scenario as to what the witness would have testified to or what the discovery would have proven.
	Point that out in a detailed offer of proof.
	Say, we would have proven this, we would have proven this, we would have proven this, we would have proven this.
	It puts the judge on defensive, it helps you in the court of public opinion, and gives you your real chance for reversal on appeal.
	I think the net effect of these cases is to politically demonstrate that they're so intolerable and unacceptable that it'll be very easy for someone like a President Trump to pardon all of them once he gets in.
	This was the Roger Stone defense.
	Stone realized the judge was going to railroad him.
	The jury pool was going to railroad him.
	So he didn't waste his time focused on that aspect of trying to convince a biased jury pool or biased judge to do justice.
	Instead, used the trial to expose what a complete crock it was so that Trump was persuaded to commute his sentence or pardon his case.
	So I think that's the better evidence at this point is to continue to demonstrate the...
	To do the sort of the approach that Norm Pattis, who's part of the Proud Boys defense team, took in the Alex Jones case in Connecticut, just document how nuts the entire process is so that you can get some remedy maybe down the road from someone who actually cares about the rule of law.
	Yeah.
	After, you know, an individual like Jake Angeli, QAnon shaman, has been in jail for however long, pre-trial detention and now conviction.
	What they should do, what the Trump administration should do is write them all checks.
	It worked for the Biden administration.
	Those Antifa people committed real crime, burning down, you know, tried to burn down the great famous St. John's Church near the White House, and they got checks from the Biden administration.
	He wrote them checks.
	Okay, fine.
	If that's going to be the game, we'll write bigger checks to the January 6th defendants for the crap they've had to put up with.
	And put every single one of those prosecutors and FBI agents involved in those cases, put them under investigation for ethical violations and potentially not only dischargeable offenses, but maybe in certain cases, potentially civil suit or criminal prosecution, as may be warranted in certain circumstances.
	Some of these judges that can't enforce the rule of law at all, that are showing political prejudice and bias in these proceedings, some of them need to be considered for impeachment proceedings, even if that would be almost impossible to achieve.
	Where they're really not following the rule of law, where they're just overtly and openly weaponizing their power for politicizing All right.
	Well, first of all, getting to the Trump.
	Now, I love how you say when Trump comes into power or comes back into power, not if, Robert.
	Okay, the news of the week.
	Trump has tweeted out that he expects to be indicted and cuffed tomorrow.
	From what I've read, I haven't seen any first-hand accounts.
	They're already preparing for riots.
	They're preparing for this in New York, getting, I don't know, bike racks and whatever up.
	Barricades.
	Barricades.
	So it looks like it's actually coming to be.
	Whether or not, if it doesn't come to be, then whether or not the public outcry would have deterred.
	It looks like it's going to happen.
	I think it's going to happen either tomorrow or sooner than later.
	Before we get there, Robert?
	I presume you saw the clip of DeSantis in his comments on this where he says, you know, Soros backed DAs.
	They're bad.
	They're compromising the rule of law.
	But I don't know what goes into hush money payments to a next porn star.
	Oh, OK.
	Robert, if you can explain to those who say Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, went to jail.
	He was convicted of a number of things or pled guilty to a number of things, one of which was making the payment to Stormy Daniels for and on behalf of Trump.
	Yeah.
	People say, look, if Michael Cohen made the payment, then Trump must be guilty of the same thing.
	How could his lawyer go to jail for this and Trump not be guilty?
	What is the proper response to that legitimate argument?
	There's two problems there.
	One is that that was never a crime.
	And Cohen pled to that rather than plead to other crimes.
	Had he taken that to trial or even up the appellate process, it likely gets dismissed.
	There was no foundation to call that a disguised campaign donation.
	It just was nonsense.
	Now, secondly, what distinguishes it...
	Is that Cohen is the one who did it.
	Now, if he was doing it on behalf of Trump, Trump can give as much money to himself as he wants.
	So this relates back to the John Edwards case, where John Edwards had a donor pay someone off in order to silence them while he ran for the president.
	He was prosecuted.
	Not only was he acquitted...
	Most legal scholars later came to the conclusion that was a completely bogus prosecution.
	But what was unique is that if Cohen was making the disguise donation but not reporting it, or John Edwards' donor was doing it, then at least you had a plausible case.
	I think it was a reach to say it had a political purpose and therefore was necessarily a campaign donation when it wasn't actually a campaign donation.
	I mean, that's the problem, right?
	And a campaign donation needs to actually be for the campaign.
	It can't incidentally benefit the candidate Or all kinds of money is suddenly a crime.
	I mean, that would be a huge problem.
	That's a void for vagueness, unconstitutional interpretation application, as most legal scholars agreed later on in the John Edwards case was the case.
	But at least in each of those instances, you have a third party making a donation above the limit.
	That's technically the crime, if you will.
	That's not the case with Trump.
	If you're going to prosecute Trump, you're saying Trump gave too much to himself?
	There is no limit.
	Trump can give as much as he wants to himself.
	He has a First Amendment right.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has already established that.
	You can't put a limit on how much you spend on your own candidacy.
	So that's why the Cohen prosecution is actually contrary.
	The whole basis of it was that Cohen made the payment and not Trump.
	And so you can't turn around and blame Trump for something you said Cohen was guilty of because Cohen made the payment and not Trump.
	And I'll say, oh, you know what?
	All along it was actually Trump.
	This is why the Southern District of New York said the infamous, political, corrupt Southern District of New York even said there's no basis to indict Trump because we couldn't have indicted Cohen if we could have indicted Trump because we never could indict Trump under the theory.
	The only way we could indict Cohen was if Trump did not make the payment and did not authorize the payment, which, by the way, was Cohen's original position.
	Then he changed it.
	Now apparently he's saying, oh, this was all done at Trump's behest.
	But if it was, that's not a crime.
	There's no crime in hush money payments.
	There's nothing illegal.
	Maybe DeSantis doesn't know that.
	Maybe they didn't teach that at Harvard Law while he was running down to Guantanamo to be the deep state's little bitch like he was for a decade.
	What Ron DeSantis did today is end his political career.
	It is over.
	There is no President DeSantis.
	You can hear it here first.
	It is done and is finished.
	It is gone.
	He is too politically incompetent to know how to handle something as easy to handle as this was.
	And instead, he had to take a little pot shot at Trump.
	Fair game to take pot shots at Trump.
	Trump's taking pot shots at him.
	This wasn't the time to do it.
	This was rally around against weaponized politicization of the prosecutorial process.
	And if he was smart, he would use his power as governor, which he does with a Florida resident being subject to another state's prosecution, to challenge it.
	Now, had he say, look, I'm not going to allow the extradition of Donald Trump from New York.
	And I'm going to challenge in court.
	Now, based on prior case law, Florida would have likely lost that.
	The U.S. courts have already ruled in other cases.
	They originally ruled one way, and then they came back and ruled another way, that basically no state has that right anymore, to resist extradition to another state.
	But if you raise unique, novel constitutional issues, those haven't been litigated.
	And it would be a win-win for DeSantis.
	He could look good standing up for the Constitution.
	He could look good standing up against politicized processes.
	He could look good to Trump supporters by standing up for Trump.
	And if he lost, well, no harm, no foul.
	He didn't have to go through with anything.
	And so it was politically incompetent of him to do so.
	But from what I've heard, talked about it today with Alex Jones earlier in the day, the reason DeSantis is even running...
	It's because he has been convinced that Trump will be taken out by all these criminal cases.
	That he was tipped off about Mar-a-Lago before it happened, did nothing to protest it or contest it at all.
	Now, he was legally limited in what he could do, but he didn't even file a protest with the Justice Department.
	The whole reason is, the only reason he's running is because he's been convinced that Trump will be effectively kneecapped.
	By these criminal cases.
	When what he doesn't realize is it was a trick to get him to run, because by running, as George Soros himself said a month ago, the grand scenario is DeSantis runs, beats Trump, and because he beat Trump, he'll never be president himself.
	And what he's done is he's kneecapped his own career, and his statement today just further confirmed he's basically committing harikari, as I talked about in the Barnes brief today.
	Which is too bad, because I otherwise liked DeSantis.
	But this was a dumb...
	Dumb move by him today.
	And my perspective is, you know, he could have defended Trump, he could have defended the rule of law, but he also could have preemptively defended himself, because if he thinks this is all about a porn payment to a, sorry, a hush payment to a porn star, well, wait until they start saying that DeSantis misused funds for, I don't know.
	Remember, they're coming after him on the immigration type issue.
	This is politically dumb.
	This was not the time to score your political points against Trump.
	You can save that for later.
	You can later on say, look, I don't get into these kind of troubles, so on and so forth.
	Fine.
	Make that a later spin.
	Take a shot at Trump.
	Have at it.
	Just not in this context.
	Wrong timing.
	This is what happens.
	His wife is even more politically ambitious than him.
	They got Macbethian ambition tattooed on their forehead, and the deep state crowd has tricked them and deceived them using that vulnerability, using that vice against them, to basically commit political suicide.
	I mean, that's what he's on path to do.
	Richard Barris was doing a poll this past week, and DeSantis is sinking like a rock.
	And it's going to get a lot worse now.
	And it's too bad because I think he had great potential.
	But he's blowing it up in live time.
	It's sad to see.
	And people can say that you're a DeSantis hater because of what you're saying.
	But I've got to tell people, even if you are a DeSantis hater, it doesn't mean that DeSantis couldn't listen to this and then actually, what's the word?
	It's good technical advice.
	It's just being smart.
	It's like when I sit there criticizing Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party, it was like, oh, you're hating on Pierre.
	Hey, he can listen to some of this advice and learn how maybe he can go court some of the PPC voters in Canada.
	It's the exact same thing here.
	This was a screw-up.
	And I said it's good if he was in the primaries and he wants to get the jab in there, but he doesn't realize he's not just throwing Trump under the bus.
	He's throwing himself under the bus.
	He might think he's...
	What's the word?
	Gratiating himself with the liberal Democrat media because they all got a good chuckle out of it.
	They're going to come after him.
	He's going to be Hitler 2.0.
	He's going to be a bigger Hitler than they said Trump was a Hitler because he's banning gays and banning blacks in Florida.
	And he doesn't see that.
	He got his moment where he thinks he might be in the good graces of the media.
	That's going to last all of it's over.
	And it's gone.
	But this is also just a joke.
	I mean...
	Frankly, as a Harvard lawyer, he could have laid out.
	Dershowitz had put out his piece.
	Jonathan Turley put out his piece.
	These are liberal Democrats saying what a joke of a prosecution this is.
	He could use that Harvard Law degree for something useful rather than just cutting sweetheart deals for child porn defendants like he did when he was an assistant U.S. attorney.
	There's a lot of things that a lot of us have been sitting on with DeSantis that if he's going down this route, well, okay, it's open door season, brother.
	It's going to be both ways now.
	This was dumb to take the bait on this.
	Is to lay out the ridiculous, not just the sorrows part of this, not just the political weaponization of it, but that this is not even, number one, not even a crime.
	Number two, that the indictment of Cohen proves it can't be a crime.
	This prosecution will be in direct contradiction to that prosecution, the entire factual basis of it, which means Cohen either lied when he pled guilty to that or he's lying to the New York grand jury now.
	And then third and last...
	This is past the statute of limitations!
	Well, that's what I...
	I mean, that's...
	Apparently...
	It's seven years old.
	Was the statute of limitations five years or three years?
	Most applicable ones are five years.
	So the...
	I know how New York's going to try to get around this.
	Now, for everybody out there, the court system in New York has been politically weaponized for forever.
	Every American court system has.
	What's different is they haven't done it against someone of this high profile.
	If they're willing to do this to Trump, they're going to do it to you.
	They're going to do it to anybody.
	Because if they can take Trump out, a billionaire former president of the United States and the leading opponent of the existing presidential candidate, by golly, you know they can run steamroll over me or you.
	That's why standing up for Trump is standing up for every American in this country.
	That's why it's a no-brainer.
	You can hate Trump all you want.
	You can't welcome or accept this prosecution.
	This prosecution is an endangerment to core constitutional liberties, period.
	And credit to Jim Jordan, who's going to...
	Subject to the New York Soros appointed defectively, DA, to meaningful scrutiny and review, but there needs to be escalation.
	I've dealt with this in New York cases.
	Some people were suggesting Trump just made it up.
	Trump did not make it up.
	I guess people haven't been paying close enough attention to what we've been talking about now for a couple of months, which was once the Florida case fell apart, Mar-a-Lago fell apart.
	Because a white hat in the FBI, in my view, disclosed that Biden had even bigger problems.
	So then the January 6th fell apart because they couldn't get anybody to flip.
	They thought they'd get the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys or somebody to say, you know what, Trump really coordinated it.
	Or Steve Bannon to say, you know, Trump really coordinated in a secret meeting.
	He told us to do this and so on and so forth.
	They never got anybody to make that stuff up.
	Nobody did.
	So that was DOA and has been for a while now.
	So then that left at Georgia.
	Problem in Georgia is, one, he committed no crime.
	As Trump would say, perfect phone call, perfect phone call.
	But there was no crime.
	Knowing that, they thought Rudy Giuliani or somebody would rat or flip.
	They didn't.
	They came in and defended themselves aggressively to the committee.
	I knew a lot of the lawyers on the Georgia side and the other people involved in that.
	Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.
	The state of Georgia is who's in the wrong.
	And then, of course, they were dumb enough to put the grand jury foreman even on CNN, and everybody realized this girl is batshit insane.
	Even Anderson Cooper was like...
	Oh, my.
	She's an embarrassment.
	So they knew they couldn't go forward.
	And in Manhattan, they already turned down this case last year.
	Last year, the career prosecutors, I've dealt with them.
	I dealt with them in the Amy Cooper case.
	I dealt with them in other cases I can't talk about.
	But I've dealt with them on multiple occasions.
	And you've got two kinds of people in the Manhattan DA's office.
	Old-school career prosecutors.
	They're professionals, high-end people.
	They're very, very skilled.
	They're some of the best trial lawyers I've ever gone against.
	The lawyer I went up against in the Wesley Snipes, Bobby O 'Neill, was trained and tutored by the famous Robert Morgenthau of Manhattan.
	This is the guy the show Law& Order was based on.
	They're very talented, but they're professional, and they're smart.
	They're skilled.
	The upside is you can get good deals with them.
	The downside is...
	They'll beat you up at trial.
	But there's that wing of it.
	And the other wing of it in the Manhattan DA's office is very political.
	And what tends to happen is the smart guys politically assign the career prosecutors to a political case, knowing they'll filter through what's legit and what's not, how to get a certain disposition when it makes sense and so forth.
	They did.
	They looked at it last year and they said there's no crime here.
	There's no crime here.
	It's ridiculous to charge Trump.
	There's equal protection issues, selective prosecution problems, all the other issues.
	There's witness credibility problems, but there's just no crime here, period.
	He's a victim.
	David Letterman, when he was being extorted because he liked to get special treatment from his staff, you know, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky style, basically.
	That's how David Letterman saw his staff.
	He was like, hey, I know it.
	It was that routine.
	So he wasn't prosecuted.
	The people trying to extort him were.
	So that's what – this was Trump.
	Remember, Stormy Daniels' ultimate lawyer, Michael Avenatti, is in federal prison for extortion.
	I know some of the lawyers that were connected to her original effort to pitch Trump, and they're in the extortion business in L.A. That's what the business is.
	Avenatti extorted Nike in jail for, what, 14 or 20 years?
	Stormy Daniels.
	Well, first of all, she sued Trump for defamation.
	Even before that, during the campaign, basically said, hired some lawyers.
	Those lawyers, I don't think she knew quite what the score was.
	Not clear.
	There's a group of lawyers in L.A. That's all they do is extortion.
	There's a whole group, but there's a whole tranny community in L.A. that all they do is extortion.
	So there's certain celebrity names you can connect to that story.
	There's many celebrities you can connect to.
	That's their whole business model.
	Their whole lifestyle is based on extortion.
	Find a celebrity, get a bad video of them, boom, extort them.
	That's their business model.
	There's lawyers.
	That's all they do.
	They work for these people and they extort people.
	That's all they do.
	And that's who Stormy Daniels was connected to in the original effort.
	So it was an attempt to extort Trump.
	Trump didn't care about the campaign.
	He didn't care about the damage of Stormy Daniels on his campaign.
	He already had the Access Hollywood tape out there.
	He was concerned.
	This had nothing to do with the campaign.
	He was concerned about his wife.
	Michael Cohen said, don't worry, I can fix it, because that's what he always said.
	I'm the fix-it guy.
	I'm the fix-it guy.
	Trump's only mistake is you don't go to the local strip mall to find a surgeon.
	Don't go to a local strip mall to find a lawyer.
	Just remember that.
	If you're hiring cheap, you're hiring bad.
	End of story.
	Just like doctors, lawyers, same dynamic.
	If it's cheap...
	You're already screwed, pal.
	That's just MO.
	You know, just learn that in advance.
	You get what you paid for.
	That part, you know, Trump kind of had coming.
	Some of us have told him over the years, you know, learn how to hire lawyers.
	And he would hire great lawyers, and he would hire terrible lawyers.
	And he just went back and forth because he thinks they're always scamming him and overcharging him.
	But the corporate types often are, but he misreads where he can go.
	But so the...
	Cohen said he was going to fix it.
	I don't think Cohen ever told Trump what was going on until later.
	Figured Trump would reimburse it because Cohen liked being indispensable to Trump as the guy who magically fixed things.
	Came back to Trump and said, well, by the way, I actually paid her off so that this didn't become an issue and can you reimburse me?
	And Trump was like, fine.
	But mostly to avoid embarrassment for Melania's purposes, who this was partially meant to emotionally harass more than it was and damage Trump in the court of public opinion.
	Everybody knew who Trump was.
	Nobody thought Trump was the beacon of personal virtue when it came to sexual liaisons.
	I mean, you can see a hound dog a mile away, and Donald Trump is Donald Trump.
	So nobody...
	Nobody was shocked.
	Like, oh my goodness.
	Nobody thought he was Jerry Falwell.
	They knew who Donald Trump was.
	As a focus group person once described Bill Clinton, he's the guy I know I shouldn't marry, but do anyway.
	Trump, everybody knew who Trump was.
	I mean, he was on wife number three for a reason.
	God bless the man.
	They were doing this to harass Melania, to make Trump feel a personal price by embarrassing Melania by the alleged affairs in public with women who do not measure up to Melania.
	That's why Trump took the personal attacks on Stormy Daniels, personal, called her horse face, etc.
	It was meant to protect Melania as much as anybody.
	But there's not a crime anyway.
	But what happened is when the Florida case blew up, Mar-a-Lago case blew up, January 6th blew up.
	Georgia case blew up.
	They also had the issue in Georgia.
	They didn't know if the governor could intervene in certain ways to set the whole case aside.
	Anyhow, they went back to the Manhattan DA.
	And said, you're going to indict Trump no matter what.
	And we've been talking, we talked about this like two months ago, said this was coming, and I guess nobody believed me.
	But they plan on indicting him, and I believe they plan on indicting him tomorrow.
	I've been to those perp walks before, and the big sign is they start putting up the barricades the day before.
	Now, they'll try to do it at a quiet time, usually if they're a kosher, but maybe not.
	Maybe they want a big photo shot.
	I mean, the left would love a Photoshop of...
	They want violence, Robert.
	And if they can't get the violence, they're going to fabricate the violence and then say the violence occurred.
	I just want to remind everybody also, by the way, that Stormy Daniels and all of this, to defend against the claims that she was extorting Trump, she said, well, look, Avenatti...
	You know, did this without my consent.
	He sued Trump for the defamation for saying this was all bogus without my consent.
	She ended up having to write him a quarter of a million dollar check.
	Yeah, 300.
	She was ordered to pay $300,000 in legal fees to Trump.
	And then her defense was, Avenatti filed the suit without my consent.
	All rubbish.
	Robert, you know what I'm saying?
	Ho's gonna ho.
	I have never heard this expression, Robert, because I keep my schmeckle in my pants and I stay married and don't do stupid things.
	If it happens tomorrow, we might have to go live.
	It's a totally bogus prosecution, and the problem is simple.
	Nobody in America is going to believe that this is a fact-driven case.
	None of them.
	Keith Olbermann will.
	Keith Olbermann will.
	Ed Crasson will.
	Well, he'll pretend he will, but all of them know down deep that this case is a political case.
	They'll think it's politically justified, but we've already been through this.
	When a politically motivated prosecutor felt that he could not take on a president based on meaningful crimes, what did he resort to?
	He resorted to sex crime charges.
	And that completely backfired on the Republicans.
	Bill Clinton, people rallied around Bill Clinton.
	People who feel they've been wrongfully accused or know communities have been wrongfully accused rallied around Bill Clinton.
	Bill Clinton did much better than expected in the 98 elections.
	The impeachment was almost DOA.
	It always was all along in the Senate.
	Because he decided to take what were serious financial and other crimes, but they couldn't touch because it implicated the Bush family.
	Bill Clinton bragged about this and is recorded in the book Partners in Power by Roger Morse, one of the best books about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
	Roger Morse comes from the left, by the way.
	But this doesn't work.
	You know, Clinton proved that was the end of it.
	The end of the sex scandals taking presidents out.
	Doesn't work.
	This is going to go absolutely nowhere.
	Nobody thinks the New York DA is doing this because they're deeply concerned about the payment to Stormy Daniels.
	Nobody believes that.
	The same New York DA could have prosecuted Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama who committed real campaign finance crimes, including the financing of the Steele dossier, never even looked at it or thought about it.
	I won't pull it up.
	I talked about it yesterday, but Robert, yes.
	It was a year ago, just under the radar.
	Hillary Clinton pays $8,000 fine to the FEC for funding and disguising their funding of the Steele dossier.
	The DNC pays $105,000 for disguising their funding of a bogus dossier that they then leaked with their lawyer to the FBI, who then leaked it to Yahoo, who then published it, so that the FBI then ran to the courts and said, look what's going on here.
	We need a secret, unlawful spy warrant that the FBI's own lawyer falsified information, evidence to get the...
	And no, they pay a...
	They pay a fine.
	No one says boo about it until Jack Posobiec brings it back up for everybody to know.
	The problem is two things are going to happen.
	The Trump base is going to rally to him entirely because they're going to see this as further confirmation of the political weaponization of our legal process, further confirmation that Trump's for real.
	If Trump wasn't for real, why are they trying to take him out all the time?
	If Trump isn't a real threat to the deep state, why is the deep state so obsessed with preventing him from ever getting back into the presidency?
	So if he's someone who's not going to deliver in a second term, why are they so terrified of him?
	Well, if he's someone who's going to lose to DeSantis, let him lose to DeSantis, that he'll be gone for good.
	It's because they know he is the most indefatigable foe outside of Robert Kennedy that could be elected president in 2024.
	And the ordinary person is going to know it.
	They're going to say this is a purely political case, and it will still, like, it shocked a lot of people, even though I was like, we've been talking about it for a month, but I don't think it sat in with people that I said the New York case was coming, that it was clear that...
	This is what had happened and what was happening behind the scenes.
	I did not know until other people reported to me this past weekend that this was actually the pitch made to get DeSantis in.
	And that they think they can sucker DeSantis into running on the grounds of, look at Trump, he's a dead man walking because of these criminal cases.
	So they felt they had to bring a criminal case in order to get DeSantis to run.
	If they didn't, they thought DeSantis wasn't going to run.
	So they figure at a minimum they take out DeSantis because he takes out himself.
	But they think that only happens if they indict him.
	But the political blowback will be massive.
	There will be a massive rallying around Trump.
	There will be massive condemnations of this as over-open political weaponization by the whole globe.
	And you're going to see large parts of the Republican base that might have other doubts about Trump rally to Trump.
	This is exactly what happened with Clinton.
	We've seen this before.
	And Clinton was actually guilty.
	Trump's innocent.
	Clinton actually lied under oath.
	Clinton committed an actual federal crime.
	Clinton actually obstructed justice.
	All Trump did was pay off an extortionist to protect his wife's emotional well-being.
	It was an expensive gift for Melania.
	That's what that was.
	People have asked whether the underlying affair happened.
	I doubt it.
	She herself denied it.
	If you know Trump, he has a certain style, and let's just say porn stars ain't it.
	It's because, I mean, one, he's a germphobe, so porn stars were not going to be in the picture.
	High-end models of a certain state?
	You know, yes.
	Porn stars?
	No.
	Trust me.
	I've heard plenty of stories with Trump.
	He always goes after the same type.
	It's not porn stars.
	He has no interest.
	Just like that crazy lady who sued him for defamation.
	That lady, you look at her one time, you're like, uh-uh.
	Didn't happen, honey.
	Sorry.
	I think there'll be the beginning.
	I called it in the Barnes brief, the Empire Strikes Back with this, both with suckering DeSantis into this and with the indictment itself.
	But all it's going to be is Return of the Jedi because this will put Trump on the path.
	The rallying cry he needed, frankly, will be the New York Soros DAs.
	One more example of how obsessed they are with Trump, of how much of a threat he is to the power system, and how overtly and openly politically corrupt and a complete joke our criminal justice process increasingly is in America, sadly.
	And with that said, let's read some rumble rants because there's a few and there's one in particular I want to read.
	And it's from Falcon Lord.
	Trump supporters protest the anti-America globalists by flying the flag.
	Anyone pushing violence will be Antifa in disguise.
	Stay peaceful, whatever you do, people.
	Although even that is not enough these days to stay out of jail.
	Kimmy B says it was talked about with Barnes on Infowars.
	Kimmy B, can you explain more regarding petitions that can be used to remove people from Congress?
	We've talked about that plenty in the past.
	Maybe...
	Robert, we'll put something out on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm not reading 63 Telecaster's $17 Rumble Rant, but thank you for the support.
	I don't like putting that juju out in the universe.
	$10 Becky Lynn G, no rant, just greens.
	Appreciate you both.
	Thank you very much.
	Let's bring this out.
	Now, Robert, we still have some time before people...
	I'll put it on mute if it gets noisy back here.
	Okay, we'll see what happens tomorrow, people.
	There might be a spontaneous live to see.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	If there is, yeah, we'll come on live at some point to discuss the insanity of it.
	I mean, now I think people, you know, I can't get into much detail, but why we, you know, got a very, how good that outcome was in Amy Cooper.
	Part of the reason to get that outcome was to get it before the DA's office changed hands because an election was upcoming.
	And we managed to navigate, negotiate that to get the government to dismiss all charges.
	She didn't have to admit a single word of guilt.
	They dismissed it with prejudice.
	No plea deal, no diversion, no nothing.
	And there was no reliance that would have happened when the new prosecutor came into town because we had done our investigative research and knew who this guy was.
	And this was trouble coming a mile away.
	These Soros DAs, people say, why do they do what they do?
	Because they'll get rewarded even if they get thrown out of office.
	Because the Soros-connected people will reward them.
	Look at Macron.
	He doesn't care if he gets thrown out of France despite massive protests for trying to cut French, the social security system effect.
	He'll get promoted up.
	He'll get to some globalist institution where he gets to travel the globe and not have to deal with the plebes anymore.
	And he can play emperor like he wants to.
	So that's what we have in these Soros DAs.
	San Francisco guy proved it.
	He didn't care about getting recalled.
	He was completely...
	I mean, how nuts do you have to be to get recalled in San Francisco?
	You know, the city where they have a special app to tell you where the human feces and needles are.
	Life is more bizarre than fiction, Robert.
	We've talked about Douglas Mackey, the meme one enough.
	Do we go into it again?
	Speaking of another, though, quickly, politically motivated case is another joke of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Vladimir Putin.
	Robert, I mean, okay, so nice they issue this.
	I mean, I presume Putin is not traveling the world to places where he might...
	He's not traveling the world.
	What is the purpose of doing it other than the gesture of saying he's so bad we've issued a warrant for his arrest?
	It's mostly a gesture.
	I mean, the prosecutor connected to it has family that are tied, going back to the Epstein story, tied to pedophile rings, by the way.
	Part of the reason they do that is they have a combination of compromise and corruption on their side with these so-called independent political leaders, prosecutors or otherwise, that if they want to get promoted into the world of guaranteed money and cash, then the way they can do so is by playing ball with...
	Globalist institutions or elite organizations against the interest of the constituents they're supposed to serve and even their oath of office, as the case may be.
	But in case that doesn't work, they usually have compromise on them.
	They usually have compromising material on them, like is evident with likely this prosecutor bringing this completely.
	They brought two lunatic cases.
	They also brought a case against the woman that helped children refugees escape the Donbass from the conflict so they didn't end up dead or disabled like many have.
	Mostly from the Ukrainian side, but that can happen with collateral damage on the Russian side once Russians engage.
	They're accusing her of kidnapping.
	It's utterly preposterous.
	It's a ridiculous accusation.
	International criminal court's always been a joke.
	My lefty friends all loved it.
	I always thought it was a crock.
	China never joined it.
	India never joined it.
	Pakistan never joined it.
	The United States never joined it.
	Israel never joined it for a reason.
	It was an open, overt, politically weaponized organization of elitist European neoliberal institutions.
	Their prosecutions over Yugoslavia were a crock.
	Most of their prosecutions have been a crock.
	They're a waste of time and space and place, and they've just proven it by indicting and issuing an arrest warrant over Vladimir Putin over a military conflict.
	I mean, if you're going to at least pretend to be independent, then you had to bring an indictment against Joe Biden for admittedly drone bombing an innocent family, and his testimony came out last week.
	For failing to provide protection for the people who died, including U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, on the exit when the orders were issued for the sniper not to be able to protect those people.
	So, I mean, Joe Biden's a real criminal, not to mention what he just did in Nord Stream, as independently confirmed by Seymour Hersh and others, that show we committed one of the biggest acts of civilian terrorism against their own ally, Germany, since World War II.
	And so the...
	But Joe Biden's not being indicted.
	Victoria Nealon's not being indicted.
	Blinken's not being indicted.
	Instead...
	Vladimir Putin is.
	It's a joke.
	The arrest warrant is a joke.
	It makes the ICC the joke that it deserves to be treated as.
	Just as Trump's mere presence has provoked the deep state to expose its criminality and the weapon political and the corruption in our law enforcement and justice system to be fully exposed for everyone to finally witness and see what some of us have been seeing for a long time, but now everybody, more people are seeing it than ever before.
	When even your Mark Levins of the world are calling it for what it is, when mainstream congressmen are calling for defunding the FBI, all this did in the ICC is make a joke out of it.
	And so, you know, it wasn't like Putin was going to be visiting certain European capitals anytime soon anyway.
	But all it does is just further prove that Europe is a useless ally.
	And what's the real impact?
	Xi in Moscow today hugging it up with Vladimir.
	So you can hate Putin all you want.
	As a geopolitical reality, this is an utter debacle what the Biden administration has precipitated and the ICC's utterly joke of indictment and arrest warrant is further proof of it.
	And not to go all the way back to the war in Iraq based on bogus information that killed a quarter of a million civilians that many people think should have put...
	George Bush and Dick Cheney on that indictment list, or at least behind bars.
	Well, that's just a popular meme, is to copy from the Iraq War.
	J.D. Vance, by the way, has proven his bona fides in the United States Senate.
	Great tweet thread today about the Iraq War, his personal experience in it, because he went over there and served based on the lies that George W. Bush spread.
	He continues to fight for the people, the working-class folks in East Palestine, Ohio, against the ineptitude of the Biden administration's reaction and response, and to some degree, Governor DeWine not really stepping in.
	J.D. Vance is doing well on both of those accords.
	But, you know, the meme that's popular, based in part on Colin Powell's infamous, now infamous, speech to the U.N. that lied about weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad, is to say they found the culprits for the Nord Stream Pipeline blowup, and it's a picture of the characters in the cast from Fantasy Island.
	Or Gilligan's Island.
	It's one or the other.
	It depends on which one you pick.
	They're like, oh, we found him!
	It's Gilligan!
	Oi, Robert.
	All right.
	Okay.
	I guess we go for a little lighter mood.
	What's the deal with the California lawyer who is being pursued for disbarment for a tweet?
	How bad was his tweet?
	All it was was about BLM.
	Uh-oh.
	We got an echo.
	How'd that just happen all of a sudden?
	Robert, what the heck just changed?
	What just changed in one second?
	There is definitely an echo.
	You might have to turn.
	It's not my computer.
	Okay, mic check, one, two, no echo now.
	Okay, Robert, so that's bizarre.
	What's the tech stuff?
	We've been doing the same stuff for the last three years.
	This has not happened yet.
	Robert, what was the tweet?
	I mean, maybe I'll see if I can pull up the tweet.
	I'll be quiet.
	You explain what's going on with this lawyer.
	Not that I'm worried about my own existence because...
	I don't think I'm going to be renewing my bar license at some point anyhow because $3,000 a year to have...
	$3,000 a year to finance an entity that is looking to hold your tweets against you.
	Robert, what's the situation?
	I'll be quiet now.
	So is it still an echo?
	Wow.
	Yes.
	What's going on?
	Yes.
	What's going on?
	Robert, we might...
	You have headphones or earbuds.
	This is the weirdest thing ever.
	Hold on, Robert.
	Log out.
	Come back in.
	Remove.
	This is...
	This is really bizarre, people.
	While Robert does that, although maybe...
	Let's see this.
	Hold on a second.
	What do we have?
	We're at the lawyer who's getting pursued for...
	A tweet.
	Oh, I'm so snipping and clipping that DeSantis part because that was on point.
	And it makes me feel smarter.
	DeSantis would not have been defending Trump.
	He would have been preemptively defending himself from what is coming because they're coming for all of us people sooner than later.
	Well, while Robert does that...
	Oh, hold on a second.
	I'll just share and just see if we have any more crumble rants.
	Which we don't.
	Okay.
	I'm going to bring that out here.
	Stop screen.
	I'll go to the chat.
	Oh, you know what?
	No, hold up.
	Okay, Robert's coming back in.
	Let's see what happens, people.
	It'll be fine.
	It was on me.
	So what happened was the locals chat froze.
	So when I clicked on refreshing it, it brought up the locals live stream.
	And so I didn't realize I was playing the locals live stream to myself.
	I'm not a boomer.
	But I do play one with technology.
	Robert, it's Boomer.
	We're going to have Boomer versus Boomer.
	It's going to be like Spy versus Spy, and it's going to be me versus you.
	Who can out-Boomer the Boomer?
	So, Robert, the tweet, was it using expletives?
	No, no, it was just criticism of Black Lives Matter.
	It's amazing because in Canada, in Ontario at one point, they were trying to require...
	Diversity, equity, and inclusion statements.
	I forget the exact context, but they're trying to basically compel lawyers to adopt these protocols and affirmative statements of DEI or DIE in their practices.
	There was enough uproar that they dropped the requirement.
	This is like institutionalized thought crime.
	Absolutely.
	We've got to get rid of the licensing.
	We got to get rid of the licensing.
	That's my conclusion.
	It's more example, when a lawyer in California, the same California state bar, by the way, that couldn't catch Michael Avenatti committing every crime known to man.
	The same California state bar that couldn't find Tom, you figure out Tom Girardi was committing every crime known to man.
	And now he's, you know, Girardi's basically a...
	Walking incompetent.
	I get now bringing criminal case against him, but it's like, give me a break.
	The guy's mind is clearly gone.
	You're trying a dementia candidate?
	What does that prove?
	They should have caught him before, not after at this point.
	But the same California State Bar that I've dealt with in other cases where they've let fraudsters off easy is obsessed with a guy who's bringing for his tweets about BLM?
	They have no business doing this.
	So maybe we need federal law.
	Maybe we need state law.
	I mean, the real solution is no more licensure, period.
	Have honestly advertising.
	Let the ordinary person decide.
	You can say, hey, I got a big fancy degree.
	I got this or I got that.
	In my experience, the average person would be a better and more effective advocate than 90% of the lawyers out there.
	That's been my experience.
	There's tons of people that have common sense, that have street sense, that make great trial lawyers, that are really skilled, very smart, creative minds out there that can research and write.
	To quickly transition to another topic, the real lawyer competition that's going to be coming out is from AI.
	AI can now write your legal brief for you.
	They already passed the bar.
	It's actually amazing.
	I mean, I've been seeing this chat GPT thing going on, like, where it can actually draft essays based on a theme, and it can do more research than a human, and it can write more effectively than 90% of people out there.
	But, Robert, so this guy made a bot thing, like, it's a chat bot that can basically provide functional legal services.
	Being sued by it's the Bar Society of what state now?
	I forget.
	I forget which one it is, but it's one of them.
	Being sued because they say he's not providing legal services and he's a lawyer, yet he's passing himself off as that.
	I don't see them not succeeding.
	I mean, they're right.
	Oh, from that, I mean, I've never been a fan of the unauthorized practice of law rules, nor the unauthorized practice of medicine.
	But putting that aside, I think every one of those laws is unconstitutional.
	But courts don't care.
	I mean, the courts are going to enforce that because they like that.
	They want that.
	They prefer that.
	It's the professional class protecting the professional class.
	It's the one place where the monopolists get to...
	Defend their own monopoly in their own body by being their own judge of themselves.
	It's a core problem in our system.
	The whole idea of legal licensure has never made sense to me.
	The court system gets to write the rules, enforce the rules, and then adjudicate the rules.
	What's the whole point of separation of powers if the judicial branch gets to exclusively control who gets the ability to practice law?
	Well, it's also, I mean, how do you reconcile the licensure in law in particular with pro se litigant capabilities?
	It's not like in medicine, I can understand it because unlicensed people, you can't operate on yourself for obvious reasons.
	In litigation, if you're going to let people pro se represent themselves, why would you not let someone pro se represent somebody else?
	Exactly.
	Let the person decide.
	All it does is artificially increase the cost of legal access for ordinary people.
	And that's the first thing it does.
	And then the second thing it does is put a barrier up of a professional class getting to govern and decide who gets advocated for and who doesn't.
	And that's a major problem.
	I'm not in favor of it.
	But my question is, let's say you create a chat that can do something.
	But you're not the one doing it.
	How do you sue an artificial entity?
	You know what I mean?
	An artificial being.
	No, you sue the person who's making the money.
	But what if somebody created it, was anonymous, and you couldn't track or trace them at all?
	I mean, are they going to sue?
	I guess they, what, they sue the domain to try to prevent them from giving advice to people?
	You know, doesn't that get...
	Start to encroach on speech at some level.
	So I think there's major issues with the robot lawyer approach.
	But you can guarantee lawyers, legal bars are going to bring that up.
	Because they don't want competition from these robots.
	Not only would it be competition, it would probably be more competent competition than...
	The vast majority of lawyers out there.
	Okay, interesting.
	We'll see where it goes, but I think they succeed because it's clearly a non-licensed lawyer offering legal services unlawful in every jurisdiction.
	Oh yeah, in the existing law, they prevail.
	Robert, the abortion lawsuit, which is pretty interesting.
	This is Texas.
	The would-be father of an unborn child is suing not his wife or girlfriend.
	I don't know what the relationship was, but...
	The would-be mother of his would-be unborn child.
	She had an abortion.
	She got these pills from her friends who facilitated it.
	This guy's going after her friends who facilitated her procurement of these, I don't know if they're illegal abortion pills or if they're legal.
	I don't know how that works.
	I think they're illegal.
	But he's going after the accessories to the abortion that he can't go after his wife or girlfriend for.
	Explain that nuance because he can't go after his wife because she's allowed to do it to herself.
	So he's going after those who facilitated her procurement of these drugs to cause an abortion.
	Tell me what to think.
	So, you know, it's interesting.
	It's the same with the Wyoming passing a bill to prevent and prohibit the importation sale.
	Use and possession of the RU-486, or its variations, the abortion pill, which works up until about 10 weeks.
	And I think currently constitutes for a majority of abortions in America.
	And so it's the fallout from the effect of the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe.
	So now that we're back to state law governing these things, I think Wyoming has the right.
	Probably to ban production.
	I mean, if they have the right to limit cocaine, they have the right to limit heroin, they have the right to limit drugs to what's prescribed.
	Then they probably have the same rights to limit the abortion pill under the current Supreme Court jurisprudence that it's a state question.
	Similarly, using state tort theory in a state like Texas where abortion is illegal, they would have the right to bring suit against those who tortiously induced an abortion by the illicit importation of a drug for the purposes of an abortion that was not legal under state law.
	So we're starting to see the legal flow out, consequences, ramifications of the Supreme Court's reversal, and that these cases now likely present plausible cases for relief and remedy for enforcement, including people who think they might not have any consequence for advising someone.
	But we talked about this at the very beginning, after the Supreme Court made its decision, that when some of these companies were saying they would pay for an abortion, that they would pay for someone to travel for an abortion, It's like they maybe could be sued.
	And based on this theory here, they could be potentially sued for facilitating an illicit act that you could even call conspiracy to commit a crime in many of these states.
	So I think that those people that just think you can do that willy nilly need to reexamine what they're doing and they're up to because we're starting to see the beginning of a pushback by these pro-life states against the various people promoting abortion in any context.
	Yeah, I do remember we talked about that where people were saying, What were they going to do?
	Oh, extraditing a woman if she does what's unlawful in their state in another state.
	This, though, wrongful death, which is, I mean, I'm no American lawyer, even less so a Texas lawyer.
	That seems like maybe a bit of a bridge too far.
	It depends on the state.
	So some states have always recognized, even during Roe, that the fetus, at least at a certain stage, is a human being.
	So, for example, people have been criminally convicted for murder for the death of a fetus.
	So it usually happens when somebody attacks a pregnant woman and the pregnant woman loses the baby.
	They've been criminally convicted for murder, for homicide.
	And that was even during the Roe era.
	So it's the same premise.
	And so under existing Texas law, I believe it's considered homicide.
	It's considered a human life, at least at a certain stage.
	Some states vary as to whether or not they consider it a human life or not.
	But for those states that do, they would likely establish a wrongful death claim.
	To give you an example, I'm part of a case in Milwaukee.
	Where a pregnant inmate, eight and a half month pregnant inmate, was brought in, stuck in isolation, had a drug problem, totally ignored all night long her screams.
	She gave birth during the night and the baby died.
	And the defense of the city of Milwaukee was, who cares, that's not a living human being because eight and a half months old.
	Fortunately, the federal judge saw otherwise and said, no, that is a human life for the purposes of the right to deprivation for the state of the born but then died child to bring suit.
	But the question was, did the child have to be born alive?
	Could just the child's existence at that stage be considered a life under either federal law or Wisconsin law?
	We're going to see these issues really develop robustly.
	Over the next few years, and the Wyoming case and the Texas case are two cases to follow.
	People have different perspectives on the abortion issue.
	But if you care about it in any respect, just legally curious as well, there'll be important cases in this new area of developing law in the post-Roe reversal era.
	It is definitely interesting.
	I don't think I understood the nuances to why the guy couldn't sue his girlfriend.
	Directly because she was entitled to have an abortion, but those who facilitated the procurement of drugs to do it were not allowed to do it.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, and I think a lot of people haven't paid attention to that aspect.
	Third-party tort liability is real.
	Now, speaking of, there's also a case pending in federal court where they are challenging the FDA's approval of the abortion pill in the first place, saying it was not safe and effective in the ways they said.
	It had side effects they didn't report.
	Kind of sounds a little bit familiar, but it also deals with the remdesivir lawsuits that are now popping up across the country.
	Might this be, Robert, an indirect way of circumventing the immunity that was given bequeathed to Pfizer, that there's going to be class action suits for remdesivir?
	From what I understand, remdesivir is manufactured by Pfizer in conjunction with Gilead, so they're both on the hook for potential damages caused by the drug?
	And when I was doing that special show for Alex Jones, all the way back in March, early April of 2020, I predicted that Fauci would promote Remdesphere.
	And the reason was because if you researched who had personal and political and public interest in it, it was people that were personal friends, allies of Fauci himself.
	And now Fauci himself, by the way, got exposed by an ordinary working class guy.
	Fauci's own documentary where this guy just exposed him right on the, I don't know if it was New York or New Jersey or where it was, right on the steps.
	This guy just exposed him.
	So that's a great viral clip that's going around.
	But I think Remdesivir was pushed for problematic, politically connected, corrupted reasons.
	It caused more harm than good.
	And it'll be very interesting to watch what happens with these suits.
	It relates to, because I also will relate.
	To both unavailable and available therapeutics, the emergency use authorization law only allowed remdesivir to be used if there wasn't something else available, also an effective therapy, and same with the vaccine.
	PrEP Act immunity was limited and restricted under Pfizer's contract with the Defense Department for the production and distribution of the vaccine in the United States, was that they would only be immune as long as they were compliant with the PrEP Act.
	And what the emergency use authorization law, and the emergency use authorization law says they couldn't distribute or even seek authorization for the drug unless, in the case of the vaccine or remdesivir, unless there was no other therapy available.
	Problem is, there was.
	We know that from the ivermectin and other related cases that there were effective therapeutics available.
	The question is, and this will be one of the discussions debated and discussed this weekend in Atlanta, Georgia.
	I'll be there with Robert Malone, with Pierre Corey.
	I don't think Peter McCullough can make it.
	He's going to try to.
	With Warner Mendenhall, with Brooke Jackson, the great whistleblower, with a bunch of other lawyers.
	People can still go to it.
	I think it's Vax Safety Org or something like that.
	It's the Org of Steve Kirsch's organization that is promoting and sponsoring the event.
	I'm going as just bonus for them to try to talk to people about the key issue is how can we sue for the vaccine injured?
	So if any lawyer's interested in it, it's a great opportunity to go.
	Any ordinary person who's interested in the topic, I believe there's still tickets available to go to it.
	I just Googled seven hours from where I live, give or take.
	Seven hour drive.
	It's Atlanta.
	I got friends in Atlanta.
	I got connections in Atlanta.
	It's just a hip and a skip and a hop from my hometown in Chattanooga.
	But one of the discussions will be, does Pfizer's contract with the Defense Department override the PREP Act immunity?
	Such that if they did not comply with the emergency use authorized limitations, they can now be sued for the mass injury they inflicted.
	And so we're going to be exploring that and other creative ways to try to go after them in ways that we're seeing with the Remdesphere suits, we're seeing with some nursing home suits, along with workers' compensation theories, assault and tort theories against employers that I'm already pursuing, against Tyson Foods, against 3M, against Madison Square Garden, that's why I might be on their biometrics watch list, which does relate to that lawsuit as well.
	Well, let's do the biometrics lawsuit, Robert.
	It's the guy, I mean, we've talked about it a few times.
	I don't know who this person is, but apparently they seem to be quite the eccentric who's banning people based on biometrics from areas that are open to the public.
	Where were we?
	We were discussing it where the way to circumvent his ban was by predicating the liquor license on granting unbridled access to the public if it's open to the public.
	Tell me what's going on there because I don't really know the details or why this individual is as eccentric.
	Eccentric, to put it politely, as he is said to be.
	So he's an idiot manager of the New York Knicks, which is probably his greatest crime in the city of New York.
	But I'm suing him because of the Madison Square Garden because they discriminated against Radio City Music Hall and other employees based on a vaccine mandate that ignored their conscientious religious objections and in some cases medical objections.
	But what he did is he put particularly lawyers that sue him.
	On a biomet or that sue any of his entities...
	On a list to be excluded from the Madison Square Garden for any events, concerts, or games, there's a Sweet 16 Elite 8 matchup coming up this weekend.
	My home state, Tennessee, is in that round.
	I suspect that I am on that list.
	I'm on a lot of lists, but I suspect I'm on that biometrics list too.
	But they've sued because they're saying this is clearly a legal denial of right to public accommodation under these circumstances.
	And we'll see how the suit...
	I'm hopeful the suit prevails.
	It should prevail.
	There's a bad pattern and precedent that is being set here under the circumstances.
	I think some of these same issues related to vaccine mandates, we were looking at them in the mask mandate context, which is if you're a public accommodation, you have certain obligations not to discriminate based on reasons of religion or race.
	And I think some of that is what's taking place here.
	We saw it in some of the gender contexts where they would give discounts to women and not men or exclude men and so on and so forth started happening and occurring.
	And there are certain ways, there are certain exemptions and exceptions under religious rights protections and things of that nature.
	But one of them, but that's not why Madison Square Garden is doing what they're doing.
	We'll see how it progresses and proceeds.
	And then we have our, you know, there's a big win against the Biden administration on the water, navigable waters case that we predicted would take place.
	Anybody that talked about crypto is now getting sued if they mentioned the words FTX on YouTube.
	Samsung won a quarter-a-billion-dollar jury verdict in a big patent-related, IP-related case in LA.
	Lobstermen are finally fighting back, suing for libel lawsuits against the environmentalists that have been lying about their lobstermen practices in Maine, have an old-school fondness for them, having represented them in the past.
	But last but not least, our bonus fun case of the week.
	South Park has got themselves in the middle of a big lawsuit.
	First of all, as you say that, Robert, we just...
	We've exceeded 17,000 live viewers.
	And for some reason, there's only 1.9 thousand thumbs up, which doesn't matter anymore.
	Robert, after this, so this is going to be the bonus.
	I think I've just gotten the text that the wife and the family might be coming back, so it might get a little noisy.
	We're going to go for the after party, after stream locals party.
	So I've sent that link around.
	Robert, what's the deal with South Park lawsuit?
	I'm going to now allow my kids to watch South Park because it's going to be legal training.
	What's going on with South Park?
	Probably will be good training these days.
	So South Park basically cut two different deals with two different companies and promised to provide episodes for one and specials for another.
	And it looks like the specials deal was more beneficial to them, so they're producing specials that look a lot like episodes, while they're not producing as many episodes for the one they were producing episodes for.
	So those companies are now suing each other over whether or not South Park has breached, whether one has tortiously interfered with the other's contract, and whether South Park has breached.
	It looks kind of like South Park did.
	A lot of their specials.
	Like episodes.
	And they're not actually delivering the number of episodes to the other one.
	They basically got a better deal and went with a better deal.
	So I think that it looks like they may be in a little bit of legal trouble.
	Maybe they're out of it because of the nature of the contracts and they're indemnified.
	And so maybe it's the company that paid them that's just going to have to pay the other entertainment distributor.
	But it looks like South Park, you know, unlike the Harry and Meghan threatened lawsuits against South Park, which was a...
	Bogus and preposterous case.
	This one appears to have a little more economic merit behind it, but I suspect South Park will dodge the legal bullet because they probably have indemnification clauses when they did this deal so that they don't have to pay anything.
	It'll just be the two distribution companies willing to fight it out amongst each other as to who has to pay.
	I'm just reading some of the comments on Rumble.
	Donut mind me.
	Reminds everybody, by the way.
	Crowder had his launch show on Rumble this morning.
	177,000 live viewers.
	Guess who's going to be a special guest host tomorrow and the next day?
	Say that again?
	Who's going to be special guest hosting with Steven Crowder Tuesday and Wednesday?
	Alex Jones?
	Alex Jones.
	He wants to promote Crowder.
	He wants to help Crowder get his new show off the ground.
	Crowder's brought in four or five excellent comedians to join the cast of their operation.
	I don't want to forget any of them.
	I know Jim Brewer's in there.
	I forget who.
	It's amazing.
	Rumble is turning into not a YouTube like I go for little videos.
	It's a network now, like replacing network television in a meaningful, substantive way.
	You got...
	Glenn Greenwald, Steven Crowder, Russell Brand.
	I mean, you've got...
	Oh, yeah.
	Jimmy Dore, Kim Iverson, the great Viva Barnes.
	It's amazing stuff.
	Robert, do we do the Alex Jones?
	I think I've got...
	Let me see what my wife just says.
	Coming back, ETA 15 minutes.
	Do we bring this party over to locals now?
	Yes, indeed.
	Read some of the rants.
	We'll exclude that as a special edition and answer locals-only live chat questions in a locals-exclusive afterparty that you can get at vivabarneslaw.locals.com We've got to get the little one to say.
	We've got to get the little one to say on camera.
	Oh, dude.
	I'll try.
	He gets a little self-conscious, so you've got to trick him into doing it.
	Well, Robert, they're all growing and they're becoming rebellious.
	Like Homer Simpson said, the sooner kids learn how to talk, the sooner they learn how to talk back.
	You've got to bribe them.
	It's good they learn bribery very early.
	It's a critical school skill to master.
	Link to Viva.
	Let's see how many we can get over there.
	Link to Viva Barnes on Locals.
	Boom, I put it in there three times, people.
	And you'll tell us what's going on with the Sandy Hook attorneys potentially facing their malpractice.
	So what we're going to do here.
	Let's see if Viva Boomer can do this.
	We're going to end on Rumble.
	And everyone, if you're so inclined, come on over.
	You can become members for free, or you can choose to subscribe and support us on VivaBoomer.com.
	And get exclusive content, exclusive access, exclusive.
	Barnes brief components each year.
	You know, each Barnes brief has a free part and a part for the subscribers.
	Hush hushes.
	We got almost 70 of them.
	Got more of them coming out this week about a range of interesting topics, including the 1980 election and whether that story is true about what took place.
	So hop over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com where everybody's above average.
	Right now, ending on Rumble, and we're going to be live exclusively on Locals in 3, 2. Everyone, thank you for being here.
	Enjoy the night.
	See you all tomorrow.
	Am I sure I want to end it on Rumble?
	Yes.
	And now, it's prepping, and we should be alone on Rumble, Robert.
	Alone on Locals, you mean.
	Alone on Locals, I'm sorry.
	Let's see.
	I'll read.
	If you don't mind, I'll read the tips, and then you'll give us the...
	You'll give us the rundown on Sandy Hook.

▲