Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 9, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:22:33

Ep. 155: Perry Conviction; Jan. 6 Informants; Tennessee Expulsion; Clarence Thomas & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You talk a lot about the election integrity project in the Twitter files, which Stanford and the University of Washington founded to monitor attacks on our elections.
	And you say some stuff about them that a lot of your critics say is not true, and that affects your credibility.
	You said the EIP was founded in response.
	To the government dropping its proposal for a disinformation government.
	Well, there you are.
	We're quoting you on screen.
	It wasn't.
	It was formed two years earlier.
	You suggest it was government funded, even though during the 2020 election that you're covering, it wasn't.
	Two.
	You say they labeled 22 million tweets as misinformation in the run up to the 2020 vote.
	They didn't.
	Three.
	They flagged 3,000 election misinformation tweets for labeling, so you were only 21,997,000 off.
	And you also trained the EIP with, let me finish the question, you can come back in.
	You also trained the EIP was partnered with the government cybersecurity and infrastructure agency, CISA, to censor Twitter.
	But you mix up CISA, In fact, you added an A to CIS, I think people can see it there, in brackets to make that false claim.
	It's just error after error, Matt, on just this one talker.
	We know how long that one question was with five elements, if not six elements.
	That was a minute and 11 second question to Matt Taibbi.
	Coming from an intellectually honest Mehdi Hassan of MSNBC, who clearly wants the truth.
	He wants to understand what are the Twitter files.
	He's not there for a disingenuous hit piece on Matt Taibbi as a person, as a journalist.
	He wants the truth.
	And when you want the truth in discussion, what do you do?
	You do what is known as the gish-gallop technique, which is you bombard your adversary, your interlocutor.
	With one after another after another points in rapid succession so that they get flustered and are not able to answer each one of the elements that you just dropped on them because Mehdi Hassan, in that minute and 11 seconds of a question, dropped no less than five individual elements that someone is expected to respond to.
	And it's an amazing thing.
	Hold on.
	Let's just bring this up real quick.
	Gish Gallop.
	I put out a car vlog on it yesterday.
	But there's so much to this, I have to break it down live in person.
	For those of you who don't know what the Gish Gallop is, it's a, what's the word?
	It's an oratory tactic.
	It's a debate tactic.
	The Gish Gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
	What we just witnessed there...
	I mean, I'll give Mehdi Hassan credit.
	He did it well.
	He did it well on an unsuspecting, someone who didn't know that they were going to be an adversary, thought that they were going to be colleagues in an interview, the goal of which was going to be to arrive at the truth.
	Taibi, I like him.
	Mehdi Hassan, I say unfortunately, but makes a couple of legitimate points.
	But Taibi thought he was there to be interviewed by a colleague.
	He did not realize he was there to be character assassinated in real time so that Mehdi Hassan and all the other ignorant people who love the propaganda that watch MSNBC can now say, well, I don't have to look at anything in the Twitter files.
	There's nothing bad about what happened in the Twitter files because Taibi made a few mistakes.
	In the Gish Gallup, by the way, and I want to pull up one of the most insidious elements of what Mehdi Hassan did here.
	It's the one about...
	CISA.
	Let's pay attention to what Mehdi Hassan here just said.
	You also claim that CISA was a partner with the EIP.
	listen.
	He was partnered with the government's cybersecurity and infrastructure agency, CISA, to censor Twitter.
	But you mix up CISA, CISA.
	CISA, a Homeland Security Agency, with the Center for Internet Security, the CIS, which is a non-profit.
	In fact, you added an A to CIS, I think people can see it there, in brackets.
	Do you know what Mehdi Hassan just did right here?
	He's right, in part, and wrong, in the most material part.
	He's like, Matt Taibbi, you made a mistake in the quote section here, where you see, according to CIS, and Matt Taibbi put an A because he must have thought it was a typo in the original tweet.
	To make that false claim.
	It's just error after error, Matt.
	Mehdi Hassan here is saying that Matt Taibbi made a mistake claiming that CISA was a partner with the EIP because he accidentally changed CIS to CISA in the quote.
	And what does Mehdi Hassan do here?
	He leaves the viewer with the impression that CISA was not actually a partner of the EIP.
	When it was, by the EIP's own admissions, CISA, a federal agency to monitor the internet for inaccurate information, was a partner of EIP.
	But don't take my word for it.
	Partner EIP.
	Addressing false claims, I think this is it right here.
	CISA was a partner of the EIP, but in that tweet...
	Taibbi did, in fact, change CIS, whatever that is, Center for...
	I don't know what the difference in acronyms are.
	He did, in fact, add an A to the CIS in the quote.
	But Hassan, in his intellectual dishonesty here, trying to brush everything under the rug in character assassinating the journalist so that nobody has to deal with the underlying troubling material stuff, suggests or leaves the viewer thinking that CISA was not actually a partner of the EIP.
	Check this out.
	People, this is from University of Washington's own website.
	False impressions.
	The EIP operated as a government cutout, funneling censorship requests from federal agencies to platform.
	This impression is built around falsely framing the following facts.
	The founders of the EIP consulted with the Department of Homeland Security and Infrastructure, CISA, prior to our launch.
	They did!
	EIP consulted with DHS and CISA.
	What else?
	CISA was a partner of the EIP.
	Let me just skip to all of this.
	These claims are true.
	So CISA was a partner of the EIP.
	The Election Integrity Partnership was consulting and conversing with the Department of Homeland Security and the, what was it called?
	The cybersecurity infrastructure.
	And EIP alerted social media platforms to content.
	Sorry.
	And the EIP alerted social media content to...
	So nothing like EIP working with the CISA, partnering by their own admissions and DHS, alerting social media platforms to, hey, you've got some stuff there that we think violates your terms of use.
	Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, go fix it.
	These are all true claims.
	Gish Gallop, people.
	Never forget it.
	And do you know what the most beautiful thing is?
	I didn't realize this.
	Mehdi Hassan wrote an article on the Gish Gallup.
	The tactic of the Gish Gallup.
	I think he published it in the Atlantic.
	I tweeted.
	I can't find the exact.
	I can't find it right now.
	He wrote an article detailing the strategy that is the Gish Gallup, except he attributed the tactic to Donald Trump.
	Hashtag confession through projection.
	Hashtag, it's not rules for radicals, it's actually Joseph Goebbels' Nazi propaganda.
	Accuse your adversary of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	Oh, but the gish gallop, the gish gallop tactic, which Mehdi Hassan tactfully and artistically, what is the word I'm looking for?
	Wonderfully invoked, used here.
	It's not just that he used it here.
	He's used it elsewhere.
	I went just to look up some of the tweets of disinformation or inaccuracies that Mehdi Hassan himself may have uttered.
	And this is a double-edged sword because I'm not saying that Taibbi made those tweets with the deliberate intent to mislead.
	Matt Taibbi is a journalist who cares about his reputation.
	And I know he cares more about the truth than being right.
	And had Matt Taibbi been notified of the mistakes...
	In a plausible, respectful...
	I'm sure he would have even responded had the manner of his notification not been respectful.
	But had Taibbi become aware of those mistakes, he wouldn't try to hide them, conceal them, or pretend that he didn't make them because, A, that would be even more tarnishing on his reputation than making bona fide mistakes in the first place.
	And Taibbi is more interested in the truth than being right.
	Where if Mehdi Hassan were more interested in the truth than being right, he would have said, okay, Matt, you made these mistakes.
	You know, it's tough to digest, I don't know, however many hundreds of thousands of emails and information you got in a short period of time to put on a Twitter.
	Maybe go correct those, but now can we talk about the underlying problem?
	That CISA, DHS, partnering with, or I don't want to say anything that might be inaccurate.
	CISA.
	Was a partner of the EIP.
	Department of Homeland Security was consulting with the EIP, the Election Integrity Partnership, to flag and review material on the internet.
	Can we deal with that?
	Maybe that's the story here and not Taibbi's mistakes, Mehdi Hassan.
	But Gish Gallup, people, shotgun arguments, spaghetti on a wall, or in some cases, just a whopping steaming plate of Scheiser on the wall.
	Here's Mehdi Hassan employing the Gish Gallup.
	When was this?
	In 2020.
	I don't know who he's...
	Oh, he's tweeting at Ted Cruz.
	Do you agree with Trump on Mexican as rapists?
	First statement, false.
	Send back Ilhan Omar and AOC.
	I'm not familiar with this one, so I will not talk about it.
	African shithole countries.
	That I can talk about because that is disinformation.
	That was based on an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated source claiming that Trump referred to...
	I don't know which country says shithole countries.
	Will any reporters ask you, how about Trump's description of your wife as ugly and your dad as a murderer?
	Just keep him coming.
	Because there was that meme going around that Ted Cruz's dad was the Zodiac killer.
	Anyhow.
	Alrighty then.
	Gish Gallop.
	Taibbi has learned a lesson.
	He's public enemy number one now.
	You are allies.
	Until you no longer are allies, then you are enemies.
	To an ideological adversary, there is no truth beyond the party truth.
	And the second you deviate from the party truth, my goodness, have you stepped into a world of pain where you will always now be subjected to these types of ambush interviews?
	Mehdi Hasan made a few decent points.
	There were inaccurately framed, inaccurately drafted tweets.
	One suggested that...
	The Disinformation Governance Board found, you know, that Scary Poppins Nina Jankiewicz was going to head, was dissolved, and in response to that, the EIP was created, Election Integrity Partnership.
	It's chronologically inverted.
	The truth of it is even worse.
	It's not that the EIP was concocted in response to the dissolution of the Disinformation Governance Board.
	It's that the Disinformation Governance Board was created.
	Swiftly dissolved two years after the Election Integrity Partnership.
	That's actually materially more devastating than the mistake that Taibbi made.
	Tanning bed are real?
	Dude, it's real and it's too much.
	And my wife is getting on me about wearing suntan lotion.
	But I believe that suntan lotion is bad for you.
	So that's it.
	I've asked.
	I've publicly tweeted.
	I would debate these issues with Mehdi Hassan.
	There was another wonderful one.
	Let me see if I can actually bring this one up because it's so utterly important if what you want is the truth.
	Where Mehdi Hassan berated Matt Taibbi for not inquiring as to what some of the tweets were that the Biden administration, before they were the administration, just when Biden was running for office, was asking to be flagged.
	And then he suggested...
	Here we go.
	And then he suggested that the reason for which these tweets were flagged was because they bona fide violated Twitter's terms of service as relates to non-consensual moods.
	Imagine this.
	Imagine becoming the party that defends big pharma, that defends big government, that looks to be the censors for the government in the face of the people.
	Mehdi Hassan suggested that it was a legitimate...
	It was a legitimate takedown request because it was non-consensual news.
	...which went mad viral.
	Let's just take the very first example you cited in the very first thread, which went mad viral.
	You wrote, by 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine.
	One executor would write to another, more to review from the Biden team.
	The reply would come back, handled.
	Now, that sounds bad, but aside from the fact that the Biden team was not the government at the time...
	They were seeking to become the government at the time through the suppression of that very story, Mehdi Hassan, the suppression of which actually resulted in that man seeking to suppress that story, becoming president.
	My goodness, it would be...
	I don't know if it's worse, better, indifferent if he was in power.
	He did it to gain power.
	He did it.
	It worked.
	And he gained power through intelligence, EIP.
	Social media suppressing the truth and effectively, in fact, interfering with elections.
	But hold on.
	Matt Taibbi's response?
	Bad.
	It turns out that at least three, maybe four of those five tweet URLs that you link to, they link back to non-consensual nude images of Hunter Biden.
	Why was it wrong, Matt, for the Biden campaign, not the government at the time, to ask Twitter to enforce its own terms of service against people basically posting revenge porn?
	Do you understand?
	Why people...
	Do you see?
	That's the question.
	Stop, Mehdi.
	Let him answer.
	But no.
	People question your credibility on this whole project when you omit such crucial context right from the get-go.
	Omit such crucial context.
	First of all, the reason that's important is because the ordinary person can't just call up Twitter and have something taken off Twitter.
	This is a bad answer.
	And I like Matt Taiby.
	This is just an answer from an individual who is flustered.
	By being taken off guard at a character assassination interview.
	I think if it's a legitimate request, it should happen quickly, whether you're big or small.
	It's not because you're some 13-year-old kid whose father is not president or vice president or soon-to-be president that there should be second-class or delayed treatment of these very issues.
	Why would it have been an issue?
	Let me just get back to Mehdi Hassan's question.
	I forget it now.
	Why people question your credibility.
	Who is it wrong, Matt, for the Biden campaign, not the government at the time, to ask Twitter to enforce its own terms of service against people basically posting revenge porn?
	Do you understand why people question your credibility on this whole project when you omit such crucial context right from the get-go?
	Pick me, pick me, teacher.
	You know why it's a big deal, Matty?
	Because that wasn't the excuse the Biden administration gave at the time.
	Had the Biden administration come out at the time and said, these are non-consensual nudes of my son, take him down.
	I think most people would have said, go ahead.
	You know why the Biden administration didn't make that excuse at the time?
	Neither did Twitter.
	Because if they had to agree, acknowledge that they were non-consensual nudes, it made everything else on that laptop true.
	It made it true and accurate, confirmed by the very administration that was seeking the suppression of that information so they wouldn't take the hit in the polls.
	They did not come public and say those are non-consensual news.
	Twitter did not come public and say those are non-consensual news.
	The intelligence community did not come public and say those are non-consensual news.
	They all lied.
	Intelligence said the computer bore the earmarks or the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
	Twitter said it violated their policy on hacked materials.
	Lie!
	The Biden administration would never have said that publicly because it would have confirmed the authenticity of the computer and all of the damning information on that computer.
	You know what that other damning information was?
	Nobody gives a crap about nudes and Hunter Biden naked smoking whatever he's doing.
	They cared about the 10% for the big guy.
	The other information on that laptop that was swept under the rug because it was passed off as hacked materials, where if the Biden administration had come out and said those are non-consensual nudes of my kid, well, my goodness, they might have had a few more questions to answer.
	Oh, oh, I see.
	But it is also easier to play Sunday morning quarterback and whatever they call it.
	I was not under that microscope and that surprising one that Matt Taibbi found himself under.
	Okay, so hold on one second.
	Barnes is in the back.
	Before I bring Barnes up, you may have noticed.
	I'll do the standard exclaimers.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	Super chats such as these.
	Cheryl Gage, the Douglas Mackey convention.
	We talked about it last week, but we might talk about it again this week.
	These super chats, YouTube takes 30% of those.
	If you don't like supporting YouTube, but you want to support us, you can go over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment in the live chat.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	For the rest of 2023, 100% of that goes to the creators, but Rumble ordinarily takes 20%, so better for the creator, better for the platform, better to support a platform that supports free speech.
	If I sat on Barnes' head...
	He would look like a judge.
	I commented on YouTube video of how unprofessional the interview was.
	I started getting blasted by mindless haters and YouTube blocked my replies.
	It was very professional.
	It was a professional orchestrated hit piece.
	Take out Taibbi.
	Take out everything that he has ever done in his professional journalistic career.
	And now you can say he's a hack and I don't have to even listen to what he reported on.
	When the issues that Mehdi pulled up were...
	Right in principle for some of them, others were equally misleading, maliciously so, but now they can just ignore the whole story.
	Now, you may have noticed it said, this stream video contains a paid sponsorship, which it does people.
	Is it here?
	It is on the table.
	Field of Greens, real, organic, super food.
	Food because it's not an extract, it's not a supplement.
	Most people don't know you're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day so you can get the...
	Antioxidant, boosted immunity stuff.
	Desiccated greens.
	Powder.
	It smells good.
	Oh, yeah, you saw the powder coming out there.
	It's good.
	You take a spoonful.
	It's one serving per spoonful, twice a day.
	You'll get whatever you don't get on a daily basis that you should be getting.
	It's a healthy alternative to sucking down a Diet Coke or a Red Bull.
	It's a healthy alternative to get a dose or two of fruits and vegetables.
	Raw is always better.
	But desiccated.
	Dried.
	You get all it.
	Let me see here.
	It says full serving of vegetables, full serving of fruits, antioxidant power, boosted immunity, USDA organic because it's a food, not an extract, not a supplement.
	It looks like swamp water, but it tastes delicious and it's a good habit to get into.
	If you go to fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, you get 15% off your order.
	So link is in the pinned comment.
	Thank you, Field of Greens.
	Let's get this show started, shall we?
	I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	Sir.
	Okay.
	You're wearing a bow tie tonight, Robert.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Get the bow tie going.
	May I ask where you got that bow tie?
	I've had it for a while, actually.
	But it is Easter, so, you know, apropos.
	It's a beautiful pink bow tie.
	Robert?
	Okay, hold on.
	Two things before we get started.
	Book over your shoulder, cigar in your hands.
	Sure, yeah.
	This is Partagas Cigar, and the book is Robert Francis Kennedy.
	To a newer world, it's basically a combination of various campaign statements he made in 1967 and 1968.
	His son, Robert, his oldest son, Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., announced that he will be making a formal announcement for declaring his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for the presidency on April 19th in Boston, Massachusetts.
	So it's apropos in that sense as well.
	And someone says, thank you both for having this stream on Resurrection Day.
	It's much appreciated.
	It is Easter Sunday.
	I don't know if you're supposed to say Happy Easter, have a meaningful Easter.
	Happy Easter, yeah.
	Happy Easter is pretty much the norm.
	If you're Jagmeet Singh out of Canada, you say Happy Sunday.
	These people have lost their ever-loving minds.
	Okay, so hold on.
	I think we might just go straight over to...
	Do we do one subject here before we go over?
	What's the over-under to France joining bricks?
	I don't think it will matter, but the is the short answer on that, but you can see part of my discussion on the Duran for that.
	I'll have a hush-hush on that this week, actually.
	But yeah, we got 21 topics tonight.
	Our potential topics to cover in order of sequence are the Perry conviction out of Austin, Texas.
	What does it mean for self-defense?
	Possibility of a pardon from the governor.
	Might not be as simple as people assume.
	The January 6th cases, the development of more informants being disclosed, and the D.C. Court of Appeals itself can't decide on exactly what is obstruction of justice and what is it.
	The abortion pill, dueling cases, one out of Amarillo, one out of the state of Washington.
	Both by federal courts about whether the abortion pill can sustain its FDA approval for public licensing and marketing.
	The Tennessee legislature expelling several members after they participated in the staging and takeover of the Tennessee legislature the week before.
	The Trump indictment of various details and defenses now available that are pertinent and material to it.
	I was on with George Galloway earlier today.
	Evening London time.
	Morning my time.
	And discuss that there as well as on the Duran.
	But we'll get into some of those details here.
	Honest services fraud is up at the Supreme Court.
	That actually has some bearing on the Trump case.
	Clarence Thomas gift dispute.
	The civil rights case where the cops say blame the police dog.
	They don't control him so they can't be sued if the dog violates your rights.
	Maine has continuing battles on religious schools, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling just a few years ago that was supposed to stop Maine from doing what it continues to do, which is discriminate against religious schools.
	The Facebook suits that we previously discussed about schools suing Facebook for causing harm to children are proliferating across the nation, as it is replicated and duplicated in state jurisdiction after jurisdiction.
	A Peruvian ex-president has been ordered extradited out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but stayed temporarily.
	An adoption lawsuit where in Oregon they're weaponizing the adoption process to force people to accept wokeism as a precondition of being able to adopt children.
	In an Amish case I previously discussed, Reuben King, Second Amendment implications covered in Epoch Times this week.
	As his lawyers challenge the constitutionality of the federal firearms licensing laws as revealed in the prosecution against him.
	What happens when ChatGPT libels you?
	There are more people looking at potential lawsuits based on libelous information coming out of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence.
	Trans rules in schools are all over the place.
	There's teachers that were fired for not using preferred pronouns.
	That went to court.
	There's parents suing because of their kids having trans treatments being recommended or proposed or other things by schools.
	Schools trying to exclude parents from that process.
	ACLU filing suit for any changes in trans rules.
	Virginia Supreme Court case that U.S. Supreme Court dodged taking for the time being that has an impact on whether or not you can limit certain things.
	Is FedCoin a legal reality tomorrow?
	Is there a central bank digital currency the Federal Reserve can legally issue?
	Can they ban honking like they do in California outside of emergency safety concerns that actually reach the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?
	How much immunity do prosecutors enjoy?
	People will be surprised at how much immunity they enjoy, both absolute and qualified, often isn't so qualified.
	Are illegal aliens, particularly this dangerous Canadian that was in Minnesota, are they protected by the Second Amendment?
	That Canadian, in that case, was in fact dangerous.
	Yeah, it was.
	DeSantis and Disney and all the legal ramifications of that continued fallout.
	And when is a scooter a motor vehicle?
	And last but not least, courtesy of Steve Leto, what happens when you create the critical document in your case, but you forgot that font didn't exist at the time the document was purportedly created?
	Okay, that's going to be interesting.
	Robert, let's do the Perry conviction on both YouTube and Rumble.
	And then we'll go over to Rumble.
	And for those who don't like Rumble, you can also join us on Locals, which is open for everybody.
	I don't know if comments are only for supporters.
	I don't think it is.
	So Locals is the other way.
	You can live stream.
	Yeah, that's right.
	We're live on Locals at babybornslaw.locals.com, where everybody is above average.
	We've got 515 people.
	Yes, there are trolls there too, people.
	We're at 500 and change now.
	Okay, Robert, the Perry conviction.
	Perry conviction, this is the state of Texas.
	This is another BLM protest where a driver who happens to be in the military, I forget exactly what his position is, seems to take a wrong turn, gets swarmed by a crowd of angry protesters who apparently, I think this is uncontradicted evidence.
	Sort of surround the car, start banging on the car.
	There's a guy, the person who ends up getting killed, I forget his name, who's carrying, I think it's an AR rifle.
	I mean, I think he's carrying a rifle on a sling.
	I think an AK-47, as I recall.
	Are AK-47s actually legal in the States?
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay, so I thought it was the AKs were illegal.
	I'm not sure if it was legal that he had it.
	Okay.
	The guy's got an AK.
	So the chat's saying AK-47.
	Approaches the driver's side window and apparently points the barrel in the direction of the driver who has a handgun, fires three, four times into the torso by his own admission, tries to neutralize the threat, and then speeds off.
	Then calls the police and then cooperates fully with the police.
	Guy dies.
	He gets charged with murder.
	And gets convicted.
	Was it second-degree murder or was it first-degree murder?
	Oh, I'm going to forget that now.
	He gets convicted of murder.
	And now you've got the governor, Governor Perry, talking about coming in with a pardon.
	Robert, I try to look at this.
	Now, it went to trial.
	I didn't follow the entire trial.
	As meaningfully as other stuff, I saw the expert testimony as to the trajectory, the speed of the vehicle, because people were initially saying this was deliberate, went in, sped in, shot it, and sped off, where it was clear from the expert testimony that the individual decelerated all the way up until the confrontation, then got swarmed, then by his own testimony got scared and feared for his life because his girlfriend was on the side of the car, and acted in self-defense in his own mind, took off, called the cops.
	Cooperate with the cops.
	I try to listen to this and view it as if the guy who got killed this time was actually Rittenhouse, had it ended differently than Rittenhouse did.
	And it'll be a tough thing to reconcile in the minds of some who say, the guy was just there to keep the peace and he saw a car that he thought was a threat and so now, had it ended the other way, both could have claimed self-defense.
	What is your take on it, Robert?
	Well, and I think you also read the issue that popped up with the police officer, right?
	Yes, that we're going to get secondly.
	Apparently, exculpatory evidence was asked to be withheld.
	Let me just pull it up here.
	Was asked to be withheld from the grand jury.
	Now, this is from Marina Medvin, who says, this is an affidavit in a...
	I think the context is...
	I asked what the context was.
	I think it's a different investigation.
	But apparently, Fugit, being 18 years of age, yada, yada...
	Lead investigating detective in the above-referenced case.
	This was State of Texas v.
	Perry.
	Read the Section 3, and then I'll go to the next one.
	It says, What would happen if I refused to agree to the limitations I was being ordered to comply with?
	I was later sent an email simply reaffirming the exculpatory subjects that I was forbidden from mentioning during my testimony.
	Of my original 158-slide PowerPoint presentation, the presentation was reduced to 56 slides with almost all of the exculpatory evidence ordered removed.
	I felt like I did not have any other options but to comply with their orders.
	So that's what one of the investigators is claiming.
	Yeah, the lead investigator basically had recommended there not be prosecution and believed that the grand jury had been made aware of why he believed that this exculpatory information they would have never even indicted Perry.
	And so you have a prosecutor who ignored the lead investigator because it was a very political case.
	The people that sort of took over Austin that night were on the left, and consequently they wanted to prosecute this individual.
	For shooting one of their leftist protesters, even though it was a leftist protester bearing a gun, and as video confirmed, he was pointing that weapon at Daniel Perry when Daniel Perry, in his mind, as he's expressed, defended himself by shooting back.
	So the issue is whether there was prosecutorial misconduct here as well in the proceedings.
	The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case called Williams, said there's no federal constitutional requirement to provide exculpatory information to the grand jury.
	I think that case decision was wrong.
	I think it effectively eviscerated the independence of the grand jury, the impartiality of the grand jury, and caused continuous problems, but that's partially why we're here, why these grand juries are no longer effective checks.
	Now, there's no...
	With certainty, the grand jury wouldn't have indicted anyway, because this is Austin, Texas.
	And even had it been, let me rephrase this, had it not been presented to the grand jury, had there been prosecutorial misconduct, does that not get washed away?
	I presume the defendant brought up this exculpatory evidence in his defense, and then the jury still said, no mas.
	It's not clear what, to me at least, what was presented and what wasn't, what was made clear to the jury and what was not, and whether it was part of motions to dismiss or not.
	I'm not sure.
	But you have a combination of what appears to many people to be a classic self-defense case being prosecuted really for what appears to be only politically motivated reasons, the politics of the person of the defendant versus the politics of the alleged.
	And then on top of that, you have what appears to be at least some degree of prosecutorial malfeasance in what was presented to the grand jury and what was not, what was presented to the jury at trial and what was not.
	So there was a lot of public outrage at the verdict.
	Because a lot of people were surprised it was even prosecuted and assumed that an Austin jury would acquit when presented with the video evidence, the same evidence that led to the police officer to believe that there was no prosecution.
	There was not even probable cause of a crime.
	Yeah, you see him there pointing the weapon right at him in his car.
	Yes, but we learned our lessons from Rittenhouse.
	Even there, someone can say it's pointing down, but down at a car.
	The whole issue, this was the problem with Rittenhouse, is you get people on the streets with guns and bad stuff is going to happen when regular citizens are playing cop.
	But when you see, I mean, the obvious material difference in this case versus Rittenhouse is, I mean, I don't even know if it's a difference, is that the car is getting swarmed by protesters, and that in and of itself is a threatening circumstance.
	Nobody knows what the heck is going on.
	This guy is not there to run over people, but everyone thinks that he is.
	And so they swarmed the car.
	Dude in the car just took a wrong turn getting swarmed.
	Both cases are basically self-defense cases.
	Now, whether or not he was lawfully entitled to lift his gun at that point, that he saw something there.
	Is, you know, open question.
	They tried to suggest that the driver, Daniel Perry, was engaged in provocative behavior.
	Provocation can remove the self-defense by saying he wasn't from Austin and he chose to go there and so on and so forth.
	But, you know, that was kind of what they tried to kind of argue in Rittenhouse, but ultimately were unsuccessful being able to mount that claim.
	But the real difference is simply...
	The jury pool.
	One case, you had Kenosha, which is a politically split blue-collar community.
	In Austin, you have an overwhelmingly liberal jury pool.
	And what people are witnessing is the open, overt political weaponization of these communities to punish, use the criminal laws to punish their political opponents.
	Now, Austin has been doing this for decades, in fact.
	They brought very questionable prosecutions against Congressman Thomas DeLay, prosecutions against Governor Rick Perry.
	So there's been multiple efforts in Austin to do this.
	It's just escalated with how political it now is.
	It used to at least have...
	A third of people in Austin that were on the other side politically, now you've got in the single digits 10-15% that are in the opposite party politically or truly or meaningfully independent or non-partisan.
	And the left that's present is no longer the anti- State, you know, pro-free speech, old school left that used to exist in Austin.
	They used to, you know, call Austin, keep Austin weird for that reason.
	Sort of the old country music, cultural left.
	Molly Ivins kind of left.
	Jim Hightower kind of left.
	That left is pretty much gone from Austin.
	As was shown in the Alex Jones civil proceedings.
	That, you know, the juries are made up of partisan liberals who are eager.
	Authoritarian liberals is the real difference.
	These are very pro-authority people, and they're happy to use their power for their political purposes.
	Now, there was a lot of calls immediately for Governor Abbott to pardon him.
	In Texas, like many other states, the governor doesn't have an absolute right of pardoning.
	Instead, he appoints members to a board.
	The board has to first recommend pardoning.
	They can only recommend pardoning once there's been a criminal conviction.
	This, too, varies state by state.
	But in Texas, they can't pardon or recommend pardoning before then.
	And if a majority of the board recommends it, then and only then can Governor Abbott actually pardon Perry.
	Governor Abbott came out publicly and said he has requested that the board give him that authority, and if it gives him that authority, he will, in fact, pardon Perry.
	Presumably, given that the governor appoints those members of the board, the board will in fact recommend pardoning Perry, but we will see.
	And I'll say this, from what I understand of the evidence, it is an outrage of a conviction, but even from the, some people say there is no leftist logic, but it's all hierarchy, not even double standards.
	The same lefties that said Rittenhouse should be guilty of murder because he shouldn't have shown up there with a rifle.
	Are now saying this guy should be convicted of murder because he shouldn't have been intimidated by a guy with a rifle that seems to be lifting it up.
	It's mutually incompatible and lacking any form of intellectual honesty or principles.
	But I saw enough of the trial that unless someone presents a compelling argument, it's an outrage.
	And we'll see what happens.
	But this is how you force a national divorce.
	What kind of person is going to want...
	You have gun rights, but if you use them, you're going to go to jail for life.
	I'll leave that.
	I would leave that jurisdiction.
	You're going to force people out of certain areas.
	You'll have a de facto national divorce.
	Robert, let's move this party on over to...
	I'm going to do it one more time, people.
	The link to Rumble is here, and I'll give the link to Locals.
	We're at 600 people on Locals, which is great.
	By the way, a while back, there was a glitch on the numbers.
	We did not have 35,000 people watching on Locals, but we had more than we had ever had on our Local stream.
	So if you don't like the user, the UX on Rumble, go to Locals.
	We're there as well.
	I'm going to end it on YouTube right now in 3, 2, 1. See you all on Rumble.
	Booyah.
	All right, Robert, going to the list.
	January 6th.
	Oh, January.
	Talking about politically motivated prosecutions.
	We got a lot of those cases tonight.
	Well, there was another case that resembled a January 6th.
	Oh, yeah, the Tennessee case.
	I guess we'll get there in a second.
	The latest on January 6th, Robert, is how many informants in the crowd on January 6th egging people on?
	It keeps going up.
	I mean, now what's happening is before they had disclosed the informants, infiltrators, and instigators associated with the FBI, Now they're disclosing that there were a bunch of informants connected to other federal agencies and connected now to various state and local government agencies, passing around T-shirts that were encouraging the raid involved.
	In fact, it appears that of the alleged Proud Boys that alleged to have raided the Capitol, that up to 80% of them were informants, that most of them were not actually...
	Just ordinary people who are not tied to, affiliated with, associated for the government in some capacity.
	The federal judges are trying to keep a lid on that, trying to prevent the jury, even these D.C. juries that are very anti-anybody associated with January 6th, from even knowing these facts about...
	What took place in the proceedings.
	There was also, it turned out, that they had used an informant to infiltrate the families and the defendants, find out all kinds of attorney-client privilege information, and the court is keeping that hidden from the jury pool as well.
	So the Proud Boys case continues to be an ongoing travesty of justice.
	Now, one of the charges that they've used is an obstruction of justice charge, and that's been very controversial from the inception.
	And so that went up to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
	One district court judge had dismissed saying this doesn't meet obstruction standards.
	And obstruction, like honest services fraud, which we'll discuss both in the Trump context and the Supreme Court context, are two areas where federal prosecutors have badly abused their power and, in my view, interpreted the laws to over-criminalize conduct.
	It's ironic.
	When you compare it to, say, the Pfizer-Brooke Jackson case, what gets defined as fraud and what doesn't.
	In the civil context, judges go out of their way to dramatically limit what can be called fraud.
	But in criminal cases, they dramatically expand the definition of fraud.
	If you have any doubt that what's motivating these judges is politics rather than principle, there's no better example.
	than the way they define materiality for obstruction or fraud purposes between criminal and civil cases.
	Because what's supposed to happen is they're supposed to define it very narrowly in criminal cases and broader in civil cases.
	Instead, they define it very narrowly in civil cases and very broad in criminal cases.
	The only thing that's in common is they're favoring big corporations and the government in each case.
	So that's the only consistency in our federal court's independence that Justice Roberts likes to brag about.
	So what happened, one of these cases went to the D.C. Court, and D.C. Court of Appeals just split.
	So it was popularly interpreted as, oh, now all these cases can go forward against the January 6th defendants.
	That's not clear at all.
	In fact, because you had one judge issue one opinion, who my favorite part of the opinion was...
	That it was so clear and unambiguous what the law meant that there was no need to evaluate a bunch of other constitutional limits on the law.
	Apparently it was so clear and unambiguous that the two other judges couldn't decide what the law meant.
	So how can you call anything clear and unambiguous when judges can't even agree on what it means?
	And it's supposed to be so clear and unambiguous to a non-lawyer as to what it means, the judges can't even agree what it means.
	So there was a decision by one judge.
	It was the official decision.
	It's not really the binding decision because there was a second judge that concurred, that kind of completely guts large parts of the other judge's decision.
	And then there was a judge who dissented.
	So it really, this provides the path.
	to the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify this.
	And this is all about the misapplication of obstruction laws, which the government and federal prosecutors have been trying to do forever.
	And every now and then, the Supreme Court will step in and say, no, you can't do it that way.
	In this particular context, it's a federal crime to obstruct corruptly an official proceeding.
	It's clear what that's meant if you read the history of the law, large parts of the law's language.
	What that means is that you basically prevent the proceeding from being able to be performed, or at least try to.
	And what that really means is you somehow spoil evidence.
	In other words, you intimidate a witness, you bribe a witness, you falsify documents, you forge documents, you do something so they really can't perform their job, or you try to prevent them from performing their job.
	Let me just stop you there just before we can keep going.
	Obstruction of justice, it's obstructing of some form of legal proceeding.
	In the context of January 6th...
	What would that legal proceeding be?
	Like the arrests of people?
	No, the certification.
	They're claiming, I mean, it's all kind of bogus because they canceled the certification and didn't proceed as soon as there was any kind of political public disturbance.
	So, number one, number two, there's no evidence that anybody thought they were...
	There was any plan, any intention, any awareness that they were trying to prevent the proceeding from going forward.
	Just the opposite.
	They wanted the proceeding to go forward and for evidence to be developed and arguments to be had.
	So there was no attempt to block the certification.
	There was an attempt to require the certification process to follow its constitutional rules.
	It's all myth.
	It's all fake narrative.
	But the official allegations and the ones the courts are going along with is the illusion that all of this was to somehow prevent Congress from certifying the election itself, rather than require Congress performance duties in the certification process.
	The problem they have is there's no even allegation in the indictment that the certification process was somehow contaminated by evidence in some way.
	Because there wasn't any.
	And so their argument was that there's language in there that says otherwise destroys, alters, etc.
	Otherwise obstructs.
	Clearly what they're trying to get at is the same category of spoiling evidence.
	And that's what the district court ruled and said.
	So that didn't apply to the January 6th cases.
	Judges said, yeah, it could apply.
	One judge said, it's so clear and unambiguous, it does apply.
	One judge said, well, it's not so clear and unambiguous, but it could apply under certain circumstances.
	And the third judge said, no, it obviously doesn't apply here, period.
	So to me, it's clear what the rule is about.
	And here's the danger.
	If you can interpret, because this is a 20-year federal sentence, by the way, that comes with this.
	If you can interpret corruptly obstructs to mean anything That could possibly impact anything the government does.
	Then you can basically start charging people with corrupt obstruction for, in your view, saying something incorrect in the court of public opinion that could impact government action.
	I mean, that's how insane this is when you apply it to its logical consequences.
	The logical consequences are you could criminalize protest, you could criminalize most speech, because you could get around the corruptly First Amendment part by just saying, oh, we're saying the statement was false.
	That's it.
	This will correlate to the...
	Honest services fraud nonsense that they're pulling in the Trump case that's before the U.S. Supreme Court in a separate capacity as well.
	That's the problem here.
	This is the government attempting to criminalize disagreement with the government, using the January 6th cases to establish the precedent, knowing that the courts are so filled with people, particularly in D.C., at the district and appellate level, who hate the January 6th people that they're willing to just make up the law and give the government a green light to go after everybody else.
	Because if corruptly obstruct just means any act that you can allege was somehow corrupt that could possibly impact an official proceeding, you can effectively, under the guise of false speech is not protected speech, basically start saying anybody who does disinformation that could impact the government now goes to prison.
	Robert, some people might say that's a feature, not a bug of what the process is right now, but...
	I think I'm getting confused now.
	What is the difference between obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress as relates to the January 6th defendants?
	It's all the same, different variations of official proceedings.
	It's just whether the official proceedings are taking place in Congress or taking place in an administrative agency, taking place in a court.
	That's all.
	But all of them have the same variation to them.
	All of them are about somehow trying to prevent By some corrupt means, the evidentiary gathering process and the independent adjudicatory process of the legislative branch, the executive branch or the judicial branch.
	That's always what it's been about.
	And to be honest with you, that's what a lot of the IRS tax evasion laws should be interpreted to mean as well.
	It's clearly that you try to do something that makes it impossible for the government to do its job in an ethical manner.
	It's never been applied.
	We have other laws that deal with riots and disorderly conduct and trespass, plenty of them.
	But they don't carry the huge penalty that obstruction does because obstruction is about...
	That you've contaminated the evidentiary process in some way, hence the word corruptly's involvement, combined with obstruction, and hence all the illustrations.
	When they give illustrative examples of this, they talk about altering documents, spoiling documents, destroying documents, intimidating witnesses, bribing witnesses, forging documents.
	It's clear what they're dealing with.
	They're not saying you're doing anything that could just influence the proceeding because it easily reaches innocent conduct.
	And that violates due process, that violates the rule of lenity, that violates First Amendment rights, the right to petition the government, the right to speech, the right of press, the right of assembly.
	All of it is impacted and influenced by these criminal statutes because they're the only ones that say if you do something the government doesn't like that could impact the government, they could put you in prison for.
	That's why we've got to dramatically limit the scope of those laws.
	And that's why the dissent is correct, the district court is correct.
	That this doesn't apply outside of something that interferes with or attempts to interfere with the fact-gathering process.
	That's the bottom line of it.
	The fact-gathering process of Congress, was it impaired or interfered with in some contaminated, corrupt manner by the disorderly conduct?
	No, clearly not.
	And so that's where it's very dangerous what they're trying to do.
	And no one should be deluded to think this is limited to January 6th.
	They'll start extending it and expanding it to put people in prison for obstruction, merely for asserting their First Amendment freedoms.
	Robert, what is going to be the response to this, or when is there going to be some investigation into it?
	We're now learning.
	Informants...
	After informant having infiltrated the plans for the seditious conspiracy, the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, on the ground on January 6th at various levels of government.
	Meanwhile, the Nancy Pelosi's are saying, we didn't know what was going to happen.
	Washington Capitol Police are saying, we were understaffed.
	We weren't expecting this.
	We had bike racks.
	What is it going to take to put these two mutually incompatible events together?
	For people to say this was allowed to happen, facilitated an inside job, and deliberately orchestrated by the intelligence agencies themselves?
	What does it take to get people to investigate that and to go after that?
	I mean, the House has that power right now, so it's up to the Republicans in the House to begin that process.
	All right.
	Now, hold on.
	Before we go any further, Robert, let's just get a couple of rumble rants, because there are a number of them.
	One of them had to do with January 6th.
	Here, I'll get to it in a second.
	CW400Brisket says, I had an E4 shoot an Afghan militant.
	He put the muzzle of his rifle in my soldier's face.
	It was at three in the morning.
	We spent five months dealing with JAG over this individual's death.
	That was from CW400Brisket.
	Jennifer says, Free January 6th political prisoners.
	Arrest Ray Epps, Pelosi, Bowser, and Byrd, who murdered Ashley Babbitt.
	Really appreciate your support for these prosecuted.
	It's an absolute injustice.
	And the day of, and I still say, Ashley Babbitt paid the ultimate price for a momentary act of silliness.
	But the fact that nothing beyond that, I don't know what the status of the civil case is now, Robert.
	I don't think there's been an update.
	Dragon's Treasure says, at this point, national divorce is the absolute bare minimum I'd accept.
	Knowing the other side, I can't imagine it being peaceful, but I dare not say more at this point.
	Jennifer said, "Brag also excluded exculpatory evidence and now this corrupt DA.
	What give, gentlemen, can the DAS be charged?
	Outrageous abuse of the judiciary.
	Examine Moon TV.
	Does Rumble have a site to report ads that are obvious scams, Ponzi I don't know.
	I would just info it.
	I don't know what the info is, but email or tag Rumble on Twitter.
	Oh, going to locals, you might notice the comment there.
	Okay.
	Robert, what do we have next on the list?
	The abortion pill, dueling court judgments.
	Okay, you'll have to field this one.
	I'm not up to speed on it.
	So basically, years ago, the abortion pill, RU486, known by various names.
	I won't try to pronounce the full name.
	I think it's minifestrone or something like that.
	So, I mean, basically, it allows you to have abortion by pill.
	I think upwards of 40%, maybe more now, of abortions in America are done through the pill.
	And so they approved it in 2000.
	There were challenges to it at the time, petitions that were brought by a range of medical groups challenging whether it was safe and effective to do so.
	The group that originally pushed it was the Population Council, which interestingly with this court, it put in a footnote what the Population Council was all about.
	Population Council was formed and founded by John D. Rockefeller and points out that the Group's entire origin was for eugenics and, you know, draws a reasonable conclusion that the availability and accessibility of the abortion pill was originally pushed by eugenicists in America.
	The FDA, when it originally reviewed it towards the end of Bill Clinton's second term, determined that there was inadequate, insufficient evidence to determine whether it could be marketed.
	To the public, because there was inadequate evidence it was either safe or effective.
	Then, Clinton lost the election.
	I mean, Gore lost the election, and George W. Bush was going to be coming in.
	So the FDA suddenly approved the drug using emergency-type powers.
	Shock, shock.
	They had put through special epidemic-related rules at the FDA related to HIV and new cancers.
	And they said in that context, you could do investigational drug authorizations for when there are certain kinds of emergencies present.
	And they decided to use that power to rush through the abortion pill, never answering the petitions that had been raised before the FDA as to problems with the pill.
	So they didn't ultimately answer that until the end of 2016, when they realized that Donald Trump was going to be coming into the presidency in all likelihood.
	Suddenly, they denied the petition so that they could continue to push the abortion bill.
	Then in 2019 and 2020, there were various changes suggested under the Biden administration.
	They made dramatic changes in 2021 after the Dobbs decision.
	They said you could send it through the mail despite the Comstock Act.
	Way back to the late 1800s that said you can't send abortion pills in particular through the mail.
	They said that it could go from seven weeks to ten weeks.
	They said doctors needed to no longer report adverse events from it, and they rejected any petitions that challenged it.
	So the people that had been screwed over in those petitions over the years filed suit in the Northern District of Texas and the Amarillo Division.
	That's a single-judge division.
	So you know which judge you get when you file the case.
	The judge is a longtime religious liberty advocate, Trump appointee, conservative Catholic on the bench.
	He took the case and he found that there was standing.
	That was the first big question.
	Would he allow these doctors and these doctors' groups to sue?
	I think he's correct on that, but it's interesting because his decision basically contradicts.
	The decision issued by the district court judge in Waco that didn't allow us, the Children's Health Defense, to sue the FDA.
	That would be an issue we'll raise with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	But he said, based on the number of adverse events in these doctors, he recognized that interference with informed consent is an injury, a constitutionally cognizable injury that gives grounds to sue, amongst other reasons.
	And he pointed out the whole torturous history of this pill.
	The FDA had not gone through their regular processes.
	They'd approved a drug they never determined to be safe and effective.
	They did so under a law that didn't apply to them because part of the problem with the decision by the FDA was they were using these HIV investigatory drug authorities.
	And the problem was they're like, well, first of all, a pregnancy is not an illness.
	That was for an illness.
	Second, it can't be a therapeutic for an illness because it's also not an illness.
	But even if it were considered, pregnancy were considered somehow an illness, this was not a more effective therapy than surgical abortion.
	In fact, people detailed the evidence showing that adverse events happen more often in the context and in the cases of the abortion pill.
	Then they do in surgical abortions.
	So it's a drug that never should have been approved for the marketing purposes approved for.
	So the court issued an administrative stay, which is permitted under the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act, found their actions were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law given the Comstock Act prohibited them from introducing it into mail as the Biden administration had done in 2021.
	Found reasons why the claim was still within the statute of limitations.
	Basically, it points out it was the FDA that did almost all the delaying here, not the people who brought suit.
	And then the federal district court in Washington tried to counteract that by trying to prohibit the FDA from changing its legal status.
	So you have one federal district court judge in a liberal jurisdiction trying to overrule, when he has no such authority, a federal district court judge in Texas.
	Now, my own view is a little bit different on all of this.
	I think the Texas decision is much more well-grounded in the facts and in the law.
	Like, if you just remove abortion from the equation and you make this appeal about anything else, you can see the evidentiary and legal problems with what the FDA did here, and you probably wouldn't have many objections even from the left.
	It's because it's abortion that you have objections from the left to the Texas court's decision.
	But my view is the FDA shouldn't be in this business anyway.
	The FDA is supposed to be in the marketing business, not the medicine business.
	And they've used their marketing power to co-op control as a super medical agency over everybody.
	This should be, like abortion itself, a state-level decision as to the law.
	I even have some questions as to the state's authority to regulate medicine in general.
	But if you put that aside, at a minimum, it should be the state's, not the federal government.
	Because as the judge pointed out in the Texas case, everything about what the FDA did was purely political.
	None of it had anything to do with medicine.
	They violated their own rules.
	They violated their own requirements.
	They violated their own restrictions because of political motivations.
	And in the end, it was really about promoting a Rockefeller-inspired eugenic agenda.
	And it's amazing how parallel the case is in many respects to what the FDA did to the Brooke Jackson case and the FDA CHD cases about the COVID vaccine, so-called vaccine.
	So what is the next step?
	Is it regarding the availability of this drug for American women?
	Well, the congressmen, senators, and the Biden administration came out and said they would refuse to enforce a federal court's order in Texas.
	Said that this morning on Meet the Press.
	I remember when Trump even talked about that, or anyone talked about it to Trump, like Dershowitz did, about certain orders from the courts as being within his authority.
	The media went nuts, and the legal community went nuts.
	They said, oh my God, he's a dictator.
	He thinks he's above the law.
	He's not going to follow the courts.
	But these same people are now celebrating a congressman, the Department of Health and Human Services, Batera, who's already subject to impeachment anyway, and this would be additional impeachable offenses in my view, came out publicly and said he'd ignore the court decision.
	He's the one that's bound by it because he was the party that was sued.
	Is that not the definition of sedition?
	And I guess the question is, is it overthrowing the government when it's one branch of government seditiously disregarding another branch of government?
	So they do have at least some cover because of the federal court's conflicting ruling out of the state of Washington.
	But they didn't cite that very heavily.
	They mostly said, we're not going to listen to this court.
	So it basically is what happens if the Biden administration starts to just ignore federal courts.
	We're going to have a whole other level of constitutional conflict.
	I think politically, strategically, it's an ill-advised decision of the Biden administration to do that.
	Especially, you know, as we'll get into when they're going to be relying on courts to do their bidding and business in the Tennessee cases and the January 6th cases and others.
	They're going to call things obstruction.
	They're going to call things fraud.
	They're going to call things insurrection.
	When they themselves are overtly and openly, for the first time in more than a century, publicly stating they're not going to follow federal court orders.
	So I think it's politically ill-advised, the tactics that they're employing.
	And I think it increases the probability, you never know with the weakness of this Republican Congress, Republican House, but it increases the possibility that the chair in particular...
	The Director of Health and Human Services gets impeached.
	Now, he won't get convicted out of the Senate.
	There isn't the votes, but it increases the probability that he'll be another cabinet official impeached.
	Kamala Harris, ally out of California.
	So, we'll see.
	But, you know, it's interesting what gets defined as insurrection and obstruction and what doesn't.
	Because just as we saw, suddenly it's okay to keep a gun, and you're totally innocent for bearing a gun at a protest in the Daniel Perry case when you put somebody else's life in danger, and then you're the one that's the so-called victim.
	Similarly to what's happened in the redefinition of obstruction when the Biden administration disobeys court orders, it's okay.
	Anybody else, it's seditious behavior.
	We see it with the Tennessee case and the Tennessee transurrection, as some people call it.
	The double standard is highlighted yet again, or just the hierarchy.
	First of all, the analogy would have been, had Gage Grosskraut succeeded in shooting Kyle Rittenhouse?
	He would have just been convicted of murder.
	So the people that were hailing him as a victim and almost a hero, well, he would have been convicted of murder.
	Okay.
	Tennessee, Robert.
	What the heck is going on?
	Now, you have three Democrat members of...
	I was going to say members of parliament.
	You have members of government apparently participating in a protest, vocal protest, in the government buildings.
	Apparently...
	Obstructing government proceedings.
	I mean, I don't know what it means anymore.
	By all accounts, there's not anybody out there who says they did not break the rules.
	The three of them, I forget their names, but I can find it in a second.
	Nobody says they did not break the rules.
	Are they called lawmakers?
	Yeah, legislators.
	Legislators.
	Broke the rules, engaged in protest on the floor or in the government building where they were not supposed to, aided and abetted, promoted further protest.
	Everybody says they broke the rules.
	They've been expelled.
	Two of them have.
	Two of the three have been expelled.
	They're claiming racism because the two of the three that got expelled were black.
	The one that didn't get expelled was a woman.
	So I guess the Republicans are racist.
	Those white.
	Yeah, that's true.
	It's amazing.
	There's no way to get around it.
	All three of them, they're racist and misogynist.
	If only the black ones...
	I don't know what the factual difference was whereby...
	The white woman escaped expulsion by one vote, but they get expelled.
	And the criticism is not that they didn't break the rules.
	The criticism is not that they're being detained for insurrection, for obstruction of Congress.
	They're going to go to jail for a long time, like some of the January Sixers, although they weren't legislators.
	The complaint is that they didn't go through other remedies that they had.
	They didn't go through ethics complaints, investigations before the expulsion.
	First, for the schnooks out there who don't understand exactly what the expulsion means, What does the expulsion mean?
	They still hold their elected title, I presume, right?
	They're not kicked out of government.
	Yeah, no, they're kicked out of government.
	And now what happens to fill those places?
	They call new elections.
	Usually special elections.
	Okay, now this is going to be the question.
	What is the precedent for this having been done before?
	And what's the rationale for this being the first recourse and not the last recourse?
	So in Tennessee, they have pretty broad grounds.
	So in the Tennessee legislature, the Tennessee Constitution established in 1796 that any disorderly conduct by a member of the legislature is grounds for expulsion.
	So it's very, very broad.
	It was meant to discourage any disruptive conduct at all that was not permitted by the rules.
	And the only protection is it requires a two-thirds vote of that particular.
	You know, the state house and you have the state senate.
	That particular branch has to have a two-thirds vote before somebody can be expelled.
	I'm not a big fan of the expulsion power because it will tend to be weaponized and misused and abused against dissident members.
	In this particular context, however, the difference between the two members that were expelled and the one that was not, as a lawyer explained, the one vote that swung between those.
	There was only one person whose vote changed.
	Was that the person who was not expelled brought a lawyer, and her lawyer was the only one to do so, and her lawyer argued that, in fact, the factual record was incorrect, that she didn't use a bullhorn, unlike the other two, that she didn't engage in disorderly conduct.
	And as that legislature said, he said, based on that, he had doubts about what her culpability was, so he didn't vote to expel her.
	Of course, immediately soon thereafter, the media flipped that around, and because the person happened to be a white woman, they translated it as discrimination against the two black members that were expelled, when that had nothing to do with it.
	That will only increase the antipathy of the Tennessee legislative branch to the media and this disruptive conduct.
	Now, President Biden clearly has no problem with insurrectionist behavior.
	Because what these legislators did wasn't just grab a bullhorn and take over the whole hearing process.
	They helped the rioters come in and take over the entire building in ways that never happened, by the way, in January 6th.
	So this was real January 6th behavior.
	This was real obstructive behavior.
	This was real disruptive behavior.
	Very few of the people who were engaged in it have faced any criminal consequences at all to date.
	Don't be surprised if there are none from the liberal Nashville district turning.
	And it's extraordinary.
	It's what people point out all the way back.
	They took over Wisconsin legislature repeatedly.
	Liberal Democrats did.
	They took over parts of the Kavanaugh hearings repeatedly.
	And never was anybody prosecuted except the January 6th people.
	How is one insurrection and the other isn't?
	How is one obstruction and the other isn't?
	How is one sedition and the other not?
	No, there's no way to make sense of it except just to say, well, there were fewer of them.
	They didn't break as many windows.
	No, there were more people.
	I mean, there were more people in the Tennessee case.
	They got into the legislative halls where the legislators were there.
	So in ways that didn't happen on January 6th.
	Same with the Wisconsin example.
	They actually took over the building, took over the whole thing.
	So this has been escalating, you know, in Texas that they all walked out of the legislature in order to prevent a vote on issues a couple of years ago.
	So Democrats have just made everything about political theater.
	No respect for rules.
	No respect for traditions.
	No respect for precedents.
	No respect for a standard of law.
	That's what double standards are about.
	If there's not one standard for everybody, then there is no rule of law.
	You don't have it anymore.
	Some people call it whataboutism.
	No, it's not.
	It's about...
	Whether we have a rule of law or we don't.
	And neutral application is essential to a rule of law.
	Otherwise, it's just not a rule of law.
	It's a rule of power.
	And so here, they clearly were legally entitled to expel these two members.
	These two members didn't even try to mount much of a legal defense.
	And many of the Democrats spent their time arguing the underlying substance.
	They were trying to hijack the proceedings to convert the trans kid who engaged in the school shooting into somehow a cause for gun control and for trans rights.
	A little bit of an odd way to go about doing that.
	But they wanted to hijack the proceedings to do so.
	The media's in their pocket.
	The Biden administration's behind them.
	The local Nashville DA is behind them.
	So they knew they wouldn't face much consequence.
	So that's why the Tennessee legislature realized the only consequence would be exercising the constitutional power of expulsion.
	They did so in a manner that's not subject to meaningful judicial review in Tennessee.
	Tennessee's courts have been pretty clear on this over the years.
	It has happened before in Tennessee.
	It's happened across the country at various points.
	Pretty rare.
	But this would be the rarest circumstance where I think it's warranted because you know the Biden administration will do nothing about it.
	You know the local DA in Nashville will do nothing about it.
	You know that the media will do nothing about it except celebrate it.
	So there has to be consequences to deter them from just hijacking the legislature whenever they want with riots.
	So, in this case, these two had it coming.
	They deserved it.
	They're not legislators.
	They're political theater makers.
	You know, for the folks tied to Memphis, they should be worried about Memphis.
	You know, Memphis has a huge crime problem.
	And it isn't because Memphis has the most liberal gun rules in the world.
	It's because of criminal gang behavior.
	And, you know, some of these legislators are in the pocket of the gangs, supporting the gangs, embracing the gangs.
	And if you dig in, you'll find more than just political ties to the gangs.
	You'll find financial ties to the gangs.
	And it's a disgrace what they're doing to the city of Memphis.
	It's a beautiful city with a great blues history, great musical history, right by the Mississippi River.
	And they're destroying that city by letting criminals run rampant.
	And their solution is to engage in criminal behavior in the Tennessee state legislature.
	So it wasn't race that got them dismissed.
	It was their own criminal behavior that got them expelled.
	And they're lucky the only consequences they're facing are expulsion.
	Well, I just don't understand how they're not prosecuted.
	And not them per se, but anyone else who got into the...
	Well, they clearly conspired with it.
	I mean, this was what they accused Marjorie Taylor Greene of, that Marjorie Taylor Greene didn't do.
	They did do it.
	A lot of confession through projection.
	Which you could argue is exactly what the Trump indictments really come down to.
	Confession through projection.
	Good segue, Robert.
	Let me just see if there wasn't...
	There was a rumble rant which said, when will your locals start doing ass Wednesdays?
	I don't know what that means.
	Jennifer said, I'm a Christian, so don't take offense.
	Anyone but happy Easter.
	He has risen.
	No one would take offense to that.
	Happy Easter.
	All right, Robert.
	The indictment heard around the world.
	Now, we didn't get...
	I keep forgetting, like, we haven't done a show since that indictment, but I've talked about it a couple of times.
	Tell me why it's not the most absurd indictment you've ever seen.
	Did Alvin Bragg look like someone who was like a worm squirming on a hook?
	How does he say...
	I know people have said...
	They technically don't have to specify the underlying crime in the indictment when the reporter asked Alvin Bragg, what is the crime?
	What is the...
	What did he say corrupt means?
	Other crime.
	What is the crime that Trump was falsifying business records to hide?
	He alluded to the fact that it was federal election law, and my understanding is there's a big problem for a state to try and invoke a federal crime that has not been prosecuted and has actually...
	He's decidedly not been prosecuted as the underlying crime for a state charge.
	But he seemed to have also suggested it would have been New York state election law as well.
	And my question is, how could New York state law apply to federal elections?
	But maybe that's a dumb question.
	What's your overall take on this?
	I mean, I think I noticed.
	Tell us how stupid this bloody indictment is.
	What is confession through projection?
	Because essentially the indictment puts into detail what Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
	So Hillary Clinton disguised to the FEC, disguised on all of her disclosures, payments to Perkins Co.
	as legal fees that, in fact, were not legal fees.
	That they laundered money on behalf of Mark Elias and others to Christopher Steele and people who had retained Christopher Steele to spread Russiagate that led to real harm.
	That led to people being spied upon, including the president himself and his allies.
	That led to the derailment of a meaningful detente between the U.S. and Russia that has now precipitated a war in Ukraine that risked World War III on a global scale.
	So, I mean, that was real consequence, not just corruption of the election, corruption of American federal law enforcement, corruption of the national security state, corruption of...
	The ability for the president to execute on his promises from the election.
	All of it, because it's what led to Mueller, it's what led to all of it, was this bogus dossier, which had been secretly funded by the Clinton campaign, but disguised all along and laundered as legal fees to Perkins Co.
	So that's the real crime.
	Of course, nobody in New York could find reasons to prosecute that.
	Robert, Alvin Bragg said they have a long history of pursuing this type of paper crime, this white-collar crime.
	No such history.
	He can't cite a single or analogous case ever.
	Instead, he had to put it into a group category because there is no analogous example that he could identify, which was part of the issues at the press conference.
	Name the other instance where somebody was charged with falsifying business records in New York.
	In order to cover up an alleged election finance disclosure issue.
	Doesn't exist.
	Never happened.
	And it's not like that incident underlying fact pattern has never happened.
	As we know, Hillary Clinton was in New York when she did this.
	So this was very specifically New York.
	So the reason why he has not identified a crime is he wants to change his theories in case one of them gets struck down.
	So what you're not allowed to do...
	Is give such inadequate information to the defendant that they don't know how to defend themselves.
	And that's exactly what he's done here.
	That's a constitutional restraint.
	There's a procedural remedy called a bill of particulars that can be requested.
	But the constitutional principle behind it is that you as a defendant get to know what it is you're defending against.
	And the statement of facts that he had put up on his website that he's now taken down, Bragg, made it clear they're really...
	Going to switch gears if they need to.
	They're going to say, well, maybe it was to cover up Trump committing an election crime.
	But if that doesn't work, it was to cover up Cohen committing an election crime.
	But if that doesn't work, it was to cover up Cohen not paying his taxes.
	But Cohen did pay the tax on that amount of money.
	That's what the payment was for.
	So the key aspect is in the misdemeanor law itself, it requires intent to defraud.
	Falsified business records by itself is not a crime.
	Now, the problem correlates to the federal issue that we'll talk about a little bit later before the U.S. Supreme Court is there's a lot of prosecutors across the country at both the state and federal level, but using federal precedent to expand the definition of Defrauding to basically include any form of inaccurate representation.
	That's not what it's supposed to be.
	Somebody's supposed to have been hurt in property.
	Their money or property stolen from them.
	And instead, they redefine this.
	They call it honest services obligations or they say the right to control was interfered with.
	The right to honest information is an economic transaction.
	I mean, all this garbage that basically makes any...
	Alleged false representation a crime.
	When the whole point is, we don't criminalize lies, we criminalize lies that hurt people.
	We limit it, and the reason is because we know the government, if they get to criminalize lies, will end up prosecuting people who they just think, who just disagreed with them, and they want to call it a lie.
	So, but the intent of the fraud provision, because that was the other question, was like, only person victimized here was Trump himself.
	He had to pay off somebody who was extorting him, using the campaign to do so.
	Arguably, Cohen was part of the extortion himself by requiring he reimburse him because it's not clear what Trump knew when and where, and demanded that he pay his tax and everything else on it because he claimed to have done this for the benefit of Trump.
	and the, Cohen wasn't defrauded.
	He made more money than he deserved.
	Stormy Daniels wasn't defrauded.
	She got more money than she deserved.
	The state of New York wasn't defrauded.
	They got more money than they deserved.
	The U.S. government wasn't defrauded.
	They got more money than they deserved.
	So who was defrauded?
	So their theory of fraud is probably going to be some sort of honest election or some other garbage that would just basically...
	They give prosecutors the ability to prosecute anybody, anywhere, anytime, anything, you say anything the government disagrees with, and they can call misinformation and put you in prison for it.
	It's the same thing they're doing on January 6th.
	They're trying to use Trump's case to create the same perilous precedent.
	And every other state will pick up on it.
	It's an attempt to criminalize disinformation.
	It's an attempt to put people in prison for dissident speech.
	It's the reason why Julian Assange, prosecution never should have been greenlit.
	Once you start making it a crime to do something the press does every day that exposes whistleblower information, then all of a sudden they're going to use it against everybody else.
	That's what this is really about in part.
	Part's about taking out Trump.
	But it's also about let's put our political opponents in prison and find new legal theories to do so using obstruction and fraud statutes as our means because we've interpreted them so elastic and the Supreme Court has let them get away with this for too long that now it's become an immediate risk and threat to speech in America.
	Think whatever you want about Trump or Trump and Stormy Daniels.
	This case is a direct threat to the constitutional liberty of every single American.
	I want to highlight something.
	I said it like a number of times last week, and I forgot we haven't yet had our show on this, but just to highlight the difference or the similarities between Hillary Clinton.
	And it's not to say, look what she did, she wasn't prosecuted for it.
	What she did was exponentially worse, because in this case, the argument is that Trump paid to conceal information that would have harmed the election had it become public.
	My understanding is that...
	Even in law, it would have had to been exclusively for that and for no other consideration, whereas there's plenty of other considerations for which, even if it happened, which I still don't think it did, there's plenty of other considerations that could have legitimized that payment.
	Hillary Clinton was not paying to hide information that might hurt her campaign.
	She was paying to fabricate information that would hurt someone else's campaign.
	It was fake.
	And they knew it.
	And that would be laundered through the federal government, weaponized to spy on people, weaponized to interfere with.
	I mean, to such a degree, it may cause, lead to us at risk of World War III.
	You couldn't have a more consequential, damaging lie than the one that Hillary Clinton helped spread.
	The Steele dossier, they funded it, and they knew it was bogus.
	They then, through their attorney, leaked it to the FBI, for which the attorney, Sussman, Lie to the government about its sourcing and about the where, who, who, where it came from, who was funding it, all of it.
	Just lie upon lie upon lie.
	And what they've done is they've taken their crimes and projected it onto Trump.
	And Sussman was acquitted, despite the lie being black and white because he charged the campaign for it.
	The FBI then leaked it to Yahoo News that published it.
	The FBI then relied on that publication to go get illegal spy warrants on Carter Page to pivot step, whatever they call it, to the Trump campaign.
	That's what Clinton did.
	And she was in New York.
	Alvin Bragg, mom, Soros doesn't want to go after Clinton.
	Trump, even if everything is true, paid to catch and kill a story.
	That he had 15 reasons to want to suppress above and beyond any election, although it had occurred earlier.
	And apparently, even by the facts, he said, I don't care about it.
	And of the two of the three stories that they caught and killed, one involved the doorman ended up being false.
	They denied it, but they paid the guy anyhow.
	Stormy Daniels, which everyone denied until they no longer denied it.
	And I forget the third one.
	Oh, sorry, go for it.
	Yeah, there are the two other issues I want to highlight.
	Yeah, we did a deep dive on this on the Duran, so people want to watch that discussion, they can.
	Also with Thomas Woods on his podcast and with George Galloway earlier today.
	But the two other issues I think worth highlighting because there was some legal controversy about this.
	One is, could it be a campaign finance, federal campaign finance violation?
	And I'll explain why I think it cannot.
	And also there was this suggestion that there could be no constitutional basis to say that the indictment couldn't happen against a former president.
	I'll explain why I think I disagree with that.
	So on the campaign, and this is where what we're highlighting here is the risk, a bad interpretation of the law from the Trump case endangers everybody else.
	So Trump has a bunch of other defenses, statute of limitations, recusal, disqualification, selective prosecution, whether or not it adequately states a crime, whether there's been grand jury misconduct, all of that that are specific to Trump.
	To Cohen, he's an incredulous witness because he's a self-confessed perjurer and fraudster and liar.
	Who's given conflicting statements at different times.
	Stormy Daniel's given conflicting statements at different times.
	Her lawyers being connected to extortionists, including Michael Avenatti, who's in federal prison for extortion.
	Putting all of that aside that are specific to Trump, we're going to highlight here the issues universal, universal risk.
	The campaign finance laws say that the only thing that has...
	So you have direct payments to a campaign.
	Direct payments campaign, no dispute, that's a funding of a campaign.
	That has to be disclosed, and there are certain limits that an individual can give.
	But what happens when somebody spends money that doesn't go directly to the campaign, but they want to call it an indirect contribution?
	Well, what the law is, is that if the purpose of that expenditure, that's what the law says, the, not a purpose, not and purpose, not incidental purpose, not collateral purpose, but not the main purpose, The purpose.
	Exclusive.
	If the purpose is to help somebody get elected, then it has to be disclosed.
	Then it stays within the limits.
	The problem with saying that, let's do two issues.
	One, the indictment alleges Trump wanted this done all the way back at the time it was done, and he simply used Michael Cohen as his conduit.
	Well, that's not illegal.
	Trump can donate however much he wants to his own campaign.
	It doesn't matter.
	Trump can give as much as he wants.
	He can spend as much as he wants.
	That's constitutional.
	That's what the combination of Buckley v.
	Vallejo and Citizens United is about.
	You have a First Amendment right to spend as much as you want on your own campaign.
	Because the only thing that's considered constitutional is third-party quid pro quo corruption risk.
	So the idea is that a third party is trying to bribe me through campaign donations.
	So that the Congress can limit the amount of and require the disclosure of.
	But not if it isn't in that category.
	The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear repeatedly.
	So if it's Trump doing it, as the indictment suggests, then it can't be a federal campaign finance violation, period.
	If, on the other hand, what they're saying is this wasn't done at Trump's behest or behalf, that Cohen did it on his own, and then Trump wanted to reimburse this illegal donation later after the campaign to cover up the fact that it was an illegal donation, the problem there is they have to prove That the purpose for...
	Now, there's still an issue because if Trump's reimbursing it, then Trump's implicitly authorizing.
	He can spend as much as he wants.
	It's no longer a limited contribution.
	But putting that aside...
	Let me stop you there because some people said if it came from the Trump...
	If it came from a Trump company, that defense would no longer be accurate.
	Doesn't matter because none of these are publicly traded companies.
	These are Trump.
	He owns them personally.
	So it doesn't matter how you...
	That's what Citizens United was all about.
	That was a corporate entity spending as much money as it was.
	Clearly to influence the election.
	And the Supreme Court said, doesn't matter.
	You can spend as much money as you want to influence an election.
	You only can't do it if the purpose is to influence an election.
	And if it's a third-party payment like Citizens United, it has to be in coordination with the campaign.
	So here, in order to allege, they have timing problems issue.
	Because how is it something he did in 2017 was to influence an election that happened months before?
	There's that problem.
	Right?
	But in the end, if they're going to argue that Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was a legal campaign contribution in excess of the limits and not timely disclosed, then the issue is they have to prove that the purpose of the transaction, which means no other purpose could possibly exist, and the reason for that is constitutional.
	If they can say...
	That anything anybody does, because by the way, the law criminalizes anything of value.
	This goes all the way back to the debate we had and discussion we had about trying to go after Donald Trump Jr., about that Russian woman who met with him and so forth.
	And so in order for this to be criminalized, that's the reason why the has to be limited.
	If it's not read in a way that's limited to only apply if it's solely...
	For the purpose of, exclusively for the purpose of influencing an election, then they can come after the rest of us.
	Say, hey, you did something of value.
	That influenced an election.
	You knew it could influence an election.
	You didn't list it as a donation.
	It was in excess of $2,200.
	We're going to call it that.
	Bam!
	Now you can go to federal prison.
	Now you can go to state prison.
	That's why this law has to be interpreted very narrowly.
	And the problem they have is everybody knows he had 100 reasons that were actually more compelling.
	He had protecting Trump's brand.
	He had protecting Trump's relationship with Melania.
	He had protecting Melania's reputation itself, protecting his family's reputation themselves, protecting Cohen's reputation as the fix-it man.
	There were a bunch of reasons to do this, independent of influencing the election.
	And for that reason, it can't be a federal crime, period.
	And you don't have to take my word for it.
	The FEC commissioner came out this week and said, this is not a crime.
	It didn't even violate.
	Civil election laws or rules.
	Hold on.
	Let me pull that up.
	Because for people who don't...
	Oh, I'll find...
	Oh, here we go.
	No, that's not it.
	The FEC chairman or whoever it was literally said, this was not an FEC crime.
	This was not a federal crime.
	That's why we didn't do it.
	And so, okay.
	Which the Southern District of New York can already also determine.
	Now, last but not least, the constitutional risk here that's of universal concern.
	Some people were saying that there just couldn't be a grounds to say that there's anything in the Constitution that concerns indicting, trying, or sentencing, or jailing a former president.
	They're ignoring the plain language and plain text of the Constitution.
	Because the Constitution specifically and explicitly provides for when you can bar a former president from office, When you can remove him from federal office.
	And it also talks about when you can indict him, when you can try him, when you can sentence him, when you can jail him.
	And what it requires is impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by two-thirds of the Senate.
	And it says if those two things have occurred, then you can remove them.
	And then it talks about...
	Think about it.
	What is a removed president?
	He's a former president, isn't he?
	So they're saying, after removing him, you can borrow him from all future office, and you can indict him, you can try him, you can sentence him.
	It's not a coincidence.
	There's some people out there who are purporting to represent January 6th defendants, and apparently, I see why they're so inadequate at it, when they can't even read the Constitution.
	They've been...
	Lecturing, trying to troll us all week.
	I won't name them because they're trying to troll themselves into relevance.
	It's not my fault, they're idiots.
	But the plain language of the country, it's not a coincidence that language about indictment, trial, and conviction is in there.
	It's not a coincidence.
	It only applies to former presidents, almost by definition.
	Now, you can argue it applies to current presidents by implication.
	But it explicitly applies to former presidents.
	And there's practical reason for this.
	We don't want presidents, when they're out of office, or while they're in office, worried about what happens when they're out of office, that they could be subject to criminal prosecutions by some random state-local-county prosecutor, of which we have thousands in this country.
	And instead, they were like, no, that's always got to go through the House.
	That's always got to go through the Senate.
	Now, I believe selective prosecution principles and other principles also prohibit constitutionally indicting your leading political opponent.
	I think there's grounds to stay those proceedings until the outcome of an election.
	But putting that aside, my view is a former president, once a president, you are protected by the impeachment clause.
	It's the only way you can be indicted.
	And for people that say, oh, there has to be a means to, you know, what if someone is a serial killer?
	That's what the impeachment clause takes care of.
	If it's so obvious this person is an imminently dangerous criminal, the elected representatives of the House and the Senate and two-thirds of the Senate will then convict him.
	Trump has never been convicted.
	He's been twice acquitted.
	This information about Stormy Daniels and the finance issues was known at the time of both impeachments that were brought.
	They were not even considered sufficient.
	By a Democratic House to even include as grounds to impeach him, least of all grounds to impeach, convict, so that he could be indicted on him.
	That's why I think constitutionally the president has its separate independent constitutional grounds that I think is important for all of us moving forward because if the president is subject to the whim of a future prosecutor, then basically what happens is we give all the power to a local prosecutor.
	Some local prosecutor can say, I'm going to imprison you unless you do what I say.
	And maybe I'll wait for you to be out of office, maybe not, but that creates all kinds of problems.
	And it's not a coincidence our Constitution anticipated this risk and put the language in there that impeachment and conviction must precede indictment, trial, or conviction.
	It's a very compelling argument you raise there, Robert.
	And I had not actually even thought about that, that...
	Such a serious crime.
	Everybody knew about this alleged hushed money payment and never brought it up for the grounds of an impeachment.
	Some people in the chat, Robert, let me see here.
	Jennifer, $5 rant, says, How can Trump win another lawsuit against Stormy Daniels and be charged?
	Isn't this election interference by brag?
	Hope this boomerangs back to the Soros puppet.
	How is this not overt election interference?
	In my view, it's what the Constitution anticipates by having this prohibition.
	We're not going to let local prosecutors interfere with an election or interfere with the executive branch, the elected head of the executive branch, by having this power.
	We're not going to give it to them.
	They only have this power once Congress, the elected representatives at the national level in the federal office have more than two-thirds of them in the Senate.
	And a majority in the House have impeached him and convicted him on.
	And that's why it's a critical constitutional buffer against the overt, open political weaponization of this process.
	And I think it's critical that it be at least raised in these proceedings, because otherwise we set a very perilous precedent.
	But it goes to these...
	Elastic definitions of obstruction, these elastic definitions of fraud, allows the political weaponization to even take place in the first place.
	And up before the U.S. Supreme Court is an attempt to end this, at least on the federal side, in fraud cases.
	They have been indicting people.
	The U.S. Supreme Court is considering, I think it has now taken CERT.
	So I think it's finally going to enforce this.
	But what's happened, particularly in New York, Southern District of New York here, they've been prosecuting.
	They went after somebody, and this is another universal import case, who they said paying a campaign advisor money somehow constitutes federal fraud because that person didn't give the information that a federal agency could benefit from.
	It's like, what in the heck?
	There was no allegation anybody was out any property.
	None.
	Instead, no allegation that any federal official was bribed.
	It was, you pay the lobbyist to share selective information with a federal government agency.
	We're going to call that a federal crime.
	And you can see how this could be universally applied to reach anybody with dissident information.
	All you have to do is say, you said misinformation.
	You tried to influence a government agency by it.
	You said COVID vaccines are unsafe.
	We call that misinformation.
	We call that attempts to defraud the FDA.
	Go to prison for 20 years.
	So this auto services fraud case is up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Very important to drastically limit this.
	Return this to what the Supreme Court has previously said, which was this had to be limited, both fraud and obstruction laws had to be limited constitutionally to protect the maximum amount of speech impacting the government.
	And that meant you had to be reaching Actual government officials, and it had to be actual property that you defrauded somebody of.
	Contrast it, by the way, to how limited the court interpreted the Brooke Jackson case, where there you have actual fraud with billions of dollars, with real harm, and the court found an excuse to say that couldn't constitute fraud.
	But somebody who pays a lobbyist or pays a campaign advisor is now subject to federal prison for 20 years.
	This shows what a crock the federal courts are.
	And that they just bend over for the government whenever they come knocking.
	And it reveals the continuing political problem in our courts.
	Too much deference to authority.
	But these laws have got to be limited.
	People should pay more attention to some of these cases because they're often about your rights of speech, not just the person on trial.
	Robert, can you explain to the Canadian Schnuck nincompoop?
	And others who don't understand the difference between honest services fraud and just fraud, which was already an existing crime under the criminal code?
	So what happens is, honest services fraud, they say, you were supposed to do your best job for the government, and you didn't, and so that's fraud, even though nobody's been harmed.
	No property has been lost.
	And then the theory that's up before the SEC is a version of that, plus right to control, right to honest information.
	That's the new one.
	Right to honest information.
	And so all of a sudden that's supposed to be a subspecies of property when it's been rejected as a species of property.
	So it's just an attempt to criminalize dissident speech.
	That's simple.
	You speak out in ways to influence the court, the court of public opinion, to influence anybody through any legislator, any executive branch, anybody else.
	We're going to call it fraud.
	We're going to call it obstruction.
	We're going to put you in prison.
	That's what it's all about at the end of the day.
	And I'm reading it right.
	The original fraud, the fraud under the Criminal Code 1341 was a 1948 piece of legislation.
	Honest services fraud is a 1988.
	It's a much more recent addition to the Criminal Code.
	It doesn't exist in the statute.
	The prosecutors made it up and some courts went along with it.
	That's what happened.
	Now, speaking of attempting to make up the rules...
	I was going to say, my segue to that was, speaking of stuff that was known at the time and is now being rehashed again, like with the Trump Stormy Daniels payment, Clarence Thomas Roberts.
	Look, I saw the article start trending or start, you know, people like, Viva, what do you think about this?
	And I start reading it.
	And I'm like, look, if I see any judge taking these lavish gifts, my initial gut reaction is the same as when I found out that Trudeau was taking lavish gifts and then not reporting them.
	I guess the only difference is that...
	I'm choking on my own tongue here.
	One of them was actually statutorily illegal, and the other one is not.
	And so while I might look at both and say it makes me think of lacking ethics or the potential for corruption, if this billionaire Republican who's lavishing...
	Clarence Thomas with gifts, as he's been doing for decades, if he has him or his friends before Clarence Thomas, is that going to affect his judgment?
	Those concerns go off in my mind.
	But the accusations against Clarence Thomas is that he's been friends with this guy named Harlan Crowe, who is a billionaire, philanthropist, conservative Republican.
	They've had a relationship that everyone has known about.
	For decades, because in 2011, the New York Times wrote an article which was basically the same thing as this ProPublica article in 2023 saying the friendship between the two of these raises some ethical questions.
	They go on vacations together.
	Harlan Crowe donates generously to various projects that Clarence is involved with or his wife.
	They knew about it in 2011.
	They said it raises some ethical concerns, but it's not illegal.
	There's no specific provision of law that makes this illegal or unethical.
	Twelve years later, I guess the ProPublica figures that people's collective memory is short.
	Let's bring this up again.
	Try to create a reason to petition for Clarence Thomas to resign from the Supreme Court, or we'll use it as an argument to enhance the Supreme Court, not pack it.
	But what did they say?
	There's another word they used.
	Either way, the bottom line is...
	Clarence Thomas has a several decade-long relationship with a very wealthy conservative billionaire who has financed, donated to Clarence Thomas' causes, takes him on lavish vacations, private jets, boats, yachts across Europe, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts, private chefs, yada, yada, yada.
	Clarence Thomas, I don't know if he's been declaring it as deemed income or taxable income.
	I don't know if he would have to, but he hasn't been declaring it.
	And now this this issue of which everyone has been largely.
	Robert, what's your take?
	Yeah, that's much ado over nothing.
	So, I mean, you can see the problem.
	If anything you do that has a financial benefit for a judge is suddenly illegal, then you couldn't socialize with him.
	I mean, it's nuts.
	So it's not like he paid for Thomas to go on somebody else's vacation.
	It's not even gifts, in my opinion.
	It's, hey, do you want to go on my vacation?
	My boat.
	My plane, my personal chef, my homes.
	That's not usually even, from a tax perspective, that's not a gift.
	So that is purely, you get to join in somebody else's wealth.
	It would create all kinds of problems if that was considered suddenly taxable income.
	All the entourages that hang out with all the stars and celebrities, suddenly they're all engaged in massive tax crimes because they haven't been disclosing anytime they share anything of their own.
	Benefits of lifestyle with somebody else, suddenly that's an income transfer.
	In my view, 99% of what they wrote about doesn't even meet the definition of a gift to be disclosed in the first place.
	And of course, it's clear that the only gifts you have to report are gifts that could influence your decisions.
	And that's not just having somebody who's ideologically aligned with you.
	The limit is, if there's somebody who actually has a case before the court, That's when you disclose, and that's true for every court.
	And so this was completely much ado over nothing.
	No ethics violation by Justice Thomas.
	No legal violation by Justice Thomas.
	No tax violation by Justice Thomas.
	Every judge in America has some version of this.
	They all go to parties where somebody else pays for the food.
	Every single one of them.
	I mean, that was supposed to be disclosed as a gift?
	I mean, you'd be disclosing things for weeks.
	Or what you would more likely do is you would never go to a party.
	You wouldn't socialize with anybody.
	That was the ludicrous nature of this.
	Every single liberal judge doesn't disclose any of this.
	They go to parties all the time.
	They don't disclose it.
	The idea that this had to be disclosed is nuts.
	So it was just a way to attack one more smear campaign on Justice Thomas because it drives him crazy.
	You know, his unwillingness to step down.
	He's been subject to over 30 years of smear campaigns.
	The Anita Hill stuff was obvious garbage.
	She just made that up.
	If you didn't know that at the time, you were slow and dim-witted.
	And so there's no basis for it.
	It's going to go nowhere.
	It's just a media story for them to pat themselves on the back about their own lies.
	More confession through projection, though, because they do this on the left all the time.
	As is kind of seen with the judge in the Trump case, apparently he's been trying to give donations right underneath a certain disclosure limit to hide the fact of how political he is.
	Some other media couldn't get around to covering that story.
	But a total nothing burger about Justice Thomas.
	The short answer is Justice Thomas has rich friends.
	That's it.
	That's all that story was.
	That's what some of the chat saying.
	He has rich, powerful friends.
	Gasp.
	And the issue with, you know, just to draw the distinction, the material distinction, when Justin Trudeau took the lavish gifts to Aga Khan's private island, Aga Khan was petitioning the government for tens of millions of dollars and getting it.
	That's the difference.
	Yeah, and there were specific pieces of legislation on that.
	I could understand if Trudeau was going to Cuba.
	He's got family there.
	Well played, sir.
	What was the term that they were using?
	Now, they're not calling it court packing.
	They were calling it...
	I didn't hear it.
	I haven't heard the latest Orwellian language.
	Someone in the chat in Rumble has to let me know.
	It was a lawyer saying, it was not packing, it was not enhancing either.
	If anybody remembers, let me know.
	Okay, Robert, what's next on the list?
	So a lot of these are rapid fire, so I'll skip ahead to one that is a little bit more detailed, which is topic number 12, adoption lawsuits.
	It's really terrifying what's taking place.
	So in Oregon, and my guess is happening in many different places, they are now requiring that if you want to adopt a kid...
	You have to go along entirely with the woke gender identity movement.
	You have to agree, even if it means contradicting your own religious beliefs, even if it means compelling you to engage in certain forms of speech, even if it means you cannot associate with certain religious...
	You can't go to church.
	It's appropriate for an Easter Sunday kind of case.
	So this woman who wanted to adopt the kids...
	And remember, there's a lack...
	Of parents who want to adopt kids in general.
	That's how we get abusive people constantly get access to foster children, is that there's an inadequate number often of parents who want to adopt, often because of all the bureaucratic hurdles with adoption that I think have been excessive.
	The average kid is staying in foster facilities without a formal full adoption for years now.
	Shouldn't be happening.
	But in Oregon, now you're required to go along with the gender identity movement, including if your kid changed their gender, you have to identify them as such, publicly and privately.
	You cannot be part of any church or political association that has any different beliefs about such gender identity.
	If they identify as a different gender, you have to, as a condition of the adoption, provide them with the gender-changing biological treatment, hormone treatment, other treatment, physical, biological, permanent changes that are compelled.
	So what this involves, basically, is an invasion of the parental rights that are supposed to be given to them as a part of the adoption process, invasion of their rights of freedom of religion, invasion of their rights of freedom of speech.
	Invading their rights of freedom of association, all of it being eviscerated as a precondition to adoption.
	They're now weaponizing the adoption power to compel and coerce parents to enforce woke ideology on gender ideas.
	So this lady has brought suit in federal district court in Oregon.
	I think in the Pemberton Division identifies this violates her First Amendment right to free speech because not only is she not allowed to do certain speech, she's being compelled to do other speech, pronouns, choices, and the like.
	Her right of freedom of association because she can't associate with certain political or religious groups if they oppose the gender ideology and any aspect of this.
	Compelled speech, which is a violation of her right to speech, and a violation of her right to freedom of religion.
	Because she's not allowed to go to her church, which her church disagrees with it, and she's being discriminated against in violation of both the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, because her religious beliefs are being targeted for discriminatory purposes because they contradict and conflict with this.
	So it's a very important case to watch.
	There are a lot of other trans issues in the courts.
	The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to enter.
	West Virginia passed a law saying only biological men can compete in men's sports.
	Only biological women can compete in women's sports.
	A federal court said, no, you can't impose that law.
	Fourth Circuit said, no, you can't and didn't even explain why.
	U.S. Supreme Court was asked to give emergency relief.
	They said no.
	But Alito and Thomas dissented saying, This doesn't make sense.
	We need to address this issue.
	Now, it was portrayed as the Supreme Court approved.
	The Supreme Court didn't approve anything.
	They just didn't intervene on an emergency basis.
	Seventh Circuit Court, there was another one.
	So there's a bunch of trans cases, but the most scary, frightening one was this attempt to weaponize the adoption process for politicized purposes to push this woke ideology against the religious and political beliefs of people willing, wanting, and seeking to adopt children.
	Let me just ask you a question on the Supreme Court denying certiorari to the stay of the trans law.
	Two questions.
	I didn't understand the timeline because from my understanding is that the Supreme Court did not intervene because a certain amount of time had lapsed before the state decided to appeal.
	Am I wrong there?
	It's like there was an 18-month period where they did nothing.
	That could be why.
	I think they're just waiting to see how all the courts handle this before jumping in.
	You have Thomas and Alito.
	They need two more votes.
	They don't have Gorsuch yet.
	They don't have Kavanaugh yet.
	They don't have Barrett yet.
	I told people Barrett was going to be not the consistent conservative they thought she would.
	This is showing up on multiple cases where she is not joining the other conservatives on the bench.
	I think Gorsuch...
	Gorsuch has had kind of conflicting cases on this, but I think Gorsuch will ultimately step in, but he cares more about the religious side of the aisle.
	The Oregon case is the kind of case he would pay more attention to.
	So I think it's just the court deciding when they're going to take this and wanting a better vehicle to take it, is my guess.
	But there's at least Alito and Thomas are saying this has got to be taken up soon.
	So we'll see who they can convince of Barrett, Kavanaugh, and...
	Gorsuch, can they get two of those three to join in to take it?
	So you're suggesting that sometimes what one can deduce from the refusal to take up cert is that they, behind the doors, don't have the other support?
	Like, that's to say that there are members of the Supreme...
	Forget Ketanji Brown.
	She doesn't know what a woman is.
	That's to say that there's not enough support to ratify laws that specify that, what is it, Title IX is based on biology and not ideology.
	Exactly.
	Mind-blowing.
	And, you know, it's both Kavanaugh and Barrett were weak people to put on the bench, and it's showing up in these kind of cases, because they should have been involved and they weren't.
	And then the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that a teacher that was fired for not using the preferred pronoun of the students, it was just fine that he was fired, even though he had a religious, because it said it was an undue burden on the school to accommodate his religious beliefs.
	Because these students' grades went down if they weren't called by their preferred pronoun.
	So basically they can force teachers to put Jordan Peterson on the map publicly to begin with about how this was going to become the future.
	Well, it's the future in America.
	As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said, it was a way undue burden on the schools to accommodate this person's religious beliefs.
	Every teacher must.
	Give the preferred pronoun of the student because the student needs it for their grades, for their education.
	What education are they actually doing in these public schools?
	And then there's additional suits about ACLU suing, trying to stop these laws limiting transmedical treatment from going into force.
	That's happening all across the country.
	More states are passing those laws.
	More court cases are trying to stop it.
	Also, there's parents suing because they were not...
	Information was not disclosed about intervention treatments that were taking place along with pronoun changes in gender identities.
	There's schools trying to prohibit parents from even knowing about these things.
	So we're going to see the trans issue in the school context continue and sports context.
	You know, Riley, the swimmer, was chased down by students at another school and almost physically attacked by these trans students.
	We had the transurrection in Tennessee.
	We had another trans student who tried to do another school shooting who got caught before they did it.
	So the issues of trans in schools, woke in schools, will continue to proliferate throughout the courts until the U.S. Supreme Court steps up and provides some clarity of direction.
	Yeah, the Riley Gaines situation is outrageous.
	I'll talk about it tomorrow a little more.
	Well, no, Robert, let me pick your brain here real quick, Robert.
	False imprisonment.
	Is there not...
	Hold on.
	Hold on, everybody.
	Let me just bring up the video.
	I have it in the back.
	I'll elaborate more tomorrow.
	I know I put it in this video.
	Here, Robert.
	Tell her to pay us and she can go.
	Tell her to pay us and she can go.
	Oh, no.
	Hold on, I just lost the window.
	Riley Gaines has now been physically assaulted, from what I understand, by a man in a dress.
	She has been chased into a room by police, and now you've got a mob of people outside for three hours at last saying, let her out.
	We can let her out and have her pay us.
	It was tongue-in-cheek and a joke, and people were ha-ha-ing.
	But is that not false imprisonment, or are we not getting close?
	Yeah, I mean, this is a woman swimmer who had her award taken away from her by a man pretending to be a woman.
	That's what it is, pure and simple.
	And they were trying to harass her for exposing this publicly and criticizing it publicly.
	And then the school, I think, could be sued because not only did they...
	Take steps that effectively precipitated this, but then they encouraged them and thanked them, thanked the people who were trying to harass her and assault her afterwards.
	San Francisco State, you know, it's been a commie school now for a long time.
	No surprise there.
	It hasn't been any use since, you know, Bill Russell played basketball at San Francisco University.
	But they won a couple of national titles with them.
	But the schools in San Fran have been all downhill since then.
	Obviously, Stanford in the...
	Same San Francisco area that ran off the federal judge that they're still trying to apologize for because federal judges are now saying we're going to just immediately stop all Stanford Law students from getting clerkships.
	They should extend that to the whole Ivy League.
	I'm all for that.
	Less of those pricks running around.
	Clerks are a major problem in our system because they appoint all these elitist snob types who are a bunch of corporate whores nine times out of ten to these positions and they have undue influence in their proceedings.
	We'll see how all these cases progress.
	The Supreme Court ultimately has got to step in.
	More legislation has likely got to be passed in to reflect common sense principles as this insanity continues to...
	Grab our academies and schools and teachers and universities.
	Robert, I'm just going to bring this up because I don't know what happened, but Tom Temprano put out a tweet that said, so proud of my Southern San Francisco State University for not tolerating this intolerant Riley Gaines.
	First of all, I memorialized that video and then said, you're proud of this, but I...
	I said as a joke, a man celebrating a woman getting assaulted by a man's civil rights in 2023.
	And it seems that the individual deleted their account.
	Hold on.
	Deleted their account on Twitter.
	Which is curious.
	I guess they're maybe not so proud of their work.
	The reason why I'm reluctant to...
	Come to a conclusion on that.
	I don't know if it's because of bona fide harassment or whatever, but apparently the person who said, so proud of my San Francisco State Universities for physically assaulting a woman, falsely imprisoning her in a room for three hours while cops did jack squat to get them out of there.
	A university that allowed this to happen and then encouraged it.
	So proud.
	Remember, that's how the Oberlin ultimately got caught.
	The reason why they had to pay that huge judgment is for what they said after the incident.
	So that was a major mistake.
	But it's the takeover by these crazies of so many institutions of influence that have led to this insanity.
	So Bud Light's busy destroying his brand by promoting trannies and all the rest.
	Speaking of some crazy cases, we'll do a little bit of rapid fire before we go over to exclusive Q&A at Locals to finish the show.
	Civil rights case, cops are saying that if the dog is the one that caused the problem, you know, Bull Durham, Birmingham style, not Bull Durham, but then it's your fault.
	They don't control the dog.
	So they blame the dog and the dog didn't know and the dog should have qualified immunity.
	So welcome to new forms of crazy civil rights cases.
	Maine, after the U.S. Supreme Court told the state of Maine to quit discriminating against religious schools and the way money was distributed and the way certain privileges were provided, Maine went back and discriminated against them again.
	And so those cases are back in court again, just as the issue of religious accommodations for vaccine exemptions are back in the debate in Maine as they try to prohibit and prevent that from even occurring.
	You may remember a Facebook meta-cases.
	That's where Facebook is being sued because of all the damage they've done to children.
	And the people now bringing the suits are schools.
	Started in Seattle, but it's now spread all across the country.
	Schools are bringing suit against Facebook on the grounds that Facebook has been so damaging to children that it has cost schools billions and billions of dollars and that Facebook should be held institutionally responsible for this.
	It's one of the many areas of law, along with small business advertising fraud, that could put, frankly, Facebook out of business when it's already financially struggling anyway.
	The Peruvian president was subject to extradition.
	The way that works is Peru requests extradition under the U.S. treaty.
	That goes to a U.S. federal court.
	The U.S. federal court decides whether the treaty permits extradition and any other objections can be raised.
	The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the extradition, state it for any final resolution of any other issues, but it looks like the Peru president will, in fact, be back extradited to Peru.
	He came to the United States thinking he would not be extradited, likely believing the Justice Department would not go along with it.
	They did.
	He misread the tea leaves politically in that regard, which he's not the last one to do that.
	The Amish Second Amendment, big case.
	This was the case we talked about, Ruben King.
	So the issue is federal firearms licenses.
	What they're saying is he committed a crime by selling guns as a hobby.
	They're disputing whether it was a hobby.
	But selling guns to other people without a federal firearms license, even though they knew because of the digital photo identification, he couldn't apply for that under Amish religious principles because they don't believe in having their photograph taken voluntarily.
	And so it's now, as Epoch Times and other publications are discussing, it was a case that I had some involvement in supporting, getting involved in the court of public opinion, because I wanted various people in the Second Amendment community to wake up to this, and they now are, and bringing constitutional challenges to the criminal prosecution against them, because the only people required to do federal firearms licenses are those that are in the business of selling firearms.
	It was clearly originally intended.
	And for Second Amendment principles, arguably has to be limited to those that are actually running retail store operations, not to the Amish farmer.
	He's an Amish farmer.
	That's his day job.
	You know, this is just a side hobby.
	He's a collector.
	There's a bunch of collectors that trade guns back and forth and that sell guns and buy guns.
	They sell guns for the purposes of buy something they think is better in the collection unit.
	But that's now going to be constitutionally challenged.
	So it's another case where the Amish are on the front of the Constitution in the country.
	Robert, in that case, though, just so people have an idea, there were hundreds of guns.
	Was he generating tens of thousands of dollars in revenue doing this?
	The allegation was over many years, he sold a total of 200 guns.
	A gun dealer sells hundreds of guns in a week.
	It's undisputed that he was a full-time farmer.
	Anybody who's a farmer, that is their full-time job.
	It's also undisputed you have to be in the business of doing it.
	And so, in fact, he understood when they talked to him that it's only if he was in the business that he had to even apply for a license as a precondition of sale.
	He understood that to me while he told them, I'm not in the business.
	This is a hobby.
	This is a side thing.
	This is a collection activity.
	So, constitutionally, I think the statute, if it can be interpreted so...
	Far to reach an Amish guy selling guns at his spare time to collect.
	Then it's too broad.
	It's vague.
	It should be void for vagueness, violating and infringing and encroaching upon Second Amendment liberties.
	So we'll see if the courts understand it.
	But that's another case that may go up to the appellate.
	Well, here's one that was just...
	Was it Supreme Court, Robert?
	The one with the Canadian, the illegal Canadian firearms who appealed to Second Amendment?
	No, that was a...
	Federal Court of Appeals.
	It was an interesting case to read.
	An illegal alien Canadian, or two of them, sorry, in the States, were caught in possession of firearms.
	A couple of Canadians were speeding like mad in Minnesota, got pulled over, and it turned out he had a bunch of guns and an outstanding warrant in Canada.
	They prosecuted him for an illegal alien in possession of a firearm.
	And I think two of the charges for which they were found guilty were Oh, they were accused of murder and fentanyl dealing.
	Meth, I think.
	Not good Canadian boys.
	So they were caught with firearms and they challenged the law that said, I benefit from Second Amendment rights under the Constitution.
	And the judge rightly came to the conclusion that...
	You're not the people that the Second Amendment speaks of.
	Not an American.
	Not even a duly authorized resident.
	You are illegal aliens.
	And they use that term in the...
	They use that term for Canadians, but not necessarily for others.
	Illegal aliens...
	That's the term for everybody.
	But you're not...
	But they try to label you racist if you apply it to someone other than Canadians.
	So, but yeah, the question is, the Second Amendment says the people.
	The question is, what defines the people?
	And they actually had an extensive debate about if they were part of the people, is there a long history under the Bruin decision?
	Could they show there was a long history of prohibiting illegals from owning guns in America?
	And actually, there's not a lot of evidence of that.
	That historically, you were allowed to be an illegal alien more often than not and possess guns in America.
	So the key to them not having Second Amendment protection was that they are not part of the people portion of the Second Amendment clause.
	My guess is the Supreme Court would likely affirm that, but there's disputes between the courts as to whether that's true.
	Some federal appellate courts say no, they are part of the people.
	Others say they're not.
	It depends on whether you see the people as a certain community that's being referenced in the Second Amendment or the people as just everybody oppositional to the government.
	But it was another interesting Second Amendment case.
	Then we have, and rapid fire, is a Fed coin constitutional and legal?
	The short answer by the Federal Reserve itself, a digital central bank digital currency, is no.
	The Federal Reserve does not allow ordinary Americans to open up bank accounts at the Federal Reserve.
	And what they're talking about in a central bank digital currency would kind of require that.
	And so the Federal Reserve itself has come out and said...
	That they cannot do a central bank digital currency unless Congress changes the law.
	And even then there's some constitutional questions as to whether it fits within Congress's power to do.
	Because of also multiple Bill of Rights implications.
	As was as the idiot head of the European Central Bank got caught by those famous pranksters.
	They caught two people.
	The former French president admitting that everything they did in Ukraine was to set up a war with Russia.
	And he didn't really...
	He thought he was talking to Zelensky.
	He didn't realize he was talking to these famous pranksters that get all kinds of...
	They got George W. Bush to talk to him on video.
	Everybody to talk to him.
	How they managed to do this is incredible.
	Like, I mean, Ali G used to do this.
	You know, the guy that played that character, Ali G. Sasha Baron Cohen.
	But then people started to know.
	Like, he got a guy from...
	You know who he figured out right away?
	Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump, he sat down and he's like, you're full of it, pal.
	He's like, hey, good luck with that.
	I'm out of here.
	Here's the mic, gone.
	Trump was like one of the only people to not sit there for like 30...
	Ron Paul was running from there because, you know, the guy...
	Andy Rooney.
	I think Andy Rooney was pretty good.
	Andy Rudy was good, and the one who was very bad was the Surgeon General.
	The Andy Rudy part was funny.
	That part was funny.
	Dick Thornburg was kind of funny, too.
	He got Dick Thornburg to say Barely Legal was a really good movie.
	Obviously, Thornburg didn't know the reference to the film.
	But a federal bank digital currency would not be constitutional or legal, and the Federal Reserve has acknowledged as such until there's been change by Congress.
	There's attempts by the states to pass laws on currency.
	Right now, the courts don't recognize the state's powers to do so.
	Whether it's DeSantis' bill to try to ban a digital currency, whether it's Texas' bill to do their own gold-backed currency, right now that's...
	It goes back to my ancestors in Rhode Island who tried to continue to issue their currency after the Constitution.
	Ultimately, they sent in the Army to clarify that matter.
	The honking ban.
	We'll get to that in just a second.
	The only other big cases we have with three real small kind of fun cases.
	Absolute immunity by prosecutors.
	A prosecutor that was in control of a FOIA process.
	Hid from a criminal defendant a bunch of exculpatory information, went in and redacted it and removed it from the file.
	So even the person was using FOIA to try to find out information that was exculpatory, proving their innocence.
	In fact, the Innocence Project was the one requesting it on the defendant's behalf.
	This prosecutor lied, hid the information, falsified the information, and then, of course, got sued.
	And the court's question was not whether she had immunity, it was, is it absolute immunity or is it qualified immunity?
	Robert, it doesn't...
	She lied about exculpatory evidence and the court came to the conclusion that in 2016 when the person did this, it was not clearly an established right that exculpatory evidence would not be withheld from the accused.
	I don't understand how...
	And beyond that, it said that if the court, if the prosecutor had done so...
	During trial or during appeal, they have absolute immunity.
	Absolute.
	Cannot be sued, according to the courts.
	No prosecutor can ever be sued for anything they do in court.
	It has to be outside of court.
	It has to be unrelated to a trial.
	Otherwise, it's absolute immunity.
	And here they said, ah, poor prosecutors.
	There was no absolute immunity here because this was not part of a trial, not part of a criminal prosecution.
	She was running the FOIA office.
	But said even in the FOIA office, they have qualified immunity because a poor prosecutor could know you're not supposed to hide exculpatory information from a defendant.
	That's how preposterous our courts are when it comes to covering up the criminality of their fellow federal government officials.
	Outrageous.
	They love judicial immunity for the same reason.
	But we have only one other semi-serious case before three.
	Quick small cases before we head over to Locals.
	People have asked a lot about what is the DeSantis and Disney debate all about.
	I'll distill it simple.
	So Disney used their political power and financial economic power in Florida to try to go after Florida when Florida announced that they were going to prohibit teachers of young children.
	From instructing them about sexual behavior at a very young age, like five years old, six years old, seven years old.
	The Disney misinterpreted it as the, quote, don't say gay bill.
	That isn't what it was about at all.
	The response was a lot of conservatives in Florida said, why do we keep giving Disney special tax breaks and special power that allows them to police themselves through this special legislative district that nobody else has?
	So DeSantis said he was going to take it away.
	DeSantis ended up not taking it away.
	What he did is he simply changed the name and put on different board members.
	Before the different board members were put on, Disney used its powers, the state had already delegated it to it under the existing board, to strip all power from the future board so they could keep doing whatever they wanted.
	And now DeSantis has been humiliated by this.
	And so now he's talking about trying to tax them or put tolls on them in some other way.
	The problem with that is, removing a special privilege is completely within the constitutional power, arguably obligated to perform.
	However, saying I'm going to tax you because I don't like what you did politically, that is not constitutional.
	So it looks like he's simply, rather than going back and saying let's revisit removing the legislative district, instead...
	He's talking about things that, as people have to know, will never be affirmed or approved in court for political purposes, seems to me.
	The bottom line is once he decided not to revoke the legislative district, his fate was sealed.
	And so whatever you think about that politically, whatever, that's kind of the legal reality of where it's at.
	But, you know, that's the only legal remedy he has now, too.
	Doing the other stuff most likely wouldn't pass muster.
	You can't selectively target somebody for taxation and tolling.
	You can revoke a prior special privilege that they had because they were never entitled to it in the first place.
	Robert, and I tried to make sense of it today, and I still can't.
	But there's a whole story about this clause in the Disney board agreement that says that somehow this law has to remain in effect until 21 years after the death of the last monarchy.
	But effectively, what that did is it revoked the power of the board.
	I don't think it legally can revoke the legislature's power to revoke the special district in the first place.
	So the problem was delegating that state power in the first place created an issue for which board replacement was not a solution, which some of us said at the time and got pushed back from DeSantis supporters.
	And I was like, well, let's see how it plays out.
	Well, now we've seen how it plays out.
	Now we got a couple of fun cases on the board.
	Do them real quick.
	The honking band.
	So California says you can't honk your horn unless you're doing it for a traffic safety reason.
	Well, folks were getting together and honking their horn for political reasons at a political protest.
	And they were charged with giving tickets.
	So they filed suit and the Ninth Circuit split.
	The smarter, more civil liberties, actually a liberal judge, but a very good civil liberties judge I've been in front of many times, Judge Berzon, said this violates First Amendment principles because when you're applying it to a political protest, clearly it discriminates without meeting compelling scrutiny.
	But the majority said no.
	A district court judge was sitting by designation.
	This happens a lot.
	The Ninth Circuit will find a district court judge to issue a Ninth Circuit opinion.
	And be the majority decision, which I have a problem with because they're not appointed to be in appeals court by the Senate, but that's another issue for another day.
	But they've said right now that California's honking ban can stay in place, and you can only honk your horn in California if it's for traffic reasons.
	You can't do it for traffic safety reasons.
	You can't do it for any other reasons, or you can be ticketed.
	The second big little small fun case is when is a scooter, a motor vehicle, State Farm Insurance in Florida, somebody was an uninsured scooter, uninsured rider of a scooter on a scooter that also was uninsured, caused an accident.
	They had a policy with State Farm that said, hey, if I get hurt by an uninsured driver, you State Farm will cover me and I'll pay a premium for that coverage.
	Well, of course, State Farm, like all other insurance companies, I forget what their latest slogan is.
	You know, they're always there.
	They're there for you.
	You're in good hands.
	It's all crap if you've ever had to deal with these insurance companies.
	The whole reason personal injury lawyers exist is because insurance companies are always trying to scam people.
	That's the short answer.
	It's not the personal injury lawyers trying to scam everybody.
	They exist because the insurance company is always trying to scam people.
	But State Farm was like, nah, that scooter, that's not a motor vehicle.
	That's not a land motor vehicle.
	Even though we said we're going to insure you against a land motor vehicle causing an accident, we're going to say it's not.
	Trying to use the limitations in Florida's law for when they have to cover certain uninsured vehicles to things that could be limited more to trucks and cars.
	To the credit of the 11th Circuit, they said no.
	If you look at the common sense understanding of the definition of the term, because State Farm chose not to define it with any clarity, said a land motor vehicle.
	It's something that travels on land, that's got a motor in it, that transports things or people.
	And that's a scooter.
	So those folks will finally get to enforce their laws.
	Now, a lot of claims against insurance companies are now going to get thrown out in Florida thanks to DeSantis.
	DeSantis and the Florida legislature passed a legislation that gives big immunity to insurance companies so that even if they act in bad faith and screw you over in cases like this, You can't get your legal fees paid.
	Why does that matter?
	Most insurance bad faith cases are for working class folks that it's a $10,000- $20,000 dispute.
	You won't be able to afford a lawyer now.
	So that's the great legal reform DeSantis has been busy doing in Florida by those corporate whores that call themselves conservatives in the Florida legislature.
	And I've had this discussion with a couple of parents of my kids' friends who are lawyers and I said none of them like it.
	And I said, yeah, I mean, look, you can like DeSantis, but the idea behind this is it's just going to promote the idea.
	Why pay now if I can pay later with no penalty?
	And I asked for the steel manning of the justification, and one lawyer tried to steel manning.
	He says, look, the theory is that it will bring down premiums in the long run if insurance companies don't have to worry about this cost.
	And I'm like, okay, fine.
	It's certainly going to encourage them not to pay now if they can pay later with no penalty and no punishment.
	Exactly.
	And they know 90% of the lawsuits will disappear.
	Working class people won't have access to the courts anymore when they get screwed by these folks.
	And very few of these legislative reforms have ever actually led to lower insurance costs.
	So that's a disappointment on that side of the aisle.
	But last but not least...
	Steve Leto had this case.
	I think it was a Michigan case.
	Somebody had a probate claim, and they had the document that proved they were entitled to it.
	They gave the document, and then the other lawyer pointed out that document was in a font that didn't exist at the time of the so-called document's creation and signing.
	Somebody was so lazy, they didn't double-check their computer fonts to make sure that it could match up.
	With the time period of which the document was supposedly made and signed.
	That's not lazy.
	That is just not even thinking of that.
	That's like the guy who got a death threat.
	That's a stupid criminal award winner.
	Yep.
	I think it was Wiener out of California who got a death threat, and you could see the cursor on the screen grab of his death threat.
	Robert, before we go to locals, let me just read some of the chats.
	I think I'm going to read all the chats because I can do it.
	Share screen.
	Let me just get the Rumble Rants here.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Let's just do this.
	We have to do this.
	Guns, ammo, and eggs will be the next currency that is Krabby T. Girth, who's got a little whale emblem because that means they are paid monthly subscribers on Rumble, like the membership that you have on YouTube.
	Jennifer says, with also a whale, also the whale emblem.
	The trans agenda is part of the NWO, New World Order.
	Destroy the family by destroying the children and destroy women who give life.
	I pray Riley Gaines wins against the trans terrorists.
	Krabby the Girl, or Krabby the Girth says, I think Barnes had some Pennsylvania milk in that Tumblr.
	Pepe Payne, Pepe Payne.
	Didn't Biden stay with the donor recently?
	One of the holidays, I believe.
	How is that not getting traction?
	I'm going to go look.
	Barack Obama partied at Richard Branson's Island.
	I mean, they all do it all the time.
	That's why it's kind of insane to suddenly call that.
	I mean, it came out this week with testimony of Leonard DiCaprio.
	Oh, yeah.
	That a member of the Fugees was trying to give a $30 million illegal donation to Barack Obama.
	Where's Barack Obama's criminal prosecution?
	Crabby T. Girth.
	Go, Barnes.
	Go.
	Blue-eyed Ruth Korean says New York was the only colony to abstain from signing the Declaration of Independence.
	Oh, and just randomly, by the way, I don't think Trump...
	Had anything to do with Stormy Daniels.
	Trump may be a bit of a cad, but the man's got standards, and Stormy Daniels is.
	I saw her interview with Piers Morgan, or at least a portion of it.
	She did not come off as...
	Okay.
	She was a failed porn star looking for an extortion scheme, found some extortion lawyers to help her out.
	Now she owes $600,000 to Trump.
	That's the reality of who she is.
	It sounds like a new P.T. Anderson movie, like the sequel to Magnolia.
	All right, people, my wife is going to kill me if I go much longer.
	We're going to end on Rumble.
	Go to Locals!
	Go to Locals.
	Hold on, I'll give everybody the link.
	We've got some Locals tips to read.
	Hold on, let me just navigate the computer here.
	Apparently, later tonight, Andrew Tate is giving an interview.
	I don't know where, but Pavlosky tweeted out about it, so I'll tweet that out.
	Go to Locals.
	Thank you all for being here.
	I will be live tomorrow.
	Live streaming.
	I'm going to end this on Rumble now.
	See you on Locals.
	Robert, thank you, but we'll continue talking.
	People, party continues.
	Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Ending live stream on Rumble now.
	Thank you all for being here.
	Boom.
	Now, Robert.
	Okay, we're good.
	Let's go to Locals and get how many...
	There's a lot of tips here.
	Yeah, we can go with the Ricada rule and focus on the $5 and $10 tippers.

▲