Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 28, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:19:53

Ep. 162: Trump v. DeSantis; Babylon Bee; Zach Anderson; Maxime Bernier AND MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's high time.
	It should have been done a long time ago.
	And then what do you think about his previous comments, though, that it was too escalatory to do, and now it's not?
	I think he was wrong.
	I think, you know, every different weapon system first is too escalatory, and then we eventually gave it to them.
	And they're fighting not only for their lives.
	Listen to what he says.
	They're fighting for the world order against...
	The world order.
	Invasion of another country, altering borders by force, which is inadmissible since 1945.
	Altering whatever they need.
	And are you concerned that they will enter into Russian territory as there have been recent...
	Listen to this.
	Too cute.
	He's too cute.
	Look at the smile on his face.
	I wouldn't care if they did.
	You wouldn't care if they wanted to Russia?
	Nope.
	Turnabout's fair play.
	I don't think they're going to do it on any large scale.
	Why should Russia feel that they can invade somebody else?
	Look at his face.
	We don't have to sanction it.
	He smiles.
	We're not providing it for that purpose.
	I said I personally wouldn't mind.
	You personally wouldn't mind, but, you know, you are a representative of the government.
	Well, I'm part of the government.
	I'm not part of the executive branch.
	But I think we should give them whatever they need.
	Okay.
	And, you know, if an F-16 was to be used on Russia, you wouldn't come out and say, that's too much?
	That's too far?
	No, I don't think this is going to happen in any of them, but no.
	They're going to use F-16s for air defense, basically.
	But there are these reports right now that American weapons are being used in Belgorod, which is, you know, a Russian territory.
	It's already happening.
	They're not going to use major weapons.
	Major weapons.
	Things like F-16s.
	Not a major weapon.
	They need for air defense over Ukraine so that they can...
	We're going to replay that in a second.
	But before I do that, I need to make sure...
	I'm going to bring Nadler out.
	Bring him back in in a second.
	First of all...
	I once criticized Harry J. Sisson for making a video from a hotel room and he had a messy bed behind him.
	Let's start with the basics here.
	First of all...
	Link to Rumble.
	And let's make sure that we are simultaneously streaming everywhere.
	Is the internet connection adequate?
	I'm partway through Georgia with one kid and two dogs.
	And I don't know how good the internet connection is.
	I'm seeing one ring and I think it's good.
	But if the internet connection is bad, I'll tether off my phone.
	But, okay.
	So first things first.
	How is the connection?
	That's the link to Rumble.
	And I believe it's the pinned comment.
	It is the pinned comment in the chat.
	And I'm looking at myself in replay now.
	Things look good.
	Okay.
	Second thing.
	We're simultaneously streaming on the Rumbles right now.
	We're good.
	We're simultaneously streaming on Locals.
	Let me go to locals.
	We're good.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Thank you in advance and thank you as always.
	YouTube takes 30% of these.
	So if you give a $5 tip like this, a Super Chat, YouTube takes $2.
	I think that's right.
	On Rumble, they take 20%.
	So they would have taken...
	40 cents?
	Less.
	Less than YouTube, except for the rest of 2023, Rumble is taking nothing.
	100% of it goes to the creator.
	I'll do my best to read those rants and bring them up as they come.
	No obligation, absolutely, and thank you in advance for all the support.
	If you want to support us, the best place is vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Nadler, turnabout is fair play.
	Ask Trump about fair play.
	Turnabout means retaliation.
	We're going to go back to that video clip in a second to talk about this.
	JRC1, a blessed Memorial Day weekend to you and your family.
	Thank you very much, JRC1.
	We're celebrating it by driving back to Canada for the better part of the summer.
	My wife flew with the girls and we have those two dogs that will not fly.
	They're fighting in this hotel room.
	So I'm driving them up.
	The dogs are fighting in this hotel room.
	And then we got all good except, do you know where your kid is?
	Yes, he's watching Billy Madison.
	Okay.
	So, all's good.
	And I'm going to get to the sponsor of this stream in a bit.
	But let's go back and just watch this clip.
	In all its glory, I want to actually make sure that we give full credit to the journalists who got this.
	Greg Price, Breaking.
	This is via Cosgrove.iv.
	We're going to walk through this masterpiece.
	I put out a tweet.
	I used an expletive.
	I shouldn't have.
	My apologies.
	I should say frickin'.
	Or just do what Jack Posobiec does and say, like, instead of holy shit, just say holy schlit.
	Or instead of F-U-C-K-I, I should say frickin'.
	What we've witnessed Jerry Nadler say here, I think, and I'm not sure that I'm exaggerating much by suggesting that it's bordering on war crimes.
	Bordering.
	Because...
	He's a little too cute, as we say, in the industry.
	He knows what he's doing is wrong.
	And he's too cutesy, like, lawyerly.
	Oh, well, don't you think a U.S.-sanctioned invasion, like, you know, allowing them to carry out incursions into Russia?
	That would be a bad U.S.-sanctioned thing.
	Oh, we don't have to sanction it.
	We won't sanction it.
	We'll just provide them the way.
	But listen to this.
	And I'm not going to make fun of the fact that this is an old, decrepit man who's barely struggling to breathe.
	He's lived his best life already.
	He doesn't care who he sends to an early grave.
	He doesn't care for him.
	Hey, he's in the bunkers.
	He's got his fence.
	He's got all the protection in the world.
	He's got a guaranteed salary.
	He's got wealth up the wazoo.
	He doesn't care.
	It's no skin off his back.
	Struggling to breathe.
	He's at the end of his life.
	He's had his life.
	He's not sacrificing anything of his own right now.
	He's not risking anything of his own right now.
	In fact, all that he's doing is guaranteeing that he can enhance and increase his job.
	Sorry, I realize you're looking at my face and not even looking at what I want to share.
	No, not stop screen.
	There's no risk for Nadler.
	The only risk for Nadler is the risk of more work for the government.
	Because my goodness, if they start World War III, well, Jesus, they've got to take care of it.
	Let's just play this masterpiece of...
	Everything that is wrong with the military-industrial complex.
	I love Canada and I love America.
	Not so much the same for the government.
	Nadler represents everything that is wrong with not just the Democrats, the military-industrial-uniparty-complex government.
	The military-industrial-complex-uniparty system.
	That's what Nadler represents.
	Listen to this.
	It's high time.
	Morons.
	And what do you think about his previous comments, though, that it was too escalatory to do, and now it's not?
	I think he was wrong.
	I think, you know, every different weapon system first is too escalatory, and then eventually gave it to them.
	Yes!
	Every single one has been too escalatory, and then you've given it to them.
	Oh, a little incursion is fine.
	We won't do anything.
	Oh, we're not going to be sending tanks.
	We won't send helicopters.
	That would be too escalatory.
	And then you do it.
	And then you do it.
	And this is how you tiptoe.
	You know, inch by inch, walk your way into World War III.
	Let's keep hearing what Nadler has to say.
	And they're fighting not only for their lives, they're fighting for democracy, they're fighting for the world order.
	They're fighting for the world order.
	Why not just call it the new world order, Nadler?
	Would that be too much of us saying the quiet part out loud?
	They're fighting for a world order.
	Yes, that's what everyone has been saying.
	You know, when I had Konstantin Kisanon and he argued that Russia was fighting for global dominance, what is he?
	Hegemony, I think, is the word he used.
	It's ironic.
	That's exactly what Nadler is admitting Ukraine is doing for and on behalf of the NATO and the USA that are using Ukraine as a proxy fighter in this world order fight against Russia.
	I mean, he literally says it.
	Fighting for democracy and fighting for the world order against, you know, just invasion of another country, altering borders by force, which is inadmissible since 1945.
	Altering borders by force is inadmissible, you know, according to 1945.
	Well, I can think, I think, of some examples that have been tolerated by the parties that are saying that this is not tolerable.
	And we should give them whatever they need.
	Give them whatever they need.
	Whatever, however long it takes.
	We're all in this together.
	Two weeks to flatten the curve.
	And are you concerned that they will enter into Russian territory as there have been recent reports of Elgorov at the border city?
	I'm not concerned.
	I wouldn't care if they did.
	Look at his face.
	You wouldn't care if they wanted to Russia?
	Nope.
	Look at that face.
	Turnabout's fair play.
	Retaliation inside.
	Hey, turnabout's fair play.
	I'm fairly certain that Osama bin Laden said this.
	Turnabout is fair play.
	You want to strike us, we'll strike you.
	Turnabout.
	Now, what does one understand by turnabout?
	Well, that depends on who you ask.
	I don't think we're going to do it in any large scale.
	Why should Russia feel that they can invade somebody else?
	And that total safety at home.
	Why should they feel that they should feel safe at home?
	Who said it better?
	Jerry Nadler or Osama Bin Laden?
	But that would cross the line to a US-sanctioned invasion outbreak.
	You don't have to sanction it.
	Well, look at that face right there.
	That's a man who's been a lawyer for too long.
	We don't have to sanction it.
	Oh, it's just, it's so smart and it's so cute.
	Well, you would be providing the weapons that conducted it, is what I'm saying.
	Oh, we don't know what they're going to use them for.
	We'll just give them to them.
	If they decide to abuse them to, you know, make Russians feel unsafe at home, we didn't tell them to do that.
	We didn't sanction that.
	We're not providing it for that purpose.
	I said I personally wouldn't mind.
	You personally wouldn't mind, but...
	Can you imagine saying these things out loud?
	You are a representative of the government.
	Well, I'm part of the government.
	I'm not part of the executive branch.
	I'm sure they think much differently.
	But I think we should give them whatever they need.
	Okay.
	And, you know, if an F-16 was to be used on Russia, you wouldn't come out and say, that's too much?
	That's too far?
	No, I don't think it's going to happen.
	I don't think it's going to happen.
	They're going to use F-16s for air defense, basically.
	Oh, they're using F-16s.
	But there are these reports right now that American weapons are being used in Belgorod, which is a Russian territory.
	They're not going to use major weapons.
	They're using F-16s, but they're not going to use major weapons.
	What more major weapon is Nadler talking about here?
	Sincere question.
	Things like F-16s.
	they need for air defense over Ukraine so that they can provide air cover for their counterattack and things like that.
	They're not going to waste it in Russia.
	If anybody had ever wondered how the world walked its way into World War I, there you go.
	That's it.
	Anybody wonders how the world, you know, just inch by inch, global conflict, irreversible global conflict.
	And I was having a discussion with someone who says the war started in 2020.
	I was like, what if it turned out, I'm not saying that, you know, One party's entirely to blame, and one party's entirely blameless.
	What if it turns out that the invasion in 2020 was a response to years of encroachment via NATO through Ukraine?
	America was ready to go to war, world war, nuclear war, when Russia was just putting some stuff up in Cuba.
	Hey, nobody's touching Russia.
	I mean, nobody's touching America.
	Mission creep.
	Okay, first of all, I did not see that name.
	Mission creep.
	You know, it is.
	It's called scope creep, which, you know, someone mandates you to carry out a job and they, oh, can you do a little more?
	Can you do a little?
	Yeah, this is called World War III creep.
	Pun intended.
	All right, everybody, good evening.
	How's everybody doing?
	I hate to start off with, I'm not going to call them the names that everybody calls them, but they call them the penguin.
	And the Wadler, because apparently there's a video where he allegedly defecated in his pants.
	I don't think he did.
	And I don't get involved in childish humor like when Eric Swalwell farted and I actually came to his defense.
	And I said, I don't think he farted.
	Okay, we've got a show tonight.
	But before we get into the show tonight, first of all, happy Memorial Day to everyone out there.
	I mean, I don't know if you say happy Memorial Day or a meaningful Memorial Day.
	It's Memorial Day.
	It's a time to...
	Thank everyone that we have the freedom that we have.
	And that freedom did not, you know, it wasn't free, but it also didn't come at the expense of just starting World War III's and World Wars just because...
	Oh, okay.
	Have you seen the new Canadian anti-hate speech legislation?
	Not a black pill, but it's as bad as you can imagine.
	I think I have, and I think I've talked about it, but I'm going to do it again.
	Before we get into any of that, people, before Barnes comes on for another banger of an episode...
	The light might be fading.
	The background is going to go totally dark and my face is going to go well lit to yellow.
	But before we get into any of that, you may have noticed this stream contains a paid sponsorship because it does.
	Field of Greens has now turned into the weekly sponsorship, the weekly sponsor of the channel, or at least of the streams.
	And thank them for that because it's good stuff that I actually use and that I actually love.
	When I drive, by the way, when I drive long distances, I actually use raw vegetables like arugula or spinach, and I eat it like a giraffe while I'm driving to stay awake.
	It's the healthy alternative.
	But for those of you who don't get your five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables in your diet on a daily basis, as you're supposed to, because it has roughage that helps you stay regular.
	It's got, you know, the anti...
	What do they call this stuff?
	The stuff that prevents cancer.
	Antioxidants.
	If you don't get your five to seven...
	Servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	Field of greens.
	You take one spoonful and it will give you one dose, one serving of fruits and vegetables and all of the benefits as close as you can get to the raw stuff itself.
	It is not a supplement and it's not an extract.
	So it's not purified or anything.
	It is desiccated is the word.
	Dried, pulverized.
	Made in America.
	USDA organic approved.
	It's good stuff.
	It tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water is what I always say because swamp water, well, it looks like swamp water, but swamp water is swamp water because it's nutrient rich and this is like the nutrient rich best alternative to raw fruits and vegetables and a healthy alternative to sucking back a disgusting Diet Coke or a sugar-laden Red Bull.
	You go to fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, and you'll get 15% off.
	Your order.
	And I think the link is in the description.
	So thank you, Field of Greens.
	Brickhouse Nutrition.
	I spent a half an hour on the phone with the doctor behind this product to make sure that I was comfortable with everything because I insist on being comfortable with that which I accept as a sponsorship.
	It's one thing for them to sponsor the channel, but I also have to accept it.
	But it's also a lot easier to accept sponsorships from products that you actually use.
	So fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
	All right, until Barnes gets here, I had some other good stuff on the backdrop here.
	We've got a story tonight, by the way.
	I mean, talk about black pills coming out of Canada.
	We'll talk about it when Barnes gets here.
	But Maxine Bernier was found guilty for violating COVID protocol.
	We'll talk about it.
	We'll talk about it in a bit.
	We've got a bunch of good stuff, and I'll let Barnes give us a list.
	But black pills out of Canada, I mean, it depends on your perspective.
	You might consider this to be a white pill.
	Justin Trudeau cannot go anywhere in public without getting wildly heckled.
	I don't approve of people using the F word to another person's face.
	Even though I sometimes swear, it's more to illustrate anger.
	The F Trudeau stuff.
	You know what the media is going to say when people do it?
	Of course, the media is going to say it anyhow, because the media doesn't give you credit when you behave properly.
	So that's, you know, why behave properly?
	Not that this is behaving improperly, but listen to Justin Trudeau getting mercilessly heckled as he walks the streets.
	I think this is in Ontario.
	Fuck you!
	Smile.
	Look at the smile right there.
	Oh, my God.
	You know what?
	I was going to say it's a fake smile, but it's not a fake smile.
	That's a sincere smile of someone who thinks he's better than the people who are heckling him.
	Fuck you!
	You fucking piece of shit!
	Fucking pedophile!
	Fuck you!
	All right, we'll stop it.
	We'll stop it there.
	They heckle him hard.
	Now, where was this?
	Did I say Niagara?
	Let me see here.
	This is coming from Pleb the Reporter, truck driver Pleb, Woodstock, Ontario.
	Well, ain't no peace and love there, I'll tell you what.
	All right, Barnes is in the house.
	Did I forget anything?
	Okay, is it not driving anybody crazy that I'm not perfectly symmetrical?
	This is symmetrical.
	We're bringing on the Barnes.
	He had been under the weather.
	I hope he's feeling better.
	He said he was feeling better.
	He looks like he's better.
	Okay, Barnes coming in.
	Three, two, one.
	Sir, how was the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, you're already looking better.
	I can tell.
	You're feeling better?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Robert, let me see here.
	Okay, no, there's no more.
	There's no more Super Chats.
	I'll get the rumble rants in a bit.
	Robert, book behind you before we forget.
	Everybody Lies.
	It's a good book about what data tells us about people's public behavior and whatnot.
	It has some interesting data and information in it.
	I'll tell you one thing.
	I never lie.
	I'm joking, people.
	That itself would be a lie.
	That's the joke.
	And Robert, I guess, look, we're going to go over to Rumble and Locals exclusively, but we're going to get a subject in on YouTube before we do that.
	But Robert, what's on the menu for the evening?
	So you may have already covered the first bonus topic, which was the Cornier conviction.
	I didn't get into it in detail.
	I said I'll save that for when you get here.
	All right.
	Then we got, you know, what happens when you use ChatGPT for lawyering?
	A couple of little bonus topics.
	And at the end, we have a couple of bonus topics on the oral argument I had for the Seventh Circuit and a discrimination suit involving the ADA.
	But our 12 top topics tonight in order of coverage of chronology will be, first, DeSantis versus Trump.
	DeSantis announced his candidacy this week on Twitter for the presidency.
	Babylon B joining cancel culture, firing someone for their quote-unquote offensive opinions online.
	Supreme Court.
	Two major decisions, one small decision on the way summary judgment rulings work, procedurally mostly of interest to lawyers, but the two big ones on the EPA and on the authority of the government to take your property and to declare it forfeited in the name of tax recovery or something else.
	Both ultimately unanimous decisions, by the way, but different ways they got there in both cases.
	A federal judge that suggested that fighting fire could violate the Clean Water Act, which is...
	Pertinent to the EPA case we'll talk about.
	The Cary Lake verdict and potential grounds for appeal.
	The big case, the top topic tonight, we'll cover right in the middle of the pack, which is the impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
	The crazy sentencings in the January 6th case is up next.
	After that, the great interview you did with Solomon Anderson, an innocent man in prison, the case of Zachary Anderson.
	After that, we have vaccine mandate.
	First Amendment, a big win out of a surprising place, the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
	The Vatican, a conspiracy trial.
	What happens when the Vatican is trying you on your cardinal?
	Does the Vatican respect those same rules of universal human rights that the current Pope likes to preach?
	Maybe not so much.
	Shaq facing another NFT crypto-related lawsuit as the effort to...
	Treat cryptocurrencies and tokens and non-fungible tokens as unregistered securities continues to expand in the litigation space.
	Amazon face-gaining employees and then using that information in ways that violates Illinois law, biometric laws.
	And that's our top 12 topics for tonight.
	The big one will be the Carrie Lake verdict, the Texas AG.
	The Babylon Bee Supreme Court, those are the four top topics, according to our above-average board at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	Robert, you know what drives me crazy?
	I'm trying to find the tweet so we can start it off with one bonus topic and start it off on YouTube so everybody can see this, of the Maxime Bernier conviction.
	And I'm looking for the tweet.
	I forgot it was the pinned tweet, so it's not in my regular timeline, so I'm scrolling for nothing.
	Yeah, Robert!
	It's no surprise.
	Maxime Bernier, for those who don't know, held a political rally.
	It was in May of 2021.
	Now, the election was only formally called, I think, in August.
	So it wasn't...
	I might be making a mistake on this, but I don't think it was officially during the election cycle, although I might be wrong on that.
	Either way, he holds an outdoor political rally in Regina.
	May 2021, 200 people show up.
	He gets COVID tickets.
	He gets arrested, gets these COVID infractions for violating the public health orders of the time in Regina, which is in Saskatchewan.
	Holy cow, I'm going to get in trouble if I'm wrong.
	It's out west.
	He had his trial, and he basically gets trial and says, I'm guilty.
	I broke the rules, these unconstitutional, arbitrary, unscientific rules, and challenges the constitutionality of the measures.
	It's not legislation.
	It's these orders.
	And he got convicted.
	He got his conviction.
	We'll find out what the sentence is going to be.
	I don't know what the potential ramifications are or potential sentences are.
	Just to highlight the absolute idiocy of this is that he was arrested for this outdoor protest in May 2021.
	A couple hundred people showed up because, you know, the science in Regina, Saskatchewan, obviously is different than the science in Ontario at the same time period where Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford and a bunch of other politicians attended a vigil for this Muslim family that was a horrible, horrible, disgusting story of a guy who drove his car into the Muslim family.
	I think the consensus was at the end of the day that it wasn't a targeted hate crime.
	It was a mentally ill individual who just ran his car into a target.
	But the underlying horrific story aside, Justin Trudeau in June 2021 and other politicians gathered by the thousands in Ontario while Maxime Bernier is being arrested and now convicted for having gathered by the hundreds in Regina.
	And there's some idiots out there who are saying he broke the law, not understanding that this is not science, this is pure political science rubbish.
	And I'm going to try to get Maxime on or just message him to see what the potential...
	Sanctions are for the conviction, for the sentencing.
	But I have a feeling it's going to be good political fodder and good political campaign material for his current by-election in Portage, Manitoba.
	So, absurdity up in Canada.
	Our next bonus topic of tonight.
	What happens when you use ChatGPT for legal research?
	If you're on Facebook or other places, or on various legal boards, you're getting bombarded with advertisements to use ChatGPT and other forms of AI to help and aid your legal research.
	But what came up in a New York case this past week?
	Is that it appears ChatGPT somehow is sourcing completely fake cases.
	So a lawyer used ChatGPT and it looked like it had a full citation.
	It looked like you would expect a case to look like.
	And so they cited a half dozen cases that then the court, when the court went to look at it, said these cases don't exist.
	They're completely fictional.
	These are fake citations.
	And so I got caught in a sanctions hearing, and the lawyer was trying to explain, I had no idea that ChatGPT just made stuff up.
	Now, obviously, they should have double-checked and cross-checked in the actual legal databases and made sure those cases were still good law and things like that.
	I almost wonder whether a lawyer did this, right?
	I mean, theoretically, ChatGPT poses a real risk.
	To the professional opportunities of particularly research lawyers, that ChatGPT could replace their research and to some degree their writing.
	And you would know at a much cheaper rate.
	Like ChatGPT is, you could get basically for like $10 an hour is the kind of equivalent, rather than $300 an hour or $500 an hour, whatever the going rate is, depending on where you are in the country, for a research lawyer.
	So you look at that and you wonder whether somebody out there is like, how did they have a fake case database that ChatGPT was using in the first place?
	But this is coming up in multiple contexts where ChatGPT appears to have a lot of, somehow its sourcing has a lot of fake information.
	That was totally made up information, not politically debated, contestable information.
	Just made up information and doesn't know how to distinguish and delineate between real cases and fake ones.
	So that lawyer is trying to dodge sanctions based on the use of ChatGPT.
	But this will undermine AI's competitive capabilities in the near short term with legal research by lawyers and because of it.
	Can you imagine how embarrassing it must be to get busted?
	There's no defense to that.
	It's not like, oh, I did it myself.
	You have to admit that you're using chat DPD.
	I don't mind this.
	Even if it's deliberate sabotage to put out overtly fake information that AI is incapable of distinguishing.
	Who was it?
	We talked about it also where they were checking up who worked for a company and they just made up names.
	I don't know where they get the names from or the false information.
	It's good.
	It'll keep people from relying too heavily on this rubbish.
	Let's go over to Rumble.
	Hold on.
	Actually, before we go over to Rumble, Robert, I'll just read a couple of Super Chats.
	Comparing the height of the Cold War in today's apples and oranges, assuming Ukraine is corrupt, not a big leap, did they not still have the freedom to associate with or without whatever nation or organization they wanted to?
	Robert, do you want to field that one?
	I know there's a good reason that Ukraine was to remain neutral.
	Do they not have the freedom to?
	Yeah, well, I mean, of course Ukraine could do what they wanted.
	The issue is more...
	Going back to how Ukraine became independent of the Soviet Union and separated itself from the Commonwealth of Independent States, which is that we told Russia you can give up.
	We told the Soviet Union and then its successor country, Russia, that you don't have to worry about giving up any of your relationships with Eastern Europe.
	And forfeiting control over those or various binding obligations potentially you had with them because NATO won't move an inch east.
	And we just lied.
	And so that's more the issue, is that we got Russia to do certain things based on a premise that we would keep our word and we didn't.
	The second thing is that NATO, as Trump himself said, has no purpose in existence.
	But what is NATO's purpose?
	NATO's purpose was solely, originally, Cold War-oriented.
	Now, of course, one of the great legendary founders of it said the real goal of NATO was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
	For example, Putin exposed this very early on when he asked Clinton, well, let's have Russia join NATO, if NATO's just protecting the freedoms and liberties of Europe.
	And Clinton's like, let me get back to you on that.
	So that's because NATO has no purpose.
	It's just other than to prop up the military-industrial complex.
	Who are they defending from?
	NATO is there to defend against the Warsaw Pact.
	The Warsaw Pact doesn't exist.
	So NATO is effectively today a tool of your military-industrial complex that uses conflict with Russia as its pretext.
	And that's the problem with trying to go to Ukraine.
	Is that that puts NATO on one of Russia's most territorial, vulnerable locations within Europe.
	And so that's the issue there.
	Now, I can tell you, nobody in Europe really wants Ukraine as part of NATO.
	Or wants Ukraine, has the burden of Ukraine in general.
	But Ukraine at this point is becoming a de facto colony of the West.
	I mean, it already was that since the Maidan coup.
	And that's probably a good bridge into our top topic tonight.
	DeSantis versus Trump.
	As I've been pointing out to people for a while...
	Hold on, Robert.
	We're ending on YouTube.
	If you want to watch this, come over to Rumble or wait until tomorrow, YouTube people.
	I'm sorry.
	That's not to be disrespectful to people on YouTube.
	I'm exclusive with Rumble and this is the benefit and the obligation and the pleasure because Rumble is the free speech platform.
	So we're going there.
	And this will be on YouTube tomorrow.
	Ending in 3, 2, 1. Robert, the fighting.
	Okay, we'll get to the fighting in a bit.
	It's dirty and it's intense.
	I don't know how there's going to be making of amends after there will be one of these individuals picked for the nomination for the party.
	I don't know how they're going to make amends with the people that have been lambasting on both sides.
	But let's hear it.
	So DeSantis makes the announcement.
	Setting aside some glitches.
	They had hundreds of thousands of people watching live.
	I say set aside the glitches, which are the result of it being bigger than what they could handle, which is a good thing.
	I listened to DeSantis' answers.
	They seem like generic answers where they said, how are you going to drain the swamp?
	And he's like, I'll use my connections in good politicking.
	But break it down for us like nobody else can, Robert.
	What's your take about it?
	So, the bridge between Ukraine and this is, I've said for a while that DeSantis has people close to him that have deep, deep state ties, particularly as to Ukraine.
	Well, one of the main people, but not the only one I was referencing, is Christine Pushaw.
	So, this is someone that is his spokesperson, one of his lead organizers on social media.
	She has a CV that reads like a deep state recruited resume.
	As DeSantis himself does, if you go further back.
	And so this is someone who, you know, is at Johns Hopkins, you know, where a lot of CIA folks are trained and other intelligence operatives and people like that are trained.
	Then, you know, it gets connected to the corrupt Georgian president who was part of the color revolutions in Georgia, deep ties to Soros.
	By the way, he was so corrupt and so terrible, authoritarian in Georgia, that he was under all kinds of indictments.
	So what does he do?
	After the Maidan coup, he goes to Ukraine, where suddenly he has a governing position in Ukraine.
	How does a guy go from governing Georgia to governing part of Ukraine?
	Gives you an idea what a crock everything is over there after the Maidan coup.
	And who is one of his key supporters, staffers, employees?
	Christine Pusha.
	Who's there and helps Zelensky get elected and has bragged about this in multiple contexts.
	She didn't register as a foreign registered agent, even though she should have because she was getting paid for a good bit of this activity.
	And it's noteworthy because DeSantis was very anti-Flynn, was very critical of General Flynn about whether he registered right and other things like that.
	He was on the anti-Flynn bandwagon early in 2017.
	You can go back and find his quotes on this.
	You know, it was ironic because one of his key aides is someone who didn't register under the Foreign Registrations Act either, but of course she wasn't criminally prosecuted.
	And so, you know, given those deep state ties, there was always issues about his candidacy.
	My question, I always assumed that his political intelligence was greater than his ambition.
	I think now that my assumption was wrong.
	He forfeited the opportunity to be Trump's vice president that was in the works back in 2021 and instead has decided to challenge and contest Trump for the nomination despite complete sinking public opinion of DeSantis in the competition with Trump.
	Hold on.
	Let me push back just a little bit there because people are going to say that might be true or it might not be true depending on whether or not you trust the polls.
	But DeSantis is picking up a lot of key endorsements or big endorsements or at least multiple endorsements from various politicians across the country.
	Even in the endorsement capacity, he's being outdone by Trump by a 10 to 1 margin.
	Using 538 standards, for example.
	So in terms of how they calculate the value of different endorsements.
	So even in that capacity, a good number of observers thought DeSantis would back out and not make this kamikaze candidacy, which is what I see it as.
	You have Newsweek, you have other publications talking about there's people that don't like Trump and want DeSantis to win.
	Just pointing out there's really no path to DeSantis, that that's become quite clear over the last six months.
	And Trump's lead by every public opinion survey out there is anywhere from 25 to 50 points in various key states across the nation, including Iowa, including New Hampshire, including South Carolina.
	And my view is twofold.
	Now, I think there's why DeSantis is running and then there's who's backing DeSantis and what they're using him as.
	I think those are two different things.
	I think DeSantis is running because I think it will come out in time that Rupert Murdoch has guaranteed him more than $10 million through publishing houses that Murdoch has control over and future Fox News deals.
	That basically, if you're DeSantis and you have a young family, you are not independently wealthy, and somebody like Murdoch comes along and says, I'll guarantee you an eight-figure payday if you run for president.
	Then that's a mighty tempting offer for a lot of people.
	You now have a financial safety net.
	You can never be wiped out or taken out.
	Is it to run and win or to run and burn down the GOP?
	I think they're convincing him he can win.
	I don't think he would do a kamikaze mission himself knowingly, though that is apparently what he's on.
	Now, I think a lot of key of the super PACs supporting him.
	And a lot of the social media influencers enlisted for him are about destroying Trump, not electing DeSantis.
	I think many of them know that there's really no probability that DeSantis can win.
	And so their goal, and you see that reflected in what's happening on social media, what's happening in the court of public opinion, what's happening in DeSantis' own basis of his campaign.
	Is you're seeing that the campaign push an anti-Trump narrative as often or more often than a pro-DeSantis message.
	So contrast it to Robert Kennedy's campaign.
	Robert Kennedy has a much stronger argument, in my view, on issues of COVID intervention against Biden than DeSantis does against Trump.
	But you don't see him talking about that much at all against Biden.
	He talks about the issues of COVID intervention policy, but he treats it as independent of Biden.
	And he barely mentioned Biden in his speech.
	And 95% of what Robert Kennedy talks about each day is his own agenda on the topics that matter to him.
	If DeSantis' people really thought, if their real goal was for DeSantis to win...
	All you would be hearing about is DeSantis' specific policy ideas, and he would almost never mention Trump, and they would almost never mention Trump.
	Instead, particularly on the social media side, you see all the efforts to attack Trump, demonize Trump.
	Now, some of this comes from a lot of the DeSantis people are old never Trumpers.
	They were Ted Cruz people and Marco Rubio people in 2016 in terms of the political professionals involved.
	People like Ben Shapiro, who was a never Trumper.
	Steve Dace was a never Trumper.
	So a lot of these people come from deep-seated anti-Trump sentiments that have just come back to the surface.
	But a lot of it strikes me that it appears that, put it this way, what George Soros said back at the beginning of the year was that the goal was to have DeSantis challenge Trump and take them both out in the process.
	And that's how people were incorrectly saying Soros was backing DeSantis.
	That's not the case.
	What, he's backing his candidacy because he thinks it is self-destructive of DeSantis and hurtful of Trump.
	The way in which it unfolded, at least in the social media space, After his candidacy is in that direction.
	It was all, like, 90% of what DeSantis people were saying was focused on bashing Trump.
	Well, but in fairness, though, Robert, 90% of what Trump, well, I say 90% of what Trump was saying.
	Trump was coming out bashing DeSantis.
	No doubt about that.
	But the, and it had been one thing if it was responding to that.
	But the, instead of, here's my agenda.
	Here's what I believe in.
	Here's what I support.
	Here's what I think will be different.
	Here's some specific policy ideas.
	It's not so much that, at least not in the social media candidate space.
	And he himself, interviews with Newsmax, interviews with radio stations, interviews with Fox, took the opportunity to focus on Trump.
	And aside from that, I think that being a very dumb political strategy, I mean, Trump's approval ratings are off the charts with Republicans.
	And in fact, he has the highest personal approval ratings he has ever had in media surveys, which is not a surprise if you know how the electorate was going to react to a range of topics.
	But not only is it a counterproductive strategy, and what you talked about at the beginning, that by going this route, The reconciliation of the Trump voter to DeSantis goes way, way down, doesn't improve.
	And so it's a long-term political interest in my view.
	But I think the people, there was a bunch of, there was a Politico piece, a New York Times piece, there was a Florida politics piece, a bunch of pieces saying that people, that the people around DeSantis were going to use DeSantis' candidacy primarily to harm Trump.
	That's why they were still going to spend lots of money for DeSantis, even though they had come to the conclusion that his winning was highly unlikely.
	Because it's like, why are people going to give hundreds of millions of dollars to somebody who they know that the chances are a long shot?
	It's to hurt Trump.
	The people that were in originally to see if DeSantis could win have backed out of him.
	Most of the donors care more about hurting Trump than they do helping DeSantis, in my view.
	And in the end, helping Biden.
	So I think that's kind of what's happening in the sideshow, if you will.
	I think DeSantis has different objectives, but I think his ambition exceeds his political IQ because I think he has no political future now.
	He'll never be anything beyond what he is from Florida, the ex-governor of Florida.
	So I'll go ahead and make that.
	Now, we'll see how it holds up over time.
	Hold on a second.
	You mean ex-governor as in next governor election in Florida?
	You don't think he's going to win?
	Oh, he's not going to run for...
	I don't think he can legally.
	So I think that's it.
	I think he will not be in Trump's cabinet.
	He will not be on the ticket.
	He will not win the presidential nod now or in the future.
	He's burning every bridge to the most important part of the Republican Party base.
	And he did so despite having the highest favorability with that group before he announced his candidacy.
	And that negative is only going to go up, especially the more he attacks Trump.
	Now, my bigger concern wasn't so much DeSantis and Trump and all of that.
	I think that just goes nowhere.
	I think ultimately, despite efforts to use DeSantis to hurt Trump, it will make very marginal impact.
	And I was correcting the record about a lot of mythology.
	This attempt to blame Trump.
	For all COVID public health intervention policies.
	And like DeSantis made this claim on a talk radio show that he's like, well, Trump turned the country over to Fauci.
	I was keeping the schools open and protecting businesses.
	Well, that's just DeSantis lying.
	That's like the worst gaslighting.
	It's like, what?
	Are we supposed to pretend that it wasn't DeSantis who shut down the state of Florida for April and early May?
	It wasn't DeSantis who shut down the schools until August.
	It's like, he's expecting, and I get these social media responses that seem to not know this.
	And it's like, I had people approaching me to sue DeSantis from the very beginning.
	And DeSantis woke up in 2021.
	That's when he put in a good surge in general.
	That's when he changed his policy on the vaccines, late 2021.
	That's when he said the lockdowns were a mistake.
	In 2020, he and Trump were peas in a pod on the pandemic.
	I was critical of both of them during that time frame because they both went along with Fauci recommendations.
	Now, Trump started pushing back on Fauci relatively early, and he was one of the only leaders in the world to push back on him.
	But aside from correcting all that, which I went through social media and just made it clear what the history of that is and isn't, the bigger concern I had bridges into our second case.
	Which was during the Trump campaign of 2016, any Trump supporter was told that they were going to be permanently blacklisted.
	Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post, was actually pushing this.
	Permanently blacklisted from political consulting jobs, speech writing jobs, public marketing jobs, or any kind of political job if they associated or affiliated with Trump.
	And my concern was that the same bad faith actors were now going to use the 2024 campaign to do the same all over again.
	And we saw some people like Jenna Ellis, like Christina Poushaw, others push for Babylon Bee to fire somebody because of his social media commentary, critical of DeSantis supporters.
	And then Babylon Bee, Seth Dillon, went along with it.
	Here's a guy, Seth Dillon, who's built his brand at Babylon Bee around being anti-cancel culture.
	About saying you need to speak up.
	About saying you should never be fired for something you say for your opinions outside of your job.
	Here, Gavin is, I think it's Gavin Wax, the social media moniker, basically is a New York City guy that's a very independent, populist-style Republican.
	Helping on marketing with the Babylon Bee.
	Gets into a disagreement with Pushaw and some other people.
	Again, Pushaw is a deep state shill if there's ever been one.
	She came after me, which was ill-advised.
	Exposing who she is is now going to be a little bit of a fun priority for a little while.
	All of a sudden, Seth Dillon sees that she's disagreeing, or that Gavin is disagreeing with this big DeSantis supporter, DeSantis employee, campaign supporter.
	A spokesperson.
	And starts publicly attacking his employee online and then fires him right online.
	It just fires him.
	I mean, Seth Dillon has got to win the hypocrite of the year award.
	So I like the Babylon Bee.
	They do a lot of fun parody.
	But they built their brand on being anti-cancel culture.
	Let me steel man this, Robert, in as much as I understand this dispute.
	Pushaw came out suggesting that...
	There was some guilt by association of Gavin Wax because he used to work at Getter.
	One of the investors or one of the financers of Getter has, I don't know, was accused of some criminality.
	I don't know what it was entirely.
	Gavin comes out and says, I'm not guilty by association.
	What's your effing problem?
	In one tweet, it's like, what's your effing, what's the fucking problem?
	Yeah, you use the effing word.
	And then Dylan comes in and says, I don't like dropping...
	I don't think he said the word F-bombs, but he's like, I don't like the word...
	The way he put it is like, what are you doing?
	And Gavin responds, I'm defending myself against false criminal charges.
	And he says, well, I don't like you doing this with the B in your profile.
	And then says the B is no longer in your profile.
	This is cancel culture.
	And then he defended it on the grounds that this guy said something offensive online.
	Firing people for saying offensive things outside of their work online is the definition of cancel culture.
	Seth Dillon is now a champion of cancel culture, and Babylon Bee wins the Hypocrite of the Year Award, maybe the Hypocrite of the Decade Award.
	And here's the little side thing.
	What Seth Dillon isn't telling people is that he's getting paid by the DeSantis campaign.
	That the Babylon Bee is getting paid by the DeSantis campaign.
	So the Babylon Bee is willing to compromise its independence and integrity for a little bit of cash.
	It turns out that Seth Dillon isn't only a hypocrite.
	He's a cheap prostitute to boot.
	How are they getting paid?
	For advertising space or for promotion?
	It's like five grand, five grand, five grand.
	Apparently Seth Dillon is ghostwriting speeches for him.
	And then Seth Dillon makes it worse.
	He goes on a Twitter space and he defames Gavin.
	Makes up a bunch of claims that appear to have no factual merit whatsoever.
	And now Babylon Bee might end up getting sued for libel all because they want to cover up the fact that they're shills for DeSantis and that they're hypocrites on cancel culture, one of their calling cards.
	And it's pitiful.
	Now what concerned me, aside from the Babylon Bee acting like a sad, pitiful hypocrite, is that this looks to me like another attempt Of the establishment crowd to try to blacklist Trump's social media influencers.
	And this goes all the way back.
	So I became concerned with this where I came up with DeSimps was referencing these DeSantis social media influencers.
	Not everybody supports DeSantis.
	Lots of people support DeSantis for a range of reasons.
	That's fine.
	I'm talking about a group of people on social media that started lying about Trump supporters.
	And it was confession through a projection.
	John Cordillo, David Reboy, a lot of these folks started claiming that, by the way, just coincidentally connected to somehow to the people that took out James O 'Keefe at Project Veritas.
	We'll get into whether there's connections to what's taking place in Texas.
	We'll find out that you dig in, the people leading the impeachment are connected to DeSantis people as well.
	But the...
	Was that they started saying, anybody supporting Trump, you should be suspicious of because they're probably being secretly paid.
	Anybody knows anything about Trump, one of his problems is he doesn't pay people that he probably should.
	But the idea that social media people that are pro-Trump are getting paid by Trump is utterly ludicrous.
	What they were saying is that they were getting secretly paid by DeSantis and DeSantis' people to flip sides.
	But the fact that they were trying to defame Trump supporters out of the gate...
	It was like, okay, this feels again like we're going down a certain path.
	Even before the Babylon Bee event happened, to give you a sense of how nasty these people are, Richard Barris, People's Pundit, put out polling that, by the way, then was confirmed weeks later by everybody, by Harvard, by YouGov, by The Economist, by ABC, by NBC, you name it, but basically just showed that Trump does better than DeSantis in the working-class Rust Belt.
	And that Trump has an insurmountable lead by historical standards in the primary.
	They didn't like Barris being the one to put that out because he's had a record of high accuracy in his polling going all the way back to 2014.
	Give you an idea of the kind of dirt they're digging up and the kind of files they're digging up on people.
	They went back and looked.
	Richard's been open about this.
	When he got out of the military, he had suffered a severe injury in the military.
	He had a drug problem that he had to beat.
	While that happened, he once got arrested because he wouldn't rat out somebody else on a relatively minor matter.
	All those charges ended up being dismissed.
	Well, all of a sudden, when in the middle of DeSantis people being enraged at Barris' putting out polling showing the myths of their ideas, they start recirculating every nasty innuendo about Richard, went and dug up his mugshot to circulate it everywhere, and it was a complete smear campaign.
	By DeSantis' people.
	This is becoming part of a pattern.
	It's now increasingly hard to ignore, given that Babylon Bee is now firing people for raising questions about Christine Poushaw, deep state chill Christine Poushaw, George Soros, previously, by the way, working for organizations paid for by George Soros.
	I mean, that's how deep that goes.
	You know, and things like that.
	So that's my concern, is that we're seeing...
	A lot of these so-called DeSantis supporters...
	Because what they're doing doesn't help DeSantis.
	They use the DeSantis campaign to go after Trump supporters to the degree that they're trying to blacklist them, trying to create fake, do smear campaigns against them, destroy their reputations, and so forth.
	And that's my bigger concern.
	I think the Babylon Bee took a major hit.
	Its hit was going to get worse.
	Seth Dillon should just confess he made a mistake and retract.
	They're probably going to get sued out of all this.
	But people should look at this and be careful of what's taking place because there's a lot of bad faith actors associated with supposedly in the name of supporting DeSantis.
	But they're clearly targeting when you're getting people fired.
	And Jenna Ellis should be ashamed of herself.
	She was bragging about the Gavin getting fired.
	This is someone who lied to me and in my view and lied to the world when she said she was going to fight the Colorado bar.
	I think she made false statements to the Colorado Bar as part of her settlement.
	I don't think she believes that what she said previously was false.
	To get out of trouble, okay, you know, have at it.
	She was on Disney's side, then flips to DeSantis' side.
	Fine.
	She used to be a never-Trumper, then's a Trump.
	But don't go around trying to get people fired and then celebrating their firing because of their political views on the opposite side.
	That's utterly unacceptable, especially when I think you're, at this point, I have her as my number one candidate.
	For shameful sidebar of ever.
	That I regret ever promoting her at any level.
	Because I feel like she lied to me about what she was going to do in defending herself.
	But this was shameful behavior for these people to be bragging about using cancel culture on the right.
	I'm not there with you on Jenna Ellis just yet.
	I still think I could not put myself in someone's shoes like Jenna or like Rachel Alexander who won, you know.
	One made an agreement.
	The other one didn't.
	And we saw what happened between the two of them.
	And some will say one's a coward and one's not.
	And I say you can't judge that until you're facing it.
	But, Robert, this.
	Okay, so first of all, we're going to Mike Crispy here.
	I don't know if that's his real name.
	Rumble Video.
	Okay.
	Host of the most based show on the internet, Mike Crispy, Unafraid.
	So Mike Crispy puts out a tweet, which seems to have...
	Again, people, I'm not going to rely on screen grabs, but...
	I guess these are publicly verifiable payments to and from.
	Christina Peshaw, this is where I started getting real suspicious, because the first tweet that I saw that gave rise to all this was Christina Peshaw saying, nobody on the campaign demanded anything.
	Maybe dropping F-bombs on a public app doesn't fit the brand of a Christian website.
	So I didn't know what Gavin Wax's tweet was, and I thought, you know, he must have gone out and said, you effing B-I-T-C-H, F you and go F. When I saw that his F-bomb tweet consisted of, what's your fucking problem?
	I'm like, I would not qualify that tweet as dropping F-bombs.
	And the Christian website, is she talking about the Babylon Bee?
	So the Babylon Bee, you know, the Seth Dillon is connected to Christian conservative causes.
	But does anybody think of the Babylon Bee as a Christian website?
	No!
	I mean, they think of it as a parody website.
	It's not a Christian website.
	I would call it...
	Operated by Christians and share a Christian viewpoint on the world, but it's not a Christian website.
	So, I mean, that gives you an idea how nuts that is.
	But this is going to be part of this sort of...
	I mean, Pouchard is doing DeSantis a disservice.
	I mean, all this, it's totally...
	Again, if you support DeSantis, do so on grounds of, I think he'll do this policy.
	I think he'll get this done.
	That should be your argument.
	Don't go around attacking Trump supporters.
	And you can defend DeSantis against Trump attacks.
	That's fine.
	But you'd be better off ignoring those Trump attacks, quite frankly, from a political strategic perspective.
	Talk about what you're for.
	Talk about how you're going to change things.
	Talk about how the specifics, the platitudes and the Twitter spaces was not the most persuasive or compelling breakdown as the people on the Lotus Eaters and as you talked about.
	Personally, I think DeSantis is a dead man walking.
	It's a zombie campaign that has almost no utility except to hurt Trump at this point and destroy his future career.
	But, you know, people can find out whether I'm right or wrong in a year or so.
	We'll see.
	As I've told the DeSantis supporters, if you want to bet me, go ahead, because I've concluded a good number of the social media ones are too dumb to be allowed to keep their money.
	I usually try not to take money from mental defects, but I might make an exception in the case of DeSantis supporters.
	But putting all that aside, this is just very problematic behavior by the Babylon Bee.
	I don't want to see the right...
	I was critical of Jordan Peterson and others when they tried to gatekeep on the right.
	Same with Brett Weinstein when they tried to gatekeep on the IDW.
	When anybody does this, I'm against it.
	And I've always been against it because it...
	It's celebrating cancel culture at any level.
	You can be critical, people.
	That's fine.
	I think Nick Fuentes is bottom barrel scum, but I still publicly debated him.
	Now, when his Groyper grouping started to raid the Twitter chat to make life miserable, then I had to block him, but that's his own fault.
	They don't have people who are so uncivil that they make everyone else's life miserable to have a discussion.
	But don't get into the business of canceling people, of getting people fired, of getting people removed from social media, or any of it.
	And it's embarrassing, humiliating, and disgraceful, and unchristian.
	That's going to be the defense of Seth Dillon and the Babylon Bee to fire somebody over speech.
	And I'll say this.
	I don't agree with firing anyone over Twitter publicly.
	You think you're making a point by how much power you have to publicly humiliate somebody.
	I was saying Seth Dillon was like, Almost felt like he was getting inspired by Elon Musk.
	And as much as I'll compliment Elon when he deserves it, firing people publicly, it's something you do to show how much power you have as an ego trip.
	It's like, oh, look how smart, witty, and powerful I am.
	Take your B out of my body.
	It was as though he was channeling Elon Musk, which fits parcel and parcel with everything that's going on.
	And even if Wax did something worthy of being fired, you do it privately, you do it courteously.
	And it makes everybody look better.
	Whether or not you even think the sanction was appropriate, it was one F-bomb.
	And there's been other people at the B that have used F-bombs in their bios and whatever.
	Even if you think he deserved to get fired, it's not how you do it.
	It's illustrative or demonstrative of an arrogant asshole.
	I mean, he disclosed a side of him that nobody had seen before.
	And that was directly contrary to the entire branding of the Babylon Bee.
	The Babylon Bee went from being a small parody publication to a substantial one based on cancel culture arguments.
	Where Dylan was the lead one making it.
	And now to turn around and be a champion of cancel culture?
	And, I mean, I asked him straight up, are we supposed to think it's a coincidence that DeSantis is paying you?
	He didn't answer.
	And I was like, well, isn't this standard when you're saying you fired someone because you find their offline non-employment conduct offensive?
	I mean, I was like, that's the definition of cancel culture.
	Conservatives argue with me, and I was like, look, you just disagree with what's offensive.
	The left fires someone because they think they're racist, they think they're sexist, they think they're homophobes, they think they're transphobes.
	They're firing them based on conduct outside of employment that's based on their speech that the person finds offensive.
	You can't say, well, it's okay for cancel culture as long as you're doing it in the name of Jesus.
	Sorry, that doesn't work.
	It's not just that there was nothing even offensive about using the F word, especially in the context of a Babylon Bee.
	I was just re-listening to John Ronson's, the chapter on Justine Sacco from You've Been Publicly Shamed.
	So You've Been Publicly Shamed.
	It's like, it wasn't, you know, a stiff suit, tie-wearing person that, you know, went nuts on Twitter.
	This is freaking Babylon B using an F word.
	Nothing shocking whatsoever.
	Robert, before we get into the next topic, I got to catch up on the rumble rants.
	Before we do this, oh my goodness, now there's going to be more.
	Mr. Ghost, per Twitter space, Seth Dillon, Gavin had a pattern of this behavior, but no evidence for the firing.
	Pattern.
	He's allowed to be saucy.
	That's his job.
	Jack Flack, they want to attack Trump's support, including an entry required question.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com where you can support us.
	Everything seems all over the place.
	Is there a formal procedure or can I now write my own letter of Mark?
	I'm asking for a friend.
	I'm not answering that question.
	Ask Crime Attorney, which is Little Rock from YouTube.
	How you doing, Little Rock?
	Welcome to Hrumble.
	I think DeSantis actually stabbed Trump in the back.
	Had Trump not backed him, he would not have won governor.
	He should have backed Trump and ran in 2028.
	Only vote DeSantis in general.
	Retired geek, I was listening to a podcast with Eva Chipiak.
	This is from Canada.
	She was during the Ottawa convoy.
	And they spoke about her final question to Trudeau in the Emergencies Act inquiry.
	When did you become afraid of Canadians?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	We'll see.
	They claim that they took out the budget for the agents.
	I mean, they only cut the budget by like 2% or something, the IRS budget.
	I mean, the debt ceiling, it was always going to capitulate.
	It was a game of chicken.
	You knew they weren't going to go through with it.
	I'm surprised that people are surprised that they ultimately did chicken.
	Of course they're going to do chicken.
	They're too scared to know what it means in the marketplace if they don't do the deal.
	So they're always going to do a deal.
	And this is where your generic Republican is unpopular.
	What did McCarthy end up fighting for?
	To make sure those 51-year-olds getting food stamps do a work test first.
	Don't want those 51-year-olds getting any free food stamps.
	I mean, this is why ordinary working class people could give a rat's ass about your generic Republican.
	That's what they fight for on the debt ceiling.
	Unbelievable.
	I'll just read this one.
	Okay, now I have to read it.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney.
	Butterfly, I love this show.
	It's not just chitchat.
	Lots of important information.
	Thank you.
	And Arkansas Crime Attorney, I am a little like Robert.
	You show me your true colors after lying.
	Or leading me the wrong way, I will not trust you again.
	Nor should you.
	You can never trust a liar again.
	The liar's curse is not that he can't believe others.
	It's that nobody can ever believe him again.
	Which is why it's so important to make sure to speak the truth.
	And if you make a mistake, flipping correct yourself publicly, unapologetically.
	Correct yourself louder than the mistake was.
	That's my motto.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, Robert, the next one you're going to have to talk about.
	On the better news, yes, this week.
	So sad news with, I think, what the DeSantis campaign is, I think, and what Babylon Bee did.
	But a couple of white pills came from the Supreme Court of the United States this week.
	Two unanimous decisions in effect, though one of them they got there by different ways.
	A minor decision that just clarified under Rule 50 that if you, for lawyers out there, the ones mostly interested in this, you used to have to bring, if you brought a summary judgment, And you lost it and you went to trial.
	You had to renew it all over again after trial.
	Never made sense because summary judgment motions almost by definition are about issues of law, not about issues of fact.
	Supreme Court clarified that now you don't have to bring it after the trial, that you've preserved it.
	If it's a legal question, then you don't have to renew it under Rule 50. So that was a unanimous decision written by Justice Barrett.
	Now, of course, what decision compelled them to get involved in that?
	A $700,000 verdict against some cops who beat the crap out of somebody.
	That's when the courts really get concerned.
	Oh, that sounds like an excessive verdict.
	I'll get to that rant at the end with a bonus about the Seventh Circuit.
	Or Seventh Circus, as they should be called.
	Or some would say.
	But the two big decisions were on the EPA and on the seizure for unpaid taxes.
	So we'll get to the simpler one first.
	This was a case, remember, we talked about that old lady in Minnesota?
	Yeah, where they seized a several hundred thousand dollar piece of property for a $30,000 debt and then claimed, well, the property was worth the debt.
	And so it's, wash our hands, kiff kiff.
	What states had begun to do is they had redefined property law in such a way that they would consider you to have forfeited or abandoned your property rights if some regulation wasn't followed or some tax wasn't paid.
	So that they were stealing the equity in your home.
	So in some cases, you could have a $1,000 property tax bill and they could steal a million dollar home and keep the whole million bucks.
	So finally, the Supreme Court took this up.
	They should have taken it up a long time ago, but at least they finally took it up.
	This was an old lady in Minnesota.
	She had a $15,000 debt.
	They seized the $50,000 they sold the home for.
	Because by the way, they always sell the homes for cheap.
	That's one of the ways you get scammed.
	That's why I tell people, you know, in the tax context, you want to figure out every way to defend yourself because one of the ways they scam you is they'll seize your property and sell it at dirt cheap prices.
	So you get whacked twice.
	You have to pay the tax, plus you lose the real equity in your value.
	But here they were doing it even worse.
	They were stealing the equity too.
	And they claim that she'd abandoned the property and forfeited her right to title the property by owing tax on the property.
	And the Supreme Court said, no, that's an obvious taking.
	You're taking somebody's private property.
	You can't redefine title, redefine abandonment, redefine forfeiture to say that basically to strip people of their property unless you compensate them under the takings clause.
	Unanimous decision, great decision that protects against a whole bunch of lawless state actions across the country, invalidated all kinds of laws and protected homeowners.
	So that was great to see.
	Really renewed, taking jurisdiction in a broad way that's one of the better areas where the Supreme Court is developing law.
	Just remind me, what were the lower court decisions?
	Did they have to overturn something?
	So like it's sort of a white pill, but also...
	So, I mean, at some point they say like, holy crap, unanimous, which I don't always take as a good sign, but in certain cases, yes.
	They had to reverse it because the lower court system is so fundamentally screwed that sometimes you need to...
	That's good.
	That's not a white pill, Robert.
	That's a black pill.
	Debbie, Viva Downer.
	Well, it was a black pill that became a white pill.
	I don't know.
	The lower court system is so wonky that you're flipping a coin even in the best of circumstances.
	That part's bad.
	Yes, I agree.
	But now they won't have that excuse anymore.
	Then the big case in the EPA case, what had been happening is when the EPA Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers enforces the Clean Water Act.
	The Clean Water Act was designed to only govern the navigable waters of the United States.
	At different places, they used the words waters of the United States in the statute, rather than navigable waters.
	Now, this history derives from the Commerce Clause, which is that the federal government has the right to make sure that on any waterway that there's interstate shipment, that there's no blockage.
	And that's it.
	Otherwise, water is controlled by the state level, local level.
	It was considered a right retained by the people and through their state governments, not forfeited to the federal government.
	In the 1970s, they passed the Clean Water Act, which used the same language as it had always been used in terms of navigable waters of the United States.
	Primarily, some places just waters of the United States.
	And what happened over the next 40, actually 50 years...
	The EPA continually expanded the definition of it by regulatory administrative fiat, effectively, to where it governed everything.
	That it governed pretty much all land.
	Because if the land impacted water, then somehow the EPA could govern it.
	To give you an example of the case that went up before them, because the case had been fought for almost 20 years, already going up back into the Supreme Court as to whether they could file suit in the first place, an outstanding suit.
	And what happens if, you know, a couple buys a property and they're just going to, you know, fill in the dirt to be able to build their house.
	And the EPA said, nope, you could be subject to five years in federal prison and $40,000 a year fines unless you return it back to where it was because we're going to call that a wetland.
	They're like, how is that a wetland?
	Well, because the dirt was connected to a ditch, which was connected to a creek, which was connected to a lake.
	That's how attenuated.
	EPA power had got.
	It became a de facto local zoning board at the federal governmental concentrated level.
	And so finally, the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a split decision where Kennedy had written this, you know, classic Justice Kennedy, had been the concurring opinion where he wrote this, you know, basically said, you know, if there's kind of a connection and there's a substantial nexus and...
	All this nonsense that basically became an unmanageable and unsustainable rule.
	So the Supreme Court finally took up the case.
	Now they had five votes to set it aside and say, you know, navigable, the waters of the United States means, you know, the lakes, the rivers, the creeks, the streams that it has traditionally met.
	And wetlands only include land, water that's so connected and continuous to those others.
	That you can't distinguish between the two.
	And it does not apply to people's backyards.
	It does not apply to an ordinary homeowner.
	Which was a great ruling.
	The concurring opinion by Justice Thomas with Justice Gorsuch was great.
	I agree with it because it emphasized that the real history of the law is supposed to be only about unblocking Commerce through making sure the interstate waterways are navigable.
	That's the long history.
	And they go on to point out the Commerce Clause jurisdiction has got way too far.
	When it's anything that could affect something, it's effectively eviscerated the requirement that it be commerce and that it be interstate.
	That now, whether you farm and you're back...
	What you farm is governed.
	As the Amos Miller case has shown, what food you eat at your home is somehow governed.
	How is this interstate commerce?
	It's not.
	Thomas and Gorsuch were right that that needs to be re-evaluated entirely.
	Now, just a concurring opinion.
	The other justices weren't willing to go that far.
	No surprise.
	Barrett's a wuss.
	Roberts is a wuss.
	Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion with the three liberals trying to reinstate Kennedy's own rule.
	Luckily, he lost.
	All nine justices agreed it was too far to apply it to this person's backyard.
	But what they disagreed on was whether Kennedy's rule should apply or whether that was an unmanageable rule and never constitutional in the first place.
	Luckily, the five justices clarified the EPA can't regulate your backyard anymore.
	They've got to stick to the actual Bain waterways that they're supposed to be governed.
	And I think ultimately, depending on where they go, the court should go in the direction of Gorsuch and Thomas to say, we need to dramatically restrict the definition of interstate commerce so it could never reach somebody's backyard in the first place.
	So the EPA can't be your local governing, your local You know, zoning board is effectively what they were becoming.
	So a great ruling.
	Robert Kennedy Jr. was unhappy with it because he's a big wetlands advocate, which I empathize with advocating for wetlands.
	Where I disagree with him is he should stick to what he has said in the climate change context, where he has changed his position and said a top-down approach is a bad approach and will be co-opted by the World Economic Forum for an agenda that's anti-person.
	The same is true here.
	The EPA should not be the one regulating this.
	The Constitution didn't give them that authority.
	In my view, Congress didn't really give them that authority.
	Nor could Congress have done so constitutionally.
	And if he wants to protect wetlands, it should be done at the state and local level, not at the federal level.
	So it's a place where I disagree with Robert Kennedy.
	But I thought it was a great decision from my perspective.
	Do it at the state level and also make it so that it's...
	Economically incentivized for people to protect wetlands.
	In Canada, they sort of financially incentivize protection of salmon spawning because you charge enough to get people doing it.
	You'll get people protecting the spawning rivers of salmon.
	That's it.
	State level, locally, and financially incentivize people or allow it to become something of an industry.
	Little D Democratic.
	The local people get to control what they want for their local environment.
	Robert, I'm excited to get to the Paxton impeachment.
	We have to go through Cary Lake first.
	Oh, a briefcase to show you how dangerous the Clean Water Act can be.
	A decision came out of Montana where the firefighters had been sued for using fire-retardant chemicals to stop fires, forest fires.
	They were sued because the people said, you haven't got your Clean Water Act permit yet.
	Can you imagine?
	And they admitted it takes two and a half years for even a government agency to get another government agency to give them a permit.
	So they're supposed to wait two and a half years while fire just burns everything up?
	This is just saying, so they're putting out an urgent crisis, which itself would have environmental impacts, and they're using this fire-retarded substance, which itself has environmental impacts.
	And then suing on the basis that the stuff that they used to put out the crisis-inducing fire has environmental impacts.
	Okay.
	Makes sense.
	And what was the outcome?
	It doesn't sound good.
	In fact, it's unlawful for them to use to fight fires without a permit from the EPA.
	Luckily, the court said, but I'm not going to issue an injunction because it's probably worse to have a bunch of forest fires.
	Well, at least they figured that part out, but that shows you how nuts the law had become.
	Do they need to get a permit for collecting navigable waters if they want to dump water on it?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Because people don't know the word pollutant includes things like dirt, rock.
	Things that are not what you and I would think of as pollutants.
	So that's why the wetlands jurisdiction is so broad.
	Somebody in the live chat at vivabarnslaw.locals.com mentioned that, of course, this issue impacts things outside of the EPA, which is absolutely true.
	It impacts not only the Army Corps of Engineers, but there's been analogous provisions being used by other federal agencies basically to control everybody's everyday life under the guise of...
	I think they should be canceled for referring to it as retarded.
	It's only going to be a matter of time before that word is going to be a taboo word as well.
	I shouldn't try comedy.
	I'm not good at it.
	So they can still use the fire retardants in the interim, but they have to apply for regulatory approval?
	Yes.
	That decision was issued right before...
	But the Supreme Court decision wouldn't impact that decision because some of that clearly does go into waters and creeks.
	But that gives you an idea of how crazy the law had got and how crazy the law is and needs reform.
	And where environmentalism, like public health, is often a pretext for mass power grabs.
	As to his credit, Robert Kennedy now acknowledges, he said his view about climate change solutions.
	It changed when he saw what happened in the pandemic and that he no longer favors any kind of quote-unquote top-down approach.
	So credit to him for his willingness to revise his position on that.
	I think where he's mistaken here on the wetlands issue is this should be a local issue.
	It shouldn't be controlled.
	He should have used the same bottom-up approach on wetlands that he does on the rest of climate change.
	The EPA has not used this in a way that's meaningfully helped the environment.
	In my view, as much as it's used as a power grab over things like personal homeowners who could go to prison for five years if they simply were negligent in not getting an EPA permit before they fix their pond in their backyard.
	That's how nuts this was.
	RFK is sensitive to what appears to be regulatory capture at all levels.
	Robert, I want to read a few more Rumble Rants because I need to address...
	Arkansas Crime Attorney.
	The joke here is I never give financial advice, legal advice, no advice.
	And I was just saying, I would not buy Rumble only because I don't want to create any even impression of impropriety.
	But if I were not exclusive with Rumble, I would have bought their stock up a long time ago.
	So the joke here, there's no financial advice whatsoever.
	But good for you, Arkansas crime attorney Little Rock.
	Thank you.
	Could Robert address the Pork versus California Scopes case?
	I believe all parties treated the same in and out of state.
	Is that correct, Robert?
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, we move on to Carrie Lake.
	So Carrie Lake, she lost her case.
	What's the connection between that and the case we just discussed?
	The last name Lake.
	Oh, okay.
	I was going for a corrupt criminal, or a corrupt justice system.
	You can do that.
	Corrupt government officials too.
	All right, so...
	Robert, we have to play.
	There's a game called, not Scattergories, but where you have to connect things based on the common denominator.
	Carrie Lake lost her challenge.
	It's going to go to appeals.
	Robert, you're going to need to give some white pill, silver lining to the people who are black-pilled here because we all knew it was coming.
	It was coming.
	I don't like the silver lining as well.
	At least you didn't get...
	Sanctions imposed, which is great.
	Whoop-de-doo.
	The order came down.
	It's a five-page order.
	It basically says that they didn't provide preponderance of evidence or convincing evidence that the alleged signature verification issues, it would have impacted the outcome, but no sanctions.
	Whoop-de-doo.
	What do you think of that, and what are the chances on appeal, given what I humbly understand to be...
	Well, I agree with Rachel Alexander, who we interviewed on Wednesday.
	The trial court's decision was a wuss decision, though it was predictable given his history and the history of the Arizona trial courts and election cases and judges in general in election cases when it concerns a political outsider.
	The judge did not dispute the facts that Carrie Lake proved.
	Which is that, you know, there was 100% approval rate of signatures approved in less than 2 seconds of over 70,000 signatures, which is more than 3 times the margin of victory in the case.
	Or that there were another 240,000 signatures approved at a 99% rate, 99.8 or whatever it was, in less than 3 seconds.
	Which, of course, is more than 10 times the total number of margin of victory in the case.
	So that, by my view, met the legal standard for setting aside the election.
	So how did the judge get around it?
	The judge said, well, there's no specific statute that says how long signature verification has to occur.
	That was his only excuse.
	And I was like, that's got to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard.
	So even if we all know voter verification did not occur, signature verification did not occur, even if it was 0.1 seconds, It was less time than the Boston Celtics used to beat Miami Heat last night to go to Game 7. Amanda Milius was crying about it.
	I was enjoying those tears as a Celtics fan, watching a Lakers fan be sad about basketball.
	It's always a little bit delish, delish.
	The great director of The Plot Against the President, good movie to see in light of recent events in the Durham Report, if you want fuller context of that.
	She's, of course, the daughter of one of the great all-time American movie film directors.
	But 0.1 seconds is voter verification, is signature verification, is comparing the signatures.
	I was curious how the judge would get around that, and he just really didn't even...
	Try to defend it beyond, well, it's not in the statute, so I'm going to pretend that's good enough.
	It's not in the statute that the verification must require X amount of time.
	Which no statute is.
	You can't play out.
	Now, what this shows is the need.
	I'm glad the judge, in a certain respect, I'm glad the judge put it this way because it tells us this is why Carrie Lake's case was so important.
	Number one.
	Unveil the facts of what really happened in the election that we otherwise would not have known, but for her courageous willingness to take on the case, while others were attacking her for doing so.
	On the second side, make good law and show the path for legislative reform to make the law even better, and in the interim, develop procedural mechanisms to use the law to your benefit for the next election.
	And she achieved all of those things.
	She documented the facts of what really took place in the election, all the problems with chain of custody, all the problems with security machines, all the problems with signature verification.
	She also made good law in establishing your right to sue over signature issues after an election, not having to sue before an election, and has established the need for legislative reform to make clear what signature verification must include, which in the future, it does need to say, X amount of time.
	Basically, unless the legislature makes crystal clear all the conditions in terms of election integrity, they won't be followed and enforced by the courts.
	She's also revealed again the need to reconsider what form decides these matters.
	Should we have the courts decide these matters?
	Or should actually election contests go to state legislatures instead?
	As one could argue the Constitution anticipates, at least in the presidential context.
	And so I think she's revealed that.
	And the white pill moment, the judge was not so corrupt that he was going to issue sanctions.
	He denied all the sanctions requests.
	Said it was a serious, thoughtful complaint that people just had there.
	Because he knew what he was doing.
	I made crap up just to get out of this.
	I'm not going to sanction her for the crap I made up.
	But the world white pill is how Carrie Lake responded.
	Not only is he going to continue with an appeal, but more importantly said, okay, as long as these are the rules.
	Then we're going to start going out and making sure we take advantage of these rules better than Democrats do.
	Because the only time the courts or the election officials are actually going to start enforcing these rules is when it no longer disproportionately favors one side over the other, particularly Democrats over Republicans.
	So that was her answer to all of us.
	Like, these are the rules?
	Fine.
	We're going to create one of the bigger mail-in and voter turn out the vote.
	And we'll see how they like it then when it's our side filling up the ballot box with ballots that they don't want to have counted.
	And so that's the white pill part is Carrie Lakes refused to respond to any opposition with resignation.
	She's continued to respond with smart, strategic, forcible, meaningful.
	Impactful, consequential resistance.
	So she is herself an example and a template of how you should handle these things.
	And credit to her for doing so.
	My only contribution to this is the judge says, you know, there's no minimum requirements of time or whatever, but they still had their criteria of verification, like four or eight things that you had.
	So there was no time set, but there was a process set that was simply not followed, period.
	No, it's the point I keep making.
	Garrett Archer keeps pretending that you can do these in 0.1 seconds.
	No, you can't!
	My point is simple.
	Why is it there's such a discrepancy between how the same election officials verify signatures on a petition for a candidate or cause they don't like versus mail-in ballots that they do want to count?
	I mean, they can't explain that.
	Lack of equal protection.
	And you're right.
	If they follow the same guidelines, then it has to take more than 0.1 seconds.
	It has to take more than 1 second, more than 2 seconds, more than 3 seconds, more than 10 seconds.
	It has to take probably on average at least 30 seconds per signature review to actually follow their own rules for signature matches.
	And he basically discarded that as almost as if it was discretionary.
	And it makes a joke of the law, what he interpreted it to be.
	Now, maybe the Arizona Supreme Court will, at some level, draw back on what he said, or maybe they'll run and hide and do what courts love to do in politically controversial cases, which is find the nearest desk to hide under.
	No, no, they'll walk it back, and then they'll go after Carrie Lake for having said, well, we're going to break the law now, because they say, oh, no, it was wrong.
	We can't undo that.
	But if anybody does it going forward, so next election, we're going to sit there, we're going to take 30 seconds to verify all eight points of signature, and we're going to disqualify 10 to 15% of the ballots, and Katie Hobbs is going to be re-elected in the landslide victory.
	Oh, okay.
	Robert, I don't know what my problem is.
	Every white pill that you try to present here, I see the black pill too.
	Alright, now speaking of black pills, Ken Paxton, the governor of Texas, Attorney General.
	Attorney General.
	I'm an idiot.
	Was actually impeached.
	But Robert, here's the thing.
	Impeached and impeached on bribery and abuse of power.
	I've gotten so black-pilled cynical now that I take for granted.
	The charges are bogus, but I'm trying to look it up.
	What were the actual bribery and abuses of power?
	And then I get even more cynical when I can't find a quick answer to that, because it seems that if the abuse of power and the bribery is so egregious it leads to the impeachment, I should be able to find that answer quickly.
	What is he alleged to have actually done specifically by way of bribery, which has a legal term?
	What did he do?
	Basically, they accused him of using his office to do favors for donors.
	That's the short summation.
	The problem they have is an independent law firm investigated the case and cleared him of it.
	So, why are we here?
	We're here for two reasons.
	Ken Paxson has used the Attorney General's office in Texas.
	Politically, more effectively to challenge a range of institutionally corrupt actors at the government and corporate level more than any attorney general in recent memory anywhere, maybe in history.
	He led the effort to challenge the 2020 election to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	He announced just a week or so ago that he was opening an investigation into whether Pfizer and Moderna made false representations and engaged in other public conduct that was bad as to COVID-19 vaccines.
	That may be the chronology tipping all of these things.
	He's leading the effort against the Biden administration in a wide range of contexts in not only immigration, but also other areas, including discriminatory policies as to guns, discriminatory policy on issues of race and farming, and discriminatory policies as to education, and as to illicit censorship efforts.
	And so he's been the lead on almost all these kind of cases, and he's been one of the most successful.
	At doing so.
	And so from the beginning, he's had the Obama administration try to go after him on bogus securities charges.
	That case went nowhere.
	Then inside his office, the problem is that all these attorney general's offices, you have a bunch of career people who work there.
	Usually 90% of your attorney general's offices, district attorney's offices, are filled with careerists.
	And the problem is they're all overwhelmingly...
	Professional class, either corporate Republicans or liberal Democrats.
	So they don't like Paxton at all.
	And they don't like using their legal skill for populist causes.
	And so what happened is several of them, quote-unquote, blew the whistle, which was hogwash.
	They tried to dig up dirt on him while working for him.
	He figured out what they were doing and canned him.
	And so they filed a bogus whistleblower claim that the state legislature is going to write a huge check to them for as payoff for them trying to help create a factual basis to out them.
	But this gives you an idea how the Texas legislature knows how weak their claim is.
	The Texas House refused to include a bunch of the exculpatory information, refused to allow him to testify on his own behalf, refused to allow any cross-examination of the witnesses against him.
	Basically refused all the process of adversarial process that we use to adjudicate truth in America.
	Robert, this sounds a little bit like the Alex Jones trial coming out of Texas.
	I mean, the thing is, I was not following it this closely, so my skepticism now feels justified.
	How do they prevent him from actually testifying?
	Well, I mean, the Speaker of the House, and by the way, these are mostly Republicans, establishment Republicans in Texas.
	People can go back to watch the sidebar with Rachel Alexander.
	The problems in Arizona are present in almost every state, but they're really strong in Texas, where the establishment Republican Party is a old school, corporate, big oil, you know, Rick Perry style.
	The Republican Party.
	It is not a working-class hill country, East Texas, working-class Mexican-American Republican Party.
	It is at a voting level, but not in its representations.
	So the Speaker of the House is a notorious drunk.
	And if people doubt it, just go watch him handling the gavel during the speakers while he's on camera.
	So drunk, he can't say basic things correctly.
	The guy's drunk on his job.
	What's the person's name, Robert?
	I forget the guy's name.
	It's a weird name.
	It's like Dean Fieden or some nonsense.
	Okay, I'm going to find this.
	Okay, sorry.
	Keep going.
	I'm going to see if I can find this in real time.
	Dade Phelan, according to the chat at vevabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And so...
	The Texas State Legislature, I mean, to give you an idea, the Speaker of the House guy has done secret deals with Democrats, put Democrats in charge of committees, just shows that even you can have supermajority, and yet your populist voice is not heard.
	Trump came out and said, anybody who voted for the impeachment, he'll campaign against.
	That's a majority of the Republicans in the Texas State House.
	So there needs to be follow-up on that.
	There needs to be primary challengers against every single one of these candidates.
	Because what is they're accustomed to in Texas is they're accustomed to Lyndon Johnson-style politics.
	If you want some better detail as to what that was like, look at the various Lyndon Baines Johnson shows on America's Untold Stories with Eric Hunley and Mark Robert, which crossed the 10 million viewership threshold this past week.
	And to see what kind of politics was like under LBJ in Texas.
	And it's still that way in Texas.
	But I think it's to the shock of many ordinary Republicans.
	To give you an idea, George P. Bush, who was supposed to be the future Bush in office because he was half Latino, ran against Paxton in the last election.
	They thought with the Bush name and the Bush political machine in Texas that they would beat Paxton.
	Paxton beat the living daylights out of Bush.
	He lost by a 3-1, Bush lost by a 3-1 margin.
	So there's no question what the people in Texas, the ordinary Bay voter, wants.
	They want more Paxton, not more dimwit drunk speakers of the House running their state.
	But the drunk dimwits are so power hungry.
	That what they've done is they've come in and impeached him on short notice without meaningful due process of any kind, without adversarial process.
	They know their evidence is so weak, they're scared to allow cross-examination.
	Didn't even have direct testimony.
	I mean, there was even a Democrat who spoke out in the Texas House who hates Paxton, who said, this is a complete crock.
	This isn't anything like due process.
	I'm supposed to listen to all this hearsay and I'm supposed to make a judgment about it?
	Because you've got to be kidding me.
	So first of all, I'm yelling, the freaking dog is barking, and we're in a hotel.
	It's dog-friendly, but I still don't think people want to hear our dogs barking at the front door.
	Second thing, Robert, oh my goodness, I'm also laughing because I found this.
	This is not me, people.
	This is from news.
	I say, this is from news.
	I'm saying that it's tongue-in-cheek.
	12 News Now.
	Watch this.
	I thought I was watching something fake.
	Mr. Campbell, the amendment is acceptable to the author.
	Is there objection to the opposite amendment?
	The amendment is adopted.
	I'm not trying to be funny, Robert.
	I don't know if this person has a medical...
	He doesn't.
	That's the Speaker of the House.
	He's a drunk.
	But, Robert, there's drunk and there's drunk.
	I swear to you, there's...
	I'm sorry.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to play this again.
	This is Mr. Campbell, send them a member that is acceptable to the author.
	How are you?
	But that's blackout drunk.
	Did anybody understand what you just said?
	And this, by the way, has been happening repeatedly.
	What's the Texas legislature doing having this guy be the Speaker of the Texas State House?
	How embarrassing this is.
	I mean, basically every...
	Everybody who voted for this impeachment should resign from the Texas state legislature.
	He never went for office again.
	I refuse to believe that this person doesn't have a medical condition.
	He doesn't.
	To speak in opposition to the bill.
	I don't know.
	You can tell by the language.
	If it's neurological like Biden's.
	It changes.
	It's not like a drunk.
	It'll just be absence of words, sudden loss of memory, etc.
	Whereas here...
	That is...
	Because I'll tell you this.
	I can get tipsy.
	I can even get drunk.
	I've never been that drunk.
	I've been drunk drunk.
	I've driven blackout drunk until I had no memory of how the heck I drove home.
	Don't say that, Robert.
	People talking to me didn't have any idea that I was drunk.
	I mean, that's the guy that led the effort to impeach the Attorney General.
	But Robert, led it.
	I mean, they destroyed it.
	It was 120-something to 20-something.
	Let me just say, the number was 121 to 23. That's how bad the Texas State House is.
	But it also tells you, is it a coincidence they're going after Paxton?
	Right at the time DeSantis, his campaign, people should be much more skeptical than people really pushing DeSantis because you're seeing these coordinated efforts.
	You're seeing things happen around the same time where any key person in a populist position, you know, James O 'Keefe taken out, Tucker Carlson taken out, DeSantis runs, and Paxton they're trying to take out.
	I mean, at some point, these quit being coincidences when these key Trump allies in positions of influence and power are being constantly targeted by the same overlapping groups.
	And I can tell you, as a matter of fact, key DeSantis supporters are the ones behind the Ken Paxton impeachment effort in Texas.
	I'm sorry, I just have to read.
	Bubba Conda says, Viva acting Canadian.
	He must have a disability.
	No, because I don't think I, like you say, Robert, I could be...
	Unconscious walking drunk and I will never...
	Never sound or look like that.
	But hold on.
	But it got destroyed in the House.
	Is the Senate going to overturn it or are they going to ratify it?
	No, they have to get two-thirds conviction in the Senate.
	He is suspended in the interim.
	He's not allowed to do his job in the interim.
	How does that make sense?
	At least when Trump was impeached, he still carried on his Trump.
	It's a Texas provision.
	So we'll see what Governor Abbott's up to and whether he's going to do the right thing or the wrong thing by who he appoints in the interim.
	But the belief is of the people I've talked to.
	That the state Senate is not nearly as corrupt as the Texas State House, and that they will reject the impeachment and Paxton will be back in power.
	Yeah, so I'm not going crazy.
	Paxton was the guy who went after cuties, Netflix cuties as well.
	Is he not?
	Let me just make sure.
	Where's my hammer, Robert?
	Paxton has led the effort on tons of controversial issues, and that's why he's been a constant target by Democrats, been a constant target.
	Like the other people, they said, by the way, these whistleblowers have been out there for years.
	They're like, the Biden administration hates this guy.
	If there was any truth to the allegations against him, they would have already indicted him.
	They've already shown no political limitation in how they'll weaponize the Department of Justice.
	It means the case is so weak that they know not to go near it.
	Like I said, independent law firm cleared him of all the factual allegations.
	So there's no basis to this.
	These are bogus, politically motivated, so-called fake whistleblowers.
	They're not really blowing the whistle.
	They're out to politically...
	To overturn an election because they don't like the fact that Paxton won so easily in 2022, crushing Bush family regime and then crushing the Democrats.
	Amazing.
	And people in the chat are just going crazy here.
	He criticized Pfizer, as did James O 'Keefe, and people are saying they're going to vote for Paxton.
	That is the timing.
	Two weeks ago, he announces he's going to open an investigation into Pfizer.
	All of a sudden, they launch an impeachment effort in the Texas State House.
	I just don't understand how much someone has to drink in short order to become borderline mentally deficient.
	Uphill Rider, what about fingerprint verification for signature?
	Good luck with that.
	Work on just voter ID.
	That would be the first thing.
	And I don't mean that to make fun of the question.
	It's a great question.
	At least in Canada, photo ID to...
	Two photo IDs and a corroborating piece of information, like a bill or a utility bill.
	Jack Flack, notice how DeSantis Trump infighting cooled down once the budget deal was reached.
	Give an idea who's pulling the strings.
	Alex Davey Duke, hey David and Robert, this is a $100 Rumble rant.
	Here is the 50% more I should have paid for the Las Vegas meetup.
	By the way, I was offered double for my ticket.
	We got first class event for econ class prices.
	Please charge more.
	Well, no, we're not going to do that.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Robert, I know the next one on the list.
	Hold on.
	Come on, crazy courts.
	Oh, my God.
	Yeah, I was going to say, I knew that I knew something independently about this one.
	Robert, it actually makes no sense.
	This is Rhodes.
	I forget his first name.
	Founder of the Oath Keepers.
	Stuart Rhodes.
	From Texas, by the way.
	Look, I read up on Rhodes way back in the day of the car vlog, and I was like, oh, this guy doesn't sound so bad.
	I mean, he's educated, he's served his country, and maybe he's a little bit pissed off as to what he sees happening to his country.
	Founder of the Oath Keepers, which I also did not determine was a terrorist organization or anything of the nature, he got found guilty of seditious conspiracy because he was going to cap the Capitol.
	building to overthrow the government but decidedly left all of their firearms in there i think it was a west virginia hotel because they didn't want to bring them hold on dogs and he himself never went into the capital he he and so he um the dogs are probably pissing and shitting all over this hotel robert we are going to be we're going to get dinged on i'll clean it up um We just got the Trump carpet.
	How much do you think it costs to fix the Trump carpet at the Trump Hotel in New York City?
	$1,200.
	$10,000.
	Someone is screwing you, Robert.
	Not you, not you.
	Donald Trump overcharging me.
	I don't know what happened.
	I don't even know that I want to ask.
	But Robert, so Stuart Rhodes, he does not look like...
	I'm almost scared to say it because I don't want to get accused of aiding and abetting or supporting terrorists.
	Oath Keepers, as far as I know, have never done anything terroristic.
	It's a militia group, and I now understand that militia doesn't mean the pejorative way that people use the term militia.
	Oath Keepers and Proud Boys accused of seditious conspiracy, had more infiltration by informants and FBI than potential participants.
	They were found guilty.
	Back in January of seditious conspiracy, which I'm thoroughly convinced if he asked anyone to define on that jury, they wouldn't be able to define it.
	But found guilty and sentenced.
	18 years in jail.
	He got 18 years.
	The woman got 12 years.
	And I, like Robert, I say like...
	People are criticizing Putin for jailing a journalist for 25 years, but ignoring what goes on in Ukraine.
	That's totalitarian regime, World War III, worth starting.
	And yet, I just keep forgetting, was Rhodes and the Oath Keepers, were they in Virginia or were they in D.C. for jurisdiction?
	Do you remember offhand?
	Well, I mean, all these cases were brought in D.C. So, 18 fucking years, Robert.
	The guy's old already.
	It's the rest of his life.
	Did nothing violent.
	Their biggest piece of evidence, and I'm sorry for swearing, but fuck it.
	I'm done, sorry, done.
	Their biggest piece of evidence was that he texted on January 10th, oh, I wish we had brought our guns with us.
	We would have ended it right then and there.
	That's their evidence of seditious conspiracy, where I say that's the evidence of, no, that was never their intent in the first place, because if it was their intent, they're not going to do seditious conspiracy and then leave their firearms in a West...
	That's right.
	They left their firearms in a West Virginia hotel so they wouldn't get into trouble.
	Tell me why it's not an egregious injustice that requires a pardon the second Trump or DeSantis become the president in 2024.
	Well, I mean, DeSantis says he'll take a look at it.
	He won't commit to pardoning anybody.
	Trump says he'll pardon everybody.
	The other aspect of this...
	These were railroaded charges.
	These are politically motivated prosecutions, politically prejudiced judicial and jury pools.
	Key evidence was excluded at the trial.
	Instructions on the law were, in my view, mistaken and incorrect.
	The seditious law.
	But what this should remind conservatives is the problem.
	Like, people wonder why I say don't.
	Call Antifa, label Antifa a terrorist organization.
	Don't label the cartels a terrorist organization.
	It's because terrorism law is a trap.
	It is designed to be misused and abused to target political dissidents.
	And I don't like it.
	If somebody's committing a crime, the fact that you think it's politically motivated should be irrelevant.
	That all that matters is the crime, and it should be prosecuted for the crime.
	That it is.
	It's political motivation.
	Same with hate crime, all these other things.
	I don't like them because all they do is make beliefs subject to criminal punishment.
	And now we are seeing this.
	The misuse of terrorism laws to go after political dissidents in the United States.
	And some of us warned the conservative movement that this would happen.
	And even Marjorie Taylor Greene and other people still running around, wanting to make Antifa a terrorist group.
	Because you want to make your political enemies a terrorist group, doesn't mean the other side won't do the same.
	So don't use terrorism laws.
	They're bad laws.
	Get rid of them.
	I forgot to mention he got the terrorist enhancement for his conviction.
	And by the way, I mentioned this in Canada.
	They labeled the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization.
	Why?
	They should get rid of seditious laws.
	Get rid of anti-terrorism laws.
	They're a crock.
	They're a joke.
	They're misused and they're abused.
	They just circumvent due process.
	They're politically motivated.
	They will not be used in ways that people think they will.
	We have laws on the books for every crime that exists.
	We have laws on the books for crimes that shouldn't exist.
	So, I mean, we don't need more laws to do this that empower the government to weaponize them against their political opponents, which is what's happening.
	The sedition laws should be scrapped from the books.
	A lot of the criminal conspiracy laws should be scrapped from the books.
	And the terrorism laws should be scrapped from the books.
	Let's go back and return to basic due process, basic criminal law.
	That we've had for centuries.
	And the misuse and abuse of power, whether it's the misuse and abuse of venue power, misuse and abuse of bail power, misuse and abuse of sedition laws, misuse and abuse of obstruction laws, misuse and abuse of conspiracy laws, misuse and abuse of terrorism laws, misuse and abuse of sentencing enhancements, all of which, the failure to have meaningful jury selection, the failure to have meaningful right to an impartial jury.
	All of these have been collectively and aggregately and individually exposed in the January 6th cases, which revealed the need for institutional reform so it can't be done in the future to anyone else.
	And I was on the fence.
	I'm not, I was not on the fence.
	I said, look, pardon for everybody for nonviolent crimes, but now seeing the sentencing.
	Even for those who committed violent crimes like the cop who pepper sprayed allegedly a police officer and threw a chair or something.
	We're talking life-ending sentences where you got your Molotov cocktail lawyers up in New York State getting their plea bargains reduced by initiative of the prosecutor.
	You're out in 10 months.
	Whereas Stuart Rhodes is going to die in prison.
	18 years.
	If there's not a promise of a pardon, that should be disqualifying for any candidate.
	GOP, I hope RFK says, you know, RFK!
	To his credit, he did talk about the Durham report in a very effective way, that it was a CIA deep state conspiracy to take out President Trump as a coup against him.
	But I agree.
	It would be good to see Kennedy go further step and say these January 6th cases.
	Like other cases in the political context, he has a lot of his allies.
	He's talked about the need to pardon Assange, the need to pardon Snowden, the need to pardon other whistleblowers.
	I think he should extend that to the political weaponization of these cases and January 6th cases.
	Now, I know this segues perfectly into the next issue, the next subject, but I'm going to screw up our segue, Robert, to bring up two rumble rants.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney says, reminds me of RICO laws.
	They passed them for good reason to get mafia and now used to get private doctors.
	I defended a doctor.
	I defended a doctor and kept him out of criminal court.
	End one.
	Add this to the list, Robert.
	Ignotum says, for your ability to say misuse and abuse so many times in a row without screwing it up.
	That's easy, misuse and abuse.
	Let Dade Thelen, Dade Thelon, try that one.
	And up, Britt Cormier.
	How much does someone have to drink in order to have become borderline mentally deficient?
	A, not much.
	I do not drink, but plenty of people will tell you I am mentally deficient.
	Britt Cormier, you're a member of our locals community, above average.
	Guaranteed.
	Now, Robert, the next one.
	What was the next one here?
	Hold on a second.
	Oh, yeah.
	Speaking of innocent men going to jail with excessive crimes.
	So, I was never following the Zachariah Anderson trial.
	And then I was on, I think it was...
	Not laid-back news, but America's Untold Stories, but Eric Hundley's panel on a noon on a Friday.
	And I had read an article.
	Oh, obsessed ex-boyfriend gets convicted.
	I was like, oh, okay.
	I mean, I'm not getting into it.
	I'm skeptical.
	And then everyone on the panel is like, everyone should know what went down in this trial.
	It's an absolute outrage, an absolute violation of every fundamental rule of justice.
	Excuse me.
	For those of you who don't know, and I didn't do a good enough job introducing the case during my interview with Solomon Anderson, Zachariah's brother, there's a guy named Rosario.
	A guy disappears.
	There's blood all over his apartment.
	Suspected dead.
	They never find a body.
	They never find a murder weapon.
	They have no idea what happened to him.
	They have no idea who did it.
	No cameras, no nothing.
	The ex-girlfriend of the now convicted person...
	She says she goes to visit on a wellness check because she hadn't heard from this guy that she'd only been dating for several months, maybe met him six times.
	Sees blood all over the place, calls the cops, says, I know my obsessed ex-boyfriend did this.
	This guy, Zachariah Anderson, is being investigated for months, was arrested and detained and held in jail on pretrial detention on stalking charges.
	Seven months into the investigation, they finally determined that a speck A literal speck.
	I'm looking for something small.
	Speck as small as a needlehead was found in the back of his minivan.
	An allegedly DNA match with the alleged victim who was so brutally murdered allegedly at his apartment.
	Blood everywhere, spraying all over the walls.
	Dude was 270 to 300 pounds.
	The allegation or the theory of the case is that this guy, Anderson...
	Wrapped him up in a carpet, stuck him in the back of his minivan, disposed of the body magically, no DNA, no nothing, no evidence, nothing.
	Except for a speck of DNA matching, they don't even know what the substance is, magically found in the back of the van after the carpet was pulled up in the back of the van for reasons unknown.
	No DNA, no nothing other than that.
	Robert, I don't know how much you knew of the case or how much of the interview you saw, but what's your take and what do you think?
	Well, I watched the whole interview.
	Very good interview with his brother Solomon.
	And I didn't, because I did not know about the case.
	And so for those additional background, this is a Kenosha case.
	This is District Attorney Mike Gravely.
	This is the same District Attorney who tried to put Kyle Rittenhouse in prison for life.
	It's the same District Attorney who, now he didn't prosecute the Rittenhouse case.
	He had Binger do it.
	Because it got politically hot for him, but he's the one who approved the prosecution in the first place because he's the DA in Kenosha.
	He was also the guy who went after the woman who killed the person who had been her trafficker and rapist for years.
	So this gives you an idea who this guy is.
	In the Zachary Anderson case, everything about it is your classic innocent guy in prison case.
	Somebody without a meaningful criminal record since he's 18 years old.
	Someone not involved in meaningful criminal activity beyond having some pot, carrying some pot in South Dakota or driving a car.
	Someone who did not even own a gun goes over and commits the perfect murder out of the blue.
	Even though there's traffic cameras all along the location between his home and the location of the murder scene, not one captures his van anywhere during the time frame.
	No one identifies him at the scene.
	No one ever saw his van, even though there were people outside his house, including a girl, waiting to go and see him.
	There's no DNA evidence tying him to the scene.
	The van, the minivan, they claim that he used to get rid of the body.
	It has no meaningful DNA in it beyond what you call this tiny little speck they didn't find until seven months later, which could have been easily from his, because his daughters with the ex-girlfriend, the daughters and the ex-girlfriend had been around the man who died.
	They could easily have small microscopic little bits of DNA they carried with him and ended up in his van when he drove the van with him.
	Just to correct one thing, I think they only identified the DNA after seven months.
	I think they might have had the speck from, you know...
	Into the investigation.
	I think not at the very beginning.
	At least it was initially found.
	Some of it, the testing took seven months.
	You're right.
	Part of that was the testing length of time.
	But they didn't find it at the scene.
	And I'm always very skeptical of DNA evidence that they magically don't find until later.
	Robert, I'm skeptical of how they discovered...
	It's a minivan.
	The speck is literally the size of the head of a needle.
	The eye of a needle.
	How do they even find it?
	It sounds like something that would come in by accident.
	Or, if it's an OJ case, something that was put there.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Basically, you're talking about a guy who, one, commits a murder out of the blue.
	That's very rare.
	Two, commits a near-perfect murder.
	He has the body missing, weapon missing, no witness evidence, no forensic evidence, no video evidence tying him to the scene at all.
	And the...
	And that just those two facts should scream highly unlikely this guy is guilty.
	And well, how does it happen?
	Because cops, notoriously in murder cases, have confirmation bias.
	If somebody tells them so-and-so did it and they buy it, that's all they'll look at.
	And they'll take any innocent piece of evidence and convert it into guilt.
	So he's in the construction industry, someone in the repair and remodel industry.
	So anybody that's in that industry.
	Goes and gets equipment.
	Goes and gets things like shovels.
	Goes and gets things like bleach.
	Things they use in their day-to-day business.
	We'll have chainsaws.
	We'll have fire pits that they use to get rid of excess garbage if they live on a big property.
	They'll have things like problems with their carpet if they're using their van for both family and work purposes.
	So they'll take out carpet because they spill things like gas fuel on them.
	They take all of those little things and aggregate it into a master murder mystery plan plot.
	Even though what's screaming is lack of evidence.
	And of course, if you have a fake case, the other thing you do is you go get a fake snitch.
	You go get somebody from inside prison and make up a story.
	And that guy makes up one of the lamest stories ever.
	And even then, he has to be coached so badly that Gravely is saying it from his mouthing the words to him before he testifies live on camera.
	By the way, the judge presiding over this case is the same judge presiding over the Rittenhouse case.
	But what I tried to tell people at the time was this judge is known as a bad judge most of the time, pro-prosecution judge most of the time.
	The only reason he wasn't in Rittenhouse is because he hated the protesters more.
	So normally he lets the police get away with whatever they want.
	He lets the prosecutors get away with whatever they want.
	And people remember he even did that in the Rittenhouse case.
	That's how bad his bias is in those cases.
	But in Rittenhouse, he hated the people who tore up his courtroom.
	So he saw Rittenhouse as more like a cop than he saw as a defendant.
	And consequently, he was more fair to Rittenhouse than he is to most criminal defendants in that courtroom.
	And he just defers.
	But even in Rittenhouse.
	He constantly wouldn't hold the prosecutor accountable for bad and clearly unethical and illegal conduct.
	And it's clear here that the prosecutor was literally coaching witnesses live from the stand, withholding evidence until the last minute that caused a mistrial at the beginning of the process.
	And the backstory is, why would the ex-girlfriend accuse him of this?
	They were in the middle of a custody fight.
	Right?
	So the question was, where were the kids going to be placed?
	Because they had been on and off for over a decade.
	And this is a common tactic in custody fights.
	You try to portray the other person as a stalker, as a domestic abuser.
	And, I mean, I get enraged at that because the fake allegations.
	Make judges unaware and unattuned to the real cases of abuse.
	You know, that's why I wasn't fond of people in the Stephen Crowder case trying to compare that to abuse.
	I was like, that's not what abuse looks like, folks.
	Don't get the two confused or you'll lose judges when a real abuse case is present.
	I had to deal with it all the time when I represented a lot of victims of domestic abuse in Tennessee and still do on a pro bono basis across the nation.
	So this looks to me like a clear case of an innocent man who's in prison who's been railroaded by a corrupt DA.
	And so I know that they're having difficulty getting appellate counsel, so I'll volunteer my time to help them on the appeal.
	I'm licensed in Wisconsin.
	They will still need to raise money for the cost of transcripts, expert review, and independent investigation.
	Because somebody, like, the thing with the way this death went down, it seems like a real fight.
	It's another reason to believe that Anderson wasn't the guy.
	Probably more than one person, by the nature of the injuries and the wounds.
	And then I found it very odd that they put the cell phone in the freezer.
	You know, that suggests somebody who's up to something else, probably someone that's more sophisticated in crime, that has committed murders before.
	And I think even the path that they were pursuing, like connected to people you owed money to or other stuff, is probably not, I wouldn't go that path.
	Probably somebody else.
	And my guess is probably somebody connected to the drug trade, the more serious drug trade.
	As in gangs, etc.
	Not pot people.
	And my guess is that it may have related to money and stolen drugs.
	And it didn't start out with a plan for him to die.
	It turned out that way because of how bloody everything was.
	But there's issues with the time frame, whether he died when they said he died.
	Their timeline makes no sense if you're going to accuse Anderson.
	All kinds of exculpatory evidence, but when you have a judge that won't enforce the Constitution, a prosecutor that's corrupt, police officers that are biased, witnesses that have been coached, then you can get juries to convict innocent men.
	And it appears Zachary Anderson is just the latest example, sadly, of an innocent man serving life in prison.
	And one of the things I also forgot to mention, the prison snitch, that Anderson was having a night terror and said, die, die, die in his sleep.
	And you saw the gravely, the prosecutor, saying it as the witness was saying it.
	And then after he woke up from his night terror, this prison snitch who was examined by the DA without any recordings, he says, I made him tell me, did you do it?
	And he looked me in the eyes and said, I did it.
	That was one thing.
	But also the burn pit, which they used to demonize, he burnt some clothing on.
	I was talking to his brother Solomon and he says, yeah, they found a couple of buttons from jeans and a partially burnt sock.
	And I was like, well, so they obviously found blood on the sock.
	I mean, otherwise, if you're just burning, not only if you're burning...
	I mean, it's exculpatory evidence.
	It's exculpatory.
	It's not evidence of burnt clothes with no ties to the murder whatsoever.
	There was nothing in the fire pit that tied to the murder.
	Nothing beyond that little speck.
	Nothing on the entire property that they searched multiple times that tied them to the murder.
	Nothing at the scene of the crime that tied them to the murder.
	Many things were never properly tested at the murder.
	Now, he does have strong appeal grounds.
	It's just Wisconsin courts are notoriously bad in criminal cases at overturning jury verdicts.
	So, I mean, the problem is the appeals courts are just like the trial courts.
	They're deferential to prosecutors, and they're even more deferential to juries and judges in murder cases where they don't meaningfully review the evidence and don't enforce rules of evidence in such a way to get...
	So he has an uphill battle.
	You know, 90% of criminal convictions are affirmed and upheld by the appellate courts because their appellate courts are more like a rubber stamp than a meaningful check on abuse of power by the lower courts and denial of basic law.
	And so that's why he has a real uphill battle.
	But I think they're on the right approach.
	You know, put together the best appeal, raise money for costs, but also raise money to do independent investigations.
	Because if you can prove who really did it...
	And present evidence of that, then that's often the best way for courts to finally deal with the fact they let a guilty man walk while they put an innocent man in prison.
	Now, Robert, if we have to wind this up in five or seven minutes, we've got four cases and two bonus cases, but these are pretty rapid fire.
	Okay, go for it.
	Go for it, but I do have to end this stream before we go to Locals Exclusively.
	To highlight Canada's new Nazi.
	And I'm saying that, I'm not even saying that jokingly.
	You're going to see this tweet.
	We're going to end with that.
	But Robert, go for it.
	Give us the rapid fire ones.
	So as people remember in Maine, the state passed a law that required healthcare facilities to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine.
	So when nurses sued, they said that it was an undue burden on employers because of the state mandate for them to accommodate religious objections.
	What happened?
	So then they sued the state and said, well, that's a First Amendment violation.
	The district court ignored that.
	To the credit, First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it and said, look, you're treating secular reasons for not getting the vaccine, medical objections, differently than religious reasons without meaningful explanation of that basis under strict scrutiny, as is required in this context.
	So they reversed, and now those nurses challenge on First Amendment grounds to the state's vaccine mandate.
	Effectively by its mandate on employers will now go forward.
	So that was a big, big win against vaccine mandates out of a surprising place, the First Circuit Court of Appeals on First Amendment grounds.
	The Vatican.
	So a trial is happening in the Vatican.
	People forget the Vatican is its own government, Vatican City.
	$350 million euro deal, or not dollar, but euros.
	In London, concerning London real estate, that has a high-ranking cardinal in its ranks.
	The high-ranking cardinal has been dismissed by the Pope.
	The Pope is constantly interfering in the trial and denying his cardinal basic due process rights of keeping evidence secret, not allowing evidence that would contradict key witnesses adverse to him to be disclosed, not allowing certain cross-examination to even occur, not allowing certain evidence to even be presented.
	And so here's a pope that likes to lecture the world on universal human rights, refusing to recognize the most basic human rights in his own Vatican courtroom concerning his own Vatican cardinal.
	To the credit of the Cardinal, he's been willing to challenge this and contest this in the court of public opinion, but the Pope has refused to follow basic rules that he preaches everyone else must follow in his own courtroom, what appears to be more cover-up of Vatican crime, treating someone as their scapegoat rather than get the real person responsible, which has been the modus operandi of the Vatican concerning the Vatican Bank, now going back to the days of Godfather III.
	Which talk about this in its own respects.
	But it's an interesting case to follow because the Vatican is its own government and interesting the Pope's hypocrisy in this respect.
	Shaquille O 'Neal.
	So he's being sued among other celebrities for the FTX debacle.
	They knew what they were saying was wrong and they were just pocketing money.
	Is he being sued for another NFT debacle?
	So he helped push This sort of virtual world, 3D avatar, interactive NFT with his son was involved, business manager was involved, and it ultimately didn't work.
	And now he's being sued for its failure, and it's all based on treating NFTs, tokens, cryptocurrencies as unregistered securities under the Securities and Exchange Commission laws.
	Now, I've never liked these laws.
	I mean, I think they should have been limited to stocks and bonds.
	They extended them to any form of investment contract.
	Now all you have to prove is that there's a common enterprise you invested in, in which you depended on somebody else's goodwill for its profitability.
	And that's just too broad.
	But it's going to catch everybody in the net of cryptocurrency and NFTs anytime it goes sideways because the courts and the government...
	Have taken a very aggressive anti-crypto stand through SEC laws, treating them all as unregistered securities.
	Courts have not provided a meaningful check to limiting the scope and scale of unregistered securities.
	To me, how this is even interstate commerce in many of the instances is also another question that's not answered by this broad, over-expansive definition of an investment contract governed by securities laws.
	But, you know, Shack's up against it and everyone else is up against it because they sort of got involved willy-nilly in this space without recognizing the risk that the government and the courts would relabel everything in unregistered security.
	And then you have all these liabilities that don't even matter as to whether what you were doing was honest or not.
	I tell you something, Robert, declining any form of crypto sponsorship might have been the smartest money.
	I say, if I don't understand it, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
	Even if I don't mind losing some of my own money like I did.
	No doubt.
	Up next will be Amazon is face scanning its employees and others.
	Part of Amazon Flex independent contractors who deliver Amazon products was requiring they do a face scan, biometric face scan, to match their driver's license and other aspects.
	They were gathering this biometric data for ulterior purposes.
	Wasn't disclosing...
	And getting in the informed consent of the employees involved.
	And under the biometric protection laws in Illinois, that is grounds to sue as there have been multiple other grounds to sue.
	And what I think it reinforces is the need to have biometric privacy protection laws like the kind that are in Illinois in every state in the country and at the federal level.
	Because it's clear that these big tech companies are using every pretext available.
	For those people who don't know, the government's now in that business.
	I came through an airport that required a biometric check for me to go through, a U.S. airport.
	And, you know, they were doing these face scans.
	And so that's coming.
	And we'll see it continue to be utilized.
	And they'll find every hook and...
	Crook means to get it.
	They'll probably use it to say, we'll stop illegal immigration with biometric checking and we'll need all of your biometrics to make sure you're not an illegal alien.
	That's how that's going to go.
	And other protocols like that that create these perilous precedents in the first place.
	But, you know, good that the lawsuit has been filed and brought about.
	The only other bonus cases, well, the one I talked about on Bourbon.
	So you can go there.
	The case of Bo Marvin versus David Holcomb, you can go to the Seventh Circuit.
	I was unlucky enough to get three Trump judges and even real unlucky enough to get two Bush Trump judges.
	So, I mean, what happened is a mother calls 911 for a wellness check on her 21-year-old son at the farmhouse, staying with his father, because he had been agitated in an argument with her.
	She just wanted to make sure that...
	Nothing was wrong.
	He wasn't suicidal or anything.
	Cops show up.
	They say, well, what crime did he commit?
	She's like, no, I'm fine.
	I got a little cut lip.
	No problem.
	Don't worry about that.
	I just want to make sure he's okay.
	The cops then extort her and say, we're not going to even check on him unless you tell us something that he did that caused the injury.
	In other words, you tell us he committed a crime or we won't see if your son is okay.
	Can you imagine being extorted like that as a parent?
	And she's like, well, again, I don't want anything.
	I just want to make sure he's okay.
	I'm fine.
	It's okay.
	He threw a chair.
	But, you know, that's it.
	So they use that as a pretext.
	They go knock on the door.
	He answers constitutionally.
	He doesn't have to.
	His father answers.
	He comes to the door.
	And he talks to the police right there.
	And they don't ask him anything about what happened.
	They start asking him questions that seem kind of weird to him.
	They ask, well, do you have a weapon on you?
	He goes, well, what do you mean?
	And his father reaches into his back pocket, takes out a box cutter, which you have on the farm on a regular basis.
	And as soon as they see he doesn't have any weapon on him, they immediately grab him from inside the house, throw him out of the house, jump on him, tackle him while he's on the ground.
	They jump on him.
	They tase him once.
	Then they stick the taser on him and stun him.
	And then they start with their closed fist.
	Pounding the daylights out of him and beating him up so badly that they themselves immediately call the paramedics when they realize how badly he's beaten up.
	Broken bone, broken parts of his body, so on and so forth.
	And so, of course, he brings suit for excessive force and unlawful entry.
	Because here's the law.
	You can't arrest somebody inside their own house.
	You can't even go an inch into someone's inside their own house without a warrant outside of extraordinary exigent circumstances.
	Exigent circumstances never should have been allowed in.
	The U.S. Supreme Court made it up.
	Our Constitution didn't allow it.
	They were very familiar with the doctrine.
	They didn't include it as an exception.
	But the Supreme Court said all those poor police, those poor prosecutors, particularly right-wing judges and justices, who bow and curtsy to cops and soldiers all the time, if they have the right uniform on, conservatives will throw out the Constitution in a quarter second, like they did here.
	And so what happens is, but by law, they couldn't arrest him inside the house.
	Exigent circumstances is you're in hot pursuit, even using this bogus exception.
	Supreme Court has admitted it's very limited.
	You're in hot pursuit.
	Somebody runs into the house.
	Somebody has somebody hostage inside the house.
	That's it.
	So they knew at the time they grabbed him, he was unarmed.
	They had not seen him commit any crime.
	No one wanted any crime to be charged against him.
	That he'd made no threats against them and had committed no violent acts against them.
	But they grab him, throw him out, and they created a new exception, according to these Bush-Trump judges on the Seventh Circuit.
	It's okay to arrest someone inside the House as long as you throw them out of the House first.
	That's the genius of these fakes and phonies and frauds on the Seventh Circuit.
	One of them wants to be on the Supreme Court.
	That ain't going to happen, pal.
	That's gone.
	You can ship that goodbye.
	The other judge, a district court, the head judge on the panel is a longtime George W. Bush politically connected judge, a judge that has connections to torture in Guantanamo.
	So you can take a wild guess, and Bush and Trump...
	Just signed off on any Federalist Society judge, and he is considered a prospect for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	His colleague is from the district court that was appointed by George W. Bush, the judge who co-wrote the opinion with Judge Barrett, loving Jacobson on pandemics, so you can guess what her position was on governmental authority.
	And there's one semi-decent judge on the panel who didn't ask any hostile questions, but we'll see if he has any cojones or courage in the end of the day.
	So I told my client before I got up there, Our worst scenario is if we get Trump judges or Bush judges, which people may be surprised.
	But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, conservatives don't care about the Constitution.
	Nine times out of ten.
	They're the worst.
	You're better off with liberal Democratic judges.
	That's just reality.
	Like, for example...
	Great trend in the Supreme Court this last month, Justice Jackson siding with Justice Gorsuch.
	For example, she wrote in a concurrence with Justice Gorsuch that excessive fines should also prohibit the government from taking people's property in excess of the value of what they are owed, saying that's punitive by definition.
	She's co-authored four concurring opinions with Gorsuch.
	The only one who actually cares about civil liberties on a consistent basis amongst the Supreme Court justices.
	But so here you have a case where it's...
	By the way, what did the three cops do in deposition?
	Do you think they admitted they threw him out of the house?
	They're like, oh, no, he was out of the house already when we arrested him.
	Unfortunately for them, there was photographic evidence that proved they lied.
	Here they committed perjury.
	Do you think the district court did anything about it?
	Do you think the Court of Appeals is going to do anything about it?
	Three cops lying under oath.
	No consequences whatsoever.
	And the reason why the seventh floor of the FBI got away with the Russiagate, got away with Ukrainegate, got away with what they're doing to January 6th defendants, is because conservative judges and conservative academics and conservative lawyers have been apologizing and excusing police and prosecutorial malfeasance and misconduct at the local level for decades.
	And this was an egregious case that never should have occurred if the court had any constitutional courage.
	The judge said, well, what would you have them do?
	I mean, here they have someone who might be mentally disturbed, who might do something wrong.
	What would you have these poor police officers do?
	I would have them obey the law and the Constitution of the United States of America.
	That's what I would have them do.
	And it's about time conservative judges start honoring all the Constitution, not just the parts they don't like or do like.
	So that's my rant on that topic.
	Oh, you're on mute.
	I'm on mute.
	Okay, Robert, I was going to say, what would they have them do?
	Leave.
	Come back if and when.
	He's like, go get a warrant!
	They could have got it in one minute!
	These are corrupt cops who knew what they were doing was breaking the law, tried to cover it up, and then they got away with it.
	They got away with it, and that's what I told the Seventh Circuit.
	And of course, they were shocked, because they're used to deferential lawyers and lawyers that they get to entrap.
	Half the reason for oral argument is for them to sucker you into making a concession.
	And they're like, wouldn't you concede this?
	And I said, the only question, I said, these cops were lying cops who violate the constitutional rights of an ordinary individual.
	If this is not excessive force, I don't know what is.
	If this is not an unlawful entry, I don't know what is.
	And they're all culpable for it in ways that the lower court tried to get them all out of by saying that if you didn't directly punch him, you're not liable, which is nonsense.
	If you're right there, you're liable because it's joint complicit responsibility and accountability.
	But I told them the lower court, let them get away with it.
	And the only question is, Seventh Circuit, I'm going to let him get away with it.
	And the judge is like, oh, that's dramatic, Mr. Barnes.
	No, that's the reality of the situation, judge.
	And it's obvious what they're doing.
	And it's a weak link of the conservative, legal, political side.
	This constant, continuous, undue deference.
	To police officers, to the military, to prosecutors.
	And it's what creates the problems we have today with the January 6th cases with the weaponization against Donald Trump.
	If you don't like that, you've got to start objecting at the local level, not just say, oh, police officer, I shall bow now.
	I shall abandon the Constitution now.
	Because that's not what our founding generation was ever for.
	Well, Robert, that is the perfect segue into what is going to end this stream on Rumble before we go to Locals.
	It's a tweet from one...
	Do we see this?
	We're all seeing this right now.
	I thought this was a joke.
	Let's just go all the way back to the beginning part of the Inception part.
	Without Papers Pizza says, I go to court in July.
	I've been charged with feeding a Canadian.
	Yep, I fed pizza to a Canadian.
	That was illegal because he didn't get jabbed.
	The Canadian can eat anywhere today.
	The, quote, law doesn't exist.
	Neither does my restaurant.
	They shut it down for feeding a Canadian.
	To which one Gail Vaz Oxlade, who apparently was born in Jamaica, very privileged, wealthy in that sense.
	Listen to what she wrote.
	I thought it was a joke.
	Imagine giving up all that hard work because you just didn't feel like following a law.
	If you treated employees like shite, laws would have stepped in to protect the rest of us, just as it did with COVID.
	You made choices.
	Stop whining like a baby.
	To which I have to say I love it.
	I did not like the movie 300, but I just loved when they said to that...
	I love 300.
	I'm getting cranky, Robert.
	I don't like movies anymore, but I like when they looked at the hunchback dwarf guy.
	They said...
	May you live forever after he just ratted out his friends.
	We were just following orders.
	We were just following orders.
	This is literally modern-day Nazism.
	Hey, all you have to do is do what you were told.
	Disgusting.
	Gail Vaz Oxlade, Mother Painter Gardener Memoir, according to the Book of Gail.
	Well, the only reason I want to know what your book says, or what the title is, is so that I know never to buy it.
	Ever again.
	Now, Robert, before I get in too much trouble, no one's here to get in trouble.
	I might have to steal that.
	We're going to end this on Rumble.
	We're going to go to locals very briefly.
	I'm going to let the kid come in the room so he can bother the locals crowd and not the Rumble crowd.
	Bother as in entertain.
	Are you not entertained?
	Okay, we're going to end this on Rumble.
	Thank you, Robert.
	Tomorrow, by the way, 5 o 'clock, I'm going to find another hotel to stay at.
	Gadsad is coming back on.
	He's going to talk about his new book, and we're going to catch up on...
	What has not been caught up on in a long time.
	What are we looking at here between all of us?
	Okay, I'm ending on Rumble.
	So that means I'm going to go to Rumble live streaming.
	Thank you all for being here.
	This was a banger, banger of an episode.
	Robert, your rant on what happened to your client shall be snipped, clipped, and republished for maximum exposure to the world.
	Go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Before I do it, I'm actually going to share the link for everybody.
	Right?
	Now, darn it.
	It's here.
	It's here.
	Go here if you want to see some more after-hours talk.
	And I'm going to end this on Rumble.
	Right now, Robert, thank you.
	Locals, people, we're coming.
	Ethan, you can come in!
	Ending the stream.
	Now, on Rumble.
	Okay, now we're on Locals.
	Let me just make sure.
	Ethan!
	He'll come in a bit.
	Alright, Robert.

▲