Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 11, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:25:07

Ep. 164: TRUMP'S FEDERAL INDICTMENT!!! and other law stuffs... Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's very interesting.
	Okay, so what do we got here?
	There's like a mini front within the front.
	Okay.
	I might be able to get a conversation with someone here.
	For those listening on podcast, we're watching a video of mine from Friday, where I attended...
	Okay, I'm going to try something right now.
	I'm going to try to have a discussion and see if we identify what the disagreement is.
	When engaging in a debate, one has to identify the debate questions.
	Let's go ahead.
	I went to an, call it an anti-trans rally, but it's more about not indoctrinating children in schools, elementary schools.
	Before I turn my camera around on you, would you mind talking to me?
	I'm asking a counter-protester to talk to me.
	I am a document...
	Well, I wouldn't say I support this now.
	Why wouldn't you talk to someone who doesn't support it?
	Because I don't need to, because you're wrong.
	But then why be here if you're not going to talk to anybody about it?
	I'm here for my son.
	Now, could you kindly fuck off?
	Well, I'm going to not move, but...
	Don't worry, you're not on camera.
	Well, first of all, you're in a public spot, but you're not on camera.
	Don't worry about it.
	Very polite.
	Not very polite.
	Could you kindly F off?
	Doesn't give permission to be on camera while protesting in public.
	There you have the logic, I think, that you might see more often than not on the other side.
	Kindly fuck off.
	I might have to put that on a shirt.
	Let's see who else we can get potentially to talk.
	How's it going?
	I was just told to kindly fuck off.
	I've never heard such an oxymoron in my life.
	Let's just appreciate what we witnessed there before we get into the lead story for today.
	I go to...
	It's called the Education Not Indoctrination protest that was put on by Josh Alexander and Billboard Chris, I think, organized.
	I'm not sure exactly who organized it.
	And...
	There were a bunch of counter-protesters there.
	Okay.
	Two of them talked to me.
	Only two.
	Everyone else either gave me the middle finger, told me the kindly F off, etc., etc.
	I went to a protester who looked like a reasonable human being, but I was quickly proven wrong.
	And I say, do you want to talk to me?
	And he says, well, do you support what I believe in?
	In more words than he said, do you support the trans movement?
	And I said, well, I'm here as a documentarian, but...
	I guess, no, I don't.
	I don't think this should be taught in schools.
	And then he says, then no.
	To which I said, why would you not want to talk to someone who disagrees with you?
	And he says, I don't need to because you're wrong.
	If that's your logic, whomever you were, what would be the utility in talking to someone with whom you agree?
	There could be nothing more useless than talking to someone with whom you already agree.
	What are you going to get out of that?
	My goodness, we're right.
	Yes, we are, Tim.
	We're right, Jim.
	Yes, we're very right.
	Right, right, right, right, right, right, right, right.
	Then he proceeds to tell me that he's there for his son and I would have had questions.
	All right, is your son, does your son identify as trans?
	Putting it in quotes.
	What's going on in your son's life that you felt the need to come counter-protest here?
	How old is your son?
	Is your son in elementary school, primary, secondary?
	How do you feel about people teaching your son and other people's children?
	This stuff in school.
	And most importantly, what is his son?
	Didn't get there.
	Because I was told to kindly F off, which is at least better than the middle finger I was getting from everybody else on the counter-protester side that I addressed.
	And then I was told I don't have his permission to record him.
	This is the level of legal, logical understanding of these counter-protesters.
	Factual understanding, linguistics.
	I'm out in a public street.
	Counter-protesting at a public event with big signs and big billboards telling you go home bigots, Nazis F off, etc., etc.
	But I don't give you permission to record me as though that could make a lick of sense other than to illustrate the fundamental juvenile ideology that goes on.
	I'm saying it.
	On the side of the counter-protesters.
	Listen to what I have to say and shut up.
	Look at my signs, but don't look at me.
	Look at me, look at me, look at me.
	Stop staring.
	But that's not where we're going with this intro, people.
	That's not where we're going with this intro.
	That was just part one of it as a segue.
	But before we even do this, I'm just going to make sure that everything is working smoothly.
	On Rumble.
	Good.
	We are live on Rumble.com on Locals.
	Hold on, let me skip here.
	Good, we're there.
	We're live on Rumble.
	Let me make sure that we're live on Locals at Viva Barnes Law.
	.locals.com.
	Are we good here?
	Because my goodness, people, if you saw my vlog today, you're going to know what's going on.
	We're live.
	Good.
	If any of you saw my vlog today, I couldn't get it up to locals first.
	Let me just get this camera down here.
	This is going to drive me crazy.
	I couldn't get to locals separately because internet, apparently in Canada, you know.
	Go back to the old German or Yiddish.
	Let me just put this on here.
	So I couldn't get it to locals.
	I was having trouble uploading it to Rumble because the internet was so slow, the phone would go off, the computer would go dead, and then they'd have to restart the upload.
	So this might be repetitive for those of you who saw today's vlog, news for those of you who didn't, and my goodness, we're going to make it news.
	We're going to make it news, people.
	So I was at this protest.
	I live-streamed for three hours and 31 minutes.
	Good or bad, we were going to see what happened in real time.
	And lo and behold, not much happened.
	There were some kerfuffles, nothing serious.
	A couple of arrests, by the way.
	But the arrests came from what they call the Antifa side, you know, whatever.
	It came from the other side, the counter-protesters.
	There were two arrests, from what I understand.
	No one on the side of the education, not indoctrination, protests were arrested.
	It went off without a hitch.
	There was some shoving.
	That's about it.
	No meaningful violence, at least I thought, until I came home and saw a tweet from someone who I didn't know, but now I definitely know who he is.
	A member of provincial parliament.
	So everybody understands, you have your MPs, which are member of parliament in Canada.
	That's federal.
	And then you have your MPPs.
	MPPs, which are members of provincial parliament.
	I see a tweet from a member of provincial parliament, which is in response to...
	This tweet, which you're now looking at if you're listening on podcast tomorrow, this is a tweet from Luc Lebrun, which means this is absolute madness.
	The far-right mob is not even at a school anymore.
	They're just standing in the middle of a residential street in Westboro, chanting nonsense in the direction of random homeowners to, quote, leave our kids alone.
	First things first, it was weird that the protest was on a residential street where they were.
	But that's only because they were directed or blocked from their stated itinerary by counter-protesters.
	They walked around the street to bypass the counter-protesters and then were flanked on both ends of the street that they were going down by the counter-protesters, which the police allowed to happen.
	And they were literally wedged onto the street.
	And yeah, the homeowners on that street were mighty pissed, especially when people were stepping all over the front lawns.
	So that they were on a residential street was bizarre.
	But it was only because of how the counter-protest was set up and what the police allowed to happen and then getting flanked in.
	Set that aside.
	This is the video of the far-right mob.
	Look at that mob.
	Look at that mob.
	That was the mob, people.
	I don't know what qualifies as a mob, but that sure doesn't.
	But this individual, Luc Lebrun, calls this group of people a far-right mob.
	All right.
	If you've watched that video, you can determine whether or not that's a mob.
	It looks like a crowd protesting.
	In response to this tweet and that video of a far-right mob saying they're just sitting around the streets doing Lord knows what, Joel Harden, Ontario NDP, the New Democrat Party of Ontario, a sitting member of provincial parliament, says that this mob...
	This far-right mob is also punching people in the face.
	Punching people in the face.
	But I'll take a punch for queer and trans youth any day.
	And then he shows a picture of his punch.
	I'm going to zoom in on it for those who are looking.
	Like I said in my video today, people, I've never been punched in the face, but I've watched a lot of people punch a lot of people in the face.
	I've taken some Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
	I haven't done the striking.
	I know what a punch looks like on a face.
	That's a very, what we call a sharp cut, like an incision almost.
	And I said to Joel Harden, who purported to have been punched in the face by the angry far-right mob, I said, I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you're a liar.
	Show the video evidence.
	Everybody there had a camera.
	Everybody there and their dog had a camera.
	And I went on something of a mission over the weekend.
	To try to create a movement to determine the truth.
	I created something called Hashtag Justice for Joel.
	Joel Harden.
	If he was punched in the face, and I'm not even being funny here.
	If he was punched in the face, whoever punched him in the face needs to be brought to justice.
	Period.
	My bottom line problem?
	I didn't think he was punched in the face.
	And with the aggregate knowledge of the interwebs, I think we have definitively proven that he wasn't punched in the face because he updated, by the way, since my video today, updated press release.
	He wasn't punched in the face.
	Someone apparently punched him, glanced off the bullhorn, and the bullhorn hit him in the face.
	That's the update.
	But let's just get to the breakdown of a lie, shall we?
	The aggregate knowledge of the interwebs went scouring the internet, looking for justice for Joel, and...
	My goodness, when I say the aggregate knowledge of the internet can solve anything pretty much, you know, give them the 40,000 hours of January 6th, they'll find you the FBI informants.
	They'll find you the police brutality.
	They'll find you all of the agitators and provocateurs.
	They'll find it.
	Which is exactly why the intelligence, putting that in quotes, doesn't want the aggregate knowledge of the internet and the 4chan's of the world to have that information, to find the informants, to find the agent provocateur, to find the FBI agitators who might have been agitating January 6th.
	But, lo and behold, when there's enough people live streaming in real time, enough people taking pictures, posting it to Twitter, the truth shall set you free, people.
	Hold on, I just got ahead of myself with this tweet.
	And Karima, Karima Rules is her Twitter handle.
	Let me see if I go to...
	Okay, I'll do that.
	Karima Rules.
	I don't know how she did it.
	She has a better network on the interwebs.
	Found the...
	Found the evidence.
	This is Joel Harden with the bullhorn.
	And it gets pushed into his face right there, people!
	It gets pushed into his face!
	Now look around.
	Look around 360, people.
	The bullhorn.
	Boom!
	Right there.
	Anyone has any lingering doubts about a bullhorn gate?
	Let me just go to my Twitter feed and just get the picture.
	The side-by-side comparison.
	You know what?
	It might have been on my...
	He lied.
	Joel Harden, bold-faced, lied about what I suspect would have been an actual hate crime under Canadian law.
	I don't know of Joel's orientation, and I'm not presuming anything.
	I'm just saying that this is at a protest.
	And if someone assaulted a trans rights activist or a trans rights protester, or if I don't know what Joel's orientation is...
	If he's of the orientation, that would make this a hate crime even clearer.
	Joel Harden, sitting member of the Ontario New Democrat Party Provincial Parliament, lied on the internet about having gotten punched in the face, and the internet found the evidence.
	He lied, not before his buddy there, you know, the same one who's propping up the Justin Trudeau regime, Jagmeet Singh, quote tweeted, I'm proud of you, Joel Harden, O-N-D-P.
	Queer and trans people and kids are being targeted by angry and hateful extremists.
	Governments must step up to protect the queer and trans community.
	Notice the wording on this, by the way.
	It's deliberately opaque because he's not reaffirming John Harden's lie because now it's a proven, demonstrable lie.
	He's not reaffirming.
	He's not repeating the lie.
	He's just quote-tweeting.
	He's proud of him.
	Okay, you could be proud of him even if he's a liar.
	Who knows?
	Maybe he's proud of John Harden.
	John Harden.
	Joel Harden.
	Because he's a liar.
	I'm proud of you, Joel, because you are willing to lie to the world to promote ideology.
	I'm proud of you.
	Do more of it.
	Everyone out there should lie for the sake of ideology.
	Maybe that's what he meant.
	And then he goes on to another detached statement.
	Queer and trans people and kids are being targeted by angry, hateful extremists.
	That's your opinion.
	It's not what we saw from that video.
	Anyhow, yada, yada, yada, to which I tweeted.
	Are you going to delete this tweet and issue a formal correction and apology, Jagmeet Singh?
	It looks like a member of your party lied about having been the victim of a hate crime.
	What else do you and your...
	I didn't say filthy lying party, but I'm thinking it.
	What else do you and your party lie about?
	And look at that.
	Look at that, people.
	That's the little eyelet for the lanyard on the bullhorn, I think.
	Hitting this man right in the face where he had posted, I got punched in the face by an angry far-right mob.
	All right.
	Cut and dry.
	In case it weren't cut and dry, however, he came out and posted an update.
	Joel Harden, who said, I was punched in the face.
	That angry far-right mob, they're not just hanging around on streets.
	They're punching people in the face.
	He posted an update.
	Joel Harden.
	Can't believe he hasn't blocked me yet, but good for him.
	Ontario NDP MPP, Member of Provincial Parliament.
	Update.
	Last Friday, I broke up several altercations or near altercations.
	What the hell is a near altercation that got started by anti-trans protesters?
	Okay.
	In one of those occasions, a woman was grabbing another woman by the hair.
	I put my body between them and separated them.
	Such a hero.
	Even when he gets caught in a lie, he's still a hero.
	After separating them, I looked over my shoulder and was punched.
	I was holding a megaphone against my face.
	The blow glanced off the megaphone.
	And my face was cut.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought you said you got punched in the face, Joel.
	The woman left and the altercation ended.
	Do you think it's at all plausible that a woman would leave after physically assaulting a member of provincial parliament?
	People were arrested there.
	So a woman punches a member of parliament in the face and just walks off.
	The dude who threw gravel at Justin Trudeau was promptly identified and arrested.
	Cameras everywhere.
	You lied.
	I got punched in the face.
	Okay, I didn't get punched in the face.
	I got punched in the bullhorn.
	The bullhorn hit me in the face.
	And oh, hold on.
	Because he's still a hero.
	I do not want this woman charged.
	I would rather talk to her about why she needed to be violent.
	Pathological narcissism.
	He's a hero.
	She's the aggressor.
	He's a perpetual victim.
	I want to talk to her about why she needed to be violent.
	And why she needed to protest outside public schools.
	If she is reading this statement, that offer still holds.
	Please get in touch with me.
	I got caught in the lie.
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't get punched in the face.
	I got punched in the bullhorn.
	I don't want to arrest you.
	I'm so benevolent.
	I'm so benevolent.
	I lie about a hate crime in order to start a war among factions.
	I want to talk to you.
	Offer still stands.
	And then what else was the latest development?
	Paul Champ, who's the lawyer from the convoy.
	Paul Champ.
	Puts out a tweet.
	Let me just bring this one up and we're going to end it on this.
	Because, you know, everybody's got to come now to cover up their lie.
	Because there were a number of other people who promoted the lie.
	Not just Jagmeet Singh.
	Other people.
	Someone tried to blame it on a woman holding a Bible.
	I didn't retweet that because I'm not interested in doxing someone or putting someone on blast who quite clearly did not do what was said that she had done in the first place.
	The woman with a blue Bible punched...
	Joel in the face.
	Yeah, Joel wasn't really punched in the face.
	He was punched in the bullhorn.
	It was a glancing blow.
	And Paul Champ.
	Paul Champ Law.
	Ottawa Lawyer with National Practice, Employment, Labor, and Human Rights.
	He, him.
	Just in case you didn't know what his pronouns were based on that avatar.
	Just in case you didn't know.
	Dude's got a five o 'clock shadow.
	Short hair, blue eyes.
	Decent looking fellow.
	He, him.
	Just in case.
	Just in case, people.
	Although I think it's now just like a litmus test if you don't do it.
	You'll get chewed up by your side.
	But set that aside.
	He's the lawyer, if I'm not mistaken, during the Ottawa Convoy.
	Or the commission.
	He writes, words have meaning, by the way.
	This is what he tweeted.
	Video from another angle shows a protester strike the megaphone into his face.
	Too bad this video by Karima doesn't show the full view.
	At least he wasn't trampled to death by a horse, I guess.
	I don't know if he's minimizing.
	The 80-some-odd-year-old native woman who was trampled by an RCMP horse.
	Are you minimizing what happened to that 80-plus-year-old native woman, Paul?
	It sounds like you are, if I'm not mistaken.
	It sounds like you might be minimizing grotesque police abuse on an indigenous elderly woman.
	Very tolerant of you, young white man.
	Video from another angle suggests there's another video.
	But the video that Karima, too bad the video that Karima showed doesn't show the public.
	Hey, Paul, where the hell is that video?
	I'm not saying it doesn't exist.
	And then someone asks, Paul, where is that video?
	Link, please.
	To which Paul replies, someone else is getting caught in an unnecessary lie.
	Video from another angle means video from another angle exists.
	It means another video from another angle distinct from the one that we are looking at.
	His response to the woman asking for the receipts for the statement that he just made, this is a practicing attorney making a statement on Twitter, not in the practice of his practice, not in the context of his practice, but nonetheless a statement.
	He says, this guy says hard and smacked himself, but the clip actually shows two protesters advancing on him, raising their arms.
	Hey, Paul, you know what question that doesn't answer?
	Where the hell is the video that you referenced?
	Where is it?
	And by the way, that video, for anybody who watched it, shows that the only person in front of Joel is his own posse of people wearing black clad as far as I could see from that video.
	Where's the video, Paul?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	The video that she shot.
	Where's the video, Paul?
	You made a statement.
	Bring the receipts.
	They're all going to start jumping ship like a bunch of rats that they are because they got caught in a bold-faced lie.
	A bold-faced lie of the highest order.
	I say, and a lot of people say it, you lie about a hate crime.
	You lie about a sex crime.
	You lie about any crime, you should be susceptible of going to jail for as long as the punishment would have been for that crime.
	Putting it on blast, people.
	Joel Harden is a liar.
	He got caught in a lie.
	He's trying to backpedal and make up another story.
	Paul Champ coming to his defense, the people who promoted the lie, covering their tracks primarily by blocking me.
	And Paul Champ says, there's another video from another angle.
	I'm just not showing it to you.
	It's mine.
	All right.
	Barnes is in the backdrop.
	Let me do a few things that I haven't done.
	Standard intro.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fornification advice.
	These wonderful things called Super Chats on YouTube, Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	YouTube takes 30% of these.
	If you don't want to support on...
	If you don't want to support YouTube, you can go to Rumble and they have the Rumble Rants.
	Oh, crap.
	I didn't set it up, so I don't know if any came in.
	There's a few.
	I'm going to see if I can backtrack and get all those.
	Rumble.
	Takes 0% of Rumble Rants for the rest of the year.
	Ordinarily, they take 20%.
	So better for the platform, better for the creator.
	This flipping camera is getting on my nerves.
	What else?
	You may have noticed.
	Hold on one second.
	Cripe, did I do it?
	More.
	Okay, I'm clicking contains paid promotion.
	This contains a paid promotion.
	It's in the link.
	And the paid promotion, share screen.
	For those of you who have potentially unhealthy dietary habits, if you don't eat your fruits and vegetables, everybody knows you're supposed to.
	I mean, jokes aside, I use this product.
	Jokes aside, eating fruits and vegetables is a good, healthy thing to do.
	I feel gross when I don't do it.
	People are supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables daily.
	Most people do not have that.
	Sometimes when you're traveling, it's impossible to get it.
	So you might want to have a little container of Fieldhouse, Fieldhouse, Field of Greens.
	Powdered, desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	Each spoonful contains one serving of fruits and vegetables, two spoonfuls a day.
	It tastes good.
	We'll give you the antioxidants, the nutritional value, in as much as desiccated vegetables and fruits can do.
	It tastes good.
	It's made in America.
	It's USDA organic approved because it is not a supplement.
	It is not an extract.
	It is a food.
	It's like pulverized beef jerky of the fruits and vegetable nature.
	It's delicious.
	It's healthy.
	Everyone should do it.
	Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
	You'll get 15% off your first order.
	The link is in the description.
	And thank Field of Greens for sponsoring the video.
	Now, let me just see if I can get a few here.
	Wearing my new VivaFro t-shirt, I have a duty to support this channel.
	Duty, Cheryl Gage.
	Thank you.
	Jordan Peterson, Biden was the return of normalcy candidate.
	We can't go back.
	The only way out is through.
	LOL, Viva, for the record, you just had an audio issue, thus the stream.
	Thus, the stream is complete before Barnes.
	Cripe.
	New slogan for the legacy media, the fact checks to...
	From fat checks to...
	Oh, from fact checks to fat checks.
	Not bad.
	So we are talking about Joel Harden and is the video evidence.
	So we are...
	So we are...
	We're talking about Joel Harden and the video evidence.
	We got it there.
	Thank you very much.
	And viva!
	FT Superchatter.
	What does that mean?
	Featuring Superchatter.
	I heard you're back in Montreal.
	I'm a fan and would love if you came to my family's restaurant on Sherbrooke Street, West Café Il Courtel.
	We have a beautiful terrace.
	Screen grabbed, and you will be seeing me there sooner than later.
	Taffy Four.
	Okay.
	Barnes.
	Oh, my goodness.
	He's looking dapper.
	To what do we owe this in the house?
	Sir, how goes it?
	Good, good.
	Sorry about that lengthy intro.
	We have to break down in real time the lies before they delete them.
	Or block, or, you know, whatever.
	What's the book?
	Ooh, the Snowden Reader.
	Is that about Snowden's Alicatessen on Dakari in Montreal?
	I'm joking.
	What's it about?
	Yeah, no, it's a good, it gets into the aspects of the Snowden debate, what Snowden disclosed, some of the key documents, some of the discussion about it, and it's pertinent to aspects of the, some cases we'll be talking about tonight.
	And Cigar, what do you have there?
	What is it?
	I think it's called Undercrown.
	It's a fun little cigar.
	All right, Robert, look, I went a little long on the intro on YouTube.
	Let's do the first subject on YouTube.
	Bring it all over to Rumble afterwards, but give us the breakdown of what's on.
	Everybody wants us to talk about the Trump indictment, and we shall.
	But that's going to be the teaser for everybody over on Rumble.
	What do we have on the menu?
	So, 12 topics plus a few bonus topics tonight that we may get to.
	The top topics are four different Supreme Court cases.
	One concerning voting rights.
	Another concerning Jack Daniels.
	Trademark parody law.
	Identity theft.
	Civil rights being enforceable in nursing home context.
	Then the big case that is on everybody's agenda.
	The Trump indictment.
	The various defenses that may be available to Trump.
	The Jeffrey Clark case, that's a case we've previously discussed.
	We did a sidebar with Jeff Clark.
	Travis Rudolph acquitted on self-defense grounds.
	New York City sues car makers for their problems of car theft in New York City.
	Cops win a big First Amendment case out of the Third Circuit.
	A big Second Amendment win for non-violent felons also in the Third Circuit.
	Two different groups sue concerning censorship issues, the vaccine injured and election people challenging and questioning aspects of the 2020 election.
	There's a big lawsuit that the media is not talking about, which is reaching class action status, which is a lawsuit that claims Tylenol is responsible in part for autism's dramatic growth in the United States and the West.
	Then we have a couple of bonus cases.
	You know, Beto dodges defamation by the same Austin court that had a real broad definition of defamation when it came to Alex Jones.
	Magically shrinks that definition when it comes to Beto O 'Rourke.
	And Dave Ramsey sued over timeshare-related issues.
	All right, so we're going to start with the voting rights.
	This is the gerrymandering out of Mississippi lawsuit?
	Alabama.
	Alabama, sorry.
	Okay, Robert, I think we need to refresh some memory on this.
	What does gerrymandering mean in U.S. law?
	Oh, I mean, gerrymandering is just a means by which redistricting occurs.
	And some people call it gerrymandering when they don't like the particular way in which a district has been drawn.
	So for state legislate, state house, state senate.
	In the U.S. Congress, all of those are district-based.
	And so the city council, county council, often those are district-based.
	So somebody draws which neighborhoods are going to be part of that district that get to vote for the representative from that district, whether it's at the congressional level of the House or the legislative level at the state or the local level at the city or county level.
	And so that's all that districting is.
	And redistricting occurs after every census every 10 years.
	So redistricting every 10 years.
	Census goes out, it says what the population is, what the race.
	I mean, what's on the census?
	Race, ethnicity, other identifiers?
	Yeah, a bunch of that stuff.
	I mean, mostly it's supposed to be there for population purposes, but increasingly it's also used because of the Voting Rights Act.
	Of 1965, and the degree to which it is enforcing the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the Reconstruction Amendments, race has become increasingly a factor as well.
	All right, and so now bringing it to, so every 10 years, meaning the census is every 10 years, and after the census, depending on whether or not there's been, what is it, demographic shifts, population growth?
	Is it supposed to go by population?
	They redistrict automatically.
	The idea is that there may be population shifts that require changes in the districts, but that's not the sole premise for it.
	They just, as a matter of custom and habit, and often by law, redistrict after every census is done to make sure it's proportionate population-wise.
	How wild can the redistricting be?
	Is it starting like tabula rasa, or does it work within what had been the previous districting?
	It depends on each area.
	So these days, sometimes the legislative branch of a government does the districting.
	Sometimes there's a special independent commission that does the districting.
	Sometimes there's a governor involved in the signing off on the districting.
	Sometimes you have courts involved in the districting.
	State courts in some cases, federal courts in other cases.
	And so there tends to be a lot of participants in that process these days.
	All right.
	So in Alabama, you have a Republican-led legislature, which had done the redistricting, what some are calling gerrymandering.
	Sorry, I spanned on my computer.
	What some are calling gerrymandering.
	It was contested along the racial split, went to the Supreme Court, five to four.
	Supreme Court says, the way you redistrict it is invalid.
	Send it back and do it again.
	Effectively, yes.
	But it's more consequential how they got there.
	And the decision effectively is a 3-2-4 decision.
	So what that means is you don't have a controlling, clear decision.
	You have a concurring decision that you can call controlling, but it's not exactly because Kavanaugh's concurrence was written by himself.
	So you had Roberts.
	Who wrote the opinion, except not one section of the opinion.
	In that one section of the opinion, he didn't join, but he didn't join either one of the concurrences or dissents either, so we have no idea what his thought process is.
	Then you have Kavanaugh who writes, so you only have three judges who join one part of the decision.
	Kavanaugh writes a concurrence about that provision, and then you have four judges who dissented.
	Who said this was a misapplication because the fundamental issue was the state of Alabama was saying that at this stage, the Voting Rights Act to be constitutional under the 15th Amendment, which prohibits, 15th Amendment prohibits taking race into consideration.
	It says that your right to vote will not be abridged based on race.
	The Voting Rights Act has been interpreted to go far beyond that and effectively empower people based on race.
	To say that if a minority is being denied equal voting power of the majority, which often is just based on voting patterns, in other words, the majority votes one way and the minority votes another way, that's being interpreted as the minority is somehow being denied their vote, which has never made any sense to me.
	But effectively, that's what's happening.
	And so Alabama said...
	You know, using these race standards to draw districts is a violation of the 15th Amendment.
	And the U.S. for dissenting justices, Thomas and the lead, would have said they agreed, but Kavanaugh and Roberts refused to go along with that.
	And instead, Kavanaugh and Roberts said that essentially what you have is it just comes down to Kavanaugh's concurrence, which is this goes back to after the Voting Rights Act was passed.
	Now, the reason why the Voting Rights Act has to exist is because from beginning in the, well, it depends on where you time it.
	Some states the 1860s, other states not until the late 1890s.
	What the Southern planter class did is restore its political power after the end of the Civil War.
	The Civil War being you can watch the hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com for some alternative hypotheses about the Civil War.
	While I was born and raised in Tennessee, southeast Tennessee, Chattanooga, my family is all from all New Englanders and Rhode Islanders on my father's side.
	So my ancestors fought wearing the Union side of the war.
	In fact, I don't think any ancestor of mine has fought in a losing war since my great ancestor Reverend Robert Barnes got hung up in the tower for telling the king to shove off.
	Otherwise, we tend to be back-to-back World War champs.
	The Revolutionary War, Civil War, some other ones, we've been on the right side.
	But basically, the planter class lost.
	They reestablished their power, aligning with the merchant railroad and industrial and banker class after the Civil War.
	By the 1880s, 1876, famous compromise, where that was the first stolen election that kind of occurred in America.
	Not to say there was another one now while we're still on YouTube.
	No, I guess we can say that now.
	YouTube now allows us to say it.
	Well, I guess we'll get to test it in live time.
	So the election fornication that occurred in 2020 was a little like the one that occurred in 1876.
	And what they did is the elites, the bourbons as they were called, a terrible name disgracing the legacy of the great bourbon whiskey, bourbon scotch, depending on how you call it, was the disfranchisement of pretty much all poor whites in most of the South and all black voters.
	And so for about 60, 70 years, for example, in Mississippi as an example, in 1900 they had fewer voters.
	In the presidential election, they did in 1860.
	That wasn't because black voters, and while the white population had doubled in that time frame.
	So what they had done is they didn't just disfranchise black voters.
	They disfranchised poor and working class white voters.
	That's what the Southern elite class did.
	So Voting Rights Act was meant to remedy that and justifiably wanted to be aggressive and it's enforceable, and it used the 15th Amendment as its constitutional predicate.
	So, because this is otherwise an issue left to the states.
	To almost have exclusive carte blanche power, a non-reviewable power, arguably, from the inception that the legislative branch was intended to have.
	Though there's some risk in that because the legislative branch is drawing its own districts, too.
	So you worry a little bit about how that's going to work from a democratic perspective, a little democratic perspective.
	So the Voting Rights Act goes in force.
	It's meant to be real strong.
	We've got to break the back of the old South that's keeping black voters off the voting rolls.
	Really by about 1975, but definitely by 1985, Thanks to Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign, the old vestiges of the 1965 South were gone.
	Black voters were heavily registered in some places, more likely to be registered than white voters, more likely to vote and participate than white voters in some areas, and so forth.
	That happened in 2012 in the presidential election, including in places like the Deep South.
	So given that, and then in the early 1990s, you had this compromise between Republicans and race-minded Democrats.
	And the goal was this.
	We're going to stack and pack black voters into certain districts to create majority-minority districts.
	So the black population could have their own black members of Congress.
	But what did this do?
	It diluted the base of the populist Democratic vote in the South.
	Because now, rather than having 25-30% of your congressional district be black, and then you could combine it with working-class whites to have a populist Democrat majority.
	Now, all of a sudden, you're either in an all-white district or an almost all-black district.
	And that meant only black voters would get elected.
	So the progressive left of the urban Northeast benefited because the black politicians from the Deep South aligned with them, not with their populist brethren.
	And all the white voters started voting Republican.
	And the net effect of it was the working class, old school, white populist Democrat.
	Vanished and disappeared from the South, and that would reach its final culmination in 2010, when rebellion against Obama led the last of the working class white South to say bye-bye to the Democratic Party, the original foundation of the Democratic Party from eastern Oklahoma all the way up through Appalachia up north.
	So Alabama starts drawing districts.
	Now, one dispute that comes up in the 90s is...
	Does the Voting Rights Act require proportional representation?
	So if there's 20% of the population is black, 20% of the House seats have to be black, 20% of the state legislative seats have to be black, so on and so forth.
	The Supreme Court suggested maybe in a controversial 1986 decision, Congress came in and revised it and said no.
	We don't look at effects and no proportionality is not allowed or authorized or the direction.
	Proportionality of outcome, not about access to voting.
	Correct.
	Exactly.
	The U.S. Supreme Court just reversed that, despite the legislature's clear demands because Roberts and Kavanaugh want to be toasted in the Georgetown crowd and when they're up in the Hamptons this summer.
	And, oh, yes, yes, yes.
	We don't like those Alabama racists.
	Yes, yes.
	It's that kind of crowd that they're with.
	And again, this has always been an alignment politically of the Northeastern liberal elites with black activists in the South that would sacrifice their populist interest of their own voters to have just a little power.
	Say, look at me, I'm Congressman.
	Congressman James Clyburn.
	I elect presidents.
	He cares more about that than he does his own black community and constituency in Miami.
	Humble opinion.
	So this has often been about breaking the back of populist alliances, which goes all the way back to the late 1890s, when there was a populist alliance between black voters and working class whites, especially in the South.
	That was the whole goal of breaking it up from the get-go.
	So what the Kavanaugh says is, don't worry, even though it's obvious what they're requiring is, basically Alabama...
	Has almost 40% black population, so they want two seats, not one seat.
	And the Supreme Court says we agree.
	And the key to the Kavanaugh concurrence is, okay, yeah, even though it looks like we're directly violating state law that says don't have racial proportionality be the guide, and even though that looks like you're actually abridging the vote based on race in violation of the 15th Amendment, as the state of Alabama argued, don't worry, we're really not, because this only applies in cases of Where the racial vote is geographically compact.
	So what this means is there's been a lot of interpretation of this case that goes way beyond what the case actually stands for.
	Unless you have geographical...
	This will only apply to the Black Belt in the South and maybe a little bit the Mexican-American West Texas.
	Because those are two of the only places where you have true geographical compactness of race.
	And a lot of other places you don't.
	And so the net effect of it will not have the degree of impact that a lot of people thought it would, the media ran with.
	It will mostly impact the Deep South, and it will see how it shakes out.
	But it could end up hurting the Democratic Party, because by evenly dispersing the black vote, they increased the chance of Democrats in every single district, particularly populist Democrats.
	By now concentrating that black vote...
	They are increasing the chance that they have no chance at all in many of these other districts.
	Operating on the theory that the black vote is 85-plus percent voting Democrat regardless, so concentrate them in one district, and then other districts will get more.
	And that's the other key, is that that needs to stay that way for this to be effective.
	And anyone who knows the history knows that things can change and turn on a dime.
	So take the Mexican-American vote as an example.
	In 2016, even through 2018, you had about 40 to 50 years in places like Zapata County, named after Emiliano Zapata, the great Mexican revolutionary, said either he or Pancho Villa was the one I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees, had been one of the most heavily democratic counties in the country.
	So, you know, Democrats were dependent on it.
	Well, in 2020, Zapata County voted for Donald L. Jefe Trump president of the United States.
	So, anybody that assumed...
	And then, same with Black vote.
	Black vote was a loyal Republican vote, for rather obvious reasons, from 1866 until 1966.
	And then within one election cycle, it went from being a 90% Republican vote to a 90% Democratic vote.
	So the assumption that these votes will always stay this way is also an unreliable assumption over time.
	Robert, what was the historical explanation for that?
	I know there's one president who infamously said behind closed doors, I'll have fill in the racial expletive voting.
	Oh, Barry Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
	And LBJ supported it, and that flipped the black vote.
	Okay.
	Fascinating.
	That's one healthy dose of history for those who may not have appreciated it.
	And so practically speaking, what happens now?
	What does Alabama do?
	They go back and redraw that district to include a second black district in Alabama.
	But I think there was predictions by the Cook Political Report that's notorious for getting things wrong at predicting elections.
	They were predicting all these seats would flip.
	No, that's not what will happen.
	What most likely will happen is you'll have one or two added black seats in the black belt in the South.
	And that will probably be about all that happens.
	And then the other seats will become even more Republican and less competitive because of that.
	All right.
	Predictions out there.
	That's what some of us opposed this deal back in the early 90s that were on the populist Democratic side back then that said this will kill the populist Democratic base, which is what happened.
	And so the net effect has been to increase Republican...
	It increases minority representation at the expense of Democrats overall and white Democrats in particular because it increases Republican representation as well.
	That's why Republicans cut the deal in the mid-90s anyway.
	All right, I'm just telling someone to ignore the trolls in the YouTube chat and the Rumble chat because they feed off energy.
	And I'm not always good at ignoring the trolls, but I don't always have to practice what I preach.
	Robert, do we do the Jack Daniels case here?
	It's a relatively quick one, and then we're going to head over to Rumble.
	Everybody, let me just bring up an image because an image is worth a thousand words.
	We talked about this one well in the past.
	I think I agree with it.
	I mean, it's easy to say when you agree with a unanimous Supreme Court decision.
	This is the object of the trademark dispute between Jack Daniels, Tennessee whiskey, and Bad Spaniel's number two, Tennessee carpet.
	And it was a trademark infringement, intellectual property lawsuit dispute, where Jack Daniels said they're basically reproducing our mark without our authorization, susceptible of confusion, sued for trademark violation.
	Unanimous, if I'm not mistaken?
	Yeah, I mean, the Ninth Circuit initially said that the First Amendment allowed them to do it because parity protection requires superior protection over a trademark.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said First Amendment protection only applies when you're not going right at the core of trademark, when you're not trying to designate the source by the style of which you've made a mark.
	So, in essence, you can do all the parity you want if people know for sure it's parity.
	In the sense that they know you're not trying to source, you're not trying to say this is a Jack Daniels product.
	And that was the problem.
	And I'll just take one article here.
	It says, she observed registration of a trademark allows the trademark user to sue when others use the mark for their own purposes.
	And then the question in this case was...
	Sure.
	It's a parody.
	It's making fun of it.
	But when someone buys that, do they think that that is a Jack Daniels dog toy?
	And is there enough reasonable confusion?
	And I could totally understand it in that one could easily think that that's a Jack Daniels product or that they have authorization and you're somehow parasitically siphoning off the goodwill of Jack Daniels based on the unauthorized use of the market because it's virtually identical.
	And some people are not going to know it's a different company making money off of Parity use or just reproduction of Jack Daniel's trademark.
	Other than overturning the Court of Appeal, no radical, earth-shattering new law coming out of that decision?
	No.
	I mean, beyond that the First Amendment doesn't apply when what you're doing goes to trademark, because then you're not doing it for speech.
	You're doing it...
	For using a trademark.
	And that's the point they made was that the First Amendment analysis only happens next.
	If you're not using it for trademark, then there's a First Amendment protection against the misapplication of trademark law.
	But when you're trying to...
	I mean, at core, people could believe that Jack Daniels had created a fake parody of itself.
	And that was the problem.
	And also, it goes to the issue of people think free speech means everything, but it doesn't allow you to use your First Amendment rights to threaten people because you're not using it for using it.
	You're using it to actually threaten, harass, defame, etc., etc.
	So, I mean, this is that logic mutatis mutandis to trademark infringement.
	Everybody, same thing would apply to copyright infringement, I presume.
	Let us share the Rumble link one more time.
	Head on over to Rumble.
	We have now currently 13,677 people on Rumble.
	And for those who are watching this, and I didn't set up the pattern as we start, we start on Rumble and YouTube because of my exclusivity, which I love with Rumble.
	We end on YouTube after a given point in time.
	Bring it over to Rumble, where we're also streaming on Locals.
	And at the end, we end on Rumble.
	We go to Locals.
	We have our private community there, although it's open to everybody.
	And we take the tips in locals and chat with our locals community who are slightly and well above average.
	So, ending it on YouTube right now.
	Moving over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	And let's see.
	We're moving.
	Three, two, one.
	Booyah.
	Robert, let me see.
	What was number three on our list here?
	A couple of Supreme Court cases before we get to the Trump indictment.
	Okay, go for it.
	You roll.
	One was basically an identity theft case.
	What was happening was anytime anybody's...
	Identity information was being used in a crime.
	You had federal prosecutors and federal courts applying identity theft sentencing enhancements in criminal states to those crimes, even though they weren't about identity theft.
	So the Supreme Court clarified that when identity theft...
	is the key objective or tool of a crime, then the identity theft laws and enhancements can apply, but not otherwise.
	So they clarified an area that needed clarity, sadly, because they were being so easily misused and abused by the federal courts, so often docile and deferential to the corruption of federal prosecutors.
	And then the other big Supreme Court case was, when does civil rights apply to enforce nursing home rules meant to protect residents of nursing homes?
	But it has a broader implication.
	Now, it's another split decision, 4-3-2.
	The main opinion is only written by four justices, which means it's not considered binding precedent.
	With consistency in terms of its logic, the decision itself is binding, but the logic of the decision is not binding when it's split all over the place.
	So you had three justices sign a concurring opinion in the case, and those concurring opinions, and then two justices dissented.
	There's another place where people like Thomas and Alito are always trying to limit federal rights and civil rights in ways I don't agree with.
	This is one of the first places that Justice Jackson has written an opinion, unsurprisingly.
	To me, it is a civil rights case.
	So you're seeing a consistent pattern with Jackson is going to end up being a very aggressive civil rights advocate.
	Not in every case will I agree with it, but I'll often agree with her.
	More often, they'll agree with the so-called constitutional right that doesn't respect civil rights in many contexts, sadly.
	But what they did is it's what happens when you have a lot of these federal laws establish a right, but they don't create a private cause of action.
	And the Supreme Court has gone back and forth on when that allows you to sue.
	To me, that makes no sense.
	I'll give an example.
	You can't discriminate on an airline against the disabled.
	This was an issue about autistic and other kids and other people who couldn't put a mask on during the mask mandates on planes.
	Well, the court determined you can't sue there.
	Some years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't fully addressed the issue, but a bunch of appellate courts have.
	And they said, nope, you can't sue because it doesn't explicitly say you can sue.
	So what the Supreme Court has done is they've come up with all these alternatives about when you can sue and when you can't sue.
	Even though to me it makes no sense.
	If you have a right, there has to be a remedy.
	Or you don't have a right.
	Congress is just wasting its time and talking into the blather.
	And so I've never agreed with this logic of the court.
	But putting that aside, at least in this instance, they recognize that where there is a clearly established right, Then the civil rights laws, 42 U.S.C.
	1983, will be applicable against state government action or local government action if they're enforcing the nursing home provision or they own or operate the nursing home or administer it in some significant capacity.
	That at least they recognize that where there's a clearly established right, unless there's an alternative remedial system, then there is a 1983 right to sue.
	Now, what Gorsuch said is that he left open the question of whether that could always happen, because what happens when they pass laws like these nursing home laws that are spending clause laws?
	And so one argument is that, well, third-party beneficiaries should be able to sue, and that's what 1983 really is, as kind of because the spending...
	Deal is basically a contract between the feds and the local government.
	We're going to give you this money in an exchange.
	You're going to do these things.
	And if those things aren't done, somebody should be able to sue on third-party capacity.
	Another argument is that no, the spending clause's only remedy is to take back the spending.
	I don't know how you do that.
	You could stop spending, but you can't take back what's already been spent.
	And then the third argument that Gorsuch suggested in the concurrence was that maybe the anti-commandeering statute, that's the one that says the federal government can't force the local government to do the federal government's job.
	This came up during sanctuary law issues.
	This came up during sports betting issues about whether the federal government was trying to co-op local governments to execute federal obligations.
	And the anti-commandeering Okay.
	because he agreed in this case it didn't go too far.
	Okay.
	Robert, I can feel everyone...
	Eagerly waiting with anticipation.
	Why, did somebody big get indicted this week?
	I don't know.
	Just another indictment.
	Twice impeached, twice acquitted, now twice indicted, but this one, Robert, they have him dead to rights.
	Because the other one was just a state indictment on bogus George Soros, Alvin Bragg motivated.
	District Attorney.
	Bullcrap.
	Everyone said it's bullcrap from beginning to end, even though he'll still get convicted on that, given what politics is.
	This is federal indictment, Robert.
	We now have the first president, former president, ever federally indicted.
	And the indictment, they've got him this time, Robert.
	Even Jonathan Turley, and I'm not making fun of Jonathan Turley because I do respect what he has to say, which is why I was reading his assessment with...
	With great interest says, you know, this is not something to laugh at.
	He wasn't, you know, falling off the chair sobbing.
	He said, this is not something to laugh at.
	The allegations in here, you know, to the extent that they are proven to be true, look pretty bad.
	You got some very, very compromising photographic evidence of boxes of documentation.
	We don't know what's in it, but we're told that there's classified documents in it.
	I don't know, nuclear stuff.
	They drop all sorts of words.
	But we've seen photographs of boxes of allegedly classified information, or containing some, in ballrooms at his Mar-a-Lago place, in bathrooms.
	So we've got what is purported to contain classified information seemingly not kept in a secured location.
	That's one of the allegations of the federal indictment.
	The other damning allegation of the federal indictment is that Trump was looking like he's going to play smart.
	Do we have to play ball knowing that he's, I don't know, under investigation, knowing that they're asking about these documents, trying to facilitate getting the documents back?
	He said internally, do I need to play ball?
	This is evidence of wrongdoing.
	What I think is the most problematic allegation or a series of allegations is that Trump, while he's being recorded, meeting with a reporter, Basically says to the reporter, here, have a look at this documentation.
	It's all classified.
	It's private.
	It's confidential.
	I could have declassified it when I was president.
	I didn't, and now you know that I can't.
	But have a look at it anyhow.
	And then you have one of his A's seemingly saying, we're in trouble now type thing.
	Trump says, look, they tried to trick me.
	We're going to get to what the information was.
	But Trump is basically saying to a reporter, I know this is classified.
	I could have declassified it when I had the opportunity.
	I didn't.
	Here, have a look at it, thus violating the law, although I'm not sure that he's charged with unlawful disclosure of that information to the journalist.
	You'll help me there.
	Third one was the plucking noise, Robert.
	Apparently, his lawyers have turned on him, which is very bad.
	His lawyers have provided, I guess, their notes from meetings, one of which, or the most damning as far as I'm concerned from reading the indictment was Trump, without saying anything, when confronted with the fact that they had folders that might have contained classified information that he was supposed to return, when asked what to do, Trump made a plucking noise, apparently suggesting to his attorneys, remove the documents that I'm not supposed to have, that I still have, because it would be incriminating, thus admitting incriminating withholding of documents.
	So, Robert, I mean, I guess the most important to me is him seemingly declaring the...
	Actis Reyes.
	The knowledge of what he was doing was unlawful when he showed this report or something.
	Break it down.
	I watched your analysis on Bourbon with Barnes on vivabarneslaw.locals.com, but that was before the indictment had come up with the details, fleshing it out.
	I know what I think, and just so everybody knows what I think.
	I'm starting off on the premise that they are lying yet again.
	This is like Russiagate, Steele dossier, January 6th, Impeachment 1, Impeachment 2. I'm starting off, for right or for wrong, that they're lying.
	So what are they omitting in this indictment that would be exculpatory?
	What are Trump's not just legal defenses, but factual defenses to these otherwise damning allegations?
	I think I've done a good job summarizing it, Robert.
	Let me know if I missed anything, but what is your take and what is your interpretation?
	The fundamental flaw of Turley's analysis, Sean Trendy made a similar kind of analysis where he said it was okay that Hillary Clinton walked, but it was okay to prosecute Trump.
	You know, how Sean Trendy at Real Clear Politics pretends to be anything other than a Trump hater now.
	He's been caught lying repeatedly about Trump.
	Tom Bevin at Real Clear Politics should reassess who he has there.
	Sean's an old friend of mine, but he's gone full TDS for a while ever since he went up to Ohio State.
	There's one core problem with all of these claims.
	This is the elected president of the United States.
	He determines if a document's classified or not.
	He determines the document is secret or not.
	He determines whether it's a government document or not.
	Congress can't do that.
	Justice Department can't do that.
	The intelligence community can't do that.
	This is an indictment saying Donald Trump used his own documents, kept his own documents, liked his own documents, and didn't want to give his own documents back.
	That's his constitutional right.
	So the problem with this case is the entire case is bogus.
	Instead, this is an attempt of the deep state to overturn our constitutional democracy, to say that they can tell the world when their secrets get to be disclosed.
	That's what this case was premised on.
	Donald Trump rebutting the lies of General Milley, who lied to Bob Woodward, who claimed that he had stopped Trump from waging war in Iran, when it was actually Trump that stopped Milley from waging war in Iran.
	Now, here Milley is, by the admission of the indictment, leaking actual information that he was not entitled to disclose, that he was not entitled to declassify, that he was not entitled to declare a personal record, that is subject to national security information laws because he is a lesser official subject to those laws, and yet there has been no indictment, not even investigation of Milley, and he's still in legal office today with Republicans in Congress doing jack.
	By contrast, the president, who is vested by the second article of the United States Constitution with all executive power, that means the president decides any information that comes in is classified for his benefit and his alone.
	It is only secret for his benefit and his alone.
	It is only national security information for his benefit.
	He can unilaterally declare anything declassified, not national security, a personal record, anytime he wants.
	The mere act of taking the documents with him, and let's remember, he's not taking original source documents.
	All of those exist because, as has been pointed out by members of Congress on a range of places, these are all digital documents, so they're digitally stored.
	So this is only about the president having rights to...
	His documents as a matter of constitutional law.
	These are all his documents.
	The Presidential Records Act merely reflects that.
	I mean, I had these people saying, oh, he can't do this.
	Congress says otherwise with the national security.
	Imagine if Congress passed a law tomorrow that said, we hereby declare that if the president executes any of his second article duties, that is hereby a crime and goes to prison.
	That would be patently unconstitutional.
	They have no authority to limit the executive branch under Article 2. They are given zero executive enforcement powers.
	The unelected bureaucracy is given zero constitutional powers.
	They only have any powers at all because the president gave it to them.
	So, consequently, the entire...
	That charge is nonsense.
	All the alleged crimes are gibberish.
	They are a direct attack on constitutional government in America.
	It is an attempt to say, we the deep state get to tell you what is and isn't a secret.
	We the deep state get to tell you what is and isn't classified.
	We the deep state get to tell you what is and isn't national security information.
	And even your elected president can't tell you our secrets or he goes to prison.
	That is how dangerous this criminal prosecution is.
	This goes way past Trump.
	This is the deep state war on democracy such that if this crime is upheld, we don't have a constitutional democracy anymore.
	We have a deep state-run government that has killed the Constitution in America.
	Robert, I'm going to push back, not push back, but rather just ask the questions that I know someone who believes in this would ask you.
	And I should just say also for the crowd, I'm just summarizing the...
	The indictment.
	I know there is some debate, not from the indictment itself, but just as a matter of fact, as to what recordings they have, what document Trump showed the reporter.
	It's not even definitively known as a disputed matter of fact, but when you're looking at an indictment, you read the allegations as allegations.
	Robert, some will say that Trump knows that there is a declassification process.
	For those who are listening, I'm putting it in quotes.
	There is actually no...
	Procedural, lawful, legally set-out method, procedure for declassification.
	That is correct?
	Well, two different things.
	All the declassification laws, all the national security information laws, all the Presidential Records Act laws clarify is that all these laws are about everybody except the president because constitutionally they cannot limit the president.
	Imagine being you have your own company and you're the sole owner of your company.
	And you write a set of rules for your employees.
	And then you don't live by those rules.
	So what?
	Let's say I write rules that say, before you write a brief, do these five things.
	And then I write a brief that doesn't do those five things.
	Does that make me what I've done, like, illegal somehow?
	No, because the source of the rules are me.
	So the point is that the president...
	Can't be governed or limited by any of these rules.
	Nor is this new.
	So the second issue that comes up with this, that most people have looked at the statute, I'm saying the statute reflects the Article 2. That's what this is all about, fundamentally.
	Who has the power under Article 2?
	The elected President of the United States or the unelected Deep State?
	Jack Smith said the unelected Deep State.
	He, in fact, who did he thank?
	He didn't thank the American people.
	This is a CIA indictment.
	This is an intelligence community indictment.
	This is a deep state indictment.
	Not only meant to take out Trump and interfere in the 2024 election, not only to deny us, the American people, the right to pick our own president, but the right of us, the American people, to know the secrets of our government when our elected president decides to share them with us.
	That's what Patrick Henry said long ago.
	If you allow too many secrets, you will destroy government.
	You will destroy liberty.
	You will empower tyranny.
	That's why the Snowden Reader book is behind.
	That's what Julian Assange's argument has been for several decades.
	He said the great danger to liberty in the world are the secrets kept by the elites in the deep state apparatus and intelligence communities and military-industrial complexes.
	And now they're saying Trump...
	I mean, let's get the backstory here.
	The backstory is General Milley lied about him trying to trick Trump into going into war in Iran.
	And Trump stopped him.
	And then Milley went around lying to people, including Bob Woodward, saying that he stopped Trump from doing what Trump stopped Milley from doing.
	And so all Trump did says, I got documents, and he's using language so that they sound authoritative and impressive and all the rest.
	It has no legal bearing in a criminal context whatsoever, because again, these are his documents.
	He can do what he wants.
	When he left with them, they became his.
	How do we know that?
	Because a federal district court judge in the District of Columbia already established it a decade ago.
	Bill Clinton took tapes that had national security information on those tapes, had classified information on those tapes.
	He stuck them in his sock drawer.
	He refused to give them to the government, refused to give them to the archives, refused to consider them government records.
	He had made no formal...
	Designation of them is declassified.
	He hadn't gone through the...
	Imagine these people are citing an executive order.
	This comes from the president.
	The idea of the president can somehow bind the president?
	Doesn't even make any sense.
	It binds everybody but the president.
	Because constitutionally, that's the way it has to be.
	And so here...
	But we can look at Clinton.
	Clinton didn't declassify anything in there.
	Did Clinton go through any formalized process?
	Did Clinton formally declare them his personal records?
	Clinton just took them.
	Just like Trump did.
	And what did the federal district court say?
	It said, under Article 2, under the Presidential Records Act, that is a decision solely for the president to make.
	The mere act of taking them made them his personal records, made them not public records, not national security records, not classified records, not records that belonged in the archives, and records that no one could compel him to even turn over.
	And so now Trump has clearly got a lot of bad legal advice throughout this entire process because they should have fought this from day one.
	These are Trump's records.
	But they're indicting Trump over him keeping his own records, which are constitutionally his own records, statutorily his own records, and under the only legal precedent that exists, the Clinton case, his own records.
	Now, if they're his records, do I understand then that they would be his records to take?
	But not necessarily his records to disclose to the public?
	Oh, yeah.
	He can disclose whatever he wants.
	And that's always been the case.
	Because think about if it's otherwise.
	If it's otherwise, the deep state can keep secrets that the elected president can't tell the American people.
	We no longer have a constitutional democracy if this case is upheld.
	But the argument, the rebuttal to that would be that once the president is out, while he's president, he can declassify whatever he wants.
	Once he's out...
	Even if he takes them as his own personal property, he's lost the declassification privilege or power.
	It's already automatically declassified by the fact that he took them.
	They're his personal records.
	The idea that classification can exist independent of the president, whose records were created during his administration or while he was president, he had access to them, would mean that you have these super-secret documents that the president has to formally go through a specialized process to make public.
	Or they're forever secret.
	It empowers the deep state over the president.
	That cannot happen.
	These are things he can do whatever he wants, anytime he wants.
	Second question is, this is an argument people are raising.
	He did go through something of a formal declassification process with respect to other documents.
	He didn't do it now.
	Because that allowed other people to disclose those documents, other than him.
	In other words, all declassification does is allows people other than the president.
	To provide information.
	Because it's important to remember, all this is for the benefit of the president.
	So that it's for the benefit of the president, so he can do whatever he wants with it.
	You can think of it as he can unilaterally waive it anytime he wants.
	Those classification provisions are only meant so that other people can't disclose the documents without his authority or approval.
	Not whether he can disclose those documents.
	Okay, that's a very...
	Something just clicked in my head there.
	Let me ask you this question, Robert.
	Are there not laws that pertain to certain documents that even the President of the United States would be lawfully prohibited from disclosing, retaining?
	Because that would be a restraint on the executive power in Article 2. The way to think of it is this.
	Is Congress restricting anything in Article 2?
	Is it restricting the power of the executive?
	If it is, it's unconstitutional.
	And that's the problem.
	What Congress can say will only give you money for A, B, C, and D, but what Congress can't do, and Congress can subpoena to oversee what the agencies are up to, but what Congress can't do is restrain the executive branch from its executive duties.
	That it can't do.
	I could think of a hypothetical where if the president doesn't declassify something formally...
	Or announce it, or whatever the process would be, while president.
	What he could then do is potentially take damning information as relates to the next president, right?
	Once the next president's elected, and then use that as blackmail material.
	Say, I'll make it public unless you do my bidding for me.
	LBJ actually explicitly did that.
	LBJ did that to members of Congress and did it to the Nixon administration.
	Said, if you blame me for certain things, I'll do boop, boop, boop, boop, boop.
	So that's the consequence, because we're taking trade-offs.
	Do we give the power to the elected president, or do we give the power to some nameless bureaucracy?
	And what consequences flow from that?
	He gets, once a man is elected president, man or woman is elected president, they get access to all of our secrets.
	And they get to do whatever they want.
	And we take that trade-off because we want an elected official with access to our secrets.
	We don't want a secret government that's independent of any elected official.
	We'll take the trade-offs that maybe this elected president will go and do something terrible with these secrets over on a secret branch of government that is allowed to keep secrets from the elected people, elected representatives of the American people.
	All right.
	Now, when you did the breakdown on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, before the indictment, you weren't sure if it was going to be in Florida.
	It was a...
	A grand jury convened in Washington, but they chose Florida.
	Is it, in fact, going to be in Florida?
	Yes, it's assigned to the same judge who has already expressed skepticism about the case.
	So the jury pulls the Southern District.
	The case is the Southern District of Florida.
	Palm Beach Division, I believe.
	That's not far from where I live, Robert.
	That's where he's appearing on Tuesday.
	And I'm not in Florida right now for this.
	I might have to use this as an excuse to go back to Florida.
	I'm going to be in Arizona next week.
	I mean, sometimes they do some of the original appearances in Miami, but the case basically will be, the jury pool would be Palm Beach and the surrounding counties, basically evenly split between Trump and Biden in 2020, though trending more Trump in 2024.
	So the jury pool looks like pretty close to an American-style jury pool.
	The judge is a Trump appointee who's already expressed skepticism over the case, the 11th Circuit.
	Just stop you there.
	A Trump appointee would, in theory, He'd not have to recuse himself.
	Oh, no, no.
	Just like they never recuse themselves from a Clinton case or Obama case.
	Well, I didn't say ethics runs both ways, Robert.
	I'm just saying.
	Oh, no.
	It's because to disqualify, they have to have a personal monetary interest in the case, generally.
	Or an extradition.
	The fact they were appointed by that person has no impact on any kind of disqualification.
	Otherwise, Republicans could always disqualify.
	You'd be stuck.
	Because let's say you have a case of a Republican against a Democrat.
	Then you have no judge.
	Because everybody's been appointed by one or the other.
	So practically speaking, that's also why it goes that way.
	But now, in terms of defenses, he has a bunch of, other than the Article 2 defense and the Presidential Records Act defense I just referenced, which I think goes to all the charges of the entire thing.
	There are a bunch of other constitutional defenses he has.
	First up will be the First Amendment, selective prosecution.
	Or first up in order of the Constitution after Article 2. I should say, actually, before that would be the impeachment clause, which I've previously articulated the argument for as concerns New York.
	It would apply maybe even more strongly in the federal context.
	And again, my argument is rather simple.
	We have a provision that says when an ex-president can be indicted.
	It's right in the Constitution.
	It says after impeachment by the House and after conviction in the Senate, then...
	And after removal, so he's an ex-president by definition, then he can be indicted.
	My view is that has to be read exclusively that process or otherwise it makes no sense that it's even there.
	Why is that even there if it doesn't apply to ex-presidents?
	Not only that, we know impeachment can be done of an ex-president because they did it to Trump.
	They did his conviction trial hearing.
	After he was no longer president of the United States.
	So the first argument would be Article 2, Presidential Records Act, Trump's National Security Espionage Act laws, and should all be the entire indictment dismissed on those grounds.
	Second, the indictment should be dismissed.
	Because he has not been impeached or convicted on these charges.
	He's never been convicted at all.
	As you mentioned, he's been acquitted twice, and some of these charges were implicitly referenced in that to some degree.
	So on those grounds, there should be dismissal to enforce the impeachment clause.
	Third ground for dismissal is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it will have a bifurcated basis.
	One is selective prosecution under the First Amendment.
	You have a right of free speech, a right of free assembly, a right of free expression, a right of...
	A right to petition your government.
	All of these rights have been interpreted to mean right to access the ballot, right to circulate petitions to get on the ballot.
	By definition, it should mean a right to run for office, president.
	And it has been interpreted that way in a wide range of contexts.
	And so consequently, my view is that we should read the First Amendment to prohibit.
	One administration from indicting their leading opponent in the next administration.
	So now this has one danger.
	The one danger is that by declaring yourself a president while you're president, no criminal indictment could go forward.
	No criminal case could go forward.
	But that is a very small downside risk.
	The number of people who have qualified to get on enough ballots to be elected president is less than 100 over American history over hundreds of years.
	It's also extremely temporally limited in that it would only...
	Correct.
	Exactly.
	So my view is the First Amendment should be interpreted under the Selective Prosecution Clause to be expanded to prohibit something that has been our custom and protocol throughout American history, which is we do not indict the leading opponent of our campaign.
	We don't allow one administration to indict the leading opponent of their re-election.
	And it should be interpreted to provide for that during the election season, provided with the only proviso that they be qualified to be on the ballot.
	And by the way, for those people who ask, being indicted does not allow any state to take someone off the ballot.
	You can't do that on the presidential race.
	I've litigated this question in a wide range of contexts over 25 years.
	You can't do it.
	So that's a well-established law.
	That's why even James Comey is saying he can get elected from a prison cell.
	Eugene B. Debs was on a bunch of ballots, even though he was in a prison cell in 1920, after his successful prior presidential campaign of 1912.
	Successful since he got more votes than any third party of that type socialist ever.
	There's no question he can, but I would argue that merely indicting him is an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election and constitutionally to protect the integrity of our elections, that we have to not allow any indictment case to move forward until the election is resolved or done, so that there's no negative adverse impact on the election from the fact of indictment.
	The other selective prosecution part is what everybody has mentioned, which is the discriminatory, disparate, two-tiered system of justice.
	The First Amendment prohibits that.
	First Amendment prohibits something called selective prosecution.
	You can't indict someone in order to suppress or punish their speech, their activity, their expression, their association, their being a candidate for office, etc.
	Clearly that is the case here because we go all the way back.
	As I pointed out, if a president having personal custody and possession of information that concerns national security is a crime, and by the way, that is what this indictment alleges.
	Indict all of them.
	Clinton, Bush.
	All of them would have to be.
	Jimmy Carter would have to be indicted.
	Everybody would, because every single one of them has personal custody and possession right now of information that concerns national security.
	That's how absurd Jack Smith, who has a long history of pursuing ridiculous legal theories like he did against John Edwards, like he did against the former governor of Virginia, like he's done in other cases where he's been repeatedly rejected by judges and juries alike for the absurdity of his legal theories.
	Here he is proposing that the national security laws...
	Trump, the presidential record laws, that the Congress has constitutional authority to criminally punish the executive branch for doing the executive branch's constitutional duties to utterly absurd propositions that he has made without any precedent whatsoever, the only precedent directly refuting and rebutting him, even from a liberal judge, Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia.
	But then we have the practical precedent and the custom and tradition, which is that...
	Presidents all have national security information in every one of their presidential libraries as we speak.
	Not only that, they have it in their personal custody, like Clinton did.
	Clinton was recording conversations with an author where he was discussing national security information and classified information on those tapes.
	That's why he kept the tapes.
	He kept them in his sock drawer.
	His sock drawer.
	I mean, in the case of Barack Obama, he had a bunch of national security information in an abandoned storage locker.
	That anybody could have accessed if they knew where it was, probably more than a few did.
	And he refused, by the way, to return it to National Archives for almost a year.
	I mean, Biden has stuff in his garage next to his Corvette.
	So, abandoned storage lockers, your sock drawer in your Corvette, in your car garage?
	And Trump has it in a secured location in one of the most secured places on the planet.
	After he had become president, which is Mar-a-Lago, and he's the one you're going to indict?
	And that's not selective prosecution?
	If that isn't selective prosecution, then there is no selective prosecution limitation anymore.
	So that is additional First Amendment grounds to dismiss the indictment.
	So you've already got four different constitutional grounds, but it doesn't stop there.
	Because then you've got the ludicrous nature of the search warrant.
	You've got the search warrant was too broad.
	The search warrant made false statements of fact.
	And so you have procurement of the search warrant in violation of probable cause because of material misrepresentations in it.
	Then you have the execution of the search warrant, where they failed to properly present it in a timely manner, where they seized information that by their own admission was outside the permissible scope of the search warrant, and they seized it anyway?
	And they haven't even identified what classified information was actually relevant to the indictment because there's no classification-based indictment allegation present in the case, as people pointed out.
	So you have problems in the execution of the search warrant.
	So you have this big poison tree at the center of their entire case that poisoned the rest of it that's independent grounds for dismissal under the Fourth Amendment.
	Then you have a unique Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds to dismiss because, as you note, There's a bunch of their entire case is based on attorney-client communications.
	This is a deliberate breach of attorney-client privilege.
	How did they get it?
	They got it by a corrupt judge in D.C. who wasn't even supposed to be presiding over the case given that it was in Florida.
	No, I want people to appreciate that.
	A lawyer flipping is now disclosing solicitor-client privilege documents.
	And their notes on their meetings with their own client.
	Like, I didn't stress that.
	I was going to do a vlog breaking this down, but then, you know, the poo-poo hit the fan in Canada.
	The notes where the lawyer says he made a plucking noise.
	I mean, this is to the core of solicitor-client privilege documents.
	Unless I'm mistaken, Robert.
	No, no, this is all clear.
	This undisputed attorney-client privilege communications.
	Their entire intent case goes from breaching attorney-client privilege.
	And the only reason why the court allowed it to go forward was because they brought that part of the case in D.C. And I'll get into it in a second.
	There's problems now because they've admitted the whole case belonging to Florida all along.
	Why did they go to D.C.?
	Because a D.C. chief judge presiding over the grand jury hates Donald Trump.
	And ruled that they could breach attorney-client privilege to the extent that what they exposed was crime.
	But they didn't expose that.
	Because again, once you understand, this is where Article 2 defense bridges into the attorney-client defense.
	Which is that if none of this was criminal, then they couldn't breach attorney-client privilege in the first place.
	So even if they say, well, we'll only set aside some of the charges on Article 2 grounds, not the obstruction-related charges, because the attorney-client privilege breach was key to all the charges in the case, and because the basis of it was ignoring Article 2, ignoring the Presidential Records Act application, that means that if that judge decision was wrong, then that means that attorney-client privilege could have never been breached, and that means the entire case has to be thrown out.
	Because attorney-client privilege is also enforced through the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, though uniquely here has Article 2 ramifications.
	So on a little side note, one, all these lawyers were pussies.
	These lawyers should be our disgrace.
	I said some of these lawyers were a disgrace.
	They were completely a disgrace.
	Any lawyer worth his salt, first of all, don't go around taking notes against your client.
	No business doing that whatsoever.
	I mean, are you that dumb?
	Are you that lazy?
	Are you that incompetent?
	Evan Corcoran and these losers?
	These are the people that they should be seeking to disbar, not Jeffrey Clark.
	And then you're such a wuss.
	You're so weak.
	You're so pitiful.
	You're so sorry.
	You go, oh, okay, judge.
	I'll just come in and rat out my client.
	Sit in jail.
	Make him take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Make him put you in prison.
	Expose these corrupt frauds of partisan judges for what they are.
	They're trying to destroy the Constitution of America.
	Stand up for something.
	I actually feel bad for having tried to interrupt you there, Robert.
	Do we even know that the notes were contemporaneous?
	That they're authentic?
	That they were taken at the time?
	We don't know any of that.
	And they shouldn't have been taking notes.
	They shouldn't have testified.
	They should have said, screw you.
	One, you got to give me immunity.
	Two, okay, give me immunity.
	Fine.
	I'm still not going to testify.
	Put me in jail.
	Put me in jail.
	See, put the president's lawyer in prison because you want to breach attorney-client privilege.
	Put that on the front page of the news for the next six months.
	Take that up to the United States Supreme Court.
	And even then, you can keep me in prison.
	See how that's going to work for you long term.
	Most of the time, they don't have the guts to do it, by the way.
	Because they know I will politically backfire on them.
	But these old lawyers folded quicker than a cheap tent.
	They lifted up their legs faster than the cheapest whore in a whorehouse.
	That's how terrible these lawyers were.
	They're a disgrace.
	They're a disgrace.
	And, you know, I've been telling people like Steve Bannon and the rest of them, quit hiring all these white-collar wusses.
	These are people that do not know how to handle political cases, don't have guts or balls.
	To defend anybody in a political case.
	You've got the Constitution on the line.
	Have some guts.
	I mean, that's why I respect the Jerry Spencers of the world.
	That's why I respect the old school guys.
	Guys that would be held in contempt themselves by a federal court, like the lawyer defending the Chicago 7, risking 15 years in federal prison because he stood up for something.
	When he took his oath, he meant it.
	These lawyers sadly, pitifully did not.
	But that's just...
	And part of that's on Trump.
	Quit looking for white-shoe fancy lawyers.
	Quit looking for cheap lawyers.
	Don't look for lawyers so far outside the system they don't know what inside the system looks like.
	Plenty of quality, skilled lawyers and continue to use their advice rather than a lot of this other...
	With good lawyers, Trump's never here.
	Even with the deep state being as corrupt as they are.
	Now, that still doesn't end.
	The grounds to dismiss.
	Hold on, Robert.
	But wait!
	There's more!
	All right, Robert.
	I'm sorry.
	There is indeed.
	I mean, it just keeps going on and on and on.
	This may be the most unconstitutional case ever brought.
	Not only is it the most dangerous case to constitutional liberty in American history, it is a case that is riddled with constitutional error and defect.
	So the next one is, here's what you can't do.
	I heard Napolitano.
	Napolitano's got to go back to law school.
	I heard Napolitano suggest that you could have one grand jury to screen and another grand jury to indict.
	No, you can't.
	The grand jury is limited to the same venue provisions as the trial provisions are limited to.
	You can't go fishing for which grand jury might indict somebody in another venue.
	So what should have happened here from the get-go is that the only grand jury formed should have been in the Southern District of Florida.
	But they didn't want the U.S. Attorney's Office from the Southern District of Florida to have access to the case.
	They didn't want a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida that might go AWOL having control of the case.
	And most importantly, they didn't want Judge Cannon or a judge like that presiding over things like attorney-client privilege breach concerning the grand jury subpoenas in the case.
	So what they did is they misused and abused a grand jury that did not have venue over the case in order to manipulate judicial selection, which is a violation of the grand jury clause, a violation of the venue clause, a violation of due process.
	So you have Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to bring to dismiss the indictment just for the abuse of the grand jury process.
	So you've got Article 2. You've got the Presidential Records Act.
	You've got the First Amendment on two different grounds.
	You have the Fourth Amendment.
	Now you have the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment on attorney-client privilege.
	You have the Fifth and Sixth Amendment on issues of grand jury abuse.
	But you're not finished then because they used the Espionage Act.
	And as the ACLU used to argue, they'll probably go and hide now.
	The Espionage Act has always been unconstitutional, just like the Sedition Acts have been unconstitutional.
	It's time to challenge them, and this is a great statute to challenge them.
	There is no greater absurd application of the Espionage Act than to apply it to the elected president of the United States, who by definition cannot commit espionage because he is the elected president of the United States.
	He can't spy against himself.
	He can't hide secrets from himself.
	None of this can.
	It shows you how this whole case is.
	Does the deep state run America or does the elected constitutionally appointed president run America on the run the executive branch?
	And so on those grounds, they can also seek dismissal.
	But that's not all.
	Many of these statutes that are being brought are being brought on grounds of void for vagueness, whether it's the interpretation of national security information, its application of the presidential records of the president in general, the use of the obstruction statutes, the things he's interpreting as obstruction, you know, plucks or obstruction, saying, I don't know is obstruction, like he's prosecuting one of Trump's secure bodyguards because he said he didn't know.
	Hillary Clinton has said it how many times?
	38, 65, 94?
	When was she prosecuted?
	This makes a complete crock.
	Of the entire constitutional system of governance and the Department of Justice being anything other than the Department of Injustice.
	Well, in fairness to them, Robert, they got away with it with Michael Flynn, where when everybody says he made false statements to the FBI in the context of an investigation, his statements that they said were false were equivocated statements.
	He says, I'm not sure.
	I can't quite remember.
	You have the transcript.
	And they still got him on it.
	And so they learned the right lesson from a weaponized judicial system.
	But that's still not all.
	So not only do you have a void for vagueness, Fifth Amendment challenge is unique here to the espionage and obstruction laws being applied to the president concerning what is everyone's agreed disputes about the law.
	If lawyers can't agree on the law, how in the world are you going to put the president in prison for not understanding it, supposedly, under their interpretation?
	But you have government misconduct.
	So the right to do process of law includes that the government not engage in malfeasance or misconduct in their prosecution.
	Here you have extraordinary evidence of misconduct, and no surprise, because Jack Smith and two of his lead prosecutors have previously been judicially found to have engaged in systematic and systemic misconduct and ethical and professional breaches of people's constitutional rights.
	How do they still have a job?
	How are they still in the Justice Department?
	They're running around the D.C. bar after Jeffrey Clark.
	For merely exposing the election fraud that took place in 2020, trying to disbar him in the District of Columbia, while these lawyers who have been judicially found to engage in misconduct are given the power to indict a president of the United States and the leading candidate for president in 2024?
	And what were some of the things some of these lawyers were doing?
	They were telling lawyers that if they wanted to be appointed a judge under the Biden administration, they better force their client to flip against their client's own interests.
	This is bribery and extortion and intimidation and obstruction by the U.S. attorneys bringing cases for so-called obstruction.
	So you've got extraordinary government misconduct that took place throughout these proceedings.
	And you have another question.
	The special counsel statute itself, is it constitutional and under these circumstances?
	That now will be addressed because if it's not, then the entire indictment was brought by a prosecutor, didn't have the authority to do it.
	And by the way, that too has been previously litigated and found.
	You have to dismiss in those cases.
	So that's just the constitutional problems with the case.
	Doesn't get into the statutory problems in the case.
	Doesn't get into the evidentiary problems in the case.
	Doesn't get into what we don't even know yet about misconduct in front of the grand jury, misconduct with other witnesses that is probably going to be disclosed and discovered in the case.
	It doesn't get to the very robust intent defense Trump has in front of a jury, which at this point will have at least a third of the jury be pro-Trump jurors.
	Good luck trying to convict Trump in that instance when the whole world...
	80%, according to a poll this weekend, see this case as entirely political, including many Democrats think the case is political.
	And there's probably no jurisdiction in America more cognizant of politically BS cases and rebelling against them than the Southern District of Florida.
	Because you've got a bunch of Cubans and Venezuelans and Haitians that know what a show trial looks like, and they want nothing to do with it and refuse to ratify it.
	So the president has unique, robust defenses, constitutionally, factually, and legally in this case, that are extraordinary for any defendant to have.
	Robert, what would be the monetary value, if this were drafted into an opinion, of the opinion or the analysis that you just gave for a client?
	That's a rhetorical question, Robert.
	This is all the legal stuff, which doesn't even get into the veracity of the allegations and the indictment.
	Phenomenal.
	My guess is that he never actually showed anybody he documents.
	I mean, here's the core moral policy problem they have.
	If you're going to bring a political case, you need a case with a real victim.
	When you don't have a real victim, juries tend to rebut it because they instinctively are skeptical of cases that scream politics.
	Here, who's the victim?
	The deep state for being exposed at lying to the American people for their secrets and trying to go to war in Iran and China and everywhere else under God's green earth?
	Ain't no jury going to be sympathetic to that outside the District of Columbia.
	In this case, ain't going to be tried in the District of Columbia.
	So that alone makes it very...
	There's no harm here.
	It's the same problem in the New York case.
	Who was harmed by it?
	Oh, Trump.
	They're indicting Trump for harming himself?
	I mean, this is nuts.
	They're now indicting Trump for exposing the crimes of the deep state?
	Which is what he's supposed to be doing?
	That's his constitutional job?
	So, uh, the, that's how nuts the case is.
	Uh, now I think that the, I don't see what Turley, the one part of Turley's analysis I did agree with was he said, there's a very high chance this case never reaches trial before the election.
	And there's a very high chance that Trump is pardoned by somebody at some point, if not he himself.
	And so the reason for that, so on Tuesday, they'll set a trial date.
	That might be a couple of months out.
	That doesn't mean anything.
	That's just the date set for that time.
	Because of the complex and complicated legal issues, and then future evidentiary issues with government misconduct hearings in this case, I would be shocked if this case gets to trial before election day.
	Could they not just postpone it, CNA, and say, look, we're going to resolve all the procedural stuff before even giving it a pro forma trial date?
	It would be, they always, depends, under the Speedy Trial Act.
	Jack Smith said they're going for a fast trial.
	Of course they are.
	They don't want the verdict to happen after Election Day.
	They don't want Election Day to be the verdict.
	That's what they don't want, because that's the ultimate outcome here, is Election Day is going to be the verdict on this, and the American people are going to reject the deep state en masse, is my prediction.
	We'll see if I'm right.
	Those that bet against me lose a lot more often than those who bet with me.
	Who did the bet on the UEFA final championship game this past weekend, discovered, betting with me.
	A lot more profitable betting against me.
	That's why the judge may schedule it.
	A criminal case may stick a trial, a speedy trial act date on there.
	But Trump can waive that and the court can move that past.
	The public also has its own interest in a speedy trial, but she can move that based on the extraordinarily unique legal issues here.
	Both sides are going to want to appeal any adverse decision by the district court.
	This case screams for precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And so even though that's the interlocutory stage, you don't have a right to it, I can't see the district court not affording that opportunity and not wanting the Supreme Court to have a chance to address it before he even reaches trial because of the kind of case that shouldn't reach trial until those issues are resolved.
	And so because of how a trial verdict could impact and interfere with the integrity of the election in November.
	So I think a conscientious court, and this court has shown that evidence so far, would say, I want legally robust issues, constitutional issues fully vetted.
	I want opportunity for both sides to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court on these extraordinarily unique issues.
	I want to manage this case in a way that limits its influence on the 2024 election.
	So there's as little interference as possible in the election from this case.
	This case should be done independent of that election and should be handled in a manner that does not impair or interfere with that election.
	That would ultimately schedule any jury trial until after the election.
	That's the only way to do so in a way that's consistent with their constitutional obligations of the court.
	Many courts I would be concerned being riddled with cowardice when it comes to the deep state, but this court has not shown that in the past.
	So I believe this court ultimately I don't think the case reaches a jury trial until after Election Day.
	I think Election Day is its own verdict and will ultimately answer this case one way or the other.
	I don't think this judge will use bail authority or gag Trump in any meaningful way that will limit his ability to campaign for office.
	I think this court will be very conscientious of not interfering in the election process.
	So I don't think much of the criminal justice process will tie up Trump much at all.
	Hopefully he presents all of these robust constitutional defenses he has, investigates to expose the degree of government misconduct in the case, gets full discovery, has that whole process, and then lets...
	Now, my view is I do have an interpretation as to what should happen in the future policy-wise, but also why Biden might have brought this indictment knowing he might not secure a conviction prior to Election Day.
	Do I ask?
	Sure.
	You can guess if you want.
	You're Joe Biden.
	What might you do if, let's say, Trump wins?
	What might you do if for some reason you're no longer going to be president January 20th, 2025?
	Pardon yourself and your family.
	But what would be the best way to get away with that?
	Pardon Trump as well.
	Exactly.
	Yes!
	This is what I think the back pocket Biden strategy is, that this indictment presents leverage for him to get away with pardoning himself and his allies, his family, maybe pardoning a bunch of the deep state people that still are at criminal exposure for those that are under the Durham report.
	Pardon all those people so that no incoming administration, and he can do it saying, look, I'm just doing this for America.
	I'm not just pardoning me.
	I'm pardoning Donald Trump.
	I'm doing this so that we can start anew so the new president can have a clean streak.
	And it becomes the political cover he needs to pardon himself and his family.
	All right, that's...
	Very, very enlightening, Robert.
	And I'm going to make a highlight of this entire section.
	And I think everyone out there is going to share it so that it makes it all the way up to whomever is counsel.
	Robert, I mean, I'll ask the stupid question.
	You would obviously accept a mandate to represent Trump in this matter.
	Or would you be able to?
	Oh, sure.
	And there'd be a lot of people that would.
	Yeah.
	I mean, he can build together a real dream team and he should.
	The other question I had was, hypothetically, he wins the presidency, becomes president again, pardoning himself might look guilty.
	Would he say, I'll take it to trial and prove my innocence?
	And if I don't, not that he has to prove his innocence, but you know what I mean?
	I think he knows it's garbage and he would just start issuing pardons.
	For all the politically weaponized cases, just start pardoning across the board.
	And with it, pardon Edward Snowden.
	Pardon Julian Assange.
	Pardon all, what a Trump pardon should look like is a pardon of all the victims of the deep state, which includes all the January 6th defendants, includes Edward Snowden, includes Julian Assange, includes Trump himself, and includes, there's a good number of other people, includes prior whistleblowers.
	Robert Kennedy has already said he will do pardoning all the whistleblowers.
	Include all those people in the list as well.
	Pardoning some that are already out of prison, but pardoning them for the purpose of their record.
	So just pardon en masse all the victims of deep state prosecution.
	It's amazing.
	I mean, this has, even as a Canadian with absolutely no voting rights, this has made me want to be as vocal, proactively and unabashedly supportive of Trump publicly, even though I think we've already been that way, because it is just so over the top.
	It has reduced the state of America to a banana republic.
	And what is clearly, you know, it makes Brazil...
	Not good by comparison, but look par for the course by comparison.
	Remember, we sanctioned Russia because the Lyndon LaRouche of Russia was indicted by a local government official for systemic fraud.
	And we sanctioned him saying it was absolutely horrendous that anybody who was a potential competitor, even if he was not a meaningful competitor...
	Well, that Putin allowed a local government to indict.
	And how can we pardon, how can we sanction Russia for that?
	And then we just indicted the leading opponent and the former president of the United States.
	I mean, it makes us look like an embarrassment on the international stage.
	But like I said, the greatest danger is this case is deep state versus democracy.
	If this case allows the precedent of the case even being allowed to go forward to trial, that would be a shame and a crime against the Constitution and would put our constitutional governance and our system of governance in great jeopardy.
	That's why systematically part of the policy reform has to be to completely defund the deep state, clarify all of these ridiculous classification laws.
	That they never apply to the elected president, never can apply to the elected president, at a minimum.
	In my view, get rid of the Espionage Act, get rid of the seditious nonsense, get rid of all of those provisions and laws, quit prosecuting whistleblowers for disclosing information, and we have way too many secrets.
	Secrets promote a deep state, not democracy.
	Secrets endanger liberty, not promote it.
	Secrets don't make us more safe.
	Secrets are what threaten our liberty for the get-go.
	Phenomenal.
	Robert, before we get into the Jeff Clark indictment, I've absolutely totally forgotten to do rumble rants.
	We're going to dedicate two and a half minutes to this, and I'll see how many I can do.
	Eye to the cloth.
	I to the CTOF E. My friend has been a teacher at the study.
	That's the school up the street from where my folks live that had the trans flag all-girls school.
	She says the bathrooms never had signs because it's an all-girls school.
	You need to be less quick to anger, David.
	First of all, I wasn't quick to anger.
	If it's an all-girls school floating a trans flag, they've already got some problems there.
	Will you guys over Iowa leading a 19-state lawsuit versus EPA over California diesel semi-truck ban?
	That is from RyKirito01.
	Felix Rufus, did you hear Kaczynski died?
	I didn't.
	Now I did.
	It makes sense why a friend of mine was reading the manifesto and said, Viva, you got to read the manifesto.
	GB Max, salty T minus 41 minutes, re.
	Lord of the re.
	Genitalia!
	Joke's on you, Viva.
	I've been watching on Rumble the whole time.
	YouTube is asshole.
	By the way, thank you for bringing back the vlogs.
	I miss those.
	Keep up the good work.
	Keep it up.
	God bless.
	Britt Cormier, Barnes, has doctor...
	Has a Drew Estate Undercrown.
	I have Olivia Master Blend 3 in my house.
	Unlike Barnes, I am stepping outside to light this one up.
	Oh, it's a cigar.
	We'll be listening, so keep the facts straight, Viva.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney, $50 rumble rant.
	Good evening, Robert and Viva.
	Caught on live, working at the office, still a little behind, but watching in 1.5.
	Good luck when I'm talking.
	GB Mack, for a breath of fresh air, check out Sammy Girl.
	Love you, Viva, and Barnes.
	But Sammy is a great break from all of this.
	I could take a break from all of this.
	Couldn't get one today.
	Uphill Rider, does the decision in the D.C. Circuit Court basically saying a president can take whatever documents they want apply to the Florida Federal Court?
	We covered that.
	Ian Mack, it's insane they want to imprison him for the rest of his life.
	Yes, it might get argued down.
	But on the face of it, prison till death.
	Cray-cray.
	Crazy.
	Jane Catherine Barry, as Twitterista, did a close look at the bathroom banker's boxes and found some were marked Mel's bedroom.
	Not sure what that means.
	Abby 33, Kane 33. Barnes, is there an explicit law stating that the elected president can declassify any document at his own discretion?
	The deep state will make that argument.
	I think we covered that.
	Jack Flack.
	Viva, those stacks of boxes were where the documents were found.
	The documents in question wouldn't...
	Even fill one of those boxes.
	Okay, that's the argument that they took out some of the classified documents from what was otherwise just not classified.
	General Malaise.
	Are we almost there?
	Do we even know when Trump claimed the documents weren't declassified that it was after he left office?
	If so, then perhaps he didn't have the declassification powers anymore covered.
	Gentifer.
	Thank you, Barnes, for explaining it so that even I can understand.
	And isn't it true that Justice Thomas will be in charge of this case as the case assigned to the 11th Circuit in Florida?
	Uphill writer, when in the process can Trump put forward the arguments you just made plus the waiving of attorney-client privilege?
	Arkansas crime attorney, ask Robert if I am correct about recusal.
	Asking for judge recusal in Florida is automatic on first try, but in federal cases, this only applies when not dealing with a case such as this.
	I think, Robert, we talked about that, right?
	Yeah, there's no right of recusal in the federal system.
	All right, and then we got bathtub liquor.
	I would love to see Barnes talk to Norm Pattis about this.
	Norm looks at this a little differently.
	It would be a good debate.
	Rockbottom56, why would the executive branch self-sabotage their powers unless it was to get Trump?
	It's obvious this is about 2024.
	PrimusFan92, Viva and Barnes, why do presidents take these classified documents with them after they leave office?
	Robert, that's a decent question.
	Because it's their records, that's why.
	It's classified for them from them.
	So it's their records to do whatever they want.
	So it only stays classified to keep somebody else other than them from disclosing it.
	All right.
	Aunt Debbie, go Barnes, please go help Trump's current legal team, Arkansas Crime Attunity, and it has to be future crimes, MKUltra1.
	Both.
	Whatever you think about DT, Donald Trump, the attack from the deep state is highly concerning, even for me as a European.
	The U.S. Constitution is such a fantastic framework, it must not be undermined.
	Ignotum, epic, GB Mac, waiting for Barnes to say, give your balls a tug.
	I think he said something funnier than that tonight.
	Twilight Tony, dang, that was a good explanation by Barnes once again.
	Randy Edward, the ACLU only concerns itself with the furtherance of the queer agenda.
	President Trump would have to go to court in his wife's dress to get the ACLU involved.
	NKUltra120 says, this is so informative and content you'll never find on MSN.
	Question, why isn't Trump consulting?
	Robert, seems that his choice of trusted people is just as bad as it always was.
	Why?
	Thanks for all you do.
	Uphill writer, if this ever got to trial...
	How would the content of supposedly classified documents be made available to the jury?
	I guess in-camera?
	Well, that's why they're not alleging, actually, any classified document information, ultimately.
	Kitty724.
	You decipher the indictment.
	That's what's behind it.
	We're almost there, people.
	Kitty724 says, so appreciate you guys.
	Thank you.
	I feel better about this incredibly bogus indictment of my president.
	And pardon, Ross Ulbricht from Torgo the White.
	Quasit, I was told that one of the charges relates to President Trump lying about having documents that were the subject of the subpoena.
	Is this part of the indictment?
	Do you have a Canadian mailing address to send you stuff?
	No, still using the last one.
	That is from Cod Tongues in Florida.
	It's on the YouTube website and other places.
	Woo!
	Okay, Robert.
	Jeff Clark, speaking of abuse of licensure and et cetera, et cetera.
	So we talked about it.
	We had Jeff Clark on.
	He went over the lawsuit.
	He's being investigated.
	Hold on.
	He didn't get sanctioned yet by the disciplinary committee, Robert?
	No, because he removed it to federal court and they were contesting that.
	A number of complaints against him for strategizing illegal methods to contest the legitimacy of the 2020 elections, send an alternate slate of electors to the Capitol building so they could challenge...
	finding creative constitutional methods of challenging what many believe, rightly or wrongly, rightly, was an unjust, fortified outcome of the 2020 elections.
	And for his legal advice, he gets to face ethics complaints, investigations by the Yeah, the disciplinary council for the District of Columbia, which shouldn't even have its own bar anyway.
	I say OCD is my own projection.
	That's the ODC, the Office of Disciplinary Committee.
	So he moved to have it, I don't know, adjudicated in court.
	And the court said, no, we don't have standing for this because it's specific jurisdiction for these specific committees that have specific laws that grant them their own authority.
	I guess I could have seen this coming, Robert, but how would it ever have occurred that a court would have adjudicated upon a disciplinary investigation?
	The problem is that this is the D.C. So federal law says, I mean, first of all, the District of Columbia is not a state.
	They're a creation of Congress.
	And so that's problem one, is why there should be even a bar.
	Why should there be a D.C. bar ever?
	I'm against licensure being required, period, because of how easily it's misused and abused.
	That's what I think of the D.C. having a bar.
	But the net effect of it is that it...
	The swamp gets to govern the swamp, license the swamp, monitor the swamp, manage the swamp.
	It's just a bad system.
	And as Mike Davis pointed out, he agreed with me that we should get rid of the District of Columbia altogether as an independent legal jurisdiction.
	I think we should at least get rid of the federal court system there, get rid of the state court system there.
	It never should have a bar.
	So the problem is you've got Congress creating this government.
	That's pretending to be a state.
	And what it said was, in any civil or quasi-criminal proceeding, you could remove any case of any matter to the federal courts because of concern that this local parochial process would not be properly applied.
	So Jeffrey Clark, for those who don't remember, was Assistant Attorney General on civil matters and on environmental matters.
	And after the November election 2020, he saw what was happening in Georgia.
	The Department of Justice's job was to investigate any fraud that could have impacted people's rights in Georgia.
	He researched, found evidence of that fraud.
	Then he saw the case brought that detailed it.
	This is the election contest case I discussed with Cleta Mitchell on Cleta Mitchell's podcast that was very well documented, that was required to be heard in five days, that the Georgia courts just refused to ever hear.
	They just violate the law, and of course it's the courts violating the law, so who enforces that?
	No one to enforce it.
	So based on his own independent information that he had witnessed and evidentially researched, as was his job as the Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice, given the oath he took to the Constitution of the United States, given the job of the Justice Department to enforce voting rights ever since we talked about the Voting Rights Act at the very beginning of the broadcast.
	That's a Justice Department enforcement requirement.
	Civil section is involved in that, and he was the head of the civil section.
	And so he looks at that and says, okay, there's a problem here.
	What are the potential remedies?
	He writes a memorandum that says proof of concept that says, okay, here's what we could potentially do.
	Here's what a legislature could form its own committee that the state legislatures who's given the constitutional power, they have the means to investigate.
	They have the means to establish a different set of electors.
	And that's how this could go.
	Now, his boss, who had replaced, who was handpicked by Bill Barr, didn't want any investigation to be done.
	And this is why his boss is lying to the world, claiming that the Justice Department had investigated election fraud and found none.
	They were completely lying, as Richard Barris and I said at the time.
	I'll be live with Richard Barris tomorrow on One of the Odds at 2 o 'clock Eastern to talk about the political fallout from the Trump indictment.
	But as we said at the time, That was just, Bill Barr was just lying to the world.
	And Bill Barr's replacement as the head of the Justice Department was lying to the world.
	To give you how insane the Jeff Clark case is, Jeff Clark is saying, well, here's these remedies.
	Our job at the Justice Department is to investigate these kind of matters.
	Here's what should be looked at and let the legislature and Congress do what they're supposed to do.
	It's called un théorie de la cause, as we say in French, the theory of the case.
	This is our theory.
	Let's put it forward.
	It wasn't promoting anything overtly illegal or even...
	No, nothing was...
	It was actually performing his constitutional and statutory job, which was to investigate these kind of matters as the head of the civil section, from underneath which is the various aspects of civil rights in the Justice Department.
	So he had independently confirmed this, is my understanding.
	From his own investigation in Georgia, he saw what was happening in the case, tells this to his boss.
	His boss doesn't want anyone to know about it and threatens him.
	And so then Trump says, I'm going to put Jeff Clark as the head of the Justice Department.
	And ultimately, that's blocked by all of Trump's corrupt advisors, all lawyers, by the way, and the Justice Department folks.
	And I mean, I was dealing with some of these people when I was involved in the Georgia cases.
	Trump's own legal advisors were lying to him about the law in Georgia.
	Lying to him about, this is now published information, lying to him about how the process worked, about when you could challenge, about how a recount worked, about what could be looked at in a recount, about when you filed an election contest.
	I mean, they weren't even telling him an election contest he had a right to bring in Pennsylvania such that he wasn't able to bring it in time because his own lawyers kept him in the dark about it.
	I mean, that's what was happening.
	And so here you have a conscientious Justice Department official doing his constitutional duty, simply laying out how other branches of government could resolve this question, the legislature of the state, the legislature of the United States government in the case of Congress.
	And they would simply present that this is actually a constitutional option for them to do.
	And that's it.
	And he is blocked and threatened.
	Ultimately, they never act on it.
	And instead, the D.C. Bar...
	Is trying to disbar him and strip him of his law license for merely doing his job by the D.C. Bar lying to the American people and fabricating false allegations against Jeff Clark because they're the ones lying.
	They're saying there was no basis at all to question whether there was any case in Georgia going slow.
	There is no dispute that the Georgia court failed to timely process Donald Trump's election contest.
	Those DC bar officials are lying.
	They are fabricating and falsifying charges.
	They are committing crimes under federal and DC law.
	So what Jeff Clark did, recognizing this was a kangaroo court in the DC bar, He removed it as federal law specifically authorizes in the case of D.C. because this isn't a real state.
	Removal to federal court.
	But he gets Judge Randolph Contreras.
	Recognize that name?
	Yes, Contreras was in Michael Flynn.
	He was the one who was conflicted that did not recuse himself prior to entering Flynn's guilty plea when he had to.
	Correct.
	And who is he good friends and good buddies with?
	Part of the reason why he needed to recuse himself?
	Bill Clinton.
	Peter Stroke.
	Damn it.
	So this is a deep state judge out to bury an opponent of a deep state in Jeffrey Clark.
	So he refuses to recognize basic federal law, says this isn't a civil proceeding, it's not a legal proceeding, it's not an equitable proceeding, apparently it's not any kind of proceeding, even though there's been subpoenas issued.
	And he pretends that D.C. is just like any other state.
	He goes, this would be like stepping on states' rights.
	I was like, reading part of the decision, this is some of the most absurd language I've ever read.
	D.C. is not a state.
	It's a fiction.
	Created by Congress.
	That's all it is.
	It's not a state.
	Not a state.
	Not a state.
	And yet this judge is pretending it's a state in his opinion.
	So, remanding it to allow this kangaroo court to continue to harass and try to hang Jeffrey Clark.
	Now, Jeff Clark has a, not a wealthy man, someone that has now been effectively blacklisted.
	From any kind of corporate legal job because of him doing his duty.
	When people wonder, why don't more courts step up?
	Why don't more lawyers step up?
	Why didn't more lawyers for Trump step up?
	Look at what happened to Jeffrey Clark.
	That's why.
	Because they blacklist him.
	There's not many of us out here that are willing to play the role of Meredith and others in stepping forward.
	It's just sad reality.
	There aren't a lot of Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s running around.
	In Rumble, everyone, I'm sharing the link.
	I'm going to do it twice.
	Jeff Clark's...
	Oh, I put an E on it.
	My mistake.
	Jeff Clark's legal defense.
	Give, send, go.
	He's going to need it because he's in the battle for his legal life, a battle to uphold election integrity effectively and constitutional duty and honoring his oath against this very corrupt rogue DC bar.
	I mean, I think he's got grounds already to bring a civil rights suit because these rights have already been violated by these flagrant criminals at the D.C. bar in politically weaponizing their position and fabricating and falsifying charges against him.
	But people should continue to support him at that because he needs all the assistance he can because it's going to be a huge brawl and he does not have independent resources to fight that on his own.
	And I'm just looking.
	My goodness, we had them on, Robert, over three months ago already.
	I can't believe how fast time goes by.
	The give, send, go is there, people.
	Give, send, go.
	I don't want to make a mistake and say the other one, the go F me.
	Give, send, go.
	I'll put it in one more time.
	He did thank our community for being very generous, if anyone is so inclined.
	Definitely support him.
	If you care about the Constitution, if you care about people upholding the Constitution, if you want to see change in government, you've got to protect the people who do keep their word.
	And not let them lawfare him into oblivion.
	And it's like, you know, they do this and it deters anybody from wanting to participate.
	So what you end up with are the corrupt scum of the earth.
	Or the wackos.
	Well, the wackos.
	And what it also does, as we're seeing with Trump, is it deters supporters to say, I'm just tired of all this.
	If I just give in and go for it.
	Yeah, that's what that Justin Hart.
	What a weak link.
	Justin, where's your spine, Justin?
	I do.
	I'm not attributing any ill intent.
	I'm not saying he's being paid by DeSantis.
	I think it's a sentiment everybody has.
	If I just give them this, they'll leave me alone.
	They're already saying DeSantis.
	You can't give in.
	No, and they're already saying DeSantis is worse than Trump.
	They will never leave you alone.
	And if you get deterred, you have let them win at what they're trying to do.
	And if Jeff Clark and other Jeff Clarks who say, I'd like to serve my country, but what the hell?
	I'm not getting involved in this.
	Well, it's what Bobby Kennedy said.
	Why wasn't Bobby Kennedy Jr.?
	Why wasn't he scared of being assassinated, given it happened to his father, given it happened to his uncle, President John Kennedy?
	And he said his father and his uncle understood that there are some things worth more than life itself.
	And he goes, one of those things is if you forfeit to fear, then fear wins.
	If you refuse to forfeit to fear, then fear cannot win.
	And that's a lesson to live.
	But here's a guy who's living that lesson, and people need to back him up and continue to support, provide what funding they can to support Jeff.
	And if somebody's asking, am I his lawyer?
	I'm not his lawyer.
	So the other people are his lawyer, because this is in D.C. He needs the support, and people need to continue to give that support because he's done the right and righteous thing.
	All right, and everyone should support Give, Send, Go and not Go F Me for obvious reasons that we all know all too well.
	So Jeff Clark's update and the Give, Send, Go is there.
	Robert, what's the next one here?
	Let me see here.
	Ah, the Florida State football player.
	This is a reminder for all those folks.
	The left didn't talk about this case very much.
	And there's a reason.
	Why do they not like certain Second Amendment self-defense cases?
	Aside from reminding people that using a gun is often a critical, essential, fundamental means of self-defense in America, what the Second Amendment is all about, well, they really hate it when it's a black guy who uses it.
	When it's a black man who defends himself successfully with self-defense using a gun, those cases magically disappear from the media, even when it's a former NFL player who did it.
	All right, Robert.
	So I don't know the details.
	I just know that he was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder.
	He slides ground.
	In what state?
	If you could summarize the country, I know nothing.
	Florida.
	He was a great Florida State player.
	He had a lot of fans, support within the NFL.
	Basically got in an argument with his girlfriend.
	His girlfriend got some interesting people, let's say, to go out and send four people to him to do something to him.
	You can take a reasonable guess what that was.
	He defended himself with a gun.
	State prosecutor being the state prosecutor, brought charges against him.
	And the jury saw through it and in four hours found him not guilty of all charges, that this was clearly a stand-your-ground case.
	This was clearly a self-defense case.
	It never should have been brought as a case.
	So a reminder of the importance of the Second Amendment and a reminder that it often benefits groups that the media doesn't want the world to remember whom it benefits.
	I mean, the first people that were targeted for mass gun removal in America were black Southerners.
	What's the event?
	No, it's the event in the United States with the natives who were disarmed and then rounded up.
	What was that?
	Something with knee.
	Is it wounded knee, Robert?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah, wounded knee, a bunch of those kind of cases.
	I mean, they promised them blankets and served them blankets with parasites that would eat away at them.
	But the first systematic state effort at...
	De-arming, disarming a citizen population was the post-Civil War Black Southerners, freed slaves.
	They went after him for a first-degree premeditated murder, three counts of first-degree, three counts of attempted first-degree murder.
	Well, the core facts are not in dispute.
	He was surrounded by them.
	He didn't go looking for them.
	They came and surrounded him.
	He didn't come to surround them.
	He wasn't with three other guys.
	They were four guys against one guy.
	It was quite clear what they were there to do.
	And he defended himself successfully and rightfully and legally, and a jury could see it.
	Why couldn't the prosecutor?
	All right.
	Interesting.
	Robert, New York.
	So this one, I read the case.
	This is New York suing Kia and Hyundai, not Honda, Hyundai.
	I never understood how those two car companies coexisted without having problems.
	Hyundai versus Honda.
	They're being sued under the nuisance laws of New York State.
	On the pretext that, first of all, I didn't know some of the facts.
	Assume the facts of this lawsuit are accurate.
	Well, we actually discussed it a couple of months ago when somebody was suing privately on similar grounds.
	Well, the allegations of the lawsuit are that Hyundai and Kia don't implement a disconnector.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	An immobilizer?
	Something that allows them to be...
	Apparently hacked and...
	Well, apparently it's pronounced Hyundai!
	Hyundai.
	I think they had a Super Bowl ad, if I'm not mistaken.
	Hyundai!
	Would you buy something from Hyundai?
	It sounds like a Japanese samurai guy is going to chop your head off.
	I would never buy it because I don't like the logo.
	I now am a Jeep man for the rest of my life, although I want that Bronco.
	One day, when we get a new car, it's going to be a Ford Bronco.
	Apparently, they're the most popular cars to steal.
	They have not implemented some engine switch-off, cut-off thing, so they're easy to hack, and they're the theft car of choice, and their theft has risen like 2,500%, whereas other car manufacturers have not been getting stolen.
	I'm looking to see if anyone's going to tell me what the word is.
	It doesn't matter.
	New York State filing a lawsuit on the basis of a nuisance in that they're not taking certain allegedly basic, not precautions, production manufacturing...
	Precautions to cause their cars to be less prone to theft.
	And the idea is that this is causing a nuisance because the cars are so popular to steal.
	People are going to steal them, get into trouble, run people over.
	And they're going after this manufacturing decision of the company under nuisance laws.
	I think I know the way you're going to feel about this, but if I missed any salient facts in the summary, let me know.
	And let me know why you think that this lawsuit is of particular interest.
	I'm predicting it's because you hate...
	Nuisance laws and think that they are being misused here, but maybe I'm totally wrong.
	It feels like that.
	Saying that it's a public nuisance for you to not employ the technologies available to you to make it more difficult for cars to be stolen.
	To call that a public nuisance seems to me really stretching public nuisance laws way too far.
	And then the irony...
	The reason why New York City has a bunch of crime is because of their ridiculous politics.
	Not because the car companies are not making cars immune from theft, but because they're releasing the criminals on a mass basis and encouraging them.
	You know, putting vending machines out that basically help you commit crime instead of resisting crime.
	Trying to force people to take homeless people into their house.
	Trying to force them to take illegal aliens into their house.
	I mean, the problem is New York City's politics, not the car companies.
	Well, but let's even assume there is something of a theoretical cause of action here.
	If anything, maybe the buyer would have it, but they would only have it if they buy the car.
	There's already class action pending on that.
	I don't see how New York City can call it a public nuisance.
	They're just trying to cash in, shake down a big company for more cash that they can give out to more criminals.
	And I might think maybe insurers can say, well, geez, Louise, this is too expensive for us to insure and you're causing us because we, I don't know, maybe they're not allowed not insuring so they just have to make, I don't know.
	Didn't seem like they have a legitimate cause of action.
	The facts are interesting.
	It seems like something that Kia and Hyundai would want to resolve, but to be determined.
	Hyundai!
	Hyundai!
	Robert, what's the cause?
	Some Japanese haven't given up World War 2, have they?
	Well, look, if it's a decent car, the Japanese have been known to make decent cars.
	Subaru is Japanese.
	It's Japanese, right?
	I'm an idiot.
	I don't know very much about cars.
	All I know is that.
	Apparently it's Hyundai.
	So it sounds like the Huns are coming for you again.
	By the way, so I learned something when I went to the Murakami Gardens in Florida.
	Oh, it's Korean.
	Ah, so it's the scary Koreans.
	My tidbit of information for anybody who didn't know, there's a street in Florida called Yamato.
	And there's a place called Morikami Gardens, which is like a tribute to Japanese gardens.
	Yamato was named after a Japanese family called the Yamato, a Japanese name, who founded farmland in Florida in an attempt to try to recultivate Florida.
	I haven't ever made the video of my visit to Morikami Gardens.
	All that history is in there.
	So Yamato Street in Florida, for anybody who doesn't know, Japanese origin.
	All right, Robert, what's the next one?
	We had four more cases, but there's some fun cases.
	There are some of our favorite cases.
	According to the board at vivabarneslock.locals.com where we'll have a little bit of an after party to answer all the tipped questions there.
	So if you want to go there and ask a question, make sure to put in a tip.
	And we'll get to that in a special locals-only afterparty.
	Robert, we got 1,175 people if the count is accurate.
	Wow.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's going good.
	It's been fun there.
	So that's where you can get direct access.
	It's the only live comment section I read during the show or review during the show or pay attention to.
	But we have cops win a big First Amendment case.
	Nonviolent felons win a big Second Amendment case.
	Two major social media collusion lawsuits brought by one by the vaccine injured, the others by those challenging the 2020 election.
	Then a big case that the media is not talking about, autism and Tylenol.
	And then two little bonus cases, Beto dodging defamation in the crazy commie Austin courthouse.
	Court of Appeals, and then Dave Ramsey's timeshare litigation.
	You might have to feel the better part of these, Robert, because I don't want to say I stopped my homework right about at this point, but I didn't get very far into it.
	What's the First Amendment Cops case?
	Sorry, go for it.
	Yeah, so it's the city of Philadelphia trying to get rid of cops based on their Facebook posts.
	So they brought suit on grounds that these are First Amendment retaliation, and that even though they're public employees, they still have their First Amendment rights, and these statements were made about public matters in their private capacity.
	That's the two-fold combination that's required to have First Amendment protected speech if you're a public employee, that the speech not be made in your capacity as a public employee, but made in your private capacity, but that it concern a matter of public interest.
	So that's the, you know, it could throw people off because of the private-public combination and how it applies.
	If you're acting privately but talking about a public matter, it's protected.
	If you're acting publicly or talking about a private matter, it's not protected.
	I got it.
	To the credit, the Third Circuit said that's absolutely First Amendment protected speech, that they had pled out an effective retaliation claim.
	This is getting into the social media space, and there have been contradictory rulings by federal courts, so this is a very good, positive ruling in the right direction.
	That's going to limit the government's ability to use government employment as the pretext to fire people for their social media commentary and speech.
	And just to say, social media commentary that's not in uniform, not made, you know, purporting to be agents at the time, but private free speech while you're a public employee.
	Exactly.
	Made on their personal Facebook pages that are not even associated with their public position, etc.
	So, the same Third Circuit en banc.
	Made a big decision that said the Second Amendment does not allow the federal government to impose criminal penalties or take away your rights to a gun if the felony that you committed was not a violent felony.
	As they pointed, this is the continued ramifications of the Bruin decision and its progeny.
	That is, the U.S. Supreme Court said, look at any law limiting gun access, any law punishing the exercise of gun access, and look at whether or not it was constitutionally permitted broadly at the time of either the 1789, the time of the Bill of Rights, or at the time of 1866, at the time of the Reconstruction Amendments.
	And they said if it was not broadly considered permissible at that point.
	To punish or restrict gun rights at that time for self-defense purposes, then is it constitutional now?
	And what this en banc panel properly recognized is that, in fact, committing a felony was not a per se bar to gun access or the rights to defend yourself.
	That it was only violent felonies that broadly allowed gun restrictions to occur.
	And so they said all these criminal laws that put people in prison almost automatically, if you try to defend yourself with a gun or by owning or possessing a gun because you committed a felony at any point in the past when it was not a violent felony, violates your Second Amendment rights of self-defense and gun access.
	So it's a very big Second Amendment win, continuing to expand it and extend it in broader ranges.
	And I don't think the Supreme Court will take up the case.
	I think they'll let that precedent stand, unblocked decision of the Third Circuit, and I think you'll see that expand and extend to a broader range of cases.
	That will start to decriminalize a lot of people that were threatened with criminal punishment based on low-level offenses that never should have disbarred their ability to defend themselves with gun access.
	Totally understand that.
	Totally agree with it.
	Robert, are we on to the non-violent?
	We have two related cases of social media censorship that were popular cases on the board.
	Hold on.
	Which one?
	So it's two different groups have sued for the government colluding and coercing so big tech to censor speech.
	Yeah, this was for the Election Integrity Partnership, Robert, which is...
	And the vaccine injured have also brought suit, that they're not allowed to discuss their vaccine injuries.
	Facebook is shutting down their group, shutting down their accounts.
	Twitter, for a while, suppressed and censored them.
	YouTube continues to suppress and censor them.
	Well, actually, are those lawsuits connected, or just they're overlapping?
	Two different lawsuits.
	Two new lawsuits being brought.
	But connected to the same Missouri versus Biden case.
	Yeah, well, that's it, because the Election Integrity Partnership, what has been disclosed was that, I forget who was in the video, but they were talking about the Election Integrity Partnership.
	It was the...
	Remember that guy running around for that so-called federal agency that said it was the cleanest election ever after 2020?
	Head of that group that almost nobody knew even existed.
	In other words, bureaucracies nobody even knew existed.
	I think it's CISA is the name of the...
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	It came up with Matt Taibbi in the interview.
	That's who was stewing the censoring.
	That's who was doing the censoring an election.
	The guy lying to everybody about how clean the election was had spent the entire election season coordinating, colluding to suppress information about the dishonesty of the election both before and after it.
	And if anybody has forgotten the facts, the Election Integrity Partnership was allegedly a third party, not an NGO, but a non-governmental party that was going to ensure...
	The integrity of the upcoming elections, ensure disinformation was suppressed or flagged and labeled, etc., etc.
	Matt Taibbi got in trouble because he confused the CIS with the CISA when he said that CISA had partnered with the Election Integrity Partnership Program.
	They did.
	The CISA, the government agency, was in fact a partner of the Election Integrity Partnership Program, whatever it's called, even in as much as the EIP could be called a third-party non-governmental entity.
	The EIP was flagging censoring disinformation and one of the elements that became disclosed during the disclosures in that process was that Facebook Was taking down otherwise true posts of people who actually got vaccine injured because they were afraid it would cause vaccine hesitancy.
	And I'm on the jibby jab hesitancy.
	Can you imagine?
	Oh my God.
	If people knew this could kill you, if people knew this could disable you, people knew this could kill or disable your kid, then maybe people won't take it.
	Yeah, no duh.
	Robert, it gets so enraged because I was talking to someone a week and a half ago when I was in Toronto.
	And as I say it out loud, I'm like, holy crap, they're just endless.
	You have...
	Jamie Foxx, who's rumored now to have had a stroke, be blind, partially paralyzed.
	You had Bill Odenkirk, who had a massive heart attack right about the same time it was either Netflix or whoever else was producing Better Call Saul implemented vaccine mandates.
	You had Justin Bieber and his wife within three months of each other developing Ramsey-Hunt syndrome for Justin Bieber and a brain clot for his wife.
	Nobody asks questions, and you can't, because it might cause vaccine hesitancy.
	Facebook was censoring posts on the basis that, although true, They would promote vaccine hesitancy, so censorship.
	So the lawsuit is what?
	There's a class action seeking...
	Oh, geez.
	What are they seeking from the election?
	Well, basically, they're piggybacking off the great success of the Missouri versus Biden case, saying now this is documented.
	Collusion and coercion took place.
	The judge has allowed the case to proceed, has allowed the class action to proceed, but it doesn't cover every subspecie of censorship that took place.
	So they're independently joining this on behalf of the vaccine injured, bringing in class action.
	This, by the way, is Jenna Yunus, the lawyer we talked to, is connected to the group that's bringing that case.
	And then Stephen Miller.
	Another lawyer we will talk to down the road, big Trump advisor, was interacting with me on Twitter this week.
	He, American First Legal, is bringing the election integrity suit.
	What is exposing?
	The so-called fact-checker organizations were conspiring and colluding with the government and big tech to suppress and censor information that exposed all the election fornication taking place in 2020.
	I'm trying to look for the clip where they were...
	There's that great British movie with Guy Ritchie that has a great quote.
	The elect 2020 wasn't just fuked, it was proper fuked.
	That might be either Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Bar.
	I think it was Snatch.
	I have to re-watch Snatch again.
	Brad Pitt was fantastic.
	So class action lawsuit.
	EIP admittedly doing what the government could not do directly, censorship of private citizens at the behest of the government.
	And Mehdi Hassan thought that he scored the The takedown on Taibbi because of the CIS versus CISO when the underlying fact was still the same.
	All right, and then we got, Robert, speaking of...
	Both great cases.
	The two little bonus cases in the after party at Locals.
	A case that almost nobody in the media is talking about.
	I'm going to pull something up.
	Is this the Tylenol case, Robert?
	Yes.
	People, just check this out.
	You obviously have not heard about it because Sokolov Law...
	Would I like to speak to a live person?
	No.
	There's a class action lawsuit about alleged potential connection between Tylenol in the womb and autism, ADHD and autism.
	Autism and ADHD linked to taking Tylenol while pregnant.
	And there's recent studies.
	This is from...
	Last updated, June 1st, 2023.
	So there's a class action lawsuit, Robert.
	I think that, has it received certification?
	It's being assigned in New York and the court is scheduling for it to be certified because what's unknown is over the past five years, a bunch of studies have confirmed an indisputable at least correlation between Tylenol use and I forget, not just Tylenol, it's that.
	I'm not going to pronounce it right.
	Here, I'll bring this up.
	And by the way, this has been tied to autism in the past because people wondered whether, like in Cuba, they don't have the autism explosion we have here, but one of the things they don't do is they don't use Tylenol aggressively at time of birth because they think having a temperature is good for the child.
	So for about 20 years, there has been a suspicion.
	That Tylenol, its use both in the womb and its use early at time of pregnancy to control temperature, may be associated with autism.
	They have at least proven to date there's a correlation such that now there's a class action lawsuit pending that there's been a dramatic right now.
	And not only autism.
	By the way, this shows the success of Robert Kennedy's campaign.
	Trump this week announced support of Robert Kennedy's idea for a broad commission.
	To study why there has been an explosion of children and other health diseases since around 1989.
	Take a wild guess what happened in 1989 in terms of the dramatic expansion of vaccines on the kids list is what happened.
	It's the only dramatic thing that happened in 1989 different than anything else.
	But so Trump is implicitly putting vaccines under scrutiny.
	By joining Robert Kennedy's effort to say, let's do a mass study to say what's going on.
	But one of the things it may expose is these other drugs like Tylenol and its broad use for children.
	It's broad use during pregnancy because at least as it relates to Tylenol in the womb, there's now almost no dispute that it at least correlates to a dramatic spike as high as two to three times risk of autism and other diseases.
	Or mental conditions, neurological conditions like ADHD and others?
	Now, I'm bringing this up not because I trust the NIH, but I do trust when they say something that runs against what they would otherwise say that it has more credibility.
	This is from 2019.
	NIH-funded studies suggest acetaminophen exposure in pregnancy linked to high risk of ADHD autism.
	And I'm just 3.26 times.
	And I'm just going to get the whole text in the image so that if and when they decide to take this down, at least we've memorialized it in our stream.
	And Robert, I like, you know, from a medical perspective, very interesting.
	I now look back at a lot of things with a different eye than I did pre-COVID.
	But this politically also gives RFK a distinct position, potentially, in a Trump administration, if and when RFK Jr. is going to be done dirty by the Democrats, which he will.
	So, very interesting.
	All right, was there one last one, Robert?
	I know, just two bonus cases of Beto O 'Rourke.
	Called a Republican fundraiser, a criminal and accused him of specific crimes, which has historically always been grounds to sue for defamation.
	He sues for defamation.
	The trial court recognizes that he has grounds to sue for defamation.
	It's not Austin.
	It's one of the rural counties that's around Austin but is governed by the Austin Court of Appeals.
	And all the liberal judges on the Austin Court of Appeals, the same liberal judges who dramatically expanded defamation law in a place that's never gone before to get Alex Jones to have a huge judgment against him, the exact same court dramatically shrunk defamation law so that it doesn't It doesn't even apply when you call someone a criminal because it's Beto O 'Rourke being sued.
	And they say he can't be sued.
	That's just the kind of opinion and exaggeration that's never subject to suit, which is exactly the opposite of what they ruled in the Alex Jones case.
	They did not invoke qualified immunity to get Beto off?
	That sounded bad.
	He was not a government official, so they couldn't.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, me so idiot.
	All right.
	Well, Robert, the last bonus one is...
	Dave Ramsey, long time war against timeshares, promoted an organization to help people get out of timeshares.
	There's issues with that organization.
	And so now Dave Ramsey's being sued merely for advertising that organization, as far as I could tell.
	So I saw the suit as a little bit, but it's a new trend.
	If you promote someone, if you advertise for someone, like is commonly done on podcasts.
	Now, all of a sudden, you're subject to being sued if you haven't thoroughly investigated.
	If it turns out they did something wrong, that's a problematic reach on advertiser liability.
	But it's where they're going now, and they're trying to use Dave Ramsey as the example.
	I say that I do my due diligence with sponsors that I accept, not to vet the ins and outs of the company, but just to make sure that I'm sufficiently comfortable with the product, especially if I'm going to use it myself.
	But it's a sketchy trend.
	Robert, I was going to do one thing before we ended and went over to locals.
	And that is just catch just a few of the remaining or the new Rumble Rants.
	Alex, Davey Duke, David, great coverage in Ottawa.
	Parents revolt against the trans and rainbow sex indoctrination in public schools.
	Fantastic job.
	Thank you.
	Kathy1010, great show.
	Thank you.
	Avi33, Kane33.
	Hyundai is Korean and a worse car.
	Okay, noted.
	Alex, Davey, Duke, Robert, Trump needs to get you on board at the Trump legal defense and Trump administration.
	Number two, take it to truth, people.
	Put it out there.
	Trump responds.
	I have nothing to do with anything.
	I'm staying, you know, here.
	Just going to ask Robert the questions that allow Robert to show his intelligence and me to show my curiosity.
	Cod tongues.
	Okay, the mailing address.
	We got that.
	All right.
	Oh, and then we got Ajax S. ESG is a new form of government.
	Can we file a case and get it ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
	Will Barnes take that case?
	ESG, I mean, I imagine that that is purely private companies doing what they think is good for...
	I mean, if it turns out that the government is imposing or coercing or pressuring companies to implement ESG, DEI, all that crap, then there's a potential case, Robert?
	Probably now I know.
	All right, what we're going to do now, I'm going to give the link...
	Oh, I got to pee so badly, not that anybody...
	Robert, how do you not pee?
	I never even asked you this.
	Okay, it doesn't matter.
	Everybody, I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	Right now, the link to Locals, one last time, is in the chat.
	And we'll answer all the $5 tips and above, because I respect the people doing like $45 $1 tips, but we'll only answer a few of the $1 tips.
	Because it does become...
	Because otherwise, one person gets like 70 questions.
	And then there was one last rumble that just came in.
	A Pfizer vaccine has found unsafe.
	Can networks that accepted Pfizer advertising be held liable?
	I think the Maddows should be held liable because they absolutely made positive statements.
	It should be, but right now it's difficult.
	All right.
	Ending on rumble.
	Heading over to Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com now.
	Booyakasha.
	Now, Robert, let me see here.

▲