Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 18, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:20:22

Ep. 165: Trump, Biden, and the Ugly! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I am intimately familiar with SOGI because I fought it in Alberta when it was implemented and took it all the way to Adriana LeBronch, the education minister.
	And I had mothers go into the libraries and pull out books that were available to eight-year-olds that show male-on-male prepubescent oral sex and books about men raping their daughters.
	And they read this to children.
	Then they bring in a ginger man and show 76 genders and all these different pronouns.
	And they make their children, as young as four, play games where they choose their gender and choose their pronoun.
	And now they have laws in place that if they can convince your little son Jack that he wants to be called Jill...
	They'll call him her.
	They'll call him Jill.
	And they will not inform you.
	They will not ask for your consent.
	And then six months later, when Jill puts on a dress at your house and you're all concerned, CPS is going to be knocking at your door, wondering why you're not affirming your child's gender.
	This is about sexualizing children, confusing children, perverting children, so the state can become the number one influence in their life over the parents.
	And parents need to stand up to this vehemently and call out these child groomers for what they are.
	And we need to work with this.
	We need to work with this.
	We need to work with this.
	It is not 71.21.
	It is a child exploitation.
	These are logs on the box.
	I need to be enforced.
	Thank you.
	And let's go.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And let's go.
	I'm not playing it a second time.
	Everybody...
	We probably got demonetized already.
	I don't care.
	First of all, I've seen to make sure that we're good before we carry on.
	Are we live on Rumble?
	Let me just see.
	It looks like we're good.
	Once bitten, twice shy, three times traumatized.
	Everybody, we're good on vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	And what else do I have to make sure of?
	Okay, I can see my face there.
	I have my good camera.
	I've got some lighting.
	So I'm going to lighten up this side of my face with unnatural lighting, and I got the natural lighting on the right.
	Oh my goodness.
	For those of you who don't know who that is or what you just witnessed, Chris Sky or Chris Sacoccia, which his last name is Italian for pocket or sack.
	Chris Sacoccia, I guess that was at a debate for the mayoral race in Toronto.
	He's running for mayor in Toronto.
	We're going to do a follow-up interview from the last one.
	That was impactful, well delivered.
	The thing is this.
	What he said was factually correct in the examples he provided.
	What he said was insightful historically in terms of in communist states, in communist nations, in times of communism, the state literally said, it's like one of the tenets of communism, that a parent's love for their child is irrational.
	But the state's love for a child is rational.
	Therefore, the state is in a better place to raise a child than the parent, because it's rational love and not irrational love.
	I don't know if it was Trotsky, Stalin, or the other one there, the one with the mustache, Lenin.
	I don't know who it was.
	It's a premise of communism.
	I mean, in a way, it's really a premise of any fascist totalitarian state.
	They want to control everything, and to do so, they need to destroy the very pillars of a society.
	What is that?
	Community, religion, the family unit.
	They need to destroy all of these things so that they can exercise the influence and not even usurp, but let's just say kidnap, for lack of a better word.
	Whether or not you think that's what's going on by distance, it certainly is what's going on by way of direction.
	And what Chris cited there...
	A lot of people say, look, there's that one picture of the book going around that's the classic example that everybody uses to say that they're indoctrinating children with inappropriate books.
	It was one picture from one book.
	It doesn't matter.
	It still made it in there.
	I don't know what book Chris was talking about, about the sexual assault of the father on the daughter.
	I mean, there are dramatic books that have to tell horrible tales of things that people actually go through.
	The question is, what age is age appropriate?
	I've done an interview with the Toronto teacher, Unlearn16Joe, who, you know, raises the interesting point.
	Some of this is on the curriculum already.
	Where do you stop if you, like, take out certain books that are upsetting, that contain adult-themed stuff, or, you know, R-rated, not R-rated, but adult-themed stuff, but for age-appropriate.
	Where does it go when you have parents getting involved in the curriculum, as opposed to professionals determining the curriculum?
	That's the debate.
	We can agree that there's some gray zone in there where there's going to be the debate, but there's some black and there's some white where there's not much debate.
	And where there ends up being more fight over the gray zone is when there's a refusal to recognize the blacks and the white zones of this stuff where, yes, that graphic novel containing pornography, inappropriate.
	And then you have people saying, well, in Florida, they're taking all the books off the shelves.
	Look what you have, empty libraries.
	That's how you have to satisfy the capricious nature of this new legislation that they're proposing in Florida.
	Not fully appreciating that the empty shelves and the exaggerated backlash is just that, exaggerated backlash to prove a political point.
	Chris Skye's running for mayor of Toronto.
	He has been ahead of the curve on some things, and he's made some mistakes on others.
	Nobody's perfect.
	The only question is, Who is of more bad faith?
	And who has been more wrong than right consistently?
	Let me see.
	We're all good here.
	All right.
	Now, all that's safe, people.
	I'm on the road.
	I'm going to be back off the road tomorrow night late.
	Have been in Phoenix and at the Grand Canyon.
	It's Father's Day, and I'm spending Father's Day with only one member of my family, and my wife is with the other two kids.
	Happy Father's Day, everybody.
	Happy Father's Day to the dads out there who, though imperfect, we're all tied for number one dads to the extent that we're trying and we're doing our best.
	Happy Father's Day to all the dads out there.
	Now, we're going to have one heck of an episode tonight, and I have a lot of stuff on the intro burner that I want to talk about.
	I didn't get to stream as much as I wanted to this week because the internet was actually, I can see you in the background.
	The internet has not been good enough to even upload the Viva Vlog shorts.
	So I couldn't do any more streaming as of last week.
	My daughter participated in a public speech and debate competition.
	I volunteered to be a judge, and it was a very interesting experience because for two solid days, I was listening to various types of public speaking competitors.
	And it was an interesting, eye-opening learning experience for me.
	Now, I forgot what I was going to say.
	Yeah, the internet has been so terrible, and it's been a dense week.
	I couldn't get the streams out.
	But I got some vlogs out to prep everybody for the show this week.
	How did she make out?
	She got knocked out in quarterfinals, which is pretty good.
	First public speaking event ever.
	And the competition was good.
	This was nationals.
	And so it's like, you know, my daughter, she's finished first and second locally in local competitions.
	This is nationals where people take it seriously.
	I'd say it's like the Little Miss Sunshine of public speaking, but it's not, it doesn't have the sordid underbelly of pageants.
	It's just, you know, kids competing, taking it very seriously.
	So we did that, and then after she was knocked out in quarterfinals, we drove up to the Grand Canyon on Friday.
	And my goodness.
	Spectacular.
	Tonight, we've got, well, Barnes will give the list, but Chris Guy's running for mayor.
	I'm going to do an interview with him this week when I get back to a stable studio.
	But my goodness, people.
	Has everyone been following?
	I've been following everything that's been going on in the news.
	I listened to the Joe Rogan RFK Jr. podcast.
	Put out a little vlog about that.
	On location at the Grand Canyon.
	If you haven't checked it out, go check it out.
	When I drove from Florida to Montreal with one kid...
	We listened to a 62-part miniseries on the fall of Rome.
	Whether or not the kid understood a word of what was said, he'll absorb that information by osmosis or through osmosis.
	Now my other kid, I'm sure she's listened to more podcasts than she wants, more Robert Gouveia breakdowns of the Trump indictment than she wants.
	They'll absorb the information through osmosis.
	But I listened to the Joe Rogan RFK Jr. podcast.
	It was amazing.
	Everybody should listen to it.
	The drama.
	Of the latest part is that, let me see, do I?
	I think I have the tweet.
	Peter Hotez.
	During the podcast, Joe Rogan was talking to RFK Jr. about his podcast with Peter Hotez.
	For those of you who don't know, Peter Hotez is the mustache, bowtie-wearing doctor guy who has said some things that have not aged very well as relates to COVID response, jab, efficacy, etc., etc.
	Been very dismissive.
	Of alternative points of view, very promoting of the idea that a jab is the be-all and end-all of any health issue.
	He was on Joe Rogan.
	It was also a very, very frustrating podcast to listen to, but I listened to the entire thing back in Florida.
	Peter Hotez, you know, telling Joe, vaccination, it's the cure.
	It's what you have to do.
	And then Joe starts talking to him and saying, you know, not to be mean, Dr. Hotez, you're not in the best of shape.
	And he admitted it.
	Doesn't have the best habits, eating habits.
	Doesn't have the best exercise habits.
	Doesn't take vitamins, supplements, whatever.
	And yet thinks that, you know, the end goal of health is medical interventions for things that might be, for which the best prevention might be healthy lifestyle, exercise, and other non-medical interventions.
	So they didn't, you know, in French we say, those who are not there are always wrong.
	The absence are always wrong.
	Joe was talking about his astonishment at Peter Hotez's seemingly mutually incompatible philosophies, one being, I eat junk food, I don't exercise enough, but everybody should take medical interventions to be healthy.
	And he was talking about it with RFK Jr.
	And I can imagine being Peter and listening to this and being a little bit miffed.
	Peter Hotez...
	Drama, people.
	Peter Hotez, after that podcast, puts out this tweet.
	I might be mixing up some of the timeline because I was catching up as we were on one location to another.
	Peter Hotez puts out a tweet.
	It says, Spotify has stopped...
	What the heck is up with all of the capitalized second...
	A capitalized word.
	Spotify has stopped even sort of trying to stem Joe Rogan's vaccine misinformation.
	Ad hominem with no specifics.
	Imagine you have a tweet and you only have, what is it, 200 and some odd characters?
	And instead of being specific, you wasted an entire sentence saying nothing.
	There's a good reason for that.
	Probably doesn't have much to say.
	That would actually be specific on point.
	That could be rebutted or confirmed true.
	It's really true.
	Eh, just awful.
	And from all the online attacks I'm receiving after this absurd podcast, it's clear many actually believe this nonsense.
	Said nothing.
	Online attacks.
	I don't know what that means.
	Does that mean trolling?
	Does that mean people, you know, criticizing him online?
	I mean, does it even mean people calling him names?
	I don't know what online attacks mean.
	I just, I mean, I don't even know what people qualify as an online attack, but okay, setting that aside.
	So Peter Hotez puts out this tweet, accuses Joe of misinformation without specifying.
	Just one thing.
	One thing that Rogan allowed RFK Jr. to say that was wrong.
	One thing RFK Jr. said that was wrong.
	A whole tweet for knots.
	Oh, by the way, something's happening to Vice, I think.
	Isn't Vice...
	I think Vice is shutting down?
	I'm not sure about that.
	Vice had the article.
	Spotify has stopped.
	Oh, that's why it was all titled.
	Okay, fine.
	The article device.
	Okay.
	Rogan comes out after that and says, come on out for a debate.
	Debate RFK Jr.
	Here we go.
	Let's go down.
	We have to go here.
	Peter, if you claim what RFK Jr. is saying is, quote, misinformation, I am offering you $100,000 to the charity of your choice if you're willing to debate him on my show with no time.
	I'm going to tell you something.
	It's going to be so frustrating, actually, because we'll get there in a second.
	Joe Rogan says, $100,000 to come and debate.
	What did Peter Hotez say to that?
	Hold on a second.
	Let me get the tweet here.
	Is this it right here?
	Is this one it?
	He says, Joe, you have my cell number.
	I'm always willing to speak with you.
	Oh, that's nice.
	Okay.
	This is a non-answer.
	I challenge you publicly because you publicly quote tweeted and agreed with that dogshit Vice article.
	If you're serious about what you stand for, you now have a massive opportunity for a debate that will reach the largest audience a discussion like this has ever had.
	If you think someone else is better qualified, suggest that person.
	Large audience.
	Offer for charity.
	This is the, and then there's other people out there saying, oh, you don't debate conspiracy theorists?
	By debating conspiracy theorists, you elevate them.
	No.
	No.
	In fact, by debating conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theorists who don't know what they're talking about, you actually reveal and expose their disinformation.
	I could think of some examples, which I'm not going to name offhand because I don't want to put anybody on blast.
	People who have put out disinformation.
	And when they then were publicly challenged and had the exchange, it was revealed to be disinformation.
	This is the bottom line with these hacks and these quacks.
	They don't want the largest audience possible.
	They want a select audience of people who already support them.
	When Trump was on CNN town hall, the biggest complaint from CNN is that the town hall was people who were not in disagreement with Trump.
	I thought it was going to be the exact opposite.
	I didn't realize that it was going to be people who are favorable to Trump.
	They don't want the largest audience possible.
	They don't want a democratized audience.
	They want a select audience of people they know are already going to agree with them.
	And they don't want to debate people who are intelligent and could offer meaningful pushback on a number of material issues.
	They want to debate with people who ultimately don't disagree with them.
	It's like when I went to the protest in Ottawa, and I talked to one of the people there.
	I tried to interview a counter-protester to the education, not indoctrination discussion.
	And I say, would you mind talking to me?
	I talked to two counter-protesters.
	We had a good discussion.
	I actually interviewed a trans person.
	We had a good discussion.
	The person says, do you agree with me, basically?
	Do you support the trans or the anti-trans movement, just to give them labels?
	I say, well, I don't support you.
	Well, then I don't want to talk to you.
	Why wouldn't you want to talk to me?
	Because I don't need to talk to you.
	I already know you're wrong.
	Who the hell, then, do you need to talk to?
	I only want to talk to people I agree with who I already think is right.
	Okay, that makes sense.
	Hotez does not want to have a public discussion about this because the stuff that RFK has publicly stated that's in his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, and like Joe Rogan said during that interview, if the stuff in The Real Anthony Fauci is wrong or inaccurate...
	You would be sued, RFK.
	And the fact that you haven't been sued is evidence that it's not wrong.
	And so Hotez doesn't want the biggest audience possible because people will see that he is a bumbling, dishonest quack.
	They don't want to debate with someone who's smart and debates the opposite point because that will reveal them as a dishonest quack.
	And it's not just that.
	This is the ultimate point.
	We'll leave it on this because I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	You couldn't offer Hotez money.
	Offer Hotez a million bucks, he won't do it.
	I don't think he needs the money.
	I don't think he needs the money from that source.
	He'll probably get indirect more money by not doing it.
	Right now, according to Zero Hedge, the purse for this debate for charity is $1.5 million.
	Rogan put up $100,000.
	I think someone else offered a million.
	I forget exactly who.
	A million and a half dollar purse for charity if Hotez sits down for this debate.
	It's not for Hotes now.
	This is for other people, for charity, for other people.
	He won't do it.
	He's a coward.
	He's a dishonest individual.
	He's a quack.
	They have all been pushing disinformation and misinformation from the get-go, whether or not it was the origins of the virus to the efficacy of the jab, despite the fact that they were moving at the speed of science and never actually tested it for transmission.
	The adverse events, which we now know, special adverse events.
	No, sorry.
	Serious adverse events of special interest.
	One in 800.
	They won't do it.
	Cowards, liars.
	The lot of them.
	And they want to be surrounded by other cowards and other liars and other people who just want to lick their boots.
	Okay, before I bring Barnes in, though, hold on a second.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	And we've got a sponsor to thank in a second.
	I was going to do another thing.
	No medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	We're going to go to Rumble after 15 or 20 more minutes.
	Exclusively.
	So we start on YouTube and Rumble and Locals.
	We cut off YouTube and then I put the stream and segments back on YouTube later today or tomorrow.
	We go to Rumble and Locals exclusive and then at the end of this we end on Rumble.
	We go over to our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community where we have our exclusive afterparty.
	What are the other disclaimers?
	I forget.
	And you may have noticed when you clicked on this stream that it says this stream contains a paid promotion because it does.
	Speaking of healthy lifestyle and, you know, nutrients, vitamins, the healthy stuff, exercise, as opposed to just medication, medication, medication.
	Fieldofgreens.com, people.
	Powdered greens are not supplements.
	They're not extracts.
	Basically, it's like pulverized, dehydrated vegetables and fruits.
	You get your antioxidants, you get your nutrients from these desiccated, not defecated, desiccated greens.
	One spoonful is one serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the super oxidant, whatever the heck they call it.
	Most people don't know you're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	I'll tell you one thing, when you're traveling, it's impossible to get it.
	And sometimes the fruits and vegetables you get at...
	Some places, inedible.
	Field of Greens is a powdered green made in America, USDA approved.
	It's a food, not a supplement, not an extract, and it's fantastic.
	It tastes good.
	Looks like swamp water, but there's a good reason for that.
	Swamp water is high in nutrients.
	It's the water of life.
	If you go to fieldofgreens.com, it takes you to Breakout Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVO, you'll get 15% off your first order.
	And I'd like to thank...
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	And that's it.
	And how does it taste compared to V8?
	It tastes much better than V8.
	V8 is good if you need the salt because you're running a race or something.
	I actually, I prefer the taste of V8.
	But when you're running races, you need salt.
	Conspiracy theorists like experts are a degenerate meme by established groups to silence critics and protect cowards.
	Okay.
	I feel like I'm forgetting something, but it doesn't matter.
	Bring it in the barns because he's been waiting patiently in the backdrop.
	Robert, three, two, one.
	Add to stream.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Robert, am I going to be neurotic and ask you to tilt your camera one inch to your right shoulder?
	Yeah, let's see.
	You're probably...
	This is why, by the way, sometimes OCD is a bad thing because it's good.
	No, the other way, the other way.
	Let's see.
	This is how you end up picking at things until they break.
	Perfect.
	Robert, I think that we've seen the book behind you.
	How's everything going?
	How have you been?
	I haven't seen you in a week.
	Good, good.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	We've got a big show.
	Sure, yeah.
	Happy Father's Day, first of all, to everybody out there.
	I assume you properly told your daughter that quarterfinals was unacceptable and she can no longer use her last name.
	I know that she was disappointed because it starts off like you just don't want to embarrass yourself.
	So you want to get through your situation.
	Oh, sure.
	But yeah, I mean, she did well getting that far.
	And it's literally her first time ever at this level of competition.
	But Robert, I think the thing is like...
	Well, you know, you can tell her my first speaking competition, I got up, I lasted 30 seconds.
	She started crying and ran off the stage.
	So she did much better.
	She did quite good.
	No, but the other thing is, like, you see the style that the judges are after.
	I think they're after more performative, exaggerated deliveries and not, you know, not linear, I say more matter-of-fact presentations.
	I saw some of them.
	They're, like, over-the-top performative, but maybe that's what it, you know, that's what you have to give the judges what they want.
	Yeah, I suppose so.
	I mean, that, I think, is unnecessary and counterproductive.
	It teaches kids the wrong things in terms of you've got to change your style to match your audience.
	I did not.
	I've learned a few lessons.
	I might put them together in some sort of, like, thought analysis for locals, but participating in this event, both as a judge and watching all of it, you know, they, Robert, they do these things at everywhere.
	When you were a judge, you have to, like...
	They make you reflect on implicit biases.
	You know, there's the whole pronoun things going on.
	The subject matter, you see when a lot of people speak, you see how identity politics ends up governing or at least influencing all aspects of presentation from substance to form.
	And, you know, I have a lot of observations, which I might synthesize later on.
	But other than that, above and beyond that, it was a great experience.
	All right.
	So, yeah, the menu and...
	Sorry, go for it.
	Oh, no, go ahead.
	I'm sweating.
	I'm sweating.
	I think it's hot in this hotel room.
	Sorry, yeah.
	What do we have on the menu for tonight?
	Sure.
	Oh, and just one announcement.
	I'll be on with the Duran tomorrow, Monday, at 1 o 'clock Eastern Time to break down a range of geopolitical issues, including the geopolitical implications and ramifications of...
	Trump's indictment, as well as Robert Kennedy's surging campaign and things of that nature.
	So that'll be The Duran on Monday, 1 o 'clock Eastern.
	You can find him on YouTube, on Locals, and on Rumble and Odyssey.
	Tonight, up first, the debate over the censure and fine of Adam Schiff.
	The journalist, what rights do they have at riots?
	We got about a half dozen cases from the Supreme Court, because they're wrapping up their term, that covered everything from criminal sentencing to the False Claims Act and KETAM relief to the rights of Indian tribes to immunity to Indian tribe issues in a case we previously discussed back when it was before the Supreme Court without a decision, the right of adoption in the Indian Child Welfare Act context.
	As well as rights concerning vicinage and jury trials may impact the Trump case in some cases.
	Venue, which correlates to but is independent of the vicinage requirement.
	And what is the remedy when the government violates those provisions?
	Is it dismissal or is it retrial?
	Then the second most popular choice of the night from our locals board.
	Vaccine case updates.
	This includes the Texas Guard before the Fifth Circuit against the Biden vaccine mandate in efforts to punish them.
	Gets into the Militia Clause and other provisions of the Constitution as well.
	Brooke Jackson update, relatively brief, but there's an update there.
	And then the college football coach case went through to the district court motion to dismiss pleading stage.
	So an update on that.
	Then the top topic of tonight, though not as much detail as last week, the Trump arraignment and what that means, and the effort by the government to try to prevent him, under the guise of non-disclosure of classified discovery materials, being able to discuss his own records in the upcoming campaign.
	It's a misapplication of that discovery rule, in my view, as well as what may be coming up.
	Right to challenge the special counsel appointment and other things of that nature.
	We have the feds back to the Obama administration protocol of trying to federalize local police under the guise of civil rights representation.
	We have abortion at issue again.
	In this case, another conservative court, Iowa, refusing to enforce another heartbeat bill.
	We have how this issue may be implicated by the personhood debates.
	Which we've had on our Locals Board about when is someone a person in the meaning under the Constitution, which goes back to the old personhood debates philosophically, religiously, medically, and otherwise, which took on a new hue this week because they were able to create synthetic embryos.
	And what legal ramifications are there for that as RoboCop becomes an everyday future reality?
	We have SBF.
	There are some charges dismissed.
	There are some other charges pending motions to dismiss because of extradition issues about what they did with SPF.
	We got a big win by the Maine Lobsterman in a case we've talked about on and off.
	And last but not least, but the third most popular question on our board, topic on our board, Plato's Republic.
	When and where does it fail?
	To help constitutional republic or constitutional democracy in our case.
	So that was a nice little philosophical topic to throw in there because it has some pertinence to the administrative and bureaucratic state and judiciary and the rest.
	Robert, can we switch the order and do the SCOTUS decisions first and then when we switch over to Rumble, do the shift?
	Because I'm going to make a specific highlight of shift to bring it over to YouTube afterwards.
	Got you.
	We have about a half dozen cases.
	In the Supreme Court context.
	First one up was sentencing.
	What was happening, there's some special laws that Congress passed that require mandatory minimums and require consecutive sentences rather than concurrent sentences.
	So let's say you're convicted of six crimes, but it's all the same conduct.
	Typically, those sentences will be the same.
	They'll run concurrently with one another.
	You won't be okay.
	You shot somebody.
	That's assault five years.
	You shot somebody and they died, that's another five years.
	Things like that.
	If it's the same crime, same sentence.
	And thus concurrently run.
	But there's some statutory provisions where Congress required not only minimum sentences, but mandatory consecutive sentences.
	And they usually concern where drugs and guns intersect.
	And there was a...
	There's basically a provision that says where drugs and guns intersect under this statute, you have to, under this subsection, issue consecutive sentences.
	The Supreme Court said that only applied to that specific subsection, did not apply to other subsections, even though they may seem interrelated, be part of the same statute, be part of the same policy schema.
	I think what it really represents is the courts disliking Mandatory sentences, whether they're mandatory minimums or mandatory consecutive sentences.
	Some parts of the court not liking it targeting drugs.
	Other parts of the court not liking it targeting guns for unique criminal, harsh criminal punishment.
	But the Supreme Court basically allowed for only concurrent or allowed for concurrent sentences in a lot of drug and gun cases and limited the scope to which those mandatory consecutive sentences apply.
	I'm just thinking of, you know, in a case like Trump where he got 37 charges on an indictment, well, if you get 37 consecutive sentences, he'll be in jail for however many hundreds of years.
	I know we've talked about this, and I think your view on mandatory sentences is you don't like them, correct?
	Like, you'd rather lead it to the discretion of a judge.
	Generally not a fan.
	It represents legislative distrust of the judiciary, which I share, but my view is all sentencing should be given to juries.
	Juries should decide sentences, not Congress, not prosecutors, not judges.
	Yeah, but do you still hold that view, having seen the way juries are convicting based on highly politically motivated reasons in Washington and in New York?
	Yeah, it's still, they may convict, but I would still prefer they issue sentences.
	My guess is even those politically hostile jurisdictions, where the sentences have been just as harsh by the judges anyway.
	That you're going to get more hospitable sentencing from the jury than you will a judge.
	Because in those liberal jurisdictions, a lot of them don't like over-incarceration, things like that.
	Depends on who, Robert.
	They don't like over-incarceration, depending on who.
	No, I guess from a jury's perspective, there's always perhaps more of that always reflection, this could be me at some point, versus a judge, maybe not.
	Plus they don't.
	Outside of really violent, dangerous criminals, they generally don't like long prison sentences, juries.
	Judges are much more punitive than juries on average when it comes to that.
	The people they're really punitive towards are really dangerous people.
	They'll be more punitive than a judge on child pornography charges, child molestation charges, sexual assault charges, certain kinds of burglary of a home, home invasion charges.
	The kind of things that really...
	In my view, deserve harsher sentences is where juries will be harsher.
	In your typical dispute with the government, regulatory, political protest-gone AWOL case, your jurors don't like long sentences and are often surprised when they find out how long the sentences are based on their verdict.
	That's interesting.
	Okay, cool.
	The next one, Robert, a False Claims Act.
	Sometimes I say I know exactly why you're sending me a decision.
	This is a False Claims Act where It was a doctor who filed a Ketam suit, which is, I guess, more simply put, not in lieu of, but pursuing fraud that was perpetrated against the state on behalf of the state, and then the state has the option of coming in and taking over the case for the person who filed it.
	First of all, Robert, I'm reading the lawsuit, and I thought it was a realtor who was filing a false claims act based on Medicare fraud.
	And then I realized I'm reading Relator.
	Which is the person who initiates the action as a realtor.
	Why is a realtor filing a false claims act for medical fraud?
	The basis of the lawsuit, which is interesting enough, and I think it explains why the government took it over to kill it, is basically the medical industry providing false claims to the government, which then get reimbursed under, which get refunded or reimbursed by the government.
	And it's basically fraud perpetrated for the benefit of the medical industry by the medical industry.
	Sanction facilitated by the government.
	This doctor, he spent a little time looking into it, files a False Claims Act on this grounds.
	There's a two-year investigation in which the government is deciding whether or not to take over in lieu of the relator, and they ultimately decide not to.
	And the litigation goes on for years, investigating doctors, basically providing...
	Fraudulent claims to the government, which get reimbursed by the government.
	And you'll tell me if I'm making mistakes here.
	The government decides a couple of years into this lawsuit progressing, they're finally going to intervene to, what's the word?
	To kill the lawsuit, to end it, to dismiss it.
	And the relator, the guy who's invested time and I presume money into this suit says, no, the government had the option to take my place within the, whatever the short timeframe at the beginning is, decided not to.
	If it decides to intervene at a later date, it can do so and it becomes a party to the suit, but not the principal claimant for the purposes of dismissing the lawsuit outright so that lo and behold, nobody can investigate this apparent fraud between the medical industry and the government.
	And this went to the Supreme Court.
	I forget who the dissenting opinion was, but ultimately the Supreme Court says, now the government can intervene whenever they want for good cause, and if they decide to kill the lawsuit, that's their prerogative, and the relator, the person who's filed this and taken it the distance, has no say, no right, no nothing to oppose it.
	Have I made any mistakes on the details?
	No, that's pretty much it.
	I mean, essentially, the government took the position that they could move to dismiss without even intervening in the case, which was, to me, a preposterous position.
	The Supreme Court did unanimously reject that government interpretation.
	They said, no, you have to be a party, and you're only a party if you intervene.
	But they rejected the relator's position that their failure to intervene during the seal period barred them from having the power to dismiss at a later stage.
	And they don't meaningfully enforce that good cause provision for a post-SEAL intervention.
	So, I mean, I favored the relator's position.
	The government should either get in or get out, and when it gets out, it shouldn't be able to selectively get back in outside of exceptional circumstances that they didn't evidence here.
	But that's more of a good cause debate than it is whether or not they have a right under the rule to re-intervene post-SEAL.
	But the other aspect was what Justice Thomas dissented upon.
	And what two justices concurred in part on his dissent, which was his view was the government had to, we could only be a party for purposes of dismissal if they intervene during seal.
	But he had another reason for that.
	His argument was that a private citizen, Congress cannot give a private citizen Article II power to seek injunctive relief unless it's under a different clause than the one they've used.
	And basically he suggested that the property clause could be a proper claim for assigning the government's right to an individual.
	But once assigned, they couldn't retake back that assignment.
	And thus it would still be only during a seal that they could intervene.
	But his argument is that we should reassess why and how we allow individuals to bring suit.
	In terms of what Congress authorizes, and that maybe we're using the wrong constitutional provision, because that has implications and ramifications for not only False Claims Act, but any other claim, and a wide range of other suits about Article 2 power.
	When do private individuals, when can they be given private attorney general status?
	And under what constitutional clause is allowed?
	And his point is, the necessary and proper clause that's been cited is not sufficient.
	And also that once the assignment is given, But Robert, if the government can elect not to intervene pre-SEAL,
	But they can intervene post-seal for good cause.
	I don't know what that means under American law.
	And they can decide to intervene after post-seal for good cause to kill the suit.
	I don't want to give anybody any ideas, but why wouldn't the government then...
	Let's just say it knows it's a dangerous suit.
	This particular case might expose collusion between government and Medicare fraud.
	Let's take another case where it might expose collusion between the government and pharmaceutical fraud.
	The idea that they could intervene to kill the suit so that no one has any rights, I guess this gets back to a constitutional violation, but is there a risk?
	Is this going to now encourage the government to do the same thing potentially in the Brooke Jackson lawsuit?
	Oh, they always could have done that.
	Now they can't because the case is on appeal, so that they're not in a position to do that.
	But in all cases, the government does this routinely.
	The Supreme Court mostly limited their ability to do it.
	Before the Supreme Court's case, The government's position was they could move to dismiss without even requesting intervention.
	So now at least they have to show a court they have good cause to intervene and have to go to the formality of intervention.
	And in my view, dismissal is not good cause by definition.
	So that issue is yet to be litigated.
	It wasn't litigated in this particular case, at least not at the Supreme Court level.
	But yeah, the government's always had this power.
	They can step in.
	Dismiss a case, kill your case, no matter what, on any grounds they want.
	And it's very difficult to stop.
	And so it's the hurdle in the process.
	Okay.
	The other Supreme Court, the Indian tribal immunity, Indian adoption.
	We talked about this one a couple of times.
	Refresh my memory, Robert.
	Yeah, so there are two different ones.
	There's Indian tribal immunity and Indian tribe adoption issues.
	So the first one was Indian tribe immunity, which is a bankruptcy.
	Basically, somebody owed money to an Indian tribe, filed in bankruptcy court to get rid of the debt, and the Indian tribe said, we're not subject to bankruptcy law.
	We're a separate sovereign, and the bankruptcy waiver of immunity lists every government known to man except Indian tribes.
	The Supreme Court decided that that was kind of accidental, and that because all the other governments lose their immunity in bankruptcy, Indian tribes do.
	Gorsuch, a longtime Indian tribe advocate in terms of rights constitutionally, disagreed, saying, look, if Congress wanted Indian tribes to have their debts or their creditor claims dischargeable in bankruptcy, they would have said Indian tribes in the immunity waiver, and they chose not to.
	So I think Gorsuch has the better statutory argument, but the Supreme Court wasn't going to interfere with bankruptcy.
	They defer to the bankruptcy courts all the time.
	And have expansive interpretations that favor every creditor, except in this case, Indian tribe creditors who didn't want to be part of it.
	So that's ultimately where the case went.
	Thomas argued that Indian tribe immunity, he's not a big Indian tribe immunity fan.
	I disagree with him on this.
	And that he believes that it only applied to commercial activity anyway.
	The scope of Indian tribe immunity, because he said it's rooted in the common law rather than the constitution.
	I think Indian tribe immunity is actually in the Constitution under a principle called Treaty Federalism, best articulated by old professor of mine, Richard Monette.
	But that's where Thomas came down.
	But the majority opinion was that bankruptcy is a place where you can also discharge your debts to any government, including Indian tribes.
	All right.
	Interesting.
	And this, I guess, segues into the second one, which was the native adoption or the law that prioritized adoption of native children by native tribes or biological native, not necessarily family members, but within the native community, was challenged seven to two.
	Supreme Court says it's not, did they say it's not, it is discriminatory, but justified or not discriminatory?
	They don't reach that part of the issue.
	So they claim there's no standing by the people to sue on the equal protection part.
	So the first claim was that the Indian Child Welfare Act was just unconstitutional because it was not within the authority of Congress to govern matters of family law, and the matters of family law should be left to the states.
	And that the Supreme Court rejected.
	And Gorsuch explained in a concurrence with Jackson and Sotomayor, you're seeing a lot of...
	Alignment between Gorsuch and Jackson on civil liberties issues and civil rights issues, that this is due to the unique constitutional structure of Indian tribes and the unique legal history and political history of Indian tribes, namely what used to happen in the history part, the constitutional part.
	It reflects Richard Monette's, my professor's argument about treaty federalism and Indian tribes using those treaties being treated like quasi-state sovereigns, like the state governments themselves, and that it creates its own form of constitutional recognition and respect for Indian tribes, which I agree with.
	The historical part is that there's a long, bad, ugly history of Indian kids being kidnapped and being taken out of tribes to be acculturated.
	So in response to that, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act when Native American issues became a hot-button issue in the 60s and 70s that said that in the future, any tribal member will try to keep place with a tribe or another Native American rather than non-Native American sources of power.
	And the Supreme Court said that both the That all the different provisions of the Constitution referencing this kind of treaty federalism, including the Indian Commerce Clause, the Treaty Clause, combined with the historical legal power of Indian tribes vis-a-vis state governments under federal protection, made the law constitutional.
	And they said the issue of equal protection analysis...
	Was an issue that these particular plaintiffs weren't in a position to raise, and so they weren't going to get into the discrimination claims and leave that for another day.
	They also said that the other challenge that was brought was that this was the anti-commandering doctrine of the federal government co-opting state sovereignty to do federal tasks.
	And the argument was because this applies to private citizens and the state governments alike, there's no specific usurpation of state sovereignty in the laws.
	So the Indian Child Welfare Act was upheld as constitutional on those grounds as well.
	But I think the unique treaty federalism components that Gorsuch explains are very pertinent.
	And the history of the political context of this is also relevant to understanding why this law exists in the first place.
	But it was, you know, not a very common...
	Indian-related issue, but for the legal issues that are more broader and conceptual framework, I recommend Gorsuch's concurrence in the decision.
	I'm not sure if there's an equivalent in Canada, but the idea that once upon a time, adoption out of the tribe was the best interest of the child because assimilation was the only way of incorporating Native kids.
	That was the same here in America for a long time, before this law.
	Thomas and Alito dissented on grounds they don't think Indian tribes should have any such recognition.
	And they think states' rights trump Indian tribes.
	I disagree with him on that issue.
	All right.
	And this is the last one, I guess, before we go over to Rumble.
	A trial conducted in the wrong venue.
	And I guess the question is whether or not you have a retrial, unless it violates the provisions of the speedy trial constitutional rights.
	What were the details of this one, Robert?
	So basically they tried somebody in the wrong place.
	And they kind of knew it.
	They got a conviction.
	The courts overturned it.
	And the defendant's argument was he shouldn't have to face retrial.
	And the remedy for knowing violation of venue and vicinity provisions.
	Because both of them should be dismissed with prejudice, not retrial.
	Because then the government really isn't punished very much.
	The Supreme Court disagreed and they said for pretty much everything.
	Outside of speedy trial and other unique circumstances, we're always going to say retrial is the remedy.
	Now, I often use that to hammer appeals courts, to say, what are you so scared of when you know a court made a mistake in a criminal case?
	The worst thing they have to do is just retry them.
	But it doesn't work that way.
	The courts still affirm at an 85-90% rate a criminal conviction, which tells you what a crock our court of appeals are in America when it comes to federal criminal cases.
	Set aside the fact that it was knowingly or negligently in the wrong venue.
	Even if it's done as a good faith mistake, I guess it's not double jeopardy in so far as...
	Trial and conviction set aside for venue, it's not double jeopardy because there hasn't been jeopardy attached because it was in the wrong venue.
	It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm thinking I might be missing something.
	Oh, you're not messing with anything.
	I mean, to me, so there's two constitutional provisions in play.
	So venue is that under the Constitution, you can only be tried in the state where the crime was committed.
	The vicinage provision is a jury right provision.
	So it's separate.
	So venue is, is it in the state where the crime was committed?
	Vicinage is, is the jury selected from the state and district?
	Where the crime was committed.
	So that's where a case has to, the jury pool has to be drawn from a different district than the venue itself, in the sense that it's more specific.
	So here, the venue was wrong, the vicinity was wrong, because the state was wrong.
	But the Supreme Court, without dissent, of course, was like, oh, your only remedy is retrial.
	No big deal, as long as double jeopardy doesn't attach, and it doesn't attach because you were convicted, so.
	That's it.
	So to me, it really waters down the enforceability of those provisions when the government knows they can effectively get away with it.
	The worst thing that will happen to them is they just get to retry the case.
	Kind of like having a confidentiality or a non-compete that's too broad, unless it's struck entirely and the person who tried to be too broad is punished.
	There's no incentive or no deterrence to just go too broad.
	And if you screw up, I'll get a second kick at the can later on.
	All right, now, hold on, Robert.
	We're going to move it on over to Rumble, but before I do that, let me just grab the Rumble, the Super Chats here.
	I'm going to put the link in one more time, everybody.
	Head on over to Rumble, 3,000 people, and it should be decreasing.
	But before we go there, just to bring up the Super Chats here, Conspiracy Theorists, okay, I got this one before.
	RFK Jr. will get Bernie'd.
	This wasn't a Super Chat, this was just a comment, and I just wanted to say, so long as all he gets is Bernie'd.
	I don't like even having the thoughts, but if he gets too popular...
	At the end of the Joe Rogan podcast, he acknowledged, when Joe Rogan asked, he acknowledged the real risks.
	These are not hypothetical neurotic concerns.
	Would I vote for Trump in jail?
	No, because I haven't been arraigned yet.
	Okay, hold on.
	We got Breaking Florida introduces death penalty for espionage charges.
	I think this is a joke.
	I hope it's...
	Okay, I think it's a joke.
	And then we got Barnes.
	Are you ever going to reach out to Solomon Anderson about your offer to help with Zach's appeal?
	And then there's...
	When I get time, yeah.
	And we've got free Zachary Anderson.
	Looking forward to reaching out to Zach's family.
	Kayla...
	People can continue to support the fundraising for his camp, for his effort, too.
	I'll share the link for that.
	Wasn't he on with Eric Hundley this week?
	He was on with Hundley.
	I thought it might have been the week before.
	But he's been...
	Zach's brother is really, really working hard to get this out there and make sure everybody knows.
	So I'll send the link to the give-send-go in a second.
	Happy call this day, gentlemen.
	I forgot you interviewed him.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	I just got one of my...
	The few comments on the podcast version.
	Someone says, I just finished this podcast.
	It's the most infuriating thing to listen to.
	Happy Father's Day, gentlemen.
	Barnes, will you have Solomon Anderson on to speak about the...
	Oh, no.
	Yeah, we had him on.
	I had him on three weeks ago.
	Viva.
	Having Jordan Peterson on anytime.
	I wonder if I'm not too toxic for Jordan.
	I would love to.
	So maybe one day it'll happen.
	Okay.
	What we're going to do now, we're going to end it on YouTube.
	Move on over to Rumble.
	No, I just opened up a new window.
	I want to just close it on YouTube.
	Go to Rumble and then to Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	We're moving now.
	3, 2, 1. Come on over to Rumble, people.
	Oh, Robert.
	Okay, we're going to do shift now.
	We're going to do shift because I want to clip this and snip this because people need to hear this.
	Despite all of the...
	Not vitriol.
	What's the word?
	Righteous indignation.
	I loathe Schiff.
	I don't loathe him as much as Trudeau.
	I loathe him.
	He's a liar.
	He's a bad, bad man.
	To quote Jerry Seinfeld.
	What's that show called?
	Seinfeld.
	But notwithstanding that, it's not the case that because I politically loathe a human that I'm prepared to tolerate what might be unjustifiable political retribution.
	I forget who the Florida senator is or the Florida...
	The Florida...
	I forget who it is now, who made this censure bill, you know, motion to censure and to fine Adam Schiff $16 million for the false statements that he put out as relates to Trump collusion.
	He's seen clear evidence of Russia Trump collusion.
	Before we even get into this, I want you to refresh everybody's memory as to why it was so insidiously dishonest what Adam Schiff was doing, because there was confidentiality surrounding the hearings.
	He was stating outright lies, knowing that nobody could contradict him without breaching the confidentiality rules as relates to the hearings.
	Something along those lines.
	Bottom line, they put in this motion to censure to fine Schiff $16 million, the rationale being it's roughly half of the price of the Mueller investigation.
	And it's not clear that it's constitutional.
	It's not clear that it's justifiable.
	Thomas Massey, who he has yet to say something that I vehemently disagree with.
	And so when he takes a position that's contrary to what you want him to take, you have to listen hard.
	He says, this is not, we can't support this.
	20 Republicans didn't support it.
	It's not constitutional.
	It violates basic rules of due process, unjust fines, whatever.
	And Robert, I think you agree with that.
	Let us know your thoughts on this.
	But first, before we get into that, am I not wrong?
	I'm right about this.
	Schiff, when he was lying, knew that there was no one who knew that could come out and say why Schiff was lying because of the confidentiality provisions in effect.
	Yeah, I mean, the historical context for this is that Schiff, as head of the House Intelligence Committee, spent $32 million of taxpayer money to smear the president.
	Using his access to classified information and the limited access to that classified information amongst the public and the press to lie about Trump repeatedly about what that evidence showed, knowing that people could not on the committee rebut him without disclosing classified information.
	This is another example of the misuse and abuse of classified information.
	You know, like the movie Sneakers, there are too many secrets.
	And that's the point of Julian Assange.
	That's the problem behind the Trump indictment.
	This effort to elevate a secret part of government that can lie to us without consequence by them getting to control and monopolize access to secrets.
	So in response to that waste of $32 million, and the problem was, because it was congressional money, Because he did it in the course of his congressional duties, the speech and debate clause prohibits anybody from suing him, including Trump, for Schiff's lies and libels for his misappropriation of these funds for politicized purposes that misled the American people and misappropriated effectively these funds to the defamatory detriment of President Trump.
	So the question was, what's the remedy?
	The remedy proposed by this congresswoman, Luna, I think, if I recall right.
	It had a three-part resolution.
	One was to censor him, to condemn him, and then to fine him.
	The grounds were, quote, conduct that misleads the American people that was, quote, not befitting an elected member, was the factual foundation for the assertion of this congressional power to not only censure...
	But to issue a fine, quote, fine him in the amount of $16 million, that amount is basically half of the amount that the committee spent on these smear campaigns.
	Now, the constitutional issues implicated by this, first Article 1, Congress has only given, the House of Representatives has only given legislative power.
	It's not given executive power.
	It's not given adjudicatory power, at least, and not in most instances.
	There is a limited exception.
	It's given legislative power to write its own rules governing itself.
	It's also given adjudicatory power and enforcement executive agency power for the purpose of punishing its members for disorderly conduct.
	However, the remedy of expulsion cannot be utilized unless there's a two-thirds vote in support of it.
	The only other provision that provides for any kind of punishment...
	And that's it.
	So that's what the Constitution has to say about what power Congress has outside of the legislative context.
	Now, the only times this has been litigated in the courts is in the case of Adam Clinton Powell and in a case called Kilbourne.
	For the most part, the speech and debate clause, Thomas Massey's currently litigating the issue of fines by Nancy Pelosi in the mask mandate context, and it's going before the D.C. Court of Appeals as we speak, because the district court wouldn't allow the case to proceed, largely on grounds of the speech and debate clause, immunizes members of Congress from any kind of suit, as long as what they're doing is part of their duties.
	And the question became, was what Pelosi did?
	Part of her duties.
	In the Adam Clayton Powell case, he gets elected to Congress.
	He's very controversial.
	Congress refuses first to seat him, and then when they do seat him, well, they don't really seat him.
	They claim to expel him, but what they really did is exclude him.
	They refused to seat him.
	He's sued.
	The U.S. Supreme Court said that...
	The courts do have jurisdiction over when things like this take place about seating members of Congress.
	And they said the qualification clause limits, is the full limit of what Congress can do.
	This is pertinent to the president, by the way.
	What it means is if you meet the qualifications clause, nothing else matters.
	They can't say that because you've been indicted.
	They can't say you didn't file your tax returns.
	They can't add qualifications to the Constitution.
	And they said while the Congress could have expelled Powell, it couldn't exclude Powell because he was duly elected.
	Now, the Kilbourne case has been misinterpreted.
	In Kilbourne, they went after people connected to John Jay.
	Well, not John Jay the Justice, but a future Jay.
	But basically, they tried to imprison a private citizen for non-participation in discovery.
	Concerning hearings that Congress was conducting.
	And what the Supreme Court, in passing the Supreme Court, referenced that Congress might have the power to even imprison its own members.
	But it actually doesn't really say that.
	It's addressing whether or not it has the imprison.
	It's like, we're not dealing with that issue.
	We're dealing with this other issue.
	And what it said was, quote, Congress could not, quote, adjudge a man guilty of a crime and inflict the punishment.
	Because that would be conceded by all thinking men to be unauthorized by anything in the Constitution.
	That's what the Kilbourne case actually said.
	Now, it's very rarely litigated for the reasons noted.
	This power is very rarely utilized by members of Congress.
	There have been state legislatures that have done this as well.
	It rarely reaches the courts, and it usually gets resolved or dismissed before it gets to any high level of adjudication.
	So it's mostly an unresolved issue judicially.
	So you have the precedent set by the legislature, but those precedents are all over the place.
	I would say that trying to find someone is both rare and has always, in the case of the House and Senate, been restitutionary.
	The argument here is that this is restitutionary because of the amount of money spent by the committee, but that's not how it's been used in the past.
	So this was an attempt to punish Schiff in ways that Congress had never done before.
	They had done small fines on a restitutionary individual basis.
	That congressman got the benefit of, say, $2,500 he didn't deserve.
	So he was ordered to put $2,500 back in the kitty.
	Not a case of, well, your committee spent a bunch of money.
	We don't like that.
	We're going to make you pay that back.
	That's a very different kind of claim.
	The other potential constitutional issues are, first is the First Amendment, which is...
	Is this punishment for speech, and does it apply to Congress?
	Second, the Fifth Amendment.
	Is there a cognizable property interest that's at issue?
	There would be if there's a personal fine, and that gives rise to due process of law, was due process afforded here.
	Under the Eighth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines of any kind, period.
	That means the fine has to be proportional.
	The Eighth Amendment's where cruel and unusual punishments, prohibition exists, it's where the excessive bail.
	It's all about limiting the state's power to punish.
	And the Supreme Court has interpreted that as about proportionality.
	The 27th Amendment, which says you can't change congressional salaries until there's another election.
	And the only enforcement mechanism for this would be docking a salary.
	So my view is, Thomas Massey said this is an excessive fine.
	Thomas Massey is disputing anybody's ability to find members of Congress, period.
	He has filed suit against Nancy Pelosi over the mask mandates and the mask fines that he was issued on those grounds.
	So it would be hypocritical for him to turn around and say it's okay to find Schiff.
	So Massey's position is not only consistent, it is, in my opinion, constitutionally consistent.
	Because what the Constitution says is that their only executive power Congress has is, quote, It may punish members for disorderly conduct, but if it's expulsion, it requires two-thirds remedy.
	To me, that methods of punishment is intended to deal with people like the Tennessee legislative case, where they are usurping the actual hall of debate and totally derailing it with a mass raid of people.
	That's, to me, it doesn't say Congress can punish members, period.
	For disorderly conduct.
	I would note that Congress itself has said this can't apply to prior congressional sessions.
	That this can't apply to outside of Congress conduct.
	And this is why I opposed any punishment on Marjorie Taylor Greene back in 2021, which was they're trying to punish her for non-congressional conduct, private conduct, and pre-congressional session conduct.
	Here, they're trying to punish Schiff.
	For conduct that occurred in a prior congressional session.
	Congress has never done that, to my knowledge, ever before.
	I'm not in favor of that either.
	I think the Congress's power should be read as being very limited.
	Stop disorderly conduct on the floor of the House and the Senate.
	That's it.
	Now, you can have some ethics rules that are part of their legislative authority.
	You can have penalties for non-attendance.
	And you might be able to have some degree of ethics enforcement, but that can't include anything that constitutes criminal punishment, like a fine does.
	To me, restitutionary awards that are proportionate can be legitimate constitutionally.
	But once it goes past that into punishment, it's impermissible.
	The issues you have with Schiff is, to me, Article 1 doesn't authorize their punishment because it's retrospective.
	It's for things that happened to a prior congressional session.
	And it's not proportionate in the way in which they're putting it out as.
	Second, I think it does violate the First Amendment.
	It's really punishing them for legislative activities and speech and kind of says so.
	I mean, again, the resolution itself says conduct that misleads the American people.
	That's not what the Constitution says you can punish for.
	It says you can punish for disorderly conduct.
	Not any form of misleading the American people.
	So there's First Amendment issues.
	There's Fifth Amendment due process issues.
	There's Eighth Amendment excessive fine issues.
	There's 27th Amendment attempts to dock fee issues.
	That this is not the effective, proper way.
	And by the way, Congress has previously recognized these precedents.
	1799, the Lyon case.
	1858, the Madison case.
	1876, the King and Shoemaker cases.
	They've recognized they're not supposed to be punishing for...
	Things that didn't happen in the current congressional session.
	Anyway.
	So when you look at the...
	Also, you should respect elections.
	And by punishing for conduct after people have re-elected someone, I have a problem with it.
	That's really ignoring it.
	And so then you're finding a property without a parent, to me at least, to me due process in this kind.
	If you're doing a $16 million fine, you should have a trial by jury.
	Well, Luna's argument was that the fine could have been paid from committee funds.
	You know, in any event.
	So it wouldn't have been a personal fine.
	It would have been, I don't know.
	But the resolution said, fine Adam Schiff, $16 million.
	So now she's apparently going back and rewriting that provision to resubmit the censor.
	Because there is clearly grounds to censor him.
	I would still have problems with that because it's a prior congressional session.
	And there's been an intervening election.
	And so I'm not...
	Again, I think what Schiff did was...
	Horrendous.
	But I think their power to punish him is not there constitutionally.
	Well, except, I mean, the steel manning rebuttal to that would be, there was an intervening election, but then we had the Durham report, which revealed the degree after the election to which Schiffer died.
	And that argument's been tendered before.
	But to my knowledge, they still haven't punished someone for pre-election conduct, even when...
	Their awareness of its illicit nature was not disclosed until after the election.
	Now, you said exclusion, but not...
	Sorry, you said expulsion, but not exclusion.
	You can keep him off committees, deny him assignments, deny him all of his privileges in the House other than voting.
	That's where I think is a permissible remedy.
	But otherwise, I don't think it's constitutional the way they're currently going about it.
	I think Steve Bannon's wrong.
	All these people calling for these folks to be primaried are wrong.
	Thomas Massey is right.
	And again, he's been consistent on this across the board.
	And I'm not going to reverse my position from Marjorie Taylor Greene where I condemn that punitive action as unconstitutional and say, well, I hate Schiff, so I'm going to change and pretend the Constitution doesn't apply anymore.
	And the speech and debate immunity, you know, again, nobody should like the idea of broadening disorderly conduct to words.
	Why wouldn't he still benefit from that speech and debate immunity even against the censure?
	Oh, he would, because that applies to judicial action and executive action, not other legislative branch action.
	Okay.
	Now, I mean, I think there's, you know, they can also sort of, they can look at expulsion and some other remedies.
	But again, I think the best remedy is just strip them of any power in this committee, publicize the bad acts of what he did in the past, and prospectively limit his power and authority.
	And it shouldn't be limited to him.
	Other Democrats on that committee went along with it.
	They should all be stripped.
	If you went along with the nonsense of Russiagate in the House, they should strip all of them of committee powers.
	And beyond that, of not contradicting and not pushing back on Schiff, clear and convincing evidence of Russia-Trump collusion.
	It was a bold-faced lie.
	We now know it.
	All right, good.
	And as much as we all hate Adam Schiff...
	Or some of us hate Adam Schiff.
	I think Democrats hate Adam Schiff.
	I don't think anybody likes Adam Schiff.
	He's probably the next senator from California.
	He's used this to his benefit.
	This has not hurt him politically in the Democratic Party, unfortunately, and California has helped him.
	Well, darn it.
	Anyways, in as much as other people dislike Schiff, one should not tolerate abuse on their adversaries because that's just how they justify it against you.
	All right.
	Sorry, I just heard a big echo there.
	Robert, the vaccine updates.
	Before that, we have the journalist, but yeah, we can go in whatever order, but we have the journalist riot rights.
	I skipped it.
	I don't recall the details on this.
	This is a journalist who was reporting on police activity, recording police activity, was, I think, violently arrested, and then the question becomes a marked journalist, in as much as that makes sense.
	Anybody can be a journalist.
	Violently arrested, and then the question becomes, what are the rights of a journalist in reporting?
	Take it from there.
	Yeah, so this was during the George Floyd riots in Des Moines, Iowa.
	And the photojournalist covering it, you know, had press credentials, had like a gray shirt, a blue hat, which were kind of the uniform of a photojournalist, had been a freelance journalist all around the globe, had done prominent photojournalism in war zones in particular around the world.
	So he had like eight cameras on him.
	So you see a single photo of him, you're like, that guy's a photojournalist.
	You don't think he's secretly Antifa or a social media influencer disguised as a journalist.
	You get pretty quickly, this guy's a photojournalist.
	He was carrying his credentials with him.
	At one part of the protest, they start to become violent, like many of the Floyd protests did and BLM protests did.
	So the police issue a dispersal order, but when they issue the dispersal order, it's not where he is located.
	It's in a different place.
	They start chasing some people down who refuse to disperse.
	And while they're chasing him down, they see him photographing.
	And the cop stops, stops going after the people actually breaking the law, who he saw committing violent crimes, turns around.
	Runs at the photographer without any warning, physically tackles him, brings out his pepper spray and pepper sprays him in the eyes, and then arrests him.
	So he brought suit on grounds that this was not consistent with the First Amendment right for him to be there, to photograph, and freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, particularly in this context, freedom of press.
	That he had a Fourth Amendment right against being arrested in the first place because he committed no crime.
	He had a Fourth Amendment right against excessive force because of the pepper spray and the tackling that was used when he didn't meet any of the Graham factors.
	That's a case that identified that for assessing excessive force, whether the force was excessive.
	You look at the severity of the crime alleged.
	You look at the immediate threat the person poses.
	And you look at whether he's resisted or evaded.
	And at all times, it's a necessity and proportionality test.
	Was this level of force both proportional to these threats and necessary to stop those threats?
	Well, here, he hadn't committed any crime.
	He was not a threat of anything other than exposing police misconduct or exposing the violent nature of the riots.
	And he hadn't resisted or evaded anybody.
	He was just sitting there doing his job when he got tackled, beaten, and pepper sprayed.
	So it was the first cases of increasing.
	I first took one of these cases back when they did not recognize the right to photograph police in doing public work.
	And luckily, over time, the position I was advancing, more and more courts recognized was, in fact, the right position.
	They screwed over my client, but they did ultimately.
	Modify their views over time and recognize there is such a right.
	So what do you think the lower court does?
	The lower court said, oh, poor police officer.
	Look at this nosy little journalist.
	So the nosy little journalist shouldn't have been there.
	So it's okay for that police officer to tackle him, beat him, arrest him, and pepper spray him.
	And no jury needs to hear any of this evidence.
	This is a clear case of qualified immunity.
	So another one of these cop excusing right-wing authoritarians.
	That exists on the so-called conservative side of the bench in the federal courthouses across America.
	And so it's going to appeal in the Eighth Circuit.
	I think they should win because there are clearly facts and dispute at a minimum as to whether or not he had probable cause to arrest him.
	Because his only grounds was he thought maybe he issued a dispersal order and the guy was still there.
	It's like you didn't see him.
	Be present in the presence of the dispersal order.
	You didn't tell him to disperse yourself to see whether he would fall away.
	And as a member of the press, he had a right to be there anyway and would be exempt from such a dispersal order.
	So there was no probable cause here, least of all undisputed facts that a reasonable juror could only conclude constitutes probable cause.
	The force is clearly still excessive.
	And the First Amendment violation is the retaliation for this guy.
	It's obvious what the cop did.
	He didn't like a photojournalist photographing something.
	And it's either something he thought the journalist caught because of the cop or because of maybe the cops didn't want the world knowing about how violent the protests were.
	Maybe they didn't want the world knowing about how violent they were in response to the violent protests.
	Maybe it was something else.
	But it's a classic.
	When you see a cop chase actual perp.
	Perps.
	Stop chasing them.
	Turn around and let them go to run down and chase down the photojournalists?
	You know why the cop's doing it.
	Everybody else does too.
	And so it's a case that should get reversed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but shows the ongoing problem of right-wing authoritarians on the federal bench, these federal society types, who when they see a badge, they collapse and bow to it like it's God.
	Just like they do when they see a military uniform.
	And they got to quit doing this.
	I accidentally pulled up the wrong article because when I was Googling this earlier, there was another journalist.
	It was a woman who got pepper sprayed, I think, at the same protest.
	This is Courthouse News Service.
	Needers filed a 12-count civil suit.
	Again, Soltman, the police officer, case was removed to U.S. District Court Southern District of Iowa, remanded the counts raised under state law to the state trial court, leaving Needer's federal constitutional claims for illegal seizure, excessive force of retaliation.
	The district court dismissed those claims on summary judgment, granting Houlton qualified immunity.
	Which is utter garbage.
	Qualified immunity.
	Cops get so mad.
	This is why I'm not in favor of any immunity, including for cops.
	Let them defend themselves to a jury.
	If they're right, They'll win more often than not to a jury.
	But if my choice is some cops will be wrongfully held liable versus bad cops get to stay on the street, I'll take some cops being wrongfully held liable over bad cops running ramshot over people's civil liberties.
	And the authoritarian wing of the right doesn't recognize that.
	And then they wonder why people on the left don't trust them on civil liberties and don't trust them on civil rights.
	Well, just read some of these so-called Yeah, you should have opposed it then, and you should oppose this now.
	Robert, qualified immunity applies when there is not a constitutionally recognized right that the authority has violated.
	It should be very limited, but right-wing judges have dramatically expanded it, such that it almost is, unless you have a case that's literally identical, the courts say, oh, it's not, they were wearing brown that day, not blue, so how could he know?
	But it's the chicken and the egg argument.
	How do you get your precedent if it hasn't already been recognized?
	Exactly.
	And this is, by the way, this has been conservative Federalist Society judges who have been leading this effort to grant special immunity to government agents, including police and law enforcement, so the Constitution is unenforceable.
	It's conservatives that have led that fight.
	That's what everybody knows, including conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court.
	All right.
	We'll see where that one goes.
	Amazing that you pull up more than one article.
	There's more than one article of this type of police overreach.
	Oh yeah, all over the place.
	Robert, so that was, now we went back to number one.
	Now we have our second favorite topic of the night, vaccines.
	Well, so there's, well, I guess, okay, Brooke Jackson update, Robert.
	It'll be quick.
	And it'll be quick until the government decides to intervene to kill the lawsuit.
	But it's been re-entered on the docket.
	Explain to us what that means.
	That's what I said from the get-go, that the Court of Appeals had removed it from the docket, in my view, mistakenly.
	They had lost my email, and so they found my email, and we quickly got it corrected and made it clear that it was supposed to be back on the docket.
	The court agreed and put it back on the docket where it belongs.
	There were some people suggesting that I was part of some sort of secret plot.
	You get these people that have gone totally down the rabbit hole.
	And they were harassing a range of people connected to the case with their theories.
	And I was like, no, no, this is very elemental.
	I understand.
	Now, was everybody in the clerk's office at the Circuit Court of Appeals on the up and up?
	I can't know that for sure.
	You know, it could have been that they just made it.
	I've done so many federal appeals that these kind of administrative clerical issues often pop up.
	I'll give you an example.
	I have filed a recent sentencing memorandum, appeal, in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and they initially rejected it on grounds that they wanted it stapled in the left-hand corner there rather than the right-hand corner.
	This is the kind of stuff you guys own.
	It's like we've electronically filed it.
	Everybody knows the judges only read the electronic files these days.
	But we've decided we want to move where the stapler is.
	So you just deal with this kind of stuff and you get some of these really anal types.
	Also, in Brooke's case, you can't roll out anything because there may be people in positions of power that don't want the case to go forward.
	And maybe their position of power is just being a clerk in some courthouse somewhere.
	So, but legally, they were never going to, you know, try to come up with some squirrely way to get rid of the case because they lost my email.
	How they lost my email, who knows?
	Well, no, but now I presume you were getting accusations of controlled opposition having been bought off by Pfizer, deliberately sabotaged.
	Everybody sells out sooner or later.
	I noticed someone making similar, like, controlled opposition.
	My life has been lived on the internet a lot more than yours, Robin.
	So there can be, like, easily traceable, baseless accusations.
	But off the docket, technically it looks like the case no longer exists.
	So people are like, holy crap, they settled.
	Everybody went nuts.
	It's like, no, no, no.
	It's an administrative issue.
	We'll be back on the docket.
	And we only had to file the appeal because the district court clerk...
	I wouldn't properly, in my view, process our request for review of it.
	So if you're Brooke Jackson, you're seeing the clerks do a lot of weird things back to back.
	So I get it looks, but I've been through these kind of shenanigans before.
	If you've been through political cases, you always run into these kind of things.
	But you know that they're not going to actually...
	Stop the case on something like, on trying to do some gamesmanship like this.
	You know, they'll try to screw you properly.
	You'll be properly fucked, to use the phrase from the British movie.
	Well, I thought you were quoting Conor McGregor, who himself seems to be getting into more and more trouble.
	But I might talk about that later this week as more details come out.
	Robert, National Guardsmen.
	So this is interesting.
	I try to do a little bit of a crash course in...
	U.S. militias.
	I now know the term militia is not a scary term that I once upon a time thought it was, but that states have their own militias, which apparently can be called up to perform national duties.
	I'll be right back.
	I'll let you go through this.
	Okay.
	Now I hope I did my homework well enough.
	The militias, you can have state militias, which can get called up for national duty.
	Oh, sorry.
	Hold on a second, actually, just to kill 30 seconds because I meant to bring it up earlier.
	Hold on.
	Because Robert said the words.
	Duty.
	All right.
	So the militias can be called for national duty.
	Biden had attempted to sanction, penalize Texas guardsmen who refused to submit to the COVID jab mandates, despite the fact that they hadn't actually ever been called for...
	And so the issue, if I got it right, and I hope Barnes is listening, the issue was whether or not Biden and the federal could impose penalty sanctions on state militias who had never been called for national service.
	And it seems that the answer to that question is no, the president can't punish state national guardsmen who had never been called for national service.
	And while I wait to see if I got that right...
	Just in time, bro.
	I started to sweat.
	I'm joking, people.
	I'm sweating just because I'm glistening from the heat in Phoenix.
	So, Robert, the bottom line is that no, the federal cannot penalize state militias if they had not been called for national service because they fall under the jurisdiction and authority of state government?
	Exactly, because this goes back to the Constitution's origin and what the Second Amendment really means, which is that there was great fear of any standing army.
	So to resolve that, they gave the martial military power of the federal government to the ordinary individual to be members of a militia and to defend themselves individually, but also to be members of a militia defending the government writ large collectively.
	But that militia would be controlled at two levels.
	One is you as an individual were the participant of it.
	You had participatory power in it.
	Part of how Athenian democracy emerged, and the later discussion we'll have about Plato, is this aspect of the individual member of society being in control of its military execution, even though it'll be part of a collective aggregate.
	What does that do?
	It prevents a lot of abuses.
	The second thing was that the second level of protection is that it would be under the state, control of the state governor, not the federal government, and that the only exception is when called up.
	By the president in listed itemized circumstances.
	And so here, Biden was still trying to punish members of the National Guard of Texas who had refused to participate, take the COVID-19 vaccine, even after the Defense Department had said it was no longer needed or necessary anyway over the last several months.
	And the emergency predicating it is gone by Biden's own declaration.
	But the Biden administration still wanted to punish him for it.
	And the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously said, no, you can't because you hadn't called them up.
	And you only have power over them when you have called them up.
	Otherwise, if they have that power as individuals and they have power, that power is to regulate them to make sure they're prepared is a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment is a state-driven concern outside of extraordinary circumstances where they're called up nationally.
	But I think it's important for people to remember that they've often forgot.
	The original goal of the Constitution was that all the power of the gun, the power of violence, would be effectively controlled by the individual vis-a-vis this militia component.
	And I'd just say it would have made a difference had he called them up, and I'm just trying to hypothesize as to, would they only be able to sanction for the time for which they were called up, or does just the act of calling up them to national service impose or authorize broad powers to sanction?
	That's an open question not yet resolved, because he never did in his case.
	Okay.
	All right, now the other one that was the vaccine update, and I'm trying to refresh my memory as to how this one ended.
	I know that I was pissed off reading the decision, so I think he did not get to avail himself of his rights.
	This is the coach, a football coach.
	Oh, that's right.
	Okay, so they dismissed many of the claims, but not all of them.
	Football coach, I forget the, what was the university?
	Washington State.
	Washington State.
	Roll of it.
	Yeah, football coach is fired.
	For not submitting to the jab mandate because his religious exemption was not recognized.
	There was another element to this that I think I'm forgetting that I found.
	Oh, that's right.
	So they terminated him, but they terminated him with cause and thus, you know, did not respect the liquidated damages provision of his contract had he been terminated without cause, because I guess they could terminate without cause, but you have to pay a certain penalty of the balance of whatever's left of the contract.
	Certain amount, doesn't matter.
	His religious exemption was not respected.
	They did not acknowledge his religious exemption.
	And what I hated even about the decision is that the court says his religious exemption could not be honored.
	Something along those lines.
	It was beyond everybody's control.
	His religious exemption for not taking this jab, it could not be honored.
	Bottom line, he sues the university.
	He sued the administrator who was responsible for the decision.
	He sued the governor, Inslee, I think.
	And a motion to dismiss was made for a number of the claims invoking, I think, qualified immunity yet again, Robert.
	And so a lot of the claims were dismissed, but a few of them survived.
	I guess, tell the world why this is not...
	There is a good silver lining to this, or is it just...
	Yeah, his two biggest claims.
	I mean, what he's got, he's got a hostile court in the Western District of Washington, or maybe it's the Eastern District of Washington, against Washington State, that this is the coach that was fired because he refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
	The judge is clearly sympathetic to all the craziness concerning the vaccine logic.
	And so he's got a hostile judge.
	He's in the Ninth Circuit, which has been inconsistent.
	But even a hostile judge recognized that his two biggest claims, his Title VII religious accommodation claim, had to go forward to Discovery.
	And that his breach of contract claim had to go forward to Discovery.
	And he had a very substantial buyout, like most college football coaches do.
	So that is a very large amount of money they would owe on that breach of contract claim.
	And he said both of them, the breach of contract claim, he said, turns on whether or not...
	It was whether they honored the religious accommodation.
	So now the judges recognize the two are interrelated.
	So he's got some robust arguments going forward.
	My guess is rather than let the case go all the way to trial, they'll settle because I'm sure there'll be some embarrassing internal correspondence.
	But it's extraordinary that here we are, 2023, summer of 2023, and you still have federal judges pretending the world looks like what they thought it looked like in April of 2020.
	Because this guy is talking about things that make absolutely no sense.
	The idea that this coach was an embarrassment to the program is utterly ludicrous.
	It's made up.
	But the judge has, to the benefit of the plaintiff, to the coach, given him a roadmap to what he needs to prove to disprove those ridiculous allegations.
	So the good part is his case marches on.
	His good part is that there's a roadmap for him to win.
	The annoying part is that federal judges are still living in this fantasy bubble of their own accord where COVID-19, you know, they're like the Peter Hotezes of the world, still pretending that their BS from April of 2020 still applies.
	I can tell you this, I guarantee you this judge has no clue that Bobby Kennedy exists.
	He has no clue that another world exists.
	But that's a good transition because not only, as you discussed during the beginning of the show, the Kennedy-Hotez debate, As Robert Kennedy broadcast, I didn't know whether I was going to be able to talk about it because I didn't know whether they were going to make it public.
	But he and Jordan Peterson made public.
	YouTube has taken down Jordan Peterson's interview of Robert Francis Kennedy, a candidate for president of the United States.
	And apparently the only excuse is him simply talking about vaccine history, not even him talking about any substantive allegations concerning vaccines.
	The history of the disputes.
	And that's how nuts Google and YouTube are.
	So remember, Instagram tried to do this.
	Bobby Kennedy's campaign told them, you face a lot of legal risk by doing this.
	So Facebook and Instagram reversed their position, reinstated all of Kennedy's accounts.
	Now Google is trying it.
	And they're doing it on Jordan Peterson's account, no less.
	So they're blocking people from watching Jordan Peterson's interview of Robert...
	One of the most popular interviews Jordan Peterson has done.
	One of the most popular interviews Robert Kennedy has done.
	Supposedly because it has the words vaccine somewhere in there.
	In reality, it's because of the dissident voice.
	It's not a coincidence.
	This happened right after Robert Kennedy appeared on Joe Rogan.
	The interview with Peterson had been published a week or two before.
	It was only removed.
	After the popularity of Robert Kennedy appearing on Joe Rogan for three hours, which led to the debate this weekend on Twitter where Peter the Ho-Hotez got in there and tried to pretend he could defame Joe Rogan, and Rogan called him on it, and ultimately up to $1.5 million was offered by a range of people all across the political spectrum to go to Peter Hotez's charity of choice if he would simply debate.
	Robert Kennedy on this topic on Joe Rogan's show.
	Which Hotez, by the way, has been boosted by Rogan before.
	Rogan's had him on before.
	I think that's what agitated Rogan.
	Is that Hotez would come after him when Rogan's done a lot of water carrying for Hotez.
	Maybe embarrassingly so now.
	Rogan was a little...
	I say mean.
	He was truthful and accurate.
	Hotez pushing the jabs but not eating healthy, not exercising.
	Hotez...
	An RFK might have...
	Well, his own kid has got severe autism after he injected the...
	And this is not an example of raising somebody's kid.
	This guy has made his kid his example.
	He's written a book saying, look, my kid's autistic and it's still great.
	I mean, you know, all these vaccines.
	And this comes under a context where the evidence...
	I mean, Robert Kennedy Jr. was on with London Real and just pointed out in the other place he's been on.
	There's now 75 studies around the world doing the studies that the NIH refuses to fund, that Bill Gates refuses to fund, that Anthony Fauci refuses to fund, that CDC is too scared to even look at.
	And what the metadata from these surveys of 75 studies show is they compare unvaccinated to vaccinated in the modern era.
	The post-mass vaccination, mid-80s, late-80s, Because for those that don't know, we went from three, I mean, I think I had six vaccines when I was a kid.
	And we went from, you know, low single digits, a single hand, to over 60 by the early 90s.
	And that was because a special immunity was given to vaccine makers in the mid-80s.
	They guaranteed them profit without any responsibility or liability.
	And so, and what Bobby Kenny's point is, is from that same time period, we've had an explosion of childhood illnesses and diseases.
	Including, but not limited to, autism.
	You compare the 75 studies that show unvaccinated versus vaccinated.
	Unvaccinated children are healthier by every single meaningful metric than the vaccinated.
	If you look at what I would call the less vaccinated compared to the more vaccinated, a lot of that same data appears.
	You can see that in live time in the Amish community.
	And so this is why they're obsessed with shutting down and shutting up Robert Kennedy.
	But because he is a presidential candidate, you have the Telecommunications Act and you have other laws that might apply here.
	47 U.S.C.
	315 governs the requirement of equal access.
	Once you allow one candidate to spend money on your broadcast, radio, or TV, you have to allow another candidate to do so.
	But there's language in the statute that all goes further than that.
	Well, it says, you know, news interviews and the rest are exempt.
	So just because you interview one candidate doesn't mean you have to interview all of them for the same length.
	But it does say this.
	It says, quote, obligations to operate in a public interest and to afford a reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views is still required.
	Now, who does this cover?
	It covers any, people think it was public airways, but it's actually broader than that.
	Transmission of energy or communication or signals.
	The FCC has already taken the position that Google and YouTube are covered by these laws.
	Remember when they were stealing people's privacy information under the guise that they were just doing special little Wi-Fi checks and they're actually using it to steal a whole bunch of intel?
	So that's how it first popped up a decade and a half ago.
	And then you have Florida and Texas, which both have passed state laws and other states do, that said you cannot censor a federally registered candidate.
	So now that Robert Kennedy is a federally registered candidate under the FEC for the presidency of the United States and is getting double-digit support in polls and is right now the most liked presidential candidate of anybody running with the highest positive favorable approval rating of any presidential candidate.
	That raises different statutory and even constitutional questions about the actions of Google and YouTube in regards to the Jordan Peterson video.
	I want to bring up one tweet, Robert, and then I'm going to share another thought that I had.
	Where is it?
	Right?
	No, not that one.
	Is it this one right here?
	Oh, yeah, this guy, Keith Mayo.
	There's nothing to debate.
	The vaccines worked.
	Why debate something everyone can look up for themselves and is patently obvious to the rest of the world?
	We ran a race against the clock.
	Here he's making excuses to qualify the first half.
	To get these things and once we had them, fewer people died.
	I swear to you, Robert, I didn't know who this person was.
	By the way, you could probably look up that person and they're probably saying don't trust the vaccine when it was during the Trump era.
	Almost all these people did.
	Remember Kamala Harris said don't take a Trump vaccine.
	Joe Biden said, hey, unless you have transparency, don't take the vaccine.
	I don't know who the person is.
	I just see Christian conservatives.
	So I thought it was parody for a second.
	I genuinely thought it was parody because the second half of this statement contradicts the first.
	There's nothing to debate.
	The vaccines worked.
	Oh, but we were running the race of time and fewer people died because of them.
	That statement is a joke because you're comparing something that happened to something that didn't happen and saying definitively.
	So I thought the person was joking.
	But then I just, you know, I had to bring this up.
	I'm going to bring it up to everybody who's going to listen.
	This is from The Link Is There in PubMed.
	Serious adverse events, Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interests of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines.
	That's 1 in 800.
	But they say it worked, and there's nothing to debate.
	They're a bunch of liars and cowards.
	But, Robert, election interference is one thing.
	I just wait for someone to go after YouTube.
	For practicing medicine without a license, because who the hell do they think they are?
	Not that Robert F. Kennedy...
	I mean, to go after Jordan Peterson and Robert Kennedy as he's peaking, and so I think there are unique legal issues implicated.
	It also shows Stephen Crowder was right, because the Daily Wire, I think some people thought that they would not be subject to these randomized rules.
	But now Candace Owens is being blocked off of YouTube.
	Matt Walsh is being blocked off of YouTube.
	Other Daily Wire people are also being blocked out.
	It was only a matter of time.
	I mean, these are the ultimate censors.
	And right now, YouTube and Google are the most aggressive.
	I mean, Facebook has reinstated Donald Trump.
	Facebook has reinstated Robert Kennedy.
	Instagram has reinstated Robert Kennedy.
	Twitter has reinstated them all.
	The most egregious violator...
	The one that's escalating and accelerating their censorship, even to the point of a famous individual in Jordan Peterson and another famous individual in Robert Kennedy, even in the context of a presidential election.
	The other issue that could be implicated here, too, that Senator Hawley from Missouri inquired into last year, is are these illicit campaign donations?
	At what point does it step over the line?
	That when you leverage your media network...
	To the advantage of one particular candidate deliberately and knowingly when you're as powerful of monopoly power like YouTube does.
	So the combination of monopoly power plus public square.
	Plus disparate overt favoritism towards one candidate.
	At what point is that an illicit campaign donation?
	How much was the Twitter suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story worth to Joe Biden?
	Invaluable.
	You have an entity that donates 90 plus percent to one political party.
	This is a contribution in kind of the clearest order.
	I don't know what the precedent is to have that recognized.
	Yes, we'll see how all that unfolds.
	Oh, no, Robert, sorry.
	I had to mention this before I forget.
	Speaking of suppression, your name might be on the bad books of YouTube, Robert.
	You were on Sky News talking about the indictment.
	I guess this is going to filter us into the next one.
	Your appearance on Sky News, they have 3.3 million followers.
	A day after that interview was posted, it had 934 views.
	It's so outlandish.
	It's so inexplicable.
	For some reason, it wasn't showing up on any of Sky News' channels.
	Like, somebody stumbled across it, and I think it's still not showing up on any of Sky News.
	So you go to Sky News' channel, you don't find it.
	I had great difficulty finding it when I was looking for it on YouTube.
	Someone stuck it in, like, a real rabbit hole.
	And all that to say is, even after we shared it on Locals, I think the only thousands of views it got was from our community because it was clearly being suppressed.
	Yeah, you had to have a direct link or you would never find it.
	And even verbatim words didn't pull it up.
	But speaking of which, Robert, the mob wants blood.
	They want political blood.
	I have to weigh my words carefully.
	They wanted a perp walk.
	They wanted a mugshot.
	They wanted fingerprints.
	They wanted gag orders.
	They want Trump.
	To be treated like every criminal that they would have objected was getting abused by the judicial system had it been someone off the streets getting a mugshot, getting a perp walk, getting gag ordered.
	Had it been a disfavored political person, it would have been outrageous.
	But they want the outrageous treatment because it's not a political disfavored person.
	They're going nuts.
	But Robert...
	Let me give my – I put up a video yesterday because I'm sitting there just thinking about how outrageous it is that people have a memory span of a goldfish.
	Trump, they want him – they want the book thrown at him from the same institutions that literally fabricated evidence to go after him the first time, that literally lied, infiltrated, entrapped.
	Other political disfavored entities.
	I don't understand how people just, you know, don't look at this and say it is what it is because they still believe what they want.
	So the legacy media, the Twitter frothing at the mouth blue check, the legacy media blue check marks on Twitter.
	They wanted all this stuff to happen.
	They wanted Trump to be publicly humiliated as though they don't understand that would have only helped Trump even more.
	No gag order.
	No fingerprinting.
	No, none of this.
	Just...
	For the laypeople, how does it work?
	He was federally indicted, arrested, charged.
	Why was there no perp walk, fingerprint, mugshot, and the rest?
	So, I mean, yeah, it's what we predicted, that there would be no bail in positions, that there would be no gag order, that there wouldn't be any perp walk, fingerprinting, mugshot produced, or the rest, because I felt that the federal judicial system recognizes the issues here.
	Now, that doesn't mean they'll be willing to stand up to the deep state.
	When it comes to dismissal of charges.
	But I think even the federal judiciary, despite its otherwise pro-deep state proclivities, recognizes this is uncharted territory and is going to be nervous about this.
	U.S. Marshals like themselves to be perceived as always being above it all.
	So like the New York Police Department that wasn't going to make an embarrassment or do anything toward Trump to embarrass him through the criminal process.
	Nor were the U.S. Marshals.
	U.S. Marshals are probably the best, most ethical actors within the entire Justice Department, in my experience.
	Not perfect, by any stretch.
	I've got stories on that accord.
	But of the group, if you had to give me a group within the federal government I would trust, amongst those different agency choices, overwhelmingly I would choose Marshals.
	U.S. Marshals are the most ethical of the bunch.
	So they weren't going to do any of that nonsense.
	So they weren't going to do perp walks.
	They weren't going to do arrests.
	They weren't going to do raids.
	They weren't going to do any of those things.
	When you see that go on, it's not the U.S. Marshals usually.
	That's almost always the FBI, the IRS, the DEA, those kind of folks that like to make the big staged arrests and seizures and all that jazz.
	Like, you know, sees Manafort in his bed early in the morning, you know, raid Roger Stone at 6 a.m., stuff like that.
	Not like the marshals.
	And the judges were highly unlikely to go along with it.
	And so the protocol here was to make sure everything looked normal.
	No bail, excessive bail requirements.
	No gag orders.
	No perp walks.
	None of that.
	And that's what we predicted.
	And that's what came true on Tuesday at the arraignment.
	Now, since then, the government has filed a motion to try to limit access to the file.
	Under the guise that national security information may be present, the judge's response to that was immediately give national security authorization to all of Trump's legal team.
	So we'll see how quickly the government does that or if they try to weasel their way out of it.
	The government's next response was to try to prohibit Trump from looking at his own documents on the grounds that they're part of the discovery.
	Now what they're doing is they're piggybacking off the fact that in your typical case, They have information the defendant has never seen that might otherwise be legally protected, that courts routinely allow them to limit how that information can be shared beyond the defendant and the defense counsel.
	Now, I've always thought that was a lot of much ado over nothing because you're allowed to file those documents for motions.
	You're allowed to file those documents at trial as part of the public record.
	Now, they try to do all kinds of squirrely things in national security trials, like they do in Eastern District of Virginia, which is where they screw over whistleblowers routinely.
	They might try the same here.
	The difference is they're asking the judge to deny Trump access, not to records he's never seen, but to records that are his.
	And historically, protective orders don't apply if there's an independent source of the document.
	And those protective orders are there for something that you only have access to because of discovery in the case that there's no independent means of access to that you've never seen before.
	Not for things that are already yours that just happen to also be in the government's possession because they raided and took it.
	And so we'll see.
	This will be an early test to see how cognizant Trump's counsel is at pushing back, how aware the judge is on these issues.
	And how conscientious the court is at limiting this abuse of criminal justice power by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the case of Jack Smith.
	Robert, when we talked about this last week, I think.
	Was it last week or the week before?
	I forget.
	It was last week.
	When you ran, it was just Tuesday.
	Yeah, and I was saying, look, the indictment reads like it contains serious allegations.
	He's showing a report or documents that he knows that he shouldn't be, that he didn't declassify, that he admits he could have but didn't.
	Do we yet know what those documents were?
	Because some people are saying those documents have not been identified.
	The government does not want them to be identified, which might reveal potentially something about the fact that they might not have been classified or other stuff.
	Do we know what those documents are yet?
	It appears that all that actually happened is they don't actually apparently even have the tapes, so they have Bob Woodward's notes, it appears.
	So General Milley told Bob Woodward that Trump wanted to go toward Iran, and Milley stopped him.
	Bob Woodward asked Trump about that, and Trump said Milley's lying.
	I have the document here that proves it.
	I have him actually trying to go into Iran.
	And he goes, you know, these are still secret.
	These are still classified.
	So it suggested that Trump didn't show it to him in detail.
	And he didn't actually share the contents with him.
	And he was using the secret classified language to affirm the credibility of his claim to rebut Milley's claim.
	Most likely, the document's not classified.
	Because if it was, that would be all over the indictment.
	Most likely, or the document was never functionally shared with him.
	Or that, too, would be all over it.
	If you know Bob Woodward's protocol, he likes to receive and keep copies of these documents as part of his research and his reporting, promising source protection along the way.
	Once again, showing Bob Woodward is the most unreliable.
	Anybody who still thinks Bob Woodward can protect your anonymity is an idiot.
	But he's relying on the fact that Bob Woodward has always been a deep state shill.
	He was not a deep state exposer like Robert Redford and all the president's men.
	He was a deep state shill for Mark Felt, who ran COINTELPRO, who was Hoover's number one guy, who got passed over by Nixon because Nixon wanted his own people in.
	And so Mark Felt conspired to overthrow the elected president of the United States using his shill, his stenographer, Bob Woodward, to write the...
	Deep throat Watergate story as if it was a mystery rather than a deep state coup.
	So that's who Bob Woodward is.
	You got to wonder how did Bob Woodward, how did this information get into the hands of the prosecutor?
	Unless it was Bob Woodward going to them to tell them all about it, right?
	How would they know the conversation took place?
	So, but it appears there aren't tapes.
	It appears it's not clear whether the documents were not classified or...
	Trump never showed it to them.
	Something they're hiding by what's missing from the indictment.
	And I'm sure there's a lot more along those lines.
	I mean, the case is one of the weakest.
	There are more legal people who looked at it this week who called it...
	You know, you have the deep state whores running around, championing it.
	You got your average neophyte liberal lawyer who thinks these things stick.
	But putting those two constituencies aside...
	The people that have a lot of familiarity with these kind of criminal or political or national security cases, when they looked at this, their response has been pretty universal, which is, this case is a crock.
	This case has every problem known to man.
	This case is as weak as it gets.
	And that's why, to give you an idea of how weak it is, Bob Woodward was making, not Bob Woodward, but his buddy, Bill Barr, was making the rounds today, this morning, telling everybody, Trump's going to get indicted on January 6th.
	Well, why?
	Bill Barr was all excited about this other indictment.
	If the Florida indictment is so strong, why is Bill Barr begging them to already indict him on January 6th?
	Is it because they already know that indictment looks like it sucks right out of the gate?
	And they're hoping and praying there's some sort of other miracle case?
	Because Bill Barr, who's been a deep state fix-it man with Robert Mueller since the 1970s, doesn't want to imagine what a Trump second term might look like for Bill Barr?
	Remember Jeffrey Epstein, eternal truth, number one, didn't kill himself, died on whose watch?
	Bill Barr's watch.
	Who are the Biden whistleblowers hidden from the public and Biden's criminality hidden from the public under?
	Bill Barr.
	Who is it that covered for everything that took place in the election in 2020?
	Bill Barr.
	So who is it that doesn't want a meaningful investigation and doesn't want a real Durham report rather than a mediocre Durham report?
	Come 2025?
	Bill Barr.
	Robert, what do we think of Vivek Ramswamy?
	What do we think about him coming out saying, I'm going to pardon Julian Assange, I'm going to pardon Donald Trump, I'm going to pardon non-violent Jan Sixers?
	I think every serious candidate for the presidency that claims they're going to be challenging the deep state...
	Ron DeSantis should be already out there saying they will pardon Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, other whistleblowers, and Donald Trump and the January 6th people.
	No more political prosecutions to protect the deep state.
	And anybody that's been a victim of the deep state should be let free.
	And that should be their campaign.
	And that was smart of him.
	He's kind of following Robert Kennedy.
	Junior, who had come out and said he would pardon Assange and Snowden and a bunch of other whistleblowers.
	Don't be surprised if down the road you see that reach to maybe some surprising places where Kennedy will pardon.
	But I think that's the only sensible approach.
	It shows you how clueless that DeSantis' campaign is.
	One, they have him out retail campaigning.
	He's a terrible retail campaigner.
	You're a good retail campaigner.
	You like to get out amongst the people, talk to them, etc.
	I'm not a people person, so I've never been very skilled at that at all.
	But I'd still be better than DeSantis, who's just between robot with the head thing and the weird Kamala Harris laugh he's got going on and that his wife outshines him everywhere he goes.
	I would not put him out as a retail candidate.
	And he should be calling for the immediate pardon of January 6th, the immediate pardon of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Donald Trump.
	But instead, he's saying maybe he'll take a look at it someday.
	That's a wuss position.
	But not a surprise from DeSantis, who has turned out to be pretty weak as a political candidate.
	Robert, before we get into the next subject...
	I totally forgot.
	We've got to do some rumble rants.
	Felicia Rufus, 35. Didn't Bill Barr play also an interesting role in the church committee?
	Barnes, can you tell us a bit about that?
	He was brought in.
	Bill Barr's father was the headmaster at the Dalton School.
	One of his last acts there was to recommend a young math teacher to the school before he resigned, known as Jeffrey Epstein.
	His father would then go on to write a science fiction book which portrays rape of underage girls.
	A little bit odd for a headmaster, you might say.
	Then Bill Barr himself would get his only child who grew up on the Upper West Side, real privilege.
	His first gig was through the Poppy Bush regime, and Poppy Bush put him in during Poppy Bush's days at the CIA.
	And he handled some of the response, bearing a lot of CIA secrets from the church committee in the mid-1970s.
	Then he was with the Bush administration, late-stage Reagan, but predominantly Poppy Bush is who brought him in.
	And he had cover-up all the other scandals like the Panama scandal.
	He and Mueller keep showing up magically at key deep state points when the deep state needs a cover-up.
	There's Robert Mueller, or there's Bill Barr, going all the way back to the 1970s.
	And they both come from upper-class WASP Manhattan families.
	So no surprise as to who and what they are.
	And of course, it turned out our biggest rats, our biggest agents, spies, doing the worst things to national security, were people like Aldrich Ames.
	From a long-standing WASP family and others that often had connections to big old money families.
	And just like it was with MI6 in Britain, where almost all the worst spies in the Western world all came from these elite families.
	And Bill Barr just represents that long, notorious tradition.
	He weaseled his way into Trump by promising to end the Mueller investigation, which he did end once he got there.
	But then from there on out, he's your classic case of controlled opposition.
	It was basically derailing investigations, hiding other investigations, rerouting other investigations to cover up for deep state corruption.
	And even the Durham report was about ultimately no consequence being faced by the most corrupt deep state actors that that report details.
	All right, let's bring this up here.
	I'm going to blitz through these as quickly as I possibly can.
	Say what you will about President Trump, but he all but eliminated heart disease, cancer, and diabetes during his time in his office, and he almost got COVID-19.
	That was from Randy Edward.
	Russ the Builder.
	Sean Fucht from Hold the Line for Sidebar.
	Really interesting guy to talk to.
	He's great and encouraging message for America.
	PT Anderson.
	Sam Adams sold us out.
	With the Riot Act, Navassa, isn't there a case going around that challenges the entire concept of qualified immunity due to transcription error, where 16 words that undo qualified immunity assumption from 1874 were omitted?
	Ryan Kiroto says there are liable laws.
	I think congressmen should be punished to the extreme for using their position to lie and mislead the American people.
	I'm tired of being led into wars about the FBI docs, etc.
	I'm not your buddy guy says, just got to reiterate, and this is for the first time to disagree with Barnes, but the left crossed the Rubicon.
	There is no going back to worry about if they weaponize or we do it.
	You either win or lose.
	Eurythmic says, how does Schiff get punished for what he did?
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	You may well weaponize the process against these corrupt politicians because they already crossed the Rubicon.
	This is war.
	We cannot worry what they'll use against us, just the sentiment.
	Tropical Rockets says Adam Schiff is a traitor, but Massey is about limiting the power of the state, which is wise in my opinion.
	Most evil.
	Barnes, do you agree that it's not the government's right to interpret our rights but only to uphold?
	I'm sure you agree with that.
	66 Telecaster.
	Robert's Father's Day essay was beautiful.
	Thank you.
	I posted that to Twitter, not the link to locals.
	Oil money, truth, you're rhythmic.
	Viva, RFK Jr. is a gun grabber and a climate change activist.
	Good on vaccines, but bad for America.
	I like his position on climate, not on the substance, but on the politics.
	You don't have to agree with him, and he's not going to govern through terror.
	And he's actually moderated his position on both of those.
	He said that he follows the Bruin...
	And he said he opposes the climate change agenda of the WEF, Bill Gates, and others because of what he witnessed through the pandemic.
	So a lot of people keep criticizing him based on positions he held 10 years ago, and they still haven't caught up yet.
	Okay, now hold on.
	I just lost it here.
	Okay, then we got Tropical Rocket.
	There was a dude.
	Oh, could the FBI held...
	Sorry, I missed a few here.
	Retired geek, not sure if you'll be covering this.
	BioNTech has been taken to court in Germany for alleged COVID vaccine side effects.
	Yeah, you have some COVID vaccine injury cases that are able to reach court in other countries where the immunity doesn't apply.
	But that's very few because in most cases, they wouldn't distribute the vaccine without a special immunity agreement by that government.
	Grandpa's Place says, could the FBI be held as abating and abetting for refusing to turn over the 1023 form to the House?
	Robert, this is about the hearings that were being held about a potential Biden bribe scheme where they were not turning over a document, not disclosing evidence that they allegedly have, seeing as it is the House that has to investigate and file for impeachment.
	Tropical Rocket says there was a dude in Salt Lake City.
	There was a dude in Salt Lake.
	That had a bag of weed and his legally owned gun, and he got 55 years.
	Judge said he didn't want to do it, but he had to.
	My account says, first super chat hidden by YouTube, you need to have a sidebar with Flat Earth Dave.
	Very serious.
	I had Mark Sargent on.
	I think I've been to...
	If that is, in fact, Flat Earth stuff, I had Mark Sargent on, and that was a long time ago.
	It was thorough.
	Mac Grendel, about four to one rumble.
	YouTube ratio of viewers.
	You're doing good work, gents.
	You're rhythmic.
	JFK Jr. is going back.
	He's supposed to go and grab it.
	We got that one.
	Salty Sarge.
	Ever since Obama was elected, we've been drinking from a fire hose.
	Used to confuse media inaction.
	Chet Chizom.
	Happy Father's Day, Viva.
	Congrats on winning the super cool Punk Rock Dad Award as well.
	I suspect that's because we went to Blink-182.
	And Robert, we might have a special guest pop in for 10 minutes at the end.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	What are the remaining subjects that we have to cover, Robert?
	All right, we have the federalization of local police, abortion, extradition in the SBF case, the Maine Lobsterman, and the third most favored topic, last topic of the night, Plato and Where the Republic, we're on.
	Well, maybe, can we do the Plato one in Locals exclusively?
	Let's do this, and I'm going to see if I can get someone to come on and just give us an update on something for five minutes.
	And for those that go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, if you tip...
	At least $5, then we will respond to the tip.
	Some people wonder why the $5 threshold?
	Last time, there was like 20 people doing $1 tips back to back to back to back, so it would take up too much time.
	So that's why.
	But if you tip at least $5, we will be able to get to your tip in the Locals portion of the show.
	But that's at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I'm going to give the link out again.
	Do we want to do a particular order?
	I'm more familiar with two.
	Let's do the right whale, the main lobster fisherman, because I refreshed my mind on that.
	The right whale, yeah, isn't that funny?
	I was listening to, again, some information.
	Now my daughter knows a lot about the right whale, where they're getting snagged and where they're not getting snagged in vertical lines for lobster and the Endangered Species Act and how they want to basically put main lobster fishermen out of business.
	The right whale, 340 left in existence.
	They have migratory patterns on the East Coast, up to Canada down.
	Some certification company was saying that Maine lobster is a risk to them.
	Grossly endangered species.
	The only problem is that in the last 18 years, zero right whales have been snagged in the vertical lobster of Maine fishing lines off the coast of Maine.
	There have been some snags up in Canada.
	True also, sometimes they get snagged and they...
	Unsnagged and there's scars on the right whale's bodies.
	Apparently some of the ones that get snagged are less reproductive, etc., etc.
	In comes whatever federal agency implements the Endangered Species Act and basically wants to implement policy that would effectively bankrupt the main lobster fishery.
	Despite a dearth of justification science, whatever agency regulates the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, says, look, it's unknown.
	And therefore, we have to err on the side of extreme caution to preserve these whales, and you should give us total deference to this administrative body, total deference to what we want to implement, and say, even though it's grossly uncertain, we have no science to back it up, let us do what we want.
	The court basically says, no, we're not giving you that amount of deference.
	I think they're citing the Chevron case.
	And just as a pure matter of fact, in the last 18 years, exactly zero right whales have been snagged.
	With the lobster main vertical fishing lines, because the main lobster fishermen have already been implementing safety protocol up the wazoo to make sure that it doesn't happen.
	There was one snag in 2004, I believe, won.
	And there are 340, or a little over 300 of these right whales left.
	So that's the backdrop.
	The broader importance of the decision, Robert, they basically say to this administrative body, You don't get carte blanche based on your ignorance.
	If you're going to implement something, you've got to have the science to back it up to justify it.
	And Maine lobster fishermen, go fish.
	Exactly.
	What they had done is they had said that the endangered species, under the Endangered Species Act, enforced by the U.S. Marine fisheries that govern licensing and fishing off in federal waters, that they were going to give the benefit of the doubt to the endangered species.
	To protect the species in the worst case scenario.
	So they were watering it down to where you needed to have no meaningful evidence and little available science to screw fishermen in the name of protecting the species, even if the probable evidence and the likely standard would say that you weren't protecting that species at all.
	And this is what the federal court came in and said, no, wrong.
	You have to prove with actual evidence that it is more likely than not that you have to do what you're doing in limiting fishermen's rights before you can do that in the name of an endangered species.
	So a very good interpretation, limitation of the abuse of power by administrative agencies to promote the interest.
	And the lobstermen are great in Maine, so it's great to see them get a big win.
	Yeah, I was just thinking about how this would be interpreted in Canada.
	I think it would go the exact opposite way.
	Better err on the side of caution.
	We'll subsidize them.
	I was listening to a marine biologist.
	The compromise would be, we'll just compensate them.
	We've been paying farmers billions of dollars.
	We'll give you universal basic income.
	We'll stick it home on a welfare check.
	And surely you'll love that as if it's equal to going out and fishing in the early morning waters.
	All right, Robert, take us away on the final few.
	A few subjects.
	Yeah, so the three other cases before the Plato's Republic and its problems, the feds are back to trying to federalize local police.
	People remember Obama administration started doing this aggressively in his second term, where they would come in and accuse a local police department of systematically violating federal civil rights, and under that guise, usurp power over that and basically govern.
	And much as they've misappropriated civil rights laws to try to reshape elections throughout the country in their favor, they're now trying to co-op police into basically working for the Biden administration under the guise of federal civil rights enforcement.
	And they just did it to Minneapolis.
	Minneapolis signed a huge deal that basically gives the Biden administration carte blanche control over the Minneapolis Police Department.
	Expect it to continue to happen until there's legislative reform that prohibits this remedy from being enforced in the future.
	Okay.
	Next up is abortion.
	Tracking South Carolina, tracking Oklahoma, the Iowa Supreme Court has left in place an injunction that prohibits its heartbeat bill from going into force.
	Now, the reason was a 3-3 split because one judge sat out because of a possible conflict.
	And so three judges would have overturned the lower court, but three would not have.
	And the issue is the court said that Iowa's legislature has to go back and pass a new law post-Dobbs for it to reconsider their prior decision pre-Dobbs.
	Which is kind of lame, but they're hoping that that doesn't happen in the Iowa legislature.
	I think they're wrong.
	I think it will happen in the Iowa legislature.
	But what it does show is an ongoing debate.
	The heartbeat bill's aggressivity was its timing.
	The idea of saying that once there's a heartbeat, there can't be an abortion is pretty popular across the country until you tell them it's at the six-week time period you're detecting a heartbeat.
	Because that's a time period so early that some women don't even know they're pregnant at the time.
	And so the court systems are...
	Trump predicted this with some controversy.
	People attacked Trump because he was like, well, you know, the heartbeat thing is something that's probably not going to politically survive.
	People are like, oh, you must be secretly pro-choice now.
	He was right, though.
	What we're seeing is what's happening in the courts is happening at some various legislative levels as well, which is it's so early.
	Because there's a general consensus around the 10 to 12-week period across the world, really, to restrict abortion after that timeframe.
	The consensus around five to six weeks is only there when you put the heartbeat label on it.
	You remove the heartbeat label on it, or you highlight the fact that it's five or six weeks, you start to lose majority support.
	And it's already happening in the courts.
	It will probably extend across the country.
	So expect a lot of these heartbeat bills, even in conservative jurisdictions, to not be upheld, whatever people think of it.
	And now that does relate to the question of personhood, which we had a robust debate on locals about.
	You know, when is someone a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?
	It's always intriguing to me that people can debate abortion without debating that question, because from a constitutional and legal perspective, it's fundamental.
	If who it is being aborted is a person...
	Within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, that's a very different legal analysis than if they're not a person.
	And I've always debated my liberal friends.
	They don't even seem to ever acknowledge this.
	Now I've debated my conservative friends on whether or not that's a person constitutionally with some philosophical, moral, spiritual, and religious implications at the time of conception.
	Or is it at some later point?
	And we discussed that robustly on Locals.
	But the reason why it's coming back up is it's appearing in the background of these heartbeat bill cases.
	But it's also going to take on new legal life now because they've been able to form synthetic embryos.
	So the artificial universe is coming.
	I'm only in favor of that if they can create hundreds of mini-me's.
	If I can have hundreds of Robert Barnes's, I'll be in favor.
	But other than that, I think we're getting into some frightening medical legal space.
	Because is that a person?
	If you believe that a fertilized egg is a person, is a synthetically formed embryo a person?
	That's a really, you get into some really interesting issues.
	Some real implications, like for my conservative friends, I always pointed out, you know, there's the issue of implantation.
	How do you deal with that?
	How do you deal with in vitro fertilization?
	If you really think conception is the beginning of life, it triggers a lot of legal things that I haven't seen a lot of thought about from the pro-life community, just like I haven't seen any thought from the pro-choice community about what is a person.
	But it's going to take on a whole new life in the form of artificial life.
	All right.
	And the last one is SBF before.
	Robert?
	Just so everybody knows, Maxime Bernier is in the backdrop.
	I wanted to start the show with Maxime, but because I'm an idiot, I forgot.
	Maxime has his by-election in Portage, Lisgaard, tomorrow in Manitoba.
	So he's going to give us a five-minute update, then we're going to end it and go over to locals, and Maxime's going to go off and have his last night before the elections.
	SBF, extradition.
	So SBF, the famous crypto fraud...
	Alleged crypto fraud.
	Was extradited from the Bahamas on certain charges.
	After he got back, they added charges.
	The popular perception was that some of these charges were now being dropped because they implicated the Democratic Party.
	There may be some truth to that, but there was a bigger problem.
	It's that they couldn't really add charges once they extradited.
	There's a rule called the rule of speciality.
	Which basically requires that you could only be, the U.S. court only has jurisdiction over you for the charges that you were extradited for.
	And they can't enhance or increase those charges without recognizing they don't have jurisdiction and sending you back to the place you're extradited from.
	So it's extradition, when it's formalized, acts as a limit on jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction.
	And under extradition treaties, speciality requires that you only be prosecuted or punished for the charges that you were extradited for.
	So almost all those extra charges they had added should at some point be dismissed, and the government's already dismissing some of them.
	All right.
	Fantastic.
	Now, we're going to do this.
	It's going to be a backwards order.
	We're going to talk with Max for five, maybe ten minutes, and then we're going to go over to locals, deal with our other most popular subject, and the tips over there.
	I'll be right back.
	I'll be right back.
	Perfect.
	I'm going to bring you in, Max.
	You ready?
	Three, two, one.
	Okay, Max, hold on.
	I'll bring Barnes out so that we can share the screen.
	So I'm talking...
	We were supposed to do this to do the intro of the show.
	For everybody who's watching now, Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, arrested for holding unlawful outdoor gatherings, outspoken critic of the whole transgender movement, was ahead of the curve in every respect as relates to...
	COVID lockdowns, all this other stuff.
	I think everybody watching now knows who you are.
	But Max, you're having the by-electionist tomorrow.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you for having me.
	It is the last sprint before the election tomorrow, up to 8.30 p.m.
	Western time here.
	And it was a very nice election campaign and we were pushing great ideas, ideas based on strong principles.
	And actually, you had a discussion about abortion.
	And yes, that's something that I want to do also here in Canada.
	As you know, and maybe your viewers don't know, but we don't have any legislations against abortion in Canada.
	It's legal to...
	To have an abortion a couple of hours before giving birth.
	And that is happening in our country.
	We don't have any legislation for the last 35 years when the Supreme Court of Canada decided to say that our criminal code and the section on abortion was unconstitutional.
	And so the politician here in Canada didn't want to fix that.
	And I'm saying it's time to reopen the debate.
	And that was a very important subject in the by-election because the Conservative and every other establishment political party said, no, we are okay for that.
	We don't want to reopen the debate.
	But there's about 100 late-term abortions a year in Canada every year for the last 35 years.
	So my proposal is to end late-term abortion seven, eight, and nine months.
	At that time, it is a baby.
	It is a murder, and I understand that in every civilized country, Like in Europe, you know, usually you have a law against abortion at the second trimester, so after three months.
	And I said we must start there to stop the killing of the unborn and winning that debate because I believe it would be very difficult for a reasonable person to vote against that.
	And after that, we'll try to go further at the second trimester.
	So that's a proposal that we are...
	And let me just clarify.
	I've talked about it a number of times on the channel.
	I've tweeted out about this.
	Canada is, I think, the only nation in the world with absolutely zero criminal prohibitions on abortion.
	Now, just as a pure matter of fact, very rarely will you find a doctor to perform, I think, beyond...
	I don't want to make a mistake here.
	Beyond...
	How many weeks, Maxime, typically?
	Yeah, typically, you know, you have an abortion in Canada up to the second trimester, so third and fourth month.
	But late term, I'm speaking about seven, eight.
	We know that in Quebec, because these data, these statistics are very rare, but the Quebec government in 2019 said, the Quebec health minister, that in Quebec they have about 20 late-term abortions after the six months, and half of them, the life of the mother was in danger, but the other half, without any...
	And they had to send these women in the U.S. to do these late-term abortion because it was very difficult to find a doctor here in Quebec to do that.
	But after COVID, the Quebec government said we will try to offer that option to women in Quebec to have a late-term abortion.
	It's 24 weeks.
	So there's no criminal prohibitions, but typically you won't find a doctor to do it after 24 weeks.
	But there have been very infamous cases where it's been the case.
	Maxime, so you're running in the by-election now.
	Manitoba, the rioting of Portage Lisgaard.
	How has that campaign been going?
	What are the concerns of the people?
	And the most important question, it's the night before.
	What can people do to help you if they want to?
	Yeah, thank you for asking.
	That was a great campaign based on ideas, like I said, and we had that discussion about abortion.
	But the most important also, we had a discussion about the radical trans ideology.
	And it's happening here.
	As you know, it's a rural riding in southern Manitoba.
	The sexualization of kids and these kind of books, gender books, are in the libraries here in this writing.
	And they are also trying to do a transition with kids.
	I've met a mother and she told me, Maxime, my daughter wanted to be called Mike and they are calling Mike at school.
	I didn't know that.
	And it's happening everywhere in our country.
	We want to stop that, you know, that transition.
	It's a toxic ideology and there's only two sexes.
	So that's an important debate.
	But my opponent, the Conservative Party of Canada, the fake Conservative candidate...
	Conservative.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Won't speak about that.
	They don't want to touch that.
	Actually, they voted, as you may know, the Bill C-4, all the Conservatives and every MP in the House voted for that bill.
	So that was an important subject.
	Bill C-4 is the conversion therapy ban.
	Banning conversion therapy in one direction but not the other.
	Maxime, unanimous conservatives voted to criminalize conversion therapy, telling a confused kid, you might grow out of this.
	The conservatives voted for that unanimously.
	Absolutely.
	And so a parent or a therapist can go to jail up to five years if they try to tell their kids that, you know, It's okay.
	You're not born in a wrong body.
	If you want to give them a therapy to help her or him to accept their own body, it's illegal.
	You can go to jail with that bill.
	So that was a big discussion in the writing.
	I'm very pleased that we had a lot of support about that.
	I don't know what will happen tomorrow.
	I did a great campaign.
	I believe that I can win that.
	And actually, if you want to help me, you know, we are still looking for some volunteers.
	If you want to be a scrutinist during that election, come at our office here in Winkler, help us, and you can be in touch.
	You can go on my site, votemaxberney.ca, votemaxberney.ca.
	And I believe that will be a great day tomorrow.
	I saw the conservatives.
	They didn't want to have any debate about these important issues.
	And people here, that's a very conservative writing.
	People are conservative minded.
	So that's why I decided to run here because the conservatives are not conservative anymore.
	They're only conservative in name.
	So like the rhino Republican in the US.
	And I'm having fun.
	We're fighting for family values.
	I'm waiting for the result tomorrow night.
	And maybe I can be with you after the election to share what happened and if I'm elected or not.
	Well, first of all, yes, and may it be success.
	People, I'm not hiding anything.
	I mean, I ran for the People's Party of Canada.
	I like Maxime.
	And Maxime, you were ahead of the curve on a number of issues, and shamelessly so, and bravely so.
	So everybody who's watching now, if you want to help, snip and clip this, post it to Twitter, and I think a good hashtag is VoteForMax.
	I mean, it's either VoteForMax or VoteForMaxime, but I think Max is better.
	So, Maxime, I'll be watching what happens tomorrow.
	Godspeed for the love of everything.
	Good luck and everyone to get out there and vote and get people out there to vote.
	Thank you very much.
	Yes, have a great day.
	We'll see what will happen.
	I'm ready for that common sense revolution and that may start tomorrow night.
	Thank you.
	Amazing.
	Go for it.
	Have a good evening.
	Godspeed.
	Thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	Everybody out there, I'm going to bring Barnes back in and then we're going to move on over to the party.
	But Robert, I'm going to bring up, just go to the Rumble Rants for one second because there seems to be...
	A $300 rumble rant from hippie trance.
	I'm going to say this not jokingly.
	If that's a typo, hippie, tweet thank you.
	If it was a typo and you meant to do $30 because this has happened before, get in touch with me and I will send you back the balance of what you might not have intended to rumble rant.
	But thank you very much.
	Max Trudeau announced he is spending $1.4 billion on Canadian international sexual health and reproduction advice, furthering abortion, contraception, and gender ideology.
	That's from Kenzie67.
	Oh, Grammy Kin, Canada has instituted a national death cult.
	Don't you have a thriving...
	Jokes, jokes, truth in jest.
	And last one, then we're going to go over to Locals to deal with our last topic.
	Fleet Lord Avatar, remember people to click, thumbs up, agree today, you an idiot, when you forget.
	All right.
	Thank you, everybody.
	Now, Robert, let me bring this back here.
	We are going to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, people.
	Get your hineys over there.
	What did I just put in here?
	Okay, I put the link in there.
	We're going to do the Plato's Republic, have a little discussion as to how society should be governed and what happens when you go from having something from the podcast, a thriving middle class, to being ruled by aristocracy and poor, impoverished, abused people.
	It doesn't last long.
	So what am I doing right now, Robert?
	I'm going to go to...
	Go to Rumble.
	End on Rumble.
	Everybody, thank you all for being here.
	Tomorrow, I will not be able to do anything unless I put out a quick video.
	I'm in transit.
	Back to the makeshift studio Tuesday.
	And this week is going to be a big week.
	So, ending on Rumble.
	Once I figure out how to do it.
	Ending on Rumble now.
	Head on over to Locals.
	We're going to get to our last topic.
	And ending now.
	3, 2, 1. Boom shakalaka.
	And we're on Locals.
	Okay.

▲