Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 25, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:07:24

Ep 166: Russia "Coup"; Hunter Biden CORRUPT Plea Deal; Schiff Censure; Illegal Disclosure of Ballot?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department as components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike.
	This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy and essential to the safety of the American people.
	Nothing could be further from the truth.
	Nothing.
	You've all heard me say many times.
	We've heard you say it.
	Make our cases based on the facts and the law.
	These are not just words.
	These are what we live by.
	They are the foundation.
	These are not just words.
	Listen to my words when I tell you that these are not just words, as I say the words that are just words, but I'm telling you they're not just words.
	...the way we make these decisions.
	The agents of the FBI, as well as the DEA, the ATF, our Deputy U.S. Marshals, every day, often at great personal risk.
	Protect the American people and secure its safety.
	Our cases are based on their work.
	I could not be more proud to work with them.
	It's not like I'm a master body language reader.
	I just know that he's lying.
	I mean, he's lying because we have recent evidence that what he's saying is not true.
	But I just want to point out his intonations.
	I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department as components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike.
	We know that you do not treat like cases alike, Merrick Garland, but it's an attack on the institution.
	This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy.
	Is or was...
	An attack on an institution.
	When you attack Fauci, you're attacking science.
	When you criticize Fauci, you are undermining science itself.
	When you attack Merrick Garland, you are undermining justice itself.
	Because they are just.
	They are good.
	They have no problems.
	They do everything right.
	He's very proud of them.
	And if you have a problem with it, you're the one to blame.
	And how dare you attack justice and attack democracy and the very institution?
	That is there to ensure your safety, even if it means locking up people that they've entrapped, framed, judged too harshly.
	It's for your own protection, so everything that they do, even if it's wrong, is right.
	Don't you see?
	And essential to the safety of the American people.
	Nothing could be further from the truth.
	Nothing could be further from the truth, Merrick.
	And by the way...
	Not only is it an attack on democracy, if you criticize the Justice Department or Merrick Garland, it's also anti-Semitic, apparently.
	Did anybody even know that Merrick Garland was Jewish?
	Oh, here we go.
	After the Mar-a-Lago raid, the ADL sees an alarming number of anti-Semitic threats targeting Merrick Garland.
	Put Merrick Garland, both by physique and by name, and in all of my identifying members of the tribe, as we used to say in the industry, Roseanne Barr?
	I remember being flabbergasted when I realized and discovered Roseanne Barr was Jewish.
	Pee Wee Herman?
	Mind blown.
	The Beastie Boys?
	But Merrick Garland?
	I mean, I was criticizing Merrick Garland before I knew he was Jewish.
	It's an attack on institutions, people.
	You attack Merrick Garland, it's anti-Semitic, even if you had not the slightest notion that Merrick Garland was Jewish to begin with.
	It's a way...
	Some people call it...
	Pathological narcissism of blaming the victims of abuse.
	Let me rephrase this.
	The abuser.
	Blaming the victims of their abuse of abusing the abusers.
	Merrick Garland coming out and saying, if you criticize the Justice Department, that strikes sweetheart deals with the crackhead son of felonious gun application lying.
	Whatever else was on that computer, by the way, stick around.
	This week, we're going to have probably Marco Polo on to talk about the report.
	If you think that that sweetheart deal that no one in their right mind would have ever given to any other ordinary citizen under any realm, treat like cases alike.
	The FBI falsifying evidence and submitting it to the FISA court.
	No, we treat like cases alike.
	Oh, we're sorry we did that.
	We put in protocol to know that we shouldn't break the law anymore when trying to prosecute people.
	And if you dare criticize them, you criticize Fauci for lying about gain of function, for lying about...
	A slew of other things, you're attacking the science.
	You criticize Garland, you're attacking justice, and you're attacking all of the Hebrew people.
	Can't criticize them.
	Can't criticize them.
	And if you do, you ungrateful bastard, you're the problem.
	I did not know that Paul Rubens was Jewish because I didn't know that that was Pee Wee Herman's real name growing up.
	But it's like, you know, for good and for bad, you know, Jared Fogle.
	Didn't know, didn't want to know.
	Upset.
	Harvey Weinstein?
	We knew Harvey Weinstein was Jewish.
	Woody Allen?
	Yeah, we knew.
	What's his name there?
	The guy we know with the computer stuff?
	We knew him.
	Somewhat genuinely surprising ones.
	And then the Billy Madison song.
	Not the Billy Madison.
	The Adam Sandler song.
	The Hanukkah song.
	Gave you the whole other list.
	And then you grow up and you realize, never mind.
	We're going to get in trouble.
	Okay, everybody.
	It's an earlier than normal stream today because Barnes has some travel plans.
	I hope he's going to make it.
	He's going to make it.
	Lauren has some travel plans.
	We're going to start early.
	Two of my kids went to summer camp.
	Sleepaway.
	I don't know what I'm going to do with myself.
	It's a weird, weird thing.
	Every parent wants their kids to be independent.
	You want them to be able to survive on their own.
	You want them to have the best experiences in life.
	But you know, growing up, going to sleepaway camp wasn't always a fun thing.
	You go there, you get homesick, you want to come home.
	I can still feel that.
	That homesickness.
	The sorrow.
	You wake up in the middle of the night and all you want is to smell your mother's deodorant secret.
	Don't ask.
	It's a long story.
	But you want your kids to be independent.
	But then there's a part of you also that likes the dependency.
	It gives you meaning in life.
	It gives you something to do.
	Also, it's a bit of a window into the empty nest when like, okay, the kids are out of the house.
	What the hell do I do with myself?
	I mean, I'm lucky.
	I got what to do with myself.
	But you feel abandoned.
	You feel sort of alone, like you've lost a massive aspect of purpose of your life, which is to cater to these ungrateful children.
	I was going to call them rats, but children.
	So I have some conflicting emotions right now.
	But all that to say, conflicting emotions.
	Emotional damage.
	All right, so what do we have on today?
	It's going to be an amazing show, but before we get into any of it, standard disclaimers.
	These wonderful things that you see here, Patsy Fox, a $10 super sticker.
	YouTube.
	Rumble takes 30% of Super Chats.
	These are called Super Chats.
	We're simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble ordinarily takes 20% of their equivalent called Rumble Rants, except for the rest of the year, they're taking nothing.
	So 100% goes to the creator.
	But even when they go back to taking their 20%, you're better off supporting us if you want to on a platform that supports free speech and supporting the Rumble platform, the Rumble movement that is hashtag Rumble on.
	I started that one.
	I'm going to read a few more of these.
	Pasha Moyer, when I hear people like Garland speak, what do you mean people, Pasha?
	I'm joking.
	I can just feel part of my brain rotting away.
	Thanks for stopping the video before it's too late.
	Well, I stopped it on the second time around.
	JRC1, I read this one caption, a prelude, so to speak.
	What's more important, solid food, truth, or taste good food, feeling?
	What we digest, absorb is what we are and who we are.
	Agreed.
	So to explain the format to anybody, Viva, I will send a multi-rant later, could use help.
	Okay, will do.
	I'm not your buddy guy, thank you.
	The protocol for the week, by the way.
	Let them fly.
	If you love them, let them go.
	That's a Tom McDonald song, but I'm terrible at it.
	What was I just about to say?
	I totally forgot.
	The protocol for how this goes, for those of you who are new, we start off on YouTube Rumble, and we're on Locals Live with our private stream there, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Because I have exclusivity with Rumble, I end on YouTube after about 20, 30, sometimes 40 minutes, and we go over exclusively to Rumble and Locals.
	We finish up the stream on Rumble and Locals, and then we end on Rumble, and then we go over to our community on Locals, which is highly above average, or at least slightly above average, and we have our Locals after party where we take...
	Tips there, questions there.
	And so you can join support as a non-paying member on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	If you want, you can also support us there.
	Seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year.
	And some people actually support with more than that, even though they don't have to.
	There's tons of exclusive content for supporters, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But the membership is open for everybody.
	We have like 107,000 non-paying members, and it's a great community.
	Tons of stuff for everybody.
	You can also go to vivafry.com and get some merch if you so choose.
	So the link to Rumble is in the pinned comment.
	Is that all the housekeeping that I have to do for today?
	We're not done with the opening rant yet, people.
	In fact, before I even get into this, let me just make sure that we are live on Rumble.
	Let me go to locals.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're here.
	Okay, good.
	Also, everybody share the link out because some people might still think we're on the 6 o 'clock.
	We're going to go back to 6 o 'clock next week.
	It's just this week.
	Barnes, I think, is traveling tonight, so we had to get this done earlier than normal.
	Okay, well, I had one more thing lined up.
	I was going to start either with Merrick Garland or with Bobby Kennedy.
	I wanted to start with Merrick Garland just in case we had any problems.
	You know, I didn't want to interfere with this rant.
	Let the rant begin because it's going to involve Dr. Peter Hotez, or as I'm going to call him now, I'm going to call him Petey Boy.
	Because if Petey Boy wants to call Bobby, Bobby.
	You're going to call the potential next president of the United States.
	It's a long shot, but I might bet on it.
	You're going to call Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	Bobby in tweets.
	Well, Dr. Peter Hotez, we should just get in the habit of calling you Petey.
	Let's play the video, and then let's see what exactly is going on with the hashtag confession through projection that has become the life of Petey Hotez.
	Listen to this.
	And the last part of these.
	Listen to this.
	They're talking about like a pandemic preparation.
	Interestingly, by George Gale, who is the head of the Chinese CDC in New York City.
	And any of you, I'm sure a lot of you have gone and looked at this on YouTube.
	It's called Event 201.
	Events 201.
	Look it up.
	The fourth simulation that day, the last one, is all about how we use the pandemic as a pretense for planning down to tell a story from a gun.
	A bridge is a freedom of speech.
	It's tough to hear.
	Anybody listening to this on podcast, where this will go tomorrow, it's Bobby Kennedy.
	I think he had an event where there were a bunch of doctors talking about COVID and stuff, and apparently the doctors that talked with Bobby Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., they're not real doctors anymore, whatever.
	He's talking about Event 201, which was a 2019 prep for pandemic.
	And set aside the fact that we now know, according to The Lancet, it's a perfectly plausible explanation that the virus was man-engineered in a lab in Wuhan, China, and leaked.
	It's now totally plausible.
	Set aside whether or not the pandemic...
	The Rona, the Jibby, whatever it is.
	Let's set aside whether or not it was deliberately set on humankind or just accidentally released and then weaponized.
	I happen to go for the latter.
	Accidentally released.
	You know, they're doing some stupid stuff that they shouldn't be doing.
	It gets out.
	Well, it's accidentally released.
	Let's lie about the origins and let's weaponize the shit out of this people.
	This is what Robert RFK is talking about right now.
	How this event 201, I mean, and the WEF was quite open about it.
	How do we seize on this opportunity now that it's a terrible thing?
	Man-made viruses have leaked to the public.
	Terrible thing.
	What can we do now to co-opt this, to hijack it, so that we can impose our new world order, one world government?
	And that's what Robert F. Kennedy is talking about right now.
	Particularly, how do you stop people from talking about a liability as the source of these virus?
	This is October 2019.
	Nobody in front of us at that time ever heard of COVID.
	We now know that COVID is almost certainly circulating by mid-September.
	On September 12th, the Chinese government kicked down the door of the Wuhan lab, brought him down the way to, which is an environmental expert from the People's Army, to run the lab.
	And remove all the data function studies from the public case of websites and all the genomic sequences from all the viruses.
	The Chinese government clearly knew that the virus was circulating in September, so a month later you have this.
	That same week, Bill Gates, who was overseeing this simulation, made 1.4 million shares of BioNTech.
	He's explaining, for those who can't see this or might not be able to hear it clearly on podcast, Bill Gates apparently bought 1.1 million shares of BioNTech, according to RFK Jr., which then, as we now know, becomes Pfizer's money bag, Cash cow, golden goose?
	Vaccine.
	Which is the Pfizer vaccine.
	He then sold that, almost sold that stock, 87%.
	Two years later, they have a $242 million profit.
	$242 million profit, if what RFK Jr. is saying now is accurate.
	And a week after that, he publicly announced the vaccine didn't work.
	Because he was the guy who was on TV with his minion, Peter Hotez.
	He was the guy with his minion, Peter Hotez, who took $52 million.
	Who took $52 million for Gates for his institution.
	Gates made his institution.
	So you had to pair them pumping up the stock for two years and then dumping it a week before he goes on TV and says, oh, it didn't work out at all.
	That's interesting.
	You know who I'd like to hear on that?
	Peter Hotez.
	Maybe Bill Gates, but Bill Gates isn't a doctor.
	I don't even think Peter Hotez would have a public discussion with Bill Gates.
	That was just the intro to this part of the rant.
	Listen to this.
	That's what RFK Jr. said just a moment ago or yesterday or the day before.
	Peter Hotez, in the most lacking of self-awareness form of confession through projection, comes out and says in a tweet.
	And this is like, now we're nearing two weeks after the Joe Rogan RFK Jr. podcast.
	We're nearing two weeks out of this event now.
	Peter Hotez tweets, and you're going to see just how many tweets he tweets about this.
	It's not as fun living rent-free in Bobby's head as you might think.
	Bobby, condescending prick.
	The place is a mess.
	Also, our institutions, as he calls it, hasn't received Gates funding in more than a decade.
	Oh, interesting.
	Not hasn't received remuneration, hasn't received Gates funding.
	Okay.
	Hey, let's see full transparency.
	Funding is different than remuneration, compensation, whatever.
	Who knows?
	I think longer.
	So this pump and dump allegation has nothing to do with funding, by the way.
	It has to do with purchasing stocks and selling them.
	It's ludicrous.
	Just made up nonsense.
	All right.
	Living rent-free in RFK Jr.'s head.
	Oh, did I?
	Oh, what the heck, man?
	Hold on one second.
	Hold on.
	I'm going to miss the entire punchline of this.
	I'm going to miss the entire punchline.
	Hold on just one second.
	I got to get you the punchline of this, talking about living rent-free in someone's head.
	Look at this.
	Look at this, people.
	The man accusing...
	RFK Jr.
	The man accusing RFK Jr. of being in RFK Jr.'s head rent-free has been tweeting about RFK Jr. non-stop, multiple times a day, incessantly.
	And I just pulled up a few.
	I mean, I stopped after about 19 or 20. Peter Hotez retweeting Steve Silberman.
	There's a good reason for vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate.
	There are no good reasons for vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate bozo nudniks like Joe Rogan and professional liars like RFK Jr.
	Just Peter Hotez retweeting that.
	Peter Hotez retweeting Holden Thorpe's science EIC.
	In the meantime, we can be gratified at the way scientists and clear thinkers rallied around Hotez.
	Look at this.
	One after the other.
	All he does...
	Day in and day out now is retweet people who blindly support him.
	A media that is rallying around him.
	And Hotez is complaining about a purported harassment campaign against him where he has MSNBC, Mehdi Hassan, Aaron Burnett, CNN, Forbes, the Houston Chronicle.
	He's got every aspect of legacy media, mainstream media, writing hit piece after hit piece about RFK Jr. and Joe Rogan, which he then retweets while calling the mainstream media Oh, you could make this stuff up, but...
	People might not believe you.
	Now, let me just make sure that I gave Robert the link to the stream tonight.
	I'm sure that I did, but I always think that there's something I did forget.
	You got the link for StreamYard, comma, right?
	Question mark?
	I'm sure that I did.
	And now, while we're waiting, anyhow, let me go over to Rumble.
	Did I miss...
	Oh, my goodness.
	There are Rumble rants.
	Let me get the Rumble rants before we do this, before we get Barnes.
	And we've got a good show tonight.
	We're going to talk about Wagner.
	So, I spent...
	I went jogging.
	I hear myself.
	Hold on a second.
	Where did it just come from?
	I went for a jog in the toxic air in Canada and I was listening to a podcast from this guy named JD who used to work with Dark Horse Allies helping Ukraine fight Russia and listened to a podcast of somebody purportedly, allegedly on the ground giving insights.
	We're going to talk about this coup.
	You had all the experts in the world coming out and saying, it's the end of Russia.
	This is it.
	It's time to...
	We're going to talk about that.
	We're going to talk about Hunter Biden's bullcrap, treating all cases equally plea deal, and a slew of other things.
	But let me just get these rumble prants while we're here.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney says yes to rumble.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney is Little Rock on YouTube, for anybody who doesn't know.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney says, I have missed so many live streams, I hate this new job.
	Did you guys ever find out if locals can know in advance, maybe by email, by the next meetup?
	We have not determined on the next meetup, Arkansas Crime Attorney.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney, did you get time to find out about Miles Guo from...
	No, I didn't.
	Director?
	Okay, interesting.
	And then we got Kitty724.
	So glad you all have been covering RFK.
	Important candidate with much to say to everyone in the U.S. Could not agree more.
	Let me bring this out here.
	Let me bring this one back up.
	In a debate between myself and Biden, I'd kick his arse.
	Vote for Winston.
	So I was listening to a podcast.
	It's a phenomenal thing.
	This coup, Purgosian, the leader of Wagner, a militia, mercenary group, a paid-for army, having a...
	Power struggle apparently with Shoigi and apparently announcing that he's going to march on Moscow and overthrow Putin with his army of 20,000.
	And everybody, every expert out there, Vindman, every purported expert, Colonel Vindman, what's his first name?
	I forget what Vindman's first name is.
	Vindman.
	All of these experts come out saying this is the end of Russia.
	This is how it ends.
	There's going to be infighting.
	How embarrassing for Putin.
	And it's phenomenal how wrong the so-called experts can be.
	And I'm a schnook.
	I do the best I can.
	I have an open mind.
	I listen to everybody on both sides as I listen to this podcast with JD from Dark Horse Allies.
	Knowing the angle from which this person is coming, literally fighting for Ukraine, not can learn from everybody.
	You do learn from everybody.
	But watching these purported experts...
	Jump on this, exaggerate it, and be so wildly wrong within 24 hours.
	It's an outlandish joke.
	And, I mean, in a way, all you have to do in order to be right is say exactly the opposite of what the purported experts are saying, and you'll be right more often than not.
	Let me see here.
	Oh, here, check this out.
	This is the air quality in Montreal, everybody.
	This is the air quality in Montreal.
	It's smoky.
	It's not quite the end of times, but it's smoky.
	This is Upper Westmount.
	There's a lookout that overlooks the city.
	If anybody's never seen it, you should go see it.
	This is what it looks like today.
	This is the summit of Westmount, Montreal.
	There's been a shift in the winds and the smoke from the forest fires has blown all over downtown Montreal.
	Ordinarily, you can see it crystal clear.
	You can see windows in the downtown skyscrapers.
	Quite smoky.
	You can smell it in the air.
	Apparently, the new policy also is just two weeks of lockdowns.
	It's two weeks to end the forest fires.
	And, you know, everyone has to contribute their part.
	We're all in this together.
	Nobody move.
	Stay home.
	Two weeks to put out the fires.
	All right, and I almost actually forgot one thing.
	As you came into the stream and started watching, you might have noticed it says contains a paid sponsor.
	Because it does, and it's in the description of the link, everybody talking about breathing healthy air, fresh air.
	You should also be eating healthy food.
	Most people don't know, but you probably do know you're supposed to have between five and seven servings of fruits and vegetables daily.
	Most people don't know this, and those who do still probably don't do it.
	Raw fruits and vegetables are the best.
	When you cook them, sometimes you lose some of the proteins.
	You know, you steam broccoli.
	Some of the nutrients end up in that water underneath.
	Field of Greens is a desiccated fruit and vegetable.
	Dried, pulverized.
	It contains all of the antioxidants, the nutrients of fruits and vegetables.
	One spoonful is one serving.
	You do one spoonful twice a day.
	You get a nice big glass of water.
	You get a spoonful of your nutrients.
	And it's a good habit.
	It's a healthy habit.
	It actually tastes good.
	It looks like swamp water, but it looks like swamp water because swamp water is high in nutrients and it's the giver of life.
	And so if you go to...
	What is it called?
	If you go to Field of Greens, it'll bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA for 15% off your order.
	And it's good stuff.
	I mean, it's a healthy habit to get into.
	Made in America, USDA organic approved because it's a food and not a supplement, not an extract, and it's good for you.
	Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
	All right, now hold on one second.
	I'm getting nervous about Barnes.
	I know I sent him the link.
	Hold on a second.
	Let me just check my email.
	Hold on.
	Okay, no, I got it there.
	Well, until he gets here, let's deal with one more.
	One.
	Do we do a little intro of the bad take tweets on the Russia-Ukraine coup that was over as fast as it started?
	Here's one.
	Here's one bad take.
	I don't know who this person is.
	His name is Rep.
	Jason Crow.
	And I think the only funny thing about this tweet is that Jason Crow is probably now eating crow.
	Just sitting here remembering...
	Tucker Carlson!
	Like, Tucker, I don't know what he has to do with any of this, is like the number one enemy of everybody who supports Ukraine until the end and whatever.
	Rep Jason Crow, dad, Little League baseball coach, Army Ranger, Westerner and Whiskey enthusiast, congressman serving, okay, Colorado.
	So I guess that might delineate political orientation.
	Just sitting here remembering.
	Tucker Carlson and his minions disparaging our supposedly woke military and how awesome the Russian army is.
	And then he sends this, he posts this picture, which I don't even understand who thinks that this is a good idea, even if he thinks that he's right.
	George Takei had a wonderful one.
	George Takei is literally an idiot, above and beyond a potential predator.
	Set that aside if you haven't seen the video of him admitting to predatorial conduct.
	You want to be right?
	Do what George Takei doesn't.
	Do the exact opposite of George Takei.
	Okay, I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	Have I forgotten anything?
	No, we'll get to the Rumble rants afterwards.
	I'm Not Your Buddy Guy says, Viva, did my rants get deleted?
	I don't think they got deleted.
	I don't think I saw them.
	All right, anyhow, that's it.
	Barnes is in the house.
	I don't know.
	Okay, he's looking good.
	Robert, I'm bringing...
	Should I call Robert Bob?
	I'm going to call Robert Bobby now as an ode to Petey Hotez.
	I'm joking.
	I'm always going to call Robert Robert because I think that's...
	I'm going to call him.
	Maître Barnes, as we say in Quebec law.
	Uh-oh.
	He just disappeared.
	He's going to be back in a second.
	Well, until he comes back, there's time for one more.
	Look at this.
	Vindman, the expert.
	Let's just...
	This is going to segue.
	We're going to start with Russia.
	And Barnes is going to give us what he thinks.
	Oh, no, he's back.
	Okay, you know what?
	We're not going to deal with him.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right.
	Robert, okay, I think, I mean, so we're talking about Ukraine.
	We're going to talk about the coup that lasted 12 hours, starting with.
	We're going to go over to Rumble afterwards.
	Exclusively, we're going to talk about...
	The sweetheart plea deal that would be only open to someone if your name is Biden.
	A bunch of SCOTUS updates.
	We're talking something about Trump tonight.
	I forget what it is exactly.
	We don't need more of an intro than that.
	Robert, the coup that started Friday night, got the world in a tizzy, and was over by Saturday morning, initiated by Purgosian.
	Purgosian, I think is his...
	Proper pronunciation.
	Who is the leader of the Wagner Group.
	Apparently, Pergosian might have had some head-butting with another military leader named Shoigu.
	And gets fed up and says, I'm going to march on Moscow.
	The Russian military is not treating us properly.
	They're not giving us proper ammunitions.
	They're setting us up for failure.
	Before we get into any of the coup issue, a little backdrop, I guess, might be useful on the Wagner Group and on Pergosian.
	Apparently, I don't think it's up for discussion.
	He's a bad man.
	I mean, I think everybody can agree that he's a bad man.
	Leader of a mercenary group.
	Kind of like Blackwater, but I guess with more of a license to kill than Blackwater.
	What is the Wagner group?
	Who's Purgosian?
	And what the heck just happened between Friday night and Saturday morning?
	Well, I think much of the interpretation that ended up being wrong...
	That by almost all the Western analysts about what was happening in Russia is predicated upon some of those incorrect assumptions about who is Wagner, who is Prigozhin, who is Putin, what is the Russian military, what is the Russian state.
	Indeed, I think the net effect of all of what happened made Putin's position stronger, made Russia's position stronger in Ukraine, and weakened the West and weakened the Ukrainian position at the end of the day.
	I have a hush-hush up on the different alternative interpretations that could be proffered for what took place and transpired.
	But the irrefutable conclusion is that the West has no clue what's going on in Russia.
	They misunderstood it, misinterpreted it, misapplied it, and reacted poorly in response to it.
	Same with the Ukrainians themselves.
	But definitely in NATO circles, definitely in U.S. political circles, definitely in the social media and other circles.
	The one interpretation of people like Purgosian and others...
	Is that he's not who the West imagines him to be.
	In other words, not really a bad guy, more of a marketing guy, more of just a business guy playing a role.
	And that he's been portrayed, you know, one minute he's the evil villain, mastermind of human rights violations for the vicious Wagner Group.
	The next minute he's the heroic coup leader.
	Who's going to return liberal democracy to Russia in the end of Ukraine?
	I mean, the fact that you could have within 24 hours high-profile voices in the West give you the same people often, give you the two polar opposite definitions of an individual, should tell you that these people have no idea who he is.
	They have no idea what's happening in Russia.
	They have no idea who Putin is.
	I think Putin is using this to his great benefit.
	The fact...
	I mean, by some of the more informed interpretations out there, there was reason to believe from day one that Purgosian wasn't staging a coup, that Purgosian had been a fountain of deliberate disinformation to the Ukrainians especially, but now the West writ large, in order to sucker them into making tactical errors and mistakes.
	And what was extraordinary to me was it kept working.
	People kept taking him at face value.
	So whatever you do, please don't come into Bakhmut.
	You should go and attack all of our weak, vulnerable defenses along a line that goes from the equivalent of Chicago to New Orleans.
	That's where you should be attacking.
	Whatever you do, please don't come to Bakhmut.
	What do the Ukrainians do for six months?
	They go into Bakhmut.
	It becomes a meat grinder.
	And during the same six months, the Russians are allowed to build several lines of defenses along those lines that they didn't have before, get their troops back up to the number and volume that they needed, which they didn't have at the time.
	And the spring offensive delayed until summer gave the Russians a huge edge, and it appears a big role in that was people in Ukraine and the West taking precaution at face value.
	Various times in the Battle of Bakhmut, he would say, geez, we're about to get taken out.
	So a bunch of Ukrainians would rush in and get wiped out.
	And then he keeps doing it.
	After the Battle of Bakhmut, he's like, geez, the Russian military is all weak.
	It's terrible.
	Whatever you do, please, Lord, man, they're going to, Ukraine, you're just going to take us out if you do a big counteroffensive now, launch it in summer.
	And so they spend three weeks losing tens of thousands of men, losing at least hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles.
	You know, they're making trade-offs like, we'll take this farmhouse from the Russians in exchange for 10 dead troops, two lost tanks, and one lost armored carrier.
	You would think after all of that, the West would be realized, maybe let's not take a precaution at face value.
	Let's not assume what appears to be happening is definitely what's happening.
	But what does Prigozhin do?
	Takes his Wagner troops, heads down to Rostov, purportedly takes over a building for which there's only very limited evidence, then starts saying he's going to replace Shoigu and he's going to have a march for justice and drives up the Moscow highway.
	Putin comes out and gives this dramatic speech.
	This is 1917 all over again.
	The Bolshevik Revolution is here.
	The outsiders and the Westerners are trying to slice up Russia just like they did with the Bolshevik Revolution.
	By the way, the biggest land lost during the Bolshevik Revolution was Ukraine.
	Just a little historical FYI.
	So, you know, not a coincidence he's making that historical analogy.
	And while there's no conflict going on, no evidence of any conflict, right?
	The so-called coup is taking place, so-called martial law is going to be instituted, so-called mutiny.
	Oddly, no Russian troops are battling them.
	We see no actual kinetic warfare, as some of the more astute observers were pointing out.
	And instead, they clear the highway and they just start driving up the highway.
	Supposedly, they're approaching Moscow.
	The coup is here.
	Russia is collapsing.
	Putin is done.
	The Ukrainian war is over.
	It's like, do you really?
	I mean, it's like, are you people all buying this at face value?
	Do you think Russia's so insecure, so weak, so ready to collapse, that it's honestly, openly letting Wagner march right into Moscow to do a mutineer coup?
	Because Prozogin is not just some mid-tier, low-level...
	Former Soviet criminal turned entrepreneur who's built his entire financial fortune by being buddies with Putin is now who's never been in politics his entire life, never cared about public life in his entire life, never been connected to the military in a meaningful manner.
	He was always the face in front of Wagner.
	Wagner was created by Russian intelligence and the Russian military to replicate the U.S. success with Blackwater and like-minded groups.
	So the idea that now he's this secret, super great, brilliant general, military leader, war criminal one day, liberator the next, that with 5,000 troops in an unattacked convoy to Moscow is waging a coup?
	And what it did is it outed a lot of people and smoked out.
	It was a stress test of the Russian system to see whether the Western coup could work, and it failed.
	It showed how bad it was.
	But the fact the whole West still doesn't get it, still doesn't understand who Putin is, doesn't understand the fact there's no chance of a coup in Russia because 80% of the people love Putin in Russia because the military structure is the one he put in place.
	The new oligarchs with economic power are the ones that have Putin to thank for being in power.
	You're talking about a guy whose consistent approval rating has been over 60% for more than a year for a quarter of a century.
	No other leader in the entire world has sustained that for two years or longer in any government in the world.
	And yet we're pretending he's an autocrat.
	We're pretending he's a dictator.
	We're pretending he's a collapsed idiot.
	We're pretending during this, the inside reporters said he fled to St. Petersburg.
	No, he's fleeing to Kazakhstan.
	No, Kazakhstan is turning him back.
	No, he has cancer.
	Even my friend Alex Jones got this completely wrong because everybody keeps reading Western press and Western analysts.
	This was the biggest crock of all time, the biggest joke of a coup in world history, and the entire West got trolled into giving up a lot of intel and information that they never should have because they don't understand Russia, they don't understand Putin, they don't even understand Wagner and Prados.
	Robert, when people are saying he's marching on Moscow and they're taking the highways, and I'm sitting there thinking, look, it's not as though Russia doesn't have planes and they could literally just...
	Blast whatever convoy, whatever is marching up there.
	So you hear that.
	And then you also hear that apparently Purgosian is doing this because the Wagner Group has lost, if not half, two-thirds of its original 20,000 forces, so much so that they have to go get prisoners from jail, promise them freedom if they fight and survive for more than six months.
	And yet he's going to take that, march up the highways to Moscow to overtake Putin without the idea that they just get annihilated along the way.
	Here's the question.
	People are hypothesizing that this was something of a coordinated false flag between Purgosian and Putin.
	Some are saying, however, things have been said that can't be unsaid, and Purgosian comes out and says there's going to be a new president of Russia.
	You can't take that back.
	Seriously, it's all a hypothesis.
	Put it this way.
	If Putin really believed he said that, Purgosian would be in jail.
	Or I would imagine dead.
	It would be easier.
	Either way.
	But instead, he's hanging out in Belarus.
	So if you're going to get people to come out, if you're going to rat out, we now know what I suspected it put in the hush-hush at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	So if you want a fuller, deeper dive, you can go there for the broader context, the relevant historical analogous context of MacArthur and Truman that could be applicable because that's the official narrative.
	That appears to be the script they're going by.
	You could go to Apocalypse Now and Colonel Kurtz.
	You could go by the idea that he's a Western plant, or you could go by the idea that he's a Putin plant.
	And I explained the different alternative narratives, the arguments for each one, and which one I lean towards as being the most likely.
	I put it up on our board, and the board was almost evenly split, but leaned towards the Putin ploy because members of our board have followed.
	The story in Russian news much better with better filters and better framework, because our board's above average, than the average Western commentator.
	So there were so many telltale indicators that this was not what it looked like.
	It required everybody acting against their self-interest in irrational ways.
	And it's like, assume that's not the most likely explanation.
	But how do you get the West taking the bait?
	We now know, for example, intelligence was involved, Western intelligence.
	How do we know?
	They leaked to their favorite publication, The Washington Post, that they'd been telling Congress this was going to happen two weeks ago, which means they were in contact with Pergosia, which means, I wonder if that's where some of the six billion went.
	I mean, you know, they're laughing all the way to the bank in Russia.
	If that turned out to be the case, these are people, Putin is brilliantly using the West misunderstanding of Russia.
	Misunderstanding of Putin.
	Misunderstanding of the military.
	Misunderstanding of Wagner.
	Badly against the West, to their detriment, to Ukraine's detriment.
	Some people said, why would you do this?
	Real easy.
	If you want to stress test your society to see how strong it is, imagine if you could have done a simulated run on January 6th.
	You would know what to do and what not to do to make sure it didn't backfire against Trump.
	Here, the West has made very clear their goal is to overthrow Putin, to have regime change in Russia, to use Ukraine to do so.
	So if you're Putin and you want to stress test where his weak links are, no better way than to have your lifelong buddy, who you've made a billionaire, play the role.
	And for that, he's got to be believable.
	Right?
	He's got to go out there and say all the things the West wants to hear.
	He's got to attack Putin.
	He's got to attack the Russian military.
	He's got to be leading this high-end elite Wagner.
	Anybody who thinks he's really leading Wagner doesn't understand who and what Wagner is and who their members are.
	Prigozhin is a figurehead.
	He's not really running Wagner.
	Never was.
	He was put in there because he does his duty to help Putin in whatever capacity Putin wants.
	That's been his career since he got out of Soviet prison as a low-level thief in the early 1990s.
	Started his little hot dog stand in grocery stores.
	And who made him rich?
	Putin did by giving him exclusive licenses for gaming operations in St. Petersburg.
	I mean, this is the Internet Research Agency guy.
	This is the guy that was trying to use a Russian troll army to see if they could have social media influence in the U.S. It was a total failure.
	Mueller made the mistake of indicting the Internet Research Agency and whatever was in those files, they had to shut down the entire case.
	Either their evidence was crap or there was other embarrassing information.
	But it looks to me like the West got played and they got badly played and Ukraine got played.
	And while all this was going on...
	Russia was able to move 25,000-plus troops right into Belgorod, nobody paying any attention because it looked like they were following Wagner instead, and they just made a little detour.
	And he was able to restation Wagner and a bunch of troops in Belarus in ways that people think is just about a Wagner deal, not about dealing with Ukraine.
	And has Lukashenko come in and save the day at the end?
	I mean, this is so scripted.
	It's obvious to those who have been following.
	Putin or Russia for any extended time period.
	This is a guy who has survived, who is the only modern leader in the world to take out his own pre-existing deep state and oligarchic elite, like he did in the early 2000s, and oppose the entire Western deep state empire national security apparatus successfully for the better part of a quarter century.
	Do you think this guy's a stumbling idiot who suddenly is subject to being overthrown overnight and is going to flee on a plane to Kazakhstan?
	These are people who are just, they're so hateful of Putin and Russia that they cannot see it through honestly.
	And Putin is using their hate against them.
	And for those who don't know, Purgosin, 15 years ago, a hot dog vendor, became Putin's...
	Private chef for six to seven years?
	No, what is he at a catering business?
	That's why they started calling him Putin's chef.
	He himself's not a chef.
	He runs a catering business.
	But all of his money, what Putin did is he told the oligarchs, you're going to pay a little bit in tax, you're going to quit stealing, but you can keep what you've already stolen as long as you keep your head down politically, quit interfering with Russian society.
	And those that didn't end up having to leave Russia?
	Got an involuntary ticket to Siberia for a little vacation there or ended up dead.
	The rest of the old oligarchs understood.
	Most of them left Russia and just enjoyed their wealth in Europe.
	He created a new set of oligarchs loyal to him because he made them wealthy by access to the state.
	But the difference was they had to be loyal to the Russian people.
	They had to make money and give power back to the Russian people.
	They could not strip assets for Western interest anymore, like the old oligarchs did in the 90s.
	And Purgosian's one of those new oligarchs.
	So his entire wealth is derivative.
	He's patriotic in his own way, but he's not like an obsessive patriot.
	He's never been political in his life.
	I mean, all of this was so obvious.
	The only way you could accept Purgosian is along the scripted line he was giving.
	Was if you hate Putin and Russia so much that you don't understand them.
	But that's what we're seeing now with the West.
	All these so-called experts look like a complete joke in 24 hours.
	And that's because they don't understand Russia.
	They don't understand Putin.
	They don't understand the Russian government.
	Almost nobody running.
	I mean, Bobby Kennedy can be decent at times.
	Donald Trump, I think, has a better understanding than most, for sure.
	But almost nobody in the West has an honest understanding of Putin.
	Or an honest understanding of Russia.
	And the last 24 hours proved that for the world to witness.
	Let me see if I can bring up...
	I'll bring up just Vindman's.
	It was Alexander Vindman, whoever told me that.
	Thank you.
	This was June 24, 2020.
	We've entered the inevitable...
	Oh, this was his pivot.
	We've entered the inevitable phase of Russia-Ukraine war where Russia is losing and major instability ensues.
	This phase was, is...
	Absolutely foreseeable.
	And then I think his take from the evening before, which was this.
	Russia will be weaker tomorrow than it is today.
	Ukraine will be better positioned to wage war and liberate Russian-occupied territory.
	That much is certain.
	And he was just...
	That's what Putin's playing on.
	The vitamins of the world are completely, not just corrupt.
	They're not just morally misguided in how they want to use American military power overseas.
	And of globalist ties.
	Vindman, for those that don't remember, was the critical person that led to the first impeachment of Trump based on false accusations, because we'll get into it a little bit later with the Biden impeachment topic.
	Trump was trying to inquire into the degree and scale of Ukrainian corruption before sending them any more money or arms, for which he was impeached for merely asking the question of Zelensky.
	And so what we've seen, like the whole story of the Russian operation makes more sense now as things have come out, that originally Putin didn't plan on a longstanding war, that he went in as a feint because he believed, based on his own intelligence, I think that some of the stories of Ukrainian intelligence officers in Russia being fired is probably true because he thought, we'll get a peace deal if I just put troops outside of Kiev because Zelensky's just looking for an excuse.
	To jettison the Assoff Battalion and the last vestiges of the Madon coup regime.
	And my troops being outside Kiev will give him the pretext to do it.
	He sends a peace emissary up to Belarus who actually agrees and signs the peace deal.
	And on his way back, when he gets to Kiev, somebody in Kiev assassinates the Ukrainian peace initiative guy.
	Obviously, that wouldn't be the Russians because they had no interest in that.
	Then they signed the same peace deal, comparable, and all it basically was is we're going to de-nazify.
	In other words, take out the Maidan coup regime elements from the military and from the political infrastructure of Ukraine.
	Don't join NATO.
	Scale down your armed forces.
	Going to be multiple security guarantees by everybody.
	Return to the Minsk Accords that keep Donbass in Ukraine and just make it.
	Donbass have more political independence to protect Russian people's culture than it's located within Donbass.
	And he was even talking about leasing Crimea rather than declaring it part of Russian territory as part of the solution.
	The last part, not evident that that was ever part of the ultimate agreement.
	But that's the degree to which Putin was willing to go.
	And thought that he had the deal twice, withdrew from Kiev because they had initialed the deal in Istanbul, the second runaround.
	And then Boris Johnson comes in and says no.
	What Putin underestimated was the degree of the Biden administration and NATO and Western Europe's commitment to using Ukraine to take out, so that they were on George Soros' script entirely.
	Soros has been doing this for 30 years, using Ukraine as his first place, as his first template, and he's been obsessed with taking out Putin for 20 years.
	And Putin underestimated that.
	He didn't realize Zelensky is no longer an independent actor, that the entire Ukrainian regime now is effectively a colonial government of BlackRock, who is going to own half of Ukraine when this is all said and done on the current path, under current agreement.
	A lot of these monies that we're sending over there aren't gifts.
	They're loans.
	Loans Ukraine can't pay back except to give us all their wealth.
	And in that sense, it's analogous to 1917, where what happened with the peace treaty that the Bolsheviks signed that gave up a bunch of then-Russian wealth and resources.
	And so what happened is he was not well-equipped to actually fight the Ukrainian war by last summer and had to quickly make adjustments.
	And then they lost in those two counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson.
	In the fall, it showed how vulnerable they were.
	Since that time is when Pergosian magically shows up on the scene as running Wagner and has been giving out constant disinformation to the disadvantage of Ukrainians ever since.
	And anybody watching it could witness it in live time.
	But the Venmans of the world so hate Russia, are so blind, hate Putin, that they cannot see it objectively.
	So they take the bait again.
	And again, and again, and again.
	One of my predictions, hypotheses, was that, let's just say the experts know that what they're peddling is disinformation.
	They know that they're making a mountain of a molehill, that it's not a real coup, but they can hype it up in short order, get everyone in a tizzy and a frenzy, much like with the death of those two Polish farmers at the hands of a Ukrainian missile that went astray.
	And they could say, look...
	If this coup succeeds, there are nuclear warheads in Russia that are going to fall into the hands of people even worse than Putin.
	It's going to be Pergosian or Shoghi.
	But you saw none of them saying that.
	None of the Western experts said that.
	I mean, it was only independent observers that were saying it.
	I agree with you.
	Nobody sensible would actually want a coup in Russia who understands Russia, that the alternatives in Russia are the Communist Party and the ultra-nationalists.
	The main criticism of Putin involving the Ukrainian conflict.
	Is that he didn't go in sooner and he isn't going in harder.
	It's nobody saying, please let's end the war.
	Please let's end the conflict.
	That's why I was curious to watch the Western response.
	All these so-called informed analysts, they were predicting this would somehow be a good thing.
	90% of the Ukrainian folks online were cheering it.
	Zelensky was publicly cheering it.
	It's like, why?
	I mean, if you...
	I think it really is a coup.
	That means it's the ultra-nationalists who want to nuke you into oblivion or taking over.
	Why is that a good thing?
	Yet you saw nobody say that.
	Not Venman, not Lindsey Graham, not Marco Rubio.
	Find the established Washington political figure who said it's a bad idea for this coup to occur.
	We should oppose it because it means nukes are now in an unstable regime.
	Nobody in that line was saying it.
	That shows you how delusional they are in their myopian hatred of Putin.
	I had one more question.
	Is it true, Robert, as far as you know, that the Wagner Group is offering amnesty to prisoners?
	Come and survive six months and you get your freedom?
	Supposedly they wanted that to occur, but instead Russia didn't allow it and they did it in a different way.
	It is probably true that there are aspects of Wagner...
	Putin wanted to know who was trustworthy and who wasn't.
	And by the way, what Pergozian has done has outed who in Wagner is untrustworthy and who is.
	That's the other thing that he likely did.
	And so most of Wagner signed on to new contracts to be under Russian military command.
	Those that didn't, some of them are getting sent to Belarus legitimately.
	I think some are being told to stay out of Russia and not come back because some overplayed their hands.
	I think if you're Putin, who you're concerned about...
	Is anybody in the high-ranking of the military that might turncoat?
	Anybody in the high-ranking FSB, police, press, other places that might turncoat?
	But otherwise, your main concern is anybody high up that's real military, not Pergosian, but real military in Wagner.
	That might be a problem.
	Because mercenaries are always untrustworthy over time.
	Am I wrong, or was the Ukrainian army not, in fact, the one handing out...
	You know, AR-15s to flee prisoners.
	They released hardcore rapists and extremely violent criminals that were not just gangsters of that kind.
	So exactly how many people in Wagner come from Russian prisons has just been...
	A big rumor and no real confirmation of it.
	And again, I'm skeptical of a lot of these Russian-sourced informations because all of it seemed built to tell a story of, man, Wagner could be a trouble for Putin.
	Wagner could be trouble for Putin.
	If you're in the West, you better go over to Wagner and pitch what your proposal is for overthrowing Putin.
	And it appears we took the bait on it because that's how dumb our intelligence agents are.
	All right.
	Well, I'm usually...
	Okay, thank you, Winston Shittenhouse.
	So that ends our intro.
	Our intro.
	We're 50 minutes into this.
	That ends the discussion on the coup that lasted 12 hours.
	Okay, so...
	Well, actually, Robert, let me...
	One last question.
	Purgosian ends up dead or in exile or disappears into the mountains with his money?
	I told people before that if this thing was not what it appeared to be, that if Purgosian was really a ploy of Putin, watch him not get prosecuted or killed or hurt.
	And where is he right now?
	Not getting prosecuted.
	They've already announced they're not going to prosecute him.
	All charges drop.
	And Putin's excuse was, well, I always respected what Wagner did.
	Does anybody think...
	Whether you like Putin or hate Putin, does anybody think Putin would let them just hang around if he thought they were really trying to stage the mutiny that he said they were at the beginning of the day?
	You have to put on the script in order to stress test the system.
	The only risk is that stress test exposes problems that you can't fix right there.
	That's always the gamble.
	But a smart...
	Politician understands that the bigger gamble is to not stress test the system.
	Stress test it when you have maximum control over certain key actors in the process.
	That's when you want to know who's going to go AWOL, who's going to stand up, who's going to be quiet.
	And of course, what he found is the Russian people are entirely behind him.
	He likely already knew that, but he got to see it in live time to the degree that people in Rostov were screaming at Wagner, why are you here, when they're unarmed and Wagner is.
	I mean, that gave you a sense for the public.
	Sentiment in Russia.
	His opponents, ultra-nationalist and communist opponents, came out and embraced him.
	He doesn't care about what the West thinks of him.
	He just wants to manipulate the West for the purposes of strengthening his inside Russia and his Ukrainian war.
	And then he cares about what the Global South thinks.
	So he'll play that and have to manage that a bit.
	But otherwise, this made him far stronger internally.
	Just look at results.
	Also, the advantage of the hush-hush, what we've been doing as part of the hush-hush is saying look for certain common things.
	One of the most common things in a false flag or staged event is unusual lapses of security.
	And there were extraordinary unusual lapses of security to have Wagner just driving around wherever they wanted.
	They're out getting coffee in the street, all the rest.
	I'm like, this is a coup?
	I don't think so.
	All right, everybody, before we head over to Rumble, because we're going there right now, I'm going to give the link one more time.
	We're at 12,000 live on Rumble, plus 3,000 here.
	I keep forgetting to do this.
	When we hit 15,000, everyone pick a letter in the alphabet just because I want to see the chat go crazy.
	Put one letter in the alphabet to celebrate 15,000 live before we move on over.
	And this will be our...
	The next time we'll have the Sunday show will not be next week, which is July 4th weekend, but it will be the week after.
	So then we'll have the rest of the Supreme Court cases to wrap up and discuss.
	Natalie McLennan says, Viva, the chat on Locals is absolutely hilarious.
	I'm just going to see if we pick random letters, what letter most people randomly pick.
	Okay, everybody go.
	Lots of R's.
	Head on over to Rumble.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	We're going to end it on YouTube.
	And we're going to get on to the Adam Schiff censure.
	Oh, wait until you see this article.
	That I'm going to pull up from MSNBC.
	Wait until you see this crap, people.
	They think we're idiots.
	It's atrocious.
	Whether it's a crime in Arizona, according to some people, to show ballot signatures.
	We got Biden's plea deal.
	We got Biden's impeachment proceedings.
	We've got trans rights that are being shot down in various...
	Well, trans bands that are being shot down in a bunch of federal courts.
	Judges can, in fact, be sued for imprisoning kids, thank God, but only if done in a certain way.
	And then we got a half dozen big Supreme Court cases that came out this week.
	All right, everybody, move on over to Rumble Viva Fry, ending on YouTube now.
	Robert, I also recommend, you want to talk about peace in Russia, there's probably no better timing.
	I was on with the Duran on Monday to discuss stuff, but was our breakdown of Robert Kennedy Jr. along with John F. Kennedy's speech that people can find on Rumble, a detailed breakdown of both of those, ended up being particularly pertinent given what happened over the weekend.
	Oh, and I also, how did I forget to bring this one up?
	In due time, Robert, because you did say it.
	Dirty.
	All right.
	Robert, let me share the screen for this article from MSNBC talking about the Schiff censure.
	The censure got through.
	They eliminated or they removed the $16 million penalty or fine, I should say, against Schiff.
	You've got to read this because it's impossible that it could be serious, but it is.
	It's June 22. So that was three days ago.
	Steve Bannon, who lacks a little bit in the analysis from Steve Bannon.
	Listen to this.
	They're talking about whether or not it's a worthwhile effort for the Republicans to go after Schiff for censure.
	Years later, it appears that effectively all the House Republican conference not only wants to re-litigate this, they're talking about the impeachment, they're also eager to punish Schiff.
	For having the audacity to expose truths the GOP preferred to keep hidden.
	It's like an alternate reality in MSNBC.
	Listen to this.
	In the process, McCarthy and his team have cheapened what it means to censure the House.
	This, coming from the people who twice impeached Trump, cheapened what it means to impeach, accusing the House of cheapening the censure.
	Resolutions such as these are rare in American history.
	Yeah, so was impeachment until you cheapened it, you bastards.
	Only 25 U.S. House members have ever been censured by their colleagues.
	And in recent generations, they've been only used to punish actual wrongdoing.
	On Wednesday, however, 213 House Republicans thought it'd be a good idea to censure a member for telling the truth.
	This guy libels about a libel.
	I mean, it's extraordinary.
	I mean, because this is...
	And, like, I had issues with even censuring Schiff if he didn't do anything in this term because I think it should be limited.
	But he clarified that before the vote because the morning of was the Durham hearing, and he went back to libeling again.
	He went back to lying again.
	So he created a legitimate, undisputable constitutional basis for his censure.
	It turned out I was correct.
	I said all these Republicans that were holding out...
	We're mostly holding out, not because they were rhinos, but because they were conscientious about the constitutional constraints on Congress.
	Once those parts of the censure were fixed, they turned around and voted for the censure.
	They weren't trying to cover for Schiff.
	They were trying to make sure that they set a precedent that could be constitutionally consistent down the road.
	So credit to Thomas Massey in that respect.
	But Schiff guaranteed that it was a constitutionally permissible censure when he repeated his lies, and then the media repeats lies about his lies, pretending they weren't lies.
	But I just don't understand how anybody could live in such a silo.
	I mean, I do, because I just see the silos or the bubbles or the ignorance that people live in.
	MSNBC, Mehdi Hassan, you know, defending Peter Hotez, it's propaganda to the highest order saying the censure is for Adam Schiff having told the truth.
	When Adam Schiff came out and said, what did he say?
	It was clear and convincing evidence of Russia collusion.
	This is back in the day.
	It's there in plain sight.
	And it was all a lie.
	So he comes out, repeats the false, I don't know if it's defamatory, the lies.
	Repeats the lies.
	A libel, yeah.
	He's libeling saying that President Trump coordinated intentionally and conspired with the Russian government to illicitly influence the 2016 election.
	Everything about that was a lie and a libel from day one.
	And he can't be sued because he's a member of Congress.
	He can't be sued because he's a member of Congress.
	The censure itself has no monetary penalty.
	It's just a spank.
	It's a public spanking.
	You lied, you're bad.
	It's only been done 25 times in history, and now you are either the 25th or the 26th.
	It's a condemnation of improper behavior.
	Absolutely, and a correct one, and again, a rare one, but a justified and deserved one based on his course of conduct.
	All right, well, that's it.
	And nothing's going to happen to him.
	He might get even more support.
	Now, from his base, because as MSNBC is saying, he just told the truth.
	He's punished.
	Hold on a second.
	He's punished, Robert, for telling the truth.
	Speaking of lies and libeling about elections, there was an extraordinary one this past week about Arizona.
	So Garrett Archer...
	This is not the one when Carrie Lake showed the picture of a ballot saying, how did these signatures match?
	And then people said, you just broke the law by showing a ballot?
	Yeah, it's related to that.
	So, Garrett Archer reported, and this is not a criticism of Garrett Archer.
	He interpreted it as a criticism of him.
	I was not being critical of him.
	He reported that other people within the government...
	And it appeared Stephen Richer was the guy.
	This is the same Stephen Richer trying to railroad John Eastman, the constitutional law professor, currently facing a disbarment trial that Rachel from our prior sidebar is covering live for people who want to follow it on Twitter and elsewhere.
	She's following the John Eastman trial.
	We'll talk about it briefly at the end of this show.
	But Stephen Richer is the guy that looks like the freaky accountant or whatever auditor guy is from the office.
	He's that version of the Maricopa County election officials.
	He just sued Cary Lake for libel.
	Good luck with that suit, pal.
	I mean, now he's going to be subject to real discovery.
	Steven is the one who testified from Florida during the hearing because he went on vacation.
	He's the court recorder.
	Not the court recorder.
	I'm sorry.
	The word is recorder.
	The county recorder.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Reddish stubble, testifying from Florida, looks nervous as hell, was out there with that other guy on the day of the election saying, we got some problems with 25% of the voting ballots.
	They're not reading your...
	Okay, that's the Stephen Richer.
	Everybody knows who he is.
	It's that guy.
	So he commented in support, and he may be the source, not sure who is, but so what happened is a Gateway Pundit journalist...
	The Gateway Pundit had won cases against Arizona and Maricopa County to get, using Arizona's version of Sunshine Laws and Open Records Act and Freedom of Information Act laws, their state version thereof, to get copies of some of the 2020 ballot signatures.
	And this journalist had shared, showing some of how these didn't match the ballot signatures from prior time periods in the voters' file.
	And all of a sudden, the state of Arizona is purportedly criminally opened up a criminal investigation file against this journalist, analogous to people threatening Carrie Lakewood the same, for merely showing how the signatures don't match, how the signature on the mail-in application doesn't match the voter's signature in their voter file.
	And it's like, as soon as I saw it, I was like, how in the world are they interpreting this as somehow a crime to show...
	The crime of the election that the signatures didn't match.
	This was the example that I saw where it says Alexander Dandria.
	Now, I think the comparison was one of these was 2020, and I thought one of them was 2022.
	Oh, yeah, okay, there we go.
	2018 or on the voter file.
	Okay, and so bottom line, you got...
	I mean, the second one is obviously fake, right?
	I mean, one of those two is clearly fake, but one giveaway, what you do...
	The reason why I think the AD one is the fake one is when it's got a felon's claw.
	So if you do ever do forensic handwriting analysis, if you blow up the A, what happens is, yeah, that one, the A, someone has taken where they're drawing and they've gone back and up.
	And when you go back and up, the reason why they call it a claw is because it looks like a claw.
	The reason why they call it a felon's claw is because 80% of felons have it in their handwriting.
	And if you think about it, you can't even make that without being angry at the past, a certain common phenomenon, psychological phenomenon of it.
	And then you look at some of these other, and then they give other examples of these signatures, but this one's the most egregious because the bottom one, like the top one looks like someone's probably actual signature, even though it too could have looked like a fake under certain circumstances.
	But the AD generic one is more likely to be the fake one.
	In part because of the felon claw giveaway.
	But it's the kind of thing when you're screwed, I'll just do the initials.
	And maybe I'll get less into trouble.
	So all of a sudden, and my criticism of Garrett Archer was just that he was reconfirming this as if it was true.
	And I was like, report it, fine, no problem.
	Don't be telling people this is a crime because it ain't.
	He was like, I'm not saying this, I'm just saying it's interpreted that way.
	Okay, I understand.
	But I'm saying that interpretation is wrong.
	And the reason why I happen to know this randomly is I know as much about Arizona election law as any state in the country because I've sued them so many times.
	So I sued them first for Ralph Nader back in 2004, then sued them repeatedly for a range of third-party independent candidates since then.
	So I've sued Arizona over and over and over and over again.
	The Nader fight was one of the longest fights in history.
	Wikipedia is so unhappy about the successes that I had in that case, or whoever's editing my Wikipedia page, that they keep replacing it with a Hawaii small case that we didn't win on, rather than the Arizona case that was the big case we did win on, that went up and down to the Supreme Court, possibly taking it twice.
	It went on five years.
	I mean, it went on after the 2008 election and started before the 2004 election.
	But what is Arizona's election laws are in Title 16 of Arizona's revised statutes, ARS.
	If you look it up quickly on Google, you can look up ARS Title 16. It'll probably pop up.
	And it has a whole penal section in Section 7. And I was like, none of this is in that section.
	Because I had studied this for a bunch of reasons in the civil rights suits I brought against challenging Arizona's misapplication of its election laws to screw over outsiders, independent party candidates, etc.
	Third parties, you name it.
	Whether it was petitions, whether it was candidate petitions, whether it was getting on the ballot, whether it was getting the party on the ballot, whether it was getting party recognition, often they wouldn't try to misapply criminal laws to intimidate people in that process.
	So it's like, none of this is in there.
	And so it turned out the law they were citing is this little clause about not commercializing registration rolls.
	And all it is, it has a general provision about...
	What information should never be reproduced outside of certain exceptions?
	And again, the target here is state officials, really.
	And if you share it for public inspection purposes, someone should not use that for the purpose of commercializing the information.
	In other words, getting your date of birth along with your address, along with your maiden name, along with your signature, along with your email for the purpose of selling it to a commercial vendor who now gets to use your voter record to align their pockets with your information.
	So that's the point and purpose of the statute.
	Nothing about what's taking place here.
	So just from a...
	And then you have the second problem, that it's not part of the penal code section, which arguably preempts any contrary interpretation of any other provision of Arizona, Title 16. But here there's no doubt about it, because they specifically exempt people from the...
	What they say is you can't reproduce or publish the signature or the email address.
	Email address ever.
	Of a voter, because when you got the access to that voter email from the voter file itself.
	You can't go in there to use it to disclose this information publicly.
	However, you can disclose the voter signature if you're authorized by a court to do so.
	You're an authorized election official who already did so, such as response to a FOIA act or something else.
	If you're doing it to verify signatures on petitions or candidate files, or if you do it For any election purpose, by the way, because this is the point of the law, it's about not commercializing this information.
	It's not about banning the use of it for legitimate election purposes.
	It says if it's for an election purpose, you can use it however you want.
	You can republish it, you name it.
	But there's a huge carve-out for First Amendment purposes that says that law never applies for any news gathering or news publication purpose, which means...
	That Garrett was repeating a lie that he had likely been told by state officials that was falsely accusing a Gateway Pundit journalist of a crime in order to illicitly weaponize Arizona's criminal justice process from exposing the real crime of Arizona's elections and their failure to match signatures.
	Robert, what that particular example demonstrated...
	Was that the signatures simply did not match in any realm of the universe.
	They did not line up with previous signatures from that same voter file.
	The talking point that everybody says, you know, 60 lawsuits were filed, they were all dismissed.
	We've talked about how many of them got to the merits and it was, I believe, a big fat bagel, if I'm not mistaken.
	Where were any, and I think I know the answer to this just so everybody else knows, where were actual any meaningful signature, not meaningful, that's subjective, where were any signature verifications actually done in the context of the 2020 challenges?
	In the 2022 challenges, none.
	In the 2020 challenges, there was one challenge brought by the Republican State Party chair.
	I might have had some role in the drafting of that.
	Theoretically speaking, that did in fact get a court to order an expert for both sides, including the Democratic Party.
	To match the signatures.
	So there wasn't, there should have been more publication then of the ballot signatures than there were, but there still wasn't broad publication of it.
	But as part of that suit, an expert independently evaluated the signatures, and the Democrat Party expert came back and said close to 10% of the signatures don't match from the sample he looked at.
	That, of course, was more than 10 times the margin of victory in the state of Arizona.
	And that should not come as a surprise.
	Because typically when they do it for petition signature context, again, explicitly authorized under this Arizona law to use it for that purpose, that you can look into a voter file to compare a petition signature and publish that information to the world, the same logic should apply.
	It says for election purposes, period.
	Clearly this is for an election purpose of an election contest.
	But Arizona is hiding behind the misapplication of this law.
	To prevent people from knowing and seeing the clear proof that the signature match process is broken in Arizona.
	Because that's what the Democratic Party's own expert confirmed with a detailed sample review of the 2020 election.
	And then the question was, well, actually, in that other lawsuit where even the Democrat one noted 10% not signature verification, what was the outcome of that?
	Oh, the judge suddenly decided you had to prove forgery instead.
	So it didn't matter if the signatures didn't match.
	Unless you could prove the signatures didn't match because of forgery, he wouldn't allow the case to go forward.
	He suddenly shifted those standards.
	Kept moving those goalposts.
	Is it Peanut?
	What's the famous...
	I think it's Peanut.
	What's the girl's name?
	It's Charlie Brown and Lucy.
	Lucy says, I'll let you kick the ball.
	Nope.
	Why do I even know that, Robert?
	I've never even read it.
	I've never watched.
	Well, maybe I've watched Charlie Brown.
	All right.
	So Carrie Lake shows that the world knows the signatures, at least on the few examples that we saw, just did not match.
	And you know they don't match.
	Otherwise, they'd want the world to see them.
	All right.
	All right, Robert.
	On to other good subjects.
	Hold on one second.
	Ah, the one and only, the special sweetheart plea deal of the century.
	For one Hunter Biden.
	Robert, I'm going to bring this up before we start this discussion.
	Because you gave someone a judicial spanking on Twitter by referring to the major count policy.
	And this is not to contradict you, because I just know I'm not reading this properly.
	But you're going to explain the major count point.
	But I'm reading the major count policy, and it says the tax division designates at least one count in each authorized tax case as the major count.
	This is where I just don't understand how to read what I'm reading.
	The prosecutor may enter into a plea agreement that includes a plea of guilty to that count without further approval of the tax division.
	However, the tax division must approve separately any plea agreement that does not include the major count.
	The way this works is the major count policy is interpreted to be what is the maximum, what is the criminal charge, what criminal statute?
	It provides the maximum sentencing exposure.
	That's what the major count is.
	And this would be for the tax issues, not for the felonious gun application.
	That has its own separate rules, which were also violated here.
	So Hunter Biden, he's accused of, or he was investigated, and I don't know, did they indict him?
	I don't even know where they got to in terms of this before the plea deal.
	He's accused of having basically committed overt tax fraud.
	It's not just a case of misfiling or late filing.
	Concealing actual income, from what you've explained, making it more difficult for the IRS to determine that income for the purposes of taxing it.
	So these are serious counts.
	The major count that he was charged with could have been, I don't know, how many years?
	How many years could it have been?
	So, I mean, based on what the IRS whistleblowers said was the major count, what they identified was that they had conspiracy to defraud is the top count.
	That's a Title 18 charge applied that when you take actions to interfere with the IRS's ability to function in four different areas, the ascertainment, assessment, computation, or collection of tax.
	Here, he obstructed.
	With conspiring with others, including, it appears, the President of the United States, by the way, to prevent the IRS from ascertaining and from assessing and from computing and from collecting the individual income tax he owed.
	The relevant sentencing components of this would include sentencing enhancements for sophisticated means, obstruction of justice, And in this case, illegal source income.
	So what he would face, the conspiracy to the fraud count, typically it's a five-year federal prison sentence.
	But here they would typically aggregate those in an actual criminal prosecution.
	So you would be under the sentencing guidelines, he would have been facing closer to 20 years in federal prison, which they would have brought conspiracy to the fraud, multiple counts of tax evasion, felony tax evasion.
	Multiple counts of potentially other forms of impairing and impeding the Internal Revenue Service.
	False returns.
	Along with some misdemeanor failure to file counts.
	The misdemeanor failure to file counts would not, by definition, be the major count.
	Or what's loosely colloquially known within the Justice Department and the tax defense world as the top count.
	And so all of us that have dealt with this for 25 years.
	In this field, there's about 200 lawyers who specialize in criminal tax defense in the country.
	I'm one of the only ones of that group that has won multiple acquittals, multiple appellate reversals, multiple dismissals by a judge at trial.
	I've represented hundreds of people in this context.
	So it's a world I know very, very well.
	And the very first thing every local U.S. attorney tells you...
	When you talk about potentially a plea disposition, is I can't do anything but the top count.
	Your client has to plead.
	If the top count is conspiracy, it's conspiracy.
	If it's tax evasion, it's tax evasion.
	If it's false filing, it's false filing.
	They don't let you plead to straight misdemeanors without special approval of the tax division chief, which is there's three people directly appointed with the Senate.
	The Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General.
	And the Assistant Attorney General for Tax, a separately appointed official.
	They have their own power base in the Justice Department, only reviewed or reviewable by the Attorney General themselves.
	So the nature of this deal, given the facts that the whistleblowers, the IRS whistleblowers disclosed, that they knew about that the source of this was illegal source income, that this appeared to have been bribery income, this appeared to have been money laundering, this appeared, and that that's why.
	It wasn't disclosed in part on the returns, also just to not pay tax on it too.
	And that they had a combination of fraudulent returns, evasion of assessment, evasion of collection, and conspiracy to impair and impede the ascertainment, assessment, collection, and computation of tax.
	So under that circumstance, the best deal imaginable in the typical world would be a five-year count.
	Usually they would require...
	The local U.S. attorney could do a plea deal to a five-year count, but couldn't do a plea deal to any misdemeanor without direct approval of the tax division.
	It might have just clicked in my head.
	Once you plead to one charge, if it's the major charge, that's to say, I plead to that charge, and they basically drop the other charges.
	So once you plead to the major charge, you're striking.
	They're not allowed to give you the plea deal in the first place.
	They're not allowed.
	And this goes into authority.
	The president is given the authority to do plea deals.
	The president then delegates that authority to the attorney general.
	The attorney general then delegates that to a bunch of assistant attorney generals.
	They then delegate that to a bunch of local U.S. attorneys.
	But as part of that delegation, they're restricted by the major count policy, which means the local U.S. attorney doesn't arguably have even constitutional authority under some of their interpretations.
	I don't agree with that, but that's how some of them interpret this.
	They interpret this not just as a policy statement, but as a limitation on their constitutional delegation of authority.
	But at a minimum, they all agree.
	They don't have authority based on the facts.
	So this is what plea they can offer in the first place.
	So major count is what can you prosecute?
	What's prosecutable?
	What's the top count that you can prosecute?
	That's the only count you can allow them to plea to, unless the head of the tax division or the attorney general or the president says otherwise.
	All right.
	And so then the idea is that...
	He didn't plead to the major council.
	The deal that he got is based on a much lesser charge, so they can weasel out of him having to actually...
	Utterly unheard of charge, this low.
	When you have a legal source income, plus millions of dollars at stake, plus fraudulent returns, plus what's called failure to file plus.
	So like some people are saying, failure to file can never be tax evasion.
	Well, tell that to the thousands of people who are in federal prison over the past 20 years, whose only accusation fundamentally was they didn't file.
	When you don't file, they call it, all they need is another affirmative act.
	That can be almost anything, sadly.
	That's how they're locking up tax protesters who didn't file.
	And these are people who never obstructed anything.
	But the courts say, yeah, this letter, we're going to call this letter an affirmative act.
	We're going to say, well, you know, you took out cash once.
	We're going to call that an affirmative act.
	You know, you once opened up an LLC in Delaware.
	We're going to call that an affirmative act.
	So they can label anything basically an affirmative act.
	I mean, basically, you just you weren't dead.
	That's it.
	So the I know of no case with the facts as egregious as Hunter Biden that got Hunter Biden's plea deal.
	And I track the 500 plus criminal cases that they do every single year.
	I've tracked over 10,000 of them because I part of my I mean, my primary.
	My profession as a lawyer, my primary focus each year, you know, what takes up at least a third of my caseload more than any other set of cases is criminal tax defense.
	It's what I've been doing for almost 25 years.
	My dad was a tax accountant before that.
	So it's something I know exceptionally.
	There's probably about a dozen people in the country that know as much.
	Other people who are familiar with this made the same point.
	Now, they made the point in another area.
	Which is, not only is this an unprecedented, unheard of, sweetheart deal on tax, this is, according to experts in that area, which I'm not, it is also an unprecedented and unheard of deal on the gun charge.
	And now, when you're suggesting that it had to have gotten the...
	They could not enter this deal on their own.
	They had to have gotten the approval of a higher up.
	That's to say, then, that Joe Biden's Department of Justice, in theory, agrees to...
	Specifically authorize this unheard of deal for Joe Biden's son.
	Well, to give an example, the tax division head had to approve of it or the AAG or the AG or the president himself on the tax side.
	Apparently, but from experts that know the firearm side, Lisa Monaco had to approve it on the gun side, the deputy attorney general.
	I can tell you, as soon as I saw diversion, I was shocked.
	Because to give people an idea, in the state system, diversion is very common.
	In the federal system, it happens in less than 0.0.1% of cases.
	Is it not the case that diversion really is only for either misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies?
	Misdemeanors, nonviolent, doesn't involve taxes, doesn't involve guns.
	It involves things like you fished in the wrong place.
	You know, it's that kind of diversion.
	It's a dispute over a medical bill, and you do a diversion because if you litigated it, you might lose it if you're the government, about whether or not it was medically necessary or not.
	Stuff like that.
	The diversion is unheard of in a gun case, especially for the Biden administration.
	I mean, as other people came out and said, people with the same set of facts...
	Went to prison for four years or more on the gun charges.
	There were some comparisons to Wesley Snipes.
	People forget, Wesley Snipes was...
	The government tried to put him in prison for 16 years, bankrupt him, and fine him $100 million so he'd spend the rest of his natural-born life when he was out of prison working for the IRS.
	It was a jury that said he was not guilty of all fraud charges.
	A jury that said he was not guilty of all tax evasion charges.
	A jury that said he was not guilty of all felony charges.
	A jury that said he was not guilty of all false return charges.
	A jury that determined he was not guilty of any conspiracy charges.
	And that said he was not guilty of half the misdemeanors.
	Indeed, nine of the 12 jurors concluded that Snipes was not guilty of any crime.
	But three jurors held out because they lied by their own admission to get on the jury, and so they cut a deal on the last three misdemeanors.
	But these public statements that Snipes was found guilty of tax fraud, just the opposite.
	He was found not guilty of tax fraud, not guilty of tax evasion, not guilty of any felony of any kind, not guilty of even most of the misdemeanors.
	And by the jury's conclusion, not guilty of anything.
	So here, Snipes served two and a half years.
	Based on jury acquittals, with 9 of the 12 wanting him complete acquittals, and Hunter Biden's going to serve no time on tax.
	It's just insane.
	I'm just pulling up one example, Robert.
	Leland man sentenced for lying on gun application.
	Howard Birchfield, this is from 2019, 36 had mental health history he did not report.
	A legal man will serve over a year in prison for lying about his mental health history on an application to buy a gun.
	I mean, there's famous rappers that are serving four years for the same thing Hunter's accused of.
	And Hunter's not going to serve any time.
	Instead, he's going to get diversion.
	And after the diversion, Robert, it is also true that he will have no lingering criminal record, much like...
	Jussie Smollett after his...
	On the gun charge, that's correct, which has all these implications for a bunch of activities.
	So that means the assistant attorney general had to approve of this.
	The assistant attorney general for tax had to approve this.
	In other words, Biden appointees had to directly approve of this, or the deal is in violation of all the rules.
	And so that's what's extraordinary here.
	Biden's own appointees cut a deal, the sweetest sweetheart deal in history.
	In tax cases or gun cases, and they did it in both for the son of the president, who could have implicated the president in those crimes, and then went and celebrated that same night at a state party, at a state dinner at the White House in his tuxedo.
	That tells you, and that leads us to the next one.
	That's what led the vote to refer.
	President Joe Biden for impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives.
	Hold on, Robert.
	Before you get into it, let's just take some of the rumble rants, shall we?
	We got backdoor Biden, who said there's rumors that Trump Jr. has a history of cocaine use and engaged with wife swapping with California governor and Trump Jr. present girlfriend when she was married to governor.
	All that I know, Robert...
	Confession through projection.
	That's what Hunter Biden did.
	Hunter Biden even Googled sleeping with his different people's wives when those people got into trouble or his own brother died.
	He actually did that, everybody.
	I mean, everybody knows that.
	History of cocaine cracked to the point where his teeth fell out.
	He needed to have someone pay for his new teeth.
	Admittedly, under Jewish law, when your brother dies, if you're unmarried...
	I think you have a religious obligation to marry the spouse of your deceased brother, but he just went and stupped her instead.
	Okay.
	Confession through protection from Backdoor Biden.
	Kitty724.
	Robert, how can I, average American voter, obtain a copy of my voting record?
	Is it possible?
	Robert, do you know the answer?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	You can always go get your voting record.
	RFR, A Rough Diamond Jerry VG2.
	That's a very long name.
	Close to 15,000.
	So here's my letter now.
	I can't even see what that letter is.
	It looks like an O. I can't see it.
	My eyes are going crazy.
	Brit Cormier.
	Maybe I'm not using the same definition of expert as they are, as I am not a language expert, or am I?
	And then I think this is Brit Cormier.
	He says, expert, we're wrong about housing market in 2008, Hillary in 2016, virus origin, mask, vaccine doses, number of boosters needed, Hunter Biden's laptop, and most stock picks.
	One of two.
	And then what else is there?
	Viva, can you do a quick check?
	I sent like 10 rants at $2 each.
	You don't have to read them, but I would appreciate your advice from Barnes.
	I'm not your buddy guy.
	I don't see those rants in the chat.
	In fact, I have everything up here.
	And then I got Cod Tug says, check comments, please, sir.
	So I'm not your buddy guy.
	I don't see a series of $2 rants.
	Okay.
	And we're out.
	Robert.
	The impeachment.
	I'm not up to speed on the impeachment.
	So who's filed the articles?
	The way the impeachment process starts is the House votes to refer impeachment proceedings to the relevant committees.
	And they didn't want Boebert to do it.
	Boebert went ahead and did it, said this is getting insane.
	After the Hunter Biden plea deal was announced, which was distracted from all week by the sub-story, the Titanic sub-story.
	That everybody went looking for when the Biden administration knew all week from its own internal information that it was gone.
	It hid that, so everybody's focused on that, and that's when they choose to announce the Hunter Biden deal.
	Wait, just stop there, actually, for one second, Robert.
	The frickin' sub-story, we're not gonna get into it now, but I knew something was off when I saw Dan Crenshaw on Fox News.
	I don't ask why I was watching it.
	It wasn't my choice.
	Dan Crenshaw on Fox News spent an entire segment...
	I was like, what the heck is Dan Crenshaw obsessing over this story for?
	It sort of makes sense now that you put it into context.
	Sorry, carry on, Robert.
	Yeah, so they released the transcripts of what the IRS whistleblower showed, and they proved how insane the plea deal was and how much the Biden administration prevented...
	Search warrants from being issued in certain places tipped off Hunter Biden when there was a search warrant that was being issued.
	Notice how there was never any TV cameras for any of those search warrants, that they'd known about this throughout the entire Trump tenure and had hid it from Trump, meaning the first impeachment was totally bogus based on information that the FBI and the IRS high-ranking officials were hiding from President Trump.
	About Biden corruption, that they had information from bank account reporting of suspicious activities.
	They had information from tip-offs about foreign bribery.
	They knew about aspects that were on the Hunter Biden laptop before they even had the Hunter Biden laptop.
	They knew it was legit from the very beginning.
	They knew that basically it showed that Hunter Biden was committing a crime a day.
	Either sexual crimes, drug crimes, crimes that could relate to human trafficking, crimes that could relate to organized crime, and in particular, not only tax and gun crimes, but crimes meant to cover up the corruption of his father, Vice President, and previously Senator Biden.
	And so they decide to shut that whole thing down by removing the leverage they could have over Hunter Biden.
	To confess the details of his father's complicity, purportedly there's tapes with President Biden talking to some of these people trying to coerce bribes out of him.
	There's texts that have Hunter Biden saying he's right there with his father when his father was vice president, that certain things don't get done, there'll be consequences if certain Chinese billionaires didn't send him certain amounts of money immediately.
	So what you have is extraordinary acts of selling out the American government.
	True seditious type activities to undermine American national security.
	Real national security threats, unlike the prosecution of President Trump on drummed up charges by the President of the United States while he was Vice President, while he was a Senator, that also implicates his brother, his sister, and his son.
	And he uses his appointees to completely quash it in such a way that his son faces no jail time.
	No meaningful fines, is celebrating at the White House, was meeting with him this weekend at Camp David.
	Usually you go to Camp David for peace deals.
	Apparently the Bidens use it to negotiate their conspiracy to cover up their criminal behavior, whereby Biden went and procured criminal defense counsel this weekend because of the scale and scope of what this reveals that the government has known about now for at least a decade.
	And the better part of a decade, hidden it from President Trump, hidden it from the American people, with the complicity of Attorney General Barr in particular.
	And so what you have is evidence of extraordinary corruption that everybody feared, but it's even worse than they thought.
	And now you have the Biden administration weaponizing the Justice Department in ways that even Nixon never did, which is to completely cover up the crimes of his entire family, as well as himself, by removing any inducement.
	For Hunter to ever testify against him because of the tax and gun charge threats and human trafficking and other charges that he could face, and bribery and federal corruption charges, by removing that risk from him entirely, giving him a sweetheart deal like they did with the Hillary Clinton emails cases to so many key personnel, just like Durham did for Kleinsmith that reduced any incentive for him to rat out high-ranking superiors.
	The deep state has gone to such great lengths to cover for their front guy, President Joe Biden.
	That if this isn't impeachable conduct, it's hard to see what would be impeachable conduct.
	He's weaponizing his own Justice Department to go after his leading political adversary and to immunize himself and his family from meaningful criminal prosecution or punishment.
	This is the definition of impeachable conduct.
	And now the House has formed committees to meaningfully investigate it.
	And if they have cojones and aren't scared of the deep state, they'll reveal how much of this relates to our current Ukrainian policy as well.
	And I'll read from the article.
	Unfortunately, it's in Fox News, people.
	I tried to find another one.
	The House Ways and Means Committee revealed on Thursday its interview with an IRS whistleblower last month who shared a WhatsApp message from 2017 where Hunter Biden allegedly told a Chinese business associate he and his father would ensure, quote, you will regret not following my direction, end quote.
	And then it goes on to say, quote, I'm sitting here with my father.
	And we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.
	I presume that means financial.
	Hunter Biden told Henry Zhao, the director of Harvest Fund Management, in the message provided by IRS whistleblower Gary Shapely.
	And quote, and Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me...
	And every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.
	I gotta tell you, I've, you know, gotten...
	I've never been threatened like that before.
	That would scare the living bejesus out of me.
	And I'm not a religious man.
	A hundred ways more impressive than that.
	To the question in the Locals chat, I know of no connection between this case and Miles Gow.
	Okay.
	So, Lauren, they've moved forward.
	How does it work?
	I sort of know that they have to submit articles.
	The committee opens an investigation.
	And hopefully it will be a real thorough and thoughtful investigation.
	But I do think it results in the impeachment by the House.
	I do not think it results in the removal of Biden by the Senate.
	But it will do them a lot of political damage while this case is pending.
	And they should expand this and extend this.
	To each of the officials involved, the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, the other attorneys and officers named by the whistleblower, the Assistant Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and the Attorney General Merrick Garland should also be impeached for their complicity in this conduct because at the center of it is the weaponization of the Justice Department for politicized purposes by the Biden administration.
	But Robert, we started off this stream with Merrick Garland saying that he's very proud of his Justice Department and to attack them and their credibility is an attack on justice itself.
	Attack on democracy!
	They're the ones attacking democracy by trying to strip the American people of the right to choose their own president with the indictment of President Trump and the cover-up of President Biden.
	Robert, do we do the...
	I think we skipped order, but we're going to do the SCOTUS decisions now?
	Yes, yes.
	Now we've got the SCOTUS cases up next.
	To let folks know, we're right at the end of the Supreme Court term where they're going to issue all their decisions.
	Here are the decisions that should be coming out this week or next week, which we will discuss not next Sunday, but a week from Sunday after the July 4th break.
	That is affirmative action.
	Due process for personal jurisdiction over corporations.
	First Amendment in the context of public accommodations.
	Big election cases that they may skip on, but they may also decide still about North Carolina state legislatures in general.
	The Biden student loans, it's constitutionality.
	The big decision about undue burden under Title VII that will have a huge impact on all the vaccine mandate cases.
	And when is a true threat an exception to the First Amendment and what constitutes a true threat?
	So big cases involving big constitutional issues yet to be determined that are coming down.
	They issued about a half dozen this week that we can sort of start going through.
	Yeah, and you'll explain to me.
	I know that when you send me something, it has a broader meaning and a broader impact than what I'm able to surmise sometimes.
	The first case, two immigrants are charged with, or they're convicted of obstruction of justice.
	Well, they're convicted of laws that didn't, well, here's what it is.
	If you are an alien, And you are accused or found guilty of an aggravated felony, then you are immediately removable.
	Okay.
	And these two individuals were?
	They were challenging it?
	Well, that was the big issue because they were convicted of laws.
	It's considered an aggravated felony if it's related to obstruction of justice.
	The problem in their case was they were not convicted of obstructing an actual proceeding or pending investigation.
	So their argument was obstruction of justice refers to actually obstructing an investigation or proceeding.
	And the Supreme Court majority said, nah, it just means, you know, if you try to prevent it from even occurring, that's somehow obstruction of justice.
	I mean, the problem with that is then you have a nebulous doctrine that anything you do criminal that makes their job harder is now magically obstruction of justice, which, as Gorsuch noted in his dissent, makes a complete joke of the term obstruction of justice.
	Interesting.
	So, I mean, I guess the idea would be if you...
	If you murder someone and then you try to dispose of the murder weapon, you might be guilty of certain things, but obstruction of justice should not be one of them because there hasn't been an investigation yet.
	The idea is you want the justice function to not be impaired or impeded by deliberate acts targeting.
	I mean, to give an example, the Supreme Court recognizes that when a federal judge lied to federal investigators...
	About bribery of that federal judge that that did not constitute obstruction of a grand jury because he didn't know a grand jury existed, right?
	But the point of the nexus is they don't want everything to be relabeled obstruction of justice because you can have obstruction of justice and have no underlying crime in certain instances.
	So the reason why we have historically limited obstruction of justice to, you've got to know there's this...
	And you're trying to obstruct it by some illicit means.
	Not by your legal rights asserting your defense like they constantly accuse Trump of.
	Constantly accuse him of obstruction for doing what isn't his constitutional right to do.
	But we're doing something that's not your legal right to do because the goal is to protect the function of that proceeding.
	The whole point of obstruction of justice is to make sure the justice system works and is not impaired with fraudulent activities trying to interfere with it or violent activities trying to interfere with it.
	To say, oh, if you make their job harder, then that's obstruction.
	Then almost everything is obstruction, right?
	It's not like a criminal leaves a trail to make it easy for you to find them.
	So all of a sudden now everybody can be charged with obstruction.
	And the problem is the courts have also said you can be guilty of obstruction without an underlying crime.
	So, I mean, all of a sudden you get these process crimes where you can lock somebody up for committing no underlying criminal back.
	I think the conservatives, when it comes to criminal defendants, the so-called conservatives forget the Constitution.
	And we'll have several cases like this.
	And it's because they're institutionalists.
	Most of them are, God bless my Catholic friends out there, but most of them are, they're all Catholics, they're not Protestants.
	They tend to follow, their definition of conservative is what the institutions of influence that they respect did a century ago.
	That's not a populist interpretation.
	Nor is it an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
	It's reinterpreting the Constitution and what did people in power say it was in 1865, rather than what did the ordinary person say it meant in 1865, or what does the plain language of it read?
	As Huey Long once said, I don't want a revolution.
	I want the Constitution to read in the words they were written in.
	But when it comes to that, the Supreme Court conservatives are awful.
	They're awful on Fourth Amendment, awful on First Amendment, awful on Fifth Amendment, awful on Sixth Amendment, awful on Seventh and Eighth Amendment when it comes to where there was independent rights of criminal defendants or the criminally accused or independent rights of any dissident outsider group not respected by institutions of influence.
	So they respect gun rights because gun rights were historically respected by powerful institutions a century ago.
	But they don't respect...
	The individual rights in a wide range of criminal contexts, and this is one of them.
	They see an immigrant who committed a crime, they want them deported, so they make it easy to do so.
	Now, not Gorsuch, who's on the constitutional purist side when it comes to the criminally accused, when it comes to Indian tribes.
	That's why he led the dissent with two liberals.
	But it's again another place where Thomas and Alito...
	Along with Kavanaugh and Roberts and Barrett are disappointments, as kind of predicted with Barrett and Kavanaugh in particular.
	They would be institutionalists, not populists.
	They would be convenient conservatives, not original constitutional conservatives.
	And this is one of the many cases where that's reflected this week.
	And so the idea would be that this case is more, it's about more than, I say just, more than about two immigrants who now stand to be deported because of the underlying...
	This applies to all American citizens.
	Now, anything can be obstruction.
	Okay, interesting.
	That's the problem.
	The next case up, the Hansen case, this was a case we discussed when it was up before the Supreme Court at the oral argument stage, which this involves when is inducement to get illegal immigrants to come to the country, when is that a crime that is cognizable under the First Amendment?
	Or does the First Amendment prohibit it?
	The particular individual here was falsely telling people there was an adult adoption program and to get them to come to the U.S. Now, this is another place where conservatives want the people prosecuted because they don't want people encouraging illegal immigrants to come here.
	But if you're a First Amendment purist, which some of us are, then you're concerned with the misapplication of this law.
	The way the Supreme Court saw it, the law was really broad.
	The law just said if you did anything to encourage.
	That's way, way too broad.
	Should have been struck down as unconstitutional.
	Thomas writes a concurrence in which he doesn't even want facial overbreath doctrine to apply anymore, which I get his concern with judicial activism, but what that does is give way too much power to the executive branch in the First Amendment context.
	So I disagree with him on that.
	But the majority came in and said, Jackson, notably, as predicted, this will...
	Surprise or annoy some of the conservatives in the audience.
	I said that Jackson may end up being good on a lot of civil rights, civil liberties cases in the First Amendment context, in the criminal defense context, in the labor union context.
	That's the good side, in my view, from a constitutional perspective.
	Of where liberal Democratic appointees are better frequently than conservative appointees.
	Jackson has proved that throughout this entire term.
	Often, the most often justice she's separately concurred with has been Gorsuch.
	Not a surprise.
	Not Kagan, not Sotomayor, but Gorsuch.
	And he or she, I think, correctly dissented.
	Because what the Supreme Court did to salvage the law is they rewrote it in ways Congress didn't write it.
	And they said it applies, quote, all this law means is you can't...
	Well, that's not what Congress said.
	So I get wanting to rewrite what Congress said because you like reaching this kind of conduct, because you want to limit illegal immigration and false inducements for illegal immigration in the country, but make Congress write it in the laws that language is supposed to be written in.
	Don't rewrite it for them so you can make sure people sit in prison that you want in prison.
	And that's where I think Jackson's dissent is correct.
	The law doesn't say this.
	The law says something else.
	We should strike it down, and it's Congress's job to fix it, not ours.
	But, you know, again, the conservatives want to make sure illegal immigrants don't come here on false promises, and so they allowed the law to stand by just rewriting it the way it should have been written in the first place.
	You're on mute.
	I thought I was going to cough or sneeze.
	Robert, the next one, I guess we could do the arbitration case, which is a Russian who wins a massive arbitration award, tries to enforce it in California.
	Oh, there's two different arbitration cases.
	One is Coinbase, and then the other one is the RICO one.
	So the Coinbase one...
	Go for it.
	Basically, the question is, when do you have to stay a case?
	So the district court makes a decision about whether to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
	Do you have a right to bring an interlocutory appeal?
	And the question is, did the district court have to stop the whole case while the appeal is pending, or does the part not related to arbitration allow to go forward?
	And the Supreme Court said, because they're so deferential to arbitration, they said you have to freeze the whole case while arbitration is pending because an interlocutory appeal divests jurisdiction of the district court on that subject matter.
	What is unusual, here again, Jackson's dissent is the more logical interpretation.
	She points out that the interlocutory appeal only divests jurisdiction on the issue of arbitration, not of anything else.
	And historically, a district court has the choice whether to go forward or not, and that should stay within the district court's possession.
	And arbitration shouldn't be some special super exception to that.
	I agree with the dissent.
	But it's another example where they like arbitration so much they're going to continue to aggressively enforce it, even though it strips people of jury trial rights or, in this context, even the ability to go forward at the trial court level while an appeal is pending.
	That's the Coinbase one.
	And Coinbase profits from that ruling, too.
	All right.
	And then the RICO one was this Russian guy who wins a massive arbitration award against another, I guess the other guy's Russian as well, but resides in California, tries to have the judgment enforced in California, finds out that the person against whom, his name starts with Y, but what was it?
	It was S versus Y. Finds out that the person who he has this order against in California is allegedly trying to hide all of his assets to make it impossible to execute the judgment.
	He files a RICO suit in California, alleging domestic injury in California, even though he resides in Russia.
	And the court, Robert, the court says, yes, you can proceed with a RICO because the injury sustained occurred in the state in which you're trying to have your judgment recognized.
	And I think it was the state where...
	Was it not in California where the injury occurred that even led to the arbitration award in the first place?
	Kind of, because, I mean, basically, the deal involved, what you have is a resident of Russia suing about a failed investment deal in Russia, sues in arbitration, wins the arbitration award, so that whole process never touches a U.S. court.
	But the individual who owes the money under the arbitration award, he resides in California.
	And his property is in California.
	So he files to enforce the judgment under federal law to enforce foreign arbitration judgments.
	Court agrees and freezes the defendant's assets.
	In the interim, the defendant wins a separate arbitration award and decides he's going to conspire to keep this out of the federal court's possession and keep this out of the possession of the suing plaintiff.
	That's what led to the RICO suit that said, hey, what you're doing is predicate acts under RICO, which give me the right for trouble damages, plus attorney's fees, plus a bunch of other remedies.
	So he sues Enrico, and the defendant says, you can't sue Enrico, you live in Moscow.
	And the district court says, goes along with that, the Ninth Circuit reverses, because the question is, when is there a domestic injury to give Enrico jurisdiction in the U.S.?
	And the U.S. Supreme Court correctly said, the injury occurred in California.
	Doesn't matter where the resident is of the plaintiff.
	Doesn't matter whether the original facts that led to the monetary judgment in the first place came in California.
	The judgment was a California judgment.
	The California court order was freezing California assets.
	The defendant was in California.
	And the injury was preventing California assets from being collected by a California court in a California case for the plaintiff.
	And so the Supreme Court correctly established that now foreigners can use RICO whenever any part of U.S. system is effectively being used to commit the underlying crime.
	The Predicate Act, if you will.
	So it's going to expand RICO liability across the country, I think, correctly.
	Okay, excellent.
	Which judgment do you want to move on to now?
	We can do...
	There's four briefer ones and then one big one.
	The Texas case is the big one.
	So we'll go to a smaller one first that annoys me.
	Samia, this is a case of the confrontation clause versus confessions.
	I read this, Robert.
	I don't understand how this occurred in the first place.
	You have three defendants who are on trial for murder for hire.
	I think there were three defendants because one...
	I don't understand the context.
	There was a real estate agent who ended up getting killed.
	This guy hires two murder for hire individuals to pretend to be interested in the real estate.
	They get the real estate agent in a car.
	The real estate agent gets killed.
	Unclear which one of the two defendants does it, but there are three defendants on trial.
	And then one of them, Robert, allegedly gave a confession that it was the other guy who pulled the trigger.
	I don't know what kind of confession that is.
	That seems more like throwing somebody under the bus.
	He did it.
	I'm confessing he did it.
	But because he chose not to testify at the trial, they had to find a way to get that evidence into evidence.
	And so they had a DEA agent testify that this other co-defendant gave me this admission where he said, the other guy did it, but we don't want to incriminate the other guy with unconstitutional violations of the right to challenge your accuser.
	So they say, we'll let in the admission, but he won't say who pulled the trigger.
	We'll just use generic terms like the other person pulled the trigger, but there were only two people in the car, two of which are the defendants.
	And so one defendant basically saves his own ass with his admission by seeing the other defendant pull the trigger.
	They allow that admission to come in via the DEA testifying.
	And I don't understand how that's not hearsay on the one hand, but how it's admissible on the other.
	So try to make that make sense for me.
	Exactly.
	So the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that you cannot be found guilty of a crime without the opportunity to confront your accusers.
	So that's the two-fold provision.
	The right is confrontation.
	It's triggered by an accusation.
	So this generally prohibits a hearsay constitutionally from coming in because there's an exception to hearsay if it's a quote-unquote party opponent admission.
	So here, the goal is to preclude a party opponent admission from being used against a co-defendant.
	So it's admitted as hearsay against the one defendant as a party opponent admission.
	Now, I agree with you.
	It really wasn't an admission, in my opinion.
	It was an accusation.
	But putting that point aside on the hearsay rule, the co-defendant challenged it under the confrontation clause.
	He says, look, everybody knows...
	This guy is accusing me, and we've never got the chance to cross-examine him.
	That violates the right to confront your accusers.
	And the district court said, oh, this isn't an accusation.
	We've redacted your name.
	Everybody knows who it is based on what else is in the record.
	It's a complete crock.
	But the Supreme Court goes along with the crock.
	Because these so-called constitutional originalist conservatives don't give a rat's rear end about the Constitution when it concerns the criminally accused.
	Because they're lying hypocrites who are deferred of power and authority more than they give a rat's rear end about individual rights and liberties.
	Once again, Jackson's on the right side.
	Thomas is on the wrong side.
	So the conservative justice is all eager to completely gut...
	And eviscerate the confrontation clause, says that unless it's a direct accusation, that it doesn't violate the confrontation clause unless it's obvious from the statement itself that it's an accusation.
	Even if all the other evidence in the record makes it clear it's an accusation.
	And so it was a preposterous ruling by the conservatives on the court that completely eviscerated...
	All right.
	Which other one, Robert?
	There's a few more short ones, eh?
	Ah, yes.
	The Navajo Nation brought a claim for tribal water rights under its 1868 treaty with the United States, which guaranteed that they would have access to water rights.
	This is another place where Justice Thomas, I think, is fishing.
	Justice Thomas doesn't believe in enforcing treaties with Indian tribes with the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I disagree with him entirely on that.
	Put that aside, the rest of the conservatives are eager to elevate states' rights against the rights of Indian tribes, even though I think they should be considered consistent under the principles of treaty federalism in a law review article you can read from my former Indian law professor, Richard Monette.
	The majority decides, oh, you know, this is the Navajo Nation demanding affirmative action from the government, and the government's not required to do anything positively.
	They're just prohibited from doing anything to negate their water access, but they're not required to actually make sure they do have water access.
	And as Gorsuch says, with several of the liberals in dissent, he goes, that doesn't really make any sense because what they're asking for is for a declaration of rights that they're in fact entitled to it.
	And given there's these very complicated rules with the federal and state government working together to guarantee water access, they're just asking to be...
	Part of that process, given their water rights, are being implicated.
	Gorsuch's dissent is right.
	The majority is, again, wrong, but shock, shock.
	Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas don't care about Indian rights.
	Never really have.
	And so, unfortunately, the Navajo Nation's treaty rights are not going to be respected or enforced.
	Is the issue in that case, though, Robert, that their access to water was being controlled by actions that were occurring off the reservation?
	Correct.
	Which always happens with water.
	It's the very nature of water.
	The whole point of that treaty was the only reason why they induced the Navajo to sign it was, don't worry, you got guaranteed water access.
	And now to pretend that that guarantee only means...
	We ourselves, the federal government, can't itself deliberately interfere with that in an obvious, direct way is to effectively negate that.
	When they are doing that as part of their federal government water planning with these states.
	It's what's happening with Lake Mead, about how it gets drained, how it gets real.
	I mean, the feds control all the water access these days, particularly in the West.
	So pretending otherwise is just a lie by the Supreme Court majority because it wants to reward states over tribes.
	Because again, that's your reflexive authoritarian conservative.
	For people for whom the definition of conservative is deference to tradition, deference to institutional authority.
	That's who the true conservative Supreme Court majority is.
	They're deferential, and they just sometimes disagree on what that means, but that's their overarching instinct for everyone except Gorsuch on the bench.
	And that's why they're going to often be bad judges on a lot of issues of individual rights and liberties, or in this case, Indian rights.
	All right, and then the other one, I think this might be the last one that I've actually read on, was the judge who was not given immunity.
	That was an 8th Circuit case.
	The two other last U.S. Supreme Court cases were the habeas case, which is what you may be thinking of, the Hendricks case, and then the Texas case about immigration and standing.
	Take them away, Robert.
	So the Hendricks case about habeas rights, another absurd decision by the conservatives on the court.
	You're not supposed to have the right to suspend habeas corpus under the Constitution, but that's long been ignored.
	They've allowed Congress to just redetermine what habeas means and doesn't mean, which I found preposterous.
	Habeas is about, hey, I'm wrongfully imprisoned.
	Do something about it.
	That right goes back to the Magna Carta.
	And the idea that we can suspend it by Congress's legislation is preposterous to me.
	But that's the first premise I disagree with.
	But what happened is, so somebody's in prison.
	Because the jury was misinstructed on the law concerning convictions about felons with firearms.
	The Supreme Court itself admitted that this was a mistake in a different case.
	So he files a habeas petition.
	He had previously filed habeas petitions on other issues.
	The Supreme Court says even though he's probably innocent as a matter of law, he's not allowed to file a habeas petition because he filed a previous one.
	And so the dissent led by Justice Jackson is absolutely right, saying, why are we leaving innocent men in prison when the whole point of habeas is to prohibit innocent men from being in prison?
	Yet the conservatives on the court, so-called conservatives, they put the con in conservative, not the constitutional in conservative, these kind of rulings, completely eviscerated habeas petition, are leaving innocent people knowingly in prison for a crime they didn't commit, according to the Supreme Court.
	Because of the procedural formalities of habeas rules.
	That's the effect of that decision.
	All right.
	And then one last SCOTUS decision.
	Yeah, the big one.
	That's the Texas immigration case.
	Okay, hold on one second.
	Okay, Robert, you might have to do that one.
	This is where the states of Texas and Louisiana have filed suit, saying that Biden is not arresting and not prosecuting people who, by law, Congress ordered be arrested in the illegal immigration context.
	The Supreme Court came in and said the Texas and Louisiana do not have standing to sue.
	So, which is...
	Now, what's interesting, so that's part one.
	Contrary to what the media reported, the court did not hold that Biden's actions were legal.
	So what's more interesting about this decision, to me, is what it says about executive power, because it may have bearing on the Trump case.
	It basically says Congress declaring something.
	Like, for example, here Congress said, you, the executive branch, shall arrest.
	The Supreme Court said that's unenforceable under separation of powers doctrine.
	That that's something the executive branch has exclusive authority of and we, the court, cannot enforce it.
	Which means nobody can enforce it, right?
	And so the question is, how broadly does that apply in other contexts then?
	Classified documents contexts, eh?
	So we'll see if the courts will be consistent about where executive power exists.
	But under the logic of this decision, Congress cannot force the executive branch to do something that is within the executive branch's discretion.
	And so that's what the Supreme Court, they said, detention decisions are different.
	Someone can sue about release of someone that shouldn't be detained, or that should be detained, because that causes direct injury on the local state.
	But you can't force the executive branch to exercise their discretionary power.
	You can't strip them of that discretion, even if it's pursuant to a congressional statute.
	So that was a big consequential immigration decision that basically now holds that in any context, you can't sue to force the executive branch to either indict or arrest.
	And so that leaves then border towns or border states to the mercy of the federal government and federal enforcement.
	As to arrest and prosecution, not as to detention.
	They made it clear that releasing somebody once detained is a different situation.
	Okay.
	But it encourages the Biden administration to never detain them.
	That's what it does.
	Getting someone scratching my legs here.
	What do you say?
	Yes.
	All right.
	And now, Robert, so the decision, it was a court of appeals, not a SCOTUS decision.
	The 8th Circuit, the judge.
	Yeah, we got the judge decision.
	We got a couple of trans bans and a California immunity case and the Eastman case that we'll just cover more briefly.
	Okay, so the judge who imprisoned children, I guess the context matters is that there's an acrimonious divorce between two parents.
	The kids are not parties to this at all.
	I think the parents up and leave and they go to California.
	The kids want to be Hollywood superstars.
	And there's some proceedings that come up in the context of the divorce proceedings where the kids...
	Oh, now I forgot.
	I think I forgot.
	But the kids are summoned to court and they don't want to go live with one of their parents.
	And the judge says, you're going to go or basically I'm going to arrest you or detain you.
	And I think effectively puts them in jail, but doesn't just order their detainment.
	Literally brings them to jail, watches them undress, puts them in jail, comes back to get them, asks them if they've learned their lesson, they're going to go live with the parent that the court has ordered them to live with.
	And that was incident number one.
	Oh, sorry, go ahead.
	Then he did it a second time.
	Then he did it a second time, but they weren't even there in court this time.
	He ordered an order to go pick up the kids because they didn't come to court this time.
	Anyway, so who was suing him in this?
	So one of the parents sued on behalf of the kids.
	So basically, kids are suing, but through the parent, that's how that works legally.
	And said, this is a 1983 violation.
	And the judge said, I'm immune, I'm a judge.
	Because what the judge early on in the proceedings had said, a Missouri State Court judge had said was, He did this to show him what he could do as a judge.
	And the Eighth Circuit said, when you do your actions as a judge outside of the courtroom, then you don't have complete immunity.
	So if he'd done all this by a court order inside the courtroom, no problem.
	But because he did it outside the courtroom and he didn't make sure the formality was signed, he gets to be held liable.
	I don't think there should ever be judicial immunity for knowing violation of civil rights.
	I don't agree with any immunity for anybody in this context.
	But at least he didn't get immunity for this egregious, overt violation of civil rights.
	Yeah, because I think there were two issues where the order to pick up the children was deemed within the exercise of his judicial rights.
	However, when he single-handedly detained them, observed them being detained, and went to get them, he overstepped his bounds as a judge and could be held long.
	He didn't get to be the bailer and the custodian and the warden and all the rest.
	He thought he could be.
	Turned out, thank God, he was wrong.
	Now, speaking of immunity, in California, they have complete immunity for prosecutors who bring wrongful prosecutions.
	People don't know this.
	Even if they know it.
	In other words, even if they know they're bringing false charges, you can't sell them.
	So law enforcement investigators said, hey, we kind of like that.
	We would like that same immunity.
	And luckily, the California Supreme Court said, well, the legislature hasn't given you that immunity.
	It's only given it to those who bring the prosecution.
	It doesn't cover law enforcement investigators.
	So at least they don't have that absurd immunity, but nor should prosecutors, in my view.
	But that's due to the bad laws in the state of California.
	But at least it wasn't unduly extended or expanded by the California Supreme Court in the Leon case issued last week.
	And then all we have left is the Eastman case and the Transbans case.
	I only have about 10 minutes before I got to hop, go leave for a plane.
	But we can probably cover that on Locals and answer a few of the Locals' questions as that part of the show.
	So everybody, we're going to end it on...
	Let me give you the link to vivabarneslaw.locals.com in the chat here.
	What I'll do is I'm going to screen grab the remaining Rumble Rants that I didn't get to tonight.
	I'll get to them tomorrow.
	And hold on a second.
	So now we've got to end it here.
	vivabarneslaw.locals.com, people.
	I'm going to end the stream.
	We'll cover the trans bans cases.
	We'll cover the John Eastman case exclusively on Locals.
	All right.
	We're going there now.
	Everyone on Rumble, thank you very much.
	Stay tuned for next week.
	It's going to be a good one.
	Back to it.
	We're going to Locals now.
	Now.
	Okay.
	Robert, Eastman trans case, and then we'll read some of the chats.
	Do the cases.
	John Eastman is the great constitutional law professor who advised President Trump during the 2020 election.

▲