Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:30:40

Ep. 170: Trump Trial; New York, Georgia, Jan. 6; Coutts 4; "Pathetic Puke" & MORE! Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm messing with you now, everybody.
	All right.
	I hope I'm messing with you.
	I started off...
	What's it called?
	Marcel Marceauing.
	Just give me a number one and let me know you can hear me in the chat, please.
	Number one, yes, the audio is on.
	I'm not playing the intro video until I know the audio works.
	Hello, Viva.
	Pleb, what's...
	Oh, Pleb, stick around.
	Pleb, stick around.
	But one...
	Hallelujah, people!
	Hallelujah!
	I did it!
	By the way, the last time, the mic with Sargon of Akkad...
	I keep doing that!
	Carl Benjamin, Lotus Eaters?
	Mic wasn't working?
	Because it wasn't plugged in at the top.
	Because I'm a jackass.
	Okay, let's start this show properly, shall we?
	Brr, brr.
	All right.
	This is fascinating, by the way.
	First, we're just going to go to the tweet.
	Oh, no, that's not the right way.
	We're going to go to the tweet, which was from the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center at Canadian...
	Friends, Simon Wiesenthal Center.
	A video is being shared widely on social media that depicts a protester in Belleville yelling, quote, you're a pathetic Jew, end quote, at least twice to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
	Protest is essential to any democracy, but hatred spreads when it is tolerated.
	We urge any media sharing the video to condemn this vile expression of hashtag anti-Semitism.
	We're going to play this again because, you know, they had that blue dress, gold dress meme going around where different people saw different things.
	Then you had the audio version.
	It was Yanny versus Laurel.
	And if anybody's seen the episode of Mark Rober, this is probably not the shout out he wants.
	I love Mark Rober and we're like besties and he condones everything I talk about on my channel.
	I'm joking.
	Mark Rober does amazing videos nonetheless.
	And he made the video where he made the talking piano.
	And the amazing thing about his talking piano, where he also had the piano electrically play the song E, the most complicated piano song ever, the piano was talking, and you couldn't hear what the piano was really saying until Mark Rober put in subtitles.
	So we got our Laurel Yanni, our blue dress, gold dress.
	What does everybody hear in this audio?
	According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, It's a protester shouting you're a pathetic Jew to Justin Trudeau.
	There are a number of reasons why one should have been skeptical from day one.
	Yelling you're a pathetic Jew at Justin Trudeau.
	Justin Trudeau is not Jewish.
	Justin Trudeau is Catholic?
	Roman?
	I don't even know what he is.
	He's not Jewish.
	He is arguably the political whore of one Klaus Schwab.
	Also not a Jew.
	Klaus Schwab, there's some disagreement about this.
	If he's not the son of a Nazi, he's at the very least the son of an individual who was a member of various national socialist organizations in Hitler's Germany.
	So a Catholic, Roman Catholic, whatever, subservient political whore to the son of a national socialist adhering member of the Nazi regime of Germany.
	Calling him a pathetic Jew?
	Seems counterintuitive.
	But let's listen to this one more time and see, do we hear pathetic Jew?
	Because pled the reporters in the chat and he may have cracked the mystery with the help of the other aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	Let's listen again.
	You're a pathetic kid!
	You're a pathetic kid!
	Now, you've been told to hear you're a pathetic Jew in this video.
	If I were to suggest...
	That what is being said is either pathetic puke or pathetic juke because this person might have something of an accent.
	Listen to it again, but don't worry.
	We're not going to stop here.
	Pathetic puke or pathetic juke or pathetic Jew.
	And I'm gonna put a poll in the chat in a second.
	Now that you're told to listen for the uke, do you hear the uke?
	You're a pathetic uke!
	You are a pathetic uke!
	Alright, but before we go any further with the sleuthing, everybody, I'm going to play...
	Pleb the Reporter did a video on this.
	He posted this same video and, I don't know, he blew out, enhanced the audio.
	I don't know what he did.
	He pulled some MacGyver stuff with the audio.
	Pleb the Reporter, for those of you who don't know...
	Worth a follow on Twitter.
	By the way, I just reached over 500,000 followers or Twitter followers on Twitter?
	Screaming into the abyss, people.
	We're screaming into the abyss.
	And the bullhorn's getting louder and people are listening.
	But hold on.
	Pleb the Reporter did something to the audio.
	Oh, Pleb, where is your thing here?
	Oh, come on.
	Oh, here it is.
	It's plugged to report right here.
	So he tinkered with the audio somewhat.
	And now listen to this.
	Same video, audio tinkered with so that it's clearer or less clear, depending on who you ask.
	So the question is...
	I'm reading some of the chat.
	The question is...
	Pleb did a breakdown of this.
	It was someone else, I forget who it was, Herb on Twitter, who originally said it really sounds like he's saying pathetic puke or pathetic juke, and they might have an accent.
	And what would make more sense?
	I say if you go hear this and you go listen to this, it definitely sounds like you could hear a UKE, but I'm going to do this because we can only do this one possible way.
	How do you do polls?
	Poll.
	Start a poll.
	Let's see here.
	Question.
	What did the protester say?
	And it's going to be pathetic.
	I'm going to say puke, joke, puke slash joke, or Jew.
	Ask your community.
	Let's see.
	Let's see.
	And maybe I'll play it one more time because I think it might be worth playing one more time.
	Mark Gerritsen.
	The Canadian politician with the Ukrainian flag in his bio, he was quick to jump on this as well.
	Oh, anti-Semitism has no place in Canada.
	Everyone has to condemn this.
	And I said, look, this was before anyone determined it was puke versus juke or whatever.
	I said, does it make sense that one would call Justin Trudeau not a Jew, subservient to the W.E.F.'s Klaus Schwab son of a Nazi, or at least someone with Nazi affiliation, or...
	National socialist affiliation, because you look up the fact check on that, and they say, no, his father was not a close Hitler tie, but his father was a member of various national socialist organizations in Hitler's Germany.
	Would it make sense to call him a puke, a joke, or a Jew?
	And the people that are running around saying, anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism...
	That's predicated on the notion that in their minds, it would be an insult to call someone a Jew, which is a very interesting premise upon which to begin an analysis.
	Now, a pathetic pube.
	No, a pathetic joke makes sense.
	A pathetic puke makes sense.
	What does not make sense?
	Calling Justin Trudeau a pathetic Jew.
	That's our intro, people.
	Jew makes...
	It makes no sense.
	All right.
	Before I...
	Do I want to do the...
	We're going to do the sponsor before we get into anything.
	You may have noticed.
	This is probably...
	I don't know if the sponsor wanted to be starting with an analysis.
	By the way, I made this joke.
	There's so much anti-Semitism in Canada.
	It takes fabrication of anti-Semitism and running with it.
	There's so much anti-LGBT violence and hatred in Canada.
	It takes Joel Harden.
	Lying.
	And fabricating a purported alleged hate crime that was debunked on the internet.
	It does not...
	The protester, in as much as you might disagree with their conduct, vitriol, tone, and demeanor, did not call Justin Trudeau a pathetic Jew.
	The Simon Wiedenstall, the friends of the Simon Wiedenstall...
	The friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, try to say that five times in a row, might want to take a step back and before claiming hashtag anti-Semitism, maybe just think about whether or not what you're actually putting out there is actually a bona fide example of anti-Semitism.
	Mark Gerritsen, you jackass, you are all about dividing and conquering, telling everybody they are perpetual, infinite, endless victims so that you can weaponize it politically.
	When you falsely claim hashtag anti-Semitism, you set...
	Everyone back.
	And you actually promote anti-Semitic sentiment by fabricating non-existent anti-Semitic LGBT hate crimes.
	And good for Joel Harden.
	He did it.
	He got away with it.
	Simon Wiesenthal's center.
	Mark Gerritsen.
	It looks like the truth has been determined on this.
	Whatever that protester said, if you disagree with it.
	Oh, and then people pivot.
	Well, okay, sure.
	He might not have said pathetic too, but look how terrible that is.
	There's a world of difference between saying someone is a violent, I'm sorry, a vile, I don't know, Crass protester and calling someone anti-Semitic.
	One is an attack on the individual.
	The other wrongly purports that that individual is representing intolerance against a group of that protesting group as a whole.
	And that's how this story was run when it first came out.
	So, plug the reporter.
	Good for him for surveilling the internet, coming to the truth, I think.
	And we'll go back to that poll in a second.
	Now...
	Before Robert Barnes, the man of the hour, gets here, you may have noticed when this stream started, it said, this stream contains a paid promotion or whatever.
	I don't know what it says.
	Paid sponsorship?
	It does.
	And it is Field of Greens yet again.
	It's easy to sell health.
	I know my lines.
	Everybody's supposed to have servings of fruits.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	First of all, I spent six and a half hours in a car today going to pick up a kid at camp and then bring her back.
	The traffic in Montreal!
	Oh my goodness!
	All that to say, have I had my servings of fruits and vegetables?
	I have not had my five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables today.
	Yet.
	There's still time.
	I have dinner.
	And I'm going to load up on arugula.
	I'm going to eat so much arugula, it's going to make me regular.
	Everybody is supposed to have between five and seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	To have them unprocessed, it's better.
	Most people don't do that.
	Most people don't have enough raw fruits and vegetables in a day, and most people have bad dietary habits.
	Other than getting them raw, getting them from the source, eating a bag of arugula with a little salt and pepper on it, what's the best way you can do it?
	Defecated greens, Garrett Pace.
	They are not defecated.
	They are desiccated.
	And I have a bit of a lisp, so every now and again, it sounds like I'm saying F when I'm saying S. Clean my palate.
	They are desiccated greens.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's not an extract.
	It is basically dried, pulverized fruits, vegetables, mashed into some powder.
	You open it up, you can smell the sweet odor as it, you know, a little bit comes out in dust format.
	A spoonful...
	Is one serving of raw fruits and vegetables a day.
	It's USDA organic, made in America.
	It's USDA organic approved because it's not a supplement.
	It's not an extract, which in Canada are soon to be treated like, going to be governed by the FDA people.
	It's delicious.
	It looks like swamp water, which is a good thing because we're going to get to the swamp water later on because I caught a massive fish this weekend.
	Swamp water is rich in nutrients.
	It's where life is born.
	And this stuff, when you drink it, you just put a...
	Stir it around.
	One spoonful, twice a day.
	Two servings of fruits and vegetables.
	It's a healthy alternative to what would otherwise be bad habits.
	And it's actually just healthy.
	You get your antioxidants, your nutrients, your everything that you would otherwise get from eating raw fruits and vegetables in a powdered, desiccated format.
	Go to the website.
	It's fieldofgreens.com.
	Brings you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order.
	And the links are in the pinned comment.
	All right.
	Till Robert gets here.
	Did I send Robert?
	I sent Robert the...
	The link?
	Hold on.
	I'll do my standard disclaimers and then we're going to see if I did not send Robert the link.
	These wonderful thing called Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of them.
	And if you don't like that, you don't necessarily want to support YouTube who removed one of my streams and doesn't give a reason.
	You know, they give a reason.
	Misinformation.
	Medical misinformation.
	It was an interview with Francois Amalaga, a Cameroonian who's come to Quebec.
	I protested the COVID lockdown measures, protested COVID tickets, spent many, many a week, a month in jail.
	That interview, who knows?
	Hey, somewhere in there, they won't tell you the timestamp.
	They won't tell you the what, the who's, the when's.
	Just a bit.
	Blanket.
	And I'm going to needle YouTube every day because it's hogwash.
	So if you don't want to support YouTube, they get 30% of these super chats.
	Go over to Rumble, where we are simultaneously streaming.
	And for those of you who don't know the format, I have exclusivity with Rumble.
	We start off on YouTube and Rumble.
	We then end on YouTube, go over to Rumble exclusively.
	I'm also on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	After we're done on Rumble, we have an after-party on Locals where we take questions.
	We have Locals tips there.
	And it's a wonderful, wonderful community where everyone is above average.
	No medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice, but it doesn't really matter because YouTube does whatever it wants anyhow and doesn't answer to anybody, but that might change someday.
	Okay.
	Dusilov at Mankari.
	Good to see you again.
	Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment, a well-protected public.
	Dusilov, being necessary to the security of a free state, the duty, eh, duty, to keep people and bear arms enforced.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm going to try to remain optimistic.
	You and Barnes keep fighting the good fight.
	Trump 2024.
	Thank you very much.
	With subtitles, I could have heard anything from cute to cube, the power of suggestion.
	One thing you wouldn't hear, Jew.
	One thing that doesn't make sense, calling Justin Trudeau a Jew.
	First of all, I don't speak for the Jewish community.
	I can only imagine many a Jew would say, do not call that man a Jew, and we do not want to have anything historically to do with that man.
	That man is the Pharaoh.
	That man is, what's the guy from, Haman.
	That guy is the oppressor.
	Do not lump him with us.
	And if he were a Jew, my goodness, would people have known about it already?
	I demand the garish neon light be brought back.
	Come back to the USA, Viva.
	You won't be arrested for wrong thing here as long as you aren't in a Demron city.
	I make my trek back to Florida as of Wednesday, I think.
	So that's it.
	I'm going to be done bouncing around makeshift studios.
	All right, Barnes is in the house.
	He looks angry.
	What did I do?
	I'm joking, everybody.
	I think we've done it all.
	Okay, good.
	I'm bringing Robert in.
	Robert, sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right, now, my lighting is terrible.
	I got, like, awful blood lights on the top, and I've only got one neon light, but we're going to live with it.
	The mic is good.
	Robert, oh, the Lincoln at Gettysburg.
	What's the book that you have behind you?
	Yeah, this is our Book of the Month Club at vivabarnslaw.locals.com, Lincoln at Gettysburg.
	Three-fifths of the way through.
	You're going to review Chapter 4 and then Chapter 5 to wrap it up.
	We do those on each Friday night.
	Saturday was the movie of the week, which was The Godfather, which was fun to watch.
	We do an open live chat there with all that.
	All good, good.
	So long as the Saturday movie wasn't Barbie, Robert.
	Just remind me.
	I won't forget.
	Remind me when we talk about Barbie.
	I got it.
	Oh, it's right up the top.
	So hold on a second.
	I've got a little hair here that I don't like.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu for tonight?
	So up top, the Barbie horror story.
	Can Mattel and Margot Robbie be sued for the most fraudulent advertising campaign in the history of Hollywood?
	Then the Biden corruption scandals got new evidentiary meat this past week by various revelations from Congress and whistleblowers alike.
	The Trump trial date for the classified documents case has been set or hasn't.
	The Trump New York case went to removal and was remanded back to state court.
	What might happen on appeal in that case?
	The Trump Georgia case led to a recusal of all the judges in Georgia with a recusal motion of the prosecution pending.
	Then there was also word that they are going to try to indict Trump on January 6 charges as well.
	As the lawfare against Trump reaches new heights and depths.
	And then there was claims that they could try to remove Trump from the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds.
	After we get through all those cases, we have another 2020 tie case as a bunch of old folks in Michigan who are electors for Trump have now been indicted on a criminal affidavit by the state attorney general for simply submitting certification paperwork that they could be Trump electors.
	We'll discuss that case.
	We have January 6th cases that are already up with petitions for cert before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	We have the Assistant Attorney General in Texas being subject to harassment by the Texas State Bar simply for filing that U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the 2020 election.
	We got the United States Senate trying to impose ethics rules on the Supreme Court of the United States with the recusal remedy that they're trying to create and...
	We have gun insurance.
	When can they just circumvent the Second Amendment by just making you carry insurance and circumvent your privacy rights by you disclosing who and what kind of gun you own as an additional condition of simply citizenship within a city?
	Ohio's liquor laws.
	Is it the case that all these states that don't allow you to import wine from across state boundaries, could it be still constitutional?
	Or might it be unconstitutional?
	Case went before the Sixth Circuit this week that might have some interesting ramifications.
	And diversity, equity, inclusion met an early death in federal court this time, outside the affirmative action context, but in federal preferential contracts.
	What might that say more broadly for the equal protection impact across the economic landscape for other private and corporate and public diversity equity inclusion programs?
	And then two bonus cases that we'll talk about exclusively with our locals audience in the after party.
	What happens to frozen embryos?
	Will it surprise people that in Texas, a Texas appeals court has determined that a fertilized embryo Is not a human being.
	Is not a child.
	That they're property that you can contract.
	What does that mean for the future of that kind of outside the womb development of children?
	And then last but not least, Robert Francis Kennedy spoke before Congress on the issue of censorship, for which the Democrats responded by trying to censor him.
	Because why not at the censorship committee?
	So that's the topics for tonight.
	Now, Robert, I'm going to just bring up...
	I'm not going to play it.
	I think Critical Drinker deserves the shout-out when he gets it.
	I haven't seen the movie.
	I watched the Critical Drinker's summary of it.
	Robert, the ultimate irony.
	I just pick up my kid from camp.
	She's young.
	And we're talking and we say, what happened?
	It's like, oh, we saw the Barbie movie yesterday.
	And I was like...
	They took you to see the Barbie movie.
	And I said, well, first of all, how was it?
	And she said, it's just terrible.
	And I knew everything about it.
	I was like, when they took you to see the movie, did they think they knew what it was about or what it was going to be like?
	And unclear answer.
	But all that says, they took young kids to see this Barbie movie.
	And from what I understand, from what the critical drinker said, he referred to it as a terminal form of brain.
	Brain illness.
	He said it was literally the worst thing that he has ever had to sit through, but that he had to do it because, you know, it's his job.
	Everyone should go watch it.
	I'm going to share the link to Critical Drinker's analysis.
	But Robert, it got me thinking.
	Has any movie...
	If someone said, you know, like the movie Saw or the movie The Hills Have Eyes or the movie The Human Centipede was a kid's cartoon.
	I mean, the gag wouldn't last long, but if anybody actually went to see the movie and then either got traumatized, got, I don't know, PTSD, has there ever been a claim against a movie for such egregiously false, false advertising that people say, I would not have given you my $5 had I known what it was actually going to be about?
	Has such a precedent ever occurred?
	Yeah, actually, we discussed it about a year ago.
	So what happened in that case was they advertised certain actors being in the movie, and they ended up getting cut from the movie.
	So several people sued on a class action saying, we only watched this movie because we saw the trailer with these actors and these actors weren't actually in the film, in the final cut.
	And the movie studios went crazy and said, oh, we have our First Amendment right to lie in our trailers.
	This is creative, artistic expression.
	As if they were somehow magically exempt from commercial speech restrictions.
	Because the First Amendment has said that when you make speech for the purposes of putting money in your pocket, Then you are not allowed to communicate false information.
	Whereas you can communicate false information for purely political speech or religious speech, but when it's commercial speech, you're not.
	And that goes back to fraudulent advertising from the very inception.
	It's also kind of like defamation law, just in a different context.
	And the federal judge said, no, a trailer and a promotional advertisement is clearly intended to induce people to give you money.
	That makes it commercial speech, not purely political speech.
	And yes, you can be sued for trailers that misled people to buying tickets.
	And so far, nobody's really done much with that precedent because Hollywood is infamous for misleading its potential subscribers and ticket purchasers all the time.
	But this may be, in my view, it's by far the most egregious example of that ever occurring.
	For those that don't know, the Barbie represents a toy that is one of the most popular toys in the world, the most popular girl's toy in the history of the world.
	So they have a built-in brand, and the people who were involved in founding it were conservative Christians, to give an idea.
	So while it was feminist, it was first-wave feminist.
	You can be anything as a woman.
	So there was Dr. Barbie, Pilot Barbie, President Barbie, Senator Barbie, you name it, Lawyer Barbie, etc.
	But it was that kind of feminism.
	It was not the third wave, intersectional, bash the patriarchy, men are evil form of feminism.
	And so first they had the built-in most popular toy in the world and the most popular toy that had a built-in fantasy world around it.
	In other words, you could not come up with a better IP.
	I mean, bigger than Star Wars, bigger than Harry Potter.
	I mean, the biggest IP that you could make into a film possible.
	So they came in with huge built-in advantages.
	Then they got assigned to the project Margot Robbie, who basically looks like the classic version of Barbie.
	What was Margot famous for?
	Because I know that her name is familiar.
	Really, she was famous for Wolf of Wall Street.
	Then she ended up playing a bunch of roles, playing in the, I forget the name of the character off the top of my head, but Birds of Prey and that character in a couple of movies.
	She actually hasn't carried movies very well.
	And that was only when she's been attached to Leonardo DiCaprio has she actually made good money.
	But she looks like Barbie and has a very cheery personality.
	Then you also had Ryan Gosling, who looks like Kent, who's one of the most popular male characters out there.
	So they had two very popular actors that fit the role as well.
	But they went further than that.
	They did a mass marketing campaign that a bunch of independent distributors and exhibitors got involved in on top of Warner Brothers and Mattel.
	Mattel, by the way, made close to $2 billion a year on Barbie, to give you an idea.
	It's between $1.5 and $1.6 in a given year.
	So that's the kind of cash that comes in on Barbie, to give you an idea.
	It's top five pretty much every year for 50-plus years.
	Its target audience has always been young girls.
	And so the third part was the marketing campaign, which my estimates had to be at least $150 million.
	The budget of the movie was another $150 million.
	They probably got another $50 to $100 million in local theaters and others jumping in on it to make money.
	And what it is, is they made it into an event, the event of the summer.
	Dress up and wear your clothes and come out and have fun.
	But critically, they made three specific...
	When things leaked out...
	Given the history of the director, she made a 2019 adaptation of Little Women that was very unpopular.
	This director has no history of making popular films.
	Made Lady Bird, other stuff, arthouse feminist films.
	And then some of the cast were saying things like, this will put a coffin in the end of heteronormativity forever.
	People were like, hold on a second, what's going on?
	Because the film had been advertised all summer.
	As a summer, fun, fantasy, bubblegummy, popcorn-y, light-hearted, comedy, cheery.
	And to give an idea, it had Ken and Barbie interacting with each other, Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling.
	And Ryan Gosling, Ken is saying, oh, we'll be boyfriend and girlfriend.
	And she's like, oh, what does that mean?
	And he's like, oh, I don't know.
	So it's that kind of, oh, it's cheery.
	What would it be like if dolls came to life?
	This is kind of funny.
	And I think I saw early ads and I was like, oh, it's going to be a Lego movie type thing.
	That's the level of childish humor and childish subject matter.
	And now I know better, but I'll get to a clip in a second.
	Yeah, so it didn't end up being like Lego.
	It ended up being more like we need to talk about Kevin type style.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So then when it...
	Any stories whispered out that this was something else, that there were trans characters in there, there was other things.
	Mattel did a massive push and said, oh, no, no, this movie's not feminist.
	It's not feminist at all.
	There's nothing feminist in this film.
	Margot Robbie, Ryan Gosling, Mattel, and the director came out and said, oh, this is for everyone.
	This is for little kids.
	This is a little kids film.
	Even though it had a PG-13 label.
	But most parents have long since ignored that because you don't know what that means anything or not anymore.
	They tend to rely on the media, on the actors, on the directors, on the others.
	And in fact, it got to the point where people on the left were joking about it.
	They're like, oh, you know, one movie credit, this parent had her young girl there and apparently she didn't get the memo about, you know, how this was about death, violence, sex, gender identification, and asking questions like, what's a gynecologist, mommy?
	It's thematic structure.
	Now, here's what it actually is.
	The whole summation of the film can be from the very first opening of the scene, which is the Barbie doll arrives, and little girls at the time are sitting around playing with their babies, baby dolls, and they're nursing them and everything else.
	They see the Barbie doll, and they take their babies, and they literally start bashing their heads into the ground.
	I think this might be a...
	You know, we have to work with the clips that are available online.
	It's with a rip-off.
	Homage to 2001 A Space Odyssey, where little girls discover Barbie for the first time and gleefully cast off their boring and oppressive baby dolls in an orgy of violence and destruction.
	And if the visual metaphor of little girls happily destroying the embodiment of motherhood to focus their lives instead on a shallow and materialistic piece of consumerist trash is lost on you, then I don't know what to...
	Just say, man, but you're probably the target audience for this movie.
	I love it.
	It is pernicious propaganda.
	It is third wave intersectional feminism that is in its target audience is vulnerable, impressionable little girls.
	Some people ask me why I care about the film.
	This is where the people on the right...
	Or more traditionalists in general have been asleep at the wheel for about half a century.
	Some of it's because religious conservatives decided to self-segregate and isolate themselves from mainstream culture to where they don't even know it's occurring and happening, and thus suddenly wake up and an entire generation, or now two generations, millennials and Zoomers, have politics and beliefs that sound insane to them.
	Because they weren't watching while their little kids were playing with toys and watching TV shows and watching film that was subtly, radically reshaping their worldview.
	It's not a coincidence that this is the target audience either.
	If you go back to the Nazis, you go back to Mao, who did they primarily target for the future of their operations?
	Young children.
	Nazis created special young children's organizations.
	Mao's cultural revolution was heavily predicated on children as young as five years old to completely bash all of the old traditional traditions.
	This is a radical film of extreme propaganda that is anti-male, anti-motherhood, anti-family, anti-babies, and literally its celebratory scene is, go kill your babies.
	Isn't that funny?
	Ha ha.
	I mean, that's the evil nature, pernicious nature of this film.
	And there is just one illustration of the lie.
	There's no relationship between Ken and Barbie.
	Ken is an appendage, an irrelevant, insignificant figure who's an annoying simp, who then discovers the patriarchy becomes an evil villain that they overthrow at the end and reduce back to his simp status.
	There's no lovey-dovey girlfriend-boyfriend fake rule.
	It doesn't exist.
	It's a complete lie what they put in there.
	It's not a cheery film.
	It's not even a tonally consistent film.
	I mean, when you're talking about death, you're talking about violence, you're talking about sex, you're talking about you have trans characters in there pretending to be...
	And here's people like Laura Loomer is out there completely lying about the film.
	People ask me why I distrust her.
	If you know anything about her personally, you would want nothing to do with her.
	But putting that aside, the reason why I distrust her is why is she out there promoting lies about Barbie?
	Saying, oh, it promotes women and gender.
	Women and men is only two genders.
	No, it doesn't.
	It has trans characters as Dr. Barbie.
	The argument is not their line.
	Is she getting paid under the table?
	Who knows?
	But it's the nature of the perniciousness of this.
	Targeting a young generation, trying to radicalize them behind third generation.
	And for those people that don't know what that means, it says so in the film.
	If women are safe, men need to be unsafe.
	If men are safe, by definition, that means women are unsafe.
	If men have power, then by definition, women don't.
	If women are going to be safe and have power, men need to be powerless.
	Men need to not be safe.
	It's anti-father.
	Every male character in the entire film, except for the one pretending to be a woman, who they justify and say, that's just fine, as Dr. Barbie.
	Every other male, actual male character in the film is an idiot or a villain or both.
	There is not a single good one in it.
	There's no good father figures in it.
	The pregnant Barbie is shamed and looked down upon.
	Motherhood is treated negatively throughout pretty much the entire film.
	It's not a lighthearted film.
	It's not a satirical film.
	It is a radical, intersectional feminist film.
	And they got a bunch of people to take their little girls to the film.
	They got a bunch of conservatives to go to the film, built on one big fat fraud.
	They're going to make a huge amount of money at the box office this weekend because of the best marketing campaign in the history of Hollywood.
	Problem for them is it's one big fat fraudulent campaign.
	That I believe a class action can be brought against Margot Robbie personally, against Mattel, against Warner Brothers, against Ryan Gosling personally, against Gina Gershaw personally, because these litany of lies, when the lies are intended to brainwash little kids, some of the most vulnerable, impressionable people on the planet, needs to have legal consequence, and there needs to be legal blowback.
	And the precedents have already been established.
	This was fraudulent advertising, and Mattel needs to start writing big, fat checks for all the people they stole from.
	Spoiler alert for anybody who cares to go see this movie, Critical Drinkers.
	One of the funniest lines in his analysis, he says, all men are so evil in this movie when Barbie enters the real world to find out which is the kid that is owning her that's unhappy and causing Barbie in Barbie Land to have wrinkles and whatever.
	Barbie gets into the real world, and a man immediately comes up to her and smacks her on the butt.
	And the Critical Drinker's like, a man!
	Comes up and smacks her on the butt.
	Like, that's what men do.
	In Venice Beach, in front of Bobby's boyfriend.
	I don't know why he's British all of a sudden.
	And look, even my kid, I tell you, I'm pretty open and very lax, maybe to a flaw in terms of what I'll let my kids watch because we'll talk about it afterwards.
	But even that opening scene, you know, my kid said, I didn't like it.
	It was scary.
	And there is an argument that I see people out there raising that this entire movie is like woke critique.
	Like, it's trolling, almost.
	It makes radical feminists look stupid.
	It makes the idea look dumb.
	It makes women look villainous.
	If that's the critique, first of all, that doesn't really work on a younger generation that doesn't operate with that framework.
	And it's very, very obvious that that was not the intended social message of the movie, from what I understand.
	And you wouldn't have feminists in the left all celebrating it, if that was the case.
	That's where Laura Loomer just kind of lied, and people like that are just either really, really dumb or overtly lying.
	I mean, to give people an example, OMB Reviews, Odin's movie blog, described as one of the most disgusting films he's ever seen.
	He almost never recommends people don't see a film.
	He did so here.
	He said, it is equal to gender relations to what Birth of a Nation was to the United States, to race relations.
	And for those that don't know, Birth of a Nation literally birthed the second coming of the Ku Klux Klan and the biggest fascist movement in the world at the time prior to Mussolini's rise and the Nazi, especially prior to the Nazis'rise.
	It was entirely that film.
	People keep underestimating the power and importance of film and shaping culture, society, politics.
	There's a reason why Andrew Breitbart said politics is downstream from culture, not upstream.
	You know, as you mentioned, Critical Dreamer described it as one great lie and one of the worst films he's ever been subject to.
	Midnight Edge, a guy longtime movie reviewer, described it as pure evil, a language he's never used for any film ever.
	The Culture Critics, similar criticisms.
	I always forget his name, Shaq Diversity, the night guy.
	He described it as one of the most horrifying films.
	It was people that understand what's going on in the culture.
	Described it with utter shock and horror because they understand the moral impetus and impact of this film potentially on a whole generation of people and young, impressionable little girls who don't realize they're being taught.
	And let's look at what is, I mean, the millennials and Zoomers, young women, that are overwhelmingly a third, a lot of them disproportionately, I should say, third-generation feminists.
	The third generation of feminism.
	And what do we see with their lives?
	Unusually low rates of marriage.
	Unusually low rates of having a positive father figure, sometimes against their own...
	I mean, they sought it out but aren't able to get it in terms of for their children.
	The depression rates are the highest in history for any group of people for this generation.
	The anxiety rates are the highest ever.
	The self-harm rates are five times higher than they've ever been in history for that generation.
	So we know what intersectional third-generation feminism produces.
	It produces extremely unhappy, sad, anxiety-riddled, depressed women.
	And that's what they've succeeded with culture.
	And now they're trying to grab another generation with it.
	And that's why I find it morally horrendous.
	This movie was made in honor of a Barbie, all right.
	Named Klaus Barbie.
	That's the kind of movie this is.
	Here we go.
	Meet Lil, the German Karl who became Barbie.
	That's very funny, right on point.
	Which is true, actually, historically.
	And I was going to say this.
	Oh, this was one thing I was going to say on Twitter, but it's ironic that you go through Twitter, the same people praising this movie and its success at the box office were the ones dumping all over Sound of Freedom.
	Because they understand the significance of culture.
	They understand the success of films like Sound of Freedom awaken people to serious concerns they want suppressed.
	Just as Barbie elevates an extremely dangerous and pernicious point of view that is literally leading to the mental illness of millions and millions of young women around the world as we speak.
	And it will get worse rather than better.
	I mean, it says all men are evil.
	I mean, there's no question about that through this film.
	There's no good positive male character.
	Fatherhood is a waste of time.
	Motherhood is counterproductive.
	Don't waste your time.
	Being pregnant is something to be ashamed of.
	Instead, go kill your babies.
	With that said, everybody, that's it.
	That's the Barbie analysis from a legal standpoint.
	Go watch Critical Drinkers, a breakdown of it, among others.
	We're going to go over to Rumble right now.
	I'm going to share the link one more time before we go.
	I got everything by the Super Chats.
	If your Field of Greens promo is bad, does that make you a pathetic juke?
	Ginger Ninja, not bad.
	All right, we're going to do it.
	We're going to end on YouTube.
	Come over to Rumble.
	I'll share the link from locals.
	You can come over to locals also.
	Ending on YouTube in three.
	And we're talking Trump, people.
	Because holy crap.
	It's a Trump.
	It's a Trump-alooza tonight.
	It's endless.
	But our first bonus before talking about Trump will be the man that really they're going after Trump for, the current occupant of the White House.
	Oh, okay.
	Everyone, that's the enticement.
	Come on over to Rumble.
	VivaBarnesLaw.Locals.com.
	FieldOfGreens.com.
	Thank you all.
	Not open the window.
	I need to close the window.
	Okay.
	One day I'll get this.
	Remove.
	Ending on YouTube.
	Come over to Rumble or Locals.
	3, 2, 1, now.
	All right, Robert.
	Hold on.
	Let me see.
	I have my list up in the backdrop here.
	Biden corruption.
	Robert, okay.
	It's like incontrovertible concrete to the extent the whistleblower is not perjuring himself and exposing himself to all sorts of things.
	We now basically know that the Department of Justice, Just Us, Deliberately dragging its feet.
	Tell me if this is the aspect of the Biden corruption.
	Dragging its feet in the investigation into Hunter.
	Taking so long to bring charges that it's too long, ultimately, in some cases.
	But what is the latest now on...
	Is it on Joe Biden himself?
	Yeah, because basically what we got confirmation from, Senator Grassley released the original whistleblower report.
	And then there were whistleblowers from both the IRS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation who testified before Congress.
	And then they were doing interviews later.
	And what they provided was extraordinary, that basically everything that was ever asserted about Biden is true and then some.
	That Trump was impeached and impeachment won for asking about the crimes that Biden had actually committed.
	And so they've got emails, they've got documents, they've got texts, they've got a money trail.
	They had it all, and they had it all from the beginning.
	They had it from the whistleblowers who came forward.
	They had it from the Hunter Biden laptop that they had.
	They had it from independent reports, suspicious activity reports that came in from a bunch of financial institutions and banks.
	And what it showed was a simple quid pro quo.
	And that they actually put this in writing, the people at Burisma.
	So as soon as the Maidan coup took place, where the legitimately elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by a range of protests that began with what's called the Maidan coup, some call it Maidan revolution, take your pick.
	Whatever it was, an unelected government came to power.
	That unelected government came to power.
	There were good actors and bad actors within it.
	And some of the good actors was a local prosecutor wanting to look at various corruption concerning the Privat Bank and concerning the Burisma Corporation, where basically you had a Secretary of the Interior who controlled oil leases, also having ownership interest in the oil company that he was given all the oil leases to.
	Old school oligarchic politics.
	So this happens, and Barack Obama, knowing what he's doing, by the way, Puts Joe Biden as vice president in charge of all Ukrainian policy with the new made-on government.
	Soon as that happens, Burisma, now under criminal investigation for massive corruption in the billions of dollars, hires Hunter Biden, which anybody looking at knew what was really about, but they had various excuses for it.
	No, but it's just...
	In your face, other than the fact that he's set aside a crackhead who's had all sorts of problems his entire life, it makes no sense, except on the most superficial level, that they hire Hunter Biden, VP Biden's son, at that time for that purpose, despite having zero, what's the word I'm looking for, credentials, zero experience, zero value added, except for the access to the man.
	And what was extraordinary is all of this was in writing.
	They said this payment, $5 million here and another $5 million later, is so that Joe Biden, Vice President Joe Biden, will quash any criminal prosecution of us.
	I mean, it's literally right in writing.
	So they also had tape recordings that had Joe Biden on it.
	They had text.
	They had supporting financial documents.
	The FBI was getting this from multiple directions.
	They were getting it from the Ukrainian informer.
	They were getting it from all the suspicious activity reports being filed by banks.
	And they got it off of Hunter Biden's own laptop.
	So they had independent, multiple evidentiary sources for one of the most obvious quid pro quo corruption schemes in American political history, involving the vice president of the United States, leveraging his son, using his son as the money launderer, to do a quid pro quo.
	And he's on record bragging about how he shut down the prosecution, but he claimed he was doing so in the name of...
	Cleaning up corruption.
	In fact, it was just the opposite.
	It was the cover-up corruption.
	And the money gets transferred.
	Joe Biden then goes in and leverages, hey, we in the U.S. have all this money we control you made on government.
	You'll be cut off from our financial aid unless you do what I say.
	And what I demand is that this prosecutor be fired.
	That prosecutor is then fired.
	The case against Burisma is then closed.
	The rest of the money is then transferred.
	It's as obvious quid pro quo corruption as ever.
	And they had evidentiary proof of it from multiple authenticated sources.
	And attorney, you know, in The Godfather, towards the end, Marlon Brando's character goes, I didn't know until now.
	It was Barzini all along.
	Well, it turns out it was Barr all along.
	Attorney General Barr, the same Attorney General Barr, Epstein magically died on his watch.
	Whose own father was involved in giving Epstein his first ever gig.
	That's who Barr is.
	Also, it was during his tenure that the FBI and the IRS sat on all this.
	And the multiple whistleblowers have now come forward that the Justice Department under Biden has completely shut them down.
	Not allowed them to issue subpoenas.
	Not allowed them to issue search warrants.
	Not allowed them to even interview certain key witnesses.
	not allow them to develop certain key evidence, not allowed to even go to a grand jury and present the evidence for the possibility of indictment.
	And then many of these whistleblowers are Democrats or independents.
	They have no political bone to fight, Avalon.
	So what we have is the most egregious example of extraordinary corruption.
	And as Trump pointed out, his view is this is impeachable behavior and because it's connected to current policy.
	That the reason why Biden continues to wage war and support the war in Ukraine, for which the U.S. is the critical supporter, for which Ukraine is the primary benefactor in the war propagated solely and wholly because of the Biden administration, it would have ended in a peace deal already, but for that, is because of his longstanding corrupt ties to Ukraine.
	You dig deeper and you find contracts are being written up as we speak for major corporations like BlackRock and others to divvy up all the land, the best resources of Ukraine, in a post-war realm.
	So this isn't being done for the Ukrainian people.
	This is being done to enrich Biden's corrupt allies.
	And Trump correctly connects the two.
	So, but what we found this week was extraordinary, unimpeachable evidence of the worst corruption in the history of American presidential politics outside of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
	And I always like to say the best way to understand Joe Biden is, imagine Lyndon Baines Johnson had a really dumb younger brother.
	That's Joe Biden.
	The question is this, I mean, what are they doing with the whistleblower's testimony?
	They're listening to it, they're hearing it, they're holding committee hearings and whatever, but what is going to happen?
	Because the Justice Department is controlled by the Biden administration beyond impeachment.
	I mean, increasingly, it's obvious the only remedy is to go through the impeachment process.
	They're not going to get a conviction in the Senate, but at least begin fully, formally that process because the Justice Department refuses to do anything about this.
	Robin, the $3 billion, there was reports a couple months ago that...
	The Pentagon made a mistake on $3 billion in arms.
	$6 billion.
	Now, there are some conflicting stories as to whether or not they overpaid $3 billion or undervalued the arms that they were sending by $3 billion, which allowed them to send $3 billion more.
	Do you know which way?
	They ultimately said that there's $6 billion that was spent in one way, shape, or form that they can't account for.
	$6 billion.
	Oops!
	Lost that in the mail.
	Unbelievable.
	So, now, the next steps, they've got these whistleblowers.
	First, I'll be asked the practical question.
	What happens to these whistleblowers for the rest of their lives?
	Some of them are now getting prosecuted or indicted as well?
	I mean, they're supposed to be protected, but we'll see.
	I mean, we see anybody that steps forward and exposes anything or questions or contests anything gets challenged, as Trump is currently.
	So, you know, the Trump trial date...
	Not a terrible trial date, the judge said, for late May of 2024.
	Prosecution won in December of 2023.
	Defense wanted an indefinite stay.
	My view is that was a tactical mistake.
	If you're watching the Bourbons at VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com, everybody is indeed above average, even the trolls.
	What I mentioned was I thought it was a tactical mistake for them not to give this kind of judge a specific date.
	Certain judges are what I call calendaring judges.
	A lot of your judges, if you're into Myers-Briggs, are SJ personality types.
	They're not intuitive personality types, but they're very structured.
	And if you don't give them a date, they get real annoyed.
	I hadn't studied her in great detail, but I'd studied her enough to figure that out.
	And having been in front of many judges on these kind of cases, in these kind of situations, seeking continuances, you figure out what kind of judge they are.
	Are they the kind of judge that's flexible and they'll just kick it?
	Or are there a judge that just wants a date?
	Do they want an early date?
	Do they want a late date?
	And had I think they gone in and said, we want December 2024, I think she would have given it to them.
	And the second thing to do, whenever you do a motion, this is practical advice out there for lawyers, if you're going to do a motion to continue, lay out in details.
	Come up with what looks like a make your plan look uber reasonable.
	I mean, I've done this in many cases.
	In the Snipes case, they were trying to keep me out of the case on grounds that no continuance could be allowed.
	And so sat there for 48 hours, produced another motion, 35 pages long.
	Explaining why a very short continuance was valid and replacement substitution of counsel necessary.
	And a judge who everybody told me would never reverse went and did exactly that.
	He reversed.
	If you know how to lay it out to them, they should have put in in detail, okay, we're going to spend this much time on this category of discovery.
	Here's why.
	Here's how much available timing I have.
	Here's what time I'm competing with.
	Then I'm going to do this on these motion practices.
	And then I'm going to do, you know, explain in such a way the judge looks and goes, geez, that's faster than I could ever do it.
	And they're asking for 18 months.
	And then list all the dates, all the other trials.
	They've got at least 18 months.
	And especially, use the government's own cases against them.
	When the government gets to imprison someone pending trial, like the January 6th cases, by golly, they always, oh, that's two years, two and a half years, three years, four years.
	Use that against them in cases like this.
	And I think had they done so, they would have got it.
	That being said, there are people who really don't under, Mark Levin included, It's the problem of almost 90% of legal commentary is made by people who either hate Trump or never practice.
	So Mark Levin doesn't hate Trump, but he's, to my knowledge, never practiced criminal defense.
	Same with some others.
	I mean, Charlie Kirk got mistaken on this.
	I can tell you the odds that the May date takes place are still low.
	Here's your typical federal judge's scheduling.
	They have to schedule the first date within 70 days of arraignment.
	So your first date, pretty much never going to happen in a complex case.
	Almost no case happens within 70 days.
	And so then you get your first continuance, and that's based on the first round of discovery.
	Almost always, what is it?
	The judge wants you to come in two months or so before the trial date and say, well, you know, we did try, judge, but look, we got this, we got this, we got this.
	And in a majority of federal cases like this one, a second continuance is granted.
	So these are not hard dates.
	Let me stop you there.
	The discovery that we're talking about, everybody talks about discovery.
	There's 1.1 million pages of documents, however many tens of thousands of hours of video.
	Discovery, as most people understand it, in civil cases, you have a party to the suit, you sit them down, you ask them about the case.
	What does discovery look like in the case of a federal indictment?
	Do you depose?
	Anybody and everybody that you need on the evidence?
	You can't.
	In a criminal case, you have none of the...
	I mean, that's where you always use the analogy of the government.
	So the government in this case, if you really look at it, because they were starting to...
	The referral happened in late 2017.
	I mean, sorry, late 2021.
	It took them two years to bring an indictment.
	And they have the power of the grand jury.
	And they don't have any restrictions on classified review by lawyers or agents.
	So that's where you always emphasize.
	All you get is a federal criminal case is whatever discovery the government gives you.
	You have no right to depose anybody.
	Your rights to subpoena are limited to trial or an evidentiary hearing pretrial.
	And you often have to beg for whatever discovery you can get because the government's always holding information back.
	There's no open file policy in the federal government.
	So you often have to have motions to compel discovery, etc.
	Now, smart prosecutors won't play games if they want a fast trial, but these prosecutors are too greedy and too consistently unethical to honor such rules and restrictions.
	So you can almost guarantee their stuff they're hiding.
	And that includes exculpatory information under the Brady U.S. Supreme Court and Giglio information, which is impeachment information.
	So basically, you have to use private investigators to try to investigate what the government did, and you have no power to compel them to do so, and you don't have the federal law enforcement power behind you to do so.
	So it means that typically a competent, capable defense investigation takes twice as long as the prosecutor took.
	That's four years.
	Now, this information was not relayed to the judge.
	So this was some of the weaknesses in it.
	This was an opportunity to not...
	I said at the time they did a cookie-cutter presentation, which is understandable, but that's for your average case, not a case like this, where you just go with a template of, hey, we got these 25 things, judge, let's kick this for a little while.
	And if you have laid-back judges, no problem.
	But if you have a tight calendaring judge like this court is...
	That was a tactical mistake.
	But it's not likely to lead to an actual May trial, in my opinion.
	I still think December 2020.
	And if you look at May, she's trying to split the baby, you know, after February and March-April primaries, but before the peak of convention season in the summer and in the election season in the fall.
	What does that mean?
	It means she doesn't want to trial between then and November.
	So the more likely trial date was always December 2024.
	And then, of course, if the appeals court takes any issue up, or the U.S. Supreme Court does, that will automatically delay the whole thing.
	Well, I have two questions about this.
	One is the constitutional requirement to have the trial within a speedy trial.
	And so the judge, I presume, will not say, well, I can't just put it off indefinitely because then the defendant can say, well, my constitutional rights to a speedy trial have been violated.
	Flip side, from the defendant's side, you wouldn't want to renounce to that.
	Without limitation, because then you can get a prosecution that would say, okay, well, you've renounced to ever invoking violations to your speedy trial provision, and so we'll just drag our feet for however long and torture you forever.
	But there's going to be questions about the admissibility of the documentation information that was obtained in DC jurisdiction that was then imported into Florida.
	And if any of that...
	If there's a debate that goes to appeals on the admissibility of any of that, the solicitor-client documentation that was obtained in a different jurisdiction from which this indictment is being brought, end of a May 2024 trial.
	Or, like, immediately.
	Well, I mean, I think that there's two components.
	The speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court says, can be waived, but up to a limit.
	They can't be waived into perpetuity.
	And you can't require a defendant to do so.
	And then the Speedy Trial Act.
	The statute gives the government and the public also additional interest beyond the defendant in the right to a speedy trial.
	But the court noted that these kind of exceptions that were being listed by the defense are the ones that properly are provided for.
	So she chose May because Trump's team refused to give a date.
	That's why she chose May.
	It's that simple.
	She's like, there's no way this is getting done in December.
	I'll give you another five months or so.
	But this judge, even though she's relatively new to the bench, So it may not be as familiar.
	You will find it is rare in a white-collar case that only one motion to continue is granted.
	The norm is at least two.
	And to give people an idea, many of my cases have been three, four, five.
	And the reason they do that, a calendaring judge doesn't want to assume you're going to be right about everything taking time.
	He wants you to document it at each stage.
	Right?
	So they come forward and say, so if I have a rocket-tocket judge, I don't propose a long date.
	I, you know, say, hey, move it out 90 days.
	But if I got an issue and I want to let you know, I anticipate these issues.
	If I got them, I'm going to come back, you know, 60 days before.
	And that's all you do.
	But they didn't quite do it.
	And it's a reflective of attack.
	But again, I don't think that...
	The likelihood that Trump goes to trial is still low.
	That takes place in May because of the possibility of another motion to continue, because of the possibility of appellate issues, an appellate or a Supreme Court getting involved in the case prior to pretrial.
	Even if he were to go to trial in May, his sentencing likely wouldn't be scheduled until after the election.
	And even then, he'd be granted bail pending appeal in all likelihood because of the novel issues.
	So even if the trial goes in May, he ain't going to jail before election.
	It is still the case that Election Day, Will be verdict day as to Trump.
	And we don't need to flesh over some of the issues that might go to appeals on this.
	I mean, we've talked about it at length in prior streams.
	And once those motions are filed, then we'll discuss them in detail once the briefing is done on them.
	But the New York case is currently scheduled for March.
	And it's back in state court because a Clinton appointee...
	Trump's removal of the state court to federal court, he rejected the removal on some very questionable decisions, again reflecting some tactical errors, in my view, by Trump's defense team.
	So Trump had asked that this is the state charges for the entries on the Stormy Daniels payments and how they were itemized and referenced be brought out to federal court.
	What was the justification or the rationale for the request?
	So in any case where someone is being prosecuted that's an officer of the federal government, and in this context, officers are very broad because it was meant to deal with, they wanted to avoid the problem.
	The Supreme Court itself has said that this federal law was designed to avoid a constitutional conflict.
	What happens if a local state prosecutor starts using their criminal power to prevent The same principle to me applies.
	The court has recognized the validity of this principle.
	So what you have to prove is three things.
	That the indictment arises from something you did while you were a federal officer, a federal official of any kind.
	Officer, by the way, has different definitions in different contexts.
	Interesting thing.
	In this context, it's clearly meant to be everybody, but the state argued otherwise.
	New York said, no, no, this doesn't usually apply to the president.
	We'll get into that, by the way, when we talk about the 14th Amendment.
	Interesting admission by the state of New York in that respect.
	But it is true in most contexts, officer doesn't cover the president, but in this context, it clearly was intended to.
	So there's no question.
	All of the allegation of the indictment concerned conduct Trump engaged in while he was president.
	The second aspect is that the conduct arise from his duties as a federal officer or that he have defenses that arise from federal law, federal preemption.
	The goal, again, being preventing local state prosecutors from weaponizing their criminal prosecutorial power in ways to interfere with or impair the operation of the federal government and be basically extortion and blackmail over federal officials.
	You can see how the whole thing falls apart.
	If a random local prosecutor can say, if you don't do what I want, I'll indict you.
	To give an example of this, the L.A. County jail that I was involved in tangentially in these cases was one of the most corrupt jails in all of America.
	Gangs ran it, but not the gangs you thought of.
	The gangs were part of the police.
	The police had formed their own gangs that ran with initiation rights and everything else.
	And the feds finally started doing something about it after a bunch of us had raised complaints concerning it.
	And the answer of the L.A. sheriff was to put the FBI agents under criminal investigation and try to indict them.
	This is an example of how the whole system falls apart if you allow local government people to indict federal officials, especially for what appears to be here a federal crime.
	And so now I thought...
	When they brought in the recusal, well, removal action, remove it to federal court, that they would list it as a related case given another federal judge had already ruled on the subpoena challenge in the same case previously.
	They happened to be a Trump appointee, but also a judge who had expressed skepticism about the nature of the case.
	It doesn't appear Trump's team did that.
	So they got an old Clinton appointee.
	And then at the evidentiary hearing that the court scheduled, they presented very little evidence.
	So they blew an opportunity to develop a great evidentiary record, and the judge piggybacked off of that.
	And core of his claim was that there were some that was less credible than others, was that Trump's behavior was purely personal and had nothing to do with the office of the presidency.
	And secondly, that was alleged in the indictment.
	He really favors the indictment.
	It's obvious his political bias.
	Oh, this is a terrible crime.
	Oh, this is ridiculous garbage.
	But then he also says that even though there are specific federal laws at issue, and even though prior precedent says where specific federal laws are at issue in this context, they preempt and create a defense to state criminal prosecution.
	He says, not in this instance.
	And he says, it's kind of like ballot fraud, right?
	You know, ballot fraud is exempt from this.
	Yeah, that has nothing to do with federal election law.
	That's why.
	Might be a federal election you're getting elected to, but that's a state crime.
	That's not here.
	Here, the only crime being alleged that elevates this to a felony is a federal crime.
	That means it's federal preemption defense.
	My favorite part was pretending this had nothing to do with Trump's official duties.
	Look at the contradiction between this and all their Westfall Act cases.
	Like the Covington kids' cases.
	What did the Covington kids have to do with Senator Warren's official duties in the Senate?
	Oh, well, her statements tangentially were related to policy, potential policy, and therefore...
	She couldn't identify any.
	She couldn't identify a single policy.
	She didn't make the statement in the Senate, didn't make the Senate from a committee hearing.
	It didn't relate to pending legislation.
	It related to her personal opinion of the Covington kids.
	There was no federal legislation that could even concern the Covington kids.
	Beyond her immunity for suit.
	And so the same with Congresswoman, now Secretary of the Interior Deborah Halland.
	What do the federal courts do then?
	Oh, that's a very broad what concerns public duty.
	That's really, if it could possibly concern your reputation, reputation in the community.
	Hmm, isn't that what Trump is concerned with?
	His reputation in the community as president?
	So the same federal judges that say you can't sue a senator and can't sue a congresswoman.
	For libel and defamation, for things that had nothing to do with their duties, turn around and say that, oh, this couldn't possibly relate to Trump's presidential duties.
	Directly contradictory rulings.
	So we'll see.
	But again, that point was not made by Trump's counsel in the case.
	So in my view, while they got...
	A difficult judicial draw that I think was a product of tactical error.
	And they have good grounds to appeal on this issue, which may raise issues about whether or not the March trial date also ever takes place in the New York case.
	Trump is not getting the benefit of the best defense now in both cases, which does raise concerns about how well they're going to defend him going forward.
	Did I have any questions about that?
	Well, no.
	I mean, we're operating on the basis that there will be a conviction at this, but it's going to be a state-level conviction, Robert, that does make it...
	The dumbest thing the judge said is there's no reason whatsoever to question whether New York will be completely fair with Donald Trump.
	I mean, that's just a lie by a federal judge.
	That's just a federal judge flat-out lying.
	And it's an 89-year-old Clinton appointee, and that's where his dishonesty came forward.
	However, the better evidentiary presentation...
	To make that lie easy to prove on the record on appeal would have been to have people like Richard Barris and others do surveys to prove how it's impossible to get an impartial jury in Manhattan.
	So this is where Trump's team is not up to snuff so far.
	One place they are up to snuff so far is the state of Georgia.
	Hold on, actually, just one second.
	In the New York case, those are state charges, correct?
	That's the state indictment.
	State indictment that alleges an intention to violate a federal law.
	Okay, but then the obvious question now is, even if Trump is elected, he cannot pardon himself for state crimes, correct?
	No, no, correct.
	So, hypothetically...
	I mean, that would directly pose the question and would force the Supreme Court to get involved.
	And that's where my view is the ultimate solution they should be roadmapping out now for the Supreme Court, regardless of what the lower courts do with the issue.
	Is that impeachment is the exclusive means by which you can remove someone from the presidency?
	And the argument, you've raised it a couple times before, would be impeach him.
	If he's convicted, then you have the basis for a state.
	Then you can indict, then you can convict, then you can sentence, then you can incarcerate.
	But you can't otherwise.
	Otherwise, we run into this practical problem that we're with.
	Well, this practical problem is he can go to jail in New York State that he cannot pardon himself for.
	No, yet any local prosecutor could at any time lock up the president of the United States and prevent him from doing his job.
	I mean, it's a joke.
	It's ridiculous when you think about the practical consequences, as we'll get into some of these other cases.
	All they care about is getting Trump.
	So they don't care what rules they eviscerate, what precedents they establish, what policies they put down.
	They don't care how much it's completely hypocritical and contradictory to their own prior decisions and prior like and analogous cases.
	But the rest of us should be concerned with it because it leads to places that make no sense.
	Well, it leads to a place where you could have a president elected who is locked up in jail at a state jail.
	And not for...
	I mean, I guess I'm trying to think of...
	Cases where he could have committed crimes before running for president, whatever.
	You could blackmail him and extort him at any time.
	I could be a state prosecutor, small county, say, hey, President Biden, unless you do what I say on this policy, I'm going to go arrest you tomorrow and drag you into jail.
	You no longer have a constitutional government then.
	And he can be an elected sitting president who would have to serve his time at a state jail for state conviction that he can't even pardon himself for if he gets re-elected.
	Which you could have no Secret Service protection.
	I mean, you just think it through.
	It's insane.
	It's pure insanity.
	And the people justifying this have not thought it through at all.
	Yeah, well, I don't think anyone's gonna...
	The accusation of having thought it through too much is not one that you're gonna hear too often.
	Robert, before we get to the Georgia one, before I fall way too far behind on the rumble rants that have been coming in here, let's just do all of these as quickly as possible.
	Take three minutes.
	Monty Furness says, what if the lady is just announced...
	What if the lady is just someone who's dressed like a conservative and is paid to make conservatives look anti-Semitic?
	That's one, that intro.
	Kitty says...
	Thanks for another awesome Sunday lineup.
	Monty Furtis says, Margot Robbie was also in Suicide Squad.
	Haven't seen it.
	Randy Edwards says, Harris's parents were not lawfully in the United States at the time of her birth.
	They did not have legal immigration laws.
	Sorry, they did not have illegal immigration laws when the 14th Amendment was ratified or when SCOTUS opined on the subject.
	We're not getting back into that.
	We talked about it a lot last week.
	Troublemaker Jonah.
	Barbie was the German escort nearly named after Klaus Barbie.
	We got that one.
	T1990 says, the character's name is Harley Quinn that Robbie played, or player, she's the Joker's girlfriend.
	Reawaken, that is Be Awake Not Woke, says, I honestly am so busy, I can watch you guys as much as I'd like, but keep it up.
	Viva and Barnes, you are all awesome.
	Thank you very much.
	T1990 says, the man-hating started in second wave of feminism with people like Dorkin O'Dwarkin and Simone de Beauvoir.
	Arkansas Crime Attorney, Little Rock and YouTube.
	The remake of Arthur had several scenes in the trailer that was not in the movie.
	The trailer was so much funnier than the movie.
	Randy Edward.
	The preamble clearly says to ourselves and our posterity, not to others and their posterity.
	Either the Constitution exists in its entirety or not at all.
	Arkansas crime attorney.
	Robert, what would you consider a heavy caseload in personal injury?
	I had 30 cases.
	The firm fired one of our attorneys because I closed seven cases last 120 days.
	They gave me all 40 plus cases.
	of hers.
	Holy crap apples.
	Arkansas crime attorney, I am starting to get scared for my license given how bad shape these cases are in.
	Some going back to 2018.
	SJM response due tomorrow.
	I took a break to watch you guys.
	Felis Rufus 35, to paraphrase some guy who ran for president in the 80s, you can identify who in Congress is involved in the corruption because they will be the ones not pushing for charges.
	TX Lady Jane.
	So why haven't they taken a vote to impeach?
	Decent question.
	Arkansas crime attorney.
	My drug weapons cases in federal court in Arkansas normally take two to three years to get to trial or plea.
	Arkansas crime attorney.
	Robert, can he not sever or remove on federal question defense?
	And Shofar, which might be a Hebrew word for Shafaf.
	He did.
	And the judge said there's no federal questions at issue.
	Wow.
	Can Biden be charged with treason for his actions and bribery?
	Treason, everybody uses that.
	I think a little too willy-nilly.
	There has to be a war.
	Yeah, legally in America, treason is limited to that, which will be relevant later to our 14th Amendment discussion.
	But yeah, the one place where his lawyers are being very proactive is Georgia.
	So basically, they've obtained an order, and I don't know if it's good or bad anymore, Robert, that none of the judges in the Fulton District can hear.
	Is it the civil case?
	And or the indictment case?
	They can't hear his petition.
	So he's filed a petition for writ of mandamus on the grounds that the grand jury process was completely contaminated and that the prosecutor's office not only has to be disqualified on a go-forward basis, but anything they've done has to be considered poison fruit of the tree.
	And consequently...
	Basically, it would vacate the prior grand jury findings, vacate any evidence, require appointment of an independent prosecutor that likely would end any prosecution of Trump in Georgia.
	And the issue is the prosecutor keeps making it worse because the prosecutor is actually overtly fundraising.
	Saying, I'm going to indict Trump.
	Send me money now.
	It's exactly like what we saw in the McCloskey case.
	Kim Gardner and the state...
	I think ultimately he was forced to step down, wasn't he?
	Missouri.
	Yeah, they get re-elected.
	And you say that the corruption arises when they're appointed for life by political appointees.
	They're loyal and they're politicized.
	For eternity.
	When they have to run for office or get elected, there's also corruption that happens there.
	So you're doing trade-offs as to whether or not you get an appointment, a judicial judge is appointed or elected.
	But hold on one second.
	Actually, just before I forget the question.
	Oh, the mandamus.
	Sorry, Robert.
	Mandamus is an order for a public body to do or to not do something that they are legally required to do.
	In the case of Georgia, what is the object of the mandamus?
	Recusal of the prosecution.
	Okay.
	Recusal of the prosecution because they are politicizing this to fundraise off of the announcements to indict...
	Creating a professional conflict of interest.
	And what happened is the court recognized it raised issues that could, I guess, implicate every judge in Fulton County.
	And so the chief judge said this is being assigned to a judge outside of Fulton County who would not have any other conflict themselves.
	But it's good that they're...
	This is fighting a case tooth and nail, top to bottom.
	And that's what Trump's lawyers in Georgia are doing a very good job of doing that he's not quite getting in the D.C. case, in the Florida case, or the New York case so far.
	It's going to be a stupid question.
	What lick of difference is it going to make if they get a judge from outside of the Fulton County as opposed to a judge?
	Oh, no political ties to the Fulton County and so can rule whatever they want against the Fulton County prosecutor knowing there'll be no political blowback?
	And outside of Fulton County, most of the judges throughout the rest of Georgia are more conservative.
	Fulton County is where you have a more liberal democratic bias, and the prosecution is the most wacky of all.
	And so there's no grounds to even pursue a Georgia case.
	But there's no grounds to pursue the January 6th case, and that isn't stopping Jack Smith.
	Okay, so I still don't...
	Everybody out there, the Twitter handle looks like Jack Smith.
	I don't think it's actually Jack Smith's account.
	It looks like it's not parody, but rather just following the news.
	What do they call it, Robert?
	A target letter?
	So Trump got...
	He gets a target letter, which as far as I understand, in my limited Quebec Schnuck understanding of American criminal federal law...
	It is an opportunity for someone who apparently is under investigation to come forward and speak with the grand jury, give testimony, give their position, presumably before they're indicted.
	Is a target letter anything more than that?
	Yes.
	The main reason why they're given is to afford an opportunity to present without an accusation that they coerce testimony in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
	So that's why they give you fair notice.
	And so that's the goal.
	Because as a witness in front of a grand jury, you can't have your lawyer in there.
	So it raises compelled self-incrimination issues.
	It raises compelled testimony outside the presence of representative counsel.
	It raises due process questions.
	So they send a target letter saying, you have this opportunity to present, but by the way, you are a target, so it could be used against you.
	You won't have a right to counsel, so on and so forth.
	So that was the, Trump received it and published it to the world.
	And the criminal statutes that they cited show that how utterly lacking in independence this Justice Department special counsel is.
	And there's separate issues with whether this special counsel's actions are constitutional in the first place.
	And those questions are, it looks like, will be litigated in the Florida case, probably as well in the D.C. case.
	But in that, you know, whether he has the constitutional authority goes back to an old question about special counsels, but even more so here, given the game playing he did.
	But essentially, the various left-wing legal groups out there, some of them are actually called lawfare, for example, others just security.
	Basically, it's the deep state's legal community drafted a memorandum of how to do it and indict Trump.
	And it looks like Jack Smith is following it all the way through, showing the complete lack of independence in the Justice Department.
	Basically, as we'll talk about with the Michigan Elector's case, it's criminalizing disagreement.
	And as we'll talk about the January 6th SCOTUS case, it's all about, hey, you disagreed with who won the election.
	We're going to call that a crime.
	You tried to present arguments to the House.
	We're going to call that a crime.
	You tried to present arguments to the Senate.
	We're going to call that a crime.
	You told the public you didn't believe that Biden actually won.
	We're going to call that a crime now.
	Disagreement with the state is now a crime.
	Disagreement with the official approved narrative is now a crime.
	And that's what they're trying to do in the January 6th cases.
	They're trying to say it's a federal civil rights violation because he was denying people the right to vote by challenging whether or not their vote was correctly counted?
	How is that false certification?
	It presumes there could never be a good faith basis or any even subjective basis.
	Because they've got to prove both here.
	They've got to prove that Trump knew that he lost the election and that it was reasonable for him to believe that.
	They have to prove that both aspects.
	Even if it was unreasonable for him to believe it, if he actually believed it, there's no fraud.
	Because these are conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to violate civil rights.
	You have to have a criminal intent and purpose behind it.
	And that criminal intent and purpose...
	What they're alleging here is you contested the election.
	We're going to call that false certification, obstruction of a proceeding, corruptly impairing a proceeding, corruptly violating someone's civil rights under your office.
	It has gotten to the point where it's almost obviously by design impossible to keep up and to distinguish between these cases.
	This is not the Georgia pending indictment of...
	Find me 11,000 votes.
	That's election interference.
	This is related to the alternate slate of electors and the plan to present the argument that Trump could present his alternate slate of electors that Pence could then ratify and approve and name Trump president, correct?
	That's correct.
	And George is a little bit of a variation of that.
	And it relates to the Michigan case, too, because the Michigan electors is directly tied to this.
	Basically, they're saying, so the only...
	Crime.
	They're alleging mostly old people.
	As they got together on the Capitol on the day in which electors get together, and they signed a document and sent it to the archives and to Congress saying, we're Trump's electors.
	And they're saying that's a forged document.
	That's a fraudulent document.
	That's a false document.
	For which, under Michigan law, Michigan penal law, 752.248, you have to prove a forged public record.
	The public record must be capable of being received as legal proof.
	So it's not just something that purports to be a public record.
	It must actually be one.
	You must know it is false in a material manner.
	And you must intend to defraud someone of property or cause them direct injury by intending to deceive.
	And similar, the false affidavit election statute requires that you falsely attest you qualify as a...
	For registration for voting or a candidate.
	Not clear that even applies.
	168.933A.
	Not clear that even applies to the electors clause.
	But basically, here's the problem.
	The affidavit alleges that, hey, you said you were the electors, you weren't.
	Democrats won in Michigan, according to Governor Whitmer.
	And so that makes it false.
	But the statute itself requires they at least allege that they knew it was false.
	And that they intended to deceive.
	It doesn't even allege it.
	There's not a single allegation of intent in the entire affidavit.
	It is legally insufficient on its face.
	And an honest honorable court, who knows whether you can find those in Michigan these days, would dismiss this case immediately because it doesn't even reach the minimal threshold of at least alleging intent.
	Now, you might have the curse of too much knowledge and too much information.
	I think we have to back this up one step.
	First of all, I was listening to some of these reports break down the Michigan indictment of these alternate electors, and they're saying they met in a basement the day of the election to concoct this fraudulent scheme.
	We've talked about it.
	We've talked about it on VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	The alternate slate of electors as a constitutional legal theory.
	A 30-second summary just so that people who are watching for the first time understand what the rationale was behind presenting an alternate slate of electors who were saying we're the alternate slate and we're going to argue with those who purport to be the electors.
	Explain the constitutional argument for the theory in the first place and whether or not it had ever been done before in one form or another.
	So to take it all back...
	I was not in favor of this particular remedial approach, but we'll explain what they were thinking when they went with it.
	My belief was that the way to attack the election was to simply have a meaningful evidentiary investigation into whether it was a constitutionally compliant election, which merely required that the...
	That the state legislature's rules be the rules governing the election in each state because the Constitution explicitly in the context of the presidency only gives the legislature of each state that authority.
	And that was before the Supreme Court had expanded what role the judiciary could play in it this past couple of months ago.
	And so I said, look, we should look at whether only constitutionally qualified people voted.
	In other words, did anybody vote who did not fit the rules under the state legislature set by the...
	Second, and this would include, in some states you couldn't be registered to vote.
	You were not qualified to vote if you were registered at an absent address, if you were registered at a post office box, if you were registered at a parking lot, so on and so forth.
	And you also couldn't register if you were registered at another state.
	You also weren't qualified to vote if you were dead the time you supposedly voted, right?
	So only constitutionally qualified people voted.
	Let's investigate that.
	Secondly, was the method by which they cast the ballot constitutionally qualified?
	In the case of a mass mail-in election like 2020 was, the state legislature's rules required that certain things about how the ballot was delivered, the chain of custody for the ballot, that gets into drop boxes and other issues.
	But independent of that, at a minimum required that in many states, not all states, that the signature match the signature on the voter file.
	So did they cast their ballot in a constitutionally qualified way?
	What does that mean?
	State legislature sets rules for how...
	They canvass all the ballots before they count the ballots.
	And if their procedures were invalid under the legislative rules, then you had a constitutionally unqualified election.
	And then the question was, were there enough ballots in all three categories combined to raise doubts?
	That's the legal standard.
	Raise doubts about who won.
	I wanted that focus.
	And it said, let's go to the state legislators, let's go to the governors, let's go to the election officials, let's go to the courts, state courts, and then the federal courts.
	If all five deny relief, and I thought they all would, let's prepare this for Congress, because Congress has an established history of resolving elector disputes.
	There's been objections raised in multiple elections by somebody in the Congress.
	Indeed, Democrats have raised objections to every time a Republican has won since Eisenhower.
	I mean, so that gives you an idea.
	Sometimes it's fully addressed by the Senate and the House.
	Sometimes it's not.
	There was the big dispute in 2000 with Bush-Gore.
	There was the big dispute.
	1960, over the Hawaii electors between Kennedy and Nixon.
	You go further back, there was a big dispute in 1876, which went on for months, in which an independent commission was set up, and an electoral count act was passed by Congress in the first place.
	And then you go further back, there were disputes almost every decade or so.
	There was some dispute about objecting, and this goes all the way back to the history.
	Now, as to why they thought their remedy was appropriate.
	Now, I think all this was they got caught up in a trap, multiple traps, honeypots, red flags, red herrings.
	One was they got run down the computer chain of Dominion, and consequently, rather than focusing on signature matches, rather focusing on drop boxes, rather than focusing on whether they even canvassed or counted.
	If we give an example, in Georgia and Arizona, it was my belief they had not even gone through the proper procedure to even assess whether the signatures matched.
	Independent of whether the signatures did match, just did they even go to the right process?
	Was the counting or canvassing of the ballot done constitutionally?
	In my view, it wasn't.
	Carrie Lake has detailed how it was not done that way in 2022, which is going up before the Arizona Supreme Court as we speak.
	But instead of all those issues, they went down the Dominion rabbit hole.
	Were there secret servers in Germany and Venezuela, secret software?
	Did China have secret ballots?
	Did Trump Petty secretly watermark all the ballots?
	I remember all of those things.
	Now, at the time, there was such a churning of information.
	The raiding of Germany and the seizing of the servers there.
	There ended up being maybe some legitimacy to the idea that some of the voter information was transferred to servers.
	I believe it was China because of the company using it.
	The secret watermark...
	It was only a tiny, tiny piece.
	Because one Dominion only...
	Machines only controlled a small number of even counties.
	In Pennsylvania, it's a small minority of total ballots counted, even Concerned Dominion, I knew earlier.
	But basically, it was classic red herrings that would distract from the big problem, that would go increasingly crazy and conspiratorial.
	And people got on me, because at the time, we were critical, and I was particularly critical, of Sidney Powell, of Lin Wood.
	Rudy Giuliani, you know, Jen Ellis is only partially involved.
	Of all these strategies, critical of the Dominion strategies, critical of all the German and Venezuelan, all that nonsense, Chinese secret ballots and watermark ballots, garbage.
	It's also very critical of the QAnon movement, very critical of this.
	People forget.
	They were trying to tell Trump to invoke martial law.
	I mean, it was dumb.
	It was like, okay, this screams honeypot.
	This screams trap.
	This screams red herring.
	And unfortunately, I was screaming in the distance because everybody went down the crazy path.
	Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Linwood, I think, to the same degree.
	And what did they do?
	They burned up their legal career, damaged their client's cause and case, and ultimately led to some of the overzealous, to put it kindly, actions on January 6th.
	And it was all a trap.
	It was all a setup.
	And we now know government informants and infiltrators were all over the place concerning this.
	So their solution was, let's go back to way back.
	Here's what I wanted for Congress to happen.
	This is the last step.
	A House member object to the certification of any election where we had reason to believe that more votes were in doubt as to whether they were constitutionally qualified than the margin of victory.
	And my proposal was don't propose alternative electors.
	Don't try to come to a determination as to who won because the whole point is we don't know who won.
	And instead, go the constitutional path.
	The constitutional path is the House then organizes.
	There's insufficient...
	If somebody doesn't have an electoral majority, which is what would have happened if that was enforced in that manner, then the House votes by state delegation.
	Now, Trump had a clear political edge.
	Didn't mean he would win it.
	Necessarily, if anybody understands who Congress is.
	But I wanted Al Gore to do this in 2000 because this is the constitutional process.
	It would set a nice precedent and it would mass educate the American public about how this process should work, that the political branch should ultimately make this decision of elected officials.
	Instead, their proposal was, let's get Pence to just say our electors are the right electors.
	I was not in favor of that because I thought tactically it would never work and politically it would backfire.
	Now...
	That being said, there was exact history and precedent to support them, and it goes back to the very founding of the country.
	There were disputed electors in the 1796 election, disputed electors in the 1800 election, where the vice president decided to weigh in.
	Alexander Hamilton said it was the power of the vice president to decide which electors to pick.
	So the idea that you could have two different electors submitted to the House and Senate, and the vice president pick one or the other, It goes all the way back to the founding of the country.
	It happened again in 1960 in the Hawaii case.
	Well, I can't, Robert, it's like we're living in two different planets because I have an article in the backdrop that I was going to bring up where I'm trying to get to the punchline.
	It's how Politico distinguishes it.
	But this was what a lot of people rely on.
	It says, by December 1960, it was clear Kennedy had won.
	Only Hawaii's result remained in doubt.
	Nixon had prevailed by just 140 votes.
	A recount was underway yet.
	Nixon, Hawaii's electors met and cast their three votes in an official ceremony.
	But nearby, Kennedy's three elector nominees gathered and signed their own certificates, delivering them to Washington as though Kennedy had won the state.
	So I want to...
	Exactly the same.
	And I can tell you where they got the idea from.
	This, by the way, was while I was skeptical of it.
	But it wasn't just the early historical examples.
	1876.
	Two different slates were submitted all the way through.
	That was the biggest disputed presidential election in American history.
	That's when his fraudulency, the first, was elected.
	We don't have his fraudulency, the second, in the White House.
	And it again happened in 1960, but also it happened again as proposed by Democrats in 2020.
	They created a special commission about how to deal with what might happen in the 2020 election.
	Where they published the different steps.
	Legal scholars did the same thing.
	And one of their protocols of what the Democrats planned on doing, if they didn't like what was happening at the state level, was to submit their own slate of electors.
	So that's where Giuliani and the rest of them got the idea.
	I was trying to tell people, the fact that it came from those people is read isn't to stay away from it, go elsewhere.
	If you can't get...
	The House to deny the election.
	You're not going to get Pence to deny.
	Did Pence have the power?
	Of course he did.
	I always said Pence was a neocon in disguise and a complete coward by nature.
	There was no chance he was going to go through with it.
	That's just who he was.
	You had a much higher chance.
	It was already an outside shot to begin with.
	We had a much higher chance at the House and the Senate voting no on certifying an election in doubt than you had them saying yes to alternative electors.
	Putting that aside as political tactics.
	They are completely within their constitutional and legal history to contest the election.
	And these electors in Michigan did nothing wrong at all.
	Not even an allegation that they thought what they were doing was false forgery or fraud.
	All of which must be required for the criminal crime to even be alleged by the corrupt Attorney General of Michigan.
	But the same is true of Trump.
	There's just no evidence of any...
	Even if you took the...
	Ludicrous proposition that these long-established traditions are now magically fraud.
	There's no evidence they intended anything fraudulent.
	So if this case is garbage, the only reason it has any chance is because of the corruption of the D.C. grand jury, the corruption of Jack Smith, and the corruption of the judges in D.C. Let me play actual devil's advocate.
	Preliminary question.
	Who signs off on the state electors?
	Electors come in and say, okay, we're the electors, but who ultimately...
	Well, in the case of Michigan, this is their problem.
	So the Michigan state law, here's the bottom line.
	Michigan submitted electors were not capable of proof.
	Because under Michigan state law, which is what's required for it to be an official public record, Michigan state law said the only official public record for electors is who the...
	Governor, says the electors are.
	Now, I have constitutional questions about that, but putting that aside, that meant that this couldn't be...
	This would only be if Vice President Pence said, I accept these other electors instead of these.
	Vice President Pence would have to give it legal authority, and until he did, it wasn't capable of having legal authority.
	So that was...
	I mean, they all knew that, too, by the way.
	Nobody...
	These law professors in 2020 suggesting this as a remedy.
	The Democrats, including Podesta and others, they were suggesting this as a remedy in 2020.
	Nobody said this would be illegal.
	It's patently absurd.
	No one has ever suggested that this is criminal.
	So these are unprecedented, unparalleled actions against unparalleled officials in the case of the President of the United States and electors.
	That violates every constitutional and statutory rule that exists concerning criminal debate.
	So it just shows what we have as people who, if you disagree with the official narrative, now we want to put you in prison.
	Well, let's just take like Steve Leto from Michigan.
	He comes in and says, I consider myself to be the elector, one of the state electors.
	People do that all the time.
	People send in all kinds of stuff.
	That's what makes it ludicrous.
	It has to be capable of being a public record.
	So this never was, because the Michigan state law required it to come from the governor.
	This law is designed, well, it's a good transition to the January 6th SCOTUS case.
	This law was designed to deal with people falsifying deeds at the courthouse as to who owned homes, as to who owned property.
	That's how ludicrous it is to try to apply it to an election contest.
	And this would have been, at worst, a case of protest of citizens saying, this was, I don't believe the legitimacy of this election.
	I'm the Republican elector.
	Nominate me or appoint me, Gretchen Quicker.
	It was capable of defrauding.
	Well, you don't have to actually defraud someone.
	It has to be capable of it.
	If Pence acted on it, it wouldn't be because he's like, golly gee, I had no idea that the governor's hurt.
	No, because he would be constitutionally disagreeing with it.
	That's why it's all ludicrous at every level.
	The Jack Smith prosecution, ludicrous.
	The Michigan prosecution, ludicrous.
	The Georgia prosecution, ludicrous.
	Let me bring up the video just because it's fantastic.
	It's one last question I have on this, Robert.
	It took two years to come up with these charges.
	Let me see something.
	This is it right here.
	Two years!
	To come up with these charges.
	Let's hear what the answer to this is.
	16 Michigan residents are facing felony charges for falsely claiming to be presidential electors for former President Trump after he lost the 2020 election.
	And your argument right now is, Pence, in order for it to be criminal fraud, it would have had to be Pence saying, I nominate these electors because they falsified documents that led me to wrongly believe they were not who they say they are, when in reality they were saying exactly who they say they are, and it would have been up to me to appoint this.
	He's even confused by the way he announces it.
	Wait until the question, Robert.
	Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced all of that Tuesday.
	Each of the 16th alleged false electors have been charged with eight felony counts.
	Joining us now is Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.
	Madam Secretary, why did it take so long for these charges to manifest?
	All the material facts have been known for more than two years.
	Why did it take so long?
	You knew about this.
	For two years, wait until...
	I don't know if you saw this video, Robert.
	Wait until you hear her cockamamie answer.
	Hold on.
	How do I press pray here?
	Well, I think the Attorney General's investigation was meticulous.
	It was fact-driven.
	And it was mindful of this moment that we're in where things, particularly with regards to law enforcement around violations of election law pertaining to the 2020 election, have become overly politicized.
	So it was really...
	And by the way...
	This is the Jocelyn Benin that tried to cover up dead people being on her voter rolls, tried to change what she gave to people making public.
	She committed actual crimes during the 2020 election.
	But the fact that the reporter has to describe it as, oh, they were lying about them being Trump electors?
	Clearly they weren't lying about.
	He's confused about what is it exactly they were lying about.
	How did it take you two years?
	Oh, it was meticulous fact-driven stuff.
	And there's no new facts in it whatsoever.
	Robert, it's gotten so politicized.
	her only choice was to indict.
	I mean, it's so political that it would have been the political motivated decision not to charge him.
	Listen to this.
	Carefully, judiciously, and her investigators did so.
	And when they were ready to issue you an indictment.
	I think there was also a question of what is the right move in this challenging political.
	Ultimately it appears she decided that the, the most political thing for her to do would be to not proceed.
	Oh, The most political thing for them to have done, the most politicized...
	The best summation is that, according to them, Alexander Hamilton committed a crime.
	Thomas Jefferson committed a crime.
	John Adams committed a crime.
	Pretty much everybody connected to 1876 committed a crime.
	John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 committed a crime.
	And that the Democrats were plotting and planning a crime throughout 2020 in terms of what they published about the right to contest elections.
	It's utterly ludicrous what's taking place.
	Impeachment, Robert.
	Remove them from the ground and impeach them again.
	All right.
	The January 6th indictment at the federal level, I mean, is this more of the same?
	This has to do with Trump participating, I guess, in seditious conspiracy.
	Robert, they're going to try to get him off the ballot.
	I know you don't think it's possible.
	Here's why.
	First of all, the...
	There's several different reasons.
	My main reason is a simple one.
	The probability that secretaries of state and courts go along with removing Trump from the ballot in close or conservative states is just extremely low.
	Why do I say that?
	They've never done it in American history.
	So even when Eugene V. Depps was convicted of espionage against the United States.
	He was on the ballot throughout the United States.
	Outside of those southern states that didn't allow anybody on the ballot.
	But excluding those, he was on more ballots than he'd been on any time before for the president.
	And he was in prison at the time.
	Probably across the Rubicon, however.
	We're beyond the Rubicon.
	It's never been done is the best argument for that.
	It will be done this time around.
	Same with Victor Berger.
	Victor Berger, co-founder of the Socialist Party with Eugene Debs.
	Congressman from Milwaukee.
	Indicted also on the Espionage Act.
	Both of them indicted because they gave speeches against the draft and against the war, World War I. It was a clear abuse, obviously, of federal power.
	Last real time we saw it to this scale was World War I. It's also when J. Edgar Hoover rose up and so forth.
	And he, too, was convicted, and yet he kept getting re-elected.
	And here's why.
	Even if you want to take...
	A crazy interpretation of the 14th Amendment and that it still applies.
	The first problem is the 14th Amendment only talks about holding office, not running for office.
	Two very different things.
	That's why they tried to keep Gosar off the ballot, Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballot, Madison Cawthorn off the ballot.
	On the same 14th Amendment argument, they failed in all three cases.
	And they've never successfully in American history kept someone off the ballot on 14th Amendment grounds.
	The only example of them keeping them out of office either happens right after the Civil War or only once in the case of Victor Berger, where the House used its power to seat, to refuse to seat him.
	Power that would ultimately be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Powell decision 40 years later.
	Ultimately, they conceded when his conviction was set aside that they had no grounds to not cede him and cede him.
	So even they admitted that crazy right-wing version of the House of Representatives in 1920, or crazy anti-democratic, little d-democratic, House admitted that you needed at least a conviction on a relevant charge, which means you need a conviction on espionage, a conviction on insurrection.
	Which, by the way, the statutes they're talking about for Trump on the January 6th charges are not insurrection charges.
	And for those that don't know, the definition of insurrection at the time that that 14th Amendment was passed requires engaged in violence against the authority of government.
	You have to have been engaged in it.
	The abetting part only applies to enemy of the government.
	That has been traditionally limited to times of war.
	Well, has engaged in violence been limited to physical acts with the body, or can that include words out of the mouth?
	No, it has to be physical violence.
	So it can't be verbal.
	It has to be literal violence against the people.
	That was the interpretation of insurrection.
	That's why the Fourth Amendment was considered limited.
	It wasn't going to apply to anyone that had not already taken an oath previously to them being involved in insurrection, and the insurrection was actual violent action.
	Not just political action.
	It was people who joined the Confederacy.
	Not by voting, but were in the Army.
	Confederate Army.
	Now, there, there was actual declaration of war, ultimately.
	Civil War.
	Same with World War I. We had an actual declaration of war.
	So that's what also made it different.
	But there's always been issues.
	So part one doesn't concern ballot access.
	It concerns holding the office.
	Second, Guess what office is not listed?
	The presidency of the United States.
	It says the Senate, the House, electors for the presidency, and then any other officer.
	And in that context, as the state of New York admitted in what they were trying to fight through removal action, when that's the phraseology, the Supreme Court has made clear that does not include the president.
	The 14th Amendment explicitly excludes the president.
	And you can guess why.
	Because there's a specific remedy for the president.
	It's called impeachment.
	The only grounds to keep the president from office is conviction and then removal and barring from office.
	There's no other constitutional means.
	So that's why the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the president, the removal of disqualification provision, anyway.
	Then you have the additional problems that was designed during the Confederacy historically, so it's application outside of that context.
	The Berger case is the only example where they didn't seat someone because of the 14th Amendment ever since 1898, and the court never had to address it because they threw out Berger's conviction as being totally bogus in the first place due to a biased judge, same biased judge who would later run Major League Baseball, by the way.
	A little side point to history.
	But then you have the problem that the judge pointed out in the Cawthorn case, which is you had amnesty laws passed in 1872 and 1898, which appeared to permanently remove the enforcement of this provision.
	That has never been adjudicated.
	So if they even try it with Trump, it is just extremely unlikely that any court is going to keep Trump off the ballot, because that's a whole different animal than even criminally prosecuting him.
	I mean, the prosecution is in control of the Justice Department.
	The courts don't really control that.
	They can control dismissal, though they hate to dismiss cases and prosecutions.
	But this would be the courts having control over what's in the ballot and secretaries of state.
	That doesn't mean some Democrats won't try it, but it is extremely remote.
	And if our system is so long gone that they're actually going to prohibit the man American from being president to be on the president, then the whole country is lost anyway, frankly.
	And we're in a whole different state of affairs.
	And then people's doom and demise depictions would be correct.
	Because then the courts have totally lost their mind.
	I don't believe the courts would go that far.
	Think about it so far.
	They thought the New York court, other courts would gag him, lock him up, pending trial.
	They're not willing to do that.
	Because they're not that insane.
	They're politically prejudiced.
	But they're not willing to say, oh, American people, I won't even let you vote for them.
	That's a very different animal.
	Let me just ask the question.
	Hypothetically, the worst case scenario occurs.
	The country has fallen.
	What do I do?
	Okay, never mind.
	That's a joke.
	Yeah, prepare accordingly.
	All right, Robert.
	Do we get into the lawyers being targeted for the January 6th stuff?
	Yeah.
	I mean, this is the Texas case.
	Sorry, I'm drawing a blank.
	I'm thinking of Jeff Clark now.
	Jeff Clark is not the same thing.
	So you have Clark and Eastman and Giuliani and Sidney Powell all being targeted.
	But they have now gone after the assistant attorney general in Texas simply for signing the petition they filed to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the state of Texas.
	And so they got a unique process.
	Relatively unique in Texas.
	Texas Supreme Court controls who's licensed, but the Texas legislature set up a separate state bar of Texas that enforces these provisions for the decision to ultimately be made by the Texas Supreme Court.
	And in this process, you have a means of multiple levels of administrative review, you have a right to go to a judge, you have a right to go to a jury trial, you have a right to be in the county where you're a resident, so on and so forth.
	But the mere fact that they're bringing in ethics to the state bar, the initial person who looked at it, said this is nonsense, dismissed it, was overturned by the liberal hacks who run the state bar in Austin.
	And this is why I've been warning against, I'm opposed to licensing lawyers, period, and we're seeing it in live time.
	That all it does is allow the professional and managerial class...
	To misuse and abuse their power for political and partisan reasons.
	At a minimum, we should start putting restrictions on these things.
	And it's why I may have what some consider a deviant opinion on the Supreme Court ethics issues that we'll talk about in a second.
	The courts have proven incapable of nonpartisan enforcement of these rules.
	They should not be this combination anyway.
	But the administrators in charge are, as Jerry Spence used to say, the gentlemen of the bar or the gentlemen of the bar with the top hat.
	They're privileged corporate neoliberal lawyers, overwhelmingly.
	So even though the person who looked at this initial case against the assistant attorney general filed by a political critic, so not filed by a client, not filed by a court, not filed even by opposing counsel, filed by someone who had nothing to do with the case.
	These cases should be dismissed automatically.
	No grounds to even pursue them.
	But that's what the regulator did.
	But then it was appealed to the liberal hacks in Austin, and they were like, no, no, no, this is a very important case.
	We're going to keep pursuing it.
	And by the way, same grounds as the false certification theories.
	Like, you made statements that we disagree with about who won an election, thereby you committed fraud.
	It's absurdity.
	It's redefining.
	Criticizing the official narrative is fraud.
	It's what Robert Kennedy is talking about in censorship context.
	It's what Alex Jones' cases were really all about.
	So the case goes to the Austin court, then it gets transferred to the El Paso appeals court, and it's no better.
	Because what the Attorney General raises, he goes, how is it that I work for the state and the state is suing me when only the Attorney General's office has the authority to do that?
	Isn't that a breach of separation of powers?
	And while it's a technical focus, the broader conceptual issue is if you can weaponize licenses against lawyers, then you can have one branch of the government, in this case basically the state bar, override the legislative branch, the executive branch, the judicial branch in places, because their power over their licensure can allow them to manipulate policy.
	When none of these people are elected officials against the will of the elected officials.
	Because here's an assistant attorney general who simply drafted a petition that was supported by the people of Texas.
	That the attorney general for Texas was re-elected in 2022 because he did this.
	And it's overriding the will of the people of Texas, overriding the executive branch.
	But what does the lazy, authoritarian El Paso appeals court conclude?
	They say, oh, there's no problems with this.
	No problems at all.
	Because you're not being sued.
	You're not having your license threatened because of your actions in filing sued.
	It's only because of what was in the suit.
	Like, that's any different.
	You're allowing a small group of people in the state bar to run ramshot over the entire rest of the elected branch of government.
	They refuse to deal with that straightforwardly because they love the power that it incurs to them and because they're all liberal hacks overwhelmingly.
	So that may go up to the Texas Supreme Court, or at least you do have seven Republican conservative judges, but they are often lazy and lackadaisical at taking these kind of cases because they don't like to gut the court's own power.
	But it shows how dangerous the weaponization of the entire legal process is.
	But including the licensing power, that if you're a lawyer that raises questions about the official narrative, they can take away your ability to make a living.
	Or if you happen to be an old elector in Michigan, they can try to put you in prison.
	Before we get into the ethics of the SCOTUS, let me just...
	Oh, we have the January 6th SCOTUS case, too.
	Okay, sorry.
	Let's do just a few of these rumble rants that have come in.
	I know we got to...
	Did we get to Arkansas crime attorney?
	Can he not sever and remove on federal question?
	We did.
	Can he be charged with treason?
	We got to that.
	Two more.
	What is the penalty for Biden ignoring the Supreme Court ruling on student loan forgiveness, MRK 133?
	All venture an answer and say nothing, Robert, the same way they tried to circumvent.
	He dramatically shrunk the program, so it's only 10% as big.
	So it's not clear anybody who now has standing that would have had standing before because of how much he...
	So the program is now a drop in the bucket of what it used to be.
	All right.
	And I was going to say, the way they responded to the brewing decision, just try to make other legislation and just retest it again, what was already settled by the Supreme Court.
	Boulgadari says it was one of a preservation effort.
	Each state has two sets of electors.
	This is a silly bunch of bullshit.
	Totally not political.
	Eye roll.
	Commence.
	All right, Robert.
	January...
	Hold on.
	What was the next one we had here?
	January 6th.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	January 6th, the Norm Pattis, the case of Edward Lang.
	It's a case we've discussed.
	We just...
	This was a case where the district court dismissed and then the D.C. court in a split decision affirmed.
	That's the one that Pattison, co-counselor, are raising before the Supreme Court.
	It's at the petition for search stage.
	So this is all about that.
	It's similar to the other issues.
	It's reconverting an obstruction statute that, by the way, was passed as part of financial fraud reform.
	To give you an idea of how utterly unrelated it is.
	So they took a statute that says if you corrupted an official proceeding investigation, and they list a bunch of examples, you know, forging documents, fraudulent documents, things like that, then it's a separate 20-year obstruction crime to try to discourage and deter people, particularly in the SEC context, from just forging documents, manning fraudulent documents, etc., but also Congress and other kinds of a full investigative proceeding hearing.
	Prior to January 6th, it had only been applied to those contacts.
	The January 6th prosecutors come in.
	This is why prosecutors can't be trusted with this kind of power.
	They come in and say, you know what?
	If you were at the Capitol on January 6th, then you were trying to corruptly obstruct the electoral certification, and now you can go to prison for 20 years under the obstruction statute.
	Even though there's specific statutes that...
	Call that misdemeanor trespass.
	Even those specific statutes that say parading or picketing without a license and using a sound horn is a misdemeanor offense.
	Even if certain violent crimes are only subject to three- or five-year statute of prison sentences, they were trying to convert it, escalate it, all the way up to 20-year obstruction statutes.
	The district court said this makes no sense and threw it out.
	The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision.
	One judge ruled one way, the other judge ruled another way, and the third judge ruled a third way.
	And so that presents the nice set of facts for the Supreme Court.
	The clear argument is that the word obstructing an official proceeding, what is it?
	You have all these detailed provisions that says here's what corrupting is like, and then it has a catch-all or otherwise corruptly obstruct.
	That has always been interpreted to be like its prior examples.
	Instead, what the lead decision of the Court of Appeals said, and what the prosecutors have been pursuing, and what other district courts have affirmed and approved, and this is the main criminal sentencing risk for almost everybody involved is this statute, is that the word corruptly just means you have an unlawful purpose, you took an unlawful action, and had the effect of obstructing a proceeding, which could take unlicensed parade into you're now a 20-year felon.
	20-year federal prison sentence.
	Unlawful picket.
	Unlicensed picketing.
	Now 20-year federal prison sentence.
	Basically, if they don't like the politics by which you protested, you're now subject to a 20-year federal prison sentence.
	That violates the clear statutory, Kansas statutory construction.
	That violates basic due process principles.
	And so this will give the Supreme Court the first chance.
	And my view is, the more they escalate, like the Michigan Elector's case, And the more they escalate, like a potential January 6th indictment of Trump, the more likely the U.S. Supreme Court will step in earlier and will step in at all to do something.
	They may not do so here, but those odds increase dramatically with the word of the possible going after Trump.
	Because to everybody who's watching it, to even people that were anti-Trump just four years ago, it's obvious way over the top.
	They're trying to pound the guy into oblivion.
	It is amazing because it started with New York.
	Why do I have a screen coming up here?
	Did I just go blank?
	It's outrageous, but the problem is it has a weathering effect on people where they think he must have done something bad if they're coming after him this hard for so many things.
	But he keeps going up in the polls, which, by the way, was the same result for both Victor Berger and Eugene V. Debs.
	After Eugene V. Debs' conviction, he went from 1% to 5%.
	He got one of the highest rates of voter support for a third party in American history.
	And he did so while in a federal prison.
	Victor Berger, after he got convicted, became so popular in Wisconsin, he almost won the U.S. Senate seat.
	So historically, going after people with this excessive, over-the-top style...
	Almost always backfires politically.
	And right now, Trump has the biggest lead he's had over Biden or any Democrat in any poll that he's ever had since he entered office or considered politics in 2012.
	And one side note, Norm Pattis, I don't know that we ever mentioned this, Norm Pattis' suspension of his license by Judge Bellis in the Alex Jones trial.
	That was stayed?
	The suspension was stayed until final resolution of the dispute, so he can still practice for anybody asking.
	How is it that Norm Pattis, who had his license revoked, is still there?
	And that, I guess, hasn't been resolved yet, the $1.5 billion judgment against Alex Jones.
	Okay.
	Ethics at the SCOTUS, Robert.
	I'm torn on this one.
	I don't know exactly the extent of existing rules or lack thereof.
	I don't know the details on whatever legislation the Dems are proposing or contemplating to impose on Supreme Court justices.
	The argument is that they have some proposed legislation to impose ethics rules on Supreme Court justices.
	It would be dead in the water if it were ever presented to the Senate.
	If I made the mistake, found the house there, correct me.
	And it raises the question of the separation of powers as to whether or not they can legislate restrictions on Supreme court justices.
	I'm amenable to the idea of some restrictions because in as much as I love Clarence Thomas, in his legal reasoning and judicial findings, even sometimes when I disagree with him, I still have to defer to his better judgment.
	It doesn't look good what he is confirmed to have done.
	Whether or not other people have done it, it's a defense in that if it's not illegal and if it's not unlawful, don't hold Clarence Thomas to a standard that no other Supreme Court justice is or has been held to.
	I don't like the way it looks in general, but that's me.
	It's not illegal, apparently, and you'll flesh this out.
	What's the essence of what the Democrats want to put forward by way of ethics legislation for the Supreme Court justices, and what are the constitutional...
	So what the Democrats have put out through their committee, it's only passed the committee, it hasn't passed the full Senate yet, it's never passed the House, is that the Supreme Court, it orders the Supreme Court to adopt rules.
	It doesn't say what those rules have to be.
	And then it has one enforcement mechanism, which is that there will be a group of randomly assigned lower court judges.
	To decide questions of disqualification of a Supreme Court justice if a motion to recuse that justice is made.
	Kind of ironic because they don't allow the same protocol to be used for judges below the Supreme Court.
	So the reason why there's political blowback is everybody can see how obviously political this is.
	And that in addition that the Senate is probably, Democrats are probably trying to set this up because Courts are allowed to keep their position as long as during times of good behavior.
	They're probably wanting to establish the ethical rules or failures to recuse as grounds of saying if you're not in good behavior, that you could be removed from the federal bench.
	In fact, they probably want to do so through administrative means without even going through the constitutional process of impeachment, where they know they'll never get the votes.
	For an individual judge.
	And they're clearly targeting the conservative justices, Thomas and Alito in particular.
	So that's the core component of what's taking place here.
	And as people noted in our chat, you know, the irony and hubris of the United States Senate talking about ethics of anybody else raises fair question.
	With so many members of Congress getting so fabulously rich and currently still refusing to pass Josh Hawley's bill that would prohibit them from owning stock while they're senators, trading and selling that stock while they're senators, where they've gotten, like Richard Burr of North Carolina, fabulously rich off of doing.
	And as Perdue and Loeffler and others got in Georgia, part of the real reason they lost those races.
	But Republicans kind of ignored it.
	The legislation is brought in bad faith, and I don't think the United States Senate will approve it, and I think that it will likely get filibustered so that it never even reaches the House, never reaches Biden's desk.
	That being said, in theory, I have never been in favor of the courts controlling the courts.
	What I mean by that is we have a three-part branch of government.
	And to me, that should apply.
	It's why I don't think Congress should have subpoena power, especially over private citizens that don't relate to legislation, but want great limits on it.
	To me, Congress should have to request that from the Justice Department.
	Congress should have police power with its own little Capitol Police.
	For the same reason is why I don't think the executive branch has any business legislating, is why I don't think the judicial branch has any business legislating or executive branch activities.
	Don't like the U.S. Marshals being under judges' control.
	And so the problem is, in the legal profession, judges are the legislature, the executive, and the adjudicator.
	They write the rules governing lawyers and themselves.
	They get to enforce those rules as to themselves and as to the lawyers before them.
	And then they get to a judge how good their rules are and whether their enforcement has been good.
	They are quite literally judge, jury, and executioner.
	And I don't think constitutionally that makes any sense with a tripartite system of government.
	So I have no problem with the idea that the legislator...
	Legislature should control licensing.
	I'm not in favor of licensing, period.
	But if anybody's going to do it, it should be the legislature.
	And another problem, the legislature trying to impose rules.
	Now, I can tell you, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts have rejected that.
	In fact, courts at every state level have rejected it.
	They've said no state legislature can impose rules that govern the court judicial system.
	So they're not going to enforce it anyway.
	It's going to be whether they want to.
	They go along with financial disclosures because they decide, well, we're not going to fight it politically.
	But they don't feel they're bound at all by what Congress says.
	But I've never been confident that's a good thing.
	Now, I think their recusal procedures are deeply dubious.
	How do you have a recusal procedure that requires lower court judges to terminate a Supreme Court justice's recusal from a case, while a federal judge always gets to control their recusal at every other level according to Congress's own bills?
	So if you're going to create a meaningful recusal process...
	You can't have a different standard for the Supreme Court than lower courts.
	Am I not oversimplifying potentially by saying that they have an ultimate recusal process?
	It's called impeachment if a judge behaves so badly in the context of it.
	Precisely.
	That's all the Constitution affords.
	They can't change his pay.
	They can't take away life tenure.
	And there's an argument they shouldn't be able to tax him.
	Judges sued on those grounds many years ago.
	I agreed with the judges' claims.
	Because by definition, if you could just tax them into oblivion, then it's the same as taking away their pay.
	So I agree with the criticism there.
	But the other courts, ironically, capitulated to the legislative branch's privilege of taxation.
	But yes, the remedy has always been impeachment.
	Now, I have no problem with...
	The legislature setting rules by which people practice before these courts and having the executive branch be the sole branch that can enforce those rules and then letting the courts adjudicate the correctness of them.
	That should be particularly for appearances of lawyers.
	I mean, I'm not for any licensure, but if we're going to have any, that's how it should be done.
	Not the way it's currently done.
	And some independent check on judges I'm all in favor of in principle.
	This is kind of a half-assed version of it.
	Done for politically motivated purposes.
	And it could be like the Ethics Act in Canada where you have some investigative process but with no punitive capability and then the punitive capability comes from impeachment if they say, this judge violated the ethics, we don't do anything, now it's up to the government to impeach and remove.
	Correct.
	And we have three more cases before we'll discuss two bonus topics over at the After Party exclusive.
	At vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	But hold on.
	To guarantee your chat answer, give a $5 tip or more there, and we'll answer all of those, too, during the after-party session.
	Two questions, Robert.
	The first is this.
	In the poll in YouTube, what did the protesters say, puke, joke, or Jew?
	It was 73% for puke, joke.
	Puke or joke.
	And 26% for Jew.
	That was a 577 vote, measly, piddly drop in the bucket.
	We got 21,000 people watching right now on Rumble.
	For those who have seen this from the beginning, what did the protesters say in the chat put in one for puke and or joke and two in the chat for Jew?
	Well, you know how you would know if the guy said Jew?
	Go on.
	It was Nick Fuentes in the truck.
	Okay, well now, that was the second part.
	Robert, do we spend...
	It wasn't on the list.
	Do we spend five minutes talking about the Fuentes debacle of last week, Brandenburg, and whether or not I'm totally out in left field?
	Okay, so everybody who has heard the controversy of the last week, I got in a fight with people on Twitter because I immediately became Andrew Torba, Jew lawyer at Rumble, who says, yeah, if you show up on a platform and say, we will make them die.
	In the Holy War, expect that to be violative of policies.
	Nick Fuentes was giving a speech.
	I don't know exactly where.
	It was a live stream speech.
	In the speech, he's talking about, I understand the broader context, talking about the Talmud, the words of the Talmud being in a holy war.
	And, you know, people are saying Steve Bannon talked about a holy war all the time.
	He should get Buddha too.
	Steve Bannon...
	In analogizing what we're going through to a holy war, never said we will make anybody die.
	So the impugned speech was Nick Fuentes saying, we are in a holy war.
	If we're fighting in a holy war, it wasn't if.
	It was, we are in a holy war.
	We will make them die in the holy war.
	The initial stream got taken down for incitement to violence, violating Rumble's terms of service.
	Apparently there was some miscommunication from what I understood from an interview that Nick Fuentes gave afterwards that I listened to.
	Nick Fuentes didn't know it was taken down for that.
	He re-uploaded it, and then it was taken down a second time.
	And in an interview, he said, look, okay, I can understand how this violated the terms of service, where he purported, like, I was talking about a holy war, and I said, you know, they'll die in the holy war.
	It wasn't they will die.
	What he said was, we will make them die in the holy war.
	Now, people took out there and said, oh, Rumble's truly not for free speech, and yada, yada, yada.
	There's only so much of a sensible argument you can have on Twitter before it degenerates.
	You don't have pornography on Rumble, and yet nobody is arguing that Rumble is not a free speech platform because it does not allow pornography in its terms of service.
	So people...
	Who disingenuously want to attack Rumble for allegedly violating its principle of free speech or saying, oh, it's not a free speech platform.
	If I cannot say on the platform, we will make them die in the Holy War.
	I didn't know who them was.
	Everybody knew who them was.
	I didn't say anything.
	I didn't say I was going to kill them.
	I just said we were going to make them die as though that's a material distinction.
	There's no porn allowed on the platform.
	It is not a violation of free speech in the sense that anyone cares about when it comes to terms of services that you abide by.
	People are reflexively going to Brandenburg versus Ohio, where a group of KKK or neo-Nazis come out, they give a speech.
	In the context of this speech, the speechmaker, whoever it was, says, there's a possibility of revengeance.
	Revengeance was the sick.
	He said there's a possibility of revengeance.
	Use the N-word for blacks and the K-word for Jews, I believe.
	And the Supreme Court came out and said that's not a true threat because it doesn't incite imminent lawlessness.
	We're going to do another vote in a second to see whether or not...
	There will be a possibility of revengeance is better or worse, or less threatening or more threatening than we will make them die in the Holy War.
	And that was the whole controversy of the week.
	Did Rumble breach its commitment to free speech by enforcing its terms of service, which even Nick Fuentes in an interview, I forget who he gave the interview with, it was a 16-minute interview, acknowledged, yeah, I can understand that they would have done it, but I just would have liked some more clarity, transparency.
	Robert.
	You talked about it in Locals.
	Brandenburg v.
	Ohio, the constitutional threshold for a true threat versus terms of service that prohibit incitement to violence.
	Was it incitement to violence?
	Was it against an identifiable group?
	Was it sufficiently imminent to be a true threat under constitutional law?
	Was it justified under terms of service that prohibit incitement to violence?
	Your take, knowing what you think about Nick Fuentes in general.
	Sure.
	It didn't violate any First Amendment principles.
	So Fuentes' speech didn't meet the imminent requirement and likely to occur requirement of either true threat or imminent incitement language that is outside the First Amendment's protection.
	But Rumble here was acting indisputably in a private capacity.
	There is no collusion between Rumble and the state.
	There has been no coercion.
	By the state towards Fuentes' speech or these issues in general.
	So that's what separates it from the other censorship cases, Biden versus Missouri and others, ongoing is there you had state coercion and state collusion, so the action was really by the state.
	Here, this was truly by rumble and not by the state.
	Secondly, I have always advocated that the only time First Amendment standards should apply is when someone is a de facto public square.
	Digital public square.
	And I equate that to monopoly power.
	That when they have monopoly power in a particular space, then I think we could constitutionally impose the same restrictions as we do on the state.
	Rumble is nowhere near that.
	So Rumble wouldn't meet that definition either.
	Third, both Rumble's terms of service and the statements that I've made concerning the rule changes that we propose to Rumble have made clear that Rumble will not be a pure free speech.
	In the gab kind of context.
	Rumble's made clear that they do not want stalkers, haraxers, doxers, defamers, copyright violators, neo-Nazis, Antifa, fascists, racists, Klansmen, using their platform to harass and harangue people and try to go right up to the First Amendment line without violating it, which is what Nick Fuentes' specialty is.
	I mean, Fuentes knows what he's doing.
	He has to get constant attention in order to continue his race-grifting, race-hustling ways.
	Anybody who takes him seriously or at face value should have their head examined or should step out of politics altogether because you're too dumb and too slow to be meaningfully engaged in it.
	Now, I'm sure several of his fans will now pay me money to troll me on divagarneslaw.locals.com, which is no better evidence of their IQ.
	And so Rumble's rules are nothing.
	Like somebody was saying, oh, these are as vague and uncertain and unclear as everyone else.
	Our proposed rules are crystal clear.
	You can go back and look at those.
	They're in the process of Rumble formalizing.
	But what they do is you can't incite violence against the targeted group.
	The imminent requirement's not present.
	The likelihood it probably occurs is not present.
	Why?
	Because Rumble doesn't want to become Gab and lose 95% of its audience.
	And those of us on Rumble don't want it to lose 95% of its audience.
	Like at vivobarneslaw.locals.com, if you come in and you're a crude pig, you're going to get kicked out of the board because you're coming into our house, my bar.
	I kick you out just like I would in my bar.
	We're not a pure free speech zone, nor is Rumble.
	Rumble's as much free speech as you can possibly get, but if you're there to try to get right up to the line, Rumble's not going to protect you because you're making the platform an unlikable, undesirable place for people to use, and no business is in the business of losing clients and losing customers.
	The difference is Rumble has proven it will not use political or partisan or government-based reasons to censor anybody.
	It's very clear.
	You can't incite violence against targeted groups.
	You can't break the law.
	And you can't try to get close to breaking the law.
	That's it.
	It doesn't have...
	I mean, Alex Jones, never been censored on Rumble.
	Nick Fuentes has a channel, and 90% of what he publishes is still on Rumble.
	I'll just highlight this.
	Nick Fuentes, in the interview, admitted.
	I can understand how that was problematic.
	But I'm reading the chat right now and people say, oh, so Rumble is YouTube light.
	There's a reason why I'm making such a big stink of my Francois Amalaga interview being removed from YouTube.
	And it's not because I'm a hypocrite with no standards or no self-reflection insight.
	When anybody dares compare Rumble and their application of their rules to YouTube and their application of their opaque, vague rules, Rumble gave the timestamp, gave the clip, so much so that even the perpetrator, for lack of a better word, knew exactly what was being criticized of him and was able to acknowledge there might be some legitimacy to it.
	As opposed to the, I'm not telling you the timestamp, I'm not telling you the rule, and here's a strike.
	So, it's not comparable.
	YouTube and others are censoring stuff at state request.
	Big difference.
	Number two, they're doing so in ways that reduce the number of people who watch and participate.
	Which is just the opposite of what Rumble's doing.
	So, but here's what they're...
	Nobody likes Gap!
	So the people that are criticizing Rumble, what they're really demanding is, Rumble, we demand you be Gab.
	We demand you be a haven for Jew haters and race baiters and race grifters.
	Nobody wants to be you, Gab.
	Nobody wants to be you, Andrew Torba.
	Why do you think it never goes anywhere?
	So people demanding that are demanding suicide of a business.
	That has never been required by the First Amendment or anything else.
	Well, that's it.
	Fuentes still has the channel.
	He'll know clearly, as will everyone else.
	You cannot say you like it or don't like it, and you'll make your decisions as to which platforms you go on.
	You cannot say, unironically, we will make them die.
	Now, people are going to say it was in the context of a holy war.
	It wasn't literal.
	The way people who say that sort of thing don't know who Fuentes is.
	He's a race-baiting, race-grifting, Jew-hating, disgusting human being who is playing off, who has pushed every deep...
	Dark, sinister, nasty, false, fictitious, fabricated, race-based, Jew-hating story you possibly could.
	Oh, I wasn't sure what the Klansmen meant.
	Yeah, you were.
	Quit hiding.
	You're a racist bigot.
	And go home.
	Don't want you.
	And I'll tell you, I'm not sensitive about the Jewish question.
	There's a way it would have been more convenient if you were talking about trans.
	But imagine talking about you're in a war with trans ideology and we will make them die in the Holy War.
	Bullshit.
	It's kind of productive.
	I mean, it hurts the cause.
	It hurts free speech.
	It hurts free speech platforms.
	All the rest.
	So, yes, what he did didn't violate the First Amendment.
	But he got as close to it as he possibly could.
	Well, I gotta tell you this.
	And that's what Rumble is in a safe space for because if it tried to be, you wouldn't have Rumble anymore.
	That's what you want.
	No, but the idea for those who purport to be free speech absolutists who still don't complain about the fact that- Go to Gab.
	Go to Gab.
	Hang out with all the Jew haters and all the pigs over there.
	Nobody else wants to hear from you.
	Is there hardcore pornography allowed on Gab?
	I have no idea.
	No, no.
	Not officially.
	Okay, well...
	If you're in Nick Fuente's DMs, good luck with that.
	And all that stuff, you know, Robert, when you say it would be the end of Rumble, I sort of sarcastically, tongue-in-cheek, glibly said, you know, the more that this goes on, the more I'm convinced that Fuente's supporters are actually feds.
	Like, this is like Ray Epps, go storm the Capitol.
	But it's sabotage.
	It looks like sabotage to me, at the very least.
	Hey, Rumble, do it so that your demise, regardless.
	But also, I had one more thought there.
	The constitutional argument, I understand the imminent argument, but in Brandenburg v.
	Ohio, he said there is a possibility for revengeance.
	That's a definitive hypothetical.
	We will make them die in the Holy War, but for having the war...
	And it's got to be a likely impact.
	Likely impact, right?
	When it comes to the state...
	It's a very different animal to me about how we interpret free speech than a private company that does not have monopoly power that's trying to promote as much free speech as it possibly can and stay alive.
	And hold on, I had one more thought.
	No, I say for the imminent, but for having the word, we will make them die in the holy war now.
	I mean, I don't know.
	He's deliberately coming right up to it.
	And he wants it because it's the only way he gets notoriety.
	This is a guy who pretended to be, you know, tried to be a Ben Shapiro imitator.
	That didn't work.
	Tried to be a Trump influencer.
	That didn't work.
	So then he glammed on to Richard Spencer and made a big deal about how he was censored at university because he attended Charlottesville.
	I mean, this is a guy who is an attention...
	When he's not chasing little catboys around, he's an attention whore who knows the race grift is one of the easiest grifts in the history of man.
	It doesn't matter whether you're Al Sharpton on the left or Klan's people on the right.
	The race grift has been a lifelong moneymaker for time eternal.
	He spent tons of time studying it.
	I don't believe he even believes 90% of the crap he puts out.
	Let me see here.
	It looks like DK Phat says, have a Bud Light on me, Barnes.
	And we got Il Sarto says, STFU about hate speech.
	Okay, I'm not reading that.
	Oh, here.
	Everyone can read it.
	This is picking on people.
	It's American.
	Simotech says, what about big tech syndicate colluding with each other to censor like Amazon and Google with Parler, etc.?
	We talked about that.
	And Nuke Daddy says, how about we recognize one race of people, the human race.
	Why can't we all just get along?
	And the Ross Rodriguez says, pathetic douche.
	And I don't know.
	Whom?
	He's talking about.
	But thank you all for the support.
	Robert, do we do one more and then we're going to go to locals exclusively?
	Yeah, three more briefly before we go to locals.
	Gun insurance laws, Ohio liquor laws, and diversity, equity, inclusion starting to meet its demise in federal court.
	I'll go with the only one that I can add something to.
	Why restrict the First Amendment when you can just impose regulations or requirements that make it prohibitive for people to exercise their First Amendment rights?
	Gun insurance.
	Second, I'm sorry.
	Hey, who knows?
	Maybe they're going to have to have free speech insurance.
	Robert, I'm somewhat sensitive to this idea.
	The argument's going to be for me to fly a drone, although I have no constitutional right to a drone.
	I've got to have insurance to drive a car.
	You have to have insurance.
	I'm trying to think of other things that you do, which might be considered constitutional rights that require insurance.
	Can't think of on offhand.
	Steel man the argument for why it's an unreasonable demand that gun owners have liability insurance.
	Some form of gun insurance that could, in theory, frustrate their abilities to exercise their Second Amendment.
	So the city of San Jose imposed a requirement that you pay a fee each month into the city, that that somehow was okay, but also that you had to carry insurance on your gun of a certain amount of liability coverage, etc.
	And the federal court determined that the Second Amendment has no limitations at all.
	On requirements, on limitations or conditions, financial conditions on gun ownership.
	That it has no application at all to any insurance law requirement.
	No application at all to fee requirements.
	No application at all to tax requirements.
	Well, that's patently absurd.
	Because if you can tax a gun out of existence, expense it out of existence through high insurance or fee requirements, you've done the same thing as negate it.
	And the only thing the judge relied upon was old-school surety standards, which the Supreme Court made clear the old surety standards were only imposed on people after they had been proven to be dangerous with a gun.
	To equate that to insurance makes no sense at all, yet that's what the court does.
	And the other excuse was that, well, they can't forfeit your gun ownership.
	They can fine you.
	And, of course, at some point, as part of property collection and seizure on that fine, seize your gun.
	But that's not direct forfeiture of a gun.
	So it's more gamesmanship by a liberal San Jose political body and a court that let it get away with it.
	Hopefully the higher courts will stop this before it becomes the new wave of gun control in America.
	Has anyone ever made the argument that guns have to be free?
	Otherwise, that's a violation of my exercise of the Second Amendment rights.
	Okay, I'm joking.
	What are the other two?
	Oh, the next Ohio...
	So, for anybody that's ever tried to order good wine from the best wine stores, you know that it's very hard, unless you're in the right state, because you often can only order from within a state.
	There's no interstate shipment allowed by a bunch of states.
	This is a case of Ohio's liquor laws.
	And the Supreme Court had a...
	The Sixth Circuit corrected that.
	And what is it?
	The liquor laws are unique in that you have the Commerce Clause on the one hand, that you can't have prejudicial restrictions on interstate commerce.
	But the 21st Amendment specifically says states can determine laws governing alcohol.
	So you have to, the laws that lifted prohibition.
	So the question is how do you...
	Manage the two.
	And the Supreme Court has said that means states have a little more leeway than they normally would, but they still have to have a public health reason for any law.
	It can't just be, hey, it's liquor, so we do whatever we want.
	And the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said Ohio's law may be illegal because if you dig in, you're going to find their restriction on interstate wine transfers ain't got nothing to do with your public health.
	It's got everything to do with...
	The sweetheart deals they cut with local wine and liquor warehouses for the licensing structure and the kickbacks they give the politicians.
	That's what it's really all about.
	There's no health reason why buying wine from California somehow is worse than buying wine from New York.
	Makes no sense at all.
	So hopefully that revigorates parts of the dormant commerce clause in ways that I think can be helpful.
	At least to those of us who want to be able to order wine straight from the wiring.
	All right.
	And last one before we head over to Locals, and I'll put the link in Locals.
	We're at 1,444 people live on Locals now.
	All right.
	Amazing.
	Great.
	And again, if you want us to answer, if you have any tip above five bucks, we'll try to get to over there at the after party.
	And we'll be discussing how embryos, if they're outside the womb, are somehow property now in Texas.
	Not A Human Life, and about RFK's censorship speech.
	But the last one is diversity, equity, and inclusion.
	Our prediction after the Equal Protection case was that all race-based protocols and procedures in America are illegal, whether it's in employment, whether it's in admissions, whether it's in state contracts, you name it.
	Well, a case just went forward that was issued, one of the first decisions issued after the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision in Tennessee, by the way, up in the Greenville Division.
	About the program by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Association, which was giving preferential contracts based on race.
	And the court determined this violates, patently violates Equal Protection Clause.
	Because a lot like college admissions policies, the court went through and said, we're going to apply the exact same standards.
	You've got to show the program is finite and limited in duration.
	You've got to show the program is designed to remedy past discrimination.
	And you've got to show it's directly connected to intentional discrimination.
	You've got to have all three.
	Of course, what did the government agencies have?
	They had none of the three.
	They didn't even try.
	They didn't even pretend to try.
	They just thought race-based programs are perfect for us, helps us line our pockets politically, so we're going to keep doing it.
	The court said, no, you can't.
	The equal protection decision means race-based preferences and contracts are finito, and it's a sign of things to come.
	Fantastic.
	Now, because there's a bit of a cutoff when we end on Rumble and go over to Locals, I'm just going to play, just want to show everybody what.
	We caught this fish off a dock, Robert, with a little lead head jig, a worm, and a piece of bread.
	And we're not sure if the bread was a total fluke or what attracted this thing.
	It's called a bowfin.
	So as everyone goes over to Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, I took my shirt off, not as a flex, but I didn't have a net and I wasn't expecting to catch up.
	Seven pound, both them.
	You can't lip them.
	Look at this, Robert.
	Look at the size of them.
	I caught it!
	Don't drop it.
	Don't drop the phone.
	Don't drop the phone.
	I'm not going to drop the phone.
	Kid didn't drop the phone.
	This is what I caught!
	It's a joke.
	You're swimming in water with beasts like this.
	Oh my god!
	Look at that mouth.
	Get the pliers.
	This jaw.
	Look at this thing.
	It's called a snakehead?
	I'm off.
	It's not a snakehead or a beaverfish.
	It's called a bowfit, everybody.
	All right.
	With that said, I'll give everyone the link one more time.
	Come on over to the after party.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com Thank you all for being here.
	Snip, clip, share away.
	I'll be live periodically this week.
	I'm going to be live tomorrow morning with Jason Levine on his morning show talking about the Coots Four.
	Everybody.
	Stay tuned for next week.
	Robert, do you have a specific schedule of appearances next week?
	A lot of legal work, so no.
	Ah, yes, you still have that actual law job.
	Oh, God!
	Okay, everybody, get on over to Rumble Locals.
	We're going to be there now.
	I'm going to end this on Rumble in 13, 15 seconds, whatever.
	See you all next week.
	Enjoy what's left of the weekend.
	And vivaBarnesLaw.locals.com now.
	Okay, we're there.
	Robert.
	Before we get into the last topics, let's see how many tippers we have here.
	View tipped.
	Oh, scrolling up.
	Okay, we got this.

▲