Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 31, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:01:12

Ep. 171: Dirty Books! Dirty Politics! Dirty Banking! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	I'm going to check the mic before I get started again.
	How's everybody doing?
	Audio.
	UMC mic is working.
	All right.
	And we're going to do everything before you all vomit in your gullets a little bit.
	We're going to make sure that we're live everywhere.
	We're live on Rumble.
	We're live on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And now I shall retire from your screen and play something that will make you puke in your mouths.
	All of them.
	At the same time, this will be like Scott Adams, what's it called when he does it?
	aggregate moments of vomit.
	Happy Pride!
	Happy Pride!
	This is the stuff of...
	Oh my gosh!
	Did he just say...
	He said Happy Pride Day.
	I didn't see that.
	Happy Pride!
	Happy Pride!
	The adults, no problem.
	Using children for divisive political propaganda.
	Look how nice is white.
	Isn't there a rule?
	There's no white after Labor Day.
	Look at this.
	Look at his face.
	By the way, the kid's shirt in the back says Dude Perfect.
	Oh, my.
	That baby is going to have nightmares and...
	She's not going to know why for the rest of that kid's life.
	Do you know what Mark Twain history doesn't repeat but it tends to rhyme?
	Like you put bubbly music and it's all nice.
	There's a bunch of colorful images in it.
	What could be wrong about using children for divisive politics?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Hold on.
	It made me think of something else that existed once upon a time.
	Here, look at this.
	Here's another video of, you know, politicians using children to convey political messages.
	No.
	Here at least they're getting exercise.
	This goes on for a full minute and a half.
	music
	Well, then it gets a little more sinister.
	History doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
	Politicians using children to push and promote divisive political propaganda is as old as time.
	But for the fact that he's wearing nice white pants, he's got nice fluffy hair, he speaks very nicely.
	The similarities, the rhymes between the Trudeau regime and regimes of the past, there are too many at this point to ignore the similarities in the poetry.
	You know, they used to call it mercy killings.
	Now Canada calls it medical assistance in dying.
	Back in the olden days, they used to target the mentally ill, the handicapped, the mentally impaired.
	And they called it mercy killings because it was for their own benefit.
	We're doing it to spare them the suffering of their existence.
	Canada's doing it now.
	They just call it medical assistance in dying.
	And they don't want to deny the constitutional right to end one's life to people who are mentally ill and therefore incapable of...
	They're not using the kids to promote hateful propaganda.
	They just parade children on stage to say how the government should cut the rights of those who refuse to get vaccinated.
	They're not getting them to march in line, although they're getting them to line up for parades.
	And it's bubbly.
	It's nice.
	It's coming under the cloak of benevolence and tolerance and inclusivity.
	Such inclusivity that if you don't...
	Agree with the inclusivity.
	You will be mocked.
	You will be shamed.
	They will try to cancel you until what happened in Canada.
	A teacher who got canceled for, you know, disagreeing that Canada was more racist than the States ended up taking his own life.
	Sweet, merciful goodness.
	All right.
	Good evening, everybody.
	We've got a hard-out tonight at 7 o 'clock because I'm not saying I forgot that it was my kid's birthday.
	I just forgot that it was my kid's birthday today.
	So we're going to go out for dinner afterwards.
	And I need the internet to resolve a debate I'm having with my wife.
	All of our children are born in the month of July.
	And assuming that, you know, no one was premature and no one was very late, although one of them was a little bit late, we're trying to decide what is the date of the procreation that results in children being born in the month of July.
	So, internet.
	The children were born...
	No one was premature, but it wouldn't really matter.
	But if the babies are born in the month of July, what month would the act of procreation have taken place?
	I'll wait until I see the answers in the chat.
	Now, it's not all going to be vomitous for the intro video.
	There's another one which is going to make you vomit just because, you know, this is the level of the science.
	Holy sweet, merciful crab apples.
	Okay, I'm seeing October.
	And September.
	I'm going to wait for more answers coming from the chat.
	But while we do that, speaking of science, you know, speaking of science, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, after his marvelous appearance on the Patrick Bette David show, where we saw a full-fledged meltdown of the highest scientific order.
	Dude!
	They did trials, dude!
	They have systems in place to make sure that the companies that are producing these highly tested, fully safe and effective experimental jabs are the same companies that pay the highest criminal fines of the pharmaceutical industry.
	Dude!
	Well, he's coming off that epic L, and he's going for another one.
	Now I'm going to forget his name, but he was on our channel.
	He had a great sidebar.
	I forgot.
	I'm sorry.
	Anyhow, behold!
	The year is 2023.
	This is science, and this is an astrophysicist chiming in on the latest science of the day.
	My point is, apparently, the XXXY chromosomes are insufficient!
	Because when we wake up in the morning, we exaggerate whatever feature we want to portray the gender of our choice.
	You see, the scientist, the astrophysicist confounds XXXY with gender.
	Gender is a social construct?
	Okay, sex is not.
	So you want to grow up and say, okay, I'm going to exaggerate my chromosomes to convey the gender that I want.
	Either the one you're assigned, the one you choose to be, whatever.
	Are you assigned a gender?
	On your birth certificate, I mean, I guess maybe it doesn't say gender.
	I think it says sex.
	What do I know?
	I haven't been born in a long time.
	It is.
	And so now, so now just to tie a bow on this, I say to you, somewhere I read, somewhere, I think I read that the United States was a land where we have the pursuit of happiness.
	Yes.
	Suppose no matter my chromosomes, today I feel 80% female.
	20% male.
	I'm going to put on makeup.
	I'm going to do that.
	Tomorrow I might feel 80% male.
	I'll remove the makeup and I'll wear a muscle shirt.
	Let's put a bow on this here, Neil.
	I mean, this is the question I would ask if he would ever come on for a sidebar or an interview, which I doubt he will.
	If you feel 80% male and 20% female, what the hell does that mean?
	Let's just ask that.
	What does that mean?
	I feel 80% male today.
	Okay, fine.
	Let's assume that we know what it means.
	For the individual who says, I feel 80% male and 20% female today, but tomorrow I feel 20% female and 80% male.
	20% male and 80% female.
	Do I have to call that person she the next day and he the day before?
	How does that work in terms of what is demanded?
	I heard somewhere that it's the land of the free, and you're telling me what I have to refer to you by gender?
	Expression when you say that it can vary from one day to the next and can vary within any given day percentage-wise?
	Why do you care?
	What business is it of yours to require that I fulfill your inability to think of gender on a spectrum?
	My point is...
	When did he lose his mind?
	When did he lose his godforsaken mind?
	When did it happen?
	He's got a great voice, and he delivers with passion and gesticulation and an absolute absence of scientific reasoning or even basic logic.
	You're assigned a sex at your birth.
	It's immutable.
	How you identify, all right, if you think you feel X or Y on any given day, who cares?
	You know what the reality is?
	Nobody cared.
	In the best of senses, nobody cared until it came to the point where they said, I feel 80% male today.
	You'll refer to me as a he today.
	Oh, I feel 80% female today.
	The day after, you'll refer to me as she.
	You'll do it or you're a bigot.
	I will legislate so that you are compelled to do it.
	You are going to be compelled to recognize my fluctuations of gender identity in Canada under penalty of law.
	Why do I care?
	I do not give one sweet iota of a damn in the best possible sense until such time as you say we need to recognize this and affirm this in children.
	Nobody cared about drag shows.
	Nobody cared about drag story time.
	Nobody cared about strip clubs until you came and said well now we need to expose it to the children for their own benefit.
	Nobody cared.
	Until you came for the kids.
	Oh, but we're not coming for the kids.
	Oh, but now we want drag shows and drag story time at parades.
	We want them at school libraries.
	We want them for your kids.
	And you can't take your kids out of the programs because gender identity is a human right now.
	So the argument goes in Canada.
	And if you take your kids out of it, you are denying not only the existence, you are denying someone's human rights by saying they cannot twerk their trans drag But in your child's face.
	And then we go full circle now to Justin Trudeau running around on Pride Day, shaking kids' hands and saying, hey, here's a flag.
	What gender are you today, little Jimmy?
	Ugh!
	Okay, so until Barnes gets here, let's get the rules out of the way, people.
	Hold on, let me just get this one out of here.
	You all know these beautiful things that come in in wonderful colors called Super Chats.
	October, isn't that Canadian Thanksgiving?
	I think so.
	These beautiful things called Super Chats.
	YouTube takes 30% of them.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	They typically take 20%.
	Except for the end of 2023, they're taking 0%.
	100% of the Rumble Rants goes to the creators.
	Next year, they'll take their 20%.
	And if the investment works as it should, there will be more people on the platform.
	They will have brought more people in.
	And for 2023, they will have benefited the creators so that in 2024, they will have increased their market share.
	Also benefiting themselves, because it is a business that needs to survive.
	Needs to survive.
	For the betterment of humanity.
	What else was there?
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	For those of you who are new to the channel, welcome.
	The way we do things, we start on YouTube, Rumble, and vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And after about 20-30 minutes on YouTube, we end on YouTube, go exclusively to Rumble.
	And vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	I put the entire stream up on YouTube afterwards or highlights on Viva Clips.
	Oh, I haven't posted a Viva Clips in a long time.
	And that's it.
	All right, let me read some more Super Chats until Robert gets here.
	8249-64105.
	I know there's a symbol in there that I just affirmed by reading it.
	Winston Devin.
	I don't even want to...
	I want to keep the bad juju out of the air.
	Winston, he does not have opposable digits, so he did not do anything illegal.
	What do we got here?
	Mark Giudetti.
	Viva, how much longer do we have to pretend these people are stained before society wakes up and puts them in the loony bin where they belong?
	Without affirming that, people are free to be neurodivergent.
	I think that literally is a word that is going around these days.
	Once upon a time, gender dysphoria, legit gender dysphoria was and is recognized by the DSM, whatever we're at now, DSM-5.
	And the irony was and is that discrimination on the basis of mental illness has always been illegal in Canada.
	I suspect it's the same in the United States.
	So the idea that people suffering from genuine bona fide gender dysphoria would suffer any discrimination in Canada was already protected by law.
	Where it has gone batshit crazy is that what was once a tenth of a percent of the population suffering from a diagnosable, diagnosed, you know, legit criteria mental illness has become a social contagion.
	And anybody who finds that assessment offensive, open your flipping eyes.
	It has become a social contagion.
	What was the latest stat where like 30% of Brown University identify as non...
	Non-binary or LGBTQ2IA+.
	To claim that this is not a social contagion is to absolutely shut your eyes to reality.
	Some people will say the steel man argument, people feel liberated now to truly express their inner beings.
	This is social contagion in as much as emo was once a social fad, in as much as bell-bottoms and...
	Afros were once a fad.
	As much as punk rock leather jackets was a fad, the only difference?
	This is a social contagion that literally leaves scars.
	Being promoted by people who have now been elevated in society not through accomplishments of their own, but through claims of discrimination that have been fabricated out of whole cloth.
	All right.
	Simulant.
	If I can be male or female, then why can't Pluto be a planet?
	No, I made a joke.
	Another one, too.
	Let me just make sure that Barnes has the...
	I'm sure I sent it to him.
	You've got the link, comma, right?
	Question mark.
	Neil deGrasse Tyson put out another tweet.
	Let me bring it up because it's just...
	It illustrates the patent absurdity of the world in which we're living.
	You're born XX.
	You're born XY.
	And then he goes on to say, you're assigned.
	You're assigned a gender at birth.
	No, you're not assigned a gender.
	You have a sex.
	An immutable sex at birth.
	It will never change throughout your life, however you feel.
	But as an adult, you want to do things to your body?
	More power to you.
	Nobody cares in the best possible way.
	The only time anybody ever cared is when you started coming for children, promoting this among children, and carrying out what is nothing less than human experimentation and genital mutilation on children.
	This is Tyson chiming in on the recent UFO.
	They call it UAPS, Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Syndrome.
	I don't know what the syndrome is.
	So he's chiming in with something that I said when I was breaking down that whistleblower's testimony.
	Yes, we found non-human biologics on that craft.
	So an unidentified aerial phenomenon, a UFO.
	Unidentified flying object is not necessarily extraterrestrial.
	It's not necessarily even out of this Earth.
	It could be unidentified.
	That's what it means.
	This guy comes out and says, oh, the woman asks the pilots, were they human?
	And this guy conveniently ignores the question and says, well, we found non-human biologics.
	On the aircraft or on the vessels, whatever it was.
	And I said at the time, that means nothing more than it could have been a dog or a monkey in a Chinese or Russian spacecraft.
	They haven't identified it, and it's non-human biologics because the guy did not refer to the non-human biologics as the pilot conveniently.
	Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist.
	To be clear, all animal, plant, and microbial life on Earth, minus humans, constitutes non-human biologics.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	What if a human identifies as an animal and thus claims that they do not have human biologics or that he, she is non-human biologics?
	Who are you to presume someone's biologics?
	How dare you suggest a human cannot be biologic fluid?
	That's how science works these days.
	Once you've abandoned science and critical thought and critical reasoning, or once you apply critical thought and critical reasoning to the absence of scientific thought, this is where it goes.
	An XX.
	Can identify as a boy?
	And an XY can identify as a girl?
	Alright, good.
	And then you have to treat them as though they are that which runs contrary to their actual biologics.
	Hey, who are you to presume that they have human biologics?
	Alright, let's get these super chats here.
	Isn't this the same guy that would no longer allow Pluto to identify as a planet?
	I gotta go check that up.
	I think that might be a joke that I've been missing.
	Neil deGrasse.
	Lost his mind, especially outside his area of specialty, a long time ago.
	And he is clueless that he is damning himself more than ever, whomever.
	That is from Pasha Moyer.
	And then we got a red Viking sticker, super sticker.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, let me, until Barnes gets here, let me, on the menu tonight.
	Oh, hold on.
	Let me get the menu open.
	Florida versus Disney.
	I'm going to ask Barnes the question that I asked on Twitter.
	If DeSantis, who by all accounts has run for the candidacy of the GOP, is over, if he doesn't bend over and apologize, if he graciously bows out and then endorses Trump, can he salvage the political goodwill that I, as much as I like him, I moved to Florida because I like his politics, by and large, some stuff I disagree with, can he salvage the political goodwill that I recognize that he lost?
	We've got a bunch of other good stuff.
	And then I'll get to some of the...
	Well, let's just do it.
	Very quick, like.
	We got CrazyGuru1 says, Hi, Viva, and thanks.
	CrazyGuru, good to see you again.
	Marty Smith, fan.
	Viva, my son was conceived and born.
	That's pretty...
	Okay.
	And then we got conception between mid-September, there you go, and mid-November.
	The reason why I ask is, Marion and I, my wife...
	We celebrate our anniversary.
	We were married in September, so I'm putting together some math there, but she keeps telling me I'm off on the mat.
	I'll tell you, what does a woman know?
	I identify as a woman now.
	I know what a woman's reproductive cycle is like.
	Okay, Barnes, bringing you in here.
	Three, two, one.
	Booyah, sir.
	How goes the battle?
	Okay, okay.
	I'm not going to ask you.
	We're going to have to make a new shirt that says, okay, okay, Robert.
	Holy crap.
	Just so everybody knows, we're going to go exclusive to Rumble, to locals, at about maybe, I don't know, 20 to 7 because I've got to go for dinner.
	Otherwise, I'm going to get into big, big trouble.
	Robert, what do we have on the menu?
	I got through the first two.
	You want to do it quick, quick?
	Oh, sure.
	I mean, we got Disney, the state versus Florida.
	The Drag Queen storytime case in Montana.
	School books, the book ban in Texas.
	On libraries, sexually explicit books.
	The Devin Archer case, or matter.
	The Hunter Biden plea deal, sort of the big story of the week.
	RFK and denial of secret service protection by the Biden administration.
	The Iranian political prisoner case, which is really kind of fascinating.
	A legal amnesty case to remind people how difficult amnesty actually is to get in America.
	The UFO whistleblower.
	The Newberg 4. Three of them were released.
	The Nigel Farage debanking matter that's now taking on new meaning relates to a case that I have against U.S. Bancorp.
	And the Facebook files.
	Okay, so we're going to start.
	We'll do the Disney versus Florida here.
	Then we're going to end and go over to rumblinvivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, you saw that I got the kid to save.
	He delivered it like a champ.
	Yes, yes, yeah.
	We can put that like, you know, like beginnings or end or something like that of the different video, like video clips, you know, have him.
	The funny thing is he got a brain fart where he forgot the law.
	It was just vivabarns.com.
	Okay.
	Robert, I keep reading the lawsuit, I keep reading the articles, and my brain goes into the same type of freeze as it does when you send me stuff about gerrymandering.
	So the basis of the lawsuit, or the basis of the dispute, you're going to have to flesh this out and summarize it in terms that people can understand.
	They created a district under the law that governs the land that Disney owns so that they can basically impose their own police, they govern their own property, they can...
	Have all sorts of stuff that would otherwise be reserved exclusively for government properties, municipalities.
	And I think this is about where I lose it.
	Now, the council had come to some sort of agreement with Disney that had these terms that I don't understand, Robert, and I can't understand.
	Summarize what's going on so that we can get to the court order that we're going to discuss.
	So yeah, I mean, for those who want a deeper dive of this, the best breakdown is by legal mindset.
	We'll probably have him on a sidebar at some point, because he used to do a lot of this special legislative district representation in the state of Florida.
	So it's a topic that he knows very well.
	And he has been the best explainer of all of these otherwise tricky concepts to those unfamiliar with this unique subspecies of law.
	Bottom line is, way back, Disney was going to create his own community, sort of a dream community.
	And it was on those grounds that he was given extraordinary, that Disney Corporation was given extraordinary powers.
	That never happened, because Walt Disney died.
	And the Disney Corporation never followed up with it.
	Instead, used it as a personal piggy bank and political protection racket for their own self-interest.
	And that finally ran out of political protection when they decided to rail against the so-called Don't Say Gay Bill, which was basically kindergarten teachers shouldn't be giving sex ed classes to six-year-olds.
	And they decided to wage war like they have in their films.
	And the net effect of it was the Governor DeSantis envisioning his presidential run, of course, at the time, apparently.
	But saw a good political opportunity in it, and there was just legitimate, honest outrage throughout the state of Florida that Disney ever had these special perks to begin with, and were now using their power to try to stop legislation that was really very practical, pragmatic, and very popular legislation to keep schools, public schools, only teaching what matters to public schools, not things that are more within the parental duty and obligation.
	And so the legislature formed and they decided to create a new independent district to get rid of all of the old districts, including the Disney district.
	And Disney was no longer going to be able to handpick the people who ran that district the way they were able to do before.
	Usually these special legislative districts were governed by residents.
	Because Disney never created any real residents, its so-called residents were basically itself.
	So they had always been kind of abusing the process, and definitely the original intention.
	So once that law was going to go into force, Disney decided, well, they were going to circumvent that law by creating their own special contracts with their pre-existing board, the board that hadn't yet been replaced but was due to be replaced, to try to basically lock into perpetuity until somebody related to the king 21 years from whatever rule against perpetuity dies.
	And basically say, screw you, the state of Florida.
	The independent commission got together and said these contracts that were signed by the old commission were invalid, void ab initio.
	And the state legislature also stepped in and said, we're not going to recognize this attempt at circumventing what is...
	These legislative districts are subspecies of the state.
	So they're like, we govern this.
	Disney doesn't get a chance to govern this.
	And so Disney filed suit in federal court hoping to get one of the judges that hates DeSantis and is on the left.
	They did, but that judge ultimately reluctantly disqualified himself because it turned out relatives own Disney stock.
	And he said it wouldn't be because of his obvious bias, which there's no better evidence of the problems of our judicial recusal system than a judge like that doesn't recognize his bias and the appearance of it.
	But Disney, the state responded by filing suit in state court.
	And while the case in federal court was saying, look, the state's violating our right to contract, the state's violating our First Amendment rights, and there's big problems in those cases because Disney has no right in the first place to the privileges they were given.
	But putting that aside, the state sued in state court saying these contracts were void because they didn't even follow the right publishing notice and comment requirements, and they couldn't because they would have got caught earlier.
	So Disney moved to dismiss the proceedings in state court on grounds that, or at a minimum stay them, on grounds that they had sued first in federal court and so that federal court had priority.
	The state moved to dismiss the federal court proceedings because they said the state court proceedings take precedence because if they win on their arguments, it moots almost all of Disney's arguments.
	So the state court made a ruling this week, and the state court denied Disney's motion to dismiss, saying, look, you decided not to seek federal court permission as to whether or not these contracts were valid.
	You just assumed they were, number one.
	Number two, whether or not the contracts are valid is the entire basis of the federal court claim, and this federal court doesn't even have jurisdiction over that claim.
	Only the state court does.
	And third, under a range of doctrines called abstention, it's when a federal court stays out of a case while a state court resolves it.
	There's one called Younger Abstention and another one called Pullman Extension.
	There's a whole bunch of them.
	I've managed to litigate all of them in one capacity or another, believe it or not.
	The federal court should probably wait for the state court to decide whether there's any contracts to adjudicate at all because maybe they're void of initio because Florida's...
	Disney couldn't follow it without getting caught.
	They didn't follow the prerequisites for how that kind of committee can pass a binding contract.
	Because again, it's a subspecie of a state.
	Disney ran it like an extension of the Disney Corporation, but legally it never was.
	And so now what probably is going to happen is the state court is going to take priority.
	State court is probably going to rule in the state's favor.
	And despite all the legal eagles of the world, Disney is going to get its rear whooped in a big way.
	And credit in this case to how the state has handled this.
	Whether it's the Attorney General's officer or DeSantis' people, they have done a very good job litigating this case.
	It says the district, which is the tourist district or the tourism district, alleges that Disney controlled its own district thingy thing that you described.
	Disney drafted these agreements, caused them to be adopted that would allow them to retain control notwithstanding Notwithstanding, it's state legislation, Robert.
	Why would this be a federal case in the first place?
	A constitution.
	They allege First Amendment violations.
	Okay.
	All right, now...
	Now there, this is probably, because he was trying to politically parlay this, probably said some things that maybe weren't, you know, from a legal perspective, well-advised, that Disney could claim they were being targeted for discriminatory purposes by official state action.
	Of course, they can't prove that of the legislature, not at scale, and I don't think they have a First Amendment claim because what, taken away from them, they were never entitled to in the first place.
	But that was their thin rail to get into federal court.
	Okay, that's interesting.
	Now this is why I'm reading from the lawsuit.
	Again, it says, in its federal suit, Disney takes the position that these impugned agreements were valid.
	So they're saying the agreements are valid at the state level, and thus the sanctions were...
	First Amendment violations.
	So the valid contracts were violated by constitutionally offensive conduct, therefore the federal...
	So which one gets stayed then?
	The federal is going to get stayed pending a resolution as to whether or not these contracts were valid.
	The state court's marching onward.
	So the state court's not staying anything and it's going to move forward.
	So it'll be up to the federal court whether it will wait for the state court or not.
	I assume it would.
	That would be the reasonable thing to do.
	It might try to march on in an overt political battle.
	But what it reflects is that Disney believes they have far more political protection in federal court than state court, even though Disney's own contracts, as the state court mentions, chooses the state court as its preferred jurisdiction.
	Here's the other thing that's the backstory.
	Federal courts almost never deal with state legislative districts.
	This particular state court deals with them all the time.
	So they know that Disney's claims are going to really...
	Disney knows that someone who understands legislative districts, these independent districts, or legislatively created special districts, knows that they didn't follow the rules and they're not going to win.
	So that's why they needed a politically prejudiced federal court to intervene on their behalf.
	I don't know who the new judge is that's been appointed to the case after the prior judge recused.
	The right thing to do would be to state a case waiting for the state court to decide if there is even valid contracts in the first place.
	That doesn't happen.
	You have a biased federal court trying to protect Disney at the expense of DeSantis.
	Well, I mean, it seems like it violates a fundamental principle of procedure that you could have two mutually incompatible judgments if the federal court says constitutional violation, where the state court says contract null, null ab initio.
	Well, technically, the federal court is not being asked to address whether the contract is valid or not.
	So the federal court could rule, yeah, that the actions violated U.S. constitutional law, but the state court could say that couldn't be possible because there were no contracts valid in the first place.
	Because they're claiming certain legislation that sought to attack their contracts was the targeting.
	Problem is, that legislation only applies to valid contracts.
	The contracts, in fact, were void, doesn't apply to Disney.
	But yes, you're right.
	Because of that, the federal court should wait for the state court's resolution and disposition of it.
	And then Disney's on the clock.
	Disney is likely to lose this case.
	So anybody out there making a bet on it or an investment on it, assume that within a year, Disney loses.
	But I would say 80-85% chance Disney loses.
	Okay.
	I drove by Orlando on the way home and I said...
	I'm not.
	The idea of stopping at Disneyland is so...
	Have you ever taken the kids to Disney World?
	I know we took them a long time ago, and I said I'm never doing it again because it's not that much fun, the lineups are ridiculous, and it turns otherwise wonderful, beautiful kids into screaming spoiled brats.
	You get there, and everybody wants it.
	It takes a normal kid and teaches them.
	They get whatever they want, and there's no way to say it.
	It was a terrible, unpleasant experience.
	Never doing it again.
	Robert, I'm going to ask the question here, then we're going to get the answer on Rumble.
	Speaking of Disney, speaking of DeSantis, two-part question.
	If DeSantis graciously bows out today, tomorrow, next week, endorses Trump, can he salvage the political goodwill that I think he lost?
	Part two of the question, do you think there's any restrictive covenant in his book deal that would preclude him from ever publicly endorsing Trump in the future?
	To be answered on Rumble, people, which is where we're going right now.
	We're going to end on YouTube and carry on the party on the free speech platform of Rumble.
	Ending three, two, one, now.
	Robert, two-part question.
	Can he salvage what political goodwill he may have lost?
	Oh, I mean, he can...
	I mean, I think some of it is he's damaged himself, but he could definitely salvage some of it and maybe all of it by reversing course.
	Because I think there's still...
	I mean, he hasn't exhausted that goodwill that he has.
	He's just weakened and limited it.
	But he could salvage a lot by stepping back and endorsing Trump, saying that now is not the time.
	We have to rally around Trump to rally around the country and the Constitution, etc.
	Answer questions a lot better than he did with Megyn Kelly's interview.
	So yeah, he could definitely improve his...
	And then he...
	He would be a legitimate 2028 prospect.
	I think he's burned bridges so badly that vice presidency that was his to have is now off the table.
	And then he could return to coming up with creative policies in the state of Florida.
	That garner attention and it become the basis for a 2028 run.
	Because there's a lot of issues that he hasn't really fully addressed.
	Like even a Dave Rubin, when Michael Malice asked him about budgetary policy in Florida.
	Dave didn't know the answer to that.
	And Dave is one of the more informed, enlightened, and good intended.
	DeSantis supporters.
	DeSantis, unfortunately, lined up a lot of crooks and grifters and scam artists.
	They've been ripping him off.
	I mean, his campaign was just losing cash hand over fist.
	But there were some good people in that mix that he hasn't fully taken advantage of as well.
	The smarter policy, you have a budgetary policy you can use as a model.
	He claims he would be able to defang the deep state.
	Deep Six, the deep state.
	Well, do the version of that in the Florida Administrative Regulatory System, which has its own problems.
	Prove it there.
	You know, he's fired one prosecutor.
	You know, that's good, but it's still only one.
	So are there no other Soros or other problematic prosecutors in the entire state of Florida?
	Somehow I doubt that.
	Still issues, heavy issues in the bureaucracy in Florida.
	I mean, nowhere near as severe as the federal system, but if he's right, hey, I could purge the deep state, well, prove it in Florida.
	Start there.
	At least the bureaucratic administrative state that's too heavy there.
	And so that would be the smart decision.
	The big question is, does his arrogance exceed his competence?
	I thought his competence was stronger than it was, and he was never going to run in the first place.
	He's proven me wrong in that regard.
	Now, my bets to short him have been very, very profitable.
	Everybody that's at SportsPix has made a lot, has cashed in heavy on betting shorting DeSantis and betting Bobby Kennedy.
	Just that combo, as well as betting Trump, betting Biden.
	So, yeah, he definitely could.
	Now, on the restrictive coveted question, I don't know.
	That would be an unusual one, but that would be interesting to see.
	I think maybe Trump should call for that.
	Release of everybody's book deals.
	Someone should call for that.
	Congress should investigate Obama's book deal.
	They should also investigate whether Obama's former chef had a book deal.
	The one that drowned in Martha's Vineyard.
	It's not inconceivable.
	Who gave him the book deal?
	I know Murdoch had something to do with it.
	With DeSantis, I think it's HarperCollins.
	That's a Murdoch-connected entity and enterprise.
	It's not inconceivable.
	There were stories out there that it wasn't just a one-time $10 million book deal, but it was like a five-book deal, $10 million a pop.
	It was a guarantee of wealth of riches.
	But Murdoch has already completely turned on DeSantis.
	So that's another reason for DeSantis to exit.
	New York Post is running snide pieces against him now.
	That's Murdoch's going to keep escalating.
	He wants DeSantis out.
	He thinks he blew his chance.
	He thinks he's a drag on contesting Trump.
	That's the problem with getting into bed with people like Rupert Murdoch.
	It's kind of like Charlie Sheen's character from Two and a Half Men.
	Chances are he'll be gone in the morning.
	Uh-oh.
	You froze.
	I think you froze at the exact punchline.
	Like Charlie Sheen's character.
	And then we missed the last part.
	Oh, in Two and a Half Men.
	So that, you know, he may not be there in the morning.
	Okay.
	We didn't talk about it last week.
	People were asking, what do you make of a healthy sports guru fit individual who knows how to swim drowning off a paddleboard at eight feet of water?
	Not that that really makes a difference, because I actually know someone who died in eight feet of water, but they didn't know how to swim.
	Supposedly, it was at three to four feet that day.
	And, and...
	They will not or they won't release the details of the police call.
	There was someone else there with him.
	It's not conspiracy theory to say this does not make sense.
	The person I knew who actually drowned did not know how to swim, was walking in water, and they stepped into a spot that went over their head.
	It's terribly tragic.
	Knowing how to swim, being...
	What did they say?
	What's the word when you are an avid swimmer?
	Makes no sense, and people have questions.
	Okay, Robert, next on the list.
	What do we got?
	We got the drag queen story time in Montana.
	So this is the lawsuit that seeks to prohibit or enjoin the application of a law that would require rating and evaluating of books?
	Oh no, that's the Texas one.
	This is the drag queen bill.
	Okay, Robert.
	So we'll get to the Texas book band, but this is the drag queen bill.
	There's too many trans drag books laws going into effect and injunctions to prevent them from taking effect.
	Tell us what's going on with this one.
	All of these reflect a subspecies of people becoming aware of sort of a cultural effort to co-opt kids, either with books in public libraries, teachers talking to their kids about Topics they didn't realize their kids were talking about.
	All kinds of indoctrination taking place either at their school library, taking place in the school classroom, or taking place in public libraries with these drag queen story times to normalize really abnormal behavior.
	And so you have men dressed up as women in sexually provocative behavior reading books to little kids.
	And there's no question that drag queen story time wasn't really intended to be just fun joyous.
	It was intended to normalize what many people consider sexual deviancy.
	So the legislatures of various state governments and various local governments, as it may be applicable, have tried to pass laws to deal with it on top of trans treatments, which is about minors getting these radical treatments to change their gender.
	So all of these are of a subspecie, of an indoctrination effort.
	I mean, to the degree that in the, you know, the cake bakery context, they try to force you to coerce speech of make, you know, bake the cake, celebrating trans or other things.
	So Montana passed a law, and the issue is, so far, almost every law that's gone to federal court has been struck down.
	Whether it's a trans-treatment restriction, whether it's a book limitation in public libraries, whether it's drag queen storytime performances, any of these subspecies of law, for the most part, federal courts are rushing in to knock them down.
	Sometimes it's because it's a little bit of a power grab by some of the state actors involved.
	Sometimes it's because the laws are not particularly well-defined.
	They're trying to get at something, but they want to keep it vague enough to get what they want without losing what they want, but in the process are creating laws that could get to things that aren't really the focus of the law and raise constitutional questions.
	But mostly, if you look at the profile of the courts involved, the courts are simply on a different political viewpoint.
	They socially and culturally are more sympathetic with the trans community.
	And with the gender identity movement, that's been reflected in employment decisions and in other cases.
	And unless religion is directly implicated, much like the vaccine context, federal judges are on the same side as their professional managerial class brethren.
	This is what happens when you have a society governed between bureaucracy, a professional political class taking over representative government.
	And then judges, you're governed entirely by one small sector of society.
	You know, about one in ten, a maximum one in five, really.
	One in ten, maybe one in eight.
	Of all people are what you could call professional managerial class people.
	People with post-college degrees, people that have credentials and licenses.
	People whose main pedigree is their education, not their life experience.
	People who come from multiple generations, often of professional managerial class background.
	So their bubbles are really small.
	People who think, like too many people it turns out, think Barbie movie mantra of third wave feminism is a good idea.
	Or just fine.
	Totally normal.
	So when these judges get these cases, they don't think, why are we mutilating an eight-year-old's genitals?
	Why is a stripper reading books in the public library to a nine-year-old while the nine-year-old's on their lap?
	They sit there and say, oh, that's so normal.
	Oh, that's so normal.
	I just saw it on my TV show last week.
	That's who these judges are.
	And so consequently, that's how they approach these cases.
	So the drag queen story time bill, the legislatures are still struggling a bit to get to clear definitions.
	Now there are some things, the judge actually said he didn't know what being in the presence of someone under the age of 18 meant.
	He said that was vague.
	How is that vague?
	Someone under the age of 18, you couldn't have a better definition.
	So some of his rulings...
	We're kind of ludicrous and preposterous.
	The Montana Federal Court.
	But the Montana Federal Court basically came in, set aside the law, said violates First Amendment rights.
	It's too vague because everything apparently just judges view is vague.
	There were some provisions of the statute that were vague.
	And there were some provisions of the statute that reached further than they needed to.
	Because the people, it's a weird title of a case.
	The Imperial Sovereign Court of Montana.
	So you might think, what in the heck is that?
	Well, that's, of course, the people who sponsor the Pride Parade in Montana.
	Anybody who's actually been to a Pride Parade these days understands it's not quite what they thought it was.
	But this is what I don't understand.
	The judge says that the measure will likely disproportionately harm not only drag performers, but any person who falls outside traditional gender and identity norms.
	Did you notice his reference to who he was really concerned with?
	The two-spirit people.
	Are you aware of who the two-spirit people are?
	Well, in life or in this particular case?
	At all.
	Yeah, it's natives.
	It's natives in Canada.
	Well, I discovered what the 2S was in the 2SLGBTQIA.
	It's natives who two-spirit, meaning, I guess, the spirit is the gender, and they've historical...
	You know, religious and cultural things that have existed.
	The only thing I don't understand here...
	I just thought it meant a pervert who's a Native American.
	Robert, I'm trying to be diplomatic about this.
	What does that tell you about a judge?
	I'm really concerned about the two-spirit people.
	It's history rhyming that they're cloaking their abject...
	It's not tyranny in this case.
	It's just degeneracy under the veil of benevolence.
	What I don't understand, I can't understand.
	They try to legislate a cultural issue and they come in and say, we're not going to have inappropriate books for your specific age category.
	Okay, vague.
	There are decency laws out there.
	There are already child abuse laws out there.
	Why enact new legislation that's going to be problematic and clearly politically targeted as opposed to just enforcing already existing laws of decency?
	An adult twerking their ass in front of a kid is indecent and apply the existing laws.
	Well, because they're not.
	So there's two problems, really.
	One, it's people who don't have institutional power using the one means of institutional power they have available to them, which is the democratic process, to check all of the institutions trying to force and indoctrinate their kids and their radical ideas of gender and sexuality.
	So that's why it's been left up.
	So the legislative branches.
	Because the executive branch isn't enforcing it.
	The judicial branch is not respecting it.
	So the corporations are all bought in.
	You know, there's only, for every Bud Light that goes, you know, go woke, go broke, there's a Barbie that go woke, go rich.
	So in order to counteract this, you're left as an ordinary parent with your legislature.
	That's pretty much it.
	As you note, there's going to be sloppiness with that.
	They probably need to come up with a template law that's clear and cleaner that would avoid these judicial traps.
	Now, I think some of these judges would have found an excuse to shove it down everybody's throat anyway because they think this is normal.
	They think this is okay.
	They think these are backwards, backwoods, Incompetent Americans who need to learn what good values are.
	Take your kid to Barbie six more times so you get the message.
	These judges believe in this.
	Even so-called conservative judges generally believe in this.
	Their only restraint is on religion.
	Or if you're messing around with a big corporation, then they become very sympathetic.
	But otherwise, sadly, they don't because it's a prejudice of the professional class as a class.
	Not everybody has it.
	But 80% or more have it.
	It's a virus within that community.
	And so that's what I think that the problem...
	Now, here, the key is obscenity laws don't reach it.
	Because obscenity laws require it to be patently offensive, require it to be prurient, sexually suggestive, according to community standards.
	But the key third part is the carve-out.
	And this is why they're not including these in either the book limitations or the drag queen story time performances and the rest, is because if it has any scientific, artistic, literary, or politically expressive...
	This is, by the way, what that nitwit Jew-hating Andrew Torba at Gab doesn't understand.
	He's like, I'm a purist on the First Amendment.
	No, he's not.
	Because...
	If it has scientific, political, literary, or artistic value, he has to allow the pornography he doesn't allow on his platform.
	Because all of that, at various levels, can fit one of the four.
	And so that's where they run into trouble.
	They're trying to reach these issues that don't fit the current constitutional constraint on obscenity.
	Now here, there were some laws that were still, some words left vague, more vague than they needed to be.
	Sexually oriented performances, removal or simulated removal of clothing in a sexual manner.
	First of all, if they're going to ban sexually oriented performances, Nicki Minaj, WAP, is going to have to, you know, you can't play that publicly.
	So that'll be one argument.
	Removal of clothing.
	Yeah, sorry, go for it.
	Yeah, I was going to say, that's where they could be a little more clear, be a little more specific.
	Use the laws on the books governing adult clubs and adult bookstores.
	Now, in some of these cases, they've done that.
	And these courts are saying, well, though, because they restrict access already based on age to First Amendment protected materials that are prurient materials.
	They're not obscene.
	They're just considered sexually explicit.
	And because of that, they're allowed to limit minor access to it.
	And so the...
	But so I think there's aspects of this that need improvement, but what they're really running into is hostility from the judicial branch, because they're on the other side of the culture wars, in my take.
	And so the judge issued a temporary restraining order invalidating the entire law.
	Now, here's another problem.
	Too many of these states in their attorney general's office are usually defending it.
	Same professional managerial class, same prejudice.
	In the Arkansas trans case, they managed not to produce hardly any evidence in support of the trans treatment laws.
	Now, this was done on an emergency basis to make sure that the Pride Fest could go out.
	And people don't know.
	People take their kids to those Pride Fests, and they're shocked.
	And often what they see.
	They don't understand there's sexually explicit activities that should not be permitted.
	And I mean permitted in the permit sense of the word.
	The permit should limit that conduct.
	You know, you want to raise the rainbow flag, have at it.
	That doesn't give you a right to be naked.
	That doesn't give you the right to be sexually explicit in the kind of things you're doing.
	That doesn't allow you, pride doesn't extend to pedophilia in being a pederast.
	Which some of these people seem to be confused about.
	I think the plus means a lot of things.
	Setting aside the constitutional argument of decency, there are laws against public nudity, like it or not.
	And when I went to the Pride event in Montreal in 2018...
	And a lesbian woman that I was friends with at the time said, Montreal's good, but don't take your kids to the one in Toronto.
	That's a little hardcore.
	First, I'm not taking my kids to the one in Montreal anyhow.
	It was pretty innocuous.
	They've since gotten less innocuous.
	But even the community appreciated it was hardcore, the one in Toronto.
	There was stuff that kids are not supposed to see.
	The extraordinary thing to me is if you're in the LBGTQ community, And you want to claim you're not obsessed with gender, you're not obsessed with sex, and you're not deviant or perverted in a way.
	Why do parades and why do events that appear to be, that most people describe as perverted and disgusting, sex-obsessed and gender-driven?
	They keep proving their critics correct.
	I mean, if they were, you know, I know plenty of people who are gay who are not out there doing the pride nonsense.
	Not true for, I mean, as I pointed out before, the rate of domestic violence in the trans community is off the charts.
	That's a mental illness.
	That's what that is 90% of the time.
	I know there's some people born with certain conditions, etc.
	But 90% of the time, people that are trans are mentally ill and should be nowhere near teaching kids anything.
	Reading anything to kids.
	That's the reality of it.
	They don't want to hear that.
	And they'll go, and they prove they're not nuts.
	By going nuts every time you tell them, maybe you're nuts.
	Anyone who wants to witness it and judge for yourselves, go look at my live stream of the Ottawa protest, Education on Indoctrination, and you look at both sides of the protest, protesters and counter-protesters, and if you come to the conclusion that both sides are equally rational, logical, and sane in their behavior, we will agree to disagree in our assessment of reality.
	But, yeah.
	Now...
	That naturally transitions into Texas' attempt to deal with this in school libraries.
	The Texas book ban, as it's being called, they filed suit.
	I don't think a federal court has ruled on it yet.
	I think they filed suit in Austin, so if they get the right judge, they'll be ready to roll there too.
	But I do have more problems with the way they went about enforcing this.
	Two issues here.
	One is I agree with the general principle.
	That libraries should be run locally.
	Not by the feds.
	Not by the state.
	So I'm not in favor of the state getting in the business of controlling local libraries.
	Instead, that should be a local legislative issue.
	County commission, school board, etc.
	And if you lose at that level, you lose at that level.
	So be it.
	But what's amazing is the same people that say bake the cake.
	Because their goal is they don't really care about free speech.
	They care about indoctrination.
	And they want to use their First Amendment rights to indoctrinate your kids.
	I'll add to that.
	Indoctrination and submission.
	It's a question of dominance and submission.
	And I'll read a section of this lawsuit in a second, Robert.
	Carry on.
	Well, Paul Joseph Watson puts it, they'd like your death, but they'll accept your submission.
	Michael Malice says the same thing often.
	And so there's definitely attributes of that.
	But here, the way they passed the law, they said anybody who provides books to libraries has to impose a rating and licensing system, and they use the movie system as their guidance.
	And I think that's probably a little bit of a trickier route to run.
	It looks like the old censorship boards that states had between 1920 and 1980, where they were involved in things.
	Just what was going into public libraries or school kid libraries.
	So I think the goal of removing sexually explicit materials from access to kids is a good goal.
	I think the method, the devil's in the details, is questionable because it could open it up to not only easy constitutional challenges, but also abuses of state power.
	And also a rating requirement kind of sounds like coerced speech, so it has that problem too.
	But you have a rating system for movies.
	You have a rating system for music.
	You have a rating system for video games.
	Why could you not just as easily have an equally applicable rating system for books?
	And I think that will be their argument.
	The argument is that that's all that they are doing is mirroring it.
	There's just aspects where either definitionally or in criminal enforcement or civil suit provisions, they go beyond what those regulatory systems do.
	And my understanding on some of these is that those are voluntary rating systems imposed by various...
	Collections and consortiums of private companies rather than impose at the state governmental level, though I haven't looked at it in quite some time.
	But I think what they should avoid is looking like censorship boards.
	And they shouldn't strip power from either parents or local governments that better belong there than at the state level or federal level.
	I think that's where the problem is real.
	The solutions still are a little bit hit or miss.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm reading it.
	This is the allegations out of the lawsuit.
	They've defined the book ban as the legislation.
	Requires booksellers assess all books previously sold to public schools that remain in active use.
	Rate them as sexually explicit material or sexually relevant, if applicable.
	And they say, you know, they go on to try to define these terms.
	Yeah, all right.
	That can't be an administrative burden.
	That's something librarians are already supposed to do.
	I mean, I would find it easier rather than rating things or the rest.
	That no state-funded public library shall have books accessible to minors that fit certain categories of what is otherwise obscene but might have value, but you're allowed to limit sexually explicit First Amendment materials, even if not obscene, from access to minors.
	I think that would have been a simpler...
	Path to pursue and then maybe create private rights of action to sue as the enforcement mechanism that would effectively wake those people up rather than create a new regulatory schema, licensing board that invites more state power that's probably always going to get abused down the road for something way past the purpose of this.
	And who was it?
	Okay, no, it doesn't matter.
	I was talking about potential solutions to this problem, but...
	Everyone should go watch the Patrick Bet David Anthony Weiner interview.
	It's classic.
	Okay, interesting.
	So that lawsuit has just been filed.
	There's been no decision or no interim restraining order issued.
	We'll see where it goes with that.
	Speaking of people that know a lot about obscenity and perverts...
	Speaking of degeneracy, Hunter...
	Okay, so here's the deal.
	Devin Archer, here's the deal.
	I just sounded like Joe Biden for a second.
	Devin Archer.
	I don't know that many people know enough about him.
	I just summarily looked into his history or past.
	Was one of Hunter Biden's business associates, or at least worked with Burisma as well.
	Was convicted of conspiracy to defraud a Native American tribe in 2018.
	His sentence was handed down in February 2022.
	Postponed until appealed.
	He has now, he's a criminal, I guess.
	He's a criminal because he's been convicted.
	Maybe he's exonerated and I'll have to refer to him as no longer a criminal.
	Been convicted for fraud.
	Has turned whistleblower to show up before congressional hearings and testify as to the degree to which Joe Biden was well aware of Hunter Biden's business dealings, the corrupt, corrupt is an understatement, family.
	Everything that's been going on.
	Hunter Biden working for Burisma.
	Joe Biden well aware of it.
	Apparently maybe the 10% for the big guy.
	All of this.
	He's scheduled to testify today.
	I haven't been caught up on his testimony.
	Gets a letter from the Department of Justice calling for him to show up for prison.
	I mean, you're going to have to explain this because I don't know.
	I understood that his...
	Sentence was suspended pending appeal, or so I thought.
	I don't know what violation he is alleged to have committed that would now see the Department of Justice say, go straight to jail, forget the suspension pending appeal.
	Who is Devin Archer above and beyond my superficial understanding?
	And what is the argument to all of a sudden say, show up to jail, although their counter argument to this is, we weren't trying to prevent him from testifying because we told him to show up for jail.
	So, you know, the Hunter Biden was always Joe Biden's bag man.
	And there was this idea that Hunter was doing all this out on his own, on his own accord, to feed his own habits.
	That his poor father was kind of saddled with is utterly ludicrous.
	This was being done at the instruction, at the behest and behalf of Joe Biden.
	So that's the first thing that people should understand.
	This is not a family member trying to cash in on political cachet.
	This is a kid effectively being ordered, coerced, and forced by his father to be his personal bag man for various forms of bribes and favors while he was senator and vice president.
	And during that time period, they put together a, this is the Biden style, you put together an old school political machine of friends and allies and included, I believe, the son of, a relative of Senator Kerry.
	Who was then Secretary of State, Kerry, for a period of time under the Obama administration.
	Like John Kerry needed the money, I mean, or the kid needed the money.
	But these are people that are just addicted to more cash, part of a degeneracy of Washington, D.C., writ large, a declining empire, parasitically surviving off the peasantry by selling them out to foreign interests.
	And that's what Hunter did.
	And so the Devin Archer was a partner in that.
	And along with others.
	And so they were scamming people all the time.
	Now, sometimes the scams were so bad they didn't deliver on the bribes.
	They took the bribe and didn't deliver the quo that came with the quid.
	Whether that happened in certain Chinese cases, happened in certain Native American tribe interests.
	And this is the lobbying game writ large.
	Pretty much every lobbyist in Washington, D.C., you could send to prison.
	Because in my experience with them, I've never trusted a word they say.
	They always use gobbledygook, but they have secret mojo connections.
	In my world, criminal tax representation, that gets exposed.
	So when somebody says, oh, I got the connections, and I can work it out, and it's going to be a sweetheart, blah, blah, blah, and that never happens, and it does never happen.
	Then that tells people that these lobbyists are full of it.
	But in the world of legislation, in the world of executive enforcement, it's always hard to know what's really happening behind the scenes.
	They use that lack of transparency to just rob people blind.
	So that's the accusation in part against Devin Archer was that as part of this sort of ongoing lobbying operation, he scammed some Native American tribes.
	Archer clearly believed.
	That his connections to Joe Biden would protect him politically.
	And when he ended up indicted and ended up convicted, and then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals didn't reverse and affirm the conviction, as when he's like, screw this, I'm starting to talk to Congress, because I got a lot of records, and since you boys won't step in to save me, I'm going to throw you boys under the bus.
	So, what happened is, on the Saturday before...
	Now, this was misreported by some people in the press because of the confusion that can happen around the federal criminal process.
	Once the mandate had issued from the Second Circuit after they had affirmed his conviction, he was likely granted bail pending appeal.
	There's an argument for revocation of his bail pending appeal.
	And that he now be issued a date to self-surrender to prison.
	Why?
	What would be the argument for revocation of appeal?
	So typically what happens is you could get detained pending trial if you're not given bail.
	Once convicted, there's a bias in favor of detention.
	So you have to make an argument for it to stay on bail pending sentencing.
	Then usually what happens at your sentencing is they give you 30 days to quote-unquote self-surrender.
	So they, to wherever the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Marshals will notify you, but it's the Bureau of Prisons that picks the prison for you to self-surrender to.
	So a self-surrender date basically just tells the Marshals to tell the Bureau of Prisons, tell us where this guy's going so we can notify him.
	So if he doesn't show up on the date in question, we can go tell the judge and arrest him and take him there.
	I've had a few ex-clients skip out on self-surrender date.
	And so the U.S. Marshals helped give them a ride there.
	The reason why you want to do a self-surrender date is if you get stuck inside, you get what they call the bus ride, the special bus ride.
	They do this all the time, the feds, to harass people.
	It's quasi-torture.
	It's just not legally recognized.
	What is the special bus ride?
	So what happens is they stick you on a bus to go to your facility.
	But that bus, one, is extremely uncomfortable.
	You're in handcuffs and cuffs on your feet.
	And the bus tends to go everywhere.
	And it's like picking up George, picking up Joe.
	It's like the Uber share ride from hell.
	And you're stuck on that thing often for days and days and days.
	So you can imagine it dry.
	They actually used this in a famous case from a case out west that people may remember, a quasi-cult case.
	Some people would say that.
	To get a guy to confess.
	He just couldn't handle the bus ride.
	So, I mean, that's how egregious it is.
	So, you always want the self-surrender.
	You don't want to be stuck in the federal detention with the hardcore criminals.
	You don't want to be stuck on that bus ride.
	You want to be able to voluntarily just show up at the facility.
	So, you don't have to deal with any of that.
	So, that part of the process, saying, hey, Judge, by the way, the appeal's been reversed.
	We think...
	There should be a surrender date set.
	That's not that unusual.
	What's unusual is when they did it.
	Now, it got interpreted as they're trying to arrest him before he shows up in Congress.
	That wasn't what it was.
	That wouldn't legally happen.
	All that is is, hey, judge, we think a self-surrender date should be set because he lost his Second Circuit appeal.
	Technically, what they're really asking for is that his bail...
	Pending appeal is now exhausted because his appeal is exhausted.
	Now, his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is not exhausted.
	So that's where their argument was.
	We're going up to the U.S. Supreme Court, so we think bail-pending appeals should stay for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve it.
	This is why the issue wouldn't happen.
	Nothing was going to happen fast because the district court was going to have to assess all this.
	So then the question becomes, because they couldn't actually arrest him, couldn't actually force him into custody right away, Why send that letter on a Saturday?
	That was my first question.
	The letter was drafted and sent on a Saturday, not received and reported for whatever the reason on a Saturday.
	Not to be glib.
	What kind of state worker is working on a Saturday in the absence of an emergency?
	The one that's worried about what Devin Archer is going to say to the Congress.
	Remember, he was supposed to testify last week, so it's clear that the feds have been trying to put pressure on him not to testify.
	And if his lawyer was smart, his lawyer might have been trying to negotiate.
	His lawyer might have been saying, hey, why don't we look at this?
	Or why don't we reconsider this?
	And then maybe he has no motivation to step forward.
	Or he decides to just not do it or not participate.
	Because he technically, even though he's been convicted, would still have Fifth Amendment rights.
	And clearly, they weren't getting what they wanted.
	But it was punishment.
	There's no doubt about it.
	They sent the letter in to say, this is a reminder how we can punish you if you do things we don't like.
	We can accelerate your self-surrender date.
	And who knows what happens with which prison you may get assigned.
	Who knows if maybe an arrest warrant isn't issued for you at some point, instead of a self-surrender date.
	I mean, it's meant to...
	The last power they have...
	They used to try to threaten him.
	Now, they got called on it.
	So later the same day, they sent a letter to the judge saying, we don't want to interfere with his appearance before Congress.
	We would never want to do that.
	It was obvious to everyone what they were trying to do.
	Okay.
	Working on a Saturday in the absence of an emergency, but there is an emergency, his testimony today.
	There's no emergency in sending that letter.
	I mean, that's just normally, the mandate comes back, the district court sets a date.
	What's the rush?
	There's usually no rush for that.
	I've never seen that done, ever.
	So it was purely punitive as a reminder to Devin Archer before he testified.
	The federal government still has a few quills left that they can use.
	Now, Robert, before we get into the plea deal that seems to be on...
	Permanent hold right now?
	Unless something happened today.
	Let me address, or at least read, the rumble rants that I haven't read yet.
	Very quick.
	Reloading.
	Conception between mid-September for birth July 1st and mid-November for birth July 31st.
	All right, we got Marty Smith.
	Did I read this?
	I was conceived 2798 and born 1170.
	That's premature.
	No, that's normal.
	Hi, Viva, and thanks.
	I got this already.
	I did not know what a twit Neil was.
	No, that's Neil deGrasse Tyson, not Neil Farage.
	We're going to get to that later.
	Crazy Guru.
	Disney has been abusive in all sense of the word for a long time.
	I had no idea how deep that rabbit hole went when I went down it.
	Jennifer says, DeSantimonious is done.
	MAGA will never, ever trust him again.
	and Republican Party is the MAGA party and doesn't exist without MAGA.
	Ronnie blew it and will never get the approvals again.
	He's dropping to third now.
	CrazyGuru1: "Coercion of anything negative around our children is pure evil.
	God's children are What if they identify as 18?
	Jokes, but not jokes.
	That's going to be the next level of legalizing that, which is illegal.
	Vivek made his fortune selling hedge funds.
	The sleaziest part of the stock market.
	Think about that.
	Never mind being part of the pharma industry.
	Why so much trust for him?
	That's from my Mr. Tux.
	Crazy Guru 1. You and Barnes have put me on American Time.
	Because I think Crazy Guru is in the UK.
	Okay, good.
	Thank you for all those crumble rants.
	Robert, the plea deal.
	There's no news above and beyond the plea deal imploding, exploding, evaporating.
	They didn't finalize a plea deal today.
	Not that I know of, no.
	I mean, it was the big story of the week.
	And I was surprised that people did not fully absorb.
	Well, I think our board knew it.
	But people were actually surprised in the media, in some of the legal media, because they hadn't been watching the Sunday show, probably.
	They had been derelict in their duties.
	Actually believed that this was not a quid pro quo to be an immunity deal.
	And that's why he said from the very beginning, he said this is just like the Hillary deal.
	This isn't about the tax charges.
	This isn't about the gun charges.
	This isn't about the drug charges.
	This is all about giving him immunity on the money laundering and the bribery and the foreign illegal lobbying charges so that he cannot be a witness against his dad, President Joe Biden.
	That's what this is about.
	And the taxes just are a fig leaf for that.
	And people were actually shocked.
	They're like, oh my goodness, there was this other deal there.
	It's like, yeah, of course there was.
	Now, what I was always curious about was I wanted to see what the deal was because it's all about the language.
	In other words, how broad is it explicitly in the paragraph, the immunity given?
	Number one.
	And that means not only the immunity in terms of subject matter, but also immunity in terms of which office.
	So to give people an idea, one, immunity given as part of a plea deal is pretty rare.
	So it's not commonly done at all.
	Number two, when it's done in the federal system, it's only done by the local United States Attorney's Office.
	It does not extend to any other U.S. Attorney's Office.
	Here it was obvious that other U.S. Attorney's Offices would have jurisdiction.
	So I was curious whether they did the thing that's almost unheard of, which say this non-prosecution agreement applies to the entire federal government, no matter where located.
	And so those are the two big questions that I had.
	And then the third was, where did they place it?
	Now, here's where they were really creative.
	So the first part is the plea deal, the way they did the facts.
	Was by indirect inference and by incorporation, which was really smart.
	As grifters, I keep telling people, as criminals go, Joe Biden's not a complete idiot.
	He's a complete idiot about everything else in life.
	But when it comes to stealing and thieving at your local level, your gangs in New York level, he's actually halfway decent.
	He's a decent, he's an old school local Tammany Hall political boss.
	But he's one of the worst versions of that.
	Because you had some good versions of that that were protective of their community, really tried to leverage their power to look after the less fortunate, etc.
	And then you had the worst version of that, that was using it to sexually harass and assault people and get away with their own crimes and pocketing money.
	It's like any system, you can have some good and bad versions of it.
	Biden is the bad version of it.
	But what they did is, well, first they put the agreement.
	Itself, not in the plea deal.
	They put it in the diversion deal, which is the funniest thing.
	As they said, they don't know that ever happening in the history of America.
	You're putting a non-prosecution immunity agreement in a diversion deal.
	Hold on one second.
	You cut out again there.
	They put the non-prosecution in the diversion deal, not in the...
	Say what you just said again.
	Sure, sure.
	So normally you would put a non-prosecution agreement in the plea deal.
	Normally it would only apply to the local U.S. Attorney's Office.
	And normally they would specify which crimes you would not be prosecuted for.
	But that often, that's where the real trick is.
	Sometimes the language is these specific statutes.
	Sometimes the language is longer and details exactly what's not being prosecuted for.
	Other times it will just say you won't be prosecuted for information possessed currently by the local U.S. attorney's office concerning you.
	And that's where I was curious what language they used.
	Then they put it in the plea agreement itself.
	The plea agreement is usually often published and becomes a matter of public record.
	Instead, they took the immunity agreement and only didn't even reference it in the plea deal.
	Instead, only referenced it in the diversion deal.
	And the diversion deal doesn't require federal judicial approval.
	Only the plea deal does.
	The diversion deal, you don't have to publish.
	But the concern for a federal judge is, if the reason you're entering a plea is something outside of that plea deal, that creates big problems for the court.
	And they want that to be part of the public record.
	So by trying to sneak it into the diversion deal and keep it hidden from the world, what they were doing, they triggered the court's concern that this would create a bad record because Biden could later go forward and say critical information was omitted from the plea hearing.
	It wasn't an adequately done plea hearing.
	I want to set it aside, etc.
	So that's what triggered this judge, a patent judge appointed by Trump, or patent legal background, not patent judge.
	If I can stop you there, would this have happened if it had been, I can't think of a name offhand, but who was the one in Michael Flynn's case?
	Would this have happened if it were an Obama-appointed judge?
	Would anyone have looked into it with this, I don't say degree of scrutiny, with this degree of judicial insight?
	So I think because she's a patent judge, she has no experience in the government work.
	And those judges as a whole tend to have two characteristics.
	One, they don't defer to the government automatically.
	They don't have a history of doing so.
	They're not bound by it.
	They're willing to be questioned to the government, challenge and contest the government.
	They don't always go your way, but they will be more independent of thought than your average federal judge.
	Also, if you're in patent law, chances are you're very smart.
	So you've got someone that is usually high IQ.
	The second thing is they tend to just follow the laws written.
	And so consequently, you get judges that are much more law-oriented judges than you get typically, that are more politically oriented judges.
	Now, even a judge, though, that had been well-versed in this probably would have been concerned.
	But here's the key.
	This judge requested the diversion agreement.
	If a judge had not requested the diversion agreement, this deal would have gone right through.
	Correct.
	It would have created a future risk in terms of how the plea hearing would not have been constitutionally adequate because key aspects of consideration would have been never discussed.
	And that would have been a problem.
	But only a problem if Hunter Biden made it one.
	And here's where some people are missing some things.
	Even if the plea deal is never enforced by the judge, that doesn't necessarily matter.
	The government has already signed a contract with Hunter Biden.
	They've already given him immunity.
	They can't take that back.
	So that's where Hunter might get denied the benefit of no time.
	But what can't happen...
	Is for the government to come in and say, we're not giving you any immunity anymore, and now we're going to prosecute you for a bunch of stuff.
	That's what really can't happen.
	And so Hunter's lawyers, once they got that in writing, they got it in writing.
	So it's like when a defendant signs a plea deal, he can back out of it, but there's a whole bunch of consequences that flow from it for breach.
	For the government, they can't breach of any agreement.
	Requires dismissal of any indictment.
	And here, what they did in the diversionary agreement, it's a contract like anything else, as the judge pointed out.
	Here's how they did the immunity.
	I was curious how they were going to hide this.
	And the way they hid it, they didn't say what I thought they would, which is any information within the possession and custody of the local U.S. Attorney's Office is we will not prosecute on.
	Instead, they said the entire United States because they wanted to make sure nobody could come after him and use him then as a weapon against his father.
	And again, his dealings were connected to deep state operations, to other Democratic families, including the Kerry family.
	So I guarantee you somewhere along the way you're going to have Clinton connections.
	So Hunter implicates the entire corrupt deep state Democratic machine, not just his father, Joe Biden.
	Probably his only mistake, and Papa Joe's only mistake, was he didn't use the Bill Clinton method.
	And the Bill Clinton method, as he bragged about to his security guards in Arkansas, as reported in Roger Morris' book, Late 90s.
	Really good book.
	Roger Morris comes from the left, by the way.
	He said, look, these boys, they're never going to do anything with me.
	He goes, everything that they can try to get me on.
	Implicates them too.
	Bill Clinton would then he'd laugh.
	So, you know, just research me to Arkansas.
	Why did Ken Starr end up only talking about Monica Lewinsky instead of all the extensive corruption in Arkansas?
	Because all of that Arkansas corruption implicated the CIA, implicated key people in the Pentagon, and implicated a certain family named the Bush family.
	And that's why the honest, ethical Ken Starr.
	Conservatives used to tell me it should be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
	I was like, well, why didn't he do any of that?
	Why did he drop the Vince Foster inquiry and clear Vince Foster instead?
	Why was that?
	Might be some reasons for that.
	You can get more of that at the hush-hushes on the Clinton death curse at viva-barnes-law.locals.com, which we might have to extend to the Obama death curse.
	That had Haitian connections, so it all goes back to Africa, maybe, with some voodoo.
	So that's why they could never touch Clinton.
	But Hunter and Joe never operated that way.
	They didn't operate on bipartisan corruption.
	It was old-school political machine style.
	I'm going to empower.
	It's the reason Obama picked him.
	Obama didn't pick Biden because he had appealed a blue-collar middle America.
	He picked Biden.
	Because Biden was a connection to the old school, he picked Hillary as Secretary of State because she was the new wave of democratic political corruption, and Joe Biden because he was the connection to old school democratic political corruption.
	And thus he had both of his bases covered while he took out his adversaries in Chicago using weaponized lawfare, including Jesse Jackson III and the governor within months of him getting into office.
	Both of his old local potential adversaries out of power.
	You know, that's what all this was about.
	And again, if a chef gets a little unwieldy, take him for a little swim in the three-foot pool.
	So the net effect of all of this in aggregate is the immunity deal is probably still locked in.
	So he still has the benefit of that.
	The only thing is that what the court tried, brilliant actions by the court.
	I'm not sure how much she stumbled into this just by trying to follow the law and apply it to the facts and how much of it was sophisticated.
	Because what she did in the court hearing was first out the scope of this immunity deal.
	Second, and on the back story for those people that don't know, a lot of this came to her attention because the Hunter Biden's lawyers pretended to be from the Republican National Committee, apparently.
	I mean, the Republican Committee in Congress.
	That had sent an amicus brief to the court saying they had issues with the plea deal.
	And apparently the clerk of the court had taken that down because she thought a lawyer from the committee had called her and told her it was a mistake to have it published.
	And it turned out it was Hunter Biden's own lawyers who were doing it.
	So that triggered the judge's suspicion even more.
	The judge uses the hearing to say, what is this agreement over here?
	Number one.
	And number two, what exactly does it mean?
	Because what they did with the immunity is they said, nobody in the United States will prosecute you, Hunter, for anything that's in these attachments.
	And so you had two different attachments, factual affidavit, factual attachments.
	I have never seen attachments this long in my life.
	And I've been doing criminal tax cases for the better part of a quarter century.
	You know, you don't see pages and pages of a bunch of ancillary information.
	You know, it's very limited typically.
	Sometimes it's not even, there is no attachment even.
	So, but here you know why all of the detail is here.
	It's so that they can make sure that as lawyers can tell anybody, you can't prosecute me for that because that fact is connected to this fact over here.
	So that's why it has all the bribery, all the money laundering, all the drug dealing, all the whoring, all the different crimes he's committing under federal law.
	It just litters it with detail.
	Chinese government, Ukrainian government, Romanian government, all of that is filled in there so they can never prosecute him on anything that could be factually related or sourced to anything in there.
	It's even broader.
	I've never seen an agreement effectively this broad outside of a complete fruits and use.
	There's what's called fruits and use immunity.
	We won't use anything against you.
	Beyond pure what's called transactional immunity.
	For this transaction, we give you complete immunity.
	I've only seen a few in my lifetime complete immunity.
	Almost a pardon that says you cannot be prosecuted for anything you've ever done up until this date under federal law.
	That's well portrayed in the TV show The Shield.
	By the way.
	So, that's the scope of it.
	And the judge outed it all.
	The judge said, well, before we agree to this plea deal, can you guys tell me what this means?
	Of course, the government didn't want to admit it.
	And she's like, first of all, have you ever done this in a diversion agreement?
	Nope.
	Have you ever heard of the government doing it in a diversion agreement?
	Nope.
	Have you ever heard of a diversion agreement under these circumstances for this charge?
	Nope.
	Have you ever heard...
	Of an agreement that's not related to the actual charges.
	All your immunity is for things you're not even prosecuting him on.
	Nope, never heard of that either.
	Is there even an open investigation?
	Oh yeah, there's an investigation to all those other crimes.
	She's like, but now he's going to be given immunity for all of this, right?
	And the government doesn't want that on the public record.
	They're like, no, no, he could still be prosecuted for that.
	And of course, Biden's lawyers need the record to be on their side.
	They're like, uh-uh.
	If that isn't part of the deal, there is no deal.
	And so the judge is like, you guys figure out whether there's a deal or not, what the meaning of the minds actually is, how broad this really is, and whether I even have constitutional authority to sign off on all of this and come back to me.
	For now, Hunter will just plead not guilty.
	The two misdemeanor informations will be filed.
	I'll put him on his conditions of release.
	Poor Hunter.
	Can't use any drugs.
	Can't go whoring for a little while.
	Let's see how well he keeps up that promise.
	I mean, he was just at the White House having nose candy.
	Imagine if that party with the nose candy would have happened while he was on conditions of release.
	That would have created a whole new level of scandal.
	Well, no, Robert, because they never found the person who was responsible for the cocaine.
	It's a mystery.
	No idea.
	Who did it?
	Okay, that's...
	That's amazing.
	But are you suggesting that he might still benefit from the immunity even if the plea deal falls through?
	Oh, yes.
	That's where, like, right now she put him in a trap.
	That if I was Hunter's lawyers, I would not limit that immunity agreement.
	I would not limit the language of that immunity agreement.
	What the judge has effectively done is that Hunter's lawyers are now encouraged to publicly agree.
	That the immunity agreement is much smaller than it actually is.
	In order to get the judge to go along with a probationary sentence.
	And so they have a choice.
	Either go along with the probationary sentence and now open the door for prosecutions that we thought we had foreclosed.
	Because the problem they would have is, let's say that immunity agreement, it's supposed to be interpreted in favor of the defendant.
	Right now can be interpreted to totally block anything meaningfully of prosecution.
	If they go in and say, no, it doesn't block a FARA prosecution.
	It doesn't block a money laundering prosecution.
	It doesn't block a bribery prosecution.
	Then all of a sudden they've reopened the door.
	But they would do so only because they want the judge to say yes to probation on misdemeanor charges.
	They don't want him to do any time at all.
	But what they could do is they say, no, we already have this immunity agreement.
	And we're sticking with that immunity agreement.
	And we're not saying it's any limited at all.
	We don't care if the government wants to pretend it is.
	We have our interpretation, our understanding.
	It's right there in plain language.
	We believe it applies across the board.
	And what the judges have forced Hunter Biden lawyers to do is to either sacrifice the benefits of the immunity deal in order to get the plea deal.
	The no time.
	Or keep the benefits of the immunity deal and gamble on what happens on the sentencing side.
	Or even go to trial on the two misdemeanors.
	He would lose the trial.
	He's got no defenses.
	And some of that information in the plea deal can be used against him.
	That's the other structure of a plea deal.
	That if you breach it as a defendant, in many cases, that information can be used against you.
	Not in all cases, but many instances.
	And the worst sentence would be two years.
	So it'd be, but maybe they think he can't even do that.
	That's the question.
	Can he do, in two years effectively, like in Snipes' case, you know, that's often a year.
	Because you get out, you know, you get good time, 15% off, then on top of that.
	And now these days they even have more good time benefits.
	Maybe up to 25%, 30%.
	Second, you get a halfway house usually for the last six months.
	It's like going to rehab, really.
	It's not as nice as some rehabs, definitely not as nice as probably Hunter's rehabs, but if I were in Hunter's position, I would want the benefit of that deal rather than the immunity deal, rather than the benefit of the plea deal.
	But they may capitulate to cover for Joe, which will put more pressure on Joe to pardon his son, ultimately.
	If anybody saw me looking down, the dog took a dump, and my wife just came in and pulled out the bed.
	I think she's cleaning it.
	I was going to do it while we were alive, but that might have been TMI, which I've already given.
	Okay, fascinating and interesting.
	So the plea deal looks like it's off the table now, but the immunity you think is still there, which...
	There's no question he has the immunity deal, and he can have...
	For what?
	What does he have?
	For everything?
	Oh, he has immunity for everything, really.
	Immunity for everything.
	What it is, is she's trying to trap him, the judges, maybe not deliberately, into giving up.
	Some of the benefits of the immunity deal he currently has.
	So the immunity deal is there, and it doesn't depend on the plea deal.
	So what the judge is saying is, if you want the plea deal, then you and the government have to agree on the scope of the immunity deal.
	And the government wants that to be a limited interpretation to cover it for CYA for political reasons.
	Because these are two very political prosecutors, who, by the way, love to send people to the max.
	For much lesser things all the time, which tells you how political this entire case is.
	It violated Justice Department policy for them to do this deal.
	It violated tax division policy for them to do this deal.
	It violated local U.S. attorney policy for them to do this deal.
	It violated the customs and protocols of the office that they do this deal.
	It violated their own personal customs and protocols to do this deal, which tells you it's a deal done at the top, by the top, for the top.
	And, you know, this is the Biden family corruption tree, which implicates the deep state and the Democratic Party writ large.
	Because, again, Hunter's in Ukraine.
	Hunter was connected to the biolab operations in Ukraine.
	Now, that was smart by Joe.
	Joe probably just saw it as a short-term cash pocket opportunity.
	But by doing so, he embedded Biden corruption in Big Pharma corruption.
	He embedded Biden corruption in Defense Department corruption.
	He embedded Biden corruption in the CIA corruption, State Department corruption.
	And so right now, Hunter Biden has complete immunity from pretty much everything.
	He can only be suckered into giving that up.
	If he wants the benefits of the plea deal, if the government's not willing to go on the record admitting it's as broad as it is.
	That's what the plea hearing was really all about.
	Wicked corruption.
	Period.
	Can anybody get impeached over this?
	Does Merrick Garland have to sign off?
	Oh, to me, yes, absolutely.
	I mean, if this deal was even done, Lisa Monaco had to have signed off.
	Merrick Garland had to have signed off, in all likelihood.
	The tax division head had to sign off.
	So every single person that signed off on this should be subject to impeachment hearings because it's clear political weaponization of their offices for special preferential favored treatment to cover up the corruption of the existing president.
	And I think Biden can be impeached by it for his own complicity in it.
	In other words, he would be impeached not for the original crime that took place prior to him being president.
	I don't think that's an impeachable act.
	I think what necessarily, I go back and forth on that.
	But at a minimum, because I think if impeachment is the exclusive remedy once you become president, then arguably it's always the exclusive remedy.
	Even if you only find evidence of the crime after the person has become president.
	So that would be a theory by which you could impeach and remove for a pre-presidential crime, even though I generally prefer impeachment to be limited to those, and I think there's constitutional argument for it, to be limited to crimes committed while president.
	But here the crime would be corruption, would be obstruction of justice, would be effectively buying off witnesses through his control of the Justice Department.
	So it fit the classic combination, a serious felonious crime, number one, that happened while he was president.
	Number two, that used the power of the presidency uniquely to do that crime.
	And that three, cannot be cured by an election.
	And so I think just the Hunter Biden case is an example of corruption.
	And if they're smart like Trump is, which the Republican Party has shown no capacity of yet, they would do what Trump is doing.
	Which is what Trump is doing, is linking the two to the Ukrainian war.
	He goes, Americans' lives are at risk, and we're at risk of World War III because a foreign government lined the pockets of our existing president.
	That's where the real impeachment power and potency is.
	Of course, that would mean exposing the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department, the deep state, the military-industrial complex.
	And Kevin McCarthy doesn't have any cojones when it comes to that.
	So I don't think they'll ever do it.
	But somebody, you know, Thomas Massey, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, somebody should start pursuing that angle.
	Even if it doesn't reach the full House, force the full House at least to vote on it.
	Do some investigation into it.
	But I believe Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco.
	And President Biden can all be impeached just based on the corruption involved in the Hunter Biden deal.
	Okay.
	Speaking of Biden corruption, the last time true independent candidate for the Democratic Party for the presidency ran for the president was Robert Francis Kennedy in 1968.
	And who tried to out a wide range of corruption, including future deep state corruption once he became president and the assassination of his brother, President John Kennedy, was himself assassinated in L.A. in the summer of 1968.
	And because of it, they passed several laws.
	One was a gun control law.
	But the other thing they passed was the Secret Service provisions would always be available to any substantial candidate for the presidency.
	So Robert Francis Kennedy Jr., who has already experienced a wide range of death threats since he's announced his candidacy, has been waiting almost three months for that approval in the most detailed Secret Service request ever made that I'm aware of.
	And the Biden administration this week denied it.
	I talked about it on Tim Poole.
	Mark Robert last night clarified some of the details where I said the security who is alleged to have potentially shot RFK, point blank, was not Secret Service, but was the hotel security, but not RFK's own security.
	The obvious joke, and I say joke in quotes, but the nastiness of this entire story, people are saying, well, RFK Jr. probably doesn't want Secret Service protection in the first place.
	My angle on all of this is...
	No, RFK Jr. does.
	He specifically requested it.
	He absolutely wants Secret Service protection.
	He actually filled out a long, detailed application to get it.
	I meant more along the lines of he might not...
	Whether or not it was a point to be proven, he might not trust Secret Service protection insofar as the deep state is alleged to have...
	He would probably complement and supplement his existing security protocol.
	He has security all the time anyway.
	And my reflex on this is that for the party that screams dog whistles at every corner of the street, for them to come out and say...
	Publicly announced we're denying RFK Jr.
	Secret Service protection.
	Some could say that is done specifically to advise the general public, check out this guy, he doesn't have Secret Service protection.
	The argument, as far as I understand, we're not 120 days out from an election yet, therefore we've exercised our discretion not to offer it.
	Does it make sense, Robert, or is this actually as lethal and overt of a dog whistle as I think it is?
	Oh, it's clear what it is.
	There's no good grounds to deny it.
	I mean, Hunter Biden showed up as a convicted felon who's been elected to nothing, showed up with a six-escalade or six-SUV trip to the courthouse.
	I've never seen that before, by the way.
	And that was meant to send a signal.
	It's in Delaware, Delaware Federal Court.
	It's to remind all the U.S. Marshals.
	It's to remind the judges.
	To remind the court clerks who this is.
	And they just didn't expect to run into a judge that just applied the law in its face.
	Who's just like, hold on a second, let's make sure this is on the up and up.
	I don't want to be snookered into something that isn't what it's supposed to be.
	Because that's your patent lawyer types.
	They tend to be unintimidated in ways that almost every other federal judge would be cowering underneath their desk for.
	But it's astounding that on the same day they give extensive secret—again, who's ever tried to hurt Joe Biden?
	Ever.
	In his entire political career.
	And you have Robert Kennedy Jr., the son of a man assassinated for running for president against an existing incumbent.
	The nephew of the last president to be assassinated that has experienced extensive death threats since his campaign, and he's not given it?
	While Hunter Biden is, that comparison is the most embarrassing comparison for the Biden administration.
	Some people are going to argue Hunter Biden is the son of the president and therefore gets it automatically.
	RFK Jr., just an aspiring presidential candidate.
	They changed that law, though, so that the Secret Service is supposed to be available for any time you get to a serious level if you request it.
	That's it.
	And that's sometimes been as low as 2%.
	But he's been consistently 15% to 20% in the polls.
	So for him not to have it, I mean, for example, if there was an open election, if all parties could vote, he would win the Democratic nomination because he has so much support amongst independents and Republicans.
	So, you know, to deny it to him really is just, it tells you who Joe Biden is.
	Joe Biden, think of a street-level criminal.
	He's not a mastermind.
	He's not going to show up as Lex Luthor anywhere.
	But he's your local thug.
	And he's good at being your local thug.
	And this is a local thug move.
	And especially to do it on the same day that his son arrives to federal court where he should be being sent to prison and instead given immunity.
	It's meant to send a message.
	I mean, that's why he did it.
	He did it to send a message to the whole world.
	Remember, he likes to brag about this.
	He'll randomly say, you don't mess with the Bidens.
	I mean, he's proud of being a thug.
	That's what people don't fully appreciate about him.
	Because they see the dementia side and the idiot side, and they ignore the street thug side.
	Just like with Obama, they looked at the erudite side or the international side, and they forgot he learned his politics in Chicago.
	He may have got his ideology in Hawaii and Indonesia.
	He may have got his connections at Colombian three-letter agencies, like the ones his dad was recruited by, but he learned his politics in Chicago.
	And you should watch Kelsey Grammer's The Boss if you want to understand Chicago.
	But that's why people couldn't understand Obama in many respects.
	Definitely not as to whistleblowers and a bunch of other activities.
	Like, if you knew who he was, that's exactly who he is.
	Understand this about Joe Biden.
	We have a street-level thug as President of the United States.
	Alright, on that note, Robert, do we move...
	We have a few quick subjects, but then we've got the good Facebook one.
	Yeah, we have a great...
	We'll probably wrap up with the Iran one, and then cover briefly the Amnesty UFO Newberg debanking in Facebook over on Locals.
	But this Iran one is fascinating.
	The Iran one is not the Mexican one, the guy who was denied restraint.
	What's the Iran one?
	That one we can cover quickly.
	I mean, basically, the guy sells religious keychains around Mexico City.
	The cartel came to him and said, you got a nice little business there.
	We're going to use your business to run drugs.
	And he said, no, no, I just sell keychains.
	I'm really good at selling keychains.
	I'm just a hustler.
	Just let me sell my keychains.
	We're little religious keychains around the heart of Mexico City where the great cathedral is.
	And so they came back and helped motivate him, beat the crap out of him, etc.
	So it's like, if you want to stay alive and not get the crap kicked out of you, you can still do your little keychain.
	And they did this, by the way, kind of Joe Biden style, in the presence of Mexican police officers who just watched as this little vendor, little religious vendor, got the crap kicked out of him.
	So he goes back, he decides to let him use his operation to deal drugs.
	Feels guilty about it.
	He's like, I'm out of here.
	I'm just going to move to somewhere else outside the city and try to find another place, which obviously is not going to work as well as downtown where the cathedral is.
	But they track him there.
	And they're like, no, no, no, no, buddy, you got a good business.
	You're going to keep doing this.
	They put a gun to his head.
	They threaten him, a bunch of other things.
	He figures, oh, this is it.
	And he's out of here.
	So he goes up to the United States.
	So he gets kicked out of the United States.
	Comes back.
	Gets detained to be deported again.
	And he says, look, this is a convention against torture.
	I have amnesty claims.
	And this should be a reminder to everybody how impossible amnesty claims are.
	The court, the Bureau of Immigration Officer denied it.
	Then the immigration court, quote unquote, denied it.
	Then the federal court denied it.
	And the Ninth Circuit denied it.
	And because, and this is amazing to me, they said, well, there might be someplace in Mexico they don't find you.
	So as long as there's someplace in Mexico they don't find you, you can't get amnesty in the United States, even if you have a proven record of persecution with the affiliation and association and acquiescence of local police.
	Again, they didn't dispute any of his factual allegations at all.
	Didn't deny this was what happened.
	This was a guy who was not looking for work in the U.S., was happy to sell religious keychains and was apparently good at it, so good he drew the attention of the cartels.
	You have to be good at it to draw the attention of the cartels.
	And so, and the idea that the cart, and it's the federal courts in denial that half of Mexico is currently run by cartels.
	I mean, you could argue the whole country is, but at least large parts of the country don't even, the local sheriff is a waste of time.
	It's the cartels that literally run it.
	And so, I mean, they have military-grade drone warfare capability, the cartels.
	That's the level they've reached.
	In large parts of Sonola and other parts of Mexico.
	And so the idea that he should be deported, of all the people that should be deported, we got hardcore criminals, gangbangers, actual cartel members, rapists, pedos.
	They're not getting deported.
	But this guy that's got a legitimate amnesty claim is getting deported.
	Some people might say that this looks like...
	The individual was Christian.
	He was not...
	Catholic.
	Some might say that this is a continued...
	Continuation of the Declaration of War on religion, Christianity in particular.
	But the court said you didn't challenge the idea that you could move to another place in Mexico, and you didn't challenge the idea that this was not...
	Well, he did.
	He said, look, they keep finding me wherever I go, so I'm sure there's going to be some part where they find me.
	And the court's like, well, you don't know until you try!
	I mean, that was their excuse for not challenging.
	Until you tried every single part of Mexico, you now have no amnesty?
	You got to beat your head before you get amnesty in the U.S.?
	The other absurdity was that I think they said that the two incidents of violence was not sufficient evidence of persecution.
	It was not torture.
	It was not torture.
	You were beaten badly.
	They put a gun to your head.
	Okay, big deal.
	I mean, by the way, this happens all the time.
	It is almost impossible.
	For those people out there on the right that think everybody gets amnesty all the time, hogwash.
	Legitimate amnesty people get denied all the time.
	They almost never grant amnesty requests, no matter how much you prove.
	But this was one of the more egregious ones.
	Because usually they're at least trying to contest the evidence, contest the claims.
	They didn't contest any of it.
	And that's what made it shocking.
	It's like, okay, if you're basically the victim of cartel violence with the acquiescence of police.
	And you know that you're likely to be again.
	Screw you.
	Because maybe you can find somewhere in the world they won't kill you.
	You just don't get to come to the United States.
	And the whole point of amnesty is, yes, we do grant amnesty in those instances.
	And again, this is not...
	If this was 100 million people that had this claim, a different animal.
	There's not that many people that have the kind of detail this guy does.
	Alright, what's the Iran political prisoner case?
	We'll go there and then we'll save the UFOs.
	The Newberg case, Nigel Farage, debanking, and Facebook files, exclusive for locals.
	The Iran political prisoner case is fascinating.
	So people may have heard about this guy briefly.
	A guy that went to a conference, got arrested in Iran as a spy, and was there for four years until he was released.
	Tortured, starved, all the joys of being in an Iranian prison.
	This is one of my friends on the left I don't understand.
	It's like anybody that's anti-American, they end up being for.
	So, you know, they're for Hamas because they're anti-American.
	They're for China because they're not America.
	You know, for Iran because they're not America.
	For Cuba or Venezuela because they're not.
	You know, you're Max Blumenthal's of the world.
	Like they, Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate got all on their high horse because...
	Shock, shock.
	Bobby Kennedy Jr. has the same politics as his father and his uncle, which is that he's pro-Israel and not pro-Iran.
	If you followed him or you followed his father, that would not surprise you at all.
	But it shocked them because they're like, oh, if you're anti-war and you're anti-empire and you're anti-deep state, then naturally you should side with Hamas.
	Naturally you should side with the PLO.
	I mean, where do these people's brains work?
	Glenn Greenwald's always shocked by this.
	Like, how can people do that?
	Probably for the same reason you're never going to go to Hamas-occupied territory by yourself, Glenn.
	Probably because you would be terrified to do it.
	Because they would take you to the top of the roof, throw you off, and murder you just for the fun of it.
	And that's where the hypocrisy, the fraud of the Aaron Mates, the Max Blumenthal's, the Glenn Greenwald's, on this issue is embarrassing.
	Quit living in denial.
	Robert Kennedy Jr. just ain't in the same denial you folks are.
	But the Iranian prisons are brutal.
	But here's what it exposed.
	The lawsuit exposes how the deep state really operates.
	So this guy comes back.
	He's the shell of a man.
	He files suit against his own company.
	And here's why.
	His company sent him to Iran.
	Without telling him that they were a State Department paid operation that was known within Iran to be basically a spook-run organization meant to infiltrate the women's movement in Iran.
	What's interesting here, too, remember the women's movement protest?
	And remember the allegations by Iran that a large part of it was foreign spook-sponsored?
	Well, yes, it was.
	Now, that doesn't mean there's no women that don't have reason to protest in Iran.
	I mean, that's where Alexander and Duran agreed with me.
	You could both have a bunch of Western-inspired operatives in the women's revolt in Iran and understand that a lot of women don't like living under radical Islamic fundamentalism, which tries to strip them of their humanity.
	My friends on the left just can't put those two together somehow.
	Caitlin Johnston of the world, who pretend to be the only independent people when they're the least independent people of the world.
	The blindness about radical Islamic fundamentalism on the left is mind-boggling to me.
	It didn't exist in the 1990s.
	It was an anti-George W. Bush reaction.
	He used it, so that must mean it's no longer a threat to the world.
	There's a reason you don't hang out there, folks.
	There's a reason ain't none of you going to have your next...
	I can't wait for my vacation to PLO territory.
	Can't wait for that special tour guide.
	I always wanted to be randomly kidnapped.
	You know, just extraordinary.
	So what happened is this guy got suckered.
	So this is how a lot of these operations really work.
	So the State Department will pay an independent third-party contractor who will in turn...
	Hire a non-governmental organization.
	Sometimes they call them NGOs.
	These so-called charities, many of which are in disguise, something else.
	And then they will go out and hire people who are completely unwitting because the best spy is a person who doesn't even know they are acting as one.
	Get that person, recruit that person, and say, hey, we want you to go to this women's conference in Iran.
	By the way, oh, Bobby wouldn't have taken that bait.
	Iran?
	I don't think so.
	No, no.
	It's like people keep trying to get me to go to Dubai and other places.
	I get some of the countries are okay.
	As long as Islamic fundamentalism is strong there, I'm skipping it.
	No touring.
	But this guy doesn't know anybody.
	He's looking for economic opportunity.
	They say, hey, we want you to go to this conference.
	We want you to meet with some women's groups.
	We're going to help give them some technology they can use to spread their message.
	Not, we're going to give them technology to circumvent the Iranian government's ability to know that they're sponsoring and planning a revolution in the country.
	And so he goes there, goes to the conference, shares this information, has no security, no security protocol, no security plan.
	He's in a taxi cab, doesn't even have his own car, and on his way back to the airport, the famous Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
	I know some people cried about when the head of that got killed by Trump.
	I was not one of those people.
	That guy had commented on it.
	But pick him up, detain him, arrest him, torture him for four years, finally release him because the guy never was a knowing spy at all.
	I mean, the Iranian court system is a complete crock.
	Their whole government is a complete crock.
	Anybody that defends them is a nitwit.
	God bless him.
	There are plenty of people on the left that do it, but it doesn't mean I want to go to war with him.
	People can understand the difference between the two.
	But he finally comes back.
	He sues.
	And what do you think they claim?
	They're like, hey, we were acting in the behest of the State Department.
	This is an old deep state immunity, otherwise known as sovereign immunity.
	And the law for sovereign immunity for a private contractor is, first, it's not a jurisdictional defense.
	It's an affirmative defense.
	And so it's like qualified immunity for cops.
	So it's something on summary judgment to be reached after all the discovery and the evidence is presented.
	But what it is, is if you are a contractor acting, it's more limited than agency law.
	So for those people that remember agency law, the principle can be held responsible for an agent under a lot of areas that's broader than sovereign immunity applies to a private contract.
	Sovereign immunity only applies to a private contractor when the principal actually authorized the private contractor, when the government actually authorized them, directed them, stripped them of any discretion to act on their own accord, and they had legal authority to do all of it.
	That was in dispute because, in fact, the State Department was more wink-wink, nod-nod, never told the company what they should do.
	To sucker people to go over there as unknowing, unwitting spies.
	And so his lawsuit against that company for intentional infliction of emotional distress and subjecting himself to this risk, they knew about the risk because they told the State Department when they asked for a bunch of money to help do this, by the way, we can't send our own people because they'll probably end up in prison or tortured or whacked or worse.
	So we're going to sucker somebody else to go instead.
	But it tells you how...
	How deep the deep state goes.
	How many people are operating as spies who don't even realize they're operating as spies?
	That sounds like a Jean Le Carré novel, Robert.
	I tried to listen to The Constant Gardener.
	I got real bored.
	It was a 14-hour book, so I just read the synopsis and skipped to the end.
	Which always reminds me of a terrible, terrible joke.
	I was actually at a party.
	And somebody I didn't know came up and she was like, oh man, I was just going to see this play and I got about a third of the way in and I realized it was about the Holocaust.
	And I was like, oh, I know how this ends.
	Wait, that's the joke?
	Yeah, yeah.
	As soon as she said, she's like, I'm going to be so bored.
	I got to get out of here.
	I was like, oh my.
	I was like, yeah, be careful who you tell that joke with.
	All right, Robert, so we're going to finish this up.
	I might have to...
	I'm going to go until I get in trouble.
	I'm going to give the link to locals in our Rumble community.
	Everybody, if you're going to come over, come on over.
	You can become a member.
	There's no cost to that.
	Hit the plus button before you...
	Yeah, ask $5 tips.
	We'll definitely answer it either today or tomorrow.
	We'll cover UFOs, the Newberg 4, the first real big January 6th-style entrapment, but done of so-called terrorists.
	It's so good.
	Nigel Farage and the Facebook files.
	What I was going to say, I've been told to remind everyone on Rumble, download the app and then turn on notifications.
	Be sure to subscribe to the channel.
	That's the best way to never miss an episode and not get notifications too late.
	And hit the Rumble like version of the Rumble like button.
	Oh yes, and before we go over to locals, hold on one second.
	There was just this right here.
	We got iCare22.
	Great content.
	Support you both.
	Smoking British Columbia.
	Canada Outdoor Organic Homegrown Now Gifted.
	What is this?
	Okay.
	Oh, you both are awesome.
	Have followed since COVID.
	Fleet Lord Avatar, remind me people to push the thumbs up for leadership board on Rumble.
	Crazy Guru, what states can Barnes practice law in?
	We need more of him.
	And that is Rumble Rants on Rumble.
	Okay.
	Everyone on Rumble, thank you very much.
	Go enjoy the evening.
	But before you do that, come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	You got the link and you're going to want to hear the entrapment decision and the Facebook government coercion.
	Ending on Rumble in 5, 4, 3, now.
	Let's just make sure I've done it.
	Have we done it?

▲