Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 6, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:02

Ep. 171: Trump's 3rd Indictment! RFK Sues! Archer Testifies! Lizzo is NASTY! & MORE! Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Latest statement, latest tweet, as you were just saying.
	President-elect's latest unsolicited pronouncement on the intelligence community.
	This was his tweet just a little while ago tonight.
	You see the scare quotes there.
	The intelligence briefing on so-called Russian hacking was delayed until Friday.
	Perhaps more time needed to build a case.
	Very strange.
	We're actually told, intelligence sources tell NBC News since this tweet has been posted, that actually this intelligence briefing for the president-elect was always planned for Friday.
	It hasn't been delayed.
	But he's taking these...
	This antagonism is taunting to the intelligence community.
	If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
	So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this.
	What do you think the intelligence community would do if they were motivated to?
	I don't know, but from what I am told, they are very upset with how he has treated them and talked about them.
	And we need the intelligence community.
	We don't know what's going on.
	Look at the Russian hacking.
	Can we appreciate this in retrospect?
	Kierkegaard, life can only be understood backwards, yet must be lived forwards.
	I'm going to play this one more time.
	We're going to pause it at certain key points.
	Forget the climax of this Insanity Sunday.
	If you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.
	Or 70 indictments to get back at you.
	Forget that part.
	We'll get there at the end.
	Latest statement.
	First of all, look at Chuck Schumer's faux pretentious...
	Let me just read this tweet, this absurd tweet.
	Reading this now, in light of Durham's report of the Russia hoax.
	Tweet, as you were just saying.
	President-elect's latest unsolicited pronouncement on the intelligence community.
	This was his tweet just a little while ago tonight.
	The intelligence briefing on so-called Russian hacking, such a farce of a joke that the FBI should not have even initiated an investigation into it.
	We know that now from the Durham report.
	What about the Mueller report?
	Well, the Mueller report predated the Durham report.
	And we now know that it was a joke based on evidence that was not even worthy of being investigated.
	We know that now.
	They're making fun of it at the time.
	He's calling into question the intelligence community.
	How dare he?
	They have six ways from Sunday of getting back at him.
	Just ask JFK.
	You see the scare quotes there.
	The intelligence briefing on so-called Russian hacking was...
	The so-called Russian hacking...
	Delayed until Friday.
	Perhaps more time needed to build a case.
	Very strange.
	Well, it's not strange anymore.
	Now it actually is just confirmed fact.
	Actually told intelligence sources, tell NBC News since this tweet has been posted, that actually this intelligence briefing for the president-elect was always planned for Friday.
	It hasn't been delayed.
	He's such an idiot.
	He's taking these shots, this antagonism, this taunting to the intelligence community.
	The intelligence community.
	The same intelligence community that signed off on a letter that said that the Hunter Biden laptop bore all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.
	The intelligence community, the same one that falsified evidence that it submitted to a secret FISA court to obtain unlawful spy warrants on Carter Page so they could spy on Donald Trump.
	The intelligence community that started a three and a half year...
	Hoax of an investigation into Russian collusion.
	Oh yeah, he's taking them on.
	But if you do, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.
	What do you think they'll do, Chuck?
	I don't know.
	We can't really do another JFK.
	That would be too much.
	Maybe what we can do is just build on a slew of bogus accusations so that we can indict Donald Trump in an attempt to get back at him so that he somehow gets, you know...
	Excluded from the ballot in 2024.
	I don't know.
	Hey, Chuck, tell me what you think, Chuck.
	Take on the intelligence community.
	They have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
	Look at that disgusting smirk on his ugly face.
	Duper's delight?
	Not so much.
	Just rubbing it in your face.
	President is not in charge.
	The intelligence community is in charge.
	And if the president takes on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.
	And we're very happy about it, too.
	So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this.
	What do you think the intelligence community would do if they were motivated?
	Good question, Rachel.
	Maybe we'll find out.
	Oh, what do you think they'll do?
	Oh, wait a minute.
	We're now eight years left.
	What are we now?
	Seven years later?
	Six years later?
	We now know what the intelligence community is going to do.
	Bullshit indictment after bullshit indictment.
	Okay.
	Are we live here?
	How is the internet?
	I don't know why I'm no longer on the 5G, but at least the internet looks like it's working now.
	All right.
	We're live on the Rumbles.
	We are live on the Locals.
	We've got a good meme in there.
	Hold on.
	What does the meme say?
	I'll get to that afterwards.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice.
	When you see these beautiful things, Cheryl Gage, nice to see you again, got a new knee Thursday.
	Right leg walking around the house today, pretty much pain-free.
	Modern medicine is amazing.
	That is incredible.
	I remember when my grandmother got her knee replaced and I was visiting her in the hospital.
	It's crazy what modern science can do to heal trauma and to heal injury.
	It's also amazing what modern medicine can do to, you know.
	Cause a bunch of other problems.
	Not to sound too much like Joe Rogan.
	YouTube takes 30% of those things called super chats.
	If you don't want to support YouTube, but you want to support me, we are currently live on Rumble.
	Rumble has these things.
	Hold on one second.
	I just, I hear myself in the background.
	Son of a gun.
	Rumble has these things called Rumble Rants.
	Same thing as Super Chats.
	Rumble takes 20% of the Rumble Rant ordinarily.
	Except for the rest of 2023, they take 0%.
	They'll go back to their 20% in 2024.
	So 100% of it goes to the creator.
	If you want to support the channel, what we do here, the absolute best place, vivabarneslaw.locals.com, where we've got a wonderful community.
	Of all above average members, members are not paying supporters.
	They get a ton of stuff at the community and it's beautiful.
	And then you got your supporters, seven bucks a month, 70 bucks a year or more.
	Some people actually voluntarily pay more to support us.
	So that's how you can do that.
	All right.
	But you may have noticed starting this video, there's a little thing in the corner that said this video contains a paid promotion because it does.
	And for all of those who were making jokes about...
	Field of Greens, powdered greens in the early chat.
	That's what it is.
	Fieldofgreens.com, people.
	It is a little-known fact.
	You're supposed to have five to seven servings of raw fruits and vegetables every day.
	Not just like once a week.
	Every day.
	I do it.
	I sometimes sit down and I eat so much arugula directly out of the container.
	Just like salt, pepper, arugula.
	So much that my body doesn't fully digest all of the leafy vegetables that I have consumed in a...
	Bit of obsessive-compulsive rage.
	So I don't have that problem, but I do have the problem of bad habits.
	And so better than having a Red Bull or some sugar-packed, chemical-packed energy drink in the afternoon, a spoonful of Field of Greens has one serving of fruits and vegetables with all the antioxidants, all the miracle stuff in it.
	You take one spoonful.
	Twice a day, you got two servings of raw fruits and vegetables.
	I spent a half an hour on the phone with the doctor of this company to make sure it is as good as it sounded.
	And I asked my questions and I was satisfied.
	I use it.
	It's USDA organic approved because it's food, not supplement, not extract.
	And it's delicious.
	Looks like swamp water, but swamp water looks like swamp water because it's rich in nutrients and beautiful.
	But like you say...
	Eat your roughage because nothing is better than the raw stuff, except the powdered stuff.
	It's the second best.
	And when you're traveling, my goodness, you can't find fruits and vegetables anywhere.
	McDonald's no longer serves salads.
	I had to go to a Subway.
	I was like, I'll take all of the stuff you put in the sandwich.
	No bread, no onions.
	So help me God if I find onions.
	And that's it.
	That's how I got my servings of fruits and vegetables on the way down here from Montreal to...
	Oh, to the free state of Florida.
	So go to fieldofgreens.com.
	It'll bring you to BrickHouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order of desiccated, desiccated, powdered, pulverized fruits and vegetables.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	The link is in the pinned comment.
	Promo code VIVA.
	Okay, now here's the question.
	The internet looks like it's actually holding up tonight.
	I'm no longer using my 5G.
	Or my two...
	What is it?
	EXT extension?
	I don't even know.
	It looks like I've resolved at least temporarily the internet problems.
	Julie Giroir, thank you very much for the $13.99 super chat.
	Canadian.
	Speaking of Canadian.
	Perfect segue, people.
	Until Barnes gets here.
	Oh my God.
	First of all, we've got some...
	We've got good law tonight and we've got nasty law tonight.
	And the nasty...
	Let's just say we're going to put the nasty, we're going to put the two Z's back in nasty when you get to this Lizzo lawsuit.
	All allegations, all nasty.
	For those of you who haven't been paying attention to what's happening in Canada.
	Okay, Justin Trudeau has announced Splitsville from Sophie Gregoire.
	That's fine.
	I just got, I got to show you this.
	Okay, this is, I'm in, I'm in, that's not, okay, whatever.
	This was Justin Trudeau.
	Earlier this week.
	Don't ask questions, media.
	Apparently, the media was instructed not to ask about the massive welt right in the middle of his forehead.
	Is it a knuckle?
	Is it from a ring with a, I don't know, like some sort of satanic coin in it that punched him right in the head?
	Who knows?
	This bruise appeared on his head as far as my recollection of the timeline goes.
	Two days before he announced Splitsville's from Sophie Gregoire and rumor from the rumor mill, and it's just that.
	It's also rumor and perfectly plausible logical explanations.
	Rumor is that things were thrown.
	Words were said.
	And I'm asking the question.
	Did he provide...
	From what I understand, the half-assed explanation was he was playing with his kids.
	Unless he's playing paintball with his kids.
	First of all, I actually thought maybe he got, and I'm not saying this to be funny, I thought maybe he was doing another ceremonial participation, dressing up for a Hindi event.
	I literally thought that this was the residue from the paint marking that you put in the center of your forehead when you go to a Hindi festival event.
	That's what I initially thought, because he's done it before, not outlandish that he did it again.
	It's a bruise.
	His explanation, half-assed explanation, playing with his kids, and unless he's playing with hammers or paintballs, that don't make any sense.
	But the media is not asking questions about this.
	Surprise, surprise.
	Classic narcissist, by the way.
	Y 'all remember after his devastating news?
	Splitsville from Sophie Gregoire after 18 wonderful years of a phony sham of a marriage.
	Remember when he said this in his Instagram post?
	Hi, everyone.
	Sophie and I would like to share the fact that after many meaningful and difficult conversations, this is two days after the bruise on the middle of his forehead, we have made the decision to separate.
	As always, we remain a close family with deep love and respect for each other.
	I call bullshit, and I don't think that's mutual, but that may be just my own bias here.
	And for...
	What did I say?
	Love and respect for each other and for everything we have built and will continue to build?
	Oh, so you have deep love and respect for yourself, Justin Trudeau.
	Very interesting.
	But that's not what I want to focus on.
	Not the narcissism, but we're going to get to the narcissism.
	For the well-being of our children, we're victims here.
	For the well-being of our children, we ask that you respect our and their privacy.
	Thank you.
	Now, as Nora, the person who put out an interesting tweet, said, oh yeah, you want your privacy right now when you were making me disclose the medical information to my 13-year-old kid so that he or she could go to a movie theater or go to a coffee shop, sit and proverbially spin Justin Trudeau.
	But he's asking for privacy.
	That was, when was this?
	I think this was on Wednesday.
	He's asking for privacy.
	Wednesday.
	Today?
	Holla!
	We're Team Barbie!
	That's his kid, by the way.
	Just say that's his eldest kid.
	We want our privacy, people.
	It's Splitsville's for Sophie Gregoire.
	Respect our privacy during this hard time.
	Holla!
	We're Team Barbie, people!
	He took his kid.
	I think his kid is 16 years old now.
	Remember, privacy.
	But look at me.
	Has everyone seen I Heart Huckabees?
	You have to watch I Heart Huckabees.
	Privacy.
	Leave us alone during this hard time.
	Look at me!
	Look at me!
	I'm Team Barbie.
	What the hell does we're Team Barbie mean?
	What does that mean?
	Exactly.
	People thinking like, oh, it's Rage Farming Viva.
	He's just going to a movie with this kid.
	First of all, why the hell are you so far away from each other when it's your kid?
	There's a lot of people who are not going to know that this is his kid because it's an awkward pose.
	Because, you know, ordinarily, get in there.
	When you have separation between the hips, that's a distant photograph.
	But set that aside.
	Respect the privacy of myself and my kids three days later.
	Look at me.
	Look at my kids.
	We're Team Barbie.
	And what in the name of sweet holy hell does We're Team Barbie mean?
	Does that mean that Justin Trudeau hates men?
	Does that mean that Justin Trudeau is on the side of the Barbies who want to oppress and subjugate the men because they think that the men have ruined everything?
	Is that what We're Team Barbie means?
	What the hell does it mean?
	I don't know.
	All that I know is in classical narcissist, sociopathical, like pathological narcissism, I'm a victim.
	Please give us our privacy.
	Also, look at me.
	Look at me now.
	Victim when it's convenient.
	Pay attention to me when it's convenient.
	And by the way, if you all thought that the media was going to wait before pulling the...
	Justin Trudeau's, you know, National Post typically is very good.
	But if you all thought they were going to wait before making Trudeau the victim, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assumes a new role.
	Single dad, just like his own father.
	Oh, you mean like his own philandering father as well?
	His own philandering mother who had a broken marriage because of their nasty, immoral, what's the word, extracurricular marriage life?
	The fallout of the separation might prove more costly if the private...
	Struggles of the marriage become public.
	Please, I think they're going to come public.
	Respect our privacy.
	Also, hashtag, we're Team Barbie.
	All right, I can see Barnes is in the backdrop seething with anger because we're talking.
	Barbie made more money than it should.
	It's a toxic agent on social cohesion.
	And that's the side on which Justin Trudeau finds himself.
	Chooses to be.
	Amazing.
	Very telling.
	All right.
	Why do I feel like I'm forgetting something?
	Eh, whatever.
	Robert, you ready?
	Bringing him in.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Robert, he's team Barbie.
	I mean, it's so fitting.
	He's team degeneracy, team downfall of society and everything that was once morally beautiful.
	I like your vest, Robert.
	Ah, thank you.
	Okay, that's very nice.
	Okay, so hold on.
	You're going to tell us what we have on the menu tonight.
	There's so much.
	There's some good stuff, some better stuff, and then some just nasty stuff.
	But what's on the menu for tonight, Robert?
	So off the top, we have a couple of bonus topics.
	An update in the Amos Miller case.
	Brief update per popular request from the board.
	VivaBarnesLoc.Locals.com where the live chat is up and going.
	And if you tip it, any $5 tip or above, we will be answering either tonight or tomorrow.
	Probably tonight.
	The other bonus topics off the top are Niger, what's happening in the coup there, sort of a brief under-explication, and the ongoing Twitter debate over the weekend with Darren Beatty.
	It was our weekend debate, also at vivabarneslaw.locals.com, which was this lame idea for literacy tests for voting.
	And why that's not so well advised.
	And then we get to the core 12 topics of tonight in chronological order.
	RFK sues Google and YouTube.
	Twitter sues over censorship.
	Archer testimony this week.
	The Trump indictment will be the big one, the most popular voted one.
	And we have some detailed analysis on that.
	False Claims Act.
	When is it barred and when can it be restored?
	Can a church in the name of religion steal from its own parishioners?
	Lyft likes to hire pervert drivers, apparently, and gets away with it.
	Speaking of perverts, Lizzo's facing a lawsuit of her own accord for discriminating on every grounds known to man.
	Is there a right for parents to read private oracles to kids?
	In the name of their neo-pagan religion at school.
	A very dangerous attempt to gut Second Amendment out of the district court in Connecticut.
	That is the most aggressive effort to completely take apart and destroy the legacy of Bruin.
	Then, in the name, of course, of that all-holy altar of gun control, Sandy Hook.
	Taco Bell, where's the beef?
	Maybe it's missing.
	Yashir Ali's got to pay some money because apparently he borrowed a lot and didn't pay it.
	And who he didn't pay it to is part of the Getty family.
	And then the last quick bonuses that we may only cover over at vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
	We have a big win against vaccine mandates and the Andy No trial is ongoing in Portland.
	And for those who are new to the show, welcome.
	I don't know how many people are new, but what we do now, we're going to start on YouTube and Rumble.
	End on YouTube, go exclusively on Rumble and Locals, and then after we're done on Rumble, we have our afterparty at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	The link to Rumble is pinned, and I just shared it again.
	So, oh, someone just said, what a time to be alive.
	I could not imagine a more interesting time to be alive, but it makes you want to pull your hair out.
	Robert, so you want to do the Amos updates, and we'll do the RFK censorship lawsuit on all platforms, and then we're going to end on YouTube and go over to Rumble.
	Sounds good.
	So the update Amos Miller case, for those that don't know, he is the Amish farmer.
	His case was featured by Tucker Carlson while Tucker was still on Fox and elsewhere throughout the media.
	The U.S. Department of Agriculture was attempting to effectively shut him down.
	We stepped in.
	At the time, he retained...
	Me, he was facing bankrupting fines at actual incarceration prison time, judgments added for other family members, his wife and all of his properties, and massive numbers of fines.
	That all got resolved, and now to a pretty good degree for Amos.
	And now the second question was, could he get...
	Back into the meat business, at least in the distribution marketing side of the equation.
	Because there's other Amish farmers who the USDA has separately and independently approved in other cases for the butchering and the processing and the slaughtering and the distribution.
	And they're farmers that Amos has confidence in and that his customers have an interest in getting some meat products from.
	And so the U.S. government, after extended negotiations, agreed this past week in a consent order that was filed, signed by the court this weekend, that restored Amos' ability to directly market and ship.
	Other people will be doing the shipping, but he'll be able to market meat.
	So that people will probably sometime over the next couple of weeks be able to again buy meat from Amos.
	It's an intermediary solution.
	It's not the ultimate resolution, but it's a good step in the right direction to keep his farm financially functioning and keep his audience and his community and his clientele and his customers and his members able to get the food they need.
	So it's a good step in the right direction.
	We'll see how much further it goes along with that.
	For the two other brief topics, Niger, there was a military coup in Niger, just like there's been in Guinea and Burkini Faso and Mali, might be coming one in Chad.
	This is throughout West Central Africa.
	The background is that they have internal old tribal disputes that...
	have taken on a religious coloration, but aren't really religious in origin.
	But the West has treated it as indistinguishable from other Islamist insurgencies and placed their own troops there.
	And the way they've handled and managed the different conflicts and disputes has often led to the dissatisfaction of the local nation's military and sometimes the broader populace.
	And they have a lot of uranium and other resources throughout this Central African resource-rich region.
	And sometimes those mines and other things are located where the dissenting minority tribe is causing a rebellion.
	And often they're using Islam as their cover for what is really a long-standing, centuries-old contest, conflict.
	Niger was just the latest for that collapse to occur.
	The French had already been kicked out of Burkina Faso and Mali.
	They've now been or are in the process of being kicked out of Niger.
	And there's talk of Europe and other African nations causing a direct conflict and sending in intervening.
	And sending troops in to Niger to restore the elected president.
	The elected president happens to be Arab, which only represents less than 1% of the country.
	And he had allowed French and American troops to be there.
	Not only were they being unsuccessful in their handling of the various insurgent movements, but they're also often doing so at the expense of the local military, which is where the conflict really arose.
	The other aspect of this lurking in the background is that Russia has sent in its own mercenaries, the Wagner Group, repeatedly to much greater success.
	And that has led to people in West Central Africa.
	Cheering Putin, cheering Russia, welcoming Wagner.
	They see them as less problematic than French and American troops on their grounds.
	This is also a spillover from the Obama administration's destabilization of both Libya and Syria, which destabilized the entire Central African region because of how the conflict spread.
	But that's loosely what's taking place there.
	But we may have another major conflict in Central Africa.
	Then the latest, Vivek, has an idea for a kind of a literary or civics test.
	Now, his test is limited by age for people 18 to 24. He wants it either an alternative of literacy, civics, or service.
	Darren Beatty and some others have taken it further and suggested there should just be a broad literary test to prohibit people from voting.
	That's patently unconstitutional.
	It's already been declared as such.
	So you would have to have a constitutional amendment to pass it.
	But Vivek comes from the caste system of India, as family does.
	We don't need that here in America.
	It's one of Vivek's dumber ideas, quite frankly.
	Why do Republicans, just politically speaking, want to run on literacy tests?
	Because we've done this before.
	People like Beatty seem to be completely unaware of American history.
	I mean, a literacy test we've been using since the 1840s, but in every case, it was aristocratic elites finding an excuse to keep working-class populist movements from having any voters.
	It was mostly used in the South between 1890 and 1960, not only to keep all Black voters off the polls, but to keep most working-class and poor whites from voting.
	Mississippi in 1860...
	I mean, when the population doubled.
	How is that?
	Well, it's because they were excluding all the poor and working class whites under the guise of literacy tests and other similar comparable methods.
	So aside from being just opposed to it as a matter of constitutional principle, these are people that don't understand the Declaration of Independence.
	They don't understand.
	We'll be the book of the month this month at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Common Sense by Thomas Paine, the true intellectual father of the American Revolution.
	Nor do they understand Lincoln at Gettysburg, the speech we covered over this past month at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	They don't understand who and what America is.
	Territorial sovereignty says that the government has the right to govern you.
	The Declaration of Independence in the American Revolution and Lincoln and Gettysburg and Thomas Paine's Common Sense says they only derive that right if you consent to give it to them.
	And so that's why consent, that's why all men being created equal and all rights coming from those people, coming from individual human beings, changes that territorial sovereignty.
	But these people are proposing that you could tax somebody, you could take their property, you can subject them to court proceedings, you could take away their liberty, and you could actually make them go into the draft and kill people overseas, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote because they passed somebody's ideas test of what's proper for a person voting.
	But what of the idea, I notice that Vivek sort of conducts himself like a younger Trump, and maybe the idea here is put out something that's sort of...
	More outlandish of an idea so you can backtrack and say, okay, well, no test to vote, but at least have some decent civics classes in school so that Americans understand and appreciate it.
	The focus should be on education.
	It should not be conditioning.
	The idea that we should give the state...
	I disagree with it philosophically, morally, right at its core, because it's an elitist, aristocratic idea.
	The other thing is, politically I oppose it because it's just bad politics and it's dumb politics.
	These ideas, if you dig deep, you can just go into Darren Beatty's responses and you get a bunch of racists without fail.
	There's a part of the intellectual dissident right that likes to flirt as Beatty himself.
	He lost his White House job because he liked to flirt with these people.
	With racists, with white nationalists, with neo-fascists, with people who come up with ideas like, let's have a monarchy again.
	I mean, these are ludicrous, idiotic, imbecilic notions.
	But they litter the dissident right for the last century.
	And they contaminate the more popular, more populist, more traditionally conservative ideas, more American ideas, and damage them by simple association and affiliation.
	And it's most recently revealed with Richard Hanania.
	I mean, Richard Hanania suddenly, you know, rode Trump to social media success, gets a job at the University of Texas, and then becomes a Trump hater and a war whore and every other idiotic ideology.
	But he was another one of these guys that believed in some of these things and had a little subtext of racial dynamics being present.
	And, of course, now it comes out.
	That he's been secretly writing stuff that he was pro-eugenics, wanted to sterilize all black people, was deeply anti-Semitic.
	It's like, I mean, even to the people that have responded to me, I look up where else they've responded to me that are for these ideas.
	Disproportionately, they show up as Jew-haters.
	They show up as unusually obsessed with Israel, have obvious racial prejudices present.
	So I don't want to be associated or affiliated with any of those people.
	But the other problem is just practically, I mean, you have to be an idiot.
	You have to be an imbecile.
	You have to be as historically illiterate as Darren Beatty is.
	And again, I like a lot of what his writing is at Revolver.
	I like a lot of his reporting.
	Stick to journalism, Darren, and not the idea cabinet.
	It's not your strong point.
	Who do you think is going to administer this?
	We know how licensing regimes work.
	We know how literacy tests work.
	Every single literacy test or version thereof in American history has been used to help elites screw working class people and kill populist movements.
	Every single one.
	We don't have to wonder what will happen.
	We know what will happen.
	Number one.
	Number two.
	Just look around at licensing regimes today.
	Law, medicine, controlled by what?
	Access through testing.
	Guess who dominates those professions?
	Hint, it ain't conservatives.
	So why conservatives would embrace the aristocratic values of the professional managerial class that is going to gut them?
	The first person they'll disqualify from voting is Darren because they'll say you don't have the proper understanding of things.
	And they would basically crush themselves.
	And they're too dumb to realize it.
	Well, but there's a flip side to that.
	Someone had joked, well, joked.
	It was once a concept, you know, you should only be allowed to vote if you have property.
	The idea being if you have nothing at stake for the consequences of your vote, you shouldn't have the right to vote.
	That isn't the real reason they put in that limit, though.
	They put that limit in because they didn't want, because they're a bunch of working class people that helped make the revolution possible that the local elites wanted to screw over in the states after the American government was formed.
	And that's what that history was.
	And the Andrew Jackson movement and the Thomas Jefferson movement helped reverse that.
	We had universal suffrage for almost any nation in the world.
	And Thomas Paine, the intellectual father of the American Revolution, It was for universal suffrage, including men, women, and abolition, all the way from the get-go.
	They almost included multiple times a statement anti-slavery in the Declaration of Independence, which is truly the founding document of American political scripture.
	It's the basis of it.
	Just having a constitution didn't make us unique.
	Just having separation of powers, that didn't make us unique.
	It was the Declaration of Independence that made us unique.
	I was going to say, we got a constitution in Canada.
	We got separation of powers.
	And then I was going to say, the flip side to that argument is the Democrat argument, we want everyone to vote.
	And I think most people would agree, everyone who has the right to vote should be allowed to vote, but there should be some checks and balances in that you should just make sure you are who you are when you vote, and that your vote is free and enlightened.
	Yeah, we shouldn't have dead people voting.
	Or you don't have people under pressure or bribed or extorted or blackmailed or somebody stealing their vote.
	That should be the focal point.
	I mean, politically, of course, it's just idiotic to go around saying, hey, let's introduce ideas from the 1950 South.
	I mean, you want to get politically crushed?
	The number one group, and whether Darren Beatty realized it or not, pushing these ideas, it would kill Trump's chances in 2024, as well as Republicans.
	Because the number one group, as liberals pointed out this past week, that have moved to Trump since 2020 are non-white voters, particularly working class and millennial minority voters.
	Why do we want to go around and say, oh, now we think about it, we'd like to make the ballot box look like our country club.
	Pay a little poll tax, you have to have a certain amount of property or status to get in, you gotta pass a test.
	It's like, this is why Republicans are constantly committing political suicide.
	I think most people are saying it's not a realistic proposition.
	Anyhow, as an idea, conceptually, some people might like the idea.
	Vivek needs to keep his ideas of the Indian caste system to himself.
	We don't need to hear an American Vivek.
	I like a lot of Vivek's other ideas, but that ain't one of them.
	Well, I'll tell you, I was confused by Steve Deese's recent tweets over the weekend.
	Everyone's getting very impassioned by the Apparent criminality of Trump, which we'll talk about.
	So some people are thinking, everyone's strategizing their own best way to deal with it.
	We'll get there.
	All right.
	The one topic we're going to do here that we're going to go over to Rumble.
	It's the one topic that YouTube will probably kick our video off for doing.
	Bullcrap.
	They're going to answer my question as to, Robert, now I'm thinking about it.
	The video that I had taken down my interview with Francois Amalaga, I'm wondering now if it was a video taken down based on the updated terms of service, because when I looked at the ones that they sent me, now that I think about it, it clearly had the RFK provision in it.
	And I don't know when they even implemented that.
	Okay.
	Francois Amalaga was the Cameroonian, moved to Quebec, spent some time in jail because he refused to abide by the COVID restrictions.
	And maybe it was a little antagonistic in the way he went and overtly deliberately broke the rules.
	But the world needs people like Francois.
	It's an interesting lawsuit.
	It seems that it's been argued many times.
	I think PragerU, a couple of years back, filed a similarly basist lawsuit.
	But we've got a lot more information now than we did back then in terms of the insidious, incestuous corruption between government agencies and the social media monopolies.
	And RFK Jr.'s lawsuit fleshes it out.
	Bottom line, they're saying now that the government collusion, government coercion is known.
	The evidence is out.
	It's been disclosed in a number of spots.
	It's undeniable.
	And therefore, these community guidelines, terms of service, which are opaque, vague, ambiguous, and apparently politically implemented, are void and can't be applied, and they have to be struck down, and YouTube and Google have to be enjoined from enforcing them.
	And RFK does do a good job of incorporating the newly discovered elements from the Twitter files.
	What was the most recent one that we just discovered, Robert?
	Oh, Tabarnouche, I forget.
	But either way, he's done a good job really showing that the social media company, it's not just a private company monopoly.
	They have been acting at the behest of and maybe say under the coercion of the federal government and have in that sense become an extension of the federal government, thus subject to First Amendment rights, First Amendment violations, First Amendment protections.
	Robert, without getting ahead of ourselves, how optimistic are you of any chance of success now or down the line?
	Does this force the Supreme Court to one day take these cases and render a definitive judgment?
	Well, really, it's heavily predicated upon the evidence that was developed in the Missouri and Louisiana versus Biden.
	Which is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on an expedited briefing schedule after the district court issued an injunction that the appeals court temporarily stayed, finding that there was state action.
	Effectively, and this comes from theories that I've had, but also primarily of theories that a Yale Law professor had, that basically big tech was in the state action business.
	First suit to really fully develop this was Robert Kennedy's suit against Facebook that's still pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	And basically, when it's state action is when there's been significant and substantial encouragement by the state, when you can basically say there's been either collusion or coercion, such that the private actor is not acting independently.
	And what you need is either significant encouragement or significant threats or effectively a joint enterprise or something comparable to it.
	And here, their point in this complaint is that these actual new rules derive directly from the government.
	The government sent the rules over, and that's how YouTube adjusted and modified it.
	So they're like, these aren't YouTube's rules.
	These are the government's rules, using YouTube as its enforcement tool.
	Second, there's been no doubt about substantial encouragement because they've said YouTube is killing people and responsible for mass murder if they don't do it, while also threatening that they'll lose a whole bunch of benefits if they don't make the changes requested.
	And there's no question also that they were targeting Robert Kennedy in particular because there's emails, multiple emails, that say, from the Biden White House, get rid of Robert Kennedy.
	And the point that they're enhancing here is that now he's a presidential candidate and that Biden has a specific motivation to get rid of him.
	And they allege that upon information and belief, Biden has escalated his threats to YouTube and Google to try to restrict Robert Kennedy.
	For those that don't know, I mean, things like his interview with Jordan Peterson was struck.
	His interview with Joe Rogan was struck.
	Popular big interviews have been knocked off of the YouTube platform.
	The more popular, more likely they get struck.
	And so even some interviews where he didn't even discuss anything related to COVID-19, which shows how, and it's not those components that are getting struck, and they're giving no notice when they strike them and no opportunity to fix it.
	So it's part of, they clearly feel pressure to censor and suppress.
	The voice of Robert Kennedy as a public platform that's effectively the agent of the United States government.
	And so that's the evidentiary and legal theory.
	Now, I think there's an additional theory he may pursue at some point.
	There's requirements in the Federal Trade Commission laws that broadcasters, of which YouTube clearly is at this point, have to give equal time It's always been an open question whether that's enforceable in a private cause of action.
	To my knowledge, it's never been litigated.
	And so that may be something else he adds to the equation.
	But here he's bringing a two-fold First Amendment claim, one on the grounds that it's pure speech suppression and retaliation.
	The other is that these rules are so overbroad and vague that since they're really government rules, they violate due process requirements of notice and have overbreadth problems in the First Amendment.
	So it's a case he should win.
	It's in the Northern District of California.
	It's in the Ninth Circuit where there's been hostility.
	So we'll see if he actually does win it.
	But yeah, I think one way or the other between the Missouri case, the other Robert Kennedy versus Facebook case.
	This Robert Kennedy case, one of these cases is going to end up before the Supreme Court.
	Has nobody tried the argument of deceitful business practices?
	I mean, I know RFK...
	Yeah, they've argued Section...
	His Facebook case did.
	They also argued RICO and everything else, and they argued Section...
	And the court accepted, the district court did, Section 230 immunity.
	All right, well, that's it.
	So don't anybody get your hopes up.
	I know, but it's a good lawsuit.
	I mean, it definitely, on the factual basis, has incorporated all of the recent stuff that we've been covering coming out of the Missouri case, coming out of, you know, recent statements, disclosures, Twitter files, and all the rest.
	So, factual basis, it's good.
	We'll see if it goes anywhere.
	And the fact that he is running for president, and when they take down Jordan Peterson's interview with him, I mean, it's obvious what they're doing.
	And the reason they...
	And the reason why he's got a stronger case is not just the Missouri versus Biden precedent and evidence, but the detail of the specific exhibits that he was able to get, which that's he didn't have before.
	Now he's got specific exhibits that they are coordinated.
	They said, please take down everything with Robert Kennedy in it.
	And now he's Biden's opponent.
	So you have that additional component.
	You have Biden weaponizing.
	The government to suppress the speech of his opponent through coercion on big tech and denial of the rights of freedom of speech, expression, press, and the like.
	And it's probably all because he doesn't want people paying too much attention to the Trump campaign people put out this week.
	Every time there's been a corruption story break about Joe Biden...
	They indict Donald Trump within a day or two.
	Robert, it's not a pattern that can be ignored anymore.
	You talk about the distraction, and I was having this discussion with someone just today.
	There's a scandal, and then they indict Trump almost exactly for what that scandal was that would otherwise reveal about Joe Biden.
	Someone asked me, like...
	Why are people not talking about Joe Biden's financial corruption, ties to foreign nations, criminality that we discussed on Friday with Marco Polo?
	And I say, why?
	Because every time that that happens, there's another indictment.
	And wouldn't you know, the indictment in New York, pretty much for the financial improprieties of which Biden and family are guilty.
	The quid pro quo impeachment, pretty much for what Biden did and was guilty of.
	In the classified documents case, this is what Biden has been guilty of.
	All of it's confession through projection.
	Or Goebbels, accuse your enemies of what you are doing so as to create confusion.
	Alright, last time people, get your butts over to Rumble.
	There are 3,234 people here who should all be migrating to the free speech platform Rumble.
	And then we're going to get on with the rest of the show.
	Ending on YouTube.
	In three, and then you can come on over to Locals afterwards.
	Two, come to Rumble.
	One, and we're off YouTube.
	Boom.
	All right, Robert, let me get to my list of things here.
	So Twitter sues over censorship.
	Robert, I think I forgot to read this lawsuit.
	What's going on with Twitter?
	Who are they suing?
	And what's the basis of the lawsuit?
	So yeah, basically, who Twitter is suing is the Center for Digital Hate or whatever.
	Yeah, the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
	They should be called Center for Digital Hate.
	And they are running a smear campaign to discourage people from advertising.
	And a lot of these fake NGOs and research groups were set up over the last decade so that the media and the government could cite to them as somehow being independent when they're just political hacks there to call their opponents all kinds of bad names and to scare and intimidate.
	Big companies into not advertising.
	We got one in Canada called Anti-Hate CA.
	And wouldn't you know it, it's about as bad, dumb, propagandistic, propagandist, sorry, as the ADL.
	Which one was the one in the States?
	It was the ADL or the one that fell for the 4chan OK symbol.
	I think it was the ADL.
	The ADL corrected it after.
	After other aspects.
	But yeah, so X, I guess you call him Z?
	I have no idea.
	Supposedly you call XZ, the new name of Twitter, sued because they said, look, they're running a smear campaign to deter advertisers.
	And the core of their claim is how the Center for Digital Hate got their information.
	Namely, that they got it under...
	Basically, unauthorized access.
	It looked to me like they committed hacking, effectively.
	But what is it?
	They got somebody else who had a contract with Twitter to give up information that they themselves weren't entitled to under the contract.
	And they scraped data without authority.
	Stole data as well, plus got unauthorized access.
	So they stole a bunch of information, so they're being sued for breach of contract, various torts, other claims, because the source of their information was illicit.
	The consequence was it negatively impacted Twitter's bottom line.
	So I think what, as like Elon Musk announced today, that he would help fund the legal cost of anyone who got fired based on their social media content.
	We'll see how he's going to make that a reality.
	That may be a bigger number than he knows about.
	But it shows he's legally going to fight back across the board against this.
	And it's a good time for organizations like this to be put under real legal scrutiny.
	And it's the first time it's really happened to someone at this scale.
	Do you know the Center for Digital Hate in the States?
	Is it also, you know, it gets funded by the Biden administration in the same way the anti-hate...
	Nobody even knows.
	That's one of their arguments, is that it's unclear who really funds them.
	And I was going to say something.
	Elon's offer was only for people who got fired for liking a Twitter post.
	So it wasn't as broad.
	Gina Carano said, well, this should cover me, but it doesn't cover Instagram, Gina.
	Now, I had one more question about this.
	This would be a classic case of tortious interference with contracts because it's a third party through unlawful means interfering with...
	Okay, good.
	I like it.
	Fingers crossed.
	One of the things that got covered up, of course, was when Twitter was Twitter and not owned by Elon Musk and Z or X, or whatever it's called, was the cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop.
	Which was true election interference, which Devin Archer detailed both before Congress and within interviews with Tucker Carlson, just showing what we've been talking about at Beba Barnes Law, thoughtlocals.com, for several years now, which is just the modus operandi of the Biden family.
	They're a Biden crime family that has been weaponizing their political power, of Joe Biden in particular.
	To line the pockets of the entire family by selling out the country on a regular basis, whether that was illicit access to classified materials, whether that was unauthorized in its disclosure, whether that was, as some of the Biden people were trying to claim as a defense, whether it was always the big fraud and lie and an illusion and they were tricking people into thinking they were buying something that they weren't, as if that somehow makes it better.
	Oh, no.
	So, Devin Archer testifies.
	He does...
	I think Tucker only released part one of his interview, right?
	He hasn't released part two yet.
	I think he's released one and two, but there might be another one.
	Okay.
	So, Devin testifies.
	I mean, for those who were in the know, nothing new about what he testified except for the fact that now it's public and undeniable.
	It's undeniable unless you are a pathological liar like Daniel Goldman, who now has replaced Adam Schiff because Schiff can't get away with lying again because everybody knows Schiff is a liar for what he said about the Russia hoax.
	So now Daniel Goldman is Schiff 2.0.
	Archer gets out there and says he was patently aware of his son's business.
	Arguable whether or not he was involved in the business, but basically...
	I mean, there's no other way to say it.
	The business was Joe's business.
	Hunter was the front man, not the other way around.
	And this is what Garrett Ziegler said on Friday.
	Hunter was the bag man.
	He was there, you know, paying his father's expenses.
	They had the bank accounts.
	They have the emails.
	They have all the receipts.
	Devin Archer basically comes out and confirms this.
	Oh, but they were peddling influence.
	And then you have Daniel Goldman come out, liar, say, Devin Archer's testimony says the exact opposite of what Republicans alleged.
	It was only peddling influence.
	He wasn't involved in the business, which is a mutually incompatible assertion.
	Peddling influence is being involved in the business, but they've morphed this now from I never discussed my son's business to I was never involved in my son's business.
	Devin Archer confirmed everything.
	Comes on Tucker Carlson, maybe in not as categorical or shocking terms, but...
	It's there for everybody to see.
	Robert, why is it not going anywhere further than congressional hearings and some soundbites on Twitter?
	Because the Biden Justice Department's made sure of that.
	The agreement in place that basically immunizes Hunter Biden.
	Now, if he were to reject the diversion agreement for some reason, but there's no evidence he has, one of the benefits of them putting the immunity deal in the diversion agreement Is that he could reject the plea agreement and still get the benefit of the immunity.
	The diversion agreement is not subject to the judge's approval.
	Only the plea agreement is.
	So this is why he's got pure immunity still.
	Let me just flesh that out a little more.
	Are there any other lawyers saying what you're saying now?
	Are people saying, Robert, be quiet, don't give them any ideas?
	Or is it a known legal...
	Any good criminal defense lawyer knows exactly what this is.
	So there's just not much doubt about it.
	And I think there's some hope and optimism because the judge may not accept the plea deal.
	And all that would do is the government would then be free to go to trial on those two misdemeanor charges.
	But that's it.
	There's an argument that they can't even charge anything else.
	Because again, the immunity...
	This is the judge's point.
	She was like, is it normal for an immunity agreement to be in a diversion deal?
	And everybody was like, nah, we've never heard of that, actually.
	This is a first.
	And she's like, is it normal to have an immunity deal in a diversion agreement that doesn't concern the charges in the diversion agreement?
	So let's just say hypothetically, Hunter...
	Can reject the plea deal, maybe go to jail for a year, but then still benefits from the immunity one way or the other.
	And so Hunter is off scot-free.
	There will be no further investigations into Hunter or the business dealings.
	Let's assume that you're right.
	There is one way in which that could get blown up, which is the judge is basically telling Hunter, if he wants the guarantee of probation, then he needs to come in and say that that...
	Diversion agreement, immunity agreement, it's much smaller than it appears.
	That was what the judge was trying to get Hunter Biden's lawyers to agree to.
	To be frank, they'd be idiots to do that.
	Just roll the dice on going to trial on the misdemeanors.
	They wouldn't like the evidence that might develop related to that and a lot of other things.
	The maximum exposure for him would be two years.
	On the tax or on the felony gun charge?
	Just the two misdemeanors.
	Snipes was acquitted of everything but three misdemeanors.
	And those three misdemeanors, nine of the 12 jurors wanted to acquit him on.
	The judge knew that.
	The judge still sentenced him to the maximum possible sentence.
	So under the Snipes standard, Hunter would have to do two years.
	Doesn't mean he will, but...
	That's his risk.
	And the question is, does he decide to give up the scope of immunity in exchange for probation?
	That's what the judge is putting out there for him.
	I don't think he'll be dumb enough to do that.
	But let's just say then, let's just say he agrees to go to jail, gets out early with whatever time and a half.
	He's immune from prosecution for everything and anything related to that annex, which is everything and anything.
	They included both appendixes, the appendix to the diversion agreement, and, this is also very unusual, they included the appendix in the plea agreement to the immunity provided in the diversion agreement.
	That's why it was...
	And any crimes that could arise out of it.
	Which, by the way, that covers everything.
	That's why it's so long.
	That's why it has all the details about China and Romania and Ukraine and money laundering and drug use and sex trafficking.
	It's so that he can't be charged with anything.
	That was complete carte blanche immunity, and that hasn't been taken away at all, nor could it be, unless he gives it up.
	So let's say that Hunter is set for life yet again.
	Who can be impeached for clear dereliction of duty?
	I mean, I don't know how it works in terms of which officers can be impeached.
	The Attorney General, well, definitely the Attorney General, Garland, the Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Monaco, and the President of the United States, Joe Biden.
	Holy sweet, merciful hell.
	All right.
	And I wanted to also highlight that Devin Archer talking about the peddling influence and confirming, you know, that they brought on Hunter.
	On to the board of directors of Burisma, as Joe Biden, give or take, is firing the prosecutor who's looking into Burisma, arguing that all countries wanted him to do it, which, if you trust and rely on Garrett Ziegler from Friday, not the case at all.
	But the idea that it doesn't procure some benefit to have the son of the vice president on the board of directors of a known corrupt entity.
	It lends credence, credibility, and protection from investigation.
	And lo and behold, they got all of that, but not before Hunter Biden got his retainer, got his payment.
	And Devin Archer confirms all of this, but Devin Archer himself is a convicted criminal, so the left can now disregard everything he has to say because he's a criminal when they want to, but they can, you know.
	Okay.
	Anything else of Devin Archer that is of interest, Robert?
	Does he go?
	I mean...
	Just that it was followed up by the craziest, most dangerous indictment in American political history.
	Robert, so I've read through it.
	We've now gone through it, you and me to a lesser degree, in our vivabarneslaw.locals.com community.
	It's a steaming pile of dog shit.
	I'm not trying to be...
	You read through it, and I'll say it more eloquently like Jonathan Turley.
	If you redline everything that is presumptively First Amendment...
	You're left with what amounts to nothing more than a haiku.
	They keep trying to say it's not his words.
	He's not being prosecuted or indicted for his words.
	He's being indicted for his fraudulent scheme to present alternate slate of electors to the state legislators, whatever the terminology is.
	And I keep saying, first of all, was it Dan Goldman who put out a tweet?
	Fraud.
	They were never presenting themselves as the original slate of electors.
	That was never the legal theory behind this.
	And you claim that it's not words, but rather fraudulent schemes under a law which apparently is so vague, ambiguous, and contains this loophole that they're proposing a bipartisan bill to clarify the loopholes and the ambiguity of the 18 whatever law it is that this legal theory was based on.
	Robert, how do you make people who are not liars understand that A, this indictment criminalizes free speech, and even if you were of the opinion that you could criminalize speech which was putting into plan an act of speech, Well, I mean, I think both Turley and Dershowitz put it well in their own ways.
	Turley pointed out, you'd only have haiku if you took out protected speech.
	And as Dershowitz put it, if this indictment was legally correct, then Jack Smith could be indicted for bringing the indictment.
	Because the indictment itself, there is indeed a conspiracy afoot to interfere with the people's right to vote.
	And it's called President Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Assistant Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and Special Counsel Jack Smith bringing this indictment.
	This indictment is the inner conspiracy, and it's a conspiracy that includes federal judges, including the judge presiding over the case, who's already proven her hopeless prejudice in the proceedings.
	So the key problem throughout the whole thing is it attempts to criminalize speech, assembly, petition, and attorney-client advocacy, because that's the entire indictment.
	There's nothing in the indictment that doesn't fit one of those four actions.
	That everyone is either speech, assembly, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, or talking to your lawyer.
	But Robert, the legal theory, which, you know, the internal email saying it's, I don't know, crazy, some people didn't have as much faith in it, set aside the fact that it occurred in Hawaii.
	I don't remember the details of this.
	Maybe if it's worth it, you can flesh them out real quick.
	It's a legal theory that has been tried and implemented before, and nothing more than Trump saying, I believe this election was questionable.
	They keep saying, oh, you filed 60 lawsuits and there's no fraud.
	There were no Dominion voting machines.
	Bullcrap!
	The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in and of itself is enough to have vitiated...
	This election from being constitutional.
	On its face, that's election interference.
	Therefore, this election, or 2020, was the result of election interference.
	Floating a legal theory, consulting with counsel, solicitor-client privilege documents, which are in there, talking to the crowd to say, we're going to protest, fight like hell to save your country, but do it peacefully.
	We are the party of law and order.
	And they've criminalized all of it.
	Or they're attempting to.
	The one he's really attacking.
	is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
	And to give people some idea, this has been applied in the criminal context because, in fact, from where it came from, England.
	So a bunch of folks were prosecuted on the grounds of seditious libel for the way in which they filed a petition with the government.
	And the right to petition was already recognized.
	It goes back to the Magna Carta.
	And the English courts, recognized in the 1600s, No, you cannot criminally punish anything that involves petitioning the government.
	This is why, in certain contexts, whistleblowers are protected.
	For example, let's say you call it the other context in which this has already been litigated in America is people making police reports.
	You can't prosecute people for police reports unless they specifically lie in a specific way to the police officer.
	Outside of that instance, you can't sue them generally.
	Why?
	It's petitioning for redress of grievances.
	And what Jack Smith's theory is, is that the only permitted petition for redress of grievances is to go to the courts, number one, and number two, to only go to the courts on theories he agrees with.
	If it's not both, it's a crime now.
	That's how insane this prosecution is.
	So people like Michael Tracy, Glenn Greenwald, other people on the left are like, this is the most dangerous indictment to core constitutional rights in the history of America.
	It just is.
	It just goes way past Donald Trump.
	I just lost my thought.
	It had to do with...
	Oh, son of a beasting.
	And people forget, right to petition for redress of grievances was considered more fundamental than any other right at the time of the American Constitution.
	Because what it was was they would keep petitioning the king and the parliament, and king and parliament kept...
	Answering it with injury as the Declaration of Independence states.
	And so the right to petition for redress of grievances, even though Amy Coney Barrett forgot it existed, is a critical, essential, and foundational right under the First Amendment.
	And what they're saying is, hey, Donald Trump, you can't petition the vice president for redress of grievances.
	You can't petition Congress for redress of grievances.
	You can't petition a governor or state legislature or state official for redress of grievances.
	That's all criminal.
	The only thing you can do is go to court.
	Well, that would effectively strip and deny all of the rights that are in the petition for right to redress of grievances.
	It would also, he actually does implicitly attack the judicial filings too, which is also part, by the way, of petition for right to redress of grievances.
	It's why inmates have a right to bring habeas petitions while they're pro se inside, or other petitions.
	Like my favorite one ever brought was a petition for specific relief in which the inmate asked that the eight people who screwed him over, the judge ordered them to kiss his ass.
	It was a very unique petition.
	But this is a direct attack on the right to petition your government for redress of grievances.
	If the president can't do it, you sure can't without going to prison.
	Now, this is the thought that I forgot.
	You'll tell me if I'm wrong and if I'm strawmanning it.
	They focus a lot on the fraudulent scheme, which was to submit fraudulent electors.
	They keep saying fraudulent electors as opposed to...
	That's part of petitioning for redress of grievances.
	That's what that is.
	They keep using the word fraudulent electors to persuade the public that they were there saying, we're the electors, here's our documents.
	They're not using the term alternate electors.
	And as far as I understood of the legal theory...
	The scheme, even if you want to call it that, these electors were not being duped into thinking they were the original electors.
	They were going to present themselves as saying, we are the alternate slate of electors that should be recognized because the original slate of electors are the result of a fraudulent, vitiated, unconstitutional election, and they should be disregarded.
	In which case, nobody's going in there fraudulently trying to convey that someone is what they are not.
	They are saying exactly what they are.
	And that the original should be disregarded because it was the result of vitiated consent, whatever.
	Am I wrong on that?
	It's garbage constitutionally, even if the factual allegations were true.
	Now, the second problem is it's putting a label on conduct that's just not accurate.
	So that, you know, the saying, I want alternate electors considered, is petition for redress of grievances.
	It can't be fraud.
	Otherwise, you can label disagreement fraud.
	And that's what Turley and others were like, whoa, this indictment goes way past the pale.
	These are legal professors that aren't Trumpers and that haven't been that aggressive defending Trump and the other charges.
	These cases where they're like, whoa, this case goes way past anything reasonable.
	This is a pure attempt to criminalize First Amendment activity.
	And to use Trump to establish the precedent to do it to anyone else.
	If you make any speech that could impact government agency that the government later determines they don't think was accurate, now you go to prison.
	That would gut all First Amendment protection.
	Gut it.
	Eviscerate.
	If this indictment is allowed to go forward, the First Amendment is dead in America.
	Period.
	Dead.
	That's how big this case is.
	Trump was taking some mockery on the internet because he said the Supreme Court must intercede because this is election interference.
	I thought people were making fun of him because they didn't understand what the word intercede meant.
	And I still think that that's the case because I think people thought he meant to say intervene and people didn't actually realize what intercede means at a legal level.
	What has to happen for a court?
	Could a court...
	Can a court say this is outrageous and we're ending it of our own volition?
	There's procedural mechanisms.
	So what you need is an appealable issue.
	Now, they're going to have an appealable issue out of the gate because the judge who everything about her...
	Scream prejudice.
	And just being an Obama appointee is considered insufficient prejudice in our system.
	I don't have a problem with that.
	The issue was her actual statements in other cases that showed a bias against Trump that went way past what the judge said about Disney.
	That was the grounds for DeSantis' motion to disqualify in the Florida proceeding.
	But it's not only that.
	Her personal history is she has involvement with people who will be witnesses on some of the grounds of motions to dismiss because she was a lawyer at the law firm with Hunter Biden involved in the Burisma corruption scam.
	And one of the motions to dismiss that will likely be brought is that this is a selective prosecution as punishment for Trump's speech concerning Biden family corruption.
	That that will be part of it.
	How can she be the judge over something that she was involved in?
	So that's the extraordinary uniqueness.
	But any doubt anybody had about how prejudiced she would be was answered very quickly because the government came in and demanded What they call a protective order.
	It's really a disguised gag order.
	And it's a gag order meant to prohibit the American people from knowing information that makes the prosecution's case look bad in this politically charged case.
	And what she did is she ordered the defense to respond in less than one business day.
	Utterly ludicrous.
	Utterly preposterous.
	She's so prejudiced, so corrupt, she is incapable of being an impartial jurist.
	So what Trump announced and his legal team announced is they're going to seek motions to disqualify her.
	They only have some facts.
	They don't know all the facts that may be pertinent to a motion to disqualify.
	And they're going to be a motion to transfer a venue because the chief judge...
	And other judges in D.C. came in and watched gleefully Trump get arrested.
	No one has ever heard of this ever happening in the history of federal courts.
	These are judges, Amy Berman Jackson, corrupt hack judge who should be impeached.
	The chief judge of the District of Columbia should be impeached.
	This judge assigned to this case should be impeached.
	And it's where the House should start talking about it now.
	Because this is way, way, way out of control.
	Federal D.C. judges can't wait to weaponize and abuse and misuse their power in a conspiracy to deny the American people their right to vote.
	These judges themselves, under the Jack Smith legal theory, are the ones who should be facing criminal prosecution and punishment.
	That is how egregious this is.
	Because it's not only egregious in how it would eviscerate the First Amendment in America, if this case allowed to proceed, but it would also greenlight the most corrupt judicial system in America, misusing and abusing their power in the most nefarious and obvious and evident manner.
	So they'll bring the motion to transfer venue as well.
	Now, I'm sure this corrupt hack of a judge will deny all of these motions and reliefs.
	And grant the ridiculousness of the protective order.
	However, contrary to what Turley was saying and Littman and other people that thought this is somehow a mistake, you need to put all of this on the record right away.
	When you have a politically corrupt judge, you just got to call it out.
	If you don't, they will railroad you and crush you.
	And yeah, they'll take potshots at you as counsel, and they're going to do all that garbage.
	You can't worry about that.
	You got to go right at it, right out of the gate.
	You got to deal with it up front.
	I mean, to be honest, Roger Stone's lawyers screwed up by not making it a major issue from day one.
	It was clear Amy Berman Jackson was a political hack who would whore her power for bipartisan purposes.
	She proved it in the trial.
	They should have gone after her right away because they had grounds to do so.
	There's even more grounds with this judge.
	But get all of those on the record because every single order she makes is appealable.
	So you'll give the Supreme Court every possible chance.
	To intercede and intervene by simply taking up one of these petitions.
	Now, a smart media company out there, whether it's Jim Hoft or Julie Kelly or Mike Cernovich or anybody else, has under the D.C. court rules a right to bring their own third party proceeding in the case.
	Because of the protective order, that has been considered to be a violation.
	It's a prior restraint on speech.
	And if you have a lawyer willing to disclose information about it or a party willing to disclose information, it's a violation of the First Amendment free press rights of the Julie Kellys and Mike Cernoviches and Jim Hoffs and Gateway Pundits and Alex Joneses and all the rest of the world.
	They have an independent right to challenge this.
	And a bunch of media people, if they're smart, will in fact do so.
	Say, you have no business.
	This is the most political case in American history.
	You have no business suppressing and censoring information about this case.
	None.
	It's not your constitutional privilege.
	We get your political hat.
	We get you're involved in the corruption of the Biden administration, previous to the Biden administration, with Hunter Biden specifically, and your prior legal practice.
	But that's no grounds to be doing this nonsense.
	So expose it for the joke of a proceeding that it is.
	Continue to go that route.
	Pursue every remedy that gives you a procedural means to get up to the Court of Appeals in the Supreme Court.
	The protective order, you can appeal.
	The denial of motion to disqualify, you can appeal.
	Denial of motion to transfer venue, you can appeal.
	Now after that, you likely bring motions for pretrial discovery, subpoenas.
	Get the judge to basically show that she won't provide you a fair trial.
	Get her, prove it, make her be done.
	By the way, when you have a real dumb, dumb judge like this one is, politically prejudiced, who can't hide her prejudice, like if you're this prejudiced and the defense lawyer asked for three extra days, you give the defense lawyer three extra days so you don't look like you're an obvious bigot.
	She should be sent back to Jamaica.
	We should deport her back to where she came from.
	Maybe we should have natural birth citizenship as a requirement for federal judges in this country if she's any proof of it.
	But so, you know, we've had enough foreigners running the country at this point.
	We got a guy who's been a foreign agent his whole life as the president.
	Before that, well, you can answer your own question a couple of years back in 2012 who appointed this judge.
	But if you look at the fundamental, you know, file motion after motion after motion, file motion for pretrial right to discovery of a bunch of information, because they have made an issue in this case whether or not the signatures matched in Georgia and whether or not Trump knew that they did, according to the government.
	They didn't, by the way.
	I know because I was down there.
	Well, that's grounds to get them all.
	Judge, we need to subpoena all the ballots.
	We need to subpoena all the ballot signatures.
	We need to have all of it because we're going to prove that, in fact, as a matter of objective truth, the signatures didn't match.
	And the statement that they didn't match was not only subjectively believed to be true, but also objectively true as a matter of fact.
	And the same with every other challenge.
	Wisconsin indefinitely confined.
	The Wisconsin Supreme Court acknowledged that, in fact, they shouldn't have been voting.
	How many were there?
	Ballot signature matches in Arizona.
	Ballot signature matches in Pennsylvania.
	All these places where it wasn't done.
	Let's take a look at it.
	We need it.
	Force her to say, I deny you.
	How dare you?
	She can't wait to lecture Trump.
	She can't wait to wield that gavel to hurt Trump and to gut American constitutional democracy.
	This is why we shouldn't have Jamaicans on the bench to begin with.
	Go back to Jamaica.
	This is America, not British territory.
	But that's the dynamic of who she is and what she's about and that whole court system in D.C. is about.
	So put her to the test.
	When they're as dumb and as arrogant as her, sucker her to make mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake.
	Make it as egregious as egregious can be.
	Put in proffer after proffer, offer proof after offer proof.
	I've had the distinct privilege, if you call it that, to deal with a lot of corrupt.
	Robert, explain to the world who may not know how preposterous or outlandish it is.
	Who are the two judges that were sitting in the courtroom as Trump was brought in?
	One of them was Amy Berman Jackson.
	There were three.
	Another one was the chief judge.
	The same chief judge that was complicit.
	To give you an idea.
	By the way, they should also- Why are they there?
	Why would they be there?
	None.
	No one has ever heard of this.
	Ever heard of this.
	In the entire criminal defense world.
	No one has ever heard of it.
	Judges sitting in there, jury, this is called the arraignment?
	Yeah, the arraignment.
	They were there to say, look at Trump getting arrested.
	Look at it.
	They were gleefully there.
	They have no business on the federal bench.
	And if any Republicans had any- Either brains or balls in Congress, then they would be bringing up impeachment on those judges right away.
	I mean, this is going to get out of hand fast unless lots of people step in and do something about it.
	This is going to get way out of control.
	And the answer is not to be Steve Dace and hide under your desk and say, let's give up to the corruption.
	Not to be Kurt Schlichter and hide under your desk like a coward.
	Or Jesse Kelly and hide under your desk like a coward.
	Scaramucci.
	Scaramucci.
	And cower and give in and reward this corruption.
	This is the time to fight back by every legal means available.
	So the other thing is you then bring motions to dismiss.
	Every denial of a motion to dismiss is also appealable.
	You request evidentiary hearings and you document what you would have proven if you were given them.
	This judge will be dumb and arrogant enough to deny you those evidentiary hearings, to deny you that discovery.
	Every single one of those rulings, also appealable.
	So you get the judge to give appealable rulings.
	You try to get her to do it as dumb as possible.
	And so you have the best grounds.
	And that's how the Supreme Court can step in before it gets way...
	Even further, completely, irreducibly out of hand.
	Now let me give some of the grounds that you could dismiss here.
	Motion to dismiss for violation of First Amendment free speech rights.
	Motion to dismiss for violation of right to assembly.
	Motion to dismiss for violation of the right to petition the government.
	Motion to dismiss for selective prosecution based on disparate treatment between you and similarly situated individuals.
	Heck, you can just point out Trump versus Biden.
	You don't have to go much further than that, but there's plenty of other illustrations and examples, such as Trump now versus 2016, when Hillary Clinton and every other Democrat was running around begging, spending billions and millions of dollars in advertising, telling electors to violate their oath and elect Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump.
	Disparate also.
	Trump was acquitted on this.
	I'm going to get to that.
	Then you have a motion dismissed on selective prosecution because it's political retaliation because he's the leading political opponent of the country.
	Then you have a motion dismissed on selective prosecution grounds because it's retaliation for him exposing Biden family political corruption.
	Then you have a motion to dismiss on 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment grounds, as well as common law grounds, because the entire case is built on the breach of attorney-client privilege approved by that chief judge political hack who was sitting there gleeful that Trump was indicted.
	He was the one who showed up in the courtroom.
	It was key to all of this illicit breach of attorney-client privilege.
	Attorney-client privilege implicates First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Sixth Amendment rights.
	Those are grounds to dismiss.
	Then, that doesn't stop.
	Because then you get to the impeachment clause question, which apparently a lot of these so-called, you know, the legal left these days is really pitiful.
	And much of the left is in general.
	I mean, this used to be Robert Kennedy types, people with robust intellects, people with quick repartees.
	Instead, they're just, they're arrogantly incompetent.
	They brag about how stupid they are.
	So they had these people saying, oh, double jeopardy?
	I can't apply.
	Impeachment's a civil proceeding.
	You must never have done criminal law.
	No, you must have never read the Constitution.
	You must have never read the legal scholars that have been discussing this for the better part of a century.
	Explain what it means when Jeopardy attaches, because someone had asked this in a stream, I think, last week, and I was like, it sounds like there's overlapping Jeopardy issues, even though under the impeachment, it wasn't imprisonment, it was removal from office.
	So what does the exposure to Jeopardy mean as to how it could also not apply now, because he has been literally, what was the word?
	He was impeached, but acquitted on the very same basis.
	So what could apply by way of Double Jeopardy?
	Sure, I'll cite those two different Justice Department memorandums, one in 1973, one in 2000, on this precise question.
	And I'll quote from it, but first I'll quote from it, quoting from the Constitution.
	Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
	But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punish accordion.
	Interesting.
	Why didn't it say the party, whether convicted or acquitted, is subject to these provisions?
	It said, no, no.
	It said, only if you're convicted can you be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment.
	Now, my view is...
	That is so extensive that you can't indict a president or former president, period, without first securing conviction in the Senate, for which there's very good constitutional reasons to put that barrier there.
	But because otherwise the president is subject to the whim of any local prosecutor anywhere in America.
	And that would completely eviscerate the entire constitutional framework.
	But putting that aside, it definitely applies here.
	Because here he's being indicted for the exact same conduct he was acquitted of.
	And in fact, to go further later on, as the memo puts it, this argument is, quote, an argument of strong force and has some obvious appeal.
	That was what the Justice Department admitted.
	Many legal scholars have agreed.
	And the idea there being, the jeopardy is, if convicted, then you can be indicted.
	And so the jeopardy attaches when he's impeached because if he gets impeached and then convicted, then there's jeopardy of subsequent indictments on that basis.
	If he gets acquitted, well, he's gotten past the exposure and you can't then re-indict him where that jeopardy had already attached and been, I guess, eliminated because of the acquittal.
	Completely.
	And they go through that this fits statutory construction, constitutional construction, historical construction.
	The DOJ tried to weasel their way out of it and say maybe they could prosecute him anyway, but they didn't have to address the issue because it was avoidable at the time.
	So you have those issues.
	Then you have three other motions to dismiss.
	One is that the special counsel is an unconstitutional position, and he's also been in excess of power in this case.
	How do we have the so-called independent council that's free of the Justice Department?
	We don't have a system for that.
	The president has all power.
	And they're trying to say, oh, Biden had nothing to do with it.
	This guy's totally independent.
	Well, then he doesn't have any constitutional power, period, because his only power can come from the president.
	And if he's totally independent of Joe Biden, then the indictment has to be dismissed because he has no constitutional power to seek it in the first place.
	Then you have additional motions to dismiss because of three other grounds, four other grounds, actually.
	One is misconduct in the selection of venue.
	And that is that they deliberately, they could have chosen multiple venues.
	Trump was in different places.
	The lawyers were in different places where there's conduct alleged in the indictment.
	They could have brought the indictment in Florida, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, a whole bunch of California, a whole bunch of places.
	Why did they choose the District of Columbia?
	Was it because they could go judge shopping?
	Was it so they could go jury shopping?
	Selection of venue by a corrupt prosecutor is itself a constitutional violation in these instances.
	On top of that, I think that the mere fact that he cannot get an impartial jury pool and he cannot get an impartial judge in the District of Columbia, given the chief judge's...
	Bias and prejudice in the case.
	Then I think you have grounds on due process.
	For due process reasons, you're entitled to an impartial judiciary.
	For due process reasons, you're entitled to an impartial jury as well as the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.
	I would bring motions to dismiss on both grounds.
	And then a motion to dismiss on general government misconduct on the way in which they conducted this proceeding.
	Violating attorney-client privilege, threatening lawyers to force them to try to flip witnesses, and other comparable illicit behaviors.
	Then you have the procedural motions that I mentioned.
	The protective order is garbage.
	Any judge who signs off on it is a political hack who should never be a judge again in America.
	And media should intervene to object to that gag order.
	The motions we discussed, transfer of venue and disqualification, discovery, pretrial subpoenas.
	Also, he should bring a motion to stay the proceedings at some point.
	Say, let's stay this until the election, because otherwise this trial will inevitably interfere in an election.
	And it will do what supposedly the indictment's there to prevent.
	The indictment's there to stop any interference with people's voting.
	How does indicting the leading opponent not interfere with people's ability to vote for who they want?
	Robert, no one's above the law, Robert.
	Come on.
	If he broke the law, he's got to be indicted and convicted before the election.
	Then wait until after the election, right?
	If you're not there to interfere with the election, you're only there to make sure he's held responsible to the law, then wait until after the election for the proceedings.
	Real easy to do.
	And when they don't do it, it shows they want to do what they're accusing Trump of, which is conspire to interfere with the election.
	And if Jack Smith's theory is okay...
	All the federal judges could be locked up and sent to prison tomorrow.
	I mean, they have not thought this through at all because the Trump haters are so power hungry.
	They don't think past the short-term power.
	They're like dumb criminals that end up in prison.
	People say criminals have low IQ, and I say, no, no, caught criminals have low IQ.
	Now, he has also robust trial defenses.
	The trial defenses include that, first of all...
	The statements he made are objectively true.
	The 2020 election, an honest constitutional 2020 election, elected Donald John Trump, not Joe Biden, his fraudulency the second.
	That's objective fact.
	That's part one.
	And he can document all the proof of his specific allegations concerning it.
	I mean, they were dumb enough, arrogant enough to mention Georgia's signatures.
	You don't mention the one thing that is your most egregious vulnerability.
	These dimwits don't know that I was on the front grounds and they were terrified to let us match the signatures.
	They never let us match the signatures.
	And the reason they didn't is be...
	And by the way, they never try to ask me to testify for reasons that are believably obvious, the government.
	These people saying, oh, Pedro Gonzalez, that Jew-hating grifter hat who went from Bernie to Trump to now being an anti-Trumper, was like, his lawyers didn't believe in this case.
	Yeah, we did, and I still do, because I'm right.
	That's why.
	And Jack Smith is full of shit.
	So the reality is that the election was stolen.
	Stolen.
	Old-fashioned stolen.
	It was done in a...
	Constitutionally unqualified people voted.
	Constitutionally unqualified ballots were counted.
	And they were counted and canvassed in an unconstitutional manner that directly violated the Constitution of the United States.
	A constitutional conforming election undoubtedly, indisputably, elected Donald John Trump President of the United States.
	And any claim otherwise is hogwash.
	And if they believe their claims...
	Why were they so scared and terrified to even publish the ballots they promised to publish?
	To let us look at any signatures in any significant scale in any contested state?
	They know they stole it just like we did.
	Now the second line of defense is he subjectively believed it.
	And there, that goes to what's called good faith.
	Now you have, you know, Caccio and...
	Barb McQuaid and these corrupt, hack former prosecutors who never should have been prosecutors, they're exposing themselves now as people who never should have been prosecutors, so-called law professors who make a joke out of the practice and profession of law, saying that Trump's subjective belief about the election is irrelevant.
	Obviously, they don't even understand the indictment that they're cheering on and that they helped orchestrate.
	There is no fraud if Trump believed he won.
	The entire fraud is that Trump knew he didn't win and was so using deceptive means to That's the entire indictment.
	If he believed he won, there is no fraud as a matter of law.
	There is no interference with the right to vote if you're trying to make sure the vote is accurately counted.
	It's preposterous to claim otherwise.
	So his subjective belief is relevant and good faith.
	This goes to willfulness and conspiracy to defrauds in general.
	I've litigated these cases for going on a quarter century.
	You get to include everything you relied upon.
	Everybody you talked to, including your legal advice.
	And the idea of criminalizing legal advice is an even more insane notion in this case.
	I mean, it's about constitutional law professor Jonathan Eastman.
	But people like me, he relied on.
	And I'd have no problem.
	The testing in this case.
	Now, they're not going to let me near anywhere or anything, but for that precise reason.
	But if you look at this, he had plenty of sources to rely upon that were reliable, dependable, believable, and credible.
	They try to highlight the few people who disagreed with him on a few scattering set of items.
	Yeah, and the one or two messages or DMs or text messages where they use crazy theory and whatever.
	Who knows how they even meant those words.
	Yeah, I mean, and that doesn't even matter.
	I mean, a lot of theories you consider crazy, but you consider may work, legally correct.
	And to give an example, the Democrats themselves put out their own memorandum where they game-planned these exact kind of challenges that Trump brought, number one.
	Number two, law professors wrote heavily published, and Trump-hating law professors, by the way.
	Pieces on how these exact challenges could be brought.
	That's how absurd it is to make the claims that they're making in this proceeding.
	But so a jury would have to conclude there was no objective basis whatsoever for Trump to believe what he did and, beyond a reasonable doubt, and believe that he never believed a single statement he ever made and that he always believed Joe Biden won the election.
	Beyond a reasonable doubt.
	There's nobody in America who believes that.
	So that's why they depend on liberal political hacks in the D.C. judicial system and jury to secure a bogus conviction.
	And these lunatics are so out of touch with America, so much in a parasitic capital, that they make Let Them Eat Cake Marie Antoinette look like a well-connected genius by comparison and by contrast.
	They really believe that if they can rush a trial, Railroad Trump and convict him that that will prevent Trump from being elected president.
	It can't constitutionally and legally, but they think that his voters will all abandon him.
	And that's where this case has a comparable analogy, and it's the Alex Jones cases.
	They want Alex Jones, Donald Trump.
	They want to remember what a complete joke and embarrassment those Connecticut and Austin, Texas trials were.
	I mean, you saw those.
	I mean, almost everybody who saw them said, It was worse than I even predicted it was.
	It was worse than anyone predicted, and it wasn't even supposed to be on the merits, and nonetheless, even on the damages, it was worse than anyone could have possibly imagined.
	Completely.
	They think they can get away with doing the same thing to Donald Trump.
	Yeah.
	And that's what they don't understand.
	Within their little courthouse, they can't.
	But they're depending on the court of public opinion abandoning Trump, because sooner or later...
	Especially if he wins in 2024.
	Imagine if they tried to lock him up.
	Do you know what that would do to his elect?
	Do you know how intense his supporters would go to the polls?
	Do you know how much they would organize?
	It would be the biggest turnout in American history.
	And what message would it send to the D.C. courts that the guy they just locked up is who America said they want as President of the United States?
	It means those judges need to be going to prison next.
	That's what it means for the American people.
	But they're that dumb.
	They're that arrogant.
	So establish the base, educate the court of public opinion, expose it for the joke of a proceeding it is, and hopefully, after all of this is said and done, and when Donald Trump is President of the United States in 2025, we start to meaningfully reform our criminal justice system.
	Get rid of D.C. It shouldn't exist as a political jurisdiction.
	Our founders had no intention that the swamp would get to govern the swamp, that the swamp would get to govern the critics of the swamp.
	They've shown through all their history, but most egregiously in the last half decade, with January 6th cases and Trump cases especially, they cannot be impartial.
	They are not capable of being impartial.
	There needs to be no state court system in D.C., no federal court system in D.C. No, just get rid of it.
	Congress has the right by legislative fiat to get rid of them tomorrow.
	And if they had any cojones, they should.
	And hopefully in 2025, they will.
	Second remedy.
	We need to put into statute, because our Supreme Court has forgot it was meant to be there in the Constitution, that you have a right in any and every criminal case to transfer it to the venue of your home residence.
	This letting them abuse venue like they've been doing for a long time.
	I brought this up almost 15 years ago in the Wesley Snipes case.
	More than 15 years ago now.
	Where they prosecuted him in a place he'd never even been.
	Why?
	Because it was the per capita capital of racial hatred incidents in the past decade, according to other organizations other than myself.
	They did White Nationalist Father's Day.
	It was Ku Klux Klan Central down there.
	They invited snipes to go out to see the tall trees out there.
	They still had statutes to the founder of the Ku Klux Klan in front of the court out.
	Now, they were so stupid they misspelled his name because they thought his name was Forced like a regular Forced and didn't realize there were two R's there.
	Then they tried to hide it after I exposed it underneath some bushes behind the thing.
	We found it anyway.
	But, you know, it's long overdue we make sure that that right is present.
	That's a right Congress can make sure of and guarantee.
	And third, start limiting all these stupid federal criminal laws.
	We need to get rid of the FBI.
	We need to get rid of the CIA.
	We need to get rid of a lot of these places.
	Return law enforcement back to local and state government.
	The federal government has proven they're incapable of impartiality in this context.
	No more, you know, make federal power really limited, really limited.
	And get rid of about 95% of the federal criminal statutes you have on the books.
	Robert, I think this might be the last, the pin in it.
	Let me bring up Adam Schiff's tweet.
	He puts out this tweet which says, transparency will be crucial in the trials of the U.S. versus Donald J. Trump.
	It's why dozens of my colleagues join me today in urging that these proceedings be broadcast for the public.
	If the American people are to accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for them to witness as directly as possible the full facts and the evidence.
	And that means, by the way, they've been secretly conspiring.
	I think two other challenges should be brought.
	I have reason to believe that this judge was not randomly selected.
	But was handpicked by someone associated with the chief judge to make sure it went to her.
	And so I think that that should be investigated.
	The federal courts get away with this quite a bit.
	They claim, oh, this is a random assignment.
	There's always somebody behind the scenes.
	And I've heard from people connected to those people behind the scenes that that routinely happens.
	Here's how they do it.
	They randomly select.
	They don't like the judge.
	They do a random selection a second time.
	Then they do it a third time.
	Forensically review how that was done.
	Forensically review how the grand jury was selected.
	See what bias and prejudice or lack thereof and the clearing thereof in the grand jury process was done.
	That is often in violation of the protocols and procedures.
	It wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately excluded a disproportionate number of black people from this grand jury because they wouldn't trust black grand jurors to indict Trump like they would white Democrats in D.C. To indict Trump.
	And they should go after both of those procedures.
	But the Adam Schiff saying this is a sign that, in my view, talked beforehand.
	Because they wouldn't say that.
	If they thought this judge was going to give a full trial where Trump was able to present all his defenses.
	They're saying that means they already know this judge will railroad Trump and deny him the opportunity.
	And so what they want is a Stasi, Soviet-style show trial that looks like Alex Jones, where all of the bad evidence comes in, all adverse evidence comes in, but none of the exculpatory evidence is allowed in.
	None of the good evidence is allowed in.
	And that was my question.
	You know, if they say, make the trial public after we've gagged Trump, after we've limited, excluded evidence, after we've, what's the word?
	Curated the evidence that we're going to allow to be presented at trial.
	Then we have the public trial, and it brought back...
	And these people are dumb enough to think this works.
	Like, look at what happened with Alex Jones.
	The entire objective with Alex Jones was two things.
	One, they misread the man.
	They had this caricature of him shown in the show Homeland.
	Which is they thought he was solely about money.
	He didn't really believe in any of it.
	He was doing it for money.
	So once his money was threatened, he would forfeit and go home.
	Not realizing he really doesn't care about the money.
	He likes using the money as a tool of power to get the message out.
	But otherwise, that's not who Alex Jones ever was.
	And you could know that by the fact he stuck with 9-11 when he was forfeiting the opportunity to be the second Rush Limbaugh by doing so.
	So, I mean, his whole life history told you that.
	But the other aspect was they thought we're going to so shame Alex Jones and his audience that they'll abandon him.
	They won't watch InfoWars.
	They won't support it.
	They won't go to InfoWars store.
	In fact, the Connecticut, nobody has to doubt this, Connecticut lawyer came out and said it right afterwards.
	Little side point for those people that might have watched George Gammon's excellent video on how he decided to get involved in public life.
	He talks about the corrupt attorney general of Connecticut who politically harassed him that put him in such a depressive state.
	And that was Tricky Dicky Blumenthal.
	Well, Tricky Dicky Blumenthal was one of the key orchestrators and his family behind the attacks on Alex Jones, by the way.
	But the Connecticut lawyer came out and said, our goal is you out there that ever listen or watch Alex Jones, quit supporting him.
	That's what you need to do.
	As long as you quit supporting him, we have achieved our victory.
	You know, and what's happened according to bankruptcy filings?
	People's support went up.
	Didn't go down.
	It went up.
	They're going to keep InfoWars on the air no matter what.
	And they're going to keep Alex Jones on the air no matter what.
	And the other irony of this, Alex Jones had been thinking about retiring after 2016.
	He's like, yeah, I've achieved a lot.
	Man, I've been through a lot.
	But them going after him?
	That guaranteed he stayed in the fight.
	So they don't understand Trump.
	Whatever you think about Trump, one of his greatest traits is he's got a spine of Pennsylvania steel.
	And Cajon is the size of six continents.
	So he ain't going nowhere.
	And they don't understand the American people, that the tolerance for this is over.
	They're going to get an election day verdict that's like Patrick Henry's verdict all the way back that helped ignite the American Revolution in the first place.
	And we probably need a second one in order to straighten out this corrupt professional class, particularly in the D.C. judiciary.
	Well, from your mouth to God's ears, Robert, and there is the discretion of a federal judge to say we will broadcast this trial live?
	No.
	I think only the Supreme Court can approve that.
	The entire federal court system is prohibited from video broadcasting, any proceeding at all.
	You can do it within a courtroom.
	So remember Galeen Maxwell's case, Good Logic went down.
	And there's a carryover, a spillover.
	They can broadcast to another room inside the courthouse, but it's only considered an extension of the...
	Of that office.
	So the scumbag Schiff is making an offer pretending to be on the side of transparency and justice, knowing damn well that it can't even happen in reality?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	That's the goal.
	But I mean, Trump's lawyer did pretty decent today, making the media rounds, saying they would welcome, of course, a public trial entirely.
	And he said, you know, given what Mike Pence said, this was a smart presentation.
	This is a little bit of a...
	Preview to Pence.
	Which was, he said, you know, just by what Pence said in his book, unless he's going to say he lied in his book, Pence is going to be a very good witness for us.
	So it was a smart move to remind Pence to, you know, mind his Q's and T's.
	But they often, they try to use protective orders on Discovery, and they try to use bail as means to not only censor speech, And press access to criminal proceedings, but also to gut your ability to defend yourself.
	So years ago, I sued the lead government witness in the case for my client.
	The government went absolutely berserk.
	They said, that's obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.
	I was like, no, no, it isn't.
	It's called legal advocacy.
	The fact that you have a witness who's a complete, utter fraudster is your problem.
	It's not my problem.
	My duty is to sue the SOB.
	And they backed off once I went through all of the rights.
	In fact, this has been litigated.
	And when it's been litigated, the courts ultimately back down and recognize they have no business interfering with the ability to defend yourself, which must include access to public discussion about witnesses and court proceedings.
	So we'll see how that unfolds.
	But they may be about to put on the worst show trial in the history of America.
	Hopefully there's enough.
	The Supreme Court's watching.
	The American people are watching.
	And Election Day is probably the best way to reverse the insanity of whatever takes place in that case.
	I was kind of hoping they would broadcast the trial because if they thought a lot of people were watching Rittenhouse and Johnny Depp, my goodness.
	And people would watch and they would understand like they did when they were watching Alex Jones.
	Robert?
	Before we get into the next segment, let me just try to do this real fast.
	I'm not going to do it in one breath, but let me catch up on this.
	Crumble rants.
	Mega Man Chronicles says, Part one, how do you get Van Barnes' honest question?
	On Rumble, could I stream doing a karaoke stream with another streamer as we talk all through it before, after, and between songs?
	Part two.
	Or would we get a DMCA smacked?
	As I think it is fair use for talking, making jokes, and singing.
	Would love your input.
	But keep doing amazing jobs.
	No legal advice.
	No legal advice, I guess.
	I mean, but fair use is always fair use.
	Yes, but then the question is going to be also fair use, but even covers are required to pay some sort of fee.
	When they do a cover, like some of that goes to the original creator.
	Hold on, but let's go.
	Cod tongues.
	So did you read my slick book, One Thing I Know, to your kids?
	Right here?
	This one?
	This one right here?
	Cod tongues, you must have had to explain a lot.
	Grade school kids are not its target demographic.
	That was one of the gifts I got last week.
	Leverett Sr.
	I was once playing with my infant son.
	It involved a toy with a suction cup at the bottom.
	It stuck to my forehead.
	It created a mark surprisingly similar to Justin Trudeau's.
	Lasted for days.
	Yeah, I once, you know, as a kid, I used to suck on my arm in class to the point where I would, like, break blood vessels, but that's very circular.
	Suction cup, not a bad idea.
	Oblividan.
	Just a reminder to everyone, arm your...
	Okay, I don't want to look like I'm giving unlawful advice.
	They do say that things retain their value.
	Guns, gold, getaway.
	Okay.
	Ignotum.
	What about just raising it back to 21 or 25 when brains hit maturity?
	We had a volunteer.
	We have a volunteer military now.
	Anti...
	Antisocial?
	Oh, I get it.
	Antisocial.
	Thoughts on the idea that the January 6th indictment finally gives Trump his day in court to show evidence about the election?
	It's supposed to, but this judge may be so corrupt she denies it.
	Natalie Winters on War Room has a piece out with docs indicating Hunter was managing director of CEFC, which has now been discovered to be a proxy company for Chinese military.
	They admit a lot of that in the plea deal because they want to make sure he can't be prosecuted for it.
	Watch the Friday show with Garrett Ziegler, Marco Polo.
	We definitely covered that there, I think.
	The VEC needs to go away now.
	As a black American, I have convinced too many hardcore black Dems to vote Republican.
	Any negative and racist comments will only ignite Dem base and driveway black voters.
	Grandpa's Place, can you explain how this new indictment of Trump is not double jeopardy?
	We covered this.
	Seeing as the second impeachment was over the...
	Okay, got it.
	Oblivet End, January 6th wasn't an insurrection.
	But it should have been.
	We should have laid.
	Okay, I'm not going to read that, but thank you for the super chat, for the rumble rant.
	Firebear2022, if Trump get re-elected, is he capable of changing the government or will he just hire more people who will stab him in the back?
	Coots4 rotting in Alberta jails for our freedom.
	AstroSweat.
	Scroll down to the description.
	I'm going to have Jason Levine on where he's going to come back on next week to give us an update on that.
	Texas Lady Jane.
	Will you please put in your summary after people found out about the Biden laptop, the top Google search was how to change my vote.
	Please remember that.
	I remember that, actually, now that you mention that.
	Since Vivek R. stated on Tim Pool that he would not go after the corrupt Dems, Biden raised Garland Hilly, and he is pro-TPP, would that sink his VP chances with Trump?
	Matt G. Hammond, could you get Vivek on a sidebar with Barnes to talk about him and the issue with election integrity, civics tests, and encouraging community involvement?
	Who knows?
	Maybe we'll get him at the debate in Milwaukee.
	Yeah, we're going to be at the debate in Milwaukee, everybody.
	We're going to do a live streaming exclusive there.
	What's on my elbow?
	And I've reached out to Vivek private...
	I DM'd him.
	Everybody, if you want Vivek on, it would be great.
	Let him know.
	He can just apologize for having that bad opinion and reverse himself.
	$10 from 491, malicious prosecution, SJC, JCP, whatever that is.
	Hunter managing director as Chinese military proxy planning warfare against the U.S. Hunter made the most money during the Donald J. Trump admin because DJT Donald Trump kicked out China in a lot of areas they needed a workaround.
	General Males, Barnes, no, don't use the civics test for voting.
	That's racist.
	Also, Barnes, go back where you came from, foreign born as judge.
	That was a British...
	It has nothing to do with her race.
	It has nothing to do with judges who were not born in the United States.
	Respect for America's constitutional law.
	That's my problem with it.
	Also, it's an interesting perspective of Jamaica being a British colony.
	It's someone that's accustomed to misuse and abuse of power.
	Kamala Harris, whose father comes from Jamaica, comes from slave ownership background.
	Not slave background.
	Slave ownership background.
	Just like Joe Biden, by the way.
	The only two presidents we've had in the modern era...
	That had no connection to owning slaves were Donald John Trump and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
	I'm just blocking a clear spammer in the chat.
	The problem with takes on the indictment is that you still have a decent part of the population that think the legacy media can be trusted.
	That's a problem.
	It's getting smaller and smaller, but it's still a problem.
	Gateway Pundit article.
	This is a Michigan election finds illegal ballots.
	Everyone's got the link there.
	That's from Super Buff Shaft.
	And then we got Sweaty Zeus.
	How is that even in doubt that the AFL-CIO put out packets on how they would steal it from their union poll workers?
	Can't that be evidence?
	All right.
	But I mean, the best part is just all the law scholars and legal articles and the whole never-Trump-and-democratic world that got together to game plan and war plan.
	A contested election in which all of these issues were discussed and talked about.
	Michael Tracy talks about how tons of people were talking about this idea and nobody was calling it criminal.
	Nobody.
	This is purely retroactive redefinition.
	And they would have been better off either dramatically limiting this indictment or not even bringing it.
	Politically, it will prove over time to have been a great mistake.
	In the interim, it's a dangerous threat.
	No, no, that had nothing to do with it.
	I mean, Trump had retained me for Georgia, and then midway through, the Republican National Committee decided to go with Rudy Giuliani, along with Trump.
	And I wasn't on board with where Rudy was taking things.
	And as people can have seen since, I thought those were tactical, strategic mistakes and was unfortunately proven correct.
	But I understand.
	But Trump, here the problem was, Republican National Committee always controlled those funds.
	Pedro Gonzalez constantly attacks Trump for that.
	Trump didn't control those funds.
	Those funds were always controlled by the Republican National Committee.
	Trump was not making attorney-client decisions.
	The Republican National Committee was.
	All right.
	Now, with that said, also, we are on the cover.
	We're the featured video, people, on Rumble.
	Hit the plus button down on the bottom and join us on peoplebarnslaw.locals.com.
	Robert, there's going to be a couple we're going to go over quickly just because of time constraints.
	We're going to end the bookmark on the Trump indictment.
	It's been amazing.
	Anybody who didn't know now knows and has no excuse.
	The False Claims Act.
	So I was going through this lawsuit.
	I know exactly where you're going with this.
	You might want to flesh out the details in better detail than I can, but this is something that can be applied mutatis mutandis, I presume, to a False Claims Act, Brooke Jackson's, on the COVID jab.
	Explain what the facts are.
	There's a pharmaceutical company that basically did exactly what we suspect might have been done with the COVID jab, but under different circumstances, has had their False Claims Act reinstated.
	Yeah, and it's fascinating.
	A lot of companies use the excuse that if anything you obtained as the basis for your False Claims Act was available in the public domain, then you're barred from bringing the case under the public disclosure rule.
	But the public disclosure rule was properly amended quite some years ago by Congress to prevent this from occurring, which said that, okay, if in a government proceeding...
	Of a government investigation.
	Or a major media disclosure.
	The entire fraud scam is laid out.
	Then you're not a whistleblower to sue the next day.
	Right?
	But, other than that, if you have information, you can bring suit, even if you got that information from the public domain.
	What's key is it has to be, quote, a combination of facts publicly disclosed in a government investigative hearing or on the mass media sufficient to permit by itself a reasonable information.
	Here, the person figured it out by looking at certain patent applications.
	But the patent applications were not part of a government investigative proceeding, and the media covers never said this implied fraud.
	The whistleblower figured out it was fraud.
	So what it establishes is the right of ordinary people.
	To bring claims on behalf of the taxpayers of the people of the United States government.
	Anytime the people have been defrauded by big corporations, even if they don't have quote-unquote inside information.
	You don't have to have inside information to bring a whistleblower claim.
	You just have to be able to put...
	Now, Brooke Jackson had a lot of inside information, but it was complemented and supplemented by additional information we found out later.
	You can use both.
	And it's a reminder to people out there, any ordinary Joe and Schmo can figure out ways to bring a key tam action by putting together patterns that others may miss.
	And so that was a very good case reversal for that.
	Ninth Circuit said, district court is like, yeah, yeah, dismiss.
	And the Ninth Circuit was like, no, no, no, no.
	If you figure it out on your own, you're absolutely entitled to bring it.
	The public disclosure rule requires substantial similarity with fraud specificity as part of that substantial similarity.
	Any update on the Brooke Jackson key tab?
	Yeah, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request to stay the appellate time frame until the district court gets around to issuing a ruling on our motion to amend the judgment, which the district court's been a little bit slow on.
	So, you know, hopefully it will incentivize something.
	Because part of our appeal will be based on how the judge handles that part of the motion as well.
	And so rather than write one appeal, then have to write a different appeal.
	We want it all part of one appeal.
	And so to their credit, the Fifth Circuit agreed with us and granted the stay, which also encouraged the district court to get rolling.
	All right, excellent.
	Now, the church one.
	Oh, yeah, it's good to be a church.
	I'm sure all the Catholics out there will say, I always knew Barnes hated the Catholics.
	And the Catholics is just a Southern phrase.
	I have a little bit of Baptist glee in that this is a Catholic story.
	But mostly, I think it's a misapprehension of the eclastical doctrine.
	So a diocese in the El Paso Catholic...
	Diocese.
	Man, I'm mispronouncing words tonight.
	However it's pronounced.
	Somebody in the chat will know.
	Obviously, I'm not Catholic.
	When I was 16, a friend of mine, she was Catholic.
	She told me.
	She was driving along.
	She said, oh, I'm Catholic.
	I was like, is that Christian?
	She laughed so hard, she almost had the car turn off the side of the road.
	That's how Baptist I grew up.
	I wasn't sure the Catholics were Christians.
	I'm just happy reading the decision it wasn't a synagogue, because if it were a synagogue, let the stereotypical jokes come out, but it would be the end of it.
	Yes, yes, you're right.
	So tell us what happens.
	We'll probably talk about it for three months.
	But so the Catholic Church raised a bunch of money there in El Paso saying, hey, you people that are part of this particular parish, we're going to build a new church for you.
	Give us money.
	They raised $1.5 million.
	Then they turn around and go, ah, nah.
	We're going to use that for something else.
	And not only that, we're going to shut down your parish.
	And they're like, uh, give us back the money then.
	They're like, nah, nah.
	It was always going to be for something else.
	So they filed suit.
	Well, the Texas courts, including the El Paso Court of Appeals, and by the way, there's a lot on the conservative side, they tend to defend the church more than they defend religion quite frequently.
	And quite frankly, they're disproportionately Catholic, as you see on the Supreme Court.
	And maybe that played a role.
	But whatever the dynamic, they said they were going to have...
	See, the classical doctrine is courts shouldn't be involved in internal church governance.
	This didn't require they get involved in internal church governance.
	Either the church lied or they didn't.
	And then they should be responsible for their lies like anybody else.
	And they had actual complaints from the actual donors.
	I'm reading this also thinking, thank goodness it's not a synagogue, no jokes, but also...
	In contrast to the we build the wall, you know, tax violations or tax fraud or charity fraud, where you had none of the original people who gave the money even complaining.
	In this case, they say, give us money, we'll build you a new church.
	And then they keep it and say, well, we get to use it for whatever we want now.
	And I don't think, I mean, I like the respect for internal religious governance, but I don't like it when it goes too far like this.
	Like Scientology abuses this.
	And they say, oh no, you can't go to civil court proceedings and sexual assault cases because that's an internal issue for Scientology.
	Because you signed an arbitration clause and that's part of our religion.
	And it's like, whoa, we're getting a little far afield.
	It's why I'm not in favor of it, whether it's certain Jewish traditions or Islamic traditions that want to have a complete control over divorces.
	And that's the other context in which this comes up.
	And it's like, These are not eclastical doctrines.
	You're not having to decide what the doctrine is of the Catholic Church.
	You're not having to decide who's supposed to be in power, this priest or that priest.
	You're simply saying, did the church make a false statement or not, and did they return the money or not?
	It's that simple.
	I mean, so to me, it was not the kind...
	And just because you had parishioners suing the parish didn't make an internal issue of religious doctrine.
	And they pretended that it did and dismissed the case, wouldn't even allow them to get to discovered.
	But I also think the churches should not be in this business of raising money for one thing.
	And my guess is they always planned on doing it.
	Maybe not, but don't raise a bunch of money and then turn around and screw the people over.
	I mean, that's just bad practice as a church, to be honest.
	It's bad business practice in general, Robert.
	And speaking of segwaying into bad business practices in general.
	This is a fun, gross case, but it's going to be the first of a couple of fun, gross cases.
	Someone who was the victim of alleged sexual assault of a certain nature by a Lyft rider filed suit.
	You'll tell if I'm wrong on the procedural context here, but they filed a suit against Lyft and the individual who allegedly began playing with himself when this minor Lyft rider began using the Lyft.
	A teenage girl gets in the Lyft car and the driver, while he's driving, decides to show her.
	Unzip and play with it.
	He only stopped when he realized she was filming it.
	He didn't stop when he was doing it for her presence.
	The punchline of this, Robert, is that he wanted to file a late defense and show that he was in the hospital a couple days earlier with an insatiable itch on his groin, which I presume is his defense.
	I wasn't whacking it.
	I was scratching it.
	So this minor plaintiff, I don't know if she's minor now, but it was minor at the time, files a suit.
	They move for, not summary judgment, but default judgment against the defendant, the individual who had not...
	No, go for it, because I might be mistaken at the bottom line.
	He wanted to file a late reply to the effect that showing medical information...
	It's possible that he was in the hospital in the days before with an itch on his genitals that needed to be scratched.
	So they read...
	Gets off the hook!
	Well, how did Lyft get out?
	It means the guy gets allowed to file a defense.
	They haven't been.
	Oh, that part.
	But the other part of the case is that Lyft sought to dismiss on the grounds that they couldn't be held responsible, even though they advertised and marketed how safe their drivers were and how their drivers went through specific background checks and all the rest.
	And the general theory is that a company is responsible for foreseeable bad acts.
	I mean, to be honest, I don't know how companies that hire car drivers don't know at this point that sexual perversion and robbery are foreseeable bad acts of drivers to me.
	But the court ignored all that and said that, nah, you know, and they like this in general.
	What they do is they let companies off the hook when they hire rapists.
	They love to let them off the hook when they hire rapists, pedophiles, child abusers, pederasts.
	And this guy was a combination of the two, it would appear.
	And so from the allegations of the complaint.
	And they said, nope, can't sue.
	Employer off the hook.
	Independent tort.
	Not within the scope of employment.
	Unforeseeable.
	But they went even further and said, can't even sue the company for fraud for lying about how safe their drivers were.
	And their theory was that she didn't link up.
	Even though she said in her suit, she would have never ridden in Lyft if she knew this was a possibility and didn't think all their drivers were safe.
	The courts now said, oh, that's not specific enough.
	What?
	For pleadings?
	That's not specific enough?
	The bottom line is, this is a New York court.
	These neoliberal courts love to defend corporations, and they let corporations off the hook, and they especially love to let corporations off the hook.
	What it involves rape and sexual assault and sexual abuse.
	Yes.
	I mean, I don't know what would have been revealed had they done a background.
	I mean, I presume they do some sort of background check, but maybe they didn't.
	But, you know, at least...
	Well, there you can always allege negligent hiring and retention.
	And I don't know if that was ever alleged in the case or not.
	I don't know if he had a background prior to this that could have been effectively flagged.
	Well, at least if they had done their due diligence and there was nothing to effectively flag, then they have more robust defenses to having...
	There are issues with whether or not...
	There's additional security protocols.
	But at a minimum, what they really shouldn't do is they shouldn't advertise any of this.
	They should just say, here's a pickup from a random stranger.
	Now, the reason why they won't want to admit that is they know rando stranger could be rando stalker, could be rando rapist, could be rando abuser, could be rando robber.
	And so rather than admit a weakness in their business model, they lie to people and the courts let them get away with it.
	Oh, well, some people might say you take for granted you're getting in a car with a stranger, so govern yourself accordingly.
	Others might say we expect a certain amount of...
	I guess that's the transition to the Lizzo suit.
	Some might say that.
	They might be more or less right.
	If you're going on tour with Lizzo, you kind of know what you're getting.
	All right.
	Some might say if you go to Amsterdam and the Red Light District with Lizzo, if you go on tour and you work for Lizzo...
	I like skinny boys, itty bitty boys, whatever the heck that awful boys.
	Sometimes she likes boys.
	Sometimes she likes girls.
	Sometimes she's praying all the time.
	Sometimes she's not exactly religious in a lot of our viewpoints.
	We're on a road trip and it does come up on the playlist.
	And one of the songs is, wait a minute, my phone.
	And I'm sitting there like, we had Aristotle.
	We had Socrates.
	We had Einstein.
	And now we have Lizzo.
	Way to have my phone.
	It's brain rot.
	Okay, that aside, everybody knows it's brain rot.
	Everybody knows Lizzo is fat and proud.
	And not that there's anything wrong with being fat.
	I mean, health-wise, you should be healthy.
	Overweight and proud, but doesn't tolerate that from her backup singers, apparently.
	The bottom line of this lawsuit...
	It's filed by three ex-employees, two who were fired, one who resigned because there was psychological harassment, psychological shaming.
	Every form of discrimination known to man.
	Sexual harassment, sexual abuse, gender-based discrimination, race-based discrimination, religious-based discrimination, disability-based discrimination, in between some false imprisonments and assaults.
	I mean, Lizzo covered the whole illegal employment landscape.
	All allegations, but the allegations are such that...
	If you spoke out, if you didn't do certain things, if you were a little over it, you'd get cut.
	If you went out for the, if you didn't go out with the after parties.
	If she says, if you're coming out, you're coming out.
	If you want to get a promotion, you better come out.
	And if it happens to be at the nudity bar in the red light district, well, by golly, you're going to partake and participate.
	Someone in the chat was saying, what did Lizzo's free to be who she wants?
	This was early on.
	I was like, is she free to coerce her employees to catch projecting dildos?
	To eat bananas semi-protruding from the vaginal orifices of sex workers all alleged.
	And then when someone said, we don't like this, we don't want to do it, I feel uncomfortable touching breasts of a woman, they get berated.
	Apparently one of them was recording some of the dance moves because she suffered from some issue where she needed refreshments.
	They were required to do nude photo shoots.
	They were required to disclose their psychological records so they knew who had anxiety, who had depression, who had eating disorders.
	And they were, according to the allegations of the suit, using that against them.
	Robert, I mean, it's preposterous and outlandish, and apparently one of the dancers had, I don't know what the issue was, anxiety issues that required her, like, she needed notes so she would record some of the dance moves, and then was like, they found out someone was recording, they demanded everyone's cell phone, fired her on the spot, berated her, confined her in the hotel afterwards.
	So, all allegations, if you work with Lizzo...
	Know what you're getting involved in.
	We'll see where it goes.
	I don't know.
	Is this going to settle?
	I don't think they're going to take this to trial, but this will probably settle sooner than later.
	Disgusting.
	Disgusting stuff, however.
	And I'm not a prude, but I might be a bit of a germaphobe.
	And there are places of the body.
	Your fingernails are the dirtiest part of your body.
	The vagina of sex workers in Amsterdam is a close second.
	All right, sorry.
	Robert, what's the...
	I didn't read the oracles, reading the oracles to kids' lawsuits.
	Yeah, so we have left is Oracle, a big Second Amendment case, Taco Bell, Yashir Ali, Andy Ngo, and a vaccine mandate case.
	So what do we do here?
	Yes, kiss me, Doug.
	So what it is, is a parent.
	And the backstory is a mother and the husband, or the former partner, split up.
	The partner gets the kids custody, takes them into a different state.
	And we're in Texas, and now the kids are in Colorado.
	She wants to get connected to the kids and basically alleges that the father is a violent man, a controlling man.
	So she looks up the rules and sees that she can visit her kids at the school, no limitations.
	So she goes to the kids at the school and she describes herself as a neo-pagan who likes to do magic rings and alternative health.
	Oracle card reading and things of that nature.
	And so as a way to connect with the kids, as their kind of manner of prayer, she would do that with her kids.
	Give them the magical rings, give them little, you know, Oracle card readings, things of that nature.
	Apparently, it's the Columbine school, by the way, of some infamy.
	The Columbine school didn't like it.
	And so they banned her from the school and seeing her own kids.
	And so she filed suit on grounds that's a violation of her First Amendment expressive rights and religious preference rights.
	Because it was the school admitted they were targeting her because they didn't like the magical rings.
	They didn't like the tarot card oracle reading.
	You know, again, religious protection is any set of spiritual beliefs.
	It doesn't require an orthodox ordained priest or anything of that nature.
	And it does look to me like it was patent discrimination based on her speech, patent discrimination based on her beliefs, and that she, I mean, they gave her no notice.
	Also, you know, it was additionally a component of that.
	It looked to me like they're trying to intimidate a working class woman with unusual religious beliefs.
	That's how I took it.
	The fact that it's kind of liberal area of Colorado.
	It tells you something about how those people are.
	But the people they claim to look out for, they don't.
	So that's how...
	But it's a legitimate...
	It's a reminder that religious beliefs don't require orthodox approval for you to have First Amendment rights.
	Fantastic, Robert.
	Let's do...
	I'll read the Rumble Rants.
	There's three new ones, and then we'll head over to Locals for the remaining stories.
	Sure, yeah.
	We got a big Second Amendment case.
	Yep.
	Taco Bell, Yashir Ali, Andy Ngo.
	And the vaccine mandate win.
	All right.
	And I can hear everybody saying, you won't catch a dildo out of a vagina, but you'll kiss a dog's face if you don't understand germs.
	Too bad.
	All right.
	Now, hold on.
	Let me bring this in.
	Add to stream.
	And we'll get these three.
	Then we're going to go over to locals.
	I'll give everyone the link again.
	One, two, three, four, ace.
	Robert, I have huge respect for you.
	That Trump comment with balls of six continents was hilarious.
	Can't wait to see you on the Duran again.
	Yo Daddy, 1968.
	Trump's new Justice Department in 2025 should feverishly prosecute Mike Pence due to processing classified documents.
	Nobody is above the law, right?
	And we got Van Halo.
	I would love to hear Barnes' thoughts on being a McCalley High School graduate and alumni that he shares with Biden's red MAGA death speechwriter and former Missouri Ridge resident John Meacham.
	I don't know.
	I don't think I understand that comment.
	I was a scholarship student at the Macaulay School in Chattanooga.
	Boarding military school is where it started out.
	It had day students later on in the last two years.
	John Meacham also went there.
	There's somebody at Macaulay trying to set up a debate between me and Meacham.
	Meacham is now a hardcore lefty, in my opinion.
	He didn't used to be, but he's become one.
	So maybe I'll do that.
	I don't know.
	My views of the Macaulay School...
	Well, let's just say it educated me about what to think about people born to privilege.
	I'll put it that way.
	And I think people can go watch our day in...
	We drove through there, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Everyone can go watch.
	I'll link that later on so everybody knows we did that documentary behind the scenes of our meetup in Chattanooga.
	Okay, so hold on.
	One more just came in right now.
	It says, Alex David Deeks has over 20,000 watching.
	Well, if you want to continue watching...
	We've got four stories.
	It's going to be great.
	We're going to get to the tips.
	Come over to vivabarnthlaw.locals.com.
	The link is here in caps in the chat.
	And the Yashar Ali is interesting.
	You're going to need to enlighten me on who Yashar Ali is.
	I googled it and I still don't know how he rose to fame and the Second Amendment case.
	Oh yeah.
	A little Taco Bell, a little Indy Nell, a little vaccine mandate.
	And any tip of $5 or more, we'll answer live.
	And to hell with the Bruin decision.
	So come on over.
	I'm going to end it on Rumble.
	As soon as I can figure out how to do it, live stream, hit the end, come to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	See you there.
	End.
	Yes.
	And now let's make sure we're still good here.

▲