Ep. 173: Ohio 1; Trump & Twitter; Andy Ngo Trial; FBI Shooting AND MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!
|
Time
Text
It's because of the kid.
It's because of the kid.
It's because of the kid you're going to see.
Close the door!
Keep the line off.
Let's see it.
Let's see it.
Keep it here.
Reel it.
Just reel.
Bring it.
Good job, buddy.
All right.
Now you can unhook it and throw it back in.
That's a blue runner.
Say it again.
Blue runner.
Oh, yeah.
We don't need that.
Oh, the hook's out.
All right.
Grab it and throw it back in the water.
Let's go.
Can we at least do that?
I don't know what the that is, but don't grab it like that!
Underneath, underneath, underneath.
Okay, hold it.
Hold it.
Damn, kids.
Just take a picture.
Three, two, one.
Throw it back in the water.
Let's go.
Gently, gently.
Okay, that wasn't gently.
That's good enough.
Um, so everybody...
Okay, fish.
High five.
Keep the line up.
There you go.
Before we proceed further with this live stream...
Let me make sure that we're live everywhere.
Rumble.
We should be live.
Check here.
Okay, I see myself on Rumble.
That's a good sign.
Locals.
VivaBarnsLaw.locals.com JohnB80sMusic says, You can't gently from 20 feet up, right?
Just yeet.
Yeah, those fish are fine when they land back in the water.
All right.
I asked the chat, do we start with a gag or do we start with a smile?
There are only two people who replied, so we're going to start with a smile before we get into the gaggery.
Okay, I mean, first of all, what a week we had last week.
I couldn't get a stream out Friday because I did a podcast with Sean Newman, a fellow Canadian.
Sean Newman Podcast, S-N-P, is the logo.
That's going to drop, I believe the word is, tomorrow.
And I know everyone here watching knows, you know, a bit about my testicular torsion.
The Patreon portion of his podcast goes into great detail that some of you may or may not know.
So, Sean Newman Podcast.
Let me just make sure that I'm getting everything right there.
Hold on one second.
Then we're going to get into the gagery, unfortunately, before...
What is my problem, man?
It's S-H-A-W-N?
Podcast?
What is my problem?
Yeah, Sean Newman.
Okay, good.
S-H-A-U-N-N-E-W-M-A-N.
Sean Newman Podcast.
Check it out.
It's going to be great.
All right.
Before Barnes gets into the house, before we get into the super chats that are coming in, you know what?
Better do the disclaimers before everything else.
Disclaimers, sponsor, and then we're going to rant.
Just a little bit.
Just a little bit.
Disclaimers!
Holy crap, we're going to talk about that Michigan...
I don't know if it's fortification or fornification or something else now.
We're going to talk about that later tonight.
But just in general...
Despite the fact that I am trained as a lawyer, though no longer practicing, there will be no legal advice.
Do not be a fool and take legal advice from a lawyer on the interwebs.
There will be no medical advice.
I think I know a lot about, you know, my own hypochondriases and things like that.
I do not give medical advice.
There will be no election fornication advice, but my goodness, does the more the information just trickles out, you know, three years later, little police reports containing a lot of damning information.
So, all of that.
These things that you see coming in in the highlighted colors, these are called Super Chats on YouTube, Rumble Rants on Rumble.
YouTube takes 30% of those.
And so if some of you don't want to support the beast that censors, that de-platforms, that manipulates, go over to Rumble, where Rumble ordinarily takes 20% of their Rumble Rants, but for the rest of this year they're taking 0%, so all of it goes to the creator.
Hopefully it's going to, you know...
Pay dividends, literally and figuratively speaking, and next year when they go back to taking their 20%, they will have gathered a larger crowd.
How is it going?
Had the founders foreseen the future, they would have written a very different Second Amendment, a well-protected public.
Artur Pawlowski, who was on Thursday.
My goodness, was that a marathon of a...
Podcast live stream interview.
That was amazing.
You cannot buy happiness.
You cannot buy freedom.
The Canadian government is never going to silence this hero.
You didn't see it.
Three hours we went.
All in all.
Artur Pawlowski is amazing.
And we got Dostalov-Akman Kari.
Being necessary to the security of a free state, the duty of the people to keep and bear arms shall be enforced.
Keep fighting.
All right.
Before Barnes gets here.
Oh, the sponsor.
We got to do the sponsor.
Of course.
You may have noticed when you come into the stream, it says this video contains a paid sponsor.
Because it does!
Winston Shittenhouse is in the house?
Well, we're not doing Shittenhouse.
We're doing Brickhouse Nutrition.
Field of Greens.
If I'm speaking with a lisp, it's only because I accidentally bit my tongue savagely.
I don't know what my problem is.
I bit my tongue while eating dinner, and I really cut it.
And then it gets swollen and then you just sit there like chewing on it.
So if you hear me lisping more than normal, that's why.
Let me just gather my tongue again.
Brickhouse, Field of Greens.
Desiccated, powdered greens.
It's sort of the rage now, powdered greens.
And not all powdered greens are created equal.
And I like Field of Greens.
I use Field of Greens.
I spent...
30 minutes on the phone with the doctor behind the company.
I think his name was Dr. Mike.
I forget his name.
That was a little while ago when we first contracted for sponsorships.
And I wanted to make sure I was comfortable with the company, their product, how they make it, where they make it, what they say, and how they say it.
I don't care about how they say it.
So I spent some time on the phone with the company's doctor.
Field of greens.
Powdered greens.
It's not an extract.
It's not a supplement.
It's like basically dried pulverized greens.
Most people don't know.
You're supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
Everyone behold, I'm anticipating a little drink later on, so I've sliced my cucumbers here.
You're all supposed to have five to seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day.
Raw, the best.
Most people don't have that many servings of fruits and vegetables.
Most people don't eat anywhere near enough fruits and vegetables.
You have bad habits?
You suck down that disgusting, toxic Red Bull crap.
You go to McDonald's where they don't even have vegetables, and the vegetables they put on their burgers are hardly qualified.
If you can't get your five to seven servings of fruits and veggies with all the antioxidants and nutrients and all that stuff, Field of Greens, desiccated greens, not defecated.
Pulverized.
It is a food, not an extract, not a supplement, hence it's USDA organic, made in America.
One spoonful is a serving of fruits and vegetables with all of the antioxidants and all that good stuff.
You do it twice a day, you're already halfway to being better than most people in their dietary habits, which most people's dietary habits are not good.
So, fieldofgreens.com.
It'll bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
Promo code VIVA.
You'll get 15% off your first order.
Get in the habit of having healthy habits.
That's the best habit to have.
Okay.
Now, speaking of healthy habits, let's get into the gaggery, shall we?
I said we were going to start either with gagging or with a smile.
Now, let me just see.
Let me just see what it is.
Let me just see which one we're going to go to here.
Do we want to go to Katie Telford right away?
Do we go to this one?
Do we go to this one?
Do we start off with...
Now, let's start off with...
The talking point is in, people.
Let me see if it's this one.
The talking point in Canada is in...
Oh, by the way, no.
Before we get there, this joke, I love it now.
That's the fish that I caught yesterday that we cooked at home at Blue Runner.
It looks like a whale when I put it next to that Fortnite figurine.
Just a little light-hearted laugh before we get to the stuff that's going to make you want to puke.
Alright.
Here we go.
Out of Canada, people.
I'm the winner this week.
This is...
Let's watch this video.
This is what I was going to start with.
It wouldn't make you gag, maybe by extension.
All right, ratio of the week time.
The winner this week is Justin Trudeau's chief of staff, Katie Telford.
Last week, Telford shared an article by The Guardian, which had to be community noted and fact-checked on Twitter because it's just not true.
The out-of-context headline, Canada has zero pro-choice conservative MPs, Watchdog says.
The fact check under Katie Telford's tweet says this.
Bill C-311 is a 78-word bill that does not contain the word abortion.
The bill is to protect a pregnant woman with aggravating circumstances.
We can skip the rest of this.
The bottom line is Katie Telford said Canada has zero pro-choice Conservative MPs.
Let's get to the part of this where I discovered, like the rest of the world, that there are conservatives in Canada who believe in sex-based abortions.
The House of Commons voted against a bill that would protect pregnant women.
And the reality is, that headline couldn't be further from the truth, because a majority of conservatives voted to allow sex-selective abortions in this country.
How very conservative.
So set aside whether or not we're going to fight over whether or not those Canadian conservatives are conservatives.
Katie Telford, for those of you who don't know, tied to the liberal Justin Trudeau regime.
Liar.
Like, it's not like, oh, I didn't know that there were no pro-choice conservatives out there.
I didn't know that the conservatives also voted unanimously to support the conversion ban bill in Canada.
I didn't know that.
Liars.
Shameless lies.
Well, they've got their new talking point, by the way, and it's mind-blowing in its diabolical pathology.
Katie Telford.
Poilier's Conservative Party embracing language of mainstream conspiracy theories.
First of all, coming from CTV News.
Now, it's a Canadian press, so it's a syndicated article.
So you're going to see the exact same article being run by CTV News, CBC.
Oh, what's Katie Telford's position again?
Let me just see here.
Tweets are personal views.
Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Les opinions exprimées ici sont personnelles.
Les opinions exprimées ici sont des mensonges tabarouettes.
They're lies, your opinions, Katie.
They're not opinions.
They're lies.
Okay.
Chef du cabinet du Premier ministre Trudeau.
Oh, tabarnouche que c 'est bon.
Liar.
May I ask just one question, Katie Telford?
What is a mainstream conspiracy theory?
It sounds like a mainstream conspiracy theory is actually just truth.
But let's go to the article, because what does the article say?
Liars, liars, and liars.
Look at Poilier's Conservative Party embracing language of mainstream conspiracy theories.
Conservative leader Poilier has been hitting the summer barbecue circuit, ramped up with rhetoric, around debunked claims that the World Economic Forum is attempting to impose its agenda on sovereign governments.
It is, some experts suggest, another sign that some conspiracy theories are moving from the fringes of the internet to the mainstream thinking as people's distrust of government grows.
I'll give everybody the article, but let me just do one thing here.
Does everybody forget?
People are wrongly believing that the WEF, Klaus Schwab, penetrates the cabinet.
Does everybody remember that clip?
Oh, no, it's a mainstream conspiracy theory that the WEF is trying to exercise its control or influence policy of sovereign nations.
It's a conspiracy theory, you pathological liar, Katie Telford.
Now, names like Mrs. Merkel, even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.
What we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Who did you say?
Prime Minister Trudeau.
Please to be telling us, Klaus Schwab, what have you done to Prime Minister Trudeau?
I believe it involves the penetration.
...of Argentina and so on.
That we penetrate the cabinets.
So yesterday I was going to say that we penetrate the cabinets.
By the way, one thing you don't want to hear is a German saying, I will penetrate your cabinets.
So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more half of this cabinet, For our, actually, young global leaders of the world.
Right.
For our global leaders, yeah, uns.
Clowns Schwab has penetrated the cabinet.
But Katie's telephone with her state-sponsored media tells us it's a mainstream conspiracy theory.
And it's not one.
You get them all doing it now.
It's the narrative of the day that...
Pierre Poilievre is espousing mainstream conspiracy theories that the WEF is using its influence to enforce, effect, implement policy on sovereign nations.
Oh, and we also forgot when we are talking about how they have penetrated the cabinet.
I know all of you watching have seen this.
Reject all the cookies.
Do you know who Christophe Freeland is?
She's the deputy prime minister and minister of finance of Canada.
And she is the author of the...
I don't know, whatever.
The Honourable Chrystia Freeland is Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
Ms. Freeland was first allowed.
Who gives this?
Let us go down to the end, yeah?
She was also awarded the Eric M. Warburg Award by the Atlantic Brücke for her achievements in strengthening transatlantic ties.
What does that sound like?
In 2020, she was awarded the Freedom House's Mark Palmer Prize in recognition of her years of work in championing democracy and human rights.
It's a conspiracy theory.
If you think that it's true, you're a crazy conspiracy theorist.
A mainstream conspiracy theorist at this point.
Oh, but I forgot to do...
Do we do the exercise that we...
Just Google Justin Trudeau, WEF.
You'll see a beautiful landing page.
Google Jagmeet Singh, WEF.
You'll see a beautiful landing page on the WEF.
Yeah, but it's a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy theory that the WEF is trying to influence or have an impact on policy of foreign nations.
Okay.
But speaking of the liars, the Canadian pathological tyrants, so-called liberals.
Oh, my goodness.
Can you believe they still call themselves liberals?
Just a couple more lies that they're promoting right now.
They're demonizing Roman Baber.
Apparently, I guess he got picked up by the Conservative Party.
Good pickup, Conservatives.
He might be the only person I'd ever vote for, despite the fact that he now identifies as Conservative.
They are railing against Roman Baber.
Talib Nur Muhammad writes about Roman Baber.
Wait for the punchline for this.
Too extreme for Ford Nation.
Baber is just right for the pro-convoy, anti-science, misogynist, rage-farming coalition Poilievre is trying to build.
That sounds a little bit like rage-farming right there, Talib.
I look forward to seeing my friend.
That's one person who I went to dunk on and then I forgot.
Oh yeah, the piece of political rubbish has already blocked me.
I don't blame him for it, but he has.
Then you get another person, Emmett McFarlane.
And he's got a Ukrainian flag in his bio before the Canadian flag, so you know what you're about to see is going to be intellectual diarrhea.
Your federal conservatives under Polyevre, so radically far-right, they are taking on anti-vax, anti-public health candidates that were so mercilessly ignorant and immoral that Doug Ford booted them from his caucus, making fun of Roman Baber yet again.
Roman Baber, for those of you who don't know, I've had him on the channel.
Is a Jewish immigrant from Soviet Russia.
These liberal, liberal idiots are calling a Jewish refugee from Soviet Russia far-right, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxer, whatever.
These people are the worst people on earth.
And by these people, yes, I mean liberals.
And I mean liberal politicians, not liberal citizens.
Although, you know, at some point if you continue to vote for this rubbish, I don't know what that says about you.
All right.
That's the Canadian angle for today.
Enjoy.
Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA.
Barnes is in the house, looking dapper again.
Okay, hold on.
I didn't forget anything.
I don't think I forgot anything.
All right, let's bring him on.
Bring on the Barnes!
Okay, three, two, one.
Stir.
How goes the battle?
Good, good.
Robert, dare I ask what's over your shoulder, although I suspect it's what you were reading Friday night on Bourbon with Barnes?
Yeah, our book club with Barnes, the book of the month for vivabarneslaw.locals.com is Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
Going to be reading one chapter each week.
We do those Friday at 9 Eastern, or 9-ish Eastern.
Like what happened during the American Revolution, the Common Sense was read in taverns and cafes all across the country.
It is still, by a per capita basis, The best-selling book in the history of the United States other than the Bible.
To give some idea, one out of every five American households had it in their home.
More than half of all Americans had read it or heard it.
You just don't find any book other than the Bible that has that degree of influence ever.
People want to know what the Constitution means and what did the founding generation believe, which goes beyond just the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
It goes to all the people who made the Declaration of Independence reading the words it was written in.
There is no better book than The Common Sense.
I mean, I was listening to and it was actually quite soothing, but what was one of the first things you said?
Time makes more converts than reason.
I mean, I love that because it's sort of like just a better way of saying with age comes wisdom.
Well, like you say, you wait long enough and you go through enough shit and you'll eventually realize what you could not have been convinced was the case even when you were younger.
Okay, Robert, I feel like I'm forgetting something, but I guess I'm not.
What do we have on the menu for tonight?
Because it's going to be a big one.
Oh, just that you might remember.
Wednesday, sidebar, Heather McDonald.
From the Manhattan Institute.
Covers a lot of issues involving some of the cases we'll be talking about tonight.
Diversity, equity, inclusion issues.
Racial politics.
Policing.
A lot of those matters.
She's written a bunch of books on.
She's going to be our only sidebar guest probably of August.
Then we'll start locking people up come September.
But yeah, top topics.
Otherwise, topics tonight.
First one up, a couple of bonus topics off the top.
Ohio One went to a vote.
The attempt to amend the Constitution.
And Sam Bankman Freed had his bail revoked.
Then the top 12 topics.
Starts out with Brooke Jackson updating her case.
The FBI shooting in Utah.
The Gateway Pundit Michigan fraud case from the 2020 election.
Updates on Trump.
That was the most popular one on the message board.
The gag order entered by the judge in the D.C. case.
The grand jury abuse referenced in the Florida case.
And the Twitter subpoena issue that appeared before the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Then we got guns.
We got a SCOTUS decision and an Illinois decision.
We have Biden corruption.
What's going on with all this special counsel stuff in the latest under Biden update?
We have the diversity equity inclusion lawsuit class action securities case brought against Kellogg.
We have another securities class action case about to be brought against Target for its trans promotions and its own version of ESG and diversity equity inclusion policies.
We have the Andy Ngo verdict out of Portland, Oregon.
Missouri versus Biden.
The oral argument was this week.
It was about two hours long.
We got an Obamacare case up before the Fifth Circuit that might have ramifications beyond Obamacare.
The Washington doctors brought a lawsuit in state court in Washington because the Washington Medical Commission is trying to de-license them for doing what?
Prescribing ivermectin, which the FDA actually finally admitted this week was okay all along.
And a bonus topic that we'll probably cover in the after party at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
What's going on with Dr. Tenpenny in Ohio?
That was one of the most popular questions asked for on the board.
Okay, excellent.
So, look, we'll start with the Ohio one.
Some people are very confused about what it meant, what the implications are.
They were voting on a measure.
That would have raised the threshold to change the Constitution later on?
Yeah, exactly.
So it was an amendment to the Constitution, which could itself pass by just majority vote, that would prohibit future amendments to the Constitution from even being proposed unless they met a much higher signature threshold, and then couldn't be passed unless it reached a 60% voting threshold.
And it was basically put on there by pro-lifers who think they're going to lose on a coming abortion referendum in Ohio unless they made it more difficult for it to make the ballot and required supermajority approval.
Effectively, what that would do is shift power from the people to the state legislature and the governor's chair.
And I was not...
J.D. Vance, a lot of conservatives were for it.
I was not.
I don't think shifting power to the legislature is a good idea in general.
I prefer power being in the hands of the people as often and as much and as frequently as possible.
And Ohioans agreed with me.
It was about a 22-point drop-off from the Trump margin.
It not only failed, it didn't even get close to passing.
Yeah, I think it was like 57-43, give or take.
Yeah, exactly.
So about a 22-point.
And if you looked at working-class areas, the drop-off was even bigger, at least from the Trump vote margins.
25-point, sometimes 30-point drop-offs.
It wasn't primarily driven by Democrats rejecting it in that sense.
It was driven by independent and working-class Republican voters not being...
They read it, and they're like, why do I want to take away my own power and give it to politicians instead?
It was a short-term solution by people who think they have a current edge with the legislature over the voters.
And I thought, you know, if you're pro-life, go out and persuade people of your position.
Don't rely on procedural tricks to try to deny people their ability to vote on it because you don't think you can persuade people.
And I guess the idea is if they pass a bad abortion law, one that people don't like, you can just, I don't know.
Abolish it or pass another one with the same majority, but this was like amending the shareholder agreement so that it, for all future decisions, makes it harder for good and for bad.
If anyone has ever been through those shareholder agreements, you impose any supermajority rule, you're inviting problems.
That's just the short answer.
I mean, what it effectively did is shift power from the people directly to the legislature.
Because this didn't restrict at all.
This didn't require the legislature to have a 60% vote to pass legislation.
It was only the voters have to have a 60% vote.
And so all it did was, hey, let's give more power to the legislature because we, the pro-life community, have an edge there that we don't think we have an edge with the majority of voters.
It was an anti-democratic path and an anti-populist path, quite frankly.
And so I was never in favor of it.
It was short-sighted in its perspective that long-term they would have probably regretted.
The majority for now, or the edge for now on a specific issue, and then they might not have another issue and then get stuck with the legislation that I can think of a number that would be problematic.
Okay, so interesting.
And it's dead in the water.
Do they try to revamp it?
Like, do they do what we did in Quebec, just keep having referendums until they succeed?
I don't think so.
We lost so badly.
I think they'll give up on that at this point and realize they need to shift into how can we win on the abortion issue itself.
The reality is most voters favor reasonable limits on abortion.
They don't favor complete bans, but they do favor reasonable limits.
Focus there.
There's a part of the pro-life community that...
I understand.
They think human life, a human soul, a human person within the meaning of the Constitution begins at the moment of conception.
For them, there's no negotiation whatsoever.
It's just a position that 75% of Americans reject.
They have a political problem.
They have not been able to persuade people of that belief.
It's just not sufficiently universal for it to succeed.
So what they can focus on is where there is majority support, which is pretty much any abortion after the first trimester is unpopular.
And you can ban most of those.
You can ban all of them, frankly.
And you can ban some that happened beforehand if it's being done for discriminatory reason.
You have people seeking abortions because of the meant for eugenicist, you know, Richard Hanania loving kind of reasons, eugenicist reasons.
For people who don't know, Richard Hanania is a eugenicist, just in case you don't know.
We interviewed him in the past when he was not admitting he was a eugenicist and suggested he was something else.
What is a eugenicist?
Someone who believes in eugenics, who believes in getting rid of certain populations.
Bill Gates is a eugenicist.
He partially disguises it.
But just watch a 60 Minutes interview with him and Melinda Gates where they're walking through an African village and the CBS guy, 60 Minutes guy, says, can you imagine these people having too many kids?
Having more kids?
Why was he concerned about that in an African village?
Okay, interesting.
Okay, so that is Ohio 1 done.
Second story, before we head over to Rumble, people, I'm going to give the link here one more time, although it's the pinned link in the chat in YouTube.
Second, last story for YouTube, SBF.
I don't know what to make of it.
I don't know if they try to show that they can be rough on, I don't know, certain people.
SBF is heading back to jail.
Bail revoked because allegedly, witness tampering, as far as I understand, the allegations of witness tampering are that he leaked a portion or some of his ex-girlfriend's diary.
To the press, I don't know exactly what the portions of the diary said, why that would translate into witness tampering or intimidation, but he's back in jail pending trial.
Robert, what do you think of that?
This is a common pattern, and it'll be one of the things we discuss in the Trump case, that for too long the Supreme Court has allowed judges to abuse their bail power.
Your power for bail should be, excessive bail should mean any condition that doesn't relate to your appearance.
For purposes of trial or punishment.
That's what bail is there for.
And the Congress changed it in 1984.
And so the Supreme Court approved it in a bogus case called Salerno, 5-4, a very narrow decision, which said you could take other factors into consideration and it wasn't quote-unquote excessive bail.
What does witness issues have to do with bail?
It should have nothing to do with bail or unrelated to bail.
So, in my view, the revocation of his bail terms was patently unconstitutional.
Secondly, this isn't witness intimidation.
This effort to say only the prosecution side of events gets to be presented, and events and only what happens in court.
You're only allowed to talk about it in court.
You're not allowed to talk about it in the public.
It directly contradicts...
Not only the bail provisions, but directly contradicts the First Amendment and your right to public participation in public trials.
What it's intended to do is prevent you from defending yourself.
So here's Sam Bankman Freed.
Nothing he did was intimidation.
Impeaching a witness, embarrassing a witness, exposing a witness, criticizing a witness, that's not intimidation.
Intimidation is something illegal, something unlawful.
Bribing them.
I'm going to come by and shoot you or kneecap you or take away your business in some illegal manner.
That's obstruction.
That's intimidation.
Asserting your legal rights and remedies is not a witness intimidation.
So it's a preposterous ruling.
But because nobody likes Sam Bankman Freed, nobody cares.
And this is where conservatives have been asleep at the wheel for forever.
They care now that it's happened to Trump.
But they didn't care when it was happening to Epstein or Maxwell when they were wrongfully denied bail.
And they don't care when it's happening to Sam Bankman Freight.
Because, oh, we don't like him, so let's throw out the Constitution there.
It was mostly conservative judges and justices that created these eviscerations of the Constitution.
These so-called originalists.
These so-called read-it-in-the-plain text.
I don't know how many times a conservative says, well, I just want a judge who interprets and enforces the law.
There's not a conservative judge in America who does that.
So there's some that are better at it than others, but there's not a single one that sticks to it.
And this is an embarrassing ruling that is a disgrace.
And they always use unpopular defendants to establish terrible and horrendous precedents.
And it's the same corrupt hack of a judge that's presiding over some of the Trump cases.
That has a long history of being a corrupt hack of a judge and a partisan hack.
Who the Second Circuit refuses to discipline and the Supreme Court refuses to remedy.
Because I'm reading from an NPR article.
It's not maybe the best for the details, but it says the alleged leak of Ellison's diary, this is the leak of the diary, which included reflections on her relationship with Bankman Freed and some of her professional misgivings, was the last straw for prosecutors.
It goes down to say they also fault Bankman-Fried for having participated in more than 1,000 phone calls with journalists, more than 500 with the author Michael Lewis, who is writing a book about Bankman-Fried.
I don't understand, and I feel like I'm missing something.
It sounds like he's doing nothing more than talking in his own defense in the court of public opinion.
And maybe, even if it's embarrassing to release the details of a diary, that's all that he's doing.
Historically, I mean, I'm just a Canadian bumpkin, witness intimidation was an unlawful, illicit manner of coercing or preventing certain testimony come trial.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Completely, completely.
It has to be something that is unlawful, that is criminal.
You can't say, oh, you're doing something that makes a witness look bad.
We're going to call that intimidation.
That isn't what the law provides for.
I mean, it's punishing him because he's defending himself in the court of public opinion.
And they know that nobody cares about him politically so they can get the courts to railroad him.
And they're imprisoning him in the Metropolitan Detention Center.
How does the Southern District of New York always end up with jurisdiction in these cases?
This guy didn't live in New York.
This guy, I mean, he lived in the Bahamas.
I mean, he otherwise lived in California.
Case has no business.
And they're going to put him in MDC.
You know, so let's see if he's still alive by the time of trial.
50-50.
So I know nothing of that.
Is that a particularly bad place, Robert?
That's where Epstein killed himself.
Shut the front door.
Okay.
Oh my goodness.
It's been sued repeatedly because of how dangerous it is.
I don't want to think conspiracy theories, but if Bankman knows too much, and now that they know that he knows too much and send him to where Epstein was and the guards will fall asleep, the cameras will malfunction and Epstein, not Epstein, Bankman pulls an Epstein.
Okay, Robert, before we go over to Rumble exclusively, because I would be morally remiss not to read these as quickly as possible now there's a few in there.
Some Rumble Rants, people.
Il Sarto says, I don't know if Patrick Lancaster does interviews, but I think he would be the perfect person to interview him, and it would literally break the internet.
Please try Patrick Lancaster.
That's the Ukrainian reporter, but we've reached out to him before.
He doesn't do many interviews.
Oh, am I going?
I'm going infinite here.
Okay, whatever.
Then we got Mandatory Carrier says, and $5 to the cover.
We love you, Susans.
Leth tribe.
That's not a word.
Touch the rot.
He says, as I promised, after the pastor, or as I promised, after the Arthur Poblowski livestream, I wanted to donate to his cause, but streetchurch.ca uses Stripe as the payment processor, which is very woke, so I'd do this instead, touch the rot, so I'm donating to the pastor via a larger-than-usual rant.
Don't worry, I'm going to give something to pastor as well.
Please include this to whatever you donate to him or just keep it in your standing donation fund.
No refund wanted.
Thanks.
Arkansas Crime Attorney says, I have the, this is a Little Rock from YouTube.
I now have my practice pending license in Tennessee.
Robert, I am ready to work in Chattanooga.
My in-laws live in Morristown and I am 40 miles from Gatlinburg, Arkansas Crime Attorney.
Oh, and by the way, Viva Rumble has been dropping.
I think there is interference in the stock price.
State of the Lee land.
How long until the untimely end of SBF Barnes?
Do you wager on such a macabre things where touch the rot?
Heather McDonald is excellent.
Okay, sorry about the infinite cascading.
Okay, good.
So now what we're going to do, Robert, I'm going to bring your face back in here.
We're going to end on YouTube.
Come on over to Rumble.
Or go to Locals directly, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
We're moving from YouTube in 3 to 1,691 people.
Move on over to Rumble.
Booyah.
Okay, Robert.
Man, I tell you, no matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.
Are they going to, you know, Epstein?
I think it was Zero Hedge said exactly that.
He said, we wonder if the cameras will stop working outside of SBF's cell.
I mean, he's scheduled for a trial in October, which is already crazy, an early date.
And they generally like to lock people up to make it more difficult for them to be effective in the court of public opinion, make it more difficult for them to prepare their own defense, to psychologically break them because it's like quasi-torture the way a lot of these places are designed.
It's punishment without conviction on the basis of a trial.
You know, so that's where the aspects are, is why they do it, is why the prosecutors abuse this power all the time, and they're never disciplined for it, ever.
Well, I would not place bets on such a macabre thing anyhow, but I know what I'm thinking.
All right, Robert, you know, speaking of macabre to macabre, I guess it's a bit of a silver lining, the Brooke Jackson lawsuit that you are acting in, Brooke Jackson's key tem.
Arguing fraud on behalf of the state.
It was dismissed without prejudice or it was dismissed and you had permission to amend, which you've done and refiled as far as I understood.
Could you explain what the...
Well, I guess you explained already thoroughly why it was dismissed in the first place, but maybe refresh everybody's memory and specify what you needed to add by way of amendment, hopefully to avoid a future dismissal of the lawsuit again.
So he originally dismissed with prejudice all the fraud claims and only said that we might be able to, he dismissed without prejudice the retaliation claims.
So we sought a motion to amend the judgment to allow us to amend on the fraud claims as well.
And for him to clarify what it is we could amend on the, because he didn't explicitly say we could amend.
On the retaliation claims, it was implicitly there by being without prejudice, but not explicitly there.
And so we sought a motion to amend the judgment.
The clerk, kind of, you know, odd peculiarity.
We kicked it off the docket.
We had to refile it.
We had to file an appeal to preserve appeal rights because of timing issues.
Then the appeals court clerk kicked it off the docket, which was very weird.
So we were getting all these weird docket things that we were having to get the district court to correct and get the court of appeals to correct.
Finally got it all corrected and the court of appeals stayed the appeal saying, let's let the district court make a ruling on this motion to alter amended judgment.
The district court came in and granted.
I request a motion to alter and amend the judgment and said several things.
He said, yeah, definitely you can refile for an amended complaint on the retaliation claim to clarify what they knew and when they knew it.
But he went much further than that.
He said you could also amend on the fraud claims, including, you know, originally he dismissed those with prejudice.
So basically it's the district court in part reversing himself.
Saying, actually, he should have dismissed without prejudice and given an opportunity to amend.
So credit to the court, recognition that, you know what, now that he looked at it again, actually, I want to see a second shot at this.
And what the, is allowing an amendment on the fraud by inducement claim?
Allowing an amendment on the materiality issue?
And on those two components are critical because the fraud and the inducement is that the whole scheme was a scheme by Pfizer to say they were going to deliver a...
Here's what the contract required, the Defense Department contract required for those that don't remember.
Because there's a lot of stuff out there circulating that this is a military-designed bioweapon and all that jazz.
That's just not true.
Just false.
And I get a lot of people, including Bobby Kennedy and others at times, have heard that and entertained that.
Bobby Kennedy told me directly that he understands it's not accurate.
But because we actually got the contract in the suit, we didn't have the contract when we initially filed suit.
And so part of what we wanted to include in the amended suit is that contractual language, which the contract said you will deliver, the deliverable is a safe, effective, Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
Stop.
Stop.
For the prevention, not for the reduction of severity of symptoms.
It distinguished the two.
It said we're not asking for a therapeutic that would reduce the impact or effect of a disease.
We're asking for a vaccination that will prevent transmission and infection of COVID-19.
And it said that repeatedly.
Said, here's what you're going to deliver.
Here's what you're going to deliver.
Here's what we are paying for.
And our argument is they knew at the time they entered into the contract that they could not deliver a safe, effective vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19.
They knew it throughout their testing and data.
And so they, and because part of the requirement to make sure they were meeting that standard was to constantly independently update.
The Defense Department, separate from the FDA, about what was happening in all the clinical trials.
This is what Brooke Jackson witnessed.
She saw, oh, this can't be safe.
This can't be effective.
This can't prevent a COVID infection or transmission because all of the safety protocols are being ignored.
All the scientific metrics are being eviscerated.
That you can't trust any of the data coming out of this because they're doctoring it.
They're falsifying it.
They're defrauding everybody in the process.
That you have something that's worse than a clinical trial.
It's so unreliable and so untrustworthy.
And that's what she witnessed.
That's what she disclosed.
And once she disclosed it and tried to go up through the internal food chain as to what was going on, she was summarily fired the moment they found out.
She had talked to the FDA.
Which has still not been explained, how they found out she talked to the FDA.
So we brought a claim without knowing what that contract said.
The court relied in part on Pfizer's interpretation of that contract.
To dismiss, we said, look, if you look at this more robustly, there's actually different issues here.
The other big thing to the court's credit, it said, is we had highlighted, I said at the time, oral argument was very extensive, very broad.
that the court seemed inclined to give us a fair shot when the written opinion came out I said it felt like it was written More by a clerk.
It didn't feel like it was written by the same court.
Somewhere along the way, the court had shifted perceptions of the case, which I attribute that to potentially being a clerk's influence.
Because so many of the court clerks these days, even if they're working for a Republican appointee, they're very pro-vaccine, and many of them are liberal Democrats, honestly, pretending otherwise in order to get a premier clerkship because of how much money you can cash that in at a big corporate law firm.
For those that don't know, young law students, young law graduates go work clerk for a federal district court, sometimes a year, sometimes two years.
They parlay that right out of law school.
If they get a federal judicial clerkship, it's considered a prime gig for big corporate firms to write big checks to them.
Often they write big bonuses to them if they do a clerkship.
So you're talking about 200 grand.
Big money that these lawyers can make if they get a judicial clerkship.
It's like a guaranteed pathway.
Professional success in life, in the legal career.
So he came back, he said, you know what, because one of our points was, Judge, there's a big difference between materiality when the government knows the allegation is true, but still gives them money.
That's a true immaterial fraud.
In other words, that fraud is not actual fraud because it was inconsequential to their decision-making.
So it's like saying, you know what, this device...
It doesn't work for this other purpose, but it's not that other purpose that the government is paying for, the device for.
So they don't care that it might have been falsely represented that it had two purposes if the one purpose it's working for is what it paid for.
The allegation of the Pfizer was, hey, the Biden administration won't join the case.
The Biden administration is saying, please, let's let the case go away.
The Biden administration is saying it must be immaterial because they're still writing his checks here at Pfizer.
And the argument was that's because the government officially believes Pfizer's lies.
If the government has never come out and said, we agree that Brooke Jackson's allegations are true.
And we pay them anyhow.
Correct.
And for obvious reasons, they can't.
Because then it would negate the safety, efficacy, and preventive nature of the vaccine.
That's not even a vaccine.
It's a purely ineffective therapeutic.
It doesn't even work as a therapeutic.
Let me bring this up to refresh everybody's memory about this gem.
If not, please.
Say it clearly.
If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?
Did you test for transmission?
I really want a straight answer, yes or no, and I'm looking forward to it.
Thank you very much.
Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping humanisation before it's entered the market?
No.
These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand.
We can stop the verbal diary.
Speed of greed.
Speed of fraud.
That's the speed they're acting at.
Well, she did mention the market after.
We had to get with the market.
Speed of science.
My ass with two dollar signs.
There was no science to it.
And they knew it.
That's what Brooke Jackson exposed.
That's what Brooke Jackson discovered and uncovered.
And the judge recognized this in his order.
He says, you know what?
There's a big difference between whether or not Just the fact the government was aware of an allegation of fraud doesn't mean the government accepted the allegation was true.
And he seemed to be saying, you know what, I think this case is going to move on past dismissal now and into discovery.
And he scheduled a scheduling appearance for everybody to show up at the end of August in Beaumont, Texas.
So a case that Pfizer thought was dead, the Biden administration thought was dead, has been resurrected.
At the district court level, and I'll be honest, I didn't think the district, I mean, I liked what the district court, at the hearing, I thought he was a very, I said so at the time, that even if he ruled against me, I thought he was a straight shooter.
And I'd been critical of him previously because I thought he was too deferential to Pfizer early on in terms of, you know, giving him stays and things of this nature.
But, you know, this is great credit to the judge.
I mean, very few judges are willing to say, hold on a second, maybe we should look at this again.
Most of them become so ego-committed to their original opinion, they won't second-guess anything.
They usually take a potshot at you as a lawyer for even daring to second-guess them.
This judge, to his credit, just the opposite.
I'm sure Pfizer was shocked.
They'll bring in their 25 lawyers, however many they're going to have show up for this one.
They just keep coming and coming and coming and coming.
I was talking to somebody.
Let's just say he's a mutual friend of ours, about doing some legal work for him down the road.
And he was like, you know, how do you handle, Robert, when there's so many other lawyers on the other side?
And I was like...
That's my entire career.
There's always like a dozen or two dozen or more.
They always bring more and more and more and more.
They build the living daylights out of these big drug companies.
But when you're a career criminal, when you make all the different cartels in Mexico look like street corner level drug dealers, and that's what Pfizer is, the biggest criminal drug dealer in the history of man, then I understand why you got so many lawyers on the payroll.
I thought you were going to say, how do you deal with all those orders on the side?
I picture them all naked.
But Robert, Brooke put out a tweet.
Let me just make sure I can get it here.
Twitter has been off today in terms of showing the images.
You call it X or you call it Z?
I heard someone say you call it Z. I'm calling it Twitter and I don't care.
Brooke says all parties required to appear in person.
See you there.
And you got an order-setting scheduling conference.
This is a purely procedural court date, right?
Nothing substantive happens on this?
Yeah, yeah.
No, but he could decide whether or not he'll allow Discovery to move forward.
Okay.
We'll see.
I mean, what he's saying is everything's back on the docket.
Let's take it.
And I think here, too, the court of public opinion doesn't hurt.
I mean, judges are human beings, and they can see everything that's happening around them.
And what's happened is a lot of the predictions that those of us that were critical of this drug from day one, more and more have come true.
And some judges and politicians and others that were skeptical initially are like, something has turned out different than we expected here.
Maybe the judge knows someone who suffered an adverse reaction.
Maybe the judge themselves.
Who knows?
All right, good news, Robert.
That's good stuff.
Oh, yeah, it's great.
Yeah, it's great news.
It's the white pill of the week, white pill of the month.
And it couldn't happen for...
And by the way, if you want to go back and look at the timing of when there was a massive dramatic drop-off, particularly with children's uptake of the vaccine, it corresponds to when Brooke Jackson went public in late January, February of 2022, I believe.
Yeah, it was.
Because she'd filed her suit in 2020.
Her lawyers were sitting on it.
Government was sitting on it.
And she wanted to go public in order to limit the amount of damage because she saw they were going to try to inject all the kids with it.
And if you look at it, now the date is out.
Basically, let's put it this way.
Something happened in February of 2022 that led a whole bunch of people to stop taking the vaccine.
And there was a massive reduction in the number of kids who took it.
Massive reduction in the general population that took it.
And 90-95% of the population has basically quit.
They're not taking boosters.
They're not taking the initial shot.
The people that didn't get it aren't getting it.
And that's where people underestimate the power of the court of public opinion.
And Brooke Jackson went public to great risk to herself, any future she had, any career she had, anything else.
And you're going up against, again, somebody that makes the cartels look like small change.
So there's always all kinds of risks that go with that.
She did it fearlessly, and the net effect was who knows how many lives have been saved around the world.
So this is going to be a case I cite for forever.
As why you try to make a difference, even if the politicians look like it's going to be tough, even if the judges look like it's going to be tough, even if the other side is all the money and the resources and the power.
Brooke Jackson is a classic example of how you can make a great difference just in the court of public opinion that can lead to their main goal here, which was to save lives.
Fantastic.
All right, now before we get into the...
Less white pill of the week, Robert.
I'll just bring up two of these.
Ohioans got to vote on the higher threshold.
Nebraska got mad that the voters approved marijuana and had the Nebraska Supreme Court throw it out.
And then the state changed procedure to make voter initiatives impossible.
And then we got, Robert, is that a feral pig from Drew Estates in our hand?
Hold on one second.
Let me see here.
Oh, no.
Oh, maybe.
It's a specialist, but I took off the label.
So I don't remember now.
Feral pig.
I thought it was something else.
All right, Robert, the story of the week that had me thinking more Waco, but just on a smaller scale.
Ruby Ridge.
Maybe Ruby Ridge actually is a better example.
Look, I'm a simple man.
I've never worked in law enforcement, but I have to think instinctively.
If you can't arrest a mobility...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Mobility-impaired, 78-year-old man...
With a SWAT team and everything, you can't do it without killing the individual.
You're not doing your job properly or possibly cynically.
You're doing your job exactly as you're supposed to have gone in and do it.
This guy...
I forget how old he is, 76, give or take in his 70s.
I think he was 75, Air Force veteran.
Basically disabled.
Couldn't even walk two blocks to church, had to drive a car to get there.
Was physically not functioning and took care of his older blind son.
So, I mean, he was basically a homebound most of the time.
And not to make, this is not for nothing, but overweight, mobility impaired is the point.
I mean, literally struggled to walk.
And had been posting stuff on Facebook.
We're not going to repeat it because whether or not the posts are objectively improper and potentially even illegal, that it escalates with an FBI raid.
I don't know.
I think it was, was it early morning?
I think it was early morning.
Yeah, 6 a.m.
6 a.m.
The FBI sent a massive SWAT team in, busted down, tried to bust down his door, then busted down, broke through his window and started shooting in mass and executed him on the spot.
How do you make sense of it except to say that this is...
I'm going to go with Jack Posobiec.
I think it's Posobiec's interpretation.
This is deliberate to send a message to basically to intimidate anybody.
Get on the outs.
Do something stupid and give us an excuse and we'll exercise it.
What's your take on this?
Well, especially what's concerning here.
Supposedly they were there to just execute a search warrant.
They had apparently gone and visited the day before or two and he had...
Apparently said negative things to them at the door.
Here's the thing.
If they had clear evidence that he was a true threat, all that evidence would have been out right away.
They would have had it ready to go when they executed the search warrant.
And definitely when they killed him, they would have been spinning that story fast.
Instead, nothing came out.
They had a tight lid, and they still have a tight lid, which means they're trying to make up their story as we speak.
That the rogue FBI agents involved in this are trying to script a tale and figure out what evidence would impeach them, what evidence can they hide, what evidence can they manufacture, because it's come out that they had him under investigation for months.
Well, if that's the case, then they would know what his neighbors said about him, which was that he was a guy who couldn't move around at all, but was a total teddy bear who just said stupid stuff online.
That nobody took his threat seriously at all.
That nobody who looked at him would...
He was the kind of guy who built ramps for people.
He was a woodworking guy.
He was an Air Force vet.
He wasn't one of these...
To be honest with you, he wasn't as hard-ass as the Weavers.
I mean, he wasn't one of those guys.
He wasn't preparing for the apocalypse.
He was a keyboard warrior.
He was a guy who got on and said stupid stuff online.
And that was it.
Now, so that increasingly, they knew...
Given his fear and paranoia, that by showing up in mass, that he would probably respond at some level in a hostile manner they could use as a pretext to summarily execute him.
I mean, it looks to me like a summary execution of an individual that's met for two purposes, one intimidation and the other provocation.
The intimidation aspect is to get people, yeah, you better not say anything bad about Biden or maybe we'll come knock down your door and shoot you in the head.
The other act is what Ruby Ridge and Waco also really were.
Also, people forget the Cuban incident that happened in the 90s, too, where they took the kid back at gunpoint, all that, back to Cuba, etc.
But the big ones were Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Same sniper, by the way, involved in both of them.
That guy managed to walk without any prosecution.
They tried to prosecute him briefly in Idaho and then step back.
Only reason why Weaver didn't go down for everything and get railroaded was because Jerry Spence took his case.
And Jerry was one of the best at doing political cases, and he got full acquittals.
And for those that don't remember, I mean, they shot a Weaver's wife, a mother, while she was holding her 10-month-old daughter.
Like, sniper, it was not an accident.
And they shot the Weaver's kid when he had confronted...
After they shot, they summarily executed one of their dogs.
And that's what triggered everything to begin with.
Man, they were just picking him up, by the way, on a bail warrant.
Not appearing on a minor charge.
Firearm charge.
It was just the same sniper magically appeared at Waco that precipitated everything that happened at Waco and they covered it up en masse.
Robert, they're following this guy for an extended period of time.
They know what he looks like.
They know he never gets out.
They know there can't be any specific plans.
They know that all his comments on social media are under his own name.
They can see what his neighbors see, that he's just an ordinary schmuck who talks big on the internet.
Compare this to Madonna going to D.C. and talking about blowing up the White House.
Compare this to Kathy Griffin putting up a bloody dead head of Donald Trump.
Compare this to the plays they put on in New York City celebrating the execution of Donald Trump.
Compare this to Snoop Dogg shooting Donald Trump in the head in a rap video.
Or Eminem saying the same.
All of them had more means and more provocative threats.
Than this old guy made.
So the one question is, did he even meet true threat standards?
The most famous true threats case involves threats to the president.
An African-American man stepped up at an anti-war Vietnam War protest and said, if they give me a gun, the first person I'm going to put in my sights is LBJ.
And the Supreme Court said, that's just political hyperbole.
You can't prosecute somebody for that.
It has to be a serious...
Basically, it has to be imminently possible.
To be a true threat, either it has to be imminent or seriously possible.
If it's not seriously possible, it's not a true threat.
It's just some idiot yip it.
Some people would argue that some of his Facebook posts, even if it's arguable close enough, it'll get you into trouble.
The FBI's argument is he had the means because he had the firearm that he said he had in one of his Facebook posts.
But my point is if they're following this guy...
A lot of those that was not...
I mean, a true threat should have been, I'm going to boom, boom, boom.
Not the, not, hey, welcome, Mr. Idiot.
You know, I have a gun.
That's too vague.
That should not fit the definition of true threat.
Because otherwise, anybody asserting anything about a gun will now be called a true threat.
It's just too...
I mean, that's...
Put this away.
Did he say something worse?
Then the guy, the U.S. Supreme Court said, I'm going to put LBJ in my scope as soon as I get my gun.
Well, I'll take the one step further.
I'll say, look, even if he did, they're following him.
They're tracking him.
They're surveilling him.
They know that he's impaired.
They know that he doesn't get around.
They know that if he leaves his house, they're going to see him.
He's not a high risk.
Right.
I mean, there's two different issues.
One is, did he fit the federal criminal definition of the statute?
And my point is, it's not even clear he did.
I kept looking for...
I was like, okay, what escalated this guy?
I mean, to give an example, every year there are thousands of people who send in letters and make phone calls saying they're going to kill the president.
They don't go do search warrant raids on any of them, for the most part.
So I was like, what was it about this guy?
I was like, one, he's not doing it anonymously.
He's doing it under his own name.
He's the easiest person in the world to track.
That tells you right away it's probably not serious.
Second, and again, that's the requirement, serious.
Second, these statements are just too vague.
If saying, I'm going to put LBJ in my scopes, is according to the U.S. Supreme Court, not prosecutable?
Because it's political hyperbole.
Then saying what this guy said is political hyperbole.
It needs to be, I'm going to boom, boom.
Not, I wish death on somebody.
Even that doesn't count.
That's why Madonna...
I mean, that's...
Even though, again, is it...
Or anything he said, is it that much worse than what Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Madonna, Kathy Griffin, the New York Play Theater people did, or a random statement any day of the week against Trump on Twitter?
I mean, these people were threatening his death all the time, hoping for his death all the time.
It still wasn't considered a true threat because of the Watts decision of 1969.
And so my view is they don't even have that.
They definitely don't have serious imminent risk when they put him under investigation, such that he needed to be a high-profile target.
And then you get to the third issue.
Did they really need to execute a search warrant?
Did they need to execute it in this manner?
I mean, they knew this was going to happen and they just basically wanted a pretext to murder the guy.
What exactly happened and how it went down?
Why wasn't it handled in an entirely different manner?
It sounds like classic excessive force.
So my guess is they'll claim he had a gun.
Maybe they'll claim he fired.
But here's the other thing.
If any of that really happened...
We would have had that story right out of the game.
Well, I mean, for goodness sake, they have...
I mean, the FBI is going to be wearing body cam footage or body cams when they do this?
Probably not.
By the way, if they did, I guarantee you it's gone now.
I mean, because again, if he had done any of these things, we would have seen it right away.
We would have seen it right away.
I'm sure there was somebody with footage in there.
But my guess is...
But the fact that we didn't told me, okay, they just went in and shot the guy.
And then they're going to make up a story later.
And they knew they had an easy pretext for it.
Now, this is a reminder to everybody out there.
Don't say stupid stuff online.
I've been saying that for a long time.
These people try to yip.
I mean, I kick people off the board when they say stupid things.
And no refund, because that's a violation of the policies.
My only rule is, it's okay to be stupid.
It's okay to be a criminal.
It's not okay to be both.
And that's when you get kicked off the board.
Or you're basically a disguise spook, which there's always one or two of those that show up on the board.
Don't you think we should...
Our only remedy is violent revolution, wouldn't you agree, Mark?
Thanks, Ray Epps.
Learn how to rewrite a provocative script, my friend.
There was one genuine misunderstanding where someone posted a link to a crypto scam, and I think to highlight it, and then someone fell for it and then thought that he was promoting the crypto scam.
But yeah, oh yeah, come on.
Ray Epps is not welcome.
I mean, this guy is describing...
I mean, this is honestly worse than Ruby Ridge in Waco.
Because at least there was a factual predicate of concern in both cases.
And what they did was ridiculously excessive.
But to be honest with you, they had less factual predicate for this.
Less policy rationale.
At least they claimed to be going in to save the kids.
Now, they murdered most of the kids.
But at least they claimed to be going in to save the kids in Waco.
I mean, here they had no excuse.
None.
Koresh, the argument was that they knew he went into town every day or twice a week.
They could have stopped him at any point there.
This guy, you could stop him at any time.
Not a 6 o 'clock raid.
Not a midnight raid.
They knew he went to church every Sunday.
Right?
They could have gone in and done a search warrant at any time.
And apparently, again, they went there the day before and apparently he said something on social media like, I'll be ready for you to come back.
Okay, then you know what's going on.
You don't go back there under those circumstances.
There's really just no reason to have this guy be a high-profile guy, period.
Alright, well, speaking of firearms, Robert, the Michigan story...
Look, I trust the Gateway Pundit.
I trust what I verify.
They ran a story, a breaking story last week, which everybody was citing, retweeting, to the effect that Michigan voter fraud has been basically definitively blown wide open.
They obtained a police report showing that they made a discovery of...
It was, I think, hundreds of thousands of problematic ballots that had addresses that didn't exist, that were written in the same hands.
Where I got suspicious is it sounded a little bit like the Minority Report orgy of evidence.
They found ballots, guns, silencers, all this stuff.
I was like, okay, man, if it were to sell me on a story, you could have stopped without the guns and the silencers because I don't know who's going to war over the ballots.
So Gateway Pundit runs this story that apparently...
They basically discovered a ring of, I don't know, what do you call it?
Ballot harvesting?
The company that's behind this, the names are all redacted, but apparently it's sort of like they sell it off as, what do they call it, voter outreach.
They have people going, trying to get people to sign up to vote.
They give them incentives so that some of the people working it, you know, they go out and they get people to sign up and they get incentives if they get more people to sign up.
What might have sounded like it ended up happening was that These people working for the company, in order to get their bonuses, get their perks, get their gifts, whatever, would just lie about people signing up.
They were hand-filling out ballots themselves.
And there was a police report filed that the Gateway Pundit article goes through.
So unless you think that the police report is itself totally bogus or bunk, there's that.
And it details redacted names working for redacted companies, harvesting, collecting ballots, signing people up, filling things out by hand, the only people who would talk.
Seemed to be ones who were doing their job legitimately, but were aware that others might not have been doing their job legitimately.
What do you make of this Michigan story?
Is it too good to be true, or is it evidence that is now just coming to light, but too bad, so sad, too late?
You might want to check out the board.
They have a good Barbie Trudeau meme up currently that looks too realistic.
Let me go here.
Yeah, so I first heard about this case, actually, on January 6th in Washington, D.C., sitting in a high-ranking Trump official's offices.
This is January 6th, 2021.
Yes, yes, yes.
The January 6th.
The infamous now, January 6th, right?
So, in fact, that's why I was at the Capitol.
He said, hey, you should come over to the offices.
We've got to get a great view.
Let's chat about the whole thing.
What's going on?
We'll be going to Congress.
You can help organize from here.
I was like, oh, that's a good idea.
Thank God.
I wasn't down there for all the shenanigans.
But we got to watch it all on live TV.
All of it was crazy.
But before even all that stuff started, we could watch Trump's speech there and the rest.
I forget who it was that came in, but somebody came in that was another high-ranking official.
And he explained what had happened a month or two ago in Michigan, talking about how this whole thing was one big scam top to bottom.
And this guy was like an old school guy, old political hand, right?
So he's not going to be someone that's prone to conspiracy or anything like that.
And apparently, and it was all about Barr.
And it was about a key person in the Justice Department that apparently was being promoted for federal judge, that they got pulled from the federal judicial nominations because he was one of the people that, in exchange for, he believed, getting through on his federal judgeship, sat on the investigation.
And this is what the story, and they told me, and they said it happened in Michigan, and they said, look, we caught him red-handed.
We caught the whole, this is the front side.
Of 2,000 mules.
2,000 mules is the backside.
This is the front side.
We know who else caught part of this.
James O 'Keefe did.
James O 'Keefe, remember in...
With the Somalis in Minneapolis.
Where they were driving around with multiple ballots, etc.
The last part of the operation is delivering the fake ballots.
What I mean by fake ballots is they're ballots either who people are not constitutionally qualified to vote.
Such as they're dead.
They don't live there.
They live in a mailbox, supposedly.
The method of the ballot is that it's not a constitutionally qualified method because the signatures don't match.
Or the ballot was coerced and not done in secrecy or blackmailed or bought or something like that.
And then, of course, the third part is that that ballot was not canvassed and counted in a constitutionally correct way according to the rules set by the individual state legislature.
But part of the front end of this process was getting fake registrations in the first place and getting fake ballot requests in the first place.
And those people who had no interest in voting, who didn't even want to register, they decided to register them without them even knowing they were registered and request ballots without them even knowing they'd requested ballots.
Because it's not like if somebody knocked on the door and said, did you really vote?
Are they really going to say no?
They're going to be like...
I'm just going to skip this and move because of the community's constituencies they're in.
Particularly nursing homes, right?
Who's going to know whether, oh, you know, grandma just forgot, right?
I filled out her ballot, but, you know, apartment buildings, homeless centers, places that are really tough to actually find a voter to come forward.
Remember this happened, though.
Remember the Tennessee African-American who somebody voted for him in Arizona under his name?
And he was like, I moved from Arizona a year ago.
I voted in Tennessee.
That's not my vote.
Arizona, to this day, has never explained it.
That joke of a Governor Ducey never explained it at all.
And the courts just stuck their head in the sand, pretended everything was fine.
So what they caught was the front end of this operation, and they caught it in October of 2020, that this was the part of the operation.
And by the way, Barr himself, Well, and then lied to the people when he came out and said, I haven't seen any evidence of any fraud.
Or, sorry, he said widespread voter fraud.
I haven't seen any evidence of widespread voter fraud.
But he hadn't even talked to anyone.
I mean, Richard Barris and I were telling everybody at the time that was a total lie.
I remember we said, you didn't look.
How could you say you didn't find any?
But even then, it was so qualified.
I haven't seen any evidence of any widespread voter fraud that could have affected the outcome of the election.
But he actually did.
In October of 2020.
He was brought evidence because this operation was a nationwide operation.
The company is based out of Tennessee, so some smart Tennessee prosecutor should look into this.
But there was nationwide spending tens of millions of dollars to register people who it was clear didn't actually register.
And all you had to do was check.
They got basic facts wrong.
They would get like, what happens when you have a fraud machine?
Is that some people do it in a really bad way.
So, like, this is why I knew they were terrified of signature matches that they themselves, what I told Trump, the first call, which was, I said, look, you're going to know whether or not it's an up-and-up election because they're going to tell you.
If they have confidence in a signature match check, they think it was done on the up-and-up.
Even if it wasn't, they think it was.
If they're terrified of a signature match check, it means they know it was stolen.
They know it was fraud.
And that's what happened.
Nobody wanted to allow any signature match check.
The only signature match check that ever took place was on a subset sample in Arizona, and the Democratic Party-owned expert said double-digit percentage of signatures didn't match, which was 10 times more than the margin of victory in the state.
What happens here is when you have a fraud machine where you outsource the fraud, The advantage of outsourcing the fraud to independent contractors and other people is that it's tough for them to tie it back to you.
And you can get anybody to do it.
This is why the fraud took place in weird places.
Fraud took place in Tennessee.
Fraud took place in Nebraska.
Fraud took place in South Dakota.
Fraud took place in states that weren't even competitive.
Why?
Because they just announced to the whole world there's going to be a bunch of ballots available.
The safe is open.
The safe is unlocked.
The door is unlocked and security is gone.
And what happened is in one county, you had somebody willing to go in and steal some ballots.
In the neighboring county, you didn't.
And that's why you had wild anomalies all across the country that had nothing to do with Dominion.
It kept trying to scream to everyone.
It was like, this was systematic.
But a downside to outsourcing fraud...
Is you get some real dumb nitwit fraudsters.
This is what I sort of was able to more easily understand.
For some of them, the addresses didn't exist.
So they go see someone, you want to vote?
Yeah, sure, I'll fill in your details.
And they just fill in whatever.
Others, they were using schools.
I'm imagining they were going to get homeless people to say, well, do you have an address?
No, we'll just give you a school down the street.
Some of the fraud, as explained in the addresses on the ballots, the anomalies, like thousands being written in the same handwriting, I can understand it.
Are they getting instructions?
What happens, because I know there's true fraud in the signature context for getting on the ballots, is what happens is you outsource it to third-party contractors.
They get paid per signature.
Not all the time these days, but they used to.
Some percentage of the people that you got out there would just make up signatures to increase their pay.
Some people that you would get were just lazy.
And someone would make stuff up in a half-assed way.
Again, the fraud wasn't sophisticated.
Because when you outsource the fraud, you're getting whatever the outsourced person is.
And that quality is going to be up, down, all over the place.
This is why they were terrified of a signature match, Chad.
A sophisticated, organized voter fraud organization would have made sure the signatures would have hacked in and got voter signatures in other ways, would have found other means to do it, would have had a sophisticated mechanism of doing the signatures.
They knew they had outsourced the fraud so much that they knew a bunch of people would have done it in a half-assed, idiotic way that everybody would laugh at.
And that's what this person got caught doing.
Just so everybody appreciates, anybody who's ever done door-to-door sales, you hand flyers up, say, okay, we'll pay you per flyer that you hand out, and some people will run hard and give them in each envelope.
Other people might slip two every three houses, and some idiots just dump the entire bag in the garbage and say, I delivered a thousand ballots, give me them, or whatever.
Let me look at DeSantis.
DeSantis has been hiring some of these same people, and you get these potheads that show up on people's doors being recorded saying all kinds of terrible...
Because they're not honest volunteers, right?
So you're trying to astroturf it.
Oh, look at my great volunteer organization.
You're paying people.
That's the problem with this.
But yeah, I have no doubt the Michigan fraud story is correct.
I have no doubt.
Because I heard it way back January 6th, 2021.
What it really shows, somebody should come up with a meme.
It's from The Godfather.
You know, at the end, where Marlon Brando says, I didn't know it was Barzini all along.
And they could have Trump.
As Marlon Brando saying, I didn't know until the end it was Bill Barr all along.
Barr covered up the Hunter Biden scandal.
Barr covered up the election theft of 2020.
And we're going to get to the Barr.
Is it next one?
No, we're going to get up to covering up the Hunter Biden stuff.
That's why he's on air saying, please indict and send Donald Trump to prison so he can't get re-elected president and throw my ass and fat ass in prison along with Christie.
Robert, but the question is this.
They filed a police report in October.
I think it was October 2020.
It was in advance of the election.
And this is why they instead were doing the fake Whitmer case.
That's what the FBI did in Michigan.
They covered up the election fraud that would have been nationwide in its exposure while creating a fake Whitmer case to help Biden in Michigan.
There you go.
The same FBI that's busy assassinating old people in Utah.
Lily Tomlin, no matter how cynical you get, it's hard to keep up.
Robert, I had not put those two...
Because I was reading all and listening to this today.
I remember those top people in that unit were assigned to the January 6th unit.
So hold on one second.
My goodness, I didn't put that together.
So the FBI comes in, takes it over, and then we hear nothing of this.
What broke this in 2023?
So somebody got the original state police report that had been forwarded to the FBI to Jim Hoft and some other people at Gateway Pundit.
Mother...
I'm allowed swearing.
Motherfucker, Robert.
I mean, it's actually unbelievable.
And now...
No, that's it.
Now, okay, there you go.
Black Pill of the Night.
Yeah.
The Gretchen Whitmer...
FBI entrapment makes a lot more sense.
Entrapment on the one hand, ignoring on the other.
Bill Barr coming out saying, I saw no evidence of widespread...
And any of the Hunter Biden laptop.
I mean, the FBI was the...
I mean, it's confession through projection, the January 6th indictment as a good transition on Trump because it was the FBI who organized and orchestrated a conspiracy to interfere and impair...
Robert, okay, so my revelation of the day was they weaponized COVID to prevent Trump from campaigning effectively in 2020, and now they're weaponizing the whole justice system to prevent Trump from campaigning effectively in 2024 with this...
Flipping gag order.
But I guess before we even get into the gag order, the grand jury abuse, Robert, in the Trump indictments.
I mean, some people are saying the Florida judge is getting it and holding the Justice Department's feet to the fire.
I think that's a little bit maybe too optimistic.
Explain to the world who might not have heard this yet, what is the nature of the grand jury abuse?
Because abuse is an understatement.
Explain the grand jury abuse.
I think that Jack Smith took advantage of.
And is the Florida judge getting it, really?
Or is this just a charade and it'll go, it'll fizzle out into the wind?
No, I mean, credit to the federal court in Florida for exposing this because Jack Smith was trying to keep it a secret.
So the way the grand jury works is you can use a grand jury, the government can, for the purposes of investigating a crime.
The information presented to the grand jury stays the grand jurors themselves, and the government lawyers have to keep secret, not the witnesses who get subpoenaed, not the witnesses who testify, not the lawyers representing them.
Government lies about this routinely, tries to intimidate witnesses illegally.
I wonder if any of them are figuring out that some of their novel theories for intimidation and obstruction and civil rights violation could send federal judges that are involved in these cases, like the D.C. judge or the federal prosecutors themselves, to prison.
They're not thinking that because they've never faced consequences in their lives, because our system has become that corrupt over time.
It's a trophy that badly.
And people are just seeing it in live time as to...
The leading candidate for the presidency in 2024 and the former president of the United States.
But what you cannot do a grand jury for is to investigate an indictment.
Once you bring the indictment, that ends.
You can't use it as a discovery tool.
You can use it as a discovery tool up until, theoretically, you're not using it as a discovery tool.
You're using it as an investigative tool to determine whether or not you should bring an indictment.
The grand jury never has a role in discovery.
The grand jury is not a discovery mechanism.
Now, prosecutors abuse that all the time and they effectively use it to develop evidence that really as a discovery tool.
And that's because the U.S. Supreme Court years ago basically said we're not going to supervise prosecutors abusing grand juries anymore.
And we're not going to enforce grand jury rights in any meaningful way.
And so since then, it's become complete abuse.
That's why a federal judge famously said prosecutors could get a federal...
I mean, imagine a statement from a federal judge, not a defense lawyer, a federal judge saying you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
That is as damning as you could possibly get about grand juries.
In terms of no independence, they've been stripped of it by the court's refusal to discipline prosecutors' wayward path.
I don't think prosecutors should have access to a grand jury.
I think that the grand jury should control what happens in front of a grand jury.
But, at a minimum, what prosecutors can never do is use it for discovery, and it's per se being used for discovery when it's post-indictment.
Now, you can use it to investigate whether other charges could be added.
But you have to be very careful that you don't use that really as a discovery tool.
And what the judge warned in Florida, she said, it looks to me like you're using the grand jury as a continuing discovery tool, not just a superseding indictment tool.
That's problem number one.
Then you have problem number two.
He's still using the D.C. grand jury for all of this.
It's already in Florida.
I suppose he's looking at obstruction charges?
That should be a Florida grand jury!
He's using D.C. because the D.C. grand jury is so bad, so reprobate, such a joke, every single one of those grand jurors is an embarrassment to an American.
And by their own theory, by the way, every one of them could be indicted.
That's how insane this is.
And because all the judges are so corrupt in D.C. And because that's her other issue, venue abuse, there's also a special counsel jurisdictional issue here at some point, which we'll get to later.
But that transitions into the other thing that we found out this week, is that they had illicitly subpoenaed Twitter for Donald Trump's private messaging without allowing Trump to even know about it, so Trump couldn't object.
Twitter, once Elon Musk bought him, Did object, saying there's First Amendment issues here.
The judge totally ignored it.
When they didn't produce everything immediately while they were asking for a stay from the Court of Appeals, issued an absurd $350,000 sanction that had no basis whatsoever.
That was an unconstitutional, excessive fine, by definition, because it didn't get exactly when she said to get it.
I mean, this is a judge.
Former chief judge, who's just as bad as the current chief judge, if Republicans had any brains, these actions are impeachable offenses because this is misuse and abuse of judicial power for political partisan reasons in direct violation of their oath.
But of course, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is such a crock.
It's so filled with lefties and liberals and Obama people and neoliberals and Biden supporters that they...
But by the way, magically this case got assigned to three Obama and Biden people.
Kind of interesting how all these Trump cases keep getting assigned to liberal judges, right?
You know, random.
I don't think so.
They just greenlit it and rubber-stamped it.
And their excuse was, this was the lie the prosecutor told, the lie the judge told, and the lie the Court of Appeals told, is that Donald Trump was a flight risk.
And thus couldn't be told about his First Amendment rights being violated.
There's nothing that you can say to make it make sense as to how this is not overtly criminal.
I mean, he's running for president.
He's got Secret Service protection.
He's currently campaigning.
And the flight risk would be about disclosing to him that Jack Smith is coming after his Twitter account that they can't tell him about.
Twitter cannot tell him about or disclose to the public for fear that he might delete his Twitter account as if there wouldn't be backups.
I mean, none of it makes any sense, but how are...
I don't want to use the analogy or the hyperbolic expression.
How are people not getting into trouble for this?
But the bigger question is, who would get them into trouble for this?
Because the people who need to get into trouble are the ones who get people into trouble.
Correct.
I mean, yeah, it shows the flaw in the system.
So it highlights how some court somewhere is going to have to step up to the plate if they're going to salvage judicial credibility in terms of any degree of integrity, perception of integrity, impartiality, and apolitical nature.
And the second option is for the House of Representatives to take action with impeachments and investigations.
And then the third is for state attorney generals.
State, local DAs to look at cases like the Michigan case because that was nationwide.
Almost every county in the country has jurisdiction to investigate.
Somebody step up to the plate and do something about that.
Or last, it'll be the Court of Public Opinion in 2024 Election Day.
In my view, ultimately, it's going to require the real verdict on all of this is going to require Election Day Trump mandate win.
That that's the only way the system will wake up.
They are fully convinced that as long as they rush a trial, which takes us to the January 6th case.
So the judge didn't grant all of the lunatic things the government requested, but she still went way, way, way too far.
She's basically prohibiting Trump.
She's saying anything that's sensitive information can't be disclosed to the public during an election.
And guess what?
Sensitive.
Anything that's embarrassing to the government.
That's what's sensitive.
Whatever they say.
Jury testimony, this and this.
I mean, they're trying to schedule this trial in January.
Which, by the way, there's 11.6 million documents and emails.
That doesn't even get to the hundreds and hundreds of hours of audio tape recorded interviews.
That doesn't even get to grand jury transcripts.
That doesn't even get to a range of other information and documentation.
There's absolutely no way you could do an impartial trial that the government admits would take several months by January.
Here's what the government currently has scheduled for.
Trump in trial all of January and all of February on January 6th.
Then in trial all of March and all of April in New York.
Then in trial all of May and all of June and part of July in Florida.
If that is an election interference, and they want to lock him up before the election day.
And they raised the argument, you know, like...
He's got a campaign.
Oh, I'm not going to treat Trump any differently than anybody else who says they've got to work while they're facing trials.
Which is patently absurd.
And by the way, this corrupt hack of a judge, to give you an idea, some people were critical that I was talking about not being a fan of foreigners being judges.
And I get there's some plenty of conservatives that fled terrible jurisdictions that are good judges on the federal bench today.
I just still prefer...
They've been born in America.
Natural-born citizenship.
We're required for presidency and for judges.
But here's definitely the foreign-born who should not be judges.
This judge, who comes from hardcore communists.
Hardcore communists.
She comes, and to give you an idea how crazy communists her grandfather and uncle were, they were kicked out of the radical socialist party in Jamaica for being too commie.
So we have the descendant of communists, a foreigner, deciding the 2024 election by abusing her judicial power.
So this is a judge who's previously said on the record, credit here to Julie Kelly for getting the transcript, because this is where judges screw up.
In sentencing, they'll yip too much.
And their biases and prejudices will just pour out.
She basically said Trump should be in jail.
Before he was even prosecuted.
That's what she was saying in her prior sentencing.
If that isn't biased, what is?
I mean, our grounds for recusal and disqualification, which Congress should change these to give you an automatic right of disqualification of the first judge, no matter what, number one.
Number two, the standards for disqualification need to be substantially reduced so you can disqualify people for a wider range of grounds.
And third, the person deciding the disqualification position can never be...
Pretty much everything.
Almost everything.
Should file a challenge because this violates their right of the press and the right of the public to have access to that information independently, which they would have but for this effective gag order disguised as a protective order.
Again, this is not...
Protective orders are supposed to be designed very limited.
They shouldn't be applied in criminal cases, in my view, in general.
If it's illegal, it's illegal.
And if it's not illegal, fine.
End of story.
And to give an idea, the judge...
Completely lied about the law.
Because the judge said, and you still have idiots running around saying this, said that you're only supposed to defend yourself inside the courtroom, not out there in the court of public opinion.
The Supreme Court said just the opposite in the leading case called Gentile v.
State Bar of Nevada.
It was part of the Barnes Brief substack this week.
And I'm going to quote from that, that you can get at viva barneslaw.locals.com.
And its defense counsel is to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried.
And to the extent the press and public rely upon either the defendants or the attorneys for information, because the attorneys are well-informed, this proves the value to the public of speech by defense counsel.
If the dangers of their speech arise from its persuasiveness, from their ability to explain judicial proceedings, or from the likelihood their speech will be believed, these are not the sort of dangers that can validate any restrictions.
The First Amendment does not permit suppression of speech because of its power to commend a sin.
So the federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically rebutted exactly what this judge said.
Trump has a right to defend himself in the court of public opinion, especially...
When this whole case is about the election and the election upcoming, it is ludicrous that there is any protective order at all limiting Trump's speech or his counsel's speech.
I think the only mistake his counsel made was conceding any limitation of any kind.
And so the judge goes, oh, this is apolitical.
Quit lying, judge.
You're just a fraud.
You're a fraud who never belonged on the bench.
You should be deported and impeached.
That's who she is.
She's a fraud, never should have been there, a disgrace that she's on the bench, lying to the public, lying to the people, and there need to be consequences or otherwise we're about to witness.
The whole world is about to witness.
All of America is about to witness just how egregious and abusive our justice system can be when they do it to the leading candidate for president of the United States.
Well, I'm laughing and I'm feeling the blood rush to my head only because you're not wrong, Robert.
It is every aspect of this case that has been an abuse of the process in terms of the grand jury abuse of going to D.C. to get all sorts of orders that violate fundamental constitutional principles.
Then you get a gag order that says sensitive material.
I know it's not directly related to the right to avoid self-incrimination, but typically someone wants to talk and say prejudicial things during the trial.
Go ahead and do it.
It's your right!
That's your right.
It's your right in the court of public opinion to do so.
Same argument I'm making about Sam Bankman Freed.
And I'm not a fan of Sam Bankman Freed.
Just in case people think this is Trump-based.
No, it's about Constitution-based.
You have a right to defend yourself in the court of public opinion.
Courts need to quit abusing their power and trying to prohibit people and punish people for defending themselves in the court of public opinion.
But it's especially egregious here.
Where the entire intent of this proceeding is to interfere in the 2024 election by covering up the fraud that took place in the 2020 election.
And to gag him at events, at future events.
I mean, he can't talk about witnesses in certain ways.
Well, pretty much everybody who is in his entire orbit, some of them are running.
Mike Pence is running against him.
Mike Pence is going to do this.
Is he supposed to not talk about Mike Pence?
Can't talk about the Pence card.
Is he now there's a special immunity?
This is how insane this is.
There should have been no gag order.
Somebody should file a petition.
This judge is too stupid to know how to screw you correctly.
Get it up through the appellate process.
Get it up to the Supreme Court.
The reality is what all of these cases are pointing to is some judge is going to have to step up and stop this at some level.
Otherwise, what they're going to do is destroy the integrity, impartiality, and credibility of the federal judicial and criminal justice process.
Forever.
In ways that are going to be unrecoverable.
In ways that people are going to say, maybe we need to rethink our entire criminal justice system.
Maybe we should rethink whether we should have a judiciary with this kind of power in the first place.
I mean, those are the kind of questions.
They're already asking it about, should we have a CIA?
Should we have an FBI?
They're going to start asking, I mean, we shouldn't have a District of Columbia.
And credit to Trump.
We talked about it on the show.
Three hours later, Trump came out and made the exact same statement.
It's time to get rid of D.C., take away the home rule, return it to Congress.
No more federal D.C. court system.
No more state D.C. court system.
This case, and January 6th, and the Antifa cases, have all collectively, in the Steve Bannon case, all collectively, aggregately proved these places are incapable.
Now, one lingering issue in all of this is whether the special counsel is even a constitutional appointee.
And we'll get to a case later on about Obamacare and think about some of the things we talk about in that context as to how it might apply here.
But it will also apply, even though we have the guns case coming up in a second.
Before we get to guns, natural transition.
Speaking of special counsel, the Hunter Biden...
Okay, so let's just summarize this.
The facts, as you summarize, it sounds so preposterously, insanely stupid.
Nobody could think it's the case.
I forget his name now.
Weiss?
His name is Weiss, right?
Yeah.
So the special counsel...
Hey, Mike Pence is really up to speed because they've appointed a special counsel to investigate...
What does it like to say?
Weiss.
Well, they've appointed a special counsel to investigate, I guess, Hunter Biden...
Joe Biden.
It's both?
Oh, no, no.
He didn't answer.
He didn't say.
He's supposed to disclose at some point.
The way a special counsel process is supposed to work is that when there's a conflict of interest, the attorney general can appoint a special counsel.
They've written their own regulations for this purpose.
It's enforced through a particular statute, which basically gives the attorney general the ability to delegate to other certain things.
But there's separate categories here.
There's the attorney general.
Then there's certain assistant attorney generals who are principal officers because they're appointed by the president with advice and consent of the Senate.
And then you have your United States attorneys.
Your United States attorneys are given power over a particular district geographically.
That's the limits of their jurisdiction.
And they, too, are appointed directly by the president with advice and consent of the Senate.
Here's the key thing.
Those assistant attorney generals and those...
United States attorneys can only be fired by the president.
They can't be fired by the attorney general.
By contrast, special counsel is theoretically, and this is where it gets tricky constitutionally, is an inferior officer that he's subject to the whim of the attorney general.
The problem is the regulations and their public statements make it appear that he's not.
That he's independent.
That he has all the power of a United States attorney.
Who does he answer to?
That's always been the question.
Last time this was meaningfully addressed was the context that I remember was Scooter Libby.
And I don't think the Supreme Court ever took it up.
The Supreme Court addressed the independent counsel statute back in the mid-90s.
And Scalia dissented and said he had issues with it.
But they didn't have to deal with the special counsel statute.
They dealt with that briefly in the Nixon-Watergate case back in 74. And what they've generally said on these inferior officers versus principal officers is as long as the officer does not have final decision-making authority,
number one, and number two, is removable at will by a principal officer, then He's an inferior officer and can be appointed directly by a principal officer.
As long as he's given that authority by Congress, unless it's the president, and the president can always do it under Article 2. So this is the appointments clause under Article 2, which reads, the president nominates with the Senate as advice and consent principal officers, but inferior officers...
Can be appointed just directly by the president, by courts, or by the heads of department.
And they've generally interpreted the last part to mean another principal officer, if Congress so authorized.
So the question is, how independent is a special counsel?
If the special counsel is truly independent, then he's unconstitutional.
Because he's an inferior officer, he's not a principal officer.
He hasn't been appointed by the president with advice and consent of the Senate.
The way Patrick Fitzgerald got away with it, and this relates to the transition, we'll get into the Hunter Biden one, in the Scooter Libby case, was he was an actual United States attorney.
And he was a United States attorney, but his authority was limited to the Northern District of Illinois.
So what was his authority to operate in D.C.?
The Attorney General gave it to him as Acting Attorney General.
Guess who was the Acting Attorney General as part of that deep state cover-up to finger Libby for something that was actually the CIA?
A certain man by the name of James Comey was the assistant attorney general at the time, complicit in all that, to make sure Dick Cheney did not get indicted, who was the real source also, for outing Victoria Plume.
But as part of the whole...
Iraqi war campaign lies.
That Robert Mueller was neck deep and Comey was neck deep and that's how long back these guys go.
It's difficult enough to keep up with the present, let alone to understand that this fractal goes down for every piece of history.
Multiple layers of the rabbit hole.
But basically, if this guy's really independent and there's parts of the special counsel regulation, then he's unconstitutionally appointed because he has the power of a principal officer, but the president didn't approve him.
I always thought the Scooter Libby case, the judge made the wrong decision.
Because, yeah, he was a United States attorney, but for the Northern District of Illinois, his authority doesn't extend past his jurisdiction.
So, yes, he's a principal officer for that reason, but that doesn't mean he can just be appointed for any other office.
Under the Attorney General's office.
But the other way they got around it is that, theoretically, the Attorney General can fire him at any time and can override him at any time.
So that's not real clear in the regs.
So they want to get away within the court of public opinion pretending that Jack Smith is independent and pretending that David Weiss is independent.
But, in fact, legally, they can't be.
Because if they are, then they're unconstitutionally appointed and all the indictments have to be dismissed.
And if they are dependent...
If they're not independent, you have President Biden persecuting and investigating.
But people have to appreciate David Weiss.
David Weiss is the guy who dragged his feet on the Hunter Biden investigation, who led a number of the serious charges lapsed by way of prescription or statute of limitations in the States.
How the hell do they appoint David Weiss corrupt, crooked, incompetent?
To be the special counsel to look into his dad, apparently.
I mean, how does it possibly happen?
There's a couple of things with Weiss.
One is, some people were saying he's still a principal.
So the special counsel statute is written, assuming that you will go out and find an independent third party, independently vet them and invest them.
Outside of government.
Outside of government.
In Patrick Fitzgerald, they didn't do that.
With John Durham, Bill Barr didn't do that.
And the reason they didn't do it...
It's probably part of the reason that Scooter Libby didn't get his indictment dismissed.
The district court in that case said that because he was a United States attorney, he was a principal officer, and thus there was no violation, even though his jurisdiction had been extended in ways that were directly contrary to his principal officer position.
So there's a temptation to do it for that reason.
Now, the problem with Weiss, however, is Weiss is no longer a principal officer.
Weiss was appointed by Trump.
So Weiss was the acting U.S. attorney going way back in Delaware.
Tight ties to the Biden political machine, even though he's a Republican.
He's an establishment Republican.
Trump just went along with other appointees.
You're supposed to do the two Democratic senators have a lot of say in this in Delaware.
But basically, this is where Trump got rolled as he went along and played with the system.
But this wasn't a natural Trump appointee.
This was a guy who was acting U.S. attorney from the Obama days, who Trump just let keep in and officially made him a nominee.
But those are four-year terms.
He was nominated in 2018.
That expired in 2022.
He's now acting U.S. attorney.
To my knowledge, he has not been reappointed with advice and consent of the Senate.
Biden just didn't fire him.
So he's one of these acting U.S. judges.
So now the problem they've run into is they ran into a problem with a judge, and then that got public because of the judge saying, hold on a second, you got a sweetheart deal buried in the diversion agreement that doesn't make any sense.
And so now they need to get out of that problem.
Hunter's people are like, no way are we going to publicly go on the record and say that immunity is limited.
Not going to do it.
So how do they get out of that problem?
Well, they need to get out of that judge's chambers.
So the problem is, Weiss is only the acting U.S. attorney, really an assistant U.S. attorney, authority in Delaware.
He has no authority outside of Delaware.
So how do you transfer it out?
You make him a special counsel.
So you make him a special counsel.
Not because you're doing this noble act of making sure there's independent investigation.
They made him special counsel.
There's a little bit of benefit that it hinders Congress's ability to investigate what he's up to.
But that is the primary reason.
The primary reason you found out about the next day when Weiss moved to dismiss the Hunter Biden indictment in Delaware.
On grounds that, oh, now that we think about it, venue really is better in D.C. We want to go judge shopping.
We definitely want to go jury shopping so that Hunter, by God, can please get acquitted if this does somehow go to trial, right?
They know D.C. His last name is Biden.
He'll be acquitted.
Oh, I was doing so much crack.
I forgot about paying my taxes.
It'll be the crack defense.
They did acquit Sussman in D.C., but Robert, not to gloss over.
They had dead to rights.
The lawyer dead to rights.
Not to gloss over this, it's an important point.
What are the limitations?
Apparently they say that a special counsel now, Weiss, is no longer required to answer to Congress, answer to the public, provide information so he can no longer be questioned.
That's kind of true.
Legally that can't be true for the reasons I talked about.
Here's the thing with the current special counsel stuff.
It's just their own little internal BS rules.
Whenever they are confronted with this in the courts.
They say, oh, well, we can just scrap these roles anytime we want.
By the way, it's what they argued in Nixon, which Scalia talked about in his concurrence and dissent in Morrison on the Independent Special Counsel.
They said, look, back in the Nixon case, you don't have to worry about these being improperly appointed principal officers because they're being appointed pursuant to regulations that we can just get rid of tomorrow because they're just written for us.
They're not like actual statutes.
And so because of that, all of this is bogus.
And so they really can't hide them from Congress.
I mean, they can try to play games, but being special counsel gives them no immunity whatsoever.
Not legally.
They play special games.
The games take years to play out.
So by the time we find out that Weiss was not a proper special counsel and had to answer the questions that he refused to answer...
I mean, even if he was a proper special counsel, that's no grounds to object to Congress's authority over it.
Congress didn't create the special counsel statute.
That's what's key to understand.
The attorney general did it himself.
So the attorney general can't say, oh, you Congress don't have any oversight over this little position over here.
I'm just going to create it out of thin air.
No, that doesn't work that way.
But Robert, I just want the entire world to understand the stupidity.
And someone who's watching, people are clipping in real time.
Clip this in real time.
The special counsel that they have appointed to investigate Biden is the same special counsel that...
Dragged his feet on investigating Hunter.
He's the guy who orchestrated the cover-up and orchestrated the sweetheart deal.
But they had to give him this power because they've got to get it away from that judge.
But hold on.
He dragged his feet on the investigation, let a number of the serious charges lapse for statute of limitations, struck a sweetheart deal that no one has ever seen in the history of law, which might...
The whole thing is designed to cover up for Joe Biden.
That's what the whole thing is about.
And broadly speaking, it would implicate deep state actors because Biden's corruption embeds with a lot of other people.
But this is all about protecting Joe Biden.
And Weiss did his job to protect Joe Biden.
And they had to give him a new position to make sure that this judge can't interfere with that.
And so now he has been appointed special counsel to investigate the man he has been protecting for the last...
Seven years.
Robert...
I mean, the appointment wasn't even for the...
Even though they made an announcement and tried to pretend like it was some big independent act, it was done solely so that he could get rid of the case in Delaware.
That's the sole reason.
And my guess is he sits on the case and doesn't even try to bring an indictment right away.
So now what this most likely does is it puts more pressure back on Papa Joe to post-election issue broad pardons.
It's back to that is where Biden's going to have to issue pardons to protect himself ultimately.
What sanctions could...
The other advantage to all this, because it got out of how broad the immunity was, as people have brought up on the board, that meant that Congress, the House, could subpoena Hunter and he wouldn't have any Fifth Amendment rights.
They're going to deliberately...
Hold back the case as long as possible so that now he does have Fifth Amendment rights and he can't be subpoenaed by the House.
While the immunity and while the deal is in limbo, he can't be...
The goal was that this deal be done, but be done so secretly that nobody knew he didn't have Fifth Amendment rights.
Holy shit, Robert.
And then meanwhile, now Weiss is going to go...
And by the way, there's no grounds for the transfer.
So they brought the case in Delaware.
Hunter Biden didn't object to jurisdiction in Delaware.
There clearly is jurisdiction in Delaware in the sense of certain tax acts took place there.
Where are they claiming he's a resident of?
I guess they're now claiming he's a resident of D.C. or California.
We'll see about that.
Where was the house that he was renting for?
Under the misdemeanor statute whereby he could transfer it under tax.
That deadline had passed.
So it was up to him to transfer it.
He didn't.
There's no grounds for them to dismiss this case in Delaware.
Weiss is just lying to everybody saying, oh, we can only try this.
It's going to go to trial.
It can only be D.C. or California.
He's just lying about that.
Completely lying about that.
I mean, that's what a fraud this prosecutor is.
And the House should absolutely subpoena his rear end.
And make him talk about a lot of this and let him play games and dodge the bullet as much as he wants to try to.
But they're going to use pending investigation.
That's the real excuse.
It's not that he's special counsel.
It's that pending investigation, I can't talk about things under investigation.
And for that to work, they need there to be no indictment until after Election Day.
So what this really does is they'll either cut the sweetheart immunity deal post-election day or Joe is going to have to pardon everybody to cover his rear.
Robert?
This was what we had in our interview.
I'll tell you one thing.
It looks more like Dylan Mulvaney than anybody else.
And I say that almost as a compliment.
Well, you know who else looks like Dylan Mulvaney?
Ben Shapiro.
Well...
That was a meme from our board.
Oh, I didn't see that.
I'm going to have to go find that one.
All right, Robert.
Look, if we didn't get the black pills, that's a black pill up the wazoo.
People are getting a crash course on how corrupt our system is.
It hasn't always been like this, or it has always been like this?
It's always been like this, just not at this scale.
It's usually happening to some political dissident you don't care about.
It's usually happening to a Sam Bankman Freed, a Jeffrey Epstein, some local schmuck, some local dissident, a Eugene V. Debs, you know, some 75-year-old veteran in Provo.
You know, it's happening to those folks.
It's not happening to the President of the United States.
It's not happening on behalf of the President of the United States.
And this is why when people come to, you know, they talk to me, they talk to you, they say, like, the system is corrupt.
This is how they frame me.
It's so bloody complex, and it's tough to say it's not true, but the broader interest is not, okay, dude, you have your fights.
I got to pay rent tomorrow.
This is in your face.
The dude who corruptly gave Hunter Biden the sweetheart deal is now the special counsel to Joe Biden, and Mike Pence is all cool with it.
It's good.
It's all good.
Robert, before we get on to that, now we have a good break for a segue, but let me bring up a number of chats.
You got your cigar in your mouth in this one.
Okay, got a few here.
Watona says, mark my words, there is trouble brewing eastern border of Poland.
Touch the riot, says, oh, son of a gun.
Viva, your eyes are just as bad as mine.
You have to read my name right before, but not today.
Touch the rot, it is not.
Touch the riot.
I laughed.
Okay, Dapper Dave.
Any thoughts on Matt Wallace tweets about the wildfires being orchestrated?
I haven't seen that, but we know that a number of them have been man-made.
Arson or accidental might not change much.
They've been weaponized.
Nike7 says, I am exacerbated.
I am exasperated.
Well, exasperated.
COVID equals climate change.
Many give lip service to the, I guess that's COVID hoax, the CC hoax.
No creators are attacking it with the scientists the way Malone and McCullough did.
It is the heart of everything, in my humble opinion.
The jackals of Terra Argentinem.
Argentinem.
Argentinem.
I was living close to the Gonzales house when Janet Reno...
Had their home stormed and a lion Eliane stolen.
The family was destroyed by it.
Reno is a textbook example of the evil cripple trope in theater.
Arkansas crime attorney says, come on.
You know why they had so many floods in the Midwest in the 90s?
Janet Reno took all the dykes with her to D.C. I was going with like soil was too dry to absorb the water, Robert.
Come on.
Politically incorrect joke, but I still remember it from the 90s.
I heard it from a Democrat, by the way.
I'm in trouble for laughing.
Arkansas crime attorney says, come on all, let's go into that building tomorrow and take our country back.
That's more of a true threat, especially since they did go into the building.
That was Ray Epps who said that, but he's a Porsche muck.
He's the victim of a conspiracy theory.
One, two, three, four, Ace.
Apparently, there's a video of the raid recorded by a neighbor.
Also, Robert, you rock.
Viva, you're awesome, too.
Don't worry about it.
I know where I am.
I'm comfortable with myself.
Robert does rock.
This is Jim Satala.
My major problem with the pre-dawn raid was they knew he was armed and was likely to defend his home against intruders, and they purposely did this to execute him as a warning to the rest of us.
Can't disagree with that.
Arkansas Crime Attorney, good night, guys.
I will have to finish later.
I have to finish up for my hearing early in the morning.
Another hearing because this firm I am working for is so unethical.
We got Fantastic Realist.
That is one of the reasons why I support an Article 5 Convention of the States on amendments to reform the judicial system.
For example, Ignotum, on a black pill day, time for something light.
Barnes, explain to everyone why Ben Shapiro is the real reason.
For the Budweiser brand downfall.
He made a joke about Ben.
Hold on.
We'll get to that one in a second.
My head hurts.
LOL.
But what Barnes said right away applicable.
It's double jeopardy as the Senate acquitted Trump already.
Does Barnes think this applies?
We talked about this last week, Jennifer.
We talked about this last week.
But yeah, Barnes elucidated the arguments for that.
I'm not your buddy, Guy.
I cannot think of a bigger hive of scum and villainy than those in D.C. 1, 2, 3, 4, Ace.
Dollar for that Ben Shapiro comment.
Robert, what's the deal with Ben Shapiro and Barbie?
No, it's Mulvaney.
He looks just like Mulvaney.
It's weird.
Somebody put the meme up on the board, and somebody put it back in the chat, too.
It's when he smiles, he looks freakishly like Mulvaney.
Oh, and there was a comment.
Hold on, actually.
I can still bring this to me.
They just posted the comparison if you want to look at it.
Let me go here.
I'm going to have to go save that.
Jeez, I got 1,000 comments to get to here.
Okay, so hold on.
Save image as, and I'll just save it as, let's go with Shapiro.
Give me a second.
Basically, Mulvaney looks like Shapiro with a wig.
Hold on, I'm sorry.
Window?
Here.
Okay.
It's because of the smile.
It's the smile.
I don't see it.
I see how someone can say it.
I would say it would be more...
Who is it?
Chris Kattan.
Chris Kattan would be Dylan Mulvaney more than Ben Shapiro.
Although that is...
I mean, it's still kind of...
It's kind of funny.
The internet will get the humor.
Jeez Louise, Robert.
Alright, we got some guns cases.
We got the DEI lawsuit, ESG lawsuits, Target lawsuits, a little bit about Andy Ngo, Missouri vs.
Biden, Obamacare, Washington doctors and ivermectin and licensing about COVID, and Tenpenny, Ohio.
Some of those we'll save for the after party.
Some of them we'll get to here.
Some of them we'll get to quick.
The guns are actually pretty quick, actually.
You do it, because I don't know anything about the guns.
Ghost gun ban we talked about previously that Biden's ATF had imposed.
The district court stopped it.
The Fifth Circuit stopped it.
Supreme Court overturned the stay.
They haven't issued a substantive ruling, but what happened is, unsurprisingly, Roberts jumped ship with the liberals.
It won't be surprising to a lot of people that told me that Barrett was going to be a great justice, and I said we could do a lot better than Barrett.
Amy Coney Barrett was the fifth vote to allow Biden administration to ban.
Ghost guns.
And really that's banning a whole bunch of ways of making your own guns and selling it in a whole bunch of ways.
I think ultimately that ghost gun ban will be found unconstitutional, but it's classic of Barrett to impose her virtue signaling ways, unfortunately against the Second Amendment in this case.
And in Illinois, Illinois upheld their ban on assault weapons in a split decision, but the way they did it, They said that the plaintiffs had procedurally defaulted their Second Amendment claim, so the Illinois Supreme Court did not address whether the assault weapon ban and the magazine ban violated the Second Amendment.
I don't think that will prevent that case from being litigated.
There's a parallel case going forward in the federal courts or going up to the U.S. Supreme Court, given the case we talked about last week.
But the Illinois Supreme Court didn't try to take on Bruin.
It avoided the whole thing by saying we're not addressing the Second Amendment issues because we think you procedurally defaulted.
Several justices dissented saying that's nonsense.
We should be addressing the issue.
But that's what happened on the guns cases.
Okay.
And now the ones that I might know a little bit more about, let's just get back to this here.
Well, the Biden corruption.
Oh, the Kellogg.
Do we do the Kellogg DEI?
Yeah, that's up next.
We got some great work by Stephen Miller's America First Legal Organization.
We've talked about this as a legal theory repeatedly.
Shareholders who didn't buy into these companies so they can tank the value of their stock by adhering to idiotic, stupid, politically motivated diversity inclusion and equity die.
To quote from Tim Pool.
One got a letter of demand.
Kellogg's, I think, got served with a lawsuit.
Kellogg's got the letter of demand.
Target got...
The lawsuit.
Okay, so Kellogg's got the letter of demand basically saying, you guys are shitting on an icon of a brand because you're doing stuff that none of us signed up for, which is going to compromise the value of your brand.
Target got sued.
Basically the same, you know, you'll flesh out the details, but the same idea.
That these companies are going woke.
They're going broke.
Shareholders and people who invested did not invest for this.
It goes against the very essence of the reason why some people did invest in it, Kellogg's in particular, all-American brand, an icon of a legend of a history, and it pisses it away on diversity, equity, inclusion, racist, discriminatory policies, and hiring, application, and adhering to policy, not policy, politics.
That nobody bought into the company for.
Do you want to start with Kellogg's and then maybe go to Target?
Go for it.
So, I mean, basically what's interesting is the question was how to make these suits SEC suits.
How to call it fraud on the market.
Security and exchange commissions, which is, you say, shareholder value being compromised by fraudulent misrepresentations or something along those lines.
Exactly.
For those out there, the company made a public statement, and I went out and bought their stock based on that public statement.
They knew at the time they made that public statement that it wasn't true.
When the fraud gets exposed, the stock value goes down, and so I lost value because they lied.
That's fraud on the market.
And if I may just analogize it.
Remember everybody, when everyone's like, well, what if Rumble goes the way of YouTube and Robert and I were talking about this?
Well, they've made public representations that they support political free speech.
And if they one day say, Viva and Barnes got a little too political, so we're going to demonetize.
Well, some people might say that's fraudulent misrepresentation.
It's not going to happen.
But it is the argument that ought to have been made for YouTube.
It hasn't been made quite so much, but it's a different context.
They're making it now.
For Kellogg.
Sorry to interrupt there.
Yeah, I mean, basically, Chris Pavlosky would be broke forever because, as I said on the show, I'd sue him.
And he was completely okay with that, making that public commitment.
So, yeah, they went.
And so what's credit to America First legal?
I mean, we've been talking about this idea being a good idea that needed research, investigation, development.
I've been doing some of it on the Pfizer COVID vaccine side.
But, you know, I have limited bandwidth, can't handle everything.
And it's great to see America First Legal and Stephen Miller stepping up into the gap.
And they really researched it.
And their theory is this.
It's a couple of things.
One, all these companies make public promises that they will have equal employment opportunity employment policies.
So what they're doing is any company that's using diversity, equity, inclusion to do racial quotas or gender quotas or special race training, implied bias programs, etc., that this violates those civil rights laws.
But rather than bring suit for civil rights violations, they're bringing suit for shareholders on grounds that this diminishes their stock value and it's fraud because it violates laws they said they were complying with.
The second claim they're making is, look, you make very broad statements about your brand and how you're protecting your brand.
And in the case of Kellogg and Target, in both cases, you're saying this is for families, this is for kids, this is for children.
And then you went and promoted things under diversity, equity, and inclusion, under environmental, social governance, and all that jazz, that are directly contrary to that brand for many families and many children.
And what that did...
Is when the market saw that, the market negatively reacted, it diminished your brand value, which then diminished your stock value, meaning you lied because you said you were protecting your brand when you weren't.
You said you were looking at the risks of these policies when you weren't.
And then they're enhancing that by saying, let's look at the conflicts of interest.
These board members...
Are often connected to these non-governmental organizations that they're diverting funds to help fund and infiltrating these institutions and corporations for the purposes of these ideologies of these other organizations that are giving them kickbacks and privileged positions in the community in exchange for them.
You know, marching through the institutions and effectively defrauding their customer base, their consumer base, and their stockholder base.
And that's fraud, and hence we're going to bring securities claims for it.
Let me bring this up just so we can see what we're looking at here, right?
Hold on.
Yeah, there we go.
Okay, boom.
Despite the immense trust that hardworking American mothers and fathers have placed in, Kellogg's management has discarded the company's long-held family-friendly marketing approach.
To politicize and sexualize this product.
Oh my god, it's great!
It's a lot more than great now.
It's groomer great!
Robert, you just created a meme there.
Someone's going to work with that.
Together with Pride Serial, a partnership with GLAAD, which describes itself as the world's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer media advocacy organization, opposes parental rights to know about transgender transitions in public schools, promotes censorship and cancel culture, depicts loved, beloved, and iconic characters such as Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, Snap, Crackle, and Pop, cheering around a bowl of rainbow-hearted shade.
Serial.
You can't make this stuff up, but you could.
But no one would believe it.
It's Tigger saying, come sit on my lap, little boy.
I mean, that's the new Kellogg marketing campaign.
September 2022, the company spun up an old-time lunchbox favorite by releasing limited-edition Cheez-It boxes featuring drag queen RuPaul and Jersey Shore star Snooki.
Don't know who the hell Snooki is.
2022, Pop-Tarts, limited-edition neon pink block party lemonade Pop-Tarts.
I'm sorry.
The box illustrations depict cartoon drawings.
It reads like a Babylon Bee parody.
I mean, that's how insane these policies are.
Oh, my.
And then they brought the suit against Target because Target's out there targeting kids with trans stuff.
In Target's case, Kellogg has been significant diminishing in value.
But in Target, it was $10 billion in lost stock value.
What does that mean?
That means the class action is a $10 billion class action against Target.
Oh, my goodness.
Because they could get doubly whacked.
Because they said, look, you were looking out for risk when you weren't.
You promised one brand you were doing something different.
You said you were complying with the employment laws.
You weren't.
And so it's probably not a coincidence that this same last week or two, BlackRock is busy no longer using the phrase ESG that they helped invent, create, originate, and propagate.
One of the biggest hedge funds in the world that owns half of Ukraine at the moment and large parts of our housing market.
But McDonald's was busy scrubbing its entire website of ESG and diversity, equity, inclusion references.
But who may be up next is banks like U.S. Bank.
I got a lawsuit against U.S. Bank, and it's clear they had discriminatory DEI, ESG policies in place to screw my client and likely others.
And that, you know, what's now being, you know, U.S. Bank was put on a risk.
You know, Moody's, I believe, put them out there as downgraded their rating.
I mean, for where you see these big banks downgraded their ratings.
So that's a stock to short.
But I think they're probably going to have some stock class actions coming because it looks like they've been doing these kind of things systemically.
All these companies have been asleep at the wheel thinking they were going to get rich pushing this DEI ESG nonsense.
And just as so many Hollywood companies have gotten hammered.
Now they're getting legally and financially hammered as well.
And it's great to see it.
And there's jokes about getting hammered in there.
But no, Robert?
I guess that transitions into Andy.
No.
Robert, the...
Okay, hold on a second before we get there.
It's about time.
It's about bloody time, these companies that forsake shareholder value.
I guess they say, well, we thought it would be good for shareholder value, but nobody wants it.
Nobody bought these companies for that crap in the first place.
You want to politicize your company.
Let me know in advance that that's where you're going and I won't invest my money there.
Don't sexualize products to little kids.
How hard is this?
Well, it's very hard for some people.
Okay.
Robert, Andy, no.
Trial.
Hold on a second.
Hold on.
Let me just make sure that we don't have...
Oh man, somebody actually found that together thing.
It even looks worse when you look at the box.
Hold on, hold on.
Is this in our locals?
Yeah.
What are we saving for locals after?
We're going to get the locals tips.
Well, maybe we can save Andy No for locals.
Yeah, we'll save Andy No for locals.
Otherwise, we got Missouri versus Biden, Obamacare, which is about the appointments clause.
Which has relevance to the special counsel discussion.
Washington doctors and ivermectin and medical boards about COVID misinformation.
And then Tenpenny facing an Ohio medical licensure issue.
This is what we've got for locals.
Well, we have some combination left either for here or locals.
You take it away what we do for...
Everybody.
And then I'm going to send everybody the link for locals right now.
We'll save Andy Ngo, Missouri versus Biden, the Washington doctors, and COVID licensure, and ivermectin, and Tenpenny, Ohio.
We'll save that for locals.
And we'll do the Obamacare appointments clause as our last case here on Rumble.
And for those up there, if you go to the locals, you tip at least five bucks, we'll answer your question either today or tomorrow.
Guaranteed.
And I want to just also highlight to everybody out there, Above average merch is out there.
Look at this.
Look at this.
At vivafry.com.
Vivafry.com.
The bumper stickers are my...
I'm not trying to sell my stuff.
I love the bumper stickers because nothing says, look at what I have to think like a bumper sticker when someone's tailgating you on the highway.
In fact, maybe we should do a new one.
We should put, we are here there and then put, you are here over on the other side.
Oh, okay.
And thus far, my car hasn't been delivered.
That'd be a very appropriate bumper sticker.
The person sits there and reads it, and they're like, okay, that person, oh.
Well, I'll give everyone a link now.
So before you go to vivabarneslaw.locals.com, go get the Viva Fry, and you can get a bumper sticker shirt or whatever.
All right, Robert, finish it up on Rumble.
What are we talking about?
So Obamacare, back before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the enforcement mechanisms for Obamacare was a task force.
That was independently appointed, right?
Another one of these independently appointed professional administrative bureaucracies that gets to decide what every private insurance company in the country has to include in their preventative care, primary care insurance packages.
So it was challenged on the grounds that the task force, and there's some affiliated agencies with it that were similarly independent.
Independent.
On the grounds that, hey, these task forces, the task force and associated groups, are not principal officers constitutionally appointed.
And so their power violates the appointments clause of the Constitution.
That none of these people have been appointed by the president.
None of them have been appointed with advice and consent of the Senate.
And they have final decision-making authority.
And the way they tried to get around it was they were like, well, you know, it could get ratified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or somebody else could approve it and so on and so forth.
But that's not what the actual statute provides for.
It gives final decision-making authority to these independently appointed people who are not, in fact, appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate.
Nor is the Secretary of Health and Human Services given direct power to appoint them either.
They're appointed in this process that's totally outside the Constitution.
And they have final decision-making authority.
And so even if they're subject to being fired, even if they're subject to being removed, their power isn't subject to being removed or overruled.
Their power is final.
And so what the district court said is that's the power of a principal officer.
And anybody that has the power to make final decision-making authority under a constitution, it has to be either Congress making a legislative decision, a judge making a judicial decision, or they have to be an article to appointee by the president.
It has to either be the president or a principal officer.
And a principal officer is appointed by the president with advice and consent of the Senate.
And none of these people are that.
And so consequently...
The entire statute of Obamacare is unconstitutional because its mechanism of enforcement and effectively its legislation is this professional managerial class process that empowers people completely outside of the Constitution and brags about doing so because it says these people are independent.
So the pertinence and materiality of this should be apparent to those looking at the special counsel issues.
That Trump could bring challenges to in D.C. and Florida.
Because you have some similarities, not all perfect analogies, but you have substantial similarities that raise the same constitutional questions.
You cannot have an inferior officer.
Have final decision-making authority that's truly independent of the executive branch, or he's an unconstitutionally appointed officer, all whose actions are null and void.
And so we'll see how the case turns out.
It's another case where America First Legal is actually proactively involved, by the way.
All right, now hold on.
I'm looking at the rumble chat just to make sure that I'm not forgetting anything here.
Robert, before we head over to Locals, let me do one thing.
Not that, not that, not that.
Oh, come on.
Where is it?
Here we go.
This is it right here.
Just going to do some quick ones.
Maria Patel, sorry, maybe missed the explanation.
Can you please explain the We Are Here sticker hat?
Everyone in our VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com community is above average.
The curve.
Even the trolls.
Well, incidentally, even the trolls.
No question.
Intelligence without a moral compass is a liability, not an asset.
Write that down.
Any thoughts on Sidney Powell possible legal issues?
IJ1S...
Oh, we've talked about that.
Robert?
Sidney Powell?
I don't think there's any update that I know of.
Okay.
Vanhalo?
How do we prevent another January 6th type setup if Trump wins?
How do you prevent a January 6th?
Just be alert.
Don't fall for any stupid traps between now and Election Day.
Any of these, oh, you've got to give up, don't vote, don't think you can make a difference, just quit.
Don't fall for that.
Don't fall for any people saying, oh, we need 1776 in this way.
Anybody saying stupid things that is clearly meant to entrap you, stay away from it.
Anybody saying stupid things.
Chant, fed, fed, fed.
Shut the F up, boomer, like they did with Ray Epps.
No, there's no question.
It's not just if Trump wins, it's to prevent Trump from winning.
My black pill fear is that they're going to set up a false flag because, cripe, they're trying to provoke a response and if they can't get it provoked naturally...
Hey, FBI's done it over and over and over again.
Well, I mean, we now know from Tucker Carlson's expose this past week of what Fox was trying to suppress, which was the chief of the Capitol Police himself said that basically provided testimony that showed at a minimum it was a cover-up, and at some level the evidence he presented pointed to a setup on January 6th.
And this might be a good way to finish it, actually.
I reached out to the Capitol Police officer.
Let me just make sure I'm not sharing my screen here.
I'm not.
Give me one second.
The guy who...
I reached out publicly.
Tarek Johnson.
Oh, now I hear...
What am I hearing?
Oh, son of a gun.
I'm hearing something in the backdrop.
Robert, you don't hear audio?
I hear audio in the back of my head.
Okay.
Tarek Johnson.
I reached out to Tarek Johnson, who...
What do I hear?
A police pursuit.
Sorry, hold on.
I'm just going to have to close a bunch of windows.
I hope that's it.
What the heck am I listening to?
You better get a safe house there in Florida.
So I'm closing everything.
I'm closing everything.
There we go.
There was a video playing in the backdrop.
Jesus Christ, I look crazy.
I heard...
All right, Robert, let's go over to...
Now I've closed all the windows.
We're going to go over to...
We're going to go over to bivobarneslaw.locals.com, but now I've got to open up windows and end the stream here.
So, ending it on Rumble.
Let me just make sure that we're still live.
We'll discuss the Andy Ngo verdict.
Missouri versus Biden.
The big First Amendment censorship collusion case.
Oral argument this past week at the Fifth Circuit.
The Washington doctors suing the state.
For trying to de-license them over COVID issues that relate to ivermectin and the similar Dr. Ted Penny case in Ohio.
So all that will be in answering any question of $5 tips or more over at vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Now, I'm going to end it properly on Rumble, which I have to go actually hit the end button.
That's not it.
I'm such an idiot.
Okay, so Rumble is here.
Let us go to...
The stream.
I'm going to share the link one more time.
I see myself now.
If I hear my voice, it's going to be there.
Locals!
Come one, come all.
As I end the stream right now on Rumble.
Thank you all for being here.
See you on Locals.
.locals.com now.
God, I'm an idiot.
And I hear it, Robert.
I don't know where it's coming from.
Okay, let's do some of the tips before we get into the stories because there's a lot of tips.